Morocco Normalizes Relations with Israel

[Novus America]

Morocco hasn't recognized Israel yet and probably won't after the Biden Administration repudiates Trump's meaningless executive order re: Western Sahara. If Israel wants more international recognition it might could stop treating its Arab citizens like Blacks were treated in the US South during segregation.

I already said in my first pst that Israel should treat the Palestininans better. Also, is the Arab/Muslim nations' disapproval relly about their treatment of the Palestinians? They've literally hated Israel since it was created.

It is not about the Palestinian Arabs. It maybe never was. The Arab leaders needed an external enemy.
Actually ironically the Arab leaders, and even current Iranian leaders benefit from Israel existing but being in conflict with the Arab Palestinians.

If the conflict ended, how would they distract their populace from domestic troubles?

The reason many Arab states are shifting gears is they have Iran as the external enemy to unite their people against, so they no longer need Israel for that purpose.
And they can gain more from Israel as a friend vs Israel as an enemy now. Iran is the bigger threat.

It is a cynical realpolitik cost benefit analysis. Not about “solidarity” or whatever propaganda BS.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I already said in my first pst that Israel should treat the Palestininans better. Also, is the Arab/Muslim nations' disapproval relly about their treatment of the Palestinians? They've literally hated Israel since it was created.

It is not about the Palestinian Arabs. It maybe never was. The Arab leaders needed an external enemy.
Actually ironically the Arab leaders, and even current Iranian leaders benefit from Israel existing but being in conflict with the Arab Palestinians.

If the conflict ended, how would they distract their populace from domestic troubles?

The reason many Arab states are shifting gears is they have Iran as the external enemy to unite their people against, so they no longer need Israel for that purpose.
And they can gain more from Israel as a friend vs Israel as an enemy now. Iran is the bigger threat.

It is a cynical realpolitik cost benefit analysis. Not about “solidarity” or whatever propaganda BS.

Unite their people against? Haha.. or distract their people from domestic authoritarianism and corruption?

[Novus America]

It is not about the Palestinian Arabs. It maybe never was. The Arab leaders needed an external enemy.
Actually ironically the Arab leaders, and even current Iranian leaders benefit from Israel existing but being in conflict with the Arab Palestinians.

If the conflict ended, how would they distract their populace from domestic troubles?

The reason many Arab states are shifting gears is they have Iran as the external enemy to unite their people against, so they no longer need Israel for that purpose.
And they can gain more from Israel as a friend vs Israel as an enemy now. Iran is the bigger threat.

It is a cynical realpolitik cost benefit analysis. Not about “solidarity” or whatever propaganda BS.

Unite their people against? Haha.. or distract their people from domestic authoritarianism and corruption?

Same thing in this case...
Keeping the people united against an external enemy helps distract them from and keeps them from uniting against the corruption and authoritarianism...

Uniting people against a common external enemy can be used for good purposes, but it can also be equally used for malicious ones.

[La Xinga]

Abbas would allow Jews their their own party?

Why not, just as long as they're never allowed in government.

I'm pretty sure Israel allows Arabs in their government.

[La Xinga]

Israel is a legitimate state which has been in existence for decades at this point; it only makes sense that more countries are starting to recognize them. I'm sorry you're so bitter about the past and unable to see past your own bias, but Israel isn't going anywhere and it's time it's enemies start seeing that. If you have issues with the way Israel suppoesly trats Palestinains, then you should be fighting to get them better treatment, not wishing for their downfall.

Morocco hasn't recognized Israel yet and probably won't after the Biden Administration repudiates Trump's meaningless executive order re: Western Sahara. If Israel wants more international recognition it might could stop treating its Arab citizens like Blacks were treated in the US South during segregation.

Separate drinking fountains for Arabs and Jews?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Morocco hasn't recognized Israel yet and probably won't after the Biden Administration repudiates Trump's meaningless executive order re: Western Sahara. If Israel wants more international recognition it might could stop treating its Arab citizens like Blacks were treated in the US South during segregation.

Separate drinking fountains for Arabs and Jews?

Lmeow. Yeah.. of course not.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Separate drinking fountains for Arabs and Jews?

Lmeow. Yeah.. of course not.

It's almost as if they want Israel to be that racist. They've been practically reduced to grasping at straws. It's pathetic.

[Insaanistan]

Why not, just as long as they're never allowed in government.

I'm pretty sure Israel allows Arabs in their government.

Just like black people were legally allowed to vote in the sixties.

[Novus America]

I'm pretty sure Israel allows Arabs in their government.

Just like black people were legally allowed to vote in the sixties.

Yes, the de facto prohibition against black people voting in the Deep South was eliminated in a series of laws between 1957 and 1965.
Black people absolutely could vote by the 1966.

Many could vote even before that, (but many could not) but your point is?

The situation of the US Deep South in the 1930s (which was really bad) and the the Israeli Arabs (which while far from perfect is much less bad) are quite different. Sure de facto discrimination still exists, nobody claims Israel completely lacks any internal ethnic conflict or discrimination, but Israeli Arabs have full legal rights, and in fact more rights than Arabs in most Arab majority countries ironically.

While there is still a lot of room for improvement, Israel’s treatment of Israel Arabs is hardly the worst, and actually relative to the region fairly good, although sure the sets a low bar.

Now the Palestinian Arabs get worse treatment than the Israelis Arabs but still that dynamic is definitely different than the US South during Jim Crowe. Not necessarily always better. But different.
Especially given that the Palestinian Arabs are not Israeli citizens.

You absolutely can criticize Israel treatment of Arabs, but making ham fisted comparisons that do not really fit (just because discrimination exists one place does not make it really comparable to ever other place it might exist, which is basically everywhere) is not helpful and you are conflating two very different issues, the Israeli treatment of Israelis Arabs and the Israeli relations with the Palestinians Arabs.

[Insaanistan]

Just like black people were legally allowed to vote in the sixties.

Yes, the de facto prohibition against black people voting in the Deep South was eliminated in a series of laws between 1957 and 1965.
Black people absolutely could vote by the 1966.

Many could vote even before that, (but many could not) but your point is?

The situation of the US Deep South in the 1930s (which was really bad) and the the Israeli Arabs (which while far from perfect is much less bad) are quite different. Sure de facto discrimination still exists, nobody claims Israel completely lacks any internal ethnic conflict or discrimination, but Israeli Arabs have full legal rights, and in fact more rights than Arabs in most Arab majority countries ironically.

While there is still a lot of room for improvement, Israel’s treatment of Israel Arabs is hardly the worst, and actually relative to the region fairly good, although sure the sets a low bar.

Now the Palestinian Arabs get worse treatment than the Israelis Arabs but still that dynamic is definitely different than the US South during Jim Crowe. Not necessarily always better. But different.
Especially given that the Palestinian Arabs are not Israeli citizens.

You absolutely can criticize Israel treatment of Arabs, but making ham fisted comparisons that do not really fit (just because discrimination exists one place does not make it really comparable to ever other place it might exist, which is basically everywhere) is not helpful and you are conflating two very different issues, the Israeli treatment of Israelis Arabs and the Israeli relations with the Palestinians Arabs.

I agree that Israeli Arabs do NOT have it as bad as black people in the sixties. They also don’t have it as bad as Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. However, there’s a reason many Israeli Arabs much prefer to call themselves “Palestinians” rather than “Israelis” or “Israeli Arabs”.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Ok but can Israel stop useing white phosphorus munitions?

[Novus America]

Yes, the de facto prohibition against black people voting in the Deep South was eliminated in a series of laws between 1957 and 1965.
Black people absolutely could vote by the 1966.

Many could vote even before that, (but many could not) but your point is?

The situation of the US Deep South in the 1930s (which was really bad) and the the Israeli Arabs (which while far from perfect is much less bad) are quite different. Sure de facto discrimination still exists, nobody claims Israel completely lacks any internal ethnic conflict or discrimination, but Israeli Arabs have full legal rights, and in fact more rights than Arabs in most Arab majority countries ironically.

While there is still a lot of room for improvement, Israel’s treatment of Israel Arabs is hardly the worst, and actually relative to the region fairly good, although sure the sets a low bar.

Now the Palestinian Arabs get worse treatment than the Israelis Arabs but still that dynamic is definitely different than the US South during Jim Crowe. Not necessarily always better. But different.
Especially given that the Palestinian Arabs are not Israeli citizens.

You absolutely can criticize Israel treatment of Arabs, but making ham fisted comparisons that do not really fit (just because discrimination exists one place does not make it really comparable to ever other place it might exist, which is basically everywhere) is not helpful and you are conflating two very different issues, the Israeli treatment of Israelis Arabs and the Israeli relations with the Palestinians Arabs.

I agree that Israeli Arabs do NOT have it as bad as black people in the sixties. They also don’t have it as bad as Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. However, there’s a reason many Israeli Arabs much prefer to call themselves “Palestinians” rather than “Israelis” or “Israeli Arabs”.

And again the 60s were much better for black people than the 30s. Or pretty much any decade prior.
Despite severe continuing problems they were an improvement. Actually the 50s and 60s probably saw the greatest amount of improvements. So kind of a strange comparison to make unless you are trying to say “things are still bad but getting better”. That last per being important.

Although actually Israel ended most legal discrimination against Israel Arabs in 1966.

Anyways different situations today than Israel or the US 60 years ago. Sure not all Israeli Arabs feel a perfectly welcome as part of Israel society and what terminology to use to describe them is a contentious issue, plus there are many divisions within the Israeli community but there is very little support for leaving or seceding from Israel.

It could be somewhat closer to compare the situation to blacks in the US today to Israeli Arabs today although still there are some major fundamental differences. The simple black vs white narrative we use here (as problematic and flawed as that is here) does not work there.

Point is though the simple narrative of “Israel mistreates Arabs” is not particularly helpful as it ignores the vast complexities of the issue, from the internal divisions between Bedouin, Druze, Israel Arab Christians and other Israeli Arab groups and the differences there, and the fact that the treatment of Israel Arabs is different than the treatment of Arabs who are not nationals of Israel, and of course that Arab is such a vague and overbroad ethnoliguistic lumping together of diverse populations.

[Novus America]

Ok but can Israel stop useing white phosphorus munitions?

That is a complex issue all of its own (white phosphorus having legitimate military uses, but some military uses of it being forbidden by international law), but really what does that have to do with Morocco? Israel is not using them against Morocco.

This is an inherent problem, the all of nothing approach some seem to take towards this situation, that we most solve all the problems at once or solve none, when the reality is we have to deal if the individual circumstances individually, and that Israeli Morocco and Israel Palestinians relations are different issues with different concerns.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Ok but can Israel stop useing white phosphorus munitions?

That is a complex issue all of its own (white phosphorus having legitimate military uses, but some military uses of it being forbidden by international law), but really what does that have to do with Morocco? Israel is not using them against Morocco.

This is an inherent problem, the all of nothing approach some seem to take towards this situation, that we most solve all the problems at once or solve none, when the reality is we have to deal if the individual circumstances individually, and that Israeli Morocco and Israel Palestinians relations are different issues with different concerns.

I don't really agree that it is a complex issue.
White phosphorus is inhumane as a munition. Israel and anyone else who uses it should stop useing it.

But it doesn't have anything to do with Morocco to be fair. I just like bringing up how shitty it is of any nation useing
white phosphorous. Any time that nation comes up in discussion I want to point out it does this very shitty thing and should stop doing that.

[Novus America]

That is a complex issue all of its own (white phosphorus having legitimate military uses, but some military uses of it being forbidden by international law), but really what does that have to do with Morocco? Israel is not using them against Morocco.

This is an inherent problem, the all of nothing approach some seem to take towards this situation, that we most solve all the problems at once or solve none, when the reality is we have to deal if the individual circumstances individually, and that Israeli Morocco and Israel Palestinians relations are different issues with different concerns.

I don't really agree that it is a complex issue.
White phosphorus is inhumane as a munition. Israel and anyone else who uses it should stop useing it.

But it doesn't have anything to do with Morocco to be fair. I just like bringing up how shitty it is of any nation useing
white phosphorous. Any time that nation comes up in discussion I want to point out it does this very shitty thing and should stop doing that.

International law disagrees with you then. Because using it to create smoke for protection/as a light obscurant or against military targets and material are considered legitimate, but using it as a choking/poison gas agent or against civilians or in civilian populated areas generally is not.

It is not so simple as “white phosphorus bad”.

But again here is the problem. Even if we accept the it is a always bad to use, (I do not) or accept that Israel has used it in manners that are probably in violation of international law (I do accept this) this should not be brought up in a discussion about recognizing Morocco recognizing Israel, as that creates a hugely problematic double standard.

The idea that we cannot recognize Israel until Israel stops doing everything we dislike if applied evenly would mean cannot recognize most of not all governments.

The recognition of a country should not require that country do absolutely nothing shitty, or else we cannot recognize any country at all.

Why is Israel held to this double standard? Why are you quite happy to recognize far more atrocious regimes without question but ask a different question when it comes to Israel?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I don't really agree that it is a complex issue.
White phosphorus is inhumane as a munition. Israel and anyone else who uses it should stop useing it.

But it doesn't have anything to do with Morocco to be fair. I just like bringing up how shitty it is of any nation useing
white phosphorous. Any time that nation comes up in discussion I want to point out it does this very shitty thing and should stop doing that.

International law disagrees with you then. Because using it to create smoke for protection/as a light obscurant or against military targets and material are considered legitimate, but using it as a choking/poison gas agent or against civilians or in civilian populated areas generally is not.

It is not so simple as “white phosphorus bad”.

But again here is the problem. Even if we accept the it is a always bad to use, (I do not) or accept that Israel has used it in manners that are probably in violation of international law (I do accept this) this should not be brought up in a discussion about recognizing Morocco recognizing Israel, as that creates a hugely problematic double standard.

The idea that we cannot recognize Israel until Israel stops doing everything we dislike if applied evenly would mean cannot recognize most of not all governments.

The recognition of a country should not require that country do absolutely nothing shitty, or else we cannot recognize any country at all.

Why is Israel held to this double standard? Why are you quite happy to recognize far more atrocious regimes without question but ask a different question when it comes to Israel?

Oh but I do recognise it as a legitimate state. A state that uses white phosphorus to burn away human flesh but a state none the less. Just saying as Israel continues to gain recognition from other states it should stop burning people alive with white phosphorus. Useing it as a smoke grenade is fine tho.

[Novus America]

International law disagrees with you then. Because using it to create smoke for protection/as a light obscurant or against military targets and material are considered legitimate, but using it as a choking/poison gas agent or against civilians or in civilian populated areas generally is not.

It is not so simple as “white phosphorus bad”.

But again here is the problem. Even if we accept the it is a always bad to use, (I do not) or accept that Israel has used it in manners that are probably in violation of international law (I do accept this) this should not be brought up in a discussion about recognizing Morocco recognizing Israel, as that creates a hugely problematic double standard.

The idea that we cannot recognize Israel until Israel stops doing everything we dislike if applied evenly would mean cannot recognize most of not all governments.

The recognition of a country should not require that country do absolutely nothing shitty, or else we cannot recognize any country at all.

Why is Israel held to this double standard? Why are you quite happy to recognize far more atrocious regimes without question but ask a different question when it comes to Israel?

Oh but I do recognise it as a legitimate state. A state that uses white phosphorus to burn away human flesh but a state none the less. Just saying as Israel continues to gain recognition from other states it should stop burning people alive with white phosphorus. Useing it as a smoke grenade is fine tho.

But again these are entirely separate issues. Should the recognition of Azerbaijan and Armenia be contingent on then it using white phosphorus?

But fair, you do agree Israel should be recognized.
Many do not.