reply to post by Corruption Exposed
Appreciate the civility.
First, the video doesn't address any of the issues I brought up in this thread, namely, the PA's refusal to accept a Jewish
state. It is this
which encourages Israel's settlement policies in the west bank. By refusing to acknowledge Jewish right to self determination in the holy land, the PA
(nevermind Hamas, which it would be impossible to negotiate with) leaves open some ominous questions. Arafat is infamous for having said the peace
process with Israel was the "peace of the Quraysh". The 'Quraysh' of course is a reference to the tribe which Mohammad made a temporary
As for the video. I noted the tone of the video, however, much of it is misleading. Palestine already had a large Jewish population long before WWII,
which is not what the video appears to be suggesting, i.e. that Jews out of the blue received a state, as opposed to having worked for one by that
time for well over 70 years. The first Zionist congress was in 1897, 51 years before the states declaration. Second, Israel didn't just serve as a
safe-haven for Jews, but also Sephardim, the Jews living in the Arab world. Israel's current Sephardic population is around 2 million, which means,
they are about 40% of Israel's Jewish population.
The video also ignores how the Arabs lost the land partitioned to them in 1947. Who waged war upon whom? The 1947 partition was based upon the 1937
peel commission. The peel commission, seldom mentioned, based it's uneven borders on the fact that 80%
of historic Palestine was broken off
from the original Palestinian mandate with the creation of the transjordan. What makes this conversation so iniquitous is that this subject seemingly
never enters the topic of discussion. Jordan is a Palestinian state, created out of land initially a part of the British mandate of Palestine. Thus,
in context, Israel received a very small portion in the initial mandate, which didn't satisfy the Arabs.
It should also be mentioned, which, unfortunately, isn't mentioned in the video, that the majority of Arabs didn't oppose the borders, but rather,
Israel, eo ipso.
As for the Israel as a Jewish state that the woman made issue of? I don't see the problem. This seems more like a manufactured problem. Undoubtedly,
there are areas which Israel certainly clean up on. But the reticence towards doing so, in my opinion, is due to the positive distinctions.
For example, China is a Chinese state. A nation-state of ethnic Chinese. Portugal is a Portuguese state, a nation state of Portuguese. It has to be
understood in this context. If Israel didn't set a quota, the arabs could - and indeed, WOULD - use the democratic 'equality' to restructure from
within the Jewish state. As a minority within the middle east, Israel is the ethnic state for Jews, just as for any other people. As for democratic
rights? It is a gross and offensive affront - to the blacks of south Africa, and to Israelis - to regard the situation of Arabs living within Israel
as "apartheid". They have in every way shape and form full individual democratic rights. Their only limits are in the collective sense: i.e. of
demanding equal rights in the fullest sense as Jews. This is profoundly differently from the Apartheid system in South Africa, as anyone who's studied
this subject knows. This difference is also not much different from America being a "christian" nation, or Italy favoring "catholicism", or Turkey,
Poland, China and many other countries giving special immigration status to diaspora Turks, Poles and Chinese etc. Is this "racist"? Of course not.
Turkey is the state for Turks, Poland the state for Poles, China the state for Chinese. They want to preserve this status by making ethnic
distinctions between Chinese and non-Chinese. Thus, this claim is a fraud, and a double standard not applied to other nations which make the exact
Israel, as mentioned, is forced to make these distinctions institutional at some level to prevent an Arab demographic explosion which would change
Israel's Jewish character. For example, Israel has a quota for how many non-Jews can move there. Is that racist? Given Israel is the Jewish state, it
is not. If it ignored the quota and made no distinction between Jews and Arabs, in the middle east, it's not hard to imagine that in 10-15 years Arabs
would become the ethnic majority, and down the road would change the name of Israel to Palestine, the official language from Hebrew to Arabic, etc. It
is simply unfair to make issue of this when Arabs at a personal level are given the same democratic rights as Jews.
But as said, there should be more done. There's many areas which Israel could give Arab Israelis more rights which would not impair or endanger
Israel's status as a Jewish state.
edit on 6-12-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)