You just did the thing: Conflating being pro-Palestine (Anti-zionist) with anti-Jew.
Why is it weird to mention non-Israeli jews when being Anti-zionist? The point is to NOT conflate Zionism with being Jewish.
The matter of what should happen in Israel/Palestine is separate from this discussion. Anyway, they wouldn't (in theory) necessarily have to go anywhere. Jews and Arabs could have lived together in a single democratic country where one religion/ethnicity isn't favored over another.
And you’re conflating being pro-Palestine with being anti-Zionist :)
At least, if one discussed pro- or anti-Israel sentiments, it’s a little bit clear what “Israel” means. It’s a country, with something vaguely resembling identifiable borders, with a particular government, citizens, a military, etc.
What, exactly, is “Palestine” if one is pro-Palestine or anti-Palestine? Is it the people? (If so, which people? Those who lived in the area currently known as Israel + Gaza + the West Bank and their descendants, but not the descendants of the Jews who settled in the region since the Zionist movement got started? Is it Palestinian refugees as defined by UNRWA? Is it the current civilization in Gaza and the West Bank? What about the multigenerational refugees in camps in nearby countries? [0]. Is it the land itself? Is it the current governments (plural!)? Is it the idea that Israel ought not to exist? (If so, what does Israel not existing even mean?). Is it the idea that innocent Gazans ought not to feel safe in their homes and have access to food, clean water, electricity, and medicine?
The whole situation is an unbelievable mess, both because the present situation is a mess and the history is a mess. I don’t a critically considered opinion can be summarized by a single hyphenated term or even two of them.
[0] Yes, there are people born in refugee camps in a couple of neighboring countries who are somehow not citizens of those countries. From a US perspective, this is very strange. The descendants of people who fled to the US are most definitely citizens. I don’t think most of them consider themselves to be refugees, nor do many other people consider them to be refugees, nor do they live in refugee camps.
> Yes, there are people born in refugee camps in a couple of neighboring countries who are somehow not citizens of those countries. From a US perspective, this is very strange. The descendants of people who fled to the US are most definitely citizens.
US citizenship law says that everyone born in the US is a citizen of the US (jus soli, "right of the soil"). (With some rare and obscure exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats.) But, most countries worldwide don't define citizenship in terms of birthplace, they define define it in terms of descent. So it doesn't matter if you are born in the country, you are only a citizen if at least one of your parents is (jus sanguinis, "right of the blood"). So the real reason it is strange is because the US is unusual by global standards, not because what is happening in these countries is really that unusual by those standards.
If you look at the Middle East, most countries in that region define citizenship in terms of descent not birthplace – which can result in people who have lived in the same place for generations but lack citizenship. It occurs in cases which have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine at all - for example, the stateless "Bidoon" people of Kuwait. It also occurs in Israel - Israeli law says that (non-Jewish) people born in Israel's sovereign territory only become Israeli citizens if one of their parents is, with the result that the majority of Arabs/Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are living in land which Israel legally claims to have annexed (not merely militarily occupied), yet without Israeli citizenship – Israeli law says they have to apply for naturalisation, most don't want to, and even of those who do apply, only around a third have their applications approved (commonly denied either due to insufficient fluency in Hebrew, or vaguely defined "security reasons").
I guess I meant pro-Palestine in the context of the comment I was responding to--but sure, saying Palestinian could be considered fuzzy. I my mind I meant the people who were forced out of Israel and their descendants living in Gaza, the West Bank and elsewhere.
If the mandate of the nation of Israel is to provide a place of refuge to Jewish people around the world, it must be a country that favors Jewish religion/ethnicity. I think this was the basis for the two-state solution, which somehow seems like even more of an impossibility than in the past. The mandate of Israel as a Jewish state is at odds with a free democracy with equal rights for citizens of all ethnicities/religions.
I am also a complete outside observer and have no insights to add, other than what is happening to innocent people has been awful and tragic.
I disagree we must have a state in modern times that favors a religion or ethnicity. That's basically what South Africa was. See also the history of the USA.
Israel can and should be a place for Jews to be safe but it doesn't have to be favor one religion or ethnicity. I think Anti-semitism can be controlled especially in a place with a large minority (or even majority) of Jewish peoples.
Before the founding of Israel, Jews, Christians and Muslims generally co-existed with tolerance in the Middle East.
You just did the thing: Conflating being pro-Palestine (Anti-zionist) with anti-Jew.
Why is it weird to mention non-Israeli jews when being Anti-zionist? The point is to NOT conflate Zionism with being Jewish.
The matter of what should happen in Israel/Palestine is separate from this discussion. Anyway, they wouldn't (in theory) necessarily have to go anywhere. Jews and Arabs could have lived together in a single democratic country where one religion/ethnicity isn't favored over another.
> pro-Palestine (Anti-zionist)
And you’re conflating being pro-Palestine with being anti-Zionist :)
At least, if one discussed pro- or anti-Israel sentiments, it’s a little bit clear what “Israel” means. It’s a country, with something vaguely resembling identifiable borders, with a particular government, citizens, a military, etc.
What, exactly, is “Palestine” if one is pro-Palestine or anti-Palestine? Is it the people? (If so, which people? Those who lived in the area currently known as Israel + Gaza + the West Bank and their descendants, but not the descendants of the Jews who settled in the region since the Zionist movement got started? Is it Palestinian refugees as defined by UNRWA? Is it the current civilization in Gaza and the West Bank? What about the multigenerational refugees in camps in nearby countries? [0]. Is it the land itself? Is it the current governments (plural!)? Is it the idea that Israel ought not to exist? (If so, what does Israel not existing even mean?). Is it the idea that innocent Gazans ought not to feel safe in their homes and have access to food, clean water, electricity, and medicine?
The whole situation is an unbelievable mess, both because the present situation is a mess and the history is a mess. I don’t a critically considered opinion can be summarized by a single hyphenated term or even two of them.
[0] Yes, there are people born in refugee camps in a couple of neighboring countries who are somehow not citizens of those countries. From a US perspective, this is very strange. The descendants of people who fled to the US are most definitely citizens. I don’t think most of them consider themselves to be refugees, nor do many other people consider them to be refugees, nor do they live in refugee camps.
> Yes, there are people born in refugee camps in a couple of neighboring countries who are somehow not citizens of those countries. From a US perspective, this is very strange. The descendants of people who fled to the US are most definitely citizens.
US citizenship law says that everyone born in the US is a citizen of the US (jus soli, "right of the soil"). (With some rare and obscure exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats.) But, most countries worldwide don't define citizenship in terms of birthplace, they define define it in terms of descent. So it doesn't matter if you are born in the country, you are only a citizen if at least one of your parents is (jus sanguinis, "right of the blood"). So the real reason it is strange is because the US is unusual by global standards, not because what is happening in these countries is really that unusual by those standards.
If you look at the Middle East, most countries in that region define citizenship in terms of descent not birthplace – which can result in people who have lived in the same place for generations but lack citizenship. It occurs in cases which have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine at all - for example, the stateless "Bidoon" people of Kuwait. It also occurs in Israel - Israeli law says that (non-Jewish) people born in Israel's sovereign territory only become Israeli citizens if one of their parents is, with the result that the majority of Arabs/Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are living in land which Israel legally claims to have annexed (not merely militarily occupied), yet without Israeli citizenship – Israeli law says they have to apply for naturalisation, most don't want to, and even of those who do apply, only around a third have their applications approved (commonly denied either due to insufficient fluency in Hebrew, or vaguely defined "security reasons").
I guess I meant pro-Palestine in the context of the comment I was responding to--but sure, saying Palestinian could be considered fuzzy. I my mind I meant the people who were forced out of Israel and their descendants living in Gaza, the West Bank and elsewhere.
3 replies →
If the mandate of the nation of Israel is to provide a place of refuge to Jewish people around the world, it must be a country that favors Jewish religion/ethnicity. I think this was the basis for the two-state solution, which somehow seems like even more of an impossibility than in the past. The mandate of Israel as a Jewish state is at odds with a free democracy with equal rights for citizens of all ethnicities/religions. I am also a complete outside observer and have no insights to add, other than what is happening to innocent people has been awful and tragic.
I disagree we must have a state in modern times that favors a religion or ethnicity. That's basically what South Africa was. See also the history of the USA.
Israel can and should be a place for Jews to be safe but it doesn't have to be favor one religion or ethnicity. I think Anti-semitism can be controlled especially in a place with a large minority (or even majority) of Jewish peoples.
Before the founding of Israel, Jews, Christians and Muslims generally co-existed with tolerance in the Middle East.
4 replies →