freeman3
I

'm not sure you could show that Palestinian attitudes have formed as the result of recent treatment by Israe

By recent I mean since say 1947. (Compared to the time periods from which appeals to the right of return for Jews to Israelis, 1947 is yesterday)
I think security measures, and walls, the increasing annexation of territory and resources, and increasingly draconian punishments like bulldozing family homes have all increased over time. And I'm sure that attitudes that commenced with the expulsion from their homes, have only been hardened.

rickyp wrote:freeman3
I

'm not sure you could show that Palestinian attitudes have formed as the result of recent treatment by Israe

By recent I mean since say 1947. (Compared to the time periods from which appeals to the right of return for Jews to Israelis, 1947 is yesterday)
I think security measures, and walls, the increasing annexation of territory and resources, and increasingly draconian punishments like bulldozing family homes have all increased over time. And I'm sure that attitudes that commenced with the expulsion from their homes, have only been hardened.

I think you are right that the grievances go back to 1947, or even earlier. That's why the problem hasn't been solvable over these many years. It could be that by chasing the 2-state solution we have been ignoring the reality of the conflict which is that both sides want the same land, not 1/2 of the same land. My own view is that the majority of Israelis were in a different place thru about 2000, but after the 2nd Intifada the majority tipped to the other side. The current policy as represented by the Likud coalition is in a different place now. Now we have a situation where both sides pretend to be interested in a 2-state solution to garner support from western powers, but in reality that's just a media game that obfuscates their real interests.

Even though I'm lumping both the Israelis and the Palestinians into this same hypocrisy, I don't see it as moral equivalence. Yes, both sides are hypocrites as it relates to pretending to be interested in a 2-state solution; however the restraints on them carrying out their desires are very different. The Palestinians are constrained by the Israelis. The Israelis are constrained by their conscience. Yes, Ricky and Danivon will accuse the Israelis of poor policies on the West Bank, and sometimes rightly so. However, the Israelis have the power to do much worse. Namely they could take all of the West Bank by force and expel a good number of the Palestinians. But thankfully they don't because they know it is wrong. So instead they do it gradually as part of a political compromise. I'm not saying that is right; I'm just saying it is less wrong than what they are physically capable of doing.

ray

The Israelis are constrained by their conscience. Yes, Ricky and Danivon will accuse the Israelis of poor policies on the West Bank, and sometimes rightly so. However, the Israelis have the power to do much worse. Namely they could take all of the West Bank by force and expel a good number of the Palestinians. But thankfully they don't because they know it is wrong. So instead they do it gradually as part of a political compromise. I'm not saying that is right; I'm just saying it is less wrong than what they are physically capable of doing.

Constrained by their conscience? Well some perhaps.
The members of Likud and Labor are constrained by those Israelis with a conscience and by the opinion of the world outside the middle east... Which is why they are expanding in increments. Increments that they hope go largely unnoticed, and which they believe will not result in consequences for Israel. (Other than the expected resentment and eventual flareups of violence that the Palestinians muster.)
And its why the recent push back by the EU and others on Israelis policies in Palestine (the cancelling of water development contracts and the threat of sanctions) are important. Its the first time Israel will suffer ramifications for its policies and strategies.
And maybe that will empower those with a conscience or create more Israels with a conscience. Likud members will just say "screw them" and push on .... But perhaps things might change.

Ray Jay wrote:Must be satisfying to make a snarky comment.

As opposed to pointing out that the UK has an established church, as if I didn't know?

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.

Maybe they will.. But you are referring to an article about the 2011 original proposal. I've tried, but I cannot find an English language version of the latest version in detail. Descriptions suggest that the Netanyahu draft omits the language changes, but maintains the legal ones.

I would hope that it does not pass the Knesset. It is too divisive, not just between Israel's Jews and non-Jews, but within the Jewish community too.

I hadn't realized that the link is not the current bill.

It occurred to me today that Israel was approved as a Jewish state in 1947 by the UN as part of the partition. I wonder whether this is really that big a change.

Appears that the new bill is an outgrowth of the old one.

http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/muqata ... 014/11/29/

Here's an interesting perspective disputing that this bill is particularly right wing.

The Basic Law proposal: “Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People” was actually first proposed by Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party.

The bill was initially proposed in 2011 by Kadima MK Avi Dichter.

The majority of the MKs in Tzipi Livni’s left-wing party supported the bill, as did MKs in the left-wing Labor party.

The bill was likely to pass by a wide nonpartisan majority in the Knesset, but Tzipi Livni did not support it, and killed the bill before it came to vote.

Ray Jay wrote:I hadn't realized that the link is not the current bill.

It occurred to me today that Israel was approved as a Jewish state in 1947 by the UN as part of the partition. I wonder whether this is really that big a change.

It's a different emphasis. It's one thing to have a Jewish State and an Arab state proposed in order to deal with conflict or tension between them, or just self-determination.

It's kind of the same thing as what led to the partitions of Ireland, Timor, Sudan, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, India, Cyprus etc etc. Sometimes following bitter conflict, sometimes not. And sometimes leading to bitter conflict. Sometimes imposed from without, sometimes created by one or other party against the will of the other, sometimes agreed to mutually.

But here's the difference. Other than in name, few of the new partitions define themselves as more than just the land of the 'people' that are in question. When they start to elevate their majority into something more than just a numerical one, I get concerned.

In the UK we have a history of this: In Northern Ireland, the Nationalists and the Republicans who saw themselves as Irish (and were more likely to be Catholic) felt that they were second class citizens due to the elevation of the rights of the Unionist majority (who were more likely to be Protestant). It did not end well, and the ramifications continue to this day.

And of course we also saw in Israel/Palestine during and after the 1946-8 conflicts and later, the extension of this, with annexation and ethnic cleansing being a means to redefine which parts would be in which 'land'.

The more that both sides entrench and divide themselves up, the longer and harder this is going to be.

Danivon:

I've tried, but I cannot find an English language version of the latest version in detail. Descriptions suggest that the Netanyahu draft omits the language changes, but maintains the legal ones.

I would hope that it does not pass the Knesset. It is too divisive, not just between Israel's Jews and non-Jews, but within the Jewish community too.

So even though you don't know what's in the bill, you are strongly against it because it is divisive and related to (represents?) annexation, ethnic cleansing, entrenchment, and division.

Frankly, I think we are all getting caught up in various political agendas (Zionist and Arab and other) that are an outgrowth of internal Israeli politics with their various tactical election strategies. But is there any substance in any of this that really matters?

Ray Jay wrote:Appears that the new bill is an outgrowth of the old one.

http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/muqata ... 014/11/29/

Here's an interesting perspective disputing that this bill is particularly right wing.

The Basic Law proposal: “Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People” was actually first proposed by Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party.

The bill was initially proposed in 2011 by Kadima MK Avi Dichter.

The majority of the MKs in Tzipi Livni’s left-wing party supported the bill, as did MKs in the left-wing Labor party.

The bill was likely to pass by a wide nonpartisan majority in the Knesset, but Tzipi Livni did not support it, and killed the bill before it came to vote.

Kadima is not that left wing - it was formed by 'moderate' Likud members so that Sharon could get a majority for the withdrawl from Gaza. Livni isn't even a member of it any more (but was in 2011, and clearly opposed it). Labor varies in it's 'left-wing' state - by 2011 it was split with all kinds of centrists involved, and Barak exemplifies them as leader until that year.

But it doesn't really make much difference to me which 'side' proposed it - the issue is the proposal itself. In actuality, it did not arise out of the mind of a Kadima MK anyway - it was developed by the Institute for Zionist Strategies between 2006 and 2010 and then picked up by politicians: http://www.izs.org.il/eng/default.asp?f ... &catid=225

Ray Jay wrote:So even though you don't know what's in the bill, you are strongly against it because it is divisive and related to (represents?) annexation, ethnic cleansing, entrenchment, and division.

It is clearly causing division, if you read commentary from within Israel as well as from outsiders.

Frankly, I think we are all getting caught up in various political agendas (Zionist and Arab and other) that are an outgrowth of internal Israeli politics with their various tactical election strategies. But is there any substance in any of this that really matters?

I think it certainly does look like an outgrowth of Israel's politics. It reminds me a bit of the race to the bottom in the UK, with each party competing to be seen as the one truly addressing the 'problem' of immigration by coming up with a way to deprive immigrants of something or other. It's a dangerous game, is making politics out of promoting majorities over minorities.

Seems like this is an inherent issue as long as Israel is a nation for Jews. If it's just another democracy, then an Arab majority could theoretically take over the state. And the Right of Return demands, if met , could create such demographics. Also, the Arab minority in Israel is already 20% and appears to be increasingly in support of Palestinian demands.
Here is a discussion of its provisions. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_La ... ish_People

Given that Israel is a state specifically founded as a haven for Jews after the Holocaust...I am not sure why this law is that controversial. I don't see any particular clauses targeting or lessening the rights of minorities. Either you recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state or you don't. Owen has detailed why it isn't a good idea to grant special status for groups in a society but that is Israel's reason for being a nation. As long as minorities are treated fairly under the law, I don't have a problem with it. Part of the reason for allowing a Jewish state was due to what happened in the Holocaust and Israel would be a safe haven for Jews. That would not be true if Israel was just another democracy and a hostile Arab minority could eventually obtain majority control. Western complaints about this law just play into the hands of those Arabs who would prefer that Israel did not exist.

freeman3

Given that Israel is a state specifically founded as a haven for Jews after the Holocaust.

Actually the 51 member league of nations first mandated a Jewish National Home in Palestine in 1922.

Interesting. That's an even more powerful argument that the world has acquiesced in a specifically Jewish state with its resulting consequences.

freeman3 wrote:Seems like this is an inherent issue as long as Israel is a nation for Jews. If it's just another democracy, then an Arab majority could theoretically take over the state. And the Right of Return demands, if met , could create such demographics. Also, the Arab minority in Israel is already 20% and appears to be increasingly in support of Palestinian demands.

"Already 20%"? What was the Arab minority in the same territory in 1947? what was it in the 1960s? Apparently back then there was talk of the 'demographic timebomb', where the Arab population would be in the majority before the end of the last century. Even including the Occupied Territories this hasn't happened yet.

The Arab population after the 1948 truce was about 12% of the population. In the past 66 years that has increased to about 21%. It's going to take a long time for them to get above 40% at that rate (and no, please don't project exponentially, that's just not what's happening).

Part of the reason why is the Israeli "Right of Return". A limited right of return for Arabs, perhaps with compensation and relocation into Palestine for the majority, rather than return to Israel, would still leave Hebrew Jews as the majority.

Given that Israel is a state specifically founded as a haven for Jews after the Holocaust...I am not sure why this law is that controversial. I don't see any particular clauses targeting or lessening the rights of minorities.

That is not really what the foundation of Israel was about. It predates WWII, and the Zionis movement predates WWI. The Holocaust did give added impetus, and a moral case for a Jewish refuge, and then the continued violence from Zionist groups as well as from Arab groups meant that partition was the only solution.

It's a vague law, but it's what it changes that is the question. The parts about reference to the source of law and jurisprudence may be quite far-reaching, despite looking innocuous at first glance.

Either you recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state or you don't.

I recognise the right of Israel to exist as a state. I recognise the rights of all states to exist as states. Just as India is the homeland of the Hindus, does not mean I believe it should be a Hindu state (Or Japan a Shinto state,

Owen has detailed why it isn't a good idea to grant special status for groups in a society but that is Israel's reason for being a nation. As long as minorities are treated fairly under the law, I don't have a problem with it. Part of the reason for allowing a Jewish state was due to what happened in the Holocaust and Israel would be a safe haven for Jews.

That would not be true if Israel was just another democracy and a hostile Arab minority could eventually obtain majority control. Western complaints about this law just play into the hands of those Arabs who would prefer that Israel did not exist.

What about Israeli complaints that the law is what plays into the hands of those Arabs who claim that Israel is a racist and apartheid state?

I refer to the nation's President: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/ ... VY20141126

"The formulators of the (Israeli) Declaration of Independence, with much wisdom, insisted the Arab communities in Israel, as well as other groups, should not feel as the Jews had felt in exile," President Reuven Rivlin said in a speech on Tuesday.

or his predecessor: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... tion-state

Former President Shimon Peres has said that the law would “destroy Israel’s democratic status at home and abroad.”

Or some views from Israeli commentators in Haaretz articles: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.629450 (the articles themselves are available on their premium service)

However, the jewish state (called Palestine, not Israel) by the league also was to have the following requirements in its laws...

ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self­ governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ARTICLE 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

ARTICLE 16. The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.

Notice that there was no provision made in this mandate for a Palestinian nation.... and in fact that portion of Palestine became part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan based upon the British governments whim. (Whim? maybe political need?)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ndate.html