47 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnost

by ars 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand And I'm not picking on them - tons of countries are like that, and that's fine as long as they ensure equality of all citizens, which Ireland, New Zealand, and Israel have all done.

racional 2y ago
The section on NZ refers to a set of racist policies that ended in the 1980s and are now thoroughly discredited. Are you sure you want to cite it as a comparator to Israel?
- runarberg 2y ago
  Same with Norther Ireland. Parent links to policies of Northern Ireland aimed at minimizing Catholic’s political powers, including via controlling the demographics. History has shown these policies to be very wrong and very much the reason for the Troubles. Historically this region suffered from settler colonialism where Britain encourage Protestants to move into the area. If you wanted to make a comparison to anti-Zionism, then the Nationalist‘s fight for civil rights and political representation is much more apt, then Protestant hardliners wanting to keep the demographics in their favor in order for continue suppress the rights of Norther Irish Catholics. Ironically, the IRA were not afraid to use terrorism to further the nationalistic cause (similar to a certain Palestinian resistance movement), and when the British tried to defeat them militarily (including via occupation) it only made matter worse. What did work however was stopping these policies which stripped Catholics from their civil rights, and granting them a political avenue for their prospects. Turns out that if you have political means for your goals, you are less likely to use terrorism.
  - racional 2y ago
    Yeah, I didn't really drill down into the Ireland section. I can pretty much only do one deeply flawed country analogy at a time.
jakelazaroff 2y ago
I didn’t know about the “White New Zealand Policy”, but it seems to have been rolled back in the 80s. Ireland is not the same as Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. I assume you chose the word “citizen” carefully, so let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today. Anyway, obviously you aren’t picking on them for any of that, and I’m not super interested in debating it. I’m just answering your question about what “opposition to Zionism” means.
- whodidntante 2y ago
  "let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today." If/when there is a Palestinian state, there is no basis to assume that they would enjoy the same rights as Israelis. It would be their own state, and their rights are determined by them. For example, Syrians do not have the same rights of Israelis, and Israelis do not have the same rights as Syrians. Currently, Israeli Palestinians (Israeli Arabs) have the same rights of Israeli Jews.Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza do not have those same rights.
  - jakelazaroff 2y ago
    I could have worded that better. In a hypothetical one-state solution, they would enjoy the same rights; in a hypothetical two-state solution, as you say, it would be a nonissue. Regardless, you have correctly identified one of the core things that anti-Zionism opposes: in Israeli occupied territory, there is currently de jure discrimination against an indigenous ethnic minority population.
    - whodidntante 2y ago
      I agree that there is discrimination in the occupied territories. I also have the personal view that Israelis should not be in the occupied territories (the settlements), and that there needs to be a clear path to a Palestinian state. Clearly, simply removing the settlements and withdrawing from Gaza without a better plan was not sufficient. I also do not understand what this has to do with anti-Zionism in that Zionism is the notion that the Jews have a right to a homeland, and not be relegated as a people to the hims of others. Yes, there is an occupation of West Bank/Gaza, however, I would not deny the right of the Persians to have an Iran, even though I am very much against their current government, and they have taken over control and created misery in other countries (Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and are attempting to do so in Iraq and Syria). You can be against the current government of Israel, you can be against occupation (as many people, including Israeli's are), but to be against the existence of a Jewish state (anti-Zionism) without being against an Egyptian state, a Persian state, a Jordanian state, etc is singling out the Jews, and needs to be called what it is.

by ars 2y ago

racional 2y ago

The section on NZ refers to a set of racist policies that ended in the 1980s and are now thoroughly discredited. Are you sure you want to cite it as a comparator to Israel?

runarberg 2y ago
Same with Norther Ireland. Parent links to policies of Northern Ireland aimed at minimizing Catholic’s political powers, including via controlling the demographics. History has shown these policies to be very wrong and very much the reason for the Troubles. Historically this region suffered from settler colonialism where Britain encourage Protestants to move into the area. If you wanted to make a comparison to anti-Zionism, then the Nationalist‘s fight for civil rights and political representation is much more apt, then Protestant hardliners wanting to keep the demographics in their favor in order for continue suppress the rights of Norther Irish Catholics. Ironically, the IRA were not afraid to use terrorism to further the nationalistic cause (similar to a certain Palestinian resistance movement), and when the British tried to defeat them militarily (including via occupation) it only made matter worse. What did work however was stopping these policies which stripped Catholics from their civil rights, and granting them a political avenue for their prospects. Turns out that if you have political means for your goals, you are less likely to use terrorism.
- racional 2y ago
  Yeah, I didn't really drill down into the Ireland section. I can pretty much only do one deeply flawed country analogy at a time.

jakelazaroff 2y ago

I didn’t know about the “White New Zealand Policy”, but it seems to have been rolled back in the 80s. Ireland is not the same as Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. I assume you chose the word “citizen” carefully, so let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today. Anyway, obviously you aren’t picking on them for any of that, and I’m not super interested in debating it. I’m just answering your question about what “opposition to Zionism” means.

whodidntante 2y ago
"let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today." If/when there is a Palestinian state, there is no basis to assume that they would enjoy the same rights as Israelis. It would be their own state, and their rights are determined by them. For example, Syrians do not have the same rights of Israelis, and Israelis do not have the same rights as Syrians. Currently, Israeli Palestinians (Israeli Arabs) have the same rights of Israeli Jews.Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza do not have those same rights.
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  I could have worded that better. In a hypothetical one-state solution, they would enjoy the same rights; in a hypothetical two-state solution, as you say, it would be a nonissue. Regardless, you have correctly identified one of the core things that anti-Zionism opposes: in Israeli occupied territory, there is currently de jure discrimination against an indigenous ethnic minority population.
  - whodidntante 2y ago
    I agree that there is discrimination in the occupied territories. I also have the personal view that Israelis should not be in the occupied territories (the settlements), and that there needs to be a clear path to a Palestinian state. Clearly, simply removing the settlements and withdrawing from Gaza without a better plan was not sufficient. I also do not understand what this has to do with anti-Zionism in that Zionism is the notion that the Jews have a right to a homeland, and not be relegated as a people to the hims of others. Yes, there is an occupation of West Bank/Gaza, however, I would not deny the right of the Persians to have an Iran, even though I am very much against their current government, and they have taken over control and created misery in other countries (Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and are attempting to do so in Iraq and Syria). You can be against the current government of Israel, you can be against occupation (as many people, including Israeli's are), but to be against the existence of a Jewish state (anti-Zionism) without being against an Egyptian state, a Persian state, a Jordanian state, etc is singling out the Jews, and needs to be called what it is.