Israel!, the only bastion of sanity in the Middle East

[rigney]

I've heard so many derogatory remarks slandering Israelis, (Jews), I could just vomit. Take a look at the link below and tell me how a group of nations; all much larger than this little guy, could be so "bellicose" toward them? NO! not Bellicose, that is a war like term. What the majority of these surrounding nations want, is that Israel be disembowled and left out in the sun to rot. Men, women and children! "Question" is, How can such a small nation comprized of supposed misfits, degenerates, halfwits and idiots pose such a threat to them? Could it be that Israel is the only DEMOCRACY in a region that even God has given up on? I ask this as a Hill Billy, not a religious nut case.

 

http://www.mideastweb.org/maps.htm

Edited April 21, 2011 by rigney

[Stefan-CoA]

Yeah because murdering people on a relief effort is obviously kosher. Also practically stealing the land from countries that had been there for decades if not centuries based upon a fictional account of the history isn't bound to get people riled up

[rigney]

Yeah because murdering people on a relief effort is obviously kosher. Also practically stealing the land from countries that had been there for decades if not centuries based upon a fictional account of the history isn't bound to get people riled up

 

Stefan, I really didn't mean this post to become an outlet for a visceral attack on anyone. I did it in hopes that people like me could somehow understand the problems of this world. The tides of hate between (peoples) must come to an end in order to salvage humanity. "PEOPLE". All of us are just people! Not black nor white, or all of the in betweens. Just people. Unless we can all arrive at a civil rationale, doomsday will be upon us long before we fully understand the reason for our existance? Edited April 21, 2011 by rigney

[Stefan-CoA]

Sorry, I just dislike how people are always quick to jump on the band-wagon of "Oh but the poor Jews". After reading up on how they got their country, I can understand why Arabia would be rather angry towards them, seeing as how "Israel" pretty much "stole" their holy city from them and then barred entry to Arabs, all with the help of the UK and US. So, I can understand this antagonism towards the West coming from those countries. Also rather provocative naming their country after a name for the Muslim angel of death. (according to wikipedia at least). As long as there are reasons to hate people will hate, as long as there is inequality people will hate and resent. This is something you won't get rid of within the next century.

[jackson33]

Actually, there's nothing docile about the Jewish or those that practice Judaism. They may come off a little proud of their heritage, for such a minority of humanity, but then pride in ones heritage, is not something to be ignored or feared.

 

As for Israel "stealing" anything, historically you would need to back more than a few years and in modern history, the map of Europe and the Middle East, was changed after WWII, not by the Jews, but the UN and allied forces who, won the war. After WWII, those folks having been rejected by many Nations during the War and fear of repercussions, were spread out throughout Europe in various refugee camps and no one willing to accept any responsibility the UN via England encouragement, finally did what was right. The Jews accepted the UN's offer for a State, the Palestinians would not.

 

rigney: "We're all black or white or", are you running for office or what? That sounds like Mr. Obama recent campaign and frankly, IMO only part of any problem with International coexistence, today. Where religion rules, belief's outside the rule of international acceptance or law, will always breed contempt of those different. Your not going to eliminate this in individuals, probably as long as mankind exist, but ruling authorities can, if that authority is blind to human emotion. Attitudes toward or opposed to black, white, yellow or brown, has long changed, but those differences to cultural, traditional or even religious difference, may never. It' will be up to individuals who move into different cultures to adapt or not move at all.

[rigney]

rigney: "We're all black or white or", are you running for office or what? That sounds like Mr. Obama recent campaign and frankly, IMO only part of any problem with International coexistence, today.

 

Wow! To think Mr. Obama's thoughts and mine being on the same page? But if we are all descendents of the one and only Lucy, then each of us can trace our ancestory back to Africa. That isn't the issue here though. As you stated, the Middle East has been carved up and fought over for literally thousands of years, with the UN doing the last big divvy back in in the forties. Yet, internal strife seems to be the rule of thumb for practically all wars fought in these countries, except Israel. Why only Israel? Are they so unique in having a democracy that they have had to fight tooth and nail to maintain a foothold in the Mediterranien. It seems that everyone hates their dexterity and adroitness for turning a desert into a beautiful garden. Those calling for Israels extinction could learn a lot from this "little David" and be thankful for his benevolence and patience. As one old adage goes: Be careful for what you wish.

Edited April 22, 2011 by rigney

[keelanz]

I've heard so many derogatory remarks slandering Israelis, (Jews), I could just vomit. Take a look at the link below and tell me how a group of nations; all much larger than this little guy, could be so "bellicose" toward them? NO! not Bellicose, that is a war like term. What the majority of these surrounding nations want, is that Israel be disembowled and left out in the sun to rot. Men, women and children! "Question" is, How can such a small nation comprized of supposed misfits, degenerates, halfwits and idiots pose such a threat to them? Could it be that Israel is the only DEMOCRACY in a region that even God has given up on? I ask this as a Hill Billy, not a religious nut case.

 

http://www.mideastweb.org/maps.htm

 

your post is very biased, you didnt mention how the jews got the land. Here's my analogy: the british own nebraska by force and native indians still own the other 49 states, how mutual or hostile would you be if you was the native? how would you feel to be the british? you have to philosophise both sides before you just say "the evil muslims hate democracy", also i think you'll find if no international markets or trades existed then the muslims wouldnt have anything to fear from the jews but the fact america has its hand up israels ass would scare me too if i lived in a neighboring country. Theres no absolute answer that secularism is better than a religious consituency, for example alot of our western politics is broken and bent whereas in the islamic nations they all have the same approach and outlook, they all just want whats best for their people and to the most degree not to the extent of other peoples and cultures with which our society is indifferent.

 

personally the muslim idealism scares me as much as the facist or military but fighting fire with fire just makes it alot hotter and burn alot quicker

[Marat]

The Zionist movement had been sending Jews to Palestine since the 1880s in the hopes of establishing a state there eventually, so the Holocaust -- though often cited as an excuse for the Israeli state having come into existence -- cannot really explain away the injustice. The actual genesis of Israel as a state out of the British mandate over Palestine was complex and not just the product of the U.N. resettling refugees from Europe; on the contrary, Jewish terrorist action in Palestine, such as blowing up the King David Hotel, contributed to Britain's withdrawal.

 

Generally, the Jewish claim over the territory constituting Israel is absurd. Imagine if someone waving a 3000-year-old text full of wild stories about gods and monsters were to cite that as his grounds for occupying and taking over your house! The Jews had no right to the land they took, and they behaved quite badly in driving the Palestinians off their land. They also took improper advantage of the fact that land title was poorly established in the Ottoman Empire, so they could claim land historically in Palestinian possession as unoccupied and thus make it their own. The argument that the Jews needed a homeland to be secure against a future Holocaust was equally ridiculous, since the Holocaust only occurred in the highly specific circumstances of Germany at war, and the Jews were offered sufficient land for establishing their own state in Paraguay but they declined to accept it.

 

So obviously the rightful owners of the land want it back. However, there is a kind of squatters' rights principle recognized in international law, so that territories occupied illegally for long periods eventually have to be regarded as legally occupied. How long a territory has to be occupied for this to occur is a matter of debate, however. East Prussia, West Prussia, parts of Silesia, and the Danzig Corridor were stolen from Germany and given to Poland by Stalin at the end of World War II for no better reason than that Stalin said that this would ensure that 'Germany and Poland would always hate each other and never gang up on Russia,' but now that territorial transfer, which occurred at about the same time the Palestinians were also robbed of their land and displaced from it, is regarded as legal. So why are the Palestinians still making the entire world suffer because of their terrorism against everyone for the loss of their land 60 years ago, when the Germans have entirely accepted the theft of their land at the same time? Is it because the Palestinians have no where else to go, or because they stubbornly refuse to admit that the pan-Arabist view that all the Moslem countries of the Middle East essentially constitute parts of a single Caliphate should induce them to accept that they now have an alternative homeland in Jordan or Egypt?

[jackson33]

Wow! To think Mr. Obama's thoughts and mine being on the same page? But if we are all descendents of the one and only Lucy, then each of us can trace our ancestory back to Africa. That isn't the issue here though. As you stated, the Middle East has been carved up and fought over for literally thousands of years, with the UN doing the last big divvy back in the forties.[/Quote]

 

rigney; I thought that was interesting, you basically quoting Obama's campaign theme or frankly I'd have not posted. This is a hot button issue and all too often, any conversation leads to charges of bigotry.

 

Based on genetic similarities, I've long accepted evolution and anyway you look at it, all life is a result of some self propagating microbe, based on survival of the fittest. Maybe that's your answer, in that sanity itself, does not equate to fittest.

 

Yet, internal strife seems to be the rule of thumb for practically all wars fought in these countries, except Israel. Why only Israel? Are they so unique in having a democracy that they have had to fight tooth and nail to maintain a foothold in the Mediterranien. It seems that everyone hates their dexterity and adroitness for turning a desert into a beautiful garden. Those calling for Israels extinction could learn a lot from this "little David" and be thankful for his benevolence and patience. As one old adage goes: Be careful for what you wish.[/Quote]

 

There are reasons, but basically it boils down acceptance of coexistence and the rational notion that all "Religion" was born and advanced from where they again, can call home. Some extreme elements do still exist both as Jewish or Muslim, but by the sheer numbers alone, most are Muslim and have been organized since the late 20's. Then there are many sects, with in the Muslim Faith, held together by the apparent desire to exterminate the Jewish, currently adding any supporters of the Jewish State.

 

 

Thread; Rather than argue individually, what was and what is today have meanings, none of which are the same meanings of the past. To give an example, the US was founded by three major cultures, the English, French and Spaniards. Does any group have remaining rights to what was then or maybe do only the original Natives (Indian's) have any rights. Who was first is meaningless, or whatever you claim as sanity today, could never have developed.

 

Generally, the Jewish claim over the territory constituting Israel is absurd. Imagine if someone waving a 3000-year-old text full of wild stories about gods and monsters were to cite that as his grounds for occupying and taking over your house! The Jews had no right to the land they took, and they behaved quite badly in driving the Palestinians off their land. They also took improper advantage of the fact that land title was poorly established in the Ottoman Empire, so they could claim land historically in Palestinian possession as unoccupied and thus make it their own. The argument that the Jews needed a homeland to be secure against a future Holocaust was equally ridiculous, since the Holocaust only occurred in the highly specific circumstances of Germany at war, and the Jews were offered sufficient land for establishing their own state in Paraguay but they declined to accept it.[/Quote]

 

Marat; You might want to read up on this issue, a little more. As for blaming the "Holocaust" on the Jew's, I won't even discuss the thought. For the record I'm not Jewish, but I look at the issue or the problems from an historical or legal viewpoint and IMO, find Israel a Legal State...

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html

[mooeypoo]

Jews have lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years, not just since 1800; the Zionist movement began "sending" jews over after it was clear that the Pogroms and specific antisemite attacks against the jews in ALL countries they were living in was not going to stop.

 

These Jewish settlers supplemented the jewish settlement in Israel, they did not just start it from scratch. Jews and Arabs lived in the land of Israel in relative peace (And occasional strife) for hundreds of years. Reducing the history of two nations to a simplified version does not give justice to either nation, the "rightful" and the "not rightful", whoever they may be.

 

The majority of Israelis are secular, and the Zionist movement, initially, considered other areas as permanent residence for the (haunted) jewish nation, not just Israel. Eventually, Israel was chosen out of two main reasons: First, the historical value (yes, religious as well, but the Zionist movement of the 1800s was not religious, on the contrary, it was completely secular) and the second was the already existing settlements.

 

But this whole deal is no longer relevant. The state of Israel exists, just like the Palestinian presence. Those who think that Israel has no right to exist are no different than those on the ISraeli side that think the palestinian state has no right to exist; reality dictates differently: They DO exist. Now it's time to see how to make them COexist.

 

I always found it interesting how people have a different goal post when it comes down to Israel. Though it wasn't really "conquered" in the traditional sense of the world, even if people believe it was, it's FAR from being the only country that started its way like that. Of course, the United States of America and Central and South America are the biggest examples. The English and Spaniard settlers to the Americas did not come with a bouque of flowers and a box of food to live together harmoneously with the local population. They came and committed outright genocide, introducing diseases by accident and (sometimes) on purpose and declared an official war on the locals. Yet, no one ever speaks of the right of any country on the America continents as having no right to exist. Why is that?

 

Because history dictates reality, that's the way things go. For many centuries Jews lived with Arabs in the land of Israel, sometimes cooperating, sometimes not, but they lived together. The Arab dwellers had the entire region's support and were accepted in their countries. The Jews were not. The holocaust was not the first time the Jews suffered as "the outsiders" in the countries they belonged to; it was just the most notable one. So, after centuries of being casted aside and literally killed by Pogroms and antisemitism, the Jews sought land of their own. They came back to Israel not as the religious symbol, but as the historical one. They developed cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa and kibbutz's around the country, including in the desert, not just Jerusalem and Bet Lehem.

 

I am not religious at all. I'm a complete atheist, and, perhaps to some of your surprise, I think my government is doing badly in terms of seeking peace; they're more interested in their own seats in the parliament than actual progress. I also believe the Palestinians deserve, and WILL have their own free state, and I am not afraid to reach compromises that give away areas of the country if it means a peace is then achieved. We've done it before with Egypt (giving back the Sinai peninsula) and earned peace. A cold and not too friendly peace, but peace nonetheless.

 

Israelis are human beings, and Israel is a democracy. There are many voices that scream and yell for many points of view, just like any other democracy. The media, however, tends to publish the loud ones, or the "interesting" ones, which causes the majority of the common-sense, peace-oriented Israelis and their Palestinian counterparts to be burried under heaps of hate mongering and extremism by factions on BOTH sides. That doesn't mean that's the way things are in general.

 

Israel is a democracy, but it has a lot to go, too .It's easy to criticise a country by a goalpost that was achieved after hundreds of years of relative peace from outside. Judging a 60 year old country (that has been attacked by its neighbors constantly through its short history) by a 300 year old relatively stable country "ideals" is not very realistic.

 

 

That said, Israel has quite a number of advancements in its democracy status; We have gay marriage. We do not have "don't ask don't tell" silliness, our women voted from the get-go and we had a woman prime minister. We have a very advanced high-tech culture and quite a large number of gadgets you all use came initially from Israel. It's not all about a war.

 

How is it, then, that I, an Israeli since I was born, can disagree with my government and work to replace it democratically, work to improve my country's culture and cooperation with others, have quite a number of Palestinian friends -- and yet I seem to be generalized into a compact notion of "THEM" vs "THOSE" as if we're all the same, there's no difference at all, we're all murderous killers.

 

Doesn't sound too rational to me. We can argue and debate the politics, but I think it would be much more fair if we stopped generalizing both Jews and Arabs into these "GROUPS" we want them to be in. It's not respectful to either nation.

 

~mooey

[Marat]

Initially, Jews and Arabs lived side-by-side in Palestine with neither making very serious nationalistic claims, since the Ottoman Empire was the governing power and was essentially mildly unfriendly toward both peoples living there. At the end of the Second World War the retreat of Britain from its colonial control over Palestine, which it had seized for its Empire after the Ottomans' defeat in World War I, thematized the issue of nationhood and ethnic identity as important issues in Palestine once again, and the Israelis aggressively drove the Palestinians out to create a Jewish state for themselves out of what had previously been an ethnically mixed region. Another name for this is 'ethnic cleansing,' made rather unpopular during the recent wars in the former Yugoslavia. There was also great injustice in refusing to recognize de facto Arab private land title, given that the Ottoman records were imperfectly kept. The propagandistic patina spread over this barbarism was that God had somehow died and left the Jews Palestine as their homeland (see ridiculous old book full of gods and monsters), or that the Jews needed that area as a homeland to protect them from future Holocausts, even though they had turned down the offer of an infinitely safer homeland in Paraguay, where they would not have made the Arabs into their enemies to threaten them.

 

So now we have borders drawn based on the injustice of 1948, and the question of interest to international law arises: When does a right of prescription arise, in which established borders assume some legitimacy just because of their long history? In domestic law, adverse possession of land someone else has abandoned allows the squatters to claim valid ownership of it at various times after initial possession, depending on the jurisdiction. For some types of land it may be 20 years, for wasteland it may be 40, for government-owned land it is usually never. In international law there is no clearly recognized time period which has to elapse for an illegitimately drawn border to be able to claim recognition as a valid one. In North America, the Aboriginals still claim that certain lands are theirs even though they last held possession of them three or four hundred years ago. So Israel may have a while to go yet before its title to the land is recognized by prescription.

[mooeypoo]

Actually, the current borders are not 1948 borders.

There were multiple wars that started by Jordan, Ecypt, Syria and Lebanon, all attacking in unison. The current borders are nothing like 1948 division.

 

The talks (and disagreements) in and out of Israel/Palestine are usually about whether we talk 1967 borders or some other division. No one talks seriously about 1948 borders, really. Perhaps they should. I *personally* think that's not a good solution, based on the way things worked so far, and that 1967 borders, in case a peace agreement is DOABLE, is plausible and doable and should be accomplished. Many Israelis are against it, sadly.

 

Still, these things ARE discussed. Israel is not going "throw the arabs out to sea" mentality like some of the media outlets make it seem.

 

Also, why is 1948 an "injustice"? The land was divided by the UN between the arabs and the jews. The jews celebrated, the arabs attacked, which ended in the jews, incidentally, winning. This proceeded with more and more wars that were started by the Arabs (except 2 of them in Lebanon, both resulting in no conquered land). If anything is "injustice", isn't it the arabs trying to take the divided land by force? The decision to divide was sanctioned by the UN, a majority of countries WORLD-WIDE agreed on it. How is that an injustice?

 

I think it's good to discuss injustices and ways to fix them, but I think that if we lose sight of historical occurences and start branding EVERYTHING that is on the "jewish side" as unjust and EVERYTHING on the arab side as "just", we're missing an opportunity to actually talk realistic solutions.

 

~mooey

[rigney]

Mooey, it would be nice if we could always put blame where it is due, but it just doesn't work that way in real life. The history of this Mediterranean coastal region and who owns what, "may have began?" thousands of years before others in the area, including, Iraq, Egypt and Arabia.

 

Material in this link is probably as close to unbiased as I have found. It won't change a thing to a locked in mindset, but it might help someone whose thoughts aren't too constricted.

 

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#From Roman to Ottoman Rule

Edited April 23, 2011 by rigney

[Marat]

I said that the borders were based on the injustice of 1948, not that the borders now are exactly the same as then, but only that the injustice is of that year.

 

The essential problem is that Israel insists on establishing a religiously-/ethnically-defined Jewish state, at a period in world history when the typical modern state prides itself on being neutral with respect to ethnicity and religion. The modern Israeli state could have been established on the 1968 or 1967 borders with much less serious injustice if it had not also performed a massive ethnic cleansing operation to drive out the native Palestinian population in order to ensure that Jews would predominate in the new state. If Israel were now to recognize the right of the displaced Palestinians and their descendants to return and have an equal vote with the Jews, it would become a majority Palestininan Moslem state, which is what it refuses to accept, and this is just religious intolerance according to the generally recognized understanding of the modern state as a secular, tolerant, neutral home for everyone either born there or having a right to live there, regardless of their ethnicity or religion.

 

In its determination to maintain a given ethnic and religious character to its territory, Israel is just like Apartheid South Africa, denying political control to other races, ethnic groups, or religious groups by confining them to jurisdictions artificially separated from their homeland, or denying them a vote and full civil rights in the area where they or their ancestors were born.

[mooeypoo]

Mooey, it would be nice if we could always put blame where it is due, but it just doesn't work that way in real life. The history of this Mediterranean coastal region and who owns what, "may have began?" thousands of years before others in the area, including, Iraq, Egypt and Arabia.

 

Material in this link is probably as close to unbiased as I have found. It won't change a thing to a locked in mindset, but it might help someone whose thoughts aren't too constricted.

 

http://www.mideastwe...istory.htm#From Roman to Ottoman Rule

 

Sure.

 

but then, why are we talking about "who came first" when Israel is concerned and not "who came first" when the USA is concerned? Why is there no talks about "returning the areas to the original owners" in, say, Mexico, or dismantling the states in central and south america in general because they were created on the basis of a genocide?

 

Look back-enough into history, and every country was, at some point, in some sort of war to push some sort of people out of somewhere. It's just the way things are. We seem to be treating these countries just fine, but when it comes to Israel, we suddenly care to say that it means the state has no right of existing.

 

 

 

Also, there's another bit of detail we're ignoring. The arabs in Israel did not call themselves "Palestinians" until Arafat's days. Arafat, who was kicked out (and his people were actually under genocide in Jordan (Black September) and Israel was the only country (ironically) that gave them refugee status. Only after that the "Palestinian" term was created, and the nationalized notions (much like "Zionism" in the 1800, so did "Palestinian" in the 1970s, very similarly) were developed and raised, and the demand for a free state started surfacing. It's also one of the reasons I *DO* believe they should get their own state. Like the Jews, they were (and are) persecuted everywhere they went. They should have their own place to call a country of their own. The only issues at the moment are *how* to do that while keeping the region secure from the fringe extremists and prevent terrorism and extremist notions on both ends.

 

Funny how people forget parts of history that involved cooperation between the two nations, though

 

 

~mooey

 

I said that the borders were based on the injustice of 1948, not that the borders now are exactly the same as then, but only that the injustice is of that year.

I ask again: Why is 1948 "injustice"? It was INTERNATIONALLY decided. I could understand you saying that 1967/1973 is "unjust" (it was after wars), but 1948 was done "by the book" in that aspect. The area was requested by two nations, and the UN - the official "international" authority that involves multiple countries -- decided to split it. How is that unjust? Would you prefer the UN to kick the jews out and give the place to Arabs alone? Wouldn't that be unjust?

 

The essential problem is that Israel insists on establishing a religiously-/ethnically-defined Jewish state, at a period in world history when the typical modern state prides itself on being neutral with respect to ethnicity and religion. The modern Israeli state could have been established on the 1968 or 1967 borders with much less serious injustice if it had not also performed a massive ethnic cleansing operation to drive out the native Palestinian population in order to ensure that Jews would predominate in the new state.

You make quite strong statements. We have arab citizens with FULL voting rights in Israel, and 2 arab political parties in parliament. Ethnic Cleansing?! That's.. quite a hard statement. Other than rumors on TV, do you have any evidence for this?

 

 

The modern Israel is not ethnically defined, but it DOES allow for other religions and ethnicities; as I said, we have an arab party in the parliament and arab-israelis with FULL citizenship rights. Is there racism in Israel? Absolutely, but there's racism in the USA as well. We're fighting it, just like it's fought in the USA and in Europe. And, sadly, the racism in Israel is not "limited" to arabs; we have black jews who suffer quite a lot from it too, despite the fact they're "Jewish bretheren". There's racism everywhere. The LAWS of state, however, are equal.

 

As I said, in that aspect, there are a few issues where we're MORE open than some other democracies in the world. Gay rights are one such example. I can give you a list of laws and regulations allowing Gays (jews and arabs) to get equal rights in workplace and citizenship and marriage/adoption/etc. This, however, is in the democracy of *ISRAEL* and not followed in the Palestinian regions controlled by Hamas. In fact, Gays under Hamas regime are not .. happy. To say the least.

 

Israel does a lot of stupid things and a lot of mistakes, but it also does a lot of good things and has democratic fights for equality. If you insist on seeing EVERYTHING israel does in negative light regardless of what it actually is, I don't think we can have much of a debate. Don't you?

 

~mooey

 

In its determination to maintain a given ethnic and religious character to its territory, Israel is just like Apartheid South Africa, denying political control to other races, ethnic groups, or religious groups by confining them to jurisdictions artificially separated from their homeland, or denying them a vote and full civil rights in the area where they or their ancestors were born.

 

 

Apartheid? Really? Did the Blacks in South Africa had ANY representation in the government? Arab Israelis do. They also go to the army like jews do.

 

I can accept claims of inequality. But Apartheid? Really?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eupkfyd1ulc

(this is just one example. If you REALLY think it's apartheid, I can post a whole comparison of the definition of apartheid and Israel's status. I think it's straying a bit off realistic-debate if we go to extreme definitions just for the emotional aspect.

[Marat]

As a part of its racist campaign to ensure White dominance of the government of South Africa, South Africa created various enclave states to which the local Blacks were assigned, thus removing them from constituting a threat to the White control over South Africa as a whole. This seems to be strongly analogous to Israel driving out Palestinians to various imaginary homelands for them (e.g., Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt), and then pretending that they really belong there because these are all Arab states and so are the Palestinians, just so they cannot claim to live in Israeli territory where they or their parents and grandparents were born.

 

The central problem for Israel is that it declares itself to be 'a Jewish state.' Thus even though it can and does allow non-Jews to live and vote in Israel, it can never afford to allow all the non-Jews who have a valid claim to live in Israel as citizens -- that is, all the Palestinians who were born there, whose parents were born there and driven out, or whose grandparents were born there and driven out -- to live and vote there, since then Israel would cease to be what it is now defined forever to be, i.e., a Jewish state. The essence of democracy is that a state can become and assume the character of anything that the majority of its citizens want it to become, and in this sense Israel forever commits itself to being anti-democratic by defining itself as forever a Jewish state. This means that it has to be racist as well, since it has to ensure that sufficient numbers of non-Jews never return to Israel so as to create a voting majority which would no longer endorse the identity of Israel as a Jewish state. This finally means that it has to adopt a policy of ethnic cleansing, of keeping from returning to Israel those who were either personally, or whose parents or grandparents, were pushed out of Israel by Jewish immigrants and their state, which improperly refused to recognize their Ottoman land titles and thus deprived them of their homeland.

[rigney]

As a part of its racist campaign to ensure White dominance of the government of South Africa, South Africa created various enclave states to which the local Blacks were assigned, thus removing them from constituting a threat to the White control over South Africa as a whole. This seems to be strongly analogous to Israel driving out Palestinians to various imaginary homelands for them (e.g., Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt), and then pretending that they really belong there because these are all Arab states and so are the Palestinians, just so they cannot claim to live in Israeli territory where they or their parents and grandparents were born.

 

The central problem for Israel is that it declares itself to be 'a Jewish state.' Thus even though it can and does allow non-Jews to live and vote in Israel, it can never afford to allow all the non-Jews who have a valid claim to live in Israel as citizens -- that is, all the Palestinians who were born there, whose parents were born there and driven out, or whose grandparents were born there and driven out -- to live and vote there, since then Israel would cease to be what it is now defined forever to be, i.e., a Jewish state. The essence of democracy is that a state can become and assume the character of anything that the majority of its citizens want it to become, and in this sense Israel forever commits itself to being anti-democratic by defining itself as forever a Jewish state. This means that it has to be racist as well, since it has to ensure that sufficient numbers of non-Jews never return to Israel so as to create a voting majority which would no longer endorse the identity of Israel as a Jewish state. This finally means that it has to adopt a policy of ethnic cleansing, of keeping from returning to Israel those who were either personally, or whose parents or grandparents, were pushed out of Israel by Jewish immigrants and their state, which improperly refused to recognize their Ottoman land titles and thus deprived them of their homeland.

 

I suppose we could look at any nation in such a way. America and Canada for instance. Only a few hundred years after the fact, we are Americans, Canadians and Mexicans "only". Yes, there are those who now want a piece of the pie for free, so to speak. Not happy with the status quo, some would like their own soverign "state/country". Well, it ain't agonna happen. But if justice was to be served in any respect, it would be only if we gave it back to an ancestory some fifteen to fifty thousand years old???. "Native Indians". Well, we don't really know if they were the originals or not, but they had dibs on it long before the Europeans and Spaniards arrived. For that matter, it could have just as easily belonged to Lief and his bunch of Nordic sea farers. As I said to Mooey, you can't always put the blame where blame is due. We are all guilty of something, somewhere in the scheme of things. And anyone who does not acknowledge this as a shortcoming, has their head in their a--. Other than out and out hatred and commerce, land grabbing is the biggest reason for wars. Edited April 25, 2011 by rigney

[Marat]

I think you're missing an essential distinction, Rigney, which disguises some points of agreement between us. I entirely agree that it is silly to try to argue who 'really' owns what land by tracing possession back several centuries or even to the earliest archeological evidence, as defenders of native land rights often do in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Since all nations now existing on the planet represent territory conquered or illegally taken in one way or the other, it seems foolish to make 'I was here first' distinctions by tracing historical lineages back to their ultimate orgins.

 

But this is all dealt with in the application to international law of the concept of 'prescription,' often called 'adverse possession' in domestic law, or more colloquially, 'squatters' rights.' This legal concept, as I outlined in earlier posts, simply states that after someone has illegally occupied land for a certain amount of time, it becomes legally his, even if originally he was just a trespasser. In domestic law the number of years of occupation required to transform a mere transpasser into the new owner varies with the jurisdiction and the type of land, but it varies usually from 20 to 40 years. In international law the time limits are still a matter of dispute, but land adversely occupied by a 'trespasser' for centuries would clearly legally belong to the trespasser, just to quieten title claims.

 

In the case of Israel, however, sufficient time has not passed since their initial occupation of the land now occupied, so since the title is disputable given the way it was acquired, others can still raise valid claims against it. After another century of continued occupation, however, most international lawyers would concede that no one can dispute Israel's right to exist.

[mooeypoo]

You know, Marat, you might be surprised, but I tend to agre with you about the definition of Israel as a"Jewish state". In fact, I'm not the only Israeli who sees a lot of problems with that definitions.

 

The main issue that led to the necessity in having a "state for the jews" was the fact that regardless of how much effort Jews made (even the secular ones) to integrate into societies around the world, particularly in Europe and Russia, they were always a persecuted minority, and often quite violently. Again, the holocaust is used a lot because it's the most NOTABLE example, but it's far from being the ONLY example. The zionist movement started in the end of the 1800s, before the holocaust happened, when bloody Pogroms against the Jews flooded eastern europe.

 

Jews are more than just a religion, but the definition is a problematic one, and even Jews themselves argue about it QUITE a lot. Take me as an example: I'm completely and utterly secular. I am an agnostic atheist and do not follow any of the religious rules. I see the bible as an interesting historical document (not one that tells history, because it doesn't, but one that was created in the past, and can shed light on the way things were, including how people intended to educate their young, etc). I follow the cultural holidays only, and that is because I do feel connected to my "people" through the culture and the history, but I do not follow the religious ones (all the fasts and things that happen "strictly" for God's forgiveness, etc).

 

Like me there are many many many Jews around the world and in Israel. So, what is a Jew? Is it a religious one? Well, if that's the case, then I have no place in Israel whether I believe in having a place for my people, served my country, paid taxes or not. Is it just culture? That would mean that anyone who follows Jewish culture, even if he belongs to another religion, is Jewish, which is a problem as well. So... what's a jew? If I told you I have a definitive answer, I'd be lying. If people tell you Israelis (or the government of Israel, or even the people of Israel in general) knows the answer, they're lying. This is a philosophical argument that's being argued for decades now. Part of it even created the Secular Humanist movement, which spawned out of secular Judaism.

 

 

We all have an idea of what Judaism is and what a Jew is; when it comes down to citizenship, there are more options than just "being jewish" (there ARE arab israelis, whether you choose to believe me or not, some of them serve the army and parliament and they're 100% citizens...). But "law-wise", you need a definitive definition, which is hard, so there was an initial definition, and then it's being built on, constantly. The rules change; they're not the same today as they were 60 years ago, or even 20 years ago. That's what happens in a democracy, specially a young one.

 

 

But the point is that while we might not know exactly how to define "what is a Jew", the nations around the world seem to not quite care about subtle definitions; Jews were persecuted (and still are in some places, more than you might think) around the world. Professional frenchmen or russians or germans who were completely secular and, incidentally, were jewish, were persecuted for their judaism and NOT treated as "frenchmen" and "russians" and "germans" *because* they are jewish.

 

The decision to seek for a homeland for the jews was not out of someone's religious aspiration for world domination. It was out of necessity, because Jews were being persecuted everywhere. Jews are also not the only nation to start its way like that, by far. This is a valid attempt to claim one's right to have their own land to protect themselves.

 

In fact, the Palestinians do the exact same thing now. And yet, we seem to claim THEY have a right to do it but the Jews did not. Huh?

 

 

 

 

Israel is the only place on Earth that declared that ti will help all Jews, anywhere and everywhere, against antisemitism. I see nothing wrong with this statement.

 

What I do see wrong with is declaring there's no space for any other religion. I see a lot wrong with that, which is why I am fighting against such voices in Israel; but the laws of the land do *NOT* prevent other religions from coming to Israel or being citizens in Israel. I also have a problem with the fact that the religious (and a particular kind of religious) folk are the ones who define what "jew" is. I fight that too, and I'm not alone. These are things that we need to work out and sort out, but it's also a result of a YOUNG country, not to mention a young country that had to constantly defend itself against hostile neighbors. Expecting Israel to be as solid and fair and perfect as countries that have HUNDREDS of years of existence is unfair and unrealistic. Instead, we should try and see how to improve things.

 

 

Finally, I want to say one more thing here. Palestinians want (and, in my opinion, deserve) their own country much like the Jews wanted (and deserved) their own country. To protect them against persecution. The plights of both nations is very similar, and they both deserve to be heard. I don't quite see how 1948 decision in the UN was illegal or unfair when Israel is expected to follow UN decisions currently. You can't move the goalpost like that -- either the UN is the authority, and in which case we begin from the claim that Israel (sanctioned to exist BY the UN) has a right to exist, or we claim that the UN is meaningless and then we also claim that today's UN decisions are illegal and meaningless.

 

You can't hold the pole on both sides. Or eat the cake and leave it whole. Or... choose any other saying you like in here. You can't move the goalpost and remain rational.

 

The Palestinians should have their own country; but we cannot -- and shouldn't, really -- live TOGETHER in ONE country. There *can* be two countries in that region, each with its own unique culture, rules and existence. And that does not negate peace.. the countries can cooperate and live as friends. The option isn't "either or". It CAN be both.

 

It's the extremists on BOTH sides who claim "either/or", who make things worse, who attack school-busses and kill civilians, who run amok settling where they *shouldn't* settle, who make things worse for the moderates, who just want PEACE while keeping their cultural identity.

 

Both sides want that. Why is that so wrong?

 

 

~mooey

[jackson33]

I doubt two people on this forum or 1% of all humans, that know the name "Karl Heinrich Marx" the famous GERMAN, philosopher and author of the "Communist Manifesto", know he was also an Atheist Jew. Einstein, although I disagree, is often referred to as an Atheist and Jewish, then the Prime Minister of ISRAEL for years (think the early 70's) also openly questioned the existence of a God.

 

I understand ethnicity or cultural ties are built into some Religions, but to be honest with you I have a hard time understanding how a person can be something, yet atheist or a nonbeliever to the premise of subject. That is you can be a proud Israelite or in my case American and from there Jewish, Catholic or whatever....but that is my opinion. Here again however, and as I understand it, Muslims also believe people are Muslim by birthright and if rejected in life become an infidel (a person that does not believe in their God). Maybe it's that Christians, believe in a gateway or an acceptance in some manner into a Religion, but THEN are lifelong whatever.

 

 

mooeypoo; I had the above written, for your post #10, deciding it might be too far off topic and you might feel I was trying to ruffle your feathers. However and IMO your stretching the "born Jewish" idea, a little too far. What was Golda Meir's quote when asked if she believed in a God, "I believe in the Jewish people and the JEWISH PEOPLE believe in God". Then, though I won't argue their case, their are those that feel "Jewish Liberalism" within Israel, will bring down the State, the opposition fearing a religious State.

 

My concerns, then primarily for those being condemned by others "for their faith", which IMO is the main concern of the "Muslim Brotherhood", advocates for Sharia States or radical elements, are in that stability seen by rigney's sanity, and most all US people & politicians. Frankly, I'm really concerned about the current US Administration policies, toward Israel (as I see them) and what that might mean in the future, if continued, but that's for another thread....

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo; I had the above written, for your post #10, deciding it might be too far off topic and you might feel I was trying to ruffle your feathers. However and IMO your stretching the "born Jewish" idea, a little too far. What was Golda Meir's quote when asked if she believed in a God, "I believe in the Jewish people and the JEWISH PEOPLE believe in God". Then, though I won't argue their case, their are those that feel "Jewish Liberalism" within Israel, will bring down the State, the opposition fearing a religious State.

 

My concerns, then primarily for those being condemned by others "for their faith", which IMO is the main concern of the "Muslim Brotherhood", advocates for Sharia States or radical elements, are in that stability seen by rigney's sanity, and most all US people & politicians. Frankly, I'm really concerned about the current US Administration policies, toward Israel (as I see them) and what that might mean in the future, if continued, but that's for another thread....

 

You're not the only one to think I'm stretching it. I, however, am not alone in "stretching" it. The vast majority of Israelis are secular; either non-practicing or completely atheist. Ironically, Rabbis find me Jewish despite my lack of religion, since they go by a quite simplified "If your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish" definition. This might work for most cases, but it fails working when, say, the father is Jewish and the mother is not, but the child grew up as a Jew (even religious jew) -- why is he less Jewish than, say, a "full" Jew? So, I disagree with the ultra-religious take.

 

Even people who didn't "act" Jewish (that is, didn't follow the cultural and religious customs) were considered Jewish for persecution purposes; this common history, I admit fully, is part of my heritage. It's part of why *I* consider myself Jewish. My family was butchered in the holocaust despite the fact a quarter of them were business-men with almost no ties to actual Judaism. My other side was beaten in the Pogroms regardless of beliefs; This common history is one of the things that make a "Jew" more than just religion.

 

 

Take into account, however, that my definition is vague *BECAUSE* it's off topic; I gave it as an example of how the "religious" and "ethnic" cases are not as clear cut as Marat seems to present them. My own thoughts on the "what is a jew" subject is quite more elaborate than what I wrote in teh previous post.

 

If we want to discuss this, though, we should probably start a new thread.

 

~mooey

[Marat]

I don't think we can simply assume that the UN has a monopoly on what is right in international law. While it is true that the UN can make new international law, by article 24 of the UN Charter the International Court of Justice retains a right to ensure that the actions of the UN, enforced through the Security Council, are consistent with the ultimate purposes of the UN Charter, so in theory international law should prevail as a standard of review over what the UN contingently happens to do. This being the case, then, the international law rules about prescription and adverse possession of territory, which I discussed above, should be regarded as superior to UN action, so its recognition of the state of Israel could be illegitimate at international law.

 

It is said that Israel allows people of other faiths to live there, but of course it does not recognize a right of return to Israel of the Palestinian people whose grandparents and parents, or who personally were expelled from Israel. If it were to recognize such a right, and were not to deny the vote to such new residents on religious or ethnic grounds, it would find its present identity as a 'Jewish state' voted down by the new majority of its population, and since it cannot tolerate that happening, its self-definition forces it to be religiously intolerant and/or racist. In contrast, a formal, secular state with no predetermined identity like the U.S., which is always open to any range of democratic redeterminations of its cultural character, as long as these occur by legal process, can admit anyone and everyone without discrimination, beyond the standard background discrimination all states apply, which is either native birth or descent from someone with citizenship, variously either the father, the mother, or both parents.

 

When either or both ethnicity and religion can characterize a group, there will always be difficulties determining its membership. Ironically, the Nazis became experts at this, and had a massive administrative appartus, the Rassensbemerkungsamt, to make these fine determinations. The fact that veterans of the First World War were exempt from being treated with the legal disabilities of Jews even if they were Jewish, or that Jewish foreigners resident in Germany were not legally discriminated against, shows how complex these distinctions were. (Ironically, many US aspirants for medical study, excluded from US medical schools by the Jewish quotas in force at the time, went to Germany for their medical degrees when the Nazi regime was in power in the 1930s; a notable example is Prof. George Rosen, a famous Yale Professor of the History of Medicine).

 

Not to be forgotten are those highly religious Jews who contingently find themselves now living in Israel who detest the Israeli state as an impeity, since it purports to realize in this world something which should be regarded solely as an ideal.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Not to be forgotten are those highly religious Jews who contingently find themselves now living in Israel who detest the Israeli state as an impeity, since it purports to realize in this world something which should be regarded solely as an ideal.

It's also interesting that ultra-Orthodox Judaism is growing rapidly in Israel, despite Israel's comparatively secular nature.

[mooeypoo]

When either or both ethnicity and religion can characterize a group, there will always be difficulties determining its membership. Ironically, the Nazis became experts at this, and had a massive administrative appartus, the Rassensbemerkungsamt, to make these fine determinations. The fact that veterans of the First World War were exempt from being treated with the legal disabilities of Jews even if they were Jewish, or that Jewish foreigners resident in Germany were not legally discriminated against, shows how complex these distinctions were. (Ironically, many US aspirants for medical study, excluded from US medical schools by the Jewish quotas in force at the time, went to Germany for their medical degrees when the Nazi regime was in power in the 1930s; a notable example is Prof. George Rosen, a famous Yale Professor of the History of Medicine).

 

 

Great. It took us 22 posts to bring up Godwin's Law.

I suggest we avoid this topic, and continue, instead, in an argument that does not involve emotional low-blows. I'm sure we can do that in a science forum.

 

I'll answer the rest of the points after a bit of a break from the thread, if you guys don't mind.

It's also interesting that ultra-Orthodox Judaism is growing rapidly in Israel, despite Israel's comparatively secular nature.

That's scaring the seculars, as well, let me tell you. It has more to do with the fact they're producing large amount of offspring than an increase in religiosity. You should rent "Idiocracy"

 

~mooey

[rigney]

Jackson 33: Though I won't argue their case, there are those who feel "Jewish Liberalism" within Israel, will bring down the State, the opposition fearing a religious State.

 

Isn't this the same issue being preached here in the US today by both left and right wing advocates? At present a majority of Americans still seem to want a secular but overall religious outlook on things. The other side is quietly praying that right wing "decadence" will eventually bring about a state of total anarchy? Then, it's "game on".

 

PS: Made several trips to Karls home town of Treir when I was stationed in both Heidelberg and Mannheim. Our guys there always seemed to want their eggs, bacon, flour and milk. (on occasion, even a chicken or steak).

Edited April 26, 2011 by rigney