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.
Of course I bloody don't and I don't know why you even ask the question other than some desire to either offend or paint me as some kind of Nazi.
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.
The graveyard of Europe in the 20th century, preceded many centuries of generalized anti-Semitism. This anti-Semitism was not just expressions of racism, it was expulsion and frequently extermination.
Israel is not a settler colony for the USA. Attempts a pluralism for Jews in Europe ended with Holocaust. After centuries of this, it should be clear that a safe place for Jews is required. And, no, the creation of the state of Israel via UN resolution has not exacerbated the problem, rather it has shifted it, and I'd say, given the history of Europe, improved things.
Multi-ethnic states? This is what Russia, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, the German Empire were pre-WW1. The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
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.
The graveyard of Europe in the 20th century, preceded many centuries of generalized anti-Semitism. This anti-Semitism was not just expressions of racism, it was expulsion and frequently extermination.
Israel is not a settler colony for the USA. Attempts a pluralism for Jews in Europe ended with Holocaust. After centuries of this, it should be clear that a safe place for Jews is required. And, no, the creation of the state of Israel via UN resolution has not exacerbated the problem, rather it has shifted it, and I'd say, given the history of Europe, improved things.
Multi-ethnic states? This is what Russia, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, the German Empire were pre-WW1. The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
Palestine is a safe place for Jews? If you drive out the natives and build a big enough wall and arm yourself to the teeth including nukes, I suppose. The neighbours will love you for it.
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.
Of course I bloody don't and I don't know why you even ask the question other than some desire to either offend or paint me as some kind of Nazi.
To jerk you into a realisation that wanting to discuss the rights and wrongs of how we got to the present situation is not the way to make peace. Instead, it is how we continue bolstering the barriers to peace. We all know the arguments @KarlLB I could recite them in my sleep, and you could too I'm sure.
I don't hate you for coming to the views you have, @KarlLB I accept them, and you. I would like you to accept mine in similar fashion, but you know, it's not required. But it would make it easier to discuss the situation in the Middle East, sharing our knowledge and insights to move towards greater understanding.
Why do you need to know what my views are on the historical rights and wrongs, other than to paint me as an apologist for apartheid or otherwise categorise me? Why do they matter to you?
It seems like you are more interested in the rights and wrongs than you are in thinking through the present situation looking for hope.
NoProphet_NoProfit Multi-ethnic states? This is what Russia, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, the German Empire were pre-WW1. The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
We could discuss these states, but it's more profitable to consider modern democratic multi-ethnic states such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Scandinavian States, Canada, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany etc. and others. ISTM that Jews are more secure in these democratic states based on individual (not group) citizenship rights than in Israel. Indeed, Israel dependent on them, especially the USA, for its existence, and acts is no credible protector of American Jews. As I said before, however, I'm not so naive as to believe that the conditions exist for such as state in what was Palestine. Israel, however, is not the solution to combating global anti-semitism, and has arguably made it worse. The politics of ethnic identity is very nasty and counterproductive to the promotion of equal rights, ethnic national self-determination included.
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.
Scrolling back a bit, but I think the point is that the hard parts are insoluble because of the attitudes of the people involved, but if you could solve some of the easier parts, then that might in turn soften those attitudes.
That is, there is no solution as long as 'There must be a right of return' and 'There must not be a right of return' are non-negotiable red lines. But if people could be made to see that compromising on something else doesn't immediately bring the world crashing down on their ears, they might be more willing to compromise on that.
Personally I would like to see more settlements dismantled, as a unilateral action. As I've said upthread, AIUI the Israeli general public doesn't like them much, and ISTM they undermine the intellectual case for the Israeli POV.
Posted by @NOprophet_NØprofit:
The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
The problem wasn't just that some nations weren't included, but that once ethnic borders had been drawn you ended up with large communities of the 'wrong' ethnicity on the wrong side of the border. Enclaves of Germans everywhere from Czechoslovakia to Romania, Turkish and Greek 'population transfers', Slovenes in Italy to be persecuted by Mussolini.
From the perspective of the Treaty of Versailles all of this was a bug, not a feature, but setting up settlements on the West Bank seems to me to deliberately engineer this situation.
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.
Scrolling back a bit, but I think the point is that the hard parts are insoluble because of the attitudes of the people involved, but if you could solve some of the easier parts, then that might in turn soften those attitudes.
That is, there is no solution as long as 'There must be a right of return' and 'There must not be a right of return' are non-negotiable red lines. But if people could be made to see that compromising on something else doesn't immediately bring the world crashing down on their ears, they might be more willing to compromise on that.
Personally I would like to see more settlements dismantled, as a unilateral action. As I've said upthread, AIUI the Israeli general public doesn't like them much, and ISTM they undermine the intellectual case for the Israeli POV.
Posted by @NOprophet_NØprofit:
The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
The problem wasn't just that some nations weren't included, but that once ethnic borders had been drawn you ended up with large communities of the 'wrong' ethnicity on the wrong side of the border. Enclaves of Germans everywhere from Czechoslovakia to Romania, Turkish and Greek 'population transfers', Slovenes in Italy to be persecuted by Mussolini.
From the perspective of the Treaty of Versailles all of this was a bug, not a feature, but setting up settlements on the West Bank seems to me to deliberately engineer this situation.
Neither side will ever, can ever compromise on right of return. Not in God's lifetime. What 'easier' parts can be solved regardless? No illegal settlers will unsettle unilaterally, the Israeli electorate accept them and what intellectual case? None is ever necessary or possible for impunity.
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.
Scrolling back a bit, but I think the point is that the hard parts are insoluble because of the attitudes of the people involved, but if you could solve some of the easier parts, then that might in turn soften those attitudes.
That is, there is no solution as long as 'There must be a right of return' and 'There must not be a right of return' are non-negotiable red lines. But if people could be made to see that compromising on something else doesn't immediately bring the world crashing down on their ears, they might be more willing to compromise on that.
Personally I would like to see more settlements dismantled, as a unilateral action. As I've said upthread, AIUI the Israeli general public doesn't like them much, and ISTM they undermine the intellectual case for the Israeli POV.
Posted by @NOprophet_NØprofit:
The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
The problem wasn't just that some nations weren't included, but that once ethnic borders had been drawn you ended up with large communities of the 'wrong' ethnicity on the wrong side of the border. Enclaves of Germans everywhere from Czechoslovakia to Romania, Turkish and Greek 'population transfers', Slovenes in Italy to be persecuted by Mussolini.
From the perspective of the Treaty of Versailles all of this was a bug, not a feature, but setting up settlements on the West Bank seems to me to deliberately engineer this situation.
Neither side will ever, can ever compromise on right of return. Not in God's lifetime. What 'easier' parts can be solved regardless? No illegal settlers will unsettle unilaterally, the Israeli electorate accept them and what intellectual case? None is ever necessary or possible for impunity.
If so then there is no solution or mitigation and this discussion is pointless.
Are we playing "my minority group has it worse than yours" now?
No. We're needing to acknowledge the unique vulnerability of this one. Muslims have larger numbers and there are a number of theocratic safe haven countries in the world for 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).
And we're not even trying to solve the problem. I want to know what people on here think.
Scrolling back a bit, but I think the point is that the hard parts are insoluble because of the attitudes of the people involved, but if you could solve some of the easier parts, then that might in turn soften those attitudes.
That is, there is no solution as long as 'There must be a right of return' and 'There must not be a right of return' are non-negotiable red lines. But if people could be made to see that compromising on something else doesn't immediately bring the world crashing down on their ears, they might be more willing to compromise on that.
Personally I would like to see more settlements dismantled, as a unilateral action. As I've said upthread, AIUI the Israeli general public doesn't like them much, and ISTM they undermine the intellectual case for the Israeli POV.
Posted by @NOprophet_NØprofit:
The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
The problem wasn't just that some nations weren't included, but that once ethnic borders had been drawn you ended up with large communities of the 'wrong' ethnicity on the wrong side of the border. Enclaves of Germans everywhere from Czechoslovakia to Romania, Turkish and Greek 'population transfers', Slovenes in Italy to be persecuted by Mussolini.
From the perspective of the Treaty of Versailles all of this was a bug, not a feature, but setting up settlements on the West Bank seems to me to deliberately engineer this situation.
Neither side will ever, can ever compromise on right of return. Not in God's lifetime. What 'easier' parts can be solved regardless? No illegal settlers will unsettle unilaterally, the Israeli electorate accept them and what intellectual case? None is ever necessary or possible for impunity.
If so then there is no solution or mitigation and this discussion is pointless.
Well it's so, but why is there no mitigation for the Palestinians? By the UN signatories to their loss? America, Russia for two. And Britain for failing them.
So what? The whole point is that any individual should bear the same rights as any other.
I agree with you. It should be this way. It isn't.
You haven't said this, nor has anyone else, but I've heard about it locally here as well as elsewhere re "Black lives matter", where here an MLA (member of the legislative assembly) said "all lives matter" in the legislature as a response to discussion of racism here.
So what? The whole point is that any individual should bear the same rights as any other.
I agree with you. It should be this way. It isn't.
You seem to be shifting between principled arguments ('these people have a right to this') and pragmatic arguments ('it sucks but that's how it is') in a way that is rather unclear (to say the least). So you are claiming that the Jews have an absolute right to an ethnic homeland, regardless of pragmatic considerations, whereas the Palestinians' right to their homeland is trumped by the pragmatic consideration that they have in fact been expelled from it.
I don't think you can have it both ways but I also don't think you need to. I think there is some (purely pragmatic) merit to just drawing a line in the sand and saying 'Rightly or wrongly, everyone is where they are now'. East Prussia is full of Poles. The Sudetenland is full of Czechs. Asia Minor is full of Turks. Israel is full of Jews. This averts all the unanswerable questions about the value of a 2,000-year-old land claim and whether Jews are more or less persecuted than Roma, Muslims, or gay people.
Are we playing "my minority group has it worse than yours" now?
No. We're needing to acknowledge the unique vulnerability of this one. Muslims have larger numbers and there are a number of theocratic safe haven countries in the world for them.
Are we playing "my minority group has it worse than yours" now?
No. We're needing to acknowledge the unique vulnerability of this one. Muslims have larger numbers and there are a number of theocratic safe haven countries in the world for them.
Mister, there are parts of the world I basically wouldn't go as a gay man.
It isn't an ethnic group.
You said "is there any group" not "is there any ethnic group." You are moving the goalposts.
You can say that as a technique of argument to try to suggest moving of goal posts, but this was never my thought. I hadn't thought of other than an ethnic group as comparable, i.e., ethnicity means multiple generations of a large group which share values, culture, religion, language, possibly physical attributes etc.
Are we playing "my minority group has it worse than yours" now?
No. We're needing to acknowledge the unique vulnerability of this one. Muslims have larger numbers and there are a number of theocratic safe haven countries in the world for them.
Mister, there are parts of the world I basically wouldn't go as a gay man.
It isn't an ethnic group.
You said "is there any group" not "is there any ethnic group." You are moving the goalposts.
You can say that as a technique of argument to try to suggest moving of goal posts, but this was never my thought. I hadn't thought of other than an ethnic group as comparable, i.e., ethnicity means multiple generations of a large group which share values, culture, religion, language, possibly physical attributes etc.
The fact that YOU hadn't thought of anything other than an ethnic group is simply because you have a set of blinders on in your weirdly determined quest to insist that everyone else wants to dismantle Israel and wouldn't care if Jews were exterminated.
Instead of complaining, you could have tried admitting that gosh, I'd opened your eyes to another example of a minority group being persecuted. But no. Not a word about the fact that LGBT folk get killed in parts of the world. You just decided to tell me that the persecution I brought up wasn't valid for the purposes of your hobbyhorse.
Are we playing "my minority group has it worse than yours" now?
No. We're needing to acknowledge the unique vulnerability of this one. Muslims have larger numbers and there are a number of theocratic safe haven countries in the world for 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).
And we're not even trying to solve the problem. I want to know what people on here think.
Scrolling back a bit, but I think the point is that the hard parts are insoluble because of the attitudes of the people involved, but if you could solve some of the easier parts, then that might in turn soften those attitudes.
That is, there is no solution as long as 'There must be a right of return' and 'There must not be a right of return' are non-negotiable red lines. But if people could be made to see that compromising on something else doesn't immediately bring the world crashing down on their ears, they might be more willing to compromise on that.
Personally I would like to see more settlements dismantled, as a unilateral action. As I've said upthread, AIUI the Israeli general public doesn't like them much, and ISTM they undermine the intellectual case for the Israeli POV.
Posted by @NOprophet_NØprofit:
The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
The problem wasn't just that some nations weren't included, but that once ethnic borders had been drawn you ended up with large communities of the 'wrong' ethnicity on the wrong side of the border. Enclaves of Germans everywhere from Czechoslovakia to Romania, Turkish and Greek 'population transfers', Slovenes in Italy to be persecuted by Mussolini.
From the perspective of the Treaty of Versailles all of this was a bug, not a feature, but setting up settlements on the West Bank seems to me to deliberately engineer this situation.
Neither side will ever, can ever compromise on right of return. Not in God's lifetime. What 'easier' parts can be solved regardless? No illegal settlers will unsettle unilaterally, the Israeli electorate accept them and what intellectual case? None is ever necessary or possible for impunity.
Of course they will Martin, in the right circumstances. I wanted to talk about whether the right circumstances might arise because of the Saudi/Israel detente. Ricardus has the right idea. Don't get bogged down in the detail. Don't talk about controversial issues. Try to find ways to work on issues of mutual concern. Using the Israelis to funnel Gulf money to Hamas in Gaza is a good one. A little chink of light. I hope the next one might be helping the PA to buy and distribute a coronavirus vaccine. You never know. Can people think of any others?
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.
Scrolling back a bit, but I think the point is that the hard parts are insoluble because of the attitudes of the people involved, but if you could solve some of the easier parts, then that might in turn soften those attitudes.
That is, there is no solution as long as 'There must be a right of return' and 'There must not be a right of return' are non-negotiable red lines. But if people could be made to see that compromising on something else doesn't immediately bring the world crashing down on their ears, they might be more willing to compromise on that.
Personally I would like to see more settlements dismantled, as a unilateral action. As I've said upthread, AIUI the Israeli general public doesn't like them much, and ISTM they undermine the intellectual case for the Israeli POV.
Posted by @NOprophet_NØprofit:
The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
The problem wasn't just that some nations weren't included, but that once ethnic borders had been drawn you ended up with large communities of the 'wrong' ethnicity on the wrong side of the border. Enclaves of Germans everywhere from Czechoslovakia to Romania, Turkish and Greek 'population transfers', Slovenes in Italy to be persecuted by Mussolini.
From the perspective of the Treaty of Versailles all of this was a bug, not a feature, but setting up settlements on the West Bank seems to me to deliberately engineer this situation.
Neither side will ever, can ever compromise on right of return. Not in God's lifetime. What 'easier' parts can be solved regardless? No illegal settlers will unsettle unilaterally, the Israeli electorate accept them and what intellectual case? None is ever necessary or possible for impunity.
Of course they will Martin, in the right circumstances. I wanted to talk about whether the right circumstances might arise because of the Saudi/Israel detente. Ricardus has the right idea. Don't get bogged down in the detail. Don't talk about controversial issues. Try to find ways to work on issues of mutual concern. Using the Israelis to funnel Gulf money to Hamas in Gaza is a good one. A little chink of light. I hope the next one might be helping the PA to buy and distribute a coronavirus vaccine. You never know. Can people think of any others?
This is the boring old business of peacemaking.
Nope. Both. What you rightly offer is 'easier' parts which will never challenge the no compromise on right of return by either side, trickling round that boulder in the stream.
How about compensation? When the wind blows from the south and the kookaburra laughs, might not that right be acknowledged and compensated? In present circumstances, where everyone is at daggers drawn, never. But with the Saudis twisting arms and the Israelis offering oodles of cash, who knows. But that sort of proposal would have to be introduced at the end, when all the little things have built up trust, and when a great deal is so close everyone just wants to get it done. This is an elite to elite deal of course. Nobody else ever has any real choice.
It wouldn't have to come at the end. One plausible path for negotiations would be the Palestinians say we want the right of return, and Israel says we can't agree to that but we'll buy that right off you for an appropriate amount of compensation, and the Palestinians say we'll accept that then. (Negotiations over how much compensation is appropriate and how it is to be distributed included.)
That can't happen as long as Israel insists that the Palestinians renounce the right of return before talks even start.
It wouldn't have to come at the end. One plausible path for negotiations would be the Palestinians say we want the right of return, and Israel says we can't agree to that but we'll buy that right off you for an appropriate amount of compensation, and the Palestinians say we'll accept that then. (Negotiations over how much compensation is appropriate and how it is to be distributed included.)
That can't happen as long as Israel insists that the Palestinians renounce the right of return before talks even start.
Reasonable from where we sit. And many Palestinians privately. Who'd be assassinated when their unexplained income manifested itself.
Ain't gonna happen. And who pays? Israel for exceeding its '67 borders? For the illegal settlements? Does that guarantee no more? And that stops terrorism and murder how? Who compensates Palestine, Syria and Lebanon for territory loss since 1948? Just Israel or the UN signatories et al?
Are we playing "my minority group has it worse than yours" now?
No. We're needing to acknowledge the unique vulnerability of this one. Muslims have larger numbers and there are a number of theocratic safe haven countries in the world for them.
Mister, there are parts of the world I basically wouldn't go as a gay man.
It isn't an ethnic group.
You said "is there any group" not "is there any ethnic group." You are moving the goalposts.
You can say that as a technique of argument to try to suggest moving of goal posts, but this was never my thought.
Then answer orfeo's point about LGBTQ+ people.
I agree completely about persecution, risks, dangers, non-acceptance, lack of equality for gay and diverse people. I sponsored the motion for my church's AGM some 25 years ago to have us be accepting. I've supported marriage equality for the same period of time. I've donated, supported, marched. My best friend growing up. Yes I agree.
I don't think it's on topic except as persecuted minorities that're part of all societies forever. Within country, yes, like an ethnic group. Internationally not really, as I've not heard about a request for a country.
The difficulty some of us have, NOsprophet_NOprofit, lies in understanding why you are so solicitous for promoting human rights in your society yet are so reluctant to grant them to Palestinians. I guess the reason is that you regard the Israelis as a 'chosen people' who's land was donated to them in perpetuity by God, and thereby removes them from the strictures of natural justice.
I'm not reluctant to grant rights to Palestinians, but they cannot control what is Israel for obvious historical reasons. It has nothing to do with any biblical promises being carried out in the present day. The biblical things may be the reason for the persecution, but the reason that Israel must exist. I'm not willing to see Jewish people not have the right to control their own nation. Because, again, we've seen in the 20th century what happened when they didn't. Before then, we had some brief period of time where it appeared Jews could be citizens of some other countries on a equal basis.
Noting in summary:
Rome ghetto was closed in 1870 after the popes lost control of the papal states
Back and forth toleration, expulsion until ~1852 in Austria-Hungary, which includes many other nations after WW1.
Pograms against Jews in the Russian Empire until 1917
Polish anti-Semitic policies and legislation after re-creation of country after WW1.
In Germany emancipation of Jews in 1870.
I get the desire to see a multi-cultural multi-ethnic state in Palestine. But the history won't allow it; it is not going to happen. The anti-Semitic history of the world is not going to allow it.
I've not mentioned on this thread, but have previously on the Ship, that my father grew up between the two world wars in Berlin. 30% of all Jews in Germany lived in the city, and he told about the Jews his parents helped get out before they left as the Anshcuß occurred in 1938 (annexation of Austria), as well as his memories of the persecution- injured and dead Jews in the building where they lived. Hitler was a symptom of many centuries of anti-Semitic violence. What the Nazis did is a proximate cause for Israel to exist. It is not the ultimate cause. My father's first hand observations, and the discussions with my German cousins persuade me about the real politik involved.
I expect the Palestinians will have to accept parts of Palestine which Israel and the surrounding nations are willing to let it have, and then some hundred of billions in compensation over a lengthy period of time, via various methods. That's the reality.
I expect the Palestinians will have to accept parts of Palestine which Israel and the surrounding nations are willing to let it have, and then some hundred of billions in compensation over a lengthy period of time, via various methods. That's the reality.
A reality you consistently encourage and respond to attempts challenge it with allegations of anti-semitism. If western countries want to create a safe, Jews-only haven they can do so in their own territory. They (and Jewish people themselves) have a right to demand that Palestine be safe for Jews, they don't have a right to demand that this be achieved by preventing the locals returning to their homes and farms.
The personal story is to understand the sensitivity to the issue. Which led me to understand the historical context which is beyond the current issues of Palestine/Israel. Is there anything unique about the history of this group of people in your understanding?
There is a fine line between anti-Semitism and Anti-Israel. I may place the line differently than you.
Again the reality is that no, the locals cannot return to lands within Israel's accepted borders (this is a difficult way of saying this: I'm not sure the borders - 1948, 1967?). They can probably get compensation. This is also the real politik of Canada, where we're finally, progressively, paying for the lands taken under treaty from the First Nations. It's a long road, and it'll take another 50 or 100 years to settle treaty land entitlement, resource sharing, compensation for illegally and illegitimately taken lands. It's also been abusive, neglectful and genocidal in Canada. Truth and Reconciliation will take decades.
The personal story is to understand the sensitivity to the issue. Which led me to understand the historical context which is beyond the current issues of Palestine/Israel.
I contest this. The persecution of the Jews isn’t your story - it isn’t even your father’s story. And his childhood memories don’t give you any particular understanding of the “historical context.”
Is there anything unique about the history of this group of people in your understanding?
@Dave W: you can't contest a personal phenomenological experience. I own it. Second, I'm allowed to bring qualitative personal info into a discussion if I want to.
Compare your "Everybody’s got a unique history." to "Black lives matter" and "all lives matter". One link to this, there are many.
The personal story is to understand the sensitivity to the issue. Which led me to understand the historical context which is beyond the current issues of Palestine/Israel. Is there anything unique about the history of this group of people in your understanding?
There is a fine line between anti-Semitism and Anti-Israel. I may place the line differently than you.
There isn't really a fine line at all. Some people may be anti-Israel because they're anti-semitic, true, but being critical of Israel gets you accused of anti-semitism because it avoids supporters of Israel having the deal with the uncomfortable truth of Israel's behaviour.
The personal story is to understand the sensitivity to the issue. Which led me to understand the historical context which is beyond the current issues of Palestine/Israel. Is there anything unique about the history of this group of people in your understanding?
There is a fine line between anti-Semitism and Anti-Israel. I may place the line differently than you.
There isn't really a fine line at all. Some people may be anti-Israel because they're anti-semitic, true, but being critical of Israel gets you accused of anti-semitism because it avoids supporters of Israel having the deal with the uncomfortable truth of Israel's behaviour.
Quite. Anti-Israeli sentiment does not become anti-Semitic if reaches a certain degree; it is anti-Semitic if it is motivated by dislike of Jews as Jews.
@Dave W: you can't contest a personal phenomenological experience. I own it. Second, I'm allowed to bring qualitative personal info into a discussion if I want to.
You can bring up anything you want, but you can’t reasonably expect anybody to respect such a ridiculously attenuated connection.
Compare your "Everybody’s got a unique history." to "Black lives matter" and "all lives matter". One link to this, there are many.
I don’t think the suffering of the Jews is that they haven’t been sufficiently recognized for the uniqueness of their history.
I thought that was part of what was happening on this thread. Compare the personal experience which tilted us into discussing LGBTQ2S+.
No, you didn't talk about personal experience. What tilted us was you trying to describe scrawling of swastikas on a Jewish building in Canada as the Worst Thing Ever.
Which it isn't.
And yes, I'm well aware that a lot of far worse things happen to Jews. But you seem to see persecution as some kind of contest, where you need to prove that Jews are at the top of the charts.
I've no idea why you feel this was necessary. Are Jews persecuted? Yes. Agreed. Let's move on.
Because comparing it other persecutions is completely unnecessary, unless you're trying to win some competition between Jewish troubles and Palestinian troubles in order to explain why Jewish interests trump Palestinian ones. Is that what you're doing? If so, is this because you cannot conceive of win/win solutions?
Comments
Of course I bloody don't and I don't know why you even ask the question other than some desire to either offend or paint me as some kind of Nazi.
The graveyard of Europe in the 20th century, preceded many centuries of generalized anti-Semitism. This anti-Semitism was not just expressions of racism, it was expulsion and frequently extermination.
Israel is not a settler colony for the USA. Attempts a pluralism for Jews in Europe ended with Holocaust. After centuries of this, it should be clear that a safe place for Jews is required. And, no, the creation of the state of Israel via UN resolution has not exacerbated the problem, rather it has shifted it, and I'd say, given the history of Europe, improved things.
Multi-ethnic states? This is what Russia, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, the German Empire were pre-WW1. The decision was to make some nations countries after WW1, with some nations left out (notably Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
Palestine is a safe place for Jews? If you drive out the natives and build a big enough wall and arm yourself to the teeth including nukes, I suppose. The neighbours will love you for it.
To jerk you into a realisation that wanting to discuss the rights and wrongs of how we got to the present situation is not the way to make peace. Instead, it is how we continue bolstering the barriers to peace. We all know the arguments @KarlLB I could recite them in my sleep, and you could too I'm sure.
It seems like you are more interested in the rights and wrongs than you are in thinking through the present situation looking for hope.
The rights and wrongs of the past I have not asked you about.
We could discuss these states, but it's more profitable to consider modern democratic multi-ethnic states such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Scandinavian States, Canada, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany etc. and others. ISTM that Jews are more secure in these democratic states based on individual (not group) citizenship rights than in Israel. Indeed, Israel dependent on them, especially the USA, for its existence, and acts is no credible protector of American Jews. As I said before, however, I'm not so naive as to believe that the conditions exist for such as state in what was Palestine. Israel, however, is not the solution to combating global anti-semitism, and has arguably made it worse. The politics of ethnic identity is very nasty and counterproductive to the promotion of equal rights, ethnic national self-determination included.
Are we playing "my minority group has it worse than yours" now?
Muslims, Roma (and other travellers), Catholics in Glasgow and Belfast.
Scrolling back a bit, but I think the point is that the hard parts are insoluble because of the attitudes of the people involved, but if you could solve some of the easier parts, then that might in turn soften those attitudes.
That is, there is no solution as long as 'There must be a right of return' and 'There must not be a right of return' are non-negotiable red lines. But if people could be made to see that compromising on something else doesn't immediately bring the world crashing down on their ears, they might be more willing to compromise on that.
Personally I would like to see more settlements dismantled, as a unilateral action. As I've said upthread, AIUI the Israeli general public doesn't like them much, and ISTM they undermine the intellectual case for the Israeli POV.
The problem wasn't just that some nations weren't included, but that once ethnic borders had been drawn you ended up with large communities of the 'wrong' ethnicity on the wrong side of the border. Enclaves of Germans everywhere from Czechoslovakia to Romania, Turkish and Greek 'population transfers', Slovenes in Italy to be persecuted by Mussolini.
From the perspective of the Treaty of Versailles all of this was a bug, not a feature, but setting up settlements on the West Bank seems to me to deliberately engineer this situation.
Mister, there are parts of the world I basically wouldn't go as a gay man.
Neither side will ever, can ever compromise on right of return. Not in God's lifetime. What 'easier' parts can be solved regardless? No illegal settlers will unsettle unilaterally, the Israeli electorate accept them and what intellectual case? None is ever necessary or possible for impunity.
If so then there is no solution or mitigation and this discussion is pointless.
No. We're needing to acknowledge the unique vulnerability of this one. Muslims have larger numbers and there are a number of theocratic safe haven countries in the world for them.
It isn't an ethnic group.
Well it's so, but why is there no mitigation for the Palestinians? By the UN signatories to their loss? America, Russia for two. And Britain for failing them.
So what? The whole point is that any individual should bear the same rights as any other.
I agree with you. It should be this way. It isn't.
You haven't said this, nor has anyone else, but I've heard about it locally here as well as elsewhere re "Black lives matter", where here an MLA (member of the legislative assembly) said "all lives matter" in the legislature as a response to discussion of racism here.
You seem to be shifting between principled arguments ('these people have a right to this') and pragmatic arguments ('it sucks but that's how it is') in a way that is rather unclear (to say the least). So you are claiming that the Jews have an absolute right to an ethnic homeland, regardless of pragmatic considerations, whereas the Palestinians' right to their homeland is trumped by the pragmatic consideration that they have in fact been expelled from it.
I don't think you can have it both ways but I also don't think you need to. I think there is some (purely pragmatic) merit to just drawing a line in the sand and saying 'Rightly or wrongly, everyone is where they are now'. East Prussia is full of Poles. The Sudetenland is full of Czechs. Asia Minor is full of Turks. Israel is full of Jews. This averts all the unanswerable questions about the value of a 2,000-year-old land claim and whether Jews are more or less persecuted than Roma, Muslims, or gay people.
You said "is there any group" not "is there any ethnic group." You are moving the goalposts.
You can say that as a technique of argument to try to suggest moving of goal posts, but this was never my thought. I hadn't thought of other than an ethnic group as comparable, i.e., ethnicity means multiple generations of a large group which share values, culture, religion, language, possibly physical attributes etc.
You didn't specify ethnic.
The fact that YOU hadn't thought of anything other than an ethnic group is simply because you have a set of blinders on in your weirdly determined quest to insist that everyone else wants to dismantle Israel and wouldn't care if Jews were exterminated.
Instead of complaining, you could have tried admitting that gosh, I'd opened your eyes to another example of a minority group being persecuted. But no. Not a word about the fact that LGBT folk get killed in parts of the world. You just decided to tell me that the persecution I brought up wasn't valid for the purposes of your hobbyhorse.
Then answer orfeo's point about LGBTQ+ people.
Of course they will Martin, in the right circumstances. I wanted to talk about whether the right circumstances might arise because of the Saudi/Israel detente. Ricardus has the right idea. Don't get bogged down in the detail. Don't talk about controversial issues. Try to find ways to work on issues of mutual concern. Using the Israelis to funnel Gulf money to Hamas in Gaza is a good one. A little chink of light. I hope the next one might be helping the PA to buy and distribute a coronavirus vaccine. You never know. Can people think of any others?
This is the boring old business of peacemaking.
Nope. Both. What you rightly offer is 'easier' parts which will never challenge the no compromise on right of return by either side, trickling round that boulder in the stream.
That can't happen as long as Israel insists that the Palestinians renounce the right of return before talks even start.
Reasonable from where we sit. And many Palestinians privately. Who'd be assassinated when their unexplained income manifested itself.
I agree completely about persecution, risks, dangers, non-acceptance, lack of equality for gay and diverse people. I sponsored the motion for my church's AGM some 25 years ago to have us be accepting. I've supported marriage equality for the same period of time. I've donated, supported, marched. My best friend growing up. Yes I agree.
I don't think it's on topic except as persecuted minorities that're part of all societies forever. Within country, yes, like an ethnic group. Internationally not really, as I've not heard about a request for a country.
Is there something further?
Noting in summary:
Rome ghetto was closed in 1870 after the popes lost control of the papal states
Back and forth toleration, expulsion until ~1852 in Austria-Hungary, which includes many other nations after WW1.
Pograms against Jews in the Russian Empire until 1917
Polish anti-Semitic policies and legislation after re-creation of country after WW1.
In Germany emancipation of Jews in 1870.
I get the desire to see a multi-cultural multi-ethnic state in Palestine. But the history won't allow it; it is not going to happen. The anti-Semitic history of the world is not going to allow it.
I've not mentioned on this thread, but have previously on the Ship, that my father grew up between the two world wars in Berlin. 30% of all Jews in Germany lived in the city, and he told about the Jews his parents helped get out before they left as the Anshcuß occurred in 1938 (annexation of Austria), as well as his memories of the persecution- injured and dead Jews in the building where they lived. Hitler was a symptom of many centuries of anti-Semitic violence. What the Nazis did is a proximate cause for Israel to exist. It is not the ultimate cause. My father's first hand observations, and the discussions with my German cousins persuade me about the real politik involved.
I expect the Palestinians will have to accept parts of Palestine which Israel and the surrounding nations are willing to let it have, and then some hundred of billions in compensation over a lengthy period of time, via various methods. That's the reality.
And the train wreck of "Anshcuß" isn't doing you any favors, either.
A reality you consistently encourage and respond to attempts challenge it with allegations of anti-semitism. If western countries want to create a safe, Jews-only haven they can do so in their own territory. They (and Jewish people themselves) have a right to demand that Palestine be safe for Jews, they don't have a right to demand that this be achieved by preventing the locals returning to their homes and farms.
There is a fine line between anti-Semitism and Anti-Israel. I may place the line differently than you.
Again the reality is that no, the locals cannot return to lands within Israel's accepted borders (this is a difficult way of saying this: I'm not sure the borders - 1948, 1967?). They can probably get compensation. This is also the real politik of Canada, where we're finally, progressively, paying for the lands taken under treaty from the First Nations. It's a long road, and it'll take another 50 or 100 years to settle treaty land entitlement, resource sharing, compensation for illegally and illegitimately taken lands. It's also been abusive, neglectful and genocidal in Canada. Truth and Reconciliation will take decades.
Compare your "Everybody’s got a unique history." to "Black lives matter" and "all lives matter". One link to this, there are many.
There isn't really a fine line at all. Some people may be anti-Israel because they're anti-semitic, true, but being critical of Israel gets you accused of anti-semitism because it avoids supporters of Israel having the deal with the uncomfortable truth of Israel's behaviour.
Quite. Anti-Israeli sentiment does not become anti-Semitic if reaches a certain degree; it is anti-Semitic if it is motivated by dislike of Jews as Jews.
No but one may contest its relevance.
You are conflating your unique history with that of the Jews.
No, you didn't talk about personal experience. What tilted us was you trying to describe scrawling of swastikas on a Jewish building in Canada as the Worst Thing Ever.
Which it isn't.
And yes, I'm well aware that a lot of far worse things happen to Jews. But you seem to see persecution as some kind of contest, where you need to prove that Jews are at the top of the charts.
I've no idea why you feel this was necessary. Are Jews persecuted? Yes. Agreed. Let's move on.
Because comparing it other persecutions is completely unnecessary, unless you're trying to win some competition between Jewish troubles and Palestinian troubles in order to explain why Jewish interests trump Palestinian ones. Is that what you're doing? If so, is this because you cannot conceive of win/win solutions?