Much has been said and written about UMSU’s historic decision to strip Students Against Israel Apartheid (SAIA) of its student group status and ban it from using UMSU spaces.
The Ottawa Citizen wrote that UMSU showed “courage and moral integrity in opposing ignorance and intolerance.” On the other hand, many of the comments posted to UMSU’s facebook page accused UMSU of being anti-Palestinian, anti-Muslim, and even anti-Semitic.
To understand why a majority of council voted for a resolution banning SAIA from UMSU spaces, it’s important to know that SAIA is part of an international network that delegitimizes Israel and targets its supporters as racists.
The age-old fight over Israel’s legitimacy has centered on “Zionism.”
The Jews who founded Israel saw themselves as a “people” or a “nation” whose future depended on having a state of their own, a safe haven from their enemies and a place where Jewish culture could be openly practiced.
The United Nations endorsed the “Zionist” vision on Nov. 29, 1947, authorizing the creation of a “Jewish state” living alongside an “Arab state” in Palestine.
Israel’s enemies, and SAIA, call that vision racist.
Members of the movement to delegitimize Israel often twist facts and invent stories in order to portray Israel, the only real democracy in the Middle East, as a racist enterprise. Israel is also the only country in the area to grant human rights to all of its citizens.
At the turn of the millennium, the global movement to delegitimize Israel started comparing it to the apartheid regime in South Africa – the most racist government in the second half of the 20th century.
Does that sound familiar? Just change the name South Africa to Israel, draw some bigger noses on the posters and call for “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions,” and presto: you have “Israel Apartheid” and Students Against Israel Apartheid.
There was only one problem with SAIA’s strategy.
The freedom of Israel-detractors to call Israel and its supporters “racist” on campus is limited by the UMSU policy that protects students from “harassment,” “discrimination,” and “behaviour that is likely to undermine [their] dignity [and] self-esteem,” the same rules that protect other vulnerable groups like LGBTTQ*s, disabled students, women, and Aboriginals.
Disrespectful speech is prohibited on campus and in the workplace. These rules don’t just ban physical intimidation and hate speech; the threshold is set much lower on campus because students who are enrolled at the U of M need a safe space to learn.
The truth is that students, Jews and non-Jews alike, who are called racists feel scared, and not just during Israel Apartheid Week.
It’s simply not safe to be labelled a racist on campus, as students at York and Concordia, among others, have found out.
The question that UMSU councillors faced, therefore, was a moral one – are supporters of Israel entitled to the same protections as other vulnerable groups? The majority of UMSU Council believed that they were, and that SAIA was undermining the dignity and self-esteem of students on campus.
The council didn’t have to say that SAIA was anti-Semitic, but Canada has endorsed a declaration signed by governments around the world that says: “Claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” is anti-Semitic.
And that’s exactly what SAIA claims.
When Israel-detractors are enraged (as they were after the motion was passed), they find it hard to distinguish between Zionists and Jews. More than one post on the UMSU Facebook group tied the UMSU resolution to the Holocaust and concentration camps.
Now why would that be if all they’re talking about is Israel?
I’m sure that many, if not all members of SAIA, are well-meaning students who want to advance peace and justice in the Middle East. In fact, these students have not been deprived of their right to speak out against injustice, as long as they do so within UMSU policies intended to protect students on campus.
I would like to join others on campus in forming a dialogue to learn more about the Arab-Israeli conflict in a respectful manner, based on trust and understanding.
The ultimate goal is peace and justice, both in the Middle East and right here at home.
Who will join me?
Elements of this article previously appeared in the Jewish Post and News.
Don’t fall for the false call for “dialogue” – it’s a trap: http://uppingtheanti.org/journal/article/09-shalom-salaam/
Ok, so let me get this straight.
SAIA is calling Israel a racist state and saying that Israel’s supporters are complicit in that racism. By accusing others of saying and doing racist things, they are making the campus unsafe for those accused racists and should therefore be banned.
Then you go on to cite a quote that says that “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour is anti-Semitic.” Anti-Semitism is a form of racism or at least equivalent to racism in many ways. Therefore you are calling SAIA and its members racist, and in turn making the campus an unsafe space for those accused racists. Should UMSU now ban you from campus for making it an unsafe space? Should they ban the Manitoban for printing this article that makes campus an unsafe space? Should they ban HIllel from campus because it echos similar accusations of anti-Semitism and racism against SAIA?
If a branch of the KKK started up at the U of M, would any group that dared to accuse them of racism be instantly banned from campus as well? Because it really seems like that’s what the logical conclusion of your argument is.
(I know that UMSU didn’t technically ban SAIA, I’m just using “ban” as a shorthand for revocation of official status)
P.S. Pretty please get over the whole “Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East” thing. It is very possible to have an apartheid and racist state that is ALSO democratic. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Canada and the U.S. are both technically democratic states, but they are also both SUPER RACIST.
Rob, what country isn’t racist?
seeing that the palestinians arent a race then israel isnt rascist …although within the dispute
certainly is at war and hence oppose miltarily diplomatically and practically the palestinians goals at present although they also cooperate eg hamas now has been making efforts to prevent rocket attacks on israel and fatah terror attacks and in return gets economic cooeration with israel .unless basic common sense is ignored as it was when so many didnt just scoff when arafat said that jesus was a palestinian and abraham wasnt a jew ..jesus was a judean and crucified as teh king of the jews and abraham iand sara are considered the first jews ( although also the father of ismael …no contradition because jews and ishmaelites are cousins)
if discrimination is apharteid then surely the palestinian laws that iinclud a death sentence for selling or renting land to jews in their area is also ……..Jordan also has a law forbidding selling land to jews.
Likewise the insistance that any land ceded to the palestinian has to be free of any jewish community or indeed of individual jewish households. .
Is there a single country in the world that cannot be held to account for discrimination for actions or practices at the time of war …….just as nazism …..likewise apartheid are not a term that should be blindly thrown about even by israeli politicians .
In 140 years of constant conflict there has never been a case in the holyland that land captured in war or ceded in peace to the arabs has not been ethnically cleansed of jews ..likewise the palestinians demands at present…
Josh, I’m gonna have to disagree with you on this one. Allowing SAIA to remain on campus will not only foster further opportunity for dialogue and education, it’ll help expose the real racists. Considering that anti-Zionist groups have been known to attract a fair number of Jews, it’s inaccurate to accuse SAIA of being fundamentally racist. Besides, calls to shut them down make the anti-SAIA crowd look rather petty; calling something or someone racist is not a form of intimidation or a threat.
Before anyone asks, I am not and have never been a supporter of SAIA’s aims, and am in fact a pro-Israel Jew. But I’m always up for a good argument on a level playing field, and this move undermines that.
Calling someone a racist /aphartied supporter/ nazi. are all terms of intimidation and an obvious form of threat of total rejection of right to exist.The idea that you give your opponent an intellectual level playing field when your very essence is at risk was proven an error by the jewish people in the 1930’s with nazi germany .
The most basic fact is that in every case for the last 140 years of continual conflict in the area of the holy land where the the arabs ( by war or peace) were ceded land by jews the jews had to leave all communities and even individually ………this is also the official palestinian position in the hopefully renewed peace talks ………..if you doubt this please give a name date and place of an exception.
in addition there is a law in the fatah area hamas area and jordan forbidding the selling of land to jews
In all the talk about the “crime” of calling someone a racist, what’s being ignored is the fact that SAIA isn’t even really calling people racists. They’re critiquing what they see as the racist policy of the Israeli state. If people take umbrage at the fact that someone on campus is critiquing certain state policies, well, that’s not really SAIA’s problem, nor is it grounds to ban SAIA, is it?
This article is basically arguing that people shouldn’t be allowed to critique policies that they view as racist because it makes those who support those policies uncomfortable. It’s the equivalent of saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to criticize or organize against Jim Crow laws because it might make segregationists uncomfortable. Or that LGBT students shouldn’t be allowed to organize for equality because it might upset homophobes. Or that student groups shouldn’t be allowed to support Idle No More because it might upset people opposed to INM.
Caplan, do you really think you’re going to get very far comparing SAIA types to Nazis? It’s one thing to compare Hamas to Nazis (Hamas wishes they could be as effective), but SAIA is neither. Besides, it’s not that hard to score intellectual points on SAIA.
I most certainly do not compare the saia to nazis …
Then I don’t know what to call this:
“The idea that you give your opponent an intellectual level playing field when your very essence is at risk was proven an error by the jewish people in the 1930′s with nazi germany.”
the errors of dealing with the nazis ideology intelectually in the 1930’s shouldn’t be repeated against a lesser concept of the the area being wakf land hence there is no acceptance of a jewish state in the area …..no point in being naive on the goals.
.The british used walls ,no go zones and roadblocks in ireland to prevent the ira terror ..that also wasn’t apharteid ….. however the laws in jordan hamas and fatah controlled areas against the selling and renting of land to jews can be considered apharteid. All the security measures in Israel are periodically varied and roadblocks and travel on roads regulations are constantly changing according to the security situation…….the right to kill jews is curtailed by the control of the right to free passage to terrorists ..the problem is how to reduce as much as possible the inconvenince to ordinary palestinians
Let’s inject some fundamental facts…
Excerpt from “Israel Bars Rabin From Relating ’48 Eviction of Arabs”, by David K. Shipler, NY Times Oct. 23, 1979.
“A censorship board composed of five Cabinet members prohibited former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin from including in his memoirs a first-person account of the expulsion of 50,000 Palestinians civilians from their homes near Tel Aviv during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war…
A copy of [Rabin’s] manuscript was provided to the New York Times by Peretz Kidron, who translated the book from Hebrew to English…the manuscript continues. “The population of Lod did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion…
Mr. Rabin’s account … described “a calculated Israeli policy“ to drive Arab residents from their homes, … many elderly people and small children died in the over-powering heat during the forced march…
Many left in panic after the Israeli massacre at the village of Deir Yassin outside Jerusalem…There, contingents of the extremist Stern gang and Irgun attacked the village and lined men, women and children up against walls and shot them, according to Red Cross and British documentation.”
So talking about this blatant ethnic cleansing is racist and unacceptable because doing so makes Jewish students uncomfortable? These ‘defenders of Israel’ tie themselves into a Gordian Knot of idiocy.
Fact…
The following was referenced in a New York Times column by Roger Cohen (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/cohen-come-home-to-israel.html ).
“The centre of [Hebron,] a city of 175,000 people has been utterly emptied… thanks to a policy the Israeli army calls “sterilisation” … for Hebron’s 800 Jewish settlers.
…A map shows purple roads where no Palestinian cars are permitted, yellow roads where no Palestinian shops are allowed to open and red roads where no Palestinians are even allowed to walk. …Those unlucky enough to live on a red road have had their front doors sealed: they have to leave their own houses by a back door and climb out via a ladder. …Israelis can walk freely down streets that are barred to Palestinians, …the shuttered shops that have been covered with some of the most vile graffiti I have ever seen. The familiar “Death to the Arabs” is there, but so is “You have Arabs, you have mice,” the words covered up, but still legible. … Stars of David, daubed on Arab shopfronts and doors.
…[M]y guide, Yehuda Shaul, … who served two long tours in Hebron and who now works with the Breaking the Silence movement … believes that Hebron simply reveals the reality of the occupation …”
-by Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland (a Jew). Jewish Chronicle of London, Nov-7-11.
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/57850/this-israel-not-one-i-love.
Michael Ben-Yair served as Israel’s Attorney General for three years. Even HE admits Israel’s occupation is ‘apartheid’. Ben-Yair also actively opposes the occupation. Here in Canada though, it won’t be long before calling a spade a spade will get one locked up, guilty of the crime of telling the truth about Israel.
“We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one – progressive, liberal – in Israel; and the other – cruel, injurious – in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.”
Excerpt from “The war’s seventh day”, written by Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel from 1993-96. Published in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, March 3, 2002.
Israel defenders claim ‘the Arabs’ started the ’67 War that led to Israel taking over more Palestinian land. This is a lie.
From “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews – Volume 3”, by Alan Hart, a British journalist with 40 years of experience covering the Middle East:
“In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
— Menachim Begin’s address to the National Defense College, 8 August 1982 (Can be verified by searching at the government of Israel’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs! http://www.mfa.gov.il)
“The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
— Mordecai Bentov, a wartime member of the Israeli government, the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar, 14 April 1971
Another big lie: Israel gave up Gaza for peace.
Nobody reveals the truth about the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza better than Israeli scholar Avi Shlaim, a professor of international relations at a little backwater school known as Oxford University. The following excerpt is from a 2009 interview he gave to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! The entire transcript is available at http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/14/leading_israeli_scholar_avi_shlaim_israel
“… Gaza was a classic example of exploitation, of colonial exploitation in the postcolonial era. Gaza is a tiny strip of land with about one-and-a-half million Arabs, most of them — half of them refugees. It’s the most crowded piece of land on God’s earth. There were 8,000 Israeli settlers in Gaza, yet the 8,000 settlers controlled 25 percent of the territory, 40 percent of the arable land, and the largest share of the desperately scarce water resources.
Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza unilaterally, not as a contribution, as he claimed, to a two-state solution. The withdrawal from Gaza took place in the context of unilateral Israeli action in what was seen as Israeli national interest. There were no negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on an overall settlement. The withdrawal from Gaza was not a prelude to further withdrawals from the other occupied territories, but a prelude to further expansion, further consolidation of Israel’s control over the West Bank. In the year after the withdrawal from Gaza, 12,000 new settlers went to live on the West Bank. So I see the withdrawal from Gaza in the summer of 2005 as part of a unilateral Israeli attempt to redraw the borders of Greater Israel and to shun any negotiations and compromise with the Palestinian Authority.”
Israel and its supporters are the LAST PEOPLE ON EARTH who should be making allegations of racism.
Is Israel the MOST racist country on Earth?
From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz… “Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel”, October 23, 2012. The paper has since caved into pressure to remove the word ‘apartheid’ from the headline. The facts revealed by the survey remain, regardless of the label one chooses to apply to a ‘society’ where such attitudes prevail. I include the URL below the following excerpt. In case they hide the content behind a ‘pay wall’, I quote enough for you to get the gist.
“Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.
A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state’s Arab citizens, a survey shows.
The survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews. The survey was commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees.
The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.
The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don’t want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don’t want their children in the same class with Arab children.
A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.
A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank…
Almost half – 47 percent – want the Arab part of Israel’s population to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority…
Although the territories have not been annexed, most of the Jewish public (58 percent) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. Only 31 percent think such a system is not in force here. Over a third (38 percent) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them…
The ultra-Orthodox, in contrast to those who described themselves as religious or observant, hold the most extreme positions against the Palestinians. An overwhelming majority (83 percent ) of Haredim are in favor of segregated roads and 71 percent are in favor of transfer… – 70 percent of them support legally barring Israeli Arabs from voting, 82 percent support preferential treatment from the state toward Jews, and 95 percent are in favor of discrimination against Arabs in admission to workplaces.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-would-support-apartheid-regime-in-israel.premium-1.471644
Ethnic cleansing was the standard modus operanda of the arabs in the 1947 war as distinct from the israeli operation hence 20% of the consists of arabs many of which fought against Israel . having said that there were cases where that arab population were driven out during the war especially in border areas.
The obvious facts that the various wars have led to a mutual bitterness whereby BOTH sides have populations that often wish the other would just leave however the reality is that both populations are there to stay.
Many of the Israeli arabs consider themselves to be palestinians and so it is possible that in the future within a peace deal there will be land swaps including israeli pre 1967 territory where the arab population is dominant ..however most israeli arabs reject this but if the is agreement on compensation and a refurendum it may be mutually agreeable.
Haaratz is a paper that has a very pronoouced agenda as does avi shlaim and is not always accurate in its emphasis ..statistics of course can be manipulated in all directions
The gaza withdrawal was meant to be followed by further withdrawals in the west bank and a first step to a peace agreement eg at homesh but due to the rockets ect from gaza not carried out.
Let me put it this way…
An uncountable number of tremendous contributions to mankind may be appropriately attributed to remarkable Jewish people. Thus, Jews, as a people, rightly have much to be proud of. Is Israel, as it came to be, and as it conducts itself in the present, one of those things? If people need to lie about and cover up Israel’s intentions, are they sending the message that Israel is something to be proud of?
Certainly, other nations or identifiable groups have committed crimes greater in number and repugnance than most of Israel’s misdeeds, so far. Do Jews, as a people, aspire to be ‘not as bad as those guys’? If not, do Jews, as a people REALLY want to underwrite Israel’s policies? To me, more Jewish people should be mad as hell about what is being done in their name, instead of pulling out all the stops to bully and crush those who refuse to turn a blind eye to undeniable oppression and injustice.
Our current buffoon of a foreign minister (this is a nonpartisan statement – I find most politicians worthy of contempt, regardless of stripe) supports Israel, no matter what. Purporting to speak on behalf of all Canadians, he tells the world this unwavering support is based on ‘shared values’ and standing for what is right. For this reason, Canadians have a right to hold Israel to a higher standard than China, Russia, Nicaragua, and the rest of the world’s human rights abusers. And we certainly have a right to expect better than insults and backhanded dismissal for doing so.
Given we are a country that still has an “Indian Act” and “Indian Reservations”, Canada’s own closet remains in disarray. We, at least, are spending over $8 billion annually to mend fences, as opposed to building new ones.
Israel certainly should be open to critisim as should all countries and specifically according to western standards…yet the standards shouild be equal ie how does the idf act compared to britain the us or canada in simsilar conditions …eg sending leaflets prior to attacks , safe zones during attack , ….the war in syria shows what treatment it can expect if it loses a war or has territory with civilians captured……note that Israel is at war de facto with the palestinians yet aids with water , electricity and economically ..gaza is getting very little aid from egypt despits adjacent border….why?…..
…at present after the last war …. hamas is to some extent reducing and preventing terrror attacks on israel as is the fatah controlled areas in the west bank after the intifadas….compare this with the taliban ….terror is terror.
The responce to attacks on Israel’s cities by rockets ,or suicide terror has been criticised yet how has britain or the us responded when it happened to them?
To stop terrorists entering the country…is the building of barrier not better than ambushes that can mistakingly fire at civilians , should the barrier be built to be effective both militarily and as a deterrent of should it be more important that the palestinians feel that they are not at risk of losing land because of it ?…..remember fences and walls and border restrictions can be torn down and forgotten after peace …but the dead and wounded cant.
Should a large ground war be carried out or the use of drones…or find a way to cooperate with the enemy ..for mutual benefit?
Facts?
You claim:
“in 140 years of continous [sic] conflict in the holy land there has not been a single case whereby when a [sic] jew lost the fight and lost [sic] he was either ethnically cleansed or killed .. [sic] if you doubt this …… [sic] find a date name and place of an exception ….[sic] I HAVENT AND HAVE SEARCHED FOR OVER 10 YEARS . …[sic]”
Please cite ONE conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews that occurred anywhere in the Holy Land prior to 1897. When I say cite, I mean provide a credible, unbiased source where your claim is backed up by real evidence. The CAPS LOCK key does not constitute evidence.
The whole idea of founding a Jewish homeland in Palestine was only put forward by Theodor Herzl at the First Zionist Congress in Basel Switzerland in 1897. THAT is the root of this conflict. Specifically, the decision was then made to make Palestine a Jewish state, without one whit of consideration given to the indigenous Palestinians then living there.
I quote Israeli scholar, Professor Avi Shlaim of Oxford University:
“The Basel Program deliberately spoke of a home rather than a state for the Jewish people, but from the Basel Congress onward the clear and consistent aim of the Zionist movement was to create a state for the Jewish people in Palestine. To his diary Herzl confided, “At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it.
The publication of [Herzl’s] Der Judenstaat [The Jewish State] evoked various reactions in the Jewish community, some strongly favorable, some hostile, and some skeptical. After the Basel Congress the rabbis of Vienna decided to explore Herzl’s ideas and sent two representatives to Palestine. This fact-finding mission resulted in a cable from Palestine in which the two rabbis wrote, “The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man.”
…In its formative phase, under the direction of Herzl, the Zionist movement thus displayed two features that were to be of fundamental and enduring importance in its subsequent history: the non-recognition of a Palestinian national entity, and the quest for an alliance with a great power external to the Middle East. Bypassing the Palestinians was the trend in Zionist policy from the First Zionist Congress onward.”
mark twain in 1867 wrote a book describing his travels to europe and the mid east …in it he wrote that there is one place where jews and muslims share …josephs tomb ….however in hebron jews wishing to visit the tomb of abraham are discriminated and not allowed to go beyond the 7th step …..indeed jews were dhimmis and had many discriminatory laws against them ..
..the area was under ottoman rule under a province that extended to syria ..the concept of an arab palestinian people did not exist at the time …the arab revolt in syria in the 1880’s by the druze was the political catalyst for the local arabs
….the attacks by beduin on the dubrovnik farm near the sea of gallilee also took place before the basle conference at the time …the jewish defence organisation …. ha shomer was formed around that time ..
..the basle conference did not take place in a vacuum but there was a regular influx of jews from the west and from the east …my family came to the holy land from persia after the murder of my great great grandfather at the time of the turks in the 1880’s (my grandfather was conscripted and served in ww1 in the turkish army )…….
The druze revolt in the 1880;s and the attack by druze on tel hai and kfar giladi time coincided with the formation of arab palestinian political identity under the husseini and nusseiba families , haj amin el husseini under the british rule massacred the nusseibi opposition and became the leader.
IN SHORT around THE DATE 1880 WAS A TIME THAT LED TO THE FORMATION OF A PALESTINIAN ARAB IDENTITY THAT CLASHED WITH AN ALREADY PRESENT JEWISH IDENTITY THAT WAS DISCRIMINATED AND ABUSED BY THE OTTOMANS YET DESPITE THAT .. WAS THROUGHOUT THE AGES …. COMING TO THE AREA … …after the basle conference and more importantly …he kishenev riots … self supporting jewish farming communities were formed in land bought as a result of the basle conference ..and they changed the balance from a weak religious discriminated jewishs community mostly concentrated in safed and jerusalem easily preyed upon by the arab neighbours to communities that fought back…..in many cases not successfully eg tel hai and then … as always …. there was death and ethnic cleansing…..
I most certainly do not compare the saia to nazis
I also do not compare the hamas to nazis
They are however part of the muslim brotherhood and thus wish to rule by sharia law ..this means they support and understand the obligation of dhimmi status for non muslims and their having to pay the jaziya which is the tax upon infidels.
The various muslim rulers have imposed dhimmi status on jews and christians to greater or lesser severity in different regions and times ……. although I would not call such discrimination as racist …some would.