Norway's second-largest university to vote on Israel boycott

[The Kernel]

Either Israel is going to wall the Palestinians in, keeping them at gunpoint, or it is going to engage in an occupation. There is no incentive to attempt integration or unification -- especially because the Palestinians lack a single spokesman who can make good on promises, and in light of the constant, and credible, threat of spoilage which no Israeli politician could credibly ignore over the long term.

I would say there is a TON of reasons for attempts at integration...having a society which isn't constantly threatening to tear itself apart isn't a reason? What about having a country which isn't the subject of international scorn and contempt?

The problem is that there are some very strong reasons NOT to push for a one-state solution such as not wanting to give a different ethnic group the right to vote. And let's face it, that's the reason why Israel refuses to integrate.

[Axis Kast]

Let's amend it, then. No short-term incentive for an Israeli politician...

Theoretically, I agree with you: Israel would be much the stronger, united. The Jewish identity need not be eliminated; merely conjoined with a Palestinian identity. It's been said here before: the Palestinians are among the most cosmopolitan in the Arab world. However, neither of the two societies, Israel or Palestinian, is sufficiently resilient to really soldier on through and ignore the violence without self-destructive retaliation that just perpetuates the whole shitstorm.

[hongi]

I'll take you ignoring the rest of my post as a concession on those parts.

As for your point about other countries:

Were you asleep during the run-up to the Olympic games? Just as an example, the Japanese Royal Family didn't go to the Olympic games, because of the chinese crackdown in Tibet. There was widespread discussion about boycotting the games or not. Just recently there was massive critique of China because of their antics at the Frankfurter Book Fair, etc. As for Saudi Arabia, of course there is criticism there: For example from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

But hey, I guess not mentioning other countries that fail in Human rights in an article aimed at criticizing Israel makes the article irrelevant.

I'm saying that if the university is so interested in human rights violations, then lets use its clout to make those violations known. Yes, China's human rights violations are well-known, but so are Israel's and I don't see that stopping the boycotters. A simple statement will do 'We, the academics of NTNU decry the...'.

Israel is not the only country that "goes against all the ideals of open universities and academic freedom", so the university should get off its fat lazy arse and start the criticising.

[eyl]

No, I fully understand your point. On its own, it's cogent; it's just that by pretending to address my point and instead attacking something I never said, it only succeeded in distorting my argument. However, it seemed like an oversight on your part rather than deliberate error, and I shouldn't have been so vitriolic.

No harm.

I disagree on this Norwegian university (which was what we were talking about, lest you forget) being a very noteworthy international organ in its own right. I also do not share your view on other countries offensive behaviour being ignored on this matter, as I stated plainly enough in the same post you answered.

I'll admit to underoging some drift in the issue of whos criticism we were discussing; I conflated some issues (both the university's actions with the more general ones of internationa organs, as to a degree this specific boycott with pervious proposedones in particular the AUT's in the UK a few years ago).

This is a pretty poor argument to make, given that it addresses only one community, one that has been shown to be largely opposed to Israel in the first place. In fact, coming right on the heel of my clear statement on the possible illegitimacy of the UN due to those same actions, it looks downright bizarre. The UN dislikes Israel, therefore it is a universal view of Israel - just look at these UN resolutions for proof!

The problem that the UN isn't just another community; its resolutions and determinations often serve as "ammunition" for criticisms at lower levels (in debates on the conflict, I've seen the ICJ verdict on the barrier cited numerous times, for instance, despite what seem - to me, at least - to be a numebr of fundamental flaws in its determination. The Goldstone report seems to be heading down a similiar path).

I would say there is a TON of reasons for attempts at integration...having a society which isn't constantly threatening to tear itself apart isn't a reason? What about having a country which isn't the subject of international scorn and contempt?

The problem is that there are some very strong reasons NOT to push for a one-state solution such as not wanting to give a different ethnic group the right to vote. And let's face it, that's the reason why Israel refuses to integrate.

The past 9 decades of violence might also have something to do with it.

Maybe, after several decades of peace, some sort of single state or confederation of sorts could be cerated. As things currently stand, a single state would likely tear itself apart in short order. I'd also mention that the one-state solution has only minor support both in the Israeli and Palestinian publics.

[The Kernel]

The past 9 decades of violence might also have something to do with it.

Maybe, after several decades of peace, some sort of single state or confederation of sorts could be cerated. As things currently stand, a single state would likely tear itself apart in short order. I'd also mention that the one-state solution has only minor support both in the Israeli and Palestinian publics.

Integration is one of the toughest things a society can do, but Israel is hardly the first country to have to deal with it. History shows that in the long run, integration is the right choice no matter how hard it might appear to be.

Hell, the US managed to integrated blacks despite the fact that they were literally property of whites for centuries. Reconstruction was a tough period in our history and we still have challenges related to racial integration 150 years later, but we are infinitely better off because of it.

[Elfdart]

Integration is one of the toughest things a society can do, but Israel is hardly the first country to have to deal with it. History shows that in the long run, integration is the right choice no matter how hard it might appear to be.

If Mississippi can do it, anyone can.

[Eleas]

I'll admit to underoging some drift in the issue of whos criticism we were discussing; I conflated some issues (both the university's actions with the more general ones of internationa organs, as to a degree this specific boycott with pervious proposedones in particular the AUT's in the UK a few years ago).

As you said, no harm; it's quite understandable.

The problem that the UN isn't just another community; its resolutions and determinations often serve as "ammunition" for criticisms at lower levels (in debates on the conflict, I've seen the ICJ verdict on the barrier cited numerous times, for instance, despite what seem - to me, at least - to be a numebr of fundamental flaws in its determination. The Goldstone report seems to be heading down a similiar path).

I see what you're getting at, and I wish I could disagree without feeling intellectually dishonest. But I can't, so I won't.

The UN's official stance on Israel has, despite all pretensions of neutrality and concern for ethics, essentially become a political tool for its most powerful members. For many of them, Israel is not seen in ethnic terms so much as in terms of alliances, military concentration, and power projection, and, perhaps most important of all, prestige. Yes, anti-Semitism is not a non-issue by any means, but I'd argue the real reasons for the conflict being fanned by outside elements is a lot more cold-blooded and calculated.

(If I'm expressing myself poorly here, I apologise; my blood sugar levels are erratic at the moment.)

Hell, the US managed to integrated blacks despite the fact that they were literally property of whites for centuries. Reconstruction was a tough period in our history and we still have challenges related to racial integration 150 years later, but we are infinitely better off because of it.

Arguably there's a difference here in that Palestinians are seen as a separate people, in addition to being second-class citizens; more to the point, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is now effectively military in nature, which was not the case in the USA.

[MarshalPurnell]

There are two issues. On the domestic scene Israel is probably guilty of systematic discrimination against citizens of Arab, especially Palestinian, descent. They are however formally equal citizens and certainly have voting rights, and the Palestinians living in Israel as citizens have their own representatives in the Knesset who are vocally critical of Israel in every way imaginable. I'm not entirely sure what distinctions non-Jewish citizens lose versus Jewish citizens, though save for certain communities (the Druze and Bedouins) are not liable for conscription into the IDF. Israel can do much better in treating its minorities but that is frankly something that can be held against every country on the planet, including all the Western nations. And of course the Israeli drive to maintain a distinct Jewish identity is absolutely anathema to the board but it is not racist anymore than similar policies by Muslim countries are.

The Palestinian Territory on the other hand is occupied territory Israel has no right to annex and "integrate." When first overrun it was part of Jordan and Egypt, not an independent country, and in circumstances of a war the debating of which would broach the moratorium. The Palestinians have made it very, very abundantly clear that they have not the slightest interest in joining Israel which just rules out a one state solution then and there. Since the Palestinian Territories are neither a pre-existing state nor now part of another state just withdrawing from them is a more difficult question than a unilateral pullback, especially since that would probably give Hamas the upper hand against the PLO. A three state solution (IE, hand the West Bank and Gaza back to Jordan/Egypt) would probably be best for all concerned, in particular answering the question of the economic viability of Palestinian territories as an independent state, but the Arab governments have zero interest in such a solution. Why that is speaks to a lot of the difficulties with the two state solution.

[The Kernel]

Arguably there's a difference here in that Palestinians are seen as a separate people, in addition to being second-class citizens; more to the point, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is now effectively military in nature, which was not the case in the USA.

Is that a serious response? Because blacks in the US weren't seen as people at all but rather as property just a step above cattle.

[Eleas]

Arguably there's a difference here in that Palestinians are seen as a separate people, in addition to being second-class citizens; more to the point, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is now effectively military in nature, which was not the case in the USA.

Is that a serious response? Because blacks in the US weren't seen as people at all but rather as property just a step above cattle.

Apologies; my mind's not working properly tonight. For some reason, I'm having a difficult time expressing myself.

I suppose what I really wanted to argue was something along the lines of black people being at least considered as part of America, albeit as menials and low-wage workers, rather than outsiders to be expelled. It ended up bizarrely phrased however, and I'm not even sure right now that the basic argument holds any water or indeed merit.

I'm going to take a bit of a time-out until my brain's unscrambled itself. Sorry for the confusion.

[Sarevok]

However was not there those in America who wanted the blacks leaving ? Is not that how Liberia was founded as a destination for freed slaves ?