Jump to content

Why Israel Can't Be A 'jewish State'


Recommended Posts

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opini...4417586774.html"The Israeli government's current mantra is that the Palestinians must recognise a "Jewish State". Of course, the Palestinians have clearly and repeatedly recognised the State of Israel as such in the 1993 Oslo Accords (which were based on an Israeli promise to establish a Palestinian state within five years - a promise now shattered) and many times since. Recently, however, Israeli leaders have dramatically and unilaterally moved the goal-posts and are now clamouring that Palestinians must recognise Israel as a "Jewish State"."
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opini...4417586774.html"The Israeli government's current mantra is that the Palestinians must recognise a "Jewish State". Of course, the Palestinians have clearly and repeatedly recognised the State of Israel as such in the 1993 Oslo Accords (which were based on an Israeli promise to establish a Palestinian state within five years - a promise now shattered) and many times since. Recently, however, Israeli leaders have dramatically and unilaterally moved the goal-posts and are now clamouring that Palestinians must recognise Israel as a "Jewish State"."
First of all Israel isnt a state, its a country, but most importantly you are an idiot.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting article. I think it's important for people with an open mind in the West to hear the point of view of non radical Palestinians to help to understand what some of the issues are.I found the below to be his main arguments and they're worth thinking about.

Today, however, demands for a "Jewish State" from Israeli politicians are growing without giving thought to what this might mean, and its supporters claim that it would be as natural as calling France a French State. However, if we consider the subject dispassionately, the idea of a "Jewish State" is logically and morally problematic because of its legal, religious, historical and social implications. The implications of this term therefore need to be spelled out, and we are sure that once they are, most people - and most Israeli citizens, we trust - will not accept these implications.Many implicationsFirst, let us say that confusion immediately arises here because the term "Jewish" can be applied both to the ancient race of Israelites and their descendants, as well as to those who believe in and practice the religion of Judaism. These generally overlap, but not always. For example, some ethnic Jews are atheists and there are converts to Judaism (leaving aside the question of whether these are accepted as such by Ultra-Orthodox Jews) who are not ethnic Jews.Second, let us suggest also that having a modern nation-state being defined by one ethnicity or one religion is problematic in itself - if not inherently self-contradictory - because the modern nation-state as such is a temporal and civic institution, and because no state in the world is - or can be in practice - ethnically or religiously homogenous.Third, recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" implies that Israel is, or should be, either a theocracy (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the religion of Judaism) or an apartheid state (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the ethnicity of Jews), or both, and in all of these cases, Israel is then no longer a democracy - something which has rightly been the pride of most Israelis since the country's founding in 1948.Fourth, at least one in five Israelis - 20 per cent of the population, according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics - is ethnically Arab (and are mostly either Muslim, Christian, Druze or Bahai), and recognising Israel as a "Jewish State" as such makes one-fifth of the population of Israel automatically strangers in their own native land and opens the door to legally reducing them, most undemocratically, to second-class citizens (or perhaps even stripping them of their citizenship and other rights) - something that no-one, much less a Palestinian leader, has a right to do.-----So, rather than demand that Palestinians recognise Israel as a "Jewish State" as such - adding "beyond chutzpah" to insult and injury - we offer the suggestion that Israeli leaders ask instead that Palestinians recognise Israel (proper) as a civil, democratic, and pluralistic state whose official religion is Judaism, and whose majority is Jewish. Many states (including Israel's neighbours Jordan and Egypt, and countries such as Greece) have their official religion as Christianity or Islam (but grant equal civil rights to all citizens) and there is no reason why Israeli Jews should not want the religion of their state to be officially Jewish. This is a reasonable demand, and it may allay the fears of Jewish Israelis about becoming a minority in Israel, and at the same time not arouse fears among Palestinians and Arabs about being ethnically cleansed in Palestine. Demanding the recognition of Israel's official religion as Judaism, rather than the recognition of Israel as a "Jewish State", would also mean Israel continuing to be a democracy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do the Israelis give a shit about this? I'd think they be would OK with being considered a Turnip State of Israel as long as people didn't shoot rockets at them. It's not like they'd need Palestine's permission to become a theocracy. I don't get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhhhhh, yes. Secularism, which doesn't even have an Abrahamic God to believe in.
This is only true if you use 'number of people killed' as your benchmark.Or 'number of helpful programs created by the masses'.But most people are not willing to accept that benchmark, so your statement isn't accurate based on nebulous secular morality.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's an interesting article. I think it's important for people with an open mind in the West to hear the point of view of non radical Palestinians to help to understand what some of the issues are.I found the below to be his main arguments and they're worth thinking about.
i think u hit the nail on the head wrt the article.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do the Israelis give a shit about this? I'd think they be would OK with being considered a Turnip State of Israel as long as people didn't shoot rockets at them. It's not like they'd need Palestine's permission to become a theocracy. I don't get it.
They care because they want to keep the land of israel for the jews. The fear from their side is that arabs will politically infiltrate by multiplying and getting elected and slowly shift away from the jewishness of the state until they effectively have regained control of jerusalem.
Link to post
Share on other sites
They care because they want to keep the land of israel for the jews. The fear from their side is that arabs will politically infiltrate by multiplying and getting elected and slowly shift away from the jewishness of the state until they effectively have regained control of jerusalem.
So, xenophobia...?
Link to post
Share on other sites
They care because they want to keep the land of israel for the jews. The fear from their side is that arabs will politically infiltrate by multiplying and getting elected and slowly shift away from the jewishness of the state until they effectively have regained control of jerusalem.
I understand the aspiration, but not how Palestine's explicit recognition of this aspiration makes any difference.It's like the United States wanting Mexico to recognize the Superpower of the United States of America.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the aspiration, but not how Palestine's explicit recognition of this aspiration makes any difference.It's like the United States wanting Mexico to recognize the Superpower of the United States of America.
level? or want serious answer?
Link to post
Share on other sites
i think u hit the nail on the head wrt the article.
Can someone translate this?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Serious answer.
Your analogy with USA and Mexico was not good. 1) US and Mexico are not in a state of conflict2) The reality is not about recognising greater national power in a comparison between 2 sovereign states, but legitimation of a permanent dominant identity inside ONE sovereign state. US would have to say "Mexicans/Hispanics must recognise that the USA is an Anglo-European state". It paves the way for legislation etc to sideline outsiders to that identity(non-whites etc) from becoming full citizens.3) Not sure if you think I'm being condescending, but you asked for a serious answer, so i assume nothing about your knowledge. Strange that you would ask this, and I still think you've got me on a level. If so, good one...4) It's not only about legitimation by Palestinians within the conflict zone, but that legitimation from within the conflict zone would carry weight in the international arena as part of a peace settlement.5) And much more....
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your analogy with USA and Mexico was not good.
It illustrates my point. I'm not saying that Mexico is exactly the same as Palestine and United States is exactly the same as Israel with exactly the same aspirations and that their relationship is exactly the same at the point in time.We have:
  1. Two neighboring states that were once at war.
  2. An aspiration of one of those states.
  3. The aspiration isn't part of the recognition.
  4. The state achieves the aspiration.

1) US and Mexico are not in a state of conflict2) The reality is not about recognising greater national power in a comparison between 2 sovereign states, but legitimation of a permanent dominant identity inside ONE sovereign state.
If I claim shark:tank :: parrot : cage, are you going to tell me the analogy is bad because parrots have feathers?
US would have to say "Mexicans/Hispanics must recognise that the USA is an Anglo-European state". It paves the way for legislation etc to sideline outsiders to that identity(non-whites etc) from becoming full citizens.
I have two responses here:I think it's an absurd thing for Israel to insist on. What does "it paves the way" really mean? If an Israeli Jew proposes a law that sidelines outsiders, how is Palestine's terms of recognition relevant? ("Gee, I guess I can't vote for that because Palestine doesn't recognize us as a Jewish state." )
3) Not sure if you think I'm being condescending, but you asked for a serious answer, so i assume nothing about your knowledge. Strange that you would ask this, and I still think you've got me on a level. If so, good one...
It's not entirely a literal question, but a literal answer works. Is Israel concerned that Palestine will later claim their recognition applies to some alternative (ethnically diverse) government inside of Israel, rather than the de facto Jewish government? I'm flailing around here for some reason for how this issue really affects people.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's an absurd thing for Israel to insist on.
I think they probably believe, rightly, that just drawing some presently acceptable political lines does not put an end to the conflict, and that the arabs will be looking for reasons to continue to aggravate them, and to reclaim the land. One way for arabs to do this in an open democracy would be to increase their population to the point where they could gain power in government. They also don't want suicide bombers exploding themselves because israel makes some law that favors jewish people, or does something that is not favorable to Islam. In essence they are looking for a more convincing admission that the land is really theirs. It's only absurd in that theocracy is such an exceedingly bad idea its amazing anyone still aspires to it. But its not absurd in that its totally consistent with judaism and everything israel has always wanted and done. They believe that land was given by god to the jews and they want their state to be not just a political entity but a religious/ethnic entity, which effectively seals off any claims any arab could ever make to the land or government, regardless of whether that arab lived in israel or in palestine.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they probably believe, rightly, that just drawing some presently acceptable political lines does not put an end to the conflict, and that the arabs will be looking for reasons to continue to aggravate them, and to reclaim the land. One way for arabs to do this in an open democracy would be to increase their population to the point where they could gain power in government. They also don't want suicide bombers exploding themselves because israel makes some law that favors jewish people, or does something that is not favorable to Islam. In essence they are looking for a more convincing admission that the land is really theirs. It's only absurd in that theocracy is such an exceedingly bad idea its amazing anyone still aspires to it. But its not absurd in that its totally consistent with judaism and everything israel has always wanted and done. They believe that land was given by god to the jews and they want their state to be not just a political entity but a religious/ethnic entity, which effectively seals off any claims any arab could ever make to the land or government, regardless of whether that arab lived in israel or in palestine.
Some very good thoughts on this by several people. As a Jew living abroad...well I don't really care. I just wanted to correct last sentence - Israel is not trying to seal off any claims any Arab could make, but anyone else. Arab, Christian, Hindu, whatever. There's only a current Arab threat, but the rest of your post is accurate in describing their (questionable) goals of a theocracy.It didn't really need 'correcting' per se, but it looks hateful if you say they only want to stop Arabs, rather than that they want to stop anyone who isn't like them. Hmm, that sentence looks just as hateful.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It illustrates my point. I'm not saying that Mexico is exactly the same as Palestine and United States is exactly the same as Israel with exactly the same aspirations and that their relationship is exactly the same at the point in time.We have:
  1. Two neighboring states that were once at war.
  2. An aspiration of one of those states.
  3. The aspiration isn't part of the recognition.
  4. The state achieves the aspiration.

If I claim shark:tank :: parrot : cage, are you going to tell me the analogy is bad because parrots have feathers? You ask a question, then when given a reply, you act like you're butthurt. Cmon, your analogy was faulty in describing the dynamics of the power relations I have two responses here:I think it's an absurd thing for Israel to insist on. What does "it paves the way" really mean? If an Israeli Jew proposes a law that sidelines outsiders, how is Palestine's terms of recognition relevant? ("Gee, I guess I can't vote for that because Palestine doesn't recognize us as a Jewish state." )Conflict resolution involves agreements from the other side. Look at some history of conflicts and their peace treaties. You will find that when there is such a peace treaty, all sides sign up to it. This legitimises the treaty then, and provides a basis for future generations to abide by the decisions of the signatories.It's not entirely a literal question, but a literal answer works. Is Israel concerned that Palestine will later claim their recognition applies to some alternative (ethnically diverse) government inside of Israel, rather than the de facto Jewish government? You're on the right track. Some Jews desire an ethno-state for Jews, not just a civic state that half of Africa or wherever can come and be part of. Constitutionally, a standard would be set by such an agreement with the current antagonists(Palestinians) which reserves the right for Israel to take future measures to preserve the ethno-state against any danger, as mrdannyG said.I'm flailing around here for some reason for how this issue really affects people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't meant to.
It really was a horrible analogy. Israel is still in conflict with the palestinians over their claim the land and what they are asking has direct bearing on the palestinian's claim to the land.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...