Would you get rid of Israel?

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 05:04pm

Coyote wrote: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.

Unfortunately Israel doesn't help itself by having its own rabid fundamentalist assholes who attack and abuse Muslim Palestinians. There's a reason why the Civil Rights movement here in the States worked so well. It shamed an entire country into actually recognizing a serious problem and dealing with it. When both sides are being assholes and committing the occasional atrocity, it's a lot harder to feel any sympathy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-17 05:04pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
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.

True, but this thread started with questions like "if Israel were disbanded tomorrow ...", which I presume to indicate that we are not necessarily restricting ourselves to entirely realistic scenarios.

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.

I don't think they can be solved that way. The best-case scenario I can see growing out of this two-state idea is something like India/Pakistan, which is a seemingly perpetual low-level conflict. And that's assuming that both sides actually AGREE on these points you mention!

Yes, I believe that total secularism is the solution to a lot of the world's problems. Yes, I understand that it's not likely in our lifetimes. Nevertheless, I do think people need to be reminded of it.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 05:07pm

I shouldnt have to post these, they can be found off links on Mike's middle-east rant, but I'll will. I'm aware this is drifting into Israel vs Palestine territory, but the claim has been made that Palestinians voluntarily left, and I dont want that to stand unanswered.

Transfer.

Analysis byBenny Morris

Le Monde

Coyote wrote: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.

In other words, because no doubt some Palestinians would continue to wage terrorism against Israel in the two state option, it's ok for the new Palestine to be Israel's bitch.

The people of Palestine will support terrorism against Israel so long as factors exist to motivate them to such sentiment. And as long as the people support terrorism, their governments will not be able to stop it, whether they want to or not. The key is removing the factors that motivate the people to violence. Violating their territory, and accumulating thousands of collateral deaths merely enhances the problem.

The two state will not result in equal states, and that is why the problem will remain. There will still be a state of war between terrorists and Israel, an assymetric war between assymetric states.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-17 05:09pm

Predator wrote: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.

But Israel does exist and no amount of arguing on a BBS will change that. What I'm saying is that the Arabs have had the same opportunity to raise the standard of living for the palestinians even if the eventual outcome is to return them to their homes at some point in the future.

Bear in mind the results of a survey back in 2000, I think, reported in Ha'aretz Daily, that angered many in the Fatah/PLO leadewrship: over 70% of Palestinian refugees in the camps would be perfectly happy getting a fat wad of cash and a new home in the West Bank or Gaza if a peace plan was agreed upon between Israel and Palestine.

It is an accepted concept among many Israelis and Arabs that a few Palestinians will be admitted back into Israel as citizens in a token gesture while the rest will be resettled with fat cash bonuses in a new Palestinian state-- and yes, everyone knows this will be the US footing the bill and probably "buying peace".

And the Arab League has said that if the Palestinians come to a peace arrangements with Israel that they find acceptable, the Arab gov'ts will also cease their war footing with Israel, admit it's right to exist, and let the matter settle.

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.
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?

Because Israel is being successfully blamed for it, when in actuality much of the suffering in the camps is because Arab gov'ts want to keep the situation "hot" to justify their own tyranny, defense expenditures, and using Israel as a "bleed-off" area for their violent terrorists.

I don't like the fact that the Palestinians are unfairly treated, but let's look at the situation as it actually developed, not as we would like to see it to shore up our own prejudices.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 05:11pm

"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."

This is not the ideal solution, but I don't see another solution that is plausible. It's better than endless bickering and fighting. At least at this point, each state would have to deal with its own racism without being able to point at someone else and blame them for their actions.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 05:22pm

But Israel does exist and no amount of arguing on a BBS will change that. What I'm saying is that the Arabs have had the same opportunity to raise the standard of living for the palestinians even if the eventual outcome is to return them to their homes at some point in the future.

The fact that Arab governments have treated the Palestinians poorly doesnt diminish the fact that Israel has, and in fact started the problem. Of course the Arab governments are bad, that goes without saying - which is why most people dont bother saying it. Why state the obvious?

I see this often, from people harping on about anti-Americanism when someone criticises the US, citing the fact that they dont criticize China or some other country as evidence. the reason people "target" countries like the US and Israel is because both countries have successfully convinced many people that they are without fault, and are the source of good and democracy in the region/world. It's about dismantling that myth.

Bear in mind the results of a survey back in 2000, I think, reported in Ha'aretz Daily, that angered many in the Fatah/PLO leadewrship: over 70% of Palestinian refugees in the camps would be perfectly happy getting a fat wad of cash and a new home in the West Bank or Gaza if a peace plan was agreed upon between Israel and Palestine.

And I've always said that where the Palestinians cannot return to their original homes, they need to be compensated. I'm glad many Palestinians would be willing to accept this. I dont think they should be forced to accept compensation instead of right of return however, it must be their choice, and in any case where they can return, they must be allowed to. Or they must be allowed to establish new homes near where they origionally resided.

It is an accepted concept among many Israelis and Arabs that a few Palestinians will be admitted back into Israel as citizens in a token gesture while the rest will be resettled with fat cash bonuses in a new Palestinian state-- and yes, everyone knows this will be the US footing the bill and probably "buying peace".

I dont think this concept has to be limited to the two state option. It works just as well with the one state option. Of course, you dont see compensation actually being proposed anyway.

Because Israel is being successfully blamed for it, when in actuality much of the suffering in the camps is because Arab gov'ts want to keep the situation "hot" to justify their own tyranny, defense expenditures, and using Israel as a "bleed-off" area for their violent terrorists.

What I wrote above applies here as well, but lets imagine a world where the Arab governments had treated the Palestinians nicely. Israel would still be guilty of a terrible crime against them, and they'd still deserve justice. It doesnt really change anything about Israel's obligations to these people.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 05:25pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote: This is not the ideal solution, but I don't see another solution that is plausible. It's better than endless bickering and fighting. At least at this point, each state would have to deal with its own racism without being able to point at someone else and blame them for their actions.

Why on earth would you imagine that the bickering and fighting is going to end under a two state solution? Why would you think they would stop blaming the other side for their situation?

Palestinians arent going to forget that they once lived in what is now Israel. They're not going to forget the decades of oppression. Their schools are unlikelt to stop teaching hatred against Israel either. Israelis arent going to forget the suicide bombings, especially since they'll likely continue. And there'll still be fundies claiming divine right to the land regardless of who owns it or owned it.

Stormin · Post by **Stormin** » 2004-12-17 05:26pm

Wonder where some of you people would get the magic fairy dust that would make a one state solution work. O.o
It would be interesting how one could make a law that would turn everyone into good little non genocidal children, especially when the rest of the world stops giving a damn. Give the palistinians control of the country and I can see three waves of refugees. First, the people rich enough and with enough foresight to get out as quickly as possible before the turnover of power.
Second will be people who will sell off everything they can and getting out fast to get away from the harrasment and property confiscations.
And of course the third will be the refugees from the nation wide violence and program of murders and forced displacement while the world looks on in shock and apathy.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-17 05:30pm

Darth Wong wrote:...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.

No argument here, that is indeed so. The prejudice that exists in Israel is largely a glass-ceiling sort of prejudice that does not allow the Arabs to excel. That may be partly due to inherent recism on the part of many Israelis but it is also exacerbated by the fact that many Israelis still, subconsciously, see Arabs as a potential enemy.

Presumably, if there is peace that is realistic and mutually beneficial, these glass ceilings wouild be challenged and removed by civil-rights minded Israelis (many do indeed exist) as they are in America. It will not be a 'flick-of'the-switch' quick solution, it will take time, but these restrictions would eventually be seen for the prejudice thay they are.

And what is the ongoing bulldozing of Palestinian homes?

This goes on in the Territories to satisfy the Settler's movement-- which I am on record here as saying that it is wrong and the Settlers should be taken out of the Territories.

... no Israeli government has ever been willing to tolerate the idea of the Palestinians actually becoming a demographic majority...

Very true, because it goes against the concept of a "Jewish" state. That is why it behooves the Israelis to ditch the Settler's movement, which is an anchor of tyranny in the area. Clinging to the Territories will force Israel to face its demographic reality and make a choice: unass the Territories or openly admit to being an apartheid nation. The third choice, shipping off the Palestinians, is unacceptable and unralistic. Even the Israelis realize that, although some do openly wish it would happen.

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

Palestinians being in refugee camps is partially because of Israel being in existance, although they were encouraged to go there there by other Arab governments-- and it is the Arab gov'ts that are keeping the palestinians in squalor. So if anything, it was "Arabs are being assholes to other Arabs-- and using Israel as an excuse."

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.

That's because the two-state solution, in my opinion, is not guaranteed to automatically become two racist states, although that is, as I said, one possible solution, and one that is realistic.

But what is that actual goal-- peace, or to have everyone be friends? If all we want is peace, it is indeed better to have two racist states who don't like each other but are not fighting, than to continue the situation we have now. It is a realistic goal, not perfect, but it stops the fighting.

Expecting the two groups to get along after all that has transpired is unrealistic; we may have to accept a cold-peace between two exclusivist entities for awhile before tempers cool.

We all know that expecting the two sides to abandon religion or ethnic identity overnight-- while it would definitely remove a lot of the conflict-- is not likely. So I am looking at what is likely, even though the thread as started is willing to embrace unlikelihood.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 05:32pm

Predator wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote: This is not the ideal solution, but I don't see another solution that is plausible. It's better than endless bickering and fighting. At least at this point, each state would have to deal with its own racism without being able to point at someone else and blame them for their actions.
Why on earth would you imagine that the bickering and fighting is going to end under a two state solution? Why would you think they would stop blaming the other side for their situation?

Palestinians arent going to forget that they once lived in what is now Israel. They're not going to forget the decades of oppression. Their schools are unlikelt to stop teaching hatred against Israel either. Israelis arent going to forget the suicide bombings, especially since they'll likely continue. And there'll still be fundies claiming divine right to the land regardless of who owns it or owned it.

I don't expect they would forget; but a two-state solution keeps them APART. Right now they live TOGETHER (remember all those settlers in the West Bank and Gaza?). Seperate the two sides, give them a couple of decades, and maybe, just maybe, they'll start to forgive and learn to live together peacefully. It took a while, but Europe did eventually forgive Germany for WWII; the same thing could happen in the Middle East.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-17 05:39pm

Predator wrote:What I wrote above applies here as well, but lets imagine a world where the Arab governments had treated the Palestinians nicely. Israel would still be guilty of a terrible crime against them, and they'd still deserve justice. It doesnt really change anything about Israel's obligations to these people.

And this is where we run up agauinst the wall, because when it comes down to the founding of the state and how the Jews acquired the land, I don't believe it was unfair, much less a "terrible crime".

There are some parts of this where people are guaranteed not to see eye to eye-- for example, most people here do not believe any state has a valid right to identify itself by ethnic or religious grounds. I believe otherwise; it is okay so long as others are not prejudiced. The sticky point is when members of one certain ethnic group insist on seeing the other as an enemy, yet live in their borders.

In a truly ideal world, ethnic and religious differences would be non-issues. We'd feel like it was cool to meet a Jew one day, a Buddhist the next, and so on. But that day will be a long time coming, if at all, so in the meantime we take what steps can be made, imperfect though they may be, towards that.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 05:41pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:I don't expect they would forget; but a two-state solution keeps them APART. Right now they live TOGETHER (remember all those settlers in the West Bank and Gaza?).

A good deal of the terrorism occurs not in settlements but Israel proper. The thing is, when two groups of people want to fight, they'll generally find a way.

Seperate the two sides, give them a couple of decades, and maybe, just maybe, they'll start to forgive and learn to live together peacefully.

why would they forgive, when there's been no justice? Things have to be set right for there to be forgiveness. Why forgive the unremorseful?

It took a while, but Europe did eventually forgive Germany for WWII; the same thing could happen in the Middle East.

And in Europe, the borders were set back to their pre-war lines, and in fact some countries gained german territory.

Palestinians being in refugee camps is partially because of Israel being in existance, although they were encouraged to go there there by other Arab governments-- and it is the Arab gov'ts that are keeping the palestinians in squalor.

Coyote wrote:Palestinians being in refugee camps is partially because of Israel being in existance, although they were encouraged to go there there by other Arab governments--

Ok, can you provide some evidence that one, they were encouraged by Arab leaders to leave, and that two, they left because of that encouragement? Because I've already posted links discussing the expulsion that indicate there were no such encouragements at all - that it is entirely a concoction of Israeli propaganda and revisionism. There is even evidence from declassified Israeli documents.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 05:43pm

I screwed up the quoting in one area of the last post - can someone edit it where it appears that I said "Palestinians being in refugee camps is partially because of Israel being in existance, although they were encouraged to go there there by other Arab governments-- and it is the Arab gov'ts that are keeping the palestinians in squalor." rather than Coyote?

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-12-17 05:51pm

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:So we've got two solutions:

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.
Not necesarily if the government is SECULAR, strong, and fair. Maybe if the merged state is lead by some benevolent, atheist dictatorship.... I admit that this seems to be an impossibly ideal conditions, though.

We all know how eager the arab muslims are for a secular, atheistic government.

Stormin · Post by **Stormin** » 2004-12-17 05:53pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:*snip*
*snip again*
We all know how eager the arab muslims are for a secular, atheistic government.

Pretty sure the jews wouldn't be overly eager for that one too.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 05:56pm

So Predator, you are suggesting what? Status quo? Or that Israel should give up land and water and security rights?

You mentioned a secular democracy; do you know that the Palestinians want a secular democracy? If they'd prefer a theocracy or a dictatorship are you planning to force a secular democracy upon them?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-17 06:03pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:So Predator, you are suggesting what? Status quo? Or that Israel should give up land and water and security rights?

You mentioned a secular democracy; do you know that the Palestinians want a secular democracy? If they'd prefer a theocracy or a dictatorship are you planning to force a secular democracy upon them?

Neither the Jews or the Palestinians should get what they want. So dismissing a solution by saying that it's not what they want is a bit silly.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 06:06pm

[quote=SanchestheWhaler]So Predator, you are suggesting what? Status quo? Or that Israel should give up land and water and security rights?

You mentioned a secular democracy; do you know that the Palestinians want a secular democracy? If they'd prefer a theocracy or a dictatorship are you planning to force a secular democracy upon them?[/quote]

I didnt just mention a secular democracy, I endorsed the proposal explicitly. I dont care if the Palestinians want a secular democracy or not, just as I dont care if the Israelis or Palestinians dont like the one state option. Yes, a secular democracy does need to be forced upon them, and Mike already pointed out that a massive supermajority needed for changes could help to stop the system from being abused to create a theocracy or dictatorship.

Yes, current Israelis will have to give up at least unused land, and share public land with their new citizens. Yes, current Israelis will have to give up exclusive control over water, in order for it to be shared and controlled by all citizens. Yes, current Israelis will have to weather some terrorism and tension for a while to come. The end result however is the only one that allows the Israelis and the Palestinians to live in all of the land they desire to live in, and only through prolonged integration can the people learn understanding. Only through justice for the Palestinians can the factors that motivate people to violence and terrorism be removed.

It is unlikely that this will happen, but that does not change the fact that it is the best solution, and the right solution. It is likely we will see no solution, much less one as just as this, in our lifetimes.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-12-17 06:10pm

Stormin wrote:
Bob the Gunslinger wrote:
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote: *snip again*
We all know how eager the arab muslims are for a secular, atheistic government.
Pretty sure the jews wouldn't be overly eager for that one too.

My point being that the Palestinians would be the majority in some sort of Israeli superstate.

And the original Zionists and the majority of Israeli citizens would probably welcome such a government if it brought them peace. The hardliners never would accept it, but they can move to NY and live with the rest of the Ultraorthodox there.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 06:16pm

Predator,

You want a secular democracy, I presume, because in your experience this is the best form of government. I am fortunate enough to live in such a country as well. I don't agree with you, however, that we should force ANY form of government upon another state.

If Israelis or Palestinians want a secular democracy, let them choose it. As far as I can tell, they'd prefer something different, that being a two-state solution that leaves one Jewish State and one Muslim State. Forcing them into a secular democracy because you think it is the best solution is wrong.

Stormin · Post by **Stormin** » 2004-12-17 06:19pm

How long would a secular democracy last anyways? I am betting a shorter time than it would take for the multinational armies sent to enforce it fully pull out.
Hello genocidal islamic theocracy.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 06:28pm

[quote="SanchestheWhaler]You want a secular democracy, I presume, because in your experience this is the best form of government. I am fortunate enough to live in such a country as well.[/quote]

I dont want a secular democracy just because it is the best, I want it because it's the only form of government that would work here, apart from the benevolent dictatorship Kreshna proposed. A Jewish religious government wont work. An islamic theocratic government wont work. Secular is the only option.

I don't agree with you, however, that we should force ANY form of government upon another state.

I find it strange that you defend a state that defines itself by ethnicity, has expelled a great number of people and wont allow them back, has confiscated most of another state's land, but that you draw a line at forcing a type of government on a state.

You propose a two state option in which Israel gets to keep its spoils, retain control of the water, and deny the right of return to Palestinians, and that Palestinians are forced to live in a shithole ghetto, and that we pretend everything's starting from a clean slate even though the starting positions of these nations are wildly out of balance. I think that is far more offensive an idea than forcing people to live under a secular democracy.

If Israelis or Palestinians want a secular democracy, let them choose it. As far as I can tell, they'd prefer something different, that being a two-state solution that leaves one Jewish State and one Muslim State. Forcing them into a secular democracy because you think it is the best solution is wrong.

It is the only solution that will work and that will address past injustices as well as can be. Israelis only like the two state option as long as they are still in the superior position, and if they are, the Palestinian state will not be viable, and the Palestinian people will not forgive.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 06:41pm

[quote="Predator"] You propose a two state option in which Israel gets to keep its spoils, retain control of the water, and deny the right of return to Palestinians, and that Palestinians are forced to live in a shithole ghetto, and that we pretend everything's starting from a clean slate even though the starting positions of these nations are wildly out of balance. I think that is far more offensive an idea than forcing people to live under a secular democracy.

Don't fucking put words in my mouth, and don't try and distort my position. Find a post of mine where I say that Israel should keep control of the water, or deny the right of return, or the Palestinians should live in a ghetto.

I see no way to make Israelis and Palestinians live in peace in the same country; I don't see a secular democracy working because most Israelis and Palestinians don't want one.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-17 06:44pm

Darth Wong wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:So Predator, you are suggesting what? Status quo? Or that Israel should give up land and water and security rights?

You mentioned a secular democracy; do you know that the Palestinians want a secular democracy? If they'd prefer a theocracy or a dictatorship are you planning to force a secular democracy upon them?
Neither the Jews or the Palestinians should get what they want. So dismissing a solution by saying that it's not what they want is a bit silly.

It's not silly. If a majority of the population opposes a certain form of government, that government will never work because it will not have any credibility. They'll oppose it and work to install a government they prefer.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-17 06:49pm

Don't fucking put words in my mouth, and don't try and distort my position. Find a post of mine where I say that Israel should keep control of the water, or deny the right of return, or the Palestinians should live in a ghetto.

Well this is interesting, because if you dont believe those things, you're proposing a two state option that's a wildly different animal to any that's been discussed before, and I'd like some more specifics.

So, you propose a two state option where Palestinian refugees are allowed the right of return. It seems strange then to even bother with the two state option. Israel gets almost a million new ethnic Palestinian citizens, but remains separate from Palestine...

You propose that the Palestinians live somewhere other than the current ghettos they reside in. Where else are they going to live under the two state option? What Israeli city do you propose they be given to live in? Or will Israel pay to develop the current ghettos to a first world standard?

And you have a two state solution to the water problem that is fair to both sides?