“The resolution suggests that all anti-Zionism—it states—is antisemitism. That’s either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong,” said New York Representative Jerry Nadler, who voted present. “The authors if they were at all familiar with Jewish history & culture should know about Jewish anti-Zionism that was and is expressly not antisemitic. This resolution ignores the fact that even today, certain Orthodox Hasidic Jewish communities … have held views that are at odds with the modern Zionist conception.”
No.
Saying the state of Israel has no right to exist is not antisemitic either.
You’re continuing the deliberate mistake of conflating Israel (a political entity) with Judaism (a religion). Not every Israeli is Jewish, nor is every Jew Israeli. Likewise Israel is not Jewish peoples nation, Jewish people live all over the world and call many nations their home.
Also why do you believe people should have an ethno-state of their own?
How do you eliminate the state of Israel without killing a bunch of Jewish people?
I don’t believe there should be any ethno-states, but that’s not the world we got.
It’s very easy to replace Israel with another state in the same place without killing or moving everyone.
Israel is an ethnostate. Ethnostates are bad. Ethnostates that are religiously motivated are doubly bad.
Israel could be a secular state that treated all ethnicities equally with zero loss in life or need for anyone to leave the area.
They chose not to.
It’s not antisemitism to acknowledge this.
Oh nation building. The US is pretty good at that. I mean, isn’t that how we got here in the first place? Moving a bunch of religious fanatics out of their holy land to make room for the displaced victims of a genocide?
Deflecting, are we?
Not at all, I just don’t think your solution is feasible. The Israeli leadership will not step down peacefully, and Hamas will not accept anything less than total victory. You’re suggesting a third party take control? Or do you think suddenly everyone involved will just forget all the murder and start singing “kumbaya”?
That’s not how it started at all, the Brits have a lot more to do with this one.
Naturally, but do we expect to be better at it?
I think I may have misunderstood you, I thought you were saying that America was responsible for Israel.
No that’s my fault, I see why that’s what it sounded like. It was intended as two different points.
The US has a bad record of nation building.
Israel exists because of failed nation building, specifically how the UK controlled Palestine and started encouraging Jewish migration to the holy land, displacing Palestinians.
Lol. Really bad attempt at pivoting.
What pivot? That’s the argument presented. “The end of Israel does not require violence because Western nations can build a better nation for the Jewish and Palestinian peoples to live in harmony.” Does that actually deserve a full rebuttal?
Buddhists doesn’t have a state. They seem to be doing ok.
I’m not trying to argue against you here, I was just curious about the info and wanted to share it.
So, it turns out that Buddhism is actually the official religion for 4 countries: Bhutan, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. It’s also the majority religion for 3 more states: Thailand, Mongolia, and Laos. Total population of Buddhists exceeds 500 mil, about 7-8% of the world’s population according to 2010s data.
How does this relate to Israel? Precisely fuck all. I just thought it was interesting to share how widespread Buddhism is.
None of those states claim to be “the Buddhist state” or that an attack on them is an attack on Buddhism.
Indeed. It has nothing to do with the current situation. I mentioned that.
Ask the Dalai Llama how Buddhists are doing in Tibet, and whether they’d like to have their country back.
That works both ways. At different times in history both Arabs and Jews have lived in the areas now called Israel and Palestine.
The problem is snatching land from the present to punish deeds of the past just creates more sorrow.
I agree completely.
Destroying a state is not genocidal - no matter how much you want to pretend it to be.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiations_to_end_apartheid_in_South_Africa
One of the most popular arguments against the end of apartheid in South Africa was that the previously-ruling white minority would face violence and persecution. While South Africa has not come all its way in ending the disparity of apartheid since its transition to democracy, those claims that white people would be killed by the nonwhite majority have certainly not panned out
You’re gonna compare Nelson Mandela to Ismail Haniyeh?
bestie when did i ever compare nelson mandela to ismail haniyeh
You brought up South Africa as an example of a nonviolent end of apartheid. Do the Palestinians have a leader who believes in a nonviolent end to the conflict in Israel?
Do you think South African apartheid was brought to an end by one guy?
There have been lots of nonviolent protest movements in Palestine and there are prominent Palestinian and Israeli advocates for one democratic state
Do you think the end of South Africa apartheid would have been nonviolent without nonviolent leaders?
A one-state secular democracy sounds great. How do you get there from where we are now? There are prominent advocates for a lot of things, but none of those people are in power on either side. As long as Israel is indiscriminately bombing Gaza and Hamas is using their blood to “awaken the revolutionary spirit,” we can’t reasonably expect anyone to compromise without being forced.
There are nonviolent Palestinian leaders, in the West Bank, in the diaspora, and probably in Gaza outside of Hamas. And the movement for Palestinian rights is finally being heard on the global stage.
Israel and Hamas will need to be forced. Nonviolent protest, boycotts, sanctions, are ways of exerting force without fueling the flames of war.
I know it’s hard to believe in the goodness of people and their power to change things for the better, but it is essential when the alternative is brutality