I always thought that children born in refugee camps were refugees. Are they generally citizens of the country that the refugee camp is in?
OK, so when you said the world made it necessary to have a Jewish state, you were not referring to Nazis and concentration camps. You were referring to the existence of anti-Semitism generally? Because it was the guilt over Nazis and concentration camps that seems to have made the creation of the state of Israel politically possible.
Lets just limit the discussion to those who lived in what is now Israel and Palestine in 1947 and their descendants. Was there a large migration of arabs from other parts of the middle east into Palestine? For what purpose would they move there?
So you think we applied a double standard on South Africa and it is unfair to apply a similar standard to Israel?
This is bizarre, and the new statistics are a reminder of the unique definition applied to Palestinian “refugees.” For every other category of refugees in the world, the 1951 UN Convention on the status of refugees clearly applies to the refugee only and not subsequent generations. This is the definition used by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees today. Only in the Palestinian case does a separate organization, the UN Relief and Works Agency, count not only those who actually left their homes but those in succeeding generations, presumably forever, and regardless of whether those progeny were born and are settled elsewhere with full citizenship.
So a young American boy of, say, ten years of age born in Chicago to American parents, but whose grandparents were Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948, is counted by UNRWA as a “Palestinian refugee.”
You may ask why this unique definition of “refugee” for Palestinians? My only explanation for this is “because Joooos”.
Replace the words “give away” with the words “return to their rightful owners”
We are talking about what is right not what the biggest guy at the table would be willing to accede to. If we were just talking about what is possible then we are basically stuck with griping about Israel’s bad behavior and internet petitions to boycott them.
An Italian American might have divided loyalties too but in today’s world it just doesn’t matter outside of things like the Olympics or the world cup.
Who is the rightful owner of land jews bought from Arab landholders?
Who should you blame should such land change hands, and you don’t think jews should be on it?
Who is the owner of land gained in war?
Should you boycott countries who helped to incorporate Israel?
Yes, some “divided loyalties” won’t matter; others would. Not sure what this point goes to.
I’d say so
OK but you could also say thats not a DS. Transexuals are not analogous going either way (This isn’t true is it?)
In the end Double Standard is a pejorative term and has emotion and interpretation attached for that reason. If you are feeling the victim then you see the two things as “the same”, where if I am accused I see the two things as not comparable.
I’m not attached to the concept in this situation. It’s not necessary for me.
Sorry but painting this black and white is bullshit. Some of the settlements and stuff may seem clear cut,but the Palestinians would want to lay claim to stuff won in the 40s where it wasn’t big bully Israel stealing, it was mutual aggression. Look at the history of the previously mentioned Safed. Abbas got shit on for not laying claim to it, but the story is complicated.
Regardless, I stand by the fantasy comment. Anyone suggesting Israel give international arbiters carte blanche to divvy up their country is not worth taking seriously.
Who else would be the most fair party to do it? Certainly not Israel, certainly not Palestine, or the US. There is no perfect way, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. What organization in existence would be the most fair? Let them do it
Perfect/good has nothing to do with it. Fair has only tangential relation to it. The reality is what I am taking about. The Israelis would allow a non-binding arbitrator to smooth negotiations but there is some serious “hard negotiating points” on the Palestinian side that are simply non-starters and they would reject despite how internationally agreed upon it is.
So then since the UN has already agreed that Israel does not have to give up all the territory they took when Jordan invaded them then wouldn’t you agree it would be ridiculous for them to have to give up all the territory.
The UN after all are international arbiters.
You have to do that? There is no other viable option?
But you do realize that by that kind of logic, Jews also take the lion’s share of blame for developing nuclear weapons, the Cold War that resulted etc. Also everyone ever killed by a Galil or Uzi or derivatives thereof…
You willing to let them divvy up the US too? Indian Removal Act and all that…
I think the last word on the subject is this: no-one can or will negotiate, bargain, or agree to their own dispossession, exile, or destruction as a nation.
It is chimera to argue whether or not that dispossession, exile or destruction is “fair” or not (and I would assert that issue is by no means as clean-cut as you make it). Even asserting purely for the sake of argument that it was “fair” to dispossess the current inhabitants, it cannot be done peacefully - they have no-where to go.
Thus, insisting on it as a condition of negotiations is tantamount to insisting on war. The “perfect” - in this case, absolute fairness to the Palestinian exiles (once again, accepting your point about fairness for the sake of argument) is the enemy of the “good” - the “good” being resolving issues without war. A war, BTW, that the Palestinians could not possibly win.
Then maybe the answer right now is that no one would be fair enough to do it.
I think there probably exist a decent middle ground where some lands are exchanged, but I wouldn’t know exactly where to draw the border. Of all the international organizations out there, the UN seems the only one capable of even making the claim that they should do it. Maybe they are and maybe they’re not, but I wouldn’t rule them out
You know, the Native Americans probably deserve a lot more than the scraps the US has given them over the years. I would deny that I’ve personally benefited from the genocide and colonization, but I can’t in good conscience protest if the UN does something like that. I mean, really, Trail of Tears anyone? How can anyone who’s not a giant asshole ever even justify that? I won’t go out of my way to support them, but I’ll stand aside if they start partitioning land. Of course I say that knowing it’ll never happen, but I’m not one of those dickheads who say that the white man made Indian lands better and they should just get over it. They shouldn’t, and we should give reparations back to them, but it’ll never happen
That’s the thing, I don’t think there needs to be any destruction at all. I think both sides should end up equally unhappy, but believing that they got a little more than the other side. Some people act like giving up any land to Palestine or Israel is an existential crisis, but I’m not one of those people
All the usual worn debates about Israel are well and good. Boring by now, but well and good.
I think that most can at least agree that neither side is The Empire or The Rebel Alliance. I am a patriotic American who objects to many things that my government has done and done and I am a supporter of Israel who has taken issue with actions that Israel has taken. Even the comic books no longer have straight-forward comic book heroes and villains any more, and only few in the real world come close. Neither the broad groups “Palestinian” and “Israel” do even if certain subgroups of each side play each role with some degrees of success.
I do not label everyone who thinks that Israel is more in the wrong as anti-Semitic. I think they are wrong but that is both different, and by now, again, a very very boring debate.
Some few however are consciously anti-Semitic and using anti-Zionism as thin cover for ZOG-think, often overlapping the exact same tropes and phrases. They exist in both Right and Left circles.
Some greater number (“widespread” even) are falling into the same trap that results in biased behaviors within our own culture (not linking but I have also mentioned in the IMHO microaggresions thread). We all possess various stereotypes, have tapes that play, which impact our behaviors and decisions constantly with our conscious thoughts being unawares.
Many in America have those buried tapes playing about Jews even as they believe they have no anti-Semitic bones in their bodies and that some of their best friends are Jewish!! … “Jews have too much power.” (Be it control of media, banking, whatever.) “Jews are other.” “Jews will put their self-interest over the country’s/have divided loyalties.” “They are clannish.”
The story line of Israel as the abuser of power and the that they are able to impacted more than others by hitting with what matters to them … money … fits comfortably with those background tapes … biasing to conclusions that the facts do not comport with.
Again, not everyone who has come to accept that simplistic conclusion has done so out of those innate anti-Semitic beliefs. And those who have will deny it even to themselves.
Calling it out is useless … pointless … an exercise in futility.
But statements that there is no anti-Semitism in liberal circles, and that none of the BDS movement is in any way informed by anti-Semitic tropes … are just foolishness.
Let us double back to what started this off … Diane Rehm’s uncritical acceptance of a claim that Bernie Sander’s has dual citizenship with Israel, telling him that he did, telling him that he was wrong when he told her that he did not and asking him to discuss the others in the Senate who did. (Who in reality don’t.) And the defense that she could not be anti-Semitic because she is a liberal.
Is Rehm an explicit anti-Semite who would endorse statements like “Jews control the media and banking.” or “American Jews’ loyalty to America is suspect.”? I don’t think so.
Does she have those tapes playing in her head though, such that it made uncritical acceptance of such false FaceBook memes as fact so easy to do? Oh yes. Liberals have no special immunity to such things.
The comfort with singling out Israel to a special standard is made possible by those same sorts of processes.
Tell me about it. What about all those neocons? I’m disappointed too. It’s intelligence gone to the dark side. This is the human condition though, not the Jewish invention. Didn’t it start as an attempt to prevent the Nazis from sweeping the table? They call in the Jews to do the hard, dirty work, but there was a lot of good work.