No, that person can't point anything out. Once you've used a mod point, you cannot post in the discussion.
Simply not true. You can post, but then the moderation is cancelled. Also, you can post as AC.
If it were my moderation that was questioned (and I'd see the question), I'd certainly do one or the other (depending on whether I thought there was merit to the criticism).
Didn't read TFA, so I'll answer based on the "data" here.
It's perfectly legitimate to assume that this is a bomb. Perfectly reasonable assumption to make. What isn't reasonable is the actual reaction.
Close half the airport? Why? Just taxi the airplane to somewhere remote and examine the object there. An airplane on the ground simply will not go up in flames due to a small bomb (and even if it does, if it's in a remote corner of the airport, let it).
Detain the people involved? Sure. But why handcuff students?
And, yes, I live in Israel. And, yes, I simply fail to see such a thing causing such a reaction here.
Please do try to find the link. As far as I know, Black September stopped its operation partly because many of its members (including their founder and chief) were assassinated by Mosad, and the rest because the PLO stopped caring about having a clean image, and thus stopped disassociating itself from terror, making the group unnecessary any more.
In Israel, the government made a valiant effort attempt at fixing this distortion. First, they forbid the carriers from signing customers up on binding contracts (i.e. - any contract can be terminated by the client at any point). They also forced the carriers to allow clients to take their phone number with them when they switch carrier. Last, if you buy a phone shipped by a carrier at an outside shop, the carrier is required, again, by law, to give you the same subsidies it would give you if you bought the phone from the carrier (which means that for, e.g., the Galaxy SII, the carrier winds up over a period of three years paying you about twice what you paid for the phone yourself).
Guess what? Roughly 95% of the people still buy their phones from the carriers, and still stick with the same carrier.
I'll agree that moving to Greece and obtaining citizenship doesn't give you Grecian heritage, but you'd have a hard fight to say that you're not Greek.
There are three terms involved here. There is citizenship, nationality and religion. Since most nation states are called after their nationality, the citizenship and nation usually share a name. There are exception. In Greece, for example, all three share a name (The Greek in Greece are Greek citizens, and are Greek orthodox). Israel does the somewhat unorthodox thing of sharing a name, not between the nationality and the citizenship, but between the nationality and the religion. Other than that, and people's insistence that this is, somehow, fundamentally wrong, there is nothing special about it.
Assuming I understood your statement correctly, I can repeat the above statement, changing the location to:
I'll agree that moving to Israel and obtaining citizenship doesn't give you Jewish heritage, but you'd have a hard fight to say that you're not Israeli.
Then you go on to show ignorance of how the government in Israel is built by saying:
To make the same argument, you'd have to put forward that the Greek government should represent only people who are ethnically Greek rather than people like your friend who are citizens but weren't born there.
No, the government in Greek represents all of its citizens, regardless of their nationality. This does not make Greece any less the nation state of the Greek people, just like the fact that the government in Israel does represent all of its citizens (so many people make that mistake that wikipedia actually has a list of Arab members of Knesset).
There is no contradiction here. "Self governance" simply doesn't mean what you think it means.
but there aren't any Greek people who aren't Greek, by definition.
That statement is plainly, simply and otherwise wrong. Moving into Greece and getting a Greek citizenship does not make me Greek. There is a nation of Greek people, and I do not become a part of that nation by merely moving in there.
If you do not find this argument compelling enough to research the facts, let's try this story: I was last in Cyprus, the Greek part, of course, not the Turkish part, four years ago. I met a very nice guy, owner of a Chocolate shop, who was British, called John (or Jon, I'm never sure). He married a local Greek and moved in a decade before.
This is a true story, every word of it. I can give you driving instructions to the shop, if you like, and you can ask John yourself. There is even a small chance he'll remember me. I dare you to parse it using your interpretation of what "Greek", "British" and "Turkish" mean, though. Despite the fact I'm sure you understood exactly what each and every sentence means, if those words mean what you claim they mean, then this story is just gibberish.
Why would you expect a partial withdrawal from the territories in question, with only partial acceptance of self government for that area, to end (or significantly relieve) tensions?
Why wouldn't I? If the Palestinians are after self governance, then surely getting one, even if on only part of the land, be considered a step in the right direction. Same goes for the international community. I will remind you that directing military attacks at civilian targets, such as what Hamas did (and does) from Gaza, is a war crime. It is also a casus belli according to any reasonable standard. Yet, when Israel did go to war over it, after waiting much longer than it had to for other, less extreme measures, to work, the international response (which is what you claimed worked for Britain when it "did the right thing") was an outright condemning.
So I brought this example to counter your point that the international criticism is an indication that Israel is doing everything wrong. Israel gets criticized no matter what it is doing, or at least it feels this way.
much of the problem is that the very concept is flawed. A government that represents all people living under its jurisdiction is not founded as a "Jewish State"
Just like before, I still don't understand whether you expect Israel to give full citizen rights to the people who live over the green line, or whether this is directed at the people who are currently Israeli citizens but not Jewish. If the later, then please explain how is Israel not meeting your standard for whatever it is you think the term should mean.
The question right now is how do we rewind and come up with something better?
hell I throw away machines a dozen times more powerful than that old POS chip.
There are more important aspects to a chip that is supposed to be used in an aircraft than processing speed. Radiation resistance, temperature sensitivity, having a frame that can withstand 9G over time and twice that at emergencies, etc. count for more than having more processing power, even if the result is that you are using a less powerful chip.
The reason the 386 took so long to be replaced wasn't because of some slow working committee. It is because the economical pressures at ground levels are different, causing chip makers to produce chips that are indeed faster, but less suited to the operating conditions inside a fighter aircraft.
I didn't know they actually found an alternative. Maybe they didn't, and are just so swell stocked up on 386s that they feel there is no need to pay the cost to Intel of keeping the old production line open.
What you haven't done is made any compelling argument why the US should continue its extraordinary support of Israel.
Had you actually listened, instead of just claiming to listen, you'd see that I wasn't trying to. I do my best to have facts based opinions. This particular question is currently fashionable because it features in the presidential campaign, which I'm not following. As such, I believe that if I voice an opinion, it will be as based as ignorance as your voiced opinions in this thread are. I'm trying to keep both my reputation and self esteem at higher levels.
Thanks for at least refraining from calling me anti-Semitic for asking this question, like many Israeli politicians do.
It turned out there was no need. The obligatory role of name calling was filled by you, and a lovely performance, I might add.
First, is this a trivia question, or is this an attempt to answer my question? If the former, I'll gladly answer. If the later, then it is irrelevant. If you are trying to claim that Israel can be (future) legitimate, just not where it is, then you need to account all existing past into this statement.
As for the actual question: that really depends on who you ask, how you define "homes", and whether you think the displacement of Jews from their homes in the Arab states counters that in some way. All of those questions are under dispute, and almost everyone I've seen bring it up tends to adopt the Palestinian position on it without questioning it.
Sure, Israel is no worse than many other "democratic" nations and we shouldn't treat it any worse than them. But there is no reason to treat it any better. Israel should receive about the same level of US attention and support as Hungary, and I want US politicians to stop wasting their time and money on it. We really have more important domestic and international issues to deal with.
I see. Since this discussion started elsewhere, why don't we agree to disagree on what Israel is and isn't. It took me a while to see that you are not interested in the thread original direction (the legitimacy or lack there of of Israel), and since I am not interested in what you advocate your country do, I think this is a good place to call it quits. I get the impression you are not listening to anything I say anyways, and I'm fairly sure you have the same impression of me.
Have a great rest of the weekend, and enjoy your moral superiority.
You are giving the usual litany of collective guilt and judging people based on their ethnicity rather than their individual identity: those are the defining characteristic of bigotry and racism. You are a bigot and a racist, and sadly, people like you increasingly dominate Israeli politics.
Ad hominem attack aside, how is this worse than what the US did with its Japanese citizens during WW2? Or how anyone Muslim or perceived as Muslim was treated after 9/11? Do you honestly believe that people ignore group association merely because you think they should, or that I am a bigot merely for pointing this out? (Obviously, yes to the second one, but I still have a glimmer of hope to have a constructive conversation here).
Are you kidding? That is supposed to be the foundation of an ethnically and religiously pluralistic state?
I see you're having trouble staying on topic. The reference given was that "Jewish" referred to nation, not religion.
To the point, however, that is the only way you can form a foundation for a pluralistic state. A democratic country is a group of people with enough mutual interest to give up a little personal interests in favor of the collective, or it simply doesn't work. That's why the vast majority of democratic countries in the world are nation states. That's why some countries that did not start as nation state turn into ones over time, like the US did. That's why countries which are not nation states treat minorities with less tolerance, such as the anti-muslims laws in France. It's also why bi-national states have a hard time sticking it together (see Canada for a good case, and Boznia-Herzegovina for a bad one). That's why the only Arab democracy, Lebanon, is constantly either in civil war or on the brink of one.
A state that has a clear national association can afford to be pluralistic. Israel defines the Arab language as an official state language along Hebrew, and has explicit setting for days off on Muslim holidays, not in spite of what its declaration of independence says, but because of it.
It sounds to me you are assuming that Israel is acting like Britain did, and carry on from there as if it is fact.
There are a few major distinctions. First, Britain was never in any existential danger. The Irish never threatened to kill all Brits, and neither did anyone else.
Israel occupation of the west bank has started when it was attacked. It is true that some took advantage of the newly gained territories, and that many of those turned out to be jackasses. Still, the occupation is not the core of the problem. Never was. Read the Hamas charter say otherwise.
You claim that:
except when Britain has tried to deal with the injustices.
Well, guess what. Israel withdrew from all of the Gaza strip, evacuating all of the settlements there. Not only did the Palestinian reaction not be to increase the acceptance (quite the contrary), the international reaction wasn't either. No attempt to stop the missiles from Gaza on Israeli civilians. After that move, you will be hard pressed to convince any right thinking Israeli that simply withdrawing from the west bank is going to end the hostilities. All people look at, and rightly so, is the fire radius of the west bank border to where most of the Jewish population reside.
Just because Britain did it one way doesn't mean Israel's the same.
So you have population under occupation. You cannot simply let them go. You don't want to annex the area. Peaceful resolution is not an option. All you can do is minimize the casualties on your side, and handle the international criticism, unfair though it is, as best you can. Don't get me wrong. I hate this situation. Still, with my house only 3 kilometers from the green line, I cannot exactly say "let's withdraw and hope that they do not start shooting missiles".
All of this has nothing to do with the question that started the discussion. Israel's treatment of its citizens is not conditioned on their religion or nationality. If you want to claim otherwise, be specific and bring references.
Unless you suggest we now somehow move six and a half million people from their homes, I do not see the difference between the questions. Maybe sometime in the past, but definitely not today.
But in the case of Israel, Jewish definitely refers to the nation. Please do read the declaration of independence and see if you can interpret it otherwise. Just because you think it should be called "Israeli" instead means nothing. No one is asking you.
People see this word and read it as "religious", because that's how they like to interpret it. This does not live up to reality. When the government tried to deport children of foreign workers (mostly from east Asia), there was a public outcry that caused a specific law to pass to enable them to get full citizenship. They weren't Jewish in religion, but they otherwise had the same culture as the average Israeli, and the Jewish Israeli society not only accepted them, it actually protected them. Just because you like it to be called by a different name doesn't mean it is a different thing.
The other designations you list are generally not considered or intended to be religiously or ethnically exclusive anymore (even if they once were).
Considered by whom? By you? Israel is far from being the only country that filter immigration based on ethnic criteria, and this is the only law in Israel that has any form of actual discrimination. Just because you think something is so does not make it so.
but also because of the role ethnicity and religion play in Israel and its politics.
You have a large group of people with distinct ethnicity. They openly sympathize with countries you are in open war with. They cheer when your civilians are bombarded. Their leaders use their official capacity as representatives of the state to undermine that state's efforts in negotiations. Do you know of a country where ethnicity wouldn't become a part of the politics under those conditions? Care to stipulate what would happen to a US senator that would be found to have met with Bin-Laden? In Israel, when Knesset member Hanin Zuabi participated in an act of war against Israel, she got protection from the Knesset guard for fear someone may try to harm her.
and using it sometimes to refer to religion, ethnicity, or politics, and deftly shifting the meaning mid-sentence to try to win a point and be able to accuse others of anti-Semitism.
Yes, there are jerks on all sides of this debate. What happened in this thread, however, was that people were calling my side of the debate "jerks" before anyone from my side even voiced an opinion. Don't you find that even the least bit objectionable?
Also, you sound like a reasoned person. You do seem to make the logical fallacy that says just because you are open to listening, and you haven't changed your mind, it means anyone voicing compatible opinions is also reasonable. To date, I have only encountered one person (not on Slashdot) whose opinions I would categorize as racist. It was more Arab supremacy than anti-Semitic. Still, many voice opinions that, if you peel all of the layers, boil down to stating that every ethnic group of people in the world deserve self governance except the Jews. Like I said many times in this thread, I usually attribute this to ignorance rather than hate, but I can see how some may get confused.
This is a pointless question to ask an anonymous coward, but would it be safe to say, then, that you are against the proposed state of Palestine?
Just for reference, I found the Palestinian constitution here. I remember that it used to (or, perhaps, I remember a later draft) a more prominent statement right in the introduction, but even in this draft, Article 4.1 reads:
Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
For the sake of comparison, the Israel declaration of independence goes even further, stating Israel is a Jewish state, with complete equality for non-Jews. Still, it is the main focus of the "illegitimate" claims, which somehow usually come from people who think that a Palestinian state would be a great idea.
Anyone born to a Greek citizen in Greece is a Greek citizen. Anyone born to a British citizen in England is a British citizen. Anyone born to an Israeli citizen in Israel is an Israeli citizen.
A lot of propaganda, to be sure. Care to give actual references, so I have something to answer?
As for the settlements being illegal, yes, there is controversy about that. There is also controversy inside Israel about that. Then again, Israel also gets blame for bombing civilians, something which international law clearly acknowledges is unavoidable during war, and does not consider a war crime unless done deliberately. Deliberate bombing of civilians is a frequent accusation, but I have never seen it substantiated. Its blockage on the Gaza strip is often cited as illegal, again, with no substantiation beyond the wishful thinking of some. Same goes for its stopping the flotilla, including using force (though the UN report did claim excessive force, while still saying that the IDF soldiers were under sever violent attack. Go figure).
I'm not saying, and wasn't all along, that all criticism of Israel is wrong. I'm saying that the claims that Israel, as a Jewish state, is illegitimate, when not based on anti-semitism, are instead based on ignorance.
The basis of Zionism was to buy land and settle on it. If you can think of a better way to form a country for people without one, please suggest it. All of the organizations you mentioned were formed well after the conflict has already begun to become violent.
I am quite aware that you can argue about Irgun and Lehi's objectives and ways. Then again, they were marginal in acceptance inside the Jewish community of pre-48 Palestine. In fact, they were effectively squashed by the Jewish organization.
As for Haganah, please do state what it did that you find so objectionable, or why you think it, of all the movements in the Jewish organization, was the one who was supposed to perform the amicable steps.
There are two Palestinian populations that get mixed up for no really good reason except people's laziness.
The Palestinians who are Israeli citizens, and who live inside the established Israeli borders, are equal rights (though not equal liability) citizens, and are not being discriminated against by any law. I cannot say that there is no discrimination in practice, because that would be both incorrect and impossible. The emotions involved make it unlikely. I will say that the general press brings such cases forward, that the tone is critical of such discrimination, and that the general vibe you get is that such acts are considered illegitimate by the Israeli society.
Then there are the Palestinian who live under occupation. They are not given equal rights, nor should they, as I think everyone but a few extremists think they should not be made a part of Israel, but rather govern themselves. Such a government has proven hard to achieve (for whatever reasons), which means they are under occupation.
It is funny to see how gross generalization of replies is suddenly okay. From reading this thread one can gather that ALL Israelies think that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism. Surely, we are not all made from just one mold?
It is possible to claim Israel is an illegitimate state without being anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic, but mostly this is done by being ignorant to the facts. The arguments usually go to "Israel displaced a bunch of Palestinians in 48, and is therefor illegitimate", without any context (or a simple repetition of the Palestinian propaganda as fact) as to how many Palestinians were actually displaced, what were the circumstances, how many Jews were displaced and massacred in that very same war, the Zionists attempts, in the preceding 60 years, to reach an amicable solution, or how other countries did similar or worse, and yet did not lose their legitimacy to even exist.
I sometimes take the time to enter such discussions, and the end result, when balance is brought in the form of actually looking at what the accepted standards say and what international law actually says (as opposed to what Israeli critics would wish it to say), that Israel is illegitimate because a "Jewish state" is fundamentally morally wrong.
I have never once heard a good argument why that should be the case, while "Greek state", "English state", "Finnish state", "Chinese state", "Russian state", "Arab state" and a whole bunch of other nation states, none of which have their legitimacy questioned, are fine.
I'll start by stating my bias. I'm an Israeli. I also happen to believe that the sanctions on Iran are the best alternative of the three (the other two being attacking Iran and letting it develop nuclear weapons). I am also not the original commenter to whom you were replying.
So when a nation or nations implements sanctions (for instance the sanctions on Iranian oil), you would consider that war? I think you definition of war is way to liberal.
Yes. I think the sanctions on Iran are an act of war. I also happen to think that GP's definition sounds fairly accurate.
Anticipating your next question: If Iran now attacks a US aircraft carrier, would that be just a continuation of the existing war started with the sanctions? My answer: not exactly. It would be a severe escalation. There are domains to war, and opening a new domain is a non-trivial matter. Economic sanctions are one domain. Actual bombs falling is another. Cyber attacks are a much milder form of war, but war non the less.
This should not be taken as criticism against the sanctions. I think they are justified. I also think, by this stage, that pre-emptive strike is also justified. I think there are times when opening a war is your best course of action (and, no, Iraq wasn't one of them).
Also, if you disagree with me I will recognize that as an act of war on your part for trying to destroy my intellectual assets.
Yeah. Now you're just trolling. Anyone disagreeing with you does not fall inside the scope of the GP's "too liberal" definition.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that person can't point anything out. Once you've used a mod point, you cannot post in the discussion.
Simply not true. You can post, but then the moderation is cancelled. Also, you can post as AC.
If it were my moderation that was questioned (and I'd see the question), I'd certainly do one or the other (depending on whether I thought there was merit to the criticism).
Shachar
Didn't read TFA, so I'll answer based on the "data" here.
It's perfectly legitimate to assume that this is a bomb. Perfectly reasonable assumption to make. What isn't reasonable is the actual reaction.
Close half the airport? Why? Just taxi the airplane to somewhere remote and examine the object there. An airplane on the ground simply will not go up in flames due to a small bomb (and even if it does, if it's in a remote corner of the airport, let it).
Detain the people involved? Sure. But why handcuff students?
And, yes, I live in Israel. And, yes, I simply fail to see such a thing causing such a reaction here.
Shachar
Please do try to find the link. As far as I know, Black September stopped its operation partly because many of its members (including their founder and chief) were assassinated by Mosad, and the rest because the PLO stopped caring about having a clean image, and thus stopped disassociating itself from terror, making the group unnecessary any more.
Shachar
In Israel, the government made a valiant effort attempt at fixing this distortion. First, they forbid the carriers from signing customers up on binding contracts (i.e. - any contract can be terminated by the client at any point). They also forced the carriers to allow clients to take their phone number with them when they switch carrier. Last, if you buy a phone shipped by a carrier at an outside shop, the carrier is required, again, by law, to give you the same subsidies it would give you if you bought the phone from the carrier (which means that for, e.g., the Galaxy SII, the carrier winds up over a period of three years paying you about twice what you paid for the phone yourself).
Guess what? Roughly 95% of the people still buy their phones from the carriers, and still stick with the same carrier.
Shachar
Where are my mod points when I need them?
+1 on parent, please.
Shachar
I'll agree that moving to Greece and obtaining citizenship doesn't give you Grecian heritage, but you'd have a hard fight to say that you're not Greek.
There are three terms involved here. There is citizenship, nationality and religion. Since most nation states are called after their nationality, the citizenship and nation usually share a name. There are exception. In Greece, for example, all three share a name (The Greek in Greece are Greek citizens, and are Greek orthodox). Israel does the somewhat unorthodox thing of sharing a name, not between the nationality and the citizenship, but between the nationality and the religion. Other than that, and people's insistence that this is, somehow, fundamentally wrong, there is nothing special about it.
Assuming I understood your statement correctly, I can repeat the above statement, changing the location to:
I'll agree that moving to Israel and obtaining citizenship doesn't give you Jewish heritage, but you'd have a hard fight to say that you're not Israeli.
Then you go on to show ignorance of how the government in Israel is built by saying:
To make the same argument, you'd have to put forward that the Greek government should represent only people who are ethnically Greek rather than people like your friend who are citizens but weren't born there.
No, the government in Greek represents all of its citizens, regardless of their nationality. This does not make Greece any less the nation state of the Greek people, just like the fact that the government in Israel does represent all of its citizens (so many people make that mistake that wikipedia actually has a list of Arab members of Knesset).
There is no contradiction here. "Self governance" simply doesn't mean what you think it means.
Shachar
but there aren't any Greek people who aren't Greek, by definition.
That statement is plainly, simply and otherwise wrong. Moving into Greece and getting a Greek citizenship does not make me Greek. There is a nation of Greek people, and I do not become a part of that nation by merely moving in there.
If you do not find this argument compelling enough to research the facts, let's try this story: I was last in Cyprus, the Greek part, of course, not the Turkish part, four years ago. I met a very nice guy, owner of a Chocolate shop, who was British, called John (or Jon, I'm never sure). He married a local Greek and moved in a decade before.
This is a true story, every word of it. I can give you driving instructions to the shop, if you like, and you can ask John yourself. There is even a small chance he'll remember me. I dare you to parse it using your interpretation of what "Greek", "British" and "Turkish" mean, though. Despite the fact I'm sure you understood exactly what each and every sentence means, if those words mean what you claim they mean, then this story is just gibberish.
Shachar
Why would you expect a partial withdrawal from the territories in question, with only partial acceptance of self government for that area, to end (or significantly relieve) tensions?
Why wouldn't I? If the Palestinians are after self governance, then surely getting one, even if on only part of the land, be considered a step in the right direction. Same goes for the international community. I will remind you that directing military attacks at civilian targets, such as what Hamas did (and does) from Gaza, is a war crime. It is also a casus belli according to any reasonable standard. Yet, when Israel did go to war over it, after waiting much longer than it had to for other, less extreme measures, to work, the international response (which is what you claimed worked for Britain when it "did the right thing") was an outright condemning.
So I brought this example to counter your point that the international criticism is an indication that Israel is doing everything wrong. Israel gets criticized no matter what it is doing, or at least it feels this way.
much of the problem is that the very concept is flawed. A government that represents all people living under its jurisdiction is not founded as a "Jewish State"
Just like before, I still don't understand whether you expect Israel to give full citizen rights to the people who live over the green line, or whether this is directed at the people who are currently Israeli citizens but not Jewish. If the later, then please explain how is Israel not meeting your standard for whatever it is you think the term should mean.
The question right now is how do we rewind and come up with something better?
Great question! What's your answer, please?
Shachar
Shouldn't dirty talk be done in private?
Shachar
hell I throw away machines a dozen times more powerful than that old POS chip.
There are more important aspects to a chip that is supposed to be used in an aircraft than processing speed. Radiation resistance, temperature sensitivity, having a frame that can withstand 9G over time and twice that at emergencies, etc. count for more than having more processing power, even if the result is that you are using a less powerful chip.
The reason the 386 took so long to be replaced wasn't because of some slow working committee. It is because the economical pressures at ground levels are different, causing chip makers to produce chips that are indeed faster, but less suited to the operating conditions inside a fighter aircraft.
I didn't know they actually found an alternative. Maybe they didn't, and are just so swell stocked up on 386s that they feel there is no need to pay the cost to Intel of keeping the old production line open.
Shachar
What you haven't done is made any compelling argument why the US should continue its extraordinary support of Israel.
Had you actually listened, instead of just claiming to listen, you'd see that I wasn't trying to. I do my best to have facts based opinions. This particular question is currently fashionable because it features in the presidential campaign, which I'm not following. As such, I believe that if I voice an opinion, it will be as based as ignorance as your voiced opinions in this thread are. I'm trying to keep both my reputation and self esteem at higher levels.
Thanks for at least refraining from calling me anti-Semitic for asking this question, like many Israeli politicians do.
It turned out there was no need. The obligatory role of name calling was filled by you, and a lovely performance, I might add.
Shachar
First, is this a trivia question, or is this an attempt to answer my question? If the former, I'll gladly answer. If the later, then it is irrelevant. If you are trying to claim that Israel can be (future) legitimate, just not where it is, then you need to account all existing past into this statement.
As for the actual question: that really depends on who you ask, how you define "homes", and whether you think the displacement of Jews from their homes in the Arab states counters that in some way. All of those questions are under dispute, and almost everyone I've seen bring it up tends to adopt the Palestinian position on it without questioning it.
Shachar
Sure, Israel is no worse than many other "democratic" nations and we shouldn't treat it any worse than them. But there is no reason to treat it any better. Israel should receive about the same level of US attention and support as Hungary, and I want US politicians to stop wasting their time and money on it. We really have more important domestic and international issues to deal with.
I see. Since this discussion started elsewhere, why don't we agree to disagree on what Israel is and isn't. It took me a while to see that you are not interested in the thread original direction (the legitimacy or lack there of of Israel), and since I am not interested in what you advocate your country do, I think this is a good place to call it quits. I get the impression you are not listening to anything I say anyways, and I'm fairly sure you have the same impression of me.
Have a great rest of the weekend, and enjoy your moral superiority.
Shachar
You are giving the usual litany of collective guilt and judging people based on their ethnicity rather than their individual identity: those are the defining characteristic of bigotry and racism. You are a bigot and a racist, and sadly, people like you increasingly dominate Israeli politics.
Ad hominem attack aside, how is this worse than what the US did with its Japanese citizens during WW2? Or how anyone Muslim or perceived as Muslim was treated after 9/11? Do you honestly believe that people ignore group association merely because you think they should, or that I am a bigot merely for pointing this out? (Obviously, yes to the second one, but I still have a glimmer of hope to have a constructive conversation here).
Are you kidding? That is supposed to be the foundation of an ethnically and religiously pluralistic state?
I see you're having trouble staying on topic. The reference given was that "Jewish" referred to nation, not religion.
To the point, however, that is the only way you can form a foundation for a pluralistic state. A democratic country is a group of people with enough mutual interest to give up a little personal interests in favor of the collective, or it simply doesn't work. That's why the vast majority of democratic countries in the world are nation states. That's why some countries that did not start as nation state turn into ones over time, like the US did. That's why countries which are not nation states treat minorities with less tolerance, such as the anti-muslims laws in France. It's also why bi-national states have a hard time sticking it together (see Canada for a good case, and Boznia-Herzegovina for a bad one). That's why the only Arab democracy, Lebanon, is constantly either in civil war or on the brink of one.
A state that has a clear national association can afford to be pluralistic. Israel defines the Arab language as an official state language along Hebrew, and has explicit setting for days off on Muslim holidays, not in spite of what its declaration of independence says, but because of it.
Shachar
It sounds to me you are assuming that Israel is acting like Britain did, and carry on from there as if it is fact.
There are a few major distinctions. First, Britain was never in any existential danger. The Irish never threatened to kill all Brits, and neither did anyone else.
Israel occupation of the west bank has started when it was attacked. It is true that some took advantage of the newly gained territories, and that many of those turned out to be jackasses. Still, the occupation is not the core of the problem. Never was. Read the Hamas charter say otherwise.
You claim that:
except when Britain has tried to deal with the injustices.
Well, guess what. Israel withdrew from all of the Gaza strip, evacuating all of the settlements there. Not only did the Palestinian reaction not be to increase the acceptance (quite the contrary), the international reaction wasn't either. No attempt to stop the missiles from Gaza on Israeli civilians. After that move, you will be hard pressed to convince any right thinking Israeli that simply withdrawing from the west bank is going to end the hostilities. All people look at, and rightly so, is the fire radius of the west bank border to where most of the Jewish population reside.
Just because Britain did it one way doesn't mean Israel's the same.
So you have population under occupation. You cannot simply let them go. You don't want to annex the area. Peaceful resolution is not an option. All you can do is minimize the casualties on your side, and handle the international criticism, unfair though it is, as best you can. Don't get me wrong. I hate this situation. Still, with my house only 3 kilometers from the green line, I cannot exactly say "let's withdraw and hope that they do not start shooting missiles".
All of this has nothing to do with the question that started the discussion. Israel's treatment of its citizens is not conditioned on their religion or nationality. If you want to claim otherwise, be specific and bring references.
Shachar
Unless you suggest we now somehow move six and a half million people from their homes, I do not see the difference between the questions. Maybe sometime in the past, but definitely not today.
Shachar
But in the case of Israel, Jewish definitely refers to the nation. Please do read the declaration of independence and see if you can interpret it otherwise. Just because you think it should be called "Israeli" instead means nothing. No one is asking you.
People see this word and read it as "religious", because that's how they like to interpret it. This does not live up to reality. When the government tried to deport children of foreign workers (mostly from east Asia), there was a public outcry that caused a specific law to pass to enable them to get full citizenship. They weren't Jewish in religion, but they otherwise had the same culture as the average Israeli, and the Jewish Israeli society not only accepted them, it actually protected them. Just because you like it to be called by a different name doesn't mean it is a different thing.
The other designations you list are generally not considered or intended to be religiously or ethnically exclusive anymore (even if they once were).
Considered by whom? By you? Israel is far from being the only country that filter immigration based on ethnic criteria, and this is the only law in Israel that has any form of actual discrimination. Just because you think something is so does not make it so.
but also because of the role ethnicity and religion play in Israel and its politics.
You have a large group of people with distinct ethnicity. They openly sympathize with countries you are in open war with. They cheer when your civilians are bombarded. Their leaders use their official capacity as representatives of the state to undermine that state's efforts in negotiations. Do you know of a country where ethnicity wouldn't become a part of the politics under those conditions? Care to stipulate what would happen to a US senator that would be found to have met with Bin-Laden? In Israel, when Knesset member Hanin Zuabi participated in an act of war against Israel, she got protection from the Knesset guard for fear someone may try to harm her.
and using it sometimes to refer to religion, ethnicity, or politics, and deftly shifting the meaning mid-sentence to try to win a point and be able to accuse others of anti-Semitism.
Yes, there are jerks on all sides of this debate. What happened in this thread, however, was that people were calling my side of the debate "jerks" before anyone from my side even voiced an opinion. Don't you find that even the least bit objectionable?
Also, you sound like a reasoned person. You do seem to make the logical fallacy that says just because you are open to listening, and you haven't changed your mind, it means anyone voicing compatible opinions is also reasonable. To date, I have only encountered one person (not on Slashdot) whose opinions I would categorize as racist. It was more Arab supremacy than anti-Semitic. Still, many voice opinions that, if you peel all of the layers, boil down to stating that every ethnic group of people in the world deserve self governance except the Jews. Like I said many times in this thread, I usually attribute this to ignorance rather than hate, but I can see how some may get confused.
Shachar
You just said it, and no one branded you anti-Semitic yet. I guess we can easily see that this statement is wrong.
Shachar
This is a pointless question to ask an anonymous coward, but would it be safe to say, then, that you are against the proposed state of Palestine?
Just for reference, I found the Palestinian constitution here. I remember that it used to (or, perhaps, I remember a later draft) a more prominent statement right in the introduction, but even in this draft, Article 4.1 reads:
Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
For the sake of comparison, the Israel declaration of independence goes even further, stating Israel is a Jewish state, with complete equality for non-Jews. Still, it is the main focus of the "illegitimate" claims, which somehow usually come from people who think that a Palestinian state would be a great idea.
Shachar
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Anyone born to a Greek citizen in Greece is a Greek citizen.
Anyone born to a British citizen in England is a British citizen.
Anyone born to an Israeli citizen in Israel is an Israeli citizen.
If you had a point, I missed it.
Shachar
A lot of propaganda, to be sure. Care to give actual references, so I have something to answer?
As for the settlements being illegal, yes, there is controversy about that. There is also controversy inside Israel about that. Then again, Israel also gets blame for bombing civilians, something which international law clearly acknowledges is unavoidable during war, and does not consider a war crime unless done deliberately. Deliberate bombing of civilians is a frequent accusation, but I have never seen it substantiated. Its blockage on the Gaza strip is often cited as illegal, again, with no substantiation beyond the wishful thinking of some. Same goes for its stopping the flotilla, including using force (though the UN report did claim excessive force, while still saying that the IDF soldiers were under sever violent attack. Go figure).
I'm not saying, and wasn't all along, that all criticism of Israel is wrong. I'm saying that the claims that Israel, as a Jewish state, is illegitimate, when not based on anti-semitism, are instead based on ignorance.
Shachar
The basis of Zionism was to buy land and settle on it. If you can think of a better way to form a country for people without one, please suggest it. All of the organizations you mentioned were formed well after the conflict has already begun to become violent.
I am quite aware that you can argue about Irgun and Lehi's objectives and ways. Then again, they were marginal in acceptance inside the Jewish community of pre-48 Palestine. In fact, they were effectively squashed by the Jewish organization.
As for Haganah, please do state what it did that you find so objectionable, or why you think it, of all the movements in the Jewish organization, was the one who was supposed to perform the amicable steps.
Shachar
There are two Palestinian populations that get mixed up for no really good reason except people's laziness.
The Palestinians who are Israeli citizens, and who live inside the established Israeli borders, are equal rights (though not equal liability) citizens, and are not being discriminated against by any law. I cannot say that there is no discrimination in practice, because that would be both incorrect and impossible. The emotions involved make it unlikely. I will say that the general press brings such cases forward, that the tone is critical of such discrimination, and that the general vibe you get is that such acts are considered illegitimate by the Israeli society.
Then there are the Palestinian who live under occupation. They are not given equal rights, nor should they, as I think everyone but a few extremists think they should not be made a part of Israel, but rather govern themselves. Such a government has proven hard to achieve (for whatever reasons), which means they are under occupation.
Now, please state the difference again, please.
Shachar
It is funny to see how gross generalization of replies is suddenly okay. From reading this thread one can gather that ALL Israelies think that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism. Surely, we are not all made from just one mold?
It is possible to claim Israel is an illegitimate state without being anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic, but mostly this is done by being ignorant to the facts. The arguments usually go to "Israel displaced a bunch of Palestinians in 48, and is therefor illegitimate", without any context (or a simple repetition of the Palestinian propaganda as fact) as to how many Palestinians were actually displaced, what were the circumstances, how many Jews were displaced and massacred in that very same war, the Zionists attempts, in the preceding 60 years, to reach an amicable solution, or how other countries did similar or worse, and yet did not lose their legitimacy to even exist.
I sometimes take the time to enter such discussions, and the end result, when balance is brought in the form of actually looking at what the accepted standards say and what international law actually says (as opposed to what Israeli critics would wish it to say), that Israel is illegitimate because a "Jewish state" is fundamentally morally wrong.
I have never once heard a good argument why that should be the case, while "Greek state", "English state", "Finnish state", "Chinese state", "Russian state", "Arab state" and a whole bunch of other nation states, none of which have their legitimacy questioned, are fine.
Shachar
I'll start by stating my bias. I'm an Israeli. I also happen to believe that the sanctions on Iran are the best alternative of the three (the other two being attacking Iran and letting it develop nuclear weapons). I am also not the original commenter to whom you were replying.
So when a nation or nations implements sanctions (for instance the sanctions on Iranian oil), you would consider that war? I think you definition of war is way to liberal.
Yes. I think the sanctions on Iran are an act of war. I also happen to think that GP's definition sounds fairly accurate.
Anticipating your next question: If Iran now attacks a US aircraft carrier, would that be just a continuation of the existing war started with the sanctions? My answer: not exactly. It would be a severe escalation. There are domains to war, and opening a new domain is a non-trivial matter. Economic sanctions are one domain. Actual bombs falling is another. Cyber attacks are a much milder form of war, but war non the less.
This should not be taken as criticism against the sanctions. I think they are justified. I also think, by this stage, that pre-emptive strike is also justified. I think there are times when opening a war is your best course of action (and, no, Iraq wasn't one of them).
Also, if you disagree with me I will recognize that as an act of war on your part for trying to destroy my intellectual assets.
Yeah. Now you're just trolling. Anyone disagreeing with you does not fall inside the scope of the GP's "too liberal" definition.
Shachar