5 ms·

First of all, this isn't a ban on Israeli-Palestinian marriage, this is a restriction on the ability to gain citizenship through those marriages. I don't agree

First of all, this isn't a ban on Israeli-Palestinian marriage, this is a restriction on the ability to gain citizenship through those marriages. I don't agree with that, but I do think it's important to clarify. Regarding comments I'm seeing here saying Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is racist or that Israel the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting: Israel is the size of New Jersey. It is the only state on earth there is a Jewish majority. There are many places on earth where there is a Christian majority, and there are many places on earth where there is a Muslim majority. The Jewish people represent a tiny percent of the world's population in part because they have been expelled from their homes throughout history, and the majority of them were killed in the 1940s. Why does it matter to have a Jewish state? Because it is a measure of defense against what has happened countless times throughout history. The problem with a Jewish state in Israel: Obviously, Israel, and especially Jerusalem, is a holy state for multiple groups. Those groups have a justifiable interest in living in Israel and enjoying the same rights as Israeli citizens. The issue is that if citizenship is freely given, Jews become the minority in Israel and it is no longer a Jewish state. If you say "Good," to that, that is your opinion, and I will add that there are Jewish Israelis who agree with you. There is debate in Israel and abroad whether Israel should be a Jewish state of a state of the Jews. In the latter, there is more room for Palestinians--as it stands, this is not the policy of the current coalition. Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion, but there are many who believe what Jews have faced throughout history justify a Jewish homeland, and it is very difficult to have a Jewish homeland, at least in Israel, without maintaining a Jewish majority.

minusSeven 5y ago
Was this even an argument? it felt more like "We should have a Jewish state because we can and there nothing anyone can do about it, if you are not Jewish go fuck yourself. " History has nothing to do what is happening today. You are just trying to drive the narrative anyway you can.
- weatherlite 5y ago
  > History has nothing to do what is happening today Sure OK, I can really see you gave this a lot of thought.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
"Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion, but there are many who believe what Jews have faced throughout history justify a Jewish homeland, and it is very difficult to have a Jewish homeland, at least in Israel, without maintaining a Jewish majority. " So it was built to be an 'institutionally racially segregated' state?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Markoff 5y ago
  More importantly it was built in Palestine. So they kicked out Palestinians from their own land, restricted them to small piece of land and now they are kicking them even from the stolen part of land after marrying the Israelis.
- thatsmyfribble 5y ago
  I don't think it was built with the intention of subjugation, but I think it has been a consequence of its implementation and politics. I do think there is a version of a Jewish state that doesn't behave like this, but its current political consensus is not that state.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    "I don't think it was built with the intention of subjugation," But was it built with the intention of segregation?
    - thatsmyfribble 5y ago
      Yes. The premise of a state which is 'for' a specific group inherently employs segregation. I say subjugation because I think there is a version of that system that maintains a Jewish ruling majority without subjugating the minority. Again, you can agree or disagree with a state that is built on segregation, but I ask that you include in your judgement the history and context of Israel's existence.
s_dev 5y ago
- thatsmyfribble 5y ago
  No, not a bot either, just don't want my actual account getting downvoted to hell for expressing my honest opinion.
anonymous_sorry 5y ago
> Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion... Not really, because according the IHRA espousing such a view is antisemitic[0]. [0] https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-defin...
- thatsmyfribble 5y ago
  I don't agree that there is anything fundamentally antisemitic about criticizing Israel or its policies. While I think some antisemitic people hold that viewpoint, there is plenty of valid criticism for the actions of the Israeli government and its military. Sometimes, saying criticism of Israel is antisemitic is just a way of shutting down someone who is giving criticism, though, conversely I will also say that it's unfair to claim any dissent to dissent is an accusation of antisemitism. I'm not accusing you of that, I did want to bring it into the discourse though, given your point. I will include the quote you're citing here for the purpose of a TL;DR: Under a list of "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life," included is "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." That's their definition, they do say at the top of the article it's a "Non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism," so anyone can draw their own. I personally don't think it's necessarily antisemitic to argue Israeli's policies are discriminatory/or racist, depending on how you are defining racism.
  - anonymous_sorry 5y ago
    Thanks for your reasonable reply. I get that Israel's military actions and discriminatory policies are motivated from a sense of insecurity. And I certainly agree that the stomach-churning horror of the holocaust is crucial historical context. > they do say at the top of the article it's a "Non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism," Nevertheless, it has been broadly recognised by many organisations and political groups. The IHRA website lists[1] adoption by various governments including, for example, by executive order of the US President[2]. Despite the historical context, as a secularist and anti-racist I think that explicitly trying to maintain a "Jewish state" in opposition to local demographic trends probably is a racist endeavor. At the very least I think there's a reasonable argument to be made, and to people brand who think so as antisemites is pretty chilling. But it doesn't sound like you disagree. [1] https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism/adoption-endorsement https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-defin... [2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/16/2019-27217/combating-anti-semitism https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/16/2019-27...
FriedrichN 5y ago
Obvious diversion from the core issue. Israel must either grant the occupied lands true sovereignty and have their ethnostate or end the occupation and grant them equal civilian rights. Either way they must end their occupation of both Gaza and the West Bank. You start off saying that it's 'disgusting' to call Israel a racist state and then conclude by saying that it was always intended to be a 'Jewish state' and not a 'melting pot'. That's highly contradictory and defending a very racist policy, which is indeed, disgusting.
- thatsmyfribble 5y ago
  My comment was phrased poorly. I didn't mean to say it was disgusting to call Israel a racist state, I commented on people who are calling Israel's actions disgusting--I apologize if that wasn't a clear distinction in my comment--quotation marks would have made it clearer. I don't think it's disgusting to have an opinion on Israel's actions and policies. I would argue that the core issue around this article is not the occupations of Gaza and the West Bank. For one, while Israel has tremendous control over the Gaza region, it is self governed and not occupied by Israel--that's semantics, but I do want to make the distinction between the level of autonomy Gaza has versus the level the West Bank has. I agree with the two options you put forwards, and I personally prefer the latter. I think the only path to peace in Israel is to end the occupation, make peace with Gaza, move the capital to Tel Aviv, and establish Jerusalem as a U.N. Mandate. I don't think Israel has a valid claim to exclusive control over what many groups consider the holiest place on earth, but I also don't think other groups who consider it a holy place should have exclusive control over it either. Putting the U.N. in control of it is an imperfect solution, but better than what we have now for peace in the region. That's my two cents that no one asked for.
- weatherlite 5y ago
  > Israel must either grant the occupied lands true sovereignty and have their ethnostate or end the occupation and grant them equal civilian rights The last move in that direction - the retreat of Israel from Gaza, brought Hamas to power . Whether there's ever peace doesn't solely depend on Israel. Israel is actually not a very important piece of the puzzle imo, most Israelis know very well peace is in their best interest. There's just not many buyers on the other side.
zd123 5y ago
You can try diverting from the core issue at hand, using semantic sleights of hand, but it’s becoming apparent that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. By the laws it enacts and the oppression they enable, it is the definition of a racist state. The world is beginning to see it too, though very slowly.
- thatsmyfribble 5y ago
  I think in a conversation that's this divisive it's critical to be semantically very clear. I don't know that I'm using any sleights of hand, but if you want to agree to very specific definitions on the terms being discussed I always think that's useful. Regarding the apartheid analogy: I don't want to get into a semantic sleight of hand here, but the term apartheid comes from Dutch Afrikaans to describe their rule over South Africa. I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but I don't agree with that definition. If we're defining racism as unequal treatment of different groups based on race, then yes, Israel is a racist state because clearly, as is evident from this article, they are treating groups differently based on race (that is, if we're defining Judaism as a racial/ethnic designation rather than a religious one). I will not defend Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, but I think it is worth defending the concept of Israel as a state that does not fundamentally need to be racist.
  - simiones 5y ago
    > I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state. What else is it but a sleight of hand? Like in your first comment, all of your words are chosen to sound like Israel was formed on un-ocuppied land, as if the Zionist movement found a piece of desert and established a Jewish state there, and now their envious neighbors are seeking to colonize and attack them. In fact, they came and settled an area of immense religious significance to half the world's population that had been inhabited by hundreds of thousands or millions of Arabs for hundreds of years. And they came with the explicit intention of not only living there, but being the majority population there: an act that explicitly required an ethnic cleansing (or genocide) of Palestine by its very definition.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Yes I do find the concept of a Jewish state disgusting. It leads to a theocracy. "The issue is that if citizenship is freely given, Jews become the minority in Israel and it is no longer a Jewish state" This can be easily resolved if Israel would define what it's borders are. But Israel does not in fact want to be a normal country it is run by religious extremists.
- thatsmyfribble 5y ago
  That's where the argument over whether Israel should be a Jewish state or a state of the Jews comes from. Should Israel be a Jewish theocracy, or should it be a secular homeland for the Jewish people as an ethnic group? If you find theocracies disgusting, there are plenty of theocratic states you should also be pointing your disgust at. The right wing element in Israel has definitely held power for a long time and their policies have led to the subjugation of minority groups (I am not defending this), though those are not the religious extremists, they are just nationalists.
- starik36 5y ago
  > It leads to a theocracy And yet it hasn't. It's a democracy. Has been since the founding. > run by religious extremists It's run by whomever people of Israel elect. The purpose of this country is to protect the Jews from various pogroms and genocides that keep occurring to them with a disturbing regularity.
simiones 5y ago
All of your arguments are dancing around a very important fact: Israel was not founded on barren land, it was founded on a land where hundreds of thousands of Arabs had lived for many generations. It was founded by driving these Arabs out - initially with peaceful means, but very quickly through force of arms. Not content with pushing most Arabs out of most of what used to be called Palestine, Israel then occupied the remaining lands where they fled and is trying to colonize more and more of that land, keeping it under their own control but refusing to even annex it. If the Jews of the world had sought a sanctuary, a much more appropriate deal would have been to carve out a piece of defeated Germany to create a Jewish state, probably around a formerly Jewish-majority city. Instead of that, the search for a Jewish homeland was led by Jewish religious fundamentalists, that wanted to live in the land they believe God assigned to them. The vast majority of Jewish people were (and still are) much closer culturally to Europe than to the Arab world anyway, having been driven out of historic Israel some thousand years before that. I will not mention the similar plight of the Roma people, who no one saw fit to give a country to after the Holocaust either.
- sndman 5y ago
  >the search for a Jewish homeland was led by Jewish religious fundamentalists Not initially. This myth of the Jewish homeland only took hold after the turn of the century. The early Zionist movement was primarily ideological and not religious. In fact, the religious Jews dismissed Zionism as a form of secularization and modernization, while secular Jews feared that the new ideas would raise questions about the Jews’ loyalty to their own nation-states and would thus increase antisemitism[1]. When the Reformists first encountered Zionism, they rejected the idea of redefining Judaism as nationalism and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. However, their anti-Zionist stance shifted after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. After1904, the fixation on Palestine as the only territory in which Zionism could be implemented was reinforced by the growing power of Christian Zionism in Britain and in Europe. Evangelical archeologists who excavated “the Holy Land” welcomed the settlement of Jews as confirming their religious belief that the “Jewish return” would herald the unfolding of the divine promise for the end of time. They felt, and still feel, that the return of the Jews was the precursor of the return of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead. The Zionist project of colonizing Palestine was well served by this esoteric religious belief. However, behind these religious visions lay classical anti-Semitic sentiments. For pushing Jewish communities in the direction of Palestine was not only a religious imperative; it also helped in the creation of a Europe without Jews. It represented a double gain: getting rid of the Jews in Europe, and at the same time fulfilling the divine scheme in which the Second Coming was to be precipitated by the return of the Jews to Palestine (and their subsequent conversion to Christianity or their roasting in Hell should they refuse) [2]. [1] Ami Isserof, “Opposition of Reform Judaism to Zionism: A History,” August 12, 2005, at zionism-israel. com. [2] Stephen Sizer, “The Road to Balfour: The History of Christian Zionism,” at balfourproject.org.
deutschew 5y ago
Agreed, the ideology that people claiming Israel is an aprtheid state is largely a North American and Western Europe trope which I remember definitely did not oppose Nazism, in fact, there were many Americans in the 30s who supported Nazi ideology and this is reflected in the way Native Americans, African Americans and Asian Americans were treated. These people believe that Americans fought Nazism in a heroic battle from the get go and that was just not true. It was only when US interests were at stake that they joined the war, the same way Ukranians today are finding out the hard way. From this flawed understanding of history and a recent rise in romanticizing of equity (truth is humans are simply not equal, we are all born differently with innate and different nurturing) from a young, highly educated demographic with unsatisfying careers, naturally latch on to these distorted views. I am not Jewish but the logic here is sound. Jews need their own country so they can take control of their destiny. A small dense country that starts giving citizenship to a culture that is open to radicalization, extremism and preaches hatred and violence to their children is a huge national security risk. I just don't get why people are so emotional here. This is a simple exercise of logic, Israel isn't going away, so its on the Palestinians to make peace and co-exist and better themselves. Because launching rockets into civilian areas by using your own people as shields to play the world PR game like what Ukraine is doing might get people in the West who lean towards a certain political spectrum to come out of the wood works but all it does is make peaceful co-existence impossible. There was also a moment in history when Israel showed leniency and sympathetic to poverty amongst Palestinians but this was answered with terror attacks on it's citizens that still happen today. This is not fighting for independence or political identity, this is destroying innocent people to justify their own hatred. If the Palestinians truly wanted peace and political independence then they must NOT allow violent groups like Hamas and PLO to lead them. They must not teach their children to commit terrorist acts instead teach them the tools they need to better themselves economically. In fact doing it this way would win them way more legitimacy but they keep going the wrong way. What else can be done when they themselves are incapable of decoupling from hatred? Also in history classes, it makes it seem like Jews weren't living in Israel at all and they suddenly came and took the land. Jews & Palestinians have lived largely at peace during the British mandated Palestine. Due to the Holocaust, it just made sense to let them decide their own nationhood because I don't think the Mandatory Palestine was even recognized as a state. It was just another case of good ole boys from Brit'eun drawing random lines and just leaving. The simple fact of the matter is Jews cannot live in peace in many parts of Arab/Muslim countries but Arab & Muslims & Palestinians can in Israel, make living and better themselves. I really don't understand the anger and vitrol from HN users on this issue, for a crowd that touts rationalism and logic, it really is sad to see these hateful comments allowing to exist. Israel is not an apartheid state. South Africa was. I fully expect to be downvoted and flagged for sharing this thought.
spopejoy 5y ago
> Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. By forcibly displacing 100,000s of other people.

minusSeven 5y ago

Was this even an argument? it felt more like "We should have a Jewish state because we can and there nothing anyone can do about it, if you are not Jewish go fuck yourself. " History has nothing to do what is happening today. You are just trying to drive the narrative anyway you can.

weatherlite 5y ago
> History has nothing to do what is happening today Sure OK, I can really see you gave this a lot of thought.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

"Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion, but there are many who believe what Jews have faced throughout history justify a Jewish homeland, and it is very difficult to have a Jewish homeland, at least in Israel, without maintaining a Jewish majority. " So it was built to be an 'institutionally racially segregated' state?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Markoff 5y ago
More importantly it was built in Palestine. So they kicked out Palestinians from their own land, restricted them to small piece of land and now they are kicking them even from the stolen part of land after marrying the Israelis.
thatsmyfribble 5y ago
I don't think it was built with the intention of subjugation, but I think it has been a consequence of its implementation and politics. I do think there is a version of a Jewish state that doesn't behave like this, but its current political consensus is not that state.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  "I don't think it was built with the intention of subjugation," But was it built with the intention of segregation?
  - thatsmyfribble 5y ago
    Yes. The premise of a state which is 'for' a specific group inherently employs segregation. I say subjugation because I think there is a version of that system that maintains a Jewish ruling majority without subjugating the minority. Again, you can agree or disagree with a state that is built on segregation, but I ask that you include in your judgement the history and context of Israel's existence.

s_dev 5y ago

thatsmyfribble 5y ago
No, not a bot either, just don't want my actual account getting downvoted to hell for expressing my honest opinion.

anonymous_sorry 5y ago

> Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion... Not really, because according the IHRA espousing such a view is antisemitic[0]. [0] https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-defin...

thatsmyfribble 5y ago
I don't agree that there is anything fundamentally antisemitic about criticizing Israel or its policies. While I think some antisemitic people hold that viewpoint, there is plenty of valid criticism for the actions of the Israeli government and its military. Sometimes, saying criticism of Israel is antisemitic is just a way of shutting down someone who is giving criticism, though, conversely I will also say that it's unfair to claim any dissent to dissent is an accusation of antisemitism. I'm not accusing you of that, I did want to bring it into the discourse though, given your point. I will include the quote you're citing here for the purpose of a TL;DR: Under a list of "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life," included is "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." That's their definition, they do say at the top of the article it's a "Non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism," so anyone can draw their own. I personally don't think it's necessarily antisemitic to argue Israeli's policies are discriminatory/or racist, depending on how you are defining racism.
- anonymous_sorry 5y ago
  Thanks for your reasonable reply. I get that Israel's military actions and discriminatory policies are motivated from a sense of insecurity. And I certainly agree that the stomach-churning horror of the holocaust is crucial historical context. > they do say at the top of the article it's a "Non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism," Nevertheless, it has been broadly recognised by many organisations and political groups. The IHRA website lists[1] adoption by various governments including, for example, by executive order of the US President[2]. Despite the historical context, as a secularist and anti-racist I think that explicitly trying to maintain a "Jewish state" in opposition to local demographic trends probably is a racist endeavor. At the very least I think there's a reasonable argument to be made, and to people brand who think so as antisemites is pretty chilling. But it doesn't sound like you disagree. [1] https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism/adoption-endorsement https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-defin... [2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/16/2019-27217/combating-anti-semitism https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/16/2019-27...

FriedrichN 5y ago

Obvious diversion from the core issue. Israel must either grant the occupied lands true sovereignty and have their ethnostate or end the occupation and grant them equal civilian rights. Either way they must end their occupation of both Gaza and the West Bank. You start off saying that it's 'disgusting' to call Israel a racist state and then conclude by saying that it was always intended to be a 'Jewish state' and not a 'melting pot'. That's highly contradictory and defending a very racist policy, which is indeed, disgusting.

thatsmyfribble 5y ago
My comment was phrased poorly. I didn't mean to say it was disgusting to call Israel a racist state, I commented on people who are calling Israel's actions disgusting--I apologize if that wasn't a clear distinction in my comment--quotation marks would have made it clearer. I don't think it's disgusting to have an opinion on Israel's actions and policies. I would argue that the core issue around this article is not the occupations of Gaza and the West Bank. For one, while Israel has tremendous control over the Gaza region, it is self governed and not occupied by Israel--that's semantics, but I do want to make the distinction between the level of autonomy Gaza has versus the level the West Bank has. I agree with the two options you put forwards, and I personally prefer the latter. I think the only path to peace in Israel is to end the occupation, make peace with Gaza, move the capital to Tel Aviv, and establish Jerusalem as a U.N. Mandate. I don't think Israel has a valid claim to exclusive control over what many groups consider the holiest place on earth, but I also don't think other groups who consider it a holy place should have exclusive control over it either. Putting the U.N. in control of it is an imperfect solution, but better than what we have now for peace in the region. That's my two cents that no one asked for.
weatherlite 5y ago
> Israel must either grant the occupied lands true sovereignty and have their ethnostate or end the occupation and grant them equal civilian rights The last move in that direction - the retreat of Israel from Gaza, brought Hamas to power . Whether there's ever peace doesn't solely depend on Israel. Israel is actually not a very important piece of the puzzle imo, most Israelis know very well peace is in their best interest. There's just not many buyers on the other side.

zd123 5y ago

You can try diverting from the core issue at hand, using semantic sleights of hand, but it’s becoming apparent that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. By the laws it enacts and the oppression they enable, it is the definition of a racist state. The world is beginning to see it too, though very slowly.

thatsmyfribble 5y ago
I think in a conversation that's this divisive it's critical to be semantically very clear. I don't know that I'm using any sleights of hand, but if you want to agree to very specific definitions on the terms being discussed I always think that's useful. Regarding the apartheid analogy: I don't want to get into a semantic sleight of hand here, but the term apartheid comes from Dutch Afrikaans to describe their rule over South Africa. I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but I don't agree with that definition. If we're defining racism as unequal treatment of different groups based on race, then yes, Israel is a racist state because clearly, as is evident from this article, they are treating groups differently based on race (that is, if we're defining Judaism as a racial/ethnic designation rather than a religious one). I will not defend Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, but I think it is worth defending the concept of Israel as a state that does not fundamentally need to be racist.
- simiones 5y ago
  > I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state. What else is it but a sleight of hand? Like in your first comment, all of your words are chosen to sound like Israel was formed on un-ocuppied land, as if the Zionist movement found a piece of desert and established a Jewish state there, and now their envious neighbors are seeking to colonize and attack them. In fact, they came and settled an area of immense religious significance to half the world's population that had been inhabited by hundreds of thousands or millions of Arabs for hundreds of years. And they came with the explicit intention of not only living there, but being the majority population there: an act that explicitly required an ethnic cleansing (or genocide) of Palestine by its very definition.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

Yes I do find the concept of a Jewish state disgusting. It leads to a theocracy. "The issue is that if citizenship is freely given, Jews become the minority in Israel and it is no longer a Jewish state" This can be easily resolved if Israel would define what it's borders are. But Israel does not in fact want to be a normal country it is run by religious extremists.

thatsmyfribble 5y ago
That's where the argument over whether Israel should be a Jewish state or a state of the Jews comes from. Should Israel be a Jewish theocracy, or should it be a secular homeland for the Jewish people as an ethnic group? If you find theocracies disgusting, there are plenty of theocratic states you should also be pointing your disgust at. The right wing element in Israel has definitely held power for a long time and their policies have led to the subjugation of minority groups (I am not defending this), though those are not the religious extremists, they are just nationalists.
starik36 5y ago
> It leads to a theocracy And yet it hasn't. It's a democracy. Has been since the founding. > run by religious extremists It's run by whomever people of Israel elect. The purpose of this country is to protect the Jews from various pogroms and genocides that keep occurring to them with a disturbing regularity.

simiones 5y ago

All of your arguments are dancing around a very important fact: Israel was not founded on barren land, it was founded on a land where hundreds of thousands of Arabs had lived for many generations. It was founded by driving these Arabs out - initially with peaceful means, but very quickly through force of arms. Not content with pushing most Arabs out of most of what used to be called Palestine, Israel then occupied the remaining lands where they fled and is trying to colonize more and more of that land, keeping it under their own control but refusing to even annex it. If the Jews of the world had sought a sanctuary, a much more appropriate deal would have been to carve out a piece of defeated Germany to create a Jewish state, probably around a formerly Jewish-majority city. Instead of that, the search for a Jewish homeland was led by Jewish religious fundamentalists, that wanted to live in the land they believe God assigned to them. The vast majority of Jewish people were (and still are) much closer culturally to Europe than to the Arab world anyway, having been driven out of historic Israel some thousand years before that. I will not mention the similar plight of the Roma people, who no one saw fit to give a country to after the Holocaust either.

sndman 5y ago
>the search for a Jewish homeland was led by Jewish religious fundamentalists Not initially. This myth of the Jewish homeland only took hold after the turn of the century. The early Zionist movement was primarily ideological and not religious. In fact, the religious Jews dismissed Zionism as a form of secularization and modernization, while secular Jews feared that the new ideas would raise questions about the Jews’ loyalty to their own nation-states and would thus increase antisemitism[1]. When the Reformists first encountered Zionism, they rejected the idea of redefining Judaism as nationalism and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. However, their anti-Zionist stance shifted after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. After1904, the fixation on Palestine as the only territory in which Zionism could be implemented was reinforced by the growing power of Christian Zionism in Britain and in Europe. Evangelical archeologists who excavated “the Holy Land” welcomed the settlement of Jews as confirming their religious belief that the “Jewish return” would herald the unfolding of the divine promise for the end of time. They felt, and still feel, that the return of the Jews was the precursor of the return of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead. The Zionist project of colonizing Palestine was well served by this esoteric religious belief. However, behind these religious visions lay classical anti-Semitic sentiments. For pushing Jewish communities in the direction of Palestine was not only a religious imperative; it also helped in the creation of a Europe without Jews. It represented a double gain: getting rid of the Jews in Europe, and at the same time fulfilling the divine scheme in which the Second Coming was to be precipitated by the return of the Jews to Palestine (and their subsequent conversion to Christianity or their roasting in Hell should they refuse) [2]. [1] Ami Isserof, “Opposition of Reform Judaism to Zionism: A History,” August 12, 2005, at zionism-israel. com. [2] Stephen Sizer, “The Road to Balfour: The History of Christian Zionism,” at balfourproject.org.

deutschew 5y ago

Agreed, the ideology that people claiming Israel is an aprtheid state is largely a North American and Western Europe trope which I remember definitely did not oppose Nazism, in fact, there were many Americans in the 30s who supported Nazi ideology and this is reflected in the way Native Americans, African Americans and Asian Americans were treated. These people believe that Americans fought Nazism in a heroic battle from the get go and that was just not true. It was only when US interests were at stake that they joined the war, the same way Ukranians today are finding out the hard way. From this flawed understanding of history and a recent rise in romanticizing of equity (truth is humans are simply not equal, we are all born differently with innate and different nurturing) from a young, highly educated demographic with unsatisfying careers, naturally latch on to these distorted views. I am not Jewish but the logic here is sound. Jews need their own country so they can take control of their destiny. A small dense country that starts giving citizenship to a culture that is open to radicalization, extremism and preaches hatred and violence to their children is a huge national security risk. I just don't get why people are so emotional here. This is a simple exercise of logic, Israel isn't going away, so its on the Palestinians to make peace and co-exist and better themselves. Because launching rockets into civilian areas by using your own people as shields to play the world PR game like what Ukraine is doing might get people in the West who lean towards a certain political spectrum to come out of the wood works but all it does is make peaceful co-existence impossible. There was also a moment in history when Israel showed leniency and sympathetic to poverty amongst Palestinians but this was answered with terror attacks on it's citizens that still happen today. This is not fighting for independence or political identity, this is destroying innocent people to justify their own hatred. If the Palestinians truly wanted peace and political independence then they must NOT allow violent groups like Hamas and PLO to lead them. They must not teach their children to commit terrorist acts instead teach them the tools they need to better themselves economically. In fact doing it this way would win them way more legitimacy but they keep going the wrong way. What else can be done when they themselves are incapable of decoupling from hatred? Also in history classes, it makes it seem like Jews weren't living in Israel at all and they suddenly came and took the land. Jews & Palestinians have lived largely at peace during the British mandated Palestine. Due to the Holocaust, it just made sense to let them decide their own nationhood because I don't think the Mandatory Palestine was even recognized as a state. It was just another case of good ole boys from Brit'eun drawing random lines and just leaving. The simple fact of the matter is Jews cannot live in peace in many parts of Arab/Muslim countries but Arab & Muslims & Palestinians can in Israel, make living and better themselves. I really don't understand the anger and vitrol from HN users on this issue, for a crowd that touts rationalism and logic, it really is sad to see these hateful comments allowing to exist. Israel is not an apartheid state. South Africa was. I fully expect to be downvoted and flagged for sharing this thought.

spopejoy 5y ago

> Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. By forcibly displacing 100,000s of other people.