J'lem train company asks passengers: 'Do you mind traveling with Arabs?'

[UndertheOcean]

"The survey asks residents various questions related to whether they intend to use the new train system. Respondents are asked how they feel about a number of practical issues, such as the planned routes and the measures to make commuting easier.

The two last questions, however, deal with the fact that the train is also slated to serve several stations in Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, including Shoafat, Sheikh Jarrah and others near the Old City.

"The light rail includes three stations in Shoafat. Does that present a problem for you?" the questionnaire asks. In another question: "All passengers, Jewish and Arab, enter the train freely and without the driver's inspection. Is that a problem for you?"

Respondents are asked to indicate their level of concern from 1 (not a concern ) to 5 (very concerning )."



http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/j-lem-train-company-asks-passengers-do-you-mind-traveling-with-arabs-1.309101


Charming questionnaire

[joeybee12]

1. Modeled after the Army's DADT questionnaire...n/t

[virgogal]

2. One lady said that the questions were racist. Aren't Jews and

Palestinians the same race?

Confusing----to me at least.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Only in the sense that many English may feel superior to any sort of immigrant...

Most xenophobia is not based on 'superior race' ideas in the usual sense.

[LeftishBrit]

21. Well, a lot of racist-like prejudice is between groups of similar race

E.g. English prejudice against the Irish - or currently against East Europaeans.

[azurnoir]

4. s what happens if Israeli Jews do not want Arabs on the train with them?

will Israel install it's own version of "Jim Crow" laws?

[Jim Sagle]

6. It's not fear of The Other, it's fear of Explosions.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. It's fear of Arabs being viewed as equals...

Anyone who dislikes or fears an entire group based on the action of a few is a bigot. The RW here has been trying to play the fear factor in our election here when it comes to asylum seekers and one of the points of their 'action plan' is 'Stop the boats'. Very few asylum seekers arrive by boat anyway, but the way the RW carry on we're being overrun with illegal immigrants who are endangering the Australian way of life. Irrational fear appeals to really stupid people, which is why you'll find morons in electorates that are landlocked obsessing over our border security.

[Jim Sagle]

9. Tell us again how well you treat aborigines in Oz.

Then you can lecture Israelis about how they need not fear terrorism.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Me? I don't treat indigenous Australians differently to anyone else. ..

And even if *I* treated them like shit, how does that justify you trying to defend bigotry and discrimination against Israeli-Arabs and hiding behind the label of terrorism to do it? I wasn't lecturing Israelis, btw. I was explaining to you that anyone who judges an entire group of people based on the actions of a few is a bigot. If someone had problems with Jews because a few of them have carried out terrorist acts, you'd be one of the first to label that person a bigot, so why is it different for you when the target of the bigotry is Arabs?

[Jim Sagle]

11. It wasn't about you individually, it was about Oz collectively.

I'm surprised that flew right over yer head.

Actually, I'm not surprised at all. You miss just about everything.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Then don't say 'you' when you don't mean it.

I don't miss much at all, Jimbo, and I'm sure everyone else has noticed that you resort to abuse and insults rather than even attempt to explain why you'd condone bigotry when it's aimed at Arabs. So let me rephrase my previous post:

'And even if *Australia* treated them like shit, how does that justify you trying to defend bigotry and discrimination against Israeli-Arabs and hiding behind the label of terrorism to do it? I wasn't lecturing Israelis, btw. I was explaining to you that anyone who judges an entire group of people based on the actions of a few is a bigot. If someone had problems with Jews because a few of them have carried out terrorist acts, you'd be one of the first to label that person a bigot, so why is it different for you when the target of the bigotry is Arabs?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. It is bigotry when someone is judging an entire group of people based on the actions of a few

You do realise yr 'argument' for why it's acceptable to hold bigoted views of Arabs works just as much when it's aimed at Jews? I'm guessing that the reason yr totally ignoring the question I've asked you several times now is because you actually do think things are bigoted when aimed at Jews, but not when it's aimed at Arabs.If that's not the case, is it possible for you to concentrate on answering the question you've been asked, rather than trying to fling silly insults around?


If someone had problems with Jews because a few of them have carried out terrorist acts, you'd be one of the first to label that person a bigot, so why is it different for you when the target of the bigotry is Arabs?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tripmann]

18. Facts are that Mr. 'OMG JOOZZZZS' is now excusing stereotyping of arabs

I hope the irony isn't lost on you.

I know its not lost on the people around here who find ALL bigotry unacceptable.

[Jim Sagle]

19. It's not stereotyping, it's public safety.

[Tripmann]

20. Its no better than the scumbags opposing the mosque at ground zero

due to the actions of a handful of extremists.

And you're excusing it.

[Jim Sagle]

24. Your objection is duly noted, and shitcanned.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

27. Call the wammmmmbulance.

[Tripmann]

28. Point proven, cheers.

[Jim Sagle]

32. As if.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tripmann]

35. We've all seen him embarrass himself. I'm enjoying facilitating his idiocy, so he can embarrass

himself further.

C'mon jim, lets have some more empty remarks......

[Jim Sagle]

38. self-delete - misplaced

[Jim Sagle]

39. Like yours?

If this forum were conducive to anything but a rhetorical battle to the death, I'd post quite differently. But it isn't and I don't. Plenty of blame to go around.

[Ken Burch]

46. You could just NOT post in this forum

Why don't you stay away from I/P if it offends you so?

No one is forcing you to post here.

And even YOU have to know by now that nothing you do in this thread is actually helpful to the cause of defending Israel.

[Tripmann]

47. Theres plenty of people around here willing to discuss issues

They just don't bother discussing them with people who have no debating skills.

You can drop another empty non-statement now........

[Jim Sagle]

50. I've seen nothing whatsoever from you that had any content - ever.

But keep on projecting. It's all you have.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

61. For you it's mostly been a primal scream of hate.

[Tripmann]

71. Hate? LOL!! Its not me posting 'israel rawxxx' every time they murder innocent people.

[Jim Sagle]

73. Your motive detection skillz need work. Along with much else.

[Tripmann]

74. And still nothing to add on the topic. Do we need to wait for another israeli atrocity

before your next bumper sticker statement endorsing it??

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

76. You win, Ken.....WORST.POST.EVER. n/t

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tripmann]

79. LOL! thats all you got, a 'i know you are but what am i' post? Grow up jim.

[Jim Sagle]

80. You do make it unpleasant to be here. I'll give you that.

[Ken Burch]

81. My humanity is not in question

I'm not the one saying, in response to any act of brutality or oppression, that the side inflicting it "RRRRRAWWKKKSSSS!!"

The humane point of view is that, while the world's Jewish communities, the communities Israel purports to represent were victims of horrific oppression and inhumanity in the past, that oppression was mainly(although not exclusively)committed in EUROPE, and that that past European oppression, and any areas in which that oppression still continues today, does not justify the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs, whether it be those who were forced out of their homes in 1948 or those in 1967.

And even if we accept that a homeland for the group that Israel purports to act in the name of(a group I have great historic sympathies for, by the way) it was never, ever necessary to do anything to forcibly reduce the Arab population of Palestine to create this homeland. There were always proposals within the Zionist movement, from its more progressive and enlightened factions rather than arrogant supremacists like Ben-Gurion and Begin, to create a organizations, from the labor movement to the state, that would have protected Jewish people from oppression while treating the Palestinian Arabs as equals. Those proposals were always rejected, and the arrogant supremacist vision ended up prevailing. Had those ideas, the ideas of people like Martin Buber and Judah Magnes, been heeded, there would be a peaceful democratic state in Palestine that protected all of the residents of that land from oppression, without disenfranchising or dispossessing anyone.

People with genuinely humane values are recognizing that the status quo can't be sustained. Yet you refuse to do that, and you simply cheerlead for the forces of oppression and militarism while denying the humanity of those they oppress.

Palestinian resistance has made choices I don't always agree with, as I sit here at a distance in peace and safety. I hope they choose a different path. But its arrogant to demand that they change without any guarantee that their oppression will be lifted in immediate exchange for those changes, or without any real guarantees that what was stolen from them will either be returned or properly compensated and apologized for.

It's time to admit that Palestinians are not living demons, that they are not incapable of living like civilized human beings, that they should not have to live eternally at the mercy of the IDF, and that Israel should not keep perpetually choosing a course of greater militarism, greater hatred, and greater paranoia.

The humanity of BOTH sides needs to be acknowledged. And a real first step of that is giving the same presumption of innocence to most Palestinians that is given to most of the rest of the human race. If Israel keeps demanding that ALL Palestinians prove they aren't terrorists, that will be a standard Palestinians will never be able to meet, because the Israeli government, a government that is more interested in keeping itself in power by than in keeping its constituents safe, will never ADMIT that most Palestinians are normal, nonviolent human beings.

In any situation, you have to treat people humanely before you can ask them to behave as you would like.

I don't hate Israel. I don't hate Israelis. I just hate what that state does to Palestinians. And you and I both know that its absurd to say that the Israeli government has no alternative but to collectively punish all Palestinians for the acts of some.

I choose humanity. To choose humanity, you have to choose equality.

[Shaktimaan]

85. What makes you so sure about any of this?

Had those ideas, the ideas of people like Martin Buber and Judah Magnes, been heeded, there would be a peaceful democratic state in Palestine that protected all of the residents of that land from oppression, without disenfranchising or dispossessing anyone.

I think it might be a little naive to assume that if Israel had only done X 60+ years ago then we would now have a Y situation today.

Remember that the partition plans were originally proposed as a solution to the continued violence in Palestine. The Zionists forced very very few Arabs out of their homes at all, and none before the civil war that was started in 1947 by the Palestinians. (They did refuse to allow Palestinians who had fled from returning... but that is not the same thing as forcibly evicting them which would have represented an organized policy of disenfranchisement.) Considering events like that war, the Hebron Massacre and the Great Arab Uprising, I don't know how you think that a bi-national state would have been so assuredly successful.

Considering that ethnic cleansing of Jews in areas that the Arabs didn't cede control of in 1948 was so complete, how can you say that there was never any Arab threat to the Jewish population before then? If there was never any need to fight the Palestinians, then WHY were they fighting them? Ben-Gurion certainly didn't just initiate attacks on the indigenous Arabs... if no threat existed then why was the Yishuv struggling to defend itself during the Mandate? Why were Jews forbidden from purchasing land? Why was only their immigration severely capped?

The indigenous Jewish population of Palestine certainly never did anything to instigate violence. If your theory is correct, then why was this population ever targeted? For that matter, why isn't there any significant Jewish communities left in the Arab world today?

And a real first step of that is giving the same presumption of innocence to most Palestinians that is given to most of the rest of the human race. If Israel keeps demanding that ALL Palestinians prove they aren't terrorists, that will be a standard Palestinians will never be able to meet, because the Israeli government, a government that is more interested in keeping itself in power by than in keeping its constituents safe, will never ADMIT that most Palestinians are normal, nonviolent human beings.

What are you talking about? Israel is the only country in that entire region that has given Palestinians citizenship and equal rights under the law. If there's increased suspicion it is because of the century long conflict that's split down ethnic lines. Not because of some xenophobic master plan to maintain a grip on political power.

[Ken Burch]

89. Historically, the indigenous Jewish population of Palestine was not locked in eternal warfare

with the indigenous Arab population. Before the Europeans recruited by Herzl arrived, and brought with them a movement that was informed both by 19th Century nationalism AND a the European colonial tradition(based as it was on the assumption that Europeans were always morally, intellectually and culturally superior to anybody else)there was, with small exceptions, more or less peaceful coexistence between the two groups.

It is true that the indigenous Arabs(along with Jordan)drove the indigenous Jewish population out of the area Jordan controlled after 1948, and it's true that this was a great mistake. But this was largely due to the enmity caused by the tactics of the Zionist leadership. Ben-Gurion in particular saw the Arab population as a group that would HAVE to be driven out if the project he spearheaded was to succeed, and that there would HAVE to be a conquest of the land and a military orientation to the project.

I regard the indigenous Jewish population as victims of both the Arab response to Zionism and of Zionism itself.

There might well have been SOME sort of conflict, on a low-scale, had methods and mindsets other than those of Ben-Gurion carried the day. But they did carry the day, and once they did, what could anyone have expected of the Arab population OTHER than what they did?

I don't see Palestinians as saints, nor Zionists in the pasts OR Israelis in the present as evil. But what I do react strongly to has been the repeated implication that the Palestinians, and the other Arabs, were the successors in historic animus towards the world's Jewish communities of the Romans, the Inquisition, the tsars and Hitler. They're not. Unlike those groups, Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular were not, in the main, driven by an obsession with ridding the planet of Jews. They fought against them when they saw themselves(correctly as it turned out)as being in danger of dispossession. But they would have done this if any OTHER outside group(and Zionists as a movement were almost entirely Ashkenazim, so they were an outside group, and had no support whatsoever among the indigenous Jewish communities of Palestine prior to 1948, when those groups were essentially forced by events to become Zionists-by-default)had arrived and had given the strong impression that it would drive the indigenous Arabs out of the lands where they always lived.

If the Zionists had at least acknowledged that the Palestinians had as deep a connection to the lands as the Zionists claimed to have(rather than pretending for decades that "there's no such thing as a Palestinian" and that Palestinians were just "generic Arabs", which is an absurd implication since Arabs are no more generic or interchangeable than Latin Americans or Asians)it would have made some sort of a compromise solution much more possible.

But Ben-Gurion and Begin and their respective movements had no respect for the Palestinian fact, no willingness to acknowledge that Palestinians were a people with a history and a right to continue that history, a people who had not been responsible for the European genocide committed by Hitler. They simply choose see Palestinians as "the enemy" as subhuman, as evil personified. If a people are subjected to that sort of historic negation, what can anyone expect that people to do in return.

The State of Israel and the movement that created it need to admit, if they really want peace, that Palestine was NEVER "a land without a people". They need to admit that those who lived there for centuries are simply fighting to stay where they have always lived, rather than being Nazis(I'm talking here about the vast majority of the Palestinian population, not those wackjobs in Hamas, although even they, unpleasant as they are, are not the successors to the Wehrmacht.)

That state needs to stop invoking the Holocaust to justify its actions towards a non-European people who were completely innocent of any responsibility for it.

And it needs to end collective punishment and find focused ways to attack ONLY those who actually commit lethal acts. The IDF knows who actually commits those act, and it knows who has nothing to do with them.

It needs to give up control of the West Bank water supply. No other state on the planet uses access to water, as far as I know, to subdue another people.

And it needs eliminate the current travel restrictions that stop almost all Palestinians from leaving Palestine, even for completely innocent purposes like attending foreign universities.

None of the above would endanger Israeli security in the slightest. Most likely, that security would be greatly enhanced, since the rage Palestinians feel would be vastly diminished by humane, egalitarian treatment.

It's not possible to crush them or get them to admit "defeat". So some other way has to be found.

[Shaktimaan]

93. You're going to have to explain some of this...

It is true that the indigenous Arabs(along with Jordan)drove the indigenous Jewish population out of the area Jordan controlled after 1948, and it's true that this was a great mistake. But this was largely due to the enmity caused by the tactics of the Zionist leadership.

What tactics are you referring to? The ethnic cleansing in 1948 was one thing, it was during a war, but what about all of the preceding violence? The Hebron Massacre for example. That was in 1929. What were the Zionists doing that so easily disrupted the peaceful coexistence you're lauding?

Ben-Gurion in particular saw the Arab population as a group that would HAVE to be driven out if the project he spearheaded was to succeed, and that there would HAVE to be a conquest of the land and a military orientation to the project.

There might well have been SOME sort of conflict, on a low-scale, had methods and mindsets other than those of Ben-Gurion carried the day. But they did carry the day, and once they did, what could anyone have expected of the Arab population OTHER than what they did?

What are you basing this on? His actions certainly don't support this statement. What exactly are you referring to when you say that his methods and mindset drove the Palestinians to violence?

Because other than purchasing land and immigrating in large numbers, the Zionists did not really do anything to the Palestinians. All of those instances of anti-Jewish violence and the passing of discriminatory laws that I mentioned; all of that came before the Zionists began fighting back. WHY do you think the Arab population had no choice but to attack the Jews? They certainly didn't have to attack anyone.

You're suggesting that Ben-Gurion had planned a vast ethnic cleansing, that the Arabs were defending themselves against. But what are you basing that on? It was the Arabs that began ethnic cleansing of the Jews. And even today Israel has a large Arab population while everyplace else is devoid of Jews. Now you can suggest that Ben-Gurion might have done this thing, or would have done that thing, but it's all speculation. You can't argue against an event that you think would have occurred but did not. So what did Ben-Gurion actually do that instigated the conflict in your opinion?

They simply choose see Palestinians as "the enemy" as subhuman, as evil personified. If a people are subjected to that sort of historic negation, what can anyone expect that people to do in return.

OK, seriously, what are you basing this on? Again, I'd like to point out that despite the fact that the Palestinians were the ones who ACTUALLY started the initial violence, the uprising, the civil war and so on, Israel has NOT expelled all of the Arabs out of Israel. It certainly did not subject anyone to a historical negation. However, JORDAN and the Palestinians DID do that regarding the Jewish population in East Jerusalem, destroying their cemeteries and temples; wiping out any trace of their long existence there.

This is crazy. You're accusing Israel of doing things that it did not ever do, but which the Arabs DID do. The Arabs could not have done these things in retaliation because Israel did not do them to begin with. Nor has Israel yet to do them at all.

You think that the Zionists immigrated to Palestine in the early 1900s, immediately recognized the Arabs living there as evil personified and began trying to historically erase them? To which the Arabs naturally reacted by killing and ethnically cleansing its native Jewish population, (which strikes you as somehow understandable.) So if only it wasn't for the actions of the Zionists, then the Arabs would never have needed to retaliate against all of the Jews in the Middle East who had nothing to do with Zionism or Israel?

Seriously, where is this narrative coming from?

[Shaktimaan]

84. You are making quite a few broad assumptions here, aren't you?

It can't ever again be progressive to defend what Israel does in the name of "security".

What do you mean by it can't be "progressive?" What does that have to do with progressiveness in the first place?

When spoken by the Israeli government "Security" and "terrorism" are just code for "We have the right to crush Palestinians by any means necessary".

So Israel doesn't face any credible terrorist threats at all in your opinion? Would you really say that Israel's ever really "crushed Palestinians by any means necessary?"

The State of Israel no longer has anything to do with Judaism, or with fighting antisemitism. No one, in this day and age, can even seriously argue anymore that the world's Jewish communities NEED Israel.

What makes you think so? Considering that roughly half of the world's Jews live in Israel, I would say that they very much NEED Israel. If the diaspora doesn't seem to need Israel anymore, it is just because almost all diaspora Jews now live in America. The decimation of the Jewish diaspora over the past 100 years resulting in only two countries housing 95% of all Jews provides a very valid argument in favor of Israel's continued critical role. If today's Jews aren't facing the same existential threats as previous generation's then it is because of Israel's existence, not in spite of it. Nor do I think that world Jewery needs to be under immediate or constant threat for Israel's role to be justified.

Those communities would be just as safe and secure in Israel, should they ever decide to go there, if that state STOPPED treating all Palestinians as potential terrorists and got rid of the illegal West Bank settlements.

What evidence do you have to suggest that pulling out of the West Bank entirely wouldn't pose any security threat? I mean, I remember your argument being used in relation to both Lebanon and Gaza, and in both cases it was wrong. Leaving both areas resulted in increased terrorism. With the West Bank especially, leaving would put Tel Aviv and the airport inside of rocket range should Hamas decide to attack from there. What makes you so sure that they wouldn't do so?

They could have the same protection Israel CLAIMS to offer them, and perhaps even MORE, in a single state that treats Jews and Arabs as equals. It was the Europeans that wanted a Judenrein world...not Palestinians.

Well, it was the Arabs that rejected the bi-national state concept in the first place, so to act as though the Zionists behaved unreasonably in establishing Israel as a Jewish state is a little dishonest. If the Arabs never posed any threat to their Jewish minority at all, then why is the entire Arab world totally devoid of Jewish people nowadays?

Treat people like human beings and they'll behave like human beings.

Except when they don't. Such as in Hebron, 1929. And about a zillion other instances throughout history.

That's no different with Palestinians than with anyone else.

Right... the thing is, I don't think it's necessarily true for anyone. Otherwise there would never have been any need to establish Israel in the first place.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. The Israeli govt and it's abuse of the terms security and terrorism...

Ken said: 'When spoken by the Israeli government "Security" and "terrorism" are just code for "We have the right to crush Palestinians by any means necessary".'

You responded with: 'So Israel doesn't face any credible terrorist threats at all in your opinion? Would you really say that Israel's ever really "crushed Palestinians by any means necessary?"'

Let me put this in a way you should be able to relate to. The Bush administration abused the terms 'security' and 'terrorism' and I'd hope you'd agree on that point. Yet, no one would say that the US didn't face any credible terrorist threats. So why would you think anyone pointing out that the Israeli govt is abusing those terms in the same way as the Bush administration is is trying to say there's no credible terrorist threats? It's not all or nothing when it comes to security and terrorism. There's a sensible middle ground that doesn't rely on trying to whip the public up into a frenzy and using those terms to hide behind while trying to introduce laws that are both undemocratic and discriminatory, nor does it need to get to the ridiculous point where a govt announces there's no need to worry about security or terrorism...

And I don't know about Ken, but I'd certainly say that the Israeli govt (and ones before it) do believe they have the right to crush the Palestinians by any means necessary.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. It is bigotry when an entire group is judged on the actions of a few...

You think that it's bigotry when other groups are judged on the actions of a few of the group, but don't think like that about Arabs. Yr attitude towards Arabs are revolting and bigoted...

[Ken Burch]

42. Let's turn this around then...

You'd have been ok with the British Mandatory authorities asking Arabs if they wanted to ride trains with Jews(considering what the Etzel and Lehi were getting up to in those days)?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Australia has a national Sorry Day.

Israel still regards the Nakba as something to celebrate and laud; the idea of shame in the fact that their nation was founded by ethnic cleansing and continues on that course to this day is one most Israelis condemn.

Plus, all Australia's aborigines are still allowed to live in Australia...

[shaayecanaan]

33. And remote Aboriginal settlements aren't flattened by bulldozers...

nt

[Jim Sagle]

36. From Australia:

Aborigines 'living in despair' Andrea Hayward
July 18, 2008

Aborigines are still living in "third-world conditions" despite a damning report by the State Coroner into Aboriginal suicides early this year, a lawyer for the Aboriginal families says.

An inquiry into 22 suicides across the Kimberley region by WA Coroner Alastair Hope found a lack of leadership in service delivery by the state and federal governments had contributed to disastrous living conditions and high suicide rates linked to alcohol or cannabis use.

<snip>

Lawyer for the Kimberley Aboriginal families John Hammond said they were still living in some of the worst conditions in Australia, five months after Mr Hope's report was handed down.

"They are third-world living conditions and probably some of the worst third-world style of living you'll see in Australia," Mr Hammond said.

More..

[Ken Burch]

43. And huge numbers of Australians fight for the rights of aborigines

n/t.

[shira]

51. They're not doing such a good job. The UN is all over Australia now 4 racism vs Aborigines

Australia to defend 'racist' Northern Territory intervention at the UN
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-to-defend-racist-northern-territory-intervention-at-the-un-20100809-11u6b.html

[shira]

53. Aborigines community bulldozed (2006)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/dubb-j07.shtml

As it happened, no crime had been committed, at least not by any resident. Rather, the police presence was requested by the state Labor government and its housing minister, Cherie Burton, to announce—with no prior warning to the 5,000 residents—that the government intends to close down the estate and sell off its 278 homes. Most will probably be bulldozed to make way for private developers.

This event marks a further sharp turn in social policy. Entire public housing estates have been torn down in NSW in recent years, including at Villawood East, in Sydney’s western suburbs, in order to cut social spending and make way for real estate profiteers. Other estates in Sydney’s west, including at Bonnyrigg, Macquarie Fields and Minto, are being partially demolished.

Over the past 18 months, riot police have also been called out to put down riots and unrest sparked by the impoverished and run-down conditions on the Gordon and Macquarie Fields estates, as well as in the traditional inner-city Aboriginal district of Redfern.

This is the first time, however, that police have been deployed on a large scale to directly impose regressive social policies, such as the closure of housing estates, and to quell any opposition. These are measures associated with police state regimes, and are a warning of the methods that will increasingly be used by the political establishment against wider layers of the working class.
The police operation was conducted secretively, in the dead of the night; almost as if a local coup were being prepared.

One would think that with 3 million square miles of territory (as opposed to 10 thousand in Israel) the Australian government would act a bit more civilized.

For the mathematically challenged, Australia = 300 Israels.

[Ken Burch]

41. They've stopped most discrimination against them

And Australian leftists like Violet always spoke out against persecution of aborigines, so you can't call her out on that at all.

You owe Violet an apology.

[Jim Sagle]

44. Don't wait up for it, haw haw haw.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:vv

[Ken Burch]

45. Why are you so relentlessly driven by contempt and spite?

Nobody here that you've disagreed with has advocated anything evil, or even anything that would actually harm Israel.

Israel is not fighting for its life, and it does not need to be shielded from any and all debate. It's got the biggest army in the region and that's enough.

[shira]

52. No they haven't, as the UN is on top of the situation right now. You'd think 3 million square miles

...of territory would be enough to split up equitably between the colonialists there and the Aborigines.

Israel has only 10 thousand square miles of territory in comparison.

[shira]

94. UN slams treatment of Aborigines (Aug 29, 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/national/un-slams-treatment-of-aborigines-20100828-13wvo.html

Federal Labor has defended its treatment of Aborigines after a United Nations report into disadvantage among the indigenous population led to claims racism was ''embedded'' in the Australian way of life.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Geneva blasted Australia for harbouring an ''unacceptably high level of disadvantage and social dislocation'' among Aborigines, particularly those in the Northern Territory. The committee welcomed Kevin Rudd's apology but said that saying sorry wasn't enough.

Committee member Patrick Thornberry said successive Australian governments had failed to enshrine protection against racial discrimination into the constitution.

This one's for our Australian friends and apologists here who - for some reason - are more fixated on I/P than their own country's involvement in Afghanistan or policies WRT Australia's indigenous population.

If Israel is so terrible judging by their obsession pointing out Israel's faults, what does that make Australia in comparison? Israeli citizens - unlike Australians - have faced real security threats the past 90 years in territory that's miniscule compared to Australia, which is more than 300 times bigger. More people have been killed in Afghanistan the past decade than those killed in all Israel's wars combined. And oddly enough, Australians cannot equitably share over 3 million square miles of land with their indigenous neighbors without UN condemnations.

By any objective measure, Israel's policies are more civil than Australia's.

[Violet_Crumble]

83. I wouldn't waste my breath trying to argue against that level of ignorance, Ken...

While it's kind of entertaining to see someone who doesn't oppose the discrimination against Palestinians and Israeli Arabs then turn around and pretend to be concerned about the situation of indigenous Australians, it crosses the line into sheer pathetic when they start posting ignorant nonsense and ignoring that indigenous Australians did get a really rough time of it under the very right-wing Howard govt but there's been attempts made to move forward by our more left-wing current govt. But when I see crap where someone's trying to equate the demolition of a section of a housing commission estate due to it being so poorly designed that it was bound to be crime-ridden and a huge social problem with the IDF destroying the homes of Palestinians in territory Israel is occupying, I just have to say something about the level of ignorance it takes to think that demolishing sections of a housing estate in Campbelltown is a terrible thing. Any of you apart from Australians here in this forum been to Campbelltown? Have you got any idea of the violence that was going on in some of those housing commission estates and how the mixture of low income, isolation and lack of services was a mixture that was bound to end up in bloodshed and rioting? Or maybe someone knows something the rest of us don't and can provide some evidence the NSW housing commission didn't rehouse all the tenants in areas of estates that were demolished. Or maybe point to any instances where housing commission tenants weren't happy to get new homes elsewhere? The 1970's produced some really terrible styles of public housing where there was little to no privacy given to the tenants, and the few estates we had here in Canberra were flattened quite a few years ago. The tenants were all given housing in suburbs where a mix of private and public housing exists and I've yet to meet anyone who yearns for the return of failed social experiments like those housing estates. Urgh...

[LeftishBrit]

17. Only partly. Anyway the two aren't incompatible.

'All Arabs are likely to be terrorists', like 'All Jews/Zionists are oppressors', is a stereotype about the Other. There may be an *explanation* for such views (they come from a conflict situation, and from judging all on the basis of a few); but that still isn't an *excuse*/*justification* for them.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Do you feel that that sort of opinion is a bigoted one? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

97. Kick for LB. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

100. I think that all generalized negative opinions about a group are prejudiced

Though I do often speak of 'bigotry' especially in the phrase 'anti-immigrant bigotry' (the commonest form in the UK and Europe), I am getting now to prefer the term 'prejudice' to 'bigotry'. 'Prejudiced' refers to a type of attitude; 'bigoted', though it logically means the same, is often interpreted to mean a type of *person*. Cf the absolute outrage when Gordon Brown quite correctly referred to a woman as 'sort of bigoted' for her negative views of East Europaeans - he was seen as insulting her personally, rather than commenting on an attitude.

There are many reasons for prejudices. Some of them involve what one has learned from one's family and community. Some involve being in conflict with another group. The conflict/war brings out prejudices, which in turn inflame and perpetuate the conflict. A vicious circle.

We *all*, without exception, have prejudices. E.g. I know that I am inclined to assume, usually unreasonably, that people who are politically conservative are likely to be harsh and bullying in their personal encounters - and I have often found that this is unjustified (and the person who was most harsh and bullying to me in my own life, and showed most intolerance for ill or disabled people, was in fact on the political left). I am sure that I have other prejudices that I don't even recognize as such!

But, though we all do have prejudices, they do a lot of harm in the world.

[polly7]

30. Sure it is ;). n/t.

[Ken Burch]

40. You can't assume ALL Arabs are terrorists.

n/t.

[Jim Sagle]

7. High-density thread indeed.

:thumbsdown::boring::thumbsdown:

[polly7]

29. Well it would have been without your boring old excuses.

I'd be offended if I were asked that question, I can't imagine how the 'Arab' passengers must feel. Bigoted much?

[Violet_Crumble]

31. How do participants in this forum define bigotry?

After reading the comments in the ugly subthread here where Arabs are equated with terrorists, I'd be interested to know how people define bigotry and whether anyone disagrees with my own way of defining it, which is that judgment of a group based on the actions of a few of that group is what constitutes bigotry. It doesn't matter if the motivations are fear or ignorance, the end result is bigotry...

on edit: I forgot to mention that I'd be very interested in hearing any explanations as to the logic behind judging one group of people based on the actions of a few as bigotry, but not viewing it as bigotry when another group is judged on the actions of a few of that group. To me it's bigotry no matter which group it's aimed at...

[LTX]

48. In your little world,

you can afford to ignore reality, and to self-righteously hoist the bigotry flag. In Israel, on the other hand:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1197051.stm

http://www.allbusiness.com/middle-east/israel/739932-1.html

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200206/05/eng20020605_97202.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/05/mideast/

http://unplugged.rcrwireless.com/index.php/20100524/social/1055/browsing-on-the-bus-in-israel/

[shira]

49. I wonder how the critics here would respond to questions asking...

...if they'd have a problem with airports eliminating security checks or any problem with the complete lack of security at big public events, take all metal detectors out of inner city public schools, etc.

I wonder how they'd answer the question from the OP - regarding no security - on a level of 1 to 5.

No problem, right? :)

--------------------

There are 2 separate issues here. No one here would have a problem getting on a train or bus with any people. The real question is would they have a problem getting on that train or bus - with no security - in an area known for its history of suicide bombings....or even better, would they have any problem at all sending their children to and from school on buses or trains lacking security in such areas.

[whosinpower]

54. Are you suggesting

That bigotry is ok when "security" is involved?

Cause that is what it reads. But, you do bring up an intersesting point that could be discussed...how does a person protect themselves from bigotted thoughts when worrying about their own safety.

[shira]

55. No bigotry at all. Every big Jewish function I go to in the USA has security...

....I'd personally have a problem if that security were relaxed or non-existant.

Has nothing to do with bigotry.

Am I bigoted against non-Jews in the USA if I have a problem with the lack of security at a school, synagogue, community center, etc.?

[whosinpower]

57. But that isn't how the question was worded

snip from article -

"The light rail includes three stations in Shoafat. Does that present a problem for you?" the questionnaire asks. In another question: "All passengers, Jewish and Arab, enter the train freely and without the driver's inspection. Is that a problem for you?"


There is an assumption that those answering the poll that only these stations would be of concern....or else they would of included all the stops....but they didn't - they specifically called out the three stations in Shoafat...as if only those would pose potential security issues....and only those people who THINK they might be - only those people have the chance to voice their concern.

Now your trying to change the subject - or perhaps qualify, quantify the wording because of "security."

Shira - the government of Israel does not need permission to give adequate security to its citizens....and if any government in the world knows about security - it is Israel. The question was specific, and was not related to security measures. It was meant to measure popular support of the project with three palistinian stations and with Arabs on the train. Is that race baiting? Some would say yes.
A more balanced poll would of asked if any of the stops in the settlements would present a problem..... A more balanced poll would of asked if entering the train freely without drivers inspection was desirable. A more balanced poll - specifically related to security would of asked should ALL weaponry be banned while riding the train.

[shira]

59. It's important to actually see the survey. There are 2 situations here.

1. Riding with Arabs throughout the rest of Israel.
2. Riding with Arabs from the E.Jerusalem area.

Do you think people who have no problem riding with Arabs in Tel Aviv or Haifa are bigots for feeling uneasy riding through the E.Jerusalem area?

OTOH, there are many Jews living among Arabs in E.Jerusalem. Some live in neighborhoods that are almost entirely Arab. While many here at DU label these Jews as loathsome settlers, it appears they're among the least bigoted and not fearful at all to be there - or to ride with Arabs. Your thoughts?

[whosinpower]

63. Your questions are illuminating

For they too, do not take any consideration whatsoever of the Arabs concerns while riding with jewish settlers.

This is a public rail of which government officials have stated the rail is to serve all the citizens without distinction. I believe this is as it should be....

But, then why ask those specific questions that DO make a distinction?

Why are the questions one sided? It is as though Arab concerns mean nothing at all. You know, in terms of security and safety - I am pretty sure there are allot of Arabs out there who want to be safe too.

If there are people who are uncomfortable with traveling with a certain group - there is nothing stopping them from finding alternative transportation. If they have so little faith in the security that the state will undoubtably provide - they can walk. In terms of providing a safe and secure rail system that serves all the citizens without distinction - what they think is not relevant....which is why the wording of the survey is troublesome.

[shira]

66. Can you please answer those questions, especially the first one?

As to the questionnaire, how do you know that Israeli Arabs aren't being asked those very questions and asked whether they themselves have any problem traveling with BOTH the Jews and Arabs from the E.Jerusalem area?

If they answer in the affirmative, are they bigoted? And are they every bit as bigoted as Jewish people who answer 'yes'?

It seems Arabs are certainly being asked if they have a problem picking up settlers from the E.J. area, every bit as much as they're being asked if they have problems picking up Arabs from that area without a security check.

[whosinpower]

67. Still you do not see your own bigotry

snip from your post -
regarding two scenario's which you wish to illuminate -

1. Riding with Arabs throughout the rest of Israel.
2. Riding with Arabs from the E.Jerusalem area.

Do you think people who have no problem riding with Arabs in Tel Aviv or Haifa are bigots for feeling uneasy riding through the E.Jerusalem area?


Those are your words...still can't see the problem I bet. I will clarify it for you. Still you are making an assumption that only Arabs in the E Jerusalem area are potentially problematic.

The question itself is bigotted, based on your second scenario which does not include other citizens who live in E Jerusalem. The question itself is bigotted in that it attempts to "immunize" itself by saying "I have no problem with Arabs in Tel Aviv or Haifa", therefore my concern for Arabs in E Jerusalem is not bigotted - only interested in security. That was the standard that you proposed.

If you had proposed -
1. Riding throughout the rest of Israel
2. riding through E. Jerusalem

And asked - Do you think people who have no problem riding through Tel Aviv or Haifa are bigots for feeling uneasy about riding through E. Jerusalem area?
If you had worded it thus - I would of answered. But I will not answer a bigotted question.

[shira]

68. Enough of the bigotry accusations....when that's all you have your argument is bankrupt.

And no, I don't "see it".

Those 2 situations at the end of your post are no different than the 2 situations I wrote about. If I had written what you wrote at the end of your last post, you'd have probably labeled that bigoted as well. The obvious follow-up being, why would anyone who is okay with riding in Tel Aviv have problems with riding around E.Jerusalem. It's like asking people in Manhattan if they're okay riding buses there as opposed to riding buses in Harlem.

How's about answering the last scenario at the end of your post?

[whosinpower]

69. The two situations are different

Because you are using "arabs" as the standard by which you infer a security risk.

If the question was worded -

If people have no problem riding with jews in Tel Aviv, would they be bigotted for being nervous about traveling in E. Jerusalem. The inference in that statement is that jews are a potential problem in E. Jerusalem. That is bigotted in that it uses jews as a standard, and lumps them all together without regard to individuals who are no problem at all.

I am sure that will jump off the page in clarity for you.

The governments statement about serving all citizens without distinction is a valid, positive statement. The survey could of been worded in a more neutral way but even their wording is better than yours.

[shira]

72. You have yet to answer the question - why?

Also, is there a problem asking people in NYC if they have problems riding in Manhattan as opposed to Harlem?

Lastly, do you really have issues with the OP's citing of the questionnaire and its questions? If people answered in the affirmative, do you think that's bigoted?

[LeftishBrit]

96. No, not if you have a problem with lack of security...

But if you had a general reluctance to allow American non-Jews in certain areas then it would become prejudiced.

I like to know that there is security when using public transport in London, due to various past incidents. However, if I said that e.g. British Muslims, or Irish Catholics, should be banned from public transport, because of a very few past terrorist actions by extremists, then I would be a bigot.

I like to know that there is security around my workplace, because some animal rights extremists have very explicitly targeted anyone connected with my university as a legitimate target, whether they do animal research or not. However, if I treated ALL animal-rights supporters as terrorists, this would be a form of bigotry.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. I take it you strongly disagree with the definition I gave

What's the definition you use? I'd be very interested to see one that leads to something being bigotry if aimed at Jews but not bigotry if aimed at Arabs.

btw I recall you in one of yr first posts throwing round an accusation of bigotry.which is why I found yr comment about self righteous accusations of bigotry to be a real pot kettle black moment

[LTX]

60. I was "throwing around" an accusation of bigotry?

You mean calling an individual an anti-semite who was actually banned from this site for his blatantly anti-semitic comments? Was that the "accusation of bigotry" that you now find to be "a real pot kettle black moment?"

And your definition of bigotry is just fine, as you well know. It suffers only from the reality of multiple bus bombings that you, rather inexplicably, choose to ignore. Hence, with this reality in mind, the question contained in the o/p certainly appears appropriate:

"All passengers, Jewish and Arab, enter the train freely and without the driver's inspection. Is that a problem for you?"

Perhaps you'd care to comment on how these bus bombings should be factored in to the situation? Or do you believe that the reality of these multiple murders and maimings has no bearing at all?

[Ken Burch]

62. The bus bombings stopped years ago, for God's sake.

And the Etzel bombed buses during the fight against the British, so the "pro-Israel" side has no moral superiority on that one.

[LTX]

64. You're sooo right!

Suicide bombings in Israel are ancient history. Heck, nobody even remembers them now. They're just so 2008, dude.

And 2007. And 2006. And 2005. And 2004. And 2003. And 2002. And 2001. And 2000. And 1999. And 1998. And 1997. And 1996. And 1995. And 1994. And . . .

[Shaktimaan]

82. It's not a question of moral superiority.

If the last act of Arab terrorism was 60 years ago then this discussion would be academic. Now I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent here... but is it bigoted to recognize that the existing conflict is split down ethnic lines and develop policy that reflects that? In other words, while recognizing that only very few Arabs would bomb buses, if ONLY Arabs are bombing buses then is it racist to focus security efforts on them?

[whosinpower]

101. That is a good question

My answer to that would be yes - it is bigotted. I would say it is short sighted and only deepens the ethnic conflict - which is counter productive. Having adequate security IS important and I am not downplaying that - but targetting one ethnic group, even if a small minority are violent, just further entrenchs the conflict and dual standards for dual ethnicities.

I would suggest developing security policies that do not reinforce the ethnic conflict, but reinforce the importance of keeping ALL passengers safe - regardless of their ethnicity, and recognizing that any person, regardless of their ethnicity, age, or gender are, in fact, capable of violent acts. Wingnuts exist - everywhere.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. You agree with the definition of bigotry I used & added a but...

the definition I used applies to all. the security excuse has been used in the past to justify bigotry against one group of people as even though security is the motive behind it , it's still judging an entire group based on the actions of a few which is why you'll find most duers oppose racial profiling at airports. I'm guessing by yr stance in this thread that you support racial profiling. Using yr logic it wouldn't be bigoted to be concerned about Jews living nearby due to the bulldozing of Arab homes and the violence of settlers who take over peoples homes. Sorry but despite security just as much applying there, judging a group based on the actions of a few makes it bigotry.

Yes you do throw accusations of bigotry around. While it's supposed to be against the rules to accuse others of bigotry there's examples of you doing it in this forum. Posts get deleted and people banned for many reasons and unless the mods told you they banned someone for the reason you claimed yr engaging in wishful thinking. In fact if the person in the post you replied to got banned for the reason you claim then I'll say I agreed with what they said and if I don't get Banned then the other poster wasn't banned for the reason you claim. After all I only just saw you in a thread a few days back making out it was bigoted to point out that a partisan pro Israel source was biased and crap so you seem have a very different standard when it comes to bigotry against arabs.

[LTX]

70. Interesting.

1. I don't think you want to agree with the comments of the banned poster. I really don't.

2. For someone so keen on proving the purity of their non-discriminatory ideology, you seem curiously anxious to agree, sight unseen, with what I perceived to be anti-semitic comments. I'll chalk that up to your judgment that I don't know antisemitism when I see it.

3. You could have just stated that you view the lives of others as irrelevant to the pursuit of your ideology, instead of offering up that perfectly bizarre analogy. As it is, I'm left struggling a bit to understand a mentality that equates theoretical Jews-with-bulldozers in Houston Texas to actual suicide bombers in Israel.

At any rate, we apparently disagree. I believe that perfect non-discrimination is a laudable goal. I also believe that recreational bigotry in the virtual world needs to be condemned because it is an unnecessary impediment to the goal of perfect non-discrimination in the real world. But I also recognize that the messiness of reality needs to be accounted for in the pursuit of real-world perfection.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. So now you don't agree with the definition I gave. I wish you'd make up yr mind!

purity of their non-discriminatory ideology

Y'know, instead of initially pretending that you agreed with the definition of bigotry I gave, and now resorting to ridiculing a very common definition by clumsily calling it *my ideology*, it would really assist matters if you explained *why* you don't think the definition I gave should apply to all groups, in this case specifically Arabs.

I would also be interested in knowing why, if you think security is an issue where it's acceptable to discriminate against one ethnic group, wouldn't you rather support tighter security that applies to ALL travellers, rather than singling out anyone who's Arab. Or is there something I'm missing, and discriminating against Arabs is a goal rather than security?


As it is, I'm left struggling a bit to understand a mentality that equates theoretical Jews-with-bulldozers in Houston Texas to actual suicide bombers in Israel.

I can see yr also struggling to comprehend what you read in my post. I didn't mention Houston, so I've got no idea where you got that from. I was referring to Jerusalem and the Occupied West Bank. Now that I've spelt it out very clearly, could you return to my post and explain to me why yr logic wouldn't apply to Jews? See, if the security excuse can be used to defend bigoted attitudes against Arabs, then why can't security excuses be used to defend bigoted attitudes against Jews?


For someone so keen on proving the purity of their non-discriminatory ideology, you seem curiously anxious to agree, sight unseen, with what I perceived to be anti-semitic comments. I'll chalk that up to your judgment that I don't know antisemitism when I see it.

Or you could just read what I said in my post and have it dawn on you that I'm showing you that yr claim that you knew why a poster was banned is a bit of a bullshit claim. As you don't seem willing to admit that the mods didn't tell you why another poster was banned, and you've got no clue at all as to why they were banned, I proved yr claim was wrong, seeing as how I said I agreed with what they posted, yet I'm still here...

And I do think anyone who pops up in a thread making out that criticism of a partisan site like CAMERA is antisemitic is someone with a tendency to fling accusations of bigotry around in rather self-righteous and wild ways. Whether or not you know it when you see it, I don't know and can't say I really care, given the overly dramatic over-use of the accusation I've seen you use in this forum...

[LTX]

86. Of course I agree with the definition.

It's the practical application in this particular instance that presents the difficulty. I don't know why you find that hard to comprehend, and I don't know why you insist on painting the issue as solely agreement or disagreement with the definition.

As for your hypothetical, you stated -- "Using yr logic it wouldn't be bigoted to be concerned about Jews living nearby due to the bulldozing of Arab homes and the violence of settlers who take over peoples homes." Living nearby who? I assumed you meant living nearby me, since it is my supposed failure to appreciate the meaning of bigotry that you are attacking. If instead you meant Arabs living nearby Jewish settlers, then in fact Arabs are "concerned about Jews living nearby due to the bulldozing of Arab homes and the violence of settlers who take over peoples homes." That situation highlights the problem with the practical application of your definition as much as the concern over rail-line security. Surely you aren't suggesting that Arabs living nearby Jewish settlers actually view Jews strictly within the benign parameters of your definition, are you?

As for my post about Camera, you're going to have to quote me claiming that mere criticism of the site is antisemitic. I don't recall that, and I can't seem to locate the post. If I did that, I was wrong, and I'll have to chalk it up to a bad day in the cognizance department.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Ridiculing it as *my* ideology did give a different impression...

There's no difficulty at all in applying that definition in the case of the OP, and sticking a big *but* after the definition in order to exclude one group of people from it is something most people would be very uncomfortable with. If someone truly is concerned with security on any transport system, they'd support ALL people undergoing searches or whatever's required, and be totally opposed to it being applied only to one ethnic group. And that's because they realise that applying it only to one ethnic group is bigoted...

I'm pretty sure there's no settlers in Houston, so I strongly suggest you read what yr replying to properly, seeing I mentioned settlers, have no idea where you live, and the OP is about Jerusalem.


Surely you aren't suggesting that Arabs living nearby Jewish settlers actually view Jews strictly within the benign parameters of your definition, are you?

As it's an example of the failings of yr logic, I'm not suggesting anything like that and would appreciate you trying to focus on what I've actually said instead of trying to drift off on tangents. Now, I take it you wouldn't consider it bigoted at all for anyone to be concerned about living near Jews in Jerusalem based on the actions of a few Jews? See, I would. Just the same as I consider being concerned about all Arabs based on the actions of a few is bigoted...

If I spend some time I can certainly locate a post from you where you make out (I've never said that you came out and said it outright) that criticism of CAMERA is antisemitic. I just can't see what the purpose is. I showed that yr initial claim about a post where you accused the poster of antisemitism wasn't true, so I suspect I'd be totally wasting my time going even further...

[LTX]

95. Reality is often disregarded

by those who are safely distant from a conflict. You can indulge the privilege of drawing ideological stick figures while ignoring the flesh and bone of strangers. My view is admittedly colored by a level of self-interest. I think that Israel is taking a courageous step with the policy it has adopted, and I am not offended by a poll of those who will be subject to the policy that employs honest questions.

Regarding your murky hypothetical, you appear to be growing rather uncomfortable with it, since it really suggests only two scenarios - one an absurdity of moral equivalence, and the other a demonstration of the very reality that you've chosen to ignore. Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll continue to defend it as a model of clarity and pertinence.

As for my "bullshit claim," here's the thread I was referring to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x323710#324542

It is a reasonable inference that the poster banned during the course of that thread was banned for his comments in that thread. You remain, of course, free to agree with them.

And Violet, what's the difference between "making out that criticism of Camera is antisemitic," and actually stating it? As I said previously, if I stated that mere criticism of Camera is antisemitic, I was wrong. And I'll add that if I "made out" that mere criticism of Camera is antisemitic, I was also wrong (whatever the difference between the two may be).

[Violet_Crumble]

98. I see you ignored what I said and asked...

I'd be interested in hearing an explanation of how 'reality' works so that it becomes acceptable to support discrimination against Arabs, while using the same 'security' logic shouldn't lead to discrimination against other groups. What would be yr opposition to security measures being applied to ALL travellers on a transport system, rather than singling one group out?

You also haven't explained why yr logic when it comes to Arabs doesn't also apply when it comes to Jews. Why wouldn't you find it bigoted for Israeli Arabs to not want to live anywhere near Jews based on the actions of a few Jewish settlers who take over homes and attack innocent people? Instead of trying to explain the different standards you admit to having (lucky it's just Arabs because anyone who insisted they were proud of a stand that would discriminate against Jews would be banned from DU so quick they wouldn't know what hit them), you make rather silly comments, like labelling the commonly accepted definition I gave of bigotry as being my ideology as though I just pulled it out of the air, and now apparently being privy to my thoughts and claiming I'm uncomfortable with the example of bigotry I gave you. The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is the eagerness I see from some people to ignore or downplay bigotry aimed at Arabs (and Muslims in other parts of DU)...

Uh-huh. So you've switched from *knowing* why someone got banned to merely guessing? You made it very clear in yr earlier post that you *knew*, not that you were guessing. You do know the difference between *knowing* and *guessing*, right?

You don't know what the difference is between implying something and coming straight out and saying it?? You really want me to waste time explaining what is a really simple thing to understand to you??

[LTX]

99. You seem not to have noticed that the plan on the table is one

of open ridership with three stations in Shoafat and no security checks of anyone. And that the topic of this thread, and the subject of your outrage, is a set of polling questions that asks whether potential riders have a problem with this.

I assume that you know the history of Shoafat, and the not insignificant Hamas presence in Shoafat. I assume you also know that 229 people were killed in 28 terror attacks between 1994 and 2004 in Jerusalem, most of them carried out in the public transportation system, and all of them by Arab terrorists. Under the circumstances, I view questions about residents' fears of using an open mass transportation service which does not entail a security check as reasonable, honest, and necessary to gauging the economics of the proposed line.

I also know that security checks of all commuter rail passengers is a practical impossibility, that no city in the world has adopted such a policy, and that such a policy would defeat the rapidity of transit and effectively kill the economics of the line. Which is why the policy at issue is no security checks.

The issue here is whether there is any reasonable expectation of blissful and perfect non-discriminatory trust between Jews and Arabs given the ongoing conflict, a conflict that is split down ethnic lines. My point is, no there is not, and that is the reality of the situation that you so blithely ignore. And your hypothetical only serves to prove that point. The reality is that Arabs do not trust Jews in part because of the historic actions of settlers, and I don't find that any more unreasonable than Jews not trusting Arabs because of the history of suicide bombers. It's called human nature, which you apparently find offensive. The endemic distrust in the region will be changed only over time, as the conflict itself is resolved, the reasons for distrust are corrected, and practical things like non-discriminatory mass transit operate successfully. In the meantime, reality is messy, and determining the level to which existing distrust will effect the practical efforts to build and operate urban infrastructure will be necessary. Humans are what humans are, whether you wish to acknowledge that or not.

Finally, read the thread I linked. Draw your own conclusions. I've stated what mine are. And please post my "implication." Like I've said before, if I made the statement, or implication, that you accuse me of, I was wrong. I just don't recall making it. And yes Violet, you will have to explain what the hell difference it makes whether I made the statement or implied it. It's obvious how keen you are to prove that in all things you are superior and pure and that I am bigoted and scurrilous, so I'm sure you would take some pleasure in the task.