Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

BDS binational bros might get their wish - support for annexing Judea & Samaria and offering residency or citizenship to all ppl living there is picking up. I've being seening op-eds about it, and it seems like everyone I know irl is coming around to the idea as well.

Hard to imagine that working as long as anti-Arab racism is only increasing in Israel.

Wouldn't the demographics mean Israel would turn into a majority arab country real soon?

No, only 4 million Arabs in Israel + West Bank. 6 million Jews. And, as I understand it, demographics are trending even more in that direction.

Noticed you didn't say Gaza

Gaza has an elected government, a military, has already been abandoned by Israel etc. I think Gaza + Jordan should fill the need for Palestinian nationalism if such a thing is really needed.

what about Jewish nationalism

Israel, obvs

Right, but I mean a binational Israel that's 40% Arab, while also being a Jewish state, just seems kind of hard to figure out how that would work.

I imagine that the vast majority of new residents would opt to stay as residents and not apply for citizenship (only 10% of Arabs in East Jerusalem have accepted the citizenship offer from Israel). But even if they won't become citizens bc they're holding out for West Bank Palestinian State (in which case an annexation might mean that they give up and just become citizens of Israel), they'll still be a minority and Israel will still have a Magen Dovid on its flag and shekels as its currency, etc. Tbh I'm not too worried about Arab citizens politically overthrowing Israel through overwhelming voting.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10303382_10204720960165258_941487657043795359_n.jpg?oh=d85a0cfd3c421a2d636006aff783d79e&oe=5519C434&__gda__=1423823115_865094c47a2f310f7311a99741f9d477

Larousse French dictionary from 1939

even Haaretz is pushing this idea now!

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.627586

Instead of futilely seeking to stop the application of Israeli law in the settlements, Palestinians should demand that Israeli civil law is extended to cover them too. This will inevitably be regarded as a setback by Palestinians, who are seeking greater national sovereignty, not less. But the reality is that there is next to no chance that these national aspirations can or will be fulfilled in the foreseeable future. Under such circumstances, priority must shift to human well-being.

So doing would protect Palestinians against the iron fist of military rule, shielding them from arbitrary arrests, evictions and home demolitions. The application of Israeli law would also enable them to move freely within the West Bank, accessing those roads which are currently for Israelis only, and challenge the unfair military permit system which bars them from entering Jerusalem and Israel.

Gazans, who still effectively live under Israeli occupation, could also embark on a similar process. This may sound outlandish, especially to Israelis, but there’s precedent: Prior to the Oslo accords, Gaza and the West Bank were administered in the same way. And since the peace process died years ago and even the life-support system to which it was hooked up has now given up the ghost too, it’s time to drop this masquerade and self-deception and abandon Oslo for a civil-rights platform.

In addition, the Palestinians of the West Bank should demand the right to live in the settlements – just as some Jerusalemite Palestinians already do, in settlements that allow it, such as Pisgat Ze’ev, despite discrimination and local efforts to block them. Under such circumstances, the Palestinian urban areas, known as Area A, should also be open to Israeli Jews to be able to live there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/11243168/Blaming-Israel-for-Palestinian-violence-is-racist-it-denies-that-Arabs-are-moral-agents.html

The idea that good/innocent/authentic Palestinians are in a Manichean struggle against bad/guilty/inauthentic Israelis is part of a mind-set - a "theory" of sorts - that became dominant on much of the Left after the 1960s. Let’s call it reactionary anti-imperialism. It divides the world, and everything in it, into two opposed “camps”: Imperialism versus Anti-Imperialism. Anyone shooting at Imperialism (the USA, the UK, Israel, "the West", "the Global North", or just "the Man") is now part of the progressive anti-imperialist “resistance” to imperialism. Once in thrall to this ‘theory’, parts of the left redefined themselves as (not very) critical supporters of, or at least apologists for, the reactionary forces doing the shooting, including radical Islamists.

Here is the Socialist Workers Party theoretician John Molyneux instructing the members in the finer points of reactionary anti-imperialism:

"To put the matter as starkly as possible: from the standpoint of Marxism and international socialism an illiterate conservative superstitious Muslim Palestinian peasant who supports Hamas is more progressive than an educated liberal atheist Israeli who supports Zionism (even critically)."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-expanding-into-north-africa-a-1003525.html

"Darna has become a colony of terror, and it is the first Islamic State enclave in North Africa. The conditions in Libya are perfect for the radical Islamists: a disintegrating state, a location that is strategically well situated and home to the largest oil reserves on the continent. Should Islamic State (IS) manage to establish control over a significant portion of Libya, it could trigger the destabilization of the entire Arab world"

Those are some deeply stupid articles.

The Socialist Workers Party is not worth writing about, they are a minority of cranks.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/andrew-roberts-from-an-era-of-refugee-millions-only-palestinians-remain-1416613759

For all sorts of reasons, ethnic groups were either forcibly or voluntarily moved during that troubled period, and usually in far worse circumstances and for far longer distances than the Palestinians. There were no fewer than 20 different groups—including the Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus of the Punjab, the Crimean Tatars, the Japanese and Korean Kuril and Sakhalin Islanders, the Soviet Chechens, Ingush and Balkars—many in the tens or even hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who were displaced and taken to different regions.

Yet all of these refugee groups, except one, chose to try to make the best of their new environments. Most have succeeded, and some, such as the refugees who reached America in that decade, have done so triumphantly. The sole exception has been the Palestinians, who made the choice to embrace fanatical irredentism and launch two intifadas—and perhaps now a third—resulting in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.

I like to pick political opinions that I think are greatly supported by the facts and history (and the heuristics of general expert consensus in issues like climate change where I don't have the expertise to evaluate more complicated scientific truth claims). From reading their arguments, I feel like the anti-Zionist left has become a lot like the tea party and other such reactionary forces. They don't seem to deal with the very extensive and serious arguments that disavow their narratives about the I/P conflict, and when they make a good point it is because they've concentrated on spurious claims to disprove. Like obv until Bennett becomes PM and annexes the West Bank, the WB is under occupation. People who say otherwise aren't even trying to make a valid political argument bc they're disagreeing w/ the Israeli government itself. So why try to argue with them? Maybe bc that's really the only argument this week that Haaretz feels it can get away with. The 'occupation explains terrorism' argument is a total loser, not just bc the horror of the Har Nof event but bc of broader issues in the Arab world. I feel like when I bring it up to ppl who are otherwise sophisticated thinkers on a wide array of subjects, they start in with ad hominems and historical prophesying (about how history isn't behind my POV) and don't really actually respond to anything tangible. Like ppl who feed dump all the Israeli crimes against Palestinians bc they're obv looking to make a pathos argument to avoid any kind of logical argument asking me "are you okay with killing children?"

I think one particularly dramatic example is a friend who, in response to the Jordan government having a moment of silence for this week's murderers, and the PM sending condolences to their family, and sweets being handed out in the WB and Gaza, and Hamas supporting the murder of innocent Rabbis, mentioned Baruch Goldstein's massacre in Hebron. Of course, though, he did not mention Rabin's famous response to Baruch Goldstein:

You are not part of the community of Israel... You are not part of the national democratic camp which we all belong to in this house, and many of the people despise you. You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law... We say to this horrible man and those like him: you are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism.[7]

And when I pointed it out he moved on to argue about other bad things the Israeli government has done. But why not take a moment and be honest about real differences being laid out in the ways certain governments and maybe even religions and political movements have been established? Who does he think he's going to convince with this argument that anti-semitism doesn't permeate these communities? Only people completely enthrall to the narrative and willing to ignore article after article asserting otherwise.

Wouldn't the demographics mean Israel would turn into a majority arab country real soon?

Palestinians Arabs have gone through the demographic transition. Charedi, and to a lesser extent, other right wing Israeli Jews, have not. I suspect moderate/secularist Jews find the Charedi a greater threat to the future of Israel than the Arab neighbors.

Israeli women do it by the numbers

There is also evidence that fertility rates correlate not just with religious intensity but also with nationalism. Right-wing Israeli women, even secular ones, have large families. On the West Bank, where many but by no means all the Jewish population is religious, settlers as a whole have on average no fewer than five children, while West Bank Palestinians have now only three. Charedi women on the West Bank are estimated to have no fewer than 7.7 children on average, a whole child more than Charedi women within Israel proper.

Muslim Israeli women still have around three and a half children, a whole child less than they did ten years ago, while Arab Christian and Druze women have a fertility rate of a little above two, almost a whole child less than their Jewish peers.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iranian-team-openly-working-on-bomb-in-negotiating,37529/

https://mikereport.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/fergusonpalestine3.jpg?w=1240

what can't they blame on the jews

who would ever have thought to blame Israel for occupation?

Wrong thread, dudes.

Israel /= Jews we've been over this

thought about posting the pic in the brown thread but ppl are upset enough w/out having to deal w these opportunistic assholes

You are not doing yourself any favours on this thread, Mordy, by one minute quoting some nonentity from the Socialist Workers Party and the next Andrew Roberts.

the andrew roberts piece is almost verbatim a speech I heard by an Israeli government spokesperson

idk who Andrew Roberts is

Oh the wsj piece

You claim it's anti-semitism, and there is a thread for anti-semitism. Which isn't spammed by posts about how awful Israel behaves.

"He (Andrew Roberts) believes that history will judge George W. Bush a success."

Still otm - only permanent refugee group

Actually, I'll just post the whole paragraph, it's good for laffs:

"He has defended the use of waterboarding by the C.I.A., writing that "sometimes the defense of liberty requires making some pretty unpalatable decisions". He has said that the Iraq War is being fought by the English-speaking peoples as "an existential war for the survival of their way of life" and that "this struggle against Islamofascism is the fourth world war" [the Cold War being the third world war] in which "the English-speaking peoples find themselves in the forefront of protecting civilization",[9] just as they were against the Nazis. He believes that history will judge George W. Bush a success."

I do like that aimless thinks ferguson is an appropriate opportunity to talk about palestine. Why not?

xp what about Armenians, or Tibetans in exile? Not to mention that I wouldn't exactly cite chechens or ex-kashmiris as groups that have just completely gotten on with their lives and avoided conflict

If your comment under the pic were that it was an inappropriate venue, I'd have agreed with you, Mordy. You chose a different comment altogether.

Altogether

I think to not beat around it, no one is "blaming the Jews" for Ferguson in that pic. You can say it's "opportunistic" if you like but it's pretty common to see activists trying to link one conflict to another in an attempt to create some kind of unified movement.

To clarify, it's called making an analogy.

I've seen numerous articles insinuating that the IDF is indirectly and even directly involved in the training of Ferguson PD.

Isn't it really really weird for jews to point fingers at other people for not accepting exile?

But point taken it could be these ppl were just being opportunistic and inappropriate and not openly suggesting Israel is responsible for US injustices

Sorry if the wording of that is offensive, btw.

Still otm - only permanent refugee group

Unique circumstances prevailing, don't you think? But anyway...

Kenya's Permanent Refugees: The Camps that Became Cities

I don't have the research at hand - but I doubt Andrew Roberts has either, he tends to be only interested in peoples who can speak English - but I'm sure there are other groups of permanent refugees scattered in less newsworthy parts of the globe.

Isn't it really really weird for jews to point fingers at other people for not accepting exile?

― Frederik B, Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:32 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, tbf, no. Most Jews continue to live outside of Israel, have been stateless for thousands of years.

numerous articles insinuating that the IDF is indirectly and even directly involved in the training of Ferguson PD

seriously dunno where you get this shit. Somehow I have managed to read absolutely zero articles arguing this.

But I think it's a stupid argument anyway: "you got kicked off your land, deal with it" is basically what it boils down to.

Andrew Roberts is the guy who gave a keynote speech at a meeting of a group that openly bills itself as South Africa's "white government in exile" and then claimed he didn't realise it was a racist organisation.

idk Fred we made a go of it in many countries for about 2,000 years until some Jews decided living in exile was no longer an option. The reason pals are different is that Arab countries have explicitly resisted resettling these refugees and also the unique existence of UNRWA. Sorry terse but typing on zing from traffic light