babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Why the "road map" is doomed

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why the "road map" is doomed
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 18 June 2003 09:50 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only way out: a "binational state."

http://tinyurl.com/eofa


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 20 June 2003 11:57 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The introduction of the Road Map and it's implementation defines the dividing lines amongst the two sides between the moderates and the extremists.

I wonder whatever became of the Saudi Peace plan? It had all 22 Arab governments in agreement and didn't ask for right of return just fair compensation.


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 12:02 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
The only way out: a "binational state."

http://tinyurl.com/eofa


And this will mean the end of the Jewish state. It is the final solution to the question of a Jewish state. Please Josh don't feed into this. Those that advocate the end of a Jewish state IMHO cross the line.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 12:20 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shame on you Mishei! You denounce those who make comparisons between Israel and the Nazis, the treatment of Palestinians and the Holocaust yet you invoke an outrageous Holocaust anology by using the phrase "final solution" to describe Benvenitzki's plan for a binational state. You're no better than those right wing Israelis who invoke the Holocaust and the Nazis at the drop of a hat to describe any concession to the Palestinians. So much for your consistency. If you were really consistent in your views that comparisons to the Nazis and the Holocaust are minimisation exercises then you would not make the same comparisons yourself.

A binational state is not the liquidation of the idea of a Jewish homeland. It is the only solution that recognises the rights of both peoples and that looks forward to integration and multicultural coexistance rather than domination of one group by another through the creation of Palestinian Bantustans dominated by Israel.

Benvenitzki himself says of the Roadmap:

quote:

Seemingly, the principle of "two states for two peoples" and the principle of national sovereignty won. But, in effect, what's being proposed is a regime of ethnic cantons inside a geopolitical unit comparable to the old South Africa, in which the connection between land and nationalism is only safeguarded for the dominant Jewish nationality.

What "line" does Benvenitzki cross, Mishei? The line that divides a medaeval linkage of ethnicity and land from a modern democratic state based not on ethnic or religious cleavages but on citizenship?

I recall hearing complaints from South Africa that ending apartheid would mean the end of "Afrikanerdom" and the vision of an Afrikaans state as well however the new South Africa has not resulted in a "final solution" for white Afrikaans speaking South Africans but has rather integrated them into a broader mosaic.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 12:27 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:
Shame on you Mishei! You denounce those who make comparisons between Israel and the Nazis, the treatment of Palestinians and the Holocaust yet you invoke an outrageous Holocaust anology by using the phrase "final solution" to describe Benvenitzki's plan for a binational state.
Call "shame" all you want. I am a Zionist from the Meretz camp. I believe, as do all Jews who are Zionists on the left, with all my soul in the absolute necessity of a Jewish state. History demands it . Jews with history know full well the ultimate fate of Jews and Judaism without a Jewish state.

For the vast vast majority of Jews those who advocate an bilateral state advocate the destruction of Judaism and quite possibly the ultimate end of the Jewish people. I will speak out forcefully against those, Jew and non-Jew alike, who take such poisonous positions.

So call "shame" all you want but I will stand up for Jewish honour and dignity.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 12:32 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are evidently unaware that Hashomer Hatzair, the movement that founded Mapam (which is now the core of Meretz) itself favoured a binational state and voted against the Biltmore Plan for those reasons. If you were truly a Zionist of the Meretz camp, at least one with any roots, you would see that binationalism is not inconsistent with Zionism.

I don't know if any close relatives of yours suffered or died in the Holocaust but as someone who is in that position I deeply resent your playing fast and loose with Holocaust terminology in order to discredit what you see as a "threat" to Zionism. A binational state would not herd Jews into concentration camps and gas chambers. How dare you make the comparison and how dare you claim that making the comparison makes you "honourable".

If your attitude is represenative of Zionism, it's no wonder that academics like Professor Akenson at Queen's, an expert on Ireland (and neither a republican nor unionist but an admirer of Conor Cruise O'Brien), draws comparisions between Protestant Ulsterman, Afrikaners and Israelis.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 12:41 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:
You are evidently unaware that Hashomer Hatzair, the movement that founded Mapam (which is now the core of Meretz) itself favoured a binational state and voted against the Biltmore Plan for those reasons. If you were truly a Zionist of the Meretz camp, at least one with any roots, you would see that binationalism is not inconsistent with Zionism.
And you know there was a large contigent of Meretzniks who voted AGAINST the plan..in fact it was very close with, as I recall, MK Naomi Chazan the most vocal.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 12:46 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Binational state is only solution, Israel journalist maintains in S.F.

ALEXANDRA J. WALL

Jewish Bulletin Staff


Israeli journalist Amira Hass does not consider herself a rebel. But the fact that she lived in the Gaza Strip for three years, and now lives in Ramallah --both Palestinian Authority-ruled areas which most Israelis will never set foot in -- doesn't exactly put her in step with her fellow citizens.

And when she says she moved to Gaza because "I fell in love with the Gazans -- how warm and welcoming they are," when the majority of Israelis are unable to count one Palestinian among their friends, it becomes absolutely clear that she does not espouse the standard Israeli party line.

Hass, who was in town recently to speak in conjunction with the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, discussed her work and her views in an interview.

An award-winning correspondent for the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, Hass is the author of "Drinking the Sea at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land Under Siege," which was reissued recently in paperback.

Her decision to move to the place so reviled by Israelis that a common way to say "go to hell" in Hebrew is lech l'Aza -- literally, "go to Gaza" -- was a professional one.

Gaza was her reportorial beat in 1992 when Israel deported some Islamic activists and placed the 147-square-mile strip, home to some 1 million inhabitants, under curfew and a closure. No journalists were allowed in to report on life under the closure. But with her contacts, Hass managed to slip across the border.

After the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993, Hass began going to Gaza several times a week. Assigned to cover the transition to Palestinian rule, she realized that her stories would lack the immediacy of those written by someone actually living through the changes.

"How could I understand a society and write about it without actually being in the middle of it?" she writes in the introduction of her book.

"I was, it seemed, like any other journalist sent to cover a foreign country. To most Israelis, though, my move seemed outlandish, even crazy, for they believed I was surely putting my life at risk."

The only child of Holocaust survivors who were active in the Communist Party, Hass said the principles of equality were strong in her household, factors that were a "melange" affecting her upbringing. She was raised on her parents' stories as refugees and survivors -- her mother was at Bergen-Belsen and her father was confined in a ghetto. But she also heard about those who took a stand against injustice, and those who were merely bystanders.

"In the end, my desire to live in Gaza stemmed neither from adventurism nor from insanity, but from that dread of being a bystander, from my need to understand, down to the last detail, a world that is, to the best of my political and historical comprehension, a profoundly Israeli creation," she writes. "To me, Gaza embodies the entire saga of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it represents the central contradiction of the State of Israel -- democracy for some, dispossession for others; it is our exposed nerve."

If Gaza is Israel's "exposed nerve," as Hass writes, she believes in exposing it further still. Even the peace camp, she charges, chooses not to concern itself with just how bad the living conditions there are, and how such misery and desperation fosters more hatred -- not to mention terrorism. Her willingness to confront this unpleasant aspect of the conflict has made her rather controversial in some Israeli circles.

Hass calls what's been in effect since the Oslo accords a "neo-occupation," since Palestinians, in many cases, have less freedom of movement than they did before.

She repeatedly refers to "the so-called peace process," because she believes that any settlement based on pre-existing conditions is "based on our -- meaning Israel's -- demographic and military superiority."

The only way for a true peace to happen, Hass believes, is for the two parties to return to the terms of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, calling for a complete return to the pre-1967 borders. Israel cannot be selective when it decides which U.N. resolutions it accepts and rejects, she said.

That is especially true when talking about the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. "The feelings and welfare of a settler is always worth more than a Palestinian who lives nearby," she said. "If we build a peace based on the superiority of the Jews, it will eventually blow up in our faces."

The Law of Return for Jews is problematic as long as there is no similar principle in effect for Palestinians. "Jews from all over the world are still allowed to come here while people born here more than 53 years ago, who still have keys to their homes, cannot come back to live with their relatives," she said.

Hass also warned of a solution based on religion, which she said was evident in the Camp David discussions on Jerusalem.

Departing from the views of most Israelis, Jews and President Clinton, who took Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to task for not being more willing to compromise at Camp David, Hass said this time it was the Jews who missed the opportunity.

Though Hass tries to refrain from making predictions about the future, she believes the only workable solution to the Mideast conflict is not a two-state solution, but a one-state solution. Whether it takes 50 years or 200, whatever entity that will finally exist in the disputed piece of land can no longer be an exclusively Jewish state.

And the Palestinians in the territories are not the only reason why, Hass maintains. There are 1 million Arabs living in Israel who do not have the same rights as Jews, and are therefore second-class citizens. "Any society that is built upon regressive laws toward another people is not Jewish," she said.

Hass envisions a state in which Jews and Palestinians live side by side, both having equal rights, and both respecting the rights and entitlement of the other.

"The binational state is the peaceful solution," she said. "The Palestinians are fighting for their rights. [The desire for] equality is universal, as basic as eating and sleeping."

General wisdom might dictate that as the child of Holocaust survivors, she would feel the necessity for a Jewish state. But in Hass' case, it's the opposite. She says she can relate more to the Palestinians as people because of her own parents' experiences as refugees.

Having the Holocaust in her family has made Hass an outspoken advocate against injustice. The legacy of the Holocaust, she said, "never really goes away."


"Drinking the Sea at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land Under Siege" by Amira Hass (379 pages, Henry Holt, $16).



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 21 June 2003 01:01 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Good article, myself have also come to the conclusion that the two state solution will only perpetuate the hostillity. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis will be much better off in the long run if they can share the use of the land. And in the end it will protect the Israelis better then nuclear weapons, if they form a common country with the Palestinians, against possible hostility from neighbouring countries. The Israelis have to overcome their fear, a fear that results in the terrorization of the Palistinians. I do not remember who posted this story about the gas-chambers, where the strongest would climb on the weaker to get the last breath of fresh air, but that is the impression one could get of this conflict. If the Israelis would only realise that there is enough fresh air for all and that there is no need to trample in panic on the innocent.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 01:14 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Realistically, I think a binational state isn't practical in the short term, there's just too much mutual hostility and the demand is not popular in the West Bank or Gaza since what a binational state would require is for both sides to give up their claims to narrow ethnically based states. Palestinians want the Israelis out of their lives as much as the Israelis want the Palestinians out of theirs.

The best thing in the immediate future is for Israel to withdraw entirely from the West Bank and Gaza, allow some sort of trasportation corridor between the two (as there was between West Berlin and West Germany) and not try to impose itself on the new Palestinian entity forcing it to be subservient, some sort of junior partner, to Israeli hegemony and economic, military and political dominance.

For an eventual binational state to work the Palestinians and Israelis would have to be equal partners and that's just not likely in the near future.

With peace Israel may become confident enough to allow Israeli Arabs full equal rights. Once Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews become equals then bringing Palestinians (ie residents of the West Bank and Gaza) and Israelis closer together becomes more of a possibility.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 21 June 2003 01:34 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
You are fast, Mycroft.

I know there are things to be said for the slow approach, but at times the shock treatment to do the whole thing at once can be such a release. The fall of the Berlin wall was a bit like that, although the comparison would have to end there.

I enjoyed the Hass article.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 01:50 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You never know. Consciousness can move very fast in revolutionary situations and if the Jewish and Palestinian working classes link up, anything is possible.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 June 2003 02:01 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is the final solution to the question of a Jewish state. Please Josh don't feed into this. Those that advocate the end of a Jewish state IMHO cross the line.

I know Mycroft called you on this already, but this is such a low trick it's hard to believe, especially as you were foaming at the mouth earlier about those who draw Israeli-nazi parallels.

"cross the line"? The antisemite line again, or some other boundary in your feverish imagination?

This is nuts.

And regarding the binational state, I think it is the most satisfactory solution. Some may argue that a militarily strong Israel is the best protection for Jews. It may seem so in 2003. But try finding Prussia or Sparta on a map. Not the same situation as the Middle East, you suggest?

Then try to find the County of Tripoli or the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Hasn't enough happened in the last century to discredit blut und boden nationalism? It seems that some people willfully refuse to learn any lessons from history.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 June 2003 02:08 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Call "shame" all you want. I am a Zionist from the Meretz camp. I believe, as do all Jews who are Zionists on the left, with all my soul in the absolute necessity of a Jewish state. History demands it . Jews with history know full well the ultimate fate of Jews and Judaism without a Jewish state.

For all that I am a proponent of nationalism and the strengthening of the nation-state, mine is not biologically based nor is it ethnically based.

I have some problems with your form of it, being as it implies that only Jews can be Israeli nationalists by virtue of some magical gestalt inherent in the Judaic consciousness.

Who is to say that an atheist cannot be an Israeli nationalist and wish to safeguard the presence of Israel?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 21 June 2003 09:41 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I'm to read this correctly, then demographics can potentially be the end of Israel? If this is the case perhaps Israelis could start producing massive amounts of children like some of their Palestinian neighbours.
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 10:01 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For all that I am a proponent of nationalism and the strengthening of the nation-state, mine is not biologically based nor is it ethnically based.

I have some problems with your form of it, being as it implies that only Jews can be Israeli nationalists by virtue of some magical gestalt inherent in the Judaic consciousness.

Who is to say that an atheist cannot be an Israeli nationalist and wish to safeguard the presence of Israel?


Never try to read by implication. There are many non-Jews who are Zionists. All I have said and hold to (despite Al, Mycroft et al) is that for the vast vast majority of Jews Israel as a Jewish state is a "fence of protection". Our tragic history demands such defence or as history has shown we can (and quite possibly WILL) be wiped out. While others here may be willing to take this chance I am not.

As for the Haas article, her Communist backround informs her entire position. She is less than a minority view in Israel and is barely given the time of day in most mainstream Jewish circles around the world.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 June 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Our tragic history demands such defence or as history has shown we can (and quite possibly WILL) be wiped out.

All "races" and cultures will be wiped out, eventually, and just become history to the new generations, even if they might associate themselves absurdly with long-lost nations. I'm some kind of Irish-Scottish Canadian, but what is my real connection to these groups who were my anscestors?

People come together, split apart, interbreed, grow and adapt. There's a fair amount of violence in there too, but that's not the main reason that cultures don't survive. They don't survive because life changes and grows or it stagnates and dies. Granted, the Jewish culture has been unusually tenacious in this regard, especially considering the lack of a set of borders to keep it together, but it's just a matter of time.

Judaism has had to grow and adapt to survive anyhow. Is it really the same thing as it was 2000 years ago, or does it just please you to call it that? I doubt the nomadic patriarchs would be too happy with the society they found in modern-day Israel if they wandered into it. Maybe you should just create a new name for your culture, and then you can stop believing that there is some unbroken line between yourselves and semetic tribes of distant millenia, as well as dispense with the fiction that you have some intrinsic claim to a patch of land that features prominantly in your classical literature.

Hate to be the guy to burst your bubble, Mishei, but try as you might, Judaism will fade away like everything fades away, and become something new. That's what history really demands.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 12:49 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hate to be the guy to burst your bubble, Mishei, but try as you might, Judaism will fade away like everything fades away, and become something new. That's what history really demands.


Judaism grows with the passage of time. The only way to destroy it is to destroy its adherants. The Nazis proved a vital lesson in that they almost succeeded in doing so. The JEWISH state of Israel is the antidote and the shield against any attempts by Hitlers of the future to wipe out the adherants of Judaism.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 June 2003 01:14 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Never try to read by implication.

You do it all the time. "Look inside yourselves", indeed.

quote:
As for the Haas article, her Communist backround informs her entire position. She is less than a minority view in Israel and is barely given the time of day in most mainstream Jewish circles around the world.

You love to denigrate any point of view that isn't your own. I've also noticed that you claim to speak for all Israelis. A bit of a limb to be hopping out onto, Mishei.

I may be, for example, a chemistry student but I would never presume to speak for all chemists in all things.

I would tell you that yes, most chemists agree with the orthodox model of... let us say, the exchange of hydrogens in a solvent as an explanation for why some peaks downfield from TMS don't split, or split in weird ways. (You don't need to know what this is in order to get my point, but what it means is that in nuclear magnetic resonance, some peaks that show up don't show up the way a reading of the basic theory would tell you, and the above explains why)

But I wouldn't presume to tell you that "all chemists" are meat-eaters, or "all chemists" wear glasses, or some other unverifiable personal assertion about the entire group.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 01:18 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You love to denigrate any point of view that isn't your own. I've also noticed that you claim to speak for all Israelis. A bit of a limb to be hopping out onto, Mishei.


I claim no such thing. I read and assess and then come to an opinion. You can agree or disagree but you have a tendancy to just attack the poster (usually me)...having fun?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 June 2003 01:57 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
There are many non-Jews who are Zionists. All I have said and hold to (despite Al, Mycroft et al) is that for the vast vast majority of Jews Israel as a Jewish state is a "fence of protection". Our tragic history demands such defence or as history has shown we can (and quite possibly WILL) be wiped out. While others here may be willing to take this chance I am not.

I'll tackle this now.

The precise problem I have with your notion of nationalism in Israel is that you continue to couch it in biological terms, and in a frame of reference that embodies, primarily, fear.

Neither is a good start to an all-inclusive nationalism that rests comfortably on the knowledge that the strength of a nation is based on the people who live in it and are confident of its security and its existence, rather than on people insecurely hopping in fear at the slightest bump in the night, to make complete hash of a metaphor.

Furthermore you keep calling Israel a "Jewish state" even as you attempt to answer my question of whether an atheist can be taken seriously as an Israeli nationalist.

The very fact that Israeli nationalism is bound up in the Jewish gestalt suggests to me that it is more akin to the older nationalisms which depend not on safeguarding the nation-state as the prime bulwark against those with far more power than ordinary citizens, but rather in conceiving of society as an organic entity bound by some common nationality or ethnicity.

A classic example of this is, of course, the Yugoslavian nationalisms that broke out in the 1990s.

Yugoslavia as it existed before then wasn't held together by people wanting to transcend older, tribal forms of nationalism, but rather was broken apart by those who wanted to embrace the tribal form.

Israel, given your own statements, is shot through with a strong tribal-nationalistic strain, which by definition precludes a picture of Israel as a multiethnic, multireligious country.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 02:23 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel, given your own statements, is shot through with a strong tribal-nationalistic strain, which by definition precludes a picture of Israel as a multiethnic, multireligious country.


The Jewish state of Israel is accepting of all groups and indeed today, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druids, are all citizens and treated equally.

It is as multiethnic, multireligious and possibly more so than other countries such as, Great Britain, including Scotland and Ireland, Pakistan, India, Germany, Norway, Holland....


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 June 2003 02:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, of Great Britain, and, I should think, Norway and the Netherlands, that is utter poppycock.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 02:38 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel is less a Jewish state than an Israeli state. As time goes on the culture and social norms developing there are quite unique and distinct from what you find in the Jewish diaspora whether Ashkenazi, Shephardic or otherwise.

The true protection for Jews and other minorities is not a small country in the middle east we can all rush to in times of crisis but the transformation of society to a form that no longer requires a narrow ethnic based nation state.

Trotsky called the Zionist ideal of a Jewish state a "death trap" for Jews and indeed the plantation of Israel in the mideast has created a situation where Israel must either dominate its neighbours or risk being wiped out.

Frankly, Jews living in Israel are at greater risk than Jews living in North America, Europe, Australia or many other places in the world. The idea to most Jews of going to Israel as a refuge seems insane. Look at the difficulty in getting Russians to go to Israel, the only way Russian Jewish emigration could be directed their was by virtually eliminating all other options. Even so the Jewish population in Germany, of all places, has now rebounded to almost pre-war levels because of Russian Jewish immigration (think of it, Russian Jews would rather move to *Germany* than Israel).

The only reason Israel has been able to survive is because of massive economic support from the US. So Israel is not a self sufficient bastion and rescue for Jews but, actually, a vulnerable state dependent entirely on the good graces of the US. Had Nixon not sent an emergency military airlift to Israel in 1973 the state would no longer exist.

Therefore, it is not Israel that safeguards the Jews of the word, but the US! And the US is a finnicky partner, just as the former white rulers of South Africa. If US public opinion moves against Israel and if theUS no longer sees Israel as necessary to its strategic interests (or if the needs of the Arab states becomes more important to Washington's strategic algorithm) then that's it for Israel. Again, doesn't sound to me like Israel provides much of a safeguard for the Jewish people. Instead, it's given many people in the world a reason to hate Jews again despite the Holocaust and turned the Arab world against Jews in a way that it was not prior to Zionism and made the plight of Jews in Arab lands very insecure.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 02:43 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Jewish state of Israel is accepting of all groups and indeed today, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druids, are all citizens and treated equally.

It is as multiethnic, multireligious and possibly more so than other countries such as, Great Britain, including Scotland and Ireland, Pakistan, India, Germany, Norway, Holland


Utter nonsense. It's virtually impossible for non-Jews to buy land in Israel. That's not the case for minorities in the other countries you name. By virtue of not serving in the military and because the level of social welfare is linked to military service, Muslims recieve social programmes at much lower funding than the average Jew or Druze. Arab towns get little if any financial assistance compared to Jewish towns (particularly Jewish settlements in the West Bank). Arabs have a much tougher time gettng government jobs and do not have access to housing built for Jews. Arab schools are not funded to the same degree as Jewish schools. Yet you dare say "Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druids, are all citizens and treated equally." You're either willfully blind or willfully lying.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 June 2003 02:56 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
The Jewish state of Israel is accepting of all groups and indeed today, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druids, are all citizens and treated equally.

I'm sure you meant "Druze" in the above, as Druids are not usually found in Israel to my knowledge.

You claim Israel is "accepting of all groups (...) all citizens and treated equally". So why is it that the law of return grants only automatic citizenship to any Jewish person who wants to immigrate?

That doesn't constitute equal treatment, and don't try to weasel your way out of this one. It is a necessary device used to preserve your all-important "Jewish character" of the state of Israel.

Otherwise if any person were granted automatic citizenship, the lack of preferential treatment might pose a demographic problem in maintaining the Jewish character of the state of Israel.

A "Jewish state" or an "anything" state has to take some kind of legal measure to set apart those who are considered part of the "in-group" and preserve their legal status as the preferred ethno-linguistic-religious-whatever group in that country.

Let us suppose that I set up a state specifically for, oh, I don't know, cat lovers or something.

Thus, anyone with a cat is favored over anyone without. By the simple definition of a "cat lovers' state", I have created a region in which certain people gain preferred legal status as part of the group deemed worthy of extra protection by the state.

The same is true for Israel. The fact that the Israeli government chooses to heavily subsidize settlements in the Occupied Territories in order to put them on a paying basis is just one example of maintenance of the superior status of the in-group in a legal sense.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 June 2003 03:20 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Hebrews have been around, for the most part without a state, throughout recorded history. Can the same be said for any other group that has had a state?

The state was not the reason for the Jews' long record of survival.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 03:24 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's virtually impossible for non-Jews to buy land in Israel.
Hmm then why is it that when I was in Israel last month I stayed with an Arab friend in Jerusalem (yes west Jerusalem) in the home that he owned? Why is it that when I visited another buddy who happens to be Armenian Christian I was given a tour of his home situated in Rehovot which he owned as well?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 21 June 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Such selective reasoning.
From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 04:25 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RookieActivist:
Such selective reasoning.
Really, Mycroft makes a claim I give evidence that the claim is inaccurate and that becomes

selective reasoning??? I would say you are engaging in selective targeting.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 21 June 2003 04:44 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Two individual cases is not evidence.
From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RookieActivist:
Two individual cases is not evidence.
Actually it is...Are you suggesting that these are the only 2 non-Jews to own land in Israel. Get off your high horse and dont let your feelings towards me blind you to reality.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 June 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't it a religious requirement that there be a unidirectional transfer of land from non-Jew to Jew if the land is purchased by a Jewish person from a non-Jewish person? That is to say, is it not in the Torah somewhere that land once owned by Jews should not be then sold to non-Jews?

It seems to me that at least some people in Israel would use this as justification for discriminatory real estate transfer practices.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 06:13 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Isn't it a religious requirement that there be a unidirectional transfer of land from non-Jew to Jew if the land is purchased by a Jewish person from a non-Jewish person? That is to say, is it not in the Torah somewhere that land once owned by Jews should not be then sold to non-Jews?

It seems to me that at least some people in Israel would use this as justification for discriminatory real estate transfer practices.



Yes and there are many laws of the Torah that are not followed by the secular state of israel and many laws that have been reinterpreted. Judaism is an evolving religion. Indeed at one time sacrifices were permissable but guess what Doc, Israel doesnt sacrifice animals either...

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 21 June 2003 07:08 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
And this will mean the end of the Jewish state. It is the final solution to the question of a Jewish state. Please Josh don't feed into this. Those that advocate the end of a Jewish state IMHO cross the line.

Alice? {knocks on mirror} Is that you in there, Alice?

I see: proposing that people forget about ethnic and national exclusivity and live together in a spirit of shared citizenship and progress is 'crossing the line'...

Damned extremists, can't they see that prison walls make good neighbours?

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 June 2003 08:18 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it that Arabs are not allowed to own land, or that they can't buy land?

Of course there are Arabs in Israel who did not lose their land during the Nakba or later.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 09:27 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not that Arabs cannot own land, it's that they cannot buy land that's in the hands of Jews, that is most of the land, 90%, which was bought up by the Jewish Agency which stipulates that land it controlled cannot be transferred to non-Jews. I would assume that the land owned by the non-Jews Mishei refers to belongs in the other 10%

What was once a de facto rule enforced by deed is now state law. See the article below from the New York Times:

quote:
July 8 2002

Plan to Keep Israeli Arabs Off Some Land Is Backed
By JOEL GREENBERG

JERUSALEM, July 8 - A cabinet vote endorsing a bill that would bar Israeli Arabs from buying homes in Jewish communities built on state land caused an uproar here today, with critics in and outside the government calling it racist.

On Sunday the cabinet voted, 17 to 2 with one abstention, to support the bill submitted by Rabbi Haim Druckman, a lawmaker from the rightist National Religious Party.

The bill, which would amend an existing law, says that state land allocated to build communities in Israel will be "for Jewish settlement only."

More than 90 percent of the land in Israel is state owned or controlled; home purchases on such land are in effect long-term leases. The bill seeks to entrench this mechanism, which was designed to keep land in Jewish hands.

For full parliamentary approval, the bill must be voted on three times. Today the Labor Party, a major partner in the governing coalition, expressed opposition to it, diminishing its chances.

Yet the cabinet's vote of support sharpened the debate here over whether Israel can be both Jewish and democratic, with equal rights for its million Arab citizens.

Cabinet members from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Likud joined religious and far-right ministers in voting for the bill, with the exception of Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit, who abstained. Mr. Sharon had left the cabinet meeting before the vote took place, as had all but one Labor minister, who voted against the bill. While a spokesman for Mr. Sharon said he supported the legislation in principle, Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, the Labor Party leader, accused the Likud ministers of stealing a vote behind the backs of the absent Labor ministers.

Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein, who attends cabinet meetings but is not a member, argued against the bill. In a statement released by his office, he said he had "urged ministers not to adopt an unnecessary law that could further unravel the delicate threads bridging the divide between Jews and Arabs."

The bill was designed to counter a March 2000 Israeli Supreme Court decision that there could be no discrimination between Jews and Arabs in allocating state lands.

The court decision was handed down in a case involving an Israeli Arab, Adel Kaadan, who was turned down when he applied to buy land to build a home in the Jewish village of Katzir in Galilee. Like many rural communities in Israel, Katzir was built by the quasigovernmental Jewish Agency, and Mr. Kaadan was rejected because he was an Arab.

The court ruled that the state could not discriminate in allocating land, even if it was acting through the Jewish Agency, part of whose mission is to establish communities for Jews in Israel.

The bill seeks to invalidate the ruling by legislating that communities be built exclusively for Jews. An explanatory note attached to the bill asserts that the court decision undermines the Jewish Agency's mission to settle Jews in Israel - that the court "preferred the principle of equality of a state of all its citizens to its value as a Jewish state."

The attachment also says giving preference to settling Jews is in keeping with a government policy "that recognizes the need to Judaize various areas across the country."

In a column today in the daily Maariv, Rabbi Druckman called the cabinet vote a "victory for Zionism" over a court decision that had "created a dangerous precedent undermining Israel's very right to exist as the state of the Jewish people."

Mr. Kaadan, on the other hand, said that sponsors of the bill sought to "create a new apartheid," and that ministers supporting the legislation had forgotten Israel's declaration of independence, which promises equal rights to all citizens.

He recalled that he had wanted to move his family to Katzir because it had better schools and services than those available in his town, Baka al-Gharbiya. Israeli Arabs have long complained of discrimination in state budgeting decisions, which they say have hampered development of their communities, fomenting high levels of poverty and unemployment.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which filed the court petition on behalf of Mr. Kaadan, said "the nature of democracy in Israel, as defined in the Israeli declaration of independence," was at stake.

Yossi Sarid, leader of the opposition Meretz Party, was more blunt. The government was "turning Israel into a racist state," he said, "perhaps the most racist in the family of democratic nations."


So, where Mishei, who claims to be a Meretznik, claims there is no discrimination against non-Jews, the then leader of Meretz asyas that Israel is being turned into a racist state, "perhaps the most racist in the family of democratic nations."


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 09:30 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Meanwhile, Jews can and do buy land owned by Arabs,
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 June 2003 09:37 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel's Two-Tiered Citizenship Law Bars Non-Jews From 93 Percent of Its Lands

by Roselle Tekiner

On a bus tour through the Galilee several years ago, the guide commented that the government was having difficulty preventing Arabs from encroaching on the land through which we were passing. I asked why Arabs were being kept off this land and he replied that it was national land. I told him I didn't understand what "national land" meant if it has to be secured against Arabs. "Aren't Arabs citizens of Israel?"

"Of course they are," he replied, "but it's much more complicated here than in the United States and difficult to explain. " That ended our brief exchange, for he turned abruptly away. He apparently had learned to recognize and avoid loaded questions that he either could not or did not want to answer.

No Israeli nationality applies to all citizens, as does a US nationality in the United States

Zionist uses of the term "nation," "national, " and "nationality" are indeed difficult to understand and to explain because they derive from concepts that are unfamiliar to Americans. Moreover, their true meanings are deliberately obscured by usually incorrect translations from Hebrew into English.

The prime example of deception, from which the others flow, is the accepted translation of Israel's Law of Citizenship as "Nationality " Law. In the original Hebrew text, the word is ezrahut, the correct translation is "citizenship."

It would not occur to the average English peaking observer to object to translating ezrahut as "nationality" because "citizenship" and "nationality" are interchangeable terms in the United States, as well as in most democratic societies. In Israel, however, they are two separate and very different statuses. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs as well as Jews while nationality (le'um), which bestows significantly greater rights than citizenship, may be claimed by Jews alone.

 To refer to "Arab nationals," as this law does, is a deceptive translation of ezrahut, because Arabs or others who are not Jews cannot be "nationals" of Israel. Only Jews can be "nationals." Their nationality rights are granted by the Law of Return. No Israeli nationality applies to all citizens, as does a US nationality in the United States or French nationality in France, for example. In Israel, there is only a Jewish nationality. That nonJews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1972 in a statement that there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.

The original mis-translation of ezrahut as "nationality" has been consistently repeated, successfully concealing the existence of the two legal statuses, with non-Jews eligible for only one. Like a virus introduced into a computer system, the error is continually replicated and now permeates most writings on the topic of nationality and nationalrights in Israel. Having successftilly conveyed the erroneous perception- that Arabs and Jews alike are nationals of Israel, it seems logical to assume that national lands, like national lands in other countries, are a national asset belonging to all the people. Even if a tour guide were equipped with details of this clever ruse, however, he would not last long in his job if he explained the rationale behind prohibitions of Arab encroachment on " national" lands.

"Redeeming the Land" for the "Jewish People"

The process by which the land becomes national" land is through purchase or confiscation by the Jewish National Fund. The procedure is referred to as "redeeming the land," which then becomes the inalienable property of the Jews of the world, who are Israel's national constituency and referred to in law as "the Jewish people."

"Redeeming the land" derives from the Bible. The concept was appropriated by political Zionism and transformed into strictly nationalist terms. The state, instead of God, would return the people from exile to restore the relationship between "the Jewish people " and the land. The problem was: how can a country, eager for world recognition as non-discriminatory and democratic, structure its institutions to deprive permanently its citizens who are not Jews of use of much of its land?

The solution came through Knesset enactment of the Status Law, empowering the World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency to develop the country for the Jewish people. "National" institutions, such as the Jewish National Fund, were then established for Jews only. The Zionist movement created a network of "national" institutions to carry out policies-such as land redemption for Jews-which are clearly discriminatory. By publicizing these institutions as purely philanthropic agencies, the popular perception that Israel is a genuine democracy has remained largely undamaged.

The fact is, however, that the Jewish Agency is a component of the government with massive resources and has at times had a budget almost as large as the development budget of the government. Ninety-three percent of Israel's land is "national" land, which is developed, leased and administered by "national" institutions for Israel's "national " constituency, "the Jewish people."

The government, serving a "citizen" constituency, can at any time give the Jewish Agency authority to deliver services to its "national" constituency. In this way, services can be legally withheld from non-Jewish citizens. For example, Ian Lustick, in his book Arabs in the Jewish State, tells how a program providing special incentives for large families was administered by the Jewish Agency instead of by the government, to ensure that only Jews would be motivated to have more children. The rationale was that it is in the interest of Israel to increase the Jewish, but not the Arab, population.

The United States grants tax-deductible status to many of Israel's "national" institutions. US administrations have continually ignored US laws prohibiting funds of a tax-exempt organization to be directed to or disbursed by a foreign government. Deliberately, or in ignorance of the effects of the Status Law, which makes the Jewish Agency a component of the Israeli government, contributions to the Jewish National Fund via the United Jewish Appeal are treated by the US Internal Revenue Service as if they are as qualified for income tax deduction as any contribution to any private, voluntary , American philanthropic agency in the US. Consequently, American taxpayers contribute significantly to "redeeming the land" for "the Jewish people," helping to prevent Arab encroachment on what has become "national" land through Israel's unique "redemption" process.



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 22 June 2003 01:03 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, you are not rational.

quote:
For the vast vast majority of Jews those who advocate an bilateral state advocate the destruction of Judaism and quite possibly the ultimate end of the Jewish people. I will speak out forcefully against those, Jew and non-Jew alike, who take such poisonous positions.

"Impractical," maybe. "Untimely," very likely. But "poisonous"? Bull. It is unfair and deeply dishonest to attribute such motives to people who simply don't accept your skewed logic or your selective vision of justice.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim in one post that Israel is a secular state that gives equal rights to all and in another claim that those who would like to see equal rights actually granted to all within its borders are "poisonous." You may argue that without the special privileges granted to Jews within Israel, Arabs would subordinate or exterminate them; however, that is only a hypothesis and a paranoid one at that.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 June 2003 01:28 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hm, perhaps the closest situation to Israel's is that in Northern Ireland before the Stormont Parliament was abolished in the 1970s with the majority using it's legislative clout to deny housing, jobs and services to the minority all the time complaining about the threat of being swarmed by its neighbour and speaking of itself as a minority being threatened with being wiped out by the majority religion in the region.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 22 June 2003 01:30 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michael Lerner on the "road map."

quote:
After proclaiming that "occupation had to end," a statement that encouraged those of us who have been calling it an occupation for the past thirty-six years, Ariel Sharon went on to promise the settlers that "your great grandchildren will still be living in these settlements." Now how could he be telling the truth, if he was signing the road map and yet promising that the settlements would stay in place?

Easy. Sharon has frequently explained to the people who bother to listen that he intends to agree to a Palestinian state that would be confined to the major Palestinian cities, with a sliver of land between them to make them "contiguous," while retaining Israeli control of over 50 percent of the West Bank in order to preserve the major Israeli settlements. He is willing to dismantle all of the tiny "illegal" settlements set up in the last two years, plus possibly a few of the smaller settlements of previous years located in positions that might be militarily more difficult.

As Israeli peace movement people point out, the state Sharon is willing to offer Palestinians would be less than half of what was promised at Oslo (less than 11 percent of pre-1948 Palestine), would have no economic or political viability, and could not be accepted by even the most moderate of Palestinian leaders (thus guaranteeing that at the end of the road map the Palestinians would once again be pictured as the irrational group that had rejected another generous offer because of their "extremism," while Israel would be pictured as the "always ready for compromise" society that had made the "painful compromise" of withdrawing from some of its conquered territories).

Is it any surprise that this plan has not given the moderates very much to offer the population to energize them to take the steps necessary to isolate the extremists?



From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 22 June 2003 03:12 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think the road map was even meant to succeed. If it was, you think maybe more than just yapping & blaming would be done to construct some kind of mutual... oh why even bother, they (whomever they are to you) are just gonna keep up with the (killings, etc.) so why should we (the good guys) even try anymore?.

So we get what had there last week...

&etc.


&etc.


If nobody wins, then nobody must lose, right? (If only it were that simple...)


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 June 2003 04:45 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another argument in favour of the binational state is that the current situation is untenable. You have a local superpower surrounded by enemies. This is anything but healthy. Imagine a neighbourhood in which there is a fortress of people "X", surrounded by hostile people "Y". "X" engages in periodic attacks on the "Y's" in the name of security. The "Y's" grow in resentment and frustration at being attacked. Eventually they are going to counter-attack and defeat people "X".

I mentioned Sparta, Prussia, and the Crusader states earlier, but was ignored. Ignoring the possibilities is dangerous.

The Jews of Israel have to integrate with their neighbours or risk complete destruction. Maybe not today, but eventually it will happen. A binational state is a positive move to protect Jews in the Middle East.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 June 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's interesting how Mishei drops out of a discussion as soon as something he says is proven wrong. In this case, land ownership in Israel. Mishei made a huge deal when he thought he disproved my point but has been silent since his point has been refuted.

Interesting.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 June 2003 04:37 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mycroft, I just want to call you on a slight factual error. You say the Jewish community in Germany has rebounded practically to pre-war proportions.

Indeed the growth of the Jewish community in Germany is remarkable - it is the fastest-growing Jewish community in the world, mostly through immigration from the former Soviet Union. The government has done much to favour this migration and all progressive Germans I know deeply regret the loss of the Jewish community, not just for humanistic reasons but cultural ones as well.
(Needless to say, I don't know a lot of members of the neo-nazi skinhead set, or NPD supporters ).

Current estimates vary but run around 100,000 or so. A huge increase from the few thousand left after being Ground Zero of the Holocaust, and even the postwar immigration of tens of thousands of Central and Eastern European DPs (including the parents of a dear friend of mine ) but still a long way from the 500.000 or so in 1933.

Perhaps by "pre-war" you mean after a lot of Jews fled between 1933 and the beginning of the war? Actually a much higher percentage of Jews from Germany and Austria survived than their brethren in Poland, because they had more warning, and were not as destitute as the inhabitants of Eastern shtetls.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 June 2003 05:08 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I stand corrected. The Jewish population of Germany has tripled in the past ten years but has not recovered to pre-war levels yet.

Personally, I think the greatest revenge on Hitler will be when the Jewish population completely recovers.

Unfortunately, Austria's Jewish population is dying out since Austria has not followed Germany in opening its doors to Jews. Frankly, I think the World Jewish Congress would better serve world Jewry by lobbying Austria for immigration reform rather than trying to get more Jews to move to Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 June 2003 05:24 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim in one post that Israel is a secular state that gives equal rights to all and in another claim that those who would like to see equal rights actually granted to all within its borders are "poisonous." You may argue that without the special privileges granted to Jews within Israel, Arabs would subordinate or exterminate them; however, that is only a hypothesis and a paranoid one at that.


The Jewish state of Israel already ensures that all its citizens, Muslim Jewish, Christian are treated equally. Israel is a democracy.

I don't honestly see what the difference is between the Jewish state of Israel, and say the Church of England state Great Britain. Indeed GB's head of state must be Church of England. No other could serve.

So what's the difference exactly?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 June 2003 05:27 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is still a lot of reluctance in Austria to see itself as part and parcel of the Nazi regime, after the Anschluss.

The Marxist (and Surrealist) sociologist Michael Löwy is a friend, but this is not about name-dropping. A poignant story of returning to Vienna with his 95-year-old mum (who is still a painter! one of those übercultured Viennese Jews...). Frau Löwy wanted to see her city one more time in her life, after a life of wandering on three continents. Fortunately the weather rose to the occasion and the Danube sparkled in the sun. They also met John, or Johnny Bunzl, a director of a research institute on the history of antisemitism in Austria who has written much on this and related topics. (Bunzl, John, 1945- Between Vienna and Jerusalem : reflections and polemics on Austria, Israel, and Palestine / English John Bunzl. Frankfurt am Main ; New York : Peter Lang, c1997. 120 p. ; 21 cm.). Dr Bunzl was born in London at the end of the war, his parents were also Viennese-Jewish exiles who found refuge closer to home than the Löwys, who wound up in Brazil. He returned to Vienna, but indeed it is relatively unusual.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 June 2003 05:32 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
The Jewish state of Israel already ensures that all its citizens, Muslim Jewish, Christian are treated equally. Israel is a democracy.

You never cease to astound me. Indeed, you still do not cease to stun me into jaw-dropping incoherence at your bald-faced claims which would be laughable in any other context.

Do you deny that you have regularly claimed that Israel is a "Jewish" state? Do you deny that Israel, in fact, does grant preferential treatment to Jews in at least one aspect - that of automatic citizenship based on the Right of Return?

Do you deny what was pasted above - that an Israeli state agency has gained control of a good degree of land in Israel and in fact does practice discriminatory real estate sales?

And yet you stand there and baldly claim that Israel treats "everyone" absolutely equally.

Puh-LEEEEEEEEZE! I'd have more respect for you and for Israel if all concerned just got down to brass tacks and admitted that Israel conducts its affairs in order maintain its "Jewish character".

I wouldn't have to like it, but I could respect it.

Of course, a thought occurs to me.

Would you blow a gasket tomorrow if Canada passed a law saying that automatic citizenship would be granted only to whites in order to preserve its "white character"? I suspect you would.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 June 2003 05:35 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Indeed GB's head of state must be Church of England. No other could serve.

What a goofy analogy.

So if some descendant of King Solomon married into the Windsor family, became King/Queen, without renouncing Judaism....


Won't you come home, Disraeli.
Won't you come home.
Come home to Queen Victoria.
Don't leave that House of Commons, and that House of Lords.
Just sittin' waitin' for ya.
I'm gettin' awful lomesome, 'cause all I do
Is sit here reading Ethan Frome.
Now don't leave me flat,
The key to the palace is under the mat.
Disraeli, won't you please come home.
Won't you come home, Disraeli. Won't you come home.
Come home to Queen Victoria.
Don't leave that House of Commons, and that House of Lords.
Just sittin' waitin' for ya.
You claim official business took you away
To Egypt, and Bombay, and Rome.
Well, I ain't so certain,
'Cause you're the Nineteenth Century Richard Burton,
Disraeli, won't you please (I miss you, Dizzy)
Disraeli, won't you please,
Disraeli, won't you please,
Disraeli, won't you please come home.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 June 2003 05:46 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
The Jewish state of Israel already ensures that all its citizens, Muslim Jewish, Christian are treated equally. Israel is a democracy.

Who knows, if Mishei repeats this false mantra enough times he might even convince himself that it's true?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 22 June 2003 06:03 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question "what exactly is meant by a 'Jewish state'?" is not, from what little I know, a simple one.

Amendment No 9 of the Basic Law on the Knesset, which was passed on July 31, 1985, states that a party may not participate in the elections if there is in its goals or actions a denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

The Israeli courts recently had to rule on whether one of the Israeli Arab parties had crossed that line. They gave it the benefit of the doubt.

That leaves, however, the broader question: what kind of democracy makes it illegal to advocate a multi-racial state? I expect the answer is "a democracy under siege." Which is just one more example of how the Middle East conflict gets in the way of the normal values of everyone concerned.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 June 2003 06:15 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What would happen if some group bought an island somewhere, declared independence and called the new country "The" Jewish State?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 22 June 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are they Jewish?
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 June 2003 07:07 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See the rather sad story of Birobidzhan, the Jewish Autonomous Republic.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 June 2003 07:14 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jesus. They really stuck it way out in the middle of nowhere.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 June 2003 07:17 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are they Jewish?

Ahhh, stop yer nigletizin'. Yah, they be Jewish, although so what if they weren't?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 June 2003 07:35 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Jesus. They really stuck it way out in the middle of nowhere.

I wouldn't recommend Stalin as a real estate agent.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 June 2003 07:43 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, but he was a GREAT repo man.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 22 June 2003 08:06 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ahhh, stop yer nigletizin'. Yah, they be Jewish, although so what if they weren't?

Well they might not call it the Jewish State if they were not Jewish. Would they? Niggle, niggle that's me.

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 23 June 2003 03:38 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Jewish state of Israel already ensures that all its citizens, Muslim Jewish, Christian are treated equally. Israel is a democracy.
I don't honestly see what the difference is between the Jewish state of Israel, and say the Church of England state Great Britain. Indeed GB's head of state must be Church of England. No other could serve.

So what's the difference exactly?


You have a real mental block going here, don't you? Do you just not read Mycroft's posts?

As you well know, being Canadian, GB's head of state is a figurehead with very little actual power. And I don't think mainstream British politics is too concerned with maintaining the Anglican majority.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 June 2003 03:48 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heresy, Smith. Pure heresy.

We Canadians are so thoroughly Church of England that we brook no dissention. I rather think that burning at the stake is too good for those such as you.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 June 2003 08:31 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:

You have a real mental block going here, don't you? Do you just not read Mycroft's posts?

As you well know, being Canadian, GB's head of state is a figurehead with very little actual power. And I don't think mainstream British politics is too concerned with maintaining the Anglican majority.


If that's the case Smith why continue with a situation that is clearly discriminatory?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 08:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, now. Let's not turn this into a monarchy or C of E discussion, tempting as that might be. I understand you used it as an analogy to the topic we're actually discussing here, but let's keep it in that direction instead of going off into a whole debate on the monarchy.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 23 June 2003 01:24 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The figurehead of the Queen is one example of discrimination against non-Anglicans. Now, if non-Anglicans were barred from buying 93% of Canada's land, if Anglicans got more social services and state payments than non-Anglicans, if Anglican families were paid monetary incentives to have more children and those incentives were denied to non-Anglicans, if housing were segregated depending on whether or not you were Anglican or not and Anglican villages and neighbourhoods got more money for public works and services while non-Anglican villages were stuck in the 19th century.

If all these things were true, then Mishei's analogy would be accurate.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 23 June 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If that's the case Smith why continue with a situation that is clearly discriminatory?

Personally, I see no reason for it. But I think Mycroft has said it all much better than I could.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 June 2003 01:56 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*skdadl takes on broken-record tone*

There is no established church in Canada. For pity's sake, there is no established church in Scotland!

This discussion always irks me.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 24 June 2003 01:35 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
If that's the case Smith why continue with a situation that is clearly discriminatory?


A person could get hurt in here: what with all the fish flying around....


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 24 June 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
If that's the case Smith why continue with a situation that is clearly discriminatory?

Tell that to our string of Catholic Prime Ministers...

A Jesuit even!

Some of our best and brightest.

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 24 June 2003 01:46 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, personally I'd prefer it if Canada became a republic. In any case the Labour government in Britain is now studying a report recommending that the Queen no longer be head of the Church of England and that the succession rules be changed accordingly.

However, if you seriously can't see the difference between the impact of the rules of succession and the impact of the various discriminatory policies in place of Israel then you're blind. By implying that Canada's situation with the Queen is as bad as Israel's situation of discrimination in land policy, social services etc you really are grasping at straws.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 24 June 2003 02:14 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is as multiethnic, multireligious and possibly more so than other countries such as, Great Britain, including Scotland and Ireland, Pakistan, India, Germany, Norway, Holland....
Mishei Then why was it so important to force them out in the first place??

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 26 June 2003 11:26 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just in case anyone is curious about God's thoughts on the Road Map he's evidently telling Bush to knock it off:

quote:

MIDDLE EAST
Acts of God: America's Warning Not to Divide Israel

By Jennifer James
CBN News Producer
June 26, 2003

CBN.com - Since its modern establishment, the state of Israel has been a hotbed of controversy. Jews and Palestinians have long battled over who should rightfully inhabit the land of Israel, a land promised to the Jews 4,000 years ago. In the Bible, the book of Genesis details the covenant God made with the descendants of Abraham.

"On that day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'to your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river of Euphrates.'" - Genesis 15:18.

For more than a decade, America has led attempts to settle that dispute, each time encouraging Israel to bring its covenant lands to the bargaining table, this time with the "Road Map" peace plan. Bible scholars say that may be a costly decision for the U.S. as America again stands at odds with God's covenant promise.

U.S. Consul General Jeffrey Feltman said, "What we need to do now is implement and focus on how we get the two sides back to a political process and towards the vision of a two-state solution: Israel and Palestine living side by side."

On April 30, 2003, America was positioned as the catalyst to jump-start the so-called "solution" to the Middle East crisis. As U.S.-backed Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas was sworn in, the "Road Map" peace plan was set in motion.

The very next day began the worst month of tornadoes in American history, more than 500 in a single month. Normally, 1,000 tornadoes hit the United States each year, but this year, in just eight days in May, 375 twisters ripped across the heartland of America.

While in Israel, Assistant Secretary of State William Burns told a group of left-wing activists that "common sense" would override the conservative and Christian viewpoints concerning the road map.

May 9th, 2003, President Bush addressed students at the University of South Carolina. Bush called on the Palestinians to embrace the road to peace, and see the flag of Palestine raised over a free nation.

Hours later, tornadoes returned and Oklahoma City again became the bulls-eye for deadly twisters, reducing what was left of businesses and homes to splinters and bricks. The tornadoes of May devastated the Midwest with the third worst property damage in American history. Since then, the Road Map has endured a rocky road to June, coinciding with what may be America's most rain-drenched spring in history.

On the East Coast there have been less than 10 rainless weekends the entire year. And in the West, certain crop-eating pests are having their best year in six decades amid dry conditions.

In the early stages of the Road Map peace process, weather catastrophe and recent violence in Israel have competed for the headlines. That violence coupled with America's own battles at home are leading some to question the Road Map. Is there a connection between dividing the Holy Land and utter disruption? Some Bible scholars think so.

In the book of Joel, God warns against dividing the land of Israel. Joel 3:1-2 says, "...I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of my people and my inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and they have divided up my land."

Bill Koenig, author of Israel: The Blessing or the Curse, said, "We know for a fact that God gave this land, through the Abrahamic covenant, He gave the land of Israel to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants, and this land is God's land."

Koenig said the U.S. should not consider such chaos a coincidence. "These are warning signals, these are warning judgements to America that this is My covenant land and it's not to be traded for promises of peace and security. This land is not to be parceled," he said.

In the last 12 years, the U.S. has stepped up its efforts to pressure Israel to give up her covenant lands, several times sharing the spotlight with major storms.

On October 30, 1991, in a meeting scheduled by the first President Bush, Israelis and Palestinians discussed ways to achieve peace in the Middle East. Opening talks focused on trading the lands of Israel for a peace agreement.

That same day, thousands of miles away, a powerful storm was brewing off the coast of Nova Scotia. On October 31st, what would be called "The Perfect Storm" smashed into New England, pummeling the President's Kennebunkport, Maine home with waves 30 feet high. It was a storm so rare that the weather patterns required to create it only happen once every 100 years.

August 23rd, 1992, Middle East peace talks resumed in Washington, D.C. The issue remained surrendering the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria in exchange for peace. Hundreds of miles south, Florida was the target of the worst natural disaster in American history. Hurricane Andrew tore through with an eye more than 30 miles wide and winds up to 178 miles per hour leaving a $32 billion disaster.

Koenig said, "The world leaders have attempted to parcel the covenant land, so as Israel's property and land is at risk, so is the property of the nation that's promoting the peace process. And I might add that the greater the pressure on Israel to give up this property, the greater the repercussions and the greater the following events that take place afterwards."

In the Bible, the prophet Zechariah warned the nations that would come against Jerusalem. "On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves," says Zechariah 12:3.

Koenig said, "We have the nations of the world right now siding with the Arabs and the Muslims that are focused on the covenant land, but we know God is standing with the nation of Israel."

Is America playing a dangerous game? As the Road Map peace process encounters resistance, the Bush administration's determination to see it through has escalated.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "We have a plan, we have the commitment of leaders and now we have to execute that plan, keep moving forward and not allow ourselves to be distracted or thrown off point, from the promise that's out there with the Road Map, by this surge of violence. We've got to punch our way through it."

But, up against biblical prophecies, Koenig said America is standing against the very Word of God and should expect major obstacles.

"I believe the Lord will allow these events to happen that disrupt the peace process," he said. "As long as you are going to have a terrorist infrastructure that's allowed to co-exist in the nation Israel, we're going to have a problem."

And with those same terrorist groups opposed to America's brand of peace, the future of the Road Map is dim. Israelis maintain they will be relentless to protect their country while all plans to split up the tiny nation may be curbed.

Koenig said, "God loves the nation of Israel. He still, to this day, loves this nation. He is in hot pursuit of the people of Israel. Through these events, we look at the tragedies and we look at the trials, but God's trying to wake up the world."



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 29 June 2003 05:02 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, buying into the religious kook argument for a moment... If the title deed to the land of Palestine was granted by God to the descendants of Abraham, would that not include the Arabs, who are descended from Abraham via Hagar?

God wants a binational state.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 June 2003 07:49 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My dear Mycroft, this has been mentioned so many times before...could you please edit your post and instead of quoting the whole article, quote a couple of teaser paragraphs and put an URL to the rest. You know babble's policy regarding copyrighted material. Thanks.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 29 June 2003 09:41 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
God wants a binational state

Anyone who is going to use God as an argument or think they know what God wants is arrogant. The only thing you can really say about God is that God gave us free will. Therefore if one of us decided to kill someone it's our decision. It has nothing to do with Gods will. We can learn from history but history on it's own is going to solve the problem. Perhaps after along period of time there can be something resembling a binational state I think if the whole Middle East turned into something like the EU that would be better but to force Israel to absorb so many Palestinians would be destroy it. It wouldn't help the Palestinians or the Jews. Two states for 2 people and Israel should gradually absorb as many refugees as reasonably possible and the rest should be compensated. Maybe once there is true peace in the region which will take sometime. After 2005 we may finally have a Palestinian but it will be a long while before there is normalized relations and even longer till there is friendly warm relations after that maybe then people can move around freely with out having to worry about security issues.

Take a close look at the link at the top of the following thread read through everything carefully this is how to make peace: Two lands for two people

Once again the best quote I've heard in a long time Sari Nusseibeh(president of Al Quds University in Jerusalem, who has also held key positions in Palestinian politics.) said:


quote:
The Israeli's will have to give up the dream on Schem and Hebron and the Palistinians will have to give the dream of Hiafa and Accre

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Psychwarlord
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2021

posted 30 June 2003 10:04 PM      Profile for Psychwarlord        Edit/Delete Post
The best place for Jews, and indeed people of any religion, is in North America, where we don't officially care about what religion you are.

From the beginning of time to WW2, ethnic/religious groups fought for territory and autonomy. Post WW2, any nation based on ethnic/religious is "traditional" and dodging "modernity."

In Europe and here in NA, Muslims are becoming a rapidly growing minority - in the Middle East, no Muslim country would tolerate a similar pecentage of Christians or Jews - Europe and NA are evidenty more "modern", and becoming less ethnic/religious in terms of public culture.

Israel is an anachronism, and so are all the other middle eastern nations. Israel would make a good example for the region to give up ethnic/religious, and become a pluralistic democratic society.

Do you think the Muslim majority would remove ethnic/religious from constitution and govern in best democratic tradition?


From: New England, USofA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 02 July 2003 08:04 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
at Aqaba...
quote:
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 July 2003 08:44 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He refers to his corporate backers as "God" now?

I would tend to agree with Psychwarlord here. I think the idea of the "nation-state" is inherently flawed, and it's hard for me to see Israel and states like it as anything more than stepping stones on the way to genuine pluralistic democracy.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 July 2003 09:27 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anyone who is going to use God as an argument or think they know what God wants is arrogant.
Uhm, not to nitpick, but isn't that the entire basis of a Jewish state?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 July 2003 10:18 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not necessarily. Freedom from persecution - a guaranteed haven - is a big part of the reasoning behind the Jewish state as well.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 02 July 2003 05:21 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My dear Mycroft, this has been mentioned so many times before...could you please edit your post and instead of quoting the whole article, quote a couple of teaser paragraphs and put an URL to the rest. You know babble's policy regarding copyrighted material. Thanks.

I assumed God's word was exempt from your mortal rules.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 02 July 2003 05:30 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I would tend to agree with Psychwarlord here. I think the idea of the "nation-state" is inherently flawed, and it's hard for me to see Israel and states like it as anything more than stepping stones on the way to genuine pluralistic democracy.

Me too

quote:
Not necessarily. Freedom from persecution - a guaranteed haven - is a big part of the reasoning behind the Jewish state as well.

couldn't have said it better myself. Although there are some other arguments you could use this is probably the most important one.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 July 2003 05:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cute, Mycroft. But you still need to stop posting articles in their entirety.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca