←back to thread

517 points xbar | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.112s | source | bottom
Show context
voisin ◴[] No.39143281[source]
Perhaps I am unlearned in this area but I am unclear why the Jewish state, after its people experienced the atrocities of World War II, would act in this manner toward the Palestinians. Can anyone shed light on this? I understand completely the need to rid the world of Hamas terrorists, but in the process they have shown a reckless disregard (to put it mildly) for Palestinian people and their wellbeing.
replies(26): >>39143315 #>>39144129 #>>39145467 #>>39145571 #>>39146315 #>>39146325 #>>39146355 #>>39146585 #>>39146677 #>>39146736 #>>39146745 #>>39146904 #>>39146922 #>>39146989 #>>39147190 #>>39147193 #>>39147229 #>>39147339 #>>39147811 #>>39147831 #>>39147998 #>>39148384 #>>39148695 #>>39149047 #>>39150144 #>>39155501 #
tehjoker ◴[] No.39146315[source]
Zionism is an ideology that took inspiration from the British empire. It was intended to be "something colonial" and pre-dated the atrocities of WW2. The fascist atrocities in WW2 can be interpreted as colonial tactics applied to Europeans, after all the British had been doing extremely bloody concentration camps in Africa and starved India during WW2. For some reason, Africa doesn't get the same play. I wonder why.

So people that engage in colonialism end up doing similar crimes. Israel remains probably the only old school colonial project in the present day with present day technology, backed by the U.S. empire to secure geopolitical interests in the oil-rich region among other things.

Something to think about: America is also a genocidal settler-colonial project and is one of the only nations to back Israel in the UN. Our genocide is still ongoing: visit a native american reservation and witness the immense poverty. Similarly to Gaza, the US state will simply say that despite being an occupying power, these are autonomous zones and we have little responsibility.

replies(2): >>39146489 #>>39147271 #
vladgur ◴[] No.39146489[source]
Modern-day Zionism to me and many others means that Israel has the right to exist.

It does not absolve many, including self-proclaimed Zionists, from criticizing some of Israel policies.

On other hand, my interpretation of people who are self-proclaimed anti-Zionists logically flows from above statement that they believe that the present state of Israel DOES NOT have a right to exist. Which implies deportation of extermination of 6 million Jewish Israelis

In my opinion, the word Zionism has been hijacked by activists who know that being anti-Jewish is not good optics, but anti-Zionizm is still something that can be sold to the masses.

replies(3): >>39146531 #>>39147450 #>>39147924 #
1. charred_patina ◴[] No.39147450[source]
> Modern-day Zionism to me and many others means that Israel has the right to exist.

I think the framing of this argument is so tricky, because states don't have any rights. States aren't human beings. There is so much to unpack in the statement "X state has a right to exist".

> On other hand, my interpretation of people who are self-proclaimed anti-Zionists logically flows from above statement that they believe that the present state of Israel DOES NOT have a right to exist. Which implies deportation of extermination of 6 million Jewish Israelis

I am not saying that Israel's borders should be dissolved, but if Israel and Palestine were integrated into a single state where Jews and Arabs had equal rights, would this not still be a home for Jews?

Destruction of the state of Israel is not equivalent with the genocide of all Israeli Jews, unless your definition of genocide is the same as the one used by white supremacists in the US, who believe that letting non-whites into the country is genocide.

The point I am trying to make is that is Zionism, by your definition, exclusionary? If so then what you are describing is an ethnostate, which many would argue is a fascist idea.

Jews, Roma, Kurds, and all ethnic minorities deserve human rights. However, they are not entitled to statehood and their states are not entitled to any rights themselves.

Also, I do agree there are antisemites who say "zionism" as a dogwhistle for "jews".

replies(1): >>39148012 #
2. TimPC ◴[] No.39148012[source]
Do you really think this is possible? Can you name a single state in the world with a majority muslim population that hasn't adopted any laws based on religion or passed any laws that discriminate against non-muslims?

Do you think it's realistic that if Israel is replaced by a new state tomorrow that has a majority arab muslim population it won't quickly become somewhat theocratic and enforce some degree of religious law against people of other religions? I think this outside view of a one state solution pretends the entire population of Israel believes in some sort of Western Democratic values and will provide a strong foundation of individual rights. I just don't see good evidence for that.

replies(2): >>39148210 #>>39149361 #
3. Mandain62 ◴[] No.39148210[source]
> Can you name a single state in the world with a majority muslim population that hasn't adopted any laws based on religion or passed any laws that discriminate against non-muslims?

Ironically this can be applied on isreal which declare itself Jewish state and have law of return [1] which allow any Jewish a right to "come" to isreal but does not extend the same to arab who were kicked during establishment of isreal

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

replies(1): >>39148647 #
4. TimPC ◴[] No.39148647{3}[source]
I'm not arguing there shouldn't be two states. I see the best path forward as likely Israel existing as a Jewish state and Palestine existing as a Muslim state. I don't think either side has a majority population willing to exist in a state with absolute freedom of religion and no religious policies. Far fewer people live as oppressed minorities if there are two states than if there is one.
replies(1): >>39150050 #
5. charred_patina ◴[] No.39149361[source]
> Can you name a single state in the world with a majority muslim population that hasn't adopted any laws based on religion or passed any laws that discriminate against non-muslims?

I don't know that Turkey has zero discriminatory laws against non-muslims, but they managed to operate as a secular state for almost 100 years before Erdogan.

> Do you think it's realistic that if Israel is replaced by a new state tomorrow that has a majority arab muslim population it won't quickly become somewhat theocratic and enforce some degree of religious law against people of other religions?

I have no way of knowing this.

> I think this outside view of a one state solution pretends the entire population of Israel believes in some sort of Western Democratic values and will provide a strong foundation of individual rights. I just don't see good evidence for that.

Noam Chomsky and Norm Finkelstein both agree with you on this point, and I tend to agree with them. My argument was not that a one-state solution was viable, but I was trying to get the OP to say if their idea of Zionism was exclusionary or not.

Personally I do not think that a one-state solution would be possible unless mass de-radicalization took place, because Israeli ethno-nationalists see coexistence as genocide. I think the most viable option is a two-state solution, where a competent Palestinian standing army could hopefully force some sort of detente.

6. toyg ◴[] No.39150050{4}[source]
In other words, separate but equal! Where did I hear that already?

The state of the debate on this problem is so shockingly bad, it dishonours the long tradition of superb Jewish intellectuals.

replies(1): >>39150171 #
7. dang ◴[] No.39150171{5}[source]
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN generally, and especially not in this thread.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html