Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Reality check:

 

Israel does have peace with two (Egypt, Jordan) of its five neighbors. The other three (Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians) are divided among themselves and are currently in no state to sign anything viable.

 

Israel does have mutually acknowledged border with two of its neighbors (Egypt. Jordan). The border with Lebanon is set, apart from minor disagreement which involves Syria as well. Most formulations acknowledge the 1967 lines (or thereabout) as the possible future border with a Palestinian state. The border with Syria is indeed unrecognized internationally. Then again, not something which is going to be sorted anytime soon.

 

Neither ordinary Jews nor Arabs were consulted when the partition plan was voted on. Large tracts of the areas allocated for the future Jewish state were arid desert lands, which were not heavily populated. By and large, the Jews living under the British Mandate were not illegal immigrants (unless one subscribe to your own retroactive versions of what's illegal). Lands were not "stolen" but were won in war.

 

As noted earlier, your notion of "time is on the side of the Palestinians" assumes that the Palestinian side remains as it is. Very unlikely, IMO.

Reality check for you !

"Israel does have peace with two (Egypt, Jordan) of its five neighbors"
...that means it does not have a permanent peace nor recognized borders with the majority of its neighbors!

 

"Neither ordinary Jews nor Arabs were consulted when the partition plan was voted on."
...precisely! Exactly as I stated.

 

>>"Lands were not "stolen" but were won in war.
...well, your true colors showing at last. If you subscribe to that philosophy rather than the rule of international law and human rights, you would have a world of anarchy, with every powerful nation invading its neighbors to steal land with impunity.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

Just now, dexterm said:

Nitpicking and obfuscation again.

 

 

Those two words do not describe Morch's posts in any way. He is the most learned and even-handed poster on the subject of Israel and the Middle East on this forum. Even suggesting such a thing reflects badly on your own opinions.

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You obviously disagree with him also on the demonization issue. Even for your usual inflammatory rhetoric "diabolical" is a bit over the top, plus adding an unnecessary religious tone. Asserting that Israel ought to not have existed in the first place is household in your posts, but again, quite contrary to Oz's view.

No over the top or infammatory rhetoric at all.  You're reading too much into my words. No overt religious connonations intended at all. I am an atheist. If Israeli apologists can repeatedly use the metaphor "demonization" then why can't I use the metaphor "diabolical". Google images: "Palestinian children killed"  if you want to know what I mean by diabolical.

 

>>Asserting that Israel ought to not have existed in the first place is household in your posts

..You deliberately misparaphrase me exactly as the previous poster did, for which I went to the trouble of ennunciating "with the addendum the racist supremacist Zionist* state of Israel does not deserve to exist and I hope that regime will one day end". Which you chose to ignore.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

No over the top or infammatory rhetoric at all. 

 

Please people can read your posts and see that is not true - especially when you include an example proving otherwise in the same post:

 

 "the racist supremacist Zionist* state of Israel does not deserve to exist"
 

[dexterm]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Please people can read your posts and see that is not true - especially when you include an example proving otherwise in the same post:

 

 "the racist supremacist Zionist* state of Israel does not deserve to exist"
 

Nothing inflammatory about that at all. It's a fact. that is the crux of the whole conflict. 

 

Do you deny that...

Israel has an exclusive Jewish only immigration policy, while refusing to allow the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their own homes.

 

Any country with an immigration policy that grants citizenship purely on the grounds of a person's race or religion, does not deserve to exist until that policy is changed.

Edited September 16, 2016 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

Nothing inflammatory about that at all.

 

 

Of course it is inflammatory, even if one is ill educated enough to believe it.

 

Inflammatory:

 

(especially of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings:

[dexterm]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Of course it is inflammatory, even if one is ill educated enough to believe it.

 

Inflammatory:

 

(especially of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings:

This whole forum is about people getting emotional about issues and stating their opinions. That's the whole point of a public forum. If you disagree with one of my posts to the point of anger, I would suggest that's an anger management problem. I get pretty emotional about injustices done to Palestinians, but I don't question other posters' right to post their opinions or state facts.

 

In the context of the forum rules "infammatory" has a different sense, of personal attack, or posts that don't contribute to the discussion at all,  just meant to stir. Mine is not that intention. It is to reveal the truth, to counter misinformation, and to state clearly where I stand on an issue.

 

I notice you still haven't denied the fact I stated.

[Ulysses G.]

 

20 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

I notice you still haven't denied the fact I stated.

 

I will do it now. It is not a "fact". It is another in a long list of fabrications that you have posted concerning Israel, on this forum. Israel has sheltered non Jewish Sudanese, Vietnamese and Muslim Bosnians. During the Vietnam War a boat with Vietnamese refugees was accepted into Israel and its passengers were given citizenship by the then Prime Minister, Menahem Begin.

 

According to the information published on the Israeli website of the Ministry of the Interior, if you fall under the below guidelines, you may qualify for citizenship, even if you have no Jewish family.

1. Currently in Israel
2. Have been there 3 out of the last 5 years
3. Has some minimal/basic level in Hebrew language
4. Gave up or will be giving up any other nationality
5. Have resident status before applying.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

Thank you.  I applaud Israel's assistance to the refugees you mention. Of course that's a drop in the ocean compared with the real demographics problem behind the conflict. I simply want Israel to apply the same  humaneness to the 4.5 million Palestinians it has turned into refugees.

[Ulysses G.]

35 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Thank you.  I applaud Israel's assistance to the refugees you mention.

 

You are ignoring the fact that - once again - you have posted erroneous information on this forum. Israel does NOT HAVE A JEWISH ONLY IMMIGRATION POLICY. The inflammatory statement that you posted is based on a completely false premise.

[dexterm]

Oh dear. This is silly puerile off topic nonsense.

You would only need only a single non Jewish immmigrant not to be exclusive. As it is there are 17,000 non Jewish migrants in a population of 8,556,500, exactly as I stated:   a drop in the ocean compared with the real demographic issue which is at the heart of the entire conflict.

 

I was trying to be magnanimous towards Israel where credit is due, and all you are interested in is scoring facile points of order, which no doubt you will regurgitate in the future. This is how the Zionist propaganda machine works folks.

 

Got better things to do today. Goodbye.

Edited September 16, 2016 by dexterm
spelling

[Ulysses G.]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

You would only need only a single non Jewish immmigrant not to be exclusive. As it is there are 17,000 non Jewish migrants in a population of 8,556,500, exactly as I stated:   a drop in the ocean compared with the real demographic issue which is at the heart of the entire conflict. 

 

That is NOT what you stated. You said that "Israel has an EXCLUSIVE Jewish immigration policy". That is a complete falsehood. You post distortions and dishonest fabrications constantly.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[abrahamzvi]

On September 14, 2559 BE at 9:54 PM, Jingthing said:

Secular Jews and secular Israelis can certainly be pro Zionist and actually usually are. They may not personally relate to the word but if they support the existence and defense of the state of Israel they are indeed pro Zionist. The historical origins of the political ideology of Zionism (about political self determination for the Jewish people) are largely secular. I do think in many ways the term is dated and LOADED.

 

Israel has existed since 1948. The existence of Israel is Zionism.

 

I'm aware that odious Israel demonizers have largely succeeded in making Zionism a dirty word in a similar way that just the word Jew is a dirty word for so many. They often try to paint the more extreme right wing Zionists as defining everything about Zionism or Israeli nationalism. But that is simply not the truth. 

 

It might also be worth stating the obvious ... ask 100 Jews what is Zionism and you'll get 100 different answers. Oh well!

You are correct in saying that most people see Zionism in different ways. It is true that without Zionism there would not be a state of Israel, however, the founders of Zionism also dreamt of a just society and never imagined that Zionism would lead to the Nakba (Disaster) of 1948 and the brutal occupation of the Arab lands in the West bank and the creation of the largest world prison called Gaza.

 

May I emphasize that I am not demonizing Israel. I am against a general BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), but I am for boycotting products and services emanating from the occupied territories. I really do not believe that Israel wants peace and a proper Palestinian State. They will accept peace if either they create bantustans "independent" Palestine, or have all the Palestinians leave the West bank, or have an one state on an Apartheid basis, which already exists in the occupied territories. If this criticism means demonizing, so be it!

[geriatrickid]

2 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

You are correct in saying that most people see Zionism in different ways. It is true that without Zionism there would not be a state of Israel, however, the founders of Zionism also dreamt of a just society and never imagined that Zionism would lead to the Nakba (Disaster) of 1948 and the brutal occupation of the Arab lands in the West bank and the creation of the largest world prison called Gaza.

 

May I emphasize that I am not demonizing Israel. I am against a general BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), but I am for boycotting products and services emanating from the occupied territories. I really do not believe that Israel wants peace and a proper Palestinian State. They will accept peace if either they create bantustans "independent" Palestine, or have all the Palestinians leave the West bank, or have an one state on an Apartheid basis, which already exists in the occupied territories. If this criticism means demonizing, so be it!

 

 

As soon as I see the  idiotic reference to apartheid, I know what I am dealing with.  This argument has been going on  for as long as the arabs have sought to use Israel as an excuse for their own failures.  I expect that as Qatar is  eventually held accountable for its tacit support of ISIL and the Saudis are exposed as major  financiers of jihadists etc. we will see an uptick in Israel related political agitation.  It's a great distraction.

 

I don't know much about Zionism, save for the fact that it is a legitimate position adapted by people who were forced into exile by their arab neighbors. I would think that the arabs would have had the  common sense to look at their own history and see that the screwed up borders and the damage of colonialism was due to their centuries of occupation by the  Turkish Ottoman Empire. However, it is easier to blame the Hebrews isn't it.

 

By the way, will  you be mounting  as strong a position on behalf of the million or so arabs who were forced out of arab cuntries because they were jews? When do they receive compensation and what of the land they lost?. What about the  tens of thousands of Christians slaughtered in the last year alone by your friends? Will you be  offering up words of  salvation for them too?

 

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

Nitpicking and obfuscation again.

 

I was replying to the oft repeated by Israeli apologists mythological red herring  on this forum that the Arabs don't want peace with Israel.

 

I wrote: [the conditions for peace] "are outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative...the main ones being land swaps, a deal over Jerusalem, and compensation or repatriation for Palestinian refugees." Obviously Israeli security concerns have to be addressed too.

 

They are not set in concrete, and I believe they are very close to the discussion items on the US and EU agenda for their 2 state solution. So you tell us what the conditions for an acceptable permanent peace would be approximately. Or is that as usual in the too hard basket.

 

The rest of your post is a silly obfuscatory dissection of each country as a stumbling block to the big picture...the road to peace.

 

As you point out, Israel has made separate peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. So why not a separate peace deal with West Bank Palestinians?

 

There is no unified "Arab" position on peace with Israel. If you doubt that, read your own link. This applies even more strongly with regard to the relevant neighbors of Israel (Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinians). Most of the Arab countries expressing support for the proposal are not those directly involved.

 

It is not a myth that for most of its existence, Arab countries refused to even recognize Israel, let alone pursue a peaceful solution. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Arab Peace Initiative is a relatively late development.

 

I have aired my views on what could be a workable peace agreement on many topics in the past. You know this, and yet persist with the "too hard basket" drivel.

 

The road to peace is not independent from the various stumbling blocks that do exist, whether you care to admit it or not. Dodging any attempt to discuss these "stumbling blocks" indeed seems silly, especially after resorting to the worn out "too hard basket".

 

With regard to your last query (which was raised and answered on previous topics), the PA is are not inclined to sign a separate agreement. I think that such a move would undermine its presumed national authority, cement the Hamas position as viable alternative leadership (with its own official turf). Moreover, this is an unpopular notion with regard to Palestinian public opinion. Israel would refrain as having a half agreement with a shaky leadership is no recipe for stability.

 

There is no way such a hypothetical agreement could address many of the issues related to the conflict. But do talk more about obfuscation....

[Morch]

13 hours ago, dexterm said:

Deflection. We are not discussing other countries. The topic is US Presidential relations with Israel and Palestine.

 

Israel is rather a special case in that the US has just given it the largest foreign defense package in history.

 

Doesn't seem that your zealous guardianship of staying on topic extends to the usual rants about colonialism, racism and whatever else you can pile up.

 

The US supports, supported and will support countries which do not adhere to its ideals. Such is the way of international politics.

[abrahamzvi]

6 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

 

As soon as I see the  idiotic reference to apartheid, I know what I am dealing with.  This argument has been going on  for as long as the arabs have sought to use Israel as an excuse for their own failures.  I expect that as Qatar is  eventually held accountable for its tacit support of ISIL and the Saudis are exposed as major  financiers of jihadists etc. we will see an uptick in Israel related political agitation.  It's a great distraction.

 

I don't know much about Zionism, save for the fact that it is a legitimate position adapted by people who were forced into exile by their arab neighbors. I would think that the arabs would have had the  common sense to look at their own history and see that the screwed up borders and the damage of colonialism was due to their centuries of occupation by the  Turkish Ottoman Empire. However, it is easier to blame the Hebrews isn't it.

 

By the way, will  you be mounting  as strong a position on behalf of the million or so arabs who were forced out of arab cuntries because they were jews? When do they receive compensation and what of the land they lost?. What about the  tens of thousands of Christians slaughtered in the last year alone by your friends? Will you be  offering up words of  salvation for them too?

 

 

I could answer and contradict every one of your unfounded theories (or propaganda), but I do not intend doing it, as it is a waste of time. However, one sentence that shocked me is  "...save for the fact that it is a legitimate position adapted by people who were forced into exile by their Arab neighbors" It seems that you are trying to rewrite history going back more than 2000 years. Weren't it the Romans (who were not Arabs) who forced the Jews into exile?  Last but not least, talking about compensation, has Israel offered compensation to all the refugees, driven away from their homes in 1948? Before you "protect" the Israel;i policies, read your history books.

[abrahamzvi]

13 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

I will do it now. It is not a "fact". It is another in a long list of fabrications that you have posted concerning Israel, on this forum. Israel has sheltered non Jewish Sudanese, Vietnamese and Muslim Bosnians. During the Vietnam War a boat with Vietnamese refugees was accepted into Israel and its passengers were given citizenship by the then Prime Minister, Menahem Begin.

 

According to the information published on the Israeli website of the Ministry of the Interior, if you fall under the below guidelines, you may qualify for citizenship, even if you have no Jewish family.

1. Currently in Israel
2. Have been there 3 out of the last 5 years
3. Has some minimal/basic level in Hebrew language
4. Gave up or will be giving up any other nationality
5. Have resident status before applying.

This is utterly ridiculous. To start with the conditions for getting Israeli citizenship for non Jews: to start with condition 5 - legal residence permits - cancels all previous conditions, as it is practically impossible to obtain a residence permit. I do know an Israeli who married a Thai lady and tried to get a residence permit for her. He was told that for the next 5 to 7 years she is considered a temporary resident with an annually renewable status, and will have to leave Israel, if, God forbid the husband dies, or they get divorced. I hope you read about the case of the Phillipin lady who was deported from Israel with her 2 years old ISRAELI son (the joint child of the Philippine and her deceased Israeli husband) Another even worse story is about the Ukrainian lady, whose son served as a soldier in the IDF who was deported after her husband (an Israeli) passed away.  As far as refugees are concerned, it is true and highly appreciated what Israel did in the 70s with the Vietnamese and other refugees, but this has now completely changed. The refugees running for their lives fron Eritrea and South Sudan are termed and treated as "Infiltrators" and put in camps , even after the Israeli High Court of Justice has twice declared this as illegal. The children of such refugees, or even of foreign labourers legally in Israel, are not even registered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, so that legally they simply don't exist. Have you read about the school in South Tel Aviv, where the Minister of Education declared that it should  not be a school for non Jewish illegal infiltrators?

Do you call this a liberal non racist policy. These facts are irrefutable facts and even the Israeli propaganda machine cannot deny them.  According to the Israeli basic law, every person who one of her/his grandparents was Jewish has an automatic right to enter Israel and obtain Israeli citizenship, a law which may be somewhat generous, but fully understandable inn view of the Jewish history, What is NOT, and I repeat NOT, understandable is the fact that the decedents of people who for thousands of years were refugees, are acting in sich a RACIST way to refugees. Sociologists (I am not one) would say "victims becoming culprits"

 

Allow me to repeat in all clarity that I am not anti Israel. I believe in the right of Israel to live peacefully in secure borders, but the same should apply to the Palestinians. Further, I believe that the racialis policies of the present israeli government alienate all liberal people worldwide, including many Jews, in particular, the young generations.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, dexterm said:

Reality check for you !

"Israel does have peace with two (Egypt, Jordan) of its five neighbors"
...that means it does not have a permanent peace nor recognized borders with the majority of its neighbors!

 

"Neither ordinary Jews nor Arabs were consulted when the partition plan was voted on."
...precisely! Exactly as I stated.

 

>>"Lands were not "stolen" but were won in war.
...well, your true colors showing at last. If you subscribe to that philosophy rather than the rule of international law and human rights, you would have a world of anarchy, with every powerful nation invading its neighbors to steal land with impunity.

 

 

 

The exact quote from your post (which I was replying to):

 

"Israel is not a fait accompli. After 70 years it still does not have defined or internationally recognized borders, nor does it have peace with its neighbors."

 

The fact is that Israel does have peace with some of its neighbors, and that some of its borders are internationally recognized.

Of course, one could phrase it otherwise - after 70 years, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians do not have recognized borders nor do they have peace with Israel, their neighbor.

 

Re the absent referendum, nope, not exactly as you stated. What you actually posted was: "...without asking the resident Palestinian population...".  I merely pointed out that neither side's ordinary folk got a say, whereas you referred only to one of the sides.

 

The last bit is simply the usual BS. The land was not "stolen", there was a war, in which, the both sides (and others) participated. The cease fire agreements following the war defined the lines thereafter. As usual, glossing over the fact that both Egypt and Jordan took actual charge of most land allocated to the future Palestinian state. The objection is basically to your terminology and presentation of facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

I could answer and contradict every one of your unfounded theories (or propaganda), but I do not intend doing it, as it is a waste of time. However, one sentence that shocked me is  "...save for the fact that it is a legitimate position adapted by people who were forced into exile by their Arab neighbors" It seems that you are trying to rewrite history going back more than 2000 years. Weren't it the Romans (who were not Arabs) who forced the Jews into exile?  Last but not least, talking about compensation, has Israel offered compensation to all the refugees, driven away from their homes in 1948? Before you "protect" the Israel;i policies, read your history books.

He was talking about the Jewish Nakba from Middle Eastern lands that happened after Israel was established. Many Israel demonizers act like that never happened.

[Jingthing]

The reason Israel was established was as a homeland for the Jewish people after thousands of years of persecution in the Diaspora. Favorable immigration rights for Jews. Duh. That's on purpose and no Jew should ever feel guilty about that!

[Morch]

15 hours ago, dexterm said:

No over the top or infammatory rhetoric at all.  You're reading too much into my words. No overt religious connonations intended at all. I am an atheist. If Israeli apologists can repeatedly use the metaphor "demonization" then why can't I use the metaphor "diabolical". Google images: "Palestinian children killed"  if you want to know what I mean by diabolical.

 

>>Asserting that Israel ought to not have existed in the first place is household in your posts

..You deliberately misparaphrase me exactly as the previous poster did, for which I went to the trouble of ennunciating "with the addendum the racist supremacist Zionist* state of Israel does not deserve to exist and I hope that regime will one day end". Which you chose to ignore.

 

 

 

If you consider your rhetoric not inflammatory, I guess you did not really pay attention to the clip posted, nor learned the meaning of the word itself. There are many ways to criticize any topic, even Israeli government policies, without resorting to your style. Referring to selective imagery is just another deflection - there were Israeli children killed by Palestinians as well.

 

You envisage an Israel which is not Israel, and which wouldn't have a reason to be called Israel. For all intents and purposes, your posts on this matter are nothing but verbal acrobatics. You are fooling no one.

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

If you consider your rhetoric not inflammatory, I guess you did not really pay attention to the clip posted, nor learned the meaning of the word itself. There are many ways to criticize any topic, even Israeli government policies, without resorting to your style. Referring to selective imagery is just another deflection - there were Israeli children killed by Palestinians as well.

 

You envisage an Israel which is not Israel, and which wouldn't have a reason to be called Israel. For all intents and purposes, your posts on this matter are nothing but verbal acrobatics. You are fooling no one.

 

 

Yes, spot on -- the POV represented is Israel demonization personified. The obvious intent is to communicate a disgust with the existence of Israel as Israel.

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, abrahamzvi said:

This is utterly ridiculous. To start with the conditions for getting Israeli citizenship for non Jews: to start with condition 5 - legal residence permits - cancels all previous conditions, as it is practically impossible to obtain a residence permit.

 

No. It is your reply that is ridiculous. I did not say that it was easy for a non-Jew to get citizenship. I said that it was possible and it is. The poster that I was responding to said otherwise. There are many thousands of non-Jewish citizens, including many Muslims. Claiming that Israel is exclusively a Jewish country is a blatant lie.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, abrahamzvi said:

 if Acccording to the Israeli basic law, every person who one of her/his grandparents was Jewish has an automatic right to enter Israel and obtain Israeli citizenship, a law which may be somewhat generous, but fully understandable inn view of the Jewish history,

 

That is correct. It is EASIER for Jews to get citizenship. That is up to the people of Israel to decide. However, it is also possible for people of other religions to get it and they do.  Claiming otherwise is a lie. 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

No. It is your reply that is ridiculous. I did not say that it was easy for a non_Jew to get citizenship. I said that it was possible and it is. The poster that I was responding to said otherwise. There are many thousands of non-Jewish citizens, including many Muslims. Claiming that Israel is exclusively a Jewish country is a blatant lie.

It's so predictable that the Israel demonization agenda objects so much to Israel, the nation state in the world founded to provide a homeland for the Jewish people, would offer RIGHT OF RETURN to Jews while it's well documented that Palestinian nationalists aim for a state with ZERO Jews. While Israel includes 20 percent Arabs.

 

Which side is the RACIST side? 

[poohy]

But Israel still have no right to Palestine

 

FACT!

That is the whole issue , you take over some ones else country you are going to be hated.

Argue with THAT

 

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, poohy said:

But Israel still have no right to Palestine

 

FACT!

That is the whole issue , you take over some ones else country you are going to be hated.

Argue with THAT

 

Before Israel a much larger region was the BRITISH mandate of Palestine. (Palestine is a very old word ... it does NOT mean Arab land, and Arab Palestinian identity is a very modern development.)  Take over British land? Before that for a long time OTTOMAN empire lands. The U.N. plan was two states in PART of the old land of the British mandate. The Jews said yes. The Arab and Muslim world said no and went to war. So -- stop the lying propaganda. There was no "Palestine" to take over. 

Edited September 17, 2016 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

23 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There was no "Palestine" to take over. 

 

That is an indisputable FACT.

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

No. It is your reply that is ridiculous. I did not say that it was easy for a non-Jew to get citizenship. I said that it was possible and it is. The poster that I was responding to said otherwise. There are many thousands of non-Jewish citizens, including many Muslims. Claiming that Israel is exclusively a Jewish country is a blatant lie.

I did not say Israel was an exclusively Jewish country; I said it's immigration policy is. Yours is the blatant lie.

 

Then you claimed that 17,000 non Jewish immigrants allowed citizenship in a population of 8.5 million over the course of 70 years makes its immigration policy not exclusive (that's 0.0019%...do the math...sheer pedantry), while Israel allows unlimited immigration to Jews purely on the grounds of religion, which they strangely call the "right of return" to people who have never set eyes on the place before, at the same time denying Palestinians the right of return to their homes to which they still hold the keys.

 

That's why Zionist Israel is a racist country, that I object to, and I don't understand why USA continually supports it.

Edited September 17, 2016 by dexterm