Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumPope says denying Israel’s right to exist is anti-Semitism
[quote]
Pope Francis marked the 50th anniversary of the turning point in the Catholic Churchs relations with Jews on Wednesday with a sharp condemnation of anti-Semitism, saying attacks on Israels right to exist were a form of hatred.
To attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism, Francis told a delegation from the World Jewish Congress (WJC). There may be political disagreements between governments and on political issues, but the State of Israel has every right to exist in safety and prosperity.
Francis called for greater interfaith collaboration in the face of religious extremism. He devoted his usual Wednesday general audience to explaining to the Catholic faithful in St. Peters Square the importance of the Nostra Aetate, or In Our Time declaration, which revolutionized the churchs relations in particular with Jews.
The statement was one of the most important documents to emerge from the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that brought the church into the modern world. It said Christs death could not be attributed to Jews as a whole, recognized the shared spiritual patrimony between Christians and Jews and decried all forms of anti-Semitism. [/quote]
[url]http://www.timesofisrael.com/pope-says-denying-israels-right-to-exist-is-anti-semitism/[/url]
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It is anti-Semitism to point that out.
As far as denying the right of any state to exist, meh meh meh. Every right of the state is derivative of those governed by the state.
States do not have an independent right to exist. Israelis have a right to a state, but Israel does not have a right to exist regardless of the will of the governed.
Of course, those that would deny Palestinians the right to self-determination are grand hypocrites in this sort of discussion.
shira
(30,109 posts)They don't believe Jews have the right to self-determination in their own state.
But you do.
Good form.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 3, 2015, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)
Once afain you conflate Israel to = Jews when Jews only make up 76 percent of the population.
Please stop conflating, shira.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)And yet...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)own form of government.
Israelis have a right to their own state. Israel does not have a right to exist independent of the will of those it governs.
If a majority of the population inside Israel wants to replace the state of Israel with a state of Palestine, them's the breaks.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in another country are already represented, so their consent isn't particularly germane
People who are disenfranchised or occupied, that's a different story.
The apartheid state of South Africa did not have a right to exist. It stopped existing in its then-current incarnation once apartheid ended.
Similarly, Israel does not have the right to exist as Israel if a majority of those it governs--including the Palestinians--want it go be replaced.
That's how democracy works, and Israel is not above democracy. There's no special set of rules governing it.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)The question is whether or not they have citizenship in the nation they're living in. (Though it's worth noting that many have PA passports - which puts their consent into your "not particularly germane" bucket.
As much as the intellectually lazy would like to draw parallels to South Africa - they really don't exist. This isn't the case of a colonizing European power supplanting existing states with people who have absolutely no historical ties to the land. The Israeli's have much tighter ties to the land.
Also - Being offered citizenship and rejecting it because you won't legitimize the nation offering it to you... is very different from being disenfranchised. Not that the second attempt to abscond with the terminology of more legitimately oppressed peoples is lost on me.
As for "occupied" - the fact that land is occupied does not mean that the inhabitants of that land now have "Consent of the governed" rights to control that government. The colonists claimed the right to divorce themselves from England... they didn't claim to have a right to abolish England.
There is legitimate political disagreement (as the Pope makes clear) over what the specific boundaries of the Israeli state should be, but whatever they are, the Israeli's would have a right to determine who would be a citizen within those boundaries. You can't simultaneously claim that large swaths of the land are not theirs, and that the population of that land nevertheless has a consent right over the government that you refuse to accept governs them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Your Catch-22 claim of the right to apartheid is this.
Cute trick-only citizens get to decide which ethnic groups get to be citizens. So, if the privileged caste decides that other castes are unworthy of basic human rights, that's perfectly okay in your book.
You view citizenship as a privilege akin to joining a country club. Human rights available only on a first-come, first serve.
What you're getting at here is that if Israel annexes Arab lands, the Jewish-led government could deny Arabs the right to vote to ensure that only Jews would be able to govern Israel, by ensuring that a majority of voters would be Jews, regardless of their % of the population.
That's fucking apartheid. There is no other word for it. And it's thoroughly dishonest to claim it isn't.
If Israel annexes territory, everyone inside that territory becomes a citizen by right. It is indisputably illegal--and an apartheid practice--to annex territory while denying full citizenship to the inhabitants of that territory.
And it sure as shit is NOT anti-Semitism to deny that apartheid is acceptable and legal if it's Jews committing it.
So, your viewpoint is based on "what is good for the people who currently govern Israel"--not anything resembling a basic understanding of democracy, human rights, and how things work in the 21st century.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)I claimed no such thing.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)This is known as a Catch-22.
Who is eligible to be a citizen? That's up to the citizens!
What you're saying is that Israel has the right to annex territory without extending the right of citizenship to the people living in that territory. So, if the Jewish majority wishes to keep its power, it can lock people out of participating in elections on the basis of their race or religion.
That's only true if one believes apartheid is a legal option.
The upshot is that this statement:
is false if all participants in the conversation are unwilling to excuse apartheid.
So, unless you are willing to withdraw your spurious claim that Israel has the right to annex territory without offering citizenship to the inhabitants, you're explicitly arguing for Israel's right to be an apartheid state.
It is what it is. It's plain as day.
Which indicates that there's virtually nothing Israel could do that you would criticize, indicating a motive for supporting Israel that's anything but enlightened.
And, yes, the US failure to extend citizenship rights to Somoans is a grave injustice.
shira
(30,109 posts)In both E.Jerusalem and the Golan.
No Apartheid.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)gotta link for that?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I would rather say that some East Jerusalemites have the right to apply for citizenship, but it's a long process and not at all certain if they get it. Oh, if they were only Jewish - so that their application would be automatically made on arrival and accepted with a 100% certainty...
Anyway, here's a Haaretz article I read a while ago on the subject:
Breaking Taboo, East Jerusalem Palestinians Seek Israeli Citizenship
Source: Haaretz, Aug 05, 2015
(snip)
Israeli officials are reluctant to confirm figures, but data obtained by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies indicates a jump over the past decade, rising from 114 applications in 2003 to between 800 and 1,000 a year now, around half of which are successful. On top of that, hundreds have made inquiries before the formal application process begins.
Interior Ministry figures obtained by Reuters show there were 1,434 applications in 2012-13, of which 189 were approved, 1,061 are still being processed and 169 were rejected. The remainder are in limbo.
Palestinians who have applied do not like to talk about it. The loyalty oath is not an easy thing for them to sign up to and becoming a naturalized Israeli - joining the enemy - is taboo.
"It felt bad, really bad," said a 46-year-old Palestinian teacher who took the oath a year ago. Despite her reservations, she knew it was right for stability and career prospects.
"We just want to live our lives," she said. "At the end of the day, politics gets you nowhere.
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.669643
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Is that also Anti-Semitism?
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Bok_Tukalo
(4,323 posts)<OPE>
shira
(30,109 posts)Yesterday, The Atlantics Jeffrey Goldberg published a wide-ranging interview with President Obama on the Middle East. Naturally, much of the ensuing commentary has focused on the presidents defense of his Iran diplomacy and his administrations handling of the fight against ISIS. But in poring over Obamas comments on these big ticket issues, one of the presidents more remarkable statements has largely been overlooked: his equation of denying Israels right to exist with anti-Semitism.
In the latter part of their conversation, Obama and Goldberg turned to the subject of Israel. The president began by making a spirited case against those in the pro-Israel community who equate his criticisms of Israeli policy with an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic outlook. I completely reject that, he said. On the contrary, the president argued, by standing up for the shared liberal values of the U.S. and Israeland pointing out when either falls shorthe is ensuring both countries will endure and thrive. I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody the Judeo-Christian and, ultimately then, what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium, he said. I want Israel to embody these values because Israel is aligned with us in that fight for what I believe to be true.
.....Asked by Goldberg to delineate the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, Obama answered as follows:
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/191196/obama-denying-israels-right-to-exist-as-a-jewish-homeland-is-anti-semitic
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)racist.
All of historical Palestine from the river to the sea is the homeland of the Palestinians. This doesn't interfere with the Jewish homeland in the same place at all, unless you're a racist or something.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)However, every country has a right to exist in safety and prosperity. When I read the article title, I thought the Pope had lost his mind. Actually it was only the author of the article who had lost his mind...
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)You can't have a "right to exist in safety and prosperity" without having a right to exist.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Countries are not people, and countries don't have rights like people. This means that countries don't have the right initself to exist, just like corporations and other immaterial associations. However, there are rules that define lawful behaviour for countries towards other countries. These are the rules that I invoke when I say that all countries have the right to exist in safety and prosperity.
It's a common logical error among pro-Israel people that Israel somehow has a right in itself to exist, and furthermore that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and racist state. There's no right - no country has such a right.
shira
(30,109 posts)There are no other nations being asked to negotiate their sovereignty like Israel.
Hence, the Pope's statement.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)More revisionist BS.
Israel has illegally stolen Palestinian land, via illegal Jewish colonies, and you complain that they are being asked to "negotiate their sovereignty??!!"
Oh, poor you!
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)illegally those they treat no better than livestock.
It's Apartheid, but some pretend that it doesn't exist. Some would rather spread disinformation for Israel...IMHO.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)
What's it going to be if the choice was yours?
Other than its destruction, of course.
I'll wait...
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)But of course there will be dime store hasbarists that will endlessly place the blame everywhere and on everybody but the authors of illegal colonialism and apartheid.
Perhaps it finally becomes a democratic state for all: Jews and Palestinians.
Or it can become a police state.
shira
(30,109 posts)Since you don't believe 2 states is possible, all that's left is Israel's destruction in your view - correct?
It would help if you'd answer the simplest questions - unless you have something to hide.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I did answer you. You just couldn't comprehend the words in front of you...IMHO.