The "only" democracy in the Middle East

An Arab couple whose one-year-old daughter was expelled from an Israeli day-care center on her first day are suing a Jewish mother for damages, accusing her of racist incitement against their child.

Maysa and Shuaa Zuabi, from the village of Sulam in northern Israel, launched the court action last week saying they had been "shocked and humiliated" when the center’s owner told them that six Jewish parents had demanded their daughter’s removal because she is an Arab.

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has operated an education system almost entirely segregated between Jews and Arabs.

However, chronic underfunding of Arab schools means that in recent years a small but growing number of Arab parents have sought to move their children into the Jewish system.

Dana was admitted to the day-care centre last December, according to the case, after its owner, Ivon Grinwald, told the couple she had a vacant place. However, on Dana’s first day six parents threatened to withdraw their own children if she was not removed.

A report published in March revealed that the government invested $1,100 in each Jewish pupil’s education compared to $190 for each Arab pupil. The gap is even wider when compared to the popular state-run religious schools, where Jewish pupils receive nine times more funding than Arab pupils.

There is also an official shortfall of more than 1,000 classrooms for Arab children, said Mr Jabareen, though Arab organisations believe the problem is in reality much worse. In addition, a significant proportion of existing Arab school buildings have been judged unsafe or dangerous to children’s health.

Segregated schooling, how could that be?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08102009.html

Maybe they should just convert to Judaism. :cool:

The latest theory is that they are all descended from Jews [which is actually the PC way of saying Jews are descended from them, since the Jews are the ones coming fom outside in]

Up to 85 percent of Arabs in greater Israel stem from Jewish ancestors, it is estimated. Some of them want to become fully Jewish, but most are scared to even talk about it.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132800#replies

not surprising arabs would ask questions that would get jewish people asking questions that would cause Israel to fall apart.

Israel should certainly deal with these segregation issues, but it hardly warrants the complete dissolution of the country. That will never happen through any internal forces.

Israel should certainly deal with these segregation issues, but it hardly warrants the complete dissolution of the country. That will never happen through any internal forces.

So questions like why as we(jews) ignored the majority population of palestine to create a country wouldn't negatively impact the country staying together? The questions that would get asked with a real unsegregated education system would rip the country apart.

The "only" democracy in the Middle East



Segregated schooling, how could that be?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08102009.html

America had the same problem with black segregation; however, ultimately the ideals of American culture won over. Don't know if it will or won't for Israel... as they are still theocratic.

Israel is hardly a democracy. It's like Syria: it's supposed to be, but it's not. Israel is a theo-democracy, which is hardly a democracy, and Syria is a "democracy" that legislates a single party to lead the state, which is also hardly democratic.

Prime example of what wrong when you legally delineate people based on their personal superstition.

Not even superstition. Race. About half of the "Jews" in Israel are only "Jewish" for the sake of ethnic identity. Now, I usually tend to be supportive of Israel, but this kind of nonsense is making Israel and the human race look bad in front of everyone.

The state was set up by atheist Jews, when religious Jews lived there for several thousand years. So yes, I can see how some forms of superstition are more divisive than others.

The state was set up by atheist Jews, Nonsense. It's a theocratic state, merely less insular in its governance than Saudi Arabia (where the Muslims handled their Palestinian problem long ago, by attrition and conversion).
Segregated schooling, how could that be? If you ask the bigoted Israelis, they will tell you that the Muslims prefer to ghetto themselves with their own kind. Sound familiar?

Nonsense. It's a theocratic state, merely less insular in its governance than Saudi Arabia (where the Muslims handled their Palestinian problem long ago, by attrition and conversion).

Theeodor Herzl, Jabotinsky, Weissman and David ben Gurion were all atheists


If you ask the bigoted Israelis, they will tell you that the Muslims prefer to ghetto themselves with their own kind. Sound familiar?



So do the Jews,but they will be the first to reiterate that this does not justify ethnic cleansing. Or treating Jewish children differently

Not even superstition. Race. About half of the "Jews" in Israel are only "Jewish" for the sake of ethnic identity. Now, I usually tend to be supportive of Israel, but this kind of nonsense is making Israel and the human race look bad in front of everyone.

The human race has been making it self look bad long before Israel and in a much darker light then Israel to this day.

Theeodor Herzl, Jabotinsky, Weissman and David ben Gurion were all atheists

So? Israel, today, is ruled by the most part by religious Zionists, end of story. Sure a few are atheist and a few in the legislator are even Muslim, but the vast majority of them are "Jewish with a vengeance" (woody allen term for a religious freak that is jewish.)

So? Israel, today, is ruled by the most part by religious Zionists, end of story. Sure a few are atheist and a few in the legislator are even Muslim, but the vast majority of them are "Jewish with a vengeance" (woody allen term for a religious freak that is jewish.)

I merely said the state was set up by atheists. The decision to create a Jewish state and the decision and instruments to ethnically cleanse the land of non-Jews were all determined by them. There were already religious Jews living there for thousands of years, who opposed the formation of a Zionist state.

I merely said the state was set up by atheists. The decision to create a Jewish state and the decision and instruments to ethnically cleanse the land of non-Jews were all determined by them.

So your saying the Jewish atheist, without exception or in majority started Israel and implemented all its policies?

There were already religious Jews living there for thousands of years, who opposed the formation of a Zionist state.

There were religious Jews who lived there and approved of it as well. It like your saying "well there have been a few cases of Jewish Nazis thus Jews supported Nazism!.

Could you tell me the name of one religious Jew involved in the establishment of the Jewish state?

Theeodor Herzl, Jabotinsky, Weissman and David ben Gurion were all atheists Herzl of dubious atheism, dead in 1904. Jabotinsky almost certainly atheist, dead before '48. Weissman no easy and reliable information re theism, but an accomplished scientist so probably not fundie. That leaves Ben-Gurion both confirmed atheistic and significantly on the scene, of those four.

Israel included atheists, among its founders. But Israel was founded significantly by European intellectuals, and the European intellectual class had lots of Jews and atheists, so we are not surprised at the coincidence.

Your point?
If you ask the bigoted Israelis, they will tell you that the Muslims prefer to ghetto themselves with their own kind. Sound familiar?

”
So do the Jews,but they will be the first to reiterate that this does not justify ethnic cleansing. Or treating Jewish children differently Aren't they just doing what the Danes are praised by you for doing - separate but equal, in the usual fundie theist's line? I mean, the Muslims in Denmark apparently prefer to live in their slums, with their own schools - the Israelis make similar accommodations for the ghetto-loving Arabs, and you complain.

Just wondering whether this kind of argument impresses you in general.

The decision to create a Jewish state and the decision and instruments to ethnically cleanse the land of non-Jews were all determined by them. That doesn't seem to match either the present (20% "secular Jews" says Wiki) or the historical circumstances very well:
The Second Aliyah (1904–1914), began after the Kishinev pogrom. Some 40, 000 Jews settled in Palestine.[41] Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,[45] but those in the Second Aliyah included socialist pioneers who established the kibbutz movement.[46] - - - - The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. Arab opposition to the plan led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish organization known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi split off.[48]

In 1922, the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom a mandate over Palestine under terms similar to the Balfour Declaration.[49] The population of the area at this time was predominantly Muslim Arab, while the largest urban area in the region, Jerusalem, was predominantly Jewish.[50]

The Third (1919–1923) and Fourth Aliyah (1924–1929) brought 100, 000 Jews to Palestine.[41] From 1921 the British subjected Jewish immigration to quotas and most of the territory slated for the Jewish state was allocated to Transjordan.[51]

The rise of Nazism in the 1930s led to the Fifth Aliyah, with an influx of a quarter of a million Jews.

Herzl of dubious atheism, dead in 1904. Jabotinsky almost certainly atheist, dead before '48. Weissman no easy and reliable information re theism, but an accomplished scientist so probably not fundie. That leaves Ben-Gurion both confirmed atheistic and significantly on the scene, of those four.

All their own statements affirming their own atheism are easily found.

Israel included atheists, among its founders. But Israel was founded significantly by European intellectuals, and the European intellectual class had lots of Jews and atheists, so we are not surprised at the coincidence.

All of them being atheists is hardly a coincidence when religious Jews have written tomes opposing (http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/index.cfm) political Zionism,


Aren't they just doing what the Danes are praised by you for doing - separate but equal, in the usual fundie theist's line? I mean, the Muslims in Denmark apparently prefer to live in their slums, with their own schools - the Israelis make similar accommodations for the ghetto-loving Arabs, and you complain.

Oh is what the Israelis are doing, the same as what the Danes are doing? Thats a revelation to me.

All their own statements affirming their own atheism are easily found. Not by me.
All of them being atheists is hardly a coincidence when religious Jews have written tomes opposing political Zionism, Modern Israel was settled by religious Jews primarily, and tomes have been written by atheist Jews opposing political Zionism.

I pointed out that the coincidence is hardly surprising, when you consider the unusual nature of the political negotiations involved in founding Israel - those intellectual and political circles have a very high percentage of atheists in general. But Israel was "founded" by many thousands of religious Jews (with their leaders, etc) long before these negotiations bore fruit, and it is not set up as an atheistic state whatsoever.
Oh is what the Israelis are doing, the same as what the Danes are doing? Thats a revelation to me. The intentions are quite different. Let's hope the underlying motives and eventual consequences are similarly disparate.

Modern Israel was settled by religious Jews primarily

Name three.
I'll dig up the evidence on the atheism of the above.

"Modern Israel was settled by religious Jews primarily”

Name three.

There are a half dozen names scattered around in the obvious Wiki links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism (Note that the more religious Zionists were represented at the '39 Conference, the one that set up the basic state, while the faction led by Jablonsky was not - that is, the religious faction was less violent than some. Now the more violent Israeli political factions seem to have religious leaders, such as Kahane).

None of these were instrumental in establishing the state. The conference in 1939 was not the seminal one.

The Biltmore Program was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Program

None of these were instrumental in establishing the state. The conference in 1939 was not the seminal one.

The Biltmore Program was Well, your supposed atheistic founders are even less represented there - two are long dead, Weizmann split against the decision of the Program, the Socialist Zionists split along with him (like good socialists, holding out for joint Arab-Jew governance and the common interests of the working class), and a couple of rabbis are named as approving of the new State.

Segregated schooling, how could that be?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08102009.html

I guess it beats exiling everyone who isn't like you (Jordan, Iraq, Egypt) or just imprisoning or killing them (Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). Or assassinating them (Syria). The Israelis are just reacting to the events around them. They're not actors, just reactors. Not so?

I guess it beats exiling everyone who isn't like you (Jordan, Iraq, Egypt) or just imprisoning or killing them (Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). Or assassinating them (Syria). The Israelis are just reacting to the events around them. They're not actors, just reactors. Not so?

LOL. Ironic isn't it?:D

I guess it beats exiling everyone who isn't like you (Jordan, Iraq, Egypt) or just imprisoning or killing them (Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). Or assassinating them (Syria). The Israelis are just reacting to the events around them. They're not actors, just reactors. Not so?

:jawdrop: they are too actors. They were the ones who started the wholke thing in motion with their desire to deny people their rights.

No, no: see, they were reactors, reacting to the plight of their ghettoized people. See?

Well, your supposed atheistic founders are even less represented there - two are long dead, Weizmann split against the decision of the Program, the Socialist Zionists split along with him (like good socialists, holding out for joint Arab-Jew governance and the common interests of the working class), and a couple of rabbis are named as approving of the new State.

Still lets look at the list:

1. Judenstaat - Jewish only state = Theodor Herzl [atheist]
2. Balfour declaration - Chaim Weizmann [atheist]
3. Irgun - Jabotinsky [atheist]
4. Nakba - David ben gurion [atheist]
5. Labor Zionism ideology - Moses Hess [atheist]
6. First settlement at Degania - A D Gordon [atheist] "Surely in our day it is possible to live without religion"

These were the architects of the Jewish state as it is today

I guess it beats exiling everyone who isn't like you (Jordan, Iraq, Egypt) or just imprisoning or killing them (Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). Or assassinating them (Syria). The Israelis are just reacting to the events around them. They're not actors, just reactors. Not so?

Not reacting to events around them. They are coming from foreign multicultural societies to Palestine and creating the events by enforcing a Jewish state on the local non-Jewish population through military force directed at driving away non Jews and segregation that is the core philosophy of Zionism.

Note that the other instances are those of government oppression on its own civilians [many of whom enjoy their reign of power through western military support], not foreigners invading and ethnically cleansing the local population while keeping the rest in Jim Crow habitats where Arab children are provided a tenth of the resources that Jews are to ensure their continued oppression. Although, it is a stretch to say Jim Crow, since the southern segregationists never wanted to eliminate the blacks. I have no recollection of Lester Maddox or George Wallace calling for military action against anyone or attempting to dispossess blacks from American society. A far cry from dropping napalm on Palestinian children to drive them from the land. And its no surprise, yet again that this kind of state enjoys the support of those who claim to be purveyors of human rights while not practising it themselves.

The state was set up by atheist Jews,atheist Jews? What the frak is an atheist Jew? Is it like an Atheist Muslim?

atheist Jews? What the frak is an atheist Jew? Is it like an Atheist Muslim?

No idea. Personally, I don't see how anyone who rejects God can still be a follower of Judaism. Its an ethnocentric thingy that Jews are born to Jewish mothers. An inherited Judaism.



In 1950, the Law of Return was passed in Israel stating that every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel, and granting automatic citizenship and benefits to any Jew who makes aliyah. Jewish immigrants receive better benefits than non-Jewish immigrants, including guaranteed housing, ulpan (Hebrew language study), full tuition for graduate degrees, and other benefits including discounts on major purchases, such as cars and appliances. The absorption process is more arduous for non-Jews and may take many years, during which they might not have health insurance and other government services.

Three famous cases tested the Law of Return and a Jew’s right to immediate citizenship. The first example involved Brother Daniel (born Oswald Rufeisen), a Jew who converted to Christianity during the Holocaust and had become a Carmelite Monk. During his youth, Rufeisen was active in a Zionist youth movement and fled to Vilna, Lithuania at the start of World War II. There he worked as a slave laborer and escaped to Mir where he worked for the police as a translator. Rufeisen took advantage of his position and smuggled arms to his Jewish friends and helped drive the police out from Mir before it was liquidated, saving nearly 300 Jews. Rufeisen hid in the forest and later a convent, where he decided to convert to Christianity. In 1962, Rufeisen, now Brother Daniel, applied to immigrate to Israel and, after being denied, he appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that despite the fact he was born to a Jewish mother, he had since converted and should not be recognized as a Jew by the State of Israel.

Following the Brother Daniel case, a new regulation was adopted stating that individuals registered as Jews for the "nationality" and ‘religion" section of their identity cards must be Jews according to halacha and they must not practice another religion. The Shalit case challenged this new ruling. Benjamin Shalit married a non-Jewish Scottish woman. Since he was an Israeli, she and their children automatically received Israeli citizenship. The two considered themselves atheists, but part of a Jewish nation and wanted their children’s identity cards to state Jewish for the nationality designation and to remain blank for religion. The Ministry of Interior wanted to keep both designations blank, so the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in the Shalits’ favor.

The decision sparked controversy and, in 1970, an amendment to the Law of Return passed stating that only persons born to a Jewish mother or who had converted to Judaism were allowed to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. This amendment did not specify what type of conversion is needed, thereby allowing different interpretations. Since the amendment was passed, religious parties in the Knesset have tried to change it to apply only to Orthodox conversions, a move that angered the Reform and Conservative movements in the United States, which felt that it was an attempt to delegitimize their movements.

The Shoshanna Miller Case in 1980 tested the new amendment. She applied for citizenship under the Law of Return as a Reform convert. Initially her petition was refused and she appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that she should be granted citizenship, in what became known as the Miller precedent.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html

No idea. Personally, I don't see how anyone who rejects God can still be a follower of Judaism. Its an ethnocentric thingy that Jews are born to Jewish mothers. An inherited Judaism.



http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.htmlyou know, at some point my catholic grandmother really got into genealogy. no one else in the family cares :o so one day someone mentions, you know, your grandmothers mothers mother mother was a German jew.. I just said go back far enough and she's a monkey :p

They didn't think that was funny for some reason :shrug:

I personally think the problem is obvious - religion. Jews and Muslims and Xian have had a problem one another for eons - this is because they each think they're the only true religion and then they mix in this idea of race. it's like a double negative. BUT, I'm sure if it wasn't this it's be something else?

I personally think the problem is obvious - religion

I think the atheist Jews have proven that wrong. Right?

I think the atheist Jews have proven that wrong. Right?

There could be no atheist Jews, without (Abrahamic) religion.

Segregated schooling, how could that be?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08102009.html

Pilger noted that Israel bore a stark resemblance to Apartheid South Africa, even in 2001.
Perhaps this is a logical expression of the true racist nature of the Israeli state ?

Wait. I'm confused. Are the jews members of a religion or a race ?
How can they be members of the same race, if they all emigrated from different areas of Europe and more recently Africa..

I doubt even Caucasians have that much diversity.

There could be no atheist Jews, without (Abrahamic) religion.

Thats a great epiphany. i.e. there can be no atheists without theism.

Wait. I'm confused. Are the jews members of a religion or a race ?.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes what ? Religion or Race ? Or are you saying both ?

its whatever they decide it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

But the easiest way to figure it out is by who qualifies for the right of "return"

Still lets look at the list:

1. Judenstaat - Jewish only state = Theodor Herzl [atheist]
2. Balfour declaration - Chaim Weizmann [atheist]
3. Irgun - Jabotinsky [atheist]
4. Nakba - David ben gurion [atheist]
5. Labor Zionism ideology - Moses Hess [atheist]
6. First settlement at Degania - A D Gordon [atheist] "Surely in our day it is possible to live without religion"

These were the architects of the Jewish state as it is today

1. Your proof of their godlessness?
2. Your proof that these men alone were to founders of israel?

atheist Jews? What the frak is an atheist Jew? Is it like an Atheist Muslim?
It means the origin is such and such but the outcome is Atheist . Of course you have Atheist Jews, Atheists Muslims....etc. Their parents had faiths but they do not .

It means the origin is such and such but the outcome is Atheist . Of course you have Atheist Jews, Atheists Muslims....etc. Their parents had faiths but they do not .

Then, they would simply be atheists.

Not reacting to events around them. They are coming from foreign multicultural societies to Palestine and creating the events by enforcing a Jewish state on the local non-Jewish population through military force directed at driving away non Jews and segregation that is the core philosophy of Zionism.

No, no, it's complete reaction. I've seen that argument used to justify all kinds of things and I'm sure it applies here also.

No, no, it's complete reaction. I've seen that argument used to justify all kinds of things and I'm sure it applies here also.

It doesn't matter what you think. You can stand there and pretend the Jewish state is justified in providing Arab children with a tenth of the resources if it suits your POV. I'm sure that people who have practised this in the past with other people also believed they were justified.

Of course what I think matters! I'm only reacting to the actions of others. Thereby, I have no responsibility to temper my response or place it in historical context.

Is there a historical context for apartheid?

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude

Still lets look at the list:

1. Judenstaat - Jewish only state = Theodor Herzl [atheist]
2. Balfour declaration - Chaim Weizmann [atheist]
3. Irgun - Jabotinsky [atheist]
4. Nakba - David ben gurion [atheist]
5. Labor Zionism ideology - Moses Hess [atheist]
6. First settlement at Degania - A D Gordon [atheist] "Surely in our day it is possible to live without religion"

These were the architects of the Jewish state as it is today You add to a dubious list, rather than justifying it. Meanwhile, I still haven't found the evidence you claimed was easy to find, demonstrating Herzl's and Weizmann's (or even Jabotinsky's) atheism "in their own words". And neither Herzl nor Weizmann endorsed the 1942 architecture of the founded Israel - Herzl was long dead, Weizmann explicitly rejected it, especially its policies toward the contemporary Arab residents.

In general, you overestimate the ability of "architects" to command beliefs - the settlers of Israel have been very influential in setting State policy, and they are largely not even "secular Jews" in their self-identification, let alone atheistic. Israel is a theistic, religious state, overtly and obviously.

Meanwhile, we have segregated schooling presented as a step toward "assimilation" in Denmark, and a means of discrimination in Israel. The exact justification of that distinction is worth clarifying. Does it perhaps stem from a difference in the ideological basis of the States involved?

Then, they would simply be atheists.
Agreed .

You add to a dubious list, rather than justifying it. Meanwhile, I still haven't found the evidence you claimed was easy to find, demonstrating Herzl's and Weizmann's (or even Jabotinsky's) atheism "in their own words". And neither Herzl nor Weizmann endorsed the 1942 architecture of the founded Israel - Herzl was long dead, Weizmann explicitly rejected it, especially its policies toward the contemporary Arab residents.

Even when Weizmann was President?

In general, you overestimate the ability of "architects" to command beliefs - the settlers of Israel have been very influential in setting State policy, and they are largely not even "secular Jews" in their self-identification, let alone atheistic. Israel is a theistic, religious state, overtly and obviously.

Not at all I merely look at what they did at inception that led to the state being formed as it was. Herzl's contempt for the religious, Jabotinsky and Weizmann's actions on behalf of obtaining Palestine for European Jews, ben Gurions role in the Nakba are precedent to Israeli policy today.

I think you need to look up what the treatment of religious Jews (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085474.html) in Israel is.

[quote]Meanwhile, we have segregated schooling presented as a step toward "assimilation" in Denmark, and a means of discrimination in Israel. The exact justification of that distinction is worth clarifying. Does it perhaps stem from a difference in the ideological basis of the States involved?

I am puzzled how the addition of an Arabic language class to Danish schools translates to segregated schooling. Saudi Arabia has added English language classes to many of its schools without having that problem.

I think the atheist Jews have proven that wrong. Right?In this case it's religion.

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DhimmitudeOooo smack!


Just to note:
- Judaism is a religion not a race.
- Everyone here is atheist for some God or Goddess (or Alien overlord) - yes, even SAM is an atheist.
- excluding people based on their superstitious belief may not be "racist" but it's exactly the same sort of mentality.


IMO, we need to learn that it's not reasonable to legally segregate people based on the color of their skin and we should try to work towards a future where this does not occur.

we need to learn that it's not reasonable to legally segregate people based on their superstitious belief and we should try to work towards a future where this does not occure.


Of course this means a HUGE overhaul of the beliefs taught in some monotheisms (namely Judaism and Islam).

But there are "Secular"/Atheist Jews in Israel are they not ? Should they not be expelled to make room for more "worthy" people Who believe ? Or are they considered more "worthy" to live in Israel.

But there are "Secular"/Atheist Jews in Israel are they not ? Should they not be expelled to make room for more "worthy" people Who believe ? Or are they considered more "worthy" to live in Israel.

Umm no, the idea is to replace Palestinians [Muslims, Christians, Druze, Armenians], the atheist Jews are quite willing to comply to be the replacers.

Hence Israel is the "only" democracy in the Middle East.

I think you need to look up what the treatment of religious Jews in Israel is. 20% of the Jews in Israel are non-religious (secular) Jews (no doubt some fraction of that 20% are atheist). That leaves 80% to be mistreated, in a democracy.


Not at all I merely look at what they did at inception that led to the state being formed as it was. I doubt that. It's an overtly theistic, religion-based State - a democratic polity founded among and still dominated by a population of seriously religious people.

20% of the Jews in Israel are non-religious (secular) Jews (no doubt some fraction of that 20% are atheist). That leaves 80% to be mistreated, in a democracy.

Source?

I doubt that. It's an overtly theistic, religion-based State - a democratic polity founded among and still dominated by a population of seriously religious people.
Yeah we can see how religiously they follow the religion. Like the nude gay beaches.

Israel is not a religiously governed state, the government gets in fights with the religious all the time over various different topics. Most of the religious in Israel send their kids to private schools, there the school administrators have authority to reject and accept students.
Why would they accept a non-Jewish boy into Jewish day school??? If it was public school they couldn't reject him and the threat of parents removing their children would be worthless...thus it's clearly private.
A large part of the reason the Arabs can't get into Israeli schools might be...they voluntarily don't speak Hebrew...and a large reason their schools have no funding is because their Arab villages refuse to pay taxes.

Arab villages refuse to pay taxes.

Fascinating. They refuse to pay taxes that would go and kill their ethnic brothers..

Weeell, can Copts then refuse to pay taxes to the Egyptian state?

Do the Iraqis/Afghanis pay taxes to the Americans? Should they?

Do the Iraqis/Afghanis pay taxes to the Americans? Should they?

No and No.

Setting aside the debate about justification of the invasions, fact is: Neither nation "asked" to be invaded. Having done that, the worst thing the USA can do is re-hash the failings of the Treaty of Versailles and attempt to recoup the lost capital. Both nations do and should cost the USA money to rebuild. It's the right thing to do. It worked in Japan and Germany and hopefully will pay off, one day, in stability in the future.

~String

Do the Iraqis/Afghanis pay taxes to the Americans? Should they?

No. How does that compare to the ongoing oppression of the Copts?

20% of the Jews in Israel are non-religious (secular) Jews (no doubt some fraction of that 20% are atheist). That leaves 80% to be mistreated, in a democracy.
”
Source? A recalled poll of self-identification, quoted from memory - but the same basic proportions are visible here (http://www.avi-chai.org/Static/Binaries/Publications/EnglishGuttman_0.pdf) (section 2.2).
Yeah we can see how religiously they follow the religion. Like the nude gay beaches. The habit of telling other people how they should behave so as to be properly following their religion is one of those charming little features of arrogant bigotry that we have all come to appreciate in these discussions.
It worked in Japan and Germany and hopefully will pay off, one day, in stability in the future. What worked in Japan and Germany was aiding the people of Japan and Germany in their own efforts. Last I looked, the best estimate was that about 90% of the US aid money labeled "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" was going into the coffers of US corporations and individuals, most of these coffers being in the US.

Last I looked, the best estimate was that about 90% of the US aid money labeled "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" was going into the coffers of US corporations and individuals, most of these coffers being in the US.

The US and their allies NATO did NOT invade Iraq and Afghanistan to help them but to destroy them . Remember they are their enemies and NOT their friends .

Do the Iraqis/Afghanis pay taxes to the Americans? Should they?
Do you think it would be wrong if they did have to pay taxes to Americans?

Do the Iraqis/Afghanis pay taxes to the Americans? Should they?
”
Do you think it would be wrong if they did have to pay taxes to Americans? When exacted from the conquered and occupied, it's usually called "tribute" or something like that.

It might be a good idea to avoid the whole "representation" issue that taxation tends to raise, in the US.

Do you think it would be wrong if they did have to pay taxes to Americans?
It would be tragic .

It would be tragic .I agree, it's just some people think that in certain circumstances it's OK to force the conquered peoples to pay a tax to their conquerors - you know, to maintain their military bases near the cities.

It's not only acceptable to tax the populace it's "Glorious" to do so.

Me, I think it's wrong, I also think the USA should leave the ME, that would be wonderful. But, the entire world is addicted to oil and so we'll be there for some time to come.

Do you think it would be wrong if they did have to pay taxes to Americans?

Yeah, because history has shown that Americans have scant regard for the native people. They simply continue what they started in their own country. Somewhat like the British, in terms of stripping any country of its resources without any benefit to the people originally living there [if at all there is any benefit it is usually unavoidable and unintended]. If the Iraqis or Afghanis could expect a vote in the US Congress as well as representation then it would be fine.Is that what Americans want? To annex the people of Afghanistan as citizens?

Yeah, because history has shown that Americans have scant regard for the native people.

Imperfect, but historically better than any other global power in the last 200 years. I guess that can come across like pointing out that the women at a particular party were all thinner than Carney Wilson, but it's still a valid point.

I'm sure the Germans, Italians and Japanese who now prosper as a result of the Marshall Plan would disagree with your assessment, and those who they were conquering as well.

If the Iraqis or Afghanis could expect a vote in the US Congress as well as representation then it would be fine.Is that what Americans want? To annex the people of Afghanistan as citizens?

Tongue in cheek? I guess that's a good tactic. But, no, it's obviously not what the USA wants.

~String

Tongue in cheek? I guess that's a good tactic. But, no, it's obviously not what the USA wants.


Usually the precedent is to annex civilians first and then levy taxes.

Usually the precedent is to annex civilians first and then levy taxes.

The USA has no history of doing that outside the contiguous states, Alaska and Hawaii. At numerous points in history, the USA occupied Cuba, the Philippines, Korea, Japan, France, Italy, Germany, Somalia, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Mexico and the Low Countries and at no point--AFAIK--were they ever taxed.

Even Puerto Rico pays no federal income taxes because of it's unique status.

I think you know this but posit your notion disingenuously in order to serve a political purpose.

~String

I'm simply pointing out the incongruity of Cheski's demand that the Palestinians should pay taxes to the Israelis. There is no precedent for that unless they are absorbing them into the population. [Note however that the taxes of Palestinians in the West Bank are collected by Israelis and then doled out to the PA, if they feel like it (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-cuts-off-palestinian-tax-funds-as-relations-hit-new-low-842092.html), minus what they cut as expenses for themselves. They used to collect from Gaza before Hamas won the elections ]

I'm simply pointing out the incongruity of Cheski's demand that the Palestinians should pay taxes to the Israelis. There is no precedent for that unless they are absorbing them into the population. [Note however that the taxes of Palestinians in the West Bank are collected by Israelis and then doled out to the PA, if they feel like it (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-cuts-off-palestinian-tax-funds-as-relations-hit-new-low-842092.html), minus what they cut as expenses for themselves. They used to collect from Gaza before Hamas won the elections ]

Ahhh. Well, your assumptions about the USA, while often truthful, in this case were incorrect.

Though, back on topic, I agree that the Palestinians should pay taxes and Israel should also make itself into secular state without religious preference of one over the other.

~String

Note that Israeli "Arabs" do pay taxes. Israel has no jurisdiction to collect taxes from occupied Palestinians.

Israel has no jurisdiction to collect taxes from occupied Palestinians.

No, but I also don't believe in the two state solution. One, secular, unified state would work. My thoughts don't stop there. For the most part I usually don't care what goes on in Israel, seeing as how I distrust both and have little faith that either wants peace. At some point, the UN or some coalition will have to go in, shut the place down, put soldiers on the streets and force peace upon them.

In the past, on side would just wipe the other out, or totally drive them from the land. Even Israel's best efforts are in vain: Palestinians are out-breeding the Jews and will outnumber them soon enough. In the end, Israel needs an Ataturk. I'm no fan of tyranny but sometimes the only way to make two parties live in peace is to force it on them. The Jews aren't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. What solution is there beyond two generations of secular government enforcement of peace?

~String

Yeah, because history has shown that Americans have scant regard for the native people. They simply continue what they started in their own country. Somewhat like the British, in terms of stripping any country of its resources without any benefit to the people originally living there [if at all there is any benefit it is usually unavoidable and unintended]. If the Iraqis or Afghanis could expect a vote in the US Congress as well as representation then it would be fine.Is that what Americans want? To annex the people of Afghanistan as citizens?Americans have scant regard for the people they conquer. Probably as much as anyone else, I mean, when you set forth to conquer people, well, you've long said f*ckit to their regards!

I agree, it is wrong to conquer people and tax them to maintain your army (which is what is happening in Japan, Japanese pay for our army bases there - and in Okinawa [after we finally gave it back them]).

The way your wrote your response, well, it seems like you have a but... in there. OH YEAH, BUT when Arabs are conquering Persians... THEN it's fine and dandy ... in THAT case it different :D

WHICH is the exact same sort of rational that leads to segregation of Arabs in school. People always have their "BUT..." Oh, I'm sure the principals of this school would agree.. yes, it's wrong to segregate BUT... in this case it different.

I think it's wrong. I don't think it's going to change any time to soon. Not until some serious changes can be made to Judaism and Islam, which are happening, it's just taking time.

No, but I also don't believe in the two state solution. One, secular, unified state would work. My thoughts don't stop there. For the most part I usually don't care what goes on in Israel, seeing as how I distrust both and have little faith that either wants peace. At some point, the UN or some coalition will have to go in, shut the place down, put soldiers on the streets and force peace upon them.

In the past, on side would just wipe the other out, or totally drive them from the land. Even Israel's best efforts are in vain: Palestinians are out-breeding the Jews and will outnumber them soon enough. In the end, Israel needs an Ataturk. I'm no fan of tyranny but sometimes the only way to make two parties live in peace is to force it on them. The Jews aren't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. What solution is there beyond two generations of secular government enforcement of peace?

~String


Lets hope it doesn't require more violence to resolve the situation. I'm a one-stater myself, I don't see how it makes sense for any Jews to think they would be safer in Israel than in the US [because face it, if they come to odds, do they really want to be concentrated in one place in the middle of Arab nations? Its not like anyone is going to think twice before bombing the Middle East]

I agree, it is wrong to conquer people and tax them to maintain your army (which is what is happening in Japan, Japanese pay for our army bases there - and in Okinawa [after we finally gave it back them]).

Incorrect, the USA leases every single one of its bases from the countries they are in. Even Cuba. In fact, the renewing of American leases on bases in Okinawa spurred quite a debate in Japan some years back.

What the Japanese do, willingly, is pay "host money" to the USA. The usual cost is about $2 billion annually. In fact, the USA has proposed the closing of a number of Japanese bases but has been met with stiff opposition from Tokyo who has, often times, convinced Washinton with more money.

The terms of the Japanese occupation have ended and the Japanese can end American base-leases at their will. They can, and have, imposed restrictions on the usage of those bases and have stopped US bases there from supporting war efforts they do not agree with. For example, for years Japanese law prohibited any nuclear powered naval ship from ever docking in its ports (thus, the non-nuclear aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy was the only one allowed there; this rule was changed once the Japanese began cooperating wit the USDOD on building their own nuclear powered ACC).

So why pay the "host money" at all? For starters the Japanese spend a fraction on defense than the USA, the UK or France but receive full protection from the American military. It is, in fact, one of the few nations on Earth who's people generally want the American presence there (as a result of North Korean nukes and long-time rivalries with China). Their lack of military expenditure is actually what is spurring an American pull-out of the archipelago. Washington is gambling that forcing the Japanese to defend themselves will (a) save the USA quite a large some of money by not needing so much manpower there and (b) will force the Japanese to cut spending on "protectionist" programs that stall American imports (because, in Japan, raising taxes isn't really an option considering what is already paid). The other main reason why the Japanese pay the "host money" is that American bases there return the investment several times over by the economic stimulus that is provided by visiting military-men and local supply contracts to the bases which total SIGNIFICANTLY more than the scant $2 billion paid by the Japanese government.

~String

Weeell, can Copts then refuse to pay taxes to the Egyptian state?
Sure, If Egypt was taking land away from, oh, I don't know, a country where the coptic church influences arms of government, military and populace.

At some point, the UN or some coalition will have to go in, shut the place down, put soldiers on the streets and force peace upon them. Israel is a major nuclear power, and is well-connected for trade etc. The only UN country that could muscle it in the near future is the the US, and that would be a very tense scene.
I'm a one-stater myself, I don't see how it makes sense for any Jews to think they would be safer in Israel than in the US [because face it, if they come to odds, do they really want to be concentrated in one place in the middle of Arab nations? They don't compare with the US, they compare with their home countries - the neighboring Muslim states, Russia and central Europe, etc. Israel is a nice safe place compared with a millennium of those scenes - the Holocaust didn't come from nowhere. They can handle the Arabs, they figure.

I'm wondering about the Chinese - how Israel figures into their plans for Africa.

I'm wondering about the Chinese - how Israel figures into their plans for Africa.

I think Israel (and the USA) know well that the Mideast is already gobbled-up. Thus the move on Africa. There's a lot of oil, timber and other raw materials there. The Chinese are buying on good-will and something else they learned from the US: money. Within about 30 years the Chinese will have more money to burn that the USA and will be spending it quite lavishly on Africa. In return the Chinese will have their bases there and will be securing, much as the US now does from the Mideast and South America, their shipments of raw materials.

~String

Within about 30 years the Chinese will have more money to burn that the USA and will be spending it quite lavishly on Africa. In return the Chinese will have their bases there and will be securing, much as the US now does from the Mideast and South America, their shipments of raw materials. The only catch is the actual boots on the ground - it just seems to me that China would prefer a good, competent proxy thug squad on the scene, one with a modern military tradition and ethos, efficient, experienced in the area and reliable - maybe even dependent.

Kind of the role the Swiss or Scots have played.

The Israelis are already selling them weapons and covert intelligence, so thats a pretty reasonable assumption

I was thinking more of naval stations. I think the Chinese pride themselves on their particular way of doing things. They don't have to bother supplying the world with cheesy notions of democracy like the USA does. They believe that government, not the people, is the ultimate authority and they'll deal with any government--good or bad--who provides them with what they want.

The US is living under two dueling international ideologies: Do what's good for American interests and Support the spread of democracy. Anybody with a shred of intelligence knows that what is good for America is not always the spread of Democracy. During the cold war, the later rule was easily set aside. Now politicians are becoming obsessed with that rule and it peppers every decision made. The USA is now committed to meddle in the internal affairs of nation who (a) don't want us there and (b) may not be ready for a Jeffersonian democracy. Stupidly, politicians keep telling Americans that "the spread of Democracy is good for the USA" but that utter bunk.

The Chinese aren't constrained by such notions. They pride themselves on their ancient way of looking at things. They will do what's best for China and won't worry about the rest. By simply having strong proxies (as you pointed out) they'll avoid having to invade nations for silly human rights reasons. If an Iraq decides to invade a Kuwait, they'll just make a deal with that Iraq to keep the oil flowing (shit, it's what the US should have done).

But troops on the ground? No. Naval bases, though a fine hair to split, I certainly expect within a decade.

~String

Do what's good for American interests and Support the spread of democracy.

That seems like a very naive perspective. Every single right wing dictatorship in the last 60 years has been supported by the US, including the current occupation of Palestinians/

That seems like a very naive perspective. Every single right wing dictatorship in the last 60 years has been supported by the US, including the current occupation of Palestinians/

Did you read my entire post, SAM? Or did you just see that line and start responding?

I said that those two were dueling ideologies. I also said that during the Cold War the former won out over the latter (in other words, the USA did what was good for the USA and disregarded the second half). Now that the Cold War has ended, the USA is struggling to incorporate the second goal, and it's been rather disastrous, even more than the support of right-wing dictatorships.

~String

Do what's good for American interests and Support the spread of democracy.
”
That seems like a very naive perspective. Americans have no real idea what their government has been doing in foreign places.


The US is living under two dueling international ideologies: Do what's good for American interests and Support the spread of democracy. That was the marketing scheme, for domestic consumption - what Americans at home have been living under, but not what America has been acting in accordance with in general, outside its own boundaries.

There is little evidence the American government's handling of foreign affairs over the past generation has been motivated by either the good of America as a country or the spreading of democracy.

Did you read my entire post, SAM? Or did you just see that line and start responding?

I said that those two were dueling ideologies. I also said that during the Cold War the former won out over the latter (in other words, the USA did what was good for the USA and disregarded the second half). Now that the Cold War has ended, the USA is struggling to incorporate the second goal, and it's been rather disastrous, even more than the support of right-wing dictatorships.

~String

Only if you're an idealist. The US government has a very clear modus operandi, if you set aside the window dressing and look objectively at what the policies are. Note that it makes little difference who is at the helm [in terms of foreign policy]

There is little evidence the American government's handling of foreign affairs over the past generation has been motivated by either the good of America as a country or the spreading of democracy.

Well, you certainly disagree with the results, but neither of us are in the War Room to hear what's being discussed. If I were to wager, I'd say that they think they are doing something to help the USA and firmly believe that attempts at spreading democracy (you know, like in Europe and Japan after WWII and what's now going on in Iraq and Afghanistan) is somehow good for Americans. You don't see me agreeing with that fact, just that I believe it's what they believe they are doing.

~String

superstring01,

thanks for the post on Japan - that was interesting. I knew Japan paid host money, but, I didn't realize it was such a sweet deal to them.

I read China keeps boots on the ground in KSA (at least guarding the oil wells they have invested money into). Ever read anything?


KSA recently started purchasing/renting large chunks of land in Africa from the dodgy governments there (because growing food in the desert is rapidly become a waste of money and resources) and so Afrcia will supply KSA large populations with the produce they need to survive. Is this any different than what the USA does or what China is doing? Are Muslims no different than oh gee, everyone else with some money in their hand?!? Seems to me they are doing exactly the same: bribe the tough man, take the resources. I'm sure if KSA was threatened with a "food boycott" boots would be on the ground before you could whisper Islam is Peace.

The US shut down local farming in Africa and made it into a market for American goods [through subsidies (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1017&prog=zru) to US farmers], the Saudis will employ Africans, invest in farming education and infrastructure in Africa and also grow food (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2009286536_is_offshore_farming_a_good_thi.html) for them. I think there is a great deal of difference.

Anyway we're going way off topic

”
Well, you certainly disagree with the results, but neither of us are in the War Room to hear what's being discussed. If I were to wager, I'd say that they think they are doing something to help the USA and firmly believe that attempts at spreading democracy (you know, like in Europe and Japan after WWII and what's now going on in Iraq and Afghanistan) is somehow good for Americans. And the remarkable coincidence of the need for democracy and the interests of the US lining up with the profit and power requirements of a couple of dozen multinational corporations and international finance is never noticed in the War Room - their mission simply appears to them, like the weather or Moses's flaming bush? Or maybe it is viewed as one of those fortunate properties of the universe - what's good for Halliburton is good for the country, sort of by definition.

The US shut down local farming in Africa and made it into a market for American goods [through subsidies (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1017&prog=zru) to US farmers], the Saudis will employ Africans, invest in farming education and infrastructure in Africa and also grow food (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2009286536_is_offshore_farming_a_good_thi.html) for them. I think there is a great deal of difference.

Anyway we're going way off topic

only to bring them in as foreign labor and treat them like slaves.

Or maybe it is viewed as one of those fortunate properties of the universe - what's good for Halliburton is good for the country, sort of by definition.

I was thinking something like this. There is the pervasive notion in the US government that what is good for our companies is good for us. Moreover, the USA does a pretty good job of looking out for the USA--in general--and this will almost always include our corporations. The Government of most western nations has long served as a marketing tool for their largest corporations. I'm not defending it, just trying to highlight this fact a little more clearly. I'm also not so blind as to be unawares of the many negative side effects.

~String

There is the pervasive notion in the US government that what is good for our companies is good for us. Moreover, the USA does a pretty good job of looking out for the USA--in general--and this will almost always include our corporations. So what we have as actual motivation guiding actual policy, among a significant and (increasingly?) dominant faction of the people actually setting that policy and choosing the people who will actually proclaim that policy, is: what is good for US bankers and corporations, as the power center of the US ruling class.

The stuff about being good for the US appears further down the line, in the minions with rifles and the local politicians and such, and the stuff about being good for democracy appears in press releases and revisions of history books, if at all.

In other words, there is little actual discord or conflict between the incompatible goals of "USA benefit" and "democracy benefit" at the policy creation level. "USA benefit" is identified as "us benefit" (through cynicism or naivety), and "democracy benefit" does not appear.