2 ms·

If I call Israel an Apartheit state I would need to extend that classifier to a lot of other countries. There are problems in Israel but they are dwarfed by tho

If I call Israel an Apartheit state I would need to extend that classifier to a lot of other countries. There are problems in Israel but they are dwarfed by those common in the region. Which is not an excuse, of course, but it provides perspective how conflicts materialize in the middle east. Of course Israel does serve a special function to provide shelter from prosecution and this specifically but not exclusively for Jews. I could call the prosecution of Jews in Arab and other countries and ethnic cleansing too, but this does not provide anything constructive to any dialogue. I think a lot of people want to see Israel purged from the region. It is an irrational hatred against Jews that fails to hide behind pretexts. Jews from Europe that happen to be white or not are very rarely those that settle in the Westbank and I don't disagree that these settlements are illegal. But that doesn't invalidate Israels right to exist. Accepting this as a fact would leave the opposition to these policies with more options.

hnbad 5y ago
> There are problems in Israel but they are dwarfed by those common in the region. Sure, and you'll find that most people who genuinely criticize Israel on these grounds (rather than looking for an excuse to justify their antisemitism) would argue that we shouldn't fund those countries' defense budgets either. > Of course Israel does serve a special function to provide shelter from prosecution and this specifically but not exclusively for Jews. This isn't a politically neutral statement of facts, though. I think you'll find many people who criticize Israel for other reasons than being antisemitic to also support refugee rights and be pro-immigration. The US state of Utah was essentially formed by Mormons as shelter against prosecution but as far as I know Utah doesn't give Mormons legal privileges, not to get into comparisons regarding the Native peoples that once lived on that land. It should be obvious that it's a contentious argument that a) Jews need "their own" country to protect them from prosecution, b) Israel was a good solution for doing that and c) this purpose trumps all humanitarian concerns for Palestinian Arabs. > I could call the prosecution of Jews in Arab and other countries and ethnic cleansing too, but this does not provide anything constructive to any dialogue. I think it's absolutely legitimate to point out ethnic cleansings in other countries in the region when they happen. And you'll find plenty of news media having done exactly that, even if they mostly only care to point them out when the victims are "relatable" (e.g. Christian minorities in majority Muslim countries). The difference is that using words like "ethnic cleansing" or "Apartheid" or even expressing criticism of Israeli military bombings of civilian targets (or "terrorist targets in civilian areas" that just happen to be full of civilians because the terrorists use them as meat shields, if you think the distinction is important) is an easy way to be guaranteed not to work for any Western news media company ever again. > I think a lot of people want to see Israel purged from the region. It is an irrational hatred against Jews that fails to hide behind pretexts. Sure. I already acknowledged that a lot of antisemites use language critical of Israel to justify their antisemitism. It's also true that a lot of antisemites use language supportive of Israel to justify their own ethnonationalism, though. You'll find plenty of white supremacists use Israel (or Japan, although for different reasons) as an example when arguing for white ethnostates or a "Europe of sovereign fatherlands". They of course usually don't say the quiet part out loud (i.e. that they want all Jewish people to be moved into Israel) and "Jewish" isn't really an ethnicity, but you'll find some on the Israeli far-right all but agreeing with them on those points as well. > But that doesn't invalidate Israels right to exist. I think "right to exist" is a red herring. No country in history has existed continuously and permanently and within its same borders and with the same form of government. Look at a map of the US in 1776 and tell me this is the exact same country as today (not to mention how much of the constitution has effectively been rewritten since). Most national mythologies (especially in Europe) were made from whole cloth in the 19th century with the rise of nationalism. My own country, Germany, has fundamentally been reinvented at least five times since then (if you can even argue that the post-1990 federal republic is in any meaningful way "the same" as the German Empire). I don't think any country has a "right to exist" but I think it's absurd to talk about countries having rights to do anything in the first place: even recognition as a country entirely depends on a country's ability to use violence (either through military power or economical "soft power") to coerce other countries into acknowledging it and even then it's not a global absolute but contextual -- see Taiwan for an obvious example. Israel doesn't have a right to exist. No country does. Countries don't have rights. Jewish Israelis deserve to live in peace and self-determination. But so do Palestinian Arabs. To some extent Israel is a necessary evil (in the sense that countries are always a necessary evil at best) to assert this against other interests in the region. But I think it is possible and necessary to criticize how Israel goes about that, and especially so if you fund Israel's military, are a military ally to Israel or give Israel any military, political or economical preference over its neighboring countries. For the record: I have a lot of concerns with other allies like Saudi Arabia (or even in Germany's case, the United States -- but also Germany itself obviously). The difference is that those countries' lobbying groups are much less successful at framing criticism as bigotry in public discourse despite rampant islamophobia. Ironically I'd say that at least in my country antisemitism is far more widespread than islamophobia although expressing the former is more of a cultural taboo than expressing the latter.

hnbad 5y ago

> There are problems in Israel but they are dwarfed by those common in the region. Sure, and you'll find that most people who genuinely criticize Israel on these grounds (rather than looking for an excuse to justify their antisemitism) would argue that we shouldn't fund those countries' defense budgets either. > Of course Israel does serve a special function to provide shelter from prosecution and this specifically but not exclusively for Jews. This isn't a politically neutral statement of facts, though. I think you'll find many people who criticize Israel for other reasons than being antisemitic to also support refugee rights and be pro-immigration. The US state of Utah was essentially formed by Mormons as shelter against prosecution but as far as I know Utah doesn't give Mormons legal privileges, not to get into comparisons regarding the Native peoples that once lived on that land. It should be obvious that it's a contentious argument that a) Jews need "their own" country to protect them from prosecution, b) Israel was a good solution for doing that and c) this purpose trumps all humanitarian concerns for Palestinian Arabs. > I could call the prosecution of Jews in Arab and other countries and ethnic cleansing too, but this does not provide anything constructive to any dialogue. I think it's absolutely legitimate to point out ethnic cleansings in other countries in the region when they happen. And you'll find plenty of news media having done exactly that, even if they mostly only care to point them out when the victims are "relatable" (e.g. Christian minorities in majority Muslim countries). The difference is that using words like "ethnic cleansing" or "Apartheid" or even expressing criticism of Israeli military bombings of civilian targets (or "terrorist targets in civilian areas" that just happen to be full of civilians because the terrorists use them as meat shields, if you think the distinction is important) is an easy way to be guaranteed not to work for any Western news media company ever again. > I think a lot of people want to see Israel purged from the region. It is an irrational hatred against Jews that fails to hide behind pretexts. Sure. I already acknowledged that a lot of antisemites use language critical of Israel to justify their antisemitism. It's also true that a lot of antisemites use language supportive of Israel to justify their own ethnonationalism, though. You'll find plenty of white supremacists use Israel (or Japan, although for different reasons) as an example when arguing for white ethnostates or a "Europe of sovereign fatherlands". They of course usually don't say the quiet part out loud (i.e. that they want all Jewish people to be moved into Israel) and "Jewish" isn't really an ethnicity, but you'll find some on the Israeli far-right all but agreeing with them on those points as well. > But that doesn't invalidate Israels right to exist. I think "right to exist" is a red herring. No country in history has existed continuously and permanently and within its same borders and with the same form of government. Look at a map of the US in 1776 and tell me this is the exact same country as today (not to mention how much of the constitution has effectively been rewritten since). Most national mythologies (especially in Europe) were made from whole cloth in the 19th century with the rise of nationalism. My own country, Germany, has fundamentally been reinvented at least five times since then (if you can even argue that the post-1990 federal republic is in any meaningful way "the same" as the German Empire). I don't think any country has a "right to exist" but I think it's absurd to talk about countries having rights to do anything in the first place: even recognition as a country entirely depends on a country's ability to use violence (either through military power or economical "soft power") to coerce other countries into acknowledging it and even then it's not a global absolute but contextual -- see Taiwan for an obvious example. Israel doesn't have a right to exist. No country does. Countries don't have rights. Jewish Israelis deserve to live in peace and self-determination. But so do Palestinian Arabs. To some extent Israel is a necessary evil (in the sense that countries are always a necessary evil at best) to assert this against other interests in the region. But I think it is possible and necessary to criticize how Israel goes about that, and especially so if you fund Israel's military, are a military ally to Israel or give Israel any military, political or economical preference over its neighboring countries. For the record: I have a lot of concerns with other allies like Saudi Arabia (or even in Germany's case, the United States -- but also Germany itself obviously). The difference is that those countries' lobbying groups are much less successful at framing criticism as bigotry in public discourse despite rampant islamophobia. Ironically I'd say that at least in my country antisemitism is far more widespread than islamophobia although expressing the former is more of a cultural taboo than expressing the latter.