I have no opinion on the matter--except that I like Carter for his support of GM crops--but I'm curious: what was so bad about him as a president?
Long fuel lines at gas stations, weak foreign policy resulting in Iran hostages, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, Russian wheat debacle, and I'm sure there's more, but just can't remember. America was weak, which made room for Reagan, much like Obama has made room for Trump (a joke, only sort of).
His more recent positions on Israel have been atrocious, although I'm sure you disagree with my assessment.
Long fuel lines at gas stations, weak foreign policy resulting in Iran hostages, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, Russian wheat debacle, and I'm sure there's more, but just can't remember. America was weak, which made room for Reagan, much like Obama has made room for Trump (a joke, only sort of).
Doesn't sound all that bad to be honest, but what do I know?
Reply to jamalrob Well, almost no one, politician or otherwise, outside the states is as rabidly biased towards Israel as those inside that bubble so @Hanover's assumption is not all that unfair.
Reply to Hanover Israel is not the Jewish world. The Jewish world as a whole is mostly very secular and forward looking (unlike a lot of the Muslim world obviously).
Just to note that in roughly the past week or two I've been accused of being a regressive reactionary, a misogynist, a lefty racist, and worst of all, a liberal (thanks @The Great Whatever !). I hope it's possible to have a discussion about Israeli government policy without having anti-Semite added to the list.
Reply to Baden In my view, anti-Semitism is crucial to a discussion about the current political campaigns against Israel and the general attitudes towards it (though I have no special interest in accusing you personally of anti-Semitism).
Reply to jamalrob I didn't say anti-Semitism was irrelevant. All I am saying is that it's possible to criticize Israeli government policy without being anti-Semitic. There are obviously opponents to the government both within and outside Israel who are Jewish, for example. And the effort to brand every critic of Israel an anti-Semite (I'm not saying you are part of that btw) is a fairly pernicious way to shut down debate.
Reply to Baden I was just pointing out that it was relevant, and I was aware you didn't say it wasn't. As for your last statement, there are serious thinkers who suggest there's an underlying resurgence in anti-Semitism that accounts for much of the recent anti-Israel stuff. Is such a position necessarily pernicious? I can't tell if you would say this counted as "branding every critic of Israel an anti-semite", but if not, and you meant it literally, then of course I agree.
Reply to jamalrob I meant it literally so we agree on that. I don't agree that anti-Semitism plays much of a part in anti-Israeli sentiment on the left. I think it's part of the same vein of politics that feeds anti-US sentiment and no-one is accusing those criticizing the US of being anti-Christian. And on the other side, I wouldn't expect to be accused of Islamophobia for my criticisms of the behaviour of Hamas, Saudi Arabia or Yemen, for example. But there are two debates here: One concerns the extent to which anti-Semitism plays a part in the debate and the other is the debate itself, i.e. to what extent Israeli policy is justified. I think you can look at the second question simply on its own merits as an ethical issue without having to get bogged down in the first. (Otherwise, you are left with a classic case of poisoning the well).
The Muslim world is just misunderstood, but the Jewish world is evil. Such is the narrative.
I will say this, there is a narrative that Jews are rich, cunning, shady and an integral part of a powerful cabal that rule the world, and this can sometimes bleed into the Israel vs Palestine debate. But in so far as it does, it bleeds in from the right. It's almost exclusively right-wing morons like David Duke and others who feed this kind of paranoia, not the left. And they usually hate Muslims as much as Jews.
But in so far as it does, it bleeds in from the right. It's almost exclusively right-wing morons...
I think you'd need to argue for this, not only because left-wing anti-semitism is a very well-known phenomenon going back to the nineteenth century, but especially because it contradicts numerous recent commentators who have brought our attention to the modern variant, e.g., Owen Jones, Nick Cohen, Simon Schama and Howard Jacobson--few if any of whom are uncritical of Israel (Jacobson being the least critical, I think). And these are respected independent writers making their cases in a calm and reasonable way--they're not idiots, trolls, propagandists, or loonies.
And there's also the testimony of people formerly involved with pro-Palestinian campaigns, like Alex Chalmers.
Whether you agree with their assessment or not, the fact that it's not just an oddball claim demands that you do more than flatly deny it (if you're up for continuing the discussion, that is).
Incidentally, which debate you regard as the real one is probably a matter of taste: some of us might prefer to talk about left-wing anti-semitism than about whether Israel's actions are justified. In any case, I think the two can be hard to separate.
Reply to jamalrob Ok, I'll look up some of authors you mentioned on this. But my point about poisoning the well stands. It may be that anti-Semitism comes into the conversation somewhere but it shouldn't be used as a cudgel to stifle debate. I'll leave it at that for now.
Israel is not the Jewish world. The Jewish world as a whole is mostly very secular and forward looking (unlike a lot of the Muslim world obviously).
Sure, and Israel is also largely secular and forward looking. I don't know why you draw a distinction between secular/religious, forward looking/backward looking, and Israeli Jews/American Jews. You're just a labeler, trying to divide my people so that you can conquer us.
"Semitic" as an ethnic group is more expansive than "Jewish", isn't it? The Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians are all Semites. The Arabs are semitic. Then there is language. Arabian is spoken in parts of northern Africa whose people are not ethnic Arabian. French and English are spoken by people who are not remotely European. Multiple cultural influences have cross hatched the Middle East, flowing from Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Rome, and farther afield.
Christianity's deepest roots are Semitic--one of those inconvenient truths.
Antisemites, as a group, really shouldn't like Saudis any more than they like Jews, if they are going to be consistent. Religious antisemites might specialize in disliking Islam or Judaism. Cultural antisemitics have a rich variety of things to dislike -- Moslem and Orthodox Jewish dress, clannishness (which of course never occurred anywhere in the world except in the Middle East or the shtetl, right?), dietary habits -- shelters which never serve pork at meals for fear a Moslem might be offended, even though 99% of shelter beneficiaries prefer pork, and so on and on and on.
But my point about poisoning the well stands. It may be that anti-Semitism comes into the conversation somewhere but it shouldn't be used as a cudgel to stifle debate.
Well, nothing should be used as a cudgel to stifle debate. Portraying the accusation of anti-semitism as a debate-stifling cudgel is partly what these authors are taking issue with. It's the crux of the biscuit.
"Semitic" as an ethnic group is more expansive than "Jewish", isn't it? The Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians are all Semites. The Arabs are semitic. Then there is language. Arabian is spoken in parts of northern Africa whose people are not ethnic Arabian. French and English are spoken by people who are not remotely European. Multiple cultural influences have cross hatched the Middle East, flowing from Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Rome, and farther afield.
Antisemites, as a group, really shouldn't like Saudis any more than they like Jews, if they are going to be consistent.
Anti-semitism is prejudice against Jews. That's what it means, and it's what it has meant since it was coined. You might argue that it was mis-named, of course.
But as it happens there used to be (I'm not aware if it's still around, except for in Iran) an anti-Arab prejudice that was similar to antisemitism, Arabs being portrayed as avaricious and untrustworthy (I found an example of this just recently in a hideous sci-fi book by Larry Niven).
Christianity's deepest roots are Semitic--one of those inconvenient truths.
Why is this inconvenient for Christianity? Christianity transcends ethnicity doesn't it? Christian anti-semitism is (or was) about the religion. It was only in the late nineteenth century that anti-semitism became racialized.
Reply to jamalrob This sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand, you seem to want to say that the positions of those who would debate you on this issue are infected by anti-semitism (to me that's clearly poisoning the well) and on the other hand you want to say if they decide it's pointless to debate you on those grounds that should also be taken as a sign of what? More antisemitism? Something else? I'd have to read the authors myself before I could comment in detail but I don't see how you can have it both ways.
In any case, critics of Israeli policy include Jews and non-Jews, Israelis and non-Israelis alike so obviously antisemitism is not necessarily a part of such critiques. But the accusation of antisemitism is such a serious one that of course it's likely to put off debate.
Reply to Baden No, I am saying that the accusation of antisemitism is not always a "cudgel used to stifle debate", as you are implying it always is. And I am saying it is relevant. I am responding to your rhetorical attempts to smear all accusations of antisemitism. It's the very thing at issue, and would need to be debated. I recognize that I would have to actually argue that much of the anti-Israel sentiment of recent years is inspired partly by antisemitism. Likewise, you have to argue that it is not--rather than throwing spitballs.
Reply to jamalrob I think if you read over that again you might see the humour in what you've written particularly the part about me smearing accusations of antisemitism. Anyway, as I said, when I get a chance I'll read some of the authors you've mentioned in order to try to get more insight into your viewpoint. Until then I'm not really in a position to debate the issue in any detail.
I think if you read over that again you might see the humour in what you've written particularly the part about me smearing accusations of antisemitism.
I started out by saying I thought there was an anti-Israel bias outside America, then went on to say I thought antsemitism was very relevant to a discussion of anti-Israel sentiment, and then defended the notion that antisemitism underlies some anti-Israel movements as a legitimate, serious position that cannot be dismissed. I don't see the humour, unfortunately.
In any case, critics of Israeli policy include Jews and non-Jews, Israelis and non-Israelis alike so obviously antisemitism is not necessarily a part of such critiques. But the accusation of antisemitism is such a serious one that of course it's likely to put off debate.
The reason that some associate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism is because there does appear to be an over-analysis of Israeli policy (like should they develop certain areas of their country and how they should defend themselves from enemies) in comparison to how other countries are analyzed. It is only Israel that actually has to justify its own existence and state its legitimate claim to its own land, a requirement that all other nations are relieved of. Israel appears to be specially targeted, and because it is Jewish run, it leads some to conclude it is the Jewishness of the nation that provides the basis for being targeted. Considering Jews have long been subject to unfair criticism (many of which you pointed out), it doesn't seem such a stretch to believe that the current criticisms of Israel are just part of this same historical criticism.
So, yes, Israel, like all nations, has policies that aren't internally consistent, are entirely self-interested, that might be hypocritical, and that might even be unjustified to the objective observer. These policies however aren't of such magnitude that Israel ought to always remain under the microscope anymore than should the policies of the various European nations that offer these criticisms.
The reason that some associate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism is because there does appear to be an over-analysis of Israeli policy (like should they develop certain areas of their country and how they should defend themselves from enemies) in comparison to how other countries are analyzed. It is only Israel that actually has to justify its own existence and state its legitimate claim to its own land, a requirement that all other nations are relieved of.
What European or other developed nation questions the right of Israel to exist? Of course there are some groups (like Hamas) and countries (like Iran) that do and I have no problem with that claim being called antisemitic but that's not part of the mainstream debate in Europe or the rest of the western world. As for the claim to its own land, that depends on what you mean by "it's own land". No-one is arguing Tel Aviv is not legitimately Israel's but there is reason to think that Jerusalem should be shared with the Palestinians as both peoples have in recent times controlled it or parts of it and both lay claim to it. And there is certainly reason to think that the West Bank which is part of the Palestinian territories should be considered legitimately Palestinian land. You do not automatically get a moral right to own land simply because you are presently in charge of it. Historical context has to be taken into consideration. And the context suggests the dividing up of the land in the region rather than giving it all to one or the other party is the only fair solution.
Which brings me to the main point: Do you not think the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to some of the land in the region, at least the Palestinian territories? Because at the moment that is occupied by Israeli troops. If they do have a legitimate claim to that land, then should not Israel remove its army and stop the building of settlements there.
These policies however aren't of such magnitude that Israel ought to always remain under the microscope anymore than should the policies of the various European nations that offer these criticisms.
Do you really think though that if Israel had been set up in Europe and was living peacefully with its neighbours like Sweden, Holland or Ireland are, it would be subject to threats of economic boycott? The reason Israel is under the microscope is that in the view of many -who not unreasonably believe that the Palestinians have as much a right to self-determination as the Israelis do- it is colonizing (or settling if you prefer) another's territory. It has built roads in the Palestinian territories that only its settlers can use. It has soldiers and roadblocks there that can prevent Palestinians travelling from one place to another even in the case of emergency. And it has a built a security wall within the territories that separates Palestinians families and villages from each other. The only reason it is not under UN sanctions for these and other actions is that the US has on several occasions used its veto to prevent that eventuality. These are not minor details, nor of course are the facts that Israel is a tiny country surrounded by largely hostile neighbours and is currently in a state of low level war with the Palestinians. But the comparison with European nations who are critics of Israel just doesn't work as far as I can see.
Anyway, this really boils down to the following, and I would really like to understand your point of view: While we both accept absolutely that Israelis have a right to self-determination and legitimate claims to some of the land in the region, do you accept that Palestinians also have also have a right to self-determination and a legitimate claim to some of the land there? And, if so, how do you think that claim should be realized?
What European or other developed nation questions the right of Israel to exist?
The proposed two state solution is problematic because the Palestinians reject that idea and wish to push the Israelis into the sea (or some such rhetoric). Those who advocate the two state solution do so with the understanding that Palestine does not want a two state solution, but wish to destroy it. So, when you say "what European nation questions Israel's right to exist," my response is any that believes ceding authority or land to a hostile nation and who wishes to destroy it.
No-one is arguing Tel Aviv is not legitimately Israel's but there is reason to think that Jerusalem should be shared with the Palestinians as both peoples have in recent times controlled it or parts of it and both lay claim to it. And there is certainly reason to think that the West Bank which is part of the Palestinian territories should be considered legitimately Palestinian land. You do not automatically get a moral right to own land simply because you are presently in charge of it. Historical context has to be taken into consideration. And the context suggests the dividing up of the land in the region rather than giving it all to one or the other party is the only fair solution.
Please. There is no universal standard to determine who gets to control land. It makes no more sense to say that an aboriginal tribe gets to keep its land because great great grandpa was the first to build a hut there than it does to say that another nation gets to control it because it was taken forcibly in war. Why the Irish get to be in Ireland is no more justified than allowing the Americans to occupy Indian lands or why Russia gets to be in the Crimea. What is unique about Israel is that it alone is forced to justify its occupation of various parts of the country, including those won in a defensive war, notwithstanding the fact that some of those militarily won lands have already been gratuitously returned.
And so it comes down to why Israeli occupation of lands is of such international consequence and why they in particular have to engage in offering a moral basis for their occupation. Whether Britain gets to hold on to Belfast hardly seems a matter for my consideration.
Do you really think though that if Israel had been set up in Europe and was living peacefully with its neighbours like Sweden, Holland or Ireland are, it would be subject to threats of economic boycott?
Not to quibble with wording, but "set up" suggests an artificial creation. We don't hypothesize about what might have been had Ireland been set up in Madagascar and could therefore have avoided the troubles it had with Britain. Israel is in fact trying to live in peace and only doing what is necessary to protect itself from constant terroristic attacks. If Mexico demanded the return of their native Texas and lobbed missiles over the border, no one would question a ferocious response from the US, and no one would offer great sympathies if Mexico became part of the US.
It has soldiers and roadblocks there that can prevent Palestinians travelling from one place to another even in the case of emergency. And it has a built a security wall within the territories that separates Palestinians families and villages from each other.
You build a great case for Palestinian sympathy by pointing out the disruption in their lives at the hands of a tyrannical oppressor as long as you ignore the reason why such measures are required. Would you live in Israel if they didn't have such measures, or might you feel some comfort that someone was trying to be sure that you actually were alive to wake up the morning?
While we both accept absolutely that Israelis have a right to self-determination and legitimate claims to some of the land in the region, do you accept that Palestinians also have also have a right to self-determination and a legitimate claim to some of the land there? And, if so, how do you think that claim should be realized?
Of course, in a ideal world, we'd just go down the deed office at the courthouse, pull out the plats, and mark which land each got, file it in, stamp it, shake hands, and call one another "neighbor." Unfortunately, this isn't just a dispute over borders and plats. It's that the Palestinians want to kill their neighbors and take all the land. Sure, reasonable people can reasonably resolve their dispute. Our disagreement is that I think the Israelis are reasonable and the Palestinians aren't.
How did I contradict myself? I said that the Israelis won some land in a war, that they weren't required to return it, but they gratuitously did return some of it. Does that somehow make them required to return all of it?
It's that the Palestinians want to kill their neighbors and take all the land. Sure, reasonable people can reasonably resolve their dispute. Our disagreement is that I think the Israelis are reasonable and the Palestinians aren't.
The Palestinians do not all want to kill Israelis and take all their land. I think you know better than that. If you don't, you need to go back over the history of the attempts to find agreement and why they fell apart. Apart from that, a people being unreasonable (not that I necessarily accept the Palestinians in general are) does not abrogate their right to self-determination. Also, demonizing an entire ethnic community in the way you are doing here is exactly what those of us who are against anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia should be trying to avoid in this debate. There are several million Palestinians living in the region. They are not all crazed terrorists.
Anyhow, the other pillar of your argument seems to be that might is right; other countries have historically occupied others' lands and those others have not had an automatic right to get their land back; therefore, in this case it's hypocritical to expect Israel to give the Palestinians their land back.
If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing. If it was the Israelis who were subjugated, we should just ignore it. And if they fought back by firing rockets into Palestine, we should dismiss them as terrorists and use that as another reason for not giving them their land back. I disagree with that view of international relations. We live in a more enlightened time than when, to take one of your examples, the English and the Spanish stole the land of the native Americans and got away with it. So, in the circumstances applying to Israel vs Palestine, the real and the hypothetical above, the invaded and occupied would deserve our protection.
Reply to Bitter Crank As much as I admire the Jewish people (a disproportionate number of my top 10 favourite historical figures happen to be Jewish) I don't think it's possible to really imagine what it's like to be black or Jewish or Muslim or anything else you haven't grown up to be. The best we can do is try to be as objective in our arguments as possible. I do agree with the author that some criticism of Israel foreign policy is over the top, but no more over the top as far as I can see than criticism of US foreign policy. There are as many people who blame the Americans for every sin that Middle Eastern fanatics carry out as blame Israel. In both cases they're wrong, Palestinian suicide bombers are not martyrs in my eyes, they're murderers, as are all those who target or disregard the lives of innocent civilians, and those who carry out and support such crimes are the only ones who bear responsibility for them.
This debate has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Jews are forward looking or Arabs are backward looking. That much is completely irrelevant. It has everything to do with whether or not Israel as a state constitutes a violent occupation of sovereign land. The fact is that they are literally manifest destinying the fuck out of someone else's homeland. Who cares at all if anyone is forward looking here? Palestinians were forced into the position they are in. They are justified in taking every action that they take because, frankly, all moral rules went out the window the moment the West and the Israelis began their occupation of Palestine, slightly prior to 1948.
What is it with all these Westerners and not batting an eye whatsoever when it comes to taking other people's land and resources? Israel needs a state? Well, why didn't you give them New York City, Boston, the entire state of Delaware, or how about London or Manchester? How about give them Alaska or Texas or Wyoming? I mean, you already did what you're trying to do in Palestine in those other places, why continue the genocide? There's almost no one living in Wyoming anyways. Seriously, the hypocrisy is beyond comprehension here, which allows the conclusion that Israel as a state has nothing to do whatsoever with providing Jews with a homeland, but everything whatsoever with Westerners trying to assert their dominance in other people's lands.
If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing. If it was the Israelis who were subjugated, we should just ignore it.
I'd say so, yeah. They can move back to Europe, or the West can graciously designate Leeds as the new sovereign Israel state. Then, if Jews wish to go live in Palestine, then they can apply for a work-permit.
The problem with this whole approach to Israel is that there are clear analogies that make the moral dilemma easier to resolve. Do you condemn Vietnamese people from shooting up their French colonial masters? Do you condemn Indian nationalists from assassinating English and Japanese colonials? You shouldn't, because they were justified in doing so. Western-backed Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and resources is the exact same scenario, just slipped under the guise of the Trojan horse of "Jewish freedom and emancipation." Remember, the group that constantly expels Jews from place to place most recently (and even back up to the Roman era) consisted mostly of European leadership. If you're feeling guilty that Jews have to move yet again, once again, I suggested a permanent homeland: Leeds, United Kingdom.
They are justified in taking every action that they take because, frankly, all moral rules went out the window the moment the West and the Israelis began their occupation of Palestine, slightly prior to 1948.
Without moral rules or at least some ethical foundation, the debate descends into a shouting match. You shouldn't target innocent civilians or show disregard for their safety no matter what side you're on and no matter what the circumstances. That should be a bare minimum everyone can agree on.
Incidentally, you are showing as much blatant disregard for the Israelis as @Hanover has been showing for the Palestinians. Your positions are essentially the mirror image of each other. Hanover: Israelis = Good, Palestinians = Bad (therefore we don't have to care about the Palestinians). You: Palestinians=Good, Israelis=Bad (therefore we don't have to care about the Israelis).
Reply to discoiiReply to BadenReply to Hanover [reply="everybody else"] I think we should remember, just for context, that quite a few nations/empires have had their fingers in the Middle Eastern pie. To start with...
The Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Anatolians, Egyptians, (who did I leave out?) were overlords for various parts and pieces at different times and places. They all left an imprint. The Kingdom of Israel was run over several times, just like a lot of other kingdoms were. it was SOP.
Then there were the Jews and the Christians.
Then there were the Moslems which pretty much overran (or tried to overrun) the Mediterranean Basin, and more besides, heading east to the Pacific.
Then Ghengis Kahn over ran much of Eurasia, including the Middle East.
Then there were European Crusades.
Then there was the Ottoman Empire.
Then there was the British and French Empires.
The British and French redrew the map of the Middle East to their liking before Israel was created. There was nothing particularly rational about it. Their drawing room map exercise is the root of a lot of contemporary problems.
Israel was created finally by Declaration and force, just like all of the previous arrangements were. Nothing was done with democratic votes, plebiscites, public opinion polls, or so much as a fare-thee-well consideration of the local wishes anywhere. The Zionist movement was formally started by Theodor Herzl in 1896. It's just the latest oar in the water.
The United States stuck its oar into the water later than the British and the French, and we haven't contributed a whole lot of good either -- not because we are Islamophobic, antisemitic, or anti Arab. We were doing what every nation does, pursuing national interests, or at least trying to pursue national interests. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were astonishingly stupid endeavors but lots of other people have tried similar stupid endeavors and failed.
So, here we are, 2016, blaming a lot of ancient history on the modern state of Israel and the US and some (Discoli) valorizing the Arabs -- well really, colored folk and may or may not be oppressed at the moment.
Does Palestine belong to the people who lived there before Israel was created? Sure -- just like merry old England belonged to Celts before the Romans took over and belonged to the Romans before they left and the Anglo Saxons took over next. Just like North and South America didn't belong to Spain, Portugal, and England before they arrived and took over. Just like nobody invited the Romans, Christians, Moslems, and Turks, to do what they did.
Jews have always lived in Palestine. After the Romans left ancient Israel in tatters the Jewish people remaining (who were not part of the diaspora) devolved into peasants, just like the predecessors of the present day Palestinians were.
That's history for you: One damned thing after another.
It has everything to do with whether or not Israel as a state constitutes a violent occupation of sovereign land.
And so you've ignored the entire debate and just asserted that the Palestinians have the right to the land. I assert otherwise. So there you have it. Good debate.
Shouldn't the US return Manhattan to its original inhabitants?
The Palestinians do not all want to kill Israelis and take all their land.
Are you suggesting that the Palestinian government really is in favor of a two state solution? If they are, they've certainly not ever shown that, especially after the Israelis have in the past been willing to meet 90% of their demands.
The Palestinians cannot physically remove the Israelis, and any direct war against them would be suicidal. Their war against Israel is political, which includes in large part demonizing them.
Apart from that, a people being unreasonable (not that I necessarily accept the Palestinians in general are) does not abrogate their right to self-determination. Also, demonizing an entire ethnic community in the way you are doing here is exactly what those of us who are against anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia should be trying to avoid in this debate. There are several million Palestinians living in the region. They are not all crazed terrorists.
Of course they're not all crazed terrorists, but their government is not in favor of Israel remaining where it is. I've also not made a generalized statement against Muslims or Arabs. I've only pointed out that the Palestinian sentiment is for the removal of Israel from its land and it does that through gaining international political support for its position and it also uses terrorism as a tactic. That's just what's happening.
We can talk about the unfairness of Israel in building new settlements and argue the subtleties of who has the right to possess lands, but I really don't think anyone (including me) would be wiling to accept an Israel that sent its citizens into Gaza with bombs strapped to themselves on public buses. The conduct of the respective parties is not comparable.
And, no, being unreasonable doesn't mean you lose the right to self-determination, but being a terrorist does. I'm pretty sure Ireland (for example) doesn't permit its murderers the right to self-determination.
If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing.
I've not argued that might makes right. It's quite the opposite. My argument would be that we should protect Israel because they are right to possess the land.
I have no problem at all declaring governments, cultures, or people as bad. That is to say, the reason I support only friendly nations having nuclear bombs, having international influence, possessing important pieces of land, having critical natural resources, etc. is because I want evil nations to be weak and good nations to be strong. I don't know why it's so hard to look at someone else's existence and simply declare it not worth protecting. It's for the same reason that you don't particularly want to preserve the rights of those who want to oppress homosexuals and African Americans in the US. It's because their beliefs are stupid, destructive, and in opposition to what you hold to be right and just. You couldn't care any less about the history and deeply held beliefs of those racists. Why don't you argue for their right to self-determination?
What I'm saying is that I believe that Israel does have the right to the land, and to the extent we need to decide who to support where there's a dispute over the land, it'd be foolish to consider both claims as equal without regard to the character of those we're supporting.
Haaretz:One side, the Palestine Liberation Organization, recognized Israel up front. All other details aside, they have long since performed the sine qua non of a two-state agreement by recognizing Israel. The other side, Israel, has never recognized a Palestinian state or, in any formal, written, or legal sense, even the Palestinian right to a state.
I really don't think anyone (including me) would be wiling to accept an Israel that sent its citizens into Gaza with bombs strapped to themselves on public buses. The conduct of the respective parties is not comparable.
Hamas and other Palestinian groups deliberately target civilians, which is reprehensible. Israel doesn't. In that sense I agree the conduct is not comparable. However, Israel does show blatant disregard for civilian lives in many of its attacks. And because of this something else that is not comparable is the number of Palestinian civilians killed compared to Israeli civilians killed in the conflict.
During the clashes of 2014, for example, 5 Israeli civilians were killed, and from 761 (Israeli estimate) to 1462 (UN estimate) Palestinian civilians including up to 578 children (UN estimate). In other words, the number of Palestinian children alone killed by Israeli forces was up to 100 times as many as the total number of Israeli civilians killed. These are not just statistics, they represent a reality on the ground. None of those Palestinian children or civilians deserved to die any more than the 5 Israelis did, and their deaths are not likely to make Israel any safer. Of course, you are likely to say, "It's their own fault, they started it" etc. Others would say Israel started that round. But whoever started the slaughter, in terms of innocent civilians, the Palestinians were - in terms of pure numbers, orders of magnitude - more the victims.
I have no problem at all declaring governments, cultures, or people as bad. That is to say, the reason I support only friendly nations having nuclear bombs, having international influence, possessing important pieces of land, having critical natural resources, etc. is because I want evil nations to be weak and good nations to be strong. I don't know why it's so hard to look at someone else's existence and simply declare it not worth protecting
And, no, being unreasonable doesn't mean you lose the right to self-determination, but being a terrorist does.
I find it hard to understand how you can be so obviously hypocritical. You are not only demonizing the Palestinians, you seem to be actively attempting to dehumanize them. I don't know if it's because you don't know that a majority of Palestinians live in the West Bank, which is controlled by Fatah* not Hamas; or you don't know that not all those in Gaza support Hamas; or you don't know the difference between Fatah and Hamas; or you don't know that large numbers of Palestinians are elderly infirm or children who are no threat to anyone; or you don't know that even those who support Hamas are not necessarily themselves terrorists. It's hard to tell. There are around 3 million Palestinians whose existence you have just dismissed as not worth protecting, as being essentially worthless because you think they are evil. This is exactly what the fanatics on the other side say about Jews. You and they are expressing views that are two sides of the same very ugly coin.
I'm pretty sure Ireland (for example) doesn't permit its murderers the right to self-determination.
I don't know if you are saying this because you are trying to refer to the conflict in Northern Ireland or because you just want to say something about Ireland because I'm Irish. But Northern Ireland is instructive. Sinn Fein, the political representatives of the (now disbanded) IRA, which was a designated terrorist organization, have and have always had the support of about half the Catholic population there. The reason they are no longer in the business of killing people is that the British government engaged with them and gave them a place in a power sharing executive. In other words, rather than continue to marginalize them and shout names at them they decided it would be better to bring them into the process of democracy. This worked to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland both Catholic and Protestant. It's unlikely a one-state power sharing government would work in Israel because the two parties are too far apart politically and culturally, so the only viable solution in my view remains the two state one. As far as I'm concerned, the first step to that would be a complete cessation of violence (and ugly rhetoric); the second, talks; the third, an agreement; and the final a process of reconciliation. It's worked elsewhere in the world but there has to be the will to do it. Otherwise, everyone loses. Both sides need to step up to the plate here by at least attempting to understand and deal constructively with the other. And so do their cheerleaders.
*"Fatah is no longer regarded as a terrorist organization by any government. Fatah used to be designated terrorist under Israeli law and was considered terrorist by the United States Department of State and United States Congress until it renounced terrorism in 1988." Link.
However, Israel does show blatant disregard for civilian lives in many of its attacks.
Do you not see a difference between self-defense and an aggressive act? If the expected result of terrorism is collateral damage of your own citizens, then I'd blame the terrorists for that collateral damage.
You are not only demonizing the Palestinians, you seem to be actively attempting to dehumanize them.
No I'm not dehumanizing them. The toll on their lives is horrible under any interpretation of the term. I realize they have dreams, ambitions, loves and everything else that I do. And so what are the Israelis to do other than sympathizing with them? Are they also to allow themselves to come under attack and not do anything about it?
And yes, I know the difference between Fatah and Hamas.
As far as I'm concerned, the first step to that would be a complete cessation of violence (and ugly rhetoric); the second, talks; the third, an agreement; and the final a process of reconciliation. It's worked elsewhere in the world but there has to be the will to do it. Otherwise, everyone loses. Both sides need to step up to the plate here by at least attempting to understand and deal constructively with the other. And so do their cheerleaders.
And so we're in absolute agreement here. The complete cessation of violence needs to stop. Are you suggesting that Israel would be dropping bombs if there were nothing to react to, as if they'd just get up one morning and decide today is a good day to drop bombs? Yes, there needs to be good faith talks. Those have been attempted but have failed, but, sure, keep at it, but I'm not terribly hopeful. The idea that Palestinians are really going to accept Israel's legitimate right to exist is never going to happen. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-Abbas-thinks-Jewish-state-is-a-delusional-myth-345549
Are you kidding me? Palestine never negotiated in good faith to bring about a 2 state solution
You said they had never shown themselves to be in favour of a two state solution. That is simply false, Hanover. Read the newspaper article I added above.
The idea that Palestinians are really going to accept Israel's legitimate right to exist is never going to happen.
They have already accepted Israel's right to exist. You are now moving the goalposts and saying that because they don't accept Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", they don't accept their right to exist at all.
From the article:
Haaretz:There are a great many difficulties with the "Jewish state" demand, and Netanyahu's formulation "the nation-state of the Jewish people" in particular. This phrasing is full of highly problematic definite articles, and suggests a trans-historical claim to this land on behalf of an entire but undefined ethno-religious group the world over, not just the present Jewish Israeli majority. It harkens back to pre-state Zionism, defining Israel as if the state had not actually been created and several generations of Jewish and Arab Israelis had not been born there.
This framing also begs the question about the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, who already face significant discrimination in many sectors because they are not Jewish. This is one of the reasons the PLO finds the demand so problematic: They will not agree to implicitly endorse the restrictions Palestinian citizens of Israel now face, or may face in the future.
Moreover, Israel itself cannot define what a "Jewish state" means, exactly. There were several attempts in the last Knesset to introduce legislation to clarify the term; all of them failed miserably because while there is a consensus among Jewish Israelis that their state is in some sense "Jewish," there is no consensus whatsoever as to what that entails. So, in effect, Palestinians are being asked to agree to something that even the Israelis cannot define with any degree of specificity.
Bear in mind the source here is Israel's oldest and one if its most respected newspapers.
You said they had never shown themselves to be in favour of a two state solution. That is simply false, Hanover. Read the newspaper article I added above.
You can say they want there to be a two state solution, but when given that real opportunity, they balked. I mean there's saying it and meaning it. That this issue has been going on since Israel's independence makes me question whether they really want peace, especially in light of the concessions Israel was willing to allow in the past.
They have already accepted Israel's right to exist. You are now moving the goalposts and saying that because they don't accept Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", they don't accept their right to exist at all.
It's your position that if Israel and Palestine come to terms with a two state solution that the Palestinians should retain control over what Israel calls itself? That is, if Israel declares itself a Jewish state, the Palestinians then have a right to bomb buses?
Bear in mind the source here is Israel's oldest and one if its most respected newspapers.
Aside from the fact that this is a very weak appeal to authority (some editor at a newspaper agrees with your position, so it must be correct), it's also not accurate to say that Haaretz is widely accepted as an unbiased newspaper. It's pretty well known that it is a very left leaning newspaper. It'd be like me citing to a FoxNews commentator and asserting he was well respected and generally accepted. See,
http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2014/5/25/does-haaretzs-public-stance-on-occupation-reveal-anything-new-about-the-paper#.VvVsQu8UWUk=
It's your position that if Israel and Palestine come to terms with a two state solution that the Palestinians should retain control over what Israel calls itself? That is, if Israel declares itself a Jewish state, the Palestinians then have a right to bomb buses?
I'm pretty sure you know that's not my position. If you don't, read over my posts, particularly the parts where I've repeatedly and unequivocally condemned all violence against civilians*. Anyway, if you're not going to be intellectually honest or take this seriously, I'm not going to continue with the conversation. Your call.
Aside from the fact that this is a very weak appeal to authority (some editor at a newspaper agrees with your position, so it must be correct), it's also not accurate to say that Haaretz is widely accepted as an unbiased newspaper. It's pretty well known that it is a very left leaning newspaper. It'd be like me citing to a FoxNews commentator and asserting he was well respected and generally accepted.
I'm asking you to address the argument, not the source. You can merely acknowledge that. The only reason I mentioned the source was because you have suggested that critics of Israel are possibly antisemitic. You can't use that excuse here.
*To repeat again: There are no circumstances whatsoever, no matter what the Israeli army does in Palestine, no matter what the Israeli state declares itself to be, where it would be justified for Palestinians to bomb buses, fire rockets into Israeli neighbourhoods, or otherwise kill or maim innocent Israeli civilians.
Do you not see a difference between self-defense and an aggressive act? If the expected result of terrorism is collateral damage of your own citizens, then I'd blame the terrorists for that collateral damage.
There are rules concerning self-defense, both legal and ethical, even in war. If there weren't, then you killing one of my civilians in a terrorist attack would justify me retaliating by killing 100 of yours in a bombing aimed at the perpetrators and everyone in their immediate vicinity. The general principle is one of proportionality. You don't get to unconditionally dismiss the deaths of civilians of a country from which a terrorist attacked you in your attempts to kill that terrorist. That would amount to what's known in international parlance as a war crime.
To make it easier for you: Imagine you shoot my wife. That doesn't give me the right to bomb your house when you're in it while your kids are there too. And I wouldn't avoid responsibility by saying "Well that collateral damage* to your kids is your own fault because you killed my wife."
I hate saying this, but it seems like might makes right--later if not sooner. Israel has more might than the neighboring states have--when you add in the United States as the guaranteeing power. Had several million unarmed, Quaker-type Jews arrived in Israel in 1948, Israel probably wouldn't exist now--in Palestine, or anywhere else.
They were not pacifistic--there was combat from the get go. There were various efforts to keep a lid on the inevitable conflict, which we are aware were not successful.
Gaza is only 41 kilometers (25 mi) long, and from 6 to 12 kilometers (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide. With almost 2 million Palestinians on 362 square kilometers, "Gaza ranks as the 6th most densely populated polity in the world." Wikipedia (The only difference between Manhattan and Gaza is that one is about a billion times richer than the other one.) Israel is bigger than New Jersey (not by much) and could be drowned in Lake Michigan. Taiwan and Sardinia are about the same size.
The Jewish population of Israel grew by 1.7% over the past year, and the Israeli-Arab population grew by 2.2%. There is a demographic problem, too.
Is it possible that "might" could shift at some point in the future, and a new "right" be established? Iran hopes so--at least I think the government there is at least somewhat serious about wanting to get rid of Israel. Should they obtain (or build) a few atomic weapons and a few reliable missiles, and should they be reckless enough to use them...
My guess is that more than 95% of Arab people have more than enough to worry about every day without becoming overly agitated about the existence of the State of Israel. If Arab leaders were doing their job, they would be taking better care of their own populations. Some of them are doing better than others, of course.
What agitates people the most is being trapped. People in Gaza are certainly trapped; lots of the people on the West Bank are trapped. Bethlehem, for instance, is a city walled in from without. If they can't move freely, their economic and educational opportunities -- their futures -- are very limited.
Anybody know why a Palestinian State wasn't established on the West Bank when Israel's initial boundaries were established?
I'm pretty sure you know that's not my position. If you don't, read over my posts, particularly the parts where I've repeatedly and unequivocally condemned all violence against civilians*. Anyway, if you're not going to be intellectually honest or take this seriously, I'm not going to continue with the conversation. Your call.
Oh, don't get all upset. Be unflappable like me. You said that there was some critical distinction about Israel declaring itself a sovereign state and it declaring itself a sovereign Jewish state, with the Palestinians being justified in rejecting the latter declaration. You then reject all violence on the part of Palestine. I assume you accept my argument that the violence that comes from Israel is reactive, meaning that with no violence from Palestine, there'd be no violence at all. So where does that leave us? You're mad at Israel for insisting that it designate itself as it wishes without having to consider input from Palestine? That sort of anger should be fairly minimal in comparison to the anger you should feel toward Palestine for its terrorism that I suppose arises entirely from being asked to call Israel a Jewish state.
All of this is a heaping help of nonsense though. It's not that anyone really believes that if Israel agreed that it would never again refer to itself as a Jewish state that we'd be any closer to a meaningful peace agreement. And, as my other post asked, if Israel gets a peace agreement and then hangs up a sign calling it a Jewish state, does Palestine get to go back to where it was pre-agreement (and I won't this time suggest that means it gets to go back to bombing folks on buses).
I think you're fence riding here, recognizing that Palestine's terroristic tactics are abhorrent, yet wanting to find a middle ground just to end the horrible meaningless deaths. I get the sentiment, and I think it explains why so many are trying to find a way to end the violence. I just don't think that can happen until the terrorism completely ends for which Israel should accept no responsibility for. Quoting Baden
*To repeat again: There are no circumstances whatsoever, no matter what the Israeli army does in Palestine, no matter what the Israeli state declares itself to be, where it would be justified for Palestinians to bomb buses, fire rockets into Israeli neighbourhoods, or otherwise kill or maim innocent Israeli civilians.
I know this is your position, and I think it creates a problem for you. The problem it creates is that you can't offer such an unequivocal condemnation of Israel. If you just think Israel is seizing land it shouldn't seize, that's hardly the stuff of international interest. If the Palestinians weren't terrorizing the Israelis, this issue would not even make your radar, which means that their terror campaign is effective.
Sure, and if Iran attacked the US, there'd be no more Iran. That's how proportionality works. I just don't know why Israel has to fight wars with one hand tied behind its back.
I hate saying this, but it seems like might makes right--later if not sooner.
— Bitter Crank
I don't agree with this. Stronger nations are wrong all the time.
Of course nations are wrong all the time. But if they can make their evil, unjust, illegal, wrongful, and just plain rude decisions stick, eventually it becomes their honored history. Like the US and the Native Americans... We seized their land, drove them off of it, killed them systematically or haphazardly, starved them, and finally gave the remaining remnant some scraps of land, and found new ways to treat them badly. We seized a huge hunk of northern Mexico. It became our southwest instead of their northwest. All actions we would condemn somebody else doing.
These events were not taught to us in school as moral outrages, they were taught to us as our sacred and honorable history. How could that be? Because we won the wars and got to write the school history books. Not too many questioned all that stuff.
Same with slavery. It was presented as a mere fact in the beginning of the year -- ships went back and forth between Africa, the Caribbean, and New England carrying slaves. Also molasses from which rum was made. Later in the year we learned about the Civil War. Then we went on to corruption in government in the 1870s - 90s. Facts, not moral outrage.
I don't suppose that most people in the UK, Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, Italy and Russia feel inordinately guilty about their colonial/imperialistic history. It paid off pretty well, in most cases.
Israel has been in existence 68 years, long enough to establish the "rightness" of their imposition of a Jewish state on a province of the recently liquidated Ottoman empire (or an old province of the Roman Empire, if you want to go back that far). 68 years after the US managed to win the war of independence, it was 1849--time for the Gold Rush.
Does anyone at this point think that Russia will be forced to return Crimea to Ukraine?
1) It is not accurate or fair to blanketly refer to Palestinians as "terrorists" or "evil" 2) The Palestinians as a people deserve some sympathy considering their plight 3) Attacks targeting civilians are wrong and should be unequivocally condemned 4) Ideally, there needs to be an immediate end to violence followed by talks and an agreement on a two-state solution 5) My non-existent wife is worthy of our mutual adoration
There are still a couple of issues to be untangled though including:
A) The Jewish state question B) The question of what terrorism is
It's not that anyone really believes that if Israel agreed that it would never again refer to itself as a Jewish state that we'd be any closer to a meaningful peace agreement
Yes, they do actually. The Palestinians are happy to recognize Israel - again, see the Oslo accords - but do not want to agree to recognize a status that could result in Arab Israelis being discriminated against. I mean would you be happy with America declaring itself to be a "white Christian state"? Earlier, you told me that Israel was, amongst other things, "very secular". How can you be "very secular" and at the same time define your country according to ethnicity and/or religion?* And by the way, this is not only a problem for the Palestinians, it's a problem for Israelis; the version of the "Jewish state" being pushed by Netanyahu has been highly controversial even within Israel.
You can see from the article that Netanyahu would ideally have the Palestinians accept a kind of state not even his own Justice Minister wanted to accept. As far as I'm concerned, Israel should be recognized as the ethnic homeland of the Jewish people, but if what is meant by "a Jewish State" goes beyond that, the Palestinians could essentially be being asked to agree to second class citizenship for Arab Israelis. And of course, they are not going to do that. All of this is to say that while we may not find absolute agreement here, at the very least it should be clear the issue is not as black and white as you have made it out to be.
B) On what terrorism is.
I think we need to sort out our definitions here. For me, terrorism is not a function of how big the bomb, how sophisticated the delivery process, how powerful the military apparatus behind it, or how nominally democratic the deliverers. Terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians or the disregard for their safety in military operations in order to further political, religious or ideological objectives. That definition does not exclude governments. From an ethical standpoint, it makes no difference whether the terrorist wears a uniform or not, whether he uses a suicide bomb or a missile, or whether he claims to represent democracy or Islamism. What matters in a terrorist act is the act itself. The act of violence against the innocent. (Incidentally, I'm not making any statement here as yet about whose acts might fall under this definition, I simply want to try to agree on principles first before we get into that more difficult question).
I know this is your position, and I think it creates a problem for you. The problem it creates is that you can't offer such an unequivocal condemnation of Israel.
I can unequivocally condemn some of what Israel does, and some of what the Palestinians do. I'm not going to blanketly condemn either Israel or the Palestinians. So, I don't see a problem. In fact, I see my position as very consistent. But we probably need to tease out the stuff in the last post to get to all that.
If you just think Israel is seizing land it shouldn't seize, that's hardly the stuff of international interest. If the Palestinians weren't terrorizing the Israelis, this issue would not even make your radar, which means that their terror campaign is effective.
This makes no sense to me at all. Of course, if Israel wasn't being attacked, the issue would still be on the international radar, and mine, i.e. of course the seizure of land that shouldn't be seized is the stuff of international interest. We're not living in 19th century colonial times. The UN would still have tried to impose sanctions and so on. In fact, there would be even more justification for objections, which is yet another reason for the Palestinians to unilaterally stop the violence. They have no hope of winning militarily but they can win morally if they limit themselves to peaceful protest.
Does anyone at this point think that Russia will be forced to return Crimea to Ukraine?
No, but the people of the Crimea did vote to join Russia. The vote might not be considered entirely free and fair but no-one's going to deny that the Crimean people in general are very pro-Russian, which makes this a very different situation to that in Palestine.
A pox on both their houses! I avoid Israeli goods as I see no reason to treat them any differently than I would any other apartheid state. But I look at Palestine and based on the "Arab spring" I see no possibility of liberation for the people: they would be destined to be either a failed state or a client state, or maybe some toxic combination of the two.
No, but the people of the Crimea did vote to join Russia. The vote might not be considered entirely free and fair but no-one's going to deny that the Crimean people in general are very pro-Russian, which makes this a very different situation to that in Palestine.
So it was a democratic militaristic takeover by Putin? Interesting analysis. I might have interpreted it as a Russian land grab to make certain that the Ukraine, a former Soviet bloc nation, didn't become an EU nation.
Of course nations are wrong all the time. But if they can make their evil, unjust, illegal, wrongful, and just plain rude decisions stick, eventually it becomes their honored history. Like the US and the Native Americans... We seized their land, drove them off of it, killed them systematically or haphazardly, starved them, and finally gave the remaining remnant some scraps of land, and found new ways to treat them badly. We seized a huge hunk of northern Mexico. It became our southwest instead of their northwest. All actions we would condemn somebody else doing.
The conclusion here isn't as you assert, which seems to be that an evil nation becomes good once enough time elapses and everyone accepts their authority. You base this upon the fact that the US (for example) improperly seized Native American lands and now it's fully accepted and largely overlooked.
The problem with this analysis is that Iran, the former Iraq, North Korea and all sorts of other well established nations are still not considered good actors even with the time lapse. The real conclusion that can be drawn is that some nations are better than others and how they obtained their land is just one factor in determining where the nation falls on the good/bad scale. I suppose you could say that the US would have been better had it obtained its land through a more peaceful means, but that hardly makes it worse than North Korea, even though you might find North Korea's claims to their land is more justifiable.
And this makes my point in some regard to Israel. That is, even if the Palestinians have a superior right to the land (and I don't concede this, but just hypothesize it), that hardly means the world would be a better and more just place if the Palestinians occupied it. It is often the case that the better use of the land (which includes how its people are treated) is in the hands of others. By example, the North Korean territory would be better served by someone else. It just seems like philosophical nonsense to say that the Western world should cede a Western democracy (Israel) to an antagonistic middle east nation (Palestine) just for the sake of maintaining some poorly thought out principle about how land should be rationed out.
Yes, they do actually. The Palestinians are happy to recognize Israel - again, see the Oslo accords - but do not want to agree to recognize a status that could result in Arab Israelis being discriminated against.
This is just naivete. We're not a semantical distinction away from peace. You cite to an agreement reached over 20 years ago that has meant nothing in reducing violence. In 2000, it was made very clear that the Palestinians didn't want peace at the Camp David Summit.
You can see from the article that Netanyahu would ideally have the Palestinians accept a kind of state not even his own Justice Minister wanted to accept.
This conflates two issues: (1) the Palestinian objection to the reference of the land as Jewish and (2) secular Jews objection to having Jewish theology imposed on an otherwise secular nation.
Camp David fell apart largely due to the right of return issue, which was the Palestinians arguing that every descendant of every displaced Palestinian after Israeli independence be permitted to return to Israel (not just to Gaza and the West Bank). The numbers of such people are now in the millions. Israel could not accept that condition as it would essentially cede the land right back to the Palestinians and destroy the character of the state of Israel. The Palestinian objection to having Israel desginated "Jewish" is because their objective is to make it a Palestinian nation and they won't accept anything less. That is to say, this objection by the Palestinians is not semantical. It's a clear declaration that they don't want non-Palestinian control of the land because they beleive all the land is theirs.
It's as I've said all along: They don't want a two state solution. They want control over the whole country. It seems obvious to me.
Regarding the more liberal Jews not wanting the more orthodox Jews in control (whcih is issue #1 above), that's an internal political tiff.
It is often the case that the better use of the land (which includes how its people are treated) is in the hands of others.
This doesn't solve much. Who decides what a better use is?
I am in favor of the state of Israel, even if their existence was an imposition on the Palestinians. I like the UK, too, even though they were the colonial imperialists par excellence. Germany -- two thumbs up, despite their ghastly history. Sweden? Don't much care for Swedes, even though they haven't done anything to anybody recently (ever?). Finland? Norway? Bah, humbug! to the lands of the Frozen North. Macadamia? Madagascar? Mongolia? Good-bad-indifferent? Don't know.
The problem I am trying to get at (not to anyone's satisfaction, apparently) is how do nations become "good" or "bad"? Nations are collectives which, with respect to other national collectives, pursue interests. Individuals make moral decisions (or not) but when you speak of the collective of millions, "good" or "evil" do not seem quite the right terms.
There were many individuals belonging to the ruling German Nazi Party who made horrendously evil decisions and a few million individuals who executed the orders--all and each responsible. The state of Germany, representing the German people, can't be held guilty the same way that individual Nazis can. The State is an abstraction, as are "a people" to some extent. "The State" can not be taken out and shot after being found guilty of crimes against humanity. But individuals--responsible actors--can be tried, convicted, and executed.
We can locate individuals who are good or bad actors, like those Israeli's who choose to build houses and barns on land where just previously Palestinians had lived, or Palestinians who choose to commit suicide aboard a bus used mostly by Israelis. The Israeli settlers are causing a slow death of Palestinians, as opposed to the much quicker death of Israeli's on the bus. We can locate a source of goodness or badness in particular policies written by particular persons, like a policy of tacit support for boundary-crossing settlers or explosives-bearing bus riders. We can locate goodness and badness in the behavior or directives of leaders, from David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973) or Chaim Weizmann (1914-1952), or Golda Meir (1898-1978) on to Benjamin Netanyahu. We should include Harry Truman and Prime Minister Arthur Balfour.***
Perhaps the most prominent designer of Zionism, Theodor Herzl also known in Hebrew as Chozeh HaMedinah (lit. "Visionary of the State") should be named as a responsible agent.
There are Israeli individuals and Israeli political parties who oppose the expansionary settlers, oppose the military policies of the Israeli defense ministry, and wish to bring about a lasting peaceful arrangement.
"Israel" contains them all.
The existence of Israel, as a state -- whether a 'Jewish' state or not, can not be undone at this point, except by some monstrous act of invasion or nuclear detonation, which would also harm Israel's neighbors.
States, whether imposed by declaration and war, or created by partition of territories (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India), are self- and other- justified. South Sudan was created by partition but it is unclear at the moment whether they have sufficient recognition and self justification to persist.
Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, et al all have arbitrary boundaries. Much of Africa has equally arbitrary boundaries--the British and French (mainly) drew them to suit themselves, just like they did in the Middle East. Israel isn't unique in having a wandering border. Europe has lots of erasures and redrawn lines; so does the United States (mostly at somebody else's expense).
Israel obtained its West Bank opportunity and its West Bank problem when it captured the territory from Jordan in 1967.
*** "The Balfour Declaration essentially states the endorsement of his fellow Cabinet ministers of the partition of a separate land for Israel in the Palestinian region then under British rule. It read, in part, "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to faciliate the achievement of this object..." This is particularly significant because it has been popular to suggest a Jewish national home in Uganda up to this point."
This is just naivete. We're not a semantical distinction away from peace. You cite to an agreement reached over 20 years ago that has meant nothing in reducing violence. In 2000, it was made very clear that the Palestinians didn't want peace at the Camp David Summit
From your deeply biased perspective, sure. And from the deeply biased perspective of the Palestinians the blame is all Israel's. The vast majority of analysts do not paint things in such cartoonish terms.
This conflates two issues: (1) the Palestinian objection to the reference of the land as Jewish and (2) secular Jews objection to having Jewish theology imposed on an otherwise secular nation
There are two issues here and I've been careful in my wording to try not to conflate them but to show how they're related. I didn't expect agreement but at least it highlights the complexities here that you continuously seem to want to gloss over.
Camp David fell apart largely due to the right of return issue, which was the Palestinians arguing that every descendant of every displaced Palestinian after Israeli independence be permitted to return to Israel (not just to Gaza and the West Bank). The numbers of such people are now in the millions. Israel could not accept that condition as it would essentially cede the land right back to the Palestinians and destroy the character of the state of Israel.
Again, it's not as simple as you make out. There was room for negotiation.
At Camp David, the Palestinians maintained their traditional demand that the right of return be implemented. They demanded that Israel recognize the right of all refugees who so wished to settle in Israel, but to address Israel's demographic concerns,they promised that the right of return would be implemented via a mechanism agreed upon by both sides, which would try to channel a majority of refugees away from the option of returning to Israel. According to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, some of the Palestinian negotiators were willing to privately discuss a limit on the number of refugees who would be allowed to return to Israel
In 2002, Sari Nusseibeh, an academic and former representative of the PLO in Jerusalem controversially proposed a settlement where Palestinian refugees would only be able to return to a Palestinian state.
Also, the unofficial "Geneva Accord" peace framework, proposed by former Israeli minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo in 2003, relinquished the full right of return.
The Palestinian objection to having Israel desginated "Jewish" is because their objective is to make it a Palestinian nation and they won't accept anything less. That is to say, this objection by the Palestinians is not semantical. It's a clear declaration that they don't want non-Palestinian control of the land because they beleive all the land is theirs
It's as I've said all along: They don't want a two state solution. They want to control over the whole country.
Is a jump into more cartoonish falsity. Your strategy here seems to be to take the most biased interpretation you can of a minimal number of facts, ignore all nuance, and run with that as far as you can. Of course, that will end up making the Palestinians look bad, which sadly seems to be one your objectives here.
I wonder why. Anyway, what is obvious is that the right of return is an important issue for the Palestinians as the principle is based on the UN declaration of human rights and protected under international law, but it's a negotiating position not an absolute unequivocal or unnuanced demand.
Reply to discoii The fact that no-one in the immediate vicinity batted an eyelid at this execution is definitely shocking. But you're using the same strategy that @Hanover sometimes has: employ a minimal number of facts to make sweeping statements about an entire country or people. Would it be too much to ask that we could get beyond that?
The idea of a race is a bogus category. So there is very little point trying to pretend that "semitic" means a thing it don't mean. No one self identifies as "semitic" in the racial version of the meaning.
"Antisemitic" is a word used by people who think "jew" is a viable category against people that don't like 'jews'.
It acts in a way to justify the unjustifiable land grab of a religious group of people who pretend that they have some sort of prior claim on the territory of Palestine, and have used that claim, with the collusion of France, UK and the USA to colonise that land to the detriment of the people who have lived there continuously since time immemorial, whose property rights have been taken away form them; have been incarcerated, packed into trucks and 're-located' and interned. Moreover, have had even more land lost through conquest of "Israeli" forces. They now live in the world's largest prison whose nearest analogue is the Warsaw Ghetto; called Gaza.
"Antisemitic" is a word used by people who think "jew" is a viable category against people that don't like 'jews'.
If Jews don't exist, who is the target of the prejudice that goes by the name of anti-semitism? This looks like a way of saying that anti-Jewish prejudice does not exist.
I agree that race is irrelevant, but that doesn't go against the standard meaning of "Jew": the Jews are an ethnic group. And to be anti-semitic is to be prejudiced against Jews.
I agree that race is irrelevant, but that doesn't go against the standard meaning of "Jew": the Jews are an ethnic group. And to be anti-semitic is to be prejudiced against Jews.
I would say "ethnic group" is the best way to describe Jews too, but then what is ethnicity? Within ethnic groups you can have shared ethno-racial as well as ethno-religious (and various other) characteristics and there are those who believe Jews exhibit some of the former.
e.g. from http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Jews-A-religious-group-people-or-race
'“Jewish” was never a category for race in the US Census, Ostrer notes, even though genetic studies “would seem to refute this..."'
The idea of a race is a bogus category. So there is very little point trying to pretend that "semitic" means a thing it don't mean. No one self identifies as "semitic" in the racial version of the meaning."Antisemitic" is a word used by people who think "jew" is a viable category against people that don't like 'jews'.
I don't follow the logic here. For example, whether race exists or not, racists exist, and they're a real problem. Also, you don't need to go down this route to make the point in the second paragraph. There are real anti-semites out there and the accusation of anti-semitism is also sometimes used for political purposes. It's not like there's any mutual exclusivity here.
I would say "ethnic group" is the best way to describe Jews too, but then what is ethnicity? Within ethnic groups you can have shared ethno-racial as well as ethno-religious (and various other) characteristics and there are those who believe Jews exhibit some of the former.
Yes, although in this discussion I think it probably doesn't matter. Ethnicity can be about shared cultural, historical, linguistic or religious practices and affiliations. For this debate I just wanted to point out that it doesn't follow from a lack of shared racial characteristics that there is no such people as the Jews. Incidentally, it still does not follow if we also find a lack of universal religious observance.
This might sound horribly imperialist and not too dissimilar from the Europeans said when they cut up Africa, but, given evidence that a nation, given its own government, will act upon its citizens unfairly (in ways its citizens don't want to be treated) and undemocratically, is it correct to grant that nation self-determination? Is that, further, an intelligent decision? I'm not supporting the claim that this would be the case, were Palestine fully recognized by the Israeli government. Just bringing the question up for discussion, since it almost came up and I thought it was interesting.
On a different note, I think that, fundamentally, Israelis don't trust Palestine a state. I'm sure a lot personally know many Palestinians and get along with them, but when every non-Palestinian Israeli person over 21 in the country has spent at least 3 years (during one of the most formative parts of their life) fighting Palestine as the general enemy, it is a high hope that they might otherwise. Likewise, when people live in fear with the memory terror attacks, it is unlikely that trust will be granted (whether that be an intelligent decision or not). As such it seems to me that, whether this reflects reality or not, many Israelis (I have many Israeli friends, and have visited the country a half dozen times) truly believe that a Palestinian government, as its core, fundamentally believes that Israel, as a liberal, democratic, Jewish state, should not exist. I can't speak at all about the Palestinian perspective. Nonetheless, even on this one side, achieving the trust necessary to give Palestine its own government, including an official and recognized military, the right to weapons, and no internal Israeli security checks, seems unrealistic (again, I am not speaking about whether the Palestinians are or aren't to blame for this, although I'm sure that terror attacks don't help), especially being surrounded by Gaza on one side and the West Bank on the other. Many Israelis use the giving of Gaza as reference, claiming that they gave the land to the Palestinians, and now it is a hotspot of terror from whence most of the missiles emanate. I'm quite positive that the average Israeli is not willing to accept a two-state solution because they express sentiments similar to Hanover's: they would love a two-state solution– the terror scares them shitless and they want nothing but for it to stop– but they don't think that a Palestinian government could ever not be associated with terror and the destruction of Israel. Also, from a military perspective (and remember that essentially all non-Palestinian Israelis have served in the army), relenting the said territories is very tactically risky. Invasion through Palestine by any Arab allies would be unbelievably easy, and even if Israelis trusted a Palestinian state, they likely wouldn't trust that it could keep out neighboring countries looking for chinks in its armor (it'd be like Belgium in WWI).
I think it's interesting that mention of Jerusalem hasn't even come up. It is a non-trivial issue. To most of us, who are not particularly immersed in the issue, the city seems of little significance, but to proponents of each religion, Islam, Judaism, and even Christianity, access to the city is important. While much of Israel is quite secular, the percentage of the population that deeply identifies with the need to access the Western Wall is quite large as well (especially in the religious and immigrant-Jew communities). I do not think that this city, or even religion at all, is the only, or the most important element of the conflict, but it is also not irrelevant. The question of "rightfully theirs" gets very convoluted at this stage; Jerusalem was the center of the ancient world and different nations across time have made it theirs. However, entitlement is a serious ill, and religious or not, I don't think either side is willing to relieve their sense of it in this particular city. Solutions such as a shared city have been proposed, but I think there is a degree of Illiad-esque pride at hand, too. I predict that even if nationalistic two-state solutions can be realized a lot of people will start acting like 4-year-olds very quickly over Jerusalem– it's almost like a time machine back to when people thought and acted more primitively...
For the record, I think that Baden has had the most lucid and balanced arguments regarding the conflict.
I think you missed their point, jamalrob. You can't be anti-semitic or anti-jewish because these categories are nonsensical. If something does not exist, you can't be against that something. It's all so simple!
I would suggest that a fairly high form of racism is to deny the existence of the race altogether. Two things are obvious: (1) the specific demarcation of what constitutes a Jew (or any race for that matter) can be nebulous and variable depending upon who is doing the defining and (2) there are certain people who are unequivocally Jewish. There is no particular board that makes a boat a boat.
Reply to jamalrob If you define yourself by race that makes you a racist. Racists attract other racists. That does not mean that the category is viable or useful.
When I was a child I found early on that both my parents had a thing about Jews. They seemed oddly unaware that I had friends at school who were Jewish. My Mum was middle-class diffident about it: 'Very nice people,' she'd say of a couple down the street, and then with a certain emphasis, 'Jews, you know.' My Dad was more straightforward and said 'their' cooking smelled unpleasant; I still have in my memory a rude song about 'Crikey Moses, king of the Jews' which he taught me before I was old enough to grasp its meaning.
I was pretty nervous when I brought Jewish friends home, but actually my parents were nice as pie to them, which seriously puzzled me. Nevertheless my dad refused to speak to the Jewish next-door neighbours for over a decade because they built an extension against his objection. He grew our privet hedge about a mile high, making it terribly ugly, in an attempt to block out their light.
In my early teens I read James Baldwin who I thought was electrifying, and I thought more seriously about race. It seemed to me right to think of my Dad as a racist, and my Mum as a fence-sitter. Later of course I would read some sociology and grasp the slipperiness of classification by so-called race, but by then the notion of racism, and the fact that it helped to describe something my father was, and I was not, was thoroughly lodged in me.
Now I'm an oldish git with Jewish friends (ranging from Zionist to practising to appalled Palestinian sympathisers) and to be honest, I'm a supporter of the Palestinian cause but don't agree with anti-Israeli boycotts. I suspect the worm of what I find it useful to call 'anti-Semitism' is entwined in there, not that boycotters are anti-Semitic, but that some anti-Israelis aren't confronting their own anti-jewish prejudices, prejudices which aren't going to have dissipated in a generation of earnest people like me. I've been to central Asian countries, for instance, with much worse human rights records than Israel who aren't boycotted, and I think there should be consistency about such a thing. It's a melancholy fact that some right-wing Zionists (for it did after all used to be a socialist cause as well) have begun to conflate criticism of Israel's actions with prejudice against Jews, but in my heart I know some of my fellow lefties are prejudiced in ways they don't want to confront.
Well, this is very personal, but just to say...let's not be glib about race and racism and Jews and Israel.
I recently noticed Peter Hitchens arguing for the use of the term Judeophobia to describe present-day anti-Jewish sentiment, to distinguish it from the anti-Semitism of the Nazis. I agree that the prejudices are different today, but personally I think the term anti-Semitism is fine, because as it is we use it variously to describe, for example, the racialism of the Nazis as well as the religious bigotry of the Russian pogroms.
I think it is possible to accept that 'racist' is a meaningful term without also accepting that 'race' is a meaningful concept. In recent years I have become fairly persuaded by some of the scientific arguments that the concept of 'race' is unscientific, and in fact was only invented in the last century or two.
Given that, we can still think of a racist action as one that treats one or more people badly because the action's author has decided those people belong to a category of the author's own invention, and the author dislikes people that belong to that invented category, or regards them as inferior. Hence identifying an action as racist does not imply acceptance that race is meaningful, but only that the author of the action thinks it is meaningful.
I prefer to talk in terms of racist actions rather than racist people, because I believe that racism, as part of a more general rejection of the Other, is instinctive to humans (as it is to nearly all animals), and is reduced to the extent that people become educated and civilized. Some people have been far more successful than others in liberating themselves from such innate prejudices, but I doubt anybody has been entirely successful.
So I get the argument that race 'doesn't exist' to speak loosely. The same arguments for race do not apply when speaking about Jews. The issue is nothing to do with whether Jews can be defined as a race, rather it makes sense to look at how one defines a particular individual as a Jew.
Traditional way is that if your mother is Jewish or you convert to Judaism then you are a Jew. There was never a claim that Jews could be identified genetically or biologically. Jews are members of a religion.
Because of relatively low amount of converts and the long history many Jews do share certain genetic traits, and a cultural history but it's quite diverse and depends a lot on where they are from.
To say that race doesn't exist therefore Jews don't exist is completely mistaken.
I didn't notice anybody saying that Jews don't exist, but I don't think it can be defined solely in terms of religion.
One difficulty with trying to define Judaism solely in terms of religion is that what defines a religion is almost as energetically debated a topic as this one. Another is that, even under a very broad definition of religion, it would have trouble encompassing non-religious or even anti-religious people that I believe would self-identify as Jewish - such as Stephen Fry, Noam Chomsky and Woody Allen. It would also exclude people that are generally considered as Jewish despite being members of a religion that explicitly makes claims that are in conflict with those of the Jewish religion, such as Felix Mendelssohn.
My impression is that in modern usage, the term 'Jewish', when used positively, refers to people that self-identify as Jews. There is a strong correlation between such self-identification and religious practices, cultural practices and ancestry, but none of those three on their own accurately match the group. When used negatively by an anti-Jewish person, it refers to anybody that the person doesn't like and that they think of as Jewish. I don't think there would be hope of getting any coherent definition from such a person as to what they meant by Jewish. They would likely contradict themselves from one day to the next, as well as contradicting each other.
Yes I wouldn't define them based on religion. Most Jews would determine whether someone is Jewish based on conversion or descent (for orthodox only maternal descent is used, other traditions allow paternal). These are the necessary conditions, it's not enough for someone to decide that they are Jewish.
Anyway the main point was not to define them, rather just the claim that Jew was never intended to be a natural category so claiming that like race it isn't one, is off the mark.
There are also disputes concerning who exactly is included in the Law of Return, since the 1950 law did not define who is a Jew for the purposes of immigration.
The first major challenge to the law came in 1962 with the Brother Daniel case. Brother Daniel, born Oswald Rufeisen, was a Polish Jew who converted to Catholicism during the Holocaust. He later became a Carmelite monk, and in this position saved many Jews during the Holocaust. When Brother Daniel applied to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that he was ineligible because the Law of Return does not include Jews who practice another religion.
Then in 1969, the Israeli Supreme Court in the Shalit case ruled that a child born in Israel to a Jewish Israeli father and non-Jewish mother could be registered as Jewish in Israel’s Population Registry. Since this ruling runs counter to the traditional Jewish legal definition of a Jew–someone born to a Jewish mother–tremendous controversy ensued, which led to the 1970 amendment of the Law of Return.
This amendment expanded the right of return to include the child or grandchild of a Jew, and the spouse of a child or grandchild of a Jew. For the purposes of this law, “Jew” was defined as someone who has a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism, and is not a member of another religion.
Since we can't even determine when a chair is a chair, how do you expect we'll be able to determine when a Jew is a Jew?
The word "Jew" (like all words) will vary by context, with legal definitions, religious definitions, vernacular definitions in various countries, and racist definitions all varying. I think Hitler (conversation over, Hitler's been cited) defined Jews as having any grandparent Jewish. That definition might not have been shared by many, but it was of critical importance if you were so designated.
None of this diminishes anyone's Jewishness. It's just points out the inherent ambiguity of words.
Since we can't even determine when a chair is a chair, how do you expect we'll be able to determine when a Jew is a Jew?
Persuasive definitions of course, one of which was codified into law in Israel. Just pointing out that apparently a lot of Jewish Israelis in 1970 thought religious Judaism was more important than simple descent, because regardless of descent, if you convert to another religion you're no longer a Jew according to that law.
Reply to Benkei It's just really complicated. To an Orthodox Jew, once a Jew, always a Jew, which would mean that a Jew who coverts to Christianity remains a Jew. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1269075/jewish/Is-a-Jew-Who-Converts-Still-Jewish.htm.
I wonder then how many Jews are out there who converted around the time of Jesus. I guess they'd still be Jews.
Of course, the law in Israel seems to vary from that as you've pointed out. I'd also point out that further complications have arisen when a non-Jew converts through the Reform movement, the Orthodox won't recognize that conversion.
All I know is that I'm a true blue Jew, which is all I need to know.
I wonder then how many Jews are out there who converted around the time of Jesus. I guess they'd still be Jews.
That's a very good point, with an interesting historical context. All the original Jesus followers were Jews. From what I've read on the early years of Christianity - mostly John Shelby Spong - the Jews who followed Jesus very much considered themselves Jews, and considered their religion either a part of the Jewish one, or a natural evolution of it.
Tensions arose between the Jesus-following Jews and the non-Jesus-following Jews, which escalated and I think the former got kicked out, in some sense, after a few decades when the non-Jesus-following Jews gained enough power in the institutional religion, and were motivated enough to take that step.
Just think what a different world it would have been if that had not happened, and Christianity had remained a part of Judaism. All those centuries of persecution, predicated on Jews being 'other' and 'Christ-killers', might not have happened. On the other hand, maybe not: being part of the same umbrella religion doesn't seem to stop radical Wahhabi Muslims from killing Shiite Muslims.
The definition that, once a Jew, you remain a Jew unless you convert to another religion works for me, because it allows Woody Allen to still be considered one - since he appears to be an atheist. It rules out Felix Mendelssohn, who was a Christian, but his Jewish heritage is not a major part of people's perception of him.
However, conversion to Christianity didn't save people from the hatred of Jew-haters like Richard Wagner or the Nazis.
Reply to Benkei To be fair (because I take your statement as a bit of a dig at Israel), the law of return is for non-citizens, not a right reserved only for some citizens as you're implying.
Anyway, if Jew is defined for the purpose of a law I don't think it counts as the definition of a Jew, it's defined for a utility. For instance, US Supreme Court defined Jews as a race to include them in anti discrimination laws.
EDIT: Also as @Hanover mentioned according to the religion Jews who convert are still part of the Jewish religion. So the consideration to exclude the Jews who converted would probably be based on reasons outside of whether they were technically part of the Jewish religion.
Reply to ????????????? Except that there isn't any consistent political view shared by Jews. In fact, the primary source of the debate on who is a Jew are the debates among Jews. It's also not like there's a single monolithic political view among Jewish Israelis.
It's also not like there's a single monolithic political view among Jewish Israelis.
To link back to the original conversation, this and the previous comment illustrate why political positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are separable from the issue of anti-semitism. In fact, it's usually the anti-semite who ascribes some monolithic political view to Jews - generally an avaricious or malicious one.
To be fair (because I take your statement as a bit of a dig at Israel), the law of return is for non-citizens, not a right reserved only for some citizens as you're implying.
That would be true if a lot of other laws didn't tie into this one and its definition of Jew and then continue to reserve rights for Jewish Israelis only. A lot of institutionalised discrimination is the result.
I find it all the more remarkable considering Hanover just argued there isn't consensus on "who's a Jew" between the various interpretations of Judaism. Well, maybe not so remarkable as it was made up by politicians. That's just asking for trouble.
Reply to Benkei Any example of a law in Israel that is only applied to Jewish citizens that have not converted to another religion?
There is plenty of discrimination in Israel but no need to exaggerate it. The law of return itself makes a lot of sense considering history. Yes only those of a specific religion get to take advantage of it and immigrate to Israel with Israeli government help. They can't just have open immigration borders, and as an example, it was about 3/4 of the Dutch Jewish population (roughly 100, 000 people) that died in the Holocaust.
Shmik, you're from the old forum and I've set out those laws time and again. If you don't care to remember them or at least the thrust of it then why on earth would I bother spelling it out again? This has been discussed ad nauseum. Zionism and democracy are simply incompatible and the Israeli high court has done nothing to stop the rightward tilt of Israeli politics.
Reply to Benkei I hardly ever read posts from the politics section of the old forum, and most likely stayed out of political conversations over the years.
Equally happy to generally avoid them here. Let's call it a day then.
Zionism and democracy are simply incompatible and the Israeli high court has done nothing to stop the rightward tilt of Israeli politics.
Well, this makes the point of why the question of who is a Jew so significant, or maybe more generally, what makes the concept of Jewishness so significant. It's one thing to say that you must be Jewish to be significant in Israeli society and quite another to say that the culture must remain distinctly Jewish. The former is exclusionary, while the latter only dictates the cultural norms. If the French wish to set forth how the French ought to preserve their culture, no one will claim they are undemocratic, although it's clear their Muslim population (for example) might have its objection.
So, if Israel wishes to legislate that their nation is to have Jewish values and norms and to be identified as a Jewish state, that will not be undemocratic per se, but it will obviously create a culture entirely unpalatable to its Palestinian population, as they'll look at it as just another act of imperialism.
Obviously Arab nations identify themselves as Arab nations, and Jews would not be permitted to alter the culture in those nations, which is not an aside. It offers a reason for Israel's existence, namely that a historically oppressed people be given a haven for self-determination that they would otherwise not have. And truly, if not for the US likely providing a safer haven for Jews than Israel, Israel would be all that more important. It's also fairly clear at this point that without the US, there'd likely be no Israel at all.
I find it all the more remarkable considering Hanover just argued there isn't consensus on "who's a Jew" between the various interpretations of Judaism. Well, maybe not so remarkable as it was made up by politicians. That's just asking for trouble.
It's not really arguable. The Reform Jews define Jews one way and the Orthodox another. It's a matter of fact. If you convert through the Reform synagogue, no Orthodox rabbi is going to let you lead any part of the service in synagogue (or any other Jewish rite for that matter). The reason he wouldn't is because you're not Jewish to him. You'd just be some strange blonde haired guy wearing a yarmulke.
Well, this makes the point of why the question of who is a Jew so significant, or maybe more generally, what makes the concept of Jewishness so significant. It's one thing to say that you must be Jewish to be significant in Israeli society and quite another to say that the culture must remain distinctly Jewish. The former is exclusionary, while the latter only dictates the cultural norms. If the French wish to set forth how the French ought to preserve their culture, no one will claim they are undemocratic, although it's clear their Muslim population (for example) might have its objection.
I agree up to the sentence "the former is exclusionary..." provided these cultural norms aren't institutionalised through law. It's one thing to say "our political party represents Jewish interests" and another if the State enforces narrow interests at the expense of others. I'm not clear how it's in the Israeli Jewish community's interest to prohibit non-Jewish Israelis from buying land in order to protect "Jewish" culture (after the civil war if 1948 this includes land of displaced Palestinians). Or to give certain Jewish Israelis the right to refuse non-Jewish Israelis to live next door. Or to refuse the right of family life for non-Jewish Israelis, meaning they cannot reunite with their families in Israel (of course the right wing is happy for them to leave). It's quite obviously not about culture but about power.
After that you're a bit unclear. Are you saying that the French are right to ban the burkini?
I think H.L.A. Hart basically had the right idea about what makes good law and the ban isn't good law.
I'm not clear how it's in the Israeli Jewish community's interest to prohibit non-Jewish Israelis from buying land in order to protect "Jewish" culture (after the civil war if 1948 this includes land of displaced Palestinians).
I've not looked up all of the claims you've made except this one, mostly because I'm at work and can't spend the time. This one in particular isn't exactly correct. 93% of all of the land in Israel is not privately owned, but is subject to long term leases. The 7% of privately held land can be sold to any citizen, Jewish or not. 69% of the land is owned by the State and 12% is owned by the Development Authority. All of this land can be leased long term to any citizen, Jewish or not. The Jewish National Fund owns the final 12%, and only this land is restricted to be leased long term to Jewish citizens. http://www.buypropertyinisrael.com/article/types-of-land-in-israel
So, 88% of the land is open to every citizen, Jewish or not. The other 12% is owned by the JNF and it apparently is imposing its rules on the leasing of the land. It is a matter of personal opinion I suppose (and how you want to spin this) as to whether this is non-Jewish discrimination or a Jewish set aside to assure Jews, a historically oppressed people, a place to live.
After that you're a bit unclear. Are you saying that the French are right to ban the burkini?
If it is acceptable for Islamic/Arab, Islamic/Persian, Islamic/Asian, or Islamic/African states to define for themselves what an appropriate culture is, why is it unacceptable for Israel to define for itself what an appropriate Jewish culture is?
If it is acceptable for many countries to say, "women must be covered up", and various other things, why is it unacceptable for many other countries to say "women must not be covered up"? What is it about Italian, French, Swiss, Russian, English, Indian, Ugandan, or Dutch culture that rules out efforts of said cultures to maintain themselves in the kind of consistency they wish to have?
There is a tyranny of the minority which is overlooked. If one is having a dinner party for 20, and 2 of the invited guests announce gluten intolerance and veganism, their dietary requirements/preferences are likely to skew the menu significantly. Some shelters in Minnesota specify "no pork" in the donated meals they depend on. The chances of an observant Jew or Moslem eating at a shelter are not zero, but are statistically very small. "No pork" rules out a host of familiar foods which pork eating clients enjoy.
I've not looked up all of the claims you've made except this one, mostly because I'm at work and can't spend the time. This one in particular isn't exactly correct. 93% of all of the land in Israel is not privately owned, but is subject to long term leases. The 7% of privately held land can be sold to any citizen, Jewish or not. 69% of the land is owned by the State and 12% is owned by the Development Authority. All of this land can be leased long term to any citizen, Jewish or not. The Jewish National Fund owns the final 12%, and only this land is restricted to be leased long term to Jewish citizens.
That 93% can be sold to Jewish Israelis but not to non-Jewish Israelis. I did say buy not rent or lease. So the statement was indeed inaccurate but I wouldn't say incorrect. I suppose I shall copy-paste the list of discriminatory laws that was collected here as well. Again.
So there's the Development Authority which sold/transferred so that the JNF now owns approximately 13.1% of land in Israel. The Development Authority (later replaced by the Israel Land Administration agency) received land through that law that included land of former non-Jewish inhabitants of the area, that were displaced in 1948. (Or as Ben Gurion already noted in 1948: “There is not a single Jewish village in this country that has not been built on the site of an Arab village.”)
The JNF charter states it can only sell, lease or mortage land to Jewish Isrealis (or just Jews, I'm not sure). So that goes a bit further.
In 2005 there was a ruling that this was discriminatory with regard to leasing. And now, if a non-Jewish Israeli wins a lease from a JNF tender, it must be compensated by the government with an equal size of land. However, the sale of land of 93% of Israel still isn't possible except to Jewish Israelis (and in practice everything is a long lease).
f it is acceptable for many countries to say, "women must be covered up", and various other things, why is it unacceptable for many other countries to say "women must not be covered up"?
To say that "women must be covered up" is acceptable for them but not for us because it's an unnecessary restriction on personal freedom that flies in the face of modern secular values. Us trying to control how women dress in any way is to follow them down that path. Why should we do that? Are we in a competition to see who can be the most backward here? Aren't we better than that? I mean you've now got French police patrolling beaches and harassing women wearing a type of dress that consists basically of a swimming suit with a hat. It's ridiculous (not to mention insidious in that it mirrors the actions of religious police in Islamic countries like Iran).
The only sensible arguments for banning particular types of dress are practical ones. For example, in the areas of security or communication, e.g. at a bank, no burqas or motorbike helmets or anything that obscures your face. Makes sense. For nurses, teachers, legal witness, no burqas because they inhibit communication in situations where it may be vital. Also makes sense. But the burqini ban in particular is an example of a measure with no practical rationale; it's simply an unjustified attack on a culture, a form of collective punishment driven by fear and ignorance. In other words, the type of law that erodes not protects modern secular democracy.
There is a tyranny of the minority which is overlooked. If one is having a dinner party for 20, and 2 of the invited guests announce gluten intolerance and veganism, their dietary requirements/preferences are likely to skew the menu significantly. Some shelters in Minnesota specify "no pork" in the donated meals they depend on. The chances of an observant Jew or Moslem eating at a shelter are not zero, but are statistically very small. "No pork" rules out a host of familiar foods which pork eating clients enjoy.
That seems wrong to me too, but it bears almost no relation to the burqini issue because the majority lose nothing by allowing burqinis to be worn. A more apt analogy for what's happening here would be the majority forcing the Muslim/Jewish minority to eat pork, which is something I presume you would be against.
So, 88% of the land is open to every citizen, Jewish or not. The other 12% is owned by the JNF and it apparently is imposing its rules on the leasing of the land. It is a matter of personal opinion I suppose (and how you want to spin this) as to whether this is non-Jewish discrimination or a Jewish set aside to assure Jews, a historically oppressed people, a place to live.
I would be perfectly fine with this, if it weren't for the fact that the JNF is seriously intertwined with the Israeli government and has first right to any sale of land sold by said government and other legal protections that go beyond it just being a foundation. If the government wouldn't give the JNF special treatment this wouldn't be an issue to me. At most I could then say that the JNF would be discriminatory in its allocation but I would consider the purpose for it - taken in relation to the total land it owns - reasonable.
Reply to Baden I agree. Forcing women to dress a particular way is no way to uphold the principle that nobody should force women to dress a particular way. Ridiculous, indeed. French secularism is getting rather unhinged.
That 93% can be sold to Jewish Israelis but not to non-Jewish Israelis.
I didn't read the article this way. I read that only 7% is private and that it could be sold to anyone. The rest is in the hands of the government or JNF, which only leases the land. Maybe you're saying that one day the government will start selling land off and that only Jews will be able to purchase it. That seems inconsistent with the article that said that once land is sold to private interests, it can be sold to anyone. It also seems like that if only 7% has been actually sold throughout the history of Israel's existence, there are no plans for this land sell off. It seems to me that Israel is well aware of the importance of keeping the land secured from the fleeting interests of private investors and so it has regulated 93% of the land by keeping it off the market.
As with everything that has to do with Israeli policy, security concerns are paramount. I get that you believe that racist issues drive Israeli policies, but it's just as easy to see that security issues offer as much explanation as anything else. Israelis are in an incredibly hostile environment, surrounded by people who want their elimination.
You mentioned that democracy and Zionism might be incompatible, when in truth it might be that democracy (at least to the extent everyone receives equal rights) and survival are incompatible. In a democracy, you have to begin with the idea that everyone is supportive of the state at some basic level. It would be suicide to allow subversive elements access to power. I'm less concerned about the race of someone than I am in their beliefs. As long as there remains an anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world, it's hard to abdicate power to Arab interests. I understand that just because one is Arab does not mean they want to eliminate Israel, but it'd be foolish to suggest the correlation doesn't exist.
I would be perfectly fine with this, if it weren't for the fact that the JNF is seriously intertwined with the Israeli government and has first right to any sale of land sold by said government and other legal protections that go beyond it just being a foundation. If the government wouldn't give the JNF special treatment this wouldn't be an issue to me. At most I could then say that the JNF would be discriminatory in its allocation but I would consider the purpose for it - taken in relation to the total land it owns - reasonable.
I'm curious as to what practical effect the JNF leases have on the non-Jewish public. Are non-Jews actually having difficulty finding suitable housing because of the JNF rules, or is this only a matter of principle. In the US, I can't purchase or even live on Native American lands. I have no desire to live in abject poverty in remote South Dakota or various other places out west, but I suppose it's discriminatory at some theoretical level. I know I'm white, but neither I nor my ancestors drove any Native American off his land. In fact, my ancestors found their way over here long after the Indians were displaced, and they arrived here fleeing all sorts of pending horrors of their own.
I didn't read the article this way. I read that only 7% is private and that it could be sold to anyone. The rest is in the hands of the government or JNF, which only leases the land. Maybe you're saying that one day the government will start selling land off and that only Jews will be able to purchase it. That seems inconsistent with the article that said that once land is sold to private interests, it can be sold to anyone. It also seems like that if only 7% has been actually sold throughout the history of Israel's existence, there are no plans for this land sell off. It seems to me that Israel is well aware of the importance of keeping the land secured from the fleeting interests of private investors and so it has regulated 93% of the land by keeping it off the market.
The 7% was privately owned before 1948, nothing additionaly was sold since then as far as I know (or at least nothing significant to change that percentage). And yes, you're right that if it would be sold to private Jewish Israelis they are then free to do with it as they please and sell to non-Jewish Israelis. I have a problem with discriminatory laws that require a government or one of its agencies to make a distinction based on religion (since they adhere to the definition of Jew in the Law of Return).
As with everything that has to do with Israeli policy, security concerns are paramount. I get that you believe that racist issues drive Israeli policies, but it's just as easy to see that security issues offer as much explanation as anything else. Israelis are in an incredibly hostile environment, surrounded by people who want their elimination.
I don't know how we can move closer on this particular issue. I don't believe the environment is "incredibly hostile" and that, for instance, Palestinians want Jewish "elimination". They see a rather direct claim to living in what today is Israel because their families were displaced in 1948, they consider themselves occupied and want this to stop, they want to reunite with their families without having to give up the right to live in Israel, which, despite the discrimination, is still their home.
I do agree some Palestinians (and some people in neighbouring countries) wish the worst to Israel but they are hardly the majority but they are dictating the agenda for everybody of good will. In return Israeli right wing politicians are quite... immoral.
I also believe many Jewish Israelis believe the danger is real or at least immediate much like many Europeans now unreasonably fear Syrian refugees and French fear unarmed women in burqinis. It's a lot of misplaced fear that can't be broken by imposing martial law on occupied territories and discriminating against non-Jewish Israelis.
You mentioned that democracy and Zionism might be incompatible, when in truth it might be that democracy (at least to the extent everyone receives equal rights) and survival are incompatible. In a democracy, you have to begin with the idea that everyone is supportive of the state at some basic level. It would be suicide to allow subversive elements access to power. I'm less concerned about the race of someone than I am in their beliefs. As long as there remains an anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world, it's hard to abdicate power to Arab interests. I understand that just because one is Arab does not mean they want to eliminate Israel, but it'd be foolish to suggest the correlation doesn't exist.
Yes, I stated that because I honestly don't believe you can institutionalise favouring one religious group (again, taking the definition from the Law of Return as repeated by the high Court several times) over others and make a claim to be a democracy. I don't believe there is an existential threat for (Israeli) Jews and if we take apartheid South-Africa and the resolution when that system collapsed as an example, the fear seems misplaced. I think it's sold like an existential threat for political convenience and PR and it plays well because Europe by and large still feels guilty about the Holocaust but it doesn't seem grounded in reality.
in truth it might be that democracy (at least to the extent everyone receives equal rights) and survival are incompatible. In a democracy, you have to begin with the idea that everyone is supportive of the state at some basic level. It would be suicide to allow subversive elements access to power.
Isn't that similar to the sort of hyperbole that fascists spout to push their anti-democratic agendas? "All this democracy, it's just too dangerous!" The fact is that as long as America is standing behind Israel, it can be as democratic as it wants. It may be less secure in some sense, I'll grant, but its survival won't be an issue. As it is the danger is that it will drift further and further away from Western democratic values towards the values of the more extremist regimes it considers its enemies. That's another kind of death, and a more realistic danger, I would think, the way things are headed.
I'm curious as to what practical effect the JNF leases have on the non-Jewish public. Are non-Jews actually having difficulty finding suitable housing because of the JNF rules, or is this only a matter of principle. In the US, I can't purchase or even live on Native American lands.
For me it's a matter of principle and it's a good question as to the practical effect. I'm not sure.
Speaking of principle, I should mention that the sale of land by a Palestinian to a Jew is punishable by death. Worse than Israel.
Maybe both parties should simply institute private property and be done with it?
I don't believe the environment is "incredibly hostile" and that, for instance, Palestinians want Jewish "elimination". They see a rather direct claim to living in what today is Israel because their families were displaced in 1948, they consider themselves occupied and want this to stop, they want to reunite with their families without having to give up the right to live in Israel, which, despite the discrimination, is still their home.
60% want the total elimination of Israel. http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-palestinians-backing-2-states-become-minority/. I seriously doubt the other 40% hold much kinder views. It's likely that there are good number of pragmatists in that mix who just want peace even if it means allowing what they perceive as invaders to remain.Quoting Benkei
I also believe many Jewish Israelis believe the danger is real or at least immediate much like many Europeans now unreasonably fear Syrian refugees and French fear unarmed women in burqinis.
No, unlike in France, Israel is under constant terroristic threat. The threat is real and amount of policing required in Israel to control that threat does not compare to what you see in France. I understand that many irrationally react to perceived threats. I don't think that's occurring in Israel. The daily threat there is likely greater than the average citizen realizes.Quoting Benkei
I don't believe there is an existential threat for (Israeli) Jews
Only because the US has adopted policies protective of Israel that you disagree with. You can only be dismissive of Israel's concerns about its destruction by conceding that you and like minded folks have no influence on American policy toward Israel. That is, Israel is safe because you're not in charge, right?
Isn't that similar to the sort of hyperbole that fascists spout to push their anti-democratic agendas. "All this democracy, it's just too dangerous!"
Sometimes it's hyperbole and sometimes it's true. As they say in the US, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact.
"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Thomas Jefferson
60% want the total elimination of Israel. http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-palestinians-backing-2-states-become-minority/ . I seriously doubt the other 40% hold much kinder views. It's likely that there are good number of pragmatists in that mix who just want peace even if it means allowing what they perceive as invaders to remain.
A poll by an institute critised for its links with AIPAC. Really? Although it treats with different questions, I think this is very informative (and more trustworthy):
No, unlike in France, Israel is under constant terroristic threat. The threat is real and amount of policing required in Israel to control that threat does not compare to what you see in France. I understand that many irrationally react to perceived threats. I don't think that's occurring in Israel. The daily threat there is likely greater than the average citizen realizes.
Israel can't expect safety when it's occupying land and perpetuating injustice. It's under threat because it's oppressing a lot of people to then complain those people resort to violence is disingenuous. It's also a bad reason not to negotiate a lasting peace, which Israel hasn't seriously pursued since Rabin was murdered.
Moreover, what about the right to live in safety for Palestinians? Statistically speaking they are under more "constant threat" from Israel than the other way around.
Only because the US has adopted policies protective of Israel that you disagree with. You can only be dismissive of Israel's concerns about its destruction by conceding that you and like minded folks have no influence on American policy toward Israel. That is, Israel is safe because you're not in charge, right?
Not certain why this post is getting personal to be honest. I've done my best to stay as civil as possible considering my strong opinions on the matter and knowing we don't see eye to eye on this. If I said something to offend you, I don't want to do that. In my view, there simply isn't an existential threat because of the assymetric power relation between Israel and its neighbouring countries and the Palestinians. It's perplexing really, how insecure you seem to be about the safety of Jews in Israel in light of the military and political power Israel wields.
Not certain why this post is getting personal to be honest. I've done my best to stay as civil as possible considering my strong opinions on the matter and knowing we don't see eye to eye on this.
I don't know. As one of the "like minded folks", I thought that by Hanover's standards this comment wasn't particularly harsh (I checked it against the list I keep under my pillow).
I wasn't being personal. What I was saying was actually consistent with Baden's remark that Israel wasn't under threat of extinction because the US supported it. What I do therefore see as a real threat to Israel's existence is the withdrawal of US support. If that happened, it would be a very different backdrop. US support is not as strong under Obama in theory as it was under Bush, although I realize from a practical standpoint that little has changed.
And so the point of my post: Those who believe that Israel needn't worry about its existence due to its support from the US also believe that the US shouldn't be supporting it, which means that those same people aren't terribly worried about Israel's existence. My post ended with a question as to whether you agreed with this analysis.
Those who believe that Israel needn't worry about its existence due to its support from the US also believe that the US shouldn't be supporting it, which means that those same people aren't terribly worried about Israel's existence.
My opinion is that as long as Israel needs support to defend its existence, it should get it. If the US weren't in the picture, Europe should do it (the only caveat would be that no country should expect absolute unconditional support). So, I, for one, don't agree with the analysis.
What is it with all these Westerners and not batting an eye whatsoever when it comes to taking other people's land and resources? Israel needs a state? Well, why didn't you give them New York City[...]
Comments (120)
Long fuel lines at gas stations, weak foreign policy resulting in Iran hostages, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, Russian wheat debacle, and I'm sure there's more, but just can't remember. America was weak, which made room for Reagan, much like Obama has made room for Trump (a joke, only sort of).
His more recent positions on Israel have been atrocious, although I'm sure you disagree with my assessment.
Doesn't sound all that bad to be honest, but what do I know?
Quoting Hanover
Now wait just a minute. I don't recall saying anything about Israel on this forum or the last one.
I will say this, there is a narrative that Jews are rich, cunning, shady and an integral part of a powerful cabal that rule the world, and this can sometimes bleed into the Israel vs Palestine debate. But in so far as it does, it bleeds in from the right. It's almost exclusively right-wing morons like David Duke and others who feed this kind of paranoia, not the left. And they usually hate Muslims as much as Jews.
I think you'd need to argue for this, not only because left-wing anti-semitism is a very well-known phenomenon going back to the nineteenth century, but especially because it contradicts numerous recent commentators who have brought our attention to the modern variant, e.g., Owen Jones, Nick Cohen, Simon Schama and Howard Jacobson--few if any of whom are uncritical of Israel (Jacobson being the least critical, I think). And these are respected independent writers making their cases in a calm and reasonable way--they're not idiots, trolls, propagandists, or loonies.
And there's also the testimony of people formerly involved with pro-Palestinian campaigns, like Alex Chalmers.
Whether you agree with their assessment or not, the fact that it's not just an oddball claim demands that you do more than flatly deny it (if you're up for continuing the discussion, that is).
Incidentally, which debate you regard as the real one is probably a matter of taste: some of us might prefer to talk about left-wing anti-semitism than about whether Israel's actions are justified. In any case, I think the two can be hard to separate.
Sure, and Israel is also largely secular and forward looking. I don't know why you draw a distinction between secular/religious, forward looking/backward looking, and Israeli Jews/American Jews. You're just a labeler, trying to divide my people so that you can conquer us.
Christianity's deepest roots are Semitic--one of those inconvenient truths.
Antisemites, as a group, really shouldn't like Saudis any more than they like Jews, if they are going to be consistent. Religious antisemites might specialize in disliking Islam or Judaism. Cultural antisemitics have a rich variety of things to dislike -- Moslem and Orthodox Jewish dress, clannishness (which of course never occurred anywhere in the world except in the Middle East or the shtetl, right?), dietary habits -- shelters which never serve pork at meals for fear a Moslem might be offended, even though 99% of shelter beneficiaries prefer pork, and so on and on and on.
Well, nothing should be used as a cudgel to stifle debate. Portraying the accusation of anti-semitism as a debate-stifling cudgel is partly what these authors are taking issue with. It's the crux of the biscuit.
Anti-semitism is prejudice against Jews. That's what it means, and it's what it has meant since it was coined. You might argue that it was mis-named, of course.
But as it happens there used to be (I'm not aware if it's still around, except for in Iran) an anti-Arab prejudice that was similar to antisemitism, Arabs being portrayed as avaricious and untrustworthy (I found an example of this just recently in a hideous sci-fi book by Larry Niven).
Why is this inconvenient for Christianity? Christianity transcends ethnicity doesn't it? Christian anti-semitism is (or was) about the religion. It was only in the late nineteenth century that anti-semitism became racialized.
In any case, critics of Israeli policy include Jews and non-Jews, Israelis and non-Israelis alike so obviously antisemitism is not necessarily a part of such critiques. But the accusation of antisemitism is such a serious one that of course it's likely to put off debate.
Just read my posts.
I started out by saying I thought there was an anti-Israel bias outside America, then went on to say I thought antsemitism was very relevant to a discussion of anti-Israel sentiment, and then defended the notion that antisemitism underlies some anti-Israel movements as a legitimate, serious position that cannot be dismissed. I don't see the humour, unfortunately.
The reason that some associate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism is because there does appear to be an over-analysis of Israeli policy (like should they develop certain areas of their country and how they should defend themselves from enemies) in comparison to how other countries are analyzed. It is only Israel that actually has to justify its own existence and state its legitimate claim to its own land, a requirement that all other nations are relieved of. Israel appears to be specially targeted, and because it is Jewish run, it leads some to conclude it is the Jewishness of the nation that provides the basis for being targeted. Considering Jews have long been subject to unfair criticism (many of which you pointed out), it doesn't seem such a stretch to believe that the current criticisms of Israel are just part of this same historical criticism.
So, yes, Israel, like all nations, has policies that aren't internally consistent, are entirely self-interested, that might be hypocritical, and that might even be unjustified to the objective observer. These policies however aren't of such magnitude that Israel ought to always remain under the microscope anymore than should the policies of the various European nations that offer these criticisms.
What European or other developed nation questions the right of Israel to exist? Of course there are some groups (like Hamas) and countries (like Iran) that do and I have no problem with that claim being called antisemitic but that's not part of the mainstream debate in Europe or the rest of the western world. As for the claim to its own land, that depends on what you mean by "it's own land". No-one is arguing Tel Aviv is not legitimately Israel's but there is reason to think that Jerusalem should be shared with the Palestinians as both peoples have in recent times controlled it or parts of it and both lay claim to it. And there is certainly reason to think that the West Bank which is part of the Palestinian territories should be considered legitimately Palestinian land. You do not automatically get a moral right to own land simply because you are presently in charge of it. Historical context has to be taken into consideration. And the context suggests the dividing up of the land in the region rather than giving it all to one or the other party is the only fair solution.
Which brings me to the main point: Do you not think the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to some of the land in the region, at least the Palestinian territories? Because at the moment that is occupied by Israeli troops. If they do have a legitimate claim to that land, then should not Israel remove its army and stop the building of settlements there.
Quoting Hanover
Do you really think though that if Israel had been set up in Europe and was living peacefully with its neighbours like Sweden, Holland or Ireland are, it would be subject to threats of economic boycott? The reason Israel is under the microscope is that in the view of many -who not unreasonably believe that the Palestinians have as much a right to self-determination as the Israelis do- it is colonizing (or settling if you prefer) another's territory. It has built roads in the Palestinian territories that only its settlers can use. It has soldiers and roadblocks there that can prevent Palestinians travelling from one place to another even in the case of emergency. And it has a built a security wall within the territories that separates Palestinians families and villages from each other. The only reason it is not under UN sanctions for these and other actions is that the US has on several occasions used its veto to prevent that eventuality. These are not minor details, nor of course are the facts that Israel is a tiny country surrounded by largely hostile neighbours and is currently in a state of low level war with the Palestinians. But the comparison with European nations who are critics of Israel just doesn't work as far as I can see.
Anyway, this really boils down to the following, and I would really like to understand your point of view: While we both accept absolutely that Israelis have a right to self-determination and legitimate claims to some of the land in the region, do you accept that Palestinians also have also have a right to self-determination and a legitimate claim to some of the land there? And, if so, how do you think that claim should be realized?
The proposed two state solution is problematic because the Palestinians reject that idea and wish to push the Israelis into the sea (or some such rhetoric). Those who advocate the two state solution do so with the understanding that Palestine does not want a two state solution, but wish to destroy it. So, when you say "what European nation questions Israel's right to exist," my response is any that believes ceding authority or land to a hostile nation and who wishes to destroy it.
Quoting Baden
Please. There is no universal standard to determine who gets to control land. It makes no more sense to say that an aboriginal tribe gets to keep its land because great great grandpa was the first to build a hut there than it does to say that another nation gets to control it because it was taken forcibly in war. Why the Irish get to be in Ireland is no more justified than allowing the Americans to occupy Indian lands or why Russia gets to be in the Crimea. What is unique about Israel is that it alone is forced to justify its occupation of various parts of the country, including those won in a defensive war, notwithstanding the fact that some of those militarily won lands have already been gratuitously returned.
And so it comes down to why Israeli occupation of lands is of such international consequence and why they in particular have to engage in offering a moral basis for their occupation. Whether Britain gets to hold on to Belfast hardly seems a matter for my consideration.
Quoting Baden
Not to quibble with wording, but "set up" suggests an artificial creation. We don't hypothesize about what might have been had Ireland been set up in Madagascar and could therefore have avoided the troubles it had with Britain. Israel is in fact trying to live in peace and only doing what is necessary to protect itself from constant terroristic attacks. If Mexico demanded the return of their native Texas and lobbed missiles over the border, no one would question a ferocious response from the US, and no one would offer great sympathies if Mexico became part of the US.
Quoting Baden
You build a great case for Palestinian sympathy by pointing out the disruption in their lives at the hands of a tyrannical oppressor as long as you ignore the reason why such measures are required. Would you live in Israel if they didn't have such measures, or might you feel some comfort that someone was trying to be sure that you actually were alive to wake up the morning?
Quoting Baden
Of course, in a ideal world, we'd just go down the deed office at the courthouse, pull out the plats, and mark which land each got, file it in, stamp it, shake hands, and call one another "neighbor." Unfortunately, this isn't just a dispute over borders and plats. It's that the Palestinians want to kill their neighbors and take all the land. Sure, reasonable people can reasonably resolve their dispute. Our disagreement is that I think the Israelis are reasonable and the Palestinians aren't.
But, but, you just contradicted yourself there, Sir.
The Palestinians do not all want to kill Israelis and take all their land. I think you know better than that. If you don't, you need to go back over the history of the attempts to find agreement and why they fell apart. Apart from that, a people being unreasonable (not that I necessarily accept the Palestinians in general are) does not abrogate their right to self-determination. Also, demonizing an entire ethnic community in the way you are doing here is exactly what those of us who are against anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia should be trying to avoid in this debate. There are several million Palestinians living in the region. They are not all crazed terrorists.
If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing. If it was the Israelis who were subjugated, we should just ignore it. And if they fought back by firing rockets into Palestine, we should dismiss them as terrorists and use that as another reason for not giving them their land back. I disagree with that view of international relations. We live in a more enlightened time than when, to take one of your examples, the English and the Spanish stole the land of the native Americans and got away with it. So, in the circumstances applying to Israel vs Palestine, the real and the hypothetical above, the invaded and occupied would deserve our protection.
What is it with all these Westerners and not batting an eye whatsoever when it comes to taking other people's land and resources? Israel needs a state? Well, why didn't you give them New York City, Boston, the entire state of Delaware, or how about London or Manchester? How about give them Alaska or Texas or Wyoming? I mean, you already did what you're trying to do in Palestine in those other places, why continue the genocide? There's almost no one living in Wyoming anyways. Seriously, the hypocrisy is beyond comprehension here, which allows the conclusion that Israel as a state has nothing to do whatsoever with providing Jews with a homeland, but everything whatsoever with Westerners trying to assert their dominance in other people's lands.
Quoting Baden
I'd say so, yeah. They can move back to Europe, or the West can graciously designate Leeds as the new sovereign Israel state. Then, if Jews wish to go live in Palestine, then they can apply for a work-permit.
The problem with this whole approach to Israel is that there are clear analogies that make the moral dilemma easier to resolve. Do you condemn Vietnamese people from shooting up their French colonial masters? Do you condemn Indian nationalists from assassinating English and Japanese colonials? You shouldn't, because they were justified in doing so. Western-backed Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and resources is the exact same scenario, just slipped under the guise of the Trojan horse of "Jewish freedom and emancipation." Remember, the group that constantly expels Jews from place to place most recently (and even back up to the Roman era) consisted mostly of European leadership. If you're feeling guilty that Jews have to move yet again, once again, I suggested a permanent homeland: Leeds, United Kingdom.
Without moral rules or at least some ethical foundation, the debate descends into a shouting match. You shouldn't target innocent civilians or show disregard for their safety no matter what side you're on and no matter what the circumstances. That should be a bare minimum everyone can agree on.
Incidentally, you are showing as much blatant disregard for the Israelis as @Hanover has been showing for the Palestinians. Your positions are essentially the mirror image of each other. Hanover: Israelis = Good, Palestinians = Bad (therefore we don't have to care about the Palestinians). You: Palestinians=Good, Israelis=Bad (therefore we don't have to care about the Israelis).
The Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Anatolians, Egyptians, (who did I leave out?) were overlords for various parts and pieces at different times and places. They all left an imprint. The Kingdom of Israel was run over several times, just like a lot of other kingdoms were. it was SOP.
Then there were the Jews and the Christians.
Then there were the Moslems which pretty much overran (or tried to overrun) the Mediterranean Basin, and more besides, heading east to the Pacific.
Then Ghengis Kahn over ran much of Eurasia, including the Middle East.
Then there were European Crusades.
Then there was the Ottoman Empire.
Then there was the British and French Empires.
The British and French redrew the map of the Middle East to their liking before Israel was created. There was nothing particularly rational about it. Their drawing room map exercise is the root of a lot of contemporary problems.
Israel was created finally by Declaration and force, just like all of the previous arrangements were. Nothing was done with democratic votes, plebiscites, public opinion polls, or so much as a fare-thee-well consideration of the local wishes anywhere. The Zionist movement was formally started by Theodor Herzl in 1896. It's just the latest oar in the water.
The United States stuck its oar into the water later than the British and the French, and we haven't contributed a whole lot of good either -- not because we are Islamophobic, antisemitic, or anti Arab. We were doing what every nation does, pursuing national interests, or at least trying to pursue national interests. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were astonishingly stupid endeavors but lots of other people have tried similar stupid endeavors and failed.
So, here we are, 2016, blaming a lot of ancient history on the modern state of Israel and the US and some (Discoli) valorizing the Arabs -- well really, colored folk and may or may not be oppressed at the moment.
Does Palestine belong to the people who lived there before Israel was created? Sure -- just like merry old England belonged to Celts before the Romans took over and belonged to the Romans before they left and the Anglo Saxons took over next. Just like North and South America didn't belong to Spain, Portugal, and England before they arrived and took over. Just like nobody invited the Romans, Christians, Moslems, and Turks, to do what they did.
Jews have always lived in Palestine. After the Romans left ancient Israel in tatters the Jewish people remaining (who were not part of the diaspora) devolved into peasants, just like the predecessors of the present day Palestinians were.
That's history for you: One damned thing after another.
And so you've ignored the entire debate and just asserted that the Palestinians have the right to the land. I assert otherwise. So there you have it. Good debate.
Shouldn't the US return Manhattan to its original inhabitants?
Are you suggesting that the Palestinian government really is in favor of a two state solution? If they are, they've certainly not ever shown that, especially after the Israelis have in the past been willing to meet 90% of their demands.
The Palestinians cannot physically remove the Israelis, and any direct war against them would be suicidal. Their war against Israel is political, which includes in large part demonizing them.
Quoting Baden
Of course they're not all crazed terrorists, but their government is not in favor of Israel remaining where it is. I've also not made a generalized statement against Muslims or Arabs. I've only pointed out that the Palestinian sentiment is for the removal of Israel from its land and it does that through gaining international political support for its position and it also uses terrorism as a tactic. That's just what's happening.
We can talk about the unfairness of Israel in building new settlements and argue the subtleties of who has the right to possess lands, but I really don't think anyone (including me) would be wiling to accept an Israel that sent its citizens into Gaza with bombs strapped to themselves on public buses. The conduct of the respective parties is not comparable.
And, no, being unreasonable doesn't mean you lose the right to self-determination, but being a terrorist does. I'm pretty sure Ireland (for example) doesn't permit its murderers the right to self-determination.
I've not argued that might makes right. It's quite the opposite. My argument would be that we should protect Israel because they are right to possess the land.
I have no problem at all declaring governments, cultures, or people as bad. That is to say, the reason I support only friendly nations having nuclear bombs, having international influence, possessing important pieces of land, having critical natural resources, etc. is because I want evil nations to be weak and good nations to be strong. I don't know why it's so hard to look at someone else's existence and simply declare it not worth protecting. It's for the same reason that you don't particularly want to preserve the rights of those who want to oppress homosexuals and African Americans in the US. It's because their beliefs are stupid, destructive, and in opposition to what you hold to be right and just. You couldn't care any less about the history and deeply held beliefs of those racists. Why don't you argue for their right to self-determination?
What I'm saying is that I believe that Israel does have the right to the land, and to the extent we need to decide who to support where there's a dispute over the land, it'd be foolish to consider both claims as equal without regard to the character of those we're supporting.
Yes, I am. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
Also, from the Israeli news source, Haaretz:
How Many Times Must the Palestinians Recognize Israel?
(Full text of above)
Quoting Hanover
Hamas and other Palestinian groups deliberately target civilians, which is reprehensible. Israel doesn't. In that sense I agree the conduct is not comparable. However, Israel does show blatant disregard for civilian lives in many of its attacks. And because of this something else that is not comparable is the number of Palestinian civilians killed compared to Israeli civilians killed in the conflict.
During the clashes of 2014, for example, 5 Israeli civilians were killed, and from 761 (Israeli estimate) to 1462 (UN estimate) Palestinian civilians including up to 578 children (UN estimate). In other words, the number of Palestinian children alone killed by Israeli forces was up to 100 times as many as the total number of Israeli civilians killed. These are not just statistics, they represent a reality on the ground. None of those Palestinian children or civilians deserved to die any more than the 5 Israelis did, and their deaths are not likely to make Israel any safer. Of course, you are likely to say, "It's their own fault, they started it" etc. Others would say Israel started that round. But whoever started the slaughter, in terms of innocent civilians, the Palestinians were - in terms of pure numbers, orders of magnitude - more the victims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Palestinian
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
I find it hard to understand how you can be so obviously hypocritical. You are not only demonizing the Palestinians, you seem to be actively attempting to dehumanize them. I don't know if it's because you don't know that a majority of Palestinians live in the West Bank, which is controlled by Fatah* not Hamas; or you don't know that not all those in Gaza support Hamas; or you don't know the difference between Fatah and Hamas; or you don't know that large numbers of Palestinians are elderly infirm or children who are no threat to anyone; or you don't know that even those who support Hamas are not necessarily themselves terrorists. It's hard to tell. There are around 3 million Palestinians whose existence you have just dismissed as not worth protecting, as being essentially worthless because you think they are evil. This is exactly what the fanatics on the other side say about Jews. You and they are expressing views that are two sides of the same very ugly coin.
Quoting Hanover
I don't know if you are saying this because you are trying to refer to the conflict in Northern Ireland or because you just want to say something about Ireland because I'm Irish. But Northern Ireland is instructive. Sinn Fein, the political representatives of the (now disbanded) IRA, which was a designated terrorist organization, have and have always had the support of about half the Catholic population there. The reason they are no longer in the business of killing people is that the British government engaged with them and gave them a place in a power sharing executive. In other words, rather than continue to marginalize them and shout names at them they decided it would be better to bring them into the process of democracy. This worked to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland both Catholic and Protestant. It's unlikely a one-state power sharing government would work in Israel because the two parties are too far apart politically and culturally, so the only viable solution in my view remains the two state one. As far as I'm concerned, the first step to that would be a complete cessation of violence (and ugly rhetoric); the second, talks; the third, an agreement; and the final a process of reconciliation. It's worked elsewhere in the world but there has to be the will to do it. Otherwise, everyone loses. Both sides need to step up to the plate here by at least attempting to understand and deal constructively with the other. And so do their cheerleaders.
*"Fatah is no longer regarded as a terrorist organization by any government. Fatah used to be designated terrorist under Israeli law and was considered terrorist by the United States Department of State and United States Congress until it renounced terrorism in 1988." Link.
Are you kidding me? Palestine never negotiated in good faith to bring about a 2 state solution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit.
Quoting Baden
Do you not see a difference between self-defense and an aggressive act? If the expected result of terrorism is collateral damage of your own citizens, then I'd blame the terrorists for that collateral damage.
Quoting Baden
No I'm not dehumanizing them. The toll on their lives is horrible under any interpretation of the term. I realize they have dreams, ambitions, loves and everything else that I do. And so what are the Israelis to do other than sympathizing with them? Are they also to allow themselves to come under attack and not do anything about it?
And yes, I know the difference between Fatah and Hamas.
Quoting Baden
And so we're in absolute agreement here. The complete cessation of violence needs to stop. Are you suggesting that Israel would be dropping bombs if there were nothing to react to, as if they'd just get up one morning and decide today is a good day to drop bombs? Yes, there needs to be good faith talks. Those have been attempted but have failed, but, sure, keep at it, but I'm not terribly hopeful. The idea that Palestinians are really going to accept Israel's legitimate right to exist is never going to happen. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-Abbas-thinks-Jewish-state-is-a-delusional-myth-345549
You said they had never shown themselves to be in favour of a two state solution. That is simply false, Hanover. Read the newspaper article I added above.
Quoting Hanover
They have already accepted Israel's right to exist. You are now moving the goalposts and saying that because they don't accept Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", they don't accept their right to exist at all.
From the article:
Bear in mind the source here is Israel's oldest and one if its most respected newspapers.
You can say they want there to be a two state solution, but when given that real opportunity, they balked. I mean there's saying it and meaning it. That this issue has been going on since Israel's independence makes me question whether they really want peace, especially in light of the concessions Israel was willing to allow in the past.
Quoting Baden
It's your position that if Israel and Palestine come to terms with a two state solution that the Palestinians should retain control over what Israel calls itself? That is, if Israel declares itself a Jewish state, the Palestinians then have a right to bomb buses?
Quoting Baden
Aside from the fact that this is a very weak appeal to authority (some editor at a newspaper agrees with your position, so it must be correct), it's also not accurate to say that Haaretz is widely accepted as an unbiased newspaper. It's pretty well known that it is a very left leaning newspaper. It'd be like me citing to a FoxNews commentator and asserting he was well respected and generally accepted. See,
http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2014/5/25/does-haaretzs-public-stance-on-occupation-reveal-anything-new-about-the-paper#.VvVsQu8UWUk=
I'm pretty sure you know that's not my position. If you don't, read over my posts, particularly the parts where I've repeatedly and unequivocally condemned all violence against civilians*. Anyway, if you're not going to be intellectually honest or take this seriously, I'm not going to continue with the conversation. Your call.
Quoting Hanover
I'm asking you to address the argument, not the source. You can merely acknowledge that. The only reason I mentioned the source was because you have suggested that critics of Israel are possibly antisemitic. You can't use that excuse here.
*To repeat again: There are no circumstances whatsoever, no matter what the Israeli army does in Palestine, no matter what the Israeli state declares itself to be, where it would be justified for Palestinians to bomb buses, fire rockets into Israeli neighbourhoods, or otherwise kill or maim innocent Israeli civilians.
There are rules concerning self-defense, both legal and ethical, even in war. If there weren't, then you killing one of my civilians in a terrorist attack would justify me retaliating by killing 100 of yours in a bombing aimed at the perpetrators and everyone in their immediate vicinity. The general principle is one of proportionality. You don't get to unconditionally dismiss the deaths of civilians of a country from which a terrorist attacked you in your attempts to kill that terrorist. That would amount to what's known in international parlance as a war crime.
To make it easier for you: Imagine you shoot my wife. That doesn't give me the right to bomb your house when you're in it while your kids are there too. And I wouldn't avoid responsibility by saying "Well that collateral damage* to your kids is your own fault because you killed my wife."
*Horrible military euphemism that this is.
They were not pacifistic--there was combat from the get go. There were various efforts to keep a lid on the inevitable conflict, which we are aware were not successful.
Gaza is only 41 kilometers (25 mi) long, and from 6 to 12 kilometers (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide. With almost 2 million Palestinians on 362 square kilometers, "Gaza ranks as the 6th most densely populated polity in the world." Wikipedia (The only difference between Manhattan and Gaza is that one is about a billion times richer than the other one.) Israel is bigger than New Jersey (not by much) and could be drowned in Lake Michigan. Taiwan and Sardinia are about the same size.
The Jewish population of Israel grew by 1.7% over the past year, and the Israeli-Arab population grew by 2.2%. There is a demographic problem, too.
Is it possible that "might" could shift at some point in the future, and a new "right" be established? Iran hopes so--at least I think the government there is at least somewhat serious about wanting to get rid of Israel. Should they obtain (or build) a few atomic weapons and a few reliable missiles, and should they be reckless enough to use them...
My guess is that more than 95% of Arab people have more than enough to worry about every day without becoming overly agitated about the existence of the State of Israel. If Arab leaders were doing their job, they would be taking better care of their own populations. Some of them are doing better than others, of course.
What agitates people the most is being trapped. People in Gaza are certainly trapped; lots of the people on the West Bank are trapped. Bethlehem, for instance, is a city walled in from without. If they can't move freely, their economic and educational opportunities -- their futures -- are very limited.
Anybody know why a Palestinian State wasn't established on the West Bank when Israel's initial boundaries were established?
Oh, don't get all upset. Be unflappable like me. You said that there was some critical distinction about Israel declaring itself a sovereign state and it declaring itself a sovereign Jewish state, with the Palestinians being justified in rejecting the latter declaration. You then reject all violence on the part of Palestine. I assume you accept my argument that the violence that comes from Israel is reactive, meaning that with no violence from Palestine, there'd be no violence at all. So where does that leave us? You're mad at Israel for insisting that it designate itself as it wishes without having to consider input from Palestine? That sort of anger should be fairly minimal in comparison to the anger you should feel toward Palestine for its terrorism that I suppose arises entirely from being asked to call Israel a Jewish state.
All of this is a heaping help of nonsense though. It's not that anyone really believes that if Israel agreed that it would never again refer to itself as a Jewish state that we'd be any closer to a meaningful peace agreement. And, as my other post asked, if Israel gets a peace agreement and then hangs up a sign calling it a Jewish state, does Palestine get to go back to where it was pre-agreement (and I won't this time suggest that means it gets to go back to bombing folks on buses).
I think you're fence riding here, recognizing that Palestine's terroristic tactics are abhorrent, yet wanting to find a middle ground just to end the horrible meaningless deaths. I get the sentiment, and I think it explains why so many are trying to find a way to end the violence. I just don't think that can happen until the terrorism completely ends for which Israel should accept no responsibility for. Quoting Baden
I know this is your position, and I think it creates a problem for you. The problem it creates is that you can't offer such an unequivocal condemnation of Israel. If you just think Israel is seizing land it shouldn't seize, that's hardly the stuff of international interest. If the Palestinians weren't terrorizing the Israelis, this issue would not even make your radar, which means that their terror campaign is effective.
I don't agree with this. Stronger nations are wrong all the time.
Quoting Bitter Crank
By Egypt as well.
Sure, and if Iran attacked the US, there'd be no more Iran. That's how proportionality works. I just don't know why Israel has to fight wars with one hand tied behind its back.
Quoting Baden
Ahhhh! I hate this example. You know how much I love your wife, assuming you have one.
There's a difference between vigilante retaliation within an operational legal system and responding to outside threats threatening your existence.
Of course nations are wrong all the time. But if they can make their evil, unjust, illegal, wrongful, and just plain rude decisions stick, eventually it becomes their honored history. Like the US and the Native Americans... We seized their land, drove them off of it, killed them systematically or haphazardly, starved them, and finally gave the remaining remnant some scraps of land, and found new ways to treat them badly. We seized a huge hunk of northern Mexico. It became our southwest instead of their northwest. All actions we would condemn somebody else doing.
These events were not taught to us in school as moral outrages, they were taught to us as our sacred and honorable history. How could that be? Because we won the wars and got to write the school history books. Not too many questioned all that stuff.
Same with slavery. It was presented as a mere fact in the beginning of the year -- ships went back and forth between Africa, the Caribbean, and New England carrying slaves. Also molasses from which rum was made. Later in the year we learned about the Civil War. Then we went on to corruption in government in the 1870s - 90s. Facts, not moral outrage.
I don't suppose that most people in the UK, Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, Italy and Russia feel inordinately guilty about their colonial/imperialistic history. It paid off pretty well, in most cases.
Israel has been in existence 68 years, long enough to establish the "rightness" of their imposition of a Jewish state on a province of the recently liquidated Ottoman empire (or an old province of the Roman Empire, if you want to go back that far). 68 years after the US managed to win the war of independence, it was 1849--time for the Gold Rush.
Does anyone at this point think that Russia will be forced to return Crimea to Ukraine?
We seem to both acknowledge that :
1) It is not accurate or fair to blanketly refer to Palestinians as "terrorists" or "evil"
2) The Palestinians as a people deserve some sympathy considering their plight
3) Attacks targeting civilians are wrong and should be unequivocally condemned
4) Ideally, there needs to be an immediate end to violence followed by talks and an agreement on a two-state solution
5) My non-existent wife is worthy of our mutual adoration
There are still a couple of issues to be untangled though including:
A) The Jewish state question
B) The question of what terrorism is
To take the first:
Quoting Hanover
Yes, they do actually. The Palestinians are happy to recognize Israel - again, see the Oslo accords - but do not want to agree to recognize a status that could result in Arab Israelis being discriminated against. I mean would you be happy with America declaring itself to be a "white Christian state"? Earlier, you told me that Israel was, amongst other things, "very secular". How can you be "very secular" and at the same time define your country according to ethnicity and/or religion?* And by the way, this is not only a problem for the Palestinians, it's a problem for Israelis; the version of the "Jewish state" being pushed by Netanyahu has been highly controversial even within Israel.
This following is from CBS:
"Jewish state" bill fuels fire in divided Israel
You can see from the article that Netanyahu would ideally have the Palestinians accept a kind of state not even his own Justice Minister wanted to accept. As far as I'm concerned, Israel should be recognized as the ethnic homeland of the Jewish people, but if what is meant by "a Jewish State" goes beyond that, the Palestinians could essentially be being asked to agree to second class citizenship for Arab Israelis. And of course, they are not going to do that. All of this is to say that while we may not find absolute agreement here, at the very least it should be clear the issue is not as black and white as you have made it out to be.
B) On what terrorism is.
I think we need to sort out our definitions here. For me, terrorism is not a function of how big the bomb, how sophisticated the delivery process, how powerful the military apparatus behind it, or how nominally democratic the deliverers. Terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians or the disregard for their safety in military operations in order to further political, religious or ideological objectives. That definition does not exclude governments. From an ethical standpoint, it makes no difference whether the terrorist wears a uniform or not, whether he uses a suicide bomb or a missile, or whether he claims to represent democracy or Islamism. What matters in a terrorist act is the act itself. The act of violence against the innocent. (Incidentally, I'm not making any statement here as yet about whose acts might fall under this definition, I simply want to try to agree on principles first before we get into that more difficult question).
What's your definition?
I can unequivocally condemn some of what Israel does, and some of what the Palestinians do. I'm not going to blanketly condemn either Israel or the Palestinians. So, I don't see a problem. In fact, I see my position as very consistent. But we probably need to tease out the stuff in the last post to get to all that.
Quoting Hanover
This makes no sense to me at all. Of course, if Israel wasn't being attacked, the issue would still be on the international radar, and mine, i.e. of course the seizure of land that shouldn't be seized is the stuff of international interest. We're not living in 19th century colonial times. The UN would still have tried to impose sanctions and so on. In fact, there would be even more justification for objections, which is yet another reason for the Palestinians to unilaterally stop the violence. They have no hope of winning militarily but they can win morally if they limit themselves to peaceful protest.
No, but the people of the Crimea did vote to join Russia. The vote might not be considered entirely free and fair but no-one's going to deny that the Crimean people in general are very pro-Russian, which makes this a very different situation to that in Palestine.
The conclusion here isn't as you assert, which seems to be that an evil nation becomes good once enough time elapses and everyone accepts their authority. You base this upon the fact that the US (for example) improperly seized Native American lands and now it's fully accepted and largely overlooked.
The problem with this analysis is that Iran, the former Iraq, North Korea and all sorts of other well established nations are still not considered good actors even with the time lapse. The real conclusion that can be drawn is that some nations are better than others and how they obtained their land is just one factor in determining where the nation falls on the good/bad scale. I suppose you could say that the US would have been better had it obtained its land through a more peaceful means, but that hardly makes it worse than North Korea, even though you might find North Korea's claims to their land is more justifiable.
And this makes my point in some regard to Israel. That is, even if the Palestinians have a superior right to the land (and I don't concede this, but just hypothesize it), that hardly means the world would be a better and more just place if the Palestinians occupied it. It is often the case that the better use of the land (which includes how its people are treated) is in the hands of others. By example, the North Korean territory would be better served by someone else. It just seems like philosophical nonsense to say that the Western world should cede a Western democracy (Israel) to an antagonistic middle east nation (Palestine) just for the sake of maintaining some poorly thought out principle about how land should be rationed out.
This is just naivete. We're not a semantical distinction away from peace. You cite to an agreement reached over 20 years ago that has meant nothing in reducing violence. In 2000, it was made very clear that the Palestinians didn't want peace at the Camp David Summit.
Quoting Baden
This conflates two issues: (1) the Palestinian objection to the reference of the land as Jewish and (2) secular Jews objection to having Jewish theology imposed on an otherwise secular nation.
Camp David fell apart largely due to the right of return issue, which was the Palestinians arguing that every descendant of every displaced Palestinian after Israeli independence be permitted to return to Israel (not just to Gaza and the West Bank). The numbers of such people are now in the millions. Israel could not accept that condition as it would essentially cede the land right back to the Palestinians and destroy the character of the state of Israel. The Palestinian objection to having Israel desginated "Jewish" is because their objective is to make it a Palestinian nation and they won't accept anything less. That is to say, this objection by the Palestinians is not semantical. It's a clear declaration that they don't want non-Palestinian control of the land because they beleive all the land is theirs.
It's as I've said all along: They don't want a two state solution. They want control over the whole country. It seems obvious to me.
Regarding the more liberal Jews not wanting the more orthodox Jews in control (whcih is issue #1 above), that's an internal political tiff.
This doesn't solve much. Who decides what a better use is?
I am in favor of the state of Israel, even if their existence was an imposition on the Palestinians. I like the UK, too, even though they were the colonial imperialists par excellence. Germany -- two thumbs up, despite their ghastly history. Sweden? Don't much care for Swedes, even though they haven't done anything to anybody recently (ever?). Finland? Norway? Bah, humbug! to the lands of the Frozen North. Macadamia? Madagascar? Mongolia? Good-bad-indifferent? Don't know.
The problem I am trying to get at (not to anyone's satisfaction, apparently) is how do nations become "good" or "bad"? Nations are collectives which, with respect to other national collectives, pursue interests. Individuals make moral decisions (or not) but when you speak of the collective of millions, "good" or "evil" do not seem quite the right terms.
There were many individuals belonging to the ruling German Nazi Party who made horrendously evil decisions and a few million individuals who executed the orders--all and each responsible. The state of Germany, representing the German people, can't be held guilty the same way that individual Nazis can. The State is an abstraction, as are "a people" to some extent. "The State" can not be taken out and shot after being found guilty of crimes against humanity. But individuals--responsible actors--can be tried, convicted, and executed.
We can locate individuals who are good or bad actors, like those Israeli's who choose to build houses and barns on land where just previously Palestinians had lived, or Palestinians who choose to commit suicide aboard a bus used mostly by Israelis. The Israeli settlers are causing a slow death of Palestinians, as opposed to the much quicker death of Israeli's on the bus. We can locate a source of goodness or badness in particular policies written by particular persons, like a policy of tacit support for boundary-crossing settlers or explosives-bearing bus riders. We can locate goodness and badness in the behavior or directives of leaders, from David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973) or Chaim Weizmann (1914-1952), or Golda Meir (1898-1978) on to Benjamin Netanyahu. We should include Harry Truman and Prime Minister Arthur Balfour.***
Perhaps the most prominent designer of Zionism, Theodor Herzl also known in Hebrew as Chozeh HaMedinah (lit. "Visionary of the State") should be named as a responsible agent.
There are Israeli individuals and Israeli political parties who oppose the expansionary settlers, oppose the military policies of the Israeli defense ministry, and wish to bring about a lasting peaceful arrangement.
"Israel" contains them all.
The existence of Israel, as a state -- whether a 'Jewish' state or not, can not be undone at this point, except by some monstrous act of invasion or nuclear detonation, which would also harm Israel's neighbors.
States, whether imposed by declaration and war, or created by partition of territories (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India), are self- and other- justified. South Sudan was created by partition but it is unclear at the moment whether they have sufficient recognition and self justification to persist.
Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, et al all have arbitrary boundaries. Much of Africa has equally arbitrary boundaries--the British and French (mainly) drew them to suit themselves, just like they did in the Middle East. Israel isn't unique in having a wandering border. Europe has lots of erasures and redrawn lines; so does the United States (mostly at somebody else's expense).
Israel obtained its West Bank opportunity and its West Bank problem when it captured the territory from Jordan in 1967.
*** "The Balfour Declaration essentially states the endorsement of his fellow Cabinet ministers of the partition of a separate land for Israel in the Palestinian region then under British rule. It read, in part, "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to faciliate the achievement of this object..." This is particularly significant because it has been popular to suggest a Jewish national home in Uganda up to this point."
From your deeply biased perspective, sure. And from the deeply biased perspective of the Palestinians the blame is all Israel's. The vast majority of analysts do not paint things in such cartoonish terms.
Quoting Hanover
There are two issues here and I've been careful in my wording to try not to conflate them but to show how they're related. I didn't expect agreement but at least it highlights the complexities here that you continuously seem to want to gloss over.
Quoting Hanover
Again, it's not as simple as you make out. There was room for negotiation.
Link
See also:
Quoting BBC
So your jump to this.
Quoting Hanover
Is a jump into more cartoonish falsity. Your strategy here seems to be to take the most biased interpretation you can of a minimal number of facts, ignore all nuance, and run with that as far as you can. Of course, that will end up making the Palestinians look bad, which sadly seems to be one your objectives here.
Quoting Hanover
I wonder why. Anyway, what is obvious is that the right of return is an important issue for the Palestinians as the principle is based on the UN declaration of human rights and protected under international law, but it's a negotiating position not an absolute unequivocal or unnuanced demand.
"Antisemitic" is a word used by people who think "jew" is a viable category against people that don't like 'jews'.
It acts in a way to justify the unjustifiable land grab of a religious group of people who pretend that they have some sort of prior claim on the territory of Palestine, and have used that claim, with the collusion of France, UK and the USA to colonise that land to the detriment of the people who have lived there continuously since time immemorial, whose property rights have been taken away form them; have been incarcerated, packed into trucks and 're-located' and interned. Moreover, have had even more land lost through conquest of "Israeli" forces. They now live in the world's largest prison whose nearest analogue is the Warsaw Ghetto; called Gaza.
If Jews don't exist, who is the target of the prejudice that goes by the name of anti-semitism? This looks like a way of saying that anti-Jewish prejudice does not exist.
I agree that race is irrelevant, but that doesn't go against the standard meaning of "Jew": the Jews are an ethnic group. And to be anti-semitic is to be prejudiced against Jews.
I would say "ethnic group" is the best way to describe Jews too, but then what is ethnicity? Within ethnic groups you can have shared ethno-racial as well as ethno-religious (and various other) characteristics and there are those who believe Jews exhibit some of the former.
e.g. from http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Jews-A-religious-group-people-or-race
'“Jewish” was never a category for race in the US Census, Ostrer notes, even though genetic studies “would seem to refute this..."'
Quoting charleton
I don't follow the logic here. For example, whether race exists or not, racists exist, and they're a real problem. Also, you don't need to go down this route to make the point in the second paragraph. There are real anti-semites out there and the accusation of anti-semitism is also sometimes used for political purposes. It's not like there's any mutual exclusivity here.
Yes, although in this discussion I think it probably doesn't matter. Ethnicity can be about shared cultural, historical, linguistic or religious practices and affiliations. For this debate I just wanted to point out that it doesn't follow from a lack of shared racial characteristics that there is no such people as the Jews. Incidentally, it still does not follow if we also find a lack of universal religious observance.
On a different note, I think that, fundamentally, Israelis don't trust Palestine a state. I'm sure a lot personally know many Palestinians and get along with them, but when every non-Palestinian Israeli person over 21 in the country has spent at least 3 years (during one of the most formative parts of their life) fighting Palestine as the general enemy, it is a high hope that they might otherwise. Likewise, when people live in fear with the memory terror attacks, it is unlikely that trust will be granted (whether that be an intelligent decision or not). As such it seems to me that, whether this reflects reality or not, many Israelis (I have many Israeli friends, and have visited the country a half dozen times) truly believe that a Palestinian government, as its core, fundamentally believes that Israel, as a liberal, democratic, Jewish state, should not exist. I can't speak at all about the Palestinian perspective. Nonetheless, even on this one side, achieving the trust necessary to give Palestine its own government, including an official and recognized military, the right to weapons, and no internal Israeli security checks, seems unrealistic (again, I am not speaking about whether the Palestinians are or aren't to blame for this, although I'm sure that terror attacks don't help), especially being surrounded by Gaza on one side and the West Bank on the other. Many Israelis use the giving of Gaza as reference, claiming that they gave the land to the Palestinians, and now it is a hotspot of terror from whence most of the missiles emanate. I'm quite positive that the average Israeli is not willing to accept a two-state solution because they express sentiments similar to Hanover's: they would love a two-state solution– the terror scares them shitless and they want nothing but for it to stop– but they don't think that a Palestinian government could ever not be associated with terror and the destruction of Israel. Also, from a military perspective (and remember that essentially all non-Palestinian Israelis have served in the army), relenting the said territories is very tactically risky. Invasion through Palestine by any Arab allies would be unbelievably easy, and even if Israelis trusted a Palestinian state, they likely wouldn't trust that it could keep out neighboring countries looking for chinks in its armor (it'd be like Belgium in WWI).
I think it's interesting that mention of Jerusalem hasn't even come up. It is a non-trivial issue. To most of us, who are not particularly immersed in the issue, the city seems of little significance, but to proponents of each religion, Islam, Judaism, and even Christianity, access to the city is important. While much of Israel is quite secular, the percentage of the population that deeply identifies with the need to access the Western Wall is quite large as well (especially in the religious and immigrant-Jew communities). I do not think that this city, or even religion at all, is the only, or the most important element of the conflict, but it is also not irrelevant. The question of "rightfully theirs" gets very convoluted at this stage; Jerusalem was the center of the ancient world and different nations across time have made it theirs. However, entitlement is a serious ill, and religious or not, I don't think either side is willing to relieve their sense of it in this particular city. Solutions such as a shared city have been proposed, but I think there is a degree of Illiad-esque pride at hand, too. I predict that even if nationalistic two-state solutions can be realized a lot of people will start acting like 4-year-olds very quickly over Jerusalem– it's almost like a time machine back to when people thought and acted more primitively...
For the record, I think that Baden has had the most lucid and balanced arguments regarding the conflict.
I would suggest that a fairly high form of racism is to deny the existence of the race altogether. Two things are obvious: (1) the specific demarcation of what constitutes a Jew (or any race for that matter) can be nebulous and variable depending upon who is doing the defining and (2) there are certain people who are unequivocally Jewish. There is no particular board that makes a boat a boat.
I was pretty nervous when I brought Jewish friends home, but actually my parents were nice as pie to them, which seriously puzzled me. Nevertheless my dad refused to speak to the Jewish next-door neighbours for over a decade because they built an extension against his objection. He grew our privet hedge about a mile high, making it terribly ugly, in an attempt to block out their light.
In my early teens I read James Baldwin who I thought was electrifying, and I thought more seriously about race. It seemed to me right to think of my Dad as a racist, and my Mum as a fence-sitter. Later of course I would read some sociology and grasp the slipperiness of classification by so-called race, but by then the notion of racism, and the fact that it helped to describe something my father was, and I was not, was thoroughly lodged in me.
Now I'm an oldish git with Jewish friends (ranging from Zionist to practising to appalled Palestinian sympathisers) and to be honest, I'm a supporter of the Palestinian cause but don't agree with anti-Israeli boycotts. I suspect the worm of what I find it useful to call 'anti-Semitism' is entwined in there, not that boycotters are anti-Semitic, but that some anti-Israelis aren't confronting their own anti-jewish prejudices, prejudices which aren't going to have dissipated in a generation of earnest people like me. I've been to central Asian countries, for instance, with much worse human rights records than Israel who aren't boycotted, and I think there should be consistency about such a thing. It's a melancholy fact that some right-wing Zionists (for it did after all used to be a socialist cause as well) have begun to conflate criticism of Israel's actions with prejudice against Jews, but in my heart I know some of my fellow lefties are prejudiced in ways they don't want to confront.
Well, this is very personal, but just to say...let's not be glib about race and racism and Jews and Israel.
I recently noticed Peter Hitchens arguing for the use of the term Judeophobia to describe present-day anti-Jewish sentiment, to distinguish it from the anti-Semitism of the Nazis. I agree that the prejudices are different today, but personally I think the term anti-Semitism is fine, because as it is we use it variously to describe, for example, the racialism of the Nazis as well as the religious bigotry of the Russian pogroms.
Given that, we can still think of a racist action as one that treats one or more people badly because the action's author has decided those people belong to a category of the author's own invention, and the author dislikes people that belong to that invented category, or regards them as inferior. Hence identifying an action as racist does not imply acceptance that race is meaningful, but only that the author of the action thinks it is meaningful.
I prefer to talk in terms of racist actions rather than racist people, because I believe that racism, as part of a more general rejection of the Other, is instinctive to humans (as it is to nearly all animals), and is reduced to the extent that people become educated and civilized. Some people have been far more successful than others in liberating themselves from such innate prejudices, but I doubt anybody has been entirely successful.
Traditional way is that if your mother is Jewish or you convert to Judaism then you are a Jew. There was never a claim that Jews could be identified genetically or biologically. Jews are members of a religion.
Because of relatively low amount of converts and the long history many Jews do share certain genetic traits, and a cultural history but it's quite diverse and depends a lot on where they are from.
To say that race doesn't exist therefore Jews don't exist is completely mistaken.
One difficulty with trying to define Judaism solely in terms of religion is that what defines a religion is almost as energetically debated a topic as this one. Another is that, even under a very broad definition of religion, it would have trouble encompassing non-religious or even anti-religious people that I believe would self-identify as Jewish - such as Stephen Fry, Noam Chomsky and Woody Allen. It would also exclude people that are generally considered as Jewish despite being members of a religion that explicitly makes claims that are in conflict with those of the Jewish religion, such as Felix Mendelssohn.
My impression is that in modern usage, the term 'Jewish', when used positively, refers to people that self-identify as Jews. There is a strong correlation between such self-identification and religious practices, cultural practices and ancestry, but none of those three on their own accurately match the group. When used negatively by an anti-Jewish person, it refers to anybody that the person doesn't like and that they think of as Jewish. I don't think there would be hope of getting any coherent definition from such a person as to what they meant by Jewish. They would likely contradict themselves from one day to the next, as well as contradicting each other.
It was claimed by charleton in this post:
Yes I wouldn't define them based on religion. Most Jews would determine whether someone is Jewish based on conversion or descent (for orthodox only maternal descent is used, other traditions allow paternal). These are the necessary conditions, it's not enough for someone to decide that they are Jewish.
Anyway the main point was not to define them, rather just the claim that Jew was never intended to be a natural category so claiming that like race it isn't one, is off the mark.
Yet the high court in Israel did. A Jew who converted to Christianity lost rights only reserved for Jewish citizens of Israel.
The word "Jew" (like all words) will vary by context, with legal definitions, religious definitions, vernacular definitions in various countries, and racist definitions all varying. I think Hitler (conversation over, Hitler's been cited) defined Jews as having any grandparent Jewish. That definition might not have been shared by many, but it was of critical importance if you were so designated.
None of this diminishes anyone's Jewishness. It's just points out the inherent ambiguity of words.
Persuasive definitions of course, one of which was codified into law in Israel. Just pointing out that apparently a lot of Jewish Israelis in 1970 thought religious Judaism was more important than simple descent, because regardless of descent, if you convert to another religion you're no longer a Jew according to that law.
I wonder then how many Jews are out there who converted around the time of Jesus. I guess they'd still be Jews.
Of course, the law in Israel seems to vary from that as you've pointed out. I'd also point out that further complications have arisen when a non-Jew converts through the Reform movement, the Orthodox won't recognize that conversion.
All I know is that I'm a true blue Jew, which is all I need to know.
That's a very good point, with an interesting historical context. All the original Jesus followers were Jews. From what I've read on the early years of Christianity - mostly John Shelby Spong - the Jews who followed Jesus very much considered themselves Jews, and considered their religion either a part of the Jewish one, or a natural evolution of it.
Tensions arose between the Jesus-following Jews and the non-Jesus-following Jews, which escalated and I think the former got kicked out, in some sense, after a few decades when the non-Jesus-following Jews gained enough power in the institutional religion, and were motivated enough to take that step.
Just think what a different world it would have been if that had not happened, and Christianity had remained a part of Judaism. All those centuries of persecution, predicated on Jews being 'other' and 'Christ-killers', might not have happened. On the other hand, maybe not: being part of the same umbrella religion doesn't seem to stop radical Wahhabi Muslims from killing Shiite Muslims.
The definition that, once a Jew, you remain a Jew unless you convert to another religion works for me, because it allows Woody Allen to still be considered one - since he appears to be an atheist. It rules out Felix Mendelssohn, who was a Christian, but his Jewish heritage is not a major part of people's perception of him.
However, conversion to Christianity didn't save people from the hatred of Jew-haters like Richard Wagner or the Nazis.
Anyway, if Jew is defined for the purpose of a law I don't think it counts as the definition of a Jew, it's defined for a utility. For instance, US Supreme Court defined Jews as a race to include them in anti discrimination laws.
EDIT: Also as @Hanover mentioned according to the religion Jews who convert are still part of the Jewish religion. So the consideration to exclude the Jews who converted would probably be based on reasons outside of whether they were technically part of the Jewish religion.
Or religions in general. One of the distinguishing factors between a religion and a cult I would say.
To link back to the original conversation, this and the previous comment illustrate why political positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are separable from the issue of anti-semitism. In fact, it's usually the anti-semite who ascribes some monolithic political view to Jews - generally an avaricious or malicious one.
That would be true if a lot of other laws didn't tie into this one and its definition of Jew and then continue to reserve rights for Jewish Israelis only. A lot of institutionalised discrimination is the result.
I find it all the more remarkable considering Hanover just argued there isn't consensus on "who's a Jew" between the various interpretations of Judaism. Well, maybe not so remarkable as it was made up by politicians. That's just asking for trouble.
There is plenty of discrimination in Israel but no need to exaggerate it. The law of return itself makes a lot of sense considering history. Yes only those of a specific religion get to take advantage of it and immigrate to Israel with Israeli government help. They can't just have open immigration borders, and as an example, it was about 3/4 of the Dutch Jewish population (roughly 100, 000 people) that died in the Holocaust.
Equally happy to generally avoid them here. Let's call it a day then.
Well, this makes the point of why the question of who is a Jew so significant, or maybe more generally, what makes the concept of Jewishness so significant. It's one thing to say that you must be Jewish to be significant in Israeli society and quite another to say that the culture must remain distinctly Jewish. The former is exclusionary, while the latter only dictates the cultural norms. If the French wish to set forth how the French ought to preserve their culture, no one will claim they are undemocratic, although it's clear their Muslim population (for example) might have its objection.
So, if Israel wishes to legislate that their nation is to have Jewish values and norms and to be identified as a Jewish state, that will not be undemocratic per se, but it will obviously create a culture entirely unpalatable to its Palestinian population, as they'll look at it as just another act of imperialism.
Obviously Arab nations identify themselves as Arab nations, and Jews would not be permitted to alter the culture in those nations, which is not an aside. It offers a reason for Israel's existence, namely that a historically oppressed people be given a haven for self-determination that they would otherwise not have. And truly, if not for the US likely providing a safer haven for Jews than Israel, Israel would be all that more important. It's also fairly clear at this point that without the US, there'd likely be no Israel at all.
It's not really arguable. The Reform Jews define Jews one way and the Orthodox another. It's a matter of fact. If you convert through the Reform synagogue, no Orthodox rabbi is going to let you lead any part of the service in synagogue (or any other Jewish rite for that matter). The reason he wouldn't is because you're not Jewish to him. You'd just be some strange blonde haired guy wearing a yarmulke.
I agree up to the sentence "the former is exclusionary..." provided these cultural norms aren't institutionalised through law. It's one thing to say "our political party represents Jewish interests" and another if the State enforces narrow interests at the expense of others. I'm not clear how it's in the Israeli Jewish community's interest to prohibit non-Jewish Israelis from buying land in order to protect "Jewish" culture (after the civil war if 1948 this includes land of displaced Palestinians). Or to give certain Jewish Israelis the right to refuse non-Jewish Israelis to live next door. Or to refuse the right of family life for non-Jewish Israelis, meaning they cannot reunite with their families in Israel (of course the right wing is happy for them to leave). It's quite obviously not about culture but about power.
After that you're a bit unclear. Are you saying that the French are right to ban the burkini?
I think H.L.A. Hart basically had the right idea about what makes good law and the ban isn't good law.
I've not looked up all of the claims you've made except this one, mostly because I'm at work and can't spend the time. This one in particular isn't exactly correct. 93% of all of the land in Israel is not privately owned, but is subject to long term leases. The 7% of privately held land can be sold to any citizen, Jewish or not. 69% of the land is owned by the State and 12% is owned by the Development Authority. All of this land can be leased long term to any citizen, Jewish or not. The Jewish National Fund owns the final 12%, and only this land is restricted to be leased long term to Jewish citizens. http://www.buypropertyinisrael.com/article/types-of-land-in-israel
So, 88% of the land is open to every citizen, Jewish or not. The other 12% is owned by the JNF and it apparently is imposing its rules on the leasing of the land. It is a matter of personal opinion I suppose (and how you want to spin this) as to whether this is non-Jewish discrimination or a Jewish set aside to assure Jews, a historically oppressed people, a place to live.
If it is acceptable for Islamic/Arab, Islamic/Persian, Islamic/Asian, or Islamic/African states to define for themselves what an appropriate culture is, why is it unacceptable for Israel to define for itself what an appropriate Jewish culture is?
If it is acceptable for many countries to say, "women must be covered up", and various other things, why is it unacceptable for many other countries to say "women must not be covered up"? What is it about Italian, French, Swiss, Russian, English, Indian, Ugandan, or Dutch culture that rules out efforts of said cultures to maintain themselves in the kind of consistency they wish to have?
There is a tyranny of the minority which is overlooked. If one is having a dinner party for 20, and 2 of the invited guests announce gluten intolerance and veganism, their dietary requirements/preferences are likely to skew the menu significantly. Some shelters in Minnesota specify "no pork" in the donated meals they depend on. The chances of an observant Jew or Moslem eating at a shelter are not zero, but are statistically very small. "No pork" rules out a host of familiar foods which pork eating clients enjoy.
That 93% can be sold to Jewish Israelis but not to non-Jewish Israelis. I did say buy not rent or lease. So the statement was indeed inaccurate but I wouldn't say incorrect. I suppose I shall copy-paste the list of discriminatory laws that was collected here as well. Again.
Here's the first law relevant to this by the way: DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY) LAW
So there's the Development Authority which sold/transferred so that the JNF now owns approximately 13.1% of land in Israel. The Development Authority (later replaced by the Israel Land Administration agency) received land through that law that included land of former non-Jewish inhabitants of the area, that were displaced in 1948. (Or as Ben Gurion already noted in 1948: “There is not a single Jewish village in this country that has not been built on the site of an Arab village.”)
The JNF charter states it can only sell, lease or mortage land to Jewish Isrealis (or just Jews, I'm not sure). So that goes a bit further.
In 2005 there was a ruling that this was discriminatory with regard to leasing. And now, if a non-Jewish Israeli wins a lease from a JNF tender, it must be compensated by the government with an equal size of land. However, the sale of land of 93% of Israel still isn't possible except to Jewish Israelis (and in practice everything is a long lease).
To say that "women must be covered up" is acceptable for them but not for us because it's an unnecessary restriction on personal freedom that flies in the face of modern secular values. Us trying to control how women dress in any way is to follow them down that path. Why should we do that? Are we in a competition to see who can be the most backward here? Aren't we better than that? I mean you've now got French police patrolling beaches and harassing women wearing a type of dress that consists basically of a swimming suit with a hat. It's ridiculous (not to mention insidious in that it mirrors the actions of religious police in Islamic countries like Iran).
The only sensible arguments for banning particular types of dress are practical ones. For example, in the areas of security or communication, e.g. at a bank, no burqas or motorbike helmets or anything that obscures your face. Makes sense. For nurses, teachers, legal witness, no burqas because they inhibit communication in situations where it may be vital. Also makes sense. But the burqini ban in particular is an example of a measure with no practical rationale; it's simply an unjustified attack on a culture, a form of collective punishment driven by fear and ignorance. In other words, the type of law that erodes not protects modern secular democracy.
That seems wrong to me too, but it bears almost no relation to the burqini issue because the majority lose nothing by allowing burqinis to be worn. A more apt analogy for what's happening here would be the majority forcing the Muslim/Jewish minority to eat pork, which is something I presume you would be against.
I would be perfectly fine with this, if it weren't for the fact that the JNF is seriously intertwined with the Israeli government and has first right to any sale of land sold by said government and other legal protections that go beyond it just being a foundation. If the government wouldn't give the JNF special treatment this wouldn't be an issue to me. At most I could then say that the JNF would be discriminatory in its allocation but I would consider the purpose for it - taken in relation to the total land it owns - reasonable.
I didn't read the article this way. I read that only 7% is private and that it could be sold to anyone. The rest is in the hands of the government or JNF, which only leases the land. Maybe you're saying that one day the government will start selling land off and that only Jews will be able to purchase it. That seems inconsistent with the article that said that once land is sold to private interests, it can be sold to anyone. It also seems like that if only 7% has been actually sold throughout the history of Israel's existence, there are no plans for this land sell off. It seems to me that Israel is well aware of the importance of keeping the land secured from the fleeting interests of private investors and so it has regulated 93% of the land by keeping it off the market.
As with everything that has to do with Israeli policy, security concerns are paramount. I get that you believe that racist issues drive Israeli policies, but it's just as easy to see that security issues offer as much explanation as anything else. Israelis are in an incredibly hostile environment, surrounded by people who want their elimination.
You mentioned that democracy and Zionism might be incompatible, when in truth it might be that democracy (at least to the extent everyone receives equal rights) and survival are incompatible. In a democracy, you have to begin with the idea that everyone is supportive of the state at some basic level. It would be suicide to allow subversive elements access to power. I'm less concerned about the race of someone than I am in their beliefs. As long as there remains an anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world, it's hard to abdicate power to Arab interests. I understand that just because one is Arab does not mean they want to eliminate Israel, but it'd be foolish to suggest the correlation doesn't exist.
I'm curious as to what practical effect the JNF leases have on the non-Jewish public. Are non-Jews actually having difficulty finding suitable housing because of the JNF rules, or is this only a matter of principle. In the US, I can't purchase or even live on Native American lands. I have no desire to live in abject poverty in remote South Dakota or various other places out west, but I suppose it's discriminatory at some theoretical level. I know I'm white, but neither I nor my ancestors drove any Native American off his land. In fact, my ancestors found their way over here long after the Indians were displaced, and they arrived here fleeing all sorts of pending horrors of their own.
The 7% was privately owned before 1948, nothing additionaly was sold since then as far as I know (or at least nothing significant to change that percentage). And yes, you're right that if it would be sold to private Jewish Israelis they are then free to do with it as they please and sell to non-Jewish Israelis. I have a problem with discriminatory laws that require a government or one of its agencies to make a distinction based on religion (since they adhere to the definition of Jew in the Law of Return).
Quoting Hanover
I don't know how we can move closer on this particular issue. I don't believe the environment is "incredibly hostile" and that, for instance, Palestinians want Jewish "elimination". They see a rather direct claim to living in what today is Israel because their families were displaced in 1948, they consider themselves occupied and want this to stop, they want to reunite with their families without having to give up the right to live in Israel, which, despite the discrimination, is still their home.
I do agree some Palestinians (and some people in neighbouring countries) wish the worst to Israel but they are hardly the majority but they are dictating the agenda for everybody of good will. In return Israeli right wing politicians are quite... immoral.
I also believe many Jewish Israelis believe the danger is real or at least immediate much like many Europeans now unreasonably fear Syrian refugees and French fear unarmed women in burqinis. It's a lot of misplaced fear that can't be broken by imposing martial law on occupied territories and discriminating against non-Jewish Israelis.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, I stated that because I honestly don't believe you can institutionalise favouring one religious group (again, taking the definition from the Law of Return as repeated by the high Court several times) over others and make a claim to be a democracy. I don't believe there is an existential threat for (Israeli) Jews and if we take apartheid South-Africa and the resolution when that system collapsed as an example, the fear seems misplaced. I think it's sold like an existential threat for political convenience and PR and it plays well because Europe by and large still feels guilty about the Holocaust but it doesn't seem grounded in reality.
Isn't that similar to the sort of hyperbole that fascists spout to push their anti-democratic agendas? "All this democracy, it's just too dangerous!" The fact is that as long as America is standing behind Israel, it can be as democratic as it wants. It may be less secure in some sense, I'll grant, but its survival won't be an issue. As it is the danger is that it will drift further and further away from Western democratic values towards the values of the more extremist regimes it considers its enemies. That's another kind of death, and a more realistic danger, I would think, the way things are headed.
(Edit: Cross-posted with Benkei)
For me it's a matter of principle and it's a good question as to the practical effect. I'm not sure.
Speaking of principle, I should mention that the sale of land by a Palestinian to a Jew is punishable by death. Worse than Israel.
Maybe both parties should simply institute private property and be done with it?
Sometimes it's hyperbole and sometimes it's true. As they say in the US, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact.
"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Thomas Jefferson
A poll by an institute critised for its links with AIPAC. Really? Although it treats with different questions, I think this is very informative (and more trustworthy):
Joint Israeli and Palestinian Poll
Quoting Hanover
Israel can't expect safety when it's occupying land and perpetuating injustice. It's under threat because it's oppressing a lot of people to then complain those people resort to violence is disingenuous. It's also a bad reason not to negotiate a lasting peace, which Israel hasn't seriously pursued since Rabin was murdered.
Moreover, what about the right to live in safety for Palestinians? Statistically speaking they are under more "constant threat" from Israel than the other way around.
Quoting Hanover
Not certain why this post is getting personal to be honest. I've done my best to stay as civil as possible considering my strong opinions on the matter and knowing we don't see eye to eye on this. If I said something to offend you, I don't want to do that. In my view, there simply isn't an existential threat because of the assymetric power relation between Israel and its neighbouring countries and the Palestinians. It's perplexing really, how insecure you seem to be about the safety of Jews in Israel in light of the military and political power Israel wields.
I don't know. As one of the "like minded folks", I thought that by Hanover's standards this comment wasn't particularly harsh (I checked it against the list I keep under my pillow).
And so the point of my post: Those who believe that Israel needn't worry about its existence due to its support from the US also believe that the US shouldn't be supporting it, which means that those same people aren't terribly worried about Israel's existence. My post ended with a question as to whether you agreed with this analysis.
My opinion is that as long as Israel needs support to defend its existence, it should get it. If the US weren't in the picture, Europe should do it (the only caveat would be that no country should expect absolute unconditional support). So, I, for one, don't agree with the analysis.
Well, we sort of did. :D