'Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic'?

[Mindful]

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Other ways to recognize anti-Zionism/anti-semitism:

Lies and exaggerations, such as "never offered full sovereignty"
Assumptions of intent which are not in evidence
Changes in meanings of words
Justifications for violence, especially for pointless violence

I disagree. Lies and exaggerations are part and parcel of the arguments in both sides of the conflict - that isn't anti-semitism.

Assumption of intent - same thing, in any conflict and this one is no different. There is deep distrust of the other's intent on BOTH sides here.

Changes in meanings of words...not sure, can you give some examples?

Justifications for violence - again, that is not uncommon in conflicts, I don't see that as "anti-semitic" unless the person is holding double standards.

The Israelis are well aware of the intent from Hamas..

And the Palestinians firmly believe Israel intends to expel them in entirety. What's your point?

You've just contradicted your self by talking about distrust on both sides.

When you've implied that the Palestinians think they know the Israalis' nefarious intentions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

An Inuit who is displaced from northern Canada remains Inuit no matter where she happens to be living. Her children remain Inuit. And her children's children.

But you are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter what argument you use to deny the Jewish people AS a people -- one whose ancestors originated on the territory in question. ANY argument which prevents the Jewish people from having the same rights as other peoples is fundamentally an anti-semitic argument.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

 

[Roudy]

An interesting article...

I think the title is 'wrong' however...

I just don't buy into the 'zionist' belief that any word said against the Israeli government and policies is 'anti-semitic'...

If I were to make a negative comment about the South African government, for example, that would not make me a racist...

5 Intellectuals Smash the Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic Argument

It's common sense dude. If your "anti-zionism" involves pushing Israel into the sea or fantasies of them picking up and leaving Israel -- or visions of honor for killing Israeli citizens and innocents -------- THEN it IS anti-Jew and anti Semitic.

Does that about answer the question?

Does it answer the question? Well, yes and no...

Your answer is too 'simplistic' and, if I may say, rather 'extreme'...

Would my criticizing a speech made by Netanyahu, or the continuation of more settlers into the WB be considered anti zionist or anti semitic?

Based upon my belief that the Jews SHOULD have a homeland, have self-determination, I think that rules me out of being an anti zionist.

Based upon my NON hatred of Jews, I have many Jewish friends around the world, I think that rules me out of being an anti semite.

Yet, there are MANY people who have the same beliefs as I do who, like me, get tagged as an anti zionist, anti semite, simply because I don't believe that everything that Israel does is right...

As has already been said in a previous post, it's like walking on eggshells... It seems that ANY negative comment or criticism of Israel WILL lead to that anti zionist/anti semite tag...

I understand your moderate stance. And I certainly appreciate it. But making excuses for MILITANT leadership of the Palestinian cause would certainly void all of that "moderation"... WE don't get to choose the leadership of Israel or Palestine. So you are free to criticize any ONE of the them, but condoning ineffective senseless death and violence in LIEU of meaningful nationalistic planning and LEADERSHIP for the Palis WOULD be very anti-Jewish and anti-semitic.. Because you would be EXCUSING the stated goals of pushing Israel off the map or hardening hearts so as not to negotiate for PROGRESS and peace..

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Even Rabin didn't succeed in making peace with the Palestinians. And he had more than one round of being in power.

Regardless of his murder, even our most peaceful leader could not make the Palestinians happy. And there wasn't anything he didn't offer them.

That's because the only thing that makes Palestinians and Arabs in general truly "happy" is the total destruction of the Jewish state. They haven't shown genuine interest in anything short of that. Anybody that tells you any differently is lying or being deceptive.

 

[Roudy]

An interesting article...

I think the title is 'wrong' however...

I just don't buy into the 'zionist' belief that any word said against the Israeli government and policies is 'anti-semitic'...

If I were to make a negative comment about the South African government, for example, that would not make me a racist...

5 Intellectuals Smash the Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic Argument

It's common sense dude. If your "anti-zionism" involves pushing Israel into the sea or fantasies of them picking up and leaving Israel -- or visions of honor for killing Israeli citizens and innocents -------- THEN it IS anti-Jew and anti Semitic.

Does that about answer the question?

Does it answer the question? Well, yes and no...

Your answer is too 'simplistic' and, if I may say, rather 'extreme'...

Would my criticizing a speech made by Netanyahu, or the continuation of more settlers into the WB be considered anti zionist or anti semitic?

Based upon my belief that the Jews SHOULD have a homeland, have self-determination, I think that rules me out of being an anti zionist.

Based upon my NON hatred of Jews, I have many Jewish friends around the world, I think that rules me out of being an anti semite.

Yet, there are MANY people who have the same beliefs as I do who, like me, get tagged as an anti zionist, anti semite, simply because I don't believe that everything that Israel does is right...

As has already been said in a previous post, it's like walking on eggshells... It seems that ANY negative comment or criticism of Israel WILL lead to that anti zionist/anti semite tag...

I understand your moderate stance. And I certainly appreciate it. But making excuses for MILITANT leadership of the Palestinian cause would certainly void all of that "moderation"... WE don't get to choose the leadership of Israel or Palestine. So you are free to criticize any ONE of the them, but condoning ineffective senseless death and violence in LIEU of meaningful nationalistic planning and LEADERSHIP for the Palis WOULD be very anti-Jewish and anti-semitic.. Because you would be EXCUSING the stated goals of pushing Israel off the map or hardening hearts so as not to negotiate for PROGRESS and peace..

I'm sure if you read some of my previous posts you would see that I would never make "excuses" for militant leadership of ANYONE.... On that note, it's time for, long overdue for, regime change for the Palestinians... But thats for a different topic.

Yes, you are right, I don't choose the leadership and have criticized BOTH! I don't condone ANY violence, from Palestinians or Israelis and certainly have NO interest in pushing the Jews into the sea!

Yet I am still accused of being an anti semite and anti zionist because I don't believe that Israel or their policies in relation to Palestine is correct!

Again with the deception. Being an anti Zionist does not mean you "don't believe that Israel or their policies in relation to Palestine is correct". That's like saying, I'm just anti American, which means I don't believe America has a right to exist, but I don't hate Americans. That's how stupid you guys sound.

 

[Coyote]

Nice irrelvant propaganda mouthful. But Jews should be allowed to establish a state in their religious, spiritual and cultural homeland in land their ancestors came from. To be against that is what antizionism is, which is simply, the new antisemtism.

I agree, they should - and part of that is that they have always maintained a presence there. They didn't just up and suddenly appear in the area proclaiming a state. In that sense, they are no different than other groups calling for autonomy in their homeland. So why single them out?

They aren't being singled out, they are simply following what the original plan and intention was for the land by those that conquered it from the Ottomans, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Other areas were indeed singled out and labeled as "Arab Palestine" aka Jordan (of which no Jews were allowed to live), and other Muslim / Islamic states that were carved out of the Ottoman empire such Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia etc. Not so for the area singled out as "Jewish Palestine" that were to be governed by Jews, yet Arabs were still allowed to live there. The Arabs of course rejected this proposition, as they wanted it all. And the rest is history.

Like you said, this is an unresolved conflict (of which truly has been created as a result of the aggression of Arabs towards the Jewish state). Therefore the Arab states are mostly responsible for the plight of the Arabs left hanging after the many times they failed to destroy the Jewish state. Israel has reached out and tried to resolve this matter many times and was rejected and attacked many times. Now it is almost too late, as the facts on the ground and demographics of the West Bank no longer allow for a true two state solution.

I was thinking more that Jews are "singled out" in their desire for an autonomous homeland which is no different than those other groups I mentioned, but no one seems critical of those other groups or calls them invaders for doing so. I don't know if a two-state solution is possible at this point...but I don't know what just alternatives there are otherwise

 

[Coyote]

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Other ways to recognize anti-Zionism/anti-semitism:

Lies and exaggerations, such as "never offered full sovereignty"
Assumptions of intent which are not in evidence
Changes in meanings of words
Justifications for violence, especially for pointless violence

I disagree. Lies and exaggerations are part and parcel of the arguments in both sides of the conflict - that isn't anti-semitism.

Assumption of intent - same thing, in any conflict and this one is no different. There is deep distrust of the other's intent on BOTH sides here.

Changes in meanings of words...not sure, can you give some examples?

Justifications for violence - again, that is not uncommon in conflicts, I don't see that as "anti-semitic" unless the person is holding double standards.

The Israelis are well aware of the intent from Hamas..

And the Palestinians firmly believe Israel intends to expel them in entirety. What's your point?

You've just contradicted your self by talking about distrust on both sides.

When you've implied that the Palestinians think they know the Israalis' nefarious intentions.

And that the Israeli's think they know the Palestinians nafarious intentions.

How am I contradicting myself?

What is accurate? Major poll: About half of Israeli Jews want to expel Arabs

 

[Roudy]

An interesting article...

I think the title is 'wrong' however...

I just don't buy into the 'zionist' belief that any word said against the Israeli government and policies is 'anti-semitic'...

If I were to make a negative comment about the South African government, for example, that would not make me a racist...

5 Intellectuals Smash the Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic Argument

Anti-Israeli government is not the same as anti-Semitism. Two different things. It's like saying if you are against the US government, you hate all Americans.

"Anti Israel govt" is not anti Zionism, you ignoramus.

The thing is, I've never heard any criticism of Israel, other than related to the Palestinians. Not in the way other "normal" countries are criticised.

It's an abnormal obsession, the justifications meandering into the land of myths.

Correct. They never voice any objection to any policy or political leaders. It's always Israel as a whole. Most of them also use the IslamoNazi term "Zionist entity" for Israel. The retards can't even bring themselves to use the word Israel.

There was no criticism of South Africa other than that related to the South African white's treatment of the non-white population, during Apartheid. Why would it be different for Israel?

Because you are lying and using a false comparison by comparing Israel to South Africa and apartheid. Whereas it's the Palestinians and Arab Muslims in general that are practicing religious apartheid. But you keep repeating this bullshit and false allegation as an attempt to divert threads. Again, the topic is whether antizionism equals antisemitism, and 100% it does.

 

[Coyote]

An Inuit who is displaced from northern Canada remains Inuit no matter where she happens to be living. Her children remain Inuit. And her children's children.

But you are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter what argument you use to deny the Jewish people AS a people -- one whose ancestors originated on the territory in question. ANY argument which prevents the Jewish people from having the same rights as other peoples is fundamentally an anti-semitic argument.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

But - this is a big but - it is not an exclusive Jewish state, and in point of fact it is more diverse than many of it's neighbors. Granted there are inequities and injustices but it's not an exclusive Jewish state and it's foundational documents encorporate diversity.

 

[Mindful]

If they do, it's wishful thinking, because that sort of thing is forbidden in Judaism.

I can understand their sentiments, if they don't want to be murdered in their beds any more.

 

[Roudy]

Nice irrelvant propaganda mouthful. But Jews should be allowed to establish a state in their religious, spiritual and cultural homeland in land their ancestors came from. To be against that is what antizionism is, which is simply, the new antisemtism.

I agree, they should - and part of that is that they have always maintained a presence there. They didn't just up and suddenly appear in the area proclaiming a state. In that sense, they are no different than other groups calling for autonomy in their homeland. So why single them out?

They aren't being singled out, they are simply following what the original plan and intention was for the land by those that conquered it from the Ottomans, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Other areas were indeed singled out and labeled as "Arab Palestine" aka Jordan (of which no Jews were allowed to live), and other Muslim / Islamic states that were carved out of the Ottoman empire such Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia etc. Not so for the area singled out as "Jewish Palestine" that were to be governed by Jews, yet Arabs were still allowed to live there. The Arabs of course rejected this proposition, as they wanted it all. And the rest is history.

Like you said, this is an unresolved conflict (of which truly has been created as a result of the aggression of Arabs towards the Jewish state). Therefore the Arab states are mostly responsible for the plight of the Arabs left hanging after the many times they failed to destroy the Jewish state. Israel has reached out and tried to resolve this matter many times and was rejected and attacked many times. Now it is almost too late, as the facts on the ground and demographics of the West Bank no longer allow for a true two state solution.

I was thinking more that Jews are "singled out" in their desire for an autonomous homeland which is no different than those other groups I mentioned, but no one seems critical of those other groups or calls them invaders for doing so. I don't know if a two-state solution is possible at this point...but I don't know what just alternatives there are otherwise

Well you are correct on that as well. Many people have been struggling towards that goal such as the Kurds and Armenians, which Armenia was reestablished after the collapse of the Soviets. Jews have been yearning and praying for Israel for the last 3000 years and more. It is central to their faith and identity. Ever been to a Passover Seder? You will hear the traditional phrase "next year in Jerusalem", to which I jokinlg say, "that is no longer correct, we can go to Jerusalem anytime we want now". LOL

 

[Mindful]

Other ways to recognize anti-Zionism/anti-semitism:

Lies and exaggerations, such as "never offered full sovereignty"
Assumptions of intent which are not in evidence
Changes in meanings of words
Justifications for violence, especially for pointless violence

I disagree. Lies and exaggerations are part and parcel of the arguments in both sides of the conflict - that isn't anti-semitism.

Assumption of intent - same thing, in any conflict and this one is no different. There is deep distrust of the other's intent on BOTH sides here.

Changes in meanings of words...not sure, can you give some examples?

Justifications for violence - again, that is not uncommon in conflicts, I don't see that as "anti-semitic" unless the person is holding double standards.

The Israelis are well aware of the intent from Hamas..

And the Palestinians firmly believe Israel intends to expel them in entirety. What's your point?

You've just contradicted your self by talking about distrust on both sides.

When you've implied that the Palestinians think they know the Israalis' nefarious intentions.

And that the Israeli's think they know the Palestinians nafarious intentions.

How am I contradicting myself?

What is accurate? Major poll: About half of Israeli Jews want to expel Arabs

You've misunderstand what I was getting at.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

An Inuit who is displaced from northern Canada remains Inuit no matter where she happens to be living. Her children remain Inuit. And her children's children.

But you are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter what argument you use to deny the Jewish people AS a people -- one whose ancestors originated on the territory in question. ANY argument which prevents the Jewish people from having the same rights as other peoples is fundamentally an anti-semitic argument.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

There is now.

 

[Mindful]

Anti-Israeli government is not the same as anti-Semitism. Two different things. It's like saying if you are against the US government, you hate all Americans.

"Anti Israel govt" is not anti Zionism, you ignoramus.

The thing is, I've never heard any criticism of Israel, other than related to the Palestinians. Not in the way other "normal" countries are criticised.

It's an abnormal obsession, the justifications meandering into the land of myths.

Correct. They never voice any objection to any policy or political leaders. It's always Israel as a whole. Most of them also use the IslamoNazi term "Zionist entity" for Israel. The retards can't even bring themselves to use the word Israel.

There was no criticism of South Africa other than that related to the South African white's treatment of the non-white population, during Apartheid. Why would it be different for Israel?

Because you are lying and using a false comparison by comparing Israel to South Africa and apartheid. Whereas it's the Palestinians and Arab Muslims in general that are practicing religious apartheid. But you keep repeating this bullshit and false allegation as an attempt to divert threads. Again, the topic is whether antizionism equals antisemitism, and 100% it does.

Does this sound like apartheid to you?

Twin births, with four sets born - to Jewish, Arab Christian, Muslim and Druze mothers - in a 24-hour period. - See more at:

Record Delivery of Multicultural Twins in Galilee Hospital - New Tang Dynasty Television

are

o

 

[montelatici]

The problem is that the Zionist fanatics do not understand that this particular section is dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. So of course every post should be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The other problem is that Zionists do not understand that non Jews do not have a different moral compass for Jews. If Jews bombard Gaza and kill thousands, they are treated no differently than Russians when they did the same to Grozny, claiming that the civilian deaths were unintentional. Nor do most non Jews (Christian Zionists excluded) feel that just because they were of the Jewish faith and/or had been oppressed in Europe, they had a right to expropriate the native inhabitants of Palestine.

If the people had been Roma (who also were subjects of extermination by the Nazis) that had expropriated the native inhabitants of Palestine, they would receive the same criticism as the Jews for doing the same thing.

So where is the Roma Homeland?? False analogy.

Greg

Very false.

The Jews still maintained a population there, had a long history there, and wanted to establish a an autonomous homeland where their ancestral population still lived is no different thant the Kurds, Basques, Chechnyans, Palestinians, or other independence movements.

Trying to make it different makes one want to ask - why? Why do some native groups have a right to establish a homeland but others not?

Even if I were to agree that an Inuit or Russian magically becomes a native inhabitant of Palestine by converting to Judaism, it has nothing to do with the right to establish a homeland, it has to do with the right to expropriate the people inhabiting an area to establish a homeland.

Is an Inuit magically become not-an-Inuit if he moves elsewhere? Are his children not Inuit?

The Roma (gypsies) came from what is now Pakistan, what was once northwestern India. Would it be considered rational today if a world power say, the U.S. or China, issued a declaration that mimicked the Balfour Declaration which suggested that a National Home for the Roma be established in Pakistan? Now that the native people there have almost all converted to Islam? It would be absurd to do such a thing. Yet some people believe that the Balfour Declaration was somehow justifiable.

Are there still Roma people in Pakistan?

Of course, the Dalits.

"European Roma descended from Indian 'untouchables', genetic study shows

Roma gypsies in Britain and Europe are descended from "dalits" or low caste "untouchables" who migrated from the Indian sub-continent 1,400 years ago, a genetic study has suggested....Later, they left to flee the fall of Hindu kingdoms in what is today Pakistan, with many setting off from near Gilgit."

European Roma descended from Indian 'untouchables', genetic study shows

 

[Roudy]

"Anti Israel govt" is not anti Zionism, you ignoramus.

The thing is, I've never heard any criticism of Israel, other than related to the Palestinians. Not in the way other "normal" countries are criticised.

It's an abnormal obsession, the justifications meandering into the land of myths.

Correct. They never voice any objection to any policy or political leaders. It's always Israel as a whole. Most of them also use the IslamoNazi term "Zionist entity" for Israel. The retards can't even bring themselves to use the word Israel.

There was no criticism of South Africa other than that related to the South African white's treatment of the non-white population, during Apartheid. Why would it be different for Israel?

Because you are lying and using a false comparison by comparing Israel to South Africa and apartheid. Whereas it's the Palestinians and Arab Muslims in general that are practicing religious apartheid. But you keep repeating this bullshit and false allegation as an attempt to divert threads. Again, the topic is whether antizionism equals antisemitism, and 100% it does.

Does this sound like apartheid to you?

Twin births, with four sets born - to Jewish, Arab Christian, Muslim and Druze mothers - in a 24-hour period. - See more at:

Record Delivery of Multicultural Twins in Galilee Hospital - New Tang Dynasty Television

Reminds me of that old one, "have you heard about the guy who was...

Part Jew, part Polish, part Palestinian? He owned the building, he did the plumbing, but decided to blow it up one day. Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

The problem is that the Zionist fanatics do not understand that this particular section is dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. So of course every post should be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The other problem is that Zionists do not understand that non Jews do not have a different moral compass for Jews. If Jews bombard Gaza and kill thousands, they are treated no differently than Russians when they did the same to Grozny, claiming that the civilian deaths were unintentional. Nor do most non Jews (Christian Zionists excluded) feel that just because they were of the Jewish faith and/or had been oppressed in Europe, they had a right to expropriate the native inhabitants of Palestine.

If the people had been Roma (who also were subjects of extermination by the Nazis) that had expropriated the native inhabitants of Palestine, they would receive the same criticism as the Jews for doing the same thing.

So where is the Roma Homeland?? False analogy.

Greg

Very false.

The Jews still maintained a population there, had a long history there, and wanted to establish a an autonomous homeland where their ancestral population still lived is no different thant the Kurds, Basques, Chechnyans, Palestinians, or other independence movements.

Trying to make it different makes one want to ask - why? Why do some native groups have a right to establish a homeland but others not?

Even if I were to agree that an Inuit or Russian magically becomes a native inhabitant of Palestine by converting to Judaism, it has nothing to do with the right to establish a homeland, it has to do with the right to expropriate the people inhabiting an area to establish a homeland.

Is an Inuit magically become not-an-Inuit if he moves elsewhere? Are his children not Inuit?

The Roma (gypsies) came from what is now Pakistan, what was once northwestern India. Would it be considered rational today if a world power say, the U.S. or China, issued a declaration that mimicked the Balfour Declaration which suggested that a National Home for the Roma be established in Pakistan? Now that the native people there have almost all converted to Islam? It would be absurd to do such a thing. Yet some people believe that the Balfour Declaration was somehow justifiable.

Are there still Roma people in Pakistan?

Of course, the Dalits.

"European Roma descended from Indian 'untouchables', genetic study shows

Roma gypsies in Britain and Europe are descended from "dalits" or low caste "untouchables" who migrated from the Indian sub-continent 1,400 years ago, a genetic study has suggested....Later, they left to flee the fall of Hindu kingdoms in what is today Pakistan, with many setting off from near Gilgit."

European Roma descended from Indian 'untouchables', genetic study shows

You just might me a Jew hater if....

 

[P F Tinmore]

An Inuit who is displaced from northern Canada remains Inuit no matter where she happens to be living. Her children remain Inuit. And her children's children.

But you are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter what argument you use to deny the Jewish people AS a people -- one whose ancestors originated on the territory in question. ANY argument which prevents the Jewish people from having the same rights as other peoples is fundamentally an anti-semitic argument.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

But - this is a big but - it is not an exclusive Jewish state, and in point of fact it is more diverse than many of it's neighbors. Granted there are inequities and injustices but it's not an exclusive Jewish state and it's foundational documents encorporate diversity.

It won't be an exclusive Jewish state until Israel kicks out the remaining Palestinians.

 

[Roudy]

An Inuit who is displaced from northern Canada remains Inuit no matter where she happens to be living. Her children remain Inuit. And her children's children.

But you are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter what argument you use to deny the Jewish people AS a people -- one whose ancestors originated on the territory in question. ANY argument which prevents the Jewish people from having the same rights as other peoples is fundamentally an anti-semitic argument.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

But - this is a big but - it is not an exclusive Jewish state, and in point of fact it is more diverse than many of it's neighbors. Granted there are inequities and injustices but it's not an exclusive Jewish state and it's foundational documents encorporate diversity.

It won't be an exclusive Jewish state until Israel kicks out the remaining Palestinians.

Israel has no intention of kicking out the two million Arab Muslims living inside Israel as Israeli citizens with full Israeli rights. In fact, they are happy to be Israelis.

 

[Coyote]

An Inuit who is displaced from northern Canada remains Inuit no matter where she happens to be living. Her children remain Inuit. And her children's children.

But you are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter what argument you use to deny the Jewish people AS a people -- one whose ancestors originated on the territory in question. ANY argument which prevents the Jewish people from having the same rights as other peoples is fundamentally an anti-semitic argument.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

But - this is a big but - it is not an exclusive Jewish state, and in point of fact it is more diverse than many of it's neighbors. Granted there are inequities and injustices but it's not an exclusive Jewish state and it's foundational documents encorporate diversity.

It won't be an exclusive Jewish state until Israel kicks out the remaining Palestinians.

There are polls that show that a significant portion of Israeli's want to expel all Arabs - but that would be extremely difficult and a violation of human rights. There are also Druze, Samaritan and Christian residents. I think each side believes the worst of each other - and unfortunately those fears get propogated. Most Palestinians don't want to "drive Jews to the sea" and most Jews don't want to "expel all the Arabs".

 

[Coyote]

An Inuit who is displaced from northern Canada remains Inuit no matter where she happens to be living. Her children remain Inuit. And her children's children.

But you are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter what argument you use to deny the Jewish people AS a people -- one whose ancestors originated on the territory in question. ANY argument which prevents the Jewish people from having the same rights as other peoples is fundamentally an anti-semitic argument.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

But - this is a big but - it is not an exclusive Jewish state, and in point of fact it is more diverse than many of it's neighbors. Granted there are inequities and injustices but it's not an exclusive Jewish state and it's foundational documents encorporate diversity.

It won't be an exclusive Jewish state until Israel kicks out the remaining Palestinians.

Israel has no intention of kicking out the two million Arab Muslims living inside Israel as Israeli citizens with full Israeli rights. In fact, they are happy to be Israelis.

I would hope not, and most Israeli Arab citizens, plus the Arab residents of Jerusalem would rather have Israeli citizenship, with it's greater rights and freedoms than that of a Palestinian state. But, there is a poll that Pew conducted that showed almost half Israeli Jews want to expel Arabs and that is noteworthy if you're talking about what each side believes about the other.