I’d be offended if I knew what the hell he was saying.
You know, at this point I’m half-convinced that your’re actually an anti-Israeli shill, “Derek”. I mean, there’s no way someone could come to *this *board spewing Trumpspeak and expect people to take Israel’s side as a result.
The UN charter does what?!?!
There are a lot of problems in America because some people want to keep it a white Christian state. A lot of Israelis fit that mold. A lot of Israelis don’t seem to really care THAT much about maintaining a Jewish state as long as immigrants are willing to swear loyalty to an Israeli state. This is all just based on stuff I read on my facebook feed , so…
It’s pretty obvious Shodan meant a UN Resolution and accidentally typed charter. There is by definition only one charter, he’d have used the word ‘the’ rather than ‘a’ if he actually meant the charter. Regarding the Resolution, see UN General Assembly Resolution 181 which created a Jewish and an Arab state from the Palestinian Mandate. The plan was accepted by the nascent Jewish state while Arab states rejected the plan, indicated they would reject any other plan of partition, walked out of the UN General Assembly and promptlyinvaded as soon as the British left.
Alessan might be able to help clarify this, but I suspect there are very few Israelis obsessing about keeping America a “white Christian state”.
If the Earth blew up and we all went to mars, some might consider us colonists even if we had nowhere else to go. And its not like they have nowhere to go. I bet the USA would take all 6 million of them if they were actually being driven into the sea. Heck, we could use a few more people in places like Wyoming.
The Zionists might have thought of themselves as colonists:
Perhaps the apartheid analogy isn’t perfect because there Jews are not a 10% minority but that just changes how brutal their oppression has to be in order to oppress Palestinians. The whites under apartheid were only 10% of the population so they needed to be particularly brutal to keep the natives in line. Jews represent a far greater percentage of the population of the former territory of Palestine about 45%. So they don’t have to be nearly as brutal.
The efficacy of the tactics that worked against Apartheid South Africa had nothing to do with the demographics. They would have worked if blacks were a minority. Economic isolation would work against Israel as well as they worked against South Africa. I’m not saying that we should do this but if we did, I think it would work.
Haha.
Then doesn’t that same resolution create both a Jewish state and Arab state? or is he saying that the resolution uses the terms Jewish state but not the term Palestinian State, so there’s no such thing as a Palestinian or something? Because that seems pretty nit picky.
Why gosh, the US had done so much to help the Jews escape Nazi persecution right before the Nazis murdered 6 million of them I don’t know why anyone would be skeptical of such an absurd notion that the US would take in 6 million Jewish refugees to settle them in Wyoming.
Oh, and just maybe you might want to put some due weight upon what the Secretary General of the Arab League was actually saying:
Bolding mine.
Yeah, you might want to pay attention to the part where the resolution was roundly rejected by all the Arab states who walked out of the UN General Assembly announcing that they would reject any resolution and proceeded to invade the newly created state of Israel with the intention of destroying it.
I guess this is as good a thread as any in which to say, RIP Shimon Peres.
He was a starry-eyed idealist, and too naive for the Israeli public to ever elect him to the Prime Minister position, but he served his nation faithfully for half a century, and deserves credit for trying to achieve a genuine peace.
The key fact here is that your sentence is written in the past tense.
As you no doubt have noticed, the “PICA” no longer actually exists, and hasn’t for over 60 years.
No doubt the Mayflower Pilgrims thought of themselves as “colonists”. However, that fact does not make modern Americans “colonists”. A few intervening events in American history (such as, for example, the War of Independence) have fundamentally changed the relationship between Modern Americans and the “metropolitan” of the UK.
Similarly, although less time has passed, a few intervening events have changed the relationship between the citizens of Israel and the original “colonial” boosters of settlements in Mandatory Palestine, such as the Rothschilds. It is a bizarre anachronism to insist, as you appear to do, that this relationship somehow fundamentally affects the character of modern-day Israeli citizens.
The fantasy that the US could or would take the entire population of another country is just that, a fantasy.
You have fundamentally missed the point, which has nothing whatsoever to do with comparing how brutal the two countries are or were.
The relationship between Israelis and Palestinians is simply different from that between Black and White Africans. This difference is important, because without Black labor, White Apartheid South Africa could not function. South Africa was vulnerable in a way that Israel is not.
Israel doesn’t need Palestinian labor to anything like the same extent. This is true whether the Israelis were as nice as nursemaids, or as cruel as Satan.
Fact is that models such as “anti-colonialism” and “anti-apartheid” simply cannot work to change Israeli behavior (whether you agree that it needs changing or not), because they are based on wholly different situations with totally different dynamics that the Israeli/Palestinian problem - which is much more similar to (say) the break-up of Yugoslavia.
So it is dumb and self-defeating to keep pounding these particular square pegs into the round holes of the ME situation.
If you are going to throw turds without any substance into the thread, go open your own thread in The BBQ Pit, do not clutter up Great Debates with your smears.
**
= = = = =**
iLemming and DerekMichaels00, if either of you wish to troll a board with your ethnic slurs and meaniningless, (but clearly inflammatory), comments, take it to a message board that tolerates or encourages trolling and the spewing of hatred.
The next time either of you post such hate-filled nonsense, you will be Warned for trolling and continuing to spew such tripe will result in theloss of your posting privileges.
[ /Moderating ]
Would that include Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Hebron, Jerusalem, and Gaza City in the 1930s and 1940s even though they had lived there for hundreds of years if not longer?
In your view, what is the “Magic Year” i.e. the year in which inhabitants of the Holy Land became the True Owners of the area with superior rights to any group which came their before or after the Magic Year?
Yeah, that was then, this is now. We used to have literacy tests to vote and anti-miscegenation laws. The Chinese Exclusion Act was still the law of the land. We wouldn’t turn away a boatful of Israeli refugees. :rolleyes:
So then you would be willing to accept UN authority on what happens there today? Or is the UN only an authority when it does things that you like?
The resolution was achieved through bribes and threats, it was conceived without input from the arabs but with plenty of input from the zionists.
I am willing to say we are where we are (after all, America hardly has clean hands when it comes to imperialism and colonialism), or we can argue about whether Israel has a moral right to exist in the first place. If you really want to argue that Israel occupies some sort of moral high ground in the events surrounding its formation, we can have that argument.
I thought you said that they couldn’t be colonists because there was no place they were colonizing FROM.
Well, yeah, because it got wrapped into the Jewish Colonization Association. AFAICT, they owned most of the “Jewish owned land” in Israel at the time of its formation.
It wasn’t that long ago. There are still people that were displaced by the zionists that are now living in refugee camps. As long as the oppression continues, it still seems like colonization.
We almost did it with Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, etc. If it came down to it do you really doubt it? We could easily absorb 8 million reasonably well educated Israelis with reasonably similar values and democratic traditions.
They didn’t stop because there were so many blacks. they stopped because they got cut off from the world. Israel would similarly stop the bullshit with the settlement activity if we cut them off from the world.
Well, I agree that these analogies are not useful in reaching a resolution but not because they aren’t apt but because America will never boycott Israel and Israel is never going to feel so guilty that they will leave for Wyoming. Right now Israel can do whatever the fuck it wants (short of genocide) as long as they are willing to live with a low to moderate level of terrorism and the scorn and disdain of the world.
Then you haven’t been reading my posts carefully.
Here’s what I wrote in the first post you responded to:
This is why calling Israelis “colonists” is useless as an analogy, and treating them like “colonists” is useless as a guide to strategy. They cannot “go back home” because they ARE “home”. The original countries their ancestors came from will not take them back, will not support them, are in no way their “homeland” any more, any more than (say) a third-generation US citizen “looks to” (say) Poland as their “ancestral homeland”.
In short, the analogy fails not because the Jewish Israelis are FROM somewhere, but because they cannot GO.
And here we have it: the facts don’t matter, because if it “seems like colonization” it makes some sort of moral sense to call it “colonization”.
I have no idea what you are talking about. When was there any serious plan to import the entire population of the Philippines?
Un, no, they stopped because the situation within South Africa became untenable. World pressure certainly helped, and was a factor, but it is a total fantasy (alas, often indulged in by Western leftists) to imagine it was the decisive factor, as opposed to internal problems.
Where, in the case of Israel, is the influence of institutional racism on industrial policy leading to “internal contradictions”? Nowhere, that’s where.
Pushing the example of South Africa as the sole example of where sanctions and the like actually worked (as opposed to the numerous examples where they did not - the current example of Russia stands out here) must be the result of a certain amount of willful blindness, a stubborn unwillingness to actually learn from history.
Why did sanctions work in SA where they failed to work elsewhere? Because in SA, the system was already under considerable stress, because having a modern capitalist system attempting to use what amounts to mass forced labor doesn’t work well. Sanctions gave the system a push in a direction it was already heading.
With Russia, sanctions are widely seen by ordinary Russians and the government alike seen as an attack on the state by biased outsiders, so they have little effect on policy (I have zero love for the current Russian government, but those are the facts). Which is Israel “more like” in this respect - SA, or Russia?
The analogies are worse than useless, since they lead to actions that simply make the situation worse for everyone - and especially Palestinians.
The typical Israeli reaction to this alleged “scorn and distain” is to point out that Jews have lived with that for a very long time, without having an army and a country, and look what good that lack did them.
How is that different from saying that they can’t be colonists because there is nowhere they are colonizing FROM?
On the one hand, PICA and JCA both seem to think of the migration to Palestine as colonization. And on the other hand they aren’t colonists because they have nowhere to go back to?
It is useful to think of them as colonists but it is also useful to remember that this is the only home they have.
Well what’s going on in Israel is a bit unique in the modern world. It makes sense to call it colonization because 100 years ago there were very few Jews in Palestine and after a deliberate program to increase the population of Jews in Palestine and then a bloody war to create a Jewish state in a largely arab place, the colonization analogy doesn’t seem that far off.
So, what do you call it when a large population shows up in a populated area and declares a country for themselves?
We were thinking about making it a state at one point.
You’re right, there’s no strain as a result of oppression in Israel. :dubious: :rolleyes:
Let me just add right here that I think the only real analogy between Israel and apartheid is oppression and second class citizenship of arabs,. If Apartheid is going to be the analogy for second class citizenship and oppression based on race, then America is practicing apartheid too. I do think that there is one instructive observation by a former apartheid figure, F.W. DeClerk:
“It’s not a direct parallel, but there are some parallels to be drawn. Why did the old vision of so many separate states in South Africa fail? Because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves. Why will it fail, if it fails in Israel and Palestine? Because Palestine is maybe not offered an attractive enough geographical area to say ‘this is the country of Palestine’”."
There is an insistence by some pro-Zionists that Palestinians should take whatever the Israelis are kind enough to offer. They treat Palestinians like beggars at the able and beggars can’t be choosers.
Now they have an army, a country and Palestinian necks under the heel of one boot and Palestinian land under the heel of the other. I suppose its better than having your neck under a boot but you are excusing Israel’s failings by pointing to things like the Holocaust. You are using things like the holocaust as an excuse to oppress others.
Because the distinction between “having a homeland to go back to” and “not having a homeland to go back to” is the important one, in determining what sort of things motivate these individuals. What “works” on people with a homeland to go back to, will not “work” on people who do not!
Look, I understand, in modern progressive circles being a “colonist” automatically makes you bad and wrong, because of the decolonization struggles of the 50s through 70s, hence the desire to label Israelis as “colonists”. It’s simply a label expressing moral disapprobation (oddly, if you replaced it with “immigrants” it works on right-wing types.)
My point is that use of that label, tempting though it may be, is fundamentally a bad idea, because the tactics that worked in “decolonization” simply cannot work on Israelis. They cannot be convinced to “go home”.
And that is the same as inviting the entire population of Israel to leave the ME and immigrate to America how …?
Now that’s an example of being willfully blind to the argument actually being made, and presumably, you know it.
The economic situation in Israel bears exactly zero resemblance to that of South Africa.
The quote is staggering in its willful obtuseness. The Bantustans of SA “failed” not because they were not offered enough good land, but because they were not really “countries” at all; the inhabitants did not want to be citizens of them, they were forced to be. The inhabitants wanted to become (equal) citizens of SA.
That isn’t to say that the Israelis are not grasping as much as they can from what would be Palestine. They are. But Palestine isn’t a “Bantustan”, Palestinians genuinely want their own state, and by and large do not want to be absorbed as citizens of Israel! Israelis aren’t “forcing” Palestinians into a country they fundamentally do not want.
That’s why the better analogy is (say) the break-up of Yugoslavia, with Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians (to name only a few) all seeking the best deal they can get. In this case, the Israelis have a disproportionately good “hand” against the Palestinians, their rivals in the nationalism-game. That’s all.
No, I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m explaining why “moral suasion” from “world opinion” isn’t likely to prove a winning tactic in this case.
Just like it isn’t proving a winning tactic in restraining Russia, and for many of the same reasons: for historical reasons the morality of the accusers is not accepted by the recipients.
I have no liking or sympathy for Russia, but that doesn’t change the facts.
Yes I agree that you cannot expect to expel the Israelis back to where they came from. But it is useful when Israel acts like there is no flaw in its founding.
Immigrants don’t declare sovereignty on land that you used to live on.
If the Israelis weren’t being oppressive and acting like colonists, perhaps the analogy wouldn’t be so popular. They are walking and quacking like a duck so even if they can’t fly like ducks, we are calling them ducks.
I was just responding to the comment that we could not absorb that many people. We obviously can. I don’t propose it as a serious option for resolving the problems in the middle east. I was pointing out that unlike a previous poster who alluded to US rejection of Jewish refugees during the holocaust, I don’t think that the people of Israel would be turned back from US shores if they were driven from Israel, so references to the holocaust to support arguments in favor of Israel aren’t really appropriate any more.
So pre-existing economic strain is the only strain that can lead to a successful embargo/boycott?
Hey, I was just quoting De Klerk. Presumably he knew something about apartheid.
Then why the remark about how not having an army worked out for you in the past? If that’s not a reference to the holocaust and stuff like that, then what was the point?
MY point is that defenders of Israel keep harping on the holocaust as if there is another one around the corner or that its somehow justifiable to impose on the arabs for what Germans did to Jews
Doesn’t that depend on which territory you’re describing as “colonized”? Even if we agree that Israel within pre-1967 borders as endorsed by the UN Partition Plan is legitimately the nation-state “home” of the Israeli people, it’s still reasonable to argue that what Israeli settlements are doing in the occupied West Bank is “colonizing”, and that the settlers ought to “go home” to Israel’s legitimate territory.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
That isn’t to say that the Israelis are not grasping as much as they can from what would be Palestine. They are.
[/quote]
I think that’s why many people are describing the process as “colonization”.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
[…] Palestinians genuinely want their own state, and by and large do not want to be absorbed as citizens of Israel!
[/quote]
While it’s true that most Palestinians don’t want to be part of a non-Jewish minority in an officially Jewish state, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they oppose a binational state:
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Israelis aren’t “forcing” Palestinians into a country they fundamentally do not want.
[/quote]
How you figure? At present, what Israel is de facto doing is forcing Palestinians into effectively rightsless non-citizen residency of territory almost completely under Israeli control. At least one-third of Israelis favor outright Israeli annexation of the entire West Bank. Palestinians in general fundamentally do not want this.