US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[ag]

There may well be a lot of truth in this. However, my question then becomes: why do the Arab parties  support it, in addition to Hadash? They obviously have different motivations than the Jewish left in Israel.

Why do the Arab parties support the two-state solution, you mean? Because, so far, that is the declared objective of the Palestinian movements, including Fatah and PA. If tomorrow they decide to demand citizenship in the common state, I am pretty certain Hadash people would rejoice (and the rest would not have much trouble switching, either).

[MalaspinaGold]

There may well be a lot of truth in this. However, my question then becomes: why do the Arab parties  support it, in addition to Hadash? They obviously have different motivations than the Jewish left in Israel.

Why do the Arab parties support the two-state solution, you mean? Because, so far, that is the declared objective of the Palestinian movements, including Fatah and PA. If tomorrow they decide to demand citizenship in the common state, I am pretty certain Hadash people would rejoice (and the rest would not have much trouble switching, either).

This is not convincing, especially considering Hadash endorsed the two-state solution at least 15 years before the PLO did. They were among the first to do so, in fact.

[ag]

There may well be a lot of truth in this. However, my question then becomes: why do the Arab parties  support it, in addition to Hadash? They obviously have different motivations than the Jewish left in Israel.

Why do the Arab parties support the two-state solution, you mean? Because, so far, that is the declared objective of the Palestinian movements, including Fatah and PA. If tomorrow they decide to demand citizenship in the common state, I am pretty certain Hadash people would rejoice (and the rest would not have much trouble switching, either).

This is not convincing, especially considering Hadash endorsed the two-state solution at least 15 years before the PLO did. They were among the first to do so, in fact.

But at that point the PLO was still publicly committed to the one state without the Jews The two-state thing was the realistic option: it was fine by the (left wing) Israelis, and, one could argue, it was the most likely compromise platform. In contrast, the one-state idea would be viewed by both sides as highly treasonable: the Israelis would read in it the "kick the Jews into the sea" demand, while the PLO would take it to be the surrender flag. That thing was simply not on the agenda: the non-Zionist left had to propose something that others would find not threatening.

This is, still, the least disruptive compromise even today. Unfortunately, the last few decades of colonization have made it much more difficult.

[MalaspinaGold]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

[Dan the Roman]

The idea that a European colonial project (the way Israel is perceived in most of the world) would have much sympathy outside Europe... Well that is brave.

Yes, Modi will be friendly - in a vague general way. He is strongly anti-Muslim, and that dominates a lot for him. But India does not, really, have a foreign policy that extends to beyond Pakistan and China. Nor does it show many signs of developing one. So, perhaps, it will abstain at the UN when a particularly strong resolution is voted on. Do not count on much more than that: Israel is simply too far away and of too little strategic interest to do too much. China will not endanger its supplies, and that means it will not do anything that would enrage its suppliers. Everywhere else outside of the "white" world Israel remains toxic - far more so than it is in Europe. And going the bantustan way (which seems to be the only alternative Israel is putting on the table now) will make it even more toxic.

This is a misreading of how the Palestinian issue is now viewed. It is only viewed as a "white" "colonial" project in the West and by a fading Ashkenazi left. A majority of Israeli Jews came from the Arab world. To them there is no "Palestinian" people. There are Arabs who happen to live in a Jewish state, just as there were Jews in a Muslim state, and just as it was sad but natural for Jews to be forced to leave Arab states, it is only sensible, just, and fair for the Arabs to leave the Jewish state for an Arab one. Israel is not white. The Israeli Left is "white" and arguably from Europe, and that is as much a problem for it with Israeli voters as it is for anyone else, since they have failed to expand to the poorer Sephardim and Russians. But the days of Israel being seen as "white racists" are the 1970s, not today, except for those stuck in that period. And South Africa is a poor example. Whites were 15% of the population, not 70%. If your waiting for demographics you can wait a few centuries, and again, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will never push for elections that Turkish/Brotherhood props have a strong chance of winning, whether for a Palestinian Parliament or a Knesset. Most regional governments have had quite enough of democracy for the foreseeable future, at least of the open, one-man, one-vote kind.

Netanyahu's brilliance has been to recast the conflict in these terms. It is not about a national movement anymore. Rather it is about a secessionist movement by a violent, disloyal, and for those it matters to, Islamic minority. And those are terms that everyone else on the planet understands, and no one wants anything to do with. China and Russia may back a national movement, but they will never, ever back international action in support of a secessionist minority, nor will a large majority of the globe, much less to fight over definitions of what degree of minority representation qualifies as sufficent. Can you imagine Myanmar or Sri Lanka getting on board with that?

Obama, and those who condemn Israel are living 15 years out of date when the value that was important globally was "Justice". Justice however has appeared to anarchy, hence why the new value is "Order", see the reactions to the Brotherhood in Egypt, every election protest in Africa and Latin America, Isis, etc. And Israel, whatever its flaws, stands for "Order". Palestinian has been a synonym for anarchy and chaos even within the Arab world for decades, and the Palestinian issue is irredeemable linked to it. Most governments are dreadfully sick of it by now, and address it to the extent public opinion(which is more scared of the Brotherhood and Fundamentalism in Egypt than angry at Israel) and the outside world force them to. If Israel can keep the issue on deep freeze in collusion with the USA, then they will be happy to ignore European and scattered Latin American protests. The former insist on whining about their treatment of internal fundamentalist opponents, and the latter are seen as Iranian stooges.

Meanwhile, security cooperation against international Islamic groups is bringing states like Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Tunisia, Azerbaijan and the Philippines into a position where they have no desire for sanctions on Israel, and even less appreciation for European opinions.

The USA could matter here, as its place in the Security Council allows it to do Russia and China's dirty work while they abstain, but if there was a serious effort to establish any sort of binding sanctions or precedents for them, they would block them on the basis of "National Sovereignty", and evade them if somehow imposed.

Things have changed, but not in the way people here think. Netanyahu, for all his dickery, gets the world as it exists in 2015, and the Middle East far better.

[Dan the Roman]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

Tell that to the Jewish population that was ethnically cleansed in the 1930s, and post 1947. Or the 800K Jews cleansed from the Arab world.

[Hnv1]

The one-state solution is less acceptable to (most of) Israeli Zionist left than to its right. It is not the matter of "religion", it is the matter of who they are. Basically, Israeli Zionist left is, first and foremost, Zionist, but it also has a strong liberal attachment. The single state cannot be both Jewish and democratic. Furthermore, on many issues the conservative Muslim and Christian segment of the West Bank society will find itself in agreement with the conservative Jewish segment of the Israeli society. There is, really, no place in such a state for the traditional leftish Zionism. In fact, I would be pretty certain that a lot of the current Israeli left will simply not stay in the country, if such a solution were to be implemented. Within a few decades Israel would become just another fundamentalist Mideastern non-democracy.

The Israeli right, in contrast, would be a lot less scared. To begin with, they do not care about things like minority civil rights, etc., so they could feel they would be able to live with a less liberal and less democratic state, in which their dominance is preserved. For that matter, in neighboring Jordan Palestinians are a majority: but they have little power. The more traditionalist Israelis, especially those of Mideastern origin, would, probably, feel that they can, in fact, develop certain links with some Palestinian forces: they are richer, so some sort of clientelistic relationship is possible. In fact, in such a society the Jewish Arabs' ability to deal with Muslim and Christian Arabs would make them particularly important and influential. And they will not be sorry to see the abandonment of the country by its liberal citizens.

So, I can easily see the reason most of Israeli left is dreading the one-state solution: that one state will not be their state. In fact, this is the reason some Israelis I know give for being on the left: the two-state solution for them is the only way to preserve the Israel they belong to.

There may well be a lot of truth in this. However, my question then becomes: why do the Arab parties  support it, in addition to Hadash? They obviously have different motivations than the Jewish left in Israel.

Reasons;
- Economic - Arabs living in Israel are less than enthusiastic about PA sovereignty over them. Most would say the even with the discrimination and flaws Israel provide better welfare and economic opportunities than a Palestinian state and the PA corruption.
- Establishment - The Arab parties in Israel has a strong establishment that lives on their finances. there is no point in having Balad\Ra'am\Ta'al in one state (Hadash will unite with their West Bank counterparts).
- Cultural - it really depends on the area, but as you can read in recent years in young Arab writers books there is a large cultural gap between West Bank society and Galilee Arabic society. 

[Famous Mortimer]

Basically, Israeli Zionist left is, first and foremost, Zionist

Haha.

Just no.

The Zionism of Meretz, and even large sections of Labor, can be summed up as "Jews should be allowed to live in the Land of Israel" that idea does not conflict at all with a one state solution.

[Famous Mortimer]

As to why the Israeli Arab parties support the two state solution rather than the one state solution:

1. Because the one state solution wasn't/isn't considered politically realistic. Sort of the same reason many US Democrats secretly wanted gay marriage for the last 20 years but never talked about it.

2. Because supporting the one state solution would have put them in danger of being banned. Technically, parties can be banned if they refuse to recognize the Jewish nature of the state so opposing the state outright would definitely be grounds for a ban. Of course, it's now clear the Supreme Court would never allow that but that was different back in the 80s and the 90s.

As both of these things changed, we will almost certainly see the position of the Arab parties change. There is already an internal debate within Balad about officially coming out for one state. Hadash would follow quite quickly. It's an open secret that Islamic Movement (UAL) fantasies about a MidEast wide caliphate, so their support of the two state solution was even more feigned than the others.

[MalaspinaGold]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

Tell that to the Jewish population that was ethnically cleansed in the 1930s, and post 1947. Or the 800K Jews cleansed from the Arab world.

As the PLO was not responsible for the expulsion of Sephardi/Mizrachi Jews from their countries of origin, I fail to see what bearing this has on the matter at hand.

[Indy Texas]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

The ultimate objective of Palestinian nationalists prior to the rise of political Islamism in the 1990s was the replacement of the State of Israel with a secular, democratic Palestinian state. Removal of the Jewish population was never on the table - though it was likely assumed that a lot of them would leave on their own because they wouldn't want to live in a state that was not officially Jewish.

Basically, they wanted everyone living under a different national government, with no one being forced out.

Compare that to the mainstream Israeli position at the time, which was the maintenance of the existing national government with the Arab population being removed.

[Indy Texas]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

Tell that to the Jewish population that was ethnically cleansed in the 1930s, and post 1947. Or the 800K Jews cleansed from the Arab world.

1930s ethnic cleansing: the Germans' fault
Post-1947 expulsions: the Moroccans', Iraqis', Egyptians', Syrians', Iranians' and Yemenis' fault

Please explain why you think the Palestinian people "owe" these Jews from other parts of the world anything or why their expulsion, regrettable and inappropriate as it was, is in any way their fault.

[MalaspinaGold]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

The ultimate objective of Palestinian nationalists prior to the rise of political Islamism in the 1990s was the replacement of the State of Israel with a secular, democratic Palestinian state. Removal of the Jewish population was never on the table - though it was likely assumed that a lot of them would leave on their own because they wouldn't want to live in a state that was not officially Jewish.

Basically, they wanted everyone living under a different national government, with no one being forced out.

Compare that to the mainstream Israeli position at the time, which was the maintenance of the existing national government with the Arab population being removed.

I'm pretty sure we agree on this point (at least post PLO formation).

[Dan the Roman]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

Tell that to the Jewish population that was ethnically cleansed in the 1930s, and post 1947. Or the 800K Jews cleansed from the Arab world.

1930s ethnic cleansing: the Germans' fault
Post-1947 expulsions: the Moroccans', Iraqis', Egyptians', Syrians', Iranians' and Yemenis' fault

Please explain why you think the Palestinian people "owe" these Jews from other parts of the world anything or why their expulsion, regrettable and inappropriate as it was, is in any way their fault.

No more than the Germans in Poland or Czechoslovakia "owed" the Poles anything. There was a population exchange which settled an outstanding(for centuries) ethnic conflict which was impossible to resolve otherwise which was morally in retaliation for previous ethnic cleansing by Germans from Germany.

Jews lived in Arab states and Arabs lived in Jewish states pre-20th century. That clearly became impossible post 1947, and the Arab states expelled their Jews, and since they are incapable of living together in a form that involves the continued existence of a Jewish state where Jews can live, it only makes sense that Israel resettle the Jews expelled from Arab states where the Arabs that left Israel used to live. Then the Arabs who don't want to live in Israel and be a minority in someone else's state can move into the Arab-run countries where the Jews used to live.

It is unfair on an individual level certainly, but so have been every population exchange throughout history. It is in no way unfair on a national level. The Arabs who lived in the territories that are now Israel have no more innate claim to them than the Jews who used to live in the territories that are now Egypt or Syria have to them, or the Germans who used to live in Poland have to Silesia. And if on an individual level they had good relations with their neighbors they would have been allowed to stay anyhow as many Israeli Arabs did after 1948. But their remaining should be on an individual level with a recognition that they want to be Israeli.

[Famous Mortimer]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

[Dan the Roman]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Of course they are not. But while this is a dispute over land ownership rights, I reject the idea that the land in question creates a nationality where none existed, anymore than Hungarians in Romania or Germans in Silesia were independent nations, rather than Germans or Hungarians who happened to live outside of Germany's borders. I also reject the idea on the Israeli side of any sort of biblical or historical claim - where Israel is happens to be incidental to the fact that it is where it currently is located and has the borders which it has. The question is how to make that situation as functional as possible.

I understand completely why people do not want to live in someone else's national state, as well as why people want to live in their own national state. But the solution to that is not to deny Jews their national state, and there would only be an argument for that if there were not plenty of Arab national states around. But I find the fixation on the West Bank as some sort of sacred "national" land incomprehensible. It is first and foremost territory. If the issue is wanting to live in an Arab state, then it is possible to move. If the issue is compensation, it can be provided on an individual basis as it was for decades in Israel, or in the form of compensation. But the insistence that Palestinians want an Arab national state, that they want it to encompass territory they do not control, and that they want to set the conditions on which those who actually control the territory can remain and live there under is delusional lunacy given the reality on the ground and makes any rational solution impossible. The Copts were in Egypt before the Arabs, but for them to demand a Coptic state encompassing  Egyptian territory in which Judaism would be treated at best as a tolerated minority, and in exchange they might allow a third or so of Egypt's Arab population to remain they would be laughed at.

[Famous Mortimer]

"But the solution to that is not to deny Jews their national state"

Jews are only entitled to a nation state if they have the population and the democratic support to back it up.

As long as they hold onto the West Bank, they don't have that.

As to the West Bank itself (with or without Gaza) they DO have the population and the democratic support to entitle them to self determination.

I'm curious as to what criteria you are using to determine which populations are entitled to self determination and which are not? It would seem popular support SHOULD be the only real criteria in the modern world.

[Famous Mortimer]

"If the issue is wanting to live in an Arab state"

"But the insistence that Palestinians want an Arab national state"


The Palestinians do not want an "Arab state". This is a straw man you are inserting into their mouths. They just want a state. It's only the Israelis who are insisting on maintaining certain ethnic majorities at all costs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Which is why the Zionist argument is dumb,  Israeli long term security depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  It will take an united Arab consciousness to defeat Israel.

[MalaspinaGold]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Which is why the Zionist argument is dumb,  Israeli long term security depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  It will take an united Arab consciousness to defeat Israel.

Pretty sure the Arab countries have better things to do than to attack Israel.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

[MalaspinaGold]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

[MalaspinaGold]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.