You are calling those who are against apartheid leftists? Bold strategy. Like even Prager is anti apartheid, yet they claim that what Israel does is totally diffrent. And again for your claim that no one like that is here Free Starter I'm assuming he is anti apartheid based on his comments if he is neutral or supportive of it then he is free to come and say "No apartheid is not bad."
Some segment of people who see it fit to bring up apartheid a lot i would treat the same way as so called "antifascists" and for the same reason, and the more conspiciously vocal they are about it, the closer the probability of malicious motive being involved is to 100%. They are fucking leftists being cheeky, they know it, you know it and i know it.
Everything is complicated, unlike what both the pro Israel lobby of cuckservatives do, or the mouth breathing arabs say. Doesen't mean that Israel has not done bad things and tried to have it's cake and eat it too by arguing one thing one time and another another.
"bad things". Bad by what standard? As you explain later, not by yours... You care about Christians, not Muslim Arabs, supposedly, and even by pragmatic exchange, Muslim Arabs couldn't care less about your particular political faction's well being.
I literally tagged in in the post you quoted. He can choose to come and say he supports apartheid if he wants, or say he rejects it, or do nothing. If he does nothing I will assume he is against apartheid based on earlier statements.
I can understand malicious false insults about Jews like blood libel being considered anti semtism, or Nazi like hatered and that is fair. But criticising Jews for things they do is not anti semetism no matter how much evangelicals want to worship Jews.
Why criticize about Jews being moderately aggressive in their conflict with Arabs?
How does that help us or any of our interests?
If anything, it's quite common among some spicier elements of the rights to say that Israel has it figured out regarding dealing with the Islamic world, illegal immigration and so on, what's the fucking point of trying to argue for leftist norms regarding that? I ask again, why would i give a fuck about leftist norms? I don't give a fuck about leftist pet peeves, and leftists don't give a fuck about the Jewish state, why should i give a fuck about Jewish state not respecting leftist pet peeves?
Saying Israel is an apartheid state is a statement. It's a possible statement because of the very actions of Israel and treating Palestine like some quasi Schrodinger's cat. There are two possible options. Option 1 Palestine is not a legitimate state all the land the Palestinians claim is rightful Israeli clay. If that is the case the people on that land deserve Israeli citizenship and equal rights, if they are not given that then Israel IS an apartheid state. Option 2 Palestine is a legitimate state/nationality. Then you have to recognize Palestine as a nation and that it is being occupied by Israel(maybe justified because of war) but calling it occupied territories is true, and the only just solution is an eventual two state solution.
No one cares about your false binary. There are at least several more very obvious options than this, i'll give you an opportunity to figure them out, and if you fail to do so, i will spell them out for you, but my opinion of your intellect will fall.
There is your hope for a third option. It was theoretically possible in the past but it's not anymore. Palestine is not a legitimate state and the Palestinains are Jordanians or Syrians, or Egyptians or whatever. This is not true because both the Palestinians and the Arab nations don't want them to be part of the same nation.
That's part of the act. It's t he same reason why Russia does the shit it does with its "protection of Russian minorities" from cultural assimilation abroad instead of just telling them to return to Russia.
Yet at the same time they are all up in what is the business between Palestinians and Israel, and up until recently, even the regional leaders were proclaiming that Palestine will soon return to Jordan/Lebanon/Syria when of course freed from Israeli control, raising absolutely no outrage among the would be members of Palestinian nation.
There are some differences but also similarities as stated above while Israel is not trying to use Palestinians as cheap labor the comparison to Bantustans is apt, and my argument above applies.
Israel doesn't even want to keep them at all. The main issues are the minutia of lines and above all, security arrangements.
Why are you bringing up BEE when it's not relavent?
I know South Africa never had a right of return for any white person. I'm telling you to imagine if it did Israel is a state for Jews by Jews, some people say this is discriminatory or whatever, some support it and some don't care. Yet if South Africa a state for whites by whites did that same policy there would be a whole lot more people saying it's discriminatory and wrong, and very few people would be neutral, and even fewer support it.
Because you asked about this as a "shoe on another foot" hypothetical, while a similar situation in fact is not a hypothetical, and most the people who whined about apartheid obviously don't mind it much.
I mean there has been in the past just as recently as ww2 there were Americans who wanted "Japanese to be only spoken in hell." There were definite policies to do cultural genocide and change who they are at their core.
What Americans and how many, sod off with the fringe strawmen, sell them to a farmer or something.
Ok. Then my complaint does not apply to you.
But like thats how most Americans define "rights" I could call in
@Abhorsen or tons of others who will tell you that rights exist independent of the government. They are a natural function of the universe, muh natural law, blah blah blah. I can support rights as good things that society and the government decide is great to have so they give them or acknowledge the people have them. But I don't believe they exist independently.
Well people have different ideas about rights, wars were fought over this even, news at eleven.
I never said the Jews did not have a claim to Israel. I simply said they were not the only ones who do
But that is what legitimacy of statehood is. It is a glorified game of king of the hill that is how it is decided for the modern western world. To be honest it is done like that because the west "won" and doing things another way would end up with it losing land, and power. For example Hong Kong, Taiwan is ethnically Chinese and was colonized when it was part of the old Chinese empires. Using your argument a Chinese nationalist who wants a unified China can argue that if Britain did not want to give Hong Kong back they should go to war if they can win because it was historically theirs first. Same with Taiwan and unity. Or should we go with distance does that mean Argentina gets the Falklands, and China still would get Taiwan and Hong Kong because both of those are closer instead of the UK which is far away?
Taiwan and China is more of a mirror case to USA and UK, just with a different power balance. Taiwan was in fact founded by actual Chinese nationalists who didn't like communism in middle of a Chinese civil war, and the western standard is that the historical home country did drop its claims on the rebellious province.
Falklands are not populated by Argentinian citizens/nationals and never were, so Argentina can fuck off. China was in fact given HK back by UK as their deal promised, and then played silly games with it, lol. So again, be careful with making IRL country based hypotheticals about situations you know jack shit about.
Umm are you saying that if Israelis left the holy land the Arab world would keep hunting them down? You realize the war isn't about forcing them to convert or killing them but about for them "regaining" lands that are Muslim(they conqured it and are sore losers when things they conquered are lost.)
Guess what Arabs in French or Belgian no-go zones do to Jews.
Also, trivia test, what does the Quran say about Jews hiding behind rocks?
Yes yet Jordanians don't consider Palestinians to be Jordanians.
I know that it won't happen I was just giving this as an example because you were saying that most wars are Nazi like "NO WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS GROUP TO EXIST ANYWHERE!" Yet thats not true wars are fought for ideology sometimes but it's actually mostly resources and strategic location. If wars because of geostrategic concerns and resources are no longer done then most wars will only be ideological and those are not that common.
Yes, that is the generality, but as the case with German national socialists you brought yourself shows, there are exceptions, yet you are asserting baselessly that Arab Muslims can't possibly be one.
Again do you think they would go to the ends of the world to fight a Jewish state far from any area they consider "theirs". Again America hated Japan in ww2. Yet if Mars was terraformed and the Empire of Japan was ISOT'd there somewhere America has no interests and won't be able to get any economic interests for a long time. Do you think they'd still want to launch missles in the 1970's?
Again, irrelevant generalities involving a fictional situation. I'm talking about these specific factions in their specific situation.
I am talking about LOCAL resources, a piece of land has carrying capacity only a certain ammount of people can live there. There is only soo much water or food that can be grown. That is what I mean when I speak of resources not bigger stuff dealing with macro economics.
So in practical terms, small general worth of resources, at least in terms of modern economics (farmland was relatively more important 300 years ago or more).
Well Germany did do pretty bad things to the Jews so carving out some territory could be called reparations, and there is plenty of historic jewish culture in Europe. And the point isn't that it should be done.
There is also historic Polish culture in Siberia, France and USA, yet i still insist that the Polish homeland should be in Poland, not there.
The point was that if there was not a Jewish nation in the Arab territory Arabs consider theirs they would not have such hostile relations. Unless you think that the Arabs would ally with America if America was occupied by Israel because they hate Israel that much.
I'm pretty sure Quran was written before Jewish nation in Arab territory, plenty of hostility to Jews written there. Also as a westerner i would not give a damn about what territory Arabs think is theirs, some of them think parts of Spain are their legitimate territory too, so fuck their standard.
Ok, I like hypotheticals I will answer if you answer mine that I will give in the next post.
Alright in this hypothetical assuming I'm the same person I am now Orthodox Christian I would support the Austrians, but this would be hypocritical it is not based on the "morality" or who has the "right" claim. It's because Catholic Christians which Austrians are, they are my kin we share the same faith(though they are schismatics
) while the Muslim Turks are not and I would see them as invading barbarians.
Ah, so religious nepotism, got it. However, you need to understand that most people in the western civilization now do not hold religion in such high regard, and so even if they are going to be politically nepotistic, it would be on other grounds.
After all I would support a Christian state invading Israel to make a Crusader state, since they are my people. While in real life I don't have strong kinship to either the Jews or the Muslims. They are both more related to each other than to me, so as
@ATP said I don't see why we should support one group of foreigners over another?
Now if I was a Chinese or Japanese Buddhist or whatever I might have a completely different position and say that the Turks who lived there peacefully for 200 years are the new locals and Germany should not launch hostile invasions to gain land and expel the native inhabitants.
Ah, so it's your personal exotic standards on this, so your opinion on this can be casually disregarded by those who don't share yours, as they have completely different standards. Blue vs orange morality and all that.
So language is what determines nationhood? So then should the UK, America, Canada, and Australia unite?
If they truly want to, who can stop them? If they don't, who can make them?
Would you oppose it if all of the Arab world united into one giant super state?
As above.
I mean they do though, sure they dislike Israel for what they see as oppression but they'd have to be completely stupid to not also at least moderately dislike the other Arabs for using them as chess pieces. Neither the other Arabs nor Palestinians want to be in the same nation. Arabs are diffrent thats why they have different nations.
Or because they ruling elites like their fiefdoms. Note how pretty much no Arab state is a functional democracy, so even if they wanted to, that wouldn't mean they would get united.
In fact Arab nationalism was a big thing in recent past, and its decline was highly influenced by tribal loyalties and islamic revival.
I mean can't I also say that the moderate pro Israel people are useful idiots who give valuable resorces to another nation for free? Note while I am sure there are some moderate pro Israel people(you are one of them which is nice to see) most people on the pro Israel side are not moderate but hard pro Israel.
Not "for free", but in indirect support of own interests, under purely Machiavellian style geopolitical motivations. Yes, many people struggle with articulating that or forget to do so in front of people looking for "bad optics", but that doesn't change the fact, but that obviously happens in political climate more dominated by soundbites than multi page treatises.
Ironic you should bring that up when it's Jewish actions that led to chaos in the middle east. Jews in Israel have war and destabilize arab nations(they have a good reason for it though their own security better to fight against a weaker foe dealing with rebellion than a stronger nation) but with
destabilization and civil war many refugees leave the area. Israel does not let them in, so they go to Europe.
That's a common leftist conspiracy theory. When were arab states stable to begin with?
Including with the mysterious leftist "karma based refugee guidance system" that somehow leads refugees to countries to blame for their misfortune, or failing that, the next closest thing. Which is absolutely ridiculous, and you should feel ashamed for uttering such insanity.
No, refugees go to the nicest place they can practically get into, nicest being defined as one that will allow them in, allow them to stay, and provide them best living standard available, especially if for free and without much requirements or restrictions. Of course European countries meet those criteria best for ME and Africa.
And this will get you called anti semetic if you say that many NGO's or left political groups that support mass immigration to Europe are supported by a majority of Jews in those nations.
Quite possible. At the same time you would have to ask what those specific leftist Jews in the West think of Israel, what part of Isrel's political arena they feel sympathetic to, and why aren't they living there, you would get some quite interesting info.
The answer is, they are fucking internationalist leftists, and their kind is not particularly liked nor welcomed in Israel itself, so they stay in countries more amicable to their activism (even if those shouldn't be for own good, but that's their choice), quite rationally.
Ironically if the Arab dictators were able to conquer Israel Europe would not have to deal with either an Islamist problem, OR refugee problem.
Wishful thinking and leftist idealist worldview. No, left to proverbial own devices, Islamic countries and third world are more than capable of generating chaos, poverty and resulting refugees by own means and initiative. No need to blame this by default on le evil capitalists/westerners/Jews, those are just certain ideologies' points of belief.
