Then you have removed yourself from the conversation of what Israel should do. — Ennui Elucidator

Yeah, can't ask Israel to stop doing apartheid without 'removing myself from conversation'. Propagandist clown.

Yeah, can't ask Israel to stop doing apartheid without 'removing myself from conversation'. Propagandist clown. — StreetlightX

But you didn’t ask that. You said they have to stop all oppression. See the difference?

From the perspective of the Palestinians, the mere existence of Israel is oppression and the vast majority of Jews currently living in Israel need to leave. They aren’t wrong that they are being oppressed in that way - that land was forcibly taken, that refugees were not allowed to return to their homes, that they do not have an Islamic state. Those three things cannot be remedied without Israel ceasing to exist. Stop oppression = stop existing. Or maybe you had some other oppression in mind and you were planning on telling the Israelis and Palestinians when Israel has satisfied your sensibilities.

Stop oppression = stop existing. — Ennui Elucidator

If your existence as a state is premised upon opression, then you forfeit your right to exist.

In any case, you're abstracting again. "Opression", "Interets". No, just murder, land grabbing, and wonton suffering.

Stop your santising, propagandist.

then you forfit your right to exist. — StreetlightX

So there it is. Israel shouldn’t exist. Fine, we’ve established that. And now that Israel shouldn’t exist, should the Palestinians be allowed to kill the Israelis in the street till every last one is gone or is there some limit to their methods of driving the Zionists from their shores?

P.S. For the sake of posterity, StreelightX edited his post after I responded and added the bit about my abstracting again.

Israel shouldn’t exist. — Ennui Elucidator

So Israel can only exist on the basis of mass suffering of others?

So Israel can only exist on the basis of mass suffering of others? — StreetlightX

Its called the Nakba for a fucking reason. Maybe the Palestinians got it wrong, too. You tell me. How does Israel exist without causing the mass suffering of others? (Notice your change again from “oppression” to “mass suffering”)

How does Israel exist without causing the mass suffering of others? — Ennui Elucidator

Seems like a problem for Israel.

Seems like a problem for Israel. — StreetlightX

And every other country, but we are discussing Israel here and we don’t want to venture into accusations of whataboutism by the Australians or Americans. Still waiting to hear from the Danes, though.

So go on, tell us, are the Palestinians limited in their methods of driving the Zionists from their shores because the mere presence of a non-Muslim not born in Palestine prior to 1948 is oppressive or are there limits? The soon to be fleeing Zionists would like to know at what point they can criticize the Palestinians for shooting them in the back.

Lol, cute change of subject.

Anyway, back to Israeli apartheid.

Anyway, back to Israeli apartheid. — StreetlightX

How is that a change of subject. How does apartheid end on your view with Israel continuing to exist?

You keep using the word, so a bit of substance would be nice. Are you just asking for Israel to respect the borders drawn by the non-oppressive British (or the very wise UN if you prefer) and give Muslims equality under the law within those borders? Are you asking for Israel to stop giving preferential treatment to Jews regarding the right of return? Give me a sense for what it will take for Israel to end apartheid of the people who have grown in number from around 1,000,000 in 1947 to 6,000,000 today as a direct result of the Israeli ethnic cleansing that is second only to the Nazi’s purge of Jews in Europe.

You keep using the word, so a bit of substance would be nice. — Ennui Elucidator

There has been a very conveniently published Amnesty report on the issue. You should read it. Very vivid. Not full of obfuscatory bullshit words like 'opression' and 'interests'.

The crime against humanity of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute and customary international law is committed when any inhuman or inhumane act (essentially a serious human rights violation) is perpetrated in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention to maintain that system. A regime of oppression and domination can best be understood as the systematic, prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group.

Thus, the crime against humanity of apartheid is committed when serious human rights violations are committed in the context, and with the specific intent, of maintaining a regime or system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory control of one or more racial groups by another.

. . .

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has pursued an explicit policy of establishing and maintaining
a Jewish demographic hegemony and maximizing its control over land to benefit Jewish Israelis while minimizing the number of Palestinians and restricting their rights and obstructing their ability to challenge this dispossession. In 1967, Israel extended this policy beyond the Green Line to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which it has occupied ever since. Today, all territories controlled by Israel continue to be administered with the purpose of benefiting Jewish Israelis to the detriment of Palestinians, while Palestinian refugees continue to be excluded.
Demographic considerations have from the outset guided Israeli legislation and policymaking. The demography of the newly created state was to be changed to the benefit of Jewish Israelis, while Palestinians – whether inside Israel or, later on, in the OPT – were perceived as a threat to establishing
a Jewish majority, and as a result were to be expelled, fragmented, segregated, controlled, dispossessed of their land and property and deprived of their economic and social rights.

Jewish Israelis form a group that is unified by a privileged legal status embedded in Israeli law, which extends to them through state services and protections regardless of where they reside in the territories under Israel’s effective control. The Jewish identity of the State of Israel has been established in its laws and the practice of its official and national institutions. Israeli laws perceive and treat Jewish identity, depending on the context, as a religious, descent-based, and/or national or ethnic identity. — “Amnesty International on Apartheid”

Ding ding ding… we have a winner… Apartheid since inception, Israel predicated on Jews dominating non-Jews in Palestine.

So I guess I was talking about whether Israel can exist as a legitimate state on your view. Huh. Who would’a thunk it. Even Amnesty international agrees with me.

Even Amnesty international agrees with me. — Ennui Elucidator

This isn't the winning point you think it is.

This isn't the winning point you think it is. — StreetlightX

Which? That Israel as a non-Apartheid state on their definition is an impossibility? Go ahead, explain how Israel can exist without being an apartheid state. Or maybe you thought I was discussing something else when I told you that the only way for Israel to stop oppressing the Palestinians was for all Zionists to leave (you know, those folks trying to establish a Jewish state).

Again, not my problem.

↪Ennui Elucidator Again, not my problem. — StreetlightX

Again, no one said it was. And again, my criticism of 180’s comment was never about how right Israel was, but about whether Israel could ever critique the Palestinians methods, especially given that Israel is predicated upon the oppression of the Palestinians. You know, that thing that Amnesty International (who you invoked) is saying,

Critique Palestinians all you like. In the meantime, sucks about the murdeous Israeli state.

Or if you prefer, my critique was about whether the failure to include Israel in the discussion as an entity with interests was textbook anti-semitism because, as it happens, everyone is oppressive including the Palestinians. Even now, you can’t be bothered to say that you would tell the asshole, oppressive Palestinians that slaughtering fleeing Jews is too much because the only oppression you think is important is that which the Jews (you know, the group actually doing the apartheid) visit upon the Palestinians. So the Jews get to die and the Palestinians get a pass.

It isn’t enough to simply say, “A religious state that privileges a particular religion and ethnic decent over another and tries to maintain that group to the disadvantage of other groups is illegitimate,” but you must remain silent as the Jews are killed. The Muslims, who are crying foul because they aren’t the ones that get to oppress all of the other cultures within their nationstate, are to be praised for their freedom fighting. So we support the apartheid wanna-bes and make emojis about the real prospect of Israelis being killed. Seems strange, no?

Or if you prefer, my critique was about whether the failure to include Israel in the discussion as an entity with interests was textbook anti-semitism because, as it happens, everyone is oppressive including the Palestinians. — Ennui Elucidator

I am happy to discuss Israeli interests. Like ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism. The only one avoiding the issue seems to be you.

Critique Palestinians all you like. In the meantime, sucks about the mirdeous Israeli state. — StreetlightX

Sucks for whom? The Palestinians? Yup. Anyone else? You’ve already seen the statistics about how bad the Palestinians are in extracting blood from the Israelis. You can take to the internet to read about the ineptness of the Arab world at coming to the Palestinian’s aid in that task. So we are back at the beginning - Israel isn’t going anywhere, Palestinians are being abused more than necessary for Israel to preserve its existence and relative safety, and you and 180 have yet to announce a considered policy about how we can get from shitsville to something approximating a moral/desirable resolution that doesn’t involve a whole lot of dead Jews.

P.S. See Seppo? Your reading skills are lacking and the anti-semitism is glaring - Jews get to die and apartheid Muslims get to resume control over the conquered land they lost to the British. Or maybe you think the Ottomans were egalitarian.

My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. Your writing and communication skills, evidently, are not up to par. — Seppo

yet to announce a considered policy about how we can get from shitsville to something approximating a moral/desirable resolution that doesn’t involve a whole lot of dead Jews — Ennui Elucidator

Stop apartheid.

Sorry that you seem so morally unclear about this.

Stop apartheid.

Sorry that you seem so morally unclear about this. — StreetlightX

You still seem to miss it - Israel cannot stop apartheid and continue to exist. The result of Israel ceasing to exist isn’t the end of apartheid, it is just the end of Jewish apartheid and the resumption of Muslim apartheid. So your solution isn’t about apartheid at all, it is about remaining silent as Muslims kill the fleeing Jews. Sort of sucks that the Muslims were so honest about the violent means to their liberation and the religious duty to drive off the Zionists.

given the "circumstance" Israel finds itself in, must it give up all forms of oppression — Ennui Elucidator

The arsonist blames the bonfire – a circumstance of Eurocentric-colonizing Israel's own making by dispossession of the several centuries-old occupants of Palestine in the late 1940s. Israelis have created enemies which they have ever since been compelled to perpetually scapegoat – to oppress – "in the name of security" because Israel, despite needing to 'justify' itself remaining a heavily subsidized US/NATO client-state, has neither a modern historical claim, international law or demographics on it's side. A tragic catch-22 which, IME, calls into question the "legitimacy" of the State of Israel every day that this apartheid regime (& its US/NATO patrons-accomplices) resign themselves to the status quo.

The idea that Israel's existence is premised on kidnapping children, bulldozing houses, and extra-judicial murder is more anti-semetic than anything I could even dream of coming up with. Well done though, I guess.

The arsonist blames the bonfire — 180 Proof

No one is blaming anything. The Zionist movement can be definitionally apartheid as far as I am concerned. Any nationstate founded on being the state for X to the exclusion of all ~X is of necessity apartheid. Again, Israel exists. Israel ceasing to exist doesn’t end apartheid, it just ends Israel and lets the Muslims become perpetrators of apartheid. The Palestinians have expressly said that. Why don’t you take them seriously?

If apartheid is going to be the case in Israel/Palestine no matter what tomorrow, the next day, or the day after, at what point do we get to say to everyone, “Hey. Killing innocents is wrong.”? When do the Palestinians, who are oppressors in waiting, shift into not getting to complain that the Jews are shooting back?

e idea that Israel's existence is premised on kidnapping children, bulldozing houses, and extra-judicial murder is more anti-semetic than anything I could even dream of coming up with. Well done though, I guess. — StreetlightX

Have you read the history books? A displaced people (who everyone seems to think are europeans despite 1,500 years of being driven from every place they settled after they were expelled from their “homeland”) starts emigrating to a land with the intent to form their own government which will protect their identity as its founding principal. They acquire arms and resources and declare independence and right to control a territory despite the fact that that land was already occupied by people who didn’t agree with them and outnumbered them 2 to 1. After successfully repelling those that would disagree with them and attempt to defend their 1,000,000 co-religionists from the new government being imposed on them, they go on to increase their numbers, power, and territorial claims.

You tell me how that story ends with anything besides head scratching and dismay.

Strawman. Red herring. Canard. Tired old apologetic bs. :shade:

Strawman. Red herring. Canard. Tired old apologetic bs. — 180 Proof

Right. Because the Palestinians don’t want to be in charge of the entire land and impose a muslim state. That is just an invention of the Zionists.

I never pegged you for being so historically illiterate and overwhelmingly naive. Try to construct a single scenario in which Israel disists from “oppression” and the Israeli state remains. You don’t even have to give a fully fleshed out idea, just like five steps.

1) Israel stops being oppressive,
2) Hamas, the PLO, and every other armed organization refrains from taking any action against Israel,
3) No other Arab state invades Israel or otherwise enacts retribution,
4) Palestinians, now free to X, ???
5) Jewish state of Israel dissolved and the Muslim and Jewish occupants of the area form a liberal secular state because …. ???

End apartheid now.

Everything else - i.e. all of what you've said - is just so much apologist bullshit.