Why cant they be just one country? Israel isnt just Jews. I mean they have one election after another to find a government. Join, have an election and go from there. I dont understand the allure of having your own state. And its not just there. You see it in Spain, in the Southeast of Europe as well. These countries barely have the means to exist. I am not naive I understand that the history of the ruling class sucks. They always favour one over another. Is it so hard to make politics for everyone and not just some?
Racist apartheid state has the full backing of the evil US empire, no reason for them to stop running their open air prison
2 Likes
Of course it’s a deterrent. The Iron Dome isn’t 100% effective. Some rockets get through. The Palestinian willingness to use asymmetric tactics, target civilians, and suffer losses far greater than they inflict is the only reason there is still a Palestine.
I’m admittedly pretty ignorant but Israel just looks cartoonishly evil to me.
I think that’s called “perspective”.
that seems like a pretty shallow statement in political philosophy terms. Especially considering the socialist background and the ‘fully’ socialist communities at the time (‘kibbutzim’).
if you want to say that no one living in a nation state can be ‘left’ that’s fine, but will probably end up being a ‘no true scotsman’ rather than an actual stand.
1 Like
I think the walls did a lot of damage to Israel. I had a summer job at an engineering firm in 1986. Everyone but me was either Israeli or Palestinian. I know there were political differences and I talked to the Palestinians about it, but they were all used to living and working with each other.
1 Like
I think asking who can broker a deal is the wrong question. The question is what can give Israel the incentive to do a deal. If maintaining the status quo eventually gives them everything they want, why should they ever give in? It’s the same as asking what the incentive is for Republicans to ever agree to bipartisan compromise when doing so goes against their interest.
The answer is the same for both Republicans and Israel. You must present them with an existential threat so that doing a deal gives them the best chance of survival. Israel’s primary objective is to exist. Create the conditions where failing to negotiate increases the chances that Israel will not be there tomorrow and they will come to the table. That doesn’t happen so long as the United States guarantees the survival of Israel.
This is a very difficult road to travel because creating a credible threat to Israel’s existence means creating a non-zero chance of another Jewish genocide. I would understand if someone felt that even a tiny chance of that happening was unacceptable.
So, what would make Israel afraid enough to come to the table? It’s clear that one thing that the Israelis are afraid of is the potential of Iranian nukes. If I wanted to force them to make a deal, I would threaten to allow Iran to proceed with a nuclear weapons program, to not try to stop them, and to even protect Iran from Israel unless a deal was made.
But allowing Iran to proceed is fraught with other risks. It’s a legitimate question to ask if it would be better to sacrifice the Palestinian people bit by bit if it means avoiding a Saudi-Iranian nuclear war in the region.
the first question that needs answering is what is the ‘deal’.
as easy as you might want it to sound like, there is no easy answer.
i’ll get some kneejerk answers for sure, but reality is more complicated, no matter how right you are that the current situation is morally and objectively wrong.
1 Like
Zionism is the idea of creating a new nation state, and one based around race/religion to boot. That’s a pretty right wing concept. Once you are born into that situation then to be left you have to be willing to embrace policies that will lead to the supposed “destruction” of that nation state, imo, especially its ethnic character…for example, supporting a open door immigration policy to anyone who wants to come.
But to be clear, the Zionist folks who fought to create Israel were pretty radical people. Most Jews thought so too until the Holocaust then it become then liberal Jews understandably embracing a right wing concept out of a calculation that it was needed for survival… like a left winger in America who decided to buy a gun because everyone else has them and they sense unrest coming.
1 Like
Most of the Zionists in the early 1900s and before were literal communist and socialists.
There is a lot of reverse engineering here based on lack of historical knowledge.
But for the sake of my post before that Canada replied to, my definition of ‘left’ in this situation was ‘people actively attempting to end the occupation’. For a full analysis of leftism and zionism there a lot more mutual agreement on historical facts needed and I don’t think it’s highly interesting.
2 Likes
Communists/Socialists who prioritize forming their own state based around religion/ethnicity… yeah, seem like pretty radical people to me! You see a lot of this supposed contradiction among modern right wingers today.
It was a pretty unique and atrocious recent history that led to the formation of the state of Israel. I don’t think it should be seen in the same light as other groups wanting to set up ethno-states especially as those groups claim racial superiority not survival as their rationale.
2 Likes
You are free to question that and have a discussion. You blatantly lied when you said I don’t blame Israel for anything. You even failed to explain why keeping Bibi in power is a bad move for the Palestinians given the alternatives (A pro-annexation Bennett as prime minister, for example).
You also specifically said that civilians in Israel are not allowed to be terrified of rocket attacks. Your sociopathic lack of empathy isn’t new.
5 Likes
Was Karl Marx not a literal communist? Socialism goes back to the 18th century at least - people started calling themselves socialists in the mid-19th century. And even if you just mean people in power, there’s still revolutionary France and the Paris Commune and more.
Not quite sure what you mean by the use of ‘radical’ in these posts. It appears to be more of an judgement adjective. They were radical right wingers? I don’t think you can find any historian or political scientist who would agree with that.
not sure what you are replying to. I didn’t say they were the only ones.
Misread actually, my bad. My first pass reading was “before THERE were literal communists”.
1 Like
Trump is more “left wing” that traditional Rs on pretty much every economic issue, but he cares more than the vast majority of them about preserving America’s white character. That, to me, overrides everything else as far as “liberalism” because dividing among people among race/religion is the most right wing thing a person can do… and once a person has made clear that is what their goal is then the economic stuff is just tactics in achieving that goal.
This. It was a matter of desperation for most people and also, lots of left-wing Jews who immigrated were hoping to live alongside the people who were already there. The refugees of course were just wanting to live. They were not given their property back in Poland or the Ukraine or w/e and it looked pretty much like death to go back and no other country (including the US) were allowing refugees in in large numbers. And pogroms didn’t start in WW2.