Centerfield

Jon, what exactly are you talking about with racism? Arabs who are Isrealis citizens (and there are plenty) have full rights of citizenship and free exercise of religion. Isreal does close its borders to people hell-bent on its destruction, but that's hardly racism.

Racism and extremist religious ideology cleary runs deep on both sides, but we are seeing opposite trends. On the Palestinian side, we have seen the rise of radical Hamas. In contrast, in Israel we have seen the rise of centrist Kadima.

But you must be careful in comparing the 2, Todd. Likud, while to the right of Labor, is hardly the Isreali equivalent of Hamas. And even Arafat's Fatah party, which just lost to Hamas, was hardly what one would call "progressive" in any but the most purely relative terms. Arafat was the terrorist behind the slaughtering of the athletes in Munich, remember. There are certainly some very hard core religious figures in Isreal, but they don't control the political parties.

Also, the Kadima approach to the Palestinians will not meet everybody's idea of appropriate. Essentially, they are pulling out of some of the settlements (but NOT turning the land over to the Palestinians), establishing what THEY think the right borders are for a long-term solution, then battening down the hatches and digging in, separating themselves as much as possible from the Palestinians to reduce the risk of suicide bombers and other terrorism.

Pat,

I wasn't attempting to compare the two; they are not really comparable. I just noting trends.

Ok. Sorry for jumping the gun on you.

> Jon, what exactly are you talking about with racism?

Well, it'd true that if I was an Arab, I'd rather be an Israeli Arab than a Palestinian Arab. That's saying very little, though. It's also true that it's gotten alot better, and continues to get better.

BUT.... One thing is the settlements themselves. If they felt that Arabs were equal, they wouldn't feel that it was right to steal land from Arab countries. They'd feel that the settlements should be ended with an apology, and they'd feel bad about Arabs displaced by the creation of Israel. They wouldn't allow the horrible situation of it being very time-consuming to travel between parts of Palestine (remember: most Palestinians aren't terrorists!). They wouldn't have required a court decision to force them to allow Arabs to join the (gov't-subsized) settlements.

Many Israelis DO feel these things are wrong, but most politicians apparently don't, or things'd be different.

Israeli Arabs are in the midst a series of court battles over equal treatment. That might sound familiar.

Check this out:
http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/story.asp?id=100

Jon, that answer calls for an examination of the entire history of the creation of Isreal, whether the land was stolen from them or bought, whether it was bought from willing sellers or sellers succumbing to threat of force, whether the Arab reaction to the general creation of Isreal was justified or not, etc., etc. To casually call it "racism" glosses over decades, if not centuries, of history.

And I'm not going to feel overly sorry for Palestinians whose lives are made more difficult because of Isreali checkpoints established to keep out suicide bombers. Sure, most Palestinians are not themselves terrorists. But their government sure does support terrorists... both the current Hamas government and the prior Fatah government. If the Palestinians don't like it, they can get their brothers and sisters to stop blowing themselves up along with as many civilians as they can manage to hit.

How about that Arab racism? Where do you stand on that?

The question of settlements is interesting. I thought that the policy of Israeli annexation of captured territory (in its act of pre-emption and national defense) was clearly stated as far back as the sixties. Settlements were a threatened possible consequence of Arab rejectionism.

The West "rejected" Arab rejectionism and terrorism. It took how long for Arabs to drop their position in light of its consequences, let alone begins their sincere task of reaching a true "settlement"? So without the start of construction and annexation, what kind of effect could this leverage have? Surely, annexation and the Israeli military brought them to the table.

Ironically, Palestinians now 57 years later add more international rejection to their plight by freely electing a "rejectionist" leadership. The learning curve is astonishing.

Note: A similar but more dangerous situation facing the international community AND Israel exists with Iranian rejectionism coupled wmd. In that regard annexation is not a threatened consequence of noncompliance.

Compassion and fairness do make a case for an olive branch on greater settlement withdrawal and a more equitable arrangement in borders, commerce and resources. I think Israel hardliners bring great pressure to bear however, in regard to present settlement policy given the real possibility that a Hamas/Al Queda connection will sprout on the very land, Israel gives back unilaterally. Kadima is just a coalition and its founder (once an ardent nationalist) lies in a coma. And Rabin lies in a grave. Throughout the transformation settlements have always been a hot potato. One can clearly see what role they have and will play in the eventual emergence of a greater settlement of the Palestian/Israeli dispute.

Jon and most other accusers of Israel have no idea what they're talking about.

Jon,

You are essentially equating Zionism with racism. The idea of maintaining a Jewish majority is inherent in the idea of the founding of Israel. Zionism was based on the idea of the Jews having a country of their own to protect them from anti-semitism. It only makes sense if you assume a Jewish majority; otherwise, what's the point? It had nothing to do with racism against the Arabs, nor does the idea of maintaining a Jewish majority (although, obviously, if the Arabs were less hostile to Israel in general and Jews in particular, it would be less of an issue). Now, you can argue that Zionism was a bad idea in the first place, that creating Israel where Arabs already lived was a bad idea, etc., but it wasn't based on racism but on the idea that Israel had been a historic home of Jews.

As for the settlements, I agree they are a bad idea, but they are a result of the 6-Day War, which was essentially an Arab attempt to destroy Israel (even though Israel fired the first shot). Most likely, the Israelis should have negotiated with the Palestineans rather than settling on the land. But, again, that is not racism but a military judgment on security. To say that the Israelis would not have settled the area if not for racism is downright silly because they didn't do it until the land essentially fell into their hands. (Yes, there were and are Israelis (and Americans)that think Israel has a biblical claim to all of ancient Israel, but that's a small minority and, even then, has little to do with racism against the Arabs.

Your silly comment that "Arabs are people too" is just a complete non-sequitur. No one is denying that they are people. That's not the issue. There is no doubt that racism against Arabs exists today in Israel and that they are, to a large extent, second class citizens even though they have voting rights. But that is a separate question from the idea of a Jewish majority or the settlements. You are assuming that the only legitimate goal for Israel is a secular dual state. That might be true under normal circumstances, but given the attitudes of the Arabs, I think it's pretty understandable that Israelis don't look at that as a viable alternative.

I don't know what the hell you mean by saying that Labor should lead on racism. How naive are you? The Arabs continually circulate the crudest anti-semitism, including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Maybe it's the Arabs that should take the lead on racism. I agree that there is a lot of mirror imaging going on between the Arabs/Palestineans and Israelis. And I am far from a defender of Israeli policy. But you seem to have simply adopted the trendy anti-Zionist rhetoric of the European left without really doing much thinking about it.

That's kind of the irony, right? That although Israeli Arabs may be second-class citizens in their own country, they still have more rights, freedoms, and representation than Arabs in any other country in the Middle East. Arab states that condemn the status of the Israeli Arabs, ironically, do not offer even those basic rights to their own citizens. And if the Israeli Arabs moved to any other country, they would find themselves with far less than they have in Israel (which is why they don't want to leave). I'm not justifying the emergence of an apartheid state (although I acknowledge it may one day happen), but the irony is that the "dispossessed" in Israel have more rights and freedoms than their counterparts in any Arab country... And no one seems to want to talk about that.

The other thing I find ironic is when people argue for a return to the pre-1967 borders... It's like, okay, so the Palestinians won't have a state then? A simple look on the map reveals that Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled the West Bank for about two decades prior to the Six Day War; Palestine did not exist as a political authority and the Palestinians lived in refugee camps in their own homeland. So the Arab regimes now demanding a Palestinian state are being somewhat hypocritical, since they themselves denied the establishment of a Palestine when they had the opportunity. Again, no one talks about that.

Ultimately, I do believe that the Palestinians must have their own state if there is ever to be peace in the region. And if Israel annexes some of the settlements (which, I think, is a bad idea, but it's likely to happen), they will have to compensate the Palestinians with some kind of concession in return-- otherwise, the issue will continue to be used to generate violence against Israel, which is not in their interest.

Pat said:
> that answer calls for an examination of the entire history of the
> creation of Isreal, whether the land was stolen from them or bought,

Good question. I'm sure some land was bought and some was abandoned without direct threats being brought to bear. But how much was acquired under direct threat or even by violence? I'm sure some was, humans being involved. How many left, not wishing to see themselves under the control of those who'd been deputized to administer British Palestine?

Marc said:
> You are essentially equating Zionism with racism. The idea of
> maintaining a Jewish majority is inherent in the idea of the founding
> of Israel.

Not inherently. If Jews had moved in without displacing existing Arabs, that wouldn't've been racist. However, what on earth was fair about throwing out people or intimidating into leaving those already living there? What was fair about the UN mandate creating a state for the benefit of one people at the expense of others? As it is, it looks alot like UN-sponsored ethnic cleansing to me.

Do I think Israel should cease to exist? No, that would be an evil just as great. One ethnic cleansing cannot make up for another. That, to me, is the lesson of the creation of Israel.

Marc said:
> given the attitudes of the Arabs, I think it's pretty understandable
> that Israelis don't look at that as a viable alternative.

Certainly, I'd say that Arab racist anti-Zionism is evil. Most of the states that surround Israel behave far worse than Israel.

But that doesn't give Israel a get-out-of-racist-standards-free card. Terrorists are a small minority even in the PA - the evidence is overwhelming that most Hamas voters were voting against Fatah corruption resulting from long monoparty rule. Arafat was deeply unpopular because his indulgence in terror was seen as preventing hopes of peace. It's surely even less popular among Israeli Arabs; wouldn't a pro-terrorist man want to move?

What's fair about holding ALL Israeli Arabs responsible for that minority? Should Britain have held onto Ireland just because the PLO existed?

Bobby noted:
> So the Arab regimes now demanding a Palestinian state are being
> somewhat hypocritical, since they themselves denied the
> establishment of a Palestine when they had the opportunity. Again,
> no one talks about that.

Yep! And, of course, there was the famous refusal to take any Palestinian refugees.

Jon,

Whatever you think about the original idea of Zionism or how it was implemented, the point was to have a "Jewish" state, ie, one in which Jews could not become a minority. Otherwise, what was the point of Zionism? To say that's not inherent in the idea of Zionism (and, thus, the creation of Israel, which was the goal of Zionism)is like saying it's not inherent in the idea of democracy to have elections. Again,you can certainly argue about whether Zionism was a good idea in the first place and whether Israel should have been placed where it was. But I don't see how you can get around the idea of a Jewish majority in a Jewish state. You can also argue that Zionism is outdated and that the solution is a single secular democracy. But that's different from what you said, which seems to be that the idea of a Jewish majority stems from racism toward the Arabs. If the surrounding peoples were blue-eyed Scandinavians, the Zionist idea would still call for a Jewish majority. Otherwise, why not have all the Jews move to New York?

In fact, the UN didn't create one state at the expense of the other. It ostensibly carved out two states, but the Arabs were not willing to accept the existence of Israel at all. Now, I'm not naive enough to think that the Israelis didn't do a lot of pushing; most of the new history suggests that the Israelis were far from pure in this regard. But it's not fair to blame the UN for this. And, if the Arabs had not declared war on Israel as soon as the state was announced, it's more likely that an equitable settlement could have been worked out.

Racism exists everywhere; I don't know why Israeli racism toward Arabs, regrettable as it is, is worse than racism that exists throughout the world. The point is that Israeli racism is a social phenomenon just as racism is here or anywhere else. It's not inherent to Israel or Zionism as you seem to imply.

Jon, what you seem to object to more than anything else is the idea of "Jewish" nationalism, ie, the idea that a country should be based on an ethnic or religious identity. And, by today's standards, Zionism is probably an anachronism. But, at the time of Israel's founding, most Jews thought that a Jewish state was the ONLY way to insure the survival of the Jews because assimilation had not worked out too well. I'm quite willing to grant that Zionism as it was ultimately executed was a flawed concept, but that's with hindsight. And I happen to think that Israel squandered a golden opportunity after the Six-Day War to resolve the situation on a more equitable basis. But I object to the idea that Israeli racism explains all of the issues involved.

Jon,

"Arafat was deeply unpopular because his indulgence in terror was seen as preventing hopes of peace."

I don't think the evidence supports that view among Palestinians as the major dissatisfaction. Corruption and the effects of the destruction in infrastructure and services that terror created was the issue. If terror was THE issue, Hamas would never have been elected. Abbas clearly was making more headway than Arafat did or Hamas with its rejectionism could. At election time, Hamas commanders were running from Israeli missiles strikes while firing their own from Gaza. Voters who elected Hamas knew full well the international condemnation that would follow a Hamas victory and the likely impact it would have on the international aid coming in. So how was electing Hamas a vote for peace or prosperity, or a refutation of terror? Palestinians decided to elect a rejectionist party which shows after 57 years the unrealistic possibility of co-existence before 1948 and the reason history unfolded the way it did.

"And, of course, there was the famous refusal to take any Palestinian refugees."

Perhaps the lessons learned when governments did take in Palestian refugees wasn't lost on subsequent Arab leaders.

"One ethnic cleansing cannot make up for another. That, to me, is the lesson of the creation of Israel."

Sad that is the only lesson you see.

Marcus pontificated
> the point was to have a "Jewish" state, ie, one in which Jews
> could not become a minority. Otherwise, what was the point of Zionism?

Like every other '-ism' out there, there were as many versions of Zionism as Zionists. Some thought Jews should be a majority, some thought there should only be Jews, some thought there should just be a refuge for Jews, etc., etc..

> It ostensibly carved out two states ...

...out of what? A hole in the map just waiting to be filled in?

At the time, it seemed humane, but they were wrong. It also seemed humane to Jefferson to plan for deceiving American Indians into moving voluntarily, rather than being slaughtered wholesale. Standards change, and IMHO this is one of those times.

> what you seem to object to more than anything else is the idea of
> "Jewish" nationalism . . . I object to the idea that Israeli racism
> explains all of the issues involved.

Where did I write these things?

maxtrue grumbled:

> So how was electing Hamas a vote for peace or prosperity, or a
> refutation of terror?

None of the above. It was a vote against corruption. Like you yourself said in that same para:

> If terror was THE issue, Hamas would never have been elected.

It is deeply troubling that Hamas was elected, though.

> which shows after 57 years the unrealistic possibility of co-existence
> before 1948 and the reason history unfolded the way it did.

So it was those damned Arabs' fault that they got tossed off their land? Because they would've resisted violently? Imagine that.