Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique wrote:Are you saying that it is ok to break international laws if one says it is because of one's religion?

No, I have no clue what gave you that idea.

shafique wrote:(Oh, and I'm impressed with the logical gymnastics that equates a Judge saying Arabs are discriminated against in the Judicial system with 'Arabs are equal under the law' - kudos!)

Show me an example than where Israeli Arabs are not equal according to Israeli law?

While you are at it show me a way how a can protest the apartheid of KSA, where can I go to a judge where I can demand access to Mekka and Medina?

Why are Non-Muslims not allowed to enter Mecca & Medinah?

By Law, Non-Muslims are disallowed in the Holy cities of Madinah and Makkah. There are many people who raise objection to this and hence try to spread misconceptions. The following points will serve to understand the possible reasoning behind such a restriction.

All citizens are not permitted in the cantonment area
I am a citizen of India. Yet, I am not permitted to enter certain restricted areas like the cantonment. In every country there are certain areas where a common citizen of that country cannot enter. Only a citizen who is enrolled in the military or those who are connected with the defense of the country are allowed in the cantonment area. Similarly Islam is a Universal Religion for the entire world and for all human beings. The cantonment areas of Islam are the two holy cites of Makkah and Madinah. Here only those who believe in Islam and are involved in the defense of Islam i.e. the Muslims are allowed.

It would be illogical for a common citizen to object against the restriction on entering a cantonment area. Similarly it is not appropriate for non-Muslims to object against the restriction on non-Muslims against entering Makkah and Madinah.

Visa to enter Makkah and Madinah

Whenever a person travels to a foreign country he has to first apply for a visa i.e. the permission to enter that country. Every country has its own rules, regulations and requirements for issuing a visa. Unless their critera are satisfied they will not issue a visa.

One of the countries which is very strict in issuing a visa is the United States of America, especially when issuing visas to citizens of the third world. They have several conditions and requirements to be fulfilled before they issue a visa.

When I visited Dubai, it was mentioned on their immigration form – death to drug traffickers. If I want to visit Dubai, I have to abide by the rules. I cannot say that death penalty is a barbaric punishment. Only if I agree with their requirements and conditions will I be permitted to enter the country.

The Visa – The primary condition required for any human being to enter Makkah or Madina is to say with his lips, “La ila ha illallah Muhammed ur Rasulullah” meaning that ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammed (pbuh) is His Messenger.’

Berrin wrote:The Visa – The primary condition required for any human being to enter Makkah or Madina is to say with his lips, “La ila ha illallah Muhammed ur Rasulullah” meaning that ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammed (pbuh) is His Messenger.’

Apartheid based on and justified by religion.
Berrin, I would like to see your reaction if Israel put a road sign saying: "Jews can go straight and gentiles need to turn" before entering Jerusalem. You would be furious and claim apartheid, and rightly so. But Israel respects all religions and accomodate them

You would be furious and claim apartheid, and rightly so…

No, I would be more rational and radical admin than you can think of, first I would say that it has been a cradle of all civilisations and religions therefore everyone can travel into Jarusalem without the visa or restrictions(except moral restrictions) or else say that there is only one God, and that God is the owner of the religion Islam revealing the final messages to humankind so as to welcome both jews and christians to unite under the umbrealla of Islam…Wouldn’t that be great…this way everyone would stay in peace, no bloodshed, no hatred, no discrimination…wonderful…(not to mention that jews and Christians couldn’t even stand the tought of my hallucination)

But Israel respects all religions and accomodate them

Yes you are right, they are very good at paying lip service..So far they don’t prove it and don’t have intentions either, look out to see the work of the jewish lobbies around the world against muslims, let alone the ones in israel…
If Israel was goint to respect islam, they wouldn’t have been helped to confiscate the land that was habitats to palestinian arabs for so many centuries…Instead jews would have been shifted to Palestine after holocaust and both arabs and jews would take joint affairs of running the country without hatred…Now in reality, the jews replace palestinians with new jews coming from around the world who have nothing to do with the actual land while the arab habitants of Palestine are driven out of their homes and environment. This represents disgrace on humanity when a normal human being wouldn’t do the same treatment to their cats and dogs at home.

FD - the Israeli Judge ruled that Arabs faced discrimination in the judicial system. This is an official Israeli ruling.

Israelis performed a mini act of ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem in 1967 when it evicted and bulldozed the 100+ houses of the Maghreb quarter and prevented the residents from returning. The recent announcement of increasing the colonolisation by another 900 homes is what prompted the South Africans to issue their pronouncement that the Israelis are acting like the Apartheid regime.

I understand you believe that the Israeli actions are justified - and I am still amused that your main argument is that Arab neighbours are also discriminatory and therefore seem to be arguing that South Africa should also condemn Saudi injustices.

I've said that I will join you in condemning injustices committed by any Muslim nation. I've said that I don't agree with the official US and Israeli stance towards Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide, for example - they both join Turkey in denying it was a genocide. I also condemn the human rights abuses carried out by Indonesia, for example. It doesn't really matter to me too much that the US give military aid to both - I will condemn the actions rather than look first to see what religion they are or who backs them. When Hamas or Hezbollah, for example, commit acts of terrorism or human rights abuses, these are unequivocably condemned by me as well (and yes, even the Saudi police state actions are condemned by me).

All that said, the Israeli actions are akin to Apartheid and cannot be justified - human rights abuses and illegal building in occupied land is what it is - a crime.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:

Berrin wrote:The Visa – The primary condition required for any human being to enter Makkah or Madina is to say with his lips, “La ila ha illallah Muhammed ur Rasulullah” meaning that ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammed (pbuh) is His Messenger.’

Apartheid based on and justified by religion.
Berrin, I would like to see your reaction if Israel put a road sign saying: "Jews can go straight and gentiles need to turn" before entering Jerusalem. You would be furious and claim apartheid, and rightly so. But Israel respects all religions and accomodate them

I didnt realise they banned kafirs from Makkah or Madina, kinda sad, anyone is allowed to visit rome.

I still don't see any law discriminating against Arabs, or pictures on benches "no Arabs allowed". Israel is trying to come to terms with their moniroties, hardly any different from other countries and espailly no different from ME countries. In 1948 Israel gave Arab women the right to vote, Arabs have been cabinet members and an Arab has been on the Supreme Court. Many Arab countries have laws forbidding citizenship based on religion and/or ethnicity. In KSA the use of certain highways is based on religion. In fact Islam is a religion of apartheid, like the treatment of dhimmi's.

Flying Dutchman wrote:I still don't see any law discriminating against Arabs, or pictures on benches "no Arabs allowed".

Yes, you are quite right - the Israeli law does not say it is ok to discriminate. No arguments there.

The Israelis have indeed been modifying their laws over the years to take into account Human Rights - it used to be ok (legally) to torture, and this has now been repealed. Similarly it was ok to bulldoze homes as a punishment - again this has been repealed.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Israel is trying to come to terms with their moniroties, hardly any different from other countries and espailly no different from ME countries.

No problems with 'coming to terms' with those living within the borders of Israel either.

Flying Dutchman wrote:In 1948 Israel gave Arab women the right to vote, Arabs have been cabinet members an
d an Arab has been on the Supreme Court. Many Arab countries have laws forbidding citizenship based on religion and/or ethnicity. In KSA the use of certain highways is based on religion.

Cool - Israel is indeed progressive on this point and puts surrounding Arab countries to shame.

In Occupied Palestine, though, many of the highways are also based on religion - with Colonialist only roads reserved for followers of the Jewish religion.

Flying Dutchman wrote: In fact Islam is a religion of apartheid, like the treatment of dhimmi's.

Perhaps you are right and Islam is a religion of apartheid. That's for the religion forum.

However, this is not the point here - here we've been talking about Israel's actual discrimination against it's non-Jewish citizens and non-Jewish occupants of the occupied territories, and the fact that Israel has indeed applied Apartheid like policies when it sets up separate roads, living quarters etc. The echoes of Apartheid also find resonance with the ID cards and restrictions on movements of those living in the occupied territories.

So, the South African government and I have a fundamental disagreement with you. We do not see the otherwise progressive stance of Israel as an excuse for their on-going discrimination. We both condemn the discrimination and don't buy the 'but the Arabs/Muslims are worse' argument.

Nothing in KSA has been designed that is comparable to the 'colonialist only' roads in the Occupied territories - so I'm a bit surprised that you bring that up in support of your view that Israel is less discriminatory than Saudi.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:In Occupied Palestine, though, many of the highways are also based on religion - with Colonialist only roads reserved for followers of the Jewish religion.

The jew only roads only live inside your imagination. Certain roads are only accessible for cars with Israeli license plates. Jew, Arabs, Christians, Dutch and atheists can travel the roads, as long as they have an Israeli license plate.

.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:In Occupied Palestine, though, many of the highways are also based on religion - with Colonialist only roads reserved for followers of the Jewish religion.

The jew only roads only live inside your imagination. Certain roads are only accessible for cars with Israeli license plates. Jew, Arabs, Christians, Dutch and atheists can travel the roads, as long as they have an Israeli license plate.

.

I admit I may be wrong here. I did think that the colonial only roads were only used by Jewish people. How many Arab Israelis are living in the colonies (aka settlements) and use these 'colonial only' roads then?

If Arab Israeli citizens can use these roads and go and visit the rest of the West Bank etc, then I was mistaken about this segregation as between Jewish and non-Jewish, when it may be 'occupier' vs 'occupied' (regardless of religion).

Cheers,
Shafique

I didnt realise they banned kafirs from Makkah or Madina, kinda sad, anyone is allowed to visit rome.

Yes you are right, Vatikan has no excuse to stop muslims since God’s messeangers prophet jesus and moses are muslims beloved prophets, and that the revelations they conveyed to mankind were truly Islamic. However problems still arise today not due to muslims but both Christians and jews, as they don’t yet confess islam as being the final revelations of God …Even tho they know that there is truly one God, and that God is the owner of all heavenly religions. Therefore this justifies why non-muslims are rigtly stopped entering into holy sites that only belongs to people who declare Islams testimony of faith.
In my mind, I’ll go even further and say that, the vatikan is better stop their political stance and their status as representatives of christians and should take the right steps to save their millions of followers aftermath in the hereafter. This way they would contribute to world peace treamenduasly.

Many Arab countries have laws forbidding citizenship based on religion and/or ethnicity. In KSA the use of certain highways is based on religion. In fact Islam is a religion of apartheid, like the treatment of dhimmi's.

You better get yourself educated about the treatment of dhimmi’s in islam. There is nothing stops non-muslims becoming muslims. The same God creates muslims, also creates non-muslims. It’s down to your efforts to find out about the truth instead of wasting your life both here and in the hereafter.
If you have problems with religion therefore sharia then you don’t have problems with muslims as they put God’s laws superior to man made laws, therefore your argument and problems cannot be with muslims but with your own creator. If you have problems with your creator than muslims can’t help you, you have to wait to see what happens while your are passing out your life here and in the hereafter. I don’t welcome you to criticize God and his laws but you are welcomed to criticize muslims and their practices according to the laws of God in Islam.
http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/the-k ... e-khilafah

Okay I am sick of this discussion. Look at the list of prominent Jews who have had an opinion on this.

1- Einstein was offered Israel's presidency. He refused. It was not a matter of personal preference. You see Einstein, has been frequently quoted criticizing the very idea of Israel. This is one quote:

"the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power….I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks…"

2- Freud who died before Israel's inception (I think anyway) has also been quoted as saying that he opposes the idea of a Jewish state because it would be racist and he as a Jew wanted no part of that.

3- Chomsky has described Israel as a country which "resides in discriminatory institutions and practices... expressed in the basic legal structure of the state". I don't think I need to go into the relationship between racism and discrimination.

4- Zeiltin always said that Israel would fail as a state because of the injustices it would have to subject the Palestinians too (the poor man thought Jews were too peaceful for such actions)

These are the brightest minds in Jewish history! It is not a coincidence that they all have a single opinion.

Further comments by non-Jews:

1- Ghandi: "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs"

2- Henry George Wells with a quote that is pretty much the best opinion that I have ever read about Israel....then again this is the man who has written the most comprehensive and insightful treatise on the history of human beings:
"In England, where there has been no social, political or economic discrimination against the Jews for several generations, there is a growing irritation at the killing and wounding of British soldiers and Arabs in pitched battles fought because of this Zionist idea. It seems to our common people an irrelevance, before the formidable issues they have to face on their own account. They are beginning to feel that if they are to be history ridden to the extent of restoring a Jewish state that was extinguished nearly two thousand years ago, they might just as well go back another thousand years and sacrifice their sons to restore the Canaanites and Philistines who possessed the land before the original Jewish conquest"

3- George Marshall (basically the man who saved the world from the Nazis): "If you (recognize the state of Israel) and if I were to vote in the election, I would vote against you" (speaking to Truman)

Still not convinced that Israel is a racist state based on a farce. Fine, these are the writings of Herzl; founder of Israel. These are entries from his own personal diary:

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends”

"So anti-Semitism, which is a deeply imbedded force in the subconscious mind of the masses, will not harm the Jews. I actually find it to be advantageous to building the Jewish character, education by the masses that will lead to assimilation. This education can only happen through suffering, and the Jews will adapt."

Absolute thievery and deceit of even his own people.

The fact is that Israel is NOT a Jewish state. It is an Atheist WHITE state. The biggest proof of that is inter-Jewish racism. Look at the racism to Sephardics. Look at the racism to Falasha. For 30 years Falasha were not allowed to emigrate to Israel in spite of the fact that they were Jews. Why? Because they are Ethiopian and black. For that reason they were not considered worthy to live with their European "brethren". Bear in mind that Falasha were only allowed in Israel AFTER Portugal withdrew from Angola and South Africa's disastrous intervention was evident to the world marking the first Black victory against the Apartheid. You tell me Israel is not an Apartheid state when their internal policies were in fact governed by the successes and failures of the Apartheid? Now, after finally allowing the Falasha in, for those that have chosen to move there; look at how they are treated as second rate citizens.

Furthermore, Israel were not only influenced by the Apartheid. They participated in it! They were selling the South African government so much weaponry that Sri Lanka at one point proposed cutting relations with Israel because its industries and trade fueled racism. Israel basically established the nuclear weaponry of the Apartheid government. They were giving the South African government atomic weapons when everyone knew they would only use it for racial eradication. The whole world had cut off South Africa but South African officials were welcomed with open arms in Israel. Sharon had the gall to visit South African troops in Namibia and openly support them in person when they were invading a neighboring country and practicing genocide. Nelson Mandela himself has said that Israel openly aided the apartheid regime.

And you tell me Israel is not an apartheid state. Why are you so surprised that people who label it so and compare it to South Africa when Israel actively participated in the original apartheid?! Not racist, my a$$. Oh and feel free to call me antisemitic if that is all you can come up with.

dee7o wrote:The fact is that Israel is NOT a Jewish state. It is an Atheist WHITE state.

Wow!

No doubt Israel had relations with the apartheid regime of SA, to what extend? I think we will never know. Not something Israel should be proud of. Also Dutch companies continued to trade with the apartheid regime. But the biggest supporter of the apartheid regime were the Arab states. The sole reason the apartheid regime could exist that long was the oil coming mainly from the Arabian Peninsula.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

dee7o wrote:The fact is that Israel is NOT a Jewish state. It is an Atheist WHITE state.

Wow!

No doubt Israel had relations with the apartheid regime of SA, to what extend? I think we will never know. Not something Israel should be proud of. Also Dutch companies continued to trade with the apartheid regime. But the biggest supporter of the apartheid regime were the Arab states. The sole reason the apartheid regime could exist that long was the oil coming mainly from the Arabian Peninsula.

I do not understand something about this forum. Maybe it is my shortcoming in understanding the logic of man. Why do you people love to assume that if I have an opinion about one thing, I must have the opposite opinion about its extreme? Kindly judge what I type and not what you assume I think. You say Arab states supported the Apartheid. So? Are you trying to convince me that Arab states are racist? Again, so? I know they are!

I'm also amused at the line of argument that is often reeled out when Israeli crimes/shortcomings are pointed out - viz '..but, but, but - the Arabs also commit these crimes/shortcomings' !!! I mean, wtf??

The above is a case in point - a cogent and well referenced argument listing evidence for discrimination by Israel, and we get 'actually there is also discrimination in Saudi'.

I wonder if any Saudi ever argues that 'we discriminate, but so do Israelis, so it is ok for us' (probably happens in private when the US is handing over money or sending its military to its bases, come to think of it).

Anyway - it goes to show that there are clearly two camps here - those who agree with the South African government that Israeli actions are discriminatory and like Apartheid, and those who excuse these actions and say 'look over there though, leave us alone'.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm also amused at the line of argument that is often reeled out when Israeli crimes/shortcomings are pointed out - viz '..but, but, but - the Arabs also commit these crimes/shortcomings' !!! I mean, wtf??

Shafique is amazed by that line of argument. Amazed.

I am similarly amazed at that line of argument when the crusades are brought in a discussion of Muhammad's war crimes. Amazed.

I actually agree with eh on this point - it is pointless bringing up historical massacres done in the name of religion when discussing current day crimes of Israel.

If I tried to excuse the imagined massacres of early Muslims by saying they were ok because Christians later massacred far more, then I deserve to be dismissed as a supporter of massacres. However, I've been at pains to say I condemn any act of terrorism, including the ones that are imagined by eh (such as the ficticious 7000 killed at Bahnasa).

So, as I said, we seem to be clearly in two camps - those who agree with South Africa that Israel's policies are akin to Apartheid, and those who condone Israel's policies and point fingers at Arabs.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I'm also amused at the line of argument that is often reeled out when Israeli crimes/shortcomings are pointed out - viz '..but, but, but - the Arabs also commit these crimes/shortcomings' !!! I mean, wtf??

Stop acting!

shafique wrote:I wonder if any Saudi ever argues that 'we discriminate, but so do Israelis, so it is ok for us'

I think KSA is justifying their actions using the Quran and sunna.

shafique wrote:Anyway - it goes to show that there are clearly two camps here - those who agree with the South African government that Israeli actions are discriminatory and like Apartheid, and those who excuse these actions and say 'look over there though, leave us alone'.

I have said many times, that in a lot of cases you can rightly criticize Israel. Libeling doesn't help though. Also constantly focusing on Israel while ignoring all the time other way worse cases in the ME is just sheer hypcrocy. So no, I am not saying you should leave Israel alone and not criticize it, and no it is not ok when Israel does something because other countries are worse. But your Israel fetishism is really uncanny.

As far as I know there is no other state in Middleeast that occupies lands and behaves "......" to justify their "......." . There is no other single nation in 20 th century that were helped to confiscate a country that belong to some other people for so many centuaries...

Get your acts and intentions right...And it is our right to defend people that are left homeless due to israelis and their collaboraters ".........." beheviour... Do you get that FD?

Berrin wrote:There is no other single nation in 20 th century that were helped to confiscate a country that belong to some other people for so many centuaries...

Going OT now. There has never been an independent Palestine, if that is what you mean. Jews wanted to live in peace, Arabs didn't accept that and started their pogroms in Hebron and Jeruzalem among others. Arabs couldn't accept the partition plan. Instead they started a genicodal war. They lost.

My question seems to have got lost after dee's reply - but it is something I'd like to get to the bottom of. The 'colonialist-only' roads of the West Bank are a harsher separation than anything in Apartheid South Africa - and I've found a number of media articles that call these 'Jews-Only' roads.

So, do we actually have non-Jews living in the colonies (aka settlements) in the West Bank that are served by these roads or not?

Can Arab Israelis use these roads and then go on to travel to other parts of the West Bank - or is FD splitting hairs (again)?

shafique wrote:...
I admit I may be wrong here. I did think that the colonial only roads were only used by Jewish people. How many Arab Israelis are living in the colonies (aka settlements) and use these 'colonial only' roads then?

If Arab Israeli citizens can use these roads and go and visit the rest of the West Bank etc, then I was mistaken about this segregation as between Jewish and non-Jewish, when it may be 'occupier' vs 'occupied' (regardless of religion).

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:
Going OT now. There has never been an independent Palestine, if that is what you mean.

There have been inhabitants of the Palestine for millenia - and many of those who are refused entry to their homes have title deeds that go back to Ottoman times. These people are both Arabs and non-Arabs (my former colleague is of Greek extraction, you will recall) - as well as Muslim, Christian and perhaps other or no faiths.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Jews wanted to live in peace, Arabs didn't accept that and started their pogroms in Hebron and Jeruzalem among others.

Ok, so now we've moved from Palestine (a nation) to a religious group 'Jews'. The Jewish Palestinians were living in peace next to other Palestinians weren't they?

The non-Palestinian Jews (such as Begin) formed terrorist organisations and blew up British soldiers and booby trapped their bodies. They also bombed the King David hotel. Eventually they got permission from the international community to live alongside the existing inhabitants of Palestine (as it was called in British ruled era).

If this is 'living in peace' - I'd hate to see what 'living in war' looks like! Seriously.

Flying Dutchman wrote: Arabs couldn't accept the partition plan. Instead they started a genicodal war. They lost.

Partly right. Yes, the inhabitants of Palestine didn't like or accept the inequitable division that was forced on them in 1948 - nor did the neighbours of Palestine.

Yes, they started a war which aimed to get rid of the powers taking land away from Palestinians - and yes they lost. That was 1948 and as a result the Israelis captured more land that was allocated to them by the UN.

Nowadays, Israel is the occupier, it is the one that the South African government likened to the racist Apartheid regime.

I've no problem with you being an apologist for the Israeli actions - in fact I am quite glad you are here to give us their logic. Whilst I may disagree with the logic, I do think that there are absolute facts (eg the terrorism of Irgun etc) that should be mentioned when history is spun to make a point.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Ok, so now we've moved from Palestine (a nation) to a religious group 'Jews'.

Jews are not a religious group. It is a ethnic group. Something you also are not able to grasp!

shafique wrote:My question seems to have got lost after dee's reply - but it is something I'd like to get to the bottom of. The 'colonialist-only' roads of the West Bank are a harsher separation than anything in Apartheid South Africa - and I've found a number of media articles that call these 'Jews-Only' roads.

There are no jew only or colonist only roads. Another libel. Jews didn't poison the well, and there is no secret room with 2000 jews ruling the world as you also seem to think.

Flying Dutchman wrote:There are no jew only or colonist only roads. Another libel. Jews didn't poison the well, and there is no secret room with 2000 jews ruling the world as you also seem to think.

Then I guess those media articles will be hearing from the lawyers.

As I said, I've no issue with just calling the roads 'colonialist-only' roads - as I think it is wrong in anycase to characterise the conflict as between Jews and Muslims - especially as so many Israeli Jews are also against the injustices in their name (and not to mention the anti-Zionist Jewish organisations who oppose Israel itself - on religious grounds).

But, was my question difficult?

Are there non-Jewish colonialists who use these 'colonialist-only' roads? Or are you just quibbling over the label?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

Flying Dutchman wrote:Are there non-Jewish colonialists who use these 'colonialist-only' roads? Or are you just quibbling over the label?

Yes, many Arabs use them, and they donot live in the settlements.
I see you continue with your hatefull libels. Remember Israel is not an apartheid state like KSA, where they have Muslim only roads, something that you agree with, those Muslim only roads, who hypocritical!

I know that some Palestinians are given permission to use some of the 'colonialist-only' roads, but I wasn't aware of any non-Jewish colonists.

I see you are avoiding answering the direct question - I'll take it as read then that the colonialists
+are+ all Jewish.

Interesting also that you think accusations of libel detracts from the straightforward questions I'm asking and your evasive non-answers.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I know that some Palestinians are given permission to use some of the 'colonialist-only' roads, but I wasn't aware of any non-Jewish colonists.

I see you are avoiding answering the direct question - I'll take it as read then that the colonialists
+are+ all Jewish.

Interesting also that you think accusations of libel detracts from the straightforward questions I'm asking and your evasive non-answers.

Cheers,
Shafique

You were caught on a lie and obviously you cannot take it.

Hmm, you haven't seen the article by Shulamit Aloni yet then.

Cheers,
Shafique