US State dept: Israel is not a tolerant society

[nomix]

In 1967, Israel felt that an invasion was iminent, and carried out a preemptive attack. No denying it, in fact, an attack was iminent. It is though worth noting that Israel did attack Egypt in 1956, as the third wheel on the Anglo-French conspiracy to recapture the Suez canal. Nasser was furious about it, not hard to understand the rationale for the arab build up of force.

And yes, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in 1973.

Yes, there was no Palestinian state pre-1967 (please read my remark in an earlier post; ...and arab occupation since 1948, I'm not praising their arab neighbours if that's what you think[...])

Now, does that change anything? No effing way. You perception of history is somewhat strange. Israel has made concessions towards Egypt and Jordan, but why the hell should Palestinians care about that? They're not living in Egypt or Jordan (some are, but we're talking about he Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza). It's funny, you make it seem like Israel is only protecting herself from Palestinian attacks. That's quite a faulty argument. The attacks come for a bloody reason, just like the the horrific actions of Israel come for a reason.

If there is one single thing I hate more than anything else in the debate surrounding the Palestinian problem, it's when people more or less try to paint one or the other party as the good guys, the victims. That's just bloody wrong. It's completely faulty, and it's wrong. Palestinians are opressed because a number of them are violent. Palestinians are violent because they're bloody opressed.

As for the Olso accords, it was a step in the right direction, but it's implementation was largely stupid, both because of corruption in the PLO, and because Israel systematicly worked to undermine the Palestinian self governance authorities.

The ONLY thing that can make things better would be negotiations, and concessions from both sides (the first, most obvious thing is to remove the illegal settlements, they are quite simply the biggest obstacle for peace). Violence hasn't worked for 40 years. So let's forget that, it's not working.

And did I mention the settlements? WHY does Israel have to keep building the bloody things? They are criminal, plain and simple.

If you think Israel is all goodness and joy, you're silly. If you think the Palestinians are all goodness and joy, you're silly.

Why do you think some Palestinians are violent? You don't see why they're violent?

 

[FDaihatsu]

Most sad issue here for me is that now in Israel actions against Arabs are similar to what Nazis were doing against Jews. Where the fuck is logic here? Israel is against Jewish-Arab marriage, Arabs have to live in worse part of country, etc.

I'm sorry, what?

You live in Poland, go visit Birkenau or something before saying something like that!
Israel doesn't simply want to remove all Arabs from the country, it wants to find a solution for them (and it does that while being bombed by the very people it's trying to help) - so that no one will disturb each other. The matter of the fact is that Israel's proclamation of independence clearly states that it's established as a Jewish democratic nation, since there isn't a single other country which is like that. And technically, the Palestinians have a country - Jordan - but who needs a country that still makes use of chemical toilets when there's another country with a 10MB/s internet connection just near it?

Furthermore, the whole Nazi ideology was based off the "fact" that Jews were subhuman culture-destroyers that wanted to contaminate the pure Aryan blood and take over the world. I hope you weren't meaning that similar stuff to that is going on here.

As for objection towards Arab-Jewish marriage, I have never heard anything like that as far as I remember. I also happen to live in a nicer part of Israel, and be sure that there are Arabs living here as well.

 

[nomix]

That's completely true. There's no doubt that arabs in Israel live pretty good lives, and the comparison towards nazism is quite simply stupid.

However, Israel is an occupant, Israel breaks international law by building settlements, Israel is digging her own grave by her actions, and I don't want that. I like Israel, it's a nice country, nice people.

I'll have to arrest you a wee bit, though, even if Jordan was established as an arab nation, the population of the rest of the Palestinian mandate did not live in Jordan. They lived in Palestine. Furthermore, the arab population of the remaining mandate was in a majority, while the jewish population was in a minority, still recieving the larger part of the remaining mandate. Jordan is really irrelevant for the Palestinians, in the same way France is not really relevant to me as a Norwegian.

 

[FDaihatsu]

Let me remind you that in 1948 the UN confirmed a decision to divide the mandate between the Jews and Arabs, a decision that the Arabs refused to accept - and started war in order to banish the Jews away "to the sea" so that they could have the mandate all to their selves. So the current situation is largely the Arabs' fault - and they still want Israel as a land.

 

[Steve Levin]

I don't think anyone is painting anyone entirely in the right.

However, there's been a pattern that Israel has agreed to numerous concessions and carried them out, yet the violence continues unabated.

It's *always* "just one more thing..." before groups like Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist, etc.

Israel has long repeated: "If the violence stops, good things will come." And Israel has proven that they are willing to compromise. I don't believe it's a credible argument to say "no, if Hamas recognizes Israel, and lays down it's arms and ends the violence, it's unlikely the Israelis will do the right thing."

However, it's quite believable given the past few decades that even if Israel made even more concessions that nothing would change in the end -- there would just be yet another set of demands that would "have to be completely met" before anything changed.

Let's see some concessions -- that is, an end to violence for a while -- and see if Israel fails to make good on it's word.

You know why it's unlikely? Because it doesn't benefit Isreal to have a hostile neighbor. A prosperous and peace Palestinian Authority is to their benefit. Israel has no motive to leave the status quo.

The only people that DON'T benefit from such peace and prosperity are those that, ultimately, don't want Israel to exist at all. They DO have a motive for keeping the status quo -- because if peace and prosperity reigned, then pretty soon people would want nothing to do with an anti-Israeli agenda.

It's the same as the old adage "follow the money and you'll find the truth."

Steve

 

[nomix]

Let me remind you that in 1948 the UN confirmed a decision to divide the mandate between the Jews and Arabs, a decision that the Arabs refused to accept - and started war in order to banish the Jews away "to the sea" so that they could have the mandate all to their selves. So the current situation is largely the Arabs' fault - and they still want Israel as a land.

Well, that's a controversial piece of history to say the least.

First of all, the deal offered to the arabs weren't a particularily good deal. It gave a minority (of the population in the 'Palestinian' part of the British mandate, referred to as "Palestine" from now on, Jordan for Jordan) got a majority of the land, most coast, and generally the best parts of the land.

Secondly, it was a partition plan. David Ben Gurion rolled the dices, and struck luck in the 1948 war. Israel was declared at May 14th, and at that time, Israel was not properly prepared for war. The proclamation was so risky, and so dangerous, it should never have been done that way. For a number of reasons.

Firstly, the declaration came without any talks with other parties. It's what's called good old imperialism, to be honest.

Secondly, the declaration might have led to the destruction of the new state, and a catastrophe for its jewish population.

So who's fault was it? The UN, really. The partition plan was made without any considerations of the geopolitical situation, it was just a piece of imperialism with major powers dictating a sollution. It would never happen today.

As for today, the PLO has long since abandoned the idea of getting the whole land of Israel, they know it won't happen, so they are ready to settle with a state within the 1967 borders. Jordan and Egypt are obvious, Syria is less cooperative, but isn't really a regional power to worry about, Lebanon represents surtain security treats from the likes of Hezbollah, though Hezbollah is more of factor in Lebanese politics than Israeli politics. Hamas has accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and has de facto left Hamas Charter (even if they for prestige reasons can't denounce it).

They're not after Israel anymore, they're after a state for the Palestinians.

I don't think anyone is painting anyone entirely in the right.

However, there's been a pattern that Israel has agreed to numerous concessions and carried them out, yet the violence continues unabated.

It's *always* "just one more thing..." before groups like Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist, etc.

Israel has long repeated: "If the violence stops, good things will come." And Israel has proven that they are willing to compromise. I don't believe it's a credible argument to say "no, if Hamas recognizes Israel, and lays down it's arms and ends the violence, it's unlikely the Israelis will do the right thing."

However, it's quite believable given the past few decades that even if Israel made even more concessions that nothing would change in the end -- there would just be yet another set of demands that would "have to be completely met" before anything changed.

Let's see some concessions -- that is, an end to violence for a while -- and see if Israel fails to make good on it's word.

You know why it's unlikely? Because it doesn't benefit Isreal to have a hostile neighbor. A prosperous and peace Palestinian Authority is to their benefit. Israel has no motive to leave the status quo.

The only people that DON'T benefit from such peace and prosperity are those that, ultimately, don't want Israel to exist at all. They DO have a motive for keeping the status quo -- because if peace and prosperity reigned, then pretty soon people would want nothing to do with an anti-Israeli agenda.

It's the same as the old adage "follow the money and you'll find the truth."

Steve

Hamas has de facto recognized Israel's right to exist, they did that when they accepted a state within the 1967 borders. At present, the Palestinian terretories are under occupation, as long as they are under occupation, Hamas won't be stopped. Hamas got a real boost during the Gaza war, and hatred towards Israel is thickening in Gaza (because of the blockade).

Hamas has long repeated that they're waiting for an end to the occupation. I'm not by any means accepting the actions of Hamas, but I do understand them. I understand their struggle, and I understand why they act as they do.

The only real strategic treath that's currently working against a Palestinian state is Syria. Bashir al-Assad needs the Palestinian issue as a political pawn. But Syria didn't grow the Hamas, that was a Mossad operation in the 80s to fuck over the PLO.

You know why the Palestinians don't stop the resistance? Because every time they do, Israel has failed to follow up on their promises. That, at least, was the prevailing mood I registrered when I visited Betlehem in the spring.

A problem is the current government. The current government (and of course, foreign minister Liberman is a big problem) is far too extremist. One could hope for history to repeat itself (it was, after all, under the extremist government of Begin Israel and Egypt became friendly), but it doesn't seem very likely.

No matter how you look at it, Israel needs to take the first step. Fatah hasn't got the political resources to make concessions, it would mean civil war unless Israel made serious concessions at the same time, or before said Palestinian concessions. Israel is a politically speaking more stable country, it's a democracy, Israel can get that done.

Fatah can't, it will lead to a weakening of the autority of Fatah, and open the door for Hamas. This is a view that was also shared by what I think was deputy D.G. for information and media in the foreign ministry (I think it could have been Gideon Meir, but I really don't remember his name).

Anyhow, it is really an open question why Israel is not dismanteling the settlements. They are illegal, and they are guaranteed to cause more trouble than any other aspect of Israeli policy.

Get rid of them. They're illegal, immoral and like a thorne in the side of the other party.

 

[tigger]

Oh look, we're having this discussion again.

I think that we can all agree that people have been killing each other in the "holy land" for eons. Neither side has a moral high ground as far as I'm concerned.

It is good to see that our government is at least adjusting their rhetoric, if not their actions. Don't get me wrong, I do think that we should support Israel. But when they say; use our white phosphorous or cluster bombs on civilians we should quit selling ... giving ... paying them to take those weapons.

 

[Steve Levin]

I can completely agree that the British bear a large amount of fault for the current situation.

I'll keep my three points short.

1) If there's "de facto recognition" then it should be an incredibly short step to "actual official recognition" which would be a masterstroke. Even more than ending the violence.

2) Not ending the resistance because it hasn't worked. Can you identify a 12 month span where Israeli civilians weren't attacked? Here's a hint. You can't. In short, it's never really been tried.

3) Israel needs to take the first step? Okay, how about calling the peace agreement with Egypt (and the return of the Sinai) a first step towards showing the Israelis want peace? No? okay, how about Oslo as the first step? Okay, how about setting up the Authority regions as the first step?

Sure, there could be yet another first step and get rid of every settlement.

But guess what. Based on statements from Hamas, that still won't get it done. They insist on right of return.

And after right of return, there will be something else, based on their pattern of violence.

After so many decades, it's time for the Palestinian first step.

You can't blame people that have been at war for so long to be a bit intolerant. What's shameful is that no one holds the Palestinians to the same standard for fear of endangering their precious oil.

Steve

 

[liftwaffe]

Me being the joykill and actually bringing on topic.Is Israel an intolerant society?
I think it is,I have yet to meat more intolerant people than Israelis.

Sorry to say since I value Israel as state that should continue to be so.

Waffe.

 

[nomix]

I can completely agree that the British bear a large amount of fault for the current situation.

Heck yeah, the British really effed it up a bit.

I'll keep my three points short.

1) If there's "de facto recognition" then it should be an incredibly short step to "actual official recognition" which would be a masterstroke. Even more than ending the violence.

I agree that would be something really rather nice. But the thing is, Hamas was somewhat on the road to recognition back in 2006 when they won the election. It's important to note that Hamas didn't get elected on a program of eradicating Israel, they got elected on a social reform program. Hamas has two primary blocks, the (relatively) moderate reform block, and the extremist militant block. Back in 2006, the moderate block were gaining quite a bit of power and support within Hamas and indeed the Palestinian people as a whole, and if the Hamas government had been alloved to work, we might had seen some results from it. What did the world do? It decided that Hamas had to be punished for winning an election, which in turn led to a de facto blockade of the Hamas government.

This was a good thing for the militant wing, who soon were able to squeeze out the moderate wing, and we're seing the result now.

The underlying problem of every single Palestinian administration since the Oslo accords is that they never get time to consolidate their power before Israel move in, and effectively ruin their credibility. It's not done in a forthnight, it takes time. With Hamas, this was even more stupid, as it ruined a somewhat credible reform movement that might had made a bit of difference.

The lesson of the election of 06 is that freezing the Hamas government out was a complete, undoubted mistake. It had no effect on Hamas, other than making it more radical, less likely to deal. And as an effect, today, for any leader of Hamas to recognize Israel is a political suicide. If your idea of solving the problem is forcing Hamas to recognize Israel, just take my word, it will never, ever happen.

2) Not ending the resistance because it hasn't worked. Can you identify a 12 month span where Israeli civilians weren't attacked? Here's a hint. You can't. In short, it's never really been tried.

Well, that's true, and it's not. Can you really identify a 12 month span where Palestinian civilians have not been harassed, where the PA has not been subject of humiliating face loss on part of Israel? No, you can't, cause it never really happened. There is no doubt that Fatah didn't succeed, but then again, they were never given enough time (especially considering they're even more corrupt than the Israeli government).

3) Israel needs to take the first step? Okay, how about calling the peace agreement with Egypt (and the return of the Sinai) a first step towards showing the Israelis want peace? No? okay, how about Oslo as the first step? Okay, how about setting up the Authority regions as the first step?

1. Returning occupied lands to the country you occupy it from is something I really take as a given.
2. The Palestinian struggle is not the struggle for unity between Israel and Egypt, it is a struggle for a Palestinian state. In that context, the peace with Egypt is completely irrelevant. What deals they made with Saddat has no relevance for the Palestinians.

You could also see Fatahs recognition of Israel in the 80s as the first step, you could see Fatah joining in the Oslo accords as the first step, you could see Fatah refraining from terrorist activities (largely before, but also) after the Oslo accords as the first step. Not to say the violence stopped, but the forces of Fatah stopped the violence to a very great extent.

As for the autority regions, not to mention the Oslo accords, that was a failure of both parties. You can't exonorate Fatah, but you can't exonorate Israel either. Mistakes were made, from both sides, and that's why it did not work.

Sure, there could be yet another first step and get rid of every settlement.

But guess what. Based on statements from Hamas, that still won't get it done. They insist on right of return.

And after right of return, there will be something else, based on their pattern of violence.

Based on statements from Hamas, they want a Palestinian state, as stated numerous times. No matter how you look at it, the settlements will have to go, they are illegal, and I really don't see how they can be defended. They must go, plain and simple, even if it has no effect what-so-ever on Hamas, in the bigger picture, the settlements are an obstacle as big as obstacles come.

Can't we all agree that the settlements are illegal, an afront to the entire Palestinian people, make peace impossible anyway as long as they're there and have to go?

After so many decades, it's time for the Palestinian first step.

They recognized Israel in the 1980s. That was their first step, if you look past the fact that they stopped hijacking airliners and bombing civilians in Israel. The suicide bombings was in fact generally a weapon of Hamas, an organization financed through the 80s by Mossad to fuck PLO over.

You can't blame people that have been at war for so long to be a bit intolerant. What's shameful is that no one holds the Palestinians to the same standard for fear of endangering their precious oil.

Can't blame a people for being violent when they've been occupied for 40 years either, eh?

First of all, Palestinians are held to an impossible standard. Ideally, they should commit political suicide, hold a million fractions together, recognize Israel, stop all violence, become good neighbours, do all that while under occupation by a bloody strong military machine, all that, before Israel should meet ANY demands on their part.

The Palestinian terretories are not stable enough to meet those conditions over night. It will take time, and it is thouroughly impossible to do without real and strong concessions from Israel to begin with. It can not be done.

Anyhow, it really doesn't matter what we say, it all comes down to wether Obama's willing to put force into the mix, force Israel to make concessions. Then we might get started. As long as Israel is uncompromising, Israel should not be the number one recipient of US aid. As long as Israel can uphold the status quo, they will.

Me being the joykill and actually bringing on topic.Is Israel an intolerant society?
I think it is,I have yet to meat more intolerant people than Israelis.

Sorry to say since I value Israel as state that should continue to be so.

Must admit it crashes a bit with my experience, they're increadibly tolerant. Though, might be because I'm no arab. You're pretty popular if you're Norwegian in Serbia too, but there's some parts where you should be very careful talking about Bosnia..

 

[ViperVX]

Piece talks are always good and so on, but what about a classic US/Russia solution? Israel could just knock over the whole region obviously do a better job with it than those two, basically dowhatever they want, having one of the best armies in the world.

 

[FDaihatsu]

Well, that's a controversial piece of history to say the least.

First of all, the deal offered to the arabs weren't a particularily good deal. It gave a minority (of the population in the 'Palestinian' part of the British mandate, referred to as "Palestine" from now on, Jordan for Jordan) got a majority of the land, most coast, and generally the best parts of the land.

I lol'd.

First of all, in that partition plan, the Arabs got Lod (where the Ben Gurion international airport is), Eilat (most southern city in Israel) and several other cities deep where the Israeli state currently is.

And lemme post a picture to express my opinion on that deal not being a particularly good one:
http://img21.imageshack.**/img21/2593/indictmentmappage350ara.jpg

How unfair it is now?

btw, I have no idea why there's no Turkey in that map XD

 

[tigger]

After so many decades, it's time for the Palestinian first step.

I'd like to agree, but I've got to side with nomix on this. The Palestinians just are not organized enough to do so. Even if a majority of them wanted it they're too fractured to make any serious commitments.

I lol'd.

What are you trying to say? Muslim's control North Africa and the middle east? So ... ?

Israel was given Eilat in the original partition plan and frankly your point on Lod is irrelevant. IIRC, Jews made up something like 1/3 of the population of the area of modern day Israel in 1948, yet they were granted 1/2 of that territory. They claimed much more in preemptive strikes in 1967 and held that land with US support in 1973.

 

[Interrobang]

Israel dismally fails the requirements of a tolerant pluralistic society, according to a new report from the U.S. State Department.[...]

Duh! Show me a Country that has been in a civil war for 60 years and is a tolerant pluralistic society. It?s kind of obvious dear U.S. State Department, thank you

And while I don?t wanna spoil your little history- and who-to-blame discussion, I?d like to point out another rather obvious Point: Peace for Israel and the Palestinians doesn?t lie in the Past. I?m not saying "forget about the past", I?m just saying the discussion about who?s to blame won?t get anyone anywhere. You can only walk ahead without stumbling if you look forward, not behind you. So nobody goes anywhere if everyone keeps blaming everyone else.

But if you all really want someone to blame and be angry about having done bad things in the past ... blame us Germans ... we can take it ... like Batman at the end of the dark knight ...

 

[Steve Levin]

2. The Palestinian struggle is not the struggle for unity between Israel and Egypt, it is a struggle for a Palestinian state. In that context, the peace with Egypt is completely irrelevant. What deals they made with Saddat has no relevance for the Palestinians.

It shows that if you stop the violence with Israel, they uphold their end of the deal as well.

In other words, if the attacks from the Authority stop, Israel can move on to further steps.

Compare that to the track record of Hamas, etc., which has been that after every single concession the violence continues and more and demands are made.

First of all, Palestinians are held to an impossible standard. Ideally, they should commit political suicide, hold a million fractions together, recognize Israel, stop all violence, become good neighbours, do all that while under occupation by a bloody strong military machine, all that, before Israel should meet ANY demands on their part.

I see two things there.

You cannot discount setting up the Authority (despite being under continuous attack) as "not giving anything."

...and you're saying that the Authority really can't be brought under control.

That's just made Israel's points: that doing things is pointless because it will never end the attacks.

Steve

 

[tigger]

It?s kind of obvious dear U.S. State Department, thank you

My tax dollars at work.

And while I don?t wanna spoil your little history- and who-to-blame discussion ...

Exactly. All this back and forth, he-started-it-no-he-started-it solves nothing. Unfortunately that's exactly what we have nowadays. Israel keeps building settlements and walling up Palestinians. Palestinians keep fighting as much as they are able. Both sides waiting for the other to play nice. Nothings going to be solved unless we can get both parties to come to the table and follow whatever rules they lay down. So basically; it's damn near impossible.

 

[nomix]

I lol'd.

First of all, in that partition plan, the Arabs got Lod (where the Ben Gurion international airport is), Eilat (most southern city in Israel) and several other cities deep where the Israeli state currently is.

And lemme post a picture to express my opinion on that deal not being a particularly good one:
http://img21.imageshack.**/img21/2593/indictmentmappage350ara.jpg

How unfair it is now?

btw, I have no idea why there's no Turkey in that map XD

[/quote]
Well, you seem to forget that the Palestinian Arabs did not live in Syria, in Jordan, in Lebanon or in Egypt, they lived in the holy land, in what is now Israel and the Palestinian terretories. Why the bloody hell should they even care that someone else a got their own state? That's silly, and you know it.

It shows that if you stop the violence with Israel, they uphold their end of the deal as well.

If you're a big-ass strategic treath, yeah. If you're an occupied population, it's not really the same story, and during the 90s, it was not the story.

In other words, if the attacks from the Authority stop, Israel can move on to further steps.

Those attacks have stopped, but as said, the autority doesn't have the ability to stop everybody who has a grudge against Israel, the occupied terretories are not an easy place to control (Israel seemed to learn that in the years they tried to control the West Bank and Gaza).

Compare that to the track record of Hamas, etc., which has been that after every single concession the violence continues and more and demands are made.

The problem is, Israel has used more subtle violence, ie, discrimination, quiet violence, they've undermined every single authority that's ever been present in the Palestinian terretories, and been really rather nasty towards the population of the terretories.

I see two things there.

You cannot discount setting up the Authority (despite being under continuous attack) as "not giving anything."

I'm not.

...and you're saying that the Authority really can't be brought under control.

It can't in the way you want them to do it, that is completely unprobable. The reason the authority haven't got the power they need is simple, Israel has undermined their authority. From day one.

That's just made Israel's points: that doing things is pointless because it will never end the attacks.

No it does not. It proves my point. As long as the current policy is followed, Israel will never see peace, and if Israel doesn't see peace, Israel will perish.

And I really don't want that.

I'm also hearing that there's talk of just ignoring Israel and declearing a state. Heard it trought Norwegian medias, can't seem to find an english source, but I'll keep looking.

Well, why not? It would be the same as Israel declearing independance in 1948, not asking anybody, and building on an incomplete plan.

Do it, and for the love of god stay peaceful.