Zionuts

[wiggin]

When T'ruah disagrees with you on an ostensibly progressive platform, you know you've done something wrong:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...iew-on-israel/

[Flixy]

Thing is, when you use Jews instead of Israel in criticism you're antisemitic, but this criticised Israel and the response is

Labeling us Jews as perpetrators of genocide, you are unwittingly promoting a message of hatred and injustice

Which has always annoyed me.

That said I thin that whatever your stance is on Israel it's weird to bring it up in a debate about, well, US policing.

[Loki]

It's always suspicious when an organization with no connection to the Palestinian conflict decides to condemn the human rights record (and grossly exaggerate it) of the only Jewish-majority country in the world while ignoring everyone else. Israel is no saint, but it's rather odd for someone to focus their ire entirely on it.

[Flixy]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1200B9

[Loki]

He apologized for the Hitler comparison, but not for the threat to kill 3 million.

Now we have this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/wo...oud-abbas.html Peace in the Middle East is on the horizon.

[Flixy]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/gingric...-anti-semitic/

It is funny if your argument that someone isn't antisemitic is in itself antisemitic

[Loki]

A reminder that most day-to-day suffering in a community is inflicted by one's own community.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/...9-c9bee5b2251f

[Dreadnaught]

It's amazing these communities aren't destitute given the ratio of workers to non-workers/kids.

[wiggin]

A reminder that most day-to-day suffering in a community is inflicted by one's own community.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/...9-c9bee5b2251f

The article had some inaccuracies and was vague on a few important distinctions, but the broader story is all too common. I want to note that the underlying issue they only brushed past is that of the aguna, the chained woman (i.e. one whose husband refuses to grant her a writ of divorce). In most of these cases, custody and financial considerations are held hostage to the writ of divorce, which puts the woman in a highly untenable position - either give up custody of the children (or pay a substantial settlement), or be stuck in a religious limbo - unable to marry again without being seen as an adulteress. This is even worse in Israel, where there is no civil option for divorce, so even someone who completely abandons religion (and thus would not care about a technicality of adultery) cannot remarry, are considered married for things like taxes and government benefits, and any future children are considered illegitimate offspring who cannot themselves have a religious wedding. I want to note that this issue of the agunah is not limited to the extremely insular communities the BBC piece discusses; it even happens in relatively modern communities, despite the much stronger opprobrium attached to such behavior. The stigma of divorce and of changing religious practice is far less, though, which makes the challenges associated with navigating custody issues substantially less pressing.

There are some interesting legal workarounds that have been developed. The most common is various forms of prenuptial agreement that religious Jews sign, typically obligating the husband to pay substantial daily amounts to his spouse if he refuses to provide her with a writ of divorce. Other mechanisms have been proposed as well, including clauses to retroactively nullify a marriage if certain conditions are met (this results in no substantial religious repercussions; cohabiting and having children out of wedlock is not a violation of Jewish law; adultery is far more problematic). The problem is that the people signing these prenuptial agreements (which now includes, theoretically, every Jew married by rabbi who is a member of the RCA, the largest grouping of Orthodox rabbis in the US) are generally not the same people who are causing most of the problems; signing the agreement to an extent means that one is far less likely to do truly awful things during a divorce proceeding. Ultra-Orthodox Jews of various stripes have generally not agreed with the legal validity of these prenups and as such have not employed them.

Instead, Jews have started using civil authority to enforce religious law. In Israel, men who refuse to grant divorces can be assessed huge fines and even put in jail, but this is generally decided upon by rabbinical courts, not secular authority. A new tactic that has been used by some organizations helping these women is to sue the fathers in civil court for damages arising from the refusal to give a writ of divorce; these efforts have worked in some cases, albeit at substantial expense. In the US, several jurisdictions have had laws passed that withhold a civil divorce until a religious writ of divorce is tendered, which has had some modest effect on things. All in all, though, I think this is one of the most pressing issues facing religious Judaism today, and it has yet to be comprehensively addressed.

There is a more challenging issue that is related but not identical to the issue of chained women. Ultra-Orthodox communities do not manage defections particularly well. I understand that there is a very good reason for this - if someone is choosing a lifestyle not just radically different to that of the community, but one actively seen as evil by the community, it is hard to find common ground. When children are thrown into the mix, it is not surprising that things get ugly, quickly (BTW, this has also happened with fathers who choose to leave the community, though they do not have the challenges associated with divorce thrown into the mix). And to an extent, I get their argument: a parent enters into a marriage with the firm expectation that certain communal norms will be observed in the raising of children, and now their spouse wants to take primary custody of the children and raise them in a deeply secular environment. I think the real issue, though, is that these communities have no effective response to confrontation with modernity. They have chosen to live in cloisters that have minimal contact with secular culture, which means that encounters with such culture rarely go well. A more flexible approach might allow for a parent to raise children in a more secular environment that still contains the most important bits of religious practice; instead any deviation from a strict communal standard is seen as apostasy. Because of this, people who leave the community often do not end up in more modern but still religious communities; instead they typically reject all of religion entirely. This does not simplify matters.

It's amazing these communities aren't destitute given the ratio of workers to non-workers/kids.

Many of these communities are destitute. A classic example is Kiryas Joel, a Satmar enclave in NY. They have the youngest population and the highest poverty rate in the US (this is not matched, however, by some of the other ills that tend to accumulate with extremely high poverty). These families typically subsist on one (sometimes two) low paying job, often inside the community, coupled with government benefits. There are often a handful of wealthy people who help support the major communal institutions. In the US, government support is relatively meager, so more people work. Even this is shifting, though, as the premium attached to a son studying full time (especially in the marriage market) is substantial, meaning that parents are having to support large numbers of children and grandchildren. The system will break at some point, probably resulting in substantial changes in the economic model.

In Israel, government subsidies (for both religious institutions and large/poor families) are substantially higher, and there are explicit laws that make it very difficult for Haredi men to get educations or work (this has to do with how Haredi men avoid serving in the military). Instead, the communities subsist primarily on government handouts and support from the diaspora. It is a more sustainable model, at least until Haredi numbers get so high that the Israeli government starts drafting and educating them and reduces child subsidies.

[Dreadnaught]

I actually had Kiryas Joel in mind. I would argue they are poor, but not destitute. After all, 30% of American Jews live in poverty or somesuch [INSERT JOKE ABOUT ZOG BANKERS] and that is concentrated among the most-religious of the community. But maybe we're splitting hairs.

[wiggin]

I actually had Kiryas Joel in mind. I would argue they are poor, but not destitute. After all, 30% of American Jews live in poverty or somesuch [INSERT JOKE ABOUT ZOG BANKERS] and that is concentrated among the most-religious of the community. But maybe we're splitting hairs.

Depends on how you define 'destitute', of course, but per capita income is about $4300 and something like 2/3 of the population lives below the poverty line. That's pretty poor.

[wiggin]

I love this. A peace summit where neither of the parties are attending. Only in France.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/france-...or-january-15/

[LittleFuzzy]

Did. . . did we all forget to tell the French how a summit actually works?

[Aimless]

Thinking outside the box. I like it. It's clear that everything those fuckers touch immediately turns to shit so it's better to not let them get involved too early.

All joking aside even if they refuse to attend it doesn't mean that the summit can't be used to help the international community coordinate its efforts to push for a solution, whatever that solution may be. Or come to a decision about giving up and washing its hands of the whole matter. Either way, it's not as if Netanyahu's and Abbas's presence can be viewed as a guarantor of success. Given the low likelihood of accomplishing anything I don't know if it's even meaningful to view their presence as a prerequisite for success.

What I'm more worried about is the risk of a terrorist attack occurring at this summit.

[Hazir]

Ditto.

[Being]

...Always refreshing to see that there's a way to blame Israel.

Well, I'd say they are responsible for this, http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-a...ls-legitimacy/.

This is the part that really riles me,

Historically every such ‘victory’ has emboldened them to increase violence against Israel.

There have been no such "victories" as this.

[wiggin]

Well, I'd say they are responsible for this, http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-a...ls-legitimacy/.

This is the part that really riles me, There have been no such "victories" as this.

I'm really confused what you mean here. Honestly. Can you please elaborate?

[GGT]

I can't speak for Being.....but it's not hard to see that blame is being passed around like a political football -- in order to make Israel look like a "victim" of the Obama administration, and in essence demonizing the current President's foreign policy, in favor of President-elect Trump's promises.

There are so many things wrong, it's hard to begin the problem-solving. The UN's resolutions aren't legally binding, but they're still important and valuable: Israel should stop building/expanding settlements that exceed previous agreements/boundaries.

I'm confused why the UN or UNSC is being questioned. Weren't they in large part how Israel became a recognized, sovereign nation in the first place?

[wiggin]

I'm confused why the UN or UNSC is being questioned. Weren't they in large part how Israel became a recognized, sovereign nation in the first place?

The original UN partition plan, voted on in November 1947, was approved by the General Assembly, not the UNSC, and was barely worth the paper it was written on. This is particularly relevant given that one of the two parties to the plan (i.e. Arabs in Mandatory Palestine and the broader Arab world) rejected the partition plan and commenced a bloody invasion. Israel owes its sovereignty to force of arms, not the UN. As for recognition, a distressingly large number of countries continue to refuse recognition of Israel, even after nearly 70 years. The UN is routinely 'questioned' about its stance on Israel for the simple fact that it doesn't treat Israel like any of its other member nations; everyone knows it but no one is willing to do anything about it except for, on occasion, the United States.

[GGT]

The original UN partition plan, voted on in November 1947, was approved by the General Assembly, not the UNSC, and was barely worth the paper it was written on. This is particularly relevant given that one of the two parties to the plan (i.e. Arabs in Mandatory Palestine and the broader Arab world) rejected the partition plan and commenced a bloody invasion. Israel owes its sovereignty to force of arms, not the UN. As for recognition, a distressingly large number of countries continue to refuse recognition of Israel, even after nearly 70 years. The UN is routinely 'questioned' about its stance on Israel for the simple fact that it doesn't treat Israel like any of its other member nations; everyone knows it but no one is willing to do anything about it except for, on occasion, the United States.

1947, 1967....without the UN's influence would Israel even be considered a sovereign nation? You say it's because of force of arms....but the US has been its biggest contributor to that, including the Golden Dome. I find it outrageous when any Israeli leader suggests the US hasn't been their biggest ally!

I'm just asking/wondering if the Arab countries that have been portrayed as "refusing to recognize Israel" aren't just challenging the expanded building of settlements into Palestinian territory, and therefore their governing powers? It's pretty easy to turn that into "they want to destroy Israel"....which makes it even harder to figure out a peaceful resolution.

What happened to the two state proposal?

[wiggin]

1947, 1967....without the UN's influence would Israel even be considered a sovereign nation? You say it's because of force of arms....but the US has been its biggest contributor to that, including the Golden Dome. I find it outrageous when any Israeli leader suggests the US hasn't been their biggest ally!

Can you provide some proof that the UN's influence is crucial to Israeli sovereignty? Especially when the UN spends much of its time calling into question various elements of Israeli sovereignty? I think it's clear that Israel declared independence and then defended their claim in a ruinous war, not due to some bureaucrats at the UN voting on a plan that never got implemented. The best you could say of the 1947 Partition Plan is that the Israelis used it as one justification for independence.

I agree that the US is Israel's closest ally - no one here (or in Israel) has ever suggested otherwise. And, indeed, since the late 1960s the United States has provided a variety of weapons (and funding for weapons systems, including the Iron Dome) to Israel. This has no bearing on the question of whether the UN is responsible for Israeli sovereignty. You are defending a very odd position, in a very odd manner.

I'm just asking/wondering if the Arab countries that have been portrayed as "refusing to recognize Israel" aren't just challenging the expanded building of settlements into Palestinian territory, and therefore their governing powers? It's pretty easy to turn that into "they want to destroy Israel"....which makes it even harder to figure out a peaceful resolution.

What happened to the two state proposal?

Arab nations refused to recognize the State of Israel 20 years before there was a single Israeli settlement, GGT. In fact, following the Six Day War (which led directly to the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai), major Arab powers notably doubled down on this with the famous Khartoum Resolution which explicitly agreed on the three 'no's with respect to Israel: no recognition of the state, no peace, and no negotiations. Again, before there was a single Israeli settlement. (BTW this is not being 'portrayed' as refusing to recognize Israel. It is concrete, explicit, advertised refusal to acknowledge the fact of Israel's existence and sovereignty. We're not talking about countries refusing to have diplomatic relations with Israel, or refusing to acknowledge the Jewish character of the country, but outright refusing to admit the country exists. This is not 'alleged' or a portrayal, it's a simple fact.)

I have no doubt that the continued poor state of relations between Israel and the Arab world is, to an extent, due to the continuing occupation of the Palestinian territories (and, to a lesser extent, the Golan Heights). And as part of that occupation, and an ongoing irritant to it, I freely acknowledge that some Israeli settlements are indeed part of the problem. But to argue that Arab refusal to recognize Israel is in any way rooted in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza is to ignore history in the most egregious manner possible. Perhaps the best counterfactual would be that two of Israel's main former enemies - Jordan and Egypt - have, grudgingly, accepted peace with Israel and recognized it as a sovereign nation, long before any settlement with the Palestinians has come close to fruition.

[Hazir]

How important is the fact that Jews were pretty much driven from Arab countries in the harsh politics on settlements that seem to be the norm in Israel these days ?

[wiggin]

How important is the fact that Jews were pretty much driven from Arab countries in the harsh politics on settlements that seem to be the norm in Israel these days ?

Hmm, it's an interesting thesis, but I'm not convinced. First off, the timing doesn't work all that well - most of the big migrations were before the settlement enterprise got started, and the smaller ones were substantially afterwards. Secondly, I think the biggest effect of this exodus from Arab lands has not been on the issue of settlements, but more on the issue of the right of return and reparations; Israelis feel that having absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing Arab regimes, often penniless after being stripped of their property, Arab countries should in turn absorb Palestinian refugees (of which there are substantial numbers in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon); obviating the need or logic for a 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees or their descendants to Israel (rather than an Arab nation or a future Palestinian state) as part of a final status agreement. This is a much more direct and logical connection IMO.

On the other hand, it is true that Sepharadi/Mizrachi Israelis (roughly, those from the Middle East and North Africa) - as well as those from the FSU - do tend to support right wing parties more than left wing parties in Israel. I don't think this has a whole lot to do with settlement policy, though, but with myriad historical, religious, and political factors of limited salience to this discussion. One could make the argument that since some immigrants have been moved through 'settlements' in recent decades, such as Jerusalem neigbhborhoods Gilo and French Hill; one could imagine that such exposure to the settlement enterprise makes them more sympathetic, but I'm doubtful - 'settlements' that have been sites for immigrant housing are largely those which are firmly part of the Israeli consensus on neighborhoods that will never be evacuated - near the Green Line, contiguous with other Israeli towns/cities, often built on land originally settled/owned by Jews prior to the 1947 war. A large majority of the Israeli public is behind them, rather than the much more contentious settlements deep inside the West Bank, or illegal outposts. As such, I question whether spending some time in Gilo will make you more hawkish on settlements in general.

The settlement enterprise generally has three basic reasons for its support in Israel: economic, religious, and security. The first is that settlement housing is generally cheap and located close to high-demand areas (e.g. Jerusalem and the Tel Aviv area); lots of poor/young families move to settlements because you can purchase a home there for a much more reasonable amount while still being able to work in the center of the country. Religious is obvious - a subset of settlers - especially in the illegal outposts - are ideologically motivated to settle the biblical 'land of Israel' at all costs (it is important to note that this generally does not include Haredim - ultra-Orthodox Jews - who live in settlements like Modi'in Illit for economic reasons - or mainstream Religious Zionists - who are motivated by religion, among other things, to support settlements, but not at all costs). This segment is the smallest portion of settlement supporters, but likely the most intransigent ones that cause the most trouble by far. The third pillar of support is security; there has long been a logic in Israeli circles (more or less since the establishment of Ariel) that a permanent Israeli presence in strategic points of the West Bank (hills overlooking Tel Aviv/Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley) increases Israeli security inside the Green Line. This is debatable, but it's a common belief only strengthened by the situation in Gaza since the disengagement a decade ago.

None of these reasons are uniquely related to Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and I am unaware of any articulated logic in Israeli political discourse that links the two.

[Hazir]

Hmm, it's an interesting thesis, but I'm not convinced. First off, the timing doesn't work all that well - most of the big migrations were before the settlement enterprise got started, and the smaller ones were substantially afterwards. Secondly, I think the biggest effect of this exodus from Arab lands has not been on the issue of settlements, but more on the issue of the right of return and reparations; Israelis feel that having absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing Arab regimes, often penniless after being stripped of their property, Arab countries should in turn absorb Palestinian refugees (of which there are substantial numbers in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon); obviating the need or logic for a 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees or their descendants to Israel (rather than an Arab nation or a future Palestinian state) as part of a final status agreement. This is a much more direct and logical connection IMO.

On the other hand, it is true that Sepharadi/Mizrachi Israelis (roughly, those from the Middle East and North Africa) - as well as those from the FSU - do tend to support right wing parties more than left wing parties in Israel. I don't think this has a whole lot to do with settlement policy, though, but with myriad historical, religious, and political factors of limited salience to this discussion. One could make the argument that since some immigrants have been moved through 'settlements' in recent decades, such as Jerusalem neigbhborhoods Gilo and French Hill; one could imagine that such exposure to the settlement enterprise makes them more sympathetic, but I'm doubtful - 'settlements' that have been sites for immigrant housing are largely those which are firmly part of the Israeli consensus on neighborhoods that will never be evacuated - near the Green Line, contiguous with other Israeli towns/cities, often built on land originally settled/owned by Jews prior to the 1947 war. A large majority of the Israeli public is behind them, rather than the much more contentious settlements deep inside the West Bank, or illegal outposts. As such, I question whether spending some time in Gilo will make you more hawkish on settlements in general.

The settlement enterprise generally has three basic reasons for its support in Israel: economic, religious, and security. The first is that settlement housing is generally cheap and located close to high-demand areas (e.g. Jerusalem and the Tel Aviv area); lots of poor/young families move to settlements because you can purchase a home there for a much more reasonable amount while still being able to work in the center of the country. Religious is obvious - a subset of settlers - especially in the illegal outposts - are ideologically motivated to settle the biblical 'land of Israel' at all costs (it is important to note that this generally does not include Haredim - ultra-Orthodox Jews - who live in settlements like Modi'in Illit for economic reasons - or mainstream Religious Zionists - who are motivated by religion, among other things, to support settlements, but not at all costs). This segment is the smallest portion of settlement supporters, but likely the most intransigent ones that cause the most trouble by far. The third pillar of support is security; there has long been a logic in Israeli circles (more or less since the establishment of Ariel) that a permanent Israeli presence in strategic points of the West Bank (hills overlooking Tel Aviv/Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley) increases Israeli security inside the Green Line. This is debatable, but it's a common belief only strengthened by the situation in Gaza since the disengagement a decade ago.

None of these reasons are uniquely related to Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and I am unaware of any articulated logic in Israeli political discourse that links the two.

I would not suggest a one-on-one relationship, it was a thought that occured to me after a Syrian refugee friend of mine posted some pictures of Jewish life in Damascus in the 1930s. He expressed his surprise at the fact that there actually had been something like that and was appalled that it obviously had been stricken from public memory.

[GGT]

[QUOTE=wiggin;182556]Can you provide some proof that the UN's influence is crucial to Israeli sovereignty? Especially when the UN spends much of its time calling into question various elements of Israeli sovereignty? I think it's clear that Israel declared independence and then defended their claim in a ruinous war, not due to some bureaucrats at the UN voting on a plan that never got implemented. The best you could say of the 1947 Partition Plan is that the Israelis used it as one justification for independence.

Ok, so I'm saying that's a crucial part of Israel's recognized sovereignty, in the modern era. Otherwise we get into the weeds of religious territory, who was where first, whose religion is older, etc.

I agree that the US is Israel's closest ally - no one here (or in Israel) has ever suggested otherwise. And, indeed, since the late 1960s the United States has provided a variety of weapons (and funding for weapons systems, including the Iron Dome) to Israel. This has no bearing on the question of whether the UN is responsible for Israeli sovereignty. You are defending a very odd position, in a very odd manner.

Iron Dome, sorry I got my metals confused. I'm pushing back against the statements made by Netanyahu (and other Israeli officials, as well as Trump, and many US legislators) suggesting the US betrayed, or even demonized Israel after we failed to veto the UN resolution...or that our government was colluding with other nations when the resolution was drafted and introduced. The criticism of Kerry's speech, and the Obama Administration, has been divisive and corrosive. The recent anti-US political rhetoric has been misleading, and not characterized our historical alliance appropriately.

Arab nations refused to recognize the State of Israel 20 years before there was a single Israeli settlement, GGT. In fact, following the Six Day War (which led directly to the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai), major Arab powers notably doubled down on this with the famous Khartoum Resolution which explicitly agreed on the three 'no's with respect to Israel: no recognition of the state, no peace, and no negotiations. Again, before there was a single Israeli settlement. (BTW this is not being 'portrayed' as refusing to recognize Israel. It is concrete, explicit, advertised refusal to acknowledge the fact of Israel's existence and sovereignty. We're not talking about countries refusing to have diplomatic relations with Israel, or refusing to acknowledge the Jewish character of the country, but outright refusing to admit the country exists. This is not 'alleged' or a portrayal, it's a simple fact.)

Yes, these border disputes have been around for generations. No, the UN may not be the best or right "agency" to encourage, cajole, or even 'force' Arab nations to recognize the State of Israel....but in the end, it's still a border dispute. Who *does* have the authority to draw territorial lines, or re-arrange them over time? If it's just a matter of force, or ethnic heritage/identity.....then was Russia just re-claiming its historical right to Georgia, Crimea, or Ukraine? What does that mean for Palestinians?

I have no doubt that the continued poor state of relations between Israel and the Arab world is, to an extent, due to the continuing occupation of the Palestinian territories (and, to a lesser extent, the Golan Heights). And as part of that occupation, and an ongoing irritant to it, I freely acknowledge that some Israeli settlements are indeed part of the problem. But to argue that Arab refusal to recognize Israel is in any way rooted in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza is to ignore history in the most egregious manner possible. Perhaps the best counterfactual would be that two of Israel's main former enemies - Jordan and Egypt - have, grudgingly, accepted peace with Israel and recognized it as a sovereign nation, long before any settlement with the Palestinians has come close to fruition.

Jordan and Egypt might have accepted Israel's existence, and sovereignty....because there weren't the 'irritants' of settlements or growing 'occupations' on their lands. You follow the details more than I do, but afaik Palestine's territories have shrunk to about 25% of what was originally promised. To be clear, I'm not excusing or justifying any Palestinian terrorist tactics against Israelis, or even a Palestine Authority that gives Israel-deniers legitimate power. I'm just asking what this means for Palestine, and therefore a two-state solution?

[wiggin]

Ok, so I'm saying that's a crucial part of Israel's recognized sovereignty, in the modern era. Otherwise we get into the weeds of religious territory, who was where first, whose religion is older, etc.

I don't understand why religion is the only alternative justification for sovereignty other than an unimplemented, unenforced, non-binding UN General Assembly resolution. That would suggest that pretty much every country in the world other than Israel bases their sovereignty on religion. Again, a very odd position.

Iron Dome, sorry I got my metals confused. I'm pushing back against the statements made by Netanyahu (and other Israeli officials, as well as Trump, and many US legislators) suggesting the US betrayed, or even demonized Israel after we failed to veto the UN resolution...or that our government was colluding with other nations when the resolution was drafted and introduced. The criticism of Kerry's speech, and the Obama Administration, has been divisive and corrosive. The recent anti-US political rhetoric has been misleading, and not characterized our historical alliance appropriately.

I don't disagree that the rhetoric about this episode has been far from ideal. I think there is also a strong case to be made that Kerry's speech in particular was not constructive rhetoric, either, especially for the Democratic party or for internal Israeli politics. Lastly, one could also argue that given the strong historical US-Israel alliance, elements of Kerry's speech and the UNSCR did not appropriately represent this strong relationship either. That doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about, though. (If you do want to have a discussion in depth about this latest episode, we can, though I am not sure Zionuts - a somewhat lighthearted thread - is the appropriate venue.)

Yes, these border disputes have been around for generations. No, the UN may not be the best or right "agency" to encourage, cajole, or even 'force' Arab nations to recognize the State of Israel....but in the end, it's still a border dispute. Who *does* have the authority to draw territorial lines, or re-arrange them over time? If it's just a matter of force, or ethnic heritage/identity.....then was Russia just re-claiming its historical right to Georgia, Crimea, or Ukraine? What does that mean for Palestinians?

HOW does this remotely respond to what I wrote? Talking to you is like having a conversation with a cloud. My comment was about the role settlements play in recognition of Israel by Arab states. You respond with a discussion of the role the UN plays in settling territorial disputes. I have no idea how I'm supposed to have a discussion with you if we can't agree on what we're talking about.

Jordan and Egypt might have accepted Israel's existence, and sovereignty....because there weren't the 'irritants' of settlements or growing 'occupations' on their lands. You follow the details more than I do, but afaik Palestine's territories have shrunk to about 25% of what was originally promised. To be clear, I'm not excusing or justifying any Palestinian terrorist tactics against Israelis, or even a Palestine Authority that gives Israel-deniers legitimate power. I'm just asking what this means for Palestine, and therefore a two-state solution?

Well, since Gaza and the West Bank were both controlled by Jordan and Egypt prior to 1967, that is explicitly not true - there were settlements in both formerly-controlled territories at the time of the peace deals. More broadly, the Arab world has argued in general that they refused to recognize Israel until the Palestinian issue is resolved in a satisfactory manner (in fact the 'Saudi Peace Initiative' explicitly draws this connection). This is not squared with reality, of course, since several Arab nations have indeed recognized Israel without a resolution to the Palestinian issue, and because when the Palestinian issue was in the power of the Arab states to solve (i.e. pre-1967 when a Palestinian state could easily have been declared in the WB and Gaza if not for Arab rejectionism), they refused to do so. This is a red herring.

Also, the 25% number is, well, bullshit. After Palestinians screwed the pooch in 1947-1948, the maximum they were ever going to get was the WB and Gaza, and something like 95+% of that was on offer in 2000. Even if you include the 1947 Partition lines (which were obviously never implemented because Arab nations started a war), you don't get close to 25%.

[Hazir]

Oh, I have recently come to the conclusion that I should actually point out to people who think Israel needs to disappear that what they are actually saying is that they want the murder of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. And if that's what they really think, they are no friend of mine. No matter which attrocious act the Israeli government happens to be guilty of.

[GGT]

I don't understand why religion is the only alternative justification for sovereignty other than an unimplemented, unenforced, non-binding UN General Assembly resolution. That would suggest that pretty much every country in the world other than Israel bases their sovereignty on religion. Again, a very odd position.

I'm not the one saying that. I was referring to Kerry's statement that "Israel can be either a Jewish State or a Democracy, but not both". Coupled with some Israeli official's comments about the expansion of settlements that "Jews have been here for 3,000 years, it's our land, and we're not leaving", inferring they don't recognize any previously negotiated borders, and/or there's no such thing as an 'illegal' Jewish settlement. (Sorry I can't remember his name, but he was a member of the Netanyahu administration.)

I don't disagree that the rhetoric about this episode has been far from ideal. I think there is also a strong case to be made that Kerry's speech in particular was not constructive rhetoric, either, especially for the Democratic party or for internal Israeli politics. Lastly, one could also argue that given the strong historical US-Israel alliance, elements of Kerry's speech and the UNSCR did not appropriately represent this strong relationship either. That doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about, though. (If you do want to have a discussion in depth about this latest episode, we can, though I am not sure Zionuts - a somewhat lighthearted thread - is the appropriate venue.)

You brought up the Peace Summit in France, and said something about Israel being blamed for everything, and Being posted a news link about "Obama and the UN's outrageous assault on Israel's legitimacy". That's the only reason I replied. Sorry, I didn't realize this was supposed to be a lighthearted thread.

HOW does this remotely respond to what I wrote? Talking to you is like having a conversation with a cloud. My comment was about the role settlements play in recognition of Israel by Arab states. You respond with a discussion of the role the UN plays in settling territorial disputes. I have no idea how I'm supposed to have a discussion with you if we can't agree on what we're talking about.

I was asking how *does* Israel define its borders, and what *do* they consider a legitimate international broker, and what *is* supposed to happen when they build outside negotiated territory? If the UN General Assembly or the UNSC doesn't really matter, then why get upset when the votes don't go as Israel wants/expects? It's not like the US is just supposed to do whatever Israel demands, right?

I also asked what happened to the two-state solution? It's no wonder Palestinians are asking the same thing....which ultimately affects how/if/when Arab states recognize the State of Israel! The whole thing is a confusing mess. If I'm asking too many questions, or they're cloudy, in a thread that's supposed to be "lighthearted", then never mind?

[wiggin]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-isr...nts-1486137717

Pretty much the opposite of Zionuts. Maybe 'Zioreasonables'? One of the better English-language summaries I've seen of internal Israeli takes on the settlement enterprise, with an explanation of why the recent UNSCR was so unpopular in Israel.

I think Halevi does a good job describing in particular the way Israelis view 'settlements' in the Jerusalem area. I had a fascinating interaction recently with an Israeli-American who grew up on a far-left Israeli kibbutz and still shares broadly leftist sentiments on the issue of settlements, the peace process, etc. (Her family has members who were conscientious objectors to military service and others who refuse to visit West Bank settlements on principle.) Yet when I brought up the recent issue of potential plans for Trump to move the embassy to Jerusalem, I was quite surprised at the response.

My basic point had been that "well, yeah, it's not fair that the US embassy is in Tel Aviv rather than (West) Jerusalem, but pushing for a move is not worth the political capital involved, on either an international perspective, or in the case of Israel/US relations with the Arab world." Essentially, a good idea but not worth it. I was quite shocked, though, when she responded not in agreement but in deep frustration that the US and the rest of the Western world refuses to recognize that Israel's capital is Jerusalem - she views it as utterly unacceptable given its obvious historical importance, the demographics, and the fact that (West) Jerusalem is an undisputed part of Israel proper since 1948. Given the historical lack of free access and worship to holy sites under non-Israeli rule, Israelis are rightly suspicious of attempts to deligitimize Israeli claims to Jerusalem.

This was really illuminating to me; there's a great deal of cultural resonance that Jerusalem has to the average, even leftist, Israeli, and it is viewed as fundamentally different to other settlements, even settlement blocs. I think that this, more than anything, speaks to the fundamental disconnect between the US and Israel, and part of why the anti-settlement message is received so poorly in Israel. A large proportion of Israelis would have little issue with evacuating outposts and far-flung settlements, but they see the world lumping all 'settlement activities' - including Jerusalem neighborhoods, settlement blocs built on historically Jewish towns, and flagrantly illegal outposts built on stolen Palestinian land - into a single basket as being fundamentally misguided. Thus they are suspicious of any criticism as fundamentally motivated not at safeguarding an eventual peace agreement but at delegitimizing Israeli claims to neighborhoods that the vast majority of Israelis view as non-issues. IMO a more nuanced critique - such as attempts to secure a blanket freeze on non-bloc settlement construction and evacuation of all illegal outposts in exchange for explicit toleration of continued building in Jerusalem neighborhoods and settlement blocs - might gain far more traction with the Israeli public. It would thus have a much better chance of ensuring the ostensible goal of this critique - maintaining the possibility of a two state solution.

[Loki]

Israeli becoming a Zionut itself: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/w...m-judaism.html