Israel A Haven for Arabs

[Liora24]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190943,00.html

Anti-Israel propagandists claim that Israel is an apartheid state that discriminates against Palestinians on a racist basis. They repeat this accusation over and over like some kind of mantra, in order to make it stick to the image of Israel, regardless of the truth.

There are a number of questions that should be asked of the PR wizards who invented this line of assault:

1. Are the Palestinians a distinct race? If not, how could they be victims of racism? (The same can be asked about Israelis: are they a race? If not, how can they be perpetrators of racism?)
2. Does Israel have any security threat coming from Arabs both inside and outside the borders of Israel? And if so, does Israel have a right to protect itself?
3. Do people in all countries, communities and neighborhoods around the world enjoy the same standard of living, freedoms and rights?
4. Do Arab residents of Israel really have it that bad?

I'm going to address these one by one:

1. Palestinians aren't a distinct race because there is no such thing as a "Palestinian" race, any more than there is a "French" or "Cherokee" race. There wasn't a Palestinian people (meaning Arabs) 50 years ago. There were Arabs living in what people call Palestine (the name Romans gave to Israel 2,000 years ago), but it does not make them Palestinians. Perhaps inconveniently for the Israel-haters, truth does not change. Truth is truth. If something was true 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, it is still true today. As for Israel, the 'Jewish' population of Israel includes people from fifty countries, of different physical types, speaking different languages and practicing different religions (or no religion at all). The notion that Israelis are a "race" it is so patently false that only Nazis even pretend to take it seriously."

2. These of course are rhetorical questions. Israel is under threat daily from missiles being fired from Gaza. On the ground, Israel is besieged by those who want to destroy its very existence. So Israel is under threat, almost constantly. It's also rhetorical to ask if Israel have the right to defend itself. Under Bush, America started two wars against the Arabs to "defend itself against terror". There is very little criticism of America in the mainstream media. However, there is massive criticism every time Israel takes any action. The world needs to stop being so one sided and support Israel.

3. This point is obvious. If we look at the institutionalized racism against those of Arab descent in Europe, or the same racism against those of African-American descent in America, or those against those of Tibetan heritage in occupied Tibet, you can see that there is one class which is empowered by their race. Other countries are far larger human rights violators than Israel.

4. n Israel (West Bank area included,) Arab residents enjoy the kind of freedom and security that many in neighboring countries can only dream of - but they generally expect Israel to be better than others. The fact that Arabs are being oppressed, beaten and slaughtered by dictators in Arab countries is of no consolation to Israeli Arabs who are delayed at security checkpoints. As we have seen in the Arab spring, the Arab people would fare no better under Arab leaders than they do under Israel.

[mikeysnot]

1. good luck with this....

[Owlet]

2. Well, then, that's the solution!

"4. In Israel (West Bank area included,) Arab residents enjoy the kind of freedom and security that many in neighboring countries can only dream of.."


Have all the Arabs move to Israel. Problem solved.

[DUIC]

6. Or maybe just expand the borders of Israel

That would be a solution too.

[azurnoir]

3. well its nice to see the author of the article former Kahanist David Ha'ivri moving up in the world

generally he writes for Arutz Sheva

David Ha'ivri (Hebrew: דוד העברי‎ born in New York, USA in 1967) is an Israeli settler and political activist. He emigrated with his family from the United States to Israel at the age of 11 and served in the IDF. Ha'ivri lives with his wife and eight children in Kfar Tapuach in the northern West Bank.[1] He is a controversial leader, writer and speaker.[2]

As a youth Ha'ivri became involved with rabbi Meir Kahane's Kach and was already active in the 1984 election that saw Kahane elected to Knesset[19] and was a close with the rabbi's son Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane. The Kach party was banned from running in the 1988 Knesset elections and since has been added to terrorist watch lists by Israel, Canada[20] and the United States.[21] On July 5, 2010 New York Times article American officials were quoted saying that Ha'ivri himself is not on the terror watch list.[11]

<snip>

He advocates that all territory controlled by the Israeli government and army between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River rightfully belongs to the Jewish people and should be officially annexed by the State of Israel and that the non Jewish population need to accept the Israel authority and be loyal to the State.[29] And for those Arabs unwilling to integrate into Israeli society he offers a 22 State solution ...Palestinians could and should live in any of the other Arab states, rather than Israel. “Non-Jews who are willing to be loyal to the State of Israel … can live in Israel. But if they intend to be disloyal to the country, then they need to find other places to live and there are plenty [of those],” he said.[30]

Periodically Ha'ivri goes on tour speaking on behalf of the settlements. In reply to US President Barack Obama's pressure on Israel to stop Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank “We are frustrated by the Chutzpah (audacity) of Obama and other world leaders to intervene and tell Israel what to do. The only country in the world where the international leaders can legitimately suggest ethnic cleansing is Israel. Anywhere else there would be an outcry.” He believes that Israel should annex all areas it has controlled since the 1967 war and that Jews should be allowed to settle all parts of those lands. “Judea and Samaria are wrongly called ’settlements.’ Yet the West Bank is actually the West Bank of the Jordan River. All of Israel is the West Bank. Both sides of the Jordan River belong to the Jewish people. That was the British Mandate. The British reneged and created TransJordan east of the river.”[31]

This page was last modified on 30 January 2012 at 20:43.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ha%27ivri

[shira]

4. Yep, he's just as rightwing as the 1-state BDS nutters Finkelstein just threw under the bus. N/T

[azurnoir]

5. okay but do you agree wth him? n/t

[shira]

7. Hard to argue against his article. His views on 1-state are totally unrealistic...

...and cultish. Similar to the 1-state BDS nuts. But unlike them, Ha'Ivri is more honest and doesn't beat around the bush WRT his views.

[azurnoir]

10. okay again but I thought the BDSers were honest too

no matter how you spin it

[pelsar]

8. you seem to very busy making posts about the the author of articles...

but not much to about the substance.

so....i guess we can say your more interested in the messenger rather than the message itself?

are the same words/message said from different sources make any message more or less valid?

[azurnoir]

9. odd I see those kind of posts quite a bit on I/P

but it seems I really haven't seen you protest them before why is that ? as to the message it's 'valid' in the same self serving sense that those in the US in the 1950's. 60's and even 70's would state "Blacks have nothing to complain about because they have it better here than they would in Africa" had a 'valid' message

[pelsar]

11. because i just decided to....

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2012, 08:39 AM - Edit history (1)

seems to me its getting to the point of being ridiculous and i thought i would start with yours- besides i understood from this forum and from your posts that the "look over there, they are doing it too" is not acceptable, its a "distraction"

what happened...you all of a sudden disagree when its you "personally"?


so back to the question.....(which as per your habit, your ignoring)

you seem to feel that the messenger is far more important then the message as per your posts that give "biography" of the author as opposed to commenting on the actual information.

so are you one of those that believe the messenger is more important the message?

i.e. same info from different sources can make it valid or invalid?.

this is something i noticed that people who believe "the ends justifies the means" also believe.....

[azurnoir]

13. I believe that knowledge of the author of an opinion piece helps with understanding the content

understanding the content of such a piece nothing more nothing less

[pelsar]

15. it may help, but does it affect the information within?

your posts appear to negate the content based on its origins....time and time again with the claim that if the origins are not 'kosher" enough, you then don't have to bother to look at the actual contents. (since they many times simply show how wrong you are)

do you really expect hamas or the PA or their friends to post stuff that "affects the cause negatively?", only free societies can do that.

Finkelstein came pretty close to expressing an opinion, that wasn't exactly within the guidelines..... and look what he had to do?

and you seem to agree with his removing of his rather honest and frank video.
___________

Your not really interested in information that "harms the cause", hence calling out an author is just a way of avoiding what is written within, hence your posts.....tolerance is not really one of your strong points is it?

[azurnoir]

16. it seems your really bothered by my making the bio on the author availible

do you believe such information should be hidden? as to the rest of course you use this as an opportunity to demonize the PA and of Hamas and in doing that it would seem that you support the author which is course no surprise what so ever as to what was written in this OP I gave my opinion on that 2 posts back

[pelsar]

20. i don't care who the author is....

nor do i believe in hiding information....

but you do...

i understand that you agree the Finklesteins video should be removed .......

you don't want people to see it
____

as far as demonizing the PA and hamas....YES i believe every society that does not have free speech should be demonized always as much as possible and deemed "outside of the mainstream.

Feel free to defend them, in fact if you believe i am demonizing them for their lack of freedom of speech, please defend them, Please......

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I'm calling bullshit on that, pelsar...

'Shooting the messenger' has gone on unabated for years in the I/P forum, yet you suddenly decide to object NOW when it comes to someone pointing out that the author of that article is a former Kahanist with some incredibly stinky views? Sorry, but when it comes to who's written an op-ed, I do like to know about them if they're someone I've not heard of before, and that background information isn't shooting the messenger.

[pelsar]

19. i think its about time....

i see absolutely no reason what so ever to attack the source of an article as the very first thing....

the author and his/her history may bring some light to the credibility of an article, it may bring some light to the angle, but it does not dismiss the information outright.

never has and never will......this whole concept of "dismissing a view point because of some claim that the author is a "omg a right/left winger" is absurd.

whats missing is the understanding that in this world, we're going to be living with people on all sides of the political spectrum, always and the dismissal of a mainstream group - be it hamas/taliban, arutz 7 is absurd. When it comes to information each group brings to the table what the others groups won't, and within those opinions are valuable facts and truths.

dismissing an article outright, because of their roots, means there is information that one does not want to hear, sometimes it will be nothing more than BS, false, lies etc and they should be called out for it, other times there will be some truth..

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Yet it's never been time over a long period of time in the I/P forum...

I just find the choosing of this 'about time' to be a bit strange considering the author of this pile of dribble (gotta love the bit where he includes the West Bank as part of Israel!) is a former Kahanist, and what you call 'shooting the messenger' was actually someone providing background info on the writer....

Someone who believes the West Bank is part of Israel is someone who's view I'm sure as hell going to dismiss as moronic and extreme, just the same way as I'd dismiss the view of a former Hamas member who said Israel is part of Palestine....

So, if you want to talk about the article, there's nothing stopping you. I'd be interested in hearing yr opinions on it...

[pelsar]

22. nothing special about the "timing"....it was just the long right up about the author...my opinion?

the second i read:

Are the Palestinians a distinct race?

i usually stop reading (and did....). Its an irrelevant piece of information as far as I am concerned. When its written, its the start of an article that uses it as its base to delegitimize the whole Palestinians identity. And that has no place within the conflict. One culture cannot tell another culture who and what their identity is. (even though our cultures and our heroes are half fairy tales or "accidental heroes" anyway).

so i really don't care who the author is, outside of perhaps an intellectual interest of whats his profession. The article is rubbish, dangerous and meant for the naive and the fanatics and the religious, or the religious to be.....and i really can't stand reading that crap...and don't.

ok i read a bit more about "how good the arabs have it in israel"....thats part of the condescending attitude that I also have a "problem with."...but thats all i care to read, i really don't want to throw up on my keyboard

[TomClash]

12. Typical imperialist arguments

"Look how much better you scum have it when we govern you so benevolently."

"Other people are much worse so go bother them!"

Funny how some very good people once upon a time railed against this peculiar type of pretzel logic. Now many have chosen to embrace it.

[shira]

14. Not even remotely as bad as the anti-zionist one state argument...

In such a state with Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood in charge, no one would have any rights.

But at least that would make everyone equal, right?



Equally miserable.

A Leftist Utopia.

==============

Western Liberal democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best system. Put into the proper context and judging Israel by the same standard as other Western nations, Israel is just as liberal or 'progressive' as anyone else.

[TomClash]

17. And after writing all that . . .

. . . and editing it five times . . . not a word of which relates to anything I mentioned at all . . .

. . . it remains clear that the OP . . . is still making . . . Typical. Imperialist. Arguments.