Israel and Palestine

I'd be fine with Israeli posters coming in to protest hardcore Arab ethnonationalism and anyone who believes in the mass-deportation of all non-indigenous Palestinians regardless of context including those whose families have been in the region for a century long, but well, those kinds of extreme stances aren't often posted in here to begin with.

Edit - I'll take the specific post to PM. I do realize that was a (most likely) uncharitable reading, but I'm still sticking to the position that I see a lot of consistent talking around calling for Israel to no longer exist. And I figure it's only the rules of this website that prevents it from being more explicit.

Edited by Hodor2 on May 24th 2022 at 4:39:08 AM

The moderate position isn’t what you’ve assumed that is saying, it’s the “I feel sympathy for the innocent people caught in his conflict and contempt for the warmongering leadership who think the only way they can win is by crushing the other ethnic group underfoot.” position that many of us have pushed.

We also should really end the meta discussion, we’re meant to be focused on news and current events.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Yeah, I’m for that. Continue in P Ms if ya’ll wish, I can’t stop you.

So...does the IDF have some sort of defined policy when it comes to incidents like the one mentioned by Hodor, the death of a journalist?

How could you edit that but still not spell my name properly?

Edited by fredhot16 on May 24th 2022 at 5:08:13 AM

Trans rights are human rights. TV Tropes is not a place for bigotry, cruelty, or dickishness, no matter who or their position.

@Silasw - What you have in quotes is my position as well. And for what it’s worth, although I can’t remember names offhand, I think Fredhot's description of Israeli posters is quite accurate. Rather reminiscent of some pro Putin posters in terms of support for authoritarianism/lack of empathy towards victims of oppression.

Edit - Good question. Sorry about that.

Edited by Hodor2 on May 24th 2022 at 5:19:40 AM

Israel’s right to exist is something that sounds straightforward but is used in so many different ways that it’s very easy for people to talk past each other or use it to obscure their own or other’s positions.

Does Israel have the right to use any means necessary to maintain its existence as a Jewish-majority or Jewish-ruled state, including ethnic cleansing or denying parts of its population the right to vote? (Which is what it’s doing now, as in practice East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are under Israeli government control, and it’s effectively killed the possibility of a viable two-state solution via its large-scale settlement-building in the Occupied Territories.) No, it certainly does not.

In a one-state solution (which would be about half Jewish and half Palestinian based on current demographics), does there need to be some mechanism for power-sharing so that neither group is able to dominate or oppress the other? Most likely yes; it’s hard to envision another situation that would give people of both groups a reasonable sense of safety. This would be difficult, as in places like Northern Ireland and Bosnia, but it’s probably the best shot.

In a one-state solution, should the resulting state be called Israel or Palestine? There are about 1000 things I care about more, this is not a hill I have any interest in dying on, or in anyone else dying on. Let it keep being called Israel if it makes things one iota easier to resolve.

Do Jews who are currently living in Israel have the right to continue living there? Yes.

Edited by Galadriel on May 24th 2022 at 5:10:43 AM

Well I for one am left-leaning and more Pro-Israel, but why would I defend this?

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian

There's a huge difference between saying "Israel as a Jewish-dominated ethno-state has neither an inherent or inviolate right to exist nor the right to enforce its aforementioned Judeocentric existence through internationally criminal acts against Palestinian Arabs" and saying "Israel as a state where Jews are treated fairly and don't have to fear discrimination or oppression shouldn't exist". And yes, there have been more than a few diehard Israeli apologists here who kept shouting down the former by painting it as the latter.

Like, dude, the Jewish diaspora is over double the size of Israel's population, with the US alone being home to nearly as many if not more Jews than Israel does, and they're all living quite fine and the majority either don't care about Israel or actively denounce it.

Just call it "Plurinational State of Jerusalem". Not like we don't have precedent for naming a relatively big region after its capital city, especially for this particular region. And the "Plurinational" qualifier would explicitly state the multitude of nations inhabiting the state as an inviolate aspect of its identity, so that nobody has any legal standing (domestically or internationally) for trying to turn it into an ethno-state.

Edited by MarqFJA on May 25th 2022 at 4:34:04 PM

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

So, I really don't know what exactly to say. I'm not sure why this thread sets me off so much, and I realize it would probably be best for me to just stay out of it entirely.

I will start by saying that the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh Shireen Abu Akleh was worse than I had previously thought, in the sense of being more deliberate/premediated.

And I'm not going to quibble about how high a level the responsibility goes.

That being said, I do apologize for the uncharitable reading, but I honestly did not have the sense that everyone in this thread thinks that Jews had a right to live safely in Israel / wasn't supportive of at least some degree of exiling the Jewish population (and I'm not just talking about the "settlements"). So, it's nice to get some reassurance.

The one thing I'll say in my sort of defense, is I think that I tend to interpret anti-Zionist rhetoric in this thread in the context of other anti-Zionist rhetoric that's more clearly anti-Semitic and genocidal - You know, like "From the River to the Sea", "Make Israel Palestine Again", referring to Jews as being "non-indigenous" to the Middle East, etc. Which I care about as a Jew, even though I have no direct stake in Israel, since I'm American (and honestly support the political realignment suggestions).

I guess my only other thought is that I tend to assume there's a certain amount of advocacy for violent solutions in this thread because I don't get the sense that everyone is imagining any amount of cooperation by (Jewish) Israelis in terms of reorganizing the political structure of the country. So, I wonder about what step 2 is to get to step 3.

But then again, this is a forum, not actual policymaking, so it's not anyone's responsibility to have a concrete play. And I probably should have good faith enough to imagine that posters are generally imagining some kind of peace treaty and not the slaughter of Israel's government and civilian populace.

Saying that they are all living quite fine kinda discounts the rampant Antisemitism imO.

Edited by Forenperser on May 25th 2022 at 6:04:25 PM

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian

Incidentally, I don't in fact think it's true that most American Jews are indifferent or outright opposed to Israel. But I'm not sure offhand of what the latest polls say. AFAIK though, outright anti-Zionist Jews are a minority.

Also, I quite like that name Plurinational State of Jerusalem, since Jerusalem is something that everyone who lives in the area has a connection to (although the parallel to the Crusader State of Jerusalem is not great).

I've actually wondered whether it'd be possible to nudge Israeli domestic politics towards accepting the Palestinian right of return by having Egypt et al. announce a right-of-return policy for the Mizrahi Jews who were expelled from their home countries post-1948. It'd be symbolic for most parts, but it could pave the way by serving as a moral argument ("We're doing it; what's stopping you?") as well as a case study on the practical aspects (e.g. if it's not possible to have families return to their original properties, the government would help them find them a new one with roughly the same value). And it wouldn't even be that unpalatable domestically, considering that nobody in the region is still shying away from working with Israel these days (other than Iran, Syria and Yemen).

Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)

I suspect that would have the opposite effect of underscoring, rather than mitigating, the demographic balance issue.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Could you explain what you think "mitigating the demographic balance issue" would look like?

There is no war in Ba Sing Se.

I think I've written about this a few pages back TL;DR short of an externally-enforced long-duration entente á la Good Friday Accord in Northern Ireland, Israelis may view a Muslim/Arab majority as a threat and Muslim/Arab people an Israeli majority as a threat. See discussions among right wingers about "preserving" Israel's Jewish identity and encouraging Jewish immigration.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

"People think mitigation is necessary" is not really an answer to "what do you think mitigation looks like?" Encouraging Jewish immigration isn't going to change the fact that the Palestinian population is growing exponentially faster. Regardless, I didn't ask what Israeli right-wingers think mitigation looks like. I'd like to hear the people in this thread describe their own views.

Edited by indigoJay on May 25th 2022 at 1:32:01 PM

There is no war in Ba Sing Se.

Just because I can formulate what the problem is does not mean I have a solution for it, sorry.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I definitely don't expect anyone in this thread to solve one of the most complicated geopolitical issues in the world. I do, however, think it's reasonable to ask people to define/expand on the terms they use.

Lots of people are basically saying "mitigating the demographic issue is necessary because Israelis think it's necessary." I have pointed out in response that "mitigating demographic issues" typically means either eugenics, stripping people of their democratic rights, or expelling people from their homes. My argument, then, is that "mitigating demographic issues" isn't necessary, because enabling abuse is a bad and unnecessary thing.

What is necessary is protecting the rights of all groups in the region. My argument is that "mitigating the demographic issue" is not the way to go about it. People then push back on this and say that mitigating the demographic issue is the only way to go about it. I think my request for expansion is entirely fair, especially since people often disguise their support for the horrifying practices I listed above with clinical-sounding phrases like "demographic mitigation."

To be clear, I don't think Septimus (or most people in this thread) actually do support these policies. I simply believe it's important to unpack the phrases that are being thrown around.

There is no war in Ba Sing Se.

Well, the problem is that from Israelis' perspective, not solving the demographics issue means the risk they'll marginalized and mistreated in a Muslim-majority state. Same for Arabs and Hebrew-majority. That many ways to solve the issue are immoral is correct, but the problem needs to be resolved nevertheless.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Yes, and the whites of Apartheid South Africa no doubt felt the same way. The solution is to use whatever efficacious means possible to force them to do the right thing.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

I would like you to clarify what you mean by "whatever efficacious means possible".

Personally, I think a Palestinian right of return is just. And I like the implication that it's being imagined as something that the Israeli populace and government are supporting (presumably with some kind of agreement with Palestine). As opposed to something being imposed after the presumed overthrow of the Israeli government and suppression of its populace.

Edited by Hodor2 on May 25th 2022 at 11:37:53 AM

No, it doesn't work like that (and that's not entirely how the end of Apartheid shook out, either).

You need to square:

1. The desire of Hebrews to not be marginalized and mistreated in a Muslim-majority state.
2. The desire of Muslims to not be marginalized and mistreated in a Hebrew-majority state.
3. The desire that a solution to the problems above not involve genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing or nuclear war or any of these gravely immoral things.

What you are proposing there is ignoring part of the problem. You can't ignore it. See NATO expansion vis-a-vis Russia or since we are talking about South Africa and analogous issues Mugabe's race policies for what happens when you ignore part of the problem. Don't say "but we have #2 already!" because swapping one problem for another isn't actually solving anything. Also, we are solving problems, apportioning blame or pointing fingers is seldom an effective way to do that.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

On the part of the West? Maximal sanctions.

If Russia invading Ukraine is a reason to sanction them then there's no excuse to not sanction Israel.

No, what I'm proposing is giving them some incentive to stop being apartheid supporters. They will never change on their own, we need to stop supporting them and start penalizing them for their ethnonationalism.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 25th 2022 at 11:56:32 AM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Not subsidising the Israeli government's conduct with military aid would already be a good step in the right direction.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on May 25th 2022 at 8:57:45 PM

Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.

I remember reading somewhere that David Ben-Gurion did consider a proportional representation policy at the time which would've been more favorable to the local Palestinians and/or Arabs, but was worried that they would use their demographic majority powers to oppress the minority Jews (remember that this was early in the 20th century right before WWII and the concern over genocide and racial oppression was a very valid concern).

Now that Jews/Hebrews are no longer a demographic minority in the area and thus this kind of political favoritism is no longer necessary to prevent existental threats against them, thus it's no longer as much of an issue, but also nobody is willing to go back and modify that. But the option was on the table and being considered since the earliest days of Israel. There is no real reason not to think about ratifying it now.