Survey: Many Arabs miffed with life in Israel

[Classical_Liberal]

Sixty-three percent of those surveyed think that "the status of the Arabs in Israel is worse today than 10 years ago," and 45% anticipate "Israel's transformation into an apartheid state," while 32% expect "increased Palestinian emigration from Israel." More than four fifths "reject compromising on the right of return for Palestinian refugees."

In addition, 62% believe it is impossible for Israel to be both a Jewish and democratic state; 54% think equality between Jews and Arabs is not possible as long as Israel is identified as a Jewish state; only 33% describe Israel as a democracy; 94% consider Zionism "a racist movement"; and 87% feel the Law of Return is "racist.".........

Similarly, the percentage of those who believe there is equality between Jews and Arabs is low: only 4% when it comes to resource distribution, 10% in terms of private employment opportunities and 7% in government employment, 11% in the arena of political rights, and 30% on the issue of freedom of expression (the highest number in any category considered)..........

Haifa University sociology Prof. Sammy Smooha, director of the Index of Relations Between Jews and Arabs in Israel, said the survey findings were broadly consistent with his own recently released data. His research, however, found that nearly 70% of Israeli Arabs accept Israel's right to exist within the Green Line as "a Jewish and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs live together" and that 37.7% accept the Zionist principle of Israel's right to preserve a Jewish majority........

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1086663087859

[Gimel]

1. what can be expected

...found that nearly 70% of Israeli Arabs accept Israel's right to exist within the Green Line as "a Jewish and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs live together"...

With almost a third of the Arabs rejecting Israel's right to exist, the loayalty of the Arab population is low.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[ET Awful]

4. Well said CL

And I agree completely.

[drdon326]

5. "32% expect "increased Palestinian emigration from Israel".

I'm sure they're really really love going to
whatever state develops in the west bank.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. You mean reservation right?

?

[Gimel]

6. Historical facts

Partition was voted, the Palestinians did not have a country. Neither did the Jews. They both have rights.

Was the British Mandate their country? Was the Turkish Empire theirs?

[Classical_Liberal]

8. They had their government taken from them by Turks and the Brits

then the UN gave land that was not theirs to Israelis. As for the UN, they gave the West Bank half of the Partition to the Palestinians. Why won't the Israelis respect that?

[The Magistrate]

41. You Will Have A Very Hard Time, Ma'am

Pointing to any period in the last two millenia when the area west of the Jordan was ruled by local inhabitants. Rule from Rome and Constantinople gave way to Islamic Arab conquest, then to conquest by Seljuk Turk, Egyptian Malamuke, and finally Ottoman Turk, prior to the English conquest.

It was not Israel but Jordan and Egypt that prevented, in 1949, any declaration of statehood by the Arab Nationalist leadership in the remaining areas of the Arab Zone after the '48 war, and at the time of the Partition in '47, it was the express policy of that same leadership, and of the Arab League, not to declare statehood in the Arab Zone under the terms of the Partition.

When choices are made, Ma'am, consequences follow....

[Lithos]

42. Are you talking autonomous or outright self-rule?

There were several areas which were essentially autonomous entities inside the Ottoman empire.

L-

[The Magistrate]

50. Outright Self-Rule, Sir

In the old imperiums, there was always a good deal of local autonomy, as a matter of practical fact, owing to techno;ogical limitations and political convenience, which generally dictated either recruiting an existing local elite, or creating a new one that owed its existence to the conqueror, to administer a locality. These were often able to presume somewhat on their prerogatives in periods of decay and decline afflicting the central power.

[Classical_Liberal]

46. So, they were conquered by other people

doesn't make their claim less valid.

[The Magistrate]

51. Indeed, Ma'am

It is not the claim of Arab Palestine to statehood, but your view of the history in the matter, that is questionable. The phrase "had their government stolen from them by the Ottoman and the English" seems to indicate that prior to the Ottoman they had their own government, and that is not the case.

It is also the case that it was not the creation of Israel that prevented the establishment of an Arab Palestinian state, but the miscalculations of Arab Nationalist leadership, and the hostility of neighboring Arab powers to such a state, that prevented establishment in 1947, and during the two subsequent decades, of an Arab Palestinian state. A similar miscalcularion continues to this day, for there is not the slightest legal encumberance to the declaration tomorrow of a state by the Palestine Authority, and as the doing would be of great political benefit, the question naturally arises why this is not done. The reason that strikes me as most likely behind the absence of such a declaration is that it would have to include some indication of what territory sovereignty was claimed over. Such a declaration must either exclude some portion of the lands west of the Jordan, and thus serve as a real recognition of Israel, or let the cat out of the bag by claiming a maximalist territory include some or all of Israel, which latter many who support Israel consider to be the actual aim of the Arab Palestinian leadership, which it strives to keep camouflaged for obvious reasons.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. They have never been allowed to have their own government

I don't disagree. I don't think you view of History is any better. You have been spreading the myth that all of Israel was purchased in when in fact only 20% of it was owned by Jews in 1948, nor were they anywhere near a majority of the population.


I don't deny they rejected Israel outright initially. They aren't evil because of it, any more than Indians were evil for rejecting America.

[The Magistrate]

71. That Is An Extraordinary Statement, Ma'am

It comes as some surprise to me to learn of my efforts at "spreading the myth that all of Israel was purchased" here. My comments on that question have been confined to noting that, prior to 1948, all land acquired by Zionists in the region was acquired by lawful purchase from a willing seller, or was state land leased lawfully from a state agency, and that therefore, the Zionist enterprise in that regard during that period cannot honestly be called criminal, as it has been fashionable to do in some quarters. You will be unable to find any statement by me to any other effect in that matter, nor will you ever find me denying that a good deal of land was expropriated during the '48 war, and afterwards, even into the present day. It is a fact of history that land is often taken by conquest during war, and certainly those on the losing end of a war are under no obligation to approve the practice, generally irreversable, without subsequent military victory, though it is.

Nor will you find any instance of my claiming Jews owned the majority of acreage, or constituted a majority of the population, in Mandatory Palestine. It is a fact that Jews were a majority of the population in the Jewish Zone of the Partition, and that in proportion of roughly five to three, but the partion was carefully arranged to achieve such a result. Even this did not translate into a majority of acreage in that Zone, since the Jewish population, despite the pioneering mythos of the founding tale, remained largely urban, and city lots take up a great deal less space than fields and orchards and pastures. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the worth of real estate held by the two parties in the Jewish Zone: though no such computation has ever come to my notice, my expectation would be that Jewish holdings had a higher monetary value, as urban properties tend to command a higher price per square foot than rural ones.

You will not find, either, any statement by me to the effect that Arab Palestinians are evil. You will find statements that the Arab Nationalist leadership of that people has displayed a monumental incompetence, and that a goodly portion of that incompetence has consisted in the adoption of criminal violence as a leading tactic, as well as recognition that a certain overlap in bigotries rendered easy its affiliation with the Reich in the days when Hitler seemed to enjoy some prospect of victory. You will also find acknowledgement that wrong has been done by Israel, where it seems to me that it has been.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I think you've forgotten something....

"It is also the case that it was not the creation of Israel that prevented the establishment of an Arab Palestinian state, but the miscalculations of Arab Nationalist leadership, and the hostility of neighboring Arab powers to such a state, that prevented establishment in 1947, and during the two subsequent decades, of an Arab Palestinian state."

And the leaders of what was to become Israel weren't hostile to the idea of such a state, and did all within their power to prevent it happening?


Violet...

[Gimel]

61. When attacks followed

Immediately after the UN announcement (the next day) Israel was attacked by 5 armies. It would be pretty hard to seem otherwise, as far as welcoming the new Palestinian State. No room for leverage there.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Huh?

Are you saying that Israel was ready and willing to accept the Palestinian state, but unfortunately that all had to change when most unexpectedly a war erupted? Sorry, but Zionist leaders colluded with Jordan prior to the UN announcement in order to ensure that no Palestinian state happened, and there's quotes from Zionist leaders also prior to that time expressing the same sentiment....

Violet...

[Gimel]

67. Jerusalem in Arab hands

This did not make the Jews of Palestine happy. Jews were no longer allowed to visit their holiest site, the "Western Wall" of the ancient Temple. But the leaders of the Jewish community did accept Partition, if not there would not be an Israel today. With hostile Palestinians, hostile to a Jewish state and the Jews, of course it was difficult to compromise on anything. And yes, Israel was attacked the day following the UN announcement of partition.

[Darranar]

69. There was no Israel when the UN announced partition...

that came a year later, when the British Mandate ended.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. That's true, and also...

Gimel makes the claim that Arabs were hostile to a Jewish state (true), and Jews (the hostility doesn't seem to have much to do with what people were, but that they were settlers arriving to dispossess people of their land), she doesn't take into account that the Zionists, as well as surrounding Arab states, were all hostile to the emergence of a Palestinian state. Gimel also claims that Jerusalem was to be in Arab hands, which is untrue. It was to be an international city. As you pointed out Israel didn't exist when the UN announced partition, yet Gimel claims Israel was attacked. I've been reading a book by Benny Morris called '1948 and after' where he points out that Jordan didn't attack any part of Palestine earmarked for the Jewish state, but invaded East Palestine, which was earmarked for the Palestinian state....

Violet....

[Gimel]

97. Your claims

Gimel also claims that Jerusalem was to be in Arab hands, which is untrue. It was to be an international city. As you pointed out Israel didn't exist when the UN announced partition, yet Gimel claims Israel was attacked.

While I did write that "Israel was attacked" the day after partition was announced, it wasn't my intention to claim that Israel as a modern state existed at that point, which would be clear if you read my post. Partition with Jerusalem as an international city was in the plan. The Jews in the areas that was to become Israel, already with a defense force and government, although not a statehood, was attacked.

Here is a timeline:

29 November General Assembly votes to partition Palestine and establish, by 1 October 1948, Jewish and Arab states, and internationalised Jerusalem. Arabs denounce the decision and say they will oppose its implementation by force.
30 November Arab mobs attack Jewish quarters in Jerusalem and Arab irregulars begin operations against Jewish cities and settlements.



1948

19 March US proposes suspension of partition plan and calls for a special session of the General Assembly to discuss trusteeship for Palestine.
1 April Security Council calls for truce in Palestine and special session of the General Assembly to reconsider future of Palestine.
14 May State of Israel proclaimed as British mandate over Palestine ends at midnight. US recognises Israel de facto.
15 May Armies of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan and Syria invade Israel.
17 May Soviet Union recognises Israel de facto.
20 May General Assembly Committee appoints Count Folke Bernadotte as mediator for Palestine.
29 May Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem falls to Arab Legion. Security Council calls for a four week cease-fire within 72 hours.
11 June Four week truce commences.

source

I hope that clarifies any misunderstanding, Violet. I am not writing history or reinventing history. You may not understand what I have intended to say, so I direct you to the source for reading the UN documents. They are relevant to this discussion.

[Gimel]

96. The Mandate

The Mandate was scheduled to end no later than August 1, 1948. Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948. The UN announced the Partition Plan on Nov 28, 1947. War broke out immediately after the UN announced partition, and immediately after Israel announced a state. Israel did not wait for the Mandate to end.

[Gimel]

98. I said no such thing.

I did not contradict your post #54 in my post #61, but in several places in this thread you say that I do. Please go back and read carefully.

Ben-Gurion and Meir were ready to accept statehood (and yes, you said Israel here, even though Israel did not yet exist as a state). They were not entirely happy with the planned partition. I think that they knew, and the UN knew, that the Palestinians were not ready for statehood. Israel's provisional government was in place on May 14, 1948. According to the Partition Plan, preparations would be made to ensure that each separate state had it's own constitution and democratic government. The attacks that followed the announcement of the Plan, and subsequently Israel's unilateral announcement of statehood (the Mandate was to end no later than August 1, 1948).

On September 3, 1947, the UN Special Committee on Palestine recommended ending the Mandate as soon as possible, rejected a bi-national solution as unworkable, and recommended partition.

________________

Recommendation I. Termination of the Mandate
It is recommended that
The Mandate for Palestine shall be terminated at the earliest practicable date.
….

3. The basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two intense nationalisms. Regardless of the historical origins of the conflict, the rights and wrongs of the promises and counter-promises, and the international intervention incident to the Mandate, there are now in Palestine some 650,000 Jews and some 1,200,000 Arabs who are dissimilar in their ways of living and, for the time being, separated by political interests which render difficult full and effective political co-operation among them, whether voluntary or induced by constitutional arrangements.
4. Only by means of partition can these conflicting national aspirations find substantial expression and qualify both peoples to take their places as independent nations in the international community and in the United Nations.
5. The partition solution provides that finality which is a….


Source

Other solutions were explored by the UN Committee, so the entire report is interesting and informative. It will help you get a better picture of the situation.

The rejection of the bi-national idea was made by the committee:


. Following the rejection of the extreme solutions in its informal discussions, the Committee devoted its attention to the bi-national State and cantonal proposals. It considered both, but the members who may have been prepared to consider these proposals in principle were not impressed by the workability of either. It was apparent that the bi-national solution, although attractive in some of its aspects, would have little meaning unless provision were made for numerical or political parity between the two population groups, as provided for in the proposal of Dr. J. L. Magnes. This, however, would require the inauguration of complicated mechanical devices which are patently artificial and of dubious practicality.

.....


Source

The full document contains more details.

[Lithos]

70. That is only a partial accounting of the timeline

The fighting was already underway between the twin forces of the Palmach and the Haganah and the Palestinian militia. The actual hot war started back in 1947 following the British announcement of their intention to start an immediate withdrawal per the Mandate.

During this time, the Palmach/Haganah conducted numerous operations in what were designated Arab areas by the original Mandate partition. This included operations to link up with the Jewish settlements in Jerusalem along with the necessary supply lines. The infamous massacres at Balad-as-Shaikh on 30 December 1947, and Deir Yassin on April 8, 1948. Israel declared independence on May 15, 1948. Most of the Palestinian refugees had already left prior to this time.

The introduction of the Arab Armies, like the declaration of Independence, was timed to coincide with the official departure of the British. It wasn't the declaration with triggered the invasion (Armies do take time to deploy), but rather the already well understood deadline of the British departure.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Going off on a slight tangent here...

You said most of the Palestinian refugees had already left prior to May 15. I thought about half had left by that stage, and the rest were after that date....

Violet...

[Lithos]

87. There is a lot of room for fudging when they left

It also depends on whose numbers you use. Essentially there were four periods of refugee flight.

1) The initial period prior to the start of hostilities. This was small in number, but consisted of the upper and middle classes (the professional groups). Their defection heavily demoralized the remaining population. This group essentially was repeating their actions in the 1936/39 uprising and anticipated they would be returning following the cessation of hostilities. Apx. 30,000 left at this time.

2) The flight of the Arabs from Jewish predominant areas (Dec 47-Mar 48). The first phase of military action involved the establishment of control over the coastal areas including Haifa, Jaffa/Tel-Aviv and Tiberias. The majority of the Arab population in these areas left at this time. Numbers range anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000.

3) The flight from Jerusalem and environs. Once control of the coastal areas, the Haganah directed their attention along three main fronts, the Golan, access and control of Jerusalem and down the Negev. This was the period of time just prior and immediately following the declaration of Independence by Israel. It was also the time when Deir Yassin occured which prompted the start of a wholesale evacuation by the Palestinian population from the areas anywhere near the front lines along the West Bank.

This time period covered from March 1948 through July 1948 when the Arab Legion stalled the Haganah drive into what is now called the West Bank. It also saw the largest amount of refugee creation with quoted numbers between 250,000 and 500,000.

My personal opinion is that the majority of Palestinians were on the move or about to move at the time of the declaration of Independence.

It should be noted that the Arabs in the Golan did not initially evacuate at this time.

4) Last wave, from the Golan was from the last half of 1948 and on to the end of hostilities in 1949. Stymied in their attempts to push into the West Bank, the IDF launched two offensives - Operation Hiram in the Golan and their final push towards Eilat in the Negev. As part of Operation Hiram, the IDF under the guise of military necessity, forced the evacation of large numbers of Arabs from the Golan area.

The Negev operations were in what were sparsely populated territories, so did not have a substantial effect on the refugee population.

The number of refugees created is quoted as between 150-200,000 at this time.

[The Magistrate]

72. In Reply To Your No. 54 Above, Ms. Crumble

It is certainly true, Ma'am, that the leadership of the Zionist enterprise at the time of the Partition was hostile to the creation of any state of Arab Palestine. But it does seem to me that miscalculation by Arab Nationalist leadership, and the hostility of Kings Abdullah and Farouk, were the decisive factors in stifling the creation of such a state.

First, the rejection of declaring a state of Arab Palestine on the territory of the Arab Zone created by the Partition of '47 was a voluntary undertaking by both the Mufti and the Arab League, that was not in any way forced upon them by any act of the Zionist leadership. For a variety of reasons it would serve no good purpose to examine here, that struck both the Mufti and the assembled Arab League as the best position to take in the question.

Second, after the cease-fire early in '49, it was Jordanian and Egyptian garrisons that were in possession of the portion of the designated Arab Zone that Israel had not conquered in the fighting, and that acted to effectively annex those fragments, through exercises in political puppetry. There was certainly no agreement between Israel and Egypt in this matter, and King Abdullah was in the happy situation of having agreed with Israel to do what he wanted to do himself, so that he could do what he pleased and have someone else regard it as a favor they might have obligation to repay.

Great though the hostility of Israel's founders to a state of Arab Palestine was, it seems to me that, had the decision been made by the Arab leadership to declare one, either at the same time as Israel was declared, or immediately subsequent to the '49 cease-fire, that it would have held up. Mr. Ben-Gurion was, above all else, a canny and pragmatic politician, who could be expected to recognize that Israel would have destroyed the political credit and good-will essential to its immediate survival at that time by moving openly to destroy that state. Begin's Irgun would surely have moved against such a state, and a heightened conflict between this and Mr. Ben-Gurion and his followers would surely have resulted, and though my money would be wagered on Mr. Ben-Gurion's triumph in such an event, that cannot, of course, be a certainty. King Abdullah would have remained wholly hostile to such a state, and while Mr. Ben-Gurion doubtless would have sought to encourage the monarch to act, against that would have to be set the likely hostility of neighboring Arab powers to any action in that direction by the Hashemite monarch.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. I wouldn't disagree with you on that one...

But it does seem to me that miscalculation by Arab Nationalist leadership, and the hostility of Kings Abdullah and Farouk, were the decisive factors in stifling the creation of such a state.

They were definately the decisive factors, from what I've read, but the hostility of the Zionist leadership to the emergence of a Palestinian state also played a part in things...

One of the reasons the Arab League rejected the partition plan was because they weren't prepared for it happening. It would have been much wiser for them to accept it like the Zionist leadership did, and then them and the Zionists could have plotted all their expansionist plans from there....

Second, after the cease-fire early in '49, it was Jordanian and Egyptian garrisons that were in possession of the portion of the designated Arab Zone that Israel had not conquered in the fighting, and that acted to effectively annex those fragments, through exercises in political puppetry.

That seems to support what Benny Morris said about the invasion, which is that while there was clearly hostility to a Jewish state, their more immediate interests were in carving up the parts of Palestine designated to be the Palestinian state amongst themselves...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Interesting...

Let's try this on for size...

American Indians didn't have a country....

Australian Aboriginals didn't have a country either...

And just like with what was to become Israel, European settlers arrived and took land from the people who'd been living there. To be blunt, and it's easy to say in hindsight, but in none of those three cases did the new arrivals have the right to take land that didn't belong to them...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

3. And how do you come to that conclusion?

People who support a binational democratic state that affords equality and civil rights to all regardless of their ethnicity, religion or race, comprised of Israel and the Occupied Territories, would fall into the 30%. Because that solution is the one I'd support if idealism won out over pragmatism, and support for a binational state is in no way rejecting Israel's right to exist...

Violet...

[Gimel]

7. A small minority

Only a small minority support a bi-national state. I'm sorry, Australians can't vote in Israel.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Only because Palestinians don't count either n/t

. Anyway the bantustanization of the Palestinians will probably change that eventually.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

13. Good point! Glad you caught it. n/t

.

[Gimel]

16. I read your opinion

I just differ from you on what it means.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. What don't you agree with?

No-one said anything about Australians voting in Israel. What I said in reply to the claim that just over 30% of Israeli-Arabs were disloyal to their own country was "Because that solution is the one I'd support if idealism won out over pragmatism, and support for a binational state is in no way rejecting Israel's right to exist...". People who support a binational state would fall into that 30% and there's no way they are rejecting Israel's right to exist...

Violet...

[Gimel]

38. A bi-national state

That is replacing the present state of Israel which is the same as destroying Israel. Just a round-about way of saying it.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. It's not the same at all...

A democratic state encompassing Israel and the Occupied Territories, where equality and protection is afforded to all regardless of their ethnicity is NOT the same as the destruction of Israel. In fact, no matter how idealistic it is under present circumstances, it's something that I fail to see how anyone could be opposed to on an idealogical level...

Violet...

[Gimel]

56. "idealogical level..."

"that solution is the one I'd support if idealism won"

Then you are taking it back to a UN vote, and pre-state days.

Rather impossible, and as most people know, idealism will not change reality. The time for a "vote" is past. The Arabs rejected partition, but did they want to replace it with peaceful co-existence? History shows otherwise.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Pre-state days?

Since I mentioned the words DEMOCRACY and PROTECTION OF EVERYONES CIVIL RIGHTS more than a few times, maybe you could point out where they existed in pre-state days?

Reality? Reality is that there won't be two viable, independent sovereign states, because Israel doesn't want it to happen. And as the reality of that solution fades, I personally sway much more towards a binational democratic state which ensures equality and protection for all its citizens. As neither solution has much chance of becoming reality, I'd much prefer to support the fairer of the two...

What history shows is that the Zionists grudgingly agreed to the Partition, but they had no intention of any peaceful co-existence. Their attitude was to take what was on offer and then take the rest later on...


Violet...

[Gimel]

62. A state of war

By pre-state days, I assume you mean democracy under the British Mandate, or perhaps during the 6 months time from the announcement of the UN vote and the defeat of the invading Arabs armies? How is Israel to show Democracy and protection of civil rights.

You have assumed something which historians can debate. When you say "Zionists grudgingly agreed to the Partition,". That sweeping statement is hard to accept without valid proof. I don't mean just a statement or two from Ben Gurion's private memoirs, or something commented by an Army commander. You'll have to take all comments into account. Of course being under attack was something you must add to the underlying conditions and the circumstances in which every statement must be considered. Without that, statements taken out of context are invalid.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. There was no democracy under the British Mandate...

Tell me. What would you accept as valid proof that the Zionists grudgingly agreed to the Partition? Just pick up a history book and read it. There is no disputing that the Zionists were unhappy with the Partition and wanted all of Palestine. Whether someone wants to accept what is historical fact or not is not my problem, and I do not have to trot out neverending realms of information, which will all be pooh-poohed automatically...

Violet...

[Gimel]

68. A bit of history

At the time the United Kingdom took over the mandate, the problem of Palestine had been clearly adjudicated and settled. The failure of the mandatory Government, as admitted by the British representative, was a failure to carry out the settlement agreed upon and entrusted to it by the nations of the world. That failure became manifest with the introduction of a policy, set forth in the White Paper of 1939, which violated the most essential terms of the mandate and vitiated its entire purpose.

....

The White Paper policy is responsible for the misery and deaths of a large number of Jews and for cruel acts of expulsion of Jewish refugees. It is responsible for establishing in Palestine a police State without parallel in the civilised world. It is responsible for the introduction in Palestine of racial discrimination against Jews in land legislation. This is the real nature of the failure of the mandatory Power.

Therefore, I venture to suggest that the first problem facing the United Nations is how to set right that failure and to ensure that international obligations toward the Jewish population in Palestine are faithfully fulfilled.

The second point to which I should like to invite the attention of your Committee is the fact that in Palestine you are faced not merely with a large and growing number of Jews, but with a distinct Jewish nation. There are Jews and Jewish communities in many countries, but in Palestine there is a new and unique phenomenon - a Jewish nation, with all the attributes, characteristic resources and aspirations of nationhood. This nationhood springs from a long history and an uninterrupted connection, for three thousand five hundred years, with its ancestral soil.

Palestine, which, for the Jewish people, has always been and will always remain the land of Israel, was in the course of centuries conquered and invaded by many alien peoples, but none of them ever identified its national faith with Palestine. The Jewish nation in Palestine is rooted not only in past history but in a great living work of reconstruction and rebuilding, both of a country and of a people.

The growth of this nation and its work of reconstruction must not and cannot be arrested - and this, for two reasons. One is the existence of large numbers of homeless Jews for whom there is no other salvation in the future except in their own national home. The second is that more than two-thirds of the land in Palestine is still waste land, uncultivated, unsettled, and believed by the Arabs to be uncultivatable. The history of our settlement in the last seventy years has shown that this land can be and is being cultivated by us. This is not because we are more skilled or more capable than others, but because this is the only soil in the world which we call our own. We are not, like our Arab neighbours, in possession of vast underpopulated territories, like Iraq, Syria, Arabia, etc. We must therefore make use of every bit of free land in our country, even desert land.

Another observation is this. We are told that the Arabs are not responsible for the persecution of the Jews in Europe, nor is it their obligation to relieve their plight. I wish to make it quite clear that it never entered our minds to charge the Arabs with solving the Jewish problem, or to ask Arab countries to accept Jewish refugees. We are bringing our homeless and persecuted Jews to our own country and settling them in Jewish towns and villages. There are Arab towns and villages in Palestine - Nablus, Jenin, Ramleh, Zamuka, Lydda, Tarshiha. You will not find a single Jewish refugee in any of them. The Jews who have returned to their country are settled in Petah Tiqva, Rishon le Zion, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem, Deganiya, the region of the Negev, and other Jewish towns and villages built by us.

The return of the Jews to their country is a work of self-liberation and self-reconstruction, which is contributing to the reconstruction and liberation of the country as a whole.

My fourth and last remark, is this. We have no conflict with the Arab people. On the contrary, it is our deep conviction that, historically, the interests and aspirations of the Jewish and Arab peoples are compatible and complementary. What we are doing in our country, in Palestine, is reclaiming the land, increasing the yield of the soil, developing modem agriculture and industry, science, and art, raising thedignity of labour, ensuring women's status of equality, increasing men's over nature and workingout a new civilisation based on human equality, freedom and co-operation in a world which we believe is as necessary and beneficial for our Arab neighbours as for ourselves.

A Jewish-Arab partnership, based on equality and mutual assistance, will help to bring about the regeneration of the entire Middle East. We Jews understand and deeply sympathise with the urge of the Arab people for unity, independence, and progress, and our Arab neighbours, I hope, will realise that the Jews in their own historic homeland can under no conditions be made to remain a subordinate, dependent minority as they are in all other countries in the Diaspora. The Jewish nation in its own country must become a free and independent State with a membership in the United Nations. It is eager to co-operate with its free Arab neighbours to promote economic development, social progress, and real independence of all the Semitic countries in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, I most earnestly suggest to your Committee that the real, just, and lasting solution of the problem before you is a Jewish State and a Jewish-Arab alliance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. David Ben-Gurion, 12 May 1947

MFA

Edited to add the link.

UN Resolution on the Future of Palestine

The Arab Reaction

[Gimel]

73. That was my point

It would not be Israel to blame that there was no democracy in pre-state days. So in who's interest am I to "point it out"?

Furthermore, "grudgingly accepted" is not rejecting. Imposing restrictions on Israel's moments, dividing Jewish land into 2 sections, and giving holy sites into the hands of the Arabs, was not an acceptable idea to the Zionists. None-the-less, the rejection of the Partition came from the Arabs.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Yr the one who brought up democracy in pre-state days...

Me, I was talking about the idea of a binational democratic state where civil rights of all citizens are protected being just as realistic concept now as a two-state solution....

I didn't say that the Zionists rejected the partition plan. That's why I said 'grudgingly accepted' rather than 'grudgingly rejected'...

Ah, but giving holy sites into the hands of the Zionists was supposed to be acceptable to the Arabs, yet not acceptable the other way round? Oh-kay. Me, I thought Jerusalem was to be designated an international city. Am I wrong?

Violet...

[Gimel]

86. Holy sites

Since the Muslim sites are in Jerusalem and Hebron which was only in Israeli hands after the '67 war, and Muslims continued to have rights of access, and in their hands. So your statement "holy sites into the hands of the Zionists was supposed to be acceptable to the Arabs, " cannot refer to Muslim holy sites. The Muslims seem to resent the Jews praying at the Western Wall and frequently pelt them with stones. Is that "Oh-kay" by human rights laws?

The idea of an international Jerusalem was turned down by the Jordanians, so it never was. We've been over that point before.

Following the UN vote, local Arab militants, aided by irregular volunteers from Arab countries, launched violent attacks against the Jewish community in an effort to frustrate the partition resolution and prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. After a number of setbacks, the Jewish defense organizations routed most of the attacking forces, taking hold of the entire area which had been allocated for the Jewish state.

On 14 May 1948 when the British Mandate came to an end, the Jewish population in the Land numbered some 650,000, comprising an organized community with well-developed political, social and economic institutions - in fact, a nation in every sense and a state in everything but name.

End of the Mandate

On 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence. Less than 24 hours later, the regular armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invaded the country, forcing Israel to defend the sovereignty it had regained in its ancestral homeland.

....

resulting in armistice agreements which reflected the situation at the end of the fighting. Accordingly, the coastal plain, Galilee and the entire Negev were within Israel's sovereignty, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) came under Jordanian rule, the Gaza Strip came under Egyptian administration, and the city of Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan controlling the eastern part, including the Old City, and Israel the western sector.
Armistice



Jerusalem was never designated as an international city. Jordan controlled the eastern part, including the Old City (read Jewish holy sites).

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Jerusalem...

Since the Muslim sites are in Jerusalem and Hebron which was only in Israeli hands after the '67 war, and Muslims continued to have rights of access, and in their hands.

But you weren't talking about after the partition plan. What you said when giving reasons why the Zionists grudgingly agreed to the Partition plan was: "Jews were no longer allowed to visit their holiest site, the "Western Wall" of the ancient Temple. But the leaders of the Jewish community did accept Partition, if not there would not be an Israel today."

The argument isn't whether or not Jerusalem became an international city. What I have said, and what you have disputed, is that the Partition Plan designated Jerusalem as an international city which wasn't part of the Jewish or Arab state. We've been over that point before....

From the Resolution 181:

"The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

When trying to seriously discuss history, it does help if you don't link to propaganda from the Israeli govt, the accuracy of which is very questionable. The history is a lot more complex than what they want to feed to folk, and a very good sign that their reliability is questionable is they, as with histories from the other side, attempt to paint themselves as the totally innocent party in what happened. And there's no need to post bigarse maps from the same place. I've seen maps of the armistice lines plenty of times before, and as we weren't discussing the armistice lines, there's really no need to bring it into the discussion....

[Gimel]

93. To clarify

The Partition plan did not put Muslim holy sites into Jewish hands.

also:

What I have said, and what you have disputed, is that the Partition Plan designated Jerusalem as an international city which wasn't part of the Jewish or Arab state. We've been over that point before....

What I said was the the initial plan did call for Jerusalem as an international city administered by the UN, however, the Jordanians objected, so that was dropped from the plan, which was never adopted at all anyway.

On edit: I posted the map to claify where the lines were actually drawn, as opposed the the one of the partition plan. However, I'll post that one also, if it will help. I think the Israeli government site is an excellent source of information on these details. They exist nowhere else with such specifics.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. Why are you clarifying something that wasn't at issue?

Where did I ever say that the partition plan did put Muslim holy sites into Jewish hands??

Unless you can show me a revised version of Resolution 181, you'll find that the Resolution I posted was the one that was adopted by the UN. It's the same resolution that you've claimed created Israel, isn't it?

Another thing...

You also said that 'dividing Jewish land into 2 sections' was not an acceptable idea to the Zionists. Sorry, but Palestine wasn't 'Jewish land'. That comment makes it sound like you believe there should have been one state in Palestine, and that should have been Israel...

Violet...

[Gimel]

88. Democracy pre-state

In my post #58 I referred to the UN vote in pre-state days. You jumped to "democracy in pre-state days" in yr post #78 and now you say I was the one who brought up "democracy in pre-state days".

So I really don't know how you can claim that I brought up "democracy in pre-state days". I referred only to the UN vote. A rather pure form of democracy did exist on local level in pre-state days.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. Uh, post#58?

I think you mean post#56, cause 58 is mine :)

I've got no idea why you brought up pre-state days, whether you were referring to the UN vote and pre-state days when the discussion was about one solution to the current conflict....

Violet...

[Gimel]

92. Correction

Yes, my post #56. I mentioned pre-state days to fit in with the UN vote, which obviously occurred pre-state. The vote for Partition, that is. I brought it up because you are intent on discussing this. However, as I have already said, there is no point to it.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. Another correction...

While I later discussed the Partition plan in another subthread, I was not discussing it in this subthread, where I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to accuse anyone who supports a democratic binational state of trying to destroy Israel. Believe me, I'm not intent on discussing the partition plan with you :)


Violet...

[Gimel]

99. Then for more on that

go to my post #98 above.

(Sorry to confuse your order, it seemed to occur all over the place where you are accusing me of saying things that I didn't)

Post 98

[geek tragedy]

21. A one-state solution is a per se rejection

of Israel's existence. The one state would be named "Palestine" and the two main candidates for power would be Hamas and Arafat.

To support a binational state and to support the destruction of the state of Israel is exactly the same thing.

[Darranar]

23. Why do you think...

that the two main candidates for power would be Hamas and Arafat?

[geek tragedy]

24. Should I have mentioned

Islamic jihad as well?

The choice will be secular Palestinian nationalists (Arafat) and religious Palestinian nationalists (Hamas).

[Darranar]

25. And the five million Jews of Israel?

Will they align with one of those groups?

[geek tragedy]

26. Depends on how they structure it,

but in a parliamentary system you'd have a minority government consisting of a coalition of the various Palestinian factions, with the most popular taking charge.

[Darranar]

28. A worthy point...

there would undoubtedly have to be strong and enforceable constitutional protections for everyone, and probably some degree of federalization as well.

But I'm not convinced that the only major parties would be Palestinian parties. The Israeli Jews would no doubt have a few too, and even with right of return they would still be a considerable portion of the population.

[geek tragedy]

30. The real question

is whether the Jews would be willing to disarm and turn all weapons over to a majority Palestinian government.

Answer: Not in my or my children's lifetime.

[Darranar]

36. How do you know that that would be required? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Not at all...

A DEMOCRATIC state where the civil rights of all citizens are protected with no bias as to what ethnic group they are or aren't a member of is not what you just described....

Violet...

[Gimel]

74. To make it democratic

That would be the challenge ala Iraq. You can see how well that is turning out.

Did Arafat introduce democracy in the 20 years after Israel's statehood? Was democracy his priority? He was forced to institute democratic changes. His democratic election (without a viable choice on the ballot) was several years ago. Democracy still has a long way to go in the Palestinian government. Talk about the protection of civil rights in any Muslim nation.... They all have a long way to go.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. Democracy doesn't seem to flourish in occupied territories...

But why do you believe that in a democratic binational state, Arafat would be the only player, if indeed he was in the picture at all? Are you imagining a democratic state where everyone votes?

Just curious, but does Malaysia count as a Muslim nation? Regardless of that, Israel can join most of them in having a long way to go when it comes to the protection of civil rights for its minorities...

Violet...

[Gimel]

81. Your scenario

Your postulated that in "ideal' circumstances you would have a bi-national democratic state. Obviously, that would have had to have happened before Israel attained statehood, because in no way can a democratic nation be uprooted and replaced with a binational democratic system. That sounds dictatorial, to say the least.

It doesn't matter if it's Arafat or some other leader. Arafat seems to have been most popular leader so far, however, so if you are going to set a "democracy" you'll have to have the people elect their own leaders, and formulate their own system. Israel has done that. The Palestinians have only made a rudimentary beginning in the democratic process.

Of course a democratic state by definition is where all adults are given one vote each. It is not my imagination.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. It's the fairest solution...

Obviously it would have been the fairest solution rather than a partition, but that's not what happened. There's nothing dictatorial in supporting a fair solution which ensures democracy and takes away that totally whiffy obsession over the ethnicity of people. Given that at some point in the future, Arabs could become the majority in Israel, what's more important? For Israel to remain a democracy, or for it to be a state where the majority is Jewish? Because there wouldn't be both....

Maybe if Israel ended its brutal occupation, the Palestinian people, just like the East Timorese have before them, can go along the path to democracy a lot quicker...

Ah, democracy = one person, one vote. Are you saying that Arabs will all vote for some thug who wouldn't know democracy if it bit him on the arse, and has the same contempt for human rights as Sharon does?

Violet...

[Gimel]

83. I am loath to discuss

For obvious reasons, as I don't think that entertaining this theoretical "if" which could never have occurred. Therefore, any speculation is just fabrication and has no basis in reality. If it serves as a structure for attacks on Israel, it has use, evidently. Please note that no attacks on Israeli civilians from a Palestinian State, be it democratic or not, will be tolerated.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Then don't discuss it...

Easy. I've got no idea what 'theoretical if' yr talking about. That a binational state could never have been a possibility rather than partition? Sorry, but it could have been, and was one solution that quite a few member states of the UN supported at the time. Or maybe yr talking about the prospect of a conflict happening in the future where a choice between the importance of a state with a Jewish majority and democracy happens? I think it's nothing but mere speculation to claim that could never occur....

Please note that no attacks on Israeli civilians from a Palestinian State, be it democratic or not, will be tolerated.

Where have I ever disagreed with that particular stance? What I've stated many times is Israel has the right to defend itself and its population, but saying that does not give Israel an open cheque to commit all sorts of human rights abuses and kill Palestinian civilians. And the same applies to any future Palestinian state, btw...

Violet...

[Gimel]

85. Civil Rights

Then let's go back to civil rights for minorities. Most Arab nations, I
I'm not sure about Malaysia, don't allow religious minorities. Of course they have tribal minorities which are favored according to status they might enjoy this century. There has been discrimination and genocide against the Kurds, from Turkey and Iran as well as Iraq. the Shi'ites are discriminated and treated poorly most everywhere, but perhaps Lebanon. And so it goes. Arabs in Israel enjoy protection and equality under the law. Once they start serving in National Service, their complaints will diminish, and they will be eligible for more benefits under the law.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. Don't agree, since the Jews would have voting rights in that

state which would pretty much eliminate the power of either Arafat or Hamas.

[Jim Sagle]

14. What they think does not align with reality, present or future.

The right of return ain't happenin' ever. Israeli Arabs have better lives than Arabs anywhere else except here in the US of A.

This thread's work is done.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. I guess you think we did the blacks a favor by taking them as

slaves and making them live under Jim Crow too. I agree the right of return is not optional in the two state solution however that surely isn't the only greivence. They have alot of pretty good ones. If bantustans are created then Jewish Israel is not possible, and no progressive should support it. If Israelis really want to a Jewish state they better get out of the west bank.

[Gimel]

17. A red herring

The situation is not even vaguely similar, and is not parallel. Bringing up racism in American has no relation to the I/P discussion.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. It has complete validity

In fact it is the central issue. That is why the vast majority cited a fear that Israel was becoming Apartheid. We are talking about their rights in the Israeli state, and they are an ethnic group.

[Jim Sagle]

19. I don't get where you can consture support for Jim Crow in anything I

posted. I abhor Jim Crow. I'm no fan of simplistic analogies, either.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Jim Crow is precisely what is happening on the West Bank

It is worse actually. The South didn't create white only highways.

[Liberal Classic]

27. With all due respect

This analogy would seem to me to be pure hyperbole, and a gross over simplification of both the middle east conflict and american reconstruction era. Among the many ways that your analogy breaks down is that arabs in the area not emerging slavery as were american blacks that were the subjects of so-called black codes, and american blacks did not as a general rule commit acts of terrorism against whites. This seems to be a convenient, and shameful way to compare Israelis to the Ku Klux Klan.

[drdon326]

29. Pfffffft....thats nothing...

the same poster insinuated that dissident arab voices are

"uncle tom's".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x70372#70455

take a number and stand in line.

[Liberal Classic]

34. Oookay

Well I don't quite follow everything going on in that thread, but I would have hoped by this day and age we were through calling people uncle toms. I'll leave it at that.

[Classical_Liberal]

48. Ok Indian Reservations, Bantustan, and Apartheid

Nothing hyperbole about any of the comparisons. Indians committed acts of violence against whites, because they took their land. Same goes for blacks in colonial Africa. It is segregation, and race based bigotry, not to mention collective punishment. The fact that some Palestinians committed such acts doesn't justify it. Furthermore the policy of settlement, apartheid and transfer began before the terrorism.

[number6]

31. it is impossible

it is impossible for Israel to be both a Jewish State (based on religious discrimination) and a democratic state.

Arabs are second class citizens ...

[drdon326]

32. I read bs like this......

and my jaw drops.

(i will in no way attack the poster but i will attack the
content of the post)

"it is impossible for Israel to be both a Jewish State (based on religious discrimination) and a democratic state."

Really?? Well,don't tell Israel....in 56 years they went from
near desert to an industrialized society that, next to the US,
is a leader in bio-technology.

And when did any other state in the middle east become a democratic
state that you can criticize israel?

You didn't mention Saudi Arabia in which no non-Muslims can practice their religion. And who voted for the Clown Prince and when was that vote?? I must have missed your denunciation of SA theocracy and
undemocratic thugocracy.

And go ahead and name any other country in the ME where women have totally equal rights?


"Arabs are second class citizens ...".....

Another delusional episode....Israeli arabs vote in every election since its inception...can pursue any vocation that their talent will take them.

(Gimel posted a great article on an israeli-arab actress/singer
recently made it to her goal)

And are members of the Knesset.

And when did any Saudi ever vote for anything?
And when did anyone in UAE,Kuwait,Jordan,Lebanon(recently),
Sudan and Libya ever vote for anything??

Who treats "arabs as second class citizens"??

But you've got a problem with Israel.



unbelievable.

[number6]

35. sorry about your jaw ....

:wow:

and thanks for not attacking me ...

first: Saudi Arabia (was I supposed mention it) well ok I'm easy
this is now the I/P - SA forum...

"You didn't mention Saudi Arabia in which no non-Muslims can practice their religion. And who voted for the Clown Prince and when was that vote?? I must have missed your denunciation of SA theocracy and
undemocratic thugocracy"

ok here's my denunciation of SA theocracy (that u missed)
...they suck and not only that ther're part of the Bush-Saudi-Bin
Ladin Crime Family ...

second: religious discrimination

"Israel....in 56 years they went from
near desert to an industrialized society that, next to the US,
is a leader in bio-technology. " nice but, whats that got
to do with religious discrimination ...

"And when did any other state in the middle east become a democratic
state that you can criticize Israel?"

?? I can't criticize Israel till another State becomes democratic ??
new I/P rule ?

And go ahead and name any other country in the ME where women have totally equal rights?

you got me, I can't name another country in Europe, north or south
America where women have totally equal rights? I'm busted

Arabs are second class citizens... in Israel they are
Name a settlement in Israel that has Arabs in it
go ahead I double dare ya...

(Gimel posted a great article on an Israeli-Arab actress/singer
recently made it to her goal) Good for Gimel

And when did any Saudi ever vote for anything?
And when did anyone in UAE,Kuwait,Jordan,Lebanon(recently),
Sudan and Libya ever vote for anything??

and now I should make Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Sudan and Libya Democracies ? I WISH (If only I was that Powerful)

and finally yes I still have a problem with Israel.

Simply unbelievable is'nt it ...

[DLC]

33. Many Arabs miffed ....

with life in Arab countries. Arabs in Israel are mostly better off.

[Darranar]

37. And that justifies racism?

The fact that they are better off does not mean that they are as well off as they should be...

[drdon326]

39. And what "racism" might you be referring to ?

on edit

OHHH.....Do you mean those palestinian textbooks that
refer to jews(you know Darranar, j-e-w-s) as "pigs and monkeys"?

That racism??

[Darranar]

40. Racism against Arabs in Israel. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Racism like this?

"I heard similar talk from Effie Eitam, a hard-edged former general who leads the National Religious Party, a coalition partner in Sharon’s government. Eitam, who is Sharon’s housing minister, said, “I don’t call these people animals. These are creatures who came out of the depths of darkness. It is not by chance that the State of Israel got the mission to pave the way for the rest of the world, to militarily get rid of these dark forces.” Eitam told me that he believes there are innocent men among the Palestinians, but that they are collectively guilty. “We will have to kill them all,” he said. “I know it’s not very diplomatic. I don’t mean all the Palestinians, but the ones with evil in their heads. Not only blood on their hands but evil in their heads. They are contaminating the hearts and minds of the next generation of Palestinians.”"


http://www.peacenow.org/nia/news/newyorker1.html

Violet...

[number6]

53. Most Excellent post Violet ....

:);):smoke: :yourock:

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Thanks. I'd like to think it made an impression...

...because it is but one of a great many examples of racism. Anyone who tries to pretend that there's not racism at play, be it anti-Semitism, or anti-Arab attitudes, is deluding themselves, and weakens their own position when they feign outrage over only one form of racism. ..

Violet...

[Gimel]

57. He means the Hamas terrorists

I don’t mean all the Palestinians, but the ones with evil in their heads. Not only blood on their hands but evil in their heads. They are contaminating the hearts and minds of the next generation of Palestinians.”"

Selective quoting almost always misses the issues as they were expressed.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. So just thinking can make someone a terrorist now?

Sorry, but advocating the killing of people for what they think is disgusting. Thinking something doesn't make someone a terrorist. There was no selective quoting at all, as I read the entire article and posted his entire comment, and that was only one example of outright racism. Calling Palestinians creatures that came out of the depths of darkness and other disgusting things is no different than some of the anti-Semitic comments I've read....

Violet...

[Gimel]

60. Leaders who promote hatred

Ought to be censored.

Approving of the killing of people for the way they vote is also disgusting. Glad you agree.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. And Eitam was promoting hatred...

What he said was incredibly racist, but that's no surprise as he's a racist creep who in the past has advocated the expulsion of Israeli-Arabs from Israel and called them a cancer and a threat to democracy. What is surprising is given his past performances that an attempt would be made by anyone to try to make out that racist comments of his weren't racist at all. And this particular racist is Sharon's Housing Minister. He should not only have been censored, but dismissed from his post...

Violet...

[Gimel]

66. Going by what you posted

I'm not defending Eitam, just saying you are jumping overboard with your accusations. It was clearly stated that he meant the terrorists. It is frightful that the teachings in the Palestinian schoools is for racism and hatred, promoting suicide bombing attacks and glorifying death. Hopefully this will stop. It must stop for there to ever be peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. What accusations?

That Eitam is a racist? That particular accusation is a fact. Same goes for that racist statement he made. It was NOT clearly stated that he was talking about terrorists, not unless he believes the Palestinian population are terrorists. He even said that he believes that while there are innocent people amongst the population, they are all collectively guilty. So, show me where he was clearly stating he was talking about Hamas, which is what you claimed he was talking about. It's not there...

Yes, incitement and racism must stop, you have my agreement on that, but I also believe that the incitement and racism on both sides must stop. And on the Israeli side of things, while there are racists such as Eitam and others of his ilk in the government, there will never be any peace. You do agree that Eitam is a racist, don't you? After all the point I was making was that racists in positions of power spewing racist crap happens in both Israel and the Occupied Territories...

Violet...

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

49. The segregationists said that about blacks

so your comments aren't surprising coming from the dixiecrat wing of the dems as you do.