the historic iran deal and its opponents

[DogOnPorch]

So...any sign of those Iranian ballistic missiles and their use by 40 other countries yet? Or is that lie just going to stand as truth for you, bud?

Blow back can be pretty smelly alright but you don't seem to mind.

Indeed...you and bleeding both seem to have an intense dislike for the Great Satan.

[bleeding heart]

Indeed...you and bleeding both seem to have an intense dislike for the Great Satan.

I have no dislike whatsoever for most things American.

I do indeed have a dislike for things such as terrorism, but this is no way peculiar to the United States, and I'm not sure how it's relevant to this particular topic.

Edited December 1, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Rue]

So Bud that is it? You can come on this forum and attack me for being a Jew and its connection to Zionism and Israel but you won't disclose your own religion, ethnic identity and connection to Iran or any other arab country?

What now you just unilaterally pronounce like the Pharoah that what's good for Pharoah aint good for Moses?

Lol.

You do know what happens to Yule Brenner right?

Bud and Hudson ridiculed me for being a Jew.

Now you won't finish what you started?

This is how you debate-attack me personally with a standard of criticism you won't apply to yourself?

Then you came on this board referring to a "thesis" and won't disclose it?

In the absence of a response I can only assume you are afraid to disclose your

connection to Iran and Islam and that you fabricated the thesis comment.

Now you see Bud or whatever your real name is, I will using free speech and the gift of debate, the

right to challenge your comments and expose your inconsistencies and lack of credibility when you come on this forum and smeer Jews, Zionists, Israelis, anyone who disagrees with you.

See me Bud, I am a Canadian. We believe in critical thought. We don't just repeat scripts we are given.

Me I was never good at repeating things back blindly including concepts of hatred of an entire people-you-the silence speaks for itself.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Rue

[Rue]

Dog are you referring to Brittany Spears or the USA when you say Great Satan.

Maybe they are confused with that reference.

I love the smell of insincerity-its just like blow back.

[bud]

Bud and Hudson ridiculed me for being a Jew.

no one but you has ridiculed you.

someone's religious background is not at discussion here. blind patriotism, blind nationalism, excusing immoral and unethical behaviour is. zionism is a sick ideology, much like wahabism is.

[Rue]

no one but you has ridiculed you.

someone's religious background is not at discussion here. blind patriotism, blind nationalism, excusing immoral and unethical behaviour is. zionism is a sick ideology, much like wahabism is.

Bud here are your words:

bud, on 12 Nov 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

due to your ultra-nationalistic feelings and the inability to admit fault, to protect your tribe, you can't come to admit the obvious, blatant discriminatory laws against non-jews, both inside israel and in the occupied territories. this is a problem within you and i really don't want to waste my time with you. this is my last post in this regard, where i will acknowledge you:

For you to now pretend you did not ridicule me for being a Jew for defending Israel's right to be a Jewish state is yet again a tactic you use on this forum where you state something and then deny what you stated.

Bud you are busted. You refuse to disclose your tribe and connection to Arab countries or Iran but ridiculed me for my alleged jewish tribal identity giving me an "internal problem". Lol.

Bud you came on this forum and demanded I produce information Iran made chemical weapons or istated from my silence it could be assumed I am a liar.

You established that standard and now you fail the very standard you challenged me to.

So using your standard I can now presume you are a liar. You created that dare and standard Bud not me.

Have the integrity hold yourself to the same standard you held me to.

Identify your tribe and connections to Arab countries or Iran and your thesis.

Finish what you started Bud.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Rue

[Hudson Jones]

Bud here are your words:

bud, on 12 Nov 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

due to your ultra-nationalistic feelings and the inability to admit fault, to protect your tribe, you can't come to admit the obvious, blatant discriminatory laws against non-jews, both inside israel and in the occupied territories. this is a problem within you and i really don't want to waste my time with you. this is my last post in this regard, where i will acknowledge you:

For you to now pretend you did not ridicule me for being a Jew for defending Israel's right to be a Jewish state is yet again a tactic you use on this forum where you state something and then deny what you stated.

Where does he talk about your religion?

Are you playing the sad little victim again?

As Bud has mentioned, your ultra-nationalistic feelings has blinded you and has created this unconditional support for Israel. Same can be said of an Iranian who blindly supports his government or a Saudi who does this.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[Rue]

Where does he talk about your religion?

Are you playing the sad little victim again?

As Bud has mentioned, your ultra-nationalistic feelings has blinded you and has created this unconditional support for Israel. Same can be said of an Iranian who blindly supports his government or a Saudi who does this.

Oh look its Hudson Jones instead of Bud. Lol.

How long do you want to keep this charade up?

Hudson, Bud, Bud, Hudson. You really want to continue with this?

Isn't it bad enough you pretend referring to my tribe and being ultra nationalistic has nothing to do with my being Jewish and now try use the word religion to suggest its not against my religion? Is that the new charade. You ridicule my Jewish identity but justify it by saying you can smeer be because its not the religion you ridicule just the ethnicity/ Lol, that is the charade now?

Hudson, Bud, Bud, Hudson, that is the routine you want to play?

Hudson, Bud, Bud, Hudson, you came on this forum and ridiculed me saying because I am a Jew, that automatically means I am bias in favour of Israel.

That is a baseless anti-semitic smeer. It is a prime example of attacking someone simply because you perceive them as a JEW and automatically assuming because I am a Jew and support Israel it automatically makes me an ultra nationalist.

what a nonsensical stereotype. If I was an ultra-nationalist I would not be a proud Canadian. If I was an ultra-nationalist I would believe all Judea and Somaria belong to Israel. I call you both out now as engaging in absolute b.s.

Bud came on this forum and claimed if I did not produce info on Iranian chemical weapons the silence would make me a liar. I asked "him" to provide the thesis he claims he wrote, just basic information as to who he wrote it for and what he wrote, and I also asked him to hold himself to the same standard

he holds me-to reveal his ethnic and religious identity and explain why it does not automatically make him an ultranationalist as you both state for Iran.

You both have been busted as has this ridiculous Hudson to Bud, Bud to Hudson shtick.

Its over. He has been exposed for what he is, and so are you-people who come on this forum, engage in hatred against Jews, smeer us under the pretext of discussing Israeli state policies, and holding yourself to a different standard.

More to the point when debated word by word, you do not respond to the issues, you again try taunt.

You Hudson Jones or Bud or whatever your names really are, it now does not matter.

You are busted and the more you respond, the clearer it should become to everyone how you walked into something you started but would not finish.

Now one last thing-sad victim? That is the best you can do?

See the problem is Hudson to Bud, Bud to Hudson, the last thing I am and its eating away at you clearly, is I am no sad victim. No Jew is as much as you would like to ridicule us and turn us into victims. Lol the very reason we have a state is precisely so people like you engaging in exactly the words you do on this thread and the others, can never again try victimize us.

We are not victims. Never again.

Now tell Bud since you now suddenly speak for him again that until he discloses his ethnicity and thesis and connection to Iran your name and relays back and forth won't work. The tactic is spent. It ends here and now.

Hudson to Bud, Bud to Hudson, it matters little. You either finish what you start or you are busted.

[Hudson Jones]

You're all over the place and continue to become more incoherent.

You can be proud of your tribe and want the best for your tribe without violating other people's rights. Many Jews want the best for Israel, but not at the expense of other people's human rights. Why not strive to be a better person like them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWo5CBNe5LU

[Moonlight Graham]

Rue, I can't possibly respond to everything you said to me on page 2.

What I'll say is that I at least somewhat understand, about as well as an outsider can, Israel's predicament and its survival complex. I see Israel like a dog who has been chained, beaten, and abused all it's life and then is finally set free, and now lives in a small corner of an alleyway it has staked out and will bark and bite whenever anyone gets anywhere near it or has even the remotest possibility of threatening it.

In that very long response to me you still didn't respond to any these challenges I gave you:

Give me one good reason why Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Give me one good reason why Iran, if possessing nuclear weapons, would ever use them on Israel as a first strike? Please provide evidence for when "Iran's call for their extinction" ever occurred.

Iran almost certainly would like to have a nuclear weapon. But it isn't to destroy Israel, it is to counter the fact that Israel has a plethora of nukes pointed at them, as well as to act as a deterrent to any Western aggression (to prevent an invasion like in Afghanistan and Iraq). Prior to 2003, Iran sought nukes i'm sure in great part to defend itself from another attack/invasion from Saddam's Iraq.

please read the comments the current Iranian regime has made about Israel before you simply state Netanyahu is belligerent.

Show them to me, provide links. I'll provide one for you: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/iran-rouhani-recognises-holocaust

Here's an article about Israel condemning the Iran deal. Netanyahu said: "The Iranian regime is committed to the destruction of Israel and Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat".

Netanyahu doesn't have much if any evidence to support such a serious claim. If you can find any, let me know. I think Netanyahu and others in the Israeli government have a hunch this could be the case, but they don't have much if any evidence to support it. I think they're using this propoganda as an excuse to maintain their nuclear supremacy in the region and to isolate Iran militarily and economically simply to make Israel as powerful a player in the region as possible. This is a power play by Israel, they fear all Arab/Persian/Muslim nations wish to exterminate them (whether they admit it or not), and Israel wants to maintain as much power in the region as possible. Keeping Iran as weak as possible benefits Israel in so many ways. This deal threatens Israel because it makes Iran less isolated internationally and has the potential to improve their economy and thus regional power as more sanctions are lifted down the road. Juan Cole argues the same thing in an excellent piece of his. Israel would not accept any deal that lifts any sanctions, and Netanyahu has said would not support any deal unless it completely wipes out 100% of Iran's nuclear capability, even small civilian energy reactors with 3% enriched uranium.

Netanyahu also said about the deal: "Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world … Israel is not bound by this agreement."

Not sure how Iran is closer to a nuke if it just agreed to more inspectors and to severely limit its enrichment of uranium including canceling it's heavy-water reactor. The Israeli government knows what it's saying is BS, it simply wants Iran to remain weak and isolated to make Israel more powerful in the region. This deal also removes much international legitimacy for Israel to bomb Iran:

"International legitimacy for a unilateral Israeli attack is reduced significantly. The international community endorses this deal, and so Israel will find it really hard to use military power," said Yoel Guzansky, former head of the Iran desk in the prime minister's office and now a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Rue]

You're all over the place and continue to become more incoherent.

You can be proud of your tribe and want the best for your tribe without violating other people's rights. Many Jews want the best for Israel, but not at the expense of other people's human rights. Why not strive to be a better person like them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWo5CBNe5LU

Hudson Jones you continue to demonstrate that you think you can use this forum to attack me personally and presume to tell me how to be a good Jew.

Its actually quite funny. Now you claim to preach to me about being a good Jew.

Lol.

[Rue]

Rue, I can't possibly respond to everything you said to me on page 2.

What I'll say is that I at least somewhat understand, about as well as an outsider can, Israel's predicament and its survival complex. I see Israel like a dog who has been chained, beaten, and abused all it's life and then is finally set free, and now lives in a small corner of an alleyway it has staked out and will bark and bite whenever anyone gets anywhere near it or has even the remotest possibility of threatening it.

In that very long response to me you still didn't respond to any these challenges I gave you:

Iran almost certainly would like to have a nuclear weapon. But it isn't to destroy Israel, it is to counter the fact that Israel has a plethora of nukes pointed at them, as well as to act as a deterrent to any Western aggression (to prevent an invasion like in Afghanistan and Iraq). Prior to 2003, Iran sought nukes i'm sure in great part to defend itself from another attack/invasion from Saddam's Iraq.

Show them to me, provide links. I'll provide one for you: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/iran-rouhani-recognises-holocaust

Here's an article about Israel condemning the Iran deal. Netanyahu said: "The Iranian regime is committed to the destruction of Israel and Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat".

Netanyahu doesn't have much if any evidence to support such a serious claim. If you can find any, let me know. I think Netanyahu and others in the Israeli government have a hunch this could be the case, but they don't have much if any evidence to support it. I think they're using this propoganda as an excuse to maintain their nuclear supremacy in the region and to isolate Iran militarily and economically simply to make Israel as powerful a player in the region as possible. This is a power play by Israel, they fear all Arab/Persian/Muslim nations wish to exterminate them (whether they admit it or not), and Israel wants to maintain as much power in the region as possible. Keeping Iran as weak as possible benefits Israel in so many ways. This deal threatens Israel because it makes Iran less isolated internationally and has the potential to improve their economy and thus regional power as more sanctions are lifted down the road. Juan Cole argues the same thing in an excellent piece of his. Israel would not accept any deal that lifts any sanctions, and Netanyahu has said would not support any deal unless it completely wipes out 100% of Iran's nuclear capability, even small civilian energy reactors with 3% enriched uranium.

Netanyahu also said about the deal: "Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world … Israel is not bound by this agreement."

Not sure how Iran is closer to a nuke if it just agreed to more inspectors and to severely limit its enrichment of uranium including canceling it's heavy-water reactor. The Israeli government knows what it's saying is BS, it simply wants Iran to remain weak and isolated to make Israel more powerful in the region. This deal also removes much international legitimacy for Israel to bomb Iran:

"International legitimacy for a unilateral Israeli attack is reduced significantly. The international community endorses this deal, and so Israel will find it really hard to use military power," said Yoel Guzansky, former head of the Iran desk in the prime minister's office and now a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

I can't possibly provide you the evidence Netanyahu might have and I am sure you know that. I can only do what you do Moon, and that is speculate as we did back and forth on both sides of the debate. In that sense, since we are both expressing opinions based on subjective speculation I would concede mine is no more valid than yours, its like arguing is the glass half empty or half full.

I did try explain why I do not have faith in Iran's current clergy council at this time.

I think with due respect if you or I lived next door to Hezbollah and Syria and within missile distance of Iran, our perspectives as to Iran would change.

Distance from the actual perceived danger makes it appear less dangerous than it might be.

That is the best I can say.

[bud]

the extremist are coming out. here is congressman low-IQ, calling to nuke iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHP1LXWOOoI

i wonder what kind of campaign donation he receives from AIPAC.

[Moonlight Graham]

I can't possibly provide you the evidence Netanyahu might have and I am sure you know that. I can only do what you do Moon, and that is speculate as we did back and forth on both sides of the debate. In that sense, since we are both expressing opinions based on subjective speculation I would concede mine is no more valid than yours, its like arguing is the glass half empty or half full.

Well then I'll argue just the facts. Sanctions and threat of war worked, and brought Iran to the table to reduce their potential and actual nuclear capabilities. Israel doesn't like it, they want 100% nuclear activity within Iran stopped. That's fine, but this deal is a good first step, and if the West wants to up negotiations to that level in the future then this diplomacy is a step to at least getting there in a way that avoids war.

[Hudson Jones]

Well then I'll argue just the facts. Sanctions and threat of war worked, and brought Iran to the table to reduce their potential and actual nuclear capabilities.

Unfortunately you have been duped by misinformation.

The Iranian government, headed by some of the same negotiators did offer pretty much the same thing to the P5+1. Most of the countries were on board but the U.S. wasn't. This was back in 2003 and Bush's two wars were still fresh. Bush and his people thought he had enough momentum that he could push the Iranian regime out of power as well. Bush had a lot of neo-cons around him, who engineered the war in Iraq and had plans to go to Iran as well.

So it was the U.S. government that rejected diplomacy and instead, Iran went from a few hundred centrifuges to over 16,000 today. All along, Iran has maintained that they want to continue to have the right to enrich uranium and according to the deal, they've been able to do that.

More on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html

So it wasn't the sanctions that did this. It was the new Iranian government who seem to be better communicators than Ahmadinejad and Obama's willingness to resist the pressure from the neo-cons and AIPAC. Could be because this is his last term and he has nothing to lose, as there is no election.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[Moonlight Graham]

So it wasn't the sanctions that did this. It was the new Iranian government who seem to be better communicators than Ahmadinejad and Obama's willingness to resist the pressure from the neo-cons and AIPAC. Could be because this is his last term and he has nothing to lose, as there is no election.

I think all 3 were factors, and Rouhani replacing that other dolt was probably the biggest reason since diplomacy could be more trusted.

[bud]

i would say the biggest reason was timing since iran has been offering the same deal all along. even ahmadinejad's offered the same thing to obama and obama didn't - or couldn't - make a deal.

Former Obama Advisor: Rouhani’s Nuclear Offer No Different Than Ahmadinejad’s

i would agree with moonlight that trust was a factor as well. ahmadinejad was simply not a negotiator. that and the fact that his reputation was pounded by the zionist PR machine. for example, ahmadinejad has been labeled as the guy who wanted to exterminate the jews (even though he never did say that). there was no way obama could deal with a guy with such a label or reputation. rouhani on the other hand, is new, fresh, smiley, with a reformist title and an active twitter account! not to mention he brought in zarif as the new foreign minister.

[GostHacked]

Well then I'll argue just the facts. Sanctions and threat of war worked, and brought Iran to the table to reduce their potential and actual nuclear capabilities. Israel doesn't like it, they want 100% nuclear activity within Iran stopped. That's fine, but this deal is a good first step, and if the West wants to up negotiations to that level in the future then this diplomacy is a step to at least getting there in a way that avoids war.

The sanctions affect the population first. The government and leaders will be the last ones to feel the effect. So the sanctions are infective in my view and only punish the people, not the leaders.

[Shady]

Well that was fast. But not really surprising. Iran has announced their intentions to develop a new generation of centrifuges that will allow them to enrich uranium faster and at higher levels, pretty much making the interm deal from a month ago completely moot. It even has Democrats looking to pass new sanctions now.

One of the president’s top Democratic allies is leading the charge for Congress to pass sanctions legislation, despite the president’s pleas to stand down. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez, D-N.J., told Fox News that the “Iranians are showing their true intentions” with their latest announcement.

“If you’re talking about producing more advanced centrifuges that are only used to enrich uranium at a quicker rate … the only purposes of that and the only reason you won’t give us access to [a military research facility] is because you’re really not thinking about nuclear power for domestic energy — you’re thinking about nuclear power for nuclear weapons,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/27/top-dem-presses-obama-on-iran-sanctions-after-centrifuge-announcement/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/27/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-progress

[bud]

Well that was fast. But not really surprising. Iran has announced their intentions to develop a new generation of centrifuges that will allow them to enrich uranium faster and at higher levels, pretty much making the interm deal from a month ago completely moot. It even has Democrats looking to pass new sanctions now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/27/top-dem-presses-obama-on-iran-sanctions-after-centrifuge-announcement/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/27/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-progress

typical shady. you obviously have not read the article you posted and have not studied the deal. iran can develop centrifuges as allowed under the deal.

also, what else do you expect from menendez, schumer and kirk? 3 of the top recipients of right-wing israeli donations.

[PIK]

You're all over the place and continue to become more incoherent.

You can be proud of your tribe and want the best for your tribe without violating other people's rights. Many Jews want the best for Israel, but not at the expense of other people's human rights. Why not strive to be a better person like them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWo5CBNe5LU

And the arabs worry about human rights , as I said before hudson 1,6 million arabs have politcal and religous freedoms and they all live in Israel. And to do with the Iranians and the deal............

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/index.html?hpt=po_c1

Edited January 23, 2014 by PIK

[Hudson Jones]

And the arabs worry about human rights , as I said before hudson 1,6 million arabs have politcal and religous freedoms and they all live in Israel.

First of all, the Arabs in Israel have less rights and are discriminated against in Israel. They are treated differently than Jews, both in the legal system and culturally. This has been shown time and time again.

Second, why the need to bring up the worst examples when there is criticism of Israel. What other countries do, does not justify what Israel does. Israel keeps saying that it's a model of democracy and that the IDF is the most moral army in the world. Their actions and their words never add up.

When a rapist is criticized, he should not be excused because there are other rapists or killers out there.

And to do with the Iranians and the deal............

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/index.html?hpt=po_c1

Not sure why you are posting that link, like it's some smoking gun that Iran is not abiding by the rules. It's important for you to read the articles you post. This not the first time you have posted something and try to make it look like it's something it is not. There is no requirement in the deal to 'dismantle' everything. It's all in the text and the article you are providing:

Zarif accused the Obama administration of creating a false impression with such language.

"The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again," he said, urging Sciutto to read the actual text of the agreement. "If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment."

He repeated that "we are not dismantling any centrifuges, we're not dismantling any equipment, we're simply not producing, not enriching over 5%."

"You don't need to over-emphasize it," Zarif said of the White House language. A separate summary sent out by the White House last week did not use the word dismantle.

[Rue]

This is in response to the following words of Hudson Jones:

1-First of all, the Arabs in Israel have less rights and are discriminated against in Israel. They are treated differently than Jews, both in the legal system and culturally. This has been shown time and time again.

2- Israel keeps saying that it's a model of democracy and that the IDF is the most moral army in the world. Their actions and their words never add up.

3-When a rapist is criticized, he should not be excused because there are other rapists or killers out there.

In regards to 1- you repeatedly have made this accusation but have yet to provide any evidence of this.

In regards to 2- no Israel has not but you in fact keep using this phrase as a justification to hold Israel to a different standard than any other country in the world. You NOT Israel are now suggest Israel says its superior to all other countries in the world and asks to held to a different standard. Show one passage where the Israeli government has said it shoudl be held to a double standard or has claimed ot be better than anyone else. Back up the accusation and prove it before you place it on this forum or admit its your projection and its you who made the concept up.

In regards to 3 if you choose hold one people to a different standard than the other people you claim they conflict with, then yes you should be criticized. That is illogical. Taking sides in a conflict and trying to depict one side as right and the other wrong and then inflamming that dialoge to portray the wrong side as rapists and child torturers as you have is not debate-its incitement of negative emotion for the side you don't agree with and I for one condemn such an exercise as not debating-simply baiting.

Your analogy of rape I now argue is nonsensical. Hamas, Hezbollah. Fatah Hawks, Mr. Abbas, The Syrian government, the Iran government the other 300 or so terror groups threatening to destroy Israel are not rape victims. Terrorists calling for Israel's destruction are not rape victims. Mr. Abbas is no rape victim.

Your use of deliberately inflammatory stereotypes and depictions of Israel as a rapist for defending itself one can also argue is you calling the rape victim a rapist if we are going to lower ourselves to that kind of inflammatory rhetoric.

Neither Israelis or Palestinians are rapists because they choose to want to live as a collective.

You now accuse Israel of being child torturers and couldn't stop there now you up the name calling with referring to them as rapists.

You once again demonstrate that you will use each and every one of these threads and posts as an opportunity to name call and try demonize all Israelis and anyone who supports Israel.

It is precisely because you continually throw out provocative insults designed to incite anger and hatred such as child torturer and rapist that you are criticize.

I again condemn your continuing to use this forum to call Israel and anyone who supports it child torturers, rapists and all the other names you continue to throw at it.

I challenge your right to demonize Israel and supporters of Israel and pose it as a political discussion.

Israelis are not rapists. Your decision to use that choice of words is irresponsible.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Rue

[bud]

This is in response to the following words of Hudson Jones:

In regards to 1- you repeatedly have made this accusation but have yet to provide any evidence of this.

b.s.

when you start out your post with that statement, the rest of your drivel does not warrant a response.

i and others have posted the many examples of the discriminatory laws in israel. from citizenship, to land ownership to educational funds allocation. the discrimination is across the board.

Discriminatory Laws in Israel

here is a link that lists the Currently Pending Discriminatory Bills in the 19th Israeli Knesset