Call me cynical, but the Israeli establishment are not entirely without grassroot support. Who is to say if their leaders swapped there would be no new fascist leader elected?
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)
- Thread starter phrozenflame
- Start date
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
First off, lets not mix-up extreme ethno-Nationalism with Fascism (While it is a oppressive, broken, terrible ideology that should never raise its head again, Fascism at its core deals with the relationships between the state, corporations, and people - it has nothing to do race/ethnicity) . If Palestinians have their own state, then they would be protected from any extremists in Israel. Yes, the possibility that a future Israeli regime may try to reconquer the Palestinian state, but it would be much more difficult, there would be much more international backlash, and it would be more difficult for Israel to get enough domestic support for such an outright invasion. A two-state solution should be accompanied by a UN mandate that neither state would be allowed to change the borders.
Last edited:
I fail to see how they would suddenly respect UN mandate they ignored in the past just because of 'establishing two state solution'.
I fail to see how ethno-nationalism applies. You could say Chinese claim on Taiwan is ethno-nationalism, but it would not involve genocide, mass deportation. I suppose you could say Israel is closer to Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany than original Italian fascism. That only make it worse.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
If there was a two-state solution, than any Israeli attempts at reconquest becomes an illegal invasion/occupation of a sovereign state. While they would not preclude entirely the chance of war (as evidenced by US/Russian wars over the past 2-3 decades), it should lower it and it would also make it more difficulty for the Israeli leadership to garner domestic support and should subject them to much higher levels of international pressure if they were to do so.
Relatively speaking, I would agree that Germany/Japan would be closer analogs than Italy, and neither German/Japanese ideology in WW2 fits Fascism in the strict sense of the word (Nazism in Germany and ultra-Nationalism coupled with Militarism and Imperialism/Expansionism disguised as anti-Imperialism in Japan, with a dose of religious fanaticism). Since China is a multiethnic state, Chinese nationalism is not ethno-Nationalism. Chinese claims on Taiwan are not legitimized by the fact that there are Han people living on Taiwan - it is legitimized by the fact the island of Taiwan legitimately belongs to China. Ethno-nationalism would be if China were to claim Singapore. China promotes neither ethno-Nationalism nor ultra-Nationalism, just a healthy dose of plain old good Nationalism.
How is it "ethno-nationalism" when borders were decided like that and have been for ages? Is Russian claim on Urals or Italy claim on sardinia "ethno-nationalism"?
I don't really understand how youre definining it here, do you just take it to mean any country that has certain borders because they incorporated their own culture?
On the other hand, Israel's status is undetermined, this is agreed on by both Israeli nationalists (because they want to expand) and Palestinians alike (because their country is trying to break free).
It's already getting hard for Israel to too overtly get rid of all Palestinians. What they want is basically industrialized murder, but with all eyes on them, they can't even properly bomb Rafah. Piling on UN attention works... But only to buy time for other state actors to step in.
That said they can buy a lot of time, maybe years.
Correct me if I am wrong, ethno-nationalism do not expand randomly, they are mainly concerned of unifying a culture/ethnicity under 1 border. I see no Jewish culture or person in Gaza. Jewish expansion involves get rid of inferior natives and move its people there. Hence do not apply.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
They see the land as belonging to their people, and if there are other people living there that do not consent to their rule (which involves them being treated as second class citizens), then they want those people gone. You are thinking about irredentism, which is a specific result of ethno-Nationalism. Zionism can also be viewed as ethno-Nationlism. Ethno-nationalism itself isn't necessarily bad, but it is easily manipulated by extremists to justify actions that are clearly wrong. Extreme ethno-nationalism frequently results in the belief that other peoples are inferior, and hence their interests/rights are less important.
Last edited:
Nah man, there is no Jewish ethnicity in Gaza so there is no ethno part. They just want land they dont have because "fairy tales" or "we deserve it", no different from ideas like manifest destiny, lebensraum. So it is of same nature as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. I call it fascism, you as usual like to play with names, so have it your way. But we can both agree they are modern equivalent of nazi Germany, and I think it should be treated as one.
If your so called two state solution involves solutions like nazi Germany, then fine. Mass deporting inhabitants from occupied land, reparation for its damage, and a new government set by occupying international coalition. Somehow I think that is even less likely than one state solution. It would require an outside force sit there to enforce fair peace over a long time. Harder than a swift beat down of the aggressor until it is off the map. At least latter could happen in a post American world order.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Yes, I believe that our main point of contention lie in definitions (regarding extreme ethno-Nationalism and Fascism). I agree that Manifest destiny and Lebensraum are both good analogies to Zionist policy towards Gaza. I also agree to a certain extent that there are shocking parallels between Israel's actions in Gaza and Nazi plans for Eastern Europe, but as of today, I don't think Israeli actions have reached anywhere close to the worst crimes perpetuated by the Nazis. It is a great and extremely sad irony that the, "solution," to one genocide is on the verge of giving rise to another genocide. Likewise, I don't think the solution to the current problem should involve what sounds awfully close to yet another genocide (erasure of Israel from the map). A two-state solution is the most fair long-term solution I can think of. The priority is to prevent genocide, and if a two-state solution cannot be reached, the next best solution may just have to be moving the Palestinian population to neighboring countries (which would be neither just nor fair, but would at least save the Palestinian people). Yes, it would be just as justified to, for instance, move the Israeli people to a safe haven like the United States, but I don't think that scenario has any realistic chance of occurring in the foreseeable future. Israel may be opposed to a two-state solution, but there is absolutely no way Israel would accept any form of one-state solution outside of Israel having complete control over Gaza and the Palestinians either gone or completely subjugated.
It seems that Houthis clearly aren't cooperating well with the US's "global security interests", and global military "power projection and superiority" BS.
So, the US needs to find another target it can "humble" with its giga galactic "blue water" navy, idk, maybe they should try China instead, lol?
Btw, anyone remember videos like this from a few months ago?
And the only ones who got fucked were Anglo (UK & US) and Zionist ships.
What did they expect to do with that large, inefficient, rusting, navy, anyways?
This is not 16th-century warfare anymore, age of colonialism, lmao.
Last edited: