Defending Israel’s security is considered a ‘reason of state’ in the country, where there is practically no public criticism of Netanyahu’s government. Meanwhile, statements in favor of Palestinian human rights are censored
I think it’s more that we realize that sometimes getting invaded and having an outside power depose your tyrannous government is the best thing that can happen to you. Even if the process is brutal.
could be that, or could be that you guys never realized that human rights are for all humans… but keep repeating “never again” - that’ll solve everything…
They are. But Israel is hardly committing any violations here. Responsible for the suffering in Gaza right now is Hamas. They started a war and gave Israel no choice but to defend itself. Hamas could end this war within hours by simply surrendering and the Palestinian people are lucky that they’re being invaded by the IDF and not the Red Army and that Isreal isn’t ready force a surrender by using firebombings and nuclear weapons like America did in WW2.
“As the example of the Israel-Palestine conflict shows,” writes Pappe, “historical disinformation, even of the most recent past, can do tremendous harm. This willful misunderstanding of history can promote oppression and protect a regime of colonization and occupation. It is not surprising, therefore, that policies of disinformation continue to the present and play an important part in perpetuating the conflict…The Zionist historical account of how the disputed land became the state of Israel is based on a cluster of myths that subtly cast doubt on the Palestinians’ moral right to the land…This book challenges these myths, which appear in the public domain as indisputable truths. These statements are, to my eyes, distortions and fabrications that can—and must—be refuted through a closer examination of the historical record.”
What do we expect from immigrants? That they respect our customs and habits, right? Is it asking too much for them to follow our laws and integrate, at least in the second generation? Of course, they should receive help and support from the local administration if they are poor. Unfortunately, we lack this because we have not wanted to be a country of immigration for far too long.
What do we think of people who believe that immigrants are only coming to displace us and take over everything here? Obviously pathetic paranoid followers of baseless conspiracy theories, aren’t they?
What duties does the government of a country have towards the population? It has to ensure that the population is safe, both physically and economically, right? It may not always work, but it is undisputedly the goal; something along these lines is also part of the oath that members of the government usually take when they take office.
But what if the immigrants explicitly refuse to learn the language and respect local customs from day one, if they refuse to integrate, not because of a lack of education but as a conscious political statement.
What if it were actually the case that the native population should be displaced or at least marginalized, if that was demonstrably the declared goal of the immigrants. What if they had the more or less tacit consent of the most powerful states in the world?
What if they actually manage to found this immigrant state and gain control over the native inhabitants with terrorist attacks and superior weapons technology? What if they drive out and dispossess most of the local population and exclude, disenfranchise and terrorize those who remain? Is this proper government work?
This is not a fantasy, not a conspiracy theory, this is our European colonial history in all states of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
And it is the colonial history of Zionism, a movement of European Jews who, in a time of growing national consciousness, racism and anti-Semitism in the late 19th century, declared the Jews to be a people and settled a “land without a people” for this “people without a country”. wanted to.
In addition to Palestine, Uganda and Argentina were also considered. No thought was given to the people who lived there and considered the land to be theirs. Although the Zionists were not anti-Semites, they were Europeans and had absorbed the European arrogance of superiority since childhood.
Germany destroys the European Jews. A European crime against humanity. All European countries including the USA, Australia etc. have a bad conscience because of their anti-Semitism and their lack of helpfulness towards the persecuted Jews and organized a solution in the UN General Assembly with their own state for the Jews, from which fortunately not a single European power had to suffer .
They could also have given Schleswig-Holstein to the European Jews. It would have been fair. (Whether we Germans would insist so unconditionally on the right to exist of a Jewish state in that case?)
But all the old European anti-Semites were content to send the Jews, their suddenly found siblings in Christian-Jewish culture, to the Arabs. They’re not important anyway. Who cares what Arabs think and feel?
No one. Til today. People babble about a two-state solution, but for decades they have unconditionally supported Israel in making this solution impossible.
My view of the conflict has changed greatly over the past two months as I have listened to what Jewish human rights activists, critical Israeli journalists and former Israeli soldiers have to say on the subject.
Even the Czech Republic and Poland apologized for the expulsion of Germans after the war. Germany has asked for forgiveness for the genocide of the Herero people 100 years ago. The United States and Canada have acknowledged what they have done to indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities as an evil stain on their history.
This is the least that the Palestinians can expect from Israel, combined with the offer of proper compensation.
And of course Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians even if the democratically elected negotiators are terrorists. Israel’s first parliaments were full of former terrorists. There is no better way to turn terrorists into ex-terrorists than to negotiate with them.
Foreword: I had my ideas about all this (and I will keep them for myself) and while I not completly agree with you, it’s fine we had different opinions, I have no desire to make you change yours.
But I want to ask something, you say :
And of course Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians even if the democratically elected negotiators are terrorists. Israel’s first parliaments were full of former terrorists. There is no better way to turn terrorists into ex-terrorists than to negotiate with them.
I fail to understand how Israel could negotiate with the Palestinian when the elected Palestinian negotiators are terrorists that have written in their constitution (the Hamas Charter) that they need to destroy Israel (or zionist states in the new revision).
I mean, we could negotiate but we should both do it with good faith, if one of us has as objective to destroy the other, how we could negotiate and be sure the result will be respected by both sides ?
"The problem is that people of Palestinian or Arab descent feel that they cannot express their concerns and criticisms."
No, the problem is that many seem to be completely unable to get rid of the people supporting their criticism while openly calling for the killing of all jews.
There were peaceful protests in Germany. Nobody had a problem with those. But the majority was instead infested with radicals that should have no place in a civilized society.
There is also a lot of criticism of Israel's government. And funnily enough we can read all these statements in international as well as German media... while they are being actively censored. Sure.
If I publically talk about a topic and half the audience cheering are nazis I will stop, reevaluate my message and clearly distance myself from them. When you 'protest peacefully' to critisize Israel's government however it's okay when a big share of attendees carry symbols of terrorist organisations. And if those protests are then banned it's "censoring of Palestinian human rights".
Don't get me wrong here... I am the first one telling you that the current government in Israel is a big part of the problem (for the very same reason: not distancing themselves from the radical morons - no, it isn't enough to speak out against statements of some government official later, those people can't have a place there at all).
And the official German government statements were clearly lacking balance. But they were widely and loudly criticised publically for it by many. And many called their initial reaction a massive overreaction. (Again... that was public and not censored...)
Yet many of those who camplain about banned protests and censoring however have actually another problem entirely: That they often can't (or don't want to) distance themselves from that strange other half of "Israel criticsm" that is in fact criticising their right to exist.
Fix your own side of the bed first, then you can start complaining.
Fix your own side of the bed first, then you can start complaining.
Thats the problem with both sides, though, isn't it? Its always the other sides fault. And "our" side shouldn't need to fix anything until "your" side fixes their problem.
Its an easy way to sit on your ass and do nothing, because clearly the "other side" is worse.
I’m really not seeing any protesters with “from the river to the sea Israel will be free” posters in Germany, quite the opposite I’ve heard Jewish voices expressing support for humanitarian aid to Palestine and criticism of Israel’s government and the violence committed by settlers. On the other hand a liberal mosque is closing because of the threat of attacks and police have to be posted in front of synagogues around the clock. Who is being silenced here and who is sitting on their asses?
I wrote “Israel will be free” not “Palestine will be free”, the latter has been (rightfully imo) banned, I haven’t seen or heard of anyone using the former (in Germany).
Thats the problem with both sides, though, isn't it? Its always the other sides fault.
One side, the German government, was loudly criticised for their one-sided support comments. And later for their harsh reaction of banning protests when those protests included terrorists and anti-semites.
They are trying to fix the former, by also speaking up about the Israeli side of illegal settlements on one hand and Israel's responsibility to think about collateral civilian damages. Is this perfect? Of course not, but they are doing something. There is no need to "fix" the latter as we don't need people advocating for Israel's destruction (or Germany's destruction to create a new caliphate here - yes, that also happened in some of these protests) on our streets.
And then on other side we have people who still try to sell the banning of anti-semitism in protests as censoring Arab and Palestinian voices. And who have often done shit fixing anything.
Sorry, if you don't understand the concept of freedom of expression and opinion in comparison to absolute free speech. But that's how it is in Germany. Your freedom to say something publically definitely ends long before public calls for violence. We won't and we don't want to change that.
The sane ones advocating for Palestina without calling for the destruction of Israel themselves or associating with people that do... I can read about their opinions daily in the media. I guess they are doing a very bad job at censoring these voices. Or they never actually tried and it's not people being censored but certain opinions for specific reason that questions their status of "legitimate opinion".
There were peaceful protests in Germany. Nobody had a problem with those.
Nobody? Really? You don’t think the right-wing Springer press (just to name the most glaring example) that is ideologically allied with ultranationalists in Israel had a problem with those? That they wouldn’t have cried foul even if the protests where utterly devoid of any radicals? That they wouldn’t have tried to censor even your imagined peaceful protests?
Yeah, sure. Protests with 10 thousand people in which maybe a few dozen were stopped by the police and a handful of banners were confiscated as questionable were totally not peaceful and unproblematic. And they are also not well documented in the media but imaginary.
If you refuse reality, that's a really bad basis for trying to argue.
Add comment