Questions for Jews and Christians

[Not_a_Number]

The problem here is that this is actually rather intractable. What exactly would you like to happen in Israel? Never mind giving Jews a piece of Australia... it’s too late for that now. What should happen NEXT?

[chiguirre]

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

The problem here is that this is actually rather intractable. What exactly would you like to happen in Israel? Never mind giving Jews a piece of Australia... it’s too late for that now. What should happen NEXT?

Personally I think the best solution for both sides is two states with enough land going to the Palestinians that they are economically viable. If they won't agree to that then all Palestinians who reside in the camps should have the same rights as the current Arab Israeli citizens to free circulation and work in Israel. I know that's dangerous but the current policy of keeping the Palestinians penned in and economically blockaded is inhumane and, in the long run, even more dangerous as the fury grows and the world looks on in horror.

Edited May 21, 2021 by chiguirre

[Spy Car]

58 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I didn't deny the existence of anti-semitism in the BDS movement. I wrote that supporting the BDS movement is not anti-semitism which it isn't. 

The Tablet article that I quoted, specifically said that support for BDS was an example of anti-semitism. It isn't. 

This is a good example of the model minority phenomenon. We pit two historically disadvantaged groups, Jews and Palestinians, against each other. 

Liberals need to begin examining these issues through the lens of settler colonialism. The videos from Trevor Noah and John Oliver that I mentioned upthread were good examples of "liberalism." Liberal opinions about Israel in the USA are changing. Noah and Oliver's position was that the Palestinians were the weaker party and therefore deserved protection. But neither Noah nor Oliver touched on the larger issue of colonialism. It's interesting that Noah ignored it given that he is from South Africa. 

Most American liberals are not there yet and we shouldn't let ourselves be manipulated by tone policing and horseshoe rhetoric. 

Sorry, but the contention that the article in Tablet "specifically said that support for BDS was an example of anti-semitism" is at variance with the facts.

What they reported was what they considered surprising polling results among American Jews, who they recognize as generally being left-of-center politically:

One of the poll’s relative surprises is that BDS, which is almost exclusively a left-wing phenomenon, and which has vocal fans among growing Democratic Party constituencies, is viewed as either being anti-Semitic or having anti-Semitic supporters among a whopping 80% of Jewish respondents. While the statement “Israel has no right to exist” has adherents on both extremes of the political spectrum, it is mostly heard in left-wing quarters these days; 85% of Jewish respondents agreed it was anti-Semitic.

I personally don't find the poll numbers suprizing, as I also see a disturbing level of anti-Semitism in the BDS movement.

I saw the videos by Trevor Noah and John Oliver and I found them to be very one-sided propaganda pieces. Very far from the objective rationality that liberalism requires in my estimation. Instead they are further examples of the populist impulse that declares that some people are the "real people," and others don't qualify. I reject that. I reject it when the humanity of Palestinians (or "Arabs") is denied, and the same is true when the targets are Jews.

Become part of crowd that accepts the one-sided propaganda of one player in the conflict just exacerbates the extremism that is the chief impediment to ultimately achieving a just peace from my perspective.

Not sure what to say about "tone-policing," but in my experience that sort of thing flows both ways when the assumptions of populists are questioned.

When one becomes convinced that virtue is a quality possessed only one one side, that's a problem. That's the populist threat in a nutshell.  

Bill

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Spy Car

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, chiguirre said:

Personally I think the best solution for both sides is two states with enough land going to the Palestinians that they are economically viable. If they won't agree to that then all Palestinians who reside in the camps should have the same rights as the current Arab Israeli citizens to free circulation and work in Israel. I know that's dangerous but the current policy of keeping the Palestinians penned in and economically blockaded is inhumane and, in the long run, even more dangerous as the fury grows and the world looks on in horror.

To be fair, both sides need to agree. And if we incorporate the current Palestinian population as voters in Israel, we will probably shortly be free of a Jewish state and then in short order of Jews in the Middle East.

[chiguirre]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

To be fair, both sides need to agree. And if we incorporate the current Palestinian population as voters in Israel, we will probably shortly be free of a Jewish state and then in short order of Jews in the Middle East.

Yes both sides do, that's what I meant. 

If a one state solution isn't viable, then there should be more pressure within Israel to negotiate for a two state solution. Because eventually things will come to a head and Palestinians will get citizenship rights in a state, the question is whether that state will be Palestine or Israel.

[Spy Car]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I assume Bill knows what settler colonialism is but for others. (Sorry - wiki...)

Settler Colonialism

The idea that Israel is an example of settler colonialism is controversial. The USA is also an example of settler colonialism. Here's a link to an interesting editorial on the subject. 

Israel is a Settler Colonial State and That's OK

 

Yeah, I do. I'm sitting in my home and I know that a stone's throw (OK maybe two stone's throws) away there is a large office building that sits on top of a significant Native American burial ground.

I'm not sure of many civilizations in the history of humankind that developed w/o conquest.

That's not excuse making, but keeping perspective is important.

Bill

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

28 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

What do you suggest instead of BDS? 

I think boycotting and divesting did help bring about the end of Apartheid in South Africa. I think if Americans and Europeans do something similar we will pressure Israel to treat Palestinians more humanely. Words alone haven't worked.

I don't think these are analogous situations, but--to the extent that they might be compared--I don't think the Israelis would find the results acceptable.

If they feel threatened by a movement that appears to be anti-Semitic from their perspective and a direct threat to their national existence, then I think it will only drive them further to the right (if that's possible) and make the prospects for peace less (rather than more) likely.

Bill

[Pam in CT]

re mostly civil and mostly cognizant of the duration, breadth and complexity of "the problem"

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

I don't agree with everything said in this thread, but gosh, y'all. It's like, a mostly civil thread about Palestine and Israel with voices of actual Jewish folk that's focused mostly on how it's a complex issue. Truly the WTM is magic.

For me, I'm both super concerned about the staggering rise in anti-Semitism in the US and the world in the last few years that underscore the need for a Jewish state. And I'm deeply upset by the asymmetrical actions of the Israeli government that essentially amount to war crimes in some cases.

Agreed.

On duration - in my experience, when Jews and Muslims *   attempt to broach "the problem" in reasonable depth/ good faith, one of the issues that emerges early is different perspectives on when the clock starts on the cycles of grievance and claim. The destruction of the temple?  The completion of the Dome of the Rock on its ruins? The Crusades?  Saladin? The Ottoman empire? Herzl? The colonial carve-up, generally? The British mandate, generally? The Balfour Declaration, specifically?  1948? 1949? 1967? 1973? Camp David? The first intifada?  The Oslo Accords? And there are many other reasonable cases to be made for other junctures. Where we start the clock colors what we see.

Similarly, breadth. This thread rests upon a premise that Israel came into statehood "because" of the Holocaust, and it is difficult to dispute that premise as realpolitk in real time. But 1948 was only one moment in long time; and the Holocaust differed only in SCALE, not in kind, from two long millennia of state enforced collective expulsion (including, for ~400 years, from Britain itself)/ systematic state-led property confiscation/ systematic state-led religious persecution & torture/ state-condoned pogroms leaving whole villages burned to the ground. That persecution reached back not only in time, but also across space.  So while I do understand how, from the outside, it might look self-evident that Israel statehood was "given" to Jews as a sort of consolation prize after the Holocaust... from the perspective of a community persecuted / hounded / ransacked / tortured / killed anywhere, anytime, it never landed that way. It still does not. We have the right to a place where They do not try to kill us for living as Jews.  That resonated throughout Europe in Herzl's time (even to Gentiles; thus the Balfour Declaration), and (as evidenced in this very thread) it still resonates today, where in 2021 many Jews wonder if we really are safe in America.

And complexity. Other posters have addressed facets of that complexity between the Israeli state and Palestinians. There is also deep complexity between how "it" plays between Jews: between religious v secular Jews within Israel; between official Israel and American Jewish organizations; between more-progressive vs more-observant communities in the US; increasingly between the younger and older generations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

* not all Palestinians are Muslims, but I have never personally had any conversations of any substance with non-Muslim Palestinians about "it." 

[Spy Car]

19 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

To be fair, both sides need to agree. And if we incorporate the current Palestinian population as voters in Israel, we will probably shortly be free of a Jewish state and then in short order of Jews in the Middle East.

Despite the current troubles, I remain much more optimistic. I could easily see a future democratic state where there are coalitions of conservative parties form across ethnic lines who compete with power with similar coalitions on the liberal part of the spectrum, in addition to the rise of multi-ethnic parties.

These people are more alike than different.

Better than BDS, how about a massive DNA testing campaign and maybe people will figure out just who they are quarrelling with?

Bill

 

[Tanaqui]

And now c+p isn't working again.

So, few things.

1. While I understand the argument "rising anti-semitism underscores the need for a Jewish state", I think it's a mistake. A real one, and not just because I'm leery of anything that provides cover to those same white supremacists who want their own ethnostates.

Putting aside literally everything but pragmatics, I just think it's a very bad idea to cram the majority of the Jewish population into an area of land the size of New Jersey, precisely *because* lots of people hate the Jews. I think that this, first of all, undermines the argument that Jewish people have a right to exist, and be Jews however they want to be, wherever they happen to go but, more importantly, that if somebody with enough animosity was able to get together the force, they're one small target. Dispersion is a better, safer bet. I'm sure of it. Doesn't matter how good your army is if the other side decides to zerg rush you, or says "Ah, heck with it" and launches a couple of nukes.

2. As for "what should Israel do next" - well, let's be clear on a few things.

A. There is more than enough blame to pass around here. It's not just Israel and Palestine sharing the blame, you can pile it on to all their neighbors, to everybody who occupied that patch of land in the past 150 years or so, and to everybody who was happy to let the status quo remain quo so long as they never had to think about it.

a. And also Hitler. We can *definitely* blame him.

B. Whatever you think of the founding of Israel, it's not going anywhere now. Anybody who's idea of peace somehow involves Israel not being there probably *is* anti-Semitic, and either they really just like to watch the world burn or they're absolutely deluding themselves.

C. The various surrounding nations which have Palestinian refugees need to get their collective acts together and stop refusing to give citizenship to those refugees born on their land. Or, if they're gonna keep on dragging their feet, they need to collectively cede a bunch of land to those refugees for keeps. "Oh, if we give them citizenship they'll stop fighting for their homeland!" Yeah, well, suck it up. It's been 75 years.

D. So do the most recent people who managed that territory before it was given to Israel - which would be Turkey and England, I guess. Sorry, Palestinians are part of the Commonwealth, deal with it.

E. Israel needs to stop illegally expanding its borders, and stop building on occupied territory. I'm not saying it has to cede all its settlements - though if the government paid people to move, just like the US pays people to move out of flood zones, that'd be great - but it has got to stop building new ones. The argument is that they have to build those settlements to reinforce their defense, but how's that been working for them these past few generations? If it doesn't work, and it doesn't work, and it doesn't work - maybe more of the same is just not the answer!

F. Israel also needs to come up with some sort of reparations plan for people who had their homes confiscated any time since their founding, and stop generally mistreating Palestinians and Palestinian citizens. This isn't rocket science. Speaking of which...

G. Geez, both sides need to stop lobbing rockets at each other. It doesn't help.

You'll notice that I put more emphasis on what Israel needs to do than what Hamas needs to do. This is because Israel has the bulk of the power here. It has nothing to do with whose hands are cleaner, because honestly, nobody's are.

[chiguirre]

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Better than BDS, how about a massive DNA testing campaign and maybe people will figure out just who they are quarrelling with?

Bill

 

How many Americans now have relatives they will not speak to because of politics? I don't think a genetic link means anything at all in the face of such deep seeded beliefs.

[Spy Car]

2 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

How many Americans now have relatives they will not speak to because of politics? I don't think a genetic link means anything at all in the face of such deep seeded beliefs.

I will give you that point.

I will suggest that the rise of populism that is driving this nation apart is very akin to what's happening in Israel/Palestine and that if we help fuel it, we make a mistake.

Bill

[Not_a_Number]

20 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

While I understand the argument "rising anti-semitism underscores the need for a Jewish state", I think it's a mistake. A real one, and not just because I'm leery of anything that provides cover to those same white supremacists who want their own ethnostates.

Putting aside literally everything but pragmatics, I just think it's a very bad idea to cram the majority of the Jewish population into an area of land the size of New Jersey, precisely *because* lots of people hate the Jews. I think that this, first of all, undermines the argument that Jewish people have a right to exist, and be Jews however they want to be, wherever they happen to go but, more importantly, that if somebody with enough animosity was able to get together the force, they're one small target. Dispersion is a better, safer bet. I'm sure of it. Doesn't matter how good your army is if the other side decides to zerg rush you, or says "Ah, heck with it" and launches a couple of nukes.

You know, when things are SAFE, I think the Jews would also rather be dispersed. I don't think most Jews want to go to Israel, frankly. Difficult climate, unpleasant neighbors, you know? I don't want to go there, either. My father lives there (and is an Orthodox Zionist whose politics I don't agree with, by the way), I've been many times, and I'd much rather stay in the US. 

But then, I'm pretty sure most German Jews in the 1920s would have found the idea of immigrating to Israel pretty unpleasant and maybe uncivilized. Which is why so many of them stay put, in fact -- people were migrating to the Holy Land before it was Israel. The point is that it's a good idea to have a safe harbor from which you can disperse. 

You go find me a peoples who don't want any kind of geographic base... it's not going to happen. I'm pretty sure it's innate. 

[Not_a_Number]

25 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

You'll notice that I put more emphasis on what Israel needs to do than what Hamas needs to do. This is because Israel has the bulk of the power here. It has nothing to do with whose hands are cleaner, because honestly, nobody's are.

But I don't think Israel can actually do this unilaterally. And frankly, the world judges Israel when it doesn't act to take care of the Palestinians. I'd be highly unsurprised if part of the tensions are related to the vaccination campaign and the fact that it didn't include Palestine... 

[Spy Car]

31 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

* not all Palestinians are Muslims, but I have never personally had any conversations of any substance with non-Muslim Palestinians about "it." 

I've know quite a few Palestinian Christians, as well as many Christians from Jordan and Lebanon. I can't think of one who wasn't supportive of Palestinian nationalism.

I can also say that among friends there was a recognition of precisely the complexities that one might expect from members of a minority religion.

Bill

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Ordinary Shoes said:

It's very tempting to suggest that a political movement is at fault. We see claims above about how "the people" are following bad leaders "on both sides." 

But this is an intractable problem and people are at odds. There is no solution that won't involve some kind of pain on both sides. Saying it's about "politics" denies the reality that two groups of people claim the right to the land. 

There are probably 20 groups of people who can claim the right to the land. I think solutions that involve displacing anyone currently there are probably nonstarters, unless it's a TINY number of people. 

The Native Americans almost certainly in some sense have the right to the land I'm on. Although I would guess if we looked far enough, we'll find more than one tribe that might think it's theirs, since wars are pretty much a human universal, unfortunately 😉 . But I'm not going anywhere and neither are you. It's not feasible to give land back to whoever was there first. 

[chiguirre]

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But then, I'm pretty sure most German Jews in the 1920s would have found the idea of immigrating to Israel pretty unpleasant and maybe uncivilized. Which is why so many of them stay put, in fact -- people were migrating to the Holy Land before it was Israel. The point is that it's a good idea to have a safe harbor from which you can disperse. 

 

During the British Mandate, Jews were subject to immigration restrictions. It wasn't a safe haven in the 1930s.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, chiguirre said:

During the British Mandate, Jews were subject to immigration restrictions. It wasn't a safe haven in the 1930s.

Sure. But as it turns out, it was probably safer than staying put! The point is that Jews tend to like their adopted homelands. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Ordinary Shoes said:

I agree that's why I acknowledged that the USA is an example of settler colonialism too. There is no perfect solution. Why would my minor child owe her house to the Native American tribe that owned it before? That's not fair? And which tribe? They're not a monolith. 

There is no perfect solution but we should at least acknowledge there is a problem. Do most Americans acknowledge that we stole land from the Native Americans because there are so few of them left that we don't see them as a threat? How does that play into it? 

Right. We no longer have a practical solution to the problem in the US, which is why we don't think about it anymore. 

There's a practical problem in Israel, but it almost certainly doesn't involve anyone giving up much land. You're simply not going to get any takers for that. 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

It's very tempting to suggest that a political movement is at fault. We see claims above about how "the people" are following bad leaders "on both sides." 

But this is an intractable problem and people are at odds. There is no solution that won't involve some kind of pain on both sides. Saying it's about "politics" denies the reality that two groups of people claim the right to the land. 

The same with US politics. It's not "populism" that is driving us apart. There are real divides between people that are not being addressed. There is tremendous economic inequality and racial inequality. Populism didn't make those things and decrying populism won't fix them. 

We entirely disagree on the role of populism has in driving our society (and many others in this moment around the globe) to the extremes. I see populism as the central threat of our age.

I have never claimed that the situation wasn't complex, nor do I believe that any imaginable compromise solution wouldn't leave all sides feeling like they'd given up something, that's the nature of compromises.

Finding fault with leadership isn't tantamount to denying their are issues that are not easily resolved to mutual satisfaction.

Both disputants have legitimate claims. Denying the legitimacy of one side--and demonizing them in the process-- while boosting the other is problematic, which ever side one chooses in my estimation.

Bill

 

 

 

 

[Acadie]

21 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Right. We no longer have a practical solution to the problem in the US, which is why we don't think about it anymore. 

There's a practical problem in Israel, but it almost certainly doesn't involve anyone giving up much land. You're simply not going to get any takers for that. 

I'm hearing more and more, lately, about returning land to Native Americans. I'm not sure where it all will go, but my guess is we'll continue to see local or small-scale efforts by municipalities, universities and corporations to return land. 

Nationally, regarding U.S. treaty obligations to treaties signed with Native Nations, some federal lands or national parks could be returned to Native people, and there also could be financial reparations to Native Americans.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/native-american-tribe-big-sur-ancestral-lands-trnd/index.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/542310-the-time-to-return-land-to-native-americans-is-long-overdue

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/05/return-the-national-parks-to-the-tribes/618395/

 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Acadie

[chiguirre]

13 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

There's a practical problem in Israel, but it almost certainly doesn't involve anyone giving up much land. You're simply not going to get any takers for that. 

If there are no takers in Israel for a two state solution, what strategy should the Palestinians use to gain citizenship rights?

The situation in the Occupied Territories keeps getting more and more unlivable each passing year. No country is willing to take large numbers of Palestinian refugees. They have to be able to earn enough money to survive and access to foreign markets to import necessities. The current humiliating and arbitrary process to cross into Israel to work temp jobs and buy necessities isn't viable in the long term with Palestinian population increasing inexorably every year.

[Spy Car]

18 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I agree that's why I acknowledged that the USA is an example of settler colonialism too. There is no perfect solution. Why would my minor child owe her house to the Native American tribe that owned it before? That's not fair? And which tribe? They're not a monolith. 

There is no perfect solution but we should at least acknowledge there is a problem. Do most Americans acknowledge that we stole land from the Native Americans because there are so few of them left that we don't see them as a threat? How does that play into it? 

 

Sure, I think it is easier to acknowledge that we were not the first to occupy these lands and that the means by which they were taken involved force when we don't see a threat to our home being taken. 100%.

What if we were threatened? What is people were clamoring for you to turn over your home or for me to turn over mine? Heck, I'm 1000% certain that due to my home's proximity to a historic hot spring and water supply, that my plot of land whould have been prime territory for settlement. No doubt.

If threatened, we might feel more defensive. That's human nature.

How many people around the world could claim their nations were not shaped by some fort of conquest. Durn few, I reckon.

And as feeling threatened, when in history have the Jewish people felt like they were free of very direct threats to their existence? 

Bill

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

If there are no takers in Israel for a two state solution, what strategy should the Palestinians use to gain citizenship rights?

I expect there are takers for a two-state solution. Just not one where lots of people give up their homes. It's human nature. 

 

4 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

The situation in the Occupied Territories keeps getting more and more unlivable each passing year. No country is willing to take large numbers of Palestinian refugees. They have to be able to earn enough money to survive and access to foreign markets to import necessities. The current humiliating and arbitrary process to cross into Israel to work temp jobs and buy necessities isn't viable in the long term with Palestinian population increasing inexorably every year.

It's also almost certainly not viable for Israel to absorb a large number of Palestinians and remain a Jewish state. That's a non-starter as well. 

How many Jews are living safely in the Palestinian lands? What would happen in Israel if there was a Palestinian majority? 

[Tanaqui]

Israel certainly can unilaterally stop building on disputed territory, and stop supporting illegal settlements. Israel certainly can unilaterally return lands that were taken from Palestinians and are still unoccupied - that's easy to do, you're not displacing anybody new. Israel certainly can unilaterally decided to vaccinate everybody within its borders in a sensible fashion, which would not only have been more ethical but would also have been smarter, because viruses don't care why you're unvaccinated!

[chiguirre]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I expect there are takers for a two-state solution. Just not one where lots of people give up their homes. It's human nature. 

 

It's also almost certainly not viable for Israel to absorb a large number of Palestinians and remain a Jewish state. That's a non-starter as well. 

How many Jews are living safely in the Palestinian lands? What would happen in Israel if there was a Palestinian majority? 

If there's no two state solution and there's no one state solution, there will continue to be more and more violence. There will continue to be more and more Palestinians shoehorned into less and less space until there is a humanitarian disaster that the rest of the world can't ignore. That's not going to end well.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Tanaqui said:

Israel certainly can unilaterally stop building on disputed territory, and stop supporting illegal settlements. Israel certainly can unilaterally return lands that were taken from Palestinians and are still unoccupied - that's easy to do, you're not displacing anybody new. Israel certainly can unilaterally decided to vaccinate everybody within its borders in a sensible fashion, which would not only have been more ethical but would also have been smarter, because viruses don't care why you're unvaccinated!

Yes. It could do that. In fact, I already argued that they should have probably vaccinated everyone. 

But does anyone actually give things up without anything in return? Is that going to be politically feasible? 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, chiguirre said:

If there's no two state solution and there's no one state solution, there will continue to be more and more violence. There will continue to be more and more Palestinians shoehorned into less and less space until there is a humanitarian disaster that the rest of the world can't ignore. That's not going to end well.

I think the two-state solution is a good idea. I'm not arguing that there's no two-state solution. I'm saying that it can't involve a ton of people being displaced on either side, because that will lead to too much unpleasantness. 

[chiguirre]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think the two-state solution is a good idea. I'm not arguing that there's no two-state solution. I'm saying that it can't involve a ton of people being displaced on either side, because that will lead to too much unpleasantness. 

I don't think there's enough land left to form an economically viable Palestine without Israel giving up some settlements.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, chiguirre said:

I don't think there's enough land left to form an economically viable Palestine without Israel giving up some settlements.

"Some" is fine. But it's not going to give up whole cities. Again, that'll just not work out politically. 

I'm not making moral arguments here. I'm thinking about what's politically feasible. 

[chiguirre]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

"Some" is fine. But it's not going to give up whole cities. Again, that'll just not work out politically. 

I'm not making moral arguments here. I'm thinking about what's politically feasible. 

It's not politically feasible for the Palestinians to accept the status quo as their borders. They would starve.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, chiguirre said:

It's not politically feasible for the Palestinians to accept the status quo as their borders. They would starve.

So, maybe I don't understand the region well enough, but why would they starve? 

[chiguirre]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

So, maybe I don't understand the region well enough, but why would they starve? 

There current borders don't allow them to produce enough to sustain themselves without going into Israel to work. If there were two states, they would be completely dependent on Israel to survive economically. That's not sustainable for any sovereign government.

ETA: The Palestinians are living close to the edge now. When, really it's a when not an if, their population doubles, they can not survive on their current territory.

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by chiguirre

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, chiguirre said:

There current borders don't allow them to produce enough to sustain themselves without going into Israel to work. If there were two states, they would be completely dependent on Israel to survive economically. That's not sustainable for any sovereign government.

Why can't they produce enough to sustain themselves? Why is that so dependent on the borders? 

I genuinely don't know. I haven't looked into this. I know that Palestine is currently not a sophisticated economy, but why couldn't it be? 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, chiguirre said:

When, really it's a when not an if, their population doubles, they can not survive on their current territory.

Why does the population HAVE to double? I understand that's the rate of growth, but it's possible the solution there is to no longer have unsustainable growth. 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

The problem here is that this is actually rather intractable. What exactly would you like to happen in Israel? Never mind giving Jews a piece of Australia... it’s too late for that now. What should happen NEXT?

This. 

Israel exists. The Palestinians were dispossessed. It's not unlike my own country - it now exists, and the price paid was the dispossession and ongoing disadvantage of the Indigenous and Torres Straight Islander population. I mean, I also live on stolen land. As do USians. And my need for refuge is a million times less than any Jewish person's.

If we want to fix disadvantage, we have to start from where we are. The past is unchangeable. 

So if ppl on the anti-Zionist left have solutions for peaceable outcomes for Jews and Palestinians alike, let's hear them, but it can't start from re -litigating the past endlessly. 

And let's begin from the point of understanding that anti-Semitism is one of the oldest, most enduring and most pernicious forms of hate, endemic world wide. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Yes both sides do, that's what I meant. 

If a one state solution isn't viable, then there should be more pressure within Israel to negotiate for a two state solution. Because eventually things will come to a head and Palestinians will get citizenship rights in a state, the question is whether that state will be Palestine or Israel.

The responsibility for the two state solution has always rested on both the Israeli government of the day, and the Palestinian authority of the day. 

Failure of the two state solution is shared between both parties.

[chiguirre]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Why can't they produce enough to sustain themselves? Why is that so dependent on the borders? 

I genuinely don't know. I haven't looked into this. I know that Palestine is currently not a sophisticated economy, but why couldn't it be? 

Palestine is one of the densest populated places on Earth, between the Channel Islands and Sint Martin. Those places live on financial finnagling and tourism. They can't produce food or sustain manufacturing.

Palestine has suffered a massive brain drain since 1948. Most people who had the skills to leave left. The people who were left behind don't have access to a good education system to gain the skills they would need for a knowledge economy. In that, they're further behind than Jordan or Egypt and those aren't exactly development stars. 

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Why does the population HAVE to double? I understand that's the rate of growth, but it's possible the solution there is to no longer have unsustainable growth. 

Their current population distribution is heavily weighted to young people. That means many people are still in their child bearing or coming up on their child bearing years. Short of a one child policy, massive population growth is baked in.

[Spy Car]

10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Why can't they produce enough to sustain themselves? Why is that so dependent on the borders? 

I genuinely don't know. I haven't looked into this. I know that Palestine is currently not a sophisticated economy, but why couldn't it be? 

It is hard to have an advanced economy without the ability to participate in free trade.

The human capital--especially on the West Bank--is very high. An integrated Israeli/Palestinian joint economy could spark a Middle-East economic miracle. No kidding.

Palestinians tend to be educated, driven to excellence, hard working, and entrepreneurial. They remind me of another tribe in the region.

Get everyone pulling toward a common end and the economy could sing.

Bill

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

How can two unequal parties share equal responsibility? 

Ok, so I think it's important to realize that the way a racial issue might be framed in the US doesn't make it THE way to frame it everywhere. 

I'm personally quite uncomfortable framing Jews, or a Jewish nation-refuge as white oppressors. It's ahistorical - Jews are routinely excluded from 'whiteness' - and it fails to recognize how endemic persecution and hatred of Jews is from all demographics. 

Yes, the PLO shared responsibility for failure. Hamas shares responsibility for failure by perpetuating hate rhetoric against Jews and Israel. Abbas shares responsibility. 

When you are sitting at the negotiating table, and ideology wins out over getting 95% of what you've asked for, yes, you are responsible for that. You decided that you will pay a very steep price in the lives of your compatriots just to be seen to win. 

Palestinian politicians aren't noble savages. We shouldn't treat them as in need of white saviours. 

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I didn't say they had no responsibility but I object to the claim that they are equally responsible. 

Yes, it's true that historically Jews were excluded from "white-ness" in Europe and I'm not claiming that this should be framed as a racial issue in the USA. And I didn't write anything about Palestinian politicians. I'm not seeing them as "noble savages." 

There are two vastly unequal countries. One is allied with the world's remaining superpower and has the strongest military in the world. How could that country be equal to their rival? 

 

I'm sorry, I just can't continue to converse in this framework of oppressed/oppressor. 

To me, the conversation can only start from a recognition of the hatred of Jews (not just by 20th C Germans!) that drives the need for a state/defence of the state. 

To help solve the problem for Palestinians, we need to start solving the problem for Jewish people worldwide, by challenging all forms of anti-Semitism. 

We can't do that if we are in a mind-set that sees Israel as evil and Palestinians as uniquely suffering. 

 

 

[chiguirre]

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I'm sorry, I just can't continue to converse in this framework of oppressed/oppressor. 

To me, the conversation can only start from a recognition of the hatred of Jews (not just by 20th C Germans!) that drives the need for a state/defence of the state. 

To help solve the problem for Palestinians, we need to start solving the problem for Jewish people worldwide, by challenging all forms of anti-Semitism. 

We can't do that if we are in a mind-set that sees Israel as evil and Palestinians as uniquely suffering. 

 

 

So, what do you think should happen in Gaza this week, this month, this year? That the occupation just continue as is with Israel "mowing the grass" every few years?

Edited May 21, 2021 by chiguirre

[Ausmumof3]

22 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I didn't say they had no responsibility but I object to the claim that they are equally responsible. 

Yes, it's true that historically Jews were excluded from "white-ness" in Europe and I'm not claiming that this should be framed as a racial issue in the USA. And I didn't write anything about Palestinian politicians. I'm not seeing them as "noble savages." 

There are two vastly unequal countries. One is allied with the world's remaining superpower and has the strongest military in the world. How could that country be equal to their rival? 

 

In terms of allies I believe China is somewhat allied with the Palestinians?  Whether that translates to anything on a practical level or it’s just an “enemy of my enemy” situation I don’t know.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

So, what do you think should happen in Gaza? That the occupation just continue as is with Israel "mowing the grass" every few years?

Look, I don't really like being talked to like I'm the imaginary American white Christian Republican who cheers on something as tragic as the recent conflict as 'mowing the grass'. 

I don't know. I just know the solution doesn't stem from anti-Semitism. I suspect given the current state of politics on both sides (corrupt hawk in Israel,  terrorists + a weak negotiator in Palestinian territory), there is no solution forthcoming. It's terrifying. This has been the dominant intractable conflict of my lifetime. It's appalling that multi-generations of Palestinians are living in limbo. 

If I was going to make a wild guess at what might shift things, it would be a new centrist government in Israel, a new political movement for Palestinians that displaces Hamas and disavows destruction of Jews and a Jewish state, the active intervention of neighbours for a just peace for both Israelis and Palestinians, neighbours pulling their weight re helping Palestinians, political shifts and realignments in the region that allow peace, the acceptance of the parts of the world that ignored the 20th C Jewish plight that we have a shared responsibility for outcomes there, maybe reparations from Britain and the EU....miracles, basically. 

But no solution stems from perpetuating anti-Semitism. 

 

 

[chiguirre]

11 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

In terms of allies I believe China is somewhat allied with the Palestinians?  Whether that translates to anything on a practical level or it’s just an “enemy of my enemy” situation I don’t know.

Actually, the Biden Administration has reinstated $150 million in aid to UNRWA (the UN agency that provides humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees).

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/7/us-announces-it-will-restore-aid-to-palestinians-cut-by-trump

China gave $1 million per year for multiple years. Here's an article from 2020:

https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/third-consecutive-year-china-provides-support-unrwa-food-assistance-0

 

ETA: The US gives $4 billion a year in military aid to Israel. 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by chiguirre

[chiguirre]

11 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Look, I don't really like being talked to like I'm the imaginary American white Christian Republican who cheers on something as tragic as the recent conflict as 'mowing the grass'. 

 

 

 

Then you'll understand how offensive it is to call people who advocate for better living conditions for Palestinians Anti-Semites.

[Ausmumof3]

27 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

So, what do you think should happen in Gaza this week, this month, this year? That the occupation just continue as is with Israel "mowing the grass" every few years?

Just to turn this around I’m curious to know what you would suggest as a solution?  I know what most people who support Israel somewhat unconditionally think but i don’t know what other things are on the table.

[chiguirre]

3 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Personally I think the best solution for both sides is two states with enough land going to the Palestinians that they are economically viable. If they won't agree to that then all Palestinians who reside in the camps should have the same rights as the current Arab Israeli citizens to free circulation and work in Israel. I know that's dangerous but the current policy of keeping the Palestinians penned in and economically blockaded is inhumane and, in the long run, even more dangerous as the fury grows and the world looks on in horror.

@Ausmumof3 you can start with this post about 1/3 of the way down page 3. 

 

@Not_a_Numberreplied and brought up some good points and I think we had a useful discussion.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

Then you'll understand how offensive it is to call people who advocate for better living conditions for Palestinians Anti-Semites.

People can advocate for Palestinians in non anti-Semitic ways. 

I've been politically left all my.life. I'm a member of a left wing political party. Pro Palestinian leftists in the West do not always manage to advocate in that way. 

 

[chiguirre]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

People can advocate for Palestinians in non anti-Semitic ways. 

I've been politically left all my.life. I'm a member of a left wing political party. Pro Palestinian leftists in the West do not always manage to advocate in that way. 

 

Sure, just as pro-Israel advocates don't always manage to avoid sounding like Meir Kahane-style fascists. But I think it's wise to give people the benefit of the doubt and evaluate their policy suggestions on their merits. People will usually reveal their true selves if you give them enough bandwidth.