Israeli Children Expendable?

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>Tell that to Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, two recipients

>of the Nobel Peace Prize, both experienced with apartheid and

>both who say that Zionist Israel is indistinguishable from

>apartheid South Africa.

Who gives a fuck what they say? What makes them experts on the Middle East? Yassir Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize; that award has become a fucking politicized joke. And both Mandela and Tutu are socialists, so like all socialists, they idealize Palestianian terrorists. What does that prove?

Unlike in virtually every other country in the Middle East, the leaders of Israel are elected by the citizens of the country. There are Arabs and Muslims who vote in these elections and who are represented in the Knesset.

The very notion that Jews or Israelis could be citizens and vote in Middle Eastern Arab countries is too preposterous even to consider.

As a result, anyone who claims that Israel is insufficiently democratic while defending the authoritarian countries which surround it has some serious mental and psychological defects.

And while you are 11at it Rabbi

>Trisexual, are the street signs in Israel in Arabic too? And

>do the Arab "residents" of the occcupied or annexed

>territories and the refugees in the camps have the right to

>vote on the same basis as the dual Israeli/U.S. "citizens" of

>New York and Florida?

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>Unlike in virtually every other country in the Middle East,

>the leaders of Israel are elected by the citizens of the

>country. There are Arabs and Muslims who vote in these

>elections and who are represented in the Knesset.

So answer the question: do the Palestinians born in Palestine expelled by the Israeli colonists have a right to vote in these elections on the same basis as the Israeli/U.S. dual citizens whose only connection to Israel is a post-office box in Haifa? I suppose you thought that South Africa was a demrocracy before the fall of apartheid too? The Black majority were citizens of their Bantustans (not unlike those proposed by General Barak) not South Africa so as long as the whites got to vote, South Africa was a shining zionist-type democracy, right?

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

I don't actually know what the voting rights of Arabs born in what is now Israel would be when they're abroad. For that matter, I don't know if Jewish Israelis can vote abroad. I'm not sure that Israel has absentee balloting outside the country. Many countries don't permit such voting and Israel may be one of them.

The foreign-born descendants of the Arabs who fled the nascent Jewish state, who by now are the great majority of so-called Palestinian "refugees," are stateless persons without a right to vote anywhere. This is because the Arab nations in which they were born refuse to grant them the right of citizenship, so they're unable to vote, work or live where they wish in the countries of their birth.

Since you frequently put words they never uttered into the mouths of others, I can't speak for the real feelings of Nelson Mandela or Desmond Tutu. But Israel is not and has never been an apartheid state the way South Africa was. Israeli Arabs have always had the vote in local and national elections, and the right to run for and hold local and national office, ever since it became a independent state in 1948. There has been discrimination against Arab Israelis over the years, but it's not sanctioned in law the way it was in South Africa, and the Israeli courts have repeatedly upheld the rights of Arab Israelis when they were being trampled by the majority. The contrast with apartheid South Africa is dramatic. Just calling a country an apartheid regime doesn't make it one, although we're all familiar with your favorite big-lie technique: repeat a big lie often enough and some people will start to believe it.

As for the street signs, in at least some parts of Israel the signs are in Arabic, and in Roman characters, too. So are highway signs. However, that's hardly a determinant of whether Israel is democratic or not, or an "apartheid state." The province of Quebec, to cite one example, is another jurisdiction like Israel with a significant ethnic/linguistic minority in which street signs, shop signs, and other public signage by law are in French only, but nobody seriously suggests that Quebec is not a democratic society, or that it's an "apartheid province." The same is true of signage in the French and Flemish parts of Belgium, or the German, Italian and French parts of Switzerland, or the French and German parts of Italy, etc., etc., etc. Yet those countries are certainly considered democracies and aren't labeled "apartheid states." So one can only assume that the reason you use such terminology to describe Israel, but not the other countries where the practice is the same, is because Israel is a Jewish state and because you are Auntie Semitic.

BTW, by your standards wouldn't Turkey or Iraq be "apartheid states," considering their treatment of their Kurdish ethnic/linguistic minorities? Are the street/highway signs in Kurdish areas of Turkey in Kurdish? Were they in Saddam's Iraq? What about Saddam's campaign to "Arabize" the Kurds, forcing them to abandon their names and adopt Arabic names? Or forcing them to abandon traditionally Kurdish cities in Northern Iraq, like Mosul and Kirkuk? I don't think any of us recall any impassioned postings of yours about THOSE injustices. And those countries weren't under Israeli occupation, so you can't blame those actions on that, can you?

In the long and time-honored tradition of Arabic curses and imprecations, I really invite you go soak your head somewhere. Preferably for a long, long time, until you perhaps come to your senses. A really strong pot of Wissotzky's tea would be just the medium! }(

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>The foreign-born descendants of the Arabs who fled the nascent

>Jewish state, who by now are the great majority of so-called

>Palestinian "refugees," are stateless persons without a right

>to vote anywhere.

Funny, as has been posted here frequently, not even the modern Israeli hoistorians like Benny Morris agree with you. They all admit that Israel forced those Palestinians out, and have called on Israelis and diasporic jews to stop the self-defeating denial of the kind you regularly engage in here.

>This is because the Arab nations in which

>they were born refuse to grant them the right of citizenship,

>so they're unable to vote, work or live where they wish in the

>countries of their birth.

You have a very interesting view of international humanitarian law if you believe that the children of refugees lose their citizenship, but you have made it clear before that you repudiate the Geneva Conventions so I suppose I should not be surprised. I am intrigued by the implication above that at veast you seem to agree that those Palestinians who were born in Palestine but expelled by Israel should be granted the right to vote in Israeli elections.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>Funny, as has been posted here frequently, not even the modern

>Israeli hoistorians like Benny Morris agree with you.

Funny, the only person who has frequently posted such a statement here is YOU. I haven't seen a single concurring post. And one modern Israeli historian agreeing with that proposition (and I don't know that he really does, because I haven't read his work and you have a habit of twisting/misquoting other people's words and writings to agree with your own assumptions) doesn't mean that all modern Israeli historians agree. I seriously doubt that's the case.

>you have made it clear before that you

>repudiate the Geneva Conventions.

I haven't repudiated the Geneva Conventions. I'm not a signatory to them. Last time I looked, I wasn't a sovereign state. (Lucky for you!) Are you SURE you're an international lawyer, and not just a graduate of the "Mail In This Matchbook Cover and You Too Can Be An International Paralegal" school?

>I am intrigued by the implication above that at

>veast you seem to agree that those Palestinians who were born

>in Palestine but expelled by Israel should be granted the

>right to vote in Israeli elections.

Well, since I'm not the Israeli government (I just have a direct line to the Elders of Zion, who, as we know, are busy running the world and not just piddly little Israel) what I agree with really has no meaning. But it would seem to me that someone who was born in Israel (or the Mandatory territory that became Israel) and didn't renounce Israeli citizenship or become a citizen of another country would or should be considered Israeli and should be able to vote in Israeli elections in accordance with existing Israeli election law. However, I don't think Israel allows absentee voting outside the country. I also don't think there are very many surviving "refugees" who were born in Israel. If there are, they're certainly a small minority of the current "refugee" population. Most of the "refugees" weren't born in Israel and have been stateless for several generations, thanks to the refusal of the Arab world to allow them to resettle and build new lives outside of the squalid camps in which they're confined.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

once again, we have lamensonge mindlessly chanting his mantra of falsehoods, buzzwords, and catchphrases, desperately hoping that if he says it enough, people will ignore the fact that he backs none of it up and just believe it because they've heard it so much. that works for arabs & he hopes it will work with the rest of the world.

>Tell that to Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, two recipients

>of the Nobel Peace Prize, both experienced with apartheid and

>both who say that Zionist Israel is indistinguishable from

>apartheid South Africa.

they may well know much about apartheid, but they've not experienced life in israel. neither has spent much time there, if any at all. a distinguishing feature would be that in apartheid SA, the discrimination was written into law. the discrimination that admittedly does sometimes happen in israel is contrary to the law and is often brought into the courts for resolution.

>are the street signs in Israel in Arabic too?

yes, many of them are. highway signs are almost all in Hebrew, Arabic, and English (which isn't even an official language). the signs that don't contain all 3 are in the 2 official languages: Hebrew and Arabic. as for actual street signs: many are in both hebrew and arabic. in mixed neighbourhoods (like jaffa) or predominantly arab areas (like the little triangle) all official signs are in both.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>I'm

>not sure that Israel has absentee balloting outside the

>country.

israel allows only certain people out of the country on official business to vote absentee. basically it is just diplomats, members of the armed services, and, i think, those serving in the merchant marine.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

Thanks for clarifying those points. It's been a while since I was in Israel and wasn't sure what the current situation is on signage and on absentee balloting.

But I notice that Auntie S hasn't responded to the question of whether places like Quebec, Belgium, Switzerland or Italy are apartheid states, since they have official signage that isn't in all of the languages spoken by their populations. As usual, when hoisted on his own petard, he just tries to switch directions and divert attention from the fact that he has no answers.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>yes, many of them are. highway signs are almost all in Hebrew,

>Arabic, and English (which isn't even an official language).

>the signs that don't contain all 3 are in the 2 official

>languages: Hebrew and Arabic. as for actual street signs: many

>are in both hebrew and arabic. in mixed neighbourhoods (like

>jaffa) or predominantly arab areas (like the little triangle)

>all official signs are in both.

Hmmh, so Ethan are you saying that when Likud came to power under Menachewn Begin, a policy of removing Arabic and bilingual street signs was not pursued. Tell the truth to the nice people assembled here please.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

Ethan, surely even you can appreciate the problem of an electoral sysem that gives the "right" to vote to dual citizens living in Florida, NY etc., but not to Arab citizens born in, and expelled from Israel? Are you suggesting that if the latter got on a plane and returned they would have the same voting rights of the former in your secular democratic paradise? Tell the truth to the nice people here please.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>But I notice that Auntie S hasn't responded to the question of

>whether places like Quebec, Belgium, Switzerland or Italy are

>apartheid states, since they have official signage that isn't

>in all of the languages spoken by their populations.

Is Rabbi Trisexual suggesting that the English "majority" were expelled from Quebec and subsequentlt, or the French or Flemmish from Belgium before any vote was held to restrict the use of minority language on public signs? For your analogy to hold, you and your paralegal zionist friends would have to demonstrate that.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>a distinguishing feature would be that in

>apartheid SA, the discrimination was written into law. the

>discrimination that admittedly does sometimes happen in israel

>is contrary to the law and is often brought into the courts

>for resolution.

Would that include the discrimination on where Arabs are permitted to own land in Israel? Does it also include the discrimination of a "right of return" for jews who have no collection to Israel as opposed to the Palestinian Arab refugees who were born in and expelled from Israel? BTW, if you could tell me the principled basis for distinguishing between the Bantustans of apartheid (which the whole world excluding Israel denounced as racist, hmmh, I wonder why), and the Barak proposal for a land settlement, I would enjoy hearing it.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>Ethan, surely even you can appreciate the problem of an

>electoral sysem that gives the "right" to vote to dual

>citizens living in Florida, NY etc., but not to Arab citizens

>born in, and expelled from Israel?

lamensonge,

1) that's not the electoral system in israel at all. israel does not permit voting outside the country except in the cases i outlined before. there is also a residency requirement. i believe the time is 3 months. if you're in the country for more than 3 months a year, you're entitled to vote. you're also subject to IDF and reserve duty. interestingly enough, although i'm in the reserves, i cannot vote because i have not met the residency requirement. i VOLUNTARILY serve in the reserves. most years, i do not meet the residency requirements though. i wasn't able to vote in the january elections. i DID, however, vote in the march 2001 election that brought sharon to power. i'm normally a Shas guy, but i did vote Likud then.

2) even IF the system were as you claimed, i would not have a problem with it, because...

3) the arabs were not expelled; they fled. you can keep on saying the opposite, but that doesn't make it so. keep trumping out Benny, your ONE israeli historian who agrees with you. that doesn't make it so, either, though.

4) are you claiming that the 820,000 Jews who fled arab countries between 1948 and 1972 should be entitled to vote in those arab lands? i'm not suggesting that, but the (il)logic of your argument calls for it. should those arab states compensate the Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing? do the shiite rejects and sunni wannabes who are squatting on the property of those Jews have any right to be there?

5) had the arabs accepted the 1947 partition plan, not a single person would be a refugee. the onus, therefore, is on the arabs.

>Are you suggesting that if

>the latter got on a plane and returned they would have the

>same voting rights of the former in your secular democratic

>paradise?

no.

>Tell the truth to the nice people here please.

i have. how about you trying the truth for once, since that is your new username. i think La Mensonge applies so much more to you than La Verite, though.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

hmmm, let me think for a minute lamensonge...

did i mention Begin (my personal hero, by the way) at all? no, i didn't.

what i DID say is that now actual street signage is in at LEAST both Hebrew and arabic in mixed or arab areas. highway signs are ALL in both (and usually include English, as well).

shall we discuss when the old city was controuled by jordan? do we want to talk about using the plaza in front of the Kotel as a place to rest farm animals so that any Jew wishing to pray there was forced to wallow in feces? do we want to talk about the jordanians removing Hebrew street placards in even the Jewish quarter of the Old City?

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>1) that's not the electoral system in israel at all. israel

>does not permit voting outside the country except in the cases

>i outlined before. there is also a residency requirement. i

>believe the time is 3 months. if you're in the country for

>more than 3 months a year, you're entitled to vote.

Ethan, I just love the way that you and your paralegal compatriot Rabbi Trisexual deftly try to skirt the question. Let's try this once more. A dual citizen living in Florida and NY who complies with Israeli voting law has a "right" to vote in Israeli elections. Do the Palrestinans who were born in Israel, but expelled from Israel, have the same right? Yes or no - what is the answer in your secular democtartic paradise.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>Would that include the discrimination on where Arabs are

>permitted to own land in Israel?

you're merely stating another fallacy.

virtually ALL (about 80%) of the land in Israel is owned by the government and is available to both arab and Jewish Israelis. around 14% of the land is owned (privately) by the Jewish National Fund and about 6% is owned (privately) by either Jews or arabs. the government DOES administer both gov't-owned and JNF-owned land. the JNF charter restricts leasing the lands it owns to Jews, BUT, some of that land HAS been leased to arabs and especially to Bedouins.

>Does it also include the

>discrimination of a "right of return" for jews who have no

>collection to Israel as opposed to the Palestinian Arab

>refugees who were born in and expelled from Israel?

i see no discrimination there. the arabs chose to leave after choosing not to accept partition.

>BTW, if

>you could tell me the principled basis for distinguishing

>between the Bantustans of apartheid (which the whole world

>excluding Israel denounced as racist, hmmh, I wonder why), and

>the Barak proposal for a land settlement, I would enjoy

>hearing it.

your side rejected the barak proposal. i'd much rather look toward finding an acceptable proposal NOW, instead of rehashing a rejected and subsequently withdrawn proposal. i do understand, however, that you prefer to piss into the wind and then blame others when you get wet.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

Oh, puh-leeze! Who the hell knows or cares what Barak proposed for land settlements? It's utterly irrelevant, though. Whatever he may have proposed that you keep babbling about was never implemented (knowing you, it may never even have been proposed!). To the contrary, apartheid South Africa DID implement its Bantustan policy and forcibly uprooted people and dumped them in the middle of nowhere in the name of racial purity. What's the comparison between an actual atrocity and someone's discussion point? Zero.

The self-same Barak you keep going on about also offered the most far-reaching settlement proposal ever to the Palestinians, which the benighted ones (and their loathesome leader) rejected out of hand. NOW, after several years of useless intifiada, they're back in Geneva desperately trying to get the same offer back on the table! It actually was a good and realistic offer, and the Palestinians will be damned lucky to end up with peace on those terms after all the intervening ugliness.

And yes, after Quebec promulgated its French only policies over the strenuous screaming of Anglo-Quebeckers a large number of them fled the province to other parts of English-speaking Canada, rather than having to learn French and live and work in that language. So I guess that makes Quebec an "apartheid province" by your standards. And the French-speaking Belgians are certainly not very welcome in the Flemish part of the country, and vice-versa. So I guess Belgium is also an "apartheid state." Then there's notoriously apartheid Switzerland, with its long-established Deutschestan, Francostan and Italostan. And Italy, with it's own Deutchestan in the northeast and its Francostan in the northwest. Not to mention Spain with it's Catalanostan, Galegostan and Vascostan. But do we see you campaigning loudly about those examples of apartheid? Nah, of course not. There aren't any Jews involved. And of course, Muslim countries like Iraq, Iran and Turkey weren't "apartheid states" when they isolated their Kurdish minorities and persecuted them and denied them the right to use their own language and even their own names, not to mention gassing and killing them. Oh, no! Not by Auntie Semitic's psychotic standards!

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>Ethan, I just love the way that you and your paralegal

>compatriot Rabbi Trisexual deftly try to skirt the question.

>Let's try this once more. A dual citizen living in Florida

>and NY who complies with Israeli voting law has a "right" to

>vote in Israeli elections. Do the Palrestinans who were born

>in Israel, but expelled from Israel, have the same right? Yes

>or no - what is the answer in your secular democtartic

>paradise.

lamensonge, you're asking about apples & oranges.

in the 2001 election, there were between 400,000 and 500,000 Israelis abroad who were not eligible to vote! i don't see what you're complaining about. if a US citizen really LIVES in Rio, but meets the residency requirements to vote in US elections, he STILL GETS TO VOTE.

no, palestinians who were born in israel but voluntarily chose to leave the state upon its founding do NOT get to vote in israel. do the 820,000 Jews who were forced to flee arab countries after the founding of the state get to vote in those countries? yes or no -- what is the answer in your arab paradise?

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

P.S. And let's also not forget about the Egyptian persecution and discrimnation of its Coptic citizens, or the second-class status of Berber citizens in countries like Algeria and Morocco. Would you care to explain how those aren't "apartheid" situations by your standards?

RE: Multiple Personality Disorder

christ ........YOU.........are obsessed!!!

pretty sad an important part of your life is the tag of another poster.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>no, palestinians who were born in israel but voluntarily chose

>to leave the state upon its founding do NOT get to vote in

>israel.

And Ethan, if, as the Israeli Historian Benny Morris and other modern Israeli historians admit, the Palestinians did not leave voluntarilly, should they have the right to vote in Israel?

And while we are at it, your paralegal compatriot repudiated international humanitarian law above, but I am curious whether you agree with him that children of refugees should lose their citizenship? Is this just an Israeli rule or would you ammend international humanitarian law across the board?

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>you're merely stating another fallacy.

>virtually ALL (about 80%) of the land in Israel is owned by

>the government and is available to both arab and Jewish

>Israelis. around 14% of the land is owned (privately) by the

>Jewish National Fund and about 6% is owned (privately) by

>either Jews or arabs. the government DOES administer both

>gov't-owned and JNF-owned land. the JNF charter restricts

>leasing the lands it owns to Jews, BUT, some of that land HAS

>been leased to arabs and especially to Bedouins.

Hmmh, so you are saying that a Palestinian can by land on the western side of Jerusalem? BTW if wealthy Florida residents can buy land opn the Eastern side of Jerusalem, could Saudi King Fahd buy land on the eastern side of Jerusalem?

>i see no discrimination there. the arabs chose to leave after

>choosing not to accept partition.

But if they did not choose to leave but were expelled, would you then agree that the asymetric right of return constitutes discrimination?

>your side rejected the barak proposal. i'd much rather look

>toward finding an acceptable proposal NOW, instead of

>rehashing a rejected and subsequently withdrawn proposal.

So I take it that you cannot suggest a principled distinction between the apartheid era Bantustans in South Africa, and the land proposals of Barak. At least we can agree about that.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>Oh, puh-leeze! Who the hell knows or cares what Barak

>proposed for land settlements? It's utterly irrelevant,

>though. Whatever he may have proposed that you keep babbling

>about was never implemented (knowing you, it may never even

>have been proposed!). To the contrary, apartheid South Africa

>DID implement its Bantustan policy and forcibly uprooted

>people and dumped them in the middle of nowhere in the name of

>racial purity.

So at least you appear to concede that there is no principled basis to distinguish between the apartheid era Bantustans of South Africa, and the Barak land proposals. We can agree on that. It is interesting that the white South Africans also thought that their Bantustans were the most generous and far-reaching offers ever made to the Black majority until apartheid ended and they got the whole damn thing!

>And yes, after Quebec promulgated its French only policies

>over the strenuous screaming of Anglo-Quebeckers a large

>number of them fled the province to other parts of

>English-speaking Canada, rather than having to learn French

>and live and work in that language.

So again are you saying that the language law in Quebec was preceded by the expulsion of the English citizens? Nice try, Tri!

>Quebec an "apartheid province" by your standards. And the

>French-speaking Belgians are certainly not very welcome in the

>Flemish part of the country, and vice-versa.

So are you suggesting that either group expelled the other before implementing any sign laws? Or that there are restrictions on land ownership based on whether one is Flemmish, French or German? It's a moot point anyway because signs in Belgium are bilingual?

Face it, the only country in the world that approaches apartheid as it was practised in South Africa is zionist Israel. Perhaps, that is why the Israelis never condemned the Bantustans or the apartheid government. Instead they developped and tested WMD programs with their kindred spirits among the white minority in South Africa.

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

>So at least you appear to concede that there is no principled

>basis to distinguish between the apartheid era Bantustans of

>South Africa, and the Barak land proposals. We can agree on

>that.

No, we don't agree. You're attributing words to me that I never wrote. Just like you constantly do with or about other people, like Barak, Tutu, Mandela, Benny Morris, etc.

>It is interesting that the white South Africans also

>thought that their Bantustans were the most generous and

>far-reaching offers ever made to the Black majority until

>apartheid ended and they got the whole damn thing!

There were a lot of white South Africans who didn't support the Bantustan policy and who opposed apartheid, over all. Something else you conveniently overlook in your bad habit of lumping all people in groups based on their racial/ethnic characteristics, instead of based on their political views.

>So again are you saying that the language law in Quebec was

>preceded by the expulsion of the English citizens? Nice try,

>Tri!

In the case of Quebed, the flight followed the acts the English thought were discriminatory. I never said anything otherwise. Once again you to me things I never said or wrote. As for the "Palestinians," they fled the newly-founded Israel immediately upon the news of the partition, so the fact situation there is somewhat different. I've never used the word expelled for that situation, once again you're trying to put words in my mouth. The Palestinians fled. We also disagree on the reasons that they fled. But one thing is for sure: they didn't flee because street signs weren't multi-lingual. (I don't know what the format for street signs was under the Mandate; I was never there and I was only two years old when it ended in 1948.)

>So are you suggesting that either group expelled the other

>before implementing any sign laws?

I'm saying that the groups (especially the Flemish, in the case of Belgium) made life very uncomfortable and unwelcoming for the members of the other group, to the point that most left and moved to their own linguistic area. So I'd call Belgium an apartheid state, using your standards. And no, signs in Belgium aren't bilingual, except in the city of Brussels which is an officially bilingual (but predominantly French-speaking) area surrounded by Flemish territory. The suburbs of Brussels are not bilingual. Signage there is only in Flemish. (The airport is probably an exception.)

>Face it, the only country in the world that approaches

>apartheid as it was practised in South Africa is zionist

>Israel.

We're still waiting for you to compare and contrast Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens, who have always had the right to speak and be educated in their own language, to vote and run for office, to use their language in official situations (including parliamentary debates), etc., with the Arab/Muslim treatment of its own minority groups, like the Kurds or Berbers, who have been denied the right to use or be educated in their own language, been forced to abandon their own names and use Arabic names, been gassed and murdered, etc.

>Perhaps, that is why the Israelis never condemned the

>Bantustans or the apartheid government. Instead they

>developped and tested WMD programs with their kindred spirits

>among the white minority in South Africa.

The real reason Israel ended up getting in bed with a country like South Africa is because of Arabs like you, who threatened Israel, boycotted it, and backed it into a corner. Nation states tend to look out for their own self-interests, and in order to defend itself Israel found itself forced to deal with other states that faced similar threats had similar interests, specifically Taiwan and South Africa. Israel's cooperation with South Africa on military issues and weapons development was never an endorsement of its racial policies, and there was constant tension in the relationship because of it. It's notable, by the way, that the leading white opponents of apartheid in South Africa were mostly Jewish, just as there was also a disproportionately large number of Jewish supporters of the civil rights movement in the U.S. That's because racial discrimination/apartheid conflict with fundamental Jewish values. But again, those are some of the facts that don't fit into your warped world view, so you just ignore them. Again, you graduated from what school that taught you critical thinking?

RE: Three Cheers for the UN!

Finally read this endless subthread...

Axe, you're "arguing" (regurgitating?) in circles. Each of your points has been addressed above. Bringing a "point" up again and again doesn't make it true, especially after it's been refuted without sensible reply just a couple messages before.

And you keep mentioning things people have said or even feel without citing them, which is just pissing in the wind--especially for those that feel the need to use more then one username and pretend they're not related... but it's nice to see you do have something in common with a hard-core Zionist!