Another Double-Standard Story; Tears for Rachel Corrie,

[Black Dog]

What's the point of arguing with a guy that advances the myth that Arabs are discriminated against in Israel (which is pretty much telling us that the Jewish population of Israel is racist)?

It's not a myth to anyone who's paying attention.

I mean, this guy's actually challenging the reality that Arabs in Israel are, by and large, anti-Zionist.

It's hilarious to see how quickly you switch from your kind's usual use of Arabs as a prop to show Israel's tolerance ("they can vote and sit in the Knesset!") to throwing them under the bus when it suits you.

There's no better illustration of how little you know about this country than that. For starters, take a look at the Arab parties in Israel and see what positions they advocate and with whom they express solidarity. Take a look at Arab voting trends. Read Arab media. Watch Arab commentators on television or on the internet. Investigate Arab organization and "civil rights groups". Have a conversation with an Arab, at a minimum! Widespread opposition to Zionism should be elementary when entering into a dialogue about Arab perceptions of this issue. It's no different among Arabs in Israel and in the territories.

So a cite, a link something is too much to ask. I am unsurprised.

The truth is, Black Dog, I don't expect more from you. You're not Jewish, so obviously you don't care about us or our needs. It doesn't matter to you whether we survive as a group, are given or national rights to define our own destiny or have the land and state necessary for the actualization of our rights. It's the same Goy mentality that was ambivalent about us being exterminated in the Holocaust.

You realize this same logic disqualifies you from making any kind of judgement or assessment of Palestinian Arabs or, indeed, anyone else. Oh wait: I forgot their are special rules for the Master Ra...er...Chosen People.

People like you are why the Jewish national needs will always need to be defended. You view this conflict as the result of us refusing to be subjugated and/or annihilated, even if through more docile methods as assimilation. It's our fault for simply not rolling over and allowing others to destroy us.

While you're telling me what I think, can you tell me what I should have for lunch?

[Bob]

Who says they aren't?

Why don't you just admit that you want the Jewish people to be erased from the planet one way or the other. It seems clear to me that you're on of those folks that seems to think he's enlightened by advancing a humanist agenda based on the false premise that we're all pretty much the same. We're not. Some of us don't want to live in that humanist world where all differences are erased. We have a rich culture, heritage, and way of life that we want to preserve and continue developing, independently and in our own way.

You may refuse to realize it, but your posts are a de facto support of a people that by and large oppose many core values that I'm sure you'd claim to subscribe to. Come to Israel for some time and see who you feel more comfortable with, the modern Jews who represent the majority of the Jewish population here, or the the Arabs (who are much more homogenous than we are in EVERY sense of the word). Then get back to me and advocate for the self-determination and independence of a nation manufactured in the late sixties who really belong to the broader collective of people that already possess about 24 states stretching from North Africa to the Persian Gulf.

[Black Dog]

Why don't you just admit that you want the Jewish people to be erased from the planet one way or the other.

Because I don't. Though I'm starting to feel that way about you.

It seems clear to me that you're on of those folks that seems to think he's enlightened by advancing a humanist agenda based on the false premise that we're all pretty much the same. We're not.

No, you clearly you believe your race is superior to us Goyim and anyone else. Hey, ascribing beliefs to people based on your own warped frame of perception is fun! I can see why you do it so often.

You may refuse to realize it, but your posts are a de facto support of a people that by and large oppose many core values that I'm sure you'd claim to subscribe to.

That's beauty of humanism: I can oppose someone's beliefs without wanting to see them relegated to second-hand status in a democracy run by a different group of religious nuts. I also believe that equality of opportunity and membership in the Israeli nation can go a long way to overcoming the artificial ethno-religious divides you are intent on perpetuating and deepening.

Then get back to me and advocate for the self-determination and independence of a nation manufactured in the late sixties who really belong to the broader collective of people that already possess about 24 states stretching from North Africa to the Persian Gulf.

So Jews are unique special snowflakes, but all Arabs are pretty much the same? Ya, alright.

[jbg]

You're right, there is a trend of anti-Arab sentiment among many Jews. Very often this includes unjustifiable prejudices. Generally speaking, though, our prejudices just aren't as vehement or widespread as theirs. You need to ask yourself honestly, do you think if we could measure prejudice among both Jews and Arabs that the degree of this prejudice would be equal? Only if you go in with the false supposition that are people are equal in all things.

I have to agree with you here. While Jews' acceptance of Arabs is not perfect, our attitude is far more likely to be based on the merits of individuals than the Arabs' are. Further Jews that fraternize with Arabs are generally not subject to violence. Unfortunately that is not mutual.

So not being Jewish means that we have no way to understand the plight of the Jewish people? Laughable****But it is your fault for rolling over others crying 'HOLOCAUST NEVAH FORGET!!!' as justification to roll over those others.

Generally speaking, yes. Non-Jews can understand us, but do they? Usually not. I don't blame them, it's a complicated story and they've got better things to do than walk a mile in Jewish shoes.

I don't fully see eye to eye with you here. There are many non-Jews who do understand the Jews and the existential problem both the Jews and Israel face. There are others who see only the Jews' facial success in business and political leadership and do not understand its fragility.

Are you attacking Holocaust remembrance or trivializing the effect it's had on the Jewish collective psyche? Let me break it to you, with or without the Holocaust Israel belongs to the Jewish people. Our national rights weren't borne in the ashes of six million. Yes, the Holocaust had a significant effect on the politics surrounding the reestablishment of Israel, but it's wrong to think that the Jewish people needs to undergo a catastrophe in order to justify our rights to independence and self-determination.

The aftermath of the Holocaust, i.e. the hundreds of thousands of survivors still in the camps or in hiding created the real emergency that greased the skids for the founding of Israel. Clearly those people couldn't be repatriated to towns, villages and cities whose people just turned them over to the Nazis for transport to death camps.

The Holocaust had a profound and permanent effect on the Jews' psyches. The Jews had existed in Continental Europe for generations upon generations. The synagogues were ancient. Many of the businesses had been handed down from great-grandfather to grandfather to father to son. While there had always been discrimination and hatred, aside from Russia it had, on balance usually not been deadly. Then, one-third of the world's Jews were killed in six (6) years. It was not hard to see that the Diasponra was no longer fully reliable as a place to live.

[Black Dog]

Something else I don't understand about Bob and his ilk: they don't want to integrate the Palestinians into a bi-national state because that would apparently destroy the inherent Jewishness of Israel, but they also oppose a two-state solution. Makes you wonder what they actually do want.

[Bob]

Us acknowledging our uniqueness isn't the same as us believing we're superior than others. You blur this distinction because it suits your ideological views - to erase all differences between people (against their own wishes) in order to live in a beautiful Star Trek paradise. Perhaps some of us like our cultures and don't wish to be amalgamated into the non-defined collective. If others have a beef with us, it's obviously our fault for rejecting assimilation or subjugation. It's our fault for being different! Great logic.

Your contempt for varying cultures is transparent with the typical phrase "artificial ethno-religious divides". Why don't you just admit that you hate people and groups who refuse to assimilate? I've seen that argument advanced a million and one times, and it always comes from the utopian humanist who believes in the false premise that all conflict arises from difference. Let me let you in on a little secret - it is the refusal to accept difference that causes this conflict. In the case of Israel, the rejection of a minority group's right to independence and commitment to survival. Just be honest, you want to see a world where all affiliations cease and we all become a part of the "human family". The problem with that desire is, of course, reality. We're not all the same. We don't all subscribe to the same values. We don't all want to live the same lifestyle.

As far as Arab diversity, I'm not denying its existence, nor am I pretending to be an expert on it. Arabs are very diverse, but that diversity is not really reflected in the current boundaries we see in the Middle East. The important point I'm making is that Palestinian do no constitute a distinct nation from neighboring Arab peoples by virtue of their current geographic location. There are more than enough Arab states already.

[DogOnPorch]

Makes you wonder what they actually do want.

If it's the destruction of the Palestinians, they're not being very efficient.

Edited May 12, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

The important point I'm making is that Palestinian do no constitute a distinct nation from neighboring Arab peoples by virtue of their current geographic location. There are more than enough Arab states already.

Isn't it mostly a clan issue? The al-Husseinis and the Hashemites and various other players that owned more camels/water wells than the next guy all wanting their own country?

[Black Dog]

Us acknowledging our uniqueness isn't the same as us believing we're superior than others. You blur this distinction because it suits your ideological views - to erase all differences between people (against their own wishes) in order to live in a beautiful Star Trek paradise. Perhaps some of us like our cultures and don't wish to be amalgamated into the non-defined collective. If others have a beef with us, it's obviously our fault for rejecting assimilation or subjugation. It's our fault for being different! Great logic.

I see the problem: you don't really understand what pluralism is. To you, the idea of different groups living side by side is an alien concept. It's either everyone lives in walled enclaves, like with like, or everyone is exactly the same. the prospect of co-existence is beyond your binary worldview.

Your contempt for varying cultures is transparent with the typical phrase "artificial ethno-religious divides". Why don't you just admit that you hate people and groups who refuse to assimilate?

Assimilate into what?

I've seen that argument advanced a million and one times, and it always comes from the utopian humanist who believes in the false premise that all conflict arises from difference. Let me let you in on a little secret - it is the refusal to accept difference that causes this conflict. In the case of Israel, the rejection of a minority group's right to independence and commitment to survival. Just be honest, you want to see a world where all affiliations cease and we all become a part of the "human family". The problem with that desire is, of course, reality. We're not all the same. We don't all subscribe to the same values. We don't all want to live the same lifestyle.

Makes me wonder how countries like Canada, the United States, England have managed to survive and prosper all the years with such diversity and difference between their populations.

As far as Arab diversity, I'm not denying its existence, nor am I pretending to be an expert on it. Arabs are very diverse, but that diversity is not really reflected in the current boundaries we see in the Middle East.

Probably because those borders were drawn up arbitrarily by somebody else.

The important point I'm making is that Palestinian do no constitute a distinct nation from neighboring Arab peoples by virtue of their current geographic location.

Isn't the notion that nationhood is not contingent upon geographic location one of the underpinnings of Zionism?

[Bob]

Isn't it mostly a clan issue? The al-Husseinis and the Hashemites and various other players that owned more camels/water wells than the next guy all wanting their own country?

The British "gave" control of Transjordan to the Hashemites, as part of the "three-state solution" (the 1947 Partition Plan as well as the establishment of Transjordan) in 1921. Was it right to transfer control to a group that was the minority and claimed to be the direct descendants of Mohammed (King Abdullah is supposed to be the great great great great grandson of Mohammed, ya know)? Who knows? Last I read, Jordan's population is 80% "Palestinian", in terms of how they self-identify. They all look the same, too.

We've got more Arab states than we can shake a stick at. And they certainly don't practise a lot of diplomacy in their politics.

Personal anecdote - when traveling in Jordan you'll see large portraits of King Abdullah and his late father everywhere, in all sorts of costumes. Sometimes he's the great military leader, other times he's the great king, other times he's the master politician/diplomat. It's creepy.

[GostHacked]

Us acknowledging our uniqueness isn't the same as us believing we're superior than others.

Mr. Judeaosupremacism - Settler Fundamentalist, I am calling you out on it right now.

[DogOnPorch]

The British "gave" control of Transjordan to the Hashemites, as part of the "three-state solution" (the 1947 Partition Plan as well as the establishment of Transjordan) in 1921. Was it right to transfer control to a group that was the minority and claimed to be the direct descendants of Mohammed (King Abdullah is supposed to be the great great great great grandson of Mohammed, ya know)? Who knows? Last I read, Jordan's population is 80% "Palestinian", in terms of how they self-identify. They all look the same, too.

The al-Husseinis also believe themselves descendants of Muhammed...as well as the keepers of al-Aqsa (the Mufti did the renos on the mosques on the Temple Mount...particularly the gold plate.) He sought to raise Jerusalem's profile as a holy site for Muslims by cementing the Muhammed/Gabriel/Jerusalem connection...which, of course, isn't mentioned in the Koran. This was merely Omar's proclamation after capturing Jerusalem from the Byzantines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(637)

Edited May 12, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Bob]

I see the problem: you don't really understand what pluralism is. To you, the idea of different groups living side by side is an alien concept. It's either everyone lives in walled enclaves, like with like, or everyone is exactly the same. the prospect of co-existence is beyond your binary worldview.

I know very well what pluralism is, and we have it in Israel. I wish you were right, but we don't trust pluralism to protect our interests. Pluralism means the world looking the other way while we get exterminated. Being an ultra-minority in this world, pluralistic values condemn us to subjugation and the mercy of majority host societies. We don't trust you to protect us when our enemies seek to destroy us. And we don't trust you for god reason, because we know you don't give a damn what happens to us.

Assimilate into what?

Whatever the majority society is in which we live.

Makes me wonder how countries like Canada, the United States, England have managed to survive and prosper all the years with such diversity and difference between their populations.

Do you really need me to list all the other countries where those values of pluralism don't thrive? Most importantly, the countries you listed have a civic nationalism, not a nationalism tied to religion and/or ethnicity. Those countries are exceptions in this world. They're also going to have a hard time surviving if they don't retain a strong sense of what defines them. It'd be interesting to see them destroyed if they did what you want Israel to do, which would be to integrate massive Islamist populations. Let's see what Canada looks like in the days after it imports more than 20 million Palestinians (proportionally), which is what you seem to be hoping that Israel will do for a "bi-national state". We're not dumb enough to do that, sorry to disappoint you.

Probably because those borders were drawn up arbitrarily by somebody else.

Your point? That's what I'm saying. There's a lot of artificial diversity among the Arabs.

Isn't the notion that nationhood is not contingent upon geographic location one of the underpinnings of Zionism?

Sure, but the Jewish nation need land upon which to have a country, so we can actualize our national rights. Do you not understand that?

[Bob]

The al-Husseinis also believe themselves descendants of Muhammed...as well as the keepers of al-Aqsa (the Mufti did the renos on the mosques on the Temple Mount...particularly the gold plate.) He sought to raise Jerusalem's profile as a holy site for Muslims by cementing the Muhammed/Gabriel/Jerusalem connection...which, of course, isn't mentioned in the Koran. This was merely Omar's proclamation after capturing Jerusalem from the Byzantines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(637)

Thanks for the information. And yes, I read in more than one place that Jerusalem being the "third holiest site to Islam" (like I case?) is a recent political development. The concept doesn't have deep roots in Islam's history, but is a product of the fusion between Islam and politics (Islamism), in order to rally Muslims in opposition to Israel. It's all a big lie, but most Muslims subscribe to it. In other words, Jerusalem having hly status to Muslims is political tool to generate animosity towards Israel and the Jewish people. Quite an effective lie.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Bob

[DogOnPorch]

Thanks for the information. And yes, I read in more than one place that Jerusalem being the "third holiest site to Islam" (like I case?) is a recent political development. The concept doesn't have deep roots in Islam's history, but is a product of the fusion between Islam and politics (Islamism), in order to rally Muslims in opposition to Israel. It's all a big lie, but most Muslims subscribe to it. In other words, Jerusalem having hly status to Muslims is political tool to generate animosity towards Israel and the Jewish people. Quite an effective lie.

Originally, Muhammed wanted his followers to pray towards Jerusalem...this was when he was wooing the Jews rather than, later, attacking them. But, it is fairly certain Muhammed never set foot in the city. He apparently became aquainted with its general existence and importance to the Jews after a trading mission to Syria as a child with a family member in the biz. But other accounts have Muhammed never leaving the Arabian Peninsula...so who knows?

[Black Dog]

I know very well what pluralism is, and we have it in Israel. I wish you were right, but we don't trust pluralism to protect our interests. Pluralism means the world looking the other way while we get exterminated. Being an ultra-minority in this world, pluralistic values condemn us to subjugation and the mercy of majority host societies. We don't trust you to protect us when our enemies seek to destroy us. And we don't trust you for god reason, because we know you don't give a damn what happens to us.

So you practice pluralism in Israel, even though it will destroy you? Which is it?

Whatever the majority society is in which we live.

Nonsense.

Do you really need me to list all the other countries where those values of pluralism don't thrive?

Why? It's irrelevant.

Most importantly, the countries you listed have a civic nationalism, not a nationalism tied to religion and/or ethnicity.

Which is part of the reason they are successful.

Those countries are exceptions in this world. They're also going to have a hard time surviving if they don't retain a strong sense of what defines them.

Well we do. It's in our laws and civic traditions, our foundational documents and the shared history of our nations.

It'd be interesting to see them destroyed if they did what you want Israel to do, which would be to integrate massive Islamist populations.

Gee, I thought you said you already had done that. Another inconsistency.

Let's see what Canada looks like in the days after it imports more than 20 million Palestinians (proportionally), which is what you seem to be hoping that Israel will do for a "bi-national state". We're not dumb enough to do that, sorry to disappoint you.

As for the rejection of both the bi-national state and the two state solution, I again ask: what the hell do you actually want? You either accept the status quo and the accompanying conflict, work to better integrate the Arab population of Israel under a secular banner (while recognizing the Jewish character of the state), or I dunno, forcibly transfer all the Arabs out. I don't see a lot of other options.

Your point? That's what I'm saying. There's a lot of artificial diversity among the Arabs.

I was talking only about borders. There's a lot of real diversity too that predates the colonial divisions that are the foundation for the modern Arab world.

Sure, but the Jewish nation need land upon which to have a country, so we can actualize our national rights. Do you not understand that?

I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of your claim that "that Palestinian do no constitute a distinct nation from neighboring Arab peoples by virtue of their current geographic location." As the Jewish experience shows, nationhood and geography are different things.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Black Dog

[Bob]

I'm no Islamic theologian, but I can see many places where religious values they adhere to bear at least a passing resemblance to Judaism, it's just that these values are usually coloured with a bit more aggression, lose some of their nuance and become more puritanical, and reinforce an ambition to dominate others. Simplistic analysis, I know, but that's how it often seems.

[jbg]

I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of your claim that "that Palestinian do no constitute a distinct nation from neighboring Arab peoples by virtue of their current geographic location." As the Jewish experience shows, nationhood and geography are different things.

It sounds like those that oppose Israel's existence as a Jewish state will find any reason for the rights of others, anyone not Jewish, to predominate. I guess that everyone is entitled to "national self-determination" except the Jews.

[Black Dog]

It sounds like those that oppose Israel's existence as a Jewish state will find any reason for the rights of others, anyone not Jewish, to predominate. I guess that everyone is entitled to "national self-determination" except the Jews.

It's funny how you and Bob can argue that Israel is a special and unique case, given the historical facts of antisemitism, only to turn around and whinge when it's singled out. I'm really wracking my brain to think of another example of a state based along ethnic or religious lines that was formed, not by the facts on the ground (that is: the reality of the demographics of the place) but artificially through the mass influx of a population from elsewhere. It's like Israel is a guy who moves to Baltimiore and starts complaining that there's too many black people around.

Anyway, let's cut to the chase here and skip your usual drive by posting: what's your solution? Two-states? Well, no, you've already rejected that on practical (economic) and philosophical grounds. A bi-national state? You don't want that either since it allegedly threatens the Jewish nature of the state. So we're basically left with the status quo: an Israel constantly in a state of low-level warfare, forced to increasingly take measures to marginalize its non Jewish population in order to maintain the supremacy of one specific group in the face of untenable demographics.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Black Dog

[jbg]

I'm really wracking my brain to think of another example of a state based along ethnic or religious lines that was formed, not by the facts on the ground (that is: the reality of the demographics of the place) but artificially through the mass influx of a population from elsewhere. It's like Israel is a guy who moves to Baltimiore and starts complaining that there's too many black people around.

You actually make a debatably good point here.

Other examples would be primarily the formation of certain states in the U.S. Maryland was formed initially as a "Catholic state". Pennsylvania was formed as a "Quaker state". Massachusetts was formed by Pilgrims and Puritans which were then an extreme version of some European church that escapes me. These distinctions were necessarily dropped when they banded together to form the "United States".

I suspect the problem is here that Israel was formed under emergency circumstances. The aftermath of the Holocaust, i.e. the hundreds of thousands of survivors still in the camps or in hiding created the real exigency that greased the skids for the founding of Israel. Clearly those people couldn't be repatriated to towns, villages and cities whose people just turned them over to the Nazis for transport to death camps. Prior to that, as conditions deteriorated in Russia and Germany with massive anti-Jewish riots and killings, the Jews basically went anywhere they could. Thus the Jewish communities of New York City and Montreal as well as what was then Palestine.

The concept of more or less forced movements among peoples throughout the globe is not though, unique. That is why I say your point is fairly debatable, though ultimately I disagree it.

[Bob]

It's funny how you and Bob can argue that Israel is a special and unique case, given the historical facts of antisemitism, only to turn around and whinge when it's singled out. I'm really wracking my brain to think of another example of a state based along ethnic or religious lines that was formed, not by the facts on the ground (that is: the reality of the demographics of the place) but artificially through the mass influx of a population from elsewhere. It's like Israel is a guy who moves to Baltimiore and starts complaining that there's too many black people around.

Anyway, let's cut to the chase here and skip your usual drive by posting: what's your solution? Two-states? Well, no, you've already rejected that on practical (economic) and philosophical grounds. A bi-national state? You don't want that either since it allegedly threatens the Jewish nature of the state. So we're basically left with the status quo: an Israel constantly in a state of low-level warfare, forced to increasingly take measures to marginalize its non Jewish population in order to maintain the supremacy of one specific group in the face of untenable demographics.

I disagree with jbg, I think you have no point whatsoever. It's great how you describe Israel as being "artificially" formed against "facts on the ground". What was natural about us being exterminated? What was natural about us being denied entrance to countries like Canada as we were trying to escape the Holocaust? What was natural about us being subjected to pogroms in Europe? What was natural about us being forbidden from entering certain professions or studying in certain universities or living in certain cities in Europe? What was natural about us being evicted from our homes during the Spanish Inquisition? What was natural about being forced to convert of be killed by Christians and Muslims? What was natural about being subjugated as Dhimmi living under Muslim oppression?

Why don't you explain me how all of that was natural, and then I'll explain to you why it's natural for us to simply have had enough of this abuse and refuse to have our independence and self-defense attacked by people like yourself. Moreover, we were returning to our homeland. That's what people like you always look over, as if there's some sort of statute of limitations on a nation's claims to self-determination. Sorry guys, you lost your country a long time ago because you were ethnicaly cleansed from your homeland, now you must live as minorities among the rest of the world, divided, and subject to the mercy of the host societies in which you live. The fact remains that nobody will ever lift a finger to help us when we're attacked. We don't need another Holocaust to demonstrate this, it;s demonstrated every day as the world looks the other way or CONDEMNS US when we're threatened and attacked. In the words of another, I'd rather be hated and alive than dead and loved. I don't need to see Jewish blood spilled en masse on some sort of regular basis in order to refresh your sympathies. The bottom line is that you don't give a damn about the Jewish people, our rights, or our self-preservation and ongoing development. And you know what? That's totally fine. I don't expect you to care, why should you? At the very least, however, in order to maintain a basic level of morality, don't attack our national rights while advocating the rights of another. More importantly, people like you claim not to advocate for Palestinian nationalism. Indeed, people like you who wear the cloak of humanism pretend that you are opposed to all nationalisms. Perhaps you really mean it when you say it, but if what you desired actually came to pass, what would actually occur would be a Palestinian state and the destruction of Jewish independence, and certainly Jewish subjugation under Islamic law AT A MINIMUM. You can argue all the philosophical principles you want, which may sound beautiful and egalitarian in an abstract sense, but in the real world these nationalisms do exist, and they don't disappear simply because you're unaware of them. A binational state necessarily means subjugation of the Jewish people in Israel to Islamic law. Period. End of story. Your posts of outrage on this forum won't do a damn thing to change that. There are unintended consequences to your recommendations (which are completely unoriginal, I've been hearing them for at least fifteen years now) that you refuse to acknowledge.

It's the typical position of a person that has no group affiliation. That's fine. You can proclaim to belong to the brotherhood of humanity for all I care. But don't tell us that we don't have a right to acknowledge our differences, to distinguish ourselves from other by retaining our heritage and culture, and to continually develop ourselves ON OUR OWN TERMS. Don't try to impose your anti-nation agenda on us by deriding things that are important to us.

[Black Dog]

Perhaps you really mean it when you say it, but if what you desired actually came to pass, what would actually occur would be a Palestinian state and the destruction of Jewish independence, and certainly Jewish subjugation under Islamic law AT A MINIMUM. You can argue all the philosophical principles you want, which may sound beautiful and egalitarian in an abstract sense, but in the real world these nationalisms do exist, and they don't disappear simply because you're unaware of them. A binational state necessarily means subjugation of the Jewish people in Israel to Islamic law. Period. End of story. Your posts of outrage on this forum won't do a damn thing to change that.

I'm going to skip the more ranty bits here and focus on this. So, once again you've rejected a binational solution. You've also voiced your opposition to a two-state solution in this thread, so I'll ask for a third time: what's your solution? Do you have one? I'd like to hear it.

[GostHacked]

It's the typical position of a person that has no group affiliation. That's fine. You can proclaim to belong to the brotherhood of humanity for all I care. But don't tell us that we don't have a right to acknowledge our differences, to distinguish ourselves from other by retaining our heritage and culture, and to continually develop ourselves ON OUR OWN TERMS. Don't try to impose your anti-nation agenda on us by deriding things that are important to us.

So the Jews that do not live in Israel that carry on the Jewish culture are going to be extinct if Israel happens to not exist?

Israel is not contingent to the Jewish people's existance. You are Jewish no matter where you live. You are Isreali if you live in Israel. You are Canadian if you live in Canada. You can be a Jew whereever you want to live.

Also for a person that says the Holocaust was not the major reason why Israel was created you sure trot that bit out a lot.

NEVER AGAIN!! Right?

[dre]

I'm going to skip the more ranty bits here and focus on this. So, once again you've rejected a binational solution. You've also voiced your opposition to a two-state solution in this thread, so I'll ask for a third time: what's your solution? Do you have one? I'd like to hear it.

His solution is probably Israeli policy...

In a nutshell the plan is move people in strategic settlements that that will allow them to control the resources there and protect all their existing infrastructure. Gradually theyll push palestinians into a smaller and smaller area of less desirable realestate.

Its pretty sound policy if you think about it, and its working pretty well. Its sort of a modern day form of conquest designed to skirt international law. If they were to annex all of the occupied territories at once the world would probably get pissed off and squash them. Even their most ardent international supporters would turn on them. But do it slowly over the course of a few decades... settlement by settlement, well by well, inch by inch, and the international community wont ever get shocked enough to do anything beyone piss and moan.