A constructive Israel thread?

Great Debates
61

When the Israeli spokesman (I forget his name - bald, moustache, American accent) was on one of the Sunday morning shows, he reiterated a stance which I think a lot of people overlook or downplay. Israel’s main position over the years is to not negotiate with terrorists. As far as Israel is concerned, no request has been put forward to have them quit settling in the West Bank or retreat to pre '67 borders. There is nothing to negotiate because so far only terrorist groups have made demands and Israel will not recognize or negotiate with terrorists. If Palestinians elect/appoint a leader not associated with Hamas or Jihad or whatever, and this leader wants to discuss removal or at least a moratorium on settlers in the West Bank and Gaza, then Israel will be willing to negotiate. So as far as Israel is concerned, there isn’t even a request on the table for them to consider. All they have is a violent neighbor with no demands.

So the first step towards peace would have to be a change in Israeli policy: Negotiate with terrorists. Recognize terrorism as a legitimate form of protest. Instead of treating terrorism as a criminal act, treat it as a doorway to constructive political discourse.

62

Mr. S.,
Sorry if you feel ignored.
I’ll take a stab at the politics of settlements. It would be inaccurate to believe that Israel has ever spoken with one voice on this issue. You have those who refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, and believe that they are part of Biblical Israel promised to to the Jewish people. They include many of the ultra-orthodox and far-Right elements, are a minority view in Israel, but are often essential seats to court in order to form a ruling coalition in the Knesset. The Right’s pandering to them is not dissimilar to a Republican hopeful pandering to Christian fundamentalists. More prevelant has been the view that the West Bank is a negotiable item. Some somehow believed that setlements could help security from the mindset of warding off a military attack from Jordan. If one wanted a “Greater Israel” one would’ve just annexed the land as the spoils of a defensive war. But the political process has produced this contradictory position.

As to the Taba plan: the basic flaw is how to “impose” it when each side will see it as giving too much to the other. International observers to enforce a terrorist ceasefire? Uh huh.

cdw,
Total withdrawl unilarterally is a pipedream; partial unilateral withdrawl is not.

Tamerlane,
Partial withdrawl and the Big Wall are an interim measure to give enough room for an autonomous Palestine to develop while increasing Israeli security. The hope would be that Arab nations would step up to the plate to invest in such an entity and that both sides would become more focused on constructive nation-building. Once that is the the focus, then slowly lowering the wall becomes everybody’s best interest, and worth good faith negotiations on remaining land and other issues. With those negotiations comes economic partnering, a labour force and investment opportunities all around.

63

And, Oh, I’ll try to explain something to s.w. (giving him the chance to actually show that (s)he is interested in reducing his/her ignorance):

Zionism is not racism.

But Judaism is not only a religion, it is also a cultural identity, a peoplehood. This sense of belonging to a people, to a tribe if you will, varies from individual to individual, but is ancient in origin. If one accepts the concept of “race” at all (see various old threads), then it is clear that Judaism is open to all of them. My wife and I are in the process of adopting a child from China. She will undergo the rituals upon arrival to make her Jewish. She will be no less a Jew than my biological children. It will not matter what color her skin is, or her “race.” Her genetic heritage is irrelevant. Ethiopian Jews are Jews. There are Jews in India. And so on.

Maybe if the last two thousand years had been different … if Arab Jews were treated and accepted as Arabs equal to Muslim Arabs, if German Jews had been accepted as equal to German Christians, French, etc … then maybe Jews wouldn’t feel that they need to cling on to their own peoplehood. But that hasn’t been the case. The others (almost) always make it clear to us … you are different, you are not really a full member of “us”.

Now then there is the seperate issue of Israel as a secular democracy vs as a theocracy. Israel has elements of each. An orthodox minority with power excercises an inordinate amount of control because of the nature of a Parlimentary system. A majority wants to keep Israel as a Jewish state but are more focused on the sense of peoplehood than on religion and would object to a theocracy the likes of Arab Islamic states. Many are fairly areligious secularists.

The bottom line is that these are issues that Israel will have to grapple with - how much theocracy can you have and still be a secular democracy? -how do you stay a Jewish state and when your fastest growing group is not Jewish (without compromising your secular values) Probably Israel would be torn up with internal division over these very issues if it wasn’t too busy just trying to survive!

64

Sharon will be replaced, just like Bush. It’s a democracy, remember?

65

Dseid, Racist policy exist in the israeli law. It is in black and white print. I think you may take the claim of racist policy as an insult rather than trying to look at it for what it is. There are racist examples all over and there are consequences that go along with all of them. Here is the breakdown:

Main Entry: 3race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date: 1580
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

This is your own definition. Lets dig a little deeper.

Main Entry: peo·ple·hood
Pronunciation: 'pE-p&l-"hud
Function: noun
Date: circa 1899
1 : the quality or state of constituting a people
2 : the awareness of the underlying unity that makes the individual a part of a people

Main Entry: 1peo·ple
Pronunciation: 'pE-p&l
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural people
Etymology: Middle English peple, from Old French peuple, from Latin populus
Date: 13th century
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest
2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS – often used in compounds instead of persons <salespeople>
3 plural : the members of a family or kinship
4 plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class <disputes between the people and the nobles> – often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other people
5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group
6 : lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation
7 : the body of enfranchised citizens of a state

  • peo·ple·less /-p&(l)-l&s/ adjective

If you read these definitions you can see that Jews fit these definitions. Maybe you don’t like it, maybe you don’t accept the definitions, maybe you didn’t even read or consider them, but ALOT of people see it otherwise. Just because some Jews say it is not a race doesn’t make it so. Some say it is, some say it isn’t.

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

  • rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Now given this very simple definition, read the law of rerturn. Tell me what makes a Jew inherently better as a citizen candidate in Israel? It is an inherent right of any Jew. It is given to them based on their race, peoplehood, whatever. Is it important that i convince you to accept my argument? No. Not really. It is important that ALOT of people see these as racist policies. These people will hold that against you. They will cause problems for you because your policy is racist. You must take more action than to say “but we’re not a race” to show people that you believe any honest good willed person is given equal consideration in your country.

66

While I dislike this sort of comparison, and hesitate to bring it up…

That “if we don’t make sure there are enough Jewish immigrants or allow the Palestinians to return, we’ll lose control over our own country” bit sounds very, um, South African. It also betrays a distrust of democracy that completely undercuts Sam’s passionate defense of Israeli-as-democracy… it appears that the Israeli government is willing to accept democracy only up to the point where it might actually matter. If this were the case in any country in Europe or the Americas that would be a very unpopular country indeed.

There are, of course, mitigating circumstances in Israel, but I wouldn’t be so quick to rush to their defense as a perfect western democracy beset by the modern equivalent of “hordes of dusky-skinned barbarians.”

67

I really hesitate to draw these analogies. The Europe/America analogy to Israel doesn’t work. The South Africa analogy really doesn’t work.

I am an atheist, but I was raised Jewish. I am very pro-Israel, though. You may ask how I reconcile these two.

There has been undeniable oppression against the Jews over the past 2000 years. Israel was founded to counteract this. The fact that the world for the most part recognizes Israel lends legitimacy to this.

This does not make it a racist regime. As an American, if my son is born in Burkina Faso, he is entitled to American citizenship. IIRC Germany will give citizenship to ethnic Germans. The right of return is just a grander statement of these. Again, it is necessary for one reason: Israel counteracts 2000 years of oppression. The Nazis wouldn’t have cared if you were a convert or an atheist, as long as you had Jewish blood. Israel operates the same.

Other things. Democracy. Of course Israel is a democracy. All democracy, in my book, means, is that the government is elected by the citizens. All countries in the world place limitations on who they give citizenship to. Israeli Christians and Muslims have the same rights under the government as Israeli Jews, so this makes the racist claim rather tenuous.

Occupied territories. I don’t like settlements, I am steadfastly against them. But, Israel never annexed the occupied territories, so they are not part of Israel proper. Lots of countries in this world occupy territory. Even the US has protectorates and territories. Same difference. The residents of these are never offered equal governmental representation, as they are not part of Israel.

Refugees. The claims of refugees on land inside Israel is again rather tenuous and largely without precedent in the modern world. People who flee during wars generally lose their rights to property. The Jews lost their homes in World War II. The Jews in Morocco, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc. similarly lost their property when coming to Israel. Similarly, populations displaced in wars in Rwanda, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have never been repatriated and hopefully eventually will integrate into their host countries.

Arabs that left unfortunately lost out. They were put into a diplomatic limbo for political reasons as much as anything. Those that stayed are now citizens of Israel. Mass repatriation of refugees is rare. The current plea for full right of return is unprecedented, and is seen by the Israelis as a transparent ploy to either bankrupt Israel or turn it into a Muslim state.

68

Sweet Willy.
You are writing. But you are not reading.
Or perhaps you are reading the wrong things, ie dictionaries rather that the posts you are responding to.

Is a convert to Judaism a member of the Jewish race according to your dictionary definitions of race? Obviously not. Yet the convert get’s the same rights to Israeli citizenship as a born Jew and there are no racial requirements for conversion.

So the law of return is simply not racist
As far as analogies are concerned. If only South Africa were a valid analogy! The blacks in South Africa wanted full citizenship rights in the Republic of South Africa. The whites reconcilled themselves to that eventually and peace emerged. But the Palestinians don’t want citizenship in Israel. That’s just not what the conflict is about. It’s about whether or not Israel has the right to exist.

69

Like I said, I wanted to give s.w. a chance to prove that (s)he was interested in reducing his/her ignorance. Chance given. Oh well.

Yeah, people who are anglophiles are racist because that dictionary definition uses “English” as an example of race. “English” is not a “race” in the usual usage and neither is “Jewish”. By his/her usage all Christians must be racist too, based on the Christian belief that only belonging to the group that accepts Christ can suffice for admission to heaven. Riiiiiight.

demosthenesian,
Like I said, this is an issue that Israel has to grapple with. Because of the “mitigating circumstances” Israel wants to be a home for Jews across the world, all of whom are its citizens-in-waiting abroad in a sense, but it doesn’t want to be a theocracy, it wants to be a secular democracy. Can it pull that off? Will it eventually have to choose between one or the other? I don’t know. Give it a generation of peace and maybe we’ll find out.

edwino,
Don’t forget that more Arab Jews have abondoned property in Arab counties fleeing for their lives, than have Arabs in Israeli controlled areas. Compensation is just for both groups,and both funds should be earmarked to build a peaceful Palestinian homeland.

70

You think Sweet Willy might be a girl? Is it against ettiquette of these forums to reveal one’s sex? I’m a guy, in case anyone cares.

I think that the right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel transcends the “mitigating circumstances” to which you refer.
Why does everyone else have the right to statehood and for the Jews its considered some kind of a violation of morality that would pepermitted only in the face of mitigating curcumstances?

The point about democracy-theocracy also deserves some more attention. But I don’t have time now. I’ll try to get back to it later.

Thanks for making this point, which is usually forgotten.
But what do you mean both funds? Payments to compensate Jews from Arab countries who lost property should be made to Palestinians?

I don’t get it.

71

DSeid:

Interesting; I’ve never heard that before.

Do you have a reference?

72

I disagree with respect. Converts become part of the community of interest. They become Jewish. There is nothing that says you can’t join a race. You know back in the day there were plenty of white folks in the the south that gave the same arguments as you for Jim Crow and grandfather clause. A law that says you can’t vote if your grandfather didn’t vote is obviously not racist now is it? :rolleyes:

73

Sweet Willy, agghhh!

74

Thank you for almost killing me with laughter! But “ham-fisted”? Given the groups involved, was that choice of words intentional?

Actually, there’s an idea; put Arafat and Sharon in a boxing ring, each armed with a leg of smoked ham. The first one to simultaneously betray his religious heritage and take decisive military action by bludgeoning the other one to death with roast piggie wins.

75

Thank you for almost killing me with laughter! But “ham-fisted”? Given the groups involved, was that choice of words intentional?

Actually, there’s an idea; put Arafat and Sharon in a boxing ring, each armed with a leg of smoked ham. The first one to simultaneously betray his religious heritage and take decisive military action by bludgeoning the other one to death with roast piggie wins.

76

Mr. S. Of course I fear that any source I cite will be labelled as “spin”, but I’ll cite anyway. My original source was “Jewish Literacy” by Joseph Telushkin, pg 316

Also information available on line, for instance at http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/clk98.html or www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/refs.html with similar figures. They aren’t considered an issue because Israel absorbed them rather than leaving them fester in camps on the borders.

Yes, akohl, I propse that the Israelis compensate the Arabs for property left behind, and that the Arab governments compensate the Arab Jews (now Israelis) for property left behind. The money from Israel to the Arabs should be used to help set up a peacefully coexistent Palestinian entity and Israel should also donate the money given to them from the Arab nations to economic codevelopment of the entity as informed self-interest. Israel’s long term interests, both for security and economically, are served by having an economic partner in its Arab neighbor with an educated populus. Maybe low interest loans?

77

DSeid! What do you take me for, anyway? A “one-spin” pony? :slight_smile:

Interesting. I had no idea that Israel had absorbed so many Jewish refugees from surrounding Arab countries. Sorta puts things into a different perspective, don’t it?

78

"Was or was not a massacre in Jenin is only a semantic question. What is more important that the Jenin battle and the brutal Israeli intrusion to the Palestinian territories just made more clear the character of this conflict.

By Professor Baruch Kimmerling
"Sharon has taken upon himself to complete the task Ben-Gurion began – and no price is too high. "

"Patiently, with great care, he is methodically building circles of hatred and abysmal exasperation amongst both Arabs and Jews. He knows how to exploit the weaknesses of a man and his passion for honor and, apparently, for power. In this way, he has neutralized the Labor Party, while silencing any semblance of a true public discourse. "

“His comparing Arafat to Bin Laden, a few months ago, seemed a mistake; but yet again, in retrospect, he has proven successful at “getting inside the American mind” and the Bush Administration, and has integrated his own objectives into the American world war against terrorism.”

" The sounds of beating war drums can be heard throughout the land, calling both the hawkish tribes to gather around the campfire, to put on their war paint, and to go out into one last battle, until the final annihilation of the other hated and demonic tribe."

http://www.seruv.org.il/MoreArticles/English/BaruchKimmerlingEng_2.htm

79

The compensation should go to the individuals and their heirs who lost property, although in the case of the Arabs who left their property in Israel there is still the question of why they left.
If they left because they were made to feel forced to leave and had reason to believe that Israel would not protect their lives and property, then fine. But if they left because they thought that Israel was about to be wiped off the map and they moved as a vote of confidence in the Arab armies, then I’m not so sure if their property claims should be dealt with any differently than any other abandoned property.

In any event, the events were recent enough to be dealt with on a case by case basis, as they were in South Africa. Although there, the issue was much clearer because lots of people were removed from their property by direct government order as opposed to percievedintimidation. I stand corrected if someone more informed tells us that in SA this was not the case or in The Arab counties is was. I know that in Israel, it was not.

In the event that private claims are not made for specific property which was lost, then the community should get the money and use it as they see fit. The Arabic Jewish community in Israel might decide to use it for social programs aimed at their poor neighborhoods. The Palestinians might decide to use it to move people out of refugee camps and build them permanent houseing (As if refugee camps like the one in Jenin were really “camps”).

The point is that its up to the beneficiaries to decide how to spend the money. If Israel wants to give money to the Palestinians to help them in a constructive way as opposed to supplying them with arms as they have done in the past, it has other sources of funds to draw and would not need to redirect money away from the rightful beneficiaries.

80

Hi!
Just a side-step.
My stupid question is:
How much and to whom does the settlers pay (for the land)?