why the 'jewish state' now?

[bud]

why did it suddenly become important to 'recognize israel as a jewish state'?

this 'recognition' has not been part of any treaties with any neighbouring countries. it was never part of any past negotiations with the PLO either. not the madrid conference in 91, not the oslo talks in 93, camp david summit in 2000 or any other negotiations until 2007 when olmert was leaving office.

so why, all of a sudden, it's become so important?

[Shady]

why did it suddenly become important to 'recognize israel as a jewish state'?

this 'recognition' has not been part of any treaties with any neighbouring countries. it was never part of any past negotiations with the PLO either. not the madrid conference in 91, not the oslo talks in 93, camp david summit in 2000 or any other negotiations until 2007 when olmert was leaving office.

so why, all of a sudden, it's become so important?

Huh? It's always been important. Where have you been?

[Bob]

Rejection of Jewish independence independence is the core of this conflict, and has been for decades before 1948, let alone 1967. Since the Arabs/Muslims will always view the land as belong to them, they will never accept the Jewish state of Israel. Therefore, peace is an unattainable ghost like the magic dragon in the South Park episode Guitar Queero.

That you are dumbfounded by this shows that you don't even have a basic grasp of this conflict or any of the central issues. It's funny and sad how people like yourself, who know so little, can still pretend to care so much...

Edited September 26, 2011 by Bob

[scribblet]

Wow, someone must've in a time capsule.

[Bob]

Wow, someone must've in a time capsule.

Bud is a johnny-come-lately to this issue, he just heard about it a couple of years ago and took it up in order to give some meaning to his otherwise empty life. Either that or he's a Muslim who goes with the flow and enjoys throwing around terms like "international law", "occupation", "social justice", and "East Jerusalem" in order to pretend to be something he's not: knowledgeable.

[PIK]

Mean while the arab spring is slowly being taken over by the extremists, while everyone talks about Israel, talk about taking the eye off the ball.

[August1991]

AIMET (Another Israel Middle East Thread).

----

Like Bud, I'm something of a neophyte in these debates and I agree that that the phrase "jewish state" seems increasingly common. In fact, the official name is the "State of Israel" and while Israel's constitution offers special provisions for Jews, other religions live freely. (Canada's constitution, BTW, makes explicit reference to the special rights of Protestants and Roman Catholics. Our constitution also makes certain language guarantees for French and English.) Like in Canada, many people of different religions, opinions, and languages live in Israel - despite our respective Constitutions.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, things are different, and so too in the Kingdom of the Two Holy Cities.

I suspect that references to the "Jewish State" are attempts to imply that Israel is just as "religionist" (sectarian? bigoted?) as Iran or Saudi Arabia. The references may also play to any anti-semites. (Although that term has always surprised me when used in the context of the Middle East. Lebanese, Palestinians, Israelis, Syrians, Jordanians are all Semites. Peas in a pod, as Forrest Gump would say... )

======

Let me draw a further parallel to "Canada". After several millenia, several million Jews have survived and they maintain their language and their faith. (For the rest of us, we should be grateful: Among this miniscule minority, some have made phenomenal discoveries.)

Several million French-speaking North Americans have survived too, after several centuries. They maintain their language but many have have abandoned their faith.

The parallel? Jews and Quebecers/Acadians want to survive and IMHO, to do this, they must wisely compromise.

Edited September 26, 2011 by August1991

[jacee]

Rejection of Jewish independence independence is the core of this conflict, and has been for decades before 1948, let alone 1967. Since the Arabs/Muslims will always view the land as belong to them, they will never accept the Jewish state of Israel. Therefore, peace is an unattainable ghost like the magic dragon in the South Park episode Guitar Queero.

Israel has chosen this hot button issue to prevent peace.

Other states, including a new state of Palestine, need to recognize the. State of Israel, but it isn't necessary at all for them to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. It's an internal issue for Israel to define its own state.

It really doesn't matter what other people or states think about it at all.

Israel's insistence on this meaningless gesture reveal its desire to continue the war on Palestinians. There is no desire for peace, imo.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh good. Another thread about Israel - where we can discuss what was already under discussion in half a dozen other threads. Just what the forum needed.

:rolleyes:

[Bob]

AIMET (Another Israel Middle East Thread).

----

Like Bud, I'm something of a neophyte in these debates and I agree that that the phrase "jewish state" seems increasingly common. In fact, the official name is the "State of Israel" and while Israel's constitution offers special provisions for Jews, other religions live freely. (Canada's constitution, BTW, makes explicit reference to the special rights of Protestants and Roman Catholics. Our constitution also makes certain language guarantees for French and English.) Like in Canada, many people of different religions, opinions, and languages live in Israel - despite our respective Constitutions.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, things are different, and so too in the Kingdom of the Two Holy Cities.

I suspect that references to the "Jewish State" are attempts to imply that Israel is just as "religionist" (sectarian? bigoted?) as Iran or Saudi Arabia. The references may also play to any anti-semites. (Although that term has always surprised me when used in the context of the Middle East. Lebanese, Palestinians, Israelis, Syrians, Jordanians are all Semites. Peas in a pod, as Forrest Gump would say... )

======

Let me draw a further parallel to "Canada". After several millenia, several million Jews have survived and they maintain their language and their faith. (For the rest of us, we should be grateful: Among this miniscule minority, some have made phenomenal discoveries.)

Several million French-speaking North Americans have survived too, after several centuries. They maintain their language but many have have abandoned their faith.

The parallel? Jews and Quebecers/Acadians want to survive and IMHO, to do this, they must wisely compromise.

You had one thing right, you're clueless about this subject.

Israel doesn't have a constitution, it has a Declaration of Independence (which identifies Israel as a Jewish and democratic state - which can be a contradiction in some future hypothetical scenarios) and Basic Laws.

There is nothing bigoted at all about identifying the nature of the country as Jewish, and as being the homeland of the Jewish people. We are a real people. We are different from those who are not Jewish. We have a homeland which we can call our own through which we can actualize independence and self-determination. There is nothing bigoted about that. Indeed, alleging that such values for the Jewish people are racist, a la Durban conferences and the UN's declaration of "Zionism is racism" (resolution 3379, 1975) is what's really racist. Those who seek to deny us our national rights, although they will never succeed, are of course the real racists.

As far as the term "anti-Semitism", it was coined long ago as a term to describe anti-Jewish prejudice. Of course it's not the most accurate term in a logical sense, considering that the category of people designated as "Semites" is broader than just the Jewish people, but it is what it is. Don't jump on the bandwagon of idiots who are trying to redefine a term for political purposes.

[Bob]

Israel has chosen this hot button issue to prevent peace.

Other states, including a new state of Palestine, need to recognize the. State of Israel, but it isn't necessary at all for them to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. It's an internal issue for Israel to define its own state.

It really doesn't matter what other people or states think about it at all.

Israel's insistence on this meaningless gesture reveal its desire to continue the war on Palestinians. There is no desire for peace, imo.

You're partially correct. Of course it isn't necessary for anyone to recognize Israel for what it is and what will always be - the eternal homeland of the Jewish people. We're here and we are what we are with or without Arab/Muslim "recognition" or from their supporters like yourself. Where recognition is important, however, is towards really concluding this conflict. Without recognition from the Arabs/Muslims and their armchair apologists, like yourself, the conflict will perpetuate endlessly.

Trying to blame us, which is what you're doing, is quite ridiculous but also expected. This entire conflict is predicated on Arab/Muslim rejection of Jewish national rights in our land. To portray this issue as some sort of irrelevant deflection reflects your own obliviousness of the core issues of this conflict, which of course you view through your idiotic and myopic "strong vs. weak" paradigm, typical of the bleeding heart liberal who thinks she can intellectualize things about issues which she knows nothing. Of course it's easy for people like you to do that when you can reduce any problem in the world, regardless of its complexity, to the idiotic refrain of the left - "strong vs. weak", "rich vs. poor", "advantaged vs disadvantaged", "white vs. non-white", or what have you. There's no shortage of issues and conflicts that you can't pretend to understand through this simplistic paradigm, and we at MLW expect you to keep on delivering the goods.

[bud]

why hasn't the israeli government ever shown concern about it being recognized as a 'jewish state' until 2007? it's tough to answer this question, isn't it?

all treaties and legal documents have asked the PLO and the neighbouring countries to recognize the state of israel. the PLO has already done this. now, suddenly, only a few years ago a new request has come in, masked as an eternal struggle for acceptance by the arabs, when in reality, it was never an issue before 2007. this is another red herring and another tactic to divert the real reasons for the stalls in negotiations with the palestinians.

anyone who understands the conflict knows that the real reason for the stall is israel's inability to accept at least a freeze on the settlements or to discuss the illegal annexation of east jerusalem and parts of west bank and of course, the question of right of return.

bibi is in a tough situation. he has to avoid losing his coalition government which is made up of mostly religious extremist and settler parties. on the other hand, there is heavy pressure from the international community, including the u.s. to start negotiations. so to divert from the real reason for not wanting to negotiate and to carry on the status quo, we're seeing this sudden call for being 'recognized as a jewish state'.

i love talking about the truth. you guys should try it some time.

[Bob]

So recognition of the Jewish people's national rights only became an issue in 2007? Gotcha. Another sharp analysis from our resident expert on Israel and the "Palestinians".

[August1991]

There is nothing bigoted at all about identifying the nature of the country as Jewish, and as being the homeland of the Jewish people. We are a real people. We are different from those who are not Jewish.

Bob, I think you have "issues". Have you spoken to a friend/family member/psychologist?

Then again Bob, maybe you're just an idiot who doesn't read posts.

-----

Please, go back and read my post again.

Edited September 26, 2011 by August1991

[Black Dog]

This entire conflict is predicated on Arab/Muslim rejection of Jewish national rights in our land.

Outside of possession, what makes it your land?

It's one thing to assert that Jews have a right to a homeland based on ethno-religious lines (a not unproblematic construct, but we can roll with that), but to assert prior ownership to an entire parcel of land based on the fiat of some mythological being is just fucking whack. It's at that point that nutters like Bob and reasonable Zionists part company.

[Bob]

I don't make magical religious arguments, so you're chasing a ghost. What makes it ours is possession, that we've built it into what it is, and that this is where we come from.

[Black Dog]

I don't make magical religious arguments, so you're chasing a ghost. What makes it ours is possession, that we've built it into what it is, and that this is where we come from.

But Israel doesn't have a "right" to exist anymore than any other state. It just is.

[Bob]

But Israel doesn't have a "right" to exist anymore than any other state. It just is.

I find it funny that a leftist like you puts quotes around the term "right", when you're clearly quite comfortable attributing "rights" to all sorts of abstract people (where the burden for providing those rights invariably ends up on someone else's shoulders) in all sorts of situations.

[Black Dog]

I find it funny that a leftist like you puts quotes around the term "right", when you're clearly quite comfortable attributing "rights" to all sorts of abstract people (where the burden for providing those rights invariably ends up on someone else's shoulders) in all sorts of situations.

Alrighty: Israel doesn't have a right to exist anymore than any other state. It just is.

BTW, what are "abstract people"? And when does the burden for upholding individual rights not fall on other people?

[August1991]

I find it funny that a leftist like you puts quotes around the term "right", when you're clearly quite comfortable attributing "rights" to all sorts of abstract people (where the burden for providing those rights invariably ends up on someone else's shoulders) in all sorts of situations.

Left? Right?

Bob, the irony is that you are your own worst enemy.

-----

Sarcasm: When you state something that you know is false, and confuses your listener.

Walking in the street on a rainy day uncovered with a friend, you say: "Thank God that you brought an umbrella!"

Irony: When you state something that you believe is true, and the Gods know is false. You are confused.

"The irony is that I chose not to bring an umbrella despite the prediction of rain."

What makes it ours is possession, that we've built it into what it is, and that this is where we come from.

Edited September 26, 2011 by August1991

[Bonam]

Same sh*t, different thread. By now everyone here knows exactly what everyone else here thinks on the issue. What's the point?

[bud]

israel is always moving the line in the sand. has been a strategy for decades. “right to exist” “jewish state for jewish people”.

israel wants to make it look like the ball is in the palestinian court by always introducing and becoming hysterical over bs.

the truth is that the palestinian authority (arafat) accepted the state of israel in 1988 in the PLO declaration. since then, the only thing we've seen is the increasing of settlements. why? because israel is not interested in a real and just peace. they are not interested and capable of negotiating for a just peace.

fact is that the israeli government is no different than hamas. the likud party has vowed to never allow a palestinian state while, we all know, hamas does not accept the state of israel.

[wyly]

israel is always moving the line in the sand. has been a strategy for decades. “right to exist” “jewish state for jewish people”.

israel wants to make it look like the ball is in the palestinian court by always introducing and becoming hysterical over bs.

the truth is that the palestinian authority (arafat) accepted the state of israel in 1988 in the PLO declaration. since then, the only thing we've seen is the increasing of settlements. why? because israel is not interested in a real and just peace. they are not interested and capable of negotiating for a just peace.

fact is that the israeli government is no different than hamas. the likud party has vowed to never allow a palestinian state while, we all know, hamas does not accept the state of israel.

yup...here the statement made by Benjamin Netanyahu and the context in which it was made

"Water will determine the future of the Occupied Territories, and by extension, the issue of conflict or peace in the region." Thomas Naff made this remark several years ago, and water remains a key, if often unacknowledged, issue behind the strife in the Middle East. When Israel’s Likud Party vowed in May never to allow the creation of a Palestinian state, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged that a central issue is water: "A Palestinian state would control the aquifer, which gives us 30 percent of our water. Yes to a Palestinian state means no to a Jewish state, and yes to a Jewish state means no to a Palestinian State."

it's obvious to anyone with even half a brain that building settlements and taking ever larger chunks of palestine is going to kill any negotiations, which the the entire point...israel does not want peace until it has all the land and can expel the palestinians...

Edited September 28, 2011 by wyly

[jacee]

You're partially correct. Of course it isn't necessary for anyone to recognize Israel for what it is and what will always be - the eternal homeland of the Jewish people. We're here and we are what we are with or without Arab/Muslim "recognition" or from their supporters like yourself. Where recognition is important, however, is towards really concluding this conflict. Without recognition from the Arabs/Muslims and their armchair apologists, like yourself, the conflict will perpetuate endlessly.

Israel is a Jewish state.

It isn't an issue. It's just a roadblock.

Peace will require giving up things on both sides, and two states that recognize each other as such.

Why give away the power to define Israel?

Israel defines itself and answers to no one for it.

[Oleg Bach]

The "state" is not geographical - it is mental - it is about the state of mind...we can all have our own independent states - in our heads -where no one can interfere or settle in.