AIBU to think that the State of Israel is racist?

[CoteDAzur]

11 Dec 2008 13:34 GMT

DJ Israel Min:Israeli Arabs Should Live In Separate State-Report

LONDON (Dow Jones)--Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has said Israeli Arabs should leave Israel for a Palestinian state once such a state is established, The Jerusalem Post reports on its Web site Thursday.

"My solution for maintaining a Jewish and democratic state of Israel is to have two nation-states with certain concessions and with clear red lines," Livni said. "And among other things I will also be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel, those whom we call Israeli Arabs, and tell them, 'your national solution lies elsewhere.'"

Livni, speaking in a meeting with Tel Aviv high school students, also hinted that kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit could remain in the hands of Hamas in Gaza.

Full story: www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1228728156919

-London bureau, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 (0)20 78 42 9330; [email protected]

Regardless of any theories around dispensationalism and its ilk which are used explicity or implicitly to support certain countries (read American) belief that the state of Israel should be treated as a Jewish homeland, what is clear is that Israel was created in 1945 as a Jewish homeland under first the Balfour declaration, then the British Palestinian mandate, and then, when the British mandate fell apart, an United Nations mandate.

It's actual creation, declaration of independence and constitution in terms of what was promised to whom by who is pretty unclear as evidenced by withdrawal of the British mandate, the mixed reception of the UN Partition Plan and (pretty bloody obviously) by the Arab-Israeli War the day after the declaration of independence. That being said, it's very hard to argue that there was not very strong international support at the time to create a homeland and state specifically for the Jewish people. This makes it almost unique in modern international relations (well, until I guess the division of Yugoslavia) in creating a state for a specific ethno-religious group which received international approval.

That being said, as far as I can understand it, in agreeing to this, the Jewish agency (pre Israeli government) agreed to a constitution that would treat all people equally rather like the US constitution. This was not, however, binding and clearly the fact that their five Arab neighbours attacked them almost instaneously was hardly likely to engender a deep belief in treating all equally and fostering a happy and friendly attitude towards their neighbours and the conquered territories.

What, to be at least, is the question is the extent to which Israel receives differentiated treatment for all this (and more) versus its obligation to abide by international law and standards as a modern state.

actually I don't think Moondog was joking or being sarcastic. I think her reaction is fair enough, given the context.

cestlavie - I am not sure what point you are making here: isn't it true that the creation of the state of Israel under the terms of the Balfour declaration necessitated the expulsion of around 650,000 Palestinians and other Arabs? which is why when Israel celebrates its 'founders day' or whatever they call it, the Palestinians remember their 'catastrophe'.

bobthebuddha - you say that 'more and more people equate Jew with Israeli' - surely if Tzipi Livni's suggestions are carried through then she will be fulfilling your own prophecy?

how ironic. And not in a good way.

Can we look at the original question a lightly different way? Assuming a 2-state solution is reached, it would presumably be impossible to find a neat line dividing Arab from Israeli; Livni seems to be saying there is, as long as the Arabs get out. So how do you lot think it should/can work?

sorry donnie, that makes very little sense. Explain, please.

'assuming a two state solution is reached'?

when Israel refuses to return the west bank?

'as long as the Arabs get out'

Nice turn of phrase there.

IMO there can be no two state solution until the pre 1967 six day war territories are returned and every single illegal settlement is dismantled.

OK I'l throw some fat on to the fire

Israelis = nothing better to do

I studied history and politics etc and just pulled away from it all indisgust as it is a never ending spume of vitriol and reaction and it tires me.

but then I 'm not a mother on the Gaza Strip worrying about my sons being recruited as suicide bombers....

oh for fuck's sake donnie, why not try to answer the question?

I had a feeling you'd jump on me - I'm not defending Livni's statements for crying out loud. Just putting it more succinctly.

Donnie, the Balfour declaration did not create Israel, it merely stated British policy for that region which was to be enacted through the Palestinian mandate. The actual creation of Israel was sanction by the United Nations - my point being (if it wasn't obvious) that the wider international community agreed to create a state specifically as a Jewish homeland. You can debate whether that's right or wrong, but that's a pretty important fact - it was not a case of the Jewish people snatching land from others but the creation of a state under internationally sanctioned mandate.

Secondly, the 'catastrophe' was precipated by the Arab-Israeli War not by the Balfour declaration, the UN mandate, the declaration of independence or the creation of Israel. It was originally envisaged by the UN and (incidentally agreed to by the founders of Israel) that there would be a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel - unfortunately this did not happen since as soon as the Israeli state declared independence, the Arab League rejected its proposals and several states declared war on Israel. This lead to the expulsion/ flight of the Palestinians as Israel rapidly annexed territories it won in the war.

Finally, the entire process needs to be seen in the context of the time. Multiple territories were changing hands, regions and borders in the wake of the end of WW2. All states and leaders (including the Arab states) were jockeying for position whilst the European ceded territory back to those who had been helpful to them, be it local leaders or other European states whilst jamming others together to satisfy obligations (witness the creation of Iraq).

My point, in case you hadn't gathered, is that it's helpful to look at these things in terms of the facts. Personally, I dislike the way that modern day Israel conducts itself in many regards, however, that should not mean we lose sight of its origins.

OP - YANBU I think - yes, it is racist. But I don't see why there is this POV that "they should know better". By modern western democratic standards, the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli gvt is reprehensible. Same as during the last century, the southern US states' treatment of black people under so called segregation, and white South African apartheid were totally reprehensible.

The difference is that there exists (whether people want to admit it or not) a completely savage antisemitism in the middle east which seeks not to segregate and dominate but to literally obliterate the existence of Jews off the face of the planet and I personally find it very uncomfortable that this is so very often ignored, excused and overlooked.

I am conflicted on the issue. I think it boils down to this: While I abhor the militarism and expansionism of Israel and the displacement and treatment of Palesinians, I believe that it is treated differently than that of other nations - for eg Russia with Chechnya, Serbia with Kosovo, Turkey/Iraq/Iran with the Kurds. Immediately a coda is tacked onto the end of the argument, sometimes unspoken, sometimes voiced as it has been on this thread - "Jews should know better". And I think that this is in itself becomes racist and persecutory.

because I just can't be arsed bobthebuddha - I can see you are all riled up now - which is quite funny - but really this is more of the same old, same old - it's been done to death. The statement attributed to TL is clearly racist - end of.

Good and informative post cestlavie

I think the racism lies with those millions of one tribe who surround a tiny sliver of land belonging (and yes, the Isrealis do have historic claims of ownership to this land) to another tribe and state openly that they would wish to drive all the occupants of that tribe into the sea. Enough to make anyone aggressive and defensive.

And as another poster said, the old chesnut about Jews/Israelis being the core of the world's problems is as long as history itself- that's why it's called the "oldest hatred".

There is much division within Judaism in Israel. More power is held by the Orthodox Jews than by Reform or Liberal Jews even though the latter are the larger groups and in fact some groups of Jews are treated almost as badly as non-Jewish groups. Recently, Somalian Jews have decided life in Somalia is preferable to that in Israel and are migrating back to Somalia. It also suits the vested interests of those in power on both sides to keep the situation as it is; peace is not desirable to some protagonists. As so often is the case, it seems that everyone is tarred by the same brush and then we hear such comments as they are a 'vile horrible people'.

I must remember to tell my Jewish DIL how horrible and vile she is when I see her next week. She's always seemed a lovely person to me but what do I know??

hmmm, I think perhaps it's more because you can't be arsed to think outside the little dogmatic box you're sitting in. I don't think the 'same old' applies to me, love. No matter, your choice.

good posts cestlavie and suedonim. This statement by Livni is pretty disgraceful and depressing though.

Agree columbo. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. My ILs are very pro Palestinian but they weren't so keen on the IRA's activities in London in the 1980s.

also the 'vile, horrible people' comments are hardly encouraging to those inside Israel who're working for positive change, as well as trying to reduce the power of the hyper-Orthodox. Believe me, they respect the needs of the Palestinians, they don't want this situation to continue. But all this ranting about Israel doesn't actually help one iota. I hear so many people in the UK blandly stating 'I'm anti-Zionist' these days and wonder what they want it to mean in practice? There's no doubt when it comes to the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad.

Yes, like that's the only possible incidence of racism in the region

I mean, Hamas just loves Jews, and no Palestinian ever walked into a group of civilians with the aim of killing them out of racial hatred. And the war declared on Isreal the day it declared independence was just a welcome party.
some lovely non-racist statements by Hamas
And what about this, Dr. Ahmad Bahar (acting Speaker, Palestinian Legislative Council):
?This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our people was afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation? Be certain that America is on its way to disappear, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine? Make us victorious over the infidel people? Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies? Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don?t leave even one.?
[PA TV, April 20, 2007

cestlavie - re "it was not a case of the Jewish people snatching land from others but the creation of a state under internationally sanctioned mandate"

Except that that land was already populated, was it not? So the creation of this state meant displacement and persecution of a large group of people.

Not that any of the historic stuff really matters to present situation:

"to create a state specifically as a Jewish homeland"

Irrelevant. That may have been the original idea, but present situation is far from it, since Israeli Arabs (i.e. Arab citizens of Israel) constitute 20% of Israel's population.

Anyone going to argue that it is not racist to want to kick out 20% of a country's citizens because their ethnicity is undesirable?

"Isrealis do have historic claims of ownership to this land"

Oh please. Because Bible tells you so?

There is no such thing as "historic claims of ownership" for land. One tribe owned it, then lost it in war. Then new owners lost it in another war et cetera ad nauseam. Jewish tribes were but one link in this chain. They were not the first owners and there is no conceivable reason, neither legally nor morally, that they should be the last.

So do you think, legally and morally, that none of us have the right to our country?

No-one has a right to a country.

For goodness sake both Islam and Judaism preaches to live together peacefully and the people who don't are not a reflection of religion but brain washing and plain stupid fecklessness.

Not if you lost it in combat and haven't been living there for a thousand years, no.

Do Greeks have a right to Western Turkey?

Do Turks have a right to Eastern Europe?

You can't pick a point in time and say "They were there at that time, so they deserve that place forever".