A few posts back you were claiming "democracy is ace". Now that a majority of people could come together to form a government including Arab-Israelis it's "Shameful".
Last edited:
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
A few posts back you were claiming "democracy is ace". Now that a majority of people could come together to form a government including Arab-Israelis it's "Shameful".
You're confusing majoritarianism with democracy. It's demagoguery if ever I've seen. You're on the wrong side of the racist/not racist debate here.
@2cents-I agree to an extent. But the fact that Israel itself has nukes, has the Palestinian population living under occupation in their own lands, and continues to act as the aggressor....well, my point is I could easily make the same points your making for the Palestinian/other surrounding Muslims groups.
Last edited:
I had to break your post into chunks as my comp began to act up.
Without getting into semantics, I'd argue that under Islam, Judaism was allowed to flourish and propagate into different lands. The Jewish population in India is partly because of Muslim expansion into the region (into the Asian subcontinent). I bolded the bit above as life under Islam for Jewish tribes was a lot more than 'less precarious'. The freedom of movement, due to territorial expansion was something appealing to many of the Arab nomadic Jewish tribes.
Well, that's easy to answer because the influence of the Ottoman Empire was on the wane. Their control and power began decreasing at this point. The protection offered was diminishing. Under the Ottomans, however, Jewish people were given very high status in society, with some becoming advisers to the Sultan-to say they were just a 2nd class citizen isn't truthful. Some were, as were some Muslims.
Edit: Post under construction, don't reply yet.
Edit 2: I'll get back to the rest of your post later tonight, as my computer is acting up quite badly.
Last edited:
A few posts back you were claiming "democracy is ace". Now that a majority of people could come together to form a government including Arab-Israelis it's "Shameful".
Laugh all you want, but democracy in Israel allows participation of parties that call for the destruction of the country. When a party which portrays itself as Zionist plots a political change here with the help of polygamist Muslim fundamentalists, MPs that were on board the Hamas/Erdogan flotilla and others who refrain from calling Hamas terrorosts then it is shameful. Democratic but shameful.
Thankfully, the Israeli public sent a clear message both domestically and to foreign powers who make a habit of meddling in Israeli politics.
There's no confusion hereat all. As long as the racist/non-racist debate here revolves about a Jewsih state being inherently racist then I admit to being on what you call "the wrong side" here.
As long as recognition in a Jewish state is not part of the two-state solution there is no difference (other than 10-20 years) between that and a one-state solution. Simple.
Cool.
“The rule of the right is in danger. Arab voters are advancing in large numbers toward voting places. Leftist organizations are bringing them in buses”
Definitely not racist.
Definitely not racist.
We've heard comparable quotes about voting rates among ultra-orthodox Jews, and I heard no complaints of antisemitism. Definitely from human-rights activists in Europe. We are talking about sections in our society which traditionally vote for sectorial parties ,and therefore political rivals are nervous about nevrous about voting ratios, espeically if foreign money is involved in organizing high voting rates in a speciifc sector which will serve foreign interests.
As I said, as long as members of the Arab party (for which most Arabs vote) is involved in this sort of activity it's fair to say that warning of high voting rates among them is not racism but self preservation.
As I said, as long as members of the Arab party (for which most Arabs vote) is involved in this sort of activity it's fair to say that warning of high voting rates among them is not racism but self preservation.
No, it's still racism. If he'd said "Arab party voters are coming out in droves" that would not be racist. Talking specifically about Arabs is racist in this context.
Please can you provide these comparable quotes? I'm curious about them and whether they are from anyone comparable in stature and relevance to Netanyahu. Not that tit for tat should ever be an excuse when it comes to racism.
There are Arabs voting for Likud, so you can rest assured he wasn't bothered about their votes.
The complaints about ultra-orthodox votes are plentiful, and are an integral part of every campaign. As are irregularities in voting in both predominantly Arab and Jewsih ultra-orthodox polling stations. This is the type of society we have in our country. It is still considerably better than anything else within a good distance from here.
Can you prove it though please. You've got the current Prime Minister of Israel coming out with a racist statement versus your claims of "plentiful complaints" which I'm sure is true but which is more serious?
"If they can be racist and hateful, then its ok if our Prime Minister is as well".
I doubt any of these is ever translated to English, but Amir would be able to confirm this unless he has already committed suicide following the elections.
I explianed why I think Bibi's motives were not racist, and (earlier) that perhaps he shouldn't be the one carrying the message on elections day. This is how divided and fragmented the Israeli society is.
So you can't back up your point?
It's par for the course. Tit for tat is Israel's excuse for all misdeeds. Which logically makes Israel no 'better' than those the decry.
Tbh, that's hr's way of debating. He'll ignore sense and reason and won't respond.
Except he didn't say any of that on the day of the elections, he didn't even mention the political party, just talking about the drones of arabs being brought to vote by the buses of the left wing. They are not actually all the same, you know, the arab people?
I wonder who's to blame for the fact their parties had to unite in order to still be in the knesset. Or at least who could have stopped it and didn't.
The cynical alterations in the buildup to general elections is hardly of any interst to people outside Israel, and therefore I wouldn't expect it to get any coverage outside the country. You are more than welcome to claim an internet victory if you like because I'm not going to do a research job here. If you have the time to do so you'll find that elections here involve not only Jewish-Arabs tensions, but also Sephardi-Ashkenazi, Secular-religious and Israeli born-new immigrants divisions with many comments bordering on what you'd call racist. I'm sure you have heard nothing about any of it.
The only reason Bibi's comments made the headlines is Obama's shit-stirring following is failed attempt at getting rid of Bibi.
Don't patronise, Amir. People outside Ha'aretz building actually live with Arabs rather than just write about them. Increasing the electoral threshold is still a great idea, and I think it should increase further to boost the major parties at the expense of sectorial parties. I'm sure you׳re alright with Marzel being away from the Knesset.
It's basically the right idea - well, the idea of having less sectorial parties is. But you can't do that and also treat the joint party with such disdain due to its problem elements. If you took all jewish parties and turned them into a one big unhappy family, it would also include problem elements - such as Marzel.
As for me and Haaretz, let it go, I'm in the sports section and nobody ever cared to ask me about my political views when I joined.
First, it's not a research job I'm asking of you. If you know something has happened recently then surely you should be able to think of decent examples of it in without having to do a "research job". The fact you don't have anything to show in suggests that these claims of racism aren't some sort of witch hunt against Netanyahu as you seem to claim.
Second, that would not make it right that Netanyahu did it. It really is a terrible comment for someone of his authority to be making. Yes there is tension and conflict between the various ethnic groups of the country, yes I believe a lot of what you say in the above post to be true but Netanyahu is meant to be the leader of all of those people and he shouldn't be trying to divide like this in an already tricky situation, purely for the benefit of his own political campaign.
Absolutely, I don't disagree. Hence the conflict - each side has a compelling case to make with much truth in each case. What's needed is more empathy from both sides.
As I've said already, the system worked pretty well, certainly in comparison to pre-modern Europe. I guess we have different ideas on what it means for a community to 'flourish'. Yes, Jews often excelled at trade under Islamic rule, which was made possible by the type of freedom of movement you describe. Some did quite well out of it. They were also pretty much left alone to govern their own affairs as a community, and faced comparably fewer massacres/pogroms than their Europeans coreligionists.
However, there was very little Jewish intellectual or cultural achievement after the Abbasid/Umayyad Spain period, certainly nothing comparable to how the Jews fared in their ancient history, in 19th century Western Europe, or in 20th century North America and Israel. And for every positive aspect you can describe, I can offer a massacre here, persecution there. Which only proves my point that the history was a mixed bag, it doesn't fit neatly into whatever category you want to confine it. The classic example would be the great Jewish scholar Maimonides - he fled Spain after the Almohad conquest and subsequent persecution of the Jews there, but went to on become an extremely influential figure in Cairo.
Uzz said:
Individual Jews could of course rise under the patronage of the ruling dynasty. All this proves is that the Ottomans were mostly wise, pragmatic and tolerant rulers. However, rights were granted in terms of religious communities/groups, not individuals, and according to the law, Muslims came first, followed by Jews and Christians together. The idea of full equality for all the subjects of the empire only rose in the mid-19th century under the influence of European ideas imported mainly from France, and was adopted by some Ottoman administrators in order to offset the growing influence of nationalism among the minorities. There was much opposition to the idea within the Ottoman regime.
None of this is a necessarily a criticism of the Ottomans, or of how Muslims in general approached the problem of regulating civil affairs. The overall framework, however, was one in which non-Muslim communities were forced to accept the reality of Muslim supremacy in political life. The fact that nationalism held such appeal for the non-Muslims of the empire shows the limits of the Ottoman system in the face of the modern world with its notions of equality and self-determination.
Problem elements? Is there one MP who isn't against the idea of a jewish Israel? Is there one faction who doesn't condone terrorism against Israeli citizens, those of the same country which allows them to be elected for parliament?
Who are the Meretz, Labor or Likud of the Arabs if I follow yor analogy? Who are the Lapid et al?
I don't really care how Ha'aretz do their hiring, and I believe they don't ask people for their political leaning. Nevertheless, I didn't like the patronising tone from someone living in the Tel Aviv state.
I already agreed the comment was not wise, but I still reckon it was not racist. As for the research issue, I wasn't referring to recent elections necessarily but practically every elections here. I already mentioned the complaints about high turnout by the ultra-orthodox. Another example would be a recent labor slogan "if you vote Bibi, you'll be stuck with the Palestinians", when 20% of our population are Palestinian Arabs.
Tons of foreign cash was invested in an effort to topple Bibi last week, and the shitstorm we are witnessing is a direct reaction to the collosal failure (yet again) to dictate what's best for the Israeli public.
@holyland red
Human rights organisations should never be trusted and are complete anti-semites allied with the Hamas-loving Arab Israelis and their left Zionists backers.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...itants-in-gaza-of-war-crimes-in-2014-conflict
Human rights organisations should never be trusted and are complete anti-semites allied with the Hamas-loving Arab Israelis and their left Zionists backers.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...itants-in-gaza-of-war-crimes-in-2014-conflict
Oh, stop it will you? Two wrongs don't make a right. Hamas launching rockets from residential areas, schools and hospitals does not mean that Israel is allowed to retaliate. The war criminals should go to their well-equipped bomb shelters and wait until John Kerry gets Hamas-supporting Turkey and Qatar to work out the ceasefire terms. But that's coming in the next report...
Does Hamas have a right to retaliate if Israel does?
Of course.
Israel killed more Palestinians in 2014 than in any other year since 1967
More than 2,300 Palestinians killed and more than 17,000 injured, according to annual report by UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
The conflict in Gaza in July and August was largely responsible for the deaths of 2,220 Palestinians. Photograph: Imago/Barcroft Media
Mairav Zonszein in Tel Aviv
Friday 27 March 2015 13.06 GMTLast modified on Friday 27 March 201516.42 GMT
Israel killed more Palestinian civilians in 2014 than in any other year since the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip began in 1967, a UN report has said.
Israel’s activities in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem resulted in the deaths of 2,314 Palestinians and 17,125 injuries, compared with 39 deaths and 3,964 injuries in 2013, according to the annual report (pdf) by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
The conflict in Gaza in July and August was largely responsible for the dramatic increase in fatalities. It claimed the lives of 2,220 Gazans, of whom 1,492 were civilians, 605 militants and 123 unverified.
More than 11,000 people were injured and about 500,000 Palestinians were internally displaced at the height of the conflict. About 100,000 remain so.
There was also a sharp rise in fatalities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where 58 Palestinians were killed and 6,028 injured – the highest number of fatalities in incidents involving Israeli forces since 2007 and the highest number of injuries since 2005.
Most of the incidents took place in the second half of the year, following the abduction and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, which led to daily riots and protests in East Jerusalem.
Khdeir, a 16-year-old Palestinian, was kidnapped and killed in July, following the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers the previous month.
The report, entitled Fragmented Lives, documents an increase in the number of Palestinians injured, incarcerated and displaced, compared with the two previous years.
It notes an increase in the Israeli armed forces’ use of live ammunition, which accounted for almost all fatalities and 18% of injuries.
Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians – mostly settlers – and security forces also rose in 2014, with Israeli fatalities increasing from four to 12. Incidents of settler violence resulting in Palestinian casualties and injuries increased, but the number of incidents leading to Palestinian property and land being damaged decreased.
The number of Palestinians held in administrative detention by Israeli authorities increased by 24% in 2014, but decreased when it came to children. A monthly average of 185 were held last year compared with 197 in 2013, a decrease of 6%. No children under 14 years old were held in military detention in 2014.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...2014-than-any-other-year-since-1967?CMP=fb_gu
I sometimes long for a repressive dictatorship to shut those guys up.
It's funny, because I feel the same way about you. 
Have Anonymous ever actually done anything significant? They're always coming out with these threats, nothing ever seems to happen.
Nothing as significant as the real holocaust, the one moderate Palestinians deny ever happened. They do cause certain websites to crash every now and then.
masters of tear jerking.
Welcome to Israel, only apartheid country left in the world.
Just out of curiosity, is there any polling data that backs this claim up ?
Check their president's Ph.D. thesis for a start.