Israel cannot have its cake and eat it too. If it is a democracy as I understand it, with no distinctions made between any of the inhabitants based on race, ethnicity or religion then it is not a Jewish state. I don't believe it is a democracy in that sense. It is only a democracy with regard to the Jewish inhabitants. If there is a threat of loss of any significant political control to Arabs they will clamp down to prevent it. It would be pretense to say that non-Jewish inhabitants have the same standing as Jewish inhabitants with regard to political rights. Minorities otherwise may have the same rights as Jewish citizens but I cannot believe that anyone really believes that Israel is a true democracy. I also cannot believe that anyone would believe that a state set up for Jews would be a true democracy (not just for Jews but for all inhabitants) ;it's a contradiction in terms.

I think the options are to say it is ok for Israel to be a Jewish state or that it is wrong for it to be a Jewish state. I think it is ok, particularly given 2,000 years of persecution (and 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust). If you think it is wrong that Israel is a Jewish state requiring Jewish political control, then say so.

freeman3

I think the options are to say it is ok for Israel to be a Jewish state or that it is wrong for it to be a Jewish state. I think it is ok, particularly given 2,000 years of persecution (and 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust). If you think it is wrong that Israel is a Jewish state requiring Jewish political control, then say so.

This would be much easier to support a Jewish State with special rights for Jews, if the Arabs of Palestine had been granted a State as well. Maybe even one with special rights for Arabs?
In fact, it would still be easier to support if Israel also supported a democratic nation for Palestinians.And actually worked towards its creation and helped it succeed economically.
Instead, the current leaders in Israel are more comfortable hiving off small sections of land, and exploiting the limited resources of the area.
Israel was conceived as a land for a people who were victimized through history. Mostly by Christians. That some in Israel think it can only exist if another people are victimized is ironic.

Ricky:

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

Any day that has Ricky quoting from the Jewish Virtual Library is a good day.

There may not have been the notion of an Arab Palestinian nation in the early 20's. They didn't have a distinct language, or history, or culture relative to the other Arabs in the area. They didn't have their own coins, or history, or literature, or distinct religion as far as I know. All the Arabs in the area were ruled by the Ottomans. That's not to deny that there is now a distinct Palestinian people who have national aspirations now. But I don't think that was the case in the 1920's.

freeman3 wrote:Israel cannot have its cake and eat it too. If it is a democracy as I understand it, with no distinctions made between any of the inhabitants based on race, ethnicity or religion then it is not a Jewish state. I don't believe it is a democracy in that sense. It is only a democracy with regard to the Jewish inhabitants. If there is a threat of loss of any significant political control to Arabs they will clamp down to prevent it. It would be pretense to say that non-Jewish inhabitants have the same standing as Jewish inhabitants with regard to political rights. Minorities otherwise may have the same rights as Jewish citizens but I cannot believe that anyone really believes that Israel is a true democracy. I also cannot believe that anyone would believe that a state set up for Jews would be a true democracy (not just for Jews but for all inhabitants) ;it's a contradiction in terms.

I think the options are to say it is ok for Israel to be a Jewish state or that it is wrong for it to be a Jewish state. I think it is ok, particularly given 2,000 years of persecution (and 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust). If you think it is wrong that Israel is a Jewish state requiring Jewish political control, then say so.

That's too strong from my perspective. The Israeli founding is based on it being both Democratic and Jewish. The Courts have upheld that view. Non Jewish citizens do have the same standing as it relates to voting, press freedom, etc. It is true that Arabs don't HAVE to serve in the army, but other than that I don't think there are distinctions as you suggest.

I assumed that Arabs did have the same rights. But coud Arabs exercise political control of Israel.? Could you have an Arab prime minister? Isn't that what the basic law is all about, that there will never be a Right of Return allowed that will take away political control from Jews, Arabs will never be able to overtake Jews by means of demographics. Arabs have the same rights, but would they be allowed to have real political power (there have been Arab members of Knesset but that does not translate into political power, necessarily) . It doesn't bother me how Israel defines itself, but I would assume there are limits as to how democratic Israel will be. Maybe I am wrong.

freeman3 wrote:I assumed that Arabs did have the same rights. But coud Arabs exercise political control of Israel.? Could you have an Arab prime minister?

YES

Isn't that what the basic law is all about, that there will never be a Right of Return allowed that will take away political control from Jews,

NO. I don't think that the basic law mentions a Right of Return. The current Right of Return is about guaranteeing that Jews throughout the world have a safe place to live.

Arabs will never be able to overtake Jews by means of demographics. Arabs have the same rights, but would they be allowed to have real political power (there have been Arab members of Knesset but that does not translate into political power, necessarily) . It doesn't bother me how Israel defines itself, but I would assume there are limits as to how democratic Israel will be.

The current limitation is the hostile nature of the surrounding people and powers. However, yes, I do agree with you that without a majority population that believes that Israel should be a Jewish country, the endeavor falls apart.

Then the new proposed law would appear to symbolically at least (as Peres indicated) alter the Israeli stance towards democracy... (by the way, I was referencing the Arab Right of Return not the Jewish one )

ray

They didn't have a distinct language, or history, or culture relative to the other Arabs in the area

They lived there.
And the history of Palestinian nationalism begins, according to many scholars, in 1834.
and grew after that.....

in May 1834, the rebels took many cities, among them Jerusalem, Hebron and Nablus. In response, Ibrahim Pasha sent in his army, finally defeating the last rebels on 4 August in Hebron.[1] Nevertheless, the Arabs in Palestine remained part of a Pan-Islamist or Pan-Arab national movement.[2]
In 1882 the population numbered approximately 320,000 people, 25,000 of whom were Jewish.[3] Many of these were Arab Jews and in the narrative works of Arabs in Palestine in the late Ottoman period - as evidenced in the autobiographies and diaries of Khalil Sakakini and Wasif Jawhariyyeh - "native" Jews were often referred to as abnaa al-balad (sons of the country), 'compatriots', or Yahud awlad Arab ("Jews, sons of Arabs").[4]
At the beginning of the 20th century, a "local and specific Palestinian patriotism" emerged. The Palestinian identity grew progressively. In 1911, a newspaper named Filastin was published in Jaffa and the first Palestinian nationalist organisations appeared at the end of the World War I[5] Two political factions emerged. al-Muntada al-Adabi, dominated by the Nashashibi family, militated for the promotion of the Arab language and culture, for the defense of Islamic values and for an independent Syria and Palestine. In Damascus, al-Nadi al-Arabi, dominated by the Husayni family, defended the same values.[6]
When the First Palestinian Congress of February 1919 issued its anti-Zionist manifesto rejecting Zionist immigration, it extended a welcome to those Jews "among us who have been Arabicized, who have been living in our province since before the war; they are as we are, and their loyalties are our own.".[4]
According to Benny Morris, Palestinian Arab nationalism as a distinct movement appeared between April and July 1920,[6] after the Nebi Musa riots, the San Remo conference and the failure of Faisal to establish the Kingdom of Greater Syria.[7][8

]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ian_people

Just because various despots and dictators ignored the national aspirations of Palestinians in the region, and just because the whole region was dominated by colonial powers for centuries, doesn't mean that the people within the region haven't a right to self determination.
The creation of Israel essentially ended that right for some. The inability to create a parallel nation for nonJewish Arabs in Palestine, doesn't diminish the historical connection to the land that the indingenous people had...

rickyp wrote:ray

They didn't have a distinct language, or history, or culture relative to the other Arabs in the area

They lived there.
And the history of Palestinian nationalism begins, according to many scholars, in 1834.
and grew after that.....

in May 1834, the rebels took many cities, among them Jerusalem, Hebron and Nablus. In response, Ibrahim Pasha sent in his army, finally defeating the last rebels on 4 August in Hebron.[1] Nevertheless, the Arabs in Palestine remained part of a Pan-Islamist or Pan-Arab national movement.[2]
In 1882 the population numbered approximately 320,000 people, 25,000 of whom were Jewish.[3] Many of these were Arab Jews and in the narrative works of Arabs in Palestine in the late Ottoman period - as evidenced in the autobiographies and diaries of Khalil Sakakini and Wasif Jawhariyyeh - "native" Jews were often referred to as abnaa al-balad (sons of the country), 'compatriots', or Yahud awlad Arab ("Jews, sons of Arabs").[4]
At the beginning of the 20th century, a "local and specific Palestinian patriotism" emerged. The Palestinian identity grew progressively. In 1911, a newspaper named Filastin was published in Jaffa and the first Palestinian nationalist organisations appeared at the end of the World War I[5] Two political factions emerged. al-Muntada al-Adabi, dominated by the Nashashibi family, militated for the promotion of the Arab language and culture, for the defense of Islamic values and for an independent Syria and Palestine. In Damascus, al-Nadi al-Arabi, dominated by the Husayni family, defended the same values.[6]
When the First Palestinian Congress of February 1919 issued its anti-Zionist manifesto rejecting Zionist immigration, it extended a welcome to those Jews "among us who have been Arabicized, who have been living in our province since before the war; they are as we are, and their loyalties are our own.".[4]
According to Benny Morris, Palestinian Arab nationalism as a distinct movement appeared between April and July 1920,[6] after the Nebi Musa riots, the San Remo conference and the failure of Faisal to establish the Kingdom of Greater Syria.[7][8

]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ian_people

Just because various despots and dictators ignored the national aspirations of Palestinians in the region, and just because the whole region was dominated by colonial powers for centuries, doesn't mean that the people within the region haven't a right to self determination.
The creation of Israel essentially ended that right for some. The inability to create a parallel nation for nonJewish Arabs in Palestine, doesn't diminish the historical connection to the land that the indingenous people had...

Yes, they lived there, and yes indigenous people have rights, including self-determination. Must you be so annoying as to always argue against points that people don't make? But your source generally supports my view that the notion of a distinct Arab Palestinian people is a 20th century phenomenon. (I said after the 1920's; your source says it became distinct in 1920. But your post isn't about that 10 years, is it?) These things don't turn on or off like a switch. The distinct Palestinian consciousness of wanting a distinct nation did not exist as far as I can tell before WWI. It's not surprising that it wasn't recognized in 1922 by the League of Nations. From your source, bolded so you can read what you posted:

1834 ... Nevertheless, the Arabs in Palestine remained part of a Pan-Islamist or Pan-Arab national movement ... Two political factions emerged. al-Muntada al-Adabi, dominated by the Nashashibi family, militated for the promotion of the Arab language and culture, for the defense of Islamic values and for an independent Syria and Palestine. In Damascus, al-Nadi al-Arabi, dominated by the Husayni family, defended the same values.[ ...According to Benny Morris, Palestinian Arab nationalism as a distinct movement appeared between April and July 1920,[6] after the Nebi Musa riots [1920], the San Remo conference and the failure of Faisal to establish the Kingdom of Greater Syria.[1920]

freeman3 wrote:I assumed that Arabs did have the same rights. But coud Arabs exercise political control of Israel.? Could you have an Arab prime minister? Isn't that what the basic law is all about, that there will never be a Right of Return allowed that will take away political control from Jews, Arabs will never be able to overtake Jews by means of demographics. Arabs have the same rights, but would they be allowed to have real political power (there have been Arab members of Knesset but that does not translate into political power, necessarily) . It doesn't bother me how Israel defines itself, but I would assume there are limits as to how democratic Israel will be. Maybe I am wrong.

The proposed Basic Law does not mention an Arab right of return. But it would bake in the Jewish Right of return.

There are and have been Arab members of the Knesset. But they are not proportionate to the numbers of Arab voters, and there have been throughout Israel's history bans on parties and particular individuals from being MKs.

In theory you could have an Arab PM of Israel, but in practice it would not happen even with no changes to the current Basic Laws.

Yeah, that would be my understanding--de jure Israel is a democracy; de facto, with regard to Arabs, not so much. Which I am ok with . But , as you point out, the Proposed Basic Law would probably be just unnecessarily divisive.

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, that would be my understanding--de jure Israel is a democracy; de facto, with regard to Arabs, not so much. Which I am ok with . But , as you point out, the Proposed Basic Law would probably be just unnecessarily divisive.

Indeed it would. And rather than strengthening the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, the debate could end up undermining it. We are seeing an increase in low level vandalism etc from both 'sides' in Israel itself (not including the attacks from Arabs from East Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories).

ray

Must you be so annoying as to always argue against points that people don't make?

I quoted you. Whether you were using the information to support something else or passing it off as factual ... it needed challenging..

ray

The distinct Palestinian consciousness of wanting a distinct nation did not exist as far as I can tell before WWI. It's not surprising that it wasn't recognized in 1922 by the League of Nations.

So you discount the uprising of 1834? When Palestinians controlled all the cities in Palestine for 2 years, including Jerusalem?

The difference between Israel and Zionism ...and Palestine and their developing nationalism is great.
But lets remember that the Jews in Israel before 1880 were mostly Arabs. And only after Zionism developed did a a nationality that might be recognized as distinctly Jewish arise. Through immigration.
Israel was not so much about self determination by indigenous peoples as a a solution to finding a home for a victimized people . But a solution that trampled on the rights of the indigenous.
The notion that the creation of Israel was a moral and justifiable despite the calamity that has befallen the indigenous people of the region strikes me as inherently dishonest. That's why, when you and Freeman say that the solution for Palestinians to "accept the situation as it is " and get on with building a better life ... strikes me as entirely insensitive .
As Freeman has pointed out, Israel the Jewish democracy is a contradiction.
So is The Jewish right of return that doesn't accept a right of return for Palestinians forced out in 47.
So is the notion that the way to create a great nation is to make victims of another people who have suffered under colonialism and dictators...
Israel has prospered because these three things have been ignored by the outside world, or distorted. Partly that's been great Israelis PR, partly lousy Arab PR, Partly lousy Arab leadership, And partly western racism. (The base racism that allowed the west to inflict exploitative colonial regimes on places like Palestine.)
None of that past, means that there can't be a solution that corrects the mistake in 1922 and again in 1946.

Danivon:

There are and have been Arab members of the Knesset. But they are not proportionate to the numbers of Arab voters,

source?

Freeman:

Yeah, that would be my understanding--de jure Israel is a democracy; de facto, with regard to Arabs, not so much.

Within Israel itself, Arabs do have full democratic rights. They can join the army if they so choose. What rights don't Israeli Arabs have?

As to becoming Prime Minister, you never know. If there were genuine peace in the Middle East with Arab acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and some time, it is possible that an Arab Israeli would be chosen by a coalition, especially if the electorate was able to focus on economic policies instead of defense. Did anyone think that an African American would be elected President of the U.S. in 1850?

But of course, not likely ...

Ricky:

ray

The distinct Palestinian consciousness of wanting a distinct nation did not exist as far as I can tell before WWI. It's not surprising that it wasn't recognized in 1922 by the League of Nations.

So you discount the uprising of 1834? When Palestinians controlled all the cities in Palestine for 2 years, including Jerusalem?

Oy Vey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_ ... (Palestine)

The Peasants' Revolt[1][2] was a rebellion against Egyptian conscription and taxation policies. While rebel ranks consisted mostly of the local peasantry, urban notables and Bedouin tribes also formed an integral part of the revolt, which was a collective reaction to Egypt's gradual elimination of the unofficial rights and privileges previously enjoyed by the various classes of society in the Levant under Ottoman rule.[3]

As part of Muhammad Ali's modernization policies, Ibrahim Pasha, the Egyptian governor of the Levant issued conscription orders for every fifth Muslim male. Encouraged by local chief Qasim al-Ahmad, the notables of Nablus, Hebron and the Jerusalem-Jaffa area did not abide by Ibrahim Pasha's orders to conscript and tax the local peasantry.
...
However, the ultimate intention of the notables and rebel leaders was to force out the Egyptian army and reinstate Ottoman rule as a means of restoring the Ottoman-era standards that defined the relationship between the government and the governed. These standards were made up of the religious laws, administrative codes and local norms and customs that were disrupted by Egyptian reforms.[

Only a revisionist would argue that a revolt to restore Ottoman rule in 1834 is a Palestinian nationalist revolt.

No doubt your going to use this an opportunity to say things you've already said that we've already discussed ...