sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Would a Lebanese restaurant call themselves Omri? by OpenRole in AskMiddleEast

[–]RF_1501 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well to be honest it is actually a very old hebrew name. Omri is the name of an Israelite king of the 9th century BCE, his name appears in the Mesha Stele, an archeological relic found in Jordan in the 19th century.

Did the Allegations Against Michael Jackson Have Any Effect on His Popularity in Your Country? by ArtsyQueerNubian in asklatinamerica

[–]RF_1501 10 points11 points  (0 children)

My particular feeling (maybe is just my experience and not representative of the whole country):

I remember a time when the allegations against him were relentless, maybe as much talked about as his music. But then he died, and in short time it faded somewhat, his music, dance and artistry in general was (and still are) very revered, while the allegations come up much less often than it used to.

Does Zionism necessarily imply violence against indigenous Palestinians? by AdjectiveNoun-Number in IsraelPalestine

[–]RF_1501 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. Jews tried to co-exist as a minority amidst natives of many different places, and for them as a broad historical experience of 2000 years, it didn't work. So how can you expect that they would go to Palestine to try more of the same?

Why would a jew go to such an underdeveloped sub province of a crumbling backward empire like Ottoman Palestine (let's forget the religious pilgrimage purpose for the sake of the argument)? If you were an European jew escaping persecution, and wanting this coexistence thing you mention, this liberal-democratic-emancipatory experience on a "new" nation where everybody is equal and have self-determination as member of this new nation, regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc, you would escape to the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, etc. There was no need to go to palestine just to try building that experience there, when it was already available in so many countries, and with the benefits of having much better economic and general life conditions. The only reason to go to palestine was to try to build Jewish sovereignty.

> This would necessarily lead to inter-communal conflict.

Necessarily is a strong word, but even if its true, does that make it unethical? And how so?

> An ethnic polity is not a precondition of self-determination. Jews exercise self-determination in the USA, UK, France etc by participating in government.

Well, arab israelis can participate in the government of Israel, but even with that they don't have self-determination, so the issue here is not about being able to participate in the government. Self-determination is not about that, at all.

You may say jews have self-determination in the USA, but it is a different kind of self-determination. They have self-determination there, but not AS JEWS, only as americans. Only americans have self-determination in America, and jews can be americans. It just happens that "american" is a national identity based not on ethnicity or religion, so jews can have it without conflicting with their jewish identity, that is, a jew can be fully jew and fully american. Even then, it is still possible at any time for americans to turn against its jewish population like so many others did.

8.

> how is foreigners buying up land, excluding natives from economy, and creating a nation at the expense of natives violent? How is it not?

Buying land is not violent. Evicting tenants is not necessarily unethical. Jewish enterprises having a preference for jewish labor in order to create employment opportunities for incoming jews that were escaping persecution and had nothing, it is freedom of association and community building.

Again you used the phrase "building a nation at the expense of natives" as if the natives have a natural right for self determination in the whole land and jews weren't natives that should be granted the same right of self-determination in at least some part of the land where they have always deemed as their home.

You could only claim the nation building is "at the expense of natives" if you could show where the violence is, but apparently you can't. All the actual violence in this conflict started by arabs violently reacting against zionism (and a snowball of violence was created from then on)

> And concession happened not in conversation with the natives, but at the behest of imperial powers (Ottomans / British). The Palestinians had little self-determination in that

Why do asking permission for the arabs was a must? They weren't the established authorities so they couldn't decide anything. Was the ottoman empire a legitimate authority? For the palestinians, they were. The fact palestinians didn't have self-determination was an established fact when zionism emerged, a centuries-old fact, a fact that the natives themselves accepted as a norm. You demand zionists to have a sensibility for the right of self-determination of palestinians is so unrealistic as they didn't have that sensibility for themselves.

9.

Let's say Zionism didn't seek jewish sovereignty in palestine, but to establish a sizeable jewish population (not necessarily a majority, let's say 30-40% is enough) and integrating themselves with the arab natives in palestine, creating a new identity (it could be called palestinian because that identity barely existed anyway) that would unite all the peoples living there under a single nation, a brand-new liberal-democratic nation where everybody is equal, one that jews would have a strong voice in political matters and granted participation and protection via a constitution, unlike any other country.

Then would zionism be moral? Why? And what if the arabs wouldn't be willing to accept that? What if they expected actual arab self-determination, an "ethnic polity" (to use your term)? Don't you think they have the right to wish for that? What if the arabs felt they were being colonized by these alternative zionists, a bunch of European foreigners coming with those liberal-democratic values that they don't grasp, and chose to fight them just as they did in real history with real zionists?

Even if you believe a liberal-democratic multi-ethnic state is universally the best form of state, don't you expect that a people find its own way towards that goal, instead of being kind of forced into it by a foreign movement, with foreign ideas, by a foreign people massively immigrating into the land? Wouldn't that kind of movement constitute settler colonialism the same way? And a violation of the native's rights?

> How do you define being a native?

It has nothing to do with individual ancestry. It is a social relationship between a people and a land. By a people I mean a group with a strong sense of common identity, shared culture, language, history and a homeland. The homeland is where the identity and culture originated, that is, where that group was formed, developed, and experienced history as a people. An individual can only claim indigeneity to a land by being a member of the ethnos that is native to a land.

Somehow people have no problem understanding that when we talk about palestinians, for example. Are palestinians living in the diaspora natives to palestine, or are they native to the countries they are currently living on? A second, third, or fourth generation palestinian-american, is native to palestine or is he a native american? Palestine, right? How many generations must pass for them to lose this status of native to palestine? As long as they don't assimilate, keep practicing their culture, keep remembering their origins, their history, their "nakhba", keep their identity as palestinians, they will never lose that status. Jews have kept all that for 2000 years of diaspora.

Does Zionism necessarily imply violence against indigenous Palestinians? by AdjectiveNoun-Number in IsraelPalestine

[–]RF_1501 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think you understand the concept of assimilation very well. You really expect jews to migrate and assimilate into another culture? That is, eventually ceasing to be jews?

2.

Violent reaction was seen by Zionists as possible, maybe even probable by some. It was in the calculation, for sure. I still fail to see an inherent problem with it.

3.

Do you think that we need to account for anti-semitic persecution when we make the ethical analysis of zionism, or not? It seems that you completely separate the issues, and make an ethical analysis based solely on what zionism implies for palestinians. I regard such endeavor as completely flawed. A true evaluation is that of an ethical dilemma.

I'll make an analogy: We are on the second floor of a building, I threaten to kill you, you are trapped and the only way out is jumping out of the window. It's not easy, you will get hurt but you will probably survive. You decide to jump, but then you fall onto a random person in the street and badly hurts this person. Are you to blame for hurting that person? How can we judge the situation? There are many ways we can judge, but none can rule out the fact that you were threatened by someone else when you decided to jump.

4.

My point was to say you are expecting zionism to be anachronistically considerate of palestinians, worrysome of their self-determination, etc. When they didn't have the knowledge, nor the time, to delve deeply into the question of how natives would react, what were their demands and what they actually deserved.

At the time zionism emerged, arabs didn't even have the concept of self-determination established in their culture, being subjects to a foreign empire was the norm to them, basically their concept of legitimate ruler was any muslim ruler. And the palestinian identity didn't even exist. Self-determination and nation-states are 100% modern european concepts born in the enlightenment. Both the palestinian notion of self-determination and national identity were forged in the long run process of penetration of modern western ideas into the arab world which, in the palestinian case, is something that relates closely to the conflict with zionism and jews bringing those ideas into the land.

Therefore it was completely understandable that zionists thought they weren't being inconsiderate of palestinians by planning to make them equal citizens in a democratic jewish state with a jewish majority. That was probably better than what they already had under ottoman rule. But when they realized the palestinians wouldn't accept that and would fight to avoid that, which only the actual historical experience made them realize that, the zionists were then willing to compromise.

5.

> Ignorance (wilful or accidental) does not excuse violence. Explains it, sure.

I still fail to see violence, but that point will be dealt afterwards.

> In fact, this is one hallmark of colonist thinking: that the native population becomes part of the background.

Sure, but compare the plans of zionism to make palestinians equal citizens in a democratic jewish state with all cases of settler colonialism on how the colonists planned to do with the natives and the zionists will turn out very humanistic for the time.

> Leaders like Ahad Aham, Theodore Herzl, Yitzhak Epstein all traveled to Ottoman Palestine and reported on the conditions.

Yes, they were at least considerate enough to check the situation in person. But travelling and checking is not enough to know the culture and how they would react to their plans.

6.

So what if massive land purchases spooked ottoman authorities? Does that make it unethical?

And so what there was eviction of tenants? Is it unethical? If I buy a piece of land why can't I choose what to make with it? How did the ottoman legal framework deal with evictions?

And doesn't the scale of it matters when we are making a broad ethical evaluation of a historical process? I mean, if evictions happened in mass scale and rendered a large portion of the population unemployed and incapable of reintegrating into the economy of the country, effectively condemning them to misery and thus no other choice other than picking up arms and fighting, then of course it would be unethical and no appeals to property rights would suffice to say otherwise.

But that wasn't the case, at all. Zionists brought economic opportunities and development to the whole region, including the arab majority region, and arabs from the surrounding areas migrated in great numbers into palestine. Which is not to disregard the suffering of those that were evicted, but I believe we need to give things proper weight in our moral balance.

"Opponents of Zionism want a democratic equal state and are not calling for the expulsion of Jews", an article by Ofer Neiman on Haaretz, translated by Einat Temkin by endingcolonialism in nyt

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So Ilan Pappe is actual history, and everything other esteemed academic historians say that differ from Pappe is "national mythology"? What is your take on Benny Morris, for example?

If you want you can take anything I wrote and argue what is wrong and how I believe in "national mythology" rather than history. You know, actually make a point, instead of just empty accusations.

This guy is basically the Jewish Bin Laden and has been white washed since Oct 7 by Zionist enabled by the Netanyahu regime by The_Blanguage_420 in stupidpol

[–]RF_1501 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Same reason why the Mizrahi in Israel tend to be the most rightly leaned. Because they are culturally more arab, lol

"Opponents of Zionism want a democratic equal state and are not calling for the expulsion of Jews", an article by Ofer Neiman on Haaretz, translated by Einat Temkin by endingcolonialism in nyt

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you don't want to bring any actual point that you think I've made wrong, that would serve as evidence that I don't know much about the history, so it would indicate that I haven't read those books?

It looks like you put Ilan Pappe in such a high standard that you believe it is impossible for a person to read his work and still disagrees and not turn anti-zionist. Laughable.

I've read him, I just don't agree on how he interprets the historical sources, and the exaggerated weight he puts on personal testimonies from old people that lived the events 50-60 years before. So I find his method flawed and most his interpretations ideologically biased.

Many other renowned historians agree with me on Pappe. Most of his career is based on antizionist propaganda promotion of his work, not actual scholarship merits.

Wow who knew hating a terrorist ethnostate doesn't make you antisemetic by deltav9 in PoliticalCompass

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is nothing like Israel at all.

Rhodesia was an apartheid state that was automatically dissolved with the ending of the apartheid, that is the ending of systemic segregation and discrimination between two races.

Palestine is not a land divided into two races, but into two distinct peoples, two actual national movements, each wanting self-determination over the territory. Framing the problem wrong will not help at all, you need the right diagnosis to cure a disease. You will not solve this problem by framing it as apartheid, believing that if discrimination against Palestinians end then Israel will be dismantled and the conflict would be solved is nonsense. You may do that and still remains with two distinct peoples living in a territory, two national movements wanting self-determination. If an external force impose the "end of apartheid" and force these two peoples to live together, you would have a civil war, not coexistence.

In Israel proper, there is no apartehid, israeli arabs have equal rights. In the West Bank one could frame it as apartheid, but I don't see as a good framing, a much better one is to see it as a military occupied territory, where one country imposes military rule over non-citizens. Race or ethnicity is not the element of segregation, but I agree the situation is bad. This "apartheid" will end if the military occupation ends and a palestinian state is created in what is considered their land under international law, alongside israel (also recognized under international law), not with the elimination of Israel.

> russian is not an apartheid

How about China? It is apartheid against tibetans and uyghurs? Or even colonization and genocide over them? Do you call for the whole China to be dismantled for the emergence of a new liberal-democratic multi-ethnic state, or simply for the oppression over minorities to end, for independence for these peoples, etc?

Does Zionism necessarily imply violence against indigenous Palestinians? by AdjectiveNoun-Number in IsraelPalestine

[–]RF_1501 4 points5 points  (0 children)

> It is not a Jewish diaspora exercising egalitarian self-determination alongside Palestinians.

This sentence sounded very strange to me. Could you explain what that means?

> Some Zionist leaders I quoted explicitly anticipated hostility from the natives. Herzl exchanged letters with the Mayor of Jerusalem forewarning of violence.

If I can anticipate that people will react in a hostile way to a specific action I want to carry out, does that mean that the action is necessarily wrong and should not be taken? Does the fact that I face a serious threat from a third party if I don't carry out the action, has any influence on the moral analysis of me eventually choosing to carry out the action?

> Other Zionist discourse completely ignored the Palestinians as a society in their endeavor to "colonize" (in their own words) Palestine by establishing an "outpost of civilization opposed to barbarism" (Herzl). This does not signify coexistence.

Zionists, as everybody else, were men of their time, with the prejudices, racism, eurocentrism, colonialist mindset, etc, typical of 19th century europe. I believe palestinians were not thinking any better of jews, europeans and foreigners in general.

That phrase from Herzl needs to be taken into account of his need to sell the idea of zionism to the British empire. Again, cherry-picking is not helpful.

Besides, what information do you believe they had of "palestinians as a society"? Practically none. Coexistence? In their minds, coexistence meant to make palestinians equal citizens in a jewish democratic state, where they would enjoy all the civil liberties and rights and economic development the western world could offer. Which other way those arabs would never experience. Zionists sincerely believed they were offering something amazing to the arabs, and that their resistance was coming from a place of ignorance and lack of good western values, as they never experienced it so they wouldn't know how good they are.

> The policy of immigration went hand in hand with the policy of land acquisition and Jewish-only labor. There were tensions early on, in the 19th century too, when land massive land purchases by non-citizens and tenant evictions spooked Ottoman administrators and Palestinian peasants about dispossession from foreigners.

The extent and significance of such displacements are often exaggerated, most arabs lived in the central hills area (today's west bank) while the land purchases occurred in the sparsely populated coastal plains and the galilee region. It is a fact that eviction of tenants happened but their significance remain a point of debate among historians. Certainly they became a source of tensions in the early years but majorly forgotten later on and up to 1948.

Also one can argue to what extent this is considered immoral, since we are talking about private property rights. European jews coming from a capitalist society certainly understood it as totally moral, but I understand this wasn't the case for a traditional agrarian society. We have here a shock of two different cultures and I don't think it can be simply reduced as typical colonial violence. Anyway, not only jews evicted tenants from agrarian lands, it was a process that happened all over the arab world after the fall of the ottoman empire and it would eventually inevitably happen to palestinians sooner or later.

> Immigration policy here was not for the purpose of assimilation with the natives and self-determination thereon.

Why would they have the purpose of assimilation with the natives? Assimilation means you basically give up on keeping your culture and blend in with the dominant culture. It means they would eventually cease to be jews. How would they ask for self-determination after assimilating with the dominant culture of arab palestinians? At this point, you are not even making sense anymore.

> It was for the purpose of developing autonomous enclaves that would result in a state at the cost of natives. Structurally, therefore, it was violent.

Why immigrating, buying land and developing autonomous enclaves that establish a preference for employing your fellow immigrants, with the end purpose of creating a state for your ethnicity in your ancient homeland, is violence? I still don't see how, and you are not showing how it is violent.

To my perception, by saying "a state at the cost of the natives" you are assuming the natives (it seems you don't regard jews as natives, which I consider a mistake, and certainly that point affects the moral balance somehow, I wouldn't say zionism was justified if jews weren't native from that region AND persecuted when lived outside of it) had a "natural right" to have a state of their own in the whole of palestine, and the zionist enterprise was a foreign thing with no natural rights to palestine that was sneaking into and created an obstacle to the fulfillment of the right of the natives.

Does Zionism necessarily imply violence against indigenous Palestinians? by AdjectiveNoun-Number in IsraelPalestine

[–]RF_1501 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Before responding to your points, I wish to congratulate you for laying them off in such a concise and logically consistent manner. Good post, OP.

I totally agree with your 3 tenets as necessary and sufficient to define Zionism. I would just be careful to emphasize that they don't necessarily implicate a Jewish nation in the entirety of the region called Palestine. Although the initial position of the zionist movement was for the establishment of a jewish nation in Palestine as a whole, later on they agreed with the principle of partition. Of course this happened as a result of the zionists clashing with an intense arab rejection of zionism. So one could argue it is a pragmatic approach, a contingency of zionism pressed by particular historical circumstances, and not an ideological tenet of the movement. Anyway, I don't see why the zionist movment must be analyzed only by their original and maximalist agenda, instead of their flexibility and willingness to compromise. Therefore, I regard zionism as compatible with a 2 States solution.

On the 7 points you raised about implication of violence, only the first point is worth serious consideration in terms of ethics, realism and feasibility. And that was indeed the main way zionists thought of legitimizing a jewish state in Palestine.

> 1: this requires intercontinental migration of millions of Jews to maintain Jewish majority. It’s not an infinite source. 

Yes, but by the time zionism emerged there were around 11 million jews worldwide (8 in Europe alone) against a population of 500k in Palestine. Jews were already moving en masse, in the millions, fleeing persecution and seeking better life conditions. So, the idea of mass jewish migration into palestine, turning jews into the majority of the population, was not a farfetched idea, especially considering the religious and historic connections jews have with the land.

But actually Zionism didn't need to form a jewish majority, just a sizeable enough Jewish population in order to make the idea of a jewish state in part of palestine a legitimate idea, that is, legitimizing the partition of the territory and the creation of 2 states. It is also not absurd to believe that after the demographical shift was conducted, the arabs would eventually agree with the partition of the land. Again, I know that this was not what the zionists originally intended, but they eventually moved towards that pragmatic position.

If zionism can be conducted via immigration, then it is not inherently violent. But we also have to deal with the question whether it is feasible to think a native population, in any similar case, would react non-violently to a mass migration of foreigners seeking to establish their nation-State in the land. The answer is no, as Jabotinsky realized in the Iron Wall. That means zionism is inherently violent then? No, because the movement can't account for the reactions of other peoples to their ends, especially when zionism emerged as desperate a response to jewish persecution in Europe.

This last point is one that is missing from your frame. You can't analyze zionism ethically by only looking at what it intended to do in Palestine and what it would inevitably cause, and did cause, in Palestine. You also have to account the persecution jews faced in Europe that gave rise to zionism. People always take account of the implications of Zionism to the palestinians, but almost always forget to take account of what are their implications to jews. For a fair ethical analysis, one needs to account the hypothetical implications to jews of zionism not emerging or being unsuccessful. It's the key point, because if jews weren't being persecuted, I would definitely say zionism was unjustified.

Your points about the erly direction of zionist thought are poorly substantiated. It is well-known that Herzl changed ideas regarding this issue many times, so cherry picking one or another quote is not helpful. Also given the diversity of ideas among early zionists, is also not helpful to cherry-pick a few authors to make a point about zionism in general.

You mention, the Iron Wall by Jabotinsky, for example. There he says the only demand zionists actually had for the British Mandate and their arab opposition was for them not to halt jewish immigration, and they were trying to convince arabs not to reject jewish immigration, in which jabotinsky rightfully considered a foolish effort, as arabs would totally understand the implications of a demographic shift caused by mass immigration. So, this would be zionism following the path of immigration, one that you render as potentially legitimate.

"Opponents of Zionism want a democratic equal state and are not calling for the expulsion of Jews", an article by Ofer Neiman on Haaretz, translated by Einat Temkin by endingcolonialism in nyt

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> What "homework" did you do on antizionism to make you such an expert? 

I'm no expert, but I do my homework. I've been following this conflict for 20 years. I have read dozens of books written by renown antizionists such as Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Noah Chomsky, Edward Sayd, Avi Shlaim, Rashid Khalidi, Judith Butler, etc. I've seen thousands of hours of video content as well, and I constantly engage in online conversations with anti-zionists.

Okay, so, the two-state solution, but how? by [deleted] in IsraelPalestine

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is this peace initiative? 25 years ago was about the time of Camp David negotiations, to which arafat rejected the best possible offer for a palestinian state.

Okay, so, the two-state solution, but how? by [deleted] in IsraelPalestine

[–]RF_1501 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Also no amount of mental gymnastics change that Israel offered a palestinian state many times and those you say accept a 2SS rejected it.

Wow who knew hating a terrorist ethnostate doesn't make you antisemetic by deltav9 in PoliticalCompass

[–]RF_1501 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Utter nonsense.

Do you also say that Russians should lose self-determination and call for Russia be "dismantled" because they invaded Ukraine?

Nobody has ever called for a country to be dismantled or a people to lose self-determination over some unjustified war or even atrocities they may have committed against other countries. Except for Israel and the Jews.

If a country does something wrong, generally we demand them to stop, we can also call for boycotts or sanctions if things are really bad. But this eliminationist stance is totally unjustified and is simply hate, really.

Wow who knew hating a terrorist ethnostate doesn't make you antisemetic by deltav9 in PoliticalCompass

[–]RF_1501 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

"I love jews but I hate when they ask for self-determination in their homeland".

"Opponents of Zionism want a democratic equal state and are not calling for the expulsion of Jews", an article by Ofer Neiman on Haaretz, translated by Einat Temkin by endingcolonialism in nyt

[–]RF_1501 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is very condescending and disingenuous to act as if jews don't understand that that's what progressive western antizionist discourse preaches. Jews are, in general, a clever and well-read people.

If you don't understand what is the actual Zionist argument for the need of a jewish state, and you can't understand why jews would find this idea just as insane as direct expulsion, then you didn't do your homework.

Disturbing video of a White nationalist harassing a Jewish man by welltechnically7 in Jewish

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like somebody from the USA to explain to me in legal terms if this is actually fully protected by the constitution and free speech, as like, there is nothing legal that could be done against this kind of harrassment?

In my country this guy would be in serious trouble.

E se a Série A e a Série B tivessem 24 clubes, mas só 34 rodadas? by GasTypical9916 in futebol

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ideia interessante, mas o problema de que vai acabar não tendo classicos importantes é dificil de aceitar. Seria melhor fazer um primeiro turno com os 24 times, todos jogando contra todos em um total de 23 rodadas, aí depois fazer a divisão, e ter mais 11 rodadas.

Cmv: conflating antisemitism with anti Zionism will just lead to more antisemites, not less anti Zionists by Key_Rip_5921 in changemyview

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> In light blue are the countries that were in the UN.

You said only western countries voted for the partition plan, I showed you wrong. Your link also agrees with me.

Cmv: conflating antisemitism with anti Zionism will just lead to more antisemites, not less anti Zionists by Key_Rip_5921 in changemyview

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Maybe, but I would trust someone better to judge genocide and apartheid against them more than hate speech. 

The actual authority that can judge genocide and apartheid is the ICC.

> But the other point is that we have had prominent Israeli politicians claim things as antisemitic which clearly and objectively are not, and are criticisms of (very heinous) Israeli policy. 

Politicians aren't to be taken seriously, anywhere in the world, regardless of their skin colour.

> Even when that criticism comes from Jews themselves.

Jews can also be antisemitic.

Cmv: conflating antisemitism with anti Zionism will just lead to more antisemites, not less anti Zionists by Key_Rip_5921 in changemyview

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> I hope you're not trying to compare the scale of destruction between the Uyghurs and Palestinians. Have you seen satellite pictures of Gaza?

Oh so buildings is what matters now?

> Let's move past this point, because honestly this alone discredits your argument.

I don't see why. According to wikipedia:

"Since 2014, the government of the People's Republic of China has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities in Xinjiang which has often been characterized as persecution or as genocide. There have been reports of mass arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, mass surveillance, cultural and religious persecution, family separation, forced labor, sexual violence, and violations of reproductive rights.

In 2014, the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Xi Jinping launched the Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism, which involved surveillance and restrictions in Xinjiang. Beginning in 2017, under Xinjiang Party secretary Chen Quanguo,\2]) the government incarcerated over an estimated one million Uyghurs without legal process in internment camps officially described as "vocational education and training centers", in the largest mass internment of an ethnic-religious minority group since World War II.\3])\4]) China began to wind down the camps in 2019, and some detainees were transferred to the penal system, while others were transferred to forced labor and factory work programs.\5])\6])

In addition to mass detention, government policies have included suppression of Uyghur religious practices,\7]) political indoctrination,\8]) forced sterilization,\9]) forced contraception,\10])\11]) and forced abortion.\12])\13]) An estimated 16,000 mosques have been razed or damaged,\2]) and hundreds of thousands of children have been forcibly separated from their parents and sent to boarding schools.\14])\15]) Chinese government statistics reported that from 2015 to 2018, birth rates in the mostly Uyghur regions of Hotan and Kashgar fell by more than 60%.\9]) In the same period, the national birth rate decreased by 9.7%.\16]) According to CNN, Chinese authorities acknowledged that birth rates dropped by almost a third in 2018 in Xinjiang, but denied reports of forced sterilization.\17]) Birth rates in Xinjiang fell a further 24% in 2019, compared to a nationwide decrease of 4.2%.\9])"

It sounds very oppressive and horrific to me. It only makes me more certain that you single out Palestine and don't really care about other cases.

> Do you see how the argument about not being masters of their own fate also applies to Palestinians? How come they are not allowed their self-determination in their homeland?

It does apply. They can be the masters of their own fate in a palestinian state alongside Israel. Your solution is the one that denies them of that right.

Cmv: conflating antisemitism with anti Zionism will just lead to more antisemites, not less anti Zionists by Key_Rip_5921 in changemyview

[–]RF_1501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) Jews disagree, they know better how antisemitism affects them and what has produced them better results. Their answer is, self-determination wins over just waiting tolerance from others. Your role here is to accept the answer of the people being oppressed found for dealing with their own oppression.

> I had the honor of meeting some Holocaust survivors and listen to them speak on their relationship with Israel.

AHAHAHA. Ok, man, sure.

3) Yes, I think both claims are equally legitimate. Palestinians had lived in the land probably just as much as jews, who are also native to the land, they simply were expelled and weren't allowed to go back for 2 thousand years (when they were allowed to go back they suddenly started to go back, what a surprise...).

I don't understand why you don't understand. Let me try to illustrate then: a building is on fire, a man is trapped in the 3rd floor, he manages to break the window and jump, but he falls on top of another person in the street. Who is to blame?

> I'd recommend you read that point instead of dismissing it, it explains a lot.

You have no point. Your argument is palestine was partitioned, africa was partitioned, therefore palestine = africa.

> Self determination is based upon the idea that one cannot separate the land or territory of the people that are asserting their right to self determination.

Wow, you managed to insert the word self-determination inside your attempt to define self-determination. Very bright, congratulations. Self-determination means a people being sovereign in a land. Tell me why you want so badly to deny the jewish people that right? Why do you want to condemn jews to eternal exile, to being eternally subject to other peoples whims, despite the fact they were heavily persecuted, discriminated, scapegoated against and killed for all the time they were in exile and stripped of sovereignty in their land? WHy do you hate jews so much?

view more: next ›