Any hope for Annapolis?

39 thoughts on “Any hope for Annapolis?”

1. I mostly agree with this post, and my disagreements aren’t consequential enough to argue about. I’d just like to highlight this article which may cast light on exactly how much of a settlement freeze is in progress. Apparently, no building permits have been issued east of the Green Line for five months, and the only ones in the pipeline were recently denied. All construction currently in progress is taking place on previously issued permits, and the settlers are complaining that many of these have also been rescinded. So while it isn’t yet the total freeze it should be, it looks more serious than previous (non)-freezes.
   Anyway, I also hope that Annapolis is a beginning rather than an end. For all the disturbing signs (and for all Olmert’s lack of anything resembling moral courage), there’s an atmosphere of seriousness that I haven’t seen in a long time. At the very least, maybe everyone realizes that the clock is running out.

2. Why wouldn’t Israel recognise Palestine as a Muslim state?

3. “Why wouldn’t Israel recognise Palestine as a Muslim state?”
   Doesn’t it already recognize both Egypt and Jordan as Islamic states? I think they might also be “states of their citizens,” or are they and the other constitutionally defined Islamic nations also in need of some reconsitituting from bien pensant westerners?

4. I guess my main criticism of the Israeli position is that they say they require any such statement– whether of Israel’s “right to exist” or “right to exist as a Jewish state”– from the Palestinians even before Israel will even sit down to negotiate the rest of the final-status agreement.
   As far as I know, this is unprecedented. The US sat down with the Soviets and concluded with them (thank G-d!) many very valuable agreements on strategic arms control and a host of other matters without either side being required to state beforehand that they “recognized the right of” the other to exist. Just the fact of concluding the agreement with the other, under its own self-chosen name, was sufficient.
   Thus, the US sat down with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and concluded the agreement with that body under that name. In each case the agreement, and the diplomacy around it, were what was important. And the USSR did not insist before negotiations even started that the US had to recognize “the right of the USSR to exist.” That is almost a meaningless concept in international relations. And of course, when the USSR collapsed, the fact that those agreements had been signed was still very important, even though the name and nature of the regime in Moscow had changed.
   So then, Israel’s addition to the older “right to exist” requirement the requirement that the Palestinians provide upfront recognition of Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish state” is at one level, quite irrelevant. If the PA/PLO is sitting down and negotiating final-status arrangements with Israel then that fact itself (a) is central, and (b) carries within it the assumption of the PA/PLO’s recognition of the State of Israel. (Which, the last time I looked, did not name itself “The Jewish State of Israel.”) Beyond that, of course, the exchange of letters between Rabin and Arafat at the time of Oslo conveyed, authoritatively from each side, its recognition of the other.
   So let’s not flog this dead horse of a claimed “non-recognition” of Israel by the Palestinian side even once– let alone twice, as Olmert currently demands. Plus, I note that Olmert and all others who voice the “as a Jewish state” demand are also thereby actively seeking/requiring the intervention of outsiders into a question that surely is internal to the Israeli citizenry: namely, the character of their state, a matter that is still strongly contended, from many sides, among the citizens themselves. This, too, seems troubling from a democratic-theory point of view.

5. Vadim, Egypt nor Jordan are both secular states. They don’t recognize themselves as Islamic states, so why would Israel or anyone else do so?

6. ?They don’t recognize themselves as Islamic states, so why would Israel or anyone else do so?
   Hi Shirin! Your remark is perplexing. If Egypt were not frankly Islamic, why would it belong to the OIC — aka “Organization of Islamic Conference” (along with 55 other member nations? Further why would its constitution specify that “Islam is the Religion of the State…and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence?” These two facts seem to suggest that Islam is the religion of the State and the principal source of legislation Islamic Jurisprudence, not the opposite.
   Jordan, another member of the OIC, has similar language in its constitution. Like Egypt’s, its second article (characterizing “The State and System of Governance”) states forthrightly that “Islam is the religion of the State.” This inclines me to believe either that Islam IS the religion of the State or that the authors of this document were speaking in code. Perhaps I should be substituting “secular humanism” or somesuch for the I-word in order to grasp its hidden meaning? Very subtle!

7. “I guess my main criticism of the Israeli position is that they say they require any such statement– whether of Israel’s “right to exist” or “right to exist as a Jewish state”– from the Palestinians even before Israel will even sit down to negotiate the rest of the final-status agreement.”
   Because that is precisely what the root of the conflict is about. Not “the occupation” or anything else. Rather, the Palestinians and the rest of Israel’s enemies have, from the state’s very inception, refused to acknowledge that the Jewish people who have chosen to engage in the (remarkably successful) endeavor of community building known as Zionism have a right to do so. If they still can’t figure out what “Jewish state” is, then that’s their problem. Hint: It’s the thing that they have been trying to destroy for sixty years.
   For all of Helena’s talk of asymmetry, she ignores a different source of asymmetry. Specifically, Israel must make tangible concessions which, while not irrevocable, could place the country in severe danger. The Palestinians and Arab countries are required to offer “peace.” That’s incredibly valuable, but also intangible.
   The fact is that if Israel DOES give up all of the West Bank, there are clear logistical problems. Israel, at its narrowest, is the range of a Katyusha rocket. The Golan Heights can easily be used by Syria to rain terror down on the north (as it was before the 1967 war). Ben Gurion Airport is easily within striking distance of the newly created state of Palestine.
   As part of any agreement, there can of course be negotiations over “early warning stations,” restrictions on placement of troops, and the like. But ultimately, for any of those to have any meaning, there must be an explicit commitment to recognize the other’s right to exist as it sees itself, not some vague commitment to recognition which ignores the existential basis for the state and creates the possibility for future conflict and objections.
   The Arab refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is the ultimate cause of the conflict. A simple declaration by negotiators that they will in fact recognize the Jewish state is, of course, not an immediate cure all, since the bigotry and hatred in the Arab world goes far beyond that of it’s leaders. But it is nevertheless a start.
   The alternative to such recognition is, of course, for Israel to take measures that would prevent it’s destruction. Holding enough land as a buffer. Building fortifications to keep belligerents out. Maintaining checkpoints in the other territory.
   Oh, wait a second. We have that. It’s called military occupation. I thought we wanted to end it?
   Of course we all do. But only some people understand what it necessary to “end the occupation.” It involves recognizing the other.
   The bar is so low for the Palestinians, and they still can’t clear it.

8. Helena, thanks for taking the time to do that clarification. But I seriously have to question your analogy. Did not United States recognise the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1933?
   As far I am aware diplomatic relations between the two countries were not ever broken nor recognition withdrawn during the whole period of the Cold War until today? That’s probably why they were able to eventually negotiate all those strategic arms agreements, I suggest?
   Israel was established by the UN specifically as a jewish state. The Arab muslim countries and Palestinians have always rejected this. The Muslim Middle Eastern countries do not call themselves “the Islamic State of” – although if they did , they would be perfectly entitled to. But they all do specify the Islam is the religion of the state, do they not?
   That said I think Olmert’s demand was nothing more than one of the public debating manouvres that have been going on between him and Abbas since Israel and the PA resumed serious talks. As you would be aware Rice’s stupid Annapolis conference has put both sides in a public spotlight which is forcing them to take maximilist positions in public. Not only that Rice has allowed, indeed promoted, the “neighbours” horning in with their different agendas. The US State Dept is acting with almost criminal idiocy in my humble opinion!
   The independent Palestinian State will only come into being after private, bi lateral tough, tough negotiations between Israel and the PA and then ONLY if a resulting deal is put to both peoples and carried in subsequent referendums on the northern Ireland model.
   So going back to your (curiously) faulty US/Soviet analogy, I would say that until the Palestinians and the Israelis are prepared to recognise each other fully, and without qualification, there is no chance of them getting to first base in these negotiations?

9. Joshua: have to disagree vehemently with your last comments. The requirement to publicly recognise Israel as a jewish state, which is tantamount to accepting there can be no “Right of Return” to Israel – is an incredibly high bar for the Palestinians to jump. It is the very heart of their legitimate existential grievance. That’s why I cringe when I see comments like “Israel will have to make ‘generous’ concessions to the Palestinians.” Olmert is prone to talking about “generosity”. Ugh. When the Palestinians give up their “Right of Return” as they surely will eventually, it will be they who are being generous.
   and btw I say this as a Labor zionist (goy) of fifty years standing.

10. “Israel was established by the UN specifically as a jewish state. The Arab muslim countries and Palestinians have always rejected this.”
    BB, let’s be clear about exactly what the “Arab Muslim” countries and Palestinians actually rejected, and let us not commit the convenient fallacy of pretending it is because the people who took over Palestine for themselves were Jews. Do you really believe that if, for example, a group of European Armenians, or European Protestants, or let’s say Chinese or Philippino, or European Muslims, had decided to take over Palestine and make it into their own state, and had done exactly as the Zionists have done, that the “Arab Muslim” countries, as you call them, would have accepted it? Or that this would have been accepted from anyone by any native people and their allies anywhere in the world? I, for one, cannot think of a single instance in which the native people in a land have not fought against this kind of thing, can you?
    “The Muslim Middle Eastern countries do not call themselves “the Islamic State of””
    As a matter of fact, some of them do. Iran is a case in point, as is Mauritania.
    “ – although if they did , they would be perfectly entitled to. But they all do specify the Islam is the religion of the state, do they not?L”
    No, they all do not. However, your (and Vadim’s) attempted analogy with Israel as The Jewish State is faulty in any case (my god, how boring this argument has become after infinite repitions over the decades – you guys REALLY need to get some new material!) – unless, of course, you are claiming that Jewish is exclusively defined religiously and that Israel is a theocracy, which I believe is a designation you would reject.
    In fact, Israel is best described as an ethnocracy because it is not exclusively – or even necessarily – religion that defines who is a Jew, although that is one way of qualifying, but rather ancestry and self-identity. A person can be completely secular, or even atheist and still legitimately be a Jew. This is not the case with Muslims. Therefore, even a state that explicitly designates itself as an Islamic state is not analogous to The Jewish State.
    As for the argument that Egypt and Jordan are “Islamic states” because they declare Islam the “state religion” and base their laws on Islamic law, that does not make them Islamic states, and it certainly does not make them “The Islamic State” or a “State for the Muslims” in anything remotely like the way Israel defines itself as “The Jewish State”, or “The State of the Jews”. Just for starters, any Muslim who wants to is not entitled to become a citizen of Jordan or Egypt, and being a Muslim is not a requirement to become a citizen. And by the way, unlike the situation in Israel, citizens of Jordan and Egypt are not required to carry identity cards that indicate their religion or ethnicity, and I do not know of a predominantly Muslim state in which they are required to do so. As far as I know Israel is unique in the Middle East for requiring identity cards that indicate ethnicity or religion.

11. Israel does not want a solution. According to Ilan Pappe and others, those in power have been engaging in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people since their creation and have no plans of ever giving land back to the Palestinians, or allowing them a state.
    The upcoming meetings are simply a dog and pony show to give the illusion that an effort is being made at a solution. Anyone having even an ounce of hope here is deluding themselves.
    The root cause of our hatred in the Arab world lies in our support for the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, but hey, we are a country that has a history of destroying budding democracies over the past 100 years to protect our corporate interests or military objectives and installing murderous totalitarian regimes who are easy to control. Why should we be concerned about the Palestinians. We just pay the problem lip service to pacify our Saudi friends, since they have oil.
    The day the Palestinians have their own state, and not the fraudulent one that had been proposed before Clinton left office, is the day we give Mexico and the Indians back their land.
    Hell will become a tropical paradise due to Global Warming before that happens.
    Any agreements reached in this meeting with the Bush administration involved is unlikely to be be favourable to the Palestinian people. Even the Oslo agreement that Clinton managed to take credit for was a disaster to some Palestinians way of thinking, and they feel Arafat sold them out.
    Arafat if you recall was the former terrorist Israel brought back to lead the Palestinians in return for him recognizing Israel, and Hamas was then supported by Israel to weaken Arafat. Now, with Arafat dead, perhaps even assassinated, and with the political arm of Hamas being democratically elected, they won’t deal with Hamas because they are terrorists, conveniently forgetting their own history of terrorism under the British Mandate.
    Many Palestinians probably hope the meeting does not come off, although conditions are so bad now some might think even a disasterous agreement can not be worse than the status quo .
    Any agreement Abbas reaches will of course be a sell out, giving Israel what they want in return for something that works for him, power, money, even a promise not to be accidentally assassinated or disappeared, whatever. It’s not like anyone on the Palestinian side is negotiating on a level playing field, and Abbas is hardly in a position to get support for any sell out he agrees to in any event. But then, the Palestinians don’t have a real democracy, they can only vote for those who are approved by the US and Israel now, as otherwise the government will not be recognized, and those elected will be “disappeared” by Israel. So I guess support is not required.

12. bb:
    Any side that wants peace is going to have to agree to give up something. For Israel, that means giving up the claims to the historic land of Israel. By saying that Israel is prepared to recognize a Palestinian state, they have essentially conceded this outright, and have conceded it for some time. That does not mean that Israel is willing to (or has to) give up every square kilometer of territory that the Palestinians want, but it means they will have to give up some of it.
    Similarly, recognizing that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state will mean that the Palestinians cannot exercise a highly specious “right of return” in certain ways. But it doesn’t mean they have to give it up. In fact, once a Palestinian state is created, those Palestinians can easily return to their country of Palestine, assuming the new Palestinian government lets them in. What the anti-peace activists are advocating for is something else, namely a so called right of return to Israel. In prior negotiations, Israel was even more (perhaps overly) generous, allowing for a certain number of non-Israeli citizens to “return” to Israel as well.
    As you yourself say, for many Palestinians (although more often non-Palestinians who just hate Israel), the “right of return” is considered to be their “legitimate existential grievance.” That is largely because Palestinian nationalism has been developed and defined in a negative, racist way, in that the Palestinian struggle was less about building a Palestinian state (consistently rejected by the Arabs over 60 years) and more about preventing the existence of a neighboring Jewish state. So long as the Palestinian “existential grievance” is defined in this way, it will and should fail.
    There have been plenty of attempts at peace and coexistence. As far back as the UN Partition Plan (and, arguably, Faisal – Weizmann), and more recently the One Voice Initiative and the Geneva Accords. Each of these has a basic premise, that each people are entitled to their own state. The Jewish state in fact is quite diverse and pluralistic, while the Palestinian state apparently has the right to be Judenrein (which makes Sherry’s babbling about “ethnocracy” all the more hilarious).
    To the extent that current negotiators cannot accept the other side’s right to have a state, they are simply not serious about peace. For all my disagreements and concerns with both U.S. and Israeli policy, both governments recognize both side’s right to a state. That puts them far ahead of anyone else who does not.

13. citizens of Jordan and Egypt are not required to carry identity cards that indicate their religion or ethnicity, and I do not know of a predominantly Muslim state in which they are required to do so.
    Malaysia. Among others.
    You’re right, though; Israel’s designation as a Jewish state isn’t equivalent to the state-religion clauses of the Egyptian and Jordanian constitutions. It’s closer to the provisions in various countries’ constitutions designating them as “Arab states” or “Arab republics,” which many of them don’t seem to find incompatible with the presence of sizable non-Arab minorities. Or, more precisely, it’s closer to the ethnic-homeland and law-of-return clauses in the legal codes of countries like Armenia and Greece.
    BTW, being Jewish isn’t a requirement to become a citizen of Israel. There are, among other people, several thousands of naturalized Egyptian Muslims living in the suburbs of Nazareth.

14. Also, Egyptian identity cards do indicate religion, which is the root of last year’s Baha’i court case. I’m not sure if Jordanian ID cards do, but like many post-Ottoman states, Jordan has separate religious courts for Christian personal-status matters, so it must have some way of determining who the Christians are.

15. “we are a country that has a history…..”
    even better than your examples is the example of what the US did to the native population of this land. It is exactly what the government of Israel did to Palestine, except that we did genocide and they did not, at least not yet.

16. opps, sorry, with further reading, I see you did include that example!

17. Survey of group designations on national ID cards
    Just for the record, BTW, I’m against such designations in all cases, including Israel.

18. how boring this argument has become after infinite repitions over the decades
    FYI Helena drew the analogy in her initial post. I agree it’s very boring, but then so is droning on about how Israel is unique in applying jus sanguinis, or that states claiming Islam as a national religion in their constitutions are secular. I agree that ‘Arab’ is a better analog to ‘Jew’ and the very same arguments apply.
    btw if you think it’s hard for non-Jews to become citizens of Israel, try petitioning for Swiss citizenship.

19. Jonathan, thanks for the information regarding identity cards in Arab and Muslim states. I now know that in a small handful of Arab and/or Muslim countries ID cards for some or all citizens carry information about ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc.
    I find the practice shameful where it is used to discriminate in favour of one group and against others.

20. Since 2005, the Israeli national id card has not listed the holder’s ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc.

21. Thanks to the Americans, it is looking more and more like the Iraqi ID card will soon begin carrying information on sectarian and ethnic identity. I read recently a description from an imbedded American reporter of American soldiers going door to door making some kind of census, and among the boxes to be checked are “Sunni” and Shi`a”.
    And by the way, this focus on sectarian and ethnic divisions has been part of the American modus operandi from day one of the invasion. It seems it was policy and they were trained to do this. We were seeing and hearing right at the beginning of American troops going into neighborhoods in the south and asking people whether they were Sunni or Shi`a. The responses of many of the Iraqis was “huh?! What are you asking me THIS for?” Others defiantly replied “I am Iraqi”. I even have some recollection, albeit vague, of reports of the Americans sometimes making the Sunnis stand in one area and the Shi`as in another – funny when it resulted in dividing families.

22. Lebanon at 64:
    An exemplary assessment-(apologies for posting this here, I was not sure where else to post it)…
    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=86963

23. Jonathan Edelstein,
    You references to ID cards just spinning here, ID cards not a big deal as far as the personal info that collected about the citizenry in every country they have especially in US or Israeli it’s very important for them.
    Talking about religion and ID card is just a run off from Israeli behaviours and actions against Palestine’s as a citizens living on the land that pushed off and stolen from them for no reasons just because others like to live on the same land.
    In regards of your view of Israeli settlements and how much and how many built on occupied land, I wish you reviews you statement and your references there are many references (some form Israeli agencies) tells that Israelis speeding the building of settlements (legal ones) and God knows how many illegal settlements built on occupied land (Believe it or not this illegal settlements building in a Democratic and Law enforcement stat like Israel!) in mean time Israelis preventing Palestinians from building their demolishing homes and houses and farms on different unjustified claims.
    being Jewish isn’t a requirement to become a citizen of Israel. but they defending Israel as an a Israeli citizenry or may be more like what you doing Lawyer Jonathan Edelstein
    BTW, looks very fast recovery for you!.

24. while the Palestinian state apparently has the right to be Judenrein (Joshua)
    I don’t think I have ever heard of a statement that Jews will not be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state, according to a final constitution which does not yet exist. Jewish inhabitants might be required to take Palestinian citizenship; that I could imagine. They might even suffer discrimination, as Muslim Arabs do in Israel.
    To say ‘Judenrein’ is as usual to apply falsely a European situation to the Middle East. Syria and Iran have substantial Jewish populations. All the Palestinians I know are closely integrated with Israel. Expulsion of Jews would only be based on the appalling behaviour of present-day Jewish settlers. That is, present-day actions, not principles.
    Even then, I am certain that if the Jewish migrants were willing to show commitment to the country they are living in, they would be accepted. Britain, my country, is requiring commitment from immigrants; why not Palestine?

25. Alex, that judenrein bit is part of Joshua’s standard shtick, and and has been for years. It is one of the standard songs in his repertoire, and he sings it at every opportunity. The facts be damned, too, it sounds really awful, and brings up thoughts of the Holocaust, and that’s why he keeps it. One reason I rarely bother to read what he writes is that I have heard it all before verbatim, and it gets really boring after so many years of the same thing.
    The fact is that Jews, including Israeli Jews have lived alongside Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza towns and cities throughout the occupation, and been welcomed there. Journalist Amira Hass lived in Gaza for about seven years during the first Intifada, and has lived in Ramalla for I don’t recall how many years now, but she has not lived in Israel for decades. Marty Rosenbluth, an American Jew, lived in Ramallah for a couple of years. And there are plenty of others who live or have lived in Palestinian towns and villages there. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that they would suddenly become unwelcome if Palestine became an independent state.
    In addition there have always been and are now what could realistically be called “righteous Jews” who do not live in the occupied territories, but who go there often to work with Palestinians. Jeff Halper and his group Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions is one example. Journalist Gide’on Levy is another, And the late Arna Mer Khamis and her son Juliano are another. These Jews are and have always been more than welcome in Palestine, and if they chose to live in the State of Palestine, they would undoubtedly be welcome and respected members of the community.

26. Alex, if and when we see a two state solution, I would be more than happy to have the friendly competition begin. Let’s see who can create a more diverse, pluralistic state. Palestine will of course have to catch up, needing 1 million Jews or so.
    As for the settlers, most of them have not engaged in any “appalling” behavior. They live their lives quite normally. Until the intifada, settlements were, on balance, a boon to the Palestinian economy because they provided employment as well as a population that regularly purchased goods and services from their Palestinian neighbors (every now and then Helena will re-run the same citation about “de-development,” ignoring the economic and life indicators and even going so far as to censor posts that contradicted her assertions).
    I also find it hysterical that “Shirin” whines about the use of Holocaust language, and then uses the term “righteous Jews” to refer to the few Jews who serve as mouthpieces for Palestinians. But then again, Sherry was never one for honesty, integrity, or consistency.

27. As for the settlers, most of them have not engaged in any “appalling” behavior.
    There is doubt about this alike statement?

28. Salah: Believe it or not, most Jews who live in the contested territory do not regularly harass or harm Palestinians. They may very well have to leave their homes in the future, but that’s another point entirely.
    Of course, for some people, merely TO BE a Jew on the wrong side of the line is a war crime (except, of course, for the tiny handful that agree to the anti-Israel orthodoxy).

29. Until the intifada, settlements were, on balance, a boon to the Palestinian economy… every now and then Helena will re-run the same citation about “de-development”
    The two aren’t incompatible. It’s possible for a settlement to improve the absolute standard of living in the surrounding area, but nevertheless foster dependency by becoming the economic center and undercutting development of economic infrastructure in the surrounding area. This has in fact been the effect of colonies since the Phoenicians started planting them: they’ve provided jobs, goods and trade to the hinterland at the price of a local monopoly. Or to use an analogy closer to home, the availability of jobs in Paris might improve the standard of living in the banlieues, but it hasn’t made them more developed, especially when combined with the French government’s urban policies.
    In the West Bank/Gaza case, price differentials did lead to some Israelis becoming consumers of Palestinian foods and small-scale crafts. But these are the types of goods that colonies traditionally purchase from the hinterland. When it came to larger-scale industry of the type that generates economic development, the civil administration during 1967-93 adopted policies to encourage Palestinians to become consumers of Israeli goods and jobs rather than competitors to Israeli firms. This wasn’t as universal as it’s sometimes made out to be, and Palestinian factories did exist, but the real growth period for Palestinian industry was during the Oslo period when it became free of civil administration restrictions. Even when looked at in the best light, the economic benefits of the settlements were a decidedly mixed blessing.
    Re Jews living in a Palestinian state: I’d argue that the issue is much simpler than whether the state should be “Judenrein” or whether settlers deserve expulsion due to “appalling behavior.” The controlling fact is that none of them have Palestinian nationality. Once Palestine becomes independent, it will have the same right as any other state to decide whether and on what terms non-citizens can stay, and those settlers who don’t take out Palestinian citizenship will have no legal right to be there. If the settlers want to remain, they should look into applying for Palestinian ID cards (as some of them have actually done from time to time).
    In any event, while much attention is given to the Palestinian right of return, a two-state solution will also involve giving up a Jewish “right of return,” both to the evacuated settlers and to places like Kfar Darom and Hebron where pre-1948 Jewish communities existed. (It’s often forgotten that the demographics of the West Bank during 1948-67 were also, to some extent, the product of ethnic cleansing.) This wouldn’t be the same as a Palestinian state forcibly becoming “judenrein;” instead, it would be a negotiated release of claims by both sides.
    Finally, I agree that the implied Holocaust analogy in the term “righteous Jews” is inappropriate.

30. And Joshua’s incessant use of Holocaust-evocative terms and concepts in the context of these discussions is not inappropriate? Give me a break!

31. I don’t agree with it from him either.

32. Fair enough Jonathan. I respect your consistency.
    And my use of “righteous Jews” was, in case it was not obvious, a bit of tit for tat.

33. re:ID cards, Syria doesn’t require everyone to list their ethnicity, only Jews (“Mussawi”). Lebanon’s system discriminates against unlisted religions such as Bahai & Hindu, whose adherents may not run for parliament. Jordan and Egypt also note religious affiliation. So that “handful” of Arab nations just happens to include all of Israel’s neighbors, while Israel itself seems to have done away with the practice entirely.
    Oh those boring facts! Pish!

34. Syria doesn’t require everyone to list their ethnicity, only Jews
    Syrian Kurds also get special ID cards, and many of them have actually been denaturalized. There’s a common thread: Syria treats most of its minorities fairly well, but reacts badly to those who are associated with a non-Arab nationalism.
    re Lebanon: I don’t think Lebanese ID cards list religious affiliation any more, although I could be wrong.

35. Crow away, Vadim, but it is still only a handful of countries, Vadim, though apparently in your mind proximity to Israel is more significant than mere numbers.
    And it’s good that after a mere 95% of its existence Israel finally eliminated one of its discriminatory practices. How nice if it would eliminate the plethora of other discriminatory practices and become a state for all its citizens equally.
    We are talking about national ID cards, and to the best of my knowledge Lebanese are not required to designate religion on their national ID cards. If you like I can easily confirm that with Lebanese friends or relatives-by-marriage, or perhaps Helena can tell us. The fact that Lebanese Baha’is and Hindus cannot run for Parliament is undoubtedly a by-product of the failed confessional political system imposed on it by the French. Unfortunately, that imposed system has had far more serious, damaging, and long-lasting consequences than that, hasn’t it? Too bad those in power or vying for power in Lebanon don’t find it enough in their interest to get rid of it. (And too bad the United States has pushed Iraq down that awful road now.)
    I don’t know why Syrian Jews have to carry that information on their ID cards, but I strongly suspect that it began in relation to the Zionist project in Palestine. I can’t think of a legitimate or non-negative use for such a designation. In my view it is wrong and should end. By the way, Syrian Kurds also carry their Kurdish identity on their ID cards. That is probably connected with Kurdish separatist movements, but it is not something I find acceptable.
    It would be interesting to know for what purpose religion is on Jordanian and Egyptian ID cards. There could be a legitimate, non-negative reason for it, and yet it also opens the door to negative discrimination, which is obviously not good.
    But gee, three or four out of all those Arab countries out there is pretty good, really, even if they ARE all Israel’s neighbors.

36. It would be interesting to know for what purpose religion is on Jordanian and Egyptian ID cards. There could be a legitimate, non-negative reason for it, and yet it also opens the door to negative discrimination, which is obviously not good.
    At a guess, it’s because of the inherited Ottoman millet system. In countries where personal-status matters are adjudicated by religious courts, as they are in both Egypt and Jordan, it’s likely that the state will take a hand in registering and identifying religious affiliation. That’s how it started in Israel as well: the practice of identifying citizens by “nationality” was inherited rather than created.
    As you say, religious or racial designations on ID cards lend themselves to discrimination, and have been used for that purpose in all the Levantine countries except possibly Jordan. But I don’t believe they were originally implemented for racist reasons, and it’s the Ottoman factor rather than racial conflict that makes them so common in that part of the world.

37. That makes sense, Jonathan.

38. The U.S. Secretary of State is reported to be studying the history of Middle East ‘peace-making’ in anticipation of the Annapolis Conference. According to Reuters (Oct 26, 2007), Rice has consulted former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, as well as former Secretaries of State Baker, Kissinger and Albright, among others.
    Do you think there is Any hope for Annapolis?
    Why Israel Has No “Right to Exist” as a Jewish State
    By OREN BEN-DOR
    Yet again, the Annapolis meeting between Olmert and Abbas is preconditioned upon the recognition by the Palestinian side of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.
    Thus, the really deep issues–the “core”–are conceived as the status of Jerusalem, the fate and future of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories and the viability of the future Palestinian state beside the Jewish one. The fate of the descendants of those 750000 Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 1948 from what is now, and would continue to be under a two-state solutions, the State of Israel, constitutes a “problem” but never an “issue” because, God forbid, to make it an issue on the table would be to threaten the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The existence of Israel as a Jewish state must never become a core issue.

39. Sigh, it’s too bad that Salah is also in the “anti-peace camp.”

Comments are closed.