What happened when they gave blacks in South Africa the vote? I think the blacks in South Africa spent a few decades under Apartheid.
It also depends on how closely you conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
Blacks do not have a monopoly on “playing the race card”
I think a lot of people who seem anti-Israel are actually anti-Israel’s-current-policies just like a lot of anti-American sentiment under bush was actually anti-then-current-American-policies
This was not my understanding. I thought it actually was a matter of giving people the right to become Israeli citizens and offer some form of just compensation. I have never heard anyone (including Israeli commentators) say that right of return meant going back to 1947 conditions.
But according to the cite I gave you though their rates may be high, their numbers are tiny. As in
“This means [that] of the 70% or so of the population that is not African American or Latino, only 3% hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views. Put another way, less than 5% of whites, Asians, and “others” (including Native Americans) combined hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views, compared to over 30% of African Americans and Latinos”
This doesn’t refute my point – the African Americans and Latinos who happen to have anti-Semitic views might be more likely to be conservative (or not), and the same goes for the rest of the population polled.
I won’t say I’m not troubled by the findings, but I’m entirely unconvinced that anti-Semitism is more of a problem on the left than the right in the US. All of the personal anti-Semitism that I have experienced (mostly in the Navy) in which I knew the politics of the offender has been from people with conservative political views.
It is typically ‘coded’. To Westerners, Palestinians talk merely about compensation and perhaps a theoretical right for some limited number of Palestinians to ‘return’ (after all, Palestinains also want their own state, and how does having one’s own state ‘mesh’ with also having a ‘right to return’ to a totally different state?); however, among Palestinians, the ‘right of return’ means a literal ‘return’ to the time before “the disaster” in 1948.
An example to demonstrate the point: when Abbas publicly stated in 2012 that he was willing to admit that a “right of return” may not of necessity be a “return” of the very hometown which he left, but merely some compensation, he was met with a shit-storm of controversy - and recanted by stating this was only his private opinion and wasn’t any comment on Palestinian rights.
From the source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/11/mil-121102-rferl01.htm
Hamas is the party that is in line with typical Palestinian asperations on this, not Abbas (and in fact, he was forced to recant, humiliatingly).
It is clear that when Palestinians talk about the “right of return”, they typically want it to mean a “return” of Palestine to the pre-1948 borders (whether through demographics or otherwise) - any hint that their leaders are veering away from that interpretation is met with massive protests. Abbas made the mistake of publicly giving a version of the Western ‘liberal’ interpretation of that “right of return” (that is, that it means effectively compensation and not a literal ‘return’ to pre-1948, in which he would, literally, take up his family’s prior abode) - which is exactly why he set off mass protests.
There would be no point to having an Israel that wasn't Jewish. The world made it necessary at that moment and it happened. There may have been indigenous people who were displaced but I'd like to know how many. Certainly they could be accommodated. But it's really skewed now. Many were drawn to the area. many migrated in their interests, the same as Jews migrated to America and Israel. They came because it was in their economic interest to be close to Israel. Their own governments had a lot to say about it too. (Maybe an example of their non-education, non-advancement and un-civilization.) The palestinians are not comparable to indigenous americans.
You have different standards for behavior amongst the two worlds. Another way of having a double standard might be to say that israel is small, most of it inconsequential to Arab nations, (most other Arabs are inconsequential to Arab nations) except that they want to cleanse the area of Jews, of which israel is the one nation. So if I had a double standard it would be based on that. There is no example of a new order similar to joining these two worlds, one of which is set to destroy the other, less than 100 years after the smaller one began as a population that was nearly cleansed out of Europe.
Everywhere you look you see Jews helping, participating, inventing, creating. Life would be nasty brutish and short without jews contributions, and that goes for the whole world: Anyone whose life is enlightened or prolonged by science or medicine, or the arts. What civil rights workers got murdered in Mississippi? So maybe the Palestinian thing is the lowpoint of Jewish public life. But I think the world owes the Jews better than a double standard.
Funny the anglo-splaining of what the arab palestinians really mean…
it is also funny that in the palestinians I have always known that they did not believe return was in reality more a hard negotiating point to push for the east jerusalem and the entire land of the west bank.
As in the less selective quoting of the nyt
of course the hamas activists will make noise as they have the view that Israel is not honestly negotiating either. And so the endless idiocy continues.
but perhaps less anglo-splaining…
Not all of us here are “anglos”, Ramira. Some of us are a lot closer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than your are.
So it’s merely a hard negotiating point which is exactly as Malthus described it? Thanks for the arab-splaining.
No what he was asserting was the usual discourse of the lying decietful arabes and jumping over the real 1967 objectives and the focus among the great number of palestinians of the point as the leverage against the constant expansion of the settlements.
so yes, the anglo-splaining.
I’m Ashknazi and Yankee. Guess I’m an anglo.
Your first sentence is not a sentence. I can’t understand your message. that might be just me though.
yes that is true, but you notice I do not make any sweeping statement. But i do know better than the non-arabophone and it is prejudiced and unbalanced to present as he did.
of course there are the 1948 irredentistes, but they are not The Palestinians tout court and the 1967 objectives and the resetnment and the seeing this as a tool against the settlements and the expropriations is important as the factor, which was passed in total silence, for the purpose it is clear of the distortion.
the lying decientful arab narrative is as bad as the same one told on the arab side of the Israeli-Jewish. I am objecting to both.
Generally:
What is the “lying, deceitful Arab” narrative? I hope I haven’t contributed.
What about the “Honest Arab” narrative in which they do not recognize Israels right, can’t tolerate the idea of jews, and express it? We know this is at issue because of improvements in communication and translation. Some very candid things were said.
You are demonstrating it very nicely it appears, this narrative.
It’s not my facts she objects to, it’s the fact that I am presenting them. 
But yes, I did find it very amusing that - in attempted refutaion of my position - she simply re-confirmed its accuracy.
I wonder if anyone on her “side” really stopped to think about it logically: how does one square a “right of return” with a “new Palestinian state” on the WB, unless it is just a code for compensation? The vast majority of refugees aren’t from the WB, they are originally from pre-1967 Israel.
The notion that it is simply the reaction of a few Hamas hot-heads lacks reality. It is Abbas who was the outlier on this, not them - hence his climb-down. If the majority in the actual area agreed with Hamas, no climb-down would have been necessary.
As stated in the NYT article:
Note that this is from Mahdi Abdul Hadi, chairman of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs - hardly, as far as I know, a Hamas hot-head.
Other non-Hamas reactions:
All Abbas did was publicly articulate the common Western notion of what the “right of return” means. This was seen as a grave betrayal of Palistinian asperations. To quote Abdel Bari Atwan: “This is our land and this is our right". What is the reasonable interpretation of this?
I fully sympathize with Abbas - he is in the impossible position of attempting to negotiate a deal with the Israelis on the one hand, where his own people’s un-negotiable demand, on the other, is completely unacceptable. The notion that a compromise can be ‘sold’ is a bit of an illusion. This leads to chimeras like the notion that the right of return isn’t meant seriously - “was in reality more a hard negotiating point” - which, while acceptable to Western audiences, led directly to protests in the ME (and a huge climb-down) when Abbas attempted to publicly state it.
Note that this is hardly my “prejudiced and unbalanced” view - it is simply what emerges from actually reading the sources. Including, as it happens, those who disagree with me.
This is interesting - you are arguing that I am demonizing Palestinians with “the lying decientful arab narrative” – yet it is you who claim that Palestinians don’t in fact mean the “right of return” seriously? That it is simply “in reality more a hard negotiating point” (your words) to press for what they really want? 
Seems to me that I am the one assuming that Palestinians say what they mean, and you are the one claiming they are “lying deceitful arabs”. Particularly if you examine how the issue arose in this thread, which I invite you to do - it was because an organization in America was pressing for a boycott of Israel , and it was being criticized for supporting the “right of return”.
Which you have just asserted isn’t meant seriously!
In reality, Palestinians negotiators like Abbas are between a rock and a hard place, and I have every sympathy for them: the population in the ME very clearly understands the “right of return” to be meant literally, and of course (as Abbas well knows) this is totally a non-starter for Israel.
And aren’t the vast majority of those in the refugee camps and cities descandants of those who were originally from pre-1967 Israel? What is the proportion of actual refugees, as opposed to those who were born into refugee status outside of Israel?
Unless the right of return is heritable, it seems likely to fade away with time by ordinary actuarial processes.
English is not Ramira’s fist language and while she and I have butted heads on a couple of occasions I’d hardly fault her for it, particularly since she is usually still able to get across her point.