1. Arab Israelis are exempt from the draft.

2. Arab Israelis who volunteer to serve in the military must serve in segregated units.

3. An Arab Israeli who wants to get his non-Jewish relatives into Israel will have a harder time of it than a Jewish Israeli, thanks to that democracy’s discriminatory immigration/naturalization law (the “Law of Return”).

Suppose the shoe were on a different foot? Suppose that Mexico, for example, _democratically_ decided to become a “Gentile State” in which Jewish Mexicans could vote and serve in the Mexican Congress–and even run for President– but at the same time faced legal disabilities identical to those faced by Arab Israelis, right down to a Gentile Law of Return for Mexican Citizenship? I would hope that Jewish Americans would protest against this–just as I hope that someday they will see Israel for what it is: a poor democracy to call “home.” Far better to pick a democracy that has chosen the path of equal rights. There are many such democracies. The Reform anti-Zionists (e.g., the members of the American Council for Judaism) understood this point a long time ago, and they still do. It’s just that no one wants to listen to their arguments. Perhaps their ideas hit too close to home? Perhaps no one likes to argue against ideas with which they fundamentally agree? (“I’m for equal rights, too, but–”)
Besides, compared to many democracies in the Diaspora, Israel isn’t even safe. It never has been, and it’s hard to see how it ever will be. So it isn’t just liberal idealism to reject the theories of Theodore Herzl; it also hard-headed realism.
Finally, regarding a Palestinian state: does anyone believe that any Jews who (foolishly, in my view) choose to become Jewish Palestinians will have equal rights? And once the Palestinian government starts making its Jewish citizens into second-class citizens, what are the defenders of Israel going to say? It’s too late for them to say that discrimination against minorities “is just plain wrong.” Haven’t the Jewish nationalists already consigned that argument to the bottom of a very deep well?

“Not just because you say so. But Israel WAS given recognition with the borders it held at the time ( 1949) with NO mandatory conditions. ”

There were no border decisions or agreements made in 1949. Put up the documentation….should be easy…right? You can cite them, yes?

“Your point that it is illegal to acquire territory by war is true but the irrelevant point which is not in dispute. This does not go backward in time, it’s not retroactive, be that time one minute to a millennium. ”

It was Law BEFORE Israel existed.

“Signing the charter is acceptance of this law going forward. Prove otherwise. You have not.”

Uh? The Laws in respect to the illegal acquisition of territory by war existed BEFORE Israel Declared. So did the UN Charter.

” The ‘67 war on the other hand applies the law (with regard to occupation, holding land for security)”

Er….Israel has claimed occupied territories as it’s own, which is why in the UNSC resolutions it reaffirms that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The same applies to all the UNSC resolutions condemning Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.

“Regarding Arafat- He “diverted” these funds your article says. Legal???”

Not transparent, not illegal, not theft.

“Everybody knew that Arafat was corrupt. But this was accepted by Israel, the US and the EU as long as he was helpful to the peace process and stopped terrorism. This changed in 2000.”

Was this in regard to Palestinian funds going into his own pockets? Or in how he operated as a leader under occupation in order to get things done? The final IMF audit suggests he was sly, devious, clever, and not very transparent. But it does not accuse him of theft or corruption in respect to pocketing the monies for himself.

“The IMF later questioned the financial strategy. “Since there was neither transparency nor accountability surrounding these investments, one may surmise that the only strategy was to build up equity with little regard to risk,” it said in a 2003 report. Arafat also developed sources of income from a small clique of officials strategically installed in other institutions and companies. Not all the funds collected through these bodies were captured by the IMF’s estimates.”

Which says nothing about the monies going to himself or his wife. You’re grasping at straws in order to verify propaganda. Which only shows thyat propaganda works.

“My goodness- it was a theft and corruption at least until found out. Read the article you linked.”

Where does it say it was theft and corruption? FACT .. It doesn’t.

Not just because you say so. But Israel WAS given recognition with the borders it held at the time ( 1949) with NO mandatory conditions. The nations states have ALL been accepted similarly. Your point that it is illegal to acquire territory by war is true but the irrelevant point which is not in dispute. This does not go backward in time, it’s not retroactive, be that time one minute to a millennium. Signing the charter is acceptance of this law going forward. Prove otherwise. You have not. The ‘67 war on the other hand applies the law (with regard to occupation, holding land for security).

Regarding Arafat- and from your articles as well- it appears that he treated PA funds as if they were his own and to keep himself in power…. and to support his wife’s fancy lifestyle. He “diverted” these funds your article says. Legal???

From YOUR article:

Armin Laschet, a German member of the European parliament who has investigated Palestinian finances, says: “Everybody knew that Arafat was corrupt. But this was accepted by Israel, the US and the EU as long as he was helpful to the peace process and stopped terrorism. This changed in 2000.”

My goodness- it was a theft and corruption at least until found out. Read the article you linked.