You don't seem to be winning this argument,
You're right, I already have.
You can't handle the truth
You have no idea what it is.
If the sane people went around thumping everybody for saying crazy **** eventually there would be nobody left including the so called sane.
Only because boredom set in.
LOL! Maybe you should read the article first.........
I did...
There is no denying of the fact that the Middle East is mostly ruled by autocratic, oppressive, and undemocratic regimes. On the other hand, the majority of these repressive regimes were mostly founded and funded based on Israeli and American wishes. It should be noted that the most popular revolts in the Middle East have been ruthlessly crushed by American puppet regimes (whom the West often refer to by "Moderate regimes") in the area.
Look for key words, like mostly. Your OP/Ed piece is full of them and other ambiguous generalizations.
The regimes in Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Hashemite Kingdom, Lebanon (before the civil war), Arab Gulf States, Morocco, Iran (prior to the Islamic revolution), Turkey, ... etc., were all funded and directed by the United States of America; the land of the free and the home of the brave.
So it wasn't the Joos, it was the US. Good to know, the author likes consistency...lol.
Sadly, many of the so called "moderate regimes" are ten times more accountable to Uncle Sam than to their own public.
That's why they're moderate. Iran, Saudi Arabia, to name a couple, aren't moderate.
Ironically, if democracy truly shall serve Israel's national interests in the region, then maybe it should direct its powerful lobby in Washington,
AIPAC, to start lobbying on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East; after all promoting "democracy is the key" to a lasting peace in the Middle East?
It's rarely questioned, by many Israelis and Zionists, how the Jewish minority in Palestine became a majority within few months in 1948.
Not really. Since they aren't a majority in Palestine now. They are however a majority in Israel, and there's no doubt about how immigration played a huge roll in that.
Did you even read this Op/Ed piece, to vet it for intelligent content, before you thought it was a good idea to post it?
That was rhetorical question. Since it has the same insipid stupidity that fills your posts, I wouldn't imagine you could tell the difference.
Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating a "Jewish state" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany.
Well duh!
When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem."
Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution".
David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution" as the following:
In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:
"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (
Righteous Victims p. 144).
First off, the "Palestinians" that fled at the urging of Arab states poised to attack Israel, don't add up to the numbers needed to make this opinion even remotely realistic. Once Israels borders were set in 47, indigenous and immigrant Jews were the majority. That majority only grew larger as more Jews migrated.
Secondly, although I find Ben Gurions proposal immoral myself. It isn't even remotely associated with what the article is trying to connect it to.
It's not only that the Zionists deemed it necessary to practice
ETHNIC CLEANSING to build their vision of "Jewish Democracy", they have also opted to keep many Israelis in the dark by directly censoring what they read, hear, and see in the Israeli media.
Martin Van Creveld (the renowned Israeli military strategist, and historian) eloquently described Israeli controlled censorship as follows:
"The [Israeli military] censor exercises draconian power over the content in the media, licenses newspapers, and fines and suspends newspapers if, in his view, they have violated secrecy. He does not have to explain the reasons for his decision; indeed one paragraph in the law obliges newspapers to publish free ads by military censor denying or correcting information that papers themselves published. . . . Thus one of the [Israeli military] censor's main functions is to keep Israelis ignorant of what everybody else knows." (
The Sword And The Olive, p. 110)
I actually think protecting state secrets should be a concern of the Gov't. And if that means pulling a news outlets license because they choose to endanger the nation, over ideological principles, so be it.
But that's not what your silly article is trying to allude to, is it?
It's trying to equate secrecy laws, to censorship of dissension.
All I have to say to that monumental lie is, Haaretz. If one were capable of doing any research of their own, they'd know enough to read up on Gershom Schocken as well. Knowing the history of Haaretz and Gershom Schocken, would help someone with even the most immature research skills, formulate their own opinion of the blantant BS in the Op/Ed fantasy you've posted here.
But lets continue on taking apart your silly Op/Ed piece, shall we...
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%.
" (
Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 &
Benny Morris p. 28)
Wait!!! Didn't your article just say that the Jews would have been the minority?
Although, having read Ben Morris' book "The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem", I actually agree with his opinion, and it is just an opinion, that lowering the number of non Jews in the area would have made the State more stable. The Arabs took care of that problem, when they warned of the impending invasions.
For the moment, let's assume that the above facts, arguments, and quotes are nonsense
No need to assume, I've already shown how they are.
- Are you aware that 95% of Israel's lands are open for development for "Jewish people" only?
BS.The breakdown of ownership goes...
JNL, 14% Specifically designated for Jews, but has been open to Arab usage.
ILA, 79.5% Open to any citizen of Israel, period.
6.5%, privately and evenly owned by Arab and Jew. With zero restrictions as to who can buy or sell said land.
JNL and ILA lands are controlled by the Gov't of Israel. ILA lands are leased to whomever Arab and Jew alike. There are no restrictions, other than the usage of JNL lands. Since JNL was originally set up to purchase lands for use by Jewish immigrants, it has been largely leased to Jews alone. But, they have also leased land to Bedouins as pasture, or traded for non restricted land, so it could be leased to Arabs.
- Are you aware that the Israeli-Palestinian minority (who are close to a quarter of Israel's citizens) are restricted to 3% of land?
Again, what a crock. The same could be said for the Joos too. Since they can only privately own 3% of the land. Because the Gov't owns and controls the remaining percentage of ILA and JNL lands.
Again, simple research skills would have made it impossible for you to post something so inexplicable stupid.
The implementation of these apartheid policies resulted in disenfranchising a quarter of the Israeli population, who mostly continue to live in segregate, gated, and over crowded ghettos that are plagued with high unemployment rate and suffers from lack of basic services. In fact, there are over forty plus unrecognized Palestinian-Israeli villages (within the "Green Line") that receives no public services whatsoever , such as roads, sanitation, electricity, schools, ...etc.
Apartheid policies?
Ya, because a group of people decide to be squatters and set up a camp with no services, does not an apartheid state make. Arab, Druze and so on, are free to apply for leases on ILA lands, or purchase available private lands, as are any citizens of Israel. Although, I would like to see that open up to anyone, not just citizens.
Finally, it's worth emphasizing that "Israeli democracy" is an incarnation of Apartheid South Africa's democracy. It also could be argued that Apartheid South Africa was for a very long time the only democracy in Africa, however, it was a democracy for the White race only. Similarly, Zionist democracy in Israel was and still is designed to empower Jews only based on their religion. At one point, Israel has to choose between being a "Democratic Jewish State" or a "Democratic State" to all of its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike. Eventually, such a facade to democracy will self-destruct, and until it changes, the talk about "Israeli democracy" is nothing but a propaganda that makes good sound bytes in the Western and Israeli medias.
Jews only?
Non Jews hold Gov't jobs, serve in the military, hold elected positions, and so on.
I apologize if I pasted too much,
You should be apologizing for posting something so monumentally stupid, it should be considered a criminal act.
but there are too much interesting things in this article and a very necessary read for everyone.
If they wish to be misinformed that is.
Instead of suporting parties like Hamas maybe Israel would have been better off settling with the more than fair 1967 borders.
Agreed.
