Democracy, or the Two-State Solution? (non-Hamas critique of Fayyad)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

“Better an Imposed Peace / Than a Voluntary War”

– Gush Shalom advertisement, Haaretz, April 2, 2010

Salam Fayyad is the West’s favorite Palestinian. He’s mild-mannered, received a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Texas, and served stints at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund before becoming Finance Minister under Yasser Arafat. Following the great Palestinian schism of 2007, Fayyad was appointed Prime Minister in the reconstituted West Bank government of Mahmoud Abbas. His proposals to build the institutions of a Palestinian state in two years have earned his government billions of dollars in foreign aid, not to mention multiple plaudits from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (a dubious honor).

But Fayyad, perhaps more than anyone else, embodies the tensions and contradictions of the two-state solution.

Having come to power through a suspension of the democratic process, Fayyad’s popular support leaves much to be desired. According to a poll released last month, only 26 percent of Palestinians consider his government the PA's legitimate successor (slightly less than the Gaza-based Hamas regime of Ismail Haniyeh). Fayyad himself lacks any real constituency outside the international donor community. His political party attracted only 2.5 percent of the vote in the most recent parliamentary election (which brought Hamas to power), and he’s been known to outrage other Palestinian factions with what they perceive as overly conciliatory gestures to Israel, including his apparent renunciation of the Palestinian “right of return” during an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz last Friday.

While, for the West, Fayyad’s crowning achievement has been the creation of a durable Palestinian security force capable of waging war on Hamas (something I described here), his Palestinian detractors understand these developments in radically different terms.

“Fayyad aims to project an image of a competent Palestinian administration,” writes Ali Abunimah. “But what is really taking shape in the West Bank today is a police state, where all sources of opposition or resistance — real or suspected — to either the PA regime, or the Israeli occupation are being systematically repressed by US-funded and trained Palestinian ‘security forces’ in full coordination with Israel.”

Khaled Amayreh, a noted Palestinian journalist, observed this week that "Human rights and civil liberties are virtually non-existent as the PA security agencies exercise absolute control over all aspects of life. People are unceremoniously fired from their jobs at the slightest suspicion regarding their political or ideological orientations. And the justice system is in a state of chronic paralysis due to the often wanton interference by the security apparatus."

All of this speaks to a fact little acknowledged by pundits and analysts but tacitly recognized by the United States government — at least when it comes to the Palestinians — as early as 2006, when the Bush administration began orchestrating the overthrow of the elected Hamas government: namely, that the two-state solution as envisioned by the U.S. and the international community will never be implemented voluntarily, and can only be imposed by force on a resisting population (a fact that applies in equal measure to Israelis and Palestinians)...

read on:
http://war.change.org/blog/view/democracy_or_the_two-state_solution

[Taverner]

1. I used to be into the one state, peace and flowers plan

But then Israeli racists killed Rabin, and Palestinian racists killed their Gandhis, their MLKs...and I realized there is too much hate down there for anything resembling a one state solution.

Those folks need to be separated, and brought back when they can behave.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. What Palestinians killed what Gandhis? What are you talking about?

[Taverner]

3. When Rabin was in Peace Talks, Arafat had a purge of the PLO

It wasn't given much press

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. I was living in Palestine then and don't recall this. Can you provide more information?

[Taverner]

5. Trying to research this - I remember it happened at the time

[shira]

8. It happened as soon as Arafat came back to the territories and killed off the grassroots leadership

...from the 1st Intifada. In addition to that, Arafat destroyed any freedom of dissent that may have existed at the time in the territories and his goons from Fatah have been in charge ever since.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. Prior to Arafat's return, there was no freedom of any kind, thanks to Israel's violent military

occupation of every inch of Palestinian territory.

Please name 3 grassroots leaders that Arafat killed. I'm quite curious.

[Taverner]

18. Both sides have enough bloodthirsty madmen...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. Neither of you has provided a shred of evidence to your claims.

I am no Arafat fan by any stretch. As I said I lived in Palestine then and saw that "what could have been" did not materialize and I blame Arafat for that. I believed in that dream enough to move my family back there. I put my money where my mouth was.

But to accuse him of murdering Palestinian Gandhis is outrageous and nonsensical.

That kind of nonsense from the left or from the right (Shira) serves no purpose.

There aren't "bloodthirsty madmen" on either side. Mythologizing the conflict simply leads rational people to throw their hands up in the air and walk away.

[Lithos]

20. you are talking about the clash between the Tunisian Mafia

and those Palestinians who were more internal to the situation. I would have used the term native, but that is such a loaded expression.

Ie in over-simplified terms, Arafat vs. Barghouti.

L-

[Taverner]

27. Have any links? I want to research this...

[Lithos]

29. My memory is from books

Dan Connell's Rethinking Revolution comes to mind.

The fight was between the Tunisian Mafia (the Old Guard of Fatah loyalists to Arafat) and a combination of Fatah Young Guard (Bhargouthi) and other groups when Arafat returned post-Oslo. It was not open combat, but rather a slow/cold conflict where the newly legitimized Palestinian Authority arrested and/or harassed those critical towards or opposed to the Arafat regime. Quite a few people disappeared or died in jails. Not going to say that those opposed were any better, but what did happen effectively destroyed any chance for a Democratic institution to be established post-Oslo.

L-

[Taverner]

44. Yes - and I remember reading about that in CSM at the time

I wonder if they are the only ones who carried that story...

[LeftishBrit]

6. Firstly, I don't think that either party has a strong claim to legitimacy at present

Elections are long overdue.

With all Fayyad's faults, he is one of the few to come up with a proposal for a possibly achievable solution - even if he may lack the authority to achieve it.

As regards the issue of a two-state solution: it seems that many want it in principle; few agree on what it should be, even within a country, let alone between Israel and Palestine.

The alternatives seem to be:

(a) Status quo continues. Intolerable situation for Palestinians.

(b) Status quo continues. Intolerable situation for Palestinians. Additionally, demographic changes in Israel ultimately result in stand-off between the theocratic ultra-Orthodox and the Arabs, possibly leading to civil war.

(c) One-state 'solution' without external involvement. Civil war immediately; possibly leading to defeat and brutal suppression and/or expulsion of one or other group; more likely to endless conflict on the level of, or even worse than, Lebanon.

(d) One-state 'solution' with external intervention, by either USA or UN or both, keeping a tight lid on the situation. Essentially a return to de facto colonialism, and probably with a risk of explosion into situation 'c' at any time.

(e) Two-state solution achieved by mutual agreement, no doubt with considerable external pressure especially from USA. Both states probably suffer from domestic terrorism from groups hostile to the agreement, and democracy is at times strained; nonetheless, this situation is better than the other possibilities.

(f) As (e), but with more serious rebellions of significant sections of the populations of one or both countries. Domestic terrorism is endemic in both states, and civil war a danger at least some of the time. Democracy is seriously undermined in attempts by both governments to keep a 'lid' on the situation.

(g) Two-state solution is externally imposed by USA and/or UN. De facto colonialism is probably not quite as extreme as under (d), but is present.

(h) One-state solution established by mutual agreement, and a progressive secular state is established. And the Tooth Fairy is elected President.


As solution (h) is clearly impossible, solution (e) seems the next best. I hope that it can be achieved, as all the other 'solutions' would have consequences ranging from the seriously unsatisfactory to the disastrous ('g' would be probably be the next best, but far from good.)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. I would agree with your choice of "e" and believe that BDS provides the pressure that is

required to change the POV of Israelis who are quite comfy with the status quo.

[aranthus]

10. And what will change the Palestinian insistence on RoR?

There won't be a deal unless that gets dropped.

[shira]

11. The argument is not all Palestinian refugees will choose to want to go to Israel

Of course, that brings up the question why they're refugees in the first place. If a substantial percentage of the more than 4 million refugees chooses not to want to live within Israel's green line, why not give them the choice now to live somewhere else?

The biggest crime in this conflict is Arab governments (including Palestinian) keeping refugees penned up in hopeless squalor the past 62 years.

[aranthus]

12. I know that's the argument, but it's specious.

In part for the reason you say. Mostly, because it's just not believable that given the choice of living in the Arab states or taking over Israel that only a fraction of Palestinian refugees would opt for the former. I know there is the one poll that shows this, but it's a seriously questionable proposition. More importantly, RoR was built around the denial of Israel's legitimacy, and was intended from the outset as a weapon against the Jewish state.

So it would appear that Israel has two options. Either convince the Palestinians to give up RoR, or else deal with the fact that they never will.

[shira]

13. Israel could pull back to the 1949 armistice lines or go farther and accept the 1947 Partition plan

It wouldn't matter if the demand for RoR isn't dropped. The fact is, borders to 2 states isn't the issue and neither are the settlements.

When 90% of Palestinians expect a RoR, peace isn't even a remote possibility. It's hopeless.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. Right of Return isn't the equivalent of Israel's violent military occupation.

[shira]

15. Arab governments holding millions of refugees as pawns is the greatest crime of this conflict

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. I think the Kool Aid you're drinking has left a mustache.

The ability of people to delude themselve regarding the nature of evil never fails to amaze.

[aranthus]

21. That's not responsive to my question, and irrelevant.

Either the Palestinians want a state or they want RoR. They aren't going to get both.

Let's be honest with each other. Virtually every poll of the Palestinians indicates that they are going to insist on RoR. You've given me no reason to think different. The Israelis understand this. They also know that the demand for RoR is inconsistent with any meaningful two state solution, or any peaceful solution. So the question they have to ask themselves is why they should withdraw the Occupation if it won't bring them peace? Perhaps it will surprise you to read that I think that they should do just that. The Israelis should fully withdraw from the West Bank and let the Palestinians have their state even if they won't renounce RoR; even if they won't sign a peace agreement. It might not bring peace, but it will bring clarity and resolution, and that may be all that the Israelis, or anyone can expect.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. You don't have the right to decide unilaterally what demand can be met or not.

When we talk about Right of Return that means different things to different people.

Is Israel willing to recognize what it did in 1947/48 and make amends for that?

Do you envision 8 million Palestinian refugees flooding back? I don't see that. Their villages are GONE! My relatives in Gaza have no desire to return to Ashdod, for example, yet they all insist on "right of return."

I think that issue can be worked out.

[aranthus]

23. Of course Israel has the right to decide what demands it can meet.

Now, you may argue that my analysis of what Israel can do is wrong, but that's a different issue. Except I'm not wrong.

You say, "When we talk about Right of Return that means different things to different people." That's true to a limited extent, but you can only stretch the meaning of "Right of Return" so far, and in this case, the meaning isn't very elastic.

You ask, "Is Israel willing to recognize what it did in 1947/48 and make amends for that?" I have two things to say about that. First, that's not demanding Right of Return. It's demanding some recognition of Israel's accountability for the conflict, and responsibility for it's resolution. That's fair, but if that's what the Palestinians want, then stop calling it Right of Return. The second issue, is what is the relative accountability of the parties for the conflict. Unfortunately, here we come right back to the old intractable issue, whether or not we call it Right of Return. That's because RoR is fundamentally based on the Palestinian belief that Israel is totally responsible for the conflict and its results. It is tied into the argument that Israel wouldn't even exist except for the creation of the refugee problem, and that the Palestinians are refugees because of the creation of Israel. I believe that Palestinian understanding of the conflict is manifestly false, as do most Israelis (and most responsible historians). Violet Crumble recently directed me to a Report of the International Crisis Group which described the problem in this way:

"Paradoxically, as has been noted, Israelis oppose any acknowledgment of a right of return, even in the context of an agreement that would significantly constrain its implementation, while Palestinians insist on it, even in the context of an agreement that would give it little practical meaning." (ICG fn. 74, Page 11).

I wrote a response to this statement which can be summarized as, "In fact, there really is no paradox; merely the ICG’s failure to appreciate the implications of its own research."

The Palestinians hesitate to accept Israel’s legitimacy; precisely because doing so would undercut their own. The Palestinian political ethos grew up around demanding the right of return which is itself based on, and intertwined with, de legitimizing the Jewish state. Today, the demand for RoR has become a surrogate for continuing the fight. The flip side of this for Israel is that accepting a RoR is tantamount to admitting to the world, and especially the Arab world, that Israel has no legitimacy. That’s why no sane Israeli government could ever agree to the RoR, even if the Palestinians solemnly agreed that not one of them would return. Unfortunately, as the ICG report indicates, the Palestinians have turned RoR into a zero sum game.

Now if the Palestinians would accept some sort of acknowledgment of responsibility from Israel short of agreeing to RoR, that might be worked out. Do you think that they would? Do you think that the Palestinians would ever recognize their own accountability for their refugee status? How about the Arab states?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. Would Palestinians accept responsibility for their ethnic cleansing?

If you believe Palestinians are responsible for being ethnically cleansed in 1947/48, I think you are diabolical.

That's the only word I can find that describes the rationalization of such evil actions.

The Right of Return must be negotiated. Period. It can never be given up prior to legitimate negotiations. Period. What would actually be agreed to remains to be seen.

All I'm saying is that the 8 million person influx you folks envision isn't going to happen. Right of Return does not equal the "destruction" of Israel.

[sabbat hunter]

25. If RoR does not mean

going back to their original villages (or moving in to israel), etc. What does it mean then?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

28. The refugee issue must be dealt with. As I said, my husband's family supports RoR

and wouldn't dream of moving from Khan Younis to back to Isdud, which is now called Ashdod in Hebrew.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. The Palestinians have officially accepted Israel's legitimacy...

The Palestinians hesitate to accept Israel’s legitimacy; precisely because doing so would undercut their own.

Are you using some strange personal definition of 'Israel's legitimacy' that doesn't mean Israel's existance being accepted? Because the Palestinians have accepted the existance of Israel...

Also, I posted a link to a book of the Right of Return. Did you read it? It's just that yr trotting out exactly the same thing where yr personal definition of RofR happens to be the most extreme one possible. There is NOT going to be any sort of peaceful resolution to the conflict where Right of Return isn't addressed by means of actual return for some refugees, compensation and repatriation for others, a return of many to the new Palestinian state, and acknowledgement from Israel of its own wrongdoing that led to the refugees being dispossessed...

[shira]

30. You mean the PLO did, but not Fatah or Hamas

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/18/1003800/dahlan-fatah-never-recognized-israel

Of course, the PLO's recognition of Israel was as honest as their renouncing of terror and revoking provisions of the PLO covenant calling for Israel's destruction.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. The PLO as representatives of the Palestinian people did...

The recognition was a very legal and official one. Of course there's zealots around who like to ignore reality and call it all lies, but those of us who don't run round calling the opinions and views of those we disapprove of lies tend to understand the importance of the Letters of Mutual Recognition...

http://www.un.int/palestine/peace/p_b.html

[shira]

32. Hamas was elected as representatives of the Palestinian people, and Hamas does not recognize Israel

And then there's Fatah, which does not recognize Israel either.

Facts matter to rational, objective people.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. But the PLO did. And the document is an official and legal one...

Facts matter to rational, objective people.

[shira]

43. And that signed peace of paper by the PLO is worthless considering terror never stopped,.....

....the PLO charter was never amended, and no group within the PLO today agrees with recognition of Israel now (including the elected Hamas).

Besides, demanding RoR is inconsistent with recognition of a sovereign Jewish homeland. If RoR is meant to be limited and not used as a weapon (and there's no evidence this is the case) then there's no reason 4 million plus refugees today cannot be given the choice now to live somewhere else other than within Israel. So the only purpose 4 million refugees exist today is to threaten Israel's existence that the PLO allegedly 'recognized'.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. It's an official document and as legitimate as other official documents...

Yr personal opinion has absolutely no bearing on that fact. I gave you a link to the Letters of Mutual Understanding in the hope you might actually read it,and it would dawn on you that it trumps any charters. Clearly that hasn't been the case...,

And seeing that second bit was about something that I wasn't talking about in this thread, I'll let you run that particular tangent of yrs on yr own. I'm not sure why after informing me in a recent thread that you hardly reply to my posts or answer my questions, why yr now so insistent on responding to my posts all the time...

[shira]

49. It means nothing when the PLO's leadership has no regard for it, inciting and indoctrinating...

...Palestinians to not recognize Israel or view it as legitimate.

And here's devastating proof of that...
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1181

Abbas 2006:
Hamas is not required, Hamas is not required to recognize Israel... It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel, all right?

The PLO, in 1993, recognized Israel. As Israel recognized the PLO. Every person has the right to say 'I do not recognize,' okay? It's your right. It is the right of every organization. But the government which will be formed, and which will function opposite the Israelis on a daily basis... every hour and perhaps every second, there will be contact between Palestinian ministers and Israeli ministers. And I ask - how can this government, or these ministers, not recognize their counterparts, and then solve people's problems?" <Abbas then gives an example of $500 million in taxes intended for the Palestinians, but put on hold by Israelis. The Palestinian finance minister has to come to an agreement with the Israeli finance minister regarding the transfer of that money.> "So how can he make an agreement with him if he does not recognize him?

So I do not demand of Hamas nor any other to recognize Israel. But from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes.

According to Abbas, the PLO doesn't recognize the legitimacy or existence of Israel - the PLO only recognizes their human counterparts in the Government of Israel so that the PA can function. Therefore, the PLO's definition of "recognition" is unrelated to the 1993 agreement.

Since it's clear Abbas still refuses to recognize Israel, Palestinian maps do not include Israel, and the PLO charter still calls for Israel's destruction........then the PLO, in word and deed, still does not recognize the existence or legitimacy of Israel.

Of course, if a piece of worthless paper signed in 1993 by the PLO is your evidence of progress by the PLO in the peace process, then you have little to no expectation of the PLO to follow through on any commitments throughout the rest of the peace process.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Stop ignoring everything that gets said to you...

It's an official document and as legitimate as other official documents...
Yr personal opinion has absolutely no bearing on that fact. I gave you a link to the Letters of Mutual Understanding in the hope you might actually read it,and it would dawn on you that it trumps any charters. Clearly that hasn't been the case...,


Yr personal opinion and links to some highly partisan 'pro-Israel' does NOT make that document unofficial and worthless.

Are you finished yet?

[shira]

51. You didn't read what Abbas said about that 'recognition', did you?

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Unlike you, I read posts I reply to n/t

[shira]

53. Well if you read it, you'd see it undercuts your argument

[Violet_Crumble]

55. No, it didn't. You as usual have no clue what my 'argument' is...

And even less interest in reading anything I say to you. And as I still have little interest in anything you've got to say, I can't really see this going anywhere but down from here...

[shira]

58. Consider Abbas and Dahlan's statements on what 'recognition' means, Palestinian maps w/o Israel...

....and no amendment to the PLO charter WRT destroying Israel.

That piece of paper signed in 1993 is 'good enough' for you, and proof to you of the PLO's honest commitment to the peace process?

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Yr still not bothering to read anything I say to you...

Not sure at all why you of all people would be wasting my time asking me questions, let alone incredibly idiotic ones like that....

[shira]

60. What kind of 'peace' are you looking forward to if the PLO proves it still doesn't recognize Israel

....by redefining its "recognition" of Israel, mass producing maps of Palestine w/o Israel, and not changing the PLO charter that calls for Israel's destruction?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Yep, yr definately not reading anything I say to you...

So here it is again:

Yr still not bothering to read anything I say to you...
Not sure at all why you of all people would be wasting my time asking me questions, let alone incredibly idiotic ones like that....

I would have made that a question, but as you informed me only a few threads back, you refuse to answer questions I ask you...

[shira]

66. I did read it and it looks like you believe that since the PLO signed a piece of paper, then the PLO

....has proven that it's serious about peace and definitely does recognize Israel's existence.

What I've shown is that despite signing onto a deal in 1993, the PLO has shown by word and deed that it really hasn't recognized Israel's existence at all, and therefore has made zero progress in a move towards peace and reconciliation.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. What is Israel's "legitimacy?" Has Israel accepted Palestine's "legitimacy?"

Is that a legal term?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I read it as meaning recognising its right to exist...

And when it comes to legitimacy, I'm pretty sure Israel hasn't issued anything of such a formal nature recognising the Palestinians right to exist. Which is what makes it kind of amusing when 'supporters' of Israel appear and start carrying on claiming the Palestinians have never acknowledged Israel's right to exist. Apparently it doesn't matter to them that Israel hasn't done it...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. Sorry VC.. .that wasn't really directed at you per se. I misplaced my post!

[aranthus]

71. The de facto Jewish government recognized the Palestinian right to a state.

When the Jews accepted the UN Partition Plan they de jure accepted the Palestinian right to a state, since the Plan called for an Arab state. Second, since Israel has never formally denied the Palestinian right to a state, there is no reason for Israel to formally recognize the right, any more than there is a necessity for France to recognize that the Germans have a right to a state.

[aranthus]

37. But they demand things that are inconsistent with that supposed recognition.

I haven't read the book that you cited, but I did read the full ICG report you posted (as opposed to the summary which you linked to). did you read my response? Here is the link to it. Response to ICG Report

As for Israel's legitimacy, I mean as a Jewish state, not merely as a state. The demand for a RoR is inconsistent with that.

[azurnoir]

38. why is it so important that Israel be recognized

as the Jewish state and not simply as Israel?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

40. Will it change names? The Jewish semi-republic of Israel?

[azurnoir]

41. Lol don't know however by Israel declaring itself

THE JEWISH STATE it would seem that there would be ramifications for it's nonJewish citizens does it not, not to mention lending an air of some sort of legitimacy to the already far to common whine that any criticism of Israel is an affront to Jews, making any criticism a "hate crime" of sorts

[shira]

45. It's a nation for Jews just as Palestine would be a nation for Palestinians.

Has nothing to do with religion, as Jewish atheists and Messianic Jews are part of the Jewish nation as much as any ultra-orthodox or reform Jew. The Jews constitute a 'nation' and always have (even before 1948).

The problem now is the same as the problem in 1948. Arab nations will not recognize a sovereign state of 'others' in their midst. It's not that they care for the rights of Arabs within Israel, it's a zero-sum game for them (recognizing Israel is recognizing 'defeat' no matter how cooperative and peaceful Israel is).

[azurnoir]

48. why are you going on about religion?

and yes we know that Jews are a nation and yes that was true in the figurative sense prior to 1948, but none of that has one whit to do with my post the only thing we've learned here once again is your relish for Palestinian defeat and your inability to recognize the fact that Arabs are not one large homogeneous mass are you avoiding the issues I brought up?

[shira]

54. Why are you bringing up strawman arguments?

I "relish" Palestinian defeat and I think Arabs are "one large homogeneous mass"?

[azurnoir]

56. You edited the post Shira I read it well before I had tie to comment

but time and again you have condemned all Arabs for not taking care of Palestinians often enough to make one wonder if you to not understand that there are Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese ect and that nations come before race or ethnicity at least for most

[shira]

57. LOL. Now this is funny. Which post did I edit now...which you read well?

[azurnoir]

61. well that explains your nonsensical answer to my post

at least you admit that you do know

[azurnoir]

63. you edited this part

The problem now is the same as the problem in 1948. Arab nations will not recognize a sovereign state of 'others' in their midst. It's not that they care for the rights of Arabs within Israel, it's a zero-sum game for them (recognizing Israel is recognizing 'defeat' no matter how cooperative and peaceful Israel is).

originally it read Palestinians not "them"

however your comment still does not address my original statement which had to do with the consequences for non-Jews living in Israel should Israel be declared the Jewish State, unless your statement that Israel would then a state for Jews was the answer, also is Israel demanding that rest of world recognize it as The Jewish State or only certain parts of the world?

[shira]

67. So I edited my original post from 7:05 at 7:06. You then read it carefully 6 hours later...

...and now claim I edited it (apparently after 6 hours)?

Do you wish to be taken seriously?

Being a Jewish state does not conflict with being a democratic state for all Israel's citizens. The worst, most discriminatory laws on the books can be easily proven to exist due to Israel's state of war in that region the past 60+ years. When the conflict ends, then all discriminatory laws would most likely end. Your problem is that some laws that are commonplace in other democracies - and therefore okay by your double standards - are bad if Israel practices them.

[azurnoir]

70. really I do not give a rip if you take me seriously or not

anyone who has read your posts knows what I have stated is most likely true and yes editing one word takes about a minute as to common place laws name some of those countries for us please

[aranthus]

64. Because that's what the war is about.

It's difficult to find a comparable situation elsewhere. The right of nations to statehood is so well accepted that no one even asks whether France is the French state or whether Japan is the state of the Japanese people. Everyone knows they are, and no one has ever disputed that those nations have a right to a state where their culture and values predominate. But the Palestinians made Israel's existence as a Jewish state an issue. The PLO charter expressly states that Jews are not a nation entitled to a state of their own. So express acceptance of the Jewish right to a state is a necessary condition for peace. The Jews deserve the same acceptance as every other nation, and since the Palestinians expressly denied that acceptance, then they have to expressly agree to it.

[azurnoir]

65. Is Israel demanding this from other nations or only Palestinians?

Israel should be recognized as the home of the Israeli people not all of whom are Jews, given the current political climate in Israel and the fact that very close to half of Israeli Jews polled want Israeli Arabs to be "encouraged" what ever that means to leave I think the fallout for non-Jews in Israel could be quite unfortunate to put it mildly

[aranthus]

68. Think about that for a minute.

Has France ever declared that the Jews don't have a right to a state? How about the US? Of course they haven't. Does France need to demand that Belgium officially recognize that France is the state of the French people? No, because Belgium has never officially denied it. So who besides the Palestinians have officially declared that the Jews are not a people?

[azurnoir]

69. So is this what you are going on about?

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

by your standard French Jews are not French nor are American Jews Anerican or British or Dutch we could go on but the point stands

Jews are a nation in the figurative sense not literal and you too have avoided my question what does this mean for non-Jewish Israeli's whose nationality as Israeli's would be null and void by this move, not to mention that such a move could render any criticism of Israel a hate crime something I am sure a few here would find quite desirable

[aranthus]

72. Bingo!

However, you are wrong to say that American Jews are not American, etc. By your standard, Americans of Italian descent aren't' American either. It's a nonsensical argument that misunderstands what a nation is and what the American nation is about.

I have no idea what you mean by a nation in either the figurative or literal sense. Can you explain that, please? As for what Israel being a Jewish state means for non-Jewish Israelis, what does France being a French state mean for non-French citizens of France? What does Japan being a Japanese state mean for non-Japanese citizens of japan? It means that they are minorities who have civil rights, but who are a minority culture.

[azurnoir]

73. that was not my standard Sir it was yours

If you actually need the difference between figurative and literal explained to you one would question how you were able to register for this site and you see there is a problem with this statement of yours

what does France being a French state mean for non-French citizens of France? What does Japan being a Japanese state mean for non-Japanese citizens of japan? It means that they are minorities who have civil rights, but who are a minority culture.

you see once you are a citizen of France you are legally French the same goes for any other country so are you saying that all Israeli citizens will legally be Jews?

[aranthus]

74. Then you twisted what I wrote to support your argument.

Saying that the Jews are a nation doesn't mean that they aren't American anymore than saying the Italians are a nation means that they can't be American.

Of course non-Jewish Israelis won't be Jews. Just as non-French citizens of France are culturally French. No, the ethnic French don't think that non-ethnic citizens of France are French. That's pretty much the way it is in most countries (the US is a significant exception because this country forged a new culture out of a variety of immigrant ethnicities).

By the way, let's look at the flip side. Assume for a minute that Israel granted full right of return and that all or most of the refugees returned. Or that a one state solution was implemented. Don't you think that Israel would then be an Arab state with a Jewish minority?

[azurnoir]

75. I think Israel would be Israel and Israeli's would be IsraelI's

what your asking is quite similar to asking would America be an African country if it had a Black majority

[aranthus]

76. You still don't get it.

Very few places in the world are like America, and very few peoples are like Americans. Blacks in America are Americans, by culture as well as citizenship. Black is a race, not a nationality. Arabs in America are Americans, because they live as Americans; they've become part of the American culture. But in Israel, the Arab world, Europe, and most other places it's very different. If Israel became predominantly Arab, then the culture of the state would be Arab. It would look like Jordan or Syria. Arabic would be the dominant or only state language. The values of the state would be drawn from Arab and Muslim values and not Jewish values (because the Arab/Muslims would be the majority). This is not about race; it's about culture; the way that people think and live; the ideas that animate the state. Majority rules. Do you think France would remain French if 80 million Poles moved in and became citizens? You aren't really that naive, are you?

[azurnoir]

77. No I get it perfectly

and please

This is not about race; it's about culture; the way that people think and live similar excuse are being used by teabaggers right now, what it is about IMO is ethnic domination not culture or any other thing

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. No one is required to recognize Israel's legitimacy as a "Jewish" state. Once that becomes

enshrined, so will the permanent second class status of its Christian and Arab citizens.

[azurnoir]

42. that already exists it may not be enshrined in law as such

however by insuring a permanent Jewish majority via the law of return for Jews only and ethnic cleansing why isn't keeping that permanent Jewish majority why the RoR is denied Palestinians

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Exactly...

There's a huge difference between a recognition of Israel's right to exist and recognising Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state. The latter is an agenda-driven demand where, as you point out, non-Jewish citizens are second class citizens in a state that isn't a state for them. Idiotic demands that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state are incredibly bizarre given that it's not the Palestinians who define what sort of state Israel is, but Israel itself.

[aranthus]

9. I agree with you.

Choice "e" is the preferred one, but how do the two sides get to that solution? As the article indicates, when the Palestinians say two state solution they mean with the RoR, which Israel absolutely can not agree to. On the other hand, when Israel thinks two state solution, they likely mean with at least some of the settlements left in place, which the Palestinians are unlikely to accept (I don't think they should). Even if Israel could be persuaded to move all of the settlements, the Palestinians seem intent on RoR. So how do they get to a real solution? I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I actually don't have an answer to this question myself. Maybe someone else does.