|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
|
|
On December 06 2023 11:54 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 06 2023 11:23 gobbledydook wrote:Since when were the deranged opinions of white supremacists relevant? Since the leading proponents of establishing the US (which is uniquely aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign) as an ethnostate cite Israel as the ethnostate they want to imitate amid a discussion on whether Israel is an ethnostate and the implications thereof. Yes encountered plenty of this over the years from a ‘how come the Jews get an ethnostate and we don’t?’ with all the anti-Senmitic tropes one should expect. To be fair I assume it’s also a rather shallow, surface level thing and most parroting that haven’t really looked in to what Israel is actually like internally
That's a fair point, but typically the objection isn't that Israel is not an ethnostate. As Salz pointed out, it's largely accepted as justified, accompanied by varying opinions on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that comes with it. The objection to white supremacists around the world saying "how come we can't have an ethnostate like Israel" is typically that it'd be f'd, in part, because of the oppression it would take to subjugate existing minority populations (like maybe an ethnic cleansing campaign as we're seeing from Israel).
|
On December 05 2023 08:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 07:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 05 2023 05:33 JimmiC wrote:
Apologizes for all sorts of mistakes responding 1 handed on the bed with a sick child pinning the other one.
I hope your kid feels better soon! On December 05 2023 06:26 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 05:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Tbh seems like the apartheid term is becoming less and less controversial in Israel too now. Confronted with Tamir Pardo's (former head of Mossad) claim that Israel is imposing apartheid, Mark Regev, who is Netanyahu's special advisor, replies that 'the factual part is correct. There is Israeli law for Israeli citizens, and palestinians living there are under military law'. This is Netanyahu's special advisor, and rather than deny the claim that it's an apartheid regime, he says that it's a temporary necessity and that the alternative is even worse. Honestly the interview in that second link is very good. I guess it might be geoblocked for non-norwegians, but here is an accurate (but not complete) summary. The opinions of many on how necessary all the security measures were before Oct 7th, and that maybe they were the bad guys and not the good guys. Cerebrate can probably, and hopefully will, elaborate. It was looking worse and worse for Bibi and better and better for people with more moderate or even progressive views. This is also why you can find conspiracies about Hamas and Bibi working together, both of their popularity was falling, both require the other side to be seen as evil and unredeemable. Can you clarify what you are asking me here? Thanks, lots going around here. How the opinions on less harsh security measures, two state solution, bibis popularity? And then how much that has changed since Oct 7th
re: Bibi's popularity: it was teetering before this. A lot of people were heavily opposed to his attempted judicial reform stuff and there were unprecedented massive protests shaking Israeli society because of that. (There were also a lot of people in the security establishment who resigned over it, which in hindsight may have created the intelligence disruption that gave Hamas an opening). Him being Prime Minister during Oct 7 seems to have lost him most of the remaining support he had.
That said, politics stops in Israel during a war. It's a fascinating thing to watch really. Israel is such a maelstrom of diverse opinions with everyone arguing about everything all the time, but the moment it gets attacked, everyone drops all that and unites to help each other like they are all brothers. Left wing, right wing, religious, secular, doesn't matter, they are all one family. Not to mention, in a country as small as Israel, there simply isn't time to do much of anything else when there is a war on, so elections and whatnot are all shelved until the war wraps up.
All that to say, there will be no (or at least few) political shake ups or internal politics in general while the war is still going. Once it's over, I predict his tenure as PM to be short lived.
|
On December 06 2023 11:00 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 10:52 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 10:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:34 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 10:28 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 09:58 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 09:53 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 09:03 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 08:56 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Ethnic makeup is not the only factor in whether a country is an ethnostate or not. The treatment of the different ethnicities is an essential point. Arab Israelis aren't being treated as equals in Israel, and on top of that they're the clear minority.
Furthermore they live mostly separated, with few exceptions. Even in areas where they're more mixed with Jewish Israelis, they also tend to live in separate neighborhoods.
Here in Austria I live in one of the most ethnically diverse districts, so I know very well what an ethnically mixed area looks like. That's not how things generally look in Israel. Firstly source what your saying. Secondly that is not what ethnostate means, it means this. a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group.
"they actively promoted the concept of a white ethnostate"And I may as well post this, since it is far more related than Nebuchad's links. https://theconversation.com/israels-mosaic-of-jewish-ethnic-groups-is-key-to-understanding-the-country-217893 There isn't "the" one definition of ethnostate, there are a number of different ones. For example: "a country populated by, or dominated by the interests of, a single racial or ethnic group" The key word is "or". An ethnostate could be a state where a single ethnic group has citizenship and others do not. That is one possibility. But an ethnostate could instead be a state where the interests of a single ethnic group overshadow those of other ethnic groups. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethnostate Then you are back to having a definition that includes a whole crap ton of countries that basically no one thinks of ethnostates. China would come to mind, the Han are very advantaged. But you could probably name well over 50 countries. Maybe it's time for you to realize how many ethnostates in fact do exist. We're not living in a utopia. Wait we’re not? Great point. I await you and men using the term to define all the countries it applies to that are not Israel. I won’t hold my breath though. Most countries in the world are ethnostates to varying degrees. It's not so much a question of "if", but how severe the discrimination is that ethnic minorities have to deal with. If you make a definition loose enough so all countries fit it loses its meaning. As Neb pointed out ethnostate brings up negative feelings because when people talk about it they generally are referring to the white supremacists who want a white ethnostate. Its main point is to restrict citizenship to whites. Israel clearly does not restrict citizenship to non whites since 30 percent are not Jewish and none of you can find restrictions. When Neb uses the term he wants that image to come to mind and not the definition you are using. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostateA White ethnostate is a proposed type of state in which residence or citizenship would be limited to Whites, and non-whites and any other groups not seen as white would be excluded from citizenship. Within the Anglosphere, the natives of their respective countries would also be excluded from citizenship, such as the Indigenous people of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Just a few comments ago you had a fairly easy time naming dozens of ethnostate candidates based exclusively on the definition that the citizens are predominantly of one ethnicity. 47 countries to be exact. Now you're arguing any definition of ethnostate would be too loose to be applied to most countries in the world? The point is that people are using "ethnostate" as another weapon to use to attack Israel when 47 other countries fit the definition better. I get it that this is the Israel vs Hamas thread, but when 47 of the world's countries do it worse, perhaps leveling that complaint against Israel (and not the 47 others) comes from a different place than an honest attempt at criticism. Something like South Korea is much more of an ethnostate than Israel. Is it some awful place that everyone should avoid and boycott? Should we demand that they disarm? Should the US pull all help from them? Putting it into world perspective, I don't think the ethnostate criticism is genuine. It's just another gotcha word thrown at Israel in the hopes that one of them will stick. Genocide didn't. Apartheid really doesn't fit. Ethnic cleansing is a maybe, but then we have to reckon with the fact that a huge portion of Israelis were ethnically cleansed off their land and ended up in Israel. The Israel critics just kinda shrug at that fact, almost like they don't actually care about ethnic cleansing. And now we get ethnostate. 48th worst in the world!
There is a disconnect in the way you treat this topic in that you're both saying that being an ethnostate is something bad and that South Korea, a place that appears to be completely fine, would be a good example of one.
I also don't think it's very fair to say that any of these words are not sticking, I encounter them quite a lot. The case of ethnostate specifically is a little different because I also encounter it used by defenders of Israel, with a positive connotation. They typically don't argue that it's not one, just that it's a good thing that one exists.
I think maybe the words are not sticking with you because you're slightly too much on one side to be part of the target audience.
|
South Korea has issues with xenophobia, but it's not an ethnostate because it doesn't have laws created specifically to elevate one group of peoples above any other. Israel does. South Korean laws do not differentiate between its citizens in any way. Israel's laws do. It's really quite simple.
|
On December 06 2023 12:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 10:52 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 10:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:34 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 10:28 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 09:58 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 09:53 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 09:03 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 08:56 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Ethnic makeup is not the only factor in whether a country is an ethnostate or not. The treatment of the different ethnicities is an essential point. Arab Israelis aren't being treated as equals in Israel, and on top of that they're the clear minority.
Furthermore they live mostly separated, with few exceptions. Even in areas where they're more mixed with Jewish Israelis, they also tend to live in separate neighborhoods.
Here in Austria I live in one of the most ethnically diverse districts, so I know very well what an ethnically mixed area looks like. That's not how things generally look in Israel. Firstly source what your saying. Secondly that is not what ethnostate means, it means this. a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group.
"they actively promoted the concept of a white ethnostate"And I may as well post this, since it is far more related than Nebuchad's links. https://theconversation.com/israels-mosaic-of-jewish-ethnic-groups-is-key-to-understanding-the-country-217893 There isn't "the" one definition of ethnostate, there are a number of different ones. For example: "a country populated by, or dominated by the interests of, a single racial or ethnic group" The key word is "or". An ethnostate could be a state where a single ethnic group has citizenship and others do not. That is one possibility. But an ethnostate could instead be a state where the interests of a single ethnic group overshadow those of other ethnic groups. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethnostate Then you are back to having a definition that includes a whole crap ton of countries that basically no one thinks of ethnostates. China would come to mind, the Han are very advantaged. But you could probably name well over 50 countries. Maybe it's time for you to realize how many ethnostates in fact do exist. We're not living in a utopia. Wait we’re not? Great point. I await you and men using the term to define all the countries it applies to that are not Israel. I won’t hold my breath though. Most countries in the world are ethnostates to varying degrees. It's not so much a question of "if", but how severe the discrimination is that ethnic minorities have to deal with. If you make a definition loose enough so all countries fit it loses its meaning. As Neb pointed out ethnostate brings up negative feelings because when people talk about it they generally are referring to the white supremacists who want a white ethnostate. Its main point is to restrict citizenship to whites. Israel clearly does not restrict citizenship to non whites since 30 percent are not Jewish and none of you can find restrictions. When Neb uses the term he wants that image to come to mind and not the definition you are using. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostateA White ethnostate is a proposed type of state in which residence or citizenship would be limited to Whites, and non-whites and any other groups not seen as white would be excluded from citizenship. Within the Anglosphere, the natives of their respective countries would also be excluded from citizenship, such as the Indigenous people of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Just a few comments ago you had a fairly easy time naming dozens of ethnostate candidates based exclusively on the definition that the citizens are predominantly of one ethnicity. 47 countries to be exact. Now you're arguing any definition of ethnostate would be too loose to be applied to most countries in the world? Wrong, and there was way more than 47 I just didn’t write those. I was saying clearly they are not all ethnostates and were all more homogeneous. I guess I should have put them all on.
Thank you for proving my point that there are way more than 47. That helps my point. I could also list more that aren't included in your list, like a number of Arab or Asian nations for example.
The argument I'm making isn't "Israel is bad because they're an ethnostate". That would imply that I think Israel would suddenly not be bad if I couldn't label them as an ethnostate. Their actions are what I'm scrutinizing, and the label follows.
There are degrees to the treatment of ethnic minorities. In ethnostates, the treatment tends to be much worse.
Take the US for example. Centuries ago the treatment was very bad as they still held slaves. They were no exception, as slavery was widespread in the world. Later the treatment improved as slavery was abolished, then Jim Crow was also abolished, and the process continues until today. The US is heading towards being an example of an ethnically free and diverse state, although more can and should be done. In that regard I think the US is a better country than for example Germany and Austria. We're nowhere near as welcoming of ethnic minorities, with perhaps the exception of certain cities.
These changes in the US have resulted in white nationalists being very upset. They think the ethnic makeup should be reverted and they argue the country and its people would then be better off. They cite Japan as a leading example of an ideal ethnostate.
This is not a concidence. When racial supremacists get upset about a country, you know that country is probably doing something right. In contrast, if they praise a country, that country should likely be heavily scrutinized.
Listen to your enemies. They often see things that you miss. I once mentioned that I used to visit the same online spaces as many right-wingers do. Countless debates between right-wingers and left-wingers took place. I learned about the way they view certain countries, and that's how I realized that ethnostates are not a rare exception, but in fact very common.
|
|
|
On December 07 2023 00:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 21:44 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 12:01 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:52 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 10:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:34 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 10:28 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 09:58 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 09:53 Magic Powers wrote:[quote] There isn't "the" one definition of ethnostate, there are a number of different ones. For example: "a country populated by, or dominated by the interests of, a single racial or ethnic group" The key word is "or". An ethnostate could be a state where a single ethnic group has citizenship and others do not. That is one possibility. But an ethnostate could instead be a state where the interests of a single ethnic group overshadow those of other ethnic groups. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethnostate Then you are back to having a definition that includes a whole crap ton of countries that basically no one thinks of ethnostates. China would come to mind, the Han are very advantaged. But you could probably name well over 50 countries. Maybe it's time for you to realize how many ethnostates in fact do exist. We're not living in a utopia. Wait we’re not? Great point. I await you and men using the term to define all the countries it applies to that are not Israel. I won’t hold my breath though. Most countries in the world are ethnostates to varying degrees. It's not so much a question of "if", but how severe the discrimination is that ethnic minorities have to deal with. If you make a definition loose enough so all countries fit it loses its meaning. As Neb pointed out ethnostate brings up negative feelings because when people talk about it they generally are referring to the white supremacists who want a white ethnostate. Its main point is to restrict citizenship to whites. Israel clearly does not restrict citizenship to non whites since 30 percent are not Jewish and none of you can find restrictions. When Neb uses the term he wants that image to come to mind and not the definition you are using. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostateA White ethnostate is a proposed type of state in which residence or citizenship would be limited to Whites, and non-whites and any other groups not seen as white would be excluded from citizenship. Within the Anglosphere, the natives of their respective countries would also be excluded from citizenship, such as the Indigenous people of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Just a few comments ago you had a fairly easy time naming dozens of ethnostate candidates based exclusively on the definition that the citizens are predominantly of one ethnicity. 47 countries to be exact. Now you're arguing any definition of ethnostate would be too loose to be applied to most countries in the world? Wrong, and there was way more than 47 I just didn’t write those. I was saying clearly they are not all ethnostates and were all more homogeneous. I guess I should have put them all on. Thank you for proving my point that there are way more than 47. That helps my point. I could also list more that aren't included in your list, like a number of Arab or Asian nations for example. The argument I'm making isn't "Israel is bad because they're an ethnostate". That would imply that I think Israel would suddenly not be bad if I couldn't label them as an ethnostate. Their actions are what I'm scrutinizing, and the label follows. There are degrees to the treatment of ethnic minorities. In ethnostates, the treatment tends to be much worse. Take the US for example. Centuries ago the treatment was very bad as they still held slaves. They were no exception, as slavery was widespread in the world. Later the treatment improved as slavery was abolished, then Jim Crow was also abolished, and the process continues until today. The US is heading towards being an example of an ethnically free and diverse state, although more can and should be done. In that regard I think the US is a better country than for example Germany and Austria. We're nowhere near as welcoming of ethnic minorities, with perhaps the exception of certain cities. These changes in the US have resulted in white nationalists being very upset. They think the ethnic makeup should be reverted and they argue the country and its people would then be better off. They cite Japan as a leading example of an ideal ethnostate. This is not a concidence. When racial supremacists get upset about a country, you know that country is probably doing something right. In contrast, if they praise a country, that country should likely be heavily scrutinized. Listen to your enemies. They often see things that you miss. I once mentioned that I used to visit the same online spaces as many right-wingers do. Countless debates between right-wingers and left-wingers took place. I learned about the way they view certain countries, and that's how I realized that ethnostates are not a rare exception, but in fact very common. in fact in multiple posts he as said that he is using it to make people think Israel is bad.
I'm pretty sure I did not say that.
But yes my definition does not align with what Magic Powers is saying, I'm more on Salazarz's side.
Your second paragraph is very silly, I had originally planned to not read it and I regret having done that now.
|
United States42237 Posts
On December 07 2023 00:16 JimmiC wrote:
Israel is far from perfect, it is also by far the country in the middle east that respects the rights of Women, Minorities, the LGBTQ2+. These are supposed to be extremely important values to everyone on the left but the instant Israel becomes involved all the sudden most on the left ignore that. The question you have to ask is why. Is it because people have a Bias against the jews? Is it because people have a bias against the countries the US supports? Is it because we have spent most of our time with whites as the bad guys (mostly accurately) that our bias is there? I'm really not sure, but there is no doubt a bias from the left against Israel, it is cool to assume they are the worst. It is very uncool to dig into the complexities of the situation and any non anti Israeli post you make will brand you as pro Israel and bad.
This is the old “why do people protest police brutality and yet never march against criminal brutality” argument. It’s not that they hate cops, it’s that they expect more from their agents paid with their taxes than they do from criminals.
People object to Israelis ethnic cleansing because Israel is nominally within the US led international framework. It shouldn’t just be doing better than Iran, it shouldn’t be doing it at all. And certainly not on our dime.
It’s not a Jew thing. It’s not that we give all our enemies a pass but won’t give one to the Jews. It’s that we know our enemies are shitty, we won’t give a pass to our allies.
|
On December 07 2023 00:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 21:44 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 12:01 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:52 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 10:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:34 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 10:28 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 10:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2023 09:58 JimmiC wrote:On December 06 2023 09:53 Magic Powers wrote:[quote] There isn't "the" one definition of ethnostate, there are a number of different ones. For example: "a country populated by, or dominated by the interests of, a single racial or ethnic group" The key word is "or". An ethnostate could be a state where a single ethnic group has citizenship and others do not. That is one possibility. But an ethnostate could instead be a state where the interests of a single ethnic group overshadow those of other ethnic groups. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethnostate Then you are back to having a definition that includes a whole crap ton of countries that basically no one thinks of ethnostates. China would come to mind, the Han are very advantaged. But you could probably name well over 50 countries. Maybe it's time for you to realize how many ethnostates in fact do exist. We're not living in a utopia. Wait we’re not? Great point. I await you and men using the term to define all the countries it applies to that are not Israel. I won’t hold my breath though. Most countries in the world are ethnostates to varying degrees. It's not so much a question of "if", but how severe the discrimination is that ethnic minorities have to deal with. If you make a definition loose enough so all countries fit it loses its meaning. As Neb pointed out ethnostate brings up negative feelings because when people talk about it they generally are referring to the white supremacists who want a white ethnostate. Its main point is to restrict citizenship to whites. Israel clearly does not restrict citizenship to non whites since 30 percent are not Jewish and none of you can find restrictions. When Neb uses the term he wants that image to come to mind and not the definition you are using. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostateA White ethnostate is a proposed type of state in which residence or citizenship would be limited to Whites, and non-whites and any other groups not seen as white would be excluded from citizenship. Within the Anglosphere, the natives of their respective countries would also be excluded from citizenship, such as the Indigenous people of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Just a few comments ago you had a fairly easy time naming dozens of ethnostate candidates based exclusively on the definition that the citizens are predominantly of one ethnicity. 47 countries to be exact. Now you're arguing any definition of ethnostate would be too loose to be applied to most countries in the world? Wrong, and there was way more than 47 I just didn’t write those. I was saying clearly they are not all ethnostates and were all more homogeneous. I guess I should have put them all on. Thank you for proving my point that there are way more than 47. That helps my point. I could also list more that aren't included in your list, like a number of Arab or Asian nations for example. The argument I'm making isn't "Israel is bad because they're an ethnostate". That would imply that I think Israel would suddenly not be bad if I couldn't label them as an ethnostate. Their actions are what I'm scrutinizing, and the label follows. There are degrees to the treatment of ethnic minorities. In ethnostates, the treatment tends to be much worse. Take the US for example. Centuries ago the treatment was very bad as they still held slaves. They were no exception, as slavery was widespread in the world. Later the treatment improved as slavery was abolished, then Jim Crow was also abolished, and the process continues until today. The US is heading towards being an example of an ethnically free and diverse state, although more can and should be done. In that regard I think the US is a better country than for example Germany and Austria. We're nowhere near as welcoming of ethnic minorities, with perhaps the exception of certain cities. These changes in the US have resulted in white nationalists being very upset. They think the ethnic makeup should be reverted and they argue the country and its people would then be better off. They cite Japan as a leading example of an ideal ethnostate. This is not a concidence. When racial supremacists get upset about a country, you know that country is probably doing something right. In contrast, if they praise a country, that country should likely be heavily scrutinized. Listen to your enemies. They often see things that you miss. I once mentioned that I used to visit the same online spaces as many right-wingers do. Countless debates between right-wingers and left-wingers took place. I learned about the way they view certain countries, and that's how I realized that ethnostates are not a rare exception, but in fact very common. If you want to consider Israel one of 70 ethnostates, and just the least homogeneous, or that there are 140 and Israel is in the middle I guess you can go ahead and do that. But when you use the word people won't think of your definition and Neb knows this, in fact in multiple posts he as said that he is using it to make people think Israel is bad. He is not going to use it for those 70-150 countries. I'm fairly confident saying this because he has over 11,000 posts and never has about anywhere else. He wants to invoke the inaccurate but hateful image in readers minds of Israel as a country that restricts people based on their ethnicity or race, which is simply not true. Israel is far from perfect, it is also by far the country in the middle east that respects the rights of Women, Minorities, the LGBTQ2+. These are supposed to be extremely important values to everyone on the left but the instant Israel becomes involved all the sudden most on the left ignore that. The question you have to ask is why. Is it because people have a Bias against the jews? Is it because people have a bias against the countries the US supports? Is it because we have spent most of our time with whites as the bad guys (mostly accurately) that our bias is there? I'm really not sure, but there is no doubt a bias from the left against Israel, it is cool to assume they are the worst. It is very uncool to dig into the complexities of the situation and any non anti Israeli post you make will brand you as pro Israel and bad.
I have a very strong bias (in some cases deep hatred) against nationalists, which the Zionists are. I'm not sure if you understand what nationalism entails in the real world? It's one of the most oppressive ideologies ever conceived. It also happens to be the main pillar of fascism, which is not a coincidence. The State of Israel was conceived based on a nationalist ideology and to this very day it hasn't shed those roots.
I do not however have a bias against Jews. I ask you to stop conflating those things. When I criticize Israel as a state, or the administration, or the IDF, or the Jewish settlers, then that is not a condemnation of Jews as people. The Jewish people are respectable people just like you and I. But the State of Israel consists of more than just citizens going about their lives. My criticism is directed at the powers, not the people. I always make this distinction.
I also don't have a bias against the US per se, not any more than I have against my own country. I would say Austria is more racially discriminatory than the US. That's a major minus internally. But we're not militarily supporting oppressive countries, the US though is. That's a major minus on the US' record.
Criticism were criticism is warranted. It's that simple.
I believe that Israel (as I said the state, not the people at large) is discriminating generally against Arabs and more explicitly against Palestinians, and I believe the evidence is irrefutable. Specific points can be contested, but not the general observation.
|
|
|
United States42237 Posts
On December 07 2023 02:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 01:15 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2023 00:16 JimmiC wrote:
Israel is far from perfect, it is also by far the country in the middle east that respects the rights of Women, Minorities, the LGBTQ2+. These are supposed to be extremely important values to everyone on the left but the instant Israel becomes involved all the sudden most on the left ignore that. The question you have to ask is why. Is it because people have a Bias against the jews? Is it because people have a bias against the countries the US supports? Is it because we have spent most of our time with whites as the bad guys (mostly accurately) that our bias is there? I'm really not sure, but there is no doubt a bias from the left against Israel, it is cool to assume they are the worst. It is very uncool to dig into the complexities of the situation and any non anti Israeli post you make will brand you as pro Israel and bad. This is the old “why do people protest police brutality and yet never march against criminal brutality” argument. It’s not that they hate cops, it’s that they expect more from their agents paid with their taxes than they do from criminals. People object to Israelis ethnic cleansing because Israel is nominally within the US led international framework. It shouldn’t just be doing better than Iran, it shouldn’t be doing it at all. And certainly not on our dime. It’s not a Jew thing. It’s not that we give all our enemies a pass but won’t give one to the Jews. It’s that we know our enemies are shitty, we won’t give a pass to our allies. Many of our Allies are a lot shittier than Israel, SA is the first one that comes to mind, but there are many. It is easy to see that all the people who are remotely not Israel is all bad are branded as Pro-Israel. It is also not hard to see many people dance around the justification of Hamas, but any such talk around why Israelis may feel the way they feel is really bad. Everyone who does criticize Hamas, is very careful to write Hamas and not Palestine or the Palestinians, despite that they are the government and that many Palestinians support them and they are mostly made up of Palestinians. And this is the correct way to be. When Israel is criticized none of that care is taken and when people point out how many Israelis are against whatever action, people say they do not care, it is not relevant. There is a complete double standard. Another example would be how some of our Communists wax poetic about the USSR, but seemingly completely ignore their genocide and ethnic cleansing of the jews (not to mention the Crimean Tatar), or China's current behavior. I'm all for pointing a critical eye. It just should be pointed at everyone. I'm not sure how many times I've said it (lots), but I'm against both the settlements and the ground invasion and bombing. I think it comes down to that people hear "Not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic" as " no criticism of Israel is antisemitic". While the first one is objectively true, the second one is not, 100% of antisemtics from all political directions and of every degree criticize Israel. There is a lot of interesting academic articles on antisemitism of the left and interestingly enough many scholars mention that is not rooted in racism. @neb Show nested quote +you think it's a criticism of a country to be an ethnostate. I would personally agree, I think it's pretty bad. And a criticism you make towards none of the many countries ever that fit this very open definition. It's an easy and lazy way to say Israel is evil. For the record I do not think you have crossed to the Israeli's are evil, but you would know better than me. Here is a couple of sources but there are better ones I just can't locate right now. It would also be better if people found their own sources since they will read these as if they are wrong and only look for reasons to criticize them rather than with and open mind. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/ch-left-anti-semitism.pdfhttps://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/far-left-antisemitism/
SA isn’t so much an ally as a mutual enemy of Iran and a reliable source of oil. Unlike Israel they pay full price for their US weapons. But the reason that MBS got so much shit for cutting up a journalist, as opposed to Iran for example, is because of that same double standard. SA is held to a higher standard than Iran.
I think Israel is held to a level of behaviour that is proportionate to its ally status. Israel gets away with stuff that, for example, Canada might not. For example Israel’s shaky stance on Ukraine. It’s not due to pro Jewish favouritism or anti Canadian sentiment, there’s just a sliding scale of expectations. The closer we are, the higher the bar. The double standard is real and it’s fair and it’s part of life. You wouldn’t want to hold everyone to the same universal standard, that wouldn’t make sense.
Regarding tankies making excuses for the USSR, tankies gonna tank. It’s why nobody takes them seriously. If they were smart they wouldn’t be tankies in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Norway28597 Posts
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned).
|
On December 07 2023 02:03 JimmiC wrote:@neb Show nested quote +you think it's a criticism of a country to be an ethnostate. I would personally agree, I think it's pretty bad. And a criticism you make towards none of the many countries ever that fit this very open definition. It's an easy and lazy way to say Israel is evil. For the record I do not think you have crossed to the Israeli's are evil, but you would know better than me. Here is a couple of sources but there are better ones I just can't locate right now. It would also be better if people found their own sources since they will read these as if they are wrong and only look for reasons to criticize them rather than with and open mind. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/ch-left-anti-semitism.pdfhttps://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/far-left-antisemitism/
But as I already indicated, I don't use the very open definition, so it's logical that I'm not doing that.
I'm not entirely sure what it means for a country to be evil. In my opinion evil requires a level of specificity, I think it's more interesting to say that an action is evil than it is to say that a person is evil, let alone a country. I also don't think my moral judgements, or yours, are very important.
And, of course, I will not be reading those links.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 07 2023 02:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 02:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 07 2023 02:03 JimmiC wrote:@neb you think it's a criticism of a country to be an ethnostate. I would personally agree, I think it's pretty bad. And a criticism you make towards none of the many countries ever that fit this very open definition. It's an easy and lazy way to say Israel is evil. For the record I do not think you have crossed to the Israeli's are evil, but you would know better than me. Here is a couple of sources but there are better ones I just can't locate right now. It would also be better if people found their own sources since they will read these as if they are wrong and only look for reasons to criticize them rather than with and open mind. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/ch-left-anti-semitism.pdfhttps://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/far-left-antisemitism/ But as I already indicated, I don't use the very open definition, so it's logical that I'm not doing that. I'm not entirely sure what it means for a country to be evil. In my opinion evil requires a level of specificity, I think it's more interesting to say that an action is evil than it is to say that a person is evil, let alone a country. I also don't think my moral judgements, or yours, are very important. And, of course, I will not be reading those links. I didn’t think you would, why would someone who knows everything be interested in something like that. It might actually let you know where I’m coming from, but that would also make it harder for you to just have the worst possible assumptions of me and react as if their facts. I also didn’t think you used that definition, I suspect you use the definition I do and you just choose to ignore that it doesn’t fit because it’s a big scary hateful word and is is much easier.
I agree that I don't really care where you're coming from, and disagree that the narrow definition doesn't fit, much like Salazarz and GH, or most zionists and a good portion of the defenders of Israel overall, or the wiki page on ethnostates, or some scholars mentioned in the wiki page on ethnostates, also do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
