So once again we come to the question you've dodged before - if by immigration, expansion or internal differences in birth rates, or combination of such or other factors, Israel should be looking at a potential situation where it is no longer majority Jewish, what actions would it, in your view, be justified in taking to restore or maintain a Jewish majority?
Since I am neither Jewish nor Israeli, that isn't for me to decide, is it ... ???
But, being a serious student of history, and having paid close attention during the Wars of 1967 and 1973, I ... UNDERSTAND ... WHY ... The State of Israel IS "Jewish" and will remain "Jewish" ...
We're ALL serious students of history and many of us lived knowingly through those wars. Which reinforced the understandable but... unwise UN impetus for a Jewish state in a post-Ottoman, post-Holocaust world, on Arab land.
And 72 years later here we are. As with much of life it would slowly concurrently improve and get worse. There is no going back. There are no state players with any interest in attacking Israel. Egypt will not attack again, honour was restored in '73. None of the others count at all. Would? Anthropogenic climate change drought caused the Syrian civil war. The Tigris and Euphrates will disappear this century. Jews will be the least of anyone's problems in the region. And their neighbours will be the least theirs. Except when the Lebanese try and dam the dying Jordan... Or rather the Russians with air supremacy will...
And again, The PLF terror guys who killed Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 didn't just shove a random guy in a wheelchair off the ship for fun ...
They singled him out for murder BECAUSE he was JEWISH and therefore presumably had something to do with "Israel" ...
I'm sure no one feels more deeply about this than you do.
I think that you are correct ...
You must have been very close personal friends. I'm sorry for your loss.
I posted that in reference to my fellow posters here on The Ship, for whom Leon Klinghoffer's murder seems to be ... *meh* ... *shrug*
There is room for peace, I'm sure. But people have to want it, really want it. People have to let go of the mutual history of pain and suffering. People have to stop beating each other up about mutual injustices and atrocities. People have to stop killing each other, and steel themselves to continue to want peace and work towards it in spite of the continuing killings.
I've got to say that Fr Teilhard's inability to distinguish Jewish people from Israeli citizens is appearing more and more anti-semitic.
Huh ... LOL ... Pot ... ??? ... Kettle ... ???
Conflating Jews with Israel is anti-semitic.
I don't do such a conflation ... but the Arab states which expelled 600,000 Jews in 1948 did so ... and so on ...
But ... (duh) ...
It is not an anomaly, a random accident of history, that the majority of Israeli citizens are ... Jewish ... Is it ... ???
No, it's a result of the Nakba, without which the proportions of Arab and Jewish residents within the 1948 borders would have been roughly equal. The State of Israel is majority Jewish as a result of ethnic cleansing.
Do you have a source for your 600k figure, by the way? There's little evidence to support your assertion of a coordinated expulsion on that scale.
I've got to say that Fr Teilhard's inability to distinguish Jewish people from Israeli citizens is appearing more and more anti-semitic.
Huh ... LOL ... Pot ... ??? ... Kettle ... ???
Conflating Jews with Israel is anti-semitic.
I don't do such a conflation ... but the Arab states which expelled 600,000 Jews in 1948 did so ... and so on ...
But ... (duh) ...
It is not an anomaly, a random accident of history, that the majority of Israeli citizens are ... Jewish ... Is it ... ???
No, it's a result of the Nakba, without which the proportions of Arab and Jewish residents within the 1948 borders would have been roughly equal. The State of Israel is majority Jewish as a result of ethnic cleansing.
Do you have a source for your 600k figure, by the way? There's little evidence to support your assertion of a coordinated expulsion on that scale.
Oh, I don't know that the expulsions were "coordinated," but 600,000 Jews were expelled in 1948 (Google the numbers), and indeed not a few ended up ... in Israel ... So ...
Fr Teilhard:. There is no way to flip the calendar back to 1947 ... but if we don't remember the past ...
You could well be right, though you think it should be flipped back to 70 AD, Fr Teilhard.
One thing is certain: the existence of Israel has little to do with the resolution of anti-semitism.
The facts on the ground in The Land of Israel go back a loooooong way ...
and I see little to no prospect that some*day the Passover Haggadah will conclude with, "Next year in Lincoln, Nebraska ..."
The total Palestinian territories originally included much of what is now Jordan, and the PLO etc nearly destroyed that country in the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
Often it seems that Christians name the current suffering of <whomever> though have an extremely poor record of naming it when it is Jewish. Hence the European graveyard for Jews in the 20th century, which is why there is a necessity of a Jewish state. Am I correct that some Shippies object to there being a Jewish state of Israel at all? That's disturbing, to put it mildly.
Anti-Semitism is under-examined within European countries (and elsewhere, including Canada), though recent UK examination of it within political parties seemed interesting recently. The frequency of anti-Jewish attacks has increased in Canada since the nativism, anti-immigrant and populism rise over the past couple of decades. My understanding is that to be visibly Jewish is a problem for much of Europe as well.
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism and you may certainly criticise the borders Israel asserts, though uti possidetis certainly applies. (Under international law, territory remains with who possesses it at the end of a war unless otherwise provided for by treaty; the wikipedia article on the term uti possidetis indicates that the principle has avoided much war in Africa).
People lose in nation formation. Many of the people living where I do are the immigrant descendants of expelled ethnic Germans and others, from places now Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Czech. Was it justifiable that Russian retook Crimea and Donbass? Or previously Karelia from Finland. My father's German family before WW1 was from East Prussia. This area is now Russian and Polish. Accept and move on.
There's going to have be an acceptance of territorial loss by Palestinian people, and agreement to not revanche. It doesn't matter that is isn't fair. Noting that I live in Treaty 6 Territory in Canada, with the original inhabitants given Reserves (usually means marginal land) and cash payments and future considerations still being worked out in the courts, mostly to indigenous disadvantages, with small improvement generation to generation. It's not fair, but there's zero likelihood that a right to have the land returned will occur, and it is basically accepted as fact. It is as unjust as hell. But it's the reality. It's not identical but it is parallel.
And I note that this is not the original place that I read how the evidence indicates that Klinghoffer was primarily chosen because he was American, and it's unclear whether him being Jewish was a factor.
Why did the Palestine Liberation Front terrorists seize the ship and take hostages anyway ... ??? ... and why single out an "American" a victim ... ???
From what/whom were the "Palestine" "Liberation" guys trying to "liberate" "Palestine" (The Land of Israel) ... ???
And I note that this is not the original place that I read how the evidence indicates that Klinghoffer was primarily chosen because he was American, and it's unclear whether him being Jewish was a factor.
Why did the Palestine Liberation Front terrorists seize the ship and take hostages anyway ... ??? ... and why single out an "American" a victim ... ???
From what/whom were the "Palestine" "Liberation" guys trying to "liberate" "Palestine" (The Land of Israel) ... ???
Oh for heaven's sake, if you have no awareness of the US-Israeli relationship then why are you even here?
This is either in one sense a meaningless tautology that is trivially true, and adds nothing to any discussion; or else in another sense meaningful but untrue and subtracts from any discussion.
And I note that this is not the original place that I read how the evidence indicates that Klinghoffer was primarily chosen because he was American, and it's unclear whether him being Jewish was a factor.
Why did the Palestine Liberation Front terrorists seize the ship and take hostages anyway ... ??? ... and why single out an "American" a victim ... ???
From what/whom were the "Palestine" "Liberation" guys trying to "liberate" "Palestine" (The Land of Israel) ... ???
Oh for heaven's sake, if you have no awareness of the US-Israeli relationship then why are you even here?
I'm done with you.
I asked an obviously rhetorical question ...
But, yes ... You and I are on quite different wave lengths ...
This is either in one sense a meaningless tautology that is trivially true, and adds nothing to any discussion; or else in another sense meaningful but untrue and subtracts from any discussion.
A whole lot of what happens TODAY in the Middle East is very much about past history, which must be both understood and taken into account when we (1) try to understand what is happening there today, and, (2) try to think realistically about tomorrow ...
When we (or *they*) fail to do those tasks, we (or *they*) end up with bizarrely alternative "narratives" that render tomorrow likely to be ugly ...
The total Palestinian territories originally included much of what is now Jordan, and the PLO etc nearly destroyed that country in the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
Often it seems that Christians name the current suffering of <whomever> though have an extremely poor record of naming it when it is Jewish. Hence the European graveyard for Jews in the 20th century, which is why there is a necessity of a Jewish state. Am I correct that some Shippies object to there being a Jewish state of Israel at all? That's disturbing, to put it mildly.
Anti-Semitism is under-examined within European countries (and elsewhere, including Canada), though recent UK examination of it within political parties seemed interesting recently. The frequency of anti-Jewish attacks has increased in Canada since the nativism, anti-immigrant and populism rise over the past couple of decades. My understanding is that to be visibly Jewish is a problem for much of Europe as well.
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism and you may certainly criticise the borders Israel asserts, though uti possidetis certainly applies. (Under international law, territory remains with who possesses it at the end of a war unless otherwise provided for by treaty; the wikipedia article on the term uti possidetis indicates that the principle has avoided much war in Africa).
People lose in nation formation. Many of the people living where I do are the immigrant descendants of expelled ethnic Germans and others, from places now Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Czech. Was it justifiable that Russian retook Crimea and Donbass? Or previously Karelia from Finland. My father's German family before WW1 was from East Prussia. This area is now Russian and Polish. Accept and move on.
There's going to have be an acceptance of territorial loss by Palestinian people, and agreement to not revanche. It doesn't matter that is isn't fair. Noting that I live in Treaty 6 Territory in Canada, with the original inhabitants given Reserves (usually means marginal land) and cash payments and future considerations still being worked out in the courts, mostly to indigenous disadvantages, with small improvement generation to generation. It's not fair, but there's zero likelihood that a right to have the land returned will occur, and it is basically accepted as fact. It is as unjust as hell. But it's the reality. It's not identical but it is parallel.
Yes ...
And what so often is lost in these *discussions* is the clear historical fact that this problem isn't just a territorial dispute about defined "borders" -- akin to: who gets which part(s) of Kashmir; or Iraq wanting to annex Kuwait ...
Many well-meaning *outsiders* offer an extensive list of suggestions (in reality, demands) of what The State of Israel should/must do ... all the while -- as you correctly note, above -- frankly objecting to the existence of The State of Israel at all ... *shudder* ...
(I've seen this play already, and I have a pretty clear understanding of the denouement ...
Did you even read the article you linked to? It's not "circa 1948" - it covers the entire period of existence of the State of Israel. It also makes clear that while anti-semitism and persecution were push factors, there was also an enthusiasm for Zionism and many voluntary migrations with encouragement from Israel. A number of people who were part of that migration refuse the label "refugee" because they chose to go to Israel and were not forced from their homes.
As for how Palestinians and Jews forced from their homes should have their right of return addressed, surely Germany can provide a model? Permanent right to citizenship for descendants of those forced out, return of or compensation for property confiscated, stolen or looted by the state in question.
Did you even read the article you linked to? It's not "circa 1948" - it covers the entire period of existence of the State of Israel. It also makes clear that while anti-semitism and persecution were push factors, there was also an enthusiasm for Zionism and many voluntary migrations with encouragement from Israel. A number of people who were part of that migration refuse the label "refugee" because they chose to go to Israel and were not forced from their homes.
As for how Palestinians and Jews forced from their homes should have their right of return addressed, surely Germany can provide a model? Permanent right to citizenship for descendants of those forced out, return of or compensation for property confiscated, stolen or looted by the state in question.
Eventually there will be land swaps, compensation and reparations, etc. ...
But The State of Israel (1) will continue to be "Jewish," (2) and will not be pushed off the map into the sea ... (3) (or "eaten up by fire" provided by Iranian proxies, e.g., Hezbollah) ...
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism -
That's how the current State of Israel was established, and if Desmond Tutu thinks the apartheid comparison is accurate then I'm inclined to believe him.
There is a hypothetical form of Zionism that involves a Jewish national homeland in a place where no-one else lives or which is also the homeland of another people who have equal access to it. Neither of those reflect Zionism as it currently exists or as it existed historically, a history that owes far too much to 19th century imperialism and its accompanying racism. You don't get the Nakba without racism being an integral part of Zionism as it exists in the real world, without Zionists deeming the claims of the Jewish people to the land between the Jordan and the sea being superior to those of any others who might claim it. How can that be anything but racist?
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism -
That's how the current State of Israel was established, and if Desmond Tutu thinks the apartheid comparison is accurate then I'm inclined to believe him.
There is a hypothetical form of Zionism that involves a Jewish national homeland in a place where no-one else lives or which is also the homeland of another people who have equal access to it. Neither of those reflect Zionism as it currently exists or as it existed historically, a history that owes far too much to 19th century imperialism and its accompanying racism. You don't get the Nakba without racism being an integral part of Zionism as it exists in the real world, without Zionists deeming the claims of the Jewish people to the land between the Jordan and the sea being superior to those of any others who might claim it. How can that be anything but racist?
No ...
"Zionism" goes back to The Patriarchs -- like it or not ...
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism -
That's how the current State of Israel was established, and if Desmond Tutu thinks the apartheid comparison is accurate then I'm inclined to believe him.
There is a hypothetical form of Zionism that involves a Jewish national homeland in a place where no-one else lives or which is also the homeland of another people who have equal access to it. Neither of those reflect Zionism as it currently exists or as it existed historically, a history that owes far too much to 19th century imperialism and its accompanying racism. You don't get the Nakba without racism being an integral part of Zionism as it exists in the real world, without Zionists deeming the claims of the Jewish people to the land between the Jordan and the sea being superior to those of any others who might claim it. How can that be anything but racist?
No ...
"Zionism" goes back to The Patriarchs -- like it or not ...
Oh please. That's absurd. Modern Zionism is no more the same as what caused Moses to lead the Israelites to Canaan than the Republican Party reflects the values of Plato's Republic. That's assuming Moses actually existed and the Exodus actually happened, which is a matter of faith rather than history.
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism -
That's how the current State of Israel was established, and if Desmond Tutu thinks the apartheid comparison is accurate then I'm inclined to believe him.
There is a hypothetical form of Zionism that involves a Jewish national homeland in a place where no-one else lives or which is also the homeland of another people who have equal access to it. Neither of those reflect Zionism as it currently exists or as it existed historically, a history that owes far too much to 19th century imperialism and its accompanying racism. You don't get the Nakba without racism being an integral part of Zionism as it exists in the real world, without Zionists deeming the claims of the Jewish people to the land between the Jordan and the sea being superior to those of any others who might claim it. How can that be anything but racist?
No ...
"Zionism" goes back to The Patriarchs -- like it or not ...
Oh please. That's absurd. Modern Zionism is no more the same as what caused Moses to lead the Israelites to Canaan than the Republican Party reflects the values of Plato's Republic. That's assuming Moses actually existed and the Exodus actually happened, which is a matter of faith rather than history.
The Torah long pre-dates any modern movements ... or persons ... or events ...
Biblical Archaeology "minimalists" are not correct, IMHO ...
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism -
That's how the current State of Israel was established, and if Desmond Tutu thinks the apartheid comparison is accurate then I'm inclined to believe him.
There is a hypothetical form of Zionism that involves a Jewish national homeland in a place where no-one else lives or which is also the homeland of another people who have equal access to it. Neither of those reflect Zionism as it currently exists or as it existed historically, a history that owes far too much to 19th century imperialism and its accompanying racism. You don't get the Nakba without racism being an integral part of Zionism as it exists in the real world, without Zionists deeming the claims of the Jewish people to the land between the Jordan and the sea being superior to those of any others who might claim it. How can that be anything but racist?
No ...
"Zionism" goes back to The Patriarchs -- like it or not ...
Oh please. That's absurd. Modern Zionism is no more the same as what caused Moses to lead the Israelites to Canaan than the Republican Party reflects the values of Plato's Republic. That's assuming Moses actually existed and the Exodus actually happened, which is a matter of faith rather than history.
The Torah long pre-dates any modern movements ... or persons ... or events ...
Biblical Archaeology "minimalists" are not correct, IMHO ...
Modern Zionism has little to do with the Torah, which is why the Haredis hate it.
Am I correct that some Shippies object to there being a Jewish state of Israel at all?
I think that's mostly an artefact of @Fr Teilhard throwing around 'JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL' in block capitals without actually explaining how that relates to what anyone else is saying.
Ultimately 'Jewish state of Israel' is quite ambiguous. It could mean a.) a state whose borders are drawn in such a way that a majority of its inhabitants are Jewish. Which, substituting 'Jewish' for the dominant ethnic group, is how most European states were formed.
Or it could mean b.) a state where Judaism is somehow 'baked in' to the constitution, such that it can't be dislodged even if a majority of the population don't want it any more.
I think one can object to (a) if one objects in principle to ethnically based states in general. Although pragmatically it could be argued that that ship has sailed. And one can object to (b) on the grounds that it's hardly compatible with liberal democracy - and defend it on the grounds that in the circumstances liberal democracy isn't the be-all and end-all.
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism -
That's how the current State of Israel was established, and if Desmond Tutu thinks the apartheid comparison is accurate then I'm inclined to believe him.
There is a hypothetical form of Zionism that involves a Jewish national homeland in a place where no-one else lives or which is also the homeland of another people who have equal access to it. Neither of those reflect Zionism as it currently exists or as it existed historically, a history that owes far too much to 19th century imperialism and its accompanying racism.
AIUI, the word 'Zionist' in Judaism is a little bit like 'catholic' (or even 'Catholic') within Christianity - in the sense that lots of Jews would consider themselves to be Zionists, without being what the general public means by Zionist.
Am I correct that some Shippies object to there being a Jewish state of Israel at all?
I think that's mostly an artefact of @Fr Teilhard throwing around 'JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL' in block capitals without actually explaining how that relates to what anyone else is saying.
Ultimately 'Jewish state of Israel' is quite ambiguous. It could mean a.) a state whose borders are drawn in such a way that a majority of its inhabitants are Jewish. Which, substituting 'Jewish' for the dominant ethnic group, is how most European states were formed.
Or it could mean b.) a state where Judaism is somehow 'baked in' to the constitution, such that it can't be dislodged even if a majority of the population don't want it any more.
I think one can object to (a) if one objects in principle to ethnically based states in general. Although pragmatically it could be argued that that ship has sailed. And one can object to (b) on the grounds that it's hardly compatible with liberal democracy - and defend it on the grounds that in the circumstances liberal democracy isn't the be-all and end-all.
But the loudest and most fervent (largely non-Jewish) Zionists are constantly harping about how Israel is a liberal democracy, a liberal democracy, a liberal democracy, ad nauseam.
And I note that this is not the original place that I read how the evidence indicates that Klinghoffer was primarily chosen because he was American, and it's unclear whether him being Jewish was a factor.
Why did the Palestine Liberation Front terrorists seize the ship and take hostages anyway ... ??? ... and why single out an "American" a victim ... ???
From what/whom were the "Palestine" "Liberation" guys trying to "liberate" "Palestine" (The Land of Israel) ... ???
Oh for heaven's sake, if you have no awareness of the US-Israeli relationship then why are you even here?
I'm done with you.
I asked an obviously rhetorical question ...
You did not. You asked why they would single out an American as a victim (which as I understand it, they did by looking at the passports of the hostages).
There is nothing rhetorical about that question in my view. It demonstrates that you have absolutely zero clue about how the relationship between the US and Israel is viewed in that part of the world, and certainly zero clue about how the relationship was viewed in the 1980s.
Are you truly so clueless as to things like voting patterns in the UN on questions relating to Israel and Palestine? Are you so utterly unaware of how American policy on Israel is influenced by America having the largest Jewish population outside Israel?
You may take these questions as rhetorical if you wish because I think I already know the answer.
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism -
That's how the current State of Israel was established, and if Desmond Tutu thinks the apartheid comparison is accurate then I'm inclined to believe him.
There is a hypothetical form of Zionism that involves a Jewish national homeland in a place where no-one else lives or which is also the homeland of another people who have equal access to it. Neither of those reflect Zionism as it currently exists or as it existed historically, a history that owes far too much to 19th century imperialism and its accompanying racism. You don't get the Nakba without racism being an integral part of Zionism as it exists in the real world, without Zionists deeming the claims of the Jewish people to the land between the Jordan and the sea being superior to those of any others who might claim it. How can that be anything but racist?
Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.
You get the term "Nakba" becoming popular when there was a desire to appeal to western, lefty sentiments which understands discussions but not real politik. There's been a clear desire to keep the Palestinian sense of grievance alive by belicose and mostly brutal dictatorships, who do what totalitarians do everywhere: keep the focus on the external enemy.
And correcting you. The UN created Israel.
And re Germany (and Finland). They've renounced territories lost to the war victors. No compensation.
Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.
Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.
Well no, that's not entirely correct either. The UN proposed a kind of 2-State arrangement (which, when I was reading about it, oddly reminded me of what's happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina), but wasn't in a position to implement it. The Arab population wasn't happy with the proposal, the British who were actually in control decided not to implement the proposal, and then the Jewish population who were in favour of the proposal decided to implement it unilaterally.
So while the UN might have been behind the idea, they didn't play a part in taking practical steps to implement the idea.
Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.
Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.
No. The Israeli hawks are asking to be given credit for the standards of other liberal democracies but to be held to the same standards as the surrounding nations. Basically it is to be allowed to switch between whatever standard of comparison is most useful for the Israeli hawks in the immediate context.
And I note that this is not the original place that I read how the evidence indicates that Klinghoffer was primarily chosen because he was American, and it's unclear whether him being Jewish was a factor.
Why did the Palestine Liberation Front terrorists seize the ship and take hostages anyway ... ??? ... and why single out an "American" a victim ... ???
From what/whom were the "Palestine" "Liberation" guys trying to "liberate" "Palestine" (The Land of Israel) ... ???
Oh for heaven's sake, if you have no awareness of the US-Israeli relationship then why are you even here?
I'm done with you.
I asked an obviously rhetorical question ...
You did not. You asked why they would single out an American as a victim (which as I understand it, they did by looking at the passports of the hostages).
There is nothing rhetorical about that question in my view. It demonstrates that you have absolutely zero clue about how the relationship between the US and Israel is viewed in that part of the world, and certainly zero clue about how the relationship was viewed in the 1980s.
Are you truly so clueless as to things like voting patterns in the UN on questions relating to Israel and Palestine? Are you so utterly unaware of how American policy on Israel is influenced by America having the largest Jewish population outside Israel?
You may take these questions as rhetorical if you wish because I think I already know the answer.
I remember an interview long ago with a repentant "Palestinian" hijacker-terrorist who said, "Until I looked at the passports, I didn't know who I was supposed to hate ..."
Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.
Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.
No. The Israeli hawks are asking to be given credit for the standards of other liberal democracies but to be held to the same standards as the surrounding nations. Basically it is to be allowed to switch between whatever standard of comparison is most useful for the Israeli hawks in the immediate context.
Compared to any other nation in the Middle East, The State of Israel IS a shining beacon of liberal democracy ... yet Israel's critics seem to prefer the antics of The PA, or Hamas or Hezbollah ...
Well no, that's not entirely correct either. The UN proposed a kind of 2-State arrangement (which, when I was reading about it, oddly reminded me of what's happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina), but wasn't in a position to implement it. The Arab population wasn't happy with the proposal, the British who were actually in control decided not to implement the proposal, and then the Jewish population who were in favour of the proposal decided to implement it unilaterally.
So while the UN might have been behind the idea, they didn't play a part in taking practical steps to implement the idea.
The UN voted on "partition" ... November 29, 1947 ...
Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.
Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.
No. Israel exists in the real world of the surrounding nations. It's not in Scandinavia or Asia. This is still holding Israel to a standard not applied to its neighbours. We'll not agree on this. Would Tutu would have Israeli citizens live in a Palestine ruled by people who have an history of hatred toward Jews? Yes apparently.
A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.
Well no, that's not entirely correct either. The UN proposed a kind of 2-State arrangement (which, when I was reading about it, oddly reminded me of what's happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina), but wasn't in a position to implement it. The Arab population wasn't happy with the proposal, the British who were actually in control decided not to implement the proposal, and then the Jewish population who were in favour of the proposal decided to implement it unilaterally.
So while the UN might have been behind the idea, they didn't play a part in taking practical steps to implement the idea.
The UN voted on "partition" ... November 29, 1947 ...
Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.
Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.
No. Israel exists in the real world of the surrounding nations. It's not in Scandinavia or Asia. This is still holding Israel to a standard not applied to its neighbours. We'll not agree on this. Would Tutu would have Israeli citizens live in a Palestine ruled by people who have an history of hatred toward Jews? Yes apparently.
A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.
Yes ...
Those of us who live safely comfortably in The West don't benefit from the privilege of having people in neighboring counties lobbing mortar shells at us and our children ... year after year after year ...
And some of us recognize the old old chant, "JUDEN 'RAUS ... !!!" when we hear it ...
Those of us who live safely comfortably in The West don't benefit from the privilege of having people in neighboring counties lobbing mortar shells at us and our children ... year after year after year ...
And some of us recognize the old old chant, "JUDEN 'RAUS ... !!!" when we hear it ...
Umm--the rocket fire is not coming from at least two neighboring countries, Eygpt and Jordan. I can't think of the last time Saudi Arabia fired anything into Israel proper. Rather, the rocket fire is coming from radicals in the Gaza Strip or Lebanon or Syria. Saddam Hussein fired a few rockets during our incursion into Iraq while he was in power.
BTW, when my son did leave Tel Aviv after his year in Palestine, the airport did come under rocket fire about an hour after his plane took off--from where, I cannot recall, but that was close enough for me.
Wow, you must have found it strange to hear Arabs chanting in German like that.
The shouts these days in the Middle East are of course in Arabic (or Farsi): "Death to Israel" and the like ... but it's the same idea, isn't it ... ??
Those of us who live safely comfortably in The West don't benefit from the privilege of having people in neighboring counties lobbing mortar shells at us and our children ... year after year after year ...
And some of us recognize the old old chant, "JUDEN 'RAUS ... !!!" when we hear it ...
Umm--the rocket fire is not coming from at least two neighboring countries, Eygpt and Jordan. I can't think of the last time Saudi Arabia fired anything into Israel proper. Rather, the rocket fire is coming from radicals in the Gaza Strip or Lebanon or Syria. Saddam Hussein fired a few rockets during our incursion into Iraq while he was in power.
BTW, when my son did leave Tel Aviv after his year in Palestine, the airport did come under rocket fire about an hour after his plane took off--from where, I cannot recall, but that was close enough for me.
My point is that it is so so so easy for us in The West to give The Israelis advice ... *as*if* we have "been there" in their situation for decades ...
Wow, you must have found it strange to hear Arabs chanting in German like that.
The shouts these days in the Middle East are of course in Arabic (or Farsi): "Death to Israel" and the like ... but it's the same idea, isn't it ... ??
You used to hear the Arabs and Iranians shout in German, but not any more?
Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.
Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.
No. Israel exists in the real world of the surrounding nations. It's not in Scandinavia or Asia. This is still holding Israel to a standard not applied to its neighbours. We'll not agree on this. Would Tutu would have Israeli citizens live in a Palestine ruled by people who have an history of hatred toward Jews? Yes apparently.
A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.
A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.
It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.
I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.
It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".
This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.
But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?
The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.
I think it best to ask the question as to what are the necessary features of a liberal democracy in judging whether a state is one or not. IMO for various and differing reasons the states of the Middle East do not qualify. The closest was probably the Lebanon, but that has become less the case. The problem for Israel in this regard is that it's impossible to have a democracy, which is based on individual rights, and to privilege a specific ethnic (or any other) group. It is difficult to think of a liberal democracy which is not multi-ethnic. The irony of Zionism is that it is a product of nineteenth century romanticism which bred the notion of ethnically-based nationalism that led to fascism. Liberal democracies, by contrast, emerged from the values of individualism and accompanying pluralism evident in Britain and France.
Comments
Yep, geography, climate, demography, culture. Hindsight.
You could well be right, though you think it should be flipped back to 70 AD, Fr Teilhard.
One thing is certain: the existence of Israel has little to do with the resolution of anti-semitism.
I posted that in reference to my fellow posters here on The Ship, for whom Leon Klinghoffer's murder seems to be ... *meh* ... *shrug*
Huh ... LOL ... Pot ... ??? ... Kettle ... ???
I totally agree ...
Conflating Jews with Israel is anti-semitic.
Only when critics of Israel do it. Try to keep up!
I don't do such a conflation ... but the Arab states which expelled 600,000 Jews in 1948 did so ... and so on ...
But ... (duh) ...
It is not an anomaly, a random accident of history, that the majority of Israeli citizens are ... Jewish ... Is it ... ???
No, it's a result of the Nakba, without which the proportions of Arab and Jewish residents within the 1948 borders would have been roughly equal. The State of Israel is majority Jewish as a result of ethnic cleansing.
Do you have a source for your 600k figure, by the way? There's little evidence to support your assertion of a coordinated expulsion on that scale.
Oh, I don't know that the expulsions were "coordinated," but 600,000 Jews were expelled in 1948 (Google the numbers), and indeed not a few ended up ... in Israel ... So ...
The facts on the ground in The Land of Israel go back a loooooong way ...
and I see little to no prospect that some*day the Passover Haggadah will conclude with, "Next year in Lincoln, Nebraska ..."
The total Palestinian territories originally included much of what is now Jordan, and the PLO etc nearly destroyed that country in the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
After which the PLO shifted to Lebanon with 2 opinions of their effect there (positive, negative): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO_in_Lebanon#Conflicting_reports_of_PLO's_behaviour
Often it seems that Christians name the current suffering of <whomever> though have an extremely poor record of naming it when it is Jewish. Hence the European graveyard for Jews in the 20th century, which is why there is a necessity of a Jewish state. Am I correct that some Shippies object to there being a Jewish state of Israel at all? That's disturbing, to put it mildly.
Anti-Semitism is under-examined within European countries (and elsewhere, including Canada), though recent UK examination of it within political parties seemed interesting recently. The frequency of anti-Jewish attacks has increased in Canada since the nativism, anti-immigrant and populism rise over the past couple of decades. My understanding is that to be visibly Jewish is a problem for much of Europe as well.
The use of terms like "apartheid" to apply to Israel is certainly anti-Semitic in my view, as is conflating Zionism with racism. Expansion of Israeli territories by annexing and expelling people is not the same thing as Zionism and you may certainly criticise the borders Israel asserts, though uti possidetis certainly applies. (Under international law, territory remains with who possesses it at the end of a war unless otherwise provided for by treaty; the wikipedia article on the term uti possidetis indicates that the principle has avoided much war in Africa).
People lose in nation formation. Many of the people living where I do are the immigrant descendants of expelled ethnic Germans and others, from places now Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Czech. Was it justifiable that Russian retook Crimea and Donbass? Or previously Karelia from Finland. My father's German family before WW1 was from East Prussia. This area is now Russian and Polish. Accept and move on.
There's going to have be an acceptance of territorial loss by Palestinian people, and agreement to not revanche. It doesn't matter that is isn't fair. Noting that I live in Treaty 6 Territory in Canada, with the original inhabitants given Reserves (usually means marginal land) and cash payments and future considerations still being worked out in the courts, mostly to indigenous disadvantages, with small improvement generation to generation. It's not fair, but there's zero likelihood that a right to have the land returned will occur, and it is basically accepted as fact. It is as unjust as hell. But it's the reality. It's not identical but it is parallel.
Why did the Palestine Liberation Front terrorists seize the ship and take hostages anyway ... ??? ... and why single out an "American" a victim ... ???
From what/whom were the "Palestine" "Liberation" guys trying to "liberate" "Palestine" (The Land of Israel) ... ???
Oh for heaven's sake, if you have no awareness of the US-Israeli relationship then why are you even here?
I'm done with you.
I asked an obviously rhetorical question ...
But, yes ... You and I are on quite different wave lengths ...
A whole lot of what happens TODAY in the Middle East is very much about past history, which must be both understood and taken into account when we (1) try to understand what is happening there today, and, (2) try to think realistically about tomorrow ...
When we (or *they*) fail to do those tasks, we (or *they*) end up with bizarrely alternative "narratives" that render tomorrow likely to be ugly ...
Yes ...
And what so often is lost in these *discussions* is the clear historical fact that this problem isn't just a territorial dispute about defined "borders" -- akin to: who gets which part(s) of Kashmir; or Iraq wanting to annex Kuwait ...
Many well-meaning *outsiders* offer an extensive list of suggestions (in reality, demands) of what The State of Israel should/must do ... all the while -- as you correctly note, above -- frankly objecting to the existence of The State of Israel at all ... *shudder* ...
(I've seen this play already, and I have a pretty clear understanding of the denouement ...
Did you even read the article you linked to? It's not "circa 1948" - it covers the entire period of existence of the State of Israel. It also makes clear that while anti-semitism and persecution were push factors, there was also an enthusiasm for Zionism and many voluntary migrations with encouragement from Israel. A number of people who were part of that migration refuse the label "refugee" because they chose to go to Israel and were not forced from their homes.
As for how Palestinians and Jews forced from their homes should have their right of return addressed, surely Germany can provide a model? Permanent right to citizenship for descendants of those forced out, return of or compensation for property confiscated, stolen or looted by the state in question.
Eventually there will be land swaps, compensation and reparations, etc. ...
But The State of Israel (1) will continue to be "Jewish," (2) and will not be pushed off the map into the sea ... (3) (or "eaten up by fire" provided by Iranian proxies, e.g., Hezbollah) ...
That's how the current State of Israel was established, and if Desmond Tutu thinks the apartheid comparison is accurate then I'm inclined to believe him.
There is a hypothetical form of Zionism that involves a Jewish national homeland in a place where no-one else lives or which is also the homeland of another people who have equal access to it. Neither of those reflect Zionism as it currently exists or as it existed historically, a history that owes far too much to 19th century imperialism and its accompanying racism. You don't get the Nakba without racism being an integral part of Zionism as it exists in the real world, without Zionists deeming the claims of the Jewish people to the land between the Jordan and the sea being superior to those of any others who might claim it. How can that be anything but racist?
No ...
"Zionism" goes back to The Patriarchs -- like it or not ...
Oh please. That's absurd. Modern Zionism is no more the same as what caused Moses to lead the Israelites to Canaan than the Republican Party reflects the values of Plato's Republic. That's assuming Moses actually existed and the Exodus actually happened, which is a matter of faith rather than history.
The Torah long pre-dates any modern movements ... or persons ... or events ...
Biblical Archaeology "minimalists" are not correct, IMHO ...
Modern Zionism has little to do with the Torah, which is why the Haredis hate it.
I think that's mostly an artefact of @Fr Teilhard throwing around 'JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL' in block capitals without actually explaining how that relates to what anyone else is saying.
Ultimately 'Jewish state of Israel' is quite ambiguous. It could mean a.) a state whose borders are drawn in such a way that a majority of its inhabitants are Jewish. Which, substituting 'Jewish' for the dominant ethnic group, is how most European states were formed.
Or it could mean b.) a state where Judaism is somehow 'baked in' to the constitution, such that it can't be dislodged even if a majority of the population don't want it any more.
I think one can object to (a) if one objects in principle to ethnically based states in general. Although pragmatically it could be argued that that ship has sailed. And one can object to (b) on the grounds that it's hardly compatible with liberal democracy - and defend it on the grounds that in the circumstances liberal democracy isn't the be-all and end-all.
AIUI, the word 'Zionist' in Judaism is a little bit like 'catholic' (or even 'Catholic') within Christianity - in the sense that lots of Jews would consider themselves to be Zionists, without being what the general public means by Zionist.
But the loudest and most fervent (largely non-Jewish) Zionists are constantly harping about how Israel is a liberal democracy, a liberal democracy, a liberal democracy, ad nauseam.
You did not. You asked why they would single out an American as a victim (which as I understand it, they did by looking at the passports of the hostages).
There is nothing rhetorical about that question in my view. It demonstrates that you have absolutely zero clue about how the relationship between the US and Israel is viewed in that part of the world, and certainly zero clue about how the relationship was viewed in the 1980s.
Are you truly so clueless as to things like voting patterns in the UN on questions relating to Israel and Palestine? Are you so utterly unaware of how American policy on Israel is influenced by America having the largest Jewish population outside Israel?
You may take these questions as rhetorical if you wish because I think I already know the answer.
Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.
You get the term "Nakba" becoming popular when there was a desire to appeal to western, lefty sentiments which understands discussions but not real politik. There's been a clear desire to keep the Palestinian sense of grievance alive by belicose and mostly brutal dictatorships, who do what totalitarians do everywhere: keep the focus on the external enemy.
And correcting you. The UN created Israel.
And re Germany (and Finland). They've renounced territories lost to the war victors. No compensation.
Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.
Well no, that's not entirely correct either. The UN proposed a kind of 2-State arrangement (which, when I was reading about it, oddly reminded me of what's happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina), but wasn't in a position to implement it. The Arab population wasn't happy with the proposal, the British who were actually in control decided not to implement the proposal, and then the Jewish population who were in favour of the proposal decided to implement it unilaterally.
So while the UN might have been behind the idea, they didn't play a part in taking practical steps to implement the idea.
I remember an interview long ago with a repentant "Palestinian" hijacker-terrorist who said, "Until I looked at the passports, I didn't know who I was supposed to hate ..."
Compared to any other nation in the Middle East, The State of Israel IS a shining beacon of liberal democracy ... yet Israel's critics seem to prefer the antics of The PA, or Hamas or Hezbollah ...
The UN voted on "partition" ... November 29, 1947 ...
No. Israel exists in the real world of the surrounding nations. It's not in Scandinavia or Asia. This is still holding Israel to a standard not applied to its neighbours. We'll not agree on this. Would Tutu would have Israeli citizens live in a Palestine ruled by people who have an history of hatred toward Jews? Yes apparently.
A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.
And? Isn't that what I just said?
Yes ...
Those of us who live safely comfortably in The West don't benefit from the privilege of having people in neighboring counties lobbing mortar shells at us and our children ... year after year after year ...
And some of us recognize the old old chant, "JUDEN 'RAUS ... !!!" when we hear it ...
Umm--the rocket fire is not coming from at least two neighboring countries, Eygpt and Jordan. I can't think of the last time Saudi Arabia fired anything into Israel proper. Rather, the rocket fire is coming from radicals in the Gaza Strip or Lebanon or Syria. Saddam Hussein fired a few rockets during our incursion into Iraq while he was in power.
BTW, when my son did leave Tel Aviv after his year in Palestine, the airport did come under rocket fire about an hour after his plane took off--from where, I cannot recall, but that was close enough for me.
The shouts these days in the Middle East are of course in Arabic (or Farsi): "Death to Israel" and the like ... but it's the same idea, isn't it ... ??
My point is that it is so so so easy for us in The West to give The Israelis advice ... *as*if* we have "been there" in their situation for decades ...
Which is bullshit.
It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.
I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.
It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".
This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.
But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?
The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.