You mean making the settlers homeless? Are you asking if I think the two-state solution is better than one liberal democracy? If so, then I would say I honestly don't know. I think anyone who says they know what will happen if one liberal democracy is formed (thereby killing the "Jewish State" and enforcing Jews as a minority) is kidding themselves. I condition my guesses on the next four years of Israel-Palestine about ten times, because any unforeseen event could change the whole deal. I honestly can't say which would end up better. As such, I'd rather let the two sides make their own deal. I'm not sure what you mean by the Canada comment. So you're saying that for 4000 years the jews have been nothing but greedy? I think there's a way you can handle it that will turn them left. But again, I'm no fortune teller and I don't pretend to have certainty. And so it was with many European communities for years. And so it was with the different Chinese ethnic groups. And so it was with Africans. And yet people can change. Moreover, keeping ethnically divided in terms of lifestyle does not imply anti-democratic. A nation - such as India - could have many groups that like to keep to themselves and still be democratic. Much greater international attention paid to Palestine; a general dying off of support for Israel; a post-Cold War backlash against American domination; a post-Cold War realigning of values and viewpoints.... If you're not sure how the world has changed in the last fifty years, I suggest you pick up a book or two. Of course there is a peaceful movement in Palestine. There are such people in Israel too. No one pays attention to them either. There are Israelis who also agree with your suggestion of one-nation-liberal-democracy, giving up the "jewish state" title, etc. I'm sure you would agree that it's a shame they're not in the majority and not in political power. I'm not sure why you wouldn't say the same of Palestine. Gandhi accomplished quite a lot. The Lama's struggle is not over; the Lama's struggle is China's struggle; they are one. Mandela's state suffered from too quick a change and it's very unclear how or when that will be resolved.
Political debates are pretty common on campus. It could hardly be otherwise. Do you see the irony of a group that "trains" students to challenge anti-Israel positions making an argument about politically influencing students?
I personally do not believe in ethnocracies and I think cultures that do not assimilate well are better off being absorbed than allowed to create disharmony. No I am saying that for 4000 years, Jews have been typified by their inability to assimilate in any society. In almost every place they live in they have a Jewish ghetto and have problems with society. In India we already had a caste system. Here is a good book if you can get hold of it http://books.google.com/books?id=Kd...ance&ei=4u36SbzDB6P2yATJ4uQ5&client=firefox-a Not at all. In India for example, its quite common to find people living together in mixed Hindu, Muslim, Christian communities, although immigrants tend to live in ghettos [but not for 2000 years] Of course this also necessitates things like a caste system. Another thing better consigned to the dust of history. I remember the hue and cry over the Lebanon bombing, the picture on the Time cover, the graphic images of dead babies. Then, nothing. Similarly, I remember the Gaza breakout through Rafah after monthsof a criminal seige, it was in all the papers, even CNN showed the plight of the Gazans. Then, nothing. Most people did not even recall that the Palestinians were being starved before the Israels bombed them. So, yes, there is much show, but not really any change. Because it would be unecessary. Except for the brief period when Israel-funded religious extremism held sway, the Palestinian liberation movement has been entirely secular. Gandhi was impotent to stop the partition, the Lama is just an opportunist whose tribe behaves like white supremacists in Dharamsala. Mandela defined black freedom and became an icon for black self determination. [There's also the Americans and Jews, who similarly used terrorism to get their states]
Nor should it be! I just think there's an advantage to restricting teachers to teaching their subject. I don't think it's ironic, I think it's terrible. I'm not so sure most scholars would agree with you on that. For many of those years the jews were kept separate by law. In Germany and much of Europe in the 19th century they actually did a pretty good job of assimilating. Many of those singled out in the holocaust were either unaware of their jewish background or really couldn't have given a shit about it. In general I agree. But small pockets of ethnically separated jews, or other groups, seem to do quite fine in Canada, and I wouldn't say our country suffers from too great a lack of 'harmony'. I'm not knowledgeable enough on India to argue about Gandhi. The Lama is very far from an opportunist, and I would argue more except that my situation urges restraint. I'm not sure terrorism is what led to Israel. I think WWII might have played a bigger part. And the Americans won a war, which while not entirely distinct from terrorism, is still categorically different. An armed combat between recognized armies for non-mutually-exclusive terms is different from the current conditions in Israel. Moreover, I'm pretty sure I've heard you argue that (and I agree that) Mandela got his state largely because of peaceful economic and cultural pressure from outside sources. ------- So you really do support war?
No but I think its inevitable. The alternative is to become the Inuit. Or the Palestinians. I'm okay with such groups as a minority. Its when they get majority status that they become problematic. Do these ethnically separated Jews spit at Christians? I bet not. But let them become a majority and they will http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...D=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=487412
Sam get your head out of your ass. You cannot expect a people to just be able to ignore and over come the influences of two millennia of abuse with just a wave of the hand.
You don't spit at people because they wear a crucifix and then cry Abuse! Thats just hypocrisy. I think people who automatically label Europeans as antisemitic need to look at the bigger picture.
Thats typically the result of assuming Jewish history takes place in isolation. When different cultures mix, reconciliation is not always the way. But much of post-Holocaust history ignores the Jewish religious attitudes towards the "idolatory" of Christians and how they expressed it. Just google spitting at the crucifix.
I've heard about some pretty horrendous abuse handed out to the non-kosher in Jerusalem, Meah Shearim in particular. But I can't say I've heard directly heard of spitting at the cross. That's awfully deterministic of you. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point. I don't think religion defines someone so necessarily in that way. Religion - and religions - have changed massively over the years and will continue to do so in the future. They are, after all, just composed of people, and people change.
The Jews have an long and unfortunate history of victimization, so they tend to use the victim card as a national pastime. To the extent that free speech is very adversely effected. They also influence other nations, who are terrified (for some reason, guilt?) to offend them, into following their denunciations of anything that might suggest that they (Israel), are anything other than victims, and their policies of apartheid, walls and gates included, do not exist. The recent Durban 2 conference is a prime example. A mass walkout of Western nations, when Israel was denounced as racist. Instead of listening and then voicing a response to fair criticism, they act like they are BEYOND criticism. Utterly dishonest and unhelpful.
Most people don't report it [you ever report anyone who spat at you?] But its still prolific enough to be a subject of discussion. Professor Israel Shahak has discussed it in his book: And there are some other sources on the Jewish position for non-Jews http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0300/0003105.html Its got nothing to do with religion per se, Zionism was initiated by "secular atheist" Jews. Its what their history reflects. Can they change? Maybe but the evidence remains to be seen.
Ah, so you don't like the connotations with that term. You know that often connotations start off with the actions of the responsible party right ? The Bushes weren't always evil, I'm sure some of them are nice people, but because of the actions of a few, all of them get branded evil. In this case it's the same thing. If the Israeli lobby as a collective whole, wants to have better recognition and respect as a body of people, and by extension the state of Israel, and wants to continue to insist the same political correctness bullshit, it has to learn to play nice. So, If the Bushies wanted to stop being called evil, they'd have to try and bring their son in line, and distance themselves from the actions of Bush snr. Hence, If the Israeli lobby wants to remove the negative signs associated with it, AIPAC and others have to distance themselves from hard liners, and insistent Political correctness freaks. I guess what I'm saying is this, If you want people to be nice to you, be nice to them.
