I wouldn’t begrudge Israel’s right to put some restrictions on foreign nationals (or quasi-nationals), though I have my personal doubts they’ll lead to any kind of resolution or (at this late date) anyone in the region really wants a resolution.
This! This is one reason I am on the “the sky won’t fall” side in the thread. Having a real government and a real state and some real resources – which could be lost in case of a real war – would tend to make the Palestinian government more responsible.
If they become a state, and if Israel withdraws from occupation, and then if the new country continues to attack…Israel rolls right back in again, dismisses the government, annuls Palestinian statehood, and the occupation goes on. This, as a sort of worst-case scenario, only brings us right back to where we are now.
It offers the possibility of real progress, as Palestine seeks to build an economy, establishes diplomatic relations worldwide, and in all other ways acts as a real country. It could go reasonably well, overall. It ends the refugee crisis as it provides actual citizenship for the refugees.
If Palestine becomes a country, will other neighboring Arab countries maintain an embargo against them? Will Palestinian citizens be allowed to travel freely to Egypt or Jordan? If so, then much progress will have been made; if not, who is to blame?
You can, of course, point out where in my post I said this was an acceptable state and that Palestinians should just suck it up? Was it after I said “this is definitely segregation” and “kinda sucky”? Because I can’t see the words you seem to be reading in there.
It’d be considered an apartheid policy if it distinguished between all Arabs and Jews. Apartheid means something. I used to be fairly cavalier about using it about Israel, but I’ve come to see that it actually doesn’t help matters, it just derails threads into being about the definition of apartheid.
Is there a particular reason the word “segregation” isn’t good enough for you?
See, here’s the thing - I know first-hand what actual historical Apartheid was. The situation in Israel sometimes has shades of it, but this? This isn’t it.
No, nowhere near as bad, but that is the same ballpark we are in.
How is the situation in Gaza different from a “real government,” a “real state,” and “real resources”? The main difference I can think of is that “Gaza” is not formally recognized as a state by anyone. But if Gaza were recognized as a state, how would that change anything? Why would you expect Hamas to behave more responsibly?
And what about the situation in Judea and Samaria? How is the Palestinian Authority not a “real government,” with a “real state” and “real resources”? The main differences I can think of is that Judea and Samaria are occupied by Israel. If Israel were to pull out, why would you expect the Palestinian Authority to behave more responsibly?
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Do you have any actual evidence to support your position? Or is it just based on your hopes and wishes?
And Israel is condemned loudly and aggressively all over the world for just like it was when it re-invaded Gaza.
Lol, are you serious? “Palestine” has already announced that the “refugees” would not be given citizenship.
Please stop it with the wishful thinking and face reality.
No, it’s not even the same sport.
Instituting travel restrictions on foreign nations who one is at war with is 100% different from discriminating against one’s own citizenry based on ethnicity. Trying to equate the two lowers the quality of an argument and trivializes actual instances of governmental racism via juxtaposition with legitimate security concerns.
Well, take Bangladesh, as opposed to “East Pakistan.” By obtaining statehood, they entered into equal-level negotiations with other nations: treaties, ambassadors, trade agreements, etc.
I think it is a possibility.
Bangladesh, Vietnam, South Africa since the rejection of apartheid, a few other good examples. Also note that I said this is what might happen, not what would happen. The possibility is enough to proceed upon, especially since, if it fails, we haven’t actually lost any ground. We’d be right back where we are now.
Do you agree that there’s nothing stopping Gaza from doing these things in an informal way right now, just like Taiwan does?
Anyway, please show me evidence that East Pakistan / Bangladesh started behaving significantly more responsibly as a result of its secession.
Lol, it’s also a possibility that Alessandra Torresini will call me tomorrow and ask to become my love slave.
Again, please show me evidence that East Pakistan / Bangladesh started behaving significantly more responsibly as a result of its secession and statehood.
As far as South Africa goes, you do realize, don’t you, that it had a “real government,” a “real state,” and “real resources” since long before the end of apartheid?
And when exactly did Vietnam get a “real government,” a “real state,” and “real resources”?
Don’t weasel, you said that it would “tend to make the Palestinian government more responsible.” So far, this claim has not stood up to scrutiny.
I’m not sure who you mean by “we,” but I hope you are not Israeli since Israel has suffered a lot in terms of lost lives, lost resources, terrorized citizens and world condemnation for reasonable self-defense as a result of its pull-out from Gaza.
Is this a serious question?
If so, yes there is.
It’s a state called Israel which has shown that it is perfectly willing to invade Gaza on the slightest pretext and has exercised vastly more control over Gaza than the PRC has ever attempted to engage in regarding Taiwan.
If this was a serious question, I’d recommend stopping by your local library and reading up on the subject.
Er…are you familiar with South Asian history?
If so, I’m sure you’re familiar with how after Bangladesh became an independent nation Indians were happy and relations between India and Bangladesh got considerably better.
Ok, I nearly pissed myself laughing at this question coming immediately after you demanded to know why Apartheid South Africa wasn’t considered a “real state”?
Do you have a preference for states in which a white minority is able to brutalize and oppress a non-white majority?
If not, your question makes no sense, since Vietnam has been a real state for decades and remains the only nation in the world to be invaded by the American military and to send said military scurrying back to the US with it’s tail tucked firmly between it’s legs.
I’m no fan of the government of Vietnam, but they’ve been a legitimate state since the 1950s and have managed to resist attempted conquests by the Japanese, the French and the Americans, for which they deserve to be saluted.
Once again, I’d recommend heading to your local library and reading up on the subject. If you’re interested, I’ll be happy to recommend some books that would help you out.
Just ask if you’d like to learn about a part of the world you just passed judgement on.
Oh please, I nearly pissed myself laughing at this comment.
You’re familiar with the recent history of Iran aren’t you?
If not, I assume you’re familiar with the work of Natan Sharansky whom you’ve just strongly implied was a complete moron?
Please explain why we should take you more seriously than Natan Sharansky.
Have you ever visited Israel and the Occupied territories?
Do you speak Arabic and Hebrew or at least one of the two languages?
If not, what would make you so arrogant as to lead us to believe you know more than Sharansky?
Thanks
Yep. That was pretty much my point.
Well, actually, I was thinking of unified Vietnam, which, since the end of the war, has been (with a few exceptions) a fairly placid, staid, and responsible nation. They haven’t been waging war on their neighbors, nor raiding shipping, etc. etc. The unification was what they most wanted, and, obtaining it, they settled down to the business of governing.
Well, easy does it: we don’t have to pass these qualifications to have an opinion here. I haven’t been to the region, and I don’t speak the languages, but I’m still going to post, now and then, because I do have opinions. I will never pretend to be an expert on the subject, but, in this light, I limit myself to making comments of the more general variety.
My opinion is that Palestine, as a state, would not be any more of a threat to Israel than it is as an occupied territory, and could very possibly be less of a threat, because of the responsibilities of nationhood. They might rise to the responsibility. They might not, and that would be a continuation of the tragedy of the region. But it wouldn’t lead to a situation worse than the one we see today.
Statehood would also lead to the end of Israeli settlement building, which many feel would be a positive step toward peace.
(One ugly possibility, which I quite dread, is the declaration of statehood – without the drawing of borders! If Palestine should become a nation, but the borders are “disputed” then, alas, I can see some very dire limits to the good that could some of it. But, even there, in the terms of the thread, I don’t think the sky would fall.)
Was Vietnam waging war on its neighbors before the Vietnam war?
Again my question: When did Vietnam become a “real state” with a “real government” and “real resources”? Just tell me what year it happened so I can scrutinize your claim.
As far as Bangladesh goes, please show me evidence that East Pakistan / Bangladesh started behaving significantly more responsibly as a result of its secession.
And do you agree that even before Apartheid ended, South Africa was a “real state” with a “real government” and “real resources”? It’s a simple yes or no question.
Unfortunately, what the Palestinian Arabs most want is for there not to be a Jewish state in the Middle East. They don’t want their own state and never have, except insofar as it puts them closer to their goal of ending Jewish Israel. That’s why they have rejected no less than 4 statehood offers. That’s why their was no serious push for a Palestinian State between 1948 and 1967. And that’s why your plan will not work.
First of all you are weaseling again. More importantly you are wrong. A Palestinian State would be used for lawfare and rocket attacks against Israel. This claim is based on actual evidence as opposed to wishful thinking.
Only those who are deluded.
Oh, and what is stopping Gaza from informally doing : “treaties, ambassadors, trade agreements, etc.” just like Taiwan does?
The answer, of course, is “nothing at all.”
It’s disingenuous to say Japanese Americans were being discriminated against “based on ethnicity” and ignore the fact that their imagined nationalistic allegiance to , and feared acts of sabotage on behalf of, a** foreign nation, **that the US was at war with, was the reason they were interned. Or, if it was purely ethnic discrimination, why it was generally only the West Coast Japanese who got interned, yet so relatively few Hawaiian Japanese were.
100% different, my ass.
No, it isn’t. What is disingenuous is the silly little game you’re playing.
Discriminating against one’s own citizens is not the same as placing travel restrictions on foreign nationals. You’re going to great, and silly, lengths to draw a false equivalence. And, of course, you are still trivializing actual governmental discrimination when you claim that putting travel restrictions on non-citizen, foreign nationals who are citizens of a country which one is at war with is the same as putting one’s own citizens into concentration camps. At the point where you actually argue that interning your own citizenry in concentration camps is equivalent to saying that foreign nationals who have a habit of blowing themselves up on your buses can’t ride those buses?" Well, it rapidly becomes readily apparent that your argument is emotional, irrational, and irrelevant.
And, naturally, you seized upon the fact that I didn’t add the proper number of caveats to “…based on ethnicity”. I’m sure that for purposes of avoiding obfuscatory nitpicking, I should’ve added… or race, or religion, or…" But, seriously, fuck that noise. Your argument is so weak that it pretty much boils down to “But not all Americans of Japanese heritage were put into concentration camps, so that proves that putting your own citizens into concentration camps is the same sort of thing as saying that foreign nationals of a country you’re at war with will have travel restrictions!”
If you don’t have anything cogent to add to the discussion, your contributions can safely be ignored.
The primary difference (and IMHO the decisive one) is that the Japanese who were interred were US citizens. Thus, it is considered highly unjust to suspect them of being ‘more loyal’ to the country of national origin of their ancestors than to their current nation. Some of the sons of the very people interned fought in the US army, and otherwise conspicuously demonstrated their loyalty to the US. The default ought to be, IMHO, that having accepted someone as a citizen they should not be treated as enemy aliens unless they demonstrate actual disloyalty.
The Palestinians affected by these measures, in contrast, are not Israeli citizens. There is no expectation by anyone that they should display loyalty to Israel.
Now, if Israel enacted such measures against Israeli Arabs, there would be a clear parallel to the US treatment of Japanese-Americans. As it is, there is not.
I agree with Malthus, and I would also like to point out that while the interment of Japanese citizens in the US during WWII was not solely due to ethnic discrimination, it is telling that American citizens of German ancestry did not, by and large, suffer such inconvenience. So I think it’s fair to infer that there was at least some Ethnic discrimination going on…
True, but the justification for the interning if the California Japanese was that they were “foreign nationals”. All of them were citizens of the Japanese Empire.
That was also the basis for restrictions put on a number of other “foreign nationals” from Italy and Germany. This was why Joe Dimaggio’s parents were put under curfew and his dad couldn’t use his boat to fish.
Furthermore, in addition to the fact that all of the California Japanese being Japanese nationals based on Japanese law, not all were US citizens.
Only those born in the US were citizens. Those who were immigrants weren’t allowed to be US citizens because, by law, until 1952, one of the conditions of being naturalized as a US citizen was that you had to be “a free white person.”
Nitpicking, but what’s the SDMB without nitpicking? This isn’t the best example; Vietnam was at war with two of its neighbors within 5 years of unification. Former ally China invaded Vietnam in 1979 in response to Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia at the end of 1978 which was the culmination of smaller scale clashes that had been going on since 1975. Vietnam was certainly heavily provoked by the Khmer Rouge, but they did invade and occupy their neighbor until 1989.
You are correct in that the justification was bullshit, and we are justifiably still outraged by our country’s actions because those were American citizens who were oppressed. However, if during WWII we allowed Germans to immigrate to America en masse, but requested that they use separate ships in their ocean crossings, the issue would be far, far different.
I wasn’t aware of that. That makes it more complicated. American citizens are entitled to the full protections and privileges of law, but honestly I’m not quite ready to extend that full benefit to non-citizens. And while putting people into concentration camps is abhorrent, I’m not at all sure I’d find all that much objectionable with deporting non-citizens if there was a valid security concern, preferably only when paired up with individual appraisals/background checks. Of course, since as you say, Japanese immigrants should have been able to earn citizenship and were denied it due to racist immigration/naturalization policies, I’d still say that it was a nauseating episode in American history and the fact that some Japanese Americans weren’t allowed citizenship doesn’t change the fact that they should have been, and therefore should have been entitled to the full rights and privileges under law as any other American.
/$.02
The Wiki article claims that 62% of those interned were citizens.
The Fifth Amendment protection against deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process of law; and the Fourteenth Amendment protection of equal protection of the laws; both apply to persons, not citizens. On this basis, the internment of even resident aliens was unconstitutional. This Georgetown Law piece explores the points you’ve raised.
I don’t find the comparison with separate buses for Palestinians very compelling, as they are neither citizens nor residents of Israel, correct?