Ship of Fools: Apartheid: Did John Kerry choose the Wrong Word?

Thread: Apartheid: Did John Kerry choose the Wrong Word? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027332

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

American Secretary of State John Kerry used the word apartheid in reference to Israel. For politicL reasons, he has had to backpedal. But how was he wrong to use the word in the first place?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It's more politically correct than the truth, which is "occupation."

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Apartheid is a word that has been used to describe the situation in Palestine frequently. Kerry was certainly not original in his choice of the word.

Another word that has been used frequently is to describe the small areas where Palestinians have been enclosed as ghettoes.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Israel doesn't seem to understand that peace talks with your friends won't actually yield peace. You have to talk to your enemies.

I think one of the best examples of this is the Quebec separatist movement. In the 70s, they were full-on terrorists, with bombs and kidnappings and the rest. Then the separatist Parti Quebecois became the government. And then they lost not one, but TWO referenda on independence. And they just lost the last election, in which their main platform was another referendum on sovereignty. So what was once a terrorist movement necessitating the War Measures Act in peacetime is now just part of the political landscape. No bombs.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But how was he wrong to use the word in the first place?

Only politically. He spoke the truth, as far as any objective assessment of the situation goes.

Don't try telling that to an American conservative, however, you'll soon have charges of antisemitism leveled at you.

I'm sure Mudfrog will be along shortly to straighten us all out. [Biased]

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Don't try telling that to an American conservative, however, you'll soon have charges of antisemitism leveled at you.

I'm not an "American conservative," nor are the vast majority of my Jewish friends, who take severe umbrage at the "apartheid" label for the Jewish State--the only truly democratic state in the region.

For those who have a sincere desire to learn more, here is a document from the Jewish Federations of North America, which represents literally millions of American Jews (most of whom are "liberals" who vote Democrat): "Israel is Not an Apartheid State".

Yes, Kerry chose the wrong word!

[ 30. April 2014, 01:40: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

That is a cute paper, DT. But it doesn't speak to the way Palestinians have been treated. Israeli's swim in their water supply, they have limited travel, the land designated for them stolen by Israeli settlers, etc. I do no support the terrorist actions of some Palestinians. However, Israel has become increasingly hardline and increasingly makes living on the West Bank difficult.
Are there faults on both sides, yes. But it is far from equal.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is a cute paper, DT.

"Cute"?

I don't see how the label "cute" accurately applies to a document that makes a strong, substantive case against the "apartheid" slander.

I'm well-aware of the various abuses suffered by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza -- I get most of my information about it from Israeli sources!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The cute was sarcastic.
The paper starts by dwelling on the South African Apartheid and never addresses the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. Merely lopsided apologetics.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Don't try telling that to an American conservative, however, you'll soon have charges of antisemitism leveled at you.
I'm not an "American conservative," nor are the vast majority of my Jewish friends, who take severe umbrage at the "apartheid" label for the Jewish State--the only truly democratic state in the region.

For those who have a sincere desire to learn more, here is a document from the Jewish Federations of North America, which represents literally millions of American Jews (most of whom are "liberals" who vote Democrat): "Israel is Not an Apartheid State".

Yes, Kerry chose the wrong word!

Your friends take severe umbrage, do they? What do you suppose they take when they read Ha'aretz editorials like this one?

Apartheid in planning rights: Israel's discriminatory planning policy in the West Bank violates its most basic obligations

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Your friends take severe umbrage, do they? What do you suppose they take when they read Ha'aretz editorials like this one?....

What is this supposed to demonstrate? That, because some of the editors of Haaretz use the term, Jews are actually okay with it after all?

I don't have to "suppose" how my friends would respond to this editorial's use of "apartheid"--I'm quite sure that, while many would agree with the substance of the piece, they would challenge the use of "apartheid" in the title.

Now, while we're at it, feel free to name another Middle Eastern country where a a newspaper like Haaretz can freely publish an editorial like this one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

Now, while we're at it, feel free to name another Middle Eastern country where a a newspaper like Haaretz can freely publish an editorial like this one.

How is this relevant? Israel can do no wrong because it is more permissive than repressive kingdoms?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

Now, while we're at it, feel free to name another Middle Eastern country where a a newspaper like Haaretz can freely publish an editorial like this one.
How is this relevant? Israel can do no wrong because it is more permissive than repressive kingdoms?

This is typical of pro-Zionist argumentation. "Israel is a true democracy. Israel allows freedoms no Moosleem state does. Therefore everything Israel does is good and right and pure and honest and upright and true and virtuous. Amen."

That and, "How dare you criticize Israel. You're an antisemite with secret Nazi sympathies."

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Like a few other words (Nazi, the disappeared, gulag spring to mind); the word apartheid should never be used to describe anything else than South Africa.
To do so cheapens the original meaning and struggle.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

In fairness to Israel, I don't think life as an Israeli Arab is anything like as bad as life as a black South African in the apartheid era, so calling Israel an apartheid state is rather unfair. In particular, although Israel is a Jewish state, and non-Jews have a reasonable claim to consider themselves second-class, there is nothing like the kind of segregation that was present in apartheid-era South Africa or the American South.

The situation of Arabs in the territories occupied / conquered / whatever after then 1967 war is much more like apartheid. It is, more precisely, the relation between a military occupation and a subjugated people.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In fairness to Israel, I don't think life as an Israeli Arab is anything like as bad as life as a black South African in the apartheid era, so calling Israel an apartheid state is rather unfair.

The question isn't Israeli Arabs. It's the Arabs in the occupied territories, who are not Israelis.

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Like a few other words (Nazi, the disappeared, gulag spring to mind); the word apartheid should never be used to describe anything else than South Africa.
To do so cheapens the original meaning and struggle.

One of the chief warriors in the original struggle doesn't seem to think so.

[ 30. April 2014, 03:57: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

Now, while we're at it, feel free to name another Middle Eastern country where a a newspaper like Haaretz can freely publish an editorial like this one.
How is this relevant? Israel can do no wrong because it is more permissive than repressive kingdoms?

Go ahead, point out where I have claimed that "Israel can do no wrong".

Anyway... Israel is not just "more permissive." It's actually in a "different universe" than the brutal and corrupt regimes all around it (most of which, by the way, are not "kingdoms"), including the "PA" in the West Bank and the Hamas government in Gaza.

The relevance of this point is that the designation "apartheid state" is inapplicable to a genuine, pluralistic democracy, which is exactly what Israel is. That's one of the crucial points made by the document you dismissed as "cute."

Israel's democracy provides ample space for the kind of sharp challenge expressed by the Haaretz editorial. There are many Israelis (as well as Jews living outside of Israel) working very hard for peace and justice, in solidarity with Palestinians. Their efforts are not aided by people who demonize Israel.

Kerry knows he made a mistake in using the term "apartheid." Unfortunately, many of his "supporters" are supporting him the way a noose supports a hanging man.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One of the chief warriors in the original struggle doesn't seem to think so.

I have immense respect for Bishop Tutu. But, on this issue, he's wrong. Most great men have been mistaken about at least one important thing -- this is Tutu's "one important thing."

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The question isn't Israeli Arabs. It's the Arabs in the occupied territories, who are not Israelis.

Which, in the following paragraph, I describe as being a bit like apartheid, but a lot more like the relationship between a military occupier and a subjugated people. Which is what it is.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
The relevance of this point is that the designation "apartheid state" is inapplicable to a genuine, pluralistic democracy, which is exactly what Israel is.

And an occupying state in direct violation for decades of the Geneva conventions it signed. That keeps its subjugated detainees in aparteid-like apart-ness and enforces poverty and increasingly onerous travel restrictions on them. Such an enlightened democracy. So genuine.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is typical of pro-Zionist argumentation....

Who? Me? "Pro-Zionist"? [Eek!]

... Yes, "guilty" as charged. I support Zionism, because I support the natural right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.

Mousethief, thanks for making this point: Many (though, clearly, not all) of those who use the "apartheid" label for Israel do so as part of a larger campaign against Zionism -- against the legitimacy and survival of the Jewish State.

That's another reason why many Jews and their gentile friends are so opposed to the label.

Anyhow, for your listening pleasure....

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Anyhow, for your listening pleasure....

I can't respond to this overture in Purgatory.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Diplomats have been expelled and recalled for less. And rightly so. It's not about right or wrong, even appropriate or inappropriate - it's diplomacy.
John Kerry isn't you or me in a cafe and is held to a different standard (and paid handsomely for it).

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Your friends take severe umbrage, do they? What do you suppose they take when they read Ha'aretz editorials like this one?....
What is this supposed to demonstrate? That, because some of the editors of Haaretz use the term, Jews are actually okay with it after all?

No, it demonstrates that you seem silly taking vicarious offense at Kerry's statement when actual Israelis use it themselves. Here's another:

quote:
During her Eilat speech, [Justice Minister Tzipi] Livni said she was impressed that youth in the country protested against the government decision to export natural gas.

“I appreciate the fact that they care and are thinking about the future, and obligating us to think about the future,” she said. “But the time has come for the same youth to ask, to what kind of state do they want to leave the gas reserves? To a Jewish democratic Israel? Or to a binational Arab state? Or to an apartheid state?"

quote:
I don't have to "suppose" how my friends would respond to this editorial's use of "apartheid"--I'm quite sure that, while many would agree with the substance of the piece, they would challenge the use of "apartheid" in the title.

You being quite sure without asking is what "supposing" means in this context. You only get to say you don't "suppose" if you have actually questioned them. And I don't see why I (or anyone else) should be expected to care one way or another what your friends think of Kerry's statement that Israel risks becoming an apartheid state.

quote:
Now, while we're at it, feel free to name another Middle Eastern country where a a newspaper like Haaretz can freely publish an editorial like this one.

Oh, who the fuck cares! Is that the standard to which Israel is to be held? "Not as bad as Saudi Arabia!" People criticized apartheid in South Africa too, you know.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Anyhow, for your listening pleasure....
I can't respond to this overture in Purgatory.

Feel free to take it where you deem appropriate....
[Biased]

And, Dave W., it's well past my bedtime now.... Perhaps, tomorrow my time, after I've had a decent night's sleep, you will be more able to carry on something approximating a "reasonable" discussion about this ... rather than calling me "silly" and drop the f-bomb.

[ 30. April 2014, 05:03: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
[QB]
That's another reason why many Jews and their gentile friends are so opposed to the label.

No. They're opposed to it because it's too accurate, and they don't want to acknowledge how close Israel is to the behaviour of (its old ally, let's remember) apartheid South Africa.

Israel is only a democracy in the same way South Africa was - by limiting the franchise to a subset of the citizens of the areas it controls.

I support the right to self-determination. I support it for Palestinians as well as Israelis. I don't support the right to force people off their land and then use "self-determination" as an excuse to keep them out.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

No. They're opposed to it because it's too accurate, and they don't want to acknowledge how close Israel is to the behaviour of (its old ally, let's remember) apartheid South Africa.

It must be nice to have the gift of discerning people's real motivations! [Roll Eyes]

It's been "interesting" experiencing the "fully fury" of the Ship's Israel-bashers. I think I'll now leave room for some other poor dupe of the International Zionist Conspiracy to enjoy the pleasure.

[ 30. April 2014, 05:08: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
It must be nice to have the gift of discerning people's real motivations!

It's been "interesting" experiencing the "fully fury" of the Ship's Israel-bashers. I think I'll now leave room for some other poor dupe of the International Zionist Conspiracy to enjoy the pleasure.

Right. So the not-so-subtle insinuations that anyone who disagrees with what Israel is doing is anti-semitic and wants to drive Israel into the sea is ok but imputing motive to the apologism for Israeli actions is verbotten?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
It's been "interesting" experiencing the "fully fury" of the Ship's Israel-bashers. I think I'll now leave room for some other poor dupe of the International Zionist Conspiracy to enjoy the pleasure.

Clearly, to you, to criticize Israel is indistinguishable from bashing it. Anyway, I called you to Hell. This is all the courtesy notice you're going to get.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Anyhow, for your listening pleasure....
I can't respond to this overture in Purgatory.
Feel free to take it where you deem appropriate....

And, Dave W., it's well past my bedtime now.... Perhaps, tomorrow my time, after I've had a decent night's sleep, you will be more able to carry on something approximating a "reasonable" discussion about this ... rather than calling me "silly" and drop the f-bomb.

OK, so far we've got "apartheid", "silly", and "fuck"; are there any other words you can't abide to read in a thread about Israel?

I'd be interested to know, though - did you and all your outraged friends express your severe umbrage to the Israeli Justice Minister when she mentioned the risk of Israel becoming an apartheid state? Did you explain to her that to suggest such a thing was slanderous, demonizing, and anti-Zionist?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

There are many Israelis (as well as Jews living outside of Israel) working very hard for peace and justice, in solidarity with Palestinians. Their efforts are not aided by people who demonize Israel.

There were people in the UK and US who did not support the war in Iraq, does this mean that Iraq was not invaded by those powers?
How does pointing out the error of the state's policies affect those trying to change said policies? Turning a blind eye to the misdeeds of an ally might be politically expedient, but it does not encourage the ally to change their ways.

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I support Zionism, because I support the natural right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.

Ancestral homeland. Hmmm, what other group can claim that of the area in question? A group whose DNA reveals Jewish ancestors.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Who? Me? "Pro-Zionist"? ... Yes, "guilty" as charged. I support Zionism, because I support the natural right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.

AH, yes! Because the Brooklyn or St. Petersburg Jew whose ancestors haven't lived in the land for centuries have more right to live there than Arabs who were born there.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Kerry didn't actually say Israel currently is an apartheid state, only that it is at risk of becoming one. If a two-state solution doesn't come soon (and Netanyahu is doing all he can to prevent it), Israel will be faced with a choice between being a Jewish state or a democracy--it can't continue to be both.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Who? Me? "Pro-Zionist"? ... Yes, "guilty" as charged. I support Zionism, because I support the natural right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
AH, yes! Because the Brooklyn or St. Petersburg Jew whose ancestors haven't lived in the land for centuries have more right to live there than Arabs who were born there.

Ancestral homelands are somewhat overrated, IMHO.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Who? Me? "Pro-Zionist"? ... Yes, "guilty" as charged. I support Zionism, because I support the natural right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
AH, yes! Because the Brooklyn or St. Petersburg Jew whose ancestors haven't lived in the land for centuries have more right to live there than Arabs who were born there.
Ancestral homelands are somewhat overrated, IMHO.

I could perhaps be more sympathetic to the Zionist cause if we were talking only of a generation or two, but for the most part we're talking centuries. I can imagine how Palestinians feel: they were born there but Israeli soldiers speaking Russian or English making sure they aren't allowed to leave their ghetto.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Kerry didn't actually say Israel currently is an apartheid state, only that it is at risk of becoming one. If a two-state solution doesn't come soon (and Netanyahu is doing all he can to prevent it), Israel will be faced with a choice between being a Jewish state or a democracy--it can't continue to be both.

IMO, there are two potentially viable solutions in the region.

One is a return to the borders of Israel, with the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state that includes all the occupied territories, although including Gaza in a contiguous state will be difficult (it would need a strip of land running along the northern edge of Sinai and up the border with Jordan).

The second potential solution is the creation of a single state including Israel and the occupied territories, with all citizens equal and enfranchised. It would require Israel to no longer be a Jewish state - though a secular state with a particular recognition for the Jewish faith (possibly modelled on England with the 'established' CofE, or Scotland and Wales where the CofS and CinW are not established but still seen as some form of national church) may work.

A "solution" which involves creating a Palestinian state which is not contiguous (as far as possible), or contiguous only through very narrow road corridors, would look very much like establishing Bantustans. But, maybe we can't use that word either.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Israel is not a true democracy in that true democracies do not deny full property and other human rights to significant sections of their populations.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Israel is not a true democracy in that true democracies do not deny full property and other human rights to significant sections of their populations.

Israel is cunning in not considering the Left Bank and Gaza residents to be "their" population for all purposes. Maybe apartheid is the wrong term, but only because Afrikaans isn't used much in the Middle East.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I could perhaps be more sympathetic to the Zionist cause if we were talking only of a generation or two, but for the most part we're talking centuries. I can imagine how Palestinians feel: they were born there but Israeli soldiers speaking Russian or English making sure they aren't allowed to leave their ghetto.

My feelings are similar. As I understand it, there are on the other hand still Palestinians who were alive and owned homes in places like eastern Jerusalem that they were forced from. They can still point to a property and say 'that was MY house' without any resort to ancestry.

It is one thing to say that you feel a connection to your ancestral homeland. It is quite another to say that this somehow entitles you to ignore the ordinary property rights of others to their SPECIFIC land. I think that's the thing that bugs me most about the 'homeland' kind of rhetoric - it's a prior claim, but it's also usually a very vague one, and I don't think it can legitimately be used to turf someone out from a specific piece of property that they hold title deeds for.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
the only truly democratic state in the region. [/QB]

So Palestinians are allowed to vote in the Knesset, are they?

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Apartheid is as apartheid acts. It took me many years of painful reflection to admit that Israel and apartheid South Africa had many similarities. This was an especially painful revelation because much of my academic work had been in modern Jewish history.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
the only truly democratic state in the region.
So Palestinians are allowed to vote in the Knesset, are they? [/QB]

No. Because they're not citizens of Israel. They're residents of territories occupied by the State of Israel -- for reasons Israel's critics like to ignore.

But all citizens of the State of Israel itself -- regardless of religion or ethnicity -- have full voting rights. They can even vote for politicians who express a desire to dismantle the State, and those politicians get seated in the Knesset. You might want to read for example, about HADASH, Israel's Communist "front" party.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

OK, if Israel is a "truly democratic state" by what right does it continue to occupy the sovereign territory of another state? I can see how a nation may need to invade another for issues of security, as a matter of last resort. But, why still be there 40 years later? Why let civilians settle there? What is gained? How does it demonstrate the benefits of a democracy by removing the democratic rights of another nation? It makes as much sense as trying to impose democracy on another nation whether the people want it or not.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
the only truly democratic state in the region.
So Palestinians are allowed to vote in the Knesset, are they?
No. Because they're not citizens of Israel. They're residents of territories occupied by the State of Israel -- for reasons Israel's critics like to ignore.[/QB]

I won't ignore it. I'll come right out and say it: because if they annexed the territories, Israel would either cease to be a democracy, or cease to be a Jewish state.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
the only truly democratic state in the region.
So Palestinians are allowed to vote in the Knesset, are they?
No. Because they're not citizens of Israel. They're residents of territories occupied by the State of Israel -- for reasons Israel's critics like to ignore.

Which would make the vast majority of the settlements in those areas illegal (which in point of law they are).

Given that Israel has at various times either collected or withheld taxes collected in these areas, I've always thought an interesting counter factual would be a world in which the Palestinians pushed the 'no taxation without representation' line.

[ 30. April 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Kerry didn't actually say Israel currently is an apartheid state, only that it is at risk of becoming one. If a two-state solution doesn't come soon (and Netanyahu is doing all he can to prevent it), Israel will be faced with a choice between being a Jewish state or a democracy--it can't continue to be both.

Quite. Sooner or later the options will be bi-nationalism or apartheid unless a two state deal is thrashed out in the not too distant future. It's actually a discussion that has been pretty ongoing among Israelis for some time, as opposed to the US and the UK where the only options seem to be either BDS or uncritical support for the Likud Party.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
]Who? Me? "Pro-Zionist"? ... Yes, "guilty" as charged. I support Zionism, because I support the natural right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.

Does that right supplant Arabs who have been living in the region for centuries.

What is a "natural right"? Plenty of Americans have European heritage in their ancestry. Does that mean that Americans have a right to European property by virtue of their ethnicity?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
the only truly democratic state in the region.
So Palestinians are allowed to vote in the Knesset, are they?
No. Because they're not citizens of Israel. They're residents of territories occupied by the State of Israel -- for reasons Israel's critics like to ignore.

So you argue semantics, not substance? Nice.

[ 30. April 2014, 14:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Sorry. Semantics is not the proper word for this quote. It is for your other argument. Technicalities.

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

Did John Kerry choose the wrong word? Probably, since instead of discussing how to achieve peace, he's instead discussing proper labels.

There's been plenty of criticism of Israel in the past few decades, and it is unlikely to stop in the immediate future. John Kerry adding a few emotionally charged categorizations on top of that isn't likely to change much. However, it can quite possibly make it a little harder for him to broker a peace deal.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

If Israel had first-past-the-post or another electoral system that required candidates to appeal to a broad spectrum of society rather than ideological, ethnic, or religious factions such as they do in the current proportional representation system, it would be easier for a Likud or Labor prime minister to negotiate a peace deal since their hands would not be tied by Ultra-Orthodox or Religious Zionist parties that they would need the support of to build a coalition.

If Fatah and Hamas can really bury their hatchets, even if that means that Israel backs off from peace negotiations, steps up the settlement building, and even withholds the Palestinian tax revenue it collects, it may be better for the peace process in the end. Hamas is armed in order to fight Fatah as much as it is armed to fight Israel. Maybe Hamas might lose some of its extremist and be a more palatable partner in negotiations to Israel if it is included in the governance of all Palestine. No indications that this is happening yet, though. But letting Hamas rule in Gaza while holding negotiations with Abbas as if all Palestinians will just go along with any Peace deal is not realistic.

Yes, Hamas needs to recognize Israel's right to exist before anything else.

As for the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition for final status negotiations, care to discuss what this means? Does a Jewish state mean that the majority of citizens must be Jewish, the majority of legislators must be Jewish, national symbols must be Jewish, the prime minister must be Jewish, and Jewish religion must be "established" by the government in some way? If so, I can understand Palestinian hesitancy. But if a "Jewish state" just means a homeland for the Jews of the world - but that Palestinian citizens of Israel are equally "home" in Israel and equally represented by all national institutions (note that this would require some changes from the present situation), then I'm fine. A just "Jewish state" means that the birth rate of Palestinian citizens of Israel is not a threat. Will Netanyahu recognize that?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Stonespring,

The Jewish state concept is jarring to Palestinians because it justifies the unrestricted right of return for any Jew living on the planet to come to settle and become citizens of Israel.

All this while Israel scoffs at the right of return of Palestinian refugees, who were displaced from their homes, which many of their families lived in for centuries, during the 48 and 67 Wars.

It pains me that some Jews believe that their historic experience of subjugation and marginalization results not, in solidarity and empathy with the marginalized, in this case, the Palestinians, but in giving the State of Israel a blank check in doing whatever the hell it wants, especially when it comes to mistreating the Palestinians.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
the only truly democratic state in the region.
So Palestinians are allowed to vote in the Knesset, are they?
No. Because they're not citizens of Israel. They're residents of territories occupied by the State of Israel -- for reasons Israel's critics like to ignore.

Democracy means having some sort of a say over who governs you. The Palestinians do not have that. You may argue that it is justifiable - as many Middle Eastern countries argue their repressive measures are necessary because of "security" - but it is not democratic.

[ 30. April 2014, 18:57: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Stonespring,

The Jewish state concept is jarring to Palestinians because it justifies the unrestricted right of return for any Jew living on the planet to come to settle and become citizens of Israel.

All this while Israel scoffs at the right of return of Palestinian refugees, who were displaced from their homes, which many of their families lived in for centuries, during the 48 and 67 Wars.

It pains me that some Jews believe that their historic experience of subjugation and marginalization results not, in solidarity and empathy with the marginalized, in this case, the Palestinians, but in giving the State of Israel a blank check in doing whatever the hell it wants, especially when it comes to mistreating the Palestinians.

I'll assume that the majority of Palestinians who fled or were forced out in the 1948 and 67 wars were people whose families were in Palestine for generations, but it is worth bearing in mind that there was a significant amount of Arab immigration to Palestine as the area began to develop economically in the early 20th century.

The Palestinian right of return and the Jewish Law of Return are not equivalent things. One is seeking to right the wrong of displacement (often violent) from one or two events in recent history. The other is trying to give a homeland to a people who have suffered alienation and hatred for 2000 years. I do not think Palestine is ordained by God to be the location of the modern Jewish homeland, but now that there is a state there that offers a homeland for Jews I think that it the Law of Return is perfectly reasonable and laudable. The Jews who make aliyah are not people who have been displaced from Palestine. They are merely seeking a land where Antisemitism is by design not part of the equation and where Jews will always be home.

Talking about a Palestinian right of return is like talking about the right of Muslims in Pakistan to return to homes they were forced out of in India and of Hindus in India to return to homes they were forced out of in Pakistan. A sense of justice would make most think that it should be granted, but this many decades later, and in a much smaller geographical area, it does not seem feasible. Cuban exiles in Miami should also expect that they will never be able to reclaim the property seized by the government in the Cuban revolution, whether or not it was taken fairly (my family is half Cuban and I'm familiar with the intransigence of the Cuban exile community. They are lucky to not be living in refugee camps, though.)

How many countries have offered to let the Palestinians remaining in refugee camps immigrate permanently?

Any two state solution needs to take into account that, if there is no Palestinian right of return to Israel, the Palestinian state needs to have the land, natural resources, and defensibility (just like Israel talks about having settlements so borders are defensible) to be able to house all Palestinian refugees in addition to the current population of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. That will require a significant reimagining of the status quo.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The Israelis could care less what their detractors in the US or Europe think of what they are doing. The holocaust has everything to do with it. Holocaust happened in Europe. The US watched it happen and made little effort to put an end to it. The Israelis will do what they think they have to do to preserve their nation and their identity. Arab nations can talk all they want about driving Israel into the sea but before that happens Arabs will die in the millions. Israel has those nuclear weapons for a reason.

Life for Palestinian in the occupied territory isn't any different than it is for Christians in many predominantly Muslim nations. You can say that's irrelevant all you want. You can say you don't have to condemn life in Muslim nations to condemn Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Say whatever you want. You aren't a Jew living in Israel after a centuries of being persecuted and killed in some of the same nations that are criticizing you while going out of their way not to say anything too offensive about how Muslim nations treat religious minorities.

There isn't a snowballs chance in Hell John Kerry was ever going to broker a peace deal between the Palestinians and Israelis. John Kerry accomplished very little while in the Senate. Bill Clinton couldn't and he has more political ability in the fingernail on his left pinky finger than John Kerry has in his entire body. What's the point in trying to work out a peace deal with the Palestinians in the West Bank? The Palestinians need to work out their own peace deal between the West Bank and Gaza.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

Yes, Hamas needs to recognize Israel's right to exist before anything else.

And where did this proclamation come from? Recognizing Israel did not do any thing of value for the West Bank. So you envision an improved situation where Hamas recognizes Israel and Israel continues to build settlements on Palestinian land? Thanks for your priorities but that's a dream given the mistrust. A lot of things are going to have to be negotiated to happen simultaneously if anything is going to succeed. Changes of the latter are very small.

Also, the U.S. should stop pretending to be an "honest broker". They're clearly an ally of Israel and continue to fund the development of more settlements.

As for your argument that Israel has the right of return because of 2000 years of oppression and the Palestinians don't get one because it's only been a hundred years, this seem a very dubious argument. Some of those Palestinians have a similar heritage; they were expelled from Spain during the Reconquista and ended up in the Levant and eventually Palestine. Is 1200 years of persecution insufficient and can be ignored as impractical where 2000 years of persecution is the magic number where the argument works?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Israelis will do what they think they have to do to preserve their nation and their identity.

They do what they think they can get away with. Their treatment of the Palestinians puts pressure on Israeli safety, not secures it.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Life for Palestinian in the occupied territory isn't any different than it is for Christians in many predominantly Muslim nations. You can say that's irrelevant all you want.

It is different. The Muslim nations do not claim to be democracies. Not saying this justifies the treatment or that our countries are not hypocrites for looking the other way for those abuses. But it is different.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

You aren't a Jew living in Israel after a centuries of being persecuted

Neither are many of them. Many of the kibbutz taking over Palestinian territory are filled with Americans.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Israel will do whatever Washington will let them do until Israel feels Washington has abandoned them. Then, Israel will do what it takes to survive. Hamas all but guarantees Washington will allow the Israelis latitude. Hamas treats breaks in violence as an opportunity to rearm. The Second Intifada happened when Ehud Barack was PM. Seems just as likely that any push for peace on Israel's part will be treated as weakness by the Palestinians who will only push harder.

Now if Israel stops calling itself a democracy will your outrage evaporate. Israel only allows citizens to vote. All democracies do the same. Palestinians aren't citizens of Israel. Only thing more difficult than a one state solution is a two state solution.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Perhaps no one should be surprised, but it seems that "Israel and the apartheid analogy" has its own Wikipedia page - according to which at least three Israeli prime ministers (or future/former PMs) have used it to warn their country of future risks.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Israel will do whatever Washington will let them do until Israel feels Washington has abandoned them. Then, Israel will do what it takes to survive. Hamas all but guarantees Washington will allow the Israelis latitude. Hamas treats breaks in violence as an opportunity to rearm. The Second Intifada happened when Ehud Barack was PM.

Somewhat ironic, as it seems Hamas is at least to some extent a rod the Israelis made for their own backs...

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

By supporting the Palestinian side they thought would give them a better shot at peace? Israel was obviously wrong. However if supporting Palestinians that want peace is wrong then a peace deal will never be reached.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
By supporting the Palestinian side they thought would give them a better shot at peace? Israel was obviously wrong. However if supporting Palestinians that want peace is wrong then a peace deal will never be reached.

Did you read the same article I did?
Israel thought by supporting one group, that group would weaken the other and be grateful for the support.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Yeah, the Israelis supported the side they thought would give them peace.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

"Sure, let's encourage the religious fanatics to keep our enemy divided and weak! What could possibly go wrong?"

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

We here in Israel-Plaestine so need your passion about what happens here, your discussions of our situation and, after so much of that, your prayers at night. Where would we be but for them?
It is so strengthening to know how involved the world are with us when why should they care, really care, as all the above posts show.
Like in most countries too many of our politicians are egoistic idiots and glued their seats. Too many of our people are not looking hopefully at our situation. By hopefully I mean to a fine and sustainable future.
Like most countries our "news" is sometimes anything but and even outright lies, deceptions and ommitences. We need your media (even the Guardian on-line in my case!) to stay half-way informed.

The spring wild-flowers are over - again; The Region is turning golden-dry - again; the wheat is harvested - again; the olives are flowering - again; the peace talks have failed - again.

Please keep caring, keep watching, keep dicussing and keep praying.
And keep in mind how "stuck" we all are - in politics, ideology or post-trauma - that we are just digging ourselves deeper into this by our actions and reactions and more often our failure to act or react. Individually and as societies.

Have mercy on us.
Shalom. Salaam. Peace.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I'm sorry, but there is something fundamentally fallacious about using the concept of "a people who have suffered alienation and hatred for 2000 years" to justify such a degree of special treatment for individual members of that people (itself a bit questionable because Judaism is a religion, not a DNA marker).

It is even more fallacious to talk about "a Jew living in Israel after a centuries of being persecuted and killed". No person living in Israel has experienced centuries of being persecuted and killed. Some of them have experienced persecution. By definition, none of them have experienced being killed.

It's reminiscent of some of the talk on the slavery reparations thread that I had the same problems with. It's not based on current need and disadvantage, it's based on some kind of past history that might not actually have a connection with current circumstances.

Being the descendant of an oppressed person is not a licence to become an oppressor now, as if there was some kind of inter-generational karma at work. It just isn't.

If it were, I'd be able to take some kind of revenge on the English upper classes for (probably) sending some of my Irish ancestors halfway around the world on a trivial criminal conviction. Such a notion is ridiculous.

[ 01. May 2014, 03:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No person living in Israel has experienced centuries of being persecuted

That is not how persecution works. Persecute a group long enough and it changes the psyche. However not all the Jews in Israel have the same experience. And they now have control in a way most formally persecuted groups do not.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Being the descendant of an oppressed person is not a licence to become an oppressor now, as if there was some kind of inter-generational karma at work. It just isn't.

Totally with you on this.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Doesn't really matter if the West likes it or not. The Jews have been the scapegoats of Europeans for centuries. Now they have become the scapegoat for Muslim nations. I imagine they see being hated as inevitable. What they aren't going to do is sit passively by and let something akin to a pogrom or the holocaust happen again. Palestinians kill the Israelis. The Israelis kill more of them and make it harder for them to do it next time. The pattern isn't going to stop anytime soon. The opinion of the UN is worth even less. The Israelis don't believe for a second the UN is impartial. I don't blame them. As long as Israel has support in the U.S., the UN is irrelevant.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What they [Jews] aren't going to do is sit passively by and let something akin to a pogrom or the holocaust happen again.

You probably need to add a "to them" in there.

Because some Jews (though by no means all, of course) seem to be perfectly happen to allow people to be forcibly removed from their homes, herded into small densely populated enclaves unable to travel outwith those enclaves even to visit relatives or attend school or hospital, and other human rights abuses that were common in the pogroms of Russia and in the Third Reich which ended in the Holocaust.

Why do I say some Jews seem perfectly happy with this? Because these atrocities are being enacted by Jews, in areas seized violently by the state of Israel and under control of the Israeli government, to provide housing for Jews.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No person living in Israel has experienced centuries of being persecuted
That is not how persecution works. Persecute a group long enough and it changes the psyche. However not all the Jews in Israel have the same experience. And they now have control in a way most formally persecuted groups do not.

I am comfortable with both of your nuances on my original statement.

As much as anything, what I'm trying to say is that the history of Jewish people shouldn't be used as some kind of standing justification for everything. It may well justify some things. But it shouldn't be a piece of free-standing rhetoric that can be used by all adherents to Judaism, everywhere, in all circumstances.

So often, in so many areas (ranging all the way to my own legal drafting work), the original rationale or justification for something made perfect sense, but it isn't reexamined when circumstances change or it's ported uncritically into different scenarios. I can well understand some of the drivers for the original creation of modern Israel. It just doesn't follow that anything and everything done in the name of the furtherance of the state of Israel is given legitimacy as a result.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Holocaust happened in Europe. The US watched it happen and made little effort to put an end to it.

Bollocks. I think that you will find that contiguous to the holocaust was this little thing that we call "The Second World War" which, among other things, involved large numbers of American Service Personnel invading Normandy and marching all the way to Berlin killing as many Nazis as they could along the way. One's mileage may, of course, vary but a fairly good way of ending genocide is to overthrow the genocidal regime and stop the genocide programme. Which is pretty much what the allies did in the first half of the 1940s. There are all sorts of allegations that can be levelled against the US Government but "soft on the Third Reich" is not really one of them.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As long as Israel has support in the U.S., the UN is irrelevant.

Which of course is why there was such a reaction to Kerry's comments.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

[response to Gildas, orfeo snuck a post in between]

Although in the period 1936-39 Britain, France, the US and more or less everyone else did practically nothing to try and stem the increasing mistreatment of Jews, gypsies and others in the Third Reich. Granted, those weren't the full horrors of the Holocaust, but definitely precursors to it.

Even in 1939-41 and a bit further the concerns were more to stop militaristic expansion of the Reich rather than help the Jewish population of the Reich. But by then the only steps that could be taken would require an invasion of Germany, which made prevention of the Holocaust practically impossible.

[ 01. May 2014, 11:26: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

According to Israel's supporters, anti-Semitism seems to be more akin to a disease that is always present lurking in the background and Israel's entire policies should be based on that end.

Anti-Semitism, like all forms of prejudice, are dealt with through education and dispelling stereotypes and misinformation.

But having policies based on fear and panic is not a good idea. And of course, Israel uses the specter of another Holocaust to hide its own motives.

Israel is like other countries. It simply wants the land, the water, and wants them for their own people (i.e. Jewish citizens of Israel). It might be stunning for Israel's supporters to discover that the Israelis are in fact, human, and so have the usual mix of good and bad that we all have. It is not anti-Semitic to point out that Israelis, like all people , can fall prey to the all too human emotions of selfishness, greed, and self-centredness.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Is that a correct phrase? That Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens? That seems creepy to me, if it's true. I think theocratic states are a bizarre fantasy.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is that a correct phrase? That Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens? That seems creepy to me, if it's true. I think theocratic states are a bizarre fantasy.

How is that different from, say, France wanting land and water for its French citizens? Beyond the fact, obviously, that French territory isn't contested any more. So the territory of Israel is contested and Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens and the Palestinians want land and water for themselves. Is there any reason that Jews holding land and water is more intrinsically creepy than Palestinians doing the same thing? Or is there any reason that the secular democratic state of Israel is more intrinsically theocratic than the Hamas regime which prevails in the Gaza Strip? Do Tell?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is that a correct phrase? That Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens? That seems creepy to me, if it's true. I think theocratic states are a bizarre fantasy.
How is that different from, say, France wanting land and water for its French citizens? Beyond the fact, obviously, that French territory isn't contested any more. So the territory of Israel is contested and Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens and the Palestinians want land and water for themselves. Is there any reason that Jews holding land and water is more intrinsically creepy than Palestinians doing the same thing? Or is there any reason that the secular democratic state of Israel is more intrinsically theocratic than the Hamas regime which prevails in the Gaza Strip? Do Tell?

Well, France is a secular state, so nominally, at any rate, it does not keep land and water for its Christian citizens only.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is that a correct phrase? That Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens? That seems creepy to me, if it's true. I think theocratic states are a bizarre fantasy.
How is that different from, say, France wanting land and water for its French citizens? Beyond the fact, obviously, that French territory isn't contested any more. So the territory of Israel is contested and Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens and the Palestinians want land and water for themselves. Is there any reason that Jews holding land and water is more intrinsically creepy than Palestinians doing the same thing? Or is there any reason that the secular democratic state of Israel is more intrinsically theocratic than the Hamas regime which prevails in the Gaza Strip? Do Tell?
Well, France is a secular state, so nominally, at any rate, it does not keep land and water for its Christian citizens only.

If you'd like to answer the question I asked, knock yerself out.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you'd like to answer the question I asked, knock yerself out.

You asked what was the difference between 'France wants land and water for its French citizens' and 'Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens'. The obvious difference is that the equivalent of 'French citizen' is 'Israeli citizen', and the equivalent of 'Jewish citizen' is either 'atheist citizen of Roman Catholic background' or 'white gentile citizen'. (depending on whether you take Jewish as a racial or a religious designator).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you'd like to answer the question I asked, knock yerself out.

France isn't gathering non-French people, shoving them into a designated area, denying them freedom, water and food, letting French citizens abuse them....

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I have no hope that peace will ever be found there, ever. I just see unending violence. So where will that lead? Will Israel ever stop expanding into the West Bank? Will Israel keep expanding until Palestine, like Tibet, has vanished from the map? Will there be some point at which all-out explicit war happens again -- and will the Arab states join that war? Will the U.S. join it? (Perhaps what's happening now should be called war.). And on the other side of the ledger: will other states ever admit the Palestinians in the refugee camps as citizens and allow them to make a life in their countries outside of the camps?

(That last question leaves me with a strange and awful feeling, because after I wrote it, meaning simply "the refugee camps" by the phrase "the camps, I realized that "the camps" connotes one thing only to me -- the Nazi concentration camps -- and I am unsure if this is revealing something about the refugee camps, or whether it is just a coincidental fact of words that "the camps" could be used both of concentration camps and refugee camps.)

[ 01. May 2014, 14:04: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
(That last question leaves me with a strange and awful feeling, because after I wrote it, meaning simply "the refugee camps" by the phrase "the camps, I realized that "the camps" connotes one thing only to me -- the Nazi concentration camps -- and I am unsure if this is revealing something about the refugee camps, or whether it is just a coincidental fact of words that "the camps" could be used both of concentration camps and refugee camps.)

I don't think either of your alternatives is quite true. A 'camp' is essentially a place that is supposed to be a temporary abode, not a permanent one. It's not coincidental because both kinds of camps share that feature. But that doesn't mean that the two kinds of camps share all features in common.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I have no hope that peace will ever be found there, ever. I just see unending violence. So where will that lead? Will Israel ever stop expanding into the West Bank? Will Israel keep expanding until Palestine, like Tibet, has vanished from the map? Will there be some point at which all-out explicit war happens again -- and will the Arab states join that war? Will the U.S. join it? (Perhaps what's happening now should be called war.). And on the other side of the ledger: will other states ever admit the Palestinians in the refugee camps as citizens and allow them to make a life in their countries outside of the camps?

(That last question leaves me with a strange and awful feeling, because after I wrote it, meaning simply "the refugee camps" by the phrase "the camps, I realized that "the camps" connotes one thing only to me -- the Nazi concentration camps -- and I am unsure if this is revealing something about the refugee camps, or whether it is just a coincidental fact of words that "the camps" could be used both of concentration camps and refugee camps.)

I just assume now that Israel has won, and that the Palestinians will never achieve nationhood. Presumably, many politicians also believe this, although they go through the motions of the peace process. As to what happens to the Palestinians, I suppose a mixture of emigration and refugee status; they wouldn't be the first people to whom this has happened.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is that a correct phrase? That Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens? That seems creepy to me, if it's true. I think theocratic states are a bizarre fantasy.
How is that different from, say, France wanting land and water for its French citizens? Beyond the fact, obviously, that French territory isn't contested any more. So the territory of Israel is contested and Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens and the Palestinians want land and water for themselves. Is there any reason that Jews holding land and water is more intrinsically creepy than Palestinians doing the same thing? Or is there any reason that the secular democratic state of Israel is more intrinsically theocratic than the Hamas regime which prevails in the Gaza Strip? Do Tell?
Well, France is a secular state, so nominally, at any rate, it does not keep land and water for its Christian citizens only.
If you'd like to answer the question I asked, knock yerself out.

I thought I did. A secular state such as France, does not (nominally at any rate), privilege any group according to religion or ethnic background; a theocratic state does. Hence, I asked my initial question about Israel wanting land and water specifically for Jewish citizens, as this to me indicates a theocracy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you'd like to answer the question I asked, knock yerself out.
I thought I did. A secular state such as France, does not (nominally at any rate), privilege any group according to religion or ethnic background; a theocratic state does. Hence, I asked my initial question about Israel wanting land and water specifically for Jewish citizens, as this to me indicates a theocracy.

The proper answer is "Thank you for showing me the way! Israel may never be questioned. Israel's human rights abuse are completely acceptable."
Silly man.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you'd like to answer the question I asked, knock yerself out.
I thought I did. A secular state such as France, does not (nominally at any rate), privilege any group according to religion or ethnic background; a theocratic state does. Hence, I asked my initial question about Israel wanting land and water specifically for Jewish citizens, as this to me indicates a theocracy.
The proper answer is "Thank you for showing me the way! Israel may never be questioned. Israel's human rights abuse are completely acceptable."
Silly man.

Well, thank you for showing me how to thank others for showing me the way. After all, Israel has managed the feat of defying logic - it's a secular state which privileges Jewish people. I have seen square circles with my own eyes, and now I've seen theocratic secularism - and it's thrilling beyond measure!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

See! Once you let go of reality, life becomes simpler.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Shantih, shantih, shantih!

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is that a correct phrase? That Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens? That seems creepy to me, if it's true. I think theocratic states are a bizarre fantasy.
How is that different from, say, France wanting land and water for its French citizens? Beyond the fact, obviously, that French territory isn't contested any more. So the territory of Israel is contested and Israel wants land and water for its Jewish citizens and the Palestinians want land and water for themselves. Is there any reason that Jews holding land and water is more intrinsically creepy than Palestinians doing the same thing? Or is there any reason that the secular democratic state of Israel is more intrinsically theocratic than the Hamas regime which prevails in the Gaza Strip? Do Tell?
Well, France is a secular state, so nominally, at any rate, it does not keep land and water for its Christian citizens only.
If you'd like to answer the question I asked, knock yerself out.
I thought I did. A secular state such as France, does not (nominally at any rate), privilege any group according to religion or ethnic background; a theocratic state does. Hence, I asked my initial question about Israel wanting land and water specifically for Jewish citizens, as this to me indicates a theocracy.

Rather boringly Israel was set up as a Jewish homeland. There are all sorts of interesting ethical problems raised by this but I can see why a Jewish person, circa 1948, may not have been overly fastidious. So Israel seeks to hold and control land and water on behalf of its Jewish-Israeli citizens and also it's Arab-Israeli citizens (as Dafyd indicated) just as France seeks to hold land and water on behalf of its ethnically and civically French citizens. The thing is that Israel behaves like pretty much every other state with the caveat that it was born in unprepossessing circumstances in 1948 and that most of its neighbours have, for most of its history, wanted to annihilate it as a political entity.

The term theocracy indicates a regime which claims to govern on behalf of the Almighty according to His laws. In the event that the "Everyone Must Obey The Torah Already" party sweep to power in a general election then it will be applicable to call Israel a theocracy. The fact that Israel privileges its own citizens over the interests of other people is doubtless deplorable but cannot really be called theocratic, unless one is also committed to claiming that Nigel Farage is the English version of the Ayatollah Khomeni. Which strikes me as being rather unkind to the late Ayatollah.

The thing about the Arab-Israeli conflict is that it is dead straightforward if you ignore the claims of one party to any kind of justice and emphasise the claims of your own lot. The thing is, even if genocide were not profoundly morally wrong, the desires and hopes and aspirations of Israeli and Palestinian, Jew, Muslim and Christian are going to have to be taken into account if there is ever going to be peace in that troubled land.

If I have to take sides then Israel is the one place left in the Middle East, not vexed by Muslim fundamentalism and in which Christians can live in some kind of peace. But there ought to be a better choice than reluctantly endorsing Greater Israel chauvinism as the lesser of two evils.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

France is hardly the poster child of how to deal with internal conflict, but they are hardly the same.
Like of not, apartheid is the closet competitor.

[ 01. May 2014, 16:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

As I said before I have no qualms with Israel being a Jewish state, which I interpret to mean that any Jew anywhere will always be welcome to immigrate. What is morally troubling is the idea that the birthrate of Arab citizens of Israel is a threat, that maintaining a Jewish majority population has to be a matter of government policy, and that it is assumed that the prime minister, national symbols, etc., will always be Jewish and - especially - that there will be an incorporation of Jewish religious clergy and laws into the government.

No European state could expect the court of world opinion to approve of a policy designed to maintain a white Christian majority in its borders. Even European countries with state churches and Christian symbols in government do not let The established Church define who is legally a Christian and how Christians can legally marry. And Israel does not even try to argue, as some European conservatives do with respect to Christian symbols' use by their governments, that the Jewish official symbols of Israel can be said because of a non-religious, non-racial historical and cultural significance, to belong equally to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. World War II was supposed to be the bloodletting that purged Western Europe and North America of the idea that racial heritage or religion made any group more aligned with the purposes if a state than others something that the mainstream agrees had to be done away with. Israel is not in Western Europe - and that is where a whole lot of complication comes in. But as many countries may still have official policies of creedalism or racialism, the mainstream I would hope would have to believe that such things are wrong with no exceptions no matter how emotionally compelling given the Holocaust. That said, I do support Israel being a Jewish state insomuch as it is a home for any Jew anywhere to immigrate to.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The fact that Israel privileges its own citizens over the interests of other people is doubtless deplorable but cannot really be called theocratic, unless one is also committed to claiming that Nigel Farage is the English version of the Ayatollah Khomeni. Which strikes me as being rather unkind to the late Ayatollah.

The problem is that this is inaccurate. Israel does not merely privilege its own citizens. It privileges its own JEWISH citizens. Non-Jewish Israeli citizens are de facto second class citizens. And that's even before you consider the limbo that the Palestinian non-Israelis are in.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Strictly speaking Israeli Arabs are not treated in the same way as Israeli Jews. However the distinction between them is not the same as the distinction between whites and blacks under Apartheid.

Clearly there is a difference between Israeli citizens and non-Israeli Palestinians, and at this juncture the A-word begins to become applicable.

However in neither instance is the phrase 'theocracy' applicable inasmuch as the distinction between Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians is not laid down in Rabbinical legislation.

It is possible to disagree with the development of the state of Israel since 1948 without chucking around terms that are only doubtfully understood.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

So, then, what term would be acceptable to you? Oppression? persecution, subjugation, domination, am I getting warm?

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Well, not theocracy.

There are lots of harsh things that can, quite properly, be said about the state of Israel, but I do think this whole "what is this accuracy thang of which ye speak" kicks in one is entitled to wonder about whether the Israelis might have been well advised to convert, en masse, to Gentilism.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Ethnic cleansing, maybe.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ethnic cleansing, maybe.

Being worried about the Palestinian birthrate has a wonderful resonance with a Genesis story set in Egypt...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

He has a bit of a habit of interfering in Europe.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Well, not theocracy.

There are lots of harsh things that can, quite properly, be said about the state of Israel, but I do think this whole "what is this accuracy thang of which ye speak" kicks in one is entitled to wonder about whether the Israelis might have been well advised to convert, en masse, to Gentilism.

Indeed. My understanding is that one of the more significant sources of Jewish opposition to the state of Israel comes from Orthodox Jews who regard the modern Israel as a purely secular endeavour which has hijacked what ought to be the essentially religious character of the land of Israel.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

I still find some comfort now and then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU278yFdvgQ&feature=kp

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gildas: If I have to take sides then Israel is the one place left in the Middle East [...] in which Christians can live in some kind of peace.

I just wanted to remark that around 9% of Palestinians are Christians, and that they often suffer the same kind of oppression from the Israeli state as Muslim Palestinians.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Gildas: If I have to take sides then Israel is the one place left in the Middle East [...] in which Christians can live in some kind of peace.
I just wanted to remark that around 9% of Palestinians are Christians, and that they often suffer the same kind of oppression from the Israeli state as Muslim Palestinians.

Indeed. And it must also be pointed out that the fate of Christians in the Middle-East in general is mostly due to Western interventionism.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

True, the crusades really did undermine interfaith relationships.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I was thinking more recently, but nevermind....

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Yeah, before the Crusades, Muslims minded their own business and never once invaded a Christian land. They were a peaceful bunch that never raised a sword to anybody other than in self defense. They certainly didn't spend 1100 years trying to conquer Christian Europe. [Roll Eyes]

And Middle Eastern nations only recently started mistreating Christians. Yeah that's the ticket. Just ask the Armenians among others. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I was actually thinking about places like Syria or Iraq. The Christians there lived in relative peace until it was decided regime change must take place. Now Islamic miltants have been given a free hand to persecute Christians. Great! [Roll Eyes]

But as long as they have democracy, innit!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah, before the Crusades, Muslims minded their own business and never once invaded a Christian land. They were a peaceful bunch that never raised a sword to anybody other than in self defense. They certainly didn't spend 1100 years trying to conquer Christian Europe.

I'm quite certain they didn't. Basically because there aren't 1100 years between the foundation of Islam and the start of the Crusades.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

And Middle Eastern nations only recently started mistreating Christians. Yeah that's the ticket. Just ask the Armenians among others.

Prior to a hundred+ years ago, no country has a particularly good track record of treating minorities.

That the muslim countries were more primitive in doing this in recent memory seems to be more down to political and social development rather than Islam itself.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah, before the Crusades, Muslims minded their own business and never once invaded a Christian land. They were a peaceful bunch that never raised a sword to anybody other than in self defense. They certainly didn't spend 1100 years trying to conquer Christian Europe.
I'm quite certain they didn't. Basically because there aren't 1100 years between the foundation of Islam and the start of the Crusades.

I admit that was confusing. Point was Muslims were trying to conquer Christian Europe centuries before the First Crusade and centuries after the last one ended. Given that fact, Muslim references to the Crusades are both hypocritical and galling.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

And Middle Eastern nations only recently started mistreating Christians. Yeah that's the ticket. Just ask the Armenians among others.
Prior to a hundred+ years ago, no country has a particularly good track record of treating minorities.

That the muslim countries were more primitive in doing this in recent memory seems to be more down to political and social development rather than Islam itself.

Muslim countries treat minorities the way Islam tells them to treat religious minorities.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah, before the Crusades, Muslims minded their own business and never once invaded a Christian land. They were a peaceful bunch that never raised a sword to anybody other than in self defense. They certainly didn't spend 1100 years trying to conquer Christian Europe.
I'm quite certain they didn't. Basically because there aren't 1100 years between the foundation of Islam and the start of the Crusades.
I admit that was confusing. Point was Muslims were trying to conquer Christian Europe centuries before the First Crusade and centuries after the last one ended. Given that fact, Muslim references to the Crusades are both hypocritical and galling.

Or in other words, turnabout is fair play.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Muslim countries treat minorities the way Islam tells them to treat religious minorities.

I'm also sure it's possible to find scriptural arguments for the auto-da-fe.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

orfeo:

quote:
I'm quite certain they didn't. Basically because there aren't 1100 years between the foundation of Islam and the start of the Crusades.

<historical tangent> The First Crusade began in 1095 (almost a thousand years ago), but over at the other end of Europe the Umayyads conquered the Visigoths in Hispania during the eighth century and pushed as far north as Poitiers in Gaul before being turned back by the Franks. By the time they'd finished, more than half of Spain was under Muslim rule. I assume that's what Beeswax Altar was talking about, though in that case it's nearer 1300 years. <\historical tangent>

I don't think they spent all their time on trying to conquer Christian Europe, though. They were quite busy with other things as well. Mathematics, for example. Astronomy. Medicine.

[ 06. May 2014, 13:14: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The Ottoman Empire was moribund by the late 19th Century and posed little threat to Europe after that. The 1100 years was from the 8th century to the 19th Century. Far more Muslims participated in the conquest of Christian lands than made contributions to science.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Beeswax Altar:

quote:
The 1100 years was from the 8th century to the 19th Century.

OK, I see what you're getting at now.

quote:
Far more Muslims participated in the conquest of Christian lands than made contributions to science.

The same could be said in reverse: any fool can serve as cannon fodder in an army, but making contributions to the sum of human knowledge requires a lot more brainpower and the supply of geniuses, whether Christian or Muslim, is limited.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Muslim countries treat minorities the way Islam tells them to treat religious minorities.
I'm also sure it's possible to find scriptural arguments for the auto-da-fe.

Proof-texters are quite creative. Muslims have always treated religious minorities as second class citizens and there is nothing in Islam suggesting they do otherwise. The line of reasoning used by progressive apologists for Islam is a bit disingenuous. First, we will be told that Muslims were more tolerant of religious minorities than Christians. To their credit, they will admit Muslims were still oppressive by modern standards. What they won't admit is why Muslims were so tolerant of religious minorities. Muslims initially didn't want religious minorities to convert. If they converted, Muslims would have less justification for treating them as a permanent underclass. Next, current Muslim treatment of religious minorities will be blamed on the West. We will be assured it has nothing to do with Islam. Keep in mind that in most cases the way Muslim nations currently treat religious minorities isn't very different than how Muslims have always treated religious minorities. Now, comes the rhetorical smoke and mirrors. When this way of treating religious minorities appeared relatively tolerant it was proof of the goodness of Islam. Now that it is clear this way of treating religious minorities is anything but tolerant, all of a sudden, how Muslims treat religious minorities has nothing to do with Islam. [Killing me]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The line of reasoning used by progressive apologists for Islam is a bit disingenuous. First, we will be told that Muslims were more tolerant of religious minorities than Christians.

No - I've said nothing of the sort, and if we are going to argue texts alone then the Jews will have exactly the same issue that Muslims do.

In reality the approach of societies to minorities tends to depend on a bunch of things which has historically been religion filtered through the prejudices of the day (see things like the Curse of Ham Theology), and historically most societies approach to these things have been less than enlightened by modern standards.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah, before the Crusades, Muslims minded their own business and never once invaded a Christian land. They were a peaceful bunch that never raised a sword to anybody other than in self defense. They certainly didn't spend 1100 years trying to conquer Christian Europe.
I'm quite certain they didn't. Basically because there aren't 1100 years between the foundation of Islam and the start of the Crusades.
I admit that was confusing. Point was Muslims were trying to conquer Christian Europe centuries before the First Crusade and centuries after the last one ended. Given that fact, Muslim references to the Crusades are both hypocritical and galling.

Nation states that were predominantly Muslim were invading other nation states that were predominantly non-Muslim for a long period. The same was true of nation states that were predominantly Christian invading other nation states. And, there was a fair bit of states invading other states who shared the same dominant religion.

Early military expansion by Islamic states went pretty much in all directions: west through Egypt into North Africa, East towards the Indus Valley, North through Syria - the later putting the Islamic states in direct conflict with the Byzantine Empire. As loyal citizens of their country, those "Muslim armies" contained large contingents of Jews and Christians. This was empire building at the tip of the sword, and by no means unique to Islam - fundamentally following the pattern of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and would be continued by France, Britain, Germany in more recent times.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Who said it was unique to Islam? Apparently, Muslims still in an uproar about the Crusades either don't know their own history of invading Christian lands. Either that or they feel a sense of entitlement.

The Ottoman Empire was the successor of a caliphate that went back to Mohammed. They all played the Great Game with the nation states of Europe. Ultimately they lost. To now pretend as if they were all living in peace minding their own business until set upon by Crusaders and imperialists is just absurd revisionism that needs to be called for what it is.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0