Israel/Palestine: A True One-State Solution

redrock

TriumphantAngel wrote:

Consider what it would be like if:

• Our Constitution defined the union as a “white Christian democratic state?”

• Our laws still barred marriage across ethnic-religious lines?

• Our government appointed a Chief Priest, empowered to define membership criteria for the white Christian nation?

• Our government legally enabled immigration by white Christians while barring it for others?

• Our government funded a Center for Demography that worked to increase the birth rates of white Christians to ensure their majority status?

Putting it in this way sure makes it obvious to all, even those who could not see that Israel is a racist/apartheid state. We would never accept this from any other 'western' country. Some may argue that there are countries that have similar policies - of course. But we call out these countries for what they are, we don't pander to them, excuse them and support their racist policies.

yosi

TriumphantAngel wrote:

this was Kats comment.

If someone feeds into a negative stereotype of any race or faction, it can be considered a racial slur. Blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc. Do not do it. It's not ok here and an apology is in order. Diffuse this argument...do the right thing...and be careful when choosing your words in a debate.

Admin

she is saying considered and that doesn't mean it WAS intended to be so stop making out it was. also, from what i understand, two people apologized to each other for the misunderstanding and it was sorted out and i can assure you that the person who made the comment in a joking way is far from antisemetic.

while were on the subject, i wonder if everyone who has ever made a blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc joke has been singled out and asked to apologize?

bullshit they have. just special treatment for you guys, that's all it is. Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel cannot hide behind the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for ever. just because they have been victims of racism and genocide throughout history, does not entitle them to to do the same to other people and then cry "anti-Semitism" when they themselves, get accused of committing crimes against humanity which is what happens here.

the only reason you call antisemetism here is to take focus off the subject being discussed to try and end discussion about Israel.

i wonder what Eddie Vedder would say. i mean afterall it IS a Pearl Jam Message Board not the Rafie and Yosi message board with special rules for them only. i think he would demand consistancy which does not happen around here.

if it did, then in that thread you so kindly bought up to use as a way to try and validify your lie, he would be asking the same question i am.

why was Yosi allowed to threaten violence against me by telling me "if you said this shit to my face you'd be gagging on your teeth right now."

why was that ignored?

why didn't HE have to apologize to me?

is the message being sent to posters that a joke taken the wrong way (and yes we understand that along with blonde jokes they are not acceptable on the forum), is not ok, but threats of violence are?

double standards. one for Jewish people. one for everyone else.

just like in the real world.

I consider the thread referenced to be done with, but since you have found it necessary to mention me by name I'll offer a short response. Like rafie, I have never met anyone posting here in person, and so I can only judge them based on what they write. I was deeply offended by the comment in question, and absolutely felt that it was antisemitic (I recognize that you feel the comment was nothing more than a joke, and I am perfectly willing to accept that perhaps it was intended that way. Nevertheless, I found the comment, joke or no joke, deeply offensive, and I don't really think there is any question that even if the comment was meant as a joke that it was a joke that played off of antisemitic stereotypes). You say that antisemitism is only brought up as a means of cutting off discussion. I'm sorry, but that was simply not my motive. I was truly offended by the comment that was made, and was reacting only to that, and not out of a desire to distract from or end any other discussion. And frankly, I'm troubled by this whole approach that you are taking to antisemitism, which from my perspective is that you dismiss all charges of antisemitism out of hand as attempts to shield Israel from critical discussion. This is a very real and very dangerous bigotry, and to dismiss it so casually (and I am speaking generally here, not about this forum in particular) just makes no sense to me. THAT seems to me to be a double standard, since I'm fairly certain that you would never so casually dismiss bigotry targeting African Americans, or Muslims, or Arabs, or any other group. Finally (I guess this wasn't all that short ) I'm sorry that you felt that I was threatening you in the other thread. I was deeply offended, and as a result reacted out of anger. My intention was not to threaten, but only to express the depth of my feelings on the subject. After all of this I would hope that you are able to see why I (and apparently others) found the comments in question offensive, and that you can understand that an intention of being humorous is not a license to engage in bigoted speech (or to put it another way, people can say whatever they please, but what one person takes to be humorous can very often be offensive to others, regardless of the speaker's intention).

yosi

redrock wrote:

yosi wrote:

Why does Greece need to be a Greek state? Why does Turkey need to be a Turkish state?

Greece does not say it needs to be a greek orthodox state. Turkey does not say it needs to be a muslim state. You are mixing citizenship with religion.

I'm not. I strongly believe that Israel needs to have a much stronger separation of "synagogue" and state. When I say that Israel should be a Jewish state I am speaking in national, not religious, terms.

redrock

yosi wrote:

redrock wrote:

yosi wrote:

Why does Greece need to be a Greek state? Why does Turkey need to be a Turkish state?

Greece does not say it needs to be a greek orthodox state. Turkey does not say it needs to be a muslim state. You are mixing citizenship with religion.

I'm not. I strongly believe that Israel needs to have a much stronger separation of "synagogue" and state. When I say that Israel should be a Jewish state I am speaking in national, not religious, terms.

So if you are speaking 'national', let's say Israel should be an Israeli state. Citizens of Israel, of Israeli nationality - with equal rights for all to 'access' this nationality and equal rights for all it's citizens.

yosi

Absolutely, except for the part where you render the national character of the state utterly meaningless. The whole point of creating Israel was to have a Jewish state, not so that we could simply have another version of the United States, but call it "Israel." Not every state is the United States. In fact most are not. And that isn't an inherently bad thing. Many (perhaps most) states are nation states, where the state has a single national group that lies at its core. Thus Greece is explicitly the state of the Greek national group, just as England is the state of the English national group, etc. Israel ideally will protect the equal rights of all of its citizens while maintaining its core national character as the state of the Jewish nation.

OutOfBreath

rafie wrote:

I guess my remark to your original post is distracting people from the comment before where I explained in depth that it is not a matter of religion, rather nationality.
As for the part in your post here that I put in bold, the opposite is quite true. If anything, the majority of Israeli citizens are distancing themselves from what you call here ultra - orthodox and becoming more secular.

Well, etnicity is not something that automatically entitles someone to land either.

And it would be nice if indeed the religious element was weakening in Israel, but based on what I read and hear of Israeli politics, it seems the parties representing these religious people at least are on the rise these days.

But let me ask you, as an Israeli. What do you think of the settlers, truly? (From the outside they seem like the true major obstacle to any final agreement, while at the same time being breeding ground for extremists.)

Peace
Dan

rafie

redrock wrote:

rafie wrote:

Thank you for the name TA. Just read up on the guy a bit and can understand why I never heard of him before. He was pretty much operating on his own with VERY few supporters for his ideas. He was also operating during WW 2, while the Zionist movement was at it's height, more than 60 years after the first modern Jewish settlements were founded. At that time there were already around 400,000 Jews living in the region. This story is pretty much a very small footnote in Jewish history.
But thank you all for furthering my education a bit.

Hmmm... strange how these historical facts are not worth bothering with for Israel. Since the ottoman empire refused the plan to have a jewish settlement in Palestine, other places were being considered (thus where Africa comes in) The Kimberley plan was not just the wild rantings of just one man, but part of the bigger picture of what whas happening in those times. Sure enough, this man was very influential, intelligent and charismatic. This plan was similar to those for settlements in South America, etc. and had the support of numerous people but not from the Australian government nor the jews that had settled in Australia. These had completely integrated themselves and did not wish to have a segregated jewish community. The Australian government decided it was against their policies as well. Pretty much a slap in the face really. But if we look at the similar proposed settlements that were actually approved, they quickly imploded and did not work. I still find it really strange that a history teacher (not just you but anyone who studied their country's history to that level) would not know about this. It's no smaller of a footnote than the settlements in South America, etc. Probably a bit of a bigger footnote seeing the people involved and how the jews themselves (those that were integrated) were against such a proposal.

Hello again Rita.
The difference (from the little I have managed to find and read so far) between this plan and the others was timing. From what I have read so far, this plan was brought up as an option after WW 2 started - Over 20 years after the control of the Ottoman empire ended in the region. The other plans mentioned were considered at the very early stages of the zionist movement, before their was a huge number of Jews already living in the region. Like I wrote above, around 400,000 Jews were already living in the region at the start of WW 2, and the zionist movement had already decided that it's goal was a Jewish state in Israel. In addition to that, the British government (who controlled the region after the Ottomans) recognized the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the region in the Balfour declaration issued on November 2, 1914.
That is why I look at this as a small footnote.

rafie

OutOfBreath wrote:

rafie wrote:

I guess my remark to your original post is distracting people from the comment before where I explained in depth that it is not a matter of religion, rather nationality.
As for the part in your post here that I put in bold, the opposite is quite true. If anything, the majority of Israeli citizens are distancing themselves from what you call here ultra - orthodox and becoming more secular.

Well, etnicity is not something that automatically entitles someone to land either.

And it would be nice if indeed the religious element was weakening in Israel, but based on what I read and hear of Israeli politics, it seems the parties representing these religious people at least are on the rise these days.

But let me ask you, as an Israeli. What do you think of the settlers, truly? (From the outside they seem like the true major obstacle to any final agreement, while at the same time being breeding ground for extremists.)

Peace
Dan

Hello Dan,
I agree that the settlements themselves will be a very tough issue in the peace talks and are something that will need a creative solution to. As for the settlers, Most of what you here on the news about things they do are done by the extremists amongst them (who are a minority). Many people who choose to live in these settlements are there because of the tax benefits and not for any ideological reason. To class all the settlers together would be like saying that any one who lives in the southern U.S. is a redneck.

OutOfBreath

rafie wrote:

Hello Dan,
I agree that the settlements themselves will be a very tough issue in the peace talks and are something that will need a creative solution to. As for the settlers, Most of what you here on the news about things they do are done by the extremists amongst them (who are a minority). Many people who choose to live in these settlements are there because of the tax benefits and not for any ideological reason. To class all the settlers together would be like saying that any one who lives in the southern U.S. is a redneck.

Interesting. So what you say is that if the Israeli government were to abolish tax advantages for the settlers, they would just go away?

Peace
Dan

rafie

OutOfBreath wrote:

rafie wrote:

Hello Dan,
I agree that the settlements themselves will be a very tough issue in the peace talks and are something that will need a creative solution to. As for the settlers, Most of what you here on the news about things they do are done by the extremists amongst them (who are a minority). Many people who choose to live in these settlements are there because of the tax benefits and not for any ideological reason. To class all the settlers together would be like saying that any one who lives in the southern U.S. is a redneck.

Interesting. So what you say is that if the Israeli government were to abolish tax advantages for the settlers, they would just go away?

Peace
Dan

I do not think they would "go away", because it would be more complicated and expensive to move. If they were to abolish the tax advantages, it might prevent slightly a few people from moving there in the future because other areas in the country also have these advantages. All in all, I do not think it would make a humongous difference in the migration to the area (remember, i said "many" people, not most).

OutOfBreath

rafie wrote:

I do not think they would "go away", because it would be more complicated and expensive to move. If they were to abolish the tax advantages, it might prevent slightly a few people from moving there in the future because other areas in the country also have these advantages. All in all, I do not think it would make a humongous difference in the migration to the area (remember, i said "many" people, not most).

In other words, they're not just moving there for the tax breaks. It was your assertion that "many" moved because of them, but now only "few" will be deterred by their removal. I'm not out to get you, but following your logic as presented.

But out of curiosity, what other land areas have such advantages, and exactly how big of an advantage are we talking about?

Peace
Dan

redrock

A couple of links that explain a bit what benefits the settlers have moving to illegal settlements in the West Bank. Not only direct financial incentives for the settlers but major incentives for the settlement as a whole to make sure people want to come and stay. I bet if the Israeli would treat these illegal settlements the same as any town/village in Israel and the settlers the same as any Israeli, it would be a lot less attractive. Unless, of course, these illegal settlers have a 'mission' and think this land is theirs and they are there to claim it.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Settleme ... ration.asp
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul20 ... -j14.shtml

rafie

OutOfBreath wrote:

rafie wrote:

I do not think they would "go away", because it would be more complicated and expensive to move. If they were to abolish the tax advantages, it might prevent slightly a few people from moving there in the future because other areas in the country also have these advantages. All in all, I do not think it would make a humongous difference in the migration to the area (remember, i said "many" people, not most).

In other words, they're not just moving there for the tax breaks. It was your assertion that "many" moved because of them, but now only "few" will be deterred by their removal. I'm not out to get you, but following your logic as presented.

But out of curiosity, what other land areas have such advantages, and exactly how big of an advantage are we talking about?

Peace
Dan

I was taking care of my baby while writing that post and had a feeling it would not be clear.

As I have posted in the past, despite the tax advantages, there is not an overwhelming amount of people looking to move to these settlements from other areas of the country. In my original post on the subject I was mostly referring to families who chose to live there during the large waves of immigration to Israel from Russia and Ethiopia during the 90's. These immigrants (especially the Ethiopian ones) had (and still have) a very difficult time integrating in to Israeli daily life. The tax breaks for living in these settlements attracted many of them. It has been over 10 years since the last big wave of immigration.

As for other areas in which there are similar incentives: many settlements along the northern border, settlements in the Negev (southern) region and pretty much any small settlement distanced from the center of the country that suffers from financial problems.
For example, the city of Eilat, at the southern tip of the country, is exempt from retail tax on all goods (around 16.5% at the moment).

Hope that clears it up for you.

Commy

yosi wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

this was Kats comment.

If someone feeds into a negative stereotype of any race or faction, it can be considered a racial slur. Blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc. Do not do it. It's not ok here and an apology is in order. Diffuse this argument...do the right thing...and be careful when choosing your words in a debate.

Admin

she is saying considered and that doesn't mean it WAS intended to be so stop making out it was. also, from what i understand, two people apologized to each other for the misunderstanding and it was sorted out and i can assure you that the person who made the comment in a joking way is far from antisemetic.

while were on the subject, i wonder if everyone who has ever made a blonde, Polish, Jewish, Muslim, French, Italian, Hispanic, Catholic, etc joke has been singled out and asked to apologize?

bullshit they have. just special treatment for you guys, that's all it is. Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel cannot hide behind the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for ever. just because they have been victims of racism and genocide throughout history, does not entitle them to to do the same to other people and then cry "anti-Semitism" when they themselves, get accused of committing crimes against humanity which is what happens here.

the only reason you call antisemetism here is to take focus off the subject being discussed to try and end discussion about Israel.

i wonder what Eddie Vedder would say. i mean afterall it IS a Pearl Jam Message Board not the Rafie and Yosi message board with special rules for them only. i think he would demand consistancy which does not happen around here.

if it did, then in that thread you so kindly bought up to use as a way to try and validify your lie, he would be asking the same question i am.

why was Yosi allowed to threaten violence against me by telling me "if you said this shit to my face you'd be gagging on your teeth right now."

why was that ignored?

why didn't HE have to apologize to me?

is the message being sent to posters that a joke taken the wrong way (and yes we understand that along with blonde jokes they are not acceptable on the forum), is not ok, but threats of violence are?

double standards. one for Jewish people. one for everyone else.

just like in the real world.

I consider the thread referenced to be done with, but since you have found it necessary to mention me by name I'll offer a short response. Like rafie, I have never met anyone posting here in person, and so I can only judge them based on what they write. I was deeply offended by the comment in question, and absolutely felt that it was antisemitic (I recognize that you feel the comment was nothing more than a joke, and I am perfectly willing to accept that perhaps it was intended that way. Nevertheless, I found the comment, joke or no joke, deeply offensive, and I don't really think there is any question that even if the comment was meant as a joke that it was a joke that played off of antisemitic stereotypes). You say that antisemitism is only brought up as a means of cutting off discussion. I'm sorry, but that was simply not my motive. I was truly offended by the comment that was made, and was reacting only to that, and not out of a desire to distract from or end any other discussion. And frankly, I'm troubled by this whole approach that you are taking to antisemitism, which from my perspective is that you dismiss all charges of antisemitism out of hand as attempts to shield Israel from critical discussion. This is a very real and very dangerous bigotry, and to dismiss it so casually (and I am speaking generally here, not about this forum in particular) just makes no sense to me. THAT seems to me to be a double standard, since I'm fairly certain that you would never so casually dismiss bigotry targeting African Americans, or Muslims, or Arabs, or any other group. Finally (I guess this wasn't all that short ) I'm sorry that you felt that I was threatening you in the other thread. I was deeply offended, and as a result reacted out of anger. My intention was not to threaten, but only to express the depth of my feelings on the subject. After all of this I would hope that you are able to see why I (and apparently others) found the comments in question offensive, and that you can understand that an intention of being humorous is not a license to engage in bigoted speech (or to put it another way, people can say whatever they please, but what one person takes to be humorous can very often be offensive to others, regardless of the speaker's intention).

this is ridiculous. the comment in question has been put behind us, or should have been if you guys would let it die. my intent was not to put you down, it was a joke in bad taste. my comedy central station on TV, very mainstream, has told far worse, and i'm not defending that, i'm saying when it comes to comedy most of the time people lighten up. and that was my intent, comedy, not to put anyone down. i realize now this isn't the place for that, hence the apology.

meanwhile i'm threatened with violence, a ban, and now an antisemitism label.


those throwing that mud win. what can i say? that i'm not an antisemite? the damage is done. discussion is over. nothing i say after matters. to me the label is far worse than the original comment ever could be.


anyway this whole thing is fucky. if i'm antisemitic tell my best friend that, he's jewish. maybe hes' the antisemitic one since i get all of my jokes from him anyway. antisemitic jew, figure that one out.

yosi

Dude, chill. I found the one comment offensive. People say stupid, offensive things sometimes. It happens. I take you at your word that you didn't mean anything by it. I'm just saying that an anonymous public forum is maybe not the best place to be throwing that kind of stuff around, because, well, this kind of thing can happen.

redrock

yosi wrote:

Absolutely, except for the part where you render the national character of the state utterly meaningless.

And where did I say or suggest that? When I suggest that Israel should be inclusive? Of course, Israel would rather keep to itself (ie jews) like it does so well seeing that their 'other' citizens do not have the same rights. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of ANY other country which was explicitly formed to 'contain' a single ethnoreligious group with people converging from different countries. France wasn't 'created' to gather all the French catholics from around the world, England to gather all the Church of England people around the world, etc. You mention England being the state of the English national group - of course it is. But that doesn't stop the Irish or the Scots or the Welsh or other nationalities or people with various religions to come and live in England with same rights, marry English nationals, purchase property/land, etc. The inherent national character is still there. Once one integrates in a 'host' country (and this country allows integration), they become part of the national character. If the 'jewish' national character is as strong as you want to suggest, what is Israel afraid of? Can they not hold their own whilst still sharing a country with other citizens (again, with equal rights). This kind of 'isolationism' has no place in this modern world. What may have seemed a good idea (lord knows why displacing a whole population to install another one seemed a good idea) a lifetime ago is no longer relevant now.

Commy

yosi wrote:

Dude, chill. I found the one comment offensive. People say stupid, offensive things sometimes. It happens. I take you at your word that you didn't mean anything by it. I'm just saying that an anonymous public forum is maybe not the best place to be throwing that kind of stuff around, because, well, this kind of thing can happen.

hey man. i'm over it. i have recognized the point you have made here, many times, publicly, in the last post to you, and in pm's to the mods.

and i apologized.

and i am forgiving the antisemitic labels being thrown at me (never mind they are worse than the original comment, at which you were threatening violence).



i'm over it. so yeah. if you're over your passive aggressive bullshit can we let this die?

fuck

yosi wrote:

Israel ideally will protect the equal rights of all of its citizens while maintaining its core national character as the state of the Jewish nation.

Absolutely, except for the fact that those two concepts contradict eachother. Israel is trying to choose who can be citizens based on ethnicity, and in order to preserve its Jewish character has throughout its history not given equal rights to the indigenous population. Think of it logically, I mean if we can, even just for argument's sake, accept that a two-state solution won't work because either party won't accept the other's proposal:
1. israel will have to grant citizenship to atleast the entire palestinian population in the West Bank (the state of Gaza will be a lot more complicated to deal with for sure), which is approximately 2.5 million, in addition to the over 1.2 million palestinians living in israel already, a number growing.
2. israel will have to find a just solution the right of return for refugees. this can't simply be ignored. there are many refugees who still await their right to return to their home.
3. this would bring the population of palestinians and jews pretty close in number. so, in trying to grant equal rights between the two parties, israel is thus "threatening" its jewish character...... a nation based on ethnic supremacy, that uses institutionalized racist policies against non-jews, does not work. the reason countries like france and greece work is because they have historically been the home of a national people. you say you don't want Israel to be another U.S. but like the U.S. Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population. unfortunately for Israel this indigenous population is not now a minority like the native americans were in comparison to the settlers.

all these facts are conveniently ignored to preserve this whole sense that Jews need their own home, even if it is at the expense of millions of others..... as if a country that ensures equal rights for both jews and palestinians, without preference to one or the other, is such a wild thing to suggest.... :roll:

Commy

isn't the "core national character of israel" based primarily in its religion?