4 ms·

It sounds like you think they should have autonomy and a democratic state, which most of the world also agrees with.

by smt88 3y ago

nikkwong 3y ago
"Democratic" is pushing it a tad too far—none of the Islamic world follows a rule of law that would be something akin to a democracy; they're monarchies, theocracies, or in many cases autocracies. The only actual democracy in the middle east is—well, Israel.
- Qem 3y ago
  > The only actual democracy in the middle east is—well, Israel. An apartheid is no democracy. Calling an apartheid regime 'democracy' debases the concept of democracy, and gives it bad reputation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- smt88 3y ago
  So you believe that Muslims and/or Arabs are incapable of democracy? Also, Israel is absolutely not a democracy. Gazans were/are ultimately subject to Israeli law and could not vote in Israel's elections.
  - nikkwong 3y ago
    Incapable is a strong word—but much (if not most) of the Muslim world advocates for Sharia law which is essentially the opposite of a democracy. When it's practiced in it's truest form it's the most repressive system of laws against women in the modern world. As the world becomes more modern and democratic principles become more highly prized, I think we see some glimmers of hope in the muslim world as parts of the population begin to value more democratic principles. But they have to do this in the context of the theocratic states in which they live in where these values were never first class citizens—so I think that's why we haven't seen much progress on these fronts in that part of the world. I agree with you that there's a double standard in regards to the application of the law—I'm not privy on why Palestinians are subject to Israel's laws, and I wouldn't charitably say it's for reasons that are morally sound. I do think that allowing Palestinian's to vote in Israel's parliamentary elections is a non-starter for obvious reasons.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      These racist Islamophobic talking points are so grimy to read. The "modern and democratic" world leaders are currently trying - and failing - to whitewash an undeniable, livestreamed, openly boasted genocide and land-grab. This is enabled by a variety of full-on unapologetic apocalyptic death-cult religious extremists and a complicit media who happily run fossil fuel greenwashing campaigns and silence anti-war voices. Compare Muslims killed by Jews and Christians over the last few decades to the reverse. It's hard to argue for any moral high ground whatsoever when you look at the raw numbers. If the best argument you have is that the West treats women better, maybe look at how many women we've murdered in the middle east, or the 26,000 rape-related pregnancies in Texas, or the Ethopian Jews sterilized without being informed in Israel, etc, etc, etc. Those vastly wealthy ME leaders repressing women the hardest? They got all that money selling oil to us. It's a lot of work unpeeling the layers and layers of Western hypocrisy and bullshit, but it has to be done. It has to. We can't keep killing millions of brown people for their natural resources and expect to have a nice society/planet to live on.
- Thiez 3y ago
  Iran had a democracy, until the CIA toppled it in 1953. In general having oil means foreign powers will keep installing useful puppets as leaders. The middle east having few democracies may have more to do with Western greed than with the preferences of Arabs or Muslims.
edanm 3y ago
I think the implication is that Gaza does have semi-autonomy (it is a complicated situation - there's a blockade, but it has security autonomy within its region. Or did before October 7th). And Gaza was pushed towards democratic elections, which they held, elected Hamas, and Hamas hasn't permitted a democracy since then.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Let's not forget that Likud and Netanyahu were instrumental in funding and arming Hamas. The PLO and Arafat were becoming increasing moderate and willing to sit down and work out a peaceful two state solution. But the ultra right wing of Israel didn't want that, and didn't want awkward questions like "If they're willing to negotiate and work through diplomacy, why isn't Israel?" so they thought it'd be better to fund the rise of the extremist Hamas. "From the River to the Sea" (Jordan River to the Red Sea) was not just a comment by Palestinian extremists, but was Likud's actual election campaign and slogan throughout the 1970s. And it's hard, as a Gazan, to argue with Hamas, considering Hamas are about the only ones armed, thanks to Israel's ongoing air blockade (Arafat International Airport bombed in early 2000s), and the Israeli navy blockading Port of Gaza since 2007.
  - edanm 3y ago
    > The PLO and Arafat were becoming increasing moderate and willing to sit down and work out a peaceful two state solution. You said this in another comment. While I agree that Netanyahu has done a lot of harm over the last 15 years, specifically by on-purpose shooting down chances for peace, I think you are giving the PA and Arafat too much credit. They were offered multiple deals that they turned down, walking away from negotiations without offering alternatives. It's totally possible that with leadership towards peace on the Israeli side, that might've changed and we would've eventually seen a true peace deal signed. And for sure Netanyahu put effort into quashing that, one of his many sins. But we don't need to pretend that the PA was better than it was. It's not at all clear that, absent Netanyahu, a deal coudl've been agreed on.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
gotoeleven 3y ago
[flagged]
- notok 3y ago
  Stop occupying and brutalizing them, and agree to two states along the 1967 borders, as called for by both international law and every other country in the world.
  - yonixw 3y ago
    They did, in Gaza, in 2005. Only to wake up to a Hamas takeover and rocket shooting on Israel civilians (war crime), which brought the Gaza siege. Or maybe the world can give some new suggestion that was not disproven by history?
    - gebruikersnaam 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - yonixw 3y ago
        In 2005? Nope. So the point still stand. And in later 2020+, Armed? Nope. only allowing Qatar money to pass was choosing between 2 evils which doesn't mean you support them. I mean, what is the option you try to refer to which would not lead to this point with a Dictatorship Terroristic Religious government of Gaza, which only backed by Iran?
        gebruikersnaam 3y ago
        [flagged]
        yonixw 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - 3y ago

It sounds like you think they should have autonomy and a democratic state, which most of the world also agrees with.

by smt88 3y ago

It sounds like you think they should have autonomy and a democratic state, which most of the world also agrees with.

"Democratic" is pushing it a tad too far—none of the Islamic world follows a rule of law that would be something akin to a democracy; they're monarchies, theocracies, or in many cases autocracies. The only actual democracy in the middle east is—well, Israel.

Qem 3y ago
> The only actual democracy in the middle east is—well, Israel. An apartheid is no democracy. Calling an apartheid regime 'democracy' debases the concept of democracy, and gives it bad reputation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
smt88 3y ago
So you believe that Muslims and/or Arabs are incapable of democracy? Also, Israel is absolutely not a democracy. Gazans were/are ultimately subject to Israeli law and could not vote in Israel's elections.
- nikkwong 3y ago
  Incapable is a strong word—but much (if not most) of the Muslim world advocates for Sharia law which is essentially the opposite of a democracy. When it's practiced in it's truest form it's the most repressive system of laws against women in the modern world. As the world becomes more modern and democratic principles become more highly prized, I think we see some glimmers of hope in the muslim world as parts of the population begin to value more democratic principles. But they have to do this in the context of the theocratic states in which they live in where these values were never first class citizens—so I think that's why we haven't seen much progress on these fronts in that part of the world. I agree with you that there's a double standard in regards to the application of the law—I'm not privy on why Palestinians are subject to Israel's laws, and I wouldn't charitably say it's for reasons that are morally sound. I do think that allowing Palestinian's to vote in Israel's parliamentary elections is a non-starter for obvious reasons.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    These racist Islamophobic talking points are so grimy to read. The "modern and democratic" world leaders are currently trying - and failing - to whitewash an undeniable, livestreamed, openly boasted genocide and land-grab. This is enabled by a variety of full-on unapologetic apocalyptic death-cult religious extremists and a complicit media who happily run fossil fuel greenwashing campaigns and silence anti-war voices. Compare Muslims killed by Jews and Christians over the last few decades to the reverse. It's hard to argue for any moral high ground whatsoever when you look at the raw numbers. If the best argument you have is that the West treats women better, maybe look at how many women we've murdered in the middle east, or the 26,000 rape-related pregnancies in Texas, or the Ethopian Jews sterilized without being informed in Israel, etc, etc, etc. Those vastly wealthy ME leaders repressing women the hardest? They got all that money selling oil to us. It's a lot of work unpeeling the layers and layers of Western hypocrisy and bullshit, but it has to be done. It has to. We can't keep killing millions of brown people for their natural resources and expect to have a nice society/planet to live on.
Thiez 3y ago
Iran had a democracy, until the CIA toppled it in 1953. In general having oil means foreign powers will keep installing useful puppets as leaders. The middle east having few democracies may have more to do with Western greed than with the preferences of Arabs or Muslims.

edanm 3y ago

I think the implication is that Gaza does have semi-autonomy (it is a complicated situation - there's a blockade, but it has security autonomy within its region. Or did before October 7th). And Gaza was pushed towards democratic elections, which they held, elected Hamas, and Hamas hasn't permitted a democracy since then.

FireBeyond 3y ago
Let's not forget that Likud and Netanyahu were instrumental in funding and arming Hamas. The PLO and Arafat were becoming increasing moderate and willing to sit down and work out a peaceful two state solution. But the ultra right wing of Israel didn't want that, and didn't want awkward questions like "If they're willing to negotiate and work through diplomacy, why isn't Israel?" so they thought it'd be better to fund the rise of the extremist Hamas. "From the River to the Sea" (Jordan River to the Red Sea) was not just a comment by Palestinian extremists, but was Likud's actual election campaign and slogan throughout the 1970s. And it's hard, as a Gazan, to argue with Hamas, considering Hamas are about the only ones armed, thanks to Israel's ongoing air blockade (Arafat International Airport bombed in early 2000s), and the Israeli navy blockading Port of Gaza since 2007.
- edanm 3y ago
  > The PLO and Arafat were becoming increasing moderate and willing to sit down and work out a peaceful two state solution. You said this in another comment. While I agree that Netanyahu has done a lot of harm over the last 15 years, specifically by on-purpose shooting down chances for peace, I think you are giving the PA and Arafat too much credit. They were offered multiple deals that they turned down, walking away from negotiations without offering alternatives. It's totally possible that with leadership towards peace on the Israeli side, that might've changed and we would've eventually seen a true peace deal signed. And for sure Netanyahu put effort into quashing that, one of his many sins. But we don't need to pretend that the PA was better than it was. It's not at all clear that, absent Netanyahu, a deal coudl've been agreed on.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago

gotoeleven 3y ago

[flagged]

notok 3y ago
Stop occupying and brutalizing them, and agree to two states along the 1967 borders, as called for by both international law and every other country in the world.
- yonixw 3y ago
  They did, in Gaza, in 2005. Only to wake up to a Hamas takeover and rocket shooting on Israel civilians (war crime), which brought the Gaza siege. Or maybe the world can give some new suggestion that was not disproven by history?
  - gebruikersnaam 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - yonixw 3y ago
      In 2005? Nope. So the point still stand. And in later 2020+, Armed? Nope. only allowing Qatar money to pass was choosing between 2 evils which doesn't mean you support them. I mean, what is the option you try to refer to which would not lead to this point with a Dictatorship Terroristic Religious government of Gaza, which only backed by Iran?
      - gebruikersnaam 3y ago
        [flagged]
        yonixw 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - 3y ago