Study: Israeli Jews becoming increasingly racist toward Arabs

[Violet_Crumble]

Israel's Jewish community increasingly supports the delegitimization, discrimination and even deportation of Arabs, found a report on racism in Israel, set to be released Wednesday.

The report, to be presented at a press conference in Nazareth by Mossawa, the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel, states that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has clearly impacted public opinion, and warns that ideas such as population exchange and racial segregation are gaining ground. It also warns that several Jewish politicians are gaining influence based on a platform of racial hatred.

Mossawa is supported by the Human Rights Program of the European Commission and the United Nations Democracy Foundation.

The report, written by Mossawa director Jafar Farah and others, mainly examines racism against Arabs in Israel, using criteria taken from the anti-Semitism reports in Europe.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966014.html

[Submariner]

1. They have turned themselves into an Apartheid state

of religious fanaticism. Having parked their adopted homeland in the middle of the Arab culture after WWII should have been a red flag that trouble was on the horizon. If they are showing their racism in the open as this article indicates, they are probably not going to ever be welcome neighbors.

[LeftishBrit]

7. 'Parked their adopted homeland'?

You don't think that they should have had a homeland? Or do you think it should have been elsewhere?

Note: many Israeli Jews (about half) come FROM Arab, rather than Europaean, culture.

And, while religious fanatics exist in Israel as in most places, most Israelis are not religious fanatics, nor is the state run as a theocracy.

[Submariner]

11. Should they have had a homeland?

Sure, if it wasn't at the exclusion of the residents (Palestinians) who were already there. But since it already was the Palestinian homeland, we should have given the Jews entrance to the U.S. and avoided the hell on earth they have now.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. It wasn't the Palestinian "homeland."

A simple review of history will show that.

[Submariner]

20. I was unfortunately raised a catholic, so all I was taught

by Sister Perpetual Agony and her cohorts was that all non-catholics would burn in hell for eternity, including Jews. How's that for planting the seed of bigotry in a young mind? Obnoxious **cking nuns.

So I did not learn much about Israel which was just 10 years old at the time.

What I have had a hard time with is differentiating between who was there first, because each side says, ME, no ME. It's very confusing.

As an Atheist, I do not believe in any religion or imaginary sky-gods, so without bringing Moses or any other god into the explanation, what race or gene pool occupied the present Palestine as far back as history has been recorded?

If it was the Arabs 4000 or more years ago, then it must be Arab land. If Israeli's were the original residents of Palestine thousands of years ago, then the land belongs to Israel. Case closed? No. Because when I do try to find something definitive to clearly explain the questions I just posed, the text or explanation usually ends up discussing how temples and mosques have been built next to each other, or on top of one another, and then the myths of gods just muddle the supposed explanation.

Any clarification, or a link to a sound explanation would be appreciated.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. of course Palestine was a much a Palestinian homeland as anywhere on earth would be

anyones' homeland. Of course the Palestinians - like everyone else -would not have considered it reasonable to partition a country they quite naturally considered their homeland.

But rather than give you my partisan spin. Please allow me to list below some detailed articles which give a brief history and overview of the conflict from a relatively nonpartisan and dispassionate perspective.

I think most reasonable and not excessively partisan pro-Israeli people and most reasonable and not excessively partisan pro-Palestinian people would find these articles to be reasonably fair and balanced. Although I suspect an extremely sensitive partisan on either side would find them less than acceptable.


First an 18 page PDF file article by Dr. Jeremy Pressman of the University of Connecticut:

A Brief History of the of the Israeli-Arab Conflict written in 2005

link:

http://anacreon.clas.uconn.edu/~pressman/history.pdf


Second, from The University of Michigan a 6 - part lesson plan that gives a history of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from the late 1800's to 1993:

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentkeydates.html

.

[Submariner]

24. Thanks Douglas, I'll read through them this morning n/t

[Shaktimaan]

17. But it wasn't

at the exclusion of the residents (Palestinians) who were already there. The Palestinians were not excluded wholesale at all.

It was not already the Palestinian homeland as the national identity of Palestine did not exist. There were Arabs living there, sure. Had they not begun a civil war and instead took Ben-Gurion up on his offer to live in peace, no one would have left nor been prevented from returning. Plenty of land was offered for a Palestinian state. War was not a foregone conclusion.

we should have given the Jews entrance to the U.S. and avoided the hell on earth they have now.

You misunderstand the point of zionism. The fact the the US did not do this speaks to the fact that there is a need for Jewish self-determination.

[stranger81]

35. This is just the old Meir, Ben Gurion line -- no such thing as Palestinians . . . . .

they're all just undifferentiated Arabs trying to make life miserable for the Israelis.

I guess if that falsehood helps you sleep at night . . . .

[Shaktimaan]

40. that's weird

I don't remember hearing that Ben-Gurion ever said anything like that.

"There's no such thing as Palestinians, they're all undifferentiated Arabs trying to make life miserable for the Israelis?"

I don't know why you think it would help me sleep either. I don't even know what it means. But it sounds like you're taking a quote from Golda Meir out of context and mis-interpreting it horribly. And it certainly isn't anything like what I said or implied. I wasn't even saying anything remotely similar to Golda Meir's famous quote anyway.

I don't see how Israel's existence has excluded the Palestinians from having a homeland. Last I checked, there were plenty of Palestinians living in Palestine.

[stranger81]

43. Then perhaps you should explain the correct interpretation of Meir's comment.

I'm sure you'll have a good explanation for her refusal to even acknowledge the existence of Palestinians as an ethnic group.

And last I checked, Palestine wasn't on the map. Just Israel, and the Occupied Territories. Or, as you would probably call them, Judea and Samaria.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. David Ben Gurion in his more candid moments

"this article by world renowned Israeli historian Avi Shlaim of Oxford regarding transfer:

London Review of Books, 9 June 1994.

link to full article:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

"While the ethics of transfer had never troubled Ben-Gurion unduly, the growing strength of the Yishuv eventually convinced him of its practical feasibility. On 12 July 1937, for instance, Ben-Gurion confided to his diary:

The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had ... a Galilee free from Arab population .... We must uproot from our hearts the assumption that the thing is not possible. It can be done.

The more Ben-Gurion thought about it, the more convinced he became that "the thing" could not only be done but had to be done. On 5 October 1937, he wrote to his son with startling candor:

We must expel Arabs and take their places ... and, if we have to use force - not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places - then we have force at our disposal.

The letter reveals not only the extent to which partition became associated in Ben Gurion's mind with the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish state but also the nature and extent of his territorial expansionism. The letter implied that the area allocated for the Jewish state by the Peel Commission will later be expanded to include the Negev and Transjordan. Like Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder and leader of Revisionist Zionism, Ben-Gurion was a territorial maximalist. Unlike Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion believed that the territorial aims of Zionism could best be advanced by means of a gradualist strategy."

-------------

and from former Israeli Foreign Minister and Israeli historian Shlomo Ben-Ami from "Scars of War Wounds of Peace: the Israeli-Arab Tragedy",

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1166681762/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

from page 44:

"Ben-Gurion's reaction when told, during his visit to Haifa on 1 May 1948 that a local Jewish leader was trying to convince Arabs not to leave. 'Drive them out!' was Ben-Gurion's instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzak Rabin in a censored passage of his memoirs published in a censored passage of his memoirs published in 1979, with regard to the Arabs of Lydda after the city had been taken over on 11 July 1948....Plan D, however, was a major cause for the exodus, for it was strategically driven by the notion of creating Jewish contiguity even beyond the partition lines and, therefore by the desire to have a Jewish state with the smallest number of Arabs.

The debate about whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinians was the result of a Zionist design or the inevitable concomitant of war could not ignore the ideological constructs that motivated the Zionist enterprise. The philosophy of transfer was not a marginal, esoteric article....These ideological constructs provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field to encourage the eviction of the local population even when no precise order to that effect was issued by the political leaders. As early as February 1948, that is before the mass exodus had started but after he witnessed how Arabs had fled West Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion could not hide his excitement."

from page 42:

"The reality on the ground was at times far simpler and more cruel than what Ben-Gurion was ready to acknowledge. It was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, at at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred."

[madrchsod]

2. racism ?

they are all descendants of Abraham....

[azurnoir]

3. Dysfunctional family

I don't think racism exactly applies either, "reverse antisemitism" maybe?

[MaryCeleste]

4. Its mixed in my experiecne

Some Arabs are fully integrated, others remain separate by choice. I remember a Arab MK saying that if any Arab did national service that they would be lepers in their own communities and not welcome. Yet some do anyway. Its as much religeous as anthing else. Druze and Bahai are welcome and integrate fully, regardless of ethnicity.

There clearly has been some hardening when it comes to Gaza and the West Bank, somewhat deservedly so.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Does living in separate communities justify the racism described in the report? n/t

[shaayecanaan]

10. What experience is that?

Arabs on the whole don't volunteer because they don't relish the thought of shooting at other Arabs in the occupied territories. And Jewish Israelis, on the whole, are happier shooting at Arabs than with them. Even the Druze are informally banned from participating in the army at the elite levels.

Jews in Syria are exempted from service on largely the same basis.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

21. Not true re the Druze

There are some very high-ranking Druze officers.

[msmcghee]

25. Please don't divert this educational discussion . .

. . by the injection of facts. :sarcasm:

[shaayecanaan]

49. Mainly those officers

are high ranking officers looking after other Druze officers that in turn look after general low-level shitkicking Druze infantrymen. They have started throwing in one or two Druze with regular battalions, but most of them are still stuck in the good old Harev "sand-ni**er squadron".

Look for Druze in the elite special units, intelligence or air force. You wont find them.

On edit: There is apparently one Druze navigator serving in an IAF combat squadron. One.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MaryCeleste]

63. Really consider this from the head of the IDF

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi praised Druze officers Friday, comparing them to the ancient band of Jewish warriors who overthrew Greek rule in the Holy Land.

"The Druze officers are our generation's Maccabees," Ashkenazi said during a visit Friday to the Galilee village of Kfar Julis.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/934698.html

[pelsar]

64. just making up stuff....

Look for Druze in the elite special units, intelligence or air force. You wont find them.

you will if you know where to look..... though some prefer not to look and not to know.....

[shaayecanaan]

67. You don't have to be a Druze

to qualify for that line of work. Not sure if I would go so far as to call it a career in intelligence though. I doubt there are many Mizrahi lining up to take part.

Just wondering, does equality for the Druze extend to bringing over that nice girl over from Lebanon? No? Pity.

[pelsar]

71. so if understand...

your saying there are no mizrachi in the israeli intelligence...youve already claimed there are no druze in the elite units....

any other claims that have no basis in reality...perhaps you would like to expose your sources ....should i assume its EI?
=======

[shaayecanaan]

124. unsubtle, aren't you?

Of course, I presume there would be Mizrahi working in the intelligence agencies, probably as interrogators, translators, analysts, etc. I doubt you'd find too many Druze there. I imagine what Druze do work there are probably just handlers or worse, much like the rest of the Arabs with any connection to the Shin Bet. Whether you'd call it a career in intelligence is up to you.

[pelsar]

138. and your sources are...

this information about the druze is it just your imagination (you did write "i imagine")...or is there perhaps some kind of research behind it?....and just for fun.... do you even know anything about the druze in relation to israel jews and arabs?

[shaayecanaan]

142. same as yours...

I just pull it out of my arse, the same as all the crap you write. Or are you going to start providing citations as well?

Do I know anything about Druze? Does anyone? They are cagey little sods. But my grandmother's name was Alkadamani. Sure, one-quarter is hardly anything to crow about, but I dare say its a far sight more than any Druze connection you would have.

[eyl]

84. Besides the other errors in your statement

which have already been discussed, are you aware that National Service in Israel refers to non-military service?

[shaayecanaan]

153. I'm wondering...

which have already been discussed, are you aware that National Service in Israel refers to non-military service?

I'm wondering exactly why I should find this even the slightest bit interesting? Or are you so desperate to score a point that this is the best you can do?

[eyl]

156. Since you apparently forgot your own argument

You said - excusing the rather extreme objection of behalf of some Arab politicians to Arab youth joining National Service:

Arabs on the whole don't volunteer because they don't relish the thought of shooting at other Arabs in the occupied territories

As National Service does not involve shooting in any shape or form, that "explanation" is irrelevent.

[shaayecanaan]

161. Then I suppose...

they don't want to volunteer for military service so they don't have to shoot at Arabs, and they don't want to volunteer for civilian service so they don't have to hold the chunder bucket at some pissed-my-pants old folks' home for 12 months. Do you really think the doddering old bastards would want Arabs changing their nappies anyway?

[eyl]

170. You've lost track, I think

it's not that they don't want to volunteer for National Service - it's that their leaders are threatening to boycott any youth who does do so!

If there was no demand, why the threats?

[Scurrilous]

6. Rabbi: Don't hire, rent homes to Arabs

<snip>

"Hebron and Kiryat Arba Chief Rabbi Dov Lior plans to issue a halachic ruling forbidding Israeli Jews from rent apartments to Israeli Arabs or Palestinians or to employ them.

In an interview with "Eretz Israel Shelanu" (Our Land of Israel), a pamphlet distributed in synagogues before Shabbat, Lior was quoted as saying it was "mortally dangerous" to do so, as proved by the terror attack at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva. It was thus forbidden to hire Arab workers not only in yeshivot "but also in factories, hotels or anywhere," he said.

Lior could not be immediately reached. However, a spokesman said this had been Lior's position for some time.

Other leading religious Zionist rabbis, such as Rabbi Eliezer Melamed of Har Bracha and Rabbi Elyakim Levanon of Eilon Moreh, have also called to ban all Arab labor."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420728926&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[MaryCeleste]

12. The penalty in Gaza and eslewhere for selling land to Jews is DEATH

[hifalutin]

13. Does this have anything

to do with the Rabbi getting stabbed in the neck by an Israeli Arab this week, or has it been in the works for a while?

[LeftishBrit]

14. This is disgusting; but let's not forget that Palestinians have been forbidden to sell homes to Jews

for a long time; and in Gaza could be executed for doing so.

Jews cannot buy or rent homes in most other Arab countries either - indeed can't even visit many of them.

None of this justifies the racism of this revolting rabbi; but the apartheid is not just on one side.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. There's nothing respectable about Dov Lior. And it's racism, not self-defence...

I think *revolting* is an understatement to describe someone who has called for medical experiments to be carried out on captured Palestinians, amongst other equally ugly and racist statements...

He is also a leader of the right-wing religious settlers in the West Bank. Why would any left-winger describe him as *respected* or take offense that someone correctly pegged him as being revolting?

And here's another question for you. If you don't think singling out and discriminating against people based on their ethnicity is racist when it comes to Arabs, do you find any statements or actions at all against Arabs to be racist? Or can everything be explained by 'self-defence'?

[msmcghee]

26. When one believes, based on experience,

. . that a certain group of people, identifiable by religion or ethnicity, are a threat to one's life - all humans will react by seeing those people in a different light, by fearing them and discriminating against them as a matter of self preservation for themselves and their families. To deny that is to deny one of the most fundamental human responses - self preservation. Even animals like dogs will learn to identify and fear kinds of humans that abuse them - such as males generally, people wearing hats or uniforms, people who pick up rocks, etc.

Racism is only a certainty when there is no real basis for threat or danger - yet the distrust, fear and discrimination is still present.

When you turn all discrimination into "racism" you turn the natural need for self-preservation into a perversion. And that pretty well describes the I/P conflict as discussed in this forum.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Since when have all Arabs in Israel been a threat to people's lives?

Using that sort of argument, it could also be argued that Jews are a real basis for threat to the lives of Palestinians, given that settlers have murdered Palestinians. Neither argument is correct, and both are racist...

When you turn all discrimination into "racism" you turn the natural need for self-preservation into a perversion. And that pretty well describes the I/P conflict as discussed in this forum.

I don't turn all discrimination into racism. What I'm saying is that barring people from jobs or housing based on ethnicity is racist...

I'm going to ask you the question I asked 'henank'. When it comes to racism against Arabs, is there any situation where discrimination against them would be considered by you to be racism? If so, could you give an example?

[msmcghee]

38. It is difficult for me to discuss this topic because . .

. . people always want to do so in cognitive terms. The problem is that the hatred of human ethnic groups (what some call racism) - is an emotional phenomena. All higher animals are wired to have these emotions as a matter of survival.

We humans can not only have these emotions, we can think and conceptualize about them. What we think and tell ourselves and the things we tell others about it are not what cause the behavior - they are the outputs of a brain trying to explain its behavior cognitively. In any social context human brains tend to factor in all sorts of social motivations depending on one's culture - so that the explanations will come out as socially acceptable - or even socially laudable - but having little actual connection to the events that caused them.

But emotional fear or hatred is the result of things that happen in one's life. The emotions are independent of cognition. For example, if you are feeling truly depressed, there's no escape from that. There are chemicals in your brain that are part of that process. There's very little you can do in cognitive terms to change it - as I'm sure we've all experienced from time to time. When it's there - it's there. It's who you are at that moment. The same is true for racist emotions and feelings except they could last for the rest of your life whereas most people will get out of depression eventually.

I think you want to classify behavior as "racism" if has a discriminatory effect - which is common. What people say and do. I prefer to make it dependent on the underlying emotion. If the emotion is a disgust with people who you have been taught to hate as part of your cultural heritage, then I'd agree that is racism - no matter if it results in behavior that has a racist effect on others or not.

If the emotion is fear that's based on concern (either emotional or rational concern) for one's life or the life of one's family - then I'd not call it racism - no matter if it results in behavior that has a racist (discriminatory) effect on others or not.

Sorry if this seem unclear but I'm trying to explain my honest view of this. Long story short - if you feel fear and hatred toward some ethnic group - that will undoubtedly be the result of things that happened in your life. Those happened and you can't change it in the present. What you think or say to others, whether you rent your house or sell your land to them, for example, how your society judges your decision and how you justify that decision to others - are separate from the emotions and feelings that caused the behavior. So, there's a difference between what I'd call real racism (culturally induced ethnic hatred), fear of particular ethnic groups that represent a rational danger or threat (self-preservation induced ethnic hatred) - and the racist behavior that can result from either one or probably more commonly, a combination of the two.

(A good example of cultural racism causing behavior that in turn - causes self-preservation induced ethnic hatred and mistrust - is the recent ethnic conflict in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis.)

Since such things are so complex and difficult to parse in terms of cause and effect - and since they can be so damaging both to individuals and to a society - I think the discussion of who is racist or what behavior is racism is counterproductive and any conclusions that come from such discussion will almost always be wrong. It tends to be an exercise in pointing fingers and accusing. IMO the focus should be on creating the social conditions where such hatreds, no matter what induced them, can be reduced or eliminated from society. Societies need to become very intolerant of cultural racism. When that goes you will have an ethnically blind society and there will be no need for the rational fear of any ethnic group.

As a liberal I judge societies on how well they embrace this concept and act on it. Also, I can be pretty unforgiving with those societies - or cultures within societies - that teach cultural hatreds to their children and celebrate them publicly. I see that as extremely damaging to the long term happiness and stability of any society. I also tend to be somewhat forgiving of those societies that may have rational reasons for the self-preservation form of the emotion - especially when those reasons are due to the cultural racism induced behavior of others.

See, it's really just another form of the aggression / defense paradigm - and you already know where I come out on that one.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. I'm going to reply to yr post later tonight...

I've got to go put my new lawnmower together and mow the jungle, and rather than a rushed reply, I'd rather wait till I've got some time to put together a reply that won't make you feel like my disagreement with what you've said (and I do disagree strongly) is an attack on *you*....

[msmcghee]

45. Cool. I'm enjoying the exchange. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Racism, hatred, and security...

Sorry about the delay, and if anyone can tell me what sort of oil I'm supposed to stick in a four-stroke lawnmower, I'll be very appreciative :)

Even though I disagree with what you've said, I appreciate you trying to explain yr honest view on what is a sensitive subject. There are some things I agree on and I'll talk about them first. You said that fear and hatred of an ethnic group tends to be the result of things that happen in people's lives. I agree with that and I'll use my grandfather as an example. He was a POW in WWII and his treatment by the Japanese scarred him emotionally for the rest of his life. Us grandkids used to avoid going out with him in public, coz if he saw someone he thought was Japanese he'd start his really loud 'Bloody Japs! Murdering slant-eyed bastards! They couldn't invade us so now they're trying to buy our country!' routine. Yes, his hatred and fear was due to what had happened to him during the war, but it was still racism. And that's because his hatred wasn't aimed at the people who had mistreated him, but at the entire ethnic group they belonged to...

Another point I agree with you on is that the focus should be on creating social conditions where hatreds are reduced or eliminated. And I don't think calling for the banning of Israeli-Arabs from jobs and housing is in any way reducing it, but doing the complete opposite...

When it comes to defining racism, there is a legal definition of it, and it's from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that Israel and many other countries are signatories to.

'Article 1
In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.'

http://www.hri.org/docs/ICERD66.html#Introduction

Having fear and anger towards another ethnic group, and most especially calling for banning for that ethnic group to be banned from things like employment and housing, whether it's considered by anyone to be justified or not is still racism....

[msmcghee]

59. I think any good motor oil, like . .

. . 10/30 would do the trick. In a 4 stroke it lubricates just like in your car. In a two stroke it gets in to the cylinder by getting mixed in the gas so it has to be a special 2 stroke formulation.

Let me digest your comments in this post for a while and see if I really understand my own position on this. I'll get back later.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Thanks....

If it doesn't rain tomorrow, I'm going to get my shiny new lawnmower all dirty and test it out on my overgrown lawn :)

I'll take a look at the youtube link you gave me a bit later tonight...

[msmcghee]

60. While I'm digesting, here's a clip . .

. . of a current discussion on racism with Greta van Susteren and Al Sharpton. I find it interesting on the level I discussed above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85S0PIPv5Co

[msmcghee]

152. I am fairly well caught up now and I've been thinking . .

. . about your ideas in this post.

One thing I noticed is that the two examples you pose, your grandfather and the rabbi, are both individuals - supposedly both possessing the human rights of free speech and free thought. They are not states. The definition you offer however, is a legal definition defining the obligations and responsibilities of states, member states of the UN in fact - as to how they should deal with their citizens as a matter of state policy to avoid racism.

I fully approve of their definition and their purpose - to create the conditions within member states for the elimination of cultural and policy based racism against their own citizens. But such a legal definition directed at nation-state UN members could hardly be applied to individuals. To be clear, my interest in this is at the human level. What qualifies as racism in individuals - not as matters of policy by their governments. I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about the psychology of tribalism which includes the subject of cultural (not legal or illegal) racism. I think both your grandfather and the rabbi offer interesting examples that are not so easily categorized and rich opportunities for discussion.

However, if you want to continue this I'd suggest that if we are going to discuss racism, then implying that I am a racist for not agreeing with your definition, should be out of bounds. If you actually believe that I am a racist and/or a bigot as you have indicated then why would you want to discuss the definition of racism with me? I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt but before I spend a lot of energy attempting to have an academic discussion with you on this - I think you need to be clear about your intentions.

[hifalutin]

66. I'd like to thank you for

this thoughtful explanation of your reasoning.
I do tend to react emotionally (being a very emotional person) but also try not to judge any group collectively but individually by their personal actions.

[Shaktimaan]

36. Hey look, I disagree with you!

neat.

Racism is only a certainty when there is no real basis for threat or danger - yet the distrust, fear and discrimination is still present.

When you turn all discrimination into "racism" you turn the natural need for self-preservation into a perversion. And that pretty well describes the I/P conflict as discussed in this forum.

Since when does racism require a lack of any basis for danger? Isn't discrimination based on race or ethnicity the very definition of racism? Just because Israelis and Arabs have a legitimate reason to fear and distrust each other doesn't mean that discriminating based on that fear is something other than racism. It is exactly racism, which is one of the reasons that racism is so hard to expunge from society... many people's racism is based on personal experiences and may even be well founded. There's no reason not to call this exactly what it is. The problem would be to insist that all racism is mindless, that racism is inherently born of ignorance. While this is a nice thought, it isn't true.

And if favoring one ethnicity over others for things like housing or jobs is racist, (and I believe it certainly is), then even some good hearted ideas, like affirmative action, are inherently racist. So where does that leave us? Is racism in certain forms acceptable? Or even desirable?

Insurance companies discriminate based on sex all the time. As a male I face higher premiums on my car insurance because men as a whole are worse drivers than women. But isn't punishing me for an assumed trait like that sexist? Of course. Is it any more sexist for an employer to discriminate against hiring women because they tend to get pregnant and then need maternity leave?

Racism, sexism, etc. are not going anywhere. Instead of just denouncing all forms of racism equally we should admit that there is a spectrum of how acceptable different forms of racism are. Variations exist even in how much control we have over our own racist tendencies. For instance, everyone who have ever mugged or jumped me has been of one specific race and dressed in a similar style. For a long time I felt fear if I saw other people like them in certain situations. Totally racist reaction and I can't do anything about it.

Show me someone who has no racist or sexist prejudices at all and I'll show you someone who doesn't get out much.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Who decides which racism is acceptable or desirable?

And if favoring one ethnicity over others for things like housing or jobs is racist, (and I believe it certainly is), then even some good hearted ideas, like affirmative action, are inherently racist. So where does that leave us? Is racism in certain forms acceptable? Or even desirable?

In the case of the calls to ban employment and housing to Israeli-Arabs, it's not even favouring one ethnicity over others - it's excluding one ethnicity based on the actions of a person of that same ethnicity. Is that a form of racism that's acceptable or desirable?

I'm not familiar with Israeli law, but I'd be surprised if there aren't laws against racism similar to what we have here:


The Racial Discrimination Act (1975) and its 1995 amendment the Racial Hatred Act are the Commonwealth laws relating to racial discrimination. In addition, all Australian states and territories have anti-discrimination laws that cover racial discrimination. Australia is also a party to a number of international conventions and declarations which impose obligations in regard to racism and racial discrimination when ratified in Australian law. The Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act (1986) gives effect to several international conventions and declarations such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981).


http://www.racismnoway.com.au/library/understanding/index-What.html#Heading34

Show me someone who has no racist or sexist prejudices at all and I'll show you someone who doesn't get out much.

I guess I must be sexist, coz when it comes to reproductive rights, I believe that the decision to continue a pregnancy or not rests solely with the pregnant woman :)

[Shaktimaan]

39. I fail to see the difference

between favoring an ethnicity and discriminating against an ethnicity in terms of whether or not it qualifies as racism. For example, white people tend to get lower prison sentences, on average, compared with minorities for committing the same crimes. This favors white people above those of other races. How is it not racism?

Or for that matter, how is affirmative action anything but racism?

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I didn't say it wasn't racism...

I was merely pointing out that in this case it's racism against one ethnicity rather than favouritism towards one...

You didn't answer the question I asked, shakti. Do you think calls to ban Israeli-Arabs from employment and housing are an acceptable form of racism?

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Shakti, just in case you missed my question, here it is again...

Do you think calls to bar Israeli-Arabs from employment and housing is an acceptable form of racism?

[Dick Dastardly]

65. Shak is right

I guess I must be sexist, coz when it comes to reproductive rights, I believe that the decision to continue a pregnancy or not rests solely with the pregnant woman




Everyone has some level of predjudice or bigotry in them. That does not automatically make someone a bad person. The trick is to recognize it and try to change.

[msmcghee]

42. Yes, I understand that view. Please read my reply to . .

. . VC above (#38). I just have a different view that for me explains human behavior in ways that make more sense out of what I observe. But, let me think about your response some more though. Interesting topic this. B-)

[Lithos]

107. Give me a break

What is physically threatening in the buying of land? Excuse me. I want to hurt you, so let me buy the land next to you. Yeah, logically follows - NOT!

This is racism. The assigning of negative valuation in order to claim some false moral high ground for one's own demeaning actions is racism. There is no difference in this than the claims to not allow Jews to buy land back in Palestine back in the 1920's or towards Jews today in Arab countries.

[msmcghee]

108. Did you address that post to me?

I can't understand what your point is. I read back through the sub-thread that seems to start with LB saying that "None of this justifies the racism of this revolting rabbi; but the apartheid is not just on one side."

I said nothing about the rabbi but spoke in general terms about racism. I keep trying to focus on just what racism is. Explain why I should, "Give you a break". I don't get it.

It almost seems like you agree with me.

[Lithos]

112. Clarification then

. that a certain group of people, identifiable by religion or ethnicity, are a threat to one's life - all humans will react by seeing those people in a different light, by fearing them and discriminating against them as a matter of self preservation for themselves and their families. To deny that is to deny one of the most fundamental human responses - self preservation. Even animals like dogs will learn to identify and fear kinds of humans that abuse them - such as males generally, people wearing hats or uniforms, people who pick up rocks, etc.

This seems to be in support of the now deleted post which stated that racism was okay if it was a matter of self-defense. I, personally, have a huge disconnect with the idea of how buying land is the same as self-defense. Have you moved on from the Rabbi's comment into a general discussion? If so, can I take your point above as stating the Rabbi's comment was bigoted? Personally show me where the clean break was made between an original defense (by someone else) of the Rabbi and an abstract discussion of racism.

As to the other issue racism is not a one-sided issue, then yes I certainly agree with it. However, I see both sides increasing the use of negative valuation of the other side's activities in order to justify their own behavior. ("I can kill you because you and yours are thieves" seems to be a common occurence on both sides). But I also am staunchly of the opinion given the sharp rise you cannot solve this without accepting equal culpability.

Also, I disagree that racism is based on fear. Yes, there is a hetereophobia (fear of differences - even if artificial) to much of it, but hatred and scorn also feed into it.

[msmcghee]

115. I have to get going but I'll come back to this later . .

. . as I don't have time to do it justice now.

As a moderator I assume you have access to deleted posts. I have no idea what the deleted post was about or who posted it. I could hardly be supporting it. Maybe when you post a comment that is reference to a deleted post you could resurrect it in quotes so I can know what I'm responding to.

Quickly though for now - the clean break was in my attempt to discuss a general definition of racism that could be applied equally to both sides. If you'll notice my comments on this topic all go in that direction.

You seem to have some strong ideas - like VC and Douglas and breakaleg - as to just what racism is. Could you provide me with your specific definition of "racism" so when I reply more fully I know exactly what we're talking about?

Added: Just to be clear, in a thread about "racism" where there have been several accusations against members who are attempting to discuss the topic objectively - that they are racist for the terms they use or the positions they hold - at the least, it seems a definition of "racism" from those leveling the charges is in order. That would also help the main discussion stay more objective and less personal.

[msmcghee]

155. I'm fairly well caught up now. But I notice that . .

. . despite my request that you offer some personal definition of "racism" since that is what we are discussing - you have not provided one. I know it's an emotional concept. Your last sentence seems to indicate that.

"Also, I disagree that racism is based on fear. Yes, there is a hetereophobia (fear of differences - even if artificial) to much of it, but hatred and scorn also feed into it."

Everything you mention is an emotion. That's the way it is for most people. I have a difficult time sorting those things out too. That's because we always experience racism emotionally, almost never cognitively. Then we come along later to condemn it or justify what we think is racism - usually depending on the target.

What I'm trying to express here is that there is value to dealing with racism cognitively - to separate it from the emotions when we discuss it. IMO racism should be defined in a way that if we condemn it - that condemnation will do some good in the world - it will reduce the suffering and injustice caused by racism.

About "heterophobia". There is that generalized fear of things that are different from what we know about - as you suggest. All animals exhibit that - and for obvious reasons - they survive better. But, there is a more specific example - the fear of people who are not of our "tribe". There are several fears that are intuitive - that we are born with. These include:

From "Scientific American Mind", June/July 2007, page 31.

* We fear threats readily available in memory. If an airliner crashes at another airport as we are waiting to board a flight our fear level can go through the roof - even though the odds of crashing are still just the same as they were before - very low.

* We fear what is immediate. Early death from smoking is fairly certain but in the far future. Our plane is taking off right now.

* We fear what we can't control. We feel safe behind the wheel of our car - but not in seat 17B - even though statistically we are far safer on the airplane than the freeway.

* We fear what our ancestral history has prepared us to fear. We fear confinement, heights, snakes, spiders and humans outside our tribe.

My view is that only a fool could believe that it's possible to reverse human nature - especially on something so fundamental to our survival as a healthy fear of those things that can kill us - fear of those things that more successfully killed earlier humans who didn't have enough of that fear and whose genes were preferentially eliminated from the pool. For that reason, I think it is wrong to call people "racists" who have rational reasons to fear other tribes - and not just irrational prejudices. If you condemn someone for taking actions to keep their families safe from deadly attack you will turn them into your bitter enemy - you will be taking the side of their enemies who are trying to kill them.

IMO one answer, other than condemning the use of non-defensive force in international relations, is to demand that governments criminalize the behavior of cultural leaders that encourages or justifies cultural racism. I think this is the laudable goal of the UN Conference on racism that VC linked to: http://www.hri.org/docs/ICERD66.html#Introduction

That's the stick. The carrot is that governments and cultural institutions such as religions should encourage people to view those who appear to be outside the tribe as potential members of the tribe - and should encourage bridge-building cultural events that promote positive cultural contact between tribes that are potential enemies. Enlightened societies should be working continuously to create a bigger human tent so to speak - so that everyone can benefit from millions of more friends and allies in the world - and millions fewer enemies and tribal rivals. I know that seems impossible but with some creative energy it could become a global meme some day - and the world would be much better for it.

[hifalutin]

28. I always make sure

my car doors are locked and then breath a sigh of relief after safely driving out of certain areas of Los Angeles.
Does that make me a racist or am I just being careful?

Serious question.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. That makes you careful...

Locking yr car has nothing to do with racism, and I'm not even sure why yr asking...

Just curious, but do you think calling for Arabs to be banned from employment and housing is racist or not?

[hifalutin]

33. The reason I asked

is because the 'area' I was speaking of is made up of one particular race of people and I always get fearful when driving through there.

'Just curious, but do you think calling for Arabs to be banned from employment and housing is racist or not?'

That would depend on the reasons behind the ban, racism or security?

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. would you consider security a legitimate reason to ban African-Americans

or Latino Americans from certain jobs or housing?

There is no doubt that many white Americans would genuinely feel fearful about African-Americans or Latino-Americans living in their neighborhood or perhaps even working in their work place. No doubt many would give reasons and perhaps even tell of anecdotal experiences to justify those fears.

Given the breath taking crime rate in major American cities, I'm certain it is far more likely one would be attacked in Los Angeles than in Jerusalem. So if the reasons were justified by their need to feel more secure - as most discrimination is - would you feel such bans are justifiable?

[hifalutin]

48. I live in one of

the top 10 'safest' cities in the U.S however a business associate operates in an ethnic location in south L.A. which I visit once in a while. Am I showing discrimination, or racism, if I insinctively lock my car doors whilst in that neighborhood, or am I 'justified by my need to feel more secure' to use your own words?

I was struck by the fact that in Jerusalem it is necessary for a Rabbi to have a bodyguard to protect him from being murdered, why?, if as you say Jerusalem is safer than a city such as Los Angeles?

So the question remains, security or racism?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. You didn't answer Doug's question...

So, would you consider 'security' a legitimate reason to ban minority ethnic groups in the US from certain jobs and housing?

It's a safe bet I live in a far safer city than you do and even here if people only instinctively lock their car doors in 'ethnic locations' and don't instinctively lock them when the car's anywhere else, then they're pretty stupid and shouldn't start whining or trying to claim insurance when their car gets nicked...

Hold on. One of the articles you posted about the Rabbi being stabbed said that he was with a student, not a bodyguard....

And the answer to yr question is very simple - It is racism and security is being used by some as a justification for the racism to happen...

[hifalutin]

61. Good afternoon

If it was on the 'agenda' of a particular ethnic group to kill me, then of course I would want them banned from my neighborhood. But that would be on the basis of my security and not racism.

'The Zaka emergency service said the rabbi, 49, was walking with a bodyguard in Jerusalem's walled Old City, where his seminary is located, when he was attacked. The bodyguard gave chase but the attacker escaped, leaving behind a blood-stained knife.'

From the OP 'walking with a bodyguard'

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. are you suggesting that it is the agenda of the Palestinians as a people and an ethnicity

to kill the Jewish people?

Granted you didn't say that. I just want to clarify what you meant by your statement above where you said,"If it was on the 'agenda' of a particular ethnic group to kill me."

And less there be any misunderstanding about the "agenda" of the Palestinian people, let's just take a look at a poll of what Palestinians in the Occupied Territories believe about finding a solution to the conflict:

Poll of Palestinian opinion in the Occupied Territories:

Polling Data - Aug. 2007

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favoured solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can't be divided and thus the favoured solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli state and a Palestinian state
51.1

Bi-national state on all of historic Palestine with equal rights and equal representation
30.0%

One Palestinian state
9.8%

No solution
5.4%

Islamic state
2.3%

Others
0.5%

Don't know / No answer
0.9%

.

Source: Jerusalem Media & Communication Center
Methodology: Interviews with 1,199 adults in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, conducted from Aug. 16 to Aug. 20, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

link:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/more_palestinians_favour_two_state_solution

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Do you really think Israeli-Arabs have an 'agenda' to kill other Israelis?

I really hope that's not what yr saying here....

You posted an article from Arutz Sheva which said that the Rabbi had been walking with a student, not a bodyguard....

[msmcghee]

62. You seem to use the word "ban" quite loosely.

"Banned" in the US typically means that some law is in place preventing someone from doing something - like a state law "banning" women working as auto mechanics (fictitious example).

If you mean that a person decides they don't want to hire a woman as a mechanic - here we ould not call that a ban - we'd just call it gender discrimination.

I could understand your position better if I knew what you mean by the term.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. I was just following what Doug had said...

Ban, bar, exclude - they all mean the same thing to me anyway. Though getting specific, banning would be something I'd say would be used by a govt if it decided to exclude any ethnic group within a nationality from essential things like employment and housing*. When it comes to calls for individuals, I'd go for words like bar or exclude, though it all boils down to racial discrimination...


* It's highly doubtful the Israeli govt would ever exclude any ethnic group of Israeli citizens from employment or housing, as it's signatory to some very powerful UN Conventions on racial discrimination....

[hifalutin]

88. From Oberliner's post

not mine........

Rabbi stabbed in neck in E. Jerusalem terror attack

By Jonathan Lis, Haaretz Correspondent

A Palestinian stabbed a Haredi rabbi in the neck in Arab East Jerusalem on Tuesday, but medical workers said his wounds were light and not life-threatening.

A police spokesman confirmed that the attack, near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem's Old City, was politically motivated.

he Zaka emergency service said the rabbi, 49, was walking with a bodyguard in Jerusalem's walled Old City, where his seminary is located, when he was attacked. The bodyguard gave chase but the attacker escaped, leaving behind a blood-stained knife.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/965584.html

Bodyguard is mention twice.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. So, do you think Israeli-Arabs have an agenda to kill other Israelis?

You must have missed where both Doug and I asked you, and I would really like to know yr thoughts on this...

Why do you keep on posting an article someone else posted when in the very same thread you posted an article that said the guy was accompanied by a student, not a bodyguard?

Here it is to refresh yr memory...

'The 49-year-old Beit El resident is a teacher at the Ateret Cohanim Yeshiva in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem. A student who was accompanying the rabbi reportedly fought off the terrorist, preventing the rabbi from being more seriously hurt.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=205391&mesg_id=205495

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. it is amazing that on a progressive forum one can read a universal defense of racism

Of course an anti-African-American racist genuinely believes that they are only acting in self-preservation. And of course they can supply ample amounts of what they consider to be evidence to justify their fears thus their practices of discrimination.

The same sort of "logic" justifies almost any discrimination under almost any circumstance and almost any act of cruelty in the name of self-preservation.

Following this sort of "logic" then there is almost no such thing as racism - just common sense people acting to protect themselves and their families.

This was the whole argument for defending apartheid in South African and probably almost every other racist order that has ever existed.

Its amazing what one can read on a liberal forum.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Exactly right. Self-preservation is the main argument of racist attitudes...

Using the 'logic' we've seen here, the discrimination in my country against its indigenous population wasn't racist. After all, as European settlement crept outwards from the Sydney/Parramatta area, there were skirmishes and attacks on settlers properties and the theft and killing of livestock. This would generally lead to massacres of any Aboriginal found nearby afterwards, which included women and children. The 'argument' for doing this is exactly the same as the one we've seen in this thread, and I've seen Australians who hold racist attitudes towards Aboriginals use that 'our fear is justified!' 'argument' before...

There's nothing left-wing, liberal, or progressive about defending racism....

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. I don't have the exact figures,,,but I'm sure you will find that more violent

crimes happen in L.A. County alone than the entirety of Israel and Palestine.

No I don't think there is anything racist about locking doors and taking precautions, especially considering that those common sense precautions that do not hurt anyone.

Discrimination does not only hurt people. It perpetuates more and more fear and in the long run the roots of more and more violence. I would think the last thing that Israel-Jewish people would want is to see even greater anger and resentment from the legal Palestinian citizens of Israel and residents of Jerusalem. Imagine the scenario that would lead to.

And let us not forget that East Jerusalem is Occupied territory. That does not justify an attack on any civilian. But as they say, "Occupation breeds contempt".

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hifalutin]

91. I do believe

you are missing the point.

[stranger81]

92. No, I think you made your point in more ways than one.

Perhaps not the one you intended to make, but made nonetheless.

That's all.

[hifalutin]

93. Yes,

I'm sure you 'got' my meaning.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

111. From the guidelines:

Do not publicly accuse anyone of anti-Semitism, racism, or any bigoted bias. If you feel such a comment is warranted, you may do so privately using the "Alert" button.

[hifalutin]

116. Speak for yourself

I'm too old to fall for that one so your bait won't work with me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. IF such a thing were to happen, the FIRST thing that would cross my mind would be..

WHY?

I certainly would not believe whatever the reason was that such behavior could possibly be justified. But still I wouldn't be satisfied until I found out what on earth motivated those particular Chinese.

If someone told me the answer is simple, "Chinese hate white people and want to kill them all." I would find that answer absolutely ludicrous. If someone else told me it was because that the Chinese have a culture of hate and death or that these actions were motivated by "Chinese male honor", I would find those answers equally absurd.

Establishing motive is always the first forensic question for any crime.

[hifalutin]

97. Two answers come to mind.......

#1 They want you dead (obviously)
#2 They are racist

What do you think is the answer to 'why?'

[Vegasaurus]

102. What would justify such behavior?

Is there a justification for terrorism?

It has already been established that many suicide bombers are not poverty stricken desperate people, but middle class and educated. Do we need a motive for what would cause an educated, middle class man to blow himself up, along with innocent civiilians?

I'd say he belongs in a mental institution, because there is something seriously wrong with anyone who chooses that way to end his life.

[Douglas Carpenter]

105. I would NEVER say justify. I would NEVER mean justify.

but there are motives nonetheless.

If one checks the history of insurgencies from the American revolution, to the Irish uprising to the struggle for majority rule in South Africa - as well as some less noble adventures - terrorism has almost always played a role - sometimes, in fact most of the time - more brutally than in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Many books have been written about the strategy of terrorism. Its a vast study in its own right. But strategically speaking its usually about destroying the confidence the constituency an enemy states has in the ability of that state to protect their citizens -- thus forcing concessions or shattering the enemy state's ability to govern or administer.
And as brutal as terrorism is - it almost always kills far, far fewer innocent civilians that conventional military operations. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak.

Actually, I have just finished reading an academic work dealing with the politics of terrorism written by a former senior adviser to the CIA, the national security adviser and the U.S. State Department, William R. Polk:

Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerrilla War, from the American Revolution to Iraq by William R. Polk - Amazon link:]

http://www.amazon.com/Violent-Politics-Insurgency-Terrorism-Revolution/dp/0061236195/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206364221&sr=1-1

This is NOT about justifying anything. Its about trying to understand something.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. 'Security or bigotry, you tell me?'

Why do you keep on asking when you've made it very clear that you don't think actions taken against an entire ethnic group in response to the actions of someone in that ethnic group is racism?
If you don't think calls to bar Israeli-Arabs from employment and housing is racist, is there anything you'd consider to be racism when it came to Israeli-Arabs? After all, yr 'logic' leads to the conclusion that it's not racism but *security* when extremists call for the expulsion of Israeli-Arabs from Israel...

Not too long ago I encountered an elderly woman on another political forum who swore blind she didn't have a racist bone in her body. I'm glad she took the time out to explain that, coz with the White Power avatar and her constant cries that Jessie Jackson is a race-pimp, I was getting a bit confused! ;)

Good thing you referred to Chinese as 'Chinamen'. Now if you'd called them 'chinks' that would have been a bit off!

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

104. 'Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are both race-pimps, victim ambulance chasers.'

Is it usual for left-wing types to hold that sort of opinion? It doesn't seem too progressive an opinion to hold..


btw, I answered yr 'question' many posts ago, but you ignored it just the same way you've ignored most questions asked of you....

[msmcghee]

106. I've been very busy lately but I've been following along . .

. . when I get the chance. You, Douglas and some others here should stop and take a look at what you are doing. It is the worst sophistry.

The discussion was about the nature of racism. What is it? How is it applied in the real world? What's the difference between racism and (in)security as a motive for behavior? Hifalutin set up a hypothetical to test your and Douglas' definitions?

Neither of you have been able to answer her question. Instead of answering, Douglas shifts the question away and explains how important it is to understand the motives of those attacking the family that wonders if it really wants to live in that hypothetical neighborhood. What was it in their background that made them want to attack these people?

Well, the question posed was all about motive - the motive of the people who were attacked and consider leaving - and the question, "is that racism?". The possible racist motive of the attackers was not part of the hypothetical. Is it possible that answering such a question might show that a simple desire to live without fear of attack was a reasonable motive and that racism is not necessarily the driving factor. That question doesn't get answered because it might let Israelis off the hook. It might show them to be normal people worried about their kids' safety - and not the seething racists that some here constantly claim.

Instead it's now all about the motives of the poor attackers. What terrible things have driven them to act so violently? I'd point out that their actions are obviously racist according to your own definition - attacking someone for behavior that they did not do but was done by someone in their same racial / ethnic group.

It would be refreshing if both you and Douglas would actually attempt to discuss the ideas involved here rather than protect one side from charges of racism while so easily leveling them at the other side - with never a thought for consistency in the principles you are applying.

As an aside - do either of you have the intellectual courage to actually define racism in terms that you are willing to apply equally to both sides? This is a question that keeps getting asked and so far none of the pro-Palestinain members have answered it. It seems they are always too busy or something. OTOH, several pro-Israel members typically go to great lengths here to explain exactly what principles we would apply. Do you ever wonder why that is?

You'd think you'd have this pretty well worked out by now. You both seem to know with great certainty just what racism is when it's something that Israelis do - or it's something that a pro-Israel member of this forum says. It's using the term "Chinaman" for example. You do realize that several people in this thread including you, Violet, have effectively called hifalutin a racist for using that term. You seem to be quite adept at spotting racism in some cases - and in others, it's more important to ask what terrible things were done to people to cause them to attack others. Certainly they couldn't have been driven by cultural racism - unless they are Israeli Jews of course.

Can you even see the outrageous double standards here and your inability (refusal) to address the ideas being discussed?

[Violet_Crumble]

128. A few corrections...

It's sophistry to try to claim that yr only speaking in general about racism while inventing a personal definition that divides things into *civilised people* (who of course can't be racist even though the things they advocate well and truly fall under the legal definition of racism) and *uncivilised people*, of which you make it very clear that Arabs fall into the latter category...

There is no way anyone can argue in any convincing way that calls to bar Israeli-Arabs from housing and employment isn't racism. Of course it's racism. Racism isn't something people can pick and choose to apply to a situation when it suits them, so I'm going to post the legal definition of racism again for you to read.

Article 1
In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

http://www.hri.org/docs/ICERD66.html

This definition applies to everyone, and there's no escape clause that says that it's not racism if the excuse being used for a group being discriminated against is 'security'...

Neither of you have been able to answer her (hifalutin's) question.

Yes I did. Many posts ago...

'And the answer to yr question is very simple - It is racism and security is being used by some as a justification for the racism to happen...'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=205559&mesg_id=205854

I couldn't help but notice that neither you nor hifalutin have been able to answer my questions :)

As an aside - do either of you have the intellectual courage to actually define racism in terms that you are willing to apply equally to both sides? This is a question that keeps getting asked and so far none of the pro-Palestinain members have answered it.

I did give you the legal definition of racism in a detailed post that I'm very willing to apply equally to both sides. Here's the link http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=205559&mesg_id=205851 You replied to the post, so I'm not sure how you managed not to read it...

You both seem to know with great certainty just what racism is when it's something that Israelis do - or it's something that a pro-Israel member of this forum says. It's using the term "Chinaman" for example. You do realize that several people in this thread including you, Violet, have effectively called hifalutin a racist for using that term.

Another correction for you. I'm not the one trying to make out racism isn't racism or that it's somehow acceptable when it happens to one side only. For me racism applies regardless of who the targetted group is..

Also, I did not effectively call anyone in this thread a racist. I strongly disagree with some opinions expressed in this thread, and disagreeing with those opinions does not equate to calling someone a racist. And when it comes to the use of the term 'Chinaman', it generally is an ethnic slur. Here's some info on the term for you:

'The use of the term Chinaman in public platforms and as names of geographical locations has caused several public controversies in recent times.

On 1998-04-09, television sitcom show Seinfeld aired an episode in which a character referred to opium as "the Chinaman's nightcap". The episode prompted many Asian American viewers, including author Maxine Hong Kingston, to send letters of protest. In her letter, Kingston wrote that the term is "equivalent to niggers for blacks and kikes for Jews". Media watchdog Media Action Network for Asian Americans (MANAA) called on NBC, broadcasting network for the show, to issue a public apology. NBC did not issue an apology, but it removed the offending term from the episode in the episode's rerun in May 1998. NBC's executive vice president for broadcast standards and content policy sent MANAA a letter stating that the network never intended to offend. MANAA was pleased with the studio's response despite the lack of an apology, and Kingston, while disappointed there was no apology, was pleased that the term was removed from the episode.<3>

On 1998-07-09, Canada's province of Alberta renamed a peak in the Rocky Mountains from "Chinaman's Peak" to "Ha Ling Peak" due to pressure from the province's large Chinese community. The new name was chosen in honour of the railroad labourer who scaled the peak's 2,408 metre-high summit in 1896 to win a $50 bet, but who himself had named the mountain "Chinaman's Peak" to commemorate all his fellow Chinese railway labourers.<20><4>

In 2001, the Chicago Sun-Times was chastised by William Yashino, Midwest director of the Japanese American Citizens League, for using the term Chinaman in two of its columns. Yashino wrote, in a letter to the editor on 2001-05-16, that the term is derogatory and demeaning to Chinese Americans and Asian Americans, and that it marginalises these communities and inflames public sentiment.<5>

In March 2007, media mogul Ted Turner used the term in a public speech before the Bay Area Council of San Francisco, California. Community leaders and officials objected to his use of the term, and immediately called for an apology. In a statement released by his spokesman on 2007-03-13, Turner apologised for having used the term, stating that he was unaware that the term was derogatory. Vincent Pan, director of the organisation Chinese for Affirmative Action, said it was "a bit suspect" for someone involved in domestic and world politics like Turner to be unaware that the term is derogatory. Yvonne Lee, a former commissioner of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, said the apology was the first step, but wanted Turner to agree to further "dialogue between different communities".<6>'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman#Controversies

Can you even see the outrageous double standards here and your inability (refusal) to address the ideas being discussed?

I can certainly see outrageous double standards from one or two posters in this sub-thread, and I'm not the one refusing to discuss the issue, which as I recall was the call of a Rabbi for Israeli-Arabs to be barred from employment and housing....

[msmcghee]

132. Well done.

When you leave out the personal insults and criticize my ideas and assertions you are an effective debater. I only had time to read this quickly but unfortunately I must run. I am thinking about this thread and will respond as soon as I can. I hope everybody hasn't lost interest in the topic by then.

[Douglas Carpenter]

133. you engage in personal insults and personal attacks all the time

and you resort to racist innuendos all the time.

If someone, anyone spoke of Jewish people the way you speak of Arab people - all the time - they certainly would not be welcomed on this forum. Even the most uncompromisingly pro-Palestinian posters wouldn't stand for it.

And on this thread you even try to construct an alternative reality in which racism is not racism no matter how flagrant.

You honestly didn't know that?

[breakaleg]

134. AND this congratulatory patting a poster on the head with a job well done, is so condescending, it's

a wonder any posters here ever bother to respond to her at all.

[stranger81]

136. I put it on ignore already, and I must say

I've stopped throwing up in my mouth a little bit every time I open up this board.

It's very refreshing, and I highly recommend it.

[breakaleg]

140. It also helps to realize that some things are a lost cause and not get too worked up. nt

[stranger81]

141. True that -- I need to keep that front and center more often

when browsing over here.

[msmcghee]

137. I won't deny that I get angry and can respond in kind . .

. . when I'm attacked. I go out of my way to avoid it though. Don't insult me and we'll get along just fine - no matter how much we disagree on ideas.

[msmcghee]

139. Racist innuendos?

Please provide one example from all the time I've been here.

[Douglas Carpenter]

143. if you honestly don't know what I am talking about,,,that is truly awesome

to try to point out one single example is pointless -- since the racist assumption are in the dotting of every "I and the crossing of every "T" you write. And I am certain you will rationalize away every single example...

If you don't know what I am taling about.... then you don't know yourself.....at all.

after all, how can there be racist innuendos against Arab PEOPLE if racism is not racism if Arab PEOPLE are the victims?...unless of course one does not consider Arabs to really be people.

p.s. one little hint - go to ANY post where you have said something about Palestinians as a people or Arabs as a people and try substituting Blacks, Latinos or Jews and see how degrading and dehumanizing it sounds.

[msmcghee]

144. What you said was . .

" . . and you resort to racist innuendos all the time.".

Since I do this all the time you should be able to quickly find an obvious example I'd think.

But instead, you come up with this convoluted set of reasons why you can't provide an example. Doesn't that bother you at all?

You guys make all kinds of outrageous claims here. Claims about Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing and stealing land and claims about targeting civilians, purposely shooting little girls and it goes on and on - claims that you never seem to have time to support or defend.

You call people racists all the time. I can list several examples in this one thread if you like, where pro-Palestinain members have called pro-Israel members - racists - or implied as much.

I'd be humiliated if I constantly made claims publicly that I couldn't support. I'd think maybe people were correct in assuming I was full of crap. I find the lack of shame on your part - stunning.

[Violet_Crumble]

164. You accuse people here of bigotry all the time..

I can link to more than several examples, some of which where you've labelled me a bigot. And for what? Daring to be critical of the actions of the Israeli govt or condemning Israeli religious extremists...

Also, I can link to where I provided you with more than a few examples of where Palestinian civilians were deliberately targetted by the IDF. I was met with abuse and attempts to move the goal-posts for my troubles. I've also seen subseilo supply you with information on this, which you've totally ignored. When it comes to claims of genocide, I don't agree with some folk here that Israel is committing genocide, but what I find incredibly hypocritical is those who then turn around and claim that genocide is being committed on Israelis...

[msmcghee]

165. I think you're wrong about that.

"You accuse people here of bigotry all the time..I can link to more than several examples, some of which where you've labelled me a bigot. And for what? Daring to be critical of the actions of the Israeli govt or condemning Israeli religious extremists..."

I just searched back 7 months and have found zero cases where I labeled you or anyone else a bigot for " . . Daring to be critical of the actions of the Israeli govt or condemning Israeli religious extremists".

There were 2 instances where I said that it was bigoted of you to constantly accuse me of bigotry when there was no good evidence of that - after you had just called me a bigot.

It was an interesting search. There were many threads where I used "bigot" or "bigotry" in a comment. In almost every case it was in the context of defending myself against accusations of bigotry. The majority of those accusations were from you.

In contrast there were hundreds of uses by you of those terms in your posts during the same period. In the majority of those cases - you were accusing others of racism and/or bigotry or implying they were racists or bigots. As I said many of those accusations were directed at me but some others received them as well. You seem to find a lot of bigotry in people who disagree with you.

*I'm really not interested in pursuing this discussion of which of us is a bigot. I was only responding to your (again false) accusations.

************************

If you want re-open the targeted killing issue again, fine. But let's start with a clear statement of what it is you're talking about. You and others here have claimed that Israel (through the IDF) is guilty of war crimes for intentionally targeting civilians when there is no clear and compelling defensive purpose for doing so.

I am saying that there is no evidence for that. There are circumstances where observers who have no access to IDF orders or ROE or what was happening in the mind of some helicopter pilot or tank commander - surmise that Israel targets civilians. But, I'm asking for some real evidence that would be grounds for a serious investigation possibly leading to a war crimes trial against the state of Israel. Like an IDF officer saying that on a certain day in a certain operation he was ordered to kill Palestinain civilians regardless of any defensive context.

Now, you might want to change your accusation to something less than that. But you need to be precise as to what it is you are actually claiming. If you want to claim that the IDF engages in operations where innocent civilians are killed, for example, I won't even argue with you. But that's not a war crime unless there was intent. And it's not a war crime by Israel unless there was intent by Israel (or command negligence, incompetence, etc). I'm interested in war crimes by Israel here which is the accusation you have made as I understand it.

[Violet_Crumble]

168. I know I'm not wrong...I've NEVER called you a bigot in this forum...

One, because it's against the rules, and two, because I keep my opinions about those sorts of things between myself and the moderators and don't air them publicly. And has already been discussed with you in this thread, me disagreeing with someone's opinion does not equate to accusing them of being a bigot...

I know there'd be lots of mentions of the word 'bigot' by you if a search was done. If I had a dollar for every time you've complained that others call you a bigot, I'd be heading my own multinational company by now. But when it comes to anyone calling you a bigot, I've only seen it happen rarely, and I most definately haven't accused you of being a bigot. Now, when it comes to the use of the word 'bigot' when yr aiming it at posters like me, there's a lot of that, and these first few examples do not happen after I called you a bigot at all...

'Unless you can come up with an actual quote from me I suggest you STFU with your accusations and stop with the bigotry.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x198089

and here's two for the price of one. An accusation of bigotry as well as a claim I support the killing of civilians...

'In your ethical wasteland - any act of aggression can be justified and millions of innocents can be killed and maimed with no recourse.'

'Hmmm, moral equavalence for the aggressor and the defender. That was the point of your post, wasn't it? Seems to be a cherished meme around here.

I'm sure the absurdity of this is probably lost on you. The anti-Israel bigotry inherent in such views is regularly expressed in this forum - views that always manage to condemn Israel and make Israel into a world criminal for protecting her citizens. But this one does take the cake - let's all get together and bomb the crap out of Israel and the US because Israel mistreats her POW's."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=182478&mesg_id=183052

For someone who suddenly insists he's not interested in talking about who's a bigot, you've got a long trail of posts in this forum where yr either accusing others of being bigots, or insisting you've been called one ;)


on edit: On discussing anything related to the conflict with you - I've given you a chance to discuss the issue of racism in a civil and constructive manner and you couldn't resist making it personal and accusing me of not answering questions I'd clearly answered, all the while not bothering to answer any questions you were asked. As it's really no improvement on how you've behaved in past threads, I'll let you yell into the air and I'll go back to talking to folk who are genuinelly interested in discussing the conflict. And to save you all the angst of having to wear yrself out accusing me of calling you a bigot, I'll do what I should have done long ago and stick you on ignore where you belong...

[msmcghee]

169. You should re-read the post of mine that you are responding to.

Start at the place where I said, "*I'm really not interested in pursuing this discussion of which of us is a bigot."

After that I attempt to get the discussion back on topic - by asking you to define your terms and get serious about your premise. And that always seems to be the time you realize the mods aren't going to ban me despite your advice - and you decide to ignore me or whatever.

That's cool by me. I don't even know how to put someone on ignore - but I'm sure it's very useful for those who can't handle a real discussion about ideas.

Cheers.

PS - I recommend that second link to anyone interested in reviewing an interesting thread from the past.

[LeftishBrit]

149. Seems to me....

that most of the personal attacks, certainly on this thread, have been in the other direction.

And while Msmcghee frequently says things that I disagree with, I've never known him to use innuendoes; he says what he thinks!

[msmcghee]

151. You need to read my posts more carefully.

My "racist innuendo" is right there in the crossing of my T's and the dotting of my I's - for all to see. ;-)

[Violet_Crumble]

163. I suggest you try reading the post doug was replying to. coz I certainly haven't attacked anyone...

Msmcghee accused me of personal attacks on it in other threads, which is not the case at all. Plus, I have not attacked it in this thread at all, despite the fact it's accused me of double standards, and not answering questions that I've clearly answered in this thread...

Many of the bigoted comments I've seen msmcghee make in the past contain little to no innuendo, and don't beat around the bush, which is why they've been deleted. But I fail to see how there's no hint of innuendo in msmcghee's performance in this thread where he's danced around, failed to answer questions, and created a definition of racism that by definition excludes Arabs from being victims of racism...

[Violet_Crumble]

162. I have several suggestions if you ever do return to answer any questions you've been asked...

Personal insults? For about the zillionth time, disagreeing with yr opinions is not personally insulting you. There was absolutely no call for you to turn things personal in a discussion that had till now been discussing an issue. Yr constant claims that I personally attack you in threads is complete rubbish, the same way yr accusations in the earlier post here that I'd labelled someone a racist and not answered a question I'd clearly answered were wrong. To keep things from degenerating, you should consider trying to discuss issues without having the word 'you' appear in them. And treat other posters the way you'd like to be treated...

If you do return to this thread, I hope yr response explains why I was accused of not answering a question that I had clearly answered, and why I was told I hadn't supplied a definition of racism, which I had done in a post that you later replied to. And I would like to see a definition of racism from you that applies equally to both Arabs and Jews, because you still haven't supplied one that comes even close....

[msmcghee]

166. I answered both that post and a later one here:

They were both part of the same discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=205559&mesg_id=206527

If you want to continue this discussion then respond to the issue I raised here.

[Violet_Crumble]

167. I'd rather you stick to replying to the post yr responding to...

There's no need to go cavorting all over the thread and if you have something to say in reply to my post, post in reply to it, not somewhere else. And if you aren't going to return and apologise for accusing me of not answering a question I'd answered long before, then there's no point in returning...

[stranger81]

135. this is a lot like trying to have a conversation

with a doorknob.

Jeebus criminy.

(on edit: and I certainly don't mean you, Violet)

[hifalutin]

119. Sorry but I won't be

pigeon-holed.

There is nothing worse than having a boot on the back of your neck and that's what Jackson and Sharpton have done to the black cause. Same as Hamas has done for the Palestinian cause, kept them perpetual victims. The black populace deserve far better than those two clowns have given them in the last 40 years. As I said, they would both be out of work.

[Violet_Crumble]

130. Too late. You've done it to yrself quite well...

Gosh, who to believe when it comes to who thinks they know best when it comes to the interests of the African-American community. Highly respected leaders of that community, or some anonymous words on a screen that goes on about *race-pimps*? Hold on, I'll go check with that highly respected voice that used to speak out on behalf of the Asian community, Pauline Hanson! ;)

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

113. From the guidelines:

Do not publicly accuse anyone of anti-Semitism, racism, or any bigoted bias. If you feel such a comment is warranted, you may do so privately using the "Alert" button.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

118. That name is offensive. If you can't see that, then it's you who has blinders on. Wake up.

[hifalutin]

120. As I said

it's all hypothetical. Your argument has no merit.
I could have said if I were living in China and an American moved into my neighborhood, nothing racist in any of it.
See now?
Geez!

[breakaleg]

121. What argument? I'm simply commenting on a racist slur you hurled that you claim ignorance on.

In another post you said you were too old to be tempted to respond. Perhaps that's why you recognize this racial slur when you say it. But trust me, if you were Chinese, and someone called you that word, you would be offended.

[hifalutin]

123. What word?

?

[breakaleg]

125. Why not read your own posts and figure it out. Seriously, it's been pointed out to you already.

[stranger81]

126. if this is some kind of a weird joke,

April Fool's isn't until next week.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. Amira Hass has lived and rented a home in the Gaza, Sara Roy has lived and rented a home in the Gaza

both Jewish woman.

In both cases all their neighbors certainly knew they were Jewish.

And they report being being welcomed with great hospitality and even deference.

What could be different in those cases?

[pelsar]

52. its who they are....

in place of Amira Hass...perhaps take a single religious right wing jew who bought their house from the previous arab owners....will he be welcomed?...even if he does nothing?

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. in all honesty

he would probably would be about as welcomed as a Klansman in Harlem, even if he did nothing.

[pelsar]

54. exactly...

racism is on both sides of the street....its up to the respective govts to deal with the education of their citizens....

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. I couldn't possibly agree more! n/t

[LeftishBrit]

57. Agreed!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

69. If it were "racism," wouldn't all Jews be unwelcome?

Perhaps the welcome mat depends upon the individual -- in which case, it's not racist, is it?

[pelsar]

70. do you propose...

a political test to decide if a family can move in?...and what if they pass the test and they change their beliefs months/years later...kick them out?

what if they decide their political beliefs are no ones business but their own?

which group gets to buy a house....you can check off the politcially acceptable ones

anarchists
leftest
progressvies
buddhists
liberal religious jews
non liberal non religious jews
jews for jesus
communist jews
socialist jews
liberal capitalistic converted jews
anti liberal capitalistic converted to christianity jews
hassidic jews
center right
center left politically
center politically
ex right wring, now left wing
ex muslim

this is the short list....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. Plenty more Jews can live in the WB, than Palestinans can live in Tel Aviv.

Cut me a break, dude. Palestinian cars aren't even allowed on the ROADS.

There is no need for a list in Israel. None are welcome. Born int he WB? That's all your gov't needs to know!!

Cut the crap. Are you SERIOUSLY comparing the two systems in terms of organized racism?

<<thunk>>

[ProgressiveMuslim]

73. Book Review: "An Israeli In Palestine Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel"

In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King wrote that he had "almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the ... Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice ..."

Jeff Halper's new book is, in part, the story of the evolution of a "white moderate" peace campaigner from Hibbing, Minnesota, to a radical Israeli campaigner for justice for the Palestinians. En route, he maps his development from "ethnic Jew to Jewish national to Israeli," disregarding his grandmother's warning that "Israel is no place for a Jewish boy!"
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9392.shtml

[oberliner]

74. Do you consider any of the Arabs living in Israel to be Palestinians?

I wonder what percentage of Israeli Arabs would self-identify as such.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. They're Palestinian, but most importantly they're Israeli...

While yr here in this thread, Oberliner, do you think calls to bar Israeli-Arabs from employment and housing is racist?

[oberliner]

83. Discrimination/Racism is a big problem in Israel

Much as it is everywhere in the world.

[eyl]

85. Not all of them

The Bedouin, for example, do not consider themselves (for the most part) as Palestinians.

[Shaktimaan]

75. You're jumping categories.

Plenty more Jews can live in the WB, than Palestinans can live in Tel Aviv.

Of course, the WB is much much larger than Tel Aviv.

OK seriously, what you said is true... but why is it like that? Because there's less racism against Jews in the WB than there is against Palestinians in Tel Aviv or because of differences in power between the two sides?

There is no need for a list in Israel. None are welcome. Born int he WB? That's all your gov't needs to know!!

What kind of "Palestinian" do you mean? Do Israeli Arabs count? It seems that you are claiming racism by excluding all of the Arabs who DO live in Tel Aviv. Plenty of Palestinians live in Tel Aviv, and what's more, they do so without the benefit of a large armed force there to keep the local Jews from evicting or killing them. In the West Bank, every Jew living there was evicted or killed until they were able to return with enough protection to prevent that from happening again.

If the only thing determining whether or not a Palestinian is welcome in Tel Aviv is the country on their passport, then it isn't racism, is it? Palestinians in east Jerusalem are also allowed to apply for Israeli citizenship, so you aren't correct about none being welcome if born in the WB either.

Palestinian cars aren't even allowed on the ROADS.

Sure they are if they're Israeli Palestinians. And there are also Palestinian only roads that Israelis are not allowed on. They're not divided by race but by nationality. There's a big difference.

Cut the crap. Are you SERIOUSLY comparing the two systems in terms of organized racism?

There's no question. 20% of Israel's population is "Palestinian." Yet virtually no Jews are welcome or allowed in any of the surrounding Arab lands. If not for the IDF protecting them, how many Jews do you think would be welcome in the WB? And why were no Jews at all allowed to stay there following the war in '48?

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Yr forgetting the little matter of a belligerant occupation...

Tel Aviv is part of Israel and yr talking about Israeli citizens. The West Bank isn't part of Israel and yr talking about settlements that are built on occupied territory, some of it private Palestinian property where Palestinians aren't allowed to live (they're allowed to be used as cheap labour to build them, though)...

I find it incredlbe that anyone even has to ask why Palestinians would have a problem with Israeli settlements in the West Bank. If Israeli settlers set up house next to you and you wake up one day to find them kicking you out of yr home, you'd be happy about it?

[eyl]

86. You might remember that some of the settlements

(e.g. Gush Etzion) were sited on places where Jewish communities existed before and were destroyed in 1948, so it isn't as clear-cut as that

[pegleg]

87. Probably if my neighbor had attacked my house with the intention

of exterminating me, I would have no second thoughts about taking his house and kicking him out.

[Shaktimaan]

94. ???? I spoke about the occupation.

The occupation is the only reason that Jews are able to live in the west bank at all. This has nothing to do with "why Palestinians would have a problem with Israeli settlements in the West Bank." We're discussing racism evident in both systems. Are you suggesting that animosity against Jews has nothing to do with racism, but instead is a reaction to the settlements?

If so, then why were the Jews all evicted from the WB to begin with? What caused the Hebron massacre? Why were Jews evicted from Arab nations all across the mid east?

Tel Aviv is part of Israel and yr talking about Israeli citizens.

Right, because those Arabs were not evicted from Israel and were allowed to become citizens. Unlike how every last Jew in Gaza and the WB was killed or evicted by the Arabs. How does this fact help your argument that Israel has the far more racist policies in this conflict?

The West Bank isn't part of Israel and yr talking about settlements that are built on occupied territory, some of it private Palestinian property where Palestinians aren't allowed to live (they're allowed to be used as cheap labour to build them, though)...

And some of it is land that was/is privately owned by Jews, in territory occupied by Jordan that Palestinians built on, where Jews were not allowed to live.

If Israeli settlers set up house next to you and you wake up one day to find them kicking you out of yr home, you'd be happy about it?

Nope, I'd be unhappy about it. But you could ask the same question of the Palestinians who did the same to Jews all across the middle east, including the west bank and Gaza.

Now, I am not defending the settlers. I am saying that if we were to compare official racist policies within Israel to those in PA controlled Palestine or any other Arab region, Israeli policy demonstrates the least racism by far. To control for the occupation all we have to do is compare policies before 1967. To control for the nakba all we have to do is compare policies from before 1947.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. No you didn't mention the occupation as a factor at all...

Why do you seem to think that Israelis can just live wherever they like outside of Israel? Especially in occupied territory? I'm not even a Palestinian and I have major issues with Israelis setting up in settlements in the West Bank. They shouldn't be there...


How does this fact help your argument that Israel has the far more racist policies in this conflict?

Hold on. I didn't make that argument. I've given up on trying to discuss racism with you as you've totally ignored a question I asked you twice now about racism further up in the thread...

But you could ask the same question of the Palestinians who did the same to Jews all across the middle east, including the west bank and Gaza.

Wow, Palestinians did all that in the Middle East? There's not much those nasty Palestinians can't be blamed for, hey? ;)

[LeftishBrit]

122. Not necessarily

Many otherwise-racist people make exceptions for certain individuals: whether those who are meek and non-threatening ('they're all right so long as they know their place') or those who are useful to them ('I want to deport all those immigrants - but I couldn't do without our nanny') or those who are genuinely personal friends (the oldest disclaimer in the book: "Some of my best friends are Jews/Arabs/African-Americans/etc." - and sometimes it's in fact quite true!)

Palestinians cannot be expected to accept yet another settlement which could make an end to the Occupation even more difficult. It's understandable that they should wish to protect themselves from this. Nonetheless, if it makes them intolerant of Jews as a whole (even with a few 'some of my best friends' exceptions) - worse still, if they threaten and execute fellow-Palestinians for selling homes to Jews -then it's racist.

Israelis cannot be expected to accept terrorist attacks or threats of such. It's understandable that they should wish to protect themselves from this. Nonetheless, if it makes them intolerant of their Arab fellow-citizens as a whole (even with a few 'some of my best friends' exceptions), then it's racist.

[Shaktimaan]

96. I think these might be the exceptions that prove the rule.

For example, Benazir Bhutto and Indira Gandhi were at one time both Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, respectively. Your argument would suggest that neither country could be considered to have serious problems with misogyny, seeing as they both elected female leaders. Yet sexism is deeply ingrained in both nations' cultures, whereas America, a country with very progressive values regarding gender equality has yet to have a female leader, despite being four times older than either India or Pakistan. Despite this fact no one would intelligently argue that America lags behind South Asia when it comes to gender equality.

That two Jewish women were able to overcome animosity against Jewish people to live in Gaza speaks less to the tolerance of Gazans towards Jews than it does to the special qualities possessed by these two that allow them to be welcomed in Gaza.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. Not wanting Israeli settlers in Gaza is intolerance?

Then I'm proud to be as intolerant as they come in that regard!

Did it ever occur to you that if Israelis had wanted to live amongst Palestinians as equals instead of building settlements, people, including most left-wingers would have been more tolerant of them? That's why journalists like Amira Hass and Jewish members of ISM have been welcome in the West Bank and Gaza, not because of some ridiculous fantasy that portrays the entire Palestinian population as being intolerant antisemitic types...

[Shaktimaan]

127. Isn't that how the

original Zionists came to Palestine? To live there as equals.

They were not exactly met with tolerance.

[Violet_Crumble]

131. Yr talking about the late 19th century?

It's really not the simple thing you make it out to be. I'm reading Righteous Victims now, and I don't think lording it over the Arabs, which is what happened in many cases, is trying to live there as equals (with some exceptions as described below).

From page 47 of Righteous Victims:

'The settlers sought to base their relations with their neighbours on mutual respect - something to which the situation was not conducive: On the one hand, the settlers had bought Arab land and lorded it over, or displaced, the inhabitants; on the other, they depended on Arabs for supplies and labor, and were frequently subject to theft and pillage by them. Jewish efforts to appease Arabs were often interpreted as signs of weakness.'

'In the early years of settlement, tension often stemmed from mutual ignorance of one another's customs and languages. Some Zionist leaders called on the settlers to learn local customs and adopt Arab ways. The charter of the Biluim had stressed the need to know Arabic and some moshavot included it in their school curricula. In those places where the settlers abided by Arab agricultural custom, as at Mishmar HaYarden, in the Jordan Valley, they enjoyed good relations with their neighbours.'

'Though still a small minority, the settlers quickly bagan to behave like lords and masters, some apparently resorting to the whip at the slightest provocation. This was a major source of Arab animosity.'

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. if its intolerant to restrict Jewish immigration from Israel to the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Even though settling an occupying power's civilian population in Occupied Territories completely violates international law -then it is certainly intolerant to restrict Palestinian immigration from the Occupied Palestinian Territories to Israel. Even though allowing such immigration could - at least in many cases - be fulfilling international law under the right of return.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if Palestinians from the Occupied Territories are free to live as equals anywhere they chose in Israel/Palestine. And perhaps it would be good idea if Jewish people from Israel are free to live as equals anywhere they chose in Israel/Palestine. But I cannot imagine that would being workable in a two-state solution.

Regarding the desire of the early Zionist settlers to live as equals with the Palestinians, this excerpt from an essay by Israeli History Professor Avi Shlaim of Oxford University. link: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt toward the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behavior and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave toward the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago. "

Perhaps if the early Zionist settlers had qualities a bit more like Sara Roy and Amira Hass - a whole lot of problems could have been avoided.

[Shaktimaan]

145. Let's look at what I was arguing, since I think we've gone off track a bit.

I was not arguing that it is intolerant to restrict Jewish settlement in the OPT but that the inhabitants of the OPT are intolerant of Jews moving there. The debate began with LeftishBrit's post reminding us that racism of the sort demonstrated by the rabbi is not restricted to one side. My comment was in response to Douglas' assertion that Palestinian intolerance towards Jewish neighbors had nothing to do with their being Jewish based on two examples of Jewish activists who were welcomed to live there.

That said, you're right. Both are examples of racism. However I take issue with some of your reasoning.

Even though settling an occupying power's civilian population in Occupied Territories completely violates international law -then it is certainly intolerant to restrict Palestinian immigration from the Occupied Palestinian Territories to Israel. Even though allowing such immigration could - at least in many cases - be fulfilling international law under the right of return.

First of all there is no international law of return for refugees. But if there was I don't see why you would find it applicable to Palestinians wishing to live in Israel but not to Israelis who were previously displaced from the West Bank. In a single sentence you assert that Jews settling in the West Bank is illegal while preventing Palestinians from moving to Israel is also illegal.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if Palestinians from the Occupied Territories are free to live as equals anywhere they chose in Israel/Palestine. And perhaps it would be good idea if Jewish people from Israel are free to live as equals anywhere they chose in Israel/Palestine. But I cannot imagine that would being workable in a two-state solution.

Well, this was attempted once before, with less than optimal results.

Perhaps if the early Zionist settlers had qualities a bit more like Sara Roy and Amira Hass - a whole lot of problems could have been avoided.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But we could just as easily say the same of the Palestinians. I would tend to think that the two groups of people are, and always were, incompatible. Especially since both were really looking for self-determination, they needed their own homelands. Had the Palestinians agreed to one of the partition plans then much of this conflict might have been avoidable. But you know what they say about hindsight. And there are elements in both camps who would not have recommended that action back then, even had they known the outcome.

My argument was never that these actions are not racist or discriminatory but that both sides engage in them, nationalism being an essentially discriminatory philosophy. It always seemed ridiculous to me to make a pro-Palestinian nationalism/self-determination argument only to then condemn racism in all its forms. And again, I am not arguing against Palestinian self-determination but against pretending that these things represent something other than what they are. Is Zionism racism? Sure, to be honest, it is. Just not any more so than Japanese or Italian nationalism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

146. U N General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948

affirms the right of Palestinian refugees to return. Every international human rights organization, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross; and every other international body dealing with these issues - affirm the right of return for refugees.

Should this principle also apply to those Jewish refugees from the West Bank who left the West Bank in 1948? I can think of no reason whatsoever why it should not - provided it also applies to the Palestinian refugees who left what is now Israel - and provided they agree to live under the condition affirmed in UN Resolution 194:

"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date," link: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/59c118f065c4465b852572a500625fea/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument

However this principle and this resolution clearly does not apply to some unrelated person of the same ethnicity. I would have to agree that a Jew from Nablus and their descendants who fled or was forced out during conflict should by all rights and reason have the same right of return as a Palestinian from Jaffa who fled or were forced out during the conflict. However a a Jew from Brooklyn has no more right of return to Nablus than an Arab from Brooklyn whose grandparents were born in Brooklyn and whose family originated in Nablus has a right of return to Haifa.

As far as I know, none of the settlers in the Gaza and very, very few in the West Bank claim to be returning refugees from the 1948 conflict.

And there is a fundamental difference between wishing to live as equals with ones Israeli or Palestinian neighbors and living in a luxurious state-subsidized and privileged settlement-colony on ethnically discriminatory principles and incorported to the point of virtual annexation into the occupying power. Even if one might justify that during the foundation period of establishing the Israeli state - it can hardly be justified today. And international law does clearly forbid transferring civilians from the occupying power to occupied lands.

[eyl]

148. Are you aware that General Assembly resolutions

(as opposed to Security Council resolutions) do not formulate international law (which is what the claim was about)?

[LeftishBrit]

147. Your last point is just what I've been trying to make so many times...

but more succinctly:

'My argument was never that these actions are not racist or discriminatory but that both sides engage in them, nationalism being an essentially discriminatory philosophy... ItIs Zionism racism? Sure, to be honest, it is. Just not any more so than Japanese or Italian nationalism.'

Yes. It would be great IMO if there was much less nationalism of all sorts in this world. But there is, and will be for the foreseeable future; and this needs to be taken into account. Some people seem to condemn only Israeli nationalism (and to be fair some others condemn only Palestinian or general Arab nationalism) as discrimination - without recognizing that virtually ALL countries are nationalist to the point of being discriminatory/racist.

[msmcghee]

150. You and Shakti seem to agree that . .

. . nationalism is racism. I find this perplexing.

Nations are firstly an expression of "tribal" defensive needs - the need to establish borders, defend them and control who may enter the "nation-state". The need is there because there have always been "tribes" that are aggressive and will attack less well-defended tribes if they get the chance. Tribes have always been how humans defensively organize themselves. To say there is something malevolent about defensive tribalism is about as meaningful as saying that sex is bad. If either defensive tribalism or sex was not an integral part of human nature - humans, as the species we are, would not be here today.

It seems that you are both using the term "racism" to describe this essentially defensive need. It becomes even more troubling when it is seen that, thanks to the enlightenment and the embrace of democratic forms of government, most peace-loving nation-states voluntarily follow international rules and laws designed to minimize conflict and suffering between nation-states and to minimize conflict and suffering between indigenous groups (subtribes) within those nation-states. Most nation-states do not use their statehood as a organizing entity for the purpose of aggression yet in some sense, ultra-fairness perhaps, you want to brand all these nations as racist.

Whatever your reasons, I think it ruins the ability to discuss racism in a rational way. If anything a nation does along these lines is racism - such as looking more carefully at visitors entering the country from places that have a stated policy and ongoing history of attacking and killing their citizens - then you have made rational discussion of the topic impossible, IMO.

Also, it seems to me that none of you discussing this on either side even recognize the difference between racism as a matter of state policy - and racism as it exists in a person's mind. These are two very different things. They have different causes and manifestations. One has the force of law behind it and takes the form of policy and action backed by military force - the other is in the form of ideas and thoughts in a person's mind that may never be spoken much less acted upon.

I'm not saying anyone here is wrong for taking this expansive universal view of racism - or that mine is the only correct view. I'm just saying that calling everything racism kind of makes the discussion meaningless on several levels. I'm advocating for a more nuanced view that recognizes relevant differences in motive and the nature of the entity that is supposedly exhibiting "racism". I prefer to see real racism as actions motivated by irrational beliefs that cause (or are intended to cause) damage to a target "tribe" - not actions that are meant on either the personal or governmental level, to protect one tribe from the "racism" of another.

[LeftishBrit]

157. Well...

nationalism (all nationalism) could be called a form of 'racism' in the sense that it intrinsically involves favouring one's own group over all others - who may be tolerated, excluded, threatened or treated with violence, but still do not have equal rights to one's own group.


(Of course, one's national group does not necessarily correspond to a 'race'. I have at times argued for a distinction between true racism and other forms of cultural bigotry, on the grounds that one can change one's culture, religion, or language, but not one's racial heritage, so that true race-prejudice is more inescapable; but I am aware that most people here consider this to be a trivial semantic distinction, so am following the more encompassing intergroup-prejudice definition here.)

'Most nation-states do not use their statehood as a organizing entity for the purpose of aggression yet in some sense, ultra-fairness perhaps, you want to brand all these nations as racist'


But racism does not necessarily involve aggression - that is only its most extreme form. A country may at one level pursue aggressive war on another country, or may connive at or even instigate internal violence against those of the 'wrong' race. At another level, it may simply make immigration harder for some groups than others. Racism on a personal level can range from the person who organizes and leads a gang dedicated to attacking and even killing those of the 'wrong' race, through the employer or landlord who denies jobs or accommodation to those of another race, to the person who makes a conscious effort to be decent to everyone but still feels uncomfortable with those of certain races. Not all racism, either by people or countries, is *equal*; but it is still racism at some level.

Now, although I think that nationalism could be called racist, sometimes on a violent level, more usually at the mild level of simply preferring one's own group; and although I think it might be reduced or non-existent in a truly ideal world, I am not going to fight against nationalism in the real world. It exists. It will be there for a long time to come. Albert Einstein described nationalism as 'an infantile disease... the measles of mankind'; but there are no signs either of mankind growing up, or of a vaccine being found for this form of measles. To fight against nationalism as a world phenomenon is at best to tilt at windmills; at worst to risk unleashing bloodbaths, or to inflict a remedy worse than the disease (e.g. historically one of the most effective ways of inhibiting the *expression* of nationalism is successful imperialism by a stronger power, but few progressives would support this solution!!!)

So I am not on an anti-nationalism crusade, and I doubt that Shakti is either. What we were pointing out is the inconsistency at best of accepting American nationalism, British nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, Egyptian nationalism, French nationalism, Ukrainian nationalism, etc., etc.... and then demanding that Israelis/Jews should renounce nationalism. If one is against Zionism because it's a form of nationalism, then one should oppose other forms of nationalism as well. That was our point.

'Also, it seems to me that none of you discussing this on either side even recognize the difference between racism as a matter of state policy - and racism as it exists in a person's mind. These are two very different things. They have different causes and manifestations. One has the force of law behind it and takes the form of policy and action backed by military force - the other is in the form of ideas and thoughts in a person's mind that may never be spoken much less acted upon.'

Actually, I think this is quite an important distinction - though not quite as sharp as you present it, because personal racism leads to people voting for and accepting racist leaders, policies and laws; and political racism legitimizes personal racism. The media is an important interface between the two. When the "Daily Mail" serialized the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and supported the Nazis in the 1930s, it made antisemitism more respectable and may have indirectly contributed to restrictions on immigration of Jewish refugees. When it and other tabloids publish hostile articles about British Asians and recent Polish immigrants in the 21st century, they contribute to a climate where hostility to and verbal and even physical attacks on non-whites and immigrants can be seen by some as acceptable. This is in the UK, where at least there is a choice of media outlets with a variety of perspectives: in countries with a more homogeneous or state-controlled media, the effects can be yet more extreme.

In any case, you are right that governments that pursue policies that are racist in effect are not necessarily motivated by personal hate; and people who are to varying degrees personally racist are not necessarily going to act on it, or to have power to spread it.

[Shaktimaan]

158. Well said.

I agree with everything you said. And I'd like to add something else.

My other point is really a critique of the logic train that many use here to argue against Zionism, which roughly goes... Zionism is nationalism based on "race." Therefore Zionism is racist. Racism in all forms is bad. Therefore Zionism is bad.

The issue I have with this train of thought is the way we selectively use the term "racism" and apply it negatively to things we already think badly of while ignoring its application to other things that we think of as benign or helpful. Think of affirmative action. I've heard AA defended as not being racist because it seeks to undo the damage racism has caused. (Of course we could use the same argument defending Zionism but that's besides the point.) Despite being a plan with good intentions there's no question that AA is racist as it makes race a quality to consider when evaluating job or school applicants. And just as giving preference to white people would be considered racist, giving preference to black or hispanics is equally discriminatory.

I can't sit here and honestly defend Zionism as not being racist because, like all nationalism, it is. But I resent the knee-jerk assertion that everything which discriminates on race is bad. People may want to shellac me for saying so, but if we are to be really honest with each other here then we have to admit that there are forms of racism that we rightly despise and there are also forms that we cherish or view was necessary evils. Before anyone posts to call me out as a bigot I would ask them whether they oppose the United Negro College Fund for being a racist institution. Or if they think that the NAACP should be shut down.

Racism is a lot more complex than many people (who would like to use the term as a bludgeon) would care to admit. Some racism is necessary in our fight towards equality and I would argue that the two are not even mutually exclusive. Racism (in its more benign forms) and equality can co-exist. And if you choose to be against racism, then that's fine, I think it is an admirable goal. But then be opposed to all forms of racism, not just those which are attached to movements or ideas that you already disagree with. If you argue against Zionism because it is racist then I implore you to fight just as hard against the american indian college fund because it too, is racist. Otherwise spend your time and energy preaching against hate, which is really what we dislike so much about racism. Not the acknowledgment that people are different or occasionally need to be treated differently because of their cultures or history, but the belief that any one race is superior to any other.

[msmcghee]

159. Thanks to you and LB for taking the time to answer.

I think I'm starting to understand your position on this. It seems that we have a semantic issue. You both seem to be saying that there are good and bad kinds of racism. However, when I go to the dictionary, I get:

rac·ism
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I don't see anything benign about that. Also, I think if you say that someone is guilty of, or practices, racism - that would be understood by almost all people to be an accusation of racial/ethnic bigotry - as described above - something to be condemned.

Why would you want to say that nationalism is a form of racism? (apparently you both agree on that)

I understand nationalism as simply the practice of establishing legal statehood - and assuming the obligations and responsibilities that are generally understood to be part of that condition. Part of the justification for nationalism - probably its most important part - is protecting the citizens of that state from outside aggression. To do that, states discriminate between citizens and non-citizens. Non-citizens typically face restrictions both in visiting a foreign state and in their rights and obligations as a legally admitted visitor. I fail to see anything malevolent in that. If visitors find a state's discrimination against non-citizens to be onerous - they don't have to visit.

It seems to me if you insist on calling what states do to protect their citizens from foreign aggression by discriminating against non-citizens, racism - you are opening up a Pandora's box of confusion and misunderstanding. The above definition works pretty well for me - and nationalism, as most free democracies practice it, does not fall anywhere inside that definition.

Dictatorships and such that actually do mistreat non-citizen visitors - such as taking visitors of a certain national origin as political hostages - are not practicing nationalism. They are committing a crime against peace.

I think it's very important to keep these terms straight in order to prevent confusion. Racism is understood by almost everyone to be a bad thing - to be condemned. One needs to define racism then, as something always worthy of condemnation. If you allow "racism" to include practices that are benign - such as some forms of AA - then the word loses its power of condemnation - which I would very much like to see preserved. Am I missing something important here?

IMO racism is not simply discrimination - which may be benevolent. It is unjustified discrimination with a malevolent intent and a (potentially) malevolent effect - something to be denounced wherever it rears its ugly head.

[msmcghee]

160. Following up to you both . .

. . after re-reading your posts - I think I understand now that you use "nationalism" in a different way than I do. You see "nationalism" as a form of racism - carrying those negative aspects of racial / ethnic superiority. I agree that the word has been used that way to describe some aggressive nationalistic movements. I could live with a more malevolent definition of nationalism as opposed to my neutral one.

But I still have problems with seeing "racism" as anything but bad. Could we compromise? I'll start thinking of nationalism as an expression of ethnic / racial superiority that should be condemned - if that's what you'd prefer - if you agree that racism is also that.

I now need to figure out a word for what people do when they form a state and take on those obligations and responsibilities. Self-determination doesn't quite get there - as it refers to the process of a people choosing their form of government without outside influence - not the process of creating a state and running it. Any suggestions?

[LeftishBrit]

8. It seems that attitudes are hardening on both sides; most depressing

The moderates on both sides need, more than ever before, to unite and fight for peace.

[stranger81]

9. how it's possible for them to be MORE racist towards arabs is mindboggling . . . .

but I guess where there's a will, there's a way. the little state that could, and all that.

[hifalutin]

27. Perhaps if you were to ask the question

'why would a Rabbi need a bodyguard?' to walk amongst Arabs in E.Jerusalem you might get the answer.
I would venture to think that trying to kill a Rabbi is not the right way to win the hearts and minds of the Israeli citizenry.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. You do realise that Israeli citizenry is also made up of Arabs, don't you?

Just curious, but seeing you appear to be of the opinion that racism isn't racism if a 'security' excuse can be made for it, why would anyone who feels that way be opposed to the transfer of Israeli-Arabs from Israel, something that extremists in the Israeli govt have called for?

[LeftishBrit]

15. There are organizations campaigning for Arab equality in Israel, and for peace projects

www.newisraelfund.org

www.bbst.org.uk

[JuniperLea]

154. Interesting...

My cousins in Poriya Illit tell me that only the extremes in each group are racist. Their friends include people of all races in Israel, and they all get along wonderfully.