Israel is a rascist state

[Dinner]

Marcus: Out of curiosity if you are so worried about justice and human rights why is your avatar the image of a man who gased polictical decenters, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities?

[Chris 62]

He does it to try and bust American humps.

I actually like that picture of Saddam, he looks like such a nice guy in it.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Kroeze: As I said before my expertise is in Ancient history but I will take a stab at the first article listed on your link. Without looking each case up I would say by and large many of the facts you state are true but selectively biased. They do, however, represent things which have occurred over the last half century. Please note that is is my opinion as a non-Jew and non- Israeli.

Dear Oerdin,

Thanks a lot for reading and reacting! When you have time, please read more parts of this thread, because I think I collected a lot of important data. I used several different sources, which were almost all discredited by my opponents when they ran out of arguments.

Arabs really are treated as second class citizens. In my observations this has more to do with bad feelings and uncertainties brought about by the on going conflict then by systemic racism or against individuals. While I was in Israel (in 1995) I saw several cases of Jews and Muslims working together and getting along on a personal level. It is mainly the mob thinking during times of war and crises which result in things like this.

Thanks again for admitting my essential point:
Arabs really are treated as second class citizens.
To prove this point was the main reason I started this thread. I do not contest that some Jews may have good relations -or even friendships- with some Arabs, but that does not change my essential point.
It is far more difficult to determine what is the cause of this systematic discrimination. Since Israel was meant to be a state for European secular Jews, I think discrimination was inevitable from the beginning.
NB: the truly Orthodox -and definitely those living in Palestine- were almost ALL opposed to Zionism; most of the Jews opposed to Zionism were gassed during the Holocaust.

Yes, the Israeli government nationalized all non-urban land in 1948. This did result in many arab farmers losing control of land they had lived on; to date only part of these group has been compensated but several offers have been made. You are entitled to your own opinions as to whither the financial compensation was adequate or not. I do believe that every government does have the right to nationalize assets if it is deemed in the national interest; I don't think that this should be done without compensation to the aggrieved party.

When the figures I presented are correct the Israeli government nationalised about 90% of the land previously owned by Arabs, while they made a return of the refugees impossible. I would call such policy 'ethnic cleansing'. Perhaps this figure of 90% is too high, but even when it was 'only' 60% my opinion wouldn't change.

There is a long tradition of various governments nationalizing property. To this date the U.S> government still owns 90% of the land in the U.S. the figure is higher for Canada and 100% of all non-urban land in the former USSR is still state owned to this day. How much land does the French government hold that was nationalized from the Aristocracy during the revolution and how many companies does it still own that it nationalized from their private owners in the late 19th & early 20th centuries? Mexico, many other latin American countries, has gone through multiple fits of nationalization. China, Germany, Ireland, many african countries & Asian countries have all had nationalizations and that doesn't even count the rampent Arab nationalizations of land & businesses which occured from the 40's through the 80's. Governments have a right to do this but people should be compensated I agree.

I know the human race is capable of every possible outrage. Yet that can never be an excuse.
In the USSR ALL property -regardless of ethnicity or religion- was confiscated. In Israel only Arabs lost their land, which was henceforth cultivated by Jewish colonists, many who arrived after 1948. Jews didn't lose one acre -at least not to my knowledge!

You implied most arabs rejected the compensation because it was to small. That was part of it, but, Palestinians' unwritten law is to execute anyone who accepted the sale of land to a non-arab whither it was to the government or private citizen. Would you accept a solution, even a fair solution, if you knew someone would try to kill you for it? As I said before the situation is complicated and constinently changing. To try to blame one side is not only unfair but untrue.

I think most Arabs rejected compensation because they didn't want to abandon the claim to their land. They did not desire to become the second-class inhabitants of a Jewish state.

I hope you agree with me that without Zionism there would not be an Israeli-Arab conflict?
Before ~1900 conflicts in Palestine and Syria were waged between Christians and Muslims; Jews were treated reasonably well.
Yes, there was some violence and discrimination, but nothing comparable to the pogroms and Holocaust in Christian Europe. It is not the fault of the Arabs that all vestiges of civilisation were abandoned in Christian Europe.
Nor does it show real sympathy for Jews to settle them in a hostile environment which is mostly desert. It is not accidental that Hitler favoured Zionism!

Ironically the Zionists never fought against anti-Semitism in the Western world, while they collaborated on several occasions with the fascist dictatorships. Nor did they ever try to save European Jews large-scale. It was only the conquest of Palestine that mattered!

The part speaking of it being illegal for Jews and non-Jews to marry is not true. Only the orthodox Jewish church refuses to recognize them but everyone is allowed to get civil marriages. If you will recall the Roman Catholic church refuses to recognize marriages between a Catholic and a non-Catholic and I believe the Orthodox and most Protestant groups have similar restrictions. If one is to go by Koranic law then a Muslim and non-Muslim may marry only if it is sworn in front of witnesses that the children will all be raised Muslim.

When you would continue reading this same thread you would discover that my point is not that 'mixed' marriages are impossible. The point is that secular marriage does not exist, which is rather strange in my view. It shows that Israel considers non-Jews as 'aliens'. When you desire more proof I can give you extensive quotes on this issue.

As for the part about Arabs only making up 14% (while having 20% of the population) of the membership in unions and workers' collectives, well, the under representation in the work force has to do with the historical lack of education among the arab population. Like the current under representation of black Americans the reasons are varied but mostly related to mistrust built up by a half century of warfare and threats of warfare.

Please continue reading this same thread! Somewhere I address this point showing that the Arabs were instead overrepresented in industry. Having lost most of their land they were forced to move to other sectors of the economy; and because of their lack of education white-collar jobs were out of their range.
My guess is that 'unwritten' discriminating laws are the real answer. I also showed that originally the Histadrut boycotted both Arab labour and Arab products.

The real way to address these issues starts with a peace agreement based upon the U.S.-Saudi initiative. The one that Arafat was offered 98% of and rejected two years ago. That's the reality. No one will trust each other enough to make reforms until the war is ended.

It is clear to me you support Israel.
In 1948 Jews were about 30% of the population. Why should the Arabs -after systematic 'ethnic cleansing'- accept 20% of ALL Palestine?
And by the way, Jerusalem will have in the near future a non-Zionist majority of Arabs and Orthodox Jews(!).

I am a bit disappointed that you didn't recommend one recent study. When the issue interests you, I can list most books I have recently studied.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Saint Marcus]

Marcus: Out of curiosity if you are so worried about justice and human rights why is your avatar the image of a man who gased polictical decenters, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities?

It's an avatroll of course. Do you even have to ask?

[Chris 62]

Million dollar smile he has.

I see the the manifesto has been posted once again, what is that, about a million times now?

[Ned]

Saint Marcus, If it is true, and I do not know that it is true, that only Jews can buy land in Israel, it still does not follow that Israel is a racist state if people who convert to Judaism can buy land. If converts can buy land, then Israel is a "religious" state.

I have heard here more than one that Israel is a "secular" state. I have also heard that Israel is a "jewish" state. These both cannot be true if only Jews, including converts, can buy land.

[KrazyHorse]

Ned, they count relapsed Jews as Jews. Eli, IIRC, is an atheist, but this does not prevent him from being considered a Jew under Israeli law.

[Saint Marcus]

Saint Marcus, If it is true, and I do not know that it is true, that only Jews can buy land in Israel, it still does not follow that Israel is a racist state if people who convert to Judaism can buy land. If converts can buy land, then Israel is a "religious" state.

I have heard here more than one that Israel is a "secular" state. I have also heard that Israel is a "jewish" state. These both cannot be true if only Jews, including converts, can buy land.

You are mistaking the Jewish religion with the Jewish etnicity. Like Frogger said, atheist (etnic) Jews can buy land, whereas arabs who hold Israeli citizenship cannot. That is racism.

[CyberGnu]

Oerdin, I've answered this amny a times. The question is whether you want the ideological or practical answer.

Ideologically, I wish we would never have to yield to practical matters to set wrongs right. But alas, we can't invade China to liberate Tibet. We can't invade India to liberate Kashmir. And we can't relocate Israel to Arizona. this, I think, would be the only truly fair solution. Give the land back to the people who own it, and get the US to ceede land for a new state.

Practially, however, I think the only solution is to force Israel to keep its word. Immediate withdrawal beyond the 1967 line and unilateral ceasefire. Declaration of palestinian statehood with full national rights, although monitored by international (Non-US) peacekeepers, with mandate to make arrests.

But most importantly, a 100% foolproof, ironclad, 'no exeptions allowed' order to Israel that no israeli personell are allowed past the 1967 border. No assassination, no 'foiling terrorist attacks', no retaliation strikes. Complaints should be filed to the peacekeepers, and they deal with it in a fair fashion.

If not, it would only be a matter of days before Mossad finds 'proof that we can't show to anyone that Arafat is personally building a nuclear device' which naturally means sharon has to go in a shoot a few chilrden, and we are back to where we started.

Or to sum it up in one sentence: Israel needs to be forced to give up their aggression.

[Saint Marcus]

Amen to that

[rmsharpe]

South Africa was a lot better off fifteen years ago than it is today.

Israeli apartheid? Yes.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Thanks again for admitting my essential point:
Arabs really are treated as second class citizens.
To prove this point was the main reason I started this thread.

That Arabs would become second class citizens or that they should be second class citizens forever is/was never inevitable. I still consider the primary cause of this division to be the on going warfare. As long as the war continues then Jews, rightly or wrongly, will continue to think of Pals as their enemies and visa versa.

You asked about about current studies concerning the middle east. I haven't been reading academic publications but most works of history are now availible at book stores. I read the book A history of the Arab-Israeli conflict by Mark A. Tessler. Dr. Tessler is the Director of Center for International Relations at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee and his book did a good job of describing historical events, listing the myths of both the Israelis & Arabs, and objectively sorting through the mess. The book is substantial, well anotated, and well written. I highly recommend it as an excellent source of objective scholarship.

When the figures I presented are correct the Israeli government nationalised about 90% of the land previously owned by Arabs, while they made a return of the refugees impossible. I would call such policy 'ethnic cleansing'. Perhaps this figure of 90% is too high, but even when it was 'only' 60% my opinion wouldn't change.

In 1948 Jews were about 30% of the population. Why should the Arabs -after systematic 'ethnic cleansing'- accept 20% of ALL Palestine?

According to the CIA world fact book 17% of Israel is arable land, 4% is perminent crop land, 7% is pastures, 6% forests, and a whopping 66% is desert land. Since pre-independence most people made their livings as farmers I suspect the inhabited land amounted to some where between 21% and 33% of the total land and please remember the modern irrigation projects have greatly increased the amount of availible farm land in the last 50 years so the actual figure is probably on the low end of that estimate.

That means some where between 79% and 66% of the land was uninhabited, or virtually uninhabited, desert. All of the argueing has been over the remaining arable land; some 1/4 of the availible land (give or take) that certainly had people living on it. Today 80% of the popuulation is Jewish and 20% Arab so why did the demographics change so much so quickly?

The anwser is immigration and war. Even Chegitz admited most Arabs refugees left not because of any organized campaign of ethnic cleansing but out of fear of getting cought in the cross fire between Israeli and any of the five invading Arab armies. The U.N. made sure everybody in the area knew where the refugee camps were, that they would be safe there, and that food & medical care would be availible there. At the end of the war Israel offered to allow the refugee to return but only if the Arab states would sign a peace treaty with Israel. To the last each Arab government refused to even discuss a peace treaty so the refugees stayed in the camps.

Is Israel to blame? Partially, but so are the Arabs. They, just like Israel, could have negotiated an end to the war but choice not to for shallow political reasons. As usual the common man suffered.