Nuance and subtlety? Not on my lemmy!
Unfortunately, the term “antisemitic” no longer has any kind of fixed meaning. I wish that weren’t true, and I think it’s a combination of forces that decided to misuse the word for several decades, that have now led to it being meaningless.
And you might be tempted to tell me what you think it means, and maybe I could agree with you, but when I turn on the TV tomorrow someone else will be using it in a totally different way that’s inconsistent. Actually I’m kidding. I don’t have a TV.
Words that people misuse are still meaningful when the reader and writer both understand the same meaning. I expect you understand OP perfectly well.
It’s my understanding that it is occurring naturally on its own, anyways?
A few reporting I’ve heard on Israel describes a state filled with dual-citizenship inhabitants that are used to first-world standard and would rather leave the country than deal with inconveniences. I oversimplify here, but who really wants to live in a genocidal state? Whether you’re on board or not with the genocide, it’s still a massive point of friction with neighbors.
Seems unlikely you’ll get more than half of people leaving “naturally.” Or at least, “naturally” is going to look more and more like “coerced” over the years if progress is made.
There’s a significant issue of younger Israelis emigrating from Israel due to that friction, though I don’t know the exact numbers.
It’s a few tens of thousands, not a huge number, but significant for a small country. Also not necessarily younger ones. Families are moving out too. Greece is the first destination at the moment.
*It’s ok to hate Israel
Jewish people and groups around the world need to issue strong rejection of Israel’s actions.
If they don’t, i’m very concerned that Israel’s crimes will fall back on them in the future.
Condemnation of Israel’s actions won’t protect Jews around the world.
It will protect them from the free palestine crowd, but not from anti-semites. Is there a downside though?
Removed by mod
So many people on the left for whom jew = Zionist = fascist Israeli. It plays right in the hand of all the actual right-wingers and fascists supporting Israel. Appalling and stupid.
Isn’t that the stance of Israel as well? They claim to be the representatives of all jewish people.
So lefties should align their position on the fascist government of Israel ? 🤔
While it is a lunatic statement, it isn’t antisemitic. It’s only antisemitic if it applies to jewish Palestinians that have a connection to the land. The jewish Israelis of European descent aren’t connected to the land. Thus, this isn’t antisemitic. But I do agree that it is a lunatic statement anyway.
I live in North America, and I have European descent, and I have a connection to the land. I can trace my family back 13 generations in North America. But even if I could not, being born somewhere gives you a connection to the land. Unless you’re Trump, I daresay this is a widely-agreed-on perspective. I don’t think anyone should have to be kicked out of the place they were born.
While it is a lunatic statement, it isn’t antisemitic. It’s only antisemitic if it applies to jewish Palestinians that have a connection to the land. The jewish Israelis of European descent aren’t connected to the land. Thus, this isn’t antisemitic. But I do agree that it is a lunatic statement anyway.
Oh my fucking God, when did leftism become Blut und Boden nationalism?
Oh we out here making friends in these comment sections today.
Hating on the Israeli government is bound to attract “the other group who has similar things to say and a bit more”. Now suddenly we are all group into the anti-semite barrel by Israel. Master class false dichotomy there.
I have a solution: we force the region to start respecting human rights or we start incarcerating offenders. We don’t need to build a bunch of condos for the palestinians, we don’t need to give them lawyers or outsource their legal disputes, we don’t need to help either side militarize against the other: we just need to hold them to a bare minimum standard by force and they’ll sort the shit out in a few decades.
This is what the ICJ was made for. These are the rules we all agreed to play by after WWII. They fucked around, it should be the right of anybody and everyone who wants to interfere to go in and make them find out.
BTW human rights should include not being segregated into walled off districts.
I have a solution: we force the region to start respecting human rights or we start incarcerating offenders.
How?
Are we going to invade?
Or is it more likely that it ends up a North Korea situation where those who are in charge of such atrocities just don’t go to countries that will arrest them?
Yes, they’re going to get invaded. That should not upset anybody who believes in the sanctity of human life because it’s certainly not going to create a worse outcome than 2 million people being starved out.
My concern is that unlike Nazi Germany, Fascist Israel will not surrender. I am very worried that soon it is going to start nuking the region as part of a state failure cycle.
Problem is who gave us right to force people in the other side of the world to do this?
But do the Israelis WANT to integrate though ?
No. But neither did the American South.
At some point, reality forces the issue.
I really don’t understand people who think a one state solution is possible anymore. I’m not sure if it ever was but certainly at this point it’s not viable.
Nothing is “viable” if you just extrapolate the present, except I guess genocide.
To take a step back, moral ambition and political courage are necessary. If Ireland could reach a Good Friday Agreement, if South Africa could overcome apartheid, so can Palestine/Israel.
A plurinational democratic state with equal rights for all, with a truth and reconciliation process, and with strong international support is the only way the middle east can ever reach peace.
And if we are putting on big boy pants and imagining a better world, why not envision the Mediterranean Union becoming a force for democratization and stabilization allowing the free movement of people throughout the region.
When realism is dystopian, fuck realism and pick utopia. Otherwise, why even live?
Yes but for as brutal as South Africa could be they weren’t in the throes of active genocide. The overwhelming majority of their people weren’t okay with the extermination of entire races. Or at least they didn’t say so out loud, proudly. Expecting them to live in harmony with the people whose blood they are braying for seems foolhardy to me. Expecting those whose children have been murdered in mass in front of them to just politely join hands with the people who celebrated the murder of their children with Glee seems again, foolhardy.
Israel is already a one state solution, it contols all the territory from the river to the sea, and commiting apartheid and genocide.
End apartheid and you have a single state where everyone is free.
One apartheid state is no viable.
I mean, the situation is so fucked that saying anything is ‘viable’ at this point is a pipe dream. But I mentioned a one-state solution to emphasize that I’m not asking anyone to be pro-Israel, or even ask that Israel, as a state, should be allowed to continue to exist. My opposition is to advocacy for genocide and ethnic cleansing.
I may be naive but why wouldn’t a UN governed state not be in the best interest for all parties? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_separatum_(Jerusalem)
The Mandate for Palestine was pretty much that and it utterly failed.
„UN governed state“ means occupation and foreign rule. What country wants to send soldiers and police to a country where both major populations will hate you.
Oh geeze, an United Nations governed state is an entirely different can of worms. Though one does wonder what difference there will be between that and just Israel considering the amount of influence they have on the UN.
Removed by mod
Albert Einstein is 100% correct. Read his letter to the NY Times.
Care to post it here?
i think it’s this:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/1948/12/02.htm
To the Editors of the New York Times:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.
The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants240 men, women, and childrenand kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.
The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ, HANNAH ARENDT, ABRAHAM BRICK, RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO, ALBERT EINSTEIN, HERMAN EISEN, M.D., HAYIM FINEMAN, M. GALLEN, M.D., H.H. HARRIS, ZELIG S. HARRIS, SIDNEY HOOK, FRED KARUSH, BRURIA KAUFMAN, IRMA L. LINDHEIM, NACHMAN MAISEL, SEYMOUR MELMAN, MYER D. MENDELSON, M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY, SAMUEL PITLICK, FRITZ ROHRLICH, LOUIS P. ROCKER, RUTH SAGIS, ITZHAK SANKOWSKY, I.J. SHOENBERG, SAMUEL SHUMAN, M. SINGER, IRMA WOLFE, STEFAN WOLFE.
New York, Dec. 2, 1948
The meme itself is fine.
But shilling a one-state solution with it?
Not cool.
Wait, what’s not cool about a one-state solution?
I’m not opposed to a two-state solution, but generally a one-state solution is considered the more radical option, so I picked it to emphasize that I’m not asking anyone to be pro-Israel.
One state with equal rights solution is the least popular among the people living there. Nobody there wants it.
Two states have a much better acceptance.
I don’t know what you thoght when typing up the post, but I do know what I understood when I read it.
A one-state solution is “never” going to work because that’s the current solution. There’s one state of Israel and no state of Palestine. And currently, Israel hasn’t show itself to be all too nice to the palestinians, what with the settling, apartheid and recently as transparent genocide as it gets.
What a one state solution will do is keep the current oppressive power structures. Meaning nothing will truly change. The Israeli press has shown itself to be very anti-Palestinian, and a lot of the population is indoctrinated to think Jews are entitled to settle the land at all costs towards the Palestinians.
There are a lot of examples on YouTube of ‘regular’ Israelis talking of it in the most gruesome and off-putting words imaginable. One might call it cognitive dissonance, but it’s pure indoctrination.
And breaking such indoctrination, cultivated potentialy since the dawn of the sigle state, takes both time and effort.
Effort which is most lukely to succeed were the Palestinians given their own, fully autonomus, UN-recognized and in all aspects equal state free from Israeli control of all types.
Why?
Because Israel has shown itself to be unworthy of having authority over Palestinians.
Systematic oppression needs an equally systematic way of undoing it. Any attepmts at molding the current power structures are unlikely to stop the mistreatment of Palestinians.
The current Israel was and continues to be a one-state solution. A failed solution, that lead to the current genocide. The only way in which such a solution would work is through radical changes to the power structures of the current State, or a new one altogether. One with new laws, a new government, artificially made to overrepresent Palestinians to try to undo the equally artificial, but ingrained in Israeli society opression of them.
Previous such solutions have had a very bad success rate. Such an artificial state is truly like a house of cards. A bad compromise. Neither side is happy for a long time - both feel entitled to more than they get.
So in my humble opinion, one could say that Israel has been given a chance to govern the Palestinians. What they ended up doing is commiting systematic opression a d as of late, a very transparent genocide against them.
If you ask me, any goodwill they’ve gotten to that end was rescinded as of late, and anything less than a two-state solution will be rewarding the perpetrators.
Obligatorily: I’m not saying that Israelis are all genocidal maniacs, or activelly commiting genocide. But the state, their state, is. And such a state cannot reasonably be expected to stop of its own accord or by a finger-wag from the UN. Since the figer-wagging has been done consistently for quite some time now, way before the recent escalations.
A one-state solution is “never” going to work because that’s the current solution.
Again, that’s not what “one-state solution” means. “One-state solution” necessarily implies, for one, that there is a current problem in need of a solution; it would be extremely strange to say “The solution to the problem is the status quo.”
When people say “One-state solution”, they generally mean a single state encompassing all of Palestine and Israel with equal rights.
So, there being one state isn’t a solution?
And how would you solve it?
By not changing the fact that there’s one state non-solution out there?
Of course there’s a problem. But you seem to imply as if the problem is brand-new and no solutions have been tried. Not doing anything (or in this case enough) is a solution. A bad one, for sure, but even not doing anything requires some action.
One state with equal rights will not happen. And how do I know that?
I’m acquainted with the history of the Middle East.
This isn’t the first conflict between Israel and Palestine by a long shot. Israel’s had plenty of ample opportunities to show some humanity, humility and respect for human rights. We all know very well how they answered that call.
As I see it, there are three hypotheitical possibilities (scenarios) with a one state “solution” (as if it’ll be anything new):
a) Nothing changes (obviously). Palestibians keep being opressed. The war and the genocide stops, but in essence, they stay opressed.
b) The Israeli government falls. Palestinians take over. The opressors become the oppressed. Again, nothing fundamentally changes, just the roles swap.
c) A magical “middle-way” coalition wins power. All current laws get rewritten. Palestinians get equal rights, and a way to reclaim lost land. Everyone is happy.
I hope you see how only one of these makes aby sense in the real world. One is impossible, and the other a fucking fairytale (read: equally as impossible).
A two-state solution lets Bibi do what he’s been doing (Fascism Lite), while stopping the genocide and giving Palestinians basic human rights.
Anything else isn’t a realistic solution (read: it’ll never work or quickly break down with the current simulation parameters).
Removed by mod
I would argue that a two-state solution is equally unlikely under the current circumstances.
But my overall point is not whether a one-state solution is viable, only that it is ideal, and I used it in the title to emphasize that I am not arguing against even people who want to completely dissolve the state of Israel as it exists now, but only against the idea that directly making statements that are antisemitic or in favor of ethnic cleansing is what I’m objecting to.
To paraphrase: I wouldn’t argue it’s a viable solution, merely that it’s the ideal one.
Wouldn’t the ideal solution also need to be viable, at the very least?
While I’m also not arguing against the people denying Israel’s right to exist, I am also not arguing for them either.
And about antisemitism: I’d like to think of myself as against all types of totalitarian control and oppression. I’m also very lucky to not have a personal stake in any armed conflict current or past, which I feel gives me relatively unclouded judgement. I’m also very much against genocide, as I view it as a specific form of oppression.
Now, whether or not I am an antisemite largely defends on how you define the word.
I’d like to think that i’m not. However, that assumes the “classic” definition of antisemitism - having something against the Jews by way of religion or ethnicity and discriminating because of that.
I have something (a lot, in fact) against oppression and genocide. If not supporting everything Israel says and does uncritically and without reservation then yes, I am antisemitic. I do not support Israel’s genocide.
Hovewer, I feel this “new” use of the term is only going to harm not only Israel’s interests, but all Jews (Jews themselves inherently, not merely “their interests”). Abusing the term to refer to any dissent from Israeli policy will only remove all “teeth” from the original meaning. Of course, I wouldn’t want that, but that’s what I not only feel will happen, but is already happening, and it’s not because of me.
As always, Israel doesn’t represent all Jews, nor do all Jews constitute Israel. Much less so if we look at Israeli leaders’ official stance and world outlook. Conflating the three is a grave mistake.
two state solution is never going to work.
Israel is already a one state solution, as it contols all the territory and if commited to apartheid and genocide.
one democratic state is the only viable solution, just end apartheid, expand the racist right of return.
one democratic state is the only viable solution, just end apartheid, expand the racist right of return.
That’s what most people mean when they say one-state solution, though.
yhea, was agreeing.
i dream of returning there, once apartheid is destroyed
Inshallah.
Removed by mod
So fighting genocide with ethnic cleansing.
Crazy idea, but maybe we should end our dependence on oil? Wars cost money and we fund those wars when we buy oil. We pretend to be upset when we see the suffering caused by war, but then vote for whoever we think will bring down the price of gas and then pretend we don’t understand why there’s war in an oil rich region of the world.
