Backpedaling like he's on a unicycle.
http://time.com/#80429/john-kerry-israel-apartheid/
QuoteKerry Backtracks on Israel 'Apartheid' Comment
Per Liljas 12:42 AM ET
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry wishes he could "rewind the tape" featuring him saying that Israel risks becoming an 'apartheid' state. The comment, leaked on Sunday, drew condemnations from across the American political spectrum U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is seeking to control the fallout from his heavily criticized remark that Israel risks becoming "an apartheid state."
"I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes," he said in a forceful statement released by the State Department on Monday.
"If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution."
The tape being referred to is of Kerry speaking at a Friday closed-door meeting of the Trilateral Commission — a discussion group of U.S., Japanese and European officials. On the tape, he says that "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."
Acquired and published by The Daily Beast, the recording prompted condemnations from across the U.S. political spectrum. Republican Senator Ted Cruz even called on the Secretary of State to resign.
In his statement, Kerry emphasized that he has shown his support for Israel not only verbally, but also "when it came time to vote and when it came time to fight."
He pointed out that former Israeli Prime Ministers and the current Justice Minister have "all invoked the specter of apartheid to underscore the dangers of a unitary state for the future," but he added that "it is a word best left out of the debate here at home."
Kerry added that the word may have created a "misimpression" and said that he does "not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that without a shred of doubt."
He's right.
Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.
Risks?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 01:21:58 AM
He's right.
Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.
Even if you believe it's right, that's just not something a diplomatic should say unless they're intending to just blow up the negotiations right there.
It's absolutely something you should say given the parties in Israel's government and the direction of their policy.
Israel needs candid friends, not Ted Cruz.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 01:21:58 AM
He's right.
Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.
It's also a word that actually means something.
Can somebody who actually agrees that it is at risk of becoming an apartheid state explain how it risks becoming an aparheid state? I'm a bit curious as to how Israel can't just let the status quo continue for a few more generations. I'm also confused as to why it somehow becomes incumbent on israel to give up it's state to a palestinian majority between the river and the sea should one manifest itself.
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 02:22:23 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 01:21:58 AM
He's right.
Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.
It's also a word that actually means something.
Can somebody who actually agrees that it is at risk of becoming an apartheid state explain how it risks becoming an aparheid state?
Hamas and European intellectuals say so. So, shut the fuck up and embrace the truth.
The problem is simple; if Israel doesn't go for a two state solution, in the long term it will be compelled to give full citizenship rights and full enfranchisement to its palestinian minority or become an apartheid state. But of course, if it does, in a few generations we'll get Hamas (or whoever) ruling in Tel Aviv and hilarity will ensue.
Seems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 01:42:58 AM
It's absolutely something you should say given the parties in Israel's government and the direction of their policy.
Israel needs candid friends, not Ted Cruz.
This is the land of Israel Right or Wrong, Shiv. We bleed baby blue, which makes us blind to Jewish policy mistakes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2014, 01:37:18 AM
Even if you believe it's right, that's just not something a diplomatic should say unless they're intending to just blow up the negotiations right there.
You know what else isn't a word you use accidentally? Appeasement.
This was supposed to be a closed-door meeting. If anything, I'm getting more annoyed that we can't even be honest in our planning because supposedly confidential planning is going to end up aired all over the media. It's skirting a little uncomfortably close to thought police for my tastes.
Quote from: celedhring on April 29, 2014, 05:12:14 AM
The problem is simple; if Israel doesn't go for a two state solution, in the long term it will be compelled to give full citizenship rights and full enfranchisement to its palestinian minority or become an apartheid state. But of course, if it does, in a few generations we'll get Hamas (or whoever) ruling in Tel Aviv and hilarity will ensue.
Seems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.
seems more likely that the Palestinians will be given the option to move. With or without them liking it.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 29, 2014, 06:56:36 AM
seems more likely that the Palestinians will be given the option to move. With or without them liking it.
So, they will be assigned to tribal homelands with or without their consent?
Sounds a lot like apartheid to me.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 29, 2014, 06:56:36 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 29, 2014, 05:12:14 AM
The problem is simple; if Israel doesn't go for a two state solution, in the long term it will be compelled to give full citizenship rights and full enfranchisement to its palestinian minority or become an apartheid state. But of course, if it does, in a few generations we'll get Hamas (or whoever) ruling in Tel Aviv and hilarity will ensue.
Seems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.
seems more likely that the Palestinians will be given the option to move. With or without them liking it.
How's Israel's gonna do that without waging another war to force Egypt/Jordan to take them?
Few to none in Israel seriously contemplate holding on to Palestinians as second-class citizens.
Israeli bad behaviour these days consists entirely in attempting to nibble away as much Palestinain land from the WB as they can get away with, before Palestine, inevitably, becomes a full-fledged country - or rather two countries, Gaza and WB (no-one really believes a Palestinian"unity government" can last).
The "risk" isn't an "apartheid state", more the "reality" of an agressive state stealing bits from a weaker, incompetent neighbour. Not, as it were, enslaving or taking advantage of the Palestinian population outside of Israel, which is the essence of "apartheid" (in the past Israel used Palestinian labour, now they have mostly replaced that workforce with others). There is no serious notion that Israel is embarking on an "aparthied" policy inside Israel, though racism and government indifference to Israeli Arab issues of course remains a live issue (the Israeli governemt and society has to deal with "racism" in many, many different ways - Israel is entirely composed of squabbling minorities, each and every one of whom feels hard done by, by all the others).
In reality, a better analogy for the Israeli situation is not "apartheid", so beloved of Euros and the left, but what is currently happening in Russia/Ukraine. Obviously not a perfect fit, but the motives in Israel are to acquire land, not to enslave a population; and unlike Russia's, they are very limited and small-scale - close off Jerusalem, take the best bits along the current border, etc. There is no serious move to take the entire WB, and of course Sharon quite deliberately abandoned all of Gaza.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2014, 01:37:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 01:21:58 AM
He's right.
Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.
Even if you believe it's right, that's just not something a diplomatic should say unless they're intending to just blow up the negotiations right there.
I was under the impression that the negotiations were pretty much blown up as it is, hence Kerry's frustration.
Never understand why Presidents wait until the ass end of their presidencies to get involved in that mess. Pissing in the wind on both sides.
Quote from: celedhring on April 29, 2014, 05:12:14 AM
The problem is simple; if Israel doesn't go for a two state solution, in the long term it will be compelled to give full citizenship rights and full enfranchisement to its palestinian minority or become an apartheid state. But of course, if it does, in a few generations we'll get Hamas (or whoever) ruling in Tel Aviv and hilarity will ensue.
Seems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.
How will it be compelled?
What's to stop the israelis from putting parts of the west bank (the blocs) under israeli civil administration (like they have done with jerusalem and the thinly populated golan). And then just keeping the palestinians as occupied enemy aliens? While doing so in perpetuity is obviously problematic they won't be doing that. They will be doing it temporarily until the palestinians are willing to negotiate.
Even if palestinians are in a majority, I don't see the Israelis being compelled to do anything. Especially if the Israelis think that making them citizens means the end of their state and the end of their safety and well being.
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 02:22:23 AM
Can somebody who actually agrees that it is at risk of becoming an apartheid state explain how it risks becoming an aparheid state? I'm a bit curious as to how Israel can't just let the status quo continue for a few more generations. I'm also confused as to why it somehow becomes incumbent on israel to give up it's state to a palestinian majority between the river and the sea should one manifest itself.
Jeffrey Goldberg's been banging this drum for years and I think he's right. For me this is possibly his best piece on it. Since then Sharon's gone, Hamas took Gaza, the Israeli left's been routed and the national-religious parties are in government and there's far more price tag settlers around:
http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_among_the.php
QuoteSeems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.
It's not a slip. It's not a word he'd use accidentally. Though I imagine he didn't think it would become public.
QuoteIn reality, a better analogy for the Israeli situation is not "apartheid", so beloved of Euros and the left, but what is currently happening in Russia/Ukraine. Obviously not a perfect fit, but the motives in Israel are to acquire land, not to enslave a population; and unlike Russia's, they are very limited and small-scale - close off Jerusalem, take the best bits along the current border, etc. There is no serious move to take the entire WB, and of course Sharon quite deliberately abandoned all of Gaza.
I think your view would be totally right ten years ago but given the radicalisation of Israeli politics I don't think it's accurate any more.
As a recent example, it's party policy of the Jewish Home party to annex area C of the West Bank - which is 60% of the land. Yesterday their leader and Minister of the Economy called for it again. His party's proposal is to take the majority of the West Bank (which has important resources but few Palestinians) and offer the Palestinians there citizenship or 'transfer'. The areas which the PA already has control of would be given 'autonomy on steroids' but not a state. Obviously those Palestinians wouldn't have a vote in Israel despite not having a state of their own. The Likud Minister of Communications (third on the Likud election list) and Deputy Foreign Minister backed this plan and Bennett has said while it's not government policy there's support in the cabinet beyond his party.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Foriginal-size%2F20140412_MAM959.png&hash=b0a6822a58661fcaf2a571e1308c7ba0016444c8)
Apparently several other Likudniks in the cabinet back the idea and, according to the Deputy Foreign Minister, under 5 Likud MKs are totally committed to the idea of a two-state solution. Though he isn't one of them. This view that most of the West Bank should be annexed and the Palestinians can have citizenship (perhaps with Lieberman's proposed 'loyalty oath'), transfer or 'autonomy on steroids' is very mainstream and dangerous for Israel.
Obviously there's still sensible politicians like Yair Lapid and most Israelis are considerably less keen on the settlements and annexation. But those don't seem to be the views that are winning seats in the Knesset or round the cabinet table. I find these trends really worrying. I think the old critique of the Israeli left that the settlement movement is a threat to either Israeli democracy or Israel as a Jewish state is absolutely right.
Israel will never be without the friendship of right-wing columnists, or Christian Zionists like Bachmann, or people like Ted Cruz. But I think the status quo which is expanding settlements and increasingly annexationist politics will lose her friends like John Kerry and, I think, increasingly diaspora Jews. This is why I think candour is useful.
Again I thought Goldberg was totally right on this tweeting this morning:
QuoteRe: Israel/Kerry/apartheid controversy, two points to follow. 1/3
Amazing the degree to which critics ignore the fact that Israel tried to negotiate an end to occupation in 2000 and 2008. 2/3
Also amazing that supporters of Israel who favor continued settlement don't see how this brings about the end of democracy. 3/3
Continued settlement is the status quo.
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 09:29:35 AM
How will it be compelled?
What's to stop the israelis from putting parts of the west bank (the blocs) under israeli civil administration (like they have done with jerusalem and the thinly populated golan). And then just keeping the palestinians as occupied enemy aliens? While doing so in perpetuity is obviously problematic they won't be doing that. They will be doing it temporarily until the palestinians are willing to negotiate.
Even if palestinians are in a majority, I don't see the Israelis being compelled to do anything. Especially if the Israelis think that making them citizens means the end of their state and the end of their safety and well being.
I think that you are correct, and that Israeli Jews will, as you note, make Israel into an apartheid state rather than risk having a majority-Muslim population. I would just note your assumption that "Israelis' means "Israeli Jews" as more evidence that Israeli Arabs are not seen as true Israelis by many people, so that even if they are a majority, "Israelis" will still not be "compelled" to "make them citizens."
In the end, I think Israel will have to choose between being a democracy and being a Jewish state. If they choose democracy, the risk of becoming an apartheid state is obviously a lot less.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 09:36:22 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 02:22:23 AM
Can somebody who actually agrees that it is at risk of becoming an apartheid state explain how it risks becoming an aparheid state? I'm a bit curious as to how Israel can't just let the status quo continue for a few more generations. I'm also confused as to why it somehow becomes incumbent on israel to give up it's state to a palestinian majority between the river and the sea should one manifest itself.
Jeffrey Goldberg's been banging this drum for years and I think he's right. For me this is possibly his best piece on it. Since then Sharon's gone, Hamas took Gaza, the Israeli left's been routed and the national-religious parties are in government and there's far more price tag settlers around:
http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_among_the.php
Yes, some Israelis are scumbags. Some Israelis want land and transfer. Every one of those scumbags wants the Arabs to leave. These scumbags want the Arabs to leave because they don't even consider having them as second class citizens as an option. I repeat.
How does Israel risk becoming an apartheid state? Can you walk me through a step by step process for how this will happen if Israel doesn't do X, Y or Z?
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 09:44:15 AM
How does Israel risk becoming an apartheid state? Can you walk me through a step by step process for how this will happen if Israel doesn't do X, Y or Z?
I think you mistake 'risks' and "plans." A risk isn't a step-by-step process like a plan is.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 09:42:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 09:29:35 AM
How will it be compelled?
What's to stop the israelis from putting parts of the west bank (the blocs) under israeli civil administration (like they have done with jerusalem and the thinly populated golan). And then just keeping the palestinians as occupied enemy aliens? While doing so in perpetuity is obviously problematic they won't be doing that. They will be doing it temporarily until the palestinians are willing to negotiate.
Even if palestinians are in a majority, I don't see the Israelis being compelled to do anything. Especially if the Israelis think that making them citizens means the end of their state and the end of their safety and well being.
I think that you are correct, and that Israeli Jews will, as you note, make Israel into an apartheid state rather than risk having a majority-Muslim population. I would just note your assumption that "Israelis' means "Israeli Jews" as more evidence that Israeli Arabs are not seen as true Israelis by many people, so that even if they are a majority, "Israelis" will still not be "compelled" to "make them citizens."
In the end, I think Israel will have to choose between being a democracy and being a Jewish state. If they choose democracy, the risk of becoming an apartheid state is obviously a lot less.
Can you explain that mechanic? How will Israeli Jews be forced to choose between democratic or having Israel being Jewish?
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 09:46:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 09:44:15 AM
How does Israel risk becoming an apartheid state? Can you walk me through a step by step process for how this will happen if Israel doesn't do X, Y or Z?
I think you mistake 'risks' and "plans." A risk isn't a step-by-step process like a plan is.
Oh grumbler, master of the semantic red herring, I appeal to you to actually answer my question as you obviously think you know what I meant when I asked it.
Edit: I could of course go into a long discussion on the relationship of risks to hazards and consequences and how plans are used to mitigate hazards and prevent risks. There were no plans concocted by ice bergs or oil wells to sink the Titanic or the Deepwater Horizon. There were however in both cases step by step sequences turning risks into hazards and hazards into consequences.
Sheilbh the stuff you are talking about is concerning but it is not apartheid. Words have meaning, especially a historically emotive word like apartheid. Apartheid was a comprehensive system for social control and systematic racial discrimination and segregation. It involved things like restricting occupations and educational possibilities based on race. It involved separate public accomodations and transport based on race. Israel isn't doing that and isn't contemplating doing that.
The Bennett annexation plan is totally nutty but it does contemplate grant of citizenship rights to the Palestinians in area C. That is the opposite of apartheid. Areas A and B would be geographically dispersed as per the map but politically unified (assuming continued Fatah integrity) and thus aren't comparable to the divide and rule policy of the apartheid "homelands." It is true that the autonomous areas would be effectively neutered as a security matter, and indeed that is almost certainly the intent. But again not the same as apartheid South Africa.
Richard Goldstone on Israel and the Apartheid Slander
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html?_r=0
QuoteIsrael and the Apartheid Slander
By RICHARD J. GOLDSTONE
THE Palestinian Authority's request for full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increasing pressure. The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.
One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues "apartheid" policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a "hearing" on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a "tribunal." The "evidence" is going to be one-sided and the members of the "jury" are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.
While "apartheid" can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.
I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa's abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use "white" toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a "pass." Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no "black" ambulance to rush them to a "black" hospital. "White" hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.
In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.
In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: "Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel's population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.
The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain "an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group." This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa's enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.
But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel's citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of "apartheid" is invoked.
Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an "apartheid wall" and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.
Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.
Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.
The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.
Richard J. Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 10:21:35 AM
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.
The West Bank is under military occupation. The Palestinians are not second class citizens they are enemy aliens. I'm baffled as to how you think enemy aliens under military occupation should somehow get the vote? have freedom of travel? freedom of assembly? etc.etc.?
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 10:30:27 AMThe West Bank is under military occupation. The Palestinians are not second class citizens they are enemy aliens. I'm baffled as to how you think enemy aliens under military occupation should somehow get the vote? have freedom of travel? freedom of assembly? etc.etc.?
I don't. You're absolutely right and it's fine because it's temporary and accidental.
But the expansion of settlements is making Israeli occupation more permanent and more difficult to end - that's a deliberate policy of especially this Israeli government. It's more of a problem because a significant number, if not a majority, of the current Israeli government don't believe in a two-state solution.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 10:36:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 10:30:27 AMThe West Bank is under military occupation. The Palestinians are not second class citizens they are enemy aliens. I'm baffled as to how you think enemy aliens under military occupation should somehow get the vote? have freedom of travel? freedom of assembly? etc.etc.?
I don't. You're absolutely right and it's fine because it's temporary and accidental.
But the expansion of settlements is making Israeli occupation more permanent and more difficult to end - that's a deliberate policy of especially this Israeli government. It's more of a problem because a significant number, if not a majority, of the current Israeli government don't believe in a two-state solution.
How does it risk becoming an apartheid state though? I'm still waiting for an explanation there.
In my understanding expansion of settlements makes agreeing on final border more difficult. How does that make it more difficult to end? Both Barak and Olmert have made final status proposals ending the occupation. In any case that is a problem for the Israeli government.
Also, I am very very very annoyed that, rather than answer the question posed, you have brought up unsubstantiated red herrings like your suggestions above about he secret thoughts of the current Israeli government.
The trope that Israel will have to choose if it is going to be a jewish or democratic state has been repeated so often that is being accepted as a given. I want somebody who agrees with that trope to explain to me how this might happen.
The thing is, so what if Palestinians have a majority of people between the river and the sea. So what if they demand it? Mexicans form a large majority of the population within Mexico's pre 1848 border, and that fact is completely irrelevant. I can see how the threat of a non-zionist majoriy in israel itself might force that choice, but I don't see how the number of palestinians in the west bank and gaza affect that in any way what so ever.
Somebody needs to answer and Shelf, you need to stop obfuscating and give me an answer.
Quote from: Zanza on April 29, 2014, 10:45:47 AM
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.
Well "Israel" is not a monolithic entity of course, and the settlements are not supported by all Israelis.
But for the Settlers, they feel that the Jews have been given this land by God. They are the Chosen People. They create the settlements in order to create facts on the ground that will eventually lead to the land being fully incorporated into Israel. It has nothing to do with buffer zones, economic benefits, or any practical concern.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 10:21:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 09:47:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on April 29, 2014, 10:45:47 AM
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.
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:
QuoteSixty-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
Quote from: Zanza on April 29, 2014, 11:04:58 AM
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.
Has the Palestinian refugees living in "camps" in the countries neighboring Israel made citizens in those countries?
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 11:09:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 09:47:15 AM
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?
Quote from: Zanza on April 29, 2014, 11:04:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on April 29, 2014, 11:18:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 11:22:57 AM
And what does the west bank have to do with any of this?
Jewish absorption of the West Bank would accelerate the process.
QuoteIs 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 11:14:24 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 11:14:24 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 11:35:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 11:22:57 AM
And what does the west bank have to do with any of this?
Jewish absorption of the West Bank would accelerate the process.
How?
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 11:35:43 AM
QuoteIs 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.
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 11:41:57 AM
How?
Why do you ask?
QuoteOK, 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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 11:35:43 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 12:34:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2014, 11:41:57 AM
How?
Why do you ask?
How do you get the arab population in the west bank incorporated into israel being both the cause and the result?
Some commentators - in fact, most I have read - appear to be saying that the "demographic threat" is highly overstated - at least, the "threat" from Arabs.
While the population of Arabs has indeed grown faster than that of Jews, because Arabs have on average a higher birth-rate, the Arab birth-rate in Israel is rapidly falling (and indeed, throughout the Arab world). It is impossible to say of course what will happen in the future, but while the notion of an Arab "demographic threat" has mostly proven useful as political rhetoric - used by the right within Israel to scare voters, and on the left to attempt to scare Israelis into a peace deal. The reality appears to be that, unless current trends drastically change, Israel will remain majority Jewish by a large majority into the foreseeable future - particularly if one doesn't count Gaza and the WB as "Israeli".
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/03/19/stats-debunk-demographic-threat-to-israel/
http://www.ibtimes.com/israels-demographic-time-bomb-arab-majority-state-213933
A more immediate "threat" comes from the ultra-otrthodox, whose birth rate is higher than that of Arabs or non-ultra-orthodox Jews.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2014, 12:41:10 PM
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 this is going to be a steady trend in the future.
The facts are the facts. An argument that the Jewish birth rate is high (and declining) while the non-Jewish birthrate is higher still (and declining more slowly) doesn't make untrue that most projections that show that Jews will not forever be the majority population of Israel.
Of course, trends could change (the Jewish birth rate trend line has bent a couple of times) and the return of Israeli Arab refugees currently living in neighboring countries would influence this trend as well.
Still, the risk remains that Israel has to choose between being democratic and being Jewish. Challenge all you like, the risk will remain.
Quote from: Malthus on April 29, 2014, 12:49:39 PM
http://www.ibtimes.com/israels-demographic-time-bomb-arab-majority-state-213933
From this piece:
QuoteMoscovitch: Annexation of the West Bank by Israel would substantially skyrocket Arab population numbers, and the birth rates of non-Jews would remain high and potentially surpass the Jewish Israeli population. For this reason, it is imperative that Israel not annex the West Bank and negotiate a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians to ensure Israeli security and provide the Palestinians with sovereignty in their own state.
Without a two-state solution and the annexation of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Israel will eventually turn into a single, bi-national state that would dissolve Israel's Jewish identity.
That's precisely what people are talking about, not the threat within Israel's borders.
QuoteOK, 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've spelled out the scenario. I don't understand the question to which the Israeli government is saying 'no' to.
QuoteAgain 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.
It's not mind-reading it's public statements by ministers and MKs. It's also party policy of one of the coalition parties. My point is that made by Horovitz: the right-wing in Israel is changing and becoming considerably more radical and opposed to a two-state solution.
So far the left and the centre haven't held together nearly as well. Though I do have hopes for Lapid and Yesh Atid (one of whose Ministers accused the Jewish Home party of making 'delusional proposals' and trying to 'sabotage negotiations). Hopefully the right morphing into a far-right will strengthen the centre. But the current polls show the right-religious parties looking likely to increase their majority.
Anyway, Goldberg's posted an article on this whole story which I agree with:
QuoteIs Israel an Apartheid State?
APR 29, 2014 11:54 AM EDT
By Jeffrey Goldberg
So, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a mistake by thinking that a meeting of the Trilateral Commission was off-the-record. Is there anything holy in this world? What next? Will the Illuminati be giving TED talks? Are the Elders of Zion going to take questions on C-Span?
In a fit of candor, Kerry told the commissioners (if that's what you call them) that a one-state solution (so-called) for the Israel-Palestine conundrum either leads to "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." (A full report on Kerry's remarks can be found at the Daily Beast, whose reporter apparently taped the remarks.)
Carefully coordinated, entirely spontaneous bursts of outrage ensued, not only from Republicans and Israelis, but also from Democrats. "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and any linkage between Israel and apartheid is nonsensical and ridiculous," tweeted Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California.
I will dissent from Boxer's critique, both because I believe that Kerry is a pro-Israel secretary of state who worries about the Jewish state's future, and because I myself have used the word "apartheid" not only to describe a possible terrible future for Israel, but also as a way of depicting some current and most unfortunate facts on the ground.
In a 2004 New Yorker article I described how the settlement movement was slowly destroying the idea of a Jewish democratic state of Israel:
Quote[Ariel] Sharon seems to have recognized -- belatedly -- Israel's stark demographic future: the number of Jews and Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will be roughly equal by the end of the decade. By 2020, the Israeli demographer Sergio Della Pergola has predicted, Jews will make up less than forty-seven per cent of the population. If a self-sustaining Palestinian state -- one that is territorially contiguous within the West Bank -- does not emerge, the Jews of Israel will be faced with two choices: a binational state with an Arab majority, which would be the end of the idea of Zionism, or an apartheid state, in which the Arab majority would be ruled by a Jewish minority.
A de-facto apartheid already exists in the West Bank. Inside the borders of Israel proper, Arabs and Jews are judged by the same set of laws in the same courtrooms; across the Green Line, Jews live under Israeli civil law as well, but their Arab neighbors -- people who live, in some cases, just yards away -- fall under a different, and substantially undemocratic, set of laws, administered by the Israeli Army. The system is neither as elaborate nor as pervasive as South African apartheid, and it is, officially, temporary. It is nevertheless a form of apartheid, because two different ethnic groups living in the same territory are judged by two separate sets of laws.
I suppose this passage makes me an enemy of Israel, in the same way Kerry is an enemy of Israel, and in the same way that the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (who is also Israel's most decorated soldier) is an enemy of Israel, because Barak has also warned about the dangers of the status quo: "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel," he said in 2010, "it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."
Few of the conditions I described in that 2004 article have changed, but I have decided, for a number of reasons, to try to avoid using the term apartheid to describe the situation in the West Bank. One, deployment of the word doesn't start conversations, it ends them. (Former Middle East negotiator George Mitchell taught me this lesson.) Real enemies of Israel -- Muslim supremacists of Hamas, anti-Semites in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and so on -- use the term "apartheid" not to encourage a two-state solution that would end official discrimination on the West Bank, but to argue for the annihilation of Israel.
Two, to describe the West Bank as an experiment in apartheid is insulting to the actual victims of South African apartheid, who lived under a uniquely baroque and grotesque set of race-based laws. (I owe a number of friends from South Africa for this insight.)
And three, to describe Israel as an apartheid state, or as a state on the road to apartheid, does not adequately capture the complexity and contradictions of Israel today. In most of Israel -- the pre-1967 Israel, not the occupied West Bank -- Arabs have more rights as citizens than they have in most any Arab country. There is still discrimination, and state resources are still distributed unfairly, but Arabs serve in the highest reaches of all branches of government. In fact, an Arab judge presided over the rape trial of a former president of Israel. As difficult as the facts of that case were to stomach, there was great happiness in Israel that an Arab citizen could send an Israeli president to jail without discernible complaint, even from the Israeli right.
The problem is not inside Israel; the problem is on the West Bank. The settlers who entangle Israel in the lives of Palestinians believe that they are the vanguard of Zionism. In fact, they are the vanguard of binationalism. Their myopia will lead to the end of Israel as a democracy and as a haven for the Jewish people. The regime they help impose on Palestinians is cruel, unfair and unnecessary. Rather than label this regime in an incendiary fashion, I now prefer simply to describe its disagreeable qualities.
But if Kerry, following Barak's lead, wants to warn about a possible apartheid future for Israel, I'm not going to condemn him as anti-Israel. Israeli leaders must open their minds to the possibility that he has their long-term interests at heart.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 12:51:00 PM
The facts are the facts. An argument that the Jewish birth rate is high (and declining) while the non-Jewish birthrate is higher still (and declining more slowly) doesn't make untrue that most projections that show that Jews will not forever be the majority population of Israel.
But those are not the facts. The Jewish birth rate is increasing, and the non-Jewish birthrate is declining. This has been true for about a decade. Granted that is inside Israel.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 12:51:00 PM
The facts are the facts.
And as all good Reaganites know, facts are stupid things.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 29, 2014, 12:49:39 PM
http://www.ibtimes.com/israels-demographic-time-bomb-arab-majority-state-213933
From this piece:
QuoteMoscovitch: Annexation of the West Bank by Israel would substantially skyrocket Arab population numbers, and the birth rates of non-Jews would remain high and potentially surpass the Jewish Israeli population. For this reason, it is imperative that Israel not annex the West Bank and negotiate a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians to ensure Israeli security and provide the Palestinians with sovereignty in their own state.
Without a two-state solution and the annexation of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Israel will eventually turn into a single, bi-national state that would dissolve Israel's Jewish identity.
That's precisely what people are talking about, not the threat within Israel's borders.
QuoteOK, 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've spelled out the scenario. I don't understand the question to which the Israeli government is saying 'no' to.
The demand by non-citizens living outside israels borders for the vote. Israel doesn't have to annex Jericho, Ramallah and Gaza. Step 1 in saying no is not annexing these cities, step 2 in saying no is refusing to let these cities be annexed. The problem you describe only happens if Israel imposes it on itself. There is no point where such an annexation is forced upon israel. They can continue to occupy in perpetuity arguing the two state solution that the palestinians are incapable of negotiating for.
The people in Oslo area A demand a vote in israeli elections, israel says no, arguing that these people are not israelis but rather palestinians who are supposed to get their own state when their leadership manages to get their shit together. There the matter rests. It doesn't matter if the Area A palestinians are 10%, 50% or 99% of the total population.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 07:33:15 PM
QuoteAgain 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.
It's not mind-reading it's public statements by ministers and MKs. It's also party policy of one of the coalition parties. My point is that made by Horovitz: the right-wing in Israel is changing and becoming considerably more radical and opposed to a two-state solution.
So far the left and the centre haven't held together nearly as well. Though I do have hopes for Lapid and Yesh Atid (one of whose Ministers accused the Jewish Home party of making 'delusional proposals' and trying to 'sabotage negotiations). Hopefully the right morphing into a far-right will strengthen the centre. But the current polls show the right-religious parties looking likely to increase their majority.
Anyway, Goldberg's posted an article on this whole story which I agree with:
The mind reading bit is not about the minority which has views different from official government policy (as Nick Clegg what that is like), but rather about arguing that the non-crazy cabinet members secretly hold the same crazy views as the crazy ones do.
Goldberg's article certainly doesn't argue that Israel is an apartheid state but rather that his conspiracy theory says it will be.
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 02:36:31 AM
The demand by non-citizens living outside israels borders for the vote. Israel doesn't have to annex Jericho, Ramallah and Gaza. Step 1 in saying no is not annexing these cities, step 2 in saying no is refusing to let these cities be annexed. The problem you describe only happens if Israel imposes it on itself. There is no point where such an annexation is forced upon israel. They can continue to occupy in perpetuity arguing the two state solution that the palestinians are incapable of negotiating for.
If they don't officially annex the land, but continue to occupy and rule over them in perpetuity, with no plans to change, how is that different? How long does Israel have to control the west bank before annexation is de facto rather than de jure? Another 50 years? Another 100 years?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2014, 05:13:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 02:36:31 AM
The demand by non-citizens living outside israels borders for the vote. Israel doesn't have to annex Jericho, Ramallah and Gaza. Step 1 in saying no is not annexing these cities, step 2 in saying no is refusing to let these cities be annexed. The problem you describe only happens if Israel imposes it on itself. There is no point where such an annexation is forced upon israel. They can continue to occupy in perpetuity arguing the two state solution that the palestinians are incapable of negotiating for.
If they don't officially annex the land, but continue to occupy and rule over them in perpetuity, with no plans to change, how is that different? How long does Israel have to control the west bank before annexation is de facto rather than de jure? Another 50 years? Another 100 years?
Well, according to the UN charter, never, time just isn't a factor. Border have to be set by negotiations, not by force. The green line doesn't turn from a cease fire line into a border just because time passes. To be technical there are plans to change, they just need to keep a fig-leaf of negotiations available.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2014, 07:12:09 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 29, 2014, 06:56:36 AM
seems more likely that the Palestinians will be given the option to move. With or without them liking it.
So, they will be assigned to tribal homelands with or without their consent?
Sounds a lot like apartheid to me.
Al-Bophuthatswana FTW.
Anyway I'm not surprised by this Kerry gaffe. But at least he's not Susan Rice.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2014, 05:13:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 02:36:31 AM
The demand by non-citizens living outside israels borders for the vote. Israel doesn't have to annex Jericho, Ramallah and Gaza. Step 1 in saying no is not annexing these cities, step 2 in saying no is refusing to let these cities be annexed. The problem you describe only happens if Israel imposes it on itself. There is no point where such an annexation is forced upon israel. They can continue to occupy in perpetuity arguing the two state solution that the palestinians are incapable of negotiating for.
If they don't officially annex the land, but continue to occupy and rule over them in perpetuity, with no plans to change, how is that different? How long does Israel have to control the west bank before annexation is de facto rather than de jure? Another 50 years? Another 100 years?
The Israeli plan isn't to "rule over them", it is to build an armed wall to keep them out (adjusting the wall to take the bits they want) and then cease to care what they do on the other side of it, as long as whatever they do isn't done to Israelis.
I simply cannot see how this plan, if implemented, would lead to the people on the other side of that wall becomming de facto Israeli citizens, whether first or second class.
Did the apartheid government consider residents of Bophuthatswana to be South African citizens or citizens of another country?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 30, 2014, 10:12:08 AM
Did the apartheid government consider residents of Bophuthatswana to be South African citizens or citizens of another country?
The residents of the homelands lost their South African citizenship when the homelands were made "independent" countries in the 1970s.
I just always liked saying the word "Bophuthatswana". Most others in my Southern African Politics class had trouble pronouncing it :smarty:
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 30, 2014, 10:12:08 AM
Did the apartheid government consider residents of Bophuthatswana to be South African citizens or citizens of another country?
It's actually a bit complicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan
But, basically the were deprived of south african citizenship, which they had held or had a right to before. They were being deprived of their second class citizenship to be sure.
The really tricky thing about the west bank is that there have never at any time been any recognized borders or any kind of legitimate settlement previously between arabs and jews. This is an open sore which has remained open since 1948. There is no border. There are no unilateral actions israel can take which will end the conflict short of full return.
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 08:49:54 AM
The Israeli plan isn't to "rule over them"
At least one current government party openly states that unilateral annexation of the West Bank is its declared policy goal.
Quote from: Zanza on April 30, 2014, 10:25:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 08:49:54 AM
The Israeli plan isn't to "rule over them"
At least one current government party openly states that unilateral annexation of the West Bank is its declared policy goal.
Seriously? I thought we dealt with this. So what if one party wants that. If it's not government policy it's not government policy. So what if one party wants that? Seriously, this is israel, there are always crazy parties in government. Most leftist Israeli governments have had a party advocating for Halakha (the jewish version of Sharia) as well as a theocratic state. FFS. It's not an argument. The government speaks for israel. You are going out of you way to be obtuse here.
Quote from: Zanza on April 30, 2014, 10:25:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 08:49:54 AM
The Israeli plan isn't to "rule over them"
At least one current government party openly states that unilateral annexation of the West Bank is its declared policy goal.
That is a big problem in Israeli politics. Lots of small nutty parties that hold uncomfortable amounts of power.
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 10:32:45 AM
Seriously? I thought we dealt with this. So what if one party wants that. If it's not government policy it's not government policy. So what if one party wants that? Seriously, this is israel, there are always crazy parties in government. Most leftist Israeli governments have had a party advocating for Halakha (the jewish version of Sharia) as well as a theocratic state. FFS. It's not an argument. The government speaks for israel. You are going out of you way to be obtuse here.
Well it is a factor. Anything Israel ends up doing they are going to have to deal with their own nutters. Granted they did that well in 2005.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 10:34:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 10:32:45 AM
Seriously? I thought we dealt with this. So what if one party wants that. If it's not government policy it's not government policy. So what if one party wants that? Seriously, this is israel, there are always crazy parties in government. Most leftist Israeli governments have had a party advocating for Halakha (the jewish version of Sharia) as well as a theocratic state. FFS. It's not an argument. The government speaks for israel. You are going out of you way to be obtuse here.
Well it is a factor. Anything Israel ends up doing they are going to have to deal with their own nutters. Granted they did that well in 2005.
They just boosted the knesset threshold to 3.25%. So slightly fewer nutty parties. Also, slightly fewer arab parties.
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 02:36:31 AMThe problem you describe only happens if Israel imposes it on itself.
Exactly. Which is what settlements and the growing radicalisation of the right is doing.
QuoteThe mind reading bit is not about the minority which has views different from official government policy (as Nick Clegg what that is like), but rather about arguing that the non-crazy cabinet members secretly hold the same crazy views as the crazy ones do.
It's not me who's saying that only about 5 Likudniks are fully behind a two-state solution, it was the Deputy Foreign Minister. He may be mind-reading, but I doubt it.
I'm glad we agree they're crazy. There are more crazy ones in this cabinet than in the last. The Likud list in 2013 was crazier than previously. It's no longer a party with space for Benny Begin or Dan Meridor. The extraordinary and worrying thing is that now Lieberman looks like a moderate.
QuoteGoldberg's article certainly doesn't argue that Israel is an apartheid state but rather that his conspiracy theory says it will be.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Israel is an apartheid state. I haven't. Goldberg doesn't. Kerry hasn't.
What's the conspiracy theory here?
QuoteSeriously? I thought we dealt with this. So what if one party wants that. If it's not government policy it's not government policy. So what if one party wants that?
This is a non-sequitur though.
It's like someone saying there's a risk that the UK could leave the EU: Euroscepticism is becoming more mainstream, there's a growing number of Tories who want out and the main parties are being challenged by an increasingly popular Ukip. And the response is it's not government policy, Cameron wants to stay in.
Edit: Incidentally Netanyahu is also now a moderate and looks relatively wounded. It certainly seems like Lieberman and other possible replacements are on manoeuvres.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 11:40:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 02:36:31 AMThe problem you describe only happens if Israel imposes it on itself.
Exactly. Which is what settlements and the growing radicalisation of the right is doing.
No, I was referring to israel voluntarily giving the vote to west bank arabs....Settlements and growing radicalization in israel is certainly not going to lead to palestinian suffrage in israeli elections.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 11:40:35 AM
QuoteThe mind reading bit is not about the minority which has views different from official government policy (as Nick Clegg what that is like), but rather about arguing that the non-crazy cabinet members secretly hold the same crazy views as the crazy ones do.
It's not me who's saying that only about 5 Likudniks are fully behind a two-state solution, it was the Deputy Foreign Minister. He may be mind-reading, but I doubt it.
I'm glad we agree they're crazy. There are more crazy ones in this cabinet than in the last. The Likud list in 2013 was crazier than previously. It's no longer a party with space for Benny Begin or Dan Meridor. The extraordinary and worrying thing is that now Lieberman looks like a moderate.
He shouldn't be mind reading either. Anyways, being against it even if it would work and being against it because you don't think it will work are two different things.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 11:40:35 AM
QuoteGoldberg's article certainly doesn't argue that Israel is an apartheid state but rather that his conspiracy theory says it will be.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Israel is an apartheid state. I haven't. Goldberg doesn't. Kerry hasn't.
What's the conspiracy theory here?
The one that explains how. Or, more specifically the one that postulates that it will happen without explaining how.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 11:40:35 AM
QuoteSeriously? I thought we dealt with this. So what if one party wants that. If it's not government policy it's not government policy. So what if one party wants that?
This is a non-sequitur though.
It's like someone saying there's a risk that the UK could leave the EU: Euroscepticism is becoming more mainstream, there's a growing number of Tories who want out and the main parties are being challenged by an increasingly popular Ukip. And the response is it's not government policy, Cameron wants to stay in.
Edit: Incidentally Netanyahu is also now a moderate and looks relatively wounded. It certainly seems like Lieberman and other possible replacements are on manoeuvres.
And Cameron is PM. Once Nigel Farage or John Redwood or Ian Duncan Smith or Daniel Hannan becomes PM then the UK leaving might be policy. But it isn't.
Then again, if you want that to be your standard, the PA just started supporting genocide since it just made a unity government deal with hamas.
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 12:15:53 PM
No, I was referring to israel voluntarily giving the vote to west bank arabs....Settlements and growing radicalization in israel is certainly not going to lead to palestinian suffrage in israeli elections.
I thought you wanted to spell out a scenario of the choice between democracy and a Jewish state. There you go: pieds noirs in the West Bank, sympathisers in the Cabinet.
QuoteAnd Cameron is PM. Once Nigel Farage or John Redwood or Ian Duncan Smith or Daniel Hannan becomes PM then the UK leaving might be policy. But it isn't.
But who's saying it is policy? It's a risk.
QuoteThen again, if you want that to be your standard, the PA just started supporting genocide since it just made a unity government deal with hamas.
It feels like you're not actually reading my posts but what you think I'm saying. I don't see how this follows from anything I've said.
However obviously at the moment negotiations are impossible because of the unity deal.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 30, 2014, 10:12:08 AM
Did the apartheid government consider residents of Bophuthatswana to be South African citizens or citizens of another country?
In short, yes.
The idea behind aparthied, if I understand it correctly, was to isolate Black South Africans on artificial "bantustans" so as not to give them any civil rights in South Africa, while continuing to exploit them as the primary labour force in areas such as mining.
QuoteUnder the homeland system, the government attempted to divide South Africa into a number of separate states, each of which was supposed to develop into a separate nation-state for a different ethnic group.[54]
Territorial separation was not a new institution. There were, for example, the "reserves" created under the British government in the nineteenth century. Under apartheid, 13 per cent of the land was reserved for black homelands, a relatively small amount compared to the total population, and generally in economically unproductive areas of the country. The Tomlinson Commission of 1954 justified apartheid and the homeland system, but stated that additional land ought to be given to the homelands, a recommendation that was not carried out.[citation needed]
When Verwoerd became Prime Minister in 1958, the policy of "separate development" came into being, with the homeland structure as one of its cornerstones. Verwoerd came to believe in the granting of independence to these homelands. The government justified its plans on the basis that "(the) government's policy is, therefore, not a policy of discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, but a policy of differentiation on the ground of nationhood, of different nations, granting to each self-determination within the borders of their homelands – hence this policy of separate development".[citation needed] Under the homelands system, blacks would no longer be citizens of South Africa, becoming citizens of the independent homelands who worked in South Africa as foreign migrant labourers on temporary work permits. In 1958 the Promotion of Black Self-Government Act was passed, and border industries and the Bantu Investment Corporation were established to promote economic development and the provision of employment in or near the homelands. Many black South Africans who had never resided in their identified homeland were forcibly removed from the cities to the homelands.
Ten homelands were allocated to different black ethnic groups: Lebowa (North Sotho, also referred to as Pedi), QwaQwa (South Sotho), Bophuthatswana (Tswana), KwaZulu (Zulu), KaNgwane (Swazi), Transkei and Ciskei (Xhosa), Gazankulu (Tsonga), Venda (Venda) and KwaNdebele (Ndebele). Four of these were declared independent by the South African government: Transkei in 1976, Bophuthatswana in 1977, Venda in 1979, and Ciskei in 1981 (known as the TBVC states). Once a homeland was granted its nominal independence, its designated citizens had their South African citizenship revoked, replaced with citizenship in their homeland. These people were then issued passports instead of passbooks. Citizens of the nominally autonomous homelands also had their South African citizenship circumscribed, meaning they were no longer legally considered South African.[55] The South African government attempted to draw an equivalence between their view of black citizens of the homelands and the problems which other countries faced through entry of illegal immigrants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#Homeland_system
The idea was that Blacks actually living and working in South Africa would be declared not citizens of South Africa, but rather citizens of a "bantustan". Therefore, they would have no citizenship rights in SA, but rather be legally treated as foreign "migrant workers".
The situation in Israel is totally different. The Palestinians affected are not living in Israel, and increasingly, they are not working in Israel either - Israel more or less intends to wall them out. There is no suggestion (from anyone non-crazy) of revoking Israeli Arab citizenship and making them citizens of "Palestine".
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 11:40:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 02:36:31 AMThe problem you describe only happens if Israel imposes it on itself.
Exactly. Which is what settlements and the growing radicalisation of the right is doing.
QuoteThe mind reading bit is not about the minority which has views different from official government policy (as Nick Clegg what that is like), but rather about arguing that the non-crazy cabinet members secretly hold the same crazy views as the crazy ones do.
It's not me who's saying that only about 5 Likudniks are fully behind a two-state solution, it was the Deputy Foreign Minister. He may be mind-reading, but I doubt it.
I'm glad we agree they're crazy. There are more crazy ones in this cabinet than in the last. The Likud list in 2013 was crazier than previously. It's no longer a party with space for Benny Begin or Dan Meridor. The extraordinary and worrying thing is that now Lieberman looks like a moderate.
QuoteGoldberg's article certainly doesn't argue that Israel is an apartheid state but rather that his conspiracy theory says it will be.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Israel is an apartheid state. I haven't. Goldberg doesn't. Kerry hasn't.
What's the conspiracy theory here?
QuoteSeriously? I thought we dealt with this. So what if one party wants that. If it's not government policy it's not government policy. So what if one party wants that?
This is a non-sequitur though.
It's like someone saying there's a risk that the UK could leave the EU: Euroscepticism is becoming more mainstream, there's a growing number of Tories who want out and the main parties are being challenged by an increasingly popular Ukip. And the response is it's not government policy, Cameron wants to stay in.
Edit: Incidentally Netanyahu is also now a moderate and looks relatively wounded. It certainly seems like Lieberman and other possible replacements are on manoeuvres.
To my mind, the more probable "risk" is a continuation of the status quo - that is, Israeli authorizing slicing off a bit of the WB at a time and effectively walling itself off from the remaint's problems. The notion of attempting to absorb the WB holus-bolus population and all is highly unpopular in Israel, whatever some radical politicos may want.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 12:31:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2014, 12:15:53 PM
No, I was referring to israel voluntarily giving the vote to west bank arabs....Settlements and growing radicalization in israel is certainly not going to lead to palestinian suffrage in israeli elections.
I thought you wanted to spell out a scenario of the choice between democracy and a Jewish state. There you go: pieds noirs in the West Bank, sympathisers in the Cabinet.
So, basically as long as israel does not annex any bits of Area A in the west bank then Isreal will not be at risk of having to choose between being an apartheid state and being jewish. I'm happy with that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 12:31:19 PM
QuoteAnd Cameron is PM. Once Nigel Farage or John Redwood or Ian Duncan Smith or Daniel Hannan becomes PM then the UK leaving might be policy. But it isn't.
But who's saying it is policy? It's a risk.
Now you're just playing semantics...
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 12:31:19 PM
QuoteThen again, if you want that to be your standard, the PA just started supporting genocide since it just made a unity government deal with hamas.
It feels like you're not actually reading my posts but what you think I'm saying. I don't see how this follows from anything I've said.
However obviously at the moment negotiations are impossible because of the unity deal.
I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to ascribe the policy of some members of the government to the government itself.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2014, 01:37:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 29, 2014, 01:21:58 AM
He's right.
Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.
Even if you believe it's right, that's just not something a diplomatic should say unless they're intending to just blow up the negotiations right there.
What is a diplomatic, Tim? Kerry isn't a diplomat. He's your foreign minister.
And of course he's right. Israel is something only you Americans are fond of.
He's our senior diplomat.
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 01:12:51 PMTo my mind, the more probable "risk" is a continuation of the status quo - that is, Israeli authorizing slicing off a bit of the WB at a time and effectively walling itself off from the remaint's problems. The notion of attempting to absorb the WB holus-bolus population and all is highly unpopular in Israel, whatever some radical politicos may want.
My problem is it's no longer just a radical position. As I say the right is radicalising. The worry isn't necessarily that Israel's becoming more right-wing but that the right-wing she has is becoming more intransigent.
Bennett's led the Jewish Home to the best result the far-right and religious Zionist movement have had since the 70s. He's a potent threat to Likud's right-wing, which causes Likud to take increasingly hard stances. Obviously they've got the ministry in charge of construction in settlements.
Prior to 2013 the Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu merger seemed like one of a centre-right and a right wing party.But after the 2012 Likud primaries I think there's barely any ideological difference. Of the top 20 candidates on the Likud list, 12 support at least partial annexation of Area C. Seven have publicly supported building a Third Temple. Likud's a party that's now seen Moshe Feiglin elected as an MK. The major difference between them and Yisrael Beiteinu is no longer about right/centre-right but about background: Likud's a more traditional and more religious party, Yisrael Beiteinu's more secular and more focused on Russian speakers.
Ehud Barak's worried about it, but he's on the left. But Dan Meridor talked about the radicalisation of Likud (after he'd been voted off the list), 'they have just one thing – the territories. But the human rights part of it, the democratic part of it, the equality part of it is not part of their way of thinking. I heard one of them saying he's for human rights but not civil rights. What's the difference? Not voting. It's like South Africa. So I think it's dangerous...it's a dramatic departure from the Likud history.'
Roughly I think it's like what's happened to the Republican party, but more worrying. Because I think the margins in Israeli politics are smaller and I think a radical settler-influenced right in Israel is more dangerous than the Tea Party (to mix metaphors they're a bit like pieds noirs). We're seeing this in the growing 'price tag' movement torching and vandalising mosques, churches and Palestinian olive groves; assaulting Arabs and members of the IDF. The exception is that unlike in the US the Israeli left and centre is more or less moribund (with the exception of Lapid). The current polls in Israel show the religious-right coalition would gain more seats.
QuoteNow you're just playing semantics...
No I'm not. The difference isn't just semantics, if I say there's a risk of rain saying it's not raining now isn't an answer. A policy is a fact and generally present tense. A risk is something that could happen and is generally future tense.
QuoteI'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to ascribe the policy of some members of the government to the government itself.
Which isn't something I've done anywhere in this thread.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2014, 01:03:50 AM
My problem is it's no longer just a radical position. As I say the right is radicalising. The worry isn't necessarily that Israel's becoming more right-wing but that the right-wing she has is becoming more intransigent.
Bennett's led the Jewish Home to the best result the far-right and religious Zionist movement have had since the 70s. He's a potent threat to Likud's right-wing, which causes Likud to take increasingly hard stances. Obviously they've got the ministry in charge of construction in settlements.
Prior to 2013 the Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu merger seemed like one of a centre-right and a right wing party.But after the 2012 Likud primaries I think there's barely any ideological difference. Of the top 20 candidates on the Likud list, 12 support at least partial annexation of Area C. Seven have publicly supported building a Third Temple. Likud's a party that's now seen Moshe Feiglin elected as an MK. The major difference between them and Yisrael Beiteinu is no longer about right/centre-right but about background: Likud's a more traditional and more religious party, Yisrael Beiteinu's more secular and more focused on Russian speakers.
Ehud Barak's worried about it, but he's on the left. But Dan Meridor talked about the radicalisation of Likud (after he'd been voted off the list), 'they have just one thing – the territories. But the human rights part of it, the democratic part of it, the equality part of it is not part of their way of thinking. I heard one of them saying he’s for human rights but not civil rights. What’s the difference? Not voting. It’s like South Africa. So I think it’s dangerous…it’s a dramatic departure from the Likud history.'
Roughly I think it's like what's happened to the Republican party, but more worrying. Because I think the margins in Israeli politics are smaller and I think a radical settler-influenced right in Israel is more dangerous than the Tea Party (to mix metaphors they're a bit like pieds noirs). We're seeing this in the growing 'price tag' movement torching and vandalising mosques, churches and Palestinian olive groves; assaulting Arabs and members of the IDF. The exception is that unlike in the US the Israeli left and centre is more or less moribund (with the exception of Lapid). The current polls in Israel show the religious-right coalition would gain more seats.
This has been a trend for awhile. I think it is a combination of frustration with the failures of the peace process, general exposure to the increasingly unhinged culture issues in the area, and the demographic trends where the secular Israelis are shrinking and the religious ones are increasing. I think Israel is becoming less and less of a rational actor every year and I fear what might become of them. I don't think this will end well for anybody. I would love to be proven wrong of course, but this thing was hard enough to do with just the Palestinians being held hostage by irrational nutters.
Quote from: Norgy on April 30, 2014, 05:45:02 PM
Israel is something only you Americans are fond of.
What exactly does it mean to be 'fond' of Israel? I just want the Palestinian-Israeli thing to be handled reasonably peacefully and everybody not murder each other over religious nuttery.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2014, 06:05:37 PM
He's our senior diplomat.
In Europe the top diplomat would be the head of the foreign service. Diplomats are civil servants, foreign ministers are politicians.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2014, 01:23:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2014, 06:05:37 PM
He's our senior diplomat.
In Europe the top diplomat would be the head of the foreign service. Diplomats are civil servants, foreign ministers are politicians.
Well we do things a bit differently. Very few of our diplomats are actual civil servants.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 01:20:25 AM
Quote from: Norgy on April 30, 2014, 05:45:02 PM
Israel is something only you Americans are fond of.
What exactly does it mean to be 'fond' of Israel? I just want the Palestinian-Israeli thing to be handled reasonably peacefully and everybody not murder each other over religious nuttery.
Well, the Euros don't agree. Since they are glowing balls of light, they must be correct. Or overly full of themselves. One or the other.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 01:30:08 AM
Well we do things a bit differently. Very few of our diplomats are actual civil servants.
The vast, vast majority of our diplomats are members of the Foreign Service. Not the Ambassadors, but pretty much everyone else in the embassy bar support staff and the Marines.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:49:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 01:30:08 AM
Well we do things a bit differently. Very few of our diplomats are actual civil servants.
The vast, vast majority of our diplomats are members of the Foreign Service. Not the Ambassadors, but pretty much everyone else in the embassy bar support staff and the Marines.
You are right I meant the ambassadors :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 01:20:25 AM
What exactly does it mean to be 'fond' of Israel?
It means you don't reflexively parrot the PLO line (aka the Guardian, Le Monde, etc.) because that is what all the cool euro kids are doing.
He's right, it is true that Americans tend to be free of that particular mental derangement.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2014, 01:23:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2014, 06:05:37 PM
He's our senior diplomat.
In Europe the top diplomat would be the head of the foreign service. Diplomats are civil servants, foreign ministers are politicians.
In the US you would have to go rather deep into the State Department hierarchy before getting to a non-appointed official.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2014, 11:35:13 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2014, 01:23:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2014, 06:05:37 PM
He's our senior diplomat.
In Europe the top diplomat would be the head of the foreign service. Diplomats are civil servants, foreign ministers are politicians.
In the US you would have to go rather deep into the State Department hierarchy before getting to a non-appointed official.
Yeah, but a lot of those positions are administrative or sinecures rather than actually being diplomats
per s.
Semi-related, I just realized a local icon of ours recently got de-jewified. They took the Star of David off his hat and I swear they made his nose smaller :(
Here's what he looks like now:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnatifoodscout.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2FIzzys-logo.jpg&hash=280e652c3f22fd844bc3c02ea97aeee1713a66bd)
Was kind of hard to find an older logo, but this is the best I could find of the "before":
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F58%2Fb4%2F19%2F58b4191b2878f2d24daa8b70c627089b.jpg&hash=6a6d3afd58f357caec9e61d9171c7bf873784836)
Corned beef sandwich & potato pancake are still tasty, at least.
Man I love deli sandwiches. Ever since Katz's Deli on west 6th street closed in 2010 it is like impossible to get good sandwiches in Austin anymore. I eat the turkey Rueben at my local bar but it is a poor substitute.
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 12:00:01 PM
Semi-related, I just realized a local icon of ours recently got de-jewified. They took the Star of David off his hat and I swear they made his nose smaller :(
Here's what he looks like now:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnatifoodscout.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2FIzzys-logo.jpg&hash=280e652c3f22fd844bc3c02ea97aeee1713a66bd)
Was kind of hard to find an older logo, but this is the best I could find of the "before":
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F58%2Fb4%2F19%2F58b4191b2878f2d24daa8b70c627089b.jpg&hash=6a6d3afd58f357caec9e61d9171c7bf873784836)
Corned beef sandwich & potato pancake are still tasty, at least.
To be honest, I think that the circle part of the logo and the banner underneath look better than the old logo, but they didn't need to change the guy's appearance.
The guy sorta resembles Mussolini ... :hmm:
It looks like he's jacking off with his center censored like that. Facial expression adds to the effect.
Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2014, 02:11:44 PM
It looks like he's jacking off with his center censored like that. Facial expression adds to the effect.
I think I'll ask them to hold the "special sauce". :yuk: