Officials: Mideast Quartet talks failed due to disagreement over Israel as Jewish state

[Jefferson23]

Western diplomats and senior officials in Jerusalem say foreign ministers of Mideast Quartet did not issue final statement on meeting over Israel's demand that Palestinians call it a 'Jewish state.'

By Barak Ravid

The foreign ministers of the Middle East Quartet failed to reach an agreement on Monday surrounding the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and therefore did not issue a public statement on their meeting meant to renew Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Western diplomats and senior officials in Jerusalem said Tuesday.

"The goal was to give each side something that was important to them," a Western diplomat said. "The Palestinians were supposed to get 1967 borders with land swaps and the Israelis wanted to receive in return the recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland, but there was no agreement on this matter."

A senior Israeli official said that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov took mostly pro-Palestinians positions in the Quartet talks and would not allow the inclusion of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the concluding statement of the meeting.

Despite describing the two-and-a-half-hour long meeting as "excellent," the foreign ministers of the Quartet separated on Sunday without issuing a shared statement.

in full: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/officials-mideast-quartet-talks-failed-due-to-disagreement-over-israel-as-jewish-state-1.372905

[provis99]

1. "Now listen, Arab boy! You better call me Sir!"

[CTyankee]

2. where are you pulling that out of? It seems like Israel is just asking for recognition

of it as a Jewish state. What is so bad about that?

[cpwm17]

4. Just like in the US

-Christians are the majority. What's wrong with them declaring the US a Christian nation?

I'm an atheist, so I should just accept my status as a second class citizen.

[aranthus]

5. You're conflating religion and people hood.

The question is whether the Jewish people have any right to a state of their own in any part of the Palestine mandate. I realize it's a little tricky to comprehend, but Jews are a people as well as a religion. A "Jewish state" refers to the Jews as a people and not as a religious state.

[cpwm17]

11. Actually I'm more or les aware of what makes one a Jew

-if your mother's a Jew, then you're a Jew. But that is a religious rule. Christians require actual belief in their religion to be regarded as Christian. That is why I'm not a Christian.

Maybe I could have said that Christians should declared the US a White-Christian nation. Perhaps the analogy would have been a little closer.

This is a distraction from my original point. There are numerous people in Israel that aren't Jewish. They are treated quite badly. And the Palestinians in the occupied territories are treated much worse. Declaring Israel a Jewish state is evidence of the discrimination. Jews ethnically cleansed that native Palestinians to create the original Jewish majority. We wouldn't put up with anything like that in the US. I find it strange that Americans can support it.

[shira]

12. But Israel is secular and takes Jews in who do not necessarily have Jewish mothers

The Nazis didn't distinguish between orthodox Jews and those who had Jewish grandmothers.

So Israel accepts anyone who could be persecuted as a Jew.

Your view of Israel is as erroneous as your perception of who counts as a Jew according to Israeli immigration law.

[oberliner]

14. "We wouldn't put up with anything like that in the US?"

Was that meant to be irony/parody?

[cpwm17]

35. The "we" I'm talking about is DU members

We (DU members) wouldn't tolerate Christians declaring the US a Christian Nation. But strangely many seem to see no problem with Israel doing essentially that by declaring itself a Jewish State - the hypocrisy is striking.

But I guess since the Palestinians are brown people or believe in the wrong religion, that's OK.

[Shaktimaan]

41. awesome...

Since when is the average Palestinian more brown than the average Israeli?

Wow, you couldn't possibly BE any more talking out of your ass, could you? I DO get what you're doing though... can't back up your position with facts or logic, just accuse 'em of racism. So what if they are all (for the most part), the same race.

[aranthus]

15. Your ignorance is breathtaking.

Leaving aside that you don't actually know what makes a Jew or what it means to be a Jew, the rest of your stated "facts" are just wrong. Every one of them. Let's start with that Jews did not ethnically cleanse Palestine to create a Jewish majority. In the area of the original Israeli state according to the Partition Plan, there already was a Jewish majority. The Jews simply did not ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Most Arab refugees simply ran from front line battle areas in a war that the Palestinians themselves started.

And yes, Americans would stand for what happened in Palestine. The same thing happened during the American Revolution. The Tories--the supporters of the British--ran to Canada in much the same way as the Palestinians ran. Then the Americans refused to let them back in.

[Shaktimaan]

17. I disagree with this interpretation of events.

The Jews simply did not ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Most Arab refugees simply ran from front line battle areas in a war that the Palestinians themselves started.

The Palestinians left the areas that Israel in several waves during the civil war and the larger Arab/Israeli war, (though by that second war most everyone who was going to leave had already left.) For the most part the Israelis did not forcibly evict or cleanse them.

HOWEVER, following the war's conclusion, Israel refused to let almost all of these people back. They became refugees quite simply because Israel wouldn't let them return to their homes. The Israeli narrative that they left of their own accord and did not seek to return until much, much later (and then only to destroy Israel through demographic means), is quite simply untrue.

If Israel's refusal to re-admit these Palestinians who previously inhabited the land is not ethnic cleansing, then what in the world is it?

I don't see why this facts is so anathema to the Zionist narrative. Yes the Palestinians weren't allowed back. This was because there was just a very violent war split down ethnic lines. The war itself was the culmination of decades of violence and friction between the two groups. A partition was all but inevitable.

Population transfers happen a lot at the start of states. Especially at that time in history. The larger crime IMO was that following the internal displacement of many Palestinians, (they were mostly still in Palestine after all), they were forced to remain as refugees for decades, even as the Arab surrounding states split up the remaining land amongst themselves.

But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the Israelis bore no responsibility for their departure from Israel.

edit: But you are correct in that every single one of cpwm's "points" were totally flawed in ways that demonstrated a profound failure to grasp the basic facts of the conflict.

[pelsar]

23. i also don't understand....

I don't see why this facts is so anathema to the Zionist narrative

the reality of any birthing nation is "not a pretty site"..I don't understand why we have to pretend it didn't happen, with all its violence......the greater crime was how of all the millions of refugees, ethnic cleansing, populations transfers be forced directly or indirectly, during the decade of the 1940's its just the Palestinians (as far as i know) that remain in refugee camps, with special laws made (for) against them throughout the arab world... with their own special UN groups to "help" them.

[aranthus]

26. I should have clarified.

I did not intend to suggest that the Palestinians simply left of their own accord. Even those who left before fighting started, thought that they were getting out of the way of a war, and they were right about that. Civilians who run away from a village that has become a battlefield aren't doing so of their own accord. However neither are they being ethnically cleansed. What happened to most of the refugees is not something that I consider ethnic cleansing. I reserve that term for the intentional forced eviction of a population. Otherwise, every war is a case of ethnic cleansing, and that removes the onerousness of the act. Most Palestinians left because of battles. They became refugees in the way that most refugees lost their homes in virtually every war that has been fought. You are correct that most were not allowed back (as the Tories were not allowed to return to the US after the Revolutionary War). I don't believe that qualifies as ethnic cleansing, since the Israelis did not drive most Palestinians out. Of course that means that the Israelis have some responsibility for what happened. And to add a further correction, there were some Palestinians who were forcibly moved--mostly from one part of the Mandate to another. Some were moved for military reasons, but there were others that were likely ethnically cleansed. Based on what you have posted, I'm not sure that we really disagree that much.

[cpwm17]

34. No serious historian would agree with you

The Palestinian civilians fled because they were the targets of the Jewish militants. The Jews militants committed a number of massacres, and threatened more..

The Arab neighbors got involved after the flood of Palestinian refugees were fleeing to their countries. The Jews started the conflict, and the Palestinians were the victim. The Palestinians are still the victims.

[aranthus]

36. I think if you were to do some research you would find

that it is only Leftist historians who agree with you. People like Ilan Pappe or Norman Finkelstein who are not taken seriously outside of the Left. Efraim Karsh and Trevor Dupuy, who are serious historians not on the left, would certainly support my position that the Palestinians ran from the battles of a war that they started. So would Benny Morris.

Just as an example, Dupuy makes clear in "Elusive Victory" that it was the Arabs of Palestine who started the war. According to you, when and how did the Jews start the conflict? What is your source?

[cpwm17]

38. Right back at you:

Your ignorance is breathtaking.

The Palestinians fled from their homes due to mass murder and threats by the Jewish militants. The Jews refused reentry by the native Palestinians. This is what is called ethnic cleansing.

[aranthus]

42. That is false history.

While some Palestinians fled for those reasons, the majority of them did not. They fled from a war. In this case a war their side started.

[Recursion]

49. "Their side"? You mean the Jordanians and Egyptians who wanted their land too?

Yeah, great "side" they had there...

[aranthus]

50. Well, yeah. That side.

Or as Matt Helm once said, "Someone on our side, isn't." The truth is that the Palestinian state that everyone talks about was destroyed by the Jordanians and the Egyptians, with British conivance. But let's be clear, the Palestinians gave the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians that opening by starting the war. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the only people who were really prepared to allow the Palestinians a state of their own were the Jews of Palestine. And the only way that the Palestinians were going to actually get a state of their own was by not going to war. Perhaps they didn't see that comming, even though many others did. Or perhaps what they wanted wasn't a state of their own.

[Recursion]

51. While I agree with you partly, I can't find Israel blameless for the 48 war

The Haganah was operating well outside of the partition (to protect, unsurprisingly enough, what were already called "settler outposts") before the Egyptians started attacking Tel Aviv. Though as I alluded above, I have no illusions about the Egyptians' motives in doing so (nor, I imagine, did many of the Palestinians at the time). Though asking about who started a war that had already been being fought for 2 years is a tricky question to begin with -- and I more or less buy the stories of a deal between Abdullah and Weizmann to split the Palestinian territory.

But, hey, I'll easily concede that Jordan is as responsible for the West Bankers' statelessness as Israel is. Egypt is mostly guilty (as it has been for most of its modern history) of trying too hard to appease a powerful first-world patron.

[Shaktimaan]

43. aranthus' post is true

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but what you wrote is simply not true. You had a few select massacres, like Deir Yassin, (and of course these massacres occurred on both sides.) And Palestinians were forcibly made to leave a few areas, notably Jaffa.

No doubt the decision to refuse to allow the Palestinians to return after the war constitutes ethnic cleansing, but what you are saying here doesn't even make any sense. If the Palestinians fled to avoid massacres then why did so many actually stay? And if this represents a planned decision to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians beforehand, then why not just force them out? Why leave such a significant population behind?

Many nations formed during this period of time saw polulation exchanges. It sucks, but I understand why it happened. There were zero Jews left in areas controlled by the Arabs at the end of the war in '48. And within 20 years there were almost none left anywhere in the entire middle east. This is far from an ideal scenario, but it happens. Luckily it was relatively bloodless, as compared to events like partition in India, which is probably the only good thing anyone can say about what happened.

But I absolutely understand the reluctance to re-admit a large population of Palestinians immediately following the civil war. After all, the decision to partition the two populations was done for a reason. And Israel faced enough serious problems without also dealing with a population of people who did not support the state's creation. Had there been no civil war, then it would have been a different story.

In any case, I think the biggest crime connected to this was the refusal of the surrounding Arab states to grant the Palestinians rights of settlement and citizenship. The late 40's saw many millions of refugees. A great deal never returned to the places they originally came from. Yet only the Palestinians still find themselves as refugees 60 years later.

[Shaktimaan]

24. Oh, damn. OK... Now I get it.

Good one.

He's a troll. Crap, you really nailed me too. This last bit was just a little too far.

Jews ethnically cleansed that native Palestinians to create the original Jewish majority. We wouldn't put up with anything like that in the US

Otherwise though I'm seriously impressed.

:toast:

[LeftishBrit]

32. You wouldn't put up with anything like that in the US? Are you serious?

What about the ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans? Slavery and Jim Crow? And even nowadays, the discrimination against racial minorities, and the undue influence in many areas of a particular type of right-wing Christian?

The UK has its own long history of racism, in the past imperialism, and to this day has an official state religion even if we are in practice more secular than the USA.

I do not justify the anti-Arab discrimination and bigotry that are too common in Israel, but such characteristics hardly make it unique among nations, or even among those regarded as democracies.

[azurnoir]

7. your confusion is understandable

the Jewish state is based on 'ethnicity^' and keeping that ethnic group dominate, we are told repeatedly here that most Israeli Jews are secular nonpracticing Jews albeit I have never seen a demographic break down of that claim

ethnic Judaism is however dependent on ones ancestors practicing the Jewish religion

[oberliner]

18. The exact information you are claiming you have "never seen" was posted right here on this forum

Less than a year ago:

JERUSALEM — Forty-two percent of Israeli Jews identify themselves as secular or non-religious, making them the largest segment of society, according to figures released by the government on Monday.

The Central Bureau of Statistics said another 25 percent identify themselves as "not very religious," 13 percent as "traditional," 12 percent as "religious" and eight percent as "ultra-Orthodox."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x332316

[azurnoir]

19. Thanks I did not see it at the time it was posted but 42% is not a majority is it ? n/t

[oberliner]

28. Only if you lump them in with the "not very religious" group

Then it's close to 70%.

Admittedly, the terms are a bit vague (such as "traditional").

[Shaktimaan]

25. not really the largest tho...

all other groups are varying degrees of religious.

[Shaktimaan]

8. wow, that is one heck of a false parallel.

First of all, Zionism refers to Israel being the Jewish state in terms of nationalism, not religion. The Jews are a group of people that has aspects of a nation, an ethnicity and a religion. None of these terms are really adequate, the concept of Judaism transcends easy definitions.

That said, your comment implies that Israel's desire to officially be recognized as the Jewish state is somehow rooted in racism or bigotry. Israel's creation was deemed a necessary solution to the continued persecution of the Jewish people across the globe for thousands of years. As such it is a proactive response to both past and future persecution of diaspora Jews. It doesn't have much to do with the religion. For example, the standard used to determine whether someone is "Jewish enough" to qualify for the Right of Return under Israeli law is based not on whether the person meets Halacha (religious law) standards but whether they would have been persecuted as Jews. Many (close to half) of Israeli immigrants who enter this way are not technically Jewish.

Furthermore, many (if not most), of the original Zionists (and most Israelis today) are secular. Many are atheists just like you. This has no effect on their status as citizens. Nor does their race, ethnicity or religion. Jews, Arabs, Bedouins, Druze, etc. all enjoy equal rights under Israeli law. This isn't to say that racism doesn't exist. It obviously does and is a huge problem, just as it is in any cosmopolitan nation.

Zionism sought to remedy the oppression of Jews via their establishment of a state and self-determination. To view this as itself racist is to turn it on its head. The only way it would be possible to consider this Zionism=bigotry parallel at all would be by viewing it with blinders on, ignoring all of the surrounding history of the Middle East, the Jews, the Arabs and Europe going all the way back to Rome. It's sort of like someone who looks at Affirmative Action and sees it as a mechanism for oppressing white people. If guess if you don't know about slavery or the civil rights movement or anything else then it might look like that to you.

If the United Negro College Fund appears racist to you then Israel probably should too. Because they both are, in much the same way. Neither serves to deny other groups a place at the table, neither seeks subjugation from anyone in their mission to protect and advance their own tribe. Perhaps these groups DO reflect the xenophobic world we live in; in fact, they most definitely do. But there is a special kind of bigotry inherent in decrying these movements for lifting up their own kind because they do not offer an equal helping hand to their oppressors. Arab and/or Muslim societies control just about the entire Middle East. Yet Zionists are criticized for not offering enough equality on their tiny, barren, resource-less sliver of it. A sliver that offers more equality than anywhere else in the whole MidEast.

There are more Arabs living in Israel than there are Jews in the entire rest of the MidEast. Yet Israel is somehow always held up for special ridicule. Why do you think that is?

[cpwm17]

13. There's a lot there

I addressed a little of it above.

"Arab and/or Muslim societies control just about the entire Middle East. Yet Zionists are criticized for not offering enough equality on their tiny, barren, resource-less sliver of it. A sliver that offers more equality than anywhere else in the whole MidEast."

It is irrelevant to the Palestinians whether the Muslim World (a convenient way for you to divide that part of the world) covers a large territory. They are from and live in Palestine (and now many live in what is now Israel). They are just as human as Jews. Their lives are no less valuable.

You are dividing the World into tribes in such a way as to make the Israeli behavior look reasonable. Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims are people and individuals. A Muslim losing his land or life is just as tragic as anyone else losing their land or life.


"Zionism sought to remedy the oppression of Jews via their establishment of a state and self-determination. To view this as itself racist is to turn it on its head."

Maybe not necessarily racist in itself, but the proof is in the pudding. Israel's oppression of the native Palestinians and its numerous aggressive wars indicates that it is racist.

[shira]

16. The country you live in is arguably more racist....

Agreed?

Tell you what, name a model country Israel should aspire towards being like. The best one you can think of, and we'll compare...

[cpwm17]

37. Not more than Israel

Our (US) foreign policy is every bit as racist as Israel's. We do treat our citizens who are minorities much better. I don't see the US engaging in the systematic racism and ethnic cleansing as Israel still does. The ethnic cleansing that the US did to the Native Americans is old history.

No country is perfect (obviously), but most aren't so overtly racist as Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

40. our foreign policy is racist?

How in the world is that so? Most foreign policies work for the interests of the country and have pretty much nothing to do with the goals of advancing one race over any other. US FP certainly fits that mold. We have no issues dealing with any country, regardless of the race, religion or ethics of said state, as long as it benefits the US. I fail to see anything that is racist about either our or Israel's fireign policies.

But as far as our own citizens go, you say that the US doesn't engage in the same systematic racism or ethnic cleansing that Israel does. Haha, OK... what racism and ethnic cleansing are you talking about? I mean, I would argue that Israel has NEVER engaged in the kind of systematic racism and EC that the US has been famous for. (Slavery, Jim Crow, genocide, lynchings, the KKK, segregation in the military, WWII internment camps, etc.) But apparently Israel is STILL doing something that I was unaware they had EVER done.

So enlighten me. What examples of systematic ethnic cleansing and overt racism do you see enshrined in modern Israeli society?

Please try and be specific.

[Shaktimaan]

21. Why the need for such straw men?

They are just as human as Jews. Their lives are no less valuable.

Seriously? That's really going to be your argument? Did I give you any kind of indication, even remotely, that I did not consider Palestinians to be fully human? Do you have any idea how offensive it is to imply that I might consider Jews to be ethnically superior or assume that my viewpoints on the I/P conflict originates in racist ideology?

Whatever dude, so here's my response: Despite what you may have heard on the UN floor, Jews do NOT require the blood of innocent children to bake matzoh. Nor do they have horns. Nor do they slaughter Arab children to sell their organs on the open market. Nor do their kids sing school bus songs about their love of drinking blood.

You are dividing the World into tribes in such a way as to make the Israeli behavior look reasonable.

I'M the one that did that? Wow, and here I thought tribalism was the basis of our system of international nation-states. Turns out it was ME all along! Who knew?

Edit: Really though, here's the trick to making Israeli behavior look reasonable... Just compare it to any one else's behavior. Bingo! You're done.

Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims are people and individuals. A Muslim losing his land or life is just as tragic as anyone else losing their land or life.

Isn't it funny how you never hear this argument unless someone's referring to the Palestinians' loss of land? Ethnically cleansed Jews from Arab states lost more land and were greater in number. Their home states were not riven by civil war between Jewish and Arab inhabitants (as was the case in Palestine). Yet you so seldom hear any outrage about them. Isn't that weird? People will sit there and insist that Palestine has always been Arab land until you point out the vastness of "Arab land" vs. Israel. Then it suddenly becomes racist-ey to split people into arbitrary groups like "Arab" or "Jew" and we should look at them all as INDIVIDUALS who lost their land. Which the Zionists stole.

Israel's oppression of the native Palestinians and its numerous aggressive wars indicates that it is racist.

The logic of this single, simple sentence is flawed on so many levels I can't help but be kind of impressed. (

Israel oppressed the natives how exactly? (And WHICH ones?) What wars of Israel's were aggressive? (And what does "aggressive" even mean? That they fought hard? Or that they were baseless?) And HOW does any of this indicate racism, as opposed to any of the myriad other possibilities? And since most Israelis are themselves (or are descended from), Middle Eastern people, WHO are they even racist against?)

[cpwm17]

39. Strawman It wasn't intentional

Frequently defenders of Israel's behavior say that the Arabs are so numerous and have so much land and the Jews have so little, which somehow makes what Israel does to the to the Palestinians OK. But clearly on my reread of your post you didn't mean that.

Israel (and the US) has a love affair with war. Both the US and Israel have very racist foreign policies. I find the US's support for Israel no matter what it does quite offensive. No policy that can't be defended should be defended or supported. If Israel doesn't represent our proclaimed values, we should support it. That applies to all countries.

The US gives more support to Israel than any other country. In the US that can lead many people to notice and question Israel's behavior.

Israel's aggressive wars and racist policies are self evident. If you don't recognize that there is nothing I can write that could change your mind.

[Shaktimaan]

44. maybe try though.

Israel's aggressive wars and racist policies are self evident. If you don't recognize that there is nothing I can write that could change your mind.

If Israel has some of the most racist policies, laws and aggressive wars in the modern world then it should be easy to point them out. And I don't mean to brag, but for the average schmuck I'm pretty well read on this topic.

Merely saying something is self-evident and refusing to elaborate is an extremely poor debating tactic. You are advocating that the US cut off all support to an ally to the tune of 3b annually. If you want to argue that this money is being used to support racism and agro warmaking then it is not unreasonable to expect you to actually formulate, you know... an argument.

People like to compare Israel to Nazis, as an example. I can easily explain how the Nazis were racist and perpetrated aggressive wars. Can you actually do so with Israel, or is this all gut-level reaction kinda stuff?

[Recursion]

46. The "minutemen" who want to keep the US an anglo nation are a better example (nt)

[aranthus]

47. What do you mean by "anglo"?

If you mean "white" or "Caucasian", then it isn't a good analogy because "Jewish" isn't a race. If you mean English speaking or keeping the values on which the country was founded, then I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Recursion]

48. Play games all you want; you know exactly what I mean

That's such a pointless distinction I'm amazed you tried to make it. White is a race, though Hispanic is an ethnicity (oddly enough, most Hispanic people immigrating to the US are white in racial terms). Jewish is also an ethnicity; and Jews like Hispanics may be of any race (but are also mostly white).

If you mean English speaking or keeping the values on which the country was founded, then I don't see anything wrong with that.

That explains a lot, I guess...

[azurnoir]

6. well there is nothing bad about that

well unless your a non-Jewish citizen of the 'Jewish State'

[hack89]

9. Can we use as a model all the Islamic Republics?

do you see them as models for how a country with a recognized religious identity handles citizens of a different religion?

[azurnoir]

20. setting the bar on low huh? but I thought Israel claimed to be a first world country

but now when convenient it's should be compared to third world? ok if you sat so, wow let's compare France and Uganda or Norway and Zimbabwe and see who comes out on top shall we?

[hack89]

29. So you see Israel as the role model for the Arab countries?

shall we insist that Arab countries transform themselves into secular democracies? You seem to identify first world countries as being better than third world countries - which is true.

[shira]

30. X

[shira]

31. Enough of that bullshit argument, Azurnoir...

You aren't the least concerned about minority treatment in countries surrounding Israel.

And Israel is no worse than any other 1st world, western nation WRT racism/discrimination, but I'm betting you spend a VERY disproportionate amount of your time condemning Israel than you do other 1st world nations, including your own.

You're just using the same dishonest, hypocritical argument Israel's 3rd world neighbors use. It's hypocritical for them to use it given the way they treat their minorities so there's no reason YOU have to also use their crap arguments.

The PA doesn't even now wish to acknowledge Israel's existence that they supposedly agreed to back in the early 1990's, so don't push that crap that they have good reason not to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish nation.

[Shaktimaan]

10. then what?

why is it bad then?
what happens?

[azurnoir]

22. Derfner had a piece on this very subject on his blog

this is not written by Derfner however

As Larry himself demonstrates in his proposal for an improved Jewish and democratic state, Israel cannot offer its Arab citizens access to two out of five key areas of influence in the 21st century statehood: Army and immigration (the other being finances, elected government and judiciary). Regarding military service, Larry insists:

I don’t think Arab citizens want to be drafted into the Israeli army like Jewish citizens, and I know that Jews, myself include, don’t want Arabs to be drafted, and the reason is that it’s morally wrong, dangerous and finally impossible to force them to fight Israel’s likely enemies, who are, after all, Muslims and Arabs, including Palestinians. Nothing’s going to change that, and until the day Israel (or just about any other state) can live without an army, military service is one responsibility that Israeli Arabs can’t be forced to shoulder. Yet under any arrangement other than a Jewish state, Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs would naturally have equal military responsibilities – and because of history, geography, politics and everything else, that is simply unworkable.

Curiously enough, there were two massive attempts to enlist Palestinians into the IDF, the 1950′s. In 1954, then-defense minister Yitzhak Lavon sent out draft orders to 24,000 (!) Muslim youths. There response was so overwhelmingly positive the orders were cancelled and negative influence from the “elders” of the community (themselves appointed and promoted by the Israeli government) was blamed. Throughout the early 1950′s, the father of Palestinian legislators in the Knesset, communistTaufiq Tubi campaigned for Palestinian enlistment, but it came to naught; all this was very soot after the Nakba and before any of Israel’s major wars.

There are two reasons why there was such support for joining the military: Practical and political. Practically, the army always was, and (sadly) will remain for the foreseeable future the primary engine of upward social mobility in Israel. Army provides training – not just in combat, but in organisational skills, self discipline, languages, sciences, medicine and so on. More importantly, it’s a hub of networking, with horizontal (peers and colleagues) and vertical (commanders and subordinates) relationships providing an invaluable grid of connections extremely useful in later life; one can have a commercial career in high tech, non-human-rights law and other financially rewarding fields without having gone through elite intelligence and/or combat units in the IDF, but it’s so much easier for those who did.

http://israelleft.com/2011/07/11/israeli-palestinian-army-immigration-and-the-long-run-a-response-
to-larry/


eta the question seems IMO what does 21st century Israel want to be a country for all Israeli's or a country for Jewish Israelis?
This question is similar to the one the US faced 50 years ago were we a country for white Americans or a country for all Americans

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I think the answer to that question is there has to be a middle-ground found...

Clearly Israel must be a state for all Israelis, but having said that, I think it's important that Israel be able to place importance on its Jewish history and culture in ways that don't exclude or marginalise the sizeable non-Jewish population...

[just55650]

27. ^this

[King_David]

3. You made that shit up

And put it in quotations.

If you were a journalist,you would be fired and rightly so.

One wonders at motivation.

UGLY !

[cali]

45. LOL. you do realize that the quartet is composed of Muslim states, right?

[aranthus]

52. This is what Obama should have done when he called for '67 borders.

He should have called for recognition of the Jewish state or renunciation of the ROR at the same time.