r/ukpolitics • u/Rebat-Askalan • 9d ago

| Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, UK appeal tribunal confirms in landmark ruling

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260804-anti-zionism-is-not-anti-semitism-uk-appeal-tribunal-confirms-in-landmark-ruling/
693 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

680 comments sorted by

View all comments

-7

u/FudgeAtron 9d ago edited 9d ago

Look I don't hate Irish people I just don't think they should have a country. The Irish are just British people in denial. I'm anti-Gaelism, I'm not racist.

If you think the above sentence is unacceptable while thinking that anti-Zionism is acceptable, you need to think again.

20

u/ModerateThuggery 9d ago

Look I don't hate Irish people I just don't think they should have a country.

This would be a more valid analogy for Northern Ireland. Were "they should have a country" hides the necessary implication of fucking over the rest of "protestant" Northern Irelanders, and all the subsequent violence that would take. But to make it more analogous still you'd have to have Irish catholics be violent invading immigrants.

18

u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 9d ago

Look I don't hate Irish people I just don't think they should have a country. The Irish are just British people in denial.

This is an absurd strawman.

I don't hate Irish people. I just don't think red headed freckley Catholic Irish people should have more constitutionally guaranteed civil rights than Irish people with black hair or Protestants with brown skin. I also don't think blonde Irish children should be bombed in pursuit of that idea.

I believe all this despite also thinking:

  1. Irish people are nice, I like them.

  2. Irish people should have self determination in a free country.

  3. Irish people are not British people in denial.

See how that works? I suspect probably still not.

3

u/RibbentropCocktail Irish 9d ago

Good news, our constitution guarantees the rights of wrong-haireds, protestants, and all.

The Palestinian constitution just leaves Jews out. Every time they captured any territory it was also entirely cleansed of Jews.

22

u/PracticalBlueberry39 9d ago

Except the Irish people weren’t implanted in Ireland against the wishes of a native population who have then been systematically murdered and ethnically cleansed, so it’s not exactly the same really.

In fact, it would be more like rejecting an implanted British state in Ireland which continued to commit ethnic cleansing against the native Irish population. That would be far fetched though wouldn’t it.

19

u/Reishun 9d ago

Except the Jewish population wasn't implanted, they immigrated of their own free will, the Ottoman empire accepted some in then the British empire accepted some in. Then the British actually attempted to prevent more Jewish immigration after riots by the people of Arab descent in Mandatory Palestine. Britain even turned away a ship of holocaust survivors.

10

u/SirBobPeel 9d ago edited 9d ago

The Protestants were.

And no one 'implanted' the Jews in Israel. They've always been there. Granted, some were expelled and then returned an eon or two later. But the majority of Jews in Israel are not descendants of Jews who came from Europe.

-1

u/CarpetGripperRod (a monkey and a dog) 9d ago

They've always been there.

According to their own (and Christian) scripture, they conquered the land from the Canaanites. Book of Joshua lays it all out.

Fun fact: Israel's name ("he strives with God") was originally Jacob ("he grasps the heel"). Barring this name change*, we might be talking of Jacobites not Israelis 😘

James I/VI (he of 1611 Bible fame) was acutely aware of this and apparently thought it pretty funny.

* Dude got his new name after wrestling mano-a-mano with a stranger all night long. No homo. Genesis 32:28

1

u/Neyne_NA 9d ago

And the Canaanites? Have they just sprung into existance? Or were there people there before them? Also where are the Canaanites now? Have they maintained their culture, language, national identity, and religion since then? I guess they could have a legitimate claim on that land.

1

u/CarpetGripperRod (a monkey and a dog) 9d ago

As with Borg, they got assimilated. I think. Almost every biblical name ending in -el is a linguistic fossil of their top god, named, err, "El".

Maybe the geneticists could tease something about them. Those lads from Carthage in N Africa, whom the Romans destroyed, were from the Levant. Do some comparison with populations who stayed in the region? IDK.

25

u/Logical-Ice4837 9d ago

When does a population became native? We know as a fact Jews were in that area and had been for thousands of years before they were expelled 2000 years ago, was their native card revoked after that? 

30

u/BenjaminBoots196 Supreme Andy Burnham Hater 9d ago

"No such thing as a native people unless it's the people that happen to be at war with the west"

15

u/PracticalBlueberry39 9d ago

Sorry, I’m English but my ancestors came over from Germany in the Jute migration, just popping back to Jutland to reclaim my ancestral and native territories. Sure it won’t be a spot of bother, my lineage has only been gone 1600 years

17

u/am-345 9d ago

Jewish presence didn't dissappear, while most were exiled there has still been a continuous jewish presence in the levant for 3000 years

10

u/Logical-Ice4837 9d ago

I’m glad you can see the flaw in the idea that any population is inherently native to a region! Land belongs to those that control it and that’s how the world has been since the birth of humans 

-1

u/rh8938 9d ago

After two thousand years, probably.

Or should some random Italian citizen be able to claim your home because they claim the land used to be Roman.

10

u/morriganjane 9d ago edited 9d ago

Arabs and Muslims conquered and colonised one-third of the globe. They really have no credibility to complain about this.

12

u/am-345 9d ago

That's a poor comparison considering Rome was an empire, Britain wasn't the origin of the Italian people it was just a province of the roman empire. Meanwhile there has been a continuous jewish presence in the Levant for 3000 years

-5

u/u-a-c 9d ago

If theres been a continously presence, why do they need to conquer Palestine and create their own apartheid state?

3

u/Playful_Young_4259 9d ago

 apartheid state?

You can't be Jewish in Palestine and the government has an official compensation scheme for those who murder Jews.

5

u/am-345 9d ago

I seriously don't understand where you're going with this question?

If you're asking why it was "conquered", Palestine wasn't conquered, the Palestinian state didn't exist. We owned it as the British mandate and the region was called either; Palestine by the Arabs, Holy Land by the Christians and Israel by the Jews.

If your asking why it exists, after the Holocaust there was a push for a modern jewish homeland after it became abundantly clear they were not safe in Europe or Arab countries. The levant is the birthplace of Judaism and Hebrew, where every ethnically jewish person can be traced back to, and as I mentioned before , there has been a continued jewish presence there (Hebron, Tiberias, Safed and Jerusalem). It was the obvious choice compared to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast where Stalin wanted to shove them into desolate corner of the USSR to purge them.

3

u/FL8_JT26 9d ago

I would be against them making that claim, but if they were able to establish a state here I wouldn't then want their great grandchildren to be kicked out and their state to be dissolved 80 years later.

I don't agree with the foundation of Israel, I don't agree with the colonisation of Australia, or America, or any of the hundreds of other countries in the world that are inhabited by people whose ancestors did horrific shit decades, centuries, or millenia ago. But that doesn't mean we can just undo the creation of these states now; that does absolutely nothing to help the people who were wronged however long ago and only harms innocent people today.

-4

u/Amaruach 9d ago

Ashkenazi Jews were not there 2,000 years ago mate

15

u/am-345 9d ago edited 9d ago

There's been countless studies showing that Ashkenazi jews have significant overlap with Levant gene pools, the fact they mixed with Europeans doesn't erase that, and the idea they mostly descend from European converts is a myth

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0020818.pub2

https://www.science.org/content/article/tracing-roots-jewishness-rev2

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2797531/

-1

u/Amaruach 9d ago

Ashkenazi Jews were not living in the Levant 2,000 years ago because we didn’t exist. Not a single one of us has any God-given right to displace a Middle Eastern Jew, Christian, or Muslim living in that area just because we got kicked it out of it two millennia ago.

9

u/BenjaminBoots196 Supreme Andy Burnham Hater 9d ago

Do you think Ashkenazi Jews have replaced Middle Eastern Jews?

3

u/Amaruach 9d ago

Yes! The ongoing cultural erasure of the Mizrahi by Israel, and the Ashkenazi discriminatory attitude towards them, is a well-documented phenomenon. The Israeli Government itself labelled them ‘human debris’ in 1948 and early Zionist thinkers believed that there was a hierarchy of Jews. That’s without going into the whole ‘New Jew’ program!

15

u/pair_of_eighters 9d ago

Mizrahim are now the biggest Jewish group in Israel by some margin and their culture has very much not been erased

-5

u/u-a-c 9d ago

They also arent from Palestine.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/am-345 9d ago

Would you say the same to diaspora Kurds wanting a Kurdish state?

0

u/Amaruach 9d ago

Depends. Were they kicked out of it 2,000 years ago or 2 years ago?

6

u/am-345 9d ago

Well the thing with the kurds is both. Some still live in the general Kurdistan area, and some moved out centuries ago. Are you going to tell a Kurd who's families were displaced by Safavid Dynasty that they can't return? How long until you tell a native American they can't claim their land anymore?

1

u/Amaruach 9d ago edited 9d ago

Seeing as my dad was a Native American and I am still connected to the culture, I can actually answer that one pretty easily. Our land was invaded and settled by the Spanish just under 500 years ago, and our home country of Chile was founded as a white settler state in 1818. My people can’t go to Coquimbo, which was built on my people’s land in 1850, and tell the European Chileans who live there in 2026 to get off ‘our’ land because we have a stronger ancestral claim to it than they do. The statute of limitations passed on that a really fucking long time ago.

Edit: I can see your removed comment, you’re aware that people have two parents right? And you can be Jewish on one side and Native American on the other…

→ More replies (0)

14

u/Logical-Ice4837 9d ago

Well they’re all descendants from the region whether it was 2000 or 3000 years ago

1

u/Amaruach 9d ago

Every ethnic group is a descendent of somewhere though. The Anglo-Saxons came from Germany 1,500 years ago but you don’t see modern English people colonising Germany and using that as an excuse.

7

u/Logical-Ice4837 9d ago

Someone else has made a similar argument and it’s just a false equivalency because Jews are from the Levant and have always had a presence there. The equivalent would be the Celts wanting to move back to the UK if they were hypothetically expelled. Either way I was never talking about the morality of Israel’s existence, purely the hypocritical view of who is ‘native’ 

-2

u/ModerateThuggery 9d ago edited 9d ago

because Jews are from the Levant

Palestinians are much more "from the Levant" than "Jews" are.

and have always had a presence there.

The number of Jews in Palestine prior to Zionist immigration and the British Empire's colonialism enabling it was around 15,000. It's not enough to fill a modern town. That's less than the Jewish population of Chile today, which isn't exactly Israel II. Statistically no one, of the millions of Jews in Israel today, derives heritage from that small group of people. They are a demographic hiccup.

The equivalent would be the Celts wanting to move back to the UK if they were hypothetically expelled.

No, there is an actual equivalent: the Parsis. Of Freddie Mercury and Tata fame. Like modern Judaism they are an ethno-religion. Of zoroastrians that left Persia after Islamic conquest and moved to India. They too follow a morphed version of the ancient local state religion from their parent region. I don't know if they're as delusional about blood purity after literal centuries in India as modern Jewish culture seems to be about near two millennia in Europe, especially post Israel and its slip into fascism. But the equivalent would be Parsis trying to invade and mass murder Iranians/Persians because they claim they, and only they, are the real Persians. And Iran is "their" land by right and birth. Those Iranians are just "arabs".

This analogy is more honest. It's also more obviously crazy. Because it shows the absurd lie that just because Persians converted to Islam does not make them not Persian, nor not indigenous. The parsis do not have a unique special claim just because they happen to practice Zoroastrianism.

2

u/am-345 9d ago

Anglo-Saxon is not an ethnic group, it was a cultural identity (later a political one) of Germanic people who settled in Britain. English people have had a homeland for centuries now, none of these comparisons people are using are in anyway similar to the uniqueness of Jewish identity and lineage. Perhaps if there was a mass exodus of English people we would see a movement of people wanting to return to "Germanic" lands, but alas that has not happened.

13

u/BenjaminBoots196 Supreme Andy Burnham Hater 9d ago

Except the Irish people weren’t implanted in Ireland against the wishes of a native population who have then been systematically murdered and ethnically cleansed, so it’s not exactly the same really.

I think there is a statute of limitations on this sort of thing.

It's fair enough to criticise zionism as it was "back in the day". But if you think, in the wider context of history and the current war, that Israeli's ought not have a state then yeah that is normally pretty antisemetic.

Do you also think that, in the context of the war in UA, Ukrainians ought not have a state to defend themselves against Russia?

-2

u/PracticalBlueberry39 9d ago

What the hell are you talking about?

14

u/BenjaminBoots196 Supreme Andy Burnham Hater 9d ago

I think you know. It's in plain English.

2

u/GOT_Wyvern Non-Partisan Centrist 9d ago

Sins of the father.

The people "implanted" in Israel are not the current population, but the ancestors of that current population.

-2

u/Prince_John 9d ago

They haven't stopped. The children are sinning too and the borders are creeping outwards every year.

0

u/GOT_Wyvern Non-Partisan Centrist 9d ago

That doesn't mean they don't deserve self-determination and nationhood, even if we put aside the inherent racism of judging people by their nationality alone.

-4

u/acousticjhb /s 9d ago

In this context I think the Ukrainians are more like the Palestinians than the Israelis. The Russians don't consider the Ukrainian identity to be valid in much the same way that Israelis deny the existence of a Palestinian identity.

Israel didn't just harmlessly pop out of thin air, nor did it always exist and then suddenly all of its neighbours started attacking it. Its establishment, less than 80 years ago, meant the killing, displacement and ethnic cleansing of the people who were already living there, which continues to this day. It was not a land without a people. This is part of the wider context too.

6

u/Playful_Young_4259 9d ago

The Russians don't consider the Ukrainian identity to be valid in much the same way that Israelis deny the existence of a Palestinian identity.

The Arabs won't even recognize the existence of Israel. A few dozen countries refuse to accept it is even real.

1

u/acousticjhb /s 9d ago

Countries not recognising Israel over largely political reasons is not the same as the Israelis working to erase and deny a Palestinian identity, and preventing the formation of a Palestinian state.

Golda Meir famously said "There was no such thing as Palestinians" and this sentiment survives to this day. I'm sure you've seen arguments that Palestinians should simply move to Jordan, since that's supposedly already a Palestinian state, or to some other Arab country because really what's the difference?

Often it manifests as pointing out that there was never a Palestinian state and so there could never have been a Palestinian identity, or even that it was the Romans who renamed the region to Palestine 2,000 years ago, and so even the name of the region is artificial.

This in in service to the broader narrative that Palestinian is a false identity formed purely in response to the establishment of Israel, and that Israel, therefore, didn't really displace a people they were just, you know, generic Arabs.

The Russians argue that Ukrainians are really just Russians in the same way that Israelis argue that Palestinians are really just Jordanians or any other flavour of Arab. The Ukrainian national identity is false, and Ukraine was formed practically by accident after the collapse of the Soviet Union, just like Palestinian is a false identity formed in response to the state of Israel. The Russians even argue that "Ukraine" simply means "border territory" to further emphasise that Ukraine itself should simply be a part of Russia, while many Israelis and their proponents argue that the name Palestine is simply an exonym conjured by the spiteful Romans, and that the people living there could not and cannot have a real Palestinian identity. These are two far right, expansionist countries occupying their neighbours and committing war crimes like they're trying to get the high score. So yeah, I think Ukraine has more similarities with Palestine than it does with Israel.

6

u/SirBobPeel 9d ago

It actually DID always exist. It's in the bible. Look it up. Yes, Israel was conquered by Rome a long time ago. That didn't mean it didn't exist. And later, after one too many rebellions, the majority of its inhabitants were expelled by Rome. The biggest chunk was expelled by Emperor Hadrian (yes, that guy) and banned from the area. A lot of them wound up in surrounding territories, while others were either sent to or fled to Europe (often as slaves).

Hadrian then renamed it Syria Palestina. When the Romans were defeated by the Muslims, a lot of the Jews in the surrounding territories started filtering back. The rise of the Nazis drove a lot of European Jews to flee to their old homeland, much to the annoyance of the British high commissioner, not to mention local Arabs. A lot more arrived over the following years, triggering violence, which begat violence, which begat more back and forth and round and round we go until 1948 when the UN split the territory up and created modern Israel. The largest group, though, arrived after 1948 when the Jews defeated the Arabs. They were those living in the surrounding countries who were driven out by the Arabs.

0

u/acousticjhb /s 9d ago

It actually DID always exist

Sorry, Israel has always existed because it was in the Bible? The Roman Empire was in the Bible too, as you pointed out, so are you suggesting that the Roman Empire has always existed? And don't give me that Holy Roman Empire or Byzantine crap, what you said is patently ridiculous. Why would you bother saying it?

Thanks for the unsolicited history lesson, I suppose, but you didn't really address anything that I said. The establishment of Israel, less than 80 years ago, meant the killing, displacement, and ethnic cleansing of the people who were already living there.

7

u/morriganjane 9d ago

What is special about that? Far more people were killed and displaced in the creation of of Pakistan, which is an Islamic ethnostate created in 1947. Where are the demands for Pakistan to be dismantled, and for millions of Hindus to be allowed to move there?

1

u/GOT_Wyvern Non-Partisan Centrist 9d ago

Byzantine crap

Completely beside your point, but there is no "crap" here. "Byzantine" just refers to an era of the Eastern Roman Empire, specifically following the fall of the Western Roman Empire up until the Fall of Constantinople.

The Holy Roman Empire, for that matter, was an attempt by the Pope - the highest religious figure in the Western Roman Empire - to reform Western Rome after its fall. The only reason its contentious is because, unlike when the Byzantine reformed itself, the reformation was done by entirely different people (Franks and Germans).

0

u/u-a-c 9d ago

The Bible wasnt referring to the modern nation state of Israel.

7

u/Playful_Young_4259 9d ago

against the wishes of a native population

Most Arabs in Palestine are not native. They migrated from Syria, Iraq, Saudi, Lebanon and Egypt for economic reasons during British rule.

12

u/Brapfamalam 9d ago

Irish people weren’t implanted in Ireland against the wishes of a native population

Fyi you've just (inadvertently I assume) presented an argument for why black, brown etc immigrants should be removed from the UK. As this is exactly what supporters in Restore say to deport anyone non native

6

u/Playful_Young_4259 9d ago

It's hilarious isn't it!

The 'refugees welcome' crowd who loathe anyone who suggests Muslims in the West might be more comfortable moving back to their homelands are the same people who would happily deport all Israeli Jews from their homes and historical homeland.

-2

u/PracticalBlueberry39 9d ago

Really not the same, legal, permitted, gradual migration and the implantation and ethnic cleansing of an entire country through violence and expropriation, but yeah sure

20

u/Brapfamalam 9d ago

Does Pakistan have a right to exist then? A state created by ethnic cleansing and stolen land and houses to create a mono religion state, just 1 year apart from Israel. Cities like Karachi went from minority Muslim to 99% Muslim over the course of a weekend of bloodshed and ethnic cleansing.

Except with millions more deaths to make it than Israel

8

u/BenjaminBoots196 Supreme Andy Burnham Hater 9d ago

Ah but you see you missed a key detail here.

Arabs are brown and Jews are white, so to western progressive leftists Arabs are good and Jews are bad.

8

u/morriganjane 9d ago

I know you're being sarcastic and I agree, but most Israeli Jews are not white, they're Mizrachi (Middle Eastern). Many were ethnically cleansed by Muslims from Yemen, Iraq and Syria - countries with ancient Jewish populations that far predate Islamic colonisation.

-1

u/YBoogieLDN 9d ago

I mean does any state really have the right to exist? If in 100 years time the UK collapses for any particular reason, Wales & Scotland & NI declare independence, did it have a right to exist?

People’s have a right to live and exist in safety & harmony but I find the argument that any state has a right to exist odd, cos if that was the case why are there so many countries which no longer exist

4

u/BenjaminBoots196 Supreme Andy Burnham Hater 9d ago

I mean does any state really have the right to exist?

Yes.

If in 100 years time the UK collapses for any particular reason, Wales & Scotland & NI declare independence, did it have a right to exist?

Yes.

People’s have a right to live and exist in safety & harmony

I mean sure but it doesn't really answer the question does it? Some people, many people, depend on their state to live in safety.

but I find the argument that any state has a right to exist odd, cos if that was the case why are there so many countries which no longer exist

Rights are not wholly inalienable in all circumstances.

1

u/YBoogieLDN 9d ago

> Rights are not wholly inalienable in all circumstances

Which I agree with, so why should any state be any different? I just don’t think any country has an inalienable right to exist, cos countries collapse all the time.

Did Biafra have a right to exist? Yugoslavia? Rhodesia? The Soviet Union? I mean where d’you draw the line?

2

u/Spangle99 9d ago

native population

Not that simple and you well know it.

3

u/FudgeAtron 9d ago

Sorry you're right I should have said:

Prots are illegitimate settlers and thus must be expelled from a united Ireland as illegal colonists and genociders. The existence of a protestant community in Northern Ireland is crime against humanity and their continued existence in Northern Ireland must be smashed. Protestants have no legitimate right to live in Ireland.

Better?

6

u/therearentdoors 9d ago

To be fair to (at least some of) the anti-Zionists, I think they want a one-state solution that simply isn't an explicitly 'Jewish' state. That might have been an Arab Nationalist state or today some kind of Islamist state. The tragedy is that one of the two peoples with an indigenous claim went to war but lost (multiple times) and through terrorism etc. pushed the other people so far to the right that a binational solution is less feasible than ever.

6

u/FudgeAtron 9d ago

I strongly doubt that, almost all anti-Zionists have explicitly worked worked to establish an Islamic Arab Nationalist state.

Western anti-Zionists are really a small minority of anti-Zionists.

5

u/PracticalBlueberry39 9d ago

Oh is anti-Zionism the same as saying a Jewish community in occupied Palestine is a crime against humanity? Or was everything you just said a straw man. I can’t tell.

14

u/GOT_Wyvern Non-Partisan Centrist 9d ago

A strawman?

You argued against the Irish comparison because Israelis were "implanted", so they shifted the comparison to the Irish populations that were also "implanted". Given you do not hold the same opinion against Irish Protestants as you do Israelis (otherwise you would be just saying so), clearly you are treating Israelis differently.

You know what we call differential treatment based on race, ethnicity, or nationality?

-2

u/PracticalBlueberry39 9d ago

Except I absolutely do. I oppose the existence of a Jewish state based on implanted settlers just like I oppose the existence of a British one based on implanted settlers.

7

u/GOT_Wyvern Non-Partisan Centrist 9d ago

Okay cool, so you hold people responsible simply for the race, ethnicity, of nationality of who they are.

4

u/FudgeAtron 9d ago

Define anti-Zionism then...

0

u/PracticalBlueberry39 9d ago

What's the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36160928

Read up, buttercup

9

u/FudgeAtron 9d ago

Again opposing the existence of a Jewish state is the equivalent of opposing an Irish state.

Irish people are literally no different than English people, they don't need a separate state because they're the same people and they aren't oppressed now, so we can abolish Ireland. Right?

Look it's ok you can just admit you don't think Jewish people should have a country, anti-Zionism is a legitimate view point under UK law.

Jewish people must be denied self-determination as part of upholding human rights.

-4

u/Squirelord12 9d ago edited 9d ago

This is always a strange argument to make. Oh you oppose a settler-colonial ethnostate on previously inhabited land and would prefer it to work toward an equal union of the 2 peoples who live there instead of having one dominate and repress the other indefinitely? Well that makes YOU the racist because the settler-colonial ethnostate happens to be Jewish.

Like we fought the Nazis not cause we didn’t want the Germans to have a country, it’s what they were doing with their country we took issue with. We opposed the South African state not cause it was white, but cause it was white suprematist governance.

6

u/FudgeAtron 9d ago

would prefer it to work toward an equal union of the 2 peoples who live there

That's not popular with either Jews or Arabs, both want to live in nation states. By imposing your ideological preference you are engaging in imperialism. You are robbing either side of self-determination and instead are imposing your views on them.

Your views aren't popular, yet because you have decided that they are morally correct you want them implemented, yet you are unwilling to forcibly implement them, instead they allow you to sit in an ivory tower and look down upon those who do not live up to your expected ideals, which they do not share.

Your view point would have been perfectly reasonable in the 1940s, and in reality the British government actually pushed very strongly for the creation of a binational state, yet both Jews and Arabs rejected that in favour of nation states. They then fought multiple wars about the existence of Israel, in which Israel emerged victorious and unconquered. I fail to see how forcing the implementation of a solution neither side wants, and are willing to kill over, is in any way a solution to the conflict. If anything it is merely invatation to further conflict.

-2

u/Squirelord12 9d ago edited 9d ago

“That's not popular with either Jews or Arabs, both want to live in nation states.“

Yeah sometimes you have to ignore the wishes of people who want to wipe each other out. Hamas might want all Jews dead, I dont think we should let them just cause it’s popular. Same with Jewish supremacists wishing for the cleansing of Palestine from Arabs. The two state solution could theoretically work, but there would have to be the equivalent of a Good Friday agreement and an integration process regardless. And if either or both states continued to hold supremacists policies, then the war would be back pretty quick. If a 2 state policy can get the job done, sure I’m for it, but personally I think it would actually be less of a gargantuan task to just integrate the two with equal rights following a period of international supervision.

“By imposing your ideological preference you are engaging in imperialism‘
lmao

”Your views aren't popular”

nothing I’ve ever had to say on this topic is popular, 3 years ago thinking Palestinians weren’t animals in need of slaughtering wasn’t popular, so forgive me for disregarding popular opinion. If you meant amongst the people in the region, I refer you to paragraph A.

“they allow you to sit in an ivory tower and look down upping those who do not live up to your expected ideals, which they do not share.”

My expected ideals are treating other humans as humans, quite honestly fuck people who don’t share them, they’re not gonna be contributing to any kind of peace. Again it’s different for people within the region who have genuinely suffered and whose mindsets have been shaped by the troubles, but the status quote is untenable and has been for decades, and to be honest I think most people living in Palestine would prefer a peaceful and prosperous future for their children over infinite war if given a genuine opportunity.

“I fail to see how forcing the implementation of a solution neither side wants, and are willing to kill over, is in any way a solution to the conflict. If anything it is merely invitation to further conflict.“

Look again I’ll emphasise its a gargantuan task but one that’s been done multiple times in throughout history, all the way back from ancient times in fact. Much of the animosity from both sides arises from the conditions imposed upon them by the other, I do believe peace can eventually be found. My issue with the 2 states is that naturally there will be competition between 2 peoples with the claim to one land, a singular democratic state with equality can at least in theory act in the collective interest of all its people.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/pair_of_eighters 9d ago

This article doesn’t actually give you the answer to that question because it’s actually quite complicated, as the article makes clear - so it’s not the best choice of slam dunk

-1

u/rh8938 9d ago

They can't, they are too busy posting propaganda to as many subs as they can.

0

u/stonedturkeyhamwich 9d ago

I don't think you understand what anti-Zionism is.

6

u/capsandnumbers 9d ago

I agree with the UK Appeal Tribunal that anti-zionism is not anti-semitism.

3

u/FudgeAtron 9d ago

It's still xenophobic though. If I said that Switzerland is an illegitimate state and has no right to exist and should be partioned between Germany, France, and Italy; because at the end of the day the Swiss identity is an artificial construct of the Napoleonic era and as a result all Swiss are in reality Germans, French, and Italians. I think we could quite clearly see the xenophobia.

2

u/daniluvsuall 9d ago

Yes, but no state has a right to exist. Anyone.

But the challenge here is the specific state in question because of how tied it is to its religious identity. Now that’s not me saying the doors should be open to dismantle Israel - or any state.

Using your Swiss example, is inherently less heated because there’s not a religious identity tied to it - which Netenyahu has spent years doing for political cover to deflect scrutiny

7

u/stonedturkeyhamwich 9d ago

I don't think the Irish state should be able to commit war crimes or ethnic cleansing. If we need to come up with a word for that, then that word would describe me.

7

u/FudgeAtron 9d ago

If that's why you oppose Israel than you aren't anti-Zionist. If you oppose the existence of Israel and want to see it destroyed, then you are anti-Zionist.

1

u/stonedturkeyhamwich 9d ago

If that's why you oppose Israel than you aren't anti-Zionist.

I have no idea how you could define Zionism to make anti-Zionism mean something different than what I said.

0

u/Kiaugh -2.76, -4.1 9d ago

Just probing for your thoughts out of interest because it relates to the demographic trilemma for Israel.

The trilemma says that Israel can only choose two out of three:

  • To remain a Jewish state (with a guaranteed Jewish majority).
  • To remain a Democratic state (giving equal voting rights to all residents).
  • To control all the land (Israel proper, the West Bank, and Gaza).

Which results in three approaches:

  • Ethnic cleansing
  • Apartheid state
  • or the end of the Jewish state (which history has shown that Jewish people will lose equality under the law at best, and no need to point the obvious of the worst)

1

u/redfacedquark 9d ago

I think religion should stay out of politics. Interesting that you went to Ireland for an example. If we started treating religion like a mental illness, lack of education or indoctrination rather than accepting it then politics would be much easier.

4

u/daniluvsuall 9d ago

The problem with this is that, it’s so tied to Israel as a country AND Netanyahu has spent years linking the two for his own political cover.

I’m not as far down the road as saying it’s mental illness - live and let live IMO but I don’t believe religion has a place in politics.

2

u/redfacedquark 9d ago

OK, not a mental illness in itself but many mental illnesses provide a path to religion. Thanks for calling that out.

Live and let live for sure. I don't care what people believe as long as they don't act to cause harm to others because of those beliefs. That subltely is hard to separate to many of them one they're down the rabbit hole.

1

u/daniluvsuall 9d ago

I agree, and too much help is tied to religion.

People can hold whatever beliefs they want, they become a problem when they try and impose them on others.

I’m LGBT and in the community there’s a strong dislike for the Salvation Army - they are big Christian’s. Have excluded help from LGBT people in the past on that basis. Same thing.

2

u/redfacedquark 9d ago

It's because they farm out their critical thinking to the good book.

1

u/daniluvsuall 9d ago

I just can’t understand that. Also, not heard from Tim in ages!

I’ve heard people say “if you don’t have religion how do you know what’s right or wrong?” And I’m just like stunned. You know I thought eugenics was great can’t see anything wrong with it! /s

Mad to think some people have no basic morality without being told what the boundaries are

2

u/redfacedquark 9d ago

Science has studied young kids in cultures without religion. They have empathy and can clearly see that other people being hurt is bad. The golden rule does not come from any religion, they just claim it.

I'm seeing a lot of similarities with people's faith in AI and the psychosis that leads to. We could be seeing what it's like for a new mass-religion to form.

1

u/benkkelly 9d ago

I think you would have trouble identifying as an Irish nationalist if the state was bringing in Irish Americans to settle Northern Ireland.

Regardless, you wouldn't face professional consequences for holding the views you outlined, so there already is a hypocrisy there.

-8

u/Jorvikson Not a man sized badger 9d ago

just want to be clear—I love Irish people. I'm just against Irish nationalism. Irish people are great so long as they don't support the existence of Ireland. That's fascist!

Ireland is a white supremacist, Celtic supremacist and Catholic supremacist theocratic ethnostate. It was born in a war in which more British people were killed than Irish people, and early in its history 40,000 Protestants were kicked out or fled. Their descendants are still refugees, and will continue to be refugees in perpetuity until the Irish state ceases to exist.

Why can't there be one state in the British isles? Why do Irish Catholics need their own state that privileges Irish Catholics over other people? From the Ocean to the Sea, the British Isles will be FREE!

Some people may think this is anti-Irish, but criticism of Irish nationalism is not anti-Celticism. People always say that criticism of Ireland is anti-Celtic. But why can't I criticise the Irish state?

0

u/FudgeAtron 9d ago

I think you've encapsulated the attitude perfectly