Netanyahu: Hitler didn't want to kill the Jews, Palestinian talked him into it

[ag]

Further proof that Netanyahu doesn't give a sh*t about the welfare of the Jewish people, but only about pushing his deranged and ultimately suicidal ideological agenda.

Netanyahu, most definitely, would be willing to sacrifice milliions of Jews in order to further his ideological goals.  He does not care about individual Jews - or, for that matter, any individual human being, with the possible exception of himself. It is all the ideological mirage of the Land and the State and the People. And, of course, his own ideological differences with Adolf Hitler are easy to exaggerate.

[ag]

Does that mean Germany is off the hook?

No.

But it does mean that cozying up to Israel cannot get you off the hook ever.

[ag]

Protocols of the muftis of Islam.

[ag]

Not defending this comment, but at the same time...the Mufti had a huge role in Jew hatred and promotion of the holocaust.

No he didn't. The Holocaust wasn't something that was "promoted" in any public or diplomatic sense. It was kept quite on the down-low as much as possible.

And in any case, I bet Henry Ford's "The International Jew: the world's foremost problem" had much more to do with what led to the Holocaust.

Well considering that Hitler plagiarized big chunks of Mein Kampf straight out of Ford, it would, certainly seem there would be some connection.

[ag]

Netanyahu considers revoking rights of Palestinians in East Jerusalem:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/26/netanyahu-mulls-revoking-rights-for-some-palestinians-in-east-jerusalem.html

If I compare this action to the Nuremberg laws would I be considered an Anti-Semite by the AIPAC crowd?

Yes. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is inherently anti-semitic, no matter the context. This has been discussed at length here and elsewhere.

Only I didn't compare Israel to Nazi Germany you fool but this specific action.
You understand English or do I have to write it in Hebrew to understand?

I'm fairly certain that you're capable of finding a comparison less inflammatory than Nazi Germany for this. Or are the Nazis the only government in world history that considered restricting the rights of certain populations -

Of course, the most apt comparison is the Russian Empire and the Jews. This was the only state they knew - and this is what they reproduced, the Pale of Settlement included. Israel is the archetypal antisemitic state, and Arabs are its Jews.

[ag]

For people who support annexing the West Bank, would you give voting rights to the Arabs? If so, are you comfortable with accepting that Israel would no longer be a Jewish state?

Am I correct in my understanding that if just the West Bank was annexed but not Gaza, then the new Israel+West Bank state would still have more Jews than Arabs?  Thus, even if the Arabs were given the right to vote in this scenario, they'd still be outnumbered (though it would be a lot closer).

Yes, of course. But that would also mean that forming an all-Zionist government using the current electoral system would become nearly impossible. Population of the combined Israel/Jerusalem/WestBank would be, give or take, 11 mln. people. Of these, a bit more than 6 mln would be Jewish - about 55% or a bit more. By including the non-Jewish ex-Soviets and taking into account the greater proportion of kids among the Arabs you might get to an electorate that is about 60% Jewish. I will be even more generous and suppose that Zionist parties get 75 seats (62.5% of the total). Assuming the two largest parties (say, these are still Labor and Likud) get half of that or a bit more (this is already not a given), this would still not get them to even 40 seats, where they need 61. So, they would necessarily have to attract a bunch of other parties. But there is no way on earth one can form a government that contains Meretz, Shas, UTJ, the Russians, the Religious Zionists, Lapidista types - and the  Labor/Likud combine at the same time. So, it is almost inevitable that every government would have to include non-Zionist parties. This may seem ok to you, but most Zionist Israelis would have a conniption at the thought.

Of course, the electoral system could be changed. Push comes to shove, an FPTP or something of the sort with gerrymandered districts could be used to minimize the non-Zionist representation. But, given the residential segregation, such gerrymandering would have to be pretty blatant. And, as the non-Jewish share of the electorate grows (for demographic reasons) the "problem" would get "worse".

[ag]

Could there be a sort of Notthern Irish power-sharing executive? Yes I know many will balk at the thought, but many would have been sceptical at the idea of orangemen and shinners managing to share government (yes I know the Norn government is hardly ideal, but...)

Perhaps the whole area needs to become a Confederation?

Why would either side prefer that to full partition? I can see the attractions of a partition, I can see the attractions of integration - but what are the attractionds of a "confederation"?

[ag]

For people who support annexing the West Bank, would you give voting rights to the Arabs? If so, are you comfortable with accepting that Israel would no longer be a Jewish state?

Am I correct in my understanding that if just the West Bank was annexed but not Gaza, then the new Israel+West Bank state would still have more Jews than Arabs?  Thus, even if the Arabs were given the right to vote in this scenario, they'd still be outnumbered (though it would be a lot closer).

Yes, of course. But that would also mean that forming an all-Zionist government using the current electoral system would become nearly impossible. Population of the combined Israel/Jerusalem/WestBank would be, give or take, 11 mln. people. Of these, a bit more than 6 mln would be Jewish - about 55% or a bit more. By including the non-Jewish ex-Soviets and taking into account the greater proportion of kids among the Arabs you might get to an electorate that is about 60% Jewish. I will be even more generous and suppose that Zionist parties get 75 seats (62.5% of the total). Assuming the two largest parties (say, these are still Labor and Likud) get half of that or a bit more (this is already not a given), this would still not get them to even 40 seats, where they need 61. So, they would necessarily have to attract a bunch of other parties. But there is no way on earth one can form a government that contains Meretz, Shas, UTJ, the Russians, the Religious Zionists, Lapidista types - and the  Labor/Likud combine at the same time. So, it is almost inevitable that every government would have to include non-Zionist parties. This may seem ok to you, but most Zionist Israelis would have a conniption at the thought.

Yes it's why I really don't get this obsession with trying to make it impossible to get rid of the West Bank with settlements. Annexing it result it the problem you mention and the existing Palestinian Bantustan will not be viable in the long term, and large scale ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians into Jordan will have some negative effects for Israel (I don't even see USA keep backing Israel if they do that).

Well, there is, obviously, a background idea that somehow doing ethnic cleansing "innocently" would be possible. Perhaps, there would be some sort of a war in which the population would be displaced "temporarily".  Or that somehow somebody would agree on a population exchange. Or simply the forces of economic migration would gradually push the Arabs out, without Israel appearing to do much proactively (hence, the hatred of UNRWA, of course). Sometime, somehow Arabs will disappear - one only has to wait.