Why, in precise terms, is calling for Israel's dismantling not legitimate expression? I ask because 1) Israel and the Jewish people are not synonymous; Israel is the product of a modern nationalism (Zionism) and Zionism is not a 3,700 year old religion. 2) The creation of Israel resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Ar…
Why, in precise terms, is calling for Israel's dismantling not legitimate expression? I ask because 1) Israel and the Jewish people are not synonymous; Israel is the product of a modern nationalism (Zionism) and Zionism is not a 3,700 year old religion. 2) The creation of Israel resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arabs and their descendants (as it happens, the displacement efforts continue today in East Jerusalem and the West Bank). Maybe it was all worth it, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs. But if a Palestinian says, "I'm sadly not a Zionist patriot, Israel is unjust, I want a secular democratic state" -- should that be really be banned? Seems a bit off.
to call for dismantling of a state is violence. There is no other way to dismantle a state from the outside. Also, calling to dismantle the one Jewish state existing next to 22 Arab countries who are part of 46 muslim majority countries, is ridiculously hypocritical.
Israel is a safe shelter for one of the smallest minorities in the world, that after hundreds of years of persecution finally have their measly tiny piece of homeland.
As they say, it's all about the context. Jews have no where else to go. Look at the waves of antisemitisms washing the west. What you don't understand is that Israel *is* a secular democracy, and arabs enjoy 100% equal rights. We have arab members of parliament, supreme court, hospital managers, bank managers, everything.
Is it perfect? No country is.
You talk about the 1948 displacement of Arabs, have you read what happened to Jews across the arab world since 1919? Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered, deported, persecuted.
By the way, in 1948 a lot of arabs stayed in their homes, and Israel fulfilled its promise to safeguard them. The Zuabi family and the Abu gosh family, for instance, have members in the ruling party Likud.
Also, said palestinian in your example doesn't need to be a zionist. He can simply be an equal Israeli, like arabs who serve in the army, like the druze and bedouin who have special status. Israel is a complex country.
If you support dismantling the Jewish identity of Israel and say nothing about the 40 muslim majority countries who banned Judaism, that is double-standard antisemitism.
But yes, Jews deserve their own country, and we have 20% peaceful arab population who are equal welcome citizens of Israel.
Did you ask yourself how come no Jews live in our ancient cities? Nebulus, Ramallah, Gaza, Alexandria, Baghdad all had *thriving* Jewish communities for hundreds of years that predate Islam. But the Jews dared to demand independence, and hundreds of thousands of Jews were forcibly removed from their homes across the muslim world, homes some of them have been living in for over 10 generations...
Israel has *a lot* to fix. I criticize it a lot. But said palestinian sounds made up. according to most polls 90+% of palestinians support an Islamic theocracy. If he even exists, he is welcome to try and establish one under the PLO. Good luck with the fantasy.
Look around you. How many *arab* democracies are there? zero. How many muslim ones? 1 (Turkey), and it's barely free. There was something good happening in Tunisia, barely.
You are fooling yourself, they don't want it.
In 2009 Hamas executed the palestinian democracy is Gaza, why have they not rebelled? Why wasn't there a violent uprising? Where are all the peace loving Gazans? Where are the Gaza-based peace organizations? Where is the Palestinian Bezelem? The Palestinian "Shovrim Shtika"?
Why do we in the west need to do their job for them?
Do you see Jews advocating for revenge against modern Germany? Itay? France? Why did the Jews establish a thriving high tech nation and the palestinians have been investing all the billions of dollars they receive in aid on stupid pointless wars?
Why did they not agree to the two state solution offered to them *several times*?
For duck sake, we are 14 million people in the whole world, why can't we have our one tiny state and leave us be alone. A state that doesn't even include our ancestral homeland of *Judea* and Samaria. Why is it that the PLO *made it a criminal offense to trade with Jews*?
I call for peace, I support the two state solution (btw, according to the PLO charter, a free palestine must be "free of all jews", and they are the *elected* officials), I want the end of violence. But I want my state, my tiny nation state, because I *don't trust you*. I don't trust the west, I don't trust the arabs, I don't trust anyone. For 2000 years we were trampled on again and again. And here we see once more, that leading academics can't even say that genocide is bad. So excuse me for wanting to keep my tiny piece of my forefathers' land.
Hi Andras. You know that the PLO, the longest-standing and most prominent Palestinian political organization, is secular, yes? Fatah is also secular. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), the Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA), and the Palestinian People's Party (PPP)? All secular. You may think they're all very bad. That's fine. But it's only after the leaders of these secular organizations have been killed, jailed, or bought off that Islamist groups emerged in Palestinian politics.
Hamas got its start in Gaza with Israel's implicit support; Israel saw Hamas as a useful nuisance to secular Fatah and the PLO, which were far more powerful than Hamas. Of course Israel has fought Hamas for decades, and has vowed to destroy Hamas after October 7th. But as numerous Israeli and U.S. reports attest, Netanyahu was happy to see Hamas in power in Gaza and didn't hamper its rule. Why? To keep the secular Palestinian Authority in a weak position, thus facilitating the building of settlements, and facts on the ground to make a two-state solution impossible. Fun!
Are Fatah or the P.A. democratic? No. But you can imagine that trying to have a normal government with normal democratic procedures is hampered when the P.A. "government" doesn't have real power, and isn't an actual state.
Your dismissal of the prospect of a secular democratic Palestine belies either ignorance, bigotry, or both.
But I grew up listening daily to this kind of drek. I even believed some of it, until I saw what was actually happening in my society and in others living under similar creeds.
Which is what I do in this instance. I read your text, and even credit your lucidity.
But then I look at what Hamas actually did during those hours when it had the upper hand in a segment of Israel. Instead of attacking the IDF, those "heroes" carefully sought out unarmed civilians, prefering 80-year old women and youngsters in cribs, and proceeded to butcher them.
Don't worry about the typos, no prob. OK, you've written a long apologia for Israel and Zionism with some good details and others I'd contest. But it's neither here nor there: We're discussing what a person has the right to say about a nation-state (that is, Israel) that privileges one ethno-religious group over others. This is the explicit state of affairs in Israel, as Netanyahu's government made super-duper clear in 2019. In Netanyahu's words, Israel is “the nation state not of all its citizens but only of the Jewish people."
Can a person say "I don't think that system is just, it should be dismantled and replaced with something else. I suggest a secular democratic state with equality among all residents" -- or is that a call for genocide? (Btw your stat about 90+ percent of Palestinians wanting an Islamic state is hogwash and a red herring. If you think Palestinians don't want democracy I don't think you've spent much time among Palestinians.)
If you say such a position is, actually, a call for genocide, you're contorting yourself through a set of intellectual hoops to arrive at a pre-baked conclusion. It amounts to putting words in people's mouths.
To be clear I don't like the sloganeering of lots of Palestinian activists. And I'm all for calling out those who are obviously trying to intimidate and harass. But, with respect, you're saying: Criticize Israeli policy, but not its intellectual foundations. That is not free speech. And frankly, these arguments are allowed in Israel (more during peaceful times than right now) and they take place in Israel. Should they be allowed in Israel and not the U.S.?
As for the point that the "dismantling" of Israel's basic laws would involve violence: Right now, that would be true. But on the level of allowed speech: Are are you saying that advocating any position involving violence is banned? Then advocating military aid for Ukraine?--that would be banned. Condemning a cease-fire in Gaza and saying Israel needs to keep up the fight against Hamas?--that would be banned. You can only justify banning the advocacy of a secular state by saying it amounts to genocide. And it just doesn't.
Why, in precise terms, is calling for Israel's dismantling not legitimate expression? I ask because 1) Israel and the Jewish people are not synonymous; Israel is the product of a modern nationalism (Zionism) and Zionism is not a 3,700 year old religion. 2) The creation of Israel resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arabs and their descendants (as it happens, the displacement efforts continue today in East Jerusalem and the West Bank). Maybe it was all worth it, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs. But if a Palestinian says, "I'm sadly not a Zionist patriot, Israel is unjust, I want a secular democratic state" -- should that be really be banned? Seems a bit off.
to call for dismantling of a state is violence. There is no other way to dismantle a state from the outside. Also, calling to dismantle the one Jewish state existing next to 22 Arab countries who are part of 46 muslim majority countries, is ridiculously hypocritical.
Israel is a safe shelter for one of the smallest minorities in the world, that after hundreds of years of persecution finally have their measly tiny piece of homeland.
As they say, it's all about the context. Jews have no where else to go. Look at the waves of antisemitisms washing the west. What you don't understand is that Israel *is* a secular democracy, and arabs enjoy 100% equal rights. We have arab members of parliament, supreme court, hospital managers, bank managers, everything.
Is it perfect? No country is.
You talk about the 1948 displacement of Arabs, have you read what happened to Jews across the arab world since 1919? Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered, deported, persecuted.
By the way, in 1948 a lot of arabs stayed in their homes, and Israel fulfilled its promise to safeguard them. The Zuabi family and the Abu gosh family, for instance, have members in the ruling party Likud.
Also, said palestinian in your example doesn't need to be a zionist. He can simply be an equal Israeli, like arabs who serve in the army, like the druze and bedouin who have special status. Israel is a complex country.
If you support dismantling the Jewish identity of Israel and say nothing about the 40 muslim majority countries who banned Judaism, that is double-standard antisemitism.
But yes, Jews deserve their own country, and we have 20% peaceful arab population who are equal welcome citizens of Israel.
Did you ask yourself how come no Jews live in our ancient cities? Nebulus, Ramallah, Gaza, Alexandria, Baghdad all had *thriving* Jewish communities for hundreds of years that predate Islam. But the Jews dared to demand independence, and hundreds of thousands of Jews were forcibly removed from their homes across the muslim world, homes some of them have been living in for over 10 generations...
Israel has *a lot* to fix. I criticize it a lot. But said palestinian sounds made up. according to most polls 90+% of palestinians support an Islamic theocracy. If he even exists, he is welcome to try and establish one under the PLO. Good luck with the fantasy.
Look around you. How many *arab* democracies are there? zero. How many muslim ones? 1 (Turkey), and it's barely free. There was something good happening in Tunisia, barely.
You are fooling yourself, they don't want it.
In 2009 Hamas executed the palestinian democracy is Gaza, why have they not rebelled? Why wasn't there a violent uprising? Where are all the peace loving Gazans? Where are the Gaza-based peace organizations? Where is the Palestinian Bezelem? The Palestinian "Shovrim Shtika"?
Why do we in the west need to do their job for them?
Do you see Jews advocating for revenge against modern Germany? Itay? France? Why did the Jews establish a thriving high tech nation and the palestinians have been investing all the billions of dollars they receive in aid on stupid pointless wars?
Why did they not agree to the two state solution offered to them *several times*?
For duck sake, we are 14 million people in the whole world, why can't we have our one tiny state and leave us be alone. A state that doesn't even include our ancestral homeland of *Judea* and Samaria. Why is it that the PLO *made it a criminal offense to trade with Jews*?
I call for peace, I support the two state solution (btw, according to the PLO charter, a free palestine must be "free of all jews", and they are the *elected* officials), I want the end of violence. But I want my state, my tiny nation state, because I *don't trust you*. I don't trust the west, I don't trust the arabs, I don't trust anyone. For 2000 years we were trampled on again and again. And here we see once more, that leading academics can't even say that genocide is bad. So excuse me for wanting to keep my tiny piece of my forefathers' land.
Who, among the sane, believes for a moment that a state made by Palestinians would be "secular democratic" ?
Hi Andras. You know that the PLO, the longest-standing and most prominent Palestinian political organization, is secular, yes? Fatah is also secular. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), the Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA), and the Palestinian People's Party (PPP)? All secular. You may think they're all very bad. That's fine. But it's only after the leaders of these secular organizations have been killed, jailed, or bought off that Islamist groups emerged in Palestinian politics.
Hamas got its start in Gaza with Israel's implicit support; Israel saw Hamas as a useful nuisance to secular Fatah and the PLO, which were far more powerful than Hamas. Of course Israel has fought Hamas for decades, and has vowed to destroy Hamas after October 7th. But as numerous Israeli and U.S. reports attest, Netanyahu was happy to see Hamas in power in Gaza and didn't hamper its rule. Why? To keep the secular Palestinian Authority in a weak position, thus facilitating the building of settlements, and facts on the ground to make a two-state solution impossible. Fun!
Are Fatah or the P.A. democratic? No. But you can imagine that trying to have a normal government with normal democratic procedures is hampered when the P.A. "government" doesn't have real power, and isn't an actual state.
Your dismissal of the prospect of a secular democratic Palestine belies either ignorance, bigotry, or both.
Nice recitation. And you recite it so well.
But I grew up listening daily to this kind of drek. I even believed some of it, until I saw what was actually happening in my society and in others living under similar creeds.
Which is what I do in this instance. I read your text, and even credit your lucidity.
But then I look at what Hamas actually did during those hours when it had the upper hand in a segment of Israel. Instead of attacking the IDF, those "heroes" carefully sought out unarmed civilians, prefering 80-year old women and youngsters in cribs, and proceeded to butcher them.
That is what Hamas is.
I apologise for the many typos. This keyboard is new and atrocious.
Don't worry about the typos, no prob. OK, you've written a long apologia for Israel and Zionism with some good details and others I'd contest. But it's neither here nor there: We're discussing what a person has the right to say about a nation-state (that is, Israel) that privileges one ethno-religious group over others. This is the explicit state of affairs in Israel, as Netanyahu's government made super-duper clear in 2019. In Netanyahu's words, Israel is “the nation state not of all its citizens but only of the Jewish people."
Can a person say "I don't think that system is just, it should be dismantled and replaced with something else. I suggest a secular democratic state with equality among all residents" -- or is that a call for genocide? (Btw your stat about 90+ percent of Palestinians wanting an Islamic state is hogwash and a red herring. If you think Palestinians don't want democracy I don't think you've spent much time among Palestinians.)
If you say such a position is, actually, a call for genocide, you're contorting yourself through a set of intellectual hoops to arrive at a pre-baked conclusion. It amounts to putting words in people's mouths.
To be clear I don't like the sloganeering of lots of Palestinian activists. And I'm all for calling out those who are obviously trying to intimidate and harass. But, with respect, you're saying: Criticize Israeli policy, but not its intellectual foundations. That is not free speech. And frankly, these arguments are allowed in Israel (more during peaceful times than right now) and they take place in Israel. Should they be allowed in Israel and not the U.S.?
As for the point that the "dismantling" of Israel's basic laws would involve violence: Right now, that would be true. But on the level of allowed speech: Are are you saying that advocating any position involving violence is banned? Then advocating military aid for Ukraine?--that would be banned. Condemning a cease-fire in Gaza and saying Israel needs to keep up the fight against Hamas?--that would be banned. You can only justify banning the advocacy of a secular state by saying it amounts to genocide. And it just doesn't.
I owe you a good long answer, will hopefuly get there in the coming day
I understand wanting to comment but not having time. In any event don't feel that you owe me, no problem.