Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumHow dare they
So, the ceasefire was not renewed, and the war goes on. For how long?
Last night was very restless. Once every hour or two we got up to listen to the radio and look up Israeli and Palestinian and international news websites. There were many rumors and speculations and few pieces of hard news, but past midnight it had become clear that the negotiations in Cairo had collapsed. Or perhaps they had never been real talks, but rather a joint Israeli-Egyptian effort to impose terms which Gazans in general and Hamas leaders in particular found completely unacceptable. And now the government of Israel declares that it will not negotiate under fire, that the fire must cease in order to make it possible to talk the conditions under which the fire may cease.
Israelis were rather flabbergasted, having been reasonably certain that Operation Protective Edge was over. More than half of all Israelis consider it to have ended with a draw. With this draw having included 64 dead soldiers, the public did not seem too sanguine about wanting it to continue. Dozens of newspaper articles summed up the military and political and economic and psychological aspects of the war. Economists concluded that war expenses could be covered without major dislocation, if there is no further crisis. The mass circulation papers were preparing to have a few more days of the “Love Our Boys in Uniform” campaign – and after the weekend the normal staple of gossip and scandals was going to resume. So how dare the Palestinians, who had already taken such a terrible beating, overturn everything and decide that the war is not over yet?
A few days ago former Knesset Member Yehuda Ben Meir - once an outspoken hawk and nowadays a rather mainstream commentator - made an effort to convince Israel’s citizens that they had indeed won the war: “After a month of fighting, Hamas agreed to a 72-hour cease-fire without preconditions; that is, it accepted the original Egyptian diktat – first a cease-fire and only then a discussion on the sides’ demands. The very fact Hamas has agreed to one without getting anything in advance – completely contradicting its stance for about three weeks – is tantamount to a harsh defeat. This isn’t the running of a white flag up a pole, but it’s definitely the raising of one, at least to half-mast”.
continue reading @
http://adam-keller2.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/how-dare-they.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Israeli
(4,159 posts)Change direction – move towards peace!
The next round of fighting can be prevented.
No to the way of wars - we must have a political solution!
Mass rally – Saturday, August 9, 2014, at 8.00 pm, Rabin Square, Tel Aviv.
On Saturday, Israel’s Peace Camp will rally at the Rabin Square.
After an agonizing month of war and death, in face of mounting waves of incitement and hatred which increasingly tear up the Israeli society, we stand up to demonstrate for peace and for democracy.
The next round of fighting can be prevented. It is far from inevitable that we continue the descent into an abyss of ever more cruel wars, of extreme hatred and the destruction of our neighbors and of ourselves.
There is another way: an immediate dialogue with the Palestinians – for a fair peace and for the reconstruction and opening of Gaza; a determined joint stand of Jews and Arabs against racism; a struggle for a future of Life.
Only a political solution of two states, Israel and Palestine side by side, will ensure independence, justice, security and hope for all who live in this land.
On Saturday night we will stand together – Jews and Arabs, residents of the South and of the whole country. Together we will call for an end to the cycle of bloodshed. The next war can and must be prevented, Israeli society should be healed.
Mass rally – Saturday, August 9, 2014, at 8.00 pm, Rabin Square
Organizations sponsoring this rally include: Meretz, Hadash, Peace Now, Combatants for Peace, Gush Shalom, Peace NGOs Forum, Young Labor in Tel Aviv and many others.
Source: http://adam-keller2.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/how-dare-they.html
4now
(1,596 posts)you can't always choose when the war will end.
Just ask George Bush.
Netanyahu will be sorry that he started this fiasco.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... it's easy to get into and hard to get out of.
Palestinians should settle for a "draw"?
I suppose thats why they keep on shooting. Israel wont discuss the embargo, fishing rights, holding back humanitarian aid. As long as Israel is content with a draw and dont offer Gaza/West bank hope, they will have no peace.
Israeli
(4,159 posts)do you ?
I'm Gush Shalom MFM008....
ref : " and dont offer Gaza/West bank hope, they will have no peace. "
I ...100% agree with you .
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- K&R
ancianita
(36,133 posts)The state of Israel has a right to exist. The surrounding caliphate territory is now as much an existential threat to it as is Hamas. The sword of Islam -- however anyone wants to interpret that symbol and reality -- is always poised to hit both peaceful Jews and crazy town Zionists. It will not value their lives, any more than it values the lives of Muslims who oppose the caliphate jihadists.
The Hamas Charter puts in writing what the Caliph calls upon all "true Muslims" to do -- wage jihad against Jews and unbelievers.
Israeli
(4,159 posts)....until the occupation is dissolved .
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... if the protest will be televised? Or a livestream on the internet? Thanks.
Israeli
(4,159 posts).... I'm heading off to Tel Aviv in a few hours anyhow .
Watch this space ... I will update when I can .
You take care! 
Israeli
(4,159 posts)as you probably know by now the demonstration was canceled ....here is Gush Shalom's official statement :
TEL AVIV MASS PEACE RALLY PROHIBITED BY POLICE
update Aug. 9:
Police prohibits the holding of the anti-war rally scheduled to take place tonight at Rabin Square, allegedly because of rocket fire from Gaza. There are good reasons to suspect the police’s true motives, but lawyers have advised that the Supreme Court may reject a petition filed on the issue. Accordingly organizers felt compelled to decide on canceling. Statement by organizers ------
Statement on behalf of the organizing committee: In light of the expected participation by many thousands in the peace rally scheduled for tonight (Aug. 9, 2014), the police announced it would not allow it to be held, due to the Home Front Command prohibition on the gathering of over a thousand people at open spaces in Tel Aviv.
The organizing committee therefore, decided that the rally must be postponed until the earliest date when it would be possible to hold it. The wide response to our call proves that a large part of the Israeli society supports a change in direction, opposes the way of wars and demands an end to the cycle of bloodshed through a real dialogue with the Palestinians, in order to reach a peace agreement that would ensure independence and justice for both peoples.
There is a large number of Jewish and Arab citizens who are prepared to stand together against the waves of racism and incitement and for democracy. We will continue to make this voice heard in every possible way.
We regret that the police and military authorities prove ineffective in protecting the freedom of expression in Israel, in particular the democratic right to demonstrate and protest. This is a badge of shame for Israeli democracy.
source: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/events/1407415206
My visit to Tel Aviv was uneventful and surrealistic ......there were no alerts and no rocket fire ....it was a normal Saturday ....resturants and cafes were packed ....markets were open and busy ....the beach and the boardwalk at the port was crowded .
After hearing of the cancellation we decided early afternoon to leave Tel Aviv and go visit family on a Moshav further south .... where we stayed overnight .
That is where we heard that some had defied the ban ....see :
http://972mag.com/nstt_feeditem/hundreds-in-tel-aviv-defy-police-ban-to-protest-gaza-war/
ReRe
(10,597 posts)I just assumed that we were blacked out as usual to anything that's going on over there, especially from Israel.
Thanks for the link with the pictures of the ones who did show up! When I heard that it was going to be held at night, I was a little worried about that. We usually have protests around high noon over here.
Glad to hear your outing was uneventful and you got to visit with family.
ref : " I just assumed that we were blacked out as usual to anything that's going on over there, especially from Israel. "
...if you are looking for an alternative source may I suggest here :
http://tv.social.org.il/en
this was the last large demonstration I was at :
http://tv.social.org.il/en/demonstration-against-the-war-in-gaza
Ours are almost always at night , probably because of the heat , usually on a Saturday and almost always at Rabin square .
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Palestinians as the Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
When do you think there will be peace? When Israelis leave all lands that Palestinians claim are theirs?
Israeli
(4,159 posts)Nope ... when there is this :.......
Putting an end to the occupation,
Accepting the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent and sovereign State of Palestine in all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967,
Reinstating the pre-1967 "Green Line" as the border between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine (with possible minor exchanges of territories agreed between the parties); the border will be open for the free movement of people and goods, subject to mutual agreement.
Establishing Jerusalem as the capital of the two states, with East Jerusalem (including the Haram al-Sharif) serving as the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) serving as the capital of Israel. The city is to be united on the physical and municipal level, based on mutual agreement.
Recognizing in principle the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees, allowing each refugee to choose freely between compensation and repatriation to Palestine and Israel, and fixing by mutual agreement the number of refugees who will be able to return to Israel in annual quotas, without undermining the foundations of Israel.
Safeguarding the security of both Israel and Palestine by mutual agreement and guarantees.
Striving for overall peace between Israel and all Arab countries and the creation of a regional union.
Source : http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/general_info/
ancianita
(36,133 posts)
sabbat hunter
(6,835 posts)does not have a formal constitution either. One is not really needed in order to have a fair rule of law.
FarrenH
(768 posts)or just defending the position that they don't exist:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html
Likud certainly has a position (and policy statements) that call for the destruction of any Palestinian state - in perpetuity. Remind me how Bibi and company are substantially different from Hamas on this issue?
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2014, 03:40 PM - Edit history (2)
Regarding my point about dissolving the Hamas Charter, words on paper guide some groups and not so much others. If the Torah, Knesset and laws made from them guide the Israelis, they clearly know they sin before their god. If the Q'uran, Hamas Charter and Hamas guide Palestinians, they clearly know they are true Muslims before their god, dead or alive.
One parallel this atheist draws is that in both cases their paper/belief guides last beyond their passing, as their basic reference points, to justify whole histories of unforgiven wrongdoing, and as derivative present cultures of prejudices and hatreds that get passed on to their descendants.
The key word isn't coexistence, but existence. What drives people's hearts and minds in believer systems should always and forever allow for peaceful coexistence with one's neighbor, and no death as institutionalized punishment for non-participation. But some believer systems just always and forever won't allow that. What system one is born into shouldn't condemn one to an early death. Old Catholics used to say to me, "Blame the church member, not The Church," simultaneously teaching that The Church IS its people.
I can't be drawn to these worlds anymore, so I guess I can be of no help.
FarrenH
(768 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:54 AM - Edit history (4)
But I think at issue here is the asymmetry of power. There is substantial equivalence between the stated goals of Hamas and the stated goals of modern Likudists and their allies, foreign and domestic. But the first arose from the second and the first group is in a massively asymmetric power relationship with the second group. One side is acting as a repressive and colonial power, while the other is resisting in a manner that signficantly undermines their moral standing, but nonetheless is a response to oppression and dispossession.
We cannot ignore the fact that the United Nations officially recognizes the majority of Gazans as "refugees" because they or their immediate forebears were displaced from what is today Israel by violence or the threat of violence. The *majority* of people in the Gaza strip are victims of theft and violence. Sderot, the town bordering Gaza that now complains of rocket fire, was, less than 100 years ago, a majority Palestinian village that in fact sheltered Jewish fighters and was not in conflict with the nascent Jewish state. The story of Sderot is a microcosm of how the blurring of distinctions and broad brushing of Arabs has been employed to mask theft and colonialism as self-defense.
Arguments of the kind "a pox on both their houses" don't really acknowledge the asymmetry of moral culpability and the asymmetry of morally righteous expectations that should flow from that. Even practical arguments fail. Substantial efforts by Israel to admit and repair historical injustices and allow a functioning Palestinian state to flourish (in fact history demands that they actually help in the economic upliftment of such a state, not just allow it's existence) will not lead to the destruction of Israel. The proposition that a regressive movement representing a minority of Palestinians is a threat to the existence of the nation with the 3rd largest (and one of the most advanced) military in the world is simply ridiculous. And none of Israel's neighbours has attacked her for *decades*, so the narrative of immediate threat from surrounding countries wore out its currency years ago.
Hamas represents, by the numbers and at last vote, a minority of Palestinians. Yet it is used as a blanket justification for the denial of self-determination and statehood to millions of Palestinians, and a policy of ongoing dispossession and staggering daily oppression. It is utterly preposterous to say "Because of this monster which we substantially and materially helped create, that represent the aspirations of a minority of a people we have stolen from, killed and brutally oppressed for decades, there is moral equivalence (or worse yet - the scales are in our favour) between us, an Apartheid state, and the entire people we're oppressing". Its just obscene.
In the later years of South African Apartheid, which I lived under, groups like APLA raided churches and killed white nuns, while in the black townships purported collaborators with the Apartheid regime were savagely murdered in the most brutal manner possible ("necklacing" someone with burning tires) by kangaroo courts. In fact such incidents were deployed by no less than Thatcher and Reagan to bolster continued claims that South Africa was not simply a racist state, but the last bulwark against communism and totalitarianism in Southern Africa, that could not risk rapid change until there were more "reasonable" natives to deal with. This was an era when young tories were still putting up posters of Nelson Mandela captioned "terrorist".
I realize its a shock to the system of many Americans to see "Apartheid" applied to the occupied territories, but to most politically aware South Africans is unmistakably and irrefutably the reality of the occupied territories. This is why every one of our struggle heroes, including people of the caliber of Desmond Tutu and (by implication - he never said it but implicitly endorsed it) Nelson Mandela, call it "Apartheid". Some, who have spent significant time in the OT call it "worse than Apartheid". Black leaders who experienced brutal oppression here and spent their lives fighting it call what they witnessed in the OT "worse than Apartheid". Think about that
Through the net, I've come to the understanding that a pro-Israeli narrative has become so deeply entrenched in the political *and* media establishment of the USA that many Americans I speak to have a grossly distorted view of the parameters of the conflict. But you have to question the accuracy of such a view when multiple Nobel peace prize winners, virtually the entire former South African resistance leadership, and half a dozen holocaust survivors all use the same label - especially in the face of such a massive, established and well-funded narrative which has enough material power to see university professors hounded out of their positions and members of the press punished for even mild criticism of the narrative.
Peace between them has to start with the oppressor, which wields most of the power. It starts with Israelis saying "we acknowledge colonialism and theft and are willing to take steps to repair it". The utter absence of any such acknowledgement is the single greatest hindrance to peace, because it is a complete denial of a brutal reality that the majority of Palestinians or their immediate forebears have experienced in the most direct visceral way. How on earth can you expect millions people who have lived through having everything stolen from them or destroyed violently (many multiple times), to say "OK, just give us whatever scraps are left, leave us alone and we'll call it quits and you don't even have to admit to any fault at all" which has essentially always been Israel's demand. *Obviously* the greater burden is on the colonial power in effecting peace. And continuously doubling down the violence in response to all forms of resistance, whether justifiable and or morally indefensible itself, is the exact opposite of that.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2014, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)
their basic difference is what you don't really get when you talk about this:
Yours is a nice 19th Century colonial oppressor/oppressed model. It's popular and often used. Everything stolen? Everything? Have you seen photos of Palestinian held land since 1967 and now? The current said asymmetry of power hasn't just been about 'the Western Gang' against 'the Eastern Gang,' although those had their time. They're still using that narrative, too, as part of the global protection rackets.
How do you know that your first solution hasn't been tried? I've seen Israel try --drag its settlers, kicking and screaming, by hand, truck and train, out of Palestinian land -- what you suggest -- more than once. I'm old enough to remember. BUT. For all the shows of 'talking' done by Arafat's PLO with several presidents, the Six Day War and what caused it, I have known for some time now that Palestine is a proxy for Islam that will now not allow Israel's existence, nevermind their coexistence. Netanyahu and others saw this reality a long time ago. It's the rest of us who cannot. Will not. Won't even try. We can't conceive.
Western believers think, "If there is no justice, there is no peace." Western believers think our political/diplomatic efforts will be reciprocated. Yet, no one wants to remember the real historical records of acknowledgment, recorded attempts to remediate, and historical expectations of reciprocity that Palestinians and their Muslim family worldwide have rejected, because the only terms a 'true Muslim' knows are the terms of his/her belief system. Muslims' believer system uses their war of attrition to test their own internal 'spiritual purity,' then use or discard those who serve/fail to serve that system. No Exit for them.
Western believers and 'secular Marxists' (as Pat Robertson calls most of us non-fundamentalists) can all constantly, deeply, morally want peace. Talk peace. But. When -- based on all Islamists say and do now -- one can see that the neighboring believer system destroys the existence of others, the colonial model just can't help. You cannot honestly use that model in reference to all the recent examples of internal murders in their takeover of Shia held land, during which they have even once recently blamed colonialism -- because, sir, it's no longer their oppositional model. That we in the West bite when they throw 'colonial oppression' bait to us is simply a manifestation of our own guilt over using our own belief systems to cause human suffering. In their morality, there is no such guilt.
I've seen the same rationalizations help Islam for over a 1,000 year history. When Islam is in a majority power position, any others' morality debates and diplomacy are ongoing geopolitical exercises in futility. I mean, I'll play along as a supporter of peace here. But. We're dealing -- mostly NOT dealing -- with a believer system that has not, will not allow the coexistence of other believer systems when it has majority control of land base. Bottom line will be our willingness to fight for ours as Israel is fighting for theirs.
Compare Islamic history with the rest of Western colonial history. Do Western fundamentalists of England, Spain or Rome announce plans to go back and recapture their old holdings -- or march into Mecca -- due to some 'manifest destiny' built into their belief system? No. Just because the admission of wrongdoing, formal apology, enduring a period of retaliatory prejudice have all worked out somewhat in South Africa or other Western colonial countries (we haven't been so up front about it with the N. American Indians, have we), doesn't mean that any Western model will in any way work with Muslims who hold any majority position on any land base. Believe them. Theocracy is their hierarchal choice.
Peg me with an 'ism' label if you need to, but you're the one who had to bring history into my philosophical view of believers. I've been a die-hard liberal -- alternately pro-Palestinian/pro-Israel supporter, depending on who's getting the 'business end' by the current aggressor. But. I know what I see, and all the consequences of our both secular and religious 'compassion.' I must give up thinking any geopolitical is relevant to some humans.
Look at it this way. When we're vacationing in the Middle East, driving around hills and valleys, stopping at the church, temple or ATM, it's not Israelis who we're looking over our shoulder for. Everyone knows this. Write me off, dismiss, ignore or mock me. But differences in belief in the human right to exist (once born) are THE fundamental difference across believer systems. I know clearly which ones uphold that right more dearly than others. Giving up my politics when dealing with believers helps me do that. All our colonial history models and all our guilt-driven morality debates will not change those differences.
FarrenH
(768 posts)Oh wait, most aren't.
Anyway, I can see why you fear being mocked, after first claiming to be a liberal then posting a stream of Islamophobic drivel that demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of what most Muslims actually believe. I've lived with, worked with, worked for and had lovers who are Muslim. And I'm an atheist. You don't know what you're talking about. From your post I infer you're Israeli and am not surprised. Israeli's rationalizing the current situation of Apartheid sound *exactly* like white South Africans did while I was growing up. Sometimes they say literally word for word the same things. You just have to substitute in "Arab" or "Muslim" for black, and "White" for "Jewish" and its the same sentences. "They (anti-Apartheid movements in other countries) don't understand!" was the cry from my white fellow countrymen. "You can't negotiate with barbarians! Look what happened when the bleks took over in surrounding countries!"
No, my friend. You don't get to steal land, segregate and oppress people, deny them any form of self-determination for decades, *never once even acknowledge what you've done*, go to "negotiation" after "negotiation" offering less and less every time to native people you've stolen from and in recent decades even accelerating land theft *while you're negotiating* and say "they deserve it because Islam (never mind that - IIRC - 20% of them are Christian) is totalitarian". That is a despicable argument. It is the argument of a moral savage, pompously claiming their victim is the savage, and blind to irony.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)putting other words back in the previous poster's mouth, either. That's kind of an irrational way to argue.
You interpret history and events your way. I'll interpret them my way. Certainly I don't "fear." I do understand and sympathize with all the suffering of both sides. Which is one of the many reasons I'll never submit to any believer system that seeks to establish turf, theocracy or geopolitical power.
What do you think of the terms listed by Israeli above:
2. Accept the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent and sovereign State of Palestine in all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967,
3. Reinstating the pre-1967 "Green Line" as the border between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine (with possible minor exchanges of territories agreed between the parties); the border will be open for the free movement of people and goods, subject to mutual agreement.
4. Establish Jerusalem as the capital of the two states, with East Jerusalem (including the Haram al-Sharif) serving as the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) serving as the capital of Israel. The city is to be united on the physical and municipal level, based on mutual agreement.
5. Recognize in principle the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees, allowing each refugee to choose freely between compensation and repatriation to Palestine and Israel, and fixing by mutual agreement the number of refugees who will be able to return to Israel in annual quotas, without undermining the foundations of Israel.
6. Safeguard the security of both Israel and Palestine by mutual agreement and guarantees.
7. Strive for overall peace between Israel and all Arab countries and the creation of a regional union.
FarrenH
(768 posts)I do think Israel needs to admit fault and actively help a new Palestinian state grow and prosper too, but I doubt that will ever happen. Israeli's proposal also runs counter to the stated policy of Bibi, who has made it abundantly clear his administration will not relinquish land west of the Jordan. This is why I fully support BDS. Since the Israeli government is elected (as was the Apartheid government), its the only way to apply sufficient pressure to convince a majority of Israelis that they're going down the wrong path. I meant "you" as in Israel, btw, when I said "you don't get..". It was generic, not referring to you personally
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Are you saying that Bibi won't support these stipulations? If not, does that mean he's not representing the majority of those who voted him into office? But if he is, why do those voters not support these stipulations?
What is it that makes the majority of Israelis need convincing that they're going down the wrong path? I'm serious. They're there and I'm here, so I'd really like to know.
FarrenH
(768 posts)saying things to the effect that all of the OT are the historical territory of the Jews, that the settlement movement represents the fulfilment of Jewish destiny, that Israel will never relinquish one meter of land west of the Jordan, that its brutally obvious what his position is. The interesting bit is he says most of these things in Hebrew, to Hebrew-speaking audiences, while being more vague in English public speech for an international audience. There is private footage of him with a settler family on youtube, saying "we'll do this and tell the Americans that (some other reason than the real one that places the onus for the oppressive actions on Palestinians)".
And its not just Bibi. Likud's official platform from the late 90's says more or less the same thing. It's been modified since then and explicit denials of Palestinian statehood taken out, but given the government-backed settlement expansions, who they have at the helm and his regularly and recently stated position, this change has every appearance of being cosmetic only.
So we have a government in charge of Israel that is resolutely opposed to any Palestinian self-determination and resolutely opposed to Palestinians getting to vote for the occupation government that controls their lives, seemingly in perpetuity. A government that materially funds, protects and even engages in its own direct ongoing land theft from Palestinians routinely. Based on Bibi's own words, his position is essentially permanent Apartheid in the occupied territories for a people that are native to the land.
A *deputy minister* in the current government recently authored a piece advocating that all Gazans be rounded up and placed in concentration camps - a kind of "final solution" that is eerily close to Nazi thinking - a parallel I've always avoided, but Jesus, its like some of these guys are begging for the comparison to be made. And elected officials from Likud's coalition allies in government have said the most horrendously racist stuff in their official capacity, as prejudiced as anything said by a Hamas official. The coalition currently running Israel are indisputably and very publicly saturated with racism and prejudice and their policies and rationalizations for those policies reflect that.
Why do the majority of Israelis need convincing that this is wrong? Because it's wrong. Its that simple. Apartheid is wrong. Colonialism is wrong. Theft is wrong. Racism is wrong. There are no ifs and buts and "Arabs/Muslims did this and believe that (usually some specious generalizations), so this is OK". Its just wrong.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)has a Basic Law that defines membership in the nation-state on the basis of ethnicity. It may not specifically call for the destruction of Palestinians, as such, but in any state founded on a basis of explicit ethnic nationalism, which privileges the members of a particular ethnic group, non-members of that group are alien "others" and second-class citizens at best. And it leads to this sort of thing: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-wouldn-t-give-palestinians-vote-if-west-bank-was-annexed.premium-1.471644
And Likud flatly rejects the idea of a Palestinian state; the comparison to Hamas is more apposite as Likud (like Hamas in the occupied territories), represent a party or faction within Israel and not Israel as a whole.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)which is at the religious heart of the general citizenry whom, in their politics, Likud doesn't represent. I don't know if that 'chosenness' aspect of their beliefs represents a dilemma for Israelis, but it seems like one to me.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)an outgrowth of 19th century romantic nationalism of the same sort that gave rise to the idea of "greater Germany" in the 1930's. I think it's important to remember that that sort of European nationalism was part of the intellectual backdrop to Herzl's "Der Judenstaat".
This is something Tony Judt summarised fairly well in an essay advocating a binational state:
But one nationalist movement, Zionism, was frustrated in its ambitions. The dream of an appropriately sited Jewish national home in the middle of the defunct Turkish Empire had to wait upon the retreat of imperial Britain: a process that took three more decades and a second world war. And thus it was only in 1948 that a Jewish nation-state was established in formerly Ottoman Palestine. But the founders of the Jewish state had been influenced by the same concepts and categories as their fin-de-siècle contemporaries back in Warsaw, or Odessa, or Bucharest; not surprisingly, Israel’s ethno-religious self-definition, and its discrimination against internal “foreigners,” has always had more in common with, say, the practices of post-Habsburg Romania than either party might care to acknowledge.
The problem with Israel, in short, is not—as is sometimes suggested—that it is a European “enclave” in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived too late. It has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a “Jewish state”—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded—is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.
(snip)
Israel itself is a multicultural society in all but name; yet it remains distinctive among democratic states in its resort to ethnoreligious criteria with which to denominate and rank its citizens. It is an oddity among modern nations not—as its more paranoid supporters assert—because it is a Jewish state and no one wants the Jews to have a state; but because it is a Jewish state in which one community—Jews—is set above others, in an age when that sort of state has no place.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/oct/23/israel-the-alternative/
ancianita
(36,133 posts)(just an aside...I was once totally hooked on the Transmetropolitan series...admire your avatar)
oberliner
(58,724 posts)This Basic Law, in part, was meant to address that situation.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And whatever it was meant to address, that sort of exclusionary ethnic nationalism isn't something that has any place in a modern liberal democracy.
