Senate Israel/Palestine

Discussion in 'Community' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Jan 4, 2009.

  1. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Whilst I think that is certainly an helpful position for Lik'ud to operate from, I don't think it's fair to necessarily call it an apartheid state nor compare the extremes in Lik'ud manifesto with the extremes in HAMAS' manifesto. And from talking to Westerners who've been to or lived in Israel, it is remarkably liberal and multicultural in many regards. Really, the apartheid critique only applies to PA-administered territories.
  2. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    It's also worth pointing out that the "Right of Return", which has been a major sticking point in negotiations, would basically mean an end to modern-day Israel, as an Arab majority would certainly vote to change the nature of the country (and probably not be too forgiving to Jews). That puts Israel in a bind: let everyone displaced come back, but give them restricted voting (and other) rights, or keep them out? Option 'B' has been the easier one for decades (amongst other things), but I agree with Ender: the extremes are in control, and have been for some time.

    The status quo will only change when the middle stands up and raises their voice. I believe both sides want to try, but they're going to need to exert continued pressure on their leaders.

    And yes, I fully support a two-state solution.

    Peace,

    V-03
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Apr 29, 2014
  3. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Worth noting that if the majority changed things and weren't too kind to Jews, most of the fault would be lain at the feet of Jewish leaders...
  4. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    What we need is an integrated, fully-equal and unbiased, one-state solution. Instead of estranging the Palestinians from Israel, they should be slowly integrating them and explaining the reasons behind the values of secular, liberal, equalitarian democracies and having a real dialogue on it. So that when they become the majority, it's a smooth transition. There's no need for a "Jewish state," just as there's no need for a "Christian state" or "Muslim state" or "Hindu state" or "Buddhist state" or "African-American state" or "Mormon state" or "French state" or "Russian state" or "Kurdish state" or "Palestinian state," etc. As long as people are living under the rule of law in a true democracy that also truly respects individual rights, what does it matter what the demographic make-up is? There shouldn't be any states based on ethnicity or religion or anything like that. Begin the one-state process. Call it the United Republic of Israel and Palestine, or something like that.
    Last edited by Ghost, Apr 29, 2014
  5. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    See, Christians and Muslims haven't been persecuted for thousands of years to the point of near-extinction (I read once that if Jews made up the same proportion of the world population as they did at their height, they'd number in the hundreds of millions). Jewish is also an ethnicity; Muslim and Christian are not, though that's a different topic.

    The thinking in creating a "Jewish state" was to have a safe haven for Jews, which they didn't have in any country. The closest thing to a safe haven before Israel was the United States-- which was extremely tolerant compared to Europe, but among other things the U.S. government wasn't exactly willing to welcome millions of refugees. If Israel ceased to be a Jewish state, many Israeli Jews and Jews abroad understandably feel that they may cease to have a safe haven.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Apr 29, 2014
  6. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    The US, though, was as anti-Semitic as others before the creation of the State of Israel. Otherwise, I agree with you though; there is a special case scenario for a Jewish state.
    Vaderize03 likes this.
  7. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    There was not systematic violence (though both Red Scares had anti-Semitic character), no anti-Jewish laws beyond the colonial era, and Jews simply were not singled out nearly as often by those in power. Jews found major success and mainstream acceptance they would've had a harder time finding in contemporary Europe (that's not to say it never happened). For example, all of the major Hollywood studios were run by their Jewish founders during the "Golden Age." Yes, casual anti-Semitism existed and was pervasive; my parents remember "Jew" being acceptable as a verb. But Europe set a low bar. :p
    Vaderize03, yankee8255 and Ender Sai like this.
  8. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Agreed. And whilst they were confined to industries and not widely liked, you are correct that they were not actively prohibited from engaging in business or public life.
    Vaderize03 likes this.
  9. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    The Palestinians simply have to give up on pursuing any international legal 'right of return' they may have. It is silly to pursue this. Likewise, the Israelis need to give up on requiring the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. They cannot do this simply because of the implications such recognition may have for the rights of Arab Israeli citizens who are not Jewish and also because of the implications it may have in respect of the Palestinian right of return. It's a ridiculous condition anyway. The Palestinians cannot concede on giving up a right of return and also recognise Israel as a Jewish state. It has to be a negotiated compromise.

    Yeah Westerners are treated OK but Israeli Arabs are not. A really good first hand account of the way Israeli Arabs are treated is by Susan Nathan in her book "The Other Side of Israel: My Journey across the Jewish/Arab Divide". The book chronicles all of the subtle and not so subtle ways the Israeli government exercises a form of apartheid against Arabs living in Israel.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Apr 29, 2014
  10. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    I'm not sure I agree with the second half of that, LOH. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Israeli Arabs serve in Parliament, as well as judges, for example?

    Hard to claim apartheid if that's the case.

    Peace,

    V-03
  11. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    The present day situation of Israeli Arabs is more analogous with contemporary racism in the United States than with Apartheid, in that there is no de jure (or very little) discrimination, and Arabs can and indeed do serve in the highest echelons of society, but because of prevailing cultural attitudes and "facts on the ground", some ostensibly fair legislation results in de facto discrimination. For example, most land in Israel is allocated to individuals through the Jewish National Fund, and discrimination against Arabs within the bureaucracy there is pretty well documented. Likewise, government issued financial support for things like mortgages and child support are tied to service in the IDF. For ultra-Orthodox who refuse to do so, there is ad hoc legislation providing other pathways to these funds. No such exception for Arabs.

    With regards to the occupied territories, "Apartheid" and all that it entails is a bad choice of words, but the general thrust of the sentiment is entirely valid, and one should add, has been voiced by a number of Israeli politicians throughout the years, Ehud Barak among them.

    V-03 The Palestinians simply have to give up on pursuing any international legal 'right of return' they may have. It is silly to pursue this. Likewise, the Israelis need to give up on requiring the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. They cannot do this simply because of the implications such recognition may have for the rights of Arab Israeli citizens who are not Jewish and also because of the implications it may have in respect of the Palestinian right of return. It's a ridiculous condition anyway. The Palestinians cannot concede on giving up a right of return and also recognise Israel as a Jewish state. It has to be a negotiated compromise.

    Huh?
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Apr 30, 2014
  12. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
  13. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Eh, I generally think there's something to the anti-Semetic stuff, especially in the US -- but overall, in the majority, probably not.

    However, I will question -- as I will admit to not being up on that whole political parts -- the examples of Apartheid, Northern Ireland... it was my understanding that the underclass didn't want the other side eliminated entirely as a function of either gaining their own country and/or equal rights? The Irish just wanted the British (and, realistically, Protestantism?) gone and to have their own state and the dark-skinned Africans wanted equality in their own country rather than a systematic racist policy by white-skinned Africans? Too simplistic?

    Does the boycott system work -- especially when the members admit "Historically, the weapon of divestment has been used against entities that people didn't want to exist. So people in Israel have every right to regard divestment as an existential threat." -- when the people who want their own state are being run by groups who are leveraging the Palestinian people against their own best interests in the name of continuing hatred against Israel and aligning themselves with people who want the parent-state totally annihilated?

    This doesn't absolve Israel of blame, mind you -- just that the governance of the Palestinian people in the elected governments haven't always done what's right either.
  14. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I'm not quite sure how you wanted this analogy to work. Even some of the more virulently anti-semitic factions--let alone the general Palestinian populace--isn't committed to the wholesale destruction of the Jewish people. They largely just want Israel gone so that they develop a state to their liking, unencumbered. That's of a similar sentiment with the Irish protests, or with the FLN's unsubtle "the suitcase or the coffin" solution to the end of French colonialism. I'm not sure it's the Palestinian reaction that makes this situation unique.
  15. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    eh, you'll note that marginalized peoples tend not to put the most moderate people in power.
  16. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    Oh, no doubt -- but it had been going on far longer with Arafat being, basically, the worst of the worst in regards for moneys destined for the Palestinian people not reaching them. And that was way before the PA and elections.
  17. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    I don't know that it's too inaccurate, Wock. HAMAS has committed itself to Israel's destruction, and implicit in that is a stance on Jews too (Israel being the landed embodiment of the Jewish experience). I get your point, but I think dp is right that the Fenian idiots didn't want to destroy Britain, they wanted governance of the province to cede from its rightful owners back to the Irish. In this instance, HAMAS do want Israel destroyed and whilst I think that's not representative of broad Palestinian sentiment, it is in the charter of the party that was voted into power.

    I also think it's worth nothing that HAMAS' election is a blowback against Israeli bad-faith negotiations and intransigence; and that HAMAS did actually make offers to renounce violence etc that were rebuked.

    What is interesting to me though is that the culture of being a victim, a persecuted minority, is still strongly ingrained in large sectors of Jewish thought (at least, what I'm exposed to through friends and media alike). A friend of mine neatly summed it up on Facebook; it's an intellectual cowardice, not wanting to deal with criticism so you write it off as prejudice. I have one Jewish friend in particular who's very right wing in his pro-Israeli views (though not so much that he went and did national service, of course...) who is stuck in that mindset. All criticism of Israel is just prejudice, especially from pro-Muslim Europe (I've already made the point that criticism of Islam is widespread, but it fell on deaf ears), etc etc. It was interesting to me, therefore, that a large Christian group in the States has taken this stance.

    And sadly predictable that Bibi, being a raving lunatic like he is, would say what he said.
    Alpha-Red likes this.
  18. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Yeah, Bibi's gone nutty -- I think people were hoping for a Sharon/Arafat II and... got this.
  19. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    I don't remember him being this bad in the 90s, either. Intifadah II was too much for him.
  20. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Admittedly, there's a bit of spin happening there, but I think the point is well-taken. Trying to compare an occupying people that is centered in another country to one that is co-habitating in the disputed territory doesn't really make for a workable comparison. It necessarily dements the stated desires of the occupied people so that they sound more radical.
  21. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    If you ask me, Israel's been getting away with playing the anti-Semitism card for too long. If I do see an anti-Semite, I'd be glad to condemn him...but until I see evidence that this anti-Semitism exists to any significant extent, I consider Israel to be crying wolf in an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that they're still engaged in stealing land from the Palestinians.
    Ender Sai likes this.
  22. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Yes, clearly all of those European ultranationalists who are gaining power (see the thread) and proposing anti-Jewish (and anti-Islamic ironically) laws are made up.
  23. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Europe is being aggressively secular. It's more clashing with Islam than Judaism, so finding an excuse to perpetuate the default victimhood status is really silly.
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  24. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Pro-tip: if there is outrage -- both nationally and internationally -- from the murder of three adolescent citizens of your nation, the proper response is not to kidnap and murder one of the other side's teenagers in response.

    And this is the type of thing that's driving me nuts about the more modern Israel over the last decade -- this never would have happened in the past. Military response, sure. But the population would have suffered willingly, because that's been the modus operandi for thousands of years (and at least that part works somewhat). The constant, incessant drumbeat of refusal to negotiate in any form is now trickling down to the general population which is just about the worst thing to happen for Israel, I'd think.
  25. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    It was only a matter of time before the revenge killing. Yesterday, Israeli civilians rioted over the deaths of the three teenagers. And today there were Palestinian riots over the death of the one teenager.