So Will The Sky Fall If The UN Declare Palestine a State?

Great Debates
521

I come down sorta in the middle on this.

There is no doubt that problems exist in respect of Israeli Arabs. Now, to an extent, those problems are caused or exacerbated by the very policies that exist, as it were, to cater to those Arab’s own requirements. A typical example of this is that Arabs are not conscripted into the army (and, until this year, neither were ultra-orthodox Jews) - not because of anti-Arab prejudice, but rather because Arabs objected to conscription (and being made to, in effect, fight against other Arabs who may be close relatives in some cases).

However, in Israeli society, army service is significant for getting employment, and so Arabs are disadvantaged.

Problem here is that Israel is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t - one can only imagine the outcry if Israeli Arabs were dragged, kicking and screaming, into conscription. Bad enough conscripting Israeli Arab men - worse if it were conscripting Israeli Arab women. So Israel is blamed for not conscripting and would, even moreso, be blamed for conscripting.

However, the other side of the coin is that there does exist anti-Arab prejudice in Israel and there are government programs that discriminate - for example, by discriminatory funding for Arab education. Anti-Arab prejudice isn’t a figment of Israel-haters’ imagination, it is very real and a sizable problem.

It isn’t sufficient to point out that Arab Israelis would by and large prefer to be Israeli citizens, as Israel is, as a society, more attractive than most of its neighbours in all sorts of ways - it’s a relatively first-world nation.

522

Saying that the Israelis don’t conscript Israeli Arabs because of protests from the Arabs is false. As David Shipler pointed out in his book Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land, virtually all Arabs who apply are almost automatically rejected.

You are correct that a number of Israelis do use this as an excuse to discriminate against them, denying them jobs that there’s no reason to reserve for veterans and many Jewish non-veterans, whether Olim or Orthodox are able to take.

Edit: My first sentence was not meant as an attack or to suggest that you were being misleading. Sorry.

523

A few dozens? Do you seriously believe that there are only a few dozen religious settler types of the type I described?

Or are you just setting up a nice juicy strawman to attack?

Dude, the guy I quoted represents mainstream Arab thought. At least among the less radical ones. He’s a senior leader in Fatah which is supposedly the moderate faction. As far as I know, nobody in Fatah has repudiated his statement.

Good for you, but so what?

Ok, so you have no evidence besides your own wishes. That’s not a satisfactory basis for policy given the overwhelming evidence going the other direction.

And let me ask you this: Why do you think the world at large is likely to interfere? There are dozens of other conflicts all over the world. There are lots of groups which want statehood and autonomy. Why do you think the world at large is likely to interfere in this particular conflict?

Well let me put it a different way: There is a huge amount of hostility out there towards Israel. There always has been and there always will be. Would there be less hostility if Israel had not annexed Golan? Would there be more hostility if Israel had stayed in Gaza?

524

The one does not necessarily follow from the other logically. Rejecting volunteers could, very easily, be an example of the sort of petty jack-in-the-office discrimination of which Arabs (quite rightly) complain. Not imposing universal conscription on a particular group is a matter of policy.

Surely it is not hard to understand that imposing conscription could be the cause of resentment? Particularly if it was imposed, as it is on Jewish Israelis, on Arab women? Culturally, such an imposition would be unacceptable - which is, I would point out, similar to the reason why it is not imposed (or was not imposed) on ultra-orthodox Jews.

There is also considerable discrimination against the ultra-Orthodox. Many among the secular Israelis regard them as much the “enemy” as Israeli Arabs - to the point where the “demographic threat” from the ultra-Orthodox has quite replaced the “demographic threat” allegedly posed by Israeli Arabs as a political bug-bear.

No worries - I disagree with you, but I did not take it amiss that you disagree with me! :wink:

525

It’s like saying in US society colour of skin is significant for getting employment, and so African-Americans are disadvantaged.

Since you can be in Israeli army only if you’re Jewish.

Oh, man, these “explanations” are very amusing :rolleyes:

526

Where did you hear that one could only be in the IDF if one is Jewish?

You’ve heard of the Druze and the Negev Bedouin haven’t you?

527

As Ibn points out, it isn’t that simple.

Some non-Jews are historically found in the Israeli army (such as the Druze and Bedouin), and some Jews historically are not found in the Israeli army (such as the ultra-Orthodox).

It is not the case that “you can be in Israeli army only if you’re Jewish”. That is simply factually untrue. Rather, the issue in debate is why Israeli Arabs (who are not Druze and not Bedouin) are exempt from conscription - that is, mandatory enrollment in the Israeli Army.

It is Ibn’s contention, I presume, that the reason for this is anti-Palestinian prejudice on the part of Israeli authorities. It is mine that, while such prejudice no doubt exists to an extent, the reason is more basic: that to conscript Israeli Arabs en mass would be simply unacceptable to those Arabs - which is, at base, the same reason Israeli ultra-orthodox Jews were historically exempt.

This unacceptability would be doubly true for Israeli Arab women, as Israeli Arab society is somewhat more traditional in respect of the role of women than Israeli secular Jewish society.

That said, some Arabs do in fact volunteer to serve and are accepted, allegedly, although the numbers who serve are minute, and few become officers.

528

Hows about this one: the UN Sets up “The Republic of Palestine”…with an annal subsidy of $10 billion/year (paid by the UN membership)-one one condition-they stop violence against Israel. No defense budget, free money, and instant country!

529

You do that, and the first rocket into Israel will be fired within an hour.

530

And the 10 billion would be used to make war on Israel via deniable proxies.

531

Which campaign would that be? Israel wasn’t founded legitimately in the first place. The UNGA resolution recommending the Partition Plan was opposed by Britain in particular (as the country with the Mandate to govern Palestine) and the UNSC in general, because it violated the rights of the Palestinian majority; the US pressured various members into changing their vote to push it through; but it had no legal weight as the UNGA did not and does not have the power to create states. It was never anything more than a recommendation, and in fact it was never implemented.

Ben Gurion & the other Zionists active in Palestine at the time obviously didn’t want a one-state solution because they were in the minority and would have lost their state in the first election. Even with all the post-war Jewish immigrants, Palestinian Arabs were still a significant majority. Britain, as an experienced colonial administrator, objected to Partition because it violated the terms of the Balfour Declaration (which explicitly guaranteed the rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine and only promised the Jews a homeland, not a state). Britain gets bad press for trying to prevent the immigration of Holocaust victims, but I think they and the UNSC saw very clearly that the formation of a Jewish state would immediately lead to a war with the Arab League, as it was essentially a hostile occupation; and of course, that’s exactly what happened.

After WWII and with Stalin on their hands and the Berlin Blockade about to start, Britain didn’t have the resources to manage a difficult situation in Palestine and ended the Mandate on 14 May 1948. The State of Israel was unilaterally declared the next day, and the Arab League promptly and justifiably declared war. And the last 65 years have been testimony to what a disastrous mess that was.

The radical Palestinians (Hamas is becoming mainstream) are thus historically quite correct. The land belongs to them, not to Israel. However, I doubt if anyone would have begrudged the Jews a homeland after the Holocaust, and Abbas (Fatah) is moderate and very willing to accept a two-state solution if the settlements are stopped.

The problem now is not Palestine but the Revisionist Zionists in control of Likud; they believe that they are historically entitled to the Biblical boundaries which supposedly go up to the Jordan, they’ve fragmented the West Bank into Bantustans, they violate every single ceasefire and then manage to accuse the Palestinians of starting it, and of course they feed the aspirations of more hardline Palestinians. (This last round in Gaza started when the IDF shot a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, but all you will hear about in the US press is rockets. 28 Israelis have been killed by Hamas rockets in 9 years, compared to hundreds of Palestinians. That’s still 28 Israelis too many, but the notion that Israel is in permanent danger from these vicious terrorists is absolute garbage.)

So I would say that if the US really wants to secure the future of Israel instead of just pandering to the internal Jewish lobby, the best thing they could do would be to stop vetoing, recuse themselves (the US is not an honest broker here) and allow someone else to force Israel to genuine terms while Abbas is influential. (If that means a few Israeli politicians end up going on trial in the ICC for war crimes, too bad. They deserve it.) Leave it much longer and Hamas and Islamic Jihad will become dominant, and with the Arab Spring and much more unity amongst the Arab countries, I think the end of Israel isn’t far off.

Put it this way; for most people, including younger liberal Jews, Israel is becoming more trouble than it’s worth, the Arab world is on the ascendant again (look at Dubai & Qatar for example) and are far more desirable allies than Israel, and ultimately, even if they’re willing to ignore Arab sentiment, I doubt if the US will take on China over this. China backs statehood for Palestine, in terms of international influence, they’re going to pull ahead of the US sooner rather than later, and nobody with any wits to spare takes on the Chinese militarily. They wrote the book.

532

Experienced =/= effective. See India, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, etc.

533

Can’t imagine why. It couldn’t be that they commit more human rights violations than the rest of the world combined. Could it?

534

Didn’t say they were - this isn’t an attempted justification of colonialism. The point is that they saw it coming. So did the UNSC.

I think the notion that the State of Israel was legitimized in some way by the UN is dangerous (apart from being false), because it portrays the Arab nations as having thrown a tantrum in 1948, and you just have to read the messages to see how much people have bought into the “savage Arabs”.

Imagine, oh, let’s see, some obscure tribe from Central Africa turning up in California and saying they’d lived there and had some sort of religious centre there 2000 years ago, and therefore had more right to it than the current inhabitants. Imagine they declare a state and are allowed to keep it…I think the drift is clear.

This is not to say that Israel should be dismantled; I don’t think that at all. But if the original injustice is understood, then perhaps it’s also easier to realise why the more extremist Palestinians are so hostile, and find a way to defuse without demonizing them. (I’m South African by the way - it can be done.)

535

I’m not a fan of Israeli policy, but this is just silly.

My point is that you shouldn’t be surprised that nobody listened to them (although in fairness it was happening at more or less the same time as the partition of India).

536

Well, yes and no. In comparison to an Assad or Qaddafi (or Guantanamo for that matter), it makes no sense. There are undoubted ongoing abuses against Palestinian civilians, as there were against South African blacks, and yet neither country reached the level of flat out torture and abuse that we associate with the really nasty dictators.

But if you consider the WB & Golan as the longest illegal occupation in modern history and the settlements as a permanent violation of the Geneva Convention (which in international law is correct), then every Israeli action detrimental to Palestinians in those territories is a human rights violation. I think the repetitiveness of the UN resolutions has more to do with the ongoing nature of the occupation and the rest of the world’s frustration than with the level of abuse.

As for nobody listening to Britain, I agree - but it’s a pity nobody listened to the UNSC. It was a disastrous mistake with entirely predictable consequences.

537

Why not? You make a strong case for why Israel should be dismantled. Are you just being magnanimous to this ‘obscure tribe’ who, in their delusion, makes outrageous claims about some 2,000 year historic ties to the land? Awfully nice of you to be so kind to a nation that commits ‘more human rights violations than all the other countries in the world combined’!

538

Yes, unless you buy into those religious delusions (I don’t, and I think they are dangerous nonsense), there is a very strong case for dismantling it if you’re an Arab, or just an outside observer who doesn’t buy the PR and is sick and tired of the constant violence. The Middle East would be a lot more peaceful without Israel.

However, modern Israelis are not responsible for the political blunders of the past, although they are certainly responsible for perpetuating land grabs unnecessarily. They’ve done an incredible job of state-building and they could play a powerful role in the region if they got over this “chosen people” crap and became good neighbours instead of paranoid visitors.

And mainly, I’m a bit sentimental about Israel. My dad was a pilot in the South African Air Force in WWII, fought Hitler, was wounded and nearly shot down in Italy, limped back to base in a Marauder with nearly 500 shrapnel holes in it, and if he’d been killed I wouldn’t have existed. (He spent another 22 years in the RAF after that so I was brought up with a tradition of service.)

It would have been worth not existing to beat Hitler and prevent a further Holocaust. It is not worth it if the only result is the ongoing and unnecessary suffering of Palestinian civilians. And since my existence was put on the line so that Israel could exist, I’d say I’m entitled to speak up, wouldn’t you?

539

Who cares? The US is got its back…and sides. Rogue state or not, doesn’t matter.

Can’t say I am surprised by the number of Israel apologists that openly write about Palestinians as backwards, violent, ignorant people.

On a site that is supposed to “fight ignorance.” :rolleyes:

Have fun, The Onion style. Which is what all these PI treads are.

540

You really, seriously believe this to be true?