Israel Considering Saudi Peace Plan

[NomAnor15]

No. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm simply saying that a Jewish state is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people. The example of the US is intended to demonstrate that in a tight corner, even the nations that profess to be the most tolerant will abandon the Jews to their fate. On the other hand, the presence of a Jewish state guarantees that there will be at least one last resort, even if even if every other country on Earth turns their backs on us.

Really so you think the ‘survival of the Jewish people’ is advanced by cramming as many Jewish people as possible into a small piece of land and then doing pretty much everything possible to ensure the enmity of the surrounding populations who outnumber the Jews by several orders of magnitude and who one day will inevitably acquire WMD?

I didn't say that it was being done correctly (I have an opinion on this, of course, but I'd prefer not to go into it in this thread). All I'm saying is that some form of self-governing Jewish entity is necessary for said survival.

[Faqa]

The US was founded as a white supremacist slave owning state, in your world does this magically mean that the Confederates were right?

Was it? The people who FOUNDED it were white supremacist slave owners. They did not specifically found America around these principles.

The Confederates did. So, yes, you might question why the Confederacy EXISTS, but you cannot deny that as a basic tenant of it's survival, it could not free it's slaves.

So the originators of Zionism in the 19th century and all those Zionists who moved to Palestine and began setting up their racist state well before the Nazi holocaust were all psychic were they?

No. Did anti-Semitism magically pop into existence in 1933? It existed well before. Anti-Semitism was a driving force behind Zionism since day 1. Hell, Theodore Hertzel, a man credited as the father of modern Zionism, was very much inspired by the Dreyfus affair. It effectively showed that in an era of growing nationalism, Jews were NOT fundamentally accepted as full citizens by ANY of the nations.

Regardless, I cited the Holocaust as a PRACTICAL reason why Israel exists - had it not happened, I sincerely doubt the UN would have granted the Jews a state, nor would it have been so accepted.

And just where in the world are Jews most hated now? And where are they accepted?

I guarantee to you most Western countries still have anti-Semitic movements. Now, they ARE just isolated loonies these days of course. But so was Hitler once upon a time. And when shit hits the fan, Jews WILL still be a target, and the goverment, as seen in history, is not neccesarily going to give a flying fuck.

Israel does. Tribalism at it's finest. I love human nature, don't you?

Is this totally unfair to a lot of other oppressed minorities? It sure as fuck is.

By forcibly moving into a densely populated part of the world and proceeding to treat the indigenous population like shit Zionists have ensured that for the foreseeable future they’ll be surrounded by embittered enemies. They are basically doing everything they can to build up and continually reinforce anti-semitism into the current and future generations of Arabs who at some point will inevitably acquire WMD. What possible good do you think can come of this?

None whatsoever. That's why peace is an imperative.

Your interpretation of the history is incorrect, but that is immaterial here - because that sure as fuck is how ARABS see it, which basically means that when talking with them, that's the reality we have to deal with.

Our sole chance of survival is to forge a peace and end the cycle of violence before Israel dies by the sword it has lived by. But to continue the analogy, the Right Of Return is more like falling on said sword. The other guys might feel better about it, but we aren't doing it.

And Israel’s ethnically cleansing 700,000 Palestinians from their homes and refusing to let them return or compensate them for the loss of their land isn’t a legitimate ‘past grievance’ why exactly?

Compensation - yes, within reason, if it will get peace.

Return - no. Impossible for reasons I have enumerated above.

It's not about right or wrong - we can argue that into eternity. It's about surviving, and doing what we can to fix the present.

[Plekhanov]

Really so you think the ‘survival of the Jewish people’ is advanced by cramming as many Jewish people as possible into a small piece of land and then doing pretty much everything possible to ensure the enmity of the surrounding populations who outnumber the Jews by several orders of magnitude and who one day will inevitably acquire WMD?

I didn't say that it was being done correctly (I have an opinion on this, of course, but I'd prefer not to go into it in this thread). All I'm saying is that some form of self-governing Jewish entity is necessary for said survival.

It is? On what grounds do you make this claim? It may not still be true but I've heard it said many times that 'there are more Jews in New York than in Israel' personally if I was Jewish I'd think my ancestors had a better chance of survival in New York than in a racist state surrounded by enemies that for all it's short existence has done pretty much everything it can to ensure they become increasingly embittered enemies.

As for it not 'being done correctly' unless you happened to be lucky enough to find a large inhabitable island which also happened not to have any people on it how could you conceivably set about creating a racially pure state anywhere in the world in the mid twentieth century without having to embark on policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid thus inevitably creating bitter enemies?

[Ender]

So on the topic of Right Of Return, we get a good discussion of the economic and demographic issues from Sea Skimmer, a good discussion of Israeli politics, culture, and historical ideology from Faqa, and a knee-jerk one liner from Elfdart that is itself a stereotype. Let's keep that standard N&P level of discourse guys.

I don't see how Faqa's casual endorsement of the idea of ethnically cleansing Israel with forced deportations of all non-Jews is something that could be considered "a good discussion" of any sort. Would you be as forgiving of an American white supremacist who proposed deporting anyone of Mexican descent, as long as he accurately described his bigotry?

Except as both he and Alyrium pointed out, Faqa was not endorsing it. He specifically stated "I'm not arguing right or wrong here - I'm explaining reality. " He was trying to lay out the facts of the situation surrounding Right of Return rather than advocating or contesting it. It is possible to neutrally discuss a scenario, which is what he was trying to do. To that end, so long as his information was factually accurate, yes I would describe it as good. It did what it was intended to do, which was explain the ideology that would guide the political process in Israel.

Within your comparison, if I'm trying to understand why white supremacists are going to vote X on issue Y, and someone comes in and provides a summary of their ideology and how that will influence their decision, but does not condemn their beliefs, yes, I will still regard it as a good post. It answered my question in a more nuanced way then "all of them are racist, racists suck". I'm fully capable of making my own moral judgments and don't require the advocacy to hold my hand explaining right from wrong step by step. What I want is useful information with some thought behind it, not a lecture, and the longer post has that.

[hongi]

How related is the right of return issue to the overall issue of peace? If there's a way to have peace without dealing with the right of return issue just yet...then I think many people in the West will look at the right of return issue in a new light. Once knee-jerk 'defend Israel!' reactions subside in say, America, people will more likely look at the right of return as a humanitarian issue, rather than a destruction of Israel issue.

[Plekhanov]

Except as both he and Alyrium pointed out, Faqa was not endorsing it. He specifically stated "I'm not arguing right or wrong here - I'm explaining reality. " He was trying to lay out the facts of the situation surrounding Right of Return rather than advocating or contesting it. It is possible to neutrally discuss a scenario, which is what he was trying to do. To that end, so long as his information was factually accurate, yes I would describe it as good. It did what it was intended to do, which was explain the ideology that would guide the political process in Israel.

Within your comparison, if I'm trying to understand why white supremacists are going to vote X on issue Y, and someone comes in and provides a summary of their ideology and how that will influence their decision, but does not condemn their beliefs, yes, I will still regard it as a good post. It answered my question in a more nuanced way then "all of them are racist, racists suck". I'm fully capable of making my own moral judgments and don't require the advocacy to hold my hand explaining right from wrong step by step. What I want is useful information with some thought behind it, not a lecture, and the longer post has that.

It seems to me this dispute can be easily resolved by the man who's posts are being discussed Faqa.

So Faqa please do tell us is your failure, no matter how obliquely, to condemn the racist ethnic nationalist nature of the Zionist project and the racist policies it inevitably entails so far in this thread despite numerous opportunities to do so simply due to:

1. a desire simply 'lay out the facts of the situation surrounding Right of Return rather than advocating or contesting it'
2. the fact that you are an unrepentant racist who supports Israel's racist foundations and policies but are reluctant to say so here?

[Guardsman Bass]

One thing I ought to point out - this happened 60 years ago, meaning that even the children of the original owners (who by and large are probably dead and dying now, seeing as they are in their 70s and 80s) are getting old. Does it even make sense to give the actual land back to their descendants (who never lived on it and whose only claim is that their parents and grandparents owned it - in of itself slightly dubious since there were, IIRC, a lot of Jews and Arabs who were leasing the land) instead of compensation, particularly when the land itself no doubt has been sold and owned by various owners since then?

Again, it ought to be pointed out that regardless of the morality of the Right of Return, it's not going to happen unless the Israeli Arab citizens get large enough to basically ignore the rest of the voting population in Israel and let it happen, and that's assuming they'd want to do it (1-2 million people in a country of 6 million also means quite a few more people now looking for jobs and services). No Israeli government would survive a deal to allow it at this point, probably not even a Labor one.

[Guardsman Bass]

The reason I brought it up is because giving up a Right of Return to descendants rather than the actual people who owned it opens up a very large can of worms, particularly if it results in the displacement of people who have owned the land in the interim. If something like the above were to happen, does that mean that the descendants of native Americans can make land claims and get them, either in the US or Canada? That displacement process only ended about 120 years ago.

[Guardsman Bass]

Sorry to do a triple post, but

So Faqa please do tell us is your failure, no matter how obliquely, to condemn the racist ethnic nationalist nature of the Zionist project and the racist policies it inevitably entails so far in this thread despite numerous opportunities to do so simply due to:

1. a desire simply 'lay out the facts of the situation surrounding Right of Return rather than advocating or contesting it'
2. the fact that you are an unrepentant racist who supports Israel's racist foundations and policies but are reluctant to say so here?

You sound like one of those Islamophobic right-wingers demanding to know why moderate muslims aren't out in the streets and in the press, protesting against radical Islam every second of the day. I managed to read his explanation assuming, since he didn't take a clear stand on whether this was bad or not, that he was simply describing things as he saw them - why can't you?

[Plekhanov]

The US was founded as a white supremacist slave owning state, in your world does this magically mean that the Confederates were right?

Was it? The people who FOUNDED it were white supremacist slave owners. They did not specifically found America around these principles.

Yes it was, if you don’t believe me check out the ‘Enumeration Clause’ of the original US constitution.

The Confederates did. So, yes, you might question why the Confederacy EXISTS, but you cannot deny that as a basic tenant of it's survival, it could not free it's slaves.

My point was obviously does that make it moral? So answer the question in your opinion does Israel’s foundation as an attempt to create a racist ethnically pure state for Jews justify continued crimes to further such an immoral aim?

So the originators of Zionism in the 19th century and all those Zionists who moved to Palestine and began setting up their racist state well before the Nazi holocaust were all psychic were they?

No. Did anti-Semitism magically pop into existence in 1933? It existed well before. Anti-Semitism was a driving force behind Zionism since day 1. Hell, Theodore Hertzel, a man credited as the father of modern Zionism, was very much inspired by the Dreyfus affair. It effectively showed that in an era of growing nationalism, Jews were NOT fundamentally accepted as full citizens by ANY of the nations.

Regardless, I cited the Holocaust as a PRACTICAL reason why Israel exists - had it not happened, I sincerely doubt the UN would have granted the Jews a state, nor would it have been so accepted.

So it was merely a ‘practical reason’ was it? Because it sure sounded like you were trying to use the Nazi holocaust as a founding principle of the ideology of Zionist and a moral justification for the creation of a racially pure Jewish state and the abuse of the indigenous populations that would inevitably require.

And just where in the world are Jews most hated now? And where are they accepted?

I guarantee to you most Western countries still have anti-Semitic movements. Now, they ARE just isolated loonies these days of course. But so was Hitler once upon a time. And when shit hits the fan, Jews WILL still be a target, and the goverment, as seen in history, is not neccesarily going to give a flying fuck.

Israel does. Tribalism at it's finest. I love human nature, don't you?

Is this totally unfair to a lot of other oppressed minorities? It sure as fuck is.

Bullshit, Hitler wasn’t an ‘isolated loony’ atleast not in his anti-semitism which was endemic Germany since atleast the days of Luther.

This is no longer the case however, in a large part due to the Nazi holocaust and the general reaction against racist nationalism since WWII anti-Semitism is now so unpopular in much of Europe that fascist parties like the BNP find it necessary to deny their anti-Semitic holocaust denying past. Mass immigration of non-whites to Europe since WWII has pushed Jews way down the list of targets for prejudice. So long as there remain significant numbers of brown people living in the west Jews have very little to worry about, at least from the white population.

In my entire life including over a decade involved on the ground in anti-racist politics I’ve witnessed anti-Semitism from a single white European a conspiracy nut white supremacist who still largely goes on about ‘blacks and muslims’. I have however witnessed a fair bit of anti-Semitism from muslims who’s anti-semtism was so far as I could tell entirely motivated by Israel’s ongoing mistreatment of their ‘brothers’ in Palestine.

By forcibly moving into a densely populated part of the world and proceeding to treat the indigenous population like shit Zionists have ensured that for the foreseeable future they’ll be surrounded by embittered enemies. They are basically doing everything they can to build up and continually reinforce anti-semitism into the current and future generations of Arabs who at some point will inevitably acquire WMD. What possible good do you think can come of this?

None whatsoever. That's why peace is an imperative.

Your interpretation of the history is incorrect, but that is immaterial here - because that sure as fuck is how ARABS see it, which basically means that when talking with them, that's the reality we have to deal with.

Like I’m going to let you get that pop in without a response, in what way is my ‘interpretation of the history… incorrect’?

Was the Middle East not already well populated? Has Israel since the ethnic cleansing of its founding not repeatedly invaded its neighbours and then established apartheid states on occupied territory? Just what else could Israel really have got away with doing (whilst maintaining western support) to antagonise Arabs?

Our sole chance of survival is to forge a peace and end the cycle of violence before Israel dies by the sword it has lived by. But to continue the analogy, the Right Of Return is more like falling on said sword. The other guys might feel better about it, but we aren't doing it

Israel as a racist state founded upon ideals of racial purity would die if the right to return was granted but that doesn’t mean that Israelis would die anymore than white South Africans all died when they ended their apartheid system.

Compensation - yes, within reason, if it will get peace.

Return - no. Impossible for reasons I have enumerated above.

It's not about right or wrong - we can argue that into eternity. It's about surviving, and doing what we can to fix the present.

About what surviving, the Jewish people or the Zionist’s racist state?

[Plekhanov]

One thing I ought to point out - this happened 60 years ago, meaning that even the children of the original owners (who by and large are probably dead and dying now, seeing as they are in their 70s and 80s) are getting old. Does it even make sense to give the actual land back to their descendants (who never lived on it and whose only claim is that their parents and grandparents owned it - in of itself slightly dubious since there were, IIRC, a lot of Jews and Arabs who were leasing the land) instead of compensation, particularly when the land itself no doubt has been sold and owned by various owners since then?

So what you’re basically proposing is an ethnic cleansers charter where they simply need to hold out for 70 or so years and then they get to keep the land no questions asked whilst huge numbers of the ethnically cleansed and their descendents remain refugees?

You sound like one of those Islamophobic right-wingers demanding to know why moderate muslims aren't out in the streets and in the press, protesting against radical Islam every second of the day. I managed to read his explanation assuming, since he didn't take a clear stand on whether this was bad or not, that he was simply describing things as he saw them - why can't you?

What a bullshit analogy, I haven’t barged into a completely unrelated thread demanding that Faqa condemn some Zionist atrocity or other. I’ve simply asked him to clarify his position on an issue he’s made numerous posts about the right for return and preserving Israel’s status as a Jewish state all the time studiously avoiding commenting on the morality of such a state existing. A studied avoidance which has caught the attention of numerous posters other than myself.

Also please note that despite his studied attempts to try and avoid giving up his postion Faqa has done such as in his previous post when in the context of talking about Israel as an ethnic nationalist state he said “Our sole chance of survival is to forge a peace and end the cycle of violence before Israel dies by the sword it has lived by.”.

Now if in the context of talking about Al Qaeda’s fight a muslim after extensive discussion of Al Qaeda and their history, current position and prospects after repeatedly 'explaining' their basic cause in sympathetic terms whilst not specifically endorsing it said “Our sole chance of victory is to….” Are you seriously saying you wouldn’t ask if they felt an allegiance to that cause?

[Guardsman Bass]

One thing I ought to point out - this happened 60 years ago, meaning that even the children of the original owners (who by and large are probably dead and dying now, seeing as they are in their 70s and 80s) are getting old. Does it even make sense to give the actual land back to their descendants (who never lived on it and whose only claim is that their parents and grandparents owned it - in of itself slightly dubious since there were, IIRC, a lot of Jews and Arabs who were leasing the land) instead of compensation, particularly when the land itself no doubt has been sold and owned by various owners since then?

So what you’re basically proposing is an ethnic cleansers charter where they simply need to hold out for 70 or so years and then they get to keep the land no questions asked whilst huge numbers of the ethnically cleansed and their descendents remain refugees?

Notice how I pointed out that they ought to receive compensation? I'm just wary of giving them back the actual land when most of the actual owners and even many of their children are dead and dying, especially when the actual land claims themselves have been blurred to hell (and probably resold; it's not like most of this land has just been sitting empty in Israel the whole time).

Hence why I pointed out the example of native Americans. If you are going to give out a Right of Return to descendants of the owners (since most of the owners are presumably dead), then you are going to see the same type of issue vis a vis native americans.

You sound like one of those Islamophobic right-wingers demanding to know why moderate muslims aren't out in the streets and in the press, protesting against radical Islam every second of the day. I managed to read his explanation assuming, since he didn't take a clear stand on whether this was bad or not, that he was simply describing things as he saw them - why can't you?

What a bullshit analogy, I haven’t barged into a completely unrelated thread demanding that Faqa condemn some Zionist atrocity or other. I’ve simply asked him to clarify his position on an issue he’s made numerous posts about the right for return and preserving Israel’s status as a Jewish state all the time studiously avoiding commenting on the morality of such a state existing. A studied avoidance which has caught the attention of numerous posters other than myself.

You claimed that he wasn't being clear enough on how bad this type of thing was, and implied that he is "an unrepentant racist who supports Israel's racist foundations and policies" for not being clear enough on that point to you. Not everyone drew that conclusion.

Now if in the context of talking about Al Qaeda’s fight a muslim after extensive discussion of Al Qaeda and their history, current position and prospects after repeatedly 'explaining' their basic cause in sympathetic terms whilst not specifically endorsing it said “Our sole chance of victory is to….” Are you seriously saying you wouldn’t ask if they felt an allegiance to that cause?

As I pointed out, I didn't draw the same conclusion from the way he phrased it, so perhaps your analogy doesn't carry.

[Darth Wong]

No. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm simply saying that a Jewish state is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people.

Bullshit.

The example of the US is intended to demonstrate that in a tight corner, even the nations that profess to be the most tolerant will abandon the Jews to their fate.

In 1940, when a mixed-race man like Barack Obama would have been killed in the streets. Now he's running for President, and winning. Tell me, do you think every common mixed-race combo should get its own country, just in case the world turns bigoted again?

On the other hand, the presence of a Jewish state guarantees that there will be at least one last resort, even if even if every other country on Earth turns their backs on us.

Go fuck yourself. Your argument is that your bigotry is necessary just in case other people are bigoted in the future. Which is a lot like saying that I need to pre-emptively punch you in the face, just because I'm worried you might do it first.

[Faqa]

So Faqa please do tell us is your failure, no matter how obliquely, to condemn the racist ethnic nationalist nature of the Zionist project and the racist policies it inevitably entails so far in this thread despite numerous opportunities to do so simply due to:

1. a desire simply 'lay out the facts of the situation surrounding Right of Return rather than advocating or contesting it'
2. the fact that you are an unrepentant racist who supports Israel's racist foundations and policies but are reluctant to say so here?

Number one. I am explaining why it cannot happen - politically or socially. Israel will never agree to it(and the 'why' of this is also what I've tried to explain), nor do I believe that such a Return could be conducted in a just fashion, given the time elapsed since the original event.

The one thing I do NOT want to do is argue the justice of it. In a completely fair world, yes, the Right of Return should happen. But the reason the issue even exists at all is because of a very unfair world.

My point was obviously does that make it moral?

No, and I have repeatedly said since my first post that I'm not arguing morality or fairness here, because I am not attempting to justify the existence of a Jewish state. Hell, I've actually pointed out that it's NOT fair that we have this state, and how rational argument cannot defend it.

I am explaining why Israelis (and many Jews) WANT such a state, and why, therefore, we will never agree to something that outright destroys it.

So it was merely a ‘practical reason’ was it? Because it sure sounded like you were trying to use the Nazi holocaust as a founding principle of the ideology of Zionist and a moral justification for the creation of a racially pure Jewish state and the abuse of the indigenous populations that would inevitably require.

It sure sounds to me like you're not reading my posts here then:

The biggest reason why? The Holocaust. Because clearly Jews were still fair game for persecution, no matter if they were rabbis or Christians with a Jewish grandmother. And NOBODY of consequence in the Western World was going to give a shit(there's a reason the exceptions are called Righteous Among The Nations). This was proven effectively. Very well - we will create a state that WILL give a shit next time. We will fight tooth and nail for that state, because it relates to directly to matters of our welfare, which clearly nobody else can be trusted with. That fact was spectacularly proven in the thirties.

Now, you might say, correctly, that there's plenty of persecuted groups that haven't got the same luxury. True. But if they had, I find it difficult to imagine their response would be any different. Jews just happen to have Awesome Jewery Powers, and the attempted genocide committed on us was in a modern era with sufficient documentation that can shove the horror of it into the faces of common man and get our way.

You missed the point of what I was trying to say - the Holocaust was hardly unique, nor does it justify the existence of a Jewish state. But it DOES explain why Jews will fight tooth and nail against integration with the Arabs. Because if you do, what was the point of it in the first place?

Bullshit, Hitler wasn’t an ‘isolated loony’ atleast not in his anti-semitism which was endemic Germany since atleast the days of Luther.

This is no longer the case however, in a large part due to the Nazi holocaust and the general reaction against racist nationalism since WWII anti-Semitism is now so unpopular in much of Europe that fascist parties like the BNP find it necessary to deny their anti-Semitic holocaust denying past. Mass immigration of non-whites to Europe since WWII has pushed Jews way down the list of targets for prejudice. So long as there remain significant numbers of brown people living in the west Jews have very little to worry about, at least from the white population.

In my entire life including over a decade involved on the ground in anti-racist politics I’ve witnessed anti-Semitism from a single white European a conspiracy nut white supremacist who still largely goes on about ‘blacks and muslims’. I have however witnessed a fair bit of anti-Semitism from muslims who’s anti-semtism was so far as I could tell entirely motivated by Israel’s ongoing mistreatment of their ‘brothers’ in Palestine.

Nobody actually thought that something like the Holocaust could happen. Germany was too 'civilized'. Until it, well, did.

But yes, in the forseeable future, the past is still too well-documented to deny, for the most part.

What happens in another generation? When the people who lived through that era are all dead and gone? When it's something that happened a century ago? I'll tell you this - the human nature of using different groups as persecutional targets will still be around. The residential guilt that prevents this from being directed against Jews might very well be gone.

Does that JUSTIFY a Jewish state? Again, no. But it certainly explains why Jews do not want such a state to die off.

Like I’m going to let you get that pop in without a response, in what way is my ‘interpretation of the history… incorrect’?

Was the Middle East not already well populated? Has Israel since the ethnic cleansing of its founding not repeatedly invaded its neighbours and then established apartheid states on occupied territory? Just what else could Israel really have got away with doing (whilst maintaining western support) to antagonise Arabs?

You are incorrect, simply because the Zionist movement had been in Israel since the dawn of the 20th century, for the most part farming and living on land legally purchased from Arab landowners(NOT densely populated for the most part). The 'military' forces they had were essentially for self-defense AGAINST attacks from other Arabs, because the Brits and Turks didn't really care enough to defend anything in the region other than their interests.

Now, were they paragons of integrity this whole time? Hell no. They had an agenda, which they advanced by any means neccesary. So did the Arab states around them.

In short, you are not incorrect in saying there has been mistreatment of Arabs by Zionist movements. You ARE incorrect in saying that this mistreatment was one-sided. And in supposing that they came as conquerors as opposed to settlers.

Unless you are referring to 1967, where I will outright say that while one can justify the pre-emptive attack, one CANNOT justify the keeping of the lands nor the oppression of THAT Arab population. That was both stupid and completely morally wrong. Understandable, given human nature, but wrong.

Israel as a racist state founded upon ideals of racial purity would die if the right to return was granted but that doesn’t mean that Israelis would die anymore than white South Africans all died when they ended their apartheid system.

First of all, that second one is in doubt. Palestinian anger, regardless of it's justification, runs so high that giving them voting rights here will NOT end well.

It's not about racial purity, exactly. Arab and Bedouin citizens of Israel do exist, and while there is (despicable) racism towards them from some, there is no official discrimination against them. The goverment gives them the back of it's hand in some cases, which is wrong, I agree. But officially, at least, they are afforded all the same privileges as Jews(aside from military draft exemption. This is mainly because it's not fair to ask them to fight against Arab armies which may include their own relatives. They can still volunteer, though). Hell, Arabs have their own Knesset party.

This ain't exactly a bastion of racial equality, but it's not apartheid either.

(This is all background slightly irrelevant to the argument, but I felt it worth saying nonetheless)

But yes, eventually, given demographics, it will come to having to treat things in that fashion. Israel as a racist state that favors the Jews WILL die given the Right Of Return. Ergo, don't ever expect Israel to accept it.

About what surviving, the Jewish people or the Zionist’s racist state?

The latter. Although, as I have attempted to point out, the latter exists IN LARGE PART because it is felt that the former is still in danger. I have not justified that feeling, since it has no justification. It is, in fact, revealed as unjust when exposed to rational debate. The foreseeable chances of anti-Semitism in the future, combined with the harm such anti-Semitism might cause do NOT together justify the ruckus Israel has caused simply by existing.

But the fact is, Israel does exist, and don't expect the people it exists for to support in any way, shape or form, a movement that would change it to something completely different.

[cosmicalstorm]

This topic rarely comes up in this forum so I would like to take the opportunity to ask; What is the most probable course that this conflict will take into the near future?
(i.e. over the next 25-75 years)

To me it seems there is simply too much hate and bitterness on all sides for any kind of rational solution to be applied.

Will they just continue the current petty bickering? Will there be some kind of war within Israel due to the demographic situation?

[Ace Pace]

Will they just continue the current petty bickering? Will there be some kind of war within Israel due to the demographic situation?

There already is a war. Not one with guns, but over living space and budgeting. Jerusalem is a pretty good example of this.

The city has roughly 750,000 residents. Of which 36% are non-Jewish. The other 64% are roughly split (in descending order) between ultra-orthodox of varient bents, religious Jews and secular Jews (which are rapidly fleeing the city). Politically, the ultra-orthodox control the city and are in a constant fight to expand their control of it through new Ultra-orthodox neighborhoods and taking over existing ones and driving out moderate people and arabs. Using their political power, they favour themselves in budgeting questions. The rest of the city is divided among several other smaller political factions who don't exactly band together.
Theres also a constant undercurrent of demographic breeding wars. Jerusalem is a small scale example of whats going on in various parts of the country over the majority control.
Hopefully this wasn't completly incoherent.


Barak just announced that if there is no advancement in the peace program by the end of the year, it'll be the Pals fault. No source yet, heard it on the radio.

[NomAnor15]

No. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm simply saying that a Jewish state is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people.

Bullshit.

...and you have a reason for this statement, I assume?

The example of the US is intended to demonstrate that in a tight corner, even the nations that profess to be the most tolerant will abandon the Jews to their fate.

In 1940, when a mixed-race man like Barack Obama would have been killed in the streets. Now he's running for President, and winning. Tell me, do you think every common mixed-race combo should get its own country, just in case the world turns bigoted again?

Has every "common mixed-race combo" been persecuted (at one time or another) by every single nation they've lived in for the past 4000+ years?

On the other hand, the presence of a Jewish state guarantees that there will be at least one last resort, even if even if every other country on Earth turns their backs on us.

Go fuck yourself. Your argument is that your bigotry is necessary just in case other people are bigoted in the future. Which is a lot like saying that I need to pre-emptively punch you in the face, just because I'm worried you might do it first.

No, my argument is that it's necessary because of an incredible historical precedent of said bigotry. If something happens over and over for 4000+ years, do you just say "well, things are different now, that could never happen again" and go on your merry way? Seems pretty naive and shortsighted to me.

[Akhlut]

I guarantee to you most Western countries still have anti-Semitic movements. Now, they ARE just isolated loonies these days of course. But so was Hitler once upon a time. And when shit hits the fan, Jews WILL still be a target, and the goverment, as seen in history, is not neccesarily going to give a flying fuck.

Israel does. Tribalism at it's finest. I love human nature, don't you?

Hitler was far from being an isolated loonie in the Weimar Republic. Antisemitism had long been in Germany, and was boosted by Martin Luther. Hitler didn't magically convince the Germans to hate the Jews: that hatred was already there. He just convinced them that the Jews were responsible for all the Germans' problems, which wasn't a hard row to hoe.

[Guardsman Bass]

Will they just continue the current petty bickering? Will there be some kind of war within Israel due to the demographic situation?

There already is a war. Not one with guns, but over living space and budgeting. Jerusalem is a pretty good example of this.

The city has roughly 750,000 residents. Of which 36% are non-Jewish. The other 64% are roughly split (in descending order) between ultra-orthodox of varient bents, religious Jews and secular Jews (which are rapidly fleeing the city). Politically, the ultra-orthodox control the city and are in a constant fight to expand their control of it through new Ultra-orthodox neighborhoods and taking over existing ones and driving out moderate people and arabs. Using their political power, they favour themselves in budgeting questions. The rest of the city is divided among several other smaller political factions who don't exactly band together.
Theres also a constant undercurrent of demographic breeding wars. Jerusalem is a small scale example of whats going on in various parts of the country over the majority control.
Hopefully this wasn't completly incoherent.


Barak just announced that if there is no advancement in the peace program by the end of the year, it'll be the Pals fault. No source yet, heard it on the radio.

Are the Orthodox the ones that don't fight and use religious excuses to avoid Israeli conscription? I can't remember the name of that group, but I remember reading that they breed like rabbits.

[Imperial Overlord]

No. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm simply saying that a Jewish state is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people.

Bullshit.

...and you have a reason for this statement, I assume?

He doesn't have to. You made the claim that Israel is necessary for the survival of the Jews. It's up to you to provide support for it.

[Faqa]

Will they just continue the current petty bickering? Will there be some kind of war within Israel due to the demographic situation?

There already is a war. Not one with guns, but over living space and budgeting. Jerusalem is a pretty good example of this.

The city has roughly 750,000 residents. Of which 36% are non-Jewish. The other 64% are roughly split (in descending order) between ultra-orthodox of varient bents, religious Jews and secular Jews (which are rapidly fleeing the city). Politically, the ultra-orthodox control the city and are in a constant fight to expand their control of it through new Ultra-orthodox neighborhoods and taking over existing ones and driving out moderate people and arabs. Using their political power, they favour themselves in budgeting questions. The rest of the city is divided among several other smaller political factions who don't exactly band together.
Theres also a constant undercurrent of demographic breeding wars. Jerusalem is a small scale example of whats going on in various parts of the country over the majority control.
Hopefully this wasn't completly incoherent.


Barak just announced that if there is no advancement in the peace program by the end of the year, it'll be the Pals fault. No source yet, heard it on the radio.

Are the Orthodox the ones that don't fight and use religious excuses to avoid Israeli conscription? I can't remember the name of that group, but I remember reading that they breed like rabbits.

Some are, some aren't. The ultra-Orthodox(haredim) are. The less extreme ones have most of the batshit fundie part but they also have an extreme commitment to the State of Israel, and therefore serve in the IDF, and tend to feature majorly in combat units.

[hongi]

No. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm simply saying that a Jewish state is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people.

Bullshit.

...and you have a reason for this statement, I assume?

The Jewish people survived in one form or another for millenia without Israel.

[Solauren]

Israeli is needed for the survival of the Jewish people?!?!?!

MAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If the Jews want to survive, all they need to do is relocate to a country with open, religious tolerance ingrained into it's laws (if not the actions of the people). Some place they'll be accepted and welcomed, and not spit on.

You know, just about any modern democracy.

[NomAnor15]

The Jewish people survived in one form or another for millenia without Israel.

Indeed. However, industrial slaughter on the scale of the Holocaust was simply not possible for the vast majority of that time. Once that enters the equation the necessity is evident. Not to mention that in past instances of large-scale anti-Semitism there was usually somewhere to run to. It gets difficult to run when every neighboring country hates you just as much as the one you're running from, and the countries that don't hate you are across an ocean.

As for Solauren;

Israeli is needed for the survival of the Jewish people?!?!?!

MAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If the Jews want to survive, all they need to do is relocate to a country with open, religious tolerance ingrained into it's laws (if not the actions of the people). Some place they'll be accepted and welcomed, and not spit on.

You know, just about any modern democracy.

Did I say "Israel"? No, I said a "self-governing Jewish entity". I'll thank you to actually pay attention.

As for places they'll be accepted, you mean like...Spain up until 1492? How about France before 1894? Or maybe England until 1290? Rome until 70? Greece until 169 BCE?

Now, clearly these are not modern democracies (with the exception of France, depending on how you define modern), but each was considered the pinnacle of enlightenment and civilization (with respect to Jews in particular) at some point in their history. And yet somehow, surprise surprise, things change. That is what people in this thread are failing to understand. Everyone seems to expect the current atmosphere of tolerance (even acceptance) to last forever which is exactly what they thought in the above places, until suddenly that atmosphere disappeared. Like I said, naive and shortsighted.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I guarantee to you most Western countries still have anti-Semitic movements. Now, they ARE just isolated loonies these days of course. But so was Hitler once upon a time. And when shit hits the fan, Jews WILL still be a target, and the goverment, as seen in history, is not neccesarily going to give a flying fuck.

Israel does. Tribalism at it's finest. I love human nature, don't you?

Hitler was far from being an isolated loonie in the Weimar Republic. Antisemitism had long been in Germany, and was boosted by Martin Luther. Hitler didn't magically convince the Germans to hate the Jews: that hatred was already there. He just convinced them that the Jews were responsible for all the Germans' problems, which wasn't a hard row to hoe.

There's nothing special about German anti-semitism, however; what you just said can be applied to all of Europe in the period.