The two new Muslim congresswomen, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, are both supporters of the BDS movement, and both made that clear only after they were elected.
BDS’s goal is not just to ostensibly punish Israel into negotiating a two-state solution with Palestine (of course, it’s the Palestinians who have rejected every Israeli peace initiative), but to completely eliminate the state of Israel through allowing the bogus “right-of-return” policy as well as fostering a “one-state” solution that amalgamates Israel and Palestine. Both, of course, would eliminate the state of Israel and lead to a bloody war against the Jews. Ergo the BDS slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
Tlaib previously voiced her support for a one-state solution and the “right of return” last August in an interview in In These Times:
What about a two-state solution vs. one-state?
One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work. Even though we continue the struggle in the United States, we have a better chance to integrate. My grandfather said, ‘I don’t understand, we were doing so good. My neighborhood, Arab-Jew. We picked olives together. Why now do they want to be over me?’ ‘You did nothing wrong,’ I told him.
Where do you stand on Palestinian right of return—support or oppose?
Very supportive. I see what happened to African Americans in our country. I support right of return absolutely. I have family that left [Palestine] in 1967. They left, took their keys with them. They thought they could come back, and they’ve never been back. My uncle would tear up because he couldn’t believe he couldn’t go back. He had to raise his kids in Jordan.
So we have at least one representative that wants Israel to disappear, presumably with a huge loss of life and attacks on Jews. Does Tlaib think that this could happen in any other way? Ilhan Omar, I suspect, believes the same.
If you have any doubt about Tlaib’s views, have a look at this tweet. It came from a BuzzFeed reporter who covers U.S. Muslim life.
Someone has already made a slight alteration to the map that hangs in Rashida Tlaib’s new congressional office. pic.twitter.com/mwyshIog4r
— Hannah Allam (@HannahAllam) January 3, 2019
This note surely was not put up by Tlaib, as she cannot be that stupid; there is one report that it was stuck up by Mo Amer, a Palestinian-American comedian who was part of the entourage celebrating Omar’s inauguration. But I doubt it was “just a joke”. And look who else attended Omar’s celebration (picture on left).
The scene outside Rashida Tlaib’s new office as she awaits her swearing in this morning. Linda Sarsour is here, comedian Mo Amer, Arab American activists, 100 kids from Detroit arrived by bus. #congress pic.twitter.com/uXbCYJnYu0
— Hannah Allam (@HannahAllam) January 3, 2019
No more Israel. The Authoritarian Left, of course, idolizes both Tlaib and Omar because they are Muslims. There is great approbation for their increasing the “diversity” of Congress. And of course if some groups have had their opportunity to participate in governing impeded, those blocks should be removed. But before we elect anyone, look at their agenda. Of course, it’s harder to do that when they hide their agenda until they’re in office
Some may say that Tlaib and Omar hid their views about Israel before the election because “that’s what politicians do.” But I call it lying.
Of course they were lying. That’s what politicians do. Politics is the lowest form of human activity and dissembling is a job requirement. The only consolation is that neither of these two will accomplish much in the house. Newly elected house members do little more than warm up the benches in congress.
sub.
“their increasing the “diversity” of Congress.”
While they advocate decreasing the diversity in the Middle East.
+ 1
Good point, that! A killer point.
‘Decreasing diversity’, a fantastic new euphemism for genocide?
I’d be a bit wary about saying this woman is advocating genocide. I’m not a fan of celebrating people’s ascent to power simply on the basis of their identity. It’s fucking stupid. But where has she advocated genocide?
‘From the river to the sea’, have you never seen the accompanying illustrations?
A. Has she said that?
B. Does anyone who says that necessarily mean they want to wipe out all the Jews? I’d say it’s debatable at least.
I’m sure it’s satisfying to call her genocidal but you’d better be bloody sure you’re right before you throw that word around.
While it is good to have representatives that are other-than-old-white guys, I have yet to see much wisdom displayed by this group. Some seem ignorant of the laws of the land while others flaunt their odious religion in a manner not unlike Pence et al. My way or the highway doesn’t work from the left or from the right.
I don’t find anything wrong with old white guys. If the Democrats cannot find better “diverse” candidates, to Hades with diversity!
(Oh I know well that voters ultimately decide; and some commenters say that the district of Omar is unlikely to elect anyone different anymore.)
Nothing per se about old white guys – just too many of them to be consistently representative of a variety of constituencies.
So I’m to believe that white representatives cannot effectively represent black constituents; am I to accept the corallory: that black politicians are ineffective in their representation of me due to our different pigmentation. I reject indentiy political that way lies more violence and strife.
I think you are twisting things up here. It isn’t about whether or not x representative can competently represent y constituents. It’s simply about fairness. The idea is that people get to choose who they want to represent their group. When the demographic breakdown of representatives doesn’t come close to matching the demographic breakdown of constituents you can be sure that your system isn’t working very well at affording all groups fair representation.
It isn’t about individual cases. Sure, a black community might indeed enthusiastically vote for a white representative even when they have the opportunity to choose any black representative they care to. Obviously that is fine. That’s a fair outcome.
It’s about statistics. Many minority groups often don’t have the opportunity to choose representatives that they want to represent them.
darrelle: “The idea is that people get to choose who they want to represent their group … your system isn’t working very well at affording all groups fair representation”.
The problem that Pw highlights is encapsulated in what you say above: the idea that the (or a) main purpose of electing a representative is to represent a *group*. That’s the notion we have to get past if we’re to get over the cancerous identity-based posturing that passes for politics at the moment. I don’t want to vote for someone because of the group they represent, or the group they think I’m a part of. I want to vote for them because of the ideas they espouse.
Actually I thought American congresspeople do represent groups. Each congressperson represents the group of people defined by their congressional district or their state, if they are a senator. Is that not right? (I’m from the UK where it is definitely the case, but I am therefore not completely au fait with the American system.)
I think this reinforces your point though. You can’t, for example, represent just women if half the people in your district are men, or just Muslims if there is a sizeable Jewish community in your district.
*While it is good to have representatives that are other-than-old-white guys, I have yet to see much wisdom displayed by this group.*
This is about the most perceptive one-sentence take on US politics I have come across.
Aw shucks (kicks dirt), thanks.
I believe the comedian in the picture is Amer Zahr, not Mo Amer.
Slightly off-topic, but I thought the highlight of yesterday’s swearing-in ceremony was when new Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema — the first openly bisexual member of congress (as opposed to all the closet cases hiding out in the GOP congressional cloakrooms) — took her oath of office from (of all gosh-darn people) holy-rolling VP Mike Pence, while raising her right hand high and planting her left hand firmly on a copy of the United States Constitution, instead of the generally de rigueur bible.
It’s another crack in fortress America, I tell ya.
As Hemingway said in A Farewell to Arms, many grow stronger in the broken places.
Taking oath over the Constitution sound well to me.
Trump warned about letting Muslims into the country. Now look what happens. That is why they want to keep them out of Israel.
You suggesting a ban on Muslims is a wise, or constitutional, policy, OG?
In any event, Congresswoman Tlaib is a natural-born American citizen, straight outta the Motor City.
Your second sentence presents the problem in the nutshell: there is no guarantee that modern Muslim second- and third-generation immigrants will be better integrated than the original newcomer. In fact, in Western Europe many young Muslims who are citizens by birth are more detached from the host society than their parents.
Religion poisons everything.
Mike, don’t be so stupid. Religion does not poison everything. But evil religion (yeah, define evil using an atheist foundation — Dawkins denies there is evil for example) is, well, evil, and Muhammad sure taught us how to be evil.
Enjoy this humorous video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r93oq-VRm_w
I probably should have included quotes on that but I figured here, of all places, readers would know the derivation.
Don’t call me stupid Robward. It’s rude, uncalled for and I won’t let it slide next gime.
Agreed, that is not only rude , but obviously unwarranted. The video is hilarious though!
I’m thinking maybe robward’s reply had an implied “/s” tag?
I think Trump is right here.
I don’t.
I think there’s a vast historical difference in the assimilation experiences between the traditional ethnostates of Europe and the great American melting pot — a cultural vortex (to meld my own metaphors) that ineluctably sucks in all newcomers.
Trump is merely the latest iteration of the know-nothing, nativist demagogues who recrudesce in the United States every few generations, albeit the only one ever to ascend to the highest office in the land.
Oh I dunno, Ken. Some have compared Millard Filmore’s nativism to Trump’s.
Spot on though about the difference; the US is not Europe. Their experience with recent Muslim immigrants is unlikely to happen here.
I agree with both of you; but I also don’t support a “throw open the gates” policy for immigration to the US.
(I disagree with Drumpf’s proposed “wall” and his stand on asylum seekers at the southern border. I think we should allow for asylum application; and then thoroughly vet the applicants and their claims regarding asylum status.)
“I think we should allow for asylum application; and then thoroughly vet the applicants and their claims regarding asylum status.”
We already do that. Asylum, like immigration as a whole, is a political issue, not a real one.
I agree; I just wanted my position to be clear.
Problem is, lying for Islamic gain was practiced by Muhammad, and is of course thus valid for muslims to do today. There is a word dedicated to naming this but I forget what it is.
Asylum itself isn’t really the issue, and the real issue is not a political one. The real issue is that, once asylum is requested, the person who made the request is released into the US until they can get a hearing, at which time they’re supposed to return for their hearing.
This is a real issue.
I think you are thinking of taqiyya or kitman? Mainly Shia, but also condoned in Sunna.
Yes Nicholas, Taqiyya was the word. Thanks.
Just wait until the percentage of Muslims in the USA becomes the same as in France or Britain.
I think this is a salient point.
“By 2040, Muslims will replace Jews as the nation’s second-largest religious group after Christians. And by 2050, the U.S. Muslim population is projected to reach 8.1 million, or 2.1% of the nation’s total population”
Muslims are growing rather rapidly in the US, but it’s not like hoards storming the almighty wall.
“A Pew Forum study, published in January 2011, estimated 4.7 million Muslims in France in 2010 (and forecasted 6.9 million in 2030).”
“The CIA World Factbook places it at 5–10%”
Not to mention Belgium.
Here we have a Palestinian-American whose family brought to the New World all the feuds from their old home (wasn’t leaving behind such feuds part of the idea of moving to America?) and transfering them to their daughter. Here we have a Somali-American who got 200-yr-old rules changed so that she can continue to wear the “Confederate flag” on her head. I am afraid that these two ladies are a living proof that the great American melting pot is broken. (And I haven’t even mentioned yet my own cousin, brought to the USA as a child, who learned Spanish.)
I don’t have a big problem with Omar wearing a hijab in congress. (Since the ban seems silly to me in the first place.)
Mainly because of the US first amendment: Freedom of religion. Wearing a hat in no infringes on anyone else’s rights. I think it’s important to protect people’s constitutional rights. (I do take issue with covering the face in public places.)
I have no religion and I think the stuff is silly; but it is protected in the USA.
I’d like it if the religious in the USA would treat me with the same level of courtesy on this issue; but I’m not holding my breath.
I interpret this aspect of the 1st Amendment as a constitutional ban on implementing laws that specifically interfere with someone’s religion. In this case, if the ban never existed in the first place, it would be wrong to introduce it now as Muslim women are elected.
I don’t think that it orders re-evaluation of preexisting laws; but if so, then please lift the ban altogether, don’t make it just another Muslim privilege.
I admit that, while venting here discontent at election of US Muslims and using the broad brush that rightly made some commenters object, I all the time hoped that Ms. Omar will stand in front of the Congress building, smile at the cameras and majestically take off her headscarf before entering.
Yes, nativism has been around for a long time. Schuyler Colfax vice president under Grant was a rabid anti-immigration demagogue. He gave vicious speeches against the Irish.
“The Dillingham Commission report [1911] concluded that immigration from southern and eastern Europe posed a serious threat to American society and culture and should therefore be greatly reduced.” Southern Italians – bad. Northern Italians – good. The list is long.
His warning had nothing to do with Israel or human rights. I do recall him insulting a Muslim family whose son had given his life for your freedom though, just as Israeli Muslims have lost their lives defending Israel.
+1 – this shouldn’t need saying. There seems to be an inability on the part of a minority here to retain a sense of proportion about the threat of Islam.
I would predict that these freshman in the house will not go much further. Once their true beliefs are out there for everyone to see, they will be gone. Fortunately it is the house and that is only two years.
I must also say, when she gets the civil rights issue in this country mixed up with the two state solution in the Middle East she is just dead wrong. One of these women said in public, in reference to Trump – She was there to impeach the mother fucker. Very classy
Classy indeed. Pursuing impeachment is a fool’s errand and would only strengthen the Orange Draft Dodger’s base. Democrat stupidity is the path for re-election for the despicable con artist.
Unfortunately “Democratic stupidity” is all we have to work on. It’s going to get real ugly.
By way of my nut-wing evangelical relatives, I see that Breitbart’s post about this has confirmed my point – over 24,000 comments thus far going after this potty-mouthed newbie.
Sorry, 24,000 likes, and 18,000 comments.
Pursuing impeachment may not be a fool’s errand. The Mueller Team has some information that may well be just a matter of technicalities of why and how charges are presented👮.
They do? When will we see it? Can you tell us here or will you have to be shot if you do?
I predict that Trump will be impeached by the House but then acquitted. It depends on what the Mueller report says.
Sadly, you may well be correct.
I would much prefer that the Dems do nothing to prevent keeping the Manchurian Cantaloupe in power through the 2020 elections, as a millstone around the neck of the entire GOP.
BF, been meaning to give you props on your handle!
Thanks! Mi novia (chilanga) calls me Brujo Lindo (or Brujis for short). So using Brujo Feo as a *nom de plume* wasn’t a stretch. (I know that PCC prefers that people not use such identity-cloakers, but I’ve represented too many clients in identity-theft cases, and Rule No. 1 is: NEVER use your actual name on social media.)
You probably already know that brujo/bruja is just as sexist as the English equivalents: wizard (or sorcerer)/witch. Approbation for the man, an insult for the woman. Sigh…
Cute! And at least some modern day witches are trying to bring some honor to the word.
And soon, Adam Schiff (new chair of the house intelligence committee) will find out who the “blocked caller” was who talked with Trump Jr., Bannon et al. during the Russia-meeting. No collusion my ass.
Pursuing impeachment just needs to be done correctly. I don’t think one Congresswomen bringing it up is a big deal, and emphasis on the f-bomb is just being used as faux outrage by the hypocritical right. Pelosi isn’t stupid; she’ll wait until the Mueller report comes out and the House investigations begin investigating and finding answers. Trump has no idea the shit-storm heading his way. He’s not dealing with sycophantic leaders who are afraid of him anymore.
Damn straight, Pelosi isn’t stupid. Nor is Adam Schiff (though he likes the tv cameras perhaps a bit much). And ain’t any moss growin’ on new House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler, either. Keep an eye on that one; he might just end up Man of the Year, 2019.
Reminds me of some of the lawyers I’ve had the pleasure of working with in NY. Eschews flash in favor of understatement, but tough as nails when the chips are on the line.
I like to hear talk like that…gives me hope.
That would be nice, but I am doubtful.
I think she should replace ‘mother’ with ‘daughter’. (Admittedly a cheap shot).
But your comment is pertinent, getting rid of Mr Trump has basically nothing to do with a one or two state solution in the Israel/Palestine problem.
Yeah, the Israel/Palestine problem is Prince Jared’s bailiwick. The boy blunder should have the loose ends wrapped up any day now.
Please! I dislike Trump as much as anybody, but on this site you shouldn’t accuse him of incest.
Can people please avoid this kind of stuff here?
My apologies, it was a cheap shot I couldn’t resist. Will do my best abstaining from such comments.
Professor: I don’t think that Mr. Stempels was seriously accusing Der Drumpf of incest, any more than the dumb-ass new congresswoman was seriously suggesting Oedipal misadventures.
I agree with you that we should shy away from such suggestions, but it’s not like the Mango Mussolini wasn’t begging for it: https://forward.com/schmooze/357185/7-creepy-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-ivanka/
I used to live in her district while she was a State Rep.
In her favor, I will say that she did seem to be pretty involved in what was going on in the district.
But I also got the sense that if an issue wasn’t one of her pet causes, she wasn’t going to dedicate much time and effort to it.
For example, there was some sort of state-level anti-LGBT initiative while I was in her district. Apparently, she wasn’t vocal enough in her opposition to the initiative that people had started writing/emailing/calling to make sure she was in fact opposed to it Considering that the district isn’t particularly LGBT friendly in the first place, and that the overwhelming majority of elected Repubs aren’t either, the writers/emailers/callers had a legit concern. But her response (I was on some sort of email list) was pretty lukewarm — although, to her credit, she did oppose the initiative.
She also complains a lot about the mistreatment she claims that she and her family receive. I’m certainly not going to deny that they haven’t. I just find it a bit ironic that she’s taking what could be construed as a hostile attitude towards Jews with her into Congress. Statistically, for example, Jews are more likely to suffer religion-based hate crime than Muslims. And while correlation may not be causation, the hate crimes against Jews go up on campuses with BDS-supporting faculty, for example.
If I still lived in that district, I would not have voted for her.
Hopefully there will be a more focused primary for her in 2020 rather than the laundry list ballot of 2018 that let her squeak into the Dem nomination (which is tantamount to being elected in the MI 13th.)
I agree, but I think it will further radicalize them. They came in with misplaced expectations about what power they will have, and are already being disabused. Expect more statements about ‘democracy not working.’
Her Post-it note would have been correct if it said “Jewish Palestine”. Arab Palestine, known for a while as the “Arab State” as it garnered legitimacy, became Trans-Jordan.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/5p515i.jpg
@Roger
I moved my reply here because of the links going wrong.
I suppose the legality and authority of L of N and UN is also a bit relative if there is no will to enforce it. The L on N resolution was never properly and fully executed in 1948 and the Palestinians had never accepted the partition that it proposed. They seem pretty unlikely to accept it even now.
I am unclear as to the legality of A/RES/181 (II): is it just a UN resolution with no enforcible powers? If so, what is it actually worth?
Even if the L of N resolution could be imposed by the UN, it seems questionable that they would have the will or think it wise to do so. They would presumably need UN consensus to do so.
As far as imposing the terms by UN physical intervention, I have my doubts that the UN would want to touch it with a bargepole, and it would be difficult to get consensus anyway.
I presume the UN needs Security Council Resolutions to actually intervene physically: I am not clear on this one.
I am concerned that attempting to impose the conditions as defined 70 years ago will just aggravate the situation as it did then.
Something, even if legally valid under International Law, may be just a bad decision.
To be honest if these ladies were on the ballot I’d not vote for them, another candidate or just not vote.
I’m sick of the left -and I still consider myself a lefty- smooching with fundamentalist Islam and associated antisemitism. Really nauseating.
I think these two are excellent recruiters of Republican voters. Someone in the GOP leadership has been obedient and Santa has taken notice :-).
Ilhan Omar is Somali-American from Minneapolis and was elected to the 5th MN District, the most liberal district in the liberal Twin Cities region in a relatively liberal (very liberal my US midwestern standards) state. The district is roughly the city of Minneapolis (core with some inner ring suburbs).
She didn’t sound too wacky while running. She is replacing Keith Ellison (first Muslim-American member of congress) who chose to run for MN Attorney (and won). not quite sure why Ellison chose to quit congress. Probably the whole DC thing didn’t suit him.
She supports most of the things us lefties (I’m assuming most regular readers of PCC(E)’s website are on the left politically) support (e.g. health care for all, support for public education); but she did change her position on the BDS movement right after she was elected, while waffling on it a bit.
This may get her into trouble next election. My guess would be that a majority of Minneapolis residents support Isreal’s right to exist and support a 2-state solution. (This is just a guess; but I’ve lived here a long time.)
Ellision was elected MN Attorney General…
I think Ellison committed to foregoing another term in congress when he announced he was seeking the DNC chairmanship.
He lost in the DNC to Tom Perez (who then turned around and named Ellison his deputy, in a classy move to promote Party unity), but Ellison, to his credit, stood by his commitment.
I hope you are right.
If these voters weren’t bothered by Keith Ellison’s hefty past of antisemitism and associating with the Nation of Islam/Farrakhan, I doubt they’ll be bothered by anything Omar has to say about Israel.
Sorry for off topic Jerry. Been following you for years.
Resolution of the crisis between Jews and Palestinians has probably never been more distant. An element of this royal mess that is not usually discussed is the growing schism between American and Israeli Jews. Israeli Jews love Trump; American Jews despise him. In the NYT, Jonathan Weisman summarizes this most depressing situation. He notes:
“Part of the distance between Jews in the United States and Israeli Jews may come from the stance that Israel’s leader is taking on the world stage. Mr. Netanyahu has embraced the increasingly authoritarian Hungarian leader Victor Orban, who ran a blatantly anti-Semitic re-election campaign. He has aligned himself with ultranationalists like Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and a Polish government that passed a law making it a crime to suggest the Poles had any responsibility for the Holocaust.”
Simultaneously, Israel is no longer so dependent on American Jews for financial and political support since they made an unholy alliance with American evangelicals. Israeli Jews feel that American Jews, particularly young ones, do not appreciate the perceived existential threat that Israel faces.
I see no peaceful outcome from all this. I fear that acts of extreme violence will take place, probably within a decade. The international ramifications of this nobody can guess. Nobody has a workable plan to bring peace to this region. Meanwhile, the “Great Schism” between American and Israeli Jews grows wider.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/opinion/sunday/israeli-jews-american-jews-divide.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
You seem to avoid the real problem which makes peace impossible, and it’s not the relation between American and Israeli Jews, and not Netanyahu either. The problem is that Palestinians refuse each and every peace proposal since 1937, that they are divided between Gaza Strip with a terror organization openly proclaiming their aim of annihilating Israel (preferably with all Jews in it), and Palestinia Authority, which glorifies killing Jews in school curricula, in mosques, in TV and radio, which pays murderers according to a gliding scale: the more Jews you killed the higher payment, which teaches the young generation that their purpose in life should be to spill the blood for Allah and the homeland. You avoid the problem of Iranian millions of dollars going to Hamas and Hezbollah (whose leader said that it’s fortunate that all Jews gather in Israel so Hezbollahs heroic fighters would not have to hunt them through the world but can kill them all in one place). All this (and much, much more) seems to be a greater impediment to peace than the attitudes of American Jews or Netanyahu.
With respect Malgorzata, I don’t believe Historian is avoiding or ignoring that. He’s pointing to another problem that exacerbates the conflict; the disconnect between traditional Jewish-American support and Israel today. This disconnect is made worse by Israeli politicians getting in bed with populist fascists in other countries and ignoring (or allowing it to erode) strong and progressive support among American Jews.
Everything you said is correct too, but Historian is pointing to a real and worsening issue that adds a soupçon of despair to a an otherwise dire state of affairs.
I really don’t think that the relations between American Jews and Israeli Jews are in any way relevant to the problem of peace between Palestinians and Israelis. So a comment about how the peace is today more distant than it ever was because of American Jews vs. Israeli Jews struck me as somewhat bizarre.
If the support of American Jews wanes for Israel, or at least their support of its right-wing government, and a different president replaces Trump then that president may not be so eager to give Israel the support it needs (military and otherwise) should Israel’s existence be imminently threatened. This is why the alienation of American Jews by Israel’s right-wing government is so significant. In other words, if a future American government perceives that American Jews don’t particularly care about Israel, then that government may ask “why should we?”
Oh, I agree with you here. But what this has to do with the prospect of peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Israel is fully aware that the next president of U.S. might not help when the existence of Israel is in balance. The world (inclusive U.S.) didn’t help 1948 when 5 Arab armies attacked new born Israel and this was just 3 years after the Holocaust when the world’s conscience was somewhat touched by the fate of 6 million Jews. (The only country in the world that helped was Czechoslovakia.) I can easily imagine a situation of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister in U.K. and a Democratic President of U.S. not especially sympathetic towards Israel. If I can do it, Israeli politicians can do it as well. They have learned (in spite of what diverse “anti-Zionists” are saying) from the Holocaust and they know that they can rely only on themselves. “Never again” for Israelis means that they will never trust anybody else to take care of their security. But this is a quite different problem from the problem of Palestinian goal not of building their own country but of destroying the Jewish one.
I believe you are correct on that comment from Historian. I think the average American, non Jewish person is pro Israel. We have always been with no thought of religion specifically. But we are also not against the Palestinians having their own land. We cannot settle the problem for either party and I am not sure that we should be the ones attempting to solve it. How many years do they go before going a different direction? The idea that Trump is going to solve it just seems without any foundation. About like he solved the Korean problem. Hell, he can’t even keep his own govt. opened.
These people seem emboldened by the election of Ms. Tlaib, her statements, and her taking the oath in traditional Palestinian dress.
“These people …”!?
Yes, the dog whistle.
Israelis who put their faith in Donald Trump will come to rue that decision, the same as have all the Americans who ever placed any trust in him. Donald Trump is a greased pole that many thought they could latch onto and climb to fortune or fame or success. But their purchase on the pole proved no match for Trump’s oleaginous excrescence. At the bottom of the pole is a pit filled with the decaying bones of burned business partners and banks, the buyers of bust-out condominium projects, unpaid Trump employees, graduates of Trump “university,” and the whole of Atlantic City, to name but a few.
As in most things Trump doesn’t care about Israel. He probably knows very little about it. But his evangelical supporters do care. He also likes Netanyahu whom he perceives as a fellow “strong” leader. This is why he will come to the aid of Israel should it get in big trouble. Presidents who come after Trump may not have the same attitude, especially if there is not full-throated support of American Jews, particularly the younger ones whose knowledge of the Holocaust is limited and detest Israel’s right-wing government. To the extent that American Jews view Israel’s government as just another authoritarian one, the greater Israel’s long term survival is in jeopardy. Rightly or wrongly, these people are not concerned about the history of Palestinian-Israeli relations.
Ken–mirabile dictu.
I’d be inclined to say the left idolizes Tlaib not because she’s a Muslim but because she wants to ‘impeach the motherf*cker’!
Seems to me it’s the triple diversity score:
Woman
Person of color
Muslim
Tlaib is a Democratic Socialist freshman congress-woman from Detroit who hates Trump. That’s good enough for me for the time being.
Can she be all that without supporting the destruction of Israel? Because, you know, genocide is kind of a deal breaker for me. YMMV.
She can be for the one state solution and the right of return without wanting to kill any Jews.
She could also be an invisible pink unicorn in disguise. Unless and until she proves she isn’t an invisible pink unicorn, I’m going to assume she means it when she says she supports “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
Umm. . . you know what would happen if Palestinians and Israelis were put together in one state, right? Surely you aren’t so oblivious that you don’t know what the sequelae of a “one state” solution would be.
Or do you think that Hamass and the Palestinians, taught from birth to hate Jews, will live peacefully among them?
I was saying what she could believe in her mind. Not stating whether she was right or wrong.
“The imposition of L of N, UN Resolutions are one thing under law, but in practice may be another thing.”
Actually, they are not the same thing, although that is a nearly universal misapprehension.
The League of Nations was empowered to make International law; the UN, by its very Charter, is not. It is NOT a legal body. It can make recommendations. The UN Security Council can make “binding” recommendations, but these are subordinate to mutual agreement by the parties, treaties,and the honoring of obligations etc – instruments of International Law.
And International law also has a principle – ” pacta sunt servanda” – which means that treaties must be honored: If one side breaks its obligations, the treaty is null.
This happened time and time again by the Arab nations.The Palestinians arguments for rights to territory, rights to return, rights to self-determination within the Mandates of Israel are, so far, always abrogated by their own actions or are deliberate misreadings of UN resolutions or treaties.
Their arguments simply have no basis in International law, especially with regard to the Mandate for Palestine, which, as I have stated, and to the very best of my knowledge, is still valid .
They have tried to take sole ownership of the term “Palestine” for example, when for nearly 2000 years – until 1948 – “Palestine” essentially referred to the land of the Jews. This is seen on the sticky note attached (supposedly by Linda Sarsour)to the new Rep’s map of the Mideast, as if “the Palestinians” were somehow entitled to a new definition of “Palestine” which has been magically reduced in size by about 80% and now refers only to the boundaries of Israel. Again, I would remind that Trans-Jordan was known as Arab Palestine.
They have invented the concept of “right of return” nearly out of whole cloth from UN resolutions misread deliberately and which have zero standing in International law. They have invented the terminology of “occupied territory” in exactly the same manner. The link I provided is pretty eye-opening, is based on International law, and has references.
I don’t see any link provided in your comment. If you attach it I will look at it.
@Roger Lambert
“The imposition of L of N, UN Resolutions are one thing under law, but in practice may be another thing.”
I think you were replying to me.
I was aware that UN resolutions are not legally binding.
This being the case, what is the UN authority concerning the conditions of the partition of the Palestinian Mandate?
If the League of Nations no longer exists, how are its resolutions supposed to be enforced? Through International Law?
As I understand it, the British effectively dumped the situation and pulled out without attempting a peaceful handover. I think support for Israel in the UK took a knock with the King David Hotel bombing. Probably support for the Palestinian Arab faction was not good either.
Bevin was unable to come to terms with both parties and I think handed the problem over to the UN as the 1948 war started.
Bevin commented on the UN proposal: “The majority proposal is so manifestly unjust to the Arabs that it is difficult to see how we could reconcile it with our conscience.”
It would seem that the forced partition by Israel sparked it all off. If the UN had no authority to enforce partition, then the partition was done without the agreement of the Palestinian Arabs, who were also the numerical majority in the Mandate by about 2:1.
Hi Roger, you mentioned a link in one of your posts. I cannot seem to locate it. Would you have time to repost it pls. TIA .
He posted a link seven hours ago about 20 links down from here. That may be the link he is referring to.
“If the League of Nations no longer exists, how are its resolutions supposed to be enforced?”
Excellent question. 🙂
And the answer is that the very Charter of the UN has an Article 80, which requires the UN to enforce the The League of Nations rulings on the Mandate for Palestine.
And those rulings, which originally gave all of the huge area of Palestine to the Jews, were whittled down by the British. But here is a map of the final borders as of 1922, which, despite further attempts for partition by the UN, were never changed. This map, below, is what were the boundaries of Israel when it declared independence on the very day that the British ended being the Mandate (administrator).
International law has an universally-applied principle known as “uti possidetis juris” which has always been applied to border boundaries. (As you can imagine, border disputes have always been contentious and numerous.)
Uti possidetis juris means that the borders of all new States will be the border of the State according to its most previous ruling administrative entity. In the case of Israel, that would be the last official borders according to the Mandate for Palestine. And that is this map:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/dbhc04.jpg
And here is a scholarly treatise on the specific topic re Israel:
http://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/58-3/58arizlrev633.pdf
I did not ask that question. You should be responding to Kevin. I am not part of this debate.
Hello OG,
I think the replies and comments are linking to the wrong person!
I am going to stop replying at all. That would help. Interesting material to read though.
@OG
Yes interesting. It’s giving me brain ache.
Horribly complicated.
According to your argument Israel is one state. Then all people born there would be citizens, regardless of religion, including those in the West Bank and Gaza. Then the problem is solved, there is only one state and all therein are citizens of equal rights.
@OG
If you mean that the Balfour Declaration/League of Nations Resolution would have led to a single state solution, possibly so, but it was conceived as being for a Jewish State even though Jews at the time were a 30% minority in 1948(less than 20% in 1927 at the time of Balfour).
The majority Arabs might have gone with the idea of a single state, but not a single Jewish state. A Jewish state would have implied a Jewish majority and, by necessity, the creation of a single Jewish state, which meant either removing the Arab majority or partition.
Had Palestine at the end of the Mandate been converted to a single state, power sharing might have been possible between Jews and Arabs (as had been so under the Ottomans and British) possibly with transitional UN/British supervision.
The British lost control due to violence on both Jewish and Arab side, and effectively dumped the problem on the UN, refusing to supervise transition of power.
The unilateral declaration of independence and partition by Israel rendered the possibility of a single state solution impossible.
My view is that the forced unilateral partition without agreement by all parties, whereas it might be seen to have favoured Israeli minority interests, constituted an act of war in relation to majority Arab interest. The position that the surrounding Arab countries attacked Israel unprovoked depends on point of view.
Forced or unilateral partition, especially for sectarian reasons, has caused violence in many other circumstances (India, Nigeria, S. Africa, Rwanda, Ireland, Jugoslavia etc) and it is of interest to note the role of European Colonialism in most cases.
That said, I don’t see how the legal enforcement of the League of Nations resolutions could resolve anything. Its partly what caused the problem in the first place.
The Balfour Declaration said Jews could move there as long as they did not disturb or interfere with the people who already lived there. Sounds like they meant them to live together peacefully in one state. There is no other way to interpret that language.
@OG
Yes, I think that it intended a single state transfer. The strange thing is that there weren’t many Jews there at the time (1927): about 15%.
The Balfour letter was sent to Lord Rothschild (President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews until 1926) who was active in British Zionism at the time.
They didn’t seem to think it necessary to consult the Arab occupants of the Mandate. The British also had made various promises to the Arabs (McMahon–Hussein Correspondence) which were not compatible with the Balfour.
The Arabs were already feeling betrayed even at this time.
The British and French had made WWI agreements about the Middle East after the Ottoman’s left.
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (1947) provided for a non single solution.
Thinking that they had done similar things in Ireland gives me a knot in the stomach.
The British made the same promises to give the same land to the Arabs and to the Jews. They were desperate and were willing to say or promise anything to get support to win the war. Now we are still trying to fix the problems all that created. With no solution in sight.
I don’t think the status quo can continue. The people in Gaza will soon be suffering mass starvation and deaths. World opinion will not want to see that happen. I din’t see any east solution.
OG, on WordPress, comments stop nesting after they go seven responses deep, forcing people who want to continue a discussion to keep replying to the seventh post in the next (in this case, yours). It’s an unfortunate and rather baffling part of the code. I don’t know why they don’t change the system, but that’s why all of these replies are to you.
“I don’t know why they don’t change the system…”
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
i
t
‘
s
a
r
e
a
l
P
I
T
A
t
o
r
e
a
d
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
l
i
k
e
t
h
i
s
.
:
D
Totally agree jerry. Why are so many of your left leaning friends so stupid when it come to the obvious as you state it? Killing Jews is Quranic, thus fundamental to all true muslims.
Might wanna check out Da Roolz around here, dude, especially #8, what with the way you’ve been tossing around that epithet “stupid.”
Kevin, apologies, I have now flicked over Da Rulez. Thanks for pointing those out.
Jerry,
“Or do you think that Hamass and the Palestinians, taught from birth to hate Jews, will live peacefully among them?”
That is a problem for both the one or the two state solution.
Even if Israel becomes a single state, with Palestine alongside recognised, it will still be surrounded by the same enemies who won’t accept partition.
The main risk to Israel will be the other countries of the Middle East.
Getting them to accept a two state solution will not be easy.
The problem in 1948 was exactly that. The forced partitioning (the attempted two state solution fiasco) of Palestine is what led to the current problem.
I don’t see either solution as being on the cards at the moment in any case.
There’s one-state, two-state, and the status quo — of the three, the two-state solution seems the only (at least potentially) viable one to me. Am I missing some other option?
There is another option. Israel can continue building settlements in the West Bank. The Jewish population will grow there. At some point Israel will achieve enough control of the West Bank to absorb the West Bank into Israel. This process is already underway. Israel with the West Bank will contain a sufficient majority of Jews to prevent a violent uprising by the Arabs and civil war. This process will further isolate the Arabs in Gaza.
If Israel will give the minority Arabs sufficient rights they will be able to live with them in peace, as they are now doing in Israel.
This does not solve the issue of Gaza but it will solve the West Bank issue peacefully.
There is another option.
Israel can insist that International law be applied. And that would uphold the validity of the Mandate borders of Israel, which stretch from the center of the Jordan River to the sea.
The Mandate borders have always included Judea, Samaria, the West Bank, Gaza, and (probably) the Golan Heights. This was established in the 1920’s, put into law by the League of Nations, and agreed to by every Arab leader.
And nothing the UN has done – or even could do – has dissolved that trust. Because the actual Charter of the UN has an Article 80 that requires the UN to honor and defend the Mandate borders. An obligation which it has never met.
Israel can also insist that this entire Middle East problem is the responsibility of Jordan to fix. An examination of the history of the formation of Jordan makes it very plain to see that Jordan was formed as the counterpart to Israel. Israel was the homeland in Palestine for Jewish Palestinians and world Jewry, and Trans-Jordan was the homeland for Arab Palestinians. Jordan, through its wars of aggression is responsible for the refugees of war. Its very formation carries the responsibility to be a homeland for displaced Arabs from Palestine.
The Mandate for Palestine makes no mention of Arabs at all in regard to the land promised to the Jews, nor of any obligation for the political rights of anyone but Jews in Jewish Palestine. Why? Because the rights of Arabs from Palestine and the entire Levant were already met by the formation of the multiple Arab and Muslim states that make up the Middle East. This is explicitly discussed by the actors in this drama, it is not a hypothesis.
The idea that “the Palestinians” are a legitimate people is denied by their own leaders. It is a term that was invented as a political ploy no earlier than 1967. The false idea that Israel is an occupier of its own territory, liberated from Arab armies in 1967, is an example of yet another utter and reprehensible failure of the UN to treat Israel as it would treat any other nation. Is there another example of the UN failing to insist that territories captured in wars of aggression must be returned to its rightful owner, failing a treaty?
AFAICT, the only relevant treaty regarding the West Bank post 1948 is between Jordan and Israel. If we are to believe the stunning position of the UN, that Jordan was a valid administrator of Judea and Samaria due to its capture of these areas by its war of aggression, even that idea is rendered obsolete by the 1994 treaty between Israel and Jordan – in which Jordan transfers all rights, obligations, and control of these territories (back) to Israel.
What is incredible to me is that while polls show this interpretation of the borders of Israel and Jordan is held by a majority of Israelis, it is decidedly not the official position of its government, at least not publicly. They continue to honor Oslo, as if Oslo is not completely abrogated by the fact that the PA is a political party that has an official policy of aiding, promoting,and financing terrorist activity against Israel.
To me, an American, an outsider – this is mind-boggling. Imagine the U.S. allowing a group inside its borders espousing the destruction of the U.S. through the use of terrorism – and then carrying out these plans – to be a valid political party! We would put up with that for about three nanoseconds.
I am amazed by, and frankly I disagree with, the tolerance of Israel.
“To me, an American, an outsider – this is mind-boggling. Imagine the U.S. allowing a group inside its borders espousing the destruction of the U.S. through the use of terrorism – and then carrying out these plans – to be a valid political party! We would put up with that for about three nanoseconds.”
Not far off what we had in Britain with the Irish question. One of the reasons I am concerned with the Palestine issue in the first place. There are obviously differences but also horrific parallels and mechanisms in common.
The confused situation created by League of Nations and United Nations, Balfour Declaration don’t appear to be as clearcut as you describe.
As I understand, the idea of partition was never wholly accepted to the Arab faction in Palestine (this also being the majority group at the time).
The imposition of L of N, UN Resolutions are one thing under law, but in practice may be another thing.
They can be democratic within the UN but seen as undemocratic to the people concerned.
There is little to guarantee that a UN resolution will actually work or that it will be a good solution.
The UN did not manage a peaceful transition from the Mandate. Instantaneous Civil War.
The artificial partition of Ireland was imposed externally by Britain, against the will of the majority, so as to favour a minority group (less than 20%) who where against a single state solution.
As a consequence there was the Irish Civil War (between 2 factions of the southern republic, one faction accepting partition, the other not). Then transition to full independence for the Free State. Then the Troubles of 1968 onwards.
As you describe, one group defined as terrorist existed within the UK and Eire and also managed to have its representatives elected to BOTH governments. You might not expect such a thing in the US, but I wouldn’t have expected it in the UK either!
Solutions written on paper do not always work.
Wonderful post, Roger. It is remarkable how the only Jewish nation in the world is treated unlike any other nation, even by the UN, and even by the UN’s own rules. I’ve always said in arguments about how Israel deals with “Palestine,” “what do you think the US would do if they were in the same situation? If they were constantly treated with a double-standard by the world, media, and UN? If Mexico was constantly firing rockets into the US towns across the border, digging tunnels to send in terrorists, raising their children to believe killing Americans is the highest honor, killing gays and non-Muslims and oppressing women, and having a government that promoted the idea that the US should be “wiped off the map” and all its inhabitants killed? And imagine if, further, Mexico and a bunch of other surrounding nations tried to invade and destroy the US several times over the last few decades, while the US never did anything but defend itself?
The US would respond with the fiercest military campaign the world has ever seen, and the world would see it as justified. Meanwhile, Israel actually does live in this alternate universe I’ve proposed for the US, and yet is somehow the most restrained military in the world, only taking small-scale military action when absolutely necessary and constantly minimizing casualties as much as possible through measures no other military even bothers to use.
Oh, and I should add to the alternate US history that the majority of the people in the US have been persecuted and killed throughout history, and the US is the only place they can go where they know they will be safe from the constant specter of hatred, porgroms, and killings against them.
Really, BJ? Because, whatever its historical accuracy, what Roger is proposing sounds to me like a recipe for permanent conflict and vast human suffering (although, as I’ve told Roger before, I admire his candor in setting forth his case so frankly).
At this stage, arguments based on the 1920s’ Mandate seem to me nearly as remote and beside the point as those based on scriptural accounts of what Yahweh bequeathed to Moses, or Allah, Mohammad. What’s needed now is a practical, pragmatic solution, though none seems forthcoming.
In this day and age, I think that people born within the geographical confines of a recognized nation must be given either birthright citizenship or a homeland of their own. Anything besides a two-state solution will lead either to a single state where Jews are a minority at the mercy of a Palestinian Arab majority or to a Jewish-minority apartheid state, neither of which is a viable solution in my view.
You’re right, Ken, I should have been more clear. The content of my post was only addressing Roger’s points regarding how the UN and world treats Israel, Israel’s tolerance of it, and the history of Israel’s formation and the agreements behind it. I do not agree with the first few paragraphs, though I do think the best possible outcome would be for Palestine to simply become a part of Jordan. Of course, that will never happen, because Jordan doesn’t want a bunch of terror organizations to suddenly become a part of its country, and the Palestinians don’t want just any homeland, they want the one the Jews are standing on, and they want all those Jews gone.
But it is mighty nice of Israel to continue tolerating the treatment they’re given (which seems to get worse every year), the constant breaking of rules when it comes to how they’re treated, and Israel’s continued willingness to abide by the Oslo Accords and to tolerate the idea of giving up lands seized in wars of defense.
Peace and Reason.
The Middle East is the exact opposite.
I don’t understand the point she thinks she is making about African Americans and the right of return.
Yeah, I can’t even come up with an idea. What the hell is she trying to say here? I mean, maybe she’s saying that all black people in the US descended from slaves should have the right to return to the countries from which they were sold? That’s the only interpretation I can even imagine.
And if she thinks their lives would be better in any of those countries, I fear she has as little knowledge about most of Africa as she does about many other things.
Yeah, that’s a head scratcher for sure. What the hell could that possibly mean? My guess is she was just using a SJW dog whistle. Many people will just nod knowingly without thinking through it. An example of leftist mental masturbation, I suppose.
You’re probably right. If you’re a certain type of person, it’s something that sounds really good to you, even though it makes no damn sense at all.
The right of return to Jews wishing to “return” to Israel is based on claims that they are indigenous to Israel even though most have been absent for centuries and indigenous elsewhere.
Non-jewish palestinians are not allowed right of return despite actually being born there or first or second generation descendants of the same.
One argument for compensating ANYBODY unjustly removed from their homeland (African Americans or Palestinians) would be to offer them right of return where feasible.
Ovbiously this is not feasible with Afro-Americans, but it is feasible with Palestinians. Not convenient to modern Israel however (imports terrorism and dilutes the ethnic majority of “The Jewish State”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People).
If Jews justify it for themselves after 60 generations of absence, why not for Palestinians after three?
Just a possibility: may it be because Israeli Jews have nowhere else to go while the majority of Palestinian refugees already live on territories ruled by Palestinian Arabs (Hamas in Gaza and Palestinian Authority on the West Bank – both retain “refugee camps” and demend that their inhabitants “return” to Israel – not to Palestine). Other Palestinians in refugee camps in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are mostly born there and even their parents are born there. There are a few grandparents still alive who escaped from Israel 1948, hoping to return when their Arab brethren from 5 Arab armies “pushed the Jews to the sea”. They speak the same language as population in their host countries, have the same religion and the same culture. Quite a lot of them have relatives there because quite a lot of “Palestinian refugees” are descendants of Arabs from the surrounding countries who came to Mandate Palestine when those pesky Zionists caused an economical revival of the land. Over half of Israel’s population are Jewish refugees from Arab countries and their descendants. And there were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Arab refugees from Jewish country. Israel didn’t keep them in refugee camps for decades but gave them citizenship and integrated into the society. Why do you expect less from Arabs?
@Malgoraza
From your comment, you imply that those Palestinians born after their parents fled in 1948 should have no right of return.
By the same dint, descendants of Jews who left in the fifth century have no right of return either.
“Over half of Israel’s population are Jewish refugees from Arab countries and their descendants.”
That means that the rest do not come from Arab countries and were not connected to the area and were allowed to immigrate according to current Israel preferential immigration laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194#Article_11%E2%80%94Refugees
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_237
Yes, I understand your position. It is quite coherent with the assumption that Jews are not entitled to their own state, that 2000 years of wandering and persecution doesn’t matter, tha they can either disappear like so many ancient peoples did, or return to being unwanted guests all over the world.
The only problem is that the Jewish nation doesn’t agree with this assumption.
Your usual twisting of my arguments.
I argued that the Israeli interpretation of law of return is biased towards its own interests.
“Yes, I understand your position. It is quite coherent with the assumption that Jews are not entitled to their own state, that 2000 years of wandering and persecution doesn’t matter, tha they can either disappear like so many ancient peoples did, or return to being unwanted guests all over the world.”
You do not understand my position: you are overwiting your own Zionist stance onto what I say. You always do. Anybody who doesn’t agree with your Zionist views is, in your eyes, an anti-Semite: the “new ant-Semitism” almost by definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism
That is why Zionism can be ethically intolerable: the combination of state, religion and ethnicity/Race is usually toxic.
You seem incapable of arguing the issues except with a biased pro-Zionist interpretation.
No ethno-religious group is intinsically “entitled to its own state” as far as I am concerned. That goes for ANY religion or group defined by race.
Is interfaith marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew possible in Israel for example? Can non-religious people marry beyond civil partnership in Israel?
Name another Western democracy that enshrines in its constitution its ethno-religious identity as Israel now does.
You cannot do that and have any pretence of being democratic.
That Israeli Zionists thought otherwise is what caused the Israeli/Palestine conflict in the first place: the compulsion to create a Jewish State in Israel has created a bunker surrounded by enemies.
I can’t offer solutions, but I do get pi**ed off when accusations of anti-semitism are used to weaponise the pro-Israeli lobby in the way they have been, for example in the Livingstone/Corbyn fiasco. Concern and support for Palestinian refugees does not equate to support for Palestinian terrorism, nor is it anti-Semitic.
I agree that Israel has an intransigent enemy in Hamas which makes reconciliation difficult.
Both sides can take the blame for that.
By what auspices do you argue that “the Palestinians” have a right of return to Israel?
Here is an article from one side of the aisle which addresses the topic:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12295
The right of return of Jews to Palestine, which means to Israel, is explicit International Law. It was announced by the Balfour declaration, but made explicit by the Conference of San Remo, the Paris Treaty, and the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations.
The Arab Palestinians have no right of return explicit or assumed in International law. The establishment of Trans-Jordan entitled them a specific homeland in Palestine, and it was assumed they would also be accepted by the other Arab nations established by various Mandate countries or existing Arab entities following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire – Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Arabia, etc
Roger, thanks so much for that PDF link to the Arizona Law Review article.
Sorry, I forgot to answer your question where the other half of Israel’s population came from: they came as refugees from pogroms in Russia, from antisemitism in Poland, France, Germany and other European countries, as refugees from Nazi Germany, as survivors of the Holocaust – some even directly from death camps. They came from all over Europe leaving behind their towns and villages where most of their families persished. And now they are coming from Ukraina and from France where antisemitism is growing again. Before th WWII the cry in Europe was “Jews out TO Palestine”. Now it is “Jews out OF Palestine”
Not to mention Arab complicity in the Holocaust: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935420.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935420-e-005
Kevin, I think a people who are “indigenous” to one area cannot go off and become “indigenous” somewhere else! (The right of return to Jews wishing to “return” to Israel is based on claims that they are indigenous to Israel even though most have been absent for centuries and indigenous elsewhere.)
Many countries, like Israel, have defined people who can have special access to citizenship. In Portugal (to choose a country at random) you can have citizenship if you have a grandparent who is/was Portuguese. Sovereign states (like Israel) have the right to set their own requirements for citizenship. Palestinian Arabs living in the disputed territories are not Israeli citizens and do not have any “right of return” any more than Silesian Germans have an automatic right to live in Poland.
Yes you can change your indigeneity.
Humans have left signs of human occupation in the Levant for 50,000 years or so. The presence of Israelites doesn’t really go back past 2000BC which leaves over 40,000 years to account for.
Native Americans are considered to be indigenous. They have a better claim than Jews have to Israel. However they likely crossed the Bering Straits having migrated from Mongolia over centuries.
It should also be noted that such migrations also change a group culturally and ethnically often to the point that the two are no longer similar.
Before the Israelites were there, there were others who where indigenous at the time.
Humans did not evolve there, they migrated there, possibly from the Indus and probably from Africa originally.
You cannot prove that Israelis were the original occupants of that area.
The fact that the Jews seem to have massacred the Canaanites (who archeologically seem to have been there first) means that the Israelites were newcomers and not indigenous.
If you spend long enough in an area you can argue that you are “indigenous”: Ashkenazy Jews spending maybe a millenium in Eastern Europe became indigenous there.
Even if a group were indigenous to an area 2000 years ago, that does not give them rights today. Greeks don’t have a right to Istanbul based on such logic. Such thinking would be absurd in any legal or practical sense.
Arab Muslims have had a more recent continuous presence in Palestine in terms of number than Jews have, since most of the latter left after the 5th century.
I would also say, that if a group leaves a place for a significant period and moves on, it loses its indigeneity.
Why not read some people who are specialists on indigenuity instead of coming with own ideas, sometimes quite far from reality? Here is a good article by Ryan Bellerose, a Candian Indian, long time fighter for the rights of indigenous peoples. He also quotes extensively the definition of indigenuity by Jose Martinez Cobo, about which there is a huge consensus among experts that it covers the problem: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/224254/bellerose-aboriginal-people
You sent me that link before: I am well aware of the José Martínez Cobo guidelines.
You did not answer my points.
You disputed that indigeneity cannot change.
Please prove your case.
As I said, Native Americans are considered indigenous, but they do not originate in America. Before they were indigious in the Americas, they were indigenous elsewhere.
It’s actually quite simple and well described by Cobo. It is not a problem who was first but more a cultural one. If a group of people creates a common culture in a specific place, have common language, rituals and customs connected to this place, they are becoming indigneous people there. Whether some other groups were there before is immaterial if they are the only group with common history and common heritage there (who knows what happened to people who were there before them? they could’ve been killed off, totally assimilated to the new group, maybe nomads who moved on and never had any special ties to this specific piece of land). Jews are the only nation expelled from its land which retained the language, religion, culture in spite of being dispersed all over the world. They were never allowed to become indigenous in their new places just because they insisted on retaing their culture. And, of course, some people managed to stay in the land and others tried to return many times through the history. In contrast to this “Palestinians” (created in the late 1960s for political reasons) have the same language, the same religion and the same culture as surrounding Arab states, not to mention that many of them are descendants of people who came to this place in the first half of 20th century.
But you do argue that it is in part an issue of who was first: that is one of your main arguments.
The Arabs have been in Palestine since the beginning of Islam. Its irrelevant that they have other Arabs and Muslims in the surrounding countries. They have been there in an overwhelming majority up to 1948. At best Jews were one of many minorities up to 1850 or so.
The argument for original spoken language is fairly spurious too in that most Jews were Arabic speakers. The Hebrew language as spoken is a modern reconstruction and does not have historical continuity. It existed as a theological language: the analogy would be for Biblical Greek, Latin or Aramaic for a modern Christian. I could learn to speak Latin but it wouldn’t make me indigenous to Rome.
A region may have more than one indigenous group you know. This use of “the” indigenous is spurious.
Indigeneity does not confer rights.
Oh, Kevin, I see that you want to find any reason to threw Jews out of Israel, no matter where they would go. Yes, modern Hebrew is reconstructed language but a lot of male Jews knew Hebrew and used this language in all religious circumstances. Jews from Buchara got to know some time before WWI that there were Jews in Warsaw. They thought that there were none. They wrote a letter in Hebrew addressed to “Jews in Warsaw”. Jews in Warsaw were able to read their letter in Hebrew, understand it and answer. Some decades ago a Jew from Israel found some Jews in Africa who were totally cut off from the world. They communicated easily: he in modern Hebrew and they in their biblical Hebrew. Jews from Etiopia landed in Israel and could communicate with Israelis who received them. Not to mention that all Jews the world over repeated words “Next year in Jerusalme” at least once a year. They didn’t say “Next year in New York” nor Moscow nor Timbuktu. Arabs were inavaders who did their utmmost to keep Jews out of Israel. There were not many Arabs in this land when the modern Zionists started to come there. Arabs came after them. Look at historical data of demografic composition if Mandate Palestine territory. I’m sorry but I’ve had enough of this discussion.
@Malgorazata
“I see that you want to find any reason to threw Jews out of Israel, no matter where they would go.”
Done it again, haven’t you? Overlaid your own Zionist bias. Created another strawman.
I did not say anything like that. I would like to see a resolution of the problem.
“Jews knew Hebrew and used this language in all religious circumstances.”
Like Christians used Latin and Greek. Not their spoken language any more.
“Jews in Warsaw were able to read their letter in Hebrew, understand it and answer.”
I’ve met Argentine priests who can speak in Church Latin with German priests. It just shows that they have a common religion.
“There were not many Arabs in this land when the modern Zionists started to come there.”
“Look at historical data of demografic composition if Mandate Palestine territory.”
Maybe you should look at the following data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
In the statistics from 1530 to 1890, Muslims were NEVER less than 10 times the Jewish population. In 1690 Jews were only 1% (2000 individuals).
From the 5th century to 1948, Jews were NEVER a majority.
It was apparently the Jews who started to immigrate as newcomers into the Mandate from just before 1890.
The exact opposite of your claim.
“I’m sorry but I’ve had enough of this discussion.”
Don’t worry, I didn’t really expect us to agree. As I already told you, I am mostly playing devil’s advocate.
I am concerned with the definitions of ant-semitism, new-antisemitism, Zionism, anti-Zionism, anti-Israel. What they mean and how they relate to each other and to open debate. What they mean in political context.
Kevin, lay off the “Zionist bias” comments; it’s a Roolz violation.
“Many countries, like Israel, have defined people who can have special access to citizenship. In Portugal (to choose a country at random) you can have citizenship if you have a grandparent who is/was Portuguese. Sovereign states (like Israel) have the right to set their own requirements for citizenship. Palestinian Arabs living in the disputed territories are not Israeli citizens and do not have any “right of return” any more than Silesian Germans have an automatic right to live in Poland.”
You wrote this before.
“Palestinian Arabs living in the disputed territories are not Israeli citizens and do not have any “right of return”.
I would say that they have reasonable claim for right of return if their forebearers were born or living in Israel at the time of partition: more so than European Jews whose forebearers had been in Europe since the 5th century.
Foreign Jews are not Israeli citizens either, but they have the “right to return”.
“Sovereign states (like Israel) have the right to set their own requirements for citizenship.”
Sovereign states can also be descriminatory and Racist.
“In Portugal (to choose a country at random) you can have citizenship if you have a grandparent who is/was Portuguese.”
Like Ireland: that is because they recognise and enable the right to return.
There is no automatic “right of return” unless a country has passed laws granting that right to a group of people. You can’t have a “right of return” if you don’t come under that law. The PA, by telling its people that they have a “right of return” to a country not their own is simply perpetuating a hoax, and it is regrettable that outsiders are encouraging that hoax.
In any case, the modern state of Israel owes its origin, in the political, legal sense, to the San Remo Conference of 1920. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-san-remo-conference
There are many personal reasons that people choose to live there, but I think they are mostly irrelevant when we are discussing the legality and composition of the state of Israel.
@Sarah:
UN Resolution 194:
“The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 194 (III), resolving that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”
Denial of right of return could be seen as an abuse of civil rights.
Resolution 194 was passed in direct relation to the Arab/Israeli conflict of 1948 mostly in response to the Palestinian refugee crisis. It is non-binding and has not been enforced.
Interestingly both Israel and the Arab states (Palestine did not get a vote because it was not a recognised state) voted against it!
Unsurprisingly, you left out a key point: how the UN defines the word “refugee.” According to the UN’s own website, “A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”
“It is non-binding and has not been enforced.”
Then how can it be seen as an abuse of civil rights? And I’m not sure you know what “civil rights” means. “Civil” rights are rights that are provided to citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
“Civil and political rights form the original and main part of international human rights.[4] They comprise the first portion of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social, and cultural rights comprising the second portion).”
There is also the Council of Europe, which has the legally binding European Court of Human Rights, Israel being an observer member.
Neither of those are in any way a response to my posts. For someone who so often tells people they didn’t address his points, you’re very good at evasion.
Oh, and I will not be replying to you further because it is clear from this entire comments section that you are not a good faith actor in this conversation and will rationalize away or outright ignore reams of factual information when it does not suit your views. Not to mention your consistent ignoring of anything that proves you to be wrong, like my bringing up the definition of the word “refugee” after you attempted to use Resolution 194 to support your views.
@BJ
“Not to mention your consistent ignoring of anything that proves you to be wrong, like my bringing up the definition of the word “refugee” after you attempted to use Resolution 194 to support your views.”
I don’t know what you were trying to say with your definition of refugee.
UNRWA recognises some 5m Palestinian refugees under its mandate.
I’m not sure that I am actually following my views. I am following a thread of thought. I did tell Malgoraza that I am playing devil’s advocate to an extent.
Tlaib is proving to be a loose cannon in more way than one:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/04/dems-livid-tlaib-impeachment-comment-1081370
Ideologues like her usually achieve very little in a democracy.
Want to know what the Quran says about Jews? Here is a short video — see especially the last 2-3 minutes:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KbbAQoc5-B4
Want to know what the Old Testament says about mass murder/genocide ordained by God?
I have read Joshua several times.
Kevin, the old testament describes historical events and God’s role and commands during that very brutal time. There is no ongoing biblical mandate or suggestion for said behaviours today.
By contrast, the quran, and ISIS, and Hamas, and others, see the quranic commands as valid for today. This Saudi Arabia. Thus beheadings. Thus hatred of the infidel. This is the problem.
There are Christians who take the OT literally as do many Jews and Muslims.
It can be used to justify extremist views the same as the Koran.
Kevin, with due respect, I know a LOT of Christians who take the OT literally, but NONE of whom would advocate for killing people as normative for today.
This is NOT like the quran, which advocates for ISIS-LIKE behaviour in 2019.
Thus, they are fundamentally different.
If you disagree, pls provide evidence of a Christian group that is remotely attached to violence, and we can then measure your claim for their being Christian against the teachings of Jesus.
Ultimately the bible defines Christianity, and the quran defines islam. Not me, not you. The book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence#Among_Christians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_in_the_Bosnian_War
Albigensian Crusade.
Extermination of Cathars, Waldensians.
Pogroms against Jews/Heretics/minorities.
Christian Europe spent three hundred years fighting over the differences between Protestant and Catholic.
Try googling “pro gun christianity” or “blessing guns”
“If you disagree, pls provide evidence of a Christian group that is remotely attached to violence, and we can then measure your claim for their being Christian against the teachings of Jesus.”
It’s irrelevant whether “their being Christian” measures against “the teachings of Jesus”.
The OT is common to all Abrahamic religions: you can find justification for all sorts of mayhem in there.
The NT does not override the OT: Genesis is taken literally by many.
“The teachings of Jesus” are one thing, Christian history and practice is another.
The “they’re not real Christians” excuse is not very convincing.
Well, Kevin, I think He’s got you dead to rights. Christians are capable of the most violent and horrific behavior capable of mankind. But, Islam is currently outdoing it by miles and gallons of blood. You’ll have to resign your case. His violence outshines your violence 10 to 9. 😎
Kevin, so you make a strong case (let’s assume) that some sort of Christianity has caused wars and deaths. Okay, I’ll work with that.
But in what sense are people Christians if they are rejecting the teachings of Jesus? We understand that people can hold together bits and pieces of ideas and beliefs from various places, but even so there needs to be some form of demarcation to allow us to distinguish between groups, even if that demarcation is not perfect.
Now, you just dismissed the “their being Christians” line of thinking above. However, if you do go down that line of reasoning, then you have chosen the line of demarcation. Is that fair? Should we agree to to your fiat choice? And if we are all free to do likewise, then what else follows?
How about: “well the soviet union was atheistic, and they butchered vast numbers of people, therefore atheism…..”
If you play the “I don’t buy the ‘they weren’t real Christians’ line”, then ditto for atheism. So should we agree then that all soviets were atheists and that atheism is evil because the USSR killed so many people under that guise?
I guess that at the bottom line here, I don’t see why I should accept your choice of who is Christian and who isn’t. Unless of course you can provide a good argument that I should accept your definition.
@rickflick
I don’t see what “currently” has to do with it. The argument is that Christians can use the OT to justify violence.
The Rwandan genocide is recent and apparently involved even priests in the killings. About one million dead. Even ISIS hasn’t reached that number.
I was being facetious of course. It’s alarming that the prince of peace and the religion of peace are being compared based on how much bloodshed they engender. Lets just observe that religion generally does not provide a reliable source of morality. Human thriving depends on a secular, humanistic, moral perspective. It’s our best hope.
@rickflick
Nice to see someone agreeing with me for once.
This thread is quite taut in places.
I failed to pick up on your irony, though I did notice the happy face.
“Human thriving depends on a secular, humanistic, moral perspective. It’s our best hope.”
That’s the way my mind is going. It seems pretty far off though.
Religion as a tribal meme is quite effective and even secularists can draw blood.
@robward524712256
“But in what sense are people Christians if they are rejecting the teachings of Jesus? We understand that people can hold together bits and pieces of ideas and beliefs from various places, but even so there needs to be some form of demarcation to allow us to distinguish between groups, even if that demarcation is not perfect.”
I would say that they just need to identify as Christians. Act as part of a group which considers itself Christian.
“Now, you just dismissed the “their being Christians” line of thinking above. However, if you do go down that line of reasoning, then you have chosen the line of demarcation.”
“Is that fair? Should we agree to to your fiat choice?”
What fiat choice: it is you who wishes to make demarcation.
You choose ISIS as the worst case interpretation of Islam and want to place a “good guys only” limiter on Christianity.
“And if we are all free to do likewise, then what else follows?”
We are free to do likewise.
How about: “well the soviet union was atheistic, and they butchered vast numbers of people, therefore atheism…..”
You can follow that line if you like. Atheism is not a group that has holy book from which to derive its ethics however.
“If you play the “I don’t buy the ‘they weren’t real Christians’ line”, then ditto for atheism.”
You mean “they are not really atheists, they only claim to be”?
“So should we agree then that all soviets were atheists and that atheism is evil because the USSR killed so many people under that guise?”
Not really, because atheism is not a specific mindset like a specific religion.
Atheism is a NOT something. It’s not proposing a religious ideology based on a theological text or claiming to interpret instructions coming from God.
Isn’t atheism off topic? I thought we were discussing the ethics of the OT.
“I guess that at the bottom line here, I don’t see why I should accept your choice of who is Christian and who isn’t. Unless of course you can provide a good argument that I should accept your definition.”
Nobody has to accept your idea or definition of what a Christian is either.
Are you seriously expecting me to define what a Christian is to your satisfaction?
Anyone that thinks all Muslims want to murder all Jews has really got a misconception of the real world.
Yes. Thankfully Muslims in general disobey the quran.
sub
TO Kevin and OG:
Balfour Declaration: „establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
It demands quite a strange logic to conclude that the idea was one state of all its citizens, like U.S. and Canada. No, the idea was to build a JEWISH national home with a place for all Jews persecuted in countries all over the world. The fact that at this historical moment Jews were in minority there was taken into account and Arabs got 78% of the territory (Transjordan). The rest was reserved for Jews already living there and for the Jewish refugees from the rest of the world. Arab MINORITY was to have their civil and religious rights, as they do have today in Israel. This idea of Jewish national home was endorsed by League of Nation where Arab leaders had eqal vote and all the then ruling Arab leaders accepted. After all, it was a division of the fallen Ottoman Empire and Arabs had over 20 countries, among other new established (at the same session of League of Nation) Irak, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
Jews came in peace and it’s not their fault that they were incessantly attacked by Arabs. I will not repeat the story how the Arabs who wanted to live in peace with Jews were killed by Nazi ally, Hajj Amin Al-Husseini. You should know it by now.
The legend that British promissed the same thing to both Jews and Arabs is just this: the legent. It’s not the truth and there are many documents showing this.
@ Malgorazata
I think you are confusing the Balfour Declaration with the later League of Nations Mandate.
As OG commented, the Balfour does not advocate or mention any partition: it seems clear from its wording:
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. It seems clear that a single party solution is intended. One Palestine only is mentioned, no other region.
The later L of N Mandate does allow for partition, as does the UN one of 1947.
However I’m not clear if the UN Resolution is legally binding (General Assembly Resolutions usually are not): in any case the conditions of transfer of sovereignty were never met. Britain did not hand over administration as planned and the Palestinian Arabs did not accept the partition proposals. Britain left after the situation progressively became violent (terrorism on both sides, King David’s Hotel etc.) and damaged UK public opinion.
One of the points I was making was that the existing non-Jewish occupants were not consulted on the issue, nor other countries in the region (many of whom have a historical interest in Jerusalem for example).
“The legend that British promised the same thing to both Jews and Arabs is just this: the legent. It’s not the truth and there are many documents showing this.”
I didn’t say they offered the same thing. I said the British had made various agreements for Arab Independence (McMahon–Hussein Correspondence etc), this from WWI onwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence.
I gave you the quotation from Balfour Deklaration – the whole area was meant to be a Jewish national home. There was no talk about any partition because it was just a tiny sliver of land in a huge Middle East where it was understood that all other states would be Arab.
I wrote (separately) about League of Nations Mandate decision which was about partition: 78% to Arabs (Trans-Jordan) and everything between “the River and the Sea” to Jews”. That was not enough for Arab nationalist. UN Partition Proposal from 1947 was really aimed to divide even this tiny part of the original area called Palestine. It was not binding – not only because the resolutions of the General Assembly are not binding – but also because Arabs rejected it. Jews accepted.
British behaved abominably, arming Arabs and disarming Jews. Jordanian Arab Legion was trained, armed by British and led by British officers. But their withdrawal from being a mandatorial power has nothing to do with validity of any resolution or Israels deklaration of independence.
The comment that OG and myself made, in response to Roger, and to which you objected, and concerning no partition was in specific relation to the Balfour Declaration which mentions only Palestine.
I think OG was initially responding to Roger’s more complex argument calling for enforcement of the original League of Nations Resolution because it is (probably) still legally binding.
OG commented that it implies a single state solution for Palestine (no other state being mentioned). I took it to mean the Balfour.
It mentions a homeland for Jews but that other groups will have continued rights to live there too. A homeland does not mean Nation State.
We were not discussing the later Mandates or proposals of partition, just that the Balfour Declaration was advocating a Palestinian single state shared solution at this time (1917).
It was year 1917. WWI was coming to the end. Both European Empires and the Ottoman Empire were ready to fall. Nations, previously under the empires, were all demanding their own independent states (my state, Poland, among them). With all these nations crying about independence, Jews demanded it too. So what, according to you, words “Jewish national home” could mean if not a nation state?
Specially, that the Balfour Declaration states that the civil and religious right of other inhabitants of this territory must be safguarded. But not their national rights. Only Jews were to have national rights. Only Jews would decide what their national anthem would be, what their flag would be, what their primary language would be etc.
“But not their national rights. Only Jews were to have national rights. Only Jews would decide what their national anthem would be, what their flag would be, what their primary language would be etc.”
Are you actually serious?
Absolutely serious. Poland had huge minorities after WWI. But it was Polish national state and it were Poles who decided in these matters.
I’m also serious saying that I’m a Zionist and, what’s more – I think that all decent people should be Zionists. There is a country of almost nine million people by now. Surrounded by enemies (the peace they have with Egipt and Jordan can disappear the moment another government comes to power – it was close call with President Morsi and his Muslim Brothehood). It’s one of the states created after the WWII. No other of these newly created states is demonized and delegitimized to such a degree as Israel. And I hope even you, who is trying to find anything to delegitimize this state, must admit that it’s human rights records are better than, say, Pakistan, Sudan or Somalia, also created after WWII. And this country, consisting mostly of refugees from diverse horrors, managed to develop coherent society, develop its economy so that its population has a decent living standard, managed to survive three full-out onslaughts from surrounding countries and untold number of terror attacks, and it retained democracy, freedom of speech and human rights for its population. Not to mention all the innovations which made even your life better. What anti-Zionists wish is for this country to disappear, in the best case they wish it to become another Arab majority country, another Lebanon.
@Malgorazata
“But not their national rights. Only Jews were to have national rights. Only Jews would decide what their national anthem would be, what their flag would be, what their primary language would be etc.”
Can you give me a working definition of “national rights” and how they differ from civil and political rights?
Do you realise that your statement is implicitly discriminatory on basis of ethno-religious grounds?
On what basis do you think that Balfour was suggesting that Jews only have a right to them and why you personally think non-Jews should not have a right to these.
What sort of democratic process are you suggesting that would make this possible?
Kevin, you do not answer my questions. You do not accept historical facts but you repeat your mantra and you come to me with new questions and new accusations of Israel. I could ask you in what way Palestinian leaders (and broader – leaders of almost all Arab and Islamic states)are democratic, left, progressive so that the state which would supplant Israel would be so much more to your taste. But I’m, frankly, not interested in your answers – you are mostly repeating propaganda which has very old roots – I’ve heard exactly the same arguments as a young woman in kommunist Poland. And it was also presented under the banner “anti-Zionism is a fight for democracy and human rights”.
@Malgorazata
You did not ask any questions: you gave uour usual spiel about why you are a Zionist.
We had been discussing the Balfour Declaration with Roger and OG.
You made this statement relating to Balfour:
“But not their national rights. Only Jews were to have national rights. Only Jews would decide what their national anthem would be, what their flag would be, what their primary language would be etc.”
This is discrimnatory on grounds of religion and ethnicity. Its not even implied in the Balfour Declaration. It’s your add-on.
I asked you to justify your “National Rights” statement and explain how you would enact such a law.
You then replied with “Why I am Zionist….”.
This is one of the major issues that many people (including Israelis and Jews)have with the “Nation State Law of the Jewish People”.
I explained to you before that this law is racist.
That means that the form of Zionism in place in Israel is also RACIST. Getting worse because of the new law.
That law in the US would not pass because it is against the constitution.
In the UK it would likely cause race riots (we had serious race riots in the 1980’s) and there would be political consequences. (I would hope that such a law would not even be proposed in the UK: it would be political suicide).
One of the major issues in the American Civil War was because of the racism involved in Black Slavery. The US now would find many of the details of the new Israeli Basic Law completely racist.
“I could ask you in what way Palestinian leaders (and broader – leaders of almost all Arab and Islamic states)are democratic, ”
That question is a deflection.
We are talking about Israel and the whole concept of race, ethnicity and religion within ISRAEL. If Israel is to be treated as a democracy, introducing racist laws will not help its case.
One of the reasons that Israel is particularly criticised is because the pro-Israeli lobby is currently shouting anti-semitism at anyone who is not pro-Israeli.
An attempt to silence critique of Israel.
True in the US, true in the UK. That is what brings me to this subject in the first place, if you will remember.
If Israel has racist laws, it’s best not to defend it using slurs of ant-semitism.
If you throw stones, you’ll get stones back.
This is not targeting Israel, it is Israel inviting critique.
“And it was also presented under the banner “anti-Zionism is a fight for democracy and human rights”.”
Exactlty. That is what it is: If Israel cannot treat ALL its citizens on EQUAL terms, then it is anti-democracy.
A religion of state is a violation of human rights.
A racial/ethnicity of state is a violation of human rights.
The regulation of marriage laws by ethnicity and religion is a violation of human rights.
Refusal of right of return is a violation of human rights.
Then you try claim “national rights” are only for Jews.
The equvalent in the US would be:
“National rights” are only for Whites”.
We’ve already seen that one.
The only way that Israel can guarantee a Jewish majority is by ethnic descrimination. It is built in to Zionism, because Zionism is a state created on race and religion.
It does not matter what Arabs and Palestinians do. It is what Israelis do that we are discussing.
Its not propaganda of any sort, it is the tranparent reality of the actual state of Israel and what are in effect race laws.
Kevin, you are spending plenty of time and energy on demonizing and delegitimizing a democratic state (as imperfect as it is – there are no perfect states on this Earth). When asked whether you think that the Arab state, which would supplant Israel if your wishes were to become reality, would be closer to your ideal, you answer that my question is a “deflection”. Well, I belong to “builders” – when a builder wants to destroy something he/she checks very carefully what will take its place. If it’s not significantly better it should not be destroyed. You obviously belong to “destroyers”: if something is not according to your ideal you want to destroy it and if what comes next is hell on Earth, well, it’s not your problem. As I said already: such discussion is a waste of my time and I don’t have too much time left.
“When asked whether you think that the Arab state, which would supplant Israel if your wishes were to become reality, would be closer to your ideal, you answer that my question is a “deflection”. ”
I answered your question.
It is the usual deflection used: who cares if other states are democratic or not.
“if your wishes were to become reality” another strawman: you do not know what my wishes are.
The discussion was whether Zionism as concept is democratic.
Because, if it isn’t, why should I support it. If it were supplanted by a non democratic state, Arab or otherwise, I wouldn’t support it either.
You also noticeably refrained from responding to my comment that your statement:
“But not their national rights. Only Jews were to have national rights. Only Jews would decide what their national anthem would be, what their flag would be, what their primary language would be etc.”
is racist.
Someone presents you with an argument that your views are racist and you deflect by suggesting that Arabs would be no better.
If you can’t discount, without deflection, the accusation that Israeli Zionism is intrinsically descriminatory on ethno-religious grounds, I will take the argument as read.
All right Kevin: you are repeating yourself incessantly in this thread AND being rude to other comments, accusing them of “Zionist bias”, asking them “are you serious”?, and trying to dominate the thread. You are going to knock off this behavior now and stop posting on this thread. Your position has been made clear about a gazillion times.
You might apoligize for accusing people of having “Zionist bias”, too. One could equally well accuse you of having an anti-Israel or anti-Jewish bias.
Jerry,
I used Zionist in the sense I have used it before, as a Nationalist political/ideological definition. To me, it means no more than Democrat bias or Republican bias.
That is the point I have been trying to make: the definition and differences between anti-semitism, anti/pro-Zionism, post-Zionism etc and their use in political debate.
I go to some pains to use the word I mean: anti-semitic, Zionist, pro/anti-Israel.
The IHRA makes it clear in its guidelines (not that I agree with the IHRA) that Israel should not be protected from the same political critique made of other countries. In my view that includes its political ideology, which in turn include Zionism, or at least elements of it concerning the way it is being carried out (there is also a clear distinction here between ant-Zionism and anti-Israeli criticism).
I assure you I meant no offence by it.
I was responding to Molgorazata’s comment ““I see that you want to find any reason to threw Jews out of Israel, no matter where they would go.”
which does not relate to ANYTHING I had said (hence the strawman) and which could also be taken as an accusation of anti-semitism.
I am aware that the issue is touchy.
Can you give me a working definition of “national rights” and how they differ from civil and political rights?
Do you realise that your statement is implicitly discriminatory on basis of ethno-religious grounds?
On what basis do you think that Balfour was suggesting that Jews only have a right to them and why you personally think non-Jews should not have a right to these.
What sort of democratic process are you suggesting that would make this possible?
I said, knock it off, Kevin. Your incessant trolling of this thread and implicit accusations of other commenters of bias are enough. Stop posting on this thread, please.