The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[Jordan]

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.

Yeah, agreed.

So, yeah, AIPAC obviously doesn't fund as "AIPAC," but if you read The Israel Lobby, the same group has taken similar forms in other countries.

And all of my Palestinian colleagues are supportive of BDS... But that's from an academic standpoint. My concern with all boycott movements is does the benefit of such movement outweigh the cost. The dilemma I see with BDS is it is giving the Israeli government a claim to say they are being harmed, etc., and consequently I don't know how much is actually being accomplished. And frankly, I think that's the big concern in general.

Sure, in theory the BDS movement could be effective, but is it more effective than ground-level work? I honestly don't know. I think for people still living in Palestine this has become a cause that just doesn't result in much. I know the Syrian refugees I've spoken to are fearful that their life will become similar, if not the same as Palestinian refugees, and because of that they are very supportive of BDS.

Overall, I think BDS is useful in teaching other humans about what is going on in the region, but actually living the conflict is a totally different reality. And, because of that, I don't think BDS affects the latter group in the same way.

If it's really important to you the thing I highly recommend is calling your local representative and/or Senator. The only way American policy will change is if Palestinian human rights becomes a voting issue for Americans.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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

I didn't say that it necessitated a theocratic government. That's an extreme position I did not take. What I said was:

Virtually every majority Islamic country imposes some limitations on religious free expression by minorities within their country. Proselytization, apostasy, and blasphemy are commonly illegal.... So if Jews become a minority within Israeli, is it not perfectly reasonable to believe the same....may eventually happen there?

Now, I wouldn't say Egypt or Pakistan are theocratic states, yet as a practical matter, those rights of religious minorities are limited restricted by either law or "street justice." And it's not like that is an aberration in Muslim-majority states. As you've said, we've gone down this road before so we know that.

So given that such restrictions are more the rule than the exception, the standard shouldn't be "you can't prove with 100% certainty that it will happen". It should be "what reliable guarantees can you give that it can't." And such guarantees simply are not possible in the long-term. No agreement that can be written, no outside promises of security or enforcement, can be relied upon in anything other than the short term.

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.

What happens during negotiations is irrelevant if the result is that a Muslim majority with full voting rights is enabled. Because sooner or later, that majority -- as will any majority in a sovereign state - is going to feel perfectly free to ignore whatever promises may have been made by politicians long gone, and is going to rule their country as they believe is proper. And there is no possible reliable guarantee that we'd send in the Marines or anyone else to eliminate forcibly restrictions on religious minorities, a blind eye turned by security forces to anti-jewish violence, etc.. Far too much variation on who is in the White House, what our national policy is, what else is happening in the world, etc.

By that logic why do you even vote? Why do you trust the U.S. courts?

Ugh, this is going to be long, so I'll answer this portion and then break the rest down in a different post

First, you're mixing apples and oranges in asking me to compare the reliability of/trust in 1) a 225 five year old stable, democratic system that is fully integrated and accepted into our culture, with 2) the creation of a essentially a brand new state that would consist of two distinct population groups that have been in bloody opposition for more than half a century. In terms of a "one-state solution", I don't think there will ever have been nation formed with more built-in animus, distrust, and outright hate in history. As I said, entire generations brought up on jews drinking the blood of Arab children, and lots prejudice on the other side as well.

Heck, even with the U.S. forming as 13 happy colonies that had just gone through the shared bonding experience of a war against a common enemy (a much more promising scenario than we'd have in a single state), we still ended up a massively bloody Civil War just 8 decades later.

Second, my trust in the court system is far from complete, precisely because it is subject to political variance and the will of the majority (which is one reason why I vote, to answer your other question.). Sure, I generally trust it give the best trials/justice that can reasonably be expected in a democratic system on mundane issues. Although a lot of black Americans may not.

But on bigger, more long term political and value-based issues, such as the guarantee of rights, balance of powers, etc.? Absolutely not. Underlying understandings of the Constitution change all the time, and in fact, that's the entire logic of the "living Constitution", right? That we shouldn't be governed by the understandings of a bunch of "dead white men?" Heck, I think it's a better than even shot that the Second Amendment will no longer exist for individuals within five years.

 

[gourimoko]

I didn't say that it necessitated a theocratic government. That's an extreme position I did not take. What I said was:



Now, I wouldn't say Egypt or Pakistan are theocratic states, yet as a practical matter, those rights of religious minorities are limited restricted by either law or "street justice." And it's not like that is an aberration in Muslim-majority states. As you've said, we've gone down this road before so we know that.

So given that such restrictions are more the rule than the exception, the standard shouldn't be "you can't prove with 100% certainty that it will happen". It should be "what reliable guarantees can you give that it can't." And such guarantees simply are not possible in the long-term. No agreement that can be written, no outside promises of security or enforcement, can be relied upon in anything other than the short term.



What happens during negotiations is irrelevant if the result is that a Muslim majority with full voting rights is enabled. Because sooner or later, that majority -- as will any majority in a sovereign state - is going to feel perfectly free to ignore whatever promises may have been made by politicians long gone, and is going to rule their country as they believe is proper. And there is no possible reliable guarantee that we'd send in the Marines or anyone else do eliminate, by force, restrictions on religious minorities, a blind eye turned by security forces to anti-jewish violence, etc.. Far too much variation on who is in the White House, what our national policy is, what else is happening in the world, etc.

Q-Tip, a couple of points;

1) As @jking948 rightfully asks, and you don't seem to really answer, why are you assuming a Muslim majority would lead to worse results than a Jewish majority; theocratic or not?

2) You seem to be ignoring the already existing pre-conditions by which any negotiations would lead to the creation of any state. For example, the Israelis are already stating, without equivocation, that any Palestinian state would be de-militarized. I would assume the same standard would apply to an Israel-Palestine unified state.

I'm just not sure how you've come to the conclusion that the Jews would be doomed if the Palestinians were given the right to vote; nor do I think you've demonstrated the justification for the denial of Palestinian rights or the perpetuation of the occupation.

It would seem that, to any reasonable person, the occupation is unjust and should end as soon as possible; don't you agree?

 

[gourimoko]

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.

Because there are no examples of this ever happening right?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That is an incredible anarchistic, cynical, viewpoint, no?

Really? I think it is realistic, reasonable, and supported by history. Domestically alone, isn't history riddled with political alliances and promises that have fallen apart? Aren't there a shit-ton of international agreements that either been openly breached at some point, or breached in secret before the ink is even dry? That's the rule, and I'd seriously question is you could even find a meaningful exception.

My point is this -- countries as a whole, and people within countries, both act in accordance with their own perceived self-interest, regardless of promises they may have made at some point in the past to third parties. Any democracy, not just a Muslim majority one, will regress to its own perceived self-interest. And there really is no practical enforcement method to compel a majority to refrain from doing so.

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 think our real difference is the standard we believe Israel should apply to this issue. I am not arguing that Muslims would never vote for a Jew, or that a Muslim majority would certainly impose restrictions on religious minorities, or that we can guarantee that Muslim-majority run will turn a blind eye to anti-Jewish actions by civilians. It is entirely possible that things may turn out okay.

But I am saying that such things are reasonable possibilities that that there is no practical way to protect against. And I say "reasonable possibility" based on the repeatedly-cited events/laws that have occurred or exist in a great many other Muslim-majority nations. This is not just some concern that has been pulled from a sphincter.

I've asked this before and I don't think you've answered it -- exactly how could you guarantee the Jewish population of Israel that it would not occur? What is the infallible enforcement mechanism that could be relied upon 15-20 years down the road? Or even 5? Sure, if there was mass, organized murder of jews in the streets of Jerusalem shortly after the agreement was signed, fine. But outside of that, and further down the road...guarantees from outsiders will be absolutely worthless.

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.

I put a limited degree of faith in international agreements (do you trust Iran?) if the two parties to the agreement have a continuing critical interest in the subject matter of the agreement. Otherwise, as soon as one party perceives it would be better off without that agreement, the agreement is gone as quickly as the Nazi-Soviet pact. I don't think that is either anarchic or cynical. It is simply realistic.

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.

I completely understand your perspective, which is admirable -- you are looking for a workable solution to a terrible problem. I'll just say this:

*************************************************************

tl;dr

@jking948 : "We should try it - it may work."

Q-Tip: "But what if it doesn't?"

 

[GreasySpread36]

Because there are no examples of this ever happening right?

I was thinking more in terms of Yugoslavia and Cyprus, Gour. Not that this country's history has been all sunshine and rainbows, either. It took a hell of a lot of bloodshed and strife to create this melting pot. The deadliest, costliest war in this country's history- by far- was fought between Americans, after all.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Q-Tip, a couple of points;

1) As @jking948 rightfully asks, and you don't seem to really answer, why are you assuming a Muslim majority would lead to worse results than a Jewish majority; theocratic or not?

First, I am not assuming that any particularly thing will happen. I'm talking reasonable possibilities/justifiable fears.

Second, this subject came up in the context of Netanyahu opposing a situation where Muslims could become the voting majority, and so I am evaluating this from the perspective of an Israeli Jew deciding whether or not to grant such rights. So from the that perspective, the issue isn't whether or not a Muslim majority is likely to lead to "worse results" overall --it's how likely it is that a Muslim majority would lead to worse results for the Jews who currently have exclusive voting rights. It's the exact same self-interest argument I've been advancing with respect to Muslims.

For example, the Israelis are already stating, without equivocation, that any Palestinian state would be de-militarized.I would assume the same standard would apply to an Israel-Palestine unified state.

I wouldn't assume that at all -- I can't fathom Israel agreeing to disarm itself completely. Even if they did, police and internal security forces would still be needed. If not, then you're basically talking mob rule/vigilante justice, which wouldn't be pretty. But regardless of what the Agreement would actually say, the majority (whoever that may be) eventually will control those forces. If I were an Israeli, there is no way I'd give that up.

I'm just not sure how you've come to the conclusion that the Jews would be doomed if the Palestinians were given the right to vote;

I am saying that if the Israelis judge that to be an unjustifiable risk, I would agree with them.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Because there are no examples of this ever happening right?

Bosnia/Serbia, Sri Lanka, Sunni-Shi'ite conflict all over the ME, the English Civil War, our own Civil War, the Russian Civil War...

History is littered with political unions that either failed, or were preserved only through enormous bloodshed, and with political and/or ethnic/religious factionalism that cost a shit-ton of lives as well.

Arguing that "maybe it will work" (which I think is a real longshot anyway) isn't enough.

 

[Jordan]

@The Human Q-Tip I'll respond in awhile. Great post. I want to give it some time to think and such.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@jking948:

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.

Consider why there had to be agreements in 1967, and again in 1973, if they'd signed one in 1948.

Checkmate!

(edited to add a little dramatic license....)

 

[gourimoko]

I was thinking more in terms of Yugoslavia and Cyprus, Gour.

Oh, I know.. but not sure why the U.S. can't be mentioned in that list as well?

Nonetheless; I'm not arguing for a single-state solution, I'm arguing against the occupation.

Not that this country's history has been all sunshine and rainbows, either. It took a hell of a lot of bloodshed and strife to create this melting pot. The deadliest, costliest war in this country's history- by far- was fought between Americans, after all.

Yep.

But.. again, not sure why this would justify the continuation of the occupation?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Nonetheless; I'm not arguing for a single-state solution, I'm arguing against the occupation.

That's a big difference. I think there's a much better argument for ending the occupation than there is for a single state solution.

If a single state solution ever comes about, I think it will be after there has been a two state solution, and both sides have changed enough that it can be discussed outside the context of violence.

 

[LennoxLewis]

Yeah, agreed.

So, yeah, AIPAC obviously doesn't fund as "AIPAC," but if you read The Israel Lobby, the same group has taken similar forms in other countries.

And all of my Palestinian colleagues are supportive of BDS... But that's from an academic standpoint. My concern with all boycott movements is does the benefit of such movement outweigh the cost. The dilemma I see with BDS is it is giving the Israeli government a claim to say they are being harmed, etc., and consequently I don't know how much is actually being accomplished. And frankly, I think that's the big concern in general.

Sure, in theory the BDS movement could be effective, but is it more effective than ground-level work? I honestly don't know. I think for people still living in Palestine this has become a cause that just doesn't result in much. I know the Syrian refugees I've spoken to are fearful that their life will become similar, if not the same as Palestinian refugees, and because of that they are very supportive of BDS.

Overall, I think BDS is useful in teaching other humans about what is going on in the region, but actually living the conflict is a totally different reality. And, because of that, I don't think BDS affects the latter group in the same way.

If it's really important to you the thing I highly recommend is calling your local representative and/or Senator. The only way American policy will change is if Palestinian human rights becomes a voting issue for Americans.

I agree with that somewhat, they can try to say it's harmful to them. But doesn't them acknowledging it and letting it be known it bothers them a good step towards trying to get to a solution, similarly to South Africa? The EU I thought took a big step when it began labeling goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements as such.

I definitely agree that ground level work could be a lot more impactful, but with the way the Israelis limits travel via checkpoints, wouldn't it be more difficult? When my sisters went for the 1st time, they said that was probably one of the worst things about going, travel was too difficult, and much worse for those living there.

 

[gourimoko]

That's a big difference. I think there's a much better argument for ending the occupation than there is for a single state solution.

If a single state solution ever comes about, I think it will be after there has been a two state solution, and both sides have changed enough that it can be discussed outside the context of violence.

You may not realize this, but I was actually in the process of writing a post arguing against the single-state solution (a response to @jking948 's earlier post about the two state solution)..

Once I saw you response, though, I couldn't help myself....

But seriously, I don't pretend that a single-state solution would be ideal; I'm simply acknowledging the fact that it seems quite evident that the government of Israel is making any other potential solution impossible.

The continuation of expansion of the de facto Israeli border with settlements and security outposts, and the continued acquisition of land whether formally annexed or not essentially destroys any viability that might exist for a proposed Palestinian state.

Furthermore, the Israeli "immigration" policy, and well as the institutionally racist policies of it's government towards Arabs and Muslims create an intolerable situation - but a situation that, without the persistence of those laws, would very likely lead to the dissolution of a Zionist political majority; which is this death knell that Netanyahu is actually referring to.

Because without those laws in place; and with the creation of a functional Palestinian state; you would still see Palestinians returning to Israel.

So without laws in place that attempt to control 6 million Arabs immediately under Israeli control, whether by erecting virtual borders, occupation, discrimination, second class citizenship; then the concept of a Jewish State will cease to exist.

The problem is that Netanyahu and many other militant Zionists use the fear of a second holocaust to conflate and confuse issues relating to the occupation with the supposed imminent threat of death and destruction for all Jews in Israel...

So rather than even considering a secular free state; we're forced, by default, to accept the notion of a Jewish state that has an extremely large Arab "minority;" and we're also forced to accept any law, however unjust, that will maintain that "minority" status.

Because how much of a majority truly exists between 6 million Jews and 6 million Arabs; especially if you consider where immigration is almost assuredly going to come from if the law was remotely fair? Hell, even if you take immigration off the table, the birth rate (and death rate) of Arabs as compared to Israelis poses a significant risk in itself to this supposed "majority."

And that's where the crux of the problem lies... and that's why discussing a single vs two-state solution kind of misses the point. This is really one small area of land that we're discussing, not a large massive region that is easily partitioned into two even slices with equal resources and opportunity for growth.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

But seriously, I don't pretend that a single-state solution would be ideal; I'm simply acknowledging the fact that it seems quite evident that the government of Israel is making any other potential solution impossible.

I'd say that they know a single state solution will not happen, and that therefore, their attempts to make an "other" solution impossible is instead an attempt to make any solution period possible. The only other explanation is that they will use the additional settlements as eventual leverage/givebacks to get the most favorable two-state solution they can.

That may be how this is eventually resolved, albeit under a different government.