306
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
306 points (94.0% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2018 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem with this sort of language is that there are a few different things that people call "anti-Zionism". One is saying Israel does not have a holy right to the entirety of the land of Israel. Another is saying Israel has no right to exist at all. A third is any criticism of Israel or the Israeli leadership.
Only the second is antisemitism, as it implies that Jewish people and their nation should not exist.
Trouble is, it all gets lumped together. Any criticism of the Israeli leadership is fodder for the anti-semites who would wipe out the Jewish people given the opportunity. Any defense of the nation of Israel or the Jewish people is taken as tacit endorsement of the atrocities they are commiting.
This is an unsustainable level of intransigence that leaves no path forward resolving in peace.
No.
Saying the state of Israel has no right to exist is not antisemitic either.
You're continuing the deliberate mistake of conflating Israel (a political entity) with Judaism (a religion). Not every Israeli is Jewish, nor is every Jew Israeli. Likewise Israel is not Jewish peoples nation, Jewish people live all over the world and call many nations their home.
Also why do you believe people should have an ethno-state of their own?
How do you eliminate the state of Israel without killing a bunch of Jewish people?
I don't believe there should be any ethno-states, but that's not the world we got.
It's very easy to replace Israel with another state in the same place without killing or moving everyone.
Israel is an ethnostate. Ethnostates are bad. Ethnostates that are religiously motivated are doubly bad.
Israel could be a secular state that treated all ethnicities equally with zero loss in life or need for anyone to leave the area.
They chose not to.
It's not antisemitism to acknowledge this.
Oh nation building. The US is pretty good at that. I mean, isn't that how we got here in the first place? Moving a bunch of religious fanatics out of their holy land to make room for the displaced victims of a genocide?
Deflecting, are we?
Not at all, I just don't think your solution is feasible. The Israeli leadership will not step down peacefully, and Hamas will not accept anything less than total victory. You're suggesting a third party take control? Or do you think suddenly everyone involved will just forget all the murder and start singing "kumbaya"?
That's not how it started at all, the Brits have a lot more to do with this one.
Naturally, but do we expect to be better at it?
I think I may have misunderstood you, I thought you were saying that America was responsible for Israel.
No that's my fault, I see why that's what it sounded like. It was intended as two different points.
The US has a bad record of nation building.
Israel exists because of failed nation building, specifically how the UK controlled Palestine and started encouraging Jewish migration to the holy land, displacing Palestinians.
Lol. Really bad attempt at pivoting.
What pivot? That's the argument presented. "The end of Israel does not require violence because Western nations can build a better nation for the Jewish and Palestinian peoples to live in harmony." Does that actually deserve a full rebuttal?