[skinster]

Does it say that Israelis believe that the deterioration of their country's international status comes from BDS or it's an opinion by the article's writer? I'm actually starting to wonder if you actually read your sources or not.

I did read it and I put in bold the section you are arguing against.

Ynet is just an opinion piece when you feel that way? I purposely used it as a source for that story, considering it was one of two you seem to enjoy (Wikipedia being the other one).

Why shouldn't Israelis be free of telling their narrative (or engage in propaganda, there's not practical difference between both)? Pro-Palestinian activists do, so I don't see why pro-Israel ones shouldn't. That's simply another extension of the conflict, though.

It's not that Israelis shouldn't be free from sharing their narrative, it's that they try to EXPLAIN away events instead of addressing fundamental issues, like, you know, the OCCUPATION of Palestinians in their land, the racist laws against the Palestinians, the imprisoning of close to 2 million of them, the bombing-every-few-years that takes place. The point seems lost on you too, that not addressing these issues or being an apologist for them is not going to serve Israel or Israelis well as far as its image goes, regardless of how much explaining you do. The world sees pictures of babies with their heads cut in half and then Israelis try to justify it. It's not justifiable and it is why Israel is increasingly seen as a pariah state.

If anything, the same allegations made in the article easily apply to the Palestinians as well - it's not like BDS or any similar movements have anything to offer with regards to building any sort of Palestinian reconciliation, let alone governance. The mantras are usually "if Israel ceased to exist, Palestine would be free and prosperous" or "If the occupation ended, Palestine would be free and prosperous" even though it is far from clear this would be the case. I doubt they'd still care about the Palestinians in either case as well.

This is just your opinion. The BDS movement is very specific in its goals and I've already placed that info in this thread. The reason it is so popular as a movement is because the goals aren't unreasonable and they abide by international law, something Israel's actions for a number of decades do not.

[wat0n]

I did read it and I put in bold the section you are arguing against.

Is it in the poll or it's a conclusion by the article's writer, I wonder?

Oh wait, let's check it!

Israel’s relations with the world: It appears that the Jewish public is aware of the deterioration that has occurred in Israel’s international status. This awareness seemingly stems from the intensification of voices calling to boycott Israel and its institutions. A large majority (69%) characterize Israel’s relations with the countries of the world as not good at all or not so good, with only 29% viewing these relations as moderately good or very good. A segmentation of the responses by voting for the Knesset in the latest elections reveals that the highest rates of those characterizing Israel’s relations with the world negatively are found among Yesh Atid (88%) and Meretz (83%) voters.

Among the Arab respondents, a reverse majority (58%) regards Israel’s relations with the world as very good or moderately good. This may accord with, or even stem from, the widespread view in the Palestinian street that despite the criticism of Israel, ultimately the countries of the world accept its policy as evidenced by the fact that they do not act against it even when this is possible.

The moral demands on Israel: A clear majority (71%) of the Jewish public agrees with the assertion that “The countries of the world make demands for moral behavior on Israel that they do not make on other countries that are in situations of conflict.” In other words, we again find the widespread sense in the Jewish public that “The whole world is against us.” Here we found a majority of the voters for all the parties, though it is highest among voters for Yesh Atid and Jewish Home (about 80%) and smallest among Meretz (50%) voters.

The last paragraph is quite important and suggests that The Awakener is right about what could the actual impact of a boycott on Israeli politics be: The electorate is likely to turn further to the right as a response, and it may as well begin in Yesh Atid. I also find it interesting that half of an arch-dovish party's voters like Meretz voters think the same.

Ynet is just an opinion piece when you feel that way? I purposely used it as a source for that story, considering it was one of two you seem to enjoy (Wikipedia being the other one).

News articles may also contain opinion, though considering you have literally posted opinions only, you have no right to complain about that.

It's not that Israelis shouldn't be free from sharing their narrative, it's that they try to EXPLAIN away events instead of addressing fundamental issues, like, you know, the OCCUPATION of Palestinians in their land, the racist laws against the Palestinians, the imprisoning of close to 2 million of them, the bombing-every-few-years that takes place. The point seems lost on you too, that not addressing these issues or being an apologist for them is not going to serve Israel or Israelis well as far as its image goes, regardless of how much explaining you do. The world sees pictures of babies with their heads cut in half and then Israelis try to justify it. It's not justifiable and it is why Israel is increasingly seen as a pariah state.

So according to you, there are no fundamental issues that might explain why Israel is still occupying the West Bank or its policy towards Gaza such as the possibility that certain Palestinian elements would launch attacks against Israelis just like Hezbollah did after Israel left Lebanon in 2000?

Of course, you don't really care about that since you didn't feel like condemning deliberate attacks by Palestinian armed groups against Israeli civilians during the last war - the only fundamental issues to you in the conflict, are those that involve Jews annoying Muslims. Unsurprising, if I may add.

This is just your opinion. The BDS movement is very specific in its goals and I've already placed that info in this thread. The reason it is so popular as a movement is because the goals aren't unreasonable and they abide by international law, something Israel's actions for a number of decades do not.

No, they aren't reasonable and don't abide by international law. For instance, its demand for Israel to accept a so-called right to return for refugees is neither reasonable (no country in the world, particularly in the West, has ever accepted a right to return in a similar situation) nor required by international law (UNGA resolution 194 is non-binding, and further resolutions place return and compensation in the same category).

One may also wonder what "Arab lands" are they talking about and whether it includes Israel proper or not, so that demand is also vague in subject to the reader's interpretation.

At last, Israeli Arabs are already equal before the law so the demand is redundant. They have more rights in Israel than Jews have in countries like Iran, let alone the Arab states, and are similar to those of other minorities currently living in the West if anything.

In any event, even key figures among the BDS movement oppose Israel's existence:

AM: Finally, you have argued numerous times in your published works that ultimately you would like to see in historic Palestine a binational, secular, democratic state.

OB: Not a binational state — I am completely against binationalism. A secular, democratic state, yes, but not binational. There is a big difference.

AM: What exactly is the sentiment on the ground in Palestine on this question?

OB: I must clarify that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement takes no position on the shape of the political solution. It adopts a rights-based, not solutions-based, approach. I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land and therefore, we have to accommodate both national rights. I am completely opposed to that, but it would take me too long to explain why, so I will stick to the model I support, which is a secular, democratic state: one person, one vote — regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, and so on and so forth … Full equality under the law with the inclusion of the refugees — this must be based on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In other words, a secular, democratic state that accommodates our inalienable rights as Palestinians with the acquired rights of Israeli Jews as settlers. Why do I see this as the main solution? Morally, it’s obviously the most moral solution because it treats people as equals, the two-state solution is not only impossible now — Israel has made it an absolute pipe dream that cannot happen — it is an immoral solution. At best, it would address some of the rights of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, while ignoring the majority of Palestinians — those in exile, the refugees, as well as the Palestinian citizens of Israel. There are three segments of the Palestinian people — unless you address the basic requirements of justice for all three segments than we will not have exercised our right to self-determination. The only way that we can exercise our right to self-determination, without imposing unnecessary injustice on our oppressors, is to have a secular, democratic state where nobody is thrown into the sea, nobody is sent back to Poland, and nobody is left in refugee camps. We can coexist ethically with our rights given back to us.

Now on the ground, back to your question, there is no political party in Palestine now or among Palestinians outside either calling for a secular, democratic one-state solution. Despite this, polls in the West Bank and Gaza have consistently in the last few years shown 25-30 percent support for a secular, democratic state. Two polls in 2007 showed two-thirds majority support for a single state solution in all flavors — some of them think of a purely Palestinian state without Israelis and so on — in exile it’s even much higher because the main issue is that refugees in particular, and people fighting for refugee rights like I am, know that you cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution. That is the big white elephant in the room and people are ignoring it — a return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. The right of return is a basic right that cannot be given away; it’s inalienable. Â A two-state solution was never moral and it’s no longer working — it’s impossible with all the Israeli settlements and so on. We need to move on to the more moral solution that treats everyone as equal under the law, whether they are Jewish-Israeli or Palestinian.

So, Barghouti clearly has his own reasons to supoport BDS that go well beyond its stated goals.

[skinster]

Is it in the poll or it's a conclusion by the article's writer, I wonder?

Oh wait, let's check it!

The writer comes to the conclusion "according to the report's finding".

News articles may also contain opinion, though considering you have literally posted opinions only, you have no right to complain about that.

These opinions are the opinions of Israeli Generals in minutes of their meetings, located in Israeli army archives. Are you saying they're lying?

So according to you, there are no fundamental issues that might explain why Israel is still occupying the West Bank or its policy towards Gaza such as the possibility that certain Palestinian elements would launch attacks against Israelis just like Hezbollah did after Israel left Lebanon in 2000?

According to international law, Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territories and that is an international crime. The crime isn't what-might-happen if Palestinians are given their state, no matter how you spin it.

Of course, you don't really care about that since you didn't feel like condemning deliberate attacks by Palestinian armed groups against Israeli civilians during the last war - the only fundamental issues to you in the conflict, are those that involve Jews annoying Muslims. Unsurprising, if I may add.

Annoying? Over 2000 people were killed, including 500+ children. I'd consider that a little more than annoying, and I'm sure you would too if the victims were of a particular ethnicity.

It is you who does not care, because if you did you'd be seeking an end to the conflict, not the perpetuation of it. Israel is the only actor here who can end the conflict and the bs about potential danger to Israelis is bs, because the Palestinians would have no need to resist against Israel if it wasn't occupying them. And resisting is within their rights:

The struggles of peoples under colonial and alien domination and racist regimes for the implementation of their right to self-determination is legitimate and in full accordance with the principles of international law

No, they aren't reasonable and don't abide by international law. For instance, its demand for Israel to accept a so-called right to return for refugees is neither reasonable (no country in the world, particularly in the West, has ever accepted a right to return in a similar situation) nor required by international law (UNGA resolution 194 is non-binding, and further resolutions place return and compensation in the same category).

Just because Israel rejects it, does not make it so. Israelis settle in and steal territory in the West Bank and this is considered illegal too, but the world still recognizes the territory as belonging to Palestinians, for a future Palestinian state. The same with Israel's control on Gaza.

At last, Israeli Arabs are already equal before the law so the demand is redundant. They have more rights in Israel than Jews have in countries like Iran, let alone the Arab states, and are similar to those of other minorities currently living in the West if anything.

There are 30+ discriminatory laws for Palestinians inside of Israel-proper.

So, Barghouti clearly has his own reasons to supoport BDS that go well beyond its stated goals.

Heaven forbid a secular, democratic state where all are treated equally, regardless of their race or religion! That's what a democracy would be, given the different backgrounds of the people living in the land. Israel cannot claim it's a democracy until this happens, regardless of however you explain the situation.

[wat0n]

The writer comes to the conclusion "according to the report's finding".

Does the report support that conclusion? Does the news article itself support your interpretation, anyway?

These opinions are the opinions of Israeli Generals in minutes of their meetings, located in Israeli army archives. Are you saying they're lying?

You mean the Israeli generals who feared that Egypt would become entrenched in the Sinai in 2-3 weeks, both by land and air defenses? The same head of the Mossad who feared that, if this happened, Egypt could have tried to bomb the Israeli reactor in Dimona or one of its airports?

According to international law, Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territories and that is an international crime. The crime isn't what-might-happen if Palestinians are given their state, no matter how you spin it.

You didn't answer the question, not at all. And yes, that's obviously an issue, given the earlier example set by Hezbollah.

Annoying? Over 2000 people were killed, including 500+ children. I'd consider that a little more than annoying, and I'm sure you would too if the victims were of a particular ethnicity.

Oh but you don't if the victims are of that particular ethnicity, you cannot even condemn the murder of Israeli civilians unequivocally so don't get too upity on my choice of words.

I decided to use a rather soft term simply to include issues that go beyond military operations.

It is you who does not care, because if you did you'd be seeking an end to the conflict, not the perpetuation of it.

Sorry, but unlike you I actually take all the issues and past experience seriously. And the latter, based on what happened after Israel left Lebanon in 2000, supports my analysis and not yours - which is why you just dodge the point.

The above, along with the Intifada, basically killed the Israeli left.

Israel is the only actor here who can end the conflict and the bs about potential danger to Israelis is bs, because the Palestinians would have no need to resist against Israel if it wasn't occupying them.

Oh, the same argument was said about Hezbollah: It would have no need to fight Israel if the latter left Lebanon. Israel left the country in May 2000, Hezbollah would launch a raid inside Israeli territory and kidnap Israeli soldiers 5 months later.

It seems neither Hezbollah nor Lebanon in general were moved by the withdrawal to sign a peace treaty.

And resisting is within their rights:

Targeting civilians is not a right. Soldiers are fair game, but targeting civilians is not considered to be "resistance" under international law.

Just because Israel rejects it, does not make it so.

Who says it's because Israel rejects it?

Israelis settle in and steal territory in the West Bank and this is considered illegal too, but the world still recognizes the territory as belonging to Palestinians, for a future Palestinian state.

Yes, and Israeli settlements are clearly illegal under international regardless of what Israeli politicians say.

See? Their opinion is irrelevant on this matter.

The same with Israel's control on Gaza.

Will you finally explain how come Hamas manages to dig tunnels into Israeli territory if Israel controls Gaza? You still haven't done so and pretend that this didn't happen.

There are 30+ discriminatory laws for Palestinians inside of Israel-proper.

Such as...?

Heaven forbid a secular, democratic state where all are treated equally, regardless of their race or religion! That's what a democracy would be, given the different backgrounds of the people living in the land. Israel cannot claim it's a democracy until this happens, regardless of however you explain the situation.

Yes, heaven forbid a single state when a majority of one or both populations prefers a two-state solution. Why shouldn't their opinion count, I wonder?

Oh but since one of these populations is from a certain ethnicity, their opinion doesn't matter to you. How silly on my part

[skinster]

lol waton, I have no more time to address your version-of-events, mainly because I'm bored now and this is more time-consuming than what it's worth.

Perhaps we can discuss things further when Israel once again becomes an international news story after killing a large number of civilians, while you do everything in your script to justify it.

Until then, good day!

[The Awakener]

So leaving a group within the population as second-class citizens is not a "significant historical hostility"?

Yep. I'll hate to repeat myself, but I'm not justifying the situation in any way, just trying to point out that, relatively speaking, the Jews in the Arabic countries led peaceful lives, and only upon the arrival of modern (European) Zionists, Jewish-Arab relations deteriorated as they did.

It was far from perfect, nothing in the Galut was, but Jews in Arab countries were mostly left to their own. There were tensions at times, and there were trouble at times, but both compared to Jews in Europe and to other minorities in the Arab world, most Jews were happy with what they had (those who weren't immigrated to Israel). They usually had options to advance themselves in Muslim society, and in countries like Iraq and Egypt, Jews made up a substantial portion of the higher, urban class (artists, bankers, industrialists). In Morocco there was a king that once said that the Jews were a "blessing on the land", and I've heard that there was a tradition in which the Moroccan Arabs offered free grains to the Jews in the end of passover as a sign of gratitude.

These are silly examples, no doubt, but they are a part of my bigger point, which I sated above.

Why would it be an absurdity to say that such an inferior status under Islam played a role in causing the violence of the Arab Israeli conflict?

I don't get what your implying. That it caused the Jews to be violent? if so yes it is absurd. The Mizrahi Jews, like all Israeli Jews, fought out of what they believed was self-defense, not out of hatred. In fact it is known today that Mizrahi Jews were deliberately settled in places that the few first Labour governments estimated to have violent potential (near Israeli Arabs mostly) in order to remained them who is the enemy.

But if you want to go farther back in time, perhaps because it is somehow totally reasonable for Iraqi Arab Nazi sympathizers to kill Iraqi Jews over British policy in Palestine, to a time before our grandparents were alive, we can.

Once again, I'm not justifying any of it. It is far from reasonable, but you must know to differentiate between (non-existent) ancient religious hostilities and modern hostility, which is related to modern Zionism and international powers (such as the Nazis), in order to better understand the conflict.

It's not too hard to find instances of accusations of Jews stealing Christian or Muslim children to use their blood to make matzah in the Muslim world that predate modern Zionism.

I'm sure. But it was far from the norm, both the collective memory and the factual body count prove that.

And because many lost their property as a result of the founding of Israel.

Indeed. And they blamed that on the Labour party as well, at many cases.

The group is called Boycott from Within.

Fools. Playing directly into their Netanyahu's hand. In a way they are bigger supporters that most of his coalition.

Indeed. Alison Weir's book Against Our Better Judgement documents Zionist terrorism in ME countries in order to get Jews of those countries to live in Israel.

I've actually heard many similar accusations from Mizrahi activists (many of which are far from your average Israeli left-winger). I never looked into it myself, but it seems they have a point. There were military actions performed by Israel, at least in Iraq for sure, that were meant to motivate the Arabic government to 'release' their Jews. In Iraq these was quite an issue, the most of them were doing quite well there, and truly did not want to leave, but Israel needed more people demographically.

Now, I think that immigrating to Israel was the right choice for these people. My grandfather was a Iraqi Zionist that fled Iraq thorough the deserts on a donkey, and I take great pride in that. But the thought that Ben-Gurion and his goons were so keen on shamelessly manipulating an entire Jewish community into immigrating against their will, and for the sake of fucking demography... It speaks badly for them.

[skinster]

Fools. Playing directly into their Netanyahu's hand. In a way they are bigger supporters that most of his coalition.

I don't agree with this because I know a member from the group and he seems to be entirely convincing in his aims and support for the end of the occupation and for Israel to be a democratic and non-racist state. Why do you say this?

I've actually heard many similar accusations from Mizrahi activists (many of which are far from your average Israeli left-winger). I never looked into it myself, but it seems they have a point. There were military actions performed by Israel, at least in Iraq for sure, that were meant to motivate the Arabic government to 'release' their Jews. In Iraq these was quite an issue, the most of them were doing quite well there, and truly did not want to leave, but Israel needed more people demographically.

Now, I think that immigrating to Israel was the right choice for these people. My grandfather was a Iraqi Zionist that fled Iraq thorough the deserts on a donkey, and I take great pride in that. But the thought that Ben-Gurion and his goons were so keen on shamelessly manipulating an entire Jewish community into immigrating against their will, and for the sake of fucking demography... It speaks badly for them.

If I get the time at some point in the upcoming days, I'll share some instances of what I mentioned from the book.

[wat0n]

lol waton, I have no more time to address your version-of-events, mainly because I'm bored now and this is more time-consuming than what it's worth.

Yo mean, because you couldn't provide any arguments?

Perhaps we can discuss things further when Israel once again becomes an international news story after killing a large number of civilians, while you do everything in your script to justify it.

I'll be waiting until then, hopefully you will finally condemn deliberate attacks against Israeli civilians by then. But I'm pretty sure you'll try to justify them further.

Until then, good day!

Have a nice day too

Yep.

Why? You don't only need to look at violence but at the reasons and overall socio-politic context that explains violence between Jews and Muslims. The lower status of Jews under Shari'a is definitely part of that context.

I'll hate to repeat myself, but I'm not justifying the situation in any way, just trying to point out that, relatively speaking, the Jews in the Arabic countries led peaceful lives, and only upon the arrival of modern (European) Zionists, Jewish-Arab relations deteriorated as they did.

Certainly you can live peacefully if you accept, and embrace, having a lower status. That's, to a great extent, what Jews in the galut did.

It was far from perfect, nothing in the Galut was, but Jews in Arab countries were mostly left to their own. There were tensions at times, and there were trouble at times, but both compared to Jews in Europe and to other minorities in the Arab world, most Jews were happy with what they had (those who weren't immigrated to Israel). They usually had options to advance themselves in Muslim society, and in countries like Iraq and Egypt, Jews made up a substantial portion of the higher, urban class (artists, bankers, industrialists). In Morocco there was a king that once said that the Jews were a "blessing on the land", and I've heard that there was a tradition in which the Moroccan Arabs offered free grains to the Jews in the end of passover as a sign of gratitude.

These are silly examples, no doubt, but they are a part of my bigger point, which I stated above.

Even Jews in Europe could advance too and sometimes were treated pretty well, that does not mean they didn't face discrimination does it?

Now, Europeans acknowledge that Jews in their midst faced discrimination despite this and few people, Jewish or not, European or not, dispute this. However, this doesn't really seem to happen with regards to Jews living in the Muslim world, perhaps because they didn't face genocide like Ashkenazim did - even though this doesn't really change history, does it?

I find it odd that you mention Morocco, too, because Morocco also had the most similar things to European ghettoes in the Islamic world. And of course, you can most certainly find examples of broad tolerance towards Jews at different points of European history, depending on the country.

I don't get what your implying. That it caused the Jews to be violent? if so yes it is absurd. The Mizrahi Jews, like all Israeli Jews, fought out of what they believed was self-defense, not out of hatred. In fact it is known today that Mizrahi Jews were deliberately settled in places that the few first Labour governments estimated to have violent potential (near Israeli Arabs mostly) in order to remained them who is the enemy.

It's the other way around - that it caused some Arabs to become violent after seeing Jews who did not want to live in an Islamic state. After all, my understanding is that Jews have to accept the rules of an Islamic society if they want to remain relatively unannoyed.

Once again, I'm not justifying any of it. It is far from reasonable, but you must know to differentiate between (non-existent) ancient religious hostilities and modern hostility, which is related to modern Zionism and international powers (such as the Nazis), in order to better understand the conflict.

But both kinds of hostilities are connected, I don't think you can fully separate both. Furthermore, there are quite different actors in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and while most oppose Israel they tend to do it for different reasons and it's also fair to say that they have different opinions on how "defeating Israel" would look like for them.

Indeed. And they blamed that on the Labour party as well, at many cases.

And many others blamed the Arab states, too, or even both.

As an Israeli I think that you are well aware that there is a great diversity of opinions among Israeli Jews on pretty much any issue.

Fools. Playing directly into their Netanyahu's hand. In a way they are bigger supporters that most of his coalition.

True, that much should be clear from the last IDI poll. Now, it's fair to say that Bibi and the BDS feed on each other and for people like Omar Barghouti, they are all playing into their hand.

After all, while I would not say like skinster that BDS activists care about "justice" or "equality" or that crap when they are clearly applying a double-standard for Israel relative to Turkey (let's not bother with Saudi Arabia for now), it is also true that some Israeli policies are self-defeating in the PR arena and that they are opposed by much of the international community including those who are against the BDS movement - most importantly, settlement construction in the West Bank, even the policy towards Gaza probably faces less opposition and I'd say that no major groups in the world support Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, not even Zionist or pro-Israel ones - and people like Bibi are unlikely to do anything to change them (particularly Bibi, who is more concerned about staying as PM than anything else).

I've actually heard many similar accusations from Mizrahi activists (many of which are far from your average Israeli left-winger). I never looked into it myself, but it seems they have a point. There were military actions performed by Israel, at least in Iraq for sure, that were meant to motivate the Arabic government to 'release' their Jews. In Iraq these was quite an issue, the most of them were doing quite well there, and truly did not want to leave, but Israel needed more people demographically.

Now, I think that immigrating to Israel was the right choice for these people. My grandfather was a Iraqi Zionist that fled Iraq thorough the deserts on a donkey, and I take great pride in that. But the thought that Ben-Gurion and his goons were so keen on shamelessly manipulating an entire Jewish community into immigrating against their will, and for the sake of fucking demography... It speaks badly for them.

My understanding is that those allegations were never really proven, though with all due respect this is not the first time I've seen Mizrahi activists saying similar suff. The infamous ringworm controversy comes to mind to me.

[Buzz62]

But who's asking you to move to an Apartheid state? I'm asking if you'd move to Israel.

Israel IS an apartheid state. Just ask the international body that made Israel. The UN.

Oh, that comes from your past Holocaust denial. That naturally leads one to wonder what actually motivates your stance on Israel.

As we have discussed many times, I do question the numbers published concerning the Jewish murders during that grey period of history.
And...of course...anyone who even dares raise questions about the "official" line on the Holocaust, is by definition of the ever-so convenient term, a "Holocaust Denier".
You can and do waive that flag proudly. I always wonder if you realize how thin and silly that is...

Be that as it IS...I have also, many times, expressed my "motives" for openly opposing "Zionism".
But being the rather typical Zionist that you are...you will consistently twist my words and regurgitate them in a fashion that makes you feel good.
For which again...I always wonder if you realize how thin and silly that is...

[skinster]

But being the rather typical Zionist that you are...you will consistently twist my words and regurgitate them in a fashion that makes you feel good.
For which again...I always wonder if you realize how thin and silly that is...

I think self-awareness is lost on Zionists like waton. They think they can intimidate you with accusations of being racist or a denier of events that happened decades ago, while forgetting that the state they apologize for is a) racist and b) practicing policies that aren't that different to what happened many decades ago, for instance, like how Gaza is a concentration camp.

But, let him keep going.

[wat0n]

Israel IS an apartheid state. Just ask the international body that made Israel. The UN.

The UN doesn't consider Israel to be an Apartheid state.

As we have discussed many times, I do question the numbers published concerning the Jewish murders during that grey period of history.
And...of course...anyone who even dares raise questions about the "official" line on the Holocaust, is by definition of the ever-so convenient term, a "Holocaust Denier".
You can and do waive that flag proudly. I always wonder if you realize how thin and silly that is...

We have discussed this several times indeed, do I have to show that you also question the integrity of Holocaust scholars and have claimed that their research is motivated by a pro-Israel position? Just as a reminder:

Starman I agree that the focus on the Holocaust is somewhat more publicized that the unspeakable atrocities that have happened in Africa.
I think the reasons for this are obvious...and numerous.
Not the least of which is money.

Yet I have to disagree that we should not question the numbers.
It appears they are "fudged".
It appears they have been over-blow in order to cause a desired effect.
It also appears that in doing so, the perpetrators of this "little fib" may have provided the very ammo needed for those who wish to cast a shadow on the entire event.

Be that as it IS...I have also, many times, expressed my "motives" for openly opposing "Zionism".
But being the rather typical Zionist that you are...you will consistently twist my words and regurgitate them in a fashion that makes you feel good.
For which again...I always wonder if you realize how thin and silly that is...

I don't need to twist anything, I just need to quote you as I did above

I think self-awareness is lost on Zionists like waton. They think they can intimidate you with accusations of being racist or a denier of events that happened decades ago, while forgetting that the state they apologize for is a) racist and b) practicing policies that aren't that different to what happened many decades ago, for instance, like how Gaza is a concentration camp.

But, let him keep going.

First of all, you obviously don't know what a concentration camp is, and in any event Egypt is blockading Gaza as well, and for the same reasons Israel is.

Secondly, you cannot even say which Israeli laws are racist but so far link me to Adalah, as if it were the source of truth.

And at last, I don't care about claims about racism coming from someone who isn't willing to condemn deliberate attacks against Israeli Jewish civilians based on their ethnicity. It just doesn't fly as far as I'm concerned, for all your claims that your mother "taught you to love everyone" that clearly isn't the case if you cannot bring yourself to condemn attacks on Israeli Jewish civilians. In short, that's bullshit and if someone is lacking self-awareness among us it is definitely not me.

[The Awakener]

Why? You don't only need to look at violence but at the reasons and overall socio-politic context that explains violence between Jews and Muslims. The lower status of Jews under Shari'a is definitely part of that context.

It explains tensions, but not violence. Again, it was all factually clam until the arrival of the European Jews.

Certainly you can live peacefully if you accept, and embrace, having a lower status. That's, to a great extent, what Jews in the galut did.

Indeed.

Even Jews in Europe could advance too and sometimes were treated pretty well, that does not mean they didn't face discrimination does it?

No it doesn't. If I had any statistics we could compare, and I suspect the results would not be in favour of Europe, but it doesn't really matter. Stating the similarly don't help your argument, it just proves the conflict is not related to some religious conflict, but to a specific political occurrence which is the founding of the state of Israel, and the events that preceded it.

It's the other way around - that it caused some Arabs to become violent after seeing Jews who did not want to live in an Islamic state. After all, my understanding is that Jews have to accept the rules of an Islamic society if they want to remain relatively unannoyed.

So they fought them out of spite? For leaving their servitude? I don't think that's what you mean. It is clear the hostilities sparked not because of a specific hatred of Judaism, but because an alien cultural and political entity drove in to their backyard. If it was a Christian crusade or Zeno, king of the galaxy, they wouldn't have been greated better.

What if it was a state composed only of Mizrahi Jews? I don't got a clue. It might have been better, it might have been worse (god knows internal Arab strugglels are bloody). Perhaps we should give it a go and find out.

I'm not getting what your trying to prove here.

Now, it's fair to say that Bibi and the BDS feed on each other and for people like Omar Barghouti, they are all playing into their hand

Yeah, don't listen to no lies, they're all in cahoots. They go on vacation together and piss on children in Gaza for laughs. Like the bush and bin laden families

My understanding is that those allegations were never really proven, though with all due respect this is not the first time I've seen Mizrahi activists saying similar suff.

Meh, I could look it up, but at this point I just tend to believe that if there was any peace of our history Ben Gurion didn't take a royal dump on, it was only because he was busy taking a piss on it. I'll leave it at that.

I don't agree with this because I know a member from the group and he seems to be entirely convincing in his aims and support for the end of the occupation and for Israel to be a democratic and non-racist state. Why do you say this?

Oh, I have no doubt his heart is in the right place. Trust me, I know the sort. It is the sad part of the whole deal.

If they were able to grasp the internal effect of the boycott, that adds up to feeling the world is out there to get us and Netanyahu is our only saviour, especially in the weaker peripheral areas, they would understand. As long as Netanyahu can manipulate us into believing we are in constant danger and need him, the peripheral folk won't be able to develop class consciousness, in the sense that they won't gain an understanding of what they need, what benefit them, what they want, and the understanding that the conflict, the settlements in the WB, the occupation, are an obstacle in their path to living a better life. The boycott helps netanyahu make sure the periphery stays in line and his biggest supporters.

Perhaps as part of my general argument in this thread, I'll say that attempt to solve these matters without understanding the internal relations of Israel is pointless and even harmful. These individuals are only distancing themselves from Israeli society, and while I can truly understand why, the truth is that it makes them nothing but a tool in hands of the enemies of peace. Much like the boycott in general, if you ask me.

[wat0n]

It explains tensions, but not violence. Again, it was all factually clam until the arrival of the European Jews.

Those tensions eventually lead to violence, once one of the parties becomes able and/or willing to fight.

Indeed.

...Which was hardly desirable and bound to cause trouble sooner or later.

No it doesn't. If I had any statistics we could compare, and I suspect the results would not be in favour of Europe, but it doesn't really matter. Stating the similarly don't help your argument, it just proves the conflict is not related to some religious conflict, but to a specific political occurrence which is the founding of the state of Israel, and the events that preceded it.

Nope, it doesn't but my argument doesn't really rest on that. After all, as I said we all recognize what happened with regards to Europe, including Europeans themselves, but such recognition is not nearly as broad as that with regards to the status of Jews in the Islamic world - especially among those Muslims who live in Muslim-majority countries. Of course, this doesn't necessarily apply to Jews only (it doesn't) but that also doesn't invalidate my argument.

As for statistics, it'd depend on the timeframe you consider. Parts of Europe in the 19th century, for instance, were clearly more tolerant of Jews than parts of the Islamic world - while others were comparable or worse.

So they fought them out of spite? For leaving their servitude? I don't think that's what you mean. It is clear the hostilities sparked not because of a specific hatred of Judaism, but because an alien cultural and political entity drove in to their backyard. If it was a Christian crusade or Zeno, king of the galaxy, they wouldn't have been greated better.

What if it was a state composed only of Mizrahi Jews? I don't got a clue. It might have been better, it might have been worse (god knows internal Arab strugglels are bloody). Perhaps we should give it a go and find out.

I'm not getting what your trying to prove here.

Spite? They wanted to preserve the status quo, one in which Muslims were the clear dominant religious group in the region. And, quite importantly, some interpretations of Islam regard this as mandatory.

Even the idea of a Jewish state was regarded as a threat on that regard.

Yeah, don't listen to no lies, they're the in cahoots. They go on vacation together and piss on children in Gaza for laughs. Like the bush and bin laden families

Lol, I seriously doubt so. One just shouldn't underestimate the shortsightedness of some people, like the Israeli far-leftists you mention or Bibi himself - at this rate he'll be lucky if he ends up being just a footnote in Jewish history (IMO he'll be remembered as a scoundrel if he doesn't accomplish anything, which he hasn't. I want to believe he might, however, looking at the current regional context. Maybe he'll sign a truce with Hamas - something I'm kind of ambivalent with regards to, mainly because I'm not sure of the long-term consequences this may have on the peace process and whether Netanyahu even cares about them -, maybe he'll reach even better terms with Saudi Arabia or some other Sunni Arab state opposed to Iran. Who knows).

[The Awakener]

Look wat0n, I feel were going in circles here.

The you not agree that:

A) There were factually less violence against Arabic Jews than European Jews up until the emergence of modern Zionism.
B) The reason the hostility between us emerged was not specifically our Judaism or the relations with Arabic jews , but rather the alien nature of modern Zionism.

If so, all I was stating was that this shows the absurdity of those trying to paint the conflict as a part of some historical Islamic-Jewish conflict, and not a specific political development related the the sociopolitical situation of both modern Zionism and the Arab world.

[wat0n]

A) There were factually less violence against Arabic Jews than European Jews up until the emergence of modern Zionism.

Depends on the period and place you consider, overall I'd agree though mainly because the Jews faced genocide in one place and not the other.

B) The reason the hostility between us emerged was not specifically our Judaism or the relations with Arabic jews , but rather the alien nature of modern Zionism.

Definitely disagree, you cannot wholly separate between both and most certainly the pre-Zionism status of Jews under Islam is part of the context as it is completely opposed to any sort of Jewish autonomy regardless of the microethnicity of the Jews involved.

If so, all I was stating was that this shows the absurdity of those trying to paint the conflict as a part of some historical Islamic-Jewish conflict, and not a specific political development related the the sociopolitical situation of both modern Zionism and the Arab world.

The political situations of both Zionists and Arabs arise partly because of contextual issues such as the status of Jews under Shari'a, certainly that is not the only issue and arguably there are others that are just as important or more but it most definitely mattered.

[Rich]

The Zionists wanted their own state so as they as secular people of Jewish decent could live in dignity and freedom, the same as people of British descent could live in dignity and freedom in Britain, the French in France, the Swedes in Sweden and White Protestants in the United States. The Palestinian Arabs were in the way. All the other mentioned nation states used almost unimaginable levels of aggression and violence, over the preceding centuries, to become what they were in the early twentieth century. Why should Zionist patriots be blamed for doing what everyone else had been doing for centuries? People with power commit aggression. Obviously those of us in prosperous secure states with clearly defined and accepted citizenship don't have the immediate need for such immediate security measure as the Israelis. no we can usually get by with getting others to do our dirty work.

Which is where the lefties come in. Western governments can farm out their aggression to all manner of nasty terror States like the Saudis and our faux radical lefties barely make a squeek. No they much prefer to pander to the bigotry of thuggish Muslim terrorists, by obsessing over Israel.

Note when I say obsessing over Israel, I'm saying our policy should not be obsessively anti Israel, but nor should it be obsessively pro Israel. Iran and Hezbollah should be way down our list of concerns.

[Buzz62]

Errr...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/uk-palestinian-israel-un-idUKBREA2K1JM20140321

Ya the UN has been tippy-toeing around the issue of Israeli apartheid practices for decades.
Tons of UN resolutions...tons of articles similar to the one I've posted here...yet consistently falling short of calling it for what it truly is.
Makes one wonder just who's in charge at the UN...

I've not taken part in this forum for a few month, as I've been busy with a new contract.
However...upon my return, I see the same, dusty old arguments and defense, as was evident last year...the year before that...and so on.

Kids...the numbers of those who will openly oppose Zionism grows daily.
Today, the only thing standing between Israel and oblivion is the USA.
How's that "taste"?

The solution to this problem is as obvious as the nose on your faces.

END ZIONISM! And in the process...save the state of Israel from...the oblivion it's marching towards.

[wat0n]

Errr...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/uk-palestinian-israel-un-idUKBREA2K1JM20140321

The same Falk who posted antisemitic cartoons on his personal blog? In any event, he did not say Israel is an Apartheid regime.

Ya the UN has been tippy-toeing around the issue of Israeli apartheid practices for decades.
Tons of UN resolutions...tons of articles similar to the one I've posted here...yet consistently falling short of calling it for what it truly is.
Makes one wonder just who's in charge at the UN...

Certainly not Israel or Zionists, since anti-Israel guys are quick to remark how there are plenty of UN resolutions criticizing Israel.

It's cool to see you backpedaling now

I've not taken part in this forum for a few month, as I've been busy with a new contract.
However...upon my return, I see the same, dusty old arguments and defense, as was evident last year...the year before that...and so on.

Kids...the numbers of those who will openly oppose Zionism grows daily.
Today, the only thing standing between Israel and oblivion is the USA.
How's that "taste"?

The solution to this problem is as obvious as the nose on your faces.

END ZIONISM! And in the process...save the state of Israel from...the oblivion it's marching towards.

The arguments are the same because the issues have been the same since roughly 2007. Opinion on Israel seems to be roughly the same as it was then.

[Buzz62]

The same Falk who posted antisemitic cartoons on his personal blog? In any event, he did not say Israel is an Apartheid regime.

As I said..."Makes one wonder just who's in charge at the UN..."

Certainly not Israel or Zionists, since anti-Israel guys are quick to remark how there are plenty of UN resolutions criticizing Israel.

It's cool to see you backpedaling now

Criticizing, yes.
Calling it out for what it is, no.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/26/the-united-nations-exposed-who-is-in-control/
One might suggest, at this time, that it's time some of us woke up and smelled the coffee...
Rockefeller and Rothchild.
I'n't that special?
Not backpedaling waton...just understand how things ARE, instead of how one might WISH them to be...

The arguments are the same because the issues have been the same since roughly 2007. Opinion on Israel seems to be roughly the same as it was then.

Ya well...no.

Europe, in general, has nothing left for Israel.
The USA is waning along with much of the world.
Christian freaks still hold fast, but their numbers are dwindling so...
ya...there's that...

As these next couple of years progress, Israel will continue to find itself more and more alone in this world.
And then what?

[wat0n]

As I said..."Makes one wonder just who's in charge at the UN..."

Criticizing, yes.
Calling it out for what it is, no.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/26/the-united-nations-exposed-who-is-in-control/
One might suggest, at this time, that it's time some of us woke up and smelled the coffee...
Rockefeller and Rothchild.
I'n't that special?
Not backpedaling waton...just understand how things ARE, instead of how one might WISH them to be...

So far you're stating a baseless conspiracy theory. Please, don't bore me to death with that.

Ya well...no.

Europe, in general, has nothing left for Israel.
The USA is waning along with much of the world.
Christian freaks still hold fast, but their numbers are dwindling so...
ya...there's that...

As these next couple of years progress, Israel will continue to find itself more and more alone in this world.
And then what?

I see European, American and overall global opinion on Israel has been stable since 2012. Nothing seems to have changed much.