Ahmadinejad's UN comment

[Anonymous]

I am sure I am going to regret introducing this topic because it usually degenerates quickly, but here goes anyway.

So Ahmadinejad characterized the state of Israel as racist. I realize that the messenger of the statement adds a different context to the message (and for the record, I do support Israel's right to exist and of course do not want it to be wiped off the planet as Ahmadinejad has suggested). But to the extent that you can separate the messenger from the message, what is the objection to that statement? I think state of Israel indisputably has racist policies, eg. the right of return extended only to Jews (not Arabs who lived there pre-1948), the declaration of Israel as a Jewish state, the collective punishment meted out to Palestinians, etc. There have also been a line of politicians who have - to my knowledge without censure - publically advocated everything from an Arab-free Israeli state to forcing Arabs in Israel to take loyalty oaths to the outright execution of Palestinians.

I realize there is a long line of arguments about why Israel should be entitled to have these policies (reparations, security issues, etc.), but I think that is a different discussion. To me it is hard to defend the statement that Israel isn't racist.

[Anonymous]

Why do you want to talk about this?

[Anonymous]

OP here - that was supposed to be pre-1948, not pre-194 smiley face.

[Anonymous]

Why do you want to talk about this?

1. Because I like talking about current events.

2. Because I am trying to understand what pissed off the western UN reps.

Why don't you want to talk about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you want to talk about this?

2. Because I am trying to understand what pissed off the western UN reps.

Why don't you want to talk about this?

Not the OP, but why don't/can't we discuss topics related to Israel (without being accused of being an anti-semite)?

If you haven't already, I think you should pick-up a copy of the Israel Lobby by Walt Mearsheimer. And no, it's not anti-semitic to question the policies of another nation, particularly when they are so brazenly discriminatory.

One reason I can think of why people are discouraged from talking on the subject, is that the public might learn something about events/atrocities/human rights violations occurring in Israel as it relates to Palestinians. The American public might also learn that Israel has the US by the balls, though the Israeli government receives enormous sums of money from the US taxpayer. I read somewhere that 9/11 is directly correlated to America's unquestioning support for the state of Israel.

[Anonymous]

Bump

[Anonymous]

I would not personally use the term "racism", because the division is based more on nationality than race, and of course because there are jews in Israel who are dark skinned or black.

I find Jimmy Carter's "Apartheid" label to be more descriptive of the problem. There are two groups of people living in this one land. One is denied full civil rights as well as freedom of movement within the country. I think Carter does an excellent job of describing how the Palestinian people are denied freedoms that they are due as people in this state.

How can this be resolved? The state must either split in two, give everyone full rights and give up its exclusively Jewish identity, or continue to create this internal separation between Arab and Jew.

Of course the first option, the two state solution, is the only viable one. The second is unacceptable to Israel, and the third is doomed to fail under the weight of intractable demographic trends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
How can this be resolved? The state must either split in two, give everyone full rights and give up its exclusively Jewish identity, or continue to create this internal separation between Arab and Jew.

Of course the first option, the two state solution, is the only viable one. The second is unacceptable to Israel, and the third is doomed to fail under the weight of intractable demographic trends.

Great analysis. And to achieve the two state solution you need representatives from both sides willing to negotiate and deal with each other in good faith. The latter is what has alluded us these last three decades.

[Anonymous]

With regard to Israel proper, it's important to recognize that about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, including Palestinians and Bedouins. While Israel might be more democratic than other Middle Eastern nations, it isn't anywhere near the current United States with regard to racial and ethnic equality. Arab citizens born and raised in Israel whose families have lived there for generations are not treated equally.

Palestinian citizens of Israel suffer from a segregated inferior educational system. They are rarely able to get permission to live in areas set aside for Jewish citizens (and those areas constitute the majority of the land). Therefore they live in crowded towns and cities with poor city services. Many good jobs are closed to them, allegedly because they don't serve in the army but it's usually just a way to keep from having to hire Arabs. Furthermore public opinion polling shows that majorities of Jewish Israelis believe that Arab citizens should not get the same kind of preferred treatment that Jewish citizens get.

While Israel proper might not be apartheid, it certainly has much in common with the Jim Crow South in the United States. Really, think about this -- I know our country has problems and we struggle with a lot of racism but we have come a long way and we would never accept this kind of unequal treatment in the United States.

Of course, Israel is better than a lot of places in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia where it's illegal to worship as a Christian. Totally agreed. But we don't even have to look to the West Bank and Gaza to find evidence that Israel is a racist state. And I find it incredibly aggravating that Israel gets a pass on behavior that we would never accept here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would not personally use the term "racism", because the division is based more on nationality than race, and of course because there are jews in Israel who are dark skinned or black.

I find Jimmy Carter's "Apartheid" label to be more descriptive of the problem. There are two groups of people living in this one land. One is denied full civil rights as well as freedom of movement within the country. I think Carter does an excellent job of describing how the Palestinian people are denied freedoms that they are due as people in this state.

How can this be resolved? The state must either split in two, give everyone full rights and give up its exclusively Jewish identity, or continue to create this internal separation between Arab and Jew.

Of course the first option, the two state solution, is the only viable one. The second is unacceptable to Israel, and the third is doomed to fail under the weight of intractable demographic trends.

If you define race as something that you are born with, then racism is appropriate. Most people are born Jewish, so that is why Zionism is seen as racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How can this be resolved? The state must either split in two, give everyone full rights and give up its exclusively Jewish identity, or continue to create this internal separation between Arab and Jew.

Of course the first option, the two state solution, is the only viable one. The second is unacceptable to Israel, and the third is doomed to fail under the weight of intractable demographic trends.

Great analysis. And to achieve the two state solution you need representatives from both sides willing to negotiate and deal with each other in good faith. The latter is what has alluded us these last three decades.

No. There is the one state solution. Yes, Jews and Arabs living side by side. It can work. Don't be brainwashed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you want to talk about this?

I am curious about why this person posted this? What is so upsetting about the OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How can this be resolved? The state must either split in two, give everyone full rights and give up its exclusively Jewish identity, or continue to create this internal separation between Arab and Jew.

Of course the first option, the two state solution, is the only viable one. The second is unacceptable to Israel, and the third is doomed to fail under the weight of intractable demographic trends.

Great analysis. And to achieve the two state solution you need representatives from both sides willing to negotiate and deal with each other in good faith. The latter is what has alluded us these last three decades.

Three? Six decades!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great analysis. And to achieve the two state solution you need representatives from both sides willing to negotiate and deal with each other in good faith. The latter is what has alluded us these last three decades.

Three? Six decades!

I think the first poster was alluding to the three decades since Camp David. Before that it was not eluding us because negotiation was inconceivable before Carter, Sadat, and Begin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two groups of people living in this one land. One is denied full civil rights as well as freedom of movement within the country. I think Carter does an excellent job of describing how the Palestinian people are denied freedoms that they are due as people in this state.

Wow- we have a Carter fan on the board. I didn't know there were any.

Perhaps you should take a look at what the Palestinians have done to the land Israel handed over to them. They've destroyed it. If you give them freedom, they will exploit it and attack Israel.

Why haven't other Arab nations come to the aid of the Palestinians? Why doesn't Egypt open her borders and let these innocent refugees inside? It's quite simple... no one likes the Palestinians and they certainly don't want them in their country. The Arab world cries foul when Israel defends itself but, behind closed doors, they are cheering.