To be strictly fair, Spoke, I didn’t actually say that, because I don’t actually know. The cite offered makes a statement that suggests that to me, and no plausible explanation has been offered, but that, in itself, does not make it so.
I suppose a parallel might be drawn to America’s scorn for her own black citizens in WWII, where they were enlisted for menial roles but refused for combat duty until very late in the game. IIRC, the rationale offered was that integration would cause dissension in the ranks. We in America have evolved to the point where we have the correct response to such discrimination, we are ashamed of it.
But I wasn’t offering a point of debate, merely chaffing Jack for offering a cite and carefully slicing that part which he finds favorable to his position and hoping that no one will notice the rest of the cite.
It’s not a good analogy, though. There are plenty of genuine Arabs serving in combat positions in the Israeli army. For example the Druze, and the Bedouins - both of Arab ethnicity.
What happens is that certain groups who have political, ethnic or religious reasons for stongly opposing mandatory service, i.e., the draft are not drafted. This includes most Palestinians; it also includes many very orthodox Jews, who are also not subject to the draft.
In short, the real analogy is to the US having (for example) a policy of not drafting the Aimish into the armed services (assuming such a policy exists), because they are religiously pacifist.
To be honest, the notion that certain groups are not drafted is somehow an ethnic slur on them (rather than a reasonable accomodation of them) is more than a trifle cracked. As pointed out, some arab groups are drafted and there are Jewish groups who are also excused the draft. Is the Israeli state prejudiced against religious Jews, according to you? Would you be happier if the Palestinians were in fact bayonet-prodded into the army? A strange position for a self-declared pacifist!
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain exactly what you mean by this innuendo? If you haven’t the courage for direct insult, perhaps you should equally avoid insinuation? Just a thought.
There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation why entire equality under the law results in a two to one disproportion. Sadly, you were too busy making slimy suggestions than offering a plausible explanation. Here is another opportuity.
Do the “Palestinian” citizens of Israel overwhelmingly consider themselves equal beneficiaries under Israeli law? I would be surprised to hear it, but am always open to fact, If you have such. Personally, I think I might be hard pressed to express loyalty to a flag that centers on a religious symbol that excludes me, but perhaps these are an extraordinarily open-minded people, or perhaps they consider it just another symbol. I find that unlikely, but if you have proof otherwise, well, then, bring it.
You bet I criticize my own government for discrimination, have done so lo, these many years.
Nice spin, by the way, with that word “precisely”. Nice touch, implying that, really, the representation is approximately correct, and my criticism is merely carping over a very tiny number. Two to one is not, in my estimation, a trivial matter, your mileagle clearly varies.
Perhaps. Do you offer yourself as innocent of such selectivity?
Lets do it this way! I’ll tell you the truth as best I can, and you believe whatever you fucking well please.
First, what is “plenty”?
Second, I have always understood that the Druuze in Israel generally don’t self-identify as “Arab” or “Palestinian.”
Third, is it not true that the overwhelming majority of self-identified “Israeli Arabs” are non-nomads, thus meaning the majority of the minority is excluded?
Come on now, there is a difference between exception and exclusion and I should opine that comparing Orthodox Jews position relative to military service to Israeli Arabs is… well boggling.
Now that is a plausible explanation! I haven’t the expertise in Israeli law to do any critique, but it seems enirely reasonable. By the way, I am not a pacifist, I haven’t the courage, perhaps.
Arabs (non-Druze, non-Bedouin) are not excluded from military service; they are perfectly able to volunteer, and some do. They are not drafted, and for the same reason as haradim Jews - by and large, they object to being drafted. See the statement from Mr. Nafa, above.
Yeah, I know. Didn’t intend to abuse your quote. Just having a little funn with Finn and Jack.
Ah, so the discrimination is based on religion?
Really? Palestinians are opposed to violence for religious reasons? They’re like the Amish? :rolleyes:
Sorry, but this all sounds a lot more like a rationalization than a reason. (Let’s see now…how can we keep those pesky Palestinians out of the military…? Oooh! I know!)
Look, I don’t care who Israel drafts. Just noting the hypocrisy.
The Palestinians aren’t been kept out of the military, though, since they can (and do) volunteer without being drafted.
Look, there are plenty of real Israeli abuses to argue over - this is simply a non-starter. To anyone who knows about the situation, that is. If anything, excusing Israeli Palestinians from the draft is an act of considerable (and unusual) tact on the part of Israel. I can only imagine the uproar in the rest of the world if all Israeli Arabs were suddenly forcibly subject to conscription.
Edit: in neither the case of Israeli Arabs, nor that of Orthodox Jews, is pacifism the basis of their objection to service. I would have thought that much was obvious.
Yeah, that was my take. Pretty weird for Mr. Self-Declared-Peace-Be-Upon-You. But no weirder than accusing others of innuendo (irony meters fry yet again).
Don’t strain yourself; you might get a truth hernia.
Obviously you’re entitled to expound on the beliefs of your choice. It would be refreshing however if you owned up to them instead of pretending to be something you’re not.
The analogy is to having an official gov’t policy declaring that members of group X need not serve in the military because they, overall and collectively, tend to have objections to such service.
This is something that Amish Americans, Ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews, and Israeli Arabs all have in common - though of course the nature of their objections to compulsory military service vary between these groups.
Again, the issue is whether having such a policy is a reasonable accomodation of such groups, or on the contrary an attempt to repress members of said groups out of bigotry disguised as “reasonable accomodation”. So far, in the case of Israel, there is no evidence that it is the second rather than the first; the fact that some Jewish and Arab groups are subject to the policy, and some of both are not, seems to me decisively against a “bigotry” interpretation.
That being noted, there is a genuine controversy in Israel over the fact that many employers openly prefer to hire people who have been in service; this is thought by some to tend to discriminate against both Israeli Arabs and Orthodox Jews, as well as against conciencious objectors (and there are plenty of Israelis who have no love for any of them). However, as noted, there is nothing actually preventing members of either group from volunteering for armed service on behalf of the Israeli state.
One need not be a pacifist to favor peace, Jack. I would have thought you knew that, but if not, now you do. One need only be sane.
But lets put a question baldly, since your cite brought it up: do you think that the vast majority of “Palestinians” in Israel regard themselves as fairly and equally treated under the law? And that the two to one disproportion in representation is a mere accident, a trifle to be brushed aside? Do the “Palestinians” have legitimate grievances? And, if so, are those grievances fairly heard and addressed?
I suspect there are feelings among many that there is not complete equality, if for no other reason that it’s a country founded as a Jewish homeland, with religious observances and laws that are not set up to favor Muslims. As for representation in Parliament not strictly following demographics, I don’t know what the exact reasons are for that.
Much the same questions can be raised about living in a predominantly Christian nation like the U.S., with holidays, lawmaking (including “blue laws” and less overt regulations) and incidents of favoritism towards adherents of the majority religion. And we don’t have minority representation (or female representation, for that matter) in legislatures and Congress proportional to their numbers in the population.
I highly doubt, however, that you’d argue that the U.S. does not deserve to survive as a nation as it’s currently constututed. Or that any other democracy with imperfect rights for all should be dissolved due to its imperfections. Yet you’ve indicated that Israel should be so judged.
And what about Israel’s Arab neighbors, which do not accord their citizens anywhere remotely near the rights that Israel does, and which tend to be run by autocrats, and which were responsible for the confiscation of property and expulsion of up to a million Jews after 1948? Should those countries be abolished too?
That’ll be a hell of a job for the U.N., completely remaking the globe in a perfectly equitable way with human rights for all. It may take a few extra plenary sessions.
I do love an adroit use of spin. You have a rare gift, Jack. You “suspect” feelings amongst “many”? Oh, that’s good. Can’t be quite sure, of course, it could be that “Palestinians” are universal in their joyous acclaim of the state of Israel, but you “suspect” it might be otherwise.
At least amongst “many”. Well, gosh, Jack, how “many” do you “suspect”? A hundred? More? Thousands, perhaps? And those many suspect there is not “complete” equality? Oh, I daresay. You leave open the lovely possibility that there is very nearly “complete” equality, but just a smidgen short. Perhaps they are making a big fuss over a trifling inequality? You imply far more than you are willing to state.
And “laws that are not set up to favor Muslims”. Now, that’s a chestnut, thats a rare gem of the prevaricators art! No, indeed, one would be hard pressed to find anyone who will suggest that Israel’s laws were “set up to favor Muslims”.
Such delicacy! You could free a butterfly from a spider’s web with a pair of chopsticks, and tear neither web or wing. But you are on safe ground there, I doubt anyone will disagree that Israels laws were not constructed to unfairly advantage Muslims. I will concede that point.
And lastly, a lesser gem, but still worthy of craft. Representation in Parliament does not “strictly” follow demographics. No, you’re quite correct, it does not strictly represent demographics. I suppose that a two to one disparity might be anything from “piddling” to “gross”, depending on your point of view. What’s yours, now that I mention it?
I had other comments to make, mostly about your obnoxious insistence of twisting my view on reform to mean annihilation. But I was so taken with admiration for this lovely bit of spinmanship, I simply had to applaud.
Good show, Jack! It is said that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but by golly, I think you could sell one!
If the issue is whether Israeli Arabs have legitimate grievances, I am of the opinion that they do.
The issue is not so much fair and equal treatment by the courts - Israeli courts are reasonably impartial as an institution, often ruling in favour of Israeli Arabs in their numerous battles with the government - but rather, unequal and discriminatory treatment by government policy, government officials and by the majority population at large, which is widespread and keenly felt by the Arab minority - particularly in such matters as access to educational funding and other government financial incentives, use of public lands (a major issue) and social programs; and in discrimination in the workforce both public and private. The situation of the Bedouin is alleged to be particularly bad - from all accounts they live in third-world style poverty and have been very unfairly treated by the government.
The fact that Arab Knesset members are not present in numbers equal to their proportion of the population is not indicative of a lack of legal status. In law, Arabs share equality of rights, and Arabic is an official language of the state along with Hebrew; the problem is not with the laws, it is with the implementation, which is widely acknowledged as being weighted in favour of the majority. This does not mean that Arab grievances are never heard or addressed - as said, the Israeli courts are relatively impartial - but there is only so much the courts can do.
That being noted, similar problems - plague my own country of Canada. The legal status of Native Canadians is unequal to that of non-natives (contrast with Israel); in terms of unequal distribution of resources, Canada’s current treatment of its native population is fully as bad as, if not worse than, the treatment of the most disadvantaged Arab Israelis - the Bedouin. Like them, Canadian natives often live in third-world style poverty.
Moreover, these communal problems in Israel are not confined to Arabs. There are also problems between the various ethnic groupings of Jews - Ashkenazi vs. Mizrai and Shephardim; vs. Falasha. Never mind the various religious factions.
In summary, yes there are problems and legitimate grievances, but these are not problems unique to Israel; they are exactly the sort of problems endemic to a democratic country with a wide variety of ethnic groups, often at loggerheads. The problems are not unique to Israel and are not, in fact, particularly worse than those found in other countries.
I accept your point as honestly stated, but cannot fairly comment, as the question is so murky. By what metric are we to measure whether these problems are better or worse? I wouldn’t even hazard a guess.
But I expect more from Israel than I expect from Syria, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia. That is why I am not the friend of Syria, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia. Though I am always pleased to see outbreaks of sanity in those countries, that may, if carefully fanned, break into a full-on peace scare. I may be forced to liquidate my position in munitions manufacture at a loss!
