The Question of Israel

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

To become a significant miltiary threat, they need to not be that much poorer. There are many other complicating demographic factors, but I wont go into those now.

Who said anything about military threat???

Its a simple democratic threat. If democratic legitimacy is based on national identity, and there are more Palestinians than Jews in "Israel", how can the state be legitimately Jewish?

If there was a two state solution, would you support letting the Arab citizens of Israel, in the areas that are predominantly Arab, chose whether their areas remained as part of a Jewish state? or should there be a plebescite on letting those areas in the galilee become part of an Arab state?

It will also create incentives for cooperation.

Im not saying there wont be tensions,as there are now between the US and Mexico, say. But I can still call mexicans my brothers and sisters.

You maybe, but not most of your fellow citizens, and in a democracy what one individual thinks is not as relevant as what most people think.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Who said anything about military threat???

Its a simple democratic threat. If democratic legitimacy is based on national identity, and there are more Palestinians than Jews in "Israel", how can the state be legitimately Jewish?

Im sorry I misread you, I thought you meant a demographic threat from the West Bank. You mean Israeli Arabs in a post-peace "lesser" Israel?

Frankly I dont see the demographic threat as that serious. Arab Christian birthrates are barely higher than Jewish birthrates anymore, Arab muslim birthrates WERE dropping, though IIRC they have plateaued, but are likely to drop again. Arabs esp Christians have substantial rates of emigration. Jewish birthrates even among the secular have plateaued at levels higher than typical for the West. Jewish Immigration continues, and net Jewish emigration (emigration minus return of earlier emigrants) has declined (And I would expect peace to reinforce those trends) And of course an ever larger portion of the pop IS orthodox, with quite high birthrates.

I also think the state can do more to pressure the rabbinate to ease conversion of non-Jews (mainly non-Jewish immigrants from the FSU with Jewish relations) In extremis, the state could institute secular conversion - anyone willing to adopt a Jewish culture and identity could become a "Jew". Thats what Az supports. I see major problems with it, but its certainly a direction that could be pursued.

If anything, such a course might be impelled not by arab growth, but by the growth of ultra-Orthodox Jews, who are distorting the nature of Israeli society in other ways.

If there was a two state solution, would you support letting the Arab citizens of Israel, in the areas that are predominantly Arab, chose whether their areas remained as part of a Jewish state? or should there be a plebescite on letting those areas in the galilee become part of an Arab state?


You maybe, but not most of your fellow citizens, and in a democracy what one individual thinks is not as relevant as what most people think.

Actually the idea of letting the arabs, not of the Galilee t(the mainly arab areas of which are NOT adjacent to the West Bank - Jewish Afula and lower galillee seperate the mainly arab upper Gal from jenin) but those of the"triangle" on the NW edge of the WB go over to Palestine is QUITE popular among a segment of the Israeli right, led by Avigdor Leiberman. Its increasingly accepted that the Pals will insist on the '49 ceasefire line in PRINCIPLE as a border. The areas in the WB where the most settlements are, and where Israel has security interests, will therefore, require territorial compensation to Pal. The standard thought is that they get some empty areas of the Negev. Leiberman wants to give them the Arab villages of the Triangle. problem is, the Israeli arabs dont want to go to pal, they want to stay in Israel. Leiberman would say its cause they want to take over Israel as a Pal state, and so they should be sent off against their will (transfer in place, so to speak) Its quite explicable, however, that they simply want to stay in the Israeli wage zone and social service system. Given that, the left has no stomach for transfer in place, as that would seem to deny arabs their rights as citizens. Much as Id like to ease the demographic situation, I dont see any future in "transfer in place", not unless conditions get much worse.


I suppose one option would be to give the arabs of the triangle, and perhaps of Galillee too, the right to become citizens of Palestine, and cast their votes their, while retain their economic rights in Israel. Some recipricty could allow settlers to remain in areas under Pal rule, as Israeli citizens. Begin to de-territorialize citizenship. That is of course impossible until tensions are very low (otherwise the non-resident citizens become potential flash points) and has issues from the democratic theory POV as well (shouldnt i be voting for the govt whose policie directly impact ME?) OTOH we live in the age of the interweb, and maybe things will evolve in directions we cannot now foretell.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


You maybe, but not most of your fellow citizens, and in a democracy what one individual thinks is not as relevant as what most people think.

In 1981, pre-intifadah, I met an Israeli with close friends in the settlements, who was quick to point out the good relations the settlers had with the local arab villagers. I think those settlers were sincerely proud of that (even if it was illusory) Even the settlers had no particular racial hate of the arabs, not of those arabs they saw as accepting their settlements. Now its clear now no arabs will accept the settlements in the interior of the WB, and the settlers will never like arabs again as long as they live.

But I think most pragmatic rightwingers, even those who would oppose a peace deal now, will manage to overcome their dislike of Arabs if a peace holds. I doubt they will be as effusive as me (though of course theres a minority on the left who are far more effusive than me - they dont hold the Pals as our brothers, they hold the Pals as morally superior to the Israeli right, at least) but I think change in hearts will take place.

Of course the level of tensions post peace will determine the rate at which hate fades.

I am more confident wrt Pals though, then wrt to Egyptians. Egyptians can ignore Israel. Pals, if the peace is going to work at all, are going to have to work together with Israelis on a daily basis.

[lord of the mark]

a little story about births

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/891357.html

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In 1981, pre-intifadah, I met an Israeli with close friends in the settlements, who was quick to point out the good relations the settlers had with the local arab villagers. I think those settlers were sincerely proud of that (even if it was illusory) Even the settlers had no particular racial hate of the arabs, not of those arabs they saw as accepting their settlements. Now its clear now no arabs will accept the settlements in the interior of the WB, and the settlers will never like arabs again as long as they live.

But I think most pragmatic rightwingers, even those who would oppose a peace deal now, will manage to overcome their dislike of Arabs if a peace holds. I doubt they will be as effusive as me (though of course theres a minority on the left who are far more effusive than me - they dont hold the Pals as our brothers, they hold the Pals as morally superior to the Israeli right, at least) but I think change in hearts will take place.

Of course the level of tensions post peace will determine the rate at which hate fades.

I am more confident wrt Pals though, then wrt to Egyptians. Egyptians can ignore Israel. Pals, if the peace is going to work at all, are going to have to work together with Israelis on a daily basis.

"Racial hate" has little to do with the inherent problem. The inherent problem is saying that "this land belongs to this people." Even if you don't hate the others, you still think that you have some greater right to the land. Maybe those settlers you spoke with did not hate their Palestinian neighbors, but would any of those settlers have said that those Palestinians had an equal claim to the whole land to those they made?

[Sirotnikov]

"Racial hate" has little to do with the inherent problem. The inherent problem is saying that "this land belongs to this people." Even if you don't hate the others, you still think that you have some greater right to the land. Maybe those settlers you spoke with did not hate their Palestinian neighbors, but would any of those settlers have said that those Palestinians had an equal claim to the whole land to those they made?

This problem is the case for both sides. Most Palestinians would tell you that the land where Tel Aviv or Haifa is belongs to their people.

So I don't see the point you're aiming at, when finger pointing the settlers as a problem source.

Infact, there are more people on the Israeli side that have come to terms with a territorial settlement being the just thing to do, than there are on the Palestinian side.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

This problem is the case for both sides. Most Palestinians would tell you that the land where Tel Aviv or Haifa is belongs to their people.

So I don't see the point you're aiming at, when finger pointing the settlers as a problem source.

Who the hell is pointing blame solely at the settlers? I was replying to LoTM's post. Besides, the settlements are illegal anyways.

Infact, there are more people on the Israeli side that have come to terms with a territorial settlement being the just thing to do, than there are on the Palestinian side.

Of course there are, from the beginning the Israeli side has always been more willing to accept a settlement, as it is the Israelis who are (relatively) new to the region .

I always find it so strange that israelis don't seem to see why Palestinians (and a lot of third world peoples) see them as no different than any other European colonialists.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

Its a simple democratic threat. If democratic legitimacy is based on national identity, and there are more Palestinians than Jews in "Israel", how can the state be legitimately Jewish?

Remember these are "magic Jews" we are talking about. The ones whose lives, welfare and opinions are worth ten times as much as some Palestinian.

[Zevico]

The whole demographics argument has always struck me as a bit strange. A majority of Palestinians on the East side of the Jordan, as long as that majority is situated within the West Bank and Gaza, is irrelevant. Israel can simply choose not to annex Palestinian cities and towns whilst annexing whichever Israeli settlements that may be convenient.
Palestinians clamouring for a bi-national state would be as about as convincing to Israelis as a one-state Palestine-fits-all solution.

[Sirotnikov]

Besides, the settlements are illegal anyways.

They are just as legal as Palestinian cities set up since 1918.

I always find it so strange that israelis don't seem to see why Palestinians (and a lot of third world peoples) see them as no different than any other European colonialists.

I always find it odd that lefties see colonialism where there isn't one.


Immigrating Jews were not foreign colonialists, did not represent a foreign power and had no interest in taking over the local population. Beyond the local Jewish population in Tiberias, Jerusalem, Akko etc, many of the immigrating Jews had long ties to the local population often visiting them or supporting them financially for ages.

A proportion of Palestinians are also not in a good position to claim the right of original inhabitants, as many of those found their way to the areas now in Israel due to historically recent changes in economy in the area, much of it due to booming influx of foreigner diplomats and representatives from Europe, as well as an influx of migrating jews.

Heavy handedly appying the label "colonization" is misleading for this very unique history.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

That would hardly explain why in much of the West there is a bitterness toward Israel that far exceeds that of Mohammed Abbas or Saeeb Erakat. Why so many western intellectuals, including Jews like Tony Judt, loudly demand a single state solution, while many Palestinians seem to not only accept, but even prefer a two state solution.

Because Judt & Co aren't the ones would have to share a state with the Israelis?

It's easy to demand a liberal, supranational state. It is, no doubt, less easy, to accept living it it oneself, especially if one's at the head of a nationalist government.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
They are just as legal as Palestinian cities set up since 1918.

By settlements I mean those set but by Israeli governments in lands beyond the green zone after 1967.

Immigrating Jews were not foreign colonialists, did not represent a foreign power and had no interest in taking over the local population.

European colonists and French colonist and Dutch colonists had no interest in taking over local populations either. They were interested in taking over THE LAND which happened to be inhabited by anogther people. And colonist do not need to go as agents of some other state. Of course, in the case of jewish settler fro Europe, they were going with the support or aquiecense of Imperial powers (Ottoman, British) and not with the support of the local population.

Beyond the local Jewish population in Tiberias, Jerusalem, Akko etc, many of the immigrating Jews had long ties to the local population often visiting them or supporting them financially for ages.

And the vast majority of the immigrants had no real connection to anyone living there.

A proportion of Palestinians are also not in a good position to claim the right of original inhabitants, as many of those found their way to the areas now in Israel due to historically recent changes in economy in the area, much of it due to booming influx of foreigner diplomats and representatives from Europe, as well as an influx of migrating jews.

And yet these palestinians were culturally similar if not the same to the local inhabitants, meaning that those Palestinians who already lived there might have not been happy about population increase, but would not consider them foreign, like they would individuals with a totally different culture and language.

And as of 1947, the Palestinians were still a supermajority ( 2/3 or more) of the population of the mandate

Heavy handedly appying the label "colonization" is misleading for this very unique history.

And yet Zionist "pioneers" spoke in the language of colonization. A "land without a people for a people without a land"? The slogans of the early zionist leaders were fully in line with the "White Man's Burden" mentality of European control over the world, of spreading EUROPEAN civilization accross the globe. It would be a lie to ever state that Zionist dreamers foresaw Israel as in any way different from the Europe they were coming from - they had no intention of melting in or adapting themselves to the local population.

What term could be used BUT colonization? cause it simple is not comparable to regular demographic shifts as populations migrate around without much thought to what goes on, and it was not a simple process of a soverign state allowing in immigrants, especially after the British takeover and the creation of the mandate.