Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumObama's Demand Of Palestinians: Recognize A "Jewish State"
In Jerusalem yesterday, President Obama made a poignant plea for courage, fairness, and empathy to the Israeli people. It was an inspiring speech. But there was one linejust half a sentencethat left me scratching my head: Palestinians, the President declared, must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state.
Since 2009, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a demand flatly rejected by President Mahmoud Abbas. The problems with Netanyahus formulation have been ably explained by Sari Nusseibeh, Hussein Ibish, Hassan Jabareen, and Joseph Levine, among others. The PLO, they point out, has already recognized Israel. Formally recognizing it as a Jewish state, however, would imply Palestinian acceptance of a subordinate status for the countrys 1.7 million Muslim, Christian, and Druze citizens. It seems unlikely that so illiberal a proposition would be embraced by the United States first black president, a man who proclaimed that the United States Constitution, a document stained by this nations original sin of slavery, had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law. Surely the President does not advocate staining a historic peace agreement by entrenching inequality in its terms. Instead, true stability, as he declared yesterday, depends upon establishing a government that is responsible to its people, one that protects all communities within its borders, while making peace with countries beyond them. That is as true for Israel as it is for Syria.
Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state would also signal endorsement of its longstanding refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homes. Most Palestinian leaders understand that Israel is unlikely to consent to refugee return in a peace agreement, but President Obama must be aware that no Palestinian government can renounce the refugees right to return. That would be tantamount to denying Palestinians attachment to places that are part of our history, our memories, and our culture. Indeed, Palestinians can no more forswear our attachment to Jaffa or the Galilee, than Jews can forswear theirs to East Jerusalem or Hebron. And why shouldnt a religious Jew aspire to live and study in the shadow of the Tomb of the Patriarchs? Why shouldnt a Palestinian refugee aspire to rebuild her familys home in Tantura? Even if realizing those aspirations is politically infeasible at this juncture, we need not foreclose their realization in the future.
Self-determination, after all, does not require perpetual segregation. The fact is that both Palestinians and Israelis seek to live, work, and worship on both sides of the Green Line. In the short run, the states of Israel and Palestine could issue work and residency permits to each others' citizens without fundamentally altering the democratic balance of power in either country. And looking ahead, whatever modifications are made to the Green Line as part of a territorial compromise, both sides should aim to achieve freedom of movement across it, subject only to reciprocal and narrowly tailored security and customs regulations. Obviously, building such a system would not be an easy feat, but it shouldnt be dismissed as an impossible dream. The Central America-4 Border Control Agreement between El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua and the Schengen arrangements in Europe offer models worth exploring. Both regions were arenas of ideological conflicthot and colduntil fairly recently. And if more than two-dozen European states can manage security cooperatively across an area of more than four million square kilometers, surely the states of Palestine and Israel could do the same in a space one hundred times smaller, particularly with assistance from the international community. As President Obama reminded us yesterday, building a durable peace requires us to have not only the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/22/obama-s-demand-of-jewish-state-recognition.html
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Thanks for posting.
I especially like this paragraph:
King_David
(14,851 posts)And it received a lot of applause .
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Where was it given?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Here they are again:
In Jerusalem yesterday, President Obama made a poignant plea for courage, fairness, and empathy to the Israeli people. It was an inspiring speech.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Check the sub-thread.
sabbat hunter
(6,825 posts)The Islamic republic of Iran
The Islamic republic of Pakistan
the Islamic republic of Mauritania
Those are all recognized as Islamic republics, what is the difference between that and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Surely Obama demands that Iran's Green Movement leaders recognize Iran as an Islamic state?
I thought US politicians were bipartisan about the obvious justice of such absolute non-negotiable demands?
Mosby
(16,168 posts)when he says:
That's nonsense, Israel is a Jewish state just like GB is an Anglican state and Norway, Iceland and Denmark are Lutheran states.
Just because a country has a state religion does not mean that there cannot be a strong commitment to pluralism and democracy just like in the countries I mentioned including Israel.
Abbas refuses to call Israel the Jewish state because he knows the Arab/Muslim world would turn on him instantly, that's how strong the Antisemitism is in most Muslim only nations.
delrem
(9,688 posts)is held in trust for people world-over who share the Lutheran nationality?
Cool.
Mosby
(16,168 posts)At least 16 different countries have agreements with the Catholic church about sovereignty of property and taxation.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that has concordat with Vatican, does that mean Israel recognizes a Catholic nationality?
delrem
(9,688 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)Not defensible in any modern terms defining equality of persons under a democratic rule, but if ideas dating back to the bankrupt times of church/state rule in the 15th century are your model, go for it.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Omar Dajani is a Palestinian-American professor and former member of the Palestine Liberation Organization's Negotiations Support Unit.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or is this some thing more like your statement about Ali Abunimah's condemnation of Greta Berlin's tweets
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What a bizarre comment that was.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the PLO recognized Israel 20 years ago now in addition to that Netanyahu insists on recognition as a Jewish State from the Palestinians and no one else why is that?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)I think it's more accurate to say that Israel is Jewish the way that England is English, or France is French. Does that mean that non-ethnic French people don't have civil rights? No it doesn't. Does it mean that Muslims in France can't demand that they be treated according to Sharia instead of the Code Napoleon? Yes it does. That is the difference between civil and national rights. Arabs in Israel have civil rights, but they don't have national rights. Similarly, Jews in arab countries don't have national rights either. Of course, they also don't have civil rights.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why does it matter what they recognize Israel AS?
And why is it better to keep the war going than having them not say those few words?
Recognition of the State of Israel should be enough...and, if Netanyahu really believe that Palestinians are obsessively anti-Jewish, why would he think making them recognizing Israel as "a Jewish state" rather than simply recognizing it and formally making peace with it would matter?
If Palestinians were driven(as the Israeli Right's apologists here deafeningly and relentlessly insist)absolutely and solely by hatred of Jewish people living near them, wouldn't they say the words Netanyahu wants and they go ahead and attack anyway, words be damned?
What's so freaking important about getting them to say it the way Likud wants them to say it?
Recognition is recognition is recognition. All recognition is the same.
And if simply recognizing "the State of Israel" was enough for Egypt and Jordan, it ought to be enough for Palestine. There's no reason to make the PA jump through an additional rhetorical hoop, and a meaningless hoop at that.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Making peace with Israel means accepting that they can't drive Israel into the sea. Making peace with the Jewish state means accepting that the Jews are in Israel by right and that they shouldn't try to drive Israel into the sea. The first makes the "peace" really just a long term truce. The second makes it a real peace. The difference is huge.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)have the right to not be driven into the sea. A Palestinian side would never recognize Israel and then say, in effect "but only so long as it's Judenrein". They would end the conflict just like anybody else, anywhere else would, once the peace agreement was made...and if the Israeli side is going to predicate its actions on the assumption that the Palestinians couldn't be trusted to do that that they could never really MEAN it when the, the
Palestinian side SAID they would recognize Israel, than there'd be no point in the Israel government even bothering with any "peace" effort at all...peace can't be built on the assumption that one side can be trusted but the other can't be...because that assumption is a standing insult to the side that is assumed to BE incapable of trustworthiness, and peace(in a situation like this, in which military victory for either side is impossible)requires parity of trust.
Actual peace would, by definition, mean that the Palestinians, no matter what words they say, had reconciled themselves to the permanence of Israel, AND the permanance of the Jewish population of Israel...and if Israel were going to try to make peace with the Palestinians, it would have to mean being willing to believe that the Palestinian state that will have to born for peace to happen will, in fact, be genuinely capable of being honorable and moral...and not just a tactic in a never-actually-ended campaign to wipe Israel out. Therefore, peace would have to BE peace, and be accepted as peace...and any peace would have to be seen as the same as any other peace...not simply assumed to be some sort of trick.
No Israeli prime minister BEFORE Netanyahu insisted that Israel be recognized "as a Jewish state"...they accepted that recognizing Israel, however you recognized it, already protected the rights of the Jewish population to live where they live in peace. Why is Netanyahu demanding something none of his predecessors demanded? It just sounds like he wants to make them say the phrase just to show that he CAN make them say it...and that is the definition of pettiness.
And if it's THAT "huge", then why wasn't it asked of Egypt or Jordan? It's not like neither of those countries had tried to destroy the Jewish character of the state.
Finally, if(as supporters of the Israeli Right insist over and over) the Palestinians are driven by NOTHING but hatred of Jews, what difference would it make to make them say this particular phrase? Wouldn't they say it anyway just to see if they could get the Israelis to let their guard down? If the Palestinian motivation for all past hostility to Israel is irrational ethnic/religious hatred and nothing else, why assume that making them utter a particular set of words would constrain them in any way from pursuing what you see as their secret ultimate objective? Aren't you giving that phrase far more power than any small set of words can ever possibly have?
Making peace should about being able to accept the real possibility that the war could really, actually end...not just assuming that this "peace" is simply a break between the current war and the next one.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)... is to post pictures of Palestinian children wounded by Israeli counterraids.
:pathos:
:sarcasm : in case it isn't obvious.
I woke up having a nightmare.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)I completely agree that they should, but what if they don't? What if the Palestinian people just never accept that Jews have a right to a nation in Israel? It's a high probability what if. They haven't accepted the Jewish state in over 65 years, and there doesn't seem to be much if any change from that position. So what if it never happens? Then what should Israel do?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that Jews have the right to live IN Israel. It's insane to suggest that they'd recognize Israel but then insist that Jewish people not be allowed to live there.
shira
(30,109 posts)...that do not include Israel.
They should drop demands for full RoR.
They should quit threatening to destroy Israel and annhilate its Jewish population.
=========
Obviously, this recognition in 1993 wasn't enough, was it?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Just curious, 'cause I'm pretty sure the PA hasn't called for the utter annihilation of Jews.