Yes, what will Sheldon Adelson and the AIPAC talk and what will they make Trump / the next President / the US do?
With the actual state of Israel the matter is different. Likely Israel cannot make a pre-emptive strike on the nuclear weapons program as it could do with Iraq AND the Syrian WMD project (people who don't know about the hit on the Syrian program, see Operation Outside the Box).
The fundamental taboo question is: "Can Israel and Iran have a balance in nuclear deterrence just Russia vs US, China vs US, India vs Pakistan?" I think it obviously yes. Forget the demagoguery of the Middle East, these players will fall in line just as every other country having nuclear weapons has. But naturally the rhetoric HAS TO BE that Iranians are crazy Mullahs hell bent on destroying Israel even if that means that Iran will be destroyed. Yet it doesn't make sense. Never has. But whatever goes in the public discourse. Iranian politicians get likes with rants of destroying Israel and the US politicians will get likes with of rants that Iran poses an existential threat to the US. All that nonsense will continue.
Israel will just loose it's nuclear hegemony and likely it will make it more timid in attacking it's neighbours.
The Israelis still have reason to be worried because it threatens their entire existence.
With having a strong nuclear deterrence, total superiority in the air and basically with their own armed forces being superior to other, having their foes in shambles (Syria in civil war, Egypt just barely hanging there), and having the sole Superpower as an obedient ally ready and wiling to rush to their help? It's not a dire situation as you think.
Sure, they might be worried, the US can be worried by North Korean nukes too, but the fact is that Netanyahu has chosen this low intensity conflict as the normal for Israel. Their mistake was after the Cold War to think that the US wouldn't see them as so important and hence started the Peace process. They had no reason to. The US supports them as fiercely as ever.
. Israel has had several wars where, if it had lost, it would have been finished as a state and its people would have been at the mercy of its enemies.
That indeed in might have happened during their war of Independence. Afterwards, they crushed their enemies quite well. Today is different than 1948.
Even against the "rational" Soviets we came nail-bitingly close to nuclear war and in some cases the choice came down the actual button-pushers. And that was without religion.
And the ugly truth is that actually WW3 didn't happen. Yes, we came close, but we didn't have it.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 12, 2020 at 16:43#3707870 likes
With having a strong nuclear deterrence, total superiority in the air and basically with their own armed forces being superior to other, having their foes in shambles (Syria in civil war, Egypt just barely hanging there), and having the sole Superpower as an obedient ally ready and wiling to rush to their help? It's not a dire situation as you think.
We're talking about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
but the fact is that Netanyahu has chosen this low intensity conflict as the normal for Israel.
Israel funds anti-Iranian regime groups and Iran funds anti-Israel groups. If Iran were to withdraw support from Hezbollah and Hamas I'd suspect there could be serious inroads made to normalizing relations.
That indeed in might have happened during their war of Independence. Afterwards, they crushed their enemies quite well. Today is different than 1948.
I understand that Israel won in 1948, 1967, and 1973. I also understand that there were no nuclear strikes between the US-USSR during the cold war or for the matter India-Pakistan.
You seem to regard these facts as inevitabilities though, and I'd like to push back against that notion. If we embrace free will we should understand that there could have been a nuclear holocaust and we've basically just got lucky that it hasn't happened. We should view our current situation as extremely fortunate. There were many, many critical junction points where things could have gone differently both in regard to a nuclear holocaust and Israel's victories in '48, '67, and '73. You know that in 1967 Israel did a very controversial pre-emptive strike against the Egyptians which took out their air force. It was hotly debated. Israeli tank commanders outmanuevered their enemies in tanks battles in 1973 despite being outnumbered; it was not a certain victory.
What do you think about this view of history?
To me it seems obvious that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is a pretty major national security concern for Israel. The question is to what to extent Israel should go to prevent this from happening.
I understand that Israel won in 1948, 1967, and 1973.
Also 1956. During the Suez crisis Israel performed it's part without any problems.
And don't forget Operation "Peace for Galilee" in 1982, the swift occupation of Lebanon and the defeat of Syria in that conflict. If in 1973 the Soviet lead ground based air defence had brought some losses to the Israeli Air Force, the dominance of Israeli air power in 1982 was totally clear. The Syrian air force was shot from the sky: 85 shot down vs. no losses to Israel.
(Line up of Israeli F-15 fighters with their kill marks after 1982.)
The 2006 Lebanese-Isreali Border War has been the only example were the Israelis haven't been so extremely successful, but in all it cannot be regarded as a failure.
What you doesn't change the fact that as time has gone on, Israel has achieved dominance over it's neighbours. And let's remember that two of it's four neighbouring states have made peace with it. Two are totally unable to make peace as they don't now control fully their areas, even if Israel wanted to make peace.
(Sharing a cigarette after making peace. Although later an Israeli religious fanatic killed Prime Minister Rabin because of his Peace efforts. Making peace can be deadly for politicians, being a hawk is easier.)
The bottom line is that Israel is part of the First World and it's neighbours are part of Third.
And Iran? There the truth is that for Iran opposing Israel is an ideological issue, not an existential issue, the countries aren't even close to one other. Opposing Israel goes to heart of the revolutionary zeal of the Islamic Republic.
And this is why you see demonstrations in Tehran. Perhaps it's difficult for some to understand that some in the young population of Iran would be themselves tired of their country being involved in conflicts in other countries, just as some Americans are tired of their country being the Global policeman and getting it's nose into every conflict there is. The revolutionary fervour has long since toned down in Iran and been replaced an official line. Many Iranians have a better view of the US than actually people in the West think.
Few dozen cruise missiles can naturally change that, if the neocons get their way.
Sharing a cigarette after making peace. Although later an Israeli religious fanatic killed Prime Minister Rabin because of his Peace efforts. Making peace can be deadly for politicians, being a hawk is easier.)
The so-called Doves get killed in the Middle East. While basically the ranting hate-speachers (who typically haven't been themselves anywhere near a frontline) prosper there.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 13, 2020 at 21:55#3712360 likes
Thank you for the history lesson complete with pictures. It was really tragic what happened with Rabin.
For the sake of our discussion, I've mostly been referring to Iran. I think we both know that Iran is no push over militarily speaking. In regard to the nuclear threat, a good way to measure risk is to take into account both the odds of X happening as well as the amount of damage caused by X. In the case of nuclear war the odds of a nuclear strike by Iran are small (I think we both agree that it's small, but we probably disagree on how small. 1% and .00001% are both small but very, very different figures.) The amount of damage would of course be unfathomable. I'd be interested to see if you'd be willing to throw out a % here within the next 50-100 years that either Iran or a nuclear weapon from Iran is used against Israel.
There the truth is that for Iran opposing Israel is an ideological issue, not an existential issue,
I would question this; members of the Iranian government or groups close to and funded by Iran have repeatedly supported the destruction of Israel. The destruction of a Jewish state and its replacement by an Islamic one would be a HUGE win on a religious front for nearly the entire Islamic world including Iran. Here's a few examples:
Khamenei: “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.” (2014)
Hossein Salami, the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guard: "We will chase you [Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood of our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat." (2014)
Salami: "Today we are aware of how the Zionist regime is slowly being erased from the world, and indeed, soon, there will be no such thing as the Zionist regime on Planet Earth." (2014)
Hossein Sheikholeslam, the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada: "The issue of Israel's destruction is important, no matter the method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini and the Leader [Khamenei] on the issue of destroying the Zionists. The region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it ..." (2014)
Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard: "The Revolutionary Guards will fight to the end of the Zionist regime ... We will not rest easy until this epitome of vice is totally deleted from the region's geopolitics." (2015)
Make no mistake about it; Zionism is inseparable from the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. If Zionism falls Israel falls.
Iran doesn't recognize Israel and funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these groups carry out intentional attacks on civilians and the Hamas isn't remotely shy about wanting Israel wiped from the map. How about the risk of Iran proliferating the nuclear weapons to one of these groups?
At the end of the day, I want to stay optimistic. I have no qualms towards the people of Iran, only the leadership. Neither of us have the inside scoop about their actual intentions, but based on rhetoric and ideology there is cause for concern. Do not underestimate the force of religious ideology. Mutually assured destruction might be insane by western standards, but radical Islam has a strong record of self-sacrifice for the greater cause.
Make no mistake about it; Zionism is inseparable from the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. If Zionism falls Israel falls.
Iran doesn't recognize Israel and funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these groups carry out intentional attacks on civilians and the Hamas isn't remotely shy about wanting Israel wiped from the map. How about the risk of Iran proliferating the nuclear weapons to one of these groups?
At the end of the day, I want to stay optimistic. I have no qualms towards the people of Iran, only the leadership. Neither of us have the inside scoop about their actual intentions, but based on rhetoric and ideology there is cause for concern. Do not underestimate the force of religious ideology. Mutually assured destruction might be insane by western standards, but radical Islam has a strong record of self-sacrifice for the greater cause.
Neither is Zionist Israel, like its main ruling party Likud, shy about annexing the West Bank but nobody seems to worry about the existential threat to Palestinians. The difference is that Israel is continuing with settlements and annexation yet no Arab country has attacked Israel for over how many years?
If there is something that ought to fall, it is the Zionist agenda and the concept of Israel as a Jewish state that makes second rate citizens of non-Jewish Israelis. It's a racist country and Zionism is what informs that racism.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 14, 2020 at 18:47#3714810 likes
I really shouldn't respond to this since you display no understanding on what Zionism actually is. It has nothing to do with race. Jews aren't a race. If you don't believe the Jews deserve self-determination or a "safe space" given history then you're either ignorant, uncaring, or anti-semitic.
I'm a non-religious Jew. My best friend in college was an ardent Zionist. In 1972 he spent a year in Israel traveling around and working on a kibbutz. When he came back he said to me: "We [meaning us Jews] blew it. We should never have tried to move into a place with a large hostile population. We should have moved into Tierra del Fuego - or maybe Newfoundland".
I feel conflicted about Israel. I empathize with the emotions that drive Zionism. I remember feeling so proud as a teenager after the '67 War - we took on the enemy and crushed them - and if there were ever another war I would be rooting for Israel. A defeat would be catastrophic.
That said, my feeling is that an historical mistake was made by making Israel the country of the Jewish people. It could have been declared a Jewish homeland (i.e. preserve the Right of Return) but otherwise a secular democracy. Whether this would have worked is anyone's guess.
As it is, Israel is never going to be a "safe space" - and the fate of the Palestinian people is an ongoing tragedy with no end in sight.
I really shouldn't respond to this since you display no understanding on what Zionism actually is. It has nothing to do with race. Jews aren't a race. If you don't believe the Jews deserve self-determination or a "safe space" given history then you're either ignorant, uncaring, or anti-semitic.
Fuck you for pulling the anti-semitic card when it's quite clear I take issue with the discrimination in Israel of non-Jewish Israeli citizens as a result of Jews and their Supreme Court upholding discriminatory laws, which is as much informed by culture as a conceptual race that they think entitles them to the annexation of the West Bank as part of the Promised Land. It's within the language of "the descendants of Abraham" and the "Jewish people" as opposed to, let's say, people of the Jewish faith.
If you don't see the racist undertones and indeed the racism and fascism of Begin and his Herut party and it's influence on Likud to this day then you're probably biased.
I am deeply pessimistic about the future of Israel. I don't see any workable solution - the two sides are too far apart. They're gonna have to get sick & tired of killing each other before any compromise is possible.
Of course, at the rate things are going, global warming & the associated climate change will likely make the whole region uninhabitable - thus solving the problem.
It would make me very happy to be wrong about all this.
As it is, Israel is never going to be a "safe space" - and the fate of the Palestinian people is an ongoing tragedy with no end in sight.
A lot of those who have been there, like many blue berets that have been in Lebanon, share your pessimistic view. I see no easy way out here at all.
You see, the ugly truth is that in order for this to change, just to look at Europe. Just ask yourself, how did the French and the Germans forget about Alsace-Lorraine (or Elsass Lothringen in German)? How did these bitter rivals get so friendly? Simple answer: they fought two extremely bloody World Wars that afterward made it impossible to anyone getting hyped in a jingoistic fashion about some stupid geographical area. Europeans learned something only after millions of dead. Not before.
(The Black Stain. French schoolboys being taught about the lost provinces. Jingoism Pre-WW I.
The fact is that even if the conventional wars fought by Israel and the Arabs have been (nearly) all out wars, the losses haven't been catastrophic. It never has been a fight to the other one's destruction. They wars haven't bred war weariness at all. Just look at how religious people get all hyped up about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Somewhere else it would be considered utter stupidity.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 14, 2020 at 21:20#3715750 likes
I don't even know why you're engaging me; are you seriously trying to change my mind or are you just looking to exchange insults? If you're going to pull the "zionism is racism" card then I'm going to pull the "anti-semitic" card and believe me I still hold the "nazi" card and I'm waiting for my chance. I guess you hold the nazi card too. We could just call each other nazis totally incapable of reasoning and be done with it.
In any case I don't agree with everything the Israeli government has done. Obviously. You can criticize settlement expansion and still be a Zionist.
All Zionism is about is establishing a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel. I can't tell if you're an angry white liberal with no real personal stake or history with the conflict or if you're an Arab who has a personal connection to it and to whom I would actually relate to a little better.
In any case no one's really changing minds here so.... great use of time.
If you're going to pull the "zionism is racism" card then I'm going to pull the "anti-semitic" card and believe me I still hold the "nazi" card and I'm waiting for my chance. I guess you hold the nazi card too. We could just call each other nazis totally incapable of reasoning and be done with it.
All Zionism is about is establishing a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel.
Which is a racist enterprise. It wouldn't be if it would be a state of Israel that would be safe for Jews with equal rights for all Israeli citizens. Instead we have the discriminatory bullshit that is the Israeli state pretending to be a western style democracy. Not to mention the fascist right wing of the Likud party that anyone with a modicum of historic interest would be aware of. Just read what Arendt and Einstein had to say about Begin and Herut.
The distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis is enshrined in Israeli Law, confirmed by the Supreme Court on December 25, 1989, of which a judge said eleven days later in Ha'aretz: “The essence of a Jewish state is to give preeminence to Jews as Jews. Anyone who asks … for equality to all its citizens … must be rejected as one who negates the existence of the Israeli state as the state of the Jewish people.”
It's not just about the settlements, it's about the inherent racism that "God's chosen" exhibit and the laws they have passed to ensure it and the courts who uphold it.
VagabondSpectreJanuary 14, 2020 at 22:16#3715950 likes
All Zionism is about is establishing a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel.
The historic...
What is this? Government by Torah?
Palestine belongs to the Jewish religion I guess. The homes and lives of the illegal aliens who have been squatting there for the last 1000 years have no rights I guess...
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 14, 2020 at 22:18#3715970 likes
Israel has widespread anti-discrimination legislation. Of course there are problems, but so does every other country.
You're using an anti-semitic trope here. You seem like a sharp guy, so you should know this is an anti-semitic trope:
it's about the inherent racism that "God's chosen"
Nice quote cherry-picking one judge from 1989. I'm sure you really dug through the texts to find that one.
But you're right that Israel is a Jewish state, just as many Islamic countries base their own governments on Islamic texts.... but of course you're all over those and accuse Pakistan, Malaysia, UAE, Egypt, etc. of racism all the time and demand the destruction of their states too.
Israel has widespread anti-discrimination legislation. Of course there are problems, but so does every other country.
It's not "problems". You are downplaying the institutionalised racism and discrimination perpetrated by the Jewish state which relegates non-Jewish citizens to second class citizens.
If Jewish identity is the raison d'être of Israel, this must lead to discrimination. Once you place one group of people above others, it is inescapable. And that is the implicit logic of zionism. Israel is the only country in the world that divides its citizenry by having a difference between the Jewish nationality (which every Jew in the world has) and Israeli citizenship. Many government funded programs are only accessible to Israeli citizens with the Jewish nationality.
The 1989 quote was important because that concerned commentary on the case where a Jewish man who converted to Christianity lost the benefits of government funded programs. The Supreme Court upheld it and thus enshrined discrimination based on religious persuasion as legally acceptable. That's basically illegal in every meaningful democracy in the world, as they have something or other equivalent to the second article of the universal declaration of human rights.
[quote=article 2]Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.[/quote]
But you're right that Israel is a Jewish state, just as many Islamic countries base their own governments on Islamic texts.... but of course you're all over those and accuse Pakistan, Malaysia, UAE, Egypt, etc. of racism all the time and demand the destruction of their states too.
We're talking about Israel so this is really besides the point. Nevertheless, Israel likes to pretend it's a Western style democracy. Don't you think it's pathetic you need to compare Israel to autocratic regimes to make it look good? Necessary for sure, because Israel is neither a real democracy nor a Western country.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 15, 2020 at 19:11#3719170 likes
I don't really feel like continuing this argument with you because I don't know what the purpose of it is. I am just curious where you heard the "chosen people" line. Are you from the US? It's interesting because we were just talking about Israel and then you threw that in... I'm just a little interested in where it all comes from. Getting an honest view of where you're coming from would probably be the most valuable thing that I could take away from this conversation.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos I'm well aware that the religious and philosophical treatise of the concept of a chosen people is rather different and less negative (apart from the obvious ethnocentrism) than its political counterpart, which is why it was in quotation marks. The ultra-nationalist usage of the concept by Herut and nowadays an influential part of Likud (including Netanyahu) is definitely a racist concept of it, which informs its fantasy claims of all the land from the sea to the banks of the river Jordan and justifies passing laws discriminating against non-Jewish Israeli citizens, because Jews are "special" in their view.
The only relevant background in this case is that I graduated in international and European law, with a special interest in terrorism and as a consequence also modern history of the Middle East.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 15, 2020 at 22:04#3719560 likes
Just curious, do you think Jews were treated as equals in pre-1948 Palestine? Were they safe? Are Israel's neighbors Jewish populations treated as equals?
Demographically - at least in terms of immigration - it should go without saying that if Israel wishes to remain a Jewish state it needs to reflect that with immigration.
Judaism isn't a race though and there's no such thing as a "Jewish nationality" which you referenced earlier. You keep calling it racist for some reason when anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of race.
Just curious, do you think Jews were treated as equals in pre-1948 Palestine? Were they safe? Are Israel's neighbors Jewish populations treated as equals?
Again. Appealing to what autocratic regimes do to make Israel look good is not the argument you want to be making here.
Demographically - at least in terms of immigration - it should go without saying that if Israel wishes to remain a Jewish state it needs to reflect that with immigration.
I'm not talking about immigration now am I? Every country discriminates between citizens and non-citizens.
Judaism isn't a race though and there's no such thing as a "Jewish nationality" which you referenced earlier. You keep calling it racist for some reason when anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of race.
There's most definitely a difference. Jewish nationality is recognised based on descent (blood) and gives right to Israeli citizenship and other government funded programs for Jews only. For non-Jews Israeli citizenship is only reserved based on the fact they are born in Israel. The distinction based on religion is institutionalised. As far as immigration goes, that's not an issue. It's an issue that once you're both Israeli citizens, the Jewish citizen gets preferential treatment.
As to the racism part, I think I've repeated myself enough about how Herut and Likud conceive of the notion. Race is, in any case, not a biological concept but a social one. Apartheid wouldn't have been racist if we'd adhered to the biological concept of race, yet we all agree it was racist. It's only the perpetuated collective guilt trip the West is still on that we have such problems with saying the same about the institutionalised discrimination in Israel; that it is, in fact, racist.
Reply to ssu I was referring to the treatment of Jews in neighbouring countries. It's in any case all a red herring/tu quoque. It's not about what others do and have done but what's happening in Israel. Just because others are racist pricks, doesn't excuse us to do the same.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 16, 2020 at 11:13#3721880 likes
i dont have time to fully respond now but i'll respond later. no, my point wasn't "oh the arabs treat jews like this therefore it's ok." the point i'm trying to get at is that part of the drive behind zionism was to establish a safe space for jews where they wouldn't be at the mercy of other powers. if we're going to make any progress in this convo you need to start thinking of zionism as an idea as opposed to how israel's right wing acts. one is a political party, the other is an idea with deep roots and is often identified with theodore hertzl.
how likud acts is a different discussion than the discussion on the essential idea of zionism which is older than likud. is the idea of a jewish state in palestine an inherently racist one - or at least any more "racist" than the idea of a muslim state? if you just want to say that all states that seek to maintain a certain religious character are racist then i actually think in some way we've made progress because we've clarified your position.
and for the record israel is not surrounded by autocracies, case in point lebanon. it's a troubled parliamentary republic and not fair to call an autocracy.
EDIT: I read what you said a few posts back which was that zionism was not an inherently racist enterprise. good, and i definitely agree that there's some problems but the reality is complicated and certain benefits are given for having served in the military which is compulsory for jews but not for muslims. certainly in america too veterans are entitled to benefits. i don't live in israel and presumably neither do you, i live in america which you could also call racist. the reality of israel's legal system is very complicated and you should probably talk to an israeli lawyer about it. i don't defend everything 100% but the existence of racial problems or inequalities doesn't mean we need to damn the entire country.
i dont have time to fully respond now but i'll respond later. no, my point wasn't "oh the arabs treat jews like this therefore it's ok." the point i'm trying to get at is that part of the drive behind zionism was to establish a safe space for jews where they wouldn't be at the mercy of other powers. if we're going to make any progress in this convo you need to start thinking of zionism as an idea as opposed to how israel's right wing acts. one is a political party, the other is an idea with deep roots and is often identified with theodore hertzl.
Fair enough. But I think that merely explains why Israel is the way it is, it doesn't excuse institutionalised racism. The State of Israel doesn't need to be a Jewish state, with special treatment for Jewish people, to be safe for Jews. In which Western EU country are Jews currently unsafe?
I maintain that Zionism is implicitly racist as its factual implementation requires you to treat one group of people different than others; no matter how historically understandable it is, it is still racist. If I were beaten by my father as a child, how does that excuse me to beat my son or another? We might understand where my aggression comes from, but it doesn't excuse my aggression in any way.
how likud acts is a different discussion than the discussion on the essential idea of zionism which is older than likud. is the idea of a jewish state in palestine an inherently racist one - or at least any more "racist" than the idea of a muslim state? if you just want to say that all states that seek to maintain a certain religious character are racist then i actually think in some way we've made progress because we've clarified your position.
This really depends on the facts on the ground. A country where the majority are Muslims could be considered a Muslim country. If Muslims in no way are treated differently by the State than non-Muslims, on the basis of their religious persuasion then it's not a country that suffers form institutionalised discrimination. To the extent religion coincides with ethnicity, as it does in Israel, it would make sense to speak about racism or not.
That said, I find it hard to conceive of a country actively promoting a specific religious or ethnic character without resorting to discriminatory policies. So with the caveat that we need to look at the actual facts to be certain, I suspect they would always be racist if religion coincides with ethnicity.
I also think how Likud acts is part of the discussion because they are a political party causing real world effects based on their view of zionism. It doesn't matter what "zionism really is", which has different theological interpretation in any case, it matters what is done in its name. Considering how long Likud has been in power, 22 years of the 24 since 1996, their version of zionism is what has been largely implemented in Israel in recent history. Which is not to say other parties did not have a hand in bringing about the existing laws in Israel. It's just that Likud's particular brand of zionism is obviously racist as opposed to the "racist by (unintended?) consequence" resulting from the understandable wish to have a safe space for Jews.
and for the record israel is not surrounded by autocracies, case in point lebanon. it's a troubled parliamentary republic and not fair to call an autocracy.
I maintain that Zionism is implicitly racist as its factual implementation requires you to treat one group of people different than others; no matter how historically understandable it is, it is still racist
There was a time and place for Zionism, just as there has been a time and place for romantic nationalism to many people when acquiring a nation-state of their own (including my own). These kind of ideologies do have also positive aspects like creating social cohesion, but now days typically are just seen as inherently bad things that only promote racism, intolerance and hatred. Basically something evil.
Yet just look around the World and one should notice that those people that don't have an own state are typically repressed and looked down upon. If it's difficult to understand for affluent Westerners just why would something like an own homeland be a positive thing, then just ask the Kurds how they feel about not having an own country. And how Kurds are treated in the World stage.
Yet just how Zionist is Israel today? From meeting Israelis and what I gather from reading I think they are quite the same as everybody else, quite critical about the politics in their own country and perhaps not as polarized as the Americans, but still. A bunch of religious zealots may have gotten into a position where they operate and have influence above their own weight class, but so it's in the US too. Are there Jews who think that they are better than others as God's chosen people? Sure, but then you find those annoying people everywhere who think they are somehow better than others.
Hence I wouldn't call it Zionism, it's not so relevant as it was let's say after ww2 and during the Israeli war of independence. I would say that the state of Israel has basically adapted to a perpetual low intensity conflict. Hamas or Hezbollah lob some rockets into Israel, Iron Dome works (if it's just your typica variant of al Katyusha-rocket) and then Israel responds with air strikes. Tit for tat. And life goes on. It's the new normal of a conflict becoming the ordinary way of things.
Yet just look around the World and one should notice that those people that don't have an own state are typically repressed and looked down upon. If it's difficult to understand for affluent Westerners just why would something like an own homeland be a positive thing, then just ask the Kurds how they feel about not having an own country. And how Kurds are treated in the World stage.
What? Like the Sami? Not having an own state isn't the cause of repression: living in a state with institutionalised racism causes it or if it cannot uphold the rule of law.
The Kurds are an oppressed people. If they wouldn't be oppressed they'd probably wouldn't have a wish to have an independent country.
And it's not that Jews don't have a right to a safe country, it's that they discriminate their own citizenry. It's also not about the average Israeli being critical or sceptical of their political class, it's the actual policies that create second class citizens. That is all caused by the implementation of the State of Israel having to be a Jewish state. That sounds pretty zionist to me.
Far better treatment for +50 000 Sami people than for the 30-40 million Kurds. Besides, If the Sami would be 1 million people in the nothern parts of the Nordic countries, likely yes, they would have had an independent country long time ago. There as stubborn as Finns are (and totally unrecognizable from Finns without their traditional drees). When there's a will and unity and enough people, there's a way.
Not having an own state isn't the cause of repression: living in a state with institutionalised racism causes it or if it cannot uphold the rule of law.
Living in any country where you are considered "other" can be problematic, even if it isn't really institutionalized.
The Kurds are an oppressed people. If they wouldn't be oppressed they'd probably wouldn't have a wish to have an independent country.
I disagree. How oppressed are the Scots now? Many of them want an Independent country.
Perhaps we ought to give Netherland back to Spain. I gather that they can behave better this time around and won't oppress you. You don't need Mark Rutte, Pedro Sanchez in Madrid will do just fine.
This is an entirely different issue and is more about international law than Israeli internal laws and policies.
Actually it isn't. Especially when you are talking about 'institutionalized' issues, meaning what the goverment does and implements by law. The focus is security, not zionism. It's security issues that are in the forefront when the dealing of the Palestinians in Israel. It is security issues that have made Gaza into what it is today.
CiceronianusJanuary 16, 2020 at 22:53#3723460 likes
Fools rush in, it's said.
It may be one of my many peculiarities that I think this way, but I wonder whether it's significant, in considering any claim to a "homeland," that a Jewish state, or nation, or kingdom, has existed in the area of Palestine for perhaps about 300 years in the last 3,000 years? Granting that there is and should be an Israel, is this pertinent to whether it should be where it was, in fact, established?
It's been contended that the Jews conquered land there and held it as a kingdom(s) (Judea and Israel) around 1,000 BCE. The Assyrians took over around 700 BCE, Babylon took control around 600 BCE and subsequently destroyed the Temple. Then came the Babylonian exile, which ended when Cyrus the Great took over around 500 BCE, and the Achmaemenid emperors ruled there until Alexander conquered Palestine and lots of other places around 330 BCE, Then the Seleucid Empire ruled until the Jewish Hasmoneans gained their independence, briefly, around 100 BCE, at which time Rome became dominant in the area and the Jewish kingdom became, briefly, a client or vassal of the Romans, but then was made a province, or part of one. Two Jewish revolts were then crushed by the Romans, one by Vespasian and his son Titus, and one by Hadrian which led to the destruction of the second Temple.
Rome controlled the area and continued to do so through its Eastern remnant until the 7th century CE, at which time Muslim rule began, with a lapse of about 200 years when the Crusader kingdoms ruled, and continued. Israel was established in 1948.
Under such circumstances, what is the basis for a claim that Israel was established in the Jewish "homeland"?
I disagree. How oppressed are the Scots now? Many of them want an Independent country.
Yes, I'm well aware which is why I said probably. And do you expect the Scots to then discriminate between the English and Scottish Scots living in Scotland based on their ethnicity? Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally?
Perhaps we ought to give Netherland back to Spain. I gather that they can behave better this time around and won't oppress you. You don't need Mark Rutte, Pedro Sanchez in Madrid will do just fine.
You're saying that to the wrong person! I really couldn't care less whether it would be Spain or a centralised EU government as long as it results in a fair society.
The focus is security, not zionism. It's security issues that are in the forefront when the dealing of the Palestinians in Israel. It is security issues that have made Gaza into what it is today.
Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and I've been talking about citizens all this time. They are different things. The institutionalised racism is informed by ultra nationalism and zionism, not the security issue.
Reply to Ciceronianus the White That claim is of course a religious one. People can believe what they want but they shouldn't expect it to be an argument for people who don't share their religion or are an atheist.
The legal claim is the Balfour declaration and subsequent UN declarations and the fact the country has been internationally recognised by other States.
Yes, I'm well aware which is why I said probably. And do you expect the Scots to then discriminate between the English and Scottish Scots living in Scotland based on their ethnicity? Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally?
Let me give you another example. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia. There wasn't any violence, any oppression and actually no popular push for the dissolution. In fact, Slovakia just wanted the state to be a loose confederation, while the Czech leadership wanted a tighter federation. Only a small minority wanted the dissolution of the state (in a September 1992 opinion poll, only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favoured dissolution). There was just disagreement on what state would be, yet this velvet divorce happened. This just undermines your "if there is no oppression, people are fine living together" argument.
Basically there has to be some kind of a bond. Just like English and the Scots have the identity of being British, which has worked at least for now. Just like with a marriage, it doesn't work if you just assume that the "I do" in Church years ago is enough. You have to work to keep people together.
You're saying that to the wrong person! I really couldn't care less whether it would be Spain or a centralised EU government as long as it results in a fair society.
This explains your view a lot. Then the next question is what would you define as fair and what as oppression? Would it be oppression if every fifth euro you pay taxes would go to Spain as wealth transfer or would it have to be Spanish troops coming to your home and taking away that nice piano you have? What is fair and what is oppressive is a slippery slope.
Reply to ssu It's not that the things you're bringing up aren't interesting in themselves but they have little to do with the subject at hand. Yes, in some cases fairness and oppression (especially if you're not very collectivist minded) can be muddled. However, in the case of Israel the treatment by the State of non-Jewish citizens is quite well documented and obviously racist. See for instance: https://www.english.acri.org.il/publications
Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and I've been talking about citizens all this time. They are different things. The institutionalised racism is informed by ultra nationalism and zionism, not the security issue.
Really? So what are the one million,one fifth of the Israeli citizens that have Israeli citizenship, but assume that their nationality is Palestinian? Some of the non-Jewish people can indeed live in Israel with just a permanent residence, but many are citizens.
So what's the difference between the non-Jewish resident that lived in after 1949 on Israel and one that lived in the West Bank? Especially if after 1967 the person on the West Bank took the offered Israeli citizenship.
Yes, there's oppression. But my argument that it's done for the sake of security. Only for a minority it's Zionism and racism.
The erosion of democracy is manifested in a range of
interdependent initiatives: an attempt to erode the power, authority and activity of
"gatekeepers" - the institutions that make up the democratic structure and constitute the
set of checks and balances that are vital to democracy and ensure the rule of law, good
governance, the protection of human rights and minorities, and the elimination of
corruption and the tyranny of the majority; an attempt to silence critical voices of the
government, including silencing public criticism expressed by social or political minorities;
an attempt to delegitimize political opponents, human rights organizations and minorities;
an attempt to restrict the actions of those holding up to positions that are inconsistent
with those of the political majority; and portraying the minorities in the Israeli society in a generalized manner as enemies of the state, while legitimizing the violation of their civil and political rights.
Portraying the minorities as enemy of state, which is most like written between the lines and not directly, is a symptom of the present conflict. Martial laws are in every country quite undemocratic and do fringe civil rights. The problem in Israel is that when the country is in permament low intensity war, those martial law decrees start to be 'normal' law. The Basic Law ISRAEL - (THE NATION STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE) is said by acri to be undemocratic, but many laws without looking at others might seem so too. But yes, Zionists have been happy with this law.
There are two separate issues going on in this discussion - and it's a bit hard to untangle then given the history.
Issue #1: How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"
Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.
Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?
Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I do not have any answers to these questions.
I will note that for #1, the currently existing mechanism is via the United Nations.
For #2, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there is no enforcement mechanism.
Issue #1: How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land
There is the practical reason that truly gives credibility to all philosophical, ethical, legal and whatever reasons: Other people with similar plots of land accept it.
Hence the recognition of independence by other states creates that independence. You could call it recognition by peers.
For #2, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there is no enforcement mechanism.
That really depends on the country in question whether human rights are enforceable. Most countries have UDHR human rights either as part of their constitution, laws or international treaties. Those usually have options for enforcement in the national legal order or recognised supra-national courts.
CiceronianusJanuary 17, 2020 at 18:51#3725910 likes
I understand. But I think to call a place where the ancestors of a group of people lived and were sovereign for a relatively short period of time in the Iron Age (Near East) their "homeland" is a misuse of the word, or at least an substantial exaggeration. One would hope there would be a stronger historical basis on which to make that statement, even if it is a religious one, at least where nation building is concerned.
Reply to Benkei That is true. However, there is no way to force any given country to adopt them in their constitution, laws, or international treaties. To my knowledge, the US has not legally adopted it as a treaty.
Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally?
It's not far fetched to assume they'd reclaim whatever English land ownership there might be and to limit non-Scottish immigration. Whether they'd allow a right of return for those with Scotch ancestory, likely, if they follow the Irish lead. If a historical claim is made that Scotch emigration was the result of English oppression, it would follow that they may allow a right of return to repair that past injustice.
And isn't that the whole issue anyway? Remedying past wrongs and protecting historically oppressed peoples? All of your arguments hold as much validity whether you're arguing against special treatment for blacks in America or Jews in the world. Isn't affirmative action just another form of apartheid under your argument, assuming you wish to disregard historical context and just declare absolute equality for all is required regardless of the prior suffering of the people?
I understand. But I think to call a place where the ancestors of a group of people lived and were sovereign for a relatively short period of time in the Iron Age (Near East) their "homeland" is a misuse of the word, or at least an substantial exaggeration. One would hope there would be a stronger historical basis on which to make that statement, even if it is a religious one, at least where nation building is concerned.
And what basis did the founders have in calling America the land of the free, considetimg they had just recently stumbled upon it? And why is the US rightly your homeland today? And even should you be the descendent of an original settler, how is the land now yours simply because your Neanderthal great grandfather touched it first?
You can ridicule others' justifications for possessing land, but it's doubtful they're more ridiculous than the justifications you have for possessing your land.
You can ridicule others' justifications for possessing land, but it's doubtful they're more ridiculous than the justifications you have for possessing your land.
I agree. The whole talk of 'justice' or somebody having more justification for lands than others is hypocritical stupidity. If enough people make a claim to the land they live in and can hold on to it, that's the "justification". We can hope that nation states behave well to their citizens and to others, but nation states are sovereigns in their own territory...as long as they can defend themselves. The truth is that people have moved, created new states where old states have been and pushed aside others. Things aren't permanent and justice has nothing to do with it. Yeah, history sucks, but's that is the truth.
CiceronianusJanuary 18, 2020 at 12:21#3728650 likes
Reply to Hanover
America's my home because I live there, and always have. It's the place of my birth. My native land.
These things can be said of a person, without qualification, as easily as that. A group of people may likewise have been born and lived in a particular place, and live there now. That's their home, their native land.
My ancestors lived (mostly) in Italy for centuries before they began taking boat rides to the U.S. about 130 years ago. Is Italy my homeland? I would say no. Is it the homeland of all those living in the U.S. whose ancestors lived in Italy? Again, I would say no.
It's possible for an identifiable group of people to live in a particular place for centuries, and thereby become so associated with a place that it's called their homeland. I'm not sure that can be said of the Jews, however. Nor am I sure that centuries of association with a particular place in the distant past creates any entitlement to it.
Nonetheless, unless I'm mistaken, the fact that Israel exists where it exists, and the claim of some that it should expand, are sometimes justified at least in part on the belief that it's the homeland of the Jews.
I wonder whether that belief has any substantial basis.
It's not far fetched to assume they'd reclaim whatever English land ownership there might be and to limit non-Scottish immigration. Whether they'd allow a right of return for those with Scotch ancestory, likely, if they follow the Irish lead. If a historical claim is made that Scotch emigration was the result of English oppression, it would follow that they may allow a right of return to repair that past injustice.
Totally missing the point. Discriminating between different types of Scottish citizens was the issue I raised. That has nothing to do with immigration.
And isn't that the whole issue anyway? Remedying past wrongs and protecting historically oppressed peoples? All of your arguments hold as much validity whether you're arguing against special treatment for blacks in America or Jews in the world. Isn't affirmative action just another form of apartheid under your argument, assuming you wish to disregard historical context and just declare absolute equality for all is required regardless of the prior suffering of the people?
If you think that's my argument, please read again because it clearly isn't.
Reply to Benkei
Perhaps you should state your argument more clearly. We know that you think that the state of Israel is oppressive to minorities. I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you on that. But what does it take for two groups of people that identify themselves as different people to live in one country?
The only solution is there has to be an identity above that, which both can relate to. Being British is a perfect example. Those smart and cunning Englishmen!!! Or then you talk of a confederation or an union. The EU is an perfect example, because it's made up of nation states.
Perhaps you should state your argument more clearly. We know that you think that the state of Israel is oppressive to minorities. I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you on that. But what does it take for two groups of people that identify themselves as different people to live in one country?
Plenty of people have been disagreeing with it by downplaying it. But it's this and the fact that such racism is a necessary consequence of pursuing a Zionist agenda, as Likud has been doing since 1996. So the argument is, Israel is a racist country, it's racist because it discriminates between Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Israelis. It has put in law and has Supreme Court rulings enforcing law, institutionalising it and defending it on the basis of Zionist thinking (e.g., it must be a Jewish State, as opposed to a State safe for Jews). It is therefore not anti-semitic to claim that, what I'll call - political -, Zionism is racist.
Reply to Benkei
No one is arguing that Israel is an egalitarian society. All reasonable people acknowledge that non-Jews are denied many basic rights, are discriminated against and oppresed, and are second class citizens at best.
However, you seem to be re-defining the term "racism". I know that in the academic community race is considered to be a social construct, but (for better of worse) the commonly accepted meaning of the word race is based on physical appearance. Taking the commonly accepted usage, people of any race can be Jewish - blacks, Asian, etc. It isn't easy, but any person of non-Jewish ancestry can become a full fledged Israeli citizen by converting to orthodox Judaism.
I am not disputing any of the facts you have presented. I'm simply suggesting that the tactic of using the word 'racism' is counter-productive. My alternative? Beats me. I wish I were more eloquent. Maybe "ethnic cleansing"?
If you want to know my full position on Israel, please read my previous posts.
America's my home because I live there, and always have. It's the place of my birth. My native land.
The question isn't why you reside in the US. It's why you're justified to live in the US. Surely there are those justified in living in the US who weren't born in the US (the tens of millions of naturalized citizens) and arguably there are those born in the US who are not justified to live in the US. Your standard of citizenship by birth is not universally accepted and is as arbitrary as any standard.
Regardless, you've now offered Israelis their justification to live on the land they do, which is that they are there already.Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Nonetheless, unless I'm mistaken, the fact that Israel exists where it exists, and the claim of some that it should expand, are sometimes justified at least in part on the belief that it's the homeland of the Jews. I wonder whether that belief has any substantial basis.
Sure, and I wonder if any justification for a nation to occupy land has a substantial basis, seeing no reason why your claim to your homeland is more justified than theirs, simply because you find the Biblical basis not substantial. Why is your being born in the US a substantial justification for you to occupy it?
The Israeli claim for expansion of their borders is based upon acquisition of land by war, which is the same basis that the US claims its right to its land, and is a matter of fact the way much land has been acquired over time. I don't know why the Israeli land acquisition is particularly interesting to the world from a moral perspective, although I do see why it's interesting as a political matter, considering it disrupts an economically important part of the world.
Totally missing the point. Discriminating between different types of Scottish citizens was the issue I raised. That has nothing to do with immigration.
I didn't miss your point. I was pointing out that you've made a distinction that makes no moral difference. You are hanging on an arbitrary legal definition of "citizen" that you think matters, but it doesn't, especially because the nation itself gets to define that term.
To clarify, if Scotland permits those with Scottish blood to return to Scotland to become citizens, then when my Scottish counterpart and I arrive on those rolling green hills, he gets to vote, own land, and freely work, while I get to only visit and sightsee. I will be treated as a second class person because I am not designated a "citizen," (as I'm 100% Jew and 0% Celt) which is simply a word used to distinguish the haves from the have nots in this apartheid system.
If you are satisfied that citizenship status is a morally legitimate basis to deprive someone of rights, then you have no right to object to Israel denying citizenship to non-Jews, pre Civil War America denying full citizenship status to African Americans, and really any sort of discrimination that might occur as long as some legislative body has decreed who is and who is not a citizen.
I'm just trying to keep this logically clear because you've taken a very harsh view of Israeli discrimination, claiming that any sort of allowance of Jewish priority is per se racist and morally unjustified. If the standard is that ethnic heritage can never be used to justify providing an advantage, then we need to revisit the Irish rule of return, American affirmative action, all gender based set asides, and we likely need to run the Native Americans off their reservations.
If what you mean to say is only that in certain circumstances affording racial priorities are justified, but Jewish priority in Israel is not one of those instances, then that can be debated, although my understanding of your argument is that this issue is very much black and white, with Israel having no possible justification for their prioritizing Jews because of some moral absolute that says so.
So the argument is, Israel is a racist country, it's racist because it discriminates between Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Israelis. It has put in law and has Supreme Court rulings enforcing law, institutionalising it and defending it on the basis of Zionist thinking (e.g., it must be a Jewish State, as opposed to a State safe for Jews). It is therefore not anti-semitic to claim that, what I'll call - political -, Zionism is racist.
If I've understood your point correctly, our disagreement is on the reason of the oppression. You say it's racism inherent to Zionism. I argue that it is more about the perpetual conflict and security concerns that have pushed the majority in Israel to accept such policies. I still argue that it's a minority of the Jewish Israelis that are religious fundamentalists. State of Israel is more secular than it looks (especially from the viewpoint of Western Europe). Zionism was the rallying cry to create the modern state of Israel, but as the state exists it's objective has been actually met. Israel isn't same as it was in 1949 just as Iran isn't the same as in 1979.
Hence if what you argue would be totally correct, this religious racism (or basically intolerance) based on Zionism would be clearly visible from treatment of the 2% Christian minority in Israel. My security argument wouldn't hold: there hasn't been a Christian uprising and the Christians in Israel don't want an independent homeland for themselves. The relations that Jews and the Notzri have is hence telling of the 'racism' problem. Christian Arabs in Israel are one of the highest educated groups and naturally are in far more better situation than anywhere else in the Middle East. Yes, there is hostility from the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, but are their actions the same as the state of Israel? I don't think so. But here I don't know the situation so clearly, so perhaps I may be simply ignorant.
Yes, there is hostility from the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, but are their actions the same as the state of Israel? I don't think so.
Correct. It's also not an example of institutionalised racism.
VagabondSpectreJanuary 18, 2020 at 23:45#3729770 likes
I don't like Zionism because it presupposes that land currently belonging to native inhabitants is the rightful property of a religious authoritarian state, and because it is used to fuel the current occupation of Palestine, and the systematic theft of land from, and removal of, the Palestinian people.
I'm against conquering lands and peoples, and I'm against theocracies.
Again. If you think I'm talking about who gets to be an Israeli citizens or not, you're still missing the point.
There isn't any confusion on my end. You have an objection to disparate treatment of citizens within Israel based upon ethnicity and have no inclination to decipher my response, so we keep going back and forth with you repeating that we're not debating rights to citizenship or immigration issues, which is obvious. I'm left with thinking you're either stubbornly refusing to respond to me or that you truly lack the capacity to understand. I think either is equally likely at this point.
CiceronianusJanuary 19, 2020 at 04:01#3730460 likes
Reply to HanoverReply to Hanover
Israel exists, now. That's not a matter of debate. I don't expect it to vanish and don't think it should.
I refer to its creation, and the reasons for its creation, in an area at the time under British rule. Part of that reason as I understand it was that the area was the Jewish homeland. If justification is the issue, the question I was trying to explore would be-- what was the justification, or support, for the belief it was the Jewish homeland at that time or earlier when it seems the notion of creation of a Jewish state came into play? If history can be used to justify creation of a state, I don't think it's of much use in the case of Israel.
I was pointing out that you've made a distinction that makes no moral difference. You are hanging on an arbitrary legal definition of "citizen" that you think matters, but it doesn't, especially because the nation itself gets to define that term.
To clarify, if Scotland permits those with Scottish blood to return to Scotland to become citizens, then when my Scottish counterpart and I arrive on those rolling green hills, he gets to vote, own land, and freely work, while I get to only visit and sightsee. I will be treated as a second class person because I am not designated a "citizen," (as I'm 100% Jew and 0% Celt) which is simply a word used to distinguish the haves from the have nots in this apartheid system.
Irrelevant as to how people get their citizenship status as I'm talking about people who already have that status within Israel and their disparate treatment.
If you are satisfied that citizenship status is a morally legitimate basis to deprive someone of rights, then you have no right to object to Israel denying citizenship to non-Jews, pre Civil War America denying full citizenship status to African Americans, and really any sort of discrimination that might occur as long as some legislative body has decreed who is and who is not a citizen.
I'm just trying to keep this logically clear because you've taken a very harsh view of Israeli discrimination, claiming that any sort of allowance of Jewish priority is per se racist and morally unjustified. If the standard is that ethnic heritage can never be used to justify providing an advantage, then we need to revisit the Irish rule of return, American affirmative action, all gender based set asides, and we likely need to run the Native Americans off their reservations.
Once again, Israel gets to decide who can become a citizen and how. It should not discriminate between its own citizens based on their ethnicity or religion.
So yeah, you didn't understand me at all. But not surprising considering our history discussing Israel.
The Israeli claim for expansion of their borders is based upon acquisition of land by war, which is the same basis that the US claims its right to its land, and is a matter of fact the way much land has been acquired over time. I don't know why the Israeli land acquisition is particularly interesting to the world from a moral perspective...
It is interesting because we believed that we lived in a civilized world that respected the rights of individuals and saw violence as an illicit way of gaining power and wealth. We thought that colonialism, in which any strong nation could expel, steal and kill the indigenous people (treating them as sub-humans) and keep their goods was a thing of the past. In short, we believed ourselves to be more humane than our ancestors.
Thanks to the state of Israel and its international patrons, we realized that we were quite naive. Decent, but naive.
The human rights violations perpetrated by the state of Israel are many and well-documented, in more than a few cases through resolutions being unanimously agreed upon by the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly.
There are very, very few countries who can make this boast. If anything, it should tell you that there's something very wrong with the way Israel conducts its business.
Once again, Israel gets to decide who can become a citizen and how. It should not discriminate between its own citizens based on their ethnicity or religion.
You have to make the case why the state of Israel, not the ultra-orthodox Jewish, are SO different from other countries in this sense. When Israel occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967, it did offer citizenship for occupants of these areas.
And is the idea of 'Homeland' inherently racist?
Nation states do have this tendency to give special treatment to 'their' people living outside the borders of their country. Russia is good example of this today, but so is Germany too. Or how does the German Federal Expellee Law of 1953 sound:
The law applies to refugees and exiles (also known as expellees), which it defines as a German citizen or an ethnic German who resided in the former eastern territories of the German Reich, "located temporarily under foreign administration", or in areas outside the German Reich as at 31 December 1937, who as a result of the events of World War II suffered expulsion, in particular by removing or escape. Those expellees who were not already German nationals became entitled to German citizenship.The law also contained a heredity clause entitling children of expellees to inherit German ethnicity and citizenship. The persons entitled to German citizenship also include (former) foreign citizens of states of the Eastern Bloc, who themselves - or whose ancestors - were persecuted or discriminated between 1945 and 1990 for their German or alleged German ethnicity by their respective governments.
Or how about my country? In 1988 the KGB chief in Helsinki hinted to the Finnish authorities that it would be a good idea to send Ingrians, a small Finnish speaking people living in the Leningrad area, to Finland. And the Finnish President said that fine, we can take them, and roughly about 25 000 immigrated to Finland and got citizenship as "returning" nationals in the 1990's. And what do you know: nobody of the anti-immigration people said hardly anything about this small group entering Finland from the side door.
Was this a racist thing? Or the behaviour of the West German government? How is Israel different?
Once again, Israel gets to decide who can become a citizen and how. It should not discriminate between its own citizens based on their ethnicity or religion.
So yeah, it's hunky dory to treat non-citizens like shit but an atrocity to treat some citizens as better than others, so if a nation decides to call their least favorite folks non-citizens, they escape your criticism. Kinda stupid? So if blacks weren't full citizens, all was good?
Racial discrimination exists in legal form in the US, primarily to protect historically disadvantaged and oppressed minorities, often to the objection of those not provided what is considered special advantage. Israel is that to the Jews. If you find what the US does as I've described atrocious, you're at least consistent.
The difference is that the "return home" cases you cite were not made to the detriment of the existing population there. Israel "went home" by expelling the Palestinians and making the remaining ones second-class citizens. And that discriminatory policy is increasing every day. That is racism.
On the other hand, if you want to compare Israel with all the aberrations of the past I think we will agree. But I think it is a bad policy on your part.
Racial discrimination exists in legal form in the US, primarily to protect historically disadvantaged and oppressed minorities, often to the objection of those not provided what is considered special advantage. Israel is that to the Jews.
Israel applies discriminatory policies against the Palestinian minority in its territory and against the population it controls in the occupied territories. That is not compensatory discrimination.
Yeah, the Israeli Jews’ discrimination and oppression of the Palestinians is awful, but what are they to do with a population that wants to expel them? It seems that neither side is capable of living in peace with the other. They are all digging their own graves.
Mostly because of the propaganda of their leaders on both sides. Most people are capable of living in peace, side by side with anyone. It is and always has been the demagoguery and propaganda of leaders designed to keep them in power that divides any given peoples.
The difference is that the "return home" cases you cite were not made to the detriment of the existing population there. Israel "went home" by expelling the Palestinians and making the remaining ones second-class citizens. And that discriminatory policy is increasing every day. That is racism.
On the other hand, if you want to compare Israel with all the aberrations of the past I think we will agree. But I think it is a bad policy on your part.
Wars change borders and put people to leave their homes. That's just what wars do. Here I think the worth wile discussion would be to focus on your argument "that discriminatory policy is increasing every day".
Is It? Every day?
You have to give reasons for your argument, because otherwise I think you'll fall to the "Jeremy Corbyn-trap": that basically critique of Israel will be seen as anti-semitism. Drinking up too eagerly only one side of the story will be counterproductive.
(The real ethnic cleansing happened during the war in 1948. Atrocities did happen like with Deir Yassin massacre. Again, that's the ugly part of history.)
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 20, 2020 at 23:32#3737310 likes
(The real ethnic cleansing happened during the war in 1948. Atrocities did happen like with Deir Yassin massacre. Again, that's the ugly part of history.)
The Deir Yassin Massacre was roundly condemned by the Haganah (precursor to the IDF) as well as Jewish political authorities at the time. Political authorities sent a written apology to Jordan. These massacres have gone both ways and I wish we'd see such apologies from Arab leadership.
Yeah, the Israeli Jews’ discrimination and oppression of the Palestinians is awful, but what are they to do with a population that wants to expel them?
Every colonized people tries to drive out the colonizers. The Sioux did not want their land to be overrun by white settlers and the army. Who dug their grave? The Sioux or the invaders?
Deleted UserJanuary 21, 2020 at 06:43#3738980 likes
Reply to Noah Te Stroete Now it's certainly tricky. But one thing they could do right off is admit that Palestinians were there all along. That those who were mass displaced in the creation of Israel had as much right to be there as the Jews who lived there and that a big part of today's problem is how they were treated. I think also saying that it is not meant to be just the homeland for the Jews, despite whatever a scripture may say, would also be simply honest. From there you have a lot of hellishly complicated problems. But then that is the case now.
I’m not saying that the Israelis are entitled to that land. But then again, could you blame them? They are always the first group to be persecuted when societies decay, so it was a logical place to settle (however bloody the takeover was). Palestinians are likewise as a group prone to prejudice against Jews and may or may not have welcomed such a large influx of a despised people.
Palestinians also have claim to that land of course. I’m not denying that.
Wars change borders and put people to leave their homes. That's just what wars do.
Some attempts (with more or less success) to annex land through war in the 20th century come to mind. Hitler and the Eastern territories, Morocco and the Western Sahara, Saddam Hussein in Quwait, Russia in the Crimea... If you want to say that the occupation of Palestine by Israel is on the same level as Hitler, Putin, the Sultan of Morocco or Saddam Hussein, we agree. But I wouldn't follow that line.
New legislation entrenched discrimination against non-Jewish citizens. Israeli forces killed more than 290 Palestinians, including over 50 children; many were unlawfully killed as they were shot while posing no imminent threat to life. Israel imposed an illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip for the 11th year in a row, subjecting approximately 2 million inhabitants to collective punishment and exacerbating a humanitarian crisis. Freedom of movement for Palestinians in the West Bank remained restricted through a system of military checkpoints and roadblocks. Israeli authorities unlawfully detained within Israel thousands of Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, remained pervasive and was committed with impunity. Israel continued to demolish Palestinian homes and other structures in the West Bank and in Palestinian villages inside Israel, forcibly evicting residents. The Israeli justice system continued to fail to adequately ensure accountability and redress for victims of grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The authorities continued to deny asylum seekers access to a fair or prompt refugee status determination process; hundreds of African asylum-seekers were deported and thousands were threatened with deportation. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned.
The real ethnic cleansing happened during the war in 1948. Atrocities did happen like with Deir Yassin massacre.
Deir Yassin was only the most shocking massacre against the Palestinians. A Zionist historian, Benny Morris, documented some 360 cases of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. In many of these cases, villages were later destroyed to prevent the return of their inhabitants. They became "absentee owners" in one of the most cynical laws of the State of Israel.
Of course, Benny Morris did not use the word "ethnic cleansing" because he was happy with this kind of treatment of these people who were savages, he said, and deserved to be locked up in cages.
New legislation entrenched discrimination against non-Jewish citizens. Israeli forces killed more than 290 Palestinians, including over 50 children; many were unlawfully killed as they were shot while posing no imminent threat to life. Israel imposed an illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip for the 11th year in a row, subjecting approximately 2 million inhabitants to collective punishment and exacerbating a humanitarian crisis. Freedom of movement for Palestinians in the West Bank remained restricted through a system of military checkpoints and roadblocks. Israeli authorities unlawfully detained within Israel thousands of Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, remained pervasive and was committed with impunity. Israel continued to demolish Palestinian homes and other structures in the West Bank and in Palestinian villages inside Israel, forcibly evicting residents. The Israeli justice system continued to fail to adequately ensure accountability and redress for victims of grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The authorities continued to deny asylum seekers access to a fair or prompt refugee status determination process; hundreds of African asylum-seekers were deported and thousands were threatened with deportation. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned.
I did not know all of this. Sickening to say the least. It is inexcusable. Where should the Jews go, though? They are seemingly not welcome anywhere in the world.
Reply to David Mo You could say that the Jews are a traumatized people. It is understandable if you understand such things that there would be a collective rage. Likewise the Muslims in the Middle East are terrorized by US and NATO forces, for decades even.
I’m not saying that the Israelis are entitled to that land. But then again, could you blame them? They are always the first group to be persecuted when societies decay, so it was a logical place to settle (however bloody the takeover was). Palestinians are likewise as a group prone to prejudice against Jews and may or may not have welcomed such a large influx of a despised people.
Palestinian violence against the Jews minority (at the beginnings of the 20th century it was very minority) starts with the proclamation of the State of Israel.In any case you cannot claim for a right that supposes equal violation of the rights of other people.
See my posts above. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
What would you think if a foreign power forced you to give up half your home to take in a Yemeni refugee family? How would you behave if your child was beaten by Yemenis for protesting? Think about it.
The genocide of the Jews during World War II was one of the most (if not "the" most) horrible genocides of the 20th century. Not only the Nazis but many conservative people collaborated with it. Sometimes with an intensity that surprised the Nazis (the Croatian Ustashi, for example). But nothing like this can be expected in contemporary Europe or America. Zionism was an ultra-nationalistic response that came especially from the refugees of Eastern Europe. It was not in the majority before World War II. And now Zionism has other different roots that must be related to US policy in West Asia. This is not a question of justice, but of power.
I don't see why they couldn't live in Palestine/Israel. They have lived there alongside other religions in relative peace, until people starting getting funny ideas about who else was allowed to live there.
I recommend you to read the complete report. I think that AI is one of the most impartial sources of information about Human Rights. I don't say it is perfect, but it is the best in the best of possible worlds.
What would you think if a foreign power forced you to give up half your home to take in a Yemeni refugee family? How would you behave if your child was beaten by Yemenis for protesting? Think about it.
The genocide of the Jews during World War II was one of the most (if not "the" most) horrible genocides of the 20th century. Not only the Nazis but many conservative people collaborated with it. Sometimes with an intensity that surprised the Nazis (the Croatian Ustashi, for example). But nothing like this can be expected in contemporary Europe or America. Zionism was an ultra-nationalistic response that came especially from the refugees of Eastern Europe. It was not in the majority before World War II. And now Zionism has other different roots that must be related to US policy in West Asia. This is not a question of justice, but of power.
I understand all of your points, but what about the Anglo-American pact to carve up and take over the Middle East after WWII? Surely they are to blame for just as many atrocities. Perhaps that’s a discussion for another thread, but “don’t point out the moat in another’s eye when there is a beam in yours” and all that.
I don't see why they couldn't live in Palestine/Israel. They have lived there alongside other religions in relative peace, until people starting getting funny ideas about who else was allowed to live there.
Like I said earlier, most people can live side by side in relative peace; the normal, everyday, working for the man people. It’s only when the demagoguery of the leaders take over does all the shit get fucked up. They are really good at this, viz. fucking shit up for everyone else while hording wealth and power for themselves.
I understand all of your points, but what about the Anglo-American pact to carve up and take over the Middle East after WWII? Surely they are to blame for just as many atrocities. Perhaps that’s a discussion for another thread, but “don’t point out the moat in another’s eye when there is a beam in yours” and all that.
And what right did the Ottomans have to take over the Middle East?
Or the Muslims before them?
Or the Romans/Byzantines, the Sassanids, the Macedonians, the Persians? Did I forget the Mongols?
What is the convenient culprit for us to blame here?
The one we want to blame?
One thing is what has happened in history and in during wartime.
Another thing is what is happening in peace time and now.
I’m not saying that the Israelis are entitled to that land. But then again, could you blame them?
Sure. One can blame people for what they do, even if others do bad things. And especially since the process simply made them a gathered target. It wasn't even a good choice for their own interests. Treating the already present Palestinians as equals would have saved them untold grief.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Palestinians are likewise as a group prone to prejudice against Jews and may or may not have welcomed such a large influx of a despised people.
There is general history of arab and Muslim nations dealing much better with Jews than Christian nations have. And note the assumption in your sentence. Of course they should all get to come there. Perhaps this would have caused tensions, but ousting the Palestinians didn't help the safefy of Jews. What gave the newcomers more rights than people already there? (Well, the British did, but that's another story and doesn't make it moral). Of course I have sympathy for the situation the Jews were in, but I don't think their approach there has been good for them, it was certainly not good for the Palestinians and it has continued to create tensions that could lead to world wars. I sometimes wonder if that was not someone's intent. Hey, let's create a permanent tension there where everyone is unsafe cause this is going to piss everyone off forever. This is not meant as a argument, but rather as a reaction to what has really been such a terrible set of ideas
for everyone.
I get the intent. But it was terrible on practical and moral terms. Yes, there was also a positive moral intent. Also.
And I am not naive enough to think there was some perfect solution. But this was a terrible one and admitting some portions of that terrible side might help. But just as in marriages telling the truth often feels like it just gives the other person power.
Reply to Noah Te Stroete
Israel isn't in a war, like in 1973, in 1982 or in 2006 with it's neighbours.
What I've stated is that Israel is in a permanent low-intensity conflict with the Palestinians, in a state of Peace with aspects of permanent war. And that this is the reason, which then makes norms that otherwise you would only find under martial law and at war time present in Israel.
Benkei argues that this is because of Zionism. I argue that Zionism is a minor issue (as the state of Israel already exists) and that the implemented policies are driven by the security viewpoint, not by an ideology. It is putting the carriage before the horse, but that's as like in the US where it was decided that the country would go to war against a method (the War on Terror).
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 21, 2020 at 08:51#3739810 likes
Palestinian violence against the Jews minority (at the beginnings of the 20th century it was very minority) starts with the proclamation of the State of Israel.In any case you cannot claim for a right that supposes equal violation of the rights of other people.
The victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre would like a word with you.
Hundreds of arabs walked down a residential street with knives and tools and went from door to door murdering the jewish families - men, women, and children. the women were raped. it was deliberate and encouraged by the grand mufti of jerusalem, but i guess who really cares i mean they were zionists right?
The victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre would like a word with you.
Hundreds of arabs walked down a residential street with knives and tools and went from door to door murdering the jewish families - men, women, and children. the women were raped. it was deliberate and encouraged by the grand mufti of jerusalem, but i guess who really cares i mean they were zionists right?
The 1929 massacre is indeed a very popular incident which people refer to to justify Zionism. It has been notoriously exploited in pro-Zionist propaganda, and has been used ever since to drive a wedge between Jews and Arabs.
Zionism is much older than that, however, and in 1929 Zionist paramilitary organizations like the Haganah were already operating in Palestine. The shape Zionism took in that period is exactly what caused old tensions to reignite.
While the murder of innocents is a horrible thing, it is misleading to refer to this incident as a standard for Jewish-Arab relations during the period, nor should it be regarded as an act of random violence.
I argue that Zionism is a minor issue (as the state of Israel already exists) and that the implemented policies are driven by the security viewpoint, not by an ideology.
It's a foolish argument.
International law often leaves room when it comes to military necessity. As such, whenever Israel breaches international law, and it makes quite a habit of it, it claims there is such a necessity. They used to put forward other arguments, such as claiming sovereignty over territories that weren't theirs (like the West Bank), but these were taken apart over the years and military necessity is all that they have left.
These attempts at using military necessity as an excuse for human rights violations and breaches of international law have also been dismissed by the International Court of Justice on numerous occasions.
The Israeli government (the right-wing parts, of course) isn't concerned about security. They are concerned about painting Israel/Palestine in the colors of the Israeli flag. That's why they continually expand the West Bank Barrier to encompass more territory that isn't theirs. That's why they do not take action against the illegal Jewish settlements and instead use them to claim more pieces of the West Bank. Laws that discriminate against Palestinians and allow the Israeli state to put them in chains for however long it wants, without having to file any sort of charges and without giving them an opportunity to talk with a legal representative or even their own family, does that sound like a security measure to you, or does that sound like systematic oppression?
They make every effort to make life impossible for Palestinian communities, only to resettle those areas when they finally leave.
This is the policy of Likud, Netanyahu and his ilk. What happened when their enemy, Rabin, finally managed to take steps towards peace? They offed him.
The victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre would like a word with you.
You are right. I should have included the period of the British mandate when the Zionist "national home" begins to be substantiated.
Incidentally, your description of the massacre gives a partial picture of the 1929 conflict in which 133 Jews and 110 Arabs died (source: Wikipedia.es). The main leaders on both sides were condemned by the British authorities. The Arabs for incitement to hatred and the Jews for possession of arms. It is more complicated than a pogrom. None of this prevents us from condemn the Hebron massacre of 1929.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 21, 2020 at 13:03#3740210 likes
The shape Zionism took in that period is exactly what caused old tensions to reignite.
oh thanks, yeah got it, it was zionism that was the cause behind those families being murdered with blunt objects in their homes around dinner time. ya know for a second i thought it might have been the virulently anti-semitic arab political leadership in jerusalem at that time as well as the actual perpetrators who had no qualms about killing their neighbors with household tools but thanks for clearing that up for me; damn zionism... igniting tensions again. i mean how many more jewish children does zionism need to murder with a tire iron to the head before we just be done with the idea forever?
it is misleading to refer to this incident as a standard for Jewish-Arab relations during the period
oh no, there were no other riots. no other anti-semitic attacks during that period. you've clearly read your history here.
but seriously go back and read about the grand mufti of jerusalem and the numerous riots and killings he is responsible for. he's an extremely ugly figure.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 21, 2020 at 13:19#3740230 likes
The main leaders on both sides were condemned by the British authorities. The Arabs for incitement to hatred and the Jews for possession of arms. It is more complicated than a pogrom.
if it's not a pogram or a massacre then would you mind enlightening me as to what it actually was when hundreds of arabs murdered jews in their living spaces with household tools? i like that you're trying to keep it "fair and balanced" here; go on, keep telling me how awful those zionists are for... possession arms. when those nice arab men come to your home how could those dirty [s]jews[/s] zionists dare even think about grabbing a firearm! the proper thing to do is welcome them in and politely ask where they would like to murder you and your family.
but yes, both sides are to blame here. the situation is very complicated.
Here is why you are wrong in the way you frame the problem.
Firstly, you assume the violence was anti-Semitic in nature, while politics played a much larger role in it than you care to admit. Zionism was a large factor in the shape those politics took on, because it was clear that Jews were immigrating to Palestine with the intention of claiming it. Moreover, large amounts of weapons were being smuggled into the country and armed paramilitary organizations like the Haganah were operating to turn that dream into a reality.
Secondly, you assume that this must mean that Jews and Arabs hated each other during this period, which is false. There was unrest, but it was mainly the political leadership that used every incident as a way to vilify the other side. This was necessary, because they were preparing for their power plays. The Zionists wanted to claim Palestine and the Arab leadership obviously had their own plans for filling up the power-vacuum the Brits and French left behind.
You are playing the same game as the Zionists did during that time:
1. There is an incident.
2. That incident is labeled by the political elite as being ethnically/religiously motivated.
3. According to the political elite that proves coexistence is impossible and Jews need their own state.
4. That legitimizes Zionism.
if it's not a pogram or a massacre then would you mind enlightening me as to what it actually was when hundreds of arabs murdered jews in their living spaces with household tools?
I have not denied that a massacre took place in Hebron. But to speak of a pogrom, one must assume that it is a massacre of a defenseless Jewish population, like were usual in Czarist Russia. If the figures given by Wikipedia and the response of the British authorities are correct, there was a conflict between two communities and the Jewish community seemed to have good offensive capacity, as the small difference in casualties shows -only about twenty. In these conditions it seems more correct to speak of a conflict between communities in which there was a terrible massacre in Hebron. This does not diminish the responsibility of the Palestinian authorities, the sinister mufti of Jerusalem specially, any more than it diminishes the responsibility of the Jewish authorities for the massacres and ethnic cleansing that took place later. Whether or not you want to call them "sinister" is a matter of personal taste. The facts were similar.
Indeed, every colonial power justifies its policy of occupation by the fact that the settlers are attacked by the local population. This was the usual strategy against the Native Americans, for example. And this was the strategy of colonization in Palestine.
Violent anti-Jewish riots were directly provoked by the growing colonization movement, from the Balfour declaration onwards. Of course, racist prejudices played their part, but these prejudices had been dormant before the British Mandate and the initial pro-Jewish policy of the colonial power. Moreover, the riots were executed by displaced farm workers. The Zionist policy of "Jewish workers only" had something to do with this situation of displaced Palestinians. Although it was not the only cause, it was the most visible and was used by the Palestinian elites against the Jews.
Another thing is that the unrest covered the entire Palestinian population. This is not true. I will leave this for another time.
International law often leaves room when it comes to military necessity. As such, whenever Israel breaches international law, and it makes quite a habit of it, it claims there is such a necessity.
Foolish or not, that is the line.
You could argue that it's also foolish to occupy a country, because a financial backer of a terrorist strike lived there (but otherwise the country's regime had no involvement in the terrorist attack). That only the numbers of killed made an otherwise police matter so different that the country eagerly went to war and later invading another country that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist strike (and no WMD project whatsoever). Yet that's the reality.
The Israeli government (the right-wing parts, of course) isn't concerned about security. They are concerned about painting Israel/Palestine in the colors of the Israeli flag.
One has to remember that the Likud has just a quarter of the seats in the Knesset. And there is a non-religious faction there too. Of all the excesses, shootings, demolitions of homes and etc. in the Occupied Territories, there still are Jews killed by Palestinians.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 21, 2020 at 19:52#3740920 likes
But to speak of a pogrom, one must assume that it is a massacre of a defenseless Jewish population, like were usual in Czarist Russia. If the figures given by Wikipedia and the response of the British authorities are correct, there was a conflict between two communities and the Jewish community seemed to have good offensive capacity, as the small difference in casualties shows -only about twenty. In these conditions it seems more correct to speak of a conflict between communities in which there was a terrible massacre in Hebron.
David, most of those arabs were killed by the british, not by any sort of significant jewish security apparatus. there was no battle here, no struggle between two sides. I'm tired of being your history teacher David, please do your own research.
You could argue that it's also foolish to occupy a country, because a financial backer of a terrorist strike lived there (but otherwise the country's regime had no involvement in the terrorist attack). That only the numbers of killed made an otherwise police matter so different that the country eagerly went to war and later invading another country that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist strike (and no WMD project whatsoever). Yet that's the reality.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. In both cases things haven't worked out. The US has been humiliated in its failure to bring two third-world countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) to their knees, and Israel has been struggling with conflict ever since its independence, forcing it to take evermore draconian measures against its own population and the Palestinians.
It seems reality has a way of getting the last laugh.
Of all the excesses, shootings, demolitions of homes and etc. in the Occupied Territories, there still are Jews killed by Palestinians.
And there are Palestinians killed by Jews.
Every innocent killed in an act of violence is terrible, certainly. Keeping tabs with an 'eye for an eye' mentality will surely never result in a solution.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 21, 2020 at 22:20#3741360 likes
Firstly, you assume the violence was anti-Semitic in nature, while politics played a much larger role in it than you care to admit.
This particular incident was caused by lies spread by the mufti of jerusalem. I don't really care that internal arab politics likely played a role, but to blame it on zionism is absurd victim blaming and immigration levels were at a relatively low level during that time (1929). there are plenty of massacres of jews that occurred before zionism even took force. the idea that the jews were pretty much safe and good until zionism started is just a blatant falsehood.
I'm not interested in pinning arabs against jews or making all arabs out to be jew haters. I never said that all arabs hated jews during this period. the relationship between the two groups of people is complex.
Ultimately, what the jews need is security. they will not find this if they simply rely on arab powers and hope that the arabs treat them nice. it's not just a matter of the arabs either; the same could be said for the europeans. jews ought to be done with "hoping" or "depending" at this point when it comes to national security.
there are plenty of massacres of jews that occurred before zionism even took force. the idea that the jews were pretty much safe and good until zionism started is just a blatant falsehood.
Incidents occur anywhere, between all kinds of societies. Again, it is the game that you play where you consider this sort of thing unique to Jews to justify Zionism.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. In both cases things haven't worked out.
Hasn't worked out for Israel? How so?
The low intensity conflict solution has actually worked out quite well. Israel has had better economic growth than the US. Unemployment is low, social mobility is high. In the Human Development Index Israel ranks above Spain, France and Italy. Netanyahu has stayed in power. Things are quite OK for Israel.
A low intensity conflict is totally different from a conventional war. You don't have the military on a wartime footing, which would be a severe strain on the military.
Just like the US has now been at war since 2001. Where do you see this in every day life? Do people notice it? No.
David, most of those arabs were killed by the british, not by any sort of significant jewish security apparatus.
The intervention of Jewish armed groups led by Zeev Jabotinsky and the British army against the Palestinians are two elements that you will not find in any pogrom.
The third element, which in my opinion is a determining factor in the deterioration of relations between the two communities - Jews and Palestinians - is the Zionist project to occupy Palestine and the support of the British authorities through Balfour declaration. Under these conditions, the fact that the British army acted against the Palestinians to defend the Jews led the former to believe that expulsion from their land was agreed. As it turned out to be true later on.
You'll forgive me if I don't go any further, but I am tired too of arguing with the Zionists about the same obvious things.
but to blame it on zionism is absurd victim blaming and immigration levels were at a relatively low level during that time (1929).
In the mid-nineteenth century, the inhabitants of Palestine were about 300,000, and just over 500,000 in 1914. Of these, the Jewish community was a small minority of about 10,000 before the first waves of Zionist colonialism. In the beginning of the next century the community had only increased to 50,000 or 60,000 members.
Jewish population increased tenfold between 1919 and 1947 mainly due to immigration. Jews grow from 10 to 30 percent of the inhabitants of Palestine in a short time.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the pressure of Zionist immigration became the most visible element of this dynamic.
League of Nations:Zionist funds had to be diverted from investments in productive capital works in order to provide for the welfare and social services demanded by a Jewish population which increased from 70,000 in 1920 to 140,000 in 1927.
(League of Nations (31 December 1927) “Report by His Britannic Majesty's Government to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the Year 1927”.)
It is clear that for a small place like Palestine the figures for Jewish immigration were not small. And above all, what they meant for the Palestinian economy and Arab nationalists.
NOTE: if you want us to become academic I have no problem quoting my sources, as long as you do the same. In an appropriate manner, as I have done in the above quotation. As you like.
My point is that war is terrible, but war is basically the status quo in human history. People are and always have been awful.
I think humans do horrible things and good things. You seem to recognize that the occupation of Palestine is one of the first. I agree. You mention Nazism among them. That's an exaggeration. Even if some Jews had made this comparison:
Aharon Zisling, responsible for agriculture ( Council of Ministers on 17 November 1948): "What is happening hurts my soul, my family's and all of us... Now Jews are behaving like Nazis too, and my whole being is shocked".
I think this is a sincere expression about the massacres perpetrated by the Jewish armed forces more than a strict comparison. It cannot be take verbatim.
When the Viet Nam War raged, I was a kid. But later on I tried to deal with those atrocities that you think are natural. I see them as the consequence of a stage of humanity and systems of domination and exploitation in the face of which one cannot remain passive. This is what my morality demands.
Incidents occur anywhere, between all kinds of societies. Again, it is the game that you play where you consider this sort of thing unique to Jews to justify Zionism.
Were your ancestors/family involved in this conflict? That's the key question here. I have a hard time understand why any neutral third party would be so opposed to jewish self-determination. that's really all zionism is... it's not about being mean to the palestinians it's just about jewish self determination and in turn preventing these types of massacres.
Why are you so up in arms about the Jews? I’m not a Zionist, but I think it’s disingenuous to say the Palestinians are so innocent.
Only a bad faith actor would argue that the Palestinians are completely innocent. Of course both sides have committed wrongdoings and if someone is going to take the position that the blame rests entirely on side it's not worth engaging them.
I have a hard time understand why any neutral third party would be so opposed to jewish self-determination. that's really all zionism is... it's not about being mean to the palestinians it's just about jewish self determination and in turn preventing these types of massacres.
I'm not against Israel. I am against decades of human rights violations and breaches of international law. it is Israel who has impeded the right of self-determination of the Palestinians for decades through their military occupation, discriminatory laws and the construction of walls and settlements in territory that wasn't theirs.
And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:
"[i]... Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of12 August 1949,
Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,
Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,
Condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area,
Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp, ..[/i]."
http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1544
Or the rapport of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. I recommend you read the conclusion. Page 21-25.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/4aeeba692.html
Or the rulings by the International Court of Justice on the topic of the construction of the West Bank Barrier. here's an excerpt;
"[i]Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right.[/i]"
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131
I could go on like this forever.
Throughout all of this, the United States has ensured Israel was able to continue its malpractices, for example through using its veto to block resolutions. However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions.
Take it from someone who has studied and visited both Israel and Palestine as part of an academic education that Israel is nothing like the European countries you compared it to, and that standings on the Human Development Index are highly politicized.
Israel's laws have definitively made it an apartheid-state, to refresh:
"Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights. Apartheid is a crime against humanity punishable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."
This also means Israel is no longer a democracy by definition.
The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made the following statements about it:
"The Committee urges the State party to review the Basic Law with a view to bringing it in line with the Covenant or repealing it and to step up its efforts to eliminate discrimination faced by non-Jews in enjoying the Covenant rights, particularly rights of self-determination,non-discrimination and cultural rights."
Israel is far from okay.
I could go on citing examples, legal documents and statements by NGOs, but I'm not going to. If this doesn't get through to you, nothing will and I am wasting my time.
I posted this earlier in the thread, I'll try again. Rather than argue over the specifics of the situation, I respectfully suggest that you try to deal with this in generic terms. As I see it there are two somewhat related questions that need to be answered:
How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"
Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.
Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal laws/rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?
Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.
If people can agree on the answers to these questions, then it becomes a matter of applying the rules/laws to the situation.
I do not have answers to either of those questions.
I could go on citing examples, legal documents and statements by NGOs, but I'm not going to. If this doesn't get through to you, nothing will and I am wasting my time.
You could actually do that, because otherwise your reasoning is quite lazy.
If you've made academic research or studies about it, then please use those arguments that you know! Enlighten us then. You've visited the country so others should shut up or what? If I have studied and visited the Soviet Union and later Russia, have stayed with an ordinary Russian family, I do have my personal insights, but I won't declare that my understanding of the country is better because of that than others ipso facto. That's just inherently silly.
In the typical manner, perhaps you assume I'm defending Israel for some reason or another (perhaps related to US politcs or so).
Wrong.
What I've said is that the present situation isn't unbearable for Israelis. The low intensity conflict can go on. And it can go on especially as the country has such a devoted ally as the US behind it. Nobody is really pushing the state to change it's ways, as they did in the case of South Africa. It's not only the Likud and the fundamentalist Jews as the culprits. Secular Israelis have to also accept the present, or at least tolerate it. That is an important issue.
It is really important to give the concrete examples, give an objective and well reasoned views than just to declare Israel is racist.
I'm not against Israel. I am against decades of human rights violations and breaches of international law. it is Israel who has impeded the right of self-determination of the Palestinians for decades through their military occupation, discriminatory laws and the construction of walls and settlements in territory that wasn't theirs.
And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:
"... Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of12 August 1949,
Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,
Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,
Condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area,
Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp, ..."
http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1544
Or the rapport of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. I recommend you read the conclusion. Page 21-25.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/4aeeba692.html
Or the rulings by the International Court of Justice on the topic of the construction of the West Bank Barrier. here's an excerpt;
"Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right."
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131
I could go on like this forever.
Throughout all of this, the United States has ensured Israel was able to continue its malpractices, for example through using its veto to block resolutions. However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions.
However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions.
When did that last time happen? Under Obama or earlier?
Unfortunately there's no incentive for the US to change it's unwavering support of Israel at every stance. On the contrary, the support is even more fervent.
One example is UNSCR 2334 which was adopted 14 votes to 0 in 2016. The US abstained from voting instead of vetoing it.
An excerpt:
"... Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, ..."
https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf
Read the whole thing. It is not very long, but it speaks volumes.
One example is UNSCR 2334 which was adopted 14 votes to 0 in 2016. The US abstained from voting instead of vetoing it.
Which shows far better thinking than just the total appeasement of today.
But hey, if a billionaire gave Trump 82 million dollars (less than he spent against Obama the previous election), naturally Trump will give the billionaire what he wants. That's the actual reality of US foreign policy, when it comes to Israel. US policy is literally decided by billionaires, who give money to the winning candidate.
Thanks. Btw, I've found UN documents quite reliable on many occasions. They don't have such bias as media can have.. as anything accepted by all participants typically isn't biased influencing. Another great insight is reading the local "Blue Berets" magazine, where they observe quite objectively the situation in Lebanon as blue berets are intended to do. Again quite different story from the Western media.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 23, 2020 at 01:12#3745110 likes
And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:
I'm fully aware that the UN has condemned Israel on quite a few occasions.
In 2016, there were more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the entire world. It was 3x more than any other country, so if you go by the UN then Israel must be the worst country.
Between 2012 and 2015, the UN General Assembly charged 86% of their resolutions against Israel.
No Israel isn't perfect, but Arabs are allowed to vote and have political representation in the government. They have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Jews are arrested in Israel for committing crimes against Arabs. If you're mad about the wall then I'm sorry but that's what happens when you repeatedly blow yourself up at bars and repeatedly go on stabbing sprees against civilians.
If aliens were to listen in and go by the UN, they would believe Israel is by far the worst country on the face of the planet.
EDIT: Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest.
The problem does not lie in abstract concepts. It is mainly specific: the rights of specific people living in a place who are stolen, expelled and massacred when they resist. In the name of a mythical narrative that comes from two millennia ago.
EDIT: Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest.
Rigorously false. In every negotiation, the Israeli spokesman (i.e., the United States government) offered conditions that were obviously unacceptable to the Palestinians. The alleged autonomy was of the Bantustan type. They make a truly autonomous state with precise boundaries, control of own resources, etc., unfeasible. The latest fallacy is the demand for recognition of Israel's "Jewish nature". A farce and an insult to the human rights of the Arab Israelis.
If you're mad about the wall then I'm sorry but that's what happens when you repeatedly blow yourself up at bars and repeatedly go on stabbing sprees against civilians.
Yes, that's of course the excuse that is put forward. However, it is blatantly obvious that the West Bank Barrier is being used to 1) annex Palestinian territories, 2) bully Palestinians into leaving by making every day life impossible or simply by demolishing their houses.
You cannot explain the location of the wall, which is illegal in every respect where it is built on territory that doesn't belong to Israel, by pointing at security.
Furthermore, you cannot punish innocent people for the actions of a radical minority. That constitutes collective punishment, which is illegal under international law. And for good reason.
Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest.
The Palestinian leadership is terribly inept. That much is self-evident. However, Israel has actively worked to make a two-state solution an impossibility and has been condemned for doing so by the UN.
"Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground, ..."
https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf
You're a fool to portray Israel as a honest broker in this scenario.
No Israel isn't perfect, but Arabs are allowed to vote and have political representation in the government. They have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Jews are arrested in Israel for committing crimes against Arabs.
.And they are actively discriminated against. Have you followed the recent law changes adopted by the Knesset? These further stipulate that Israel is a nation for Jews, not Arabs.
You realize how discriminatory this is? Imagine if the following was part of the United States constitution:
"North America is the historical homeland of white people, in which the United States was established."
"The United States is the nation state of white people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination."
"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the United States is unique to white people."
"The State shall be open for white immigration."
Under "Connection to white people", article 6:
"The State shall strive to ensure the safety of white people and of its citizens, who are in trouble and in captivity, due to their whiteness or otherwise."
Under "White people settlement", article 7:
"The State views the development of white people's settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening."
Lets imagine you're a black man reading this. Does that sound racist to you? It should, because it is.
If aliens were to listen in and go by the UN, they would believe Israel is by far the worst country on the face of the planet.
An unanimous vote by the UN equals the whole world, including many countries that support Israel, condemning something. I don't know what that means to you, and how you still manage to dodge the blatantly obvious: it is unacceptable.
If you believe otherwise, then please start explaining how violating human rights and international law can be justified and I will happily tear that argument apart.
Let's say there's nation ABC. Now nation DEF conquers nation ABC and rules over the original inhabitants of ABC - i.e., the rights of a specific people (the ABCers) living in a place were stolen, expelled and massacred when they resisted.
Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?
If yes, then for how long? Is there some amount of time after which you say to the descendants of ABC - "Yes, you're historically right, your land was taken away from you, but X number of years have passed. Get over it?"
Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?
If yes, then for how long?
First of all, nations do not have rights over individuals. Putting the nation above the people is the typical ideology of fascism.
Even if the Jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, their right to occupy Palestine does not exist. No more than the rights of the Great Sioux Nation to occupy Dakota or the Italians to occupy Marseille.
And even less to appropriate land through war. Force is the opposite of justice.
If Jews wanted to be safe from antisemitism in Europe they had to find other means than going to Palestine to kill Palestinians. In doing so, they lost any reason they might have had.
No. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not rooted in ancestral rights, but in ultra-nationalism, imperialism and force.
Under these conditions, the right to resistance is recognized in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the moral sense of people. It will last as long as the occupation lasts and a clear link can be established between those who suffered and those who are suffering.
As far as controlling the use of force and its consequences is concerned, I believe that moral sense and international law must provide the answer.
First of all, nations do not have rights over individuals.
And just what institution would have the authority to say so? Nations have sovereignty, that is how they are defined. They can make agreements between each other (co-operate through UN etc), but that is more like a mutual agreement among peers, not an abdication of their sovereingty.
Putting the nation above the people is the typical ideology of fascism.
I gather then that then every nation that has any kind of defence clause is fascist in your view. Because defence of the state does put the nation before the individual in many ways, especially the rights of those who 'attack' it.
Even if the Jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, their right to occupy Palestine does not exist. No more than the rights of the Great Sioux Nation to occupy Dakota
The US waged war against the Sioux, brutally slaughtered them, took away their land which they had occupied for thousands of years, and forced them into what we would now call concentration camps.
Roughly 125 years have passed since those events. By any objective standard the Sioux have suffered at least as much as the Palestinians - if not worse.
So superficially you seem to be answering my question - 125 years is the time limit.
Just to be clear, I am not criticizing your positions on Israel/Palestine. I don't know if it's possible, but I'm trying to take a broader view.
The nation is a concept that summarizes a certain cultural unity of a group of individuals. It is relatively useful for defending the common rights of its components. However, if the Nation becomes a substantial subject, an abstract entity with autonomous existence, it is being given rights over real subjects' rights. This is the source of fascism, not the defense of individuals. Every abuse is justified on behalf of Nation, as it is the case with Israel.
All conflict implies relations of force (direct or indirect). But any use of force has limits that colonialism violates, as it is the case with Israel.
In short: one cannot defend oneself by attacking innocent people. Nor can nations.
And just what institution would have the authority to say so?
Unfortunately, universal authority is practically non-existent in international politics. The State of Israel was created with the permission of an aberrant pact between Stalin and the colonial powers. Only the votes of some "independent" countries like Ukraine allowed it.
However, this is a forum of philosophy and we can judge things under the premises of justice and morality. As for cynicism, we already have the masters of the world and their footmen.
And just what institution would have the authority to say so? Nations have sovereignty, that is how they are defined. They can make agreements between each other (co-operate through UN etc), but that is more like a mutual agreement among peers, not an abdication of their sovereingty.
Unfortunately, universal authority is practically non-existent in international politics.
I'd like to point out that the UN has a large amount of authority over nations. There's such a thing as state sovereignty, but there's also things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the latter takes priority over the former in legal terms.
If a country is doing something that's illegal under international law, the UN has the legal authority to prosecute them and even invade them if the situation demands it.
Of course, the UN does not have an army and relies on other nations to provide troops. That makes the exercise of authority difficult in certain cases, but it does have that authority.
Unfortunately, universal authority is practically non-existent in international politics.
If there would be a true universal authority, nothing else in the World would bring people together as it would ...in opposing it from the heart.
Authorities are controlled in the end by tiny cabals and hence I wouldn't want to give the billionaires now running the show even more power than they have.
How things work is really through co-operation of sovereign states, not through universal authorities. The really bad idea is to think that "let's have a universal Global nation state". Just as nation states themselves truly need to have also communal independence too. It works for a reason. Too much centralization is bad. It's not a coincidence that the UN is made of nation states working together.
The State of Israel was created with the permission of an aberrant pact between Stalin and the colonial powers. Only the votes of some "independent" countries like Ukraine allowed it.
Stalin? Stalin might have seen that Israel is one way to force the UK out of the Middle East, but that honeymoon was over quite quickly. Ukraine?
There's such a thing as state sovereignty, but there's also things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the latter takes priority over the former in legal terms.
It's obvious that sovereign states can and should agree on many issues. That doesn't take away their sovereignty at all. If one state goes totally off the norms, that has consequences. Peer pressure is a good thing. But notice the word 'peer'.
Reply to ssu The UN has the authority to intervene even if the intervened state doesn't agree. This would be considered a sanctioned breach of that state's sovereignty.
The UN has the authority to intervene even if the intervened state doesn't agree. This would be considered a sanctioned breach of that state's sovereignty.
Yes. Just like the UN truly did go to war in Korea. Yet the UN is made of sovereign states that decide what to do with the organization.
Hence the rules are decided by peers called sovereign states. There is nothing illogical in that. There is a difference between: a) sovereign states agreeing on the rules and b) there being an universal authority that would say it represents all the people in the World and thus has power over the old nation states.
Just think WHY did Israel start the Peace process in the first place? The answer in my view is that the Cold War was over and Israel presumed that things would change and the US wouldn't be so interested in backing itself up. Perhaps they couldn't fathom how much power the Evangelicals and AIPAC have in the US-Israeli relations.
So now, heck with it! The US backs whatever they want to do.
... the UN is made of sovereign states that decide what to do with the organization.
I wouldn't put it that way. When the UN was created sovereign states forfeited a part of their sovereignty by becoming members. The UN has grown as time has passed and its authority now extends also to non-member states, meaning that leaving the UN does not necessarily return all of that sovereignty to the state.
Hence the rules are decided by peers called sovereign states. There is nothing illogical in that. There is a difference between: a) sovereign states agreeing on the rules and b) there being an universal authority that would say it represents all the people in the World and thus has power over the old nation states.
I would compare the UN to a democratic government, but a government nonetheless. The way you are describing the UN makes it sound like a form of multilateral agreement (a), when in fact the UN has become a supranational organization; an organization with authority over states (more like b).
I didn't say there was anything illogical about it, by the way.
The problem I have with your comparison is that it seems to have things backwards. In your comparison you are equating the Sioux with the Israelis, i.e. the Sioux are not allowed to reclaim their historic homeland. My point was that we should be equating the Sioux with the Palestinians - they are the aggrieved party. Apologies if I was not clear on that.
You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts.
Absolutely. But if there are no guidelines/rules/laws at all, then there will be no way to resolve these issues. There has to be some agreed upon structure that all parties can agree upon for discussions to take place. Otherwise it's simply might makes right - the winner makes up the rules to justify their actions.
Embajada de Israel en la República Dominicana.:Australia, Bélgica, Bielorrusia, Bolivia, Brasil, Canadá, Checoslovaquia, Costa Rica, Dinamarca, República Dominicana, Ecuador, Estados Unidos, Filipinas, Francia, Guatemala, Haití, Holanda, Islandia, Liberia, Luxemburgo, Nueva Zelandia, Nicaragua, Noruega, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, Polonia, Suecia, Sudáfrica, la Unión Soviética, Ucrania, Uruguay y Venezuela.
The list was published by the Israeli Embassy in the Dominican Republic. It didn't take me more than five minutes to find it. I didn't have time to translate it. I assume you have no problem identifying Ukraine and the other states.
You'll notice the obvious absence of African and Asian countries. This was before colonial emancipation. A significant fact.
Of course, the UN does not have an army and relies on other nations to provide troops. That makes the exercise of authority difficult in certain cases, but it does have that authority.
An authority that depends on the authorization of a council of the great powers does not seem to me to be independent. Although the legislation it promotes is beautiful.
Just think WHY did Israel start the Peace process in the first place?
Israel proposed peace on one or two occasions when it thought the other party would not accept it and when it was in its interest to consolidate its power in the 75 per cent of Palestinian territory it had appropriated. When the Palestinians realized that the armed road was leading nowhere and began to propose peace, Israel retreated again and again to make it impossible.
n your comparison you are equating the Sioux with the Israelis, i.e. the Sioux are not allowed to reclaim their historic homeland. My point was that we should be equating the Sioux with the Palestinians - they are the aggrieved party. Apologies if I was not clear on that.
I agree with your comparison. Maybe I expressed myself badly.
But if there are no guidelines/rules/laws at all, then there will be no way to resolve these issues.
What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea.
What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea.
What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago [s]based on legends[/s] would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea.
Firstly - and this is a minor point - these are not legends. There is a clear historical record that there was an autonomous Jewish nation prior to being taken over by Rome.
I agree with your main idea - after 2K years it's too late to go back.
But this does not answer my question - how do we resolve situations where multiple groups of people lay claim to the same physical land? Is there any legal/moral/philosophical/political framework that can be used to untangle these situations?
And can we apply such a framework to help untangle the Israeli/Palestinian situation?
When the UN was created sovereign states forfeited a part of their sovereignty by becoming members.
Show me where in the US Constitution the Congress forfeits it's power to the UN? I don't think you find it there. Not there in even in the case of Finland, which is a member of the EU, it's still quite clear too. From the Finnish Constitution:
Chapter 1 - Fundamental provisions
Section 1 -The Constitution
Finland is a sovereign republic.
The constitution of Finland is established in this constitutional act. The constitution shall guarantee the inviolability of human dignity and the freedom and rights of the individual and promote justice in society.
Finland participates in international co-operation for the protection of peace and human rights and for the development of society. Finland is a Member State of the European Union (1112/2011, entry into force 1.3.2012).
Participation in co-operation is NOT forfeiting. Furthermore, if this wouldn't be clear, then let's look at what the UN Charter actually says:
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
This should illustrate totally clearly that the UN is a tool FOR sovereign members, and these members are nations. Because it genuinely refers to them, there ought to be no confusion about this and the agenda of the UN. It's a classic Republican conspiracy theory in the US to argue that the agenda of the UN is to forfeit power from the nation states (or just basically from the US, which only matters).
Reply to ssu My use of the word "forfeited" was inaccurate, but its not integral to the point I'm trying to make, namely that there are rules that states have to follow. State sovereignty is no longer seen as merely a nation's right to handle its internal affairs.
This has been addressed in the document I linked earlier, which I had hoped you would read.
Under article 1.35:
"The defence of state sovereignty, by even its strongest supporters, does not include any claim of the unlimited power of a state to do what it wants to its own people. [...] It is acknowledged that sovereignty implies a dual responsibility. Externally - to respect the sovereignty of other states, and internally, to respect the dignity and basic rights of all people within the state. In international human rights covenants, in UN practice, and in state practice itself, sovereignty is now understood as embracing this dual responsibility."
And article 2.14:
"The Charter of the UN is itself an example of an international obligation voluntarily accepted by member states. On one hand, in granting membership of the UN, the international community welcomes the signatory state as a responsible member of the community of nations. On the other hand, the state itself, in signing the Charter, accepts the responsibilities of membership flowing from that signature. There is no transfer or dilution of state sovereignty. But there is a necessary re-characterization involved: from sovereignty as control to sovereignty as responsibility in both internal functions and external duties."
Further, under article 2.29:
"Secondly, the responsibility to protect acknowledges that the primary responsibility in this regard rests with the state concerned, and it is only if the state is unable or unwilling to fulfill this responsibility, or is itself the perpetrator, that it becomes the responsibility of the international community to act in its place."
In other words, nations have responsibilities and have to follow rules. If they don't, it becomes the responsibility of the international community to put an end to their malpractices. What states write in their constitutions is irrelevant in this matter.
If you were to point out that certain states are too powerful to stop, you would of course be right. However, this doesn't change the fact that the UN holds authority over these states. Some states are too weak to battle organized crime, but that doesn't make the criminals the new authority in a legal sense.
In other words, nations have responsibilities and have to follow rules.
Which (in the case of UN) have been a) at start been voluntarily accepted by them and b) not usually not de facto enforced if the state don't follow when the states have powerful backers and/or militaries, like in the case of Israel.
If you were to point out that certain states are too powerful to stop, you would of course be right.
I would argue that basically nation states are far more powerful than they appear. They could opt for the route of North Korea and seclude themselves from the global community, but that would be catastrophic for their economies. But if they can control their territory, one basic requisite for being a functioning state, they would be left alone. One really has to be truly a dysfunctional country for others to intervene with force. The fact is that co-operation among peers is absolutely essential, starting from as obvious examples of trade and commerce across borders.
Let's think about basics for a moment. National sovereignty comes from other states recognizing the independence of a state. If any other state doesn't recognize an independence declaration, there is no sovereign state. It really is a system of peers and 'peer-review'.
Which (in the case of UN) have been a) at start been voluntarily accepted by them and b) not usually not de facto enforced if the state don't follow when the states have powerful backers and/or militaries, like in the case of Israel.
"At the start" is key here. The responsibilities may have been voluntarily taken up initially, today following international law is no longer voluntary, and breaking international law risks consequences, military or other. Enforcement is indeed a more complicated issue, though.
I would argue that basically nation states are far more powerful than they appear. They could opt for the route of North Korea and seclude themselves from the global community, but that would be catastrophic for their economies. But if they can control their territory, one basic requisite for being a functioning state, they would be left alone. One really has to be truly a dysfunctional country for others to intervene with force. The fact is that co-operation among peers is absolutely essential, starting from as obvious examples of trade and commerce.
Let's think about basics for a moment. National sovereignty comes from other states recognizing the independence of a state. If any other state doesn't recognize an independence declaration, there is no sovereign state. It really is a system of peers and 'peer-review'.
Well, there's a fair amount of debate about what constitutes a state. Within international law and international relations the definition of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is commonly used. It states that a state must have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Therefore, a state really only needs to be recognized by one other state in order to fulfill this criterion. Furthermore it states that the political existence of a state (including its sovereignty?) is independent of recognition by the other states, which complicates the matter further.
Though, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Cooperation generally leads to prosperity, sure.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 25, 2020 at 22:20#3755760 likes
You realize how discriminatory this is? Imagine if the following was part of the United States constitution:
"North America is the historical homeland of white people, in which the United States was established."
"The United States is the nation state of white people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination."
"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the United States is unique to white people."
"The State shall be open for white immigration."
Under "Connection to white people", article 6:
"The State shall strive to ensure the safety of white people and of its citizens, who are in trouble and in captivity, due to their whiteness or otherwise."
Under "White people settlement", article 7:
"The State views the development of white people's settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening."
Lets imagine you're a black man reading this. Does that sound racist to you? It should, because it is.
There is no collective white identity. It's funny you choose white here.... what about black? Asian? How about Kurdish or Armenian? If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?
If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?
If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly. Especially when they combine it with violating their fundamental human rights on a large scale.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 25, 2020 at 22:40#3755820 likes
If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.
Well, I'm happy to hear that you're applying the same standards across ethnic groups.
From how I see it, whether it's the armenians, the kurds, or the jews all three of these groups have suffered serious mass killings and repeated historical injustice if not actual genocide (with the jews and armenians) with the primary purpose of an ethno-state (whether it be kurd, armenian, or jewish) being much needed security for those groups. It's not like the international community is going to come in and rescue them, after all. Ultimately, everyone must fend for themselves.
You're missing the point. You cited the basic laws of Israel earlier, which undeniably establish Israel's identity as a Jewish state. It's not vague about that. Even under a "best case scenario" you'd still be complaining because it's Jewish as opposed to Arab or Muslim. Jews are going to be favored when it comes to immigration or who gets citizenship.
I'm trying to distinguish here between what is inherently so and what is not inherently so.
How exactly would the oppression and discrimination of minorities contribute to that security?
Just to be clear here, you're saying that the mere existence of a Jewish state constitutes oppression and discrimination.
In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past.
A similar thing could be said about every healthy democracy.
In a democracy, the people decide. When the richest people decide it is called plutocracy. When the strongest, it is called tyranny. You have to call a spade a spade.
Firstly - and this is a minor point - these are not legends. There is a clear historical record that there was an autonomous Jewish nation prior to being taken over by Rome.
You are wrong. The unified Jewish kingdom only existed in the mythical period of Saul, David and Solomon. After that, the Jewish people were divided among several countries mostly under foreign occupation. When Rome occupied Palestine, the two main kingdoms were Judah and Israel.
But this does not answer my question - how do we resolve situations where multiple groups of people lay claim to the same physical land?
Many times it is not an easy question. Other times it is clear, at least in a negative way. Not by means of war. Not appealing to mythical claims. Not because of some alleged 2,000-year-old right. If these perverse foundations of law became widespread, there would be oppression, chaos and universal violence. As in fact already happens in Palestine.
This clearly excludes Arabs and Muslims. 20% of Israel's population. Self-determination is a fundamental human right.
All ethnic states are established to the detriment of minorities. In the case of Israel there are specific laws and practices against native Palestinians: citizenship, land ownership, right of return, mixed marriages, etc. Amnesty International regularly reports on massive violations of basic rights. That is why Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu called Israel a new form of apartheid. He knew well what he was talking about.
schopenhauer1January 26, 2020 at 06:44#3756660 likes
Respect to the human rights or justice. Call it as you like.
And how many countries started without respecting human rights in some way and continue to do so? Should they be dismantled as countries? China doesn't respect certain rights of privacy, speech, religion, and so on. Should that country be dissolved? Russia has a fake democracy. English and French kings and lords violated human rights all the time with torturing and quartering enemies and prisoners. Germany enacted a Holocaust as late as the 20th century and precipitated the immediate need for Jews to have a place that can be considered their own. America expanded into what some would say was sovereign territory by the Native Americans and enslaved peoples from Africa. Native American tribes often killed men and women, and kidnapped small children to raise them in their own tribe. Are all these nations less worthy of land they own?
But I know the counter argument that two wrongs don't make a right. I agree. But, let's look at the facts on the ground. The West Bank and Gaza did not want to form into a state between 1948-1967. Or at least, Jordan and Egypt didn't want to encourage this. They wanted the whole thing or nothing at all. Israel got the West Bank and Gaza, and the Sinai, after being threatened from imminent attack in 1967 and again in 1973.
Then came an intractable problem. From the 70s onwards, there were bombings and terror acts against Israeli civilians by suicide bombers. You have to have "reasonable" negotiating partners in order to make a deal. Suicide bombing does not engender reasonableness. It was a bad strategy if you wanted to negotiate in good faith and not simply want the other side obliterated or driven out. This cycle continues to this day. Suicide attacks will cause the population to not trust "liberals" who will not protect the citizens, and drive the peace process further backwards. Both sides want a stalemate because they don't see a way out.
Either way, I don't see it as a human rights thing as much as an inability to negotiate. Nothing is one-sided.
In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past.
You cannot justify a current injustice on the basis of a hypothetical injustice. In any case, the solution to that injustice cannot be to kill the future offender. Are we at Minority Report? Do we play politics fiction?
The real fact is that the only justification for Israel's crimes is the fear of Palestinian rebellion.
First of all: there would be no rebellion without a previous occupation.
Second: the fear of rebellion by the natives leads the settlers to live in a state of permanent war. This state of war is incompatible with any kind of true democracy. Justice cannot exist when a dominant fears and hates the dominated. We have recently seen that in the slave states of the United States and in apartheid South Africa. I know that some of the early Zionists have a (naive) feeling of benevolence towards the Palestinians. After decades of fear and hatred, these good settlers have vanished and only Netanyahu, Lieberman and the armed settlers remain.
The problem was the occupation. The solution will be difficult. Especially since the neo-colonial powers are not interested in it.
But I know the counter argument that two wrongs don't make a right. I agree. But, let's look at the facts on the ground. The West Bank and Gaza did not want to form into a state between 1948-1967. Or at least, Jordan and Egypt didn't want to encourage this. They wanted the whole thing or nothing at all. Israel got the West Bank and Gaza, and the Sinai, after being threatened from imminent attack in 1967 and again in 1973.
Then came an intractable problem
Let's not start with counterfactual scenarios. Neither you nor anyone else knows what would have happened if the Palestinians had formed their own state or integrated into an Arab state. The first thing that should have been done at the time is to ask their opinion. This is a necessary condition for any process of decolonization.
But it was not done, and they were delivered in hands of an anti-Arab political movement that foresaw at least their expulsion if not worse. We are discussing a real fact. Not political fiction. Politics fiction cannot justify massacres and ethnic cleansing.
schopenhauer1January 26, 2020 at 07:27#3756700 likes
Yet, that is exactly how history can be analyzed. Anyways, I don't see anything you said as countering the fact that this is about an issue of the inability to negotiate.
In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past.
In such a scenario, do you think it would help if Israel had a century of antagonizing Arabs under its belt? I think that only sparks more hate, making retaliation more likely, rather than co-existence.
"I can be mean to them because they would be mean to me" is a mindset that will never create a better future. It will only repeat the mistakes of the past.
You find the basic laws of israel to be racist. the basic laws set out the very idea, the very concept of the state. they define its purpose and basic ideas.
could you tell me your version of an acceptable jewish state?
edit: you admitted earlier that you don't accept the idea of an ethno-state regardless of whether its armenia, kurd, etc. if there's minorities living under it so the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens.
You find the basic laws of israel to be racist. the basic laws set out the very idea, the very concept of the state. they define its purpose and basic ideas.
The controversial "Nation State Law", also called "Basic Law", is not quite the same as the "basic laws of Israel". The piece of legislature I linked to has been passed in the Knesset in 2018.
could you tell me your version of an acceptable jewish state?
A state in which minorities are treated with respect and dignity. State practice and law should reflect their presence is legitimate, and not undesirable. Their rights should be the same as any other citizen. I consider such things to be the basis of any proper state.
edit: you admitted earlier that you don't accept the idea of an ethno-state regardless of whether its armenia, kurd, etc. if there's minorities living under it so the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens.
If that's what you think I'm implying you are an absolute fool.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 26, 2020 at 11:58#3757090 likes
If that's what you think I'm implying you are an absolute fool.
We had this exchange earlier:
If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?
— BitconnectCarlos
If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.
...So in other words you'd be against the ethno-state if it included minorities.
The controversial "Nation State Law", also called "Basic Law", is not quite the same as the "basic laws of Israel". The piece of legislature I linked to has been passed in the Knesset in 2018.
It would seem to be one of the basic laws according to wikipedia.
In any case make no mistake about it; Israel is a fundamentally Jewish state and that has always been the intention since its founding.
If these perverse foundations of law became widespread
I'll loop around one more time here. You seem be implicitly acknowledging in this sentence that there are (or should be) some rules to govern who should own the land.
As you have correctly noted, the Israeli/Palestinian situation is not unique. While each situation has it's own unique history (and range of solutions) there is still the underlying question - how to resolve disputes over land ownership.
Again - I am not criticizing your positions. My desire is to see a peaceful resolution of the situation - but I acknowledge that this is highly unlikely. I would gladly be wrong, but I see nothing ahead but continued violence.
I'll give you the last word here - if you want it that is. . . .
schopenhauer1January 26, 2020 at 17:10#3757640 likes
Not the story they taught me.
The best-seller books of history maybe.
I don't know what you really meant by counterfactual history. What I meant was that a major part of history is analyzing the decisions that were made and how that negatively or positively affected a later outcome. I don't know what you're trying to get at. In this case, instead of working on a plan for a Palestinian state, the Arab countries along with the Palestinians decided that this was not the route they wanted to go. Rather, full annihilation was more important. As I judge it, that was a poor decision during the years when that was possible to create some sort of independent state.
Do you blame the Jews for not knowing how to negotiate with Hitler?
This is a ridiculous statement. This analogy is extremely bad, and in poor taste. It's actually beyond poor taste. When did Jews in Europe ever have a chance to "negotiate" with Hitler? Palestinian leadership has had plenty of chances to negotiate with Israel. The problem is the negotiation tactics have been "Israel should be driven to the sea", and "suicide bombers will do the negotiating for us through terror and scare tactics". Again, this is another poor tactic, similar to the decision not to make a state when they could have. Why is this a poor decision? In a land the size of New Jersey, when you feel your very life is threatened on any bus or cafe or public area, and that it is happening frequently and at any time, you will vote for a strongman who will prevent things from happening and use maximum force if threatened, take maximum security check measures, and less likely to give in to demands.
Essentially this is what happened during the 90s and 2000's. A bunch of suicide bombings created an atmosphere of distrust of left-wing politicians to protect them. Certainly, on the Israel side, it was terrible that Rabin was assassinated as he was trying for a path (even if he was working with a less than willing partner). Certainly it was terrible that Arafat could not negotiate with Ehud Barak over something like a very miniscule amount of land. But unfortunately, on top of those relatively unstable attempts at peace, the main "negotiating" tactic on the Palestinian side has been terror. Again, a bad decision for them as instead of terrifying the Israeli population into leaving or giving into any demand, it just made them vote for more conservative strongmen. Memories are pretty long in that part of the world. I don't know Israeli politics that closely, but my guess is that the fear of any letting up on security measures or strongmen tactics would precipitate more terror attacks and thus continue the cycle.
What can be done on the Palestinian side? Moderation with the genuine desire to curb terror activity. What can be done on the Israeli side? Vote in someone willing to go back to the negotiating table. However, what will probably happen is once someone more left-leaning gets voted in, the rockets and suicide bombers will see an opening, the Israeli public will get fearful again and vote in another conservative strongman.
the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens.
How on Earth did you read my words and come to the conclusion I must find it acceptable for Israel (or any other country for that matter) "to kick its minorities out"? There is no such implication. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what I've been arguing.
If this is the level at which this discussion continues I'm out.
As you have correctly noted, the Israeli/Palestinian situation is not unique. While each situation has it's own unique history (and range of solutions) there is still the underlying question - how to resolve disputes over land ownership.
Apply the Kantian categorical imperative: What would happen in the world if Israeli policy became the universal norm? Total instability of international borders. The law of the strongest without restrictions. The Hobbesian state of nature. Or universal war.
You can say that some of that we have now. True, but with a certain modesty and limitations. If it were to become the norm it would be chaos.
I am also pessimistic about the solution of the Palestinian problem.
When did Jews in Europe ever have a chance to "negotiate" with Hitler?
When did Palestinians ever have a chance to "negotiate" with Israelis?
Your narrative is a summary of Israeli-American mythology about the negotiations. I'll discuss it when I have time. For now, I will make my own summary: the so-called negotiations have been an attempt to forcing the Palestinians to swallow the conditions that made a Palestinian state nonviable and that implied the recognition of Israel not as a state - that Arafat did - but as a Jewish ethnic state. The history of these "negotiations" was one of successive Palestinian concessions that produced subsequent hardening of the Israeli position. I suggest you read what one of the few Israelis with a willingness to make peace wrote: Uri Avnery. Unfortunately there are no longer any like him.
Two main obstacles to peace are often considered to be terrorism and occupation. In the Western media, Palestinian terrorism would justify Israel's state terrorism, but not vice versa. This is a (non-)curious bias.
In any case, it is clear that occupation is a cause of Palestinian terrorism.
Some Palestinian efforts have been made to prevent terrorism in collaboration with the Israeli authorities. They can be considered insufficient. But Israel has made no attempt to reduce state terrorism. Neither sufficient nor insufficient.
The occupation is the (main) cause of Palestinian terrorism. Successive Israeli governments continue to increase the occupation without interruption.
Who is to blame for the persistence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? How do we share the responsibility?
As for the attitude of successive Israeli governments, one more thing could be said: it is fully consistent with the Zionist project, as it was devised by its main actors before the creation of the State of Israel. That the Palestinian resistance surprised them and forced Zionism to act in an unforeseen way in the long term is another matter. They probably foresaw a calmer situation in the manner of the "pacification" of the Native Americans. Reality has overtaken them in some sense.
don't know what you really meant by counterfactual history. What I meant was that a major part of history is analyzing the decisions that were made and how that negatively or positively affected a later outcome
A counterfactual explanation is one that makes hypotheses about the consequences of an event that did not really happen. In history it's a fallacy. You can predict in exceptional cases what it would have happened in the short term if some exceptional event (not) had taken place. It is history fiction to predict what Europe would look like today if Napoleon had won at Waterloo or if Mark Antony and Cleopatra had defeated Octavian. Frivolities.
schopenhauer1January 27, 2020 at 15:05#3761340 likes
Palestinian terrorism would justify Israel's state terrorism, but not vice versa.
Not quite the same. A state will do what is in its power to stop terrorism or threat to its population. Terrorists who act from remote countries, well this will look different when the terrorists are right next door or in your midst. In a country the size of New Jersey with the terrorist actors literally in the same land areas, this is going to look the way it does. Now, there are extremists on the Jewish side that can sound and act pretty crazily too. I mentioned one that killed Rabin. But, unlike the Palestinian side which seems to use it as a weapons, get praise, and is seen as a "win" for their side, I suspect if the Israeli government got ahold of a plot from the extreme right on their side, it would be tried, and they would be punished accordingly. This is something I've never heard the Palestinian side do. Instead, many people in government on the Pals side are behind it I suspect. This is particularly the case with Hamas, etc.
Again, it is a miscalculation on the Pals side to use terrorism as a weapon. One of the reasons is their goals are unreasonable. Many in leadership still don't want to give up and make concessions. That is what negotiating is. You have to give something up. Everyone will not walk away with what they want. That is THE key in resolving this. Some of the stated goals are to literally push Israel into the sea. You can't work with that. I will say, in order for this to work, moderates have to step up to the plate on both sides. I agree with that much. Otherwise, it is a permanent stalemate, with each side doing what it knows how to do best.
A state will do what is in its power to stop terrorism or threat to its population.
The end does not justify the means. Terrorism is not about ends but means. Terrorism is the use of terrible force against non-combatants to force them to accept some end. This is independent of the goodness or evil of the ends. In fact all terrorists claim ends that are respectable: The Palestinian terrorist argues resistance against a brutal occupation and Israeli state terrorism is justified for the protection of the civilian population.
Apart from the fact that violence against the civilian population is repugnant in itself, the use of terrorism degrades the good cause that is used as justification. The moral degradation of people and the preeminence of fanatical leaders are the normal consequences of a society that normalizes terrorism. At the end of the process the real ends are no longer those that are preached. We are seeing this in the respective sides of the Palestinian conflict.
That, not to mention the general hypocrisy that affects other countries. Because the conflict in Palestine is not - and never has been - a mere local conflict.
Comments (198)
And what will Israel talk about?
Yes, what will Sheldon Adelson and the AIPAC talk and what will they make Trump / the next President / the US do?
With the actual state of Israel the matter is different. Likely Israel cannot make a pre-emptive strike on the nuclear weapons program as it could do with Iraq AND the Syrian WMD project (people who don't know about the hit on the Syrian program, see Operation Outside the Box).
The fundamental taboo question is: "Can Israel and Iran have a balance in nuclear deterrence just Russia vs US, China vs US, India vs Pakistan?" I think it obviously yes. Forget the demagoguery of the Middle East, these players will fall in line just as every other country having nuclear weapons has. But naturally the rhetoric HAS TO BE that Iranians are crazy Mullahs hell bent on destroying Israel even if that means that Iran will be destroyed. Yet it doesn't make sense. Never has. But whatever goes in the public discourse. Iranian politicians get likes with rants of destroying Israel and the US politicians will get likes with of rants that Iran poses an existential threat to the US. All that nonsense will continue.
Israel will just loose it's nuclear hegemony and likely it will make it more timid in attacking it's neighbours.
With having a strong nuclear deterrence, total superiority in the air and basically with their own armed forces being superior to other, having their foes in shambles (Syria in civil war, Egypt just barely hanging there), and having the sole Superpower as an obedient ally ready and wiling to rush to their help? It's not a dire situation as you think.
Sure, they might be worried, the US can be worried by North Korean nukes too, but the fact is that Netanyahu has chosen this low intensity conflict as the normal for Israel. Their mistake was after the Cold War to think that the US wouldn't see them as so important and hence started the Peace process. They had no reason to. The US supports them as fiercely as ever.
Quoting BitconnectCarlosThat indeed in might have happened during their war of Independence. Afterwards, they crushed their enemies quite well. Today is different than 1948.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And the ugly truth is that actually WW3 didn't happen. Yes, we came close, but we didn't have it.
We're talking about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Israel funds anti-Iranian regime groups and Iran funds anti-Israel groups. If Iran were to withdraw support from Hezbollah and Hamas I'd suspect there could be serious inroads made to normalizing relations.
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
I understand that Israel won in 1948, 1967, and 1973. I also understand that there were no nuclear strikes between the US-USSR during the cold war or for the matter India-Pakistan.
You seem to regard these facts as inevitabilities though, and I'd like to push back against that notion. If we embrace free will we should understand that there could have been a nuclear holocaust and we've basically just got lucky that it hasn't happened. We should view our current situation as extremely fortunate. There were many, many critical junction points where things could have gone differently both in regard to a nuclear holocaust and Israel's victories in '48, '67, and '73. You know that in 1967 Israel did a very controversial pre-emptive strike against the Egyptians which took out their air force. It was hotly debated. Israeli tank commanders outmanuevered their enemies in tanks battles in 1973 despite being outnumbered; it was not a certain victory.
What do you think about this view of history?
To me it seems obvious that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is a pretty major national security concern for Israel. The question is to what to extent Israel should go to prevent this from happening.
Also 1956. During the Suez crisis Israel performed it's part without any problems.
And don't forget Operation "Peace for Galilee" in 1982, the swift occupation of Lebanon and the defeat of Syria in that conflict. If in 1973 the Soviet lead ground based air defence had brought some losses to the Israeli Air Force, the dominance of Israeli air power in 1982 was totally clear. The Syrian air force was shot from the sky: 85 shot down vs. no losses to Israel.
(Line up of Israeli F-15 fighters with their kill marks after 1982.)
The 2006 Lebanese-Isreali Border War has been the only example were the Israelis haven't been so extremely successful, but in all it cannot be regarded as a failure.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What you doesn't change the fact that as time has gone on, Israel has achieved dominance over it's neighbours. And let's remember that two of it's four neighbouring states have made peace with it. Two are totally unable to make peace as they don't now control fully their areas, even if Israel wanted to make peace.
(Sharing a cigarette after making peace. Although later an Israeli religious fanatic killed Prime Minister Rabin because of his Peace efforts. Making peace can be deadly for politicians, being a hawk is easier.)
The bottom line is that Israel is part of the First World and it's neighbours are part of Third.
And Iran? There the truth is that for Iran opposing Israel is an ideological issue, not an existential issue, the countries aren't even close to one other. Opposing Israel goes to heart of the revolutionary zeal of the Islamic Republic.
And this is why you see demonstrations in Tehran. Perhaps it's difficult for some to understand that some in the young population of Iran would be themselves tired of their country being involved in conflicts in other countries, just as some Americans are tired of their country being the Global policeman and getting it's nose into every conflict there is. The revolutionary fervour has long since toned down in Iran and been replaced an official line. Many Iranians have a better view of the US than actually people in the West think.
Few dozen cruise missiles can naturally change that, if the neocons get their way.
Quoting ssu
Not forgetting Anwar Sadat.
The so-called Doves get killed in the Middle East. While basically the ranting hate-speachers (who typically haven't been themselves anywhere near a frontline) prosper there.
Thank you for the history lesson complete with pictures. It was really tragic what happened with Rabin.
For the sake of our discussion, I've mostly been referring to Iran. I think we both know that Iran is no push over militarily speaking. In regard to the nuclear threat, a good way to measure risk is to take into account both the odds of X happening as well as the amount of damage caused by X. In the case of nuclear war the odds of a nuclear strike by Iran are small (I think we both agree that it's small, but we probably disagree on how small. 1% and .00001% are both small but very, very different figures.) The amount of damage would of course be unfathomable. I'd be interested to see if you'd be willing to throw out a % here within the next 50-100 years that either Iran or a nuclear weapon from Iran is used against Israel.
I would question this; members of the Iranian government or groups close to and funded by Iran have repeatedly supported the destruction of Israel. The destruction of a Jewish state and its replacement by an Islamic one would be a HUGE win on a religious front for nearly the entire Islamic world including Iran. Here's a few examples:
Khamenei: “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.” (2014)
Hossein Salami, the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guard: "We will chase you [Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood of our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat." (2014)
Salami: "Today we are aware of how the Zionist regime is slowly being erased from the world, and indeed, soon, there will be no such thing as the Zionist regime on Planet Earth." (2014)
Hossein Sheikholeslam, the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada: "The issue of Israel's destruction is important, no matter the method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini and the Leader [Khamenei] on the issue of destroying the Zionists. The region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it ..." (2014)
Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard: "The Revolutionary Guards will fight to the end of the Zionist regime ... We will not rest easy until this epitome of vice is totally deleted from the region's geopolitics." (2015)
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/Iranian-View-of-Israel/387085/
Make no mistake about it; Zionism is inseparable from the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. If Zionism falls Israel falls.
Iran doesn't recognize Israel and funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these groups carry out intentional attacks on civilians and the Hamas isn't remotely shy about wanting Israel wiped from the map. How about the risk of Iran proliferating the nuclear weapons to one of these groups?
At the end of the day, I want to stay optimistic. I have no qualms towards the people of Iran, only the leadership. Neither of us have the inside scoop about their actual intentions, but based on rhetoric and ideology there is cause for concern. Do not underestimate the force of religious ideology. Mutually assured destruction might be insane by western standards, but radical Islam has a strong record of self-sacrifice for the greater cause.
Neither is Zionist Israel, like its main ruling party Likud, shy about annexing the West Bank but nobody seems to worry about the existential threat to Palestinians. The difference is that Israel is continuing with settlements and annexation yet no Arab country has attacked Israel for over how many years?
If there is something that ought to fall, it is the Zionist agenda and the concept of Israel as a Jewish state that makes second rate citizens of non-Jewish Israelis. It's a racist country and Zionism is what informs that racism.
I really shouldn't respond to this since you display no understanding on what Zionism actually is. It has nothing to do with race. Jews aren't a race. If you don't believe the Jews deserve self-determination or a "safe space" given history then you're either ignorant, uncaring, or anti-semitic.
I feel conflicted about Israel. I empathize with the emotions that drive Zionism. I remember feeling so proud as a teenager after the '67 War - we took on the enemy and crushed them - and if there were ever another war I would be rooting for Israel. A defeat would be catastrophic.
That said, my feeling is that an historical mistake was made by making Israel the country of the Jewish people. It could have been declared a Jewish homeland (i.e. preserve the Right of Return) but otherwise a secular democracy. Whether this would have worked is anyone's guess.
As it is, Israel is never going to be a "safe space" - and the fate of the Palestinian people is an ongoing tragedy with no end in sight.
Fuck you for pulling the anti-semitic card when it's quite clear I take issue with the discrimination in Israel of non-Jewish Israeli citizens as a result of Jews and their Supreme Court upholding discriminatory laws, which is as much informed by culture as a conceptual race that they think entitles them to the annexation of the West Bank as part of the Promised Land. It's within the language of "the descendants of Abraham" and the "Jewish people" as opposed to, let's say, people of the Jewish faith.
If you don't see the racist undertones and indeed the racism and fascism of Begin and his Herut party and it's influence on Likud to this day then you're probably biased.
Of course, at the rate things are going, global warming & the associated climate change will likely make the whole region uninhabitable - thus solving the problem.
It would make me very happy to be wrong about all this.
A lot of those who have been there, like many blue berets that have been in Lebanon, share your pessimistic view. I see no easy way out here at all.
You see, the ugly truth is that in order for this to change, just to look at Europe. Just ask yourself, how did the French and the Germans forget about Alsace-Lorraine (or Elsass Lothringen in German)? How did these bitter rivals get so friendly? Simple answer: they fought two extremely bloody World Wars that afterward made it impossible to anyone getting hyped in a jingoistic fashion about some stupid geographical area. Europeans learned something only after millions of dead. Not before.
(The Black Stain. French schoolboys being taught about the lost provinces. Jingoism Pre-WW I.
The fact is that even if the conventional wars fought by Israel and the Arabs have been (nearly) all out wars, the losses haven't been catastrophic. It never has been a fight to the other one's destruction. They wars haven't bred war weariness at all. Just look at how religious people get all hyped up about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Somewhere else it would be considered utter stupidity.
I don't even know why you're engaging me; are you seriously trying to change my mind or are you just looking to exchange insults? If you're going to pull the "zionism is racism" card then I'm going to pull the "anti-semitic" card and believe me I still hold the "nazi" card and I'm waiting for my chance. I guess you hold the nazi card too. We could just call each other nazis totally incapable of reasoning and be done with it.
In any case I don't agree with everything the Israeli government has done. Obviously. You can criticize settlement expansion and still be a Zionist.
All Zionism is about is establishing a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel. I can't tell if you're an angry white liberal with no real personal stake or history with the conflict or if you're an Arab who has a personal connection to it and to whom I would actually relate to a little better.
In any case no one's really changing minds here so.... great use of time.
I didn't pull that card on you, asshole.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Which is a racist enterprise. It wouldn't be if it would be a state of Israel that would be safe for Jews with equal rights for all Israeli citizens. Instead we have the discriminatory bullshit that is the Israeli state pretending to be a western style democracy. Not to mention the fascist right wing of the Likud party that anyone with a modicum of historic interest would be aware of. Just read what Arendt and Einstein had to say about Begin and Herut.
The distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis is enshrined in Israeli Law, confirmed by the Supreme Court on December 25, 1989, of which a judge said eleven days later in Ha'aretz: “The essence of a Jewish state is to give preeminence to Jews as Jews. Anyone who asks … for equality to all its citizens … must be rejected as one who negates the existence of the Israeli state as the state of the Jewish people.”
It's not just about the settlements, it's about the inherent racism that "God's chosen" exhibit and the laws they have passed to ensure it and the courts who uphold it.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The historic...
What is this? Government by Torah?
Palestine belongs to the Jewish religion I guess. The homes and lives of the illegal aliens who have been squatting there for the last 1000 years have no rights I guess...
Israel has widespread anti-discrimination legislation. Of course there are problems, but so does every other country.
You're using an anti-semitic trope here. You seem like a sharp guy, so you should know this is an anti-semitic trope:
Nice quote cherry-picking one judge from 1989. I'm sure you really dug through the texts to find that one.
But you're right that Israel is a Jewish state, just as many Islamic countries base their own governments on Islamic texts.... but of course you're all over those and accuse Pakistan, Malaysia, UAE, Egypt, etc. of racism all the time and demand the destruction of their states too.
It's not "problems". You are downplaying the institutionalised racism and discrimination perpetrated by the Jewish state which relegates non-Jewish citizens to second class citizens.
If Jewish identity is the raison d'être of Israel, this must lead to discrimination. Once you place one group of people above others, it is inescapable. And that is the implicit logic of zionism. Israel is the only country in the world that divides its citizenry by having a difference between the Jewish nationality (which every Jew in the world has) and Israeli citizenship. Many government funded programs are only accessible to Israeli citizens with the Jewish nationality.
The 1989 quote was important because that concerned commentary on the case where a Jewish man who converted to Christianity lost the benefits of government funded programs. The Supreme Court upheld it and thus enshrined discrimination based on religious persuasion as legally acceptable. That's basically illegal in every meaningful democracy in the world, as they have something or other equivalent to the second article of the universal declaration of human rights.
[quote=article 2]Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.[/quote]
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
We're talking about Israel so this is really besides the point. Nevertheless, Israel likes to pretend it's a Western style democracy. Don't you think it's pathetic you need to compare Israel to autocratic regimes to make it look good? Necessary for sure, because Israel is neither a real democracy nor a Western country.
I don't really feel like continuing this argument with you because I don't know what the purpose of it is. I am just curious where you heard the "chosen people" line. Are you from the US? It's interesting because we were just talking about Israel and then you threw that in... I'm just a little interested in where it all comes from. Getting an honest view of where you're coming from would probably be the most valuable thing that I could take away from this conversation.
The only relevant background in this case is that I graduated in international and European law, with a special interest in terrorism and as a consequence also modern history of the Middle East.
Just curious, do you think Jews were treated as equals in pre-1948 Palestine? Were they safe? Are Israel's neighbors Jewish populations treated as equals?
Demographically - at least in terms of immigration - it should go without saying that if Israel wishes to remain a Jewish state it needs to reflect that with immigration.
Judaism isn't a race though and there's no such thing as a "Jewish nationality" which you referenced earlier. You keep calling it racist for some reason when anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of race.
Again. Appealing to what autocratic regimes do to make Israel look good is not the argument you want to be making here.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm not talking about immigration now am I? Every country discriminates between citizens and non-citizens.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
There's most definitely a difference. Jewish nationality is recognised based on descent (blood) and gives right to Israeli citizenship and other government funded programs for Jews only. For non-Jews Israeli citizenship is only reserved based on the fact they are born in Israel. The distinction based on religion is institutionalised. As far as immigration goes, that's not an issue. It's an issue that once you're both Israeli citizens, the Jewish citizen gets preferential treatment.
As to the racism part, I think I've repeated myself enough about how Herut and Likud conceive of the notion. Race is, in any case, not a biological concept but a social one. Apartheid wouldn't have been racist if we'd adhered to the biological concept of race, yet we all agree it was racist. It's only the perpetuated collective guilt trip the West is still on that we have such problems with saying the same about the institutionalised discrimination in Israel; that it is, in fact, racist.
Benkei, you got me confused here. Palestine was under the control of the British. Was the UK autocratic by your standards?
i dont have time to fully respond now but i'll respond later. no, my point wasn't "oh the arabs treat jews like this therefore it's ok." the point i'm trying to get at is that part of the drive behind zionism was to establish a safe space for jews where they wouldn't be at the mercy of other powers. if we're going to make any progress in this convo you need to start thinking of zionism as an idea as opposed to how israel's right wing acts. one is a political party, the other is an idea with deep roots and is often identified with theodore hertzl.
how likud acts is a different discussion than the discussion on the essential idea of zionism which is older than likud. is the idea of a jewish state in palestine an inherently racist one - or at least any more "racist" than the idea of a muslim state? if you just want to say that all states that seek to maintain a certain religious character are racist then i actually think in some way we've made progress because we've clarified your position.
and for the record israel is not surrounded by autocracies, case in point lebanon. it's a troubled parliamentary republic and not fair to call an autocracy.
EDIT: I read what you said a few posts back which was that zionism was not an inherently racist enterprise. good, and i definitely agree that there's some problems but the reality is complicated and certain benefits are given for having served in the military which is compulsory for jews but not for muslims. certainly in america too veterans are entitled to benefits. i don't live in israel and presumably neither do you, i live in america which you could also call racist. the reality of israel's legal system is very complicated and you should probably talk to an israeli lawyer about it. i don't defend everything 100% but the existence of racial problems or inequalities doesn't mean we need to damn the entire country.
Fair enough. But I think that merely explains why Israel is the way it is, it doesn't excuse institutionalised racism. The State of Israel doesn't need to be a Jewish state, with special treatment for Jewish people, to be safe for Jews. In which Western EU country are Jews currently unsafe?
I maintain that Zionism is implicitly racist as its factual implementation requires you to treat one group of people different than others; no matter how historically understandable it is, it is still racist. If I were beaten by my father as a child, how does that excuse me to beat my son or another? We might understand where my aggression comes from, but it doesn't excuse my aggression in any way.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This really depends on the facts on the ground. A country where the majority are Muslims could be considered a Muslim country. If Muslims in no way are treated differently by the State than non-Muslims, on the basis of their religious persuasion then it's not a country that suffers form institutionalised discrimination. To the extent religion coincides with ethnicity, as it does in Israel, it would make sense to speak about racism or not.
That said, I find it hard to conceive of a country actively promoting a specific religious or ethnic character without resorting to discriminatory policies. So with the caveat that we need to look at the actual facts to be certain, I suspect they would always be racist if religion coincides with ethnicity.
I also think how Likud acts is part of the discussion because they are a political party causing real world effects based on their view of zionism. It doesn't matter what "zionism really is", which has different theological interpretation in any case, it matters what is done in its name. Considering how long Likud has been in power, 22 years of the 24 since 1996, their version of zionism is what has been largely implemented in Israel in recent history. Which is not to say other parties did not have a hand in bringing about the existing laws in Israel. It's just that Likud's particular brand of zionism is obviously racist as opposed to the "racist by (unintended?) consequence" resulting from the understandable wish to have a safe space for Jews.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
True.
Comparing Zionists to Nazis is an anti-semitic trope and isn't going to fly here anyway. Take it somewhere else.
There was a time and place for Zionism, just as there has been a time and place for romantic nationalism to many people when acquiring a nation-state of their own (including my own). These kind of ideologies do have also positive aspects like creating social cohesion, but now days typically are just seen as inherently bad things that only promote racism, intolerance and hatred. Basically something evil.
Yet just look around the World and one should notice that those people that don't have an own state are typically repressed and looked down upon. If it's difficult to understand for affluent Westerners just why would something like an own homeland be a positive thing, then just ask the Kurds how they feel about not having an own country. And how Kurds are treated in the World stage.
Yet just how Zionist is Israel today? From meeting Israelis and what I gather from reading I think they are quite the same as everybody else, quite critical about the politics in their own country and perhaps not as polarized as the Americans, but still. A bunch of religious zealots may have gotten into a position where they operate and have influence above their own weight class, but so it's in the US too. Are there Jews who think that they are better than others as God's chosen people? Sure, but then you find those annoying people everywhere who think they are somehow better than others.
Hence I wouldn't call it Zionism, it's not so relevant as it was let's say after ww2 and during the Israeli war of independence. I would say that the state of Israel has basically adapted to a perpetual low intensity conflict. Hamas or Hezbollah lob some rockets into Israel, Iron Dome works (if it's just your typica variant of al Katyusha-rocket) and then Israel responds with air strikes. Tit for tat. And life goes on. It's the new normal of a conflict becoming the ordinary way of things.
What? Like the Sami? Not having an own state isn't the cause of repression: living in a state with institutionalised racism causes it or if it cannot uphold the rule of law.
The Kurds are an oppressed people. If they wouldn't be oppressed they'd probably wouldn't have a wish to have an independent country.
And it's not that Jews don't have a right to a safe country, it's that they discriminate their own citizenry. It's also not about the average Israeli being critical or sceptical of their political class, it's the actual policies that create second class citizens. That is all caused by the implementation of the State of Israel having to be a Jewish state. That sounds pretty zionist to me.
Quoting ssu
This is an entirely different issue and is more about international law than Israeli internal laws and policies.
Far better treatment for +50 000 Sami people than for the 30-40 million Kurds. Besides, If the Sami would be 1 million people in the nothern parts of the Nordic countries, likely yes, they would have had an independent country long time ago. There as stubborn as Finns are (and totally unrecognizable from Finns without their traditional drees). When there's a will and unity and enough people, there's a way.
Quoting Benkei
Living in any country where you are considered "other" can be problematic, even if it isn't really institutionalized.
Quoting Benkei
I disagree. How oppressed are the Scots now? Many of them want an Independent country.
Perhaps we ought to give Netherland back to Spain. I gather that they can behave better this time around and won't oppress you. You don't need Mark Rutte, Pedro Sanchez in Madrid will do just fine.
Quoting Benkei
Actually it isn't. Especially when you are talking about 'institutionalized' issues, meaning what the goverment does and implements by law. The focus is security, not zionism. It's security issues that are in the forefront when the dealing of the Palestinians in Israel. It is security issues that have made Gaza into what it is today.
It may be one of my many peculiarities that I think this way, but I wonder whether it's significant, in considering any claim to a "homeland," that a Jewish state, or nation, or kingdom, has existed in the area of Palestine for perhaps about 300 years in the last 3,000 years? Granting that there is and should be an Israel, is this pertinent to whether it should be where it was, in fact, established?
It's been contended that the Jews conquered land there and held it as a kingdom(s) (Judea and Israel) around 1,000 BCE. The Assyrians took over around 700 BCE, Babylon took control around 600 BCE and subsequently destroyed the Temple. Then came the Babylonian exile, which ended when Cyrus the Great took over around 500 BCE, and the Achmaemenid emperors ruled there until Alexander conquered Palestine and lots of other places around 330 BCE, Then the Seleucid Empire ruled until the Jewish Hasmoneans gained their independence, briefly, around 100 BCE, at which time Rome became dominant in the area and the Jewish kingdom became, briefly, a client or vassal of the Romans, but then was made a province, or part of one. Two Jewish revolts were then crushed by the Romans, one by Vespasian and his son Titus, and one by Hadrian which led to the destruction of the second Temple.
Rome controlled the area and continued to do so through its Eastern remnant until the 7th century CE, at which time Muslim rule began, with a lapse of about 200 years when the Crusader kingdoms ruled, and continued. Israel was established in 1948.
Under such circumstances, what is the basis for a claim that Israel was established in the Jewish "homeland"?
Feel free to ignore. I'm just wondering.
It's bullshit, but they're there now.
Yes, I'm well aware which is why I said probably. And do you expect the Scots to then discriminate between the English and Scottish Scots living in Scotland based on their ethnicity? Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally?
Quoting ssu
You're saying that to the wrong person! I really couldn't care less whether it would be Spain or a centralised EU government as long as it results in a fair society.
Quoting ssu
Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and I've been talking about citizens all this time. They are different things. The institutionalised racism is informed by ultra nationalism and zionism, not the security issue.
The legal claim is the Balfour declaration and subsequent UN declarations and the fact the country has been internationally recognised by other States.
Let me give you another example. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia. There wasn't any violence, any oppression and actually no popular push for the dissolution. In fact, Slovakia just wanted the state to be a loose confederation, while the Czech leadership wanted a tighter federation. Only a small minority wanted the dissolution of the state (in a September 1992 opinion poll, only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favoured dissolution). There was just disagreement on what state would be, yet this velvet divorce happened. This just undermines your "if there is no oppression, people are fine living together" argument.
Basically there has to be some kind of a bond. Just like English and the Scots have the identity of being British, which has worked at least for now. Just like with a marriage, it doesn't work if you just assume that the "I do" in Church years ago is enough. You have to work to keep people together.
Quoting Benkei
This explains your view a lot. Then the next question is what would you define as fair and what as oppression? Would it be oppression if every fifth euro you pay taxes would go to Spain as wealth transfer or would it have to be Spanish troops coming to your home and taking away that nice piano you have? What is fair and what is oppressive is a slippery slope.
Really? So what are the one million,one fifth of the Israeli citizens that have Israeli citizenship, but assume that their nationality is Palestinian? Some of the non-Jewish people can indeed live in Israel with just a permanent residence, but many are citizens.
So what's the difference between the non-Jewish resident that lived in after 1949 on Israel and one that lived in the West Bank? Especially if after 1967 the person on the West Bank took the offered Israeli citizenship.
Yes, there's oppression. But my argument that it's done for the sake of security. Only for a minority it's Zionism and racism.
Looking at the acri report (Overview of Anti-Democratic Legislation Advanced by the 20th Knesset),I think it shows my point:
Portraying the minorities as enemy of state, which is most like written between the lines and not directly, is a symptom of the present conflict. Martial laws are in every country quite undemocratic and do fringe civil rights. The problem in Israel is that when the country is in permament low intensity war, those martial law decrees start to be 'normal' law. The Basic Law ISRAEL - (THE NATION STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE) is said by acri to be undemocratic, but many laws without looking at others might seem so too. But yes, Zionists have been happy with this law.
Issue #1: How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"
Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.
Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?
Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I do not have any answers to these questions.
I will note that for #1, the currently existing mechanism is via the United Nations.
For #2, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there is no enforcement mechanism.
The Zionists didn't have the power then, and hadn't yet come to the calamitous decision that racist colonialism was the only way to survive.
I'll say the truth wherever I am, and if it hurts your Nazi feelings, hard luck!
There is the practical reason that truly gives credibility to all philosophical, ethical, legal and whatever reasons: Other people with similar plots of land accept it.
Hence the recognition of independence by other states creates that independence. You could call it recognition by peers.
Whatever, you'll be banned then. No skin off my nose.
If such a Nazi as your goodself could do that thing, I should be well content to leave.
Ok, bye then. Getting back on topic...
How does that work? Are Zionists supposed to represent all Jews?
That really depends on the country in question whether human rights are enforceable. Most countries have UDHR human rights either as part of their constitution, laws or international treaties. Those usually have options for enforcement in the national legal order or recognised supra-national courts.
I understand. But I think to call a place where the ancestors of a group of people lived and were sovereign for a relatively short period of time in the Iron Age (Near East) their "homeland" is a misuse of the word, or at least an substantial exaggeration. One would hope there would be a stronger historical basis on which to make that statement, even if it is a religious one, at least where nation building is concerned.
It's not far fetched to assume they'd reclaim whatever English land ownership there might be and to limit non-Scottish immigration. Whether they'd allow a right of return for those with Scotch ancestory, likely, if they follow the Irish lead. If a historical claim is made that Scotch emigration was the result of English oppression, it would follow that they may allow a right of return to repair that past injustice.
And isn't that the whole issue anyway? Remedying past wrongs and protecting historically oppressed peoples? All of your arguments hold as much validity whether you're arguing against special treatment for blacks in America or Jews in the world. Isn't affirmative action just another form of apartheid under your argument, assuming you wish to disregard historical context and just declare absolute equality for all is required regardless of the prior suffering of the people?
And what basis did the founders have in calling America the land of the free, considetimg they had just recently stumbled upon it? And why is the US rightly your homeland today? And even should you be the descendent of an original settler, how is the land now yours simply because your Neanderthal great grandfather touched it first?
You can ridicule others' justifications for possessing land, but it's doubtful they're more ridiculous than the justifications you have for possessing your land.
I agree. The whole talk of 'justice' or somebody having more justification for lands than others is hypocritical stupidity. If enough people make a claim to the land they live in and can hold on to it, that's the "justification". We can hope that nation states behave well to their citizens and to others, but nation states are sovereigns in their own territory...as long as they can defend themselves. The truth is that people have moved, created new states where old states have been and pushed aside others. Things aren't permanent and justice has nothing to do with it. Yeah, history sucks, but's that is the truth.
America's my home because I live there, and always have. It's the place of my birth. My native land.
These things can be said of a person, without qualification, as easily as that. A group of people may likewise have been born and lived in a particular place, and live there now. That's their home, their native land.
My ancestors lived (mostly) in Italy for centuries before they began taking boat rides to the U.S. about 130 years ago. Is Italy my homeland? I would say no. Is it the homeland of all those living in the U.S. whose ancestors lived in Italy? Again, I would say no.
It's possible for an identifiable group of people to live in a particular place for centuries, and thereby become so associated with a place that it's called their homeland. I'm not sure that can be said of the Jews, however. Nor am I sure that centuries of association with a particular place in the distant past creates any entitlement to it.
Nonetheless, unless I'm mistaken, the fact that Israel exists where it exists, and the claim of some that it should expand, are sometimes justified at least in part on the belief that it's the homeland of the Jews.
I wonder whether that belief has any substantial basis.
Totally missing the point. Discriminating between different types of Scottish citizens was the issue I raised. That has nothing to do with immigration.
Quoting Hanover
If you think that's my argument, please read again because it clearly isn't.
Perhaps you should state your argument more clearly. We know that you think that the state of Israel is oppressive to minorities. I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you on that. But what does it take for two groups of people that identify themselves as different people to live in one country?
The only solution is there has to be an identity above that, which both can relate to. Being British is a perfect example. Those smart and cunning Englishmen!!! Or then you talk of a confederation or an union. The EU is an perfect example, because it's made up of nation states.
Plenty of people have been disagreeing with it by downplaying it. But it's this and the fact that such racism is a necessary consequence of pursuing a Zionist agenda, as Likud has been doing since 1996. So the argument is, Israel is a racist country, it's racist because it discriminates between Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Israelis. It has put in law and has Supreme Court rulings enforcing law, institutionalising it and defending it on the basis of Zionist thinking (e.g., it must be a Jewish State, as opposed to a State safe for Jews). It is therefore not anti-semitic to claim that, what I'll call - political -, Zionism is racist.
No one is arguing that Israel is an egalitarian society. All reasonable people acknowledge that non-Jews are denied many basic rights, are discriminated against and oppresed, and are second class citizens at best.
However, you seem to be re-defining the term "racism". I know that in the academic community race is considered to be a social construct, but (for better of worse) the commonly accepted meaning of the word race is based on physical appearance. Taking the commonly accepted usage, people of any race can be Jewish - blacks, Asian, etc. It isn't easy, but any person of non-Jewish ancestry can become a full fledged Israeli citizen by converting to orthodox Judaism.
I am not disputing any of the facts you have presented. I'm simply suggesting that the tactic of using the word 'racism' is counter-productive. My alternative? Beats me. I wish I were more eloquent. Maybe "ethnic cleansing"?
If you want to know my full position on Israel, please read my previous posts.
The question isn't why you reside in the US. It's why you're justified to live in the US. Surely there are those justified in living in the US who weren't born in the US (the tens of millions of naturalized citizens) and arguably there are those born in the US who are not justified to live in the US. Your standard of citizenship by birth is not universally accepted and is as arbitrary as any standard.
Regardless, you've now offered Israelis their justification to live on the land they do, which is that they are there already.Quoting Ciceronianus the WhiteSure, and I wonder if any justification for a nation to occupy land has a substantial basis, seeing no reason why your claim to your homeland is more justified than theirs, simply because you find the Biblical basis not substantial. Why is your being born in the US a substantial justification for you to occupy it?
The Israeli claim for expansion of their borders is based upon acquisition of land by war, which is the same basis that the US claims its right to its land, and is a matter of fact the way much land has been acquired over time. I don't know why the Israeli land acquisition is particularly interesting to the world from a moral perspective, although I do see why it's interesting as a political matter, considering it disrupts an economically important part of the world.
I didn't miss your point. I was pointing out that you've made a distinction that makes no moral difference. You are hanging on an arbitrary legal definition of "citizen" that you think matters, but it doesn't, especially because the nation itself gets to define that term.
To clarify, if Scotland permits those with Scottish blood to return to Scotland to become citizens, then when my Scottish counterpart and I arrive on those rolling green hills, he gets to vote, own land, and freely work, while I get to only visit and sightsee. I will be treated as a second class person because I am not designated a "citizen," (as I'm 100% Jew and 0% Celt) which is simply a word used to distinguish the haves from the have nots in this apartheid system.
If you are satisfied that citizenship status is a morally legitimate basis to deprive someone of rights, then you have no right to object to Israel denying citizenship to non-Jews, pre Civil War America denying full citizenship status to African Americans, and really any sort of discrimination that might occur as long as some legislative body has decreed who is and who is not a citizen.
I'm just trying to keep this logically clear because you've taken a very harsh view of Israeli discrimination, claiming that any sort of allowance of Jewish priority is per se racist and morally unjustified. If the standard is that ethnic heritage can never be used to justify providing an advantage, then we need to revisit the Irish rule of return, American affirmative action, all gender based set asides, and we likely need to run the Native Americans off their reservations.
If what you mean to say is only that in certain circumstances affording racial priorities are justified, but Jewish priority in Israel is not one of those instances, then that can be debated, although my understanding of your argument is that this issue is very much black and white, with Israel having no possible justification for their prioritizing Jews because of some moral absolute that says so.
If I've understood your point correctly, our disagreement is on the reason of the oppression. You say it's racism inherent to Zionism. I argue that it is more about the perpetual conflict and security concerns that have pushed the majority in Israel to accept such policies. I still argue that it's a minority of the Jewish Israelis that are religious fundamentalists. State of Israel is more secular than it looks (especially from the viewpoint of Western Europe). Zionism was the rallying cry to create the modern state of Israel, but as the state exists it's objective has been actually met. Israel isn't same as it was in 1949 just as Iran isn't the same as in 1979.
Hence if what you argue would be totally correct, this religious racism (or basically intolerance) based on Zionism would be clearly visible from treatment of the 2% Christian minority in Israel. My security argument wouldn't hold: there hasn't been a Christian uprising and the Christians in Israel don't want an independent homeland for themselves. The relations that Jews and the Notzri have is hence telling of the 'racism' problem. Christian Arabs in Israel are one of the highest educated groups and naturally are in far more better situation than anywhere else in the Middle East. Yes, there is hostility from the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, but are their actions the same as the state of Israel? I don't think so. But here I don't know the situation so clearly, so perhaps I may be simply ignorant.
Correct. It's also not an example of institutionalised racism.
I'm against conquering lands and peoples, and I'm against theocracies.
Am I anti-semetic?
I'm afraid so. Isaac Asimov said that the Hebrews invented religious intolerance.
Massively anti-Semitic and he was descended from Russian Jews. It's so confusing.
There isn't any confusion on my end. You have an objection to disparate treatment of citizens within Israel based upon ethnicity and have no inclination to decipher my response, so we keep going back and forth with you repeating that we're not debating rights to citizenship or immigration issues, which is obvious. I'm left with thinking you're either stubbornly refusing to respond to me or that you truly lack the capacity to understand. I think either is equally likely at this point.
Israel exists, now. That's not a matter of debate. I don't expect it to vanish and don't think it should.
I refer to its creation, and the reasons for its creation, in an area at the time under British rule. Part of that reason as I understand it was that the area was the Jewish homeland. If justification is the issue, the question I was trying to explore would be-- what was the justification, or support, for the belief it was the Jewish homeland at that time or earlier when it seems the notion of creation of a Jewish state came into play? If history can be used to justify creation of a state, I don't think it's of much use in the case of Israel.
Quoting Hanover
Not arbitrary but Israel's own definition.
Quoting Hanover
Irrelevant as to how people get their citizenship status as I'm talking about people who already have that status within Israel and their disparate treatment.
Quoting Hanover
I've not argued that anywhere.
Quoting Hanover
Once again, Israel gets to decide who can become a citizen and how. It should not discriminate between its own citizens based on their ethnicity or religion.
So yeah, you didn't understand me at all. But not surprising considering our history discussing Israel.
It is interesting because we believed that we lived in a civilized world that respected the rights of individuals and saw violence as an illicit way of gaining power and wealth. We thought that colonialism, in which any strong nation could expel, steal and kill the indigenous people (treating them as sub-humans) and keep their goods was a thing of the past. In short, we believed ourselves to be more humane than our ancestors.
Thanks to the state of Israel and its international patrons, we realized that we were quite naive. Decent, but naive.
There are very, very few countries who can make this boast. If anything, it should tell you that there's something very wrong with the way Israel conducts its business.
You have to make the case why the state of Israel, not the ultra-orthodox Jewish, are SO different from other countries in this sense. When Israel occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967, it did offer citizenship for occupants of these areas.
And is the idea of 'Homeland' inherently racist?
Nation states do have this tendency to give special treatment to 'their' people living outside the borders of their country. Russia is good example of this today, but so is Germany too. Or how does the German Federal Expellee Law of 1953 sound:
Or how about my country? In 1988 the KGB chief in Helsinki hinted to the Finnish authorities that it would be a good idea to send Ingrians, a small Finnish speaking people living in the Leningrad area, to Finland. And the Finnish President said that fine, we can take them, and roughly about 25 000 immigrated to Finland and got citizenship as "returning" nationals in the 1990's. And what do you know: nobody of the anti-immigration people said hardly anything about this small group entering Finland from the side door.
Was this a racist thing? Or the behaviour of the West German government? How is Israel different?
So yeah, it's hunky dory to treat non-citizens like shit but an atrocity to treat some citizens as better than others, so if a nation decides to call their least favorite folks non-citizens, they escape your criticism. Kinda stupid? So if blacks weren't full citizens, all was good?
Racial discrimination exists in legal form in the US, primarily to protect historically disadvantaged and oppressed minorities, often to the objection of those not provided what is considered special advantage. Israel is that to the Jews. If you find what the US does as I've described atrocious, you're at least consistent.
The difference is that the "return home" cases you cite were not made to the detriment of the existing population there. Israel "went home" by expelling the Palestinians and making the remaining ones second-class citizens. And that discriminatory policy is increasing every day. That is racism.
On the other hand, if you want to compare Israel with all the aberrations of the past I think we will agree. But I think it is a bad policy on your part.
Israel applies discriminatory policies against the Palestinian minority in its territory and against the population it controls in the occupied territories. That is not compensatory discrimination.
Wars change borders and put people to leave their homes. That's just what wars do. Here I think the worth wile discussion would be to focus on your argument "that discriminatory policy is increasing every day".
Is It? Every day?
You have to give reasons for your argument, because otherwise I think you'll fall to the "Jeremy Corbyn-trap": that basically critique of Israel will be seen as anti-semitism. Drinking up too eagerly only one side of the story will be counterproductive.
(The real ethnic cleansing happened during the war in 1948. Atrocities did happen like with Deir Yassin massacre. Again, that's the ugly part of history.)
The Deir Yassin Massacre was roundly condemned by the Haganah (precursor to the IDF) as well as Jewish political authorities at the time. Political authorities sent a written apology to Jordan. These massacres have gone both ways and I wish we'd see such apologies from Arab leadership.
Every colonized people tries to drive out the colonizers. The Sioux did not want their land to be overrun by white settlers and the army. Who dug their grave? The Sioux or the invaders?
I’m not saying that the Israelis are entitled to that land. But then again, could you blame them? They are always the first group to be persecuted when societies decay, so it was a logical place to settle (however bloody the takeover was). Palestinians are likewise as a group prone to prejudice against Jews and may or may not have welcomed such a large influx of a despised people.
Palestinians also have claim to that land of course. I’m not denying that.
Some attempts (with more or less success) to annex land through war in the 20th century come to mind. Hitler and the Eastern territories, Morocco and the Western Sahara, Saddam Hussein in Quwait, Russia in the Crimea... If you want to say that the occupation of Palestine by Israel is on the same level as Hitler, Putin, the Sultan of Morocco or Saddam Hussein, we agree. But I wouldn't follow that line.
Quoting ssu
May be this quotation makes you an idea:
Quoting Amnesty International Report
Quoting ssu
Deir Yassin was only the most shocking massacre against the Palestinians. A Zionist historian, Benny Morris, documented some 360 cases of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. In many of these cases, villages were later destroyed to prevent the return of their inhabitants. They became "absentee owners" in one of the most cynical laws of the State of Israel.
Of course, Benny Morris did not use the word "ethnic cleansing" because he was happy with this kind of treatment of these people who were savages, he said, and deserved to be locked up in cages.
I did not know all of this. Sickening to say the least. It is inexcusable. Where should the Jews go, though? They are seemingly not welcome anywhere in the world.
Palestinian violence against the Jews minority (at the beginnings of the 20th century it was very minority) starts with the proclamation of the State of Israel.In any case you cannot claim for a right that supposes equal violation of the rights of other people.
What would you think if a foreign power forced you to give up half your home to take in a Yemeni refugee family? How would you behave if your child was beaten by Yemenis for protesting? Think about it.
The genocide of the Jews during World War II was one of the most (if not "the" most) horrible genocides of the 20th century. Not only the Nazis but many conservative people collaborated with it. Sometimes with an intensity that surprised the Nazis (the Croatian Ustashi, for example). But nothing like this can be expected in contemporary Europe or America. Zionism was an ultra-nationalistic response that came especially from the refugees of Eastern Europe. It was not in the majority before World War II. And now Zionism has other different roots that must be related to US policy in West Asia. This is not a question of justice, but of power.
I don't see why they couldn't live in Palestine/Israel. They have lived there alongside other religions in relative peace, until people starting getting funny ideas about who else was allowed to live there.
I recommend you to read the complete report. I think that AI is one of the most impartial sources of information about Human Rights. I don't say it is perfect, but it is the best in the best of possible worlds.
I understand all of your points, but what about the Anglo-American pact to carve up and take over the Middle East after WWII? Surely they are to blame for just as many atrocities. Perhaps that’s a discussion for another thread, but “don’t point out the moat in another’s eye when there is a beam in yours” and all that.
Like I said earlier, most people can live side by side in relative peace; the normal, everyday, working for the man people. It’s only when the demagoguery of the leaders take over does all the shit get fucked up. They are really good at this, viz. fucking shit up for everyone else while hording wealth and power for themselves.
And what right did the Ottomans have to take over the Middle East?
Or the Muslims before them?
Or the Romans/Byzantines, the Sassanids, the Macedonians, the Persians? Did I forget the Mongols?
What is the convenient culprit for us to blame here?
The one we want to blame?
One thing is what has happened in history and in during wartime.
Another thing is what is happening in peace time and now.
for everyone.
I get the intent. But it was terrible on practical and moral terms. Yes, there was also a positive moral intent. Also.
And I am not naive enough to think there was some perfect solution. But this was a terrible one and admitting some portions of that terrible side might help. But just as in marriages telling the truth often feels like it just gives the other person power.
That idea has not saved a single marriage.
Israel isn't in a war, like in 1973, in 1982 or in 2006 with it's neighbours.
What I've stated is that Israel is in a permanent low-intensity conflict with the Palestinians, in a state of Peace with aspects of permanent war. And that this is the reason, which then makes norms that otherwise you would only find under martial law and at war time present in Israel.
Benkei argues that this is because of Zionism. I argue that Zionism is a minor issue (as the state of Israel already exists) and that the implemented policies are driven by the security viewpoint, not by an ideology. It is putting the carriage before the horse, but that's as like in the US where it was decided that the country would go to war against a method (the War on Terror).
The victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre would like a word with you.
Hundreds of arabs walked down a residential street with knives and tools and went from door to door murdering the jewish families - men, women, and children. the women were raped. it was deliberate and encouraged by the grand mufti of jerusalem, but i guess who really cares i mean they were zionists right?
The 1929 massacre is indeed a very popular incident which people refer to to justify Zionism. It has been notoriously exploited in pro-Zionist propaganda, and has been used ever since to drive a wedge between Jews and Arabs.
Zionism is much older than that, however, and in 1929 Zionist paramilitary organizations like the Haganah were already operating in Palestine. The shape Zionism took in that period is exactly what caused old tensions to reignite.
While the murder of innocents is a horrible thing, it is misleading to refer to this incident as a standard for Jewish-Arab relations during the period, nor should it be regarded as an act of random violence.
Quoting ssu
It's a foolish argument.
International law often leaves room when it comes to military necessity. As such, whenever Israel breaches international law, and it makes quite a habit of it, it claims there is such a necessity. They used to put forward other arguments, such as claiming sovereignty over territories that weren't theirs (like the West Bank), but these were taken apart over the years and military necessity is all that they have left.
These attempts at using military necessity as an excuse for human rights violations and breaches of international law have also been dismissed by the International Court of Justice on numerous occasions.
The Israeli government (the right-wing parts, of course) isn't concerned about security. They are concerned about painting Israel/Palestine in the colors of the Israeli flag. That's why they continually expand the West Bank Barrier to encompass more territory that isn't theirs. That's why they do not take action against the illegal Jewish settlements and instead use them to claim more pieces of the West Bank. Laws that discriminate against Palestinians and allow the Israeli state to put them in chains for however long it wants, without having to file any sort of charges and without giving them an opportunity to talk with a legal representative or even their own family, does that sound like a security measure to you, or does that sound like systematic oppression?
They make every effort to make life impossible for Palestinian communities, only to resettle those areas when they finally leave.
This is the policy of Likud, Netanyahu and his ilk. What happened when their enemy, Rabin, finally managed to take steps towards peace? They offed him.
You are right. I should have included the period of the British mandate when the Zionist "national home" begins to be substantiated.
Incidentally, your description of the massacre gives a partial picture of the 1929 conflict in which 133 Jews and 110 Arabs died (source: Wikipedia.es). The main leaders on both sides were condemned by the British authorities. The Arabs for incitement to hatred and the Jews for possession of arms. It is more complicated than a pogrom. None of this prevents us from condemn the Hebron massacre of 1929.
oh thanks, yeah got it, it was zionism that was the cause behind those families being murdered with blunt objects in their homes around dinner time. ya know for a second i thought it might have been the virulently anti-semitic arab political leadership in jerusalem at that time as well as the actual perpetrators who had no qualms about killing their neighbors with household tools but thanks for clearing that up for me; damn zionism... igniting tensions again. i mean how many more jewish children does zionism need to murder with a tire iron to the head before we just be done with the idea forever?
oh no, there were no other riots. no other anti-semitic attacks during that period. you've clearly read your history here.
but seriously go back and read about the grand mufti of jerusalem and the numerous riots and killings he is responsible for. he's an extremely ugly figure.
if it's not a pogram or a massacre then would you mind enlightening me as to what it actually was when hundreds of arabs murdered jews in their living spaces with household tools? i like that you're trying to keep it "fair and balanced" here; go on, keep telling me how awful those zionists are for... possession arms. when those nice arab men come to your home how could those dirty [s]jews[/s] zionists dare even think about grabbing a firearm! the proper thing to do is welcome them in and politely ask where they would like to murder you and your family.
but yes, both sides are to blame here. the situation is very complicated.
Here is why you are wrong in the way you frame the problem.
Firstly, you assume the violence was anti-Semitic in nature, while politics played a much larger role in it than you care to admit. Zionism was a large factor in the shape those politics took on, because it was clear that Jews were immigrating to Palestine with the intention of claiming it. Moreover, large amounts of weapons were being smuggled into the country and armed paramilitary organizations like the Haganah were operating to turn that dream into a reality.
Secondly, you assume that this must mean that Jews and Arabs hated each other during this period, which is false. There was unrest, but it was mainly the political leadership that used every incident as a way to vilify the other side. This was necessary, because they were preparing for their power plays. The Zionists wanted to claim Palestine and the Arab leadership obviously had their own plans for filling up the power-vacuum the Brits and French left behind.
You are playing the same game as the Zionists did during that time:
1. There is an incident.
2. That incident is labeled by the political elite as being ethnically/religiously motivated.
3. According to the political elite that proves coexistence is impossible and Jews need their own state.
4. That legitimizes Zionism.
I have not denied that a massacre took place in Hebron. But to speak of a pogrom, one must assume that it is a massacre of a defenseless Jewish population, like were usual in Czarist Russia. If the figures given by Wikipedia and the response of the British authorities are correct, there was a conflict between two communities and the Jewish community seemed to have good offensive capacity, as the small difference in casualties shows -only about twenty. In these conditions it seems more correct to speak of a conflict between communities in which there was a terrible massacre in Hebron. This does not diminish the responsibility of the Palestinian authorities, the sinister mufti of Jerusalem specially, any more than it diminishes the responsibility of the Jewish authorities for the massacres and ethnic cleansing that took place later. Whether or not you want to call them "sinister" is a matter of personal taste. The facts were similar.
Indeed, every colonial power justifies its policy of occupation by the fact that the settlers are attacked by the local population. This was the usual strategy against the Native Americans, for example. And this was the strategy of colonization in Palestine.
Violent anti-Jewish riots were directly provoked by the growing colonization movement, from the Balfour declaration onwards. Of course, racist prejudices played their part, but these prejudices had been dormant before the British Mandate and the initial pro-Jewish policy of the colonial power. Moreover, the riots were executed by displaced farm workers. The Zionist policy of "Jewish workers only" had something to do with this situation of displaced Palestinians. Although it was not the only cause, it was the most visible and was used by the Palestinian elites against the Jews.
Another thing is that the unrest covered the entire Palestinian population. This is not true. I will leave this for another time.
Foolish or not, that is the line.
You could argue that it's also foolish to occupy a country, because a financial backer of a terrorist strike lived there (but otherwise the country's regime had no involvement in the terrorist attack). That only the numbers of killed made an otherwise police matter so different that the country eagerly went to war and later invading another country that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist strike (and no WMD project whatsoever). Yet that's the reality.
Quoting Tzeentch
One has to remember that the Likud has just a quarter of the seats in the Knesset. And there is a non-religious faction there too. Of all the excesses, shootings, demolitions of homes and etc. in the Occupied Territories, there still are Jews killed by Palestinians.
David, most of those arabs were killed by the british, not by any sort of significant jewish security apparatus. there was no battle here, no struggle between two sides. I'm tired of being your history teacher David, please do your own research.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. In both cases things haven't worked out. The US has been humiliated in its failure to bring two third-world countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) to their knees, and Israel has been struggling with conflict ever since its independence, forcing it to take evermore draconian measures against its own population and the Palestinians.
It seems reality has a way of getting the last laugh.
Quoting ssu
And there are Palestinians killed by Jews.
Every innocent killed in an act of violence is terrible, certainly. Keeping tabs with an 'eye for an eye' mentality will surely never result in a solution.
This particular incident was caused by lies spread by the mufti of jerusalem. I don't really care that internal arab politics likely played a role, but to blame it on zionism is absurd victim blaming and immigration levels were at a relatively low level during that time (1929). there are plenty of massacres of jews that occurred before zionism even took force. the idea that the jews were pretty much safe and good until zionism started is just a blatant falsehood.
I'm not interested in pinning arabs against jews or making all arabs out to be jew haters. I never said that all arabs hated jews during this period. the relationship between the two groups of people is complex.
Ultimately, what the jews need is security. they will not find this if they simply rely on arab powers and hope that the arabs treat them nice. it's not just a matter of the arabs either; the same could be said for the europeans. jews ought to be done with "hoping" or "depending" at this point when it comes to national security.
Compared to when?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Incidents occur anywhere, between all kinds of societies. Again, it is the game that you play where you consider this sort of thing unique to Jews to justify Zionism.
Hasn't worked out for Israel? How so?
The low intensity conflict solution has actually worked out quite well. Israel has had better economic growth than the US. Unemployment is low, social mobility is high. In the Human Development Index Israel ranks above Spain, France and Italy. Netanyahu has stayed in power. Things are quite OK for Israel.
A low intensity conflict is totally different from a conventional war. You don't have the military on a wartime footing, which would be a severe strain on the military.
Just like the US has now been at war since 2001. Where do you see this in every day life? Do people notice it? No.
Have you ever been to Israel?
The intervention of Jewish armed groups led by Zeev Jabotinsky and the British army against the Palestinians are two elements that you will not find in any pogrom.
The third element, which in my opinion is a determining factor in the deterioration of relations between the two communities - Jews and Palestinians - is the Zionist project to occupy Palestine and the support of the British authorities through Balfour declaration. Under these conditions, the fact that the British army acted against the Palestinians to defend the Jews led the former to believe that expulsion from their land was agreed. As it turned out to be true later on.
You'll forgive me if I don't go any further, but I am tired too of arguing with the Zionists about the same obvious things.
Why are you so up in arms about the Jews? I’m not a Zionist, but I think it’s disingenuous to say the Palestinians are so innocent.
If the Palestinians had the military and police force that the Israelis have, you’d better believe they’d be doing the same if not worse.
Where was your outrage when the Americans killed two million Vietnamese?
Or when the Nazis killed twenty-seven million Russians?
My point is that war is terrible, but war is basically the status quo in human history. People are and always have been awful.
Best to get a hobby.
In the mid-nineteenth century, the inhabitants of Palestine were about 300,000, and just over 500,000 in 1914. Of these, the Jewish community was a small minority of about 10,000 before the first waves of Zionist colonialism. In the beginning of the next century the community had only increased to 50,000 or 60,000 members.
Jewish population increased tenfold between 1919 and 1947 mainly due to immigration. Jews grow from 10 to 30 percent of the inhabitants of Palestine in a short time.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the pressure of Zionist immigration became the most visible element of this dynamic.
It is clear that for a small place like Palestine the figures for Jewish immigration were not small. And above all, what they meant for the Palestinian economy and Arab nationalists.
NOTE: if you want us to become academic I have no problem quoting my sources, as long as you do the same. In an appropriate manner, as I have done in the above quotation. As you like.
I think humans do horrible things and good things. You seem to recognize that the occupation of Palestine is one of the first. I agree. You mention Nazism among them. That's an exaggeration. Even if some Jews had made this comparison:
Aharon Zisling, responsible for agriculture ( Council of Ministers on 17 November 1948): "What is happening hurts my soul, my family's and all of us... Now Jews are behaving like Nazis too, and my whole being is shocked".
I think this is a sincere expression about the massacres perpetrated by the Jewish armed forces more than a strict comparison. It cannot be take verbatim.
When the Viet Nam War raged, I was a kid. But later on I tried to deal with those atrocities that you think are natural. I see them as the consequence of a stage of humanity and systems of domination and exploitation in the face of which one cannot remain passive. This is what my morality demands.
Carry on then.
Were your ancestors/family involved in this conflict? That's the key question here. I have a hard time understand why any neutral third party would be so opposed to jewish self-determination. that's really all zionism is... it's not about being mean to the palestinians it's just about jewish self determination and in turn preventing these types of massacres.
Only a bad faith actor would argue that the Palestinians are completely innocent. Of course both sides have committed wrongdoings and if someone is going to take the position that the blame rests entirely on side it's not worth engaging them.
I'm not against Israel. I am against decades of human rights violations and breaches of international law. it is Israel who has impeded the right of self-determination of the Palestinians for decades through their military occupation, discriminatory laws and the construction of walls and settlements in territory that wasn't theirs.
And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:
"[i]... Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of12 August 1949,
Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,
Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,
Condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area,
Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp, ..[/i]."
http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1544
Or the rapport of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. I recommend you read the conclusion. Page 21-25.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/4aeeba692.html
Or the rulings by the International Court of Justice on the topic of the construction of the West Bank Barrier. here's an excerpt;
"[i]Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right.[/i]"
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131
I could go on like this forever.
Throughout all of this, the United States has ensured Israel was able to continue its malpractices, for example through using its veto to block resolutions. However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions.
Take it from someone who has studied and visited both Israel and Palestine as part of an academic education that Israel is nothing like the European countries you compared it to, and that standings on the Human Development Index are highly politicized.
Israel's laws have definitively made it an apartheid-state, to refresh:
"Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights. Apartheid is a crime against humanity punishable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."
This also means Israel is no longer a democracy by definition.
The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made the following statements about it:
"The Committee urges the State party to review the Basic Law with a view to bringing it in line with the Covenant or repealing it and to step up its efforts to eliminate discrimination faced by non-Jews in enjoying the Covenant rights, particularly rights of self-determination,non-discrimination and cultural rights."
Israel is far from okay.
I could go on citing examples, legal documents and statements by NGOs, but I'm not going to. If this doesn't get through to you, nothing will and I am wasting my time.
I posted this earlier in the thread, I'll try again. Rather than argue over the specifics of the situation, I respectfully suggest that you try to deal with this in generic terms. As I see it there are two somewhat related questions that need to be answered:
How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"
Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.
Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal laws/rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?
Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.
If people can agree on the answers to these questions, then it becomes a matter of applying the rules/laws to the situation.
I do not have answers to either of those questions.
You could actually do that, because otherwise your reasoning is quite lazy.
If you've made academic research or studies about it, then please use those arguments that you know! Enlighten us then. You've visited the country so others should shut up or what? If I have studied and visited the Soviet Union and later Russia, have stayed with an ordinary Russian family, I do have my personal insights, but I won't declare that my understanding of the country is better because of that than others ipso facto. That's just inherently silly.
In the typical manner, perhaps you assume I'm defending Israel for some reason or another (perhaps related to US politcs or so).
Wrong.
What I've said is that the present situation isn't unbearable for Israelis. The low intensity conflict can go on. And it can go on especially as the country has such a devoted ally as the US behind it. Nobody is really pushing the state to change it's ways, as they did in the case of South Africa. It's not only the Likud and the fundamentalist Jews as the culprits. Secular Israelis have to also accept the present, or at least tolerate it. That is an important issue.
It is really important to give the concrete examples, give an objective and well reasoned views than just to declare Israel is racist.
Quoting Tzeentch
When did that last time happen? Under Obama or earlier?
Unfortunately there's no incentive for the US to change it's unwavering support of Israel at every stance. On the contrary, the support is even more fervent.
One example is UNSCR 2334 which was adopted 14 votes to 0 in 2016. The US abstained from voting instead of vetoing it.
An excerpt:
"... Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, ..."
https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf
Read the whole thing. It is not very long, but it speaks volumes.
Which shows far better thinking than just the total appeasement of today.
But hey, if a billionaire gave Trump 82 million dollars (less than he spent against Obama the previous election), naturally Trump will give the billionaire what he wants. That's the actual reality of US foreign policy, when it comes to Israel. US policy is literally decided by billionaires, who give money to the winning candidate.
Quoting Tzeentch
Thanks. Btw, I've found UN documents quite reliable on many occasions. They don't have such bias as media can have.. as anything accepted by all participants typically isn't biased influencing. Another great insight is reading the local "Blue Berets" magazine, where they observe quite objectively the situation in Lebanon as blue berets are intended to do. Again quite different story from the Western media.
I'm fully aware that the UN has condemned Israel on quite a few occasions.
In 2016, there were more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the entire world. It was 3x more than any other country, so if you go by the UN then Israel must be the worst country.
Between 2012 and 2015, the UN General Assembly charged 86% of their resolutions against Israel.
No Israel isn't perfect, but Arabs are allowed to vote and have political representation in the government. They have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Jews are arrested in Israel for committing crimes against Arabs. If you're mad about the wall then I'm sorry but that's what happens when you repeatedly blow yourself up at bars and repeatedly go on stabbing sprees against civilians.
If aliens were to listen in and go by the UN, they would believe Israel is by far the worst country on the face of the planet.
EDIT: Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest.
Typical colonialist excuse: I steal, expel and massacre the natives to avoid the massacres against the settlers.
No. Colonization is the problem.
The problem does not lie in abstract concepts. It is mainly specific: the rights of specific people living in a place who are stolen, expelled and massacred when they resist. In the name of a mythical narrative that comes from two millennia ago.
Rigorously false. In every negotiation, the Israeli spokesman (i.e., the United States government) offered conditions that were obviously unacceptable to the Palestinians. The alleged autonomy was of the Bantustan type. They make a truly autonomous state with precise boundaries, control of own resources, etc., unfeasible. The latest fallacy is the demand for recognition of Israel's "Jewish nature". A farce and an insult to the human rights of the Arab Israelis.
Yes, that's of course the excuse that is put forward. However, it is blatantly obvious that the West Bank Barrier is being used to 1) annex Palestinian territories, 2) bully Palestinians into leaving by making every day life impossible or simply by demolishing their houses.
You cannot explain the location of the wall, which is illegal in every respect where it is built on territory that doesn't belong to Israel, by pointing at security.
Furthermore, you cannot punish innocent people for the actions of a radical minority. That constitutes collective punishment, which is illegal under international law. And for good reason.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The Palestinian leadership is terribly inept. That much is self-evident. However, Israel has actively worked to make a two-state solution an impossibility and has been condemned for doing so by the UN.
"Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground, ..."
https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf
You're a fool to portray Israel as a honest broker in this scenario.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
.And they are actively discriminated against. Have you followed the recent law changes adopted by the Knesset? These further stipulate that Israel is a nation for Jews, not Arabs.
https://knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/BasicLawNationState.pdf
You realize how discriminatory this is? Imagine if the following was part of the United States constitution:
"North America is the historical homeland of white people, in which the United States was established."
"The United States is the nation state of white people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination."
"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the United States is unique to white people."
"The State shall be open for white immigration."
Under "Connection to white people", article 6:
"The State shall strive to ensure the safety of white people and of its citizens, who are in trouble and in captivity, due to their whiteness or otherwise."
Under "White people settlement", article 7:
"The State views the development of white people's settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening."
Lets imagine you're a black man reading this. Does that sound racist to you? It should, because it is.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
An unanimous vote by the UN equals the whole world, including many countries that support Israel, condemning something. I don't know what that means to you, and how you still manage to dodge the blatantly obvious: it is unacceptable.
If you believe otherwise, then please start explaining how violating human rights and international law can be justified and I will happily tear that argument apart.
:clap:
Suppose the narrative is historically accurate?
Let's say there's nation ABC. Now nation DEF conquers nation ABC and rules over the original inhabitants of ABC - i.e., the rights of a specific people (the ABCers) living in a place were stolen, expelled and massacred when they resisted.
Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?
If yes, then for how long? Is there some amount of time after which you say to the descendants of ABC - "Yes, you're historically right, your land was taken away from you, but X number of years have passed. Get over it?"
First of all, nations do not have rights over individuals. Putting the nation above the people is the typical ideology of fascism.
Even if the Jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, their right to occupy Palestine does not exist. No more than the rights of the Great Sioux Nation to occupy Dakota or the Italians to occupy Marseille.
And even less to appropriate land through war. Force is the opposite of justice.
If Jews wanted to be safe from antisemitism in Europe they had to find other means than going to Palestine to kill Palestinians. In doing so, they lost any reason they might have had.
No. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not rooted in ancestral rights, but in ultra-nationalism, imperialism and force.
Under these conditions, the right to resistance is recognized in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the moral sense of people. It will last as long as the occupation lasts and a clear link can be established between those who suffered and those who are suffering.
As far as controlling the use of force and its consequences is concerned, I believe that moral sense and international law must provide the answer.
And just what institution would have the authority to say so? Nations have sovereignty, that is how they are defined. They can make agreements between each other (co-operate through UN etc), but that is more like a mutual agreement among peers, not an abdication of their sovereingty.
Quoting David Mo
I gather then that then every nation that has any kind of defence clause is fascist in your view. Because defence of the state does put the nation before the individual in many ways, especially the rights of those who 'attack' it.
Quoting David Mo
Every conflict is rooted in force.
Quoting David Mo
The US waged war against the Sioux, brutally slaughtered them, took away their land which they had occupied for thousands of years, and forced them into what we would now call concentration camps.
Roughly 125 years have passed since those events. By any objective standard the Sioux have suffered at least as much as the Palestinians - if not worse.
So superficially you seem to be answering my question - 125 years is the time limit.
Just to be clear, I am not criticizing your positions on Israel/Palestine. I don't know if it's possible, but I'm trying to take a broader view.
The nation is a concept that summarizes a certain cultural unity of a group of individuals. It is relatively useful for defending the common rights of its components. However, if the Nation becomes a substantial subject, an abstract entity with autonomous existence, it is being given rights over real subjects' rights. This is the source of fascism, not the defense of individuals. Every abuse is justified on behalf of Nation, as it is the case with Israel.
All conflict implies relations of force (direct or indirect). But any use of force has limits that colonialism violates, as it is the case with Israel.
In short: one cannot defend oneself by attacking innocent people. Nor can nations.
Quoting ssu
Unfortunately, universal authority is practically non-existent in international politics. The State of Israel was created with the permission of an aberrant pact between Stalin and the colonial powers. Only the votes of some "independent" countries like Ukraine allowed it.
However, this is a forum of philosophy and we can judge things under the premises of justice and morality. As for cynicism, we already have the masters of the world and their footmen.
Superficially.
You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. I was just pointing out a blatant similarity.
Quoting ssu
Quoting David Mo
I'd like to point out that the UN has a large amount of authority over nations. There's such a thing as state sovereignty, but there's also things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the latter takes priority over the former in legal terms.
If a country is doing something that's illegal under international law, the UN has the legal authority to prosecute them and even invade them if the situation demands it.
Of course, the UN does not have an army and relies on other nations to provide troops. That makes the exercise of authority difficult in certain cases, but it does have that authority.
Its authority even extends to non-member states.
If there would be a true universal authority, nothing else in the World would bring people together as it would ...in opposing it from the heart.
Authorities are controlled in the end by tiny cabals and hence I wouldn't want to give the billionaires now running the show even more power than they have.
How things work is really through co-operation of sovereign states, not through universal authorities. The really bad idea is to think that "let's have a universal Global nation state". Just as nation states themselves truly need to have also communal independence too. It works for a reason. Too much centralization is bad. It's not a coincidence that the UN is made of nation states working together.
Quoting David Mo
Stalin? Stalin might have seen that Israel is one way to force the UK out of the Middle East, but that honeymoon was over quite quickly. Ukraine?
It's obvious that sovereign states can and should agree on many issues. That doesn't take away their sovereignty at all. If one state goes totally off the norms, that has consequences. Peer pressure is a good thing. But notice the word 'peer'.
One of the documents in which this is written down and explained (including a paragraph about state sovereignty in the modern era) is the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty on the Responsibility to Protect.
Yes. Just like the UN truly did go to war in Korea. Yet the UN is made of sovereign states that decide what to do with the organization.
Hence the rules are decided by peers called sovereign states. There is nothing illogical in that. There is a difference between: a) sovereign states agreeing on the rules and b) there being an universal authority that would say it represents all the people in the World and thus has power over the old nation states.
Just think WHY did Israel start the Peace process in the first place? The answer in my view is that the Cold War was over and Israel presumed that things would change and the US wouldn't be so interested in backing itself up. Perhaps they couldn't fathom how much power the Evangelicals and AIPAC have in the US-Israeli relations.
So now, heck with it! The US backs whatever they want to do.
I wouldn't put it that way. When the UN was created sovereign states forfeited a part of their sovereignty by becoming members. The UN has grown as time has passed and its authority now extends also to non-member states, meaning that leaving the UN does not necessarily return all of that sovereignty to the state.
Quoting ssu
I would compare the UN to a democratic government, but a government nonetheless. The way you are describing the UN makes it sound like a form of multilateral agreement (a), when in fact the UN has become a supranational organization; an organization with authority over states (more like b).
I didn't say there was anything illogical about it, by the way.
Absolutely - that's why I used the word superficially
Quoting David Mo
The problem I have with your comparison is that it seems to have things backwards. In your comparison you are equating the Sioux with the Israelis, i.e. the Sioux are not allowed to reclaim their historic homeland. My point was that we should be equating the Sioux with the Palestinians - they are the aggrieved party. Apologies if I was not clear on that.
Quoting David Mo
Absolutely. But if there are no guidelines/rules/laws at all, then there will be no way to resolve these issues. There has to be some agreed upon structure that all parties can agree upon for discussions to take place. Otherwise it's simply might makes right - the winner makes up the rules to justify their actions.
The list was published by the Israeli Embassy in the Dominican Republic. It didn't take me more than five minutes to find it. I didn't have time to translate it. I assume you have no problem identifying Ukraine and the other states.
You'll notice the obvious absence of African and Asian countries. This was before colonial emancipation. A significant fact.
An authority that depends on the authorization of a council of the great powers does not seem to me to be independent. Although the legislation it promotes is beautiful.
The activity of the UN is decided in the Security Council. The rest, words.
Israel proposed peace on one or two occasions when it thought the other party would not accept it and when it was in its interest to consolidate its power in the 75 per cent of Palestinian territory it had appropriated. When the Palestinians realized that the armed road was leading nowhere and began to propose peace, Israel retreated again and again to make it impossible.
I agree with your comparison. Maybe I expressed myself badly.
What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea.
Quoting David Mo
I don't see how this is relevant.
A similar thing could be said about every healthy democracy.
And that is made of....
What gives any nation authority or legitimacy?
Firstly - and this is a minor point - these are not legends. There is a clear historical record that there was an autonomous Jewish nation prior to being taken over by Rome.
I agree with your main idea - after 2K years it's too late to go back.
But this does not answer my question - how do we resolve situations where multiple groups of people lay claim to the same physical land? Is there any legal/moral/philosophical/political framework that can be used to untangle these situations?
And can we apply such a framework to help untangle the Israeli/Palestinian situation?
Show me where in the US Constitution the Congress forfeits it's power to the UN? I don't think you find it there. Not there in even in the case of Finland, which is a member of the EU, it's still quite clear too. From the Finnish Constitution:
Participation in co-operation is NOT forfeiting. Furthermore, if this wouldn't be clear, then let's look at what the UN Charter actually says:
This should illustrate totally clearly that the UN is a tool FOR sovereign members, and these members are nations. Because it genuinely refers to them, there ought to be no confusion about this and the agenda of the UN. It's a classic Republican conspiracy theory in the US to argue that the agenda of the UN is to forfeit power from the nation states (or just basically from the US, which only matters).
This has been addressed in the document I linked earlier, which I had hoped you would read.
Under article 1.35:
And article 2.14:
Further, under article 2.29:
http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf
In other words, nations have responsibilities and have to follow rules. If they don't, it becomes the responsibility of the international community to put an end to their malpractices. What states write in their constitutions is irrelevant in this matter.
If you were to point out that certain states are too powerful to stop, you would of course be right. However, this doesn't change the fact that the UN holds authority over these states. Some states are too weak to battle organized crime, but that doesn't make the criminals the new authority in a legal sense.
Which (in the case of UN) have been a) at start been voluntarily accepted by them and b) not usually not de facto enforced if the state don't follow when the states have powerful backers and/or militaries, like in the case of Israel.
Quoting Tzeentch
I would argue that basically nation states are far more powerful than they appear. They could opt for the route of North Korea and seclude themselves from the global community, but that would be catastrophic for their economies. But if they can control their territory, one basic requisite for being a functioning state, they would be left alone. One really has to be truly a dysfunctional country for others to intervene with force. The fact is that co-operation among peers is absolutely essential, starting from as obvious examples of trade and commerce across borders.
Let's think about basics for a moment. National sovereignty comes from other states recognizing the independence of a state. If any other state doesn't recognize an independence declaration, there is no sovereign state. It really is a system of peers and 'peer-review'.
"At the start" is key here. The responsibilities may have been voluntarily taken up initially, today following international law is no longer voluntary, and breaking international law risks consequences, military or other. Enforcement is indeed a more complicated issue, though.
Quoting ssu
Agreed.
Quoting ssu
Well, there's a fair amount of debate about what constitutes a state. Within international law and international relations the definition of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is commonly used. It states that a state must have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Therefore, a state really only needs to be recognized by one other state in order to fulfill this criterion. Furthermore it states that the political existence of a state (including its sovereignty?) is independent of recognition by the other states, which complicates the matter further.
Though, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Cooperation generally leads to prosperity, sure.
There is no collective white identity. It's funny you choose white here.... what about black? Asian? How about Kurdish or Armenian? If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?
This is irrelevant.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly. Especially when they combine it with violating their fundamental human rights on a large scale.
Well, I'm happy to hear that you're applying the same standards across ethnic groups.
From how I see it, whether it's the armenians, the kurds, or the jews all three of these groups have suffered serious mass killings and repeated historical injustice if not actual genocide (with the jews and armenians) with the primary purpose of an ethno-state (whether it be kurd, armenian, or jewish) being much needed security for those groups. It's not like the international community is going to come in and rescue them, after all. Ultimately, everyone must fend for themselves.
You're missing the point. You cited the basic laws of Israel earlier, which undeniably establish Israel's identity as a Jewish state. It's not vague about that. Even under a "best case scenario" you'd still be complaining because it's Jewish as opposed to Arab or Muslim. Jews are going to be favored when it comes to immigration or who gets citizenship.
I'm trying to distinguish here between what is inherently so and what is not inherently so.
Article 1c)
"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People."
https://knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/BasicLawNationState.pdf
This clearly excludes Arabs and Muslims. 20% of Israel's population. Self-determination is a fundamental human right.
Also, you haven't answered my question.
Just to be clear here, you're saying that the mere existence of a Jewish state constitutes oppression and discrimination.
In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past.
In a democracy, the people decide. When the richest people decide it is called plutocracy. When the strongest, it is called tyranny. You have to call a spade a spade.
Respect to the human rights or justice. Call it as you like.
You are wrong. The unified Jewish kingdom only existed in the mythical period of Saul, David and Solomon. After that, the Jewish people were divided among several countries mostly under foreign occupation. When Rome occupied Palestine, the two main kingdoms were Judah and Israel.
Quoting EricH
Many times it is not an easy question. Other times it is clear, at least in a negative way. Not by means of war. Not appealing to mythical claims. Not because of some alleged 2,000-year-old right. If these perverse foundations of law became widespread, there would be oppression, chaos and universal violence. As in fact already happens in Palestine.
All ethnic states are established to the detriment of minorities. In the case of Israel there are specific laws and practices against native Palestinians: citizenship, land ownership, right of return, mixed marriages, etc. Amnesty International regularly reports on massive violations of basic rights. That is why Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu called Israel a new form of apartheid. He knew well what he was talking about.
And how many countries started without respecting human rights in some way and continue to do so? Should they be dismantled as countries? China doesn't respect certain rights of privacy, speech, religion, and so on. Should that country be dissolved? Russia has a fake democracy. English and French kings and lords violated human rights all the time with torturing and quartering enemies and prisoners. Germany enacted a Holocaust as late as the 20th century and precipitated the immediate need for Jews to have a place that can be considered their own. America expanded into what some would say was sovereign territory by the Native Americans and enslaved peoples from Africa. Native American tribes often killed men and women, and kidnapped small children to raise them in their own tribe. Are all these nations less worthy of land they own?
But I know the counter argument that two wrongs don't make a right. I agree. But, let's look at the facts on the ground. The West Bank and Gaza did not want to form into a state between 1948-1967. Or at least, Jordan and Egypt didn't want to encourage this. They wanted the whole thing or nothing at all. Israel got the West Bank and Gaza, and the Sinai, after being threatened from imminent attack in 1967 and again in 1973.
Then came an intractable problem. From the 70s onwards, there were bombings and terror acts against Israeli civilians by suicide bombers. You have to have "reasonable" negotiating partners in order to make a deal. Suicide bombing does not engender reasonableness. It was a bad strategy if you wanted to negotiate in good faith and not simply want the other side obliterated or driven out. This cycle continues to this day. Suicide attacks will cause the population to not trust "liberals" who will not protect the citizens, and drive the peace process further backwards. Both sides want a stalemate because they don't see a way out.
Either way, I don't see it as a human rights thing as much as an inability to negotiate. Nothing is one-sided.
You cannot justify a current injustice on the basis of a hypothetical injustice. In any case, the solution to that injustice cannot be to kill the future offender. Are we at Minority Report? Do we play politics fiction?
The real fact is that the only justification for Israel's crimes is the fear of Palestinian rebellion.
First of all: there would be no rebellion without a previous occupation.
Second: the fear of rebellion by the natives leads the settlers to live in a state of permanent war. This state of war is incompatible with any kind of true democracy. Justice cannot exist when a dominant fears and hates the dominated. We have recently seen that in the slave states of the United States and in apartheid South Africa. I know that some of the early Zionists have a (naive) feeling of benevolence towards the Palestinians. After decades of fear and hatred, these good settlers have vanished and only Netanyahu, Lieberman and the armed settlers remain.
The problem was the occupation. The solution will be difficult. Especially since the neo-colonial powers are not interested in it.
Let's not start with counterfactual scenarios. Neither you nor anyone else knows what would have happened if the Palestinians had formed their own state or integrated into an Arab state. The first thing that should have been done at the time is to ask their opinion. This is a necessary condition for any process of decolonization.
But it was not done, and they were delivered in hands of an anti-Arab political movement that foresaw at least their expulsion if not worse. We are discussing a real fact. Not political fiction. Politics fiction cannot justify massacres and ethnic cleansing.
Yet, that is exactly how history can be analyzed. Anyways, I don't see anything you said as countering the fact that this is about an issue of the inability to negotiate.
I'm not saying that at all. Read again.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
In such a scenario, do you think it would help if Israel had a century of antagonizing Arabs under its belt? I think that only sparks more hate, making retaliation more likely, rather than co-existence.
"I can be mean to them because they would be mean to me" is a mindset that will never create a better future. It will only repeat the mistakes of the past.
Not the story they taught me.
The best-seller books of history maybe.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you blame the Jews for not knowing how to negotiate with Hitler?
You find the basic laws of israel to be racist. the basic laws set out the very idea, the very concept of the state. they define its purpose and basic ideas.
could you tell me your version of an acceptable jewish state?
edit: you admitted earlier that you don't accept the idea of an ethno-state regardless of whether its armenia, kurd, etc. if there's minorities living under it so the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens.
The controversial "Nation State Law", also called "Basic Law", is not quite the same as the "basic laws of Israel". The piece of legislature I linked to has been passed in the Knesset in 2018.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
A state in which minorities are treated with respect and dignity. State practice and law should reflect their presence is legitimate, and not undesirable. Their rights should be the same as any other citizen. I consider such things to be the basis of any proper state.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
If that's what you think I'm implying you are an absolute fool.
We had this exchange earlier:
If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?
— BitconnectCarlos
If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.
...So in other words you'd be against the ethno-state if it included minorities.
It would seem to be one of the basic laws according to wikipedia.
In any case make no mistake about it; Israel is a fundamentally Jewish state and that has always been the intention since its founding.
It's a fascinating part of history. Here's a good starting point.
Quoting David Mo
I'll loop around one more time here. You seem be implicitly acknowledging in this sentence that there are (or should be) some rules to govern who should own the land.
As you have correctly noted, the Israeli/Palestinian situation is not unique. While each situation has it's own unique history (and range of solutions) there is still the underlying question - how to resolve disputes over land ownership.
Again - I am not criticizing your positions. My desire is to see a peaceful resolution of the situation - but I acknowledge that this is highly unlikely. I would gladly be wrong, but I see nothing ahead but continued violence.
I'll give you the last word here - if you want it that is. . . .
I don't know what you really meant by counterfactual history. What I meant was that a major part of history is analyzing the decisions that were made and how that negatively or positively affected a later outcome. I don't know what you're trying to get at. In this case, instead of working on a plan for a Palestinian state, the Arab countries along with the Palestinians decided that this was not the route they wanted to go. Rather, full annihilation was more important. As I judge it, that was a poor decision during the years when that was possible to create some sort of independent state.
Quoting David Mo
This is a ridiculous statement. This analogy is extremely bad, and in poor taste. It's actually beyond poor taste. When did Jews in Europe ever have a chance to "negotiate" with Hitler? Palestinian leadership has had plenty of chances to negotiate with Israel. The problem is the negotiation tactics have been "Israel should be driven to the sea", and "suicide bombers will do the negotiating for us through terror and scare tactics". Again, this is another poor tactic, similar to the decision not to make a state when they could have. Why is this a poor decision? In a land the size of New Jersey, when you feel your very life is threatened on any bus or cafe or public area, and that it is happening frequently and at any time, you will vote for a strongman who will prevent things from happening and use maximum force if threatened, take maximum security check measures, and less likely to give in to demands.
Essentially this is what happened during the 90s and 2000's. A bunch of suicide bombings created an atmosphere of distrust of left-wing politicians to protect them. Certainly, on the Israel side, it was terrible that Rabin was assassinated as he was trying for a path (even if he was working with a less than willing partner). Certainly it was terrible that Arafat could not negotiate with Ehud Barak over something like a very miniscule amount of land. But unfortunately, on top of those relatively unstable attempts at peace, the main "negotiating" tactic on the Palestinian side has been terror. Again, a bad decision for them as instead of terrifying the Israeli population into leaving or giving into any demand, it just made them vote for more conservative strongmen. Memories are pretty long in that part of the world. I don't know Israeli politics that closely, but my guess is that the fear of any letting up on security measures or strongmen tactics would precipitate more terror attacks and thus continue the cycle.
What can be done on the Palestinian side? Moderation with the genuine desire to curb terror activity. What can be done on the Israeli side? Vote in someone willing to go back to the negotiating table. However, what will probably happen is once someone more left-leaning gets voted in, the rockets and suicide bombers will see an opening, the Israeli public will get fearful again and vote in another conservative strongman.
How on Earth did you read my words and come to the conclusion I must find it acceptable for Israel (or any other country for that matter) "to kick its minorities out"? There is no such implication. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what I've been arguing.
If this is the level at which this discussion continues I'm out.
Apply the Kantian categorical imperative: What would happen in the world if Israeli policy became the universal norm? Total instability of international borders. The law of the strongest without restrictions. The Hobbesian state of nature. Or universal war.
You can say that some of that we have now. True, but with a certain modesty and limitations. If it were to become the norm it would be chaos.
I am also pessimistic about the solution of the Palestinian problem.
When did Palestinians ever have a chance to "negotiate" with Israelis?
Your narrative is a summary of Israeli-American mythology about the negotiations. I'll discuss it when I have time. For now, I will make my own summary: the so-called negotiations have been an attempt to forcing the Palestinians to swallow the conditions that made a Palestinian state nonviable and that implied the recognition of Israel not as a state - that Arafat did - but as a Jewish ethnic state. The history of these "negotiations" was one of successive Palestinian concessions that produced subsequent hardening of the Israeli position. I suggest you read what one of the few Israelis with a willingness to make peace wrote: Uri Avnery. Unfortunately there are no longer any like him.
Two main obstacles to peace are often considered to be terrorism and occupation. In the Western media, Palestinian terrorism would justify Israel's state terrorism, but not vice versa. This is a (non-)curious bias.
In any case, it is clear that occupation is a cause of Palestinian terrorism.
Some Palestinian efforts have been made to prevent terrorism in collaboration with the Israeli authorities. They can be considered insufficient. But Israel has made no attempt to reduce state terrorism. Neither sufficient nor insufficient.
The occupation is the (main) cause of Palestinian terrorism. Successive Israeli governments continue to increase the occupation without interruption.
Who is to blame for the persistence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? How do we share the responsibility?
As for the attitude of successive Israeli governments, one more thing could be said: it is fully consistent with the Zionist project, as it was devised by its main actors before the creation of the State of Israel. That the Palestinian resistance surprised them and forced Zionism to act in an unforeseen way in the long term is another matter. They probably foresaw a calmer situation in the manner of the "pacification" of the Native Americans. Reality has overtaken them in some sense.
A counterfactual explanation is one that makes hypotheses about the consequences of an event that did not really happen. In history it's a fallacy. You can predict in exceptional cases what it would have happened in the short term if some exceptional event (not) had taken place. It is history fiction to predict what Europe would look like today if Napoleon had won at Waterloo or if Mark Antony and Cleopatra had defeated Octavian. Frivolities.
Not quite the same. A state will do what is in its power to stop terrorism or threat to its population. Terrorists who act from remote countries, well this will look different when the terrorists are right next door or in your midst. In a country the size of New Jersey with the terrorist actors literally in the same land areas, this is going to look the way it does. Now, there are extremists on the Jewish side that can sound and act pretty crazily too. I mentioned one that killed Rabin. But, unlike the Palestinian side which seems to use it as a weapons, get praise, and is seen as a "win" for their side, I suspect if the Israeli government got ahold of a plot from the extreme right on their side, it would be tried, and they would be punished accordingly. This is something I've never heard the Palestinian side do. Instead, many people in government on the Pals side are behind it I suspect. This is particularly the case with Hamas, etc.
Again, it is a miscalculation on the Pals side to use terrorism as a weapon. One of the reasons is their goals are unreasonable. Many in leadership still don't want to give up and make concessions. That is what negotiating is. You have to give something up. Everyone will not walk away with what they want. That is THE key in resolving this. Some of the stated goals are to literally push Israel into the sea. You can't work with that. I will say, in order for this to work, moderates have to step up to the plate on both sides. I agree with that much. Otherwise, it is a permanent stalemate, with each side doing what it knows how to do best.
The end does not justify the means. Terrorism is not about ends but means. Terrorism is the use of terrible force against non-combatants to force them to accept some end. This is independent of the goodness or evil of the ends. In fact all terrorists claim ends that are respectable: The Palestinian terrorist argues resistance against a brutal occupation and Israeli state terrorism is justified for the protection of the civilian population.
Apart from the fact that violence against the civilian population is repugnant in itself, the use of terrorism degrades the good cause that is used as justification. The moral degradation of people and the preeminence of fanatical leaders are the normal consequences of a society that normalizes terrorism. At the end of the process the real ends are no longer those that are preached. We are seeing this in the respective sides of the Palestinian conflict.
That, not to mention the general hypocrisy that affects other countries. Because the conflict in Palestine is not - and never has been - a mere local conflict.