You can support Israel’s right to exist while still condemning the genocide and other human rights abuses that they commit. These things are not mutually exclusive.
That’s just a bad-faith, black-and-white view. Nazi Germany had the right to exist, but they didn’t have the right to invade other countries, exterminate Jews, Romani, gay people, etc. It’s not the existence of the state, or even the beliefs of the people running the state, but the actions that matter.
You can be the most racist, homophobic, misogynist Christian asshole in the world, and as long as you don’t act on your beliefs, it’s not a problem.
If Israel ceases it’s genocidal actions, and ceases treating Palestinians like sub-humans, then there’s no issue.
Israel is a foundational Apartheid state and system. It is rotten from the core. Like the Nazis. It has no right to exist in the first place. Israel is in its essence rape, murder pillaging and theft.
If Palestinians allow it then these “Israelis” can live in Palestine after the dismantling of the Apartheid. If not the right of return has long been granted to all colonists. Even to their Arab countries of origin.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there really aren’t many countries in the world that aren’t founded on murder and oppression. It is not, IMO, reasonable to hold decendants responsible for the crimes that their grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc. committed, but it is reasonable to hold them responsible for what they’re doing right now.
I have very recently replied to a similar question so I will paste the same response here:
Land disputes tend to end when an agreement is reached between natives and colonizers or the colonizers murder so many natives that there are no people to claim the land of their ancestors.
America and Canada mostly fall in the second category. The natives have struck a peace deal and gained reservations but instead of demanding all the land back they are (rightfully) asking for financial compensation.
What differs it from Palestine is that Israel is actively doing the ethnic cleansing and genocide in the present. And there is no peace treaty made which the Palestinians have accepted.
Unless Palestinians agree to a deal they have the right over all the land back. From the river to the sea.
In the present Palestinians are willing to agree to a deal favorable to Israel to end their suffering. Because Israel has the military advantage.
However Israel does not accept it believing they can steal more land. They will lose everything as soon as their military advantage ends.
It is performative. Bernie is an staunch supporter of Israel
You can support Israel’s right to exist while still condemning the genocide and other human rights abuses that they commit. These things are not mutually exclusive.
"You can support Nazi Germany’s right to exist while still condemning the Holocaust
This statement is fully comparable without any exaggeration.
It is mutually exclusive. Anyone who supports the existence of an Apartheid built on genocide supports genocide. There are no its and buts.
That’s just a bad-faith, black-and-white view. Nazi Germany had the right to exist, but they didn’t have the right to invade other countries, exterminate Jews, Romani, gay people, etc. It’s not the existence of the state, or even the beliefs of the people running the state, but the actions that matter.
You can be the most racist, homophobic, misogynist Christian asshole in the world, and as long as you don’t act on your beliefs, it’s not a problem.
If Israel ceases it’s genocidal actions, and ceases treating Palestinians like sub-humans, then there’s no issue.
Israel is a foundational Apartheid state and system. It is rotten from the core. Like the Nazis. It has no right to exist in the first place. Israel is in its essence rape, murder pillaging and theft.
If Palestinians allow it then these “Israelis” can live in Palestine after the dismantling of the Apartheid. If not the right of return has long been granted to all colonists. Even to their Arab countries of origin.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there really aren’t many countries in the world that aren’t founded on murder and oppression. It is not, IMO, reasonable to hold decendants responsible for the crimes that their grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc. committed, but it is reasonable to hold them responsible for what they’re doing right now.
I have very recently replied to a similar question so I will paste the same response here:
Land disputes tend to end when an agreement is reached between natives and colonizers or the colonizers murder so many natives that there are no people to claim the land of their ancestors.
America and Canada mostly fall in the second category. The natives have struck a peace deal and gained reservations but instead of demanding all the land back they are (rightfully) asking for financial compensation.
What differs it from Palestine is that Israel is actively doing the ethnic cleansing and genocide in the present. And there is no peace treaty made which the Palestinians have accepted.
Unless Palestinians agree to a deal they have the right over all the land back. From the river to the sea.
In the present Palestinians are willing to agree to a deal favorable to Israel to end their suffering. Because Israel has the military advantage.
However Israel does not accept it believing they can steal more land. They will lose everything as soon as their military advantage ends.
So you would agree to the 1950 borders, correct?
Nazi Germany didn’t but Germany did and still does.
And Palestine still exists after Israel will be dismantled.
Nazi Germany entailed half of Europe by the way. The Nazis occupying Poland were booted out to their country of origin.