304
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
304 points (93.9% liked)
politics
18866 readers
21 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.
- 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.
- 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 1 year 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?
No. No theocracy or ethno state has a right to exist. Brutal apartheid is baked into these concepts. For some reason most of the world can get on board when it comes to oppressive governments like Iran or even China spreading Han culture. If the myth of "a people without a land to a land without a people" were true there might be a case, but there is no such land, and certainly not in Palestine.
This is wildly incorrect. The only inherent implication of saying the state of Israel has no right to exist is that the state of Israel has no right to exist. That is, a state foundationally for and only for a certain ethno-religion, forcibly and violently founded in a land already full of people who aren't a part of that ethno-religion. Such a state is oppressive by its nature, given that the majority of people within its borders of control (and especially people within those borders and displaced from within those borders) are disenfranchised and do not have equal rights under the law or under the enforcement of law.
Completely disagree. It's a nation like any other. It has as much right to exist as the USA or Constantinople.
I'm not entirely on board with the idea of nations having rights at all. The people living in them do, but I don't see how an abstract entity should have rights that the people it represents don't have on their own.
To give a concrete example: the people of Iraq have a right to exist. But it's a country composed of ethnic groups that don't especially like each other, so having them all live in a single country isn't necessarily great. I don't think Iraq has a right to be a country, especially if it's interfering with the right to self-determination of the people living there. Maybe as a practical matter it's better for the country to exist, but rights aren't supposed to be contingent on practical concerns.
Well... they did make corporations "people" - so there is that kind of lunacy around.
Correct because nobody who has any actual power wants peace. What those with power want is to assert their influence.