War in the Middle East, again

[bradrn]

A sort-of-one-state federal solution: https://eretz-ard.org.il/

I don't know how realistic this is (I'm guessing not very much) but that's certainly well-thought out.

I don’t see much ‘well-thought-out’-ness in that plan at all. To me it looks like a bunch of buzzwords and nice thoughts, which very carefully avoid mentioning the main issue: how is this plan going to stop Jews and Arabs from killing each other? A ‘well-thought-out’ plan is one which actually attempts to think about the problem, not endless pages of platitudes.

[Travis B.]

how is this plan going to stop Jews and Arabs from killing each other?

First, until Israeli Jews stop oppressing Palestinians there will be no peace. For everything Palestinians have done, it has been fed by decades of oppression by the State of Israel, and the violence will continue as long as the oppression does. Of course, some may say that it is too late for peace (but the people running things should have realized what would happen when they allowed settlers to take Palestinians' land).

[Torco]

how is this plan going to stop Jews and Arabs from killing each other?

the same way every country gets its angry minorities to stop killing each other: laws, enforcement, legitimacy, wealth redistribution, legitimacy, cops doing rounds, legitimacy, having decently fair laws, people getting to call the cops to stop some crazy religious guy from kicking you out of your own house, and not being told, for example, sorry you're not jew good luck. .

as long as the country is a settler supremacist ethnostate the palestinians have excellent reasons to keep fighting. israel expressly is what I say it is, of course: it's right there in the closest thing they have to a constitution: they say it more delicately, though, as "settling is a national value" and “the right to exercise national self-determination is unique to the Jewish people". in politics much is opinion but there are some things that are more like facts, at this point, if you read history and so on: that's not a recipe for defusing an ethnic conflict, actually... unless you intend to... ehem... you know... cleanse something.

[Travis B.]

“the right to exercise national self-determination is unique to the Jewish people".

One question I have is how do Jews get a right to exercise national self-determination but Palestinians don't? And certainly if Jews have a right to exercise national self-determination so do countless other national minorities elsewhere.

[Torco]

ethnonationalisms have always been a rather "fuck you got mine" kind of deal: this here place? it's for us jews (or whites or whatever). you get your own place... or don't and get rekt.

[Ares Land]

I don’t see much ‘well-thought-out’-ness in that plan at all. To me it looks like a bunch of buzzwords and nice thoughts, which very carefully avoid mentioning the main issue: how is this plan going to stop Jews and Arabs from killing each other? A ‘well-thought-out’ plan is one which actually attempts to think about the problem, not endless pages of platitudes.

The federal state in itself is interesting (from an outside perspective); the states or districts are designed in such a way both sides neither side gets cheated from political representation.
I think the proposal works as an end goal -- as in, a good solution to the conflict would probably look something like this. It seems (at least to an outside eye) more workable in the long run than the usual one state or two state solutions.

But there is of course nothing in the plan that tells us how to get from here to there, and how we get the conflict stopping long enough for any sort of solution to be reached.

“the right to exercise national self-determination is unique to the Jewish people".

One question I have is how do Jews get a right to exercise national self-determination but Palestinians don't? And certainly if Jews have a right to exercise national self-determination so do countless other national minorities elsewhere.

Look at who proposed and passed the Nation-State Bill and that should be clear... I remember the law being extremely controversial at the time in Israel; I hope it still is.
As far as I understand, Netanyahu and Likud wanted - and still want - to keep the conflict going for as long as possible.

(Incidentally, I think that sort of reaffirmation of national identity is pretty common in the West. The far right is an ideological ruler everywhere.)

First, until Israeli Jews stop oppressing Palestinians there will be no peace.

as long as the country is a settler supremacist ethnostate the palestinians have excellent reasons to keep fighting.

This assumes people from Gaza have much of a choice in how the war is fought, or that only Palestinians are involved.

The problem is, what terms would satisfy Hamas? Is Iran interested in anything but adding fuel to the fire?
It goes without saying that none of this excuses Israel's doings in Gaza, and of course, Netanyahu is instrumental in placing Hamas where it is. But an end to the conflict is not going to be simple, no matter what Israel does.

[bradrn]

I don’t see much ‘well-thought-out’-ness in that plan at all. To me it looks like a bunch of buzzwords and nice thoughts, which very carefully avoid mentioning the main issue: how is this plan going to stop Jews and Arabs from killing each other? A ‘well-thought-out’ plan is one which actually attempts to think about the problem, not endless pages of platitudes.

The federal state in itself is interesting (from an outside perspective); the states or districts are designed in such a way both sides neither side gets cheated from political representation.
I think the proposal works as an end goal -- as in, a good solution to the conflict would probably look something like this. It seems (at least to an outside eye) more workable in the long run than the usual one state or two state solutions.

Yes, this is fair. I do think some kind of confederation is a good idea, here. (I consider it a variant of the two-state solution, myself.)

But, then again, if we take ‘assume the conflict has finished’ as our starting point… well, then we can propose practically any idea. It’s a lot easier to design solutions if you don’t reckon with the difficulties.

“the right to exercise national self-determination is unique to the Jewish people".

One question I have is how do Jews get a right to exercise national self-determination but Palestinians don't? And certainly if Jews have a right to exercise national self-determination so do countless other national minorities elsewhere.

Look at who proposed and passed the Nation-State Bill and that should be clear... I remember the law being extremely controversial at the time in Israel; I hope it still is.
As far as I understand, Netanyahu and Likud wanted - and still want - to keep the conflict going for as long as possible.

Yes, and yes. I haven’t seen much discussion of the Nation-State Bill recently, but only because there’s more pressing concerns right now, such as e.g. Netanyahu’s attempt to dismantle the entire judiciary. (Not to mention the war, of course.)

The problem is, what terms would satisfy Hamas? Is Iran interested in anything but adding fuel to the fire?

From what I’ve seen, Hamas has shown no interest in any kind of compromise, far more than Israel has. Of course, the negotiations are so secretive it’s hard to know what’s happening, but it looks like Hamas has had no interest in any kind of negotiations sort of ‘we want Israel to unconditionally surrender’.

Meanwhile, I‘ve seen mutterings that the Iranians are starting to get cold feet about the whole ‘funding terrorism’ thing, since it’s starting to backfire. But their public statements show no sign of it, and they’re still happily supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

[Torco]

This assumes people from Gaza have much of a choice in how the war is fought, or that only Palestinians are involved.

The problem is, what terms would satisfy Hamas? Is Iran interested in anything but adding fuel to the fire?
It goes without saying that none of this excuses Israel's doings in Gaza, and of course, Netanyahu is instrumental in placing Hamas where it is. But an end to the conflict is not going to be simple, no matter what Israel does.

this feels dishonest to me, tbh. "what terms would satisfy hamas"? as if the state of israel was faced with an impossible-to-satisfy, greedy opponent that insisted on demanding and demanding. but let's look at the reality on the ground: we have like 70 years of apartheid, we have settlers and pogroms against palestinians which the israeli state explicity supports, we have a supremacist ethnostate that explicity and brazenly has a racial policy of superiority. and these things are not even in question, it's not even on the table for the palestinians to stop living in concentration camps, as second class citizens, or getting killed because some jew or other decides that their house is his house now. its not even in question that israel becomes a state with legal equality: this is like stepping on someone's neck and going "this conflict is unresolvable, what possible compromise will my enemy accept?? oh woe is me, i must keep stepping on their neck". the popularity of Hamas is, as all militant resistence movements, the product of a violent occupation (as well as the funding and support of likud, as we know): ceasing this occupation is an obvious first step: and even if it was true that the leading cadres of hamas would stop at nothing other than killing every jew on Earth, those hardliners are sure to become less and less relevant if and when the palestinians come to live under a decent, non-apartheid state.

seems like the only solution is either radical change, israeli complete military defeat, or a successful genocide: our rulers have us used to radical change being impossible, and israel has the full and unconditional backing of the strongest empire in planetary history, so that leaves... yeah

[bradrn]

as if the state of israel was faced with an impossible-to-satisfy, greedy opponent that insisted on demanding and demanding.

But yes, this is precisely what it is faced with. Just look at, in the hostage negotiations, how much Israel has publicly admitted to compromising on (quite a lot) vs how much Hamas has offered to compromise on (practically nothing). At some point you do need to recognise that, yes, we are in fact dealing with an enemy who is not interested in reasonable compromise and never has been. (If they were interested in it, they would never have done October 7… much less done it at a time when Israel had been slowly loosening restrictions on Gaza border entry.)

As for the rest, we’ve been over this enough times that it should be clear I disagree with most of it. Israel is not an apartheid state, and neither is it supremacist in general.

(The exception to this, very depressingly, is ‘pogroms against palestinians’… it’s become abundantly clear in recent days that this is precisely what’s happened. But even here, you shouldn’t confuse ‘the Israeli state’ with ‘the current Israeli government’.)

even if it was true that the leading cadres of hamas would stop at nothing other than killing every jew on Earth, those hardliners are sure to become less and less relevant if and when the palestinians come to live under a decent, non-apartheid state.

I will, however, comment specifically on this. This seems to be a very common assumption in the anti-Israel camp: ‘if only Israel would stop the oppression, all the terrorist groups will suddenly become kind and considerate’. Lest it be unclear, I think this viewpoint is desperately naïve. I don’t think the fundamentalists will magically go away if Israel suddenly relaxes all restrictions… I just think they’ll gain access to many more Israelis to rape and murder. For that matter, the violent settlers on the Israeli side are no different: they’ll just keep on murdering Arabs who get in their way. Magical thinking is very comforting, but it’s no substitute for an actual plan.

[Torco]

i mean... it's right there, in their laws: the right of self-determination in israel is unique to the jewish people... non-jewish people, therefore, do not have it. settlement is a nationa value. only jews get to "return", not non-jews, with detailed laws and guidelines establishing who qualifies as racially pure enough to be granted citizenship and right to live there. the closure policy, i.e. the fact that some of the population have movement rights and others not (you can guess which is which) is public knowledge, as is the jewish-non jewish character of the support of settlements. the apartheid character of the israeli state has been described in detail by amnesty international, human rights watch and many other human rights organizations, not to mention former israeli officials. you know the pogroms against palestinians will not be prosecuted by the israeli authorities, simply because there's two kinds of people in israel: the inferiors and the superiors.

‘if only Israel would stop the oppression, all the terrorist groups will suddenly become kind and considerate’

oh, no, no, not at all. but it *is* a prerrequisite for any kind of peace that isn't predicated on the successful genocide. like, this has always struck me as confusing on the zionist's position: what are the palestinians supposed to do, just give up and die? move away, be ethnically cleansed? (not even that, they're not *allowed* to leave, for the most part). give up their homes to the first superior jew that asks? of course they're not gonna stop fighting overnight, it's been like 70 years of oppression. is that a reason to continue the oppresion?

[Ares Land]

this feels dishonest to me, tbh. "what terms would satisfy hamas"? as if the state of israel was faced with an impossible-to-satisfy, greedy opponent that insisted on demanding and demanding. but let's look at the reality on the ground: we have like 70 years of apartheid, we have settlers and pogroms against palestinians which the israeli state explicity supports, we have a supremacist ethnostate that explicity and brazenly has a racial policy of superiority. and these things are not even in question, it's not even on the table for the palestinians to stop living in concentration camps, as second class citizens(...)

I wasn't talking about Palestinians... I was talking about Hamas. It's perhaps worth mentioning that Hamas leadership isn't suffering any of these things -- most of them are living abroad.
How popular they are isn't even relevant: they're fundamentalist warlords and I don't think Gazans are asked if they like them or not.

even if it was true that the leading cadres of hamas would stop at nothing other than killing every jew on Earth,

That is pretty much what Hamas is after -- or at least, killing every Jew in the Middle East. (Again, Hamas, not Palestinians)

I also mentioned Iran -- Iran is not undergoing any of these things, or intervening out of kindness in their hearts. They're just interested in a show of strength.

this has always struck me as confusing on the zionist's position: what are the palestinians supposed to do, just give up and die? move away, be ethnically cleansed?

And the anti-Zionist position can be equally confusing at times tbh: what are the Jews supposed to do? just give up and die? move away, be ethnically cleansed?

I mean, there's no excusing or condoning the way the war has been fought; and there's no excusing Israeli policy before October 7. (Or, for that matter the official policy in the West for at least 20 years which has been not to give any fucks no matter what happens.)
But what is going on on the other side is not resistance to an oppressor: it's fundamentalists/fascist groups (Hamas, Hezbollah) and local authoritarian states (Qatar, Iran) making power plays.

[Linguoboy]

(The exception to this, very depressingly, is ‘pogroms against palestinians’… it’s become abundantly clear in recent days that this is precisely what’s happened. But even here, you shouldn’t confuse ‘the Israeli state’ with ‘the current Israeli government’.)

This strikes me as special pleading. Maybe it's just that I'm an old structuralist at heart, but can't you see how parole is becoming langue at this point? Say Gantz wins this September, does the Nation State Bill cease to exist or does it remain in effect indefinitely?

[Travis B.]

this has always struck me as confusing on the zionist's position: what are the palestinians supposed to do, just give up and die? move away, be ethnically cleansed?

And the anti-Zionist position can be equally confusing at times tbh: what are the Jews supposed to do? just give up and die? move away, be ethnically cleansed?

That sounds like a false dichotomy, when there are obvious options that are neither a Jewish supremacist ethnostate nor Israeli Jews being driven into the sea, which we have discussed in length on the Zeeb, but which I will reiterate here -- i.e. the one state solution (whether in its binational or unitary versions) or the two state solution. And fundamentally it is the Israeli gov't's fault that neither of these solutions has been viable (e.g. by allowing settlers to take Palestinians' land and carry out pogroms against them, resulting in continuing antagonization of the Palestinians and putting facts on the ground that make it hard for there to be a viable Palestinian state that isn't a bantustan).

[Torco]

But what is going on on the other side is not resistance to an oppressor: it's fundamentalists/fascist groups (Hamas, Hezbollah) and local authoritarian states (Qatar, Iran) making power plays.

those are not contradictory, though: if you're a country with enemies, you support militant resistence movements arise amongst your enemies. this is done by every country ever and it makes all sorts of sense: it's not expensive, in the grand scheme of things, and hey, they may succeed and your enemy is no longer -necessarily- your enemy. of course its always a bit of a lottery: if you're the US sometimes you get the Taliban, sometimes you get the Saudis.

I also mentioned Iran -- Iran is not undergoing any of these things, or intervening out of kindness in their hearts. They're just interested in a show of strength.

Iran got attacked thouggh. if a french embassy was blown up by, say, vietnam, what do you think would happen? I agree israel's position is precarious, and without US support it wouldn't be a viable project (which well it shouldn't, tbh, just like it shouldn't be a viable project for some random powerful group from vietnam or something to decide that marseille was their magical holy land and so they'll make an ethnostate there and proceed to kill, rape, evict or imprison all the french people living there: can you imagine? of course france, germany, switzerland, spain, they would all be quite against it, and rightly so!). look, I don't think people from colonizer countries properly understand how utterly terrifying the prospect of being colonized again is for the rest of us. of being turned into servants and slaves in your own countries, all the while unable to escape or, if you manage to escape, being turned into the lowest of the low, the most inferior class, a poor undocumented immigrant. it's scary! imagine for a moment you don't live in, I don't know, the third or fourth strongest country in planetary history. if the rich white people across the sea can just decide that you don't live where you live anymore, that you either die, go to an auschwitz, or move away with nothing on your pockets. at a whim. just because they want to, just because some rich group from half a world away wants your house. *and then they go ahead and do it*, and to boot the entire international system is like "okay, sucks for you tho, have some aid maybe some years". would you not put together some lead pipe, charcoal and sulfur? i know for sure I would. [mkay, i actually wouldn't, but only cause I have family abroad and an EU passport, which I took out in case chile gets conquered by fascists again so I, in fact, have more options that most of my countrymen. plus i'm well off for a chilean (though destitute for a european). still, the point remains]

And the anti-Zionist position can be equally confusing at times tbh: what are the Jews supposed to do? just give up and die? move away, be ethnically cleansed?

yeah, the objection of "but the israeli people are already there and it's not fair to kick them out either" is actually true and valid (though no one is trying the way the israelis are trying to kill or kick out the palestinians, importantly). ultimately our ancestors almost all came to live where they live as a result of some war, some genocide, some invasion or some other evil shit (for example mine: some are spanish, obvious colonizers, some are mapuche, who were known for being warlike and likely conquered the region where me granny's mum was from, some are diaguita, who okay, didn't conquer anyone that we know, and some are catalan and came in as settlers in the early 20th century riding on explicitly racist policies). I agree, ethnically cleansing the israelis would also be an evil. but as linguo points out we have more options here: for example, israel ceasing to be a supremacist ethnostate. if you dispute the wording, let me put it in less laden terms:

article 1: the republic of the levant is a non-confessional, non-ethnic, non-supremacist multicultural democracy. an *actual* democracy, where every inhabitant gets, when they turn 21 or whatever, full political rights regardless of whether they are a jew or a palestinian, a druze, an atheist, a pastafarian, samaritan or a damned jedi. no one will be deprived of their life, property, livelyhood or tranquility for being or not being a jew, for being or not being a palestinian, for being or not being muslim, arab, muslim, druze, philistine, manichean, zoroastrian or whatever else. should anyone try to do so, the army, police, internal security force, mossad, or whatever other name we've given to the dudes with the pew pew will fuck them up.

article 2: any jew trying to settle in land where palestinian lives gets pew pew. any palestinian trying to settle in land where jew lives gets pew pew. any group that tries to remove jews gets pew pew, any group that tries to remove palestinian gets pew pew, any group that tries to remove any other group gets pew pew, anyone killing or stealing the home of someone else other than the legally-endowed armed forces of the republic of the levant gets pew pew. insert a bunch of rules and regulations here.

article 3: the republic is split into cantons, municipalities or whatever. canton governments get to decide some stuff about how things are run, others are decided by the levantine republic. any canton that harbors the kinds of groups stated in article 2 will be stopped from doing so, canton governments that try get pew pew and new elections held. no settlers, no terrorists, no more political violence or you get the fucking pew pew mkay?

like... yeah, this looks like every constitution ever, but that's cause this problem is the oldest problem ever, which all states are designed to solve: how to stop people from killing each other, how to stop the homo homini lupus thing: the answer is twofold: one, give em as few reasons to do so as possible (i.e. if you legally enshrine the right of group A to kill group B, group B will wanna kill group A, don't do that, that's called legitimacy). and B, give em good reasons not to do so (i.e. if you try, its pew pew for you, that's called monopoly of force). apply these laws to everyone. wait and check frequently.

of course this solution will outrage nazi jews (who want israel to remain a jewish lebensraum) and it will outrage islamofascists (who want to remove the jew from the premises). fuck em both, sez I. but alas, I am not the god emperor. Biden is.

[Ares Land]

That sounds like a false dichotomy, when there are obvious options that are neither a Jewish supremacist ethnostate nor Israeli Jews being driven into the sea, which we have discussed in length on the Zeeb, but which I will reiterate here -- i.e. the one state solution (whether in its binational or unitary versions) or the two state solution.

Yes, there are other options, binational or one-state, and I'm all in favour of having a decent state or states in place, with a space and rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Personally I could even be convinced with a federal state on the Belgian model (I mean, the Flemings and Walloons prove that you can even hate each other a little and still live peacefully.)

But we're not talking about the same thing. The ZBB is a place for friendly discussion where I never encountered any antisemitism.
Outside the ZBB though... There are disturbing antisemitic undertones on the anti-Zionist side.

of course this solution will outrage nazi jews (who want israel to remain a jewish lebensraum) and it will outrage islamofascists (who want to remove the jew from the premises). fuck em both, sez I. but alas, I am not the god emperor. Biden is.

Amen to that! I entirely agree.

What I disagree with is: first, right now, the actors on the ground are Hamas, Hezbollah to a lesser extent plus Qatar and Iran -- all of them qualify as Islamofascist. I should point out that they do want to kick out every single Jew. Hamas says so explicitly. Khamenei has called Israel a "cancerous growth" that "will be excised." They're all in favour of genocide, they just lack the capabilities to implement it.

On Israel being ultimately "colonial" and "illegitimate", no, I can't agree. Jews have been kicked out, persecuted, murdered, and so on in every place they ever lived. At some point, yes, I dislike nation states as a matter of principle, but can we blame the Jews for saying "fuck it, let's live in a place of our own".
If anyone deserve to be blamed... it's well, just about all non-Jewish peoples among whom Jews ever tried to live. By 1948 things had gotten to the point where there just was no other option.

[bradrn]

The ZBB is a place for friendly discussion where I never encountered any antisemitism.

Maybe you haven’t noticed it, but it’s certainly here (though thankfully not in this particular discussion). Other members have informed me that they’ve witnessed even more than I have. Like a lot of prejudice, it’s easy to overlook the omnipresence of antisemitism when you’re not actually the target.

(To be clear: I will never mention any names here. Everyone involved deserves their privacy.)

On Israel being ultimately "colonial" and "illegitimate", no, I can't agree. Jews have been kicked out, persecuted, murdered, and so on in every place they ever lived. At some point, yes, I dislike nation states as a matter of principle, but can we blame the Jews for saying "fuck it, let's live in a place of our own".
If anyone deserve to be blamed... it's well, just about all non-Jewish peoples among whom Jews ever tried to live. By 1948 things had gotten to the point where there just was no other option.

This is exactly the reason why I am Zionist. It’s also why I reject one-state solutions along the lines of ‘once the oppression has been removed everyone will live in peace and harmony’… no, that’s not how racism works. If one excuse is removed, people who hate Jews just find another reason to keep on attacking us.

[Travis B.]

On Israel being ultimately "colonial" and "illegitimate", no, I can't agree. Jews have been kicked out, persecuted, murdered, and so on in every place they ever lived. At some point, yes, I dislike nation states as a matter of principle, but can we blame the Jews for saying "fuck it, let's live in a place of our own".
If anyone deserve to be blamed... it's well, just about all non-Jewish peoples among whom Jews ever tried to live. By 1948 things had gotten to the point where there just was no other option.

This is exactly the reason why I am Zionist. It’s also why I reject one-state solutions along the lines of ‘once the oppression has been removed everyone will live in peace and harmony’… no, that’s not how racism works. If one excuse is removed, people who hate Jews just find another reason to keep on attacking us.

The only problem with this is that Palestinians already lived in Palestine before the First Aliyah, and just as much as the treatment of Jews over the centuries has been thoroughly unjust at best, it does not make taking the Palestinians' land and turning Palestinians into second-class citizens at best (and for those outside Israel itself, not citizens at all) any more just either. (I do note that there also were Jews already living in Palestine at this time too, and this does not apply to them.)

[bradrn]

The only problem with this is that Palestinians already lived in Palestine before the First Aliyah

…and the Jews lived there even earlier. As tempting as this sort of argument is, you can use it in favour of either side, which is why I tend to avoid it completely.

[…] as the treatment of Jews over the centuries has been thoroughly unjust at best, it does not make taking the Palestinians' land and turning Palestinians into second-class citizens at best (and for those outside Israel itself, not citizens at all) any more just either.

On the other hand, this is correct (irrespective of the previous sentence). That’s why I do not support Likud or any of the other factions of Israeli politics which are in favour of this, and never have.

[Torco]

Yeah, I agree that antizionism *has* antisemites in it. it'd be kinda weird if it didn't, though, would it? but it's a lot more than one expects: it's like half the anti-israel posts I see sport a fair amount of "mustache man was right" or sth.

On Israel being ultimately "colonial" and "illegitimate", no, I can't agree. Jews have been kicked out, persecuted, murdered, and so on in every place they ever lived...

Well, illegitimacy comes down to whether you approve of it, it's often just a "hurray/boo" word (man, do those have a name?) (incidentally, I'm using legitimacy in the technical sense of legitimacy-inspired-by-the-state-in-the-ruled-people, but I gather you're using it as like... whether israel *is* legitimate as in good, not as in whether the inhabitants of the territory think so): however, it doesn't stop being colonial if you think the colonialism is good or necessary just like a state doesn't stop being an ethnostate just because one thinks that it's good for it to be an ethnostate: after all, the colonialists by definition believe colonialism is good, else they'd be... you know... not colonialists. Like, colonizing does not just mean "bad", it means a specific thing: for the sake of simplicity let's go with the wiki definition of colonization is a process of establishing control over foreign territories or peoples for the purpose of exploitation and possibly settlement. Israel is that, plain and simple, whether you think it's good or bad. the bill fits if one thinks it's good, it fits it one thinks its bad.

Like, the nazis also believed that the german people was oppressed and that in order to liberate it from the oppression of the evil jew it *had* to do the whole lebensraum thing, invade poland, expell the jew blabla.... but no one would -hopefully- take seriously a diplomat for the fourth reich saying "no we're not nazis, nazis are bad and do their nazism unnecesarily: we *need* to be doing what we're doing, so we're good and thus not nazis". Similarly, the questions of whether israel is an ethnostate, supremacist, a settler colonial proyect etcetera cannot be decided upon whether we think it was or is necessary unless we're willing to semantically bleach the concepts of colonialism, settling, supremacy and ethnostate all the way into meaning "a bad thing". Like, myself I think israel is simply a nazi sate, or something similar enough: a racial ethnostate engaged in expanding its lebensraum, associated with some ad-hoc justification (there's not a lot of difference, tbh, the germans also believed groBdeutshcesland was their god-given *essential* homeland) and doing racialized violence to anyone who stands in their way. now yeah, *because of that I believe it is bad*, but If I came to believe that it was good without ceasing to believe that it is an ethnostate, for example, I would be forced to consider whether ethnostates (or extermination in the pursuit of lebensraum, whatever) is in all instances bad; instead going "it's good therefore not nazi/ethnostate/colonial/settler cause those things are bad bad" feels... I don't know... like the kalam cosmological, you know? setting definitions up so just so, so that they'll support a prechosen conclusion.

[Linguoboy]

Well, illegitimacy comes down to whether you approve of it, it's often just a "hurray/boo" word (man, do those have a name?)

I've seen them called "yum/yuck" words but I can't remember where (perhaps Hayakawa?).

however, it doesn't stop being colonial if you think the colonialism is good or necessary just like a state doesn't stop being an ethnostate just because one thinks that it's good for it to be an ethnostate: after all, the colonialists by definition believe colonialism is good, else they'd be... you know... not colonialists.

Specifically the establishment of Israel was an outgrowth of British colonialism, which just about everyone agrees *was* a Bad Thing and which the world has been in the process of undoing (to the extent possible) over the last century or so. There's a reason why the Irish in particular are extremely and vocally sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

I wish the solution to global antisemitism was as simple as "give the Jews a nation-state", but it really isn't. Without the support of the USA, would Israel even still exist? And if that's the case, then for Jews to be safe in Israel they have to be safe in the USA as well. An antisemitic regime in this country could reverse the roles of Israeli Jews and Palestinians virtually overnight.