Honestly, time. Time eventually changes things and Russia’s occupation of Crimea was only a decade ago and the founding of Israel was like 80 years ago. Israel’s continued expansion and settlement is wrong and comparable to Russia occupying Crimea.
Then why isn’t Germany recognizing Palestine? Those people have been there quite a while.
Only the 75 year old Israel appears to enjoy existence for Germany. Of course supporting Israel’s now open and blatant annexation of the West Bank and planned annexation of Gaza.
But the fact that they don’t doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be actively opposing antisemitism in Germany. Opposing Israel’s actions is different than “Israel shouldn’t exist” because in the context of Germany and the neo mazid, not existing is literal and includes the people of Israel.
White South Africa did not have the right to exist.
Rhodesia did not have a right to exist.
That’s what we are talking about.
Israel has become a Jewish supremacist apartheid state. Its crimes have become so egregious and so entrenched (“facts on the ground”) that it is not unreasonable to argue that it cannot be reformed in its present form. In this case it is reasonable to argue for its replacement by a democratic successor state in which Jews and others will all have the same rights to freedom and safety.
Wake me up when Israel institutes universal suffrage and legal equality for everyone from the river to the sea, elects Marwan Barghouthi as president and changes it flag and anthem to incorporate Palestinian national symbolism. If such a country would like to still call itself Israel, I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Because this is what ending apartheid means, buddy. Not just getting rid of Netanyahu, but deep structural change, and a commitment to justice, truth and reconciliation.
Yes, it is the Fatah line as well. If it were feasible, I would also support it. However, Israeli created “facts on the ground” say it isn’t. It is impossible to extract the entrenched colonists from the West Bank and it is impossible for Israel to accept a sovereign Palestine that is anything more than a Bantustan. Worse, it might just mean that Israel will have not one but two Gazas on its doorstep. It’s a recipe for more death and destruction.
The 2SS was reasonable 30 years ago. That time has very sadly passed. Just like the Palestinians lost their chance in '48, so did the Israelis lose their chance at Camp David in 2000. The current mess is a knot that can only be solved by a single state solution. And if that is the case, and we agree that either side “cleansing” the other is completely unacceptable, then universal equality from the river to the sea, a democratic country, is the only game left.
The current mess is a knot that can only be solved by a single state solution. And if that is the case, and we agree that either side “cleansing” the other is completely unacceptable, then universal equality from the river to the sea, a democratic country, is the only game left.
We disagree on whether a two state solution is possible but do agree that either side committing genocide on the other is unacceptable.
I disagree that a single state solution is possible, even if we named it Peaceland because the same conflict you say prevents the two state solution will still exist and the conflict will continue within the single state. Forcing two opposing cultures into a single state against their will is how we get ethnic cleansing, aka genocide.
This is not agreeing that Israel is allowed to continue committing genocide. This is just saying that country is allowed to exist as a country. Or do you think that once a country commits a horrific act that they should no longer be allowed to exist?
the thing is…WTF do people care about Israel, Brazil, Uganda, Madagascar, etc. when applying for German citizenship? That’s the whole point of this absurdity.
I’m more interested in the inverse: when does colonizing an already-inhabited area turn into a recognized country? Because Israel was created by a stroke of the pen out of Palestinian land. Or is it purely “might makes right”?
The historical Nazi Germany was actually quite supportive of zionist efforts and interestingly the reverse was also true for some time before the holocaust got into full swing.
The Nazi party supported zionist plans because they wanted more options for expelling Jews. That was antisemetic.
Modern Germany is supporting the state of Israel’s existence because of modern antisemitic rhetoric about how Israel shouldn’t exist. This requirement is in opposition to antisemitism.
When any other country commits genocide, nobody says that country shouldn’t exist. They say that they should stop doing those things.
There were a bunch of countries that were consolidated, created, or had lines redrawn after WWII along with Israel. Other than some choosing to split themselves once they gained autonomy, such as Yugoslavia, nobody is saying that those countries shouldn’t exist.
The only country that regularly has people say it shouldn’t exist is Israel. The only reason people say that is because it is a Jewish ethno state. It is surrounded by ethno states that nobody says shouldn’t exist. The primary people pushing the “Israel shouldn’t exist” are antisemitic groups like neo nazis.
Now, that isn’t to say that creating Israel was a good idea or done for good reasons, but enough decades have passed that it is established. There is plenty of criticism to be had about the genocide, apartheid, borders, and what Israel does wrong without leaping to the antisemitic idea that Israel shouldn’t exist.
Found the hasbara bot. Just for the record states have no eight to exist. This concept doesn’t exist.
Let’s assume for a second though that states would have such a right. When Nazi Germany committed genocide, hell yeah people said that state shouldn’t exist and they were right to say so. Apartheid South Africa, that state also shouldn’t have existed in the first place.
To spin this further, the settler colonial states that got established through genocide on the indigenous population, e.g. the USA, Canada and Australia should have never existed in the first place. It’s not so difficult.
Hence, why should I agree to an anyway non existing right for a settler colonial state to exist that can only keep existing through genociding the indigenous population and otherwise keeping it under an apartheid regime.
I think you have confused the structure and implementation of a state as a culture with a collective identity of people located within a rough geographic area.
A state’s right to exist is not the right to act a certain way, but the right to not be wiped off the map. A colonial state colonizing is only wrong because they are conquering other states that had their own right to exist. Otherwise there would be no reason to say that Palestine should exist, and Palestine should absolutely exist.
So do I understand correctly that colonizing most of Africa, and e.g. the USA, Canada or Australia was not wrong? I’m not aware of indigenous people being organized in states. Hence, the colonization must have been okay by your logic?
The populations of Africa and the Americas had all kinds of states! The Mayan culture was a state or a collection of city states. Although most media about Native Americans focus on the tribes that were more nomadic, there were tons of tribes that had established cities and locations that were their territory all throughout the two continents Hell, even nomadic cultures tend to occupy a space even though they move a lot within it.
Africa and Australia had a lot too, I just don’t know them off the top of my head. Colonizers destroyed as much of their cultures as possible to erase their identity as a culture and state.
You have fallen for the colonizer’s myths of unorganized native populations, which they used to justify conquering so that they could “civilize” those populations. The colonizers were absolutely wrong.
Acknowledging a country’s right to exist is the opposite of Nazi policy…
Maintaining that an Apartheid state has the right to keep being an Apartheid state is very Nazi-like.
A country being shitty doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to exist. Does Russia not have a right to exist? Did Iraq not have a right to exist?
Do you mean you support Russian ownership of Crimea?
No, because Crimea is part of Ukraine.
What makes it different from Israel on occupied Palestine?
Honestly, time. Time eventually changes things and Russia’s occupation of Crimea was only a decade ago and the founding of Israel was like 80 years ago. Israel’s continued expansion and settlement is wrong and comparable to Russia occupying Crimea.
Then why isn’t Germany recognizing Palestine? Those people have been there quite a while.
Only the 75 year old Israel appears to enjoy existence for Germany. Of course supporting Israel’s now open and blatant annexation of the West Bank and planned annexation of Gaza.
Germany should recognize Palestine!
But the fact that they don’t doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be actively opposing antisemitism in Germany. Opposing Israel’s actions is different than “Israel shouldn’t exist” because in the context of Germany and the neo mazid, not existing is literal and includes the people of Israel.
White South Africa did not have the right to exist. Rhodesia did not have a right to exist.
That’s what we are talking about.
Israel has become a Jewish supremacist apartheid state. Its crimes have become so egregious and so entrenched (“facts on the ground”) that it is not unreasonable to argue that it cannot be reformed in its present form. In this case it is reasonable to argue for its replacement by a democratic successor state in which Jews and others will all have the same rights to freedom and safety.
So funny story, South Africa was able to end apartheid without not existing.
Imagine that!
Wake me up when Israel institutes universal suffrage and legal equality for everyone from the river to the sea, elects Marwan Barghouthi as president and changes it flag and anthem to incorporate Palestinian national symbolism. If such a country would like to still call itself Israel, I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Because this is what ending apartheid means, buddy. Not just getting rid of Netanyahu, but deep structural change, and a commitment to justice, truth and reconciliation.
I favor a two state solution myself, as it is my understanding that is the desire of the majority of Palestinians.
Yes, it is the Fatah line as well. If it were feasible, I would also support it. However, Israeli created “facts on the ground” say it isn’t. It is impossible to extract the entrenched colonists from the West Bank and it is impossible for Israel to accept a sovereign Palestine that is anything more than a Bantustan. Worse, it might just mean that Israel will have not one but two Gazas on its doorstep. It’s a recipe for more death and destruction.
The 2SS was reasonable 30 years ago. That time has very sadly passed. Just like the Palestinians lost their chance in '48, so did the Israelis lose their chance at Camp David in 2000. The current mess is a knot that can only be solved by a single state solution. And if that is the case, and we agree that either side “cleansing” the other is completely unacceptable, then universal equality from the river to the sea, a democratic country, is the only game left.
We disagree on whether a two state solution is possible but do agree that either side committing genocide on the other is unacceptable.
I disagree that a single state solution is possible, even if we named it Peaceland because the same conflict you say prevents the two state solution will still exist and the conflict will continue within the single state. Forcing two opposing cultures into a single state against their will is how we get ethnic cleansing, aka genocide.
no state has a right to exist. None of them.
Points for consistency, but no points for nihilism because the points are meaningless anyway.
I don’t consider myself a nihilist, so where did that come from?
This is not agreeing that Israel is allowed to continue committing genocide. This is just saying that country is allowed to exist as a country. Or do you think that once a country commits a horrific act that they should no longer be allowed to exist?
the thing is…WTF do people care about Israel, Brazil, Uganda, Madagascar, etc. when applying for German citizenship? That’s the whole point of this absurdity.
You can’t understand that a county that once did a genocide tried to make amends?
I’m more interested in the inverse: when does colonizing an already-inhabited area turn into a recognized country? Because Israel was created by a stroke of the pen out of Palestinian land. Or is it purely “might makes right”?
Oh. Could you educate us more about this? Why exactly was it created with the stroke of a pen and when? And by whom? By the mighty Jewish people?
not OP, but, google Mandatory Palestine
No, sorry.
If you’re not willing to learn, then don’t ask people to educate you!
I wanted him to write out his opinions. Since COVID I’m done with people who just throwing a link to me and say educate yourself.
The historical Nazi Germany was actually quite supportive of zionist efforts and interestingly the reverse was also true for some time before the holocaust got into full swing.
The Nazi party supported zionist plans because they wanted more options for expelling Jews. That was antisemetic.
Modern Germany is supporting the state of Israel’s existence because of modern antisemitic rhetoric about how Israel shouldn’t exist. This requirement is in opposition to antisemitism.
The context is completely different.
What’s anti-semitic about saying israel shouldn’t exist?
When any other country commits genocide, nobody says that country shouldn’t exist. They say that they should stop doing those things.
There were a bunch of countries that were consolidated, created, or had lines redrawn after WWII along with Israel. Other than some choosing to split themselves once they gained autonomy, such as Yugoslavia, nobody is saying that those countries shouldn’t exist.
The only country that regularly has people say it shouldn’t exist is Israel. The only reason people say that is because it is a Jewish ethno state. It is surrounded by ethno states that nobody says shouldn’t exist. The primary people pushing the “Israel shouldn’t exist” are antisemitic groups like neo nazis.
Now, that isn’t to say that creating Israel was a good idea or done for good reasons, but enough decades have passed that it is established. There is plenty of criticism to be had about the genocide, apartheid, borders, and what Israel does wrong without leaping to the antisemitic idea that Israel shouldn’t exist.
Found the hasbara bot. Just for the record states have no eight to exist. This concept doesn’t exist.
Let’s assume for a second though that states would have such a right. When Nazi Germany committed genocide, hell yeah people said that state shouldn’t exist and they were right to say so. Apartheid South Africa, that state also shouldn’t have existed in the first place.
To spin this further, the settler colonial states that got established through genocide on the indigenous population, e.g. the USA, Canada and Australia should have never existed in the first place. It’s not so difficult.
Hence, why should I agree to an anyway non existing right for a settler colonial state to exist that can only keep existing through genociding the indigenous population and otherwise keeping it under an apartheid regime.
I think you have confused the structure and implementation of a state as a culture with a collective identity of people located within a rough geographic area.
A state’s right to exist is not the right to act a certain way, but the right to not be wiped off the map. A colonial state colonizing is only wrong because they are conquering other states that had their own right to exist. Otherwise there would be no reason to say that Palestine should exist, and Palestine should absolutely exist.
So do I understand correctly that colonizing most of Africa, and e.g. the USA, Canada or Australia was not wrong? I’m not aware of indigenous people being organized in states. Hence, the colonization must have been okay by your logic?
The populations of Africa and the Americas had all kinds of states! The Mayan culture was a state or a collection of city states. Although most media about Native Americans focus on the tribes that were more nomadic, there were tons of tribes that had established cities and locations that were their territory all throughout the two continents Hell, even nomadic cultures tend to occupy a space even though they move a lot within it.
Africa and Australia had a lot too, I just don’t know them off the top of my head. Colonizers destroyed as much of their cultures as possible to erase their identity as a culture and state.
You have fallen for the colonizer’s myths of unorganized native populations, which they used to justify conquering so that they could “civilize” those populations. The colonizers were absolutely wrong.