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.

---

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.

---

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
1948

---

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

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)?

---

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)?

---

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 ]

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 ]

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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 ]

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.

---

quote:

---

That's not the subject of this thread. If Palestinians want a separate state, that is their inalienable right.

---

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

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.

---

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.

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 ]

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?

---

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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.

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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?

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

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 ]

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...

---

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 ]

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...

---

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).

---

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

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

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 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

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

---

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.

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.

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

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

---

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.

---

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 ]

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.

---

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?

---

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

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 ]

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.

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.);

---

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 ]

quote:

---

that Israel should stop invasions and targetted assassinations across its borders.

---

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 ]