I have noticed that topics concerning this issue frequently appear on these message boards. I believe it is certainly worth discussing, however I would like to point out the fact that the new topics are unnecessary. It would seem to me that starting a new topic that basically discusses the same issue does little more than turn back the clock and take up space. It is horribly inefficient to constantly begin the same debate or at least I would think so. Instead, I would suggest that all matters concerning this debate be placed under one topic, so that the debate does not always have to be begun again. It will save time, and, I believe, allow the truth of the issue to emerge more quickly because there will not be this constant turning back of the debate clock where each side simply starts reiterating statements made in previous debates, starting with a blank state and on level ground. At the very least I feel such a topic would save on space and confusion. Thus, I would propose that this topic, the one that you currently read, be used for this purpose. You, fellow members of these boards, may or may not choose to use it. I hope that it will be used, for the reasons that I have stated and for any others that have not yet dawned on me.
Seems like an ok idea, but I doubt it’ll happen.
The topic has been hacked to death here. Nobody wants to see “Israel and Palestine” floating in GD anymore. That’s why we don’t see them all that often. If anyone wants to see the discussion on the debate they can do a search for the keywords.
If there is a new (major) development in the Israel and Palestine issue then a new thread would probably be useful.
(please note, as seeing what has happened to others recently in the pit I would also like to say that I am not trying to be a mod, this is only my opinion. That should take care of that… phew)
OK, well we’ll see if there are any biters.
I’ll start out.
Resolved: In 20 years, there will be no Israel.
Why?
a) With demograpic changes in Israel, it will have to choose between being a democratic state and being a Jewish state. Foreign workers, Israeli Arabs, Russian non-Jewish wives and so forth are all a threat to the Jewish state, yet Israel depends on them for its prosperity. I believe Israel will eventually choose democracy. If it does, and perhaps even if it doesn’t, it will cease to be what we call Israel anymore.
b) Arab states have been hammering since 1948. They have only gotten larger and their hammering has only gotten louder. Without serious major governmental overhaul throughout the Middle East, and perhaps with major overhaul, Israel could be doomed. Every year without a peace settlement, every year that passes since the death camps, Israel gets weaker. The Arab states get stronger. Israel can never afford to lose a war or even have one end in a stalemate. Its continued existence depends on trouncing its neighbors militarily, and the limitations of modern military warfare and hence the IDF are shown to the Arab world every day from the events in Gaza and the West Bank. And, there is no peaceful settlement on the horizon. If Israel must wait for the US to stabilize a new regime in Iraq, a peaceful settlement could be 10 years away.
c) There is an increasing secular/religious divide. The religious parties get power beyond their share by virtue of being coalition makers in the parliamentary system, and they grow every year as observant Jews filter into Israel and nonobservant ones leave. Every year that they are afforded power, they erode Israeli democracy and rule of law in favor of a theocracy and preferential treatment for the religious. A Jewish theocracy will still be a safe haven for Jews, but it will lose world support by virtue of abandoning democracy.
d) Any number of other factors contribute to make Israel less nice to live in – corruption, environmental decay, etc. A severe environmental crisis, perhaps a severe drought, could put Israel over a barrel at a time when they can not depend on ready help from anyone else in the world. Corruption ensures that every major project takes longer and is more expensive to complete – look at work on the security fence.
Mandos, first of all, once a thread goes off the front page it rarely comes back. Secondly, a thread with hundreds of responses tends to intimidate a new entry. This will likely no more be the last Israel/Palestine thead than the last consciousness thread or God thread or SUV or gun control and on and on …
Still, edwino’s post demands a comment. Israel’s enemies may be best off with a negotiated peace that gives up some and letting Israel destroy herself within a few generations? Maybe true.
a) Death by demographics. Unless more Jews emigrate to Israel (this, in my mind, includes Jews on the “fragile branches”: those who are of “New Christian” heritage with Jewish identity throughout the old Spanish world; Africans of Jewish Ethiopian heritage and of Lemba heritage; and so on) and/or unless Arab Israelis continue their birth rate decline with increasing SES, a democratic Israel will cease to have a Jewish plurality. But either or both of those possibilities may occur, if Israel does the “right” things.
b) I really do not think that the powerful Arab states want Israel destroyed at this point. They find her too useful as a distracting scapegoat to keep their own peoples from turning on their own oppressive governments.
c) The spectre of a real Jewish theocracy and the death of the secular Jewish state. You didn’t even mention that the ultra-Orthodox birthrate is greater than the Arab or Palestinian birthrates … and since they decide who is a Jew for purposes of immigration, you can bet that Jews emigrating to Israel from those “fragile branches” will be Jews who are likely to toe the ultra-orthodox line. Settling the Palestinian conflict is essential, for until that is done the battle between Israel’s secular majority and powerful growing ultra-religious minority will just continue to seethe without any resolution.
d) Death by acts of God? It would be ironic, don’t you think?
Not really. Take time to consider the position of Neturei Karta, an Orthodox Jewish organization. Their position seems to be that god sent the Jews in to exile and it is up to god, not men, to decide when they return to their homeland as a people. But that’s not what the zionists are doing, they’re usurping god’s authority. And when god gets pissed, he doesn’t get mideval on your ass, he gets Old Testament on your ass.
How do you figure? The IDF has shown itself to be highly competant in conventional warfare over the past 50 years and the Mossad has shown itself to be a highly effective intelligence service. I don’t see the Arab states getting stronger and I don’t see them continuously pounding on Israel. In fact, the Arab state continue to become more moderate (with a few exceptions) and seem to want to have little to do with the Palestinian conflict.
I’m more interested in seeing what happens as the Arab states become more moderate. Most people are used to a moderate Israel surrounded by radical Islamic neighbors. That is likely to change over the next 50 years.
Regarding the OP’s proposition:
1.) Threads that are very long encounter a couple of problems. Long threads (which at one point meant “over five pages long”) at least used to cause technical problems. Upgrades to the board’s software and hardware seem to have alleviated that somewhat; however, extremely long threads also get hard to follow for everyone concerned, and the arguments can become rather convulted and “inbred”. Allowing the thread to die a natural death allows for new threads where different people may be more free to add new perspectives.
2.) “Israel and Palestine” is a pretty broad topic. Different threads may cover different aspects of the question. “Should Israel unilaterally withdraw from the Occupied Territories?”, “Should the Palestinians unilaterally declare a sovereign state?”, or “Should the United States unilaterally cut off all aid to Israel?” are all different debates, even if all sorts of other aspects of the broader conflict will probably be dragged in by page 4. If the Israelis or the Palestinians (or for that matter the Americans) take some action or announce some new policy, someone will probably start a new thread to debate that particular event; again, other stuff will probably get dragged in sooner or later, but that still doesn’t make that thread the same as all the others.
edwino ask some valid questions :
“a) With demograpic changes in Israel, it will have to choose between being a democratic state and being a Jewish state.”
The Jewish/Arab split has stayed pretty constant since founding of the state in 1948 - roughly 80/20. There are disturbing indications that in the long run the differences in birthrate will pull this ratio closer to 50/50, but your target of 2020 is way too low. Also, there are some major Jewish population sources that are ripening now, like Argentina.
“b) Arab states have been hammering since 1948.”
The relative strength of the Arab states versus Israel has dramatically dropped since 1948, when by all rational expectations they should have wiped the new state off the map. Since the demise of Soviet Russia, they have lost most of their unfettered support, and now have to come to America (and pay). Israel is stronger than any one of the Arab states, and their ability to combine is highly suspect, since they trust each other no more than they trust Israel. This again makes a major upheaval by 2020 unlikely,
“c) There is an increasing secular/religious divide.”
This is a very valid, and worrying, point. I hope the next election will show a clear break in this tendency, in that the very minor parties will disappear, and something like a two-party democracy can develop. Without it, the likelyhood of stable government will weaken and a major upheaval could become a possibility (as in an Army revolt).
“d) Any number of other factors contribute to make Israel less nice to live in – corruption, environmental decay, etc.”
Corruption is the single factor that places Israel “at home” in the Middle East. However, it’s not something that has become noticeably worse in the last 20 years, and its continuation will make little difference to the country’s progress (or lack thereof). So the D-Day of 2020 is not affected by this.
Questions for edwino and others.
What alternatives do you see? Is a two-state solution an actual option, given the point edwino makes that this is not seen to be in the interests of the Arab states themselves? I myself am starting to think along the lines of a “United States of Judea” (for want of a better name), which has say 10 or 15 internally independant states, with a central government modelled something on a combination of Australia, Switzerland and the US.
This has always been my vision, since I think it is well-rooted in economic and demographic reality. But Edwino and DSeid have done a pretty good job ( directly or indirectly ) of convincing me that this is politically impossible anytime in the near future :).
- Tamerlane
First to DSeid:
I think that pushing the Lemba or “New Christian” as Jews entitled to the Right of Return toes a dangerous line, if you want to keep the Right of Return. Ben Gurion the secularist even recognized that halacha was the only deciding factor on which to decide the question on who is a Jew. The Orthodox have a stranglehold on immigration right now and even laws saying that things like conservative conversions are legitimate are ignored because they run the agencies unchecked. I don’t see this changing any time soon. The real issues I worry about beyond the Israeli Arabs are all of the half-Jewish Russians out there not eligible for citizenship, and the foreign workers, who may number as high as 400,000. That is 8% or so, and they will never be eligible for citizenship. This severely strains the limits of what one could call a representative democracy. As I see it, Israel right now is on cruise control heading towards a wall. Maybe the wall is 20 years away, maybe it is 50 years. But there is a wall there, and cruise control continues until the government is moved from its paralysis of blame everything on Arafat, until there is some tranquility and peace, and the people can look inwards and start fixing the ills of their society.
msmith
The current intifada has shown the limit of warfare in today’s day and age of limited war. Even with the best weaponry, the Palestinian could resist like this for years. I don’t see many Arab states getting more moderate, and I politely request some examples. I actually see many getting more repressive to keep down fundamentalist Islamic movements (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia), but still using Israel as the touchstone of all evils. Saudi Arabia is surely closest to the edge, and I agree with the Slate article (last paragraph here). I see Egypt slowly losing its grip, and I would be surprised if the peace treaty goes unviolated for another 10 years. Jordan perhaps has a bit more time, but it has its own demographic demons to deal with.
Mostly, I think that the right-wingers have a point. The way Israel left Lebanon, the way it will most probably have to leave Gaza and the West Bank, does nothing to discourage terrorism (except to get rid of one of several root causes – this is where my rationale differs from right wingers as I think that removal of this one root cause will make a lot of other pieces fall into place for security). This, especially as Arab regimes go more fundamentalist, will add to the motivation to attack or support attacks on Israel. And all that needs to happen is a war with Israel ends in a stalemate.
Lastly, rampisad
The Arab/Jewish split is only one part. The difference in socioeconomic status has widened, which takes the Israeli Arabs farther away from the Jews politically. Also, with restrictions on Palestinian labor in place, the foreign worker population has quickly ballooned. Another issue is, as mentioned above, the Russian wives of Jewish Russians and their non-Jewish children. It severely strains the term “representative democracy.”
With point (b), see my above comments – what matters is what will happen in the future. Will a weakened Israel, emasculated by the second intifada, be seen as a more attractive target as regimes get either more repressive or more fundamentalistic?
As for ©, I see no turning back for Shas and United Torah Judaism and the others. They enjoy far too much power. What needs to happen is resolution of the Palestinian issues followed by a secular coalition government with strange bedfellows – Shinui, Labor, Likud, Meretz. They need to clean out the religious blackmail for overwhelming support of yeshivot while the immigrant and Arab populations starve. They need to make army service mandatory for everyone, not just secular kids. I’m sure you are familiar with the points. I don’t see this happening without a quick resolution to the Palestinian situation, and I don’t see that happening either. I think the situation is quite bleak.
As for (d), my knowledge of Israeli politics really ends back in about 1990, when I really started following it. But I don’t remember accounts of corruption stretching into the top ranks of several parties. I don’t remember MKs and Prime Ministers being accused directly of taking improper donations. Perhaps you can enlighten me…
Lastly, alternatives. I see a two state solution as a viable option. I think that it will most probably happen with a Israeli unilateral withdrawal and letting the Arab League deal with the mess that comes after. I think the best thing that could happen is a prolonged cold peace leading to closer relations and eventually two symbiotic neighbors. I think after 50 years of this or so, there would be no issue left between the neighbors that would prevent something like a Middle East Union similar to the European Union. But of course this is a best case scenario.
I think that there are no other options. Others (relocation, annexation of the territories) are total pipe dreams. Relocation will make Israel a total pariah and compared to Serbia, China during the Cultural Revolution, and the Khmer Rouge. Annexation without citizenship will do likewise, and annexation will quickly make Israel into a Palestinian state. A United States of Judea will exist for all of 15 seconds before Palestine withdraws to make itself an independent country.
-
“foreign worker population has quickly ballooned”. The levels are still in line with most western European countries (Austria 9.4%, Belgium 8.8% France 7.4%) so this is more a reflection of Israel’s membership of first-world economies than any inherent structural flaw.
-
“Will a weakened Israel, emasculated by the second intifada …”. You must see that Israel’s reponse to the intifada is dictated more by political than physical factors. In any other country, a vigorous reply would have stopped it cold within weeks, but Israel’s freedom is curtailed by the need to conform to foreign influences. In the case of external aggression, these restraints are much less dominant. Israel is not emasculated by the intifada, it is emasculated by the pressures put on it by world opinion.
Once again, I am in total agreement with you about c). The best hope we have is that in the forthcoming election, Shas will be downgraded substantially, starting a slide for the fringe parties. Otherwise, I seriously regard an Army coup as a good option (other than what I’m outlining in the next section). What we have now is very far from true democracy as I know it.
About d), we must agree to disagree. A two-state solution has as a fundamental requirement that both states have basically similar long-term aims. With its present leadership (and their backing), a Palestinian state is wholly untrustworthy in this respect - their fundamental aim is to replace, not co-exist with, Israel. Given this, the chances of setting up agreed borders, peace treaties, economic co-operation etc are minimal.
That’s why I am looking at a multi-state solution. Say 15 small (geographically) states with independant judiciaries, elected legislatures and administrations, with a central elected government handling foreign affairs and defense. The benefits of such a solution are that border lines can be drawn much more flexibly in the beginning, subject to negotiation just between the appropriate adjoining states. The friction points between the main population groups are at the local level, not national issues like defense. Major stumbling blocks such as physical links between West Bank and Gaza, and the status of Jerusalem, are thereby eliminated. The whole nature of Israeli society could be beneficially changed. It’s a dream, I know, but not wholly in the pipe.
edwino, I’m still on the subject of “who is a Jew?” and, frankly, it pisses me off that the Orthodox definition is the only one with the weight of Israeli Law. Although I am now in a Consevative shul, I was raised Reform, and several many members of my old Reform Congregation, heck of the Temple Board even, are not Jews by the standard of Orthodox halacha, even though they are Jewish by Reform rulings. My youngest daighter is not Jewish by Orthodox rulings. (She is adopted, and converted in a Conservatitive conversion ceremony … Israeli Law only accepts Orthodox conversions.) Orthodox interpretation is not the same as Jewish Law unless you feel up to dissing the vast majority of Jews for their religious practices and observations, and it certainly should not be the basis of Israeli Law.
It is hard to understand how on the one hand you defend that the Orthodox should have the only say on such a critical aspect of Israeli Law and society as elgibility for citizenship(!), and yet simultaneously take the other hand, bemoaning the excess power that the ultra-religious command.
DSeid
I’m not really defending the Orthodox – my wife is Reform and I am basically atheist. I agree that they have a stranglehold. I just think that it is a legtimate argument that if you are going to call yourself a Jewish state, the only legitimate criterion for deciding who is a Jew is the laws that define Judaism. That said, I do think that Israel recognizes (by law) Conservative and Reform conversions, but you may have to go to court to get citizenship in practice.
The Orthodox are trashing the country and their religion by trying to make a theocracy. They are amongst the most corrupt and power-hungry members of government. Many laws supported by them seek to do nothing except widen the secular-religious divide. It is an unresolved dilemma for me. I think that the Law of Return is a good law simply because of the history of the Jewish people. But, at heart, I don’t think it is a tenable law because it runs against the grain of egalitarianism. The Law of Return doesn’t come from or fit into a democratic tradition. I think a legitimate alternative would also be quite symbolic – use the Nazi criterion of Jewishness for citizenship into Israel. But other than that, I see no other way to define Jewishness outside of halacha. Remember our dear departed poster Sweet Willy? Israel needs some law to distinguish from Joe Gentile from raising his hand and saying “I’m Jewish, let me into Israel” and other more legitimate requests. If it isn’t going to be halacha, there isn’t much else.
rampisad
The difference between the Israeli foreign workers and the European foreign workers, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that the Israeli one have absolutely no hope of ever getting citizenship and becoming true parts of Israeli society. They will never get the vote, they will never get the other benefits of citizenship. This is a severe threat to equal representation and democracy.
About your last point, I would really like to know how it would differ from annexation of the West Bank and Gaza and granting citizenship to the Palestinians. I see no differences – the Palestinians wouldn’t have complete self-rule, the Israelis will probably not be a majority, Jews probably would start being a minority. I also don’t see why the Palestinians wouldn’t immediately withdraw their state and form an independent country free of “Israeli hegemony” or whatever they want to call it. I am, at heart, unfamiliar with the idea of a United States of Judea – in a federal type system, how would the state lines be divided? What advantages would the Palestinians get that they wouldn’t in a two-party solution? How about the Jews?
First - non-Jews can be citizens of Israel in every respect except that currently they are not required to serve in the Army. I think you are confusing the power of the halachic authorities to determine who is a Jew with the power of the State to grant citizenship. A Jew has automatic citizenship by right, any other person can apply just like you would do in most countries.
Second. IMO the two-state solution will not work because it puts all of the (fragile) eggs into one big pressure cooker, to mix my metaphors. You have to concoct a single Palestinian state out of two physically separate areas, out of people who have weak feelings for the particular piece of land they are resident in (i.e the refugee camps) and with a lot of factors pushing them in a different direction, and set up some relationship with Israel that will overcome their enormous distrust of each other.
My “dream” solution is to allow a federated state where borders and issues can be set and adjusted as an on-going process between smaller units. The particular obstacles that overwhelm the two-state solution (settlements, Gaza/West Bank bridge, Jerusalem, right of return of refugees) can be broken down into more manageable units. Gaza could be two smaller states (I’m flying by the seat of my pants here), J’lem it’s own state (much like Washington or Canberra), West Bank would be three of four states, with areas of strong Jewish interest like Efrat/Gush and Maaleh Adumin as states. The map would be subject to agreed change between the interested states (not needing consent of the whole country which would be a much harder task).
You need to rethink the concept of Palestine as a single country that’s been stolen from its inhabitants. There never was such an entity, and only propaganda and political maneuvering has created the need for such today.
A solution like this has worked in the past - best example in my knowledge is Australia. There was no chance of forming a single country, due to mistrust of having an overwhelming central power dominated by a single area. Strict definition of state and federal rights was necessary before the smaller population states (WA, QLD, TAS) would come in, and New Zealand dropped out altogether for the same fear.
They can purchase land from a Jew?
I understand that anyone – Jew, non-Jew, whoever – can be a citizen of Israel. I understand that there exist laws governing emigration and citizenship processes for non-Jews. But I wonder how often they are implemented. Do many foreign workers eventually become citizens of Israel? Your ideas on cantonization of Israel are interesting, I will raise a few questions after I’ve had time to chew on it for a bit.
js, yes, non-Jews can purchase land from Jews in Israel. Israel has no dhimmi status nor any equivilant of the Christian Jewery Laws. But a Jew cannot purchase land from an Arab in the PA, by PA law.
edwino, you have raised what I think is the most critical question for Israel: can it, long term, persevere as a secular Jewish state? or is it such an oxymoron that eventually one of them will have to give? Either it will be true to its secular ideals and risk becoming non-Jewish at some point, perhaps even eventually having Islamist leanings (!) … or give up on its secular side and become more of a theocracy?
Whether it is two states or more (I can’t see the advantage to these multiple microscopic federated states myself; I don’t see it taking the problems off the table) long term stability will require integration between the entities, if not federation then dang close. That is why I saw Arafat’s balking at CD2 over 2 - 4% of the territory as so tragic. If peace is achieved then 2 - 4% of the territory is insignificant in a few decades … the system to achieve integration of the societies, the nuts and bolts of revenue sharing, school system support, etc, OTOH is vital!
I emailed this question to Gush Shalom:
And received this reply,
The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies tells us that “The ILA [Israel Lands Authority] administers all land owned by the government or by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). The area under ILA control comes to 94 percent of Israel’s land.”
That would make 92% of 94%, or .92 * 94 = 86.48%, of Israeli land ineligable to ownership or lease by non-Jews on strictly religious/racial grounds. With all due respect, owning or leasing land is so fundamental that your statement that “non-Jews can be citizens of Israel in every respect except that currently they are not required to serve in the Army” is rendered essentially empty. Being systematically prevented from acquiring land in 86% of the country purely on the basis if creed is in direct contradiction to any reasonable definition of citizenship.
js
I think it is important, when dealing with a body like Gush Shalom, which has a very clear and overwhelming political agenda, to treat their material as suspect, subject to verification. I can cite for you other sources that say the following
(emphasis mine)
As a sidelight, that website has the following relevant paragraph, of which I was not aware until now
You need also to understand that the mechanism of ownership was set up long before the current conflict between Palestinians and Jews for control of land was envisaged. The driving force was Zionistic, anti-capitalist …
The Israel Land Authority is the governemt body charged with managing state-owned land. It is goverened by a board of directors, and has as its components many private or semi-private bodies which were set up in the pioneering days to acquire land specifically for Jewish immigrants. While the ILA is itself required by law not to discriminate, the components are not under any such requirement themselves, and it is they who actually own the land. The statement that “the government owns 94% of all the land” is therefore not correct. The ILA manages that land, but the component organizations are themselves in most cases forbidden by their charters to sell land to non-Jews. The government has been taking steps to correct this as much as is possible without having to dissolve the entire land-ownership structure in the country. In 1999, the first Arab member was appointed to the board of the ILA, and another would have been the next year if not for the outbreak if the intifada.