- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
“The resolution suggests that all anti-Zionism—it states—is antisemitism. That’s either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong,” said New York Representative Jerry Nadler, who voted present. “The authors if they were at all familiar with Jewish history & culture should know about Jewish anti-Zionism that was and is expressly not antisemitic. This resolution ignores the fact that even today, certain Orthodox Hasidic Jewish communities … have held views that are at odds with the modern Zionist conception.”
Oh nation building. The US is pretty good at that. I mean, isn’t that how we got here in the first place? Moving a bunch of religious fanatics out of their holy land to make room for the displaced victims of a genocide?
Deflecting, are we?
Not at all, I just don’t think your solution is feasible. The Israeli leadership will not step down peacefully, and Hamas will not accept anything less than total victory. You’re suggesting a third party take control? Or do you think suddenly everyone involved will just forget all the murder and start singing “kumbaya”?
That’s not how it started at all, the Brits have a lot more to do with this one.
Naturally, but do we expect to be better at it?
I think I may have misunderstood you, I thought you were saying that America was responsible for Israel.
No that’s my fault, I see why that’s what it sounded like. It was intended as two different points.
The US has a bad record of nation building.
Israel exists because of failed nation building, specifically how the UK controlled Palestine and started encouraging Jewish migration to the holy land, displacing Palestinians.
Lol. Really bad attempt at pivoting.
What pivot? That’s the argument presented. “The end of Israel does not require violence because Western nations can build a better nation for the Jewish and Palestinian peoples to live in harmony.” Does that actually deserve a full rebuttal?