Anti-semitism thread: onwards from 2023

Where I am coming from here is that there was a history of ethnic cleansing in Christian countries of Europe… and for the most part, they are not doing anything like this anymore…

I'm persuadable either way here as its not an opinion I hold with strong conviction but what is it that makes Israel not a democracy? I realize this things are on something of a sliding scale with a lot of hybrid regimes out there too but don't know what it is that would push it out of the category entirely

inclined to agree with table here tbh. Any country where there's a state religion and/or explicitly priveleged ethnic class... the track record is not good. With Israel being created with this *specific* goal, is it really any surprise things turned out the way they did.

Basically if Germany got to remain a country after what they did….

inclined to agree with table here tbh. Any country where there's a state religion and/or explicitly priveleged ethnic class... the track record is not good. With Israel being created with this *specific* goal, is it really any surprise things turned out the way they did.

Most countries were founded with an explicitly privileged ethnic class! That is historically the rationale for creating a state (country)… I feel like the recency of Israel’s creation is a key factor

In my reading the demand for Israel to remain "a Jewish nation" means that Jews will always be in control of the government. If Israel has a Democracy and the non-Jewish population continues to grow at current rate they will eventually be able to command political power. Which is why Israel has to remove non-Jews from the voting population by one means or another.

How many of European states in question are still de jure "Christian" in the laws being written and enforced?

Is reactionary hostility to refugees and immigration (or the mainstreamed Islamophobia of a state like France) not a modern version of the ideology that lead to ethnic cleansing in the past?

many of the

How many of European states in question are still de jure "Christian" in the laws being written and enforced?

Is reactionary hostility to refugees and immigration (or the mainstreamed Islamophobia of a state like France) not a modern version of the ideology that lead to ethnic cleansing in the past?

Which is why Israel has to remove non-Jews from the voting population by one means or another.

In what ways are they doing this? I'm not overtly familiar with what happens within Israel so I'm not arguing against necessarily

occupying gaza and the west bank without integrating them fully into israeli government and society, leaving a huge percentage of the muslim population without voting rights or self-determination

because the Palestinian residents of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem cannot attain Israeli citizenship and thus can't vote in Israeli elections

I guess my hope is that a two state solution is possible with everyone having rights and dignity and this will be like the 21st century equivalent of Alsace-Lorraine. I totally accept that this could be magical thinking

But isn't that the case when any country occupies somewhere else? That seems a function of invasion/occupation rather than democracy within the country itself. The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq but we didn't say it made the US less of a democracy. Any democracy in a country is surely always confined to its own borders and not to places it invades and occupies

Basically if Germany got to remain a country after what they did….

They didn't though, they were split in two for 41 years.

But isn't that the case when any country occupies somewhere else? That seems a function of invasion/occupation rather than democracy within the country itself. The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq but we didn't say it made the US less of a democracy. Any democracy in a country is surely always confined to its own borders and not to places it invades and occupies

so there's these people called settlers

anvil: all the Israelis who live in the Occupied Territories have voting rights, just the Palestinians do not. This is part of why Israel is described as an apartheid state

(xp)

you might find this useful: https://www.972mag.com/gets-vote-israels-democracy-2019/

Pretty sure the Iraqis were not kicked out of their on what is now American territory

of their homes

this is probably not the right thread for this discussion but this is a good piece on the inaccess to democratic representation among Palestinians of East Jerusalem: https://www.jerusalemstory.com/en/article/who-represents-palestinians-jerusalem

Israel is a democracy, but so were apartheid South Africa and the US during Jim Crow. Also, the occupation is coming up on 60 years now. Military invasions don't usually last that long these days, but I'm sure once Israel accomplishes the objectives of the Six-Day War they'll be ending the occupation any minute now

The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq but we didn't say it made the US less of a democracy. Any democracy in a country is surely always confined to its own borders and not to places it invades and occupies

That is a horrible example given that the US actually has colonies (and a mainland district!) without complete representation in the federal government and limited self-government. DC and Puerto Rico (among others) do make the US 'less of a democracy' than it could and should be.

the problem is considering democracy a binary state

I should clarify as it may not have come across properly but I'm opposed to both invasions and occupations, this isn't to defend Israel.

I understand about the settlers, we see a similar dynamic in Crimea too, but I think democratic rights are usually categorised about what is within a countries actual borders not when they're invading someone else's. The problem is the invading and the occupying, which is bad.

Lots of countries allow citizens living outside their borders to vote, but plenty don't allow that. We don't factor that into whether we consider a country democratic or not though

the problem is considering democracy a binary state

is this true? I think its fairly well established there are lots of what might be classified as hybrid regimes, Turkey, Hungary, possibly the US

Maybe the difference you’re not seeing is that Gaza is not just a country that Israel is occupying but the result of an ethnic cleansing

Like the Palestinians should be where Israel is

democracy feels like a red herring here since there are no real democracies at the level of the state at best there are more and less democratic tendencies. it's not binary but if we want to consider bourgeois democracies with partial voting rights for bourgeois parties democratic it doesn't mean very much

re: ethnic cleansing in christian europe it's still happening constantly both directly and as outsourced to africa, the middle east, the ocean...

also germany has no right to exist and should have been abolished long ago

I think democratic rights are usually categorised about what is within a countries actual borders not when they're invading someone else's

Israel's invasion of the West Bank took place in 1967, it's not an active proposition. And the question of what Israel's "actual borders" are is really what this all boils down to.

RIght, but lets say Israel called it quits tomorrow and decided no longer to occupy either the West Bank or Gaza, would you then consider Israel to be a democracy?

does it matter

Israel's invasion of the West Bank took place in 1967, it's not an active proposition.

This is a stronger point, but I'd still say ending the occupation should be a major goal here, but yes indefinite occupations without formal annexation complicates answer

Lots of countries allow citizens living outside their borders to vote, but plenty don't allow that.

Israel allows all its citizens living in the West Bank to vote, but not any citizens living abroad, or even visiting another country. There is no absentee voting (with an exception for active duty military).

Practically speaking the West Bank is considered part of Israel for its Jewish residents, but not for its Arab residents.

does it matter

I'm not sure. I think to an extent yes, I think ending the occupations are less ambiguous goals and more manageable goals and should be disentangled from the question of whether Israel should exist at all (which has lower levels of support)

Why is this conversation taking place itt?

RIght, but lets say Israel called it quits tomorrow and decided no longer to occupy either the West Bank or Gaza, would you then consider Israel to be a democracy?

Can't wait.

Yeah there are definitely other threads for this question

Why is this conversation taking place itt?

indeed

is this true? I think its fairly well established there are lots of what might be classified as hybrid regimes, Turkey, Hungary, possibly the US

― anvil

the interesting thing to me is that with the breakdown of federal authority, the US is more a set of _multiple different_ hybrid regimes, each with differing levels of democracy. while all democracies tend to rig the game at least to some degree, structurally states like texas and florida are markedly less democratic than states like oregon or washington (like not saying that as a cascadian pride thing, it's just that i'm familiar with voting systems over here)

Why is this conversation taking place itt?

indeed

― famous instagram dog (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, May 9, 2024 1:38 PM (five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Started with Hillel saying it will not work with anyone who denies the right of Israel to exist "as a Jewish and democratic state"

but somehow we've moved on to "what is Democracy anyway?"

Started with Hillel saying it will not work with anyone who denies the right of Israel to exist "as a Jewish and democratic state"

this was alleged and not confirmed afaict

It's right here

https://www.hillel.org/israel-guidelines/

IIRC, the unconfirmed thing was a writer claiming that Hillel wouldn't accept *as a member* any Jewish person who called themselves anti-Zionist

where's the "what is democracy, anyway?" thread, i want to shitpost there

I would say it’s pretty clear from the way the guidelines are drafted that they don’t partner with or host organizations or speakers that are antizionist. It doesn’t say anything about barring individual antizionist students/members, in fact I’d say the guidelines imply the opposite.

agreed, I think the political pluralism section is pretty clear

Started with Hillel saying it will not work with anyone who denies the right of Israel to exist "as a Jewish and democratic state"

but somehow we've moved on to "what is Democracy anyway?"

― Never fight uphill 'o me, boys! (President Keyes), Thursday, May 9, 2024 10:46 AM bookmarkflaglink

"somehow" doing a ton of heavy lifting there, Keyes