frogwoman
Let them eat newts
"unsurprisingly"?
LGBT Support for Israel
- Thread starter CUMBRIANDRAGON
- Start date
"unsurprisingly"?
The article is hosted on gaywired.com, is titled "Supporting Israel - It's the Gay Thing to do" and argues that gay people should support Israel because of the Israeli state's relatively liberal treatment of gay people. So I'd say that the authors sexuality is definately connected to her support for Israel, wouldn't you?
Why should Jewish people be expected to support Israel? There are a few on here who don't.
cantsin
Well-Known Member
moronic wanker
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
What a strange thread
I failed at "guess the threadstarter". And I was so sure.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
If we're thinking of the same person, so did I.
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
The article was by a Jewish person, I would have thought it more likely a Jewish person would be supporting Israel's appalling(imho)actions in Gaza than a non Jewish person.
The fact that she is Jewish as well as gay makes her stance at least slightly understandable.
If a non Jewish gay had made the same suggestion it would not have made any sense at all. The suggestion being that gays should support Israel's current actions in Gaza because of Israels(alledged)more liberal stance on gays than it's neighbours.
What utter fucking shit.
The constant racialising of this debate (by both sides) is fucking appalling.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Bollocks. I know plenty (too fucking many) of non-Jewish people personally who think Israel can do no wrong, constantly trying to find excuses for why "sovereign nations can do what they want" and plenty of Jewish people who are sickened by Israel and want nothing to do with it.
Constantly trying to link Israel and Jews only benefits two people - zionists and anti-semites.
Do not do it
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
I don't get it - this person says that Israel has a right to exist but I don't see how that equates to a right to commit daily atrocities
Maybe it loses something in translation . . .
Depends what you mean by "a right to exist"
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
and there are plenty of gay people, jewish and non-jewish, who support israel for the reasons mentioned in the article, as well as the fact israel is "modern", "western" etc
oh and all those fit guys/gals in IDF uniforms and the nightclubs in Tel Aviv
sadly, the mainstream "gay pride" movement has, imo, lent itself to some quite reactionary styles of thinking over the last few years...
oh and all those fit guys/gals in IDF uniforms and the nightclubs in Tel Aviv
sadly, the mainstream "gay pride" movement has, imo, lent itself to some quite reactionary styles of thinking over the last few years...
8ball
As seen on TikTok
I mean that you can believe that it has the right to defend itself without believing it has the right to illegally occupy land and slaughter civilians.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
I mean that you can believe that it has the right to defend itself without believing it has the right to illegally occupy land and slaughter civilians.
that all depends on what it has the right to defend itself against tho
and what israel has the right to exist as - does israel just have the right to exist?
or have the right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE?
if you think israel should maintain a jewish majority at all costs and that its not only defending itself against terrorism but against the demographic threat - as many people do - then what it is doing now makes perfect sense
8ball
As seen on TikTok
that all depends on what it has the right to defend itself against tho
and what israel has the right to exist as - does israel just have the right to exist?
or have the right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE?
if you think israel should maintain a jewish majority at all costs and that its not only defending itself against terrorism but against the demographic threat - as many people do - then what it is doing now makes perfect sense
Obviously things can get a bit more complicated but I was purely pointing out that the person making the case started by saying something entirely unncontroversial and moderate, namely that Israel has the right to maintain its borders within the reasonable boundaries of international law.
As for maintaining a Jewish majority at all costs - I don't even know what you're talking about - I imagine youdo, but I don't.
scifisam
deleted
TBH, I also find it less surprising that she supports Israel, given that she's Jewish. Being Jewish obviously doesn't automatically mean she'll support Israel, but it does make it more likely, surely? And yes, there are plenty of gentiles who also support Israel, but that's by-the-by.
8ball
As seen on TikTok
I can't prove it, obv, but I think statistically this is a fair thing to say.
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
I'm not taking sides here ffs! I'm just suggesting a reason why she might have written an article suggesting gays should support Israel's actions in Gaza. She obviously supports Israel, possibly she is an Israeli or has relatives there, she dosent say.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The argument, such as it is, is a pretty standard one, and not really connected to being Jewish or gay.
1. Muslim governments are really bad in <way X>, including Hamas.
2. Israel is better.
3. <Atrocities X, Y and Z> never happened and/or were the fault of Hamas. (This one, which you'd expect to be significant as a part of any argument as it's the major reason people put forward for not supporting Israel, only gets one tiny paragraph in this piece.)
4. Therefore, support Israel doing what it wants to do here.
No, it doesn't follow, but eh.
1. Muslim governments are really bad in <way X>, including Hamas.
2. Israel is better.
3. <Atrocities X, Y and Z> never happened and/or were the fault of Hamas. (This one, which you'd expect to be significant as a part of any argument as it's the major reason people put forward for not supporting Israel, only gets one tiny paragraph in this piece.)
4. Therefore, support Israel doing what it wants to do here.
No, it doesn't follow, but eh.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
So who elected Hamas then? IIRC it was the Palestinians.
On January 25, 2006, elections were held for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). Notwithstanding the 2005 municipal elections and the January 9, 2005 presidential election, this was the first election to the PLC since 1996; subsequent elections had been repeatedly postponed due to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian voters in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank including East Jerusalem were eligible to participate in the election.
Final results show that Hamas won the election, with 74 seats to the ruling-Fatah's 45, providing Hamas with the majority of the 132 available seats and the ability to form a majority government on their own.
scifisam
deleted
I felt pity for the Americans affected on 9/11 even though they elected Bush. If they were under constant bombardment, with hundreds of civilians being killed (or tens of thousands, in proportion to their population), I'd definitely support them even though their President's a wanker.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Obviously things can get a bit more complicated but I was purely pointing out that the person making the case started by saying something entirely unncontroversial and moderate, namely that Israel has the right to maintain its borders within the reasonable boundaries of international law.
As for maintaining a Jewish majority at all costs - I don't even know what you're talking about - I imagine youdo, but I don't.
OK when people say Israel has a right to exist they normally mean one of two things
1) Israel as a state has the right to exist within its internationally recognised boarders. It has the right to defend itself from attack.
i'm an anti-zionist but you'll find very litle argument from me apart from a teeny little problem:
israel never defined its borders...
so nobody really knows what "internationally recognised borders" are when it comes to Israel apart from what can be deduced from what are the internationally recognised borders of other states around it ... 2) Or:
Israel has the right to exist as a JEWISH STATE and defend itself.
Israel proper is a majority jewish state right?
now you might not see what is diferent from Israel having a right to exist, and Israel as a Jewish state having a right to exist, but it is very different ... the whole idea of this is that the "demographic threat" of more Palestinians than Jews inside Israel can't be allowed to occur, because it will be the end of Israel as a Jewish state - the Jews wont be able to have a majority and the Palestinians will become the majority. that is why israel is so keen on delegating its authority to things like the PA and still having control of the territory, meaning that the Palestinians dont have a viable state, but maintaining different structures for ruling Israel and the occupied territories.
if you think that a demographic threat - of palestinians becoming a majority inside israel and all of the territory it holds - is as important as a security threat and that Israel should carry on having the right to exist as a Jewish state then what it is doing now makes absolutely perfect sense, from that viewpoint ...
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Likewise, if Tel Aviv was given the "belgrade treatment" if America decided it had had enough of them and wanted a bit of regime change ... (which tbh, isn't THAT implausible any more, at least in the next 20-30 years) it'd be perfectly acceptable to oppose that war and support other actions against the israeli state at the same time !!
8ball
As seen on TikTok
OK when people say Israel has a right to exist they normally mean one of two things
1) Israel as a state has the right to exist within its internationally recognised boarders. It has the right to defend itself from attack.
i'm an anti-zionist but you'll find very litle argument from me apart from a teeny little problem:
israel never defined its borders...
2) Or:
Israel has the right to exist as a JEWISH STATE and defend itself.
Israel proper is a majority jewish state right?
now you might not see what is diferent from Israel having a right to exist, and Israel as a Jewish state having a right to exist, but it is very different ... the whole idea of this is that the "demographic threat" of more Palestinians than Jews inside Israel can't be allowed to occur, because it will be the end of Israel as a Jewish state - the Jews wont be able to have a majority and the Palestinians will become the majority. that is why israel is so keen on delegating its authority to things like the PA and still having control of the territory, meaning that the Palestinians dont have a viable state, but maintaining different structures for ruling Israel and the occupied territories.
if you think that a demographic threat - of palestinians becoming a majority inside israel and all of the territory it holds - is as important as a security threat and that Israel should carry on having the right to exist as a Jewish state then what it is doing now makes absolutely perfect sense, from that viewpoint ...
Interesting post - cheers. Must say I thought Israel had defined borders because it was set up by someone else . . .
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
And you think they wont lol
you're a fuckwit too
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
OK when people say Israel has a right to exist they normally mean one of two things
1) Israel as a state has the right to exist within its internationally recognised boarders. It has the right to defend itself from attack.
i'm an anti-zionist but you'll find very litle argument from me apart from a teeny little problem:
israel never defined its borders...
2) Or:
Israel has the right to exist as a JEWISH STATE and defend itself.
Israel proper is a majority jewish state right?
now you might not see what is diferent from Israel having a right to exist, and Israel as a Jewish state having a right to exist, but it is very different ... the whole idea of this is that the "demographic threat" of more Palestinians than Jews inside Israel can't be allowed to occur, because it will be the end of Israel as a Jewish state - the Jews wont be able to have a majority and the Palestinians will become the majority. that is why israel is so keen on delegating its authority to things like the PA and still having control of the territory, meaning that the Palestinians dont have a viable state, but maintaining different structures for ruling Israel and the occupied territories.
if you think that a demographic threat - of palestinians becoming a majority inside israel and all of the territory it holds - is as important as a security threat and that Israel should carry on having the right to exist as a Jewish state then what it is doing now makes absolutely perfect sense, from that viewpoint ...
Yep, difference is Israelis have a right to live in peace vs Apartheid is cool.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Homosexuality is illegal in India and carries a 10 year sentence
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
8ball said:
Erm sort of
Basically - there was the British Mandate of Palestine which was the area of modern day Israel, the gaza strip, the West Bank etc. The British Mandate of Palestine split the land, with the zionists having slightly more than half of the land than the Palestinians did, despite them being less than 5 percent of the population at the time.
Ben Gurioun etc who were the "founding fathers of Israel" decided that this wouldn't work, because if you look at the land allocated to the zionists vs the Palestinians, both countries have a very small amount of what is a tiny country anyway, and after the holocaust loads of refugees came to palestine in a very short space of time, increasing the population of Jews to about 40% of the overall percentage. During the Israeli war of independence / the nakba (1948) the Israeli troops captured most of what was allocated to the Palestinians apart from the West Bank (which Jordan took when it fought with Israel in 1948) and Gaza strip (which Egyot took) where thousands of refugees from the nakba then fled.
But even during the time of the British mandate of Palestine, zionists complained that the land in the overall area was too little for what they wanted to acheive, and there are maps of "Israel" which were presented as a serious proposal which included huge swathes of modern day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc as well as the Sinai Desert and even possibly bits of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. After Israel declared its independence it refused to define what it's borders would be, whether that was because it epected to be able to capture more or to appease people who wanted its borders to be this big, and in 1967 as well as the west bank and gaza strip, it captured the Sinai Desert, parts of southern Lebanon, and the Golan heights from Syria, which in 1948 it had tried to captured as well. Israel was later forced to give up most of these territories - but obviously still hangs onto the Golan heights and also, the Sheba farms from Lebanon ...
thats how i think it goes anyway - if i've missed something majorly important someone stop me
Similar threads
- Poll
