|
MonsieurChoc posted:Israel isn't Nazi Germany. Israel is Manifest Destiny America. That's much closer, yeah. With numerous Trails of Tears, once just in its infancy.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Yeah but did pioneer children get on telegraph and pony express social media to eagerly trade pictures of not Custer, but random drunk mountaineers hanged in the territories for shooting three Nez Perce in front of a saloon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah but did pioneer children get on telegraph and pony express social media to eagerly trade pictures of not Custer, but random drunk mountaineers hanged in the territories for shooting three Nez Perce in front of a saloon? I believe it's called the Western dime novel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah but did pioneer children get on telegraph and pony express social media to eagerly trade pictures of not Custer, but random drunk mountaineers hanged in the territories for shooting three Nez Perce in front of a saloon? You ask the question as if you really want to know the answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I'd say that the claim that the two state solution has "failed" and needs to be abandoned for some variety of one-state "solution" that is vastly less plausible than even a two-state solution is currently seems to be held exclusively by supremacists and fanatics on both sides who fantasize about a single state where their kind run everything and the other side gets what's coming to them. I'll have you know that there are still many of us naive dreamers who haven't given up hope of establishing a secular, multi-ethnic democracy in the region. You're free to laugh at that idea though. Everyone else seems to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:I'll have you know that there are still many of us naive dreamers who haven't given up hope of establishing a secular, multi-ethnic democracy in the region. You're free to laugh at that idea though. Everyone else seems to. It could've worked in 1967, maybe, but at this point we need to be kept as far apart from each other as possible. Co-existence is just not gonna happen in our current (racist, ugly, petty) climate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
Edward Said gravitated towards the idea before he died, feeling like the Palestinians and Israelis are so conjoined historically, and that the two state process had failed so often, that there now that there is no other way - it would force them to learn to live together. I fear it's the sort of thing only an academic can believe. - Elsewhere, see this article about the ongoing international press coverage of the speech drama, complete with this gem from Haaretz: 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Edward Said gravitated towards the idea before he died, feeling like the Palestinians and Israelis are so conjoined historically, and that the two state process had failed so often, that there now that there is no other way - it would force them to learn to live together. I fear it's the sort of thing only an academic can believe. It worked in South Africa. Of course in that case you had international consensus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Netanyahu has elevated himself to the status of Messiah I see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 11:46
|
|
botany posted:It worked in South Africa. Of course in that case you had international consensus. Yes, I suppose that's true. Though consider the time scales: there are still people alive that remember the Palestinian dispossession quite well. I suppose the best thing you can say about the one state idea is not any time soon, whereas two states that hate eachother is a much likelier short-term proposition. HGH posted:Netanyahu has elevated himself to the status of Messiah I see. Someone Photoshop him onto an image of the pope.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yes, I suppose that's true. Though consider the time scales: there are still people alive that remember the Palestinian dispossession quite well. I suppose the best thing you can say about the one state idea is not any time soon, whereas two states that hate eachother is a much likelier short-term proposition. I don't think remembering the Nakba is the main hurdle here, anyone alive during the last couple of years has more than enough to be mad about. The lack of international consensus is more important. In order for a one state solution to work, there would have to be a significant investment from the international community with respect to safe-keeping, treating both sides as essentially hostile partners that have to be reigned in. That's not going to happen anytime soon, though the growing acceptance of Palestinian statehood makes me at least somewhat optimistic I might live to see a solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 12:05
|
|
botany posted:I don't think remembering the Nakba is the main hurdle here, anyone alive during the last couple of years has more than enough to be mad about. The lack of international consensus is more important. In order for a one state solution to work, there would have to be a significant investment from the international community with respect to safe-keeping, treating both sides as essentially hostile partners that have to be reigned in. That's not going to happen anytime soon, though the growing acceptance of Palestinian statehood makes me at least somewhat optimistic I might live to see a solution. You could say the same for people living under apartheid, I just mean to say that I/P is a bit fresher and has had less time to develop as a problem. I'm not sure this is a relevant factor, I'm just spitballing that it could be. Out of curiosity, if a lot of older Israelis died today, would the situation for the Palestinians be worse or better politically? I don't think it would even take international consensus; America moving on the issue would do obviously and by far the most (although there's a strong argument that a major consensus would follow America). And, indeed, moments when the US has been tougher on Israel have yielded positive results: Eisenhower's threats to yank Israeli bonds over Sinai, for example. I think the germinal issue in American politics was probably LBJ's strategy of going softer on Israel to help drum up support from the Jewish lobby on Vietnam - since then, presidents who are firmer on Israel have tended to suffer (e.g. HW Bush). Also, there wasn't total international consensus against apartheid, the Israelis make sure of that 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
quote:As far as the threat of an actual nuclear altercation between Iran and Israel, some people like to refer to former Iran President Rafsanjani’s musing that in such instance 8 million Iranians might die, but all of Israel would be destroyed. Disinterested posted:You could say the same for people living under apartheid, I just mean to say that I/P is a bit fresher and has had less time to develop as a problem. I'm not sure this is a relevant factor, I'm just spitballing that it could be. Out of curiosity, if a lot of older Israelis died today, would the situation for the Palestinians be worse or better politically?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 12:54
|
|
Xander77 posted:Worse in every way. Wonderful.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
I've always been amused at Israel flaunting it's essentially stolen nuclear arsenal while talking nonstop about the nuclear threat of Iran. Don't they regularly threaten to destroy the entire world if they happen to be threatened? Why is everyone OK with that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
HGH posted:I've always been amused at Israel flaunting it's essentially stolen nuclear arsenal while talking nonstop about the nuclear threat of Iran. The Samson doctrine was just preached by one somewhat higher-up military guy who has no influence on actual policy. No one in an actual position of authority has ever mentioned it. Possibly because Israel does not officially have a nuclear arsenal, and I am not sure why anyone is OK with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:The Samson doctrine was just preached by one somewhat higher-up military guy who has no influence on actual policy. No one in an actual position of authority has ever mentioned it. Possibly because Israel does not officially have a nuclear arsenal, and I am not sure why anyone is OK with that. What are you on about? Dimona? Oh, that's just a textile factory. Don't you worry you pretty little heads about that. Nucli-ar weapons? Never heard of 'em.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 14:50
|
|
Kajeesus posted:The Samson doctrine was just preached by one somewhat higher-up military guy who has no influence on actual policy. No one in an actual position of authority has ever mentioned it. Possibly because Israel does not officially have a nuclear arsenal, and I am not sure why anyone is OK with that. There's not much you can do to complain about a country having nukes once they already have them.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
botany posted:It worked in South Africa. Of course in that case you had international consensus. The Afrikaners and other whites were also a small minority there, and there was Mandela to guarantee that harm will not befall them if they yield. Nothing at all like the current situation in Israel, basically, although people think that if you say "apartheid" enough, the political situation will magically become the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The Afrikaners and other whites were also a small minority there, and there was Mandela to guarantee that harm will not befall them if they yield. Nothing at all like the current situation in Israel, basically, although people think that if you say "apartheid" enough, the political situation will magically become the same. The political situation is better for the Jews then it ever was for the whites though. They don't need a Mandela to guarantee anything when they're half of the population with most of the wealth and military assets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:The political situation is better for the Jews then it ever was for the whites though. They don't need a Mandela to guarantee anything when they're half of the population with most of the wealth and military assets. Wealth and military assets don't mean anything when you've got suicide bombers everywhere, or rockets coming down at random, uncontrollable intervals. One of the responses of the whites after Apartheid ended was to withdraw to closed enclaves or to flee the country, which was easy for them to do. Some Israelis could do the latter, but the former basically means keeping up Apartheid due to just how many Jews there are. And since they do, as you say, have the advantage, there is nothing pressing them to risk it. Finally, on an ideological level, the whole point of setting up Israel was for Jews to live somewhere as a majority, rather than at the sufferance of anyone. A situation closer to 50-50 is nothing like that. On the other hand, the worst case scenario could be just withdrawing to an approximation of the 1967 borders. That would be considered a major loss to Israeli right-wingers, of course, but they seem to lack the historical perspective of just how much of a win that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:23
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:On the other hand, the worst case scenario could be just withdrawing to an approximation of the 1967 borders. That would be considered a major loss to Israeli right-wingers, of course, but they seem to lack the historical perspective of just how much of a win that is. It's also more or less the only widely accepted basis in both scholarship and at international law.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
I don't believe Jews would be the only ones who would have to worry about violence in the event of an one-state solution. It's basically the bullet you have to bite down for both sides - there will always be radicals who won't accept any sort of compromise, the difference would be that said radicals would not be able to draw as much support when here would be a genuine democracy and prosperity to choose instead. And yes, if Israel would withdraw to 1967 borders they could keep their precious Jewish state. But they're not going to do that, and thus they are slowly digging the grave of Zionism, because the only way to do that in a couple of decades (honestly, probably now already, numbers are pretty high) is a Jewish civil war when the radical settler faction refuses to be uprooted. The world needs to financially strangle and internationally isolate Israel for anything to happen. Because America is going to stop this from happening for at least couple of decades, demographics don't look good for two states. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The Afrikaners and other whites were also a small minority there, and there was Mandela to guarantee that harm will not befall them if they yield. Nothing at all like the current situation in Israel, basically, although people think that if you say "apartheid" enough, the political situation will magically become the same. It's not the same because Israeli Jews are in a significantly more comfortable position than Afrikaners ever were. That doesn't mean it's not apartheid, it just means that ending apartheid won't result in a hugely dominant demographic with a justified grudge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Wonderful. I doubt people that grew up during a time when terrorism in Israel was routine serious business would be very moderate on the issue. Universal Conscription is also a very useful tool for getting everyone on the same page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Finally, on an ideological level, the whole point of setting up Israel was for Jews to live somewhere as a majority, rather than at the sufferance of anyone. A situation closer to 50-50 is nothing like that. I understand that this isn't something you're personally arguing, but if that was really the point of Israel, they wouldn't have put it in a densely populated Middle Eastern region.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I don't believe Jews would be the only ones who would have to worry about violence in the event of an one-state solution. It's basically the bullet you have to bite down for both sides - there will always be radicals who won't accept any sort of compromise, the difference would be that said radicals would not be able to draw as much support when here would be a genuine democracy and prosperity to choose instead. Well, the Jews mostly don't count the violence against Palestinians now, so that's not going to go into their considerations in the future. And "genuine democracy and prosperity" sounds like an empty promise to me. Counting Palestinians as citizens immediately drops an already struggling OECD country down to third-world status, and even rich European countries are having racist resurgences. quote:And yes, if Israel would withdraw to 1967 borders they could keep their precious Jewish state. But they're not going to do that, and thus they are slowly digging the grave of Zionism, because the only way to do that in a couple of decades (honestly, probably now already, numbers are pretty high) is a Jewish civil war when the radical settler faction refuses to be uprooted. They're likelier to do that than a one-state solution is to succeed. quote:The world needs to financially strangle and internationally isolate Israel for anything to happen. Because America is going to stop this from happening for at least couple of decades, demographics don't look good for two states. Demographics look pretty okay for two states. Moreso than for one state. And financial strangulation and isolation can also lead to an Iraq or North Korea situation. People seem to have this notion that if they only press enough obviously good things will happen, but the history of the efficacy of sanctions is spotty, especially when the ones sanctioned don't accept the legitimacy of these sanctions. Kajeesus posted:It's not the same because Israeli Jews are in a significantly more comfortable position than Afrikaners ever were. That doesn't mean it's not apartheid, it just means that ending apartheid won't result in a hugely dominant demographic with a justified grudge. If you say "one state" to most Jews, what I'm guessing they imagine is a state where you get the same suicide bombings you had in the early 2000's, except all those damned terrorists have support in Knesset. Beyond that, Israelis can look around at other multi-ethnic countries in the region and predict that they will fare similarly. Lebanon with its decades of civil war, Iraq and Syria's dictatorships followed by collapse into civil war and ISIS. Why would they choose that kind of fate willingly? Kajeesus posted:I understand that this isn't something you're personally arguing, but if that was really the point of Israel, they wouldn't have put it in a densely populated Middle Eastern region. It isn't some random place, it's a place where there already were some Jews, and that has a lot of historical and religious significance for Jews from all over. Early Zionists fielded trying to get more isolated colonial estates, but they were overruled by a majority that felt Zion was the place. They figured they could fight there better than dispersed all over Europe, which was also densely populated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Well, the Jews mostly don't count the violence against Palestinians now, so that's not going to go into their considerations in the future. And "genuine democracy and prosperity" sounds like an empty promise to me. Counting Palestinians as citizens immediately drops an already struggling OECD country down to third-world status, and even rich European countries are having racist resurgences. By genuine democracy and prosperity I was referring to Palestinians (Jews already have that). Most of them wouldn't choose war over having actual rights and a chance to succeed. And Palestinians actually have a chance at economic development when they're not prevented from doing it - they're surprisingly well-educated for once. They have a decent tax base. And international support wouldn't be meager either if the clusterfuck could finally be solved. Their combined (I+P) GDP per capita currently is at the level of Turkey or Croatia that's not exactly third world level. Absurd Alhazred posted:They're likelier to do that than a one-state solution is to succeed. Then that's going to happen. But I don't have low enough opinion of Israelis to think they would choose civil war, financial ruin and having to abandon their own homes over living in the same country with Palestinian. Absurd Alhazred posted:Demographics look pretty okay for two states. Moreso than for one state. And financial strangulation and isolation can also lead to an Iraq or North Korea situation. People seem to have this notion that if they only press enough obviously good things will happen, but the history of the efficacy of sanctions is spotty, especially when the ones sanctioned don't accept the legitimacy of these sanctions. Demographics aren't going to look good for two states when you have a million + Jews living all over West Bank by 2030. And unlike Iraqis and North Koreans, Israeli Jews, like white South Africans, are (for the most part) a wealthy cosmopolitan populace that would collapse within a year without the modern amenities, holiday trips, and all the other stuff first worlders generally take for granted. And their leaders actually depend on popular support. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:By genuine democracy and prosperity I was referring to Palestinians (Jews already have that). Most of them wouldn't choose war over having actual rights and a chance to succeed. And Palestinians actually have a chance at economic development when they're not prevented from doing it - they're surprisingly well-educated for once. They have a decent tax base. And international support wouldn't be meager either if the clusterfuck could finally be solved. Israel, excluding Palestinians in the West Bank, already has one of the highest inequality measures in the OECD. Adding the Palestinians in will just make it worse. You don't suddenly get prosperity with citizenship, it doesn't work that way. quote:Then that's going to happen. But I don't have low enough opinion of Israelis to think they would choose civil war, financial ruin and having to abandon their own homes over living in the same country with Palestinian. No, they would rather not accept that solution to begin with since they don't believe Palestinians would be part of a democracy as opposed to being led by a collection of terrorist organizations/militias. quote:Demographics aren't going to look good for two states when you have a million + Jews living all over West Bank by 2030. Still better than two states. If you have one state, those millions will want to keep "their" property over there. So you get the same economic and land-use disparities you have now, except Palestinians get citizenship. VS some of them at least getting removed, in the two-state scenario. quote:And unlike Iraqis and North Koreans, Israeli Jews, like white South Africans, are (for the most part) a wealthy cosmopolitan populace that would collapse within a year without the modern amenities, holiday trips, and all the other stuff first worlders generally take for granted. And their leaders actually depend on popular support. You have an unrealistic view of Israeli Jewish society. Most Israeli Jews are not wealthy and are not cosmopolitan. They are poor and increasingly religious and/or xenophobic. They also in many cases remember or hear stories from their grandparents about being chased out of various Arab and Muslim countries, and that's the ones who at least have some cultural relation to such countries, and would have seemed to be a starting point of Israeli assimilation into the region.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:It's not the same because Israeli Jews are in a significantly more comfortable position than Afrikaners ever were. That doesn't mean it's not apartheid, it just means that ending apartheid won't result in a hugely dominant demographic with a justified grudge. It's no apartheid. Its manifest destiny. And we all know how America regards manifest destiny: divine right, with no bad coming from it. Now, Palestinians have the option to convert to Judaism and integrate within Israeli society if they wish. Otherwise, they can maintain their status as anti-state activists without very many legal rights. Pray that a one-state solution does not come to pass with the next generation of Israelis in power, if you care at all for peace.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
I'd go so far as to say that the stereotype of wealthy Jews is racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Now, Palestinians have the option to convert to Judaism and integrate within Israeli society if they wish. Otherwise, they can maintain their status as anti-state activists without very many legal rights. I'm actually surprised not more Palestinians choose to do this, historically there was always a significant portion of Jews who opted to convert when push came to shove, though obviously an actual hurdle in the current circumstances is how difficult it is to make a proper orthodox giyur and how Israel only recognizes giyurim performed by the Israeli state rabbinate and other recognized orthodox rabbinates, which in turn could just turn away Palestinians or make it harder for them to convert.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I'm actually surprised not more Palestinians choose to do this, historically there was always a significant portion of Jews who opted to convert when push came to shove, though obviously an actual hurdle in the current circumstances is how difficult it is to make a proper orthodox giyur and how Israel only recognizes giyurim performed by the Israeli state rabbinate and other recognized orthodox rabbinates, which in turn could just turn away Palestinians or make it harder for them to convert. If Palestinians were converting en masse and begging to be recognized as Jews, I guarantee you, the international Jewish community would be applying quite the pressure on Israel. I'm not surprised that more Palestinians don't do this, as I'd imagine there's a great fear that other Palestinians would kill those who do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Israel, excluding Palestinians in the West Bank, already has one of the highest inequality measures in the OECD. Adding the Palestinians in will just make it worse. You don't suddenly get prosperity with citizenship, it doesn't work that way. OECD isn't exactly a benchmark where everything under it is third world, Jewish Israelis are still one of the wealthiest people in the world. And citizenship, right to vote, participate in the economy and move freely would be incredible prosperity compared to the Palestinians' situation at the moment. Everywhere around the world people who have been liberated have increased their prosperity as a consequence. Israel's stranglehold is so all-encompassing that just the sheer removal of it would in itself be a significant improvement in the lives of Palestinians. I'm not saying its going to turn into Sweden overnight, and Jews would have to share so they wouldn't be as well-off as today, but the point of sanctions and such is still to be made that preferable to what would be coming otherwise. If two states are still possible when the world will finally make Israel cut this poo poo out, great. If not, well, one-state with rights for everybody or bust. Absurd Alhazred posted:No, they would rather not accept that solution to begin with since they don't believe Palestinians would be part of a democracy as opposed to being led by a collection of terrorist organizations/militias. Even if the option was that, financial/societal ruin and international isolation, or war against other Jews? I'm not saying all Israelis would accept it (hence the radicals) but I'm saying like white South Africans they have other things they value more then keeping the lower race down. Absurd Alhazred posted:Still better than two states. If you have one state, those millions will want to keep "their" property over there. So you get the same economic and land-use disparities you have now, except Palestinians get citizenship. VS some of them at least getting removed, in the two-state scenario. Isn't most of the farmland and resources doled out and exploited by the state? I don't think the settlers themselves own much more then the house they live in. Economic disparities would obviously exist, but when there wouldn't be constant continuing stealing and exploitation going on, the gap wouldn't remain as massive, Absurd Alhazred posted:You have an unrealistic view of Israeli Jewish society. Most Israeli Jews are not wealthy and are not cosmopolitan. They are poor and increasingly religious and/or xenophobic. They also in many cases remember or hear stories from their grandparents about being chased out of various Arab and Muslim countries, and that's the ones who at least have some cultural relation to such countries, and would have seemed to be a starting point of Israeli assimilation into the region. What do you use as a definition for wealthy? Because beyond the Haredim I'm pretty certain all statistics indicate Israeli Jews are better off then the vast majority of the world. There are big cities that are international enough in character. There is technology, free press, education, free movement abroad. There is no comparison that can be made with say, North Korea or Iran, and history tells us pretty clear that Israel isn't exactly the best at accepting massive losses of any kind, be it military or economic (hence back when US wasn't still it's whipping boy it could bring it at the table be threatening it with economic damage). DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:If Palestinians were converting en masse and begging to be recognized as Jews, I guarantee you, the international Jewish community would be applying quite the pressure on Israel. Well, you have this Arab woman who ran for a position on the Jewish Home list, that's fairly similar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:OECD isn't exactly a benchmark where everything under it is third world, Jewish Israelis are still one of the wealthiest people in the world. It is a process that takes time. And will take longer if a one state doesn't include removing settlers from the best lands in the West Bank. Hell, gentrification is something that happens even in established democracies, and here it won't be starting from scratch. And who is to say that the same armed groups won't provide those disenfranchised with the same violent answers they did when they were still subjects rather than citizens? quote:I'm not saying its going to turn into Sweden overnight, and Jews would have to share so they wouldn't be as well-off as today, but the point of sanctions and such is still to be made that preferable to what would be coming otherwise. If two states are still possible when the world will finally make Israel cut this poo poo off, great. If not, well, one-state with rights for everybody or bust. Or an open-ended civil war as in Syria. That is also a possibility. An exceedingly likely one with time. quote:Even if the option was that, financial/societal ruin and international isolation, or war against other Jews? I'm not saying all Israelis would accept it (hence the radicals) but I'm saying like white South Africans they have other things they value more then keeping the lower race down. They don't see it as keeping the lower race down, they see it as defending themselves from terrorists. Would they rather face sanctions and live, or remove sanctions and die? That's how they see it. quote:Isn't most of the farmland and resources doled out and exploited by the state? I don't think the settlers themselves own much more then the house they live in. Economic disparities would obviously exist, but when there wouldn't be constant continuing stealing and exploitation going on, the gap wouldn't remain as massive, Pro forma, maybe. De facto, they own and control those estates. And who is it that is going to enforce otherwise? They can't even enforce removing the outposts that Israeli law itself deems illegal right now. You are presupposing an equitable one state when with given conditions you are going to have a one state where the administration is overwhelmingly controlled by Jews, and if we're talking 2030, probably a significant portion would be controlled by settlers and their enthusiastic supporters. quote:What do you use as a definition for wealthy? Because beyond the Haredim I'm pretty certain all statistics indicate Israeli Jews are better off then the vast majority of the world. Citation needed. What is "vast majority of the world"? quote:There are big cities that are international enough in character. There is one, maybe: Tel Aviv. quote:There is technology, free press, education, free movement abroad. If you're rich, a lot of it has been bought by a few wealthy individuals, if you're rich or are in a good neighborhood, if you are a Jew and have the money to travel, respectively. quote:There is no comparison that can be made with say, North Korea or Iran, Why not? They both did very well for themselves before sanctions. Tehran used to be a much more international city. But sanctions and particularly academic and cultural BDS are exactly the kind of thing that lets fundamentalists and parochial elements take over, and then we're on the road to Iran, most definitely. quote:and history tells us pretty clear that Israel isn't exactly the best at accepting massive losses of any kind, be it military or economic (hence back when US wasn't still it's whipping boy it could bring it at the table be threatening it with economic damage). Yeah, but it couldn't threaten Israel into giving Palestinians citizenship. Hell, they couldn't even get them to consider the refugee issue at all when Israel was in a much weaker position, in the '50s. There are issues where Israeli Jewish society is pressurable, and issues where it isn't, and Jews not being an overwhelming majority/in complete control is something that unifies the vast majority of Israeli Jews, and hence the vast majority of parties representing them in the Knesset.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Israel isn't a fascist state yet. Also, to be fair, I went to a mostly-Mizrahi elementary school, and many Mizrahis are sick of having a predominantly Ashkenazi historical moment shoved in their face all the time. With the amount of military worship combined with the whole ever present "Our enemies are both weak and helpless but also about to kill all of us at any moment" is pretty text book as far Fascism goes. I'm not saying Israel is Nazi Germany, but that's not true, but it's still extremely ironic that the only Jewish state in the world contains the worlds largest ethnic ghetto.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:If Palestinians were converting en masse and begging to be recognized as Jews, I guarantee you, the international Jewish community would be applying quite the pressure on Israel. There are no conversions en masse to Judaism. In the legalistic style of Judaism it involves a trial before a beth din (a three man panel of rabbis, traditionally) on the subject of the individual proselyte's sincerity of belief. On the religious side of things Judaism considers being Jewish a responsibility rather than a privileged class, even if the latter is exactly what it is politically in modern Israel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:With the amount of military worship combined with the whole ever present "Our enemies are both weak and helpless but also about to kill all of us at any moment" is pretty text book as far Fascism goes. I'm not saying Israel is Nazi Germany, but that's not true, but it's still extremely ironic that the only Jewish state in the world contains the worlds largest ethnic ghetto. It's not a blind military worship, though. The US has much more of that. Israeli Jews mostly go into the military, so you also know about all the bullshit. And I know people like promoting Eco's "Ur-Fascism" nonsense, but our enemies are both weak and strong is a pretty common device for nationalistic/xenophobic hysteria, I'm not even sure that was the common tool for original fascism (the Italian kind) anyway. As for your latter comment about Gaza.. yeah. There's a concentration camp in the South for asylum seekers, too. It's all kinds of hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It's not a blind military worship, though. The US has much more of that. Israeli Jews mostly go into the military, so you also know about all the bullshit. The US doesn't venerate it's military nearly as much as Israel does, nobody in the US gives a crap if 100 or 1,000 soldiers die. In Israel even a few dying causes a massive uproar. And I bring up the whole "weak and strong" thing because yes it's central to helping build nationalism because Fascism is basically the end goal of extreme nationalism. You can't have missed how the IDF loves revealing those little info graphics about how every house in Gaza is some sort of terrorist missile base, but at the same time Hezbollah and other resistance groups our no match for the IDF.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:54
|
|