Top UN legal investigators conclude Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza

Israel was literally born out of political scheming to get assigned a portion of someone else's territory for an exclusive ethno-nationalistic state; then out of ethnically cleansing that territory. It was necessary to the project and planned in advanced.

You can be for the existence of a peaceful Israel that has entirely retreated within recognised borders and made amends for its past genocidal behaviour- but it's not what the current Israel is or, sadly, can ever be.

> There's still plenty of Labor or more progressive elements of the Israeli public who are against...

No. Not at all.

> Shouldn't similar preconditions of making amends apply to whether or not we accept the existence of those Arab states?

And what if they should? Do you think it make Israel's genocide look better now?

Stop trying to change the subject or shift the blame, it's a trick and it's pathetic.

It is called a rhetorical device. It is considering the ends of your argument. If you are British, French, German, American, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. and you support the argument that displacement or control of a people is bad, I agree, but consider what you would want to do and apply the rule fairly. Criticising one country for “taking” land when it was given that land by the same UN you use to claim that it is a genocidal country today… well that really is rich

Was it really the "same" UN? In 1947, most of the world was still colonized, and had no UN representation. France, Britain and the US might not have had much of a problem with telling some people in the Third World to give up their homeland, but sentiment in colonized countries would have been very different.

Also recall that it was only a UN recommendation, not a binding resolution.

Yes of course it's a rhetorical device, and it's meant to subtly change the subject to prevent engaging with it.

This conversation went like this:

>>>> ppl keep railing about being pro or anti Israel and it's overly simplistic and also not really accurately describing things. It's more pro/anti Likud or Kahanists

To which I replied that Israel is constitutionally born out of a pre-planned colonisation and ethnic cleansing and it's wrong to think that its supremacist ideology only belongs to a part of its political spectrum- it could change but it's unfortunately unrealistic.

>>> Israel was literally born out of political scheming to get assigned a portion of someone else's territory for an exclusive ethno-nationalistic state; then out of ethnically cleansing that territory. It was necessary to the project and planned in advance.

To which the GP replied with something that tries to change the subject on Arab states, at the same time introducing a historical falsehood:

>> The Arab states haven't made amends for ethnically cleansing huge numbers of Jews

Now,

1) the Arab states are not born out of a planned ethnic cleansing of anyone (at least not in the recent past)

2) Many, perhaps most of the Jews that immigrated to Israel did so voluntarily (made Aliyah)

3) By the way, Israel itself even engaged in false flag terrorism to push Jews to emigrate from Arab countries to Israel.

And most importantly, the argument has no bearing with the original subject, which is whether its a specific political side that is determining Israel's course now or the country is constitutionally like that. Arab countries have nothing to do with the subject, they belong to a different conversation.

Hope it helps.

> Israel was literally born out of political scheming

Its more of a popular jewish movement that over 100 years changed the ethnic composition of the Palestine region from 1-2% in the 1840s up to 30% in the 1940s.

Political scheming is secondary and was born well after the 1840s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palesti...

I was referring to the well documented deals and shenanigans that were instrumental first to get the promise of support for an Israeli homeland, and then in the UN to get the partition plan approved.

Zionism itself is a product of 19th century nationalisms and of course of a (widespread at the time) colonial mindset.

  > changed the ethnic composition of the Palestine region from 1-2% in the 1840s up to 30% in the 1940s.

That was the Ottomans who made that change. After losing a war to Prussia, to collect more taxes in 1856 they openly encouraged migration of all peoples - Jews, Christians, Muslims alike - to the Levant area. By the 1870s Jerusalem was Jewish majority, half a century before the British Mandate era began and even before the First Aliyah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerus...

Whatabouttism doesn't change the underlying topic

Because they didn’t do it on an industrial scale?

Do you still think that today its a colonial project ?

Because they aren't buying off Western politicians in bulk, but that's exactly what Israel is clearly doing

Does Israel still encourage colonies in the west bank?

Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to their indigenous homeland. Your Western leftist ideology have twisted the definition to your own agenda.

> What is industrial?

Curious you ask: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/israel-gaza-blockade-s...

And the Arab opposition movement that later became the Palestinian movement has ties to literal Nazis...

German and Bosnian WWII veterans, including a handful of former intelligence, Wehrmacht, and Waffen SS officers, were among the volunteers fighting for the Palestinian cause. Veterans of WWII Axis militaries were represented in the ranks of the ALA forces commanded by Fawzi al-Qawuqji (who had been awarded an officer's rank in the Wehrmacht during WWII) and in the Mufti's forces, commanded by Abd al-Qadir (who had fought with the Germans against the British in Iraq) and Salama (who trained in Germany as a commando during WWII and took part in a failed parachute mission into Palestine).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Arabian_Legion

Husseini is still regarded by many as 'the George Washington' of the Palestinian people, and if the Palestinians were to get a state of their own, he would be honored in the way our founding father is.

In February 1943 the first of three divisions was formed of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims, who wore fezes decorated with SS runes and were led in their prayers by regimental imams notionally under the supervision of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.(Mohammed Amin al-Husseini from 1921–1937)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

Have Israel and Palestine determined borders ? A ceasefire line is not a border after the ceasefire is broken and the front line moves

Do you really expect you can defend Israel with this kind of lawyering and be taken seriously? "Well akshually a ceasefire line...". For god's sake. Let's not even get into who has violated the supposed ceasefire first, or on the legality of settling your population outside of its line, violated or not (spoiler: illegal in any case). Settlements have been declared illegal many times during the decades, most recently this year by the ICJ, and Israel has known this perfectly well since the start.

Legality ends up following the de-facto reality. What's the future of the legality of Golan annexion ? With the new Syria, its soon going to become legal.

Jewish people coming back to live on its ancient homeland has no legal basis; It's their collective will which allowed its coming into existence (continuous immigration from other countries since the 1840s).

The legality of its existence wouldn't help it survive even one second.