“I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.” – General Ripper
A curious article appeared in the fall 2005 Issue of Azure, an Israeli-American conservative Journal. It was called “Voodoo Demographics”, and its authors claimed that the so-called “demographic threat” was an academic fiction, conjured by “Big Demography” in order to further dubious (read: dovish) political causes. Sergio Della-Pergola, one of Israel’s most notable Demographers, wrote a rebuttal which appeared in the same Journal a couple of issues later. While the two parties differ greatly in matters of methodology, both of them implicitly accept that the Palestinians are a threat; the authors of “Voodoo Demographics” claims that there isn’t, and won’t be for a long time, a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the sea, while Della-Pergola is persuaded that such a majority already exists. Yet neither of them entertains the thought that the Palestinians are not a threat to the Jewish state. And why should they? If Israel is both Jewish and democratic, then any and all Palestinians pose an immanent threat: as long as there are Palestinians, there is always a potential that a Palestinian majority would divest Israel of its Jewish character, solely by utilizing the power accorded to it as a majority in a lawful, liberal democracy. If I am correct, then the Palestinians are suspect not (only) because of their political affiliations and treasonous actions, but simply because they are non-Jews. Moreover, from a demographic point of view, the Palestinians’ diverse political, religious and cultural affiliations are of little interest. It doesn’t matter if they are male or female or even if they live in Israel-proper or in the occupied territories. These characteristics only matter to the extent they affect birth- and immigration-rates. Thus, the Palestinians are viewed as an a-priori, inherent, one might even say biological (because Palestinians tend to beget other Palestinians) threat to the Jewish and democratic state, regardless of their beliefs and actions.
While Zionist demographic anxieties are as old as Zionism itself, I am limiting the present discussion to their latest, post-Oslo, incarnation. In this context, it should be noted that if Israel would have designated itself a Jewish state and nothing else, the demographic threat posed by Palestinians would have been greatly alleviated, because a Jewish minority could, and does, militarily subjugate a large Palestinian Majority (as in the occupied territories). It is only within the democratic constellation that the Palestinians pose a realistic threat, because a modern democracy is supposed to be indifferent to the ethnicity of its majority; the problem is most Jewish Israelis aren’t.
The other interesting thing about this polemic is that none of the authors of “Voodoo Demographics” is a professional demographer. The fact that this group of activists sought to fight what they deem “unnecessary territorial withdrawals” not in religious, legal or historical terms but in the language of demography, is telling. I think that this marks a shift within Israeli politics, a shift I will discuss in the conclusion of this article.
Azure’s preoccupation with demographics didn’t end here. The Hebrew edition of the 2008 spring issue included an editorial by Assaf Sagiv, who spoke out against Diaspora Jew marrying non-Jews. While the Jews are not a biological race, he claimed, they constitute a cultural entity, to whose survival they are responsible. And since inter-religious families tend to lose their Jewish identity, Sagiv urges Jewish young adults to marry only co-religionists, individualism and romance be damned. One might ask, then, what exactly is the difference between race and culture, if the barrier between Jews and non-Jews ends up being a biological one.
Another interesting point made by Sagiv is that in light of the “silent holocaust” raging in the Diaspora, Israel must remain a Jewish state (that is, a state with a Jewish majority) where Jews will not have to face the threat posed by beautiful gentiles. And if Israel, owing to the Diaspora Jews’ sexual frivolity, has to remain a Jewish state, then Palestinians under Israeli rule are condemned to be always the biological fifth column, not only because they infringe on the exclusivity of Jewish democracy, but sadly, because many Diaspora Jews like gentile pussy.
While the above examples alone hardly constitute an intellectual pattern, when coupled with the Disengagement of 2005, the recent governmental initiative against inter-religious marriages and the constant talk about “natural growth” in the West Bank, they support the claim that since Oslo (and even more so after the Disengagement) most Zionists have resigned themselves – albeit very reluctantly – to some form of territorial withdrawal. This spells a shift from territorial politics to bio-politics. I’m hardly claiming that most Zionists suddenly care less about the fate of east Jerusalem or of Ofra, or that Zionist bio-politics is a new fad. But I do want to argue that territory is becoming less of a deal-breaker, while the shape of Israel’s population, within whichever borders, and the shape of its democracy are what will make-or-break the end of the conflict. As long as Israel is both Jewish and democratic, it isn’t democratic at all, because Zionist politicians will go almost any length in order to reduce the number of Palestinians under Israeli rule. The difference between Israeli Left and Right isn’t about territory anymore, nor is it about the two- verses the one-state solution; these are of little consequence. It is about those who side with Judeo-centrism and those who side with true democracy, a blind one, because there cannot be, indeed there isn’t, any other kind.
Guest writer Nimrod Lin is a graduate student at TAU’s Cohn institute for the history of Ideas. He has a personal hebrew blog.
From many aspects territories are still very important. However, I agree that even more important than that it is the Jewish to Arab ratio in a Jewish state (I deliberately avoided the term `Palestinians’ because these are my grandparents and their generation who were called Palestinians in first place, and they were definitely Jewish). What bothers me, however, is the last part of your last sentence. Can you please define the word “democracy” first? I mean, what do you think `democracy’ refers to?
While I have little patience for the never-ending theoretical debate about the definition of democracy, I think that a multi-ethnical state, where the branches of government are designed and designated to keep all but one ethnicity from have a real stake in governance, is not a democracy.
The case of Zionism is even more interesting. While before 1948 there were a bunch of Zionisms, It was the Palestinian/practical/cruel Zionism hybrid that won the day. And one of the dictums of Practical Zionists was “conquering labor”. This meant the systematic – though, admittedly, never truly complete – exclusion of Arab workers in favor of the re-invention of the Hebrew worker. This fetish for land and labor guided the actions of the Palestinian Office headed by Ruppin, who worked towards a bio-territorial continuity, because the land was worthless without Hebrew labor, and vice versa. We might talk today about the deep-felt religious sentiment Jews have for their homeland, but for pre-state labor Zionists, Eretz Israel was important not so much because of the Wailing Wall and whatnot, but because it’s where Jews were once normal (i.e., farmers). Anyway, since Zionism is based on the pre-supposition that Jews cannot live healthily among Gentiles, and they cannot survive unless they create a normal all-Jewish society (that is, lots of workers and farmers and a correspondingly lower number of merchants and intellectuals), the exclusion of Arab workers wasn’t so much racist – although, of course, it was – as it was a necessary step for the rejuvenation of the Jewish people. At any rate, this is where Zionism’s drives for purity kicked in, and while it has shape-shifted into many forms, it is far from gone today. Jewish exclusivity was there when the dream of a Jewish democracy was just a twinkle in Ben-Gurion’s eye. 1948, 1967 and the “Jewish and democratic state” are all symptoms. Unless, Zionism can re-invent itself as a non-exclusive political philosophy, it is doomed to implode.
I believe we both agree that democracy contains two basic elements: equality and freedom for all citizens. We probably disagree on who is privileged to be called a citizen in a Jewish state.
Here is my suggestion: a citizen of the Jewish state is anyone who fully complies with the Israeli constitutional declaration of independence (namely, megilat ha’atzma’ut). I am aware of the fact that this constitutional paper is meant to support what you call ” a Judeo-centrism” state.
Then, there is a second requirement: everyone must share the same obligations, same rights, and same responsibilities (excluding disabilities, declared by law). According to my definition, large portion of the Arabs (as well as extreme-orthodox Jews) are not entitled to be called citizens, simply because they do not comply with the constitutional paper. In the case of Israeli Arabs, there are many whose loyalty is given to the enemies of the Jewish state. Since this is the case, they are not (and cannot be) part of the Israeli democratic establishment.
This brings me to the last sentence of your assay: Quote: “It is about those who side with Judeo-centrism and those who side with true democracy, a blind one, because there cannot be, indeed there isn’t, any other kind.”
Here you implicitly assume a very special type of democracy “a blind one”, and you added an axiom: “indeed there isn’t any other kind.” But such implicit assumptions and axioms cannot be made without explicitly referring to the definition of a citizen.
What’s more, what happens if some ethnic parts simply do not respect any form of democracy, simply because it is not rooted in their culture. There are plenty of ethnic groups residing from (the Atlantic) ocean to (the Indian) ocean, all of which established independent states, none of these states even come close to what we call a democracy.
I find no reason to believe that the Arabs who live in Israel are very much different. If this is correct, what is the point of sharing them our democratic values? They only abuse it until its no longer of use for them, and then they’ll simply drop it, and replace it with their favorite models.
An excellent article, and it speaks to many issues which I deal within in my own studies, so I particularly liked it. I would just like to comment that this isn’t a “Post-Oslo” thing – “us here and them there” was a selling point of the whole Oslo Accord, at least as far as Peres is concerned. The idea that a two state solution is necessary because it solves the “demographic problem” was raised in the very inception of the two-state solution’s popularization.
@Nivra:
Nivra,
Obviously, we don’t agree in the least about with democracy or citizenship mean. Let’s not go there.
However, I find your last two paragraphs very disturbing: the penultimate one suggests that somehow Arabs, as a whole, cannot tolerate democracy and cannot learn it, unlike Jews, who despite having not even a semblance of democratic rule throughout thousands of years of existence, got the hang of it pretty fast. This line of reasoning seems to me a-historical, counterfactual and downright bigoted.
Not to mention that it completely contradict the paragraph which follows, the one that claims Israeli Arabs will use their democratic right to abolish the Jewish and democratic state, and then, much like evil masterminds from a Bond movie, they will just cancel democracy and instate some sort of uncivilized regime. If Arabs cannot master democracy, who can they use it to overthrow Judeo-centrism? And once they do, why would they decide to get rid of democracy too? Are they all fundamentalist zealots? And who are those Arabs you speak of? Are they all like-minded and bent on destroying democracy? Couldn’t there be parts within Arab society that might actually want to sustain democracy? And how will they decide to cancel democracy? Is there a secret high Arab council that makes decisions for everybody? Or will they try a coup d’état with the help of the Israeli Army in which they have no stake?
While I admire you willingness to step into the lions’ den, you should be better equipped against lions; Paranoid and far-fetched scenarios don’t do the Job.
Democracy is nothing but a model. Some cultures find this model superior, other cultures find it inferior. Contemporary western countries prefer variants of the democratic model. This preference, however, by no means should be imposed on other civilizations (such as the Arab civilization).
People need to acknowledge and respect the fact that other cultures have different needs, different values, and different preferences. It is a fact that the Arab culture prefers models other than democracy. But I know that extreme leftists do not let the facts confuse them.
I think it is not wise to patronize the Arabs (as you do): the Arabs do not need to *learn* what democracy is, just because they know the exact meaning of it at least as well as you know it. They simply *choose* another model that fits their culture better. I definitely have other values than theirs, but I respect their choices and have no ambitions to enforce my values upon them.
This is why I am absolutely convinced that we cannot establish a democracy that includes the Arabs. They’ll take advantage of it to eliminate the Jewish state, and then return to what fits them better (in their view). Down the road, they will treat their no-Arab residents as they always did, according to their preferred political models. It is our duty and responsibility to prevent that from happening.
This is not all about Paranoia. This is about simple facts, integrity, and lack of arrogance.
@nivra: it is also about seeing “arabs” as a monolith concept with no variations. talk about patronizing.
@nivra, what is the basis of your description of Arab culture as preferring non-democratic regimes?
Is there a study showing this?
Bareket, who said the Arabs are monolithic? These days western people embrace democracy almost exclusively; does this make them monolithic? You are free to assume that the Arab culture is at least as rich and diverse as the western culture. But you cannot escape the observation that the two civilizations possess distinct spectra of values (with some overlap). And many of these differences cannot be bridged whatsoever. Of course, individuals may always convert and assimilate successfully (in both directions) but massive integrations are doomed to collapse in a violent and bloody explosion.
Folger, you must be kidding…
@nivra: well, your claim, as I understand it, is that because many of the arab countries around are not democratic, the israeli arabs if given a chance will denounce democracy, regardless of the different background in which they have resided and participated to an extent over the last six decades. (thay may or may not, but basing this assumption on such logic is simply paranoid)
sounds to me like you think of a monolith culture that is somehow imprinted itself fatalistically on the israeli arabs mind.
@Nivra: There are two Arab democracies that I know of. Algeria and Lebanon. Are they shining examples of democracy? No. Are they democracies nevertheless? Yes.
So, again, what’s so anti-democratic about the Arab psyche?
Ori
Nivra, how about Jews who came from Arab countries? Were they not inflicted somehow with this anti-democratic sentiment? I suggest we get rid of them as soon as possible for our common good. Maybe we should consult some Jews of German descent, they might think of a creative solution.
@Hippie Johnny: Well done!
Folger,
I think Algeria and Lebanon are good examples of how bad things become when Arabs try to play with democracy. Neither I nor do you would like to repeat this bleeding experiment when the lives of our beloved ones are on the stake.
Hippie, The state of Israel is by definition a shelter and home for *all* Jews, irrespective of their origin, culture, education… whatever. It is a melting pot for plenty of Jewish communities, perhaps none of which is alike. However, this is *not* a shelter for the Arabs. To the contrary, since they feel immense hostility toward a Jewish state, they consider it defiled. As long as they’ll be permitted to take part in the democratic game of this country, they’ll make the best of it to ruin the hated regime from within.
@Nivra: apart from the internal conflicts, a lot of which is brought on by external forces (Iran, Syria, Israel), what’s so very bad about the Lebanese system? It’s not a great democracy, but it’s pretty democratic and constantly moving towards more stability. Algeria has a very low turnout in elections, so that might be a better example of a non-democracy, but as far as I know the elections there are fair.
So again, what’s so anti-democratic about Arabs? You haven’t answered the question or pointed at any study which does.
Ori,
Israeli-Arab society is on the whole more religious, more authoritarian, more oppressive to women and less tolerant to different lifestyles (gays, lesbians, bachelors, etc.) than Israeli-Jewish society, which unfortunately is far from ideal in these aspects. I’m not drawing any political conclusions from it all, but ignoring these facts or denying their connection to a free society is simply burying one’s head in the sand.
Though I will grant you that Israeli-Jewish society is more militaristic than Arab society, because of its dissociation with IDF or any other army.
Folger,
One has to distinguish between phenomenology and cause. Phenomenology is easy to do; all that is needed is resolution and integrity. Explaining things is more complicated and interpretation-dependent.
The incompatibility of the social structure of Arab communities with democracy is manifest to all (accept, perhaps to some extreme leftists). It is eminent in almost every Arab community in the world, including immigrants to the western world. In particular, we see this here, in Israel.
My impression is that only individuals or isolated family cells are able to assimilate into a free society successfully. Prime conditions to successful assimilation are loyalty and respect toward the hosting culture. Clearly, thses prime conditions are missing for the Israeli Arabs.
The majority of the Arab immigration to the western world creates disconnected cells hostile to their hosting environment. This is what we see, for example, in Europe, and it stands in sharp contrast to other immigrant communities, such as Indians, east Asiatic etc. Of course, this is also what we see here, in Israel.
Why social Arab structure is incompatible with democracy and with the values of freedom **as defined by western civilization** is a question that has to be addressed by experts free of political agenda. For us, Jews in their sheltering homeland, it makes little value. Our task is to do the best we can to protect our system of values (and our lives!) against the competing values of a hostile civilization with a living agenda of its own.
@Nivra: Nivra, these are all very interesting claims. Can you provide references to studies exploring this incompatibility of Arab social structure and democracy?
On the one hand you preface your words with a warning that they are based on (personal?) interpretation, and on the other hand you express absolute conviction about the attitudes of a large group of people. Isn’t that a little dangerous? What if your interpretation is wrong?
It’s really neat, by the way, how you explained away all Arabs who hold democratic values as necessarily disconnected from the Arab community.
@Ilan: I’m not ignoring the chauvinism and intolerance of modern of Israeli Arab society. I just don’t agree with Nivra’s claim that they prevent adoption of democracy.
“The majority of the Arab immigration to the western world creates disconnected cells hostile to their hosting environment.”
—and the same thing happens with jewish immigrants or jewish groups in other countries especially Western ones.
Jewish lobbies and groups in western countries is a vast plethora of special interests, privelages, double standards and even hostile laws against free speech for the host population
the ADLs, SPLCs, of the US promote “Hate speech” legislation so that the host people cannot criticize jews who have lots of power and sway over their own governments
aipac and the jewish media and hollywood want to put a lid on the iraq connection, in fear of the goys finding out about their machinations and (gosh forbid) being angry at them
the israel lobby in the US, canada, and the west is an 800 pound gorilla that’s not talked about in the controlled jewish media
in canada and britain, you would go to jail for publishing about the hate speech of Chabad, maimonides, schneerson, ginsburgh, kahane, the Talmud’s hate speech and incitement
many jews are in favour of laws against investigating alleged historical events and atrocities. To question that some alleged crimes against jews may not have happened as they did and having evidence for it is amount to “hate speech”. While alleged atrocities in israeli history are scrutinized constantly for propaganda and falsity
for some jews, jewish suffering is worse and a greater tragedy than gentile suffering. For Maimonides, killing of a gentile by a jew is not considered punishable by the court because the gentile will be punished “in heaven”. How any reasonable person would deem this proper in case of their own murdered souls is beyond me
jewish organizations such as AJC, ADL, canadian jewish congress, etc seek to constantly stifle and jail gentiles of their host countries who speak the Truth about the jewish takeover of their governments
“democracy and with the values of freedom **as defined by western civilization** is a question that has to be addressed by experts free of political agenda. For us, Jews in their sheltering homeland, it makes little value.”
–but Judaism never had a legacy of western values such as free speech, individualism, property rights, pursuit of truth. Biblical and talmudic judaism is theocratic, rabbis regulate almost every aspect of life, especially personal ones such as menstruation, sex, that reach psychotic levels
the talmud says disagreeing with a rabbi is punishable by death in boiling excrement in hell
talmud also states that no rabbi can ever go to hell
the talmud also has no interest in pursuing the truth for its own sake. In Bezah 20a it is said that Hillel the pharisee was so wise he was “even prepared to depart from the truth” for the sake of “peace”
the talmud states that jews cannot have sex in the light and must have it in the dark. It states that epilepsy is caused by having sex in the light
the talmud also has “maser” informer laws where jews cannot inform on other jews who did crimes, because prosecuting them would be “losing” to the gentile authorities
judaism and the jewish community never had a legacy of “western values”. The modern ashkenazim have merely tried to adopt them
To the Israeli readers of this site, I think this is worth reading:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/943/564.html?hp=1&loc=30&tmp=8750
diogenes: I will make an effort to reply in Rosh Hashana. (no promise…)
Diogenes,
I am grateful to you for what you have written. It would have been impossible for me to convince my fellow Israeli friends that their good intentions incubate weirdies – without the active intervention of the weirdies themselves.
Your comment is exactly what I’ve been waiting for. You appear to consider yourself intellectual, and yet, you haven’t got the slightest idea of what does it really mean to be an Israeli and a Jew, what is the soil in which Judaism has its roots (and why does the majority of Jews these days is… secular). I am not going to criticize your funny observations (which you probably, in a funny way, consider objective). I find no reason responding crap.
Indeed, most of my fellow leftists know very well that you are talking crap. On the other hand, nothing will convince *you* and the alike that your ‘observations’ are rooted deep in the netherworld of fear and hate. This is indeed the essence of anti-Semitism, which is always veiled for the anti-Semitic themselves.
For you, Diogenes, and since you pretend to be a historian, I bring the following sayings from a Spanish journalist, unknown to me… (I found it somewhere; I cannot guarantee that these are the exact words of him. But it reflects the truth as I see it):
“I walked in a street in Barcelona, and a shocking truth has been reviled to me: Europe died in Auschwitz.
We killed six million Jews and replaced them with twenty million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a civilization of thinking and creativity and talent; we put to death the `chosen people’. Indeed chosen, for great people who changed the world came out of this nation. The contributions of these people to humanity are in all areas of life: science, art, trade, and in particular, they were the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the cover of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove ourselves that we have been cured from our illness of racism, we opened our gates to twenty million Muslims, that brought with them stubbornness, ignorance, religious zealotry, intolerance, crime and poverty whose origin is ideological parasitism…
…And by thus, in our wretchedness, we have replaced a flourishing culture by zealotry hatred, we have replaced the ability to create by the desire to destroy; we have replaced progress and prosperity by backwardness and superstitions. We have replaced a peacemaking culture full of hope for generations to come, by a gospel of death carried by a bunch of death seekers who seek death to us as well as to their children.
What a terrible mistake miserable Europe has done.”
“I walked in a street in Barcelona, and a shocking truth has been REVEALED to me…”
@Nivra: A more exact translation can be found here, and the original Spanish is here.
Having established that, suffice it to say that replacing one racism with another is still racism. I agree with the interpretation given by the translator from the first link: this text says “we killed the wrong people”, which is still a horrible sentiment, still genocidal, and no less morally repugnant than your run-of-the-mill anti-semitism.
This is not a pro-Jewish text, despite your favourable interpretation. “Better the devil we knew” still leaves the Jews as a devil, if a lesser one, and I can promise you that the type of person who would support this text in Europe will have no problem forgetting how wonderful the Jews are once the Muslims are exterminated.
Kanengisser,
Thank you for referring us to the much better translation. I think, however, it is not very far in spirit from the one I provided (although much clearly formulated).
Anyway, I do not see any racism in this text. It expresses simple pacts of life we should not ignore. No, my friend, the text does not say in any way “we killed the wrong people”. To first order, it says that we killed good people and, while granting atonement, we got the `bad’ ones, bad in terms of the values we cherish. This is not about particular individuals. This is about the philosophy we believe in.
There is nothing racist in this observation, no call for another killing, no call for an act of oppression or persecution. It is simply a call for introspection and self examination. This is indeed not a pro-Jewish text. I am happy to agree with you about that. It is, however, a sincere confession.
As for Diogenes, his views of the Jews are the same as those that once paved the road to a Jewish Holocaust. My claim is that racist anti-Semitic people, as well as other ideological enemies of Israel (and the Jewish legacy in general) are the consumers of the material the leftists produce in a platform like this.
I am sure this is not the original intention of our fellow leftists. However, this is what happening De-facto.
Nivra,
You have still to supply any sort of research which shows why Arab culture is inherently anti-democratic.
Since you had a lot of time and you took the effort to answer other points, am I to gather that you cannot find any? In that case, please reconsider your position.
Ori
Folger,
I apologize I did not explain myself vividly. I have no intention to comply with your needs. It is like asking me to bring citations to consolidate my claim that in good weather the sky is blue. I have better things to do with my time, I am sure you understand that.
By the way, I call *everyone* here to read again and again the last comment made by the lunatic who calls himself diogenes. Read the whole comment carefully and pay attention to the reference he makes to Aloni… I could not get a better support to my claim that you play to the hands of those who make their twisted hatred toward us a profession.
Nivra, pointing to other writers here in order to deflect from your own admittedly unfounded prejudices is quite transparent. Almost makes one wonder if you two, who use aliases unlike the rest of us, are operating in concert.
@diogenes: Let it be known that I find this comment utterly despicable, your holocaust denial and further comments to be nothing but plain and simple proof that you are indeed an anti-semite, and not a terribly smart one at that. That sometimes Israel invokes the Holocaust to prevent criticism does not mean that Jew-hatred is legitimate in any way.
If this was my own blog your comment would not be here by now. As it were, I have already asked the powers that be to remove it.
If you think this sort of writing is in any way helpful for the purposes of the Israeli left, you are dreadfully wrong. People like you will be our undoing, not our saviors. I hope your family meets the same fate my grandparents’ families met.
Kanengisser,
I humbly think that you make two mistakes:
1) The accusation that “sometimes Israel invokes the Holocaust to prevent criticism” is wrong. For people like diogenes it turns into a malicious lie, digested from any angle. The Holocaust is a central parameter in equation with many variables. It is central because it is an unforgettable event that laid deep scars in our collective soul. Such experience cannot be underestimated or denied, and indeed, it naturally has been reshaping our thinking ever since, and it affects the risks we are willing to take (or find it impossible to take) under various circumstances.
2) I do not think diogenes makes a disservice for the leftists agenda. To the contrary! The thinking of the left is a perfectly legitimate stand within the political debate in Israel. For some reasons, some people turned it into self-hatred and even into treachery. Diogenes brings you back to your legitimate place, among your people, not among their prosecutors. For diogenes, and for many others alike, you will always be contaminated by your Jewish origin, even if you ‘cross the lines’ and justifies any of his views. As the Nazis taught us, being Jewish is an existential matter, not a state of mind.
The last comment by Diogenes has been removed. IsraLeft will not provide a stage for racist, anti-Semitic views. We condemn Holocaust denial for what it is – a rhetoric lie meant to provide thin pseudo-academic and pseudo-historic cover for simple, barbaric racist hatred. We will not tolerate it here.
Avissar,
And what about the first comment by Diogenes? It appears that you have deleted only that comment containing the ultimate proof that our enemies are (ab)using the Israeli leftists as their shield against accusations of anti-Semitism and of committing racist attacks against the state of Israel and the Jews. If integrity still means anything to you, reload that comment by Diogenes in spite of the fact that it brings with it an inconvenient truth, or seal this site against all kinds of nasty attacks under the cover of legitimate political criticism.
@nivra: like we’ve deleted your hebrew rudeness in former posts? diogenes former comment was borderline and his last one was over the top – we don’t rush into deleting comments. before you preach to others about their integrity you should really check their actions. also, I wish there was a way to make you realize diogeneses didn’t bring out any “inconvinient truth”. learn the difference between criticism and racism.
@nivra: My basic training platoon commander in the IDF, Omer Kidron, was the last person I allowed to call me by my last name only. If you want to be treated like a troll, by all means, keep acting like a troll. About your comments, all that I can say is that I am utterly unsurprised by the fact that racist people think non-racist opinions are an excuse for other racist people. After all, the basis of the racist perception is the Us Vs. Them. So, basically, what you had written speaks loud and clear about you, and I think that ‘nough said.