Change the name of Israel

[Sean Hayden]

I don't know what they want. I did read that keeping a Jewish majority is important, and doing so requires them to behave badly towards Palestinians. It is probably the reason they are labeled apartheid by some.

I wonder what would happen if we stopped supporting Israel.

[Jason]

I don't think that's a very good idea. Israel is friendly, powerful, and given the state of its neighbours, it's relatively stable ally in the crazy Middle East.

I'm just suggesting that people shouldn't wear blinders to the fact that Israel wants to maintain the Jewish majority in its demographic. That complicates any solution going forward. Unless people think a two-state solution is ever going to happen?

[JimC]

There are some situations without solutions...

[Jason]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean any solution will do. If you mean to cut through the Gordian knot where does each end fall? The best that can be done, in my opinion, is developing a solution in view of some harsh realities - the current government of Israel is staunchly conservative and doesn't see any solution that isn't bloody. Maybe the Palestinians are destined to be a largely displaced people, perhaps we'll give them a state of their own someday in the wild blue yonder, but we can still work to make the transition from besieged to displaced easier.

[Brian Peacock]

It's about time the two-state solution was given credence without either party reflexively bleating that it's always the other lot who are blocking efforts towards a peaceful settlement. But that's just how sectarian politics goes I guess - the impulse of the sectarian is to always shift blame onto others. We saw it in Northern Ireland for years, "Noi! Only when the other lot admit they're a bunch of murderous bastards and that we're right will we even think about sitting down to talk about peace. Until then whatever we do to perpetuate the conflict is all their fault, the fuckers!"

[Strontium Dog]

A two state solution is not going to happen until the Palestinians accept it. They've already rejected their own state on numerous occasions, because they're not willing to accept the presence of a Jewish state on their doorstep. So they keep gambling because they want the lot, and of course, they keep losing.

[Sean Hayden]

I read that the "opportunity" to have a separate state did not come with control of anything at all. They had zero control over any of the things we would consider necessary for an independent state, things like airspace, their ports, their land borders, anything at all really. Can you name exactly what they've supposedly rejected?

[Brian Peacock]

A two state solution is not going to happen until the Palestinians accept it. They've already rejected their own state on numerous occasions, because they're not willing to accept the presence of a Jewish state on their doorstep. So they keep gambling because they want the lot, and of course, they keep losing.

Do you think the two-state solution should be given credence and international support - an affirmation of principle which could form the basis of negotiations towards a peaceful settlement without either side poisoning the well or reflexively bleating that it's always the other lot who are blocking efforts towards an ultimate peace?

[Strontium Dog]

I read that the "opportunity" to have a separate state did not come with control of anything at all. They had zero control over any of the things we would consider necessary for an independent state, things like airspace, their ports, their land borders, anything at all really. Can you name exactly what they've supposedly rejected?

Well they would have had all those things had they not violently rejected it in the 1940s.

But I think, even if we assume it's true that they would not have had control of those things had a peace deal been struck in the 1990s, that those things can be fixed later. The most important thing is to get your state in the first place.

Do you think the two-state solution should be given credence and international support - an affirmation of principle which could form the basis of negotiations towards a peaceful settlement without either side poisoning the well or reflexively bleating that it's always the other lot who are blocking efforts towards an ultimate peace?

I thought it had international support already. Israel obviously won't entertain the notion of a Palestinian state until it's satisfied that they'll stop trying to destroy Israel. Not electing Nazis next time there's an election would be a good first step.

[Sean Hayden]

Well, I was interested in what they had rejected on numerous occasions. I don't know that it is fair to say they've rejected a state of their own. It looks like they live in a prison within Israel.

--//--

You can watch this movie online free for now: https://www.occupationmovie.org/ It's interesting. But as always, I encourage skepticism. Getting to the bottom of claims can be difficult. I was recently reading a UN report that claimed Israel is an apartheid, and while it was possible to look into some statements, others that I thought were important did not come with good sources to back them up, and this is the norm for much of this stuff.

[Strontium Dog]

I don't think Israel itself is an apartheid state. Apartheid in South Africa was characterised by black people being discriminated against and being excluded from positions of importance, whereas Arabs are well represented in all sections of Israeli society, and enjoy the highest life expectancy in the Muslim world. It's a poor analogy for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. China's treatment of Tibet is perhaps closer, but still imperfect, given Tibetans aren't making a violent play for the entirety of China.

[Forty Two]

Whataboutism isn't just for Trump supporters.

Strontium's post was clearly not 'whattaboutism." He's suggesting a bias of those countries on the human rights commission in question. That's not whattaboutism, is it?

Of course it's whataboutism. Not surprising you of all people can't see it.

Pointing out a bias is not "whattaboutism."

....more passive-aggressive snotrag commentary from you, as per usual. "not surprising you can't see it..." -- can you not be insulting to the people you talk to for just one second? Even if I was as stupid as you imply with your douchebag comment, why the insult? How about explaining your point -- "it is whataboutism BECAUSE whattaboutism is defined as X, and Strontium's identification of biased actors fits that definition as follows....

Instead, you're "not surprised..." -- fucking hell, man....

[Svartalf]

it's not the name of israel that should be changed, it's the location, I hereby move that the Jewish Special Oblast of Birobidzhan be renamed Israel and all israelis moved there.

[Forty Two]

Is there another kind in this debate? Their link doesn't work anyway. I'll have to find it elsewhere. It was supposedly leaked immediately.

Israeli spokesmen have their work cut out explaining how they have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them civilians, compared with just three civilians killed in Israel by Hamas rocket and mortar fire. But on television and radio and in newspapers, Israeli government spokesmen such as Mark Regev appear slicker and less aggressive than their predecessors, who were often visibly indifferent to how many Palestinians were killed.

There is a reason for this enhancement of the PR skills of Israeli spokesmen. Going by what they say, the playbook they are using is a professional, well-researched and confidential study on how to influence the media and public opinion in America and Europe. Written by the expert Republican pollster and political strategist Dr Frank Luntz, the study was commissioned five years ago by a group called The Israel Project, with offices in the US and Israel, for use by those "who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel".

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/co ... 30765.html

It reads to me as if the author, Patrick Cockburn, is quotemining a marketing/public relations report. That's the kind of thing public relations companies do -- tell their client how to phrase their message to get the most impact. This is not a big deal.

Troubling to me is unsubstantiated, but foundational, facts that are stated as "truth." He says "Israeli spokesmen have their work cut out explaiing how they killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza.... As best as I can guess, this number refers to an estimate of total number of deaths in Gaza which are attributed (by whoever came up with the figure) to a 12-year blockade of Gaza. I think this 1000 deaths from 2007 to 2018 is a bit speculative. Since 2010, all non-military and dual-use items were allowed into Gaza. The Israeli 'blockade" is an inspection of imports for weapons and munitions.

A big problem is that a reason Israel needs to inspect for military equipment is that Iran ships rockets and other munitions into Gaza and then Hamas led militants use the material to attack Israel. So, Israel does what it needs to do to shut that shit down. The article talks about how Americans view Israel's activities -- I can tell you, if Gaza was just over the border into Mexico, and the news started getting filled with reports of rocket attacks in San Diego and El Paso and Brownsville - there would be no opposition to a wall, and a blockade, and the groups lobbing the rockets would likely get flattened, not just cordoned off.

A writer like Patrick Cockburn doesn't write an objective piece on this issue. Note how he talks about all the deaths in Gaza being "civilian" deaths. But, he doesn't differentiate between civilians who are shot, say, storming a border wall and participating in a mob that is attacking Israeli positions and those that are just minding their own business. He doesn't differentiate between people getting shot, and deaths being "attributed" to a delay in imports resulting from the inspections of incoming ships. He also, implicitly, doesn't view Israel as legitimately existing -- that's fundamental to this story -- whatever Israel is doing to protect its borders is illegitimate because Israel is illegitimate -- it shouldn't exist, and therefore people who attack Israeli positions are morally correct freedom fighters and patriots looking to liberate the land from the occupying forces. That means all deaths in Gaza are wrongful and attributed to Israel, and any deaths of Israelis are minor in comparison and overall justified.

[Forty Two]

No it's not wrong to develop a strategy, but you do tend to give away your objectives when you do. Do the Jewish people of Israel want the Right of Return to be implemented in any final settlement with the Palestinians? It means that they'll be a minority in what they see as their country.

From the moves they make and don't make the current government seems to think that they do not want that. Just how popular is the current regime at home these days?

I'm definitely not a fan of countries with official religions. However, in a region dominated by Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iran, etc., is there really something "wrong" in comparison to have a nation the size of New Jersey which is officially an X-religion country?

At bottom of these discussions seems to be the foundational belief by one side that it's legitimate for countries to be Y-religion-countries, but not legitimate for one country to be an X-religion country.

There also seems to be a foundational belief that the more-or-less arbitrarily delineated countries listed above (Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc....) - simply drawn on a map of "British and French Mandates for Palestine" and the comatose carcass of the "Ottoman Empire" are fine as long as the countries are majority Arab and majority Muslim. However, make one majority non-Arab and majority Jewish, and that's for some reason a major issue.