Like the US and other more democratic countries.
So are all countries without a separation of state and church inherently oppressive?
I await your condemnation of every country listed here with bated breath; altenatively I await your explanation of why on the Jew is inherently oppressive.
So the majority Muslim non-democracies in the Middle East that oppress women, LGBT, foreign workers, and non Muslims are all a-ok with you? Nothing to see here, move along?
Israel, according to you, is currently oppressing Palestinians despite the existence of those international resolutions and accords. Hamas carried out the October 7th attacks, which violated many international resolutions and accords. How can you be so certain that they would be restrained by those international resolutions and accords if they controlled a single Palestinian state in the territory that currently makes up Israel?
It’s not a straw man at all. You’ve singled out the idea that a Jewish state is necessarily oppressive. You’ve been given opportunities to clarify whether you have a problem with any state religion and have refused to to do, avoiding the uncomfortable question and doubling down.
A straw man would be arguing against a point you never made. That’s not what’s happening. Your arguments are not just attacking Israel, they’re attacking the concept of a Jewish state of any kind, and that’s one reason why they are being poorly received.
It would seem that if the worst should happen and the new Palestinian state begins exterminating the Jews within its borders, InfraBlue will favor the United Nations taking decisive action like this:
England doesn’t contain an entire people in open air prisons and bantustans; Israel does.
No I’m not, and my motivation is anything but clear to you You don’t need a state of your own and enabling; you need counseling.
Moderating:
This is a personal attack and is totally inappropriate for this thread.
Oops, i didn’t realize this was in P&E. I’m going to temporarily closed this thread until a p&e mod can decide what should have been done.
Indeed, that is worthy of a warning.
If the partition plan was agreed to than neither would Israel. If a two state solution is implemented tomorrow, then neither would Israel. (I object to these characterizations of the current state of Israel/the Palestinians, but that’s immaterial here).
History proves otherwise. Maybe you find the status quo faced by Jews from from the death of Hyracnus II until 1948 acceptable; I don’t.
My daughter is at Chabad tonight for Shabbat dinner. There were two police cars parked in front when she got there, I’m sure they are just needed for parking enforcement. Nope, no fears of Jew hate in Montreal where Jewish schools have been shot at and a Jewish community centre firebombed.
Oh, well if nebulous other opinions by unspecified personages are held, that’s good enough for me. The portents are clearly there that things are currently so bad that they are surpassed only by the Holocaust and are going to get worse. Forget what history has to say about it, others hold opinions. In case you missed it: this is as weak of an argument as ‘some people say,’ it’s literally the same thing with different verbiage.
You do have a solution as to how this will magically come to be, and all ethnic hatreds will be put aside that involves more than repeating the mantra “democratic, egalitarian, and pluralistic,” right?
If all that you’ve got is using the words “portends” and “democratic, egalitarian, and pluralistic” repeatedly rather than anything of substance, I’m done here.
Oh, and for the record I’m disgusted by the level of disregard for civilian life that’s been demonstrated by the Israeli government over the past month.
You just explained the Zionists’ rationalizations for containing the Palestinians in open air prisons and bantustans, thank you.
You say whatever you have to say about history and go on to say “some people say” is a weak argument. You just undermined whatever you have to say. Excellent.
Here are some things some people say.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/us/shoah-foundation-records-october-7-testimonies/index.html
The implementation of a democratic, egalitarian, and pluralistic state is substantial, and all that is needed to resolve the conflict in Palestine.
Bye-bye.
The status quo faced by Jews from the death of Hyracnus II until 1948 doesn’t justify the Zionists’ oppression of the Palestinian people.
No, I know and cite sources of the actual history of the conflict, I don’t just say whatever I have to say about history. That you fail to either know the history of the region or actually read anything I cite is your problem, not mine. That you imagine that this undermines whatever I have to say demonstrates that you don’t know how debating, or for that matter conversations work.
Hate to break it to you for what, the third time? But these words don’t possess magic powers to make things so. Adding the words “is substantial, and is all that is needed to resolve the conflict in Palestine” isn’t providing a solution, explaining how this will make ethnic hatred miracle themselves out of existence, doing jack shit to address the legitimate security concerns of both parties, or explain how this won’t instantly collapse back into the situation as it now stands. That’s because repeating the mantra “democratic, egalitarian, and pluralistic state” doesn’t mean anything when you have provided no actual means of getting there, much less sustaining such a thing when it’s not what either party wants.