I don't think you understand what I'm arguing against. I'm not say "Muh apartheid is bad!" I'm arguing against people who say "South African apartheid was bad, but when Israel does similar things to South Africa you can't call that apartheid. You antisemite!"
Who are these people? Where are they?
Pro-zionist leftists i think are a very rare breed, why are you arguing against them when as far as i know no one actively taking part in this discussion right now feels eager to defend their position?
Again you can say that apartheid is bad when Israel and South Africa do it, or you can say it's good when both do it. But trying to have your cake and eat it too is a step too far.
Or you can say it's complicated. Or you can say it's bad but there are worse options. Or just not care much either way. No reason to trap yourself in false binaries.
But it's not leftist sensibilities unless you are saying
@Free-Stater 101 is a leftist, him and most of those conservatives who support Israel are also anti apartheid in south africa.
Well, do they? Why not ask them first?
If I say something about Israel or Jews "The IDF is a professional army." he wouldn't say it is anti semetic to say a neutral or positive thing about them. Yet if you said something bad about the Jews he would say it's anti semitism. He claims it is anti semetism to say Israel is an apartheid state, the implication is he thinks apartheid is wrong.
He did not say "No this is not apartheid because of these differances and the similarities are not close enough because...."
I can say that Israeli Navy was a shitshow on floats in the 60's, and it's not very competent even now, and no one will call me an antisemite for it. So stop being cheeky and let us agree that it's some specific kinds of criticism, even specific talking points critical of Israel in specific ways will get you called an antisemite, while others won't.
We all know what kind of people bother themselves to say "Israel is an apartheid state", what are they implying by that, and why they are saying it. Stop playing the trollception discussion strategies where you argue for points you don't support against a fringe viewpoint that's not even represented in the discussion just to nitpick other's reactions to the confusion you have managed to sow.
Obviously there are also some core differences between SA and Israel's cases so people are not wrong in saying so. Apartheid SA wanted to keep their second class citizens with a perspective for maybe some more rights in the indefinite future when such moves won't turn it into a shithole like it did IRL. For one the Zionists absolutely want to get rid of the part of Arab population that has no Israeli citizenship, by immigration or more or less independent statehood, but the tactical difficulties in making it happen in a functional and sensible way that will not include invading the place in few years because jihadists are lobbing rocket artillery at them from it (which would make it a very bloody and expensive exercise in futility) are paralyzing any such plan.
What? What does that have to do with what I was talking about? I was saying that if South Africa had it's own right of return for any white person to go to South Africa and get citizenship people would bitch and moan about it. What does this have to do with black economic exclence?
BEE is a turbo-AA policy in SA that in effect is major discrimination against white people.
But the same leftists who whined about apartheid don't care and even want the same stuff in own countries.
Also lol, even at the height of apartheid SA never had a "right of return for any white person" and probably never will.
Again what? I never said nations should not have governments. I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
I was replying to this specific part of your previous post:
Second why is it wrong to "question/undermine the states legitimacy of existence" Why do we all have to give Israel a special privilege and say it has a right to exist. Will you give that consideration to other nations that those on the evangelical right tend to dislike? Will you say that Cuba, Russia, China, and Iran as nations have a "right to exist"
I replied that even among those who seriously dislike these states, the dislike in question generally does not go to the degree of saying that the nation involved has no right to exist, just that they should have less shit governments, a position not very exotic even among the members of relevant nations. So again, stop arguing against strawman extreme positions that none of the people you are arguing against actually share.
This isn't edge. Again will you say that Russia has a "right to exist"?
Well, what are the alternatives? Occupation? Genocide? In light of that, probably yes.
Like I don't think you understand what you are saying when you say something is a right. It means that if it is not there or being respected there is a terrible violation. For example people believe that there is a right to voting that means that a nation that is a true monarchy is violating the people's freedoms and is morally wrong. Even if the people are happy with the king. People not having a right to something that is thought of as a right is wrong no matter what.(to those who believe in rights)
There are people like that for sure, but can you please argue against the people who hold such positions,
to the relevant people?
If the hypothetical nation is full of monarchists (or idiots) who can't handle democracy or just don't want to, fine, i'm not one of the shitlib fanatics who insist that Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and South Africa and other such troublesome countries should be full on liberal democracies unconditionally, now, forever, no matter what, regardless of any issues and situation on the ground, let it burn but they have to keep trying even when they are on fire, anything less than this is immoral and violating people's rights, and i don't think you will even find many people like that here.
So for example to believe that a Jewish state has a "right" to exist in the Levant means that before the Jews even came to the land it was morally wrong. 500 years after the Jews were kicked out and most of the people on the land were not Jewish it was morally wrong that the people living there were not under a Jewish state. Hell 1000 years from now if all the Jews converted to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, whatever and want it to stop being a Jewish state. It would be morally wrong and it would be justified to bring in outside Jews to disenfranchise the former Jews who were born there to make sure it is a "Jewish" state in the area of the Levant.
The Jews, on account of their distinct culture, history, language and so on meet the criteria to be considered a nation.
Where should the Jewish nation have their country?
I think "historic Jewish homeland" is a quite obvious answer.
The rest is negotiating difficulties involved.
So what's your preferred line in time elapsed where illegitimate conquest, complete with exiles and forced assimilation under threat of sword, stops being that, and becomes legitimate land ownership beyond even said exiles' right to return with weapons and take it back? And besides, i find it hilarious that you are trying to argue down legitimacy of statehood and sovereignty over land to a glorified game of king of the hill.
That's what it means for a state to have a "right" to exist it will always exist.
No one except Nazis say that a Jewish nation should not exist.
I think you are not up to date about the common views in the Islamic world.
In this case people either say that a Jewish state should not be in the area of the Levant because they think it's Palestinian land(Those who do this are strong supporters of the Arabs) then there are those that say the Jews do have a claim to the land but so do the Palestinians.
Well the latter was a solution taken by the British in the early XX century. They said that in that case there should be a compromise, Arabs should get a part of the Palestine (called Jordan), and Jews should also get a part (called Israel).
The problem being is that there is only a limited number of space on earth that has needed resources. So groups compete with each other, also some regions(like the holy land) have sentimental value.
If in the future we are able to go into space and build space colonies(O'Neil cylinders) and just use any matter we have to turn into anything else along with cheap/free energy we could using resources from the solar system which are practically infinite almost any group could go to a place that is not geographically important because of military or strategic issues along with likeminded people and build a prosperous state. In this scenario there are few groups that others would say "No you can't go and make a nation on those principles this is secular heresy!" Ironically the only group that might be refused the freedom to leave would those who want to make a white ethno state "People want to go make their own government peacefully based on politics I don't like that are racist?! NO they are Nazis". I mean in that situation most people wouldn't care about groups going to make colonies would you say that "NO Palestinians aren't allowed to leave and make their own state!" Just the same if Israel was somehow destroyed the Arab nations would not go hunt down a space Israel.
Yes, space colonization will have a huge impact on the matter of land ownership and sovereignty over this, probably not like you imagine it but still, but this belongs in sci fi discussion, IRL it's not available yet and won't be anytime soon.
The war on earth in the Levant has two reasons the first is the Palestinians who again live on the area and don't want to be displaced, this is the resorce thing the first reason for war I was talking about. The second reason the other Arabs are hostile to Israel is the sentimental thing Israel has Jerusalem the holy land. The Arabs don't have some haltered of Jews no matter what. If a Jewish state was made in Germany, or Madegasgar, or America they would not have violent interactions with it, because they don't care about those areas and those areas are not competing with them for local resources.
The Arabs do have a pretty common hatred of Jews, don't be delusional.
Palestine is not the fucking Persian Gulf with all its oil, wtf is this with the resource argument.
It's a tiny patch of land relative to all the Arab land, with a relatively tiny segment of its population.
Why should Germans, Madagascarians or Americans cede land to Jews, when their lands are not the historic center of Jewish culture and statehood?
Palestine is that.
So i heard you like to burden this discussion with stupid hypotheticals, so lemme craft one for you to deal with too.
Let's say that in 1683 Turks take over Vienna and keep it, integrating it into their empire. Some Austrians escape, mostly to Germany, the rest are killed or forced to convert and culturally assimilate over time.
By 1900, it's full of Turks, some immigrant, some assimilated.
However, western industrial power is at its height and Germany, with considerable encouragement from the Austrian minority, launches an invasion of the Ottoman province of Austria and wins.
Would you be the weirdo screaming that Austrians have no right to Vienna, which is a legitimately owned Turk land, and if Austrians want to have their own Austrian state, it should be in Germany, Madagascar or America?
No the Poles are Slavs like the Russians. You are saying that the overgroup matters more than the actual group.
Poles and Russians are separate nations with separate history, culture and language going back over a thousand of years.
Palestinian nation is something even spoken of since around 70's, and the reasons for even this are very tactical. What language and culture do Palestinians use and what differences do they have with Arabs that would make them want a separate state?
Yes Palestinians are Arabs, but not all Arabs are Palestinians. If Palestine wants a seperate nation free from Israel or other Arab nations they should have the right to pursue or try to achieve that.
Palestine doesn't give a shit about being separate from other Arabs and if it did, they would not give a damn anyway. I've even posted some choice quotes from Arab and Palestinian leaders regarding that earlier in the thread. We don't have to base our judgement on your convenient assumptions when we have better information at hand.
Are you reading what I'm saying? I said both neutrals and those who lean towards Palestine don't cheer on rocket attacks. The ones who cheer on rocket attacks are the hard pro Palestine people. Neutrals and moderates on both sides can call out both sides bad acts like settlements and rocket attacks. A moderate pro Israel can say settlements are bad, A moderate pro Palestine person can say rocket attacks are bad. There is more than two options do you understand?
Well then in that case i have to say that there is a whole lot of hard pro-Palestine people in the world (Islamic parts of it specifically), and the moderate pro-Palestine people in the West are their useful idiots, because the former dominate both the general pro-Palestine faction and also have a whole lot more say about what happens "on the ground" in Palestine than the moderate western pro-Palestine side.
Extremist groups Hamas and Hezbollah continue to receive mixed ratings from Muslim publics. However, opinions of al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, are consistently negative; only in Nigeria do Muslims offer views that are, on balance, positive toward al Qaeda and bin Laden.
www.pewresearch.org
www.jpost.com
