It's not just majority rule — Benkei

I think it's also important to consider this part too.

If you occupy a place and expand your territory that way, but don't give the people in that territory any rights, in particular the right to vote, then you're no longer a democracy simply due to this.

You're just a "big aristocracy" just with a geographic class basis, instead of hereditary (or then hereditary due to the geographical distinction).

I'd argue this is likewise true even if you don't formally control the territory but manage to informally control it.

Why this matters is not merely in formulating an appeal to democracy to argue government legitimacy in a particular case or then in general, but also functionally history teaches us that an aristocratic class with special privileges never gives up those privileges willingly.

If the entire West is essentially a geographically segregated global aristocracy (with relatively few exception elsewhere), especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, then not only does this raise questions of just governance, this also functionally explains why the West doesn't make any policies that actually address things like climate change, as that would mean giving up privilege which privileged classes never do (some individuals do, but there's no example of a whole class being like "this is unfair, have some more democracy").

In the case of Israel it explains why they are willing to commit a genocide rather than give up their class privileges.

None of the laws you've cited indicate that Israel discriminates de jure between Jews and non-Jews.

Freedom of speech trumps dumb fairy tales. — Benkei

I'm already familiar with your attitude towards religion. But if e.g. 90% of the people are in favor of anti-blasphemy laws would you say that it's "democratic" to nullify their will? Or do you just know their true will?

Jews are one family.
— BitconnectCarlos

:roll: Tell that to the non-Ashkenazim of color (Mizrani Jews, Sephardic Jews, Ethopian Jews, Indian Jews) in Israel who are racially discriminated against and treated as second-class Israelis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel — 180 Proof

Did you know that the lighter skinned blacks discriminate against the darker skinned ones? They oppress them and treat them as lower.

Did you know that the lighter skinned blacks discriminate against the darker skinned ones? They oppress them and treat them as lower. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, and they learned that from White (or semitic re: Arab) slavers-oppressors. Plenty of colorism (especially) in the older generations of both the American Southerner & Carribean sides of my mixed-raced family. So what's your non-point, BC? After all, I'm not the one claiming "Blacks are one family" and that "there is no discrimination among dark skinned and light skinned Blacks" the way you've lied (as the wiki link I've provided makes clear) about Israeli Jews who are semitic people discriminating, in fact, against – oppressing – other semitic people. Just calling you out again on your zionist propaganda bullshit. :victory: :mask:

None of the laws you've cited indicate that Israel discriminates de jure between Jews and non-Jews. — BitconnectCarlos

Then you don't understand what discrimination is and you have much bigger problems. These laws would be struck down in the EU.

But if e.g. 90% of the people are in favor of anti-blasphemy laws would you say that it's "democratic" to nullify their will? Or do you just know their true will? — BitconnectCarlos

Then you no longer have democracy. You cannot have democracy without people being informed and you cannot inform people if you're not allowed to speak. Especially if what we're talking about are unprovable theories about what the world ought to be like.

Edit: it's also extremely worrisome this is your go-to example. Makes you appear as if you grew up in the dark ages.

my "non-point" is that we can all sow divisiveness within oppressed communities endlessly if we like. at some point in history has an ashki racially discriminated against a non-ashki? sure? but it can go the other way too with the ashki discriminated against. and no, i don't have to abide by your theory that only certain groups (ashkis, white) can be racist. in any case, jews today are far more worried about the anti-zionism/anti-semitic violence and rhetoric which is a billion times scarier than any jew on jew discrimination.

Then you don't understand what discrimination is and you have much bigger problems. These laws would be struck down in the EU. — Benkei

Of course, no one is expecting the EU to define itself as a Jewish nation state. But the entire EU and the Jews are two very different groups with two very different histories. As long as I see Israeli arabs with equal political rights & access to high positions & non-discrimination protections regarding employment I will not think "apartheid." Of course racism exists everywhere.

The laws clearly did demonstrate the Palestinians are discriminated against when it comes to applying for Israeli citizenship.

You cannot have democracy without people being informed and you cannot inform people if you're not allowed to speak. Especially if what we're talking about are unprovable theories about what the world ought to be like.

Edit: it's also extremely worrisome this is your go-to example. Makes you appear as if you grew up in the dark ages. — Benkei

My example isn't drawn from Judaism but from Islam in which blaspheming the prophet Muhammad is a very serious offense. Free speech is quite varied across the western world; in the US supporting Nazism is protected but in Germany it isn't. What qualifies as "hate speech" is a controversial topic.

Is it "democratic" to allow for the promotion and spread of deeply anti-democratic ideologies?

i don't have to abide by your theory that only certain groups (ashkis, white) can be racist. — BitconnectCarlos

Strawman. :shade:

FWIW (not that bigots & idiots like you give AF), "my theory" summarized in this 2019 post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/350173

Under what methodology are the ashkis the "in group" while the sephardis and mizrahi are the out group? Did the Jews decide this? Or an outside group that made this designation to condone bigotry towards them as they are labeled the "oppressors class."

For the third time I'm posting this link in response to your nonsense. Read it for comprehension and stop playing stupid. :shade:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel

What is your point? Everyone is racist against everyone. Racism exists in some capacity everywhere unless a society were completely homogenous. Is that what you're after?

"There's racism in Israel" is banal to me. There's been 8 wars since Israel's inception where Israel faced annihilation of it lost. Not to mention centuries of Jewish persecution at the hands of Arabs. As long as Arab citizens are equal before the law and receive fair treatment in courts and have the same rights as the rest of the citizenry then I wouldn't call it apartheid. If there is apartheid (separate treatment), it is based on religion, not race.

Head up arse :point:

Society is seeing levels of anti-semitism not seen since the 1930s and you rant about the "ashkenazis."

BTW David Duke sides with the anti-Israel protesters.

3 weeks before Oct. 7, IDF Gaza Division warned of Hamas plan to attack, take 250 hostages (Times of Israel, 2024)

Previously I had not taken the idea that Israel had prior knowledge of the October 7th attacks too seriously. At most I figured there may have been vague warnings that could not conceivably cover the scale of the eventual attack.

It turns out I was wrong.

Apparently the IDF knew almost exactly what was coming, predicting the number of hostages with a scary degree of accuracy.

Did Israeli leadership knowingly let the October 7th attack happen in order to justify an ethnic cleansing of Gaza before the balance of power in the Middle-East decisively shifted against it?

UN committee says not enough evidence to declare famine in Gaza.

The report added that "the very fact that we are unable to endorse (or not) FEWS NET’s analysis is driven by the lack of essential up-to-date data on human well-being in Northern Gaza, and Gaza at large. Thus, the FRC strongly requests all parties to enable humanitarian access in general, and specifically to provide a window of opportunity to conduct field surveys in Northern Gaza to have more solid evidence of the food consumption, nutrition, and mortality situation."

BTW David Duke sides with the anti-Israel protesters. — BitconnectCarlos

DD's been an antisemite for decades long before the latest protests (by many Jews too) against Israeli apartheid and war crimes. Unlike the majority of anti-zionist (pro-Palestinian) protesters, you ignoramus, he is a KKK-racist advocate for oppressing non-white & non-christian people everywhere. :shade:

And the left sides with him re: the current rising tide of anti semitism sweeping the West. Regarding a Jewish state the Jews are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

“If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.”
— Golda Meir

Israeli authorities, Palestinian armed groups are responsible for war crimes, other grave violations of international law, UN Inquiry finds

In relation to Israeli military operations and attacks in Gaza, the Commission found that Israeli authorities are responsible for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare, murder or wilful killing, intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects, forcible transfer, sexual violence, torture and inhuman or cruel treatment, arbitrary detention and outrages upon personal dignity.

The Commission found that the crimes against humanity of extermination, gender persecution targeting Palestinian men and boys, murder, forcible transfer, and torture and inhuman and cruel treatment were also committed.

Memories of Srebrenica...

You can stuff your anti-semitism where the sun don't shine. A new generation grew up with a world that was moving towards stability and respect for human rights. In that world a Zionist Israel has no place because it implies discrimination. If Israel drops Zionism and respects the rights of Palestinians, there's simply no issue. This is not "everybody" else's fault, it's fucking racists and Jew supremacy of its current leadership that you keep pretending is perfectly fine. It's exactly the same idiotic racism as the far right shows in the EU except replace "Caucasian" with "Jew". That people take issue with it, is not anti-semitism, it's simply the right thing to do.

Fact: zionists are antisemites (re: Palestinians), ergo anti-zionists are anti-antisemities. However, antisemites (re: Jews), like rightwing evangelical Christians and Iranian/rightwing Israeli-backed 'Hamas terrorists', are, in fact, pro-zionists (i.e. anti-"Two-State Solution").

@BitconnectCarlos et al ...

:up: :up:

Sorry but this is just nonsense. I personally know people who've spouted antisemitic things who are anti-Zionists. And changing the definition of antisemitism to refer to Palestinians is just sophistry. Whitegoods are not necessarily white, because compound nouns in English don't necessarily refer to their components. Antisemitism is a word created to denote hatred of Jews. You can't make words mean what you would prefer them to mean.

The fact that there a good reasons to support a cause does not mean that everybody supporting the cause has those good reasons.

:point: fighting nonsense with nonsense ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/910736

Context matters.

:eyes: :roll: :sweat:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

You can stuff your anti-semitism where the sun don't shine. — Benkei

Your privilege is showing. When was the last time the Dutch really suffered? Or 1/3 of your countrymen systematically exterminated in a way which was entirely legal? We are not the same; don't ever forget it. Jews were violently assaulted in front of an LA synagogue today as well as the terrorist attack in Russia which targeted a synagogue. A little sensitivity wouldn't kill you. Jewish homes and businesses vandalized are becoming a regular occurrence in the states & elsewhere in the West. Not Israeli soldiers targeted, just random visibly Jewish Jews.

And it goes without saying that Jews have been ethnically cleansed from across the middle east and -- god forbid -- went to Israel for refuge. Those dirty zionists.

One of the reasons that Israel exists is because of attitudes like yours that dismiss anti-semitism and in turn foster a demand for independent Jewish leadership.

If Israel drops Zionism — Benkei

A Jewish homeland. That's all it is. If Israel is to be a democracy and a Jewish one it must maintain a certain demographic composition. Israel cannot "drop" Zionism because zionism is what affirms its existence -- Jewish self-determination.

Zionism is Jewish self-determination. Israel is the manifestation of that idea.

However, antisemites (re: Jews), like rightwing evangelical Christians and Iranian/rightwing Israeli-backed 'Hamas terrorists', are, in fact, pro-zionists (i.e. anti-"Two-State Solution"). — 180 Proof

Or, maybe, the anti-semites are the ones showing up to synagogues and assaulting Jews.

Are these evangelicals? :nerd:

A Jewish homeland. That's all it is. If Israel is to be a democracy and a Jewish one it must maintain a certain demographic composition. Israel cannot "drop" Zionism because zionism is what affirms its existence -- Jewish self-determination. — BitconnectCarlos

We know. I know. And you don't know that this is simply unacceptable in a modern world with respect for human rights because it's inherently discriminatory especially when such land is established through occupation and theft. Now if they had simply been contend with the 1948 or even the 1967 borders, there might've been something to salvage as peace and have a majority Jewish Israel. Instead occupation and illegal settlements made this impossible. Which is entirely Israel's own fault.

I don't condone violence against Jews, except as part of the Israeli occupation, as you know. But no, my sensitivity does not extend to the illegal actions and war crimes of Israel. So you can keep getting back to all the horrible attacks on Jews but I'm not committing them so don't have anything to do with it and don't need to apologise or make any statement about it because it's irrelevant with respect to Israel. You simply love to equate and smudge the differences between Jews, Israeli Jews, Zionists and Israel as a country. I only have an an issue with the last two, as I've repeated ad nauseum.

I don't condone violence against Jews, except as part of the Israeli occupation, as you know. — Benkei

Does this mean all Jews in Israel are valid targets? Or that all Israelis are valid targets? Or only Jews/Israelis in the "occupied territories" are valid targets? See, the boundaries are porous. Many Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied territory, as you know. So is it ok to kill Jews in the West Bank but not in Jerusalem? There's no difference, really -- all of it is "stolen" in the Palestinian view.

In any case, what is the principle at work here to arrive at this conclusion? If land is "occupied" then you have the right to go around willy-nilly murdering the civilians of the occupying power? Really? Babies born on "occupied territory" have no right to live?

You simply love to equate and smudge the differences between Jews, Israeli Jews, Zionists and Israel as a country.

In reality these concepts are porous; they spill over into one another. ~90% of the Jews are zionists including all major denominations. There's no Judaism without the commitment/tie to Israel. It would be like trying to separate a child from its family -- from it's roots.

Same idea between Israel and Jews. Israel is mostly Jews. The conflict is fundamentally ethnic, but nation-states are a relatively recent notion that's been grafted onto the ancient (ethno-religious) conflict. When you understand the conflict in this way you understand it how the Jews and Muslims in the region understand it. Then there's none of this "well it's ok to murder Jews in the West Bank but not in e.g. Tel Aviv or Jerusalem" type of nonsense.

Zionism is Jewish self-determination. Israel is the manifestation of that idea. — BitconnectCarlos

Nazism is German (Aryan) self-determination. The Third Reich is the manifestation of that idea.

Implicit in Nazism is racial hierarchy. "Germany for the Germans" is a fine idea as long as the foreigner is treated hospitably. It's when the foreigner seeks to eat their host that things get thorny.