Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumA Closer Look at Students for Justice in Palestine
A vile racist organization adored by the BDS movement.
You might expect this student club to be a far-right Zionist organization. You would be dead wrong: The fanatical club that leaves open the possibility of a racist one-state solution is Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a pro-Palestinian liberation group that pretends to be passionate about social justice while actively perpetuating oppression. J Street U and the Claremont Progressive Israel Alliance, the other two clubs at the 5Cs that take positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, strongly advocate for a two-state solution.
SJP rallies its members using the troubling chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” This slogan seems inspiring until one realizes that in order to create a state stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, Israel – the only Jewish state in the world – would have to be totally annihilated. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, has publicly stated that the Palestinian people “would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.” This really means that no Jews would be allowed in Palestine; presumably, Abbas would not expel Israel’s 1.7 million Arab citizens.
SJP members have intimidated and even assaulted Jewish students across the country, including those engaged in religious rather than overtly Zionist activities. In 2014, SJP’s chapter at Loyola University Chicago physically intimidated and verbally harassed a group of students associated with Hillel who were handing out pamphlets advertising trips to Israel. The SJP members surrounded the Hillel table to prevent passing students from approaching and harangued the Jewish students with hostile questions such as, “How does it feel to be an occupier?” and “How does it feel to be guilty of ethnic cleansing?”.
<snip>
....As someone who is deeply interested in progressive causes, I am adamant that those of us involved in social justice must stop legitimizing the radical anti-Israel rhetoric espoused by Students for Justice in Palestine. Unless the organization stops attacking Jewish students around the country and formally endorses a two-state solution that would allow for peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, it should be roundly condemned as a fringe political group with no right to claim solidarity with groups who advocate for racial justice.
http://tsl.news/opinions/6023/
Also...
"The Jews are our dogs"
-Founder & President of Students for Justice in Palestine @PaceUniversity Nihal Al-Qawasmi
https://twitter.com/canarymission/status/782098012915073024
http://linkis.com/canarymission.org/0RCdA
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
6chars
(3,967 posts)Doesn't that mean we have to support them?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Source: The Forward, September 27, 2016
Canary Mission aims to keep pro-Palestinian activists from getting jobs after college. It has posted lengthy profiles, including photographs and academic majors, on hundreds of undergraduate student activists.
The new petition, released September 27, calls the website’s tactics “McCarthyist,” and asserts that information gathered by the site should not be considered by admissions committees at university graduate programs.
“We condemn Canary Mission as an effort to intimidate and blacklist students and faculty who stand for justice for Palestinians,” the new petition reads.
Read more: http://forward.com/news/350911/1-000-professors-condemn-blacklisting-of-pro-palestinian-activists/
shira
(30,109 posts)CUNY strongly condemned the anti-Semitic incidents detailed in the report, but declined to ban SJP from its campuses in deference to the principle of free expression, which applies even to objectionable speech.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8130
Do the decent thing and condemn SJP for the antisemitic racists they are.
Can you do that?
No deflections, no if's or but's. Just a full-throated condemnation of SJP racists. Are you able to do it?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)The people at Campus Reform don't like Clinton, are fawning over Ted Cruz, are promoting Campus Carry, don't like gender-neutral celebrations, and don't want illegal immigrants on campus (Sorry for the many links, but it was a fun read...):
VIDEO: Hillary voters know more about Harambe than Tim Kaine
Source: Campus Reform
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8214
---
Ted Cruz calls to cut funding of universities that boycott Israel
Source: Campus Reform, Jun 02, 2015
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6544
--
UT campus carry task force urges schools to ban guns in as many places as possible
Source: Campus Reform, 14, 2016
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7169
---
App State joins gender-neutral homecoming bandwagon
Source: Campus Reform, Oct 04, 2016
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8212
---
Illegal immigrants should 'be treated as Americans,' Crimson editors assert
Source: Campus Reform, Oct 04, 2016
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8209
shira
(30,109 posts)...The report found that much of the offensive speech – even if featured at die-ins, mock checkpoints and student signs and banners – was protected under the First Amendment. “As a public university, CUNY is limited in the ways that it can respond to hate speech, whether the words are anti-Semitic, racist, anti-Muslim, or anti-LGBT,” the report stated.
“CUNY cannot punish such speech unless it is part of a course of conduct so pervasive or severe that it denies a person’s ability to pursue an education or participate in University life. It cannot mandate civility or sanction isolated derogatory comments,” the attorneys wrote.
“But what CUNY cannot punish, it can still condemn,” they said. They noted that “as a general rule, CUNY’S Administrators and College Presidents have spoken out against anti-Semitic comments. That practice must continue; hate speech must be challenged promptly and forcefully lest it breed.”
The report added, “What CUNY can sanction is threatening conduct that puts a community member in fear for his safety.” It said actions that go beyond offensive speech – like threatening violence or forcibly pulling signs from the hands of a demonstrator – should be punished if the persons responsible are identified.....
<snip>
“There is no finding of a pervasive atmosphere hostile to Jewish students which significantly interferes with their educational opportunities, but there is documentation of many examples of hateful speech and protest by individuals and by some student organizations that are troubling,” Yudof and Waltzer said in a letter to Chancellor Milliken. “The messages are hurtful to Jewish students even if they are constitutionally protected. A few other actions beyond protected speech, the report affirms, involved conduct bordering on assaults.”
http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2016/09/09/cuny-should-continue-to-condemn-hate-speech-while-protecting-first-amendment-rights-says-anti-semitism-report/
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)The findings don't support your conclusion on SJP. Interestingly, the Canary Mission is mentioned as victimizing students who hold pro-Palestinian views in the report (p10), but I suppose you think that intimidation of political opponents is OK when the opponents hold different views than you. I personally think that intimidation of political opponents is a serious issue, and that SJP should tone down their rhetoric. But at the same time, the Canary Mission is a much more serious offender in that regard, and should be removed.
Here's a quote from the report that IMHO illustrates the findings pretty well:
(snip p23-24)
http://www2.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/page-assets/news/newswire/assets/CUNYReport.pdf
shira
(30,109 posts)At least that's what you acknowledged a short time ago when Amos Oz stated that anyone calling for the death of Israel is an antisemite.
Or was that another Little Tich?
Then again, maybe you "forgot".
Perhaps ending the state of Israel isn't hateful at all and is part of that "new antisemitism" bunk...
aranthus
(3,386 posts)A bunch of Leftist anti-Israel academics condemn Canary Mission for calling them out as Leftist and anti-Israel without any proof that Canary Mission is being untruthful, and you think that proves that they are a hate site? Don't you think that at a minimum there should be some proof that Canary Mission is lying about these people? And what makes for a hate site? Merely being opposed to the political views of Leftists? Opposing Palestinian propaganda? Even assuming that Canary Mission paints with too broad a brush, given the large amount of antisemitism that lies at the foundation of the anti-Israel narrative, how does that make Canary Mission hateful?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Source: The Forward, May 27, 2015
“It is your duty to ensure that today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees,” a female narrator intones in a slick video posted to the website’s YouTube account.
Called Canary Mission, the site has posted profiles of dozens of students and recent graduates, alongside those of well-known activists like Omar Barghouti, founder of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Some of the students are active in Students for Justice in Palestine; others were involved in recent pro-BDS resolutions at campuses in California. Many of them have relatively thin activist résumés.
“The focus on young people and students is an effort to try to tell people that there will be a price for you taking a political position,” said Ali Abunimah, founder of the pro-Palestinian website The Electronic Intifada. “It’s an effort to punish and deter people from standing up for what they believe.”
Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, defended the tactic as a way of forcing people to understand the seriousness of their political stands.
“Factually documenting who one’s adversaries are and making this information available is a perfectly legitimate undertaking,” Pipes wrote in an email. “Collecting information on students has particular value because it signals them that attacking Israel is serious business, not some inconsequential game, and that their actions can damage both Israel and their future careers.”
Despite its dedication to documenting the identities of pro-Palestinian activists, Canary Mission seems to have gone to great lengths to keep the identities of its own members and backers well hidden. There are no names of Canary Mission staff members, volunteers, donors or allies on the site.
Read more: http://forward.com/news/308902/shadowy-web-site-creates-black-list-of-pro-palestinian-activists/
---
ANTI-ANTI-SEMITIC FUNDAMENTALISM
Source: Tablet Mag, May 27, 2015
There is something undeniably humorous about Canary Mission, the new website in which unnamed people accuse unknown people of unmentionable crimes. Not intentionally so, of course. The website aims to “expose individuals and groups that are anti-Freedom, anti-American, and anti-Semitic,” which The Forward made clear in an article Wednesday. To that end, it posts photographs, short biographies, and social media information of various pro-Palestinian, pro-boycotting-Israel, and anti-Zionist campus activists. You know, so they can be flamed on Twitter. Or blackballed at their McKinsey interviews.
But, if anything, the site makes pro-Israel activism—or at least anti-anti-Israel activism—look ridiculous. And it’s not just because it capitalizes “Freedom,” as if it’s a sports drink.
For one thing, Canary Mission, whose basic accusation against many of its targets is that they have shadowy funding sources and suspect connections, has shadowy funding sources and connections itself, The Forward notes. It’s not even self-respecting McCarthyism: the good senator from Appleton, Wisc., was willing to show his face.
Second, the site’s list of suspect “organizations” lumps Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood together with lefty websites like Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada, which are sometimes scurrilous, sometimes helpful, but rarely murderous. Plenty of pro-Israel journalists have occasion to read Mondoweiss (they just do so in secret, and tell their spouses they’re looking at porn).
In its short biographies of the enemies, Canary Mission seems willing to throw any day-old hummus at the wall and see what sticks. To take one example, the site repeats the charge that Northeastern University law student Max Geller once, “during a visit to the West Bank … posed for a photograph draped in bullets and holding a PK-class machine gun.” There is, it’s true, a photograph circulating of Geller with bullets around his neck; he looks like an idiot. But he denies that he was in the West Bank (he says he was in Egypt), and nobody has any proof otherwise. It’s just an urban legend. Elsewhere, the site damns Jewish Voice for Peace’s Rebecca Vilkomerson because she “writes extensively about Islamophobia and is far less vocal regarding anti-Semitism.” It’s as if she’s a premature anti-fascist.
Read more: http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/191272/anti-anti-semitic-fundamentalism
aranthus
(3,386 posts)All you have done here is post more of the same kind of BS that you posted before. It is just as subject to my challenge as your original post. Anyone can throw up any number of baloney opinion pieces about Israel and Jews. They don't mean anything. Neither article has any real evidence of falsehood on Canary Mission. Neither even tries to defeat the true thrust of Canary Mission's argument: that underlying much of the anti-Israel crowd position is good old fashioned Leftist antisemitism. They can't because the charge is true.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)to say the damnedest things without repercussions. Compiling blacklists of political opponents just like the US Government did in the good old days of McCarthyism, is protected speech too.
But the question is whether it's actually morally right to do so...
aranthus
(3,386 posts)First, since Canary Mission prints its statements, the tort is libel, not slander. Second, since it is a tort, it isn't protected speech. You can sue people for libel, and no doubt if Canary Mission were guilty of libel they would have been successfully sued long before now. What is protected is truth. You can't win a lawsuit against someone for printing the truth just because you don't like it. And that is really your problem. You don't like Canary Mission for calling out the hatefulness of your side, and you want to condemn them even though they haven't done anything wrong, just because it's your side that is being called out. Both Shira and I have asked you several times for evidence that Canary Mission is printing lies. You don't have any. The side you support is deeply steeped in hate, and Canary Mission is doing the world a service by pointing it out.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)My interest in the I/P issue is primarily based on where I stand on civil rights and democracy in general. I have no opinions that are specific to the I/P issue.
When it comes to the Canary Mission, I think it's good to ask oneself what the difference is between the truth and misleading information.
shira
(30,109 posts)Well?
Anytime now...
shira
(30,109 posts)If there's ever a Palestinian state, there won't be civil rights and democracy. You know that.
If the so-called BDS version of 1-state from the river to the sea goes into effect with a secular state, that's a recipe for disaster given 9 of 10 Palestinians oppose a secular state. The Israelis won't go for that either. So that won't fly.
That leaves the only option as 1 Jewish state, greater Israel, liberal democracy. That's the only way to ensure Palestinians have civil rights within a democracy, as Israeli Arab Palestinians have now within Israel, the Golan, and E.Jerusalem. Greater Israel is the goal of Israel's far Rightwing. It should be yours as well if you're for civil rights & democracy.
How am I wrong?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)The idea that Arabs can't integrate and participate in a democratic society is awfully similar to the "Eurabia" myth that's being promoted in some circles. I don't believe it's true - the evidence shows that Arabs are normal people too, and have no more difficulties participating in a democratic society than anyone else. (If you prick me, etc...)
You don't have to go far to have your notions about Palestinians refuted, just look at Arab citizens in Israel: the problem isn't that they have problems with Israel or democratic values - the problem is that Israel has a problem with them and try to make it difficult for them to participate in Israel's democracy. They and Israel would only benefit from more democracy, not the opposite.
shira
(30,109 posts)But that's not the point of this post.
You wrote:
You don't have to go far to have your notions about Palestinians refuted, just look at Arab citizens in Israel: the problem isn't that they have problems with Israel or democratic values - the problem is that Israel has a problem with them and try to make it difficult for them to participate in Israel's democracy. They and Israel would only benefit from more democracy, not the opposite.
You're wrong. Maybe 10% are for 1-secular democratic state with equal rights for all.
From 1988:Of the 1,024 people surveyed, only 10.4 percent shared Mr. Abu-Lughod's dream of a ''democratic, secular'' Palestinian state. Instead, nearly 60 percent dream of a state founded on Islamic law (26.5 percent) or on a hybrid of Islam and Arab nationalism (29.6 percent).
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/06/opinion/l-who-wants-a-democratic-secular-palestine-807988.html
From 2011:About how the respondents identify themselves, the majority, 57%, identified themselves as Muslims, 21% identified themselves as Palestinians first, 19% as human beings first and 5% as Arabs first.
The increase in adherence to religious identity is also reflected in the system preferred by the Palestinian people.
About 40% of the respondents said that they believe that the Islamic caliphate is the best system for Palestinians, 24% chose a system like one of the Arab countries, and 12 % prefer a system like one of the European countries.
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16042
From 2014:The goal should be to work for a one-state solution in all of the land:
a state in which Arabs and Jews will have equal rights in one country, from the river to the sea.
11.2% (W.Bank) 8.2% (Gaza) 10.1% (Total)
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/PalestinianPollingReport_June2014.pdf
You should admit you're wrong.
Neither the Israelis or Palestinians want the "BDS 1-state solution".
90% of Palestinians are against it.
Now you're wrong, aren't you?
shira
(30,109 posts)Save the opinion pieces.
Unless you can show Canary Mission lies or is doing something illegal, you've got nothing.
Canary Mission exposes today's neo-nazis & Jew haters hiding behind antizionism. That makes them an admirable organization.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)and against the same notion (#3) in the same thread is lost on you. Why is one form of political intimidation "good" and the other "bad"?
I'm obviously not as skilled in moral relativism as you are...
aranthus
(3,386 posts)All she did was ask you to condemn the hatefulness of some of the people on your side. That isn't a denial of free speech. It's a call for you to be intellectually honest and decent. Can you do that?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)of them being included in free speech rather than the opposite. If you interpret the posts as a defense of their right to free speech, that's entirely up to you...
I think we've reached an impasse of sorts. I can't force you to admit that what the Canary Mission is doing may be even remotely dodgy, nor can I successfully blame you for openly supporting them or some other similar practice with a negative connotation. I really feel that intimidating political opponents is bad, but how can I convince you that the views promoted by those on the Canary Mission blacklist are part of the normal discourse and that there's no valid reason to suppress them?
Hmm...
shira
(30,109 posts)SJP leaders are obviously racists but you're unable to condemn them.
Why?
Here's an example showing they're against the existence of Israel, which you recently stated was antisemitic when Amos Oz mentioned it.
https://twitter.com/sjpuncovered/status/725348702341222405
Here's another in video, "Free, free Palestine, we want '48 (1948, all Israel) we don't want 2 states...."
https://www.facebook.com/sjpuncovered/videos/vb.737490413064237/772524056227539/?type=2&theater
Condemn them. Do the right thing.
BTW, is posting that video rant by SJP on Facebook a form of intimidation, CanaryMission style?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)If they can't find any substance in the allegations, what's the point in looking further?
shira
(30,109 posts)I realize you hate admitting wrongdoing on your side, but come on.
You just admitted weeks ago that calling for an end to Israel is antisemitic. What's stopping you from condemning SJP and moving on?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)All I see is a lot of other things that you interpret as calling for Israel's destruction. As you seem to think that giving Palestinians civil rights is the same as destroying Israel, I would say that your interpretation is BS.
But do you think that findings of the CUNY report on SJP is wrong? If you're not able to thrash the report, I'll stick with it, sorry...
shira
(30,109 posts)All of BDS calls for Israel destruction via Right-of-Return, including SJP and other racist organizations like JVP, PSC, & the ISM.
The founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti admits his movement wants Israel ended.
“I do not buy into the two state solution. It is not just pragmatically impossible, it was never a moral solution. The first issue would be the right of return, but if the refugees were to return you cannot have a two state solution like one Palestinian commentator remarked. You will have a Palestinian State next to a Palestinian State, rather than a Palestinian State next to Israel.”
Omar Barghouti, Ottawa University, March 4, 2009
Mahmoud Abbas admits allowing for millions of Palestinian refugees will end Israel
Abbas Deemed It 'Illogical' for Israel to Absorb 5 Million Refugees, Palestine Papers Show
"On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million," Abbas said, according to the details of the Palestine papers. "That would mean the end of Israel."
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/abbas-deemed-it-illogical-for-israel-to-absorb-5-million-refugees-palestine-papers-show-1.338981
Longtime BDS advocates Norman Finkelstein & Noam Chomsky admit BDS wants Israel gone.
I’ve earned my right to speak my mind, and I’m not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of leftist posturing.
I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuous. They don’t want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three-tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result?
You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel!
. . .
It’s not an accidental and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention Israel. You know that and I know that. It’s not like they’re “oh we forgot to mention it.” They won’t mention it because they know it will split the movement. ‘Cause there’s a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel.
#t=598
And then there are boycotters of settlements who oppose BDS because they know BDS calls for the end of Israel.Peter Beinart
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/to-save-israel-boycott-the-settlements.html?_r=0
http://honestreporting.com/peter-beinart-i-disagree-with-the-goals-of-bds/
Bernard Avishai
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-e-u-vs-b-d-s-the-politics-of-israel-sanctions
https://www.thenation.com/article/opinionnation-forum-boycott-divestment-sanctions-bds/
Deborah Dash Moore
http://www.jta.org/2014/09/22/news-opinion/united-states/hundreds-of-academics-sign-anti-bds-petition?utm_source=Newsletter+subscribers&utm_campaign=91649a240e-JTA_Daily_Briefing_9_23_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2dce5bc6f8-91649a240e-25322121
Michael Walzer of Third-Narrative
http://jpupdates.com/2014/12/12/anti-bds-leading-academics-call-personal-sanctions-occupationist-israelis/
But how do all these people, from BDS leaders to boycotters to rightwing Zionists know that a return of millions of refugees would destroy Israel? Because Arab leaders have been saying it for decades.“In demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves, or to put it more clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.”
- Salah al-Din, Egyptian Foreign Minister
“If the refugees return to Israel – Israel will cease to exist.”
- Gamal Abdel Nasser
“The day on which the Arab hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine is realized will be the day of Israel’s extermination.”
- Abdallah al-Yafi, Lebanese Prime Minister
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/quotes.html
It is well-known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland and not as slaves. With a greater clarity, they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel (Al-Misri, October 11, 1949).
To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state. (http://www.fateh.net/e_public/refugees.htm)
The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die. (Ralph Galloway, UNRWA, as quoted by Terence Prittie in The Palestinians: People, History, Politics, p 71)
The only person in denial about BDS' aims seems to be you.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)For me, the destruction of Israel means the destruction of Israel in the same sense as the destruction of the USA or in the slogan "Death to the USA", not in the calling for equal rights to Palestinians. For example a Palestinian who only wants to return to his house in Jaffa and grow oranges on his ancestral family farm isn't promoting the destruction of Israel - he just wants to go home.
In a way, I would say that your interpretation that allowing equal rights for Palestinians will destroy Israel, is awfully similar to how freeing slaves in the Southern USA would destroy it too.
I think there's little for me to add on this subject this time...
aranthus
(3,386 posts)What matters is what you can justify based on commonly accepted norms, evidence, and intellectually honest discussion. You haven't justified your position at all.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)The problem is that it's often more important to prove that a discriminatory practice is racist, rather than having to prove that equal rights do not constitute racism. I'm sure there have been challenges in the US to the 14th Amendment that claims that equal treatment leads to discrimination - I just can't give you any good examples. Nor do I have any other good examples from the rest of the world.
I'll just continue to assume that I'm right, and I ask you to provide some examples where equal rights lead to racism (or any other form of discrimination) other than the loss of white privileges after the Civil War or the destruction of Israel by allowing refugees to return...
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 9, 2016, 05:34 AM - Edit history (5)
And he started the boycott movement.
Reversing that process now is as realistic as demanding that white Americans go back to where their ancestors came from, and returning the land to its original native owners. It would mean the abolition of the State of Israel and the creation of a State of Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, a state with an Arab majority and a Jewish minority.
How can this be achieved without a war with a nuclear-armed Israel? How does this relate to peace?
All serious Palestinian negotiators until now have tacitly conceded this point. I spoke several times with Yasser Arafat about it. The tacit understanding is that under a final peace agreement, Israel will undertake to take back a symbolic number of refugees, and that all the others and their descendents – now some five or six million – will receive adequate compensation. All this as a part of the two-state solution.
This is a peace program. Actually, the only peace program there is. The BDS aims are not.
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1457710016
That's pretty straight-forward. A full RoR cannot happen peacefully. Do you want peace? Or does RoR trump peace? How does RoR happen peacefully? Explain. Convince me you want peace but also a full RoR. Explain how to implement RoR peacefully. Explain how that would happen anywhere else in the world, where countries would voluntarily & peacefully give up their sovereignty, culture, and safety to a different majority population. Be very clear. Or does Israel not deserve peace?
You wrote...
I'll just continue to assume that I'm right, and I ask you to provide some examples where equal rights lead to racism (or any other form of discrimination) other than the loss of white privileges after the Civil War or the destruction of Israel by allowing refugees to return...
The Jewish people would lose their right to self-determination & have to depend on the majority population to protect them. As we see in Europe now, that doesn't work. It didn't work before the Holocaust either. It hasn't worked out well for Jews in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Yemen where there are few if any left. So if Jews cannot live safely as a minority in Europe, what makes you think Jews can live safely as a minority under Hamas or the PLO?
Make an argument that Jews will be safe under majority Palestinian control. Convince the world's Jews that we must live as a minority everywhere, even in our homeland, subject to the mercy of the majority population. Show me evidence Jews will be safe if we submit. Show us why we should trust you given the history, before and after the Holocaust. Convince Israeli Jews they'll be safe under Arab control and that things will be different than in Egypt, Jordan, or Syria. Why should Jews trust you on this one? Can't do it, can you?
aranthus
(3,386 posts)Rational discussion can only occur if we have common understandings of concepts, rules of evidence and rules of logic. We don't have that, because you have some extremely peculiar beliefs. By that I mean, that they are unique to you and sufficiently at a tangent to the real world and real world understanding of other humans that we might as well be in separate universes. For example, your apparent definition of racism includes things that are not racist because they aren't based on racial distinctions. For another, you have previously admitted that your basis for believing in a right of return is your feelings on the matter. Except your feelings aren't the basis of a rational discussion.
Of course a big part of the problem is that your ideology (radical Leftism) denies important aspects of humanity. Demanding a non-existent right of return and denying a Jewish state isn't a demand for equal treatment of Arabs. It's a denial of Jewish human and national rights. Your false claim of equal rights doesn't lead to discrimination; it is directly discriminatory because it denies to Jews the same right as to everyone else to express their national culture in a state. The fact that you deny that right to everyone doesn't mean you believe in equal rights. It means that you are anti-human.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I believe that B is the better rule, as B constitutes ethnic discrimination towards Palestinians. You believe that A is the better rule, because B constitutes ethnic discrimination towards Jews.
If my beliefs are peculiar and wrong, it shouldn't be too hard to present an argument against them that would convince the average person. Perhaps you'll be able to convince me too - or, maybe not...
aranthus
(3,386 posts)You have misrepresented both of our positions. Here's the real argument.
A. Everyone has the right to live anywhere they want in any and all parts of wherever they claim as their ancestral homeland. The cultural nature of the society that would result doesn't matter because no group has the right to express their national identity through the state because that would discriminate against the minority.
B. Every people has the right to a homeland where they can express their national identity through their state. That may sometimes mean that disputed territory has to be split between different groups, and that some people may not be able to return to or live in areas that they claim as theirs. This is because it is more important that each nation have its own place than that individual people or groups have access to every place that they claim is theirs.
One of the primary differences between us is that you reject the importance of national identity, and the right of national self determination. In fact, you falsely ascribe that to racism. Part of the reason for that is that you seem to conflate national and civil rights. The majority has the right to define what the national community is. What language is the common tongue. What history is celebrated as national history. What customs predominate in business and personal affairs. What you call racism is in fact how everyone else lives. that's what states are for. They exist to defend a way of life. So the cultural demographic make up of a state matters very much. That isn't racism. In fact, it has nothing to do with race. It's about ideas, beliefs, and values. That is what matters, because that is how people live. It is how societies are created and survive. You claim that destroying Israel means only the physical destruction of the state, but that is false. A state is primarily a cultural artifact. Radically change the culture and you have destroyed the state. Change Israel from a Jewish state into an Arab state (which is what RoR and BDS are all about) and you have destroyed Israel as a cultural artifact, even if it still exists as a physical one.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I refuse to believe that national identity and the right to self-determination should allow ethnic discrimination in any way whatsoever. It's an old argument that I've often encountered before in other contexts, but I remain firmly unconvinced.
All I can tell you is that you should try to figure out the consequences of your beliefs, and how they would work in a democratic society. There will always be people of the "wrong" kind somewhere who will be discriminated against in the name of national identity and self-determination. It's not right, and it's not democratic.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)The consequence of my beliefs is the current modern nation state system, which with all of the problems it has, has done a reasonably good job of preserving human civilization. The consequence of your beliefs is that civilization would ultimately collapse with nothing to fall back on. Humanity needs different ethnic cultures to preserve its ideological vitality among other things, and separate cultures can't survive without a state to support them. Multi-national states don't survive for very long. The Soviet Union broke apart, and Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and most other multi-national states. Care to offer a reason why?
And of course nation states are democratic. Ever heard of majority rule? What do you think that means if not that the majority gets to decide, among other things, what the national culture of the state is going to be.