Discrimination by any other name

[JohnLocke]

Discrimination by any other name
By Michael Freund – Jerusalem Post
December 31, 2003

There is a new breed of racism afoot in the land, and it emanates from the most unexpected of quarters.
The odium, while packaged in flowery language and universalist rhetoric, is nevertheless strident and uncompromising.
Israel's new band of bigots is the racist Left, and its power seems to be growing.
At first glance, the very idea of a racist Left might seem preposterous. After all, these are the people who profess a belief in the most profound and noble of principles, who march on behalf of the rights of others and cling to a vision of reconciliation and peace under the most trying of circumstances.
The Left is the first to cry racism when any distinction is made between Israeli Arabs and Jews, sometimes with good reason. Yet it is the Left itself that is advocating the most sweeping distinctions between how Jews and Arabs are treated under the law.
(…)
Now, I am all in favor of respecting the law, but a key element, in democracies at least, is the idea that all are equal before it. And yet, when it comes to illegal building in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the Left only seems to make noise about Jewish structures, not Arab ones.
As anyone who has driven through the territories knows, there are untold thousands of illegal buildings that have gone up in recent years in Arab villages and towns and along roads overlooking Jewish settlements.
If the law is supreme, then it should not matter who erects an illegal structure. Whether he follows Moses or Muhammad, he has violated the law.
But to Israel's racist leftists, this is simply not the case. They apply their principles selectively, demanding legal action against one ethnic group while ignoring the violations of another. They insist on holding Jews to one standard and Arabs to another. Isn't that racial discrimination?
(…)
To be fair, not all of the Left is plagued by such two-faced beliefs. There are plenty of thoughtful and reasonable people who lean to the left and still believe in maintaining one standard for all. Unfortunately, though, their voices seem to have been drowned out, as the more extreme fringes of the Left have come to the fore.
Indeed, across the board, the far Left speaks of equality for Arabs and Jews even as it practices inequity and discrimination. For, implicit in the double standard applied to Arabs is the paternalistic belief that one cannot expect very much from "such people," as though Arabs were somehow innately inferior. This, of course, is racism in its purest and ugliest of forms, the type of thinking that is incapable of looking beyond a person's origins and judging him or her as an individual.
Whether they will admit it or not, extreme leftists have become infected with this pernicious ailment, advancing a narrow form of chauvinism and prejudice under the guise of progressive values and beliefs.
It is time to tear off their mask of respectability, and see them for what they are: Israel's racist Left.

Read the rest here.

[JohnLocke]

1. Kick

[Darranar]

2. This is garbage...

typical of JPost.

There is one major difference between settlements and the expansion of Palestinian villages: one is against international law, the other isn't.

As for their second example, I ask them to look into a mirror.

[JohnLocke]

3. Why the double standard?

Why is one supposedly "against international law" and "the other isn't?

[Darranar]

5. Because...

one is done by the occupiers, the other by the legitimate inhabitants.

[MikeGalos]

6. You mean like

the legitimate inhabitants of the West Bank that were expelled by the British and Jordanians because they were Jews?

Does that mean you're finally supporting Jewish settlements and opposing the PA mandate that Jews living in the West Bank be expelled and the West Bank be ethnically cleansed of Jews yet again?

[Darranar]

7. Oh, so now you're supporting the right of return?

Or just for Jews?

No, I do not support the stealing of land.

[MikeGalos]

8. I'm just tired of double standards

So, you favor the Jewish settlements?
You oppose the PA's demand of an ethnically pure Palestine?

You never did answer the actual questions.

As for your question, I'd be fine with a compensation package for the refugees on both sides of the 1948 invasion of Israel. As far as I can tell, between UNRWA, the Israeli government and other groups, the Arab refugees have already been paid quite a lot more than any other refugees in history. I guess when the Jews expelled from the Arab states get their compensation from the states that expelled them, we could drop both groups right of return. Of course, the PA would have to compensate all the Jews that were forced out of PA lands but I'm sure they'll be fair about that, don't you?

[Darranar]

10. No, I do not support an "ethnically cleansed Palestine"...

I do, however, support the removal of the settlements - not because I believe in an ethnically cleansed Palestine, but because I believe that stolen land should be returned.

If the Palestinians want them to remain, I'd be fine with that. If they want to legitimately buy the land, and the Palestinians agree, I'm fine with that. If the descendants of those displaced in the West Bank wish to return, I'm fine with that, as long as the Palestinians agree.

[MikeGalos]

13. So the double standard applies

You're OK with an ethnically cleansed Palestine as long as that's what the Arab Palestinians want. The Jews living there have no say even if their families lived there for centuries and the Arabs living there didn't have family in the area even a few decades ago. Even in that case, Jews must get permission to return.

Well, that IS the PA party line but it's awfully hard to justify.

So, to be fair and consistant, do you also feel about Arabs living in Israel that "If the Israelis want them to remain, I'd be fine with that. If they want to legitimately buy the land, and the Israelis agree, I'm fine with that. If the descendants of those displaced inside the Green Line wish to return, I'm fine with that, as long as the Israelis agree."

Or do the rules change with the players...

[Darranar]

16. There is one major difference...

The Arabs living in Israel are not living on stolen land.

[MikeGalos]

19. Really?

I seem to recall a LOT of Jewish land that was "acquired" after the Jews were expelled during the last "ethnic cleansing" of the West Bank by the Jordanians.

And, you denied Jews them the right to live there even if their familes lived there for centuries unless the Arabs living there now wanted it.

Nope. That difference doesn't wash, does it.

[Darranar]

24. Once again, do you support the Palestinian right of return?

Even if their families "lived there for centuries"?

[MikeGalos]

30. I've already answered

I support a package of either return or compensation to the refugees on both sides including the 850,000 Jewish refugees.

How about you? (And, two things, you still haven't answered my earlier questions, and secondly, please answer this question for BOTH groups of refugees and their decendants - it woudl be nice if you gave the same answer for both, but I'm not counting on that level of fairness)

[Darranar]

33. So...

You have no problem with the children of people who were expelled from the West Bank returning there, but you do have a problem with the children of Palestinians expelled from Israel proper returning there.

My opinion on the right of return applies to all people who, for whatever reason, are not going to be allowed back in their home countries in the forseeable future. I support just compensation for what they lost.

[MikeGalos]

37. Do you intentionally make this stuff up

or are your reading skills that bad.

I've said, multiple times here in this topic.

I support either return or compensation to both groups of refugees both Arab and Jewish and I believe that the rules should apply equally to both.

So, you are supporting Israel's attempts to get refugee compensation for the 850,000 Jewish refugees from 1948-9 from the Arab states and their decendants and you'll accept that the level of compensation granted to the Jewish refugees and their decendants is what the Arab refugees and their decendants should get?

If so, great. We agree. If not, please explain why there should be a difference.

[Darranar]

41. Yes, I am...

A question for you: Do you think that if Israel was occupied by the Arab states, and its inhabitants were not ethnically cleansed, it would be perfectly legitimate for the Arab states to force the Palestinian right of return on Israel?

[MikeGalos]

45. Seeing how

every time the Arab states threatened or tried to invade Israel their public stated goal involved massacre of the Jews, it's kind of a moot point.

But, to answer the theoretical question, I fully think that the Arab state governments should allow for the return of the land to the Israelis in exchange for a peace treaty including recognition of all the Arab and Jewish nations involved.

[Darranar]

50. You didn't answer the question.

[MikeGalos]

53. I thought I did

Please explain your hypothetical in more detail.

If it clarifies, I think a workable compensation system should include the following (based roughly on the Geneva formula but only roughly):

States must offer a compensation package to refugees

States may offer compensation in a combination of forms:
Relocation compensation
Two varieties of property compensation

• Cash compensation for old property (Cash Compensation)
• Return of old property and the right to return to that property (Return Compensation)

States Must offer Relocation Compensation to all refugees

States must offer Cash Compensation or a choice of Cash Compensation or Return Compensation to all refugees who lost property

All Refugees are entitled to Relocation Compensation

Refugees that owned property will be offered compensation for that property either as Cash Compensation or they will be offered a choice of Cash Compensation or Relocation Compensation

Refugees must, within a reasonable time after the offer is made, accept their Compensation Package or waive their claim.

Refugees with property claims must, within a reasonable time after the choice is offered, choose between Cash Compensation and Return Compensation if that choice is offered or waive their claim.

Refugees that accept the settlement, waive all further claims of damages for their refugee status

[Darranar]

54. Another question...

Are you OK with Israel making that choice for the future Palestinian state (the choice being whether to allow the refugees to return or to grant them monetary compensation)?

[MikeGalos]

55. As I said

The choice of whether to offer a choice of forms of compensation for property should be up to the issuing state.

If offered, the choice should be made by the individual.

In either case, monetary compensation must be an option.

(wasn't sure which you were asking)

[Darranar]

56. So, do you think Israel...

is the 'issuing state' in regard to whether or not the Jewish refugees from the West Bank should be allowed to return?

That was my question.

[MikeGalos]

57. OK. The terminology's getting confusing

If I'm reading this right, your question is:

Part 1: There are Jews living in Israel who have a valid claim of refugee status from being force to leave family lands in the West Bank due to actions by the government at the time (TransJordan/Jordan)

Part 2: Some of these refugees have returned to live in the West Bank during the time when Israel was either the effective government or had shared governmental responsibilities with the PA

The question is, given their refugee status with regard to ownership of the West Bank, who should be able to offer them compensation in the form of return of lands and rights to live on those returned lands.

If that's the question, it's a tricky one since the damage was done by Jordan, the current government may be Israel or the PA depending on location and the presumptive future government is the PA but it isn't assumed that the PA will take responsibility for that compensation but will likely ask that it be waived as part of the border adjustments.

Ideally, I'd say that the PA as part of an overall settlement of the West Bank Jewish refugee problem is responsible for that issue. However, since they are not in many ways the full government they may not have those rights at this stage of the transition. My hope would be that they wouldn't create new refugees by kicking people out of their homes again but it IS the most likely state.

My guess as to what will happen is this:

The Jews living in their old lands are considered to have been compensated for the land part of the claim (but not the relocation part) by their return to their lands. As part of a finalization of a Palestine government, they will be expelled by the new government and given compensatory housing in Israel. Israel will ask Palestine to provide new refugee relocation compensation for their new status as refugees from Palestine rather than refugees from Jordan since it is now Palestine that is expelling them. The actual settlement costs will, however, likely be absorbed by Israel since Arafat won't pay and Israel won't let their people stay homeless.

[GabysPoppy]

40. not to put words in your mouth

Then you are in total agreement with Mike's statement too.

I will place it here should you have forgotten it,

"I support a package of either return or compensation to the refugees on both sides including the 850,000 Jewish refugees."

I will assume no answer means you have both agreed to it and have ended 2003 in perfect harmony. (at least to this one point)

[Darranar]

43. Yes, I am.

[MikeGalos]

48. Just adding the numbers to make it parallel

"I support a package of either return or compensation to the refugees on both sides including the 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab states and the 650,000 Arab refugees from Israel."

[MikeGalos]

52. As an FYI on the numbers

The number for Arab refugees I used is rounded up from the census differential number. The UN Mediator on Palestine said the Arab refugee number was 472,000.

The 650,000 number is computed from census data which showed:

1947: 809,100 Arabs living in land that became Israel in 1949
1949: 160,000 Arabs living in Israel

This gives a census based total of 649,100 as a reasonable maximum refugee count.

Note that this is not the basis for an actual refugee claims count as some of the Arab refugees accepted earlier compensation offers made throughout the years including return offers made in the 1950s so the actual number is smaller.

I point this out because there are some wild claims of numbers out there that are pretty silly once you research them. (One of the silliest, for example, has there being 50% more Arab refugees created by the 1947-9 war than the total Arab population of Palestine at the time...)

[GabysPoppy]

9. Before you answer

Here is a site you might want to be familiar with.

http://www.jimena-justice.org/

[MikeGalos]

11. Yeah

It's amazing how 850,000 refugees and $1,000,000,000 worth of stolen property don't get any mention if the refugees are Jews and the nations they fled were Arab.

The number of Jewish refugees absorbed by Israel and the number of Arab refugees who left Israel is very similar. It's always seemed that the fact that tiny Israel could absorb all these refugees while the vast Arab nations refused to help their brothers said a lot about the politics of the Middle East.

[JohnLocke]

12. What makes Israelis "occupiers" and Palestinians "legitimate inhabitants"?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[Darranar]

14. Because the territory was taken in 1967 by Israel?

[MikeGalos]

17. Well actually

It was stolen by Jordan in 1949.

[Darranar]

18. So?

It didn't belong to Israel in 1949.

[MikeGalos]

20. And it didn't belong to Jordan either

Did you actually have a point?

[Darranar]

22. It belonged to its inhabitants...

neither Jordan nor Israel respected their right of self-determination.

But Jordan is not the issue here; Israel and its occupation is.

[MikeGalos]

26. And why is Jordan not the issue

Care to explain why you don't seem to care at all about Jordan stealing land permanently from her fellow Palestinians but care, OH SO MUCH, about Israel holding the land in accordance with UN SC 242 until a peace treaty is signed?

Why is Jordan's outright theft not a problem but Israel's internationally legal trusteeship an "occupation" that rates as a crime.

Perhaps you could also explain why it's OK by you for Jordan and the PA not to grant land back to the Jews they either expelled (in the case of Jordan) or demand be expelled (in the case of the PA) and why you don't seem to object to either the PA policy of a Palestinian State where only Moslem and Christian Arabs can be citizens or a Jordanian State where any can become citizens if they're not Jews.

I guess those aren't that important to you.

[Darranar]

28. Your gift of mind-reading is truly amazing.

[MikeGalos]

31. Why thanks

It gets a lot of practice from non-answers like the ones you've posted as replies to my questions.

[Darranar]

36. Here is my reply...

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/loadques.html

[MikeGalos]

38. Ah

Another non-reply. Thanks for playing.

[number6]

62. I just wonder when were going to see Arab Israeli Settlers ??

being that Israel is such a Democratic, non discriminating state
:eyes:

[MikeGalos]

63. Probably

when some Arab Israelis decide that they'd prefer to live under Arafat's thugocracy and give up free elections, police that don't commit summary executions in the town square, a free press, etc.

I don't anticipate a big call for that.

[legin]

4. LOL

That was quite amusing. :evilgrin:

There is a quote by an famous American guy I think goes something like:

'Man is a reasoning creature, he can think up a reason for anything'.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. This sounds very familiar

Place this problem in an American context and the author sounds exactly like Pete Wilson or Ward Connerly or some other rightwing shill on the subject of affirmative action.

There is an identifiable problem with racism in society. One may ask whether any remedy for it is worse than the disease. It's certainly a valid point to raise. However, one should not use the excuse that perhaps some remidies are questionable, that there is no problem or that nothing should be done.

What we have is the idea that it is somehow racist to raise the issue of whether it is wrong for Israelis to build illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land and at the same time deny Palestinians the right to return to homes lost in 1948. Somehow, the idea that Israelis can settle land outside Israel and still live as Israelis isn't racist, even when Palestinian rights are trampled in the process.

It should surprose no one that Mr. Black's fishwrap, the Jerusalem Post, should try to raise the issue whether the remedy to racial descrimantion in Israel is itself racist in a way to tar the entire political left as racist. That kind of smear tactic is par for the course with the right and is aimed at stifling open political disocurse.

Let's get real. In the final agreement, the Plaestinians aren't going to have a right of return and the Israeli settlements aren't going to remain on Palestinian soil without the settlers agreeing to live there as Palestinian citizens and accept Palestinians living in their communities.

[JohnLocke]

21. Jack Rabbit:

The author did not "tar the entire political left as racist," only the very radical left that hates Israel.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Nonsense

To be fair, not all of the Left is plagued by such two-faced beliefs. There are plenty of thoughtful and reasonable people who lean to the left and still believe in maintaining one standard for all. Unfortunately, though, their voices seem to have been drowned out, as the more extreme fringes of the Left have come to the fore.

I resent that patronizing attitude.

I am among those who believe that there is no such thing as a legal Israeli settlement in the occupied territories and that the Palestinians are within their rights to demand that the settlements be disamtled as part of any peace agreement, or that Israel incorporate them into the Israel state and compensate the Palestinians in some way for taking that land. I will not be called a racist by someone writing in a notorious rightwing rag because of it.

[MikeGalos]

32. Do you also then

grant the same rights to Jewish refugees living in Israel who were forced out of their Arab state homes? Do you also feel that there is no such thing as a legal Arab settlement in Israel and feel that the PA should compensate Israel for any Arabs who moved back after the 1948 war and either dismantle their homes as part of a peace settlement or that the PA should incorporate them into the Palestinian State and compensate the Israelis in some way for taking the land?

You see, you're still acting as though there were only Arab refugees who lost their lands. Either both deserve return or compensation or neither do.

[Jack Rabbit]

58. Response

Do you also then grant the same rights to Jewish refugees living in Israel who were forced out of their Arab state homes?

Since the right of return will most likely be denied the Palestinians who lost property in 1948, then it should also be denied to Jews who lost it going the other way. However, they, too, should be conpensated.

Do you also feel that there is no such thing as a legal Arab settlement in Israel and feel that the PA should compensate Israel for any Arabs who moved back after the 1948 war and either dismantle their homes as part of a peace settlement or that the PA should incorporate them into the Palestinian State and compensate the Israelis in some way for taking the land?

The issue is different, and you know it. The issue is that an occupying power is forbidden to transfer parts of its own population to the occupied territory. Last time I checked, no part of Israel was under military occupation by Palestinians or anyone else.

As you will notice, I said:

(T)he Palestinians are within their rights to demand that the settlements be dismantled as part of any peace agreement, or that Israel incorporate them into the Israel state and compensate the Palestinians in some way for taking that land . . . .
In the final agreement, the Palestinians aren't going to have a right of return and the Israeli settlements aren't going to remain on Palestinian soil without the settlers agreeing to live there as Palestinian citizens and accept Palestinians living in their communities.

As far as I know, the Arabs living in Israel live there as Israeli citizens. So there's no problem as far as that is concerned.

If, on the other hand, a Palestinian government insisted that the Arabs living in Israel were subject to the laws of the state of Palestine, could build homes on land confiscated from Jews presumably for security purposes and built bypass roads on which Jews could not travel, then yes, I'd scream bloody murder about that. I would insist that the Arabs living in Israel like that should agree to live there under Israeli law and allow Jews to live their communities.

[MikeGalos]

59. Again

The points you raise are, at best, justifications for differing standards.

Again, the questions work both ways. If you have to come up with reasons why they shouldn't be applied evenly, perhaps you should think harder.

[Jack Rabbit]

61. Of course, I still disagree that there is a double standard . . .

. . . as I did the other day. I will not rehash that. It is clear we failed to convince each other that the other view was correct and we shall agree to disagree, at least for the present.

However, the issue here is whether one should be called racist for holding a point of view about international law that is perfectly defensible, whether you or Mr. Locke or Mr. Freund (the author of the piece that anchors this thread) agree with it not. To call a given individual a racist simply for holding that view is bad enough; to hold that an entire group of adherents to leftist political thought are racist for holding such a view is beneath contempt.

[MikeGalos]

23. Jack

I'm surprised to hear this coming from a Running-Dog Lackey Imperialist Defender like yourself (sorry, couldn't resist)

The point you're making is half valid. It, however, totally ignores the Jews expelled from the West Bank, the plight of Jewish refugees and the other equally parallel issues.

By only discussing one side, you imply that the problems are one-sided and they are not. Should Israel be punished for absorbing the refugees and the Arab states rewarded by not doing the same?

Yes, reality says that the Arab refugees will not all get to return. I say all because many did in 1949 and many accepted compensation for their claims but it is true that it is unlikely that the remainder will get to move back inside the Green Line.
BUT, reality also says that the Jewish refugees will not get to return. I don't say all because none got to in 1949 and nobody offered compensation for their claims.

Either both claims are valid or neither are. If not, all you're doing is rewarding those Arab states who let their brethren sit it camps to keep the hatred going and punishing Israel for taking care of her people in need.

[Jack Rabbit]

60. Duplicate post

!!

[bemildred]

29. It is fairly amusing when these right wing propaganda organs

lecture "the left" on it's failings, as they see them. I
would give more credence to this fellows concerns about
racism if he attacked it directly, rather than painting it as
some sort of "leftist" disease, and especially if he evidenced
some interest in racism on "the right" too.

[MikeGalos]

34. Oh nonsense

A lot of us on the left have said exactly the same things and been shouted down here for it. Having a belief that bigotry exists and is a problem that should be fixed is not exactly an right-wing exclusive view. In fact, it's more often our claim to fame with one quite obvious exception.

[bemildred]

35. You don't seem to have understood my point, Sir.

[MikeGalos]

39. Then perhaps

you'll restate it. Please be sure to explain how when the same point is made by the right and the left that it is a right-wing point.

[bemildred]

42. Since that was not my point, I don't see a need to explain it.

You may reread my first post if you are still confused about it.
It seems clear enough to me.

[MikeGalos]

46. Apparently

it is not as clear as you believe.

[bemildred]

47. That is one possible interpretation of the impasse we seem to have here.

In any case it is clear enough for my purposes.

[MikeGalos]

49. Then

I'll have to run off the assumption that my interpretation was, effectively, correct since you choose not to clarify where it is in error.

[bemildred]

51. Excellent. Do hurry on your way.

[Darranar]

44. As I said in my above post, they should look in a mirror.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Misplaced response

See number 27