I don't agree. Jews have lived in the US just fine. So mass emigration to the States should have been perfectly acceptable from a purely security point of view. In fact, more Jews live in the States than live in Israel.
From a security point of view, you're right. But in reality, the US or any other country was not willing to accept that many refugees. This of course doesn't justify the mass immigration to Palestine.
And by accepting the the existence of a need to create Israel as a means of protecting Jews implies the need for Israel to be "Jewish" in terms of power. You therefore have to accept that ethnic cleansing of the chosen territory is inevitable.
Agreed. But I never said I think "Israel" needed to be exclusively Jewish.
I am not asking about opinion. I am banging on again about the fact that what you are saying is feasible is merely a deference as to what Israel wanted, and what Israel got. It didn't have to be this way. It's easy to say in the present that this was the only feasible option just because this is what happened, but things were not so straight forward in the past.
I agree. And I have stated my point repeatedly. Just is one thing, feasible is another. When I said it was feasible doesn't mean I think it was right or justified.
This is getting boring and I don't think I will continue our discussion if you keep banging on about something we've already discussed exhaustively.
Given how much you reference feasibility in decision-making, do you honestly think that it would have been feasible for Israel's founding fathers to have accepted any of what you said (i.e not name the nation according to Jewish heritage, allowing Arabs to have any sort of demographic power withing the nation, not having a fundamentally Jewish character to the nation) ?
No I don't.
You say that the way Israel was established was not moral. But to be honest, the way Israel was established was the only way for a sustainable Jewish homeland to be created.
Why do you say that? what about about a bi-national secular state?
All the conditions you put on how it should have been creaed would have resulted in Isreal not being established.
That's true if you mean "Israel" from a Zionist perspective given the transfer concept of Zionism.
So if what you believe is a one state-solution, then what was the purpose of Jews emigrating to the territory if they were just going to be a minority anyway? This would have provided no security, and certianly, less Jews would have emigrated to such a nation.
A secular constitution guaranteeing rights to all citizens regardless of religion. As well as international peace-keeping forces in the beginning. But hey, maybe I'm a dreamer.
Given the Zionists and Zionism were/was the essential foundation for the establishment of the state of Israel, how would this one state solution have fitted in with their plans. Not only does it defy Zionism, but for secular Jews, who may be emigrating to Israel purely for "feeling safe" reasons, would not feel secure unless Jews had absolute power in terms of governing the nation.
Who said I wanted it to fit with their plans? fuck their plans !
And do you think a secular state could ever have been established given who the people who pushing for a Jewish homeland were? Even the principle of establishing the state in the first place is either theocratic or racist (or both).
Probably not. Which is why I acknowledged my preferred solution was not possible !
But the way it was established was the only way.
Ideally, there could've been another way. But I agree, given that the people who were pushing of the establishment of Israel were hardcore Zionists, you are right.
But my point is that sometimes states/instituations sponsor population movements for the sake of demographic legitimacy.
Take the example of Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara. Through the sponsorship of Moroccan settlers to migrate to Western Sahara, they have managed to make Saharawis a minority in their own territory. This is why UN brokered attempts at resolving the problem through referendum have been stalled. The UN and SADR say it is only fair that individuals who were resident in the territory prior to Morocco's occupation in 1975 be franchised in the referendum (understandably), whilst the setters be disenfranchised. Morocco refuses such a referendum (understanably), and demands inclusion of all residents within the territory. I guess Morocco learnt from Indonesia's mistake when the UN referendum for the independence of East Timor excluded the Indonesia settlers, and the population voted for independence.
Ours, theirs, history, who gives a fuck? If the majority of the population of the disputed territory wants to remain a part of said country then that is all that matters. Same thing if they want to secede.
For example, if the majority of Iraqi Kurds want to establish a Kurdistan then they should be allowed to secede.
In a case where there is a split of opinion among the population that is marked with a clear geographical boundary b/t the two camps then it should be divided. And if such a clear geographical boundary doesn't exist then the people should be offered to chose which country they wanna be citizens of as in the case of N. Ireland.
My opinion is that all residents must be allowed to vote.
All this talk about historical rights and man-made borders is utter bullshit. Popular will and the right to self-determination are what fucking matters.
The problem is, once you adopt pragmatism over the rule of law1, you only end up achieving nothing for the Palestinians. Once you loose the rule of law as your benchmark, you end up having no moral framework for achieiving anything in negotiations for Palestinians.2 Being pragmatic essentially allows Israel to decide what is feasible and what is not.3 That is why the pragmatist cannot actually defend the rights of Palestinians, since the pragmatist will in the end let Israel keep Ariel, Efrat, and all the other settlements in the West Bank. You may achieve "peace", and you may halt the further marginalisation of Palestinians, but you will not achieve justice or human rights for Palestinians.4
1-I don't chose to adopt pragmastism over the rule of law. I just think it's the only viable solution to decrease the suffering.
2-I have to end up with no moral framework. Israel is the military and diplomatic superpower and I'm the underdog.
3-I know but at this point I have no other option. I'm the underdog.
4-Sadly true, but it's all I can get.
Rather than accepting the absence of the rule of law in the international sphere, why not strive for norms to be such that states are accountable for their actions. Accepting that the current set up is crappy will only mean crappy things will continue to occur in the future.
Because striving will get the Palestinians nowhere in this cruel fuck-up world. They've been doing for 60 years and look where it got them.
But if, over the decades, Israel is successful in its house demolitions, settlement expansion, and marginalisation of East Jerusalem's Arab population, then eventually Israel will get its way (with the pragmatists' approval) for East Jerusalem to not be a special case anymore.
Exactly. Which is why we need to act quickly and accept what we can get even if it's unjust and bitter. At least we can get sovereignty and a halt to further settlements (which wast was offered in Camp David).
After all, its not clearly feasible or pragmatic to challenge Israel's aims.
Right now it is feasible to challenge the settlers' activity. But who knows maybe in a couple of decades it will be unfeasible to challenge it. So we must act quickly and accept what is offered if it is offered.
Topic: Isrealis attack Aid Convoy ships