4 ms·

if you are american, cleaning your house involves going head to head with the zionist lobby which works for israel's interests. so i'm afraid the matter of isra

by 22122 6mo ago

if you are american, cleaning your house involves going head to head with the zionist lobby which works for israel's interests. so i'm afraid the matter of israel can't be avoided here.

notepad0x90 6mo ago
[flagged]
- 22122 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ratrace 6mo ago
    > Israel does not have the right to exist as a state in chronic violation of international law Cool, now enforce it. Oh? You can't? "International law" is just a bunch of words some people wrote down? Okay, thanks for letting me know.
    - snvzz 6mo ago
      Exactly this. These laws are worthless for as long there is nobody willing and able to enforce them. Like this, it is a fantasy. I could write international law.
    - gizzlon 6mo ago
      All laws are "just a bunch of words some people wrote down". So what's your point? "International law" is just shorthand. If you read about it, you'll see how it can work, and the proponents are not as dumb as you seem to think
    - notepad0x90 6mo ago
      not only can these people not enforce it, the politicians they support think like them, and get in the way of actual meaningful peace. you're telling Israel they can't exist, while at the same time telling them to stop committing atrocities in the name of self-preservation, how does that make sense. It's like their entire view is "Israelis should sit quietly and die" or something. Even if you ask them where Israelis should go, they won't tell you. I think in their mind the Israeli's can move to brooklyn or something, it's insane.
  - 8note 6mo ago
    i dont think crimes define whether states have a right to exist. they just dont have a right to exist. states exist by consent of the governed.
    - notepad0x90 6mo ago
      [flagged]
  - thomassmith65 6mo ago
    It pains me to criticize the UN, since they're the best the world has, but if the UN were more judicious on the conflict, it would help. Eg: https://independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ban-kimoon-united-nations-disproportionate-israel-focus-resolutions-palestinians-human-rights-danny-danon-a7481961.html https://independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ban-kimoon-...
  - notepad0x90 6mo ago
    [flagged]
  - _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
    Why did this get flagged dead? "not only can these people not enforce it, the politicians they support think like them, and get in the way of actual meaningful peace. you're telling Israel they can't exist, while at the same time telling them to stop committing atrocities in the name of self-preservation, how does that make sense. It's like their entire view is "Israelis should sit quietly and die" or something. Even if you ask them where Israelis should go, they won't tell you. I think in their mind the Israeli's can move to brooklyn or something, it's insane."
- mxkopy 6mo ago
  Nation states generally do not have rights.
  - ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
    The hypothetical “right to exist” is typically juxtaposed against its adversaries’ rights/efforts/privilege to wipe them off the face of the earth. If a nation-state, or ethnoreligious group, has rights, then efforts to destroy it would not gain popular support. Do ethnoreligious groups have a right to survival without suffering genocide? Does the international community, or Security Council, have a duty to prevent genocide, or the extinction of any particular nation-state?
    - mxkopy 6mo ago
      You confuse nation state and people in this question. Yes the international community has an obligation to prevent genocide, and the destruction of a nation state if that coincides with the destruction of its people, but these things are not necessarily the same. The Security Council has no obligation to prevent a peaceful union of two states that would make one or both of them cease to exist. Nation states do not have rights, people have rights.
      - notepad0x90 6mo ago
        > Yes the international community has an obligation to prevent genocide, and the destruction of a nation state if that coincides with the destruction of its people No, it does not. That's not how sovereignty works. nation states' obligations are only towards their own nation. Even honoring of treaties is expected only in so far as it is in the best interest of their nation to do so. There is no grand human coalition that has an obligation to intervene on behalf of the innocent being harmed by wars and genocide. it's a nice idea, but consent of the governed and all. Those people would have to first get their government to consent to participating under organizations like the ICJ.
        mxkopy 6mo ago
- deaux 6mo ago
  > Isn't it precisely the anti-zionist sentiment you eschew that resulted in the Oct 7 attacks by Hammas Bringing this up in 2026 when it's abundantly clear there's zero chance the IDF had no idea about the planning of Oct 7, and didn't just let it happen, means there's no point having a conversation. When it's so well known that Israel is the one who have propped up Hamas. > In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas." He continued saying "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza." > “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” - Benjamin Netanyahu > Gershon Hacohen, former commander of the 7th Armored Brigade and an associate of Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 2019 in an interview: “Netanyahu’s strategy is to prevent the option of two states, so he is turning Hamas into his closest partner. Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally.”
  - notepad0x90 6mo ago
    Whether the IDF knew about the attack or not does not change anything for the argument i made. Unless you're claiming they orchestrated it.
    - deaux 6mo ago
      The quotes I gave you from Israeli leadership unfortunately do change everything for the argument you made.
      - notepad0x90 6mo ago
        I don't think so. at best, it proves that the current israeli government supported hamas to isolate them from palestinians in gaza. it doesn't support a claim that the oct 7 attacks were perpetrated by israel's own government (which is insane, since it took thousands of random arabs to actually carry out the attack). If your position is israel shouldn't exist, then it is you who is supporting Bibi's view that he needs to isolate palestinians and keep them in check (or worse) so that your wish of israel's non-existence won't come true. The zionist goal is already acheived as i understand it, there is no need to fund zionism. israel doesn't need "funding" to sustain itself either, it's so prosperous on its own, even here on YC you'll see many startups based in Israel. zionism isn't synonymous with gaza or west bank expansionism, or any act of violence. I keep seeing these types of arguments and i can't help but ponder if you're just repeating some disinformation campaign to prop-up and legitimize the anti-semitic reasoning used by the very same people fighting wars to supposedly prevent it (with some degree of legitimacy). If you said zionism to enable the concept of a jewish state is reasonable, and even it wasn't historically, it is impractical to fight against it, and that israel has the right to exist. But the recent wars and harm against civilians is abhorrent, then you would be criticizing them in a way that actually makes sense, and can be used to actually do something to stop them. but your (and others') agenda only helps one side, and it is neither palestinians, their plight for justice, nor the side of peace.

by 22122 6mo ago

if you are american, cleaning your house involves going head to head with the zionist lobby which works for israel's interests. so i'm afraid the matter of israel can't be avoided here.

notepad0x90 6mo ago

[flagged]

22122 6mo ago
[flagged]
- ratrace 6mo ago
  > Israel does not have the right to exist as a state in chronic violation of international law Cool, now enforce it. Oh? You can't? "International law" is just a bunch of words some people wrote down? Okay, thanks for letting me know.
  - snvzz 6mo ago
    Exactly this. These laws are worthless for as long there is nobody willing and able to enforce them. Like this, it is a fantasy. I could write international law.
  - gizzlon 6mo ago
    All laws are "just a bunch of words some people wrote down". So what's your point? "International law" is just shorthand. If you read about it, you'll see how it can work, and the proponents are not as dumb as you seem to think
  - notepad0x90 6mo ago
    not only can these people not enforce it, the politicians they support think like them, and get in the way of actual meaningful peace. you're telling Israel they can't exist, while at the same time telling them to stop committing atrocities in the name of self-preservation, how does that make sense. It's like their entire view is "Israelis should sit quietly and die" or something. Even if you ask them where Israelis should go, they won't tell you. I think in their mind the Israeli's can move to brooklyn or something, it's insane.
- 8note 6mo ago
  i dont think crimes define whether states have a right to exist. they just dont have a right to exist. states exist by consent of the governed.
  - notepad0x90 6mo ago
    [flagged]
- thomassmith65 6mo ago
  It pains me to criticize the UN, since they're the best the world has, but if the UN were more judicious on the conflict, it would help. Eg: https://independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ban-kimoon-united-nations-disproportionate-israel-focus-resolutions-palestinians-human-rights-danny-danon-a7481961.html https://independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ban-kimoon-...
- notepad0x90 6mo ago
  [flagged]
- _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
  Why did this get flagged dead? "not only can these people not enforce it, the politicians they support think like them, and get in the way of actual meaningful peace. you're telling Israel they can't exist, while at the same time telling them to stop committing atrocities in the name of self-preservation, how does that make sense. It's like their entire view is "Israelis should sit quietly and die" or something. Even if you ask them where Israelis should go, they won't tell you. I think in their mind the Israeli's can move to brooklyn or something, it's insane."
mxkopy 6mo ago
Nation states generally do not have rights.
- ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
  The hypothetical “right to exist” is typically juxtaposed against its adversaries’ rights/efforts/privilege to wipe them off the face of the earth. If a nation-state, or ethnoreligious group, has rights, then efforts to destroy it would not gain popular support. Do ethnoreligious groups have a right to survival without suffering genocide? Does the international community, or Security Council, have a duty to prevent genocide, or the extinction of any particular nation-state?
  - mxkopy 6mo ago
    You confuse nation state and people in this question. Yes the international community has an obligation to prevent genocide, and the destruction of a nation state if that coincides with the destruction of its people, but these things are not necessarily the same. The Security Council has no obligation to prevent a peaceful union of two states that would make one or both of them cease to exist. Nation states do not have rights, people have rights.
    - notepad0x90 6mo ago
      > Yes the international community has an obligation to prevent genocide, and the destruction of a nation state if that coincides with the destruction of its people No, it does not. That's not how sovereignty works. nation states' obligations are only towards their own nation. Even honoring of treaties is expected only in so far as it is in the best interest of their nation to do so. There is no grand human coalition that has an obligation to intervene on behalf of the innocent being harmed by wars and genocide. it's a nice idea, but consent of the governed and all. Those people would have to first get their government to consent to participating under organizations like the ICJ.
      - mxkopy 6mo ago
deaux 6mo ago
> Isn't it precisely the anti-zionist sentiment you eschew that resulted in the Oct 7 attacks by Hammas Bringing this up in 2026 when it's abundantly clear there's zero chance the IDF had no idea about the planning of Oct 7, and didn't just let it happen, means there's no point having a conversation. When it's so well known that Israel is the one who have propped up Hamas. > In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas." He continued saying "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza." > “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” - Benjamin Netanyahu > Gershon Hacohen, former commander of the 7th Armored Brigade and an associate of Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 2019 in an interview: “Netanyahu’s strategy is to prevent the option of two states, so he is turning Hamas into his closest partner. Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally.”
- notepad0x90 6mo ago
  Whether the IDF knew about the attack or not does not change anything for the argument i made. Unless you're claiming they orchestrated it.
  - deaux 6mo ago
    The quotes I gave you from Israeli leadership unfortunately do change everything for the argument you made.
    - notepad0x90 6mo ago
      I don't think so. at best, it proves that the current israeli government supported hamas to isolate them from palestinians in gaza. it doesn't support a claim that the oct 7 attacks were perpetrated by israel's own government (which is insane, since it took thousands of random arabs to actually carry out the attack). If your position is israel shouldn't exist, then it is you who is supporting Bibi's view that he needs to isolate palestinians and keep them in check (or worse) so that your wish of israel's non-existence won't come true. The zionist goal is already acheived as i understand it, there is no need to fund zionism. israel doesn't need "funding" to sustain itself either, it's so prosperous on its own, even here on YC you'll see many startups based in Israel. zionism isn't synonymous with gaza or west bank expansionism, or any act of violence. I keep seeing these types of arguments and i can't help but ponder if you're just repeating some disinformation campaign to prop-up and legitimize the anti-semitic reasoning used by the very same people fighting wars to supposedly prevent it (with some degree of legitimacy). If you said zionism to enable the concept of a jewish state is reasonable, and even it wasn't historically, it is impractical to fight against it, and that israel has the right to exist. But the recent wars and harm against civilians is abhorrent, then you would be criticizing them in a way that actually makes sense, and can be used to actually do something to stop them. but your (and others') agenda only helps one side, and it is neither palestinians, their plight for justice, nor the side of peace.