The real apartheid state.

[peter grimes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think any person of Jewish ancestry qualifies for Israeli citizenship. If that's the case, we could very well characterize the policy as a "Jewish Right of Return".

 

[H4run]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think any person of Jewish ancestry qualifies for Israeli citizenship. If that's the case, we could very well characterize the policy as a "Jewish Right of Return".

And the "Palestinian Right to Stay" is pretty much conflicting the "Jewish Right of Return" according to one of the poster in this forum. At one point we need to make the "Palestinian Right to Bog Off!", they can go somewhere to other Arab-state, there are so many option you know.

Can we now move on and start to support the native American movement on creating native american state in America? because you see, they also need a state and a political platform. Also Aborigine state in Australia. The white European American and Australian non-native can bog off to other white European state where they belong to, because there are already quite many European state you know.

 

[Formaldehyde]

He was teaching that racism was wrong. So I think it's pretty clear.

You just stated the absurd notion that the N- word isn't a pejorative anyplace but the US. You then apparently used your "teacher" using the word as an example of this.

So which is it? And where was this "teacher" located?

Well, not in the Middle East. And that's not what I've said. I've been arguing against the idea that all Jews need is a "safeplace" and not the right to govern ourselves.

Jews lived quite successfully in the Middle East without any real issues for thousands of years prior to the creation of Israel. And they continue to do so in many areas. It was the creation of Israel and the exodus of many Jews from other Middle Eastern countries which caused the problems.

But why do you think they need a "safeplace" now that antisemitism is a mere shadow of what it was when Israel was first created?

Sure. But it's kind of hard to fit eleven million Palestinians into the same ten thousand square miles that six million Jews are living in. Similarly, if all the Jews of the world decided to emigrate to Israel tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to take them without kicking out the remaining Palestinians.

Why should Jews have preferential treatment to move to a country where they are not natives while the actual natives are "kicked out" to supposedly make room for them?

 

[Mouthwash]

I cannot see why Palestinians would want to move to Israel to a greater extent than Jews. Six million already live in areas under Israeli control. Nearly a million live in the west including 255000 in the US. That leaves about four million in various Arab states. Of those about 2.3 million are registered as refugees.

So there are 2.3million Palestinians who maybe better off if they moved into Israeli controlled territory. But if there are no jobs or housing for them there is not going to be a strong desire to swap one refugee camp for another.

You're right that not every single one of them will want to return, especially those in Western countries, but the Right of Return applies to all of them and their descendants. The vast majority of Palestinians in the Middle East, refugees or not, are still waiting for a glorious return to Palestine after the Zionist entity crumbles (Jordanian-Palestinians might be an exception, but not wholly).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think any person of Jewish ancestry qualifies for Israeli citizenship. If that's the case, we could very well characterize the policy as a "Jewish Right of Return".

Yes, but the issue is that Jews still have room within the pre-1967 borders to settle and live. Even if the Palestinians were to be given a right of return to only the West Bank or Gaza, an extra million would be enough to turn both of them into overpopulated slums on the order of Egypt or Bangladesh (as if Gaza isn't already). On the same principle, if millions of Jews decided to do Aliyah today, Israel wouldn't be able to take more than a few hundred thousand.

You just stated the absurd notion that the N- word isn't a pejorative anyplace but the US. You then apparently used your "teacher" using the word as an example of this.

So which is it? And where was this "teacher" located?

My teacher referred to blacks as n*****s. He was teaching us that the domination of whites over the "n*****s" was wrong and that racism was destructive. Therefore, I made the obvious leap and deduced that the N-word isn't a pejorative in Israel.

Why should Jews have preferential treatment to move to a country where they are not natives while the actual natives are "kicked out" to supposedly make room for them?

Not what I said.

The Journal of Palestine Studies (which is published by the University of California Press) response to the claim that the first quote is a fake can be found here. Among other things, the JPS notes that the letter can be found in Hebrew in the collection of the Ben-Gurion Archives Online. JPS also notes that other Israeli historians including Ben-Gurion biographers Shabtai Teveth have used the quote.

First, the claim that other (i.e. serious) Israeli historians have used the quote is a lie. They've quoted from the letter, but they certainly aren't in consensus that the quote "We must expel Arabs and take their place" was ever made. (Ben-Gurion's biographers in particular, including Teveth, have denied it).

Second, how about CAMERA's very thorough response to JPS's response?

The source for the third quote can be found in the April 1, 1988 edition of the New York Times. I have provided a link to it here. I think the quotation is little problematic because it's hard to reconstruct how precisely the quote looked given that it's broken up across different paragraphs. Does the grasshopper quip follow or precede the desire to dash people's heads against walls? Who knows. But I'd suggest that a plain reading of the context in which the first paragraph is written strongly implies that the two quotes are linked and taken from the same speech. I'll leave that one up to the readers to decide. But I think we can say with quiet confidence that the quote was not a fake. It might be forced. But it is nevertheless an accurate summation of the sentiments that Mr Shamir expressed.

I should remind you that the original alleged quote, which you are defending, is "(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." This appears to convey almost genocidal intention.

The Nytimes page which you linked to yourself quotes Shamir as saying:

Anybody who wants to damage this fortress and other fortresses we are establishing will have his head smashed against the boulders and walls.

A pretty provocative quote, but clearly aimed at would-be attackers of the site.

The next part is:

We say to them from the heights of this mountain and from the perspective of thousands of years of history that they are like grasshoppers compared to us.

You did not quote this. You quoted the over-the-top lede. Shamir compared the rioters to grasshoppers in the metaphorical sense; he meant that the Intifada was nothing compared to what the Jews had already endured over millennia.

So interpret it however you can, stretch the limits of the imagination; it doesn't even come close.

The second quote is also accurate. The article was indeed published on October 23, 1979 by the NYT which can be found here. The article reports that Yitzhak Rabin was barred from including in his memoirs a first hand account of the expulsion of Palestinian civilians from Lydda and Ramle in 1948 by a Council of Isreali Ministers. In his uncensored reminiscences, Mr Rabin talks about how the final decision was made by David Ben-Gurion with a wave of his hand which Mr Rabin took to mean to mean to "drive them out". Mr Rabin is quoted as saying that he "was puzzled" by the decision to bar publication and that he had to "obey because I can't violate the law of the country". The unexpurgated account was leaked to the NYT's reporter David Shipler by the Israeli journalist Peretz Kidron who translated the original uncensored text into English.

This is apparently real, but taken massively out of context by haroon. It doesn't refer to the Palestinan population as a whole; simply the populations of Lydda and Ramle. The Jewish commanders were worried about about leaving them squat in the middle of their supply routes.

Let's address a bigger concern now: why you chose to intervene after I called the quotes fake and then devote a full three paragraphs to proving them accurate. Could it have been to prompt a discussion about the attitude or nature of Zionism? That obviously isn't the case; there isn't anything there to discuss. Were you doing it for the sake of simple historical accuracy, and not out of any desire to smear Israel or Israelis? If so, it seems you should have distanced yourself from haroon's attempt to cast Israel as a fascist or racist state, which is clearly bound up in the context of his quotes. Could it have been, then, that you're actually in agreement with haroon? But you've said yourself (on multiple occasions, in fact), that you are rather pro-Israel. So, there's only one theory that can account for your rebuttal: you are a quasi-clever troll. Clever because of how easily you manage to manipulate the debate, attack ideologies, and harass members precisely when they expect it least. I say quasi because if that's what you're doing, it's pretty transparent, at least from the perspective of someone prepared to do even the most basic investigation into your claims.

Assuming it is like that, as you had said, but those notion are really fitted with what mouthwash addressed, for instance I cannot distinguish between this:

My entire point was that neither side can fit their entire Diasporas back into Palestine/Israel without dispossessing the other. I didn't say that, should all Jews emigrate, we ought to kick the rest of the Palestinians out to make room; I said we wouldn't be able to take the immigrants without doing so. And I don't think there's any justification for kicking out Palestinians today.

with the subtle intention to wash off Palestinian in the "Jewish exclusive" state because the Palestinian are a disloyal potential fifth columnist, even though it is only an assumption without fact but that is enough for a reason indeed (I edit this to make it more readable), because the real reason of course is not that, loyal or disloyal doesn't make any different.

Why is it an assumption? Most Israelis who see Israeli-Arabs as a fifth column take their views from terrorist horror stories or sentiments that they themselves observe over their lives, especially those of the Arab Knesset-members.

And it is good he speak it loudly, proudly and straight forwardly. And still he refuse to admit himself to be a racist for stating that the Palestinian have no place within "exclusively Jewish" state hence must be kicked out when the Jewish population become fatter, why is that?

This is a lie; I think Arabs of any sort have their place in Israeli society. I just don't think the same for Palestinian nationalists who refuse to recognize Israel or serve in the IDF.

because it is a Jewish state, as the priority is clearly stated, Jewish state not other race state. That itself is quite an apartheid statement, and that made me wonder why I don't see the anti-Apartheid champion here aka CH? I think this fact is against his political interest, lets wait until the Palestinian do a small silly mistake or until the media twist some event then his mouth will be wide open screaming how the evil Palestinian persecuted the zionist Jews.

Small silly mistakes add up.

 

[peter grimes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think any person of Jewish ancestry qualifies for Israeli citizenship. If that's the case, we could very well characterize the policy as a "Jewish Right of Return".

Yes, but the issue is that Jews still have room within the pre-1967 borders to settle and live. Even if the Palestinians were to be given a right of return to only the West Bank or Gaza, an extra million would be enough to turn both of them into overpopulated slums on the order of Egypt or Bangladesh (as if Gaza isn't already). On the same principle, if millions of Jews decided to do Aliyah today, Israel wouldn't be able to take more than a few hundred thousand.

But that's not the issue with the Right Of Return. the RoR is about settling *inside* the 1967 borders, not to "only the West Bank or Gaza". If Israel can easily handle 1,000,000 immigrants within the 1967 borders, then those slots should be preferentially granted to the Palestinians or their descendants who were forcibly evicted in order to settle Europeans of Jewish ancestry, no?

I mean, what's fair here?

And if Israel can only take a "few hundred thousand", isn't that better than taking none?

I think so.

And honestly that sort of program would do wonders to raise the reputation of Israel among non-extremist americans. Most of the US is highly skeptical of Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians. Which means that AIPAC has to spend that much more on lobbying in order to sway policy makers towards their point of view over the objections of constituents...

Seems like a smart business move, but what do I know

 

[Mouthwash]

But that's not the issue with the Right Of Return. the RoR is about settling *inside* the 1967 borders, not to "only the West Bank or Gaza". If Israel can easily handle 1,000,000 immigrants within the 1967 borders, then those slots should be preferentially granted to the Palestinians or their descendants who were forcibly evicted in order to settle Europeans of Jewish ancestry, no?

First, the terms "Jews of European ancestry" would be more accurate, not the least because they were Jewish nationalists and being defined as primarily European would be offensive and racist. Second, a right of return to only the Palestinian territories has been seriously proposed, so I thought it merited refuting as well. Third, no, Israel can't easily handle an extra million immigrants; I just said it can barely handle a few hundred thousand. Finally, a million Palestinians within the pre-1967 borders would transform Israel into a binational state and negate any kind of national unity it has; all four million Palestinians would transform it into the inverse of what it is now- an Arab state with a substantial Jewish minority.

Enough for you?

 

[Domen]

Can we now move on and start to support the native American movement on creating native american state in America?

Why not. There is even a particular area where such a thing could work - borderlands of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado:

http://postimg.org/image/40elrhr6p/full/

 

[Domen]

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

But they did not expel Arabs and did not take their places.

If they did, there would be no Arabs in Israel today.

There are more Arab countries than Jewish countries.

AFAIK, after WW2 there were talks concerning possibility of a second (or first, instead of Israel?) Jewish state in what is now Kaliningrad Oblast.

But in the end the idea was rejected (I'm not sure how and why) and Kaliningrad Oblast was colonized by Russians rather than Jews.

Before WW2 (actually already before WW1) there were talks concerning a Jewish state in Madagascar. That idea was supported both by Jewish nationalists, and by Anti-Semites - only each side supported it for different reasons. And of course it as well had support from some other groups, being neither of the two.

Check this wiki article:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Jewish_state

Kaliningrad Oblast was later offered by Stalin to Lithuanian SSR - but they rejected that gift, because they didn't want to have a huge Russian minority (?).

A similar Russian gift was Crimea, given to Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev.

=====================

To these who complain about Israel:

In his autobiographical novel A Tale of Love and Darkness, Israeli writer Amos Oz recounted his father's account of how the walls in Europe were covered in graffiti saying “Jews, go to Palestine," but when he reached Palestine, the walls were scrawled with the words “Jews, get out of Palestine.”[36]

BTW:

Some of Orthodox Jews actually believe, that Jews should not return to Palestine "until the end of the world."

 

[Mouthwash]

Before WW2 (actually already before WW1) there were talks concerning a Jewish state in Madagascar. That idea was supported both by Jewish nationalists

I don't believe that there could have been widespread support for this among Zionists. It's like asking Poles if Germany could annex back the Ziemie Odzyskane in exchange for French Guiana.

 

[peter grimes]

First, the terms "Jews of European ancestry" would be more accurate, not the least because they were Jewish nationalists and being defined as primarily European would be offensive and racist. Second, a right of return to only the Palestinian territories has been seriously proposed, so I thought it merited refuting as well. Third, no, Israel can't easily handle an extra million immigrants; I just said it can barely handle a few hundred thousand. Finally, a million Palestinians within the pre-1967 borders would transform Israel into a binational state and negate any kind of national unity it has; all four million Palestinians would transform it into the inverse of what it is now- an Arab state with a substantial Jewish minority.

Enough for you?

So if Israel can't handle 1,000,000 immigrants why do they have such a flagrantly permissive immigration policy? Is it not true that any European, African, Asian, or American of Jewish descent automatically qualifies for Israeli citizenship? If this is the case, then the policy implies that Israel assumes there is plenty of room for millions of emigrants.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

If Israel can't absorb 1,000,000 immigrants, then what's the maximum number it *could* accept? What's the maximum ratio of Israeli Arabs to non-Levant Jews that could be tolerated? And why would it automatically be a bad thing if Israel became an Arab democracy with a powerful Jewish minority? I really don't understand the objection.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Some of Orthodox Jews actually believe, that Jews should not return to Palestine "until the end of the world."

It would be more accurate to say "until the end of the age" rather than "until the end of the world." The world will go on existing, although it will be greatly changed.

The Orthodox position is that it is sinful for mere human beings to rush god and try to establish a Jewish State on their own. Instead, they are supposed to wait for the Messianic Age, when the Lord's anointed will restore Israel as a Kingdom and bring it to a level of moral perfection that all the nations of the world will seek to emulate. There will also be a place for righteous gentiles in the kingdom, whereas ethnic Jews who reject the Torah will be cut off.


I don't know of any Jews who believe that it is wrong for an individual Jew to move back to the holy land. Most religious Jews consider it a very good thing to live in the land of Israel, and highly recommend that their fellow Jews move there if possible even though this Mitzvah is not compulsory during the diaspora.


Moving to the land of Palestine is however very different from supporting Zionism. Zionism is a Nationalist movement whose leaders valued the ethnic Jewish identity over the religious one. Many of the early Zionists were atheists, or had even supported mass conversion of Jews to Christianity. Devout Orthodox Jews were very much opposed to Zionism at the start. Some have since accepted it, but others hold firm that Jews must not recognize the legitimacy of any Jewish State.

 

[Mouthwash]

So if Israel can't handle 1,000,000 immigrants why do they have such a flagrantly permissive immigration policy? Is it not true that any European, African, Asian, or American of Jewish descent automatically qualifies for Israeli citizenship? If this is the case, then the policy implies that Israel assumes there is plenty of room for millions of emigrants.

Not really, no. We have such a permissive policy because we need Jewish immigrants right now. Your objection is like saying that fractional reverse banking doesn't really exist because it would make it impossible for a bank to fulfill its obligations. Technically true, not related to real life.

If Israel can't absorb 1,000,000 immigrants, then what's the maximum number it *could* accept?

Dunno. Probably somewhere in the hundreds of thousands, like I said. And not all at once.

What's the maximum ratio of Israeli Arabs to non-Levant Jews that could be tolerated?

Why do you emphasize "non-Levantine Jews?" There are plenty of Israeli Jews from Syria or Iraq. If you're referring to regular old Jews, I'd say we need to hold a majority of around 70% percent at least.

And why would it automatically be a bad thing if Israel became an Arab democracy with a powerful Jewish minority?

Because it would take away Jewish self-determination?

The Orthodox position is that it is sinful for mere human beings to rush god and try to establish a Jewish State on their own.

Orthodox is not the same thing as Haredi.

 

[Masada]

This is going to be a long post. But I'm going to try and break this down into nice digestible chunks. Here's what Mouthwash originally said:

First and third quotes are old and tired and have been repeatedly shown to be fake. Couldn't find anything about the second after a quick search, but I won't lose sleep over it.

I responded with a post which showed that the quotes were not fake. I admitted that I had some reservations about the third because I thought the quote might have been forced, given that it wasn't clear how it all fit together in the context of the large speech that Yitzhak Shamir delivered. However, I concluded that it was not out of step with the incendiary tones of the speech Shamir delivered. I would ask that people keep what Mouthwash first said about the quotes (that they have repeatedly shown to be fake) while reading Mouthwash's second response to mine:

First, the claim that other (i.e. serious) Israeli historians have used the quote is a lie. They've quoted from the letter, but they certainly aren't in consensus that the quote "We must expel Arabs and take their place" was ever made. (Ben-Gurion's biographers in particular, including Teveth, have denied it).

I'm just going to recap the exchange between CAMERA and JPS. In brief:

(1) CAMERA claimed that this quote "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war" by Ilan Pappé in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine could not be verified in either of the two sources provided for it and was a fake. CAMERA furthermore alleged that both the soft and hardcover versions carried this fabricated quote.
(2) The JPS noted that CAMERA's claim was incorrect and that the error was only to be found in the hardcover and that it resulted not from quote invention but from a rather simple mistake. What had read "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war" should have read “The Arabs will have to go,” but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war. In short, Pappé had placed his quotation mark in the wrong place. Noting this error, JPS confirmed that Pappé's sources did include the truncated quote and that subsequent editions of the book had made the change.
(3) CAMERA having lost out on this then adopted new arguments to attack Pappé's credibility. In simple terms, CAMERA noted that there exist two versions of the letter that Pappe cited. The first and the one he quoted was a typed transcription made after the original. It was this document that JPS used to confirm Pappé's citation. CAMERA noted two problems with this: the first was that the typed note and the original handwritten note were not quite the same (more on this later) while the second issue relates to the translation used by JPS was "substantively" manipulated by "inventing and inserting words that Ben-Gurion did not actually write. I'm not much interested in the claims made against JPS because they aren't relevant to Pappé quote which is the issue here.
(5) This leads us into a point about which is the "true" version of the letters. JPS as I've noted used the first version; while CAMERA used the second. Here's what JPS translation of the first says:

We must expel Arabs and take their place. Up to now all of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel]. But if we will have to use force, not for the sake of evicting the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but rather in order to secure the right that belongs to us to settle there, force will be available to us.

And here's what the translation according to CAMERA of the second document is:

We do not want to and we do not have to expel Arabs and take their place. All of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land [of Israel] — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel]. And if we will have to use force, not for the sake of evicting the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but rather in order to secure the right that belongs to us to settle there, force will be available to us.

As can be seen, the intent of the text changes. But this translation is only possible by including the marked part of the scribble seen here. As one might expect the scribbles have caused a lot of problems. As I don't speak Hebrew I can't speak to the accuracy of CAMERA's interpretation of the scribble or its contemporaneous attack on JPS's translation of the first first document. But CAMERA itself admits that the passage has caused scholars serious issues. CAMERA cites Benny Morris using the first version of the text and reading it in the same way as Pappé in his Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem first published in 1987 ("We must expel"). Morris then seems to have discovered the second version of the text in which Ben-Gurion says "We do not want to and we do not have to expel" and added that to his 1991 Hebrew version of the same work. But in his 1996 Morris goes on record saying that the additions were added by Gen Gurion at later date or were scribbled on by someone else and that his original 1987 interpretation was accurate ("We must expel"). In 1998 in the JPS Morris went on record to say that the quote was problematic and that it was unclear what Ben Gurion was saying and who had made the changes. In April 2012 Morris had again changed his view when contacted by CAMERA and said that he "now guesses that Ben-Gurion mistakenly erased the key words, intending only to erase what preceded it". Moreover, Teveth who Mouthwash claims said the quote was "fake" says absolutely nothing about it in the CAMERA article. In fact he included the shortened version in his English version of his book but states that this was because the English version had to be shorter. This seems to suggest that he didn't think there was much difference between the quotes. Bar-Zohar another scholar who is supposed to have used the quote states that "There is no doubt in my mind that Ben-Gurion never wrote the sentence: 'We must expel the Arabs and take their place'" but doesn't go on to say the quote is fake.

I guess to sum up, the quote isn't a fake. The version presented by haroon is problematic because of a punctuation mistake. Nor does this seem deliberate because the error was corrected in the next edition before CAMERA had even gotten involved. Nor does the mistake doesn't alter the context of the quote. Now I think it's safe to say that there are different versions of the quote and that the second handwritten original is now accepted as being a better source. But in 2006 it is not clear that there was this level of scholarly consensus. To the contrary, the closest source CAMERA cites to the release of Pappé's is Morris' admission that the quote is "problematic" and that "it was unclear who was responsible for the scribbles, or what Ben-Gurion's intent was when writing the passage." Teveth also seems not to have had a strong view about the issue because he used both versions. This means that the worst that can be said of Pappé is that he may not have disclosed the controversy surrounding the use of the quote. I think it's reasonable to suppose that Pappé might not have thought the quote was all that controversial given that nobody, it seems, had decided to retract their support for it. Nor might I note has anyone cited by CAMERA called the quote a fake.

I should remind you that the original alleged quote, which you are defending, is "(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." This appears to convey almost genocidal intention.

On to the third quote. All I did was find a source for this quote. Mouthwash hadn't made a claim about its accuracy at all. In actual fact he couldn't even find it. In my response I noted I had some issues with the construction of this quote. I also noted that "a plain reading of the context in which the first paragraph is written strongly implies that the two quotes are linked and taken from the same speech" but that I'd leave it up to the reader to decide whether that was a fair call or not. Having looked further into the issue and the discussion that swirled around the quote, I see no reason to change my view. Why? Because the disclaimer I put in, part of which I've repeated, quite clearly shows that I'm aware of the difficulties in using the quote.

I think the quotation is little problematic because it's hard to reconstruct how precisely the quote looked given that it's broken up across different paragraphs. Does the grasshopper quip follow or precede the desire to dash people's heads against walls? Who knows. But I'd suggest that a plain reading of the context in which the first paragraph is written strongly implies that the two quotes are linked and taken from the same speech. I'll leave that one up to the readers to decide. But I think we can say with quiet confidence that the quote was not a fake. It might be forced. But it is nevertheless an accurate summation of the sentiments that Mr Shamir expressed.

Given that, I think Mouthwash's claim that my interpretation of the quote "strech[es] the limits of the imagination and "doesn't even come close" to what it actually means is unfair and emblematic of a more troubling approach he uses to defend Israel (more on this below).

This is apparently real, but taken massively out of context by haroon. It doesn't refer to the Palestinan population as a whole; simply the populations of Lydda and Ramle. The Jewish commanders were worried about about leaving them squat in the middle of their supply routes.

Mouthwash agrees with this point. But I note that he has to couch his acceptance in language which justifies ethnic cleansing. I don't think this is defensible and even if we were to accept that it was, I fail to see how the military exigencies of 1948 justify the Israeli government's refusal to allow those they ejected to return. This also feeds into the issue I flagged about how Mouthwash engages with people who question Israel in any way, shape or form.

**

Now for a bit of disclosure. I support the right of an Israeli state to exist on the borders it was given in 1968. This is consistent with the views of the Australian Government. I wish the Israeli Government and Israeli people all the best and think that the establishment of a durable peace between Israel and Palestine will have to include concessions on both sides. I do object to the construction of settlements in the West Bank which are recognized as being illegal and which I hold are a major reason peace cannot be attained. I also think Israeli domestic politics is a basket-case and that the growth of the right is very concerning. But I also accept that Israel has as right to defend itself with proportional force and that Hezbollah should have to drop its commitment to wiping Israel out. I'll stop at this point and just go on to note that the issue is complicated but that I'm broadly speaking pro-Israeli in my outlook. I don't believe there's really a need to talk about these views but I just thought I'd give the reader a chance to acquaint themselves with my views and where I stand. Now let's look at how Mouthwash views this discussion:

Let's address a bigger concern now: why you chose to intervene after I called the quotes fake and then devote a full three paragraphs to proving them accurate. Could it have been to prompt a discussion about the attitude or nature of Zionism? That obviously isn't the case; there isn't anything there to discuss. Were you doing it for the sake of simple historical accuracy, and not out of any desire to smear Israel or Israelis? If so, it seems you should have distanced yourself from haroon's attempt to cast Israel as a fascist or racist state, which is clearly bound up in the context of his quotes. Could it have been, then, that you're actually in agreement with haroon?

Now lets just make this clear: Mouthwash knows I'm pro-Israeli. He's even linked to a citation to show that I am. He knows all of this. We've literally had arguments where and other pro-Isreali posters have expressed frustration because of Mouthwash's fondness for extreme positions. So much so that's managed to make other posters reassess their views on Israel. But none of this matters because Mouthwash has insinuated that I could be an anti-Semite out to "smear Israel and Israelis". This is an insinuation I find offensive and disgusting at a lot of levels.

But you've said yourself (on multiple occasions, in fact), that you are rather pro-Israel. So, there's only one theory that can account for your rebuttal: you are a quasi-clever troll. Clever because of how easily you manage to manipulate the debate, attack ideologies, and harass members precisely when they expect it least. I say quasi because if that's what you're doing, it's pretty transparent, at least from the perspective of someone prepared to do even the most basic investigation into your claims.

It's at this point that Mouthwash changes tact because he knows that the charge of Antisemitism won't stick. So he chickens out and buries an absolution of my supposed Antisemitism halfway down the paragraph. Instead, he just claims that I'm a "quasi-clever troll" because I "manipulate debate" (what does this mean?), "harass members" (an infractable offence) and that this is all a rather "transparent" plot on my part which can be confirmed by "even the most basic investigation into your claims" (I am yet to receive an infraction for this, I might add). As we've seen, I was quite upfront in my response and didn't make half the arguments Mouthwash lashed out at. But let's ask ourselves some questions: is responding to Mouthwash's post in a polite fashion evidence of trolling? Is this trolling transparent? If it is where are the infractions? And if it's true that I "harass members" where are the infractions for this? For that matter where is the proof for this at all? In short, there is none. And this folks is what you get for even trying to engage with Mouthwash on just about any issue under the damned sun. Personal attacks and flip comments.

 

[Crezth]

Let's address a bigger concern now: why you chose to intervene after I called the quotes fake and then devote a full three paragraphs to proving them accurate. Could it have been to prompt a discussion about the attitude or nature of Zionism? That obviously isn't the case; there isn't anything there to discuss. Were you doing it for the sake of simple historical accuracy, and not out of any desire to smear Israel or Israelis? If so, it seems you should have distanced yourself from haroon's attempt to cast Israel as a fascist or racist state, which is clearly bound up in the context of his quotes. Could it have been, then, that you're actually in agreement with haroon?

Mouthwash more like Sherlock Holmes.

 

[H4run]

Why not. There is even a particular area where such a thing could work - borderlands of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado:

Spoiler :

http://postimg.org/image/40elrhr6p/full/

Spoiler :

Domen, I'm talking about splitting North America into two piece, half of it own by the populous white American, the other half belong to the natives American. And when the white American who are more and larger in number start to rebel and launch a war to take their right, at that time we empower the natives nation and let them to expand and occupy the white American territory, until the white European fanatic been corner to the north, and after that they can bog off to Europe. Something like that.

Let's address a bigger concern now: why you chose to intervene after I called the quotes fake and then devote a full three paragraphs to proving them accurate. Could it have been to prompt a discussion about the attitude or nature of Zionism? That obviously isn't the case; there isn't anything there to discuss. Were you doing it for the sake of simple historical accuracy, and not out of any desire to smear Israel or Israelis? If so, it seems you should have distanced yourself from haroon's attempt to cast Israel as a fascist or racist state, which is clearly bound up in the context of his quotes. Could it have been, then, that you're actually in agreement with haroon?

Masada just stating that the quotation that I quoted is true, don't make it dramatic and accuse him for what he is not. Just stick with what he stated without trying to uncover his hidden intention or agenda or whatever it is to dismantle his true argument.

Yes I thought Israel is a fascist government, and I don't need to defend myself about my feeling regarding Jews, I don't have any tiny ill feeling regarding Jews even I interest with their culture, however I despise Zionist and Zionism, and anti-Zionism doesn't mean anti-Jews, look at the line of Jewish scholarship themselves who actually quite rabbit with Zionism, if you want to call also those Jews (Finklestein, Chomsky, etc) are anti-semite, be my guess then.

Here where I differ with Masada, so argue honestly, you don't need to manipulte and steer up the argument to the personal level.

Sure. But it's kind of hard to fit eleven million Palestinians into the same ten thousand square miles that six million Jews are living in. Similarly, if all the Jews of the world decided to emigrate to Israel tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to take them without kicking out the remaining Palestinians.

What is the meaning of this mw? when Form state

Why should Jews have preferential treatment to move to a country where they are not natives while the actual natives are "kicked out" to supposedly make room for them?

You said that's not true,

when I said that mean when the Jewish population becoming fatter the Zionist must kick out (sic) the Palestinian in order to make a room for the first class new comer, that's also not true. So what does it mean?

and how can you distinguish between the loyal Palestinian with the potentially rebel one (the one that you want to kick out)? do you take an assumption similar like the discussion in the Historical forum regarding the Mexican?

Like:

To think all the Palestinian are potentially terrorist is racist, but to point out the Palestinian have a potential to be terrorist is a common sense (seriously I really don't get the way you are thinking)? So all the Palestinian have a potential to be terrorist, hence all of them at the end deserve to be kick out, this is not by assumption! but by empirical horror experience of the persecution of the Jews under the brutal Palestinian.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Mouthwash, you were doing fine until you turned your post into needless name calling. Adding such comments only diminish your previously built credibility. Name calling is inappropriate.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Let's address a bigger concern now: why you chose to intervene after I called the quotes fake and then devote a full three paragraphs to proving them accurate. Could it have been to prompt a discussion about the attitude or nature of Zionism? That obviously isn't the case; there isn't anything there to discuss. Were you doing it for the sake of simple historical accuracy, and not out of any desire to smear Israel or Israelis? If so, it seems you should have distanced yourself from haroon's attempt to cast Israel as a fascist or racist state, which is clearly bound up in the context of his quotes. Could it have been, then, that you're actually in agreement with haroon? But you've said yourself (on multiple occasions, in fact), that you are rather pro-Israel. So, there's only one theory that can account for your rebuttal: you are a quasi-clever troll. Clever because of how easily you manage to manipulate the debate, attack ideologies, and harass members precisely when they expect it least. I say quasi because if that's what you're doing, it's pretty transparent, at least from the perspective of someone prepared to do even the most basic investigation into your claims.

 

[classical_hero]

That is the past.

When Israel was ethnically cleansing the Palestinians in the 40s, 50 and 60s Western countries had behaved in similar ways in the recent past.

That is no longer acceptable in western countries.

Israel wants to be viewed as a western country and it largely is apart from its treatment of the Palestinians. If Israel was to start ethnically cleansing the Palestinians again it would lose nearly all support and so would be effectively be the suicide of the nation is currently constituted. So as I said above it is not going to happen unless Israel is taken over by mad men.

What should have happened after the war was what happened in Germany/Poland and Pakistan/India where population transfers took place. After all the Balfour declaration was meant that the Jews were to have a homeland will before the Holocaust ever happened. Let's not forget that under Muslim Rule Jerusalem was basically just a minor insignificant town that was neglected and had a significant Jewish population.

But I have a question for you. Is it acceptable that right now that abut 90% of Arab nations have no Jewish population and Gaza where Jews have had an historical connection to the land now is Judenfrei. Th e Thing is that Israel is most definitely not Arab free since it has a sizeable Arab population who are treated far better than Arabs are treated in their own countries, especially if they are Palestinian. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1422/palestinians-in-arab-world

When was the last time the United Nations Security Council met to condemn an Arab government for its mistreatment of Palestinians?

How come groups and individuals on university campuses in the US and Canada that call themselves "pro-Palestinian" remain silent when Jordan revokes the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians?

The plight of Palestinians living in Arab countries in general, and Lebanon in particular, is one that is often ignored by the mainstream media in West.

How come they turn a blind eye to the fact that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and many more Arab countries continue to impose severe travel restrictions on Palestinians?

And where do these groups and individuals stand regarding the current debate in Lebanon about whether to grant Palestinians long-denied basic rights, including employment, social security and medical care?

Or have they not heard about this debate at all? Probably not, since the case has failed to draw the attention of most Middle East correspondents and commentators.

A news story on the Palestinians that does not include an anti-Israel angle rarely makes it to the front pages of Western newspapers.

The demolition of an Arab-owned illegal building in Jerusalem is, for most of these correspondents, much more important than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon continue to suffer from a series of humiliating restrictions.

Not only are Palestinians living in Lebanon denied the right to own property, but they also do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs.

Can someone imagine what would be the reaction in the international community if Israel tomorrow passed a law that prohibits its Arab citizens from working as taxi drivers, journalists, physicians, cooks, waiters, engineers and lawyers? Or if the Israeli Ministry of Education issued a directive prohibiting Arab children from enrolling in universities and schools?

But who said that the Lebanese authorities have not done anything to "improve" the situation? In fact, the Palestinians living in that country should be grateful to the Lebanese government.

Until 2005, the law prohibited Palestinians from working in 72 professions. Now the list of jobs has been reduced to 50.

Still, Palestinians are not allowed to work as physicians, journalists, pharmacists or lawyers in Lebanon.

Ironically, it is much easier for a Palestinian to acquire American and Canadian citizenship than a passport of an Arab country. In the past, Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were even entitled to Israeli citizenship if they married an Israeli citizen, or were reunited with their families inside the country.

Lebanese politicians are now debating new legislation that would grant "civil rights" to Palestinians for the first time in 62 years. The new bill includes the right to own property, social security payments and medical care.

Many Lebanese are said to be opposed to the legislation out of fear that it would pave the way for the integration of Palestinians into their society and would constitute a burden to the economy.

The heated debate has prompted parliament to postpone a vote on the bill until next month.

Nadim Khoury, director of Human Rights Watch in Beirut, said, "Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long and the parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians."

Rami Khouri, a prominent Lebanese journalist, wrote in The Daily Star that "all Arab countries mistreat millions of Arab, Asian and African foreign guest workers, who often are treated little better than chattel or indentured laborers…The mistreatment, abysmal living conditions and limited work, social security and property rights of the Palestinians [in Lebanon] are a lingering moral black mark."

Foreign journalists often justify their failure to report on the suffering of Palestinians in the Arab world by citing "security concerns" and difficulty in obtaining an entry visa into an Arab country.

But these are weak and unacceptable excuses given the fact that most of them could still write about these issues from their safe offices and homes in New York, London and Paris. Isn't that what most of them are anyway doing when they are write about the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Now that is apartheid right there that it is in the legal code, whereas Arabs in Israel have the same rights and this is the hypocrisy with many in the West that they claim Israel is and apartheid state when there are no legal objections to Arab Israelis and yet many Arab nations do have apartheid type legislation for treatment of certain groups.
ews lived quite successfully in the Middle East without any real issues for thousands of years prior to the creation of Israel. And they continue to do so in many areas. It was the creation of Israel and the exodus of many Jews from other Middle Eastern countries which caused the problems.

But why do you think they need a "safeplace" now that antisemitism is a mere shadow of what it was when Israel was first created?

Why should Jews have preferential treatment to move to a country where they are not natives while the actual natives are "kicked out" to supposedly make room for them?[/QUOTE]You obviously haven't studied history otherwise you wouldn't have said such rubbish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews#Muslim_and_Arab_antisemitism From the Beginning of the creation of Islam it has been terrible news for Jews. They might have had "safety" as long as they knew their place as second class citizens, so your statement is absolutely laughable.

And it is good he speak it loudly, proudly and straight forwardly. And still he refuse to admit himself to be a racist for stating that the Palestinian have no place within "exclusively Jewish" state hence must be kicked out when the Jewish population become fatter, why is that? because it is a Jewish state, as the priority is clearly stated, Jewish state not other race state. That itself is quite an apartheid statement, and that made me wonder why I don't see the anti-Apartheid champion here aka CH? I think this fact is against his political interest, lets wait until the Palestinian do a small silly mistake or until the media twist some event then his mouth will be wide open screaming how the evil Palestinian persecuted the zionist Jews.

Of course Palestinians are treated differently because they aren't citizens of Israel. Do you expect me when I go to say America and be treated as a citizen? It is just foolishness to even think that. Of course the Palestinians could have had their own state by now if their fellow Arab nations saw fit to recognise Israel, but they voted no and promptly went to war and took over the Palestinian territories. This does wonder why during Arab rule in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank weren't given citizenship to Egypt and Jordan when they were in charge? But only Israel is the Bad guy in the whole situation.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'll begin this by emphasizing that haroon's original post, not mine, is the important one here. Everything he says in it is critical to understand the context of my response and the peculiarity of Masada's defense.

This is going to be a long post. But I'm going to try and break this down into nice digestible chunks. Here's what Mouthwash originally said:

First and third quotes are old and tired and have been repeatedly shown to be fake. Couldn't find anything about the second after a quick search, but I won't lose sleep over it.

I responded with a post which showed that the quotes were not fake. I admitted that I had some reservations about the third because I thought the quote might have been forced, given that it wasn't clear how it all fit together in the context of the large speech that Yitzhak Shamir delivered. However, I concluded that it was not out of step with the incendiary tones of the speech Shamir delivered. I would ask that people keep what Mouthwash first said about the quotes (that they have repeatedly shown to be fake) while reading Mouthwash's second response to mine:

Consider first haroon's statement: "it is not the Palestinian or the Arabs loyalty toward the state that was in question for the Zionist to expel or not to expel its Arabs population, because it is already part of their objective."

This is very blunt. The "Zionists" want to expel Arabs from the state of Israel, regardless of how much loyalty they profess. This plan went back from the very beginning of the Zionist movement and, according to haroon, was admitted by Ben Gurion: "While to expel the Arabs from Israel state it correlated with the very principle that Zionism fought for from its very beginning, from its very own founding father and ideology, as it stated by David Ben Gurion:" Thus comes in the first quote.

Again, it's exceptionally obvious what he was referring to throughout the post. Which makes it bizarre that Masada, without having been part of the conversation beforehand, immediately leapt in to defend it, without disclaimers or any attempt at distancing himself from haroon. I don't intend to get dragged down in a quibble over Pappe's use of it. The only thing I intended to argue, made clear by context, was haroon's use of it as a clincher that the ultimate goal of Zionism is make Palestine a racially pure Jewish state.

Take a look at Masada's long recap of the controversy. Where is the idea of a Zionist master plan defended? It isn't. He doesn't care about the veracity of haroon's quoting, he just cares about deflecting attention from the fact that his defense had no rational context in the first place.

This particular statement is the only one I think is worth addressing directly:

Bar-Zohar another scholar who is supposed to have used the quote states that "There is no doubt in my mind that Ben-Gurion never wrote the sentence: 'We must expel the Arabs and take their place'" but doesn't go on to say the quote is fake.

This is entirely incoherent. Isn't 'We must expel the Arabs and take their place' the exact quote?

I should remind you that the original alleged quote, which you are defending, is "(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." This appears to convey almost genocidal intention.

On to the third quote. All I did was find a source for this quote. Mouthwash hadn't made a claim about its accuracy at all. In actual fact he couldn't even find it. In my response I noted I had some issues with the construction of this quote. I also noted that "a plain reading of the context in which the first paragraph is written strongly implies that the two quotes are linked and taken from the same speech" but that I'd leave it up to the reader to decide whether that was a fair call or not. Having looked further into the issue and the discussion that swirled around the quote, I see no reason to change my view. Why? Because the disclaimer I put in, part of which I've repeated, quite clearly shows that I'm aware of the difficulties in using the quote.

This is completely wrong. Masada STILL cannot grasp the simple point I was trying to make. I guess I have to repeat myself again. Let's go back to square one. First, he quoted from the link the following sentence: "As Israel prepared to lift a three-day blockade of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir warned today that rioters would be crushed 'like grasshoppers.'"

Then, Masada quoted this one: "Anybody who wants to damage this fortress and other fortresses we are establishing will have his head smashed against the boulders and walls."

Are you following? Good. According to him, while not being totally accurate, the two statements convey the same message in regards to haroon's quote, which could then be seen as a paraphrase. Still following? Awesome. So, I went on to explain that the first quote was completely invented for sensationalist purposes and that Shamir actually said "We say to them from the heights of this mountain and from the perspective of thousands of years of history that they are like grasshoppers compared to us."

Masada, are you cognitively dead? Can you not read the things you respond to? Lies are meant to be believed, so it's hard to believe this is deliberate.

This is apparently real, but taken massively out of context by haroon. It doesn't refer to the Palestinan population as a whole; simply the populations of Lydda and Ramle. The Jewish commanders were worried about about leaving them squat in the middle of their supply routes.

Mouthwash agrees with this point.

No, like I said, we're discussing the quotes in the context that haroon used them. Most lies have a kernel of truth to them, and if a quote is taken totally out of context I think it's reasonable to label it 'fake.'

But I note that he has to couch his acceptance in language which justifies ethnic cleansing.

So let me clarify; it's morally preferable that the Haganah sabotage its own war effort and endanger the possibility of Jewish independence than force the populations of two towns to move about ten miles?

I don't think this is defensible and even if we were to accept that it was, I fail to see how the military exigencies of 1948 justify the Israeli government's refusal to allow those they ejected to return.

Because those they ejected were almost universally Palestinian Arabs, who identified with the Arab cause, and would therefore negate the entire war by dissolving Israel.

Now for a bit of disclosure. I support the right of an Israeli state to exist on the borders it was given in 1968. This is consistent with the views of the Australian Government. I wish the Israeli Government and Israeli people all the best and think that the establishment of a durable peace between Israel and Palestine will have to include concessions on both sides. I do object to the construction of settlements in the West Bank which are recognized as being illegal and which I hold are a major reason peace cannot be attained. I also think Israeli domestic politics is a basket-case and that the growth of the right is very concerning. But I also accept that Israel has as right to defend itself with proportional force and that Hezbollah should have to drop its commitment to wiping Israel out. I'll stop at this point and just go on to note that the issue is complicated but that I'm broadly speaking pro-Israeli in my outlook. I don't believe there's really a need to talk about these views but I just thought I'd give the reader a chance to acquaint themselves with my views and where I stand.

This is about where Masada's statements start to become truly bizarre. He sounds like he's making a UN address, not debating a forum user.

Now lets just make this clear: Mouthwash knows I'm pro-Israeli. He's even linked to a citation to show that I am. He knows all of this. But none of this matters because Mouthwash has insinuated that I could be an anti-Semite out to "smear Israel and Israelis". This is an insinuation I find offensive and disgusting at a lot of levels.

It's at this point that Mouthwash changes tact because he knows that the charge of Antisemitism won't stick. So he chickens out and buries an absolution of my supposed Antisemitism halfway down the paragraph.

Before we proceed, I need to explain something: everything that Masada has written above is of no relation to reality. It doesn't even bear a superficial resemblance. It could be an incredibly ill-conceived lie or a view into a schizophrenic mind. I did not call Masada an anti-Semite. I didn't imply it. Smearing Israel or Israelis is not something only anti-Semites partake in. But I didn't even say he was out to smear Israel or its people. I was considering Masada's intentions, and I made the statement only to immediately eliminate the possibility.

The quote is taken out of context even though Masada himself quoted everything in full; he simply split the paragraph in half. This is what I said, word for word:

Could it have been, then, that you're actually in agreement with haroon? But you've said yourself (on multiple occasions, in fact), that you are rather pro-Israel. So, there's only one theory that can account for your rebuttal: you are a quasi-clever troll.

How does this result in confusion? Masada even said "Mouthwash knows I'm pro-Israeli. He's even linked to a citation to show that I am. He knows all of this." Aside from the psychological need to be labeled an anti-Semite, I can't imagine how this could be an error. On the flip side, I also can't see how this could be a lie when all anyone would have to do is quote the paragraph as a whole.

Instead, he just claims that I'm a "quasi-clever troll" because I "manipulate debate" (what does this mean?), "harass members" (an infractable offence) and that this is all a rather "transparent" plot on my part which can be confirmed by "even the most basic investigation into your claims" (I am yet to receive an infraction for this, I might add). As we've seen, I was quite upfront in my response and didn't make half the arguments Mouthwash lashed out at. But let's ask ourselves some questions: is responding to Mouthwash's post in a polite fashion evidence of trolling? Is this trolling transparent? If it is where are the infractions? And if it's true that I "harass members" where are the infractions for this? For that matter where is the proof for this at all? In short, there is none.

The more sophisticated forum trolls, unlike Youtube trolls, aren't out to post silly or offensive nonsense. They're out to get the community, through whatever means possible, in an uproar, and infractions can't be given for "suspected" bad intentions.

Want thread-specific details? Google ad hominem, character assassination, discrediting tactic, negative campaigning, and of course poisoning the well. See below, also.

We've literally had arguments where and other pro-Isreali posters have expressed frustration because of Mouthwash's fondness for extreme positions. So much so that's managed to make other posters reassess their views on Israel.

***

And this folks is what you get for even trying to engage with Mouthwash on just about any issue under the damned sun. Personal attacks and flip comments.

Plotinus criticized me for not being clear and acting as if others should already know what I'm talking about. Considering this was from an isolated thread, and that certain other users make three flip comments for every one of mine, this isn't remotely problematic. On the other hand, I think it's incredibly sad that you have failed at every turn and opportunity to explain why population transfer is racist and how your fictive ideal of human interaction could solve anything.

Now if you want Israel to become a watered-down "civic" nation based on some arbitrary idea of rights or an abandonment of Jewish identity, you're welcome to try and make it that way. If you want to blow the whole thing up with some aggrandizing claim of having been "ethnically cleansed" or whatever, you're welcome to try that, too. But you're probably more interested in calling me a racist; it's very becoming of you, unfortunately.

Yes I thought Israel is a fascist government, and I don't need to defend myself about my feeling regarding Jews, I don't have any tiny ill feeling regarding Jews even I interest with their culture, however I despise Zionist and Zionism, and anti-Zionism doesn't mean anti-Jews, look at the line of Jewish scholarship themselves who actually quite rabbit with Zionism, if you want to call also those Jews (Finklestein, Chomsky, etc) are anti-semite, be my guess then.

First, you'll need to acquire better English skills if you want me to be able to respond appropriately. That, or stop using Google translate. Second, no, you aren't an anti-Semite. You do, however, believe that Jewish nationalism is racism, that Israelis want to remove all non-Jews from their midst, that IDF soldiers are criminals and that Israel was founded on blood. None of these things are uniquely antisemitic at all. They're the words of a monster who covers up his own insecurities by dehumanizing his enemy, a bigot who rages at photos of Israeli soldiers, a coward that expresses his own identity through hatred; not someone I view as a human being who I can deal with as an equal. Yes, you are a savage, regardless of whether you're an Arab or Turk or German. But clearly not an anti-Semite.

Maybe it's just the fact that I've seen so many Muslims behave this way I've become desensitized to what I used to view as personal fascist hatred. Maybe it's because the term "Israeli" doesn't refer to any particular race or ethnicity that others don't see the same way. But that's what it is.

when I said that mean when the Jewish population becoming fatter the Zionist must kick out (sic) the Palestinian in order to make a room for the first class new comer, that's also not true. So what does it mean?

It was an empirical observation. If we were to take in millions more Jews we would be FORCED to kick out the rest of the Palestinians. So we would have two options: actually go through with it, or refuse the vast majority of the Jews because of the lack of space. And as I've made clear, I would support the latter.

and how can you distinguish between the loyal Palestinian with the potentially rebel one (the one that you want to kick out)? do you take an assumption similar like the discussion in the Historical forum regarding the Mexican?

We can't. We can force them to make a statement of basic loyalty (similar to an Oath of Citizenship) to the state of Israel in preference to that of Palestine or any other country, and participate in every civil obligation that other ethnic groups are subject to.

 

[Agent327]

that the ultimate goal of Zionism is make Palestine a racially pure Jewish state.

So the goal is to convert all inhabitants? Because that seems an equally viable conclusion. (Or unviable, of course.)

 

[H4run]

First, you'll need to acquire better English skills if you want me to be able to respond appropriately. That, or stop using Google translate. Second, no, you aren't an anti-Semite. You do, however, believe that Jewish nationalism is racism, that Israelis want to remove all non-Jews from their midst, that IDF soldiers are criminals and that Israel was founded on blood. None of these things are uniquely antisemitic at all. They're the words of a monster who covers up his own insecurities by dehumanizing his enemy, a bigot who rages at photos of Israeli soldiers, a coward that expresses his own identity through hatred; not someone I view as a human being who I can deal with as an equal. Yes, you are a savage, regardless of whether you're an Arab or Turk or German. But clearly not an anti-Semite.

So now you start to attack my personality in order to prove that you are a classy, civilize zionist, must have a correct notion than I the "savage" native, who can't speak English properly and a coward? (ad hominem)

Yes you better wash your mouth with whatever you wash it or try toilet paper or someone must call a septic tank personnels to wash out that stink mouth of yours. And all of the accusation for me being coward, savage and all of those just because of what? Just because I against Israel, that's enough for a reason.

And those Palestinian children who dare to throw tanks with rocks are the one you called cowards? they can be anything but they are no cowards, while you the one who cowards, I remember how you whining in this forum because you afraid of death, oh darn you just keep lying and lying and lying and being racist and in the end you called everybody against you as racist and liars. I don't need to argue with a pseudo classy jerk like you. My mockery even not worth for you.