Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

What Yair Lapid's anti-Zoabi comments reveal about Israeli politics

It is not considered racist in Israel to discriminate against 20 percent of the population and the millions more living in the occupied West Bank. It is considered the self-determination of the Jewish people.

The few words Yair Lapid said to the press the day after the election that made his Yesh Atid party the second largest in Israel, are still troubling me. Ami Kaufman mentioned it in his post, but I think it merits a bit more attention, since while we in Israel may be desensitized and no longer shocked, it really is quite disturbing. Those following news here should know that his statement, in a nutshell, exposes not only what kind of politician he is going to be, but what is so rotten in the State of Israel.

Watch the video and read my paraphrased translation of what he said:

Shalom to everyone. Yesterday, the citizens of Israel chose ‘normalness’ and a sort of sanity and hope, and the color returned to their cheeks because they have faith in us working together to make this a better place.

I heard the prime minister’s speech and I am happy to hear that he is talking about the things we’ve been talking about the last year: sharing the burden in the military, the middle class,  to assist with housing and education things important to the people who live here and love this place, and we can continue to do that together.

I heard talk about a blocking majority- I want to take this off the table. We will not do that with Haneen Zoabiz – it is not going to happen. The results of the elections are clear and we need to operate in accordance. It’s hard to express my excitement – I want to thank….

The “z” he added on to the end of MK Haneen Zoabi’s name was presumably his way to indicate the plural form of Zoabi, using her name to refer to all Arab parties as one big bloc with no differences, that he would never form a coalition with.  As Ami wrote, “his first act was to delegitimize 20 percent of the population with a statement that was borderline racism…the evil evil Zoabis.” Presumably, Lapid used the colloquial, Anglo-influenced way Israelis sometimes incorporate English into the language by adding an “s” at the end of a word to make it plural – only it came out a “z” sound, hence “Zoabiz.” The term has become a running joke among my co-workers, laughing about how we’ll go to “Zoabiz” for a drink after work, or simply labeling people “Zoabiz” when you are annoyed with them. It is now part of the Israeli lexicon.

While Haneen Zoabi herself reacted to the statement by calling Lapid racist, I’m not convinced it is that Lapid is racist per se. It is certainly possible that he thinks Zoabi and many other Arabs are Jews-hating terrorists, but what is worse is that in contemporary Israel, you don’t qualify as racist just because you want to live only among Jews and seek to govern exclusively without Arabs. It is not considered racism in Israel to discriminate against 20% of the population and millions more living in the occupied West Bank. It is considered the self-determination of the Jewish people.

In this paradigm, as Lapid so eloquently stated, what it means to be “Israeli” and the value of Israeli “citizenship” can only mean one thing: being Jewish. That is why it makes so much sense that Lapid’s claim to fame is that he wants all Jews in Israel without exception to be soldiers in the IDF (a significant percentage of Israeli fighter pilots reportedly voted Lapid). He has no respect for the concept of civil equality before the law, and it does not matter to him that over a million citizens do not share his religious, cultural, lingual or national sentiments, or that among the Arab population in Israel, there is a wide variety of sectors, whether Bedouin, religious, secular, etc. He doesn’t care about them.

So whether or not one chooses to see Lapid’s statement as racist, the real issue here is not that many Israelis are necessarily racist against Arabs (although this is certainly a problem) but rather that no Jewish leader of Israel has yet to properly address what the hell it means to be “Israeli.”

Read more: 
Yair Lapid: The rise of the tofu man
The ethnic vote and the ‘white coalition’: 7 takeaways from Israel’s elections
Palestinian MK Zoabi: Voting in Israeli elections is part of the struggle
What Israeli Arabs really want from their leaders

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. The Trespasser

      It reveals that most Israeli politics realize that Zoabi is indeed who she claims she is – enemy of the State of Israel, and those who are supporting her are enemies as well.

      >He has no respect for the concept of civil equality before the law

      Of course he has not. Great most of mainstream Israeli journalists see themselves high above the law – media could plead a person guilty before trial, without facing any legal consequences.

      Reply to Comment
    2. directrob

      In the case of MK Haneen Zoabi why label her as “Arab Haneen Zoabi”? Doesn’t she prefer to be identified as “Palestinian ( Israeli by nationality)”. I think in that case one should write “The “z” he added on to the end of Haneen Zoabi’s name”. (The added “Arab” feels like denying her choosen primary identity)

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        She is an Israeli Arab.
        Arab by ethnicity, Israeli by nationality.

        “Palestinian” is not ethnicity – there is more that one indigenous ethnicity to Palestine, no matter how hard Palestinian Arabs are trying to deny it.

        Reply to Comment
        • Sammur

          Palestinian, in the modern sense, refers to all ethnic groups indigenous to the land of Palestine, Israel, Israelestine, Palesrael, or Sphongleland… whatever you want to call it.

          Those ethnic groups indigenous to the land are Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines, Nabataeans, Edomites, Phoenicians, Middle Eastern Jews, Assyrians, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Amorites, Arameans, Romans, and Arabs.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Palestinian, in the modern sense, refers to all ethnic groups indigenous to the land of Palestine

            But racist “Palestinian charter” states quite the opposite.

            “Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland.”

            What should we do? Cancel the Charter?

            Reply to Comment
    3. Mairav Zonszein

      @Directob – that was a typo, it’s supposed to say MK Hanin Zoabi” – which it now says.

      Reply to Comment
      • directrob

        Mairav, you can call me Rob. Sorry that it was not clear to me that it was a typo. Given the writer, I should have known.

        Reply to Comment
        • Piotr Berman

          This is a bit too snide, Rob.

          Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            Maybe but I feel silly about making a fuzz about what was an honest slip of the mind. Moreover I was really a bit shocked to find it in Mairavs article.

            Reply to Comment
    4. Giora Me'ir

      Except for his views on ending special treatment for the Haredim, there’s nothing to recommend Lapid to anyone left of center. With his views on the political economy and the conflict, he would have fit comfortably in Likud pre-Kadima.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tahel

        out of curiosity- what’s the problem with special treatment for the Haredim? She me one group in Israel (other than women that get screwed no matter what group they’re in) that doesn’t get special treatment.

        Reply to Comment
        • Michael W.

          Less than 50% Haredi men work. Many don’t serve in the army. Tax payers subsidize their yeshivas while they do nothing to contribute to their fellow Israeli.

          Reply to Comment
          • Less than 50% work, and the education level for job skills is quite low, I’ve heard. This is Israel’s other demographic threat. Even if Lapid wants to address it, that will require money and State coercion of the religious; unclear he could get either even if the #2 party.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Jabber M

      “What Yair Lapid’s anti-Zoabi comments reveal about Israeli politics?…”

      Maybe it reveals that Lapid is not cool with Zoabi ideas about “destroy the Zionists from within” as she put it???

      By the way, Lapid already said just about the same thing about Kahanist Jewish
      members of the knesset so your suggestion it has something to do with race is laughable at best.

      you people keep can calling Liebrman a “fasict” (and he is) as much as you like, but you are not better. the sad truth is that the likes of you are nothing but his mirror image.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Matt Graber

      “the results of the election are clear.” Five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation did not vote, and the state rejects the fundamental right of return for millions more living in the diaspora. With such an agenda being so essential to the composition of the Israeli body politic, are you really “shocked” and “disturbed” by Lapid’s racist comments, Mairav?

      Reply to Comment
      • Jabber M

        What the hell are you talking about? what racist comments? Lapid said he wont sit in a coalition with Zoabi. so? he also said he said wiht Ben Ari (A kahanist) does this makes him anti-semetic?

        “Five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation did not vote”

        They did vote in the PA elections. can I vote there? does this fact makes the Palestinians racist? Anti-Druze? Anti-Jewish?

        You people are unbelievable.

        Reply to Comment
    7. Arieh

      “Zoabi rejects the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, which she describes as “inherently racist.”

      That makes Zoabi a racist.

      Why can’t she come to terms with ONE state in the world in which there is a Jewish majority, where Jewish culture is dominant, where the national language is Hebrew and where Jewish history is taught?

      What is so offensive to her about it? Throughout history, Jews lived as minorities amongst other peoples with different religions and cultures yet they never objected to the dominant host cultures – religions.

      Her objection to any discrimination against minorities, as individuals, would be understendable. But her objection to the majority culture – religion, language is NOT at all understendable. Imagine any minorities in Arab countries claiming that they are against Arab culture, Arab language, Muslim religion. Any idea what would happen to such objectors in any of the 24 Arab-Muslim countries?

      Or even in Western countries? Imagine an Arab politician in France running on a platform of:

      “Rejecting the idea of France as a French state, which they describe as “inherently racist.”

      Imagine the reaction of the average Frenchman to such an Arab politician. It would go down like a lead baloon.

      Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        The French didn’t take France away from the Arabs.

        Reply to Comment
      • Devorah

        ‘Why can’t Zoabi come to terms with Israel as a Jewish state?’
        Israel discriminates against non-Jewish minorities, whom it regards as enemies of the state. Israel, unlike France, does not give minorities a stake in the nation. Zoabi’s objection is that Israel is a state for the Jews rather than a state for all its citizens. Her objection is that Zionist identity is too narrow and excludes non-Jews. While Muslims and Algerians can be French republicans, and Christians are proud Egyptians, Muslims and Christians have no part or interesst in a state whose unifying ideology is Zionist. The French state has a universal republican inclusive ideology so it can absorb all immigrants, whereas the Jewish state has a particular ethnic, exclusive ideology, which regards non-Jews, and particularly native non-Jews, as a demographic threat. Israel needs an identity over and above Zionism that all its citizens can share and that’s not exclusive to Jews. It needs to separate between an exclusive ethno-nation, Judaism, and an inclusive state ideology or ethos.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >Israel discriminates against non-Jewish minorities

          Lie.

          >does not give minorities a stake in the nation

          And another one. Did not read any further.

          Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >so it can absorb all immigrants

          Hilarious.

          As real life has shown, hardly any of immigrants had absorbed and became carriers of the French culture.

          Reply to Comment
        • Arieh

          “Israel, unlike France, does not give minorities a stake in the nation.”

          Really? Then please explain the riots by Arabs in France in 2005. Please explain why so many Arabs live in Ghettos in France. Here read about it:

          “The BBC reported that French society’s negative perceptions of Islam and social discrimination of immigrants had alienated some French Muslims and may have been a factor in the causes of the riots”

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

          By the way read again what I wrote previously. I said, fighting against discrimination is not wrong. Fighting against the Jewish character of Israel is racist. What is wrong if Hanukah is officially celebrated in Israel instead of Christmas or Ramadan?

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Is it truth that Hannukah lamp is fueled by the fat of Christian babies?

            Reply to Comment
        • Noevil9

          Devorah, That was beautifuly and correctly said. I find that some Zionists have their common sense blinded by their desire to demonstrate their loyalty to their Zionism/Jewishness. So they become selective in understanding ,or allowing of a message or an idea to be understood by them or others. The truth means very little, if it does not support their arrgument, or agenda. Good one, thanks.

          Reply to Comment
    8. Mikesailor

      What is so surprising about “Vapid Lapid’s” comment? That he delegitimizes Arab Israelis by labeling them all “Zoabiz”? Or because he is labelling all non-Jews, and those Jews of Labor, Meretz etc. as “Zoabiz”? According to Vapid- excuse me, Lapid – all members of the opposition wishing to block Netanyahu are all “Zoabiz” and are thereby somehow discredited. Is this “racist”? Of course it is. Is this language and thinking accepted by many Jewish Israelis? Apparently so. The curious aspect is that if someone used the exact same language etc. with Jews as the object instead of “Arabs” or their “fellow travelers”, Jews would be screaming “antisemitism” and demanding apologies and/or reparation. A land full of racist hypocrites is what has been created and Vapid is only the most recent high profile manifestation of this disease infecting Israel and underwritten by world-wide Jewry in general. I find it strange that the author didn’t only underline Vapid’s disparagement of Palestinians and Arab Israelis, but also those Jewish Israelis wishing to, at least half-hearted, change the downward spiraling course of the country.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Yaron

      Regarding Zoabi’s stance on the state of Israel, Lapid’s comment is not surprising. The gap between their political ideas are simply too wide. Putting on that the stamp of racism, is also not fair.
      What is racist, is the division of ‘Jewish/Zionist’ and Arab parties. Where is Yair Lapid’s Arab candidate? If he was really serious about ‘change’, about equality, about social reform, he should have put at least one Arab candidate on his list. This would also have been a strong signal that Arab and Jews can move together on other issues than what separates them. And it would mean that his party is serious about equality. Another missed chance.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Mairav Zonszein

      You people, @Jabber M?

      Reply to Comment
      • Jabber M

        People who hates this country with such passion to the point they won’t let anything – may it be history, facts or simply the truth change their minds.

        Why do you ask?

        Reply to Comment
    11. Ellen L.

      I’m not sure there are too many ways to interpret saying you categorically won’t sit in a coalition with Zoabi (singular or plural) but give every indication you’re all too happy to sit in a coalition with Moshe Feiglin. I don’t love Zoabi and much of what she says, but to single her and other Arab parties out while making it clear you’ll do business with those who simply do not accept the right of Arabs to be part of the Israeli state doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for interpretation.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Voice of truth

      What a load of anti-Israeli rubbish. He said Zoabi, nothing else, meaning he won’t sit with that woman in government. Considering the fact that she sides with Israel’s enemies, that’s hardly surprising. He didn’t say Zoabis – he was talking about her specifically, and I wish you didn’t feel the need to make up lies.
      Lapid didn’t reject all Arab parties. He was talking about Zoabi in particular, because of who she is and what she represents. And since she sides with terror organizations, that’s not surprising. Everything else that you wrote is utter bull, and you need to get your hearing checked.

      Reply to Comment
    13. meron

      As usual I am here to remind to Trespasser that Zoabi is more Palestinian than he is Israeli. She belongs to this region, not to the US, as Trespasser.
      As for Directrob, to call them “arabs” is their racist way to claim that they could move in whatever Arab state. It is a settler mentality with which Pals are obliged to cope with.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        As usual you make funny statements based of false assumptions.

        Dude, you can’t even figure that you are talking to a non-native English speaker.

        What makes you think that you could possibly have a valid opinion on something as complicated as I/A conflict?

        >She belongs to this region

        Which does not mean that this region belongs to her.

        Yeah, by the way, to NOT call them Arabs is a top-grade idiocy – or an outrageously blatant lie, choose whichever you prefer.

        “Palestine National Charter of 1964

        (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni)*

        INTRODUCTION

        We, the Palestinian Arab people …”

        http://www(dot)un(dot)int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363

        “The Palestinian Charter

        Article 1:
        Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinian Arab people and an integral part of the great Arab homeland, and the people of Palestine are part of the Arab nation.”

        http://www.pac-usa.org/the_palestinian_charter.htm

        Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “She belongs to this region, not to the US, as Trespasser.”

        Since when are you the arbitrator about who belongs where?

        Your claim that American immigrants don’t belong in the region is racist.

        Reply to Comment
        • aristeides

          Americans are a race? That’s a new one.

          Reply to Comment
          • Michael W.

            American is a nationality.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Americans are a race? That’s a new one.

            Yet again you surprised me with heights (or depths?) of your ignorance.

            the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or *national* or ethnic origin

            See, silly? National.
            http://www.hri.org/docs/ICERD66.html

            Just don’t claim that [US] Americans are not a nation.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “Americans are a race? That’s a new one.”

            Lumping a group of people indiscriminately under the one hat in a derogatory way is bigoted.

            Or is it only so if someone does it to Palestinians?

            If you say yes to that, then you are bigoted too.

            Reply to Comment
    14. Mairav Zonszein

      @VoiceofTruth I guess by your standards, the entire Israeli media needs to get its hearing checked, and is also anti-Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    15. Miki

      Besides borderline racism, Mr. Lapid shows total ignorance (I could say as usual) on the nature of the term blocking majority.
      Blocking majority means that there are enough MK that don’t recommend on Bibi as the one who will assemble the next coalition.
      By dismissing it, Lapid has actually commited himself to be in Bibi’s coalition, and discarded his strongest card before any negotiation
      even started. Compare to the veteran Arie Derey “No coalition can be made without Shas”.

      Reply to Comment
    16. The Trespasser

      Just watched the video.

      The man is drunk or high (probably both) and full of shit.

      At around 01:30 he is speaking about people making effort to get to a better place and that as a matter of fact the place is slightly better already.

      He couldn’t keep the smile off his face because he does not believe a word of what he’s saying.

      Should Avoda had gained more voices and get to form coalition he’d surely would said something like

      “We will not do that with Liebermans – it is not going to happen”

      Reply to Comment
    17. ruth

      “Five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation did not vote. They did vote in the PA elections”.
      The little difference is that that five million of Pals are not occupying and exploiting the natural resources inside israel

      Reply to Comment
      • Jabber M

        What natural resources are you talking about ruth? and what does it got to do to the fact that Palestinians are voting in the PA elections and Israelis in the Israeli elections? Whats racist about it exactly?

        Reply to Comment
    18. meron

      “Your claim that American immigrants don’t belong in the region is racist.”
      If you are an immigrant from another continent you can become part of the new region in which you chose to settle down only if you respect the identity, the traditions and the history of the local people.
      .
      “Dude, you can’t even figure that you are talking to a non-native English speaker”: I could bet one million of dollars that you or at least your parents were not born in this region. Not for nothing, simply because you write with a settler and racist mentality that a jew from the Old Yishuv would never adopt.
      .
      “What makes you think that you could possibly have a valid opinion on something as complicated as I/A conflict?”:
      1. The fact that I spent many more years than you in the Palestinian Territories, as well in Israel
      2. The fact that every human being, included ignorant and racist like you, can express their own opinion
      3. The fact that I published on these issues more than you will probably do in your entire life
      .
      “Which does not mean that this region belongs to her.”:
      Also to her. It is you that claim the exclusive right of the Jews on this land refusing to acknowledge the right of the Pals to live and to exploit the natural resources of the last little piece of land that is still in their hands
      .
      “Yeah, by the way, to NOT call them Arabs is a top-grade idiocy – or an outrageously blatant lie, choose whichever you prefer.”:
      They are Palestinians and Arabs. One does not exclude the other. Again, you are ignorant and racist.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >… you can become part of the new region in which you chose to settle down only if you respect the identity, the traditions and the history of the local people.

        By what law and since when exactly?

        > 2. The fact that every human being, included ignorant and racist like you, can express their own opinion

        Dude, you did not even understood the question.

        >3. The fact that I published on these issues more than you will probably do in your entire life

        A joke:
        An author comes to a publisher hoping to publish some of his works.

        Publisher reviews the works and tells writer that he should read some classics – Kafka, Lucian, Tolstoy…

        Hey – interrupts him the author – I’m not a reader – I’m a writer.

        >It is you that claim the exclusive right of the Jews on this land

        Not truth.
        I’ve never claimed anything similar.

        >…the last little piece of land that is still in their hands

        errr

        There are how many Arabs states exactly?

        >They are Palestinians and Arabs. One does not exclude the other.

        So Samaritans are Palestinians and Samaritans, and Armenians are Palestinians and Armenians.
        Utter nonsense.

        They are Palestinian Arabs – like Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Samaritans.

        So, you claim to have a valid opinion on how to resolve this conflict. Am I getting you right?

        Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “If you are an immigrant from another continent you can become part of the new region in which you chose to settle down only if you respect the identity, the traditions and the history of the local people.”

        Funny thing, “Respect”. It only works if there is mutuality. If I don’t get respected by you, I don’t respect you.

        I still say you are a racist, Meron, for putting ALL American migrants under the same hat and claiming that they don’t belong here.

        Reply to Comment
        • directrob

          “if you respect the identity, the traditions and the history of the local people.”

          I would say you have some work to do, but you can start with the easy part; respecting the Palestinians.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Palestinian Arabs never had, and probably until today have no respect for Jews, why should they be respected?

            For what qualities exactly? Humanity? Tolerance? Huh?

            Reply to Comment
          • Michael W.

            If anything is to learn from non-Palestinian Arabs, one should never respect Palestinian nationalists. It’s sad but true. They went through a lot of shit in Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            My colleague in UK – a Jordanian Arab – told me once a story, that his father let some Palestinian Arab refugees settle and work his land, and did not even asked for the to pay rent – just to realize after a while that the Palestinian was trying to get the land over court or something.

            When I’ve asked him what happened next he gave me an “but that obvious” look and made a cut-throat gesture with his hand.

            I preferred not to get into details and ask whether entire family was butchered, or just males.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            ehrm
            Michael,
            Sorry for asking, I was just wondering whether by any chance the 5th letter of your family name is the same as the first letter in the name of the street you are living on?

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Directrob
            “you can start with the easy part; respecting the Palestinians.”

            And they can start with the easy part too. Respecting Jews.

            And that goes for Zoabi too. Recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. After all, as a member of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, she has an obligation to do so.

            Reply to Comment
        • XYZ

          I agree 100%. The Jews are “local people” having lived pretty much continuously in the country for around 4000 years, so it is natural to have a Jewish state there.

          Reply to Comment
    19. meron

      Trespasser,
      “My colleague in UK – a Jordanian Arab”: su why your friend is a “Jordanian Arab” and the Palestinians are not “Palestinian Israelis”? Do you realize that you are just a little racist?

      .
      “By what law and since when exactly?”
      Since human beings had a certain decency and more recently since the UN charter was “based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.
      .
      “you did not even understood the question”: you did not even understood the answer
      .
      “A joke”: great joke
      .
      .
      “I’ve never claimed anything similar”: you do this on a daily bases. The fact that you do deny this make you to my eyes even more disgusting than you already are
      .
      “There are how many Arabs states exactly?”
      Palestinians are from “Filastin Biladuna”, i.e. only from this land. You are from Russia or some other countries. Always remember this.
      .
      “So Samaritans are Palestinians and Samaritans, and Armenians are Palestinians and Armenians”: brilliant as usual
      -
      “They are Palestinian Arabs – like Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Samaritans”: exactly, they are Palestinian Arabs and they were the 9/10th of the local population, while “Palestinian Jews” – if you like you can call them like that; perhaps you are right, it is less fabricated than “Israelis” – than of were less than 1/10th
      .
      “So, you claim to have a valid opinion on how to resolve this conflict. Am I getting you right?”
      You are not able to get almost anything and I am not willing to answer to your basic questions. You live in a little bubble. I suggest you to watch the movie “5 broken cameras” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Broken_Cameras
      I don’t think that a low level human being like you will learn anything, but at least you will start to realize how ignorant are you.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Meron,

        >su why your friend is a “Jordanian Arab” and the Palestinians are not “Palestinian Israelis”?

        Of course they are not Palestinian Israelis – they Israeli Arabs.

        As I’ve explained earlier – Arabs are not the only indigenous ethnicity of Palestine.

        >Do you realize that you are just a little racist?

        Really can’t see how, sorry.

        >Since human beings had a certain decency

        Nonsense.

        >and more recently since the UN charter was “based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”

        Correct.

        And what one is supposed to do if one of peoples/ethnicities deny all others equality and right of self determination?

        Are you capable of answering this question?

        Please do – failure to comply will have inevitable consequences.

        >you did not even understood the answer

        Dunno what you was answering, sorry.

        >you do this on a daily bases. The fact that you do deny this make you to my eyes even more disgusting than you already are

        Prove. Some quotations with links would do nicely.

        >Palestinians are from “Filastin Biladuna”, i.e. only from this land.

        Is that so?

        Let’s see…

        “Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland
        ….
        Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and is an inseparable part of the Arab Nation.”

        “…A cable was sent to the Paris Peace Conference demanding a renunciation of the Balfour Declaration and the inclusion of Palestine as “an integral part of…the independent Arab Government of Syria within an Arab Union”

        Somehow, documents written by Palestinian Arabs themselves contradict your claims that “Palestinians” are any kind of distinct ethnicity.

        >You are not able to get almost anything

        Certainly not the nonsense you are trying to feed me.

        >and I am not willing to answer to your basic questions

        Know why? Because they are constructing so that even looking at them, let alone answering, causes major cognitional dissonance.

        >You live in a little bubble.

        You are refusing to answer my questions, but that’s me who is living in a bubble. Yeah, sure.

        >I suggest you to watch the movie “5 broken cameras”

        I’ll do sometime. Have you seen “Lawrence of Arabia”?

        >I don’t think that a low level human being like you

        Mwahahahahaha.

        I like when people resort to insults – in means they they have nothing left to say on subject. A technical victory.

        >will learn anything

        The problem is that there is nothing to learn from Arabs.

        Don’t think so?

        Name one (preferably two) worthy and useful subject.
        Example: Germans invented communism and discovered nuclear energy. Americans invented canned food and created Internet.
        Dutch discovered micro-organisms and invented windmill.

        >but at least you will start to realize how ignorant are you.

        Now that’s really funny. So I am ignorant, but it is you who won’t answer my questions and even try to insult me – without any success tho.

        Dude, it does not work that way – ignorant is the one who can’t answer a simple question an curses instead.

        Reply to Comment
    20. meron

      “And they can start with the easy part too. Respecting Jews.”
      They are not occupying and humiliating millions of human beings.
      You know what is the main problem of this conflict? The fact that a huge percentage of Israelis simply don’t know the reality about which they speak about. They live in their little bubbles without caring about anything else. As I suggested to the other racist, I suggest you to watch the movie “5 broken cameras” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Broken_Cameras
      .
      “putting ALL American migrants under the same hat and claiming that they don’t belong here.”:
      read well:
      If you are an immigrant from another continent – FROM AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, AFRICA or WHATEVER OTHER PLACE – you CAN become part of the new region in which you chose to settle down only if you respect the identity, the traditions and the history of the local people.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >you CAN become part of the new region in which you chose to settle down only if you respect the identity, the traditions and the history of the local people.

        By what law, rule or standard?
        If you’ve written that much, surely you should have no problems providing historic examples.

        Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >“And they can start with the easy part too. Respecting Jews.”
        They are not occupying and humiliating millions of human beings.

        You are confusing cause and effect.

        Basically you are claiming that Jews eternally has occupied millions of Palestinian Arabs which is why Arabs dislike Jews.

        Do you understand what your reasoning is ENTIRELY false?

        Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        I am glad that you mention the occupation. At least two Israeli prime ministers tried to end it since 2000. But it seems that Palestinians want more than that. They want to end Israel too.

        This is what your favorite authority, Shlomo Ben Ami said about Arafat:

        “…He was morally, psychologically, physically incapable of accepting the moral legitimacy of a Jewish state, regardless of its borders or whatever. Arafat was incapable of closing or locking the door of his endless conflict between us and the Palestinians. And this is the bottom line. ”

        And the same was true before and after Arafat. The majority of Palestinians, including Zoabi are incapable of accepting the idea of a Jewish nation state in part of Palestine. Not even in a square inch of it.

        That is not respect towards Jews. So don’t expect respect back from Jews.

        Reply to Comment
    21. Shmuel

      Oh and another thing Meron.

      Jews are descendants of an ancient people who used to live in Palestine before European colonialists (The Romans) stole the land from the Jews. Then the same lands were stolen from the Byzantines (who replaced the Romans). Then the Arabs stole the land from the Byzantines, followed by the Crusaders, then the Arabs again, then the Ottomans, then the Brits.

      The Jews then started reclaiming part of their lands back in the neteenth century. No different than if Australian Aborigines or native American Indians who used to own Australia and America respectively would want to reclaim parts of their lands back today. You wouldn’t object to that would you?

      Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        “No different than if Australian Aborigines or native American Indians who used to own Australia and America respectively would want to reclaim parts of their lands back today.”

        Native Americans and Australians have treaties and verifiable recent history to prove they were the previous inhabitants of the land they were removed from by force. The Zionists claim to be descended from people who were kicked out of Palestine 2000 years ago. That’s a tall order for genealogy and historical documents. Of course, the Arabs expelled during 1948 inhabited Palestine further back than the 19th century European settlers.

        Reply to Comment
        • Arieh

          Are you serious, Andrew? Are you seriously challenging the fact that the Jewish people are descendants of the Jews who had their Kingdom in Palestine prior to their expulsion by the Romans?

          You want proof? Then read history books. Look at archeological evidence, look at genetic studies. And if all those things don’t convince you then perhaps you could tell us, who do YOU think the Jewish people are? And where do you think we come from?

          I can’t wait to hear your answer. Your anser will reveal a lot about you.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gearoid

            A. There was no “Jewish kingdom”. There were two Hebrew kingdoms. No Unified Monarchy, there is no evidence for it, and quite a bit against it. No one disputes the existence of Israel and Judah (no one rational), but calling Israel Jewish is a fools errand, it was a Canaanite state that resembled Aram-Damascus more than the later kingdom of Judah, and there wasn’t really anything recognizably Jewish about it.

            When Judah finally stops being a backwater around 700 BCE, it begins to form what you’d call Judaism now, circa 650 BCE, though most people don’t think it truly formed until after the Captivity.

            As for the “expulsion” people make a lot out of that. They were expelled from Jerusalem, and only Jerusalem. Scholars, including many Jewish ones, have repeatedly denied any mass exodus of people from the region, though the destruction of the Temple certainly did change how the Jewish community functioned. But many of the widespread Jewish communities existed at least two centuries before the Roman siege of Jerusalem.

            B. the archaeological record is not something you want to call on. The nationalistic version of Jewish history bears almost no resemblance to the actual artifacts being dug up.

            C. It doesn’t matter in the least whether modern Israelis are descended from ancient Hebrews, from Greeks, Romans, Khazars, or the Irish. Historical rights are meaningless, Israel exists as a modern state for a modern purpose. Personally, I see little reason to doubt that many Israels share genetic material with the ancient Hebrews. But it’s irrelevant either way.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >But it’s irrelevant either way.

            True.

            What is relevant is whether modern Jews have a right to have a modern Jewish state in the ancient homeland.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gearoid

            No, they don’t. They have a state because the international community decided to give them one. Now, that’s a recognized state under international law with native citizens, AKA, a non-disputable fact however messy and unethical it’s founding.

            There is no historical right. You don’t get it because you THINK your ancestors lived there. As I’ve pointed out, there wasn’t much “Jewish” about those kingdoms.

            I don’t know why people blather on about a history they’ve never bothered to learn, and assume that for some reason Jews get historical rights but no one else. Otherwise most of Europe better be on notice, because the Celts had it for quite some time and some parts of France look pretty nice to me.

            But me claiming part of France because an ancient people I’m descended from once lived there is ridiculous. There are French families that may have lived on that land for centuries. What you’re claiming, vis-a-vis the Palestinians, is just as ridiculous.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >No, they don’t. They have a state because the international community decided to give them one.

            Ok. I won’t ask on what basis the international community decided so – irrelevant as well.

            What’s interesting is whether European Jews had a right to return to alleged homeland if there was no official international community – UN, League of Nations and such.

            >Now, that’s a recognized state under international law with native citizens, AKA, a non-disputable fact however messy and unethical it’s founding.

            Yet some members of international community openly deny that such state exists, and even are taking steps towards dismantlement of the mentioned state.

            Any suggestions?

            >There is no historical right. You don’t get it because you THINK your ancestors lived there.

            Which means that there is no religious right as well – one can’t get it because someone else had written something on a piece of paper. Fine by me, however a great many of people would shit bricks only thinking about it.

            Reply to Comment
    22. I of course would have no appreciation of the pluralization of “Zoabi” into a general noun. It strikes me that her name as tag is most salient to the Gaza blockade and her attempt to break it. I have heard nothing of weapons found in the captured ships (sling shots can be made in Gaza, after all). Actually, knowing Zoabi was to be in the flotilla should have policed against the presence of such weapons, for everyone knew the vessels would be intercepted.

      Pluralizing “Zoabi” becomes another way of saying “infiltrator” or even “traitor,” and it does, at first blush, attach to all Arab Knesset parties. I suspect this use of “infiltrator” as dangerous insider is so prevalent now as to be culturally set (e.g., refugees as “infiltrators.”) Israeli Arabs are part of the landscape in which Israel struggles, but not full citizens for that very reason. Equal protection and the occupation are intractably linked.

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        “Pluralizing “Zoabi” becomes another way of saying “infiltrator” or even “traitor,”

        Maybe you too should answer my earlier question. How would the French react to a French politician of Arab descent who would say things like:

        “Reject the idea of France as a French state, which they describe as “inherently racist.”

        Don’t you think that most French people would call such a person a traitor, Greg?

        Reply to Comment
        • The French do not have 20% of their population indigenous at time of their founding. But it doesn’t matter. Your High Court has decided she could be included; she is, then, protected in law as NOT a traitor. The point of this article is that pluralizing the name attaches the sentiment to all Arab parties. I doubt you have the strength to adhere to your Declaration of Independence. Perhpas it was a lie even at State foundation.

          Reply to Comment
    23. meron

      Yes Arieh, Andrew is serious as all of us are.
      Shmuel, I explained you many times that what you write is historically flawed. I write you for the 5th times how you should address the issue:
      ““A foreign people had come and imposed itself on a native population. The Arab population of Palestine were native in all the usual senses of that word. Ignorance, sometimes backed up by hypocritical propaganda, has spread a number of misconceptions on this subject, unfortunately very widely held. It has been said that since the Arabs took the country by military conquest in the seventh century, they are occupiers like any other, like the Romans, the Crusaders and the Turks. Why therefore should they be regarded as any more native than the others, and in particular than the Jews, who were native to that country in ancient times, or at least occupiers of longer standing? To the historian the answer is obvious. A small contingent of Arabs from Arabia did indeed conquer the country in the seventh century. But as a result of factors which were briefly outlined in the first chapter of this book, the Palestinian population soon became Arabized under Arab domination, just as earlier it had been Hebraicized, Aramaicized, to some degree even Hellenized. It became Arab in a way that it was never to become Latinized or Ottomanized. The invaded melted with the invaders. It is ridiculous to call the English of today invaders and occupiers, on the grounds that England was conquered from Celtic peoples by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries. The population was “Anglicized” and nobody suggests that the peoples which have more or less preserved the Celtic tongues – the Irish, the Welsh or the Bretons – should be regarded as the true natives of Kent or Suffolk, with greater titles to these territories than the English who live in those counties.”

      Don’t continue to invent staff. Arabs did not stole anything, contrary to what happened and is happening in these last 60 years

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        There is only one flaw with your long winded answer Meron.

        Most of us do not claim that Palestinian Arabs are not natives. So you don’t need to be defensive about them.

        However, we DO claim that Jews are descendants of the ancient Hebrews and as such we too are entitled to be in Palestine. We are not guests in here despite your adamant assertion to the contrary.

        Moreover, unlike the Palestinians, most of us Jews – Israelis acepted and still do accept the two state solution. So please don’t lecture us about it and start convincing your Palestinian friends (I assume you do have Palestinian friends?) that they too should start to really accept the state of the Jewish people. Otherwise nothing will change.

        Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Arabs did not stole anything

        You are such a sweetheart liar.

        Reply to Comment
    24. meron

      Trespasser,
      “Of course they are not Palestinian Israelis”. So why your friend is a “Jordanian Arab” and they cannot be Palestinian Arab or Palestinian Israelis? Are you aware of how weak your logic is?
      .
      “Arabs are not the only indigenous ethnicity of Palestine”: never said the opposite, I only said that they were the 9/10th of the local population an this is not secondary, especially if a person that comes from another continent (like you) tries to downplay their link with their land
      .
      “Nonsense”: for a person without any moral standard that is for sure a nonsense
      .
      “And what one is supposed to do if one of peoples/ethnicities deny all others equality and right of self determination?”
      You are a joke. Is Israel that is occupying the last piece of land in Pals hands denying them the chance to self-determinate their future and the access to their natural resources. Not the other way round. Again, you don’t have any decency. You try to twist also the charter of the UN: unbelievable
      .
      “Prove. Some quotations with links would do nicely”: read you posts, I am already losing too much time with a person without dignity
      .
      “Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland”:

      So what??? They are obviously part of the arab world: This does not make them less Palestinian. Is like to say that a German cannot say to be part of Europe – of course the bond to the Arab world is, also for linguistic reasons, stronger – because otherwise cannot be German: ridicolous
      ….
      “…A cable was sent to the Paris Peace Conference demanding a renunciation of the Balfour Declaration and the inclusion of Palestine as “an integral part of…the independent Arab Government of Syria within an Arab Union”:
      Again, you don’t have any basic historical preparation.
      During the First World war, Arab nationalists cooperated with Sharif Hussein and his sons in order to have an Arab kingdom. The Palestinians, who were part of this ideology, thought at that time, tactically, that it would be in their interest to be part of the Faisal kingdom in the Bilad al-Sham. That’s why it is the only two years (1918-1920) during which they speak about Palestine as Southern Syria or the kingdom of Faisal. After Faisal is kicked out of Damascus, the next conference doesn’t speak about being part of Syria or the kingdom of Feisal. In the summer of 1920 the episode is finished.
      Do you realize that you are simply ignorant?

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Meron,

        >So why your friend is a “Jordanian Arab” and they cannot be Palestinian Arab or Palestinian Israelis? Are you aware of how weak your logic is?

        They can be Palestinian Arabs or Israeli Arabs, but not Israeli Palestinian Arabs.

        My logic is nearly flawless, by the way.

        >“Arabs are not the only indigenous ethnicity of Palestine”: never said the opposite

        You do, each time you call them the “Palestinians” you are denying other ethnicities their inherent right.

        >I only said that they were the 9/10th of the local population an this is not secondary

        Which is why they’ve decided that 100% of territory belongs to them. A grave mistake.

        especially if a person that comes from another continent (like you) tries to downplay their link with their land

        >“Nonsense”: for a person without any moral standard that is for sure a nonsense

        Awww…

        >“Prove. Some quotations with links would do nicely”: read you posts, I am already losing too much time with a person without dignity

        Dude, the one who is behaving like a cheap whore is you.

        You want to deal with person without dignity? All right, pal. Just make sure that it’s not more than you can handle.

        >say that a German cannot say to be part of Europe

        Comparison of Arab Ummah to Europe is one of most idiotic analogies ever.

        >Do you realize that you are simply ignorant?

        What I certainly do realize is that claims of Palestinians Arabs to this land are fictional and unjust.

        Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        ” I only said that they were the 9/10th of the local population”

        Well they are not 9/10th of the local population now. Nor were they in 1947.

        Reply to Comment
    25. Charles-Jerusalem

      To be anti-zuabi is a political position in favor of zionism. What’s wrong with that?
      I am a left zionist, I am anti-zuabi because I want to keep the Israeli flag and the national anthem and the name of my country exactly as it is today.
      The fact that she is arab has nothing to do with it. She is more Israeli than me.

      Reply to Comment
    26. Shmuel

      @Meron
      “Shmuel, I explained you many times that what you write is historically flawed.”

      You think you explained.

      ” I write you for the 5th times”

      Repetition is no proof.

      “how you should address the issue:”

      I certainly won’t address the issue the way you do.

      ““A foreign people had come and imposed itself on a native population.”

      The Jews are not a foreign people in Palestine. Saying that they are, makes you a liar.

      “The Arab population of Palestine were native in all the usual senses of that word.”

      Some of them and some others were descendants of Arab invaders. There is no way of separating one from the other. In any case, I have no interest in this aspect. My only beef with the Palestinians (and you) is that you call Jews foreigners.

      “Ignorance, sometimes backed up by hypocritical propaganda, has spread a number of misconceptions on this subject,”

      Are you talking about yourself?

      “unfortunately very widely held. It has been said that since the Arabs took the country by military conquest in the seventh century, they are occupiers like any other, like the Romans, the Crusaders and the Turks. Why therefore should they be regarded as any more native than the others, and in particular than the Jews, who were native to that country in ancient times, or at least occupiers of longer standing?

      Yes I am glad YOU brought that up. But I don’t know why you did. I didn’t bring it up.

      ” To the historian the answer is obvious.”

      Cut the crap, you are not a historian.

      ” A small contingent of Arabs from Arabia did indeed conquer the country in the seventh century. But as a result of factors which were briefly outlined in the first chapter of this book,”

      Which bloody book? I have no idea what you are talking about.

      You are acting as if The Jews were the ones who were historically against the two state solution. Hellooooooo, anybody home? The Arabs were the ones who rejected UN Resolution 181 in 1947. And subsequently several Israeli peace offers.

      “Don’t continue to invent staff. Arabs did not stole anything, contrary to what happened and is happening in these last 60 years”

      I haven’t the foggiest about what you are saying here. You are rambling.

      Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        “You are acting as if The Jews were the ones who were historically against the two state solution.”

        Most adults should understand the difference between accepting an agreement and holding to it. The Jewish Agency – not “the Jews” – claimed publicly to accept the partition plan; by the time DBG read the declaration of the Israeli state, which openly cites the plan, there were already Haganah offensives outside the partition boundaries (i.e. Acre, Jaffa, Jerusalem area).

        What’s more, the plan required the Jewish state give citizenship to the 45% Arab minority found on that side of the partition.

        Otherwise, there is no history of proposing a two-state solution from the Zionist side. When they were brazen enough to propose something themselves, it involved a Palestine stretching to the Litani river and the Hejaz railroad. And Ben-Gurion did not forget the Litani – While discussing the Tripartite assault on Egypt in Oct. 1956, he brought up the idea of annexing southern Lebanon to the French PM.

        No one who seriously studies the Zionist movement only believes Israel conquers more land for security.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          Read this:

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jerusalem_riots

          “The 1947 Jerusalem Riots occurred following the vote in the UN General Assembly in favour of the 1947 UN Partition Plan on 29 November 1947.

          The Arab Higher Committee declared a three-day strike and public protest to begin on 2 December 1947, in protest at the vote. Arabs marching to Zion Square on December 2 were stopped by the British, and the Arabs instead turned towards the commercial center of the City at Mamilla and Jaffa Road, burning many buildings and shops. Violence continued for two more days, with a number of Jewish neighborhoods being attacked.”

          Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Sure, and you can read these excerpts from Benny Morris:

            “Ben-Gurion mobilised the Peel transfer proposal in support of acceptance of partition:
            ‘We must look carefully at the question of whether transfer is possible, necessary, moral and useful. We do not want to dispossess, [but] transfer of
            populations occurred previously, in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon [i.e., Coastal Plain] and in other places. You are no doubt aware of the Jewish National Fund’s activity in this respect. Now a transfer of a completely different scope will have to be carried out. In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab peasantry…
            It is important that this plan comes from the Commission and not from us… Transfer is what will make possible a comprehensive settlement programme.’”
            (Quot’d in ‘Birth Revisited’ p. 48)

            This of course is Ben-Gurion discussing the British Peel Commission plan which unlike the UNSCOP plan recommended transfer of Arabs out of the proposed Jewish state. Here he makes it plain that new settlement can not take place without removing the Palestinian peasants. He didn’t change his mind 10 years later.

            “But throughout these first months of the civil war, there was also an
            underlying desire among Zionist officials and Haganah officers to see as few Arabs as possible remain in the country, and occasional concrete proposals designed to obtain this result were tabled. On 4 January 1948, Danin wrote: ‘D[avid] Hacohen [a senior Mapai figure] believes that transfer is the only solution. I, for my part, agree . . .’14 Tel Aviv
            District Haganah officer Zvi Aurbach’s recommendation of early January 1948 was perhaps atypical in its forthrightness, but not in its intent: ‘I propose . . . that Jaffa’s water reservoir be put out of commission… and by so doing we shall force a large number of Arabs to leave the city.’15 Similarly atypical, but telling, was Ben-Gurion’s description on 7
            February of his recent visit to Jerusalem:
            ‘From your entry into Jerusalem through Mahane Yehuda, King George
            Street and Mea Shearim – there are no strangers [i.e., Arabs]. One
            hundred per cent Jews. Since Jerusalem’s destruction in the days of the Romans – it hasn’t been so Jewish as it is now. In many western
            [Jerusalem] Arab neighbourhoods – one sees not one Arab. I do not assume that this will change… [And] what has happened in Jerusalem . . . could well happen in great parts of the country – if we [the Yishuv] hold fast . . . And if we hold fast, it is very possible that in the coming six or eight or ten months of the war there will take place great
            changes . . . and not all of them to our detriment. Certainly there will be great changes in the composition of the population of the country.’”
            (p. 69)

            None of this shows any serious intent to respect the UN plan.

            Reply to Comment
    27. meron

      Meron,
      “They can be Palestinian Arabs or Israeli Arabs, but not Israeli Palestinian Arabs”: Why not? Just becaus feels unconfortable about that? Again, why your friend is a “Jordanian Arab” and they cannot be Palestinian Arab or Palestinian Israelis? You have to provide some logical consideration otherwise you look like a child.
      .
      “You do, each time you call them the “Palestinians” you are denying other ethnicities their inherent right”: lol, you are a joke. They are 100% Pals and this does not deny anything. It is you that deny their right to self-determinate your future.
      .
      “Which is why they’ve decided that 100% of territory belongs to them. A grave mistake.”:
      No, some Arab States decided – no one asked anything to the Pals – that a people that represented the 9/10th of the population until 3/4 decades earlier did deserve more than the 42% of the total land. From the logic of a settler like you is hard to catch, I know.
      .
      “You want to deal with person without dignity? All right, pal. Just make sure that it’s not more than you can handle”: You show a basic education and a flawed logic: you have to be aware of it.
      .
      “Comparison of Arab Ummah to Europe is one of most idiotic analogies ever”: it is an attempt to show to a limited mind why to be a Palestinian and at the same time to be part of the Arab world does not represent in any way a contradiction
      .
      “What I certainly do realize is that claims of Palestinians Arabs to this land are fictional and unjust”: You are a joke, you know it.
      .
      I am glad that you don’t have anything to reply about your “cable that was sent to the Paris Peace Conference”.
      To me the most important thing with people like you is that they realize that they are mentally problematic and culturally deficitary: you already know it at the bottom of your heart.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Again, why your friend is a “Jordanian Arab” and they cannot be Palestinian Arab or Palestinian Israelis? You have to provide some logical consideration otherwise you look like a child.

        Since you are asking and apparently not literate enough to figure that on you own I’ll enlighten you.

        “Jordan” is toponym.
        “Israel” is toponym.
        “Palestine” is toponym.

        “Arab” is ethnicity
        “Jew” is ethnicity
        “Samaritan” is ethnicity

        “Jordanian” refers to all people of all ethnicities who reside in Jordan

        “Israeli” refers to all people of all ethnicities who reside in Israel

        “Palestinian” refers to all people of all ethnicities who reside in Palestine.

        Kapish?

        >They are 100% Pals and this does not deny anything.

        Not only them.

        >It is you that deny their right to self-determinate your future.

        Your speech processor seem to be faulty.

        >No, some Arab States decided – no one asked anything to the Pals

        And who exactly took part in Palestinian Arab Congress? Martians?

        >… did deserve more than the 42% of the total land.

        And if it would be less than 42%?

        >You show a basic education and a flawed logic: you have to be aware of it.
        .

        >… why to be a Palestinian and at the same time to be part of the Arab world does not represent in any way a contradiction.

        There is only one group of Palestinians which are part of the Arab world – Palestinian Arabs.

        > the next conference doesn’t speak about being part of Syria or the kingdom of Feisal

        Yeah, I just plainly denies Jews all rights.

        >To me the most important thing with people like you …

        To me the most important thing with people like you is that they do not even realize that they are mentally problematic and culturally deficitary, which morally allows me to laugh at their ridiculous ideas.

        After all, if I do realize something, while you don’t it means that I’m more advanced creature than you are.

        Reply to Comment
    28. meron

      Arieh, “Well they are not 9/10th of the local population now. Nor were they in 1947″: this should suggest you that they have, to say the least, the right to self-determinate their future in their last piece of land.
      .
      “The Jews are not a foreign people in Palestine. Saying that they are, makes you a liar”:
      First that passage was from Maxim Rodinson (I quoted him in that passage at least 5 times in our previous posts); despite his huge influence I am pretty sure that you have no idea who he is. Second, religion is a private matter between you and your god and cannot be used in a political way. Cannot be that a person in the traffic jam of New York can arrive on this land claiming to have more rights than a local inhabitant for the simple fact that he believes in a certain God.
      .
      “is that you call Jews foreigners”: ..are foreigners only those, like Trespasser and you, do not respect the tradition, the history, the identity and the right of self-determination of the then local majority, and that legitimize the colonization of the West Bank in name of ideologies
      .
      “Are you talking about yourself?”:
      No, Maxime Rodinson was speaking about people like you.
      .
      “Why therefore should they be regarded as any more native than the others, and in particular than the Jews, who were native to that country in ancient times, or at least occupiers of longer standing?”:
      For the simple fact that they were on the spot and that the “forced diaspora” is an acknowledged myth. If religion can be used as a political tool it means that the entire world should have a totally different shape. Again, religion is something private between you and your god.
      .
      “Cut the crap, you are not a historian”:
      I have a Phd in History and I published 4 books on these issues. Here we all are anonymous. I really don’t care if you do believe or not.
      .
      “The Arabs were the ones who rejected UN Resolution 181 in 1947″: they had all the right to reject such a plan, but no one asked to accept or to reject anything to the Pals.
      .
      “And subsequently several Israeli peace offers”: the peace offers that the occupier thought to be convenient for himself

      “Don’t continue to invent staff. Arabs did not stole anything, contrary to what happened and is happening in these last 60 years..I haven’t the foggiest about what you are saying here. You are rambling”:
      I wrote you that in the VII century Arabs did not not stole anything, as you did claim. I am quite sure that you will continue to misunderstand

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >that in the VII century Arabs did not not stole anything

        So Arabs did not invade Jerusalem and did not steal the Temple Mount on a totally fictional basis.

        That’s an interesting point of view.

        Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “First that passage was from Maxim Rodinson (I quoted him in that passage at least 5 times”
        I am pretty sure that you have no idea who he is.”

        He was a French Marxist “historian”. Thats enough for me. The word Marxist indicates the amount of credibility that he has in my eyes:

        Nil, zip, nada, zero, zilch.

        “Second, religion is a private matter between you and your god”

        Show me where I was talking about religion. I was only talking about history and peoplehood. As in Jewish peoplehood. But of course as a true Marxist you only believe in the rights of Arabs to have a peoplehood. You are a true hypocrite with double standards.

        “foreigners”: ..are foreigners only those, like Trespasser and you, do not respect the tradition, the history, the identity and the right of self-determination of the then local majority”

        Only if they don’t respect the rights of the Jewish people. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

        “I have a Phd in History”

        You also have a PHD in BS and bias.

        ” and I published 4 books on these issues.”

        Titles? Put up or shut up.

        SHMUEL:“The Arabs were the ones who rejected UN Resolution 181 in 1947″:
        MERON”"they had all the right to reject such a plan, but no one asked to accept or to reject anything to the Pals.”

        So you agree with them that there should be no Israel? Fine then. Put the Jews in a corner and we fight like cornered animals with nothing to lose. The outcome was and will be on the heads of biased fanatics like you and the Palestinians who agree with you (which is most of them). Thats why there has been no resolution to this conflict and if they and fanatics like you keep it up, things wiill only get worse.

        “And subsequently several Israeli peace offers”: the peace offers that the occupier thought to be convenient for himself”

        Thats not how Ben Ami saw it. You tried to use Ben Ami to prove your point but as usual, you were just distorting history. Here is what he said again about Arafat:

        “…He was morally, psychologically, physically incapable of accepting the moral legitimacy of a Jewish state, regardless of its borders or whatever. Arafat was incapable of closing or locking the door of his endless conflict between us and the Palestinians. And this is the bottom line. ”

        Oh and Berl, every time that you will ignore the true facts about Ehud Barak’s attempt to end the conflict, I will keep on reminding you what your own witness, Ben Ami, had to say about it.

        Reply to Comment
      • directrob

        You have choosen a very interesting alias …

        Reply to Comment
    29. meron

      Trespasser,
      Now I understood what you mean. So, if you prefer, we can speak about Palestinian Arab Israelis, the same Palestinian Arabs that were the 9/10th of the local population.
      .
      “They are 100% Pals and this does not deny anything…Not only them”: right, before that Second Aliah and the avodah ivrit logic also the local minority was part of the region and so could be addressed as “Palestinian Jews”. After the modern State of Israel was born in 1948, native Jews in Mandatory Palestine became citizens of Israel, and the term “Palestinian Jews” has largely fallen into disuse. Also the PLO charter recognized that “the Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians.” The racist approach from the second Alyiah on changed the situation on the ground.
      .
      “Your speech processor seem to be faulty”: I know that elasticity is not for you. Here it is the sentence: “It is you that deny their right to self-determinate their future”.
      .
      “And who exactly took part in Palestinian Arab Congress? Martians?”:
      It was Faysal that in 1919 was chosen to represent the Pals. He was the worst enemy of the Palestinian cause.
      This is what Chaim Weizmann wrote about Faysal:
      “I made the acquaintance of Fayṣal [...]. He is not interested in Palestine, but on the other hand he wants Damascus and the whole of Northern Syria. He talked with great animosity against the French, who want to get their hands on Syria. He expects a great deal from collaboration with the Jews. He is contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn’t even regard as Arabs “
      Only few years afterwards, when everything was already decided, the british started to approach Pals
      .
      “And if it would be less than 42%?”:
      If this was the case, the unjustice toward the local majority of the population would have been even greater. Can you understand this little concept?
      .
      “There is only one group of Palestinians which are part of the Arab world – Palestinian Arabs”: great, I am glad that you realized it. The local majority, Palestinian Arabs, the majority that was on the spot or however you want to call them consider themselves Palestinians and at the same time they perceive themselves as part of the Arab world. Is it a problem for you settler mentality?
      .
      “Yeah, I just plainly denies Jews all rights”: this is all you have to say? Great arguments as usual.
      .
      “while you don’t it means that I’m more advanced creature than you are”: if this the case, this region is really without any hope. You are the image of ignorance and racism to me: how can you perceive yourselves “advanced” it is a wonder to me.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >“the Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians.”

        You wouldn’t believe it, being historian and whatever, that Jews did not want to be doomed to became Arabs, which inevitably happens to any minority living among Arabs.

        You probably know that Arabs won’t let their women interbreed with non-Arabs, while freely allow themselves to have women of all nationalities, which means that any minority living among Arabs is subjected to a slow genocide by the means of limitation of available females.

        Strangely, you do not find that principle “What’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine” offensive as long as it is exercised by Arabs.

        p.s. Ask your Palestinian friend if you can go out with his sister.
        Mwahahahaha.

        Reply to Comment
        • andrew r

          “any minority living among Arabs is subjected to a slow genocide by the means of limitation of available females.”

          Did you learn that on National Geographic or the Discovery Channel?

          Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Also the PLO charter recognized that “the Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians.” The racist approach from the second Alyiah on changed the situation on the ground.

        Hmmm. Let’s see…

        1919 – 1st Palestinian Arab Congress declares that Jews won’t have a home land in Arab state

        1922 – 5th Palestinian Arab congress reaffirms that Jews can’t have a home land in Arab state

        1947 – whatever Palestinian Arab congress declines partition plan – no homeland for Jews.

        1948 – Arab armies come to massacre all Jews, and could have a good chance to do it, if not for towaritsch Stalin.

        1965 – PLO declares that Palestinian Jews are Palestinians as well.

        A little too late.

        >It is you that deny their right to self-determinate their future

        They denied multinational state in 1922, national state in 1948, 2000 and 2002.

        By what perverted logic I am denying them anything?

        Oh, I understand.

        They see their future only in Judenfrei Palestine. Pity.

        >It was Faysal that in 1919 was chosen to represent the Pals…

        And who represented them in 1920? or 1922? Palestinian Arabs are the top masters of blaming other for own failures and miscalculations.

        >“And if it would be less than 42%?”
        A typo.
        Read: “And if it would be more than 42%?”

        >and at the same time they perceive themselves as part of the Arab world. Is it a problem for you settler mentality?

        Yes, there is a problem. Which of said gives Palestinian Arabs inherent rights to the entire land of Palestine?

        >“Yeah, I just plainly denies Jews all rights”: this is all you have to say? Great arguments as usual.

        Typo. Read: “it just plainly denies Jews all rights”

        >how can you perceive yourselves “advanced” it is a wonder to me.

        I’m alone here, who are you talking to? xD

        Again, for the brightest:
        “If I do realize something, while you don’t it means that I’m more advanced creature than you are.”

        Kapish?

        Reply to Comment
    30. meron

      Shmuel,
      “He was a French Marxist “historian”. That’s enough for me”: are you sure that you and Trespasser are not the same person or at least relatives? I say this because you and him have the same great arguments. Read a bit about Maxime Rodinson. He was proficient in some 30 languages and dialects and he had a huge academic production. He was one of the greatest orientalists of the last century: you should educate a bit yourselves before writing.
      .
      “Second, religion is a private matter between you and your god”
      .
      “Show me where I was talking about religion”: If you write that “The Jews then started reclaiming part of their lands back in the neteenth century” you are using religion in a political way; only a foolish could otherwise claim that a Jew of New York has the right to come in this region and to claim to have more rights than a local resident because 3 thousands years before there were some Israelites on some parts of this region. If this is the way to grab land, the borders of almost the entire world should be changed.
      .
      “a true Marxist you”: what? lol:-)
      .
      “only believe in the rights of Arabs to have a peoplehood”: to the contrary, I fully recognized the right of Israel and of the Israelis to self-determinate their future, but I don’t recognize the right of people like you – that continue to deny the right of the Pals to self-determinate their future and that continue to support the settlements.
      .
      “Only if they don’t respect the rights of the Jewish people. What is good for the goose is good for the gander”:
      I fully agree. Could you please tell me where I wrote that I don’t recognize the legitimacy of Israel or where I did propose to colonize Israel with Palestinian settlements?
      .
      “..in BS and bias..”: yes, you were my tutor.
      .
      “So you agree with them that there should be no Israel? Fine then. Put the Jews in a corner and we fight like cornered animals with nothing to lose.”:
      Stupid as usual. The 181 resolution was totally unacceptable from the point of view of the local majority and totally acceptable and fair for the Jewish people and, most of all, for the holocaust survivors. One thing does not have to be white or black. Can be both.
      .
      “The outcome was and will be on the heads of biased fanatics like you and the Palestinians who agree with you (which is most of them)”:
      I am “fanatic” – actually I am not at all – only against racists and settlers. I fully recognize Israel’s legitimacy, while you fully support settlements and the colonization of the Palestinian people/territories.
      .
      “Thats why there has been no resolution to this conflict”:
      No, you can find the reason in the ignorance that brings people like you to deny the rights and the history of the other.
      .
      Never said that Arafat was a good leader and that he did not have responsabilities. I claim that the peace offers were just a stunt that people like you use in a demagogic and selective way

      Reply to Comment
    31. Shmuel

      “He was a French Marxist “historian”. That’s enough for me”: are you sure that you and Trespasser are not the same person or at least relatives?”

      More BS

      “Read a bit about Maxime Rodinson. He was proficient in some 30 languages and dialects”

      Yea, he could lie fluently in 30 languages and dialects. And you too can at least in one language.

      “and he had a huge academic production.”

      Production is the right word. As in circus.

      “He was one of the greatest orientalists of the last century”

      Now there is a great recommendation. Next thing you will be talking about Edward Said? Yes?

      “Second, religion is a private matter between you and your god”

      Peoplehood not religion remember? No I guess not. You should check yourself for Alzheimers. Or maybe selective memory. They tell me lots of Marxists suffer from that disease too.

      “Show me where I was talking about religion”: If you write that “The Jews then started reclaiming part of their lands back in the neteenth century” you are using religion in a political way; only a foolish could otherwise claim that a Jew of New York has the right to come in this region and to claim to have more rights
      than a local resident”

      You are lying again. I said equal rights to take PART of the land. As opposed to their claim and yours that Jews have no right to be here or that Jews are just guests.

      “only believe in the rights of Arabs to have a peoplehood”: to the contrary, I fully recognized the right of Israel and of the Israelis to self-determinate their future”

      More double talk. You agreed with the Palestinians rejection of UN resolution 181.

      “but I don’t recognize the right of people like you – that continue to deny the right of the Pals to self-determinate their future”

      We only deny it while they deny us Jews our right to have a Jewish state. In the same way that the Arabs have 24 Arab – Muslim states.

      “and that continue to support the settlements.”

      Settlements blah blah blah. This war is not about the settlements much as you would love to frame it that way. It is about the refusal of the Arabs to allow the existence of a Jewish nation state in the Middle East.

      “Only if they don’t respect the rights of the Jewish people. What is good for the goose is good for the gander”:
      I fully agree. Could you please tell me where I wrote that I don’t recognize the legitimacy of Israel”

      When you agreed with the Arabs about their rejection of UN resolution 181.

      “The 181 resolution was totally unacceptable from the point of view of the local majority and totally acceptable and fair for the Jewish people and, most of all, for the holocaust survivors. One thing does not have to be white or black. Can be both.”

      What is black and white about it?

      Both Arabs and Jews had and have rights to part of Palestine. The Jews accepted a compromise. The Arabs did not. They wanted and still want all of Palestine. Finitum, fact, that’s the root cause of the conflict. The rest is BS and apologetics for the Arabs by polemicists like you.

      “I am “fanatic” – actually I am not at all – ”

      You know what you are. If you are not a fanatic then you are an opportunistic cynical ideologue. Does that make you feel better?

      “only against racists and settlers.”

      More BS, and sloganeering.

      “I fully recognize Israel’s legitimacy,”

      Sure does not sound as if you do.

      “while you fully support settlements and the colonization of the Palestinian people/territories.”

      Blah, blah, blah, settlements, blah, red herrings and more red herrings.

      Solve the problem of Arab refusal to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people and the settlements will be solved too.

      “Never said that Arafat was a good leader and that he did not have responsabilities. I claim that the peace offers were just a stunt that people like you use in a demagogic and selective way”

      You are still saying it. You refuse to blame Arafat for rejecting the opportunity to resolve this conflict. You brought up Shlomo Ben Ami to back your case up. But you deliberately ignored what Ben Ami said about Arafat. He unlike you blamed Arafat. So did Clinton, so did Dennis Ross. They all said that the conflict could have been resolved if not for Arafat.

      Only ideologues like you are in denial.

      Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        What’s ironic about the claim that the Zionists accepted the partition plan: Most Zionists, including the ones on here, insist there will not be a Jewish state if the right of return is implemented for the Palestinian refugees. This in effect is an admission that had you been in charge in 1947, you would not have accepted UNGA 181. It demanded that everyone on either side of the partition be granted citizenship in the state they fell under. That left the Jewish state with a 45% Arab minority. So it wasn’t really a Jewish state at all.

        Of course the conduct of the Haganah during the six months between the resolution and the declaration of Israel shows the Jewish Agency had no intention of honoring the partition agreement.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          What WAS still acceptable in 1947, before the Arabs made war on the Jews. Is no longer acceptable now.

          The Arabs started the violence against the Jews in 1947. The Jews of course responded. And because they expected Arab violence (based on the past record of the Arabs), the Jews were quickly able to go on the offensive. And turn things around.

          Read about the Jerusalem riot of 1947:

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jerusalem_riots

          “The 1947 Jerusalem Riots occurred following the vote in the UN General Assembly in favour of the 1947 UN Partition Plan on 29 November 1947.

          The Arab Higher Committee declared a three-day strike and public protest to begin on 2 December 1947, in protest at the vote. Arabs marching to Zion Square on December 2 were stopped by the British, and the Arabs instead turned towards the commercial center of the City at Mamilla and Jaffa Road, burning many buildings and shops. Violence continued for two more days, with a number of Jewish neighborhoods being attacked.”

          Reply to Comment
    32. meron

      Shmuel,
      it is obvious that we have totally different opinions. So, to me this conversation will stop with this post. But I just want to add that you continue to put in my mouth things that I do not think.
      .
      “As opposed to their claim and yours that Jews have no right to be here or that Jews are just guests”:
      I wrote 20 times that Jews have all the right to be here and to self-determinate their future. I clarified, however, that all the people that arrive here denying the rights, the history and the traditions of the former local majority become automatically unwelcome guests. The same is true for people that do support the settlements. Why do you continue to twist what I claim? It makes you feel better?
      .
      “You agreed with the Palestinians rejection of UN resolution 181″.
      Again, why to invent things that I wrote? I pointed out that “The 181 resolution was totally unacceptable from the point of view of the local majority and totally acceptable and fair for the Jewish people and, most of all, for the holocaust survivors.”. I also added that there is not any contradiction whatsoever between the 2 aspects. Think about it.
      .
      “Settlements blah blah blah. This war is not about the settlements much as you would love to frame it that way. It is about the refusal of the Arabs to allow the existence of a Jewish nation state in the Middle East”:
      Settlements are a big part of the problem. Not the entire problem but a big part of it. they in fact prevent the Pals to self-determinate their present and future.
      We have a state of Israel, while the other population on the spot cannot self-determinate its future. You are right that there are some people that reject the very existence of Israel. But the way to make these people less strong is not through a denial of the rights of the Pals, but on the contrary helping them to self-determinate their future. Only then will be possible to neutralize the many extremists that we encounter among Pals as well Israelis.
      .
      “When you agreed with the Arabs about their rejection of UN resolution 181″:
      Again, I wrote that the 181 resolution was totally unacceptable from the point of view of the local majority and totally acceptable and fair for the Jewish people and, most of all, for the holocaust survivors. One thing does not have to be white or black. Can be both. Are you able to put your ideologies on a side and to recognize that what I wrote is perfectly agreeable?
      .
      “What is black and white about it?”
      White and black is an expression for saying that one decision can be totally fair and totally unacceptable at the same time. Manicheistic approaches are always dangerous and wrong.
      .
      You can have all the opinions that you want but you are not allowed to put in my mouth your certainties.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “it is obvious that we have totally different opinions.”

        Wow. You are very observant.

        “So, to me this conversation will stop with this post.”

        Good to hear that. We are heading nowhere fast.

        “But I just want to add that you continue to put in my mouth things that I do not think.”

        As you put words in MY mouth.

        “As opposed to their claim and yours that Jews have no right to be here or that Jews are just guests”:
        I wrote 20 times that Jews have all the right to be here and to self-determinate their future. I clarified, however, that all the people that arrive here denying the rights, the history and the traditions of the former local majority become automatically unwelcome guests.”

        In saying that, you made yourself very clear. The Arabs had all the rights and the Jews had NO rights. Why do I say that? Because the Arabs always rejected (as they still do) any rights for Jews to establish a Jewish state. And according to you, the Jewish “guests” had to tippeee toe around them. I have nows for you, you set the Jews an impossible task.

        “You agreed with the Palestinians rejection of UN resolution 181″.
        Again, why to invent things that I wrote? I pointed out that “The 181 resolution was totally unacceptable from the point of view of the local majority and totally acceptable and fair for the Jewish people and, most of all, for the holocaust survivors.”. I also added that there is not any contradiction whatsoever between the 2 aspects. Think about it.”

        I thought about it. That refusal by the Arabs to recognise the rights of Jews to establish a Jewish state, is the root cause of the conflict.
        .
        “Settlements blah blah blah. This war is not about the settlements much as you would love to frame it that way. It is about the refusal of the Arabs to allow the existence of a Jewish nation state in the Middle East”:
        Settlements are a big part of the problem. Not the entire problem but a big part of it. they in fact prevent the Pals to self-determinate their present and future.
        We have a state of Israel, while the other population on the spot cannot self-determinate its future.”

        When THEY will accept the Jewish state, we will accept their state.

        “You are right that there are some people that reject the very existence of Israel. But the way to make these people less strong is not through a denial of the rights of the Pals, but on the contrary helping them to self-determinate their future. Only then will be possible to neutralize the many extremists that we encounter among Pals as well Israelis.”

        It works the other way too. There are a lot more Jews who accept Arab rights and way too few Arabs who accept Jewish rights.

        Time for them to try and walk in our shoes in the same way as + 972 tries to walk in their shoes. Their good people should make themselves more visible too.

        Reply to Comment
        • rosee

          …That refusal by the Arabs to recognise the rights of Jews to establish a Jewish state, is the root cause of the conflict…
          The Palestinians were fighting for their homes and families – as every other people would do in the same position – not against something, but for something

          Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            Thanks for admitting that the Arabs were the ones to start the violence.

            The Jews bought lands at exorbitant prices from absentee Arab land lords. And the Arabs who objected to that, attacked and murdered Jews.

            What did you expect the Jews to do in return?

            Reply to Comment
    33. paul

      Read about the killings in Khisas just few days after the burning of the shops in Jerusalem:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khisas
      The attacks were reciprocal

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        Duuuuuhhhhh

        Of course the killings were reciprocal.

        The Arabs riotedand murdered Jews. The Jews then responded in kind. Did you want them to turn the other cheek?

        Reply to Comment
        • Paul

          @Arieh, The Pals were responding to a violence started already with the segregation approach of the Second Aliya

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Yea, right Paul. Let’s kill all ethnic groups who tend to find each other and live in close knit communities.

            I think the Chinese of China town in any Western city should watch out for people like you Paul. You mean them harm because they segragate themselves.

            Oh and maybe the Arabs who live in Paris in Ghettos, should watch out for the likes of you?

            Reply to Comment
          • paul

            Do you know what was the “Avodah Ivrit” approach and what such policy did mean in practical terms for the local people? Or you don’t know it, or you don’t have any clue about the difference between a “China town” and the Second Aliyah.
            Read the third article of the KKL constitution (1929).

            Reply to Comment
    34. Yehoshua

      His pluralization of Zoabi seemed to me not to refer to Arabs on the whole, or even every Arab party in the Knesset. Rather, I think he’s referring to MKs, be they Jewish or Arab, who are either anti-Zionist (like those of Balad, including Zoabi) or post-Zionist (like Hadash).

      When Lapid was still a journalist, he conducted an interview with Ahmad Tibi of the United Arab List following his speech about the Holocaust in the Knesset. In this interview you can plainly see that Lapid has a respect for Tibi and does not look down on him as an Arab. Lapid has shown no signs of being anti-Arab or opposed to working with Arab parties so long as they are not seeking the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state.

      In short, I think Lapid was referring to certain MKs when he said “Zoabiz” and not to Arabs on the whole or even all of the Arab MKs.

      Reply to Comment
    35. rum

      Israel exists and personally I am very happy about it. But it does not need to be named “Jewish State”. The idea of a Jewish State implies simply that there is a Law of Return for Jews only. Something totally unacceptable, especially considering that Israel was built on the ruins of Palestinian society.

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        But you have no objection to 24 Arab – Muslim countries, right?

        Nor do you object to Christian countries, like Britain? Yes the official religion in Britain is Anglican. And yes the state celebrates Christmas.

        Your only objection is a Jewish state because that alone is racist? Well I have news for you: singling out a people, Jews, for special treatment, not allowing Jews to do what all other people take for granted (self determination) is racist. And yes, self determination means maintaining a Jewish majority.

        Reply to Comment
    36. rum

      “Your only objection is a Jewish state because that alone is racist?” I am against any state of the world that self-proclaim itself “Christian State” or “Muslim State” or whatever else. Religion is a private matter.
      .
      A “Jewish state” is a way to deny the rights of the other.
      I want to quote a comment that I red on 972 few months ago. I fully agree with it:

      “I agree that we should not call Israel a “Jewish State”… but I have to say that I do feel it’s the Jewish Homeland. Hear me out. Not only ours! This land is holy for so many, and I don’t want to argue that it’s more holy for us than for Muslims. I know that argument, and I find it meaningless. Holy is holy. You can’t divide holy; it’s mathematically indivisible.”

      What is the “state of the Jewish nation”? Does it belong more to Jews in the Diaspora than to its Arab citizens? Will they decide its fate and will this be called a democracy? Will the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta sect, which opposes the state’s existence, along with hundreds of thousands of Jews who have avoided coming do whatever they want with it? What is Jewish? Jewish holidays? Kosher dietary laws? The increased grip of the religious establishment, as if there is not enough of it now to distort democracy? Swearing an oath to a Jewish state will decide its fate. It is liable to turn the country into a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

      True, for the time being, it’s a matter of an empty, ridiculous slogan. There aren’t three Jews who could agree what a Jewish state looks like, but history has taught us that empty slogans, too, can pave the path to hell. In the meantime, the new proposed legislation will only increase Israeli Arabs’ alienation and ultimately result in the alienation of much wider segments of the public.

      That’s what happens when the fire is still smoldering under the rug, the fire of the basic lack of faith in the justice of our path. Only such a lack of confidence can produce such distorted proposed legislation as that which will be approved today, and clearly approval will be forthcoming. Canada doesn’t need its citizens to swear an oath to the Canadian state, nor do other countries require similar acts. Only Israel. And it is being done either to provoke the Arab minority more and push them into a greater lack of loyalty so one day the time will come to finally get rid of them, or it is designed to scuttle the prospect of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. One way or another, in Basel at the First Zionist Congress in 1897, the Jewish state was founded, as Theodor Herzl said, and today the unenlightened Jewish Republic of Israel will be founded.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Rum/Meron
        “Your only objection is a Jewish state because that alone is racist?” I am against any state of the world that self-proclaim itself “Christian State” or “Muslim State” or whatever else. Religion is a private matter.

        Well then why don’t you blog against the British and the 24 Arab – Muslim countries? Why do you reserve your venom only against the Jewish state that was formed to shelter persecuted Jews who decided that they had enough of persecution and they want ONE state in which Jews are a majority. Not Jews alone mind you, others too. But there is no compromise on the Jewish MAJORITY bit. Why does that hurt you so much?

        “A “Jewish state” is a way to deny the rights of the other.”

        No it isn’t. A Jewish state is a sanctuary for Jewish people where others can live too. As long as they accept the Jewish state.

        “I agree that we should not call Israel a “Jewish State”… but I have to say that I do feel it’s the Jewish Homeland. Hear me out. Not only ours! This land is holy for so many, and I don’t want to argue that it’s more holy for us than for Muslims. I know that argument, and I find it meaningless. Holy is holy. You can’t divide holy; it’s mathematically indivisible.”

        I have no problems with others viewing the land as holy too. As long as they accept that Israel is the state of the Jewish people.

        “What is the “state of the Jewish nation”? Does it belong more to Jews in the Diaspora than to its Arab citizens?”

        Israel belongs to Israeli citizens, including Arab Israelis. But was established as a sanctuary for the Jewish people who want to maintain Jewish culture, traditions, language and yes, for some Israelis even Jewish religion. Arabs, Muslims, Christians are welcome as long as they accept the basic purpose of the Jewish state.

        Whats the matter? Jews put up with living as minorities amongst others for centuries? Why can’t it work the other way around too?

        “Will they decide its fate and will this be called a democracy? Will the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta sect, which opposes the state’s existence, along with hundreds of thousands of Jews who have avoided coming do whatever they want with it? What is Jewish? Jewish holidays? Kosher dietary laws? The increased grip of the religious establishment, as if there is not enough of it now to distort democracy? Swearing an oath to a Jewish state will decide its fate. It is liable to turn the country into a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.”

        Only Israeli citizens of all backgrounds, have the right to decide the nature of Israeli society, not outsiders. Majority rules in a democracy.

        “True, for the time being, it’s a matter of an empty, ridiculous slogan. There aren’t three Jews who could agree what a Jewish state looks like, but history has taught us that empty slogans, too, can pave the path to hell. In the meantime, the new proposed legislation will only increase Israeli Arabs’ alienation and ultimately result in the alienation of much wider segments of the public.”

        The Arabs have every right to fight for their rights. But at the end of the day they either accept the fact that they are part of a Jewish state or they can get out. That’s what Arabs used to tell Jewish minorities in Arab societies. That’s when they were not busy killing Jews.

        “That’s what happens when the fire is still smoldering under the rug, the fire of the basic lack of faith in the justice of our path.”

        Our path is very just. We want the Jewish people to survive. Those who are with us on that aim, are welcome. The rest we will fight at every turn. Same as all other people fight for their own identities and right to self determination. And they are not ashamed of it either.

        Reply to Comment
    37. rum

      Shmuel@
      You don’t know who I am and what I blog or write about. So please don’t assume things that you don’t know.
      You didn’t address the issue: “There aren’t three Jews who could agree what a Jewish state looks like…What is Jewish? Jewish holidays? Kosher dietary laws? The increased grip of the religious establishment, as if there is not enough of it now to distort democracy? Swearing an oath to a Jewish state will decide its fate. It is liable to turn the country into a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.”
      -
      “Our path is very just”: I agree, but only if you let also the other to self-determinate his future.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Rum
        “what a Jewish state looks like…What is Jewish?”

        I already answered that question. The most pertinent aspect of a Jewish state is maintaining a Jewish majority.

        The rest is no more or less nebulous than Christian or Muslim states (plenty of them about). It is whatever the majority decide what they want it to be and it may change from time to time too.

        “Our path is very just”: I agree, but only if you let also the other to self-determinate his future.”

        Which other are you talking about? Israeli Arabs? I am all for treating them exactly the same way as Jewish Israelis. Except in one thing. And that is who we allow to immigrate to Israel. They either accept Israel as the only sanctuary of the Jewish people which means that Israel has immigration policies which ensure a Jewish majority. Or if they don’t like it, they can migrate to any of the 24 Arab – Muslim countries where they can be part of the majority and have self determination that way.

        That is exactly the choice that faced Jews for 2000 years. In fact, before Israel, Jews did not even have that option. But now Jews too have that option if they no longer want to be minorities. Don’t you think that’s good? I, personally love it.

        Reply to Comment
    38. rum

      @Rum
      “I already answered that question. The most pertinent aspect of a Jewish state is maintaining a Jewish majority”. Sorry, I don’t find where did you answer to the following question: ““There aren’t three Jews who could agree what a Jewish state looks like…What is Jewish? Jewish holidays? Kosher dietary laws?”
      If you simply write that “The most pertinent aspect of a Jewish state is maintaining a Jewish majority” you are avaoiding the question..What is Jewish? Jewish holidays? Kosher dietary laws?
      -
      “It is whatever the majority decide what they want it to be and it may change from time to time too”:
      this applies only to Jews or also to the majority of UNGA or to the majority of the Palestinian people..ect..?
      -
      “Which other are you talking about?”: Palestinian people in the occupied territories, east jerusalem included.

      -
      “they can migrate to any of the 24 Arab – Muslim countries”:
      They cannot not, they belong to this land, like or more the people that did immigrate from the US

      Reply to Comment
    39. Shmuel

      “If you simply write that “The most pertinent aspect of a Jewish state is maintaining a Jewish majority” you are avaoiding the question..What is Jewish?

      Jewish is a person born to a Jewish mother or anyone else who converts to Judaism as recognised by the Israeli state.

      SHMUEL:“It is whatever the majority decide what they want it to be and it may change from time to time too”:
      RUM:this applies only to Jews or also to the majority of UNGA or to the majority of the Palestinian people..ect..?”

      What goes on in Israel is Israel’s decision alone. And that means the Israeli government which is elected by Israeli citizens both Jewish and Arab citizens. The UNGA or Arabs in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens.

      Does that answer your question?

      SHMUEL:“Which other are you talking about?”: RUM:Palestinian people in the occupied territories, east jerusalem included.”

      I am sorry but as non Israeli citizens, they don’t decide what Israel does or does not do. Much as I don’t decide what any other country does.

      SHMUEL:“they can migrate to any of the 24 Arab – Muslim countries” (if they don’t like Israel as a Jewish majority state)
      RUM:”They cannot not, they belong to this land, like or more the people that did immigrate from the US”

      If Arab Israelis want to stay as Israeli citizens, they are welcome to stay and use lawful means to try and change Israeli policies from the inside. Thats what happens in all democracies. Are they guaranteed success? No of course not. But who knows what might happen in the goodness of time?

      Reply to Comment
    40. rum

      shumuel, broadly speaking we are doing progress in understanding each other.
      -
      “What goes on in Israel is Israel’s decision alone. And that means the Israeli government which is elected by Israeli citizens both Jewish and Arab citizens. The UNGA or Arabs in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens. Does that answer your question?”
      Yes you did. So now apply your very same policy to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.
      -
      “I am sorry but as non Israeli citizens, they don’t decide what Israel does or does not do. Much as I don’t decide what any other country does”:
      Great, so don’t unilaterally decide how a Palestinian should self-determinate his future and don’t support the settlements that prevent them the access to their natural resources.
      -
      “If Arab Israelis want to stay as Israeli citizens, they are welcome to stay and use lawful means to try and change Israeli policies from the inside”:
      Again, super-great. So any Jew who wants to live in the Palestinian Territories, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so. It’s quite a different story, however, to request that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law can ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified. In other words, those who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists.
      -
      “Jewish is a person born to a Jewish mother or anyone else who converts to Judaism as recognised by the Israeli state” So will the Jews of the Diaspora decide Israel’s fate? Will the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta sect along with hundreds of thousands of Jews who have avoided coming do whatever they want with it?

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Rum alias Meron
        You and I already discussed the settlements and how to end the occupation in the West Bank. Are you sure you want to repeat that discussion? I thought you agreed to disagree about it.

        “So any Jew who wants to live in the Palestinian Territories, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so”

        Again we already discussed this and I gave you a link which pointed out that the PLO does not want Jews in their state. That is certainly their perogative.

        “So will the Jews of the Diaspora decide Israel’s fate? Will the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta sect along with hundreds of thousands of Jews who have avoided coming do whatever they want with it?”

        Not unless they agree to move and live in Israel as Israeli citizens. And not if the state does not recognise them as Jews.

        To sum up:
        They cannot be Israeli citizens if they don’t make Aliyah and move to Israel. Even if they would be recognised as Jews but if they don’t make Aliyah, they cannot be Israeli citizens so they have no say.

        Reply to Comment
    41. rum

      Shmuel/Trespasser/Bosko…ect
      “They cannot be Israeli citizens if they don’t make Aliyah and move to Israel. Even if they would be recognised as Jews but if they don’t make Aliyah, they cannot be Israeli citizens so they have no say”:
      I avoid to answer to the rest: it is waste of the time and you don’t really address the issues. But I wonder why a Palestinian that was expelled from Palestine in 1947/48 should have less rights to make “aliyah” than a Jew from NY that perhaps never set a food in the region.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Rum/Meron/Berl etc …
        “But I wonder why a Palestinian that was expelled from Palestine in 1947/48 should have less rights to make “aliyah” than a Jew from NY that perhaps never set a food in the region.”

        Going around in circles again.

        Because the Palestinians declared that they don’t want a Jewish state in the Middle East and that they will fight against it to the death. Our death. They have shown by deed that that they meant it.

        We on the other hand, most of us at least, want a Jewish state. So we are not going to be stupid and let them stop us.

        It is not the “chosen people” syndrome as you haters so venomously describe it. It is the syndrome of us making sure that our self declared enemies, the Arabs, won’t triumph against us. And that we will survive. I know that Jewish survival is anathema to you people but most of us DO believe in it. Go figure.

        Understand now, Meron? No, I guess not. You are either too stupid. Or too malicious. I think it’s the latter.

        Reply to Comment
        • rum

          Shmuel/Trespasser/Bosko…ect
          “Because the Palestinians declared that they don’t want a Jewish state in the Middle East and that they will fight against it to the death”:
          who did declare this? did you do a public survey? are your assumptions sufficient to explain why a Palestinian that was expelled from Palestine in 1947/48 should have less rights to make “aliyah” than a Jew from NY that perhaps never set a food in the region? how many among the 800.000 pal refugees, according to your private survey, wanted to “kill all the jews” and how many between them were simply trying to preserve their land, as are trying to do in our very same days dozens of families in the west bank? are you aware that you live in a bubble completely detached from the truth and the reality on the ground?

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            SHMUEL:”Because the Palestinians declared that they don’t want a Jewish state in the Middle East and that they will fight against it to the death”:
            RUM/MERON:who did declare this? did you do a public survey?”

            I did not have to. All their leaders declared it and they still do. Hamas has it in their charter. The terrorism that they carried out for nearly 100 years, the riots their pogroms, yes as far back as the 1920s proves their intent. And so does their 4 years of suicide bombing campaign between 2000 and 2004, right after Ehud Barak’s peace initiative. All proof enough for me. And most of us.

            “are your assumptions sufficient to explain why a Palestinian that was expelled from Palestine in 1947/48 should have less rights to make “aliyah” than a Jew from NY that perhaps never set a food in the region?”

            But the Jewish migrant does not want to void my right for self determination in my own state. While the Palestinian Arabs collectively want to destroy my rights. That is all the information that I need. Like most human beings, including Arabs, I am driven by self preservation. As for you and your kind? Well I already voiced my thoughts about you. If you are Jewish, then you belong in an asylum. You need plenty of love, care and medications. Lest you destroy yourself and the rest of us along with you.

            “how many among the 800.000 pal refugees, according to your private survey, wanted to “kill all the jews” and how many between them were simply trying to preserve their land, as are trying to do in our very same days dozens of families in the west bank?”

            I don’t know how many of them loved Jews as you would have me believe. But I do know that they as a group, chose to make total war against the Jewish people. On and of since the 1920s. They had their paranoia against us and no doubt we have paranoia against them. But there is no denying that there was war. I know which side I am on in that war. And I know which side people like you are in that war too. I think you would happily murder us (or more likely would rather farm out the job to our enemies because you haven’t got the stomach to do it yourself) the ones you simplistically describe as people with “settler mentality”. Every word that you address to me drips of malice and hatred. Yes, I get it but I still don’t hate you, I do resent you but above all, I pity you for your illness.

            “are you aware that you live in a bubble completely detached from the truth and the reality on the ground?”

            You forgot to take your medication again.

            Reply to Comment
    42. rum

      PS
      “the PLO does not want Jews in their state”: if they come as “colonizers”, defying international law and common sense, for sure not.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        Hey Rum/Meron

        I thought you said you were going to stop writing posts to me.

        Do you think we are making progress? Or do you think we are heading nowhere fast?

        Personally, I think its the latter. What do you think?

        Reply to Comment
    43. rum

      Shmuel/Trespasser/Bosko…ect
      “I did not have to”: no sorry, if you tell me that that human beings don’t have any right to make their “aliyah” because they wanted to “kill the jews” you have to provide data and legal arguments. Otherwise are just empty words.
      “The terrorism that they carried out for nearly 100 years”: I could speak for two about zionist-israeli terrorism. Spare me please.
      .
      “While the Palestinian Arabs collectively want to destroy my rights”: shtuiot. Palestinian Arabs want to live a decent life and they want that people like u start to recognize which huge price they paid for your dream.
      .
      “Like most human beings, including Arabs, I am driven by self preservation”: good to know that you consider the other, ie the Palestinian people.
      .
      “I don’t know how many of them loved Jews as you would have me believe”: so what you claim is baseless.
      .
      “But I do know that they as a group”: how do you know? Always with your private survey?
      .
      “I know which side I am on in that war. And I know which side people like you are in that war too”:
      I am on the side of peace and self-determination, you for the war.
      .
      “I think you would happily murder us (or more likely would rather farm out the job to our enemies because you haven’t got the stomach to do it yourself)”:
      You assume wrong. I detest the occupation and the attempt to deny the self-determination of million of human beings. I would not touch a human being even with a flower. You are for violence (occupation is violence), not me.
      .
      “Every word that you address to me drips of malice and hatred”:
      No hatred, but I detest people that for ignorance continue to support settlements and occupation.
      .
      ” Yes, I get it but I still don’t hate you, I do resent you but above all, I pity you for your illness”:
      I am against the occupation, you support it. Keep your pity for you and your family. Because if you are like that is simply because they gave u the wrong education and values.
      .
      This is my last post: I am for peace and for the self-determination of both people. Israel has all the right to exist, as the Palestinians have all the right to fight for their self-determination. Again, I am for peace, you are for war, settlements, occupation.

      Reply to Comment
    44. Shmuel

      @Rum/Meron
      SHMUEL:“I did not have to”:
      RUM/MERON:no sorry, if you tell me that that human beings don’t have any right to make their “aliyah” because they wanted to “kill the jews” you have to provide data and legal arguments.”

      I did, you just chose to ignore my arguments. Here they are again:

      “All their leaders declared it (that they want to destroy the Jewish state) and they still do. Hamas has it in their charter. The terrorism that they carried out for nearly 100 years, the riots their pogroms, yes as far back as the 1920s proves their intent. And so does their 4 years of suicide bombing campaign between 2000 and 2004, right after Ehud Barak’s peace initiative. All proof enough for me. And most of us.”

      “The terrorism that they carried out for nearly 100 years”: I could speak for two about zionist-israeli terrorism. Spare me please.”

      In other words you agree with me that there has been 100 years of war between Arabs and Jews.

      SHMUEL:“While the Palestinian Arabs collectively want to destroy my rights”: RUM/MERON:shtuiot.

      Saying “Shtuiot” does not make facts go away.

      “Palestinian Arabs want to live a decent life”

      Yes, and for them, a decent life, means no Jewish state.

      “and they want that people like u start to recognize which huge price they paid for your dream.”

      And I want them to recognise what a huge price I would have to pay if we let them destroy the Jewish state.

      SHMUEL:“Like most human beings, including Arabs, I am driven by self preservation”:
      RUM/MERON:good to know that you consider the other, ie the Palestinian people.

      Yet they and you don’t consider me and mine, us.

      SHMUEL:“I don’t know how many of them loved Jews as you would have me believe”:
      RUM/MERON:so what you claim is baseless.

      You are not the judge.

      SHMUEL:“But I do know that they as a group”:
      RUM/MERON:how do you know? Always with your private survey?

      From their actions and words. Read what I said above. I am prepared to repeat it as often as you ask.

      SHMUEL:“I know which side I am on in that war. And I know which side people like you are in that war too”:
      RUM/MERON:I am on the side of peace and self-determination, you for the war.

      You are on the side of self determination for Arabs. And slavery or death for Jews.

      SHMUEL:“I think you would happily murder us (or more likely would rather farm out the job to our enemies because you haven’t got the stomach to do it yourself)”:
      RUM/MERONYou assume wrong. I detest the occupation”

      The occupation could have ended years ago if thats all the Arabs would want. But they want more than that. They want the destruction of the Jewish state. The occupation therefore continues.

      “and the attempt to deny the self-determination of million of human beings.

      As long as the millions are not Jewish.

      ” I would not touch a human being even with a flower.”

      But you would happily put Jews in harms way. Deadly harm.

      “You are for violence (occupation is violence), not me.”

      Yes, violence in self defence if necessary. Unlike you, I won’t willingly walk into the gas chambers again, as long as we can defend ourselves. And if not, we will die fighting.

      SHMUEL:“Every word that you address to me drips of malice and hatred”:
      RUM/MERON:No hatred, but I detest people that for ignorance continue to support settlements and occupation.

      No hatred but you detest? Are you listening to yourself?

      “This is my last post: ”

      I hope so. Do you really mean it this time?

      “I am for peace and for the self-determination of both people.”

      Jews cannot have self determination if they become a minority in their own state. Instead, such a state would become the 25th Arab – Muslim state.

      “Israel has all the right to exist,”

      Yes, so you pretend. But everything you say suggests that your dearest wish is to end the Jewish state.

      “as the Palestinians have all the right to fight for their self-determination.”

      If they have the right to fight then so do we.

      “Again, I am for peace, you are for war, settlements, occupation.”

      And for the sake of that peace you would rather see Jews enslaved again or dead.

      Reply to Comment
    45. Harsh judgement it seems though Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party is hardly intended to be inclusive – pretty much the norm in Israel. A more generous interpretation of Yair’s apparent linguistic jibe at Haneen Zoabi may be that he was challenging her to form a unified Arab-Israeli Party to mirror his own parties electoral success.

      Reply to Comment
    46. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel