The real apartheid state.

Oohh, big words! Ethnic cleansing!



No, their displacement is Israel's responsibility. Of course it isn't "rendered irrelevant by time," it's rendered irrelevant by geopolitical necessity. But their living conditions, their rights, their political freedoms and way of life are completely and entirely the responsibility of the states which they live in. Herding them into camps for the sake of pressuring Israel is not ethical by any standard, and certainly worse than what Israel is doing in the West Bank. We don't persecute Syrian refugees to make Assad look bad for letting it happen.



There would be no 'Israel' if the Palestinians had remained. This is beyond dispute.



Let's grant you that ethnicity isn't as fuzzy and religiously-based as it is in the Jewish case. It still seems that Israel defining itself as a Jewish state isn't a whole lot different than Greece being a Hellenic state, or Finland being a Finnish state, especially given the fact that supposedly modern, liberal countries have ethnic conflicts to this day. I don't think it's a stretch to argue that most British people are of a "British" nationality, rather than being Scottish or Welsh or English, simply because they have so much in common with each other in addition to being politically united.

The allusion to race that Palestinian propagandists like to make fails utterly because Jewry, as a collective identity, can view themselves as simply one equal part of a greater whole. The problem is there are no such peoples left (the obvious candidate, the Samaritans, are virtually gone), but if they were still present some kind of political relationship could be established. Jews and Samaritans can find common ground, Jews and Arabs can't. It is extremely unlikely that they would ever view each other as being countrymen the way English and Welsh do each other. Ethnicity is a characteristic of Jewish nationalism, not because the Jewish faith or blood is considered the basis for that nationalism, but because of the fact that it is a self-contained civilization in Huntington's sense of the word.

When we expelled the Palestinians, it was because there was simply no way to accommodate them. We did leave those who were loyal to the state (and plenty who weren't), but it really should have been more thorough, in my opinion. It's the same for them; Arab ethnicity is the basis of their identity. The Arab armies expelled Jews from towns that they captured, and they were right to do it, because those Jews, simply because of their Jewish identity, would have aided the Zionists and sabotaged their enemy.

Morris argued that ethnic cleansing is justified, and I think it doesn't need an argument because of course ethnic cleansing is justified. When people are expelled for a reason that in any way relates to their background, mythology, or culture, that's ethnic cleansing. When the Allies kicked out millions of Germans from their homes during WWII, that was ethnic cleansing. I don't see Germans demanding a right of return.

There's a difference between kicking people out because you think that they are genetically different and kicking them out because, on the basis of that ethnicity, they are an insurmountable barrier to your own freedom.

I know it's easy to say, sitting on your computer in the most diverse state on Earth, that simply because someone has red hair or believe so-and-so about God is no reason to treat them differently. But when I go into the poorer neighborhoods, I see racially-based gangs and segregated neighborhoods. And that's normal. In Israel I see entire Jewish towns and Arab villages, and the interactions between them. People in every country in every part of the world live segregated. Those barriers will never be torn down, even if nationalism itself crumbles under a glorious communist revolution; Jews will not marry Muslims, Muslims will not marry Jews. The best we can do is learn to live among ourselves and tolerate each other's presence.

Sorry for rambling, I'm not feeling too motivated right now.



Arab birthrates are 1% higher than Jewish birthrates and the gap is closing. I've heard this demographic bomb nonsense peddled everywhere on the internet, but none of the proponents seems to have any argument beyond this.

Wow. :dubious:

You have some shocking opinions here, but then again I live in the most diverse county in the most diverse state in the most diverse country on earth - so pardon me when I call you out on your claim that "Jews will not marry Muslims, Muslims will not marry Jews".

If that's the case where you live, then you guys are doing something wrong. Because that happens here, and there is no matter/antimatter asploshuns.
 
Wow. :dubious:

You have some shocking opinions here,

I've made them clear before, and I'm definitely not alone (plenty of political scientists view this kind of thing as inevitable). The whole concept of "ethnic" cleansing is loaded. Of course not every Palestinian is hostile to the Jewish state and some might even be patriotic, but they are an extreme minority.

If you're looking for real shockers, Google "Baruch Goldstein."

but then again I live in the most diverse county in the most diverse state in the most diverse country on earth - so pardon me when I call you out on your claim that "Jews will not marry Muslims, Muslims will not marry Jews".

There are some that will (especially the assimilated sort that live in the US), but even secular Jews have trouble watching their kids marry goyim. In more religious places like Brooklyn or Israel-besides-Tel Aviv, intermarriage is almost nonexistent. So there's a huge sampling problem if you want to use anecdotal evidence.

If that's the case where you live, then you guys are doing something wrong. Because that happens here, and there is no matter/antimatter asploshuns.

There are several thousand Israelis that are married to Arabs, but in general even friendly minorities like Druze stay within their religion. That's part of being an ethnoreligious group.
 
Goodfella said:
The Lebanese are Liberians. But the article calls to African Liberians.

Afro-Nationalism refers to a specific movement, with a specific purpose, that's now part of Pan-Africanism. It isn't what you seem to think it is. Rather, what the article is expressing is Liberian Nationalism which is tied to race and in some very weird ways. I honestly don't get how you can think putting 'Afro' in front of 'Nationalism' gets you what you think it does.
 
Mouthwash, Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Hasbara or ICIC?
 
There are some that will (especially the assimilated sort that live in the US), but even secular Jews have trouble watching their kids marry goyim. In more religious places like Brooklyn or Israel-besides-Tel Aviv, intermarriage is almost nonexistent.

Oh well, then I am a rare case.
 
I doubt the Hasbara would have posted half of what he's said. They'd, you hope, be better at defending their country. Really, I'm more inclined to go down the Hezbollah route.
 
I doubt the Hasbara would have posted half of what he's said. They'd, you hope, be better at defending their country. Really, I'm more inclined to go down the Hezbollah route.

I wonder why Hasbara didn't hire me yet. I seem to be the only relatively Pro-Israel guy who doesnt use "if you don't agree with me, you're an anti-semite!" trope but neither doesn't post any of the stuff Mouthwash just posted.
 
Wow. :dubious:

You have some shocking opinions here, but then again I live in the most diverse county in the most diverse state in the most diverse country on earth - so pardon me when I call you out on your claim that "Jews will not marry Muslims, Muslims will not marry Jews".

If that's the case where you live, then you guys are doing something wrong. Because that happens here, and there is no matter/antimatter asploshuns.

Obviously the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is for Helen Marshall to annex the West Bank.

I'm sure many Israeli Jews would approve 'cause it would mean they finally get to have real bagels.

Running the West Bank can't be any worse than running Long Island City.
 
Jerusalem was not a part of the Israeli part of the 1947 Partition of Palestine.
Israel got Jerusalem because the Arab nations refused to recognise Israel and thus attacked them. So as a result they got punished for attacking. As a result of the aftermath we have Jordan holding the West Bank and Egypt holding the Gaza strip. No city has ever worked as either being divided or not under any national control. Jerusalem has historically been the capital of the Jews
If you gain your land by evicting the currents occupants, of course you should expect security issues.

The original plan was for the Jews to have anything to west of the Jordan river, but that got nixed for some reason. Unfettered Arab immigration was happening to try and remove any Jewish heritage to the land and Jews were forbidden to immigrate there. The fact of this meant that Jews could have escaped hostile lands well before they became subject to it, but it didn't happen. Don't forget that around the same time their were many population transfers, and that what should have happened in this situation, but for some reason didn't.

Well Israel has been forced to take in and care for Jew forced from their homes in Arab lands, and yet the multitude of Arabs nations have rejected any Palestinians in their nations and made them suffer. Double standards much?
 
I wonder why Hasbara didn't hire me yet. I seem to be the only relatively Pro-Israel guy who doesnt use "if you don't agree with me, you're an anti-semite!" trope but neither doesn't post any of the stuff Mouthwash just posted.

Do they pay well?

I'm okay with barracking for either Israel or Palestine, whichever side pays me better.
 
Obviously the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is for Helen Marshall to annex the West Bank.

I'm sure many Israeli Jews would approve 'cause it would mean they finally get to have real bagels.

Running the West Bank can't be any worse than running Long Island City.

As a resident of Long Island City, I can assure you Helen Marshall doesn't have to contend with anything approaching the mess that Israel makes of the West Bank.

For that matter, I'm not really sure what she does. And I don't remember ever voting for Borough President :hmm:

Either way, there is indeed ethnic tension in Queens, but nothing on the order of Israel vs everyone else. Except the hipsters. Everyone hates them, even other hipsters :groucho:
 
Israel got Jerusalem because the Arab nations refused to recognise Israel and thus attacked them. So as a result they got punished for attacking. As a result of the aftermath we have Jordan holding the West Bank and Egypt holding the Gaza strip. No city has ever worked as either being divided or not under any national control. Jerusalem has historically been the capital of the Jews

Kingdom of Jerusalem!

The original plan was for the Jews to have anything to west of the Jordan river, but that got nixed for some reason.

The British!

Unfettered Arab immigration was happening to try and remove any Jewish heritage to the land and Jews were forbidden to immigrate there.

There was hardly any Arab immigration to Israel I am aware off. Do note that there were a lot of Arabs to begin with who confortably constituted a majority well into the 1940s. This is why initial proposals for the establishment of Israel (prior to the expulsion of Palestinians) were significantly smaller, territorially speaking.

Well Israel has been forced to take in and care for Jew forced from their homes in Arab lands, and yet the multitude of Arabs nations have rejected any Palestinians in their nations and made them suffer. Double standards much?

I wonder that too. No matter whether Israel is willing to accept the Palestinian refugees (and their descendents) back to Israel, it is still forced population transfer if countries like Syria and Lebanon say "back to Israel". Though it is admittedly politically incorrect to argue that, considering many of the Palestinian governments eat out of other governments' hands.

Do they pay well?

I'm okay with barracking for either Israel or Palestine, whichever side pays me better.

I wouldn't dare to say. Hasbara has set up internet squads with funding to the tune 600.000 shekels. I'm not sure whether that money is actually used to pay people, or just provide infrastructure and paying advertising space. 600.000 shekels isn't that much for such a large scale undertaking, since a lot of shekels go into a US Dollar.

You are ethnically Thai right? They may be very interested in someone who isn't of Jewish descent, nevertheless. A bigger + if you are Arab.
 
I wonder why Hasbara didn't hire me yet. I seem to be the only relatively Pro-Israel guy who doesnt use "if you don't agree with me, you're an anti-semite!" trope but neither doesn't post any of the stuff Mouthwash just posted.
Best comment of the thread so far. :goodjob:
 
There are some that will (especially the assimilated sort that live in the US), but even secular Jews have trouble watching their kids marry goyim. In more religious places like Brooklyn or Israel-besides-Tel Aviv, intermarriage is almost nonexistent. So there's a huge sampling problem if you want to use anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal evidence is exactly what you're using here by saying that intermarriage is almost nonexistent in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is the 4th most populous city in the US (after Chicago and LA). Saying that 2,500,000 people from nearly every nation on the planet don't intermarry with people of Jewish descent is laughable. I can only assume that you were biasing your sampling of "Brooklyn" to the insular neighborhoods of Southside Williamsburg, Borough Park, some areas of Crown Heights... maybe a couple other corners I'm not familiar with.


There are several thousand Israelis that are married to Arabs, but in general even friendly minorities like Druze stay within their religion. That's part of being an ethnoreligious group.
And that's precisely your problem. When 2 warring tribes needed to find a way to dial down hostilities they would use marriage as a tool. Reducing the arbitrary stigma of exogamy will only serve to pacify the region.
 
The original plan was for the Jews to have anything to west of the Jordan river, but that got nixed for some reason. Unfettered Arab immigration was happening to try and remove any Jewish heritage to the land and Jews were forbidden to immigrate there. The fact of this meant that Jews could have escaped hostile lands well before they became subject to it, but it didn't happen. Don't forget that around the same time their were many population transfers, and that what should have happened in this situation, but for some reason didn't.

Well Israel has been forced to take in and care for Jew forced from their homes in Arab lands, and yet the multitude of Arabs nations have rejected any Palestinians in their nations and made them suffer. Double standards much?

If you gain your land by evicting the currents occupants, of course you should expect security issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom