Israel’s Wall (2002- ), also called the West Bank barrier, is a wall Israel is building in the West Bank, 0 to 22 km from from the Israeli border, taking in choice bits of the West Bank. Some call it a security fence, others call it an apartheid wall.
Banksy calls it:
“the world’s most invasive and degrading structure.”
It is part wall, part fence. Out in the countryside it is mostly a wire fence with razor wire, a ditch and electronic sensors. In town and city it is mostly a concrete wall up to 8 metres high, with graffiti and watchtowers. Pope Francis stopped at the wall in Bethlehem to pray. Barack Obama did not.
Compared to the Berlin Wall, it will be twice as high and four times longer, some 680 km. It is about 80% done. Protests and court cases have slowed it, sometimes changed its course a bit, but they have not stopped it.
Israelis say they are building the wall to protect themselves from Palestinian violence, particularly suicide bombers. Suicide bombings are now way less frequent (though correlation is not necessarily cause).
Palestinians say that the wall is being used to move the border so that a Palestinian state becomes unworkable. Between the wall and Israeli military zones, Palestinians will be left with less than half of the West Bank, divided into pieces.
The International Court of Justice in the Hague agrees:
“The court considers that the construction of the wall and its associate regime … tantamount to de facto annexation. That construction, along with measures previously taken, thus severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination.”
Israel has every right to build a wall – on its own land. This wall is built mostly on Palestinian land. That is against international law. It would be like the US building a wall to take in parts of Mexico.
A UN report notes that the wall will leave 210,000 Palestinians stuck between Israel and the wall, cut off from social services, schools and places of work:
“This is likely to lead to a new generation of refugees or internally displaced people.”
As it is, the wall stands between many Palestinians and their fields, schools, hospitals, churches, etc. They are forced to pass through checkpoints that Israel controls, which it can shut down at any time. Many have been thrown out of work because of the wall.
Qalqilya (pictured above), a Palestinian city of 42,000 in the northern West Bank, is surrounded on three sides by the wall, cutting it off from its fields and a third of its water supply. To leave town you have to pass through an Israeli checkpoint. It has become a ghetto.
The irony is that Jews under Hitler were walled into the Warsaw Ghetto and forced to go through checkpoints to leave. Germans said they built the wall because of Jewish crime and disease, but in fact, it was a step towards genocide.
– Abagond, 2015.
See also:
540
The wall seems like a waste of effort.
We all know Israel will have invaded the West Bank and Gaza entirely within the next 50 years.
For a live graphic showing Israel’s expansion over time, see this video:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7n4Y1Fjx4U)
Good post otherwise.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Raimanet and commented:
BDS
LikeLike
I thought I recognized Banksy’s artwork.
LikeLike
Hey, Abagond, what’s your solution? Mine’s a co-national state (for Jews, Palestinians, Samaritans) or the abolition of states with replacement with cities or regions with multiple world gatherings, not just the UN.
Also, @all stop equating Jews with Nazis as opposed to Americans. You wouldn’t say a white woman is like her domestic-abuser male spouse even if she was bigoted or pathetic in her own right. At least equate her with the equalfooted Susan B. Anthony (who was very racist).
LikeLike
Israel resisted building this wall. But I remember why it was built. Before the wall, Arabs from the West Bank came freely into Israel to work, shop, and sell their items. Women with grapes and figs sold their produce all over Jerusalem. I was there and heard them calling out “”Anabim, Anabim” (“Grapes, Grapes”), and Israelis would come and buy from them. Arabs worked all over Israel, mostly in construction.
Then the bombings started, in restaurants, on buses, in stores. People lived in fear. It wouldn’t stop. Many were killed. Finally Israel built the wall and the bombings stopped. So then the Arabs claimed it was an apartheid wall. No, it is a defensive wall to keep people from being murdered. And by the way, the Nazis committed actual genocide, i.e., they killed Jews.
The population of Palestinians has QUINTUPLED in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank since Israel became a state in 1948. Any comparison between the West Bank and the Warsaw Ghetto is an obscenity and the worst type of propaganda.
Arab Israelis refuse to give up their Israeli citizenship. It gives them health care and a great deal of freedom. This video tells the truth from the POV of one Israeli Arab woman (not bad-looking either).
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbTD3Rbvnbo)
LikeLike
Reblogged this on One Tawny Stranger.
LikeLike
“Any comparison between the West Bank and the Warsaw Ghetto is an obscenity and the worst type of propaganda.”
A more accurate comparison may be between the West Bank and the Pine Ridge reservation.
“one Israeli Arab woman (not bad-looking either).”
I like how you just toss some casual sexism in while you’re at it.
LikeLike
@ Uriel
I am for a one-state solution, a secular democracy with strong protection for minorities. And some form of reparations. Palestinians need to be compensated somehow for the land they lost, otherwise the bad blood will continue, like in the US.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Huh, .. the State of Israel doesn’t belong to either the Palestinians or the jewISH settlers. Just hang on and watch, both parties will get pushed out of there!
LikeLike
@abagond
You do realize that there are many Israelis and Palestinians who don’t want a one state solution, right? I have a funny feeling that whatever group ends up the majority in this Single State is going to end up abusing the other. Unless, of course, the UN comes in to police it somehow to ensure a “secular democracy with strong protection for religious minorities.”
LikeLike
Now do a blog post about Egypt’s wall
LikeLike
Mr. Nutsandyahoo, tear down this wall!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw77
Disabled people know Netanyahu is irredeemably pathetic. Why are you using ableist slurs like “nuts” and “yahoo”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Uriel
Because I really believe he’s a nut and a yahoo. Anyone who defends mudering innocent children is.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Would you rather be locked in an atomic standoff with your adversary, or live at the mercy of their police state. Personally, I’d take the former option.
Democracy is incapable of protecting minorities/the weak, because the majority/the strong will decide where the rights of minorities begin and end. Pakistan my be sworn enemies with India, but they aren’t India’s open air prisoners which is more than what could be said of Palastine or (Black America for that matter)
LikeLike
*Palestine
LikeLike
@resw77
My point was that while Netanyahu may be pathetic, there’s no reason to use ableist slurs. You wouldn’t say he’s a f-g or c-nt, no matter what he did.
LikeLike
@Uriel
The definition of a nut: “a person who is excessively interested in or enthusiastic about a specified thing”
The definition of a yahoo: “A rude, noisy, or violent person”
Those definitions appear to fit the Israeli PM perfectly, and nowhere did I find “ableist slur” or “disabled people” used to define either word in the dictionary.
LikeLike
@ resw77
I don’t know about yahoo, but nut is frequently used as a synonym for crazy, cracked in the head, etc.
Thus it (and its synonyms) can be taken as a slur on people who are disabled by mental illness or mental retardation.
I admit to using it myself, but I’m trying to work on my awareness and eliminate these types of words from my vocabulary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire
We all have opinions.
Now back to Israel’s wall…
LikeLike
I would describe Netanyahu as a genocidal socciopath.
LikeLike
@ resw77
When someone who is in the affected minority tells you they are bothered by those words, is that merely a difference of opinion?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Are you the affected minority in question, or are you speaking on its behalf?
Clearly we have a difference of opinion on the definition of a “slur” so I’m moving since this conversation is off topic.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how a clinically insane person would be self aware enough to be bothered by being called crazy or nuts. I do get what you mean though. Some seemingly harmless words can indirectly demean people as those people are self aware of being objectified.
You yourself seem quite comfortable using the word “minority” as well as “domestic minority” which seems far more demeaning to me then calling Netanyahu nuts.
LikeLike
Not me. Uriel has said so elsewhere on this blog.
A person can have a mental illness like depression or bipolar disorder and still be functional, even highly intelligent.
LikeLike
@ Michael Jon Barker
Could you explain to me what you find offensive about domestic minority? It’s commonly used in multiculturalism to distinguish between internationals and American-born.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Living and dying at the mercy of a police state is an equal, if not greater risk than nuclear war. The police state can and does murder its captives/victims at a whim with no consequences; nuclear war presents very dire consequences for all participants which is why it is avoided.
There have been several, if not many genocides since the mid 20th century. There have also been numerous trespasses against the sovereignty of weaker nations by nuclear powers, but nuclear warfare has yet to occur even when nuclear powers came to blows. India and Pakistan are some of the most belligerent nuclear states, yet they’ve always managed to talk things out before matters get out of hand. So no, I’d reject the police state.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
To answer your question from a few days back: Yes, a two-state solution. I don’t see a one-state solution being accepted by either the Israelis or Palestinians unless it is forced upon them. And if it is, fine, but then what? Do we have the UN or some other body go in and police it, to ensure that the two groups are treating each other right? I have a funny feeling that this “single state” will be balkanized very quickly.
LikeLike
Solitaire said “When someone who is in the affected minority tells you they are bothered by those words, is that merely a difference of opinion?
My point was, though not well argued, is that slurs can be used against people who don’t comprehend they are slurs. It doesn’t require self awareness of the person that the slur is directed or indirectly at to qualify it as a slur.
Solitaire asks,
“Could you explain to me what you find offensive about domestic minority? It’s commonly used in multiculturalism to distinguish between internationals and American-born.”
If you wish to refer to a specific group then identify them directly rather then “other” them and white wash their identity.
I dislike the word “minority” and don’t use it. It literally means “less then” and points back to the one drop rule in defining who is “white”.
White academia uses such words because of Eurocentrisim that is the default standard in what kind of literature is universally accepted as “accurate” and “acceptable”.
The term “domestic minority” merely affirms the perpetual foreigner stereotype within white supremacy.As demographics change within the U.S. and whites become a “minority” whites will not be seen as a minority. Whatever political power non whites would gain in a demographic shift, this will have no effect on the economic, judicial and state power already hard wired into white supremacy.
The goal of Multiculturalism is “diversity” or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, The problem is that it attempts to do so WITHIN white supremacy whose current jurisdiction is the entire planet. So you can talk about institutional and systemic racism within the State and greater society but in order to deconstruct systemic racism it would require a paradigm shift in how people view human value as well as the abolition of the current Eurocentric judicial system that holds together, maintains and perpetuates white supremacy on most of the continents on the planet.
It is how non white majority countries, who were formally colonized, continue to have their resources extracted with little economic value going to its own citizens, are massively over represented in their prison populations, yet are seen a democratic republics.
LikeLike
I think states should be abolished altogether to form allied regions, but autonomous cities.
LikeLike
@ Michael Jon Barker
“My point was, though not well argued, is that slurs can be used against people who don’t comprehend they are slurs. It doesn’t require self awareness of the person that the slur is directed or indirectly at to qualify it as a slur.”
But your statement “I’m not sure how a clinically insane person would be self aware enough to be bothered by being called crazy or nuts” comes across as minimizing the effects of such words on the group itself. It suggests that members of the affected group are not self-aware enough to comprehend the use of these slurs and thus will not be personally hurt by them.
This remark seems especially problematic given that the poster who first objected to the use of ableist language has identified on this blog as someone who has both depression and Asperger’s Syndrome (I hope Uriel will excuse me for stating this directly). Uriel is very capable of both comprehending the words and objecting to their use.
I would also point out that I have an adult family member who is mentally disabled. He functions on about the level of a 4 to 6 year old. Yet he is very aware of the slur “retard.” He knows that it refers to people like him and that it is offensive.
I’m in agreement with your overall point (“It doesn’t require self awareness of the person that the slur is directed or indirectly at to qualify it as a slur.”) What I find problematic is the lack of acknowledgement on your part that most people with mental illness are quite aware that these words are slurs, and many are actively involved in attempts to educate the general populace about that fact.
While I am in no way questioning the honesty of your statement that you find the word “minority” offensive, I do have to question your timing. You didn’t object when I used the word in our previous discussion of the perptual foreigner stereotype, nor did you object to abagond’s use of “minorities” in his comment upthread (which you marked as “liked”).
The fact that you only are bringing it up now, immediately after being confronted on the topic of ableist language, strongly suggests that this is an attempt at “you do it, too” deflection. Rather a successful attempt, too, since we’re now deconstructing my use of “minority” rather than discussing the appropriateness of ableist language.
“You yourself seem quite comfortable using the word “minority” as well as “domestic minority” ”
Yes, I am very comfortable with those terms because I’m surrounded by people who use these words to describe themselves and whose offices, job titles, and organizations include the term (e.g., office of minority affairs, minority student outreach, dean for minority faculty retention and development, etc.). You may characterize the term “minority” as having been invented by white academia, but it is accepted and widely used by non-whites in academia as well.
I’m sure there are individuals who would object to the term, and I would be glad to use whatever term they prefer in any discussions with them. I would find it very difficult, however, to refer to the position (not person) of dean for minority faculty retention and development in any other way without the danger of being misunderstood.
“…the word “minority” … literally means “less then” and points back to the one drop rule in defining who is “white”. ”
No, it literally means “numerically fewer” and it applies to a number of different groups, not all of which are defined by race and which may include white people.
“The term “domestic minority” merely affirms the perpetual foreigner stereotype”
On the contrary, the term “domestic minority” is frequently used to counter and correct the perpetual foreigner stereotype. For example, when my spouse uses that term on his CV, it tells the reader that despite his extensive experience with Hispanic, Asian, and Muslim students, he has no experience in working with international students and therefore no experience in such areas as advising students on problems with their visas, dealing with embassies, arranging study-abroad exchange programs, etc. It tells the reader that instead his area of expertise is with the issues and concerns faced by domestic minorities. It situates those students as Americans–not as international students, not as perpetual foreigners.
What term, then, would you suggest to replace domestic minorities?
“I dislike the word “minority” and don’t use it.”
What word do you prefer to be referred to as?
“It is how non white majority countries, who were formally colonized, continue to have their resources extracted with little economic value going to its own citizens, are massively over represented in their prison populations, yet are seen a democratic republics.”
…and somehow we’re back to talking about people in other countries again when we started off discussing domestic minorities and the perpetual foreigner stereotype.
To bring this back to the original topic, which was ableist language:
I find it very telling that you and resw77 both responded in ways that are typical when groups with power are confronted by groups that do not have power. I’ve already discussed your attempts at minimizing and deflection above.
resw77 went to the dictionary for an appeal to authority (leaving out the very obvious connection of the word “nut” to mental illness, as evidenced in examples like “nutcase,” “nuthouse,” and “they’re nuts.”) However, the definition cited–“a person who is excessively interested in or enthusiastic about a specified thing”–actually ties directly in with the point Uriel was making. People with Asperger’s and on the autism spectrum very often tend to be excessively interested in or focused on certain things, in a way that neurotypical people often are uncomfortable with and frequently define as being “overboard,” “obssessive,” or “crazy.”
resw77 then tried to present the matter as simply a difference of opinion, which is both minimizing the impact of the words on the affected group and dismissing their concerns; i.e., basically saying they’re being overly sensitive.
I realize the question of ableist language is a difficult one that is only just starting to be discussed in society as a whole. There are some tough questions about how far it’s going to go: e.g., should the word “fanatic” be considered a slur? and if so, what about its derivative “fan”?
However, I suggest that when a frequenter of this blog who is neuro-atypical and who has a mental illness requests other posters to refrain from ableist language, that request should be met with courtesy and respect, not resistance and dismissal.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Israel was created to be a Jewish state, its whole purpose was to give the Jews a land of their own. A place where they wouldn’t be minorities constantly under pogroms, which could eventually culminate in another holocaust. To turn Israel into a state that could possibly become minority Jewish would defeat the whole point of it being established in the first place. Meanwhile, many Palestinians have desperately wanted a state of their own for a long time. It is quite clear that they also want to be a majority in their land, and if Israel and Palestine were to be fused into one, they’d remain a minority under Jewish rule.
I don’t think the situation in the U.S. is the same, even with its racial tensions.
Perhaps a small portion of Israel could be given over to Jews exclusively. Likewise, a fragment could be given over to the Palestinians to be theirs alone. Meanwhile, the rest could be fused into a single state. That way the Jews have a homeland, and so do the Palestinians. But the largest, most powerful portion of this new Israeli-Palestinian state can belong to anybody who lives in it.
LikeLike
Solitare
I was correcting your definition of ableist language because you rooted it in people being self aware enough to object to it. I, rather poorly, pointed out that a person who isn’t self aware won’t know they are being insulted and don’t have the capacity to object. Thus my clarification “It doesn’t require self awareness of the person that the slur is directed or indirectly at to qualify it as a slur.”
I was agreeing with Abagonds opinion of a one state solution, not necessarily of his use of the word “minority”.
In my opinion foreigner isn’t a derogatory word. It means a person who has come from a different country. It only becomes problematic when nativists see all non whites or immigrants as foreigners and “not American” regardless of how long they have been here or whether they have citizenship. At least the word foreigner is defined as a “person”.
“Domestic minority” takes the foreigner stereo type and legitimizes the sense that the individual will never belong to the whole. Because now we are not talking about an individual but rather a social construct that “others” different groups of people into a collective entity. I’ve never heard of white people referred to as minorities. Are white people ever going to be classified as a “domestic minority”? No. It will always refer to POC because it was category created within white supremacy to catalog others within the white default.
The one drop rule is based on “math” too. Minority “the smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.” So that’s your understanding of human value ? Furthermore domestic comes from the domestication of live stock. Something “unwild”. A civilized “minority” within the white construct. You can become a citizen of a country if you are “unwild” and can “assimilate” into Western civilization.
I don’t care what words academia feels comfortable with when it comes to marginalizing people. They need to be called out on it.
So to clarify you are comfortable with this statement.
“Abagond, a prominent minority within the blogosphere, writes 500 words a day on a variety of topics”
But your not OK with this statement.
“Netanyahu is a crazy sociopath” because crazy is considered abelist language.
LikeLike
@ Michael Jon Barker
“I was correcting your definition of ableist language because you rooted it in people being self aware enough to object to it.”
Excuse me, but I wasn’t defining ableist language.
This was the order of the comments:
Solitaire to rsw77:
“Thus it (and its synonyms) can be taken as a slur on people who are disabled by mental illness or mental retardation.”
Nowhere do I say anything about self-awareness.
MJB to Solitaire:
“I’m not sure how a clinically insane person would be self aware enough to be bothered by being called crazy or nuts. I do get what you mean though. Some seemingly harmless words can indirectly demean people as those people are self aware of being objectified.”
Please explain to me how you were NOT the first person to bring in the issue of self-awareness.
I was not rooting a definition of ableist language into self-awareness. I was responding to what appeared to be a statement on your part that “clinically insane” people would not be bothered by such language.
“I was agreeing with Abagonds opinion of a one state solution, not necessarily of his use of the word “minority”.”
That’s fine. But you still didn’t call him out on his use of the word, which you find highly objectionable. I don’t care why you ‘liked’ his comment. The point is the timing of your objection, which is highly suspect as an attempt to derail and deflect.
“In my opinion foreigner isn’t a derogatory word.”
I don’t consider it derogatory, if that’s what you’re implying.
“I’ve never heard of white people referred to as minorities. Are white people ever going to be classified as a “domestic minority”? No. It will always refer to POC because it was category created within white supremacy to catalog others within the white default.”
Muslim Americans are included within the definition of domestic minority. Muslim is a religion, not a race. Muslim Americans include white people. Some are the children of refugees from Eastern Europe. Some are converts or the children of converts.
A similar case could be made with other minority religions.
The term minority also encompasses LGBTQ, which includes white people. The term minority also encompasses people with disabilities, which includes white people. Women, while statistically a narrow majority, are also frequently included.
“Furthermore domestic comes from the domestication of live stock.”
Domestic derives from the Latin word “domus” which means home. Domestic minorities mean those minorities from whom the US is their home,their place of origin.
“So to clarify you are comfortable with this statement. Abagond, a prominent minority within the blogosphere, writes 500 words a day on a variety of topics”
No, I’m not comfortable with it, because the use of “minority” in that sentence is inappropriate, as well as ungrammatical.
I would be comfortable with something like this:
“One of the most prominent minority bloggers, Abagond writes 500 words a day on a variety of topics.”
LikeLike
Correcting typos:
“Domestic minorities mean those minorities for whom the US is their home, their place of origin.”
LikeLike
Oh, and I will also add:
Hispanic is not a race. Someone can be of full European (white) ancestry and still be Hispanic. A Hispanic American (US) of Spanish descent would still be included within the term “domestic minority.”
LikeLike
and yet another typo:
“Muslim refers to a religion (Islam), not a race.”
LikeLike
Israel was created to be a Jewish state, its whole purpose was to give the Jews a land of their own.
What’s wrong with giving them Nebraska or Montana?
LikeLike
I’m going to repost the conversation so that you can see how I think.
You “When someone who is in the affected minority tells you they are bothered by those words, is that merely a difference of opinion?”
This is where you bring up self awareness and use the word “minority”. I wasn’t bringing up the word “minority” as a deflection away from abeliest language but rather pointing out to you that to me the word minority takes away personal identity and makes it a thing.
That’s what white supremacy does. It destroys identity and assimilates it.
Me “I’m not sure how a clinically insane person would be self aware enough to be bothered by being called crazy or nuts. I do get what you mean though. Some seemingly harmless words can indirectly demean people as those people are self aware of being objectified.”
“You yourself seem quite comfortable using the word “minority” as well as “domestic minority” which seems far more demeaning to me then calling Netanyahu nuts.”
Me further down clarifying . “My point was, though not well argued, is that slurs can be used against people who don’t comprehend they are slurs. It doesn’t require self awareness of the person that the slur is directed or indirectly at to qualify it as a slur.”
I don’t want to argue this anymore. I have learned a lot for your contributions to this blog. I just personally cant stand the word minority.
LikeLike
“What’s wrong with giving them Nebraska or Montana?”
.
What’s wrong with giving them Montreal or Toronto? 🙂
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Actually, I would support giving the Mormons Utah if everybody else was okay with it. If the people living in Utah who weren’t Mormon accepted financial reparations and moved to the next state over, and the U.S. government allowed the Mormons to secede with Utah, I don’t see what the problem is. But most Mormons, at least today, do not seem to want a state of their own. Nor do they risk becoming a persecuted minority if they lack said state.
@Herneith
Nothing at all. I’m not saying I agree with the land the Jews were given, just that I believe they should’ve been given land somewhere. If there was some way to uproot Israel, and its infrastructure to a different place, then so be it. I do believe there should be a Jewish state, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be in the former British Mandate of Palestine.
LikeLike
@ Michael Jon Barker
I agree on dropping this argument, but I hope you will not mind if I respond to one of the points in your last post to clarify my thinking as well.
I said: “When someone who is in the affected minority tells you they are bothered by those words, is that merely a difference of opinion?”
I see now why you read what I wrote as bringing in self-awareness. However, it was not my intent to define or set limits based on self-awareness. When I asked that question, what I meant was the following:
“Uriel has identified as a person with Asperger’s and depression. Uriel has told you [resw77] those words are inappropriate. Uriel has told you [resw77] those words are hurtful to people with mental illness, and Uriel belongs to that group. This is more than a mere difference of opinion.”
That’s all I meant: When someone who has a mental illness says those words hurt, shouldn’t that be treated with the same respect as when a person of color says those words hurt?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Herneith
“What’s wrong with giving them Nebraska or Montana?”
Exactly. Imagine if the UN or some coalition of European states told the US and/or Canada that the various Native American nations should get their homelands back.
Can you see non-Native people saying, “Sure, I’ll willingly leave my house without protest and resistance and go live in this crowded refugee camp over here”?
But somehow that’s what everyone expects the Palestinians to do, even though they’ve been living there much longer than any 400 years and have way more right to that land.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Are Mormons really at risk for being for being persecuted in the United States, though? I don’t know the situation of Mormons elsewhere in the world, so I take your word for it, that they’re being persecuted in other places. But in the U.S., the extent on Mormon persecution in the 21st century appears to be the mocking they receive when they try to convert people on their door to door missions.
LikeLike
Palestinians totally have more right to the land, yeah, but not way more. You think every diasporan can magically go to an even more stolen land like Birobidzhan or Nebraska- where we have no connection to nor a history of living in the area, or just return to diaspora lands because we should assimilate like our problems will dry up and Jews are basically diasporan at this point? Pathetic.
Light-skinned Jews are white, but not European. I have years of history to prove it. You cannot shove us out of the one successful state in years because you think we can’t share.
Israelis and Jews everywhere aren’t making up the connection, especially since we don’t have much elsewhere and our holy sites are located in the area.
LikeLike
@Uriel
I think the point to highlight is that European Jews were not, and in many places, still aren’t, seen as European. Ask any Russian Jew if they were seen as a Russian in Russia, and they will tell you no, that they were seen as a Jew, as an ethnic minority. Ditto for Jews in most places in Europe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Uriel
I don’t think anyone is seriously proposing that Jews should have a nation in a diaspora area rather than in Israel.
It is more of a thought exercise. For example, I know many Christians in the US who think the Palestinians have no rights whatsoever. They think it was wrong that the Palestinians tried to fight to keep their lands. I use the comparison to Native Americans to try to help those Christians understand what it is like for the Palestinians. I know that the two situations are not exactly comparable.
I know that the Jews have a long claim on that land and it is the site of the Jewish holy places. A lot of what is being said about Nebraska is just to make a point, not to seriously suggest it as a solution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire
Oh, i see. I mean, i’m used to clueless websites that treat Jews as a religion rather than one of the last open ethnicities (an ethnicity wherein new people can become a part of it if they have kids within the culture and follow some conversion process before that).
Converts like Michael Netzer are half Jews, and their descendants fully so- provided they stick with the culture. Likewise, people with mixed heritage with one Jewish grandparent or predominantly Jewish heritage are Jews if they are a part of the culture.
One tactic i use on White (capitalized hereon by me at least because White is a name of a construct not a fact of life) American Christians to protest the Palestinian Genocide is to mention 30% of Palestinians are some variety of non-Protestant Christian, with a larger percentage being so before Arab Muslim Conquest.
Another thing to mention is most violence and harassment of Jews ultimately comes from Christian and irreligious goyi (Hebrew for Judeo-German/ Yiddish goyishe) communities (not that Muslim-dominated or Pagan-dominated goyi places were that much better bar a few exceptions).
Also, on the subject of Anti-Zionism note that the spread of such has been used to cover blatant Anti-Semitism acts by goyim or promoting rather awful Jewish sects like Neturei Karta just because they aren’t Zionist in the slightest.
@Wannabe Allies Of Palestinians
If you hate nationalism then abolish all states in favor of cities or regions or let us share with Palestinians and Samaritans, not just place us in a corner of being fake people to our own identity or subsets of lands that we never fully fit into without assimilation using Zand’, Atzmon’s, or Elhaik’s pandering ‘evidence’.
LikeLike
What’s wrong with giving them Montreal or Toronto? 🙂
Nothing, fantastic!
LikeLike
No, there’s still a problem with giving the Jews Canada. Read again.
LikeLike
Thank you Kiwi.
It is only very recently that people have become more.open to Mormons. Each year at one of our pageants, fellow Christians still protest it.
LikeLike
@ Uriel
“No, there’s still a problem with giving the Jews Canada. Read again.”
It’s the same thing as before, Uriel. Herneith and Fan are speaking figuratively and kind of jokingly.
No one is seriously suggesting this as a solution 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh. Apologies, Herneith.
LikeLike
@Kiwi, Sharinair
I didn’t know that, thank you for the information.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I think any form of one-state solution will lead to the oppression of one of the groups. Even if one could establish a form of proportional democracy like Lebanonn that could keep peace in the interior, such a state would be very vulnerable to external pressure. I can’t imagine either Israelis or Palestinians agree to a one-state solution that doesn’t guarantee that they are the dominant group.
LikeLike