[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Forum Rules: No one line posts please.

[pugsville]

But why does it matter? New Zealanders are very close to Australians, Australia has a great land mass, are we therefore to assume that the New Zealanders have less rights and may be displaced without any wrong being done. It seems to be an irrelevant arguement that obscures the issue. The Palestinians are just inconvient and a lot of israelis would much rather then just shut up and faded away.

[clanko]

clanko: Hang on a moment, you're not being accurate. Nationalism doesn't necessarily seek to insulate its members from terrible non-members of the nation. Viewing oneself as different/distinct, and needing special efforts to preserve this distinction in the face of external pressures does NOT necessarily suggest that the outside forces are seen as "backward".

I would ask you to quote the specific part of my post you feel drew such conclusions - I do not see that it did. Regarding the Israeli experience, such nationalist ferver was only going to have one result for the predominantly Arab indigenous population. This is why Zionism in those days was indeed rampant with notions of the 'chosen people' or the 'liberation' of Israel, played down these days...but not in policy I would argue strongly. (Your characterisations of surrounding 'Arab/Muslims' societies shall be left to the jury)

In other words, if I take efforts to preserve a part of my heritage, whether it be language or religion or what have you, it is unfair for you to describe the motivation behind these efforts of mine as xenophobic/prejudice/chauvinistic/*insert adjective suggesting some form of discrimination here*.

Please do not be so foolish as to confuse preserving Jewish culture with grossly-discriminatory policy against Arabs in areas which are ultimately aimed at their socio-economic degeneration. If you take a look around the world at cultures which have been seriously under threat, particularly the historically indigenous populations of Latin America and their current moves (now largely represented in government) to curb such a process...I think you shall find that it comes nowhere near the Israeli policy whose aim is to diminish the Arab character of Israel. You can call this what you want, package it with whatever justifications you so desire, it does not change the fact that it fundamentally fits the bill and should be labelled as such. I think the fact that you do not accept this reality whilst barking for the widespread existence of the reverse and indeed, lobbying for its continuation points to the real double standards here.

Those Israelis who aren't cool with this law or others are welcome to coordinate politically (good luck!) or leave (also good luck!). The whole ulta-fair-ultra-equal ideology is a nice fantasy, but that same attitude would lead to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state over time. Why can you not concede that this is an unacceptable consequence? Israel and worldwide Jewry must make efforts towards preserving Jewish identity in the face of the complete assimilation into non-Jewish culture. Today that manifests itself in various ways, i.e. the JNF, Jewish charities aimed at educating Jews about their heritage/culture/religion, participation in Jewish events, Jewish immigration laws in Israel, Lieberman's proposal to have Israeli citizenship being contingent on a loyalty oath, etc. Some of these protections manifest themselves through grassroots efforts, and others through political actions. You and tailz seem opposed to every single effort that might be described as disriminatory. You reject every inch of a measure that seeks to preserve Jewish identity that may infringe on a non-Jewish minority in any way.

I don't think it is as debatable as you would like to believe - massive inequalities and discrimination in land and social services are not minor infringements but entirely contrary to the tenets of democratic rule. You can throw whatever you like at this and label it 'liberalistic bullshit' but it's pretty telling that you oppose the same guarentees to Arabs or Palestinians as you would fight for until the death, for Jews. This is Zionism in all its glory.

EDIT - clanko: Btw, you still haven't addressed me calling you out on the great disparity between your ambivalence towards the Jewish people a state (your answer to the question: "are the Jewish people a nation?" was a long, drawn out "no") and your swift and resounding proclamation that the Palestinians are indeed a nation. The disconnect between your perspective on Jewish nationhood and Palestinian nationhood couldn't be greater. I believe this moment exposed how ridiculous your core beliefs are surrounding this issue. You may dress up your arguments in liberalistic bullshit, but it is easy for me to see through.

My 'no' was a simple rejection of the strength of the grounds which you believe the Jewish people are indeed a 'nation' which simply pointed to the huge fragmentation of all cultures in industrial society.I am not particularly interested in the question of whether 'Jews are a nation' when it comes to establishing any methodology for the Israel-Palestine conflict. I don't think you are particularly capable, willing or that this forum is actually the place for such a discussion. However, should you like to create one in the 'sociology' forum then I am sure you may be able to learn something.

You see Kraychik, the attempt to illustrate me as having some kind of double standards when you are the attempting to equate being Jewish with being Palestinian. I am not interested in attempting to justify my rejection of such a flawed comparison. I am more concerned with the tangible right to self-determination and how it is outlined in public international law, not debating your ambiguous points about 'Jewish nationhood' in their own right. That is to say, that somehow all other fields are irrelevant.

For instance, if I concede that 'the Jews are a nation' and deserve statehood, you think this somehow legitimises the dispossession of the holy land's indigenous populations? Or, if I reject it - I am an anti-semite. This is anti-ism at its peak and makes you nothing short of a polemicist not interested in any true debate about Israel/Palestine. I know you have said you are not religious but this does sound like Zionist ideology stemming from interpretations of the Torah and I can't think of anything which would be so incorrigible as religion, if it is not simply your own irrationality.

Israel can have a state with Jews, with Papa New Guinean tribespeople for all I care, it is an Israeli issue. If a state attempts to strengthen a certain groups (racial, ethnic or religious) status at another's serious expense, then the rules do not change because of political ideology.

However, if you are asking me to accept that the 'Jews are a nation' as a precursor to debate, then I will give you an unresounding 'no'. This is based upon my studying of sociology and not the Israel/Palestine conflict. Therefore, your (questionable) motives for creating this as some sort of condition for even entering into a discussion which doesn't have you embarassing yourself with 'anti-semitism' mudslinging, I find ridiculous.

Israelis have acquired national rights and the existence of the Israeli state within the confines of its recognised status is one which I accept as much as the existence of my own country.

[chaostrivia]

Thanks for the nice post.
I am an Israeli who oppose the settlements as well, and I have to agree with everything said.

[Tailz]

Ok leave the Flags alone but tell me whats the diffrance betwen the "Palestinians" and the "Jordanians"

Apart from each bunch being in different places? Maybe a few customs and cultural differences, but does that mean we can treat them differently? Or treat them the same? Or force them to do something?

Because Israel is full of Jews, should all of the Jews around the world be forced to congregate in Israel?

But why does it matter? New Zealanders are very close to Australians, Australia has a great land mass, are we therefore to assume that the New Zealanders have less rights and may be displaced without any wrong being done. It seems to be an irrelevant arguement that obscures the issue. The Palestinians are just inconvient and a lot of israelis would much rather then just shut up and faded away.

Australians are not that interested in sheep.

Ahhhh New Zealand, where men are men, and sheep are nervious.... Nah, Kiwi's are cool, one of my best friends is a sheep stealing Kiwi.

[kraychik]

Those elements also preserve a political demographic - they seek to facilitate a political movements agenda. The JNF did this by acquiring land (by legal sale and land assigned to the JNF after being annexed or reposed by the state) and only selling it to Jews instead of to members of the Israeli state (as it has now been orders to do). Jewish immigration laws are in place to facilitate a Jewish demographic by facilitating the inward flow of foreign Jews. While Lieberman demands an oath of loyality to a state that only acknowledges a Jewish heritage (to the denial of the fact that a other ethnic groups lived there too) and facilitates an occupation and settlement construction that disposes other Palestinians of their homes in favour of settler Jews there instead.

I reject all of these as much as I reject the 1940’s measures to preserve Aryan identity! The only difference this time around, is that the Jews are on the benefiting side, instead of the side that suffered from the discrimination.

It's no accurate to say that the state of Israel only acknowledges a Jewish heritage. Clearly the Jewish element of the state is predominant - for example, most Israeli politicans are Jewish, their is a Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Israel guarantees to citizenship to any Jew living abroad who wants to make Israel his/her home (with some exceptions, of course), etc. But there are still official recognitions of other cultures that manifest themselves in different ways - for example, Arabic is an official language in Israel, the are Arab/Muslim government representatives/political parties, the government has established a committee to address inequalities, called the Ministerial Committee concerning Arab citizens, etc. I am far from an expert on Israel' legal dealings with its minorities, but it isn't fair to state that Israel only acknowledges itself as a state of Jewish heirtage - which by extension you seem to suggest is a land only for Jews, and/or a country that is unfriendly to its non-Jewish citizens. Clearly there are inequalities between Israel's Jewish and non-Jewish population (and even between various Jewish populations/sub-groups) that need to be carefully addressed, but let's be fair in how we approach and these inequalities.

I am perplexed why you don't ether, considering the amount of discrimination Jews have had to put up with in the past! To now discriminate against others, considering Jews know what its like to be discriminated against?!

Why support that which you obviously don't like being done to yourself?? :?:

You seem to reject the idea that any inch of restriction on personal freedoms that affects one group in order to benefit another can be justified. If I understand you correctly, we must agree to disagree on this point. I will utilize the example of language laws in Quebec, for example. It isn't permitted to post outdoor commercials signs in Quebec in any language other than French. This is clearly an infringement on the rights and freedoms of Quebecers to conduct business in the language of their choice. Quebec argues that this restriction on the rights and freedoms of its citizens (and these laws clearly affect, primarily, the minority of Quebecers whose first language isn't French) is necessary towards its desire to preserve the French language (and by extension the French/Quebec culture) in the face of perceived threats to its longevity. I have listed only one manifestation of how the laws in Quebec limit the rights and freedoms of Quebecers, and in all of these cases relating to language laws, the minority of Quebecers (those whose first language isn't French) is the group primarily affected in a negative manner. I am certain that you would reject these measures that Quebec has taken, and would try to argue for alternative measures towards Quebec's goal of language and cultural preservation. I, however, am cool with it. Sometimes rights and freedoms need to be restricted for the greater good, and sometimes these restrictions (or infringements, however you wanna label them) will primarily affect a minority. Based on one's perspective, it can be seen as discriminatory or necessary. In the case of Israel, Jewish-friendly laws (i.e. favorable immigration laws for Jews) are necessary towards achieving Israel's greater goals: to be a safe home for worldwide Jewry and to reinforce the Jewish character of the country. I understand that at face value this can be hard some people to accept. I am comfortable with the cases of Jewish-friendly policies (which by extension seem to undermine the rights/freedoms of non-Jewish Israelis) that I know of within Israel. It['s a balancing act. Of course I do not believe that maintaining and growing the Jewish character of Israel must be done at any cost, throwing all caution to the wind. Should non-Jewish Israelis be expelled from Israel towards this objective? No. Are favorable immigration laws (as an example) for Jewish immigrants a reasonable restriction on the rights/freedoms of non-Jewish Israelis towards achieving Israel's objectives? Certainly. The bottom line is that I am comfortable with reasonable (I am aware of the subjective nature of this term!) restrictions/infringements on the rights/freedoms of non-Jewish Israelis towards the objectives of maintaining Israel's Jewish identity, which includes but isn't limited to - maintaining a massive Jewish majority within Israel, and efforts to reinforce and strengthen the Jewish character of the country (i.e. public funding towards Holocaust remembrance, like Yad Vashem, while not spending money on some Armenian culture museum, even if we have Armenians in Jerusalem).

I will happily promote programs to foster Jewish culture, language, etc. But I’ll drop like a sack of poo any program that does so at the expense of others. Which is why I fully support the right of Jews to live in Israel, even in the West Bank or Gaza, but not at the expense of other people – which is what Israeli settlers do, they create settlements that push out those people who already live there – thus why I don’t support Israeli settlers.

I am aware that you reject anything that may infringe on any inch of freedoms/rights for one group while benefiting another group. I disagree with you. I'm ok with reasonable limits on freedoms towards achieving greater objectives, even if these limits predominantly impact one group at the expense of another.

Lastly, I'll address your statement that suggested that Jews should be particularly strong on equal rights for all given our historic persecution. Previous discriminations that Jews suffered weren't justified in order to benefit some legitimate goal(s). For example, my father was rejected from certain universities in Russia because he was Jewish. This wasn't done in order to preserve Russian character or anything nice and sweet like that. This was simply rooted in anti-semitism. When Jews from abraod are given special access to Israel, while non-Jews aren't, it isn't done just to piss off non-Jewish Israelis. Pissing off non-Jewish Israelis isn't a policy objective of Israel. These favorable immigration laws are put in place for valid reasons - providing a safe home for all Jews (as is Israel's mission via its declaration of independence... and it has been Israel's mission even before there was an Israel via Zionism's goals) and reinforcing Israel's Jewish identity. It's just inaccurate to draw parallels between Israeli laws/policies that as face value appear to be discriminatory to non-Jewish Israelis and laws/policies of of the past and/or present that hurt Jews, without analyzing the reasons behind these laws/policies. That being said, no policies that infringe on the rights/freedoms of non-Jewish Israelis can be reasonably compared to anti-semitic policies/laws/cultures from the past/present, where pogroms massacred Jews, or Jews being barred from many professions/schools/cities, etc. It's just silly. The worst thing that non-Jewish Israelis deal with is disproportionate (I just realized I typed "unproportionate", which isn't a word, a few days ago in another post as I was re-reading it, oops!) funding towards their schools, income disparities, and cultural discrimination (which is hard to quantify, i.e. one of the first conversations I had in Israel when I was there this past December was with a taxi driver who said something along the lines of "Arabs are animals"). I am not trivializing these unacceptable inequalities, but what non-Jewish Israelis may suffer from during their lives in Israel can in no way be reasonably compared to historic anti-semitism endured by Jews. That being said, I also reject the arguments (or suggestions) that I've seen in here that state/imply that all inequalities between Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis (and between various sub-groups of Jews) are the result(s) of prejudice/racist government policies or Israeli/Jewish culture.

Peace, love, and blessings.

[kraychik]

clanko - I do intend on spending much more time on the "Jews are a nation" question beyond this post, where I'll try to flesh out why this question is crucial to address when discussing the I/P conflict. Israel was born from Zionism. I am sure we can agree on that point. A fundamental concept of Zionism is the recognition of Jews as a unique nation, unified on various levels (languages, historical persecution, religion and by extension culture and philosophy, to name a few of our commonalities), and therefore deserving of sovereignty and the right to self-determination. I cannot be any clearer, if one rejects this truth that I would imagine is self-evident, then this person cannot be debated by a "supporter of Israel" (in the general sense of the term, I know support for Israel is a subjective thing). The truth of Jewish nationhood isn't self-evident to you. This concept of Jewish nationhood is as the foundation of why Israel is here today and why it is the country it is. Your acknowledgement that Israel is indeed a state deserving rights and acquiring responsibilities isn't the same as recognizing its character and several of its fundamental documents (Israel's declaration of independence, for example, identifies Israel as a Jewish state and recognizes the Jewish people as a nation). Israel's law of return of Jews is also an inseperable part of the country. You however compartmentalize these parts of Israel - on the one hand, you accept Israel as a state, yet on the other, you reject laws that you describe as discriminatory. I cannot seperate foundational concepts of Israel as a country. To me, they are one in the same. So when you reject Jewish nationhood (on the basis of Jewish diversity and your example of the McDonald's eating Jewish teen who knows nothing of his heritage), or Jewish legal fundamentals that establish the country as a Jewish state (or a state for Jews, however you wanna say it), you are rejecting Israel's legitimacy (by rejecting the fundamentals upon which Israel is founded). Put simply, a rejection of Jewish nationhood is a rejection of Israel, as Israel is founded on and continues to exist on this fundamental concept. You can't say that accept Israel's statehood while rejecting Jewish nationhood, these are inseperable concepts. And since you reject Jewish nationhood, you necessarily reject Israel's legitimacy, which makes me ask myself - why should I ever engage you in a conversation, again? I cannot have an honest discussion regarding the I/P connflict with someone who rejects Jewish nationhood. Your attempts to trivialize the importance of these fundamentals ain't gonna work.

I have not forgotten how quickly you interjected that Palestinians are indeed a nation, while being so ambivalent about Jewish nationhood. This to me was the final chapter in analyzing how you approach this debate, from a warped perspective. It's an anti-semitic position, to reject Jewish nationhood based on worldwide Jewry's diversity, while attaching nationhood to Palestinians based on their uniformity. To the reasonable person, it should be seen as an endearing quality of Jews to be so inclusive as to who we include within our group. You're spinning our diversity against us, by claiming a lack of cohesiveness (based on your "sociological" analyses) between Jews means we aren't a nation. Furthermore, an honest analysis of nationhood in the I/P context would question Palestinian nationhood, when it is difficult to differentiate Palestnians from several of their neighbors (aside from their experiences with Israel, and them not being colonized by the French, they belong to the broader nation that we could describe as Arab/Muslims, with few exceptions). As far as I can see it, an honest person would not advance the arguments you've made.

With respect to Jewish nationhood necessitating a state and therefore leading to the dispossession of non-Jews within the state... well, it's already happened. I wasn't trying to trick you into accepting Jewish nationhood in order to justify Palestinians dispossession by asking you whether or not you recognized Jewish nationhood. I also don't think that Jewish nationhood, and therefore Jewish reights to self-determination via a state of our own necessarily requires dispossession, but it's already happened. The reasons for these dispossessions are also debated. How much of the Palestinians dispossession was the result of their own volition, of forced expulsions by the Jewish army, or by Arab/Muslim communications/propaganda? Who knows? Either way, it's old news and looking forward, we need to make efforts to improve the situation in the "now". In other words, Palestinians aren't ever going to get some sort of "right of return" to Israel and are gonna need to make the best of where they are now. Finally, there's plenty of land for them to do just fine. In the broader context, there's a lot of Arab/Muslim land out there in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and other parts of Asia. We Jews can have the little sliver that is Israel.