Israel Considering Saudi Peace Plan

[eyl]

While I agree that Judaism has endured history through profound, antagonistic tribalistic isolation, dangerous anti-Semites like the Nazis were still obsessively going after 'Jews' who only had one Jewish parent or/and didn't give a toss about Abrahamic religion, defining Jewishness as a pseudo-biological state, so the tribal sanctuary of Israel was temporarily vindicated after the Holocaust (but it was through sheer passion rather than grounded logic).

Which is one of the major problems with the "Jews need to assimilate better in order to avoid persecution" idea; historically, Jews often weren't allowed to assimilate, and even when they could formally do so it didn't prevent them from being considered "Jewish enough" by someone (e.g. the Nazis, as per your example, or the aforementioned Dreyfus).

Heh. If Israel had existed before WW2, it would have been conquered by the anti-semitic western imperial powers. I don't know where Jews get this idea that if they had a discrete homeland (which was conveniently targetable through conventional military means), then they would have been so much better off. Frankly, it sounds like bullshit they concocted in order to justify the Orthodox religious belief in restoration of God's Promised Land.

That depends on when exactly Israel would have been founded. If it was, say, prior to the 20th century or so (or WWI) you would be correct. OTOH, if Israel had been founded folowing, e.g., the recommendation for partition of the Peel Commission in 1937, it could have served as a safe port for Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

[Adrian Laguna]

That depends on when exactly Israel would have been founded. If it was, say, prior to the 20th century or so (or WWI) you would be correct. OTOH, if Israel had been founded folowing, e.g., the recommendation for partition of the Peel Commission in 1937, it could have served as a safe port for Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

Likely the Holocaust wouldn't have happened in the first place, or at least been less catastrophic. The reason it was called the "Final Solution" was because the first, second, third, and fourth solutions didn't work out. Nobody was willing to give-up some land for Germany to export its Jews to, so they tried to kill them all. With the existence of Israel, Germany would just deport as many Jews as it could to that area.

[eyl]

Likely the Holocaust wouldn't have happened in the first place, or at least been less catastrophic. The reason it was called the "Final Solution" was because the first, second, third, and fourth solutions didn't work out. Nobody was willing to give-up some land for Germany to export its Jews to, so they tried to kill them all. With the existence of Israel, Germany would just deport as many Jews as it could to that area.

True

[Gil Hamilton]

Except that you're asking us to literally stake our lives on the gamble that your best-case scenario is what will happen in reality.

I'm sure it can be solved just like Israel solves its other problems... by a massive influx of American taxpayer money.

And that warm fuzzy feeling of doing the right thing has zero practical value as opposed to the risks. No thanks.

This just proves how little interest Israel actually has in peace that they refuse to make good on past misdeeds. You stole alot of that land from the people who lived there, many times at gunpoint, they deserve compensation.

No. Such a massive demographic shift - an overwhelming influx of people from what's basically a third-world culture - would mean the collapse of Israeli national culture, which is largely (though not exclusively) drawn from Jewish culture. You'd have a political entity which might have the same name (probably not) but in all other respects will only resemble modern Israel in its geographical location.

God, what racist drivel. That sounds like the same garbage spouted by our white supremacists who say the exact same thing about people who aren't white or Christian.

You've still got it linked in your head that Israel cannot exist if it isn't a Jewish state. That's simply not true. But, please, explain why people of the Jewish religion are the only ones qualified to run the state of Israel and no other people can do it or even share in it as equal members. Why MUST it be Jewish to be Israel? Why can't it be a secular state with the same rights for anyone? Unlike the opinion of your more conservative citizens, the Torah isn't a land deed to that patch of nowhere.

Shit, if I went around saying that the US must be run by white Christians, because the population is largely white and Christian (and some people do say this here and every single one of them is a shithead, believe me), I'd get my ass scorched off from all the people lining up to call me a bigot. Yet when someone goes "Israel must belong to the Jewish and be a Jewish state with Jewish laws!", somehow standards stop applying. But, hey, what do I know, right? I'm just one of the goyim.

True, but it wasn't what you actually posted:

(imagine a country where only the minority of the population is legally allowed to get marriage, since as it stands you can only formally get married in Israel if you meet the standards of Orthodox Judaism).

implying only Jews could get married in Israel.

And you can see that was I said was correct. People CAN only get formally married in Israeli law if they meet the standards of Orthodox Judaism with equivalent councils for Christian/Muslims/Druze. That doesn't imply anything and why alot of people go through such a song and dance as legally getting married in another country and have that marriage recognized by the Israeli government.

Well, actually the people who designed the system were the Turks - though that's in part the reason why the situation wasn't altered.

Yes, it wasn't altered. And why is that now?

The Golan Heights aren't defined as a desert, AFAIK. And the "some reason" is a pretty obvious strategic significance.

While I stand corrected on the Golan Heights not being a desert, bullshit on the rest. Israel exists on the strength of its American patronage and because Arab armies tend to be even more abysmally poor at fighting than the IDF, not because it holds any bit of land. If it came down to choosing between suckling on US tax dollars and keeping the Golan Heights, your country would drop the land in a second.

[Darth Wong]

That depends on when exactly Israel would have been founded. If it was, say, prior to the 20th century or so (or WWI) you would be correct. OTOH, if Israel had been founded folowing, e.g., the recommendation for partition of the Peel Commission in 1937, it could have served as a safe port for Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

Likely the Holocaust wouldn't have happened in the first place, or at least been less catastrophic. The reason it was called the "Final Solution" was because the first, second, third, and fourth solutions didn't work out. Nobody was willing to give-up some land for Germany to export its Jews to, so they tried to kill them all. With the existence of Israel, Germany would just deport as many Jews as it could to that area.

The Nazis attempted to exterminate Jews wherever they found them, not just inside their own borders.

[Darth Wong]

While I agree that Judaism has endured history through profound, antagonistic tribalistic isolation, dangerous anti-Semites like the Nazis were still obsessively going after 'Jews' who only had one Jewish parent or/and didn't give a toss about Abrahamic religion, defining Jewishness as a pseudo-biological state, so the tribal sanctuary of Israel was temporarily vindicated after the Holocaust (but it was through sheer passion rather than grounded logic).

Which is one of the major problems with the "Jews need to assimilate better in order to avoid persecution" idea; historically, Jews often weren't allowed to assimilate, and even when they could formally do so it didn't prevent them from being considered "Jewish enough" by someone (e.g. the Nazis, as per your example, or the aforementioned Dreyfus).

Individual Jews were tarred with the same brush as the rest. The problem is that the Jews by and large did not assimilate and were in fact remarkably hostile to assimilation. This is how they managed to maintain their distinctness through thousands of years without having a distinct nation of their own. Even the ancient Romans considered them unusually difficult to assimilate into their empire, whereas the nearby Syrians had no problem simply considering themselves part of the Roman empire.

Heh. If Israel had existed before WW2, it would have been conquered by the anti-semitic western imperial powers. I don't know where Jews get this idea that if they had a discrete homeland (which was conveniently targetable through conventional military means), then they would have been so much better off. Frankly, it sounds like bullshit they concocted in order to justify the Orthodox religious belief in restoration of God's Promised Land.

That depends on when exactly Israel would have been founded. If it was, say, prior to the 20th century or so (or WWI) you would be correct. OTOH, if Israel had been founded folowing, e.g., the recommendation for partition of the Peel Commission in 1937, it could have served as a safe port for Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

If Israel was founded in 1937, it would barely exist for these Holocaust refugees, it would come under constant attack from its neighbours as it did in 1947, but it would not have the international support that it did later, thanks to Holocaust guilt. How could it serve as a safe haven for anyone?

[Big Phil]

Why is it that so many people's "solution" is to allow Palestinians a right of return to Israel, but to completely ignore the Jews kicked out of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc.? In any case, there are two very practical things preventing this "solution:"

1. Jews don't want to live in Jordan, Iraq, Syria, etc., where they will be a (violently) oppressed minority.

They can ask for monetary compensation instead of going to where their parents used to live. Hell will freeze over before the Arabs pay up, but it's not like Israel will compensate the Palestinians either.

An anyone explain why the idea of reparations for Jews expelled from Arab nations and Arabs/Palestinians expelled from Israel is a non-starter? It seems like the ideal compromise, since Right of Return is unworkable.

[Big Phil]

You've still got it linked in your head that Israel cannot exist if it isn't a Jewish state. That's simply not true. But, please, explain why people of the Jewish religion are the only ones qualified to run the state of Israel and no other people can do it or even share in it as equal members. Why MUST it be Jewish to be Israel? Why can't it be a secular state with the same rights for anyone? Unlike the opinion of your more conservative citizens, the Torah isn't a land deed to that patch of nowhere.

Why aren't you ranting and raving for Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan to become one grand democratic nation where everyone gets along? Why are you so insistent that it must be Israel that take the risk of destroying itself, and not the Arab nations that have refused to allow Palestinians to become citizens of their countries for the past 60 years? If Israel has to allow Palestinians back, maybe Jordan and Lebanon should be forced to take in millions of Jewish citizens.

[Guardsman Bass]

Why is it that so many people's "solution" is to allow Palestinians a right of return to Israel, but to completely ignore the Jews kicked out of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc.? In any case, there are two very practical things preventing this "solution:"

1. Jews don't want to live in Jordan, Iraq, Syria, etc., where they will be a (violently) oppressed minority.

They can ask for monetary compensation instead of going to where their parents used to live. Hell will freeze over before the Arabs pay up, but it's not like Israel will compensate the Palestinians either.

An anyone explain why the idea of reparations for Jews expelled from Arab nations and Arabs/Palestinians expelled from Israel is a non-starter? It seems like the ideal compromise, since Right of Return is unworkable.

Mostly emotion (and the fact that a big chunk of Palestinian nationalism is based around the idea of getting back what was theirs), plus the fact that the Israeli and Arab governments would have to cough up billions (and not all of them are rich like Saudi Arabia) probably in reparations money. That's a non-starter, although if they DID ever come to an agreement on it I suspect a lot of Palestinians would take the money offer. Hell, it'd probably be worth it for the US just to plunk a few billion dollars into the Reparation Compensation Fund, if it helps settle the situation.

Why aren't you ranting and raving for Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan to become one grand democratic nation where everyone gets along? Why are you so insistent that it must be Israel that take the risk of destroying itself, and not the Arab nations that have refused to allow Palestinians to become citizens of their countries for the past 60 years? If Israel has to allow Palestinians back, maybe Jordan and Lebanon should be forced to take in millions of Jewish citizens.

That's not entirely fair - he hasn't exactly said whether or not Lebanon and Jordan should or should not become "grand democratic nations". In Jordan's case, at least, they've taken in a large number of Palestinians.

[hongi]

An anyone explain why the idea of reparations for Jews expelled from Arab nations and Arabs/Palestinians expelled from Israel is a non-starter? It seems like the ideal compromise, since Right of Return is unworkable.

It does sound ideal, but I don't think the Arab nations even recognise a Jewish exodus from Arab lands. At least in Israel the topic of forced removal of Palestinians is discussed, if very controversially (AFAIK).

Neither sides want to budge and admit wrong-doing. Any attempt at paying the 'enemy' would be considered a capitulation. No political party would agree to it.

[Big Phil]

An anyone explain why the idea of reparations for Jews expelled from Arab nations and Arabs/Palestinians expelled from Israel is a non-starter? It seems like the ideal compromise, since Right of Return is unworkable.

Mostly emotion (and the fact that a big chunk of Palestinian nationalism is based around the idea of getting back what was theirs), plus the fact that the Israeli and Arab governments would have to cough up billions (and not all of them are rich like Saudi Arabia) probably in reparations money. That's a non-starter, although if they DID ever come to an agreement on it I suspect a lot of Palestinians would take the money offer. Hell, it'd probably be worth it for the US just to plunk a few billion dollars into the Reparation Compensation Fund, if it helps settle the situation.

So it's a non-starter because the Palestinians won't accept reparations and a new start on life, but instead are insisting on returning to land they've never lived on because their grandparents or great-grandparents did? If that's really the case, then fuck them.

Why aren't you ranting and raving for Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan to become one grand democratic nation where everyone gets along? Why are you so insistent that it must be Israel that take the risk of destroying itself, and not the Arab nations that have refused to allow Palestinians to become citizens of their countries for the past 60 years? If Israel has to allow Palestinians back, maybe Jordan and Lebanon should be forced to take in millions of Jewish citizens.

That's not entirely fair - he hasn't exactly said whether or not Lebanon and Jordan should or should not become "grand democratic nations". In Jordan's case, at least, they've taken in a large number of Palestinians.

He hasn't said ANYTHING about the Arab nations' responsibility. That's a pretty glaring omission, don't you think? If destroying Israel to allow Palestinians back on "their" land is Gil's solution, it's only fair that Lebanon and Jordan be destroyed as well, and Jews be allowed (forced, would be more like it) to move back there.

And please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon were still not citizens of those countries, and were often still living in refugee camps rather than integrating into society.

[Big Phil]

Sorry - that last post was quoting Bass, not hongi. Can a mod please fix?

[Big Phil]

An anyone explain why the idea of reparations for Jews expelled from Arab nations and Arabs/Palestinians expelled from Israel is a non-starter? It seems like the ideal compromise, since Right of Return is unworkable.

It does sound ideal, but I don't think the Arab nations even recognise a Jewish exodus from Arab lands. At least in Israel the topic of forced removal of Palestinians is discussed, if very controversially (AFAIK).

Neither sides want to budge and admit wrong-doing. Any attempt at paying the 'enemy' would be considered a capitulation. No political party would agree to it.

There was a time when recognition of Israel was a non-starter in the Arab world, and that changed, didn't it?

[hongi]

So it's a non-starter because the Palestinians won't accept reparations and a new start on life, but instead are insisting on returning to land they've never lived on because their grandparents or great-grandparents did? If that's really the case, then fuck them.

Sounds like the Jewish claim to Israel, except it's not their great grandparents, but their great, great, great, great, great, great, great and so on parents.

And please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon were still not citizens of those countries, and were often still living in refugee camps rather than integrating into society.

The Palestinians aren't allowed to integrate into society by the host country, they're treated like literal shit.

[Darth Wong]

I would hope that any American who supports the no-strings-attached integration of millions of refugees into Jordan and Lebanon would have the same policy about Mexican immigrants in America.

[Big Phil]

So it's a non-starter because the Palestinians won't accept reparations and a new start on life, but instead are insisting on returning to land they've never lived on because their grandparents or great-grandparents did? If that's really the case, then fuck them.

Sounds like the Jewish claim to Israel, except it's not their great grandparents, but their great, great, great, great, great, great, great and so on parents.

Of course - I'm not arguing that the foundation of Israel was fair, mind you. Just that Right of Return is not a practical, realistic solution, while reparations might be.

And please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon were still not citizens of those countries, and were often still living in refugee camps rather than integrating into society.

The Palestinians aren't allowed to integrate into society by the host country, they're treated like literal shit.

That's what I thought - which makes the Palestinian desire for their own country extremely logical.

I would hope that any American who supports the no-strings-attached integration of millions of refugees into Jordan and Lebanon would have the same policy about Mexican immigrants in America.

Personally, I support reparations and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

1. Israel pays reparations to Palestinians kicked off of their lands in 1948; Arab states pay reparations to Jews kicked off their lands at the same time.
2. A viable Palestinian state is created (i.e., all Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank must go, or the settlers are left to fend for themselves once the Israeli army leaves)

Even this solution sucks, because Palestine is separated between the West Bank and the Gaza strip, but at least it's better than perpetual conflict.

[Darth Wong]

That would never work either. This thread has veered dangerously close to the "which one is more moral" Israel vs Palestine question many times, but while trying to avoid that endless dispute, let's just say that none of the parties involved are willing to admit wrongdoing of any kind.

However, I must also point out that Jordan and Syria and Lebanon are not Palestine; you can't treat them all as if they are a single entity just because they share the same religion, and you certainly can't seriously expect them to bend over backward for the benefit of the Palestinians, who may fall into the "they all look the same to me" category for you, but who are foreigners to them.

Nations will act according to their own self-interest. If Jordan has no self-interest in agreeing to this deal, why would they?

[Guardsman Bass]

That would never work either. This thread has veered dangerously close to the "which one is more moral" Israel vs Palestine question many times, but while trying to avoid that endless dispute, let's just say that none of the parties involved are willing to admit wrongdoing of any kind.

Are you talking about the idea of reparations in lieu of intergenerational Right of Return? I can understand why they don't want to do it; it's a big part of their identity as Palestinians, and it hurts like hell to give something like that up.

I suppose they could just wait, particularly if the demographics aren't "Arab Israeli Majority Imminent" anymore. Wait until every Palestinian who remembers ever living in the pre-1948 area, along with their children and possibly grandchildren, is dead - then see if you can negotiate with their great-grandchildren.

However, I must also point out that Jordan and Syria and Lebanon are not Palestine; you can't treat them all as if they are a single entity just because they share the same religion, and you certainly can't seriously expect them to bend over backward for the benefit of the Palestinians, who may fall into the "they all look the same to me" category for you, but who are foreigners to them.

Syria is basically in it for the Golan Heights. Jordan is . . . different, particularly since a very large fraction of their population consist of ex-Palestinians. The Jordanian government used to be the major partner on these types of initiatives years ago, but they've more or less washed their hands of it.

Nations will act according to their own self-interest. If Jordan has no self-interest in agreeing to this deal, why would they?

Good question.

[Gil Hamilton]

Why aren't you ranting and raving for Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan to become one grand democratic nation where everyone gets along? Why are you so insistent that it must be Israel that take the risk of destroying itself, and not the Arab nations that have refused to allow Palestinians to become citizens of their countries for the past 60 years? If Israel has to allow Palestinians back, maybe Jordan and Lebanon should be forced to take in millions of Jewish citizens.

Because we are talking about Israel. I didn't think we were talking about Lebanon or Jordan, were we? As far as I'm concerned, Jordan and Lebanon should return the land of any Jewish person they drove off of it that wants that land back. That's just.

My issue in this thread is that such a thing probably wouldn't destroy Israel at all. The "risk" as you put it is whether or not Israel would be a Jewish state afterwards, which, despite what some have said in this thread, would NOT be the destruction of the state of Israel. The disconnect is that such people have the bigoted notion that Jewish mustn't integrate and so so inherently superior that Israel not being a Jewish state is equivalent to it being a destroyed one. That's straight bullshit and you know it.

[Big Phil]

Why aren't you ranting and raving for Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan to become one grand democratic nation where everyone gets along? Why are you so insistent that it must be Israel that take the risk of destroying itself, and not the Arab nations that have refused to allow Palestinians to become citizens of their countries for the past 60 years? If Israel has to allow Palestinians back, maybe Jordan and Lebanon should be forced to take in millions of Jewish citizens.

Because we are talking about Israel. I didn't think we were talking about Lebanon or Jordan, were we? As far as I'm concerned, Jordan and Lebanon should return the land of any Jewish person they drove off of it that wants that land back. That's just.

My issue in this thread is that such a thing probably wouldn't destroy Israel at all. The "risk" as you put it is whether or not Israel would be a Jewish state afterwards, which, despite what some have said in this thread, would NOT be the destruction of the state of Israel. The disconnect is that such people have the bigoted notion that Jewish mustn't integrate and so so inherently superior that Israel not being a Jewish state is equivalent to it being a destroyed one. That's straight bullshit and you know it.

The conversation departed from Israel's consideration of the Saudi peace plan and into IvP territory several pages ago, particularly when Plekhanov joined in. Your lack of mention of the Jews driven from Arab territories was noticed and commented on, but since we're in agreement on that, there's no point rehashing it.

I can't speak for anyone else; my issue with the integration of Palestinians into Israel is that it puts the onus of such an integration on Israel. Previous experiments with mashing together people who don't like each other (Yugoslavia, most of Africa, Iraq, the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, etc.) demonstrates that when the unification is forced upon one side (or both sides), it doesn't end well. Peaceful unification, such as has been occurring in Europe the last 30 years, particularly when entered into by two relatively equal parties, stands a much greater chance of success. I would think that the example of present day Iraq, at least, would demonstrate that forcing people who hate each other to live together in a "democracy" isn't really a good idea.

[Ekiqa]

The conversation departed from Israel's consideration of the Saudi peace plan and into IvP territory several pages ago, particularly when Plekhanov joined in. Your lack of mention of the Jews driven from Arab territories was noticed and commented on, but since we're in agreement on that, there's no point rehashing it.

I can't speak for anyone else; my issue with the integration of Palestinians into Israel is that it puts the onus of such an integration on Israel. Previous experiments with mashing together people who don't like each other (Yugoslavia, most of Africa, Iraq, the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, etc.) demonstrates that when the unification is forced upon one side (or both sides), it doesn't end well. Peaceful unification, such as has been occurring in Europe the last 30 years, particularly when entered into by two relatively equal parties, stands a much greater chance of success. I would think that the example of present day Iraq, at least, would demonstrate that forcing people who hate each other to live together in a "democracy" isn't really a good idea.

If settlements were built in the West Bank and Gaza, specifically for the refugees, there would be a lot less problems.

And by settlements, I mean a fully fledged town/city, with a full infrastructure. Not the glorified tent cities that they've been living in for 60 years.

[Big Phil]

If settlements were built in the West Bank and Gaza, specifically for the refugees, there would be a lot less problems.

And by settlements, I mean a fully fledged town/city, with a full infrastructure. Not the glorified tent cities that they've been living in for 60 years.

In other words, Jewish settlers need to get the fuck out, and Palestinians need an infrastructure? Makes sense to me...

[Adrian Laguna]

The Nazis attempted to exterminate Jews wherever they found them, not just inside their own borders.

That does not change the fact that the Nazis tried to deport German Jews before deciding to kill them. Major candidate locations were Palestine, Madgascar, and one or two other places in Africa. I find it likely that they intended to also deport Jews from conquered nations in the West, and exterminate those found in Slavic lands to the East. Nazi policy toward Slavs was essentially genocidal pretty much from the start.

[Adrian Laguna]

If settlements were built in the West Bank and Gaza, specifically for the refugees, there would be a lot less problems.

And by settlements, I mean a fully fledged town/city, with a full infrastructure. Not the glorified tent cities that they've been living in for 60 years.

As a bonus, this might actually solve the demographic issue the Israelis keep yammering about. If the Palestinians become prosperous enough then they are likely to stop breeding like peasants. Or in the words of Gary Brecher, "if you really hate the enemy tribe, the best thing you could do would be to make them rich."

[Ekiqa]

Nazi policy toward Slavs was essentially genocidal pretty much from the start.

Going off topic, that was a major part in the breakdown of the war machine inside the Soviet Union. They were greated as liberators by many, but then the SS units coming up behind started slaughtering them.

Didn't Britain try, in the late 19th Century, to offer a place for Jews in Africa?