8 thoughts on “Did Trump Warn Israel Against Annexation? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. In the Athenian democracy the demos were those who paid their taxes and served in the military as ephebes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Citizenship_in_Athens)…. So there is precedent.

    Regarding supposed Trump’s warning…. I can imagine Bibi -begged- Trump to “please, please, please, please Mr. President, please warn me off from doing one-sided things”. Bibi, for all his faults (and few blessings), is a man of the status quo. do nothing. Strong rhetoric, yes, but he needs an external bogeyman (Iran, Trump’s warning) to get off the tree of his own rhetoric in order to do nothing…

    If Bibi begged Trump to “warn him”, one could imagine a bemused Trump going “Sure thing Bibi, I’ll warn you, consider yourself warned”.

    1. @ lepxii: Athens wasn’t a full democracy as we know it in the west since there were slaves. Women couldn’t vote either. Nor is any modern democratic state restricting itself to the definition of democracy as Athens defined it.

  2. “The Palestinian Israeli and Israeli Zionist left rejects one state” – nope!! EVERYONE rejects one state!!

    Except for Bennett who accepts a very different sort of one state, no one came forward with a series plan and vision to how that one state will work.

    Sure it is a catchy phrase but it is as impossible as two state.

    1. @ Jim: You simply don’t understand. The status quo is an exceedingly frail reed. It cannot continue forever. Look at the Berlin Wall. It all will come toppling down on Israel sometime. The question is what will replace it. Since Israel offers no serious long-term proposal, it will be a one-state solution. The only question is what type of one-state solution. Again, since Israel is resisting with every fiber of its being, it’s likely not to have much say in the outcome. Which is sad really.

      no one came forward with a series [sic] plan and vision to how that one state will work.

      Not true. There are serious plans and visions about how one state could work. You just don’t want to read them.

  3. RS: “Regarding the issue of military service, there is a contradiction in the manner in which it is applied to Jews and Palestinians.”

    Sure is, and how this works is woefully misrepresented by the Israelis.

    You will often hear it stated that Israeli Arabs are “exempt” from military service.

    Not true.

    Under Israeli law nobody is exempt from being called up for military service, and when you receive a call-up you must front up for service.

    That is true for Jews.
    That is true for Arabs.
    That is true for Druze.

    There is no exemption. None. Zip. Zero.

    But what the law does is grant to the Israeli Minister of Defence the absolute authority to decide not to call up any “individual or group” for…. well…. whatever whim takes his fancy.

    It’s the “or group” part that grants him the authority not to call up anyone with an national identity card that contains the word “Arab”, and since the founding of the state every single DM has decided exactly that i.e. to decide that he doesn’t want any Arabs in his army.

    But this must be stressed: he is making that decision on a whim.

    The law allows him to call up Israeli Arabs, and if he did do so then the law says that those Arabs must front up for duty in the IDF.

    The case of Israeli Druze illustrates this very well: for years Israeli Defence Ministers refused to call them up, and then one day he changed his mind. No legislative changes were required: he simply had to decide that, yep, sure, he wants them in his army now.

    RS: “If a Jew does not serve he or she does not lose any rights. He or she may lose certain job benefits offered to military veterans.”

    No, typically they don’t, and it has to do with the way in which they are handled differently to Israeli Arabs.

    An Israeli Arab never receives a call-up for duty, and therefore never fronts up to serve.
    A Yeshiva student is called up, fronts up for duty, and is then promptly sent home.

    The former therefore hasn’t fulfilled the requirement for “veteran benefits” (they didn’t front up for duty, because they were never called-up) while the latter has (he fronted up for duty, even though he didn’t actually serve a single day in the army).

    The latter therefore gets all the benefits, the former is denied them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link