I maintain that Zionism is implicitly racist as its factual implementation requires you to treat one group of people different than others; no matter how historically understandable it is, it is still racist — Benkei

There was a time and place for Zionism, just as there has been a time and place for romantic nationalism to many people when acquiring a nation-state of their own (including my own). These kind of ideologies do have also positive aspects like creating social cohesion, but now days typically are just seen as inherently bad things that only promote racism, intolerance and hatred. Basically something evil.

Yet just look around the World and one should notice that those people that don't have an own state are typically repressed and looked down upon. If it's difficult to understand for affluent Westerners just why would something like an own homeland be a positive thing, then just ask the Kurds how they feel about not having an own country. And how Kurds are treated in the World stage.

Yet just how Zionist is Israel today? From meeting Israelis and what I gather from reading I think they are quite the same as everybody else, quite critical about the politics in their own country and perhaps not as polarized as the Americans, but still. A bunch of religious zealots may have gotten into a position where they operate and have influence above their own weight class, but so it's in the US too. Are there Jews who think that they are better than others as God's chosen people? Sure, but then you find those annoying people everywhere who think they are somehow better than others.

Hence I wouldn't call it Zionism, it's not so relevant as it was let's say after ww2 and during the Israeli war of independence. I would say that the state of Israel has basically adapted to a perpetual low intensity conflict. Hamas or Hezbollah lob some rockets into Israel, Iron Dome works (if it's just your typica variant of al Katyusha-rocket) and then Israel responds with air strikes. Tit for tat. And life goes on. It's the new normal of a conflict becoming the ordinary way of things.

Yet just look around the World and one should notice that those people that don't have an own state are typically repressed and looked down upon. If it's difficult to understand for affluent Westerners just why would something like an own homeland be a positive thing, then just ask the Kurds how they feel about not having an own country. And how Kurds are treated in the World stage. — ssu

What? Like the Sami? Not having an own state isn't the cause of repression: living in a state with institutionalised racism causes it or if it cannot uphold the rule of law.

The Kurds are an oppressed people. If they wouldn't be oppressed they'd probably wouldn't have a wish to have an independent country.

And it's not that Jews don't have a right to a safe country, it's that they discriminate their own citizenry. It's also not about the average Israeli being critical or sceptical of their political class, it's the actual policies that create second class citizens. That is all caused by the implementation of the State of Israel having to be a Jewish state. That sounds pretty zionist to me.

I would say that the state of Israel has basically adapted to a perpetual low intensity conflict. — ssu

This is an entirely different issue and is more about international law than Israeli internal laws and policies.

What? Like the Sami? — Benkei

Far better treatment for +50 000 Sami people than for the 30-40 million Kurds. Besides, If the Sami would be 1 million people in the nothern parts of the Nordic countries, likely yes, they would have had an independent country long time ago. There as stubborn as Finns are (and totally unrecognizable from Finns without their traditional drees). When there's a will and unity and enough people, there's a way.

Not having an own state isn't the cause of repression: living in a state with institutionalised racism causes it or if it cannot uphold the rule of law. — Benkei

Living in any country where you are considered "other" can be problematic, even if it isn't really institutionalized.

The Kurds are an oppressed people. If they wouldn't be oppressed they'd probably wouldn't have a wish to have an independent country. — Benkei

I disagree. How oppressed are the Scots now? Many of them want an Independent country.

Perhaps we ought to give Netherland back to Spain. I gather that they can behave better this time around and won't oppress you. You don't need Mark Rutte, Pedro Sanchez in Madrid will do just fine.

This is an entirely different issue and is more about international law than Israeli internal laws and policies. — Benkei

Actually it isn't. Especially when you are talking about 'institutionalized' issues, meaning what the goverment does and implements by law. The focus is security, not zionism. It's security issues that are in the forefront when the dealing of the Palestinians in Israel. It is security issues that have made Gaza into what it is today.

Fools rush in, it's said.

It may be one of my many peculiarities that I think this way, but I wonder whether it's significant, in considering any claim to a "homeland," that a Jewish state, or nation, or kingdom, has existed in the area of Palestine for perhaps about 300 years in the last 3,000 years? Granting that there is and should be an Israel, is this pertinent to whether it should be where it was, in fact, established?

It's been contended that the Jews conquered land there and held it as a kingdom(s) (Judea and Israel) around 1,000 BCE. The Assyrians took over around 700 BCE, Babylon took control around 600 BCE and subsequently destroyed the Temple. Then came the Babylonian exile, which ended when Cyrus the Great took over around 500 BCE, and the Achmaemenid emperors ruled there until Alexander conquered Palestine and lots of other places around 330 BCE, Then the Seleucid Empire ruled until the Jewish Hasmoneans gained their independence, briefly, around 100 BCE, at which time Rome became dominant in the area and the Jewish kingdom became, briefly, a client or vassal of the Romans, but then was made a province, or part of one. Two Jewish revolts were then crushed by the Romans, one by Vespasian and his son Titus, and one by Hadrian which led to the destruction of the second Temple.

Rome controlled the area and continued to do so through its Eastern remnant until the 7th century CE, at which time Muslim rule began, with a lapse of about 200 years when the Crusader kingdoms ruled, and continued. Israel was established in 1948.

Under such circumstances, what is the basis for a claim that Israel was established in the Jewish "homeland"?

Feel free to ignore. I'm just wondering.

Under such circumstances, what is the basis for a claim that Israel was established in the Jewish "homeland"? — Ciceronianus the White

It's bullshit, but they're there now.

I disagree. How oppressed are the Scots now? Many of them want an Independent country. — ssu

Yes, I'm well aware which is why I said probably. And do you expect the Scots to then discriminate between the English and Scottish Scots living in Scotland based on their ethnicity? Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally?

Perhaps we ought to give Netherland back to Spain. I gather that they can behave better this time around and won't oppress you. You don't need Mark Rutte, Pedro Sanchez in Madrid will do just fine. — ssu

You're saying that to the wrong person! I really couldn't care less whether it would be Spain or a centralised EU government as long as it results in a fair society.

The focus is security, not zionism. It's security issues that are in the forefront when the dealing of the Palestinians in Israel. It is security issues that have made Gaza into what it is today. — ssu

Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and I've been talking about citizens all this time. They are different things. The institutionalised racism is informed by ultra nationalism and zionism, not the security issue.

That claim is of course a religious one. People can believe what they want but they shouldn't expect it to be an argument for people who don't share their religion or are an atheist.

The legal claim is the Balfour declaration and subsequent UN declarations and the fact the country has been internationally recognised by other States.

With the status quo, the residents of Gaza will be pummelled into the dust.

Yes, I'm well aware which is why I said probably. And do you expect the Scots to then discriminate between the English and Scottish Scots living in Scotland based on their ethnicity? Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally? — Benkei

Let me give you another example. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia. There wasn't any violence, any oppression and actually no popular push for the dissolution. In fact, Slovakia just wanted the state to be a loose confederation, while the Czech leadership wanted a tighter federation. Only a small minority wanted the dissolution of the state (in a September 1992 opinion poll, only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favoured dissolution). There was just disagreement on what state would be, yet this velvet divorce happened. This just undermines your "if there is no oppression, people are fine living together" argument.

Basically there has to be some kind of a bond. Just like English and the Scots have the identity of being British, which has worked at least for now. Just like with a marriage, it doesn't work if you just assume that the "I do" in Church years ago is enough. You have to work to keep people together.

You're saying that to the wrong person! I really couldn't care less whether it would be Spain or a centralised EU government as long as it results in a fair society. — Benkei

This explains your view a lot. Then the next question is what would you define as fair and what as oppression? Would it be oppression if every fifth euro you pay taxes would go to Spain as wealth transfer or would it have to be Spanish troops coming to your home and taking away that nice piano you have? What is fair and what is oppressive is a slippery slope.

It's not that the things you're bringing up aren't interesting in themselves but they have little to do with the subject at hand. Yes, in some cases fairness and oppression (especially if you're not very collectivist minded) can be muddled. However, in the case of Israel the treatment by the State of non-Jewish citizens is quite well documented and obviously racist. See for instance: https://www.english.acri.org.il/publications

Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and I've been talking about citizens all this time. They are different things. The institutionalised racism is informed by ultra nationalism and zionism, not the security issue. — Benkei

Really? So what are the one million,one fifth of the Israeli citizens that have Israeli citizenship, but assume that their nationality is Palestinian? Some of the non-Jewish people can indeed live in Israel with just a permanent residence, but many are citizens.

So what's the difference between the non-Jewish resident that lived in after 1949 on Israel and one that lived in the West Bank? Especially if after 1967 the person on the West Bank took the offered Israeli citizenship.

Yes, there's oppression. But my argument that it's done for the sake of security. Only for a minority it's Zionism and racism.

Thanks for the links! Looked at them briefly.

Looking at the acri report (Overview of Anti-Democratic Legislation Advanced by the 20th Knesset),I think it shows my point:

The erosion of democracy is manifested in a range of
interdependent initiatives: an attempt to erode the power, authority and activity of
"gatekeepers" - the institutions that make up the democratic structure and constitute the
set of checks and balances that are vital to democracy and ensure the rule of law, good
governance, the protection of human rights and minorities, and the elimination of
corruption and the tyranny of the majority; an attempt to silence critical voices of the
government, including silencing public criticism expressed by social or political minorities;
an attempt to delegitimize political opponents, human rights organizations and minorities;
an attempt to restrict the actions of those holding up to positions that are inconsistent
with those of the political majority; and portraying the minorities in the Israeli society in a generalized manner as enemies of the state, while legitimizing the violation of their civil and political rights.

Portraying the minorities as enemy of state, which is most like written between the lines and not directly, is a symptom of the present conflict. Martial laws are in every country quite undemocratic and do fringe civil rights. The problem in Israel is that when the country is in permament low intensity war, those martial law decrees start to be 'normal' law. The Basic Law ISRAEL - (THE NATION STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE) is said by acri to be undemocratic, but many laws without looking at others might seem so too. But yes, Zionists have been happy with this law.

There are two separate issues going on in this discussion - and it's a bit hard to untangle then given the history.

Issue #1: How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"

Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?

Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I do not have any answers to these questions.

I will note that for #1, the currently existing mechanism is via the United Nations.

For #2, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there is no enforcement mechanism.

↪iolo That doesn't make a lot of sense considering zionism existed well before the Nazis. — Benkei

The Zionists didn't have the power then, and hadn't yet come to the calamitous decision that racist colonialism was the only way to survive.

Comparing Zionists to Nazis is an anti-semitic trope and isn't going to fly here anyway. Take it somewhere else.


Baden

21 hours ago
Reply — Baden

I'll say the truth wherever I am, and if it hurts your Nazi feelings, hard luck!

Issue #1: How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land — EricH

There is the practical reason that truly gives credibility to all philosophical, ethical, legal and whatever reasons: Other people with similar plots of land accept it.

Hence the recognition of independence by other states creates that independence. You could call it recognition by peers.

Whatever, you'll be banned then. No skin off my nose.

Whatever, you'll be banned then. No skin off my nose. — Baden

If such a Nazi as your goodself could do that thing, I should be well content to leave.

Ok, bye then. Getting back on topic...

Comparing Zionists to Nazis is an anti-semitic trope — Baden

How does that work? Are Zionists supposed to represent all Jews?

For #2, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there is no enforcement mechanism. — EricH

That really depends on the country in question whether human rights are enforceable. Most countries have UDHR human rights either as part of their constitution, laws or international treaties. Those usually have options for enforcement in the national legal order or recognised supra-national courts.

That claim is of course a religious one. — Benkei

I understand. But I think to call a place where the ancestors of a group of people lived and were sovereign for a relatively short period of time in the Iron Age (Near East) their "homeland" is a misuse of the word, or at least an substantial exaggeration. One would hope there would be a stronger historical basis on which to make that statement, even if it is a religious one, at least where nation building is concerned.

That is true. However, there is no way to force any given country to adopt them in their constitution, laws, or international treaties. To my knowledge, the US has not legally adopted it as a treaty.

Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally? — Benkei

It's not far fetched to assume they'd reclaim whatever English land ownership there might be and to limit non-Scottish immigration. Whether they'd allow a right of return for those with Scotch ancestory, likely, if they follow the Irish lead. If a historical claim is made that Scotch emigration was the result of English oppression, it would follow that they may allow a right of return to repair that past injustice.

And isn't that the whole issue anyway? Remedying past wrongs and protecting historically oppressed peoples? All of your arguments hold as much validity whether you're arguing against special treatment for blacks in America or Jews in the world. Isn't affirmative action just another form of apartheid under your argument, assuming you wish to disregard historical context and just declare absolute equality for all is required regardless of the prior suffering of the people?

I understand. But I think to call a place where the ancestors of a group of people lived and were sovereign for a relatively short period of time in the Iron Age (Near East) their "homeland" is a misuse of the word, or at least an substantial exaggeration. One would hope there would be a stronger historical basis on which to make that statement, even if it is a religious one, at least where nation building is concerned. — Ciceronianus the White

And what basis did the founders have in calling America the land of the free, considetimg they had just recently stumbled upon it? And why is the US rightly your homeland today? And even should you be the descendent of an original settler, how is the land now yours simply because your Neanderthal great grandfather touched it first?

You can ridicule others' justifications for possessing land, but it's doubtful they're more ridiculous than the justifications you have for possessing your land.

You can ridicule others' justifications for possessing land, but it's doubtful they're more ridiculous than the justifications you have for possessing your land. — Hanover

I agree. The whole talk of 'justice' or somebody having more justification for lands than others is hypocritical stupidity. If enough people make a claim to the land they live in and can hold on to it, that's the "justification". We can hope that nation states behave well to their citizens and to others, but nation states are sovereigns in their own territory...as long as they can defend themselves. The truth is that people have moved, created new states where old states have been and pushed aside others. Things aren't permanent and justice has nothing to do with it. Yeah, history sucks, but's that is the truth.

America's my home because I live there, and always have. It's the place of my birth. My native land.

These things can be said of a person, without qualification, as easily as that. A group of people may likewise have been born and lived in a particular place, and live there now. That's their home, their native land.

My ancestors lived (mostly) in Italy for centuries before they began taking boat rides to the U.S. about 130 years ago. Is Italy my homeland? I would say no. Is it the homeland of all those living in the U.S. whose ancestors lived in Italy? Again, I would say no.

It's possible for an identifiable group of people to live in a particular place for centuries, and thereby become so associated with a place that it's called their homeland. I'm not sure that can be said of the Jews, however. Nor am I sure that centuries of association with a particular place in the distant past creates any entitlement to it.

Nonetheless, unless I'm mistaken, the fact that Israel exists where it exists, and the claim of some that it should expand, are sometimes justified at least in part on the belief that it's the homeland of the Jews.
I wonder whether that belief has any substantial basis.

It's not far fetched to assume they'd reclaim whatever English land ownership there might be and to limit non-Scottish immigration. Whether they'd allow a right of return for those with Scotch ancestory, likely, if they follow the Irish lead. If a historical claim is made that Scotch emigration was the result of English oppression, it would follow that they may allow a right of return to repair that past injustice. — Hanover

Totally missing the point. Discriminating between different types of Scottish citizens was the issue I raised. That has nothing to do with immigration.

And isn't that the whole issue anyway? Remedying past wrongs and protecting historically oppressed peoples? All of your arguments hold as much validity whether you're arguing against special treatment for blacks in America or Jews in the world. Isn't affirmative action just another form of apartheid under your argument, assuming you wish to disregard historical context and just declare absolute equality for all is required regardless of the prior suffering of the people? — Hanover

If you think that's my argument, please read again because it clearly isn't.

Perhaps you should state your argument more clearly. We know that you think that the state of Israel is oppressive to minorities. I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you on that. But what does it take for two groups of people that identify themselves as different people to live in one country?

The only solution is there has to be an identity above that, which both can relate to. Being British is a perfect example. Those smart and cunning Englishmen!!! Or then you talk of a confederation or an union. The EU is an perfect example, because it's made up of nation states.

Perhaps you should state your argument more clearly. We know that you think that the state of Israel is oppressive to minorities. I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you on that. But what does it take for two groups of people that identify themselves as different people to live in one country? — ssu

Plenty of people have been disagreeing with it by downplaying it. But it's this and the fact that such racism is a necessary consequence of pursuing a Zionist agenda, as Likud has been doing since 1996. So the argument is, Israel is a racist country, it's racist because it discriminates between Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Israelis. It has put in law and has Supreme Court rulings enforcing law, institutionalising it and defending it on the basis of Zionist thinking (e.g., it must be a Jewish State, as opposed to a State safe for Jews). It is therefore not anti-semitic to claim that, what I'll call - political -, Zionism is racist.