So given the choice between not having Israel exist and allowing Israel to commit genocide, which would you choose? (To be clear, I am not claiming that these are currently the only options, I’m posing a dystopian hypothetical)
And frankly, I don’t really care if AES supports Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State. Maybe, like Rashida Tlaib, he would prefer to see all of Israel and Palestine united as one secular democracy guaranteeing equal rights to all its citizens.
I personally have grave doubts about the short-term plausibility of this plan. But given that every Israeli government for the last several decades have done everything in their power to make a two-State solution impossible, I am no longer willing to declare supporters of a democratic one-State solution to be outside of the range of acceptable opinion.
I’m a two state solution-er, so I reject the dichotomy that this conflict is genocide-or-be-genocided. I think we can coexist in two states between the river and the sea.
In the dystopian hypothetical where that truly is the only option, I remember another poster putting it very well when the “river to the sea” discourse was big. I can’t find that post, or I’d quote it now instead of butchering it. But it went something along the lines of, “I want two states between the river and the sea, but if there’s just going to be one, it’s sure as hell not going to not be Israel”.
Hey, Mr Pot…
Correct. I avoid those rooms.
My position goes back to the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack, before Israel began its response:
There’s only so many times that I am going to spend my free time, typing the same argument over again. Oh when it comes up elsewhere I can’t help myself and do repeat, the current Israeli government is committing war crimes, is enabling terrorism in the Wesr Bank its citizens, is not acting in its own best interests, needs to have pressure brought upon it to do different by way of withholding funding … and Israel is also not the Death Star against the Rebel Alliance. There is nuance that is generally not even able to be discussed even in these fora.
Intentionally going into the rooms where I encounter those who I consider absolute asses, and less assholish people, just rinse and repeat to be performative? No fucking way. Interact with Banquet Bear? Not when it is easily avoidable.
The discussion about El-Sayed went past the point where I should have chosen to refrain from more participation. I said my points, I heard the other points, and repeating to those unable to have read it the first ten times is stupid. To the best of my knowledge the one person who changed their position in any of that discussion was me - I went from thinking El-Sayed was just being a little clumsy but not an an antisemite himself, to, after learning more, becoming fairly well convinced that he himself is an antisemite and will very likely be a malevolent force in the Democratic Party moving forward, driving wedges just at the wrong time. That was not my take before these recent discussions. I am not arguing that position here. Just that it is not like anyone else is going to change their take by hearing me present why I have come to that place another time or benefit from hearing @iiandyiiii yet another time trot out “party of rapists and white supremicists” and characterize disagreement in ways that make any discussion of nuance impossible. Not my jam.
My apologies to all for my part of keeping that conversation on repeat past the point that was reasonable. In both threads.
I hope it wasn’t our disagreement that pushed you here. I know I can get caught up and passionate.
Pushed me to the position that I need to have self control and stop back and forth that is just repeating points? No I’ve realized that a long time ago. Sometimes I relapse.
Pushed me to my position on El-Sayed? No. Catalyzed the process. The result of the interactions with you was my doing a deeper dive; the deeper dive resulted in me moving to that conclusion. I hope I am wrong about him and about the harms his rise will cause for the Democratic Party. I’ve already expressed what those concerns are. I definitely have heard why you strongly disagree. Why you think my thoughts deserve Pitting. Time to move on to other stupid liberal ideas and to let the Senate thread be a place to share anxiety and hopefully celebration as the day and evening progresses.
So what is the difference between Israel having the right to exist, and Israel having the right to exist as a Jewish state?
Hell…
What’s the difference between Israel having the right to exist, and Israel dominating my country’s political process to such an extent that it becomes a focus point in literally every imaginable election, down to the one for my town’s local school board?
How about this formula: Liberal democracies have the right to exist. Other regimes do not.
Heck, there are many to whom it doesn’t make a difference, as Israel continuing to exist in any form is itself support of genocide. So I’m not sure any single answer will lend any real clarity.
I asked because I kept seeing “as a Jewish state” added to the phrase. It must make some difference.
I assume it means that Israel doesn’t have to be a democracy, and should be free to engage in ethnic cleansing and apartheid in order to ensure a demographic Jewish supermajority.
You know what they say happens when you assume.
At the end of the day, Israel is on the other side of the planet and has no bearing on my life at all (apart from my country doing self-destructive things on its behalf). Otherwise it’s about as important as the next MCU film, maybe less so.
I have opinions about it from a moral perspective and I care about it in an abstract way as I care about all people, but aside from that it has absolutely zero political relevance.
You make an educated guess based on a combination of available evidence and inductive reasoning?
The difference is clarification that the problem is its being Jewish. That that is the specific objection. It would be fine except for that.
Generally speaking there are few people out there saying that any of the nations of explicitly Islamic character have no right to exist as such. Few would decline to agree that France has a right to exist as a nation that codifies aspects of French culture. Even as many of us strongly disagree with India’s Hindu nationalism, and even more so how it is implemented, few would say that it has no right to exist as such.
Of course few of those examples have been under existential threat, have nearby nations who have expressed desire to wipe them off the map, have people across the world shouting chants that the region of their states should be cleansed of them. Or have had recent history of a third their global population exterminated.
So any such claims that they have no right to exist would laughed away.
No good faith discussion is possible to proceed when the basis includes the world’s only Jewish nation state, one under existential threat, that has groups explicitly calling for it to not exist and acting on it, is specifically excluded from the same right to exist as such as is commonly granted to other existing nation states. Because Jewish is different.
That’s the difference the phrase makes. Why it matters.
FWIW I also believe that the Palestinian people deserve the same right of self determination to exist as a Palestinian nation state. Assuming it accepts that Israel also has a right to exist as a Jewish one.
Go with that. See how that flies as a resolution in the UN. See how it would fly to have America as a nuclear power saying their position is that regimes that are not liberal democracies do not have a right to exist. Love to China’s response. Russia’s. So on.
Go with that and apply it to the Mideast. Pretty much every nation other than Israel, which even under Bibi is as much a liberal democracy as the United States is, have no right to exist.
Really what the fuck are you talking about?
Well, yeah, I guess if China, Russia and Saudi Arabia don’t like the idea, it must be bad.
Clearly, Bush was fully justified in his invasion of Iraq, since Iraq did not have a right to exist.