"Minorities are the biggest problem in the world." - Avigdor Lieberman in a 2006 interview with The Sunday Telegraph.
Also, from the article "Jews and Arabs can never live together, says Israel's vice PM":
"We established Israel as a Jewish country," he said. "I want to provide an Israel that is a Jewish, Zionist country. It's about what kind of country we want to see in the future. Either it will be an [ethnically mixed] country like any other, or it will continue as a Jewish country."
"Either [Israel] will be an [ethnically mixed] country like any other, or it will continue as a Jewish country."
So why should this large, ethnically-mixed country called the USA continue to subsidize an exclusivist, supremacist nation which rejects American core values? So what if Israel's a democracy — the world has dozens of democracies.
The U.S. never subsidized apartheid South Africa. It's Israel's endless, unjustified demand for American cash — along with its single-minded distortion of our political system — which is so objectionable.
Rant on, Lieberman. Your check's in the mail … NOT!
The big elephant is thrashing about the room, and oblivious to the egg on his face.
Where, in 8 stage process of Gregory H Stanton, are we?
god forbid israel being like any other country. this kind human being is once more extending thorn infested olive branch.
"Minorities are the biggest problem in the world." – Avigdor Lieberman
"The Jews are our misfortune." – Adolf Hitler
Can it be Jewish and non-Zionist?
What Avigdor Lieberman do, by saying that "Minorities are the biggest problem in the world." is to justify the persecution of Jews throughout history.
Yet another proof that zionism is fundamentally anti-semitic.
Joshua: Can it be Jewish and non-Zionist?
This is like asking if it can be Jewish state without being a Jewish state.
Of course it cannot. That's the dilemma, and as a conservative who supports ethnic nationalism and is frequently called a racist, I am enjoying some well needed Schadenfreude by watching liberals recoil in horror at finally discovering what Zionism actually is!
It certainly took them long enough.
As I've said before, Lieberman is a real, honest Zionist. If one wants a Jewish state, then one should embrace his policies.
If you are a liberal Zionist who thinks ethnic and religious diversity is a universal good, then you are long overdue for some very unpleasant cognitive dissonance.
I thought it was Treitschke who said, "The Jews are our misfortune [Die Juden sind unser Unglück]". Did Hitler say it too?
'Can [Israel] be Jewish and non-Zionist?' — Joshua
Wrong question. Rather, can Israel be Jewish and a viable state?
Probably not. Failing to properly define the question decreases the odds of success. Believing that G-d grants real estate titles ensures a train wreck. I assure you, He don't care.
Or 'She,' if you prefer.
Whatever else you might think about him, you have to admit: Avigdor Lieberman is a breath of fresh air! Finally, a zionist who says it like it is and doesn't try to hide behind political correctness. I hope he gets as much exposure as possible in the U.S. and I don't want to hear people whining about "why do they hate us?" when they can see for themselves the true nature of our "special ally."
"I want to provide an Israel that is a Jewish, Zionist country."
Through the miracle of parallel construction, let's see how that sounds in an American context–"I want to provide an America that is a Christian, Anglo-Saxon country."
There's no one here who would endorse that kind of America. The racism and zenophobia are too obvious. Yet, strangely enough, there are more than a few who post here who would readily agree with the notion of a Jewish, Zionist Israel.
I don't think my question was either misguided or even fallacious. Most proponents of the one-state solution see Zionism as the main obstacle to overcome and not Judiasm and many embrace Jewish values to oppose Zionism in the first place.
The whole concept of "viability" is really of one's own personal description or definition of what a "viable state" really is. From the looks of things, Israel was/is Jewish and has been a viable state, even as close to its birth.
Jim, you really have a narrow point of view of what Zionism is, and according to your "God" statement you are hung up on the fringe that wants to peddle the ideology that really isn't shared by most Israelis. In fact, Israel even uses archaic Ottoman law to demolish Palestinian home.
This is just getting too long but if you advocate some form of binationalism or even a unitary state, you will have to accept that this state will have a Jewish character.
"Yet another proof that zionism is fundamentally anti-semitic."
So, Dag, you mean judaism is fundamentally anti-zionist? Meaning zionist are not jews and the real jews are against the existence of a jewish state?
I disagree. What you see is just another proof that zionism is and has always been a fair expression of ashkenazim judaism and it's racist ideological core.
Joshua, that is not acceptable in USA, so why should we support it by supporting Israel? Especially to the length that we do? I await your answer.
Lysias wrote:
"I thought it was Treitschke who said, "The Jews are our misfortune [Die Juden sind unser Unglück]". Did Hitler say it too?"
It was indeed the historian Treitschke who coined this phrase. But Julius Streicher's hate-screed 'Der Stuermer' had this phrase on every title page.
Citizen, you have totally misrepresented or miscontrued the question. I have always contended that it is all a matter of personal definition, especially of what Zionism is and what Israel should and would be to the citizens of that state.
Your insistence of what isn't "acceptable in the USA" doesn't mean that it shouldn't be acceptable for somebody else, should it? Would you dictate on what is acceptable for Palestinians and what state they would prefer to have also? If Israelis want to have a Jewish character, provided that it does not impede on minorities and their rights, it mimicks other forms of nationalisms. Whether the ideology of Zionism can be abolished and if Israel can still be a state with a Jewish character is still very debatable even to myself and I bet alot more are questioning it also.
You have based your answer on an equivalent that really does not hold true and ignores the accomplishments and also the dichotomies of Zionism. Why do you think Bernard Avishai wrote a book called The Hebrew Republic?
PS This topic had nothing to do with US support of Israel. If the US supported states that it shared the same values with, I doubt there would be alot of trade and aid with other nations in this world.
"Joshua: Can it be Jewish and non-Zionist?"
Actually, a very insightful and intelligent question. Here is a link to an insightful and intelligent answer…from The Magnes Zionist blog…
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/08/zionism-without-jewish-state.html
And just my opinion, but there would be nothing racist about a "Judaic State" (as opposed to a "Jewish State").
Leiberman says that Jews and Arabs can't live together. History shows that this is transparently false. I think he intends to say ISRAELIS and arabs can not live together, and if so, it would be hard to disagree.
Indeed, it is impossible to imagine the Israelis living in peace alongside ANYONE. The idea has become ludicrous.
There are many possible scenarios for peace in the middle east. The only thing all such scenarios have in common is that there is no more Israel.
Israel and peace are totally incompatible concepts.
ROTFLMAO….Leiberman says "minorities" are the world's biggest problem? There are only 13 million Jews in the entire universe..and declining as we speak. About 6 million are in Israel and 5 million in the US, so you can figure how few there are scattered about in other countries. Divide 13 million Jews into one billion Arabs and 2 billion Chineese and you get the idea. Is this guy crazy or stupid or what?
World Jewish Congress
"World Jewish population drops by 300,000 to 12.9 million "
The number of Jews in the world is declining with a net loss of 300,000 American Jews in the last decade, according to a new study following a preliminary examination of the recent census of American Jewry, according to the Jewish Agency's Institute for Jewish People Policy Planning.
According to the institute, which convened an emergency session to deal with what it called the "demographic crisis," there are now some 12.9 million Jews in the world. Earlier this year, estimates put the number at 13.2 million. The main reason for the decline appears in the data from the census of Jewish communities in the U.S., which showed that there has been a decline of 300,000 in American Jewry, from 5.5 million in 1990 to 5.2 million in 2002. Experts say that some 300,000 Jews emigrated to the U.S. during the 1990s, but nonetheless, the community lost some 50,000 Jews a year, mostly to natural attrition.
The institute, jointly headed by former U.S. Middle East peace envoy Dennis Ross and Prof. Yehezkel Dror, a specialist in strategic government policy planning, is supposed to form general and long-term strategic plans for the Jewish people.
Studies published at the conference, which opened Saturday night and ends today, said the decline is apparent in other major Jewish communities around the world. The French Jewish community has declined from 535,000 in 1980 to some 500,000 now, while the number of Jews in the former Soviet Union has fallen from 1.45 million in 1989, to some 437,000 now. Most of those Jews moved to Israel during the 1990s.
But according to Prof. Sergio della Pergola, an expert on demographics, "last year alone in Russia there were 8,000 deaths of elderly Jews, and only 600 births recorded to Jewish mothers. This is the end of a long process of assimilation and aging."
The only Jewish community in the world that is growing is Israel, which is home to most of the world's Jewish children under the age of 15.
Sallai Meridor, the Likud-appointed chairman of the agency, said at the conference that "one of the biggest problems is the high cost of Jewish education in the West, and ways must be found to help more people pay for Jewish education for their children."
Hinting that he may be shifting his views on the greater Land of Israel, Meridor said that demographic threat inside Israel, because of the increase of non-Jews in the population and the Israeli control over the territories, "must certainly influence our borders policy."
But he added "it also means that we cannot concede on the Palestinian right of return issue. And particularly, we must increase immigration. That is a vital need for Israel, like water in the faucet."
He called for a more lenient rabbinical attitude toward the issue of converting non-Jewish immigrants. "I hope that conversion continues to be the only gateway to the Jewish people, because I believe the people of Israel and the religion of Israel go together. But that's as long as religious values do not endanger national needs … There will be no significant immigration in the future that does not include non-Jewish members of the family, and those who are ready to forgo those people should already give up the demographic effort."
Ross said that "we have to examine which methods worked in the past and which didn't." He noted that Jewish schooling, summer camps and organized trips to Israel were the best way to keep young Jews interested in the fate of the Jewish people. Furthermore, he said, "if Israel wants to remain the center of the Jewish people, it must certainly remain a Jewish and democratic state."
Here is the rest of the world country by country:..just for a reality check for the zionist.
https://cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html
Great post, Adam. Quotations of Chairman Avigdor, unabridged, and unadorned, is the best course. Calling someone a racist or fascist is just name-calling. Quoting them is definitive. And asking our Congresspersons who normally let themselves be led around by the nose by AIPAC if they are prepared to support Israeli leadership that says "minorities are the biggest problem in the world," and "Jews and Arabs can never live together," is a question that they'd better think about before answering. And if the paper puts a happy face on his leadership, a letter to the editor asking how the paper can report about this guy while not mentioning the following statements is consistent with good journalism, and, by not mentioning them, aren't they facilitating such statements, rather than condemning them, as they should, is pretty effective, in the marketplace of ideas?
Lieberman and Netanhayu wouldn't be such a headache if Israel would relegate itself to the '67 borders. what they are really saying is that they intend to continue to persecute the palestinians and continue to steal the land. this is not acceptable.
Leiberman says 'minorities' are the world's biggest problem? LOL. There are only 13 million Jews in the entire universe and declining as we speak. About 6 million are in Israel and 5 million in the US so figure how few there are scattered about in other countries. Just divide 13 million Jews into one billion Arabs and 2 billion Chineses and you get the picture.
Is the guy crazy or stupid or what?
WorldJewish Congress
World Jewish population drops by 300,000 to 12.9 million
The number of Jews in the world is declining with a net loss of 300,000 American Jews in the last decade, according to a new study following a preliminary examination of the recent census of American Jewry, according to the Jewish Agency's Institute for Jewish People Policy Planning.
According to the institute, which convened an emergency session to deal with what it called the "demographic crisis," there are now some 12.9 million Jews in the world. Earlier this year, estimates put the number at 13.2 million. The main reason for the decline appears in the data from the census of Jewish communities in the U.S., which showed that there has been a decline of 300,000 in American Jewry, from 5.5 million in 1990 to 5.2 million in 2002. Experts say that some 300,000 Jews emigrated to the U.S. during the 1990s, but nonetheless, the community lost some 50,000 Jews a year, mostly to natural attrition.
The institute, jointly headed by former U.S. Middle East peace envoy Dennis Ross and Prof. Yehezkel Dror, a specialist in strategic government policy planning, is supposed to form general and long-term strategic plans for the Jewish people.
Studies published at the conference, which opened Saturday night and ends today, said the decline is apparent in other major Jewish communities around the world. The French Jewish community has declined from 535,000 in 1980 to some 500,000 now, while the number of Jews in the former Soviet Union has fallen from 1.45 million in 1989, to some 437,000 now. Most of those Jews moved to Israel during the 1990s.
But according to Prof. Sergio della Pergola, an expert on demographics, "last year alone in Russia there were 8,000 deaths of elderly Jews, and only 600 births recorded to Jewish mothers. This is the end of a long process of assimilation and aging."
The only Jewish community in the world that is growing is Israel, which is home to most of the world's Jewish children under the age of 15.
Sallai Meridor, the Likud-appointed chairman of the agency, said at the conference that "one of the biggest problems is the high cost of Jewish education in the West, and ways must be found to help more people pay for Jewish education for their children."
Hinting that he may be shifting his views on the greater Land of Israel, Meridor said that demographic threat inside Israel, because of the increase of non-Jews in the population and the Israeli control over the territories, "must certainly influence our borders policy."
But he added "it also means that we cannot concede on the Palestinian right of return issue. And particularly, we must increase immigration. That is a vital need for Israel, like water in the faucet."
He called for a more lenient rabbinical attitude toward the issue of converting non-Jewish immigrants. "I hope that conversion continues to be the only gateway to the Jewish people, because I believe the people of Israel and the religion of Israel go together. But that's as long as religious values do not endanger national needs … There will be no significant immigration in the future that does not include non-Jewish members of the family, and those who are ready to forgo those people should already give up the demographic effort."
Ross said that "we have to examine which methods worked in the past and which didn't." He noted that Jewish schooling, summer camps and organized trips to Israel were the best way to keep young Jews interested in the fate of the Jewish people. Furthermore, he said, "if Israel wants to remain the center of the Jewish people, it must certainly remain a Jewish and democratic state."
Here is the rest of the world country by country:..as a reality check for the zionist on here.
https://cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html
Citizen wrote:
"why should we support it [ethno-nationalism] by supporting Israel?"
Because of history? Because we support lots of countries that started out as ethno-nationalist ones to one degree or another (and so remain that way to some degree) due to the fact that same was recognized as being entirely legitimate for hundreds and hundreds of years and thus may well be the founding basis for most states today? Including to a certain degree the U.S. itself at its founding?
Because of the particular history of the jews, which history at the crucial point in time ('47-'48) we vowed to recognize, which most of the rest of the world did too, and to suddenly change our view now would constitute a frivolous playing with people's fates?
Because if you don't have recognize some statute of limitation on playing at Whiggish history and rejiggering the world constantly to fit our constantly changing standards all of us by rights ought to be heading back to the Rift Valley in Africa and we won't all fit?
"Because of the particular history of the jews, which history at the crucial point in time ('47-'48) we vowed to recognize, which most of the rest of the world did too, and to suddenly change our view now would constitute a frivolous playing with people's fates?"
There's nothing frivolous about it. We don't have to de-recognize Israel. All we have to do is end its most-favored-nation status and start treating it as a normal nation in the manner we treat say Germany, France, China or, for that matter, New Zealand.
We could start by not supplying it with offensive weapons like cluster bombs, white phosphorous and exploding flechette weapons. We also need to stop our foreign aid (there are plenty of other countries who need it more) till Israel leaves the occupied territories. We have to quit protecting it from the judgments of the United Nations and we need to quit making excuses for Israel on account of guilt over the Holocaust (which we had nothing to do with).
Most of all we need to get Israel-firsters out of congress and the executive branch.
"Because we support lots of countries that started out as ethno-nationalist ones to one degree or another (and so remain that way to some degree)"
Can you name an example, especially for the latter assertion?
"Because of the particular history of the jews, which history at the crucial point in time ('47-'48) we vowed to recognize, which most of the rest of the world did too, and to suddenly change our view now would constitute a frivolous playing with people's fates?"
You have a very peculiar definition of "suddenly".
Are you also in favor of still treating Germany as a threat to civilization, instead of a close military and political ally? Because, you know, that was how they were treated 60 years ago.
Here's a few more quotes about minorities, and the source as context:
You cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups. America does not consist of groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American.
Wilson, Woodrow T.
1856-1924 Twenty-eighth President of the USA
Beware the tyranny of the minority.
Proverb, Latin
Sayings of Latin Origin
How a minority, reaching majority, seizing authority, hates a minority!
Robbins, Leonard H.
No democracy can long survive which does not accept as fundamental to its very existence the recognition of the rights of minorities.
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
1882-1945 Thirty-second President of the USA
Niggerization is the result of oppression — and it doesn t just apply to the black people. Old people, poor people, and students can also get niggerized.
Kennedy, Florynce R.
Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion — and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion… while truth again reverts to a new minority.
Kierkegaard, Soren
1813-1855 Danish Philosopher Writer
In making the great experiment of governing people by consent rather than by coercion, it is not sufficient that the party in power should have a majority. It is just as necessary that the party in power should never outrage the minority.
Lippmann, Walter
1889-1974 American Journalist
What characterizes a member of a minority group is that he is forced to see himself as both exceptional and insignificant, marvelous and awful, good and evil.
Mailer, Norman
1923 American Author
A minority is always compelled to think. That is the blessing of being in the minority.
Baeck, Leo
1873 Jewish Religious Leader Lecturer
We cannot discuss the state of our minorities until we first have some sense of what we are, who we are, what our goals are, and what we take life to be. The question is not what we can do now for the hypothetical Mexican, the hypothetical Negro. The question is what we really want out of life, for ourselves, what we think is real.
Baldwin, James
1924-1987 American Author
Shall we judge a country by the majority, or by the minority? By the minority, surely.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo
1803-1882 American Poet Essayist
All history is a record of the power of minorities, and of minorities of one.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo
1803-1882 American Poet Essayist
It is always the minorities that hold the key of progress.
Fosdick, Raymond B.
A dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the majority.
Hoffer, Eric
1902-1983 American Author Philosopher
A minority may be right, and a majority is always wrong.
Ibsen, Henrik
1828-1906 Norwegian Dramatist
This is an iteresting topic. I'm not a multiculturalist, and I think that the United States will be rudely awakened when our new demographics settle in. I don't wish a single person harm because of birth, but it is obvious that the vast majority of the people on the planet cling to race, culture and ethnicity as tightly as multiculturalists and Marxists cling to dogma. A rational converstaion can't be held with someone who claims otherwise.
We could have made amends to American natives and blacks, and eventually assimilated them. But we'll never be able to satisfy the rest of the world, and we'll certainly never be able to assimilate the people who are here now, let alone the ones who are on the way. I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying that some people and cultures don't fit together, and peacefully excluding people from entry into a nation. I also see nothing wrong with a nation or people guarding a culture or ethnic heritage. I don't blame the Japanese or Icelanders for wanting to do so. I also see no reason to believe that a society based on race, ethnicity or culture is worse than one based on political ideology alone. Each system has a negative side, and neither will change the nature of man.
Why is Israel interesting? As a nation I very much disliked what I saw of Israel, and I shouldn't have to care about or support Israel. But I have often watched Israel's backers tear America apart over its founding, while supporting multiculturalism and massive immigration into the Unites States at the same time. I'm not claiming that the Jewish community alone harps on "America's past" and pushes for cultural and demographic change, but the Jewish community has been prominent in doing so in the guise of "social justice." The problem is that these same people chart their own numbers constantly, fret about their own collective future and support Israel from abroad, while tearing America apart at the seams. The mask was never really on, but the situation can't get any clearer than it is now. I hope the masses are paying close attention.
By this, Citizen is telling us to consider the palestinians to be terrorists fulfilling their duties under Islam.
I love it when antisemites are hogtied with their own petards.
what isn't "acceptable in the USA" doesn't mean that it shouldn't be acceptable for somebody else, should it?
Israel's actions are not acceptable by anyone who believes in human rights.
Some stunning pictures of the month of January as experienced in Gaza are available at link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
The only reason people aren't protesting in the streets everywhere in the US can only be because the Israeli government refused to allow the media into Gaza during their horrific assault on it's people.
Chris, not all Palestinians are Islamic. I'm interested in your definition of terrorist. Would you oblige?
Todd illustrates a key hypocrisy. The usual organized Jewish groups in the USA pride themselves on playing a major part in the USA Civil Rights movement, and ethically so. The 1965 Immigration Act, which ended quotas based disproportionately on immigrants from the western european nations and in practice
(anchor babies, chain immigration, etc) has favored other peoples, most obviously Mexicans, was championed by Ted Kennedy, with heavy support by said organized Jewish groups. The Congressional Record of the legislation clearly evidences this. And now, said usual organized Jewish Groups take the
opposite stance as to Israel, using the same arguments their opponents put forth back in 1965.
Duscany makes this point concisely near the start of this article's comment thread.
PS: With the obvious example of apartheid S Africa in mind, the USA has not in the past been afraid
of attaching humanistic pre-conditions to diplomatic and economic aspects of its foreign policy. Another example that comes immediately to mind is that the US attached such pre-conditions to deals with USSR Russia–that regime had to free its Jews so they could immigrate to Israel.
In view of the tribal factor and competing class & cultural distinctions in both Israel 's polity and in Gaza versus West Bank, as well as the interests of surrounding nations in solving the I-P problem, and the US interest in getting out of Iraq by mid-2010, Obama needs to seize the moment, early on in his
term, and push for the end of the settlements similarly on a similarly slow track–maybe 5 years?
That's all I'm saying.
PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasser Abd Rabbo Accuses Hamas of New Atrocities Against Fatah Members in Gaza
link to memri.org
/>
And no Israeli ever murdered a key Israeli leader due to intense disappointment of that leader's policy?
What's your point, Julian? How does it relate to this discussion thread?
"If you are a liberal Zionist who thinks ethnic and religious diversity is a universal good, then you are long overdue for some very unpleasant cognitive dissonance."
David, I believe that most have always understood the dual nature of the game. I think there is a general belief that they will forever fly under the radar, and few imagine that they will be called on their actions or face repercussions.
In response to my post essentially saying we should keep on recognizing Israel despite it's being an ethno-nationalist state and not "frivolously" (or "suddenly") changing that Duscany wrote:
"There's nothing frivolous about it. We don't have to de-recognize Israel. All we have to do is end its most-favored-nation status and start treating it as a normal nation in the manner we treat say Germany, France, China or, for that matter, New Zealand."
But Duscany, nothing I said argues against same. (With which I agree in fact.) All I was talking about is recognizing Israel's basic right to continue to exist as a jewish state which is what is so often now called into question and was indeed the point I was responding to.
As regards my statement that we support lots of countries that started out as ethno-nationalist ones and "to some degree" remain that way, Koshiro then also wrote:
"Can you name an example…?"
Well sure, in the sense I meant it and as I said I'd include almost the U.S. even. Clearly its founders envisioned it as fundamentally being a European state. Just like Bismark essentially intended Germany to essentially be a state for the Germans. And just like the current make-ups of both those states and so many others like them still today reflect so much of that heritage. Or think of … Japan. Or China. Or Ireland. Or Scotland. Or France. Or ….
Koshiro then wrote further:
"You have a very peculiar definition of 'suddenly'.
Are you also in favor of still treating Germany as a threat to civilization, instead of a close military and political ally? Because, you know, that was how they were treated 60 years ago."
Well I don't know what you mean about my definition; I just meant that we ought not go de-recognizing Israel's basic right to exist.
And as to your other point to the effect that you see me wrongly stating that we ought to stick with how we used to view things yeah, I'll admit it's a logically incisive one. But of course the idea of recognizing some statute of limitations on some things is primarily a practical one.
So its logic lies with the idea that it's just simply impossible to go along constantly upheaving the past. And its morality lies in the fact that it is consequently impossible to be accomplished consistently and thus fairly, and the horrific effects it can have on people living today who weren't even involved in making the historical mistake or crime you want to remedy.
In response to my post essentially saying we should keep on recognizing Israel despite it's being an ethno-nationalist state and not "frivolously" (or "suddenly") changing that Duscany wrote:
"There's nothing frivolous about it. We don't have to de-recognize Israel. All we have to do is end its most-favored-nation status and start treating it as a normal nation in the manner we treat say Germany, France, China or, for that matter, New Zealand."
But Duscany, nothing I said argues against same. (With which I agree in fact.) All I was talking about is recognizing Israel's basic right to continue to exist as a jewish state which is what is so often now called into question and was indeed the point I was responding to.
As regards my statement that we support lots of countries that started out as ethno-nationalist ones and "to some degree" remain that way, Koshiro then also wrote:
"Can you name an example…?"
Well sure, in the sense I meant it and as I said I'd include almost the U.S. even. Clearly its founders envisioned it as fundamentally being a European state. Just like Bismark essentially intended Germany to essentially be a state for the Germans. And just like the current make-ups of both those states and so many others like them still today reflect so much of that heritage. Or think of … Japan. Or China. Or Ireland. Or Scotland. Or France. Or ….
Koshiro then wrote further:
"You have a very peculiar definition of 'suddenly'.
Are you also in favor of still treating Germany as a threat to civilization, instead of a close military and political ally? Because, you know, that was how they were treated 60 years ago."
Well I don't know what you mean about my definition; I just meant that we ought not go de-recognizing Israel's basic right to exist.
And as to your other point to the effect that you see me wrongly stating that we ought to stick with how we used to view things yeah, I'll admit it's a logically incisive one. But of course the idea of recognizing some statute of limitations on some things is primarily a practical one.
So its logic lies with the idea that it's just simply impossible to go along constantly upheaving the past. And its morality lies in the fact that it is consequently impossible to be accomplished consistently and thus fairly, and the horrific effects it can have on people living today who weren't even involved in making the historical mistake or crime you want to remedy.
In response to my post essentially saying we should keep on recognizing Israel despite it's being an ethno-nationalist state and not "frivolously" (or "suddenly") changing that Duscany wrote:
"There's nothing frivolous about it. We don't have to de-recognize Israel. All we have to do is end its most-favored-nation status and start treating it as a normal nation in the manner we treat say Germany, France, China or, for that matter, New Zealand."
But Duscany, nothing I said argues against same. (With which I agree in fact.) All I was talking about is recognizing Israel's basic right to continue to exist as a jewish state which is what is so often now called into question and was indeed the point I was responding to.
As regards my statement that we support lots of countries that started out as ethno-nationalist ones and "to some degree" remain that way, Koshiro then also wrote:
"Can you name an example…?"
Well sure, in the sense I meant it and as I said I'd include almost the U.S. even. Clearly its founders envisioned it as fundamentally being a European state. Just like Bismark essentially intended Germany to essentially be a state for the Germans. And just like the current make-ups of both those states and so many others like them still today reflect so much of that heritage. Or think of … Japan. Or China. Or Ireland. Or Scotland. Or France. Or ….
Koshiro then wrote further:
"You have a very peculiar definition of 'suddenly'.
Are you also in favor of still treating Germany as a threat to civilization, instead of a close military and political ally? Because, you know, that was how they were treated 60 years ago."
Well I don't know what you mean about my definition; I just meant that we ought not go de-recognizing Israel's basic right to exist.
And as to your other point to the effect that you see me wrongly stating that we ought to stick with how we used to view things yeah, I'll admit it's a logically incisive one. But of course the idea of recognizing some statute of limitations on some things is primarily a practical one.
So its logic lies with the idea that it's just simply impossible to go along constantly upheaving the past. And its morality lies in the fact that it is consequently impossible to be accomplished consistently and thus fairly, and the horrific effects it can have on people living today who weren't even involved in making the historical mistake or crime you want to remedy.
P.S. The dual posting wasn't me; something is screwy with Phil's comment thing.
@ Sin Nombre
"Well I don't know what you mean about my definition; I just meant that we ought not go de-recognizing Israel's basic right to exist."
And the other peoples without a state, e.g., the Kurds, Gypsies? Do you stand in favor? If not, why should we draw the line there, and there? (A similar question goes to having nukes in the Middle East.)
"And as to your other point to the effect that you see me wrongly stating that we ought to stick with how we used to view things yeah, I'll admit it's a logically incisive one. But of course the idea of recognizing some statute of limitations on some things is primarily a practical one."
There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. Israel and its USA special agency have been going after
claimed Nazis for how long, with no sign of stopping? In light of same, how do you distinguish practical from political?
"So its logic lies with the idea that it's just simply impossible to go along constantly upheaving the past."
True, why should we draw the line there, not there?
" And its morality lies in the fact that it is consequently impossible to be accomplished consistently and thus fairly, "
So morality=practicality? That never stopped NAZI hunters. Nor the USA and Germany's support of same.
"and the horrific effects it can have on people living today who weren't even involved in making the historical mistake or crime you want to remedy."
You mean like each new generation of Germans? Each new American generation? Why are only some
people not subject to affirmative action?
Also Sin Nobre, which Israel are you talking about? What are its circumferential borders you don't wish to deny? And what is the nature of its constitution in terms of domestic and civil rights? And please distinguish both de facto and de jure. Thanks in advance for clarifying you position.
Sorry, Sin Nombre.
Also: Everyone and people have a "right to exist." Who is questioning that here? Seems to me they are questioning the criteria for respected statehood for any people. And they are doing so in this day and age, with all that implies after 1945. Nothing is unconditional. Every right has a duty. No?
Israel clearly has NO moral right to exist. Its legal right rests on an appallingly flimsy foundation, as the creation of the jewish state was a violation of the UN charter and israel's vile behavior has shown utter contempt for every stipulation bearing on Israeli statehood, first and foremost, respect for the rights of the indigenous people.
Everyone should deny Israel's right to exist.
"I want to provide an Israel that is a Jewish, Zionist country."
That from Lieberman who knows apparently nothing about Judaism, or at least none that he ever cared to articulate. His party's platform is a study in glaring contrasts: on collision course with both the Haredi, ultra-orthodox OTOH, and the universalist, minority embracing ethos of super-secular liberal Israelis OTOH.
To Lieberman, a man of great political instincts but clearly not quite an intellectual giant, "zionist" simply means "no Arabs need apply". All the great debates as to what, or who is a jew are thus reduced to a simple definition. So his vision of "zion" – one embraced by over 13% of voters is of a state run by oligarchs – who may place a claim on the "Jewish" label, yet possess little by way of either ethnic or intellectual lineage to the original idealistic "zionists". The beauty of liberman's credo is that ties so well with an even simpler credo – one shared with the Russian mafiosi and its captive oligarch culture: "let's make some money". Lieberman's prescription for israel is to achieve salvation through a hodge-podge of technocrats, old fashioned money laundering (the crime for which he is currently under investigation) and political influence peddling to assure maximum return for the fewest people. If only poor Ben Gurion were alive to see what all that ideal-waving, materialism-shunning, socialist laborism has come to.
Liberman is a true neo-zionist for our time.
Citizen:
I don't know that I'd be in favor of a homeland now for the Kurds and Gypsies as you ask, although if it could be accomplished without bloodshed and with the assent of all the interested parties I don't know that I'd be too opposed either. But you just make my point here really, don't you? That is, obviously, you implicate the question of the *impracticality* of doing those kinds of things, and thereby validate my point that practicality should indeed enter into things at some point.
Same with your talk about war crimes not having any statute of limitations. (Which in general is true for murder too by the way.) It's one thing to talk about the practicality of seizing and trying an individual for those things years and years after the fact; it's another to talk about de-recognizing an entire country, isn't it? I.e., the former being way way way more practically possible than the latter.
(And yes, consistent with my point about recognizing Israel out of regard for the practicality of overturning something that was established and approved so long ago, I mean only to argue for the recognition of Israel within its pre-'67 borders, consistent with the U.S.'s recognition of it in '47 and essentially the world's recognition of it too at the time and afterwards.)
And no, I never said "morality = practicality." But I would assert again that the latter can have an impact on same. For instance, to some degree (if not a great degree) we've always seen "fairness" as having a moral component, right? I.e., treating one person differently from another for doing the same thing is unfair, true?
Okay, so how is it fair to go back only so far in terms of the things we change due to our (changed) principles, and not go back farther? E.g., why stop at re-writing the boundaries of the Middle East before '47? Why not go back to, say, when jews did indeed originally settle there and before the Diaspora? Why not argue that all non-Native Americans vacate the North American continent? And then that those "Native-Americans" as they are now known vacate too given the evidence that they came over the land bridge and displaced the Dorset peoples and maybe the Clovis peoples too?
Or, to illustrate another aspect of how practicality can implicate fairness, consider that most crimes *do* have statutes of limitation on them. Why? Because it's recognized that at some point it becomes unfair to be convicting people on such things as age-old memories and without long-vanished evidence that might help them. E.g., how would *you* feel being tried for something you allegedly did 25 years ago, on the strength of an eye-witness identification that was that old, without you being able to find all kinds of evidence that might help you win an acquittal? Accused of robbing a bank back then? Too bad, the video-tapes they had of the robbery have been lost, or so degraded through time they show nothing…. And on and on.
So yes I'm primarily pointing to the impracticality of now suddenly "de-recognizing" Israel, but I'm also saying it has a moral component too. I'd absolutely concede your point however that it's a matter of line-drawing, for sure, and there are for sure moral and fairness problems involved in that too. But we don't live in a perfect world so that there really *is* no perfect solution.
Or, as I think it was Sarte who said it, we are condemned to choose.
The notion that certain countries have "a right to exist" has always struck me as rather strange. As far as I can can tell, no country has a right to exist. That's a misapprehension of the way countries come about in the first place. More often a strong tribe sees a weak tribe with desirable land and then takes it away from them. Morality or rights have nothing to do with it.
Apologists for Israel often throw the question "Does Israel have a right to exist?" in the face of their opponents. But it's never made clear what the right to exist fully implies. Is the person merely asking "Was Israel's founding legitimate?" The correct answer would probably be, no, but neither was any other country's.
The astounding vagueness of the right-to-exist question also implies things which are not immediately apparent. Does it mean within Israel's current borders, which grow larger every year? The '67 borders? Or does it mean the borders of the original partition? If Israel has a right to exist does it also have a right to have 600 checkpoints in the west bank to protect the settlers (often not even Jewish) who have built homes on what once was considered Palestinian land?
When a person readily says yes to the right-to-exist question, in his own mind he often means no more than, "everyone has a right to peace and security." But what his questioner rather hears is verbal assent to Israel's claim not only the land within its present (constantly shifting) borders but also parts of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. In that sense it's little more than a trick question. Probably the only possible answer is that it's a complicated question, which is not at all helped by Israel's constantly building new settlements on other people's land.
Duscany: The notion that certain countries have "a right to exist" has always struck me as rather strange. As far as I can can tell, no country has a right to exist. That's a misapprehension of the way countries come about in the first place. More often a strong tribe sees a weak tribe with desirable land and then takes it away from them. Morality or rights have nothing to do with it.
Thank you, Duscany. My eyes glaze over whenever I hear rubbish about "right to exist."
Nations precede any enforcement of rights. Nations do not come into existence or mainatain themselves by whining about abstract rights (although that may be useful propaganda), but through force and diplomacy backed with power.
David F. wrote:
"My eyes glaze over whenever I hear rubbish about 'right to exist.'"
Ah, including when the Palestinians talk about their rights? After all, that glazed-eye reaction was the same exact one that most Zionists had until recently when hearing talk about a Palestinian state. (And indeed maybe still do judging from the electoral successes of Netanyahu and Lieberman.)
No doubt there's an abundance of questions the idea can raise, but many have effectively already been settled, and what's the alternative to fighting one's way through the rest of ssame? The right to exist communally or collectively, a/k/a "statehood," is and has been the central organizing principle of the world for a pretty long time now, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Alternatives are always possible however, although I tend to doubt that the "I just like this country but not that one" standard is going to go very far.
Sin Nombre
You have no problem conflating the rights of indigenous peoples to the homes they were born in and the lands they have farmed with the rights of Jewish gangsters from New Jersey and Queens to steal this land and displace these people for the sake of a Jews-only society?