During his opening remarks, Kulick, who dramatically rolled his eyes whenever Vilkomerson or Mermelstein mentioned the importance and necessity of justice and human rights during their own presentations, revealed a surprising contempt for well-established international law because the implementation of such goals would implicitly negate the ethno-religious nature of Israel and the institutionalized superiority of its Jewish citizens. Kulick stated that the true goal of the BDS movement is not to simply end the occupation but rather to, in his own words, "perniciously...bring about the collapse of the Zionist enterprise."
Kulick made his position abundantly clear early on, declaring, "The reality is that anything other than a two-state solution means the disappearance of Israel as a Jewish state, which to me is totally unacceptable,” and proceeded to dismissively call a "secular democratic state" the "objective of those Palestinians who would like to see the state of Israel disappear."
The fear of losing Jewish power and privilege in Israel, in deference to full human rights as argued by Vilkomerson and Mermelstein, was an unfathomable suggestion for Kulick. The reason, however, Kulick gave for why this "idealistic" solution (as Buchanan described it) is unattainable and unrealistic was instructive.
"If we don’t bring an end to the occupation, through a negotiated two-state solution in the near future, we will end up with one state," Kulick said, "but it won’t be the state that many of you envision, because I am certain that Israeli Jews and most American Jews will never give up Israel’s Jewish identity in favor of a phantom secular democratic state, an imaginary one with an Arab majority and with perfect equality for all of its citizens."
Possibly the most revealing statement made all evening, Kulick here perfectly summarizes the deepest deficiencies of the so-called "progressive Zionist" community. According to his statement, the real reason why coexistence and equality are unachievable in Israel is because the Jewish communities both there and here won't freely or peacefully relinquish their own political and religious dominance in Israel. In essence, Kulick is arguing that secular democracy is unappealing to Jews, in general, when they cannot be guaranteed authority over their fellow citizens and cannot systematically discriminate against them.
What seemed to be missing from this analysis - and was never addressed that evening by the panelists or anyone else - is the fact that human rights and international law should not be (and are not) left up to the discretion of a ruling ethnosupremacist class, no matter how much military aid or diplomatic cover they receive from the United States or how many nuclear weapons they have stockpiled. Left up to their own devices and racist whim, white South Africans would have never dismantled apartheid and voluntarily accepted blacks as their equals. This is clear from numerous public research polls from the 1980s and early 90s, which found that, even as the sun was setting on the barely four-decade-old apartheid enterprise (legally established in 1948, the same year Israel unilaterally declared statehood), whites diligently clung to their devotion to racial, cultural, and political superiority.
Ali Abunimah tells us that a March 1986 poll found that 83% of whites said they would opt for continued white domination of the government if they had the choice, while a 1990 nationwide survey of Afrikaner whites found just 2.2% were willing to accept a "universal franchise with majority rule." Furthermore,
"a 1988 academic survey of more than 400 white politicians, business and media leaders, top civil servants, academics and clergy found that just 4.8% were prepared to accept a unitary state with a universal voting franchise and two-thirds considered such an outcome 'unacceptable.'"
Similarly, this past summer, Hanan Porat, one of the iconic founders of the ultra right-wing, messianic settler movement Gush Emunim, dismissed the idea of a single democratic state, declaring, "There is no point in threatening us with the idea of a state of all its citizens." Even Yossi Beilin, a former leader of the ultra-dovish Meretz party and an architect of Oslo, speaking for the Zionist left in Israel and seemingly for people like Peratis and Kulick as well, called a one-state solution “nonsense,” adding, “I’m not interested in living in a state that isn’t Jewish.”
So, once again, the unacceptability of a secular democracy has been echoed by Gil Kulick. I doubt Kulick would be proud to find himself in such company, but his own views and words are to blame. Nevertheless, justice doesn't come about because the unjust suddenly decide to act morally or abide by international law on their own accord. South Africa didn't cease to exist when apartheid ended. And just as South Africa was forced to change its national, institutional, and political character in order to become a more just and equitable nation for all its citizens, so too will Israel.
Nima Shirazi is a political commentator from New York City. His analysis of United States policy and Middle East issues, particularly with reference to current events in Iran, Israel, and Palestine, can also be found in numerous other online and print publications, as well as his own website, WideAsleepInAmerica.com.
>> “the Zionist enterprise” … “a Jewish state”
Neither of those sounds much like “democracy, equality and justice for all”. Maybe he meant to say “the ‘enough Zionism’ enterprise” and “a Jewish-but-democratic state” and he accidentally omitted a few words. Crazy “humanist”…
Forcing us Israelis into a one state solution is like forcing the US to merge with Mexico. Wouldn’t that be more just for the Mexicans, who will be able to find better work opportunities and not have to illegally cross the border? But of course, nobody will be able to “force” this on the US population.
It is your right to try and force us. And it is our right to resist you.
And again, no one has answered my question. How do you know that the one state will not be like Iraq? Or become just a failed state like all the other Arab states? Why do you envision a successful state when it is made up of two populations that hate the other’s guts, and one population is much richer than the other? Why would the corrupt Fatah and theocratic Hamas be good partners in governing a successful democratic state? Their track records speak for themselves. In short, why are you so confident that the one state will work while common sense indicates that it will be a huge disaster?
become???
An OECD member ranked 15 in the world on the UN human development index is to you a failed state. Let me suggest you check your standards again.
Well, you included the world’s second richest country in your list of “failed states”, so one could kinda assume that economic factors were not important…
I don’t think the US is a failed state. I was just making a point about the standards people employ on this blog to rank states.
>> An OECD member ranked 15 in the world on the UN human development index is to you a failed state. Let me suggest you check your standards again.
You need to check your standards AND you could use a better pair of glasses:
- According to the 2010 report (pg. 226), Israel is a non-OECD member .
- Also, the “Human Rights Violations” portion is footnoted as “Refers to Israel’s pre-1967 borders and does not include Occupied Territories (Gaza and the West Bank).”
So, hooray for Israel, the Occupier and “enough Zionism”-supremacist state! Keep yor eye on the prize, boys, and never forget to “Remember the Holocaust!”
some kinda grand irony that the Russian Jewish and non-Jewish Russian emigres to Israel are simultaneously responsible for much of the hatred observed in Israeli society, and an ever larger portion of the technological talent and energy that is at the core of Israel’s current economic prosperity. You gotta hand it to those Russian universities: they know how to teach and develop excellent engineers. Russia just doesn’t know how to keep its talent in country.
Also wonder how un-failed Israel would be if it were not for US financial, military, and political support and cover.
And anyway, how can an entity that fails to or refuses to define its borders be considered a state, failed or otherwise?
Israel’s OECD bid was only successful because the data submitted was fudged to include the economic data on the 500,000 illegal Israeli squatters in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and exclude the economic data of 4 million Palestinians living under military occupation in East Jerusalem/West Bank and Gaza. Had the OECD not agreed to defer delivery of this data by one year, and actually access Israel on “facts on the ground”, their OECD bid would not have been successful.
Who are you trying to fool eljay, if you are going to quote a report, you should give a link to it.
link to oecd.org
link to alternativenews.org
“Remember the Nakba!”
>> yonira: Who are you trying to fool eljay, if you are going to quote a report, you should give a link to it.
I’m not trying to fool anyone. eee made reference to the “UN human development index”, so I quoted from the 2010 report:
- According to the 2010 report (pg. 226) …
Since your comprehension and search skills appear to be limited, here’s the link to the report: link to hdr.undp.org
If you open the “Complete Report” PDF and go to pg. 226, Israel can be found in the column with the heading “Developed non-OECD (16 countries or areas)”.
I see that Israel was added to the OECD column after the UN report was issued. I stand corrected regarding my first point. My second point still stands.
yonira, I apologize for the smart-alec remark regarding your “comprehension and search skills” when, clearly, you were correct regarding Israel’s OECD status.
do you have any links about this sumud? i would be interested in reading the details.
never mind, from yonira’s alternative news center link
“The OECD reports presents false and deceptive information, as if 74.2% of people under Israeli control in 2007 were Jews (OECD, 2010a: 30), a figure which counts Israelis illegally living in the West Bank and the Golan Heights, but ignores the 3.8 million Palestinians under Israel’s control who are deprived of citizenship. Including the unemancipated Palestinians would bring the proportion of Jews in the areas under Israel’s control down to about 49%, clearly demonstrating Israel’s colonial policies of ethnic stratification, which the OECD chooses to ignore,” according to Hever.
Israel is responsible, according to international humanitarian law, for the economic wellbeing of the Palestinian population under its control, as such, “the OECD should instead demand that Israel include in its statistics not only East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, but the entire area under Israeli control and under Israeli responsibility: the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip,” Hever added.
If this data would have been provided, Israel would not have been close to meeting the OECD standards for acceptance.
Thanks yonira!
let me help you out eee
Forcing Israelis into a one state solution is just like forcing the US to end segregation and provide equal rights to the native population.
For better or worse there is a border between US and Mexico. There is no border between the Palestinians and Jewish Zionists.
As for how do we know it will work? We don’t , but we sure as hell know what we have now doesn’t.
Edwin,
Thanks for the answer. What we have now works quite well for most Israelis. The one state will make it worse for everybody.
In 1937 things were splendid in Germany……if one were an Aryan.
Right, and when we have a 2-state solution, we’ll have a border between Israel and Palestine.
But eee, you’ve already stolen 42 percent of your “Mexico,” you take more every day, and you subject all the “Mexicans” to daily harassment, humiliation, repression, and violence on the part of your settlers, soldiers, and police. You can’t have it both ways: If you want the occupied territories to be a separate country, get the hell out of them. If you want to keep control of the whole area, you have to choose between allowing the population the legal and political rights of citizens, with all the consequences that entails for your dream of a Jewish state, or trying maintain an apartheid system as long as you can. But if you continue down that second road, do you really doubt that you’ll face ever-growing moral, legal, political, and economic pressure?
Henry,
Yes, we want the Palestinians to have a state of their own. However, that state cannot be a security risk to Israel. Furthermore, if the only way to get peace is to accept the right of return, we will take our chances with the “growing pressure” and we will resist it with all our means. The only thing that will work is negotiations. If you think pressure will make us accept a one state solution or a hostile Palestinian state, you are mistaken.
Why do you keep using “We”? Aren’t you a recent Oleh, anyway?
Plus, last I checked, I’m an Israeli. So what makes you think you speak for me?
If you think pressure will make us accept a one state solution or a hostile Palestinian state, you are mistaken.
frankly, we’re not discussing what you’ll accept. we’re discussing what we see as inevitable. israel doesn’t operate towards others wrt to what they will accept anyway so i don’t know why you keep humping this framing.
Inevitable? Your abilities to predict the future are amazing…
Yes, and the problem with this dialog is that you do not take into account what we will accept. The same strategy that the Arabs employed in 47. Where did that get them? We are willing to compromise on certain things, not on others. There are basically two ways to solve our problems. Negotiation or war. I prefer negotiation and that means listening to the other side and hearing what they want and taking it into account.
nice to see there’s a replacement waiting in the wings as The Ugly American retires.
and the problem with this dialog is that you do not take into account what we will accept.
no, the problem w/this dialogue is you elevating ‘what we accept’ to some status where it trumps ‘what will likely happen’. do you really think jews were able to impose the occupation onto palestine because they ‘accepted’ it.
There are basically two ways to solve our problems. Negotiation or war.
so which one did SA settle on for the end of apartheid? i’m telling you after all these years people are seriously believing israel has no intention of giving up one inch of land. so the way i see it we have 2 choices, let israel have what ever it wants for ever and ever or stop it and force it into compliance someday between now and the end of time. my guess is at some point that time will occur.
when has Israel ever compromised on anything?????????? oh that right it hasn’t. every single “compromise” has come from the palestinians
“Yes, we want the Palestinians to have a state of their own. However, that state cannot be a security risk to Israel.”
Even though for the last 43 years, Israel has been much more than a security risk for the Palestinians? Funny how the lives of Palestinians never even warrants consideration among you lot.
“There are basically two ways to solve our problems. Negotiation or war.”
There’s a third. It’s called respecting and acting in accordance with international law. Not that Israel have ever considered that an option.
Sometimes history is predictable. Moritz Gudemann predicted in 1897 that nationalism would turn Jews into pogromists and well, he was right.
I thought you were a big advocate against dual citizenship Avi? Only when it benefits you huh?
your hypocrisy has hit an all time high w/ that one dude.
well, there’s more than 2 ways to solve problems. bds doesn’t force negotiations. if israel thinks it can exist as an island it’s wrong. israel doesn’t need to negotiate it’s way out of the occupation, it can simply go back home, obviously. it won’t but it can. it’s an illusion to think palestinians will ever negotiate away their home and israel knows it.
eee should ask herself what is more suicidal. one state or trying to ethnically cleanse palestine of palestinians. the ‘easy’ route is 2 states, and what does israel do? more settlements! it doesn’t want an easy route, it wants a showdown. good luck w/that.
It doesn’t surprise me in the least that you would peddle lies and spin.
What does dual citizenship, unlike dual loyalty have anything to do with what I wrote?
See if you can type a coherent response once and for all.
“How do you know that the one state will not be like Iraq? “
Which Iraq – The secular but authocratic/authoritarian Iraq under Saddam? Or the smashed up destroyed wreck which you Zionists helped goad the US into creating post-9/11?
“Why would the corrupt Fatah and theocratic Hamas be good partners in governing a successful democratic state?”
They could each pair-off with their corresponding equivalents in the Knesset – the corrupt Likud and the theocratic Shas respectively (Their track records speak for themselves ;-) – they’d all have a whale of a time – the new Fatah/Likud party could rebrand themselves as the ‘Fikud party’ and set out to rob the place blind while the Shas/Hamss could re-brand themselves as the ‘Shamas Party’,and run around spitting on females who they find committing the grave crime of having their hair and arms covered.
Anyway your whole rant is just a load of silly paranoid nonsense – your problem is that you project onto everyone else your own paranoid racial/tribalist outlook and presume that everyone else is as viciously racist and deficient in basic human qualities, such as empathy and honesty and decency, as you are.
The whole of the territory previously known as ‘Palestine’, until 1948, IS in effect one territory – the only problem is that the people ruling the whole territory, who have appointed some local-Kapos to do their dirty work in a few of the areas under their control, are racist fascist Zionists who deny citizenship, political representation and most other basic human rights, to nearly have the people unlucky enough to be under their administrative and military jackboots.
correction: *run around spitting on females who they find committing the grave crime of having their hair and arms UNcovered.*
&
*nearly half the people unlucky enough to be under their administrative and military jackboots.*
the new Fatah/Likud party could rebrand themselves as the ‘Fikud party’
fuk id party more like it.
Thank you very much, Annie – I was really struggling to come up with smart-ass name for that one and your contribution is perfect – I thought ‘Shamas’ worked ok though, since Israeli democracy is a sham and all it’s cheerleaders are complete asses
you’re welcome hu bris, i’m glad to be of service. i like the name shamas too but it’s almost too sweet and simple. i think shahamas has a more fundie ring to it myself. or possibly hamashah. now that sounds really inviting!
This whine seems rather misplaced. “We” did not install 500,000 illegal settlers on stolen land and do everything in our power for 60+ years to prevent the emergence of an independent Palestinian state.
It’s obvious Israel has used Oslo to further expand settlements and prevent a final settlement, and in fact has no intention of ever relinquishing the OPTs. Nobody is “forcing” Israelis into anything, but lets have a reality-based discussion. Two states is going nowhere. Can you explain why anybody should expend any energy working towards an outcome Israel obviously doesn’t want?
Whose common sense eee? You seem to think apartheid Israel is “working” fine just now. I’ve got news for you: it isn’t if you’re not jewish, and ~50% of those under Israeli rule aren’t jewish. And there’s the refugees – rightfully citizens of Israel – waiting to reclaim their land and property, or be compensated.
My common sense tells me the best solution, based on facts on the ground, is a single secular state based on equality for all and freedom of religion. You’re being very short sighted if you think Hamas and Fatah represent the best that Palestinians are capable of. Wouldn’t you agree that both parties have been almost entirely shaped by the occupation? So naturally the Palestinian political landscape would transform in a single state, as would the Israeli political landscape.
Think big eee.
great report Nima,
this is standard fare in zionist speak we see it time and again.
to them anything less than jewish supremacy completely extinguishes israel’s existence. and if i had a dollar for every time i heard this:
AS IF change only happens as a result of what jews want, it all comes back to them. it is such a jewish-centric mentality.
really Nima, you have totally captured it here. these circles of logic where everything ultimately comes down to them makes me think over and again “why are these people talking to us if they want peace?” literally. why?
if this is what they really believe, that the only change comes from what jews think than why are liberal zionnists bothering w/anyone but the right? if they don’t think bds makes a hella difference and it really can’t hurt them anyway and there’s never going to be one state, ever because they “just don’t want it” then who exactly is it in their way? who exactly is it preventing 2 states? are they under some great illusion if palestinians transform into perfect beings to their liking all of the sudden their more righward partners in zionism are going give up their dream of greater israel and turn over the keys????
hell no. why aren’t they stalking the neocons? why aren’t they breathing down daniel pipes neck. they think we are the problem because ..we are their problem, they just won’t admit it.
their dialogue just stops like a brick wall. they won’t go there because ‘it just will not happen and if you don’t believe us and be nice that one state you want? “it won’t be the state you envision”. it’s a threat and it’s bullshit. last i heard jews are similar to the rest of us in that they can’t see the future or control it. the global community is more powerful than israel and no man and no country is an island.
i meant “anything less than jewish supremacy in israel/palestine”.
Annie,
The global community is very weak and cannot be counted upon to do anything. They couldn’t bring peace in 47-48 even with the British having troops on the ground till mid May of 1948. In 1967, the UN troops left when Nasser told them to. The US would not or could not organize an international flotilla to safe guard Israeli shipping in the Tiran straits. In the end, time after time, the international community has proven ineffectual in pressuring any of the sides. Is Hamas going to change its ways because of international pressure? No.
The solution must be local. Outside pressure brings unintended consequences that predominantly make things worse. And it certainly breeds extremism on both sides. Do you really think that Israel would have survived till know without a strong commitment of Jews for a Jewish state? Many Jews have given their lives for this ideal and asking us to give this idea up is just like asking us to commit suicide. I know I cannot convince you, but it is not about supremacy, it is about being able to control one’s own destiny.
“”In 1967, the UN troops left when Nasser told them to.”"
++++ Yes they did. Because they can’t really stay against of the wish the owner of the land. And other thing, they asked ( UN ) if they can move peacekeepers to Israel side. And we can guess what was answer to that….
“”The US would not or could not organize an international flotilla to safe guard Israeli shipping in the Tiran straits.”"
++++ In fact US and some others where nearly done to sent flotilla. But that was done empty a’la Israel and attack to Egypt.
And another, unknown thing, in 1967 there wasn’t any blockade in Tiran straits. Egypt navy checked few ships going to Eilat, but that was that. So no blockade, surprised ? Its in US state department archives….
it is not about supremacy, it is about being able to control one’s own destiny.
okay eee. if it’s not about supremacy then you tell me why you think you palestinians have as much power to control their own destiny’s as jews do, and have one state with equal rights.
The global community is very weak and cannot be counted upon to do anything.
we disagree, look at south africa.
The solution must be local. …….. Do you really think that Israel would have survived till know without a strong commitment of Jews for a Jewish state?
so which is it eee? take your pick, obviously you can’t have both, these two premises contradict eachother. every step of the way israel has had immeasurable backing that wasn’t local.
there’s a new equation in town and its called social media. since the beginning of the web world opinion of israel has followed a swift trajectory, downhill all the way. i don’t see that changing anytime soon. gone are the days of exodus narrative for the global community eee. that’s just a reality. and guess what? the new narrative (call it truth if you will) is the pied piper. it’s stealing your children, all the good ones anyway. as israel becomes more and more extreme and those fanatical religious settlers keep having boatloads of children there will be a deeper and deeper chasm, the same chasm you see now but it’s only called a crack. on one side will be radical rightwingers and radical religious nutjobs, the otherside will be following the pied piper. guesss what’s going to happen to your strong commitment of Jews for a Jewish state. don’t count on it.
truth and justice are stealing your children. put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Sorry Annie, the facts on the ground I see in Israel are quite different. But after all, if everyone thought that the future had the same outcome, life would be dull.
I see Israel just getting stronger, economically, militarily, culturally, you name it. And objective statistics back this up. We are ranked 15th on the UN human development list, just below France. What I see are Jews coming to Israel because it is easier at this time to find work here!
As for the social web, I welcome it with open arms. It has minted quite a few Israeli millionaires.
your choice: suicide or Israel can renounce its children: it appears many young Jews are not on board with a militarized, apartheid state.
on the other hand, Jews have resorted to suicide at least twice, at Massada, and also during Crusades:
“12. The Crusades and the Jews
. . . Five thousand Jews die during the first crusade, some massacred by Christians; many take their own lives. . .” :link to teach12.com
Would white South Africa have survived for as long as it did without a strong commitment of the South African whites for an apartheid state?
Would Algérie française have survived for as long as it did without a strong commitment of the pieds noirs for a French Algeria?
you didn’t answer my question eee
i’m waiting.
What I see are Jews coming to Israel because it is easier at this time to find work here!
lovely. what i see is reports stating delegitimization of israel is taken as seriously by the government as a military threat. the threat is growing and i’m not noticing effective defense systems to stem that threat.
israel seems unwilling to change in a way that stems the criticism, nor do they appear able to change the narrative they are working with. they just change the personalities involved or something.
the threat you do not seem to worry about, (the social media) the one you “welcome it with open arms”, is growing. so what i see is your refusal to even recognize the threat, stick to the same stubborn lingo and mindframe of israel doing whatever it wants andf everything is coming up roses for israel.
so, why are you here?
eee exclaims:
What I see are Jews coming to Israel because it is easier at this time to find work here!
What a hoot. Population of Israel is about 7 million and the number of Jews is about 5.3 million. This number includes about 700,000 that live abroad, mostly in the US or Europe thus leaving 4.6 million on the ground. In addition, another 1 to 2 million have dual citizenship with the US or Europe so if things get too hot they can leave in an instant. And this does not count the 2.5 million Palestinians living in the WB which will be part of Israel once the WB annexation movement is completed. The Jewish/goyim population balance could change in an instant and it won’t be good for the Jews. I think we will all see what a Jewish democratic Israel will look like very shortly with Jews in the minority.
“The US would not or could not organize an international flotilla to safe guard Israeli shipping in the Tiran straits.”
Israel shipping was already safe. Nasser offered to allow Israeli ships to pass so long as they agreed not to fly the Israeli flag.
Israel said no.
Nasser propsed that the ICJ should decide if the blockade was legal.
Israel said no.
last but not least, it’s a little known fact the blockade was over before Israel attacked.
The first couple of days the Egyptians searched ships. By the end of the week they stopped searching the ships. The ships were going right through. We know that because the main figure there, Indar Jit Rikhye, wrote a book called The Sinai Blunder, and he was in charge of the UN forces there. He said there was no blockade.
PG, i wondered if it was just a coincidence what you said here your choice: suicide or Israel can renounce its children: it appears many young Jews are not on board or if you noticed my post above about the pied piper?
it’s not the most compelling reason for israel to change, but some might think it is. the ol inevitability factor trumps again!
I have found some of the vicious and vocal of Israel defenders blame others for things jews have done more take the temple of soloman I got into it with someone(different website) who wined about how it was raided. when you look at the history it has been raided twice by forieners every other time it was the jewish residents of Jersulam that raided it.
Yes they do think that, Nima; it’s because Israelis don’t have to adhere to international law simply because Dersh said they didn’t have to. His actual instructions to the gathering of vultures at Herzliya in 2003 were:
“… Israelis are obliged to follow the rule of law that exists in the democracy called Israel the way I am obliged to follow the rule of law in the democracy called the United States. International law is not democratic. You are not participants of international law, you are excluded from the United Nations Security Council, you are excluded from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which included Libya and Syria and other wonderful compliers with human rights. Your moral obligation to comply with the letter of the rule of international law is voluntary; it is a matter of choice and a matter of tactic, not a matter of moral obligation or democratic theory. You were not represented in the making of those laws; you are not represented in the implementing of those laws. International law stands on a different footing–it lives or dies by its credibility, it doesn’t live or die by the process of democracy, by which it has been constructed. Moreover, I am not suggesting that anybody or any country violate the rule of law, what I am suggesting is a dynamic view of the rule of law–change it.”
Great logic.
“secular democracy is unappealing to Jews, in general, when they cannot be guaranteed authority over their fellow citizens and cannot systematically discriminate against them”
The real meaning of Judenstaat is not Jewish state (juedischer Staat) by State ruled by Jews or Jewish privilege.
Judenstaat was modeled by Herzl on Rechtstaat — State ruled or governed by law.
The subtitle of Herzl’s book was Versuch einer modernen Lösung der Judenfrage.
People were talking about Lösungen der Judenfrage well before Hitler.
The 2-state solution is the only one which is both morally sound and politically practical. I’m aware of the theory that time has run out for this solution, (largely because of the settlements) , but I think it’s still (barely)possible.
It’s not just the settlements, it’s also because Israel consider all of Jerusalem to be Israeli territory. And yes, the 2ss is dead.
“is the fact that human rights and international law should not be (and are not) left up to the discretion of a ruling ethnosupremacist class,”
No, it should be left to the discretion of states like Iran and Libya, and the rest of the dictatorships that sit or have sat on the Human Rights Council.
No one will ever make a convincing argument that international law as applied to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is anything but selective and hypocritical, the anti-democratic product of states with every interest but actual human rights.
The one-state solution is the negation of the Jewish right to self-determination as recognized by the United Nations. It is incorrect to say that Jews won’t accept a secular democracy. Israel is a secular democracy RIGHT NOW.
Israel will not accept the Palestinian Muslim autocratic ethnocracy that would result if Palestinians took over the state, which Jews have every reason to believe would be governed like the other Arab states are.
And once again, the South African analogy is not applicable here. Arabs vote in Israel.
“”No, it should be left to the discretion of states like Iran and Libya, and the rest of the dictatorships that sit or have sat on the Human Rights Council.”"
++++ And when that dictatorship is useful or in OUR side, you dont say this….
“”No one will ever make a convincing argument that international law as applied to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is anything but selective and hypocritical, the anti-democratic product of states with every interest but actual human rights.”"
++++ International law is not “selective and hypocritical”. Example when Israel claims that there isn’t all geneva convention laws applicable to west bank etc. Is that also then “anything but selective and hypocritical, the anti-democratic product of states with every interest but actual human rights.”
“”The one-state solution is the negation of the Jewish right to self-determination as recognized by the United Nations.”"
++++ Unless Israel withdraw from occupied areas its Israel who is in the negation of the palestinian rights to self-determination as recognized by the United Nations & international law.
“”It is incorrect to say that Jews won’t accept a secular democracy. Israel is a secular democracy RIGHT NOW.”"
++++ Wow, i allmost one second believe that. Fortunately i came to my senses and fast. You scared me…naughty you ;)
“”Israel will not accept the Palestinian Muslim autocratic ethnocracy that would result if Palestinians took over the state, which Jews have every reason to believe would be governed like the other Arab states are.”"
++++ Sorry, but they are building state of their own, not for YOU. Very few palestinians were asked a thing when Israel was under way.
“”And once again, the South African analogy is not applicable here. Arabs vote in Israel.”"
++++ LoL, like they vote has really any meaning or effect.
“++++ And when that dictatorship is useful or in OUR side, you dont say this….”
Huh? Like where? You mean like Saudi Arabia? Them too. Like Egypt? Them too. And by the way, Libya’s pretty much on our side now.
“++++ International law is not “selective and hypocritical”. Example when Israel claims that there isn’t all geneva convention laws applicable to west bank etc. Is that also then “anything but selective and hypocritical, the anti-democratic product of states with every interest but actual human rights.””"
It is exactly that, because of the inordinate amount of time spent on Israel and the little time spent on real human rights problems in places like Sudan, Congo, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Myanmar, and China.
“++++ Sorry, but they are building state of their own, not for YOU. Very few palestinians were asked a thing when Israel was under way.”
They can build their own state in the West Bank and Gaza. They can reverse 1948.
“++++ LoL, like they vote has really any meaning or effect.”
Tell that to the Arab representatives, and the Arabs who put politicians like Rabin in power, since (correct me if I’m wrong) Rabin did not have a Jewish majority when he won in the 1990s.
>> They can reverse 1948.
Are you suggesting that Palestinians can undo Israel’s declaration of independence? Or that they can push Israel back from the ’67 borders to the ’48 borders? What exactly does “They can reverse 1948″ mean?
Haven’t Israelis since Rabin been very careful to allow the Arab Israeli parties no voice in what coalition gets a majority after an election (thus rendering the votes of the Arab Israelis politically meaningless)?
hophmi, the Israeli sing-song about the Palestinians in Israel having voting rights is bogus because while they do have the right to vote, they are living under a different set of laws and social benefits from the Jews of Israel. There are around 300,000 Palestinians with voting rights in Israel that live in villages without electricity, running water, sewers, schools, medical facilities, postal services and all the other stuff that the rest of the Israelis are getting simply because of a set of annexing and segregationist laws passed by Israel in the early 60s that declared these villages that predate 1948 illegal. You have a lot to learn about the only democracy in the Middle East.
And once again, the South African analogy is not applicable here. Arabs vote in Israel.
Gee, maybe the South Africans should have expelled all but 17% of the SA blacks, and but the rest under belligerent occupation. Then they could have bragged about how they gave (some) blacks the vote.
Most Palestinians under Israeli control have no vote and no say in Israeli political decisions. And even those who have voting rights in Israel have little to no control over even their local politics as all things in Israel are controlled from the top down. Village and town planning decisions must all be approved and funded from up above, where non-Jews have no chance of effecting the political decision-making.
For hophmi’s “Palestinian-Israelis can vote” thing, there has not been a single new Palestinian village start in Israel since 1949.
From yesterday’s Guardian:
“… Jewish settlers today moved into a house in East Jerusalem after Israeli police evicted a Palestinian family of 14 and removed all their possessions.
The move will dismay US officials who are striving to discourage settler activity in East Jerusalem in an attempt to restart the stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
Armed police arrived early this morning in the area of Jabel Mukaber, a new target for ideologically driven settler activists, following a court ruling that ownership of the house was now in Jewish hands. Three removal trucks took away the family’s belongings as they watched from a neighbour’s house.
Scores of heavily armed police surrounded the area, initially refusing to let non-residents through makeshift checkpoints.
At the property, several muscular Israeli men refused to identify themselves or explain what they were doing. One, who had carried two flak jackets inside, said: “This is a private home. Nothing is happening here. Have a good day.” The sound of drilling and hammering could be heard while on ground outside the house men equipped with bolt-cutters measured up heavy-duty steel window-shields.
Fadi Kareem, 21, a member of the evicted family, said: “They came when I was asleep. Police came with loaded weapons aiming them at us, and told us to get out. We knew it was coming but had no warning of today. We knew settlers wanted to take over the place.”
For hophmi’s “Palestinian-Israelis can vote” thing he has to ignore millions of palestinians living under the rule of that government. when the government of israel limits their jurisdiction to only the areas which they allow people to vote i might take hopmi’s claim seriously. as it stands their is no border. the gov of israel divides palestine into zones and affords those zones and the people in them differently. outside the ‘boundaries’ of israel inside the occupied territories they DO allow people to vote, if they are settlers. the construct of ‘state’ as usually defined by borders doesn’t exist with israel. the ‘nation’ for the purpose of voting is different than ‘nation’ wrt those under the rule of the government which is different than ‘nation’ geographically which is constantly in motion, outward motion. just cut to the chase already. it’s one place, an apartheid place. until it isn’t, until israel relinquished power or retreats, it’s one land. it’s only in our minds we accept varying definitions. all of palestine has been consumed and they’re just calling part of it israel unless you talk to a fundie, then they call all of it greater israel. it’s still palestine, all of it.
Arabs vote in Israel.
and Jews vote in Iran.
but a distinction: In Iran, Jews are not relegated to third-tier schools, and their land is not stolen from them at the point of a gun wielded by government soldiers.
“Israel is a secular democracy RIGHT NOW.”
So long as one is Jewish.
“And once again, the South African analogy is not applicable here. Arabs vote in Israel.”
Arabs vote but there is complete racial segregation. As David argued in the other thread, just because Israel is not 100% like South Africa does not mean it’s not apartheid.
“the Jewish right to self-determination as recognized by the United Nations.”
I’ll say my piece about self-determination again, though not because I think you will learn from it (I think you will close your mind to it) but because I think that other readers will profit from seeing it yet again*.
1. When self-determination means the right to establish a state in a particular territory, the Jews in general have no right of self determination. That right is only a right of the residents of that territory, and not of any other people. (This is because it is the residents of the territory who will be most affected.)
Jews as a group are not residents of a single territory, so the right cannot be applied to Jews as a whole.
2. Morality trumps U.N. declarations, but insofar as the U.N. declares airily the “right of peoples to self-determination” it seems from the context that this means “people in a territory”. To give such a right to any group who declared themselves a “people” would be absurd. Do I have to bring in the stamp collectors again?
3. The right of self-determination is a heavily conditioned right. If creating the state would severly harm a minority of residents in the territory, or cause serious harm to the residents of surrounding territories, these considerations can annul the right.
4. Claiming a right to self-determination for Jews qua Jews leads to bizarre consequences. If Australian citizens have the right of self-determination, and exercise it to maintain the Commonwealth of Australia, then Australian Jews will have that right.
But Australian Jews (born in Australia, and holding no other citizenship)will also have the additional Jewish right of self-determination .
Yet other Australians will not have an extra right of self-determination.
What moral basis can there be for this inequity?
Of course, residents of Israel have the (heavily conditioned) right of self-determination, but that right is shared by all of them, and not just the Jews of Israel.
*Vanity, thy name is RoHa.
>> *Vanity, thy name is RoHa.
Clarity goes by the same name, too. :-)
[Blush]
I have to disagree with you on this. I don’t believe Israeli citizens could be considered to have a right to self determination because of the illegality of how the came to the territory I think only decendants of those who could have legaly been considered to have the right in 48 have it now.
there is no right to jewish self dertermination not in 48 and not since. no religion has the right to self determination though even if we believe that lie they still didn’t have self determination because they didn’t reside in palestine. destroying a state built on preventing actual self determination is negating “jewish self determination” because there is no such thing.
Now that it’s been revealed* that the Zionist entity’s intransigence vis a vis ending the Mideast conflict endangers U.S. troops in Afghanistan and is a national security risk, tear of being labeled traitors will erode Jewish-American support for the the Zionist entity Israel, leaving it even more isolated than it is today. To date anti-Zionists haven’t pressed this issue, but the pot is boiling, the lids going to blow and when it does watch Zionists (Christian as well as Jewish) run for cover. Seems there’s little tolerance in the U.S. of A. (or anywhere else, for that matter) to those with dual loyalties, especially when this threatens the homeland. As a matter of fact, raising the loyalty issue, even when it was bogus, cost Japanese-Americans four precious years of their lives in concentration camps.
*as per recent statements by General David Petreaus and Vice president Joe Biden, among others
I think the main reason the jewish people of the zionist coloinal enterprise in palestine are so affraid of a one state solution that finally nets the palestinians their legally mandate right to choose to return is because they judge the palestinians according to what they would do in the situation which is brutally ethniclly cleanse and kill to make sure they will never be rebeled against. the simple fact is that is not what would happen. time and time again the palestinians have shown them selves to be far more peaceful and wanting to see everyone’s rights( the ISraeli get all pissed about this because the palestinians refuse to accept their made up right) protected rather than just theirs. had the zionist movement not push its war of conquest both jews and muslims and christian arabs would be living in peace and both would be more prosperous
great comment pj
No, the Palestinians have done more than enough to justify Jewish fears that they would be something other than peaceful, PJ. You’re projecting.
Do you think Israel has the right to target civilians without any of its own suffering in return? Palestinian violence is the result of Zionist actions, and that goes before 1948, before the British Mandate, even.
how have they justified that? is it the multitude of time they have tried to defend themselves against jewish aggression against them selves?
I don’t know your views on the single-state vs partitioned state discusssion.
Assuming that you bear some sympathy for the single state approach, I indulge in a projection. Please forgive me if I am innaccurate in ascribing your views.
The single-state approach assumes that Israel is illegitimate in spite of international law that does affirm its membership in the UN as a genuine, legitimate, earned, democratic sovereign state (democratic in one-person, one-vote for all of its citizens and legal protection of minority rights within its state) (I personally do not believe that it applies its law of equal protection in a color blind manner nearly justly.)
So, if it is true that you advocate for revolution (single-state) and not reform (two-state, and reforms of application of equal due process), then you OPPORTUNISTICALLY quote international law, while NOT adopting it in fact.
Features of international law are meant for protections of minorities, of all, and that results in a specific condition requiring protection, and NOT in revolution.
The Palestinian rights efforts often include the concept of “human rights and justice (for us)”. So, by the notion that there was some ethnic cleansing that occurred in Israel’s formation, that Israel is then invalid, the ethnic cleansing of Jews in the West Bank, accompanied by some massacres of Jewish civilians is ignored, and is not somehow an invalidating action of Palestinian sovereignty.
What happens in situations of mutual hostility, courts and/or negotations will forge a VIABLE outcome that incorporates the claims and more importantly, the NEEDS, of all is determined.
It will inevitably be less than demanded by either party, and usually fundamentally so, to the point that any party can reasonably claim, “that is unjust”, and continue at their seeking for advantage.
Reflection and moderation of one’s own ambitions is the best path to actual justice. Let live AND live.
any UN resolution or affirimation that runs counter to its charter is not valid. ITs recognizotion of Israel as legit runs counter to its charter hence it has no validity. the only way Israel can be legit is through the palestinian people because only they truly have the right to self determination in palestine both the scraps they have left and the conquered portion know by the a historical term Israel.
though you are correct in that I belive in a one state solution
“You” was directed towards Nima.
“any UN resolution or affirimation that runs counter to its charter is not valid. ”
???
the UN can’t push something that violates its charter. hence since Israel has nothing to do with self determination, and the UN charter demanding that all new states be created according to self determination; the UN’s acceptance of Israel as legit is not valid.
Like the US constitution, the preamble outlines the goals of its formation as an entity, and primarily procedures for its deliberation.
That it occurred makes it legit.
Maybe you are saying that the UN should be different, in which case, it could motivate you to focus on UN charter reform as your life’s work.
There are many strange bedfellow allies in the assertion that the UN’s deliberations are invalid, notably republican American administrations, Israeli objections to UN “justice”.
If you are urging UN reform, that might be a good effort. If you are urging the elimination of the UN, that would be chaotic in the modern world.
a body can act against it own rules. the UN can make a state formed by something other than self determination legit. that they followed all their rules is irrelevant the chartet takes precedence. the rest of your rambling really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
sorry meant can’t in that first sentence
Israel clearly formed by self-determination.
The majority in the jurisdiction voted to accept the partition plan determined by the prior occupier and facilitated by the UN.
They had already created the institutions of governance, including affirmation for one-person one-vote and equal due process for all within its eventual jurisdiction.
It earned its charter.
Some states form by federation (US), some states partition originally (Israel/Arab state – prospective Palestine), some states adopt partition following federal (Czechoslovakia – now Czech Republic and Slovakia, Yugoslavia – now Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia…)
They are chartered to optimize self-governance, NOT to impose an external definition, and not in the past, but ONLY in the present.
**Israel clearly formed by self-determination.
how is jews from all around the world the people of palestine choosing their own political status?
**The majority in the jurisdiction voted to accept the partition plan determined by the prior occupier and facilitated by the UN.
that is a flat out lie. a majority of zionist jews in the world said so which is a very different group from those in palestine which is the jurisdiction
**They had already created the institutions of governance, including affirmation for one-person one-vote and equal due process for all within its eventual jurisdiction.
untrue and irrelevant the fact that they were ready to conquer palestine doesn’t mean the had a right to it. and they didn’t have a one person one vote format and equal due process they had jews get what ever they want and lets get rid of all the arabs
**It earned its charter. no it didn’t you can’t earn the right to deny people their rights
**Some states form by federation (US), some states partition originally (Israel/Arab state – prospective Palestine), some states adopt partition following federal (Czechoslovakia – now Czech Republic and Slovakia, Yugoslavia – now Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia…)
those are completely different sisutations those are the people of a territory choosing their political status not a bunch of foriegn jews choosing the politcal status of the lands of christian and muslim arabs
**They are chartered to optimize self-governance, NOT to impose an external definition, and not in the past, but ONLY in the present.
this makes no sense but than again nothing you say ever makes sense when viewed through the lens of peace, justice, and humanity
PJude,
Do some research.
You calling information a lie is just an assertion on your part, if not something more demeaning.
And, if you don’t understand what I mean by a statement, ask.
For example, in a status where the vast majority of west of the greenline favor/require Israeli self-governance and the majority east of the greenline favor/require Palestinian self-governance, partition is a FAR FAR more just outcome than the imposition of a single state with 51/49%.
If you want to responsibly conduct the electoral work to persuade people by reason, not by force, to change their minds, go ahead.
**PJude,
Do some research.**
Wait the person who can use ideas according to their definition is going to tell me to do research? that rich.
**You calling information a lie is just an assertion on your part, if not something more demeaning.**
you mean where I called your lie a lie?
**And, if you don’t understand what I mean by a statement, ask.** ok explain where the hell this line is coming from.
**For example, in a status where the vast majority of west of the greenline favor/require Israeli self-governance and the majority east of the greenline favor/require Palestinian self-governance, partition is a FAR FAR more just outcome than the imposition of a single state with 51/49%.** first that is a heavily simplified view degign to paint a more favourable picture for your chosen thugs. ITs is also irrelevant. the wishes of only one people matter the palestinians. It it high time that their rights to self determination to choose the politcal status of palestine and to return to comes to pass and damn what you, Israel, the US, and Europe has to say to the contrary
**If you want to responsibly conduct the electoral work to persuade people by reason, not by force, to change their minds, go ahead.** I’m not interested in presuading. fanatical thugs like most of Israel’s population cannot be presuaded. for over around 90 years people have tried to presuade the zionists that the palestinians have rights it failed. I say its time to quit talking beat plowshares into swords and introduce them to some rolling thunder.
**FAR FAR more just outcome than the imposition of a single state with 51/49%.** How is taking away someone’s rights to satisfy another wants just? Its not.
PJude,
Do some research.
to what end? it doesn’t matter any more witty. the knesset guaranteed there will be no 2 states w/the referendum vote. you’re just posturing now trying to make israel sound moderate when nothing about it is very moderate right now except for a shrinking left w/their shrinking MK’s.
The knesset guaranteed that so long as the vote stands another legislation, that a treaty needs to surpass a super-majority of knesset votes to pass.
That is the SAME standard that the US and most democratic states have for treaties.
With tight positions, it makes it more difficult tactically, but it is not an outlandish legislation on its own.
Pjude,
You may have “rubber on the road” with your own friends, but if you are going to convince others to change their views and perspectives, you’ll have to reach their ears.
“I’m not interested in persuading”.
You’ll get people killed by that approach.
the knesset guaranteed there will be no 2 states w/the referendum vote
And it’s not just Jerusalem (or the Golan) that will be affected by the law, but any territory Israel would offer to swap (even at a ratio of 1:10, even waterless desert; even a toxic waste dump) in return for the “settlement blocs” that even the most dovish of Israeli doves intend to keep.
A regular majority in Knesset would be enough to scrap any proposed deal. A referendum would be required only in the unlikely event that the Knesset votes the “wrong” way. Should such a thing ever come to pass, count on demands for a “Jewish majority” (i.e. without Palestinian citizens of Israel), as proposed by former IDF CoS Dan Shomron at the time of the Oslo Accords.
Shmuel- Yes, there will be demands for a super majority, but that wasn’t written into the law. A referendum does not preclude a two state solution, anymore than a referendum of a treaty held on the West Bank or of the West Bank and Gaza precludes a two state solution. The zeitgeist in Israel means that any prime minister will have to sell the idea to the people, but unless the idea of Arabs not being allowed to vote is written into the law, which it hasn’t been yet, there is no dead end here, only one more obstacle.
WJ,
I’m not particularly upset by the law. I don’t think it makes a bit of difference either way, because it is extremely unlikely that any feasible agreement will ever come before the Knesset.
It goes to state of mind, as the lawyer guys on tv like to say.
says the drama queen. people can express themselves here w/out being intent on persuading. if persuading is what you are intending to do witty you’re a massive fail.
thanks shmuel, that’s my take on it too. i also agree it doesn’t make much difference either way because ‘ it is extremely unlikely that any feasible agreement will ever come before the Knesset’.
it was just a very blatant kick in the pants to the whole ‘negotiation’ process.
I feel any effort spent on presuading is a waste like I’ve said before plowshares to swords
I don’t think it’s too easy to define the right of self-determination. Does every province of every state has the right to secede? Surely not – that would lead to chaos. In these islands – I’m trying to use neutral language – we have the question of the right of Ireland to secede from the UK vs. the right of part of a province of Ireland to secede from Ireland and stay within the UK. Which suggests to me that the idea of s-d needs some French revolution-style idea of ‘natural frontiers’ to make it coherent – or we need to think that it applies only in restricted circumstances, such as when an empire or federation is in the process of collapse. Which in turn would seem to imply that where an idea of s-d does apply it can apply only as RoHa says, to those living in a specific area, all treated equally. Certainly not to the introduction of immigrants who will override the residents of the time when the migration begins. As I recall the framers of the Balfour Declaration did not think that they were calling for self-determination in Palestine in the normal sense. They thought that the principle could be set aside – just for a little bit of land, for heaven’s sake, you Arabs have got so much! It was more important that the British civilising mission be furthered and that God’s will as revealed in holy writ be done, these two issues being hard to separate from each other.