Meanwhile in Palestine

[Zoraptor]

Most of the speculation on him being murdered was based on him being in the highest of high security cells (designed for Yigal Amir) so he should have been 'safe' from suicide, at least in theory.

 

There ain't enough information to suggest why he was imprisoned in the first place except that it was probably related to his job and must be reasonably serious or with the potential to get very serious.

[Calax]

 

SNL sucks these days. 

 

I was talking to fellow service members, and even they're calling Israel out on their bull****

 

I have a family friend who used to be a trainer for Merkava tank crews before she moved to the US. Some days when my parents were too busy, they could sometimes count on her to pick me up from school. One day she was driving her son and I home when some news came on the radio about the Gaza pullout (it was 2005) and she asked me how I felt about it. Now I grew up in a family that was quite critical of Israel's policies (my grandmother lived during the Japanese occupation of China, so she sympathised with the Palestinians), but my parents also raised me with enough sense to be sensitive. 

 

So in response, I gave the usual hamfisted answer: "Well, I think it's kind of sad they the settlers have to leave their homes." Her answer to that surprised me: "Well they have to leave. That land doesn't belong to Israel." 

 

These days, I take comfort that lot of Israelis are as likely to criticise the policies of their government as the rest of the western world, and that there are people doing good work for "Breaking the Silence" and B'tselem.

I think this is one of the things that needs to start getting more publicity. It's practically un-heard of for American politicians to even look wrong at an Israeli policy, but even within their own government there's significant backlash to some of the more draconian measures being imposed.

[Guard Dog]

Is this the part where I start posting about the virtues of a modern day Monroe Doctrine? Nah... what's the use.

[Malcador]

Light dose for one's outrage fix http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-soldier-posts-instagram-photo-of-palestinian-boy-in-crosshairs-of-sniper-rifle-1.504117

[Rostere]

Light dose for one's outrage fix http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-soldier-posts-instagram-photo-of-palestinian-boy-in-crosshairs-of-sniper-rifle-1.504117

 

The real outrage here is not the taking of a photo, but the attitude it reveals. Another time he might have pulled the trigger.

 

Since 2009, 336 Palestinian children have been shot or bombed to death by the Israeli army (and let's not forget that in the same time, 6 Israeli children have also been killed in the conflict by the other side). There is a fundamental disregard for human life which is not contributing to solve the conflict. The reason for this is the racial prejudices deeply embedded in the society. (To be honest though, I don't know of a single country which has been capable of punishing their own soldiers who step out of line in a sensible way anyway, so...)

 

For example, I watched an old episode of The Young Turks where

. That's pretty extreme by civilized standards. This article however mentions a far, far worse reality in Israel where for example over 50% of Israeli Jews believe that interracial marriage is equal to "national treason". I feel very sorry for the Israelis living in the relatively cosmopolitan Tel Aviv area who will have to deal with sharing their democracy with the fast-growing demographic group of ultra-orthodox Jews with these kinds of extreme views.

[Walsingham]

Nobody better try to make peace with the middle east, cuz I like Wals more than I like Arabs.

 

No offense, Arabs. 

 

ROFLMAO

 

Now I have a vested interest in forming as high an opinion of Arabs as possible.

 

 

Seriously though, to briefly summarise my objection:

 

Confrontation analysis leads me to believe that the situation is utterly intractable. No matter what minor one on one changes occur.

 

This is because neither player is organised in such a way as to be able to deliver the necessary 'moves' required to escape the impasse. Israel's constitution cannot deliver a single party majority government capable of finessing and delivering on a detailed settlement plan. The Palestinian 'authorities' on the other hand are entirely dependent on shifting sands of popular radical opinion. Any time any broker on either side makes meaningful concessions they are thrown out of power.

 

The impasse COULD be broken in theory if either side was willing to rejig their political appartus. But humans just don't think that way in large numbers. Ergo, all we'll ever see are temporary illusory shifts to and away from peace, punctuated by short bloody but low scale wars.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Walsingham

[Rostere]

Israel's constitution cannot deliver a single party majority government capable of finessing and delivering on a detailed settlement plan.

 

Technically it wouldn't need to be a single-party government or even a majority government (see for example the government of the late Yitzhak Rabin, but correct me if I'm wrong), although that would obviously make things easier.

 

What do you mean with "finessing and delivering on a detailed settlement plan"?

 

The impasse COULD be broken in theory if either side was willing to rejig their political apparatus. But humans just don't think that way in large numbers. Ergo, all we'll ever see are temporary illusory shifts to and away from peace, punctuated by short bloody but low scale wars.

 

What we could still hope for is a shift in public opinion.

 

Similar things have happened before. What comes to mind first is the independence of Algeria. The political background is eerily identical, except for the point where a civil war occurs and a majority of the native Algerians are driven out of the country.

 

The situation in Israel today would be quite like Algeria if all Palestinian refugees were magically teleported back to their homeland again.

 

We should ask ourselves exactly what happened around 1959 which changed the French popular opinion on the Algerian question. With the military coup and the following reinstatement of Charles de Gaulle, and the brutal military conflict in Algeria, people must have thought in 1958/1959 that the Algerian conflict was as unsolvable as today's conflict in Israel/Palestine.

 

De Gaulle realized that while France could easily achieve a costly military occupation of Algeria, the problems would only get worse. Atrocities committed by the French Army changed the opinion at home, while Eisenhower crucially made clear that as a NATO ally, France could not keep it's army occupied with hopeless colonial ventures.

 

We must also remember that in the 1980s, Reagan and Thatcher were criticizing the South African apartheid government while at the same time in practice being irreplaceable supporters of it, in way which exactly mirrors the current treatment of Israel by the EU and the US. ANC was labelled a terrorist organization, and people were told that they were fundamentally unfit for political leadership (please note that I'm not suggesting that ANC were political geniuses when in power, only that democracy proved a better alternative, also, compare the treatment of the ANC to the treatment of the PLO). Eventually, the Western community grew more cosmopolitan and the apartheid system of white supremacy became indefensible.

 

I still don't think people realize how close we were to peace before Yitzhak Rabin died. During his three years in office, he changed the entire game. When Netanyahu took over afterwards in what was to be his first term in office, he effectively killed the peace process, his pro-settlement bloc gaining popularity due to attacks by the organization Hamas. In hindsight, the Oslo accords should have been discarded there and then when it was clear the PLO no longer had a partner for peace. Instead they were inexplicably kept until only recently, which has effectively stalled the peace process for almost 20 years.

 

If you look at Israel/Palestine's interior politics, I would indeed say the future is bleak. However, a change in international opinion might change things entirely.

[JFSOCC]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-introduces-palestinian-only-bus-lines-following-complaints-from-jewish-settlers-1.506869

 

I wonder if there are any israeli jews who could see the irony.

[Walsingham]

 

 

What we could still hope for is a shift in public opinion.

 

Similar things have happened before. What comes to mind first is the independence of Algeria. The political background is eerily identical, except for the point where a civil war occurs and a majority of the native Algerians are driven out of the country.

 

Apologies, but I don't follow your Algerian analogy. I follow the concept of settlers etc. but I doubt the French had spent the last millenium saying "next year in Algiers". I guess that must be why you brought up South Africa, which - for the Afrikaaners - was an emotional issue. Prognostications that an end to apartheid meant an end to their national identity have proven sadly all too true.

 

But the RSA [checks Wikipedia] [...a long time later...] OK, I needed setting straight there. I had been going to say that it gave a stronger position to Mandela on assuming power. But in fact it looks like the capability to enact change came about through the very rare situation of F.W. de Klerk and Mandela and Mangosuthu Buthelezi agreeing on the way forward. I can't see an analogous situation emerging in Israel/Palestine. Not entirely sure why. Ideas?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Because all the Jews would be drowned in the Mediterranean if Palestinians ever took over?

[Rostere]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-introduces-palestinian-only-bus-lines-following-complaints-from-jewish-settlers-1.506869

 

I wonder if there are any israeli jews who could see the irony.

 

I definitely think there are. We don't get to hear their voice that often though. With the strong voice of right-wing Zionist lobbies in the US misrepresenting Israel, and with the elections of pro-settlement (that is, implicitly anti-peace) right-wing governments in Israel with increasing support for racial policies, you get the impression that those are the only people there are in Israel. In reality, Israel has a fairly large cosmopolitan community centered around Tel Aviv where Arabs and Jews live together in relative harmony. Those areas are also where Jews first settled (peacefully) during the dawn of Zionism. In the more rural inland areas, Jewish villages are often located on top of old Palestinian ones which were emptied when people fled or were ethnically cleansed during the civil war in 1948, when Jewish mass immigration from post-Nazism Europe triggered an explosion of violence. Not surprisingly, the prevention of the return of Palestinian refugees has been a top issue of disagreement when peace discussions are held, and Arabs from within Israel are prevented to move to some of these places because they're "racially unfitting" even today, which is kind of a testament to the history of those places.

 

 

 

What we could still hope for is a shift in public opinion.

 

Similar things have happened before. What comes to mind first is the independence of Algeria. The political background is eerily identical, except for the point where a civil war occurs and a majority of the native Algerians are driven out of the country.

 

Apologies, but I don't follow your Algerian analogy. I follow the concept of settlers etc. but I doubt the French had spent the last millenium saying "next year in Algiers". I guess that must be why you brought up South Africa, which - for the Afrikaaners - was an emotional issue. Prognostications that an end to apartheid meant an end to their national identity have proven sadly all too true.

 

But the RSA [checks Wikipedia] [...a long time later...] OK, I needed setting straight there. I had been going to say that it gave a stronger position to Mandela on assuming power. But in fact it looks like the capability to enact change came about through the very rare situation of F.W. de Klerk and Mandela and Mangosuthu Buthelezi agreeing on the way forward. I can't see an analogous situation emerging in Israel/Palestine. Not entirely sure why. Ideas?

 

I'd say Algeria was an "emotional issue" for France as well if you look at history, hard as it might be to imagine today.

 

It's hard to see a similar situation happening today in Israel but there's actually a very good explanation for that. In SA, it was clear who would get voting rights and what that would entail. Mandela must have felt a responsibility and De Klerk must have felt a pressure. Today in Israel, many Palestinians live in the occupied West Bank - where only Jews get to vote for the Israeli Knesset, and yet many more (about five million - a number rather close to ENTIRE CURRENT POPULATION of Israel) live in squalid refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.

 

It must have been pretty clear for De Klerk and Mandela that if they stuck to their democratic ideals, the result would be a black voting majority. That put a moral pressure on De Klerk (would he go down in history as a racist oppressor or a paragon of democracy?) and also Mandela (if he was voted into power, would he massacre the white population triggering a war, or would he be choose a peaceful path?).

 

On the other hand in Israel, if the status quo is maintained, there is a Jewish voting majority inside Israel. As long as the West Bank is treated as occupied territory meaning that the Palestinians living there have no right to vote (as opposed to the Jewish settlers) and as long as the Palestinian refugees are not allowed to return to their homeland, this will remain so. This is also part of the reason why Israel withdrew settlers from the Gaza Strip earlier. Gaza is very tightly packed with Palestinian refugees from other parts of Israel, and a formal annexation of Gaza would mean a massive influx of Palestinians who would vote, and would find their home villages in Israel razed to the ground and replaced with Jewish "kibbutzim", quite possibly igniting violence.

 

From right-wing Israeli politicians you often hear that you have to take into consideration the "facts on the ground", those being that refugees who fled their land a certain time ago has no right to return, that people who stole land a certain time ago has the right to remain on it, and so on. In the West Bank, "facts on the ground" are slowly changing against the Palestinians under the Israeli occupation.

 

Thus nationalist Israeli politicians want to keep the status quo and do as little as possible, while the Palestinian institutions are powerless, but inclined to rock the boat and do whatever.

 

Another aspect of the this situation is of course the rise of extremist groups such as Hamas. It's always easy to talk about killing other people when they are just faceless enemies and the party you are voting for (Hamas) has zero ability to actually make reality of their threats. When Hamas threatens Israel with their worst threats (sometimes rather poetically formulated, I wonder where they get all these formulations from... Or do they spend all their time making up the next threat?) of copious, ridiculous amounts of violence, they barely manage to make a scratch on Israel. Why do you think Hamas has a solid following among refugees, but no following among Palestinians living in Israel? Unlike the black population of SA who must have felt the inevitability of democracy, the Palestinian refugees don't have the burden of responsibility. Whatever political movements they support are likely to be entirely powerless and completely dependent on aid from other parts of the world, diplomatic or monetary, in order to do anything at all. They are likely to live the rest of their lives in a camp without ever seeing their homeland. You would be a liar if you said you wouldn't take to desperate measures if you were in the same situation.

 

Because all the Jews would be drowned in the Mediterranean if Palestinians ever took over?

 

Yes, that's basically what the extremist movements among Palestinian refugees say.

 

Still, as I noted earlier, no genocide took place in Algeria or (more relevant) SA even though those governments were formed by former "terrorists". Do you also question the Irish independence?

 

If Hamas was elected to rule Israel today, we would see a catastrophe. I am fully convinced that if Palestinians are gradually allowed to return to their homes and allowed to vote, we won't see that outcome.

[Meshugger]

That's why i have come to conclusion that the only answer is communism. There will be no ethnicites, no religions and no nationstates of palestinians and israelis. Only the proletariat working for the common goal, from each according its own ability, to each according to their own need.

 

Of course, we need to shoot/imprison everyone who thinks otherwise, but we sort that out later.

[Rostere]

That's why i have come to conclusion that the only answer is communism. There will be no ethnicites, no religions and no nationstates of palestinians and israelis. Only the proletariat working for the common goal, from each according its own ability, to each according to their own need.

 

Of course, we need to shoot/imprison everyone who thinks otherwise, but we sort that out later.

 

That's very funny, I was just thinking about how the only segment of Israeli political parties who really seem to have no issue at all with the other part (Israeli or Palestinian) are the communists. I guess that they compensate with the issues they have with other parts of the society.

 

To be honest I like the utopia of no distinct nation-states and no religions. But why should the communists have a monopoly on that really? Aren't there any libertarians or anarcho-capitalists willing to take up that banner as well?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Because all the Jews would be drowned in the Mediterranean if Palestinians ever took over?

 

Yes, that's basically what the extremist movements among Palestinian refugees say.

 

Still, as I noted earlier, no genocide took place in Algeria or (more relevant) SA even though those governments were formed by former "terrorists". Do you also question the Irish independence?

 

If Hamas was elected to rule Israel today, we would see a catastrophe. I am fully convinced that if Palestinians are gradually allowed to return to their homes and allowed to vote, we won't see that outcome.

I wasn't aware that any French settlers staid in Algeria. In any case you're comparing different situations. It's like predicting the nazis wouldn't exterminate Jews because the communists hadn't. Also you don't have any evidence to back up your prediction. In any case, under your scenario, even if Jews somehow avoided the massacre the state of Israel would certainly cease to exist. Israel isn't going to commit national suicide, no matter how much the global left wants them to.

[Rostere]

 

 

Because all the Jews would be drowned in the Mediterranean if Palestinians ever took over?

 

Yes, that's basically what the extremist movements among Palestinian refugees say.

 

Still, as I noted earlier, no genocide took place in Algeria or (more relevant) SA even though those governments were formed by former "terrorists". Do you also question the Irish independence?

 

If Hamas was elected to rule Israel today, we would see a catastrophe. I am fully convinced that if Palestinians are gradually allowed to return to their homes and allowed to vote, we won't see that outcome.

I wasn't aware that any French settlers staid in Algeria. In any case you're comparing different situations. It's like predicting the nazis wouldn't exterminate Jews because the communists hadn't. Also you don't have any evidence to back up your prediction. In any case, under your scenario, even if Jews somehow avoided the massacre the state of Israel would certainly cease to exist. Israel isn't going to commit national suicide, no matter how much the global left wants them to.

 

About one fifth of the French settlers stayed in Algeria after the civil war, but today they're only about 1% of the population.

 

Of course the situations are different, but if you want to take that argument to the extreme then every situation is different and no two situations can be compared. I'm talking about comparing how foreign settler populations are treated by natives when natives achieve voting rights - would you kindly use some kind of argument if you claim that the situation in SA is that different from my hypothetical scenario?

 

The state of Israel would certainly cease to exist in it's current form, but where's the harm in that? I'm sure you're aware (right?) that you live in a country whose law does not treat people differently on a racial/religious basis. Does that harm you in any way?

 

And on a side note, who are the "global left"? Is that some kind of conspiracy that I've missed?

[Meshugger]

 

That's why i have come to conclusion that the only answer is communism. There will be no ethnicites, no religions and no nationstates of palestinians and israelis. Only the proletariat working for the common goal, from each according its own ability, to each according to their own need.

 

Of course, we need to shoot/imprison everyone who thinks otherwise, but we sort that out later.

 

That's very funny, I was just thinking about how the only segment of Israeli political parties who really seem to have no issue at all with the other part (Israeli or Palestinian) are the communists. I guess that they compensate with the issues they have with other parts of the society.

 

To be honest I like the utopia of no distinct nation-states and no religions. But why should the communists have a monopoly on that really? Aren't there any libertarians or anarcho-capitalists willing to take up that banner as well?

 

IIRC, Libertarians believe in a nationstate only to the degree of a "nightwatcher" state guaranteeing rights of the individual. Anarcho-capitalists and Anarcho-syndicalists on the other hand do not believe in nationstates at all. If Heinlein would be correct, then i can forsee such states governed by the latter appear once we start colonizing the solar system. 

 

It would be quite hilarious and sad at the same time if a Israel/Palestine type of conflict would emerge once we start travelling across the stars.

[Walsingham]

South Africa is very much the exception which proves the rule. Look at the entire rest of Africa. You might also want to brush up on your Irish history. There were widespread and appalling reprisals against non-Republicans following independence. Not to mention an exodus (no joke intended) of Protestants.

 

Besides, as I say, even in South Africa you've seen the gradual and sliding elimination of the Afrikaans culture. And however you feel about that, expecting a nation to vote itself into nonexistence is damned foolish. They might do it, but I'm buggered if I know how I'd sell it to them.

 

 

Any problem that communism solves is a problem I'd rather live with. It's the political equivalent of castration.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Of course the situations are different, but if you want to take that argument to the extreme then every situation is different and no two situations can be compared. I'm talking about comparing how foreign settler populations are treated by natives when natives achieve voting rights - would you kindly use some kind of argument if you claim that the situation in SA is that different from my hypothetical scenario?

Read the Hamas charter. Did ANC charter say anything similar about Whites? It was a Marxist organization, not a racist or fanatically religious one. You may also want to read about the history of massacres in Palestine before the establishment of Israel.

 

 

The state of Israel would certainly cease to exist in it's current form, but where's the harm in that? I'm sure you're aware (right?) that you live in a country whose law does not treat people differently on a racial/religious basis. Does that harm you in any way?

Not much to discuss with you then, since you admit you goal is to destroy Israel. Arabs living in Israel are full citizens, the law doesn't treat them any different. And as a matter of fact there are lots of racial preference laws in the US.

And on a side note, who are the "global left"? Is that some kind of conspiracy that I've missed?

No, but you all seem to think alike. Edited March 7, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[JFSOCC]

Arabs living in Israel are full citizens, the law doesn't treat them any different. And as a matter of fact there are lots of racial preference laws in the US.

That's just not true, Arabs living in Israel don't have the right to vote, and are continuously discriminated against in person and in policy.

[Walsingham]

IIRC there are many non-jewish Israelis. I feel sure I've met several. Don't recall anything about not being able to vote.

[Zoraptor]

Arab Israeli citizens certainly can vote, though many do not.

[Tsuga C]

That's just not true, Arabs living in Israel don't have the right to vote, and are continuously discriminated against in person and in policy.

Arabs can be and are full citizens in Israel. They are able to vote and do so regularly.

[JFSOCC]

I was under the belief that only a small minority of Arab citizens, namely the small Christian Palestinian group which stood on the side of Israel during the war of 49' which have the right to vote. Any others living in Israel find getting citizenship almost impossible and voting rights are not accorded. So this is new information for me.

[Tsuga C]

So this is new information for me.

Here's some more new information you might wish to consider.

[JFSOCC]

“To call Israel an apartheid state is an expression of ignorance, anti-Semitism, and malice.”

Because criticizing a nation for it's discriminating policies is always blasphemy.

Israel loves to use the word anti-Semitism, I wonder if they even know what it means.

Your site looks like the typical very politically coloured pages you may find on any subject which causes some controversy.

Using rather weighted language like:

<snip>left-wing zealots and anti-Semites like to refer to Israel as the “apartheid state” is the fence between Israel proper and the territories.

and ends with

This ad has been published and paid for by FLAME

I see your website and raise you mine.

http://imeu.net/news/article003473.shtml#q2

Separation and discrimination is most apparent in the two distinct legal systems applicable to Jews and Palestinians - Israeli Jews illegally living in the West Bank are subject only to Israeli laws, and enjoy the right to vote, and the right to travel within Israel and abroad. Palestinians living in the same territory cannot avail themselves of Israeli law, have no right to vote in Israeli elections and can travel freely neither within Israel nor abroad.

I suppose Israel respecting the borders of the west bank would be a good start. but if they accord the Israelis there voting rights, they ought to the Palestinians as well.

Although occupied in 1967, East Jerusalem was illegally annexed by Israel. The Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem are not citizens of Israel, only "legal residents" who must regularly prove connections to Jerusalem in order to continue to reside there. They face enormous legal obstacles to family unification and unequal access to housing, municipal services and other social benefits. They are treated as the equivalent of foreign guests in their own country, without the right to vote in national elections.

You can't both treat an area as your sovereign land for your own ethnicity and then not for the other. Edited March 7, 2013 by JFSOCC