That's 100% true.

What do we call that?

Its anti-semitism, its judenrein, its ethnic cleansing. All the Arabs and the leftists are Hitler's little helpers just like Ariel Sharon when he withdrew the settlements from Gaza. We are betrayed! BETRAYED!! THEY ARE TRAITORS AND NAZIS ALL!!!

Something like that. Let your freak flag fly proudly.

...of Israel. Why the double-standard?

Come on, you must be dying to let it all out...

I never get sick of seeing the contortions some will do to try to justify settlers being able to live wherever they want in territory that isn't part of Israel...

What a convenient way to bar Jews from living there. Especially those who had lived there prior to 1948. You're justifying apartheid and that's pretty fucking ugly, Vi.

See, Israel could do the same thing you're trying here. They could claim they don't want any "terrorists" in Israel. So to fix that, they throw all the Arabs out.

Fair's fair, right? No terrorists in Israel and no settlers in Palestine.

Hence, it's not racist either way.

No amount of contortion and twisting will get you out of this muck, Vi.

So if I dig in all that mess you posted just then, I gather that because yr beloved settlers aren't allowed to build in every part of territory that isn't part of Israel, it's apartheid. Even though you accuse people of being antisemitic if they dare say that Israel's policy in the West Bank with military rule for Palestinians and civil rule for Israelis is reminiscent of apartheid. Now, that's so blatantly a double standard that if it was coming from anyone else I'd be shocked.

Yr habit of switching from calling Israelis Israelis to calling them Jews is a nasty one that you've been picked up on before. Weren't you yelling at someone only a few threads back because you though they were equating Israelis and Jews? So why is it okay for you to do it?

See, Israel could do the same thing you're trying here. They could claim they don't want any "terrorists" in Israel. So to fix that, they throw all the Arabs out.

Fair's fair, right? No terrorists in Israel and no settlers in Palestine.

Um, excuse me. I thought everyone at DU knew this but clearly you don't. 'Palestinian' does not equal 'terrorist'. Settlers do equal settlers. Repeat those last two sentences until they sink in, because someone that equates Palestinians with terrorists is someone with a massive problem as far as I'm concerned...

No amount of contortion and twisting will get you out of this muck, Vi.

To get out of the muck, I finish reading yr posts full of contortion and twisting of terms like apartheid and go and read something else at DU that I actually learn something constructive from. Thankfully there's a bit of that around the place here

...are settlers who in your opinion should not be allowed to live in a future Palestine?

Because yet again you appear to have totally ignored everything I said in the detailed response I gave you.

btw, yr 'question' is a remarkably ridiculous one. For one, the settlers are Israeli. Unlike you, I don't give a shit if they're Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist. They're Israeli settlers. Secondly, there were no Israeli settlements prior to 1948 as there was no Israel. Thirdly, even if a little old Israeli man who used to live in the West Bank prior to 1948 wanted to live in a future Palestine, then he'd have to apply for Palestinian citizenship just like everyone else.

The Palestinian leadership consists of a bunch of bigoted racists and you're whitewashing that. Their maniacal hate for Jews can be seen everywhere throughout their state-run media. Denying it, as you do, is downright ugly.

Flinging random and unrelated crap around just isn't giving a great impression there.

*sigh* let's try this again. You switch between Israelis and Jews when it suits you and you want to portray anyone who dares criticise Israel as being antisemitic, yet only a few days ago I spotted you yelling at a pro-Palestinian DUer for supposedly doing exactly what yr doing now and have done repeatedly in the past. Here's a big fact for you that yr not going to like. There's a lot of Israelis who aren't Jewish. In fact, it's around 25% of the population. Calling Israelis Jews instead of Israelis is just as ugly and bigoted as calling Palestinians Muslims instead of Palestinians because 'they're Palestinian and just happen to be Muslim'..

So, instead of flailing round making stupid accusations because I don't agree with frothing at the mouth rants and folk who equate Palestinians with terrorists (talk about maniacal hate!), maybe you could try to explain in a coherent way what it was about my response to yr bizarre 'question' that appears to have upset you so much...

There is no 'thing'. It's hypocritical and really stupid to so blatantly accuse others of doing exactly what you not only do yrself, but then turn around and justify doing. You constantly interchange the terms Israeli and Jew to suit yr agenda when you want to try to make out that people who dare criticise Israel are antisemitic.

Game playing is trying to divert attention away from what was said, just like you just did.

Don't pretend otherwise.

Are you my new pet poodle, following me around and yipping away?

As to Violet's response....

The only two Jewish populations in the West Bank during the first half of the twentieth century were in Hebron and Kfar Etzion.

The maximum Jewish population of the West Bank at any given time during that period would have been less than five hundred.

...can live beyond the green line according to the PLO.

The point being you and your comrades here are trying to whitewash the PLO's plan to make a future Palestine Jew free. I thought that was a progressive no-no, being the anti-racists you guys claim to be.

when he made the Gaza Strip judenrein? You think that that was ethnic cleansing?

You would therefore have no objection to the politicians and soldiers who participated in that ethnic cleansing being charged with crimes against humanity?

I wonder why that is.

when that terminology is being used by your pro-Israel colleagues. At least you never object to it.

Like here for instance:-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=365599&mesg_id=365616

I have never used such terminology with respect to this conflict.

You, however, have. As have others. I object to it all.

I'll try to call out more posters more frequently if you promise to stop using those terms.

In this very thread, we have not one but two posters who apparently believe that the Gaza withdrawal was anti-semitic ethnic cleansing.

And given that the majority of Israelis approved of that withdrawal, that means that Israelis by and large are supporters of anti-semitic ethnic cleansing.

Someone urgently needs to inform those poor Jews living in Israel that they are apparently living in an anti-semitic apartheid ethnic cleansing state. Clearly it is not safe for them to remain there.

And please don't be dense with me. You know very well that I am simply adopting the terminology used by pro-settler Kahanists on this forum and throwing it back at them, and that I do not myself consider the withdrawal of settlements to be an anti-semitic policy.

And in response was falsely accused of something by you.

Here is my question for you: Why do you yourself choose to use Nazi terminology in describing Israel?

I would be interested to know why you make the conscious choice to do that.

K&R

They really should send you guys a thank-you gift.

On the part of the Israeli Army?

Did you read the op?

Jews are restricted from entering area a, which is the land that's entirely under PA control. The PA restricts them. Not the IDF.

The Palestinian Police Force -- a para-military force over 50,000 strong -- and armed with semi-automatic weapons (supplied by Israel). Al-Assifa, is the main armed wing of the Palestinian Authority but there is also the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Force 17.

but please do keep trying

Al-Aqsa and Force 17 are the official military body of the PA

But, no problem, you can keep pretending the PA are pacifists just like Ghandiji. Very few people here will argue with you.

they are not armies either albeit your attempt to legitimize them as such is commendable and if for some reason the settlers wish to enter a Palestinian area IDF will gladly provide security for them

BTW area a is 18% of the West Bank, hint 100-18 is not 60

and oh a police force and presidential guard is still not a military

Israel's army is enforcing PA policy. It is not up to the IDF or Israel to decide who is allowed in to area A. It's the PA's policy to dictate.

Why would the IDF have a crazy policy like that otherwise?

for the same reason they claim to do everything security that's why

I'm sure the Palestinians would be happy to know that they're the ones wearing the pants after all.

Although I'm not sure it makes a difference. Whether Israel is carrying out anti-semitic policies on behalf of someone does not negate the fact that they are carrying out anti-semitic policies. At the very most, it means that Israel is the kapo, and the Palestinians are the Nazis.

Do you think that the policy of not allowing Jewish Israelis into Area A is anti-semitic?

Did you think that the 2005 withdrawal of the settlements from Gaza was anti-semitic?

Was drawing the distinction of "us" versus "enemy" based on ethnicity, rather than citizenship. Therefore the issue was never "Israelis aren't allowed to wander freely" but rather that Jews aren't allowed to do so.

and Israel is enforcing anti-semitism as a matter of policy.

Israel's merely enforcing the border rules set by the PA. It's not anti-Semitic on the part of the IDF. they have no say in the matter.

The fact of the matter is that this conflict is split down ethnic lines. Acknowledging that is hardly racist. If the PA wants to let in members of its own ethnicity so be it. Clearly they see the Jews as their enemy. Not all the Israelis.

So is the PA being anti semiotic here? Of course. But so what? Why would they be anything but? The meaning is different when the split between ethnicities defines sides in a war.

Why not ask if restricting jews from entering al aqsa is anti Semitic as well?

They are of course Palestinians who were lucky enough to retain the right to live in present day Israel. But that makes them no less Palestinian.

As such, you would expect them to be able to access Area A as of right, would you not?

It is worth noting that Palestinian Jews (ie Samaritans)as well as Israeli Druze, who politically identify with Israel for the most part, are nevertheless considered Palestinian and may access Area A.

It didn't say Palestinian. It said Arab.

it said Jewish. And as I keep repeating, it is an Israeli sign promulgating Israeli Army regulations. Unless of course you consider that the Palestinians are outsourcing their signwriting as well as their anti-semitism to the Israeli Army.

But it certainly illustrates some interesting thought processes. On the one hand, you consider the PA to be racist for allowing Palestinians (including those with Israeli citizenship) to access Area A ahead of non-Palestinian Israelis, despite the fact that every country in the world allows privileged access to their own nationals.

On the other hand, the fact that any given Jewish person, irrespective of the degree of their historical connection to Israel/Palestine, can apply for citizenship ahead of Palestinians who have lived in the area for millenia, is not racism, in your view.