# Is Israel a racist state?



## jman2007 (22 April 2009)

Most of us are probably aware of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attack on Israel during the recent UN racism Conference, in which be labelled Israel as the "most cruel and racist regime".

Does he have a point?...or is this guy just a stark raving lunatic with zero credibility? Why did every Western Government condemn his remarks? Did they do that just to tow the line, even though Ahmadinejad might have gone where they are too afraid to go?

Does the current stance of the Israeli's towards the Palestinians draw comparisons with South Africas aparteid regime during the 1980's?.. or are the Israeli's merely taking steps to defend themselves from extremist elements such as Hamas and Hezbollah?

You decide....


----------



## sam76 (22 April 2009)

kutcshhh...


----------



## So_Cynical (22 April 2009)

On the one hand Ahmadinejad is a stark raving lunatic with zero credibility, keeping in 
mind his comments were for political consumption aimed at an Iranian/Arab audience.

But on the other hand, he is somewhat right...Israel is a state that prob should not be 
there, was born of terrorist actions and operates as a bizarre right wing arm of the American 
Govt..a democracy for right wing militarists and religious nuts.

Funny cos that last bit could easily apply to Iran at the moment too.


----------



## doctorj (22 April 2009)

sam76 said:


> kutcshhh...



Ohhhhh boy.  This will be entertaining.

Please try to keep it friendly folks.


----------



## disarray (22 April 2009)

jman2007 said:


> Does he have a point?




not really. he has a bunch of frothing lunacy and anti-semitic hatred but whether this counts as a point i don't know. i can say if i was surrounded by arabs who have vowed to extermine me and have been driving jewish communities out of the surrounding nations for centuries i'd hate my neighbours too.



> or is this guy just a stark raving lunatic with zero credibility?




he's waiting for the Mahdi. the guy is a class A fruit loop.



> Why did every Western Government condemn his remarks?




because there's a larger play going on. the muslim world and a bunch of paid for cronies are trying to push anti-racism / defamation of religion laws through the UN which would effectively outlaw free speech and silence criticism of all religion. especially islam because we know how sensitive islam is to criticism, poor little innocent snowflakes that they are.



> Did they do that just to tow the line, even though Ahmadinejad might have gone where they are too afraid to go?




the west still has an enormous amount of guilt over the holocaust. the germans still beat themselves up about it. personally i think they should build a bridge and get the fk over it but liberal guilt + vocal jewish nationalists keep it simmering along.



> Does the current stance of the Israeli's towards the Palestinians draw comparisons with South Africas aparteid regime during the 1980's?




depends on if the black in south africa were actively trying to exterminate the white population. now if only zimbabwe could have seen the future ...



> or are the Israeli's merely taking steps to defend themselves from extremist elements such as Hamas and Hezbollah?




arab muslims are an aggressive, tribal, mysoginistic people. they don't respect concession or dialogue or all the reasonable things we like in the western world, they respect strength and violence and machismo. plenty of intelligence papers and writers and historians have pointed this out over the years, and finally people seem to be waking up to the fact and are starting to take less **** from these people.

race and culture matters. people scream racism and get all worked up into a lather about it insisting we're all equal in a big happy rainbow world of equality but we're not. turbulent times are ahead.


----------



## jman2007 (22 April 2009)

doctorj said:


> Ohhhhh boy.  This will be entertaining.
> 
> Please try to keep it friendly folks.




Oh Dear 

Sorry to bring this old chestnut up again DoctorJ, but it's been in the news an awful lot lately, so I thought it would be interesting to hear from the masses.

But I totally endorse your comments, of course we can disagree with each other guys and girls, but please be nice 

jman


----------



## pacestick (22 April 2009)

It was founded unashamedly for one race


----------



## jman2007 (22 April 2009)

disarray said:


> arab muslims are an aggressive, tribal, mysoginistic people. they don't respect concession or dialogue or all the reasonable things we like in the western world, they respect strength and violence and machismo. plenty of intelligence papers and writers and historians have pointed this out over the years, and finally people seem to be waking up to the fact and are starting to take less **** from these people.




Some of the right-wing Israeli settlers could also similarly be described using the adjectives in your post.

I think a lot of moderate Israeli's do not agree with what their own settlers are doing, basically taking land by force and evicting the inhabitants - the Palestinians. The settlers have the capacity to interupt and totally destroy what is left of the Peace Process. Although the Israeli Government makes half-hearted efforts to reign them in, it seems to me to be mostly a charade.


----------



## disarray (22 April 2009)

> Some of the right-wing Israeli settlers could also similarly be described using the adjectives in your post.




yep. but israel is still a moderate, liberal, westernised society where women have equal rights, you are free to practice whatever religion you want without fear of violence or having to pay jizya, and you can be openly gay. opposed to say saudi arabia or iran or egypt or iraq or palestine where   women are second class citizens and christians and other minority religions are leaving in droves because of endless violence against them and gays are routinely executed.

and you won't be finding an right wing orthodox jew with a backpack full of explosives on a london train so adjectives aside, i'd say the nationalist jew and the arab muslim are pretty different creatures from different cultural and ideological backgrounds.



> I think a lot of moderate Israeli's do not agree with what their own settlers are doing, basically taking land by force and evicting the inhabitants - the Palestinians.




well all the settlers have been pulled out of gaza so they're not taking anything by force there. in the west bank however you are correct, settlement proceeds apace without the government seeming to interfere. but hey, the arabs have had 4 shots to exterminate israel and take the lot but they failed so maybe israel considers the land as spoils.



> The settlers have the capacity to interupt and totally destroy what is left of the Peace Process.




so do palestinian rocket and suicide attacks. israel has the position of strength, if the palestinians were smart they'd back down, negotiate some kind of deal then over time gain concessions and equality, but it won't happen because they won't back down. their culture is warped, concession is weakness and backing down doesn't happen.

there's always finger pointing and blame at the israelis without any discussion of palestinians culture, society, attitudes and behaviour. why?

is palestine a racist state?


----------



## sammy84 (22 April 2009)

disarray said:


> arab muslims are an aggressive, tribal, mysoginistic people. they don't respect concession or dialogue or all the reasonable things we like in the western world, they respect strength and violence and machismo. plenty of intelligence papers and writers and historians have pointed this out over the years, and finally people seem to be waking up to the fact and are starting to take less ***** from these people.*




Wow those are some angry words. And people of arabic ethnicity are now referred to these people I see. You could bother writing up an argument opposing such views, but the fact that you have these views in the first place indicates to me that there is no point.



disarray said:


> yep. but israel is still a moderate, liberal, westernised society




Israelis previous prime minister was basically a war criminal The only reason he was no not charged was due to a technicality with Belgium criminal code.
As for being moderate, I call by firing white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas during its last siege against gaza. I wouldn't exactly call this actions of a moderate state. 
I'm not saying the Palestinians are in the right either, but you can entirely lay blame on one side.


----------



## gooner (22 April 2009)

The immigration policy is akin to the white Australia policy. If you are a jew, come straight in, if you are an arab forget it. Sounds pretty racist to me. Israel was founded on a  home for the jews. This is what apartheid was about - a home for the whites, with the batustans for the blacks. In Israel, the equivalent is the occupied palestinian territories. Israel enforces collective punishment for arabs not for jews. Jewish murderers do not have their homes demolished.

However, there is no doubt that Israel is one of the more open countries in the middle-east and that human rights are better than in many of the local countries, for example Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran etc, Israel claims to be a beacon of human rights akin to Western Countries. And that it just going too far.

IMHO, about time American acted in its own national interest and forced Israel to accept a palestinian state based on UN resolutions i.e with East Jerusalam (?) as its capital. If Israel does not play along, no aid and no weapons. I genuinely believe this will reduce the risk of terrorism in Australia and other Western countries. The oppression of palestinians is a running sore amongst islamic countries


----------



## jman2007 (22 April 2009)

disarray said:


> is palestine a racist state?




Well technically not disarray, because they don't have a state of their own, remember? Although a lot of them in Israel would have Israeli citizenship.



disarray said:


> so do palestinian rocket and suicide attacks. israel has the position of strength, if the palestinians were smart they'd back down, negotiate some kind of deal then over time gain concessions and equality, but it won't happen because they won't back down. their culture is warped, concession is weakness and backing down doesn't happen.




Equality? Remember a lot of the time it's kids armed with rocks and bottles fighting IDF Merkava tanks. This behaviour isn't bourne through some kind of warped sense of obedience to their Islamic faith, it's through desperation, they feel this is the only option open to them. Remember that Israel controls every aspect of their life, if the Israeli's don't want that food aid and medicine getting into Gaza, then they simply don't let it through. If Israel want to cut off electricity to Gaza, then that's what they do. I think if you and me found oursleves in this situation, then we'd be a tad upset too.


----------



## disarray (22 April 2009)

look i've been through all this before (at length) in other threads so i couldn't be bothered to rehash it. 

basically the palestinians are in desperate straits because they have a defective culture. a combination of islam, tribalism, machismo and mysoginy means they will never be able to live in peace with the israelis so israel will have to keep curb stomping them into submission until the end of time or the palestinians change their culture.

believe it, don't, form your own opinion, i don't care. do your own research, but iran and the arab world having the gall to cry about israel being racist and the poor palestinians an innocent repressed people is bullsh1t which needs to be called out. repeatedly it seems.


----------



## jman2007 (22 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> On the one hand Ahmadinejad is a stark raving lunatic with zero credibility, keeping in mind his comments were for political consumption aimed at an Iranian/Arab audience.
> 
> But on the other hand, he is somewhat right...Israel is a state that prob should not be there, was born of terrorist actions and operates as a bizarre right wing arm of the American Govt..a democracy for right wing militarists and religious nuts.
> 
> Funny cos that last bit could easily apply to Iran at the moment too.




Well I'm actually surprised the UN gave him access to such a public platform to launch his attack from - a little bit naive on the UN's part imo.

Interesting assessment so_cynical, but sounds very accurate to me!


----------



## disarray (22 April 2009)

sammy84 said:


> Wow those are some angry words. And people of arabic ethnicity are now referred to these people I see. You could bother writing up an argument opposing such views, but the fact that you have these views in the first place indicates to me that there is no point.




well in respect to the anti-defamation of religion (read: silencing of free speech) push in the UN sponsored by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and heavily pushed by "these people" (being the saudis, the iranians, the pakistanis, the yemenis etc. etc.) then yes, muslim arabs are "these people".

you could bother having an open mind and being aware of whats going on the world but the fact you have these views in the first place indicates to me that there is no point.


----------



## jman2007 (22 April 2009)

disarray said:


> look i've been through all this before (at length) in other threads so i couldn't be bothered to rehash it.




Fair enough,

I've also no doubt you've been down this path in other threads many times before. This seems to be an extremely sensitive issue for you, so I'm going to leave it there.

Other people might take you up on referring to Iranian's as "Arabs" though, which they're definitely not - they're Persians, and they don't speak Arabic.

Interesting poll results so far, with approx 85% of results tending towards the "somewhat" to "absolutely" categories.


----------



## doctorj (22 April 2009)

There are some things that have been argued on forums since the days when news groups were popular that never achieve any resolution or change anyone's minds... This list includes: Intel vs AMD, Holden vs Ford, Israel, Coca Cola vs Pepsi, Left vs Right, the relative merits of various football codes etc etc.


----------



## sammy84 (22 April 2009)

disarray said:


> well in respect to the anti-defamation of religion (read: silencing of free speech) push in the UN sponsored by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and heavily pushed by "these people" (being the saudis, the iranians, the pakistanis, the yemenis etc. etc.) then yes, muslim arabs are "these people".
> 
> you could bother having an open mind and being aware of whats going on the world but the fact you have these views in the first place indicates to me that there is no point.




Being aware of whats going on in the world? WTF! I am now banning my self from this thread, as I fear saying something I might regret. Let the poll speak for itself, which I'm sure you will nonetheless discredit as no one in this forum would have the requisite 'awareness'.


----------



## jman2007 (22 April 2009)

sammy84 said:


> Let the poll speak for itself, which I'm sure you will nonetheless discredit as no one in this forum would have the requisite 'awareness'.




That's right Sammy

7 days from now, one way or another the poll will speak for itself. Actions always speak louder than words, I think we have a good cross-section of society on this forum, so let's wait and see what comes of it.


----------



## disarray (23 April 2009)

sammy84 said:


> Being aware of whats going on in the world? WTF! I am now banning my self from this thread




why? you are aware that an islamic coalition headed by the saudis and pakistanis and iranians is pushing to get anti-defamation laws passed in the UN that forbid criticism of religion right?

and that these laws will mean we have to curtail our free speech (in fact they specifically said "there must be limits to free speech") with regards to race and religion. you understand that yes?

and that iran and saudi arabia relegate women to second class citizens and routinely violate human rights and execute people for being gay and forbid other people to openly practice any other religion than islam. you are aware of this of course?

and that irans political and theological leaders have repeatedly stood up and said they want to wipe israel off the face of the earth. you've seen the articles over the years and read the reports and so on hey?

so now we've got these "people" standing up in the UN decrying israel for being racist. so i go ahead and point out gaping cultural, religious and ideological flaws in the arab world which has repeatedly tried to destroy israel and drive the jews into the sea, and bring up some points to suggest that perhaps these charges needed to be taken in a broader context than "oh the israelis are racist and the palestinians are victims". 

you know, something along the lines of "pot calling the kettle black", or maybe "the arab world really shouldn't be criticising anyone else given their own track record" or even "hey lets compare israeli society to arab society and see if we can find something in the deck other than another race card".

but no, you respond with "no point talking to you, how can you possibly have that opinion?". maybe we should attach you to a UN delegation.

is israel a racist state? the question itself is pointless, one dimensional and is designed to polarise. how can you be "somewhat" racist anyway? you are racist or you aren't. every single time a thread like this comes up people just jump into their pro or anti israel camp and blather on about how they've suffered at the hands of the other at some point. it's like a bloody schoolyard, so and so did so and so blah blah.

how about a discussion of cultural factors and wider geopolitical plays that are influencing this whole thing? no, its easier just to jump into your camp, play your race cards and call it a night.

and yes jman i know iranians are persians and palestine isn't a state, you still get the point.


----------



## jman2007 (23 April 2009)

disarray said:


> how about a discussion of cultural factors and wider geopolitical plays that are influencing this whole thing? no, its easier just to jump into your camp, play your race cards and call it a night.




disarray,

It wasn't my intention for people to feel like they have to submit their own thesis on the "Illustrated History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 110AD" to have their say. A poll is a quick way to gauge people's perceptions and opinions without them having to launch into a montonous and rambling discourse in trying to jutsify their arguments. 

Many people will just be happy to vote and leave it at that.


----------



## Sean K (23 April 2009)

disarray said:


> how about a discussion of cultural factors and wider geopolitical plays that are influencing this whole thing?



You can start one of those threads if you like disarray.

Although, I'm sure it will be discussed here.

I think the thread title may have come out of the UN conference actually and Armadinejad's comments which resulted in the walk out. I think it was all based on the race discussion, although he was probably playing a politician wanting to get re-elected too.

Great thread. 

I'm in the not sure camp.


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 April 2009)

All I can say is "Who started this -----> thread?"


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 April 2009)

jman2007 said:


> Most of us are probably aware of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attack on Israel during the recent UN racism Conference, in which be labelled Israel as the "most cruel and racist regime".
> 
> Does he have a point?...or is this guy just a stark raving lunatic with zero credibility? Why did every Western Government condemn his remarks? Did they do that just to tow the line, even though Ahmadinejad might have gone where they are too afraid to go?
> 
> ...



It's a ridiculous poll that will always reflect the left and the zealous right, the irreligious, the other main proselytising religions, and the misinformed. It will not reflect the balanced views nor the informed views because most are uninformed and follow what the media throw down people's throats. Ahmadinijan is taking advantage of those elements.


----------



## So_Cynical (23 April 2009)

If anyone missed this a couple of years ago...Iranian president Ahmadinejad 
answered questions of students and professors at Columbian University, NY 
on sept. 24, 2007. Here he elaborates on the treatement and human rights 
of women and homosexuals in Iran.

Ahmadinejad is a good politician...Milosevic was popular in his day as well, in 
the same sorta way.


----------



## Mr J (23 April 2009)

gooner said:


> IMHO, about time American acted in its own national interest and forced Israel to accept a palestinian state based on UN resolutions i.e with East Jerusalam (?) as its capital. If Israel does not play along, no aid and no weapons. *I genuinely believe this will reduce the risk of terrorism in Australia and other Western countries*. The oppression of palestinians is a running sore amongst islamic countries




I don't consider this an issue. I can't remember the last time some terrorists threatened me in my wanderings around Sydney. It should be about bringing stability to the region, rather than any thought on terrorism in the West.


----------



## gooner (23 April 2009)

disarray said:


> why? you are aware that an islamic coalition headed by the saudis and pakistanis and iranians is pushing to get anti-defamation laws passed in the UN that forbid criticism of religion right?
> 
> and that these laws will mean we have to curtail our free speech (in fact they specifically said "there must be limits to free speech") with regards to race and religion. you understand that yes?
> 
> ...




All very good points. The proposed law on religion is garbage, a total contradiction of free speech. Yes Iran and Saudi are barbaric regimes. But all of these issues do not impact whether Israel is a racist state or not. A completely different issue to divert the thread.



> so now we've got these "people" standing up in the UN decrying israel for being racist. so i go ahead and point out gaping cultural, religious and ideological flaws in the arab world which has repeatedly tried to destroy israel and drive the jews into the sea, and bring up some points to suggest that perhaps these charges needed to be taken in a broader context than "oh the israelis are racist and the palestinians are victims".




In relation to "gaping cultural religious flaws". The white south africans used the same arguments. "They are barbaric", "Ignorant Kaffirs" "Will ruin the country". Cultural differences do not make subjugation of a different race morally right or appropriate. IMHO, I am amazed that America, being a multicultural country, has tolerated Israeli racism for so long.


----------



## gooner (23 April 2009)

Mr J said:


> I don't consider this an issue. I can't remember the last time some terrorists threatened me in my wanderings around Sydney. It should be about bringing stability to the region, rather than any thought on terrorism in the West.




Benbrika and Lodhi are just two of the Islamic nutters jailed in Australia for terrorism related charges. They might not threaten you as walk around Sydney, usual thing is to plant bombs that kill people. So you are threatened, you just don't know it. These people are encouraged by a view that planting bombs in the West is repayment for the West's support of Israeli oppression of Palestinians. If the oppression of Palestinians is removed, there will be less Islamic terrorists and less of a threat in the West. My opinion only.


----------



## darnsmall (23 April 2009)

jman2007 said:


> Most of us are probably aware of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attack on Israel during the recent UN racism Conference, in which be labelled Israel as the "most cruel and racist regime".
> 
> Does he have a point?...or is this guy just a stark raving lunatic with zero credibility? Why did every Western Government condemn his remarks? Did they do that just to tow the line, even though Ahmadinejad might have gone where they are too afraid to go?
> 
> ...



Ahmadinejad has a point, they're racist, if you consider muslim/jewdaism a race...I think the term doesn't really matter so much, they don't care for anyone else other than their own. And like a lot of others Israel will trample on those in their way if they can get away with it.

The west supports Israel and no western government that isn't in bed with Israel wants to side or be seen siding with Iran, Ahmadinejad has a point, but he's one to talk...

I like to think of Israel's stance on Palestine as the South Park hunting defence "Oh My GOD It's Coming Right For Us"
Israel needs to take steps in defending itself if it wont' to piss of everyone in the region. 

I just hope this helps keep oil on the rise in years to come


----------



## Mr J (23 April 2009)

gooner said:


> Benbrika and Lodhi are just two of the Islamic nutters jailed in Australia for terrorism related charges. They might not threaten you as walk around Sydney, usual thing is to plant bombs that kill people. So you are threatened, you just don't know it. These people are encouraged by a view that planting bombs in the West is repayment for the West's support of Israeli oppression of Palestinians. If the oppression of Palestinians is removed, there will be less Islamic terrorists and less of a threat in the West. My opinion only.




You're missing my point, that being terrorism is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack is quite remote, even if the anti-terrorism measures are significantly reduced. Most of our fears are quite unreasonable, terrorism probably being the least of the currently hyped fears.


----------



## darnsmall (23 April 2009)

Mr J said:


> You're missing my point, that being terrorism is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack is quite remote, even if the anti-terrorism measures are significantly reduced. Most of our fears are quite unreasonable, terrorism probably being the least of the currently hyped fears.




which is less likely, shark attack without netting on our beaches or terrorist attack without anti-terrorism laws/measures.
I think they should use the anti-terrorism laws for the bikies and atm bandits


----------



## Calliope (23 April 2009)

doctorj said:


> Ohhhhh boy.  This will be entertaining.
> 
> Please try to keep it friendly folks.




Not all the *usual suspects* have entered the fray yet. But they will. Give them time.


----------



## xyzedarteerf (23 April 2009)




----------



## metric (23 April 2009)

firstly....

there isnt a western leader that could match ahmadinejad in an iq test....

secondly, the 'wipe israel off the map' quote, was a blatent lie by western media. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ 

they purposefully mis translated him...who owns media? 

jews were never in history the populous majority in israeli claimed areas. they were always the minority. so how do they claim it as THEIR home? it was others home first. what right do the jews have to rule over the majority? they are still the minority.......democracy? democracy is a lie.


are israelis racist....? well, they believe we are goyim and we, unlike them, do not go to heaven. they believe they only, are gods children. gods chosen people. i guess that would have an effect on how they view non jews?


.


----------



## Mr J (23 April 2009)

darnsmall said:


> which is less likely, shark attack without netting on our beaches or terrorist attack without anti-terrorism laws/measures.
> I think they should use the anti-terrorism laws for the bikies and atm bandits




I don't know as I haven't look up the statistics, and I don't care to. I am sure that both are unlikely, and extremely unlikely if the requirement is firsthand experience. The priority with the issue that is the Middle East should not be to minimise terrorism in the West, but to stabilise the region. Terrorism in the West is infrequent, and when put in perspective very insignificant. 

We live in a society that hypes shark attacks, terrorism and so on, rather than cancer, heart disease and the like. I'd apply the same argument to road deaths as well. We have governments focus so much on lowering the Easter road death toll by a few people (let's pretend we don't know it's actually about revenue) rather than focusing on the real problems that we face.


----------



## Taltan (23 April 2009)

metric said:


> jews were never in history the populous majority in israeli claimed areas. they were always the minority. so how do they claim it as THEIR home? it was others home first. what right do the jews have to rule over the majority? they are still the minority.......democracy? democracy is a lie.
> 
> 
> .




Well there are more jews than muslims there now. As far as before that goes I don't think its patricularly relevant but I presume that since Judiasm was invented 3,000 before Islam there should be at least another 3,000 years where this was the case. 

You are correct that no minority has the right to rule a majority but Israel has no wish to be in Gaza or the West Bank. It is involved there as a misdirected form of self-defense no different to Australia's occupation of Ahfganistan.

As for democracy well there has not been a change in a leadership family in Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia for over 30 years. In that time Israel has had over 6 prime ministers and none were related to each other. In Israel every person over 18 is allowed to vote and practice their religion of choice regardless of race, religion or skin-colour. In the abovementioned countries this is not the case.

People should do their own research on the persecution of Coptic-Chrisitans in Egypt,  Christians in Sudan, Palestinians in Jordan, Kurds in Syria, Iran, Iraq & Turkey etc etc. This may help to clarify why Arab leaders prefer to blame Israel for their ills rather than face increased scrutiny were the Mid-East conflict ever resolved


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 April 2009)

Yes.

All "States" of the racist kind are racist.

Grow up.

gg


----------



## Beenjammin (23 April 2009)

Theres obviously a big mis-application of the word "racist" here. 

"Racism" is the belief that your race is superior to others, and treating others worse for it. On the other hand, Iraq is claiming the Israelis are racist because of acts of agression against Palestine. The reason for these acts are in direct response to a 60 year campaign of military action and terrorist acts funded by the Arab world in a declared effort destroy the Jewish state. (sounds racist to me)

Israel was created by the UN as a “last stand” for the Jews (both long term residents - who DID form the majority of the population of Jerusalem when Palestine was formed by the British in 1917 - and post WWII European refugees)  with the expectation they would be wiped out by their Arab neighbours in a short timeframe (hows that for racist?).  

So for Iraq to call Israel a racist state because they won’t lay down and die for them when they attacked like the world expected, to put it mildly, smacks of sour grapes.

When your neighbours have declared they are out to kill you and the rest of the world blocks efforts for anyone to provide assistance to you, of course you're going to protect yourself - hell ,we've only got a few desparate Afghans in dodgy Indonesian fishing boats turning up in Darwin and some look on it as an invasion. What would we do if one of our neighbours declared they wanted us all dead and started launching rocket attacks on Australian cities with the intention of killing off the Aussies? Watch how quickly the queues to join up would grow.

There's nothing racist about fighting for your life.


----------



## mayk (23 April 2009)

I donot argue about their "God" given right to populate Israel. I just want them to adopt a policy of live and let live. Arabia of 1965 is quite different to Arabia of today. Back then they were not used to all this comfort provided by easy oil money. I am sure if Israel wants a peace deal time is now to do it. Stretching it out further will only make Israel the sole loser.

If it is so afraid of Arabs, then even if it executes all Palestinians, its citizens won't be able to sleep easy at night. Develop on the model of good co-operation with its neighbor. Israel and Arabs both have the potential to solve this problem, as shown by the good relations of Jordan, Egypt and Israel. 

Here is for hoping, one day peace will prevail in middle east and pigs will fly.........


----------



## helicart (23 April 2009)

No, Israel is not a racist state, because Judaism is not dependent on genetics....it is a religion. 

Therefore, a Lebanese Muslim or Christian could convert to Judaism and be accepted in Israel. 

The racism card is the major subversive apparatus used by the Western democracy guilt industry, usually comprised of existentially anxious PC Marxists who want to erode freedom of religion and thought.....and replace it with worship of something tangible that they can manipulate, like a Socialist State. 

When a Marxist comes on hard times, he believes only humans can bail him out. 

When a Jew comes on hard times (or any religious dude), they believe they should look deeper within for an answer before hitting on their bro for a handout.....

Marxists hate religion because religious people believe in something Marxists cannot control and manipulate. ergo, Communist China's total neanderthal destruction of Tibetan culture and Mahayana Buddhist heritage. 

Nevertheless, Jews have a pretty superior view of themselves.......which is cool by me....as long as they value knowledge, education, and self employment more than your average Australian, they are kosher in my books.


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2009)

gooner said:


> The immigration policy is akin to the white Australia policy. If you are a jew, come straight in, if you are an arab forget it. Sounds pretty racist to me. Israel was founded on a  home for the jews. This is what apartheid was about - a home for the whites, with the batustans for the blacks. In Israel, the equivalent is the occupied palestinian territories. Israel enforces collective punishment for arabs not for jews. Jewish murderers do not have their homes demolished.
> 
> However, there is no doubt that Israel is one of the more open countries in the middle-east and that human rights are better than in many of the local countries, for example Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran etc, Israel claims to be a beacon of human rights akin to Western Countries. And that it just going too far.
> 
> IMHO, about time American acted in its own national interest and forced Israel to accept a palestinian state based on UN resolutions i.e with East Jerusalam (?) as its capital. If Israel does not play along, no aid and no weapons. I genuinely believe this will reduce the risk of terrorism in Australia and other Western countries. The oppression of palestinians is a running sore amongst islamic countries




You missed one minor detail

20% of Israels population is Arab............


----------



## Beenjammin (23 April 2009)

A very brief recap of Israeli history for those not familiar:

Judea was  founded 1400BC by Jews (Jews/Judea). Despite wars, occupations, enslavements and exiles, by the time the state of Palestine was created by the British in 1917 the majority of the population in the capital city of Jerusalem was still Jewish (however there were a lot more Arabs in the rest of Palestine).

Heavy migration into British Palestine by refugee European Jews in the 30’s upset the Arab nations. In an effort to keep the Arab Palestinians on side, the Brits prevented Jewish refugees from accessing Palestine, stopping migration completely in 1940 (effectively trapping them in Nazi Europe) and banning the resident Jews (who’d been there before anyone else) from being able to purchase land over most of Palestine. 

(BTW This didn't work for the Brits - Syria came under German rule with the invasion of France, Iraq joined forces with Germany and declared war on Britain in 1941, and the Palestinian Arabs turned on them in support of Iraq. For those who want to reduce the threat of terrorism, this just goes to show how effective appeasement is....)

At the end of the war the British, concerned the arrival of more Jews would trigger a major conflict and force them out of Palestine, tried to patch up relations with the Arab nations by stopping refugee Jews migrating en mass into Palestine  by rounding them up on arrival - including  holocaust survivors recently  released from Germany - and deporting them into new concentration camps in Cyprus, keeping many of them there right up to 1949. In 1947, with no more room in the camps and unable to cope, the Brits handed their problems to the newly formed UN to solve. The UN, to their annoyance, kicked the Brits out altogether and partitioned Palestine, creating Israel. The Arab nations immediately declared war and created the Arab Liberation Army, funded by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, with the sole declared intent of destroying the new state. They were helped in their cause once again by the British who championed a UN arms embargo to stop any supply of weapons to Israel, in the vain hope that once it was "all over" they could return and regain control .

The Jews, many having spent  years in Nazi and British detention camps, were now facing a well funded enemy, heavily armed with surplus WWII technology replete with experienced mercenary troops escaped from the Axis forces,  with no supporting nations to turn for assistance or even flee to if they chose. They were faced with no option but to fight for their lives, and continue to do so to this day. 

The Israelis have had to fight like hell to survive, and have done so against the odds. The Jews founded the original city nearly 3500 years ago and, despite best efforts, remain to this day. Israel has no natural resources to speak of so they are not in it for the spoils (unlike just about every other government on the planet), they just needed a place to live without fear of persecution - something no other country has ever been able to afford them.  If anyone has a right to seek self determination and to carve out a nation for themselves in that spot then they do – we helped East Timor do a similar thing against Indonesia on as strong a claim the Jews had to Jerusalem, and it was the right thing to do then.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 April 2009)

xyzedarteerf said:


>




I've never been to  Israel, as it is is the nexus of all godbothering places.

A nuclear eruption in Jerusalem IMHO would help all men and women to move forward and explore the past as a scientific problem rather than the ecclesiastical conundrum that faces us now.

These people will continue to bother each other by their proximity for ever more.

gg


----------



## gooner (23 April 2009)

IFocus said:


> You missed one minor detail
> 
> 20% of Israels population is Arab............




Err, I did not include that detail in my post and not sure why you raise it. The whole point of the thread  is the question of whether Israel racially discriminates against its Arab citizens and palestinians in the West Bank, for example by refusing the right to return for refugees whilst allowing immigration to Jews who have never lived in Israel.


----------



## Beenjammin (23 April 2009)

gooner said:


> Err, I did not include that detail in my post and not sure why you raise it. The whole point of the thread  is the question of whether Israel racially discriminates against its Arab citizens and palestinians in the West Bank, for example by refusing the right to return for refugees whilst allowing immigration to Jews who have never lived in Israel.




Er, yes, because every Middle Eastern Islamic State has issued a death sentance by religious decree against the Jews as a race, and Israel is the homeland for the Jewish faith. So of course the Jews favour their own.

Who's more racist - a race issuing the death sentence against another race, or a country forced to enact immigration policy that involves racial profiling as a result?


----------



## gooner (23 April 2009)

Beenjammin said:


> Er, yes, because every Middle Eastern Islamic State has issued a death sentance by religious decree against the Jews as a race, and Israel is the homeland for the Jewish faith. So of course the Jews favour their own.
> 
> Who's more racist - a race issuing the death sentence against another race, or a country forced to enact immigration policy that involves racial profiling as a result?




You may want to quote a source for the death sentence issued by every Middle Eastern Islamic state as I am not aware of it. I read an article last year about the Jewish community in Iran, not big, but it exists and the members have not been murdered for being Jews, which you appear to suggest would happen given the death sentence.

I am not disputing that many middle eastern states are despotic and not well disposed towards Israel and indeed use Israel as a scapegoat. However, the thread is not about racism in middle eastern countries. It is about racism in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.


----------



## OK2 (23 April 2009)

This is a little off topic in a way but Israel refuses to recognize the two other genocides of last century, Armenia and Rwanda. It is bad for business and takes away the monopoly of relating the words Jewish to genocide as the only ever victims worthy of compensation. 

Also off topic, I had a conversation once with a middle-eastern man about the Six-Day War and he said that if all the people of the Arab world had of walked into Israel they would not of been defeated. Sighting external influence on the outcome.

For the record some of my best friends are Jewish from Israel including my accountant and solicitor. Quite often we agree to disagree on many issues but we still voice our opinions, including football.


----------



## jman2007 (24 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> It's a ridiculous poll that will always reflect the left and the zealous right, the irreligious, the other main proselytising religions, and the misinformed. It will not reflect the balanced views nor the informed views because most are uninformed and follow what the media throw down people's throats. Ahmadinijan is taking advantage of those elements.




Now that's a classic....

You've possibly just stereotyped 75-80% of the population in your first sentence. The whole point of a poll is to get feedback from people with all kinds of background mate, otherwise we get a nasty little word called "bias" entering the equation. You might as well add "people with an opinion" to your list of ineligible voters.


----------



## disarray (24 April 2009)

gooner said:


> You may want to quote a source for the death sentence issued by every Middle Eastern Islamic state as I am not aware of it.




the iranian president and leading theocrats have repeatedly called for the destruction of israel, and the various imams from around the muslim world throw the odd fatwa around telling everyone to kill jews blah blah. go google.



> I read an article last year about the Jewish community in Iran, not big, but it exists and the members have not been murdered for being Jews, which you appear to suggest would happen given the death sentence.




well the population has dropped from around 90,000 to 25,000 since the iranian revolution, jews have to distance themselves from any ideals of zionism, they are monitored by the secret police, have mandatory limitations on advancement in the government, military and judiciary, have travel and monetary movement restriction placed upon them, and live under the status of dhimmi. it's hardly rosy.



> I am not disputing that many middle eastern states are despotic and not well disposed towards Israel and indeed use Israel as a scapegoat. However, the thread is not about racism in middle eastern countries. It is about racism in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.




yes but the point is that this thread was sparked by the iranian presidents speech in the UN. once again as soon as someone says something about israel all the leftists get up in arms and scream "RACISM" yet never, ever is there consideration of who is making the claim and the wider circumstances at play. the mere fact that this came from iran is laughable and the fact that people are all to eager to jump on the anti-israeli bandwagon while totally ignoring the messenger (who should really be shot) just demonstrates how one dimensional the public perception of this issue is. still, it's to be expected from todays soundbyte "let the tv form your opinion" society.


----------



## Calanen (25 April 2009)

> A nuclear eruption in Jerusalem IMHO would help all men and women to move forward and explore the past as a scientific problem rather than the ecclesiastical conundrum that faces us now.




That is a particularly stupid thing to say.


----------



## Basilica (25 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A nuclear eruption in Jerusalem IMHO would help all men and women to move forward and explore the past as a scientific problem rather than the ecclesiastical conundrum that faces us now.
> gg




MMM .... I think all the dead and dying people may argue that there may be a better way to move forward. I have reframed from voting on this issue as the vote seems racist on its own. If it was a vote if Zionists are rasists i would put a mouse click in to the pole.  




disarray said:


> israel




I dont really intend to quote you but the obvious thing to say is to comment on your picture and lighten the mood.
Is Davros a racist or is he just mis-understood


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 April 2009)

Basilica said:


> Is Davros a racist or is he just mis-understood



Since racism refers to race, unless a left wing nut trying to stop debate, the answer is no.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 April 2009)

jman2007 said:


> Now that's a classic....
> 
> You've possibly just stereotyped 75-80% of the population in your first sentence. The whole point of a poll is to get feedback from people with all kinds of background mate, otherwise we get a nasty little word called "bias" entering the equation. You might as well add "people with an opinion" to your list of ineligible voters.



No, I'll add anti-semitic to the list. It's just another Israeli bashing chance.


----------



## Largesse (26 April 2009)

i voted absolutely. but doesn't mean i don't think the majority of islamic states are aswell.


GG's comments pretty accurately represent my thoughts


----------



## Calliope (26 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Since racism refers to race, unless a left wing nut trying to stop debate, the answer is no.




Viewers have obviously voted on the basis of whether they are pro or anti an Israeli state. Racism is the notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior.

I imagine the most Israelis are of Semitic stock, but then so are all their neighbours. Any attempt to judge the Israelis on the basis of racism is based on a false premise.


----------



## Basilica (26 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Since racism refers to race, unless a left wing nut trying to stop debate, the answer is no.




You are correct. I shoud have said Speceist and and not racist.
I am not trying to stop the debate, just to add a little humour.


----------



## Basilica (26 April 2009)

doctorj said:


> Ohhhhh boy.  This will be entertaining.
> 
> Please try to keep it friendly folks.




This is in my opinion, a wise statement and  I totally welcome debate as i see this issue as a major threat to world peace. And Please Try and keep it friendly.
However all need to understand that it is more likley that current "Enron" shareholders will make a profit from their investment then as single extremist from "Point of View A" will change the opinion of a single extremist from "Point of View B". 
Your debating audience should be the moderates as that is where the solution will come from.

As a peace offering to all, i encourage all moderates to unite, Dig a large Nuke proof hole in the most disputed square KM of territory. Escort all extremist into the hole and NUKE the lot of them. And then we can as GG correctly stated.



> help all men and women to move forward and explore the past as a scientific problem rather than the ecclesiastical conundrum that faces us now.




But perhaps i am just a dreamer?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 April 2009)

Basilica said:


> You are correct. I shoud have said Speceist and and not racist.
> I am not trying to stop the debate, just to add a little humour.



I wasn't refering to you as being a nut Basilica. Just the racist card that left wing nuts hand out daily. Marxism and PC, its cousin, stifle free speech. I should have made that clearer in my comments. My apologies if you took it the wrong way.


----------



## darnsmall (27 April 2009)

helicart said:


> No, Israel is not a racist state, because Judaism is not dependent on genetics....it is a religion.
> 
> Therefore, a Lebanese Muslim or Christian could convert to Judaism and be accepted in Israel.
> 
> ...




yeah I'm a bit un easy about the race card being used. Race to me is defined by common physical attributes that can be used to define or group a number of people by. It can be a group of people linked by a common line of descent or ancestry but this can be very blurred when you look at it scientifically. Science seems to have a hard time defining race because our genetic history it's possible that I share a closer common ancestor with someone of a socially defined different race, than 'my own kind'

I think the race card is just an easy throw away term used by the media for an easy win to evoke an emotional response ever for or against the participants


----------



## darnsmall (27 April 2009)

OK2 said:


> This is a little off topic in a way but Israel refuses to recognize the two other genocides of last century, Armenia and Rwanda. It is bad for business and takes away the monopoly of relating the words Jewish to genocide as the only ever victims worthy of compensation.
> 
> Also off topic, I had a conversation once with a middle-eastern man about the Six-Day War and he said that if all the people of the Arab world had of walked into Israel they would not of been defeated. Sighting external influence on the outcome.
> 
> For the record some of my best friends are Jewish from Israel including my accountant and solicitor. Quite often we agree to disagree on many issues but we still voice our opinions, including football.




Israel needs Turkey's support in such a volatile reason, hence they can't be seen to recognise the Armenian genocide...not sure about Rwanda though; whats the story with that?


----------



## darnsmall (27 April 2009)

An interesting subject.
One post in here mentions or asks the question 'what would we do in Australia if rockets were landing on our cities?"

Israel is an interesting and fairly unique case (I never studied history, since history repeats itself so often I wouldn’t be surprised to be proved wrong on that statement). They have been given a country, attacked by their neighbours directly and indirectly after the first war and have themselves attacked other nations directly and indirectly. I’m not sure, is Palestine a recognised state, or is it part of Israel? Either way they treat them like crap and have believe if the worlds eye wasn’t on them they’d most likely kill every last one of the Palestinians. It’s gone on for so long and I think it will go on until one side destroys the other completely. Perhaps the changing of the world super power will change things, perhaps not. 
I don’t think any of the countries in that region can work together to come to an agreement on the subject of Israel. The ruling parties will always want to use the conflict to better their own political interests (only natural). I’m sure both sides will commit atrocities on the other for years/centuries (if they make it that far) to come. The west will always side with Israel (with a sprinkling of dissenters) until a change in world power makes it economically unviable to do so. We can now put to bed the notion that Jews control America (they have too much to lose if America fails to have allowed the GFC) 
The east will always side with Palestine, probably less to do with actual support but more to do with their greater distaste for one over the other, and being able to exert greater influence over the Palestinians. I’m sure there will still be unrest in that region without Israel thanks to the strong religious beliefs and poor education making it easy pickings in raising an army of zealots.
I’ll always smile when people complain about Israel getting away with murder; they’re got a very big powerful brother who’ll look after them until someone else kicks his ****. I’ve learnt that there is no such thing as persecution, crimes against humanity, war crimes, unless the biggest bully in the school yard says so. 
If only there were massive oil reserves in Israel, it’d all seem worth it and the conflict could help drive up oil prices…what a waste


----------



## Basilica (27 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I wasn't refering to you as being a nut Basilica. Just the racist card that left wing nuts hand out daily. Marxism and PC, its cousin, stifle free speech. I should have made that clearer in my comments. My apologies if you took it the wrong way.




No problems Snake, It is easy to misunderstand the fast typing on a forum. And thanks for clearing it up. Cheers Basilica


----------

