When I got mine, I had to get 2 passport photos, submit a fingerprint, take a day long class, take a written test, and pass a range test with my preferred CCW handgun. There are a bunch of other restrictions which I'll list below; not all states have these but Texas is one of the easiest states to get licensed in, so this should give you an idea for a baseline. When it comes to 'may issue' states like the ones I listed earlier, they have the same hoops to jump through generally, but the main one is you have to prove good cause to a police entity to carry. In many cases, those entities are either 'suggested' or blatantly told "Do not give out any permits". I suppose power or money could get around that, but you would still have to pass the other requirements.

Texas CCW pre-reqs:

A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

is a legal resident of this state for the six month period preceding the date of application,

is at least 21 years of age (military 18 - 21 years of age now eligible - 2005 Texas CHL Law change),

has not been convicted of a felony,

is not currently charged with the commission of a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Sec. 42.01 of the penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is not a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense,

is not a chemically dependant person (a person with two convictions within the ten year period preceding the date of application for offenses (Class B or greater) involving the use of alcohol or a controlled substance is ineligible as a chemically dependant person. Other evidence of chemical dependency may also make an individual ineligible for a CHL),

is not incapable of exercizing sound judgement with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun,

has not, in the five years preceding the application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 of the Penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun,

has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support administered or collected by the attorney general,
has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, tax collector of a policital subdivision, Alcohol Beverage Commission or any other agency or subdivision,

is not currently restricted under a court protective order subject to a restraining order affecting a spousal relationship,

has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law in the grade of felony,

has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

P.S. if you screw up on any of the above 'after' you get your ccw, it gets suspended until you go before a board for review. My instructor said when I took the class, almost every single review case is denied.

i am just going to add to the opinions and perspectives that @MilkmanDan ,@ChaosEngine ,@dannym3141 and especially @newtboy who i agree with so clearly that i swear we are related.

since many dynamics have already been covered, i.e:police culture,racism,incompetence etc etc.

i shall offer a historical perspective in the ways of the power dynamic.

while this is a power vs powerlessness dynamic dealing with agents of the state,it helps to understand just how we got to this point,and it is NOT the first time we have been here.

see:labor movement of the 30's and the labor strikes,and the response from not only the business community but our own government.

see: the civil rights movement and segregation,and how demagouges used political power to divide by way of racism,and then used police to intimidate,beat and imprison.

there are many MANY examples here in america where the police have been used to suppress and oppress a people or community for less than altruistic reasons,and most certainly not aligning with the ideology we were taught in school the function of police.nevermind the syrupy sweet,idealized picture shoved down our throats since an early age.

so we see on our facebooks,our twitters and/or whatever social media you prefer,that black lives matter...and the counter point,that NO..ALL lives matter.

now this would make sense in a world that never took history into account,or a growing cultural norm of violence and oppression that had been slowly seeping into poor communities (mainly black and latino).

oh wait..
that's right.
social media pundits NEVER fucking consider any of those factors,because just like bill o'reilly,those are pesky nuances and context conflict with their own narrow narrative.

but let us consider them and how they may possibly be a major driving factor in americas current climate.

let us take ferguson as an example,that is a good place to start.
and let us go back to 2008,where we can see the boiling begin to take place in this extremely impoverished community which was already struggling.

the population is a black majority,poor to working poor.home ownership is low,food stamp recipients are high and the future is pretty bleak.

in 2008 ferguson received approximately 18% of it's total fiscal revenue from misdemeanor infractions i.e:traffic,parking,moving violations.small time stuff.basic fines for small infractions.in 2008 that number jumped to 66%.

why?
what happened?
what changed?

well the comptroller of ferguson (and greater st louis),along with HUNDREDS of other smaller municipalities across the country,had bought the rotten fish that wall street was selling in the form of bullshit derivatives.

now wall street and the big banks got their tax payer bailout,but towns like ferguson did not.they lost millions,sometimes billions.this meant pensions were either reduced or outright denied,because there was NO money!

but a town still has to pay police.
fire fighters and school teachers,
clerks and judges,
keep the roads paved and the street lights working.

so what is a local government to do?
can't tax the working class who own homes.you already jacked their property tax to the roof.
can't tax the local business,you already squeeze them as well.
how about those non-property owning people in ferguson?
they need to pay up as well,and let's use the police force to relinquish them of the paltry money they don't have.

to the tune of 66% of all of fergusons revenue.
that is insanity.

so what if you live in ferguson?
chances are you are black,and either poor or working poor.

you make,if you are lucky,20 grand a year and by one man's testimony he paid over 2,000 in traffic tickets in one year.the majority of americans dont see those kind of numbers their entire lifetime.

and what if you began to realize that it was not just you.that almost every person you know or talked to had similar stories.

would you begin to feel a tad bit targeted?

what if the city of ferguson started to become very creative with not only their rules but how they enforced those rules?

what if every year the fines went up?
not remained the same,but actually UP? every year.

what if,as a community people began to actually fear the police? to experience anxiety just by the sight of a patrol car,even though they were not engaging in anything illegal? and who knows...maybe there is some new ordinance on the books that you are unaware of?

would you become paranoid and suspicious of law enforcement?

and then..what if....you started losing friends to cops.people you grew up with being shot in the street,and every time the mayor comes out and calls it a "justifiable killing".

would that make you feel any better?
any less paranoid or anxious?

there was ONE police shooting in ten years and then..as if by magic ..(which is how the media seems to always portray this..shocking news..at 11)..you lose 5 friends in a year.all to cops..all "justifiable".

would you begin to think there was a conspiracy?
targeting you and your neighbors?

i BET you would.
i know i would.

now lets look at the cops.

they are just a tool.
an instrument for the state to uphold the law and write citations for infractions.they dont MAKE the laws,nor the infractions,not even the fines.

they just do what they are told.

and they are told to go into these poor and working poor neighborhoods and write tickets,a LOT of tickets.

do you really think they are unaware of the growing hostility towards them? the looks of disgust,fear and apprehension?

but...this is their job,and they do what they are told.

they see.
they know.
they are aware of the growing hatred towards them,and this makes them anxious..and defensive..and in some horrible,tragic cases...trigger happy.

a natural and normal response to heightened stimuli in the face of great uncertainty.

so they react impulsively and out of fear in a way that ten years ago would have been unheard of.

they think themselves good cops.
they do a good job.
they do what they are told.
and the people hate them for it.
so they respond instinctively and with poor judgement.

we..as citizens,respond with disgust and indignation when a cop abuses his/her authority.we see this as a major moral breach in the citizen/cop relationship,because we feel as agents of the law they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us...and rightly so,but when you put a human being in a tense and dangerous situation,not of their making,they will fail at some point to react correctly and with sound judgement.

they SHOULD be held accountable,but so should the city council members and the mayor and all the local representatives who created this toxic climate in the first place.

the lesson to be learned here is that nothing is a binary situation when people are concerned.

so when black lives matter protestors address people to make them aware of the situation,this is what they are talking about.the police killing are only a last stage manifestation of a situation that began in 2008 on wall street.

and we need to be aware,because right now it is the predominantly black communities,but soon coming to a neighborhood near YOU.

the poor and working poor have become expendable.no longer relevant to the system.which is why police shootings are being handled the way they are.our value is ever increasingly being judged on how well we can feed the system.

until this disparity is addressed there will continue to be police shootings.people will die and there will be no indictments.

because police do what they are told.

it is up to us to make policy makers accountable for their actions,and in doing so address a toxic climate that both the poor,working poor and cops alike have to swim in.

stop forcing cops to write tickets to fund a city that lost it's savings due to fuckhead bankers.

this blood..all of it..is on those bankers hands.

Why? To go to war.

To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.

This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP -- which was more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad -- they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.")

Umm, earth to dumb blonde, most Republicans are also socialist, they just pretend not to be. Bush approved a bill from congress that expanded Medicare to include prescription drugs, $8 trillion ontop of what was already a $20 trillion underfunding. The GAO comptroller general at the time called it the most fiscally irresponsible bill since the 1960s. Bush also refused to let banks fail, expanded the department of education, had a couple of unnecessary war adventures. Definitely a social conservative, but hardly a capitalist.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Grimm:
*promote

I love the related videos I'm seeing on this: "Slippery Slope of the US Economy", "US Economy unsustainable; former Comptroller General talk", "McCain: US Economy is Fundamentally Strong".

One of these duckies is not like the others, one of these duckies is not the same...

>> ^NetRunner:
While Ron Paul has a leg to stand on by calling out Obama on change, since RP represents more change than Obama, calling Obama "status quo" and "no substance" just makes it sound like Ron Paul got a letter from the RNC saying "repeat our talking points about Obama or else".
Obama has talked specifics about what change means. Just because you haven't listened, haven't liked it, or wanted more change, doesn't make Obama status quo.


Well, not quite. He's right that Obama speaks very little about economic policy and seems pretty deadset on the welfare state, which our own comptroller general thinks is coming to a slow and cancerous end. Obama's supporters seem more hopeful than anything, and that, I think, has always been our problem. We try to guess who is going to be a good president based on how charismatic they are on the campaign trail instead of looking at voting records, if there are lobbyists surrounding them, and challenging ourselves to do hard research on libertarian positions like Paul's that often get mocked by people who don't. But I did my research and I agree with Paul on just about everything, and I am convinced from his voting record that he is one of the most trustworthy politicians in existence today. We need a drastic reduction in government spending and a government that obeys its own supreme law. Either competing currencies need to be legalized or the Federal Reserve needs abolished, because the issue of inflation enablement needs addressed. If the enablement is there, it will get abused. And it did. It's that simple. And if you don't want a gold standard restrainment, fine, amend the constitution. But don't ignore it.

I actually thought that Kucinich was a stronger candidate than Obama, but he didn't have that motivational slickness in his speaking that Obama had. Kucinich really laid the wood when they asked him why he was the only Democratic contender to vote against the Patriot Act: "Because I read it," he said. So here you have a guy who voted against the war and the patriot act, and he gains no traction against Clinton who voted for both but claimed she was fooled. It's just really telling of how dumbed down we've become as a nation if something like that doesn't matter to people. This is why I don't think much hope is left. For those of us who know the future repercussions and how to best judge integrity, we are in the minority and the herd won't wake up until pain is knocking on their door. Sad, but true.

By the way, anyone reading this thread would do well to watch the entire speech on youtube. He goes into great detail on the run-up to the war and all he did to stop it. Quite elucidating.

quantumushroom: watch http://www.videosift.com/video/A-wake-up-call-from-the-US-Government-Accountability-Office

This clip was produced by David Walker, US Comptroller General (a position most people don't even know exists), head of the US Government Accountability Office. He has an outstanding professional record, and honorary doctorates from several universities. Here's his Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_(U.S._Comptroller_General)

He has given multiple interviews explaining how the US is bankrupt, and how agencies and politicians neglect to mention this fact. International bankers are also aware of this, and a lot of people outside the US don't doubt this fact, but Americans typically acquire a very distorted picture of how their economy actually runs.

Unless there's a radical policy change like the one Ron Paul advocates, it's a matter of time until the US economy collapses. It may take a month, a year or even more. The longer it takes, the worse the crash will be. It won't be a correction or a mild recession. It will be the crash that destroys American purchasing power as we know it.

I agree with you that people don't tolerate rapid change. Most don't understand what's at stake, and also want submit to a welfare state. Ron Paul understands this, and for the last 30 years he's worked to educate people and talk about this message of financial discipline, civil liberties and upholding the constitution. He was reluctant to run again for president, because he was afraid that the nation wasn't ready.

Ron Paul's supporters are fervorous because they're desperately trying to change the United States' course before it's too late. I applaud their efforts, and I hope they succeed to get him elected. But even if they don't, they will have educated millions of people in the process, and this gives me hope that Americans will be able to pull themselves up from financial disaster, and resist the fascist ideologies that will undoubtly flourish.

written by Krupo in that thread. (unless you've got it bookmarked you wouldn't know the thread was updated )

Good in '71 Bad in '72. It's a short track record. I'm not saying he was perfect, but have you considered that external governments could also try and screw with Chile and their currency? I haven't done extensive research into it, but it *is* a threat these days - IMF/WTO spook the global markets (because money is all about perception rather than reality), and the country in question is SCREWED.

And although the regime was accused of various things, those are accusations rather than convictions. I'm sure Chile has an impeachment process like any other country. Why should you get the military involved immediately, if at all? There's a reason you have elections - to foster an orderly handover of power. I'm sure millions of Americans would be pleased if some F-16's attacked Dubya, but that's not the way you do things.

In an effort to add a bit more depth, I poked around a bit more. Turns out you need a 2/3 majority for the resolution you refer to to have legal force. So using the word "passed" is a bit misleading - that's a 63.3% margin, close, but not legally binding (source is WikiTalk, but I'll buy it unless someone has evidence to the contrary).

Do check out that Wiki-talk page, looks like there's some lively to and forth on the topic.





In reply to this comment by reason:
Why not address these facts?

On August 22, 1973 the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies passed, by 81 to 47 votes, a resolution entitled "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", which called upon the military to "put an immediate end" to what they described as "breach[es of] the Constitution… with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans."

The resolution declared that the Allende government was seeking "...to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state... [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system," and claimed that it had made "violations of the Constitution" into "a permanent system of conduct." Many of the charges came down to disregarding the separation of powers and arrogating the prerogatives of both the legislature and judiciary within the executive.

Among other particulars, the regime was accused of:

* ruling by decree, thus thwarting the normal system of adopting legislation
* refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its own partisans and "not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives"
* ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller's Office
* various offenses related to the media, including usurping control of the National Television Network and "applying ... economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government..."
* allowing its supporters to assemble even when armed, while preventing legal assembly by its opponents
* "...supporting more than 1,500 illegal 'takings' of farms..."
* illegal repression of the El Teniente strike
* illegally limiting emigration

The resolution finally condemned the "creation and development of government-protected armed groups which... are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces." Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and police, which he could not trust in their current forms, were characterized as "notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks."


And as for the economic boom?

In 1972, the monetary policies of an increase in the amount of currency, which had been adopted by the Minister of Economics, Pedro Vuskovic, led to a devaluation of the escudo and to renewed inflation, which reached 140% in 1972.

I appreciate these opinions about Chile in 1973, which helps to give more information on the issue.

While informative, the information you've provided is absolutely no reason or justification for our country (CIA) to use its resources to help overthrow another country.

With the specifics you've brought up, please take a look at your list and notice the similarities to what our own government has been doing.

In addition, I would suggest citing your information.

thx

In reply to this comment by reason:
Why not address these facts?

On August 22, 1973 the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies passed, by 81 to 47 votes, a resolution entitled "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", which called upon the military to "put an immediate end" to what they described as "breach[es of] the Constitution… with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans."

The resolution declared that the Allende government was seeking "...to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state... [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system," and claimed that it had made "violations of the Constitution" into "a permanent system of conduct." Many of the charges came down to disregarding the separation of powers and arrogating the prerogatives of both the legislature and judiciary within the executive.

Among other particulars, the regime was accused of:

* ruling by decree, thus thwarting the normal system of adopting legislation
* refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its own partisans and "not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives"
* ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller's Office
* various offenses related to the media, including usurping control of the National Television Network and "applying ... economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government..."
* allowing its supporters to assemble even when armed, while preventing legal assembly by its opponents
* "...supporting more than 1,500 illegal 'takings' of farms..."
* illegal repression of the El Teniente strike
* illegally limiting emigration

The resolution finally condemned the "creation and development of government-protected armed groups which... are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces." Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and police, which he could not trust in their current forms, were characterized as "notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks."


And as for the economic boom?

In 1972, the monetary policies of an increase in the amount of currency, which had been adopted by the Minister of Economics, Pedro Vuskovic, led to a devaluation of the escudo and to renewed inflation, which reached 140% in 1972.

Why not address these facts?

On August 22, 1973 the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies passed, by 81 to 47 votes, a resolution entitled "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", which called upon the military to "put an immediate end" to what they described as "breach[es of] the Constitution… with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans."

The resolution declared that the Allende government was seeking "...to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state... [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system," and claimed that it had made "violations of the Constitution" into "a permanent system of conduct." Many of the charges came down to disregarding the separation of powers and arrogating the prerogatives of both the legislature and judiciary within the executive.

Among other particulars, the regime was accused of:

* ruling by decree, thus thwarting the normal system of adopting legislation
* refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its own partisans and "not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives"
* ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller's Office
* various offenses related to the media, including usurping control of the National Television Network and "applying ... economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government..."
* allowing its supporters to assemble even when armed, while preventing legal assembly by its opponents
* "...supporting more than 1,500 illegal 'takings' of farms..."
* illegal repression of the El Teniente strike
* illegally limiting emigration

The resolution finally condemned the "creation and development of government-protected armed groups which... are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces." Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and police, which he could not trust in their current forms, were characterized as "notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks."


And as for the economic boom?

In 1972, the monetary policies of an increase in the amount of currency, which had been adopted by the Minister of Economics, Pedro Vuskovic, led to a devaluation of the escudo and to renewed inflation, which reached 140% in 1972.

Sorry to everyone else for repeating this!

In response to QM's ill-informed comments: "Arabs who live in Israel are treated better and have more political, religious and economic freedoms than most Arab citizens in any of the other 22 Arab states, all of which are varying degrees of police states" and the reference to Israel as a "democratic oasis"

It always annoys me when people say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Firstly, this is just factually wrong, for example Kuwait is a democracy. Secondly, democracy does not simply mean the rule of the majority. A democracy is also measured by the way the majority treat the minorities - how they protect minority rights.

Israel is well known for treating its Arab population as second class citizens. In fact during the recent invasion of Lebanon, the majority of people killed by Hezbollah rockets in northern Israel were Arabs who were not given access to bomb shelters. Assad Ghanem, senior lecturer in political science at Israel's Haifa University has argued that "This is not a democracy, it is an ethnocracy...We are not full citizens, this country is only for the Jews." Arab Israelis now make up 20 percent of Israel's six million-plus population, but until very recently there was not a single Arab minister (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6254691.stm). The appointment of the first Arab minister is an important step, and one which should be applauded - but the backlash from many areas of the Israeli public shows what a divisive issue this is in Israel.

Formally, Israeli law guarantees equality to Israeli Arabs, but in reality Israeli Arabs experience discrimination in many aspects of life. A report by an Israeli judge (Theodor Or) who wrote 'The Report by the State Commission of Inquiry into the Events of October 2000', stated that:

"The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation." Furthermore, the Orr Commission of Inquiry's report stated that the "Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory", that the Government "did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner." As a result, "serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"

The National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel addressed the unequal treatment of Israeli Arabs in a document produced in December 2006. They argued that: "The Israeli legal system includes a number of core laws that produce and reinforce inequality between the Arabs and the Jews in Israel (de jure) ... The official bias is not restricted to symbols such as the Israeli flag, but also to deeper legal issues concerning all Palestinian Arabs ... [t]he official definition of Israel as a Jewish state created a fortified ideological barrier in the face of obtaining full equality for the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel ... We, the Palestinians in Israel, are an integral part of this place ... Israel has tried over the past decades to disengage us from this place, not through physical transfer but through intellectual emotional transfer. Israel has tried to create a new identity on the basis of 'loyalty to the state' ... The State has not determined a position acceptable to us yet in terms of nurturing our Arab culture."

Gwaa, no one said Israel is perfect. Ofcourse there will be some level of discrimination against arabs. That may never change. It just so happens that Israeli settlers and a lot of orthodox israelis are discriminted against as well. I've heard first hand from Israelis that many of them dont like first Arabs, second orthodox jews. In fact one secular Israeli who was removed from Gaza as part of the disengagement was declined housing in a secular settlement inside Israel because he was classified as a gaza settler and they didnt want his type around.

So there's discrimination. It doesnt mean its apartheid.

In reply to your comment:
“In response to your ill-informed comments: "If you want to argue that Israel is an apartheid nation then prove it by showing how it discriminates and racially segregates its OWN citizens."

It always annoys me when people say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Firstly, this is just factually wrong, for example Kuwait is a democracy. Secondly, democracy does not simply mean the rule of the majority. A democracy is also measured by the way the majority treat the minorities - how they protect minority rights.

Israel is well known for treating its Arab population as second class citizens. In fact during the recent invasion of Lebanon, the majority of people killed by Hezbollah rockets in northern Israel were Arabs who were not given access to bomb shelters. Assad Ghanem, senior lecturer in political science at Israel's Haifa University has argued that "This is not a democracy, it is an ethnocracy...We are not full citizens, this country is only for the Jews." Arab Israelis now make up 20 percent of Israel's six million-plus population, but until very recently there was not a single Arab minister (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6254691.stm). The appointment of the first Arab minister is an important step, and one which should be applauded - but the backlash from many areas of the Israeli public shows what a divisive issue this is in Israel.

Formally, Israeli law guarantees equality to Israeli Arabs, but in reality Israeli Arabs experience discrimination in many aspects of life. A report by an Israeli judge (Theodor Or) who wrote 'The Report by the State Commission of Inquiry into the Events of October 2000', stated that:

"The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation." Furthermore, the Orr Commission of Inquiry's report stated that the "Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory", that the Government "did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner." As a result, "serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"

The National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel addressed the unequal treatment of Israeli Arabs in a document produced in December 2006. They argued that: "The Israeli legal system includes a number of core laws that produce and reinforce inequality between the Arabs and the Jews in Israel (de jure) ... The official bias is not restricted to symbols such as the Israeli flag, but also to deeper legal issues concerning all Palestinian Arabs ... [t]he official definition of Israel as a Jewish state created a fortified ideological barrier in the face of obtaining full equality for the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel ... We, the Palestinians in Israel, are an integral part of this place ... Israel has tried over the past decades to disengage us from this place, not through physical transfer but through intellectual emotional transfer. Israel has tried to create a new identity on the basis of 'loyalty to the state' ... The State has not determined a position acceptable to us yet in terms of nurturing our Arab culture."”

In response to your ill-informed comments: "If you want to argue that Israel is an apartheid nation then prove it by showing how it discriminates and racially segregates its OWN citizens."

It always annoys me when people say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Firstly, this is just factually wrong, for example Kuwait is a democracy. Secondly, democracy does not simply mean the rule of the majority. A democracy is also measured by the way the majority treat the minorities - how they protect minority rights.

Israel is well known for treating its Arab population as second class citizens. In fact during the recent invasion of Lebanon, the majority of people killed by Hezbollah rockets in northern Israel were Arabs who were not given access to bomb shelters. Assad Ghanem, senior lecturer in political science at Israel's Haifa University has argued that "This is not a democracy, it is an ethnocracy...We are not full citizens, this country is only for the Jews." Arab Israelis now make up 20 percent of Israel's six million-plus population, but until very recently there was not a single Arab minister (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6254691.stm). The appointment of the first Arab minister is an important step, and one which should be applauded - but the backlash from many areas of the Israeli public shows what a divisive issue this is in Israel.

Formally, Israeli law guarantees equality to Israeli Arabs, but in reality Israeli Arabs experience discrimination in many aspects of life. A report by an Israeli judge (Theodor Or) who wrote 'The Report by the State Commission of Inquiry into the Events of October 2000', stated that:

"The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation." Furthermore, the Orr Commission of Inquiry's report stated that the "Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory", that the Government "did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner." As a result, "serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"

The National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel addressed the unequal treatment of Israeli Arabs in a document produced in December 2006. They argued that: "The Israeli legal system includes a number of core laws that produce and reinforce inequality between the Arabs and the Jews in Israel (de jure) ... The official bias is not restricted to symbols such as the Israeli flag, but also to deeper legal issues concerning all Palestinian Arabs ... [t]he official definition of Israel as a Jewish state created a fortified ideological barrier in the face of obtaining full equality for the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel ... We, the Palestinians in Israel, are an integral part of this place ... Israel has tried over the past decades to disengage us from this place, not through physical transfer but through intellectual emotional transfer. Israel has tried to create a new identity on the basis of 'loyalty to the state' ... The State has not determined a position acceptable to us yet in terms of nurturing our Arab culture."

In response to rein's ill-informed comments: "If you want to argue that Israel is an apartheid nation then prove it by showing how it discriminates and racially segregates its OWN citizens."

It always annoys me when people say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Firstly, this is just factually wrong, for example Kuwait is a democracy. Secondly, democracy does not simply mean the rule of the majority. A democracy is also measured by the way the majority treat the minorities - how they protect minority rights.

Israel is well known for treating its Arab population as second class citizens. In fact during the recent invasion of Lebanon, the majority of people killed by Hezbollah rockets in northern Israel were Arabs who were not given access to bomb shelters. Assad Ghanem, senior lecturer in political science at Israel's Haifa University has argued that "This is not a democracy, it is an ethnocracy...We are not full citizens, this country is only for the Jews." Arab Israelis now make up 20 percent of Israel's six million-plus population, but until very recently there was not a single Arab minister (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6254691.stm). The appointment of the first Arab minister is an important step, and one which should be applauded - but the backlash from many areas of the Israeli public shows what a divisive issue this is in Israel.

Formally, Israeli law guarantees equality to Israeli Arabs, but in reality Israeli Arabs experience discrimination in many aspects of life. A report by an Israeli judge (Theodor Or) who wrote 'The Report by the State Commission of Inquiry into the Events of October 2000', stated that:

"The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation." Furthermore, the Orr Commission of Inquiry's report stated that the "Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory", that the Government "did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner." As a result, "serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"

The National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel addressed the unequal treatment of Israeli Arabs in a document produced in December 2006. They argued that: "The Israeli legal system includes a number of core laws that produce and reinforce inequality between the Arabs and the Jews in Israel (de jure) ... The official bias is not restricted to symbols such as the Israeli flag, but also to deeper legal issues concerning all Palestinian Arabs ... [t]he official definition of Israel as a Jewish state created a fortified ideological barrier in the face of obtaining full equality for the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel ... We, the Palestinians in Israel, are an integral part of this place ... Israel has tried over the past decades to disengage us from this place, not through physical transfer but through intellectual emotional transfer. Israel has tried to create a new identity on the basis of 'loyalty to the state' ... The State has not determined a position acceptable to us yet in terms of nurturing our Arab culture."