You're viewing a single thread.
Is that actually a tolerable opinion in the sense of "paradox of tolerance"? Or is it hate speech that leads to intolerance?
Like "deport all jews from greater palestine" would mean ethnic cleansing which would not be tolerable. The only logical solution seems to be a 1 state solution that would need decades of investment, reeducation, de-nazification and de-radicalization on both sides.
Or said differently, "Palestine doesn't have a right to exist" is not tolerable right?
Historic arguments that wold have been valid 70 years ago are now not useful since the reality is like it is. Something like "USA doesn't have a right to exist, Europeans go home!" doesn't make sense either except in the hypothetical where it would .
South Africa ended a similar system of apartheid and the effects of that, including the beneficiaries of apartheid choosing to leave the country (often to Israel so they could keep doing apartheid) were preferable to keeping the unjust system.
Saying Israel doesn't have a right to exist isn't the same as saying all Jews should be forced to leave. Ideally, if they want to then they should be free to live in a country where Jews and Palestinians have equal rights, including the right to vote, such a country would no longer be an ethnostate and would probably not chose to call itself "Israel."
Saying Israel doesn’t have a right to exist isn’t the same as saying all Jews should be forced to leave.
But it is virtually indistinguishable of what someone would say if they wished for ethnic cleansing. At the very least it sounds like a dog whistle. You could instead say Zionism or apartheid or fascist Israel has no right to exist.
And yeah, my original comment is also virtually indistinguishable from a mealymouthed moderate liberal lol.
But it is virtually indistinguishable of what someone would say if they wished for ethnic cleansing. At the very least it sounds like a dog whistle.
I have no patience for equating anti-zionism with antisemitism like this. This tactic is frequently used in bad faith by zionists to dismiss all criticism of Israel and to paint people as bigots for acknowledging that Palestinians have rights. For example, the US State Department explicitly lists criticism of the state of Israel as a form of "antisemitism," "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor," and, "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis," are both listed as example of it. Israel is an enthostate and it's engaged in genocide and Lebensraum, and you have to be willing to brush off such spurious accusations of antisemitism to be reasonable.
No one said anything about Israelis or Jews or ethnic cleansing. What we've said is that Israel - the geopolitical entity - does not have a right to exist. It doesn't. We could use a different term for Israel but we are in no way obligated to and shouldn't be expected to. What we say is what we mean. If you read in some hidden meaning that we don't say then you could do the same for just about anything anybody says.
I'm also disgusted by the rhetoric and new fascist antisemitism "definition". I'm not uninformed or pro-Israel at all.
But I definitely consider "Palestine has no right to exist" as hate speech and would demand censoring / banning that. Because there is a clear implication. We can not afford to allow tolerance towards intolerance.
The only thing I would say in favor of OP is that because Palestine is currently weaker and the oppressed victim, and rightfully outraged, it's not fair to demand higher standards from them and is therefor hypocritical.
The trick here is that "Palestine" does not refer to any state*; as such someone saying "Palestine has no right to exist" can be only talking about the population, and promoting ethnic cleansing. That's why it's hate speech.
On the other hand "Israel" can refer to both "the Israeli population" and "the state of Israel". So, every bloody time you attack the later, you get people misrepresenting your attack as if it was against the population. And Zionists have been exploiting this for ages, to silence anyone who speaks against it.
*Palestine does have a state (or something close to one), but people typically call it "Hamas" instead of "Palestine".
During WWII I don't think it would be unreasonable to say, "Germany doesn't have a right to exist," but if you said "Poland doesn't have a right to exist," that would be pretty different. The latter is justifying subjugation of the country but the former is objecting to the state doing the subjugating.
'The Russians occupying Crimea cannot be deported that would be ethnic cleansing'. No it would not. There were Nazis occupying Polish houses and they were kicked out after WW2 and sent back where they came from.
'Deport all Jews from Palestine' would be ethnic cleansing as many Jews lived in Palestine before Zionism.
Palestinians have the full right to all their land back. If a European colonist is currently occupying it that is not their problem. The fact that their parents stole it in an ethnic cleansing does not change this in the slightest. Nor does them being Jewish mean that they suddenly get a special antisemitism exception to do colonialism and steal people's houses.
There were many historically German language areas in Poland and Czechia. There was in fact atrocities and ethnic cleansing there - not that this deserves any pity for most of the "former NAZIs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)
After 50 years I don't think any reasonable person can make the argument that removing Jews from Israel is anything but ethnic cleansing. Not that I'd have any pity on those zionist fascists either, BUT it's beyond the pale to feign outrage over your "innocent comment" if this is your true opinion.
YDI
So what do you say about the Russians occupying Crimea? Would it be ethnic cleansing to deport them? Does Russia own Crimea because they ethnically cleansed it and then sent a few squatters?
Of course, two wrongs don't make it right! You can't hold the people living in an area collectively responsible for the actions of their regime (past or present). They are human beings.
I am angry too and I agree that the regime and a majority of the population of Israel has become fascist along with decades of crimes, terrorism and oppression, and should fall and be "de-nazied" like in Germany. But that is unlikely anytime soon. Best we can do is sanction them to collapse and punish those who support this regime.
The issue is that the fascist assault also has an impact on all of us, by making us angry and wish for simple solutions. Don't play into their hands by validating their claims about the "radical left".
Returning Palestinians property to them is not collective punishment. And since most Israelis serve in the IDF they are responsible.
Just because their grandfather stole something doesn't make it theirs. The owners are alive and they are required to return it. Any other opinion is pure racism.
Real justice would require Israelis to pay reparations besides the return of all Palestinian property.
They are drafted, and refusing to serve is not easy, and they are inundated by propaganda. And yeah reparations, land reform, wealth redistribution all would need to happen.
And if you're taking about the recent settlements (say like up to 20 years ago) and dispossession of Palestinians, yeah I agree. But there is a "statue of limitations". You can't unravel history. Humans in general who live somewhere and have build their lives deserve protection - no matter how they got there or what shitty and vile opinions they hold. It's not a property dispute if you want to apply this to a whole nation.
Personally I don't see this ending well. There are about a billion climate refugees coming in the next decades and things will get much worse generally. Israel will probably become isolated and eventually loose USA support and use their nuclear weapons. But after than it's quite possible Israel will indeed end with another holocaust. But I see no reason to hope for or argue in favor of that.
All Israelis have a country of origin they can go back to. These people are 'dual'-nationality'd up the whazoo. These are not events lost to time. Israelis are still actively participating in the disposession and theft of Palestinian land.
There is no such thing as "reverse ethnic cleansing". That would be like calling it 'reverse theft' when a thief is caught and the wallet is returned to the original owner. Their grandparents doing the theft does not make it any less theft.