[Buzz62]

there is no point wat0n - he uses the lowest level of debate- to prove agenda by quoting someone from inside, and to give silly articles. So he insists Jews are utter racism. And hey- someone leftist told it and wrote about in in wiki. so how can you say Jews are the good after that?

artalm is obsessed by proving Jews are the pure evil. Read his other posts, also in Europe forum. If Jews can make immigration to themselves- why would germany deny an anti-semetic German speaker a citizenship?? You see- all for him goes to the Jews.

But he can't even prove a point nor discuss it properly- he send you to links and instead of understanding there are varius opinions among Jews- he pick up the internal hating as a proof for his known conclusion.

Iran is known as a negative country to get nukes- since it provokes others to get it, and of the anti- westerns. Of these countries there are Pakitan, N. Korea, Iran. Because of Iran the Arabic world wants nukes. Israel don't threat anyone, so Arabs didn't need to develope it. But artalm don't see these nonesence.

Also, the motif - there is no difference between the sides- belongs usually to the anti western side.

Do you see what I mean wat0n and Moshe?
This post is as one-sided as any of the people you've labeled as "anti-semitic".

I agree art may be a tad overly zealous...but so was I when I first started debating Israel with you guys.
Since then I like to think I've learned and "tempered" my positions somewhat to be more in-line with the current reality.

It must be accepted that numerous links to data supporting a position, is indeed valid evidence to be considered...not summarily tossed while posting quotes from the Israeli government who...lets face it...have not really been terribly forthcoming with hard facts and truth itself. Especially when its actions speak differently so often.

Also, this habit of making "shock-value" statements like "pure evil" and invoking the Nazis...HAS GOT TO STOP!!!
This whole line of self-pity that so many Jews use...quite expertly I might add...is counter productive and only serves to exhibit ones total lack of desire to discuss anything that does not follow ones ideas.

Also...and this is for Lehman...
Dude..." belongs usually to the anti western side." what the hell do you expect to accomplish with such a statement but to drum-up support for your position by accusing debate opponents of hating half the world...OUR HALF in fact.
This tactic of yours is thin...opaque...and childish.

and you do this ALL THE TIME...what does that say about you...LehmanB?

[Dormin]

WHOA!!!
wat0n they caught a guy with "SIMILAR" explosives. I'd be willing to bet the local mossad offices also had "SIMILAR" explosives as well.
Please stop twisting the truth if this is gonna be a serious debate.

I think both of you agreed that none of us know the real truth, so stop throwing that word around.

Now this whole apartheid thing...

It is painfully clear that Israel is intent on making as much of that land for Jews only.
We can debate why this is, or who started the hostilities that made such segregation necessary/desirable, but the fact is racial segregation does indeed exist in Israel. Over the last while several posts have shown proof of this. Likewise several posts have shown evidence that Israel's "official" position is one of openness and cultural acceptance.

I suppose the "Million Dollar Question" would have to be..."Do you believe the WORD of the Israeli government...or the ACTIONS of the Israeli government." There is also the will and attitude of the population to consider, as well as the ever-increasing shift to the political right in Israel to consider.

I don't think anyone here (Besides Lehman maybe) thinks Israel is 100% perfect. I think more then that, most of us will agree that Israel is beaset by a deep racist problem, the problem starts when people starts twisting that truth around, calling things what they arent', as Art gleefully will say that from the start Zionists wanted to violently cleanse the land without any sort of proof, or claiming the country has -laws- that push Apartheid in the state.

We are just against senseless demonization.

One can call Israel's ACTIONS apartheid, yet it can also be argued that by the strictest of definitions, it is not apartheid.
But 1 thing is indisputable.
The first leaders of the Zionist movement did in fact want to promote a clandestine operation called the Transfer.
This operation shows definite signs of still being in effect. It is also...quite coincidentally...if you believe in coincidence...ver near what old man Hertzl wrote about in his diaries.

It's not, Herzel never said a word about military occupation or demolishing of villages, he understood that a country with two radically different cultures with about the same number of demographic is bound to explode, he brought, what he thought at the time, the best solution for all parties involved at his view as it was at that time, which was deeply colonial, but is hardly the violence which is seen in the occupied teritories.

If Herzel would have saw what we are doing, he would have wept that we strayed so far.

There is no doubt there is a racial problem in Israel.
The real question is, "When will Israelis admit to themselves that this exists, and rectify the situation?"
This same question can be asked of the Palestinians as well...BTW...

They know it's around, they aren't stupid, they just don't think the arabs deserve any better, same can be said about the Palistinans.

As you saw in the poll a week back, 51% believe that Apartheid laws should be conducted, and why should he think otherwise? all he sees are arabs blowing up, calling for the destruction of his home and more.

Same can be said about the Palistinans, why should they not support terrorist attacks against Israel? I mean, all they see are the Israeli tanks rollintg over their homes, Israeli soldiers making arrests and such.

Each of the people is too blinded by it's own pain to see the truth of the situasion, that this pain is shared by both people, and is fualed by -both- people. A endless cycle.

[Buzz62]

I think both of you agreed that none of us know the real truth, so stop throwing that word around.

Ageed...but what "word"?

I don't think anyone here (Besides Lehman maybe) thinks Israel is 100% perfect. I think more then that, most of us will agree that Israel is beaset by a deep racist problem, the problem starts when people starts twisting that truth around, calling things what they arent', as Art gleefully will say that from the start Zionists wanted to violently cleanse the land without any sort of proof, or claiming the country has -laws- that push Apartheid in the state.

We are just against senseless demonization.

I am too.
But Israel does have laws that promote segregation.
EXAMPLE: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/03/21/israel-segregation-discrimination-and-forced-displacement/
I know the term "apartheid" is a hard pill to swallow.
Perhaps as much energy could be exerted in alleviating this situation, as is exerted in denying this situation?
Lets ask Bibi about that one and see what he says...

It's not, Herzel never said a word about military occupation or demolishing of villages, he understood that a country with two radically different cultures with about the same number of demographic is bound to explode, he brought, what he thought at the time, the best solution for all parties involved at his view as it was at that time, which was deeply colonial, but is hardly the violence which is seen in the occupied teritories.

If Herzel would have saw what we are doing, he would have wept that we strayed so far.

I would tend to agree that this is NOT what he had in mind.
Yet from the way I understand his writings, he knew there would be resistance, yet didn't anticipate such a violent response.
Things escalated way past reason quite quickly.
And we must blame both sides for this.
The Zionists for underestimating the Arab response, and the Arabs for reacting with such violence.

They know it's around, they aren't stupid, they just don't think the arabs deserve any better, same can be said about the Palistinans.

As you saw in the poll a week back, 51% believe that Apartheid laws should be conducted, and why should he think otherwise? all he sees are arabs blowing up, calling for the destruction of his home and more.

Same can be said about the Palistinans, why should they not support terrorist attacks against Israel? I mean, all they see are the Israeli tanks rollintg over their homes, Israeli soldiers making arrests and such.

Each of the people is too blinded by it's own pain to see the truth of the situasion, that this pain is shared by both people, and is fualed by -both- people. A endless cycle.

Agreed.
And how does one eliminate such a situation in the long term?
What is the only realistic way to bring these 2 people close enough to claim peace?

RACIAL MIXING.
1 SINGLE STATE.

By promoting racial mixing, one provides the only true vehicle for a long-term resolution to the Israeli issues.
It would utterly destroy the Zionist dream of a "Jewish State" and utterly destroy the Palestinian aggression.
Sure Gaza might be a hold-out...but only for a short while.
Also there would be Zionists who would absolutely refuse to go along with such a plan...but again...attrition will take care of them.

What would become of the Jewish faith?
It would become what it was meant to be...A RELIGION!
NOT A PEOPLE!

[wat0n]

WHOA!!!
wat0n they caught a guy with "SIMILAR" explosives. I'd be willing to bet the local mossad offices also had "SIMILAR" explosives as well.
Please stop twisting the truth if this is gonna be a serious debate.

I was talking about the Lavon Affair. This is what Wikipedia says about how the Mossad agents were caught:

Before the group began the operation, Israeli agent Avri Elad (Avraham Zeidenberg) was sent to oversee the operations. Elad assumed the identity of Paul Frank, a former SS officer with Nazi underground connections. Avri Elad allegedly informed the Egyptians, resulting in the Egyptian Intelligence Service following a suspect to his target, the Rio Theatre, where a fire engine was standing by. Egyptian authorities arrested this suspect, Philip Natanson, when his bomb accidentally ignited prematurely in his pocket. Having searched his apartment, they found incriminating evidence and names of accomplices to the operation.

Several suspects were arrested, including Egyptian Jews and undercover Israelis. Colonel Dar and Elad had managed to escape. Two suspects, Yosef Carmon and Hungarian -born Israeli Meir Max Bineth committed suicide in prison.

After catching the first guy red-handed, the Egyptians found his bombs at home.

Now this whole apartheid thing...

It is painfully clear that Israel is intent on making as much of that land for Jews only.
We can debate why this is, or who started the hostilities that made such segregation necessary/desirable, but the fact is racial segregation does indeed exist in Israel. Over the last while several posts have shown proof of this. Likewise several posts have shown evidence that Israel's "official" position is one of openness and cultural acceptance.

I suppose the "Million Dollar Question" would have to be..."Do you believe the WORD of the Israeli government...or the ACTIONS of the Israeli government." There is also the will and attitude of the population to consider, as well as the ever-increasing shift to the political right in Israel to consider.

One can call Israel's ACTIONS apartheid, yet it can also be argued that by the strictest of definitions, it is not apartheid.

Apartheid goes beyond mere de-facto discrimination (which can unfortunately be found in most states), it encompasses a whole legal structure aimed at discrimination, which is in fact absent in Israel: The laws that actually regulated and enforced Apartheid are absent in Israel.

This is not to say, of course, that there's no discrimination in Israel - there is, Israel officially acknowledges it (see the end of this post) and I'd say it lags behind most Western countries in this. What I'm saying however is that this is not even close to what was in put in place in South Africa, in fact I'd say Israel does better in this regard than most third world countries and it's neighbors in particular - none of which are usually labeled as Apartheid states in these forums.

But 1 thing is indisputable.
The first leaders of the Zionist movement did in fact want to promote a clandestine operation called the Transfer.
This operation shows definite signs of still being in effect. It is also...quite coincidentally...if you believe in coincidence...ver near what old man Hertzl wrote about in his diaries.

I think you should read Benny Morris' seminal book on the subject - the attitudes towards transfer evolved over time and if anything the Zionists didn't even talk much about it in the beginning. This changed however when tensions between both populations increased in the '30s and the Peel Commission recommended bipartition with population transfers in 1937 - catching even the Zionists by surprise.

There is no doubt there is a racial problem in Israel.
The real question is, "When will Israelis admit to themselves that this exists, and rectify the situation?"
This same question can be asked of the Palestinians as well...BTW...

Well, officially Israel does admit there is discrimination against Arabs. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Or_Commission

[ArtAllm]

ArtAllm:
Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany?
This BS was already debunked.
This law (Article 116) applies only to German refugees, and many of these German refugees were Jews. German Jews are not ethnic Germans, are they?
But ethnic Germans who moved to the USA before 1933 are not German refugees and they do not have any special right on German citizenship and cannot return to Germany.
American Jews have the right to "return" to Israel, even if they were never persecuted or expelled.
______
Ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe do have that right, and other European countries have similar laws.

No, only ethnic Germans who were expelled during WWII (so called Expellees) have the right to move to Germany if they have a sufficient command in written German. No ethnic German that was not expelled during WWII and who does not have a sufficient command in written German can move to Germany and get German citizenship.

Any Russian or American who can prove that his grandmother had "Jewish blood" has the right to "return" to Israel and settle in the towns created on the place of destroyed Palestinian settlements. It does not matter, if this "Jews" can speak Hebrew or if they were expelled, if he is circumcised or if he cares about Judaism, the only thing that matters is their "Jewish blood".

You failed to name any country and quote any law that is similar to the Israeli "law of return".

Don't see why, you were very enthusiastic about doing it ITT. I suppose you have no answer then.

Shall I open a new thread about Jewish genetics? Are you really interested in such a discussion? Yes or no?

None of these links have the full text of the laws you have claimed are in place - infact in some cases they mention Israeli laws banning discrimination.

If I quote the laws, you will say that it is not in Hebrew and that you need the original text in Hebrew. You are so predictable.

The jewish gene actually does exist and not only to Choanim and Levis Families.... See for yourself :

Do not quote things you do not understand.
If you are really interested in a discussion about genetics, then I will open a separate thread, but you have to have the basic knowledge to discuss this matter.

So he says..... and? Does it make him right?

Can you prove him wrong? Can you counter his arguments?

BTW, I never heard in my school a teacher that said anything bad against arabs or promoted any political agenda.

You are an anonymous user, you can say anything without any prove. The guy I have quoted has a real name and he held a public speech, that means he is responsible for what he says.

Here is another guy who is an author of a film, called "Defamation".

Please answer me : Where do you live ? and whats is your connection to this conflict?
If you don't feel like it's ok two

What has my residence or background to do with my arguments?
Address my arguments and prove me wrong, personal attacks are against the rules of this forum.

[wat0n]

So in short ArtAllm has - as expected - failed to back his ridiculous claims up while (of course) ignoring the evidence that shows his arguments are wrong.

[ArtAllm]

So in short ArtAllm has - as expected - failed to back his ridiculous claims up while (of course) ignoring the evidence that shows his arguments are wrong.

What are you talking about? Can you be more precise?

And how does one eliminate such a situation in the long term?
What is the only realistic way to bring these 2 people close enough to claim peace?

RACIAL MIXING.
1 SINGLE STATE.

By promoting racial mixing, one provides the only true vehicle for a long-term resolution to the Israeli issues.
It would utterly destroy the Zionist dream of a "Jewish State" and utterly destroy the Palestinian aggression.
Sure Gaza might be a hold-out...but only for a short while.

Yes, fully agree with you. But, unfortunately, most Jews believe that they have special "Jewish genes" and that it is not appropriate to mix with people who do not have "Jewish genes".

It is really crazy, but even people in this forum believe in this pseudo-scientific racist stuff.

The most crazy and dimwitted Jews I have met are "Jews" from the former Soviet Union. These "Jews" lost any connection to Judaism, they stem from mixed families, they are of mixed origin, they mostly have Russian mothers, but they still believe that they are Jews, because they have "Jewish genes".

And these "white Jews" really believe that black Jews from India or Africa are only "Judaists", but not "Jews", because they do not have "Jewish genes".

In the Russian language there are two different words: еврей - Jew, and иудей - Judaist.

So these crazy idiots believe that Blacks and Mongols, who call themselves Jews, are not the descendants of Hebrews, but white European Jews are the real descendants of Hebrews, speak real Jews with real Jewish genes and Jewish blood.

These idiots believe that Hebrews were white Europeans and looked like Russians!



That is the reason why some teenager from the former SU are beating and even killing Black and Mongolian Jews who live in Israel.

Look, these black Jews cannot get Israeli citizenship, though they are good enough for cannon fodder, they can serve in the IDF. They were placed near the nuclear pant (Dimona) and probably considered to be some kind of guinea pigs, if something gets wrong in Dimona, they will be the first who suffer from that.

So why do Black Jews who live according to the Jewish traditions treated like second class people, but Russians who had a Jewish grandmother but have no connection to Judaism are immediately getting all privileges in Israel, including citizenship?

Well, the answer is obvious. The Russians are white people.

So if Jews hate each other, because they have different skin colour, then it is no surprise that non-Jews are also hated in Israel, and a mixing with Arabs and other non-Jews is considered to be "the destruction" of Jews (speak of "Jewish genes", "Jewish race", "Jewish blood").

Even leading Jewish politicians made public statements about the supremacy of the "white race" speak "white Jews", and they got away with this.

Interior Minister says migrants do not recognize that Israel 'belongs to the white man.'

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/is ... s-1.434127

[wat0n]

What are you talking about? Can you be more precise?

Oh, you know what I'm talking about, don't play dumb

I'm still waiting for the academic research and full text of Israeli laws I asked from you! Why don't you post them already? Or maybe you can't, because neither of them exist and you have just been bullshitting us?

[ArtAllm]

I'm still waiting for the academic research and full text of Israeli laws I asked from you! Why don't you post them already?

Here are some examples discussed by a prominent Israeli professor Israel Shahak. His work is footnoted, sou you can find all sources if you want.

The principle of Israel as 'a Jewish state' was supremely important to Israeli politicians from the inception of the state and was inculcated into the Jewish population by all conceivable ways. When, in the early 1980s, a tiny minority of Israeli Jews emerged which opposed this concept, a constitutional Law (that is, a law overriding provisions of other laws, which cannot be revoked except by a special procedure) was passed in 1985 by an enormous majority of the Knesset.

By this law no party whose programme openly opposes the principle of 'a Jewish state' or proposes to change it by democratic means, is allowed to participate in the elections to the Knesset. I myself strongly oppose this constitutional principle.

The legal consequence for me is that I cannot belong, in the state of which I am a citizen, to a party having principles with which I would agree and which is allowed to participate in Knesset elections. Even this example shows that the State of Israel is not a democracy due to the application of a Jewish ideology directed against all non-Jews and those Jews who oppose this ideology. But the danger which this dominant ideology represents is not limited to domestic affairs.

It also influences Israeli foreign policies. This danger will continue to grow, as long as two currently operating developments are being strengthened: the increase in the Jewish character of Israel and the increase in its power, particularly in nuclear power. Another ominous factor is that Israeli influence in the USA political establishment is also increasing. Hence accurate information about Judaism, and especially about the treatment of non-Jews by Israel, is now not only important, but politically vital as well. Let me begin with the official Israeli definition of the term 'Jewish', illustrating the crucial difference between Israel as 'a Jewish state' and the majority of other states. By this official definition, Israel 'belongs' to persons who are defined by the Israeli authorities as 'Jewish', irrespective of where they live, and to them alone.

On the other hand, Israel doesn't officially 'belong' to its non-Jewish citizens, whose status is considered even officially as inferior. This means in practice that if members of a Peruvian tribe are converted to Judaism, and thus regarded as Jewish, they are entitled at once to become Israeli citizens and benefit from the approximately 70 per cent of the West Bank land (and the 92 per cent of the area of Israel proper), officially designated only for the benefit of Jews. All non-Jews ( not only all Palestinians) are prohibited from benefiting from those lands. (The prohibition applies even to Israeli Arabs who served in the Israeli army and reached a high rank.) The case involving Peruvian converts to Judaism actually occurred a few years ago.

The newly-created Jews were settled in [4] the West Bank, near Nablus, on land from which non-Jews are officially excluded. All Israeli governments are taking enormous political risks, including the risk of war, so that such settlements, composed exclusively of persons who are defined as 'Jewish' (and not 'Israeli' as most of the media mendaciously claims) would be subject to only 'Jewish' authority. I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britian would regard it as antisemitic if Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should become a 'Christian state', belonging only to citizens officially defined as 'Christians'. The consequence of such doctrine is that Jews converting to Christianity would become full citizens because of their conversion. It should be recalled that the benefits of conversions are well known to Jews from their own history.

When the Christian and the Islamic states used to discriminate against all persons not belonging to the religion of the state, including the Jews, the discrimination against Jews was at once removed by their conversion. But a non-Jew discriminated against by the State of Israel will cease to be so treated the moment he or she converts to Judaism.This simply shows that the same kind of exclusivity that is regarded by a majority of the diaspora Jews as antisemitic is regarded by the majority of all Jews as Jewish.

To oppose both antisemitism and Jewish chauvinism is widely regarded among Jews as a 'self-hatred', a concept which I regard as nonsensical. The meaning of the term 'Jewish' and its cognates, including 'Judaism', thus becomes in the context of Israeli politics as important as the meaning of 'Islamic', when officially used by Iran, or 'communist' when it was officially used by the USSR. However, the meaning of the term 'Jewish' as it is popularly used is not clear, either in Hebrew or when translated into other languages, and so the term had to be defined officially.

According to Israeli law a person is considered 'Jewish' if either their mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother were Jewesses by religion; or if the person was converted to Judaism in a way satisfactory to the Israeli authorities, and on condition that the person has not converted from Judaism to another religion, in which case Israel ceases to regard them as 'Jewish'. Of the three conditions, the first represents the Talmudic definition of 'who is a Jew', a defintion followed by Jewish Orthodoxy.

The Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic law also recognise the conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism (as well as the purchase of a non-Jewish slave by a Jew followed by a different kind of conversion) as a method of becoming Jewish, provided that the conversion is performed by authorised rabbis in a proper manner.

This 'proper manner' [5] entails for females, their inspection by three rabbis while naked in a 'bath of purification', a ritual which, although notorious to all readers of the Hebrew press, is not often mentioned by the English media in spite of its undoubted interest for certain readers. I hope that this book will be the beginning of a process which will rectify this discrepancy. But there is another urgent necessity for an official definitionof who is, and who is not 'Jewish'.


The State of Israel officially discriminates in favour of Jews and against non-Jews in many domains of life, of which I regard three as being most important:


Residency rights, the right to work and the right to equality before the law.

Discrimination in residency is based on the fact that about 92 per cent of Israel's land is the property of the state and is administered by the Israel Land Authority according to regulations issued by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), and affiliate of the World Zionist Organization.

In its regualtions the JNFdenies the right to reside, to open a business, and often to work, to anyone who is not Jewish, only because he is not Jewish. At the same time, Jews are not prohibited from taking residence or opening businesses anywhere in Israel. If applied in another state against the Jews, such discriminatory practice would instantly and justifiably be labelled antisemitism and would no doubt spark massive public protests.

When applied by Israel as a part of its 'Jewish ideology', they are usually studiously ignored or excused when rarely mentioned. The denial of the right to work means that non-Jews are prohibited officially from working on land administered by the Israel Land Authority according to the JNF regulations. No doubt these regulations are not always, or even often, enforced but they do exist.


From time to time Israel attempts enforcement campaigns by state authorities, as, for example, when the Agriculture Ministry acts against 'the pestilence of letting fruit orchards belonging to Jews and situated on National Land [i.e., land belonging to the State of Israel] be harvested by Arab labourers', even if the labourers in question are citizens of Israel.

Israel also strictly prohibits Jews settled on 'National Land' to sub-rent even a part of their land to Arabs, even for a short time; and those who do so are punished, usually by heavy fines.

There is no prohibitions on non-Jews renting their land to Jews. This means, in my own case, that by virtue of being a Jew I have the right to lease an orchard for harvesting its produce from another Jew, but a non-Jew, whether a citizen of Israel or a resident alien, does not have this right. Non-Jewish citizens of Israel do not have the right to equality before the law.

This discimination is expressed in many [6] Israeli laws in which, presumably in order to avoid embarressment, the terms 'Jewish' and 'non-Jewish' are usually not explicitly stated, as they are in the crucial Law of Return. According to that law only persons officially recognised as 'Jewish' have an automatic right of entry to Israel and of settling in it. They automatically receive an 'immigration certificate' which provides them on arrival with 'citizenship by virtue of having returned to the Jewish homeland', and with the right to many financial benefits, which vary somewhat according to the country from which they emmigrated. The Jews who emigrate from the states of the former UUSR receive 'an absorption grant' of more than $20,000 per family. All Jews immigrating to Israel accordingthis law immediately acquire the right to vote in elections and to be elected to the Knesset -- even if they do not speak a word of Hebrew.

Other Israeli laws substitute the more obtuse expressions 'anyone who can immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return' and 'anyone who is not entitled to immigrate in accordance with the law of Return'. Depending on the law in question benefits are them granted to the first category and systematically denied to the second.

The routine means for enforcing discrimination in everyday life is the ID card, which everyone is obliged to carry at all times. ID cards list the official 'nationality' of a person, which can be 'Jewish', 'Arab', 'Druze' and the like, wita h the significant exception of 'Israeli'. Attempts to force the Interior Minister to allow Israelis wishing to be officially described as 'Israeli', or even as 'Israeli-Jew' in their ID cards have failed.

Those who have attempted to do so have a letter from the Ministry of the Interior stating that 'it was decided not to recognise an Israeli nationality'. The letter does not specify who made this decision or when.


There are so many laws and regulations in Israel which discriminate in favour of the persons defined in Israel as those 'who can immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return' that the subject demands seperate treatment.


We can look here at one example, seemingly trivial in comparison with residence restrictions, but nevertheless important since it reveals the real intentions of the Israeli legislator.

Israeli citizens who left the country for a time but who are defined as those who 'can immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return' are eligible on their return to generous customs benefits, to receive subsidy for their children's high school education, and to receive either a grant or a loan on easy terms for the purchase of an apartment, as well as other benefits.

Citizens who cannot be so defined, in other words, the non-Jewish citizens of Israel, get none of these benefits. The obvious intention of such discriminatory measures [7] is to decrease the number of non-Jewish citizens of Israel, in order to make Israel a more 'Jewish' state.


The Ideology of 'Redeemed' Land Israel also propagates among its Jewish citizens an exclusivist ideology of the Redemption of Land.

Its official aim of minimizing the number of non-Jews can be well perceived in this ideology , which is inculcated to Jewish schoolchildren in Israel. They are taught that it is applicable to the entire extent of either the State of Israel or, after 1967, to what is referred to as the Land of Israel. According to this ideology, the land which has been 'redeemed' is the land which has passed from non-Jewish ownership to Jewish ownership. The ownership can be either private, or belong to either the JNF or the Jewish state.

The land which belongs to non-Jews is, on the contrary, considered to be 'unredeemed'. Thus, if a Jew who committed the blackest crimes which can be imagined buys a piece of land from a virtuous non-Jew, the 'unredeemed' land becomes 'redeemed' by such a transaction.

However, if a virtuous non-Jew purchases land from the worst Jew, the formerly pure and 'redeemed' land becomes 'unredeemed' again. The logical conclusion of such an ideology is the expulsion, called 'transfer', of all non-Jews from the area of land which has to be 'redeemed'. Therefore the Utopia of the 'Jewish ideology' adopted by the State of Israel is a land which is wholly 'redeemed' and none of it is owned or worked by non-Jews. The leaders of the Zionist labour movement expressed this utterly repellent idea with the greatest clarity. Walter Laquer a devoted Zionist, tells in his History of Zionism (1) how one of these spiritual fathers, A.D. Gordon, who died in 1919, 'objected to violence in principle and justified self defence only in extreme circumstances. But he and his friends wanted every tree and bush in the Jewish homeland to be planted by nobody else except Jewish pioneers'. This means that they wanted everybody else to just go away and leave the land to be 'redeemed' by Jews. Gordon's successors added more violence than he intended but the principle of 'redemption' and its consequences have remained. In the same way, the kibbutz, widely hailed as an attempt to create a Utopia, was and is an exclusivist Utopia; even if it is composed of atheists, it does not accent Arab members on principle and demands that potential members from other nationalities be first converted to Judaism. No wonder the kibbutz boys can be regarded as the most militaristic segment of the Israeli jewish society.

It is this exclusivist ideology, rather than all the 'security [8] needs' alleged by Israeli propaganda, which determines the takeovers of land in Israel in the 1950s and again in the mid-1960s and in the Occupied Territories after 1967. This ideology also dictated official Israeli plans for 'the Judaizition of Galilee'.

This curious term means encouraging Jews to settle in Galilee by giving them financial benefits. (I wonder what would be the reaction of US Jews if a plan for 'the Christianization of New York' or even only of Brooklyn, would be proposed in their country.)


But the Redemption of the Land implies more than regional 'Judaization'. In the entire area of Israel the JNF, vigorously backed by Israeli state agencies (especially by the secret police) is spending great sums of public money in order to 'redeem' any land which non-Jews are willing to sell, and to preempt any attempt by a Jew to sell his land to a non-Jew by paying him a higher price.

Israeli Expansionism

The main danger which Israel, as 'a Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim. The more Israel becomes Jewish or, as one says in Hebrew, the more it 'returns to Judaism' (a process which has been under way in Israel at least since 1967), the more its actual politics are guided by Jewish ideological considerations and less by rational ones. My use of the term 'rational' does not refer here to a moral evaluation of Israeli policies, or to the supposed defence or security needs of Israel - even less so to the supposed needs of 'Israeli survival'.

I am referring here to Israeli imperial policies based on its presumed interests. However morally bad or politically crass such policies are, I regard the adoption of policies based on 'Jewish ideology', in all its different versions as being even worse. The ideological defence of Israeli policies are usually based on Jewish religious beliefs or, in the case of secular Jews, on the 'historical rights' of the Jews which derive from those beliefs and retain the dogmatic character of religious faith.

My own early political conversion from admirer of Ben-Gurion to his dedicated opponent began exactly with such an issue.

In 1956 I eagerly swallowed all of BenGurion's political and military reasons for Israel initiating the Suez War, until he (in spite of being an atheist, proud of his disregard of the commandments of Jewish religion) pronounced in the Knesset on the third day of that war, that the real reason for it is 'the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon' to its Biblical borders. At this point in his speech, almost every Knesset [9] member spontaneously rose and sang the Israeli national anthem. To my knowledge, no zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of pragmatic considerations) on the restoration of the Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state.

Indeed, close analysis of Israeli grand strategies and actual principles of foreign policy, as they are expressed in Hebrew, makes it clear that it is 'Jewish ideology', more than any other factor, which determines actual Israeli policies. The disregard of Judaism as it really is and of 'Jewish ideology' makes those policies incomprehensible to foreign observers who usually know nothing about Judaism exept crude apologetics.

Let me give a more recent illustration of the essential difference which exists between Israeli imperial planning of the most inflated but secular type, and the principles of 'Jewish ideology'.

The latter enjoins that land which was either ruled by any Jewish ruler in ancient times or was promised by God to the Jews, either in the Bible or - what is actually more important politically - according to a rabbinic interpretation of the Bible and the Talmud, should belong to Israel since it is a Jewish state. No doubt, many Jewish 'doves' are of the opinion that such conquest should be deferred to a time when Israel will be stronger than it is now, or that there would be, hopefully, a 'peaceful conquest', that is , that the Arab rulers or peoples would be 'persuaded' to cede the land in question in return for benefits which the Jewish state would then confer on them. A number of discrepant versions of Biblical borders of the Land of Israel, which rabbinical authorities interpret as ideally belonging to the Jewish state, are in circulation.

The most far-reaching among them include the following areas within these borders: in the south, all of Sinai and a part of nothern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus. An enormous body of research and learned discussion based on these borders, embodied in atlases, books, articles and more popular forms of propaganda is being published in Israel, often with state subsidies, or other forms of support.

Certainly the late Kahane and his followers, as will as influential bodies such as Gush Emunim, not only desire the conquest of those territories by Israel, but regard it as a divinely commanded act, sure to be successful since it will be aided by God. In fact, important Jewish religious figures regard the Israeli refusal to undertake such a holy war, or even [10] worse, the return of Sinai to Egypt, as a national sin which was justly punished by God.

One of the more influential Gush Emunim rabbis, Dov Lior, the rabbi of Jewish settlements of Kiryat Arba and of Hebron, stated repeatedly that the Israeli failure to conquer Lebanon in 1982-5 was a well-merited divine punishment for its sin of 'giving a part of Land of Israel', namely Sinai, to Egypt. Although I have chosen an admittedly extreme example of the Biblical borders of the Land of Israel which 'belong' to the 'Jewish state', those borders are quite popular in national-religious circles. There are less extreme versions of Biblical borders, sometimes also called 'historical borders'. It should however be emphasized that within Israel and the community of its diaspora Jewish supporters, the validity of the concept of either Biblical borders or historical borders as delineating the bordrers of land which belongs to Jews by right is not denied on grounds of principle, except by the tiny minority which opposes the concept of a Jewish state.

Otherwise, objections to the realisation of such borders by a war are purely pragmatical. One can claim that Israel is now too weak to conquer all the land which 'belongs' to the Jews, or that the loss of Jewish lives (but not of Arab lives!) entailed in a war of conquest of such magnitude is more important than the conquest of the land, but in normative Judaism one cannot claim that 'the Land of Israel', in whatever borders, does not 'belong' to all the Jews. In May 1993, Ariel Sharon formally proposed in the Likud Convention that Israel should adopt the 'Biblical borders' concept as its official policy.
There were rather few objections to this proposal, either in the Likud or outside it, and all were cased on pragmaic grounds. No one even asked Sharon where exactly are the Biblical borders which he was urging that Israel should attain.
...

In other words, Israel aims at imposing a hegemony on other Middle Eastern states. Needless to say, according to Gazit, Israel has a benevolent concern for the stability of the Arab regimes. In Gazit's view, by protecting Middle Eastern regimes, Israel performs a vital service for 'the industrially advanced states, all of which are keenly concerned with guaranteeing the stability in the Middle East'. He argues that without Israel the existing regimes of the region would have collapsed long ago and that they remain in existence only because of Israeli threats.

While this view may be hypocritical, one should recall in such contexts La Rochefoucault's maxim that 'hypocrisy is the tax which wickedness pays to virtue'. Redemption of the Land is an attempt to evade paying any such tax. Needless to say, I also oppose root and branch the Israeli non-ideological policies as they are so lucidly and correctly explained by Gazit. At the same time, I recognize that the dangers of the policies of Ben-Gurion of Sharon, motivated by 'Jewish ideology', are much worse than merely imperial policies, however criminal. The results of policies of other ideologically motivated regimes point in the same direction.

The existence of an important component of Israeli policy, which is based on 'Jewish ideology', makes its analysis politically imperative. This ideology is, in turn based on the attitudes of historic Judaism to non-Jews, one of the main themes of this book. Those attitudes necessarily influence many Jews, consciously or unconciously. Our task here is to discuss historic Judaism in real terms.

The influence on 'Jewish ideology' on many Jews will be stronger the more it is hidden from public discussion. Such discussion will, it is hoped, lead people take the same attitude towards Jewish chauvinism and the contempt displayed by so many Jews towards non-Jews (which will be documented below) as that commonly taken towards antisemitism and all other forms of xenophobia, chauvinism and racism.

It is justly [12] assumed that only the full exposition, not only of antisemitism, but also of its historical roots, can be the basis of struggle against it.

Likewise I am assuming that only the full exposition of Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism can be the basis of struggle against those phenomena. This is especially true today when, contrary to the situation prevailing fifty or sixty years ago, the political influence of Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism is much greater than that of antisemitism.

(Israel Shahak Jewish History, Jewish Religion The Weight of Three Thousand Years)

http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History-Religion-Thousand-Eastern/dp/0745308198

[wat0n]

I'm still waiting for you to post the full text of these Israeli laws, I won't and don't have to accept quotes from third-party sources if we cannot read these footnotes you mention.

So will you post them already or not? It's your claim, and I'm getting bored of your inability to defend it

PS: Oh, and since you are such a fan of Israel Shahak, I'm sure you'll be interested in reading this:

In 1965, Shahak wrote a letter to Ha'aretz which, according to Dan Rickman, writing in The Guardian in 2009, was the genesis for "[t]he currently major debate within and outside Israel about Orthodox Jewish attitudes to non-Jews". [10] In the letter Shahak claimed to have witnessed an Orthodox Jewish man refusing to allow his telephone to be used to call an ambulance for a non-Jew because it was the Jewish Sabbath . [13][14][15][10] He also wrote that members of the rabbinical court of Jerusalem confirmed that the man was correct in his understanding of Jewish law, and that they backed this assertion by quoting from a passage from a recent compilation of law. The issue was subsequently taken up in Israeli newspapers and The Jewish Chronicle, leading to significant publicity. [13][15][10] According to Israeli historian Tom Segev, Maariv asked for the opinion of the minister of religious affairs, Dr. Zerah Warhaftig , who did not refute the rabbinical ruling, but quoted from traditional Jewish sources according to which Jewish doctors had saved the lives of non-Jews on the Sabbath, although they were not required to do so." [13]

In 1966, Immanuel Jakobovits , who later became Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth , [16] disputed the veracity of Shahak's story, and alleged that when challenged to substantiate his claim, Shahak eventually had been forced to admit that the Orthodox Jew he claimed to have witnessed "simply did not exist." Jakobovits wrote that "The whole incident had been fabricated in true Protocols style", [17] and cited a lengthy responsum by Isser Yehuda Unterman , the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel at the time, who stated that, "the Sabbath must be violated to save non-Jewish life no less than Jewish lives." [18][15][10][17]

The following year Zeev Falk wrote that though he disapproved of the Shahak's "invented [] case", it had a positive outcome. "While I dissociate myself from the methods of action of Dr. Israel Shahak, who invented the case of a Gentile who was not given treatment on the Sabbath, it was this fiction that led Chief Rabbi Unterman to issue a ruling permitting the violation of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile". [19]

Shahak repeated his account in the opening chapter of his 1994 book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, stating that "Neither the Israeli, nor the diaspora , rabbinical authorities ever reversed their ruling that a Jew should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile. They added much sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the consequence of such an act puts Jews in danger, the violation of the Sabbath is permitted, for their sake." [20]

Writing in 2008, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach stated "From the beginning the story was curious. What prohibition could there possibly be in allowing someone else to use one's phone on the Sabbath?" He cited Eli Beer, chief coordinator of Israel's volunteer ambulance service, who "oversees 1,100 medical volunteers, approximately 60 percent of whom are Orthodox," as stating:

If someone would say we won't save a non-Jewish life on the Sabbath, he is a liar. If he is Jewish, Christian, or Muslim we save everyone's life on any day of the year, including the Sabbath and Yom Kippur, and I have done so myself. Indeed, as an orthodox Jew it is my greatest honor to save the life of a non-Jew, and I would violate any of the Jewish holy days to do so. [15]

His attitude, which essentially consisted in ignoring the criticism of his claims and the Rabbinical rulings explicitly saying his claim is wrong, reminds me of your own attitude of merely ignoring all evidence that debunks your ridiculous theories - I guess we now know who did you learn this little trick from

[Buzz62]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cn0PVk8muFc

Deny this boys...

[wat0n]

I remember that case. If I'm not mistaken, the girl (who had a history of being abused) said he forced her to have sex while he said she had sex with him willingly but that he told her he's Jewish, with a BA, single, etc, etc even though none of these were true. The prosecution actually offered this "rape by deception" thing as a deal to hand him a lower sentence.

At no stage of the proceedings did the prosecution, defense or courts refer to a law forbidding Jews of having sex with Arabs or non-Jews, however. But of course, if you think I'm wrong you could just post the text of this alleged law for us to read

[Buzz62]

I remember that case. If I'm not mistaken, the girl (who had a history of being abused) said he forced her to have sex while he said she had sex with him willingly but that he told her he's Jewish, with a BA, single, etc, etc even though none of these were true. The prosecution actually offered this "rape by deception" thing as a deal to hand him a lower sentence.

At no stage of the proceedings did the prosecution, defense or courts refer to a law forbidding Jews of having sex with Arabs or non-Jews, however. But of course, if you think I'm wrong you could just post the text of this alleged law for us to read

Gawd don't be a brick.
You saw the news cast.
18 months for having sex with a Jewish girl...who was all into it before she found out he's not Jewish.

Ya know...what do you think would happen if that sort of case hit the Canadian courts?
Do ya think maybe they'd laugh the girl out of court?

[wat0n]

I think you should read her testimony here before being so quick to judge: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-e ... n-1.314319

PS: I was wrong, though, the prosecution offered this deal so the girl wouldn't have to testify again.

Now, if you want you could just post the law banning sex between Jews and non-Jews, given ArtAllm's inability to do so...

[Buzz62]

I think you should read her testimony here before being so quick to judge: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-e ... n-1.314319

PS: I was wrong, though, the prosecution offered this deal so the girl wouldn't have to testify again.

Now, if you want you could just post the law banning sex between Jews and non-Jews, given ArtAllm's inability to do so...

A whore gets caught lying about herself and the courts are supposed to believe her claims that she was raped?
wat0n...the man was railroaded by a Jewish WHORE and a racist legal system that can convict an Arab man for having sex with a Jewish WHORE!

end of story!

[wat0n]

So you are saying that her testimony would have been ignored in Canada? I highly doubt so.

Now if this is your evidence of Israeli Apartheid, I think it's safe to say you have lost the debate. If you disagree, just post these laws' texts

[Buzz62]

I am saying that lying about your religion is not a crime in Canada.
But for some reason it IS in Israel.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why?

[wat0n]

I am saying that lying about your religion is not a crime in Canada.
But for some reason it IS in Israel.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why?

You didn't read the article in Ha'aretz, right? The whole thing was struck as part of a plea bargain so this girl wouldn't have to testify again. She says she was in fact abused and that sex was non-consensual, the thing is, the prosecution wanted to save her from the trauma of testifying again so they struck this deal with the defense.

Now I'm still waiting for you to provide us with the laws' texts I've been asking for. Are you going to ignore my request like ArtAllm has?

[Wrath_014]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cn0PVk8muFc

Deny this boys...

You wanna say that all jewish girls are like her?
Because I know cases which oppose this case which they (jewish girls) go out willingly with arab males. Don't mention the fact that sometimes it's really unacceppted by their famlies....(both sides)....but C'est la vie...happens every where.. same with black and white ... lattino and black and so on.... happens everywhere..

In this case, let put aside all national/racial conflict, this guy lied to her and deceived her. We're talking about a relationship that lasted one and a half year. So, again let put aside it, this is a distinct criminal case, therefore you can go to court with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/se ... lea-israel

Ha'ir, a Tel Aviv weekly and part of the newspaper group that owns Haaretz, published extracts from the victim's unsealed testimony. It also reported that the prosecution had agreed to the reduced charge of "rape by deception" because of the victim's confused account and concern at facing another court appearance.

Saber Kushour, from East Jerusalem, said he had had consensual sex with the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, within minutes of meeting her on a West Jerusalem street.

He was sentenced to 18 months in prison after the Jerusalem district court ruled he was guilty of rape by deception. One of the judges said that, although the sex had been consensual, the woman involved "would not have consented if she had not believed Kushour was Jewish".

You can understand from this text that he was charged because he lied to her. She,and that's her right, wouldn't had sex with him if she thought he was an arab... and thats, my friend, is a different case.

Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions.

The crime—known in Tennessee and California as rape by fraud[1]—is only recognised in few jurisdictions; in all others the definition of rape actually involves lack of consent at the time of intercourse.

I don't really care if a jewish girl dates an arab male or vice versa... as long as they're happy... so be it...
I know there are many who oppose it, but like I've said earlier, this is widespread phenomenon.
Please, don't make an induction from this case...

i like the headline : "Jews must breed with Jews only to keep the chosen race pure or face prison".. btw..

Do not quote things you do not understand.
If you are really interested in a discussion about genetics, then I will open a separate thread, but you have to have the basic knowledge to discuss this matter.

You started it here so we'll finish it... here.
No, you don't quote things you don't understand art.

Can you prove him wrong? Can you counter his arguments?

First, no one said that Israel is clean of racism.
Second, from what I've said above to Fanatic racist, as he claims, there's a long road!

You are an anonymous user, you can say anything without any prove. The guy I have quoted has a real name and he held a public speech, that means he is responsible for what he says

So?

What has my residence or background to do with my arguments?
Address my arguments and prove me wrong, personal attacks are against the rules of this forum

First, we have proven you wrong, many times. Up untill now you failed to do same.
Second, I'm being friendly here, have no intention for personal attacks.....
It's important to me to know who am i debating with, to know the background etc..
Like I've said, if you don't want, it's fine two.

[Buzz62]

You didn't read the article in Ha'aretz, right? The whole thing was struck as part of a plea bargain so this girl wouldn't have to testify again. She says she was in fact abused and that sex was non-consensual, the thing is, the prosecution wanted to save her from the trauma of testifying again so they struck this deal with the defense.

Ya right...
They wanted to save a WHORE from the trauma of testifying about sex.
Gimme a fuckin' break...

Now I'm still waiting for you to provide us with the laws' texts I've been asking for. Are you going to ignore my request like ArtAllm has?

Fuck ur laws...I don't need to prove anything.
We see what happens to Arab men when they engage in sexual conduct with Jewish women.
They get time in jail.
Maybe YOU should explain why Israel is so RACIST!!!

She was a fucking WHORE!!!