Would you get rid of Israel?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2004-12-17 03:45pm

[off-topic]
This Israel-related stuff is one of many things that keep me wonder why people tend to claim religion is "good" and atheism is "bad", while in fact religion causes MUCH more trouble than atheism.
[/off-topic]

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2004-12-17 03:52pm

Predator wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:1. Israel allows the Palestinians to become citizens and we merge Israel and Palestine, thus destroying the State of Israel. If you don't think a plurality of Palestinians would move immediately to make Jews second class citizens in such a nation, then you've got a screw loose. This is a recipe for disaster.
No, it's the only recipe for success in the longterm. This new secular state must have a constitution that prohibits racial or religious discrimination, and the US, and UN be prepared to support it and actively defend it.

While I agree with the new, secular state solution, honestly I haven't figure a way to practically keep it stable. The state should be fair and secular, while it should also be strong enough to control fundies from both sides. Am I wrong that benevolent dictatorship is what the state needs, especially during early years?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-17 03:56pm

A constitution-based system of government in which an extreme supermajority is required for amendment might theoretically work at keeping both sides' pigs down.

PS. The rhetorical question of whether a majority can make life hell for the minority is rather ironic when it comes from an American in the midst of the War on Gay People.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-12-17 03:57pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:No no no. Not in my country!!

I think that a similar problem would ensue there.

There weren't many natives in the area at the time and there would have been a lot more Jews there (when Hitler started getting going there would be somewhere willing to welcome the Jews) by now.

Africa could use a developed nation.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 04:10pm

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote: While I agree with the new, secular state solution, honestly I haven't figure a way to practically keep it stable. The state should be fair and secular, while it should also be strong enough to control fundies from both sides. Am I wrong that benevolent dictatorship is what the state needs, especially during early years?

If a benevolent dictator were possible, perhaps, but he'd also need to be seen as benevolent by both former sides, that's perhaps even more difficult than finding a benevolent dictator. Perhaps you can find some oddity such as an atheist child of an Israeli ethnic Jew mother and a Palestinian father, or some other combination that might not be viewed by everyone as "one of them ruling over us".

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 04:20pm

Darth Wong wrote:A two-state solution will never work because none of the Israelis believe in it. For example, they all believe they have some kind of divine right to Palestine's water supply. When Israelis say "two state", they mean "one master, one slave".

PS. The "two state" solution is probably most accurately described as "two equal and opposite side-by-side apartheid states, one of which is in a position of control". I honestly don't see how this can be anything but a blueprint for a never-ending border war, like India/Pakistan.

Saying NONE of the Israelis believe in it is the sort of attitude that keeps this conflict going. That's as ridiculous as saying ALL Americans oppose gay marriage. Israel and Palestine each have vocal, rabidly racist and militant minority groups who refuse to compromise and keep this conflict boiling. Until the majority of reasonable Israelis and Palestinians do something to work together, no solution will ever be worked out.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-17 04:26pm

Sigh... saying that "NO" Israeli will accept it is a very sweeping statement, Mike, and not true. There are a lot of Israelis that see a two-state solution as realistic and desireable.

Also, people seem to be of the impression that it automatically means a master, dominant Israel perpetaully buttfucking a helpless palestine. There is this constant insistence that all Israelis are just happy butchers that revel and glee in the murder of Palestinians.

The Palestinian state, made up of Gaza and the west Bank, has all the Christian tourist sites (Nazareth and Bethlehem) and will have trade access through the Mediterannean which is right next to the Suez Canal. Gaza also has proven deposits of Natural Gas. The Dead Sea region of Palestine is a treasure trove of minerals and phosphates.

Palestine actually has more resources than Jordan, which stays viable without hardly any natural resources to speak of.

Israel and palestine would both be microstates, and there are plenty of those in the world that do well enough. The automatic assumption of a boss-slave relationship is one possible conslusion among many, but not a foregone conclusion.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 04:29pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Saying NONE of the Israelis believe in it is the sort of attitude that keeps this conflict going.

I didnt see you coming down on Faqa for claiming no Israelis would accept the one state option.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-17 04:30pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:A two-state solution will never work because none of the Israelis believe in it. For example, they all believe they have some kind of divine right to Palestine's water supply. When Israelis say "two state", they mean "one master, one slave".

PS. The "two state" solution is probably most accurately described as "two equal and opposite side-by-side apartheid states, one of which is in a position of control". I honestly don't see how this can be anything but a blueprint for a never-ending border war, like India/Pakistan.
Saying NONE of the Israelis believe in it is the sort of attitude that keeps this conflict going.

Fine, find me the vocal Israeli political support for coughing up their claims to Palestine's water supply.

That's as ridiculous as saying ALL Americans oppose gay marriage.

Irrelevant nitpicking. Enough of them oppose it to make it a case of the law versus the people, so the point stands. Israel will not go for it.

Israel and Palestine each have vocal, rabidly racist and militant minority groups who refuse to compromise and keep this conflict boiling.

You are full of shit. It is not "minority groups" who demand that Israel keep control of Palestine's water supply.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 04:30pm

Coyote wrote: The automatic assumption of a boss-slave relationship is one possible conslusion among many, but not a foregone conclusion.

How do you propose the water is distributed, and is Israel likely to accept anything but complete control of the water supply?

And again, Israel has never respected the territorial sovereignty of its neighbours in the past, why believe that all of a sudden there will be an end to air strikes and so forth?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-17 04:32pm

Coyote wrote:Sigh... saying that "NO" Israeli will accept it is a very sweeping statement, Mike, and not true. There are a lot of Israelis that see a two-state solution as realistic and desireable.

Sure, as long the states are defined in a manner which they find acceptable, ie- not equal.

Also, people seem to be of the impression that it automatically means a master, dominant Israel perpetaully buttfucking a helpless palestine. There is this constant insistence that all Israelis are just happy butchers that revel and glee in the murder of Palestinians.

Wow, nice strawman distortion from "insistence upon superior position" to "happy butchers"

The Palestinian state, made up of Gaza and the west Bank, has all the Christian tourist sites (Nazareth and Bethlehem) and will have trade access through the Mediterannean which is right next to the Suez Canal. Gaza also has proven deposits of Natural Gas. The Dead Sea region of Palestine is a treasure trove of minerals and phosphates.

Palestine actually has more resources than Jordan, which stays viable without hardly any natural resources to speak of.

Israel and palestine would both be microstates, and there are plenty of those in the world that do well enough. The automatic assumption of a boss-slave relationship is one possible conslusion among many, but not a foregone conclusion.

They are a foregone conclusion in all of the concrete proposals for "sovereignty" which have ever been offered up on the negotiating table.

And I reiterate: the "two state solution" is basically "replace one racist state with TWO equal and opposite racist states!"

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-17 04:33pm

Predator wrote:I'd like you to back up your claim that Arabs in the area would be much worse off if Israel hadnt existed. 800,000 Palestinians cleansed from Palestine have lived better lives because of it?

Bear in mind, Predator...

The Arabs left their homes at the behest of neighboring Arab governments, and Israelis actually asked the Arabs to stay. Those Arabs that did stay are citizens of Israel today.

The Palestinians that did as their "Arab bretheren" suggested ended up in squalid refugee camps, reminiscent of the worst of the Soweto Ghettoes and treated like scum by the people who promised to take care of them and restore them to their "ethnic homeland".

It's been 50 years. The same 50 years that saw Europe go from a war-torn wasteland to a powerful economic and industrial realm. The refugees and homeless of WW2 were resettled and are now living in 1st World comfort. Why have the Arabs, with their oil wealth, been unable to replicate this, and kept their "bretheren" in such hideous conditions, all while sucvcessfully shoveling out propaganda that blames that on Israel?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-17 04:35pm

Coyote wrote:The Arabs left their homes at the behest of neighboring Arab governments, and Israelis actually asked the Arabs to stay.

Yeah, the chaos of war couldn't have had anything to do with their exodus.

Those Arabs that did stay are citizens of Israel today.

In the same sense that blacks were citizens of the US in 1960, or in the same sense that I am a citizen of Canada today?

It's been 50 years. The same 50 years that saw Europe go from a war-torn wasteland to a powerful economic and industrial realm. The refugees and homeless of WW2 were resettled and are now living in 1st World comfort. Why have the Arabs, with their oil wealth, been unable to replicate this, and kept their "bretheren" in such hideous conditions, all while sucvcessfully shoveling out propaganda that blames that on Israel?

What the fuck does this have to do with the question of whether an explicitly defined race-state should be supported by anyone? Are you deliberately TRYING to turn this into a bog-standard Israel vs Palestine thread? What the fuck is your angle, Coyote? Other than bullfuckery?

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-17 04:38pm

Predator wrote:How do you propose the water is distributed, and is Israel likely to accept anything but complete control of the water supply?

Water is indeed a problematic point, I do know that "Peace Now" is one group that is trying to address the issue, but I have not kept up on "water politics" for the region beyond Israel's intentions to import Turkish water in various ways.

And again, Israel has never respected the territorial sovereignty of its neighbours in the past, why believe that all of a sudden there will be an end to air strikes and so forth?

Many times Israel "disrespected territorial sovereignty" of the neighbors because the neighbors did much the same to them. Golan and Sinai were boith used as launch sites for raids into Israel and Israel invaded, gave the land back, only to have the experience repeated again and again.

Israel then invaded and said, "we'll keep it this time". Siunce then, Syrian shelling into Israel stopped, and the Sinai was returned in exchange for a solid peace treaty. Lebanon spiraled out of control and fijnally Israel withdrew.

I'm sorry, but I believe that Israel has a right to defend itself.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 04:41pm

Mike, Israel is going to need to get water from somewhere. They're not going to agree to give up control of their water supply without some assurances of its security. Water in Israel is a scarce commodity. But if an legitimate agreement is reached on the water supply issue, you don't think Israelis would jump at the opportunity for peace for the first time in their history?

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 04:42pm

The Arabs left their homes at the behest of neighboring Arab governments, and Israelis actually asked the Arabs to stay. Those Arabs that did stay are citizens of Israel today.

Heh, if the Israelis wanted the Arabs to stay, why not let them back? Preposterous.

Creating a Jewish majority in Israel was the primary goal of the Zionists.Expulsion of Palestinians was no accident.

The Palestinians that did as their "Arab bretheren" suggested ended up in squalid refugee camps, reminiscent of the worst of the Soweto Ghettoes and treated like scum by the people who promised to take care of them and restore them to their "ethnic homeland".

Are you trying to prove my point for me? If they ended up in squalid refugee camps, I hardly think they're better off for Israel having existed.

It's been 50 years. The same 50 years that saw Europe go from a war-torn wasteland to a powerful economic and industrial realm. The refugees and homeless of WW2 were resettled and are now living in 1st World comfort. Why have the Arabs, with their oil wealth, been unable to replicate this, and kept their "bretheren" in such hideous conditions, all while sucvcessfully shoveling out propaganda that blames that on Israel?/quote]

Because their governments are arseholes, but what does that have to do with the fact that they're not allowed to return to their homes?

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 04:45pm

Coyote wrote: Water is indeed a problematic point, I do know that "Peace Now" is one group that is trying to address the issue, but I have not kept up on "water politics" for the region beyond Israel's intentions to import Turkish water in various ways.

It's nice to know there's an obscure peace group that's willing to compromise over water. Let me know when they gain control of the Knesset.

Many times Israel "disrespected territorial sovereignty" of the neighbors because the neighbors did much the same to them.

I'm not event alking about Golan and Sinai, that's an entirely separate debate, and not one favourable to Israel's image in any case.

I'm tlaking about Israel's bombing of suspected terrorist locations within neighbouring countries. Syria, Lebanon, and so on. Just as they often do within the occupied territories. We know that national borders arent enough to stop Israeli incursions, giving the occupied territories national borders therefore solves little.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-17 04:48pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Mike, Israel is going to need to get water from somewhere. They're not going to agree to give up control of their water supply without some assurances of its security.

"Their" water supply? It's not their water supply; it's Palestine's water supply. What happened to "two state solution", hmmm? So much for sovereignty; this is exactly the kind of "not real sovereignty, but ... the next best thing!" mentality that I'm talking about.

Water in Israel is a scarce commodity. But if an legitimate agreement is reached on the water supply issue, you don't think Israelis would jump at the opportunity for peace for the first time in their history?

What do you mean by "legitimate agreement?" Do you mean a trade agreement where Palestine agrees to sell a certain amount of water to Israel at a fair price through the lifetime of a contract, or do you mean an "agreement" where Israel maintains control?

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 04:48pm

Isn't who fucked over who first kind of a moot point now? The whole point of this thread was to see what solutions, other than Israel being wiped off the map, you all thought would be feasible.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-17 04:49pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Isn't who fucked over who first kind of a moot point now? The whole point of this thread was to see what solutions, other than Israel being wiped off the map, you all thought would be feasible.

Saying that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state does not mean it must be "wiped off the map"; it means that Israel should change to a secular democracy.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 04:50pm

Darth Wong wrote:What do you mean by "legitimate agreement?" Do you mean a trade agreement where Palestine agrees to sell a certain amount of water to Israel at a fair price through the lifetime of a contract, or do you mean an "agreement" where Israel maintains control?

I couldn't even begin to tell you what it would take to get Israel to agree to give up control of water from the Jordan river. Joint control and access, perhaps? Armed Israeli and Palestinian soldiers on each side of the river at key points. Or maybe something that might actually lead to mutual trust and respect. The key is mutual, not Israel kowtowing to the Palestinians or the Palestinians getting reamed by Israel.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-17 04:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Coyote wrote:The Arabs left their homes at the behest of neighboring Arab governments, and Israelis actually asked the Arabs to stay.
Yeah, the chaos of war couldn't have had anything to do with their exodus.

See below-- those that stayed are citizens.

Those Arabs that did stay are citizens of Israel today.
In the same sense that blacks were citizens of the US in 1960, or in the same sense that I am a citizen of Canada today?

Are you allowed to vote, own land, join the army, run for office, represent your district in parliament? Do you get to buy a house where you want, and take advantage of medical and educational benefits offered by the State? If so, then yes.

It's been 50 years. The same 50 years that saw Europe go from a war-torn wasteland to a powerful economic and industrial realm.
What the fuck does this have to do with the question of whether an explicitly defined race-state should be supported by anyone? Are you deliberately TRYING to turn this into a bog-standard Israel vs Palestine thread? What the fuck is your angle, Coyote? Other than bullfuckery?

Calm down... the comment that sparked that was Predator's comment about 800,000 Palestinians being "cleansed" from the land, and their resultant squalor. Does that not lead us to a rebuttal about how and why those Palestinians got to that situation in the first place, and how and why they've been kept in that condition?

I can't just let the comment lie and accept it as truth because it is a distortion of the truth. The 800,000 Palestinians were not "cleansed" from the land as the comment would lead to believe the Israelis asked them to stay and the Arabs promised to take care of themn while they, instead, "cleansed" the land of Jews.

It's unfortunate that any distorted criticism against Israel has to be accepted as fact whereas any defense of the truth is automatically "bog-standard IvP bullfuckery".

Things in the region are not perfect, but sweeping statements about how "all Israelis" are this or that or unwilling to accept an answer only perpetuates the difficulties we have in discussing the situation.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 04:54pm

Darth Wong wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:Isn't who fucked over who first kind of a moot point now? The whole point of this thread was to see what solutions, other than Israel being wiped off the map, you all thought would be feasible.
Saying that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state does not mean it must be "wiped off the map"; it means that Israel should change to a secular democracy.

Which you state quite clearly on your homepage for all the world to see. You also state on your homepage that you don't think this is a likely solution. I happen to agree with you on that point.

Once we all eliminate the bullshit about religion and who started it all and whether the Jews kicked the Palestinians out or if they left voluntarily, however, we get down to real issues, like water, and security, that people are willing to work with each other to solve.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-17 04:59pm

Predator wrote:It's nice to know there's an obscure peace group that's willing to compromise over water. Let me know when they gain control of the Knesset.

They are actually a fairly large social movement that gains a lot of ground when the situations are stable and peace seems reachable.

I'm tlaking about Israel's bombing of suspected terrorist locations within neighbouring countries. Syria, Lebanon, and so on. Just as they often do within the occupied territories. We know that national borders arent enough to stop Israeli incursions, giving the occupied territories national borders therefore solves little.

What about those nations respecting Israel's territory by not arming, equipping, funding and encouraging terrorist groups in the first place? The Arab governments have some responsibility in this, and if they refuse to enforce order within their own borders, I reeiterate that Israel has a right to self-defense.

It is no secret that the Arab governments use Israel as a diversion from theoir own problems and tyranny. Israel certainly did not cause that tyranny, part of an overall solution to the problem is getting the US or EU or whoever to work more on spreading freedom in the region and fixing the problems endemic to Arab gov't's. What should have been done all along, but that's neither here nor there now.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-17 05:01pm

Coyote wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:In the same sense that blacks were citizens of the US in 1960, or in the same sense that I am a citizen of Canada today?
Are you allowed to vote, own land, join the army, run for office, represent your district in parliament? Do you get to buy a house where you want, and take advantage of medical and educational benefits offered by the State? If so, then yes.

All of that was also true of blacks in the US in 1960. Yet no one denies that they were treated as second-class citizens. Israel explicitly defines itself as a Jewish state, and uses government money to fund certain Jewish religious activities.

What the fuck does this have to do with the question of whether an explicitly defined race-state should be supported by anyone? Are you deliberately TRYING to turn this into a bog-standard Israel vs Palestine thread? What the fuck is your angle, Coyote? Other than bullfuckery?
Calm down... the comment that sparked that was Predator's comment about 800,000 Palestinians being "cleansed" from the land, and their resultant squalor. Does that not lead us to a rebuttal about how and why those Palestinians got to that situation in the first place, and how and why they've been kept in that condition?

Ideally, it would lead to a comment about how he's going off-topic.

I can't just let the comment lie and accept it as truth because it is a distortion of the truth. The 800,000 Palestinians were not "cleansed" from the land as the comment would lead to believe the Israelis asked them to stay and the Arabs promised to take care of themn while they, instead, "cleansed" the land of Jews.

And what is the ongoing bulldozing of Palestinian homes? Is that at the Arabs' behest as well? Israel has been trying to maintain its status as a "Jewish state" since Day One; no Israeli government has ever been willing to tolerate the idea of the Palestinians actually becoming a demographic majority, which is part of the subject of this thread: Israel's claim to validity as a racially defined nation. For you to pretend that Israel always wanted a larger Palestinian demographic in its borders is sheer absurdity.

It's unfortunate that any distorted criticism against Israel has to be accepted as fact whereas any defense of the truth is automatically "bog-standard IvP bullfuckery".

Because it is; you are using the standard "Arabs are assholes!" retort to criticisms of Israel's governmental system.

Things in the region are not perfect, but sweeping statements about how "all Israelis" are this or that or unwilling to accept an answer only perpetuates the difficulties we have in discussing the situation.

Funny thing, then, that even Sanchez has quietly admitted that Israel would never give up control of the water, hence the point of the generalization remains. I see you would rather nitpick than deal with the fundamental points raised.

For the THIRD FUCKING TIME, you propose that the ideal solution to a racist state is to have TWO racist states. Address this point, since by ignoring it, you ARE proving that you are simply engaging in bog-standard IvP bullfuckery.