We are not less Zionist than you. We are not less smart than you. We are probably just as ambitious as you. But we are ready for hard work and we will succeed, despite your hatred it. Our children might go just further than yours, whether you like it or not. So instead of talking crap about these Russians, better think how to live and work together as a society.

Israel slowly becoming like any Middle Eastern country where dictators and politician with extremist view takes over. Russian and Russian descended never can create a western alike democracy .Liberman and his followers are the product of the previous totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union .They are genetically belong to that system and now they will implement it in Israel.

Hello Ronda, you said this is to #10, but it seems more pointed at my response at #16, so I thought I'd respond. Firstly, if someone moved there in 1890, it's still long before most Jews. Even by 1948 Jews were only 600,000 whereas today it's 6m. That means most families, even ones considered 'well established' came after 1948! In any case if many Arabs moved in 1915, they are as local as an Israeli whose family moved in 1930 no? For most Israelis having 3 generations born in Israel (e.g. 1930) is considered very well established 'original' family. Furthermore, while it is true there was a lot of immigration, it is also true that even in 1880s, under the ottoman records, there were many Palestinians (when you factor in their massive growth rates until 1948). For example (based on the website mideastweb), McCarthy estimated 411,000 Palestinians as early as 1860. Other estimates were lower, but the point is the same, we know their growth rate has always been high, so what is in doubt is exactly the percentage of Arabs that was original.. but if even only 50% was original, how much does that change the point? We Israelis mock Arab claims about Palestinians because under the mandate rules anyone who lived there for just 2 years is a Palestinian. But one cannot (or in my view should not) mock a lineage of even just 80 years, which is 2ce as long as most Israelis considering the major aliyahs were all post 1950. Since there were only 600,000 Jews in Israel in 1948, and today there are closer to 6m, we know that most Jews (after accounting growth rates) came after 1948. In the Israeli narrative, families who were here in 48 are long-established, 'original', who've "seen it all". So why do we make a different standard for an Arab family who may have been there 30 or 50 years longer than that, even if it's not 200? My point wasn't about time (although 200 is far more 'historical' than 90), my point was about concerns that we can just impose demands on people many of whom lived here before most our families. I think we must take action because some things are unacceptable, but we must also accept this is not a question of people who came in the past 10 years not learning Hebrew, as is the immigration concern in other nations such as the US (latinos not learning English etc). This is a very different set of issues, and so should be treated as such. This is just the reality. I've said all along I'm not calling for inaction, I think that's highly dangerous. But I'm highly concerned about the concept of a loyalty test as a way to deal with this problem, even if my immediate thoughts are "Yeah! If they aren't loyal, throw them out!". We are talking about most Arabs, many Haredim and some seculars. Do you really think it's a good method to, in the most forceful way possible, deal with close to 40% of the population? We aren't talking about a few thousand, we're talking about close to 40% of the population! Sometimes overreactions can cause far more problems and harm for a society! We should remember that.

Redbourn, I read that in a rival paper as well. So what? I didn't call him a fascist, I said I think he seems to have fascist tendencies. I specifically cited that ACTIONS can have a fascistic nature EVEN IF DONE DEMOCRATICALLY. Quoting someone saying he's nothing like the Italian dictators does not detract from my point. I never compared him in the slightest, I simply spoke of some of his tendencies. I see nothing wrong in what I said. For example, (taken from Wikipedia sourcing of Kent, Allen's encyclopedia of Library and information Science): Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement. Now while his platform never stated removal of opposition parties, his loyalty law does have the whiff of the above quote, even if it's popular because of the massive concerns the Jewish population have over the rise in extremism in the Arab population of Israel. We can discuss whether it's a good idea or not, but regardless, it has fascist overtones in my view, even if he's not a fascist in the sense of one part rule etc. We also must be aware that even if the final draft of the law is not very demanding, it can always be amended by future govs. This opens a dangerous door, although it's not relevant directly to whether he has fascist leanings or not. Look forward to hearing your response.

He would probably be good for education, build good roads and make the trains run on time. If you belong to the right group of people you will do well by him

Yes. He's a demagogue who outright suggests depriving people of their rights because of differing political views. And, it seems he might well be a criminal who has broken the law by accepting bribes and laundering money. Yes, he's that terrible. But what is worse, is that he's terrible for Israel! With people like him at the helm there will never, I repeat, never be peace.

If you are against giving up the land, then you can not vote for a party that does not say that it will not join a Livni led government.

in the uk. you can not transform the feelings of complacensy from one place to another. something gives me the idea that the jewish community is wellcoming you to sabbath dinners, as they would with any jew, but the fact jews don't invite you to meals in israel doesn't mean israelis are bad. a society behaves differently under different circumstances. it is unfortunate that jews are surrounded with people who question the legitimecy of their life in their land, and it does affect israelis. you may have forgotten that israel is one sixth of one percent of the area available for arabs, when arabs wish to make it even smaller, or make it dissapear by mixing with jews in this small area called israel. as you know a lot of madia pressure is put on jews and israelis, you are not above it, because of false assumptions about palestinian refugees. the site you mentioned, also showed other counts in mid 19th century palestine, not made by jews or pro-jews, and it showed a count of 150.000 arabs in palestine. plus in mid 19th century there were 10 new jewish neighbourhoods in jerusalem, that created a jewish majority in the city. even you must know arabs never had a state in palestine. even you must know there was a jewish state once with jewish cities, into which arabs have invaded since the 7th century. the different rulers in palestine including ottomans set a minority ration for jews, and local arabs carried out murders to keep the jewish small minority ratio. arabs haven't changed , but in the 20th century there are no stateless villages, or nomads roaming through empires, & there should be a national curriculum that is applied to all who wish to apply for high education, without making any discrimination.

You know nothing about me or the other people that you so quickly judge. http://redbourn.notlong.com I am sorry that you are such an unhappy person. I wake up happy, spend the day happy and go to sleep happy and it is clear that you do the opposite. Mike

Toshav Hozer, You again missed my point. Arguing over who was a majority in Jerusalem in the mid 19th century explains absolutely nothing about the fact that the way Israelis discuss the problem of the Arabs in Israel is done as if the Arabs arrived a few years ago and are now refusing to speak Hebrew and it's making 'us locals' angry. This is how it's depicted, and this is how Israelis view the problems and try to find solutions to it. And my entire point was it's completely false. It doesn't matter if Jews were a majority in Jerusalem in the 19th century, and it doesn't matter that there was never an arab state, that matters on discussions of the existence of Israel, but not on how do we deal with the growing radicalization of Palestinians within Israel. Furthermore, the statistics varied. You cannot jump to the lowest number and cite that one as the absolute figure because it's the one that sits best with you. It may be true, but you cannot just assume it. But all of your arguments have completely missed the point so I'm not sure which part of your intelligence you think I insulted. I never said Arabs treated Jews well I never said there was a state called Palestine in between the Roman destruction of the temple and the creation of Israel in 1948. I never said Jews were not a majority in Jerusalem for over a century. All the things you mentioned I never stated. I simply made the point that you cannot address the problem (as it seems almost all Israelis do) in the same manner that Americans are angry at Mexicans who come over and don't adapt much, don't bother to learn English, complain a lot about rights even when they are illegal workers etc... The Israeli mindset about the Arab population is generally the same. The problem is that the Arabs have almost all lived here since 1948, and many lived here before 1900, so one cannot look at them as if they are just a bunch of Argentinians who came over in 1994 who are refusing to join in to a society they came to join. Lastly, AGAIN, I'm not calling for inaction, I'm just concerned about Liebermans plans, their ideals, the harm to all sectors not just the Arab sector from trying to implement them, the completely undemocratic idea of revoking citizenship to massive swaths if they don't follow a loyalty test that we don't know how future governments will change the requirements to suit their needs. These were my points, I don't disagree about much of the history you cited, I know the history well and I argue it daily to defend Israel on many forums from papers, to news networks to hatefilled lying youtube videos. I just don't see think it's relevant to my point about the way to conceptualize the issue over Israeli Arabs issues being vastly different from new arrivals who refuse to integrate.

Instead og getting into this ridiculous discussion about Liebermann, I want to point out 2 inacurracies that each of you make, while appearing minor are indicative of statements made on this talk back which can be easily misinterpreted by any one prone to believe that what is written here is actual true!! Danny. the British don't sing 'God Save Our Glorius Queen' They sing God Save Our GRACIUOS Queen, And where do they say that 'God Should Scatter their Enemies and Confound Their Politics?' Gilad.You quote Yuli Tamir, as saying 'Minorities who come over here are expected to join in and accept majority culture' If that's not a racist remark coming from an Peace Now supporter, I don't know what is. The land of Israel belongs to the Jews wherever they are in the world and Israelis need to 'internalize' this.

MC, I paraphrased what she said to an audience I was part of. I did not write it down word for word, hence no speech marks used. Please see it as a paraphrase of what she said and not a direct quote. She simply stated that people who decide to move to another nation, it is generally expected that they will not go there to conflict with it but to enrich it and join to it, that is only common sense! Her point was that this logic (and solutions to issues related to problems that may occur with minority-relations) cannot be applied when the people in question are 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th or even 10th generation! Furthermore I don't think more than a handful of Israeli Jews question that Israel is a Jewish state/State of the Jews of the world. From those that do they only prefer the Democratic part overtake the Jewish part in the nature of the state. But they are by far the minority. In any case, why would you ask me not to get in to discussing Lieberman when that's what the entire article was about?

because you can not speak in the name of the jews in israel to the jews in israel, which is what you are doing now with me. this is a very bad israeli habit, that seems to increase in galut. the point is that many arabs were immigrants in this country, at the same time jewish zionist immigration started, therefore are not as indigenous as portrayed. their motivation was EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, and maybe growing in israel you didn't realize this because you were a part of a majority and made to feel secure, but the arab intent in coming here was to prevent this country from becoming jewish, to a large extent. alas it did, therefore jews of israel do not speak arabic but hebrew. hebew is the official language here, it may seem ok to you, WHAT YOU DON'T GET, it is not ok for arabs. the language in which they teach in their school is arabic, their curriculum doesn't resemble ours. AND YET they are being accepted to academic institutions, where some don't fully understand what the professor's saying in hebrew, let alone their lack knowledge how to spell properly. no one seems to enforce knowing how to spell hebrew as an israeli student must know for the bagrut, which is a must for entering the university moreover israelis , some may have been here for generations, can not enter those faculties arabs enter for lack of space, as there is priority for arabs, with lower grades and lower knowledge of the language moreover, arabs are saying they are being discriminated against at work places, but they do not acquire qualifications, because it means knowing hebrew, and they are against it FOR BELIEVING THEY ARE INDIGENOUS THEREFORE HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS. so stop this bullshit, there should be some sort of a standard when people live in Israel although they have it, thinking it's okay to hate it because this is democracy. it is crap. people who wants to enter university in britain don't go through processes of positive discrimination, it makes the education system unfair for others. in the dark ages in europe people lived in state cities, this is what arabs in israel want to have really: self rule, but they still want the state to provide most necessities. AS IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO GET IT FROM AN OCCUPIER!!! occupier my foot, mr. gilad lecturer about Israel without knowing they have no right calling us that, when they themselves came here not that long ago.THEY ARE WILLINGLY BEING OCCUPIED IN SOME RESPECTS AND UNWILLINGLY OCCUPIED IN OTHERS. enough with charade.

ARAB RADICALIZM STEMS FROM THEIR BELIEF WE ARE OCCUPYING THEIR LAND, THAT WE ARE MAKING PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE CENTURIES INTO REFUGEES. if you know better, you know the facts on which they base these assumptions are partly fase, then you agree THERE SHOULD BE LESS PROPAGANDA EDUCATION, which is the basis for their alianation. learning facts will make it easier FOR THEM to become a part of our society. they can not live in a certain vaccum , which THEY HAVE been doing, for lack of language & education besides, i only pointed out there are other figures in that site about arab palestinian population. DON'T TWIST what i write

Why are we now taking Yuli Tamir's statements as authoritative? She's been probably the worst ever Education Minister. Other than chant: "let's give up the land and move to Europe" she's not good at anything.

it is GRACIOUS queen, it is only later after being victorious that the queen is glorious.

Toshav Hozer, I don't need your sarcasm or condescending tone. I know everything you have stated, You keep pointing out I'm in the UK, but I spend much of my time in Israel and I am more in tune with what is happening in Israel than I am in what is happening in the UK. But again and again you ignore my point altogether and ramble about only indirectly relevant things (e.g. the issues of the day, which I never said I disagreed with). You seem unable to understand it when I keep telling you I'm completely against inaction. My only point is about how you treat someone who is 5th generation or 10th generation is differently than how you can deal with issues related to someone who came over 5 years ago and is rejecting integration. I'm not denying that there needs to be direct action to stop this growing spasms with education, political affiliations etc. You keep being condescending as if I promoted it or supported it. I'm tired of reading this nonsense that you are lecturing me as if I'm ignorant about it and then mocking me as a 'lecturer'. My only point was in relation to how you deal with problems, and how the Israeli psyche should review the problem. Your points are to go off on massive tangents about the situation today. I don't disagree about the issues, why do you not understand this? I'm simply discussing the way you deal with populations who are not new, who were born here (Israel), whose parents were born here and whose grandparents were born here. I'm not denying the issues and the politics involved, simply the method of reviewing it... I don't understand why you are so annoyed with someone who in essence agrees on the problem, just not on the perspective that it should be seen from (that they are not newcomers and so should not be dealt with policies similar to those that may be used with Russians, or Argentinians or whatever who arrived in 1998 or something). I don't see why you are so annoyed when we agree for the most part over the issues themselves!

I can only be shocked by 5th's narrow minded bigotry. I guess I am tainted by being only a 3rd generation (& under 30 years old). but my US and german born grandparents taught me a little about democracy.

Questioner from Brooklyn, I pointed out Yuli Tamir's statement because I felt it was valid. Great education minister, terrible education minister, it's not the point I was making. If she made a fair statement to reflect upon, it's only fair to take it as such! Just like if your favourite (Whoever it was) education minister made a terribly foolish statement, it doesn't mean it was a good statement just because he/she was a great minister!

first i was to appologize if i hurt your feelings. on one hand you agree with solutions that point out where the problem is (such as arab propaganda education) and on the other hand you say i do not understand the problem you write about. when one seeks a solution to a problem one needs to know the cause, and i put down an argument as to where migh be the impediments in their integration into the israeli society, (unlike new immigrants). my comments have a lot to do with politics, but not recent politics at all nor issues of the day.

And if he wins significant backing in this election, Israel will have shown that it not only has left the civilized world, but also the world of Torah and the heritage of Avraham Avinu.

Its a lot of fun to compare politicians you disagree with to historical vilansñ Ivan the Terrible, Hitler, Stalin, etc. Its fun because it shows an incrdible level of disdain for them and you feel that by arguing against them you can prevent a reapeat of the terrible mistakes former generations make. I know how much fun it is because I´ve done it occasionally myself, without thinking, but if we stop and think about it we will see how absurd it really is. The absurdity becomes obvious when you realize that in making the comparison you fail to differentiate ideology from politics. People with different Ideologies disagree about what the ends of society should be, while people who disagree only on politics differ on what means would best be used to achieve their common ends. Hitler, like other tyrants, had as an end thre domination of a racially pure world. Liberman, on the other hand, just wants security in one of the tiniest countries in the world. You can compare him to putin because you don´t have any idea what Putin or any other tyrant thinks like. You´re like children who, having only read stories about wolves cry wolf when they see a dog

good the previous 4 generations have done. Wake Up!