Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Yes - just as you could with some aspects of American policy. Unfortunately terms like fascism end up not being very helpful in debates because they are used more as polemics to win arguments instead of analyzed based on their historical applications.
If you’re so eager for Jewish self determination - why doesn’t Britain or Germany give up portions of their land? The latter in particular was to blame for the holocaust so should it give land in return for carrying out the horrific acts of World War II?
Why is fascism not allowed to be compared to other forms of fascism? What makes the Israeli brand of facism so special that it deserves to be protected from any form of retribution or criticism? Is it that Arab lives matter less? What if Israel was invading the U.K. because another third party government had promised them that they deserved access to this land?
Final point. Judaism is a religion, what gives it the right to have access to a particular piece of land over the rights of any existing citizens who had set up home there? Not to mention a so called right which comes from a so called instruction from God thousands of years ago. It’s funny how the atheists and agnostics who are all too happy to call out Islam for various issues or flaws in their religion seem so eager to champion the ‘Israeli’ cause when in this instance it contravenes human rights.
As if it's not bad enough that IDF is committing human crimes, the media is bought and there is blatant ethnic cleansing - we must now also refrain from criticizing any of that because of so called "anti-semitism". That should tell you about the amount of control and bullying Israel carries through.
Apartheid is necessarily fascist and Israel is currently an apartheid state. In the OPT, they are undoubtedly fascist in both theory and practice.
No doubt fascism has been apparent in this country since at least the second WW.
I do see your point, ‘fascism’ could be misconstrued as a total label.
‘Fascistic’ would be a more apporpriate term, having elements of fascism.
And posts like these just water down israels crimes as "all countries have some aspects".
Don’t fall for their bullshit. Elvis been trying it on but enough is enough. Anti semitism my ass.
I get what @Raoul is saying about the terminology of ‘fascism.’ It’s more appropriate to deem policies embraced by Israel as ‘fascistic.’
I see how it could be taken as intentional antisemitism, but fascism isn’t simply nazism.
Which international body do you think has enforceable jurisdiction over Israel ?
Yea, some good posts from @Raoul there.
I personally think that describing Israel as fascist would be inaccurate but not antisemitic. (Though there are some fascist elements, especially under bibi)
While there are certainly some comparisons that are hurtful there is value in some of those criticisms; however, groups like the one elvis mentioned try their best to stifle genuine discussion.
Fair enough. I agree the broad umbrella of ‘fascism’ is not completely appropriate, but there are certainly fascistic elements.
I say that because, generally, criticism of Israel isn't received well.
Which internation bodies had enforceable jurisdiction over South Africa? The inability to hold Israel to account because of the UN's system of veto doesn't mean that Israel is not, in practical terms, guilty of the crime of apartheid which humanitarian and autonomounous agencies have concluded.
But the point was specifically about comparisons to Nazism. It's not a blanket point about criticism, based on the list criticisms are accepted with two caveats no comparisons to nazism and no confusions between jews and the state of Israel.
For me that's fair and doesn't stiffle genuine discussions because no genuine discussions would end up with either things happening.
In reality none as Israel is never accountable for its actions but in theory U.N to start with?
Insensitive? Yes. But the unfortunate truth is that they are doing a bang up job of brutalising a subjugated population, and taking many leafs out of the fascists playbook.
For what it's worth, I personally liken the Israelis actions to apartheid, rather than Nazism, though the end goal of Israel (under Netanyahu) is (at the absolute minimum) the overall displacement of the indigenous Arab population from the lands of historic Palestine, which is most definitely much much closer to the Nazis than apartheid era South Africa.
I'd say the other side of the Zionist divide (the left of centre, liberal side) are more happy to keep the previous status quo and just live in a perpetual state of apartheid, where the Palestinians are second class citizens. They don't want to give them the vote, or grant equal citizenship to them because they know the demographics just aren't on their side in any way shape or form.
So for the Palestinians, it's almost literally a case of picking their poison cos either way they are fecked.
Whoooooooooooooosh.
Correct - the answer there is none. And in the absence of any enforceable legal mechanism, everything is simply reduced to personal opinion.
If the security council did something then that would have a lot of credibility, especially since they rarely agree over much, especially issues of conflict.
@JPRouve You know who abby martin is right, and just how heavily doctored that video is likely to be at the time of posting?
Agreed. The UN should in theory take charge in situations like this, but the security council is broken and nothing gets done if one of its members vetos new resolutions condemning things.
By doctored do you mean that the full sentences uttered never happened or that she carefully selected the most incendiary comments?
I agree that there is no mechanism at present to enforce legal ramifications, but disagree about personal opinion. We all know Russia anexed Crimea - that isn't a personal opinion because there was no way of holding them to account. And the security council did agree over a resolution condeming Israel (14/15 members voted in favour with only the US vetoing it, so it didn't pass).
And there is value in some of those comparisons. To say no comparisons to Nazism stifles debate and controls the narrative. If someone says "Netanyahu is basically Hitler", yeah there's no value there and it's hurtful and polemic but pointing out similarities in actions and policy isn't, it's genuinely critical and not being allowed to criticize the state of Israel in this way means that only one side wins.
Last edited:
According to this professor, writing for Haaretz in 2019, what Israel is doing is ticking those boxes off.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...s-slide-into-fascism-was-accidental-1.7338787
So then the distinguishing factor would be whether the power brokers (such as the US and EU) agree on it. In the case of Crimea there was widespread agreement over what happened. Due to political considerations, that agreement does not currently exist on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
I have no idea who that reporter is, or what sort of channel she represents, but there must be some James Cameron level production shit going on for you to try and argue against those responses.
Yes, but not even the US/EU. I think the only distinguishing factor at present is whether/when the US is ready to cede to international pressure. The EU is already there (as are Russia and China).
Abby Martin is anti zionist, so the video is curated and she won't put the normal answers that other people gave. Now my point was about the extremists which is why I said that the video didn't paint the full picture.
The King David
In the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003 the media similarly fetishized the weaponry and military capacity of the US and the UK. Shock and Awe was reported on as "the awesome capacity of America's projection of power" as if they were commentating on a sporting event. It helps them avoid other frames like "city is bombarded and thousands of people murdered".
Yeah its a bit like asking Ben Shapiro to make a video.
I highly recommend this channel for down to earth convos with Israelis and Palestinians without the usual filter of political curation.
Definitely. I think anybody completely comfortable with every element of Israeli policy has their head in the sand or is a loon.
It just becomes very difficult to focus on criticising them or on the plight of people when it's jumbled up in everything else. All a thread like this seems to do is harden the positions of everybody. And I include myself in that. I'm probably central to left leaning on the Israeli supporting side and reading this thread makes me realise it will probably never end, no matter how much Israel were to give.
Your term 'curated' is more accurate. I've no doubt some people in Israel hold those vile views.
Though I'd be loathe to use a source who thinks the US and Israel did 9/11, defended Chavez and Putin, and generally writes propoganda for whoever pays.
Spot on.
Also, I'd just like to point out that Israel is an ethno nationalist state. It's whole idea of citizenry is predicated upon what your race and ethnicity is. It is the literal textbook definition of racism.
I just want Jewish/Arab/Palestinian/Israeli to live side by side and in peace. Until both sides accept the other has a right to be there there will never be peace.