Is that actually a tolerable opinion in the sense of “paradox of tolerance”? Or is it hate speech that leads to intolerance?
Like “deport all jews from greater palestine” would mean ethnic cleansing which would not be tolerable. The only logical solution seems to be a 1 state solution that would need decades of investment, reeducation, de-nazification and de-radicalization on both sides.
Or said differently, “Palestine doesn’t have a right to exist” is not tolerable right?
Historic arguments that wold have been valid 70 years ago are now not useful since the reality is like it is. Something like “USA doesn’t have a right to exist, Europeans go home!” doesn’t make sense either except in the hypothetical where it would .
‘The Russians occupying Crimea cannot be deported that would be ethnic cleansing’. No it would not. There were Nazis occupying Polish houses and they were kicked out after WW2 and sent back where they came from.
‘Deport all Jews from Palestine’ would be ethnic cleansing as many Jews lived in Palestine before Zionism.
Palestinians have the full right to all their land back. If a European colonist is currently occupying it that is not their problem. The fact that their parents stole it in an ethnic cleansing does not change this in the slightest. Nor does them being Jewish mean that they suddenly get a special antisemitism exception to do colonialism and steal people’s houses.
South Africa ended a similar system of apartheid and the effects of that, including the beneficiaries of apartheid choosing to leave the country (often to Israel so they could keep doing apartheid) were preferable to keeping the unjust system.
Saying Israel doesn’t have a right to exist isn’t the same as saying all Jews should be forced to leave. Ideally, if they want to then they should be free to live in a country where Jews and Palestinians have equal rights, including the right to vote, such a country would no longer be an ethnostate and would probably not chose to call itself “Israel.”
Saying Israel doesn’t have a right to exist isn’t the same as saying all Jews should be forced to leave.
But it is virtually indistinguishable of what someone would say if they wished for ethnic cleansing. At the very least it sounds like a dog whistle. You could instead say Zionism or apartheid or fascist Israel has no right to exist.
And yeah, my original comment is also virtually indistinguishable from a mealymouthed moderate liberal lol.
But it is virtually indistinguishable of what someone would say if they wished for ethnic cleansing. At the very least it sounds like a dog whistle.
I have no patience for equating anti-zionism with antisemitism like this. This tactic is frequently used in bad faith by zionists to dismiss all criticism of Israel and to paint people as bigots for acknowledging that Palestinians have rights. For example, the US State Department explicitly lists criticism of the state of Israel as a form of “antisemitism,” “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” and, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” are both listed as example of it. Israel is an enthostate and it’s engaged in genocide and Lebensraum, and you have to be willing to brush off such spurious accusations of antisemitism to be reasonable.
No one said anything about Israelis or Jews or ethnic cleansing. What we’ve said is that Israel - the geopolitical entity - does not have a right to exist. It doesn’t. We could use a different term for Israel but we are in no way obligated to and shouldn’t be expected to. What we say is what we mean. If you read in some hidden meaning that we don’t say then you could do the same for just about anything anybody says.
I’m also disgusted by the rhetoric and new fascist antisemitism “definition”. I’m not uninformed or pro-Israel at all.
But I definitely consider “Palestine has no right to exist” as hate speech and would demand censoring / banning that. Because there is a clear implication. We can not afford to allow tolerance towards intolerance.
The only thing I would say in favor of OP is that because Palestine is currently weaker and the oppressed victim, and rightfully outraged, it’s not fair to demand higher standards from them and is therefor hypocritical.
The trick here is that “Palestine” does not refer to any state*; as such someone saying “Palestine has no right to exist” can be only talking about the population, and promoting ethnic cleansing. That’s why it’s hate speech.
On the other hand “Israel” can refer to both “the Israeli population” and “the state of Israel”. So, every bloody time you attack the later, you get people misrepresenting your attack as if it was against the population. And Zionists have been exploiting this for ages, to silence anyone who speaks against it.
*Palestine does a state (or something close to one), but people typically call it “Hamas” instead of “Palestine”.
During WWII I don’t think it would be unreasonable to say, “Germany doesn’t have a right to exist,” but if you said “Poland doesn’t have a right to exist,” that would be pretty different. The latter is justifying subjugation of the country but the former is objecting to the state doing the subjugating.
Is that actually a tolerable opinion in the sense of “paradox of tolerance”? Or is it hate speech that leads to intolerance?
Like “deport all jews from greater palestine” would mean ethnic cleansing which would not be tolerable. The only logical solution seems to be a 1 state solution that would need decades of investment, reeducation, de-nazification and de-radicalization on both sides.
Or said differently, “Palestine doesn’t have a right to exist” is not tolerable right?
Historic arguments that wold have been valid 70 years ago are now not useful since the reality is like it is. Something like “USA doesn’t have a right to exist, Europeans go home!” doesn’t make sense either except in the hypothetical where it would .
‘The Russians occupying Crimea cannot be deported that would be ethnic cleansing’. No it would not. There were Nazis occupying Polish houses and they were kicked out after WW2 and sent back where they came from.
‘Deport all Jews from Palestine’ would be ethnic cleansing as many Jews lived in Palestine before Zionism.
Palestinians have the full right to all their land back. If a European colonist is currently occupying it that is not their problem. The fact that their parents stole it in an ethnic cleansing does not change this in the slightest. Nor does them being Jewish mean that they suddenly get a special antisemitism exception to do colonialism and steal people’s houses.
A good video explanation here
South Africa ended a similar system of apartheid and the effects of that, including the beneficiaries of apartheid choosing to leave the country (often to Israel so they could keep doing apartheid) were preferable to keeping the unjust system.
Saying Israel doesn’t have a right to exist isn’t the same as saying all Jews should be forced to leave. Ideally, if they want to then they should be free to live in a country where Jews and Palestinians have equal rights, including the right to vote, such a country would no longer be an ethnostate and would probably not chose to call itself “Israel.”
But it is virtually indistinguishable of what someone would say if they wished for ethnic cleansing. At the very least it sounds like a dog whistle. You could instead say Zionism or apartheid or fascist Israel has no right to exist.
And yeah, my original comment is also virtually indistinguishable from a mealymouthed moderate liberal lol.
I have no patience for equating anti-zionism with antisemitism like this. This tactic is frequently used in bad faith by zionists to dismiss all criticism of Israel and to paint people as bigots for acknowledging that Palestinians have rights. For example, the US State Department explicitly lists criticism of the state of Israel as a form of “antisemitism,” “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” and, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” are both listed as example of it. Israel is an enthostate and it’s engaged in genocide and Lebensraum, and you have to be willing to brush off such spurious accusations of antisemitism to be reasonable.
No one said anything about Israelis or Jews or ethnic cleansing. What we’ve said is that Israel - the geopolitical entity - does not have a right to exist. It doesn’t. We could use a different term for Israel but we are in no way obligated to and shouldn’t be expected to. What we say is what we mean. If you read in some hidden meaning that we don’t say then you could do the same for just about anything anybody says.
I’m also disgusted by the rhetoric and new fascist antisemitism “definition”. I’m not uninformed or pro-Israel at all.
But I definitely consider “Palestine has no right to exist” as hate speech and would demand censoring / banning that. Because there is a clear implication. We can not afford to allow tolerance towards intolerance.
The only thing I would say in favor of OP is that because Palestine is currently weaker and the oppressed victim, and rightfully outraged, it’s not fair to demand higher standards from them and is therefor hypocritical.
The trick here is that “Palestine” does not refer to any state*; as such someone saying “Palestine has no right to exist” can be only talking about the population, and promoting ethnic cleansing. That’s why it’s hate speech.
On the other hand “Israel” can refer to both “the Israeli population” and “the state of Israel”. So, every bloody time you attack the later, you get people misrepresenting your attack as if it was against the population. And Zionists have been exploiting this for ages, to silence anyone who speaks against it.
*Palestine does a state (or something close to one), but people typically call it “Hamas” instead of “Palestine”.
During WWII I don’t think it would be unreasonable to say, “Germany doesn’t have a right to exist,” but if you said “Poland doesn’t have a right to exist,” that would be pretty different. The latter is justifying subjugation of the country but the former is objecting to the state doing the subjugating.