6 ms·

>> there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel. > This seems like a leap of logic. a) There are no illegitimate states b) Israel is unique

>> there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel. > This seems like a leap of logic. a) There are no illegitimate states b) Israel is unique and unquestionable ...<then non-sequiturs about South Africa and Rhodesia> I am a Westerner. One of my core beliefs is that rationalism and logic leads to truth and correct action; conversely that irrationality and emotionalism leads to suffering and poor decisions. I'm not pro-Israel because I've chosen "team Israel, right or wrong". I'm pro-Israel because the pro-Israel arguments that I've heard are far more rational than pro-Palestinian arguments. I do seek out anti-Israel arguments, hoping to find something rational, but so far, nothing. Again, my goal is truth and correct action, not tribal chest-thumping. Your arguments here did not hit the mark. I do not accept that South Africa or Rhodesia are appropriate comparisons, and therefore their inclusion was a non-sequitur. Further, my null hypothesis is that Israel is an unremarkable state, not "unique and unquestionable". I therefore interpret Israel as doing only that which any Western nation would do in the same circumstances. Yours appears to be the obverse, that Israel is uniquely questionable. Maybe it is? You'd have to supply evidence or arguments compelling enough to match that thesis, for me to be convinced. If you do want to earnestly go down this path of becoming the first to construct actually rational arguments against Israel, you won't be able to just throw around emotional shorthands like "apartheid", "Nakba", "settler-colonialist", etc. It's lazy emotionalism designed to stop rational thought. It will convince only those who are already convinced, but it's not a rational argument. If you want to argue rationally and compellingly that Israel is "an apartheid state" then understand the strongest arguments against using that term, and dismantle those arguments. We pro-Israel peeps have heard all the accusations, but have never heard any considered, thoughtful, direct, courageous rebuttal of the "Israel is not apartheid, actually" arguments. Just more emotionalism. I do bet that if you take the journey to understand the arguments for and the arguments against you will conclude that it's not appropriate in Israel's case. But! Maybe I'm wrong about that! Maybe you will come up with a really rational, dispassionate argument that Israel is an apartheid state and all rational people will be compelled to follow the truth, reluctantly or not. Good luck. I honestly look forward to see what you come up with.

runarberg 2y ago
Apartheid is a legal term with a precise definition in international law. It is not an emotional shorthand, or at least I’m not using it as such here. The Nakba is a historical event, which took place in Palestine 1947-1948. I was using it here to describe that even (or rather as a reference point), not as an emotional shorthand. Settler Colonialism is a conduct done by a dominant power and against an indigenous population. Rhodesia was a settler colonial state, there is a historical agreement about that, and there was a contemporary agreement that that was bad, and in and of it self made Rhodesia an illegitimate state. I was using it as an emotional shorthand, but so did contemporaries, including at the UN when they encourage nations to never recognize such as state. Your claim that I threw around these terms as lazy emotionalism is unfounded, I explained how they are relevant and how one can indeed criticize Israel using these terms. Israel may not be as bad as Rhodesia, but the term Settler colonialism, and ethno-state still apply. Israel was a Settler colonial enterprise, it was funded 76 years ago by mass displacements of an indigenous population in an event known as the Nakba. Israel is an ethno-state. It maintains a supremacy and domination of a single ethno-religious group over others. It encourages immigration of that single entho-religious group, while denying any rights to the indigenous population which they displaced. I’ve argued elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40346997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40346997) that Israel is an apartheid state, citing, among other, a legal argument used before the ICJ that Israel does indeed brake international humanitarian laws, specifically relating to the legal definition of Apartheid. You however refused to engage with that argument. Claiming that I wasn’t making any coherent arguments. The thing is, I’m not making those arguments, legal experts are. I’m simply appealing to authority on the matter, and there is an overwhelming concern among experts that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. EDIT: As a case in point of how universal these criticisms of Israel are (a universality which must grant at least some legitimacy) the Wikipedia pages for both Settler Colonialism and Ethnocracy (redirected from ethno-state), have a substantial segments about how these terms can be described to Israel. Even Apartheid (South Africa) which is an article about Apartheid in South Africa (not the crime of Apartheid) has a couple of paragraphs dedicated to how Israel’s conduct against Palestinians can be described as Apartheid. Jimmy Carter even wrote a whole book about it.
- rendall 2y ago

runarberg 2y ago

Apartheid is a legal term with a precise definition in international law. It is not an emotional shorthand, or at least I’m not using it as such here. The Nakba is a historical event, which took place in Palestine 1947-1948. I was using it here to describe that even (or rather as a reference point), not as an emotional shorthand. Settler Colonialism is a conduct done by a dominant power and against an indigenous population. Rhodesia was a settler colonial state, there is a historical agreement about that, and there was a contemporary agreement that that was bad, and in and of it self made Rhodesia an illegitimate state. I was using it as an emotional shorthand, but so did contemporaries, including at the UN when they encourage nations to never recognize such as state. Your claim that I threw around these terms as lazy emotionalism is unfounded, I explained how they are relevant and how one can indeed criticize Israel using these terms. Israel may not be as bad as Rhodesia, but the term Settler colonialism, and ethno-state still apply. Israel was a Settler colonial enterprise, it was funded 76 years ago by mass displacements of an indigenous population in an event known as the Nakba. Israel is an ethno-state. It maintains a supremacy and domination of a single ethno-religious group over others. It encourages immigration of that single entho-religious group, while denying any rights to the indigenous population which they displaced. I’ve argued elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40346997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40346997) that Israel is an apartheid state, citing, among other, a legal argument used before the ICJ that Israel does indeed brake international humanitarian laws, specifically relating to the legal definition of Apartheid. You however refused to engage with that argument. Claiming that I wasn’t making any coherent arguments. The thing is, I’m not making those arguments, legal experts are. I’m simply appealing to authority on the matter, and there is an overwhelming concern among experts that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. EDIT: As a case in point of how universal these criticisms of Israel are (a universality which must grant at least some legitimacy) the Wikipedia pages for both Settler Colonialism and Ethnocracy (redirected from ethno-state), have a substantial segments about how these terms can be described to Israel. Even Apartheid (South Africa) which is an article about Apartheid in South Africa (not the crime of Apartheid) has a couple of paragraphs dedicated to how Israel’s conduct against Palestinians can be described as Apartheid. Jimmy Carter even wrote a whole book about it.

rendall 2y ago