thatsmyfribble

It's definitely a very difficult issue, and the answer is definitely better left to someone with more political experience than myself (having zero), and with more knowledge of the Israeli political structure, but to start with-

1. Israel should move its capital to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem should become a U.N. Mandate. No single group should have exclusive claim over what many groups consider their holiest place. 2. There remains a permanent group like the U.N. security council in the Knesset that represents the Jewish people and their interests in the state of Israel, so regardless of the makeup of the coalition government, the interest of a Jewish state/state of the Jews remain effective - this is the least undemocratic way there could be representation while maintaining representation 3. All occupied territories are either returned or annexed--if annexed, full citizenship and rights are given to those who live there

Those are just my thoughts. I'm sure greater minds would come up with greater opinions. I just firmly believe there is a way to co-exist.

That's where the argument over whether Israel should be a Jewish state or a state of the Jews comes from. Should Israel be a Jewish theocracy, or should it be a secular homeland for the Jewish people as an ethnic group? If you find theocracies disgusting, there are plenty of theocratic states you should also be pointing your disgust at.

The right wing element in Israel has definitely held power for a long time and their policies have led to the subjugation of minority groups (I am not defending this), though those are not the religious extremists, they are just nationalists.

I don't agree that there is anything fundamentally antisemitic about criticizing Israel or its policies. While I think some antisemitic people hold that viewpoint, there is plenty of valid criticism for the actions of the Israeli government and its military. Sometimes, saying criticism of Israel is antisemitic is just a way of shutting down someone who is giving criticism, though, conversely I will also say that it's unfair to claim any dissent to dissent is an accusation of antisemitism. I'm not accusing you of that, I did want to bring it into the discourse though, given your point.

I will include the quote you're citing here for the purpose of a TL;DR: Under a list of "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life," included is "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

That's their definition, they do say at the top of the article it's a "Non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism," so anyone can draw their own. I personally don't think it's necessarily antisemitic to argue Israeli's policies are discriminatory/or racist, depending on how you are defining racism.

The phrasing of the disgusting line is unclear, I apologize. I'm not calling people claiming that disgusting, I'm commenting on people who are calling the concept of a Jewish state disgusting, as in, I'm commenting on people who are saying "the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting."

I would still love to meet Penn and Teller though.

My comment was phrased poorly. I didn't mean to say it was disgusting to call Israel a racist state, I commented on people who are calling Israel's actions disgusting--I apologize if that wasn't a clear distinction in my comment--quotation marks would have made it clearer. I don't think it's disgusting to have an opinion on Israel's actions and policies.

I would argue that the core issue around this article is not the occupations of Gaza and the West Bank. For one, while Israel has tremendous control over the Gaza region, it is self governed and not occupied by Israel--that's semantics, but I do want to make the distinction between the level of autonomy Gaza has versus the level the West Bank has.

I agree with the two options you put forwards, and I personally prefer the latter. I think the only path to peace in Israel is to end the occupation, make peace with Gaza, move the capital to Tel Aviv, and establish Jerusalem as a U.N. Mandate. I don't think Israel has a valid claim to exclusive control over what many groups consider the holiest place on earth, but I also don't think other groups who consider it a holy place should have exclusive control over it either. Putting the U.N. in control of it is an imperfect solution, but better than what we have now for peace in the region. That's my two cents that no one asked for.

I think in a conversation that's this divisive it's critical to be semantically very clear. I don't know that I'm using any sleights of hand, but if you want to agree to very specific definitions on the terms being discussed I always think that's useful.

Regarding the apartheid analogy:

I don't want to get into a semantic sleight of hand here, but the term apartheid comes from Dutch Afrikaans to describe their rule over South Africa. I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but I don't agree with that definition.

If we're defining racism as unequal treatment of different groups based on race, then yes, Israel is a racist state because clearly, as is evident from this article, they are treating groups differently based on race (that is, if we're defining Judaism as a racial/ethnic designation rather than a religious one). I will not defend Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, but I think it is worth defending the concept of Israel as a state that does not fundamentally need to be racist.

Yes. The premise of a state which is 'for' a specific group inherently employs segregation. I say subjugation because I think there is a version of that system that maintains a Jewish ruling majority without subjugating the minority.

Again, you can agree or disagree with a state that is built on segregation, but I ask that you include in your judgement the history and context of Israel's existence.

No, not a bot either, just don't want my actual account getting downvoted to hell for expressing my honest opinion.

I don't think it was built with the intention of subjugation, but I think it has been a consequence of its implementation and politics. I do think there is a version of a Jewish state that doesn't behave like this, but its current political consensus is not that state.

You can get by the Reuters paywall in an incognito window.

This law doesn't restrict marriages, it restricts citizenship through marriages for Palestinians. I'm not defending that but I am clarifying it.

First of all, this isn't a ban on Israeli-Palestinian marriage, this is a restriction on the ability to gain citizenship through those marriages. I don't agree with that, but I do think it's important to clarify.

Regarding comments I'm seeing here saying Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is racist or that Israel the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting:

Israel is the size of New Jersey. It is the only state on earth there is a Jewish majority. There are many places on earth where there is a Christian majority, and there are many places on earth where there is a Muslim majority.

The Jewish people represent a tiny percent of the world's population in part because they have been expelled from their homes throughout history, and the majority of them were killed in the 1940s.

Why does it matter to have a Jewish state? Because it is a measure of defense against what has happened countless times throughout history.

The problem with a Jewish state in Israel:

Obviously, Israel, and especially Jerusalem, is a holy state for multiple groups. Those groups have a justifiable interest in living in Israel and enjoying the same rights as Israeli citizens. The issue is that if citizenship is freely given, Jews become the minority in Israel and it is no longer a Jewish state.

If you say "Good," to that, that is your opinion, and I will add that there are Jewish Israelis who agree with you. There is debate in Israel and abroad whether Israel should be a Jewish state of a state of the Jews. In the latter, there is more room for Palestinians--as it stands, this is not the policy of the current coalition.

Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion, but there are many who believe what Jews have faced throughout history justify a Jewish homeland, and it is very difficult to have a Jewish homeland, at least in Israel, without maintaining a Jewish majority.