How to counter zionist propaganda

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why would it want democracy in Israel and not elsewhere?

Israeli democracy can be expected to go along with American imperialism's needs.

So do the US, France, China, Russia and Britain. Do you dislike them too?

Yes.

You forgot India, Pakistan, the Ukraine, and Kazakstan.

Israel is an agent of American imperialism in the ME.

Why?

It keeps them alive.

I'm surprised you didn't say they started Yom Kippur as well. There would n't have been any war in 1948 if the Arabs hadn't invaded. In 1967 the war occured because the Arabs were threatening they would destroy Israel and were moving soldiers on it's borders.

1) Israel may not have started the war in May, but after the 1st truce in June, they became the agressors, launching every new round of fightings, and even assassinating the UN envoy Bernadotte.

2) In 1967, Israel had been threatening Syria with war for sometime, (the two sides had been trading shells in the Golan for sometime). Egypt, Syria's ally, moved troops up to the border, all lined in neat little rows, without any air cover. Hardly the prelude to invasion, especially when they announced their presence. It was designed to pressure the Israeli's into backing off their threats to attack Syria. Instead it gave Israel the excuse to do what it had tried twice before (Dec '48 and '56), sieze the Sinai. Given that Egypt had just spent several years losing a war in Yemen, it is improbable that theywere preparing to attack Israel.

Can't be denied. Mind you, so does everyone else in the ME, and the Israelis don't do it to their own people.

Tell that to Mordechi Vanunu. Tell that to the Israeli peace movement who get the sh*t kicked out of them in the territories by the IDF. Anyways, everyone else does it is not a valid defense of torture.

Then Palestine is also a racist state, in that it is a Palestinian state.

There is no Palestinian state. If and when it exists and defines itself as a state for the Palesinian people, then we will condemn it for that.

[Natan]

Chegitz, Nasser thought that Syria was under threat because of false Soviet reports. He thought that the Israelis wouldn't fight back when he forced the UN out of the Sinai, blockaded Eilat, and continued the Fedayeen raids. You can't shell other countries for years, expel UN forces, issue blockades, say that you are ready to fight on the radio, and then say that it was unfair that you were attacked.

And chegitz, your comments about defending Hussein to attack the US perfectly mirror the way us Conservatives thought about defeating the USSR, and now think about defeating al-Qaeda. Apparently you disagree only with the goal, not the method?

[Sirotnikov]

Re: How to counter zionist propaganda

Myth:
This Israeli myth negates the rights of the Palestinian majority in the city, the city's multicultural history and status as a focal point for the three monotheistic faiths, and fails to note that, by Israel's own actions, the city has been divided -- the eastern part of the city de-developed and treated differently than the western part. Owing to the scope of this subject, this factsheet is by necessity "under construction" and the information offered below should be taken in that light.

De-developed?

Meaning what?

Facts:
Jerusalem's international status
On 29 November 1947, United Nations General Assembly Resolution (181) laid down that
...
On 13 December 1948, the Israeli government proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital."

Yet soon after, Jerusalem as a whole was conquered by Jordan which ethnically cleansed Jewish neighbourhoods.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

A rule which the Jordanian occupation forces often ignored, deporting or massacaring Jewish occupants in the west bank.

Today, the myths that the Palestinians don't exist as a coherent people, that Palestine didn't exist as a coherent geographical entity, and that the land was empty, are still maintained in one form or another. This denial of the Palestinians is a wholesale dehumanisation of a people.

Not at all.

The denial is of the fact that the palestinian existed as a people, prior to 1967.

Before that, they mainly considered themselves just arabs, or syrians.

Facts
The Israeli scholar Y. Porath has written that:

"at the end of the Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already widespread among the educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of Palestine or the Jerusalem Sanjak alone" (Y. Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian National Movement 1918-1929, Frank Cass, 1974).

And the percentage of Arab educated public, was what... 1% of the whole people in palestine?

Almost everyone saw themelves either as plain "arabs" or "syrians".

The facts show that, in establishing the boundaries of "mandated Palestine" where they did, the Western powers implicitly recognised the reality of Palestine as an area of special significance whose residents were a people distinuishable from their neighbors.

Not at all.

This was simply a division between english and french hegemonies.

Historical palestine also includes parts of Jordan and Lebanon and Syria, parts of which were french.

Equally revealing, Palestine was also recognised as a distinct area by tourists.... referred to "Palestine" and neither seems to have been confused by the term.

Because Palestine refers to a geological term - not a nationality.

The bounderies established for Palestine by the colonial powers enhanced the already existing unity of the area.

The unity was a pan-arab unity.

Most arabs in the area described themselves as Syrians.

Evidently the Palestinians and others did regard pre-British Mandate Palestine as a distinct area, as something much more than a part of Syria or the Arab world.

How is this evident if palestinian arabs reported themselves to be Syrian?

In short, the Palestinians recognised it as their homeland, and others recognised it to be so.

Not if you accept my interpertation of the facts you presented.

In 1968, Jewish historian Maxime Rodinson wrote that

"the Arab population of Palestine was native in all the usual senses of the word" (Rodinson, M., Israel and the Arabs, Penguin, 1968, p. 216).

The writer himself calls the population "Arab" rather than "Palestinian".

He only uses "Palestine" to refer to the land.

Estimated Population of Palestine 1870-1946*
Arabs (%) Jews (%) Total

1870 367,224 (98%) 7,000 (2%) 375,000
1893 469,000 (98%) 10,000 (2%) 497,000
1912 525,000 (93%) 40,000 (6%) 565,000
1920 542,000 (90%) 61,000 (10%) 603,000
1925 598,000 (83%) 120,000 (17%) 719,000
1930 763,000 (82%) 165,000 (18%) 928,000
1935 886,000 (71%) 355,000 (29%) 1,241,000
1940 1,014,000 (69%) 463,000 (31%) 1,478,000
1946 1,237,000 (65%) 608,000 (35%) 1,845,000

IIRC those numbers include also parts of Jordan which were considered palestine.

In any case, how do you explain the rapid growth of 400% from 1870 to 1946 of the Arab population?

In the only way one can - immigration.

Which proves that most (1,200,000 - 350,000) arabs immigrated to Palestine in the same time that Jews did.

The most significant fact about the existence of the Palestinians has been not just their displacement as a result of the 1948 war, but their continual and systematic displacement.

Which is not evident in the facts you quoted.

Israel's claim that it "made the desert bloom" is a wild exaggeration that vastly overstates the extent of Jewish achievements while grossly underestimating Palestinian cultivation and the natural fertility of Palestine.

Aha.

If you check an old encyclopedia you would see that the entire firetile



Climate
Only half of the area of Palestine has a true desert climate. This area consists of the Negev desert, stretching south from Bi'r as-Saba' to the Gulf of Aqaba. The remaining half of Palestine has a typical Mediterranean climate, and enjoys substantial rainfall for half of every year (roughly October to April). The soils in this second area of Palestine are naturally fertile. The average annual rainfall in Tel Aviv, for example, totals 539 mm., 639 mm. in Nazareth, and 486 mm. in Jerusalem. [/q]
This is also twisting the facts.

They ignore the desert lands of the Sommarian Judean mountans dessert, taking up some 80% of the width of Israel below the Izrael valley and starting from Jenin.

By 1930, all the land capable of being cultivated by the indigeneous Palestinians with the resources available to them was already under cultivation (Frances Newton, Fifty Years in Palestine, Coldharbor, 1940, p. 253). Sir John Hope Simpson undertook a comprehensive study of Palestinian agricultural potential in 1930. He concluded that

"it has emerged quite definitely that there is at the present time and with the present methods of Arab cultivation no margin of land available for agricultural settlements by new immigrants"

That's a rather bold twisting.
What he said is that there is no land left to the new immigrants.

He did not say that the new immigrants didn't cultivate land of their own. Infact, much of the land cultivated was previously swamp land in the now fertile sharon valley.

Most of Israel's farm land is sorrounding Zichron Yaakov, Hadera, Netania and such. Previously - swampland.

By the end of the British Mandate in 1947, the total land area under cultivation by Palestinian farmers (excluding citrus) was 5,484,700 dunums, whereas the area cultivated by Jewish farmers was only 425,450 dunums. The expansion of the cultivated area offered in the Israeli repertoire is grossly exaggerated. The figures have been doctored by including, as reclaimed land, the huge areas of farmland left behind by the Palestinian refugees expelled by Israel in 1948.

a) why excluding citrus?

Searchign your next article:
[b]Citrus 135,368 139,728[/q]
The first figure is the dunums of Arab citrus crops, while the second is of Jewish citrus crops.


b) many lands uder jewish control was cultivated by palestinian farmers, who were employed by jews.

"The village statistics for 1945 prepared by the Palestine administration and showing the position as at 1 April 1945 furnish interesting data regarding land ownership in Palestine. The total Arab land ownership is given in dunums (4 dunums equals approximately 1 acre), as being 12,574,774, as against a total Jewish ownership of 1,491,699. [...]

The question is not of dunums, but of profits. The Jewish lands were more profitable. Infact, in the 50s, the Jewish methods have made fields more profitable, so that the Arabs, mostly farmers until then, had to find new fields of work, since the need for working hands was much smaller, and the amoung of produce much bigger.

The following figures are of particular interest:

CATEGORY OF CROPS OWNERSHIP

Arabs Jews (in dunums)

Citrus 135,368 139,728
Bananas 1,843 1,079
Plantations 1,052,222 94,167
Taxable cereals (categories 9-13) 5,653,346 869,109
Taxable cereals (categories 14-15) 823,046 67,839

This does not sum up to 12,000,000 dunums...

Why were some articles omitted?
Something to hide

"The above statistics of population and of land ownership prove conclusively that the Arabs constitute a majority of the population of the proposed Jewish State, and own the bulk of the land"

But no where does it prove that the land was anywhere as fertile.

"Palestine is watered by the rains and the dew. Its trees and its ploughed lands do not need artificial irrigation. Palestine is the most fertile of the Syrian provinces"

Hmm...

Palestine is regarded as a Syrian province rather than a land of it's own.

Thanks for the proof

"was particularly copious and prized: fruit of every kind (olives, figs, grapes, quinces, plums, apples, dates, walnuts, almonds, jujubes and bananas), some of which were exported, and crops for processing (sugarcane, indigo and sumac)"

Interesting.
I wonder what was the beginning of that sentance, and I suspect it included jews in some way, since Rotschield was active in bringing grapes to palestine. Guess who he brought it to?

"a land that flows with milk and honey,"
with
"no part empty of delight or profit"

Gee, do you want me to quote how is it described in the Bible?

"a very ocean of wheat,"
observing that
"the fields would do credit to British farming"

interesting.

"Palestine produced a relatively large agricultural surplus which was marketed in neighboring countries," and to Europe
[Alexander Scholch, "The Economic Development of Palestine, 1856-1882," Journal of Palestinian Studies, Vol 10, No. 3, 1981, 36-58].

This sounds a bit odd, since most of the people residing here employed a self-sufficient market, and each farmer had plots for himself and family.

Perhaps it were the land-lords that gathered enough from the farmers?

"huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive"

The lack of location makes this sound dubious...

In 1939, Palestine exported over 15 million cases of citrus fruit

Aha.
But I already proved that Israelis had infact 4,000 more dunums of citrus, than the arab indigenous poplation.

Could it be that this simply omits it, or does it omit the fact that this is not only arab fruit?

In 1942, Palestine produced nearly 305,000 tons of grains and legumes

Sweet.

Is there any information tying this to arab vs. jewish owned land?

It's useless if not.

In 1943, Palestine produced 280,000 tons of fruit, excluding citrus fruits

Again, why excluding?
Because jews owned more

In 1945, Palestine had over 600,000 dunums of land planted with olive trees, producing nearly 80,000 tons of olives, and accounting for 1 percent of the olive oil production for the WORLD [Statistical Abstract of Palestine, 1944-45, (Department of Statistics, Government of Palestine), 225], and produced nearly 245,000 tons of vegetables. [A Survey of Palestine, for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Vol.I, 325-26].

Interesting.
However, it is not mentioned who are the owners of those lands.

I decided to check Encyclopedia Britannika.

In 1949 Israel had 125,000 dunums of citrus. Which is less than the jewish 139,000 it had in 1945, (according to your sources), but it's wierd that it's so, because in the years following 1949, the amount of land only grew with the years.

In 1949, Israel had 137,000 dunums of land planted with olive trees. They probably had more in 1945, since the dunums of olive only shrinked since.

In 1946, Walter C. Lowdermilk, Assistant Chief of US Soil Conservation Service, examined Palestine, and compared it to California, except that
"the soils of Palestine were uniformly better"

Again, which soils?
Those under jewish administration? Surely.

[chequita guevara]

If you ask whether it gives my moral conniptions or not, yes, I have an extreme moral problem defending Hussein. He's a murderous pig. But I have to weigh the harm caused by Hussein vs. the harm caused by the US being able to do whatever it wants. Unfortunately, the world does not offer us ideal situations, and we have to deal the options we are offered, unlike American conservatives, who often have the power to create the options they want.

The difference between me and conservatives shacking up with people like Somoza is that we aren't arming them. We aren't training them in methods of torture. We aren't helping them loot their own coutrnies. All we are trying to do is keep the US from harming the innocent.


....

Eliat hadn't had a ship in two years before it was blockaded. It's not as if Israel was actually using that port. The Fayedeen weren't a significant threat, and given Israel raids across the border into Gaza, not unprovoked. As for expelling the UN, that was a gambit on Nassar's part.

I think Nassar was a fool. By doing so, he gave Israel a pretext for attack, regardles of whether or not he was serious. (This isn't about whether or not it was fair.) Israel had wanted the Sinai for twenty years and twice tried to take it. Furthermore, he had to expect that as much as Israel has always been spoiling to fight, it would take the challange. And there's always the possibility that they may have thought he was actually preparing to attack.

[Natan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If you ask whether it gives my moral conniptions or not, yes, I have an extreme moral problem defending Hussein. He's a murderous pig. But I have to weigh the harm caused by Hussein vs. the harm caused by the US being able to do whatever it wants. Unfortunately, the world does not offer us ideal situations, and we have to deal the options we are offered, unlike American conservatives, who often have the power to create the options they want.

You flatter us. Really though, we don't control the world any more than a Commie conspiracy does. Creating the options we want generally entails killing large numbers of people.

The difference between me and conservatives shacking up with people like Somoza is that we aren't arming them. We aren't training them in methods of torture. We aren't helping them loot their own coutrnies. All we are trying to do is keep the US from harming the innocent.

You can't arm them because your main military force is Tom Lehrer's Folk Song Army. I would point out though that you are connected to Saddam the way that Conservatives are connected to the American government - you support his regime. Obviously there's the slight difference that we vote and pay taxes; but you do the latter as well and you vote for policies which benefit Iraq, at least in as much as benefitting Iraq hurts "American Imperialism." Also the USSR, which the left also defended, certainly did help dictators.

Eliat hadn't had a ship in two years before it was blockaded. It's not as if Israel was actually using that port.

It was still a hostile act.

The Fayedeen weren't a significant threat, and given Israel raids across the border into Gaza, not unprovoked.

I suppose that if you consider killing men women and children to be a non-signifigant threat, that's true. But I think it's absurd to say that nations can't fight back when attacked by forces from accross the border supported and equipped by that government.

As for expelling the UN, that was a gambit on Nassar's part.

And an extremely hostile one which naturally seemed to indicate his intentions to wage war.

I think Nassar was a fool. By doing so, he gave Israel a pretext for attack, regardles of whether or not he was serious. (This isn't about whether or not it was fair.) Israel had wanted the Sinai for twenty years and twice tried to take it. Furthermore, he had to expect that as much as Israel has always been spoiling to fight, it would take the challange. And there's always the possibility that they may have thought he was actually preparing to attack.

Nasser was always a better politician than he was an organizer. He thought that he could increase his prestige and make Israel back down and cower, or, that if it came to war (as he must have known it could have) that his Soviet-equipped military could handle the Israelis.

[chequita guevara]

I think conservatives have always had a heck of a lot more influence with the government than us radicals. Conservative causes are funded by the wealthy, and the wealthy have always had inordinate influence in Washington.

And yes, creating conservative options does tend to kill a lot of people. Why do you think we oppose you?

And while the USSR may have supported dictators, ourside the areas of their immediate reach, they did not create them, unlike the US. Perhaps you may think it a minor difference, but outside the Eastern Block, revolutions tended to occur inspite of the USSR, not because of them.

[Sirotnikov]

Facts
Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence defined Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state, committed both to the "ingathering of the [Jewish] exiles", and to guaranteeing equality to all its citizens regardless of race, religion, or gender. Yet, in defining the state as a specifically Jewish state, Israel effectively compromises the degree to which it can be truly democratic.

So, germany, since it's a German state, is not truly democratic? Nonsense.

As a Jewish state, Israel rests on three minimum conditions: Jews form the majority, Jews are entitled to special treatment and preferential laws, and a reciprocal relationship exists between Israel and the Jewish people in the diaspora.

Incorrect.

There is no special treatment nor are there preferential laws for jews.

The Palestinian minority inside Israel, now comprising one-fifth of the Israeli population, is excluded and therefore discriminated against: by privileging Jews, the state treats non-Jews, which is its official name for Palestinians (miyutim lo yehudim) as second-class citizens.

NOT.

Lacking a formal constitution, Israel's Knesset has propounded a series of Basic Laws that form a constitution-in-evolution.... It pointedly did not include the right to equality, however.

This should actually show that Israel regards equality higher, in that it plans to have a seporate law for this.

In any case, these laws are mentioned in the declaration of Israel, which has been used by the Israeli supreme court in a fashion of a "declaration of intention" for a constitution.

Further, section 1A of this Basic Law states that it aims to anchor "the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state". Given the lack of an explicit law that constitutionally protects equality for all citizens, an emphasis on the Jewishness of the State again compromises equal rights protection for the large and growing Palestinian minority.

The equality is already forementioned in democratic.
Being an equal state is a subset of being democratic.
Being a jewish state, is not a subset of being democratic.

"The Zionist dream is to construct a state which is as Jewish as England is English and France is French. At the same time, this state is to be a democracy on the Western model. Evidently, these goals are incompatible. Citizens of France are French, but citizens of the Jewish state may be non-Jews, either by ethnic or religious origin or simply by choice [...] To the extent that Israel is a Jewish State it cannot be a democratic state"
-- Noam Chomsky, Forward to The Arabs in Israel (Adalah, Legal Violations of Arab Minority Rights in Israel, 1998, p. 9 --

That is one view.

I don't see chomsky's point, since Israel is a jewish state, and a democratic state.

And the mere fact that there are non-jewish equal citizens proves the fact that Israel reveres democracy over judaism.

Palestinians' right to run for elections to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, are also limited by their acceptance of the notion of the Jewish state. These limits are expressed in the Law of Political Parties (1992) and, in particular, the amendment of section 7A(1) of the Basic Law: The Knesset, which prevents candidates from participating in the elections if their platform suggests the "denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people". ...

Obviously Israel chooses to protect it's jewish nature, and does not wish to become a national state. It prohibits anyone from denying the jewish or the democratic nature of the state.

The Law of Political Parties also served to disallow the Kach party, calling for the extermination of arabs.

Poland and Germany and Russia are equal ethnical states, which define themselves as states of the poles, germans, and russians, and the defintion of a pole, german or russian, is according to heritage and ethnicity.

Are they not democratic?

"It implies that, on a decidedly fundamental level, there is no real equality between Arab and Jew in Israel. The state is the state of the Jews, both those presently resident on the country as well as those residing abroad. Even if the Arabs have equal rights on all other levels the signal is there: Israel is not their state."

This is leftist bull****. It's always the same with minorities everywhere.

The german anthem praises the german history, men and women.
Turks living there get a signal it's not their state.

National identity is the main factor in deciding the acquisition of citizenship in Israel. The Law of Return grants every Jew the right to immigrate to Israel. ...

In russia, a person which can prove his russian heritage and descent can automatically recieve citizenship.

People who are not of russian descent - can not.

That's the whole idea of an ethnical nation.

The Israeli Law of Return discriminates against 5 million Palestinian refugees who are prevented from returning to their homes of origin and their properties.

The russian laws allowing russians to receive citizenship, discriminates agains 1,200,000 jews who fled the persecutions to Israel.

The laws in Iraq, Iran and Yemen, discriminate against some 2,000,000 descendants of Jews who fled those countries.

[b] The Committee on the Implementation of the Convenant on Economic, Social and Economic Rights noted in 1998 that Israel's 1950 Law of Return "discriminates against Palestinians in the diaspora upon whom the Government of Israel imposed restrictive requirements that make it almost impossible to return to their land of birth."[/q]
When they begin worrying about Jewish property lost in USSR, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Marocco and Egypt....

As a result of the World Zionist Organisation-Jewish Agency Law, the Jewish National Fund, Jewish Agency, and World Zionist Organisation have special constitutional status in Israel ... These agencies, which do not represent all the citizens of Israel, but rather, Israeli Jews and World Jewry, exercise far-reaching influence on state decision-making boards (particularly in agriculture and land use).

Since Israel is an ethnical state, and not a national state of it's citizens.

It is also laughable to call their influence "far-reaching".

The Palestinian minority is excluded entirely from these agencies' actions and decisions as either beneficiaries or participants. Furthermore, no government organisations perform the same functions for non-Jews. Consequently, Palestinian needs are systematically disregarded.

Not at all.

They are regarded by the Knesset, in which there are arab MKs.

It is the Israeli Knesset which finally decidess on agriculture and land-use.

Military service
Many preferences and benefits in Israel are accessible only to those who have performed their military service. While military service is technically compulsory for all citizens, by discretion, the vast majority (90%) of Palestinian citizens are not required to serve, whereas the majority of Jews do. ... rather than being contingent on more obvious and relevant socio-economic factors.

Because of the exceptional need in military because of the rogue arab states Israel has to do what it can to protect it's military from foreign infiltration. It also has to do what it can to convince Israelis to serve in the military.

Might I remind you, that many arab citizens do serve in the military, as they can, by choise. And most non-muslims, do!

In the recent attack on IDF bases and tanks, many of the dead were arab and druze soldiers.

Obviously the arab population has problems serving in the military since they wouldn't want to face the need to shoot their own brothers on the other side of a conflict.

Those who don't serve in the military are under no sanctions. They simply don't enjoy privilages which soldiers do enjoy.

A soldier is required to live in the army for 3 years. Obviously, when he leaves to start a new life, he has to receive some support, which he does.

It's a "thank you" note, for serving in the army.

The impression that this is a mechanism for privileging Jews is borne out by the fact that Jewish Yeshiva students, who, like Palestinian citizens, do not perform any military service, yet are granted the benefits regardless, a policy which has been upheld by the Israeli courts.

This is a lie.
This policy has not been uphelpd by Israeli courts but rather comes under critique from them.

Infact, the govt. is supposed to find a better solution to this in the near future, according to a recent court ruling.

What this omits is the terms:
Jewish Yeshiva students do not serve in the military for as long as they study in a Yeshiva.
This means that when they leave, they are drafted. So they don't leave. But this means they do not work for a living, at all.

Therefore, those who don't work for a living obviously are supporeted by the state. Their "work" is studying Torah, which is while gratifying, doesn't bring any money.

Secular jews however, face exactly the same conditions as palestinians, who have to either serve in the military, or face the fact they won't get privileges.

The government categorises the country into different zones and awards different statuses and benefits to different regions and towns. ...Yet the zones are drawn to include a disproportionate number of Jewish localities and to exclude nearly all Palestinian ones.

BULL****.

Most arab villages hardly ever pay taxes or even bother to get home permits. They simply build. When Israel suggested to reform this, protests began. Houses are being built illegally, by private people, and not constructors permitted by law. They are usually built by "relatives".

So how should Israel give them money, if they get thier houses for free?

For example, in the 1998 classification, out of 429 localities accorded Development Area A status, only 4 were Palestinian, despite the fact that Palestinian towns and villages are consistently at the bottom of the socio-economic scale in Israel. These zoning patterns and decisions were used to exclude the vast majority of the Palestinian minority from these benefits.

The development areas depend on the size and scale of the towns, and their readiness to cooperate.

Arab villages, mostly are unwilling to cooperate with the authorities, to allow for municipal works. They built their villages in traditional ways, and do not wish to make room for such things as roads, or municipal buildings.

Where would the money go to, when building a road requires the whole village to agree, and some people simply don't want to see digging in the streets?

The Palestinian minority in Israel is discriminated against by those aspects of the legal system that allow the government to adopt discriminatory policies, or the discretionary power that can be used by Israeli officials to maintain a systematic pattern of preferences.

Huh?

That's way to clouded.

The Budget Law, which governs Israeli state funds, does not specify what proportion should be earmarked for minorities; that decision lies within officials' discretion. Because of their lack of representation in government offices and ministries, Palestinians receive substantially less funding for local government budgets (usually 50 percent less), and have less resources allocated for welfare budgets, school facilities or other educational programmes.

It mostly again depends on willingness to cooperate.

Most arab villages and towns still have very corrupted municipalies, but will only accept clan leaders as their representatives.

The lack of proportion is due to lack of voting, or voting for toher parties.

Until recently, most arabs voted for the Israeli left parties.

Only now, there are some 12 or so arab MKs.

Often this discrepancy is justified by the fact that the government administers projects in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, thus necessitating only Jewish beneficiaries.

?
I've yet to hear about this.

Positive statutes that the State is expected to enforce or services that the State is required to provide can simply not be implemented in Palestinian communities, such as the Compulsory Education Law, and the provision of truant officers or counselors, despite the fact that Palestinian students form 75 percent of those who drop out of school throughout the whole country.

I don't quite get their arguement.

They say those can't be implemented - why? And if they can't be, than how is that anybody's fault?

Laws that apply to both Jews and Palestinians can be selectively or predominantly implemented only in relation to Palestinians, such as land confiscation laws or house demolitions orders to prevent or counteract unlicensed building.

Sure - it would be an idiocy if for every illegal building demolished israel would check if it is in proportion to the populace.

It's idiocy.

Israelis hardly ever build without lisense, and if so, then only small things like porches. Not whole houses. And this is being enforced more on jews than palestinains.

As I said, Israel mostly ignores illegal building in arab villages and towns, until they begin to get out of proportion, and risk other territory.

Laws can be implemented according to vastly different criteria for Jews and Palestinians, such as criteria for family assistance in educational programmes or production quotas for agricultural production. Often quotas differences are maintained due to a lack of Palestinian representation in decision-making bodies.

Nonsense.
Palestinains enjoy laws for aiding agriculture.

Only this year, an law was passed supporting families with over 4 kids - which the palestinians no doubtedly will enjoy.

The judicial review of this institutional discrimination is limited. To date, there is not one case in which the Supreme Court has accepted a case of discrimination against the Palestinian minority and ruled to protect its rights. It usually accepts the claim of the Israeli State that its policies serve national priorities and therefore are not intentionally discriminatory, or that the different treatment accorded Jews and Palestinians before the law is legitimate, as they are different ethnic or religious groups.

Examples?

Even when historical discrimination is acknowledged, the court will not rule to close the gaps, arguing that responsibility lies within the decision-making powers of the executive.

It rules that the legislative and executive authorities should solve this.

The court can not rule how to solve many of those problems, since they require comitties to learn the situation and suggest proper steps.

Most things aren't as simple as they appear.

Right now, the supreme court is awaiting a government decision on how to deal with Yeshiva students.

In short, Israel is a full democracy only if we are to consider Apartheid South Africa a full democracy.

Nonsense.

It doesn't even come close.

And when considering the problematic areas, such as the security risks, and the lack of cooperation, and strong tribalism of the arab society, you can see that Israel is indeed a true democracy.

In the 1948 war the Palestinians were largely defenceless, and sought to avoid getting caught in the fighting which broke out. A significant proportion of the Palestinian population was terrorized into leaving.

How were the palestinians "defenseless" when Arab armies began attacking the Jews?

If anything, it were the jews who were "defenseless".

I remind you that during the Brittish mandate, Jews were barred from owning weapons, while no similar restrictions fell on the arab population.


And about being terrorized into leaving - by whom?

http://www.commentary.org/0007/karsh.html

At first this was the result of threats, intimidation and acts of terror, in cities like Jaffa and Jerusalem, carried out by two Jewish terror organizations, IZL (Irgun Zvai Leumi) and LEHI (Lohamei Herut Israel). Of such acts the most notorious occurred on 9 April 1948 at the village of Deir Yassin on the western side of Jerusalem, when 120 villagers were killed.

Claims were made, that the villagers were far from defenseless, and infact had guns with which they started the shooting.

I'm not sure about the numbers though.

Deir Yassin has always been considered as an Irgun outrage, but the destruction of the village was approved by the Haganah.

When?
Where?
How?

There were also deliberate efforts to force the Palestinians to leave their homes. [...]From the start, the operations against the two towns were designed to induce civilian panic and flight, and at least one of the four Jewish brigades was told:

"Flight from the town of Ramle of women, the old and children is to be facilitated. The males are to be detained"
(Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (Cambridge, 1987), p.28).

Hearsay, I'd say.

I'd like to have the text sorrounding the quote too.

And capturing the towns is not exactly a crime - it's more of a goal when you're in war and protecting your life.

In Lydda fear led to panic, and many were shot down in what amounted to a large-scale massacre of probably 250-300 men, women and children after the town had surrendered.

Interesting.

Are there any evidence to prove the killing happenned after and not before the village surrendered?

When General Allon asked:

"What shall we do with the Arabs ?"
Ben-Gurion made a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand and said:
"Expel them"
(Morris, p. 207).

I'll find my own source of that.

Expulsions, sometimes accompanied by atrocities, became increasingly frequent in the mopping-up operations from late summer 1948 onwards, and increased the fearfulness of the Palestinian population. In the course of his research the Israeli historian Benny Morris found an Israeli Intelligence report that estimated that 70 percent of those who fled in the decisive period up to 1 June 1948 did so as a result of direct or nearby Jewish military or paramilitary action....

I'd like to see that Intelligence report, before I trust an "intifadahonline" site.

By 1948, the number of Palestinian refugees was estimated 780,000. Zionists claim that this figure is 520,000.

1,200,000 arabs existed in a palestine including the west bank.

after the war, the numer of those who remained does not include the west bank, which was seporated from Israeli controlled territory.

Once again, as in the period after the 1948 war, Israeli troops routinely shot civilians trying to return home.

Is there any way one could prove that those were not rogue agents trying to infiltrate Israel?

To this day, it is suspected some dozen thousands successfully found thier way back, and are living in arab villages.

Only 17 percent of the Palestinian population, approximately 160,000 remained in what became Israel. What had just taken place was the second major case of ethnic cleansing in the post-war world

?
IIRC the actual number is 250,000.

In any case, the number of palestinians that changed (from 1,100,000 to 250,000 [or 160,000]) is partially because 1,200,000 figure includes the west bank and gaza, while the latter does not include it.

[Sirotnikov]

1) Israel may not have started the war in May, but after the 1st truce in June, they became the agressors, launching every new round of fightings, and even assassinating the UN envoy Bernadotte.

The new rounds of fighting were a tactical decision. The arabs already proclaimed in 1947 they would perform ethnical cleansing of jews. We had to win.

The UN envoy was assassinated by an extremist group calling itself the "something front". replace something with whatever it was

2) In 1967, Israel had been threatening Syria with war for sometime, (the two sides had been trading shells in the Golan for sometime).

how interesting.

The syrians bomb the gollans, and we respond, so we are threatening them, eh?

Egypt, Syria's ally, moved troops up to the border, all lined in neat little rows, without any air cover. Hardly the prelude to invasion, especially when they announced their presence.

What your forgot to mention is that they made plane flies in Israeli territory.

Especially some near Dimonna, where it was claimed we were building a nuclear reactor.

It was designed to pressure the Israeli's into backing off their threats to attack Syria.

Why should we not threaten to attack Syria, if they shell the galilee?

Instead it gave Israel the excuse to do what it had tried twice before (Dec '48 and '56), sieze the Sinai.

AS A TRADING CARD.

We gave it back, nicely, didn't we?

Just like we're gonna do with the territories- in time.

Given that Egypt had just spent several years losing a war in Yemen, it is improbable that theywere preparing to attack Israel.

Then they shouldn't really have flied their planes aboce dimona.

Tell that to Mordechi Vanunu. Tell that to the Israeli peace movement who get the sh*t kicked out of them in the territories by the IDF. Anyways, everyone else does it is not a valid defense of torture.

a) since when was vanunu tortured?

b) vanunu was captured and is now in jail. that's it.

c) Israeli peace movement do not get the **** kicked out when they don't riot.

d) similarly, when settlers rioted, they got the **** kicked out of them.

There is no Palestinian state. If and when it exists and defines itself as a state for the Palesinian people, then we will condemn it for that.

Guess what Palestine is going to be?

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Those who don't serve in the military are under no sanctions. They simply don't enjoy privilages which soldiers do enjoy.

Thats in the result the same isnt it

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Most arab villages hardly ever pay taxes or even bother to get home permits. They simply build. When Israel suggested to reform this, protests began. Houses are being built illegally, by private people, and not constructors permitted by law. They are usually built by "relatives".

The Arabs accuse Israel of selectiv politics, when giving permits for building houses. Jews get them easy, Arabs dont. I havent seen evidence for that, but I tend to believe them anyways. Why shouldnt they go get a permit, if they could get one, and prevent this way to get their houses destroyed?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Sava you´re an ignorant ****! But what could be expected of a zionist...

Now, the second sentance borderlines racism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Now, the second sentance borderlines racism.

Zionism is a political movement, not a race or ethnicity. Saying your're a "insert insult here" is not racism, nor does it border on racism. Judaism != Zionism, nor vice versa.

[Natan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think conservatives have always had a heck of a lot more influence with the government than us radicals. Conservative causes are funded by the wealthy, and the wealthy have always had inordinate influence in Washington.

I think that radicals by definition have less influence in the government.

And yes, creating conservative options does tend to kill a lot of people. Why do you think we oppose you?

I'd argue that creating leftist options kills a lot more, but that's for another debate, sometime when we've made enough money to support ourselves while we post on Apolyton 10 hours a day for a decade. But my point is that America doesn't have the option of just creating new political situations, we have to work with what's there. It's not that cold warriors (or gung ho counter-terrorists) think that people like the Saudis are wonderful people who bring joy and delight to the masses; it's that they're the best available alternatives to nasty totalitarians like the Baathists, the Ikhwan, or their counterparts in other countries. If America could just make governments at whim, we'd have taken over the oil in 1973.

And while the USSR may have supported dictators, ourside the areas of their immediate reach, they did not create them, unlike the US.

Is North Korea in the USSR's immediate reach?

Perhaps you may think it a minor difference, but outside the Eastern Block, revolutions tended to occur inspite of the USSR, not because of them.

So you liked the USSR because it prevented revolutions? Maybe you meant to write something else?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Natan
Is North Korea in the USSR's immediate reach?

Actually it was. After WWII, the USSR occupied the North and we the South. There was already a revolution in the country. In the North it bcame the government, in the South it was overturned and it's supporters massacred in the hundreds of thousands.

So you liked the USSR because it prevented revolutions? Maybe you meant to write something else?

I didn't like the USSR. I thought it had become a twisted reflection of what it was meant to be. That doesn't mean I didn't defend it aginst Western imperialism. And, as our Russian Israelis have pointed out, it wasn't so bad, even at the end, when the economy was falling apart.

But this is another one of those discussions for when we are wealthy and drinking champaign on my yacht.

[Mr. President]

No "refutations of Zionist propaganda" here that haven't been run into the ground and shown up as ridiculous, mostly by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Yacht? I thought communists weren't allowed personal possessions. Without "Western imperialism" none of us would have the computers we're writing these stupid arguments on. Try working eighteen hours a day on a kolkhoz somewhere in Siberia, and then tell me how much you like living in America.

[Ramo]

In the 9th century, Muslims conquered the Kingdom of Israel and forced the Jewish people to scatter across Europe. The Jews have managed to survive 12 centuries of persecution.

Kingdom of Israel? The Kingdom of Israel was conquered by Rome in the first century BC, succeeded by East Rome, conquered by the Persians (not Moslem at the time), then conquered by the Arabs.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Catholic Crusader state, the Kingdom of Jerusalem which lasted from about 1100-1300, and slaughtered many of the native inhabitants, regardless of whether they were Moslem or Jewish, regardless of whether or not they were "Arab scum."