webdiplomacy.net

Stressedlines wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:09 am

Jamie. There is minority groups in all nations. Many are treated worse than that. For the record not a.big fan of israel but they are hardly the worst

Right, so just to be clear, in your view, we have to decide which is the worst country on earth, and then we can only talk about that country's politics, and no others?

I don't see anything objectionable about a desire to target what efforts we make where they are in greatest need. I am curious as to why Israel tends to be singled out for criticism.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:34 pm

I don't see anything objectionable about a desire to target what efforts we make where they are in greatest need. I am curious as to why Israel tends to be singled out for criticism.

I think you're underestimating people's ability for nuance there Oct. It is possible to criticise the policies of multiple countries at once. We can all object to the treatment of the Tibetans under the Chinese, the Rohyngia under Myanmar's military, the Palestinians in Israel/Palestine, and the homeless in Liverpool without detracting from the severity of each individual issue. In the same way medical science can research cures to Cancer, heart disease, and aging simultaneously without grinding to a halt.

You say that, Telamor, but I can't recall the last time I came across a serious debate on Tibet, yet Israel is perpetually there. Criticism of Israel does seem grossly disproportionate compared to other nations. I used to work on the basis that a lot of it was down to a belief that because Israel resembled a Western European nation people believed they were more likely to listen to their protests. That has suffered slightly in the face of ever mounting evidence that Israelis don't give two figs what the man in the street in foreign nations say. Whilst I still think that's part of it, it can't be all. Neither do I think it's all down to antisemitism. Whilst clearly some Israel bashing is exactly that, there are plenty (such as Jamie) who are very anti Israel without looking at all antisemitic. So I'm genuinely curious as to why Israel is the protester's target of choice year after year.

No jamie. Thats not what i said or even implied

My point is that people who bash israel onpy do so because tjere is no political or social risk to doing so

I could care less. Ive been all over the world seveeal times over. Ive seen enough to know that ita dar worse in other places

I'm not sure I'll take your point there Oct. Syria, Libya, Sierra Leone, etc. Have all been in the news as much if not more so than Israel. It isn't a case of the western media jumping on every misstep the Israelis and IDF make either the vast majority of Israel/the IDF's abuses go unreported in the West.

The reason I personally engage with Israel/Palestine is because I have friends out there from my days living in Jerusalem. I've seen the side-effects of a lot of what the IDF do and so it matters more to me.

Libya hasn't had much attention for some time. Neither has Sierra Leone. Syria more so, but that is a special case. If you look back over the life of this forum you will find far more threads on the evils of the Israeli government than other foreign states (and by foreign I mean a nation without a sizable webDip population).

In your case it makes perfect sense to be focused on Israel more than other issues. Is that part of it? That there are simply more connections with that part of the world than other hot spots?

At least for the West I'd imagine so. I can't think of a western country that lacks a Jewish community and thus a direct the to Israel. The US is deeply politically and religiously committed to Israel, Germany and Britain have strong historic links to the region. Given Britain's history I'd imagine the hipocracy of Israeli policy probably gets a bit more play here than elsewhere.

The Palestinian diaspora probably helps keep these issues in play as well. Honduras and El Salvador have both had presidents of Palestinian descent. Belize had a two term priminister of Palestinian descent. Although the Israeli policy of not allowing descendants of Palestinian emigrants will probably reduce the Palestinian population in the long run in the short term it is making the issue more visible.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:01 pm

You say that, Telamor, but I can't recall the last time I came across a serious debate on Tibet, yet Israel is perpetually there. Criticism of Israel does seem grossly disproportionate compared to other nations. I used to work on the basis that a lot of it was down to a belief that because Israel resembled a Western European nation people believed they were more likely to listen to their protests. That has suffered slightly in the face of ever mounting evidence that Israelis don't give two figs what the man in the street in foreign nations say. Whilst I still think that's part of it, it can't be all. Neither do I think it's all down to antisemitism. Whilst clearly some Israel bashing is exactly that, there are plenty (such as Jamie) who are very anti Israel without looking at all antisemitic. So I'm genuinely curious as to why Israel is the protester's target of choice year after year.

This is so wrong. Israel has a massive PR apparatus trying to influence foreign opinion. They even have/had a reality TV show called "The Ambassador", the winner is the one that can spin Israeli news the best:

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,734 ... 94,00.html

I'm unclear why Israel having a massive PR apparatus makes me wrong. I'm also curious as to why you are calling Israel's diplomatic service a PR apparatus. Granted it is, but by doing so you seem to be implying that Israel is unique in this respect and that there's something sinister about it.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:13 pm

I'm unclear why Israel having a massive PR apparatus makes me wrong. I'm also curious as to why you are calling Israel's diplomatic service a PR apparatus. Granted it is, but by doing so you seem to be implying that Israel is unique in this respect and that there's something sinister about it.

You said that Israeli's don't care what foreigners think. Given the amount of effort they go to influence public opinion in foreign countries, again this couldn't be more wrong.

And PR isn't in itself bad. At a basic level, the goal is to just get others to see a side to the story which may not get out otherwise. But the lengths that are taken to shut down any debate I find border on the obnoxious, from the calling of anyone who is even mildly critical of Israel as anti-Semitic to the way they have got laws passed in the US to deny government jobs in the US to people and organizations that may even be remotely attached to BDS like this teacher in Kansas:

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-free-spe ... l-boycotts

And I am saying this after working for an Israeli company for several years and having to travel to Israel several times for work. I still have friends there. I understand that they feel they have existential threads to their very existence. I have a lot of admiration for Israelis - they made a prosperous country out of a desert, with a high-tech industry far larger than you would expect from such a small country. And while I never felt in danger in any way when I was in Israel, yet the market I would walk through to get back to my hotel and the night club along the beach I would walk by both got bombed at some point. I understand there are no easy answers...but it is wrong to try to shutdown debate completely.

If the Israeli aim is to shutdown debate they must have the most inept foreign service on the planet :p. I standby my comment on the Israeli treatment of foreign opinion. It is based on simple observation of Israel taking action after action they know will be deeply unpopular abroad and doing them anyway.

I fully support, by the way, a Nation's right to deny contracts to companies boycotting their allies. That's just common sense.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:02 pm

If the Israeli aim is to shutdown debate they must have the most inept foreign service on the planet :p. I standby my comment on the Israeli treatment of foreign opinion. It is based on simple observation of Israel taking action after action they know will be deeply unpopular abroad and doing them anyway.

I fully support, by the way, a Nation's right to deny contracts to companies boycotting their allies. That's just common sense.

I assume you don't live in the US? In the US it has been pretty much been shutdown. If you want a career in politics or the media in the US, you are very, very brave if you criticize Israel. Of course I know they don't have as much power elsewhere, like in the UK or in Australia. In watching media from the UK/Australia I do see a larger variety of allowed opinions.

OK, I see you are against free speech then. I will remember that for the future.

I don't live in the US, no. In Europe Israel is criticised constantly. The idea that criticising Israel could be considered taboo is alien in the extreme.

I believe in freedom of speech for individuals. I am unsure how you think her speech was limited.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:48 pm

I don't live in the US, no. In Europe Israel is criticised constantly. The idea that criticising Israel could be considered taboo is alien in the extreme.

I believe in freedom of speech for individuals. I am unsure how you think her speech was limited.

You are kidding, right? She was denied a job just because of her beliefs about Israel...which had absolutely nothing to do with the job description. It is pretty clearly against the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech").

If you allow this, it would now be OK for the State Of NY to deny contracts or jobs to Trump supporters. Or are you saying that would be OK too?

My read of the case was that there was no issue about her opinions and what she did or didn't say. They were denying contacts to organisations actively boycotting a strong US ally, which is very different.

You are really trying hard to deny the bleeding obvious. A boycott is a type of protest, protest is a form of free speech. Again, it doesn't say in the US constitution "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...except when said free speech is in contradiction to US foreign policy".

You are not a true believer in free speech unless you believe in free speech for opinions you may not like (add in quote mis-attributed to Voltaire here).

To me the bleeding obvious is that a boycott isn't a form of free speech. Not being a Yank I've no great reverence for the US constitution, which strikes me as little more than an attempt by the dead to govern the living, but even if I did I don't see how this contradicts it.

Nor do I believe in freedom of speech as an absolute. If a hard line Islamist preacher, for example, wanted to set up shop preaching about limiting woman's rights and that Jews were the enemy of the people, I would have no qualms whatsoever about his sorry arse being chucked in gaol.

How is it not a form of free speech? Why does anyone create a boycott? They create a boycott is enacted to send a message indicating that certain behaviour is disapproved of. I don't know how you can interpret this as anything other than a form of speech.

Following on from your example, I hope you will feel the same way if a Christian church preaching about limiting women's rights and/or that all Muslims are enemies of the people. Again saying you support free speech can't be just about supporting opinions, organizations/people or religions etc. that you like.

I have to agree though on the US constitution thing as it does seem to be treated like the ten commandments rather than an attempt based on the best information at the time to create an ideal society (i.e. the constitution framers were not infallible). I brought it up as I believe it does give a reasonable minimum definition for free speech...and that this free speech definition is the law of the land in the US.

BTW, I almost gave you a +1 (even though I disagree with you) just for spelling gaol correctly...

Hi everybody,

I am Israeli and an old member of this website (8 years and counting).

Let me try to put my perspective on this issue.

First, and foremost - there are no second class citizens in Israel. Israel is a democracy, and all citizens have the same rights.

Having said that, please keep in mind I am not talking about Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas and is a foreign entity, and I am not talking about the territories that are under PLO control - they are also a foreign entity, and Israelis are banned from entering both territories. People who live there have only Palestinian passport, and are not Israeli citizens.

Therefore, I am talking only about Israeli citizens - Jews, Arabs, Druze and others.

Israel has no constitution. Israel has only its Declaration of Independence (which is roughly based on American Declaration of Independence - and has no legal status) and something called 'basic laws'. No law can override the basic laws.

What are the Israeli basic laws? Well, these are the laws that define the 'operating system' of the country. You can find there laws about the parliament duties, freedom of occupation, state economy, human dignity and liberty and so on.

I believe some day these basic laws will form a constitution.

The latest basic law that was accepted by the Knesset (Israeli parliament) is the Nation-State law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law ... ish_People).

The law is heavily based on Declaration of Independence, and discusses Basic Principles, Symbols of the State, Capital of the State, Language, Ingathering of the Exiles, Connection to the Jewish people, Jewish Settlement, Official Calendar, Independence Day and Memorial Days and basically this is it. It is a pretty short law, follow the link above to read it. It's almost a one-pager.

There are several perceived problems with the law which are on hot public debate now in Israel:
Problem 1: "The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people".
Israeli Arab leadership does not agree to this sentence. De-facto, it means that Israeli Arabs are not allowed to create their own Arab state on the Israeli land. BTW, Israeli Druze do not see this as a problem, since it's not in their culture to strive for an independent state.

Problem 2: "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel"
This is mainly opposed by people who believe that the future capital of the Palestinian state will be Jerusalem.

Problem 3: Arabic language was an official language in Israel. It is no longer official language, but retains a "special" status. Nobody knows what it means. However, from my experience in Israel, most official documents will continue to be translated to Arabic as well, road signs will continue to be in Arabic, and Arab education in Arab cities will continue to be in Arabic.

Problem 4: "The State views the development of Jewish settlements as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation of such settlements."
This is the only paragraph that makes me move nervously on the chair and I am not happy with it at all.

There are two main non-Jewish groups that oppose the law: Arabs and Druze.

Arabs oppose the law because as a minority that is not always live happily alongside the Jews, feel that the place they live in is a bit less their own now.

Druze, who serve in the Israeli army even with higher percentages than Jews, oppose the law because they were not mentioned in it (pride issue).

This is a declarational law. It does not remove any rights from any Israeli citizens - Jews, Arabs and Druze alike. Except the problem described in (4), I think this is a good law, which does not state anything that wasn't stated in Israeli Declaration of Independence, and just brings the principles in it to a legal status.

Just my two shekels.