Skip to main content

View Diary: Not in My Name, Netanyahu (373 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There Cannot Be a Two-State Solution - - (10+ / 0-)

    60+ years should be sufficient evidence.

    There will either be a single apartheid state with one privileged and wealthy people with full rights and another subjugated and impoverished people with few rights - -

    Or

    There will be a single federated state of Israel and Palestine in which both peoples have full freedoms and opportunities and work in tandem to enhance these.

    •  Leaving a single apartheid state is like lighting (12+ / 0-)

      the fuse for the next battle.

      Even the life of the "victor" will be diminished by the time taken to look over his shoulder.

      I think there must be a two-state solution.

      "Portion of the adolescent prisoners in solitary on Rikers Island who have been diagnosed with a mental illness: 7/10." Tell someone.

      by RJDixon74135 on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 10:28:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The 2-state solution is long dead. (23+ / 0-)

      Israel is happy with the present state of affairs, whereby it militarily occupies the Palestinian Territories (and therefore can continue its thieving of land and expansion of illegal settlements there)  without officially annexing them (thereby continuing to deny the inhabitants civil rights).

      But this can't continue for ever, otherwise Israel will become officially an apartheid state and a pariah among nations.

      The only morally acceptable solution is one democratic state for all its citizens.

      Of course such a state will not be a Jewish State, but for this Israel will have no one to blame but its own insatiable gluttony for Palestinian land, Israel as a Jewish State will die of indigestion.

      We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

      by Lepanto on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 11:12:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you have a suggestion? I sure don't (4+ / 0-)

      One state is not workable on the face of it as Jewish Israelis would soon be a minority and the current governments are determined that Israel remain a Jewish state.  Israeli Palestinians are already 20% of the population and is one of the faster growing segments.
      Two states appears to be dead as no one is really committed to it.
      Status quo is untenable.
      So what do we do?  I ask this in the hopes someone has a solution

      •  news to me (0+ / 0-)
        Two states appears to be dead as no one is really committed to it.
      •  What if we rewrite this a bit. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade, cailloux

        What if what you wrote read as the following:

        One state is not workable on the face of it as White Louisianians would soon be a minority and the current governments are determined that Louisiana remain a White state.  Black Louisianians are already 20% of the population and is one of the faster growing segments.
        Two states appears to be dead as no one is really committed to it.
        Status quo is untenable.
        So what do we do?  I ask this in the hopes someone has a solution
        While I don't know you, I am sure that you would not support the position in the above block quote if the discussion were about white and black people in Louisiana.  Why then should we accept this argument when applied to Israel when it makes us vomit when applied to Louisiana.
        •  I don't think that LA was created as a "white" (0+ / 0-)

          state, though that may be argued and being "white" and being "Jewish" are not exactly the same thing.  However, Israel as a Jewish state is not my idea but the idea of a bunch of other folks, such as Bibi.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...
          http://www.jcpa.org/...
          http://www.theguardian.com/...
          http://www.torah.org/...

          Admittedly, it is a guess on my part that a future Israel in which Jews are a minority would not persist as a "Jewish State".  If it is a given that Israel is a democracy (another point for discussion), then is it your assertion that a Jewish minority Israel would continue as a Jewish state or would not evolve into something very different?

          •  What I am questioning (3+ / 0-)

            Is why some ethnic states are good and some are bad.

            •  What's wrong with ethnic states? (0+ / 0-)

              Multinational states have routinely broken up. See: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, USSR, Sudan etc. Now Iraq is headed in a similar direction.

              For democracy to function, it has to be based on a demos. That is usually related with national identity.

              •  The world is full of multi-ethnic states (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bananapouch1, mightymouse

                Breaking up on ethnic lines is by no means inevitable. Consider the USA, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Bolivia, Ghana, Tanzania, India. Am I saying that these countries are perfect and have no violence? Am I saying that there are not separatist movements in some places? No. But these are states that are multi-ethnic, some are multi-religious, and they are holding together. None of those countries are in danger of dissolving, no matter what the Quebecois say (they recently voted down their separatist party in the provincial government as a matter-of-fact).

                I'm not saying that there aren't challenges and that there is no risk of fragmenting on ethnic lines. But there are actually very few examples of modern nation-states today that are not multi-ethnic. And I would look for the roots of the dissolution of the nations that you mentioned in your comment in their specific political histories. For example, the USSR was the product of years of violent empire building, and many of the ethnic groups living in Soviet Socialist Republics that broke off had been subject to severe, violent repression (see, for example, the starvation of the Ukraine).

                Now, could Israelis and Palestinians live peacefully, side-by-side, in a single multi-ethnic and multi-religious state? Obviously there is plenty of reason to be skeptical, although of course the status quo is not working by any measure.

                "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                by Lost Left Coaster on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 08:45:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Multi-ethnic states need a common core. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lost Left Coaster

                  By that I mean a strong national identity, and usually one national language as well. In the US, there is a strong national identity, and every American is expected to speak English (to the point where the children and grandchildren of immigrants rarely speak their native tongues). Mexico, Brazil, and Bolivia have one major language, and the same can be said about Ghana to an extent. India stands out as functioning well despite multiple ethnic groups, and Switzerland seems like an exception to the rule here. In Canada, yes, the Parti Quebecois did lose power this year, but it was more an effect of Quebeckers being tired by the decades-long debate. In 1995, the independence referendum came very close to passing.

                  All these multi-ethnic nation states are still nation states, with a strong identity. Many other countries are on the verge of faltering such as the UK (where Scotland will hold an independence referendum this year) and Spain (Catalonia is fighting stronger and stronger to break off after decades of conflict that included violent suppression). I could also add Belgium, where multiple attempts at constitutional reform have failed to change the flaws of the system (government formation that recently lasted for over 500 days). Iraq too is disintegrating, and the Kurds will likely try to declare independence.

                  Israel/Palestine as one country would be like Belgium in terms of demographics, except far more violent.

                  •  The Czechs and Slovaks parted ways peaceably (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lost Left Coaster, bananapouch1

                    but most Czechs already lived in the Czech Republic and most Slovaks in Slovakia. Still, it's an exception to the usual rule.

                    If it's
                    Not your body,
                    Then it's
                    Not your choice
                    And it's
                    None of your damn business!

                    by TheOtherMaven on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 10:35:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Czechs and Slovaks maybe (0+ / 0-)

                      However the minority Germans in the Czech Republic (remember the Sudetenland?) and the Roma in both did not break away to form their own countries even though both are still fairly oppressed.

                      In any case, the free movement between countries within the EU makes the internal borders somewhat irrelevant.

                      "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

                      by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:02:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I definitely agree (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bananapouch1

                    that an Israeli/Palestinian union would be fraught with peril. No disagreement from me on that. I am just not in agreement that there is a principle at work here that says all multi-ethnic states will eventually fracture on ethnic lines. Many succeed. I think that failure is more of a product of each country's history than a particular principle that such states will always fail. But honestly, we're probably not so far apart here on our points of view.

                    "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                    by Lost Left Coaster on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 11:42:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's a little tricky (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lost Left Coaster

                      On one side of the spectrum, you have states like the Nordics, which until recent immigration waves were very homogenous - everyone was part of the same nationality, language, race and religion. Then you have Germany, which has always had a huge religious split between Protestants and Catholics, even as the nationality and race were the same. At the other spectrum you have the US, with immigrant waves, different racial groups, religions etc.

                      I think my point may have been a little unclear. Multi-ethnic states are fine, but multinational states often flounder. At the core, in the U.S. for instance, while there are black people, white people, Asians, evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, every person in these groups can say "I am an American". As long as there is a national identity, it should be fine to have different ethnic groups. On the other hand, there weren't many people who could say "I am a Yugoslav", "I am a Soviet", or "I am a Czechoslovak". The presence of one common national language is often a demarcating point, although that's not perfect either - Switzerland has a national identity despite multiple languages, and Yugoslavia never had one despite the fact that Croats/Bosniaks/Serbs essentially spoke the same language.

                      Past history of violence, ethnic tensions etc do make a difference, but they're not the only factor. In the US, there was a long history of institutionalized discrimination, state racism and violence against African-Americans, but still, most blacks would consider themselves part of an American nation today. On the other hand, there aren't that many recent cases of violence between England and Scotland. Still, the Scottish are thinking about breaking off. A similar situation is seen in Canada/Quebec over recent decades.

            •  Difference between Jews and Whites. (0+ / 0-)

              Whites have many home-states they can call home (as do most major ethnics groups).
              Jews have none before Israel.
              The Holocaust provided a lot of reason of why Jews need one.

              •  The "Jews" have a homeland (0+ / 0-)

                in whatever country they are born in. The fact that several countries in the past exploited and killed members of the community does not make them any less American, British, French, German etc.  The Balfour Declaration refers to part of the Mandate territory as A homeland, not THE homeland for Jews.

                Also, Israel is not a homeland for all Jews. Various tribes in Africa claim to be Jewish but are denied the status by Israel. That is despite support from outside Jewish groups - the Temba being perhaps the most well known example.

                If you want to go back 115 years or so, the World Jewish Congress was offered "Uganda" as a homeland. The offer was narrowly rejected because of the presence of the (then recently victorious in a local war) local tribe and lions. In retrospect, it was that refusal that condemned millions of European Jews to have no place to run during the 1930s.  Whether Hitler would have accepted mass emigration as a means of making his Reich "Juden frei" is of course debatable. Certainly experience shows those who did go to other countries were stripped of their possessions and in the late stages the Nazis were, in effect, selling Jews to enable them to leave.  I have a feeling not many would have taken the option to leave for precisely the sort of reason I give above. Most considered their religion to be less significant than their nationality.

                "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

                by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:27:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  You talk (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bananapouch1

      like there has ever been two states. What we have had until now is option one. Your option two will never ever happen. Both sides don't want that. That can't happen Israelis will not want to be a minority in that federal country, Palestinians will never think they have enough autonomy.
      The solution is two states giving hams or whom ever rules the Palestinian side real international freedom and consequences.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site