Israel has a right to exist as much as any other nation.

[Elizabeth Jones 18]

I have noticed that Israel is often called an "Illigitimate state" by socialists.

This is in my view not true, as a socialist, i oppose all nation states, so why would any nationstate be any more or less legitimate than any other?

Anti semitism nearly wiped jews off the face of the earth, they are persecuted everywhere, and are hated amongst christians of all denominations for "killing god"

While palestine was under the British mandate, the jewish fought the British for a homeland of their own, after the hollocaust, this is not suprising, at all.

Now I know palestinains were wronged, and that they had the right to fight the british and the Israeli settlers.

But out of this situation, a jewish state was spawned, the arab world united to fight this new state, but were crushed, and in turn, occupied.

Now i support the end to occupations, and to the settlements, but, at the end of the day, I am just as much against any palestine state as i am the state of Israel, or any state for that matter.

[Crimson Commissar]

I see what you mean, but for communism to be properly achieved we must first establish a socialist state. And so most communists believe that it would be a better idea to have an independent Socialist palestine rather than Israel.

[IndependentCitizen]

Ohhhh shhhiiit I share exactly the same opinion. I recognise israels right to exist as a nation but am against their occupation of west bank, and the prison camp that is gaza.

But Elizabeth, it's not anti semitism to oppose Israel, it's anti Zionism.

[Blackscare]

While palestine was under the British mandate, the jewish fought the British for a homeland of their own, after the hollocaust, this is not suprising, at all.


Wait.... do you know how Israel was formed?

[IndependentCitizen]

I see what you mean, but for communism to be properly achieved we must first establish a socialist state. And so most communists believe that it would be a better idea to have an independent Socialist palestine rather than Israel.

Hamas is a big problem being a predominantly Islamist group. Fatah seem to be much more socialist. And the two have fought each other :/

[Nuvem]

Bear in mind that not all Socialists oppose the State in general. I, for example, am a proponent of the state existing mostly because nowhere in the foreseeable future will it be possible to operate a society without a state unless all other states also abandon their statehood and transfer to communal societies. Therefore I consider legitimate those states which were formed by indigenous peoples native to the geographical region (how states formed in the first place) or those which have risen out of revolution from within a state. I regard as illegitimate all colonial states or states formed through imperial wars on the past several centuries (obviously there's very little that we can do about ancient history), as well as states formed by the dictation of foreign powers, such as Israel. Many Lefitsts also consider Israel to be illegitimate because of its Zionism, which is essentially to say that it is illegitimate because the Israeli government is not secular and on its core level theocratic. The concept of a religious group demanding a "sovereign nation" for its "chosen people" is precisely the same notion of Fascist ideologies which call for rampant nationalism and all other races/nationalities/religions to bow before its own as superior.

As such, most of us support the indigenous Palestinian population since the state of Palestine was at least formed by people native to the region. The argument that the Jewish people are the true natives to the area is rubbish, as most of them emigrated centuries or even millenia ago to Europe. The idea is not to expel the Jewish inhabitants of Israel but rather to allow the Palestinians and Jewish settlers to find some sort of compromise; however, the settlers have shown that they are not willing to do so. After all, it is their homes on the line, the same thing that the Palestinians have at stake. It's an ugly situation now matter how you look at it- we simply favor the Palestinians because they were the first to be tread upon and are not pawns of the imperialists.

[Crimson Commissar]

Hamas is a big problem being a predominantly Islamist group. Fatah seem to be much more socialist. And the two have fought each other :/
I oppose any group in palestine which is openly islamic. Personally I would prefer a militant atheist communist organisation, but unfortunately the chances of any communist organisation openly supporting anti-theism in the modern leftist movement....is VERY fucking slim.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

What people mean by "Israel" is only what it openly professes to be -- a special "Jewish state." (And why should one support an ethnic state?)

It can exist as such only so long as Jews are in control of it, and that is why Israel can't give its citizenship to the millions of Palestinians in the occupied territories, why it will always reject the right of Palestinian families to return to the homes seized from them in 1948, and why it encourages programs designed to lower the natural Arab population growth in Israel proper. Attempts to ban the small Israeli-Arab parties represented in the Knesset are a perennial thing.

Israel has always been a state where only Jews are first-class citizens. One might suppose that Zionist nationalists in general would like to see inferior conditions for the Arab non-Jews, since poor conditions for these Arabs are more likely to encourage them to emigrate, thereby ensuring that the "Jewish state" is left in Jewish hands.

What I would be happiest to see would be a one-state solution: give Jews and Palestinians the same rights within one interethnic state.

Short of that, a viable state for the Palestinians -- a state free of Israeli troops, racist settlements, and military roadblocks -- will have to do, so long as the better solution isn't possible.

[graymouser]

Israel is an apartheid state, meaning that it uses racial and ethnic boundaries to discriminate legally against some members of its society. This is basic democratic rights stuff, fundamentally Israel could not exist as a socialist country. If it were socialist, it would have to recognize the right of the displaced Palestinians (both in the West Bank / Gaza and in Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere) to return to the land that was stolen from them. And it would have to recognize their right to exist and vote - meaning that it would quickly be majority Palestinian and democratically unify into a single state.

The only way to maintain two separate states is by systematic apartheid, keeping the Palestinians in a Bantustan-style state that has no real sovereignty, and is criss-crossed by Israeli settlements. A one-state solution, smashing Zionism and giving equality to all people, is the only possible solution.

[hatzel]

I don't know if I like the claim bandied about all the time that Israel was created by foreign powers. Last time I checked, the UN partition plan, as it wasn't agreed on by both parties, wasn't ever implemented. In fact, it was little more than a recommendation. People very often confuse UN recommendations with UN rulings, and conflate them as one, both equally mandatory under international law. So, despite it's suggestions about the establishment of Jewish state in the British Mandate of Palestine, it didn't actually create the state. Far from being orchestrated by external forces, the actual spark for the creation of the Israeli state was the Jewish victory in the civil war. And, in the second phase of this war, the Israeli victory against her Arab neighbours. The only way it can be seen as being formed by 'the dictation of foreign powers' would be that it was, some might argue, the UN partition plan, and Arab resentment towards it, which provoked the civil war.

Also...I would prefer to call Israel a special religious state, rather than ethnic. Though, in fact, the French ethnicity, as well as the Russian, Japanese, Malaysian...all have their corresponding 'ethnic states'. And if we consider it a religious state...well, there are plenty of Muslim states to the east, as well as Christian states to the west. Surprisingly few have complete and total separation of church and state, and what of those which do? Is America not a Christian country? And what of France? I would suggest that, while Israel's status as a Jewish state is unique, it's status as a religion / ethnic state is far from exceptional. Closer, in fact, to the norm.

[hatzel]

Israel is an apartheid state, meaning that it uses racial and ethnic boundaries to discriminate legally against some members of its society. I just commented about this on another thread...I'm too lazy to type it again, so I'll just quote myself. Apologies to those who have already read this elsewhere:


Some might want to argue whether there is apartheid in Israel, or whether this is an intentionally inflammatory choice of words aimed at equating Israel with SA in order to discredit Israel, when actually the situation on the ground is different. The Arab population within Israel actually have a pretty decent standard of living, citizenship, rights, more than SA's blacks ever had. As well as suggesting that they aren't even given citizenship, apartheid would suggest that they weren't allowed to run for the Knesset, which of course they can. Actually, a Muslim woman in Israel has faaaaar more rights than she would have in most, if not all of the neighbouring countries, and as for the men...well, I remember posting an article on some other thread about how most Israeli Arabs would prefer to continue being Israeli citizens than become citizens of a future Palestinian-governed state. Because of the more developed, Western-influenced welfare system, higher wages, increased freedom and so on. I don't think that many apartheid-era blacks would claim to prefer to remain under the apartheid government, than to become citizens of a black-governed SA, so I think the apartheid analogy has some serious flaws.

Better to tell it as it is, with 100% accuracy, rather than taking one thing which isn't identical to the second, and treating them as if they were the same, based on a few similarities on the surface...


And it would have to recognize their right to exist and vote.
As for this...well, 20% of Israel's fully existing, freely-voting citizens are Arabs. Palestinians, be they Muslims, Christians, Druze, whatever. Israel doesn't accept the right of Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza to vote for the Knesset, as they vote in their own elections for their own government. I haven't seen many countries being considered in a negative light for not giving the vote to...you know...people who don't really live in the country. Sure, the West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories, thanks in part to a history of these territories previously belonging to those nations which invaded Israel, and didn't fare particularly well in the subsequent war. But they're not part of Israel, much like Sinai wasn't whilst it was under Israeli occupation. I guess the lesson is...if you don't want to kick up a load of issues, maybe try not invading Israel :thumbup1: Might not be the most serious moral I've ever suggested, but I'm content enough with it...

[Elizabeth Jones 18]

Krimskrams, you clearly uphold zionism, and believe that Israel is right for what it has done, and continues to do, you have entirely missed the point.

Just because Isreal is slightly better than SA was for blacks, you seem to justify the treatment of the working class, particularly the palestinain working class residing in Israel or the occupied territories.

The warsaw Ghetto was better than the Dungeons of Vlad the Impalor, does this mean that the Warsaw Ghetto was good?

Your zionist Israeli nationalism, Is just as sick as Palestinian Islamic Nationalism.

You give jews a bad name, for such nationalist garbage.

All nations and states are evil, they are controlled by the rich, every single one, so why support any single one?

[anticap]

Nation-states are reified abstractions. They can't possibly be endowed with, much less exercise, "rights."

[manic expression]

Israel isn't a nation.

[anticap]

Whatever it is, "it" can't exercise "rights." The very idea is absurd.

[synthesis]

In my mind, Israel is different from South Africa in two primary ways. First, the oppression exists on a smaller scale, but is also intensified to a level that I don't believe was present in South Africa for its half-century of outright apartheid. To my knowledge, the vast majority of indiscriminate political brutality was committed by government-sponsored organizations like Inkatha, while SADF attacks were generally targeted more towards dissenting individuals.

Second, the nature of its apartheid is different. The South African form was explicitly designed to bolster economic segregationism - that is, its industrializing economy required a large black labor force to function efficiently, but they also "had" to be separated from the white population, especially the poor white proletariat. This was all directly laid out in government meetings around 1948.

Israel's current form of apartheid could be more accurately compared to the concept of Lebensraum, although there is also the need for a proletariat composed of "others" requiring physical separation from the white population. South Africa's settler population was already well entrenched in its settlements decades before Israel was a twinkle in Herzl's eye.

Finally, I think that justifying Israeli government policy on the basis of historical anti-Semitism is one of the most disingenuous, offensive, and reactionary forms of political rhetoric today. If the past is repeating itself as farce, it certainly seems more like yet another tragedy in the long, sad history of oppressed peoples "doing unto others" as they have been done unto. The arc has not bent in far too long.

[Animal Farm Pig]

If someone wants to say that Israel is an illegitimate state with no "right to exist", I would like to ask what makes a particular state legitimate. Unless the definition is "not founded by Jews", I reckon there will be a lot of states that don't fall on the "legitimate" side of the line.

The idea that "the UN gave Israel to the Jews because of the holocaust" is ahistorical, but I see it repeated far too often. The reality is more complex.

One thing to keep in mind-- people have been trying to kill Jews for thousands of years. The first modern waves of Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine in the late 1800's was a result of genocidal policies carried out by Europeans. In Ottoman (and later British) occupied Palestine, Jews were able to gain economic and military power. People are still trying to kill Jews in Israel, but now Jews can fight back.

If you were part of a historically persecuted minority group in a tiny country surrounded by people who want to kill you, what would you do? Would you welcome them with open arms?

That's the important issue that I see. I wish everyone in that region could agree to a "Truth and Reconciliation Committee", accept the past, take stock of the current situation, and find the best way to move forward from the current situation in peace. But, I doubt that's going to happen.

[L.A.P.]

I oppose any group in palestine which is openly islamic. Personally I would prefer a militant atheist communist organisation, but unfortunately the chances of any communist organisation openly supporting anti-theism in the modern leftist movement....is VERY fucking slim.

What do you think the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is? They may not be atheist but they sure are secularist and Marxist-Leninist same thing with Fatah except they are socialist. These are the two largest groups fighting for the liberation of Palestine so it's not like they're a bunch of Islamic terrorists killing Jews like most people make it seem.

[synthesis]

I don't think any nation has a "right to exist," but if I did, here's how I'd see it.

In the U.S., if you're a citizen and 18 or older, you have the right to vote. If you commit a felony, however, you no longer have the right to vote. You committed a crime and thereby waved your rights. Your right to vote has been superseded by your actions. A state's "right to exist" could be waived if it is demonstrated that its existence entails more problems than benefits.

Of course, that's purely devil's advocacy. I would actually like to see felons gain the right to vote, if only because it would allow many of my friends to become more politically involved.

What I think is important to consider is that when people say that "Israel has no right to exist," it's just political rhetoric. They say it because people want to hear it, not because there is any possibility of "Israel's right to exist" being waived. "Rights" only exist insofar as people can use force to secure them.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Hamas is a big problem being a predominantly Islamist group. Fatah seem to be much more socialist. And the two have fought each other :/

Members of the Fatah are alright, but their leaders are corrupt as fuck.

[graymouser]

Some might want to argue whether there is apartheid in Israel, or whether this is an intentionally inflammatory choice of words aimed at equating Israel with SA in order to discredit Israel, when actually the situation on the ground is different. The Arab population within Israel actually have a pretty decent standard of living, citizenship, rights, more than SA's blacks ever had. As well as suggesting that they aren't even given citizenship, apartheid would suggest that they weren't allowed to run for the Knesset, which of course they can. Actually, a Muslim woman in Israel has faaaaar more rights than she would have in most, if not all of the neighbouring countries, and as for the men...well, I remember posting an article on some other thread about how most Israeli Arabs would prefer to continue being Israeli citizens than become citizens of a future Palestinian-governed state. Because of the more developed, Western-influenced welfare system, higher wages, increased freedom and so on. I don't think that many apartheid-era blacks would claim to prefer to remain under the apartheid government, than to become citizens of a black-governed SA, so I think the apartheid analogy has some serious flaws.
Arabs living in Israel are second class citizens, who have diminished economic, political and educational opportunities. They do not have the same rights or privileges as the Jewish citizens of Israel, and talking about how they live better than blacks in South Africa is disingenuous. A Jewish child born in Israel (or who immigrates through the Law of Return) can find education and work opportunities that an Arab child born there will never, ever find. You are not being honest by pretending that this is a situation of equality.

But this is more or less irrelevant, because Israel exists as an entity only in the context of the ruthless suppression of the West Bank and especially Gaza. This is the main issue. The fact is that Israel has a policy of building settlements in occupied territory is a war crime in and of itself, and the actual relationship of the Zionist state to the people of Palestine is a series of unending outrages. This is what people refer to when they talk about the apartheid state; you know this, and your denial is disingenuous in the extreme.

[hatzel]

Krimskrams, you clearly uphold zionism, and believe that Israel is right for what it has done, and continues to do, you have entirely missed the point.

Just because Isreal is slightly better than SA was for blacks, you seem to justify the treatment of the working class, particularly the palestinain working class residing in Israel or the occupied territories.

The warsaw Ghetto was better than the Dungeons of Vlad the Impalor, does this mean that the Warsaw Ghetto was good?

Your zionist Israeli nationalism, Is just as sick as Palestinian Islamic Nationalism.

You give jews a bad name, for such nationalist garbage.

All nations and states are evil, they are controlled by the rich, every single one, so why support any single one?

Firstly, as I work on the Israeli definitions, I cannot be considered Zionist, as I don't advocate the expansion of Israel into what is now called the West Bank or Gaza, which is what passes as Zionist nowadays. Though, as the Jewish state has been established, it's not really even possible to be a 'true' Zionist any more. Anyway, where exactly did I say that the Warsaw Ghetto, or Israel, was 'good'? I merely posted some facts. Do people still remember these? Facts don't include referring to Israel as an apartheid state, as Synthesis pointed out; if it's not the same, don't claim it is. So all I did was point out a few salient differences from apartheid, to argue against the use of this term. I also mentioned that Israel is, compared to the Jordans and Syrias of this world, a better place to be as an Arab member of the working class, even living as a minority. This is a fact. There's no comment here on whether or not the situation is good, just that it is perfectly tolerable; I've checked my figures, and it tells that only 14% of Israeli Arabs would choose to be citizens of a future Palestinian site. Does this make Israel 'good', or does it just make Palestine terrible? That's for you to decide, I'm just putting out some facts that I feel are often overlooked.

Also, I find it offensive that you would claim that any Jew who chooses to support the existence of Israel automatically gives all Jews a bad name. Why exactly should a Jew advocate the destruction of Israel anyway? Maybe we would argue that any Jew who supports Arab nationalism over Israeli nationalism is an embarrassment to all Jews. Because that's what this is. Arab nationalism against Israeli nationalism. We can wax lyrical about the abolishment of all states, or of some new single-state, with both populations living side-by-side, but...oh yeah, we already had that once. And what did it become? Revolts, civil wars, widespread suffering for both populations. Why do we think it won't become the same again? What's changed since the Great Arab Revolt, for instance? Nothing! If anything, those problems have been amplified. On both sides. Now tell me, what's better...supporting the state of Israel's existence (which doesn't exclude supporting the potential existence of a full Palestinian state, even though some think this state would merely merge with Jordan, so it doesn't exclude the idea of the West Bank being part of Jordan again), or supporting the fall of the state of Israel? In the process just allowing the cycle to start again, probably leading to yet another civil war, with the victor establishing a new state, and then we'll have all this again. If every nation will disappear, then sure, that's fine. Until then, though, I think it's more than acceptable to support the existence of one particular nation, if this is considered the best for the people of that nation. Jews and Arabs alike...

At least Animal Farm Pig seems to have got the right idea. 'Right' being an entirely subjective term, of course...

[gorillafuck]

While palestine was under the British mandate, the jewish fought the British for a homeland of their own, after the hollocaust, this is not suprising, at all.
This isn't what happened. Israel was set up by western powers after world war II, not by local Jewish resistance to the British.

[Rafiq]

I have noticed that Israel is often called an "Illigitimate state" by socialists.

This is in my view not true, as a socialist, i oppose all nation states, so why would any nationstate be any more or less legitimate than any other?

Anti semitism nearly wiped jews off the face of the earth, they are persecuted everywhere, and are hated amongst christians of all denominations for "killing god"

While palestine was under the British mandate, the jewish fought the British for a homeland of their own, after the hollocaust, this is not suprising, at all.

Now I know palestinains were wronged, and that they had the right to fight the british and the Israeli settlers.

But out of this situation, a jewish state was spawned, the arab world united to fight this new state, but were crushed, and in turn, occupied.

Now i support the end to occupations, and to the settlements, but, at the end of the day, I am just as much against any palestine state as i am the state of Israel, or any state for that matter.


No nation has the right to exist, yes, in a Marxist viewpoint...

But, since we are on topic, the same argument could be used for Nazi Germany.

"Nazi Germany has just as much of a right to exist than any other nation... "

Israel is a Fascist state that has no right to exist, just as Nazi Germany had no right to exist, but, that doesn't mean the Jews have to leave...

I support a Socialist State in which the Palestinians and Jews both rule EQUALLY together, with an exact balance of power.

Face it, in fifty years the Palestinians will outnumber the Israelis...

Israel will fall naturally.

In Lebanon, they used to say that If you grow a fig tree in your backyard in America, Naturally, it will die out.

Meaning, a State that persecutes a National Minority to an extreme extent (Germany, Israel, South Africa).. Will Naturally die out.

[graymouser]

Firstly, as I work on the Israeli definitions, I cannot be considered Zionist, as I don't advocate the expansion of Israel into what is now called the West Bank or Gaza, which is what passes as Zionist nowadays. Though, as the Jewish state has been established, it's not really even possible to be a 'true' Zionist any more. Anyway, where exactly did I say that the Warsaw Ghetto, or Israel, was 'good'? I merely posted some facts. Do people still remember these? Facts don't include referring to Israel as an apartheid state, as Synthesis pointed out; if it's not the same, don't claim it is. So all I did was point out a few salient differences from apartheid, to argue against the use of this term.
Your "salient differences" are disingenuous, though. You point at the second class Arab citizens of Israel as "differences" from South African apartheid, yet the truth is that the Bantustan-style state that is referred to as Palestine or the Occupied Territories today, is under conditions that are in fact comparable to South Africa. (What, after all, did "Bantustan" mean?)


I also mentioned that Israel is, compared to the Jordans and Syrias of this world, a better place to be as an Arab member of the working class, even living as a minority. This is a fact. There's no comment here on whether or not the situation is good, just that it is perfectly tolerable; I've checked my figures, and it tells that only 14% of Israeli Arabs would choose to be citizens of a future Palestinian site. Does this make Israel 'good', or does it just make Palestine terrible? That's for you to decide, I'm just putting out some facts that I feel are often overlooked.
Nobody in their right mind would want to be part of a Palestinian state established through a "two-state solution." Given the fact that the West Bank has been riddled with illegal settlements and that Gaza has effectively been ruined from an infrastructural standpoint, this is not a surprise at all. It doesn't say anything about whether Israel is an apartheid state.

[Animal Farm Pig]

This isn't what happened. Israel was set up by western powers after world war II, not by local Jewish resistance to the British.

Yeah, all the Jews just showed up in 1948 :rolleyes:

[graymouser]

Yeah, all the Jews just showed up in 1948 :rolleyes:
Well, if we're on the subject of the Naqba, let's also not forget that there were entire towns systematically dispossessed and exiled during the birth of Israel in 1948, and that those people still have the democratic right to return to their homes.

[manic expression]

Firstly, as I work on the Israeli definitions, I cannot be considered Zionist, as I don't advocate the expansion of Israel into what is now called the West Bank or Gaza, which is what passes as Zionist nowadays. Though, as the Jewish state has been established, it's not really even possible to be a 'true' Zionist any more.
That's idiotic. Zionism is the ideology of the establishment and defense of a Jewish state. You clearly put yourself in that camp.


Anyway, where exactly did I say that the Warsaw Ghetto, or Israel, was 'good'? I merely posted some facts. Do people still remember these? Facts don't include referring to Israel as an apartheid state,
That's also idiotic. "Apartheid" means "separateness", the separation of people based on ethnicity. Israel has done this in every possible way, from disenfranchisement and repression of Arabs within Israel to the murder and destruction of Arabs outside its borders, "separateness" informs every inch of the Israeli state.


I also mentioned that Israel is, compared to the Jordans and Syrias of this world, a better place to be as an Arab member of the working class, even living as a minority. This is a fact. There's no comment here on whether or not the situation is good, just that it is perfectly tolerable;
:lol: "Tolerable" meaning what, fit for human habitation? Then I guess the Warsaw Ghetto was just swell, wasn't it? It was "perfectly tolerable", under your definition.

By the way, Jordan and Syria being bad places to live doesn't forgive any crime committed by Israel, and Palestinian deprivation in those Arab countries is directly tied to Zionist aggression.


I've checked my figures, and it tells that only 14% of Israeli Arabs would choose to be citizens of a future Palestinian site.
So 86% would. That's not exactly a point of contention, then.


Also, I find it offensive that you would claim that any Jew who chooses to support the existence of Israel automatically gives all Jews a bad name. Why exactly should a Jew advocate the destruction of Israel anyway?
Because Israel is an insult to human dignity. Israel is a state founded on the principles of racism and bigotry and hatred. That's why. You better get your facts straight next time.

[Animal Farm Pig]

Well, if we're on the subject of the Naqba, let's also not forget that there were entire towns systematically dispossessed and exiled during the birth of Israel in 1948, and that those people still have the democratic right to return to their homes.

Yes, and the Arab armies tried to starve 100,000 Jews in the siege of Jerusalem-- which was meant to be administered by the UN-- as a tactic in a war that they started and Israel won.

Edit: By way, you're dodging my point. You say that Israel was set-up by imperialist powers after WWII. Do you think all the Jews just suddenly showed up after WWII or no?

[Animal Farm Pig]

So 86% would. That's not exactly a point of contention, then.

No, 14% would want to be part of an Arab state, 86% would not.

[Magón]

Krimskrams, you clearly uphold zionism, and believe that Israel is right for what it has done, and continues to do, you have entirely missed the point.

Just because Isreal is slightly better than SA was for blacks, you seem to justify the treatment of the working class, particularly the palestinain working class residing in Israel or the occupied territories.

The warsaw Ghetto was better than the Dungeons of Vlad the Impalor, does this mean that the Warsaw Ghetto was good?

Your zionist Israeli nationalism, Is just as sick as Palestinian Islamic Nationalism.

You give jews a bad name, for such nationalist garbage.

All nations and states are evil, they are controlled by the rich, every single one, so why support any single one?

Just a FYI, Ho Chi Minh was a Vietnamese Communist Nationalist. He supported a Vietnamese Communist State.

[manic expression]

Yes, and the Arab armies tried to starve 100,000 Jews in the siege of Jerusalem-- which was meant to be administered by the UN-- as a tactic in a war that they started and Israel won.
Yeah, they "started" the war because they could not regain stolen territory by diplomatic means. What were they supposed to do at that point, say "thank you, sir, may I have another" to the Zionists?

[manic expression]

No, 14% would want to be part of an Arab state, 86% would not.
Without specifics, that figure is meaningless. Would the future Palestinian state encompass all the territory of Israel? Would it necessitate Palestinians in Israel to move? Would it have control of its borders, coastlines and airspace?

And why, then, do Zionist political parties only get a minority (30% or less) of Palestinian votes in Israeli elections?

[Animal Farm Pig]

Yeah, they "started" the war because they could not regain stolen territory by diplomatic means. What were they supposed to do at that point, say "thank you, sir, may I have another" to the Zionists?

You may have missed my edit to the previous post-- see above

Stolen territory? Who stole it from whom? The real theft of land occurred almost a century before under the Ottoman empire.

[Animal Farm Pig]

Without specifics, that figure is meaningless. Would the future Palestinian state encompass all the territory of Israel? Would it necessitate Palestinians in Israel to move? Would it have control of its borders, coastlines and airspace?

And why, then, do Zionist political parties only get a minority (30% or less) of Palestinian votes in Israeli elections?

Not my point. Ask krimskrams. I was only pointing out the deliberate misinterpretation of the statistic.

[manic expression]

Edit: By way, you're dodging my point. You say that Israel was set-up by imperialist powers after WWII. Do you think all the Jews just suddenly showed up after WWII or no?
Israel does not equal a Jewish presence in Palestine. Jews were living in Palestine long before the Zionists showed up. In fact, Jews living in Palestine were Palestinians...but the Zionists wanted ethnic purity as the basis for their new state.

And if you think Israel would exist without imperialist support, I'm not sure what to say. If the US pulled the plug on aid to Israel tonight, we could start the countdown to the end of Israel by lunchtime tomorrow.


Stolen territory? Who stole it from whom? The real theft of land occurred almost a century before under the Ottoman empire.Israel stole land from Egypt and Syria (and pushed Jordanian forces out of Jerusalem), in a war it started.


Not my point. Ask krimskrams. I was only pointing out the deliberate misinterpretation of the statistic.
Understood. Those points are for krimskrams to answer.

[graymouser]

Yes, and the Arab armies tried to starve 100,000 Jews in the siege of Jerusalem-- which was meant to be administered by the UN-- as a tactic in a war that they started and Israel won.
Well, war is hell. And what country would not defend its territory by war when a bunch of settlers decide to set up their own colonial state?


Edit: By way, you're dodging my point. You say that Israel was set-up by imperialist powers after WWII. Do you think all the Jews just suddenly showed up after WWII or no?
I didn't say that at all, you must be confusing me with another poster. However the fact was that 1947-1948 was a period of mass displacement and theft of land which was subsequently used to create the state of Israel.

[#FF0000]

I seriously can't think of a single thing that justifies displacing all of those Palestinians to create Israel.

[hatzel]

Your "salient differences" are disingenuous, though. You point at the second class Arab citizens of Israel as "differences" from South African apartheid, yet the truth is that the Bantustan-style state that is referred to as Palestine or the Occupied Territories today, is under conditions that are in fact comparable to South Africa. (What, after all, did "Bantustan" mean?)

This, I think, is where a lot of the analogy falls down. Or, we can't have both, as you've also mentioned Israeli settlements as illegal and as war crimes. I feel that the two suggestions are mutually exclusive. That is...well, there is a fundamental difference between, for instance, the West Bank and a Bantustan. Firstly, remember that a Bantustan consisted of (former) sovereign territory, full of people who had been stripped of their citizenship, which was then sometimes given some kind of unrecognised autonomy. The West Bank, on the other hand, was never sovereign territory, nor were the people stripped of citizenship. So I would argue that the apartheid analogy only works if the West Bank is considered sovereign territory of Israel. And, if it is, then I'm pretty sure it's not a war crime to construct on sovereign territory. So I would suggest that only one of the accusations can really be made, as they rely on the situation being different in each case. Which is why I would prefer if we would stick to clear statements of fact, rather than analogies and comparisons, which suggest that the two things are identical, when in fact they may only be similar in certain regards. Always good to be entirely specific!

As for...well, I can't remember who posted this and that after that. As for the 14% figure...it was paired with 62%, I believe, who wanted to remain Israeli citizens, the rest being unsure. The survey was intentionally vague, the question was only "would you prefer to be an Israeli citizen, or citizen of a future Palestinian state". No more details given about the nature of this state, or the nature of the Israeli state they wanted to be a part of. Most of the quotes I remember reading were split about 50:50 between desire to stay in Israel for the various benefits this brings with it, and unwillingness to be governed by anybody showing their colours in Palestinian politics at the moment, who seem to be viewed very negatively by Israeli Arabs. And many in Palestine, too. Remember that most Palestinians (around 70%) are opposed to violent attacks against Israel, and favour direct peace talks, so any party which advocates in the first option and shirks the second will never be considered truly electable by many Palestinians. Problem is, they don't have a great choice when it comes to entirely non-violent parties open to negotiation...as for why they don't vote for Zionist parties...well, remember that many vote for Arab-orientated parties. The types that interest themselves with Arabic affairs. I also remind you that you must consider Zionist and anti-Zionist parties in Israel differently than you think. What are classed as Zionist are only those who seek expansion. Anti-Zionists include those parties which advocate complete withdrawal of settlers from the West Bank, reduced military presence and an eventual two-state solution, generally speaking. Any why do many of them support this idea? That's right, 'to preserve the Jewish nature of Israel'. So in fact many Israeli anti-Zionists would be considered Zionists here in Europe. For this, counting up the anti-Zionist parties, and how much votes they get, means nothing about the desire for the state of Israel to exist.

And @ manic expression, claiming that 'Israel is an insult to human dignity. Israel is a state founded on the principles of racism and bigotry and hatred'. We've had elsewhere people pointing out that Israel is a state founded on the principles of socialism, secularism, equality etc. We agreed that this can't be used when talking about today, but as you made a point of talking about how Israel was founded, I think I'm allowed to bring that one up. I won't be told to check my facts by somebody spouting such drivel. Also, claiming that Israel is an insult to human dignity doesn't actually even approach the question. I mean, I'd say it's an insult to human dignity to pay 12 year old kids about £20 to go and blow themselves up in a coffee shop, or fire missiles at nurseries (there was one today, so you know) or slaughter Olympic teams (okay, I admit that one was hardly recently). So why should I oppose Israel, and the existence of the state, if the fall of Israel means that the land will instead be governed by these types? That's the point I'm getting at. Both sides are as bad as each other, probably because they 'have' to be in the light of what the 'enemy' has done. I've just decided for myself who is more justified, which doesn't mean entirely justified, in their actions. You are more than free to do the same, and come to any conclusion you want. I only complain if you don't base that decision on a full and balanced range of facts. Which I would like to think that I have, as nobody on this forum has yet told me anything I don't know. I know what you're saying, and I've already filtered it through the pro-con chart in my mind, and come to my current decision. Which is being grossly misrepresented by many people, it seems...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Noam Chomsky makes the case that Israel becoming a state based on a specific religious/ethnic group led to the destruction of the socialist institutions of that country. The kibbutzim are virtually gone and the Israeli economy has been subjected to neo-liberalism just like everywhere else. The fact that the state of Israel has been based on the dispossession of 400,000 people has forced the society to become a paranoid militaristic garrison state. The same dynamics and the geopolitics of oil has also forced Israel to become a client state of US imperialism.Other decisions perhaps could have been made, (the CP was once the largest party in Israel, as I understand, and the country did have a socialist tradition) but this is the tragedy Israel has been led to.

I've gone back and forth on a one state/two state solution. I would say that monumental injustices and horrors have been perpetrated by Israel. Nevertheless there is now an Israeli working class , about 3 generations old. I would not advocate "driving the Jews into the sea". I don't support Israeli or Palestinian nationalism. Its not easy but I would advocate an initial two state solution (not the current Bantustan system, which is what the PA is) leading to a socialist federation.

[#FF0000]

And @ manic expression, claiming that 'Israel is an insult to human dignity. Israel is a state founded on the principles of racism and bigotry and hatred'. We've had elsewhere people pointing out that Israel is a state founded on the principles of socialism, secularism, equality etc. We agreed that this can't be used when talking about today, but as you made a point of talking about how Israel was founded, I think I'm allowed to bring that one up. I won't be told to check my facts by somebody spouting such drivel. Also, claiming that Israel is an insult to human dignity doesn't actually even approach the question. I mean, I'd say it's an insult to human dignity to pay 12 year old kids about £20 to go and blow themselves up in a coffee shop, or fire missiles at nurseries (there was one today, so you know) or slaughter Olympic teams (okay, I admit that one was hardly recently). So why should I oppose Israel, and the existence of the state, if the fall of Israel means that the land will instead be governed by these types?

Holy shit it's being run by those sorts already. Not only that but the Israeli government funded the religious fanatic faction of the PLO so they'd get rid of Fatah and the PFLP. Israel supported those people.


That's the point I'm getting at. Both sides are as bad as each other, probably because they 'have' to be in the light of what the 'enemy' has done. I've just decided for myself who is more justified, which doesn't mean entirely justified, in their actions.

How do you figure Israel is justified in doing anything they've done? From the get-go, the Palestinians were mistreated by the British and Israelis, slaughtered and displaced in such numbers that Israelis have never in the history of their country had to suffer through. However many people die of rockets and mortars in Israel, many times more die at the hands of the IDF. Hamas and Palestinians might be killing, but they're shooting at people who displaced them and forced them into the least hospitable parts of the land, and hardly a stretch of that land was given away willingly. Israel, on the other hand, regularly shoots peaceful protesters, fires on fishing boats, uses illegal chemical weapons, and kills hundreds of civilians every time they drop a bomb in response to a mortar that might kill a dozen.

Please, I'm serious, tell me where I'm mistaken. Nothing in the world is black and white but as I've said before, this is really, really fucking close.

[NGNM85]

At this point, for as long as we're going to have nation-states, Israel has as much right to exist as any, with the exception of the territories seized after 1967.

[Animal Farm Pig]

Israel does not equal a Jewish presence in Palestine. Jews were living in Palestine long before the Zionists showed up. In fact, Jews living in Palestine were Palestinians...but the Zionists wanted ethnic purity as the basis for their new state.

Yes, there was a continual Jewish presence in Palestine; however, there was a wave of immigration starting in the late 1800's mostly by Jews fleeing attempts at 'ethnic cleansing' in Europe. Many of them were secular socialists.

I wish I could definitively cite some sources here, but from what I've previously read, the objective wasn't some sort of 'ethnically pure Israel', but rather to gain enough power to no longer be oppressed. This can be seen in the willingness of Jewish settlers to hire Arab laborers and do business with Arab craftsmen and merchants.

I could probably find some sources, but they'd probably be discounted as biased Jewish sources.


And if you think Israel would exist without imperialist support, I'm not sure what to say. If the US pulled the plug on aid to Israel tonight, we could start the countdown to the end of Israel by lunchtime tomorrow.

I think you over-estimate the Arab forces and over-simplify the relationship between the USA and Israel. Aside from some right-wing wackos, I see the relationship between the USA and Israel as more or less a normal alliance in the capitalist world. Both states attempt to negotiate the relationship to their own advantages.

In any case, I can understand why you would want "the end of Israel by lunchtime tomorrow." Look, I don't deny that the state of Israel has done some pretty fucked-up stuff. I understand wanting it to end. I want it to end too.

The problem is that if Israel would collapse tomorrow, I think it would be a blood-bath. The Israelis will not go without a fight. With respect to the Arabs... well, if someone is standing on your neck and then they take their foot off it, most people don't say "Thanks"; they beat the shit out of whoever was holding them down.

I would love for there to be a Marxist-Leninist single state solution. That would be optimal. Apologies for not having enough revolutionary optimism, but I don't think it's going to happen given the current circumstances.

So, what to do? I'm not certain. My current position is to hope for a strong Israeli left. I hope for them because it's the Israeli state that has the power, and a far enough left government might be able to make some progress.

What I oppose is to over-simplify the problem. If waving a Palestinian Arab flag and supporting the PLO or Hamas or the PFLP were all that is needed to ensure peace and dignity for all the people in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, I would do it. Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple.


Israel stole land from Egypt and Syria (and pushed Jordanian forces out of Jerusalem), in a war it started.

Turks and Arabs stole the land from the peasants through the mid-19th century Ottoman 'land reforms'. Jewish settlers bought the land, and, before the declaration of independence, most were living on the purchased land. It's tough shit for the people who were living on the land, but not unexpected.




Well, war is hell. And what country would not defend its territory by war when a bunch of settlers decide to set up their own colonial state?

Yes, war is hell; however, focusing only on the atrocities of one side is dishonest.

The problem with your statement is that the invading Arab countries were not defending 'their land.' They were invading former (British, and before that Ottoman) colonial land. They had no legitimate claims to it. Jerusalem should have been administered by the UN; the Arab states had no right to try to starve the people living in it.

The fact of the matter is that the Arab states thought that they could win a war against the Jews. If they had, we would not be having this discussion. There would either be another autocratic Arab state, or the territory would have been carved up by the invading armies. As for the Jews, maybe we could have a museum and a Steven Spielberg film and say "never again."

[synthesis]

the invading Arab countries were not defending 'their land.' They were invading former (British, and before that Ottoman) colonial land. They had no legitimate claims to it.

lol wut

[manic expression]

Yes, there was a continual Jewish presence in Palestine; however, there was a wave of immigration starting in the late 1800's mostly by Jews fleeing attempts at 'ethnic cleansing' in Europe. Many of them were secular socialists.
The first Zionist Congress was in 1899 or something like that. The movement hadn't clearly defined what it wanted at that point (the location of the Jewish "homeland" wasn't even decided on in those days). However, by the time the Irgun started bombing hotels, you can bet they knew what they wanted, and it was based on such chauvinism of the worst sort.


I think you over-estimate the Arab forces and over-simplify the relationship between the USA and Israel. Aside from some right-wing wackos, I see the relationship between the USA and Israel as more or less a normal alliance in the capitalist world. Both states attempt to negotiate the relationship to their own advantages.It's hardly a normal alliance. Israel has bombed US ships in international waters and barely apologized, and we hear hardly a peep from the US imperialists. Anytime a politician criticizes Israel in the US, it's very often the end of his/her political career. Sure, it's a capitalist alliance, and the US gets a lot of advantages out of it (I've never denied that, and I find people who say things like "Israel controls the US government" to mostly be chauvinistic in their own right, and blind to the dynamics of imperialism), but it's not a normal alliance.


The problem is that if Israel would collapse tomorrow, I think it would be a blood-bath. The Israelis will not go without a fight. With respect to the Arabs... well, if someone is standing on your neck and then they take their foot off it, most people don't say "Thanks"; they beat the shit out of whoever was holding them down.That's what everyone thought would happen in South Africa, and even though it appeared very likely at many junctures, it didn't. I think our sisters and brothers in Palestine can accomplish the same feat under the right circumstances.

But I think there is the possibility of such a tragedy...however, it's been a continual bloodbath for decades. There is, though, another way out of this mess. The demographics of Israel aren't looking good for the Zionists. They're going to be very outnumbered to the point of absurdity in the not-so-distant future. Perhaps Zionism's death will not be so loud. I hope so. But if it chooses a loud death, there isn't much we can do to persuade it otherwise.


I would love for there to be a Marxist-Leninist single state solution. That would be optimal. Apologies for not having enough revolutionary optimism, but I don't think it's going to happen given the current circumstances.Of course not in the current status quo, but the status quo is an unsustainable one. It will be replaced with another set of different circumstances in a matter of decades, and if not at that point then at a later one.


Turks and Arabs stole the land from the peasants through the mid-19th century Ottoman 'land reforms'. Jewish settlers bought the land, and, before the declaration of independence, most were living on the purchased land. It's tough shit for the people who were living on the land, but not unexpected. Two things. First, land that was bought is not really the issue. Right of Return (which would essentially solve huge parts of the problem on its own) doesn't have much to do with that IIRC. It's about Palestinians who were forced out of their homes or intimidated into fleeing in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in late 1947 and 1948. No one (aside from a few lunatics who got US funding back in the 80's) has a problem with Jews living in Palestine, it's the land theft and ethnic cleansing that's objected to. Second, squatters do have rights in many circumstances, and I'm quite sure the UN legal framework deals with this (since the Partition was under the auspices of that organization, it should apply, although I'm no lawyer).

[manic expression]

And @ manic expression, claiming that 'Israel is an insult to human dignity. Israel is a state founded on the principles of racism and bigotry and hatred'. We've had elsewhere people pointing out that Israel is a state founded on the principles of socialism, secularism, equality etc.
Ah, I see. So sending clearing teams to force non-Jews out of their legal homes was part of "socialism, secularism, equality etc.". If pushing over 700,000 people out of their homes (who just happen to be non-Jewish) means "socialism" to you, you might want to reconsider your definition, because your present one has nothing to do with socialism.


We agreed that this can't be used when talking about today, but as you made a point of talking about how Israel was founded, I think I'm allowed to bring that one up. I won't be told to check my facts by somebody spouting such drivel. Also, claiming that Israel is an insult to human dignity doesn't actually even approach the question. I mean, I'd say it's an insult to human dignity to pay 12 year old kids about £20 to go and blow themselves up in a coffee shop, or fire missiles at nurseries (there was one today, so you know) or slaughter Olympic teams (okay, I admit that one was hardly recently). So why should I oppose Israel, and the existence of the state, if the fall of Israel means that the land will instead be governed by these types?
"These types". How refreshingly sensitive. :rolleyes: While you're working yourself into some sort of self-righteous rage about suicide bombers and rockets, perhaps you should consider the fact that Israel is besieging and occupying Palestine, and imprisoning the people on their own land. The Palestinians have no other options but to fight with the means they have. That's what the pro-Zionist chorus doesn't understand: if you deprive a people of self-determination, if you force them into poverty and deny them the means to adequately defend themselves, don't blame them when they fight back however they can.

That's Israel's fault. From first to last, they hold the cards here.


Both sides are as bad as each other, probably because they 'have' to be in the light of what the 'enemy' has done.
If you actually believe this, then you have no interest in reality. One side occupies the other side's land. One side has consciously organized clear-cut massacres of civilians of the other side. One side is living on land stolen from the other side. One side is one of the most powerful military forces in the region, while the other side is denied even a standing army. One side is the oppressor, the other is the oppressed.

The only question is who you stand with.

[GreenCommunism]

Anti semitism nearly wiped jews off the face of the earththe biggest holocaust killed 20-30% of the jews, that's not nearly wipeing them off the planet, granted they have gone through many hardship which means that they should be around 90-100 million anymore and they are around 11, but why the fuck should i care about them seriously, native americans are far higher in my priority than the jews, sorry.

israel doesn't have the right to exist, palestine does, jews and muslims can live in peace next to each other in what they consider holy land.


I mean, I'd say it's an insult to human dignity to pay 12 year old kids about £20 to go and blow themselves up in a coffee shop, or fire missiles at nurseries (there was one today, so you know)fucking racist, as if a almost complete majority of suicide bombers didn't have some of their families killed or brutalized by israel, you are insane. i don't know how the jewish religion works,and i don't know if you are jewish, but you don't deserve to any religion's heaven except buddhism where you will be reincarnated as a palestinian and might feel what it's like to live under occupation with 70% of all children suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.


The kibbutzim are virtually gone
even the kibbutz were kinda racist or so i've heard, non jews were not welcomed to live in it.

[IndependentCitizen]

Members of the Fatah are alright, but their leaders are corrupt as fuck.

Which main political party of the world isn't? :P

[Animal Farm Pig]

lol wut

Israel was invaded by Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabian forces in 1948.


The first Zionist Congress was in 1899 or something like that. The movement hadn't clearly defined what it wanted at that point (the location of the Jewish "homeland" wasn't even decided on in those days). However, by the time the Irgun started bombing hotels, you can bet they knew what they wanted, and it was based on such chauvinism of the worst sort.

A quick Google shows the first aliyah starting in 1881-82.

Desire for a 'Jewish homeland' cannot be understood outside the historic context of antisemitism. When people are trying to kill you, it's natural to want enough power to defend oneself.


That's what everyone thought would happen in South Africa, and even though it appeared very likely at many junctures, it didn't. I think our sisters and brothers in Palestine can accomplish the same feat under the right circumstances.

But I think there is the possibility of such a tragedy...however, it's been a continual bloodbath for decades. There is, though, another way out of this mess. The demographics of Israel aren't looking good for the Zionists. They're going to be very outnumbered to the point of absurdity in the not-so-distant future. Perhaps Zionism's death will not be so loud. I hope so. But if it chooses a loud death, there isn't much we can do to persuade it otherwise.

Of course not in the current status quo, but the status quo is an unsustainable one. It will be replaced with another set of different circumstances in a matter of decades, and if not at that point then at a later one.

I think the situation is actually sustainable, but sustaining the status quo would be evil (no other way to put it). It's been a bloodbath for decades, and I have a feeling it could continue to be a bloodbath for decades more.

The question of demographics is definitely an important one. It's a factor in Israel encouraging immigration, and it's the major driver behind the '2 state solution.' A one state solution would put Jews as a minority in the near future.

I don't have any particular love for the idea of reconstituting ancient Israel, but the fact of the matter is that there are Israelis who will not leave their homes. What is to happen? You seem to think that the Palestinian Arabs can achieve some sort of victory over the state of Israel and will then exercise forgiveness against their oppressors. I just don't think it's realistic. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

What would convince me otherwise would be deescalation. It's both difficult and a shitty short term solution that doesn't address some of the real grievances, but it's what's necessary to build up the kind of trust necessary to move forwards in a peaceful and productive way.


Two things. First, land that was bought is not really the issue. Right of Return (which would essentially solve huge parts of the problem on its own) doesn't have much to do with that IIRC. It's about Palestinians who were forced out of their homes or intimidated into fleeing in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in late 1947 and 1948. No one (aside from a few lunatics who got US funding back in the 80's) has a problem with Jews living in Palestine, it's the land theft and ethnic cleansing that's objected to. Second, squatters do have rights in many circumstances, and I'm quite sure the UN legal framework deals with this (since the Partition was under the auspices of that organization, it should apply, although I'm no lawyer).

Yes, people were forced off land. Right of return should be given when the displaced people can return and live in peace with the people in Israel. I think there are issues (on both sides) that would make such an arrangement difficult. There is also the question of how many generations back right or return is applied.

[synthesis]

Israel was invaded by Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabian forces in 1948.

I've heard of it :lol: That was in response to your claim that they didn't have any legitimate right to the land that was occupied by an empire, which to me implies that the empire or its chosen successor is the one which has the legitimate right.

[hatzel]

How do you figure Israel is justified in doing anything they've done? From the get-go, the Palestinians were mistreated by the British and Israelis, slaughtered and displaced in such numbers that Israelis have never in the history of their country had to suffer through. However many people die of rockets and mortars in Israel, many times more die at the hands of the IDF. Hamas and Palestinians might be killing, but they're shooting at people who displaced them and forced them into the least hospitable parts of the land, and hardly a stretch of that land was given away willingly. Israel, on the other hand, regularly shoots peaceful protesters, fires on fishing boats, uses illegal chemical weapons, and kills hundreds of civilians every time they drop a bomb in response to a mortar that might kill a dozen.

Please, I'm serious, tell me where I'm mistaken. Nothing in the world is black and white but as I've said before, this is really, really fucking close.

Wow, there's a toughie...I'll point out first that the Jews and the Brits were in no way on the same side. You can look down the list of British officials in the Mandate who were assassinated by Jews for their political causes. In addition, Jews were mistreated there fair share as well. Let's think of the 1929 riots...all started because the Arabs, with British support, wanted to restrict Jewish access to the Western Wall. And what of the earlier Jaffa riots? A scuffle between two Jewish communist and socialist political parties, used as a pretext for the Arab population to start marauding through Jewish houses with clubs, knives and guns. Sure, the British police then clashed with the Arabs, to prevent them from continuing their attacks against the Jews, but I don't think we can believe that they didn't deserve it, just a little bit. In fact, I've heard that the police shot Jew and Arab alike...the point being, until the establishment of Israel, early Zionists were most likely to be the ones to suffer, as opposed to the Arabs, with Zionist attacks being retaliations. As for the expulsion of Arabs...I'm not denying this for a second. I will point out that it wasn't entirely expulsion, though. There were individuals who merely chose to flee the fighting, and there were examples of the Arab army commanders forcibly moving populations. This, presumably, was of strategic importance, perhaps to make it easier to attack Jewish settlements without fear of Arabs civilians being caught up in it. But yes, some were forcibly expelled by various Zionist factions. I don't believe either of the viewpoints which argue it was entirely voluntary or entirely forced. A combination of the two seems fair from the evidence we have, probably varying according to the situation, and where exactly we're talking about. However, I do consider the situation was untenable at that time. It's never good to have to move people on, but these two communities could never have lived peacefully, side-by-side, in the conditions of the time. Revolutions aren't really meant to be pretty, but in this case, one of the communities had to expel the other. And it just so happened, through an accident of history, that the Jewish paramilitary triumphed, and so was the population to stay. Nobody's trying to claim that it was a good thing, or that anybody should be stuck as refugees. But, and I hope this isn't considered offensive, their life as refugees wasn't the fault of the Israelis, merely their status as refugees. If the neighbouring Arab states weren't so adamant in their Arab nationalism and anti-Zionism, and did what was truly best for their brethren, then the camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, and the terrible things which have happened there, could easily have been avoided. This isn't shirking Israeli responsibility, merely sharing it...

As for the talk of comparisons between the number killed by mortar fire and the number killed by the IDF...this is a misleading figure. If you put one of the most advanced armies in the world up against paramilitary forces, the numbers of casualties won't usually match up. But this doesn't mean disproportionate force, this means more effective, if I can say, application of that force. If this paramilitary could apply such force, they would. However, as they can't, they choose to hide between houses in Gaza, a major city, firing missiles, usually at pretty small settlements (as there aren't so many big cities in range yet. Wait until their range increases, though). So of course there aren't that many people to be harmed anyway. So how do they make the most of each kill? They fire these missiles at 'strategic' times, of course...in the morning and the afternoon around the time of schools starting and ending each day, for two reasons. One, to maximise the chances that there will be people out on the streets, and by 'people' we mean school kids. For some reason there's something in human psychology that considers the the death or injury of school kids as somehow worse than the death or suffering of adults, so it is most effective, politically speaking, to target kids. "We have to give them what they want, for the sake of the children!" would be the desired response. Problem is, this also means that Israel has two choices. One is to jut accept it. Take thousands of missiles, forget about protecting its citizens and just say "okay, yeah, you can do that, there's nothing we can do". Or, the other option, is to fire back. Retaliate. Which would require trying to hit a couple of guys with a tube, hiding between two buildings, in a built-up area (as opposed to the rural areas of Israel which are in range), at...what time? That's right, when the kids are on the way to school, maximising the chance of children being hurt. So that the world can turn around and say "big bad Israel, firing at school kids" as if they even had a choice. This is dirty fighting. Personally, I think there's an acceptability line here which has been crossed. And, as somebody complained about my comments about the use of child suicide bombers...which isn't racist at all. Telling me that they or their families have suffered at the hands of Israel...excuse me? If somebody's suffered at the hands of Israel, and wants revenge, they can go and blow themselves up. How exactly can any excuse be good enough to justify paying children to do your dirty work for you? And why doesn't this argument work for the Israelis? Why can't we say "they suffer from Palestinian rocket attacks, suicide bombings, school shootings, kidnappings, so their actions are fine, no matter what they are"? I think this generally doesn't fly, so why is there a double-standard for the Palestinians? Every death is of course deplorable, but I accept the idea of armed resistance for a cause. I don't accept armed resistance, though, if any act of retaliation from the other side is instantly portrayed as some evil, callous act. If there's going to be a war, as there currently is, both sides need to be allowed to exercise relative freedom in conflict. Only then is it a fair fight. And, I would suggest, it isn't at the moment. Palestinian acts seem to be under some blanket of "well, but they're just trying to get their land back", as if that's justification enough. As said, there isn't true justification for either side, but I would like to exercise my right to choose which side I consider more justified, without, as I've already said, being told the same things over and over again. I can't see any side as fine right now, thanks to their relationship to one another, but looking internally, and envisaging the resulting states from a two-state solution, I can't view the future Palestinian state as superior to the future Israeli state. And any one-state solution (even though I don't think such a shared solution would ever be viable, except for in some utopian society) should also take the Israeli constitution and system as its basis.

My last two cents on the matter...

[NecroCommie]

No states have any natural "right" to exist. Their rights are derived through their enforcment of human rights. Israel has a very poor record in this regard, and is therefore without any rights to exist at all.

[#FF0000]

Wow, there's a toughie...I'll point out first that the Jews and the Brits were in no way on the same side. You can look down the list of British officials in the Mandate who were assassinated by Jews for their political causes. In addition, Jews were mistreated there fair share as well. Let's think of the 1929 riots...all started because the Arabs, with British support, wanted to restrict Jewish access to the Western Wall. And what of the earlier Jaffa riots? A scuffle between two Jewish communist and socialist political parties, used as a pretext for the Arab population to start marauding through Jewish houses with clubs, knives and guns.

Yeah, native populations tend to do that when foreign occupiers roll through their neighborhoods. Why is this surprising?


Sure, the British police then clashed with the Arabs, to prevent them from continuing their attacks against the Jews, but I don't think we can believe that they didn't deserve it, just a little bit. In fact, I've heard that the police shot Jew and Arab alike...the point being, until the establishment of Israel, early Zionists were most likely to be the ones to suffer, as opposed to the Arabs, with Zionist attacks being retaliations.

See, this is something that I can't understand. How do you go to a country, use guns on native population, dispossess them, displace them, take their lands and their homes by force, and then when the native population resists, kill them and repress them and call it self defense? Have you never noticed this contradiction, here? Israelis are the aggressors. They, by definition, cannot act in self-defense from the people they're acting aggressively towards.


As for the expulsion of Arabs...I'm not denying this for a second. I will point out that it wasn't entirely expulsion, though. There were individuals who merely chose to flee the fighting, and there were examples of the Arab army commanders forcibly moving populations. This, presumably, was of strategic importance, perhaps to make it easier to attack Jewish settlements without fear of Arabs civilians being caught up in it. But yes, some were forcibly expelled by various Zionist factions. I don't believe either of the viewpoints which argue it was entirely voluntary or entirely forced. A combination of the two seems fair from the evidence we have, probably varying according to the situation, and where exactly we're talking about. However, I do consider the situation was untenable at that time. It's never good to have to move people on, but these two communities could never have lived peacefully, side-by-side, in the conditions of the time.

So you're accepting that Israel committed crimes against humanity and you still support them and believe they have more claim to land they hadn't lived on in thousands of years despite this. That is fascinating.

Also, mass murder and forced displacement isn't a great way to cozy up to new neighbors when you're inviting yourself to crash on their couch.


Revolutions aren't really meant to be pretty, but in this case, one of the communities had to expel the other. And it just so happened, through an accident of history, that the Jewish paramilitary triumphed, and so was the population to stay. Nobody's trying to claim that it was a good thing,

It wasn't a revolution. It was and is an occupation. And don't whitewash it by calling it an "accident of history". It was and is a Crime against Humanity.

And if you're not trying to claim it's good, and recognize that Israel committed crimes against humanity, then why support Israel?


But, and I hope this isn't considered offensive, their*life*as refugees wasn't the fault of the Israelis, merely their*status*as refugees. If the neighbouring Arab states weren't so adamant in their Arab nationalism and anti-Zionism, and did what was truly best for their brethren, then the camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, and the terrible things which have happened there, could easily have been avoided. This isn't shirking Israeli responsibility, merely sharing it...

This doesn't absolve Israel at all. You can't go in, murdering, pillaging, displacing, and dispossessing and then say "Hey, it would've been better if those guys over there did something to help the people we forced out of their homes."


As for the talk of comparisons between the number killed by mortar fire and the number killed by the IDF...this is a misleading figure. If you put one of the most advanced armies in the world up against paramilitary forces, the numbers of casualties won't usually match up.

Yeah, I know, but see, Israel has a tendency to use these massive, advanced weapons on civilian populations. And the IDF knows this. And they don't give a good goddamn, either. (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/09/201098123618465366.html)


But this doesn't mean disproportionate force, this means more effective, if I can say, application of that force. If this paramilitary could apply such force, they would. However, as they can't, they choose to hide between houses in Gaza, a major city, firing missiles, usually at pretty small settlements (as there aren't so many big cities in range yet. Wait until their range increases, though). So of course there aren't*that*many people to be harmed anyway.

Israel is better at slaughtering civilians. Congratulations.

By the way, dropping tons of white phosphorous on a civilian population trying to catch a couple of guys who launched mortars isn't an effective application of force. It's collective punishment and mass murder.


Problem is, this also means that Israel has two choices. One is to jut accept it. Take thousands of missiles, forget about protecting its citizens and just say "okay, yeah, you can do that, there's nothing we can do". Or, the other option, is to fire back. Retaliate. Which would require trying to hit a couple of guys with a tube, hiding between two buildings, in a built-up area (as opposed to the rural areas of Israel which are in range), at...what time? That's right, when the kids are on the way to school, maximising the chance of children being hurt. So that the world can turn around and say "big bad Israel, firing at school kids" as if they even had a choice.

You're absolutely right in that Israel has no choice. At least, Israel has no choice that can be justified in any way at all. Israel is occupying that land. They have no claim to it. They took it from displaced and dispossessed people. The people who suffer because of that, as in all anti-imperialist struggles, have every right to fight back against their aggressors, though, obviously, their methods of doing so aren't always savory.


Telling me that they or their families have suffered at the hands of Israel...excuse me? If somebody's suffered at the hands of Israel, and wants revenge, they can go and blow themselves up. How exactly can*any*excuse be good enough to justify paying children to do your dirty work for you

You know, this isn't the only thing people do. The use of child soldiers and child suicide bombers is certainly reprehensible but Israel cannot claim any moral high ground whatsoever.


And why doesn't this argument work for the Israelis? Why can't we say "they suffer from Palestinian rocket attacks, suicide bombings, school shootings, kidnappings, so their actions are fine, no matter what they are"?

It doesn't fly because Israelis don't have the right to be there.


And any one-state solution (even though I don't think such a shared solution would ever be viable, except for in some utopian society) should also take the Israeli constitution and system as its basis.

See, I always thought the Lebanese system would work pretty well for a single Jewish/Arab state of Palestine.

[manic expression]

A quick Google shows the first aliyah starting in 1881-82.

Desire for a 'Jewish homeland' cannot be understood outside the historic context of antisemitism. When people are trying to kill you, it's natural to want enough power to defend oneself.
Well, it actually started in the context of the Dreyfus Affair. The thought process was that even if the "enlightened" French Republic was stooping to scapegoating Jews for the disastrous Franco-Prussian War, Europe wasn't the place for them. Unfortunately, after some deliberation, the Zionists decided that they would settle where they wanted, the rightful owners be damned.


I think the situation is actually sustainable, but sustaining the status quo would be evil (no other way to put it). It's been a bloodbath for decades, and I have a feeling it could continue to be a bloodbath for decades more.

The question of demographics is definitely an important one. It's a factor in Israel encouraging immigration, and it's the major driver behind the '2 state solution.' A one state solution would put Jews as a minority in the near future.
First, the status quo can only be sustained through continued US aid, and that is not a guarantee with all the problems US imperialism faces. Second, the present Israeli government has put its nose up at the prospect of the 2 state solution, so it's going for the old all-or-nothing gambit. If it continues on that line, it's going to get nothing.


I don't have any particular love for the idea of reconstituting ancient Israel, but the fact of the matter is that there are Israelis who will not leave their homes. What is to happen? You seem to think that the Palestinian Arabs can achieve some sort of victory over the state of Israel and will then exercise forgiveness against their oppressors. I just don't think it's realistic. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.
Truth and Reconciliation wasn't the most satisfying thing in the world, but it worked in South Africa. I think you might be underestimating the Palestinian desire to just be treated as humans...once they get that, I think they'll be satisfied and/or too tired to fight for some form of revenge.

Plus, the Palestinian liberation movement has been quite insistent on the idea that they don't hate Jews.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

And @ manic expression, claiming that 'Israel is an insult to human dignity. Israel is a state founded on the principles of racism and bigotry and hatred'. We've had elsewhere people pointing out that Israel is a state founded on the principles of socialism, secularism, equality etc.

Secularism and socialism? Equality?

Let's see -- an article on Alternet, September 8, 2009:



Israeli Government Ads Warn Against Marrying Non-Jews

The Israeli government has launched a television and Internet advertising campaign urging Israelis to inform on Jewish friends and relatives abroad who may be in danger of marrying non-Jews.

[...]

Israel, whose Jewish population of 5.6 million accounts for 41 percent of worldwide Jewry, has obstructed intermarriage between its Jewish and Arab citizens by refusing to recognize such marriages unless they are performed abroad.

(http://www.alternet.org/world/142478/israeli_government_ads_warn_against_marrying_non-jews_/)

Although in March of this year there was a bill from Lieberman to allow non-Jews to marry other non-Jews in secular ceremonies ("something akin to marriage"):



Civil Marriage for Non-Jews

A pared-down version of the civil marriage bill has been passed in the Knesset, enabling those of “no religion” to be joined together in something akin to marriage.

The bill was led by the Israel Our Home party, whose leader, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, hailed the 56-4 Knesset vote as “historic.” However, in reality it is just a shadow of the bill that Lieberman promised his voters he would pass.

[...]

Ultimately, it was agreed to promote a bill that would institutionalize civil marriage in Israel only between non-Jews. It was this bill that passed on Monday, with only four nay-sayers: Three Meretz party MKs and MK Dov Hanin (Hadash).

“The passage of this bill is one of those moments that is registered in the historic pages of the Knesset and the State of Israel,” an ecstatic Lieberman said.

However, Meretz MKs say that only one “for whom this bill does anything for is Avigdor Lieberman himself. Barely 300 people a year will be able to benefit from it.” (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/136544)

So secular and socialist, Kriskrams. Oh, yes! Equality indeed!

[Blackscare]

I support a Socialist State in which the Palestinians and Jews both rule EQUALLY together, with an exact balance of power.

Face it, in fifty years the Palestinians will outnumber the Israelis...




They already do, by a rather large margin. Which is why the idea of 50/50 power sharing is unfair to Palestinians, that is if you're even going to do something as absurd as base government along ethnic lines.

[Barry Lyndon]

[QUOTE=Krimskrams;1859246]a)Wow, there's a toughie...I'll point out first that the Jews and the Brits were in no way on the same side. You can look down the list of British officials in the Mandate who were assassinated by Jews for their political causes. In addition, Jews were mistreated there fair share as well. Let's think of the 1929 riots...all started because the Arabs, with British support, wanted to restrict Jewish access to the Western Wall. And what of the earlier Jaffa riots? A scuffle between two Jewish communist and socialist political parties, used as a pretext for the Arab population to start marauding through Jewish houses with clubs, knives and guns. Sure, the British police then clashed with the Arabs, to prevent them from continuing their attacks against the Jews, but I don't think we can believe that they didn't deserve it, just a little bit. In fact, I've heard that the police shot Jew and Arab alike...the point being, until the establishment of Israel, early Zionists were most likely to be the ones to suffer, as opposed to the Arabs, with Zionist attacks being retaliations.

b)As for the expulsion of Arabs...I'm not denying this for a second. I will point out that it wasn't entirely expulsion, though. There were individuals who merely chose to flee the fighting, and there were examples of the Arab army commanders forcibly moving populations. This, presumably, was of strategic importance, perhaps to make it easier to attack Jewish settlements without fear of Arabs civilians being caught up in it. But yes, some were forcibly expelled by various Zionist factions. I don't believe either of the viewpoints which argue it was entirely voluntary or entirely forced. A combination of the two seems fair from the evidence we have, probably varying according to the situation, and where exactly we're talking about. However, I do consider the situation was untenable at that time. It's never good to have to move people on, but these two communities could never have lived peacefully, side-by-side, in the conditions of the time. Revolutions aren't really meant to be pretty, but in this case, one of the communities had to expel the other. And it just so happened, through an accident of history, that the Jewish paramilitary triumphed, and so was the population to stay. Nobody's trying to claim that it was a good thing, or that anybody should be stuck as refugees. But, and I hope this isn't considered offensive, their life as refugees wasn't the fault of the Israelis, merely their status as refugees.

c)If the neighbouring Arab states weren't so adamant in their Arab nationalism and anti-Zionism, and did what was truly best for their brethren, then the camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, and the terrible things which have happened there, could easily have been avoided. This isn't shirking Israeli responsibility, merely sharing it...

d) As for the talk of comparisons between the number killed by mortar fire and the number killed by the IDF...this is a misleading figure. If you put one of the most advanced armies in the world up against paramilitary forces, the numbers of casualties won't usually match up. But this doesn't mean disproportionate force, this means more effective, if I can say, application of that force. If this paramilitary could apply such force, they would. However, as they can't, they choose to hide between houses in Gaza, a major city, firing missiles, usually at pretty small settlements (as there aren't so many big cities in range yet. Wait until their range increases, though). So of course there aren't that many people to be harmed anyway. So how do they make the most of each kill? They fire these missiles at 'strategic' times, of course...in the morning and the afternoon around the time of schools starting and ending each day, for two reasons. One, to maximise the chances that there will be people out on the streets, and by 'people' we mean school kids. For some reason there's something in human psychology that considers the the death or injury of school kids as somehow worse than the death or suffering of adults, so it is most effective, politically speaking, to target kids. "We have to give them what they want, for the sake of the children!" would be the desired response. Problem is, this also means that Israel has two choices. One is to jut accept it. Take thousands of missiles, forget about protecting its citizens and just say "okay, yeah, you can do that, there's nothing we can do". Or, the other option, is to fire back. Retaliate. Which would require trying to hit a couple of guys with a tube, hiding between two buildings, in a built-up area (as opposed to the rural areas of Israel which are in range), at...what time? That's right, when the kids are on the way to school, maximising the chance of children being hurt. So that the world can turn around and say "big bad Israel, firing at school kids" as if they even had a choice. This is dirty fighting. Personally, I think there's an acceptability line here which has been crossed[QUOTE]

a) Zionism from its very inception was conceived as a movement in alliance with European imperialism. Theodore Herzl himself said that he foresaw his Jewish state as being a 'rampart of Europe in Asia, and outpost of civilization in a sea of barbarism'.
The entire Zionist project wouldn't have come into existence in any real political sense if the British didn't back them-every heard of the 1917 Balfour Declaration?
The fact that the Zionists turned against the British is no evidence that they were not fundamentally on the same side when it came to their attitude towards the indigenous population. The British thought they could use the Zionists as a tool to help dominate the Arabs, but the Zionists wanted to be the colonizers themselves. Much like the conflict between the British imperialists and the American colonists 200 years
ago- both were united in their desire to exterminate the Native American population of North America and take their lands, but they fought over the spoils.

b) You have to either be brainwashed or a liar, or some combination of the two. Plenty of Israeli historians have conceded that systematic ethnic cleansing took place in Palestine in 1948, and that it was pre-meditated. Benny Morris, and Israeli historian on the 1948 who is a raving right-winger, not only admits that the massacres and mass expulsion occured, but his criticism is that Israel did not go far enough and kill and expel ALL the Palestinians across the Jordan River, the continued existence of Palestinian people being a continuing 'problem' in his eyes.
The Israeli historian Ilan Pappe wrote a great book called 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'. Drawing on the Haganah's own archives in Tel Aviv, he demonstrates that the Zionists charted virtually every Arab town, every village, every farm, so that when the time came they would efficiently expel the native Arab population.
400 Arab villages were not destroyed and emptied of their population by 'accident' or by some rogue elements.

c) The Arab states atrocious behavior does not excuse Israel's behavior, even if it were true that Israel behaved better then the Arabs(which it isn't). 'I'm a great guy, because I don't beat my wife nearly as often as my neighbor does'.

d) Israel has the choice NOT to blow up schools, hospitals, and mosques with white posphorus, incinerating women, children and babies. However, they made that choice.
Have you been living on the far side of the moon for the last year or so? Did you miss that whole bloodbath that Israel committed in Gaza? Are you aware that Israel's OWN SOLDIERS have come forth and admitted that Israel committed multiple war crimes? Have you heard of the UN Goldstone report, which is damning of Israel's actions and is the result of an investigation of a Jew and a self-admitted Zionist, who also conducted UN human rights investigations into South Africa and Yugoslavia?
'Both sides' are not equally wrong. There is nothing 'equal' about a 100-1 kill ratio. There is nothing equal about the fact that Israeli's can come and go wherever and whenever they like, while 1.5 million people are suffocating inside an open-air prison in Gaza, digging tunnels to get food and medicine.
And when the outside humanitarian workers try to help them, their liable to be MURDERED by the Israeli navy.
Palestinian tanks are not in Tel Aviv. Palestinians have never built settlements in Brooklyn, or Budapest, or Kiev.
Get your head out of your ass.

Ban this Zionist apologist-he makes me sick.

[Rafiq]

They already do, by a rather large margin. Which is why the idea of 50/50 power sharing is unfair to Palestinians, that is if you're even going to do something as absurd as base government along ethnic lines.

Sorry, let me rephrase that. A state in which people of all ethnic backgrounds rule together, where there is NO Ethnic Elite...

Palestinians get equal rights...

Black hebrews get equal rights..

[t.shonku]

Israel exists at the expense of others.

[empiredestoryer]

it does not have a right to exist you cannot creat a state on top of another people

[superborys]

I have noticed that Israel is often called an "Illigitimate state" by socialists.

This is in my view not true, as a socialist, i oppose all nation states, so why would any nationstate be any more or less legitimate than any other?

Anti semitism nearly wiped jews off the face of the earth, they are persecuted everywhere, and are hated amongst christians of all denominations for "killing god"

While palestine was under the British mandate, the jewish fought the British for a homeland of their own, after the hollocaust, this is not suprising, at all.

Now I know palestinains were wronged, and that they had the right to fight the british and the Israeli settlers.

But out of this situation, a jewish state was spawned, the arab world united to fight this new state, but were crushed, and in turn, occupied.

Now i support the end to occupations, and to the settlements, but, at the end of the day, I am just as much against any palestine state as i am the state of Israel, or any state for that matter.

I am in agreement with you, but however by existing they deny the right of Palestine to exist. By existing and taking the aggressive, homelandish stance that they are taking, they deny other nations the right to exist, which I think is markedly right, which I believe we are all against.

I would not be opposed to a confederation of Israel and Palestine to have two zones in which citizens from both are welcome in, but one part has exclusive rights over one, etc, like a normal confederation works, but the Israelis are actively opposing a Palestinian homeland. It took a long, tragic guerrilla war by the Palestinians to earn some shitty land that Israel hardly even wants, and it's still overseen by Israeli troops.

[Invader Zim]

Wait.... do you know how Israel was formed?

Wait... do you know how and under what circumstances Israel was formed; I do:

http://www.etzel.org.il/pictures/kingdvd2.jpg

[NGNM85]

Wait... do you know how and under what circumstances Israel was formed; I do:

http://www.etzel.org.il/pictures/kingdvd2.jpg

Under what circumstances was the United States formed? In 1947, you'd have a point. Presently, Israel has as muvh 'right' to exist as any nation-state, for as long as we have nation-states, with the exception of territories seized after 1967, which should be relinquished, preferably sooner than later.

[Invader Zim]

Under what circumstances was the United States formed? In 1947, you'd have a point. Presently, Israel has as muvh 'right' to exist as any nation-state, for as long as we have nation-states, with the exception of territories seized after 1967, which should be relinquished, preferably sooner than later.

Firstly, that doesn't address anything I said. Secondly, what a non-point. Do you have anything to say beyond platitudes? Right, so you think that Israel shouldn't exist (at least in the long run). Ok. Fine. But how do you propose that be achieved? What kind of guarantees do you think should be offered to the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Jews who do not merely reside in the region but were born there? Indeed, what argument can you muster to contend that Israel has a right to exist while we maintain nation states? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but currently your post doesn't take us anywhere.

[hatzel]

...the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Jews who do not merely reside in the region but were born there?
Just to be a stats-machine:

Around 4 million of Israel's 5.6 million Jews are Israeli-born.

:thumbup1:

[4 Leaf Clover]

i dont know does israel has right to exist , but a jewish/israeli national state doesn't. How are you going to name that state really doesn't concern me

[NGNM85]

Firstly, that doesn't address anything I said.

I may have misunderstood you're intentions, but the point stands, nontheless.


Secondly, what a non-point. Do you have anything to say beyond platitudes?

It wasn't merely platitudes.


Right, so you think that Israel shouldn't exist (at least in the long run).

I don't think nation-states should exist in the long run. That’s a crucial difference. However, if such a thing is ever achieved it is likely to be quite some time from now.



Ok. Fine. But how do you propose that be achieved? What kind of guarantees do you think should be offered to the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Jews who do not merely reside in the region but were born there? Indeed, what argument can you muster to contend that Israel has a right to exist while we maintain nation states? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but currently your post doesn't take us anywhere.

Why should the United States or the United Kingdom have ‘the right to exist’ while Israel does not? Israel may have been built on conquest, that’s a sizeable club. The sensible position I think is the one I advocated, what is the position of The Un, the Arab League, and has even been embraced by Hamas and Hezbollah, a two-state solution roughly based on the 1967 borders, with some minor, mutual adjustments. This was almost achieved fairly recently at Taba. The only reason this hasn’t already happened is the United States. There may be a substantial far right faction in Israel, but the present state of affairs would be impossible without their patrons in Washington. Israel will also have to rescind it’s status as a Jewish state, disregarding and disenfranchising around a quarter of the population. That’s not an argument against Israel, really it’s an argument in favor of Israel, for if measures such as these are not undertaken the results will be calamitous, to say the least.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I agree with the OP. They have as much right to exist as any other state - meaning not at all. Fuck the two state solution. It's all about the NO state solution.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Hamas is a big problem being a predominantly Islamist group. Fatah seem to be much more socialist. And the two have fought each other :/
I despise Hamas as much as the next guy, but I can't hep but cringe when I read a post like this. Fatah is socialist insofar as their use of Arabic equivalent of the term "comrade" when referring to fellow members. Beyond that, it is in fact a party of capitalists; capitalists that own businesses inside the Occupied Territories as well as abroad, I might add.

[hemlock]

Odd. Israel segregates murders palestinian women and children openly (knowing their population grows faster) and they are "defending their right to exist". Fair enough. But why is it when Palestinians do the same, they are 'terrorizing"?

I suppose by that logic, the people of South Africa were wrong to end aparthied, and the black population belonged solely into segregated bantustans, and the anglo (non afrikaaner), malay, indian and coloured populations were rightfully subjugated and segregated by boers, who were merely "defending their right to exist". Should we apply that argument to the confederates as well?

Im sorry, terrorism is terrorism. Whether its from Muslim fanatics towards christians and jews, or jewish fanatics towards muslims (and christians...no one speaks of the aatrocities israel puts the orthodox communities of that region through, or how they ran the christians out of lebanon with their warring).

[4 Leaf Clover]

two state solution is so far and ideal solution for ending the misery of palestinian people. Considering who is observing the talks between two sides it is all some form of Trade. But we have one opressed nation a chance to preserve its bare existence on the soil. Thats fair enough. And maybe we will have chance for communist organizations to develop in new state and cooperate with colleagues from Israel perhaps

[graymouser]

two state solution is so far and ideal solution for ending the misery of palestinian people. Considering who is observing the talks between two sides it is all some form of Trade. But we have one opressed nation a chance to preserve its bare existence on the soil. Thats fair enough. And maybe we will have chance for communist organizations to develop in new state and cooperate with colleagues from Israel perhaps
What two states? There are a number of democratic questions that such a "solution" couldn't withstand.

1. A genuine "two state" solution is impossible with the current settlement activity. It would require all Israeli settlements within the West Bank to be destroyed and their residents to return to Israel. This includes, but is not limited to, the settlements that have attempted to extend Israeli control over al-Quds / Jerusalem which both groups see as their capital. Without removing the half-million illegal settlers, the entity that would remain is politically unviable.

2. The Gaza strip is not resource-sufficient and its infrastructure has been effectively destroyed. The geographically non-contiguous Palestinian state would have virtually no resources to deal with this.

3. There are over 4,000,000 refugees living outside of Palestine who have the basic democratic right to return to the land they were removed from. Were this right to be exercised the population if Israel would be majority Arab, and a democratic state would have to cease to be a Jewish state. Any resolution that does not incorporate these refugees is bound to fail but they cannot possibly be incorporated into what would exist in Palestine.

4. This would not solve the second-class citizen status conferred on Arabic citizens of Israel, who constitute a permanent underclass and receive only a fraction of the resources that the Jewish citizens (particularly white Jews) do.

What chance is there for a two-state solution? What is needed would be a secular, democratic single state which respected all races and religions. (Of course in the long run a socialist revolution is needed, but a one-state solution is the only way to clear things up and get there.)

[4 Leaf Clover]

What two states? There are a number of democratic questions that such a "solution" couldn't withstand.

1. A genuine "two state" solution is impossible with the current settlement activity. It would require all Israeli settlements within the West Bank to be destroyed and their residents to return to Israel. This includes, but is not limited to, the settlements that have attempted to extend Israeli control over al-Quds / Jerusalem which both groups see as their capital. Without removing the half-million illegal settlers, the entity that would remain is politically unviable.

2. The Gaza strip is not resource-sufficient and its infrastructure has been effectively destroyed. The geographically non-contiguous Palestinian state would have virtually no resources to deal with this.

3. There are over 4,000,000 refugees living outside of Palestine who have the basic democratic right to return to the land they were removed from. Were this right to be exercised the population if Israel would be majority Arab, and a democratic state would have to cease to be a Jewish state. Any resolution that does not incorporate these refugees is bound to fail but they cannot possibly be incorporated into what would exist in Palestine.

4. This would not solve the second-class citizen status conferred on Arabic citizens of Israel, who constitute a permanent underclass and receive only a fraction of the resources that the Jewish citizens (particularly white Jews) do.

Israel was created in a multi-cultural place to be single-nation state by force. There can be only single-state solution if working class of Israel gets rid of Opressors , and recognizes right of Palestinians for national identity and equallity. But thats not chase. People of Israel trust their government even if everyone wants peace finnaly. But no one yet showed understanding for all problems people of Palestine face. Its not just borders , its deep socio-economic backwardness. If there were justice Israel would have to pay every penny for years of destruction. If there is no deal between two sides , Only solution is for Israel to fall. Yes , there can be single state for both nations but only after Israel recognizez basic fo legitimate right for Palestines , and those are their nation flag and borders