Isn't it funny that of all the nation-states, the dynastic estates, the prison-states, and the contract states* around, only one state has to have its existence questioned, denied, or attacked?
Its existence isn't questioned, only its existence on land that isn't its own. China's existence in Taiwan is questioned. China's existence in Tibet is questioned. Pakistan & India's existence in Kasmir is questioned. Indonesia's existence in Timor was questioned.
You people are brain washed for sure. The 1/8 hearted effort by the Saudis to fool the useful idiots like you was sunk by the arab nations. It was in all the papers.
Isn't it funny that of all the nation-states, the dynastic estates, the prison-states, and the contract states* around, only one state has to have its existence questioned, denied, or attacked?
Its existence isn't questioned, only its existence on land that isn't its own.
When the notion of a Jewish state is seen as a problem, its existence is being questioned; when one refuses to recognise that state, it is being denied; when one denying its existence attacks it, it is being attacked.
Quote:
China's existence in Taiwan is questioned.
Since China considers Taiwan a renegade province, practically all countries having formal diplomatic ties with China, have none with Taiwan, and Taiwan itself keeps claiming to be a Chinese province (albeit claiming to be ?the legitimate Chinese government?) and does not declare independence.
Quote:
China's existence in Tibet is questioned.
Nearly all countries recognise China's sovereignity in Tibet. Aside from a few somewhat vocal but not politically relevent groups questioning it, it is unchallenged.
Other than that, you are comparing the questioning of the very existence of the Jewish state, with questioning of some other states' claims to areas they currently control. Your comparison is therefore invalid.
You people are brain washed for sure. The 1/8 hearted effort by the Saudis to fool the useful idiots like you was sunk by the arab nations. It was in all the papers.
ah... I see. This is all happpening in yuor head... good luck, scott...
But the concept of a Japanese state, a Chinese state, a Greek state, a Russian state, a Thai state, a French state, a Polish state, a German state, a Swedish state, not to mention, tewntysomething Arab states, that does not seem much of a problem for you. Isn't it funny that of all the nation-states, the dynastic estates, the prison-states, and the contract states* around, only one state [Israel] has to have its existence questioned, denied, or attacked?
Interesting post, but I think that you misrepresent the situation. Simply put, there is a clear and fundamental aspect of unreality and injustice in claiming a "Jewish state" in a territory that was - and is - inhabited jointly by Jews and Arabs. In reality, modern Israel was not a Jewish state as of its inception and is not a Jewish state now.
I would also point out that in many or most of the 'old' historical states, any definition of the state as being intended primarily 'for' a specific ethnic, cultural, or religious group is disappearing. Worldwide emigration patterns and changes in attitudes are responsible for this. I will grant you that there are some in these countries that are resisting these changes. You and I have seen their placards and heard their chants. However, I would point out that these groups tend to be extremists who avowedly or implicitly get their inspiration from a certain German political leader of the 1930s and 1940s. Irony?
Quote:
That'd be a decisive step toward a full blown civil-war, since neither Jews nor Palestinians want that ?shotgun wedding?.
Israel is not going to leave the West Bank and Gaza. And I need hardly point out that there are many Arab citizens in Israel 'proper'. Jews and Palestinians will have to learn to live in peace together. Civil relations (for the most part) between Jews and Arabs in Israel 'proper' show that this is possible.
But the concept of a Japanese state, a Chinese state, a Greek state, a Russian state, a Thai state, a French state, a Polish state, a German state, a Swedish state, not to mention, tewntysomething Arab states, that does not seem much of a problem for you. Isn't it funny that of all the nation-states, the dynastic estates, the prison-states, and the contract states* around, only one state [Israel] has to have its existence questioned, denied, or attacked?
Interesting post, but I think that you misrepresent the situation. Simply put, there is a clear and fundamental aspect of unreality and injustice in claiming a "Jewish state" in a territory that was - and is - inhabited jointly by Jews and Arabs.
The territory has been the site of the ancient Jewish states, till the destruction of Judea by Rome. Until the early twentieth century it wasn't even an administrative sub-division, and was divided among derelict provinces of the moribound Ottoman Empire. Jews were barely tolerated there as a diasporic community, and not ?jointly? with the Arabs.
And while Jews were scattered around the world, they did not forfeit their legitimate claims to the only place in the world where they once lived as a nation. and as long as the Jews exist, their claim will be valid.
If there's any state in the world whose existence is foudned on some semblant of justice, it's Israel.
Quote:
In reality, modern Israel was not a Jewish state as of its inception and is not a Jewish state now.
Since its inception Israel has had a Jewish majority, and kept a special link with the Jewish diaspora, to whom it is a safe haven, an in extremis protector, and an insurance policy.
A Jewish state is neither a Jewish ethnocracy nor a Judaism-based theocracy, but a state with a Jewish majority, in part of the land of Israel; a state whose cultural markers are Jewish (official language is Hebrew, Jeiwsh holidays are officilal holidays, etc?).
While your state is (I gather), an Indo-European/Western transplant in the New World.
Quote:
I would also point out that in many or most of the 'old' historical states, any definition of the state as being intended primarily 'for' a specific ethnic, cultural, or religious group is disappearing. Worldwide emigration patterns and changes in attitudes are responsible for this. I will grant you that there are some in these countries that are resisting these changes. You and I have seen their placards and heard their chants.
Nation-states are not ?primarily 'for' a specific ethnic, cultural, or religious group?, they are the product of national self-determination. The democracies among them, accord civil rights to national minority groups such as granting their langiage official status, etc? So doeas Israel.
I didn't notice many nation-state disappearing these last decades, what I did see were multi-national states crumbling in all out civil wars with the worst atrocities seen in Europe since 1945.
So, once all other nation states are dismantled, perhaps the Jews will consider dismantling theirs, not anytime earlier.
Quote:
However, I would point out that these groups tend to be extremists who avowedly or implicitly get their inspiration from a certain German political leader of the 1930s and 1940s. Irony?
Yes, it is some irony to see characters such as Yasser Arafat, Bashar Al-Assad, and Mahmud Abbas echoing the slogans so popular among the European far-right (and far-left for that matter).
Quote:
Israel is not going to leave the West Bank and Gaza.
That is for Israel to decide, but it seems to me they'd only leave it in exchange for no less than a peace treaty.
Quote:
And I need hardly point out that there are many Arab citizens in Israel 'proper'. Jews and Palestinians will have to learn to live in peace together. Civil relations (for the most part) between Jews and Arabs in Israel 'proper' show that this is possible.
It is possible in the state of Israel, because it's a progressive democracy, to a level no Arab state has achieved. A ?united Palestine? would be a de-facto Arab state, and would seek to get back at the ?Zionist imperialists? in a way that would make Nasser blush. And the resulting bloodshed.
Since the Palestinians in the Territories don't want Jewish sovereignity over them, and the Jews in Israel don't want Arab sovereignity, two nation-states are a solution both sides could live with, but Israel will only grant them a state when they grant it peace.
Mr. Goldstein: The historical connection of Jews to the territory that is now partially encompassed by modern Israel is clear. What is wrong, however, is any suggestion that this ancient historical connection is the foundation for a just and realistic modern policy in this area - a policy that would fully take into account the rights of others who also live on these lands. We cannot go about simply redrawing the borders of the world to reflect those of 3000 years ago. Nor can we redraw the borders to reflect those of 100 years ago. The Jews in Israel are not going anywhere, the hopes of Arab extremists notwithstanding. But the connection of Arab populations that have, until very recently, lived on much of this land, and still live on some of it, is also clear.
This is why I argue for Israel as a Jewish homeland and not a Jewish state and plead for a resolution that acknowledges the full interests of both Arabs and Jews within the same territory.
I also note that in your last post you suggest that whether Israel leaves the West Bank and Gaza is for Israel to decide. I suppose that this means you acknowledge that Israel may decide not to leave. At the same time, you reject any suggestion that it is realistic for Jews and Palestinian Arabs to share the same state within the combined boundaries of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Just what are you suggesting, then, should Israel decide not to leave the West Bank and Gaza?
Mr. Goldstein: The historical connection of Jews to the territory that is now partially encompassed by modern Israel is clear. What is wrong, however, is any suggestion that this ancient historical connection is the foundation for a just and realistic modern policy in this area - a policy that would fully take into account the rights of others who also live on these lands. We cannot go about simply redrawing the borders of the world to reflect those of 3000 years ago.
So, they were supposed to keep on being scattered around the world counting on the good graces of the nations and hoping they won't hurt them too much? The record of that option makes it not viable and thus not worthy of consideration. No one denied the others living on this land their rights, that is why several modalities of sharing it were proposed, all of which were rejected by the other side.
Borders in the world were always being redrawn, mostly by aliens coming to places they had no connection too, and thus no legitimate claim to it.
Quote:
Nor can we redraw the borders to reflect those of 100 years ago. The Jews in Israel are not going anywhere, the hopes of Arab extremists notwithstanding. But the connection of Arab populations that have, until very recently, lived on much of this land, and still live on some of it, is also clear.
That is why they are proposed a state on part of that land so they may fulfill their claim to national self-determination, but not unless they agree to end the conflict.
Quote:
This is why I argue for Israel as a Jewish homeland and not a Jewish state and plead for a resolution that acknowledges the full interests of both Arabs and Jews within the same territory.
No viable resolution could fully satisfy both sides. That's why a compromise is preferrable.
Quote:
I also note that in your last post you suggest that whether Israel leaves the West Bank and Gaza is for Israel to decide. I suppose that this means you acknowledge that Israel may decide not to leave.
No this means their leaving or not is theirs to decide, not yours; and the question of whether to stay there or not, after having been the great post-1967 controversy, is now largely decided by the Israeli public: most of them desire a territorial compromise, but that involves a peace treaty.
Quote:
At the same time, you reject any suggestion that it is realistic for Jews and Palestinian Arabs to share the same state within the combined boundaries of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
I reject it precisely becausde it is not realistic.
Quote:
Just what are you suggesting, then, should Israel decide not to leave the West Bank and Gaza?
It already decided to leave, but not without a peace treaty. If there cannot be peace without an end to the occupation it follows there cannot be an end to the occupation without peace.
So, they were supposed to keep on being scattered around the world counting on the good graces of the nations and hoping they won't hurt them too much? The record of that option makes it not viable and thus not worthy of consideration.
I am not sure that living in a land in permanent war with its neighbours and in danger of eventual annihilation was a better option, but I guess that is for the Israeli Jews to decide.
On another note, I have always regretted that the creation of Israel was, in some part, a victory for worldwide anti-Semitism and for those in the West who wanted to get rid of their Jewish populations. As I indicated in my first post in this thread, I understand the desire of many Jews to return to their historical homeland, it is sad that, as you suggest, that many may have done it to avoid further persecution.
Quote:
No one denied the others living on this land their rights, that is why several modalities of sharing it were proposed, all of which were rejected by the other side.
Borders in the world were always being redrawn, mostly by aliens coming to places they had no connection too, and thus no legitimate claim to it.
This brief suggestion about what was offered and what was done during the creation the modern state of Israel is disputed - very much disputed. Meanwhile your second sentence relies on an underlying premise that has run through a number of your arguments in posts in this thread. It is a premise of "there is injustice in the world, so Jews get to perpetrate injustice also". With six million dead, the moral lesson that some seem to have been learned is that it is better to be a hammer than a nail. Understandable, but sad...and wrong.
Quote:
That is why they are proposed a state on part of that land so they may fulfill their claim to national self-determination, but not unless they agree to end the conflict.
No viable resolution could fully satisfy both sides. That's why a compromise is preferable.
I think that we agree on the need for compromise. However, if you have not done so already, read my first post in this thread to see my argument on why the current suggested compromise simply will not work. I would be most interested in your arguments on why, contrary to what I suggest, it would be a viable compromise ? if this is fact what you think.
Quote:
...this means their leaving or not is theirs to decide, not yours; and the question of whether to stay there or not, after having been the great post-1967 controversy, is now largely decided by the Israeli public: most of them desire a territorial compromise, but that involves a peace treaty.
It already decided to leave, but not without a peace treaty. If there cannot be peace without an end to the occupation it follows there cannot be an end to the occupation without peace.
Fine, fine, but you have dodged my question. What if Israel, after all, decides that it will not leave? Hypothetical, yes, but not an unrealistic hypothetical in the circumstances. And keep in mind that there is a very sizable minority of Israeli Jews - and perhaps a majority of Likud supporters, regardless of what Sharon might sometimes say - who think that Israel should stay in the West Bank and Gaza regardless of any eventual promises of peace by Palestinian Arabs. In any case, I invite you to answer my question on this point, if you want. And let me restate my question in case it has become lost in all of this: How should Arabs and Jews in the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza live together if Israel should decide not to leave these territories?
So, they were supposed to keep on being scattered around the world counting on the good graces of the nations and hoping they won't hurt them too much? The record of that option makes it not viable and thus not worthy of consideration.
I am not sure that living in a land in permanent war with its neighbours and in danger of eventual annihilation was a better option,?
An option that includes having the sovereign power of defending yourself is certainly better than one of powerlessness.
Quote:
?but I guess that is for the Israeli Jews to decide.
And they are quite decided on that.
Quote:
On another note, I have always regretted that the creation of Israel was, in some part, a victory for worldwide anti-Semitism and for those in the West who wanted to get rid of their Jewish populations.
The victory of anti-semitism was indeed of the West getting rid of the then most populous Jewish communities in the World. The victory over anti-semitism is that the aforementioned deed was not completed by the annihilation of Israel a few years later.
Quote:
As I indicated in my first post in this thread, I understand the desire of many Jews to return to their historical homeland, it is sad that, as you suggest, that many may have done it to avoid further persecution.
Persecutions were the daily reality of existence long before Jews started returning to their ancient homeland. However, not before the late nineteenth century was such return feasible, and the trends then occuring in parts of Europe meant that the very existence of large chunks of the Diaspora was in peril.
Quote:
Quote:
No one denied the others living on this land their rights, that is why several modalities of sharing it were proposed, all of which were rejected by the other side.
Borders in the world were always being redrawn, mostly by aliens coming to places they had no connection too, and thus no legitimate claim to it.
This brief suggestion about what was offered and what was done during the creation the modern state of Israel is disputed - very much disputed.
Often by the very same who very much dispute the legitimacy of Israel's existence. While no side was blameless in this, one side sought compromise with other, the other sought the eradication of the one.
Quote:
Meanwhile your second sentence relies on an underlying premise that has run through a number of your arguments in posts in this thread. It is a premise of "there is injustice in the world, so Jews get to perpetrate injustice also".
No, it is the premice that if a redrawing of borders founded on alien invasions of places they have no connection too, as unjust as it is, is a matter of accepted reality; then a redrawing of borders founded on having a population exercising self-determination in a place it is very much connected to, which is just, should be at least as much accepted.
Quote:
With six million dead, the moral lesson that some seem to have been learned is that it is better to be a hammer than a nail. Understandable, but sad...and wrong.
It is the manichaean perspective which divides every sides in every conflict between ?hammers? (ruthless assassins) and ?nails? (innocent victims), which is both sad and wrong. The moral lesson here is: ?don't let anyone catch you defenceless?.
Quote:
I think that we agree on the need for compromise. However, if you have not done so already, read my first post in this thread to see my argument on why the current suggested compromise simply will not work.
I have read it and I disagree with it, as it draws conclusions from inaccurate information about that conflict.
Quote:
I would be most interested in your arguments on why, contrary to what I suggest, it would be a viable compromise ? if this is fact what you think.
Neither the Arab Palestinian population of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, wishes to be ruled by Israel, nor does the Jewish Israeli (and the Arab Israeli too, as a matter of fact) population of Israel wish to be ruled by Palestine; and that's precisely how both would feel under a ?single state?.
It has been known for many years now, that a majority of Israeli citizens are ready to accept the inception of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories in exchange for peace; it is also my understanding that a sizable part of the Palestinian population (less so its current leadership) in those territories had come to terms with Israel's existence and would accept such compromise.
Quote:
Quote:
...this means their leaving or not is theirs to decide, not yours; and the question of whether to stay there or not, after having been the great post-1967 controversy, is now largely decided by the Israeli public: most of them desire a territorial compromise, but that involves a peace treaty.
It already decided to leave, but not without a peace treaty. If there cannot be peace without an end to the occupation it follows there cannot be an end to the occupation without peace.
Fine, fine, but you have dodged my question. What if Israel, after all, decides that it will not leave? Hypothetical, yes, but not an unrealistic hypothetical in the circumstances.
It is unrealistic since the ideology of Eretz-Israel hashlema (=the Integral Land Of Israel, inaccurately translated as ?Greater Israel?) has seen its support reduced to a few percents of Israelis, and had not returned to favour despite the disappointment from the process began by the Oslo accords.
Quote:
And keep in mind that there is a very sizable minority of Israeli Jews - and perhaps a majority of Likud supporters, regardless of what Sharon might sometimes say - who think that Israel should stay in the West Bank and Gaza regardless of any eventual promises of peace by Palestinian Arabs.
It is precisely because I know that should Likud reverty to its old ideology it would lose popular support, that I conclude such hypothesis to be of a slight possibility. But I'll indulge your hypothesis all the same.
Quote:
In any case, I invite you to answer my question on this point, if you want. And let me restate my question in case it has become lost in all of this: How should Arabs and Jews in the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza live together if Israel should decide not to leave these territories?
A continuation of the conflict. Even if Israel crushed the PA as it did the Intifada (which was largely over by 1991), it would not be likely to annex the territories, or to expell the Palestinians from them, as these options would both find strong internal opposition and present significant practical obstacles making their realisation quasi-unworkable.
Naturally, the Palestinians could in no way present an existential threat to Israel; and no Middle-Eastern state could either.
So, Israelis would remain stuck with the Palestinians, and vice-versa, something which, as I had mentioned earlier, none of them wants.
Which is precisely why the ?single state? would be a continuation of the conflict as well, but only worse: a full-blown civil war.
Saying that just a small minority of israeli jews are opposed to a Palestinian state, while palestinians in general want the destruction of Israel is a grave misrepresentation of the actual facts.
The "minority" of israeli jew opposed to abandoning the area occupied in 1967 is not that small. And did, according to polls, only very recently turn into a minority. I suspect, like with all polls, the results are influenced by the way the questions are put. And that if you asked the question about the status of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees, the results would not be the same.
So, yes, there is a majority for a two state solution. But is there a real will to pay the price for peace. Well, let's just say it still an open issue.
The majority of the palestinian people have accepted Israel as a state a long time ago. So has the PA, more recently. What they demand is a solution to the issue of Jerusalem, the refugees and the settlements. The minority who wants the destruction of israel are more extremist than their israeli counterparts (those who oppose a palestinian state). What popular public support they have is more due to frustration with the lack of progress towards peace, and the hardships the palestinians live under daily.
If Israel said it was ready to withdraw to the 67-borders, or something resembling that. discuss the status of Jerusalem and some kind of compensation for the refugees. Then we could have a two state solution tomorrow.
And with that in place. The only reasonable way forward in the future would be to link these to States together in some kind of federation. As democratic states. With equal rights for all citizens.
The right of all jews to get an israeli citizenship, is an idea that has to be abandoned. And maybe the solution to the problem of the palestinian refugees can be solved without the return of all of them. If proper compensation is offered. Remember that jews in Europe are still getting compensated for property lost during WWII.
Comments
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Isn't it funny that of all the nation-states, the dynastic estates, the prison-states, and the contract states* around, only one state has to have its existence questioned, denied, or attacked?
Its existence isn't questioned, only its existence on land that isn't its own. China's existence in Taiwan is questioned. China's existence in Tibet is questioned. Pakistan & India's existence in Kasmir is questioned. Indonesia's existence in Timor was questioned.
There are plenty of examples.
Originally posted by Scott
New you and I both know how far the most recent New York Times-Saudi Arabia peace plan got among the other arab nations.
Are you serious? Israel was the first party to turn it down, if I'm not mistaken.
Originally posted by New
Are you serious? Israel was the first party to turn it down, if I'm not mistaken.
I think you are mistaken. Israel may have seen it for what is way and said so.
Originally posted by Scott
I think you are mistaken. Israel may have seen it for what is way and said so.
And what was it? An Evil Plot?
Originally posted by Scott
Ploy to look good to the west. Eg people like you.
So if they do bad they are bad and if they do good its only to cover up their anti-semite, anti-american and [forgot the third] way?
Originally posted by Scott
Ploy to look good to the west. Eg people like you.
And your evidence for this is?
(I remind you the US and the EU condoned the plan before Sharon torpedoed it.)
Originally posted by bunge
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Isn't it funny that of all the nation-states, the dynastic estates, the prison-states, and the contract states* around, only one state has to have its existence questioned, denied, or attacked?
Its existence isn't questioned, only its existence on land that isn't its own.
When the notion of a Jewish state is seen as a problem, its existence is being questioned; when one refuses to recognise that state, it is being denied; when one denying its existence attacks it, it is being attacked.
China's existence in Taiwan is questioned.
Since China considers Taiwan a renegade province, practically all countries having formal diplomatic ties with China, have none with Taiwan, and Taiwan itself keeps claiming to be a Chinese province (albeit claiming to be ?the legitimate Chinese government?) and does not declare independence.
China's existence in Tibet is questioned.
Nearly all countries recognise China's sovereignity in Tibet. Aside from a few somewhat vocal but not politically relevent groups questioning it, it is unchallenged.
Other than that, you are comparing the questioning of the very existence of the Jewish state, with questioning of some other states' claims to areas they currently control. Your comparison is therefore invalid.
Originally posted by Scott
You people are brain washed for sure. The 1/8 hearted effort by the Saudis to fool the useful idiots like you was sunk by the arab nations. It was in all the papers.
ah... I see. This is all happpening in yuor head... good luck, scott...
Sharon sunk this one, single-handily...
Originally posted by New
ah... I see. This is all happpening in yuor head... good luck, scott...
Sharon sunk this one, single-handily...
You're an idiot. Read something other than your anti-Jew European news papers.
Originally posted by Scott
You're an idiot.
Instead of just attack his person, why not quote some sources and show us the truth?
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
But the concept of a Japanese state, a Chinese state, a Greek state, a Russian state, a Thai state, a French state, a Polish state, a German state, a Swedish state, not to mention, tewntysomething Arab states, that does not seem much of a problem for you. Isn't it funny that of all the nation-states, the dynastic estates, the prison-states, and the contract states* around, only one state [Israel] has to have its existence questioned, denied, or attacked?
Interesting post, but I think that you misrepresent the situation. Simply put, there is a clear and fundamental aspect of unreality and injustice in claiming a "Jewish state" in a territory that was - and is - inhabited jointly by Jews and Arabs. In reality, modern Israel was not a Jewish state as of its inception and is not a Jewish state now.
I would also point out that in many or most of the 'old' historical states, any definition of the state as being intended primarily 'for' a specific ethnic, cultural, or religious group is disappearing. Worldwide emigration patterns and changes in attitudes are responsible for this. I will grant you that there are some in these countries that are resisting these changes. You and I have seen their placards and heard their chants. However, I would point out that these groups tend to be extremists who avowedly or implicitly get their inspiration from a certain German political leader of the 1930s and 1940s. Irony?
That'd be a decisive step toward a full blown civil-war, since neither Jews nor Palestinians want that ?shotgun wedding?.
Israel is not going to leave the West Bank and Gaza. And I need hardly point out that there are many Arab citizens in Israel 'proper'. Jews and Palestinians will have to learn to live in peace together. Civil relations (for the most part) between Jews and Arabs in Israel 'proper' show that this is possible.
Originally posted by Chinney
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
But the concept of a Japanese state, a Chinese state, a Greek state, a Russian state, a Thai state, a French state, a Polish state, a German state, a Swedish state, not to mention, tewntysomething Arab states, that does not seem much of a problem for you. Isn't it funny that of all the nation-states, the dynastic estates, the prison-states, and the contract states* around, only one state [Israel] has to have its existence questioned, denied, or attacked?
Interesting post, but I think that you misrepresent the situation. Simply put, there is a clear and fundamental aspect of unreality and injustice in claiming a "Jewish state" in a territory that was - and is - inhabited jointly by Jews and Arabs.
The territory has been the site of the ancient Jewish states, till the destruction of Judea by Rome. Until the early twentieth century it wasn't even an administrative sub-division, and was divided among derelict provinces of the moribound Ottoman Empire. Jews were barely tolerated there as a diasporic community, and not ?jointly? with the Arabs.
And while Jews were scattered around the world, they did not forfeit their legitimate claims to the only place in the world where they once lived as a nation. and as long as the Jews exist, their claim will be valid.
If there's any state in the world whose existence is foudned on some semblant of justice, it's Israel.
Quote:
In reality, modern Israel was not a Jewish state as of its inception and is not a Jewish state now.
Since its inception Israel has had a Jewish majority, and kept a special link with the Jewish diaspora, to whom it is a safe haven, an in extremis protector, and an insurance policy.
A Jewish state is neither a Jewish ethnocracy nor a Judaism-based theocracy, but a state with a Jewish majority, in part of the land of Israel; a state whose cultural markers are Jewish (official language is Hebrew, Jeiwsh holidays are officilal holidays, etc?).
While your state is (I gather), an Indo-European/Western transplant in the New World.
Quote:
I would also point out that in many or most of the 'old' historical states, any definition of the state as being intended primarily 'for' a specific ethnic, cultural, or religious group is disappearing. Worldwide emigration patterns and changes in attitudes are responsible for this. I will grant you that there are some in these countries that are resisting these changes. You and I have seen their placards and heard their chants.
Nation-states are not ?primarily 'for' a specific ethnic, cultural, or religious group?, they are the product of national self-determination. The democracies among them, accord civil rights to national minority groups such as granting their langiage official status, etc? So doeas Israel.
I didn't notice many nation-state disappearing these last decades, what I did see were multi-national states crumbling in all out civil wars with the worst atrocities seen in Europe since 1945.
So, once all other nation states are dismantled, perhaps the Jews will consider dismantling theirs, not anytime earlier.
Quote:
However, I would point out that these groups tend to be extremists who avowedly or implicitly get their inspiration from a certain German political leader of the 1930s and 1940s. Irony?
Yes, it is some irony to see characters such as Yasser Arafat, Bashar Al-Assad, and Mahmud Abbas echoing the slogans so popular among the European far-right (and far-left for that matter).
Quote:
Israel is not going to leave the West Bank and Gaza.
That is for Israel to decide, but it seems to me they'd only leave it in exchange for no less than a peace treaty.
Quote:
And I need hardly point out that there are many Arab citizens in Israel 'proper'. Jews and Palestinians will have to learn to live in peace together. Civil relations (for the most part) between Jews and Arabs in Israel 'proper' show that this is possible.
It is possible in the state of Israel, because it's a progressive democracy, to a level no Arab state has achieved. A ?united Palestine? would be a de-facto Arab state, and would seek to get back at the ?Zionist imperialists? in a way that would make Nasser blush. And the resulting bloodshed.
Since the Palestinians in the Territories don't want Jewish sovereignity over them, and the Jews in Israel don't want Arab sovereignity, two nation-states are a solution both sides could live with, but Israel will only grant them a state when they grant it peace.
This is why I argue for Israel as a Jewish homeland and not a Jewish state and plead for a resolution that acknowledges the full interests of both Arabs and Jews within the same territory.
I also note that in your last post you suggest that whether Israel leaves the West Bank and Gaza is for Israel to decide. I suppose that this means you acknowledge that Israel may decide not to leave. At the same time, you reject any suggestion that it is realistic for Jews and Palestinian Arabs to share the same state within the combined boundaries of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Just what are you suggesting, then, should Israel decide not to leave the West Bank and Gaza?
Originally posted by Chinney
Mr. Goldstein: The historical connection of Jews to the territory that is now partially encompassed by modern Israel is clear. What is wrong, however, is any suggestion that this ancient historical connection is the foundation for a just and realistic modern policy in this area - a policy that would fully take into account the rights of others who also live on these lands. We cannot go about simply redrawing the borders of the world to reflect those of 3000 years ago.
So, they were supposed to keep on being scattered around the world counting on the good graces of the nations and hoping they won't hurt them too much? The record of that option makes it not viable and thus not worthy of consideration. No one denied the others living on this land their rights, that is why several modalities of sharing it were proposed, all of which were rejected by the other side.
Borders in the world were always being redrawn, mostly by aliens coming to places they had no connection too, and thus no legitimate claim to it.
Nor can we redraw the borders to reflect those of 100 years ago. The Jews in Israel are not going anywhere, the hopes of Arab extremists notwithstanding. But the connection of Arab populations that have, until very recently, lived on much of this land, and still live on some of it, is also clear.
That is why they are proposed a state on part of that land so they may fulfill their claim to national self-determination, but not unless they agree to end the conflict.
This is why I argue for Israel as a Jewish homeland and not a Jewish state and plead for a resolution that acknowledges the full interests of both Arabs and Jews within the same territory.
No viable resolution could fully satisfy both sides. That's why a compromise is preferrable.
I also note that in your last post you suggest that whether Israel leaves the West Bank and Gaza is for Israel to decide. I suppose that this means you acknowledge that Israel may decide not to leave.
No this means their leaving or not is theirs to decide, not yours; and the question of whether to stay there or not, after having been the great post-1967 controversy, is now largely decided by the Israeli public: most of them desire a territorial compromise, but that involves a peace treaty.
At the same time, you reject any suggestion that it is realistic for Jews and Palestinian Arabs to share the same state within the combined boundaries of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
I reject it precisely becausde it is not realistic.
Just what are you suggesting, then, should Israel decide not to leave the West Bank and Gaza?
It already decided to leave, but not without a peace treaty. If there cannot be peace without an end to the occupation it follows there cannot be an end to the occupation without peace.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
So, they were supposed to keep on being scattered around the world counting on the good graces of the nations and hoping they won't hurt them too much? The record of that option makes it not viable and thus not worthy of consideration.
I am not sure that living in a land in permanent war with its neighbours and in danger of eventual annihilation was a better option, but I guess that is for the Israeli Jews to decide.
On another note, I have always regretted that the creation of Israel was, in some part, a victory for worldwide anti-Semitism and for those in the West who wanted to get rid of their Jewish populations. As I indicated in my first post in this thread, I understand the desire of many Jews to return to their historical homeland, it is sad that, as you suggest, that many may have done it to avoid further persecution.
No one denied the others living on this land their rights, that is why several modalities of sharing it were proposed, all of which were rejected by the other side.
Borders in the world were always being redrawn, mostly by aliens coming to places they had no connection too, and thus no legitimate claim to it.
This brief suggestion about what was offered and what was done during the creation the modern state of Israel is disputed - very much disputed. Meanwhile your second sentence relies on an underlying premise that has run through a number of your arguments in posts in this thread. It is a premise of "there is injustice in the world, so Jews get to perpetrate injustice also". With six million dead, the moral lesson that some seem to have been learned is that it is better to be a hammer than a nail. Understandable, but sad...and wrong.
That is why they are proposed a state on part of that land so they may fulfill their claim to national self-determination, but not unless they agree to end the conflict.
No viable resolution could fully satisfy both sides. That's why a compromise is preferable.
I think that we agree on the need for compromise. However, if you have not done so already, read my first post in this thread to see my argument on why the current suggested compromise simply will not work. I would be most interested in your arguments on why, contrary to what I suggest, it would be a viable compromise ? if this is fact what you think.
...this means their leaving or not is theirs to decide, not yours; and the question of whether to stay there or not, after having been the great post-1967 controversy, is now largely decided by the Israeli public: most of them desire a territorial compromise, but that involves a peace treaty.
It already decided to leave, but not without a peace treaty. If there cannot be peace without an end to the occupation it follows there cannot be an end to the occupation without peace.
Fine, fine, but you have dodged my question. What if Israel, after all, decides that it will not leave? Hypothetical, yes, but not an unrealistic hypothetical in the circumstances. And keep in mind that there is a very sizable minority of Israeli Jews - and perhaps a majority of Likud supporters, regardless of what Sharon might sometimes say - who think that Israel should stay in the West Bank and Gaza regardless of any eventual promises of peace by Palestinian Arabs. In any case, I invite you to answer my question on this point, if you want. And let me restate my question in case it has become lost in all of this: How should Arabs and Jews in the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza live together if Israel should decide not to leave these territories?
Originally posted by Chinney
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
So, they were supposed to keep on being scattered around the world counting on the good graces of the nations and hoping they won't hurt them too much? The record of that option makes it not viable and thus not worthy of consideration.
I am not sure that living in a land in permanent war with its neighbours and in danger of eventual annihilation was a better option,?
An option that includes having the sovereign power of defending yourself is certainly better than one of powerlessness.
?but I guess that is for the Israeli Jews to decide.
And they are quite decided on that.
On another note, I have always regretted that the creation of Israel was, in some part, a victory for worldwide anti-Semitism and for those in the West who wanted to get rid of their Jewish populations.
The victory of anti-semitism was indeed of the West getting rid of the then most populous Jewish communities in the World. The victory over anti-semitism is that the aforementioned deed was not completed by the annihilation of Israel a few years later.
As I indicated in my first post in this thread, I understand the desire of many Jews to return to their historical homeland, it is sad that, as you suggest, that many may have done it to avoid further persecution.
Persecutions were the daily reality of existence long before Jews started returning to their ancient homeland. However, not before the late nineteenth century was such return feasible, and the trends then occuring in parts of Europe meant that the very existence of large chunks of the Diaspora was in peril.
No one denied the others living on this land their rights, that is why several modalities of sharing it were proposed, all of which were rejected by the other side.
Borders in the world were always being redrawn, mostly by aliens coming to places they had no connection too, and thus no legitimate claim to it.
This brief suggestion about what was offered and what was done during the creation the modern state of Israel is disputed - very much disputed.
Often by the very same who very much dispute the legitimacy of Israel's existence. While no side was blameless in this, one side sought compromise with other, the other sought the eradication of the one.
Meanwhile your second sentence relies on an underlying premise that has run through a number of your arguments in posts in this thread. It is a premise of "there is injustice in the world, so Jews get to perpetrate injustice also".
No, it is the premice that if a redrawing of borders founded on alien invasions of places they have no connection too, as unjust as it is, is a matter of accepted reality; then a redrawing of borders founded on having a population exercising self-determination in a place it is very much connected to, which is just, should be at least as much accepted.
With six million dead, the moral lesson that some seem to have been learned is that it is better to be a hammer than a nail. Understandable, but sad...and wrong.
It is the manichaean perspective which divides every sides in every conflict between ?hammers? (ruthless assassins) and ?nails? (innocent victims), which is both sad and wrong. The moral lesson here is: ?don't let anyone catch you defenceless?.
I think that we agree on the need for compromise. However, if you have not done so already, read my first post in this thread to see my argument on why the current suggested compromise simply will not work.
I have read it and I disagree with it, as it draws conclusions from inaccurate information about that conflict.
I would be most interested in your arguments on why, contrary to what I suggest, it would be a viable compromise ? if this is fact what you think.
Neither the Arab Palestinian population of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, wishes to be ruled by Israel, nor does the Jewish Israeli (and the Arab Israeli too, as a matter of fact) population of Israel wish to be ruled by Palestine; and that's precisely how both would feel under a ?single state?.
It has been known for many years now, that a majority of Israeli citizens are ready to accept the inception of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories in exchange for peace; it is also my understanding that a sizable part of the Palestinian population (less so its current leadership) in those territories had come to terms with Israel's existence and would accept such compromise.
...this means their leaving or not is theirs to decide, not yours; and the question of whether to stay there or not, after having been the great post-1967 controversy, is now largely decided by the Israeli public: most of them desire a territorial compromise, but that involves a peace treaty.
It already decided to leave, but not without a peace treaty. If there cannot be peace without an end to the occupation it follows there cannot be an end to the occupation without peace.
Fine, fine, but you have dodged my question. What if Israel, after all, decides that it will not leave? Hypothetical, yes, but not an unrealistic hypothetical in the circumstances.
It is unrealistic since the ideology of Eretz-Israel hashlema (=the Integral Land Of Israel, inaccurately translated as ?Greater Israel?) has seen its support reduced to a few percents of Israelis, and had not returned to favour despite the disappointment from the process began by the Oslo accords.
And keep in mind that there is a very sizable minority of Israeli Jews - and perhaps a majority of Likud supporters, regardless of what Sharon might sometimes say - who think that Israel should stay in the West Bank and Gaza regardless of any eventual promises of peace by Palestinian Arabs.
It is precisely because I know that should Likud reverty to its old ideology it would lose popular support, that I conclude such hypothesis to be of a slight possibility. But I'll indulge your hypothesis all the same.
In any case, I invite you to answer my question on this point, if you want. And let me restate my question in case it has become lost in all of this: How should Arabs and Jews in the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza live together if Israel should decide not to leave these territories?
A continuation of the conflict. Even if Israel crushed the PA as it did the Intifada (which was largely over by 1991), it would not be likely to annex the territories, or to expell the Palestinians from them, as these options would both find strong internal opposition and present significant practical obstacles making their realisation quasi-unworkable.
Naturally, the Palestinians could in no way present an existential threat to Israel; and no Middle-Eastern state could either.
So, Israelis would remain stuck with the Palestinians, and vice-versa, something which, as I had mentioned earlier, none of them wants.
Which is precisely why the ?single state? would be a continuation of the conflict as well, but only worse: a full-blown civil war.
Originally posted by Scott
You're an idiot.
Personal attacks are not allowed on these boards.
Thanks in advance.
The "minority" of israeli jew opposed to abandoning the area occupied in 1967 is not that small. And did, according to polls, only very recently turn into a minority. I suspect, like with all polls, the results are influenced by the way the questions are put. And that if you asked the question about the status of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees, the results would not be the same.
So, yes, there is a majority for a two state solution. But is there a real will to pay the price for peace. Well, let's just say it still an open issue.
The majority of the palestinian people have accepted Israel as a state a long time ago. So has the PA, more recently. What they demand is a solution to the issue of Jerusalem, the refugees and the settlements. The minority who wants the destruction of israel are more extremist than their israeli counterparts (those who oppose a palestinian state). What popular public support they have is more due to frustration with the lack of progress towards peace, and the hardships the palestinians live under daily.
If Israel said it was ready to withdraw to the 67-borders, or something resembling that. discuss the status of Jerusalem and some kind of compensation for the refugees. Then we could have a two state solution tomorrow.
And with that in place. The only reasonable way forward in the future would be to link these to States together in some kind of federation. As democratic states. With equal rights for all citizens.
The right of all jews to get an israeli citizenship, is an idea that has to be abandoned. And maybe the solution to the problem of the palestinian refugees can be solved without the return of all of them. If proper compensation is offered. Remember that jews in Europe are still getting compensated for property lost during WWII.