Israeli Government Ads Warn Against Marrying Non-Jews

[Kulindahr]

Yes there is a problem with the separation of religion from the institution of marriage in Israel. For all practical purposes there really isn't a civil marriage in Israel. Then again, Israel was founded to be a Jewish state from the getgo unlike the US or other countries which are not officially favorable to certain religions.

Therein lies the problem: Americans, especially, think that all states should be secular and welcome all people. Europeans are more accustomed to segregated states; the French aren't terribly happy about Paris being overrun by dark-skinned foreigners, for example.

Another problem is in what Chalco ignores when noting that "the rest of Europe" rebuilt itself: the Jews had no country; they were a nation without a land -- and a nation that is intimately tied up with a religion.

And since they are surrounded by nations which are still technically at war with them, by people who think Hitler should have finished the job, should we be surprised that they want to foment practices that will help them to keep their numbers up, so they can survive?

We may not like the idea of a government urging certain marriage practices, but we darned well ought to be sympathetic.

Well as that is exactly what they have been doing, we should both consider ourselves satisfied, I suppose, eh?

Now there's a piece of arrogant ignorance (or ignorant arrogance).

In the latest pictures I've seen from Gaza, etc., there were still buildings, and trees, and such. Did I miss the part where Israel came through with huge bulldozers and shoved all of Gaza into Egypt, in a heap?

 

[Kulindahr]

Instead, all of America's biggest banks engaged in profiteering, lending money to both sides of the war and insisting on respect for American neutrality. Hardly admirable.

Sounds like Switzerland.

And as far as the Arabs attacking the Jews when they arrived in Palestine, I will say that if a bunch of strangers came to steal my land, I would kill them too. Only I would have done a far better job at it.

Arabs began attacking Jews even when those Jews were on land they had legally purchased. Some Arab politicians even encouraged Arabs to sell their land, then kill the Jews and take it back.

Hardly admirable.

 

[Chalchalero]

Therein lies the problem: Americans, especially, think that all states should be secular and welcome all people. Europeans are more accustomed to segregated states; the French aren't terribly happy about Paris being overrun by dark-skinned foreigners, for example.

I do not know what you mean by Europeans preferring "segregated states".

I can say, however, that every nation in Europe as far north as Sweden and Denmark is concerned about the imigration influx. Africa is in such a dismal state the momnt, that people are willing to risk life and limb to get to Europe. The way they used to go to America.

And the idea that "the French" are somehow unhappy about "dark-skinned foreigners" is over simplistic. While there are racists who would prefer not to see these people in their country at all (let alone in Paris), this is not by any means either a universal or even majority-held sentiment. If one were to say the "te Americans" aren't terribly happy about Mexicans "overrunning" their country, I believe that you wold be the first to call me on it.

Another problem is in what Chalco ignores when noting that "the rest of Europe" rebuilt itself: the Jews had no country; they were a nation without a land -- and a nation that is intimately tied up with a religion.

And since they are surrounded by nations which are still technically at war with them, by people who think Hitler should have finished the job, should we be surprised that they want to foment practices that will help them to keep their numbers up, so they can survive?

We may not like the idea of a government urging certain marriage practices, but we darned well ought to be sympathetic.

No one is at war with Israel. It remains Israel that is at war with everyone else. They cotinue to use the "technical" state of war between their neighbours as an excuse to continue wrangling money and weapons fom the Americans and it works. Good for them.

But I do not care what the excuse. When a government develops a fascist plan such as that discussed here, it is wrong, whatever the motives may be. Every fascist totalitarian dictator has found some way of justifying his insane plans, but only in this case have I seen so many fall behind the plan with such abandon.

No government, NOT EVEN THE SACRED ONE OF ISRAEL should be allowed to dictate to anyone whom they can or cannot marry. There is no way around it.

Now there's a piece of arrogant ignorance (or ignorant arrogance).

In the latest pictures I've seen from Gaza, etc., there were still buildings, and trees, and such. Did I miss the part where Israel came through with huge bulldozers and shoved all of Gaza into Egypt, in a heap?

So because they have not yet completed the task, that is proof to you that they are not doing it? Talk about arrogant ignorance...

 

[Chalchalero]

Sounds like Switzerland.

The difference is that Switzerland has never claimed to have entered the war to "defend liberty" , etc.

Arabs began attacking Jews even when those Jews were on land they had legally purchased. Some Arab politicians even encouraged Arabs to sell their land, then kill the Jews and take it back.

Hardly admirable.

If you are going to stoop to this sort of propaganda, then I will have to ask you to provide me with some credible unbiased evidence. I studied this matter a great deal and have never come across the nonsense you have included here and will need to see some sort of academic proof before I can take it with more than the usual grain of salt with which I take all such drivel.

 

[Kulindahr]

No one is at war with Israel. It remains Israel that is at war with everyone else. They cotinue to use the "technical" state of war between their neighbours as an excuse to continue wrangling money and weapons fom the Americans and it works. Good for them.

That's one of the more ridiculous statements Ive seen on this forum. Iran is at war with Israel, by proxy, and they're not the only one. And all the nations which haven't made peace are still at war -- and they mean it, or they would have made a settlement.

But I do not care what the excuse. When a government develops a fascist plan such as that discussed here, it is wrong, whatever the motives may be. Every fascist totalitarian dictator has found some way of justifying his insane plans, but only in this case have I seen so many fall behind the plan with such abandon.

What "fascist plan"? Is not the government of a people allowed to advance proposals, and to urge them on their people, for the sake of the people's survival?
When Navajo leaders in the U,S, urge their young people to marry within the tribe, so their heritage can be preserved, I nod with understanding. But when Jewish leaders make the same request, I'm supposed to condemn them? If anything, the reverse should be true: no one is running around preaching genocide against the Navajo.
BTW, what "fascist totalitarian dictator"? You find those in the countries who want to see Israel destroyed.

No government, NOT EVEN THE SACRED ONE OF ISRAEL should be allowed to dictate to anyone whom they can or cannot marry. There is no way around it.

And no government is, at least any under discussion here.

So because they have not yet completed the task, that is proof to you that they are not doing it? Talk about arrogant ignorance...

The proof is in their restraint. If they used against their enemies the policies those enemies use against them, they would have used fuel-air bombs in Gaza, not artillery and missiles. If their policy were to level Gaza, they would have quoted the Old Testament lex talionis, and used highly destructive levels of force.

It seems clear to me that you haven't tried to understand the issues at all, but have bought into a very anti-Israel propaganda. The Jews of Israel want what many others have: a homeland that is safe. To achieve that, they are faced with difficult choices, and overall they have done reasonably well in choosing their path. But you don't even grant them the regard due ordinary human beings faced with tough situations; you just condemn them out of hand.

 

[Kulindahr]

The difference is that Switzerland has never claimed to have entered the war to "defend liberty" , etc.

That's not what you attacked the U.S. for -- you attacked it for doing the very same thing Switzerland has done: being neutral, and making a profit selling to anyone who would buy.

If you are going to stoop to this sort of propaganda, then I will have to ask you to provide me with some credible unbiased evidence. I studied this matter a great deal and have never come across the nonsense you have included here and will need to see some sort of academic proof before I can take it with more than the usual grain of salt with which I take all such drivel.

What propaganda? The information is freely available, and has been posted before on this forum. It's a mere matter of history that Jews made their way to the Holy Land and began buying land, and that Arab leaders in the lands around them urged violence against them, because they saw it as a move toward establishing a Jewish state -- which they didn't want.
Yes, some Jews used force to claim land; more occupied land that they didn't own, but on which no one was living. Both sides escalated the violence, which the British tried non-impartially and not very competently to stop.
Even when the U.N. offered a plan that stripped away most of the land the Jews had been promised under the British mandate, the Jews accepted it -- and Arabs rejected it, preferring to try to get rid of all the Jews, period. And when rioting and strikes weren't enough to achieve their goals, Arab armies attacked the day after the British were gone -- which is how Jordan came to annex the "West Bank", and Egypt to control Gaza.
And now radical Arab leaders are urging the Palestinians/Arabs in Israel to out-breed the Jews -- which leads to the Jewish response of wanting to breed more Jews, and having the government recommend it. It's a perfectly human, and understandable, response to efforts to eliminate one's people.

 

[naked gent]

And since they are surrounded by nations which are still technically at war with them,

Two of the four countries which border Israel have signed peace treaties with Israel so I'd say your claim that they are 'surrounded' by countries technically at war with them is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[Kulindahr]

It isn't. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories still remain hostile to the existence of Israel.

Indirectly, so do most or all of the Arab states in the U.N. Every year they challenge the Israeli delegation's credentials, and at every opportunity they whip up the General Assembly to condemn Israel for one thing or another. It's a continuous program, abetted by numerous third-world, so-called non-aligned states, out of -- IMO -- envy for Israel's success.

Since no nation which fails to guarantee basic human rights to its citizens ought to even be seated in the U.N., those efforts ought not to exist -- but that's politics.

 

[naked gent]

It isn't. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories still remain hostile to the existence of Israel.

Iran does not border Israel which makes it difficult for them to be grouped with countries which surround Israel and if you're willing to refer to the Palestinian Territories as a nation then I think you're a step or two ahead of the current Israeli government.

I will say that it is the tacit acceptance of Israel's existence by the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the arab gulf states, which does not exactly reflect the view of their populations, which Iran is trying to exploit in an effort to become the dominant power and leader of the middle east.

Their current opposition to Israel is merely a means to that end although should they ever achieve that goal its quite possible they will act on their rhetoric.

 

[Chalchalero]

That's one of the more ridiculous statements Ive seen on this forum. Iran is at war with Israel, by proxy, and they're not the only one. And all the nations which haven't made peace are still at war -- and they mean it, or they would have made a settlement.

Well that is simply nonsense. If Israel would cease its settlement expansion, stop its constant sabre rattling and maybeone day show some actual good faith, then someone in the world might just have the slightest interest in believing they were interested in peace. It takes two to reach a settlement.

What "fascist plan"? Is not the government of a people allowed to advance proposals, and to urge them on their people, for the sake of the people's survival?
When Navajo leaders in the U,S, urge their young people to marry within the tribe, so their heritage can be preserved, I nod with understanding. But when Jewish leaders make the same request, I'm supposed to condemn them? If anything, the reverse should be true: no one is running around preaching genocide against the Navajo.
BTW, what "fascist totalitarian dictator"? You find those in the countries who want to see Israel destroyed.

Any government plan that attempts to dictate whom one can marry and epecially on the basis of race is a fascist one in my book. I am not uite sure what you would call it.

And your comparison of the Navajo Nation, a people who, at only about 300,000 people really are in danger of extinction and the Jews, who number over 13 million worldwide is not particularly applicable.

We are, thankfully no doubt, in absolutely no danger of running out of Jews or of Jews losing their heritage. One cannot in good conscience even presume to compare the almost complete annhilation of the Native Americans to the status of the Jews. It is simply not possible.

And perhaps it would have been better if I had said fascist totalitarian "system" rather than "dictator" in order to be more clear in the point I was trying to make. The system proposed here is one which would make any fascist proud.

The proof is in their restraint. If they used against their enemies the policies those enemies use against them, they would have used fuel-air bombs in Gaza, not artillery and missiles. If their policy were to level Gaza, they would have quoted the Old Testament lex talionis, and used highly destructive levels of force.

I will not comment on their so-called "restraint", as that is a discussion which will only useless back and forth between us and neither of us will ever see eye to eye on that subject.

As far as FAE's ans thermobaric weapons, it is well documented tht Israel has has no compunction about utilising such devices, for example to destroy Beirut during their last invasion of Lebanon. There are so many UN, NGO and Human Rights group reports out there that I will not even waste any more time on this subject. The onloy reason they have not used these weapons on Gaza is because of Gaza'a very close proximity and because I believe that such an act would even offend the ever complacent Americans, without whom Israel would not be able to get her hands on yet more of such weapons.

But if, upon seeing recent photos and video of Gaza, you do not believe that Israel has used "highly destructive levels of force" against them, then there really is nothing left to discuss on that particular matter.

It seems clear to me that you haven't tried to understand the issues at all, but have bought into a very anti-Israel propaganda. The Jews of Israel want what many others have: a homeland that is safe. To achieve that, they are faced with difficult choices, and overall they have done reasonably well in choosing their path. But you don't even grant them the regard due ordinary human beings faced with tough situations; you just condemn them out of hand.

I am sorry for you that despite whatever facts I place into evidence, you still choose to see my position as merely "anti-Israel propaganda", rather than accepting the fact that everything is not so black and white as the Israel worshippers would like us to believe that it is. Israel, whether you like it or not, has a long way to go with regards to respecting her neighbours, following the international rule of law and the pursuit of peace.

How do you know that you are not just a victim of all of the pro-Israel propaganda tht is stuffed down Americans' throats on a daily basis? Do any of you Americans ever bother to question for yourselves, or do the Israeli Defence Ministry and AIPAC provide all of your thinking for you? "Israel said it so it must be true", right?

I do not pretend that all of Israel's neighbours are without their faults and agendas, but most have made great strides in attempting to go forward into the future, while Israel remains mired in the same stubborn position, foot planted firmly in the past that she always has, refusing to budge one inch and claiming to be the victim to justify her transgressions.

There is no excuse for illegal settlement expansion and there is no excuse for responding to a homemade rocket falling into your rose garden with wanton destruction of life and livelihood. There is no excuse for a country that happily spies on its own ally and benefactor. There is no excuse for a country that uses banned weapons, employs collective punishment on civilians and infrastructure at will and breaks international laws with abandon, but then goes screaming into Mummy's arms the moment someone calls them on it.

If I felt these were "ordinary beings facing tough situations" as you so heroically describe it, I would not condemn them, But as long as they continue with the hypocrisy of their hiding behind their superiour firepower and the bottomless pockets of their American benefactors while continuing to claim to be "poor little innocent victims" whenever they wih to step over the line I will always see them as anything but ordinary beings at all.

Israel will be safe when Israel ceases to be a threat to others. Not before then.

 

[Chalchalero]

First, you really don't, ok? All you have is hate, bias, and distortions.

Second, I am Jewish and an Israeli citizen, so don't talk about Israelis like they aren't here reading and participating in this forum.

You do not know me so do not presume to know what I do or do not understand. I have no hate for anyone. I am biased against blind worship of a flawed state, and nothing that I have posted here qualifies as distortion. Simply because you do not agree with what I say does not make it any less true.

Second, I do not write according to where i believe someone reading my post may come from. My opinions about Israel and the facts I have stated would remain the same if you were fro Mars, so what in the world are you talking about?

Right out of the Palestinian playbook, so glad to see your bias in action because as you typify Kulindahr's statements, I take yours with a "grain of salt" as well.

Actually I arrived at that conclusion by simply living on the same planet as America and Israel and keeping myself informed. Anyone with eyes can see if they wish to.

And I do not suppose that you would be pleased with my "bias" unless it were a strictly and blindly worshipping pro-Israel one and that will never happen, so there is nothing to be done about that.

Typical is your classic European disdain for Israel, which is something that has been fed to you since your inception.

And yet the facts remain, so I shall repeat them:

After 1952, Western Europe went it alone. When will Israel, I wonder? 60 years later and they are still grabbing at Mummy's teet. And biting it quite frequently if people like Jonathan Pollard and all of the other Mossad spying activity against the US (its benefactor) is any indication.

I actually was not fed my disdain for Israel, but rather acquired it through many years of studying and observing and keeping myself informed about Israel's activities in the world. My childhood was certainly not wasted one iota on discussing the plight of poor little misunderstood Israel. You, on the other hand, I do not doubt were fed your blind love for Israel from inception, and do you know what? That's fine. It's your country. You should love it. More power to you. Just do not accuse me of blind propagandising when that shoe would really fit better on your foot than mine.

And you may be surprised to learn that Europeans do not have a "classic disdain" for Israel, but neither are we sucked into the whiny drivel about Israel, the most powerful nation in the Middle East as the poor defenceless victim that Americans are so apt to swallow with abandon. But then again we do not have the equivalent of a Fox News or an AIPAC here constantly shoving it down our throats, thank God.

You mean like Israel did in the Six-Day War?

Actually no. That was begun with a pre-emptive strike. I was referring to the US not stepping up and assisting an ally in need when requested. Totally different scenario.

Arabs are the strangers thanks to a series of 7th century invasions. Still, Israel has brought to Arab-Israelis a standard of living they would have NEVER had if the Jews did not return to establish the 24th most developed country in the world according to the UN: http://hdr.undp.org/en/mediacentre/news/title,15493,en.html
Before the last intifada too, Palestinians had tremendous job opportunities in Israel.

If it were not almost three in the morning right now, I would address your complete distortion of the actual historical facts as well as the insensibility of referring to people who have lived on the same land for over a thousand years as strangers. But I am way too tired for that right now and there are other posts to which I wish to respond. Therefore you can have that one by default.

Palestinian terrorists hurt their own people more than they hurt Israel. It's a real shame, but their vainglorious pride and Islamic extremism is more important to them.

While I do not disagree with this particular statement, it does not address the point I was making which was:

They are not fighting to keep their homeland because no one is fighting them in any significant way.Sure, they use a homemade rocket attack as an excuse to steal more land, murder more children and bulldoze more homes, but that is not fighting for a homeland. That is just plain bullying.

There wasn't much arable farmland to begin with before the 50s. Israel turned vast swaths of uninhabitable land in the Galil into farmable land.

Your first statement is completely false, while I will not dispute the second one, as the only Galil with which I am familiar is an Israeli assault rifle.

If the purpose of it were to separate people, it would have been built a longggg ass time ago.

I'm sure you living in your comfortable Switzerland you wouldn't know anything about the danger of being blown up by a terrorist bomber. So I will excuse that ignorant and frankly irresponsible use of the word "apartheid."

The purpose of the wall is not only to separate and marginalise the Palestinians more than Israel already has, but also to facilitate Israel's continuous land grab from them so that when and if a peace is ever arrived at, the "facts on the ground" will preclude Israel from having to give up any land to the Palestinians. No one is fooled by that"saving lives" nonsense.

And as on 11 September 2001 I was living less than a mile away from the World Trade Centre and was able to observe every horrifying moment of that day from my balcony, I again must request that you stop making presumptions about me that you know nothing about. You do not know me. You have no idea the fear which still grips many New Yorkers to this day upon having been rudely awakened to the fact that they are indeed a prime terrorist target. I lived through it and so do understand a great deal more than you will ever know.

I will however excuse your arrogant and frankly irresponsible presumptions and ridiculous comments.

 

[Chalchalero]

It isn't. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories still remain hostile to the existence of Israel.

More inaccuracies on your part.

Syria is presently engaged in talks with Israel and has been for two years now. Lebanon has not technically been at war with Israel since the 1948 war, as all other hostilities in that country were Israel's bombastic attempts to rid itself of the PLO and Hezbollah. In the Palestinian Territories only Hamas in Gaza remains hostile to Israel's existence. The majority of Palestinians as well as the Fatah-run government have all accepted and are quite amenable to Israel's existence as long as she stops impeding the existence of a Palestinian state.

Iran still hates you though...

 

[Chalchalero]

That's not what you attacked the U.S. for -- you attacked it for doing the very same thing Switzerland has done: being neutral, and making a profit selling to anyone who would buy.

A: I did not attack the US in that statement.

B: The context of the statement to which you are referring was my attempt at clarification for another poster who claimed that the US entered World War II with the intention of spreading truth, justice and the American way, when in reality it was merely a self-interested mov on their part in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbour.

C: I have never claimed that Switzerland was entirely blameless during the war. But neither does Switzerland hold itself up hypocritically to embody ideals which are pure fantasy and propaganda, so it really doesn't matter, does it?

What propaganda? The information is freely available, and has been posted before on this forum. It's a mere matter of history that Jews made their way to the Holy Land and began buying land, and that Arab leaders in the lands around them urged violence against them, because they saw it as a move toward establishing a Jewish state -- which they didn't want.
Yes, some Jews used force to claim land; more occupied land that they didn't own, but on which no one was living. Both sides escalated the violence, which the British tried non-impartially and not very competently to stop.
Even when the U.N. offered a plan that stripped away most of the land the Jews had been promised under the British mandate, the Jews accepted it -- and Arabs rejected it, preferring to try to get rid of all the Jews, period. And when rioting and strikes weren't enough to achieve their goals, Arab armies attacked the day after the British were gone -- which is how Jordan came to annex the "West Bank", and Egypt to control Gaza..

Firstly, it was not as if Jews arrived with pocketbooks in hand to buy land. The first major influx of Jews into Palestine was facilitated by (of all people) the Nazis in the 1930's, who basically told the British "find some way to accomodate these people or we will."There was even a documented meeting in November of 1937 between Hagganah leaders and Adolf Eichmann in Egypt during the course of facilitating the transfer of Jews from Germany and Austria to Palestine.

The British handled the accommodating of the new arrivals very poorly by wantonly setting aside Arab-owned land for the Jews which understandably caused friction.

Secondly, the rest of your story is a very biased and not terribly accurate retelling of a story I have already heard trotted out a million times before. There was far more to it than the simplistic way which Israel and her friends would like it to be told and I just do not have the time or the energy to go through it here and now.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with your version of events.

And now radical Arab leaders are urging the Palestinians/Arabs in Israel to out-breed the Jews -- which leads to the Jewish response of wanting to breed more Jews, and having the government recommend it. It's a perfectly human, and understandable, response to efforts to eliminate one's people.

It is this sort of alarmist drivel that discourages me from ever believing anything I am told by Israel apologists. When did Arab leaders in Israel start urging Arab Israelis to "outbreed" Jews? This is utter nonsense.

 

[Chalchalero]

Indirectly, so do most or all of the Arab states in the U.N. Every year they challenge the Israeli delegation's credentials, and at every opportunity they whip up the General Assembly to condemn Israel for one thing or another. It's a continuous program, abetted by numerous third-world, so-called non-aligned states, out of -- IMO -- envy for Israel's success.

Since no nation which fails to guarantee basic human rights to its citizens ought to even be seated in the U.N., those efforts ought not to exist -- but that's politics.

More inaccurate generalisations from you. This comment is not true. While it may have been somewhat true in the 70's and 80's, it has not been the case for many many years. As I have many friends who work at different UN Missions in both New York and Geneva, I am very familiar with what goes on there, and such activities as you describe have not been prevalent for a very long time.

Do you not know how to advocate for your little darlings without exaggerations and distortions? Can it even be done? Perhaps it is not possible and hence the constant misinformation is needed. Just a thought...

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you not know how to advocate for your little darlings without exaggerations and distortions? Can it even be done? Perhaps it is not possible and hence the constant misinformation is needed. Just a thought...

What "little darlings"????

I just don't like the biased, revisionist stuff you're dishing up about the reality there.

 

[naked gent]

And since they are surrounded by nations which are still technically at war with them

Put aside the dopey wink and come to grips with reality. A country does not have to border another to be a threat. Israel is still surrounded by hostile countries, it is irrelevant how far away they are if their strong arm is long enough to touch its borders. Iran has developed some alarmingly advanced missile systems that are capable of striking Israel and doing tremendous damage.

Not to be technical JB but since Kul did use that word I don't think we should ignore it. You are right a country does not have to border another to be a threat to it but since I never claimed it did I don't know why you mentioned it except perhaps you sensed the need to shift your argument in order to prove your point.

In fact Israel is not surrounded by hostile countries if you are using the word surrounded as its defined. The Soviet Union was a threat to the U.S. during the Cold War but I don't think anyone ever said they surrounded us.

Iran is a threat to Israel but less so because of the weapons they may attack them with than what the security of having those weapons will allow them to so as far as arming hezbollah is concerned. I'm confident that Israel can more than defend itself from any overt threat from Iran and focusing on Iran allows the right in Israel to ignore its real long term problem which is demographics.

Like any wealthy western country Israel (excepting the settler movement) just don't make enough babies while the palestinians belonging to the third world make plenty. If you project this trend out 100 yrs it does not look pretty. And that is a problem the Israel military cannot defend them from which is why its such a threat.

There is no easy answer to that problem which is why its easier to ignore than solve but the reality remains that the real threat to Israel does not come from countries which border it or countries that wish it harm....it comes from within the territory Israel controls.

 

[irydion]

According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Austria: 58,700 civilian deaths (not including Jewish deaths)
(...)
Poland: 2.38 million - 2.58 million
Roumania: 64,000
Soviet Union: Between 12 and 14 million
Sweden: 2000
United Kingdom: 67,100
Yugoslavia: 514,000

In case anybody had doubts: the "not including jewish deaths" apparently refers to all the numbers, or at least Poland:

They have taken a desert wasteland and turned into a paradise,

Lets start with that the lands along the sea and around Lake Tyberias were the best lands of Palestine. Indeed, they did establish successful farmlands also in a semi-desert areas, thanks to the technology and money Palestinians never had. And, above all, by overuse of water supplies. I have, in my geographic atlas, a nice map of percent of water supplies used by countries to the existing supplies. Israel, together with Mauritania, Libya, Saudi Arabia,, UAE and Oman are the only countries that use more than 100% of their supplies. They are slowly dehydrating their own land by the extensive and unthoughtful use of water.
Moreover, they are simply stealing this water: they use much more water from Jordan river than Jordan, Palestinian Autonomy. They continue to occupy the Shebaa farms in Israel for the very reason of their rich water supplies.

A general note: don't you think that your Israeli friends' opinions may be a bit flawed? Nemo iudex idoneus in propria causa.

now many want to take it away and take advantage of their labors.

Because Israelis took them from Arabs in the first place...

I guess world travel alone doesn't always eliminate ignorance.

As clearly shown in your case

It's the only country on the whole GD continent that has any gay rights.

Nepal was already mentioned. Israel is on the very edge of Asia, and is de facto an european colony there, a land established and to a much extent settled by european immigrants. Obviously if differs from its neighbours.

The Zionist movement started in the 19th century, but it was small. The persecution of Jews worldwide led to several waves of immigration in the early 20th century, when the country was Ottoman and then British after WWI. The British could not handle the situation, the friction between Arab and Jewish populations so gave the UN a shot at settling the problem with a two-state solution. In 1948, the surrounding Arab states grabbed the land that was to be a Palestinian State, and the Jews took the Jewish land and called it Israel, upon which the surrounding Arab countries ganged up and attacked Israel for the Jewish lands as well.

which, I need to add, was caused by the fact that Israelis weren't natives in this land, weren't even born there, so it's no suprising their right to this land was questionable in the eyes of the Arabs.

When it comes to the original topic of this thread: I would understand Israel if it was about the survival of Jews - it's not likely they're going to disappear (when it comes to Karaims for example, Samaritans etc, groups that have a few hundred or thousands people left, it's perhaps another matter), and Israel doesn't want the diaspora Jews to prosper anyway. It wants Jews to emmigrate to Israel, in order to change the ethnic balanse of this land. So I do not find it an enough reason. But, while I think Jews and other people should be held to the same standarts, I do not find the call to marry into the same people as something outraging as long as the ones that do not are not ostracised.

Because jews aren't running concentration camps and saying they are a superior race?

No, they merely claim they are the Chosen Race

 

[irydion]

There actually has been a Jewish presence in the land of Israel since the Romans forced us into exile, though at times it may have shrunk to very small numbers. That aside, it is my ancestral homeland, and not a historian in the enlightened sheds any light on that. I have a right to return to it and no one, not you, or anybody else is going to convince me otherwise.

I know about jewish presence in Palestine. But these were extremly small groups, located in a couple cities only: Safad, Jerusalem... Even with some spanish Jews, who returned to palestine later on, jewish population was around 3% of Palestine before zionism. And these 3% weren't zionist, weren't waiting for secular Israel.
No, why do you have a right to return there, if the population that lives there for hundreds of years doesn't wish so? Can the English claim Denmark as their ancestral homeland, because Anlo-saxons came from there? Can WASPs from USA take back the UK if they wished so? Israel is a very interesting, romantic idea. But the practical implications had to be to ignore the rights of people actually living there.
I believe one should not ignore present situation, using history. For that reason I find that creation of Israel, especially in its final shape, was unjust. But for the very same reason I find that the destruction of Israel or severely reducing it wouldn't be right too.


Not to mention that Jews were only a part of the population of the ancient Palestine.

Not necessarily true as Jews worldwide remit billions to Israel annually.

Yup, but I guess it's mostly about USA Jews. I still recall your PM urging french Jews to escape the french intolerance and come to Israel not so long ago. And all these state-sponsored aliya's...

It wouldn't be a bad thing for Israel to increase its Jewish population. However it realizes the presence of an enormous Palestinian one and eventually they will be independent of Israel. How they will survive without Israeli aid (money, gasoline, electricity, food, building supplies) I do not know.

Other middleeastern states apparently survive without Israel, so Palestine probably would as well. If palestinian autonomy is currently dependant on Israel, it probably is much due to the 42 yo israeli occupation. They weren't yet given a chance to prosper separately.

 

[irydion]

oh, and btw, you're cute

 

[irydion]

Really a poor choice of analogies and a mockery of the 1900 year-old Jewish longing to return to their land. It's been a central theme for us as a people. We have wanted it more than anything!

Obviously, the memory of Palestine was important part of jewish heritage. I've heard about the "let us meet next year in Jerusalem" stuff. But if Jews really wanted to live in Palestine, they could. They did not, because they were better off where they actually lived. How many of the milions of Jews that lived between the I and late XIX centuries actually tried to settle there? Zionism was a modern national movement, and while it obviously based on old traditions, it was something new.

That's why Palestinian Territories will one day be independent.

Palestinian Territories used to be entire Palestine. Zionism and creation of Israel reduced it to 29% of it, and even that doesn't satisfy Israel. You can not deny that emergance of zionism ment tragedy to Palestinians. Hypothetical palestinian independance of Palestinians in the future is no recompensation for what Israel did to them. Without zionism and Israel, they'd live in an independant state for six decades now. In a much bigger and wealthier state.

Palestine has had plenty of opportunities to prosper and was much more economically independent of Israel before the violent intifada began in 2000.

It's hard to prosper under foreign occupation, even mild one. And why do you mind intifada? It was started by a provocation of Arik, and anyway, why wouldn't an uprising start after years of occupation? I think it was a mistake, I think all arab policy towards Israel was one giant mistake. But Palestinians are not the only ones to blame for intifada, because these were the conditions created by Israel that made it probable.

When Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2006, that's when things got really bad for Gazans. Israel and Egypt both closed their borders and erected barriers to prevent suicide bombers from getting out. Israel is a much safer place now because of these walls. Anyway that is how I know Palestine is not ready for independence, its lack of responsible governance and economic dependence on Israel. Now that the situation is dire, mostly at their own making, Israel gets no gratitude for aid at all, something I find to be contemptible.

How can you expect Palestinians to keep quiet, if definite sollution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem was not yet found? Why do you expect responsible governance from Palestinians, if, due to Israel (and their own mistakes, as well of their arab brothers) they were living under foreign hostile occupation for decades, and couldn't get acquainted with how to gouvern? It's like complaining that the black people of RPA don't know how to gouvern as well as the white ones: perhaps it's true, but it is so not without a reason.