Israel in Major Crisis:

Discussion in 'International News' started by Rostam, Oct 9, 2006.

  1. Shah

    Shah New Member

    But, please tell me how does this detract from the good things Israel does. What is this REAL treatment of Arabs in Israel? Does one article take away from the facts that there a good number of Israeli Arabs integrated into Israeli society. Yes, a lot of their areas need more state funding, their are certain real estate laws that should be changed.

    But earlier, you said that Arabs don't have equal political rights. Your goalpost for meeting that standard was that an Arab won't become president. But that is not what equal political rights means. It means being able to organize, rally, vote, and state your cause. Israeli Arabs have all those things.

    Israeli Arabs have served in parliament for Likud (though those were Druze), Labour (druze and muslim arab), Meretz/Yahad (an Israeli arab woman). There is an interview with that woman, I believe her name was huseniya jabara or something like that, she said that when she served in the Knesset she felt fully Israeli. Why? Because only because of Israeli cultural standard was she being treated as equal. The culture of the Arab nationalists is one that marginalizes women.

    I have given an example of what equal political rights is, and what it is not (my syrian hypothetical). So please retract your remarks that Arabs don't have equal political rights. I am not out hear saying everything is perfect or that the Arab sector needs more societal acceptance. But politically, Israel has done a lot and has set a higher standard of tolerance than anywhere else in the region. The truth hurts I guess, because you keep moving the goalposts.
     
  2. Metrogo

    Metrogo Member

    Apr 6, 1999
    Washington Hghts NY
    Damn Valanjak, you got served on this thread. You set back your cause big time. You should let others speak for your side.
     
  3. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Ultimately, every system has means within it to preserve itself. One of the important questions that arises is whether the definition a system gives is one that is consistent with the natural, indigineous, socio-political culture of a country and its people or not? If it is not, then such systems ultimately are not free, democratic, indeed are despotic.

    In the case of Israel, the idea of building a "Jewish state" in Palestine (when at the time Palestine was overwhelmingly NOT Jewish), meant finding ways to change the ethnic make up Palestine and coerce this definition on it, doing so not by 'converting' the people there previously but by moving them out and bringing another people in to take their place. Even after this project accomplished its goals for parts of Palestine, it still explicitly left out a significant proportion of the population of Palestine who were not Jews (both in Israel proper as well as of course in the remaining parts of the occupied territories in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem). The greater the number of people who don't fit the 'defnition' a state gives to itself, the greater the number of people who are being discriminated against.

    In the case of Iran, the definition of the country since the revolution was based on the factors that united the greatest number of Iranians, although that definition still does leave out significant groups. The most signficant group in Iran that is essentially discriminated against by the definition Iran adopted after the revolution are the class of people I would call "Westernized Iranians". While there are also small number of non Moslem Iranians also don't fit the definition given to the state, as well as sunni Moslems, their rights are sufficiently protected given the fact that they constitute a relatively small minority. Westernized Iranians are a larger group and while they continue to enjoy economic and other privileges, nonetheless the system in Iran needs to come up with a more efficient way to adequately protect them as well, doing so without undermining Iran's objective of creating an indigineous and competing culture or subjecting Iran to foreign political direction.

    The other country in the Middle East that claims democratic credentials is Turkey, a country with its set of constitutional tribunals (dominated by Turkey's NATO affiliated military) making sure that the 'representative institutions' in that country don't come up with a defintion to Turkey in inconsistent with the Kemalist one.

    Ataturk's Turkey, much like Pahlavi Iran, was based on the idea of 'changing the people' into something else -- and doing so by fiat and force, not through encouraging natural evolutionary processes. These kind of projects, especially undertaken by elites in the Middle East who themselves had only a superficial understanding of the cultures they were imitating and trying to impose on the rest of their people, presents several set of issues and problems. First, forcibly trying to 'westernize' a group (be they Turks or Iranians or Arabs) is the modern equivalent of forcible religious conversions as existed in the past. Whatever the merits and demerits of the 'new religion', the project itself is not democratic by any means! Second, there is this premise in such projects that the new religion is somehow inherently superior, not just compared to the old one, but to whatever alternative could arise from a natural evolutionary process, when in fact such dogmatic approaches to me are not wise. Finally, in the case of Turkey, you basically had another revolution in the definition of its people as well: they would be not only westernized, but also they would all be defined as "Turks". That itself led to a lot of ridiculous myths being created to replace real history, and presented its own set of issues. (From a racial point of view, most Turks have no relationship to the original Turks that came to the Anatolian peninsula. From a linguistic standpoint, a majority in Turkey are Turkish speakers but the Kurds are not and this emphatic definition naturally alienated this very large minority. And from a historical point of view, the Turks themselves originated from non literate nomadic people who had borrowed the cultures of the region they had entered, i.e. Irano-Islamic civilization, with the result that you could not divorce Turkey from its Islamic roots, yet insist on a definition emphasising being "Turks", and leave them with anything to take pride in themselves. Indeed, leave them with anything to recognize themselves with once they are robbed of being able to freely identify themselves with their real history.
     
  4. Rostam

    Rostam Member

    Dec 11, 2005
    I don't understand why some people have to jump on the comparative analysis of unrelated issues when the thread is about real issues facing Israel as observed by an Israeli researcher?

    Thanx to IM for wrapping his arms around the other issues and bringing some sanity to the discussion.
     
  5. valanjak

    valanjak BigSoccer Supporter

    Jun 14, 2005
    Perspolis
    Because they cant defend their own cause , they try to change the subject , you must admit their good at it
     
  6. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    While the motives of those who tried to change the subject is obvious, I believe there is something to be learned from a comparative analysis.

    With regard to the topic of this thread, there are different crisis that Israel faces, and each require their own mode of analysis. The crisis faced by Kadima, Olmert and company, facing low approval ratings after the failed war against Hezbollah, is important issue but more akin to 'inside the beltway' political discussions in the US than what those outside the US might be interested in about the US. The more important crisis that Israel faces, the more endemic one, is the crisis of legitimacy.

    Israel, established to be a "Jewish state" on territory that was not Jewish in character until changes were forced on the ethnic make up of that territory, still leaving a very large group who did not fit that definition; and being created with this definition in a wider region which was otherwise not Jewish and yet whose people had to witness 'fellow Arabs' (for the Arab states) or 'fellow Moslems' (for the rest of the region who were not Arabs but were Moslems) being displaced and left without a home they could call their own, was always a problematic project that would face an endemic crisis of legitimacy.

    I see no harm to compare this larger set of legitimacy issues with regard to Israel with any problems associated with other countries in the region, since none have this kind of problem even if they have a whole set of other issues and problems to contend with.
     
  7. #10 Jersey

    #10 Jersey Member

    May 2, 1999
    except that what you say is just plain wrong...for example, the areas allocated to Israel in 1947 were only those areas that had a Jewish majority.

    If you ignore facts, then you are pretty much right. If you treasure actual facts, then....not so much.
     
  8. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    The Zionist project did not start in 1947, but saw the culmination of its combined efforts to change the make up of a portion of Palestine a year later after the so-called war of independence.

    When the Zionist project began in earnest, however, Palestine had a very small Jewish population. As I mentioned in my message, even after the project had accomplished its aims for a part of that territory, it still was left with legitimacy issues in the wider region for the reasons I stated in my message.

    Given the set of issues and factors that exist, and accepting that you cannot 'undo what is done', the best solution for Israel is the confederate arrangement I have outlined on bigsoccer previously. That is the only solution that would give the Jews in Palestine a 'homeland' of their own, while not trying to forcibly transplant a foreign implant on a body that naturally will resist it.
     
  9. Rostam

    Rostam Member

    Dec 11, 2005
    What I would like to see is to put the details of the "confederate" arrangement into a project called Jeruselam-2007; something similar to your Perspolis-2002 proposal.
     
  10. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    :)

    But to correct something, the proposal you mentioned was dated for 2020. In other words, Persepolis 2020. And, from my vantage point, once Iran overcomes one major obstacle on its path, it is well set to traverse that route. A lot of pieces to the puzzle are falling in Iran's way these days, albeit with a great danger still looming in the horizon. Once those threats and dangers are overcome, "Jerusalem 2020" can become a subset proposal as well:)
     
  11. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    Kind of reminds me of the traditional Soviet 5 year plan. I know I don't have to repeat for you all the demographic statistics that makes Iran a third world country, but you might want to consider a more overarching organizational restructuring.
     
  12. odessit19

    odessit19 Member+

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    You effing, mumbling, propaganda spewing freak - Jews DO have a homeland already, IT IS CALLED ISRAEL! Just because some muslim nations do not recognize it and the likes of you agree with it, does not make it so.
    Your proposal only benefits idiots and bigots such as yourself, thus it is absolete. I suggest you read history and not from Ayranian propaganda machine. However, I do understand why you say what you say - since you are living in Iran, you are not allowed to say anything else that might hurt Iranian/arab/muslim image, so you are understood and forgiven.
     
  13. Shah

    Shah New Member

    If this is refering to me I brought it up in response to Valanjak's tangential arguments that Israel does not offer equal politics rights to its Arab minority. I offered a hypothetical that showed what constitutes equal political rights and what does not. It is the other side that continues to move the goalposts about how they classify Israel. I am by no means shilling for the Israeli right (and I criticized Odessit for his support of Avigdor Lieberman, a politician whom I have no respect for). But I consistently sense that the the anti-Israel camp is never satisfied with anything positive the state does and will always skew their responses and move the goalposts so that Israel looks bad. That kind of argumentation is dissappointing, but unsurprising.
     
  14. Rostam

    Rostam Member

    Dec 11, 2005

    No, I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone individual in particular at all. I would actually credit you for being more reasonable than the other pro-Israelis here. It has become a trend to, intentionally or accidenally derail a discussion, and once a misplaced claim is made then by default it seems to merit an immediate response from the other side which kick-starts a chain reaction, and soon enough the original issue is completely forgotten.
     
  15. Rick B

    Rick B Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    Harare, Zimbabwe
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Zimbabwe

    If ever a summing up of Bigsoccer was correct - this is it.
     
  16. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Looking at the title of this thread I can't help but think how nice it would be to see "Israel Not in Major Crisis" Now that would be a surprise :D
     
  17. Rick B

    Rick B Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    Harare, Zimbabwe
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Zimbabwe
    Good news isn't news Ben unfortunatly!!!! Lets face it, without bad news we'd all be twiddling our thumbs with nothing to do.....:p
     
  18. Rostam

    Rostam Member

    Dec 11, 2005
    We must await the revelation of "Jeruselam 2020". :)
     
  19. odessit19

    odessit19 Member+

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    Can you wait that long, will you make it?
     
  20. Rostam

    Rostam Member

    Dec 11, 2005
    I left the sphere of me long ago.
     
  21. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Here is a 'sneak preview':) Joking aside, the purpose of this arrangement would to guarantee a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, yet ensure a democratic government for the Palestinians as well as to provide for a vehicle whereby this state could be recognized by others in the region. In practice, this proposal would actually favor Israel and has elements that could satisfy even the adherents of 'Greater Israel' as well as those in the Palestinian camp who want a united Palestine.

    Palestinian Confederation

    Political subdivisions:
    State of Israel, United Governorates of the West Bank, Governorate of Gaza, Autonomous Capital City of Jerusalem

    Form of Government:

    Confederation under a confederate charter composed of autonomous states as follows:

    I. State of Israel

    Same as today, except the capital is moved back to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem is not part of this state, and the president of Israel serves as a delegate in the executive council of the Palestinian Confederate authority.

    II. Autonomous Capital City of Jerusalem

    The city is governed autonomously through a bicameral legislature and a mayor directly elected by the people. The lower house of the legislature, the city council, composed of representatives elected from districts of equal population. The upper house composed of three representatives from the Jewish and Moslem faiths each, as well as one representative from the Christian faith, with authority to oversee/veto ordinances and policies affecting the administration of the religious holy sites within the city boundaries. Two co-chairman from this upper house selected respectively from their denominations, one from the Jewish faith and the other from the Moslem faith, shall represent the city in the executive council of the Palestinian Confederate Authority.

    III. United Governorates of the West Bank

    Parliamentary democracy governed along similar political lines as the state of Israel. Except, unlike the state of Israel which is constitutionally required to maintain both is "Jewish and democratic" character, this state has no specific sectarian or religious definition. The official language, however, of this state would be Arabic.

    IV. Governorate of Gaza

    Same as III.

    V. Confederate Authority of Palestine

    A) Executive Council of the Palestinian Confederate Authority

    The confederate authority of Palestine shall be exercised through an executive council composed of the president of Israel, the two co-chairman of the upper legislative council of Jerusalem, and the president of the legislature of the United Governorates of the West Bank and the president of the legislature of the Governorate of Gaza. The presidency of this council shall be for a period of one year rotating between the members thereof.

    The executive council of the Palestinian authority shall have the power to regulate commerce between the states, to establish a central bank and to print currency, establish foreign relations with other states, and to bring suits before the Supreme Judicial Authority of the Palestinian Confederation to seek an injunction against acts of the constituent states which violate the confederate charter.

    B) Supreme Judicial Authority of the Palestinian Confederation

    The Supreme Judicial Authority of the Palestinian Confederation shall be composed of the chief justices of the supreme courts of each of the respective states and Jerusalem, and a chairman appointed among respected jurists by the executive council of the Palestinian Confederate Authority serving for a specific term of office. This judicial authority shall have the power to hear and settle cases and controversies arising under the confederate charter between the states or against the Confederate Authority, as well as those brought by the president of the executive council of the Palestinian Confederation against any of the states.

    All official documents pertaining to the Palestinian Confederate Authority shall be in Hebrew and Arabic.
     
  22. odessit19

    odessit19 Member+

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    Or in other words, "Diaries of a Madman." One thing I will give you is you are not lazy enough to post all of this maniacal, oral diarrhea. I guess you are crazy enough too believe your own bazaar solutions to ME problems.

    However, my solution is much simpler: Palestinians have Gaza and parts of West Bank, not including major Jewish settlements, Jordan and Egypt share their land with Palestinians and their capital would be Hebron or Nablus, but never Jerusalem, just as it is right now. They might have East Jerusalem if ALL terrorist groups dissapear or better yet die off.
     
  23. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That plan also requires that Hamas and friends recognize Israel. Good luck with that.
     
  24. Shah

    Shah New Member

    I don't see how Iranian Monitor's plan is feasible. Israel itself would never consent to being part of a mega-state that has little to no civil society. Palestinian politicians and civil servants have not shown a commitment to freedom of speech, transparent criminal law, they have failed to protect women from honor killings, and generally don't tolerate political dissent. So how are you going to have a confederation if one side has people who are largely commited to democracy (Kahane types don't sit in Israeli government, and even the ultra-orthodoxers abstain from ministries) and another side who have no democratic credentials. You can't dress up a terrorist in an armani suit and call him a forward thinking politician. You would need a secular palestinian government to pull this off, right now you have Hamas, which is far from that.

    Let's face reality here, a confederation would involve trusting people you are in government with. How could Israeli leaders trust Hamasniks if their goal is violence. Hamas spends more time and money on terror and on their own charities for their partisans than they do on the Palestinian economy. There is a democratic deficit and it is on the part of the Palestinians.

    The settlements will still be an issue, and I have no time for the majority of settlers, who tend to be spongers who want to go to these settlements for cheap land. A lot of them I have heard are Russian "Jews" who are not really Jewish at all but just moved to Israel for the better economy. There was a guy in Ariel arrested with a Swastika tatoo, this guy was an Israeli soldier. There are white supremacist groups of Russian Jews in Haifa. This needs to stop. Yes I understand there are decent settlers to, and I respect those whose religion is important to them in the settlment process. But these religious settlers tend to be very anti-Israel, they only support Israel when it hands them money for their west bank religious institutions and so forth. This is conditional loyality and we saw it after Gaza, in which people claimed they had a right to be the entire state in jeapordy just for their religious beliefs. When the state did not do what they wanted, the rebelled. Those people didn't really care about the collective good of Israel, just about themselves.
     
  25. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    This is a deal that the US can reach with Iran. And once arrived at with Iran, it would be up to Iran to sell it to Hamas, Hezbollah and company. The US, in return, would need to sell the deal to the Israelis.

    If the US could deliver the Israelis, I am sure the deal Iran would strike would be one that would be acceptable to the Palestinians. And others in the region.
     

Share This Page