Not accepting israels right to exist is a call for genocide against israel. Israel exists and has the right to exist. You can recognize that and still be against Netanyahus government.
By that logic the creation of israel was a genocidal act in itself because it created a right for a people to eist where others were existing previously.
If removing the right to exist of the Palestinian people is perfectly acceptable why is it necessary to keep chanting support for the rights of the aggressor?
Yes, opposing the establishment of a new state with a new population where someone else already lived would have been appropriate in the late 1940s.
Unfortunately it’s 2024 now, Israel does exist and time is linear.
So the only thing that can be done now is to recognize neither Israel nor Palestine should be erased.
(Though pointing out that the latter doesn’t seem to get mentioned here would be appropriate.)
It was always a contentious issue, there was just a lot of sympathy for the jewish people given the circumstances. Right being right, a portion of Germany should have been given. Instead the issue was exported to be dealt with remotely to the detriment of a different people who were wholly uninvolved.
At the moment, any defense of Israel’s right to exist is used to excuse a very clear land grab. Israel has the right to eist within is Israel only.
Unfortunately that’s exactly how it works.
Look at any country’s border and tell me which ones weren’t established by violence.
The actual question is, what alternative to accepting Israel’s existence would you propose. Because forcefully removing them would just be one more crime.
Forcefully drawing a border less encouraging of violence against native population. Also forcefully stopping all their meddling in the form of military occupation, blockade, block posts and so on. Arming their neighbors so that Israel doesn’t have such a military advantage.
Israeli jews have the right to life, freedom, safety. They have the right to a home in the Holy Lands.
They don’t have the right to set up a Jewish supremacist apartheid state to deny the same rights to everyone else.
The state that they have created and entrenched with genocide and “facts on the ground” no longer has legitimacy to exist in its present form. Because of its entrenchment I don’t see how it can be reformed.
So instead, ending this political entity to establish a new democratic one seems to be the surest way out of this mess.
This is not a call for genocide by any stretch of imagination.
It isnt. No settler state has a right to exist, the settlers already there should integrate into the indigenous culture or leave. This includes the US, Canada, Australia and so on.
My point being, go far enough back, and you WILL have found a people or tribe that got wiped out so another group could claim their territory. Where do you (arbitrarily) draw the line?
Words like “colonialism” or “settler colonialism” serve the purpose of naming injustices committed by empires.
They arent just bound to a space but also to a time. So the ongoing oppression against native palestinians, native americans etc is settler colonialism since it is about a people taking land from them without compensation. The roman empire also did settler colonialism. The difference is that the settler romans and indigenous population at this point are indistinguishable from each other. Through intermarriages and cultural exchanges there is not a roman-german and a germanic-german culture. And where there are cultural differences stemming from the days of roman settlerism these now coexist. There is no oppressor-oppressed dynamic anymore that characterizes settler colonialism.
The difference is that the settler romans and indigenous population at this point are indistinguishable from each other
So what you’re saying is, if one side fully wipes out and/or swallows up the other fully, colonialism is then ok. How is that different from what Israel is currently trying to accomplish? If they succeed, in a century or two somebody would be saying the same thing you are now.
Not accepting israels right to exist is a call for genocide against israel. Israel exists and has the right to exist. You can recognize that and still be against Netanyahus government.
By that logic the creation of israel was a genocidal act in itself because it created a right for a people to eist where others were existing previously.
If removing the right to exist of the Palestinian people is perfectly acceptable why is it necessary to keep chanting support for the rights of the aggressor?
Yes, opposing the establishment of a new state with a new population where someone else already lived would have been appropriate in the late 1940s.
Unfortunately it’s 2024 now, Israel does exist and time is linear.
So the only thing that can be done now is to recognize neither Israel nor Palestine should be erased.
(Though pointing out that the latter doesn’t seem to get mentioned here would be appropriate.)
It was always a contentious issue, there was just a lot of sympathy for the jewish people given the circumstances. Right being right, a portion of Germany should have been given. Instead the issue was exported to be dealt with remotely to the detriment of a different people who were wholly uninvolved.
At the moment, any defense of Israel’s right to exist is used to excuse a very clear land grab. Israel has the right to eist within is Israel only.
That means that if you commit a crime and wait long enough, it’s legitimized. No way in hell.
Unfortunately that’s exactly how it works.
Look at any country’s border and tell me which ones weren’t established by violence.
The actual question is, what alternative to accepting Israel’s existence would you propose. Because forcefully removing them would just be one more crime.
Forcefully drawing a border less encouraging of violence against native population. Also forcefully stopping all their meddling in the form of military occupation, blockade, block posts and so on. Arming their neighbors so that Israel doesn’t have such a military advantage.
Israeli jews have the right to life, freedom, safety. They have the right to a home in the Holy Lands.
They don’t have the right to set up a Jewish supremacist apartheid state to deny the same rights to everyone else.
The state that they have created and entrenched with genocide and “facts on the ground” no longer has legitimacy to exist in its present form. Because of its entrenchment I don’t see how it can be reformed.
So instead, ending this political entity to establish a new democratic one seems to be the surest way out of this mess.
This is not a call for genocide by any stretch of imagination.
Israel is not the people. The people can continue to exist under different countries and governments.
It isnt. No settler state has a right to exist, the settlers already there should integrate into the indigenous culture or leave. This includes the US, Canada, Australia and so on.
This includes Functionally EVERY state with incredibly few if any exceptions. Whens your line for when a conqueror becomes a local?
migration =/= colonialism
To expand on this, the oppression of the indigenous peoples of these nations is ongoing. Its not in the past its still happening. Thats the line.
I agree, we all need to move back to Africa. All 8 billion of us.
migration =/= colonialism
Unless you’re asserting that none of your ancestors have ever claimed land at the expense of somebody else, you’re a colonist.
For all its faults and crimes, and Lord knows there are many, the country I’m in isn’t oppressing a people native to this region.
My point being, go far enough back, and you WILL have found a people or tribe that got wiped out so another group could claim their territory. Where do you (arbitrarily) draw the line?
Words like “colonialism” or “settler colonialism” serve the purpose of naming injustices committed by empires.
They arent just bound to a space but also to a time. So the ongoing oppression against native palestinians, native americans etc is settler colonialism since it is about a people taking land from them without compensation. The roman empire also did settler colonialism. The difference is that the settler romans and indigenous population at this point are indistinguishable from each other. Through intermarriages and cultural exchanges there is not a roman-german and a germanic-german culture. And where there are cultural differences stemming from the days of roman settlerism these now coexist. There is no oppressor-oppressed dynamic anymore that characterizes settler colonialism.
So what you’re saying is, if one side fully wipes out and/or swallows up the other fully, colonialism is then ok. How is that different from what Israel is currently trying to accomplish? If they succeed, in a century or two somebody would be saying the same thing you are now.