Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

If you are an anti-Zionist then you oppose this fundamental right of any ethnicity to have their own ethnostate.

Fixed it for you.

[Rolan7]

Right??  I almost missed that

It's Zionists who are ignoring all context and pretend that any, ANY opposition to this apartheid state is "a wish for genocide of Jews" and "antisemitism". 

Zionism is the self-determination movement of the Jewish people. If you are an anti-Zionist then you oppose this fundamental right of any nation to have their own country. And if oppose a fundamental right of a group, you oppose this group. Anti-Zionism IS antisemitism.

"Nations" don't deserve their own states.  Like, ethnostates?  what the fuck
By your logic I guess I oppose every group.  ohno

how what about the "nation" of Palestinians where's their country

Sure Israel, like any other state, deserves criticism when it does something wrong.

I think what Israel doing is about as wrong as it gets, yet you're not criticizing it.

But you don't need to combine your criticism with genocidial chants, slurs, glorification of Jew-murdering monsters and massacres, antisemitic tropes, attacks on random American Jews (luckily, so far, mostly non-violent),

Cool
I'm not doing any of that
So it's really strange that you're acting like I did
(jk it's exactly what I predicted)

and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel - All of which are increasingly common in the USA (and Western world in general)

Oh you bet I'm doing this one.  I'm criticizing the state, just like you just said I could.  I even think it needs to fundamentally change!
Dunno what that was doing on the list with those despicable acts of hate against people.  Unrelated:

It's Zionists who are ignoring all context and pretend that any, ANY opposition to this apartheid state is "a wish for genocide of Jews" and "antisemitism". 

[Strongpoint]

"Nations" don't deserve their own states.  Like, ethnostates?  what the fuck
By your logic I guess I oppose every group.  ohno

So... Do you deny the "right of all peoples to pursue freely their economic, social and cultural development without outside interference"?

how what about the "nation" of Palestinians where's their country

Actually, an unrelated question. But yes Palestinians, this very young nation (ethnicity if you wish) also deserve their own land to self-govern.

I think what Israel doing is about as wrong as it gets, yet you're not criticizing it.

Well, I actually think that Israel has a loooooong way to get to the levels of wrong of Iran, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia... The list goes on. Also, this isn't even the thread for discussing Israel per se. I am very worried that prestigious universities of the mightiest country of the world tolerate blatant antisemetism, bad things will arise from this.

Cool
I'm not doing any of that
So it's really strange that you're acting like I did

I never accused YOU of that.  I am accusing you, the whole "anti-zionist", movement of doing that.

Oh you bet I'm doing this one.  I'm criticizing the state, just like you just said I could.  I even think it needs to fundamentally change!

Criticism of a state is not a call for the destruction of a state. Neither is a fundamental change of the state unless it offers something like incorporating that state in something else. 

[scriver]

I feel that that completely ignores the historic context of antisemitism and wish for genocide of Jews these terms are loaded with, as well as the historically genocidal sentiment of the people who used them, and that even more dishonest to me. We're back to what hector was doing earlier with the "from river to sea, Palestine will be free" slogan and going "no you don't know what they mean by free you can't say it's genocidal" when in fact we do know the historical context and meaning of "free" and it is genocidal.

The fact that this is even up for debate is ridiculous. If you can't see how language like this is terrifying for many Jews to hear than you need to try harder to be empathetic.

It's Zionists who are ignoring all context and pretend that any, ANY opposition to this apartheid state is "a wish for genocide of Jews" and "antisemitism".  It's absolutely disgusting... at least, that's what many Jewish people think about it.

Maybe every antifa suddenly changed their minds and went full Nazi, or maaaaaaaaaybe the pro-Israel side is deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

If "antifa" didn't want to be associated with nazis, they shouldn't be using nazi slogans.

Right??  I almost missed that

It's Zionists who are ignoring all context and pretend that any, ANY opposition to this apartheid state is "a wish for genocide of Jews" and "antisemitism". 

Zionism is the self-determination movement of the Jewish people. If you are an anti-Zionist then you oppose this fundamental right of any nation to have their own country. And if oppose a fundamental right of a group, you oppose this group. Anti-Zionism IS antisemitism.

"Nations" don't deserve their own states.  Like, ethnostates?  what the fuck
By your logic I guess I oppose every group.  ohno

how what about the "nation" of Palestinians where's their country

"Nations don't deserve their own states" – literal imperialism. Do they not? Do the Kurds not deserve their own country? Do Ukrainians not deserve to not be a part of Russia? Do oppressed peoples not deserve the chance of self-determination? You asked it yourself, do the Palestinian people not deserve their own state? Because by your words, they do not.

[MorleyDev]

The people who happen to live in an area have a right to self-determinism*, but as soon as you tie that to notions of race/ethnicity? No, there's no right for that.

Israel is, by it's own constitution and by the very idea of 'Zionism', a nation of, by and for the Jewish people. Not all the peoples who happen to live in it and be it's citizens, but specifically and primarily the Jewish peoples of the world. It's an ethnostate. Western democracies should not be friendly allies with ethnostates, as it goes against a fundemental basis of modern western democracy.

* (alongside other human rights, so you can't self-determine away the human rights of part of your population, which again being an ethnostates explicitly means doing in some form)

EDIT to expand on points:
So yes, Hamas, Iran, Russia et al are all massive shitheads. They aren't also actively or trying to be allies of the western democracies. If they were, them see all above points but replace Jewish with Pakistani/Muslim/Ethnic Russians et al

Likewise, if Ukraine was actually discriminating against and making second citizens of it's Russian-descended populations, like Russia accuses it off? Then I'd argue for doing the same thing there: International work to get the civilians out the way, keep other nations from getting involved, and then if needs be and everyone else is out the firing line let the shithead states bleed each other dry.

EDIT to expand further and tie Ukraine point in more:
That Ukraine, that as far as I know only exists in Putins head, well the most Ukraine could ever be in that scenario should be is an ally-of-convenience against a common enemy, and if it doesn't change then kept at arms length and abandoned as an ally as soon as you lack the common enemy. Fortunately, as far as I know that Ukraine isn't the one we have.

[scriver]

The people who happen to live in an area have a right to self-determinism*, but as soon as you tie that to notions of race/ethnicity? No, there's no right for that.

This is just a nothing-statement given that generally nations are people "who happen to live in an area". It also is only marginally related to "race/ethnicity" (beyond, again, ethnicity being another way to quantify "people who happen to live in an area") so don't cast aspersions by bringing them up when it's nations that's being discussed.

[MorleyDev]

The people who happen to live in an area have a right to self-determinism*, but as soon as you tie that to notions of race/ethnicity? No, there's no right for that.

This is just a nothing-statement given that generally nations are people "who happen to live in an area". It also is only marginally related to "race/ethnicity" (beyond, again, ethnicity being another way to quantify "people who happen to live in an area") so don't cast aspersions by bringing them up when it's nations that's being discussed.

Except I made it clear that when Strongpoint said "nation" in reference to Israel and Zionism, he meant ethnicity. And Rolan seemed to agree with me on that point, which is why they then put 'nation' in quotes. To quote Strongpoint,

"Zionism is the self-determination movement of the Jewish people. If you are an anti-Zionist then you oppose this fundamental right of any nation to have their own country. And if oppose a fundamental right of a group, you oppose this group. Anti-Zionism IS antisemitism."

This is the notion of 'nation' being discussed, the fundemental premise being rejected. That the Jewish people count as a 'nation' by themselves. That an ethnicity, detached from land, is a nation or at least a nation in waiting. So yes, we are discussing Race/Ethnicity. We are discussing an ethnostate. Zionism is the establishment of a Jewish Ethnostate.

Frankly, I don't care what word you put in front of ethnostate there. I oppose the formation of one, and if one exists already I oppose being friendly allies with it.

[scriver]

Nation means people. It is not the same as ethnicity. Ethnicity generally limits itself mainly to biological history, with minor weights given to culture and social history. Nationality is another way yo define a people, where priority is given to culture and community and social history, and the focus is less on biological history.

These concepts border each other because they are attempts at terminologising the abstract experience of "a people", but they are not identical.

[MorleyDev]

Then under that definition, I'd wholeheartedly reject the notion that there's an inherent right to form a state. By that definition, it's just a way of categorizing peoples history and not inherently valuable or useful or meaningful beyond that.

And to use the literal full definition from the dictionary: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

And going back, that still doesn't give you the right to form an ethnostate just for the first half of the definition (which is much closer to ethnicity).

[Strongpoint]

And to use the literal full definition from the dictionary: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

So... should the front come to my city and I flee abroad I'll stop being a part of Ukrainian nation because I'll stop inhabiting a particular country or territory? Seriously?

Or, closer to the topic, if Israel will kick ALL Palestinians out, Palestinians will cease to exist as a nation?

Jews are a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language. Just because they were forced to leave their homeland (and there are mountains of historical evidence that it is their homeland) it doesn't mean that it isn't their homeland and that they are not a nation.

Zionism is "we want to return to our homeland, live there in safety and self-govern ourselves"

PS. Also can you, please, define what you mean by "ethnostate"

[scriver]

Then under that definition, I'd wholeheartedly reject the notion that there's an inherent right to form a state. By that definition, it's just a way of categorizing peoples history and not inherently valuable or useful or meaningful beyond that.

And to use the literal full definition from the dictionary: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

And going back, that still doesn't give you the right to form an ethnostate just for the first half of the definition (which is much closer to ethnicity).

I see that as inherently imperialistic. As a personal example, the Sami nation is split over Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Russia (but mainly Sweden). I believe the Sami of Sweden should have the inherent right to not want to be part of Sweden, a country that historically not just have oppressed them but committed genocide against them, if they so wished – regardless of the wishes of the national Swedes that now the majority in the Samis historical national grounds. Their right as the indigenous nation of northern Sweden would weigh heavier than that of "the people who happen to live in the area". Not having this right, to me, is just a continuation of their historical oppression.

That's part of why I see the two-state solution as the only solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. They're both peoples with strong claims to the same area, and both have large constituents who refuse the possibility of not having a nation-state and sharing the country. It's not a perfect, conflict free solution, but it's certainly the less bad one.

[MorleyDev]

So... should the front come to my city and I flee abroad I'll stop being a part of Ukrainian nation because I'll stop inhabiting a particular country or territory? Seriously?

How long, a decade? No. But 100 years later, your great great grandchildren? They're of Ukrainian descent sure, but that doesn't mean much more than an interesting historical footnote. If the regime that occupied it has toppled and a new regime invites your descendants back, sure. After it's faded from living memory and become myth, definitely not. The living matter, long-forgotten dead ancestors don't. And would your descendants then have the right to then return, force out the occupants of the land, and resettle? Fuck no. That's just another Holy War, and the world has had enough of those.

PS. Also can you, please, define what you mean by "ethnostate"

Whilst strictly it's a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group, I'd go more for "any state which restricts it's full citizenship rights to a subset of citizens based on ethniticity/cultural lineage, or prioritises any such grouping of citizens over others in it's legal framework".

Having things like "The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people." is a good start. A citizen of Israel but not Jewish? Congratulations, you're legally a second-class citizen now! Hope you didn't like your right to vote, because they now have a constitutional basis to deny you it in the future.

So if Ukraine was restricting the rights of it's Russian-speaking population (which considering you have a Russian-speaking president, seems unlikely) and declared them 'secondary' to the 'ethnic Ukrainians'...well, I'd have a big problem with supporting Ukraine against Russia. There's a reason that's exactly what Putin is claiming, after all. And to my knowledge, that version of Ukraine only exists in his head.

I see that as inherently imperialistic.

Seizing a land and it's people for resources or manpower, that's imperialism.
Declaring an area of land, of-for-and-by only the people whose long dead and largely forgotten ancestors lived there, that's going against a basic tenant of Modern Western Democracy. That all those who live under a state should have equal rights to determine it's future.

People can vote for independence of their region in clear fair and open democratic referendums, they can vote for their region to be subsumed into a wider region under the same (so not whatever the fuck Russia is doing in Ukraine, obviously). Seizing it by force or kicking out all others, or subjugating the people that live there? Well, not sure what could be more imperialistic than that.

[scriver]

Seizing a land and it's people for resources or manpower, that's imperialism.
Declaring an area of land, of-for-and-by only the people whose long dead and largely forgotten ancestors lived there, that's going against a basic tenant of Modern Western Democracy. That all those who live under a state should have equal rights to determine it's future.

People can vote for independence of their region in clear fair and open democratic referendums, they can vote for their region to be subsumed into a wider region under the same (so not whatever the fuck Russia is doing in Ukraine, obviously). Seizing it by force and kicking out all or subjugating the people that live there? Well, not sure what could be more imperialistic than that.

Well, the "modern Western democracy" is built directly off of colonialism, so I'm not surprised you feel that way. But I'm not going to agree.

[MorleyDev]

To use your example: A Sami-majority region could vote to declare itself independent. They have no right to then declare themselves Sami-first and oppress/restrict the rights of or expel non-Sami people living there though.

Not sure what there is to disagree with in that.

EDIT: Also if the actual victims of Western Colonialism had that mentality, all of Africa would be a graveyard by now. Basically none of the states they were left with map onto ethnic/cultural borders.

EDIT EDIT: Likewise, I'd say that Israel exists and whether I think it should have ever been established at the time is irrelevant historical wankery, what matters is dealing with the present. The living matter, their ancestors don't. Which means governments putting pressure on Israel to become an actual democracy of equal citizens from it's constitution upwards, pressure on the area controlled by Hamas to become a democracy at all, and pressure on both of them to stop killing each other. You should also hold your allies to a higher standard than your enemies, so whilst Hamas is a worse organization by far we don't exactly expect them to be better. I hold my friends to a higher standard than I do random people on the street, and myself to a higher standard than my friends. A country should do the same.

[Strongpoint]

So if Ukraine was restricting the rights of it's Russian-speaking population

Looking at your definition of ethnostate and how opposed you are to this concept I suspect that by your standards we ARE restricting their rights. For example, the Arabic language enjoys far more privileges in Israel than Russian in Ukraine. If anyone would push for such status for Russian I (and millions of Ukrainians) would riot.