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.
We obviously also disagree on what causes the conflict. I don’t see it as a clash between opposing cultures, which by definition is irreconcilable. It is a clash over land, over sovereignty, over rights, over resources. These can of course be resolved and have been resolved even at least tentatively in many countries in the region. With justice can come peace.
If Serbs and Muslims can coexist in Bosnia, if Macedonians and Albanians can coexist in North Macedonia, if Protestants and Catholics can coexist in Northern Ireland, if Flemings and Waloons can coexist in Belgium, if the various denominations can coexist in Lebanon, if English and French can coexist in Quebec, then Israelis and Palestinians can work it out as well. Note that the above examples are at a varying degree of peace and harmony, from not very much to quite a lot. But none of them are genocidal cases. In fact, a couple are societies that coexist after a genocide took place (Bosnia, Ireland).
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.
Germany is famous for being a primary enabler of the Genocide in Gaza. Only beaten by America the original Nazis from Manifest Destiny.
Supporting the white nationalist ethnostate of Israel only solidifies the Nazi reputation of Germany being as strong as ever.
This pretense of antisemitism is just a dogwhistle for white nationalists to hide their racism
Ok tankie.
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.
We obviously also disagree on what causes the conflict. I don’t see it as a clash between opposing cultures, which by definition is irreconcilable. It is a clash over land, over sovereignty, over rights, over resources. These can of course be resolved and have been resolved even at least tentatively in many countries in the region. With justice can come peace.
If Serbs and Muslims can coexist in Bosnia, if Macedonians and Albanians can coexist in North Macedonia, if Protestants and Catholics can coexist in Northern Ireland, if Flemings and Waloons can coexist in Belgium, if the various denominations can coexist in Lebanon, if English and French can coexist in Quebec, then Israelis and Palestinians can work it out as well. Note that the above examples are at a varying degree of peace and harmony, from not very much to quite a lot. But none of them are genocidal cases. In fact, a couple are societies that coexist after a genocide took place (Bosnia, Ireland).
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?