US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[Hnv1]

Dear Obama:
Cut military aid
Let the UNSC pass a resolution stating a 2 state solution on the 67 border with minor land swapping must reached within 2-4 years
Make US capital investment in settlement banned
Tell AIPAC to p*ss off

Thank you. Ohh, and sack Kerry so he wouldn't deal with BB anymore, he has shown he has the spine of a jellyfish

[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.

[Hnv1]

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.

They said this in 2013, and they said this in 2009. Something can't die ten thousand times. Which in all likelihood means it's still alive.

If anything it died with the disaster of Barak PM+camp david+second intifada. But with passing time I become more complete with the realization that maybe it was never a viable option

[Hnv1]

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.

They said this in 2013, and they said this in 2009. Something can't die ten thousand times. Which in all likelihood means it's still alive.

If anything it died with the disaster of Barak PM+camp david+second intifada. But with passing time I become more complete with the realization that maybe it was never a viable option

What do you think is going to happen then? I remember last time we talked about this, you said the one state solution was ridiculous. Have you come around to its inevitability or do you just think the status quo will continue forever?

I think after the next election, we probably see prominent politicians on the left coming out for one state. I wouldn't be totally surprised if it happened before then.

Tough answer. The one state solution is ridiculous because it will only work on paper, in reality it will rapidly turn into a bloody civil war. I think the status quo will continue for awhile (as long as the PA has the ability to pay its people and hence their will to sustain it) until it will fall apart and then what will happen on the ground is hard to predict (well part for bloodshed that will come in abundance no doubt).

I think you'll see more politicians from the extreme right calling for "one state" (in reality an autonomy with minimal civil rights) before you'll see the shift in the left (2 states is like a religion to most).

I think BB will go to his default strategy: no negotiations but easing the economic pressure to allow the PA to live on and thus cementing a status quo. Problem is the PA is a rough patch with the Palestinian public hence why I can't see how the PA lives on like that with internal and external (foreign PLO) pressure. Abbas will try to maintain it with diplomatic pressure in Hague and the UN but I doubt it will work in the long run.

But than again the prophecy was given to the fools...

[Hnv1]

Calling him BB?  Very clever...

No pun intended, really. Seems nicer and shorter to write it in English than Bibi.

[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.

Except that European nation-states still acknowledge ethnic/linguistic minorities within their borders and consider them an integral part of the national identity. Israel does not do this for its non-Jewish, Arabic-speaking community.

Even the PLO defines a "Palestinian" as anyone who resided in Mandatory Palestine prior to 1948 (or the direct descendant of someone who did) - regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or linguistic community. In other words, this would include not only all Palestinians and all Israeli Arabs but probably about half of all Israeli Jews. (The bulk of those who would be excluded would be Jews from Arab countries or from Iran, and Jews of Russian/Soviet origin.) This is a far more generous criteria for citizenship than the criteria Israel uses (where someone who was living in Israel prior to 1948 could be ineligible for citizenship but someone who has never lived there in their life could be eligible).

Again, I see the problem (I have my own arguments against the Law of Return), but if you re-read my first paragraph you'll see where this problem stems and why it's more difficult than discussing this as a textbook problem in political science.

Other points:
- I'm trying to think of a European liberal democracy with 20% distinctive minority population (not immigrants) which has connection with a neighboring belligerent national group. I can't, again why comparisons are good only to a certain degree.
- I'm not sure how well you know the Israeli Arab population but I might be the first to tell you that some of it groups have very weak affiliation with the overall Palestinian national identity. Again, not black and white
- pardon me if I take your interpretation of PLO ideas with  a grain of salt. You see we have this tradition in our region when addressing the rest of the world each side moderates its tone and say more welcoming things. I say this as an Israeli Jew who is closer in his view to fatah than Labour most likely.
- nationality, liberalism, and democracy are vague philosophical term when you try to place them on reality problems sprout. To be crude I will use a the metaphor of a large penis (reality) and a too small condom (philosophical terms created by humans). Hence, why I'm usually for practical solutions that fit reality and the humans in it than Utopian textbook solutions.

[Hnv1]

Other points:
- I'm trying to think of a European liberal democracy with 20% distinctive minority population (not immigrants) which has connection with a neighboring belligerent national group. I can't, again why comparisons are good only to a certain degree.

Both Estonia and Latvia have those. And while Russians are (mostly) of immigrant descend they do constitute a distinct minority.

Which adds to tensions in both. Now lets put them both in decades of conflict with this minority and neighboring hostile  authoritarian countries and let see how their democratic values fare. I want to emphasize I'm completely against most of what he is opposing I'm just saying I don't like the situation analyzed based on detached western liberal perspective.

[Hnv1]

The one-state solution is less acceptable to (most of) Israeli Zionist left than to its right. It is not the matter of "religion", it is the matter of who they are. Basically, Israeli Zionist left is, first and foremost, Zionist, but it also has a strong liberal attachment. The single state cannot be both Jewish and democratic. Furthermore, on many issues the conservative Muslim and Christian segment of the West Bank society will find itself in agreement with the conservative Jewish segment of the Israeli society. There is, really, no place in such a state for the traditional leftish Zionism. In fact, I would be pretty certain that a lot of the current Israeli left will simply not stay in the country, if such a solution were to be implemented. Within a few decades Israel would become just another fundamentalist Mideastern non-democracy.

The Israeli right, in contrast, would be a lot less scared. To begin with, they do not care about things like minority civil rights, etc., so they could feel they would be able to live with a less liberal and less democratic state, in which their dominance is preserved. For that matter, in neighboring Jordan Palestinians are a majority: but they have little power. The more traditionalist Israelis, especially those of Mideastern origin, would, probably, feel that they can, in fact, develop certain links with some Palestinian forces: they are richer, so some sort of clientelistic relationship is possible. In fact, in such a society the Jewish Arabs' ability to deal with Muslim and Christian Arabs would make them particularly important and influential. And they will not be sorry to see the abandonment of the country by its liberal citizens.

So, I can easily see the reason most of Israeli left is dreading the one-state solution: that one state will not be their state. In fact, this is the reason some Israelis I know give for being on the left: the two-state solution for them is the only way to preserve the Israel they belong to.

There may well be a lot of truth in this. However, my question then becomes: why do the Arab parties  support it, in addition to Hadash? They obviously have different motivations than the Jewish left in Israel.

Reasons;
- Economic - Arabs living in Israel are less than enthusiastic about PA sovereignty over them. Most would say the even with the discrimination and flaws Israel provide better welfare and economic opportunities than a Palestinian state and the PA corruption.
- Establishment - The Arab parties in Israel has a strong establishment that lives on their finances. there is no point in having Balad\Ra'am\Ta'al in one state (Hadash will unite with their West Bank counterparts).
- Cultural - it really depends on the area, but as you can read in recent years in young Arab writers books there is a large cultural gap between West Bank society and Galilee Arabic society. 

[Hnv1]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Pan-Arabism of the last century was the result of something other than undemocratic leaders of the Arab states being interested in it?

Yes, I know plenty of Arabs who still support it or at least the minimized version of Hashamism (great syria). Also, I think historically it was the undemocratic nature of those leaders that halted its progress.