Citizens of the state to which they belong!
So true David. And given current trends, Israeli Palestinian voters, will outnumber Jewish voters in around 7 years.
Therefore, it is only a question of time before the Palestine question is resolved in favour of a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital!
So, whereabouts in Israel, should the Palestinians, put their proposed new settlements?
And what use should they make of Israeli military might and ordnance?
Which they as the most numerous part of Israeli citizenship, will effectively control?
Ain't democracy and the rule of law just wonderful?
Rhrosty.

Aren't we lucky? We have articles from Singer and Sells on the one day!

Is this coincidence, you ask? Don't ask me! I'm not privy to the inner sanctum of OLO. Only Mr Young can answer such questions.

But what is clear is that Singer and Sells have clear agendas which OLO supports. Both flog their one-eyed beliefs with fanatical fervor.

They both bend the truth into amazing shapes and contortions and neither are capable of thinking outside the small box that encloses their tiny minds.

The bottom line is that all religion and the right of Jews to occupy Palestine are both monumental frauds!

Singer and Sells should be exposed for what they are.

Con men!

Rhrosty. Although a little off topic from David's point on Obama's rhetoric whilst in the region, your point re the rule of law and democracy in Isreal is well taken.

The demographics of Isreal is certainly moving toward an Isreali Arab majority.

The question is, can an 'Israeli/Arab Sunni' combine with an 'Isreali/Arab Shia' and an 'Israeli/Arab wahabist', 'Israeli Arab Kharijites', etc etc to form a coherent voting block in the Knesset?

All indications from the election within the Palistinian community to date, (witness the Palistinian Authority/Hamas) arrangement thus far. I guess we will see what the future holds in this respect. I doubt, however, that Isreal will compromise on the rule of law and the constitution.

Here is the reality of Zionism for us goyim, along with decent Jews, to chew over:

“Goyim have no place in the world - only to serve the People of Israel”, said Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, leader of the Zionist party Shas, in a sermon: "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plough, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat."

According to Yosef, death has "no dominion" over non-Jews in Israel. "With gentiles, it will be like any person - they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”

Ah, but the rabbi is an “extremist”. His outburst brought an urgent “Shush” from the racist “Anti-Defamation League” and the editors of Haaretz. See http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/adl-slams-shas-spiritual-leader-for-saying-non-jews-were-born-to-serve-jews-1.320235 .

But wait a minute. See http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-wouldn-t-give-palestinians-vote-if-west-bank-was-annexed.premium-1.471644 for mainstream Israeli opinion. It’s the same as Rabbi Yosef’s. (You have to register for access to this Haaretz article but it’s no big deal).

Stands to reason. There are dozens of States for the Jewish people. Jews live as equals in Europe, Britain, America, Canada, Australia and many more. Only racists like Peter Singer claim that this is not adequate and that Jews alone are too "special" to share countries with goyim as equals and need a homeland just for themselves, kept "pure" by Apartheid. Non-Zionist Jews do not share this racist taint.

"The Palestinian Arab narrative conveniently ignores the fact that the two-state solution was first suggested in 1922 and actually proposed and rejected by the Palestinian Arabs in 1937, 1938 and 1947."

Why should the Palestinians have accepted such a repugnant arrangement? Even if they had, and "moved aside" it, wouldn't have saved the them from the Zionists once they got their war machine operational.

More drivel from OLO's resident ethno-supremacist.

I can accept that is was - and is - a good thing for the Jewish people to have a 'national home'. (ie: not the same as a 'Jewish State') I can accept that there is a legitimate need amongst Jews - to be in a position of viable self-defence - in the wake of the Holocaust especially. But does this justify the ethnic cleansing, confiscation of property and oppression that has been inflicted upon Palestinians since the formation of the modern Israeli state? (answer: no)

And even before modern Israel's formation - is there any just rationale for an 'ethnically or religiously pure state'? What the author fails to mention is that there was also a 'One State' movement before Israel's formation... If peace and conciliation was the preferred outcome, why not choose that path instead? (even if under conditions of Israeli control of the apparatus of force for the sake of self-defence)

We hear about the riots in Palestine prior to Israel's formation, and of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's discussions with Hitler... We hear of the explusion of Jews from Arab countries... All of which are legitimate concerns. But two wrongs do not make a right... Israel is control of the moral decisions it makes for today regardless of the past. It is responsible for the daily humiliation of many Palestinians... The best path to Israeli security is a path of truth, recognition, reparation and conciliation with the Palestinians. Where both sides recognise and make amends for past wrongs.

And in a variation on the One State theme, why not consider a binational confederation - with Israeli and Palestinian republics united? The benefit of that path would be that families would not be separated from each other as with the mainstream 'two state solution'..... Why not strive for peace in *good faith* as the best response to Israel fears that into the future Jews will be outnumbered? Reconciliation can work - but we have to at least try!