Right. Given the high quality of discussion on OTC about other issues, it would be nice to have some Troper input on this thorniest of Middle Eastern issues. Tropers wanting a brief overview of Israel should check out its Useful Notes page, or Israel
and Palestine's country profiles on the BBC.
At the outset, however, I want to make something very clear: This thread will be about sharing and discussing news. Discussions about whether the existence of Israel is justified would be off-topic, as would any extended argument or analysis about the countries' history.
So, let's start off:
At the moment, the two countries, prodded by the United States, are currently attempting to negotiate peace. A previous round of talks collapsed in 2010 after Israel refused to order a halt to settlement building on Palestinian land. US mediators will be present.
The aim of the talks is to end the conflict based on the "two state solution" - where independent Palestinian and Israeli states exist alongside each other. Both sides have expressed cynicism, although the US government has said it is "cautiously optimistic".
Key issues of the talks:
- Jerusalem: The city is holy to both Islam and Judaism. Both Palestine and Israel claim it as their capital. Israel has de facto control over most of it, a situation its Prime Minister has said will persist for "eternity". Some campaigners hope it can become an international city under UN or joint Israeli/Palestinian administration.
- Borders and settlements: The Palestinian Authority claims that the land conquered by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) is illegally occupied, and must be vacated by Israel in the event of a future Palestinian state. However, there are over 500,000 Israeli citizens living in settlements across the "Green line". Israel claims that a future Palestinian government would oppress or ethnically cleanse them, whilst many settlers claim that the land is rightfully theirs, as they have an ethno-religious link to it as part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.
- Palestinian refugees: In 1948, around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs left the territory of the new Israeli state. The reasons why are still debated - preferably elsewhere. The Palestinian negotiators wish for them and their descendants to have a right of return to Israel. The Israeli government considers only those who were actually forced away all those years ago to have a legitimate claim (if that). The US government considers them all refugees, to Republican fury.
So you can see why its never been fixed. The religious dimension in particular has a lot of people vexed - asking Muslims or Jews to abandon Jerusalem has been likened to asking Catholics to skip communion.
Still, there's hope. Somewhere. The latest developments in the region:
- Israel has released 26 imprisoned Palestinian prisoners convicted of attacks on Israeli civilians and agreed to release another 78 in the future.
- Israel has OK'ed development of 900 new homes east of the "Green Line" in a controversial move ahead of the talks.
- Hamas is to execute publicly two prisoners in Gaza
- The new Palestinian government will not reunite the feuding Gazan and Transjordanian (West Bank) elements of Hamas and Fatah.
edited 15th Aug '13 2:10:49 PM by Achaemenid
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I trust that forthspartan and people here use the term anti-zionism in correct way.
I dont have a problem with them using it in when talking to each other. Problem is that anti-zionism is a term often used by far-right groups thats why i personally dont use it.
Edited by Risa123 on May 4th 2022 at 8:42:20 AM
People are generally much more amenable to criticism on the level of “Israel’s government is acting badly” than to criticism on the level of “Israel should never have existed and should be destroyed”, and the latter is what 99% will read “anti-Zionism” as. From a communications perspective, calling yourself an anti-Zionist is shooting yourself in the foot. It alienates a lot of people we don’t need to alienate.
This logic is self-defeating. The entire reason people react badly to anti-Zionism is because of pro-Zionist propaganda, if we chose some other ideological name such as "anti-Apartheid" then Zionists would inevitably demonize that too.
No, conceding the narrative to Zionists is not how you defeat them. You do that by working to emphasize Israel's injustices and how they are inherently connected to Zionist ideology.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
"pro-Zionist propaganda" not true in my case i reacted negatively becase of reason explained in my previous post.
Edited by Risa123 on May 4th 2022 at 8:45:44 AM
I wasn't talking about you, it's clear that you have understandable reasons for your position.
The issue is that on average most opposition to the label isn't well-founded.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Honestly this is the first i have seen some using this term without being far-right so i overacted.
Edited by Risa123 on May 4th 2022 at 8:57:33 AM
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Spartan, I think the case is a lot easier to make when we work on the level of “Israel is acting immorally” rather than “Israel’s very existence is inherently immoral”. Because the latter inevitably sounds, to a lot of people, like “the Jews should have stayed in Europe to be exterminated,” given that the rest of the world wasn’t giving them many other options.
I mean, there’s no shortage of knee-jerk resistance to any criticism of Israel. But making “anti-Zionism” the term you rally round is going to alienate even the people who are willing to hear criticism.
Edited by Galadriel on May 4th 2022 at 9:54:48 AM
Foreign Troper
I mean, whoever denies the right of Israel to exist is an Antisemite. I think we all agree on that point at least.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
I simply do not agree, capitulating to Zionist's bad faith attacks will never work. You can do it if you want but I never will.
"Right of Israel to exist" is an absurdly vague phrase, so no I don't agree.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 4th 2022 at 9:59:08 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
It’s not captitulation to make practical arguments in favour of the real-world outcome you want rather than getting bogged down in theoretical and hypothetical debates about an inherently alienating premise.
I mean, if Israel and Palestine were fused into a secular, apartheid-free superstate with the latter's name and no mass deportation of Jews was involved, would that not constitute a form of Israel no longer existing? Despite the social status of all resident Jewish people who are not the fundamentalist zealots presumably remaining intact.
Obviously any solution calling for the widescale deportation of all Israeli Jews of emigrant descent no matter how long they or their families have been in the region is patently ridiculous and likely motivated by either bigotry or extreme dogmatism (e.g. it's a much more common viewpoint among the terminally online left), but what constitutes Israel's "right to exist" can be extremely vague.
Edited by AlleyOop on May 9th 2022 at 5:25:44 AM
Foreign Troper
Come on now people, stop with the technicalities, you know full well that I am talking about those kind of people who oppose the very concept of a state where Jews can live in peace.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Well said ![[awesome]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minis/award_star_gold_3.png "[awesome]"){kind=small}
The issue is that "a state where Jews can live in peace" is something whose meaning heavily depends on your politics. To non-bigoted anti-zionists it would be a one state solution with both groups receiving equal rights. To Zionists it means a one-state solution but with Palestinians segregated, expelled, or dead.
Both groups want peaceful existence but have very different ideas of how to go about it.
It’s not captitulation to make practical arguments in favour of the real-world outcome you want rather than getting bogged down in theoretical and hypothetical debates about an inherently alienating premise.
When you're willingly abandoning a perfectly legitimate name because of propaganda efforts by one's enemies then yes it's textbook capitulation.
I oppose ethnonationalism full stop and that includes Zionism. Thus I am an anti-Zionist. I would rather try to educate the public then try to fruitlessly escape each new propaganda attack.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 4th 2022 at 11:59:45 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
We know what you're talking about, but the general use of the phrase "Israel's right to exist" is much broader than the way you're using it. There are many people who genuinely believe that opposing the current form of the Israeli state (occupation and all) is equivalent to "opposing Israel's right to exist."
What I see is that zionism have mutated from "politics that promove the state of israel" to a"Politics that favour pro israel nationalism in long term" is dificult for me separate zionism from more right wing political party that are dominating israel for a while.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Yeah this too, Zionism as a concept may theoretically have had its liberal wing but if Israel was ever remotely liberal with its Zionism it sure as heck isn't now.
Zionism is ethnonationalism full stop, thus everyone supportive of the rights of Palestinian s is inherently an anti-Zionist.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 6th 2022 at 4:06:47 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Israeli court paves way for eviction of 1,000 Palestinians from West Bank area
"We've investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing!"
The judge lives in a settlement so there's conflict of interest too.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Incidentally, I'm reminded of the widespread criticism from the Western world of the Palestinians' insistence on the right of return being a hill to die on in any negotiations, and I think I realize why such criticism is being made: There's a serious clash between Western culture and Arab/Islamic culture over what the concept of "justice" entails and how much primacy it should hold. The former, being more or less entirely divorced from the conflict both geographically and in terms of harm suffered, favors a utilitarian(?) approach that puts far more importance on accepting "facts on the ground", letting bygones be bygones for all parties involved, and simply return to a state of peace and cessation of all acts of aggression in any shape or form.
The latter, on the other hand, holds absolute not just the primacy of justice over any and all considerations (including peace), but that the guilt for a crime (or "sin", for the more religiously minded) that involves taking something from another is eternal, and anyone that inherits the stolen "property" inherits the guilt (and by proxy, the illegality of their ownership), and must return it to the rightful owner or their extant relatives (I'm pretty sure there's a third course of action for when no living relatives remain, but I don't recall it). And the way they see it, the Western rejection of this notion is proof of the West's hypocrisy regarding its claims to championing goodness, justice, freedom and other lofty ideals and values, especially since moral relativism is often cited by Westerners in their criticisms of those of Arab and/or Islamic moral values that are incompatible with Western ones. That is, from an Arab/Muslim POV, the West claims that no moral system is objectively superior, and yet insists that its own values are superior to those of the Arabs/Muslims whenever they clash, and are more than willing to exploit the fact that they're currently the dominant political powers compared to the Arab/Muslim world to enforce their will.
Yes, statistically there's probably a lot of "average" Westerners who don't fit the above mold and may even side with the Palestinians on this matter, but they're clearly numerous enough to affect the decision-making of their governments, and thus the Arab/Muslim stereotyping of Western countries as being riddled with self-serving hypocrisy will persist, and thereby undermine any attempts by Western intermediaries to negotiate an end to the conflict. Even if you somehow manage to force a peace between the two factions, so long as it comes at the expense of justice, it will inevitably fall apart the moment there no more numerically and technologically superior foreign troops to enforce it.
The only possible solution would be to actively micromanage the upbringing and education of new Palestinian and Israeli generations such that they never get a chance to be instilled with the desire for vengeance... which, you know, would be basically resorting to grossly undemocratic methods to create democracy.
Edited by MarqFJA on May 6th 2022 at 1:36:18 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
A procrastination in of itself
Part of the Western dismissiveness towards this attitude will be the very obvious hypocritical way it’s being applied. The Arab Conquest of North Africa and other areas may be much older that the modern Israeli conquest of Palestine/Israel but they very much still happened. This idea of justice seems to only apply when it results in things being given back to Arab/Islamic people, rather than when it would result in things being taken from them.
That’s why the West holds that there is a period after which such things become settled, because all lands is stolen from someone and basically all nations founded on conquest. If we roll the map all the way back we end up without anyone being anywhere.
Nobody is going to give the House of Hashim back the Kingdom of Hejaz, but modern Israelis have to give their homes to Palestinians?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Maybe this could sound controversial, but many western countries and their governments would prefer the Arab/Muslim countries to behave like their East Asian neighbors, especially South Korea and Japan, in the sense they should be subservient to them.
Edited by luisedgarf on May 6th 2022 at 6:10:30 AM
Cringe but free
AP: Palestinians facing eviction by Israel vow to stay on land.
The lives of thousands of Palestinians in a cluster of Bedouin communities in the southern West Bank have been on hold for more than four decades, ever since the land they cultivated and lived on was declared a military firing and training zone by Israel.
Since that decision in early 1981, residents of the Masafer Yatta region have weathered demolitions, property seizures, restrictions, disruptions of food and water supplies as well as the lingering threat of expulsion.
That threat grew significantly this week after Israel’s Supreme Court upheld a long-standing expulsion order against eight of the 12 Palestinian hamlets forming Masafer Yatta — potentially leaving at least 1,000 people homeless.
On Friday, some residents said they are determined to stay on the land.
The verdict came after a more than two-decade-long legal struggle by Palestinians to remain in their homes. Israel has argued that the residents only use the area for seasonal agriculture and that they had already rejected offers of compromise that would have given them occasional access to the land.
The Palestinians say that if implemented, the ruling opens the way for the eviction of all the 12 communities that have a population of 4,000 people, mostly Bedouins who rely on animal herding and a traditional form of desert agriculture.
The residents of Jinba, one the hamlets, said Friday that they have opposed any compromise because they have lived in the area long before Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East war.
Issa Abu Aram was born in a cave in the rugged mountainous terrain 48 years ago and has endured a tough life since building is banned here.
In the winter, he and his family members live in a cave. In the summer, they stay in caravans near the cave. His goats are a source of income, and on Friday, he had laid out dozens of balls of hardened goat milk yogurt on the ground to dry.
He said his 14 children grew up with the threat of expulsion hanging over them. His children are attending a makeshift school in Jinba, with the oldest son now in 12th grade.
“He did not live in any other place except Jinba, how are you going to convince him ... to live somewhere else,” he said.
The Palestinian leadership condemned on Friday the Israeli Supreme Court ruling, which was handed down on Wednesday — when most of Israel was shut down for the country’s Independence Day.
Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas, said the removal order “amounts to forced displacement and ethnic cleansing, in violation of international law and relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.”
Also Friday, Israel’s interior minister said Israel is set to advance plans for the construction of 4,000 settler homes in the occupied West Bank. If approved, it would be the biggest advancement of settlement plans since the Biden administration took office.
The White House is opposed to settlement growth because it further erodes the possibility of an eventual two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The West Bank has been under Israeli military rule for nearly 55 years. Masafer Yatta is in the 60% of the territory where the Palestinian Authority is prohibited from operating. The Palestinians want the West Bank to form the main part of their future state.
Jewish settlers have established outposts in the area that are not officially authorized by Israel but are protected by the military. Last fall, dozens of settlers attacked a village in the area, and a 4-year-old boy was hospitalized after being struck in the head with a stone.
For now, the families say they have only one choice left: to stay and stick to their land.
“I don’t have an alternative and they cannot remove me,” said farmer Khalid al-Jabarin, standing outside a goat shed. “The entire government of Israel can’t remove me. We will not leave ... we will not get out of here because we are the inhabitants of the land.”
Referring to West Bank settlers who came from other countries, he said: “Why would they bring a replacement from South Africa to live in the high mountains, in our land, and replace us, and remove us, why? “
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
That's basically the image that a lot of Arabs (and Muslims in general) have of the Western world, hence deriding the latter as hypocrites.
The ruling class fleeing their country in the face of an invasion by an enemy that they cannot fend off is in no way comparable to a huge swath of a country's common citizens being either slaughtered or driven out. What makes your analogy even worse is that for all that I criticize the House of Saud for its excesses, at least they're not wantonly committing violence willy-nilly upon the citizens of the Hejaz (or the rest of the country that matter); with them, you at least know that they'll only use violence if you provoke them, and that what provokes is not hard to figure out or avoid note . The Israeli government, on the other hand, has little rhyme or reason to its violence against Palestinians other than 1) wanting to eradicate them all, and 2) only refraining from committing a Holocaust-level extermination on them because they know full well it will turn them into a true pariah in the eyes of the Western world and draw enough sanctions to bring the state to its knees.
On the seeming bias that you pointed out, I counter by pointing out that the Muslim conquests didn't involve systematically forcing the non-Muslim residents out; by Islamic law, such non-Muslims are entitled to remain as residents and be treated fairly, provided that they paid the jizya tax in exchange for being put under the aegis of the Muslim state. Those who wanted to leave left of their own accord, understandably because they preferred to live under the rule of people from their own culture/religion. (Not accounting for cases where Muslim caliphs/sultans, provincial governors and army leaders violated said law, of course. Sadly, that became more commonplace towards the latter decades of post-Rashidun dynasties.)
Edited by MarqFJA on May 6th 2022 at 4:46:39 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Honestly if Israel did go the full mass extermination route I have no doubts the US wild continue to support them. And this is coming from an American.
Regarding that part, how much is true many Arabs and the people from the Middle East seems to see East Asians, especially Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, Thais, etc, with some comtempt, especially in the case of the first two, due to their role as being U.S. staunch allies in the same vein as Israel, and in the case of the Chinese, being saw as the Middle East version of All Germans Are Nazis, due to their treatment against the people from Xinjiang?
Edited by luisedgarf on May 6th 2022 at 8:56:26 AM
I understand where this comes from, and I think it's important to distinguish between religious zionism (which has existed for thousands of years) and the "political zionism" weaponized by the current state of Israel.
Regarding the term zionism, I also have 'irrational' feelings. The people who expelled my family from their homes and stripped them of their livelihoods called themselves zionists. Just as your feelings of suspicion towards people who call themselves antizionists are valid, my feelings of suspicion towards people who call themselves zionists are valid. That doesn't mean we should stop people from using either of those terms, or that anyone who uses them is hateful.
Edited by indigoJay on May 4th 2022 at 11:25:41 AM
There is no war in Ba Sing Se.