The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[The Human Q-Tip]

I should add that I don't see anything wrong, in general, with a country controlling immigration to try to preserve its culture.

And before anyone blows a gasket, I would agree that the history of Israel/Palestine would add a different wrinkle to that discussion in that particular context.

 

[Jordan]

Good questions.

Honest question here - how would you compare how well Israel treats its own citizens -- Jews and non-Jews alike - with how well it's neighbors treat their own citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In terms of human rights, democracy, religious freedom, etc.?

I think that's an unfair proposition. I mean, of course Israel treats Jews in its country significantly better than if they had been living in a neighboring country. But Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens who, if they live in Israel proper, have extremely limited rights (can't vote, can't hold most public-service jobs, can only serve in limited government roles, don't get the same access to welfare, don't have right to a fair trial, etc.) and those living in Palestine have no rights whatsoever. The latter is due both to Israel and to the PLO's lack of desire for true peace (I highly recommend Noura Erakat's Aborted State? The Un Initiative and New Palestinian Junctures).

Also, do not get me wrong, the Arab states do deserve a large part of the blame. the book by Efraim Karsh I pointed out early does use evidence to determine that, a big part of the refugee problem in Israel/Palestine, was caused by Arab states promising that they would accept refugees, and in reality they didn't accept anything.

But at some point, for a country that declares itself "the only democracy in the region," they are really anti-democratic. That's why I have a problem comparing it with its neighbors. Saudi Arabia and Syria do not pretend to be democratic. They do not claim to provide equal rights to their citizenry (although, Jews lived peacefully amongst Arab neighbors in Syria, Iran, and Lebanon up until about 2005, where a lot left in the face of the second Intifada and then the Israeli bombing of Lebanon). Israel does though. That's the problem.

And in terms of a one-state solution, or even the existence of a "Jewish" state, does opposition to that mean just restriction of future immigration by non-Jews into Israel, or something else? Because at least for now, it is a Jewish-majority state. So how do opponents of that envision that status changing?

I mean, there isn't really one definition of what a one-state or two-state solution would look like. Different supporters have different ideals. But, in general, a one-state solution would mean that Israel could no longer limit citizenship based on religion, and therefore, all citizens hold the same basic rights. The concern amongst many Palestinians is the latter part, as it has been the piece the Israeli government is refusing to accept, with Netanyahu even claiming that would be "suicide" for the Jews.

 

[Jordan]

Appreciate the jump-off point. I think I'd agree that no territory should be restricted to only those of one particular belief. I just wonder about this topic because of how tenuous it seems to be and the more I look into the politics of American involvement in other areas, the more murky the lines of right/wrong become. I am seriously just looking for a thorough look at the perspectives from both sides and, perhaps, from a completely unbiased observer, if that person exists. Going to also look at some William Polk along the way.

It's very difficult to find a completely unbiased observer. Let me know if you find them, though. Just know that William Polk is far from unbiased. He's a foreign policy professional and his view of Israeli/Palestinian history is based entirely on how they relate to U.S. foreign policy. He's honestly not bad, and his historical works are informative, but he is far from unbiased.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Good questions.


I think that's an unfair proposition.

Well, it was a question, not a proposition.

I mean, of course Israel treats Jews in its country significantly better than if they had been living in a neighboring country. But Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens who, if they live in Israel proper, have extremely limited rights (can't vote, can't hold most public-service jobs, can only serve in limited government roles, don't get the same access to welfare, don't have right to a fair trial, etc.) and those living in Palestine have no rights whatsoever. The latter is due both to Israel and to the PLO's lack of desire for true peace (I highly recommend Noura Erakat's Aborted State? The Un Initiative and New Palestinian Junctures).

Just to be clear, are you saying that Palestinians living under Israeli rule in Israel are treated as "second-class citizens", and that Palestinians living under PLO rule have "no rights whatsoever". Or am I misinterpreting that? I mean, they do have the right to vote for their leadership at least, right?

But at some point, for a country that declares itself "the only democracy in the region," they are really anti-democratic. That's why I have a problem comparing it with its neighbors. Saudi Arabia and Syria do not pretend to be democratic.

So here's the proposition.

I have a real problem with that reasoning. Presumably, the bottom line should be "how well does a government treat its people, and what kind of lives do they have". Saying "well, we're going to give shitty countries a pass because they don't pretend to be anything better, therefore we're going to focus our criticism on countries that claim to be (and actually are) better" seems off to me. Human rights should matter in all countries, not just those who claim to be democracies. That has the perverve effect of actually discouraging reform, because as long as those nations don't claim to be anything better, they'll be left alone.

Mistreatment/denial of rights to one's own people also generates a governmental leadership incentive to focus discontent on some other "them", either domestically or outside the country.

Why not push for recognition of human rights and religious freedom in those other countries? Should those people not get the benefit of outside pressure just because their government makes no claim to being democratic?

I mean, there isn't really one definition of what a one-state or two-state solution would look like. Different supporters have different ideals. But, in general, a one-state solution would mean that Israel could no longer limit citizenship based on religion, and therefore, all citizens hold the same basic rights. The concern amongst many Palestinians is the latter part, as it has been the piece the Israeli government is refusing to accept, with Netanyahu even claiming that would be "suicide" for the Jews.

Virtually every majority Islamic country imposes some limitations on religious free expression by minorities within their country. Proselytization, apostasy, and blasphemy are commonly illegal. There is violence against religious minorities in many countries throughout that region. You also have a large number of Palestinians and activists in the region specifically calling for death to the Jews, supporting/cheering the killing of Israelis, and inflamed by a the long history of Palestinian media and even some leadership spreading lies about Jews drinking the blood of Arabs, etc.. An entire generation -- multiple generations, even -- have been brought up to believe that stuff.

So if Jews become a minority within Israeli, is it not perfectly reasonable to believe the same -- or even much worse -- may eventually happen there? Not only the generalized lack of rights/protection for religious minorities, but also the specific hatred and actions against Israeli jews in particular?

 

[Jordan]

Well, it was a question, not a proposition.

Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I thought you were asking a leading question about Jews in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Just to be clear, are you saying that Palestinians living under Israeli rule in Israel are treated as "second-class citizens", and that Palestinians living under PLO rule have "no rights whatsoever". Or am I misinterpreting that? I mean, they do have the right to vote for their leadership at least, right?

No. Palestinians who live in the territories have no rights whatsoever in Israel. They are treated as third-class citizens and terrorists.

So here's the proposition.

I have a real problem with that reasoning. Presumably, the bottom line should be "how well does a government treat its people, and what kind of lives do they have". Saying "well, we're going to give shitty countries a pass because they don't pretend to be anything better, therefore we're going to focus our criticism on countries that claim to be (and actually are) better" seems off to me. Human rights should matter in all countries, not just those who claim to be democracies. That has the perverve effect of actually discouraging reform, because as long as those nations don't claim to be anything better, they'll be left alone.

Mistreatment/denial of rights to one's own people also generates a governmental leadership incentive to focus discontent on some other "them", either domestically or outside the country.

Why not push for recognition of human rights and religious freedom in those other countries? Should those people not get the benefit of outside pressure just because their government makes no claim to being democratic?

I agree with your general point, we should be fighting against lack of human rights in all countries (haha, #rehashingoldconversations), but I think it's disingenuous to say "Palestinians shouldn't care about their own problems because it's worse in other Arab countries."

Virtually every majority Islamic country imposes some limitations on religious free expression by minorities within their country. Proselytization, apostasy, and blasphemy are commonly illegal. There is violence against religious minorities in many countries throughout that region. You also have a large number of Palestinians and activists in the region specifically calling for death to the Jews, and supporting/cheering the killing of Israelis, and inflamed by a the long history of Palestinian media and even some leadership spreading lies about Jews drinking the blood of Arabs, etc.. An entire generation -- multiple generations, even -- have been brought up to believe that stuff.

Okay, but Q-Tip, let's not pretend Jews in Israel are all perfect. The Likud Party a few years ago said that "the nuclear option" shouldn't be taken off the table for Palestine. And moreover, two summers ago, Israel was bombing Palestinian hospitals, which focused on helping injured children, to teach Palestinians a lesson regarding Hamas.

So if Jews become a minority within Israeli, is it not perfectly reasonable to believe the same -- or even much worse -- may eventually happen there?

I mean, I find it hard to believe that Jews and Muslims could live together for centuries with no problems, and all of the sudden it becomes a big one. Secondly, and more importantly, I find it hard to believe the U.S. will completely abandon Israel and Jewish citizens if there is a peace agreement. In fact, based on various government reports, that's the furthest from the truth.

With all of that said, I'm not in the business in future predicting, and I'd imagine any peace agreement would ensure that does not happen. Otherwise, Israel as it currently stands would not agree to such a deal.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

No. Palestinians who live in the territories have no rights whatsoever in Israel. They are treated as third-class citizens and terrorists.

Okay, what about non-Muslim people in the territories? If there are any -- I honestly don't know.

I agree with your general point, we should be fighting against lack of human rights in all countries (haha, #rehashingoldconversations), but I think it's disingenuous to say "Palestinians shouldn't care about their own problems because it's worse in other Arab countries."

Please don't get me wrong -- I'm not talking about what Palestinians should care about. I'm talking about the rest of the world having what appears to be a fairly single-minded focus on human rights in Israel, while giving a virtual free pass to other countries in the region.

Okay, but Q-Tip, let's not pretend Jews in Israel are all perfect.

I'm not stating or implying that they are perfect. That's why I began this discussion by asking a question about treatment of Palestinians in Israel, and it clearly has flaws. My point is on the comparative lack of attention on other countries in the region with comparatively much worse human rights records.

I mean, I find it hard to believe that Jews and Muslims could live together for centuries with no problems, and all of the sudden it becomes a big one.

I don't understand this point, to be honest. Are you saying there were no problem in the past, prior to the creation of Israel, and that therefore you "don't believe" it would be a big problem now? You really don't believe it would be a problem?

You're talking about comparative ancient history because so much of consequence has happened since then. Sure, they all got along decently when the boot of the Ottoman Empire was still on everyone's neck. But after the creation of Israel and the problems of the last nearly 70 years? Heck, weren't there some significant problems in that region in the 20's and 30's before Israel was created, but as more jews were emigrating to that region? And what about the violence against/antagonism toward religious minorities throughout the entire region? Maybe it didn't exist in the days of the Ottomans, but it sure has hell is there now.

Second, "problem" is relative. Even if we didn't see any actual violence (which I think is a pretty monstrous "if" given what we have seen for decades now), you've kind of left hanging the whole issue of religious freedom/equality under a majority Musllim government. What about that?

Secondly, and more importantly, I find it hard to believe the U.S. will completely abandon Israel and Jewish citizens if there is a peace agreement. In fact, based on various government reports, that's the furthest from the truth.

What does that even mean? Suppose Muslims become a majority of Israelis, with control over lawmaking, police, and the military. Because that's what you get, sooner or later, if you're the majority. Exactly what would the U.S. do at that point if the majority began restricting the religious liberties of the minority, or turned a blind eye to anti-Israel violence?

With all of that said, I'm not in the business in future predicting, and I'd imagine any peace agreement would ensure that does not happen.

How can any piece of paper actually do that? Governments/groups/organizations rip up or just ignore that stuff all the time once they get what they want.

 

[LennoxLewis]

@jking948 In regards to Palestinian rights, is there any reason why it seems like most of the international community turns a blind eye other than a few countries who acknowledge the lack of rights, as well as acknowledging what BDS is trying to do to?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@jking948 In regards to Palestinian rights, is there any reason why it seems like most of the international community turns a blind eye

I don't think that's remotely true. Look at all the U.N. General Assembly resolutions, condemnations by various Councils, and committees, etc. How many directed at Israel versus all the other countries with shitty human rights records? How many U.N. General Assembly resolutions are there directed against human rights in Egypt, or Libya, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia?

Then there is all the talk here, campus marches, all sorts of political leaders, etc., in the U.S. calling for private business to divest from, and cease doing business with, Israel. Yet, you don't see anything remotely approaching that with respect to countries that have much worse human rights records than Israel.

 

[LennoxLewis]

I don't think that's remotely true. Look at all the U.N. General Assembly resolutions, condemnations by various Councils, and committees, etc. How many directed at Israel versus all the other countries with shitty human rights records? How many U.N. General Assembly resolutions are there directed against human rights in Egypt, or Libya, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia?

Then there is all the talk here, campus marches, all sorts of political leaders, etc., in the U.S. calling for private business to divest from, and cease doing business with, Israel. Yet, you don't see anything remotely approaching that with respect to countries that have much worse human rights records than Israel.

And yet those resolutions rarely go anywhere, because they often don't get the votes needed. Also, I understand that those countries you listed have human rights issues as well, but we are talking about Israel.

BDS and others are trying to get started what helped South Africa finally achieve freedom. But they are still in the minority compared to what most of the international community allows to happen.

It looks like it's having an effect as well, since most of those colleges against BDS and similar organizations often try to label members as terrorists lol. As well as some states trying to create anti-BDS laws. AIPAC is OK but BDS, SJP and other such organizations are horrible I guess.

 

[Jordan]

Okay, what about non-Muslim people in the territories? If there are any -- I honestly don't know.

There are plenty of Palestinian Christians who are treated the same as Palestinian Muslims

Please don't get me wrong -- I'm not talking about what Palestinians should care about. I'm talking about the rest of the world having what appears to be a fairly single-minded focus on human rights in Israel, while giving a virtual free pass to other countries in the region.

Fair enough. I misunderstood. Nonetheless, I agree, we shouldn't be giving a free pass to other countries in the region. I've told you the exact same thing in regards to my view of how the Obama administration has treated Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.

I'm not stating or implying that they are perfect. That's why I began this discussion by asking a question about treatment of Palestinians in Israel, and it clearly has flaws. My point is on the comparative lack of attention on other countries in the region with comparatively much worse human rights records.

I think the reasoning is that, because Israel is reliant on other countries for aid more than most, people think that means the U.S. et. al have a voice in Israeli politics.

I don't understand this point, to be honest. Are you saying there were no problem in the past, prior to the creation of Israel, and that therefore you "don't believe" it would be a big problem now? You really don't believe it would be a problem?

Of course there were problems. But the problems weren't always based on a Muslim vs. Judaism dichotomy. Neither are the problems now, at least at the core, although I'd imagine you'd have plenty of people in the country (Israel + Palestinian territories) making that claim. And no, I don't think the problems are solely based on Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

But, there are imo reasonable frustrations amongst many Palestinian refugees regarding mistreatment from both the current Israeli government and the Arab states. Being born a Palestinian refugee is being born into a relatively meaningless life where, due to income restrictions and right restrictions facing Palestinian refugees, they simply cannot leave their underprivileged lives.

You're talking about comparative ancient history because so much of consequence has happened since then. Sure, they all got along decently when the boot of the Ottoman Empire was still on everyone's neck. But after the creation of Israel and the problems of the last nearly 70 years? Heck, weren't there some significant problems in that region in the 20's and 30's before Israel was created, but as more jews were emigrating to that region? And what about the violence against/antagonism toward religious minorities throughout the entire region? Maybe it didn't exist in the days of the Ottomans, but it sure has hell is there now.

Agreed, see above.

Second, "problem" is relative. Even if we didn't see any actual violence (which I think is a pretty monstrous "if" given what we have seen for decades now), you've kind of left hanging the whole issue of religious freedom/equality under a majority Musllim government. What about that?

What does that even mean? Suppose Muslims become a majority of Israelis, with control over lawmaking, police, and the military. Because that's what you get, sooner or later, if you're the majority. Exactly what would the U.S. do at that point if the majority began restricting the religious liberties of the minority, or turned a blind eye to anti-Israel violence?

I know we've gotten into this debate before, but first, why does a Muslim majority necessitate a theocratic government?

But second, the U.S. will be at the table during negotiations, they wouldn't let a Muslim dictatorship over Jews emerge. Both for political and foreign policy reasons.

How can any piece of paper actually do that? Governments/groups/organizations rip up or just ignore that stuff all the time once they get what they want.

By that logic why do you even vote? Why do you trust the U.S. courts? That is an incredible anarchistic, cynical, viewpoint, no? I mean, outside of implying that Muslims would never vote for a Jewish candidate (false) and that Palestinians want to takeover Israel to make it a Muslim country (false, they simple don't want to be stateless anymore), I just don't see how now, all of the sudden, you put no faith in peace agreements?

I mean, maybe you don't, in which case I don't understand why we are having this conversation. I really mean this respectfully, but if you don't think a peace agreement can ever be successful because governments aren't to be trusted, than I'd imagine you wouldn't support the 1948, 1967, or 1973 peace agreements just as much as this hypothetical one.

With all of that said, Q Tip, you are making a fair point. There is a ton of ground to make-up before we can even talk about a peace agreement. And because of that I think we are over ten years away from anything meaningful. Both Palestinians and Israelis need to want peace before we can achieve it.

 

[gourimoko]

I have a real problem with that reasoning. Presumably, the bottom line should be "how well does a government treat its people, and what kind of lives do they have". Saying "well, we're going to give shitty countries a pass because they don't pretend to be anything better, therefore we're going to focus our criticism on countries that claim to be (and actually are) better" seems off to me. Human rights should matter in all countries, not just those who claim to be democracies. That has the perverve effect of actually discouraging reform, because as long as those nations don't claim to be anything better, they'll be left alone.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here?

Are you suggesting that we require all of the Middle East to be free and democratic before we ask Israel to end the Palestinian occupation?

That seems quite a bit irrational don't you think?

Mistreatment/denial of rights to one's own people also generates a governmental leadership incentive to focus discontent on some other "them", either domestically or outside the country.

Again, not sure what you're talking about here either?

Why not push for recognition of human rights and religious freedom in those other countries?

Why not push for human rights in Israel, where there is an active occupation?

I'm not sure I understand why Israel moves to the back of the line with respect to where we should want to see change; nor can I really understand how you've determined the Palestinians in Palestine must wait for Saudi Arabia to get it's act together with respect to human rights? These things seem disjointed to me.

Should those people not get the benefit of outside pressure just because their government makes no claim to being democratic?

I don't think the issue is entirely based around form of government but the nature of oppression.

Palestinians are oppressed to a measurably greater degree, a far greater degree, than the subjects and citizens of the nations you're referring to; in a general case.

The Palestinian people are universally calling for an end to the occupation; what nations are you referring to that are, near-universally, calling for an end to their present governments?

Virtually every majority Islamic country imposes some limitations on religious free expression by minorities within their country.

This is also true of Israel; but I'm not sure why this is relevant to the discussion?

Proselytization, apostasy, and blasphemy are commonly illegal.

As it is in Israel. In fact, it is in many countries. I'm not sure if you're aware, but freedom of speech and expression is not common worldwide.

There is violence against religious minorities in many countries throughout that region.

As it is in Israel and in Europe, and in Africa and in Asia....

You also have a large number of Palestinians and activists in the region specifically calling for death to the Jews, supporting/cheering the killing of Israelis, and inflamed by a the long history of Palestinian media and even some leadership spreading lies about Jews drinking the blood of Arabs, etc..

I think the bolded demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the driving forces behind the Palestinian liberation efforts, peaceful or violent.

These people are not being driven by media influences, they live and breath the occupation every day.

An entire generation -- multiple generations, even -- have been brought up to believe that stuff.

...You could not find a Palestinian that would not laugh at this statement. They are not mindless idiots that believe Jews are bathing in and actively drinking vials of Arab blood...

So if Jews become a minority within Israeli, is it not perfectly reasonable to believe the same -- or even much worse -- may eventually happen there?

You seem to be implying that Muslims are somehow inherently incapable of forming free nations, or nations that at least tolerate others.

Not only the generalized lack of rights/protection for religious minorities, but also the specific hatred and actions against Israeli jews in particular?

Q-Tip, your entire argument seems to be predicated on the correlation of Muslim attitudes towards Jews in exterior countries as a justification for the perpetuation of the occupation.

I'm not entirely sure how you've decided that views in Iran and Egypt towards Jews are both causative to the occupation as well as a justification for the continuation of the occupation.

 

[gourimoko]

@jking948 In regards to Palestinian rights, is there any reason why it seems like most of the international community turns a blind eye other than a few countries who acknowledge the lack of rights, as well as acknowledging what BDS is trying to do to?

It's not really the international community to blame; it's the United States. Much of the international community would readily support sanctions against Israel and even a permanent UN peacekeeping force if it meant and end to the occupation.

But, again, the parallels with South Africa are remarkable.

 

[Jordan]

@jking948 In regards to Palestinian rights, is there any reason why it seems like most of the international community turns a blind eye other than a few countries who acknowledge the lack of rights, as well as acknowledging what BDS is trying to do to?

I actually think Q Tip has a point about the UN Resolutions compared to what they focus on in other countries, but to me the fact that they ignore what is going on with all Muslim citizens in the Middle East - rather Palestinian, Syrian, stateless, Egyptian, etc. - is terrifying.

A good book that focuses on the reason in regards to Palestine, though, is The Israel Lobby. Basically, AIPAC puts a shit ton of money into the lobbying industries in the United States, China, and most of Europe. I'd be a little wary, though, because Mearsheimer and Walt make really extreme claims that I don't think the evidence actually suggests.

Still, I really don't know why the IC is turning a blind eye to this situation, especially in regards to refugees, where there may have been differences in South Africa. I lean to Samantha Power - at least when she stood something - who basically argued that it does not benefit international countries to support human rights throughout the world. And because there aren't direct, tangible benefits from supporting Palestinian rights in the case of Israel, most countries just turn a blind eye.

Sorry if that answer doesn't really help. To be honest, it's a complicated question with a variety of answers.

 

[LennoxLewis]

I actually think Q Tip has a point about the UN Resolutions compared to what they focus on in other countries, but to me the fact that they ignore what is going on with all Muslim citizens in the Middle East - rather Palestinian, Syrian, stateless, Egyptian, etc. - is terrifying.

A good book that focuses on the reason in regards to Palestine, though, is The Israel Lobby. Basically, AIPAC puts a shit ton of money into the lobbying industries in the United States, China, and most of Europe. I'd be a little wary, though, because Mearsheimer and Walt make really extreme claims that I don't think the evidence actually suggests.

Still, I really don't know why the IC is turning a blind eye to this situation, especially in regards to refugees, where there may have been differences in South Africa. I lean to Samantha Power - at least when she stood something - who basically argued that it does not benefit international countries to support human rights throughout the world. And because there aren't direct, tangible benefits from supporting Palestinian rights in the case of Israel, most countries just turn a blind eye.

Sorry if that answer doesn't really help. To be honest, it's a complicated question with a variety of answers.

That I can definitely agree with, my thing was, and Gouri touched on it, it seems like Qtip was trying to deflect blame off of Israel.

That's what really sucks too, because I still think that peace can still be achieved if both sides are willing to concede, but it doesn't look that way as of now.

I didn't know AIPAC funded lobbyists in other countries, has that always been the case or has it just started?

Also, I know how I and others feel about BDS and similar organizations, is it a similar feeling overseas? Like do they think it's something that could help or hurt? Often times I talk to family in Palestine and they really don't say much about it.

You answering these questions is more than enough, it did help though.

 

[GreasySpread36]

That's what really sucks too, because I still think that peace can still be achieved if both sides are willing to concede, but it doesn't look that way as of now.

I have a good friend who heads up a relief organization that brings in medical supplies for Palestinian children and also sponsors medical treatment for Palestinian children in Europe and the US. Great guy, not an extremist, has no personal dislike of Israelis or Jews as people. He has a map of Palestine on the wall of his office. It's the exact same map as that of Israel. Exact same. How do you compromise between two distinct people that claim the exact same territory, both of whom believe- justifiably- that they have a legitimate claim to the whole of that territory? I don't see how you can. That's why this is such a terrible, intractable situation.

As for the one-state solution, I think that's a recipe for catastrophe. I just don't think it's realistic for two such distinct people who share such an acrimonious history to co-exist peacefully in the same country.