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]

Again. How should/can Israel defend itself?

MM. That's the problem. One half of the equation denies the right to exist of the other.

EBenes. Not sure where you're going with that one. The Ira killed a lot of people in the mainland UK.

Bauble - Answer my questions before asking your own, please.

'disputed land' - I think you mean occupied territory there bauble - shall I explain what that means to you? call a spade a spade will you, and stop hiding behind euphemisms please.
You may think Hamas is anti semitic; as far as the Palestinians are concerned the Israeli government is anti palestinian and anti Arab: in other words, equally racist. If they wern't, they would not continue to colonise Palestinian farm land and build illegal settlements on Palestinian land - would they? ie, deliberately steal Arab land until there is none left. That seems pretty racist to me. What do you think about it?

Has Hamas attacked anywhere outside Israel?

If you can get any terrorist organisation to admit who they really are and who they are backed by good for you. Most will only admit it if it has some positive value for themselves. Otherwise you just have to look at the increasing anti-semitic attacks over the past years including bombs and fires in synagogues, attacking and killing young men in France and recently one of the specially selected targets in Mumbai being a Chabad house a place run by religious Jews for other Jews for education and shelter to see that the attacks are not confined within Israel. The targets are not connected to Israel but are Jewish proving that the racist issues is against Jews.

What is "disputed land"?

If you look at the history of the middle east you will note that most of it is disputed and was randomly divided by the ruling powers. There was no Palestinian nation at the name of partition in 1948 and considerably more of their land is in the control of Jordan and Egypt. Yet those countries do not want to either take these people in (Egypt kept them in squalid refugee camps from 1948-67 without any international uproar) or give them any land. In addition, the policy of the Israeli government has been to make it illegal to settle in "disputed land" and is trying to evict certain places for example Peace House in Hebron. So is it racist? Or are people who say it is racist and ignore the history considerably more racist.

If Northern Ireland was geographically situated in Scotland and in addition to sending suicide bombers around London and Manchester on a regular basis were bombing Carlisle with occasional rockets reaching Liverpool, do you really think the government would do nothing? Because that would be the closest parallel to this situation.

So is anyone going to answer Bauble's questions now?

Tigger, I don't really see your point. It's irrelevant whether there was a nation that identified itself as Palestinian in 1948, there were still Palestinian people living on the land that is now Israel. And do you mean that Egypt and Jordan should give land to make a Palestinian state? Because I don't see why they should. However, I agree that Palestinians have had a pretty crap deal in refugee camps in Jordan, as well as in Gaza/the West Bank

Why shouldn't they? Why is it exclusively the responsibility of Israel when the people who it affects came from all the surrounding areas? If you look at the geography of the West Bank most of it is Jordanian land.

In particular why is it exclusively the responsibility of Israel to give land when the area of Israel is 8,522 square miles, Jordan is 34,495 square miles and Egypt is 386,000 square miles?

The point is that these are all artificially crafted states formed by UN Resolution rather than boundaries hallowed by centuries of conquests as ours are. So on this basis why should Israel be singled out to give land especially as it has already done so? If you take Gaza, this was Egypt until 1967 yet everyone now says it is definitely Palestinian. If so why didn't Egypt give it to the Palestinians and why are they not condemned for doing so little? As the heading of this thread says, isn't that racist?

What do you mean "the people who it affects come from the surrounding areas"? The majority of those in the refugee camps in Gaza came from the land that is now Israel. Israel has already been given land. That's how it came to be created.

So your basic position then is Israel should never have been given any land and does not have the right to exist? Because that is the logical implication of your statement.

No. Of course Israel has the right to exist in peace. But the dispute is about land, it's not about anti-semitism, or Islam extremism or anything else.

It was not Gandhi's idea to split India lil he was very much against such a split.

Is it really though? Israel has been attacked throughout its short history. If it was really about land shouldn't the creation of a Palestinian state and the giving of Gaza have done something to ameliorate the situation? Instead the result was a worse intifada than the preceding one. If it was truly about land then why isn't Syria attacking Israel on a daily basis to regain the Golan Heights which were conquered at the same time. I'm not arguing over whether Israel has a right to land conquered during a war but if this dispute was solely about land then surely it would have been solved years ago.

To ignore the fact that the rhetoric of many Arab groups including Hamas and especially when broadcasting in Arabic is still to drive the Jews (not the Israelis) into the sea and take Tel Aviv, which was unbuilt and uninhabited until built by Jews, would seem to indicate that there is a little more to this than simple land apportionment.

Iirc Syria has never signed a peace treaty with Israel as the Golan Heights is such a sticking point. Surely it's quite good that they're not bombing it daily?

There's no doubt that there is vile anti-semitism from Islamic groups. But in my opinion that's not what the conflict is really about, it's a very nasty weapon that is used in the conflict.

But that's the point - if land is such an issue then why isn't Syria bombing Israel daily? Why is it reasonable for the Palestinians to do it?

You say that the conflict is just about land, but what is the Palestinian view on giving land? Is it that if only they'd give us a bit of land we'd stop shelling them and blowing up buses and shopping centres? Or is it that if they give us the entire land then we'll have no need to act in this way?

If it is the former then why has the situation got even worse since the formation of the Palestinian state on land given by Israel?

If it is the latter then what happens to the people in it? Do you see any other country taking them in en masse or at all? Just like any other country has done before? If it was really about land sharing arrangements might be possible but is anti-semitism just a weapon or has it become the aim?

It's not reasonable for hte Palestinians to be bombing Israel. What are you talking about?! No one is arguing that.

Israel didn't give any land away. It gave modest rights of self determination to people living in land that it had illegally occupied some decades previously.

The whole thing is a disaster, to be honest I find it so depressing discussing it that I am going to bow out now.

Since the general view is that it is not reasonable for Israel to respond to the bombing either in the way it is or any other ergo the bombing must be reasonable.

Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in 2005 in order to uphold internationally-recognized borders in Gaza. It uprooted thousands of its own citizens to do this. Leaving aside the rights of the people to live there that's considerably more than

"It gave modest rights of self determination to people living in land that it had illegally occupied some decades previously."

In addition, as previously stated if Israel was illegally occupying it then it was illegally occupying land that was part of Egypt not Palestine. Yet the statements you and others make seem to apply it was always Palestinian until Israel trampled over it.

Whatever the history, the present situation imo is that until the Arab nations and people acknowledge the right of Israel to exist (even in moderated form with altered boundaries) no progress will be made.

The bottom line is that, ideologically, most Arab people want the middle east to be theirs with no Jewish state in it. A 2 state solution would mean that they have accepted Israel, which they have no intention of doing.

That's why Arafat backed out of Clinton's deal at the last minute.

That's why the Hamas spokesman I saw interviewed on Sky News earlier said "they wanted a ceasefire (incidentally their rockets broke the ceasefire to begin with), and then ummm...ummm...ummm..." when questioned as to what they want after that, because actually they don't really want a negotiated settlement that would entail recognising Israel.

In the meantime, innocent Palestinians are being hurt, killed and oppressed and Israel is falling into a PR disaster trap.

I was shocked when I came on here although I shouldn't have been - Moondog and Donnie have always used Mumsnet to vent their blatent antisemitism (behind the safety of their computer screens, of course) - and under the pretext of their opposition to Israel. The historical 'facts' they churn out about Israel are so incredibly and repeatedly flawed and have been proved so on Mumsnet time and again.

Also, Donnie said "I posted a link a while back from the BBC which reported a UN ambassador describing them as 'the new Nazis'. I agree with him."

The guy you're referring to is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist (but don't let the memory of terrorist victims get in the way of a good story, Donnie) and has been widely denounced, but if you're happy to roll him out in support of your views then I guess that helps others to work out where you're coming from.

Your comments comparing Jewish people to Nazis are deeply offensive, inciteful and mindblowingly ignorant, but this thread has given me some hope that at least I'm not the only one who realises that, now that your 'political' views have been totally exposed for what they are: a barely disguised outlet for your unfettered antisemitism.

That's right. Criticising policies of Israel is the same thing as anti-semitism

No, it's not and I have no problem with criticisim the policies of Israel.

What is antisemitic is the rhetoric used by Donnie, Moondog and others, eg. "They are vile, horrible people" and the comparison of the Jews with Nazis.

Really, it's the electronic equivalent of daubing a synagogue with grafitti - truly disgraceful.

Moondog's one post on this thread was rather sarcastic, I thought. Surely she was not calling a whole nation "vile horrible people".

I feel it is clear that the state of Israel is oppressing the Palestinian people in multiple ways, and that is wrong. There are many Israeli Jews who agree with me on this, so I hope you will not say it is "anti-semitic" to say so.

Having gone through horrible persecution in their history, one would hope the Jewish people as a whole (and hence their state) would have learned that every human life is precious and that racial discrimination is a terrible mistake. Unfortunately, that lesson does not seem to have been learned.

No, there are no concentration camps and a deliberate attempt at exterminating all Palestinians, but there is a chilling apathy at the death and suffering of these people. In the rocket attacks of the past couple of weeks, 1 Israeli has died. And this somehow justifies air-bombing Gaza, killing hundreds including babies and children. Clearly, the message is that the life of a Jew is much more valuable than the life of an Arab.

That is what I find appalling.

You're mistaking a territorial conflict for a racial one. The Israeli Palestinian conflict is about land and always has been - there's never been a racial element. Apart from anything else, the Palestinians are not a race, and neither are the Israelis.

Critically and tragically, Hamas terrorists have always chosen to shelter within civilian communities and, common with Hizbollah, al Qaeda and other terrorist factions around the world, have absolutely no regard for civilian life whatsoever.

Conversely, Palestinian terrorists DO set out with the aim of murdering innocent Israeli men, women and children and, as you say, the deliberate murder of innocent people cannot be justified or excused.

And I don't agree at all that there's 'a chilling apathy' on the part of the Israelis - Israel has repeatedly expressed regret for civilian deaths (unlike Hamas), has only targeted terrorist hideouts and has also provided humanitarian aid into Gaza.

This isn't about how many Israelis have died versus how many Palestinians (or, as you bizarrely and wrongly put it, 'Clearly, the life of a Jew is much more valuable than the life of an Arab'). As I said before, this is about security and not race. But in the 2nd World War 10 Britons died to every 1 German - does that mean we shouldn't have fought against Hitler's extremism in the way that the Israeli's are fighting Hamas? After all, Hamas has repeatedly rejected a peaceful solution and only calls for the complete destruction of Israel.

You're forgetting that it was Hamas which made the decision not to extend the ceasefire and continued to fire rockets into Israel in an ongoing breach of this ceasefire - and therefore put the lives of civilians in Gaza under certain threat.

Finally, re: Moondog's post - I don't blame you for trying to write it off as sarcasm because I agree that it is shockingly and horribly offensive (just imagine, for example, that one of the 'Israeli Jews' you mention had read it - how that would make them feel??) but if I responded to a thread entitled: 'AIBU to think the Palestinians are racist?' by saying 'Vile horrible people', would you write that off as sarcasm? I hope not, because it would clearly be deeply offensive and inciteful against Palestinians.

mhmummy, you make some good points. On a practical level, there are some obvious problems that prevent peace in this region;

1. Israel needs to be recognised and accepted by its Arab neighbours.
2. The Palestinians need a viable state which means Gaza and West Bank need to be linked somehow preferably with a coastal border.

I'd like to hear more from Tony Blair-what has he actually done over there except go on various charm offensives?