The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by felamaslen
Palestinian elections...


The 2006 Palestinian election was declared free and fair by international observers, and it was, in fact, Israel which attempted to obstruct the election. The same story occurred with the 1996 election, although again, Israel significantly obstructed it. You know, I think there's something about Western and Israeli culture which simply can't accept it when others try to implement democracy (!)

Original post by felamaslen


The Shah in Iran was nowhere near as bad as the Ayatollah. Iran in the 70s was bliss compared to now. The decision to overthrow Mossadegh might not have been the wisest, but it wasn't done in order to create the disgusting tyranny that currently exists - that is firmly the responsibility of those who supported the revolting 1979 revolution.


By even acknowledging that the decision in 1953 was not the "wisest", you've completely disproven your argument that there's something about Arabia which means that democracy can't function. It has functioned, but it has been the West and Israel which has supported brutal dictators and kept them in total control of their countries. Incidentally, you understate the situation - it wasn't the wisest, it was an imperialist crime perpetrated by the United States and its junior partner, Britain.

And, today too, democracy is functioning, namely in Tunisia: it shows what can happen when the West is not interfering and when one of the West's corrupt totalitarians is overthrown by the people.

The 1979 revolution consisted not just of conservative Islamists, but of people from many different backgrounds and with many different views. The disgusting tyranny of the Shah, supported by Britain and the United States, proves only one thing: you're putting your faith in the wrong countries if you claim to support democracy. You're simply an apologist for revolting totalitarian regimes when it suits you.

Why don't we occupy and annex all the Arab countries seeing as they don't have democracy? The answer is simple - we, including Israel, support the totalitarian regimes. This has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with colonialism.

Original post by felamaslen
You mention Iraq, but fail to mention that when Saddam was overthrown (by the West), more tyranny erupted. Clearly the people there don't believe in freedom, otherwise they would have chosen it.


Actually, they did want to choose it. The irony is that you're correct, in a manner of speaking - tyranny did erupt, as the United States refused to allow elections to occur and installed its own provisional authority during the occupation which then led to anger among the Iraqi people and the subsequent insurgency, which in turn led to sectarian violence which we're seeing today. The Iraqi people are fighting against Islamic State militants - they believe in freedom, but, once again, the United States and Britain do not when it suits them. Britain and the United States may have some form of democracy in their own countries, but around the world they export a totalitarian ideology and state terror. (This cultural issue isn't genetic, of course.)

Yet again, your rationalisation of the oppression of the Palestinian people fails.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by intheTSRspirit
I'm not going to reply to any future posts of yours reiterating a sad old conviction with no substantiation at all. You told me to 'read the Quran and take an interest in cultures' in order to arrive at the conclusion that Islam sanctifies vengeance. I told you that I have and indeed I am part of these 'cultures' that you referred me to, and you find that unsatisfactory.


You said, "I can speak the Arabic language and I was raised a Muslim and I can assure you that there is no special emphasis on revenge in Islam or the Quran". I didn't say 'special emphasis' at all. But there is no doubt that justified vengeance is part of Islamic teaching. C'mon, there's plenty of related quotes in the Qu'ran to back that up.

Original post by intheTSRspirit
And I am supposed to believe at once your claim that Christianity never justifies vengeance per se.


You're supposed to entertain the thought enough to think about it a little and research it to find out for yourself.

Original post by intheTSRspirit
(gosh, do you realise how uneducated you come across?)


You undermine your credibility when you recourse to smug jibes.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Marco1
justified vengeance

Not supposed to reply to your post in accordance with my previous avowal but I feel I really must thank you for allowing, and very rightly may I add, for a justification of the perceived vengeance the killers were pursuing. Common ground, Freudian slip, etc etc
Sorry, late reply as I have been busy.

Original post by felamaslen
Right, so you admit it wasn't about "oppression" and "hopelessness". It's an ideology of destruction. The only ones making Gaza oppressed and hopeless are Hamas! (Well, they aren't the only ones. Islamic Jihad and other Islamist supporters do so as well.)


It's an ideology that wants people to be able to return to where they lived before people with guns came and chased them out. If you see that as an ideology of destruction then so be it.

Are the Palestinians who live in the West Bank not oppressed them? There's no Hamas there.


What country? There wasn't a Palestinian country. It was part of the British empire. Before that, the Ottoman empire.


Nope, we had a mandate there, Palestine was never apart of the British Empire. Just because something didn't exist as a nation state doesn't mean it doesn't exist, try telling a Kurd that there is no such thing as Kurdistan and that there are no Kurdish people.


That theory doesn't work very well with the evidence. We have the Arab spring, which resulted in dictators being elected. The Islamist Muslim brotherhood in Egypt got elected. Hamas got elected in Gaza, which is essentially an arm of the Muslim brotherhood. The Egyptian people elected to oppress the Egyptian people. In Iraq, you have Sunni fanatics bombing voting stations and Shia mosques. This has nothing to do with colonial borders. Sure, maybe the borders in the middle east could have been drawn a bit better, but come on - that is not the root cause of the lack of freedom. The root cause is a lack of belief in freedom.


This has always been the way of revolutions unfortunately. The idea that the troubles in Iraq have nothing to do with the west is absurd though, you think that the U.S. selling Sadam Hussein (who only came to power because of a U.S. backed military coup) chemical weapons to use for the purposes of ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with the sectarian nature of Iraq today?


If you're against both Israel and Hamas then you're not contributing to the conversation. It's like being against both Britain and Germany during the second world war.


If you're of the opinion that everything is black and white then you are part of the problem.

I would say that you are wrong, and Israel represents hope for the middle east. It represents a free society, where you don't get arrested for voicing an opinion or having a different lifestyle or believing in some strange religion. It represents liberalism, as far as it exists in the middle east. It isn't perfect but it's the only thing we have, and we have to work with what we've got. Denouncing Israel is like denouncing Britain in 1936, while the rest of Europe comes under the grip of fascism with only Britain (and the United States) as its hope for a better future.


But Israel is a racist, expansionist, murderous state. It is in no way liberal and in no way free. Israel will not stop destroying Palestinian homes and it will not stop killing Palestinian civilians until it has forcibly taken East Jerusalem from the Palestinians and any other land that they think their entitled to based on some ancient fairy tale.
Israel is undoubtedly in the wrong. But it's ok, they will just continue to milk the holocaust and cry 'antisemitism' whenever you try to sanction them in the court of law.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by viddy9
The 2006 Palestinian election was declared free and fair by international observers, and it was, in fact, Israel which attempted to obstruct the election. The same story occurred with the 1996 election, although again, Israel significantly obstructed it. You know, I think there's something about Western and Israeli culture which simply can't accept it when others try to implement democracy (!)


Hang on, if you're talking about the 2006 election in Gaza, that went to Islamists. So it was anti-democratic, or at least anti-liberal democratic.

Didn't the 1996 election go to the dictator and mass murderer Yasser Arafat?

By even acknowledging that the decision in 1953 was not the "wisest", you've completely disproven your argument that there's something about Arabia which means that democracy can't function. It has functioned, but it has been the West and Israel which has supported brutal dictators and kept them in total control of their countries. Incidentally, you understate the situation - it wasn't the wisest, it was an imperialist crime perpetrated by the United States and its junior partner, Britain.

And, today too, democracy is functioning, namely in Tunisia: it shows what can happen when the West is not interfering and when one of the West's corrupt totalitarians is overthrown by the people.

The 1979 revolution consisted not just of conservative Islamists, but of people from many different backgrounds and with many different views. The disgusting tyranny of the Shah, supported by Britain and the United States, proves only one thing: you're putting your faith in the wrong countries if you claim to support democracy. You're simply an apologist for revolting totalitarian regimes when it suits you.

Why don't we occupy and annex all the Arab countries seeing as they don't have democracy? The answer is simple - we, including Israel, support the totalitarian regimes. This has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with colonialism.


The revolution in Egypt was a popular movement for tyranny. So was the 1979 revolution in Iran, or at least, the part of it that came through. Of course, these countries can be democratic, but you've got all your work ahead of you if you're trying to say that democracy has failed despite a will for it. (Liberal) democracy has been opposed by the people and that is the principle reason it doesn't work. Do you ever notice how oil-rich liberal democracies (such as Norway) are not invaded by the USA? That is because the people are willing to create a free society.

Occupying and annexing countries is far from an optimal solution. It isn't democracy, even if it may be more liberal than allowing elections in some of these places. As for the actual reasons why the West doesn't annex the entire middle east, well colonialism went out of fashion quite a long time ago.

The fact that you complain more about the Shah than the Ayatollah - despite the fact that the Ayatollah is a thousand times worse - betrays your true interest, which is to go on a tirade against the West - the civilisation which holds the key to the middle east's freedom.

Actually, they did want to choose it. The irony is that you're correct, in a manner of speaking - tyranny did erupt, as the United States refused to allow elections to occur and installed its own provisional authority during the occupation which then led to anger among the Iraqi people and the subsequent insurgency, which in turn led to sectarian violence which we're seeing today. The Iraqi people are fighting against Islamic State militants - they believe in freedom, but, once again, the United States and Britain do not when it suits them. Britain and the United States may have some form of democracy in their own countries, but around the world they export a totalitarian ideology and state terror. (This cultural issue isn't genetic, of course.)

Yet again, your rationalisation of the oppression of the Palestinian people fails.


Hang on - elections were put in place, then the voting stations were bombed by fanatics. And you blame the United States! :lol:

The whole point of the insurgency was to oppose freedom and establish Sharia. That is still the point of the insurgency today, in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon and everywhere else.

The US and UK do not export totalitarianism, they fight it. Their enemies are the totalitarians.

By the way, the Iraq war was probably a bad idea for practical reasons, i.e. it was unlikely to make the country better, and risked making it worse - but not because of the actions of the Allies; because of the actions of the fascists.
Original post by DaveSmith99
It's an ideology that wants people to be able to return to where they lived before people with guns came and chased them out. If you see that as an ideology of destruction then so be it.

Are the Palestinians who live in the West Bank not oppressed them? There's no Hamas there.


They are all oppressed, what I am saying is that if Israel gave in to their demands, the oppression would not end since they do not believe in liberal democratic society.

The ideology of destruction is about ideas, not people. It is about destruction of the liberal democracy of Israel. That matters far more today than which people live where. If the Palestinians wanted to create a free, democratic society then I would support them, but they don't.

Nope, we had a mandate there, Palestine was never apart of the British Empire. Just because something didn't exist as a nation state doesn't mean it doesn't exist, try telling a Kurd that there is no such thing as Kurdistan and that there are no Kurdish people.


Whatever. Britain had control of the area after the defeat of the Ottoman empire, at which point the area was under Ottoman control. (You are really splitting hairs here!). There was never a country of Palestine, although I would support the creation of one as long as it were liberal and democratic.

The point is, a state of Palestine had no more or less right to be created than a state of Israel, in 1948. And Israel accepted a solution from the UN which involved creating both a state of Palestine and a state of Israel. But the people who wanted to create the state of Palestine rejected this and instead went to war.

This has always been the way of revolutions unfortunately. The idea that the troubles in Iraq have nothing to do with the west is absurd though, you think that the U.S. selling Sadam Hussein (who only came to power because of a U.S. backed military coup) chemical weapons to use for the purposes of ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with the sectarian nature of Iraq today?


I'm not saying that the West hasn't made mistakes and committed crimes in its foreign policy - but it is equally absurd to say that the root cause of the sectarianism etc. is the West. Moreover, it is the West which the middle east should look up to if it wants to become free and prosperous.

If you're of the opinion that everything is black and white then you are part of the problem.


Everything is not black and white but that shouldn't stop you from recognising that one side is clearly more worth supporting than the other.

But Israel is a racist, expansionist, murderous state. It is in no way liberal and in no way free. Israel will not stop destroying Palestinian homes and it will not stop killing Palestinian civilians until it has forcibly taken East Jerusalem from the Palestinians and any other land that they think their entitled to based on some ancient fairy tale.


It is less racist than the rest of the middle east. The penalty for selling land to a Jew in Palestine is death. The penalty for selling land to an Arab in Israel doesn't exist. (Correct me if I'm wrong about those facts.)

Israel is not expansionist. The occupied territories were acquired from Jordan and Egypt after defensive wars with them. Come on - if Israel really were expansionist, why would it settle for such a tiny sliver of land? Why did it offer the Sinai peninsula to Egypt as a peace offering if this is an expansionist country? Why didn't it take over Lebanon after invading it in 1982? Why did it offer independence to Gaza in 2005? Why did it create the Palestinian Authority rather than directly administering the West Bank?

If Israel is not liberal then why has it held regular, free and fair elections since 1948? Why is it the only country in the middle east with proper gay rights? It's not paradise and there are things wrong with it, but compared to the rest of the region it may as well be San Francisco!
Original post by felamaslen
They are all oppressed, what I am saying is that if Israel gave in to their demands, the oppression would not end since they do not believe in liberal democratic society.

The ideology of destruction is about ideas, not people. It is about destruction of the liberal democracy of Israel. That matters far more today than which people live where. If the Palestinians wanted to create a free, democratic society then I would support them, but they don't.


How do we know what a free state of Palestine would look like? Palestine has been at war for over half a century.


Whatever. Britain had control of the area after the defeat of the Ottoman empire, at which point the area was under Ottoman control. (You are really splitting hairs here!). There was never a country of Palestine, although I would support the creation of one as long as it were liberal and democratic.

The point is, a state of Palestine had no more or less right to be created than a state of Israel, in 1948. And Israel accepted a solution from the UN which involved creating both a state of Palestine and a state of Israel. But the people who wanted to create the state of Palestine rejected this and instead went to war.


But if you're going to create a nation state why ship in a load of people from the other side of the world to do it? Why not create a state from the group of people who already live there? To go back to the Kurdistan example, how do you think they would react if you told them that they could have an independent Kurdistan, but they half to give over half of their land to a bunch of Mexicans? How do you think Kurdistan would react when the Mexicans went and established their state and took their land even after the Kurds had said no?

The Arab states only went to war after Israel declared their independence, this declaration was the first act of war.


I'm not saying that the West hasn't made mistakes and committed crimes in its foreign policy - but it is equally absurd to say that the root cause of the sectarianism etc. is the West. Moreover, it is the West which the middle east should look up to if it wants to become free and prosperous.


Why should it look at the west when we have continually instilled and propped up the most brutal of totalitarian dictators, when we have continually invaded them, when we used their homes as a playground for war games with the USSR? The west cares absolutley nothing for the lives of people in the middle east and they recognise that.

Everything is not black and white but that shouldn't stop you from recognising that one side is clearly more worth supporting than the other.


It doesn't, I support the Palestinian people in their fight for freedom. You're the one making it black and white by insisting that you either have to support Hamas or you either have to support Israel. The only morally defensible position in this conflict is to support neither.


It is less racist than the rest of the middle east. The penalty for selling land to a Jew in Palestine is death. The penalty for selling land to an Arab in Israel doesn't exist. (Correct me if I'm wrong about those facts.)


So? It's still a racist country.

Israel is not expansionist. The occupied territories were acquired from Jordan and Egypt after defensive wars with them. Come on - if Israel really were expansionist, why would it settle for such a tiny sliver of land? Why did it offer the Sinai peninsula to Egypt as a peace offering if this is an expansionist country? Why didn't it take over Lebanon after invading it in 1982? Why did it offer independence to Gaza in 2005? Why did it create the Palestinian Authority rather than directly administering the West Bank?


Israel has continually been expanding it's border since it's creation



Israel has never offered an acceptable peace offer to the Palestinians and the creation of the Palestinain National Authority has not stopped Israel taking whatever land it wants from Palestinians in the West Bank. Right now in East Jerusalem Israel is bulldozing Palestinian homes, turfing out the Palestinians and shipping in Israeli's, all so that when a peace deal is finally negotiated it can make a claim for the whole of Jerusalem.

If Israel is not liberal then why has it held regular, free and fair elections since 1948? Why is it the only country in the middle east with proper gay rights? It's not paradise and there are things wrong with it, but compared to the rest of the region it may as well be San Francisco!


Israel is not illiberal for it's election or it's gay rights, its illiberal because it treats Palestinian Arab's like vermin.
Original post by DaveSmith99
How do we know what a free state of Palestine would look like? Palestine has been at war for over half a century.


We don't know what a free state of Palestine would look like, because so far none of the Palestinian leaders have shown the remotest interest in creating one. But the only free state in the middle east is Israel (maybe Lebanon too), so we can deduce that if Palestine was given official statehood it would take a miracle for it to be free.

But if you're going to create a nation state why ship in a load of people from the other side of the world to do it? Why not create a state from the group of people who already live there? To go back to the Kurdistan example, how do you think they would react if you told them that they could have an independent Kurdistan, but they half to give over half of their land to a bunch of Mexicans? How do you think Kurdistan would react when the Mexicans went and established their state and took their land even after the Kurds had said no?

The Arab states only went to war after Israel declared their independence, this declaration was the first act of war.


There were already Jews living in the area set up for Israel originally, in fact it was majority Jewish. We don't see the same sort of complaining from the Jews who were forced out of the rest of the middle east (there are no Jews in Libya today, for example, and very few left in Iraq). But even so, the main point I want to make is that we are talking about 60-70 years ago. Can we be a bit less racist, accept the people that exist today as all human, and get on with life? We should value ideas, not racial bloodlines, and today Israel has a monopoly on good ideas in the middle east.

Why should it look at the west when we have continually instilled and propped up the most brutal of totalitarian dictators, when we have continually invaded them, when we used their homes as a playground for war games with the USSR? The west cares absolutley nothing for the lives of people in the middle east and they recognise that.


The cold war was "war games"? What planet are you living on? The cold war was in defence of democracy!

Anyway, the West is the civilisation which has all the good ideas, which is why the middle east needs to learn from it.

It doesn't, I support the Palestinian people in their fight for freedom. You're the one making it black and white by insisting that you either have to support Hamas or you either have to support Israel. The only morally defensible position in this conflict is to support neither.


To support neither is the same as supporting neither fascism nor democracy in world war two. Would that make much sense?

In fact, are you neutral about which side was right in world war two?

So? It's still a racist country.


Not really. Arabs have basically the same rights as Jews. There was a scandal concerning sterilisation of some Ethiopian immigrants, but that's a side issue. At its core, Israel is a liberal society, at least compared to its neighbours, where people have individual rights and liberties that they don't have in countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Israel has continually been expanding it's border since it's creation



Only because it took land during defensive wars - hardly "expansionist". And the land it took was not from "Palestine", it was from Britain, Egypt and Jordan. So that map is so misleading it may as well be a fabrication.

Israel has never offered an acceptable peace offer to the Palestinians and the creation of the Palestinain National Authority has not stopped Israel taking whatever land it wants from Palestinians in the West Bank. Right now in East Jerusalem Israel is bulldozing Palestinian homes, turfing out the Palestinians and shipping in Israeli's, all so that when a peace deal is finally negotiated it can make a claim for the whole of Jerusalem.


The first peace offering was in 1947. That was perfectly acceptable. They made multiple in fact. Since then it's just got worse and the Israelis have lost patience with the Palestinians. The only Israeli peace offering that would be "acceptable" to someone like Yasser Arafat or Ismail Haniyeh would be self-obliteration.

Israel is not illiberal for it's election or it's gay rights, its illiberal because it treats Palestinian Arab's like vermin.


It is at war with people who support organisations which are out to destroy it. That these people suffer is obvious, but the core reason they suffer is the fault of their leaders.
This is incredibly disturbing.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/23/israeli-cabinet-approves-bill-defining-nation-state-jewish-people

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/benjamin-netanyahus-bill-fails-to-accord-arabs-social-and-political-rights-9878783.html?origin=internalSearch

The bill, which is intended to become part of Israel’s basic laws, would recognise Israel’s Jewish character, institutionalise Jewish law as an inspiration for legislation and delist Arabic as a second official language.

The new wording would weaken the wording of Israel’s declaration of independence, which states that the new state would “be based on the principles of liberty, justice and freedom expressed by the prophets of Israel [and] affirm complete social and political equality for all its citizens, regardless of religion, race or gender”.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Collaborator
This is incredibly disturbing.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/23/israeli-cabinet-approves-bill-defining-nation-state-jewish-people

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/benjamin-netanyahus-bill-fails-to-accord-arabs-social-and-political-rights-9878783.html?origin=internalSearch

The bill, which is intended to become part of Israel’s basic laws, would recognise Israel’s Jewish character, institutionalise Jewish law as an inspiration for legislation and delist Arabic as a second official language.

The new wording would weaken the wording of Israel’s declaration of independence, which states that the new state would “be based on the principles of liberty, justice and freedom expressed by the prophets of Israel [and] affirm complete social and political equality for all its citizens, regardless of religion, race or gender”.


Damn that didn't take long to get into containment...

The Arabs have always been second-class citizens in Israel, and they simply aren't organised nor have the power to do otherwise. It's highly doubtful that any peaceful measures the Arabs take will be accepted as a legitimate voice in Israel's so called democracy.

Not to mention that the Likud party, of which Netanyahu is the big boss of, clearly does not support any kind of Palestinian state in its manifesto. There can be no two state solution as long as the Israelis are brainwashed from birth into thinking that the Arabs are subhumans, meanwhile I would highly doubt that the Palestinians would be so forgiving to the murderous and sadistic nature of the Israelis that have ghettoised them.

Israel is a scum hole and the jews are digging their own grave with the misuse of their power. Come at me JIDF.
Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6
Damn that didn't take long to get into containment...

The Arabs have always been second-class citizens in Israel, and they simply aren't organised nor have the power to do otherwise. It's highly doubtful that any peaceful measures the Arabs take will be accepted as a legitimate voice in Israel's so called democracy.

Not to mention that the Likud party, of which Netanyahu is the big boss of, clearly does not support any kind of Palestinian state in its manifesto. There can be no two state solution as long as the Israelis are brainwashed from birth into thinking that the Arabs are subhumans, meanwhile I would highly doubt that the Palestinians would be so forgiving to the murderous and sadistic nature of the Israelis that have ghettoised them.

Israel is a scum hole and the jews are digging their own grave with the misuse of their power. Come at me JIDF.


There was a time when I thought Israel was progressing and a beacon of hope for the Middle East, not regressing.
Original post by Collaborator
There was a time when I thought Israel was progressing and a beacon of hope for the Middle East, not regressing.


Israel's a great place if you're a jew.

What do you mean by progressing (or progress) btw?
Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6
Israel's a great place if you're a jew.

What do you mean by progressing (or progress) btw?


Not even that. Ethiopian Jews face racial abuse and there are reports of Israeli health services issuing birth control injections to Ethopian Jewish immigrants without their consent.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6
Israel's a great place if you're a jew.

What do you mean by progressing (or progress) btw?


Well it used to be an imperfect democracy and a place for slowly improving liberal values. It had freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and a positive view towards LGBT & women's rights in comparison to its neighbours. Now it is no better than them.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by felamaslen
Only because it took land during defensive wars - hardly "expansionist". And the land it took was not from "Palestine", it was from Britain, Egypt and Jordan. So that map is so misleading it may as well be a fabrication.

So which wars were they fighting when setting the lands in the West Bank and why didn't they change the borders accordingly?
Original post by Jammy Duel
So which wars were they fighting when setting the lands in the West Bank and why didn't they change the borders accordingly?


They fought the 1967 war (the "six-day war") with Jordan and Egypt (and Syria, from whom they claimed the Golan heights), at which point they captured the West Bank and Gaza (as well as Sinai) from those two countries respectively. The reason for the start of the war was aggression on Egypt's part - Egypt was run by the pro-Nazi anti-Semitic dictator Nasser whose objective was to "destroy Israel". Only once the land passed to Israel did a claim for Palestinian statehood magically arise. This tells me that a two-state solution wouldn't actually be a solution, since the basic issue is lack of acceptance of Israel's existence at all.
Original post by Collaborator
Well it used to be an imperfect democracy and a place for slowly improving liberal values. It had freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and a positive view towards LGBT & women's rights in comparison to its neighbours. Now it is no better than them.


I suppose Israel has abandoned elections, Netanyahu has been installed as a dictator and people are now arrested at the annual Tel Aviv gay pride parade, then?

Because that is what it would take for Israel to be "no better" than its neighbours.
Original post by felamaslen
I suppose Israel has abandoned elections, Netanyahu has been installed as a dictator and people are now arrested at the annual Tel Aviv gay pride parade, then?

Because that is what it would take for Israel to be "no better" than its neighbours.


No, but has made Arabs second class citizens. That's why it is no better than the others.
Original post by Collaborator
No, but has made Arabs second class citizens. That's why it is no better than the others.


Second class citizens inside Israel?

Latest