I think you are right, orfeo, this thread is pointless, and offers little actual discussion. But over a number of decades, I have found this to be true, generally. I had an Israeli friend many years ago, and it was embarrassing to introduce him to various left wing friends, as they became abusive. I suppose emotions are too heightened on all sides.
Not once have I said anything about dismantling the country of Israel. Not once. And every fucking time that's what Teilhard comes back with. It's idiotic.
The 2 responses to my previous post were, from one poster, a complete and total ignoring of what I said to merely repeat the same thing I was commenting against without even bothering to construct a sentence, and from another poster a virtual non sequitur using 2 words from what I said to just say what they wanted to say on some other angle.
This is how all debate on the subject of Israel tends to go (and indeed, debate on so many contentious subjects). It's pathetic. It's not REMOTELY useful.
Every debate on anything of real importance is just constantly derailed because there is always, always a group of people who just to open their mouths, say something they think was terribly clever, and then go on with their day feeling smug.
Well fuck you. No wonder sometimes we just end up deciding to bomb somewhere into oblivion, because that's the only option left when people are so goddamn intractable. No wonder we end up with 'villains' in films who've decided that the best solution is to destroy everything and start again.
We're talking about a situation that has made people miserable, or dead, for decades. It's not about who wins. It's about the fact that everyone has been losing for so long. EVERYONE. And all we get out of a conversation is a bunch of cheap, meaningless verbal shots.
Do you realise, that in all the space of endless arguing about whether we can use Israeli and Jewish as synonyms and all the other ridiculous crap, I haven't once been in a position to start articulating and, maybe developing or altering in the face of meaningful rational questions, any kind of actual position on Israeli policies and Israel/Palestine solutions? Not once. Not once.
And no-one has asked me for my position either. The only questions I get are semi-rhetorical ones from bloody Teilhard about various Jewish matters that have nothing to do with the Israeli government.
It's utterly shameful. This thread is utterly shameful. If you wonder why the world's big problems aren't being solved, it's because no-one is ever actually in a position to sit down to try and solve them together, the way big problems need, because the world has too many people who think that a problem is merely an opportunity to score points and make themselves feel a little more self-satisfied, and the rest of us have to spend all of our time fighting past such people to try to get to some sort of factual substrate that can be used as a starting point.
Do not be proud of yourselves.
Oh, there have been numerous -- very many -- attempts during the last 3,000 years for neighbors of The State of Israel and of The People of Israel to decide FOR them what "the solution" should be ... which is why the Jews have recently taken matters of their own destiny into their own hands ... and why they are simply flatly not going to negotiate The ("Jewish") State of Israel out of existence ...
And yet again, you write something that has precisely nothing to do with what I said. Nothing.
Well ...
There is a lot of "talking past each other" on this question, yes ... ???
I tend to want to discuss the history of a situation and the way it nearly determines the present situation ... while some others seem to want to argue about today and tomorrow as if yesterday didn't exist ...
Maybe your long article (above) could be shorter and sweeter, giving your case to us like feeding a critter -- one bale at a time ... ???
I think there is a clear implication in using the language of Apartheid and Bantustan that the goal is the destruction of the State of Israel.
Even when it's an Israeli lawyer who warns of apartheid?
Thanks for that article Dave. I am very comfortable with the idea that the West Bank is an Apartheid State in the sense meant by the author. I agree that the settlements policy is an overt attempt to annex the territory in the absence of an overarching peace agreement. I agree that the situation is untenable and must change. It has been untenable now for nigh on 30 years. That's why I in my naivety fasten onto every change in the political climate with a sense of hope.
But is this what Palestinian advocates say? My impression is that they have given up on a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and want Israel to cease to exist.
Don't ask me - I'd have to spend a lot of time trawling the internet to develop a reasoned, thoughtful opinion, and right now I'm just too busy helping the FBI track down "individuals who are actively instigating violence in Washington, D.C." (Ooh, here's one!)
I'm just saying that drawing analogies between Israel and apartheid SA (or even Nazi Germany) is something that is sometimes done by Israeli Jews in major Israeli newspapers, so I don't think it's necessarily indicative of a desire for the destruction of the state of Israel.
But if you don't know what Palestinian advocates say, you might stop and consider where you got your impressions of what they think and want. I suspect their opinions differ, as do those of Israelis.
I very much appreciate and feel undescribably strengthend being the subject (object) of so many people's and organisations' prayers (even daily prayers) for my (our) wellbeing and for a move in the direction of "a lasting solution" to our situation.
As you say Orfeo "everyone has been losing for so long"
I think even this thread might be some kind of totally mangled prayer
I think there is a clear implication in using the language of Apartheid and Bantustan that the goal is the destruction of the State of Israel.
Even when it's an Israeli lawyer who warns of apartheid?
Thanks for that article Dave. I am very comfortable with the idea that the West Bank is an Apartheid State in the sense meant by the author. I agree that the settlements policy is an overt attempt to annex the territory in the absence of an overarching peace agreement. I agree that the situation is untenable and must change. It has been untenable now for nigh on 30 years. That's why I in my naivety fasten onto every change in the political climate with a sense of hope.
But is this what Palestinian advocates say? My impression is that they have given up on a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and want Israel to cease to exist.
The West Bank isn't an Apartheid State, it's closer to a de facto Bantustan, but would have to gave been hived off by Israel after annexation to be a de jure one. Israel is not an apartheid state in how it treats the Arab minority within its borders, de jure...
Abandon all hope, and subvert. Flow round, over, under that rock.
Does this comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa stop at describing that there territories which Israel controls in ways that resemble apartheid, or does this comparison lead to the idea that Israel should not exist, to dismantle it, and create something else? I think it is sloppy to finish the discussion without discussing that your believe that Israel should or should not exist as a Jewish state if you compare it to apartheid and use terms like Bantustan.
Don't ask me - I'd have to spend a lot of time trawling the internet to develop a reasoned, thoughtful opinion, and right now I'm just too busy helping the FBI track down "individuals who are actively instigating violence in Washington, D.C." (Ooh, here's one!)
I'm just saying that drawing analogies between Israel and apartheid SA (or even Nazi Germany) is something that is sometimes done by Israeli Jews in major Israeli newspapers, so I don't think it's necessarily indicative of a desire for the destruction of the state of Israel.
But if you don't know what Palestinian advocates say, you might stop and consider where you got your impressions of what they think and want. I suspect their opinions differ, as do those of Israelis.
My impression is, that like Norway's WWII hero Max Manus, they want their country back. Sitting down and talking reasonably about that with the Nazis didn't do it for Max. They've seen that Aksel Hennie movie.
Does this comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa stop at describing that there territories which Israel controls in ways that resemble apartheid, or does this comparison lead to the idea that Israel should not exist, to dismantle it, and create something else? I think it is sloppy to finish the discussion without discussing that your believe that Israel should or should not exist as a Jewish state if you compare it to apartheid and use terms like Bantustan.
Sorry, at what point in history was anyone advocating the dismantling of South Africa?
Does this comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa stop at describing that there territories which Israel controls in ways that resemble apartheid, or does this comparison lead to the idea that Israel should not exist, to dismantle it, and create something else? I think it is sloppy to finish the discussion without discussing that your believe that Israel should or should not exist as a Jewish state if you compare it to apartheid and use terms like Bantustan.
Sorry, at what point in history was anyone advocating the dismantling of South Africa?
A lot of this fuzzy equivocation is, it seems to me, to avoid a question that's been asked several times on this thread and not answered:
1. What is meant by a "Jewish state" when people refer to Israel as one?
2. What steps are considered justified or necessary by such a state to retain that "Jewish" status should demographic changes trend towards a non-Jewish majority population?
Does this comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa stop at describing that there territories which Israel controls in ways that resemble apartheid, or does this comparison lead to the idea that Israel should not exist, to dismantle it, and create something else? I think it is sloppy to finish the discussion without discussing that your believe that Israel should or should not exist as a Jewish state if you compare it to apartheid and use terms like Bantustan.
Sorry, at what point in history was anyone advocating the dismantling of South Africa?
A lot of this fuzzy equivocation is, it seems to me, to avoid a question that's been asked several times on this thread and not answered:
1. What is meant by a "Jewish state" when people refer to Israel as one?
2. What steps are considered justified or necessary by such a state to retain that "Jewish" status should demographic changes trend towards a non-Jewish majority population?
And 2, when and how does it look likely that the Arab 1.9 million 1/5th of the nine million population will quadruple? When it does look likely, pay them not to. Oooh! Economic growth itself, alone, quality of life, will do that.
Does this comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa stop at describing that there territories which Israel controls in ways that resemble apartheid, or does this comparison lead to the idea that Israel should not exist, to dismantle it, and create something else? I think it is sloppy to finish the discussion without discussing that your believe that Israel should or should not exist as a Jewish state if you compare it to apartheid and use terms like Bantustan.
Sorry, at what point in history was anyone advocating the dismantling of South Africa?
A lot of this fuzzy equivocation is, it seems to me, to avoid a question that's been asked several times on this thread and not answered:
1. What is meant by a "Jewish state" when people refer to Israel as one?
2. What steps are considered justified or necessary by such a state to retain that "Jewish" status should demographic changes trend towards a non-Jewish majority population?
My general recollection is that South Africa created separate 'homelands' - Ciskei, Transkei, Venda and Boputhatswana - and that the international community were not fans of it at all.
In other words, if anyone was trying to break South Africa up, it was the South African government. I don't recall anything from the international community urging for Ciskei to be made independent. The whole point was that the international community didn't recognise the independence that South Africa supposedly bestowed. And the ANC wanted the homelands reincorporated back into South Africa.
To try to compare that to, say, a call for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders just seems very strange. Bantustan is in fact a known term for a certain kind of situation, but ignoring how that situation arose, and what the previous circumstances were - well that's sloppy.
I very much appreciate and feel undescribably strengthend being the subject (object) of so many people's and organisations' prayers (even daily prayers) for my (our) wellbeing and for a move in the direction of "a lasting solution" to our situation.
As you say Orfeo "everyone has been losing for so long"
I think even this thread might be some kind of totally mangled prayer
Does this comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa stop at describing that there territories which Israel controls in ways that resemble apartheid, or does this comparison lead to the idea that Israel should not exist, to dismantle it, and create something else? I think it is sloppy to finish the discussion without discussing that your believe that Israel should or should not exist as a Jewish state if you compare it to apartheid and use terms like Bantustan.
Sorry, at what point in history was anyone advocating the dismantling of South Africa?
A lot of this fuzzy equivocation is, it seems to me, to avoid a question that's been asked several times on this thread and not answered:
1. What is meant by a "Jewish state" when people refer to Israel as one?
2. What steps are considered justified or necessary by such a state to retain that "Jewish" status should demographic changes trend towards a non-Jewish majority population?
I think those are precisely the sorts of questions that have to be square bracketed while the parties find other things they can agree on.
Does this comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa stop at describing that there territories which Israel controls in ways that resemble apartheid, or does this comparison lead to the idea that Israel should not exist, to dismantle it, and create something else? I think it is sloppy to finish the discussion without discussing that your believe that Israel should or should not exist as a Jewish state if you compare it to apartheid and use terms like Bantustan.
Sorry, at what point in history was anyone advocating the dismantling of South Africa?
A lot of this fuzzy equivocation is, it seems to me, to avoid a question that's been asked several times on this thread and not answered:
1. What is meant by a "Jewish state" when people refer to Israel as one?
2. What steps are considered justified or necessary by such a state to retain that "Jewish" status should demographic changes trend towards a non-Jewish majority population?
I think those are precisely the sorts of questions that have to be square bracketed while the parties find other things they can agree on.
Until I find out what sort of Israel people are supporting how can I know what I agree with them regarding it?
Dafyd: You do need both parties to agree that neither side is going to use violence or coercive measures to settle which population comprises a majority.
The democratic solution would be a single state with a common citizenship in which 'majority' relates to electoral outcomes and not an assigned ethnicity. If there is a two-state solution the only democratic arrangement would be a common citizenship in each of them that excludes the privileging of ethnic identity. I'm not optimistic given the racism of the Israelis and the weakness of liberal-democratic values among the Arabs.
Are there no loony fringes in the Hebrides? If not lucky you.
Not on my island of residence, but go up to Lewis and you'll find plenty - mostly hardline Calvinists. Couldn't tell you whether they're more likely to be ardent Zionists, anti-semites, or both.
My hope is that the Saudis' conflicting priorities of retaining their leadership in the Muslim world and allying with Israel against Iran might lead them to put pressure on all parties to get that political solution, removing the barrier to their anti-Iran alliance.
The alliance against Iran is not a conflicting priority with leadership of the Muslim world: Saudi Arabia's conflict with Iran is over who can claim leadership of the Muslim world. Iran is Shi'a which is a disadvantage to it; but it has a better record of bellicose rhetoric against outsiders. Saudi Arabia started out when Arab nationalism was mostly secular; however the Saudi brand of Islam used to be alienating to Muslims who don't share it. A lot of Saudi money has been spent on normalising it, but Iran threw its hat into the ring before the Saudis got very far with that.
Instead Israel is to be treated like the Apartheid regime in South Africa. It is to be destroyed.
Israel is not equivalent to the apartheid regime. It is equivalent to South Africa. Wanting to replace a particular regime is not the same as wanting to destroy a state.
The current Israeli regime, by building illegal settlements in the Occupied Territory, and declaring that in any negotiation those settlements will go to Israel along with all main roads between them, and the water rights to the Jordan, has pretty much rendered any two-state solution that respects the facts on the ground untenable. Israel had the chance to build on the Oslo accords; the present regime did its best not to. That is not the fault of the Palestinians, even if it suits the extremists on their side.
The inconsistency arises when normalising relations with Israel is raised. Millions of ordinary Muslims (not ALL, I stress) consider that to be a heinous wrong. I have seen statements by clerics and politicians in Indonesia and Malaysia responding very negatively to the recent deals between Israel and the Gulf States. Saudi Arabia's position in the Muslim world would be damaged, and their challenge is to minimise that damage.
Saudi Arabia doesn't need Qatar or Morocco or any of the other small Arab states to join with it in its war on Iran. It has their allegiance already. It needs Israel.
I haven't seen anything out of Palestine that suggests that wanting to replace the Israeli regime is not the same as wanting to destroy the State of Israel. If you are able to link to anything that shows that those who call the Israeli regime an Apartheid state means that they do not want to destroy the State of Israel, please provide a link. I am not using that as rhetoric. I would like to see evidence of it. I think there is a clear implication in using the language of Apartheid and Bantustan that the goal is the destruction of the State of Israel.
Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? That would take a transcendent, acceptant, enlightened, sacrificial, enemy loving, forgiving, inclusive, courageous, costly, pacifist understanding that no one else has demonstrated in the region for 1900 years or for 12,000 miles. Apart from Gandhi, MLK and Mandela.
Does this comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa stop at describing that there territories which Israel controls in ways that resemble apartheid, or does this comparison lead to the idea that Israel should not exist, to dismantle it, and create something else? I think it is sloppy to finish the discussion without discussing that your believe that Israel should or should not exist as a Jewish state if you compare it to apartheid and use terms like Bantustan.
Sorry, at what point in history was anyone advocating the dismantling of South Africa?
A lot of this fuzzy equivocation is, it seems to me, to avoid a question that's been asked several times on this thread and not answered:
1. What is meant by a "Jewish state" when people refer to Israel as one?
2. What steps are considered justified or necessary by such a state to retain that "Jewish" status should demographic changes trend towards a non-Jewish majority population?
I think those are precisely the sorts of questions that have to be square bracketed while the parties find other things they can agree on.
Until I find out what sort of Israel people are supporting how can I know what I agree with them regarding it?
Confronting the hard issues first is not the way to make peace.
Does this comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa stop at describing that there territories which Israel controls in ways that resemble apartheid, or does this comparison lead to the idea that Israel should not exist, to dismantle it, and create something else? I think it is sloppy to finish the discussion without discussing that your believe that Israel should or should not exist as a Jewish state if you compare it to apartheid and use terms like Bantustan.
Sorry, at what point in history was anyone advocating the dismantling of South Africa?
A lot of this fuzzy equivocation is, it seems to me, to avoid a question that's been asked several times on this thread and not answered:
1. What is meant by a "Jewish state" when people refer to Israel as one?
2. What steps are considered justified or necessary by such a state to retain that "Jewish" status should demographic changes trend towards a non-Jewish majority population?
I think those are precisely the sorts of questions that have to be square bracketed while the parties find other things they can agree on.
Until I find out what sort of Israel people are supporting how can I know what I agree with them regarding it?
Confronting the hard issues first is not the way to make peace.
I do not see why the people on here who are supportive of the concept cannot answer these questions.
We'll just talk about the easy problems and the hard ones will fix themselves even though we've kept from discussing them. Especially because we've kept from discussing them.
There's a difference between saying, the only solution to the hard problems is for the Israelis and Palestinians to work out a way of living with them between them, and saying, the discussions can't start unless one side accepts the other side's solution to the hard problems (but we're going to be cagey about what that entails).
There's a difference between saying, the only solution to the hard problems is for the Israelis and Palestinians to work out a way of living with them between them, and saying, the discussions can't start unless one side accepts the other side's solution to the hard problems (but we're going to be cagey about what that entails).
And we're not even trying to solve the problem. I want to know what people on here think.
I am interested in peace making, so I prefer to talk about openings for peace in this intractable situation, and how those of us who are not there can contribute to peace, if indeed we can. Talking about issues that everybody knows are going to end up in fights seems conducive to ending up in fights. We all know the arguments, I assume.
1. What is meant by a "Jewish state" when people refer to Israel as one?
2. What steps are considered justified or necessary by such a state to retain that "Jewish" status should demographic changes trend towards a non-Jewish majority population?
I try not to call Israel a Jewish State for the reasons Orfeo sets out/was driving at in their extremely tedious (not blaming Orfeo) exchange with Fr Teilhard. It's confusing, because "Jewish" is an identity, a religion and to some an ethnicity. Israel is straightforward: the member state of the UN. I suppose it could be the biblical entity too, but that it easily clarified I hope. So "Israel" is much better.
At the core Israel must remain the place where Jews, however defined, have refuge. I, a gentile, living on the other side of the planet, cushioned by fluffy pillows of privilege would be satisfied with that.
I think that justifies having a State which has that right of refuge as an unchangeable law, incapable of abolition without the destruction of the State itself. I don't think it justifies separate classes of citizenship, but I am open to being convinced about that. I would need to be convinced that a right of refuge written into the very fibre of Israel would not survive the demographic challenge the future might hold.
I don't know much about the Roma. But if they are in need of a refuge, I recommend they carve one out. People don't give out refuge anymore, if they ever did. Have a look at the state of the UN Refugee Programme. We Australians had a look 20 years ago, and we decided we didn't like it much anymore. Now we lock people up.
The Israelis are the product of people who decided to take matters into their own hands. It continues to be a very ugly business.
My point, obscured I admit, was that the Roma don't have a refuge but the Jews do. The rights and wrongs of how they got it can be argued out yet again if we must (please don't). But they are irrelevant to the question of where to now, as I see things. They are irrelevant because now the Jews have a refuge.
My point, obscured I admit, was that the Roma don't have a refuge but the Jews do. The rights and wrongs of how they got it can be argued out yet again if we must (please don't). But they are irrelevant to the question of where to now, as I see things. They are irrelevant because now the Jews have a refuge.
The rights and wrongs are entirely relevant to where we are now. The people at the receiving end of the wrongs are still around.
I don't know much about the Roma. But if they are in need of a refuge, I recommend they carve one out.
I think the Palestinian experience might indicate that should the Roma attempt to do so they will be classed as terrorists.
And should they succeed, then that mantle will pass to anyone formally resident in Roma lands who wants their home back.
That would be India. And everywhere in between such nomads have been. All of Europe. Would you @Kwesi not extend that to native Americans and Australasians?
My point, obscured I admit, was that the Roma don't have a refuge but the Jews do. The rights and wrongs of how they got it can be argued out yet again if we must (please don't). But they are irrelevant to the question of where to now, as I see things. They are irrelevant because now the Jews have a refuge.
The rights and wrongs are entirely relevant to where we are now. The people at the receiving end of the wrongs are still around.
They are relevant if you think the situation will end in a resolution if people get even more angry about it, and even more convinced that their enemies will never make a lasting peace. The rights and wrongs are highly relevant to people who think like that. There are many of them in Israel and in the West Bank. Maybe they are right. Maybe the only way to make peace is to exterminate the other side. Do you think that @KarlLB
My point, obscured I admit, was that the Roma don't have a refuge but the Jews do. The rights and wrongs of how they got it can be argued out yet again if we must (please don't). But they are irrelevant to the question of where to now, as I see things. They are irrelevant because now the Jews have a refuge.
The rights and wrongs are entirely relevant to where we are now. The people at the receiving end of the wrongs are still around.
They are relevant if you think the situation will end in a resolution if people get even more angry about it, and even more convinced that their enemies will never make a lasting peace. The rights and wrongs are highly relevant to people who think like that. There are many of them in Israel and in the West Bank. Maybe they are right. Maybe the only way to make peace is to exterminate the other side. Do you think that @KarlLB
Do you think that Palestinians will or should accept a second class status in an occupied non-state indefinitely?
Peace will never come if you try to say to wronged people "tough, get over it".
I was told by someone once that granting Palestinians right to return from where they were expelled was "unacceptable" because it risked them threatening the continuation of a numerical Jewish majority in Israel. That strikes me as unjust and racist. What do you think about it? Why is it different to opposing immigration from Asia and Africa on the grounds that the UK "should be a White country"?
My point, obscured I admit, was that the Roma don't have a refuge but the Jews do. The rights and wrongs of how they got it can be argued out yet again if we must (please don't). But they are irrelevant to the question of where to now, as I see things. They are irrelevant because now the Jews have a refuge.
The rights and wrongs are entirely relevant to where we are now. The people at the receiving end of the wrongs are still around.
The irrelevance of past events seems to be a modern version of force majeure. I wonder how it is applied to native Americans, and slavery. Shit happens?
I cannot accept, Simon Toad, that the defence of Israel can rest on Jewish exceptionalism, because the Jewish historical experience is not unique, and it seems perverse that the solution to anti-semitism should be to visit pogroms and unjust despoliations on another ethnic group.
The reality, of course, is that Israel far from resolving the issue of anti-semitism has exacerbated the problem and is not the solution. How can it be a guarantor of protection for the diaspora unless it significantly extends its borders? In reality Israel, itself, only survives as a settler colony of the United States, which provides it with massive subsidies and military support in addition to colluding in its acquisition of nuclear weapons. The solution to anti-semitism lies in the nurturing of ethnic pluralism particularly in liberal democratic societies such as the United States and Western Europe. The growth of multi-ethnic states, IMO, is the only long-term solution to such issues.
My point, obscured I admit, was that the Roma don't have a refuge but the Jews do. The rights and wrongs of how they got it can be argued out yet again if we must (please don't). But they are irrelevant to the question of where to now, as I see things. They are irrelevant because now the Jews have a refuge.
The rights and wrongs are entirely relevant to where we are now. The people at the receiving end of the wrongs are still around.
They are relevant if you think the situation will end in a resolution if people get even more angry about it, and even more convinced that their enemies will never make a lasting peace. The rights and wrongs are highly relevant to people who think like that. There are many of them in Israel and in the West Bank. Maybe they are right. Maybe the only way to make peace is to exterminate the other side. Do you think that @KarlLB
Do you think that Palestinians will or should accept a second class status in an occupied non-state indefinitely?
Peace will never come if you try to say to wronged people "tough, get over it".
I was told by someone once that granting Palestinians right to return from where they were expelled was "unacceptable" because it risked them threatening the continuation of a numerical Jewish majority in Israel. That strikes me as unjust and racist. What do you think about it? Why is it different to opposing immigration from Asia and Africa on the grounds that the UK "should be a White country"?
I answered your question. You answer mine. Do you think that the peace that comes by exterminating the enemy is the only peace available? Then I will deal with your next point.
I cannot accept, Simon Toad, that the defence of Israel can rest on Jewish exceptionalism, because the Jewish historical experience is not unique, and it seems perverse that the solution to anti-semitism should be to visit pogroms and unjust despoliations on another ethnic group.
The reality, of course, is that Israel far from resolving the issue of anti-semitism has exacerbated the problem and is not the solution. How can it be a guarantor of protection for the diaspora unless it significantly extends its borders? In reality Israel, itself, only survives as a settler colony of the United States, which provides it with massive subsidies and military support in addition to colluding in its acquisition of nuclear weapons. The solution to anti-semitism lies in the nurturing of ethnic pluralism particularly in liberal democratic societies such as the United States and Western Europe. The growth of multi-ethnic states, IMO, is the only long-term solution to such issues.
I agree that:
The solution to anti-semitism lies in the nurturing of ethnic pluralism particularly in liberal democratic societies such as the United States and Western Europe. The growth of multi-ethnic states, IMO, is the only long-term solution to such issues.
But as Fr Teilhard kept saying ad nauseum and in a way I found problematic, Israel is a fact on the ground. Short of the solution that @KarlLB is yet to deny he wants, Israel is not going to be undone. It is in part an American project because so many Americans know that when the far right starts marching, they have to fight or flee. So you are not going to talk America out of supporting Israel, and you are not going to talk Israel out of existence. The far right is marching.
Have we finished the first dance? Can we get to the peacemaking yet?
Simon Toad:. Do you think that the peace that comes by exterminating the enemy is the only peace available?
I suppose as a general principle it's the most certain and enduring. It is not, however, one which I could support. More pertinently, however, it is not currently on the agenda: Israel is too militarily and politically powerful, and the Palestinians too numerous, which is why there is the impasse. There clearly are several solutions available, the problem is to find one both sides can accept as preferable to the status quo, which thus far has defied the genius of diplomatic brains far greater than mine.
Comments
Can't keep your story straight, can you?
Or maybe you do it for different reasons at different times? Then nobody's ever going to know what it means, so ... all right, never mind.
Well ...
There is a lot of "talking past each other" on this question, yes ... ???
I tend to want to discuss the history of a situation and the way it nearly determines the present situation ... while some others seem to want to argue about today and tomorrow as if yesterday didn't exist ...
Maybe your long article (above) could be shorter and sweeter, giving your case to us like feeding a critter -- one bale at a time ... ???
Thanks for that article Dave. I am very comfortable with the idea that the West Bank is an Apartheid State in the sense meant by the author. I agree that the settlements policy is an overt attempt to annex the territory in the absence of an overarching peace agreement. I agree that the situation is untenable and must change. It has been untenable now for nigh on 30 years. That's why I in my naivety fasten onto every change in the political climate with a sense of hope.
But is this what Palestinian advocates say? My impression is that they have given up on a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and want Israel to cease to exist.
I'm just saying that drawing analogies between Israel and apartheid SA (or even Nazi Germany) is something that is sometimes done by Israeli Jews in major Israeli newspapers, so I don't think it's necessarily indicative of a desire for the destruction of the state of Israel.
But if you don't know what Palestinian advocates say, you might stop and consider where you got your impressions of what they think and want. I suspect their opinions differ, as do those of Israelis.
Thanks for the link to the Haaretz article on apartheid. I've only skimmed it, but it's good.
That just sounds like a suggestion to waste my time more gradually and slowly.
Easily cleared up by DNA tests. Assuming we have a library of DNA from Jewish cemeteries and remains as far back as possible.
As you say Orfeo "everyone has been losing for so long"
I think even this thread might be some kind of totally mangled prayer
The West Bank isn't an Apartheid State, it's closer to a de facto Bantustan, but would have to gave been hived off by Israel after annexation to be a de jure one. Israel is not an apartheid state in how it treats the Arab minority within its borders, de jure...
Abandon all hope, and subvert. Flow round, over, under that rock.
My impression is, that like Norway's WWII hero Max Manus, they want their country back. Sitting down and talking reasonably about that with the Nazis didn't do it for Max. They've seen that Aksel Hennie movie.
Sorry, at what point in history was anyone advocating the dismantling of South Africa?
A lot of this fuzzy equivocation is, it seems to me, to avoid a question that's been asked several times on this thread and not answered:
1. What is meant by a "Jewish state" when people refer to Israel as one?
2. What steps are considered justified or necessary by such a state to retain that "Jewish" status should demographic changes trend towards a non-Jewish majority population?
And 2, when and how does it look likely that the Arab 1.9 million 1/5th of the nine million population will quadruple? When it does look likely, pay them not to. Oooh! Economic growth itself, alone, quality of life, will do that.
My general recollection is that South Africa created separate 'homelands' - Ciskei, Transkei, Venda and Boputhatswana - and that the international community were not fans of it at all.
In other words, if anyone was trying to break South Africa up, it was the South African government. I don't recall anything from the international community urging for Ciskei to be made independent. The whole point was that the international community didn't recognise the independence that South Africa supposedly bestowed. And the ANC wanted the homelands reincorporated back into South Africa.
To try to compare that to, say, a call for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders just seems very strange. Bantustan is in fact a known term for a certain kind of situation, but ignoring how that situation arose, and what the previous circumstances were - well that's sloppy.
You are very kind.
I think those are precisely the sorts of questions that have to be square bracketed while the parties find other things they can agree on.
Until I find out what sort of Israel people are supporting how can I know what I agree with them regarding it?
The democratic solution would be a single state with a common citizenship in which 'majority' relates to electoral outcomes and not an assigned ethnicity. If there is a two-state solution the only democratic arrangement would be a common citizenship in each of them that excludes the privileging of ethnic identity. I'm not optimistic given the racism of the Israelis and the weakness of liberal-democratic values among the Arabs.
Like Balfour.
Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? That would take a transcendent, acceptant, enlightened, sacrificial, enemy loving, forgiving, inclusive, courageous, costly, pacifist understanding that no one else has demonstrated in the region for 1900 years or for 12,000 miles. Apart from Gandhi, MLK and Mandela.
Confronting the hard issues first is not the way to make peace.
I do not see why the people on here who are supportive of the concept cannot answer these questions.
And we're not even trying to solve the problem. I want to know what people on here think.
I try not to call Israel a Jewish State for the reasons Orfeo sets out/was driving at in their extremely tedious (not blaming Orfeo) exchange with Fr Teilhard. It's confusing, because "Jewish" is an identity, a religion and to some an ethnicity. Israel is straightforward: the member state of the UN. I suppose it could be the biblical entity too, but that it easily clarified I hope. So "Israel" is much better.
At the core Israel must remain the place where Jews, however defined, have refuge. I, a gentile, living on the other side of the planet, cushioned by fluffy pillows of privilege would be satisfied with that.
I think that justifies having a State which has that right of refuge as an unchangeable law, incapable of abolition without the destruction of the State itself. I don't think it justifies separate classes of citizenship, but I am open to being convinced about that. I would need to be convinced that a right of refuge written into the very fibre of Israel would not survive the demographic challenge the future might hold.
Why?
Do you extend that right to every other self-identifying ethnic community?
The Holocaust. Pogroms. Last week in America.
No.
I would have thought the Roma, at least, have as much need of a safe refuge as Jews.
The Israelis are the product of people who decided to take matters into their own hands. It continues to be a very ugly business.
I think the Palestinian experience might indicate that should the Roma attempt to do so they will be classed as terrorists.
And should they succeed, then that mantle will pass to anyone formally resident in Roma lands who wants their home back.
Quite.
Which raises rather a difficult question wrt recommending it, don't you think?
The rights and wrongs are entirely relevant to where we are now. The people at the receiving end of the wrongs are still around.
That would be India. And everywhere in between such nomads have been. All of Europe. Would you @Kwesi not extend that to native Americans and Australasians?
They are relevant if you think the situation will end in a resolution if people get even more angry about it, and even more convinced that their enemies will never make a lasting peace. The rights and wrongs are highly relevant to people who think like that. There are many of them in Israel and in the West Bank. Maybe they are right. Maybe the only way to make peace is to exterminate the other side. Do you think that @KarlLB
Do you think that Palestinians will or should accept a second class status in an occupied non-state indefinitely?
Peace will never come if you try to say to wronged people "tough, get over it".
I was told by someone once that granting Palestinians right to return from where they were expelled was "unacceptable" because it risked them threatening the continuation of a numerical Jewish majority in Israel. That strikes me as unjust and racist. What do you think about it? Why is it different to opposing immigration from Asia and Africa on the grounds that the UK "should be a White country"?
The irrelevance of past events seems to be a modern version of force majeure. I wonder how it is applied to native Americans, and slavery. Shit happens?
I cannot accept, Simon Toad, that the defence of Israel can rest on Jewish exceptionalism, because the Jewish historical experience is not unique, and it seems perverse that the solution to anti-semitism should be to visit pogroms and unjust despoliations on another ethnic group.
The reality, of course, is that Israel far from resolving the issue of anti-semitism has exacerbated the problem and is not the solution. How can it be a guarantor of protection for the diaspora unless it significantly extends its borders? In reality Israel, itself, only survives as a settler colony of the United States, which provides it with massive subsidies and military support in addition to colluding in its acquisition of nuclear weapons. The solution to anti-semitism lies in the nurturing of ethnic pluralism particularly in liberal democratic societies such as the United States and Western Europe. The growth of multi-ethnic states, IMO, is the only long-term solution to such issues.
I answered your question. You answer mine. Do you think that the peace that comes by exterminating the enemy is the only peace available? Then I will deal with your next point.
I agree that:
But as Fr Teilhard kept saying ad nauseum and in a way I found problematic, Israel is a fact on the ground. Short of the solution that @KarlLB is yet to deny he wants, Israel is not going to be undone. It is in part an American project because so many Americans know that when the far right starts marching, they have to fight or flee. So you are not going to talk America out of supporting Israel, and you are not going to talk Israel out of existence. The far right is marching.
Have we finished the first dance? Can we get to the peacemaking yet?
I suppose as a general principle it's the most certain and enduring. It is not, however, one which I could support. More pertinently, however, it is not currently on the agenda: Israel is too militarily and politically powerful, and the Palestinians too numerous, which is why there is the impasse. There clearly are several solutions available, the problem is to find one both sides can accept as preferable to the status quo, which thus far has defied the genius of diplomatic brains far greater than mine.