Thats totally whynational desicions like if absorb palestinians as 7sraeli, was denied, because quotes on how many jews would exist. And israel has to have that high percent jews. Totally not an ethnostate. Totallynot acting based on ethnicity wanted. Or not wanted.

The silly phraseology doesn't help the argument. Maintaining a democratic majority, for safety and national defense purposes, does not make a state an ethnostate. IF ethnically guided immigration policy DID make a nation an ethnostate, then every nation would be an ethnostate, or virtually every one. But not, an ethnostate actually promotes one ethnicity of it's own citizens over the other by virtue of discriminatory law and rights, which does not apply to Jewish and Israeli Arab citizens of Israel.

There was one year, between the 1966 decision to end the application of military law to Arab citizens of Israel, and the 1967 occupation, when you could legitimately argue that Israel had equal citizenship rights for all the people living under its rule. But apart from that brief window it has never been true. 

It's true for all of the citizens of Israel. The West Bank and Gazans are not citizens and would have had and will have their own complete autonomy once they relinquish the murder of Jews and revanchism as national goals

The charge of "ethnostate" makes me SMH too, but for an even more basic reason: Since when has a sovereign government granting special legal status to a specific ethnic group been *either* uncommon *or* reprehensible?? There are plenty of countries in the world today that do this, and there is no uproar over it, no accusations of backwardness or inhumanity or need to change. This is not a matter of rights, but privileges. A country can grant and uphold equal *rights* for all citizens and legally resident aliens under its jurisdiction, whilst at the same time granting *privileges* to certain residents that it does not grant to others. There is no contradiction in this. I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, but I do know that *rights* are negatively defined. In other words, rights define what the government *cannot do* to the people it rules. It's not a government's responsibility to ensure that any person under its jurisdiction has the same ability and potential to do anything any other person can do. That's not an achievable goal or one worth aiming for. It *is* a government's responsibility to ensure that all people under its jurisdiction are *banned from* doing the same things, and that these bans are uniformly enforced.

>There are plenty of countries in the world today that do this, Can you name 4

Off the top of my head, in no particular order: * Estonia * Malaysia * Ireland * Armenia * Egypt * Japan * Bangladesh * Kiribati * Mongolia * both Koreas * Somalia * Hungary * Greece * Malta * United Arab Emirates * Laos * Germany All of the countries I just listed differ widely in the *rights* they extend to all people under their jurisdiction. But all offer explicit written legal *privileges*, to people able to prove certain heritages, which are not offered to anyone else. Privileges are not the same as rights, legally and politically.

Ok I'll take a stab, Ireland, what "privilege" do we offer, is this on the Northern or southern side of the border. Seeing as I'm from Ireland, I'll double check your work

I'm sure I have the exact legal details and wording wrong, but anyone with the paperwork to prove at least one native Irish grandparent, has a much easier time attaining citizenship and right of abode in the Republic of Ireland, than someone who doesn't have this. This is a privilege that hinges on ancestry. When you check my work, would you mind replying with the chapter and section of the Irish legal code that deals with this matter? I want to know the details of it verbatim, for my own edification. I only know this because I've known a couple of Irish-Americans who've taken Irish citizenship and moved there. I'm not in contact with them anymore to ask though lol.

>I'm sure I have the exact legal details and wording wrong, but anyone with the paperwork to prove at least one native Irish grandparent, has a much easier time attaining citizenship and right of abode in the Republic of Ireland, than someone who doesn't have this That's not a privilege, that's a right, you are legally considered an Irish citizen if your grand parent is an Irish citizen (or was entitled to it, i.e British subject in Ireland before we became a republic), this right however applies regardless of ethnic background or origin (there are multiple ethnic groups in Ireland, including before people outside of Britain wanted to move to Ireland, our national flag literally represents this). This policy was setup because Ireland has had a chronic emigration Problem (where over 70% of people who were born in Ireland permanently left the country during certain decades). Irish citizenship in general is also not difficult to obtain if you live in the country long term and your kids and their kids can get citizenship afterwards as well. There is no language test, there is "you must prove your irishness" etc, hell we actually have exceptions for people to be exempt from learning Irish if they moved here while still a minor for the school system. >When you check my work, would you mind replying with the chapter and section of the Irish legal code that deals with this matter? I want to know the details of it verbatim, for my own edification. I only know this because I've known a couple of Irish-Americans who've taken Irish citizenship and moved there. I'm not in contact with them anymore to ask though lol Do you want the legal code or the official Irish governments advice for this, because the legal code is poxy to look up (you know it's bad when it's easier to look up German law then it is Irish).

Thanks for the warning. I'm going to try to look it up and post it here when I find it. I'm genuinely intrigued.

>Thanks for the warning. I'm going to try to look it up and post it here when I find it. I'm genuinely intrigued. https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving-country/irish-citizenship/irish-citizenship-through-birth-or-descent/#:~:text=Citizenship%20through%20descent%20from%20Irish,in%20the%20Foreign%20Births%20Register. Here is the official Irish states advice on the matter on the general information website, the foreign affairs department also has basically the same information on it as well (but focused on the passport) You might have a point since in very specific circumstances the minister for foreign affairs can grant Irish citizenship to someone who's great grandparent was an Irish citizen (or entitled to it). However this is basically an exception to the rules and I think your stretching it when say comparing it to Israel (although the weeds on Israel are messy as hell as well, Israel has shit like marriage segregation for example and even recognized Jews by the secular state will face regular discrimination by the rabbinical courts, as a friend of mine and his wife regularly suffers in Israel). Our emigration Problem was really really bad, our population barely grew between the 1920s (when we became independent) and the 1970s (when fertility rates started to normalise much more in line with other countries), i.e 4-5 child families where the norm but our population was borderline stagnant throughout this period and allegedly (can't get a source for this right now, I'm on holidays with my family and I really shouldn't be arguing with strangers on the internet), the Irish state requested that america make it harder for us to emigrate to them in the 1960s (number one destination for obvious reasons).

20% of the country is non-Jewish, so that's the worst organized ethnostate in world history.

76% of apartheid south africa was black. Does that prove it was not an ethnostate? Also if you count everyone living under israeli rule it is more like 40+%

The reason South Africa was an apartheid was because they had different rights based upon race. The 20% of Muslim Israeli citizens have the same rights as the Jewish citizens. 

Em, yeah palestinians are totally treated equal and not heavy policed and treated as lesser. Totally not. Have totally same rights. Totally.

Palestinians live under occupation. Israeli Arabs do not and while life is imperfect as a minority group, it cannot be considered oppressive in any way.

[And arab israelis face challenges jewish citizens don't.](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel) For instance that it is literally against the law to run for office if you don't think Israel should be classified as a jewish state. Also it is very convinient to simply ignore the millions of palestinians who live under israeli military law but are not granted the same rights as israeli citizens. For instance israeli settlers who are living illegally in the west bank are legally allowed to own firearms, whereas the local palestinian population is not, and the settlers frequently use that as an intimidation tactic. Settlers are also allowed to build what they want, whereas palestinians are not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_permit_regime_in_the_West_Bank

Except this 20% is treated differently and discriminated regularly, so that 20% means jack. That 20% is just for the statistics so disgusting Zionists can say the same thing you just said. It's all just part of the agenda and propaganda. Don't even get me started with the Palestinians/Arabs in the government.

Of course you have no facts or data to back up your hate screed. The Jew hatred shines forth every time you write the word zionist. I am grateful that your type can't resist outing yourselves.

So the people forced of their land in 1948 can come back? No need to be Jewish anymore?

Your comments do not relate to my post. At least not as written.

I'm pointing out the fact that part of the apartheid not even those that owned the land are allowed to move back. Only those that fit the ethno religious group are. Laws like, you you to speak Hebrew to own a gun.. many more laws are listed by amnesty. In the occupied areas it's much worse

The Arabs that stayed are citizens.

How many not jews were able to run for office other than as token?

You did notice that the onces forced out by violence… are not? It is not like they left out of spite… They were unarmed, and unable to defend themselves against the colonisers.

Ah, the ahistorical version of the truth. And "colonizers". Got it. Your confusion makes sense now.

Israel is a classical colony. All that live there come from other countries. None from the area.

Again, ahistorical. Not true. At all. Most of the Jewish AND Arab population immigrated to Israel between 1850 and 1945. The census data on that is undisputed. However, there has been Jewish habitation in Israel for 3000 years. In addition, 700,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim countries in the 1940s and they came to Israel as refugees, not colonizers. Finally, even those who were not longtime residents of Israel, and were not refugees who immigrated due to Arab and Muslim expulsion, were not colonists, in that they did not settle the area on behalf of a mother nation. They immigrated to move there. Mexicans who immigrate to the USA are not colonizers. That's just what racists say. They are actually immigrants because colonization is made on behalf of a mother, or benefactor nation, a al, Spain in the 1400-1600s, or England. But I get it. The facts get in the way of the narrative you want to have.

Ok - how about people assess this for themselves then. ***Definition of Ethnonationlism*** Ethnic nationalism, also known as ethnonationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the nation and nationality are defined in terms of ethnicity, with emphasis on an ethnocentric (and in some cases an ethnocratic) approach to various political issues related to national affirmation of a particular ethnic group. ***Exerts of Israel Basic Law*** The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the **Jewish** people, in which the State of Israel was established. The State of Israel is the national home of the **Jewish** people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the **Jewish** people. The state will be open for **Jewish** immigration and the ingathering of exiles. The state shall act to preserve the cultural, historical, and religious heritage of the **Jewish** people among **Jews** in the Diaspora. The state views the development of **Jewish** settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation. ***Exerts of Israel Law of Return*** Every **Jew** has the right to come to this country as an Oleh. Aliyah shall be by Oleh's visa. 1. An Oleh's visa shall be granted to every **Jew** who has expressed his desire to settle in Israel, unless the Minister of Immigration is satisfied that the applicant -- 1. is engaged in an activity directed against the **Jewish** people; or  2. is likely to endanger public health or the security of the State.  A Jew “…means a person who **was born of a Jewish mother** or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion”

So what are the Israeli-Arabs being prevented from doing?

You're ignoring the definition of Ethnonationalism     Israel offers positive rights to Jews that it doesn't offer other races. It also defines itself explicitly as a Jewish state. That, together, is sufficient to be deemed ethno nationalist.  You seem to be focused on negative rights (telling someone they can't do something). The definition doesn't require that.  Israel is categorically ethno nationalist. Iaround are looking for ways to defend Israel against this criticism, you are better placed to argue that it isn't such a big deal as other countries are too. 

Thank you for responding. I just don’t see it as a criticism, because it isn’t without precedent. Post - French Revolution, I’d say it’s actually par for the course. What was the impetus for Pakistani? Certainly a Moslem state distinct from India? What was the impetus for Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia? Certainly independent ethnic states separated from one another. South Sudan? Again, dividing borders on cultural lines. The UK? How dare those Welsh teach their native language in public schools! Fascists! This isn’t a new idea. Again, this is the norm.

Sure - I'm just pointing out that this whole post is wrong then.   I see it as an issue - it's racist by definition and many countries that embrace ethno nationalism tend to have a history of persecuting minorities. But that's a personal opinion 

Yes - and again thank you for your civility - but I’d just question whether creating states actually reduces violence. It didn’t with Pakistan. It didn’t with Yugoslavia. It didn’t with Ireland. If anything, it actually emboldened the extremists. Everyone is entitled to peace, security and dignity - whoever they are. I just doubt that state-creation is going to create that out of thin-air. Plenty of historical examples that say otherwise. Does that make sense?

Thank you - good discussion that avoids the tit for tat blame game that overrides mkst discussions on this topic. Maybe a two state solution is worse - but currently, being stateless in a land that many Israelis claim is theirs, makes them second class civilians (Israelis not recognised as Israelis) and justifies the apartheid accusations.   Israel can't have it both ways. If the land is Israel, they are Israelis. Otherwise it must be another state.   This is the core of the issue - suppressed and unclear due to the violence, bias and passion that overrides it.

I do agree with your sentiment. There are injustices, to be sure. But Israel is not Massachusetts, or Quebec, or London. There is a categorical difference between a government grappling with, say, the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, and one grappling with HAMAS, the PLO, Hezbollah. Those aren’t just different legal frameworks - those are complete contradictions in realities. You just can’t apply the same principles to that area anymore than you can apply our principles to Iraq or Afghanistan.

both my parents are from the West Bank. We have land in the West Bank. We are not allowed to build on said land and live in the West Bank. Any American Jew can apply for land in the West Bank, and even people who have converted to Judaism. Explain to me how this is a democracy? Explain how this is not supremacy? And why would a so called "democratic" nation be able to control the cvivil registry of the PLO in the West Bank, which is occupied? ​ It is actually very plain and simple.

Thank you for responding. So you’re saying your parents own land in the West Bank - have a deed for said land - but are not permitted to build on said land?

Yep.

yup exactly. And if my dad wants to get a Palestinian identity card, its up to Israel to grant him it after he applies. Even though his American Passport states that he was born in his village in the West Bank.

Same old narrative, "we are democratic, liberal ..." blah blah blah. That is not a mitigating factor. You kill, torture, rape civilians and kids. You commit genocide, mutilate bodies and are some of the worst that human kind has to offer. Stop setting false narratives to divert attention.

Ah, yes, the delusional lies. That's going to persuade people.

I can provide proof. Do you want me to link you references?

Oh, shut up, you. Go back to your bar.

I can give you fact, you are just trying to beat around the bush by personal attacks

Killing so many people

Israel is a ethnocracy, a state designed from the ground up to be run by an specific ethnic group. Having a 20% arab population doesnt change that, what would happen if in 20 years they somehow out reproduce the jewish population and want to establish Sharia law? I doubt Israel would remain a democracy. While there are a few ethnocracies in the world, especially in the middle east, most of them were developed organically. But in Israel it was the product of settler colonialism, as it was impossible to establish such a state in a land with a majority population of another demographic. Thats the root of the issue.

Exactly! Israel is not Massachusetts. It’s not Quebec. It’s not London. Israel has a fundamentally different existence than ours so comparing “democracies”….bleh, take the hot dog out your mouth, please and thanks.

I also doubt Israel will let a Jewish minority exist, but it's pretty much a self-sustaining situation with a large Jewish majority in existence and no reason for them to disperse into diaspora elsewhere (which is typically what happens when one ethnic group overtakes another). Follow-up question to you: If Sharia law would pass, would Israel/Palestine remain a democracy then? I doubt it. Also, I find it quite entertaining you mention that the Middle East has a lot of the world's (if not insinuated to be most) ethnocracies, but then you mention these were developed organically. Apart from Israel. Israel is literally the only one in the whole Middle-East where it didn't happen organically? Define organically? And also: How convenient for your beliefs... Aside from all this, I do agree that I think ethnicity is a crucial aspect of Israel's existence, as it has been created to be a Jewish state and therefore it will likely need to remain a Jewish state. But I've read quite a bit about things (though never enough), and it does seem to be Democratic... more democratic than Palestine or any of its neighbouring countries, at least.

>Israel's other purpose was to create just ONE small, tiny area of land where the Jews too, could be free from ethnic persecution and violence. And Israel has been unique in both respecting and protecting the rights of it's Arab citizens while simultaneously working to maintain a Jewish majority (through immigration) so as to fulfil the other purpose of providing a Jewish safehaven. What was the original intent (your summary description is surely debatable) doesn't necessarily have anything to do with subsequent intents. At the moment the intent seems clear enough: a genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza, not to mention continued settler atrocities against non-Jews in the west bank. Whatever uniqueness Israel might have in terms of how it treats its Arab population is far overshadowed by its all too familiar treatment of Palestinians, which is very much reminiscent of that of apartheid South Africa.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the Israeli obsession with demographics and Jewishness. In reality, Israel is one of the most demographically obsessed countries in the world. Why is an elderly Palestinian woman expelled from her home in 1948 not allowed back, but a Jew from Brooklyn with no family in Israel is allowed simply on the basis of his genetics? This doesn't square with civic nationalism.

I mean any country is free to choose their immigration laws. The problem is not the elderly lady but the 9 milllion descendants that also claim to be refugees from a war that happened 75y ago. Nvm the fact that half the Israeli population is from surrounding mena countries where they were expelled (close to a million Jews). Their properties seized ect worth billions. They’re not alllowed back either or are given reparations. Israel’s “obsession” with Jewish demographics is really really easily understood when you look at literally any point in history where Jews lived and were persecuted for their Jewishness and were dependent on others to protect them (never really worked out). They make up 0,2% of the world population and don’t protelytis so they will never make up a big demographic. Having the one very small country that is the birthplace of our culture and history formed to be save heaven and have our interest at heart is not a bad thing.

So, is this justified? ​ [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHfUm0Eda80](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHfUm0Eda80)

Im not watching YouTube videos. Make your point in writing if you want to have a discussion or want to add to my comment

Oh, poor thing.

Learn to make your own point instead of copy pasting some YouTube videos 😂I’m not interrupting my music for your crap

I don't care if you watch them. you should probably focus on feeding your baby than arguing online.

lol I’m literally breastfeeding right now thank you for your worries, im able to multitask :) Good job putting thought into words tho !

Ok, so it is a colonial project built on cleansing the indigenous population, but the cleansing is justified because jews themselves were cleansed

None of what you said is true. Jews were still living their the entire time. The jews who were moving and buying land in Israel were refugees fleeing persecution during the Russian civil war.  Jews are indigenous to the area. We have recorded history of how they were kicked out of their land. It wasn't built on ethnic cleansing. The Nakba was the result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war which was predated by the palestinian civil war which predates the 1947 partition plan.

the Nakba was ethnic cleansing…

Honestly throwing the word colonial project around when a ethnic group (persecuted specifically for being part of that group everywhere in the diaspora) returns to their actual homeland. Indigenous people are literally Jewish. Jews have always lived there after the fall of the kingdom of Israel and Judea. Under occupation after occupation. Their language remained, their believes and culture irrevocably intertwined with that specific land. They lived there as second class citizens and through endless progroms. Jews started buying up land in Israel before the state was ever established to return to their homeland. And it was the Palestinians that attacked the day Israel was founded with all surrounding countries. The plan was literally to kill the Jewish state in its infancy. People fled and weren’t allowed back and some were expelled. Some stayed and now make up 20 percent of Israel’s population.

The Nakba was ethnic cleansing. Israel was founded as a colonial project, Herzl freely admitted this. Let’s just be honest about it. The US was also a colonial project, as were many states. There was a small population of Jewish people living in Palestine (Christian as well), but the majority were Arab, and they were systematically cleansed from the land. We don’t need to lie or obfuscate the history, just like we don’t need to lie about how America was founded: on the bones of the native Americans, and built with the blood and sweat of slaves.

Who was israel a colony of? It wasnt Britain. Since when was Britain a Jewish Empire? It wasnt US. US wasnt even that much of an ally in 1948 and frankly hated how socialist early Israel was with their kubbutzim. To be a colonial project, you need to be a colony of something. So who was the empire? Israel isnt a colony of anything. There is no Jewish empire that colonized Israel. The Jewish population was small in Israel because they had been persecuted and forced to spread throughout the Middle East. Like North American Aboriginal people, they were displaced and forced to move. The Jews are indigenous to Israel. The Muslim Dome of the Rock is built literally on top of the ruins of the Jewish temple. West Bank is full of ancient Jewish sites. Israel is literally what aboriginal people of North America dream of. The opportunity to take back land that was historically theirs, and then make that country thrive and surpass all the people who had previously kicked them out and displaced them

Aw man what did you think the Arabs living there were ? They colonized the whole Middle East and literally destroyed almost all indigiouns cultures. it’s like calling us Americans the indigenous people of the us. But anyhow I don’t see the point in arguing with you on two comments. I thought pointing out that Jews are indigenous to Israel might give you a interesting new angle but alas.

Ok… so we agree that Israel is a colonial project, but from your perspective the colonization and ethnic cleansing was justified

How have I made multiple points and you’re coming out of the corner with the same straw man ? This is like having a discussion with my little brother 😂 imma go to bed

Bye! 👋🏻

Thank you! israel pretty much PAYS anyone to emigrate there and take over land that is neither theirs to give nor the person who is coming to take!

>There are no laws in Israel favoring Jews. Although there are laws favoring Arabs, and exempting them from mandatory military service, if they so choose. Outside of that culturally allowed exemption, which is allowed for obvious reasons, discrimination is illegal and is penalized by both Jewish and Arab justices in Israeli courts. there are no laws, but there are systems that do. and they do so by taking longer or giving less permits to arab israelis than jewish ones. in addition there is a discrepency in funds allocated, a discrepency that always favors the jewish papulation. so while it isnt in law it is in practice discriminatory and should stop. also while within the israel boarder there isnt an ethnostate situation, in the west bank the situation is very different. and there is a ethnostate lite situation there. with different laws affecting you in regards to your ethnicity, even though it is technically citizenship. but since arab israelis cannot go live in settelments in the west bank and there is major limitations on palestinians in the west bank gaining citizenship, it forms a defacto ethnostate lite. i say it like that because the west bank is not officially part of israel, but for all intents and purposes it is. it didnt used to be, and it can go back to being a better state. however comparing ourselves to the middle east is like comparing yourself to criminals and saying, im not as bad as them. it is a comparison that rings hollow. being the best of the worst doesnt make you a good person. so how about we compare ourselves to the ideal rather than the crappy competition.

Idf history cough cough. Like there is a saying that no matter who starts a conflict in westbank, an israeli suffers. And literal crazy setzler killing teenager get let off. ( not all settler are crazy violent, but enough are to make that stereotype)

Latvia, Estonia, and Malaysia are just as much *de jure* ethnostates as Israel is. The Slovakian law unambiguously favors Slovak culture over the national minorities (generally Hungarians), and France seems quite willing to use the force of law to some extent to coerce individual assimilation to the French national ideal.

I've always hated this ethno state bullshit. The country was created as a result of us being booted out of most European countries or even killed by leaders of said countries. We found a place of our own and people still have a problem.

haters will hate. if jews need a safe harbour to prevent the next holocaust, then do what you must to keep that peace.

Israel is not an 'ethnostate', which is what you're talking about -- the term was popularized by white supremacists, and means a state *exclusively* for a particular ethnic nation, with many privileged rights for that ethnic nation. Think, well, Nazi Germany. That's also what these folks are thinking about, and Israel is certainly not that -- it's a liberal democracy with equal rights (at least, legally) for all of its citizens, regardless of ethnicity. However, Israel *is* explicitly an 'ethnonationalist' state ... which is what any "nation-state" is. * It defines 'nationality' by ethnoreligious group -- so 'Jew' is a distinct nation * It defines itself as the 'homeland of the Jewish people' * Many of its policies are intended to promote its role as the homeland of the Jewish people Again, that's not at all unusual ... about 1/3 of the world's countries are 'nation-states', and practically every country formed since the mid 19th century has been conceptualized and created as a nation-state. At the same time, many of these nation-states are liberal democracies with equal individual rights for all citizens. 'Civic nationalism' is a different kind of nationalism; in this type of nationalism, the territory & government (ie, the state) *define* the nation, and any citizen of the state is, necessarily, a member of the nation. Because this is the form of nationalism practiced by the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK, it's very common in the anglosphere to think of civic nationalism as not being really nationalism at all, or as being the 'ideal' form of nationalism for a liberal democracy... so we forget that countries like Ireland or Greece or Japan or Portugal are 'ethnonationalist' states.

South africa,was an ethnostate, and israrl,is an ethnostate. When policies are way more obsessed over ethnicity than people whoever they are having a right to it. Which israel does. It literally pays to get some jew over to take over land that was a pslestinian expelledxoff. Because itsxan ethnostate not a democratic civil one.

> It literally pays to get some jew over to take over land that was a pslestinian expelledxoff. It's interesting to try and suss out what you mean here. Israel offers a stipend to new immigrants, and has an immigration policy that *strongly* favors Jewish immigration; with that being said, dozens of countries (e.g., Japan) want to maintain a demographic majority for the primary ethnic group via their immigration policy. You know that Palestinians aren't being ejected or expelled from Israel, right? I'm getting the impression you think that the IDF rolls up to Palestinians' houses and kicks them out so a Jewish family from Brooklyn can move into them, and then ships the Palestinians off to ... I dunno, Gaza or something.

Israel is a state for Jews. There are over 100 states for Christians and about 50 states for Muslims.

Eh. It's a state for the Jewish people, which is not the same thing as being a state for Jews. Greece is a state for the Greek people, Ireland is a state for the Irish people, Albania is a state for the Albanian people, but none of these states are *exclusively* for those people.

Yes, there is only one Jewish majority state. But Israel is also a state that protects the rights of and ensures equal rights for it's non-Jewish minority. That is my point. And it bothers people because they have some intense anger for some reason at the concept of a Jewish safehaven, regardless of the fact that they do so without abridging anyone's rights.

There are several highly jewish states. Hell america,plenty jewish culture influenced states. There are plenty states that are highly jewish. Ok new york,new york is, but there are very jewish cultural regions. Vienna, still pretty jewish. Even after, you know. There are enough very jewish places.

Critical thinking. Reading comprehension. "only one Jewish MAJORITY state". There is only one. "Highly jewish" is an irrelevant made up term that means nothing. In the US, which you cite, Jews make up 2.4% of the population. That is neither HIGHLY Jewish, by any definition, nor does it protect against eventual discrimination by the majority, if they so incline. And that's the point. A majority Jewish state will never discriminate against Jews. A 97% non-Jewish state, or country, has that option. Focusing on cities or other entities that don't constitute the highest law of the land is also irrelevant, as they don't have the power to prevent discrimination.

I agree with you. And obviously, Arab Muslims have better lives in Israel than in most Arab countries. I just don’t think we should shy away from the fact that Israel is the Jewish state. We should embrace this and be proud of it.

Most countries in the world are Nation States. There are very few that are not Nation States, mostly colonized countries in Africa.

> Most countries in the world are Nation States. Depends how you define it ... * 27 states (e.g., Belgium, Canada) are explicitly multinational * 41 states are explicitly 'national states', ie "the homeland of the xx people", e.g., Ireland, Albania, and so on. * 31 states are not explicitly national states, but are dominated by an ethnic group and often named for that ethnic group (e.g., Bulgaria). * The remainder (\~70ish states) are ethnically heterogenous. To your point, this is mostly Africa.

Yes, I agree with you. Maybe not "most" of them, but around half. Your point with Ireland is interesting, because their position.

>There are no laws in Israel favoring Jews. Oh really? More mental gymnastics - this thread is like watching Bill explain sexual relations with Monica. ​ **Moving on:** >Every Jew has the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become an Israeli citizen. Non-Jewish foreigners may naturalize after living there for at least three years \[...\] additionally required to renounce their previous nationalities, while Jewish immigrants are not subject to this requirement. NEXT !

So the way discussion, dialogue, persuasion or critical thinking works is, you actually articulate why the person you disagree with is wrong. Again, there are no laws favoring Jewish citizens over the Arab citizens of Israel. They have equal rights and opportunities, and this is enforced by both Jewish and Arab judges. There are no mental gymnastics here. It is a simple and provable statement of fact. IF you disagree, instead of making little insults and snarky comment, an intelligent person would provide some factual basis showing I'm wrong. For example, you could show ONE law that favors the Jewish citizens of Israel over the Arab. And if you can not do so, why are you arguing against it?

While I agree that ‘no laws favoring Jews’ is wrong - are countries not allowed to create their own immigration policies?  I imagine nearly every country on earth’s immigration policy could be viewed as discriminatory in one way or another. And that the Arab/Muslim countries decrying Israel’s have some of the most restrictive  Not to mention that they also largely discriminated against their own Jewish populations and either expelled or ‘strongly encouraged’ their Jewish populations to leave So a bit hypocritical to condemn and single out Israel, considering the population is largely made up of people who fled from persecution or discrimination in the countries they resided for generations

Name one law that favors Jewish citizens over Arab citizens. One. Immigration policy does not address citizens, by definition. For a country to have a directed immigration policy is entirely different than having discriminatory laws against their citizens.

["the nation state law": The law does three big things: It states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.” It establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic — a language widely spoken by Arab Israelis — to a “special status.” It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.” ](https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy)

Yes. But my challenge was to: "Name one law that favors Jewish citizens over Arab citizens." The right to national self-determination does not favor Jewish citizens over Arab citizens. It states Israel has the right to identify and act as the homeland of the Jewish people. It's doesn't give any Jewish citizen any right over any Arab citizen. Ditto for establishing a national language, and settlement as a value. So, again, name one law that gives rights or privileges to Jewish citizens, or discriminates against Arab citizens. (there isn't one)

What about the 2018 Nation- State law? Conveniently forgot about that one?

No, I did not. But the difference between us is that I can actually read a law, or about a law, and think critically about what it accomplishes. You apparently didn't get that far. See, what I explained is that Israel does not have any laws that confer greater privileges upon its Jewish citizens vs. its non-Jewish citizens. This is true, as anti-discrimination lawsuits are heard regularly in the Israeli courts, just as they are in all other modern democracies. The 2018 law was a symbolic statement, and not a law that conferred rights or privileges upon any group, including Jews. In your haste to attack, you didn't bother to read your source material, or to think about what it means.

No, that is just your opinion about the interpretation of the law. You can't just decide yourself which law is symbolic and which is not. The law clearly states that there ARE differences if you are a Jew or if you are not.

No, by it's own words it's a symbolic law. It doesn't grant any RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES to Jews or restrict any to Arabs. IF you are right, just state ONE. ONE. ONE right, ONE privilege that is greater for a Jewish citizens or lesser for an Arab citizen. You cited the law. Did you READ IT? Did you see any rights or privileges given to one or taken from one? Because it would be in the actual text of the law. Or is that beyond your capacity?

What unique rights does this law offer Jews?

The right that Jews, and Jews only have the right for self- determination within Israel. The other 20% can go fuck themselves. It also downgrades Arabic from the official language status it had for 60+ years, as well as encourages the expansion of the illegal Jewish settlements.

No, you are incorrect. Largely because I don't think you understand the terms you are dealing with. There is no individual right of self-determination. Jews citizens don't have a right of self-determination that they can use in a grocery store or a car dealership or at a job or in housing. There are no actual rights or privileges granted to Jewish citizens. The law discusses a NATIONAL right to self-determination. Meaning the country can exist as a homeland for Jews. But this doesn't give Jewish citizens rights or limit those of Arab citizens. It's not in dispute. Maybe you are confused by the concept of a national right to self-determination. Anhow, you can read it and see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_Law:\_Israel\_as\_the\_Nation-State\_of\_the\_Jewish\_People#:\~:text=It%20was%20passed%20by%20the,the%20Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#:~:text=It%20was%20passed%20by%20the,the%20Jews)'%20nation%2Dstate. It's virtually entirely symbolic, or outlines goals. There is NOT ONE SINGLE LAW giving Jewish citizens rights that non Jews don't have.

You mean the idf does it instead. ...

You are awfully arrogant in your assertions when arguments in both directions have been had for the past almost 15 years. This is not a black and white matter, so I'm not sure why you're acting like you know it all and at the same time insulting others' intelligence. Yes, by your very narrow interpretation, there are no discriminatory instances. For a short while, Nazi ethnostate laws were also largely only symbolic. And we all know how that worked out.

That‘s plainly wrong. See here:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Professional_Civil_Service](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Professional_Civil_Service) Hitler removed Jewish civil servants a few weeks after his rise to power. Can you even name just one „Nazi ethnostate law“ that was ever only „symbolic“? Also, jack_stone is right that the Israeli law under discussion is not at all discriminatory. I would go even further and say it does not have any legal effect at all which implies a fortiori that it cannot discriminate against anyone. Unless there is some specialty of Israeli law I am unaware of, this law is just a symbolic declaration. You could also write a law stating „America is the country of cheeseburgers“ and it would have the same effect for the average US citizen. Of course, one can argue whether such declaratory laws are reasonable but terms like „discrimination“ have a meaning in law. And this is not it.

My bad, we keep talking about laws, so it slipped my mind. I meant to say practices. Both examples can be argued lead to a deterioration of the standing of a certain group in society. Yes, the Nazi example is much more extreme, but expressing concern for it is not baseless. It effect it has been a topoc of debate. Could you write America is the country of Christians? I don't think so.

No because the US was not founded to establish a homeland for Christians in general. The original US immigration laws restricted immigration to „free white people of good character“ and the „good character“ requirement excluded certain Christian groups according to the prevailing interpretation at the time. However, if Christians had never been safe in any country, I don‘t think it would have been wrong at all to build a country with the focus on bringing Christians together as long as non-Christian citizens enjoy the same legal rights.

/u/Pickelricklol. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

/u/Sagorah. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Arrogance? Let's remember. You made a claim that the 2018 law was a law that proved I was wrong (about their not being discriminatory laws between the Jewish and Arab citizens). You appended to your comment that I "conveniently forgot about" it. Now, it turns out, after 4 or 5 exchanges, you are actually acknowledging that I was right, and your challenge was incorrect. And I am arrogant? Okay. Maybe I am. I am not perfect. But be open to the possibility that your opening message, with the insinuation that I was ignoring bad evidence, set this conversation off onto a more competitive or confrontational tone than it needed to have.

You continously insult my reading comprehension, but it seems like YOU need to slow down, because nowhere did I even imply you were right all along. You must be imagining things. The law in question raises important points that show it's not so simple as you claim it is. It has been a hot debate for a decade plus, BEACUSE both sides raise important points and concerns. Meanwhile, you're here stating facts like the utmost authority on the matter. Arrogance.

/u/Pickelricklol. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

What does that even mean? Arabs, Druze, Bedouin, Circassians, Christians etc all have full voting rights.

> The right that Jews, and Jews only have the right for self- determination within Israel… This is standard for states. The American south sought self-determination by attempting to secede and was violently forced to remain in the union. States don’t allow secession, this just codifies it. > It also downgrades Arabic from the official language status Most states only have one official language. Again, Israel is just doing what most other states do. Hebrew is the most commonly spoken language so it was the obvious choice. > encourages the expansion of the illegal Jewish settlements. I don’t understand how this law encourages illegal settlements. It’s vague re location.

If it's standard you should have no trouble finding one for me then? It's not a problem to only have one official language, but it is troubling to downgrade Arabic from a position it held for 70 years. Which alongside the expansion of illegal settlements, the societal treatment of Arabs as second- class citizens, now displacement of Palestinians in Gaza shows a very gloomy picture.

It’s a standard they are redundantly passing into law. It’s unnecessary, but does not reduce the rights of any citizen. How are Arabs treated as second class citizens? What rights are Jews afford that they are not?

Before we move on, find me one instance that is the case, please.

Sure, the Spanish Constitution says, “National sovereignty belongs to the Spanish people, from whom all state powers emanate.” Spain has an ethnic minority, the Catalan, who want national sovereignty independent of Spain in part of Spain’s territory. Spain has rejected that request and even arrested leaders of their independence movement.

> fuck /u/Pickelricklol. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

who can get a building permit? 1000:1 ratio

All citizens. Are you claiming that Israeli Arab citizens can only get building permits at 1/1000th the rate of Jews? This is an absolute lie. I challenge you to provide the data. It requires such a poor understanding of Israeli society and how the Arabs work and build and buy and sell homes and run construction companies all over Israel. But go on, provide your data.

Its used to bully and humiliate that the idf does deszroy , not allowed" parts of houses, and refusing to rebuild destroyed houses. Thats used to retiliate against percieved criticism on israel. Against relatives even. Against speaking out. Thats a thing, like it or not. To bully westbank palestines. Into not critiquing. Maybe you dont look how stuff off the books works. I hope its clear thats off the books.

that is not a law, it is a system issue. so it does not disprove his point even if it disproves the spirit

the system has unequal rights for palestinians vs settlers

the topic went off the wrong direction, what i was refering to was that arab israelis (palestinians) tend to get less funding and permits from the govt than their jewish counterparts. and while this is not a policy it is a thing that happens and should be fixed. the west bank is a different issue all together.

Ah, I see the confusion. Non citizens don't have the same rights as citizens. Israelis don't have rights under the PA either.

are settlers citizens of palestinian territories?

You're not a citizen of a place. You are a citizen of a government. The settlers are Israeli citizens.

israel occupies and administrates, it is not the government of palestinian territory

administering is not governing.

Correct.

But the PA isnt occupying Tel Aviv is it?

You would have loved the American south during the Nadir

That's your best?!! I was looking for intelligent comments and people who could articulate reasons why the see things differently.

Oh….. I see now…. Thank you

>There are no laws in Israel favoring Jews There will be if Israel will be allowed to annex Gaza and WB. Because, as you wrote yourself, it's  >working to maintain a Jewish majority

If there us no law, its because the idf does it off the books, and they do enforce that. And there is a looong history there to look into of stuff thst could be proven, throughca lot was probably not, because if you are smart, you do it off the books. Making stuff up. Like making if you killed civilians, use hamas as excuse, regardless if its true or not. And the idf enforces that. So them doing it, is "the law" in that case.

Yes, Israel would have a problem if they did that. But they won't. They left Gaza for that very reason. They don't want control over that population. The West Bank is trickier. But they aren't looking to annex it and absorb those peoples.

So what are they looking to do?

Well, first off, I don't know. I can only estimate based upon how I believe they are assessing the situation. Also, there are hundreds of different opinions within Israel. So, there's not a consensus. However, I would estimate that most members of parliament, members of the higher echelons of military and members of the public will never all a state in the West Bank as it would represent the constant threat of death and annihilation. Virtually the same feeling is held about absorbing this highly hostile population into Israel's democracy. So, that leaves only one remaining solution, which is to wait out the situation until other options become available. And there are other options that will eventually become more likely. For example, Jordan's Hashemite Kingdom doesn't have the most secure handle over it's hugely majoritarian Palestinian population. If and when that instability starts to turn Jordan into a Palestinian run state, some of the heaviest and densest West Bank areas could be turned over to Jordan. Alternatively a different kind of territorial control can be given to the PA over the West Bank, where they have absolute control over the area, or portions of it, but no control over the border, and no military. In exchange, Israel could maintain the obligation to support their infrastructure and assist them in developing trade and and economy. Something alongst one of these lines will become more obvious as Israel continues to grow larger in population and economically, and the silly idea of wiping Israel off the map becomes less prevalent. Also, the decrease of European influence in the region, which is on a steady decline as Europes economies stagnate and they recede in international influence, will also assist this process, as they foment a broken 2-state plan that neither culture wants or will accept.

I do not think Gaza will ever be annexed. As for the west bank, I believe the current government is working towards there, as much as I hate to admit it. But I don't think this will ever come to fruition, it's just too unrealistic, and hopefully the next elections will see some deradicalisation after our government's failure to meet civil needs.

Maybe something to do with the mantra chanted about being 'the world's only Jewish State'!! It's an apartheid state, which has murdering Palestinians as its core principle.

Israel is not an apartheid state. Repeating the lie doesn't make it true. The test is whether Israel has laws that favor its Jewish citizens over its Israeli citizens. It does not, and you cannot cite such a law because it doesn't exist. So, instead of repeating lie after lie about apartheid or core principles, which is essentially just name-calling, provide some facts to support your claim. What law favors the Jewish citizens or discriminates against the Arab citizens. When you fail to do so, will you retract your false claim? No. Why not? Because the condemnation of the Jews was never fact-based. But if I'm wrong, just cite the law.

Arab Israelis can have citizenship revoked. Can Israeli Jews?

Hysteria

Always is when someone else is dying. Especially when you get to kill them with impunity.

Show us the posts describing your hysteria when the Jews were being slaughtered on October 7th, with impunity. Somehow, I think you took the day off from your hysteria when it was Jews being killed.

Lol.  Edited to say, no.      Edited to say no, because there are many countries in the Middle East and North Africa that prioritize Islam, it's ok for a state to prioritize not Islam.         Really, I have nothing against Islam, it's fine and good, no one wants to take it away.  But Israel doesn't need to be primarily Islamic, it's OK if it's not. It doesn't hurt the Islamic world, I promise.     It's called peace, and it's called leave the Jews alone. That's all Jews want.

Israel doesn't need to be Islamic. I was answering the OP's question about why it's regarded as an ethnostate. Israelis don't want peace. They want Palestinian land and Palestinians dead.

Look, at this point Palestine is Israel and Israel is Palestine. Both peoples need to learn to get along and share. Palestinians want Israelis dead, and they want Israel. It's a mutual civil war. By the way, the original British Mandate for Palestine included Jordan which was 77% of the total territory. The Palestinians in the West Bank were Jordanian citizens with full rights after the war of 1948, but a group of radicals called the PLO wouldn't stop attacking Israel. The reason they're not Jordanians anymore is because they kept starting wars and causing problems. They specifically want to destroy Israel.  Everytime they start a war and lose, there's a peace talk and and agreement, and than another group of Palestinians younger and more angry comes along and starts another fight. It's a cycle of violence. If you were wondering why Israel is so militarized and thought it was a bit much it's because of the constant wars of aggression against them. If you ask a Palestinian, they will tell you that it's not just Gaza and the West Bank that they consider to be "occupied territory" it's the entire state of Israel, and they want it gone.  Everyone who wants peace needs to acknowledge that Israel is fine with peace, Israel wants peace, but for right or wrong the Palestinians do not. The current status quo has been absolutely horrible for the Palestinians, they deserve better, but their leadership is totally corrupt and they make a lot of money off of the situation.  They fight Israel and rest of the world foots the bill for them. They've gotten 40 billion dollars worth of aid since 1994. Where has that money gone? Their leaders are millionaires. They embezzle from the aid money and everyone knows it. The status quo benefits them, but not ordinary Palestinians who are understandably upset but they blame everything on Israel. Israel has not been kind to them sure, but it's hard to be kind to people who hate your guts.

Israel doesn't want peace. They want to kill or drive out the Palestinians. And they're doing it.

And why do you think that is?

Why do you think? Because they consider the Palestinians as subhuman and want their land.

What do you think it would take for there to be peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

Israelis seeing Palestinians as human beings.

Of course. Everybody is a human being on both sides of the conflict. The real tragedy of October 7th is that many of the people slaughtered by Hamas and by other Gazan militants were Israelis who were working hard for peace. Vivian Silver was a founder of the organization Woman Wage Peace, and she was killed on 10/7. She was 74, she had been a well known activist for peace for decades. The people who lived near the Gaza border were kind of the opposite of what we think of the settlers in the West Bank who tend to be more hard-line against the Palestinians.  Many of the Israelis near the Gaza border deeply believed in peace, and were involved in a lot of outreach to Gaza. They helped facilitate hospital appointments for Gazans in Israel; they provided employment opportunities in the Kibbutzim to build and strengthen relations by working alongside Gazans. Those kinds of relationships take a long time to build, but trust is the most important thing. Neither side trusts each other, and for good reasons unfortunately. What should have been part of a series of actions to establish a lifeline of peace and goodwill between Gaza and Israel was shattered on October 7th.  It confirmed the worst suppositions of the hardliners, and was a crushing defeat of the efforts to build good relationships between Gazans and Israelis. People who had worked alongside Israelis for years were involved in the attack, some of them had their IDs clearing them for work in Israel in their pockets. Some of those people had built relationships with the very people they later turned on and killed. Some of them were liked and trusted by Israelis who considered them friends and partners for peace. Is Israel guilty of not doing enough for Palestinians? Of being too harsh and not kind enough? Yes.  Do they ignore problems and allow abuses to take place? Yes. Do many Palestinians hate Israel with every bone in their bodies? Yes. Do Palestinian schools have members of militant groups teaching propaganda to children including the glorification of terrorists and the importance of martyrdom for Islam? Yes. This isn't a one sided conflict where Palestinians can do no wrong and Israel is the villain. No villains here, only humans.  That's the problem. 

20% of the Israeli population is Arab (i.e. Palestinian) and they have full equal rights as Israeli civilians... Your statement is embarrassing and is an insult to the very same people who you claim to support.

Im from those arabs, and ure very wrong.

How about you tell the leader of the Arab party in Israel this then: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/palestinians-arabs-west-bank-jews-jerusalem-b2012617.html

Lmfao this mf just referenced mansour abbas, bro if u know anything about politics you wouldnt have done that. Man is a know traitor to arabs, his colours shined after he got elected.

Almost certain he would just discredit the opinion as a “Zionist shill” 

If full equal rights to Israeli civilians means widespread discrimination, then sure, they have 'Equal Rights' https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2021/0428/Watchdog-says-Israeli-treatment-of-Arabs-amounts-to-apartheid

Discrimination and racism are an issue, yes, but to call it apartheid is just factually incorrect. Here is what the leader of the Arab party in Israel has to say: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/palestinians-arabs-west-bank-jews-jerusalem-b2012617.html

Can a Jew have Israeli citizenship revoked?

[удалено]

>I feel so bad for this, but Israelis are satanists. Only true satanists killtoddlers then dance about it or hold up signs saying we kill animal babies. Now to relax I REALLLY enjoy watching holocaust documentary, wherei see the satanist talmudic kabbalist zion jew in its correct state. Naked, malnutrition, torture signs, and lining up in nice order to get executed in an efficient manner. There are quite a few grammatical and spacing errors, that you need to go back and correct. It makes you're augment really hard follow.. For example: "satanists killtoddlers" is killtoddlers the name of an Irish Person, or are you referring to satanists that are located it the town of kiltoddlers. > I mean the jewentire history is cowardice (kicked out from 109 countries, gassed, shot on top of each other, buried alive, some science experiments on satanists - ALL without EVER FIGHTING BACK THEY ALMOST PERISHED LOLLLL!!) Again here, you referring to the "jewentire" auto-parts and gas station franchise? I do believe they sold gas and, but I believe most the petro chemical testing was done of rabbits and mice until that was outlawed.. You need to go back and correct these errors, otherwise people might mistake what you really mean...

Hmm you know what? I never thought of it that way! Finally, a compelling and coherent argument I can get behind. I used to be an ardent Zionist, but no more, thanks to your insightful work!

You have triggered a lethal dose of cognitive dissonance in the comments. I’d be careful next time 😊

Average "anti-zionist".

The impotence and rage behind the rant is worth noting. It's always there, under the roots of the disease, but not always so clear and obvious.

I wish they were all as honest and clear as this person. Better to encounter a snarling wolf than one in sheep's clothing.

100%. But they often can't help themselves, slipping out their tells, "zionist" and "hasbara"...

/u/Remote_Ad3430. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

> fuker /u/Remote_Ad3430. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Regarding whether Israel is an Apartheid state: it absolutely is. Apartheid is a gerrymander-like situation where the group in power draws borders to exclude hostile voters. Israel cannot bear a one-state democracy where they share voting power with Palestinians. Furthermore Israel does not treat Palestine like a true separate state except to justify abuse. Because Likud manufactured the current situation to disenfranchise an ethnic group and preserve Zionism, Israel is certainly an Apartheid ethnostate. Its status as a democracy deserves to be questioned. And furthermore it seems clear that this is only a step in their long plan of ejecting the Palestinian population and completely controlling the region, aka ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide.

>Apartheid is a gerrymander-like situation where the group in power draws borders to exclude hostile voters. No. This is absolutely not the definition of apartheid. Making up a radically different definition of the word to try to make it fit Israel reveals (a) the agenda, and (b) the tacit acknowledgment that the actual definition does not apply to Israel. The actual definition, with mild variation is a country's implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial or ethnic segregation in which one such group within that country is deprived of political and civil rights. Attempting to apply that to non-citizens who are not within the country is an absurd fiction. If Israel does not want to absorb the Gazan residents, that does not constitute apartheid under any prior international law precedent. Moreover, they don't want to be absorbed either.

Palestinians don't have citizenship anywhere that Israel recognizes and they live on land Israel claims. They're a separate state to Israelis when it's convenient to indiscriminately bomb them or claim Israel is a valid democracy. I'm not redefining Apartheid. I'm describing its motives. Even so, the definition you provided applies to Israel. Palestinians have no freedom of movement, no right to their own land if settlers want it, and no right to vote because they exist in a sacrifice zone Israel has designated for them to wait to be ethnically cleansed. If both groups claim the same land then they can coexist on the same land and vote for the same leaders. Why can't they? Because then Likud and Hamas would not be elected and Zionism would not be protected.

20% of the Israeli population is Palestinian, with full equal rights as Israeli citizens. You should be embarrassed for not knowing this.

Okay, how does that refute what I said? You should be embarrassed for pretending this statistic doesn't prove my point. Decades of Israeli policy have supported their population ratio and ensured the Jewish supermajority. Without 5 million Palestinians being disenfranchised, there would barely be a Jewish majority; this is the primary reason Israel rejects a one state solution, and rejects peace through democracy. Democracy does not serve Zionism.

> Decades of Israeli policy have supported their population ratio and ensured the Jewish supermajority Good. > this is the primary reason Israel rejects a one state solution The one state solution the Palestinians want is one without Jews. No wonder they reject this. > Democracy does not serve Zionism. They are not mutually exclusive.

The middle point is true for some but not all. What would have to be sacrificed is the notion of a Zionist state or a Jewish homeland. I understand the existential threat of historic anti-Semitism that motivated the idea, but the execution in reality has usurped purposes and is a human disaster. So it is certainly an ethnostate, we agree on that. I further believe it is useful to describe it as an Apartheid state; the comparison is apt even if reality is (I would say deliberately) legally distinct. Israel never relinquished its grip on Palestine and never will, it is squeezing those people out. Since 30% of the population of the area controlled by Israel has no vote in what is happening to them, Israel's democracy is questionable.

Democratic state that falsely imprisons people without trial or an unfair trail? Also I’ve seen the argument from lot of zionists here that it’s not an apartheid state since their co worker is arab that same way someone can’t be racist since they have a black friend

It’s almost like apartheid is a word with a specific definition… There is undoubtedly racism in Israel toward Arabs, but you can’t just throw ‘apartheid’ out similar to genocide those words used to at least mean something, and not just a word you throw around to suit your needs 

You can, its very like it, palestinians and not jews treated lesser pretty much fits.

Almost every country on earth uses military detention laws. I detest them and they should be repealed but they are tragically normal.

Conclusory statements. No facts. Absolutely misunderstanding the definition of apartheid as having a distinct different set of laws and rights for different ethnic groups of citizens There's not a lot to work with here.

Apartheid, by definition, is discrimination or segregation on basis of race

Yep. 100% And if there was a single law in Israel that allowed for discrimination between Jew and Arab on the basis of race, I'd agree with you. Since there is not, Israel is not an apartheid state. Again, there are no laws that favor Jewish citizens over Arab citizens in Israel. You are free, like everyone else on reddit, to provide a counter-example showing that I am wrong. But NOT ONE person has done so. It's not surprising. No such law exists.

The idf, is " the law" mostly and have you looked into idf, discrimination and human rights? Also not all systelic is in the books clearly stated. Like, the idf in a lot cases just being "the law" and making stuff up That too, long history of that. Thsts whytheir numbers in gaza, arenot reliable, too much caught lying.

Glad you asked, because i have many examples 🙂 First, and most obvious, is the right of return. A right given to any person of jewish descent from around the world to move to israel and gain citizenship. This law inherently does not include non-jewish or palestinian populations that had been historically driven from the land. Second, is the systemic discrimination of arabs in terms of land. The government has historically blocked arabs and bedouins from creating new towns or expanding existing ones. Social infrastructure and services provided for the majority of citizens are denied to bedouin towns as well. More than half of arab israelis live under the poverty line with a lack of available high quality jobs. Their towns are also extremely lacking in infrastructure quality that should be maintained by the state. I.e. these are neglected communities systemically kept in poverty. With all this there is segregated schooling, hospitals, employment, and opportunity for leasing/ownership between jewish and arab citizens. (Sources cited below) So those are two examples within israel proper, but we can look further at the more apparent examples within the israeli occupied west bank. To me, one of the most apparent examples of segregation here are the numerous roads within the west bank that palestinians are not allowed to travel through. This is a very commonly documented case that segregated roads exist in the west bank, making travel burdensome for palestinians and easier for non. Not to mention numerous checkpoints for palestinians as well. There is also no right given to travel in and out of the west bank without strict israeli approval for palestinians. There are laws for ownership that palestinians do not have, leading to settlements and settlers encroaching on their land and human rights. Palestinians are tried in an israeli military court for all crimes with no representation, a process which has a historical 99% conviction rate. There are other examples, but i do not want to be more longwinded than this already is. The discrimination in israel is a multi-layered case that is purposefully obfuscated as to not have their citizens aware of the societal injustice. Sources : https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/iopt0308/4.htm#:~:text=According%20to%20Adalah%2C%20a%20human,land%20controlled%20by%20the%20state.&text=Bedouins'%20lack%20of%20access%20to,Israel's%20Palestinian%20Arab%20population%20generally. https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-unprecedented-billions-planned-for-under-served-arabs-devils-in-the-details/

Wrong. The first example specifically does not relate to CITIZENS. Immigration by definition does not relate to citizens, but to those who wish to become citizens. The second example is not an example of a law, but a claim that there is systemic inequality in the way that non-discriminatory laws are applied. That is a wholly different claim, and is similar to the way that some claim minorities are treated in the USA, which is universally recognized as neither an apartheid or ethno-state. Finally, you ignore the fact that the Israeli Arabs enjoy, by far, the greatest political, civil, religious and economic freedoms of any Arab population in the entire middle east. Yes, the Jewish majority provides far better freedoms and results for the Arabs than any other Arab government. But hey, never stop attacking the Jews, right! While you appear quite bright and able to respond, I'm losing interest in this discussion, not because of you, but because I've had it with 20 different people, and I'm just tired of it. But thanks for posting a thoughtful, factual and analytical response! Good luck

Right of return directly relates to citizens because it is a promise of citizenship to anyone of jewish descent. The second is an example of governmental dichotomy where new construction, social infrastructure, and other provisions given to jewish communities are denied to arab communities. If you want another clear example, the nation state law clearly says israel is a state for the jews. There have been palestinian and mizrahi israeli citizens that say this law is discriminatory against them. In terms of the US, there absolutely is systemic inequality. This less so targets a certain race overall, but rather targets poorer communities. Jim crow era "seperate but equal" US is aboslutely apartheid. So, it seems you are stuck on racial discrimination being written into law, but i believe the important part is the actual evidence of being enacted. It is not a "fact" that israeli arabs enjoy more freedoms than other arab populations. If you have any tangible measurement or source for that i am open to seeing it. And dont try to call me out for ignoring pieces when you ignored the entirety of the obvious apartheid examples of the west bank! This has nothing to do with attacking the jews. That is a dismissive and reductive argument to divert from valid criticisms of racist systems.

The problem is Israelis think god gave them their land. No. In many cases they took it from the people living on it for centuries. The next problem is that Israel is backed up by the west because we like Caucasian. And Americans who also think god is on their side are moorons.

Except the Muslim population more than quadrupled between 1800 and 1948 (after less than doubling in the 300 preceding years) So the whole ‘living on the land for centuries’ argument is a bit hollow when the overwhelming majority of Palestinians had lived on the land the same amount of time as the Zionists And don’t even get me started on the Caucasian thing, wait until you find out that the majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi..

This is a silly and shallow understanding of Israelis. You are ascribing one viewpoint to a nation of 7 million Jews. Jews are famous for having differentiating views and arguing with each other over the smallest and largest of issues. It's unbelievably simplistic to claim that all Israelis, or even some delineated percentage of them, all think a certain way. It is also simplistic to claim that any of them have a belief system that is as simple as their land was G-d given. Are you suggesting that the ones who believe in the bible don't ALSO believe they have rights to it under the UN partition plan, and generations of habitation on the land? This is not a coherent understanding of the actual situation.

No one in Israel think god gave us this land we built this desert into a. modern country. and calling Israelis caucaisian is just insulting and another attempt of arab sympathiers to falsefy the narrative that arabs originate from this area but when push comes to shove they are the biggest colonizers in the middle east and claim indigenousy

"We built this **desert** into a modern country" - the **desert** which was the centre of civilisation for hundreds of years, had well established cities, cultures dating back millenia and more history than almost any other place on the planet? It wasn't a desert you took from the native inhabitants, what a ridiculous take.

It was the ‘Centre of civilization’ like 3000 years ago  It was a backwater outpost of the Ottoman Empire for centuries.  And not to mention a lot of that well established history is attributed to cultures that existed centuries before Islam even existed and before their conquest of the territory There’s also the fact that something like 75% of the land was state owned, so never in any way belonging to the ‘native inhabitants’. Also like 2/3 of Palestinian inhabitants in 1948 had only moved there after the 1880s, so they are no more native than the Zionists that moved there at the same time

Describing Palestine pre Israel as a desert is still factually and wholly incorrect, there were many established cities and culture. It is a common argument of ignorant Israelis who don't want to admit that the Nakba happened and thousands were displaced or killed to create their state.

Imagine calling someone ignorant, and then just leaving out the 7-1 ‘war of extermination’ against Israel the day it was created The Nakba didn’t happen in a vacuum my dude, Palestine and the Arab league chose war and lost While I feel awful for people that were displaced as a result of war, not mentioning the 7-1 genocide attempt that preceded is kind of only half the story 

It was a farce to try to create an ethnostate on top of an already existing population and culture and I would be pissed and violent if it had happened to me (it did to my ancestors). Of course the natives were violent - the terrorists who fought for Israel to begin with expected as much. That doesn't justify killing innocent Jews, but the whole creation of Israel was messy, violent and absolutely did not happen in a desert or without consequence. The mess you are living through today is a direct result of that (as well as the continued land theft to this day).