Jordan is Palestine

Absolutely correct, Ronstar.
The Apartheid regime tried to emulate the Israelis when they created Bantustans within South African territory, designated to be black sovereign countries.

The Israelis were not nearly as subtle. They simply chased the unwanted into neighbouring states. According to Benny Morris only 12 of the 400+ Palestinian settlements that were depopulated in 1949-1950 were as a result of Arab High Command orders.

 

BUNKO (another one) you would not know Apartheid if it fell like a ton of bricks on your big toe.

 

this is 100% false.

Jordan is only around 30% Palestinian, as per the UNRWA and the CIA Factbook.

 

Was that meant to be a remotely intellectual response from someone who reads books?

FAILED!!!

 

transfering Palestinian political rights, or the Palestinians themselves, to Jordan, would indeed be Apartheid.

only Fascists would contemplate such a plan.

 

Another BUNKO from the chief MYTH MAKER
Benny Morris has long RECANTED all of that and the funny part of all that is that you are aware of this...

BENNY MORRIS Wrote the following
April 17, 2004
To the Editor:
Re "An Israeli Who's Got Everybody Outraged," by Jonathan D. Tepperman (Arts & Ideas, April 17), about my views on Israel's past and present:
To expel armed thugs who are trying to murder you in your home is not a war crime. And this is ultimately what happened to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who tried to destroy Israel in 1948. But massacre and rape are crimes, and their perpetrators are to be reviled.
Israel indeed has "a moral obligation" to compromise. I continue to oppose the settlements and believe that a two-state solution is just and practical. But I fear that the Palestinians want all of Palestine. That is why they rejected the Clinton-Barak proposals in 2000 as they did the Peel Commission proposals in 1937 and the United Nations partition resolution in 1947 and insist on the refugees' "right of return" to Israel, which would spell instant death for the Jewish state.
The Middle East peace process did not just "collapse," as Mr. Tepperman would have it; it was bombed and bludgeoned and knifed to death by Yasir Arafat.
BENNY MORRIS
Jerusalem, April 17, 2004


Benny Morris: Peace? No chance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,653417,00.html

(Benny Morris the inveterate darling of the PLO historian revisionists has made a complete "U-Turn".)

Benny Morris was the radical Israeli historian who forced his country to
confront its role in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians. Later he was jailed for refusing to do military service in the
West Bank. But now he has changed his tune. As the cycle of violence in the
Middle East intensifies, he launches a vicious attack on the 'inveterate
liar' Yasser Arafat - and explains why he believes a peaceful coexistence is
impossible

Thursday February 21, 2002 The Guardian

The rumor that I have undergone a brain transplant is (as far as I can
remember) unfounded - or at least premature. But my thinking about the
current Middle East crisis and its protagonists has in fact radically
changed during the past two years. I imagine that I feel a bit like one of
those western fellow travelers rudely awakened by the trundle of Russian
tanks crashing through Budapest in 1956.
Back in 1993, when I began work on Righteous Victims, a revisionist history
of the Zionist-Arab conflict from 1881 until the present, I was cautiously
optimistic about the prospects for Middle East peace. I was never a wild
optimist; and my gradual study during the mid-1990s of the pre-1948 history
of Palestinian-Zionist relations brought home to me the depth and breadth of
the problems and antagonisms. But at least the Israelis and Palestinians
were talking peace; had agreed to mutual recognition; and had signed the
Oslo agreement, a first step that promised gradual Israeli withdrawal from
the occupied territories, the emergence of a Palestinian state, and a peace
treaty between the two peoples. The Palestinians appeared to have given up
their decades-old dream and objective of destroying and supplanting the
Jewish state, and the Israelis had given up their dream of a "Greater
Israel", stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river. And, given
the centrality of Palestinian-Israeli relations in the Arab-Israeli
conflict, a final, comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and all of
its Arab neighbors seemed within reach.

But by the time I had completed the book, my restrained optimism had given
way to grave doubts - and within a year had crumbled into a cosmic
pessimism. One reason was the Syrians' rejection of the deal offered by the
Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres in 1993-96 and Ehud Barak in
1999-2000, involving Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange
for a full-fledged bilateral peace treaty. What appears to have stayed the
hands of President Hafez Assad and subsequently his son and successor,
Bashar Assad, was not quibbles about a few hundred yards here or there but a
basic refusal to make peace with the Jewish state. What counted, in the end,
was the presence, on a wall in the Assads' office, of a portrait of Saladin,
the legendary 12th-century Kurdish Muslim warrior who had beaten the
crusaders, to whom the Arabs often compared the Zionists. I can see the
father, on his deathbed, telling his son: "Whatever you do, don't make peace
with the Jews; like the crusaders, they too will vanish."

But my main reason, around which my pessimism gathered and crystallized, was
the figure of Yasser Arafat, who has led the Palestinian national movement
since the late 1960s and, by virtue of the Oslo accords, governs the cities
of the West Bank (Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm and
Qalqilya) and their environs, and the bulk of the Gaza Strip. Arafat is the
symbol of the movement, accurately reflecting his people's miseries and
collective aspirations. Unfortunately, he has proven himself a worthy
successor to Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, who led
the Palestinians during the 1930s into their (abortive) rebellion against
the British mandate government and during the 1940s into their (again
abortive) attempt to prevent the emergence of the Jewish state in 1948,
resulting in their catastrophic defeat and the creation of the Palestinian
refugee problem. Husseini had been implacable and incompetent (a dangerous
mix) - but also a trickster and liar. Nobody had trusted him, neither his
Arab colleagues nor the British nor the Zionists. Above all, Husseini had
embodied rejectionism - a rejection of any compromise with the Zionist
movement. He had rejected two international proposals to partition the
country into Jewish and Arab polities, by the British Peel commission in
1937 and by the UN general assembly in November 1947. In between, he spent
the war years (1941-45) in Berlin, working for the Nazi foreign ministry and
recruiting Bosnian Muslims for the Wehrmacht.

Abba Eban, Israel's legendary foreign minister, once quipped that the
Palestinians had never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But no
one can fault them for consistency. After Husseini came Arafat, another
implacable nationalist and inveterate liar, trusted by no Arab, Israeli or
American leader (though there appear to be many Europeans who are taken in).
In 1978-79, he failed to join the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David framework,
which might have led to Palestinian statehood a decade ago. In 2000, turning
his back on the Oslo process, Arafat rejected yet another historic
compromise, that offered by Barak at Camp David in July and subsequently
improved upon in President Bill Clinton's proposals (endorsed by Barak) in
December. Instead, the Palestinians, in September, resorted to arms and
launched the current mini-war or intifada, which has so far resulted in some
790 Arab and 270 Israeli deaths, and a deepening of hatred on both sides to
the point that the idea of a territorial-political compromise seems to be a
pipe dream.

Palestinians and their sympathizers have blamed the Israelis and Clinton for
what happened: the daily humiliations and restrictions of the continuing
Israeli semi-occupation; the wily but transparent Binyamin Netanyahu's
foot-dragging during 1996-99; Barak's continued expansion of the settlements
in the occupied territories and his standoffish manner toward Arafat; and
Clinton's insistence on summoning the Camp David meeting despite Palestinian
protestations that they were not quite ready. But all this is really and
truly beside the point: Barak, a sincere and courageous leader, offered
Arafat a reasonable peace agreement that included Israeli withdrawal from
85-91% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip; the uprooting of most of
the settlements; Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods of
East Jerusalem; and the establishment of a Palestinian state. As to the
Temple Mount (Haram ash-Sharif) in Jerusalem's Old City, Barak proposed
Israeli-Palestinian condominium or UN security council control or "divine
sovereignty" with actual Arab control. Regarding the Palestinian refugees,
Barak offered a token return to Israel and massive financial compensation to
facilitate their rehabilitation in the Arab states and the Palestinian
state-to-be.

Arafat rejected the offer, insisting on 100% Israeli withdrawal from the
territories, sole Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and the
refugees' "right of return" to Israel proper. Instead of continuing to
negotiate, the Palestinians - with the agile Arafat both riding the tiger
and pulling the strings behind the scenes - launched the intifada. Clinton
(and Barak) responded by upping the ante to 94-96% of the West Bank (with
some territorial compensation from Israel proper) and sovereignty over the
surface area of the Temple Mount, with some sort of Israeli control
regarding the area below ground, where the Palestinians have recently
carried out excavation work without proper archaeological supervision.
Again, the Palestinians rejected the proposals, insisting on sole
Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount (surely an unjust demand:
after all, the Temple Mount and the temples' remains at its core are the
most important historical and religious symbol and site of the Jewish
people. It is worth mentioning that "Jerusalem" or its Arab variants do not
even appear once in the Koran).

Since these rejections - which led directly to Barak's defeat and hardliner
Ariel Sharon's election as prime minister - the Israelis and Palestinians
have been at each other's throats, and the semi-occupation has continued.
The intifada is a strange, sad sort of war, with the underdog, who rejected
peace, simultaneously in the role of aggressor and, when the western TV
cameras are on, victim. The semi-occupier, with his giant but largely
useless army, merely responds, usually with great restraint, given the moral
and international political shackles under which he labours. And he loses on
CNN because F-16s bombing empty police buildings appear far more savage than
Palestinian suicide bombers who take out 10 or 20 Israeli civilians at a go.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has emerged as a virtual kingdom of
mendacity, where every official, from President Arafat down, spends his days
lying to a succession of western journalists. The reporters routinely give
the lies credence equal to or greater than what they hear from straight, or
far less mendacious, Israeli officials. One day Arafat charges that the
Israel Defence Forces (IDF) uses uranium-tipped shells against Palestinian
civilians. The next day it's poison gas. Then, for lack of independent
corroboration, the charges simply vanish - and the Palestinians go on to the
next lie, again garnering headlines in western and Arab newspapers.

Daily, Palestinian officials bewail Israeli "massacres" and "bombings" of
Palestinian civilians - when in fact there have been no massacres and the
bombings have invariably been directed at empty PA buildings. The only
civilians deliberately targeted and killed in large numbers, indeed
massacred, are Israeli - by Palestinian suicide bombers. In response, the
army and Shin Bet (the Israeli security service) have tried to hit the
guilty with "targeted killings" of bomb-makers, terrorists and their
dispatchers, to me an eminently moral form of reprisal, deterrence and
prevention: these are (barbaric) "soldiers" in a mini-war and, as such,
legitimate military targets. Would the critics prefer Israel to respond in
kind to a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv? Palestinian leaders routinely laud
the suicide bombers as national heroes. In a recent spate of articles,
Palestinian journalists, politicians and clerics praised Wafa Idris, a
female suicide bomber who detonated her device in Jerusalem's main Jaffa
Street, killing an 81-year-old man and injuring about 100. A controversy
ensued - not over the morality or political efficacy of the deed but about
whether Islam allows women to play such a role.

Instead of being informed, accurately, about the Israeli peace offers, the
Palestinians have been subjected to a nonstop barrage of anti-Israeli
incitement and lies in the PA-controlled media. Arafat has honed the
practice of saying one thing to western audiences and quite another to his
own Palestinian constituency to a fine art. Lately, with Arab audiences, he
has begun to use the term "the Zionist army" (for the IDF), a throwback to
the 1950s and 1960s when Arab leaders routinely spoke of "the Zionist
entity" instead of saying "Israel", which, they felt, implied some form of
recognition of the Jewish state and its legitimacy.

At the end of the day, this question of legitimacy - seemingly put to rest
by the Israeli-Egyptian and Israeli-Jordanian peace treaties - is at the
root of current Israeli despair and my own "conversion". For decades,
Israeli leaders - notably Golda Meir in 1969 - denied the existence of a
"Palestinian people" and the legitimacy of Palestinian aspirations for
sovereignty. But during the 1930s and 1940s, the Zionist movement agreed to
give up its dream of a "Greater Israel" and to divide Palestine with the
Arabs. During the 1990s, the movement went further - agreeing to partition
and recognizing the existence of the Palestinian people as its partner in
partition.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has
denied the Zionist movement any legitimacy and stuck fast to the vision of a
"Greater Palestine", meaning a Muslim-Arab-populated and Arab-controlled
state in all of Palestine, perhaps with some Jews being allowed to stay on
as a religious minority. In 1988-93, in a brief flicker on the graph, Arafat
and the Palestine Liberation Organization seemed to have acquiesced in the
idea of a compromise. But since 2000 the dominant vision of a "Greater
Palestine" has surged back to the fore (and one wonders whether the pacific
asseverations of 1988-1993 were not merely diplomatic camouflage).

The Palestinian leadership, and with them most Palestinians, deny Israel's
right to exist, deny that Zionism was/is a just enterprise. (I have yet to
see even a peace-minded Palestinian leader, as Sari Nusseibeh seems to be,
stand up and say: "Zionism is a legitimate national liberation movement,
like our own. And the Jews have a just claim to Palestine, like we do.")
Israel may exist, and be too powerful, at present, to destroy; one may
recognize its reality. But this is not to endow it with legitimacy. Hence
Arafat's repeated denial in recent months of any connection between the
Jewish people and the Temple Mount, and, by extension, between the Jewish
people and the land of Israel/Palestine. "What Temple?" he asks. The Jews
are simply robbers who came from Europe and decided, for some unfathomable
reason, to steal Palestine and displace the Palestinians. He refuses to
recognize the history and reality of the 3,000-year-old Jewish connection to
the land of Israel.

On some symbolic plane, the Temple Mount is a crucial issue. But more
practically, the real issue, the real litmus test of Palestinian intentions,
is the fate of the refugees, some 3.5-4m strong, encompassing those who fled
or were driven out during the 1948 war and were never allowed back to their
homes in Israel, as well as their descendants.

I spent the mid-1980s investigating what led to the creation of the refugee
problem, publishing The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949
in 1988. My conclusion, which angered many Israelis and undermined Zionist
historiography, was that most of the refugees were a product of Zionist
military action and, in smaller measure, of Israeli expulsion orders and
Arab local leaders' urgings or orders to move out. Critics of Israel
subsequently latched on to those findings that highlighted Israeli
responsibility while ignoring the fact that the problem was a direct
consequence of the war that the Palestinians - and, in their wake, the
surrounding Arab states - had launched. And few noted that, in my concluding
remarks, I had explained that the creation of the problem was "almost
inevitable", given the Zionist aim of creating a Jewish state in a land
largely populated by Arabs and given Arab resistance to the Zionist
enterprise. The refugees were the inevitable by-product of an attempt to fit
an ungainly square peg into an inhospitable round hole.

But whatever my findings, we are now 50 years on - and Israel exists. Like
every people, the Jews deserve a state, and justice will not be served by
throwing them into the sea. And if the refugees are allowed back, there will
be godawful chaos and, in the end, no Israel. Israel is currently populated
by 5m Jews and more than 1m Arabs (an increasingly vociferous,
pro-Palestinian irredentist time bomb). If the refugees return, an unviable
binational entity will emerge and, given the Arabs' far higher birth rates,
Israel will quickly cease to be a Jewish state. Add to that the Arabs in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip and you have, almost instantly, an Arab state
between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river with a Jewish minority.

Jews lived as a minority in Muslim countries from the 7th century - and,
contrary to Arab propaganda, never much enjoyed the experience. They were
always second-class citizens and always discriminated-against infidels; they
were often persecuted and not infrequently murdered. Giant pogroms occurred
over the centuries. And as late as the 1940s Arab mobs murdered hundreds of
Jews in Baghdad, and hundreds more in Libya, Egypt and Morocco. The Jews
were expelled from or fled the Arab world during the 1950s and 60s. There is
no reason to believe that Jews will want to live (again) as a minority in a
(Palestinian) Arab state, especially given the tragic history of
Jewish-Palestinian relations. They will either be expelled or emigrate to
the west.

It is the Palestinian leadership's rejection of the Barak-Clinton peace
proposals of July-December 2000, the launching of the intifada, and the
demand ever since that Israel accept the "right of return" that has
persuaded me that the Palestinians, at least in this generation, do not
intend peace: they do not want, merely, an end to the occupation - that is
what was offered back in July-December 2000, and they rejected the deal.
They want all of Palestine and as few Jews in it as possible. The right of
return is the wedge with which to pry open the Jewish state. Demography -
the far higher Arab birth rate - will, over time, do the rest, if Iranian or
Iraqi nuclear weapons don't do the trick first.

And don't get me wrong. I favor an Israeli withdrawal from the
territories - the semi-occupation is corrupting and immoral, and alienates
Israel's friends abroad - as part of a bilateral peace agreement; or, if an
agreement is unobtainable, a unilateral withdrawal to strategically
defensible borders. In fact in 1988 I served time in a military prison for
refusing to serve in the West Bank town of Nablus. But I don't believe that
the resultant status quo will survive for long. The Palestinians - either
the PA itself or various armed factions, with the PA looking on - will
continue to hurry Israel, with Katyusha rockets and suicide bombers, across
the new lines, be they agreed or self-imposed. Ultimately, they will force
Israel to reconquer the West Bank and Gaza Strip, probably plunging the
Middle East into a new, wide conflagration.

I don't believe that Arafat and his colleagues mean or want peace - only a
staggered chipping away at the Jewish state - and I don't believe that a
permanent two-state solution will emerge. I don't believe that Arafat is
constitutionally capable of agreeing, really agreeing, to a solution in
which the Palestinians get 22-25% of the land (a West Bank-Gaza state) and
Israel the remaining 75-78%, or of signing away the "right of return". He is
incapable of looking his refugee constituencies in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan
and Gaza in the eye and telling them: "I have signed away your birthright,
your hope, your dream."

And he probably doesn't want to. Ultimately, I believe, the balance of
military force or the demography of Palestine, meaning the discrepant
national birth rates, will determine the country's future, and either
Palestine will become a Jewish state, without a substantial Arab minority,
or it will become an Arab state, with a gradually diminishing Jewish
minority. Or it will become a nuclear wasteland, a home to neither people.


***Professor Benny Morris teaches Middle East history at Ben-Gurion
University, Beersheba, Israel. His next book, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb
Pasha, the Jews and Palestine, is published by IB Tauris.



--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

 

Ok... I will take your few words under advisement untill you regain your composure...

Goodnight...

 

do you every have your own independent thoughts or do you simply repost the words of others?

 

Noooooooooooo, I am trying to comprehend your pidgin English read what you wrote...

 

I hate to say it but my statement does have some grounding in reality in that in order for a Palestinian state to exist using your suggestions it would mean that the Kingdom of Jordan would have to consent to this.

It does seem a little unlikely.

Also I'm pretty sure that not all of the Arabs of the West Bank desire the deaths of all Israeli's.

I think that the West Bank should be elevated to a fully fledged nation. This would provide a home for the long-term displaced Arab Palestinians.
And ensure full representation for those people without running the risk of being second class citizens in Jordan or whichever state that hosts Palestinian refugees.

If successful I would also propose that Jerusalem be turned into it's own city state.
This would stop it being the target of military campaigns and prove that both Arabs and Israeli's can reside within the same space.

 

Not necessarily!

I agree here!

I totally disagree, one of highly placed man in the PA said a week or ten days ago that if he had an Atomic Bomb he would have used it.

I disagree again, to leave that area to the PA will be another Arab upheaval, arms will be flowing in, the planes at Ben Gurion Airport would be brought down by shoulder fired missiles and the whole country would be in jeopardy.

They are not second class citizen in Israel <Israeli Arabs> are represented in the Knesset by four Representatives... These are the Israeli Arab citizens... there are many others Arabs who are holding Jordanian IDs and Passports of Jordan, and surprise, surprise Jordan does not want to recognize these documents.

Wishful thinking... Arabs do not act and behave like Europeans nor Americans they have a mentality/insolence of their own, they are opportunists, have no allegiance to any power, they just bide their time, make money to survive and wait for another opportunity to take over.

 

lol!!! more than 20% of the population of Israel has only FOUR members in the Knesset? sounds just like Apartheid!!!

This is EXACTLY what the Nazis and Hitler said about the Jews.

 

MYTH ALERT MYTH ALERT MYTH ALERT !!
Arabs ( unfortunatly !! ) have more than 10 members !!!
Stop writing lies.

 

This is a lie. Palestinians (Philistines), arrived in the region way before Jews were even heard of. Read this and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

 

Your final paragraph decribes Israeli and Jewish actions perfectly; arrogance in the face of international law, insolence against their critics, taking over another's land, homes and property as if it were their divine right. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.

 

Bunkum, is it? Of course I am aware of Morris&#8217; &#8220;flail of war&#8221; letter. You yourself posted the exact same piece here 8 months ago - click what follows in green: http://www.politicalforum.com/debat...stinians-leave-1948-war-7.html#post1062162208 THE EXACT SAME PIECE &#8211; and as recently as in January this year. Yet here you are, once again offering up the same tired debunked evidence.

So what happened last time you tried this strawman &#8220;flail of war&#8221; excuse by Morris? Let us check your January 2013 post (exactly the same as the one above!!). You started by quoting from the Morris letter of 2004:

Here was my response to you in January this year:

I asked you if these were examples of a &#8220;flail of war&#8221; and the expulsion of "murderous thugs". You never replied.

The truth is, HB, contrary to what you claim, Morris never recanted on one single conclusion as to the main reason for the depopulation of each of the 400+ Arab settlements presented in the preface of his book &#8220;The Birth of the Palestine Refugee Problem Revisited&#8221;. And it is those Morris conclusions on which I based my claim which you quoted above.

So now, as in January 2013 I present you with a clear challenge. You go and show me:

1) Where Morris changed for even one single settlement, his conclusion as to the main cause for the depopulation of that place
2) Alternatively show me where a recognised archival scholar proved Morris to be wrong in just one of those settlements.

So why did Morris buckle, and come up with this &#8220;Flail of War&#8221; strawman? In fact, you yourself provided the answer, here:

What Morris then did was to buckle under this pressure and to try to ameliorate the massive damage done to the Zionist MYTHS by his research book, by glossing the turd with his concept of &#8220;the flail of war&#8221; as a strawman, yet without needing to take the colossally tricky step of negating his own research.

I am not the first person to spot this chameleon in Morris. Many have seen through the strawman &#8220;flail&#8221;.

Here is the ex-Foreign Minister of Israel, Shlomo Ben-Ami (who you said you knew personally) on this topic in his book &#8220;Scars of War, Wounds of Peace&#8221; (2005) page 43:

So Ben-Ami supports my position 100% that Morris&#8217; original evidence contradicts his &#8220;flail&#8221; excuse. But not only that. Ben-Ami goes further to quote Morris on a point which Morris wrote originally which completely annihilates the &#8220;flail&#8221; strawman:

I could stop with that devastating critique of Morris&#8217; attempt to &#8220;gloss the turd&#8221; of his research conclusions, but there are others who find Morris&#8217; &#8220;flail&#8221; volte face equally transparent, Avi Shlaim being one, but his thread is unfortunately broken - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...31001496.html .

So Morris was pressured into some mitigation, yet he NEVER recanted as you claimed.

So what did you offer in response in January 2013 to this critique of Morris the damage mitigator and the nonsense that &#8220;the flail of war&#8221; caused the depopulation?

Nothing!!

Yet here you are today with exactly the same debunked strawman. Why?

... (to be continued) ...

 

This is a lie !!!
10 times a lie, does not turn it to truth !!

 

In fact there are currently 12 Arab members in the Knesset.
The Knesset numbers 120 members,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset

In 2008, of Israel's 7.3 million people, 75.6 percent were Jews of any background
In 2006, the official number of Arab residents in Israel was 1,413,500 people, about 20 percent of Israel&#8217;s population. I believe the current % is 21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews

Arabs make up 10% of the Knesset
Arabs make up 21% of the population.
They are therefore more than 50% under-represented.

 

Really? So 261 notable historians (not, sadly for you, all Muslims) are all lying, and only you are right? Sorry pal, your hasbara is feeble, easily refuted and pathetically transparent.

So, tell us which of those 261 individual sources is lying? I'll wait...

 

Excellent; however I predict three things fairly confidently:
1. You will be called a liar.
2. You will again be ignored.
3. The poster will present us with yet another travelogue extolling the virtues of Israel as a wonderful tourist location.

 

Well. How does one go about it?

Unfortunately not every leader or officer of the state is going to represent the popular interests or wishes.
I do sincerely believe that most people in the world would like to be left alone.

Well what about under international stewardship? And if the worst come to the worst then I'm sure that the Iron Dome system will take care of any guided missiles.

Also modern MANPAD's actually have a pretty short range. Up to 5,000km which means that any terrorist would have to be within close proximity to the airport.
There is one exception with the Russian made Igla missile but that uses easily distractable infra-red sensors.

I wasn't referring to Israeli Arabs but to Palestinian Arabs which are spread across the Arab nations.
And yes I'm aware of Israeli domestic integration policy for Arabs.
Unfortunately it doesn't mean that it is necessarily successful as I do believe that there is a considerable degree of cultural animosity which may obstruct Arab employment.

I've seen that across all nationalities and races and I've even worked for those types. It's just a different flavour.

But as you said that it's "wishful thinking" does that indicate that it is principally a good idea?

 

HBendor said four, not me. Don't call me a liar again especially when you're wrong.

 

Even if Mr. Hbendor made a mistake ( YOU KNEW IT WAS A MISTAKE ) , you attacked his comment.
Now that you know there are 10 or more Arab members in the Israeli goverment .. why do you still think ( as jewish ) Israel is
not democratic ?
Have you anything good to say about them ?

 

Israel is more than 20% Arab, yet less than 9% of the Knesset is Arab.

Israeli Apartheid and hate for equal representation is clear.

 

That shows you understand little about the situation there.
Many Israeli Arabs vote for Israeli parties.
If ALL fifth column Arabs will vote to Arab parties, they will have 20%.