Why segregation is the single most important issue in Israel, and practical ways to confront it

Israel/Palestine
and on 78 Comments

Segregation is a state whereby people are separated and isolated by race or ethnicity. When separation is the outcome of decades of systematic policies and practices, segregation can surely be considered involuntary. In Israel, segregation determines the Zionist class system. The question at the forefront of civil rights is how to rewrite Israel’s racial space divisions as something other than a foregone conclusion.

The underlying premise that Israel is hyper-segregated does not require defense. Deniers of Israel’s institutional and foundational hyper-segregation can consult a robust literature on the State’s policies and practices whereby Haifa, Akka, Yaffa, Ramla and Lydd (as well as Upper Nazareth and Carmiel) have become what is known as ‘mixed’ (i.e., not pure) cities. ‘Mixed’ cities are those spaces in the State where the analysis of segregation gets down to the neighborhood level. Understanding the terms in which Israel’s hyper-segregation is discussed is crucial in the way forward to a more egalitarian society.

There is an outcry every time the mainstream media reports on a case of overt Israeli spatial discrimination. This outcry paradoxically helps quell any potential discourse questioning the underlying logic of residential segregation, which is naturalized, and downplayed, as an unavoidable and desirable default. It is easier to talk about the crimes of displacement, explicit racism, and unequal resource allocation than about the fact of residential separation itself. Moreover, there has been a greater historical resistance to Israel’s segregated systems of justice, labor, education and even housing than to residential segregation per se. This raises the question of how well the civil rights project has fared by maintaining the positions it has towards residential hyper-segregation.

Various formal and informal policies in Israel are used to divide groups by place of residence, and to actively prevent the rise of racially mixed neighborhoods. Even when viewed at the most superficial, everyday economic level, it is apparent that the result is a systematic residential divide that devalues property in Palestinian areas, creates differential mortgage risks, and gives rise to parallel economies. This is how the Zionist class system is reproduced. This holds true even before weighing in such policy outcomes as the overcrowding of Palestinian areas due to the preferential treatment the Zionist class allows itself (access to land, financial incentives and easy access to building permits). One ramification of this is that it becomes difficult for Palestinian citizens of Israel to compete with Jewish Israelis and move to ‘Jewish spaces’ that have the higher investor ratings.

Speaking theoretically, corrective policies, financial incentives and reparations for historical wrongdoings might be implemented to adjust for gaps caused by the legacies of forced displacement, military rule, and property expropriations. To date, it has been an exclusive group of ‘Olim Hadashim’ – Jewish immigrants – who have received free housing bonuses and government freebies (sometimes including the lands and properties of displaced Palestinians). The continuance of hyper-segregation precludes any kind of egalitarian society. One problem is the perception of segregation as predetermined, or as necessarily desirable, so that corrective spatial policies become some pie in the sky insanity, rather than a technically feasible matter. After all, it has been technically feasible to implement spatial policies when these were to the exclusive advantage of the Zionist class. Once the right over space crystallizes as the focal point of civil rights, there will be a backlash, but the fear of violent reaction in response to the abolition of long-standing privileges is never an alibi for continued privilege. The practical fact to be focused on is that there are concrete actions that could potentially be utilized to enable large numbers of Palestinian citizens of Israel to move into the currently predominantly Jewish Spaces – if they so wished. For this to happen, though, Israeli segregation would have to be called out unambiguously.

It should be underlined that contesting default segregation and preaching assimilation, or even integration, are two different things. Anti-segregation is a basic civil rights principle, based on a direct correlation between segregation and power inequality. Assimilation, on the other hand, entails willingness on the part of the social majority to grant the minority some inclusion in state institutions as long as the minority consents to accept the reigning language, style, culture and norms. When placed under pressure, the ruling class may proffer discourses of assimilation or integration, permitting enough political participation and upward mobility for some sections of the minority, to preserve the class system itself. Integration requires an integrative act on the part of the social minority; it does not require an equal integrative act on the part of the social majority. Contrary to that, anti-segregation is a long term economic and political calculus, if not a civil rights principle. It is not about the racialized social minority desiring to be neighbors with the privileged social majority, let alone desiring to adopt the former’s identity. It is about producing and discussing space on one’s own terms, in the interests of building a more democratic society.

At work is a Zionist class system. A class system is a system in which social status is largely determined by the group into which a person is born. In other terms, the Zionist class permanently owns the means of institutional production in Israel. Segregation is its most important institutional tool, because it divides knowledge, power and space and reproduces institutional haves (Zionists) and have-nots (non-Zionists). True, Jewish-Israelis who are not members of the Zionist class may also have unequal access to institutional power, despite the fact that they enjoy vast historical benefits and privilege. However, they can hide and camouflage their non-Zionism, whereas Palestinian citizens cannot, since they belong, through the accident of birth, to a Non-Zionist status.

Members of the Zionist class cannot be expected to perceive segregation, not only because class interests buttresses denial, but also because the Palestinian areas inside the State are often perceived as another body, inside another place. Since the Palestinian town is seen as located ‘elsewhere,’ it is not being segregated. This is not a vague state of denial but rather the operative logic of extreme racial population division. The Zionist class likes to believe that Israeli separation results from voluntary agreement or preference by Palestinian citizens. This is distortive; the real cause of segregation is ongoing formal and informal state policies and practices, from the foundational-constitutional level to military levels.

The Zionist class monopolizes the legitimate use of force (military and police), and uses it to perpetuate the class system. The monopoly of force is directed at concentrating those permanently without control over state institutions within small peripheral spaces and keeping them distanced from public resources. Schools, work, health, transportation, businesses, cultural events and services are all determined by residential status. Whether the target population ‘acquiesces’ to segregation or not is irrelevant to the fact that segregation is an inherently unequal division of society, created and reinforced by the Zionist class through policies which include military displacement, exclusion and expropriation. The Palestinian ghetto — ‘a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group’– did not exist prior to the Zionist class system. The Palestinian ghetto came into existence only when Palestinians were forcibly turned into a minority, and when those remaining after the Nakba, the systematic displacement (ethnic cleansing) of 1948, were consistently relocated from the social center of Palestine to the social periphery of present day Israel. Israeli segregation is neither an absolutely repressive state apparatus nor completely an ideological apparatus, but hovers in between both of these by creating an ideological-material-space. The Zionist class uses segregation firstly to shield itself from the hazardous rays of the other’s knowledge.

In conceding that power relations in Israel are waged in terms of a class struggle between the permanent Zionist and Non-Zionist classes, it then becomes apparent that the fundamental aim of those who are not part of the ruling class is to seize the means of institutional production, by effectively dismantling segregation and abolishing the Zionist class system.

To oppose the Zionist class system, the minority of Non-Zionists, presently at least a fifth of Israel’s citizens, sometimes seeks ways to establish institutions independent of the state apparatus. This minority forms opposition parties; it wages alliances; and it organizes its own labor and educational organizations. But it generally refrains from confronting residential segregation as a focal issue. Palestinian groups outside Israel have also dealt ambivalently with divided residential space. The definitions and applicability of such legal terms as ‘genocide,’ ‘crimes against humanity,’ ‘racist discrimination,’ ‘ethnic cleansing,’ and ‘apartheid’ have become almost commonplace in international human rights forums, while the institution of residential segregation, the principal foundational institution of the Zionist class system, remains in the margins of the discourse. The dismissal of residential segregation as a core civil rights issue continues, despite the fact that segregation lends itself to a straightforward structural analysis, and despite the fact that it is theoretically reversible by policy directives.

The Zionist class generates two doctrines pertaining to residential space –“separate and not equal” (at the utmost right) and “separate but equal” (at the liberal left).  From the beginning, Palestinian and non-Zionist intellectuals were calling out institutional racial segregation, seeking international recognition of Israel’s systematic labor, educational, and land discrimination. But residential anti-segregation per se was harder to tackle. Anxieties tend to surface among a growing middle class of Palestinian citizens whose immediate interests may be perceived as threatened by both the potential influx of Palestinian refugees, and the loss of the economic and cultural Palestinian enclave. However, focusing on the logic of these anxieties is misleading. The underlying reason for the lack of organized opposition to Israeli residential segregation is simply the lack of a space within which the non-Zionist class can build such organized opposition. The Zionist class, owning the means of institutional production, has so far managed to avert, block, and obstruct the development of efforts that could potentially be conducive to an anti-segregation movement on the ground. The Zionist class has even blocked legal marriages from taking place in Israel between Jewish citizens and Palestinian citizens.

While the two-state idea has reached its end-of-life phase, single-state ‘technologies’ are in perpetual pre-Alpha form, always in the analytic phase, never in actual development. Even the ‘binational state’ discourse is used, many times, to preempt robust anti-segregation discourses, by presenting autonomy as the alternative to a cultural annihilation that would assumedly ensue in a democratic state with equal rights. Given that the Zionist class is doing everything in its power to distract the world’s attention from civil rights, it makes sense to go ahead and begin field-testing — initially by testing the extent to which the Zionist class is willing and capable of clamping down on peaceful anti-segregation efforts.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine two main arguments that attack anti-segregation from a non-Zionist position. One is that Palestinian communities in Israel are ‘better off’ in the cultural enclave than they would be by integrating with the racist colonial occupier. The other discourse centers on a supposed powerlessness to abolish the Zionist class system through struggle from within. The latent assumption here is that the dust of segregation and inequality will settle of its own accord in a future post-colonialism and post-oppression era, or when external pressures trigger such fundamental changes to the system as the return of Palestinian refugees. However, these two discourses are each based on potentially fallacious sets of assumptions.

As stated, the first premise is false. Standing for anti-segregation does not necessarily make for a project of integration and assimilation. It is actually possible to build the strength of the ghetto and to maintain its cultural autonomy while, at the same time, disturbing ‘pure’ Jewish spaces, working to regain property and land in currently restrictive ‘pure’ Jewish areas, and pushing for land reform. Unsettling the reliability and predictability of Israeli segregationism is a straightforward objective, achievable through such means as rights advocacy strategies, cooperative purchasing power strategies, civil action strategies and social strategies geared towards institutional reform.

The anti-segregation movement is situated within a set of basic ontological questions: What is this space? And what I am in it? An either/or dichotomy such as segregation/integration is alien to true anti-segregation efforts. The real question would be: How can the non-Zionist class use the segregation line on its own terms, as a means to real institutional power? How can collective non-Zionist techniques penetrate through the immense blockages of knowledge represented by the racial cartographies of kibbutzim, moshavim, gated communities, ‘Zionist’ beaches, so-called ‘mixed’ cities, housing projects protected by Jewish-only restrictive committees, and other extreme practices of demographic control?

The second false assumption is that resolving the refugee problem must precede an effective civil rights struggle. The evidence potentially points in the opposite direction as well, that the Zionist class system may not be able to monopolize institutional production absent reliable and consistent residential geographies. The reliability of Israel’s segregation model is multifold. It predictably produces a mutually reinforcing relationship between spatial separation and racial stereotyping. It allows the Zionist class to erect segregated neighborhood schools wherein that class dispenses its own entitlements and its own mythologies. As segregation becomes the only known spatial arrangement, it ensures that the vicious cycle continues between segregation and political suppression. Most importantly, it recreates a permanent Zionist class system which has an economic basis, perpetuating a condition wherein the non-Zionist class has no ability of self-determination. As a result, the non-Zionist class is categorically unable to attain the means to legitimately defend itself or to institute policy changes, even when such changes are in keeping with internationally recognized human rights principles, such as the return of the Palestinian refugees.

Any civil rights debate must proceed from these observable facts. There must not be attempts to portray that which is inherently abnormal as if it were normal. A democratic and inclusive non-Zionist political space must be expanded, with its objective being unity around civil rights (rather than discord because of religion, race, education, or politics). Segregation within Israel does not exist in a vacuum, but is the direct result of racial discrimination, forced population displacements, historical massacres, present-absentee laws, and ongoing demographic engineering. Thus, in talking about segregation we are not talking about merely one wrong among many other and equal wrongs. Segregation is the foundational structural logic of the Zionist class system. As a necessary step towards a more egalitarian society, the non-Zionist class will seek to deconstruct ‘The Jewish Space,’ the definite unit of measurement from which ‘The Jewish State’ idea is derived.

About Shimrit Baer

Shimrit Baer is a US-Israeli citizen and writer. She has done comparative research on South African apartheid in relation to Israel and Palestine. She supports the BDS movement.

Other posts by .


About Ofer Neiman

Neiman is an Israeli activist

Other posts by .


Posted In:

78 Responses

  1. silamcuz
    September 7, 2016, 10:17 am

    Segregation within Israel does not exist in a vacuum, but is the direct result of racial discrimination, forced population displacements, historical massacres, present-absentee laws, and ongoing demographic engineering.

    Interesting to learn that segregation in Israel appears to be wholly due to the institutional forces. So are there no self-segregational process by the Israeli homeowners, especially in cities (or towns) with large Arab or non-Jewish minorities?

    That brings me to my next question. In a one-state scenario with full equality for all citizens irrespective of race and religion, can we expect the segregation of peoples to continue by the same Jewish and non-Jewish category in Palestine/Israel?

    • Annie Robbins
      September 7, 2016, 1:02 pm

      Interesting to learn that segregation in Israel appears to be wholly due to the institutional forces.

      strawman. stating or acknowledging “segregation within Israel does not exist in a vacuum, but is the direct result of racial discrimination, forced population displacements, historical massacres, present-absentee laws, and ongoing demographic engineering” does not suggest or imply that segregation in Israel is “wholly due to the institutional forces” — in fact, it may suggest the opposite.

      • silamcuz
        September 9, 2016, 1:04 am

        The opposite of institutional backed segregation is self-segregation due to privately held beliefs and prejudices by individuals. There may be intersection between self-segregation and state-sanctioned segregation, but these two things are not always the same.

        This article did not present any information on the non-institutional forces that propagate segregation between Jews and non-Jews in Israel. Do Israeli Jews who are a diverse group both in ethnically as well as racially, self segregate away from Arabs or Palestinians due to other factors not associated with the Israeli state doctrine or Zionism?

      • Annie Robbins
        September 9, 2016, 1:12 am

        There may be intersection between self-segregation and state-sanctioned segregation

        there may be? do you have any doubt, seriously?

        This article did not present any information on the non-institutional forces that propagate segregation between Jews and non-Jews in Israel.

        an overriding goal of institutionalized racism and segregation is to get people to self segregate and think it’s normal. i’m not sure how you would measure this self segregation because it’s already a factor in some people’s interpretation of judaism (which is institutionalized religion, hence institutionalized and structural) . the article’s focus was on structuralized racism and there’s no imperative to present information on non-institutional racism.

        The opposite of institutional backed segregation is self-segregation due to privately held beliefs and prejudices by individuals.

        wrong. the opposite of institutional backed segregation is institutionally backed integration.

      • silamcuz
        September 9, 2016, 1:27 am

        the article’s focus was on structuralized racism and there’s no imperative to present information on non-institutional racism.

        Sure. But by acknowledging that the structural racism is not rooted from the racism already present within the populace allow for a more effective development of strategy to tackle the issue of segregation. And based on the content of this article, it’s seem pretty clear that the structural racism that promotes segregation within Israeli society is wholly due to forced establishment of a foreign, European worldview and philosophy on a mostly Middle Eastern society.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 9, 2016, 2:11 am

        And based on the content of this article, it’s seem pretty clear that the structural racism that promotes segregation within Israeli society is wholly due to forced establishment of a foreign, European worldview….

        fail. forced establishment of segregation — foreign, European, home grown or otherwise — is structural racism. and there’s no sense in “acknowledging” that structural racism is not rooted from racism already present within the israel populace since you’ve not established it in the least other than claiming it’s “based on the content of this article”.

      • silamcuz
        September 9, 2016, 2:26 am

        I positing that the sole solitary cause of segregation in Israel is the due to the Zionist doctrine of European racism against non-European culture and peoples. Of course its still structural racism, but it is important in my view atleast that we acknowledge that this structural racism is a critical component of Zionism itself, not something caused by factors inherent within Israeli Jewish society.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 9, 2016, 4:33 am

        frankly sila, i think you’re spamming. you might have a point if the authors (or anyone for that matter) had made the claim structural racism was “inherent” within Israeli Jewish society — but no one did.

        Of course its still structural racism, but it is important in my view a tleast that we acknowledge that this structural racism is a critical component of Zionism itself

        so just say “structural racism is a critical component of Zionism”. no one is saying otherwise nor is it even controversial.

    • John O
      September 7, 2016, 1:18 pm

      @silamcuz: “In a one-state scenario with full equality for all citizens irrespective of race and religion, can we expect the segregation of peoples to continue by the same Jewish and non-Jewish category in Palestine/Israel?”

      Why should it? It doesn’t happen here in the English village where I live. Just follow our example.

      • Mooser
        September 7, 2016, 2:46 pm

        “Segregation is the foundational structural logic of the Zionist class system.”

        Gosh, what a relief. I thought the “foundational structural logic” of the Zionist system was elimination of the Palestinians.

      • MHughes976
        September 9, 2016, 5:08 pm

        I too think that all but complete elimination was and is the intention. The article seeks to understand the situation in Marxist terms which I have never found convincing. I don’t think that the Israelis are settler colonialists intent on exploiting the Palestinians as cheap labour, which I know many good and intelligent people have believed, and is implied here by the term ‘Zionist class’. But surely the mass of Zionists do not form a class owning the means of production? They do form a group committed to a terrifying nationalist ideology which is quite happy to import cheap labour from the ‘reserve economic army’ of the whole world, comparatively expensive as this import must be. The Palestinians of Green line Israel are not so much the local proletariat as a disadvantaged and somewhat contemptuously treated minority, middle class members included.

      • hophmi
        September 11, 2016, 12:44 am

        “I too think that all but complete elimination was and is the intention.’

        Weird how the Palestinian population keeps growing.

      • MHughes976
        September 14, 2016, 4:51 am

        The Palestinian birth rate is a countermeasure – ‘we’re not going anywhere’ – to potential population transfer policies, certainly not an indication that those policies are never thought of.
        I’ve said often – perhaps should have said again – that elimination as a political force implies massive reduction in numbers but not total elimination. I think it’s almost as important – ‘Zionism isn’t racism’ – that some Palestinians should continue to live in the country as that most should leave.
        It is clear enough, surely, that Israel – ever consistent with Zionist principle – doesn’t want to become ‘Israestine’ with everyone enfranchised, doesn’t want the Palestinians as a manifestly subject people, doesn’t want the irritation of a hostile population in Gaza, doesn’t see any way of ending that hostility, doesn’t really want a 2ss and does want an indefinitely continuing and practically effective right of Jewish settlement right up to the waters of Jordan. What logical space is there for anything other than a grand scale, though not necessarily all at once, relocation of people?

      • Mooser
        September 20, 2016, 11:54 am

        “Weird how the Palestinian population keeps growing.” “Hophmi”

        “Hophmi”, haven’t you seen those click-bait articles “One Weird Old Palestinian Trick to Keep Your Population Growing”?

        Maybe somebody could explain it to you? We seem to have forgotten it.

        (And oh, won’t those Palestinians be chagrined when the Occupation ends, and their birth-rate plummets!)

      • Mooser
        September 20, 2016, 11:59 am

        “But surely the mass of Zionists do not form a class owning the means of production? “

        Oh, surely. Why I would doubt Zionist oligarchies own a fraction of the means of production, or a square foot of the arable land!

        ” They do form a group committed to a terrifying nationalist ideology”

        We are very versatile, “MHughes”. I’m sure we can do both. In Israel the one sort of goes with the other.

  2. Citizen
    September 8, 2016, 6:30 am

    When the first Zionist waves came to Palestine from Europe, they demonstrated repeatedly that they intended to physically live apart from the locals in their own enclaves. They weren’t neighborly like the small “backward” native Jewish community was with the native Arab community of Palestine. The Zionists came with a bipolar world vision, and they erected socio-economic & policing institutions, beginning with the physical space they took over. They have perfected ethno-religious segregation, haven’t they? Looks like Netanyahu is trying for even more perfection (purification) and most Jewish Israelis are in his corner.

    • Mooser
      September 8, 2016, 5:38 pm

      “They have perfected ethno-religious segregation, haven’t they?”

      Well, what else could they do? I mean, there was the concept of and obsession with Jewish ritual purity, just begging to be extended to the political and personal sphere. They couldn’t let it just sit there and do nothing, could they?

      Besides, the Zionists were spurred on by the knowledge of the terrible fate of American Jews, where no such ethno-religious segregation was enforced.

      • hophmi
        September 11, 2016, 12:48 am

        Israel is the least ethnoreligious segregated state in the Middle East. By very far. What’s wrong with you people? Go to Iraq or Syria if you want to find . . . Oh wait. They already ethnically cleansed the Christians there.

  3. Talkback
    September 8, 2016, 9:03 am

    Citizen: “When the first Zionist waves came to Palestine from Europe, they demonstrated repeatedly that they intended to physically live apart from the locals in their own enclaves.”

    Every settler colonialism follows its own special logic of elimination of the natives.In the case of Zionism there was no interest to exploit the natives, but to get rid of them and to make Palestine Gentile-rein.

  4. GregMozart
    September 8, 2016, 1:06 pm

    Yes, segregation has unfortunate consequences, not just in Israel but also in other countries. Including in the USA where I live. Such as mutual distrust, demonization and building echo chambers. Here we have the Black communities and BLM.

    Palestinians also experience segregation in other countries in the region, and in fact sometimes more blatantly than Israel. Lebanon and Syria, for example. It’s all the more egregious when it’s de jure, when they’re being kept in “ghettos” similar to how Jews were kept by Christians, based on their ancestry only.

    I know I have a different viewpoint than many people on this forum, but I see the same pattern when it comes to Syrian refugees and others around the world: 99% of the people have to pay for the actions of a few. So for example in Kuwait they actively expelled 200,000 Palestinians after the gulf war because PLO sided with Hussein. After Black September, the Jordanian relationship with West Bank Palestinians soured and in 1988 they revoked their passports. After this, Arafat’s guerillas went to Lebanon and contributed to a civil war there, and today there is real apartheid still going on in Lebanon against Palestinians. Same with Syrian refugees, because of some hooligans who raped women in Germany, now the majority of refugees has to face reprisals and escalations.

    Frankly I applaud Jordan for taking so many Palestinian refugees, and Lebanon for taking so many Syrian refugees. But I ask one question: if you are for human rights as I am, and by this I mean I care about individual people, whether they are Palestinian Arab or Syrian Arab or Russian Jewish or African American whatever, don’t you think every country should OFFER every native-born resident an OPTION of citizenship, without waiting for another country (e.g. Israel) to give them a right of return? Do you think every person who was born in country X deserves the choice to build a life and not be discriminated against based on their ancestry?

    We can certainly criticize Israel but let’s not let Anti-Zionism blind us to the plight of native-born Lebanese, etc. who are being denied basic civil rights and citizenship solely because of their Palestinian ancestry. I am a Jew from Russia and my ancestors experienced similar things, with the “Pale of Settlement”, ghettos etc. Say what you want about refugees, but at least for people natively born in a country, they deserve to be given the option to have the same rights as everyone else. That’s my view.

    • eljay
      September 8, 2016, 3:28 pm

      || GregMozart: … don’t you think every country should OFFER every native-born resident an OPTION of citizenship, without waiting for another country (e.g. Israel) to give them a right of return? … ||

      Offering the option of citizenship to native-born offspring of refugees seems like a nice idea – a gift that a host country can grant to disenfranchised people.

      But the right of return of refugees is an obligation under international law, not a gift that Israel is being asked magnanimously to grant to its refugees or that it has the right to withhold.

      Allowing Israel unjustly and immorally to offload its moral obligation and the corresponding economic, social and financial burdens to other countries is a poor idea made even poorer by the fact that the reason for this offloading is to ensure that Israel remains a religion-supremacist state.

      • xanadou
        September 8, 2016, 5:37 pm

        Gregmozart
        “don’t you think every country should OFFER every native-born resident an OPTION of citizenship, without waiting for another country (e.g. Israel) to give them a right of return?”

        The (denied) returnees ARE native-born residents of Palestine, whatever the occupying forces elect to call the land appropriated in the course of genocidal banditry.

    • echinococcus
      September 8, 2016, 4:56 pm

      Your view leads to requiring a normalization of the Zionist theft and genocide: citizenship of the local born is not in any way a general norm.
      Agitating for citizenship to be given to Palestinian refugees means normalizing one very major Zionist crime by approving the counterpart, i.e. that the local born of the illegal invaders to Palestine be automatically entitled to remain on their illegal conquest.
      Along with the “partition” abomination, that is an idea to be submitted to the Palestinian people in its representative form, i.e. a general plebiscite of all Palestinians –excluding the invaders since 1897.
      Let them, especially those who have been exiled for two generations and longer, say if they want these intruders on their land or intend to bestow Palestinian citizenship on their offspring. Not some Americans with more than a few Zionist family ties.

      • hophmi
        September 11, 2016, 12:50 am

        Echinoccus. Another guy who believes that too many Jews in a neighborhood is a bad thing.

      • echinococcus
        September 11, 2016, 2:29 pm

        It’s not news to say that Hophmi is worsening as to his reading-and-understanding disability: my post had no mention in it of Jews in a normal neighborhood, but the legitimacy of any Zionist presence anywhere in Palestine.

        Now, “Echinoccus… believes that too many Jews in a neighborhood is a bad thing.”

        Of course it is a very bad thing. Like any over-average presence of any racial or ethnic or religious minority (in this case mainly fictitious), it indicates either racist segregation from the outside or tribal grouping. In this case, the latter.

        Now, in the case of Palestine, a percentage over 5-10% of “Jewish” citizens indicates an overwhelming presence of intruders. Hophmi is to be highly commended for not joining them.

    • Mooser
      September 8, 2016, 5:04 pm

      ‘I am a Jew from Russia and my ancestors experienced similar things, with the “Pale of Settlement”, ghettos etc.”

      Exactly, “Greg”. So there is no excuse whatsoever for Jews to segregate or persecute anybody based on a transitory advantage.

      Given the total number of Jews in the world, it is also extremely stupid, and very blind, for Jews to endorse anything except egalitarianism.
      Wouldn’t you agree “Greg”?

      • hophmi
        September 11, 2016, 12:51 am

        Endorsing egalitarianism really worked for Jews in Europe before World War II, didn’t it?

    • Mooser
      September 8, 2016, 6:41 pm

      ” Such as mutual distrust, demonization and building echo chambers. Here we have the Black communities and BLM.”

      Was that your “fake left”? Hoo-boy.

    • Annie Robbins
      September 8, 2016, 9:10 pm

      let’s not … blind us to the plight of native-born Lebanese, etc. who are being denied basic civil rights and citizenship solely because of their Palestinian ancestry.

      refugees who give birth to children in a foreign country, those children do not automatically become natives (or indigenous)to that country. i’m glad the US grants citizenship to all children born in the US but that’s not a universal standard. palestinians born in lebanon are not “native-born lebanese” as far as i know. they are denied the civil rights of lebanese, not solely because of their Palestinian ancestry, but because they are Palestinian. you calling them “native-born Lebanese” doesn’t make them lebanese.

      • RoHa
        September 9, 2016, 4:31 am

        I have to disagree with you there, Annie. Being born in the country is the very definition of “native born”. What else could make a person “native born”?

        Of course, you are correct in saying that being native born does not necessarily give a legal right to citizenship, since the legal rights vary from country to country, but I would suggest that it gives a moral right.

        In the case of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants, I would argue that they also have a moral right to Palestinian citizenship. I base the right for the descendants a combination of factors. The first is that they can show that they are descended from Palestian citizens with the right of abode. The second is that, as echinococcus suggests, denying them such a right would be tantamount to legitimising the Zionist crime.

        (Zionists should note that the vast majority of the foreign born Zionist invaders can not show that they are descended from citizens of any state on that territory, let alone that their ancestors were expelled from the territory.)

      • Annie Robbins
        September 9, 2016, 4:56 am

        Being born in the country is the very definition of “native born”.

        not sure who you’re quoting. i quoted, addressed and used the term greg used which was “native-born Lebanese”. i also stated “those children do not automatically become natives (or indigenous)to that country”. in that sense i specifically qualified the term “native” as meaning “indigenous”. i don’t think a refugee being born in a country makes one indigenous to that land. the definition of indigenous is “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.” or webster “produced, living, or existing naturally in a particular region or environment”. if your parents move to a place to give birth so that their child becomes a citizen of that country (as in the case of the US), legally one does become “”native-born american”, but still not indigenous to the country. but that’s not the case for lebanon, due to their laws. therefore, palestinians living in lebanon are not lebanese. therefore they are not “native-born Lebanese” nor legally, lebanese.

        if your parents are colonizers, you’re not indigenous to the colonized land. whereas “native born” means “belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth “, so yes one can be associated with lebanon by birth — but that’s not the same as indigenous to lebanon if one arrived by fleeing a war. lebanon has a million syrian refugees living there right now, yet they are not indigenous to the country — nor are their children.

        In the case of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants, I would argue that they also have a moral right to Palestinian citizenship.

        but do they have a moral right to lebanese citizenship? that’s the question. i would argue no, they do not. either way, because of lebanon’s laws they are not lebanese, therefore even tho they may be “native born” to the country of lebanon, they are not “native-born lebanese”.

      • hophmi
        September 11, 2016, 12:53 am

        Annie will never admit the truth: the reason that the Lebanese have not extended citizenship to the Palestinians is the same reason the Syria’s haven’t. They hate the Palestinians. Much more than the Israeli ever will.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 11, 2016, 12:02 pm

        ah, more assignation of hatred from our troll hops. how boring. why doesn’t he speak of his own hatreds instead of just reserving the accusations to others? because he is a coward that’s why.

        lebanon is currently hosting over a million syrian refugees in a country of less than 5 million people, that’s the highest per capita concentration of refugees in the world. this does not indicate lebanon is a country motivated by hatred. and if they do not grant them all citizenship will he claim it’s because the lebanese hate syrians too?

      • hophmi
        September 11, 2016, 5:08 pm

        Lol. As if Lebanon had a choice as Syria’s main border state.

        You’re completely clueless, Annie. There is widespread discrimination of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

        https://electronicintifada.net/content/unwelcome-guests-palestinian-refugees-lebanon/8917

      • talknic
        September 11, 2016, 9:37 pm

        @ hophmi September 11, 2016, 12:53 am

        ” the reason that the Lebanese have not extended citizenship to the Palestinians is the same reason the Syria’s haven’t.”

        … they’re not obliged to extend citizenship to refugees who’d rather go home

        “They hate the Palestinians.”

        Uh huh. Generously hosting folk for over half a century sure is a sign of hatred, many of whom are actually non-Jewish Israeli citizens BTW dispossessed by Israel

        ” Much more than the Israeli ever will”

        So why doesn’t Israel host any. FFS Israel doesn’t even allow its own non-Jewish citizens from 1948 return

        @ hophmi September 11, 2016, 5:08 pm

        ” As if Lebanon had a choice as Syria’s main border state”

        Strange Turkey, Jordan and Iraq have far longer borders with Syria than does Lebanon

        Can you be truthfull about anything? Or are you just plain ignorant, maybe mind numbingly stupid.

      • RoHa
        September 20, 2016, 3:17 am

        Sorry to have taken so long in responding, Annie. I have been travelling, and had to change my travel plans part way through.

        Thanks to the brackets, it was not clear that by “native” you meant “indigenous”, but let that pass. If “indigenous” is “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place”, I have to say that I cannot think of a more natural way of originating in a place than being born there.

        But the term “indigenous people” usually refers to the descendants of the first wave of immigrants into an area with no human residents. In many countries, Lebanon included, there have been many waves of immigrants, and they have interbred, so that it is impossible to decide who is a descendant of the first wave. The distinction in Lebanese law is actually between people who are descendants of Lebanese citizens and people who are not descendants of Lebanese citizens.

        Law notwithstanding, I consider that everyone has a moral right to citizenship in the country of birth. However, I will just argue for the children of the Palestinian refugees.

        From the concept of human equally, I derive the idea that everyone has a right to be a full member of a polity. Under current arrangements, that means full citizenship in a functioning country. Since the Palestinian children in question have (on current showing) little chance of going to any sort of functioning Palestine, restricting them to Palestinian citizenship is pretty much denying them any citizenship. But Lebanon is the country they are born into, where they will spend their formative years, and where they are likely to spend a good deal of their lives. It seems to me that this gives them the moral right to Lebanese citizenship.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 20, 2016, 11:29 am

        It seems to me that this gives them the moral right to Lebanese citizenship.

        refugees have a moral right to return to their country of origin. and countries have a moral obligation to allow the return of refugees, who fled from their country in a time of war, to return. nations hosting refugees, by granting citizenship to refugees, alleviates that moral obligation of countries to allow the return of those refugees to their country of origin. you thinking hosting nations are morally obligated to extend citizenship to children of refugees is a matter of opinion — what you consider right or wrong. that doesn’t make it law, just because you think it’s morally right.

        in the united states we do grant citizenship to children born within our borders, not all countries do that. lebanon doesn’t do that and therefore palestinians born there are not lebanese (no matter what your opinion on the matter is). and if they are not lebanese then they are not “native born lebanese”. furthermore, palestinians born in lebanon (likely) do not consider themselves lebanese, they consider themselves palestinians and they are waiting to go home to their own county — (regardless of whether the name, the regime or the government has changed).

        so you can think they (palestinian refugees in lebanon) have the moral right to Lebanese citizenship til the cows come home, doesn’t make them lebanese. rhetorically referencing them as lebanese for the sake of argument (as greg did) is inaccurate.

        Since the Palestinian children in question have (on current showing) little chance of going to any sort of functioning Palestine, restricting them to Palestinian citizenship is pretty much denying them any citizenship.

        i notice you didn’t reference them as lebanese children. restricting them to Palestinian citizenship denies them lebanese citizenship. but it doesn’t deny them US citizenship or as you stated “any” citizenship. countries have different standards for granting citizenship but all are morally and legally obligated to allow the return of refugees to their country of origin.

      • RoHa
        September 20, 2016, 11:57 pm

        “nations hosting refugees, by granting citizenship to refugees, alleviates that moral obligation of countries to allow the return of those refugees to their country of origin.”

        It may “alleviate” the moral obligation, but I would contend that that it does not remove that obligation.

        ” what you consider right or wrong. that doesn’t make it law”

        I know that. I explicitly said that I was referring to morality, not law.

        “but it doesn’t deny them US citizenship or as you stated “any” citizenship”

        O.K. I’ll amend that to “denying them any automatic, guaranteed, citizenship”. To get Paraguayan or Singaporean or any other citizenship, most of the refugees would have to apply for it, and with no certainty of getting it.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 21, 2016, 12:13 pm

        “denying them any automatic, guaranteed, citizenship”. To get Paraguayan or Singaporean or any other citizenship, most of the refugees would have to apply for it, and with no certainty of getting it.

        exactly. but i posit they have no more moral obligation than paraguay or singapore. if all countries were obligated to extend citizenship to refugees it would be very difficult to find host nations. the way international law is set up now the moral obligation is place on the nation of origin. iow, you don’t lose your nationality because you are displaced. and nationality is passed on by your parents at birth not by the location of your birth — unless a host nation decides otherwise as in the US.

        this is a tad OT, but the way the law works in california, if i invite a guest(or a homeless person) into my home they have no legal right to remain here without my permission unless they pay rent. once they pay rent i am obligated to give them a 30 day notice before i ask them to leave (unless i have given them a lease that says otherwise). however, if i allow them to stay in my home for over 2 months as a guest, i still have to go through a legal process to ask them to leave. to use this as an analogy, what you are claiming is once i offer them a place of refuge i am therefore morally obligated to extend to them (or their children born on my property) the same legal rights to my home that i have. if this was the case i would not extend an invitation to a guest to stay in my home. we would not have host nations. at a time of war when a country opens their borders to refugees, burdening that host nation with the moral obligation of extending permanent citizenship is unrealistic, unfair and an unnecessary burden that would backfire.

      • RoHa
        September 22, 2016, 2:27 am

        ” if all countries were obligated to extend citizenship to refugees it would be very difficult to find host nations.”

        Agreed. But I am only arguing for granting citizenship to children born in the country, not to all refugees.

        (And, as you know, I advocate strict conditions on both refugees and immigrants – learn the language, obey the laws, respect and try to follow the culture and the less repellent of the customs of the host/new country, do not form separate “communities”.)

        “the moral obligation is place on the nation of origin.”

        But in this case the nation of origin (or, rather, its successor) refuses to take up, or even acknowledge, that obligation. I have to ask how many generations of Palestinian refugees must remain effectively stateless while we are waiting for a little common decency from the Israelis? The longer we wait, the more we are adding injustice to injustice.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 21, 2017, 11:28 pm

        how many generations of Palestinian refugees must remain effectively stateless while we are waiting for a little common decency from the Israelis?

        we are not waiting , palestinians are. and israel is banking on everyone giving up, but palestinians aren’t giving up.

        I am only arguing for granting citizenship to children born in the country, not to all refugees.

        it’s effectively the same thing. unless a state is in the business of separating parents from their children having a child effectively becomes a ticket to citizenship for the entire refugee family. israel is breaking international law by not allowing the return of refugees. law is changed through practice. once you let them off the hook by relieving them of responsibility by granting citizenship to millions they are obligated to allow to return, they’ve one. not only have they won, but it paves the path for future conflicts to essentially allow nations to abuse the international law of return. it would set a very dangerous precedence for the rights of future refugees. not to mention the absurdity and hypocrisy of israel justifying their so called “right” to return to a 1000’s year old homeland as some founding principle! what a double standard.

      • RoHa
        June 22, 2017, 2:16 am

        Granting citizenship to children born in the country need not necessarily be a route to citizenship of the parents as well, but nor would denying citizenship to the parents automatically mean separating the family. The non-citizen parents could remain in the country of refuge.

        But if granting citizenship to the children does enable Israel to deny that they are no longer refugees, it does indeed lead to the problems you described.

        (You will note that I raised this issue when I said “I would argue that they also have a moral right to Palestinian citizenship. I base the right for the descendants a combination of factors. The first is that they can show that they are descended from Palestinian citizens with the right of abode. The second is that, as echinococcus suggests, denying them such a right would be tantamount to legitimising the Zionist crime.”)

        It seems to be a moral dilemma for the world. On the one hand, granting citizenship to even some of the refugees has the implications you describe, on the other hand the practical result of denying citizenship leaves the Palestinian refugees effectively stateless and without full rights in the country they were born in and live in.

        Israel could, of course, resolve the question immediately, but the rest of the world knows they won’t.

    • talknic
      September 9, 2016, 2:21 am

      GregMozart does a smelly Ziodump. What a wade

      “… segregation has unfortunate consequences, not just in Israel but also in other countries. Including in the USA where I live”

      Segregation by law, as in Israel? WOW Greg!! Best you tell the US Judiciary

      “Palestinians also experience segregation in other countries in the region”

      Refugees are segregated in EVERY country where they do not want or take citizenship. Palestinian refugees would rather not lose their homeland by abandoning it to the Zionist Colonization enterprise, especially those non-Jewish Israeli citizens whose homes were in territory Israel proclaimed as its state

      ” It’s all the more egregious when it’s de jure, when they’re being kept in “ghettos” similar to how Jews were kept by Christians, based on their ancestry only”

      B) It’s actually because they’re refugees who’d rather go home.
      A) Rather more egregious in large lumps that Israel, by Israeli Law, forbids the return of Palestinians AND non-Israeli cleansed by Jewish terrorists1947 and Israel in 1948/49 and 1966 when the so called ’67 war was initiated by Israel.

      All the more egregious because Israel refuses RoR for non-Jewish Israeli refugees now in the camps in Gaza/Lebanon/Syria/Jordan/Egypt and any other country where they have been generously hosted for the past 69 years.

      “I know I have a different viewpoint than many people on this forum”

      Disseminating bullsh*t by calling it a ‘viewpoint’ is propaganda. A viewpoint surely requires seeing what is there before formulating an opinion. The wholly holey Hasbara is so empty of fact and logic, there’s nothing there to see on which to base an opinion that favours it’s purpose.

      “… I see the same pattern when it comes to Syrian refugees…”

      Me too. The same pattern. Israel accepts none while the the Arab States generously host them as they have many non-Jewish Israeli citizens for more than half a century. Unlike the the Zionist Movement‘s state policies on non-Jewish Israeli citizens it has dispossessed

      “example in Kuwait they actively expelled 200,000 Palestinians after the gulf war because PLO sided with Hussein”

      It’s normal for countries involved in hostilities to expel or intern possible allies of one’s enemies. It’s also normal to allow their return if they were citizens, which the Palestinians were not!

      “After Black September, the Jordanian relationship with West Bank Palestinians soured and in 1988 they revoked their passports”

      A) State governments, even if a dictatorship, have a right, and duty, to protect the majority of its citizens from uprisings by an armed minority, especially of that minority are not permanent citizens of that state.

      B) Of course they revoked their passports, in 1988 the West Bank reverted to the Palestinians under the Jordan/Israel Peace Treaty, no longer a part of the State of Jordan, which by 1967 was a UN Member and High Contracting Power (signatory to GC IV). According to the UNSC (UNSC res 288 of 1966) “Hebron” in the the West Bank was a part of Jordan.

      Observing that this incident constituted a large-scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan [ the southern Hebron area ] by the armed forces of Israel

      Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan;

      “… I applaud Jordan for taking so many Palestinian refugees, and Lebanon for taking so many Syrian refugees”

      Uh? Might pay you to read what you’d previously written

      ” … don’t you think every country should OFFER every native-born resident an OPTION of citizenship, without waiting for another country (e.g. Israel) to give them a right of return?”

      So, that’s ‘every country’ EXCEPT the country most involved. EXCEPT the country that has a legal obligation to allow its own non-Jewish citizens return!

      ” Do you think every person who was born in country X deserves the choice to build a life and not be discriminated against based on their ancestry?”

      EXCEPT non-Jewish Israeli refugees of 1948 who were dispossessed by Israel?

      “We can certainly criticize Israel … “

      I haven’t noticed any attempt on your part. There’s a lot to choose from.

      Were Israel, the State declared on my behalf, NOT in breach of the International Law, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the UN Charter, GC IV andJudaism’s basic tenets, I wouldn’t have need to criticize it, which would be an enormous relief

      ” but let’s not let Anti-Zionism blind us to the plight of native-born Lebanese, etc. who are being denied basic civil rights and citizenship solely because of their Palestinian ancestry”

      Try something else pal. It’s because they’d rather go live in their recent ancestral homeland instead of losing it to the Zionist Colonial Enterprise

      ” Say what you want about refugees, but at least for people natively born in a country, they deserve to be given the option to have the same rights as everyone else. That’s my view”

      EXCEPT if they’re non-Jewish Israeli refugees it seems, born in territory that Israel proclaimed and was recognized as Israeli

      ” … within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947… “

      • Jon66
        September 9, 2016, 7:20 am

        Talknic,

        Since Israel is still in a state of war with two of its neighbors, should Israel allow the return of “possible allies of one’s enemies” before the resolution of the war?

        Do you think Israel’s refusal to integrate Sudanese refugees is justifiable?

      • Annie Robbins
        September 9, 2016, 12:07 pm

        Since Israel is still in a state of war

        it behooves israel to remain in a constant state of war since this ostensibly justifies ongoing violations of international law.

      • talknic
        September 9, 2016, 2:26 pm

        @ Jon66 September 9, 2016, 7:20 am

        “Since Israel is still in a state of war with two of its neighbors”

        Three of its neighbours Mr History teacher … Lebanon, Syria and Palestine!

        ” should Israel allow the return of “possible allies of one’s enemies” before the resolution of the war?”

        Catch up Mr History teacher. Israel has Peace Treaties with Jordan and Egypt, per the ‘Three Nos’ and UNSC 242 !

        Israel refuses to allow the return of Palestine refugees currently in Jordan and Egypt to:
        A) Palestinian territories and it;
        B) refuses to allow return of non-Jewish Israeli refugees currently in Jordan and Egypt to Israeli territory.

        Furthermore, Israel perpetuates its wars by refusing to withdraw from other folks territories. Under the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty, Israel withdrew from Egyptian territories per UNSC res 242 (ibid).

        Withdrawal for peace. Quite simple, get out of other folk’s territories, especially as Israel was already granted, completely gratis, more than enough territory to accommodate everyone of our Jewish fellows on the planet today.

        “Do you think Israel’s refusal to integrate Sudanese refugees is justifiable?”

        A) Israel isn’t at war with Sudan … or is it? B) While accusing the Arab states who’ve generously hosted Palestine refugees for 70 years of failing to integrate Palestine refugees, it’s hypocritical!

        Your Hasbara glad bag is empty, always has been empty, always will be empty

      • Jon66
        September 9, 2016, 3:21 pm

        Talknic,

        The peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt are not relevant. You said that it was normal to expel or intern possible allies of your enemies with which you are at war. It seems reasonable to believe that the Palestinian refugees are sympathetic to countries that Israel is at war with.

        So is it reasonable for Israel to not allow refugees who are sympathetic to countries Israel is at war with to be refused entry at this time to Israel. It shouldn’t matter who currently hosts the refugees, only the fact that the refugees themselves are potential allies of the opposing side.

        Lebanon is not at war with Palestine, but it refuses to grant Palestinians citizenship and keeps them in camps. . Is it therefore reasonable for Israel to treat Sudanese similarly?

      • talknic
        September 9, 2016, 9:47 pm

        Jon66 digs his cute Hasbara cat hole deeper

        “The peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt are not relevant.”

        They show a 100% success rate for peace when Israel withdraws from territory that’s not its own

        “It seems reasonable to believe that the Palestinian refugees are sympathetic to countries that Israel is at war with … “

        A) They’re countries at war with Israel because Israel is illegally in their territory
        B) Not all Palestine refugees are Palestinian, those with RoR to Israel are Israelis whose home land is in Israel, like;
        C) the 20% of non-Jewish Israelis still in Israel, who’re very likely to be sympathetic to countries Israel is at war with for the simple reason that Israel is stealing other folks territories. No one likes a thief except other thieves

        “So is it reasonable for Israel to not allow refugees who are sympathetic to countries Israel is at war with to be refused entry at this time to Israel”

        No. It’s ‘reasonable’ that Israel adhere to International Law, the UN Charter and relative Conventions and get out of all non-Israeli territories for once. It’s never been tried

        “It shouldn’t matter who currently hosts the refugees, only the fact that the refugees themselves are potential allies of the opposing side”

        So get out of other folks territories as required by law. End the wars.

        “Lebanon is not at war with Palestine, but it refuses to grant Palestinians citizenship and keeps them in camps”

        B) It has generously hosted them, some for 70 years A) They don’t want Lebanese citizenship, their homeland is a few kilometres south in Israel and in Palestinian territories

        “Is it therefore reasonable for Israel to treat Sudanese similarly?”

        Israel is treating Sudanese refugee worse you bl**dy cretin. The Arab States have granted refugee status to hundreds of thousands of Palestine refugees for more than half a century. Israel has granted how many Sudanese refugee status? http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-3165-requests-first-sudanese-man-gets-israeli-refugee-status/

      • Jon66
        September 9, 2016, 10:53 pm

        Talkinic

        You said, “It’s normal for countries involved in hostilities to expel or intern possible allies of one’s enemies. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/segregation-important-practical/#comment-172273

        Country A is at war with country B.
        There are refugees from Country A who openly are sympathetic to Country B and espouse the defeat of Country A.
        Should Country A be able to expel, intern, or refuse entry to those refugees?

        “They don’t want Lebanese citizenship”See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/segregation-important-practical/#comment-172273.
        The only way we would know if this were true would be if they were offered citizenship and they rejected this. It was never offered. I thought you were opposed to “speculation”.

  5. xanadou
    September 8, 2016, 4:13 pm

    The image of the ugly cloned architecture of the settllement looks like a battleground strewn with bones whitening in the sun.

  6. Mayhem
    September 8, 2016, 11:52 pm

    MW always avoiding the nub of the problem. This is what Saeb Erekat said a couple of years ago:
    “Anyone who says he wants to keep settlers in the Palestinian state is actually saying that he doesn’t want a Palestinian state. No settler will be allowed to stay in the Palestinian state, not even a single one, because settlements are illegal and the presence of the settlers on the occupied lands is illegal.”
    All this left-wing quibbling about the character of Israel (ever been in an Israeli hospital and witnessed the demonstrably equal treatment of Jew and Arab?) when on the other side we have the makings of a totally racist society where Jews will not be permitted to live at all.

    • Annie Robbins
      September 9, 2016, 1:05 am

      when on the other side we have the makings of a totally racist society where Jews will not be permitted to live at all.

      not all jews are settlers. No settlers (colonialist project) will be permitted to stay in the Palestinian state because settlements are illegal and the presence of the settlers is illegal.

      • hophmi
        September 11, 2016, 12:55 am

        Where is the Arab world today can Jews live as equal citizens with full rights without fear?

      • Annie Robbins
        September 11, 2016, 11:43 am

        Where is the Arab world today can Jews live as equal citizens?

        why do you even ask other than divert? jews do not live as equal citizens in israel or occupied palestine, quite the opposite actually. since when do you ever advocate for jews to share equal rights with palestinians? you don’t because you’re a zionist, which systematically privileges jews. stop spamming.

      • eljay
        September 11, 2016, 8:55 am

        || hophmi: Where is the Arab world today can Jews live as equal citizens with full rights without fear? ||

        You can always count on Zio-supremacists:
        – to promote and praise their (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” as being among the best in the world; and
        – to defend it by comparing it to bottom-of-the-barrel states – states they despise.

      • hophmi
        September 11, 2016, 5:03 pm

        Thanks for acknowledging, Annie, that there is no Arab country today where Jews may live equally.

      • talknic
        September 11, 2016, 7:04 pm

        @ hophmi September 11, 2016, 12:55 am

        “Where is the Arab world today can Jews live as equal citizens with full rights without fear?”

        That’d be a problem Israel created in 1948 by having Jewish terrorist forces in breach of its borders the day they were proclaimed effective … http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf … and … http://pages.citebite.com/x1r0b4d1y6mkv … Go whine to the people who covet and who’ve illegally acquired other folks territories and who planned the colonization of Palestine in 1897

      • echinococcus
        September 12, 2016, 1:21 am

        Hophmi yet again.
        “Jews” have no problem in Arab countries. Zionists are definitely unwelcome.
        Remind me of the religion and gender of the past Ambassador of Bahrain to the US, please.

        Bahrain… the best ally of the obscurantist Islamic theocracy of Saudi Arabia.
        Not a fluke, either:
        “Nonoo is not the first person in her family to enter Bahraini politics, or member of the Jewish community. In 1934, her grandfather Abraham Nonoo served as a member of the Manama Municipality, the first ever elected municipal body in Bahrain. In 2000, a cousin, Ebrahim Daoud Nonoo was appointed to parliament. The Nonoo family is originally from Iraq having moved to Bahrain over a century ago.”

    • echinococcus
      September 9, 2016, 1:21 am

      Erakat didn’t say anything about “Jews”, you antisemitic and antihamitic so-and-so! He’s talking of illegal invaders, no matter the religion!
      In fact, he somehow forgets to mention all the illegal invaders since 1897. Maybe those too are Jewish, maybe not. That’s totally irrelevant as long as they immigrated with the declared intent of subverting the sovereignty and against the will, or at the very least without the permission, of the owners of the country. Shoo.

    • eljay
      September 9, 2016, 8:13 am

      || Mayhem: … All this left-wing quibbling about the character of Israel … when on the other side we have the makings of a totally racist society where Jews will not be permitted to live at all. ||

      What is it about being a Zio-supremacist that makes you a compulsive liar? Erekat said the settlers must leave. He’s right: There’s no reason a Palestinian state should accept colonists in its midst. There’s no reason any state should accept colonists.

      • oldgeezer
        September 9, 2016, 11:10 am

        @eljay/mayhem

        Theyvha e also stated thatvsettlers may rwmain provided they take Palestinian citizenship and obey Palestinian law. Considering the decades of oppression this is more than generous.

        Is it a character flaw on the part of zionists that they continually lie? I often think so but if we give them the benefit of the doubt then it is understandable as the actual facts are simply not on their side. They are engaged in immoral and criminal acts as a way of life.

      • eljay
        September 9, 2016, 11:46 am

        || oldgeezer: … Theyvha e also stated thatvsettlers may rwmain provided they take Palestinian citizenship and obey Palestinian law. … ||

        In which case they cease to be colonists, so Erekat’s point holds.

        || … Considering the decades of oppression this is more than generous. … ||

        Most definitely.

    • John O
      September 9, 2016, 9:13 am

      @mayhem

      “ever been in an Israeli hospital and witnessed the demonstrably equal treatment of Jew and Arab?”

      I’m sure they do get equal quality of treatment – once the Palestinian mothers to be have been segregated from the Jewish mothers to be:

      http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/segregation-of-palestinians-and-jews-in-maternity-wards-becomes-an-issue-in-israel/

      • hophmi
        September 11, 2016, 1:03 am

        Oh please. That is not a norm. I’d be willing to bet that there is statistically more segregation between Black and White expectant mothers in the US than there is between Arabs and Jews in Israeli hospitals. Not to mention statistically less Black doctors working in them. 12.5 percent of the doctors in Israel are Palestinian in a country where around 20% of the population is Palestinian. 5% of the American doctors are Black in a country where around 13% of the population is Black. Israel is almost certainly less segregated than the United States, which traps large segments of its Black communities in ghettos. #blacklivesmatter

      • amigo
        September 11, 2016, 9:13 am

        “Oh please. That is not a norm. I’d be willing to bet that there is statistically more segregation between Black and White expectant mothers in the US than there is between Arabs and Jews in Israeli hospitals.”

        I,d be willing to bet you would lose your bet unless you can come up with evidence of your claim.Id be willing to bet if a white expectant Mother demanded that a Black expectant Mother be moved to a ward for “Coloureds” there would be hell to pay and rightly so.This scenario is the norm in Israel and not just in a hospital setting but on buses and roads and the renting of apartments etc etc.Bigotry and racism are a part of life in the so called light unto the nations.

        http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/dozens-of-top-israeli-rabbis-sign-ruling-to-forbid-rental-of-homes-to-arabs-1.329312

        “‘Another Terrorist Is Born’: The Long-standing Practice of Racism and Segregation in Israeli Maternity Wards

        While no hospital in Israel has a policy of separating Jewish and Arab patients, testimonies show segregation is implemented in wards with doctors and management turning a blind eye.
        Ido Efrati Apr 05, 2016 8:03 PM
        read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.712936

        http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20130304_new_fence_in_hebron

        I would have bet you 50 dollars , so please send same to MW so you can feel part of those who support the dissemination of the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth.In time you will heal and feel much better about yourself.Remember , it is always easier to remember the truth than the myriad of lies you constantly and unsuccessfully peddle here.

        As you are most likely, a first time donater , the donate link is at the top of the page.

      • talknic
        September 11, 2016, 7:20 pm

        @ hophmi September 11, 2016, 1:03 am

        “. I’d be willing to bet there is statistically more segregation between Black and White expectant mothers in the US … “

        A person who’d be willing to bet would produce some verifiable stats.

        “… than there is between Arabs and Jews in Israeli hospital”

        Interesting assertion. Especially as some 500,000 Arab Jews were absorbed into Israel in the 1950’s http://wp.me/pDB7k-19Y

    • Annie Robbins
      September 9, 2016, 12:00 pm

      equal treatment of Jew and Palestinian in hospitals?

      The “Arab Hospital”

      We had just passed the last checkpoint out of the West Bank, it was around 2 am. My cousin sitting in the front began to tell us she was suffocating. She said that she felt herself having an asthma attack. She demanded we take her to the closest hospital. And that’s what we did. We arrived at the emergency counter of the first hospital we could find in Jerusalem. The Israeli women asked us for our passports. She took a brief look, read our last names out loud, looked up at us and then said “Arabs?” She then began to speak only in Hebrew, telling us that we should go to the “Arab” hospital. I stared at the lady barely understanding the Hebrew she was speaking while my cousin on the other side of me was quickly losing more breath. I was helpless because I was the wrong race.

      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/moments-in-palestine/#sthash.i7VLPUQC.dpuf

      • hophmi
        September 13, 2016, 11:06 am

        “A person who’d be willing to bet would produce some verifiable stats. ”

        Mine are perfectly verifiable. We have fewer African-American doctors in the United States as a percentage of population than Israel does Arab doctors. African-Americans make up 5% of American doctors, and African-Americans are 13% of the population. Palestinian-Israelis are around 20-21% of the population, and they represent 12.5% of the doctors in Israel.

        But there’s more to the story. When you factor in the reality that female workforce participation remains the exception, rather than the rule, in the Arab Middle East, including Israel, it shrinks the gap considerably. In Israel, only about 20% of Palestinian women work, while in the United States, the female labor participation rate is about 60%.

        So in Israel, where most Arab women do not work, and the rate of labor participation amongst Jewish women is extremely high (66% in the haredi community and nearly 80% in the secular community), representation amongst Palestinian doctors is roughly commensurate with percentage of population.

        https://consumer.healthday.com/general-health-information-16/doctor-news-206/too-few-blacks-hispanics-are-becoming-doctors-study-702572.html

        http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2016/0201/For-Israeli-Palestinian-interaction-a-new-venue-the-Arab-doctor-s-office

        “I am greeted with a lot of respect,” says Dr. Mahmoud Abo Salwook, an endocrinologist from the Arab village of Kafr Qassem who treats diabetes patients in the ultra-Orthodox Tel Aviv suburb of Bnei Brak. He has worked for nine years in clinics in Jewish neighborhoods.

        Anti-Arab remarks from Jewish patients are rare, Dr. Abo Salwook says. “It’s an exception. They usually come from people who are uneducated and closed-minded,” he says. “I get a lot of nice feedback ­– I hear what patients tell the secretaries.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/women-in-the-workforce-are-saving-israel-s-economy-1.466785

      • talknic
        September 14, 2016, 3:11 am

        hophmi September 13, 2016, 11:06 am

        “Mine are perfectly verifiable”

        for this … “I’d be willing to bet there is statistically more segregation between Black and White expectant mothers in the US … “ … you didn’t provide any

      • MHughes976
        September 14, 2016, 4:06 am

        Emily Friedman, writing in H&HN Daly for June 3, 2016, celebrates the impact of the Civil Rights Act on US hospitals. She gives the impression that segregation is illegal and unthinkable as an overt policy anywhere. The Times of Israel for April 2016 refers to a call for segregation by a politician called Bezalel Scnmirsky,,specifically in maternity wards, though N Bennett, even he, rejects this on theological grounds and the Health Ministry says it just doesn’t happen. In response the New Israel Fund has published two articles about maternity segregation in a place called Kfir Saba. Not only does it happen but advertisements protesting against it get taken down for offending public sensitivity. The overall picture is not really terrible but is not unblemished and is not particularly to the disadvantage of the United States.
        The article was basically, I think, about ‘property and land’ in 48 Israel and the rebuttals have tended to change the subject towards other things like refugees and health care. I think hophmi’s figures do point to the resurgence of the IsraeliPalestinian middle class: will they begin to erode segregation or experience it more sharply?

      • MHughes976
        September 14, 2016, 4:17 am

        Sorry, Friedman’s article was from 2014, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. The Times of Israel report is form April 5, 2016.

    • talknic
      September 9, 2016, 2:31 pm

      Mayhem September 8, 2016, 11:52 pm

      “when on the other side we have the makings of a totally racist society where Jews will not be permitted to live at all”

      Strange. You quoted Erekat, wherein there was no mention of Jews

      Try something else, you’re failing …. constantly

      • Mayhem
        September 11, 2016, 5:05 am

        For those with thick skulls Netanyahu could have not have expressed it better. and the US wets its pants in response.

        I look forward to greeting the first Israeli prime minister to visit Australia next year. Of course the intolerant left are bound to get very frenzied over this.

      • amigo
        September 11, 2016, 9:17 am

        “Try something else, you’re failing …. constantly” talknic to mayhem.

        And our zio apologist comes right back and drops more ziopoop but forgot to remove his pants.

      • Mayhem
        September 11, 2016, 6:57 pm

        @amigo, as usual inane remarks devoid of content and full of abuse. You won’t convince anyone with such diatribe.

      • talknic
        September 11, 2016, 7:11 pm

        @ Mayhem September 11, 2016, 5:05 am

        “For those with thick skulls Netanyahu could have not have expressed it better>”

        You’re right! Only someone with a thick skull would believe the lying sack of sh*t!

        “I look forward to greeting the first Israeli prime minister to visit Australia next year. Of course the intolerant left are bound to get very frenzied over this”

        ‘intolerant left’? Why should anyone tolerate a blatant liar?

        ‘left’? I see. So there’s no sense of justice, truthfullness, decency, morality on the ‘right’.

        Got your point, though I doubt you’d realize what you’re making obvious

    • Marnie
      September 12, 2016, 12:44 am

      “All this left-wing quibbling about the character of Israel (ever been in an Israeli hospital and witnessed the demonstrably equal treatment of Jew and Arab?) when on the other side we have the makings of a totally racist society where Jews will not be permitted to live at all.”

      I’ve witnessed a few things first hand. Briefly, I’ve witnessed many nurse’s and doctor’s contemptible behavior towards Arabs and African-Americans. I’ve witnessed both people unattended in ERs while the doctors and nurses busy themselves with coffee breaks and attending to their ashkenazi patients. Taxi drivers refusing to take Arab customers. Students refusing to attend class with Arabs.

      And this article is about segregation.

      Lawmaker backs segregated Jewish, Arab … – The Times of Israel
      http://www.timesofisrael.com › Israel & the Region

      ‘Israeli maternity wards segregate Jewish, Arab mothers’ | +972 …
      972mag.com/israeli-maternity-wards…jewish-arab-mothers/118420

      Israeli Lawmaker Posts Support for Hospital Room Segregation …
      http://www.newsweek.com/israeli-lawmaker-posts-support-hospital-room-segregation-betwe

      Poll: Half of Israeli Teens Don’t Want Arab Students in Their Class …
      http://www.haaretz.com › Israel News

      Poll: Almost half of Israeli Jews don’t want Arabs teaching their kids …
      http://www.jpost.com/Israel…/Poll-Almost-half-of-Israeli-parents-dont-w

      Israeli city revives historic mission to keep out Arabs | Middle East Eye
      http://www.middleeasteye.net/…/israeli-city-revives-historic-mission-keep-out-arabs-657212...

      Sharon’s Real Legacy – Keeping the Arabs Out of Sight – Haaretz …
      http://www.haaretz.com/…/sharon-s-real-legacy-keeping-the-arabs-out-of-sight-1.26...

      Mayhem – maybe you can answer a question for the ‘right’ and ‘zionists’ which you readily identify allegiance to: Why are right wing and zionist supremacists so eager to attack, either with words or actually physically, anyone who rightly opposes their POV? And then smugly claim it is the ‘left’ that is intolerant?

  7. amigo
    September 12, 2016, 5:32 am

    ” @amigo, as usual inane remarks devoid of content and full of abuse ” mayhem.

    You mean like calling people “thick skulled”.

    “For those with thick skulls Netanyahu could have not have expressed it better. and the US wets its pants in response. “- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/segregation-important-practical/#comment-854748

    Your posts are full of content –it,s just that the content is the product of a ziocaine addled mind.

Leave a Reply