American (Canadian) - Israeli Special Relationship

[KeyStone]

In terms of histories, I would think that Israel would have more in common with Liberia and Haiti - a country born out of a need to escape cruelty, and control their own destiny.

As for English, it's not the first language in Israel, and while Israelis understand they need English for business, many Israelis are from Russia and other areas where they don't speak any English.

So, I'm not seeing a ton of similarities. Democracy is arguable. Israel's form of democracy is far more advanced than the archaic FPTP practiced in Canada, the US, and the UK.

These countries all open their borders to immigration, except that Israel only takes Jews.

Unlike Israel, the other nations aren't theocracies. No one calls them the Christian nations, or the Catholic states. unlike the Jewish state of Israel, which the CJC likes to constantly remind us each time Israel is disparaged, in a successful effort to intertwine criticism of Israel with criticism of all Jewry.

You mention the many Jews that are in Canada and the US, but you leave out France from that special relationship for some reason, despite the large population of Jews in France.

It seems that you have missed the biggest attribute of the special relationship, which is the extremely disproportionate influence that Israel and Jewish people have over the foreign policy of both Canada and the USA.

[Jonsa]

Unlike Israel, the other nations aren't theocracies. No one calls them the Christian nations, or the Catholic states. unlike the Jewish state of Israel, which the CJC likes to constantly remind us each time Israel is disparaged, in a successful effort to intertwine criticism of Israel with criticism of all Jewry.

Israel is a democracy. If it was a theocracy it would not allow muslims to vote or sit in parliment and would be ruled by jewish religious law.

It seems that you have missed the biggest attribute of the special relationship, which is the extremely disproportionate influence that Israel and Jewish people have over the foreign policy of both Canada and the USA.

And exactly how do you arrive at this conclusion?

[bud]

Israel is a democracy. If it was a theocracy it would not allow muslims to vote or sit in parliment and would be ruled by jewish religious law.

'israel's system is a mixture of advanced democracy and retrogressive discrimination, combined with clumsy attempts to hide the discriminatory reality.'

here are excerpts from an article from dr. israel shahak which describes the system quite well:

a trick is to campaign for and then pass a high-sounding law in favor of equality or human rights. Such laws, however, always contain one little paragraph stating that their provisions will not affect any laws or regulations enacted in the past. The high-sounding preambles of the new laws then can be solemnly quoted without mentioning that since discriminatory laws and rules were passed in the 1950s and early 1960s (by Labor, of course), the new laws cannot change the existing discrimination. When one understands those two tricks, one comprehends that Israeli laws, and even more so government regulations on all possible subjects, are full of discriminatory measures which, if employed against Jews anywhere else in the world, would be regarded as anti-Semitic.

one of the biggest discrimination has to do with land:

It is supposed that landed property, whether urban or agricultural, in the Land of Israel (whatever its borders are) which does not belong to Jews, privately or collectively, is "unredeemed." When the ownership changes and it becomes owned by Jews, either privately or collectively, the land undergoes magical transformation and becomes "redeemed." (Let me add that these two terms have been taken from the Jewish religious law.)

The key law is "Israeli Land Law," which set up a government-appointed body called the "Israel Land Authority" (ILA), controlled by a board partly appointed by the government and partly by the World Zionist Organization through its subsidiary branch, the "Jewish National Fund" (JNF), to control all the land owned by the state. A key paragraph in the law states that ILA will administer its land according to the regulations of JNF. The regulations of the latter strictly prohibit all non-Jews from benefiting in any way from JNF land and by this simple trick the Israeli state lands (92 percent of the area of Israel) were removed from the use of non-Jews.

now imagine if there was such a policy and system in canada and the united states.

[bush_cheney2004]

....now imagine if there was such a policy and system in canada and the united states.

No need to imagine at all, as such a system was in place for Canada and the United States (e.g. Asian land ownership). Restrictions for land use and Crown/Federal ownership continue to this day. Welcome to the club, Israel.

Edited February 9, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bud]

No need to imagine at all, as such a system was in place for Canada and the United States

yes. you're correct. 'was'.

[Moonlight Graham]

They can have all the liberation and self-determination they want, but not at our expense and not on top of our country.

What a crock. What is "your country"? Current borders? 1967 borders? 1948 borders? 1882 borders? 2000 years ago "borders"? People with your mindset are why this conflict persists. Selfish, inward-looking people not seeing the legitimacy in the other side's claims.

[bud]

What a crock. What is "your country"? Current borders? 1967 borders? 1948 borders? 1882 borders? 2000 years ago "borders"? People with your mindset are why this conflict persists. Selfish, inward-looking people not seeing the legitimacy in the other side's claims.

he has already stated that he believes it all (including west bank and east jerusalem) belongs to the jews.

[Rue]

Unlike Israel, the other nations aren't theocracies. No one calls them the Christian nations, or the Catholic states. unlike the Jewish state of Israel, which the CJC likes to constantly remind us each time Israel is disparaged, in a successful effort to intertwine criticism of Israel with criticism of all Jewry.

It seems that you have missed the biggest attribute of the special relationship, which is the extremely disproportionate influence that Israel and Jewish people have over the foreign policy of both Canada and the USA.

In regards to the first comment you mistake the fact that the Israeli state defines itself as Jewish with it being a theocracy. If it was a genuine theocracy, its political leaders would be clergy and it would not afford Muslims and Christians their own court systems for family law and cultural disputes regarding religious principals.

In regards to the second comment you trot out the usual stereotype. Do you think because it has been repeated so many times, that in itself makes it beyond proof and you can just throw it out as a given?

Do you care to provide the objective data to share how you determined what you did or is it one of those, oh you know, everyone knows how rich and powerful the Jews are....kind of thing.

Do tell.

[Rue]

Israel is a democracy. If it was a theocracy it would not allow muslims to vote or sit in parliment and would be ruled by jewish religious law.

And exactly how do you arrive at this conclusion?

Ooops I did not read your responses. I seem to have repeated the very questions you did. Excuse me. There is an echo echo echo on the board.

[Jonsa]

It is supposed that landed property, whether urban or agricultural, in the Land of Israel (whatever its borders are) which does not belong to Jews, privately or collectively, is "unredeemed." When the ownership changes and it becomes owned by Jews, either privately or collectively, the land undergoes magical transformation and becomes "redeemed." (Let me add that these two terms have been taken from the Jewish religious law.)

The key law is "Israeli Land Law," which set up a government-appointed body called the "Israel Land Authority" (ILA), controlled by a board partly appointed by the government and partly by the World Zionist Organization through its subsidiary branch, the "Jewish National Fund" (JNF), to control all the land owned by the state. A key paragraph in the law states that ILA will administer its land according to the regulations of JNF. The regulations of the latter strictly prohibit all non-Jews from benefiting in any way from JNF land and by this simple trick the Israeli state lands (92 percent of the area of Israel) were removed from the use of non-Jews.

now imagine if there was such a policy and system in canada and the united states.

so you agree that Israel is not a theocracy.

Wanna start another thread about Israeli Land ownership laws and issues, be my guest.

I'd be really concerned about Israel's land laws except for one little tiny glitch in the rampant "discrimination" you like to see. Its called the Israeli Supreme Court. Perhaps you can look up some of their rulings on challenges and the remedies imposed.

[bush_cheney2004]

What a crock. What is "your country"? Current borders? 1967 borders? 1948 borders? 1882 borders? 2000 years ago "borders"? People with your mindset are why this conflict persists. Selfish, inward-looking people not seeing the legitimacy in the other side's claims.

Gee...that sounds just like another country we know trying to selfishly define borders....in North America. Something about a Northwest Passage and owning everything including the North Pole!

[GostHacked]

Gee...that sounds just like another country we know trying to selfishly define borders....in North America. Something about a Northwest Passage and owning everything including the North Pole!

Canada does what Canada does. What's your point?

[Rue]

Canada does what Canada does. What's your point?

I think he is saying you are as fat as he is.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think he is saying you are as fat as he is.

Or more directly...Israel does what Israel does for the same reasons as Canada. It's not complicated, but for some reason, nation state Israel is to be held to a different standard. Why?

[bud]

so you agree that Israel is not a theocracy.

blanket statements do not always apply. statements like, 'israel is a theocracy' or 'muslim brotherhood is islamofascist' do not apply.

as i mentioned before:

israel's system is a mixture of advanced democracy and retrogressive discrimination, combined with clumsy attempts to hide the discriminatory reality.

if i were to give israel a label, instead of liberal democracy, i would say they're more of an ethnocracy. it possesses a facade of formal democratic institutions and processes, but works to promote the interests of a specific ethnic group to the detriment of others.

Wanna start another thread about Israeli Land ownership laws and issues, be my guest.

I'd be really concerned about Israel's land laws except for one little tiny glitch in the rampant "discrimination" you like to see. Its called the Israeli Supreme Court. Perhaps you can look up some of their rulings on challenges and the remedies imposed.

perhaps you can give these examples to prove that there is no discrimination in israel's system.

you should be concerned about israel's land laws, since 90% of the land is owned by JNF and it is a matter of policy to lease that land only to jews. this policy and position has been characterized as un-democratic because non-jews do not have the same access to land rights as jews.

[Jonsa]

blanket statements do not always apply. statements like, 'israel is a theocracy' or 'muslim brotherhood is islamofascist' do not apply.

as i mentioned before:

israel's system is a mixture of advanced democracy and retrogressive discrimination, combined with clumsy attempts to hide the discriminatory reality.

Specious comparison. Are you saying that retrogressive discrimination is a form of government?

if i were to give israel a label, instead of liberal democracy, i would say they're more of an ethnocracy. it possesses a facade of formal democratic institutions and processes, but works to promote the interests of a specific ethnic group to the detriment of others.

Jews are not an ethnicity. You'll have to rethink your definition.

perhaps you can give these examples to prove that there is no discrimination in israel's system.

you should be concerned about israel's land laws, since 90% of the land is owned by JNF and it is a matter of policy to lease that land only to jews. this policy and position has been characterized as un-democratic because non-jews do not have the same access to land rights as jews.

You really have drunk the koolaid. It is clear that discrimination exists in Israel just like it exists in pretty well every other place on the planet. In democracies, the balance and protection against that discrimination is the legal system.

The JNF owns roughly 13% of Israeli land. The JNF is not the Israeli government and the lands it holds in trust are specifically to be leased to jews only - hence the name JEWISH NATIONAL FUND. The ILA administers the JNF lands. There is only about 7% of Israeli land that is available for sale. You don't seem to know exactly what the real estate structure is nor, what the laws or supreme court rulings actually say.

Non-jews do not have the same access to lease any of the available land, but they do have access to most of it. They have equal access to privately owned land should it come up for sale.

Of course, jews in Israel don't face the death penalty if they sell their land or their lease to an arab.

I'll agree that Israel has a problem with discrimination within its society. As a matter of degree, I'd argue its not nearly as bad as the discrimination that occurs in other regional states and that Israeli victims of discrimination have recourse thru the courts. I wouldn't want to be an armenian or a kurd in turkey or a christian in Saudi Arabia or a jew in - oh wait a minute they're really hard to find in arab countries these days.

[bud]

Specious comparison. Are you saying that retrogressive discrimination is a form of government?

you need to pay a little closer attention to what is written. i described 'israel's system'.

Jews are not an ethnicity. You'll have to rethink your definition.

really now?

CIA factbook - ethnic groups:

Jewish 76.4% (of which Israel-born 67.1%, Europe/America-born 22.6%, Africa-born 5.9%, Asia-born 4.2%),

non-Jewish 23.6% (mostly Arab) (2004)

You really have drunk the koolaid.

says the guy who starts his first 2 comments with misinformation.

It is clear that discrimination exists in Israel just like it exists in pretty well every other place on the planet. In democracies, the balance and protection against that discrimination is the legal system.

this is why the land law was brought up. the land law is obviously discriminatory.

The JNF owns roughly 13% of Israeli land. The JNF is not the Israeli government and the lands it holds in trust are specifically to be leased to jews only - hence the name JEWISH NATIONAL FUND. The ILA administers the JNF lands. There is only about 7% of Israeli land that is available for sale. You don't seem to know exactly what the real estate structure is nor, what the laws or supreme court rulings actually say.

i meant to say the ILA owns over 90% of the land, regardless, the JNF has extensive control in how that the land is administered. even after the recent changes in the law, which didn't really change much:

Under Israeli law, the ILA is a public institution. It controls approximately 93% of the land in Israel (approximately 19.5 million dunums, including land owned by the state, the Development Authority (13%) and the JNF (13%). The Basic Law: Israel Lands defines this land as “Israel Lands” held in perpetuity for the benefit of the Jewish people.

Along these lines, Israeli law prohibits the transfer of “Israel Lands” through sale or any other way. This prohibition is in line with the JNF statute, which also defines its lands as public, i.e. Jewish “national,” and not private property. Accordingly, the ILA leases land on long term contracts. Up until its 2009 amendment, the Israel Lands Authority Law gave the JNF 50% representation in the ILA administration. This allowed the JNF to become a key player in the process of decision-making and policy setting pertaining to all land administered by the ILA, and not only the portion it “owned” directly.

JNF in the new Israeli land law- Maintaining its special status

Recent legislation of the 2009 Israel Lands Authority Law and the amendment of the 2010 Land Acquisition Law introduced changes of the land tenure system in Israel which were met with domestic political opposition. These changes, however, have not weakened the status and role of the JNF, but quite the contrary. In many ways, Israel’s land policy has not changed despite the passage of many years since the establishment of the state, and irrespective of the reality already created by this policy since the 1950s. The impact of recent legislation on the JNF can summarized as follows:

First: under the new laws, the JNF will continue to hold large representation in the Israel Lands Authority with 6 of 13 members. This means that the JNF will continue to play a key role in the development of policies and programs pertaining to 93% of the land of Israel.

Second: in order to facilitate “development” through the privatization of lands owned by the JNF in urban areas, the state and the JNF will exchange lands. The state will receive JNF land in urban areas which it can then privatize, while the JNF will receive 50-60,000 dunums of land in the Galilee and the Naqab (Negev), both areas with a substantial Palestinian population.

As in the past, the JNF agrees that the new Israel Land Authority will manage its lands, whereas the latter is committed to doing so in line with “the principles of the JNF in regards to its lands” (article 2). In addition, the JNF has committed to contribute 100 million NIS to further development of the Naqab from its own sources.

The new laws are yet another attempt to bypass legal oversight and to legislate against the right to equality in regards to land. The JNF’s statute excludes non-Jews from benefiting from its land. Thus any transfer of public land to the JNF as provided under the law will prevent equal access to land. In other words, the state will be able to “Judaize” more land and discriminate against its non-Jewish citizens in the Naqab and the Galilee by transferring these lands to the JNF

Non-jews do not have the same access to lease any of the available land,

good. you're admitting that israel's land laws are discriminatory towards non-jews. this law is not democratic. anything else you say after the above is moot.

Of course, jews in Israel don't face the death penalty if they sell their land or their lease to an arab.

uh oh. red herring.

I wouldn't want to be an armenian or a kurd in turkey or a christian in Saudi Arabia or a jew in - oh wait a minute they're really hard to find in arab countries these days.

it's typical that you've gone from comparing israel's laws and society to canada and u.s.'s, which is what this thread is about, to that of other countries that have nothing to do with our discussion and democracy.

'oh yeah?! at least we're not as bad as...'

weak.

Edited February 10, 2011 by bud

[Jonsa]

you need to pay a little closer attention to what is written. i described 'israel's system'.

sytem of what?

really now?

CIA factbook - ethnic groups:

Jewish 76.4% (of which Israel-born 67.1%, Europe/America-born 22.6%, Africa-born 5.9%, Asia-born 4.2%),

non-Jewish 23.6% (mostly Arab) (2004)

I stand corrected.

this is why the land law was brought up. the land law is obviously discriminatory.

Yes it is. that does not however preclude Supreme court remedies. And there have been a few.

i meant to say the ILA owns over 90% of the land, regardless, the JNF has extensive control in how that the land is administered. even after the recent changes in the law, which didn't really change much:

Under Israeli law, the ILA is a public institution. It controls approximately 93% of the land in Israel (approximately 19.5 million dunums, including land owned by the state, the Development Authority (13%) and the JNF (13%). The Basic Law: Israel Lands defines this land as “Israel Lands” held in perpetuity for the benefit of the Jewish people.

Meaning that none of that land is "private" property. although the courts have recently held that for legal purposes leases are the equivalent of deeds.

The new laws are yet another attempt to bypass legal oversight and to legislate against the right to equality in regards to land. The JNF’s statute excludes non-Jews from benefiting from its land. Thus any transfer of public land to the JNF as provided under the law will prevent equal access to land. In other words, the state will be able to “Judaize” more land and discriminate against its non-Jewish citizens in the Naqab and the Galilee by transferring these lands to the JNF

Sneaky bastards. imagine controlling the land and maneuvering to benefit jews in a jewish state.

good. you're admitting that israel's land laws are discriminatory towards non-jews. this law is not democratic. anything else you say after the above is moot.

Only an idiot would not consider certain laws in Israel to be discriminatory against non-jews. As for it not being democratic, I'm think you must have a rather limited perspective on the scope of democratic government processes, structure and definitions.

So Israel with its various discriminatory laws remains a vibrant democratic state. It is a representative democracy with rule of law. It has freedom of the press/speech and political expression.

it's typical that you've gone from comparing israel's laws and society to canada and u.s.'s, which is what this thread is about, to that of other countries that have nothing to do with our discussion and democracy.

'oh yeah?! at least we're not as bad as...'

weak.

I shamefacedly have to agree. My bad.

[JB Globe]

It's our land.

I hope you're referring to inside the green line and not referring to the West Bank.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So Israel with its various discriminatory laws remains a vibrant democratic state. It is a representative democracy with rule of law. It has freedom of the press/speech and political expression.

Indeed it is, and should be afforded the same allowances accepted for Canada or the USA, even to this day.

[JB Globe]

I am starting this post with quote from part of a post in the Egypt thread. Bob's right - it deserves its own thread.

There are many things that America, Canada, Australia and Israel have in common that no other countries have. They have strikingly similar early histories. All are nations built by pioneers, where the State had a role, albeit minor, in their development. While in Canada the Mounties often arrived ahead of the settlers, by and large, in all of these countries, groups of settlers had to sink or swim on their own. In the case of America, Canada, and Australia, mother England (and in the U.S. the national capital) was faraway, and had little concern with the day-to-day realities of frontier life. In Israel, the colonial government was an outright hindrance.

Also, all have in common being part of the English-speaking world. America, Canada, Australia and Israel have in common a tradition of an open economy based largely on trade with the rest of the world. That seafaring and eventually trading tradition has a drastic impact on culture. These countries look outward, whereas most other countries in the world look inward.

America, Canada, Australia and Israel have in common a broad freedom of religion. There are varying degrees of government involvement in religion but all allow free religious practice.

In short, it is natural that these countries be allies among themselves and, in differing degrees, with Great Britain.

The U.S.- Israel relationship is, to be sure, more special. Each country each possesses about 1/3 of the world's Jews. Jews have a greater imprint on these countries than any others. So yes, there is a very special relationship.

Israel enjoys a relationship with Canada that is beyond that of any other nation, except maybe the US. Even in regards to the US, we do occasionally disagree on things (Iraq War), however under Harper Canada has basically approved of every single Israeli foreign policy move, often times being only one of 1-3 countries in the world to do so. We give Israel unflinching support, and even though I'm Jewish, I'm also Canadian, and I always find myself asking, what's in it for Canada?

And so your reasoning for continuing this special relationship is:

1 - Both nations were founded as colonial projects

2 - Are English-speaking (semi-official status in Israel)

3 - Are export-orientated free market economies

4 - Freedom of religion (free to practice in Israel, however there are some privileges only enjoyed by Jews)

5 - Contain large segments of the Jewish diaspora.

Frankly, if this is the best that you could come up with, than the reasons for supporting Israel unflinchingly are pretty pathetic. In-light of the occupation and various other disastrous foreign policies - many of which are anti-democratic and violate international law and human rights - I think the cons outweigh the pros you've given.

I propose treating Israel as we do other allies in Europe - which is to say, if they behave badly, we don't constantly back them up - but we tell them we're displeased, that we don't want the relationship to suffer, but if they continue to go down that road, that even our friendship has a limit, and that we'll be sadly forced to re-evaluate the relationship.

But really - what's in it for Canada? What do we get out of it STRATEGICALLY? POLITICALLY? ECONOMICALLY?

Is it really worth being associated with something like the Bibi regime?

[jbg]

Is it really worth being associated with something like the Bibi regime?

Is it worth being associated with Hamas or I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket?

[bush_cheney2004]

...I propose treating Israel as we do other allies in Europe - which is to say, if they behave badly, we don't constantly back them up - but we tell them we're displeased, that we don't want the relationship to suffer, but if they continue to go down that road, that even our friendship has a limit, and that we'll be sadly forced to re-evaluate the relationship....

Why not the same treatment for the United States, when it wages an "illegal war" and invades another sovereign state?

[bud]

Is it worth being associated with Hamas or I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket?

not supporting israel's policies does not mean you support hamas or dinner jacket.

[JB Globe]

Is it worth being associated with Hamas or I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket?

Don't start. You know damn well there's more than two options (support Netanyahu's policies or support Hamas), and you know damn well I'm not suggesting getting in bed with Hamas.

Do I need to repeat myself or are you going to actually respond to any of the points I've raised?