"Liberal" American Jew equates civic equality with genocide

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Speaking of Reading Incomprehension 101 (did you pass or fail? and which is worse?): you're more for the choice you think is less beneficial to Palestinians?

Are you perhaps then a Saidist sadist?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Hey, Bells: look, I was all nice back on my first comment to Sam. But lookie this! Tsk, tsk.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Play nice GeoffP, she might bring out the whips and chains for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i suppose
pros and cons to both approaches?

 

Yes. The more beneficial solution for one may not be the best solution for both

Off the top of my head

Two state solution:

Palestinian refugees get a homeland - if they want it

They benefit from the security that borders will bring, although like Lebanon and Syria, it will not mean complete freedom from Israeli incursions.

Palestinians gain economic independence and can participate as global citizens yet retain their identity. Right now they are completely cut off - as politicians, as academics, as artists, as entrepreneuers, as financial institutions - most people are hard pressed to name a single Palestinian artist or entrepreneur. Even their poets, writers, actors and journalists come to the world stage through other country platforms[compare the exposure that Taghreed El-Khodary of NYT in Gaza gets in comparison to Isabel Kershner/Ethan Bronner of NYT Jerusalem] Their sports participation is almost zero.

Cons:

They still have 500,000 settlers to deal with. Moreover this is an armed, militant, religious fundamentalist group which considers them as less than human

They will have to fight to retain control over their natural resources and the way the world treats them, this may not work out in their favour - Israel wants both the West Bank aquifers (utilising 90% of its output at last count) as well as the natural offshore gas in Gaza.

There will be checkpoints galore as they meander from one part of Israel to another part of Palestine since there is no contiguity

Israel will still act the occupier since there is no real check on its actions - it will continue to radicalise as politicians exploit sentiment for personal gain and ultimately this will be very bad for Israel. And possibly for Jews elsewhere

The Palestinians will still not be allowed to defend themselves

One state

Pros: Palestinians and Israelis will be forced to deal with each other. One of the best cures for bigotry is exposure.

Currently, Israelis are more and more isolated against the world - they also seem to exist in a form of paranoia which while most dangerous to themselves is also dangerous to anyone who gets sucked into their problems. One state will take care of that by bringing Israel back into the fold rather than sticking it into isolation.

Palestinian refugees will be absorbed where they are and Israeli Jews will gain an entree into ME society - which, they may not realise it yet, is more suited to their mindset than the western one.

In the long term, this is the only solution which will last.

cons:

Israelis are still manic about their Jewish state and Jewish demographics. That does not seem to be changing anytime soon. Some of the things they have done even to Jews, just to make up the numbers are proof of their extremism.

It will take several generations before peace will occur.

 

Wow, I actually agree with the vast bulk of what SAM just wrote, didn't see that coming. I believe secularism and pluralism will eventually be the dominant forces in the region, and I know plenty of Muslims who would fit into that mentality without trouble and still retain their religious beliefs and practices. If the middle east takes that route, I can't see a two-state solution lasting forever, because at that point it would be state of Israel vs. state of humanity.

 

why bother? the nuanced argument escapes those that see in black and white

yeah
i chose not to whine like a bitch in eliciting a response (not that i think you whine)

 

Mostly so far it's been licorice whips and daisy chains. I'm not too worried.

So...by choosing the option less advantageous for the Palestinians...you're choosing the option more advantageous for the Israelis?

I read through your list: the best solution to bigotry is sometimes exposure, but how is this solution going to work in that way? All kinds of religious minorities have "exposure" in the exact same social way in which you describe, but I don't think there's any bigotry deficit in those countries (cf.: the Ottoman Armenians). You need something a bit more comprehensive. How is this plan going to - definitively - prevent oppression and exploitation? I'm all for getting people to work together by being around each other, but this is a glue-them-together-and-que-sera-sera scenario here.

 

Here is a novel thought experiment - something can be less beneficial* for the Palestinians without being simultaneously more advantageous for the Israelis.


In a two state solution, there will be a Palestine, with a Palestinian identity and Palestinians as first class citizens, free to determine their own destiny - within the limitations that come with Israel as a neighbour.

In a one state solution, Palestinians will be in a negative power dynamic with the Israelis. Think colonials and native Americans, colonials and South African blacks, colonials and aboriginal tribes in Australia, colonials and first nation in Canada. Yes, there will be a very very gradual assimilation process, but for the next 400-500 years there will be the power dynamic that persists between the colonisers and the colonised.

Will this be an advantage for Israel? Heck no, they will be shitting bricks with every additional Palestinian added to their gene pool.

On the other hand, ignorance is always bliss.

*advantageous has a subtly different meaning - i.e. furnishing convenience or opportunity -and I am persnickety about precision in speech and writing so beneficial as in conducive to personal or social well-being.

You can learn some from people who see things your way, but more from those who don't.

 

So you prefer a solution simultaneously beneficial for no one. Ah! I see. (I appreciate your self-defined persniction; yet if we must consider the welfare of two parties in opposition, 'advantageous' is not a term with great controversy in interpretation.) I thank you for your candor, anyway: but your power dynamic still seems very uncertain. Other minorities in the ME went to extirpation in much the same way.

If you say so. But if we return to the plan: history does not uniformly support the melting pot, and not in the ME in particular.

 

Something about zero-sum; or am I missing something?

Out of curiosity, if the fundamental difference is whether or not the opposition of the two entities can be described as a zero sum game, I would think the word could spark tremendous controversy. What am I missing here?

That is, in a zero sum relationship, what is to the advantage of one is equally detrimental to the other.

In other relationships, this is not necessarily so.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrongly, but it seems to me that the difference between those two conditions, in terms of the presupposition of any given argument, can make a world of difference in the outcomes, as well.

 

I (think I) see S.A.M.'s point and concur:

The Jews can either become this paranoid little enclave of beseigement, or they can open out into the broader world...and the latter's really likely to better for their long-term survival and well-being, even though they themselves do not realize it?
And they can best become part of the broader world by creating a communal state with the Palestinians?

 

I can see why you would think that. And perhaps that is how the world turns these days. Consider however that there are no enclaves of Armenian Christians or Maronite Christians or Samaritans that have survived outside the Middle East for over a thousand years. Consider that there are still what we call Syrian Christians who maintain their little niche in South India - just as Persian Jews maintain theirs in Iran

Hence my statement:

IOW, Israelis are fighting a western war with Palestinians; because in the Middle East Jews do not have to choose between being ethnocentric or being assimilated

As compared to what place? I'm not surprised you see I-P issues as a zero sum game, or that which benefits one must necessarily destroy the other Its a cultural handicap in your society where coexistence is genocide or conformity.

Btw, Happy Easter

Christians in Palestine - in pictures: http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/christians-in-palestine-in-pictures/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It IS POSSIBLE. Afternoon prayers, religious Jews, Christians and Muslims- under the same roof and at the same moment​

 

Heh

They do often have to choose between flight and oppression, however. What would happen in such a single state when the old prejudices came out again? Answer: probably 1948 again. I don't think rebooting the original civil war is a good idea, me.

While your above comments are - chuckle - farcical, I suppose I must opine that I'm not surprised your thrust is avoidance of recent history in favor. It's a cultural handicap of yours to only think about the long-term advantages of one side, and relegate the other to persisting or fleeing.

Thankyou. Happy Easter to you also.

 

It seems to me there is a lot of judgemental posts in here when what is "good" and "bad" or "fair" has really nothing to do with it. To me, the question is "what is the cause and effect that led to this result" and "what happens next'"

We subtly encouraged the shipping off of Hollocost survivers and their occupation of Palestine because we did not want boatloads of their empoverished refugees. Then we began giving total diplomatic, financial and military support to keep them there. We could foist them on the Muslims because we were strong and they weren't.

The problem is that Muslims had once built a great civilization and were proud of it. They deeply resented our imposing this foreign blot on them. It was and still is one of the Muslim's most "holy" places. Mohammed himself was supposed to have flown up for a visit with God and Christ from its Temple Mount.

So, it would be foolish to think we will ever have real peace with Islam as long as we keep all that support for Israel. Indeed, since Israel has atomic missiles able to hit even Europe, she could survive even without our help now. We keep it up anyway because "Israel is the only friend we have in the Near East." (I wonder why . . .)

brough
civilization-overview dot com

 

It's a religious issue, especially for Muslims, who cannot handle any reduction in Islamic lands. For them, this is a struggle to take over the world for Islam. Just like there cannot be former Muslims, there cannot be former Muslim territories.

 

No doubt there are still many Muslims who think that way, but there are also plenty of Jews and Christians who think the Jewish people are religiously entitled to exclusive domain over the land, including the occupied West Bank, Gaza and well beyond- I think they're just as problematic. I know plenty of Muslims who don't care too much about Israel's borders and just want to get a nation for the Palestinians and start building trade ties. I also know lots of Muslims who aren't happy with Israel's existence and feel it's on stolen land, but are prepared to accept it nonetheless, i.e. basically hitting the reset button.

If I were Israeli I'd actually be counting my blessings and taking advantage of the situation to conduct diplomacy without delay, I'm truly bamboozled that they stall over even the most trivial border issues... There are several conflicts and issues in the middle east that stir even greater emotions than the Palestinian question, I never realized how deep some of these divides actually run until recently.

 

And their various other neighbors, of course, many of which have checkered histories when it comes to the Palestinians. Such being the standard set of limitations on any nation-state. They are not islands, generally.

Aren't they already in a negative power dynamic with the Israelis? Not seeing how redrawing lines on a map is going to change that, as such.

? Gene pool? Are you talking about a one-state solution with two nations included, or a one-nation solution? This part seems ill-posed. It's the electoral pool that seems to concern the parties to the conflict.

That there exist ethnic enclaves in various places misses the point. Neither the Israelis or the Palestinians are out to simply persist as an isolated ethnic enclave. They want to exist as nations with political sovereignty over a national homeland, just like pretty much everyone else in the world: hence the conflict. There are important differences between nations and vanilla "ethnic groups" that you are failing to aknowledge here. Syrian Christian is not a nationality; neither is Persian Jew.

So, this novel term "western war:" what does it mean? A conflict premised on a dichotomy between "ethnocentricism" and "assimilation," apparently? That seems rather obtuse - it fails to explain most of the wars the Western World has exhibited, both large and small. And the identification of ethnic identity conflicts with "westernism" is inane on its face - that shit happens all over the place and time. The region in question is just now coming off of a decades-long embrace of Arab Nationalism, for one obvious, pertinent example.

It seems that "the west" is merely some screen onto which you project whichever political aspects you wish to villify or reject on a particular day.

I'm surprised that anybody would suggest, with a straight face, that a political contest over a fixed area of land can be anything other than a zero-sum game. Every inch of land that one side gets, is an inch of land that the other side does not get. That's pretty much the definition of a zero-sum game.

The insistence that such a game can be escaped through the nations party to it somehow unilaterally deciding to cease to exist - give up on national sovereignty and go back to being vanilla "ethnic groups" - is not a useful insight derived from a unique cultural perspective. It's just stupid. It misses all of the salient features that drive the conflict - it demonstrates only that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. And the persistent tactic of exploiting presumed PC deferrence to claims to speak for some alien cultural perspective, as a cover for poorly-thought-out individual ideas like that, does a disservice both to the identity groups you arrogate the voice of, and the discourse here. It's an open pretext to this kind of shit-flinging cultural grudge match:

It's an individual handicap in your personality where you go around picking fights with strangers by belittling their cultures on stilted grounds like that. You should stop doing that, if you want to have any credibility as some "voice of reason" on issues like the I/P conflict. You're clearly just another cheap partisan from the other end of the world who'll shamelessly exploit the I/P conflict as a pretext to push your pet biases and create drama.

 

It seems that dialogue on the one state /two state solution for Israel in Palestine is considered as being "good for Jews"

from mondoweiss:

note that these are liberal American Jews debating on support for Israel in Palestine


And an interesting POV from "the other side" on the subject:

Again, this is a liberal American Jew on the status of Israel in Palestine

One more from Magnes Zionist: