US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[MalaspinaGold]

This is also far from unique. See Cyprus.

True, but since when is racism unique to any one group?

In addition, nowhere does it say in the Basic Law that Palestinians can never return. Were the Israeli government to change its policy, opponents could not point to the Basic  Law as an argument against such a policy.

[Hnv1]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Granted the Law of Return is problematic by liberal democracy standards, but it correlates do the idea of Jewish nationality at basis of Zionist ideology and the nation-state based on its values. So if you accept a Jewish nation exists, a law of return is logical considering the diasporic state of that nation, if you don't than the Law of Return would inherently be racist in that view.

Also, I would say we need to differ between a democracy in ethnic sense (which is more common outside western world) and a liberal democracy who so far seems like an undesired concept in most non European countries. I say this as an Israeli who is for a liberal democracy with a harsh view on the Law of Return.

Israel inside the 1967 border is an ethnic democracy (with some liberal traits), this naturally creates tension with liberal values. I wouldn't call it an apartheid (as opposed to what's happening in the West Bank) but the institutionalized discrimination of Arabs in land ownership will be considered racist by liberal standards.

[ag]

Israel inside the 1967 border is an ethnic democracy (with some liberal traits), this naturally creates tension with liberal values. I wouldn't call it an apartheid (as opposed to what's happening in the West Bank) but the institutionalized discrimination of Arabs in land ownership will be considered racist by liberal standards.

Israel inside the 1967 borders is fine: very good, in fact, by Mideastern standards. That is not setting the bar too high - but, then, it is up to Israelis to set it higher. As a foreigner, I see no problem there whatsoever. In fact, most countries in the world are, probably, more problematic.

The problem is, Israel is not inside its 1967 borders. As long as that was plausibly argued to be a temporary state of affairs, it was reasonable to judge Israel by the standards of what it was inside the 1967 borders. But PM Netanyahu has announced to everyone that it is NOT a temporary state of affairs. Well, that means we can no longer judge Israel by what it is inside the 1967 borders, but have to take the whole thing, including the West Bank and Gaza bantustans. And cummulatively, we are getting something that is not at all fine, but is, indeed, an apartheid state.

[ag]

I tend to support citizenship and full rights for the West Bank Palestinians, at least for those who want it.

YOU may support this. But few Israelis would - and, really, nobody with power on Israeli side has ever proposed it.

The reason, of course, being that this would mean close to 2.5 mln. of additional Arab citizens of the state. That would, of course, imply that a combined state of around 10 mln. people would have around 4 mln. Arabs - that is, 40% of the population (and growing, for demographic reasons). True, many of these would be kids and a small faction would be the Druze, but that is not going to change the long-term calculus much.

Given that even the relatively well-integrated Israeli Arabs are not voting for the Zionist parties anymore, it is extremely likely that the first post-integration Knesset would have, at least, 40 Arab representatives. Within a few decades, their number is likely to grow to, perhaps, 50. At that point, this is either a democracy or a Jewish state - but cannot be both, really. As simple as that.

I myself, would, of course, be absolutely fine with that state being a multi-ethnic democracy. But I am not an Israeli. And few Israeli Jews I know would think that to be fine. But, fortunately or unfortunately, unless a two-state solution happens reasonably soon, the one-state solution may become inevitable.

[ag]

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

I would relax on that. Even democratic modern Germany, whatever its history, has accepted "ethnic Germans" from the former USSR and other places based on "blood". That is not a particularly Israeli problem. We should not hold that state to a standard that is higher than the one we hold the others to.

[MalaspinaGold]

I tend to support citizenship and full rights for the West Bank Palestinians, at least for those who want it.

YOU may support this. But few Israelis would - and, really, nobody with power on Israeli side has ever proposed it.

The reason, of course, being that this would mean close to 2.5 mln. of additional Arab citizens of the state. That would, of course, imply that a combined state of around 10 mln. people would have around 4 mln. Arabs - that is, 40% of the population (and growing, for demographic reasons). True, many of these would be kids and a small faction would be the Druze, but that is not going to change the long-term calculus much.

Given that even the relatively well-integrated Israeli Arabs are not voting for the Zionist parties anymore, it is extremely likely that the first post-integration Knesset would have, at least, 40 Arab representatives. Within a few decades, their number is likely to grow to, perhaps, 50. At that point, this is either a democracy or a Jewish state - but cannot be both, really. As simple as that.

I myself, would, of course, be absolutely fine with that state being a multi-ethnic democracy. But I am not an Israeli. And few Israeli Jews I know would think that to be fine. But, fortunately or unfortunately, unless a two-state solution happens reasonably soon, the one-state solution may become inevitable.

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable. In the meantime, there are multiple options, including going full Sharon, or even offering settlers to pledge loyalty to a Palestinian state as an alternative to getting Sharoned. Keep in mind that most of the building is taking place in areas that can easily be traded to Israel while maintaining territorial integrity (e.g. the Gush, Modiin/Beitar Illit). Ariel would be a problem, however with the elimination of subsidies to live there, I would assume the majority of secular Israelis/Russian Olim would move back, especially if given a financial incentive.

There are three main reasons why I view a binational one state solution to be undesirable. 1) You can kiss any sort of stable government good bye if you have a Knesset of approximately 50% Jews and Palestinians. 2) Considering the vast economic disparity between Israel and Palestine, I would imagine the nation would drop into a slump reminiscent of Germany following reunification. With the inherent ethnic component, it would likely lead to a backlash amongs Jewish citizens of the state. 3) A two state solution could provide a reasonable solution to Right of Return, namely refugees returning to a Palestinian state. This would be very unlikely to pass in a binational Knesset, considering that Jewish MKs would see it as a plot to weaken their influence. True they could always bargain off the Law of Return to get the other side to renounce the Right of Return, but that doesn't solve the refugee issue either.

[ag]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

[Famous Mortimer]

I tend to support citizenship and full rights for the West Bank Palestinians, at least for those who want it.

YOU may support this. But few Israelis would - and, really, nobody with power on Israeli side has ever proposed it.

The current president of Israel has proposed it.

[ag]

I tend to support citizenship and full rights for the West Bank Palestinians, at least for those who want it.

YOU may support this. But few Israelis would - and, really, nobody with power on Israeli side has ever proposed it.

The current president of Israel has proposed it.

He has no power.

[MalaspinaGold]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

I am fully confident in the IDF's ability to batter the settlements as hard as it batters Gaza.

[ag]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

I am fully confident in the IDF's ability to batter the settlements as hard as it batters Gaza.

Assuming chunks of it do not defect. There many thosands of servicemen resident in the settlements that would have to be evacuated. This might, actually, start a civil war.

[Frodo]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

If worse comes to worst, we could offer interested Israelis a one-way ticket to the United States to any place of their choosing.  And become US citizens. 

[MalaspinaGold]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

I am fully confident in the IDF's ability to batter the settlements as hard as it batters Gaza.

Assuming chunks of it do not defect. There many thosands of servicemen resident in the settlements that would have to be evacuated. This might, actually, start a civil war.

No more than a few hundred thousand would have to actually be evacuated. A rebellion possibly (though once again I think the senior officer corps is intelligent enough to know to crack down hard. Junior officers are more likely to be problems though.

[ag]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

I am fully confident in the IDF's ability to batter the settlements as hard as it batters Gaza.

Assuming chunks of it do not defect. There many thosands of servicemen resident in the settlements that would have to be evacuated. This might, actually, start a civil war.

No more than a few hundred thousand would have to actually be evacuated. A rebellion possibly (though once again I think the senior officer corps is intelligent enough to know to crack down hard. Junior officers are more likely to be problems though.

Do you realise what is involved in evacuating a few hundred thousand of unwilling people? Gaza was, what, 7 thousand? Kiryat Arba alone is bigger than all 21 settlements in Gaza together.

That IS the problem. Evacuation, even a very limited one, would have to be a tough military operation, which, as likely as not, would cause something approximating a major rebellion. There will be ample scenes of Israeli troups using violence - possibly deadly violence - against "good Jewish kids and grandmothers". Will Israeli public tolerate those images? How many soldiers will refuse their orders? And even if they do, will Israel stay a democracy after such an experience?

An alternative, of course, would be to negotiate that those who stay become Palestinian citizens. Could that be done? Perhaps. But, then, would the settlers just acknowledge the new state of the world, or would they rebell against the new Palestinian authorities? As likely as not they will fight. Would Palestinians be willing to take that risk?

This is all becoming increasingly difficult to resolve. The two-state solution is even today going to be very traumatic. But the one-state solution will end Israel as we know it.  Another 10 years of settlement expansion, though, and it may be the only feasible solution, I am afraid. Unless, of course, you count creation of permanent Bantustans as a solution.

[ag]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

If worse comes to worst, we could offer interested Israelis a one-way ticket to the United States to any place of their choosing.  And become US citizens. 

You seem not to understand what the problem is. Let me try again.

Between the Jordan and the Mediterrainean there live around 12 mln. people. About half of them are Jewish, half of them are not (overwhelmingly Arab, mostly Muslim). Ok, let´s discount Gaza - one can imagine it being separated into a statelet of its own (quite a few difficulties there, but, ok, this is possible to deal with). There are still about 10 mln. people, and only about 6 mln Jews and 4 mln Arabs. Of these Arabs roughly 2/3 do not have Israeli citizenship. The question is what to do with them. There are two realistic options: give them citizenship (which means Israel either stops being a democracy or becomes a properly bi-national state) or give them a state. Most Israelis do not want the former - and, if pushed, would choose the latter. Many, of course would prefer no solution, permanently retaining the current status quo. But that is not acceptable, as it leaves well over 2.5 mln people without any citizenship rights permanently.

Unfortunately, several hundred thousand Jews live outside of Israel proper, in the settlements, many of which are located on land that would have to become Palestinian no matter what shape a two-state solution would have to take. Almost by definition, these are the people who do not want to live in America. They, overwhelmingly, want to populate the entire Biblical Land of Israel. If they wanted, they could move to Israel tomorrow. Finding sources to finance such a move would not be hard. But they do not want to move even to Tel Aviv - forget the US.  In fact, there is strong reason to believe that if asked to move - even to Tel Aviv - many of them would fight.

In any case, there is no issue of having to save Israelis in the US - that is not happening any time soon. Your suggestion is to solve a non-existent problem. The real problem would not be solved by offering anyone an immigrant visa.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

If worse comes to worst, we could offer interested Israelis a one-way ticket to the United States to any place of their choosing.  And become US citizens. 

You seem not to understand what the problem is. Let me try again.

Between the Jordan and the Mediterrainean there live around 12 mln. people. About half of them are Jewish, half of them are not (overwhelmingly Arab, mostly Muslim). Ok, let´s discount Gaza - one can imagine it being separated into a statelet of its own (quite a few difficulties there, but, ok, this is possible to deal with). There are still about 10 mln. people, and only about 6 mln Jews and 4 mln Arabs. Of these Arabs roughly 2/3 do not have Israeli citizenship. The question is what to do with them. There are two realistic options: give them citizenship (which means Israel either stops being a democracy or becomes a properly bi-national state) or give them a state. Most Israelis do not want the former - and, if pushed, would choose the latter. Many, of course would prefer no solution, permanently retaining the current status quo. But that is not acceptable, as it leaves well over 2.5 mln people without any citizenship rights permanently.

Unfortunately, several hundred thousand Jews live outside of Israel proper, in the settlements, many of which are located on land that would have to become Palestinian no matter what shape a two-state solution would have to take. Almost by definition, these are the people who do not want to live in America. They, overwhelmingly, want to populate the entire Biblical Land of Israel. If they wanted, they could move to Israel tomorrow. Finding sources to finance such a move would not be hard. But they do not want to move even to Tel Aviv - forget the US.  In fact, there is strong reason to believe that if asked to move - even to Tel Aviv - many of them would fight.

In any case, there is no issue of having to save Israelis in the US - that is not happening any time soon. Your suggestion is to solve a non-existent problem. The real problem would not be solved by offering anyone an immigrant visa.

I'd say offer any Israelis in the West Bank Palestinian citizenship. I imagine they'll use their right of return to Israel, but who knows.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd say offer any Israelis in the West Bank Palestinian citizenship. I imagine they'll use their right of return to Israel, but who knows.

Imagination and reality don't always mesh.  In some future historical tome of The Rise and Fall of the State of Israel this election just past will be a marker where the two-state solution was dealt its final death blow, tho in truth the settlements killed it long ago.  The only question now is how the eventual one-state solution will be reached, and how bloody it will be.

[ingemann]

I'm not really the biggest fan of Israel, and yes technical allowing Jews to migrate to Israel and not Palestinians under the slogan "right to return" is racist.

But really people how much lack of connection to reality do you have to lack, to make a statement so mindblowing idiotic/stupid/moronic. This is really on the level of then someone said that it was racist by women to choose sperm donor with a racial criteria.

For Israel to open up it borders to free Palestinian immigration is at very least suicide of the Israeli state.

[Famous Mortimer]

I'm not really the biggest fan of Israel, and yes technical allowing Jews to migrate to Israel and not Palestinians under the slogan "right to return" is racist.

But really people how much lack of connection to reality do you have to lack, to make a statement so mindblowing idiotic/stupid/moronic. This is really on the level of then someone said that it was racist by women to choose sperm donor with a racial criteria.

For Israel to open up it borders to free Palestinian immigration is at very least suicide of the Israeli state.

If the state is inherently racist, there's a good argument for suicide.

[ingemann]

I'm not really the biggest fan of Israel, and yes technical allowing Jews to migrate to Israel and not Palestinians under the slogan "right to return" is racist.

But really people how much lack of connection to reality do you have to lack, to make a statement so mindblowing idiotic/stupid/moronic. This is really on the level of then someone said that it was racist by women to choose sperm donor with a racial criteria.

For Israel to open up it borders to free Palestinian immigration is at very least suicide of the Israeli state.

If the state is inherently racist, there's a good argument for suicide.

I hope that doesn't count on a individual level, as if you take the consequence of that belief, we will sadly never read your insightful posts again.

[Famous Mortimer]

If I'm racist, you're racist.

[ingemann]

If I'm racist, you're racist.

Of course everyone and everything is inherent racist, but I don't think that's a good reason for all of humanity to commit collective suicide.

[Famous Mortimer]

We're not talking about actual death though, we're talking about metaphorical suicide, an institution ceasing to exist. Or actually not even ceasing to exist. Just changing to be not racist. My point was that if being not racist changes the state so much that the original idea of the state can be said not to exist anymore, then the original idea of the state is not worth saving.

[ingemann]

We're not talking about actual death though, we're talking about metaphorical suicide, an institution ceasing to exist. Or actually not even ceasing to exist. Just changing to be not racist. My point was that if being not racist changes the state so much that the original idea of the state can be said not to exist anymore, then the original idea of the state is not worth saving.

I often attack Israel for their actions. But it took long for me to be able to do so, simply because I hated to be in the same category as people saying this kind of smug ignorance without any kind of connection with reality. You ask the Israeli to let Hamas move in beside their children, you ask Israeli to let in people into their state, who talk about murdering them and their children. You talk about letting in a group of people who have shown again and again in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Egypt etc. how they treat other when they comes in majority.

You ask the Israeli to choose hardship and maybe death of themselves and their children to avoid looking racist to a spoiled privileged college kid from USA.

[swl]

Among possible consequences, there is optimism among Arab countries that the US would not veto a new UN resolution recognizing Palestine.