Hagel: Israel's Jewish identity is non-negotiable issue in any Mideast deal

[oberliner]

President Barack Obama’s controversial candidate for the post of U.S. Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, believes that in any Middle East peace agreement there is only one issue that is not negotiable: Israel’s Jewish identity.

The former Republican senator from Nebraska, described by conservative Republicans and Jewish critics as “antagonistic” towards Israel and even as a “borderline anti-Semite” wrote in his 2008 book America; Our Next Chapter that any US president is required “to engage actively in the dangerous and politically risky business of peacemaking. We know that a peace settlement will not happen if the parties are left to their own devices.”

However, Hagel added, “there is one important given that is not negotiable: a comprehensive solution should not include any compromise regarding Israel’s Jewish identity.”

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/hagel-israel-s-jewish-identity-is-non-negotiable-issue-in-any-mideast-deal.premium-1.492429

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Pretty low bar

Does anyone think that the Israelis would ever consider that as a bargaining chip? Under any circumstances?

[aranthus]

9. But it's what the war is about

Israel wants to maintain its Jewish identity, and the the surrounding Arabs want to destroy that identity.

[Ken Burch]

10. It's not about destroying that identity...it's about ending the oppression of the Pals

If a REAL two-state deal could be worked out(and that means two PERMANENT states, not just a statelet-on-sufferance for the Palestinians that could be yanked away at any time, as the PA turned out to be) I truly think you'd get the vast majority of Palestinians to accept that, and if they did, the rest of the Arabs(many if not most of whom do, in fact, want to move past all of this)would follow suit.

It serves NO purpose to keep trying to reduce this to "They hate the Jews! They hate the Jews"-and besides, if it was based on that, it wouldn't be possible to militarily crush the Arabs into NOT hating them. You can't BOMB people into tolerance.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

12. It's not about ending the oppression of the Pals.

Israel doesn't care. Israel just wants their land.

[Ken Burch]

13. That's true...but I was talking about what it means on the OTHER side. n/t.

[oberliner]

40. You seriously think that's true?

"Israelis just want their land" - you endorse that statement?

[Ken Burch]

42. The Israeli government...not ALL Israelis...

You altered my words unfairly there. I recognize there is a progressive faction of Israelis who do not obsess on land before all else, and those people have my admiration. Having said that, I believe you owe me an apology for falsely implying that I was speaking of the entire population.

And clearly, the current Israeli coalition government(which has a good chance of being kept in office with even WORSE coalition partners, such as Naftali Bennett's hate party) has reduced Zionism to nothing more than "redeeming" the land...to taking land for land's sake. Netanyahu and his allies care nothing for the humane, democratic values Zionism was founded on and meant to represent. They care nothing for the egalitarian dreams of the founders of the state. And they don't want peace or care at all about the lives of the Israeli soldiers and civilians their policies bring to a violent end.

The one hope there is for any positive end to the situation is for the Left parties to win as many seats as possible...especially Meretz and the left wing of Labor. The hawks are betraying Israel with their territorial obsessions and their insane insistence on changing the Palestinian leadership, and with their insistence on dehumanizing and demonizing ALL Palestinians for the acts of a few.

[oberliner]

47. I didn't alter your words

I cited the poster above whom you seemed to be agreeing with - and asking if you did indeed endorse what they wrote.

Thank you for clarifying - though I still disagree with your analysis.

[oberliner]

54. No I didn't

Those weren't your words - it was the other poster.

[Ken Burch]

59. Oh...it was a cross-posting thing.

n/t.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

53. Argue your way out of this comment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/07/naftali-bennett-interview-jewish-home

In an interview with the Guardian, Bennett said he did not intend to waste the next four years "babbling about Israel and the Palestinians", and defended his plan to annex most of the West Bank in the face of international opposition, which was the "result of ignorance".

Or...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9688134/Ariel-Sharons-son-Gilad-calls-on-Israel-to-flatten-Gaza.html

Gilad Sharon, the son of Ariel Sharon the former Israeli prime minister who was felled by a stoke in 2005, called on the country's armed forced to crush terrorism in Gaza by laying siege to the Palestinian territory.

Mr Sharon, who is also a major in Israel's reserve forces, said the government should force the leadership of Gaza to capitulate by cutting off all supplies.

"There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing. Then they'd really call for a ceasefire," he wrote.


You see, when one cobbles together obscene comments from patriots like like Naftali Bennett and Gilad Sharon one can clearly see the writing on the wall. Couple that with the Swiss cheese that is the West Bank of today, how Netanyahu braged about killing Oslo, and it is not s stretch to imagine a greater Israel encompassing most if not all of the PA territories.



Now let all the fools rush in to explain why there must be a translation error, ehem, and that all the bad things said about Palestine are really good things...for Israel.

[oberliner]

55. Bennett is dreadful

It is embarrassing that so many Israelis support him.

Reminds me of when Pat Buchanan had that strong showing in the Republican primary a few elections ago.

Or Huckabee and Gingrich more recently.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

57. "It is embarrassing that so many Israelis support him."

And you have a problem believing that my statement could be true?

What's embarrassing is how he may represent the new right: making the old right look like doves.

If this kind is the future for Israel then the Palestinian cause is done and another Sudetenland crisis is born.

I'm sure many will be jumping for joy if/when that happens in private but call it horrible in the open. Know them by their works.

So yes, from that a-hole's perspective, his parties perspective, Israel wants the land and all that go with it: aquifer, natural gas and and an end to Palestinian statehood.

The fact of hundreds of thousands of Israeli invaders/settlers exist on PA land is undeniable.

Their refusal to leave is unquestionable.

Their government's culpability in letting these invaders stay is clear.


So yes. It will be more than just embarrassing if that bastard gets a shot at creating a greater Israel on the backs of the oppressed.

[aranthus]

15. Not in the real world.

That isn't what Hamas says. It isn't what the BDS folks mean when they talk about right of return being the foremost goal of their movement. It isn't what the PA means when it says that the Palestinian diaspora isn't going to return to the proposed Palestinian state. Who are these Palestinians who say what you think they say?

[Ken Burch]

43. The BDS folks don't want a Judenrein Palestine...they want a secular, democratic state

You can call them naive(a unitary state isn't workable at this point, perhaps not ever, and certainly not without what might be a decades-long reconciliation process between the Palestinian and Israeli Jewish communities, both of whom have an equal history of suffering in this conflict and both of whom have an equal right to redress of their grievances against the other side), but you can't fairly call them haters.

[aranthus]

44. The leaders want an Arab state in place of the current jewish state.

Omar Barghouti and the other Palestinians who created the BDS movement have exactly that in mind. They know what RoR means. They are quite open about it. Everyone else is just a useful idiot with no excuse for their foolishness.

[oberliner]

46. Israel is a secular, democratic state

In fact, it is one of a very small number of those in the region.

[Ken Burch]

49. Not a secular democratic state that treats all as equals.

Not in the real sense. If it treated all as equals, for example, it would NEVER have crushed those harmless Bedouin villages in the Negev(an area where no one but Bedouins will EVER want to live, as sixty-four years of Israeli history have already proven).

I support Israel's existence, but it has to stop all repression of the Bedouin, of the rest of the Israeli Arabs, and of the Palestinians...That state can't gloat about its liberalism while keeping another people under perpetual military occupation. And it is impossible that maintaining that occupation could ever change the occupied people for the better. No one has ever been made liberal or tolerant by being persecuted.

[oberliner]

50. No country in the world treats all as equals

Israel is definitely secular and definitely a democracy in a very real sense.

It's not a utopia though.

[shira]

76. Name one that doesn't practice any sort of discrimination. n/t

[Ken Burch]

97. I support the end of all discrminiation in ALL states.

And it's hardly utopian to say that the Israeli government should leave the Bedouins alone, for example. All they're guilty of is trying to live in a part of Israel that nobody else WANTS to live in. What difference does it make if they build villages there?

Ben-Gurion was trying to make the "settle in the Negev" sale sixty-four years ago to Israeli Jews. He never could. None of his predecessors ever have or ever will either. It's time to let that one go...and there's nothing to lose by doing so.

[Scootaloo]

71. ...if you're a Jew, sure

Otherwise it's a Jewish elitist state, and you are addressed as a "cancer" or an "infiltrator" by your government, and your "nationality" is separate from your "citizenship" and thus your citizenship is perpetually in question and is second-rate to the Jewish elite who are set for privileges and benefits you do not get. Like, you know... getting to build a house. Or traveling abroad and coming home when you're done without getting a finger up your ass at Bengurion. Or staying abroad for a few years and being allowed to come back at all.

Separate but equal, even if the conditions were equal (they never are) is itself inequality. A state that enshrines such a principle may employ democratic systems (voting, for instance) but it cannot legitimately be called a "democracy."

[shira]

75. Sure, it's not a democracy despite being in a state of war its whole existence....

What would any other western democracy have done, given the same situation in a terrible neighborhood of failed, totalitarian states?

They'd have ended the problem over 60 years ago.

Permanently and brutally.

But at least we could then call them a democracy 60 years afterwards, right?

[Scootaloo]

78. That's the great thing about fantasy Shira, you can come to any conclusion you like

As there is no precedent and no way to falsify it. If you want to imagine Sweden going on a rampage against Arabs that makes Israel look like a gentle lamb by comparison, feel free. Just so long as you realize where fantasy ends and reality begins.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

80. You're asking the wrong person to come back to earth.

Israel is a shining beacon of all that is right and just in the world to some.

[shira]

88. Sweden isn't surrounded on all sides by fascist, rightwing, theocratic tyranies....

In fact, neither are western democracies like the USA, UK, France, and others within NATO. However, what they do to their opposition during war is far and away more brutal than anything Israel has done WRT their Arab neighbors. The war crimes committed in all those wars by western democracies dwarf what Israel does. But it's Israel that is portrayed as the "worst".

It's racist to hold Israel to a standard no other western democracy is held to.

How about equal standards from now on? Deal?

Israel would then compare very favorably to pretty much all other nations. But we can't have that, can we?

[aranthus]

90. Why racist?

I have asked others on this thread this question (and not received an answer), so in fairness, I should ask you as well. Holding Israel to a higher standard than other countries, or a standard higher than is reasonable, is unreasonable, unfair, and potentially antisemitic. But how is it racist? More specifically, antisemitism is as evil as racism, but it isn't strictly the same thing is it?

[shira]

91. I'm speaking the language of my opponents. A language they well understand. n/t

[aranthus]

92. Fair enough, but the question remains:

Why do they understand it that way?

[shira]

93. They use the racist or rightwing label to either embrace or reject arguments

Unlike liberals, as far as certain Leftists are concerned, arguments shouldn't be examined on the basis of their merits or on well documented facts. Arguments are instead embraced or rejected based on the ideological (PC) labels that can be attached to them.

It turns out they're projecting when they accuse Zionists, for example, of overplaying the antisemite card. That's exactly what they do WRT the racist/rightwing label. And nothing gets under their skin more than being called out for their racist views.

[delrem]

98. aranthus/shira = bubblespeak

The standards of international humanitarian law are not "racist".

[Scootaloo]

99. Then why try to force a comparison? It's speculative fantasy, Shira.

Actually, you know what? There is a rubric to compare Israel to other western "Democracies" - Most of them were, after all, colonialist occupiers of other people's lands, and exercised varying degrees of brutality against resistance.

Measuring Israel up against other western colonial occupiers could indeed give us a scale.

Just off the top of my head, I imagine Israel would fall somewhere around the France / United States region of such a scale... which is above Belgium, but quite below the UK, for instance. And still below Sweden by a good margin.

But let's address the really stupid thing you just said (I know, it's hard to pick just one but I'll try)

It's racist to hold Israel to a standard no other western democracy is held to.

First, you assume that I'm lenient towards western democracies. Oh please. That's just ludicrous. What, do you think I'm a proponent of the US's invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, our continued occupations, our drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, our support of dictatorships around the world and rightward pressure against other nations? You think I defend my nation's own treatment of its minorities? You think I look back at the history of the US - or any other western nation and give an un-equivocated "Good job!"?

Welcome to DU Shira, I hope someday you will grow the spine to join the rest of us beyond the bubble of I/P

Second, you're correct that I hold Israel to a different standard. Your mistake is thinking that I hold it to a higher standard. That's ludicrous as well; why would I hold a nation that is clearly not up to the standards of progressivism and egalitarianism expressed by western democracies (flawed as they are) to those standards? Even Israel's apologists fall back on comparing Israel to its basket case neighbors rather than to actual democracies in the western world, after all.

I don't expect miracles and marvels to come out of a regressive, militarist, racist, pseudo-democratic state. But I do still expect some basics, like adherence to human rights, adherence to treaties, and legitimate efforts to improve to the point where it can someday be classed with actual western-style democracies.

And don't you dare bitch; you want Israel held to a lower standard.You get so very upset if it's held to a high standard, after all. Maybe you'd be happier if I regarded it with the standards I hold failed states to? When Afghanistan does something shitty, I just figure, "well, that's Afghanistan, what the fuck can you expect?" - should that be my response to Israel?

[shira]

100. Israel should be held to the same standard as other western democracies. It isn't.

And the reason why it isn't is due to racism. Plain and simple. It's held to a MUCH higher standard than any other western democracy.

Israel compares favorably to any other western democracy out there, bar none. And that can be proven too. Of course it compares favorably to its neighbors. It should be judged in comparison to its neighbors and held to the same standards. They have to get along with their neighbors. Their neighbors need to be held to a standard if that is to ever happen. That you hold them to zero standards is racist (the racism of low expectations).

Now, do you really want to compare Israel to the UK or Sweden?

[Scootaloo]

101. You're right, it isn't.

It's held to a lower standard, as I just pointed out to you.

See Shira, I don't think you actually want standards of any sort to be applied to Israel. You seem to want it to be held beyond such things.

[riverbendviewgal]

2. Paul Rand is in Israel right now

telling them USA needs to cut down funding Israel..I would think that is antagonist.

[Ken Burch]

14. uh..."Paul Rand"? n/t.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

61. Rand Paul.

Paul Rand was a well known designer. He created the IBM logo, UPS logo, Next logo (see Steve Jobs) and other works.

Paul Rand is also well know for being deceased for 16 years.


Rand Paul is a well known nutcase.

[riverbendviewgal]

67. oops, i meant Rand Paul

Thank you for correction.

[demwing]

102. you were thinking "Ayn Rand"

For obvious reasons

[pennylane100]

3. What does that mean.

I believe that at least twenty percent of the citizens of Israeli are not Jewish, they are mostly Arabs. I think that if we make a statement that our Anglo Saxon heritage is non negotiable, I would have no idea what that implies.

[aranthus]

4. Seriously?

Do you think it doesn't matter that English is the language of the country? That the foundational culture derives from that unique mixture called the English people? Would you care if 100 million Chinese moved in and changed the national language to Chinese, and ran the place like China? Do you not think that your society has anything unique and positive about it?

[pennylane100]

5. Your answer is very disengenious.

That is now what is being implied by me nor does it deal with my question. If you do not have a real answer, maybe you should just drop it. I asked what does it mean for the identity of a state to be other than the identity of all the ciitizens. There are many non Anglo Saxons who live here and as many of them were brought unwillingly to this country, they would have a problem with it being described in a manner that does not seem to include them.

I asked the same question of Israel. There are many citizens there that are not Jewish. I just wondered why the idea of a Jewish Identity is non negotiable as it does not seem to include all the citizens. Also, you sound a little paranoid about our being overrun by Chinese people, what is with that.

[aranthus]

8. No it isn't.

The majority culture is Jewish. The majority culture of France is French. In England it's English. What's so hard to understand? If the majority of Inhabitants of Israel were Arab Muslim instead of Jewish, the the majority culture--the identity of the state--would be Arab/Muslim. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Scootaloo]

6. So you're saying the United States was 100% right to refuse Jewish refugees of WW2

In order to preserve that "anglo-saxon character?"

Were we also right in exterminating ten million Indians and displacing another 5 million to establish that nation with its "anglo-saxon character"?

Jim Crow was, of course absolutely essential to keep their bantu bullshit out of our proud English heritage!

And this is why we need a shoot-to-kill policy at our southern border, right? To preserve our white culture and way of life?

Executive Order 9066 was essential to preserve our caucasian, christian nation from a fifth column of the ravening yellow hordes of the orient?

Excuse me if I disagree with your position.

[aranthus]

7. Of course not.

People who come to this country assimilate. They become part of the American people. That's as true of Jews as it is of Arabs, Japanese, Muslims and anyone else. Our culture is not "white." It's American. That includes all races. The rest of your post is nonsense since it's based on a misunderstanding of what I posted.

[delrem]

11. Then you're in effect saying that your own post was nonsense speculation. nt

[aranthus]

16. No. What speculation?

I was pointing out that if the population of England became Chinese, and lived as Chinese instead of as English, then it wouldn't be England. Culture matters. How is that speculation?

[delrem]

17. You do understand the distinction between assimilate/not-assimilate? nt

[aranthus]

18. Yes, I do.

The assumption of my first post was that the supposed huge Chinese immigration to England would not assimilate. That's because3 the intent of the right of return folks is that the Palestinian will not assimilate, but will simply take over.

[shira]

19. Palestinians assimilating or not due to RoR is irrelevant....

So long as justice is served and they get RoR, the consequences do not matter.

[delrem]

21. What nonsense!

Of course the consequences of justice matter!
But for those consequences to be of justice, justice must be served, but you *deny* that. You want to *deny* RoR, or give it only a token acceptance that would not grant the non-Jewish returnees the jus sanguinis that is automatically granted a Jew - contradicting justice.

How can I even have a discussion with a person with ideas like yours?

By the way, and speaking of "justice", the Palestinian refugees do indeed have a very strong case! Personally, I don't think that they should wait for collaborationist Palestinian authorities like Abbas (who would sell them out in a heartbeat!) to take a lead - because it'll never happen. Rather, I think class actions before the UN should be taken by legal scholars working with e.g. BADIL. I think it's ridiculous that explicit racists should be setting the vocabulary and agenda re. the situation of the Palestinian refugees, esp. those working with Israel's hasbara.

[shira]

22. Calling it nonsense is racist.

I'm for justice.

Full RoR, baby!

Whatever ensues happens. It is what it is.

If the majority Palestinian population votes the MB in (Hamas) like the Egyptians just did, that's the will of the people and it's racist to be against it.

Racist.

I had to get the word 'racist' into this post 3x.

[delrem]

23. OK. You did. congratulations. nt

[shira]

24. Do you agree? If RoR results in a vote similar to Egypt's....

...in which the MB (Hamas is an arm of the MB) is put into control of the new Israel/Palestine with sharia and all, it's okay.

Justice > Consequences.

And it's racist to be against such a scenario. Democracy rules, everyone gets their say. Tough shit if Hamas is installed as the ruling government.

Right?

[delrem]

27. Just means > Just consequences (generally). Yes.

I don't agree with your ridiculous scenarios - or the ridiculous scenarios of your colleague who transposes 100 million hostile "Chinese" into "England" (or a horde of hostile Hispanics overrunning the USA...) - or any other kind of ridiculous scenario which doesn't posit *justice on the ground* in *Israel/Palestine*.

Justice on the ground is in itself a game changer. Just as racism on the ground is a game changer. Why? I'll tell you: because justice on the ground requires people who believe in the ascendancy of some concept of justice for all, and racism on the ground requires people who believe in the ascendancy of some racially defined abrogation of justice. There is no problem with people of some race/religion/orientation/etc. believing in the endurance and advancement of that thing; so long as the way that this is done does not conflict with justice for all. So long as the way this is done does not involve the ascendancy of the interests of some particular race/religion/orientation/etc over justice for all. These same arguments apply of *any* progressive social movement - and in every case the arguments work in favor of justice. It is only when there's conflict with justice that we talk of "racism" or "sexism" or "religious bigotry" etc.

In your imagination Palestinian RoR means millions of Hamas terrorist killers would have free reign to live in and roam Israel, killing Jews at will. That isn't what it means in international law. International law neither endorses that fucktard Abbas's position, that he and the people he falsely represents have no RoR but have a right to "visit" (how can this man be a *leader*????), nor does it endorse belligerents in war (Hamas/Israel). International law is about ensuring the safety and rights of civilians, of innocents - and esp. of all those millions of innocent people caught up in the sweep of war. International law is predicated on the possibility of peace, and in the strength of will of those who can recognize that peace is due.

[shira]

30. RoR in my scenario simply means millions of Palestinians can vote like Egyptians....

...and if they vote Hamas into power like the MB, at least justice is served. Is such a scenario justice for all? Well, not for seculars and liberals but it's a good thing they're over there and we're here safe in the West. We enlightened progressives won't pay the consequences of that scenario. Let the lowly 3rd worlder Palestinians and former Israelis live like that.

I'm not arguing millions of Palestinians are all Hamas terrorists, etc.

But if it happens (Hamas voted in) so be it. Right?

Hamas is the epitome of racism, bigotry, hatred of women, gays, seculars, christians, and jews. If I understand the progressive agenda correctly, it's racist not to allow them into power by the vote via RoR. Of course Israel/Palestine becomes exponentially more racist once Hamas is in power. But this is irrelevant since RoR must be allowed to happen. The greater good is RoR and the vote. Justice. If the vote is for Hamas, theocracy, sharia and fascism, it's still for the best. Otherwise we're all racists for being against it.

Agree?

[delrem]

31. RoR means millions of Jews will vote for Jewish Home Party!!!!! nt

[shira]

32. Fine, but they're outnumbered. Abbas sucks according to progressives....

...like us, so that leaves the door open for Hamas.

That's okay, right?

At least we see to it that there's RoR and no voter is disenfranchised. What comes after is none of our business and we should move on to advocate for something else. Palestinian nationalists are happy. Civil rights.....so what? Good thing we don't have to live over there.

Am I on the right track?

[delrem]

33. You don't understand the meaning 'progressive'. sheesh.

The term isn't even applicable here. Abbas sucks *because he's a total quisling* - and by that measure he's totally degraded either by a "left-wing" or "right-wing" measure, or by a "pro-Israel" or "anti-Israel" measure, or any kind of measure of human worth.

If Israel went half way and allowed RoR, and equal respect and rights for the Palestinians who took refuge from war, that "Hamas" would hardly even be an option. Hamas would be neutered. In conditions where equal rights are granted to all, Jew and non-Jew alike, a truly democratic *Israel* is an option. That option is *exactly* what international humanitarian law wants Israel to give to those refugees who fled the land it claims as its own. Haven't you even read the applicable international law? Don't tell me that Israel, with all its power to do right, to work for peace, has no import, or way to implement internationally recognized norms of justice. That's just false.

[shira]

38. I'm assuming Israel allows for RoR. I'm not arguing against it.

But I don't see how Hamas wouldn't be an option. At the very least, Hamas rule is a strong possibility...

Hamas was voted in democratically (Palestinians say b/c of PA corruption unless you don't believe them) and Hamas is still preferred over the PA. In fact, there are no Palestinian politicians (with a significant following) calling for a secular democracy (guaranteeing equal rights for all). Those calling for a liberal, pluralistic, secular pro-women, gay, christian, jewish society have no political support. They'd be labeled Zionists by their Hamas and PA political opponents for advocating liberal/progressive values.

It's a strong possibility. Look around the mideast at secular democratic movements in the region fighting for liberal/progressive rights. Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc. Why would the Palestinians be any different? And you wonder why Israelis (both Jewish and Arab) don't wish to risk their freedoms?

But again, that doesn't matter as the consequences are secondary to justice. So when (not if) Hamas comes to power - and their rule is magnitudes more racist than any secular, western democracy - that's okay. When Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc... declares all out war on the Jews after RoR, or at best complete ethnic cleansing from the region, so be it. That's the price of 'democracy'?

The question really is...How many have to die to achieve one state?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113416921#post1

Realize that the vast majority of Israelis don't want it. It would have to be imposed by force (war). Same WRT Palestinians who by force will not want a secular liberal democracy. How far are we progressives willing to go to see that justice is served?



ps,
If the Israelis and Palestinians have to be forced into this secular one-state solution by progressives, that makes progressives the colonialist racists who know better and what's best for the natives & indigenous over there, right?

[delrem]

39. Your scenarios and questions distract from the issue.

The issue is as simple as the fact that Palestinian war refugees *exist* and a body of international humanitarian law *exists* according as which those refugees are described as *protected persons* having certain enumerated *rights*. For a victor in war to disrespect and disregard those enumerated *rights* constitutes a *war crime*.

RoR is an internationally recognized *ethical norm*, a right guaranteed to war refugees regardless of their race, creed, sect, nationality, sex, ... And because that right exists in international humanitarian law, ethnic cleansing *contravenes that body of law*.

RoR is an *universal* right, not something "given" by progressives or right wingers or any political faction.

For thas reason IMO the Palestinian refugees should be consulting with the very best battery of legal advisers and experts that can be summoned, to the end of taking their case before the international court ASAP - not waiting for some politician or political party to decide if and when they may or may not.

Your scenarios, your fears and fevered imaginations of worst possible outcomes, are *your problem*, not mine, not the refugees. They are psychological projections of various awful, scary, possible futures, and because that's what they are, and because you and your group feed on them, they are impossible to pacify. If these constant psychological projections make it impossible for you to get your head around the simple concept of respect for persons, of equality of persons before the law, and of respect for international humanitarian law regarding issues dealing with war refugees, that's your personal condition. But your personal condition has no bearing whatsoever on the actual issue of a Palestinian refugee's RoR.

[shira]

41. I have my answer now. The consequences are irrelevant....

You're not interested in realistic outcomes, nor do you have a plan 'B' should the shit hit the fan.

You simply do not care.

Whatever happens, so be it.

Now I wonder if our fellow progressives here who are for RoR feel the same way.

===========

You should know if there are only 2 choices for Israelis....

a) RoR, sharia, Gaza style rule, no freedoms and the works....

vs.

b) Going to the dock for opposing RoR...

Then it's no contest.

You realize that, right?

[delrem]

60. NO! I said above that I believe that (just means -> just consequences).

I repeat this every time I communicate with you. Every time.

The one principle that governs my thinking, so far as I can make possible, is the principle that all persons should be equal before the law. This is my one and only absolute, in discussions such as these. In EVERY case where my thinking goes wrong, where it tends to contribute to the continuation of war rather than to making a break from the past so as to champion the possibility of peace, it is because I've let my thinking be twisted by heated rhetoric and even more heated emotion into forgetting the absolute centrality of this principle.

IMO this principle, the understanding and elucidation and actual *imposition* of this principle even in the smallest part, is the grandest achievement of humankind - and OUR generations, beginning over the last few hundred years, are tasked with assuring that this accomplishment takes root. With understanding the absolute NECESSITY of making this accomplishment universally real.

I don't speak of "principles" and "necessities" lightly.

I encourage you to read the relevant law re. the rights of refugees. I encourage you to take into consideration that more than half the population of Gaza consists of refugees - and that consequently the political situation in Gaza is *artificial*, and so can be *rectified*.

[shira]

64. Right. Should the shit hit the fan, war breaks out, mass murder, Hamas takes power....

....with a majority vote, and everyone is 'equal before the law' (meaning no one has basic rights) then so be it.



A complete betrayal of progressive/liberal values.

Like it or not, you're pimping for a totalitarian, extreme rightwing, theocratic, fascist takeover of all land b/w the river and sea. The leaders of Hamas and the PLO are so far off the charts rightwing and here you are advocating that over a secular, progressive, genuinely democratic sovereign nation. You're advocating war and far more bloodshed than this conflict has seen in all years combined.

Tell me how your position is different than that of the warmongers from Hamas, Iran, and Syria. All you're doing is rewarding these countries for denying millions of refugees their basic rights over the last 6 decades. You're rewarding these countries for their persecution of refugees - caging them up in camps over 60 years in apartheid conditions rather than taking them in as every other country would do.

How is your position on this any different than theirs? They couch their position in the language of human rights and justice too, btw.

==========

Bottom line is that there's no western, secular, democratic country on the planet that would allow for that w/o a fight. Israel won't ever go for it. They certainly won't be the first in the history of the planet to do so.

That you expect Israel to do this, and no other nation, is simply racist. That you advocate only for the destruction of Israel is racist. That you believe what Israel has done is worse than any other country - and that they alone are deserving of annihilation - is racist.

==========

Lastly, there is no relevant or binding International Law that makes Israeli denial of Palestinian RoR a criminal act. That's a wet dream of yours. The best you have is a non-binding UNGA resolution. And even that calls for refugees who'd come back with peaceful intentions. And yeah, it is pretty relevant that 4 in 5 refugees already live in what they see as Palestine. At worst they're internally displaced and do not fit any definition of "refugee" that would apply to any other people in the history of this planet.

You have no answers for any of the above. Nothing. You know it, I know it. Your position simply cannot be defended.

You are on the wrong side of history. When people look back at this a century or 2 from now, they will not be speaking kindly of your political position.

[delrem]

65. That you detest Palestinians is no argument. READ IT:

http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpDocuments)/63635181C7F4F474C12574AD0040D307/$file/Brief-No.8.pdf

[shira]

66. Like I said. You know your position is defenseless. You've got nothing.

And we can play this game of 'hating palestinians' and such all day long.

I'm not the one here advocating for all-out war against the Jewish state.

You're also using a racist double-standard against Israel wrt RoR.

[delrem]

73. .

[shira]

77. IDP's do not fit the legal definition of refugees. Try again.

Essentially, all you're doing is covering for the Arab world's war crimes.

Blame Israel for 1948 if you wish. I can't change your mind, but the perpetuation of the refugee situation is entirely the Arab world's fault. We all know why they've cynically caged up refugees for generations in apartheid conditions. These are horrid war crimes.

You're party to that. As well as the UN and other nations that have allowed this to fester for so long.

Congrats.

[delrem]

62. NO! I said above that I believe that (just means -> just consequences).

I repeat this every time I communicate with you. Every time.

The one principle that governs my thinking, so far as I can make possible, is the principle that all persons should be equal before the law. This is my one and only absolute, in discussions such as these. In EVERY case where my thinking goes wrong, where it tends to contribute to the continuation of war rather than to making a break from the past so as to champion the possibility of peace, it is because I've let my thinking be twisted by heated rhetoric and even more heated emotion into forgetting the absolute centrality of this principle.

IMO this principle, the understanding and elucidation and actual *imposition* of this principle even in the smallest part, is the grandest achievement of humankind - and OUR generations, beginning over the last few hundred years, are tasked with assuring that this accomplishment takes root. With understanding the absolute NECESSITY of making this accomplishment universally real.

I don't speak of "principles" and "necessities" lightly.

I encourage you to read the relevant law re. the rights of refugees. I encourage you to take into consideration that more than half the population of Gaza consists of refugees - and that consequently the political situation in Gaza is *artificial*, and so can be *rectified*.

[pelsar]

74. nice principle....

and its correct........

now.....
do liberal democracies have a right to protect themselves using iliberal methods?...or do populations have the right to vote in fascist regimes that take away civil rights from their minorities, that result in laws that hang homosexuals or drag bodies/people through the streets as an acceptable punishment....

because the majority has decided that its the proper way and they had a "fair and just voting process"

this is a question of principle....nothing more, its application its history and consequences comes later, if its even relevant to you

[delrem]

79. These are questions that can be asked of any democracy, anywhere.

Most democracies have developed constitutions, bills of rights, and/or a body of common law that acts as a form of fail-safe against such abuses. Yet even so, the people must be vigilant - e.g. in this century there are many in the US who worry about an erosion of civil liberties, and there have always been problems re. ethnic profiling, selective enforcement, etc. US cities have burned. Ethnic/racial fears have ebbed and flowed, never died out and have often spun to fevered pitch. The US is a very volatile democracy. Yet the country endures, its ideals endure and, IMO, over time and with scary fluctuations, burn ever brighter.

You might not think that the US case is a fair comparison. Yet still, consider the case.

Now there's a US president who doesn't belong to the standard economic/ethnic profile demanded by folk like Bill O'Reilly, who voices the fears of millions. Consider the fear-mongering of O'Reilly etc., how loud and furious those voices were and are, as compared to the actual demographics of the US presidential election 2012:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9666345/US-election-2012-how-US-voters-have-changed.html
Those demographics mirror *exactly* the deepest fear of O'Reilly and co., and furthermore show that O'Reilly speaks for a significant percentage of the "white" US population. Those stats show that if "white" US citizens had their druthers, Romney would have won in a landslide.

But in this case I say that we can *prove* that the feared *cause*, namely a demographic shift that allows an upset win by a feared candidate (feared for ethnic reasons) has not and will not lead to the feared *consequence*. The principle of fear is unlike the principle of justice, that a just cause entails a just consequence. The principle of fear, that a feared cause will inevitably lead to the feared consequence, is not valid.

I suspect that the idea behind your question is an argument or idea that, were Israel to respect RoR for all refugees, including non-Jews the majority of whom are Arab, this would be a danger to civilization (*because* they are Arab) -- such that the ethnic cleansing of the Nakba was a good thing and must be sustained. This argument or idea is to the effect that Arabs aren't worthy of justice and international humanitarian law may be denied in this particular ethnically discriminatory case - and in fact to the effect that international humanitarian law should not be universal, and so should not rightly even be called 'law'. Thus the argument or idea is that the principle of fear trumps the principle of justice. I don't see any merit in that idea or argument.

Finally: I have no arguments that would take away your fears. Any more than I have arguments that would take away Bill O's fears. I can only hope that over time, justice of some sort will prevail.

[pelsar]

84. thats not what i asked...

plus you make the wrong assumptions...i can only guess because racism is foremost on your mind and you're having a difficult time understanding that not everyone sees everything through the prism of racism..if that is the case you are in serious need of some "eye opening"...i shall try my best but its a step by step process:

so i'm asking again;

do liberal democracies has the right to use illiberal methods to protect their democracies....i mentioned that as a question of principle

and please lay off the ability to "prove' anything that is related to 'what if" future predictions, i'm not religious and hence dont believe anyone can actually know what would have happen "if only"....nor what will happen...

[delrem]

85. liberal democracies have no right to commit war crimes. nt

[pelsar]

86. your making assumptions....again..tsk tsk tsk

..so far i've been called a racist by you and someone who excuses war crimes and all i asked was the principle question if liberal democracies can use illiberal methods.


i can only guess that building up a foundation of what you may or may not believe by starting at its base is not something you want to do, perhaps because once the base beliefs are established you'll find yourself in a hypocritical position with reguards to israel and the Palestinians? with your "fair vote" fair consequence? but i've skipped ahead, were still on the foundation.

care to answer the question.....can liberal democracies use illiberal methods to defend their democracies?
its a principled question, dont worry there are lots of grays between the yes and no. (i live in the real world where nothing is so simple)

___________________
and just for the record, whereas i have nothing against blacks, arabs, women...i just really really hate short people, i cant stand them, their voices, the way they walk and they're all just so DUMB! so i do admit to racial tendencies, so you really can call me a racist, i'm am going to therapy for help, to a midget therapist, though she's pretty stupid.

[delrem]

87. Start a new thread if you don't intend to continue the discussion in this one. nt

[pelsar]

89. its the exploration of your comments....

just means -> just consequences

i think that is incredibly simpistic and historically wrong, but rather just say that, I believe its better to find out how you even got there and how you define "just consequences" in parrallel to your versions of intl law and human rights....

lets see if they mesh like yim and yang or dont mix like oil and water

[delrem]

96. That's the contradictory of what you said.

You said: "Nice principle... and its correct"
So to open your discussion with me you lied about your own intention.

I say: Discussion closed.

[pelsar]

103. i like the principle....

and for some its correct in theory for others not so (i didnt write clear)
but i see your following what i have discovered is the classic "progressive line" which is basically comes down to an intolerance to even discuss/research/ the line of thinking that gives you your beliefs.

beliefs that appear to be a direct contradiction to the other "foundation views" that the progressives seem to hold.
_____

either you know they exist and pretend they don't, because you dont want to face it, or you dont believe they exist and find it insulting that one would even mention it...which is it? (I know you wont answer, just as you wouldn't even answer my simpler question previous to this- they are very difficult questions....not for everyone

[delrem]

104. After directly contradicting yourself, you're now attacking "progressives"?

Aside from the effrontery of the lie that you began and now continue with, and now your baseless attack on "progressives" in general, the rest of your post contains no content except defamatory innuendo aimed at me.
I note the similarity of aranthus' general attack on "leftists"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=27637

Just how right-wing will you guys admit that you are?

And you expect me to submit to an interrogation?

discussion *closed*.

[pelsar]

105. yes...i am definitely attacking the "progressive' viewpoint here....

I find it contradictory, dangerous and in need of adjustments.... and its definitely aimed at your comments.

this is not an interrogation...its is an exploration, a place you clearly do not want to go

having a belief that contains contradictory beliefs held at the sametime is reserved for the religious. The "progressives" usually disdain religion as some kind of primitive belief, yet so many hold the same concepts. The religious always have a "book" a wise man, to go to which "protects them, gives a "wiser defense" that us mortals cannot always understand.

The progressives do not have that luxury and end up using some fluid man made concepts, cultural specific, hierarchal suspect, politically adjusted, imperfectly applied "intl law" human rights". And when they are applied wrongly, imperfectly with potential consequences that make the "original sin" far more morally correct than wrong....well its time to call it out.


and if i'm baseless, then you wouldnt spend so many posts avoiding the most simple and basic questions, now would you?

Granted, one does not expect to be attacked "in ones home" where one prefers a "sounding board", but theres no fun in that now is there?

[aranthus]

25. Ya notice how anything Leftists don't like they call racist?

Even when it has nothing to do with race?

[delrem]

29. hate those "Leftists", eh? nt

[aranthus]

34. No. Just pointing out the truth. n/t

[delrem]

20. Oh, that's just the most bullshit racist comment I've ever heard! nt

[aranthus]

26. How is national identity race? n/t

[delrem]

28. blllllll.......tttthhhhhhttttt!

[aranthus]

35. So you have no answer to a simple question? n/t

[holdencaufield]

36. Did you really expect one?

I mean an honest one?

[aranthus]

37. No. n/t

[Scootaloo]

72. Funny thing...

That's exactly what happened in Palestine. And that's a situation you endorse heartily. So what's the deal here, Aranthus? Why do you hold one racial group to a totally different standard than you hold others to? Why is it bad if the Chinese were to do it to England (which they're not) but good when the Jews do it to Palestine (and they did)?

Under your "assimilation" argument, shouldn't the Jews of Palestine be speaking Arabic and living under an Arab-dominated parliament? Isn't that how you assure us immigration is supposed to work? The immigrants assimilate, become part of the local culture? Doing otherwise is terrible and awful and evil and bad?

Why the different standards, Aranthus? I'm curious.

[aranthus]

82. Because Israel and England are existing nation states, and Palestine never was.

England is a sovereign entity. It can let in who it wants and can set restrictions on those people. In England, you either follow the rules set down by the existing society or they don't have to let you into the country. Same in Israel. Since Palestine is not and never was a country with that right to keep people out, and since the entire point of Jewish immigration into the area was to recreate the Jewish state that had existed there previously, the rules are different.

And apparently you didn't understand my Chinese example. I'm certainly not talking about the Chinese who live there now, or even those immigrate now. I posited an uncontrolled deluge of hostile to England people intending to take over. That is the intent of RoR, so the example is similar.

Third, where do you get the idea that Jews are a "racial group?" Or Palestinians? Why is it that Leftists are so hung up on calling everything "race", when it so obviously is not?

[shaayecanaan]

45. Presumably, then, the culture of Israel is not Jewish, but Israeli...

unless you are prepared to relegate Arab Israelis to being second class citizens.

[oberliner]

52. Arab Israelis?

What about Palestinian citizens of Israel?

By definition, they have Israeli citizenship but a Palestinian identity.

[aranthus]

56. Neither of course.

Israel is the name of the state. Arab citizens of Israel are Israelis, as are Jewish citizens. But the majority nation is Jewish, not Israeli. And no, that doesn't make the Arabs second class citizens at all.

[shaayecanaan]

58. Therefore, Israel is a Jewish and Arab state, is it not?

rather than only a Jewish state.

[aranthus]

63. How can it be a Jewish majority state and an Arab majority state at the same time?

It is a Jewish state with an Arab minority.

[shaayecanaan]

69. Its a state of Jews and Arabs

in the same way that the US is a country of Black, White, Latino and Asian people.

[aranthus]

83. You don't understand what America is.

It is definitely not "a country of Black, White, Latino and Asian people." It is a country of Americans of different ancestry. Most countries, including Israel, are different in that they are based on a single ethnicity.

[shaayecanaan]

94. I understand perfectly well what America is...

it is a genuinely pluralist democracy, dedicated to the equality of all its citizens, whereas Israel is not.

Countries that expressly dedicate themselves as being for the benefit of one ethnicity and not another are actually quite rare. Latvia, Estonia and Armenia are some of the few examples.

"British", "Canadian" or "Singaporean" are not ethnicities. They are nationalities. A person becomes Canadian upon obtaining a Canadian passport.

To maintain that the statement that "Canada is the state of the Canadians" is equivalent to "Israel is the state of the Jews" is quite disingenuous, although the hasbarados here have been doing it for years now.

[Scootaloo]

70. No, I understand what you posted just fine, Aranthus

Until very recently in our history, yes, the US defined itself as "white." Maybe that category was a little more flexible than some other nations' definitions of white, but it was white people setting policy. it was white people holding office. it was white people calling the shots, writing the laws, enforcing the laws, representing the nation, just straight-ticket white. To the point where a very large number of white people were absolutely and completely CERTAIN that the end of segregation would be the end of the United States - their antecedents believed the same about the end of slavery, and I've heard it about reparations for Indians as well. Basically, "American" and "White" were considered synonymous - everyone else was "outside" of the consensus of what was "America."

Also, immigrants do not "assimilate." They do not dissipate into the sea of the prevailing culture. They give, they take. How much of each varies; some individuals or communities absorb so much and impact so little that only their genes can point you to another origin. Others are hte opposite. And there's lots of in-betweens that mutate and grow all on their own.

Cultures and ethnicities are not static, Aranthus. Believing that yours is somehow set in stone, immutable and unchallengeable is ahistorical and ignorant. Trying to set a state on such mutable characteristics is doomed to failure and pain for everyone involved. A house built on sand will not stand, all that stuff.

[samsingh]

51. he needs to do more for Israel

[shaayecanaan]

68. Maybe he could offer them free beer Fridays (nt)

[samsingh]

81. safety and protection would be better.

[shaayecanaan]

95. Well, Israel does have around 300 nuclear warheads...

as well as a $3 billion military subsidy each year from the US, the most generous aid package in the history of man. Not to mention that Israel has not faced a serious prospect of invasion in forty years. I am not sure that there is much more that America can do to ensure Israel's safety, if indeed it required ensuring any further.

But I suppose ultimately, he regards his job as being concerned primarily with the safety and protection of the United States, given that he is an American politician, and not an Israeli one.