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.
Alright got it. So for example were the Mayan states part of the UN? What kind of state were they organized in? What about people colonized by the Mayans?
So are established cities and locations and being nomadic without having a state designated by the UN enough for being protected against colonization?
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.
Alright got it. So for example were the Mayan states part of the UN? What kind of state were they organized in? What about people colonized by the Mayans?
So are established cities and locations and being nomadic without having a state designated by the UN enough for being protected against colonization?