If you, logic, still ask me of my opinion regarding a treatment of non-Christians, non-Anglo-Celts in Australia the Jews are significantly among them, more substantial geopolitical issues might surely avoid your grasp.

Surely, sganot, Israel is not “racially pure”-I’ve found the following in Internet, any comment?

http://cursorinfo.co.il/photo/2006/11/21/alya/1_boy.htm -A Menashe (Indian repatriates)Kid
http://www.cursorinfo.co.il/photo/2006/11/21/alya/2_gir.htm -A Beautiful Jewish Girl
http://www.cursorinfo.co.il/photo/2006/11/21/alya/7_russ.htm
-Russians Jews Arrive
http://www.cursorinfo.co.il/photo/2006/11/21/alya/10_usa.htm
-American paratroopers
http://www.cursorinfo.co.il/photo/2006/11/21/alya/12.htm -Many Jews-Good and Various etc etc et

MichaelK,

Your English is not native, and I'm afraid many of your messages are difficult to understand. You may likewise be misunderstanding what I and others have written.

I wrote that "Israel never tried to be 'racially pure'." Thus, when you say that Israel "is not 'racially pure' ", we seem to be in agreement. This "racial purity" business is a foreign concept, with no objective meaning, value, or interest to us.

And by the way, Palestinian Arabs are likewise not "racially pure" and have little interest in the concept. They too came here from various continents, including some who arrived from Africa in the 19th and early 20th century as slaves and soldiers (see http://members.tripod.com/~yajaffar/african.html ). And today, like with the Jews, there is a substantial Palestinian Arab diaspora. Yes, there is some racism in both Jewish and Arab societies, but hopefully this is limited to the fringes.

The pictures you sent illustrate some of the "racial variation" of Jews who are being repatriated to their homeland.

A few comments:

1) http://www.cursorinfo.co.il/photo/2006/11/21/alya/10_usa.htm does not show "American paratroopers" but Americans landing (i.e., immigrating to Israel).

2) Where http://www.cursorinfo.co.il/photo/2006/11/21/alya/ (to which you did not link) says "children to Menashe of the profit"[?], the intended meaning seems to be "descendents of the prophet Menashe", (i.e., "proroka", not "profit"). This is also not accurate, since Menashe (Manasseh) was not a prophet, but nevermind...

I need no your speculations of my English because at least of reality which is my scientific engineering works / articles on, for instance, political issues written by me and published by respectable US/UK and others sources, even in Australia, in English particularly.
Eventually, these opuses are understandable round the globe by willing to understand, sganot. And be sure, sganot, I do practically understand xenophobic racist Australia much better than the in-mere-colonial-stupidity-grown-up factual slaves of English feodals well established in Down Under.

There is no such thing as “Palestinians” but the Arabs of Palestine of whom overseas relatives worldwide are blood-linked Arabs simply. Quite clear, Arabs might live in any Muslim Arabic state where local sheikh or any other princeling allows them an entry in.

If Arabs of Palestine are not welcome in the Arab world last sixty years denying them and generations of their offspring citizenships and assimilation, factually pushing them to kill the Jews, fight Israel and terrorise law obedient citizens round the globe, the Jewish State is in no more charge for accommodating these people than Muslim states are for both them and restitutions over expelling millions Jews stripped from possessions surely.

Pictures were accompanied with translations from URLs provided, that is why American alliya photo was titled “American Paratroopers”.

Allowing Menashe in Israel was a presidential decision initiated controversy among orthodoxy in Israel as understood from media.

MichaelK,

You said:

“There is no such thing as “Palestinians” but the Arabs of Palestine of whom overseas relatives worldwide are blood-linked Arabs simply”

This is where your version of history is opposite of the rest of the world. The country partitioned in 1948 was “Palestine”. Palestine was occupied by Palestinians who were arabs (Muslims, Christians), non arabs (assyrians, etc..) and Jews. In fact, Jews of Palestine were less than 5% of the whole population up to 1910).
The migration of European Jews and the push to create a separate Jewish state to avoid increasing friction between the armed refugees and the existing residents of the land.
Palestinians have an identity, a country and a home and most of them refuse to leave their homes despite the efforts to drive them out. They are not ‘arabs’ of Palestine. Even Arabs of Palestine lived their before European Jews.

The 1948 partition created a room for a new state “Israel” on the land of Palestine with the majority of the land to remain as Palestine for the Palestinians.

I think the 'one state' philosophy either by Palestinians or Israelis is a thing of the past. Reality is there should be a 2 states solutions.

Peace,

T

Fellow_Human

"The migration of European Jews and the push to create a separate Jewish state ..."

How many times do I have to tell you guys that there was also migration of Jews from Islamic middle eastern states into Israel. In fact around half of the Jews in Israel are descended from these middle eastern Jews. The communities in Egypt, Iran and Iraq in fact started long before Mahommet's birth, long before the Caliphate.

The Jews in Egypt were denied passports and in all these countries given inferior citizenship rights. The total number of displaced middle eastern Jews roughly equals the number of displaced Palestinian Arabs.

This does damage your argument a little, sorry.

As understood,a two-state solution is gradually winning understanding of even the most intolerant to this idea from its very start-although,for different reasons, Fellow_Human,I share your opinion reflecting on this issue from the time this idea was “anti-Israeli”.

A deliberation of a problem is understandably common on different walks of Internet, and I had been informed that my avoidance of expression “Palestinians” as an ambiguous vogue definition (yourself, you told of Palestine as a place shared by the Arabs and Jews, so Israelis are Palestinians rightfully) is historically correct even from viewpoint of international legislative wording: the UN resolution on re-instatement of Israel and creating an Arab state in Palestine referred to the folks as “the Jews” and “the Arabs of Palestine”.

Personally, I like this information because it has once again proved that not-so-sophisticated English is not an obstacle for making right conclusions, which substantially contradicts pan-Australian opinion on inferiority of speaking the different accents.