Printable View
Yeah, not a fan of this one. And in distinction to other bits of ridiculous legislation by the Knesset lately, it seems less likely it will be overturned by the courts.
I suspect the actual impact will probably be quite small, but even so I'm not a fan.
Israel is preventing Jews from going to Israel on the basis of a political disagreement. Wasn't Israel created to prevented this?
One could argue that they're (a) not specifically targeting Jews, (b) the number of people this will be applied to is likely quite small, and (c) it has always been possible to find political beliefs (Jewish or not) that would not get you a welcome in Israel (for example, Nazism or collusion with Israel's enemies).
It's a bit of a stretch, though.
The previous line was: do you want to kill all Jews? The current line is: do you disagree with the state of Israel? It's especially galling when combined with the foreign NGO bill. Israel is basically copying Russian policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I'm really not defending the bill, but this is a bit of hyperbole. The BDS movement is not about disagreement with policy; it's about delegitimization, as anyone who listens to their rhetoric can tell. Notably, boycotts of just settlement goods have never raised as much ire in Israel; it's the comprehensive boycotts of every aspect of Israeli society - irrespective of politics or relationship to the occupation - that is targeted here. I do indeed understand that this is a bridge too far given Israel's longstanding commitment to freedom of speech, and in the context of other bills enacted by this government I do share your worry. But let's not make this something it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Boycott is speech. It is not violence. It's not advocating violence. Is your threshold "things that could hurt Israel in some way"?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Loki, I agree with you. I just think that even though it is speech, it isn't as straightforward as disagreement with the government's policies.
*slowclap*
This is obviously far worse for Israel than it is for BDS supporters, the vast overwhelming majority of whom are unlikely to ever go to Israel, partly as a form of boycott. It's like banning Trump supporters from thinkprogress.com
It would also be less concerning if it wasn't part of a pattern of anti-free speech behavior. Behavior that predominantly targets Jews (as Minx says, how many non-Jewish BDS supporters were going to visit Israel)? All this does is continue to discredit Israel in the eyes of left-wing non-Israeli Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
And more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39208257
Seriously, Israel?
Reasonable defense against the scourge of acoustic terror. Facebook Live will come to the rescue and bring Israeli Arabs into the 21st century. It would be prudent to develop digital solutions to this problem swiftly without wasting energy and time on protesting, because I imagine the next bill to be passed will restrict protests to sidewalks (and only between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00).
I think you overestimate the support that BDS gets among even left wing diaspora Jewry. And moreover it seems like there will be a great deal of discretion in how this is applied. I.e. your run of the mill BDS supporter isn't likely to get dinged, just major leaders of the movement (or, more likely - and perhaps somewhat more concerning - they'll use this law as an excuse to bar someone from entry when they can't come up with a better one).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think we have a fundamental disagreement about why this move is a problem. I think it's a problem because it's an affront to free speech, pointless, and yet another way to make Israel look bad internationally. I think it's just as bad as some of the entry bans the UK has instituted, but not uniquely bad. It seems that in addition to my objections, you have some Israel-specific objection having to do with the makeup of the specific group and manner of speech being excluded. We're talking about a group that, based on its rhetoric, believes the State of Israel should not exist; it's hardly just some leftist hippies but part of a concerted international movement to delegitimize the country.
Obviously I think they shouldn't have done it, but I at least understand their impulse.
They've been talking about this for a while, and I think it's only a problem in context. Plenty of other countries also limit muezzin calls (Switzerland comes to mind), and having a sound ordnance for nighttime hours is hardly unreasonable. In fact, in most of the Western world muezzin calls (at least the ridiculously loud ones you hear in Israel) simply don't exist because mosques are good neighbors (and it's often pointless to have a muezzin call in suburban Dearborn); further, the trend of using exceedingly loud loudspeakers to amplify the natural voice of the muezzin is quite recent and hardly required for prayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The reason it's a problem isn't that it's an infringement on free exercise of religion per se. It's because the intent is clearly targeted at Muslims in particular (not unlike the Trump travel ban) and the people supporting the law are precisely those people who tend to express the strongest anti-Muslim sentiment. Contextually it's a problem because it antagonizes the Muslim community and further inflames sentiments. If the noise was really the problem, I imagine that directly approaching the relevant religious leaders and discussing the issue with them would allow them to arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement that wouldn't have had to resort to this law. Instead, certain coalition members are engaging in identity politics and using this as a signal to their base about them not taking any crap from Muslim Israelis. It's stupid, and offensive, but not unjust.
It's not too hard to find stories of left-wing Jews, even ones not formally part of BDS, being interrogated for hours by IDF officers carrying a "BDS" folder.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
The context is the problem. Israeli policy is now being guided by the radical fringe, unconstrained by the US or interest in human rights or civil liberties.Quote:
They've been talking about this for a while, and I think it's only a problem in context. Plenty of other countries also limit muezzin calls (Switzerland comes to mind), and having a sound ordnance for nighttime hours is hardly unreasonable. In fact, in most of the Western world muezzin calls (at least the ridiculously loud ones you hear in Israel) simply don't exist because mosques are good neighbors (and it's often pointless to have a muezzin call in suburban Dearborn); further, the trend of using exceedingly loud loudspeakers to amplify the natural voice of the muezzin is quite recent and hardly required for prayers.
The reason it's a problem isn't that it's an infringement on free exercise of religion per se. It's because the intent is clearly targeted at Muslims in particular (not unlike the Trump travel ban) and the people supporting the law are precisely those people who tend to express the strongest anti-Muslim sentiment. Contextually it's a problem because it antagonizes the Muslim community and further inflames sentiments. If the noise was really the problem, I imagine that directly approaching the relevant religious leaders and discussing the issue with them would allow them to arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement that wouldn't have had to resort to this law. Instead, certain coalition members are engaging in identity politics and using this as a signal to their base about them not taking any crap from Muslim Israelis. It's stupid, and offensive, but not unjust.
So? I heard the same story and I have literally no idea what it means (especially since it happened way before this law was passed). Yes, I have no doubt that Israeli security gives a hard time to heavily political people on the left - certainly Jewish Voice for Peace types and occasionally more mainstream bits like NIF or J Street types. Yet the vast majority of left wing Jews are not politically engaged. This is, at its heart, a fringe phenomenon. It's troubling but not something that it likely to exercise much attention among your typical left wing Jew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I disagree with your characterization of the current Israeli government. It has elements that are radical (as do most coalition governments), yes, and it's certainly right wing. But it's not fundamentally radical or unconstrained. Essentially the coalition is happy to toss the radical parts of the government a few high profile bones (especially those with minimal real world consequences or likely to be struck down in the courts) in order to implement their real set of policies that have little to do with identity politics. I see this as distasteful and stupid but no different from sops to Haredi parties.Quote:
The context is the problem. Israeli policy is now being guided by the radical fringe, unconstrained by the US or interest in human rights or civil liberties.
In fact, I suspect that Netanyahu is one of the most Americanized of Israeli PMs and he deeply cares about human rights and civil liberties - even if it is couched in neoconservative-style definitions of those terms.
Loki, I really think you need to focus on the positives here. I'm pretty sure Israeli-Arab advocacy groups will come around once they realize adhan-induced hearing loss is the very thing that has made ultra-nationalist Israelis deaf to the cries of hungry Arab children. Now, if they ban crying Arab babies between 11 PM and 7 AM we should be worried.
You're assuming your typical left-wing Jew is completely uninterested in the treatment of their more vocal counterparts by Israel. This is a recipe for erosion of American Jewish support for Israel, especially with Netanyahu doing his best to pick fights with the Democratic Party. These kind of actions just shout "we don't want your kind here", even if enforcement is limited to the more vocal types (incidentally, even Russia only goes after the more vocal regime critics).Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Netanyahu is giving in on most salient issues. It's possible those aren't the issues he himself cares about and is willing to play along to get support on other issues, but the optics are terrible. How many times has he been forced to reverse himself to placate the fringe (which isn't so fringy anymore)?Quote:
I disagree with your characterization of the current Israeli government. It has elements that are radical (as do most coalition governments), yes, and it's certainly right wing. But it's not fundamentally radical or unconstrained. Essentially the coalition is happy to toss the radical parts of the government a few high profile bones (especially those with minimal real world consequences or likely to be struck down in the courts) in order to implement their real set of policies that have little to do with identity politics. I see this as distasteful and stupid but no different from sops to Haredi parties.
In fact, I suspect that Netanyahu is one of the most Americanized of Israeli PMs and he deeply cares about human rights and civil liberties - even if it is couched in neoconservative-style definitions of those terms.
Does it matter what he himself believes when he's willing to go hard-right on issues that matter the most to Palestinians and the US? And really, you can't see the difference between throwing some money to Haredim vs. destroying the prospects of a two-state solution and more overtly discriminating against Arabs/Muslims?
No, I'm assuming that your typical left wing Jew barely thinks about Israel, and their typical thoughts about Israel are a vague feeling of support for the country coupled with disquiet at the violence and occupation. The fact of the matter is that most diaspora Jews don't really know much about Israel and couldn't even tell you what BDS is, let alone that Israel is trying to bar BDS ringleaders from entering the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Furthermore, the difference between your typical left wing Jew (or left wing American) and your supporter of BDS is not merely one of degree, or a matter of being 'more vocal'. It's a fundamental difference in perspective on the issue. American Jews in particular, while being quite left wing, do not by any stretch of the imagination embrace the rhetoric of delegitimazation used by the BDS people. In fact, they tend to be far more conservative (or, at least, uncritical in their support) when it comes to Israel, and certainly do not agree with the thrust of BDS, even if they are deeply concerned by settlement activity and the occupation etc. The left wing of Jewish American politics - e.g. J Street, the New Israel Fund, Americans for Peace Now, T'ruah, the Reform movement - every single pillar of left wing Judaism in America is explicitly opposed to BDS. Not just 'we choose not to endorse it', but actively 'we think this is a bad idea and question the motives of those who support it'.
I do agree that Netanyahu has done serious damage to the general position of Israel's government as being above partisanship in US politics (though it is true that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to express deep support for the country). This is deeply troubling, and incredibly reckless of him to risk their most important bilateral relationship. One could perhaps forgive Netanyahu for his rhetoric and actions surrounding the Iran situation - if he does indeed feel that this is a matter of existential import for the country, pissing off some people to change policy might indeed be warranted. But his other unrelated actions - combined with his continued antagonism of the Obama administration even when the deal became a fait accompli - are clearly unwise and deeply damaging. The reason this bill is a problem, though, isn't that mainstream US leftists (Jewish or not) identify with BDS supporters; rather, it is a problem because it signals to leftists in the US (and, one would hope, any committed small-d democrat) that Israel is now willing to infringe traditionally important democratic rights on this issue. It doesn't mean Israel is coming after leftists.
Define 'salient issues', Loki. You are clearly viewing this as an outsider. What are the big pieces of legislation that you've heard about from the Knesset in recent years? I can make a guess that nearly all of them fall into this general category, including:Quote:
Netanyahu is giving in on most salient issues. It's possible those aren't the issues he himself cares about and is willing to play along to get support on other issues, but the optics are terrible. How many times has he been forced to reverse himself to placate the fringe (which isn't so fringy anymore)?
Does it matter what he himself believes when he's willing to go hard-right on issues that matter the most to Palestinians and the US? And really, you can't see the difference between throwing some money to Haredim vs. destroying the prospects of a two-state solution and more overtly discriminating against Arabs/Muslims?
1. The 'nation state' bill
2. This BDS ban bill
3. The NGO bill
4. The outpost bill
Indeed, all of these are troubling in one way or another. Most of them are oversold in the media - #4 in particular was obviously only voted on in the expectation it would be overturned by the Supreme Court - but they all contain problematic parts that look bad internationally and may erode democratic freedoms to an extent in Israel proper.
Yet the 33rd and 34th governments have done a crapload more than posturing bills that matter little to your typical Israeli. There have been deep changes to taxation, natural resource exploitation, religious affairs, military service, etc. These have always been Netanyahu's main interests (remember, he cut his teeth initially as a free marketeer Finance Minister back in the 90s that kickstarted deregulation and privatization). His other issue is not in fact settlements or the Palestinians - which he views as a manageable problem without any prospect of a final status agreement any time soon - but existential matters of national security, particularly regarding the threat from Iran. Netanyahu has been very clear about this in his rhetoric as well as in his coalition dealings.
You have this idea that he's given in on so much and gotten so little, but Netanyahu just doesn't care about the optics from outside - he cares about his domestic electorate. And there, he is getting what he wants - wide latitude in the coalition on domestic issues in return for throwing the settlements a few bones and throwing some nationalists a few bones. They might look bad internationally, but Netanyahu is convinced (with some justification) that the world is pitted against Israel no matter what he does, so he might as well let some things through that are bad cosmetically but don't dramatically alter the country so he can push his real agenda through.
I happen to disagree with his analysis - I think optics do matter, and I also think that even if the real effect of most of these laws is minimal, it sends bad signals to a variety of important groups. But what I think doesn't matter - we're asking the question about whether Netanyahu is a radical ultranationalist or not (or whether his government is), and he isn't.
As for your final question, I'm surprised you don't see the parallel. The status of Haredim in Israel is deeply dangerous for the unity of the country and its economic and political future. Demographics and stupid laws written long ago mean that continued sops to Haredim - money being the least of the problems - entrench these problems for the future. Netanyahu's governments, largely devoid of Haredim, have started to chip away at the longstanding carve-outs for Haredim (on military service, on independent educational institutions that get exemptions for truly covering certain subjects, on control of the religious courts system and conversions) specifically because this is such an existential issue for the country.
In contrast, no one in Israel - left or right wing - has been able to articulate a convincing path forward for the peace process with Palestinians, so most Israelis are resigned to indefinitely managing the conflict until something changes. Thus, Netanyahu sees some cosmetic changes that piss off Palestinians but do little to change the staus quo as a low risk concession in return for support on policies of much higher importance to him. He would sharply disagree that anything he has done has decreased the viability of a two state solution (though I'm sure he doubts the chances of it working in any event), and he's probably right. Probably the most damaging thing he could do is actually build in E1, but he has conspicuously refrained from doing so, even though they're always threatening to do so (and he has run the Israeli government for a very long time).
I also would challenge that he has done much to increase discrimination against Israeli Arabs. This is a stickier issue, because certainly the nation state bill was offensive to many Israeli Arabs, but it can't really change discrimination one way or another. On other issues, Netanyahu has tried to do something that is deeply unpopular but actually quite egalitarian - finally treat Arab towns like they were any other Israeli town, including providing adequate police services, planning permissions, etc. Obviously his rhetoric is not always matched by actions here, and people are (rightly) suspicious of anything he does, but the basic idea (which is coupled to an Arab-specific development plan and budget) is a good one. I think the political environment and rhetoric in Israel has probably gotten more toxic, but actual policy has not.
It is all too easy for us living outside of Israel to see the government's actions and rhetoric solely through the lens of how it affects the local security and diplomatic situation. But the government actually spends most of its time working on issues that have nothing to do with that, even if it gets next to no coverage outside of Israel. Thinking about these issues from an Israeli perspective often gives you a different complexion on the situation; rarely do the moves that cause the most consternation internationally (say, building in Jerusalem suburbs or voting for yet another meaningless bit of posturing) make even the slightest ripple in the Israeli polity. This isn't to say that the outsider's perspective isn't worthwhile; far from it. But it does suggest that the doom-and-gloom conclusions one might draw from this perspective are not necessarily representative of reality.
http://jezebel.com/when-you-come-for...-us-1793609351
Posted without comment. :o
FFS. At least she's being deported for outright immigration fraud. Her account of the "torture" she endured is wildly implausible.
An experienced Zionut is back: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-collaboration
I love how he portrays stripping Jews of assets in the process of making Germany Judenrein as part of the Zionist project rather than a desperate deal with the devil to allow Jews to escape vicious persecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Ironic given that this was just brought out again:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-redi...ish-intruders/
Yeah, over here at least the Jewish council definitely collaborated with the Nazis but it was in a (misguided) attempt to prevent even worse prosecution. They hoped to have at least some influence, but were of course just used by the Germans to facilitate the final solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Though the leaders were charged with collaboration and criticised by the Jewish honour council after the war, but were in the end exonerated. In hindsight it's easy to judge but at that time they were trying to lessen the suffering and buy time, hoping that the war would end sooner.
This is actually a really complicated question of both historical fact as well as morality. There were a range of responses made by Jews to the rise of Nazism and associated movements in Europe. Some pushed for outright resistance, some merely tried to avoid attention, some tried to reach a form of accommodation and some directly collaborated. In most of the first three responses, they were generally seen as attempts to better the chances of Jewish survival under a hostile regime; these have all been strategies used in the long history of Jewish communities living under hostile governments. It is not at all clear which strategy works best; it seems like any one of the three options may be optimal in appropriate circumstances. The fourth option - open collaboration - is generally seen less favorably, given that collaborators (e.g. kapos) were given perks and better chances of survival than those they helped oppress. I can't speak to the specifics of the Jewish council you mention, but many of these cases might be better framed as cases of accommodation rather than collaboration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
There's a rich literature discussing how these different coping strategies fared over the years of Nazi rule. Certainly more accommodative measures were used by communities under German rule, especially in the early stages of the Nazi regime. Global Jewish communities tended to adopt a more confrontational stance (including the aforementioned worldwide boycott that started in 1933 or so), for obvious reasons. During later stages of the Holocaust a broader range of responses was tried with varying results. Certainly it seems that in some cases accommodation (e.g. in ghettos of Eastern Europe) allowed for forestalling the liquidation of the ghetto until Soviets liberated the area, while outright resistance (e.g. in Warsaw) led to utter destruction. Yet in other cases we clearly see accommodation easing the path of deportations and mass murders while resistance in its various forms struck real blows against Nazi efforts.
I don't think there's a clear consensus on this issue, and I agree that it's awfully easy for us to pass judgment in hindsight without living in those very challenging circumstances. Personally I would argue that without the context of the later genocide, the rise of Nazism was deeply concerning but not a unique experience for European Jews; antisemitism was the norm, not the exception, including virulent and violent state-sponsored antisemitism. Thus measures of accommodation - including effectively bribing the government with assets to get Jews out - seem reasonable. In later stages of the Holocaust, however, the extermination efforts became grimly apparent, and it becomes more challenging to justify measures to seek accommodation. Even so, if we were to take a purely functionalist approach we might still excuse such behavior in circumstances where it achieved good results.
More from Britain (a Tory this time): http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/485676
Wiggin, mostly agreed though I'd like to point out that the warsaw ghetto uprising came only after several years of accommodation and when 90% of all Jews were already deported and at a point it was clear they were going to be killed anyway (the leader of the Jewish council there had already committed suicide because he could no longer work with the Germans for that reason).
Loki, I thought in general fighting for other countries than your own is considered treason? I am honestly surprised serving in the IDF as a volunteer without Israeli citizenship is allowed. Or is that only about hostile countries to your own?
According to the article, you're allowed to serve in any foreign country's military (presumably excluding ones Britain is at war with).Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
In general, it's not fighting for another country that is treason, but rather fighting against your own. If I'm understanding correctly, though, this UK law isn't a treason law, just something else they've decided to criminalize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Yes, of course. I only mentioned Warsaw because it's by far the most famous example of outright resistance. There are plenty of earlier cases of resistance where it is not as obvious that resistance was the only remaining resort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Service in the IDF is allowed for Jewish non-citizens of appropriate age who pass physicals/etc. They also need to either know Hebrew or learn it in an intensive 3-4 month class. The modern logic is that these volunteers can in principle claim citizenship (being Jewish), after which they would immediately be drafted at any rate - and about half of the volunteers do end up taking citizenship as well.Quote:
Loki, I thought in general fighting for other countries than your own is considered treason? I am honestly surprised serving in the IDF as a volunteer without Israeli citizenship is allowed. Or is that only about hostile countries to your own?
The origin of the Mahal program (a Hebrew acronym that means, essentially 'foreign volunteers') was the desperate need for trained soldiers during the Independence War. In particular, they were invaluable in the nascent air force. In total a few thousand volunteers came - generally demobilized soldiers from WWII - and were useful in providing some niche abilities and experience that the country didn't have. Since then, the contribution of Mahalniks has been substantially smaller. Currently IIRC there are only 100-200 people who enter the IDF each year who are not Israeli citizens (compare this to a standing military of about 200k and another ~450k reservists); it is used more as a diaspora outreach program than anything else. Given the abbreviated length of service, they tend not to be put in high value positions, and are generally just infantry grunts.
That being said, I'm a bit surprised at your surprise. There are lots of countries with foreign volunteers - the most famous probably being the French Foreign Legion. Even the US military has a substantial number of non-citizens (though I believe most if not all of these are legal residents of the US at the time of enlistment). There's a long history of this, especially in former colonial powers, and it tends not to excite much comment. I would file this latest brouhaha under 'ignorant electioneering' rather than anything else. Certain the statement implying that the massive human rights atrocities of the Assad regime are in any way comparable to the IDF's record on this issue is risible, though.
Most of them are probably also getting Israeli citizenship in the process, right?
I wonder how many UK residents have been in the armies of India, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39478339
I'm guessing this story won't be reported on the Breitbarts of the world.