babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Lets talk about non-Zionist Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Lets talk about non-Zionist Israel
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 12:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We often have a lot of discussion about the topic of Zionist Israel. Obviously, neither the Jews living in Israel, not the country is going anywhere, and nor do any of us want to see that happen. However, the country clearly must evolve beyond its colonialist roots, and its racialist expressions.

So, non-Zionist Israel what does it look like, and how does it come into being?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 05 October 2007 12:36 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Secular, democratic, one person one vote, a Bill of Rights, a special recognition of its founding peoples (hmm ... sounds familiar), and conbining the territory of current Israel and occupied Palestine.

Just think of the savings in reduced military spending, walls, security, pass law administration, etc. The non-Zionist Israel could tell the U.S., and anyone else for that matter, to go to hell.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 05 October 2007 12:48 PM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Secular, democratic, one person one vote, a Bill of Rights, a special recognition of its founding peoples (hmm ... sounds familiar), and conbining the territory of current Israel and occupied Palestine.

... and everybody gets a pony!


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 12:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, there will always be those who will have trouble adjusting.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Charrington
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14585

posted 05 October 2007 12:49 PM      Profile for Mr. Charrington        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
a special recognition of its founding peoples

Oh, THAT's gonna be easy to figure out. LOL

1967?
1948?
1919?
Dec 25 0000?
2000 BC?
100,000 BC?

Just which 'founding' are you refering to?


quote:
Human settlement in Judea stretches back to the Stone Age and the region is believed by paleoanthropologists to have been one of the routes through which Homo sapiens travelled out of Africa to colonise the rest of the world around 100,000 years ago.

Wikipedia


From: 49deg53' N 97deg07' W | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 12:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
1948
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 October 2007 12:53 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Secular, democratic, one person one vote, a Bill of Rights, a special recognition of its founding peoples (hmm ... sounds familiar), and conbining the territory of current Israel and occupied Palestine.

Why does there have to be a single state?

Israel has existed as an internationally recognized state (for better or worse) for almost 60 years.

If Israel:

1. Withdraws from all the occupied territories;

2. Repeals all theocratic, confessional, or ethnocentric laws (such as the Law of Return, the state status of the JNF, the institution of secular marriage, etc.);

3. Ceases any and all hostile acts against Palestinians and other neighbours;

4. Negotiates a solution to the Right of Return;

5. Probably some things I've forgotten (like abolishing its nuclear stockpile, paying reparations, etc.);

... why should a state formed and recognized by the United Nations be dismantled?

Or, put differently, no matter what your opinions about one or two states, why can't there be a non-Zionist Israel in a two-state setup (more pertinent to the topic Cueball raised)?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Charrington
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14585

posted 05 October 2007 12:58 PM      Profile for Mr. Charrington        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
1948

Why the 1948 'founding'? 1004 BCE seems just as valid. Just because it's about three thousand years ago does not make it invalid as a founding date of Israel.


From: 49deg53' N 97deg07' W | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 01:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is beyond the scope of this thread. We are talking about the modern state of Israel, as founded with its Declaration of Indpedence in 1948, and the partion as sanctioned by the UN.

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 05 October 2007 01:08 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
unionist: Or, put differently, no matter what your opinions about one or two states, why can't there be a non-Zionist Israel in a two-state setup (more pertinent to the topic Cueball raised)?

OK, I've treated the question as requiring a single state solution. However, it is important to acknowledge that the current Zionist Israel has succeeded in making any Palestinian state a failure. And that's likely to continue indefinitely. In fact, as you well know, the 2006 Palestinian election results have been sabotaged and we now have a virtual puppet in the West Bank (Abbas) and another leadership criminalized in Gaza (Hamas). Israel, by virtue of the Oslo agreements has an official role in administering the Palestinian territories and will continue to do so. I'm not the only observer who thinks that a Palestinian state, by itself, is virtually impossible to imagine. That's why I've provided the answer I did.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2007 01:10 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or, put differently, no matter what your opinions about one or two states, why can't there be a non-Zionist Israel in a two-state setup (more pertinent to the topic Cueball raised)?


But the two state solution was put forward because of zionist ideology. If Israel ceases to be a Jewish state what would be the point of having a second ethnically homogenious Palistinian state?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 01:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't say that it ceases to be a Jewish state. I was thinking rather that it would be a non-Zionist state, with the Jewish component of its population enfranchised as with everyone else. That partly why I used the term non-Zionist Israel.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2007 01:18 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just think of the savings in reduced military spending, walls, security, pass law administration, etc. The non-Zionist Israel could tell the U.S., and anyone else for that matter, to go to hell.


But wouldn't Israel be much poorer without U.S. aid? Could they sustain their social safety net?

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2007 01:23 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was thinking rather that it would be a non-Zionist state...

OK, a non Zionist state. Still, what would be the point of a Palistinian state?

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 01:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My point is that we should clearly counterpose the idea that Zionism and Israel are fundamentally inseperable concepts.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2007 01:28 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The question was really addressed to unionist.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 October 2007 02:56 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

OK, a non Zionist state. Still, what would be the point of a Palistinian state?


That's not the subject of this thread. If Palestinians want a separate state, that is their inalienable right. If they want to propose to Israelis that a single state be established, that is also their right. A non-Zionist Israel (as described above) might actually be able to engage in such a discussion.

But merging Israel into some new entity, without the consent of both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people? Can't happen.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 02:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
More than 20 Israeli laws explicitly privilege Jews over non-Jews. The Law of Return, for example, grants automatic citizenship to Jews from anywhere in the world. Yet Palestinian refugees are denied the right to return to the country they were forced to leave in 1948. The Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty Israel's "Bill of Rights" defines the state as "Jewish" rather than a state for all its citizens. Thus Israel is more for Jews living in Los Angeles or Paris than it is for native Palestinians.

Israel acknowledges itself to be a state of one particular religious group. Anyone committed to democracy will readily admit that equal citizenship cannot exist under such conditions.


Why Israel is after me


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 October 2007 02:58 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

I'm not the only observer who thinks that a Palestinian state, by itself, is virtually impossible to imagine. That's why I've provided the answer I did.

But your observation begs the question somewhat. It is based on Israel is it is now constituted. If it enacted some such program as I enumerated above (and I haven't thought it through thoroughly), why would a Palestinian state, by itself, be virtually impossible to imagine?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 02:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

That's not the subject of this thread. If Palestinians want a separate state, that is their inalienable right. If they want to propose to Israelis that a single state be established, that is also their right. A non-Zionist Israel (as described above) might actually be able to engage in such a discussion.

But merging Israel into some new entity, without the consent of both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people? Can't happen.


I think you are following a important train of thought here. But I am not sure that "can't", is the best description.

The question I guess, is wether or not this is purely an internal discussion, for a number of reasons, including the fact that Israel extends its power both through settlement and by force into the occupied territories.

Your point would seem to be that this is a direct result of Zionist politics, and until that changes nothing will change, yet it seems to me that there is a simbiotic relationship between the state of perptual war, and Israel's inability to reform internally, given the power of some of its constituent parts, namely the IDF and the settlers movement.

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 October 2007 03:12 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Your point would seem to be that this is a direct result of Zionist politics, and until that changes nothing will change, yet it seems to me that there is a simbiotic relationship between the state of perptual war, and Israel's inability to reform internally, given the power of some of its constituent parts, namely the IDF and the settlers movement.

Well, I don't know which is cause and which is effect, but I completely agree with your "symbiotic" observation. That's why the 5 points of change that I mentioned are both "internal" and "external". There can't be one without the other. It occurs to me that some of the "external" factors may attract more of a momentum for change in the short run (like, ending the Occupation) than some of the "internal" ones. But change has to start somewhere, and it has to start now.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2007 03:33 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's not the subject of this thread. If Palestinians want a separate state, that is their inalienable right.

But are there really that many Palestinians who would want to live in an independent state composed of The West Bank and Gaza? Surely there are many West Bankers and Gazians who would say "yes I want the occupied territories to be part of a truly democratic and secular Israel!"
If the Israeli republic becomes as progressive as you want it to be, surely they would embrace that idea.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 03:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apparently, Unionist thinks so too, see point four, the existance of a right of return movement among Palestinians, indicates a willingness to live in Israel.

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 October 2007 04:11 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

If the Israeli republic becomes as progressive as you want it to be, surely they would embrace that idea.

Only those who have a right of return would have any say in the matter of what happens in pre-1967 Israel. Any re-drawing of those borders would require the consent of the people of Israel. Wouldn't you say?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 05 October 2007 04:24 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's necessary to posit a non-Zionist Israel in order to speak of a post-Occupation Israel. I look at Zionism as akin to just about any other nationalism - it can be either good or bad or both. I also think that if we are awaiting an ideological shift away from Zionism as a pre-condition to ending the Occupation, we will be waiting a very long time; I don't think we can afford that.

I firmly believe that a two-state solution in the near future is absoutely necessary, or the result will be an even deeper loss of life on both sides and an unassailable entrenchement of the settlements in the West Bank. If the two state solution dies, or is not implemented soon, I don't think there is any escape from a vicious cycle of chaos and blood-letting.

I don't think we need to win hearts and minds; I think we need to draw the borders and make them stick.


From: O for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 04:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I really don't see how you can suggest that something be done about the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees inside a Zionist framework. Furthermore, as Azami Bishra points out, there are numerous examples of racially exculsionary laws that are expressly the advent of the Zionist world view and these need to amended.

Being able to assert the possibility of a non-Zionist Israel opens up these possibilities, I think.

A big stumbling block to all these points of reform comes from the assumption that Israel can only exists, and in fact needs to exist in an exclusively Zionist framework. We see repeatedly this argument made when one suggests for instance, that Palestinian propery rights, prior to 1948 must be respected. The argument is that an influx of Arabs will necessarily result in the destruction of Israel because there will be a demographic shift, a shift that directly contradicts Zionist idea that Jews can only survive in the middle east under a Zionist regieme.

I think this mythology must be challenged, hence the need to posit a non-Zionist Israel. Positing such both affirms Israel's existance, but not as an exclusionary Zionist state.

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2007 04:36 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Only those who have a right of return would have any say in the matter of what happens in pre-1967 Israel. Any re-drawing of those borders would require the consent of the people of Israel. Wouldn't you say?



Definatly.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 05 October 2007 04:40 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Re: Cueball's comment that he can't see how to accomodate something like the right of return in a Zionist framework.


Well, I think we'll have to. I don't think the Zionist mindset is going anywhere anytime soon. I just don't see undermining Zionism as a tactic that will lead to peace in our lifetime.

What might work better, and this is just off the top of my head, is to shift the Zionist framework: showing the settlements to be anti-Zionist, the occupation of another people as anti-Zionist, religious power like one sees in Israel as anti-Zionist.

It matters what our objective is, I think. If that objective is to foster some kind of peace which both sides are able to accept, we are going to have to do that without the triggering of one side's ideological capitulation.

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2007 04:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But, repeatedly, the powers that be have simply asserted that "this" or "that" is simply not negotiable, because Israel would cease to exist, as a "Jewish state." End of story.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 05 October 2007 07:10 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with Cueball.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2007 07:15 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, I think we'll have to. I don't think the Zionist mindset is going anywhere anytime soon. I just don't see undermining Zionism as a tactic that will lead to peace in our lifetime.

Has the Isreali government taken any concreate steps toward allowing the Palestinians to create a viable state in the occupied territories since 1993?
If a Palestinian state were created(without the Israeli government first acknowledging and facilitating the right of return) wouldn't angry Palestinian populations continue to be a source of conflict within the region?

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2007 07:23 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If a Palestinian state were created in the West Bank and Gaza, what would happen to the racist laws in Israel proper?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 October 2007 03:21 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Charrington:

Why the 1948 'founding'? 1004 BCE seems just as valid. Just because it's about three thousand years ago does not make it invalid as a founding date of Israel.


Yes it does. The current state Israel was legally constituted in the spring of 1948. It did not exist before that. The presence of peoples does not constitute a state or other political entity. The quagmire of ancient archeology is one of the reasons this conflict continues. Here, now and in the easily recalled past (complete with verifiable documentation) there are people living in what is now "Israel" or on territory controlled/claimed by it. The legal and political status of these people is what is at issue, not an imaginary pissing match refereed by G-D or Allah, or a few be-bearded archeologists.

If we are to speak of "human rights" and "humanity" (i.e. the state of being human) the needs of those who are currently existing must always trump the needs of ideological, and ultimately imaginary, constructs of ethnic and national history. How does "being here longer" in a national sense make any difference to one's humanity and thus, the demand for rights?

What is needed in Israel (and in all states) is a shift from defining key objectives as the protection of "national" rights to the protection of human and civil rights. This is the demand of the notion of equality of persons.

This is precisely the shift under discussion here.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Charrington
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14585

posted 06 October 2007 03:28 AM      Profile for Mr. Charrington        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

How does "being here longer" in a national sense make any difference to one's humanity and thus, the demand for rights?


Yikes! You're walking into a ban-able minefield there fella.

Taken at face value, your statement implies that Amerindians have no greater claim to the landmass of North and South America than those who came later.


From: 49deg53' N 97deg07' W | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 October 2007 03:43 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Look. You guys want to discuss archaeology and the ethics of ethnic inhertance, please start another thread fo that.

For one thing, vis the Palestinians we are talking about people who have immediate legal property claims, identified by property deeds, etc.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 October 2007 03:47 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Charrington:

Yikes! You're walking into a ban-able minefield there fella.

Taken at face value, your statement implies that Amerindians have no greater claim to the landmass of North and South America than those who came later.


I have no fear. That isn't the "face value".

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 October 2007 03:53 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Look. You guys want to discuss archaeology and the ethics of ethnic inhertance, please start another thread fo that.

For one thing, vis the Palestinians we are talking about people who have immediate legal property claims, identified by property deeds, etc.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I was discussing that, Cueball. Read it again. I have no desire to argue over archeology, my post makes that emmanently clear.

The project of discussing a "post-Zionist" reality without dealing with the objections based in the current "Zionist" reality (including archeological land claims) is impossible and futile. Any process leading to a post-Zionist state would necessarily involve dispelling prevailing attitudes and objections.

My post is based in what I believe is a necessary ideological shift for creating a "post-Zionist" state (political and ideological). Step one - "national" claims must be reduced in weight and supplanted by "human" ones. This was the demand which dissolved Apartheid in SA, dissolved British Imperialism in India, and will dissolve the Zionist reality currently ruling Israel/Palestine.

Israelis, for there part, must drop the claim to victimhood and a need for special protection and rightfully claim a fully rehabilitated "humanity" - i.e. equality.

Palestinians must untie the Gordian Knot of national claims by reverting to making their claim in the name of shared humanity and equal treatment for all.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 06 October 2007 04:16 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wasn't the founding of Israel, a Zionist project, very much a specific response to the Holocaust, even if the kernel of the idea had its origins with Mr.Herzl some decades earlier? Imposed on the indigenous populations - including the Palestinian Jews - by colonial fiat?

Hasn't the world moved on since then? Are there any Jewish populations among the Diaspora currently under threat of persecution or extinction? Doesn't that remove the principle ideological ground for Israel as a Zionist state and therefore any obstacles to the longstanding Palestinian proposal for a secular state on the territory currently occupied by the Israeli state?

Isn't it the case that a good number of Israel's recent immigrants might be more accurately classed as economic migrants (from Russia for example) exploiting that state's essentially racist structure for non-religious reasons, cynically exploited by the state to bolster declining numbers?

So that, world Jewry if so inclined would be welcome, as convenient, to settle in their historical homeland, as any other people are welcome to settle in the lands of their historical origins, but nothing more?

A further small point - didn't Ben Gurion UNILATERALLY declare statehood PRIOR to UN recognition, and in the face of objections from the Arab populations on the ground at the time? Which undermines notions of its so-called 'legality' IMHO...


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 October 2007 04:20 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Edited for Redundancy.....

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 October 2007 04:35 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hasn't the world moved on since then? Are there any Jewish populations among the Diaspora currently under threat of persecution or extinction? Doesn't that remove the principle ideological ground for Israel as a Zionist state and therefore any obstacles to the longstanding Palestinian proposal for a secular state on the territory currently occupied by the Israeli state?

This is no small point. This is one of the chief contradictions that allows this conflict to fester.

IMO, the demand for Jewish "equality" necessitates that Israelis also relinquish victimhood as their basis for political rights. A victim is necessarily "less" than a non-victim or victimiser. Within the dynamic of "master and slave" new political possibilities for Israel are not conceivable. A new state (of mind, and of Israel) necessitates ending this dance of "master and slave" as the basis of political relations. Currently, Palestinians and Israelis do not define themselves or their goals outside of these confines.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 October 2007 05:04 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:

A further small point - didn't Ben Gurion UNILATERALLY declare statehood PRIOR to UN recognition, and in the face of objections from the Arab populations on the ground at the time? Which undermines notions of its so-called 'legality' IMHO...


Yeah, but... Historically (and currently) there aren't any defined mechanisms in black-letter international law to determine who can declare statehood and where. It's largely determined by pure power relations. Mutual recognition is the ratification mechanism and seeing as Israel was then "recognised" by other states, it is legal.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 October 2007 05:12 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Right it exists, as mandated by the UN. I too believe that its founding, and the original partition were essentially against the spirit of the UN charter, since the decision to partition should not have been made without a plebicite of the peoples inhabiting the territory in question. It was established as an measure of bureacratic fiat.

In anycase, even in the context of the partition plan, and the UN mandate, the rights of Palestinian Arabs living in Israel before partition are clearly affirmed, and the legal basis of their right of return clearly established there. There is no question about that.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 October 2007 05:31 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
Wasn't the founding of Israel, a Zionist project, very much a specific response to the Holocaust

No. Where did you read that??

quote:
Imposed on the indigenous populations - including the Palestinian Jews - by colonial fiat?

No. The Palestinians never had a state. The British colonialists signed the Balfour Declaration, but never moved to create either one state or two for Palestinians (Jews or Arabs). In response to the end of the British mandate and the British declaration of intent to get out after the war, the U.N. did what it did. It was unfair, it was ill-considered, and it was heavily influenced by superior Jewish Agency and other Zionist lobbying, non-existence of a Palestinian liberation movement, division, incompetence and apathy among the mostly semi-feudal and neo-colonial Arab ruling cliques in neighbouring countries. And there was a concurrence of interest on the part of the Great Powers of the day, each of whom wanted the British out of the region and some kind of half-baked political structure to supplant them. But that was the reality of the day, and partition happened. One problem was that there was no Palestinian political entity capable of establishing a state.

quote:
Hasn't the world moved on since then? Are there any Jewish populations among the Diaspora currently under threat of persecution or extinction?

Your thesis that the idea of and impetus for Israel suddenly sprung up in 1946 or so is remote from reality.

quote:
Isn't it the case that a good number of Israel's recent immigrants might be more accurately classed as economic migrants (from Russia for example) exploiting that state's essentially racist structure for non-religious reasons, cynically exploited by the state to bolster declining numbers?

No kidding. It's a racist apartheid state which is essentially a suburb of the U.S. That's why we're talking about the necessity of its transformation. But everyone would like to see that happen without even more ethnic cleansing, deportations, massacres, genocide.

quote:
So that, world Jewry if so inclined would be welcome, as convenient, to settle in their historical homeland, as any other people are welcome to settle in the lands of their historical origins, but nothing more?

Yes, exactly - that's why I said the "Law of Return" has to be repealed.

quote:
A further small point - didn't Ben Gurion UNILATERALLY declare statehood PRIOR to UN recognition, and in the face of objections from the Arab populations on the ground at the time? Which undermines notions of its so-called 'legality' IMHO...

Well, as Cueball says, reality is reality. I challenge you to find any state in the world that arose through pristine consensus of the international community. Compare Israel to South Africa. Israel's origins probably had more of a "consensual" nature. But both are legitimate internationally recognized states - and South Africa was even before apartheid was abolished. It was the evil policies of South Africa which made it an international pariah - as is the case with Israel.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 October 2007 05:56 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No. The Palestinians never had a state. The British colonialists signed the Balfour Declaration, but never moved to create either one state or two for Palestinians (Jews or Arabs).

Hmmm...doesn't this bolster the case that the Holocaust was a chief motivator? The timing can't be all coincidence can it?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Charrington
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14585

posted 06 October 2007 06:18 AM      Profile for Mr. Charrington        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With this type of thing being produced by the Jewish press, it's going to be very difficult to get all sides to come together, IMHO.

Extra points if you can count all the inaccuracies in the cartoon.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: Mr. Charrington ]


From: 49deg53' N 97deg07' W | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 October 2007 06:23 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Generally we make a distinction between the Jewish press here and the Zionist press. For example this web site is also part of the Jewish press, in fact, and I don't think you would see anything like that here. Except as part of a thread.

In anycase, where did you get that from?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 October 2007 06:24 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Charrington:
With this type of thing being produced by the Jewish press, it's going to be very difficult to get all sides to come together, IMHO.


I find it interesting that that cartoon comes out of the Diaspora press.

I also wonder if your linking to the Jewish Tribal Review is simply because that's the only source for such cartoons (likely not) or a deliberate attempt to be provocative and troll this thread off-topic...

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 October 2007 06:40 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is not necessarily that bad. After all we have gone over all this stuff before, so we can not expect newcomers to be up-to-date on all the discussions we have had regarding this issue, and not to bring up topics and material we have gone over before.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Charrington
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14585

posted 06 October 2007 06:53 AM      Profile for Mr. Charrington        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

I find it interesting that that cartoon comes out of the Diaspora press.



It comes from San Fransisco, which as you know is a very, very progressive place. The fact that this could come from such a place is very disturbing.


From: 49deg53' N 97deg07' W | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 06 October 2007 07:15 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
er, Unionist:

The Palestinians never had a state but would you suggest there was no 'Palestinian' society in place at the time, historically governed by a variety of colonial powers? Doesn't this smell a bit like the myth of Israel miraculously appearing out of an uninhabited desert, which they made bloom, etc etc? And in the peculiar epoch of the immediate postwar a more logical process of individuation might have been, as has been noted on this thread, to put the question to the local population in the form of a referendum? I agree the region at the time was a mess of competing interests, the point remains that Israel's origin was regarded then and now as contentious; to brush this under the carpet with 'the UN did what it did', ie, 'let's move on' won't cut it with the millions still living in refugee camps in the region.

As indicated with my reference to Herzl I in no way suggest Israel sprang into existence in 1946.

When I say Israel was 'imposed by colonial fiat' I simply mean that in recognizing Ben Gurion's less than democratic assertion of nationhood, the UN, then as now dominated by the old colonialist order, gave the nod to what was arguably a modern colonialist project. Their assent was in part conditioned by a newly Labour, postwar Britain's eagerness to wash its hands of the more tiresome aspects of its colonial history and awareness of the Holocaust might have been a factor in that. I only speculate, I am no authority.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 October 2007 07:40 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't say that Israel's internal relationship with Israeli Arabs has been benefit free. True they did live for the best part of 10 years as purely subject peoples, but the idea that Palestinians are only really holding a grudge against Israel is part and parcel of the problem. Not that you are saying this, but I am failry certain that a large number of those living in the camps would accept Israeli citizenship aside from any particular national feelings they might have.

Palestinian society really evolved as a distinct national identity largely, I think, in its opposition to Israel, as the oppressor. Truly they are traditionally part of the Assyrian Arab group.

It is also there now, just as Israel exists now.

Be that as it may the issues of the individual complaint are expressed as part of that national identity, but the core issues are still resolvable in the context of an existant Israel, land, rights, and compensation for loses incurred.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 07:57 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hasn't the world moved on since then? Are there any Jewish populations among the Diaspora currently under threat of persecution or extinction? Doesn't that remove the principle ideological ground for Israel as a Zionist state and therefore any obstacles to the longstanding Palestinian proposal for a secular state on the territory currently occupied by the Israeli state?


There are still Jews who are oppresed, but no Jewish group is being threatened with a second holocaust. I could be wrong, but hasn't there been a lot of anti semitic violence in Russia recently?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 06 October 2007 08:28 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I wouldn't say that Israel's internal relationship with Israeli Arabs has been benefit free. True they did live for the best part of 10 years as purely subject peoples, but the idea that Palestinians are only really holding a grudge against Israel is part and parcel of the problem. Not that you are saying this, but I am failry certain that a large number of those living in the camps would accept Israeli citizenship aside from any particular national feelings they might have.

Palestinian society really evolved as a distinct national identity largely, I think, in its opposition to Israel, as the oppressor. Truly they are traditionally part of the Assyrian Arab group.

It is also there now, just as Israel exists now.

Be that as it may the issues of the individual complaint are expressed as part of that national identity, but the core issues are still resolvable in the context of an existant Israel, land, rights, and compensation for loses incurred.


Instinctively I agree with you here; not an easy route, but there isn't one here is there?


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 06 October 2007 08:54 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just think that if we're waiting for Israel to give up its historical narrative, then we will be waiting a very long time to see any kind of progress. I understand the difficulty of the situation, and I also understand Cueball's point. I just don't think it gets us where we need to be.
From: O for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 October 2007 09:03 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Hmmm...doesn't this bolster the case that the Holocaust was a chief motivator?


No, not in the least. The motivator was the post-war dismantlement of the empire. The Holocaust had no more effect on British departure from the Middle East than it did on British departure from India. And the resultant partitions in both cases led to disaster for the people. But "undoing" partition in Palestine without the consent of both peoples is as impossible, unrealistic, and unjust as would be merging Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 09:05 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
I just think that if we're waiting for Israel to give up its historical narrative, then we will be waiting a very long time to see any kind of progress. I understand the difficulty of the situation, and I also understand Cueball's point. I just don't think it gets us where we need to be.

South Africa gave up its historical narrative, why shoudn't Israel? What makes it special?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 October 2007 09:57 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

South Africa gave up its historical narrative, why shoudn't Israel? What makes it special?


The difference between minority rule and majority rule springs to mind.

ETA:

South Africa: black 79.5%, white 9.2%, Coloured 8.9%, Asian 2.5% (2006 est.) Source.

Israel: Jewish 76.0%, Israeli Arab 19.7%, Unaffiliated 4.3% (2005 est.)

[Most unaffiliated persons are non-Jewish immigrants from the former USSR. This data includes legal citizens of the State of Israel, not including any Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or other citizen living under areas administrated by the Palestinian Authority.] Source.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 12:21 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do you believe that after a two state solution is implemented, Israel will put aside its apartheid laws and become more tolerent?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 12:24 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Secular, democratic, one person one vote, a Bill of Rights, a special recognition of its founding peoples (hmm ... sounds familiar), and conbining the territory of current Israel and occupied Palestine.

What would happen to the settlers in the West Bank?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 06 October 2007 01:09 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Do you believe that after a two state solution is implemented, Israel will put aside its apartheid laws and become more tolerent?

I believe that a two-state solution is the first step to healing alot of wounds in both Israel and Palestine.

From: O for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 02:03 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
believe that a two-state solution is the first step to healing alot of wounds in both Israel and Palestine.

That isn't an answer.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 October 2007 02:07 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

What would happen to the settlers in the West Bank?


The settlers in the West Bank are there illegally. They of course must get out - just as they had to leave Gaza. It's 40 years overdue.

ETA: CMOT, I answered your question about South Africa and why its situation was different from Israel's. Do you agree?

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 06 October 2007 02:16 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with Coyote. A "two state solution" isn't the ideal, it's resisted by powerful forces in Israel, and won't bring instant harmony either, but I don't see any other option being accepted by the majority on either side. The mimimal trust and tolerance needed for building a stable two nation state just isn't there.

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Charrington:

Yikes! You're walking into a ban-able minefield there fella.

Taken at face value, your statement implies that Amerindians have no greater claim to the landmass of North and South America than those who came later.


That's not a valid comparison at all, the first peoples of the Americas (and elsewhere) have inhabited this land in an unbroken line since the "conquests" reduced them to another oppressed minority. The Jewish population in Palestine OTOH was never more than a small minority between the Roman holocaust/diaspora two thosand years ago and just prior to the establishment of the state, when they were becoming a large minority. In some periods the Jewish presence was probably just a few individuals. And to spare more time, I support native land claims as does most the left I believe, at least in theory; it's the political right that tries to play this misunderstanding both ways against the middle.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 06 October 2007 02:17 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

The settlers in the West Bank are there illegally. They of course must get out - just as they had to leave Gaza. It's 40 years overdue.


It is, but what if some of West bank settlers were willing to live under a Palestinian authority, would that be acceptable?


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 06 October 2007 02:19 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Are you asking me if a post-Occupation Israel takes on less racist characteristics? Of course it does, just merely by no longer occupying a subject people Israel becomes less racist. If you're asking me whether a post-Occupation Israel becomes completely non-racist, then the answer is no - because neither is Canada, or Japan, or the U.S., or France, or Spain, or . . .

Cue and I have debated these kinds of these more than a few times. To me the fact is that Israel exists, as is; we are going to have to find a way to help broker a peace between the Palestinians and the state of Israel as is.


From: O for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 October 2007 02:38 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

It is, but what if some of West bank settlers were willing to live under a Palestinian authority, would that be acceptable?


After finishing their stint in prison? Sure, if they applied to immigrate and were accepted by the PA. Or perhaps they could apply for asylum. I'm sure they'd be able to prove danger of persecution if they returned to a non-Zionist Israel.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 02:40 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
ETA: CMOT, I answered your question about South Africa and why its situation was different from Israel's. Do you agree?


Yes, I guess. I also think however, that unless israel removes it's aparthied laws, in fifteen years, the Isreali government will face exactly the same problems in Israel proper that they are currently facing in the West Bank. The two state solution dosen't lay the groundwork for the end of institutionalized bigotry in Israel. After the two state solution becomes a reality, many Israelis will say, "The Palestinians have their own state, but our country must remain ethnically pure!" the racism has a good chance of continuing, as does the violence.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 October 2007 03:24 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

The two state solution dosen't lay the groundwork for the end of institutionalized bigotry in Israel.


Well, I agree. I don't think Coyote is correct on this point. Palestinians have some kind of "state" in Gaza, and it's worse than worthless.

Palestinians having their "own state" without the Wall coming down, without all the settlements being bulldozed and the settlers sent home, without Israel ceasing its aggression and hostility against its neighbours, without many bilateral issues (such as water and work) being sorted out, without a decent, strong, non-colonial, progressive Palestinian leadership (the Palestinians have no leaders at all now other than wimps, thugs, and religious nuts) - none of that will even begin to alter the injustices of all kinds that prevail. Nor will it do anything to cure many Israelis of their spiritual sickness. That will have to come from within.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 03:37 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Even if the state is viable, I don't think it will bring an end to violence in the region. The Aparthied laws I'm talking about are in Israel proper. They are the ones that Azmi Bishara discusses in his article.

In order to establish a lasting peace, israel must do three things:
1) End the occupation
2) Accept the right of return for at least several hundred thousand Palestinian refugees.
3) Toss out the collection of laws which discriminate against Israeli Arabs.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 04:33 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course, you already new all of that.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 06 October 2007 04:50 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

After finishing their stint in prison? Sure, if they applied to immigrate and were accepted by the PA. Or perhaps they could apply for asylum. I'm sure they'd be able to prove danger of persecution if they returned to a non-Zionist Israel.


I assume you're half kidding about prison but then I suppose I'm not being entirely serious either. I doubt very many of the completely un-integrated and mostly ultra-Orthodox settlers would want to stay in any sort of Palestinian state. I just think it should be an option proffered, if that day comes, maybe with some oath of loyalty and breakup of their closed colonies, if only for appearences sake.

Anyhow, I suppose we should let Cueball get back to his intended topic; even long shots should be considered and thought through.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 October 2007 06:11 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

In order to establish a lasting peace, israel must do three things:
1) End the occupation
2) Accept the right of return for at least several hundred thousand Palestinian refugees.
3) Toss out the collection of laws which discriminate against Israeli Arabs.


Gee, CMOT, isn't that a wee bit similar to what I said earlier - except you forgot to mention that Israel should stop invasions and targetted assassinations across its borders. Just to remind you:

quote:
1. Withdraws from all the occupied territories;

2. Repeals all theocratic, confessional, or ethnocentric laws (such as the Law of Return, the state status of the JNF, the institution of secular marriage, etc.);

3. Ceases any and all hostile acts against Palestinians and other neighbours;

4. Negotiates a solution to the Right of Return;

5. Probably some things I've forgotten (like abolishing its nuclear stockpile, paying reparations, etc.);



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 06:13 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, non-Zionist Israel what does it look like, and how does it come into being?


After a much bloodshed, a beleaguered Israel decides,after enormous amounts of presure from an energy starved United States, which in turn was preasured by Iran, to allow a million Palistinians back into the country. They then establish a democratic, secular framework, under which all israelis are treated as equal citizens, and wihdraw from the West Bank. The IDF has also stopped harrasing the residents of Gaza and the Israeli Prime Minister has signed a peace treaty with all of Israel's former enemies in the region.

[ 06 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2007 06:15 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
that Israel should stop invasions and targetted assassinations across its borders.

They should do that too.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 October 2007 12:48 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Are you asking me if a post-Occupation Israel takes on less racist characteristics? Of course it does, just merely by no longer occupying a subject people Israel becomes less racist. If you're asking me whether a post-Occupation Israel becomes completely non-racist, then the answer is no - because neither is Canada, or Japan, or the U.S., or France, or Spain, or . . .

Cue and I have debated these kinds of these more than a few times. To me the fact is that Israel exists, as is; we are going to have to find a way to help broker a peace between the Palestinians and the state of Israel as is.


Well no. Because I don't believe that this peace is possible until the endless political gridlock that allows the settlers movement to set the pace of affairs is broken and this can not be done until it is possible to envision an Israel that is non-Zionist, because it is the Zionism which gives credit to the cause of the settlers.

Without them, and their ambition for total annexation, the problems would be far simpler, but they persist on the promise of a Zionist Israel.

Zionism is an ideology which has an expression as policy, just as Apartheid was an ideology that had an expression as a policy. It was not possible to undermine the policies of Apartheid until a South Africa could be ideologically seperated from Apartheid.

[ 09 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca