John Kerry: Israel Risks Becoming An Apartheid State

[Zanza]

Fair enough, but they seem to have at least tacit government approval without which they wouldn't be able to pull this off. And it has a high price for the government, so I am surprised they aren't more rational.

[Malthus]

Again I agree with Goldberg when he describes the West Bank as a de facto apartheid system - though less sophisticated, deliberate or malevolent as South Africa's. The situation is totally different in Israel, but in the West Bank Jews are subject to one set of political and legal rights while Palestinians are subject to another that is significantly less democratic. There are two legal systems the application of which is based on ethnicity. I can't think of another word that describes that, even 'segregation' doesn't work because the two aren't designed to be equal. It isn't anywhere near as bad as South Africa and it doesn't serve the same purpose. More importantly it is temporary and accidental. The more settlements are built, the more it looks permanent and deliberate and the more difficult it will be for Israel to extricate herself.

In addition you're right areas A and B wouldn't be for the same purposes as the homelands. But they would be areas with 'autonomy on steroids'. Politically unified but with no right to self-determination. Maybe 'apartheid' isn't the best word for that, but I can't think of a word that isn't historically emotive to describe that situation. Maybe we'd need a new one.

I don't think 'apartheid' helps discussion about Israel and Palestine in general. As you say it's historically emotive and I think it's the sort of word that closes rather than opens a debate, which is why it's a shame that Kerry's remarks have been made public. But I also think that, at a time when most of Israel's government has stopped supporting a two-state solution, this needs saying 'a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state. Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution'.

Also I think a lot of the Israeli right basically thinks they're are already effectively an international pariah and that they shouldn't give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks (except for America and, especially, the American right). One useful aspect of 'apartheid' is that it should remind everyone that Israel really isn't a pariah, but would become one. But also that Jewish groups in the US, the UK, South Africa and elsewhere have a very long history of campaigning and caring deeply for civil and democratic rights. I don't think any sense of affection for Israel would override that. I think if Israel gave up on full democracy - self-governing enclaves with no right to self-determination and population transfers etc - then I think most Israeli supporters would struggle to support her and see the state as a tragic, failed hope.

It simply isn't aparthied that is on the table. It is a conflict between states - whether the Palestinians have a de jure state, they certainly have a de facto one - and not a struggle for civil rights *within* a state. No party in Israel supports forcibly making non-Israeli Palestinians into Israeli citizens, whether first or second class.

Sure, there are nutty elements within Israel that see the continued retardation of the Palestinian state apparatus as an opportunity to grab as much as they can - but it is the land that they want, not the Palestinians.

Use of the "apartheied" label is counterproductive in a number of ways: (1) it is, as I say, inaccurate in that it does not actually describe what the Israelis (even the nutty ones) are actually up to; (2) it rightly annoys the Israelis (even the non-nutty ones), thus making them less willing to listen to critique wrapped up in that label; and (3) because it is inaccurate and annoying, it detracts/distracts attention from the actual, live bad stuff the Israelis are planning to do - particularly the nutty ones. 

I'd say it is not quite accurate to state that the current Israeli government doesn't believe in a two-state solution. What they want is to keep the Palestinain 'state' in its current condition of pathetic weakness and incompetence, because this gives them the opportunity to take as much as they like and impose as harsh terms as they can on a 'nation' that they consider (and the feeling is of course mutual) as, basically, "the enemy". What the current government has given up on is any notion of good-faith give-and-take of negotiation - they plan on taking what they want and walling it off from the Palestinian 'states', while keeping visiting Americans happy as best they can by making a show of negotiations. The threat is to any lasting notion of peace, as it is hard to imagine such actions and attitudes resulting in a lasting peace - but this has not happened in a vaccum: the Israelis who are genuinely interested in peace have been largely discredited by decades of failure and Israelis have grown used to the notion that concessions and withdrawals are simply seen as weakness.

Attempting to scare the Israelis out of this attitude by harsh language or boycotts, or predictions of future disaster, are simply not going to work - they have heard this all before. In the '70s, the big inevitable disaster was alleged to be demographic, that Arabs would simply breed the Israelis out of existence as a majority, so Israel would have to either become a nazi apartheid state or cease to exist as a Jewish one ... what ever happened to that? And before that, the inevitable disaster threat was military - the united arab armies would crush Israel like a bug.

Unfortunately for the Palestinains, never in history has their bargaining power been weaker. Their fellow Arab states are, without exception, unwilling or unable to help them - Egypt and Syria in particular. My hope is that the Israelis will get tired of their current government, but I don't exactly have my finger on the pulse of Israeli politics.

[grumbler]

Can you explain that mechanic? How will Israeli Jews be forced to choose between democratic or having Israel being Jewish?

Yes.  "Democratic" means that the will of the majority is the major driver in government policy, within the constraints of the constitution.  There are many democratic countries in the world that you could look to for examples.

A "Jewish state" is one in which the values and desires of Jewish people are the major drivers in government policy, within the constraints of the constitution.  There is only one Jewish state that i am aware of.

If the majority of the people in a Jewish state don't want it to be a Jewish state any more, then the minority will have to choose between allowing democracy to prevail, or over-riding democracy to remain a Jewish state.

This isn't at all intellectually difficult to comprehend, I don't think.

[Viking]

Not really related to the apartheid thing:
Can anybody explain why Israel is even building those settlements in the West Bank? They seem a huge security hazard, are a diplomatic nightmare and I can't imagine that gaining a bit more land can be relevant for a state like Israel. In short, I never got their rationale for these settlements. I can see why they want that buffer zone around Jerusalem, but why those strange "islands" like Ariel or the other light blueish areas deeper in the West Bank.

Ignoring the bogus religious claptrap, this is the secular answer

Israel does not consider the Green line to be an Internation border, they consider it to be an obsolete cease fire line. Israel still claims the entire old palestine mandate. All Israeli governments, however, have agreed to the basic principles of unsc 242 which calls for negotiated borders and accepts that not all of the mandate will fall to israel as part of a negotiated peace. They are building on the land they either assume will fall to israel or want to fall to israel.

There are "illegal" and "legal" settlements under israeli law. The legal ones are the ones which have been given planning permission by the military (which administers the west bank). The legal ones are in the blocs which run along the border, mainly around jerusalem and in the hills above tel aviv. Look at the the earth view on google maps of tel aviv and you'll see that the metropolitan area for tel aviv goes almost all the way up to the green line. The Israelis don't want to build on agricultural land, so places like Ariel are sub-urbs of tel aviv. The other big bloc of legal settlements is in the jordan valley where Israeli farmers have been putting the desert into agricultural use. The bits in the middle are usually the outposts without planning permission which the army usually removes a few times and then gives up on removing. Over time these illegal outposts often get legal status.

The short answer is that Israel does not agree that the Green Line is a border. Tel Aviv has a housing crises. Building communities creates facts on the ground which will strengthen Israel's claim to the land in final status negotiations.

Ariel is not really an island, it is built in the hills overlooking tel aviv, people commute from there to tel aviv.

[Sheilbh]

Israel's not managed to kick its settlement habits. Those settlements make the establishment of a Palestinian state more difficult. Without a Palestinian state Israel will one day face the issue of whether West Bank Arabs should be granted the right to vote or not. Yair Lapid has suggested the Palestinians don't want a state precisely to force this issue, it's certainly behind Abbas's threat to dismantle the PA.

I think until recently I would have said that faced with that choice Israel would inevitably and reluctantly leave. Maybe as Yair Lapid has suggested 'coercing' a Palestinian state if necessary. I'm no longer so confident. Lieberman's suggested restricting the vote for Israeli Arabs with the 'no loyalty - no citizenship' campaign. Bennett supports self-governing, autonomous West Bank Palestinian with no right to vote in Israeli elections or right to vote for self-determination.

I named two cabinet ministers and one coalition party that backs annexation of most of the West Bank. The allegation that very few Likudniks back a two state solution isn't mine but Ze'ev Elkin's, and he certainly doesn't. My worry here isn't some fringe red herring, from David Horovitz's post-election editorial:

Sixty-five years after those who spoke for the local Arabs rejected a Jewish state, this will likely be an Israel that has voted to reject a Palestinian state — prompted by a combination of the Palestinians' intransigence, doubletalk, hostility and terrorism, and of Israeli Jews' security fears, historic connection and sense of religious obligation.

Curiously, however, this dramatic imminent shift in the national orientation stems less from a surge by the Israeli electorate from left to right — if the polls are accurate, there isn't going to be all that much of that. Rather, it is the right itself that has already shifted. The right has become the far-right. The Likud is both bleeding support to the adamantly pro-settlement Jewish Home, and itself chose a far more stridently pro-settlement slate for these elections: On the Israeli right in 2013, Benjamin Netanyahu, rhetorically at least, is a discordant relative moderate.

Read more: A different Israel after January 22 | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/a-different-israel-after-january-22/#ixzz30IBBexcR

[Malthus]

Fair enough, but they seem to have at least tacit government approval without which they wouldn't be able to pull this off. And it has a high price for the government, so I am surprised they aren't more rational.

There is the impulse to, basically, take as much as they can while the taking is good. There is also the notion that existing settlements can be traded away for what the Israelis really want.

But a large part of it is simply domestic political forces at work. Right-wing politicians support settlers to get out the vote, uncaring of the long-term problems they may cause. Israelis of all stripes are, of course, united in not caring much about international diplomacy - they assume hostility as the norm.

[Tamas]

Has the Palestinian refugees living in "camps" in the countries neighboring Israel made citizens in those countries?

[Viking]

Can you explain that mechanic? How will Israeli Jews be forced to choose between democratic or having Israel being Jewish?

Yes.  "Democratic" means that the will of the majority is the major driver in government policy, within the constraints of the constitution.  There are many democratic countries in the world that you could look to for examples.

A "Jewish state" is one in which the values and desires of Jewish people are the major drivers in government policy, within the constraints of the constitution.  There is only one Jewish state that i am aware of.

If the majority of the people in a Jewish state don't want it to be a Jewish state any more, then the minority will have to choose between allowing democracy to prevail, or over-riding democracy to remain a Jewish state.

This isn't at all intellectually difficult to comprehend, I don't think.

And what does the west bank have to do with any of this?

Is your proposed mechanic that the 20% isreali arabs somehow outbreed the 80% israeli jews?

[Sheilbh]

Fair enough, but they seem to have at least tacit government approval without which they wouldn't be able to pull this off. And it has a high price for the government, so I am surprised they aren't more rational.

The structure of Israeli politics doesn't help. The electoral system in many ways helps united single issue parties and the settlers' parties have been very good at leveraging their votes in the Knesset for government support - from almost all parties who've formed governments.

[Viking]

Has the Palestinian refugees living in "camps" in the countries neighboring Israel made citizens in those countries?

No, they are actually subject to apartheid. They are denied their human rights and rights as refugees. Depending on which country they are in, they are forced to use separate hospitals, denied access to professions like the law and medicine, they are force to reside in restricted areas and denied access to citizenship unlike non-palestinian non-citizens. Proper apartheid.

[grumbler]

And what does the west bank have to do with any of this?

Jewish absorption of the West Bank would accelerate the process.

Is your proposed mechanic that the 20% isreali arabs somehow outbreed the 80% israeli jews?

The percentage of Israelis that identify as Jewish has already dropped to 75% since your 80% stat was true.  The non-Jewish percentage of population of Israel is increasing and is expected to continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

[Viking]

Israel's not managed to kick its settlement habits. Those settlements make the establishment of a Palestinian state more difficult. Without a Palestinian state Israel will one day face the issue of whether West Bank Arabs should be granted the right to vote or not. Yair Lapid has suggested the Palestinians don't want a state precisely to force this issue, it's certainly behind Abbas's threat to dismantle the PA.

I think until recently I would have said that faced with that choice Israel would inevitably and reluctantly leave. Maybe as Yair Lapid has suggested 'coercing' a Palestinian state if necessary. I'm no longer so confident. Lieberman's suggested restricting the vote for Israeli Arabs with the 'no loyalty - no citizenship' campaign. Bennett supports self-governing, autonomous West Bank Palestinian with no right to vote in Israeli elections or right to vote for self-determination.

OK, can you spell out a scenario for how this might happen. Especially one where when the Israeli government says "no" doesn't end the issue.

I named two cabinet ministers and one coalition party that backs annexation of most of the West Bank. The allegation that very few Likudniks back a two state solution isn't mine but Ze'ev Elkin's, and he certainly doesn't. My worry here isn't some fringe red herring, from David Horovitz's post-election editorial:

Again the mind reading. I hate to feel the need to define cabinet collegiality and explain how in democracies not all members and supporters of a government share it's policies and view 100%. The official policy of all Israeli governments since UNSC242 has been to accept it.

If you want I can quote mine PA officals saying stuff that contradicts PA official policy.

[Viking]

And what does the west bank have to do with any of this?

Jewish absorption of the West Bank would accelerate the process.

How?

Is your proposed mechanic that the 20% isreali arabs somehow outbreed the 80% israeli jews?

The percentage of Israelis that identify as Jewish has already dropped to 75% since your 80% stat was true.  The non-Jewish percentage of population of Israel is increasing and is expected to continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

Ok, so, in the course of events unrelated to what is happening in the west bank, by means of natural replenishment a majority of the population of israel ceases to wish to retain the jewish nature of the state then israel would have to cease being democratic to continue being jewish?

OK, can you please go and start a thread of israeli demographics and stop cluttering up this one?

What does this have to do with the peace process or the occupation? What is the actual risk of a non-jewish majority in israel? Please discuss these issues in the israeli demographics thread you will start.

[grumbler]

How?

Why do you ask?

OK, can you please go and start a thread of israeli demographics and stop cluttering up this one?

No.  Play the little tin dictator here if you like; it amuses me and doesn't restrict debate in any significant way.  I'll post what I please, and you post what you please.  If you get answers to your questions that you don't like, tough shit.

[Valmy]

The percentage of Israelis that identify as Jewish has already dropped to 75% since your 80% stat was true.  The non-Jewish percentage of population of Israel is increasing and is expected to continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

I have challenged you on this before, the number of births for Jews is very high and the percentage of children born who are non-Jewish has been declining.  I am not so sure we can assume the trends from the late 90s will continue indefinitely.