A Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim state cannot be a democracy. Those who do not belong to the religion on which the state is based are second-class citizens. Israel can either be a Jewish state or a democracy. It cannot be both. That is the reality that must be faced if there is to be peace.

No matter how it is ground up, the Palestinians want a state based on
Jerusalem with no Jews, from the sea to the river.
Israel's existence is not acceptable.
That is the minimum stipulation.
So how do you negotiate that ?

architects of their own destruction
What else is new ?

Possibly, all inhabitants in the area could replace religion by reason.

Yup!
Alan B.

This is song, is not for pre-school children hyped up on red food colouring, but for all Chinese citizens and promoted by the Chinese state media, aka the Chinese Communist Party:

“China has produced a Big Daddy Xi,
No tiger is too big for him to fight.
He fears neither heaven nor earth,
Dreamers all look to him!
China also has Mama Peng,
Gift her flowers beautiful and fresh.
Protect her, and bless her,
Rise up family, rise up country, rise
up Chinese empire.”

Read that - I don’t recommend trying to sing it - and still tell yourself that we should be dealing with people who put out such crapola.

Wrong thread. That's what such rubbish does to your concentration.

Alon's articles can make us cry - but what else can we do?

---

Dear David,

«Israel can either be a Jewish state or a democracy. It cannot be both. That is the reality that must be faced if there is to be peace.»

Israel CAN be both - all it needs is to shrink a bit in area so that everyone in that region can live within a state they are happy with, which suits their lifestyle.

Democracy is a compromise, an attempt at mitigation and keeping the peace when you must live with people of a very different lifestyle. Far better than this is to avoid such situations to begin with, to live separately and independently so nobody needs to control others who are too different - do this and the particular internal system of governance within each independent region will hardly matter any more, whether democratic or otherwise.

«Possibly, all inhabitants in the area could replace religion by reason.»

Yes, and a very good reason to sacrifice that which is most dear to you: it would make old David so happy...

Dear Yuyutsu,

Making old David happy is a worthy deed.

One State and a civil rights struggle for the Palestinians could see gains for both camps. Israel needs a monopoly on the state security apparatus as a matter of survival. But the walls must come down. The expropriation of land must stop. Those whose land has been confiscated must have it returned or be compensated. There must be a statement from Israel that it accepts wrongs were committed with the original 'Nakba'. But full justice for all Palestinian refugees would put Israel in an untenable situation. The best Israel can afford is recognition, compensation and repatriation of a capped number every year. (maybe 15,000) Palestinians must also have fair access to water. In the end there must be full freedom of movement within a 'One State' which is home both the the Israeli and Palestinian nations. This comes with risks of 'lone wolf' Terror attacks ; but promotes reconciliation over the longer term ; hence perhaps is worth it.

Dear Tristan,

Israel does not owe the "Palestinians" anything.
They attacked, several times, ruthlessly, causing many casualties, but they lost and that's it. Had they won, no Israeli would be left alive, not even children.
Whereas those "Palestinians" who accepted Israel's existence and been peaceful, are now full Israeli citizens, comprising 20% of Israel's population. If they miss any rights or are treated unequally then this must undoubtedly be corrected, yet it has nothing to do with Israel's external (and perhaps eternal) enemies.

The reason, and the only valid reason, why Israel must leave all the territories it occupied in 1967, is that holding onto these cursed territories corrupts it from within. This is an internal Israeli matter which has nothing to do with the so-called "Palestinians".

This foolish idea of "One State", even if it would not have ruined Israel's security, would still ruin its culture and no Israeli should accept this. The people of Israel bought their land, settled and built it, in order to live there within their unique culture, language and calendar. We know that there are those, including within this forum, who are eager for such "One State", not because they like/support the "Palestinians", but because they so much hate Israel's culture, especially its religion.

If you believe that some of Israel's territory was not rightly earned, with money and/or with blood and sweat, that these "Palestinians" presumably have valid claims over parts of the land (beyond the lands of those peaceful "Palestinians" who already live there as Israeli citizens; and beyond the territories occupied in 1967), then please bring forward your precise claims so the exact area of the state of Israel can be negotiated, but never its essence and integrity.

I don't 'hate' Israel's culture or religion. I consider myself a left-wing supporter of progressive Zionism - in the tradition of Judah Magnes.

I think it's a concern where right-wing forces are dominating Zionist discourse. It was not always like this and does not have to be like this.

The only acceptable solution for the Palestinians is for all Jews to
leave Moslem lands. These lands include all land conquered by moslems.
Israel was invaded and conquered in the 8th century by Islam.
The Koran states that land conquered by moslems remains moslem land
even if later they are ejected from that land.
These lands include Greece, Serbia, Hungary Slovenia and part of Austria, Spain and Sicily.
I know you think I am being silly, if so you really do need to research
it all. They have never accepted being ejected from Al-Andalus.

Dear Tristan,

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I am neither progressive nor Zionist - I just believe that every group of people, small or large, who shares a distinct way of life, ought to be able to live independently on some piece of land (provided of course that they do not harass their neighbours). That piece of land is not a goal in itself, but only the means through which they are free and able to carry on their unique lifestyle.

As for the "right-wing forces are dominating Zionist discourse", may I remind you that it was a socialist-Left Israeli government which conquered and decided to remain in the 1967 occupied territories, then to allow and support the Jewish settlements.

I'm aware left wing Zionists were involved in the original dispossession. Still it took Rabin to offer the only real chance we've had of peace. (Labour) If you want to know my sympathies look up Judah Mages and Ihud.

It still would be better if religion were replaced by reason. All parties involved hold their religion dear. However, what they hold dear is really crap.

Sorry I mean Judah Magnes.

Dear Tristan Ewins,

I looked up Judah Magnes. His promotion of one state with both Jews and Arabs having equal status sounds most fair. As it is Israelis must have clerical approval for marriage, there is no public school system where children of different ethnic and religious backgrounds learn and grow up together, one Jewish sect is in control and there is no separation of religion and state as there would be if Israel really were a democracy rather than calling itself one.

Thank you for informing me of Judah Magnes. He was another voice of reason calling in the wilderness.

Dear David,

«All parties involved hold their religion dear.»

I wish that was true.
In reality, what they hold dear is their nationalism, whereas for religion they only pay a lip service.
Netanyahu and his gang are anything but religious Jews - of the bible, they only recognise and care for the book of Joshua (wherein are described the ancient conquests of the Israelites)!

«However, what they hold dear is really crap.»

... which again, is NOT religion.

Truly religious people who hold dear the eternal good of their souls above the crappy temporal good of their bodies and prestige are to be commended (but that is not the case in the Middle-East).

«one Jewish sect is in control and there is no separation of religion and state as there would be if Israel really were a democracy rather than calling itself one.»

Yes, but you misidentify the primary problem, which is that different groups of people, with little between them and their values, are forced to live together as one state.

Orthodox Jews should be able to live in their exclusive state, so do reform Jews, so do Arabs/Muslims, etc. The problem you describe occurs because one of the parties assumes a disproportionately larger part of the land. As for democracy, that is only a secondary issue: once each group is allowed to live independently on their own piece of land, small as it may be, the question of how they manage their internal affairs among them should not be of much concern to others.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "Yes, but you misidentify the primary problem, which is that different groups of people, with little between them and their values, are forced to live together as one state."

I misidentify nothing. In a civilized democratic society people with different identities learn to get along with other people who have different values and get along in one state. I disagree profoundly with you, but I am sure that if we had to live in close quarters with each other we could get along.

One problem in Israel is that it puts up obstacles between people. Why should two individuals who wish to get married have to get the approval of clergy? Why shouldn't children of different backgrounds go to school together?

I don't believe that humans are so narrow and prejudiced that they can't get along with other humans if the barriers set up by religious and other crap are removed.

Reconciliation is important. But it takes time. In 'One State' there ought be equality except in the composition of the armed forces. Israel needs security guarantees before it makes the big compromises I'm suggesting. Without this we'd be more likely to get another civil war instead of reconciliation. In the meantime the Palestinians need to wage a civil rights struggle for equality in other respects. The Left should support the Palestinians in this ; but not the destruction of Israel.

It has to be accepted that there is no solution.
The Palestinians do not accept that there is a place for the Jews
anywhere in the Middle East.
They refuse to accept that even if they were given all of the land
from the river to the sea that any Jews could be in that area.
Their President Abbas accepts that if he agreed to any sharing
arrangement it would be signing his death warrant.

That is all there is to it. Any solution has to meet that criteria.
I don't know how many times they have to say that before its meaning sinks in.

Dear David,

«In a civilized democratic society people with different identities learn to get along with other people who have different values and get along in one state.»

Have you seen this beach-game, where they tie up people's legs in pairs, then make them clumsily race on the sand? This requires coordination but is certainly possible and is OK as a fun competition (though not during a pandemic), but is this a way to live constantly?

A very practical example, is the choice of calendar: when is the work-week, when is the weekend and when are public holidays. For an observant Christian, it is important to be able to attend mass on Sundays, for a Muslim it is important to attend mosque on Fridays and for an orthodox Jew, to be assured that they are never required to work on the Sabbath (Friday evening to Saturday night), nor to attend court (say as a witness) and the like.

You could of course have a 3-day weekend, but most countries cannot afford it.

I understand that you consider this "crap", but are you and the democratic tradition willing to accommodate people with other sets of values than yourself, for whom these things are what they live and die for?

My view is indeed profoundly different than yours: I say, let everybody live freely in the state, however small, where they are comfortable and agree with that state's outlines.

«One problem in Israel is that it puts up obstacles between people. Why should two individuals who wish to get married have to get the approval of clergy?»

A problem indeed and I definitely disapprove of that disgraceful requirement.

But to place this in proportion, are you aware of how many stupid Australian laws I also disapprove of, which also place so many obstacles in our lives?

«Why shouldn't children of different backgrounds go to school together?»

They certainly should be able to go to school together if that is what they wish.
They should also be able to go to separate schools if that is what they wish, whatever be their reasons.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I see no point in continuing this discussion. Neither of us is going to form a nation state, and neither of us is going to convince the other of the rightness of our view. Disagree in good health.

David F and Yusutsu, the views of either of you are irrelevant.
Those views are unacceptable. That is it no room for compromise.
Either the Jews leave the Middle East or there will be war.

Israel's been around for over 70 years and has the most powerful military in the region. I don't think it's going anywhere. There should be pressure to compromise with the Palestinians ; but not such to endanger Israel's existence. There would not be one secular democratic Palestine including Jews ; there would be ethnic cleansing. For those Palestinians who are not of the mindset of Hamas and so on there needs to be recognition and a measure of justice. Land confiscation is just as bad when exercised against the Palestinians. But hatred takes a long time to dilute and overcome. On both sides. The way forward is One State with equal citizenship in every area except the armed forces ; which is an insurance policy if things go wrong.

Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable. (3:85)
Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran. (8:12)
Do not hope for peace with the infidels - behead them when you catch them. (47:4)

And so on and on.
Ask a moslim does he believe in these verses and he will not deny them.
There is another verse more relevant.
It states that land once occupied by moslems remains Islamic land even
if they are later expelled by the original holders from that land.
It is this verse that authorises their claim to all the land in the
Middle East. You can see this in operation as Turkey is claiming
Cyprus and Islam claims all of Spain, Cicily, Serbia, Bulgaria etc
which is why some of those people are known as "Slavs".

This is real in the eyes of modern day Islamists and Turkey for one is
making moves along that path.

Ask a Muslim? Bazz, how many Muslims have you asked? How many Muslims have you been in contact with? Some Muslims have made inflammatory statements, and some have committed inflammatory acts. However, I don't believe they represent all Muslims any more than I believe Hitler represented all Christians.

They have been asked many times David. It always results in a waffling
answer. Oh well that was history, but they will never deny those verses.
I have seen interviews where those matters are raised.
It is blasphemy to deny any part of the Koran.
People have died for that.
Sure while they are a minority those type of verses do not get pushed.
It is real however and does drive the religious cleansing in some parts
of the world today, countries like Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Nigeria.

Dear Bazz,

Verses from the New Testament have been used to justify Jew hatred. Hitler said he was doing the work of the church, and many Christians agreed with him. A lot didn't. In Israel there is a memorial to those who, at the risk of their own lives, saved Jews from the Nazis. There are both Muslims and Christians remembered there. From my reading of history Christians have been more intolerant than members of any other religion. However, I certainly would not condemn all Christians.

However, no other country in the last century has been as murderous to those of another religion as Christian Nazi Germany. At the Evian Conference most Christian countries would not agree to take in refugees from German persecution of the Jews.

https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2017/08/13/ranking-countries-by-their-blasphemy-laws is about ranking countries by their blasphemy laws.

71 countries have laws against blasphemy. Some are Muslim like Pakistan and Egypt. Others are Christian like Italy. Historically the record of Christianity when it comes to persecution is far worse than that of Islam. Islam recognizes people of the book, namely Jews and Christians. There is nothing corresponding in Christianity.

Dear Bazz,

«Those views are unacceptable. That is it no room for compromise.
Either the Jews leave the Middle East or there will be war.»

What has my views to do with compromise?

The reason why Israel must withdraw from the cursed territories that it took in 1967 is in order to save itself from itself, not in order to have some compromise with those silly so-called "Palestinians", which as you state, may well never happen.

It is likely for wars to continue in the Middle East, so what? The Arabs will again attack Israel and again be defeated, again attack and again be defeated, who knows how many times and over how many centuries?

But if Israel continues on its path of corruption, on which it embarked in 1967, then it will disintegrate on its own, then Jews will leave it on their own without a single Palestinian shot.

Israel has won all its wars because it was morally superior to the Arabs that attacked it. Not a high bar I must say, but should Israel continue to deteriorate morally and fall even beneath that low bar, to become less moral than its attacking Arabs, then indeed it would deserve to lose everything and indeed it would. I adamantly want to prevent this, I adamantly want Israel to come back to its lost senses because I want my family in Israel to live and prosper.

Israel believes their people were ejected from Israel first by
Neberkaneza, then the Romans then the Arabs and they just want a place
of their own.
Everywhere else is not where they come from except after a long stay.
The Arabs are the occupiers, the whole UN advocacy is inverted.
Compromise seems to be the desire of the unrealistic supporters.

Yuyutsu "Israel has won all its wars because it was morally superior to the Arabs that attacked it."

Huh?

Dear David,

«Huh?»

They call it, "a race to the bottom", the Arabs won that race, not by much apparently.

Dear Yuyutsu,

If morality determined the outcome of armed conflict there would be no European settlements in North America, South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

Dear David,

The colonial Europeans did not know any better.
They had no better examples to follow, the whole human existence was so brutal at the time (including the brutality of those they conquered, such as the Mayans and the Zulu).
It probably never occurred to them that the natives were human and had feelings.
Without discerning, they were closer to animals, not only in their colonial conquests but also in their whole way of life, as we read of their period by Dickens and others.
(yes, they were individual exceptions, but they were far between and had no influence)

It would be silly to call lions and crocodiles "immoral" for the way they treat their "food". In the animal kingdom, animal law applies.

But Jews were learned, highly educated.
They studied and discussed morality for millennia.
And after going through all the pogroms and the holocaust, it would be inconceivable for them to not be aware that others also feel pain.
From them, who also call themselves "light unto the nations", I would expect much higher standards, human rather than animal standards.
And a higher law applies to them too, not the law of the jungle but a moral law, according to which nobody will allow themselves to succeed who knowingly does the wrong thing.
Animals are not affected by guilt-feelings, but guilt jeopardizes all human efforts.

Yuyutsu wrote:

“The colonial Europeans did not know any better.”

That is nonsense. Morality didn’t originate recently. Sumer existed between 4500 and 1900 BCE. They had an extensive morality.

https://hubpages.com/education/Sumerian-Values-and-Morals-in-Ancient-times

During European imperialism there were Europeans quite conscious of the arrogance and evil of going into a place where other people are living and oppressing them.

Some Europeans recognised the humanity of the native peoples and knew their treatment was wrong. However, other Europeans motivated by greed and intolerant Christianity ignored those Europeans who recognised the evil.

Two Europeans who opposed the evils are:

The Spaniard Bartolomé_de_las_Casas (c. 1484 – 18 July 1566)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas

“Bartolomé de las Casas spent 50 years of his life actively fighting slavery and the colonial abuse of indigenous peoples, especially by trying to convince the Spanish court to adopt a more humane policy of colonization. Unlike some other priests who sought to destroy the indigenous peoples' native books and writings, he strictly opposed this action. Although he failed to save the indigenous peoples of the Western Indies, his efforts did result in improvement of the legal status of the natives, and in an increased colonial focus on the ethics of colonialism. Las Casas is often considered to be one of the first advocates for a universal conception of human dignity (later human rights).”

The Englishman Roger Williams (c. 21 December 1603 – between 27 January and 15 March 1683)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams

“He was a staunch advocate for religious freedom, separation of church and state, and fair dealings with American Indians, and he was one of the first abolitionists.”

Williams was expelled by the Puritan leaders from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for spreading "new and dangerous ideas", and he established the Providence Plantations in 1636 as a refuge offering what he called "liberty of conscience". … He studied the Indian languages and wrote the first book on the Narragansett language, and he organized the first attempt to prohibit slavery in any of England's North American colonies.”

Wars are not decided by the morality of the combatants. Christians may rise above the intolerance of their religion.

Dear David,

You provided nice examples of two outstanding individuals who went against the tide and formed the budding movement for human rights.

But how many of their contemporaries actually heard of them and of those, how many took them seriously? Perhaps they only heard about them in the context of jokes, like "heard about this weirdo lunatic who claims that we should not have slaves, like the mutant lion who tries to make his family eat grass"...

These two were not the decision makers.

On the other hand you have the leaders of Herut, which transformed into today's ruling Likud party headed by Netanyahu. They were not ignorant. While they believed that the whole of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, they also believed that the local Arabs should have full rights there.

From Beitar's anthem, http://www.hebrewsongs.com/song-shirbetar.htm :

"With blood and sweat
Shall arise a race
Proud generous and cruel"

They actually believed in generosity towards the local Arabs, but only pride and cruelty remained - Where is this generosity today?

Even the militant revisionist hymn "Shtei Gadot Layarden" ("the Jordan river has two banks, this is ours, the other as well") has as its third verse:

"There will saturate with prosperity and delight,
The son of Arab, the son of Nazareth (=Christian) and my son,
for my flag being a flag of purity and honesty,
shall purify both banks of my Jordan."

My point is, they knew very well of morals, they professed to have them, but they lost them, especially following the 1967 war. Menachem Begin still held these morals, but Netanyahu is a lost cause.

Animals are subject to animal-kingdom laws, but those who have human intelligence yet CHOOSE to behave LIKE animals are of a different category and animal-kingdom laws shall not absolve them.

Wars between animals are not decided by the morality of the combatants, but different laws apply for humans who know better.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I note your comments.