Compromising with apartheid [second try]

[S.A.M.]

More specifically trying to understand how one compromises with apartheidL

The only way that the Israel/Palestine situation will ever be resolved is by compromise (leaving out the possibility of genocide of the Palestinian people). This means stopping the yearning for a return to some imagined "glory days" of the ancient past where your side had it all and facing the reality of today. It also means understanding and empathy with the point of view of the other - something in very short supply at the current time. It means asking what is fair for both sides, and not just for your side.

How should for example, Palestinians compromise with a system of government that is based on a Jewish state in a land where foreign Jews have greater rights than indigenous non-Jews?

What kind of compromise is acceptable against such form of racism and also in compliance with the universal declaration of human rights?

How should one approach an understanding of this form of apartheid?

How does one understand such racism?

What makes this form of racism [against indigenous non-Jews] acceptable?

What makes Palestinians less relevant as indigenous peoples than any other? Is it because the genocide was not more thorough and their sheer numbers make them unacceptable as co-inhabitants? Would a greater Palestinian genocide ensure them their rights?

If 6 million Palestinians were massacred, would the remaining survivors be more deserving of living on their dispossessed lands? Or should we wait till all but a million are killed for them to be awarded a state?

Should we empathise with the Israeli desire to support war on unarmed Palestinians in order to reach a compromise that is acceptable to all?



[note: this post assumes that the UDHR is still considered valid as a gold standard of acceptable moral standards for interaction between human beings]

 

[James R]

How should for example, Palestinians compromise with a system of government that is based on a Jewish state in a land where foreign Jews have greater rights than indigenous non-Jews?

The Palestinians need to accept that Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign state. They need to renounce the use of terrorism against Israel and take active steps to police terrorist groups in their territory. They need to negotiate a settlement with Israel over the Palestinian territories.

How should one approach an understanding of this form of apartheid?

One should try to understand the motivations for it. One should then acknowledge any admirable motivations and reject any base motivations.

What makes this form of racism [against indigenous non-Jews] acceptable?

Acceptable for whom?

What makes Palestinians less relevant as indigenous peoples than any other?

To whom?

Is it because the genocide was not more thorough and their sheer numbers make them unacceptable as co-inhabitants?

What genocide?

Would a greater Palestinian genocide ensure them their rights?

Please explain.

If 6 million Palestinians were massacred, would the remaining survivors be more deserving of living on their dispossessed lands? Or should we wait till all but a million are killed for them to be awarded a state?

Sounds like you're trolling again.

Should we empathise with the Israeli desire to support war on unarmed Palestinians in order to reach a compromise that is acceptable to all?

You're stereotyping. Which Israelis are you talking about? Be specific. Name names.

 

[S.A.M.]

The Palestinians need to accept that Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign state. They need to renounce the use of terrorism against Israel and take active steps to police terrorist groups in their territory. They need to negotiate a settlement with Israel over the Palestinian territories.

So it is your contention that Palestinians need to accept that Israelis have a right to give greater rights to all Jews than to indigenous people who are not Jews.

They also need to accept that not being Jews makes them ineligible to live on their lands, as determined by the self defined Jewish state.

Is that your position? Just to be clear.

One should try to understand the motivations for it. One should then acknowledge any admirable motivations and reject any base motivations.

What would you consider an admirable motivation in this form of apartheid?

 

[CheskiChips]

Well by briefly looking at it...I'll show you some things that are directly in opposition to various beliefs.

Article 2:
Israeli's cannot travel to certain foreign countries due to their national origin.

Article 5:
No one abides by this law.

Article 9:
This happens in countries around the world for their country of origin...which is in violation of Article 2.

Article 12:
This doesn't seem to be true by Sharia Law nor the Patriot Act.

Article 13 sec1:
I can't travel to numerous countries because of my passport.

Article 15:
There's numerous people who aren't.

Article 16:
Homosexuals world wide disagree.

Article 18:
Do I need to repeat that this doesn't exist in most Islamic Republics?

Article 19:
I think government run media might make this difficult...and laws against "public display" don't help either.

Article 20:
There you have it again, "Public display" which is banned...is illegal.

Article 21:
Jews have not been permitted to obtain high ranking positions in Islamic countries for decades.

Article 24:
This is not upheld in Africa nor China.

Article 25 sec1:
This is directly antithetical to Capitalist America.

Article 26 sec2:
This just sounds scary..." (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace."

Article 28:
Where is this international court, and how do file a claim?

Article 29 sec3:
" (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Does anyone believe in that, that is...unless you don't have a government?

Article 30:
So...even though Party-A's rights are being infringed upon and no enforcement exists to carry out rectification of the wrong doings...Party-A cannot take into its own hands the ability to STOP Party-B, assuming it's in violation of Article 3. (which it most indefinitely will be if there's war). I know for a FACT, you don't believe that.


-----

So the question is does anyone on the planet actually agree (much less find themselves in abidance) with the UDHR?

 

[S.A.M.]

So the question is does anyone on the planet actually agree (much less find themselves in abidance) with the UDHR?

Indeed. So shall we scrap it? Is the UDHR irrelevant and anachronistic? Should we all embrace tribalistic atavism since its the dominant force that determines what value is placed on human life?

 

[CheskiChips]

It's irrelevant, not anachronistic...because it never had a proper place and time. No one ever wanted to really follow these declarations - no nations have made great efforts to come into compliance.

 

[James R]

So it is your contention that Palestinians need to accept that Israelis have a right to give greater rights to all Jews than to indigenous people who are not Jews.

...

They also need to accept that not being Jews makes them ineligible to live on their lands...

I have said that both sides need to compromise. Israel needs to rethink certain policies.

What would you consider an admirable motivation in this form of apartheid?

I think that in the early days after the establishment of modern Israel, the Jewish people had a strong need for a perceived safe haven. This need arose following a holocaust that killed 6 million. In the early days, Israelis sometimes felt beset by threats from all sides to their new nation, and they required a strong policy of border protection to ensure the safety of their citizens, many of whom had previously been persecuted in Europe.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's irrelevant, not anachronistic...because it never had a proper place and time. No one ever wanted to really follow these declarations - no nations have made great efforts to come into compliance.

But its clear that as human beings we do not see all humans as equally deserving of human rights. Sometimes its not clear if we even see all humans as human beings.

Is Nazism the ideal humans are all reaching out for ?

Should we all embrace our inner Aryan and quit fooling ourselves about seeing all humans as equally deserving?

Are the right wing extremist groups that oppose heterogeneous populations really the ones who have it right?

Should we only focus on "people like us" and leave the foreign elements to look out for themselves?

Is genocide a way of life?

I have said that both sides need to compromise. Israel needs to rethink certain policies.

I think that in the early days after the establishment of modern Israel, the Jewish people had a strong need for a perceived safe haven. This need arose following a holocaust that killed 6 million. In the early days, Israelis sometimes felt beset by threats from all sides to their new nation, and they required a strong policy of border protection to ensure the safety of their citizens, many of whom had previously been persecuted in Europe.

I'm sorry, which is the admirable motivation here? Are you claiming self preservation as a justification for ethnic cleansing?

 

[CheskiChips]

But its clear that as human beings we do not see all humans as equally deserving of human rights. Sometimes its not clear if we even see all humans as human beings.

Is Nazism the ideal humans are all reaching out for ?

Should we all embrace our inner Aryan and quit fooling ourselves about seeing all humans as equally deserving?

Are the right wing extremist groups that oppose heterogeneous populations really the ones who have it right?

A higher percent of Americans have died from car crashes than Palestinians in war. Why not start a crusade over that? Americans are being FORCED to drive to work. Palestinians are choosing to support a government that drives them to war.

 

[S.A.M.]

A higher percent of Americans have died from car crashes than Palestinians in war. Why not start a crusade over that? Americans are being FORCED to drive to work. Palestinians are choosing to support a government that drives them to war.

Why support anything at all? Why not let anyone die or be killed and consider it irrelevant unless it personally affects you? Why bother with hate crimes and human rights? Why care about antisemitism or racism? There's always something going on somewhere else.

If Jews want to keep out non-Jews to keep their Jewish state, so be it.
If non-Jews want to keep out Jews to keep their Aryan state, so be it.

Why care about any of it?

 

[CheskiChips]

If Jews want to keep out non-Jews to keep their Jewish state, so be it.
If Muslims want to keep out Jews to keep their Islamic Republics, so be it.

That sounds like a fair trade to me.

By the way, you know it's different. Jews didn't declare war on Germany...well actually they did, but it was an economic war.

 

[S.A.M.]

That sounds like a fair trade to me.

WHy only limit yourself to Muslims? There have been plenty of pogroms around the non-Muslim world. Clearly, you no longer think anyone should be interested in them either.

Clearly, the next time Jews are targeted as a group, we need not bother with what will happen to them, since they can always move to their Jewish state.

 

[CheskiChips]

No, I just think Muslims and Jews don't get along and should be kept separate.

 

[S.A.M.]

Anti-semitism is a recurring problem in the world. And like many anti-semites you clearly agree that Jews should be separated from those who do not like them.

What happens once all the Jews move to Israel and still no one likes them? Should we send them to outer space?

Or is a desire for self preservation in the gentiles adequate justification for getting rid of all of them?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[pjdude1219]

The Palestinians need to accept that Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign state.

No they don't. Recognize it exists(and that it should exist until such time that a unified state can happen. while yes that state could hold the name Israel it would probably be better off to call it palestine that has less baggage to it) yes but not has a right to exist. Your asking them than to make a specific moral judgement on what happened to them(their dispossession and Israel's refusal to allow them back to their homes(which is in fact a legal right under the fourth geneva convention i believe)) and that judgement is that it was ok. what you asking would be the same thing of asking the native american to say the US has a right to exist as a state or asking the aborigines to say australia has a right to exist. a right to exist implies a right to be created and if already created has a right to be created in that manner that it was. Are you(singular you) willing to say that anyone has the right to dispossess you(collective humanity you) of things you have gained lawfully(Yes i know under Israeli law the jewish settlers were legally able to get that land but since it contradicts international law i feel its invalid also barring that I do believe the precedents stands in almost every country that stolen goods cannot be legiatimly transfered to anyone but the lawful owner of the lawful owners decendants. I believe that the near universality of this allows it to stand precedent in an international dispute like this though that is in the end for the courts to decide.


and about the unified state do i believe it can happen? yes. do i believe it should happen? yes do I believe it will be easy? no do I believe it while likely happen? no

 

[S.A.M.]

There is also the underlying insidious intent to keep out the non-Jewish refugees that are covered by international law in their right of return, which is completely ignored in the narrow minded vision that demands the Palestinians recognise the apartheid rights of a "Jewish" state that does not recognise their indigenous rights under international law.

It would be equivalent to demand that Holocaust survivors recognise the existence of a Nazi state that wishes to maintain a Jew-free demographic.

I wonder if one could come up with an admirable motivation to support that demand.

 

[pjdude1219]

A higher percent of Americans have died from car crashes than Palestinians in war. Why not start a crusade over that? Americans are being FORCED to drive to work. Palestinians are choosing to support a government that drives them to war.

do i get to keep my pro palestinian view cause i'm also for a national mass transit system?

 

[pjdude1219]

There is also the underlying insidious intent to keep out the non-Jewish refugees that are covered by international law in their right of return, which is completely ignored in the narrow minded vision that demands the Palestinians recognise the apartheid rights of a "Jewish" state that does not recognise their indigenous rights under international law.

It would be equivalent to demand that Holocaust survivors recognise the existence of a Nazi state that wishes to maintain a Jew-free demographic.

I wonder if one could come up with an admirable motivation to support that demand.

you really want to get banned again don't you

 

[S.A.M.]

you really want to get banned again don't you

The fact that you think that post can get me banned speaks volumes about how this issue is represented.

If I said that blacks had a right to oppose Jim Crow laws in the US or Aboriginals had a right to demand equal representation in Australia, would you hear any declarations about the admirable motivations behind racism and apartheid in those states? Or platitudes about how blacks/aboriginals should accept the status quo if they want to live in peace?

The fact that Israel is "different" due to some logic which escapes me is quite clearly due to my deficiency in assuming that intolerance to racism should not be based on who makes it state policy.

I clearly lack a perspective that makes some forms of racism more admirable than others. I freely admit my bigotry in being unable to see the difference.

 

[Gustav]

The only way that the Israel/Palestine situation will ever be resolved is by compromise (leaving out the possibility of genocide of the Palestinian people)............................The barriers to such a compromise are almost insurmountable. There is so much history, so much hatred, that rising above it all is all but impossible. In a sense, the people most intimately affected by any "solution" may be the worst people to expect to negotiate such a solution. Many of them do not really want any solution in which they have to give ground.

"the possibility of genocide"

what do you do, james, when all things come to pass as you practically prophesize? give a speech like some of your fellow countrymen did when the jews were being slaughtered like vermin in germany?

*"Australia has her own particular difficulties…migration has naturally been predominantly British, and it (is not) desired that this be largely departed from while British settlers are forthcoming.

Realising the unhappy plight of German and Austrian Jews, they have been included on a pro rata basis comparable with that of any other country…Under the circumstances Australia cannot do more, for it will be appreciated that in a young country manpower from the source from which most of its citizens have sprung is preferred, while undue privileges cannot be given to one particular class of non-British subjects without injustice to others.

It will no doubt be appreciated also that as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one by encouraging any scheme of large-scale foreign migration…I hope that the conference will find a solution of this tragic world problem." (t w white)


* "I desire to discuss what many honourable members might regard as a ticklish subject, namely, the policy of admitting
15 000 Jewish refugees to Australia during the next three years. I do not wish to be misunderstood. My opposition to this proposal is far stronger than if the immigrants were of the Nordic race, and came from Northern European countries, from the north of Italy or from Jugo-Slavia. People from those places would help to develop Australia.

I recognise that many Jews have rendered signal service to humanity, and this is true of the Jews in Australia also. To such men as the late Sir John Monash, and the ex-Governor General, Sir Isaac Isaacs, we must all lift our hats. It seems true, however, that…we have plenty of trades and business people in Australia now, and the Jews who are coming here will be of no help to a producing country like Australia. For every Jew who is given a professional job in Australia, an Australian will be shut out.

Why is it necessary for the Jews to leave Europe? I have no anti-Jewish feeling, and no racial hatred. I recognise that the Australian-born Jew has as much right in Australia as ourselves. They have the same ideals as we have, but the Jew born in Argentina or Germany, or in the United States of America, is international in his outlook. Australian workers are being dismissed, and their place taken by refugees … so far as Australia is concerned they are not required here." (mr green)​

link