danivon

It's a lesson from history - a firm response to terrorists does not necessarily weaken them and strengthen the moderates, it can often have the reverse effect. A lesson that is not being learned to this day.

amen

Ray Jay wrote:That's just false. Israel defined itself as Jewish and democratic from its founding.

"A Jewish and Democratic State" is the Israeli legal definition of the nature and character of the State of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and ... atic_state

Actually, we are both wrong. "and democratic" wasn't added until 1985. But this seems to be a reversal of that move, away from the equal balance of those terms, and making the "Jewish" aspect more important.

The question is why is it such a BFD to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

Indeed, why is it such a big deal to do so. Why do we care if someone does or does not? I don't, but you and DF seem to.

It was not a demand on the Palestinians until Olmert was PM, after the PLO had recognised Israel as a state during the Oslo process. Netantyahu now insists on it as a precondition, knowing full well that it causes problems for the Palestinians and is a hurdle not required for talks at Oslo or Camp David.

If the Israeli government let the issue go, perhaps we could move back towards progress.

It does depend what "Jewish" is taken to mean, as well. Herzl never intended it to be a religious state, and many Israelis disagree with the idea that it is anything more than the homeland for ethnic Jews. The worry I have with this proposed law is that it elevates Jews above non-Jews, such as the Netanyahu idea of "national rights" that only Jews should get.

You may think the official language thing unimportant, but just as in Ukraine, where the new government provoked Russians by proposing language restrictions, this will annoy Israeli Arabs.

There are many states with various degrees of religious identity, including yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_church

There are Islamic states with their religion as part of their name, which are recognized by nations throughout the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_republic

There is the difference between recognising these countries as countries, and recognising specifically their 'religious' nature. Even the name means nothing in the former context.

Likewise, we (indeed all UN members except Japan and the Republic of Korea) recognise the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but that doesn't mean we recognise it as 'democratic', a 'people's republic' or as all of Korea. A nation's stated religion is for itself to worry about, not for others to 'recognise' formally.

And yes, the UK has an established church. So? we don't demand that France or Ireland recognise that we are a CoE country, any more than Ireland demands that we recognise it as Catholic or France that we recognise it as secular. Not even when we were concluding wars with them.

By the way, the Palestinian Authority is not asking to be recognised as an Islamic state - and it would not as long as Hamas don't run the government - because it represents Arabs who are Christian as well. It isn't even recognised as a state of any kind by many countries.

Owen, would the IRA and British ever have come to terms if the IRA's goals were the control of Britain and not just Northern Ireland? Would France and Algeria have ever come to terms if the Algerian rebels wanted control of France? There is a difference when a terrorist group strikes at the heart of a state vs an appendage. And you can expect a different response by the state.

freeman3 wrote:Owen, would the IRA and British ever have come to terms if the IRA's goals were the control of Britain and not just Northern Ireland?Would France and Algeria have ever come to terms if the Algerian rebels wanted control of France? There is a difference when a terrorist group strikes at the heart of a state vs an appendage. And you can expect a different response by the state.

You do know that the IRA and other Republican terrorist groups bombed London, Manchester, Birmingham and other places in Britain, killing many innocent civilians? They bombed the Conservative Party conference, attempting to kill Margaret Thatcher. They killed an MP (Airey Neave) at Westminster. They killed earl Mountbatten (who was a close relative of the Royal Family). They targeted the Financial sector as well.

No, they did not want to conquer the mainland. But they took their war to the heart of the state, and to people who had nothing to do with Northern Ireland.

Also, the majority of people in Northern Ireland at the time (and still to this day) firmly opposed the idea that they are not part of the UK, and asserted their Britishness. No matter how much of the UK they wanted to annex to Ireland, the people in that area had just as much right as anyone else does to self-determination. Those unionists had a great fear that they would be punished, oppressed, forced to leave or have their lives endangered.

And you know what? For some time we over-reacted to the IRA and their fellow Republicans and it made things worse. Instead of oppression, mass arrest, escalating the violence etc. In the end, though, it was a combination of effective intelligence and negotiation that ended the conflict.

And the Republicans did not even achieve their aim. Northern Ireland has devolved government, but it is still part of the UK. Sinn Fein have a share in government, but the unionists are the majority.

Of course, what they did want to do was unify the whole of Ireland, to establish their full 'homeland', and impose that upon the 'loyalists'. The Irish already had a homeland, just not the full one that they wanted. There are parallels with both extremes of the Israel/Palestine conflict there.

Oh, the unionists had their own terrorists too, and they were colluded with by the police, army and intelligence services, which prolonged the conflict and led to a tit-for-tat conflict that led to ordinary people being murdered for being the wrong religion or being on the wrong street at the wrong time. 'peace walls' were erected (and some still stand), communities were segregated even more than they had been...

I know less about Algeria and France.

Freeman:

Owen, would the IRA and British ever have come to terms if the IRA's goals were the control of Britain and not just Northern Ireland? Would France and Algeria have ever come to terms if the Algerian rebels wanted control of France? There is a difference when a terrorist group strikes at the heart of a state vs an appendage. And you can expect a different response by the state.

Danivon:

No, they did not want to conquer the mainland.

Yes, that is the crux of the issue.

Danivon:

You may think the official language thing unimportant, but just as in Ukraine, where the new government provoked Russians by proposing language restrictions, this will annoy Israeli Arabs.

Annoy? My government does things that annoy me all the time. :)

Ukrainian has been the official language of Ukraine for awhile, even though the % of native Russian speakers exceeds that of native Arabic speakers in Israel.

In the United Kingdom, English is the official language although there are minority languages that are recognized such as Welsh, Irish, and Scottish. I believe that Arabic would have a minority language status in Israel under the current proposal..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_ ... ed_Kingdom

Although the US has no official national language, several states do, including California where Spanish speakers make up 29% of the population (which is more than native Arabic speakers in Israel).

I'm not in favor of this legislation; I'm just providing perspective as certain segments of the world get all weird about it. To paraphrase a UK expression, "they would, wouldn't they". Did I get that right?

Danivon:

And yes, the UK has an established church. So? we don't demand that France or Ireland recognise that we are a CoE country, any more than Ireland demands that we recognise it as Catholic or France that we recognise it as secular. Not even when we were concluding wars with them.

We understand, but the French, the Brits, and the Irish aren't claiming a right of return; the Palestinians are. Again, that's the crux of the issue and why I am not persuaded by your analogies.

By the way, the Palestinian Authority is not asking to be recognised as an Islamic state - and it would not as long as Hamas don't run the government - because it represents Arabs who are Christian as well.

I wouldn't bet my life on it, would you? Hamas is very popular. Fatah is very corrupt. Neither is democratic nor respects minority views. I think many Christian Arabs are starting to realize that their best hope is to be part of Israel and not a Palestinian nation.

This is an interesting poll about the Palestinian perspective on peace . http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium- ... 92D79CAD6C

So 2/3 would see peace with Israel as just being an interim step on the path to ultimate victory. If this poll is close to accurate then there is no reason for Israel to currently negotiate with the Palestinians.

Of course, how ingrained are those attitudes? Could they be changed? And 30%, a not insubstantial number , would settle for a 2-state solution.

So, it would seem prudent for Israel to do what it can to make life better for Palestinians on the West Bank. Maybe that will soften some of the hard-liners. Israel is not as opposed to peace , as evidenced by 53% percent supporting peace talks (and that's after the Second Intifada, election of Hamas, and rocket attacks, etc .)

External pressure is counter-productive, however. It cannot force Israel to make peace with a people who as a whole reject it and it gives false hope that they will defeat Israel. Targeted pressure as to certain acts by Israel may or may not help things , but not generalized pressure such as sanctions for occupying the West Bank -- that is counter - productive.

ray

We understand, but the French, the Brits, and the Irish aren't claiming a right of return; the Palestinians are

That would be because they haven't been expelled from their homes.
I'm sure that if England had expelled Irish citizens from their farms, for whatever reason, they would make attempts to recover their homes.

freeman3

This is an interesting poll about the Palestinian perspective on peace

Poll are a snapshot in time...
The attitudes measured in this poll have been created by years of oppressive behaviors by Israel.
Israel has clearly indicated through it actions, and some political actors (lLkud and Labor) through their manifestos and policy statements that as far as Israel is concerned a one state solution called Greater Israel works..
What kind of actions would it take to convince Palestine that a two state solution would be workable. That is a solution where Palestine is a truly sovereign nation, with control over its resources and borders.
There is no question that Palestinian attitudes will have to change for a peaceful two state solution to have a chance. But until Israel starts trying to change those attitudes by treating Palestinians differently .... and creating the notion of a 2 state solution as a genuine option rather than an unattainable fantasy.. then why would attitudes change?

I'm not sure you could show that Palestinian attitudes have formed as the result of recent treatment by Israel. Before 1993 no Palestinian leader would recognize Israel; in 2000 Israel went as far as they ever have in offering a 2-state solution and the Palestinians responded with the Second Intifada . When was Hamas elected--2006? It is far more likely given that history that Israel has hardened its attitudes after its attempt at peace was rewarded with the Second Intifada...
I do think that economic opportunity could change attitudes. While Palestinian attitudes are hard- line politically, they are much more pragmatic when it comes to their own economic interests. And the lack of enthusiasm for violence provides some reason to hope. http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/28/ ... e-Solution

How you create those economic opportunities.. I have no idea.

Ray Jay wrote:Freeman:

Owen, would the IRA and British ever have come to terms if the IRA's goals were the control of Britain and not just Northern Ireland? Would France and Algeria have ever come to terms if the Algerian rebels wanted control of France? There is a difference when a terrorist group strikes at the heart of a state vs an appendage. And you can expect a different response by the state.

Danivon:

No, they did not want to conquer the mainland.

Yes, that is the crux of the issue.

To you, maybe. Not to the people of Belfast.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

You may think the official language thing unimportant, but just as in Ukraine, where the new government provoked Russians by proposing language restrictions, this will annoy Israeli Arabs.

Annoy? My government does things that annoy me all the time. :)

Ukrainian has been the official language of Ukraine for awhile, even though the % of native Russian speakers exceeds that of native Arabic speakers in Israel.

20% is still significant.

In the United Kingdom, English is the official language although there are minority languages that are recognized such as Welsh, Irish, and Scottish. I believe that Arabic would have a minority language status in Israel under the current proposal..

Well, if you "believe" so, then it must be ok. In the UK Welsh is essentially an official language in Wales. But if we were proposing to erode that, as part of making a stand about preserving and elevating the 'English' nature of the country I would be actively opposing such a move.

Although the US has no official national language, several states do, including California where Spanish speakers make up 29% of the population (which is more than native Arabic speakers in Israel).

20% is not far off 29%. As you are proud that the Christian minority is growing, perhaps the proportion will rise.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

And yes, the UK has an established church. So? we don't demand that France or Ireland recognise that we are a CoE country, any more than Ireland demands that we recognise it as Catholic or France that we recognise it as secular. Not even when we were concluding wars with them.

We understand, but the French, the Brits, and the Irish aren't claiming a right of return; the Palestinians are. Again, that's the crux of the issue and why I am not persuaded by your analogies.

Because we have free movement, this is not at issue. And between Ireland and the UK it has been easy for people to move across and back.

Israel, of course does have a "Right of Return" for people whose progenitors have not lived there for hundreds of years (and in some cases are actually unlikely to have ever lived there).

By the way, the Palestinian Authority is not asking to be recognised as an Islamic state - and it would not as long as Hamas don't run the government - because it represents Arabs who are Christian as well.

I wouldn't bet my life on it, would you? Hamas is very popular. Fatah is very corrupt. Neither is democratic nor respects minority views. I think many Christian Arabs are starting to realize that their best hope is to be part of Israel and not a Palestinian nation.

No. Neither would I. Perhaps Israel could try not to help Hamas as much as it is.

Ray Jay wrote:
I'm not in favor of this legislation; I'm just providing perspective as certain segments of the world get all weird about it. To paraphrase a UK expression, "they would, wouldn't they". Did I get that right?

The expression refers to self-interested denials. To understand it, look up Mandy Rice-Davies and the Profumo affair.

Danivon responding to me:

In the United Kingdom, English is the official language although there are minority languages that are recognized such as Welsh, Irish, and Scottish. I believe that Arabic would have a minority language status in Israel under the current proposal..

Well, if you "believe" so, then it must be ok.

Must be satisfying to make a snarky comment.

The actual Bill that goes to the Knesset is fluid, so we don't know what the final version will look like, but the current version is described as follows:

Section 4 stipulates that Hebrew is the only official language of the state of Israel while the Arabic language would be of a "special status".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_ ... ish_People

If anything these provisions will be weakened so that it can pass the Knesset.