Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[ska invita]

From the River to the Sea. But somehow it's not terrorism when he says it.

Just like it's not apartheid when he does it... Or genocide when he does it....

 

[Gramsci]

A "Greater Israel" option would not necessarily be a bad thing. If the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were integrated into the State of Israel, and military rule ended, as happened to the Galilee in 1966, then Palestinian Arabs in those territories would get the vote, and therefore there would be, in theory, a Parliamentary route to establishing rights for Palestinian Arabs. However, Netanyahu spoke, not of integration, but of "security control", which would be a continuation of the status quo.

It is good news that the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Mexico have referred Israeli actions to the International Criminal Court (not to be confused with the International Court of Justice.) The ICC prosecutes individuals, not states.

Well yes. Agree

A viewpoint is that there is in all practical terms one state since 67

With Gaza and West Bank part of it.

Its an Apartheid state with Palestinians having no political rights.

As in the illegal settlers in West Bank can vote for Israeli government and the Palestinian farmers who they are killing and harassing do not have a vote.

That's an Apartheid state

Going back to the documentary on settlers I posted up one settler said he has no problem living next to Palestinians. They can have religious and social rights but not political rights.

Which as it happens is straight out of the Balfour Declaration

 

[PTK]

Where do you get that from?

Ive also read Ilan Pappes book on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and David Ben Gurion is one of the leading figures involved in it.

The book on Zionist thought - David Ben Gurion and other leading figures in what became Labour Zionism supported population transfer.

Palestinians when Israel was founded who had not been expelled lived under military rule until 1960s.

This was under Labour Zionism government led by David Ben Gurion. So do not see the integration bit myself.

Shlomo Sand mentions this in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People”. (Page 185). David Ben-Gurion and Itzhak Ben-Zvi advocated this point of view in a book published in 1918 called “Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present”. Ben-Gurion later changed his mind, and adopted the positions to which you refer. The “integrationist” position lost support after an Arab uprising in Hebron in 1929, in which Jews were killed.

 

[Gramsci]

Shlomo Sand mentions this in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People”. (Page 185). David Ben-Gurion and Itzhak Ben-Zvi advocated this point of view in a book published in 1918 called “Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present”. Ben-Gurion later changed his mind, and adopted the positions to which you refer. The “integrationist” position lost support after an Arab uprising in Hebron in 1929, in which Jews were killed.

Thanks. You have mentioned this book before.

I take it that its worth a read? As Ive seen it and wondered about it

 

[PTK]

Thanks. You have mentioned this book before.

I take it that its worth a read? As Ive seen it and wondered about it

I think that “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand is an interesting book, although I have not read much of it. I will probably not read it all, because I have other things about other topics that I wish to read. I am sure it is worth reading, but I am not sure if it is necessary in order to understand the current situation.

Shlomo Sand says that there is no such a thing as the “Jewish people”, by which he means one single ethnic group. He argues that Jews in France are French, Jews in Britain are British, etc. I had realised this already, and it is clear to anyone who, in my opinion, has a correct understanding of ethnicity.

Sand goes into detail about the major historical sources of modern Jewish communities, which arose because once upon a time the religion believed in converting people, and, also, a number of kingdoms adopted Judaism. This is interesting in itself, but I am not sure if it is relevant to the current situation.

Sand asserts that there is no evidence that the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine, and says that this was a story promoted by Christians in about the 3rd century CE. In ancient times, whole populations were not in general expelled from territories. A friend of mine said that this fact ought to be more widely known, but it makes no difference as far as I am concerned. If it was indeed true that the Romans had expelled the Jewish population of Palestine, this would not justify Zionism. If it is argued that it was wrong for Jews to emigrate to Palestine and form a state, then that does not mean that the Jews living there now should be expelled.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's relevant inasmuch as it is important to debunk myths. Israel's 'Right to Return' is based on exactly those myths you outline in your post. The settlers in the West Bank commonly use biblical justification for their actions. It is no doubt true that the people who were expelled from Palestine to make room for Israel are on average more closely related to the people of Palestine 2,000 years ago than the new settlers. Maybe this stuff shouldn't need stating, but it clearly does. And of course it should not matter. A blood and soil justification for nationhood is inherently racist and dodgy. That shouldn't need saying either, but again it clearly does.

And yes, the lesson has to be that expelling whole peoples is wrong, and always has been. It was wrong to expel the Palestinians and it would be wrong to expel Jews. The people of a particular land have to find a way to live together. There is no other option.

 

[PTK]

.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's relevant inasmuch as it is important to debunk myths. Israel's 'Right to Return' is based on exactly those myths you outline in your post. The settlers in the West Bank commonly use biblical justification for their actions. It is no doubt true that the people who were expelled from Palestine to make room for Israel are on average more closely related to the people of Palestine 2,000 years ago than the new settlers. Maybe this stuff shouldn't need stating, but it clearly does. And of course it should not matter. A blood and soil justification for nationhood is inherently racist and dodgy. That shouldn't need saying either, but again it clearly does.

And yes, the lesson has to be that expelling whole peoples is wrong, and always has been. It was wrong to expel the Palestinians and it would be wrong to expel Jews. The people of a particular land have to find a way to live together. There is no other option.

I think you'll find there is another option.

 

[ska invita]

Nothing new, UK politicians will just drone on about a two state solution anyway

shameless

 

[tim]

Shlomo Sand says that there is no such a thing as the “Jewish people”, by which he means one single ethnic group. He argues that Jews in France are French, Jews in Britain are British, etc. I had realised this already, and it is clear to anyone who, in my opinion, has a correct understanding of ethnicity.

I'm not convinced that there can ever be a "correct understanding" of a term as nebulous as ethnicity.

 

[PTK]

I'm not convinced that there can ever be a "correct understanding" of a term as nebulous as ethnicity.

Well, for a start, people with different cultures are not all part of the same ethnic group.

 

[mojo pixy]

I think that “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand is an interesting book, although I have not read much of it. I will probably not read it all, because I have other things about other topics that I wish to read. I am sure it is worth reading, but I am not sure if it is necessary in order to understand the current situation.

Shlomo Sand says that there is no such a thing as the “Jewish people”, by which he means one single ethnic group. He argues that Jews in France are French, Jews in Britain are British, etc. I had realised this already, and it is clear to anyone who, in my opinion, has a correct understanding of ethnicity.

Sand goes into detail about the major historical sources of modern Jewish communities, which arose because once upon a time the religion believed in converting people, and, also, a number of kingdoms adopted Judaism. This is interesting in itself, but I am not sure if it is relevant to the current situation.

Sand asserts that there is no evidence that the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine, and says that this was a story promoted by Christians in about the 3rd century CE. In ancient times, whole populations were not in general expelled from territories. A friend of mine said that this fact ought to be more widely known, but it makes no difference as far as I am concerned. If it was indeed true that the Romans had expelled the Jewish population of Palestine, this would not justify Zionism. If it is argued that it was wrong for Jews to emigrate to Palestine and form a state, then that does not mean that the Jews living there now should be expelled.

Rome may not have driven every jew from Judea but Titus did demolish Jerusalem, more than a million Jews died during the siege and the rest were allowed / told to leave. Obviously not all of those left the area but many did, north, east, south and west. There certainly was and is an actual Jewish diaspora, but it's also likely that a lot of people now identifying as Jewish have zero or close to zero genetic heritage from those original diasporites - in part I suppose because of the nature of diaspora itself.

In any case, ethnicity isn't mentioned in the Law of Return. If you sincerely convert to Judaism, you'll have the right to make aliyah and go and live in Israel, your actual family background is essentially irrelevant for the purposes of immigration there. If your mother is Jewish, you are too - but really anyone can convert. Your spouse, children and grandchildren also get the right to go too, if they want.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Rome may not have driven every jew from Judea but Titus did demolish Jerusalem, more than a million Jews died during the siege and the rest were allowed / told to leave. Obviously not all of those left the area but many did, north, east, south and west. There certainly was and is an actual Jewish diaspora, but it's also likely that a lot of people now identifying as Jewish have zero or close to zero genetic heritage from those original diasporites - in part I suppose because of the nature of diaspora itself.

In any case, ethnicity isn't mentioned in the Law of Return. If you sincerely convert to Judaism, you'll have the right to make aliyah and go and live in Israel, your actual family background is essentially irrelevant for the purposes of immigration there. If your mother is Jewish, you are too - but really anyone can convert. Your spouse, children and grandchildren also get the right to go too, if they want.

The very fact that it is called Law of Return says a lot, though. There are lots of reasons for a Jewish diaspora, which was already widespread before the Romans did anything. For starters, it was an idea and set of cultural and religious practices that was successful, that spread. But the Law of Return reflects a largely mythical idea that the Jewish diaspora constitutes a two-millennia-long exile.

That doesn't mean that establishing somewhere that is a safe place for Jewish communities to move to is necessarily a bad idea. But the justifications used for that establishment are also used as justification for the expulsion of the people already living there. That's not on. It was never on. And there will never be peace for those Jewish communities until there is a proper reckoning of that.

Also, there were lots of ethnic upheavals and expulsions in the ancient world. It's just that most of them don't have enduring records and stories about them. The endurance and continuity of the Jewish tradition is remarkable and exceptional in that sense. That's not something to be disparaged, but it's also not something to be fetishised.

 

[tim]

Well, for a start, people with different cultures are not all part of the same ethnic group.

What do you mean by culture?

 

[andysays]

The problem with defining ethnicity by culture is that presented in that

people with different cultures are not all part of the same ethnic group

stark way ignores the fact that cultures are both fluid and overlapping.

For example, there are specifically jewish elements of culture which are shared between Jews living in Britain and Jews living in Israel, but there are also differences.

That doesn't in itself tell us much about whether Jewish people constitute a "nation" for the purposes of national self determination.

 

[mojo pixy]

The very fact that it is called Law of Return says a lot, though. There are lots of reasons for a Jewish diaspora, which was already widespread before the Romans did anything. For starters, it was an idea and set of cultural and religious practices that was successful, that spread. But the Law of Return reflects a largely mythical idea that the Jewish diaspora constitutes a two-millennia-long exile.

Well yeah, but then again no. Ethnicity and 'exile' are not mentioned in the Law of Return. But conversion is.

 

[mojo pixy]

Also, there were lots of ethnic upheavals and expulsions in the ancient world. It's just that most of them don't have enduring records and stories about them. The endurance and continuity of the Jewish tradition is remarkable and exceptional in that sense. That's not something to be disparaged, but it's also not something to be fetishised.

'Fetishized' is an unpleasant word here; who are you to say that a jew wanting to live in Judea is an unreasonable desire? Given that this country currently exists and gives every jew the right to move there.

And let's ignore the sexual overtones, ugh.

 

[two sheds]

Well yeah, but then again no. Ethnicity and 'exile' are not mentioned in the Law of Return. But conversion is.

Conversion?

Must say I find this conversation interesting - I was puzzled at the strength of reaction earlier in the thread against discussing what's in the bible about it all.

 

[mojo pixy]

Conversion?

Must say I find this conversation interesting - I was puzzled at the strength of reaction earlier in the thread against discussing what's in the bible about it all.

Yes, the Law of Return explicitly says converts to Judaism can make aliyah to Israel. It doesn't mention the bible, though everyone knows that's the pretext for the law it's implicit not explicit.

[Edit to add...]
I'm personally against bringing scripture into discussions on Israel because it tends to be divisive, and can quickly descend into anti-semitism. I'm also not in favour of a Law of Return unless it applies to literally everyone in the world and what they consider their ancestral land; I don't personally think jews are special enough to be the only people who get this automatic right to relocation across the world. But we are where we are, sadly.

 

[teqniq]

This has been talked about before but perhaps not with quite so much background:

Cabinet Official: Gaza War Has No Future, Netanyahu Is Killing Time to Evade Responsibility

 

[ska invita]

If you sincerely convert to Judaism, you'll have the right to make aliyah and go and live in Israel, your actual family background is essentially irrelevant for the purposes of immigration there. If your mother is Jewish, you are too - but really anyone can convert. Your spouse, children and grandchildren also get the right to go too, if they want.

....yeessss buuuttt.....conversion is not encouraged and is in fact discouraged...people give philosophical reasons to explain this but the main one is because judaism is an ethnoreligion and the blood line is most important to them.... hence the matriarchal line aspect

 

[mojo pixy]

....yeessss buuuttt.....conversion is not encouraged and is in fact discouraged...people give philosophical reasons to explain this but the main one is because judaism is an ethnoreligion and the blood line is most important to them.... hence the matriarchal line aspect

That's not true at all.

Some rabbis don't approve of it but plenty do, and you only need to find three (iirc). There is no overarching authority over Judaism so nobody gets any final say - in fact I'd argue that it's actually intrinsic to Judaism that rabbis debate and dispute all the time over questions of scripture.

 

[ska invita]

That's not true at all.

Some rabbis don't approve of it but plenty do, and you only need to find three (iirc). There is no overarching authority over Judaism so nobody gets any final say - in fact I'd argue that it's actually intrinsic to Judaism that rabbis debate and dispute all the time over questions of scripture.[/b]

to say its not true at all is wrong...of course people do convert...not easily though.....i think this is a massive grey area and touches on the contradictions that arise from lack of universalism of being an ethnoreligion

ive got the above perspective from a jewish friend btw. a matriarchal line religion? says it all really

 

[mojo pixy]

to say its not true at all is wrong...of course people do convert...not easily though.....i think this is a massive grey area and touches on the contradictions that arise from lack of universalism of being an ethnoreligion

ive got the above perspective from a jewish friend btw. a matriarchal line religion? says it all really

Again: you don't need to have a Jewish mother, in order to convert to Judaism. Some Jewish ancestry might help, but it's not essential (and of course, you could just lie)

 

[donkyboy]

So it's fine for Bibi to say he doesn't want a Palestinian state, but when we say "from the land to the sea" we are accused of racial incitement

 

[two sheds]

I've always looked at the map and thought a major problem with a Palestinian state is that Gaza Strip and West Bank are separated from each other - but that could be solved if only they knew some people who could dig a tunnel to connect them.

 

[mojo pixy]

So it's fine for Bibi to say he doesn't want a Palestinian state, but when we say "from the land to the sea" we are accused of racial incitement

In the same way that it's OK for descendants of immigrants to the USA to sing 'from sea to shining sea' while descendants of native americans get penned in to reservations and historically slaughtered for trying to resist.

I suspect this is one reason (aside from islamophobia) why the USA always sides with Israel; they're underpinned by the same idea, a land without people for people without land. Which in both cases is and always was a lie.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I was puzzled at the strength of reaction earlier in the thread against discussing what's in the bible about it all.

I suspect many people simply balk at the idea of basing their political theories or policies on a work of fiction.

 

[two sheds]

Yes indeed, but if it's important to the Israelis then it seems interesting to know the background

 

[inva]

shameless

View attachment 408819

Has anyone asked to see the work they've been doing on the two state solution