Anger at Israeli brutality grows

[Toddsterpatriot]

People born or settled in Palestine have been called Palestinians for centuries, why does that name upset you so much? Call them something else if you like, nobody cares.

Arabs born or settled in Palestine have been called Arabs for centuries.
Jews born or settled in Palestine have been called Jews for centuries.

 

[Shusha]

Israel is a source of many problems.

Go ahead and start a thread about it.

Lots of countries are the source of problems globally. No one is questioning their existence nor calling for them to be dismantled, nor claiming that their national identity isn't.

You provided a list of questions we should ask about Israel. That's the problem. If we (either you and I or the international community) are going to start claiming that some states are not national identities, but only "political credos", then we need an objective list of criteria to determine which national identities are legitimate and which are illegitimate.

And if you can't do that, but only reject the national identity of Israel, then you are applying unique standards to Israel. OR if you work backwards from your conclusion and come up with a list, but it miraculously only applies to Israel, you are applying unique standards to Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Last time i looked Japan isn't engaged in Genocide like Israel is.

Well, we can certainly have a discussion about dismantling existing States when they do-bad-things*, the legal requirements and procedures, and the practical matters of accomplishing it BUT that wasn't the claim. The claim was the rejection of Israel as a national identity and nation.

*or accused of doing bad-things by popular opinon

 

[Shusha]

People born or settled in Palestine have been called Palestinians for centuries, why does that name upset you so much? Call them something else if you like, nobody cares.

My understanding is that the regional place-name has existed since antiquity, but the name was not in use to define a people until the Mandate period. (Feel free to fact check me on that one). Even in the past century, though, the specific people the term is meant to denote has changed. It was used to mean the Jewish peoples of the Mandate peoples. Then the Arab peoples as a distinct national identity since the 1960s. Now it has been co-opted to include anyone of any distinct peoples who have lived there since the beginning of time (transforming the Jewish people into Palestinians in an attempt to erase Jews).

 

[Churchill]

Arabs born or settled in Palestine have been called Arabs for centuries.
Jews born or settled in Palestine have been called Jews for centuries.

American Jews have been called Americans for centuries, American Italians have been called Americans for centuries, Al Pacino is an American, Mel Brooks is an American.

So what is the point of your whining? The resiedents of Palestine have been called Palestinians for centuries, why does any of this even matter?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Americam Jews have been called Americans for centuries.

So what is the point of your whining? The resiedents of Palestine have been called Palestinians for centuries, why does any of this even matter?

The resiedents of Palestine have been called Palestinians for centuries

Arabs in "Palestine" for centuries identified themselves as Arabs.

 

[Churchill]

Lots of countries are the source of problems globally. No one is questioning their existence nor calling for them to be dismantled, nor claiming that their national identity isn't.

People question the value of some system existing all the time, aparthed South Africa no longer exists, antisemtic Nazi Germany no longer exists. Why is the suggestion that a reprehensible political state should not exist a concern?

You provided a list of questions we should ask about Israel. That's the problem.

People asked a lot of questions about the United States during the civil rights era, why was that a problem? for whom was it a problem?

If we (either you and I or the international community) are going to start claiming that some states are not national identities, but only "political credos", then we need an objective list of criteria to determine which national identities are legitimate and which are illegitimate.

We don't need that, we have international law, human rights laws, we have the UN. We can apply that as a standard for nations to aspire to.

And if you can't do that, but only reject the national identity of Israel, then you are applying unique standards to Israel.

If a "national identity" requires an inequitable system of government then yes, it should be a target for criticism.

OR if you work backwards from your conclusion and come up with a list, but it miraculously only applies to Israel, you are applying unique standards to Israel.

Who said these expectations only apply to Israel? Look at Iran, that has been under massive sanctions for decades, it's system does have serious shortcomings.

So there's no basis for your "only applies to Israel" objection.

 

[Churchill]

The resiedents of Palestine have been called Palestinians for centuries

Arabs in "Palestine" for centuries identified themselves as Arabs.

Is that meant to be an interesting point?