3 ms·

Context and consensus is that "elimination of Israel" was obviously not purely as a political entity. Leaders of the PLO have plainly called for the elimination

Context and consensus is that "elimination of Israel" was obviously not purely as a political entity. Leaders of the PLO have plainly called for the elimination of the Jews, as previous source and following outlines. I'm no fan of ethnic theocracies either, and it turns out Israel is the only nation that isn't one in the middle east. http://internationalwallofprayer.org/A-077-The-Infamous-PLO-Covenant.html http://internationalwallofprayer.org/A-077-The-Infamous-PLO-...

wbsss4412 5y ago
Your source says nothing of any PLO leaders calling for the wholesale elimination of Jews from Palestine, only Zionism, ie Jewish colonization of the territory of Palestine/Israel. It says it could be considered a call for genocide, except it wasn’t. The original charter explicitly characterized Palestinian Jews as Palestinians who would be a part of their desired state of Palestine. It was a nationalist document, not a religious one. The Islamic bent of the conflict only came later as political Islam grew in response to conflict with the west. > I'm no fan of ethnic theocracies either, and it turns out Israel is the only nation that isn't one in the middle east. Again, whataboutism. Israel is a self proclaimed Jewish state. That’s what Zionism is. You can’t just hand wave that away.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  You didn't read them very closely or pay attention to quotes by Yasser Arafat and his successor or associates. What do you propose the Jews do? Allow another totalitarian theocratic ethnostate to inhabit the land and disperse among the western civilizations? Can you understand why that may be something to be wary of for them as an ethnic group? Or should they continue to be the only free, secular, democratic melting pot in the middle east? None of the things they're accused of to earn the label "apartheid" are based in fact.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    I looked again, and there aren’t any quotes from Arafat? None of the states that Israel share a border with are theocratic enthostates. Iran? Yes. Lebanon? No. Again you are playing on the “Arabs are barbarous therefore Israel is good” trope. I am far more bothered by the US alliance with Saudi Arabia, but that doesn’t make Israel’s action just simply because of the comparison. Further, at no point have I been proscriptive about what Israel must do here. Due to the century and a half of conflict now, things have gotten extremely difficult and tangled. I do, however, object to what multiple independent western human rights organizations have characterized as apartheid, though. I would like to see a path towards a solution with one democratic state wherein all of the people inhabiting Israel as well as the occupied territories have full citizenship, and the Jewish population can live in peace and security. I do not see any straight path there, though.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      You're right that the border states may not be theoretic ethno states but they are confessionalist states. Palestinian refuges have less political representation and rights on these border states than Israel as well. They're literally barred from naturalization in Syria and Lebanon. Israel's actions according to AI aren't actions based in the context of reality. That's the problem. The characterization of apartheid is absurd. Nearby nations treat Palestinians as a lesser class of human. Israel doesn't at all. If the driving concern of the report was the well being of Palestinians, there are numerous facts they could have addressed in the region that wouldn't have required manufactured falsehoods, contextual manipulation, or ignoring terrorism. As time goes on, more and more point by point callouts of the blatant falsehoods proclaimed throughout the report will occur, but the NGO-Monitor one is a great place to start. https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-apartheid-analysis/ https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-apartheid-analys...
      - sndman 5y ago
        It's not just Amnesty calling out apartheid Israel: Amnesty's report came out after Israeli human rights advocacy organizations published their reports: 1. 18 months after Yesh Din's "The Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid: Legal Opinion," 2. A year after B'tselem's "A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This Is Apartheid." 3. Eight months after Human Rights Watch published "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution." 4. Five years after experts commissioned by the UN's Economic and Social Commission of West Asia had authored "Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid" We can even count Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu calling out Israeli apartheid. None of these criticisms were related to Judaism. Are they all antisemitic?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wbsss4412 5y ago

Your source says nothing of any PLO leaders calling for the wholesale elimination of Jews from Palestine, only Zionism, ie Jewish colonization of the territory of Palestine/Israel. It says it could be considered a call for genocide, except it wasn’t. The original charter explicitly characterized Palestinian Jews as Palestinians who would be a part of their desired state of Palestine. It was a nationalist document, not a religious one. The Islamic bent of the conflict only came later as political Islam grew in response to conflict with the west. > I'm no fan of ethnic theocracies either, and it turns out Israel is the only nation that isn't one in the middle east. Again, whataboutism. Israel is a self proclaimed Jewish state. That’s what Zionism is. You can’t just hand wave that away.

defaultprimate 5y ago
You didn't read them very closely or pay attention to quotes by Yasser Arafat and his successor or associates. What do you propose the Jews do? Allow another totalitarian theocratic ethnostate to inhabit the land and disperse among the western civilizations? Can you understand why that may be something to be wary of for them as an ethnic group? Or should they continue to be the only free, secular, democratic melting pot in the middle east? None of the things they're accused of to earn the label "apartheid" are based in fact.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  I looked again, and there aren’t any quotes from Arafat? None of the states that Israel share a border with are theocratic enthostates. Iran? Yes. Lebanon? No. Again you are playing on the “Arabs are barbarous therefore Israel is good” trope. I am far more bothered by the US alliance with Saudi Arabia, but that doesn’t make Israel’s action just simply because of the comparison. Further, at no point have I been proscriptive about what Israel must do here. Due to the century and a half of conflict now, things have gotten extremely difficult and tangled. I do, however, object to what multiple independent western human rights organizations have characterized as apartheid, though. I would like to see a path towards a solution with one democratic state wherein all of the people inhabiting Israel as well as the occupied territories have full citizenship, and the Jewish population can live in peace and security. I do not see any straight path there, though.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    You're right that the border states may not be theoretic ethno states but they are confessionalist states. Palestinian refuges have less political representation and rights on these border states than Israel as well. They're literally barred from naturalization in Syria and Lebanon. Israel's actions according to AI aren't actions based in the context of reality. That's the problem. The characterization of apartheid is absurd. Nearby nations treat Palestinians as a lesser class of human. Israel doesn't at all. If the driving concern of the report was the well being of Palestinians, there are numerous facts they could have addressed in the region that wouldn't have required manufactured falsehoods, contextual manipulation, or ignoring terrorism. As time goes on, more and more point by point callouts of the blatant falsehoods proclaimed throughout the report will occur, but the NGO-Monitor one is a great place to start. https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-apartheid-analysis/ https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-apartheid-analys...
    - sndman 5y ago
      It's not just Amnesty calling out apartheid Israel: Amnesty's report came out after Israeli human rights advocacy organizations published their reports: 1. 18 months after Yesh Din's "The Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid: Legal Opinion," 2. A year after B'tselem's "A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This Is Apartheid." 3. Eight months after Human Rights Watch published "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution." 4. Five years after experts commissioned by the UN's Economic and Social Commission of West Asia had authored "Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid" We can even count Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu calling out Israeli apartheid. None of these criticisms were related to Judaism. Are they all antisemitic?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]