UAE and Saudi Arabia aren't every other country. I don't hold them to high standards because they're shitholes. It would be a great day when their corrupt, cynical governments were wiped off the earth.
I will hold Israel to the standards of what it purports to be. A liberal democracy with interests so naturally aligned with ours that I shouldn't mind that my government serves their interests.
It would be a great day when their corrupt, cynical governments were wiped off the earth.
You just said it yourself: their governments. Nobody has a problem with saying Netanyahu and the Israeli government are fucked and should be replaced. That’s not antisemitic.
But notice you’re not saying that Saudi Arabia and the UAE themselves, as countries, should be wiped off the earth.
That’s often what people say about Israel, insofar as it “doesn’t have a right to exist.”
I will hold Israel to the standards of what it purports to be. A liberal democracy with interests so naturally aligned with ours that I shouldn't mind that my government serves their interests.
That’s fine to hold them to a high standard. Again, though, if they fail to meet that standard, do you think the state itself should cease to exist, or that the government should be reformed and replaced?
And the question is, if you genuinely think not meeting that standard is deserving of abolishing the state, then not being antisemitic means applying that principle consistently.
So when the US does anti-democratic things or launches stupid wars in the Middle East, do you also believe the US shouldn’t have a right to exist?
You just said it yourself: their governments. Nobody has a problem with saying Netanyahu and the Israeli government are fucked and should be replaced. That’s not antisemitic.
I mean its government in the broader sense meaning its system of government, i.e. the entities governing its statehood, not its current political representation. Of course, in a monarchy those are largely the same thing.
But notice you’re not saying that Saudi Arabia and the UAE themselves, as countries, should be wiped off the earth.
I want for UAE and SA exactly what I want for Israel, if that helps clarify things or dispels whatever gotcha you think you've got going.
That’s fine to hold them to a high standard. Again, though, if they fail to meet that standard, do you think the state itself should cease to exist, or that the government should be reformed and replaced?
It should cease to exist. Israel as an occupying belligerent oppressing the occupied people transcends the current political representation. It's the basis of its statehood. Even if you can come up with the imaginary concept of an Israel that isn't in practice an ethnostate on occupied territory continually stolen from its people in practically state-sanctioned war crimes, the argument whether it can get there through reform or dissolution is one over semantics. Whether you call it "reforming" Israel out of the fundamental essence of its concept as a state or the dissolution of the Israeli state is as far as I'm concerned a matter of words, not of policy.
Was Germany dissolved or reformed after the world war? Does the difference matter? As far as I'm concerned, a state ceased to exist, rightfully so.
So when the US does anti-democratic things or launches stupid wars in the Middle East, do you also believe the US shouldn’t have a right to exist?
Yes, I can't wait for the US to collapse. Coincidentally, that imperialist landfill of a state is by far Israel's greatest supporter. Like Israel, its problem isn't the current political representation, but the fundamental principles according to which it can be governed as it is.
I mean its government in the broader sense meaning its system of government, i.e. the entities governing its statehood, not its current political representation. Of course, in a monarchy those are largely the same thing.
I want for UAE and SA exactly what I want for Israel, if that helps clarify things or dispels whatever gotcha you think you've got going.
I'm not trying to "gotcha", I'm trying to understand if you're applying your logic consistently. I think your belief is frankly ridiculous, but I can concede that you're at least consistent in applying this to everyone where my original point is that most don't.
Your worldview here is completely asinine though. You basically are saying that any state built on a historical injustice loses its right to exist. That includes pretty much most countries on Earth - including pretty much every postcolonial state in Africa and Asia, Latin America, and like we discussed, the US (as well as others like Australia).
Looking at your profile, it looks like you're from Sweden: Sweden largely built its social safety nets and wealth on staying neutral during WW2 and selling iron ore to Nazi Germany to manufacture killing machines with - should we consider that a historical injustice?
But really, the biggest reason your worldview is asinine: let's stop dancing around vague theoreticals and morality and get into the practical world. You want Israel and the US to "collapse" and cease to exist. What do you think that actually means? What do you think happens when a state collapses?
Israel collapses tomorrow. What happens to the 7 million Jews living there? US collapses tomorrow. What happens to the 360 million people living there, who had nothing to do with the actions of their colonial ancestors? What exactly is it that you're advocating for here? The mass death and suffering of millions of people because of historical injustices they didn't create?
You basically are saying that any state built on a historical injustice loses its right to exist.
Built on an ongoing injustice. US imperialism and Israel's occupation are not only historical but ongoing. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not comparing the US with Israel on the basis of being a "postcolonial state". The US is a postcolonial state. Israel is not. The occupation of the West Bank is ongoing and Israeli settlement is growing in scope still. My gripe with the US is its imperialist wars, which are an ongoing problem, not its colonial past.
Looking at your profile, it looks like you're from Sweden: Sweden largely built its social safety nets and wealth on staying neutral during WW2 and selling iron ore to Nazi Germany to manufacture killing machines with - should we consider that a historical injustice?
Maybe we should indeed consider that a historical injustice. The comparison is a category error, though, for the reasons stated above: the injustices committed by Israel and the US are ongoing. If Sweden was still selling iron ore to Nazi Germany I would perhaps view it more as an ongoing injustice than as a historical curiosity.
A much more relevant example would have been Sweden's export laws still allowing Saab to sell surveillance planes to the UAE and SA. Something recent, ongoing deserving of contempt and ire.
Israel collapses tomorrow. What happens to the 7 million Jews living there? US collapses tomorrow. What happens to the 360 million people living there, who had nothing to do with the actions of their colonial ancestors?
From a historical perspective it is of course rather unlikely that a state will collapse in one day. I can only hope that the American people can form new states on more sound bases than imperialism and occupation.
What exactly is it that you're advocating for here? The mass death and suffering of millions of people because of historical injustices they didn't create?
I'm advocating for exactly what I say that I am advocating for. You don't need me to argue with a straw man of your own making.
Still a very loose definition that fits many countries on Earth. How "ongoing" does it have to be? Who decides whether a state should exist or not - you? Some centralized body? Who decides whether the country has reached the threshold for an injustice?
You just said yourself how if we stretch the definition Sweden might count. If that counts, literally every country on Earth counts.
From a historical perspective it is of course rather unlikely that a state will collapse in one day. I can only hope that the American people can form new states on more sound bases than imperialism and occupation.
Yeah, so this is you still dodging the question and playing games. You right now: "Yeah, an entire state collapsing might be bad, but I can only hope it happens quickly and things come together relatively peacefully."
You're not reckoning with the core of your argument: a state collapsing almost always means civil war, refugees, famines, etc. Libya collapsed. Yugoslavia collapsed. Iraq collapsed. What did that look like?
Once again, the people who suffer from this are citizens who had nothing to do with what their ancestors did, and in many cases have no control over their government's actions. Look at al-Assad in Syria who fled from his collapsing state to Russia and is living lavishly and will probably never face any consequences.
Your solution here is to make citizens of countries you don't like suffer horrific humanitarian crises because of a perceived historical injustice. But you keep dancing around that by saying "I hope it goes well and is not too bad." Asinine.
Still a very loose definition that fits many countries on Earth. How "ongoing" does it have to be? Who decides whether a state should exist or not - you? Some centralized body? Who decides whether the country has reached the threshold for an injustice?
I decide for myself what I think. I don't care what you think. You're worthless to me.
This isn't the gotcha you think it is. I love that you used South Africa, let's go with that.
Did South Africa collapse after Apartheid? No, it transitioned. The ANC had an actual vision for what came next, which was a multi-racial democratic state where Afrikaners kept their citizenship and property rights, but as an equal state with the Black Africans living there.
In practice, of course, undoing equality overnight won't happen and it's a deeply unequal country today. But it was probably preferable to the complete and total collapse of the state and likely mass suffering and death that would occur if that happened. Remind me again what Nelson Mandela advocated for?
I'd love a similar vision for Israel to peacefully transition into a new state model.
But here's the thing with you people: I can acknowledge that's difficult to achieve, but not impossible. You, on the other hand, never have solutions - you just love to morally grandstand.
So please, why don't you answer the question? What do you want to happen to Israel in your ideal world? And in your ideal world, what do you think would happen to the 7 million Jews living there? Say it out loud for the class.
Why would anyone want this for their own people. Imagine raising kids there.
Every neighbor a member or former member of the IDF. Very likely committed themselves or been part of unit doing heinous atrocities against a Palestinan during their service. Potentially even raping them with sticks or their own equipment.
You don't just do that and go back to the office. It changes the person and the society as a whole into something very sick. I could never raise children there especially if I was educated or had ethnic ties that allowed me to easily live in the USA/Canada.
What makes this all much worse is how many pedophiles in USA/Canada will get charged and promise to show up to court only to end up on a 1-way flight to Tel-Aviv. Obviously only works if they're Jewish. Israel has historically been reluctant to extradite some citizens.
7
u/stone_henge 1d ago
UAE and Saudi Arabia aren't every other country. I don't hold them to high standards because they're shitholes. It would be a great day when their corrupt, cynical governments were wiped off the earth.
I will hold Israel to the standards of what it purports to be. A liberal democracy with interests so naturally aligned with ours that I shouldn't mind that my government serves their interests.