Bibi’s Fake Concessions
The quantity of positive press that Benjamin Netanyahu was able to garner yesterday for a speech in which he offered the “concession” of agreeing that Israel should uphold some-but-not-all of its previously made commitments is really pretty astounding. On the key short-term question of settlements, he conceded nothing at all. The number of Israelis living in the West Bank will continue to grow, Jewish-only roads will continue to exist and expand, checkpoints will continue to choke the Palestinian economy, etc.
And on the long-term, territorial details and refugees aside, rather than agreeing to the creation of a Palestinian state, he agreed to the creation of a kind of autonomous Palestinian protectorate that he’ll generous call a “state.” The phrase of choice seems to be that he has a vision for the creation of a “limited” state. But what’s a “limited state”? Who lives in one? It’s true that a variety of states without armed forces exist—basically Costa Rica and a bunch of small island nations—but I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a state without the right under international law to make its own decisions about national defense.
But while not conceding anything to the Palestinians, he’s invented new conditions they need to meet! The whole thing is clearly a tactical retreat to try to shore up his political position here in the United States. People shouldn’t fall for it.
89 Responses to “Bibi’s Fake Concessions”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 15th, 2009 at 8:39 am
It’s a perfect storm of sorts — Iran shenanigans following on Obama’s open-hand gesture; fallout from the election claims most of the media’s attention, leaving Likudnik message engineers free reign to shape coverage of the speech. Has the makings of a sea-change moment; will certainly test the power of ‘the Obama effect.’
June 15th, 2009 at 8:55 am
How can Palestine exist as a state without a robust military given that several armed Islamic factions will continue to try to influence events there?
The largest problem here is the imbalance of power. Until Palestine can defend itself from both the Israelis and fellow Muslim states, it will be a power vacuum that stirs conflict in the region.
June 15th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Given that the Palestinian territories are already autonomous, what does would they even gain in Netanyahu’s end-state? Given Israel’s evident readiness to assault neighboring states regardless of their sovereignity, one imagines that the only benefit the Palestinians would want from statehood is the right to import high-quality anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. Without that, surely they are exactly where they are today, with a a slightly clearer diplomatic status?
June 15th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Bibi talks a good game. I rather doubt that he has the cojones to follow through, based on his past history of appeasement. If President Osama takes a leaf out of the Ariel Sharon playbook, Bibi will fold like a paper airplane.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Netanyahu’s speech wasn’t very gracious. No Sadat going to Jerusalem, this fellow.
That said, it isn’t clear what you expected. The issue of refugees from 1948 and their descendents is a matter to be negotiated. Netanyahu staked out Israel’s position. Ditto Jerusalem.
The issue of the general disarmament of any Arab Palestinian state is also, and has been pretty much since these negotiations started, pretty obvious. Again what did you expect? I don’t understand your emotionalism on this issue — the italicized “no other state under international law” bit. The Palestinian state will be entering into treaty commitments with Israel (and probably several other countries will have to be involved too) concerning its military forces. Nothing strange about that.
He did the minimum he thought he had to do. He acknowledged that the national aspirations of Palestinian Arabs should find expression in an independent state.
Maybe at some point something substantive, like, you know, genuine negotiations will commence. Until then there’s no news.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Just as ObaFuhrer gives cover to homophobes with his opposition to gay rights so he gives cover to the Zionist far right with his public praise for Netanyahu’s “important step forward”.
How much longer will the Left mutely accept ObaFuhrer’s mutation into Bushit III?
And now he’s going to take on the Rethugican jihad against medical malpractice suits.
Oh yeah that’s the way to improve outcomes, make doctors even less responsible than they are now!
June 15th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Re: but I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a state without the right under international law to make its own decisions about national defense.
Japan, I believe. But I agree on the main point- this proposal for a Palestinian ’state’ is absurd.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:28 am
The Fakestinian state is in Amman.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:28 am
In my lifetime, the only thing that has changed for the Palestinians is that they lost more territory. If I’m lucky, I’ll live another twenty years, and the Palestinians will have lost even more territory. I am no longer willing to believe anything either side says.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
The amazing non-focus on the Palestinians continues. Only Israel is ever expected to act.
Regarding national defense, of course there is precedent. At least make an effort before making such sophomoric assertions. Start with the Morgenthau Plan (”a giant Potato Patch”). Move on to the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and the “Peace Clause”. Note when Japan was finally allowed (forced rather) to create the SDF. Extra credit if you actually look up what SDF means.
Why should Israel listen to people who lack more than 18 months of historical memory, who seem unable to realize that so much already has been tried, who have such contempt for Palestinian people as to think of them as children who should not be held to same standards of other grown adult people.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Because they’re currently running the Israeli government?
June 15th, 2009 at 9:40 am
If you read up on the Israeli government, one thing that jumps out is that they were always interested in South Africa’s Bantustan model, as were various other Israeli right wingers. From the Wikipedia article:
Here’s a map of the Allon Plan which was an Israeli version of this.
Some anecdotes about Israeli involvement with Bantustans:
Sharon’s map is surprisingly similar to the plan for protectorates in South Africa in the early 1960s. Even the number of cantons is the same – 10 in the West Bank (and one more in Gaza)…. veteran leaders of the black struggle against apartheid remember that business people from Israel and Taiwan were the only foreigners who developed business relations with the Bantustan governments….An Israeli who spent many years nurturing Israeli relations with Africa was also at the dinner hosted by the Italian prime minister. He said that whenever he happened to encounter Sharon, he would be interrogated at length about the history of the protectorates and their structures.
And here’s a map of current Israeli settlements. It more or less follows the Allon plan and cuts the West Bank up into a bunch of cantons. (Click on the map on the lower left. Actually, this map is from 2005 so the extent of Israeli domination is almost certainly worse now.)
This is the direction the Israeli government would like to go. It’s the direction they have always wanted to go. It’s important that Bibi acknowledge that Palestinians have the right to their own state, but it’s equally as important that the Israeli government not be allowed to have something like this as their end model.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:49 am
If you can read minds(you know what Bibis thinking)then you know that in the end we all think your full of crap. Guess what I’m thinking about you!?!!
June 15th, 2009 at 10:44 am
[...] Matthew Yglesias: And on the long-term, territorial details and refugees aside, rather than agreeing to the creation of a Palestinian state, he agreed to the creation of a kind of autonomous Palestinian protectorate that he’ll generous call a “state.” The phrase of choice seems to be that he has a vision for the creation of a “limited” state. But what’s a “limited state”? Who lives in one? It’s true that a variety of states without armed forces exist—basically Costa Rica and a bunch of small island nations—but I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a state without the right under international law to make its own decisions about national defense. [...]
June 15th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Can’t say that I ever thought about a fully-armed Palestine from the get-go but the idea on its face looks like a non-starter.
Why would Israel agree to a new, untested and hostile state next door to it with any sort of armament/armed forces which are capable of more than guerrilla actions? What state anywhere would agree to such a situation?
Seems implausible.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Clearly, the proposal was designed to be indignantly rejected, at which point Netanyahu can say (to a domestic and international audience) “See? We told you those horrible anti-Semitic Arabs just didn’t want peace!”.
Of course, if it were accepted, the Palestinian pseudostate with no military would inevitably be unable to suppress paramilitaries within its borders, justifying further Israeli intervention and settlement; repeat as many times as necessary until Greater Israel.
The only flaw in the strategy is if annoying people like Matt actually read the proposal and realize that it was offered in bad faith – and then talk about it.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Limited people live in a limited state.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Well, what did you expect? Zionism is a disgrace.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:04 am
more likudnik/zionist meaningless rhetoric to rehab their horrible image around the world
it will probably be enough for the u.s. msm and washington to help them along in their propaganda task
June 15th, 2009 at 11:41 am
@19 likudnik/zionist meaningless rhetoric
Likudnik-Zionism is not different from any other Zionism; same crap, different rhetoric. In fact, the rate of land theft is usually higher under Labor-Zionist governments. There’s only one Zionism, differences are just for show.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
There goes Israel as the Jewish state; one nation with two peoples hating each others guts.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Re abb1
Shorter abb1: Zionism no good.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
one nation with two peoples hating each others guts
No, Zionism is not a people, it’s just a group of racist fanatics trying to colonize the place.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“Why would Israel agree to a new, untested and hostile state next door to it with any sort of armament/armed forces which are capable of more than guerrilla actions? What state anywhere would agree to such a situation?”
You do realize that that’s an exact description of what Israel was to the rest of the Middle East when it was created, right? I guess you’re saying that those countries were right not to “agree to” it.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I think that a demilitarized Palestinian state is a foolish idea for a variety of reasons (including my doubts that it will actually redound to the benefit of Israel’s security), but it isn’t as radical as you make it out to be — indeed, it was part of Sari Nusseibeh’s People’s Voice Plan that you endorsed a short while back.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Re tomemos: From their point of view, perhaps. But, you know, they lost.
Re David Schraub: There isn’t going to be a Palestinian Arab state — at least, not one arrived at through negotiations with Israel — unless it’s substantially demilitarized; so I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here.
You are right however, as are a number of other people above, to note the incoherence of Yglesias’s outrage here. E.g., either he doesn’t know the history of the negotiations; or he doesn’t know the details of the plan you reference, which he however endorsed; or he doesn’t know the history of other nations which have had their military encumbered in this way; etc.
Actually I go back and forth on whether Yglesias is as naive and ill-informed as he sometimes appears on this matter, or is simply being disingenuous. He seems smart enough on other issues that I tend to lean towards the latter. But it isn’t a very pretty inference about his motives.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Zionism is not a people
Indeed. Zionism is not a people in the same way that White Pride is not a people.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Netanyahu’s talk about a demilitarized Palestinian state is rhetoric for domestic political consumption. In reality, there is already a Palestinian Military (just as there was a Jewish military prior to the creation of Israel).
To read the transcript, he unambiguously accepted all previous commitments. In regards to settlements: No Israeli government has previously understood itself as committing to ending “natural growth” in settlements. Israelis have committed to (although rarely abided by) freezing geographic, but not demographic, expansion of settlements, prior to final status negotiations.
And the major “new” condition he “invented” — acceptance of Israel as a Jewish State — is not, as he pointed out, a new condition. It is the point over which negotiations broke down in 2000 and 2007, and which any future negotiations will continue to break down.
It is possible that a two state solution is not the optimal resolution to the conflict, but so long as that is the stated goal, mutual recognition of the national attachments and aspirations of the other is a fundamental prerequisite of peace, not an “invented” demand designed to deflect political pressure.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Why is it in any way essential for the Palestinians to accept Israel as some explicit “State of the Jewish People?” Do relations with China require the US to somehow endorse Communism? Of course not. The Palestinians must respect Israel’s right to security and to govern its own affairs, but it’s up to Israel what kind of Jewish State it is.
To me this is clearly just an attempt to sabotage negotiations.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Sign the petition to get Matt an editor.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
“From their point of view, perhaps. But, you know, they lost”
So, if I understand you correctly, might makes right? You do realize that statements like that reduce your credibility to a point approaching zero around here, right? I mean, if the majority of readers here thought that way, we’d be posting on Hot Air, or Free Republic.
Geez, and people wonder why Israel (the state, not the Jewish people) is growing steadily less popular in the US. Maybe that “empathy gap” could shrink again if pro-Israel folks would stop and listen to the barbarism they’re propounding.
The only legal and acceptable outcome is a return to the pre-’67 borders and a total dismantlement of all settlements, checkpoints, and outposts in those territories seized in ‘67.
After all, it is (as numerous UN resolutions from which we’ve shielded Israel remind us) illegal to annex territory through military conquest. Not just immoral, not just unethical, but illegal under international treaties and covenants to which Israel is a signatory, and under whose auspices Israel was created in the first place.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Really, Marc 28? Should, then, Germany have been internationally accepted in, say, 1940 as the Aryan state, in the spirit of recognition of the national attachments and aspirations of its people?
June 15th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Sahu got there before me. If the idea is that you get your guns and we’ll get ours and we’ll see who wins, in what sense is this a peace negotiation? We demilitarized Japan as a condition of their surrender, not as part of a negotiation. If Israel wants to declare war on the Palestinians, they should do so openly.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
If the Palestinians are to recognize Israel as a Jewish State (and not merely a state), then we should make Israel recognize the West Bank as Palestinian Bantustan. After all if we want to force people to make humiliating recognitions, it should be done to both sides.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“Why should Israel listen to people who lack more than 18 months of historical memory, who seem unable to realize that so much already has been tried, who have such contempt for Palestinian people as to think of them as children who should not be held to same standards of other grown adult people.”
Why should Americans listen to people who think they’re entitled to permanently control lands inhabited by millions of people without permitting them to participate in national government or set up an independent state, who subsidize a sectarian land grab for their favored ethnic group while treating the native population as prisoners in their own land, who consider themselves to be exempt from all standards of human rights and international law, and who expect American taxpayers to foot the bill for their slow-motion ethnic cleansing project?
I go back and forth on whether people like Larry Birnbaum are as unselfconsciously amoral and bigoted as they appear to be, or whether they simply think that the average person is stupid enough to fall for the unconvincing excuses they make for depriving millions of people of basic political freedoms for decades.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I go back and forth on whether people like Larry Birnbaum are as unselfconsciously amoral and bigoted as they appear to be, or whether they simply think that the average person is stupid enough to fall for the unconvincing excuses they make for depriving millions of people of basic political freedoms for decades.
I think they are unselfconciously amoral. There is a certain subculture of being Jewish where you have to be amoral about being Jewish to be accepted. It’s the same deal with racist subculture. Do the racists really believe what they say? After a while, they do.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Hi Bullsmith,
The recognition issue is not, as it is between the US and China, an entirely symbolic issue. Practically, the Palestinian demand for a Right of Return to Tel Aviv/Jaffo is in conflict with the persistence of Israel as a Jewish State. All Netanyahu is saying is that Israel will not now — as it did not in 2000 and 2007 — accept a Palestinian RoR to Tel Aviv/Jaffo.
If the objective is a two state solution, it is hard to see how it is now the Palestinian, not Israeli, demand that is sabotaging negotiations.
Additionally, in general, it is not difficult to see how the vision of two people living co-cooperatively side-by-side is furthered if both sides recognize the national attachments and aspirations of the other and, inversely, suffers if either side refuses that recognition.
Hi Sahu,
As you well know, the ‘67 borders are arbitrary lines drawn in war and, as such, hardly sacrosanct. What is most important is the final borders be drawn in a manner that gives the Palestinians the possibility of a viable state.
Again, as I am sure you are aware, there is now broad consensus and general agreement that in a final agreement the ‘67 borders will be modified such that Israel receive some land currently on the Palestinian side in exchange for the Palestinians receiving equivalent land currently on the Israeli side. Such an outcome is surely acceptable, no?
June 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
sahu & tomemos,
Does might make right? No. But if the Arabs had succeeded in their stated goal of “pushing the Jews into the sea” in 1949 and after, there would be nothing to talk about now.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I think we shouldn’t talk about 60 years or 2000 years as limits for rights, they are arbitrary limits. Lets use a non-arbitrary limit: a lifetime. If you are born in a place, and you want to live there, then you have the right to live there.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Self-styled “Progressive,” I do lament the loss of life, land, and freedom that the Palestinian Arabs have had to endure. Israel should pay the refugees restitution as part of a final peace agreement. The Palestinian Arabs should have a state of their own. I hope it will be a blessing for them.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Hi abb1,
I think I granted that the two state solution may not be the optimal resolution. None the less, the process has been proceeding on that that basis. What does a two state solution mean if both states are Palestinian?
I would agree with you that a nation-state, through which identity is expressed, is (or at least should be) a relic of a previous age. That the model of a liberal, democratic, secular state is far preferable.
But so long as persists nation-states like the Arab Republic of Egypt or the Islamic State of Iran, I see no reason why the Jewish State should be singled out. Especially given that the future Palestinian state will surely express a Palestinian identity.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“broad consensus and general agreement that in a final agreement the ‘67 borders will be modified such that Israel receive some land currently on the Palestinian side in exchange for the Palestinians receiving equivalent land currently on the Israeli side. Such an outcome is surely acceptable, no?”
Of course land can be swapped as a part of the negotiating process. What is unacceptable is the unilateral manner in which the Israelis have tried to prejudice the outcome of that negotiation through illegal settlement and outpost construction. It’s not their land, and they have no right to build anything there.
If they negotiate a peace accord that gives them some of that land in return for strategically equivalent Israeli land, then they can build. Until then, it’s an illegal land grab and a direct insult to Palestinian aspirations of sovereignty.
Oh, and “broad consensus and general agreement” of whom? I seriously doubt there’s anything approaching such a consensus among Palestinians.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
SLC:
I’ve seen you refer to the Palestinian people on numerous threads as “Fakestinians,” and I have to ask: What exactly do you mean by this?
As some have helpfully pointed out, if this is some reference to the Fakirs, they are a group of mystics (both Sufi Islamic and Hindu) most commonly found in India–not especially Palestinian.
If, however, you are implying that there is something “fake” about Palestinians and their legitimate aspirations for political self-determination, then I would have to object most strenuously. They are quite real, and there are millions of them living in conditions of appalling hardship due to the apartheid-like actions of the state of Israel.
So, I repeat, what exactly do you mean by “Fakestinian”?
June 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Hi Sahu,
The broad consensus appears to be held amongst the respective leaderships and the international community.
Israel has dismantled settlements twice now and will no doubt do so again as part of any final status agreement. Given that it is very hard for me to understand the claim that Palestinian aspirations of sovereignty are really being trampled by someone in Gush Etsyon remodeling her kitchen.
The respective leaderships have agreed that the status of the settlements are a final status issue. Given that, the Israelis should not be creating new or geographically expanding settlements. But to ban any sort of natural growth is — as you seem close to explicitly acknowledging — itself an attempt to prejudice those negotiations by rendering settlements unlivable in.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Hi Marc,
Islamic republic is whole different animal; Islam is merely a creed. Some nations embrace capitalism or communism, some Islam or Christianity.
Just out of curiosity: could you provide some evidence of ethnocentric nature of modern Egypt, please. If that’s what you meant by using its official name.
Again, I really do object to calling Zionists “a people”. Israeli Zionists are a group of ideological allies imported into Palestine from all over the world, while the word “people” in this context stands for native population of a geographic area organized into a state.
We must use meaningful terminology, otherwise communication is simply impossible.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Marc,
I don’t there’s much real communication going on here, but I’ll try.
You say: “If the objective is a two state solution, it is hard to see how it is now the Palestinian, not Israeli, demand that is sabotaging negotiations.”
I think the actual occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza are far greater barriers to peace than the Palestinian demand of right of return, which has always been negotiable, but will never be set aside as a pre-condition. Occupation and oppression sabotage more than just negotiations.
You then say: “Additionally, in general, it is not difficult to see how the vision of two people living co-cooperatively side-by-side is furthered if both sides recognize the national attachments and aspirations of the other and, inversely, suffers if either side refuses that recognition.”
Yes it’s very nice when neighbors get along but the Israelis and Palestinians don’t. Demanding the Palestinians make humiliating public statements that have no practical impact on whether or not Israel is in fact a Jewish State are the opposite of recognizing the Palestinians national attachments and aspirations.
In both cases, your responses actually further convince me that Bibi is being actively hostile, not just the minimum required by his coalition.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Marc,
Now this is just flatly disingenuous: You say” Given that it is very hard for me to understand the claim that Palestinian aspirations of sovereignty are really being trampled by someone in Gush Etsyon remodeling her kitchen.”
Either you know full well that it is Palestinians who are denied building permits and have their new kitchens bulldozed if they go ahead and build them. When someone’s kid wants to buy a house in Israel do they simply get to expropriate their neighbor’s land so their family can grow “naturally”. No, in Israel, like in the US if your kids want a house they have to buy it, maybe even in a different neighborhood. Only when it’s Palestinian land can it “naturally” be grown into.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“But to ban any sort of natural growth is — as you seem close to explicitly acknowledging — itself an attempt to prejudice those negotiations by rendering settlements unlivable in.”
Marc,
The problem with the above statement is that “natural growth” is, and has always been, a red herring. Just look at the demographics of Israel as a whole and compare that to the population growth in the settlements and you’ll see a pretty astounding disparity.
I don’t have the numbers handy, but I seem to recall that, since 2000, there has been a doubling, or 100% increase in population in the Settlements while Israel as a whole has had only around a 3% growth rate (I admit, my figures are from memory and may be wrong with regards to the specific numbers, but the general pattern is accurate–settlement population growth rates have dwarfed those of the nation as a whole).
There’s nothing “natural” about that kind of growth.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
With this whole natural growth thing in the news lately, I can’t help but wonder why Israel is the only country in the world that gets to expand its territory as its population grows.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Hi abb1,
I think you make a good point in that there likely exists no truly liberal, secular democratic state. That most every existing state, to varying degrees, expresses some identity which includes, and is meaningful, to some and excludes, and, therefore, is, in some way, oppressive, to others.
That said, I have a hard time seeing how the Islamic Republic is a whole different animal. A Christian will never quite be at home in an Islamic republic. In regards to Egypt, I think the official name is meaningful. What if the official name of America was “The United Christian States of America”?
I am afraid I am not sure what you are getting at with your discourse on people-hood.
Hi Bullsmith,
It would be a shame if communication were not possible.
I understood from the media at the time (and as described in Netanyahu’s speech) that in the end, when push came to shove, in 2000 and 2007, agreement was generally reached between the parties in regards to territorial issues. The Right of Return, on the other hand, (and contrary to your assertion) proved non-negotiable.
In any case, Netanyahu’s office has clarified (and to be fair, I think it is the plain meaning of the text) that nothing in his speech should be construed to be a pre-condition of negotiations, rather, they are pre-conditions of agreement. That his Government, as past Israeli Governments, will never agree to compromise the Jewish character of the State. But that an agreement is possible if the Palestinians do, as you believe, view the RoR as negotiable.
I have a hard time understanding how the recognition of Jewish national aspirations and attachments is in any way humiliating to Palestinians. I would be obliged if you could elaborate on why that might be so.
In any case, my claim wasn’t so much that demanding empty statements has value as much as that, in the end, given the cramped-ness of the land, a stable peace is surely facilitated by mutual recognition of the humanity — which, in part, includes recognizing national aspirations and attachments — of the other.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Hi san-k,
In his speech Netanyahu stated that Israel would not be expanding settlements geographically. Whether or not he abides by that is, of course, to be determined.
Hi Bullsmith,
It seems to me proper, in principle, that until final status negotiations what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Even if both sides would claim a right to natural growth for themselves but deny it to the other.
Hi Sahu,
It certainly seems the case that some Israeli governments have allowed more aggressive growth under the umbrella of natural growth.
To me, however, that argues for structures to differentiate and monitor what is going on. I don’t see how it argues for banning kitchen remodeling in Gush Etsyon.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
And finally, my last thought-dump in this thread:
There has to be a hierarchy of rights. You are first a person, a human. You are responsible for your actions. One can’t, for example, blame your ethnicity if you commit a crime.
Second, you are of a nationality. Nationality can not be more worth than being human, because if so you could kill people in other nations and it would be like nothing, like killing animals.
Third, you are of an ethnicity. Ethnicity can not be more important than nationality, because that would make multi-ethnic nations (like the US) impossible, and the dominant ethnicity, by majority or force, would always subjugate and mistreat the others.
Finally, ethnicity can not be more important than humanity. If so, you can kill members of another ethnicity and it is like nothing, like killing animals.
So:
1. You are human, a person
2. You are of a nationality
3. You are of an ethnicity
Note that this order is not a preference, it’s necessary.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Hi Marc,
a democratic state (by definition) can only be as liberal and secular as the demos wants it to be. Personally, I don’t see much difference whether state’s laws are based on interpretations of a 1600 year-old book or a 230 year-old pamphlet.
Now, are you going to keep pretending that you don’t see any meaningful difference between a state having its constitution based on Koran and a state acting for the benefit of those whose maternal grandmother was Jewish? Would you find a “White State” problematic? Aryan State? Ah, but I already asked you that, didn’t get an answer.
So, what’s your game, man? You really think you have a case here? You can’t be serious, of course.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
West Bank Settlers are cordially invited to go engage in carnal relations with a pig.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Much as I normally disagree with Mr. Abb1, he’s making a decent point here.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Mr. Abb1,
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer- I would not find the idea of a White State so problematic if White people had been the objects of attempted genocide for 25 centuries. They haven’t of course, so I do find the idea deeply problematic. However, you’re right to note a society founded on a particular set of ideas, be it religious or secular, is different from a society founded on ties of blood.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Hector,
if you’re concerned about the genocides, you need to create a state or some sort of refuge for the potential victims of genocide, regardless of whether they are white, black, green, or purple.
Why would you worry about a group of people whose ancestors suffered from genocide? That doesn’t make sense at all. Worry about people who are under a threat of genocide today, or will be tomorrow. Regardless of their race or ethnicity.
Is this so complicated?
June 15th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Hi abb1,
You seem to hold a rather crude definition of Democracy. Democracy, as generally understood, is something more, or other, than simple majoritarianism.
It seems to me that a state whose constitution is based on the Koran is explicitly a state for the benefit of those who accept Islam, even if there is some accommodation set aside for those who do not, in much the same way that the State of Israel was created for the benefit of people who are Jewish (however defined) with some accommodation set aside for those who are not.
I answered you rather directly: I am not one for Theocracies or ethnically defined nation-states. But so long as there exist many such, it does not seem to me that the Jewish one ought be singled out.
It is unfortunate that you have difficulty acknowledging the possibility of honest disagreement.
Hector,
In as much as the Israeli State recognizes some form of conversion to Judaism, it is no more founded on blood ties than Iran. That said, religious identity is close to the core of who we are as human being. Forcing someone to adopt a particular religion to assume full membership in society is fundamentally the same as excluding them.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
To be against intermarriage is not at all in defense against oppression by ethnic prejudice, it is ethnic prejudice.
One can see Zionism as a way to create a reservation where Jewish bigots (people who, for example, would not let their child marry a non-Jew) live separate from the non-Jews. But that’s not a good solution. The final solution is to kill the prejudice.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Matthew, you know better. There is no reason for Bibi to concede anything to the feckless Pals as he owns what they want. In the Middleast, agreements are kept because they are imposed. Words are cheap. It has been that way since the semitic tribes lived in caves and goatskin tents. The Pals should have signed the Clinton agreements in 2000, the best offer they ever will receive. Boxed into Gaza with rockets that are not as refined as those my rocket club constructed in the 1960’s, frustrated in the West Bank by superior tactics and economic realities, they will be strung along until hell freezes over, as the Jews learned the lessons, finally, of the past 3.5 millenium.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Marc,
to summarize:
- there are no ethnically defined states other than Israel, or at least not to the same extent, not even close.
- you’re not addressing the point that in addition to being militantly racist, Israel is also a colonial settler enterprise. And expansionist one too.
Now, if you built your racist paradise on some deserted island, no one would’ve cared. There are uncontacted tribes in amazon, nobody cares what they do; but there is no place for a racist settler entity like Israel in the framework of modern civilization. Too late for that. It has to go.
- your attempt to defend racism by equating it with theocracy doesn’t work. Christianity and Islam are universal religions, they simply impose a code of conduct, not unlike any system of laws. They don’t care what you are, or what you think, only what you do. Racists only care about what you are and don’t care about anything else.
Frankly, I’m surprised that in the 21st century a seemingly intelligent person would be attempting to defend racism and tribalism. And why? To what end? I would like to understand, but you give me no clue whatsoever.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Bengtt
“There is a certain subculture of being Jewish where you have to be amoral about being Jewish to be accepted. It’s the same deal with racist subculture. Do the racists really believe what they say? After a while, they do.”
Did you really write that? Was Jewish an error and you meant Israeli?
I sure hope so, because I’d not like to believe you’re the lowest of low scum.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Steve, no, I meant what I said. Either you aren’t really sane, or you didn’t read it closely.
June 15th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Hi abb1,
I suspect on some level you understand that Islam (like most religions) is a faith-community/tradition and component of identity as much as a simple code of conduct. It differentiates between “Muslims”, who are part of that faith-community/tradition and share in that identity, and “Non-Muslims” who are not and do not and not simply between “Righteous” and “Wicked” people.
I am glad you used the word “tribalism”. I will grant your claim that I am in the 21st century defending a sort of tribalism with the (strong) caveats that tribalism is not at all the same as racism and I haven’t defended it as much as argued that while the hope exists that humanity will, one day, outgrow tribalism, it manifestly has not (and, perhaps, may never) and since Israel is hardly unique in its expression of a sort of tribalism, it ought not be singled out.
As far as “to what end”, (and I am not sure I understand your question), I guess my claim is that the argument that “there is no place for any sort of tribalism in the 21st century” does not really outweigh what seems to me the reality that a two state solution is the most practical possibility of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Thanks Bengt for the clarification. I understand you only too well. Scum is too kind a word. Jew-hater fits though. Note I’m not saying you’re an anti-Semite. Maybe yes, maybe no. Nothing you’ve posted here is indicative of either position. Enjoy your hate.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
These dummies still don’t get it.
Israel has no right to exist, as a Jewish state or any other state. It’s an illegal state. Period. End of story. The partition of Palestine was illegal in 1947 as the UN’s own commission set up to study that point concluded.
The best the Jews in Israel could have legally hoped for was a “national homeland”, whatever the hell that meant, for displaced Jews from other countries. None of the agreements offered by the European nations ever suggested that Israel should exist as a state in control of the Palestinians, let alone seize all the rest of Palestine in a slow-motion land grab.
But that WAS the intention of the Zionists from the start, and that was confirmed by Ben-Gurion who explicitly said they intended to grab the rest after the UN authorized the partition.
The ONLY solution to the issue now after sixty years of screwing up by the UN and the US and the international community is to REVERSE the 1947 UN decision, for the same reasons that the partition was originally made – because the situation on the ground is UNTENABLE for a peaceful solution.
The Israeli state must be removed from office, as well as the Fatah/Hamas Palestinian state. Then a new secular bi-national state should be designed by the parties involved with the assistance of the international community and the UN. Then elections should be held for the new state, sidelining all the existing politicos of both sides in order to dump the fanatics.
The issue of “Right of Return” would be sidelined by this, as it would be no different than any other reconciliation issue, to be settled by civil law. The only reason it’s an issue is this nonsense about Israel remaining a “Jewish state”, which it has no legal right to demand at all due to its origins as an illegal state to begin with.
A two-state solution absolutely is NOT workable since all it will do is give the Zionists an excuse to start an actual genocidal WAR against the Palestinians over the excuse that the Palestinian STATE “attacked them” the first time some Palestinian threw a rock over the border.
In addition to which, the ONLY way to get a viable Palestinian state in the two-state model is to force Israel to retreat back not merely to the 1967 borders, but to the 1947 borders. And the Zionist freaks simply will not do that because it destroys their whole plan to seize all of Palestine and, later, much of the rest of the Middle East.
So the Zionist state of Israel has to be legally removed from existence by the UN, and a new bi-national state created, which is what should have been done back in 1947.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
It’s amusing to see an unrepentant smack addict and armed robber like Mr. Hack, go on about international law.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Steve, no I’m not a Jew-hater. You are completely misreading things. I’m not denying that anti-Semitism exists.
I was merely pointing out that Jewish bigots exist. If you don’t understand that, then you probably are one.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Hi Bengt,
You more or less equate fidelity to, the desire to live within, preserve and pass on, the Jewish heritage/tradition, with bigotry and racism.
Which is to say you may not hate people who are Jews, but you do seem strongly against any sort of meaningful Jewish-ness.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Of course Jewish bigots exist. And I know you were referring to an American jew. At least I think you were. But your language neatly equated jews and racists. That was and is my problem with your comment. To equate jews and Israelis is equally wrong. Most Israelis are jews but most jews aren’t Israelis. Some Israelis are racists; I suspect most aren’t. Some American jew are racist; in my experience and I’ve been an American jew for a very long time, very few are. Apparently in your view enough are so you can safely make generalizations. Fine. This has become agree. We disagree.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
sorry. In last line become agree = become boring
June 15th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Bengt Larrson,
The Greek Orthodox Church forbids marriage to non-Christians, is that count as ‘bigotry’ too in your deluded hipster Kum-Ba-Yah world?
What you call bigotry, I call plain good sense. While I do not think that interfaith marriages are always a bad idea, I do think they usually are highly problematic, at least if one of the parties takes their faith seriously. Personally, I would probably not marry a non-Christian unless she was, at the very least, interested in learning more about the faith.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Marc,
yes, Islam can be an identity. Also, ‘billionaire’ can be an identity, or ‘lawyer’, or ‘CEO’. Yes, a Muslim might feel better in an Islamic republic than a Christian and have more opportunities there, just as a billionaire does in capitalist republic.
But what does any of this have to do with racism? Racists do not care whether your race is your identity, they just send you to into a gas chamber or jail or refugee camp because they don’t like who your ancestors were.
What does it have to do with identity?
June 16th, 2009 at 3:39 am
@58: You seem to hold a rather crude definition of Democracy. Democracy, as generally understood, is something more, or other, than simple majoritarianism.
Seriously, Marc? Then would you care to enlighten us on what exactly democracy is, as generally understood?
June 16th, 2009 at 5:09 am
Netanyahu’s speech is pure crap. He believes, as does the chinese leadership, that our political class is composed of a bunch of morons who can be convinced to buy snake oil, provided it has the right magical words on the label. A “State”, as Bibi describes it, is not a state. It’s a colony. He’s just thumbing his nose at Obama over the settlements and covering it by throwing Obama a bone, and it will probably work.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:59 am
Hi abb1,
I realize, perhaps, you will disagree strongly with me on this, but to my eyes, and certainly, generally, in the minds of Israelis, the purpose of the State of Israel is not to force Palestinians into refugee camps. (As a historical matter, was it not the Lebanese, Egyptians and Jordanians who built the camps?)
Rather, as you describe of true of Muslims, some Jews (especially in the shadow of pervasive historical anti-semitism) “feel better” in a Jewish State. I suspect some Muslims may feel especially better in an Islamic state on the land in which The Prophet lived and certainly the historical resonance of the Holy Land is meaningful to many Israelis.
The negative side of this is that while a Muslim, (or Jew,) might feel better, or have more opportunity, in an Islamic (or Jewish) State, a non-Muslim, (or non-Jew), will inevitably not be as comfortable, and likely have less opportunity, in that state. As you know, half of Israeli Jews are (descendants of) refugees (expelled) from Muslim, or Arab, countries, and from what I can tell, they, more than European descended Jews, will not compromise on the Jewish character of their State.
Regarding Democracy, it is, of course, easier to say what it is not then what, precisely, it is. That said, I’ll refer to the President’s description of it in Cairo. It is clear that, to him, Democracy is not simple majoritarianism.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Well, when I say Jew or Jewish I mean Jewish by ancestry. I don’t mean a religion (Judaism), and I don’t mean Jewish tradition (you can call that “Jewish tradition”), and I don’t mean a country (Israel).
Ethnic bigotry is to discriminate based on ancestry.
Hector brings up a good point. Is dicriminating based on religion bigotry? It is, but it’s not quite the same thing. For one, you can change your religion. Public religious buildings are usually only for one religion (churches, synagogues). There is a vast difference between a public building only for people of one religion, and a public building only for white people.
In general, I think the attempt at bundling together ancestry, religion, country and tradition into one is disingenous. It’s not hard to speak clearly about it if you want to. If you insist on bundling you express an agenda, you aren’t only talking.
In response to Marc, for preserving traditions that depends on what those old traditions are. Slavery was an old tradition, for example, thousands of years old, but obviously not a good thing. Insofar as ethnic bigotry is part of a tradition, that part of the tradition should be ended. Again, you can treat different parts of the tradition differently if you want to, and not as an unchangeable, unified whole – that is disingenous non-thinking.
Steve seems to be becoming more incoherent. I NEVER equated Jews with racists. I equated Jewish bigots with racists, and in two respects: that they discriminate based on ancestry, and that they may say misleading and false things, that they are not necessarily aware being false.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Hi Bengt,
In its fullest sense a faith-tradition defines, or outlines, a particular sort of community and a particular family life. Whatever the content, and by whatever process it changes over time, there is of necessity a line drawn between that which is included within the faith-tradition, community and family life and that which falls outside.
Unless I am reading you incorrectly, you equate that line drawing with bigotry and racism.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Marc, is discriminating against people based on ancestry part of your definition of “meaningful Jewishness”?
June 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I wrote 79 while not having read 78 (the messages crossed each other), but I think the question still fits.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:51 am
While rereading my own message 77 I discovered that yes, it means Marc thinks that ethnic bigotry is an inseparable part of Jewish tradition.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Hi Bengt,
“Love of one’s own” is part of any self-sustaining community and is not at all the same as hatred for another.
Though it may escape your view, there is a world of difference between building one’s family life, for example, within the boundaries of a particular community of tradition and building gas chambers.
In any case, I think we have passed the point of productive conversion.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Marc, what you describe is an ideology of monstrous group self-interest, caring not at all for the human rights of those outside of your group.
But you’re probably right that there is no further point to this discussion.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Hi Bengt,
For the record, I described nothing of the sort.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Marc, yes you did.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Bengt, how old are you?You’re such a fricking baby. Yes, i did. No, I didn’t, No i didn’t. OK, you’re blue in the face an You WIN!!!! Jews, wherever they’re found are bad. Can we give this thread up now? Or must you have the last word?
June 17th, 2009 at 4:04 am
F*ck you too, Steve. You are completely falling apart. You CAN have the last word.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Anti-Semitism and Jewish bigotry through the ages
It is often said that anti-Semitism has been around a long time, and that it is remarkly persistent, and it sure has been around a long time, but so has Jewish bigotry, its logical opposite. As far as I can tell, Jewish bigotry is older; it’s very old.
Many Jewish bigots insist that their own children must be bigots too, as I understand the insistence can be very strong, to the point of threatening to reject the children if they don’t comply. Needless to say children can’t withstand such pressure. One can compare to white bigotry here; I’m sure there were many children of white bigots who take after mom and dad, but to my knowledge there wasn’t the same insistence that the children *must* be bigots too. So white bigotry could be fought, or at least repressed, without necessarily being carried forth to the next generation.
Anti-Semitism will to an extent generate Jewish bigotry (pushing back) and vice versa. So, anti-Semitism and Jewish bigotry generate each other.
But as far as I can see it isn’t anti-Semitism that is independently persistent, it’s Jewish bigotry that is, because it’s consciously being maintained across the generations (obviously not by all Jews, but by Jewish bigots). Jewish bigotry will regenerate anti-Semitism, where it didn’t previously exist.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:31 am
How to go forward
So how can the Jewish community, and Israel, continue to exist? Well, the bigots must be rejected, because they are part of the problem. Anti-Semitism must of course be rejected, that goes without saying. As for people like marc, they present, in defense of their views, a smooth wall of logic with no empathy at all for non-Jews. But this – logic only and not empathy – is how psychopaths treat people. In order for Israel and Jewish community to continue, these people have to be marginalized by as the polite psychopaths they are.