Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
Look. Hamas lifestock.
Jewishness is at the heart of saying Israel shouldn't have designated itself in law as "the nation-state of the Jewish people"Not one person this thread mentioned Jewishness at all.
Fix your optics and stop defending the utterly fucking indefendable.
You're denying "antisemitism" is even a thing. Asking 'why were the Jews thrown out in the first place?' as if that has any bearing on anything, quoting scripture as if Jews should know better or something. At least three other posters have called your posts antisemitic, did this not give you pause for thought?A Palestinian is as much a Semite as an Israeli.
The sticking point however seems to be that Hamas want an actual ceasefire but Israel will not countenance it.
Ceasefire now.
Ain't gonna happen though is it?
Israel is not a Jewish state. Most thinking Jews reject their violence and hellbent intention on destruction. I’m just goy, what the fuck do I know. Don’t have access to that specialness that makes a nation think it has the right to behave in such a manner.Jewishness is at the heart of saying Israel shouldn't have designated itself in law as "the nation-state of the Jewish people"
You're denying "antisemitism" is even a thing. Asking 'why were the Jews thrown out in the first place?' as if that has any bearing on anything, quoting scripture as if Jews should know better or something. At least three other posters have called your posts antisemitic, did this not give you pause for thought?
And by the way, fuck off trying to tell me what to think
This is a great idea. Double down, why not?Israel is not a Jewish state. Most thinking Jews reject their violence and hellbent intention on destruction. I’m just goy, what the fuck do I know. Don’t have access to that specialness that makes a nation think it has the right to behave in such a manner.
I’m a humanist I don’t get my fucking knickers twisted about which sky fairy enables me to murder a population. Israel is as much about Jewishness as I am about space travel.
It's not a Jewish state. It's the Jewish state.Israel is not a Jewish state. Most thinking Jews reject their violence and hellbent intention on destruction. I’m just goy, what the fuck do I know. Don’t have access to that specialness that makes a nation think it has the right to behave in such a manner.
I’m a humanist I don’t get my fucking knickers twisted about which sky fairy enables me to murder a population. Israel is as much about Jewishness as I am about space travel.
But it's not, it's a Jewish state. Just as the UK is a Christian state, where the head of state is head of the state religion and bishops help make laws.
It's not a Jewish state. It's the Jewish state.
BTW, this is exactly the point where anti-zionism and anti-semitism intersect so I hope everyone's paying attention.
I went to visit the holocaust museum in Amsterdam a few years ago. It was closed with a sign outside that said work in progress.
Profound when I think back on that now.
On the other hand, other crimes against humanity in recent decades have not always had the same amount of coverage. In Myanmar and Rwanda, for example. I think that the Palestine/Israel conflict gets much coverage because the "Holy Land" is familar from the Bible. The more coverage there is, the more people become concerned.This is an ongoing massive crime, that's the main difference. Indigenous populations in many parts of the world still face huge challenges, discrimination, persecution and displacement, but not on the same scale. As has been discussed before, we (UK) have historical links and responsibilities too. Most here on urban, at least, would I suspect opt for an accommodation between the Israeli occupiers and the displaced Palestinians. A one-state, two-state or no-state solution. An end to apartheid Israel, but not the expulsion of all Jews from all of Palestine.
I would also side-eye anyone who was avowedly Zionist.
Who on this thread are you referring to?
Though they havent given him costs and reduced payiut by 50%This is important ruling.
Good to see the tribunal say this
Not who, what: the idea Israel should only be allowed to exist if it's not an explicitly jewish state. Not that non-jews shouldn't be allowed to live there, vote there, own homes and businesses there (of course they should) but denying it the right to determine its own language, culture, state religion, immigration policy etc like literally every other country on Earth does.
Not who, what: the idea Israel should only be allowed to exist if it's not an explicitly jewish state. Not that non-jews shouldn't be allowed to live there, vote there, own homes and businesses there (of course they should) but denying it the right to determine its own language, culture, state religion, immigration policy etc like literally every other country on Earth does.
I mean, we can say "it shouldn't exist at all because of settlement and genocide" and that's OK, as long as we rethink Australia, Brazil, Canada etc for the same reason.
But saying it can exist but not be Jewish (or not decide this for itself) is pretty problematic.
But saying it can exist but not be Jewish (or not decide this for itself) is pretty problematic.
Let's talk about societies rather than states. When societies start prescribing and proscribing religions, languages and culture you end with discrimination, conflict, civil war. It happens a lot, but that doesn't make it a good idea. You also get countries where it is not true. Multiple official languages, no state religion at all, no attempt to formally impose culture other than through education. Even where this happens there is no reason to defend it, to imply this is normal or a good idea.Not who, what: the idea Israel should only be allowed to exist if it's not an explicitly jewish state. Not that non-jews shouldn't be allowed to live there, vote there, own homes and businesses there (of course they should) but denying it the right to determine its own language, culture, state religion, immigration policy etc like literally every other country on Earth does.
Not who, what: the idea Israel should only be allowed to exist if it's not an explicitly jewish state. Not that non-jews shouldn't be allowed to live there, vote there, own homes and businesses there (of course they should) but denying it the right to determine its own language, culture, state religion, immigration policy etc like literally every other country on Earth does.
I mean, we can say "it shouldn't exist at all because of settlement and genocide" and that's OK, as long as we rethink Australia, Brazil, Canada etc for the same reason.
But saying it can exist but not be Jewish (or not decide this for itself) is pretty problematic.
As Gramsci says, some countries do need to be rethought.Not who, what: the idea Israel should only be allowed to exist if it's not an explicitly jewish state. Not that non-jews shouldn't be allowed to live there, vote there, own homes and businesses there (of course they should) but denying it the right to determine its own language, culture, state religion, immigration policy etc like literally every other country on Earth does.
I mean, we can say "it shouldn't exist at all because of settlement and genocide" and that's OK, as long as we rethink Australia, Brazil, Canada etc for the same reason.
But saying it can exist but not be Jewish (or not decide this for itself) is pretty problematic.
Why?
You are conflating Jews and Israel for a start.
I do not see a problem with having a one state where Israeli Jews and Palestinians live as equals in a republic.
The form of it could be bi national.
Same kind of republic I would like to see this country turn into.
Let's talk about societies rather than states. When societies start prescribing and proscribing religions, languages and culture you end with discrimination, conflict, civil war. It happens a lot, but that doesn't make it a good idea. You also get countries where it is not true. Multiple official languages, no state religion at all, no attempt to formally impose culture other than through education. Even where this happens there is no reason to defend it, to imply this is normal or a good idea.
As Gramsci says, some countries do need to be rethought.
I find the idea that any state mandates a state religion to be very problematic. Also, it is dangerous imo to talk of states having rights as if they were people. First and foremost, states have responsibilities - towards all those living within their borders.
But in the case of a region with roughly equal numbers of Jews and Muslims living in it - taking the territories of Israel and the occupied areas together - at the very least if you are to have a meaningful peace process, there needs to be equal treatment for both Jews and non-Jews in the region. There are models from elsewhere for how this kind of thing could work - eg Northern Ireland, where elaborate and often cumbersome measures are in place to ensure that neither Protestants nor Catholics dominate. It's not ideal, but peace processes never are. Some fudges are inevitable. There could be certain fudges that would ensure that Judaism is specifically referenced and protected within a new pluralist state. Then you start the process in which the different groups start to live next to and with one another, building shared institutions and civic spaces. Not easy, but again not impossible by any means.
I think that's a disingenuous way to characterise those posts. Given how Israel has treated the Palestinians, why should 'Israel get to decide what Israel is and shall be'? Surely everyone in the area that is currently effectively controlled by Israel gets a say. If Israeli politicians had ever been even a tiny bit serious about making a two-state solution work over the 30 years since the Oslo Accords, maybe I'd say different. But they haven't. They've undermined and subverted the accords at every opportunity. And that's before they started a genocide in Gaza.In short, everyone but Israel gets to decide what Israel is and shall be.
I think that's a disingenuous way to characterise those posts. Given how Israel has treated the Palestinians, why should 'Israel get to decide what Israel is and shall be'? Surely everyone in the area that is currently effectively controlled by Israel gets a say. If Israeli politicians had ever been even a tiny bit serious about making a two-state solution work over the 30 years since the Oslo Accords, maybe I'd say different. But they haven't. They've undermined and subverted the accords at every opportunity.
Now that they've flattened the Gaza Strip, that doesn't work. I think the idea of two separate states living peacefully next to one another is long gone. And it is primarily Israel's responsibility that it is long gone. They would not allow it to happen.Two states based on 1967 borders. All settlements built since, gone (or handed over as homes for palestinians). Full international recognition of Palestine, all UN resolutions to be obeyed.
That's where I'd start, but like 'ceasefire now' it's just whistling in the wind.
I don't get to decide any of this. I just have an opinion. I don't like racist, theocratic states which actively since their inception have sought to marginalise, displace and dispossess large sections of their population. Israel as a concept and idea stinks. And as a reality on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank.In short, everyone but Israel gets to decide what Israel is and shall be.
These days the cunt works for Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting where he pushes antiSemitism and misogynyUK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
University of Bristol academic who was sacked after being accused of antisemitic comments wins ‘landmark’ decisionwww.theguardian.com
Sounds fair
The other quotes attributed to him upthread were also nasty. Difficult to see how they separated the antizionism charge from the antisemitic statements.These days the cunt works for Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting where he pushes antiSemitism and misogyny
The circumstances are entirely different. Japan was facing complete defeat in all-out war between 2 nations, Hamas and it's associates are not yet comprehensively beaten nor are they actually likely to be, such being the nature of asymmetric warfare.. There are reports online that they have resumed some services in the North and their armed wing continues to mount attacks against the IDF, but meanwhile Israel is actually using starvation as an instrument of ethnic cleansing, a war crime, all the while Western governments have suspended UNWRA funding on the say so of uncorroborated allegations the Israelis have made in a dossier that they have released to news outlets such as C4, the FT and Western governments who have taken it a face value (here I meant he latter, not so much the news outlets). Below is a screenshot from the linked archived FT piece:I don't think the Allied powers would have accepted similar terms if Japan had called for a ceasefire in mid 1945, either.