Mother Jones - Comments for "U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Passes Congress"

Posting

We welcome you to http://www.impexonweb.com. This is this global B2B gateway to promote business online. Suitable for all large, small and medium business groups. www.impexonweb.com a great B2B platform which is providing the suitable platform to make relations between buyer and seller. At last, www.impexonweb.com contains huge database of all business categories for exporters, manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, and distributors etc. www.impexonweb.com is growing day by day and list your company free of list, contact buyers and sellers free of cost. So visit once www.impexonweb.com. Rohit Khanna http://www.impexonweb.com Team Member

Here is a link to another short explanation re: legal rights vis-a-vis Israel: http://www.jewishdesmoines.org/page.aspx?id=135399

My position is slightly different. When Jordan acquired 4/5ths of Palestine, the remaining 1/5th was therefore legally provisioned as the Jewish National Homeland (as previously mandated). This included the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, Israel would rather prefer NOT to own these tracts of land because doing so would require that they recognize (local) Arab rights of citizenship in Israel. So, contrary to oft repeated claims, Israel would be overjoyed if the Arabs would declare their own nation and move on with building a life and future for themselves.

King-Crane:
Obviously, there were a variety of different and opposing viewpoints on the creation of a Jewish National Homeland anywhere. You mention one such report. I again direct your attention to the fact that the 90% number you seem to be centered on is irrelevant--for reasons previously mentioned. Of course the local (non-Jewish) inhabitants of Palestine were opposed to the formation of a Jewish Nation. At the time, many Jews (worldwide) shared this opinion for a variety of reasons--including religious prohibitions. The "King-Crane" report is of "minimal importance". Here is why:
a) It was not legally binding one anyone. It certainly was not legally binding on the title-holders of Palestine, namely the Turkish.
b) What was legally binding was a variety of international treaties and world tribunal documents. This included the Treaties of Versailles and San Remo, as executed by the Turkish-Ottomans as a condition to the end of WW1. It included the Charter of the League of Nations which ratified the British Lord Balfoure Resolution on the same subject. While the USA was not a member of the League of Nations, the US Congress passed a resolution supporting the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine and guess who? Woodrow Wilson signed it into law a few years after the King-Crane report. If you would like a scholarly exploration of the legal justification for a Jewish National Homeland, please refer to: http://english.katif.net/index.php?id=1824&sub=2 I do NOT agree with all the authors claims, especially his claim that Israel was supposed to include ALL of pre-WW1 "Palestine". But since we all know that the Hebrews ultimately got less then 1/5th of that turf, his bold claim in that regard is somewhat moot.
You wrote:
"If they are given Palestine, "Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants."
The exact wording of the above statement is SO IMPORTANT to the core of this discussion. Since you posted it, please now try not to disregard it.
"If they are given Palestine . . . " This refers to the ENTIRETY of 45,000-sq miles of Palestine (as it existed at the time of the report). By contrast, the Balfore Resolution and subsequent ratifications of same refer to "A Jewish National Homeland IN Palestine". I repeat: "IN Palestine." So the compromise has been made and the international law had been codified with this compromise included.
You wrote:
"In 1919, even after 30 years of intensive Jewish emigration into Palestine . . . " The foregoing is completely inaccurate. The Travel Guide to Palestine and Syria written by Karl Baedeker in 1907 reported that Jews were legally barred from moving into or buying land in Palestine. This point, like most points on this topic require further explanation. Jews had been legally barred from moving into Palestine for about 1,750 out of the previous 1,900 years and all of the previous 400 years under Turkish rule. This of course created an impediment for them and was one of the many reasons why certain Jews were objectionable to the Zionist goals. They simply did not want to start any trouble. However, in spite of the oppressive Turkish rules against Jewish immigration into Palestine, some Jews managed their way in, through a variety of tactics, mainly by bribing local officials. Thus, when the Balfoure Declaration was codified into world law, part of its aim was to right this historical wrong and only then was the legal ban on Jewish immigration into Palestine officially lifted.
You have really not addressed any of my statements directly and so this is sort of like a softball game where you continue to be the batter-up and I am stuck being the pitcher. But I am used to that in dealing with opponents of Israel. They are typically obsessed with their own gravity-fields and don't particularly care that their arguments are revealed as weak (or flat-out erroneous). To them, this is and will always be a discussion about Jewish crimes.
"The will of the people was clear"
This is possibly the most inane statement you have made. What "will of what people"? They had no democracy to protect. Palestine at the time had been controlled globally by the Turkish sultans and locally by a variety of wealthy war-lords--who were in direct control of their populations, many of whom were tenant farmers or indentured servants and did whatever their masters wanted. The "Grand-Mufti" of Jerusalem (al Husseini) was just such a person--who was part of a well established clan and held vast tracts of land. Of course these Arab war-lords were opposed to a Jewish controlled nation or any democracy for that matter. Why would anyone expect otherwise? But certain of the Grand Mufti's speeches are very revealing on this topic. Though he tried, he could NOT convince his counterpart potentates and war-lords in the region to oppose a Jewish Nation centered around Jerusalem. So he concocted a worst-case scenario that became his canned speech. Namely, he would warn the regional Arabs that "The Jews would not be happy with just Palestine but would later expand to take over all of the Arabian peninsula". Once again, the exact wording is critical. " . . just Palestine . . " He was (unwittingly) acknowledging that Palestine was not such an unreasonable demand (even all 45,000-sq miles). But his warning re then entirety of Arabia got the attention of the other kings and war-lords, and also got the attention of the Muslim religious authorities. It was this treat which supported the Muslim Brotherhood's goals (in Egypt) to violently oppose any Jewish nation of any size.
I will basically wrap it up here because the rest of your posing continues to obsess on this non legally binding King-Crane Commission report which I have already dispensed with on general principle as well as its specifics. In closing: The Jewish Claim to establish independence in 1/5th of historical Palestine is NOT based solely on Biblical rights. It is based on International law as well as equity and fairness. In fact, if you confer with Qur'an 17:104, one translation states: "And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel, dwell securely in the Promised Land . . . ". The Hebrew scriptures (by contrast) prohibit the Jews return to the Promised Land until the "Messiah" returns (which has not yet occurred according to Jewish tradition). This is the prime reason why, in 1865, when the chief rabbi of the Balkans (Yuhuda Alkali) published a rabbinical document calling for the reestablishment of the Jewish nation in Palestine, it was roundly rejected by the other rabbinical leaders of the world. Alkali was no "Zionist" and Hertzl was one Jewish guy with a grand plan--that was not successful. Israel was by contrast the result of a variety of world treaty documents and binding laws. The original League of Nations language stated that nothing shall be done to prejudice the rights of non-Jews living . . . ". This refers to those already living there as of the date of the mandate. It does not afford the same protection to non-Jews who emigrated after the document was codified, which amounts to hundreds of thousands of Arabs. Why? Because they were never intended to emigrate. The Jews were the intended immigrants. Please get your facts strait. Thank you.

Jay:
I don't know how much you know about Muslim history or the religion itself. As you know, I did not author the article you are now debating and I mentioned that I was not totally in agreement with it. I have read the Qur'an door-to-door and can assure you of one thing: most Muslims do not fully understand it. They rely on their local clerics to answer day-to-day questions and guess what, many of the clerics themselves either do not understand it or, they insert meaning into it which they themselves know does not really exist. Thirdly, (very important) the scripture is self-contradicting on many levels. Add to that the fact that there are quite many disparate translations and interpretations and the bottom-line result is that the religion is championed by peaceful followers as well as the most violent jihadists. Each group or sect generally ignores the other--as if it does not exist or if it does exist, does not count for much anyway. As recently highlighted on CNN's special on Osama Bin Laden, there were several turning-points in his spiritual development. As a teenager, he was peaceful and quiet and after his best friend had confronted a bully, Bin Laden was reported to have complained that he would have preferred a peaceful solution. Later in life, he came under the tutelage of a radical Palestinian-Arab Cleric named Aziz, who convinced him that the love of God required that Muslims rise--up and not only respond to violence against them but essentially use pre-emptive tactics. He later split with this cleric because he was willing to fight against fellow Muslims, something that Aziz forbad. The next step in his transformation is when Sheikh Abdul Rhaman convinced him that although the Qur'an specifically prohibits harm against innocent civilians, that this rule could be overlooked if the civilians being killed were targeted in retaliation for harm directed against Muslim civilians. Thus ushered in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
What makes Islam somewhat unique and noteworthy from the other two so called monotheistic religions is that Jews do not proselytize and Christians are (supposed to be) pre-occupied with peace. Jesus himself was part of a totally non-violent sect, the priests of which could not even touch a knife. By contrast, the Islamic Prophet Mohammed was a warrior cleric and the symbol of Islam as displayed in many national flags is the sword. Islam itself means surrender to the will of God. Look at the names of the various Islamic movements: Fatah = conquest by virtue of Islamic Jihad. Hezbollah = army of God.
Getting back to the core of your questions: Most of the Muslims now living in France have immigrated within the past 25 years. Literally millions of Muslims have recently been welcomed with open arms in dozens of countries, most in the EU. France is not the only example. After speaking with a group from Stockholm, they commented that they can not walk the streets at night due to gangs, mainly Muslim émigrés. The population of Sweden was totally shocked and dismayed when the Muslim population they invited refused to adopt any Swedish practices or traditions. They (mostly) did not learn Swedish, adopt any Swedish customs, do not wear local clothing, eat local cuisine and pro-actively keep to themselves. The question was: "Why did they want to come here? We thought they liked us!" The answer is that assimilation is not their goal. Their goal is to assimilate the other population and being a minority percentage is only a temporal impediment. While their relative population is growing due to averages of 5 or more children per (young) couple, they use intimidation tactics and pitch regular fits--due to their endless claims of being persecuted.
When Chirac of France hosted a peace meeting with Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak, U.S. Sec. of State M. Allbright and Yasser Arafat, during a moment alone with Barak, Chriac told him the following:
"We had our own encounters with terrorism. We had to give into their demands. Now we have no more terrorism. Why don't you just give them what they want?"
Barak answered: "Yes, but they did not demand that you give up Paris. The Palestinians are demanding we give up Jerusalem. To us this is like Paris is to you."
PS> Now the French have all but lost Paris and they also have terrorism back again. This was the ultimate reason why they elected a right-wing P.M. Germany, another traditional Muslim sympathizing Euro nation did essentially the same with its most recent selection of P.M. (Angela Merkel). In both cases the quantum shifting in the body-politic was due to grievances directed against immigrants who the locals feel have abused their privileges and essentially, busted their comps. Many of these immigrants are Muslims.

Trollstein, you are so mistaken.
When WW-I ended, no one could reconcile the claims of Arabs, Zionists, British & French so, in 1919, Woodrow Wilson "dispatched the King-Crane Commission to the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire to ascertain the wishes of their inhabitants regarding the postwar settlement of their territories." [Britannica]
The King-Crane report stated:
90% of Palestine's inhabitants were non Jewish & did NOT want a Jewish state in Palestine;
If they are given Palestine, "Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants."
The King-Crane Commission said that a Jewish state in Palestine would violate the Palestinian Arabs' right to self-determination. They recommended that Zionists respect the wishes of Palestine's inhabitants & find another place to plant the Jewish state.
The Zionists were furious! They didn't want democracy; they didn't give a damn about "the will of the people." The Zionists wanted Palestine, no matter what they had to do to get it. So they simply "rewrote" the history of the conflict. The usual versions of Israel's history either don't mention The King-Crane Commission Report or they minimize its importance. Anyone who believes in Democracy must consider the King-Crane Commission's official report—which even now can be documented by any interested party —irrefutable proof that:
In 1919, even after 30 years of intensive Jewish emigration into Palestine (inspired by Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State, published in 1898), 90% of Palestine's inhabitants were non-Jewish and did not want a Jewish state in Palestine. The will of the people was clear
The Zionists knew they were acting against the will of the people.
The Zionists knowingly subverted Democracy.
The Government of the United States confirmed the legitimacy of the claim that Palestinians make today.

Some Quotes from the Commission's Report
"a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State."
"nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
"In his address of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great 'ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting': 'The settlement of every question, whether of territory or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned, and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for their own exterior influence or mastery."
"If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done to Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine—nearly nine-tenths of the whole—are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principles just quoted, and of the peoples' rights, though it kept within the forms of the law."
"No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms."
"That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of injustice of the 'Zionist program."
"The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.''
"the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered."
Among other things, the indigenous Arab population—the people who actually lived in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.—had been promised control over their own countries at a price: IF they helped the Allies overthrow the Turkish Army that occupied their land.
They did.
Not only did the Zionists have no connection to Palestine for the last 2000 years, they didn't participate in the fight to take it back from the Ottoman Turks—World War I.
The Jewish claim on Palestine, when all the crap is removed, boils down to this: "We haven't lived here for two thousand years but God gave us this land so you have a moral obligation to move out of your home and off the land your family has owned for hundreds of years and give it to us.

Trollstein, I have two comments to make on the clip you posted. Its off topic but I'm posting it just in case anyone is interested in such a discussion.

1.) I disagree with the statement with regards to China. The Uighur (spelling?) population has been waging a low-level resistance against the Chinese government. They are primarily Muslim and ethnically different from the ruling Han majority, being ethnically closer to the Turkemn. If the Chinese media wasn't so controlled, we might hear about more violence (conjecture obviously).

2.) With regards to France, how much of the recent violence was more due to poverty and feeling discriminated against due to their being Muslim AND African in origin? I mean, all these people leave their shitholes for a better shithole with running water that's not classified as a shanty-town and end up living in delapidated ghettos. That creates tension and a crazy, firebrand cleric can take advantage of that. Granted, I don't believe poverty is the reason for all of the world's ills because some of the biggest thieves are rich, old, white men (I mean, come on, poor people don't have the access to the resources a wall street banker or ruthless ceo does and therefore don't have the opportunity to steal on the scale as someone like Ken Lay).

Its almost as if the article is implying there is a driving force behend Islam that leads to violence and wiping the influences of anything Islamic. I don't necessarily buy that kind of interpretation.

Epstein:
I am factually quite correct. If you wish to debate my conclusions, you will need more then a selection of bumper-stickers (which is all you have shown thus far).
Your sole citation re: "King-Crane" is misplaced, misleading and rhetorical. Firstly, the "Palestine" being referenced is the 45,000-sq. mile area which today includes Jordan. The land which is presently being disputed (in 2008) is 8,000-sq. miles (1/5th) and exclusive of Jordan. Given that geography, it is no longer momentous that 90% of pre WW1 "Palestine" consisted of non-Jews. That 90% has their own nation. Its called Jordan and Jews are not included. As per the Jordanian Citizenship Laws of 1967, all Muslims and Christians acquired when Jordan annexed its 4/5ths of Palestine were granted Jordanian citizenship--except that Jews were solely excluded. Now, if you are reasonable (maybe or maybe not) you will say OK, if the accurate split is 90% / 10% and Jordan equals 4/5ths versus Israel = 1/5th, that is still twice the fair amount of land for the Jews. (But I don't think you will go that far because I do not suspect that you are even trying to learn or be intrinsically fair). But lets be optimistic and say that such is your next point: Here is the other part of the equation: The Jewish National Homeland was not intended to simply be home to the Jewish residents of (then) Palestine. Minimally, it was designed to be home to all the Jews of the Middle East. The legal creation of the Jewish National Home after WW1 was done in conjunction to the liberation of all the Arab populations in the region from Turkish-Ottoman rule (Turks are not Arabs). The theory being that Jews who had been second-class citizens as Turkish subjects would surely become third-class citizens under Arab rule. The "work-around" was to provide for Jewish emancipation and independence but there was only one method for that to be possible. The Jews of Iraq and Yemen and Syria and elsewhere were to migrate to the newly established Jewish National Homeland. So the 90% / 10% ratio you reference fails under that analysis as well. Lastly, Israel is not 100% Jewish, while Jordan is 100% non-Jewish. There are a few hundred Jewish families scattered around the mid-east and a few hundred more remaining inside Syria but no significant numbers of Jews remain in Mid East nations. In fact, the most recent Iraqi constitution called for the "right-of-return" for all Iraqi refugees but specifically excludes Jews.
If you would like to know what could go wrong under a non-Jewish Israel, you need to look no further then across the border to Lebanon.
Lebanon's constitution was created as a compromise with Arab and Muslim leaders and called for ruling power to always be in the hands of Christians. Over the past century, this provision has been eroded and now, they remain on the verge of (another) civil war literally every day the sun rises.
Here is a clip from another web site. I do not agree with it entirely but I think its information is practical to this discussion:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For e xample, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses spare the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century. ~Posted July 18, 2008 by Dr. Peter Hammond
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
{end of quote}
Thus, it is not that important if Arabs and Christians living in Israel appreciate the Jewish star on their flags. For them, it could be a symbol of prosperity--if they would only permit it. With Jews being specifically excluded from these other countries, and not even permitted visas into the Saudi Kingdom (without some special reason) and taking their lives into their hands by visiting other Muslim nations such as Pakistan (e.g. Daniel Pearl) the non-Jews of Israel can survive and indeed thrive with full human rights (something they lack in most other Muslim run venues) knowing that Israel was created as a REFUGE for an historically persecuted population. Its that simple.

You are incorrect Trollstein. The U.S. King-Crane (1919)report stated: 90% of Palestine's inhabitants were non Jewish & did NOT want a Jewish state in Palestine.
Israeli Arab group Adalah proposed a new 'multi-cultural' constitution.
Arab Knesset members will be able to bring about the disqualification of bills that impinge on the rights of Arabs, and classifies the State of Israel as a "bilingual and multicultural" country rather than a Jewish state. Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by their flag having a Jewish star in it. Would not most American Jews (among others) be troubled if the U.S. flag had a Christian cross on it? Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by their national anthem referring to the land, as the land of the Jews. Consider that he or she may honestly feel discriminated against because, legal equality aside, he or she IS discriminated against. Israeli-Arabs will want full equality in Israel. Any minority citizen of any State wants no less. It sounds fair. Why do so many Israelis, Jews, and supporters of Israel look for a dark hiding place when confronted with the truth of discrimination? I think it is because Jews understand what it is to be discriminated against, and have a deep desire that discrimination against all people throughout the planet be eliminated. Discrimination against Arab-Israelis is not fair. As supporters of Israel, it is necessary to accept and admit, without nuance, that some discrimination against Arab-Israelis is 100% true. Let us not be racists and stop discrimination at home(Israel). Support the multi-cultural constitution.

LOL... What have you been smoking pal? China is just a repressed capitalist society... kinda where we are headed (you know...loss of rights, gun control, cameras on every corner watching us, etc...).

The statement made was quite valid... China is out to control steel, oil and America's T Bills... and they love a Big Mac! Is that raciest? I think not... sad or funny, depending upon your point of view...but not raciest. You on the other hand... lol

Wong, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that China's unprecedented prosperity has been due to capatalistic greed! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Chairman Mao's economic policies were nothing but total failure that resulted in the deaths of millions of piss-poor peasants! You know what's funny Wong? My university has made a concerted effort at breaking the monopoly white people have on the undergraduate demographics. This year alone, they increased the number of non-whites to 25% of the incoming class. Many of them are asians, including Chinese. And guess what, they are engaging in the most base of capatilistic practices: dressing like metrosexual, emasculated douchebags. Yes, they dress in nice clothes, cut their hair like the idiot untalented bands on MTv, spike their hair, etc. You see, capatilism appeals to humanity in all of us. Why do you think countries westernize so quickly? Because people love western culture.

And are you going to tell me you don't make fun of white people? Come on, you know you do. You can make Asian white people jokes here. We're all adults here.

Absolutely "Wong". You are racist because you make fun of the way we speak, "Wong" for wrong. India is south Asian(or "sub"means'inferior to' as you say) and they are Cauc-Asian like the Iranians. Everybody knows when we say "Asia", it is Chinese(sometimes Japanese).

Jay:
Thanks brother.
I rarely have the luxury of ending a conversation on a happy note.

a typical racist comment against Asian people

Oh.
India is no longer part of Asia? The Sub-Continent is no longer attached to the Continent?

Somebody needs to redraw the map. And maybe these guys should be informed:
geography.about.com/library/maps/blrasia.htm

Does Lucy Lu write your posts for you? Your anti-American content seems very similar.
Or is she your twin sister, perhaps? Alter-Ego?

Andy Rebeiro, said "Both India and the US realize that the true rival in the future will be China." This is a typical racist comment against Asian people(Chinese) by round eyed people. Who appointed the USA to rule the world? China is raising. The USA is falling(just look at the stock market) because you are greedy capitalists. The future is Asia(e.g. China). Our philosophy is better than your greedy capitalist society.

Oh come on Trollstein, I've seen threads where you've held off 10 attackers like an Aikido practicioner, fighting back with 1000-word midterm essays! Can't you afford me the same?!?!?! Haha, just kidding. That's cool, I made my point and I don't want to beat a dead horse.

What is this rigorous definition of Jew-haters?