I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

DarkCrawler posted:

Only Israeli Jews and Druze are drafted.

The Law of Return is a discriminatory law that gives one native racial/religious group precedence over all others in immigration.

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law bars Israel's subjects from West Bank attaining citizenship, even if they have been born in Israel proper, want to marry an Israeli citizen or have relatives there.

The Jewish National Fund is a discriminatory organization ensuring that Jews will have a dispropotionate amount of ownership of the land in Israel, supported by the government. If Jewish National Fund gives land to an Arab (which it does rarely) the government has to give the exact same amount of land back to it. This has ensured that Arab ownership of Israel's land is only three percent.

Arab citizens of Israel are not permitted to start settlements on the West Bank or living in already existing settlements if the settlement council doesn't tolerate Arabs.

The Israeli government has a long-standing policy of denying state recognition to holy places that aren't Jewish.

The government spends far less the amount of money per every Jewish student then it does per every Arab Student. Human Rights Watch has found systematic discrimination in the number, quality and condition of the buildings, classroom sizes, provision of teaching resources and government funding.

Few Jews learn even basic Arabic, whereas Arab children are required to learn Hebrew to advanced level. Despite both ostensibly being official languages of the state.

University courses in Israel are in Hebrew or English.

Israel does not have a nationality - only Jews are both Israeli nationals and citizens.

A political party can be disqualified if they don't recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

State education law states loyalty to the Jewish people as one of the main goals of state education.

State Jewish religious schools can have independent curriculum, state Arab schools can´t.

I fail to see how any of those are discriminatory. Schools in Israel should not be allowed to use hamas-funded curriculumn, nor should citizens of the jewish state of israel be disloyal to their obligations to uphold israel as a jewish state. They don't like the Jewish state of israel? Leave and renounce their Israeli citizenship.

While only jews and druze are drafted to IDF, if any other israelis who are exempt from the draft wish to be responsible citizens, they have the freedom to enlist in IDF. How many exercise that responsibility as a percentage of the draft-exempt population, darkcrawler?

Is it discriminatory that in America, only male citizens have to register for selective service at 18?

My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jul 13, 2015

# ? Jul 13, 2015 02:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 01:51

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

Absurd Alhazred posted:

I think it might help the discussion if someone were to cite in-thread (rather than through a link) a few examples of Israeli laws which treat Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs differently.

DarkCrawler posted:

Only Israeli Jews and Druze are drafted.

The Law of Return is a discriminatory law that gives one native racial/religious group precedence over all others in immigration.

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law bars Israel's subjects from West Bank attaining citizenship, even if they have been born in Israel proper, want to marry an Israeli citizen or have relatives there.

The Jewish National Fund is a discriminatory organization ensuring that Jews will have a dispropotionate amount of ownership of the land in Israel, supported by the government. If Jewish National Fund gives land to an Arab (which it does rarely) the government has to give the exact same amount of land back to it. This has ensured that Arab ownership of Israel's land is only three percent.

Arab citizens of Israel are not permitted to start settlements on the West Bank or living in already existing settlements if the settlement council doesn't tolerate Arabs.

The Israeli government has a long-standing policy of denying state recognition to holy places that aren't Jewish.

The government spends far less the amount of money per every Jewish student then it does per every Arab Student. Human Rights Watch has found systematic discrimination in the number, quality and condition of the buildings, classroom sizes, provision of teaching resources and government funding.

Few Jews learn even basic Arabic, whereas Arab children are required to learn Hebrew to advanced level. Despite both ostensibly being official languages of the state.

University courses in Israel are in Hebrew or English.

Israel does not have a nationality - only Jews are both Israeli nationals and citizens.

A political party can be disqualified if they don't recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

State education law states loyalty to the Jewish people as one of the main goals of state education.

State Jewish religious schools can have independent curriculum, state Arab schools can�t.

This is a good post, and very depressing.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 03:11

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

fade5 posted:

This is a good post, and very depressing.

Jews and Arabs aren't treated differently, though, since an Arab can be a Jew if they so choose, while a non-arab Jew can never choose to become an arab.

You aren't discriminated against if you elect to forego priviledges granted to your nation's state religion any more than jews are discriminated against because they cannot become head of state of England.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 03:13

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

My Imaginary GF posted:

I fail to see how any of those are discriminatory. Schools in Israel should not be allowed to use hamas-funded curriculumn, nor should citizens of the jewish state of israel be disloyal to their obligations to uphold israel as a jewish state. They don't like the Jewish state of israel? Leave and renounce their Israeli citizenship.

While only jews and druze are drafted to IDF, if any other israelis who are exempt from the draft wish to be responsible citizens, they have the freedom to enlist in IDF. How many exercise that responsibility as a percentage of the draft-exempt population, darkcrawler?

Is it discriminatory that in America, only male citizens have to register for selective service at 18?

Well, I might say you should be loyal to America and not be allowed to sell out America's interests for a foreign country. That's responsibility.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 03:29

Kim Jong Il: Aug 16, 2003

DarkCrawler posted:

The Law of Return is a discriminatory law that gives one native racial/religious group precedence over all others in immigration.

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law bars Israel's subjects from West Bank attaining citizenship, even if they have been born in Israel proper, want to marry an Israeli citizen or have relatives there.

The Jewish National Fund is a discriminatory organization ensuring that Jews will have a dispropotionate amount of ownership of the land in Israel, supported by the government. If Jewish National Fund gives land to an Arab (which it does rarely) the government has to give the exact same amount of land back to it. This has ensured that Arab ownership of Israel's land is only three percent.

This doesn't raise to the level of SA-style apartheid.

quote:

The government spends far less the amount of money per every Jewish student then it does per every Arab Student. Human Rights Watch has found systematic discrimination in the number, quality and condition of the buildings, classroom sizes, provision of teaching resources and government funding.

But does this still exist when you control for Haredim?

quote:

Few Jews learn even basic Arabic, whereas Arab children are required to learn Hebrew to advanced level. Despite both ostensibly being official languages of the state.

University courses in Israel are in Hebrew or English.

Rivlin is trying to change this. Still isn't SA though.

quote:

A political party can be disqualified if they don't recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

State education law states loyalty to the Jewish people as one of the main goals of state education..

Again, not SA-style apartheid. The first point is also contradicted by the existence of both Balad and the traitorous Haredim parties.

It's all pretty crummy as is the Bedouin stuff, but that's pretty garden variety policy for western states towards minorities.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 04:28

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Kim Jong Il posted:

This doesn't raise to the level of SA-style apartheid.

But does this still exist when you control for Haredim?

Rivlin is trying to change this. Still isn't SA though.

Again, not SA-style apartheid. The first point is also contradicted by the existence of both Balad and the traitorous Haredim parties.

It's all pretty crummy as is the Bedouin stuff, but that's pretty garden variety policy for western states towards minorities.

I love how your only response is well that doesn't make it as bad, as though you cannot actually deny that Israel is engaged in open discrimination. Alos most westerns tates don't wall off part of their minority population and periodically drop bombs on them.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 04:44

SyHopeful: Jun 24, 2007; May an IDF soldier mistakenly gun down my own parents and face no repercussions i'd totally be cool with it cuz accidents are unavoidable in a low-intensity conflict, man

Kim Jong Il posted:

This doesn't raise to the level of SA-style apartheid.

No poo poo, because it isn't even going into the subject of the Occupied Territories.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 04:54

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

Kim Jong Il posted:

It's all pretty crummy as is the Bedouin stuff, but that's pretty garden variety policy for western states towards minorities.

Give comprehensive examples, please.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 05:04

Broken Mind: Jan 27, 2009

Kim Jong Il posted:

This doesn't raise to the level of SA-style apartheid.

We haven't discussed the treatment of the ~~bantustans~~ occupied territories yet. The treatment of those under Israel's control who are non-citizens is less pleasant than those minorities who are citizens. You know, like in South Africa.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 05:06

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Broken Mind posted:

We haven't discussed the treatment of the ~~bantustans~~ occupied territories yet. The treatment of those under Israel's control who are non-citizens is less pleasant than those minorities who are citizens. You know, like in South Africa.

Israel has no responsibilities towards non-citizens unless those responsibilities are clearly outlined in Israeli law.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 05:09

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

My Imaginary GF posted:

Israel has no responsibilities towards non-citizens unless those responsibilities are clearly outlined in Israeli law.

When its actions towards those non citizens cause blowback towards its allies, the allies who it expects to play cover for it, they do.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 05:23

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

My Imaginary GF posted:

Israel has no responsibilities towards non-citizens unless those responsibilities are clearly outlined in Israeli law.

Charmingly Roman you are. I expect you also approve of the origin of the diaspora. What responsibility could Romans possibly have towards terrorists, rebels, and sympathizers?

# ? Jul 13, 2015 06:49

treasured8elief: Jul 25, 2011; Salad Prong

My Imaginary GF posted:

Israel has no responsibilities towards non-citizens unless those responsibilities are clearly outlined in Israeli law.

IMO Israel should let go of territories containing non-citizens if they want to have no responsibilities concerning them. Until such a thing happens, the most moral democracy has over 4 and a half million permanent subjects who are unacceptably disenfranchised (and under other hardships).

I don't feel like such a divorce of Israel and Palestine is ever likely to happen. Citizenship needs to be granted to such subjects, and it will need to happen without formally restricting rights based on ethnic or religious group.

As long as neither choice is made, I think pointing to South African apartheid is really a super hopeful and relatively kind comparison to make.

treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Jul 13, 2015

# ? Jul 13, 2015 06:57

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

My Imaginary GF posted:

Israel has no responsibilities towards non-citizens unless those responsibilities are clearly outlined in Israeli law.

You mean other than Israel being a signatory of the fourth geneva convention, right?

# ? Jul 13, 2015 07:29

Duckbox: Sep 7, 2007

So I left this thread for three months and ya'll are pretty much having the same conversation with MIG and KJIt. Last page, Migf even dusted off the same bogus Church of England analogy that several of us vigorously dismantled back in March, or whenever. He never admits ignorance or concedes defeat, he just changes the terms and keeps arguing. You can't win. Not much use trying.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 07:43

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

Well, if anyone cares, Gill Rosenberg the israeli/canadian lady who went to syria a year ago to fight alongside the kurds against daesh, whom at one point daesh claimed to have captured, is apparently just fine and has returned to Israel yesterday: http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-woman-returns-after-fighting-with-kurds-in-syria/

# ? Jul 13, 2015 08:12

The Insect Court: Nov 22, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

DarkCrawler posted:

Israel is an apartheid state because your ethnic group determines the laws that apply to you, not where you live

If you commit a crime against a Native American while in Indian country, whether or not the local authorities have the jurisdiction to actually charge you comes down to whether you are considered to have Indian blood. Your ethnic group determines the laws that apply to you. Until 2014, tribal authorities could not arrest a non-Indian man who raped an Indian woman, only an Indian man who committed the same crime. If your ethnic group determining the laws that apply to you is what makes an apartheid state, then by your definition the United States is an apartheid state. Are you satisfied with that definition, or would you like to change it?

Jack of Hearts posted:

I don't know what this means.

'Course you do.

Jack of Hearts posted:

Behold: a man who has MIGF on ignore.

Jack of Hearts posted:

Well done, MIGF. You're back to amusing for me.

Please stop replying to MIGF.

Jack of Hearts posted:

I'm leaning towards the idea he's too capable to be truly mad. He's the new TT.

Jack of Hearts posted:

[whisper]Shhhhh, MIGF, you're giving the game away.[/whisper]

The problem isn't MIGF, it's the whirlwind of one-liner cheerleading/circlejerking/shitposting that any single post of his stirs up from certain other posters. Maybe actually pointing this out will get you to knock it off, maybe you don't care, but it's worth a try.

The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Jul 13, 2015

# ? Jul 13, 2015 08:31

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

The Insect Court posted:

If you commit a crime against a Native American while in Indian country, whether or not the local authorities have the jurisdiction to actually charge you comes down to whether you are considered to have Indian blood. Your ethnic group determines the laws that apply to you. Until 2014, tribal authorities could not arrest a non-Indian man who raped an Indian woman, only an Indian man who committed the same crime. If your ethnic group determining the laws that apply to you is what makes an apartheid state, then by your definition the United States is an apartheid state. Are you satisfied with that definition, or would you like to change it?

Remember everyone because the united states did bad things that means we should shut up about Israel. Even though if we tried to change things here Insect court would also oppose that.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 08:57

Duckbox: Sep 7, 2007

Wait, I'm confused. Are we supposed to think that the reservation system isn't a form of apartheid?

# ? Jul 13, 2015 08:58

Angry Salami: Jul 27, 2013; Don't trust the skull.

"Israel isn't like apartheid South Africa - it's more like the United States' policies towards Indians!"

- An argument that's apparently meant to make Israel look better

# ? Jul 13, 2015 09:01

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

Kim Jong Il posted:

This doesn't raise to the level of SA-style apartheid.

But does this still exist when you control for Haredim?

Rivlin is trying to change this. Still isn't SA though.

Again, not SA-style apartheid. The first point is also contradicted by the existence of both Balad and the traitorous Haredim parties.

It's all pretty crummy as is the Bedouin stuff, but that's pretty garden variety policy for western states towards minorities.

It doesn't need to be "SA-style apartheid" to meet the definition for apartheid. And yes, it still exists when you control for Haredim, I don't know why you think that is some magic bullet that negates everything.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

The Insect Court posted:

If you commit a crime against a Native American while in Indian country, whether or not the local authorities have the jurisdiction to actually charge you comes down to whether you are considered to have Indian blood. Your ethnic group determines the laws that apply to you. Until 2014, tribal authorities could not arrest a non-Indian man who raped an Indian woman, only an Indian man who committed the same crime. If your ethnic group determining the laws that apply to you is what makes an apartheid state, then by your definition the United States is an apartheid state. Are you satisfied with that definition, or would you like to change it?

While in Indian country. It comes down to tribal membership, while in a tribal area, a separate national sub-division with different laws. U.S. tribes are federally recognized entities with limited sovereignty. As per law these tribes recognize each other's power to charge each other's members in court (lobbied for it, in fact). They can't make this decision for non-members of tribes, nor do anything for members outside the geographical limits of their jurisdiction. Federal law treats everyone equally.

There is no geographic sub-divisional separation between Jews and Arabs in Israel, no separate tribal membership, no autonomous areas. Bedouin tribes have no separate judicial systems, neither do Druze, not Palestinians, nor Jews. Separate racial treatment is codified in Israel's equivalent of US Federal law.

DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Jul 14, 2015

# ? Jul 13, 2015 09:32

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Kim Jong Il posted:

No, it brings up the image of historical anti-Jewish boycotts.

It is pretty hosed up and anti-semitic that BDS advocates boycotts of all Jewish businesses everywhere, that's terrible.

Oh wait, they don't?

E: anti-Jewish boycotts in Nazi Germany, well known for enjoying support from Jews worldwide and within Germany

E2: Divestment from South Africa was a cloaked attack on the Dutch Reformed Church and obviously a precursor to the genocide of an entire religious group

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Jul 13, 2015

# ? Jul 13, 2015 09:49

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

My Imaginary GF posted:

When everyone is like apartheid south africa, no-one is like apartheid south africa and the term apartheid is rendered meaningless.

So far the list of countries like Apartheid South Africa include Apartheid South Africa, the United States of America, and Israel. It's not everyone. ASA no longer exists. The UN recognizes 195 states (193 member states, two observer states), so here we have 2/195. So when barely 1% is like Apartheid South Africa, 99% is not like Apartheid South Africa, and the term apartheid is rendered extremely meaningful.

Rigged Death Trap posted:

Polygamy is unilaterally illegal in the US.

It's just the same thing, really. Goyness is unilaterally illegal in Israel.

Angry Salami posted:

"Israel isn't like apartheid South Africa - it's more like the United States' policies towards Indians!"

- An argument that's apparently meant to make Israel look better

The Native Americans were largely genocided, which is largely why this is a model more appealing to our pro-Israel cheerleaders here than South Africa. South Africa was bad mostly because they never managed to kill enough Blacks to make Afrikaners the majority.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 12:34

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Angry Salami posted:

"Israel isn't like apartheid South Africa - it's more like the United States' policies towards Indians!"

- An argument that's apparently meant to make Israel look better

Israel is America in the mideast. What policy does Israel implement, which America would not?

# ? Jul 13, 2015 14:19

Booourns: Jan 20, 2004; Please send a report when you see me complain about other posters and threads outside of QCS

~thanks!

Duckbag posted:

So I left this thread for three months and ya'll are pretty much having the same conversation with MIG and KJIt. Last page, Migf even dusted off the same bogus Church of England analogy that several of us vigorously dismantled back in March, or whenever. He never admits ignorance or concedes defeat, he just changes the terms and keeps arguing. You can't win. Not much use trying.

Woah there that sounds like cheerleading, don't go getting yourself probated now

# ? Jul 13, 2015 15:33

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

My Imaginary GF posted:

Israel is America in the mideast. What policy does Israel implement, which America would not?

Wait is this an argument in favour of Israel?

# ? Jul 13, 2015 15:43

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

My Imaginary GF posted:

Israel is America in the mideast. What policy does Israel implement, which America would not?

Who cares? You're free to start a thread about America's mistreatment of minorities if you like, though I don't think that'd get you quite the level of disagreement you seem to expect. But this is the Israel thread, not the America thread, so talking about American treatment of natives is just a derail. And in any case, it's not like "well, other countries have committed ethnic cleansing too" is, has been, or ever will be a good defense against the charge of ethnic cleansing.

I do wish people wouldn't let you lead the discussion around by the nose so easily, thoughm

# ? Jul 13, 2015 15:49

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

In actual news...

July 8th was the one-year anniversary of the beginning of Protective Edge. A number of news organizations sent photographers to Gaza to document how little rebuilding has happened since then. My favorite was a "then and now" series which showed the sites of Israeli bombings and Hamas rocket attacks as they were photographed last year and compared them with how those exact same places look now. On top of that, Amnesty International has released the Gaza Platform, a map and database which extensively catalogs the Israeli strikes in Gaza along with the kill counts of each one, the type of place hit, and so on.

Also, the case of the Israeli man who crossed the border into Gaza and disappeared is becoming more and more embarrassing for the Israeli government. Not only is the government being panned for being insensitive and unresponsive to the family, but the family is openly telling the media that they're just fine with him in Gaza, and that they're working directly with people in Gaza to track him down because they don't trust the competence of the Israeli government to find him. The most potentially explosive angle in the story - the fact that the Israel-Gaza border is so porous that apparently a mentally ill person can take a leisurely stroll right across, even in the immediate aftermath of the last war, and has gone back and forth across the border several times already - has yet to really grow legs, surprisingly enough.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/family-of-bedouin-missing-in-gaza-confident-of-his-return/

quote:

The family of a Bedouin Israeli said to be held by Hamas in Gaza said it does not fear for his safety and is using the services of dignitaries on both sides of the border to secure his release.

The name of the 28-year-old man from the Bedouin town of Hura in the northern Negev has been placed under gag order at the request of his family, although news of his being in Gaza was cleared for publication last week. His father told the Palestinian Ma’an news agency on Monday that since his disappearance last April and up until last week the Israeli government hadn’t updated him on his son’s whereabouts a single time.

"Since we lost touch with our son, we thought he was in the West Bank, or moved to Egypt,” the father said. “Last Wednesday, when the gag order was lifted, the Israeli police turned to us and told us our son may be imprisoned by Hamas.”

The circumstances surrounding the man’s disappearance were unclear, but the few details that have so far emerge point to a case strikingly similar to that of Avraham Abera Mengistu, an Israeli of Ethiopian extraction who voluntarily crossed over to the Gaza Strip 10 months ago, and is also believed to be held by Hamas. Though both men were said to have histories of mental illness, the Bedouin man’s family seemed confident of his well-being thanks to his Arab identity.

“With all due respect, we are not dealing with an Israeli soldier but with an Arab Muslim of the Negev Bedouin,” one family member told Ma’an. “Any harm done to him could generally hurt the prestige of Hamas in the Negev, especially considering he suffers from mental illness since the age of 17.”

“As for his parents, they would rather he remain in Gaza and even marry there,” another relative went so far as to say.

The Israeli government has faced criticism over what is called its belated response to the disappearance of the two men and its insensitive treatment of Mengistu’s family.

But the Bedouin man’s family seemed to have few expectations of the government, preferring to deal with his disappearance through local tribal connections instead.

“When the family discovered that he may be with Hamas, we began calling dignitaries in the Gaza Strip,” said a family member. “One of them told us jokingly, ‘Most Gaza residents want to leave, while this crazy person is the only one prepared to live there.'”

An official on the Hura local council told Ma’an that the man had escaped from home many times in the past. His community has brought him back from Gaza twice before, as well as from Jordan, Egypt and the West Bank.

Hamas, for its part, has kept mum on the fate of the two Israelis. On Tuesday, a movement official in Lebanon refused to confirm whether the two were being held by Hamas, but hinted that it was holding the remains of soldiers killed during Operation Protective Edge.

“The silence maintained by the movement has forced the occupation to start acknowledging its human losses precisely,” Osama Hamdan, head of Hamas’s external relations department, told his movement’s website al-Resalah. “The movement will not comment on the issue before Israel admits to the number of missing soldiers.”

Hamdan said Hamas refuses to link the implementation of the ceasefire agreement reached with Israel last summer with a future prisoner swap, a connection Israel insists on making.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 20:28

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

Absurd Alhazred posted:

I think it might help the discussion if someone were to cite in-thread (rather than through a link) a few examples of Israeli laws which treat Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs differently.

It's also worth noting that as well as what has been pointed out already in the thread, the USA State Department's own human rights reports have pointed out Israel's discrimination year after year after year. Astounding both because the USA and Israel are such close allies and because the USA is accusing another country of racial discrimination.

# ? Jul 13, 2015 21:33

The Insect Court: Nov 22, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Main Paineframe posted:

That's one hell of a headline considering that according to at least two separate anonymous "senior defense officials", there is no current information about his whereabouts or status and it is "unclear" whether he is currently in Hamas captivity, with one of the officials saying that Hamas initially captured him but released him when they realized he wasn't a soldier - information corroborated by a "senior Palestinian official" who says that he was released by Hamas and continued on to Egypt of his own free will. But I guess "held in Hamas captivity" makes a more compelling story for both the media and the family than "traveling freely, and no one knows where the gently caress he is". I'm sure the government likes the Hamas angle too because it distracts from the fact that the border police let this guy slip right past, which I'm sure is super embarrassing for them and reflects poorly on border security.

It's a good thing that Hamas are such stand up guys, otherwise one might be a little concerned about a Jewish Israeli failing into their custody. Or at least, one would if one actually cared anything whatsoever for the well-being of Jewish Israelis.

Noted Zionist running dog Ban-Ki Moon seems, sadly, to be in on the evil Mossad plot to make it appear as if Hamas would have treated an Israeli Jew with anything but the noblest intentions.

team overhead smash posted:

It's also worth noting that as well as what has been pointed out already in the thread, the USA State Department's own human rights reports have pointed out Israel's discrimination year after year after year. Astounding both because the USA and Israel are such close allies and because the USA is accusing another country of racial discrimination.

Yes, I guess Foggy Bottom's still got asbestos in the walls or something, because the Zionist mind control rays that cause the United States government to unthinkingly and immediately back every single action taken by Israel don't seem to be working. Here it is for anyone who wants to check it out.

# ? Jul 14, 2015 05:07

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Remember everyone you must be an antisemite to not fully support Israel. I mean using the same logic I could argue someone who doesn't support Palestine 100% is a genocidal sociopath. I mean if I was using that style of argument.

Speaking of obvious antisemitism. CFR has submitted a less then glowing review of Mr Oren's book.

CFR posted:

Michael Oren�s Myths

by Steven A. Cook
June 22, 2015
Israeli schoolchildren hold the Israeli and American flags during a rehearsal for U.S. President Barack Obama's visit at his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres' residence tomorrow, in Jerusalem March 19, 2013 (Baz Ratner/Reuters). Israeli schoolchildren hold the Israeli and American flags during a rehearsal for U.S. President Barack Obama's visit at his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres' residence tomorrow, in Jerusalem March 19, 2013 (Baz Ratner/Reuters).
Share
297
Share
89
Tweet

Israel�s former ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, has been all over the papers, online magazines, and blogs in the last week. He has had opeds in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy.com, and gave a two part interview to Shmuel Rosner, the political editor of the Jewish Journal. Most of what has appeared are excerpts from Oren�s new book, Ally, in which he recounts his time in Washington. Oren has stirred passions among Israel�s supporters, its detractors, defenders of the Obama administration, and its harshest critics. This is all because Oren�s depiction of President Obama, his worldview, and his administration�s approach to the Middle East is not generous, to put it diplomatically.The people who dislike President Obama are going to use the book to bash the president and the people who do not like Prime Minister Netanyahu are going to use the book to bash the Israeli leader. Bashers gotta bash, but all that heat does not get anyone anywhere in thinking about the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship, which no matter how anyone looks at the world is the most important bilateral relationship Jerusalem has and among the most important that Washington maintains. I have not read Ambassador Oren�s book yet, but based on what has appeared so far, it seems he may have missed an opportunity to examine how best the United States and Israel can move forward. The fundamental problem is his a-historic and unrealistic view of what the special relationship actually looks like.

In the interest of full disclosure, my father-in-law is related to Michael Oren in a way that only my mother-in-law can explain. I think it has something to do with a common great aunt from different sides of the family. On the two or three occasions that I have met Oren, we were unable to figure it out. His book Six Days of War was stunning and helped me immeasurably when I wrote The Struggle for Egypt.

The strangest part of what Oren has made available from Ally so far was his June 16 piece in the Journal titled �How Obama Abandoned Israel,� specifically when he writes, ��Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel�s alliance with America. The first principle was �no daylight.� The U.S. and Israel always could disagree but never openly. Doing so would encourage common enemies and render Israel vulnerable.� I read that passage over and over again because for a historian like Oren it seemed like such a glaring and obvious mistake. Didn�t Henry Kissinger �re-assess� the U.S.-Israel relationship in 1975 over Israel�s foot-dragging on the redeployment of forces in the Sinai Peninsula and in the process delayed weapons deliveries to Jerusalem? Weren�t there very public disagreements between the Carter administration and the Israelis over peace with the Palestinians? What about Ronald Reagan�s decision to delay the delivery of F-16s to Israel? George H. W. Bush�s �I�m one little guy here� comment in the bruising battle over loan guarantees in 1991? Who could forget the controversy over the Har Homa settlement during the Clinton years? I do not remember if George W. Bush ever had it out with either Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert publicly, but if he did not, his administration is the exception that proves the rule.

As I have often emphasized, Israel, Israeli politics, and U.S.-Israel relations are not my thing so I consulted a few sources. Here is Bernard Reich, professor emeritus of political science at the George Washington University and author of Israel: Land of Tradition and Conflict, on the the U.S.-Israel relationship:

The two states developed a diplomatic political relationship that focused on the need to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute, but while they agreed on the general concept, they often differed on the precise means of achieving the desired result. The relationship became especially close after the Six Day War, when a congruence of policy prevailed on many of their salient concerns. Nevertheless, the two states often held differing perspectives on regional developments and on the dangers and opportunities they presented. No major ruptures took place, although significant tensions were generated at various junctures.

Reich then recounts the �increased public tension and recrimination� that marked U.S.-Israel relations during the Carter years before pivoting to the Reagan administration, which went so far as punishing the Israelis for running afoul of Washington.

Ronald Reagan is often regarded as a great friend of Israel. He may have been, but there was most certainly daylight between the United States and Israel in the 1980s. Reich�s former colleague, Howard M. Sachar, recounts in great detail in volume two of his monumental work, A History of Israel how the Reagan administration�s 1982 proposal to deal with the Palestinian issue left Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin �stunned and disbelieving.� This was not a dispute that was kept within the confines of the White House and the prime ministry. Even after Israel raised objections to the plan�which was developed in consultation with the Jordanians and Saudis, but not the Israelis�President Reagan outlined his vision in a televised address to the American people. The proposal included: a settlement freeze, giving Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem the opportunity to vote in elections for an envisioned autonomous quasi-government in the West Bank, Palestinian responsibility for civil and security matters in the West Bank, and the eventual establishment Hashemite-Palestinian confederation to bring the conflict to an end. That seems like a very public difference of opinion, no?

I could go on with a variety of examples from the Bush and Clinton years, but readers understand the point. Anyone who has ever been up close to U.S.-Israel relations understands that there is often tension and sometimes it breaks out into the open. Contrary to Oren, there never was a �no daylight� principle and demanding that there was one distorts the historical record and sets up the U.S.-Israel relationship for future trouble. The Israelis have a right to be angry about a variety of issues. They believe that they have not gotten a fair hearing on the Iran nuclear negotiations, which directly affects their security. The nasty things that unnamed senior officials have said about Netanyahu seem gratuitous, especially in light of the fact that, as Oren writes, Mahmoud Abbas never paid a price for defying the United States. Yet the Israelis are on significantly shakier ground demanding that no U.S. president ever call them out on policies that might harm American interests in the region. By setting this impossible-to-meet standard, Oren�s book thus seems destined to do precisely the opposite of what he wants for U.S.-Israel ties.

Among Israelis and their supporters there is an erroneous view that with the change of administration in January 2017, the bilateral relations will snapback [intentional] to the mythical �no daylight� moment that Michael Oren has conjured. Instead, the U.S.-Israel relationship will likely continue to follow the same pattern it always has�close cooperation with periodic public recriminations�but because Oren and others have set out unrealistic expectations, the coming crises will no doubt be more harmful to the relationship in the long run. As they say in Hebrew, Ze haval.

Here is another scathing review from the antisemitic rag Forward.

"Forward posted:

very so often an idea or phrase enters the public square in a way that changes the discourse, often for the worse, sometimes dangerously so. Example: Michael Oren�s wrongheaded June 15 op-ed essay in The Wall Street Journal, �How Obama Abandoned Israel.�

It�s not easy to say this. Oren is a distinguished historian who writes with well-earned authority. As Israel�s former ambassador in Washington he was an eyewitness to much of what he describes. And he�s a genuinely decent person, all too rare in public life. But this article gets the Obama-Israel relationship wrong in a big way.

The biggest mistake actually isn�t Oren�s, but the Journal headline writer�s. The article actually doesn�t say Obama �abandoned Israel.� It accuses him of �abandoning the two core principles of Israel�s alliance with America.� Specifically, the principles of �no daylight� � that America and Israel �always could disagree but never openly� � and of �no surprises,� meaning clearing things with each other in advance.

Abandoning these operating principles would certainly unsettle the relationship, but it�s not the same as abandoning Israel. Headlines have a powerful impact, though. When they�re wrong, readers are left believing something that isn�t true.

Unfortunately, Oren�s actual accusations are also wrong. They misread the events, which is odd given Oren�s presence as an eyewitness. And they garble the historical context, which is even odder coming from a historian.

As Oren tells it, the �core principles� of �no daylight� and �no surprises� guided U.S.-Israel relations for decades, until Obama came and trashed them. He �voided President George W. Bush�s commitment to include the major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within Israel�s borders in any peace agreement� by demanding �a total freeze of Israeli construction in those areas.� He �delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran�s right to nuclear power, without consulting Israel.� He �altered 40 years of U.S. policy by endorsing the 1967 lines with land swaps � formerly the Palestinian position � as the basis for peace-making.�

It sounds bad, until you examine the facts. Start with Bush: He did indeed promise to support the settlement blocs becoming Israel�s in a future agreement, but until there�s an agreement America still considers them occupied territory and deems construction there a hindrance. That�s been consistent.

Overall, U.S. policy on Israel�s borders has been unchanged since 1967. Successive administrations have called for a return to the pre-1967 armistice lines, with minor adjustments for security. The only major changes were the gradual American acceptance of Palestinian statehood, following King Hussein�s 1987 relinquishing of Jordan�s claim over the West Bank, and the addition of demography � meaning settlement blocs � alongside security as grounds for adjusting the lines. Both changes were first articulated by George W. Bush.

Also consistent are quarrels and surprises disrupting the relationship. The 1967-borders-with-adjustments principle was first spelled out by Richard Nixon�s secretary of state in the 1969 Rogers Plan . Sprung on Israel without warning, it was angrily rejected by then-prime minister Golda Meir. The principle was reiterated in the 1982 Reagan Plan , in which the revered Republican specified that �the general framework for our Middle East policy should follow the broad guidelines laid down by my predecessors� � including Jerusalem, whose �final status should be decided through negotiation.� This too was sprung on Israel and angrily rejected by then-prime minister Menachem Begin.

No daylight? Please. President Ford angrily declared a five-month �reassessment� of ties in March 1975, even suspending arms shipments. Jimmy Carter�s quarrels with Begin remain legendary. Reagan opened talks with the PLO at the end of his presidency, outraging Israel. George H.W. Bush�s presidency saw nonstop feuding.

The era of no-daylight and no-surprises was a relatively brief interlude. It began in 1993 under Yitzhak Rabin and Bill Clinton, peace process partners (though the Oslo Accords were a surprise to Washington). Clinton, being Clinton, tried to maintain the amity after Netanyahu was elected in 1996, though Netanyahu, being Netanyahu, kept finding ways to quarrel. Harmony returned in 2001 under George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon, allies in battling terrorism. Even that relationship had its explosions, though. Sharon enraged Bush by comparing him to Neville Chamberlain in October 2001, just weeks after the 9/11 attacks. He claimed the president sought to �appease Arabs� at Israel�s expense for the sake of anti-terror coalition-building the way �the enlightened democracies in Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia� in 1938.

What�s different about the Obama-Netanyahu feud is how long it�s lasted. They came into office simultaneously in early 2009 and have clashed unrelentingly from the first. Oren suggests both made �mistakes,� but �only one leader made them deliberately.� That would be Obama.

That is, Netanyahu made mistakes, but most � excepting his March speech to Congress � were either unintentional, justified given Obama�s slights or committed by �midlevel officials who also caught the prime minister off-guard.�

And Obama? �From the moment he entered office,� he �promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran,� both of which �would have put him at odds with any Israeli leader.� Mind you, the diplomat assures us, Obama �was never anti-Israel.� He �significantly strengthened security cooperation with the Jewish state.� It�s just that he made �mistakes.� Deliberately.

Careful readers recall that �deliberate mistakes� is an oxymoron, like �jumbo shrimp� or �authentic replica.� Mistakes are, by definition, things you didn�t intend. But never mind. Obama decided to disrupt the relationship and tilt toward Iran and the Palestinians. That was a boo-boo.

This is Oren�s biggest error. In fact Obama and Netanyahu were doomed to collide from the outset. Both entered office determined to correct what each saw as his predecessor�s disastrous missteps. They were on a collision course.

Obama was intent on repairing America�s relationships with the Muslim world, which he believed had been ruined by the Bush administration�s clumsy war on terror and its dramatic tilt toward Israel. Repair required outreach to Muslims. It was bound to unsettle Israelis. Obama assumed, naively, that he had enough credit as president of the United States to glide past the slight without a blowup. He also believed Israel was able and eager to join the outreach by closing a deal with the Palestinians. He was wrong.

Netanyahu entered office intent on rolling back two decades of what he considered dangerous Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, from Rabin to Ehud Olmert. Rollback would have required toughness in facing any American administration, given the consistent arc of U.S. policy. Facing a Democrat intent on reaching out to the Muslim world, it guaranteed prolonged tension.

Compounding the tension was the fact that the concessions Netanyahu aimed to roll back had, as Obama and much of the West saw it, brought Israel and the Palestinians to the very brink of a peace agreement. Given the symbolic role of the Palestinian conflict as a continuing irritant in the West�s relations with Islam, rollback meant a tragically lost opportunity, and not just for Israel.

No, mistakes didn�t cause the crisis. It was inevitable.

Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/israel/310175/michael-oren-wrongheaded-blame-game/#ixzz3fqQ5YjRT

No I do not actually believe either is antisemitic and I in fact think its funny to watch Michael Oren burn so many bridges with his book. In fact funny enough his book is having the opposite affect, rather then rallying traditional Jewish support in the USA it has outraged many Israeli jews who support Israel to see that they are held in such contempt for not always being on the side of Israel, despite their persistence in lobbying for Israel. Likewise its fun to see his no daylight idea be blown from the water.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jul 14, 2015

# ? Jul 14, 2015 07:29

Mandy Thompson: Dec 26, 2014; by zen death robot

DarkCrawler posted:

Only Israeli Jews and Druze are drafted.

The Law of Return is a discriminatory law that gives one native racial/religious group precedence over all others in immigration.

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law bars Israel's subjects from West Bank attaining citizenship, even if they have been born in Israel proper, want to marry an Israeli citizen or have relatives there.

The Jewish National Fund is a discriminatory organization ensuring that Jews will have a dispropotionate amount of ownership of the land in Israel, supported by the government. If Jewish National Fund gives land to an Arab (which it does rarely) the government has to give the exact same amount of land back to it. This has ensured that Arab ownership of Israel's land is only three percent.

Arab citizens of Israel are not permitted to start settlements on the West Bank or living in already existing settlements if the settlement council doesn't tolerate Arabs.

The Israeli government has a long-standing policy of denying state recognition to holy places that aren't Jewish.

The government spends far less the amount of money per every Jewish student then it does per every Arab Student. Human Rights Watch has found systematic discrimination in the number, quality and condition of the buildings, classroom sizes, provision of teaching resources and government funding.

Few Jews learn even basic Arabic, whereas Arab children are required to learn Hebrew to advanced level. Despite both ostensibly being official languages of the state.

University courses in Israel are in Hebrew or English.

Israel does not have a nationality - only Jews are both Israeli nationals and citizens.

A political party can be disqualified if they don't recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

State education law states loyalty to the Jewish people as one of the main goals of state education.

State Jewish religious schools can have independent curriculum, state Arab schools can�t.

Excellent list of examples.

I think the very idea of a single ethnicity state is racist. So many of these laws would be intolerable if any other country did them, such as South Africa or The United States pre-civil rights act. There shouldn't be laws that treat people differently based on ethnicity. Surely the people of Israel and Jews worldwide have a right to live in peace but no one is entitled to a racially homogeneous homeland.

# ? Jul 14, 2015 07:47

Mandy Thompson: Dec 26, 2014; by zen death robot

My Imaginary GF posted:

I fail to see how any of those are discriminatory.

That is because you appear to be a racist

quote:

Schools in Israel should not be allowed to use hamas-funded curriculumn,

not even linguistics? asking people to learn both native languages is hardly a Hamas thing.

quote:

nor should citizens of the jewish state of israel be disloyal to their obligations to uphold israel as a jewish state. They don't like the Jewish state of israel? Leave and renounce their Israeli citizenship.

America would be considered deplorable if it declared itself a state for the white man. So would most any other state if it focused this hard on ensuring it was a state only for the dominant ethnicity. This is the 21st century and the notions of racial supremacy should be left behind. Nationalism is racism.

EDIT: Good god, they weren't exaggerating, you have 26 probations in the last 9 months, fucks wrong with you and why aren't you banned yet?

# ? Jul 14, 2015 07:51

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

The Insect Court posted:

It's a good thing that Hamas are such stand up guys, otherwise one might be a little concerned about a Jewish Israeli failing into their custody. Or at least, one would if one actually cared anything whatsoever for the well-being of Jewish Israelis.

Noted Zionist running dog Ban-Ki Moon seems, sadly, to be in on the evil Mossad plot to make it appear as if Hamas would have treated an Israeli Jew with anything but the noblest intentions.

You are completely misrepresenting that quote - nothing in it is remotely pro-Hamas, it is pointing out that the article's sources do not actually provide conclusive support for its headline.

Also that post is from four days ago, did you go trawl back through the pages until you could find someone to be dishonest at when you saw this new article?

# ? Jul 14, 2015 09:37

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

Look's like we've got a nuclear deal with Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-is-reached-after-long-negotiations.html

# ? Jul 14, 2015 10:24

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Mediate posted:

Netanyahu: Iran Deal �Historic Mistake�
by Evan McMurry | 7:58 am, July 14th, 2015

bibiIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has fought vociferously against any negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, vociferously condemned the announced deal Tuesday morning, calling it an �historic mistake.�

�Sweeping concessions were made in all of the areas meant to block Iran from the ability to arm itself with nuclear weapons,� Netanyahu told Bloomberg in a statement. �We have made a commitment to block Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons, and that commitment stands.�

Bibi considers a nuclear Iran Israel�s preeminent existential threat, and has warned that only tough sanctions and the imminent threat of military action would stop them from producing a nuclear weapon. The administration considers its deal limiting Iran�s nuclear development in exchange for a loosening of sanctions to be the best path toward stopping Iran�s enrichment.

Netanyahu�s office announced it would continue to try to influence congressional resistance to the deal, as it did with Netanyahu�s speech to a joint session last spring, widely seen as a diplomatic rebuke to Obama.

�The prime minister is going to pursue with every available means at his disposal, his efforts of persuasion directed at the Congress, and American public opinion in general,�

Obama has vowed to veto any bill passed by Congress limiting the deal.

Someone is really mad.

# ? Jul 14, 2015 13:11

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

Now we just need the Saudi/Gulf (Egypt maybe?) tears and the circle of "How dare US treat other piece-of-poo poo morally bankrupt regimes like it treats us?!" :qq:

is complete in this particular issue.

# ? Jul 14, 2015 13:47

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Crowsbeak posted:

Someone is really mad.

In 8 years, Iran will have hundreds of MRBMs aimed at Israel. In 20 years, Iran will equip those MRBMs with nuclear warheads.

From Netanyahu's perspective, what isn't there to be mad about? Obama appears to be gambling Israel's existance on the hope that more money will cause Iranians to topple the ayatollah, rather than just use their newfound wealth to expand current foreign interventions.

# ? Jul 14, 2015 14:15

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

They will pair nicely with the nuclear missiles Israel has aimed at Iran. Do you really think this is about overthrowing the Ayatollah? Not a chance, its a means to normalize relations and establish trade with a regional power whose influence in the Middle East will only continue to grow as it secures Iraq and post-war Syria as client states

Miltank fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jul 14, 2015

# ? Jul 14, 2015 14:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 01:51

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

Miltank posted:

They will pair nicely with the nuclear missiles Israel has aimed at Iran. Do you really think this is about overthrowing the Ayatollah? Not a chance, its a means to normalize relations and establish trade with a regional power whose influence in the Middle East will only continue to grow as it secures Iraq and post-war Syria as client states

Also all that sweet sweet oil and every single Western oil company salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on it.

# ? Jul 14, 2015 14:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

«‹›260 »