Israel and the US

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I understand your point better now. One of the problems was that the state that had this defined character already had inhabitants in it who were not part of that group. But if you look at your examples for instance. Aryan state for the Aryan people. If you asked Jewish people living in Germany whether they would have minded a certain amount of national pride, I'm sure they would have said no. But then, ask them after the Nuremberg Laws when it was illegal for them to marry Aryans, or after 1945 and it would have been much different.

In order for a country to be exclusive it must have laws making it so. Israel does not have those laws. Per their right of return, being Jewish is a sufficient but not necessary condition for citizenship. And the laws on the books do not provide different rights for non-Jews as for Jews. You may be right that it is a slippery slope, where national pride becomes subordination of the alien, but I think all of the countries you mentioned have a certain culture reflected in their national identity. It just so happens that Jewish also doubles as a religious identity. Yet religion seems to play a much smaller part in the governance of Israel than it does in Iran, where the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader of the country. And there are religious minorities in Iran, and we're always reminded by the government there how happy they are:)

---

My problem is with Nationalism tout court. What in the 19th century was presented as an ideology of liberation to me became a curse in the 20th century. It seems to me to play to the basest instincts in societies which believe some purity of heritage exists that endorses their right to exist as privileged people in their state; I think this is dangerous nonsense and the relative success of the USA is an example of how to give one set of people a secure sense of identity without sacrificing other people's, although the history of the country with regard to slavery, the treatment of the first nations, and women suggests that even this option has been hard to implement in practice and hass been achieved after much violence and agony.

In Israel's case it is the religious dimension which I believe is the problem, certainly for the Christian communities, but also for the Muslims -and small religious parties have melded together coalition governments in Israel for their own narrow benefit so you can't write them out of the agenda.

In other words, if nationalism is bad enough, imagine religion as an alternative form of, or expression of nationalism. No. Even in the UK where an historian like Jonathan Clark (in Our Shadowed Present) insists that Christianity is so woven into the experience of being English that to detach the Church of England from the State would be to effectively end the sense of being English within the UK, I think we have matured to the point where we no longer need a symbiosis between church and state. So ultimately being Jewish or Christian or Muslim is not the problem, it is the manipulation of this belief in the service of politics that causes problems.

Broncofan
<And the laws on the books do not provide different rights for non-Jews as for Jews>

Are you serious? In the occupied West Bank, two people who are accused of the same crime are dealt with under two different legal systems depending on whether or not they are Jews. Jews are dealt with ,if at all, under the liberal legal code of the state of Israel. Arabs are prosecuted under a very punitive military code with far harsher sentences.
I will quote the former Attorney General of Israel:-

"We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day."
(Michael Ben-Yair, 3 March 2002)

I should add that I am impressed and heartened by the polite nature of the discourse here.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it is one of those inherent problems of statehood. A state has to define itself in a certain way in order to be distinct from its neighbors. It's just a matter I suppose how closely tied to ethnicity and religion these traditions are. For instance, in the United States when we celebrate Thanksgiving, it is a sort of phony memorial of a non-existent cooperation between Native Americans and European settlers. It is very inclusive, but only because nobody stops to think about what actually happened. We just eat.

But then again it does not celebrate a 5000 year old "covenant" supposedly exclusive to one tribe. The nation of the Jewish people and thus a state based on this nation status has tribal characteristics. It is far from ideal, even undesirable. But if the laws are protective of minority rights then I think over time you have a melding of interests. Every European state at some point had some notion of proprietary culture that eventually shifted towards inclusion in a variety of ways.

I am not trying to create a reductio ad absurdum when I say, why should there be any such thing as a state? Is a state only supposed to be a convenient unit for governing discrete numbers of people based on certain laws? If boundaries are to be drawn and different segments of people are to be governed by different sets of laws, then on what basis? We are all human afterall. Why should something be illegal in Syria but legal in the United States? Does the nature of a crime change based on who committed it and against whom?

I'm not pretending to be naive, as I know your point is that when nationalism is related to tribalism (as when you say purity), or to religious belief it can become a force of oppression. But cultures are only exclusive to the extent one chooses not to subscribe? If you make believing in a certain God a necessary condition, then the hurdle is too high, and if race is the requirement then there is no choice. But promoting the popular usages of certain languages moves in that direction. Every distinction from one's neighbor involves a value choice that comprises a culture piecemeal; but sharing the culture one is immersed in is not a requirement unless embodied in law. When I went to Texas I wore tennis shoes and not a cowboy hat;.

I think nationalism itself is a matter of different degrees of repugnance to universal values. It would be great if it could be extracted altogether from the notion of governance, as an ideal. But even without any political science background, I have trouble reconciling the existence of states, without a national identity that's more exclusive than universal.

I forgot to mention the Citizenship Law.

<The practical meaning of the law is that Arab citizens of Israel who marry Palestinian non-citizens – something that happens quite often, since these are members of the same nation, and sometimes of the same communities – won’t be able to live with their wives or husbands. If they want to unite, they will have to leave the country. By doing so, the law achieves two (racist) objectives against members of the Arab minority: (a) it prevents non-Jews from entering the country and applying for permanent residency or citizenship and (b) it makes it harder for Israeli Arab citizens to build families in their own community or in their own country, thus encouraging them to leave Israel. Arab Palestinians comprise roughly 20 percent of Israel’s population.>
http://972mag.com/high-court-okays-c...f-arabs/32802/

In addition, it was recently made illegal for any institution to commemorate the "Nakba" in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyman

Broncofan
<And the laws on the books do not provide different rights for non-Jews as for Jews>

Are you serious? In the occupied West Bank, two people who are accused of the same crime are dealt with under two different legal systems depending on whether or not they are Jews. Jews are dealt with ,if at all, under the liberal legal code of the state of Israel. Arabs are prosecuted under a very punitive military code with far harsher sentences.
I will quote the former Attorney General of Israel:-

"We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day."
(Michael Ben-Yair, 3 March 2002)

I should add that I am impressed and heartened by the polite nature of the discourse here.

---

This is part and parcel a problem of Israel's foreign policy and the occupation. I don't see it as inhering in the nature of the state, but in the administration of it. What I mean to say is, within Israel proper, those who are citizens of Israel are treated equally under the Israeli legal code. And there are non-Jewish citizens of Israel, subject to the same laws as Jewish Israelis.

In the United States as well, one would much rather be tried in a civilian court than by a military commission. Procedurally, it is a huge advantage to for instance not have hearsay be used against you. Another example would be that those captured abroad who are non-citizens of the United States (for instance during the military occupation of Iraq), would not have the same Constitutional protections as an American. When the distinction is made based on citizenship and not ethnicity, even if the foreign policy is so twisted that foreign territory is occupied, I don't think it necessarily has racist implications.

I think the jurisdictional issues you cite are not based as a threshold matter on whether one is a Jew but on whether a military commission can assert jurisdiction based on the crime. I don't know this, but in studying the implementation of military commissions here, they tend to be reserved for those violating the laws of war and yes they are procedurally less rigorous.

Greyman,
you are absolutely right about the immigration policy. While I think the dual legal system you cite is probably not quite what is indicated, the immigration policy is facially discriminatory. Even the right of return, though not wholly excluding non-Jews is discriminatory in the sense that Jews automatically qualify, while others apply for citizenship.

I think in my posts to Stavros I was discussing more what it would necessarily entail to have a Jewish state in the abstract. I think the ultimate point is that each state has to fight reactionary forces that want to define the state in a certain way. However, I don't think describing Israel as a Jewish state has the unique implications many fear. I think it is mainly a problem of nomenclature on many fronts. What is a name without a meaning?

France can describe itself as French and people would say, well yes French is derived from France linguistically. For some people though it sounds like a leap to say Israel is a Jewish state, but what was it ever when it was created? Israel is not exactly a secular word in its own right. Yet it can have a secular government and be inclusive of other people (whether it is as a descriptive matter I don't think it is necessarily foreclosed from it because of its origins).

Anyhow, it's been a pleasure discussing this. I'll check in periodically, but I have to admit I'd much rather chat with y'all than do some of the things I am forced to do:cry. But I will read, it's just that the pressure to respond or forfeit might keep me from doing some work.

So, just one day after Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN in order to gain upgraded status for Palestine, which was approved by the vast majority of the world, Israel states that it will build another 3,000 houses on occupied land, and will fast track another 1,000 planning applications.

What message does that send?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyman

So, just one day after Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN in order to gain upgraded status for Palestine, which was approved by the vast majority of the world, Israel states that it will build another 3,000 houses on occupied land, and will fast track another 1,000 planning applications.

What message does that send?

---

It is a little bit like the war on Iraq, the world was against it, but the USA was: we fuck the world, we don't care, we are the strongest power on earth, it is not like anyone can do anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyman

So, just one day after Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN in order to gain upgraded status for Palestine, which was approved by the vast majority of the world, Israel states that it will build another 3,000 houses on occupied land, and will fast track another 1,000 planning applications.

What message does that send?

---

East Jerusalem is always going to be a major issue because the Israelis still remember what the Arabs did to Jewish property and graveyards when they ruled it pre-67. Plus, the whole historical and religious thing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I know it might sound tiresome for me to invoke my Jewishness to talk about Israel but bear with me one second. It is true that many Jews myself included think that they know what the Israelis do, why they do it or what the public opinion in Israel is. I didn't realize until recently that I have no more clue than anyone else.

For years I told people I discussed this issue with that Israelis wanted a two-state solution, they were persnickety about the terms but they accepted it in principle, at least the average man on the street. And when Hamas was elected the leadership of the Palestinians this reinforced a pre-existing belief for me that they did not want a two state solution and had an extremist mindset. Then came the Netanyahu years.

He made a liar out of me with this false narrative I was peddling. Actually I made a liar of myself for not being more skeptical or objective. But here was a democratically elected Israeli leader who could barely bring himself to accept a Palestinian state even in principle. He essentially took a situation where there was very little chance for successful negotiation and made it an impossibility.

This is not to cast the majority of the blame on Israel (I don't know the total score) but I suppose a cautionary tale for anyone who says they can sum up the conflict for you. Even if you get both sides to agree to a two-state solution in principle, the number of issues for settlement make it so difficult. Some of these issues are deal-breakers for both sides, such as the right of return, the exact land swaps, the status of Jerusalem. It will be very difficult to figure out what should happen when the time comes that both nations have sound-minded leadership. In the meantime, Netanyahu and Hamas are both major impediments to peace.

---

Olmert: Abbas never responded to my peace offer

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that during his tenure he offered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas an unprecedented peace offer, based on a return to the 1967 borders and a fair demographic land arrangement which would see heavily Jewish areas in the West Bank remain under Israeli control.
"I offered a land swap, I offered a solution for Jerusalem, where the Jewish part would remain under Israeli authority and the Arab sections would be given to the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state,"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/olmert-a...offer-1.263328