That's not enough for me. I'm a lifelong Liberal Democrat and I am boycotting this election. I suspect a lot of non-Jewish Dems like me feel the same; I am disgusted by how the Dems have enabled and coddled the Neo-Nazis of the Left. It is blood chilling.
I understand what you are experiencing even though I am not American. I think people in every country have had elections like this — where they feel there is absolutely no one to vote for. I am wondering, however, what does not voting at all do? If there are enough people who boycott the election for the same reason as you, what might result from that? And is that something you don’t mind seeing happen? You don’t have to answer, but I do wonder about the effect of boycotting an election.
Invented words and phrases are the go-to for the non-jewish world since time immemorial, making up words for our practices, reframing what is normal behavior for everyone else as spectacularly worthy of condescension when it comes to the jews, and renaming our holidays and land, it's a supernatural sickness. Excellent observation on the condescension of the constant repetition of Israel has a right to defend itself. Menachem Begin was the last of the you don't talk to me like that Jews that I can recall besides Kahane.
This is an excellent analysis. This is what we discover when we actually think about the meaning of words that are used, specifically how the same words apply differently to different peoples/nations depending on our (often unacknowledged) biases.
I am very text-oriented. I pay great attention to the choice of words. It is partly my academic research and partly my obsession (which helps with my research). I have not posted much (if any) of my own writing, but I read and share what is written by others if I find it important.
Yes. That is curious. Israel is not the only country excluded from the list. But they could have noticed this and gone with a different platform. There are quite a few Israeli writers here.
Interesting game but not sure what it accomplishes. The calculus is simple. The world has pursued a “two-state solution” for decades now to no avail. Every hallmark agreement has been for naught.
Conclusion: There is no two-state solution. Germany, Korea, Vietnam…. Even the US in 1860. Two-state solutions don’t work.
The Abraham Accords had a simple goal. Get the states together that had a common interest in peace and build a framework of commercial dependence among them leaving no room for the disruptive ideologues.
Those who seek a two-state solution seek continuous war because war if profitable (for the few).
I don't think it's even meaningful to say that a state "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" to exist. No one ever says it about any country other than Israel or so-called Palestine. Israel was voted into existence by the UN General Assembly. It is literally the only state in the world to have that degree of global acclamation, but that doesn't stop the world saying it doesn't deserve to exist.
Questions to ask someone who talks like this: Who decides which nations "deserve" a state? Do we hold a global referendum? Does the UN vote (see my comments above)? Are there objective criteria to meet? Are the Kurds going to suddenly qualify one day? Or the Tibetans? What happens if they do? Do we get to decide that, say, Iran or Russia doesn't deserve to exist any more? What happens if we do decide that? It's totally meaningless except as a propaganda tool.
Whether we like it or agree with it, there is the beginning of a criteria of this sort in international law. It’s called the right of self-determination of peoples. This is certainly messy to sort out, but here’s a way to look at it. Of course every single ethnic and religious minority can’t have its own country, that would be too much. Human rights law, with its prohibitions on discrimination, religious freedom, and so forth exists specifically to enable minorities to live securely without their own state. However, if a distinct ethnic/ religious group in a defined territory can demonstrate that national civil law and international law are not safeguarding their rights, then they may be entitled to remedy this by self-determination, which essentially means to have their own country. The Palestinians argue that they are a ‘people’ with a distinct territory and identity, and that many of their rights such as equality before the law, non-discrimination, and so forth are currently being violated by Israel (which unfortunately does seem to be true.) Therefore the statement that ‘Palestinians deserve self-determination’ is at least sensible or arguable in international law.
Very well argued. Two states is predicated on an end to violence. That was the heart of the Oslo bargain. Without keeping the commitment to end violence, the Palestinian state is not possible. That is the equation which the Durban agenda has tried to utterly erase.
The only thing this person has going for her is that she isn’t trump.
That's not enough for me. I'm a lifelong Liberal Democrat and I am boycotting this election. I suspect a lot of non-Jewish Dems like me feel the same; I am disgusted by how the Dems have enabled and coddled the Neo-Nazis of the Left. It is blood chilling.
I understand what you are experiencing even though I am not American. I think people in every country have had elections like this — where they feel there is absolutely no one to vote for. I am wondering, however, what does not voting at all do? If there are enough people who boycott the election for the same reason as you, what might result from that? And is that something you don’t mind seeing happen? You don’t have to answer, but I do wonder about the effect of boycotting an election.
It's in their Satanic book of evil, "kill all Jews"
Invented words and phrases are the go-to for the non-jewish world since time immemorial, making up words for our practices, reframing what is normal behavior for everyone else as spectacularly worthy of condescension when it comes to the jews, and renaming our holidays and land, it's a supernatural sickness. Excellent observation on the condescension of the constant repetition of Israel has a right to defend itself. Menachem Begin was the last of the you don't talk to me like that Jews that I can recall besides Kahane.
Yup.
Interesting angle from which to contemplate the progressive Democratic viewpoint. Or at least, Harris's.
This is an excellent analysis. This is what we discover when we actually think about the meaning of words that are used, specifically how the same words apply differently to different peoples/nations depending on our (often unacknowledged) biases.
Thank-you. Glad you appreciate my efforts. I am a Virgo and details just seem to pop out at me.
I am very text-oriented. I pay great attention to the choice of words. It is partly my academic research and partly my obsession (which helps with my research). I have not posted much (if any) of my own writing, but I read and share what is written by others if I find it important.
Thanks
Figures Substack doesn’t support Israel.
Sorry, I don't understand this comment.
That you are unable to set up a paid subscription through Substack in Israel.
Yes. That is curious. Israel is not the only country excluded from the list. But they could have noticed this and gone with a different platform. There are quite a few Israeli writers here.
Interesting game but not sure what it accomplishes. The calculus is simple. The world has pursued a “two-state solution” for decades now to no avail. Every hallmark agreement has been for naught.
Conclusion: There is no two-state solution. Germany, Korea, Vietnam…. Even the US in 1860. Two-state solutions don’t work.
The Abraham Accords had a simple goal. Get the states together that had a common interest in peace and build a framework of commercial dependence among them leaving no room for the disruptive ideologues.
Those who seek a two-state solution seek continuous war because war if profitable (for the few).
Thanks for this interesting contribution to the discussion I began in this article.
Outstanding analysis and thoughtful well-written article, Sheri!
Thank you. Glad you appreciated it.
I don't think it's even meaningful to say that a state "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" to exist. No one ever says it about any country other than Israel or so-called Palestine. Israel was voted into existence by the UN General Assembly. It is literally the only state in the world to have that degree of global acclamation, but that doesn't stop the world saying it doesn't deserve to exist.
Questions to ask someone who talks like this: Who decides which nations "deserve" a state? Do we hold a global referendum? Does the UN vote (see my comments above)? Are there objective criteria to meet? Are the Kurds going to suddenly qualify one day? Or the Tibetans? What happens if they do? Do we get to decide that, say, Iran or Russia doesn't deserve to exist any more? What happens if we do decide that? It's totally meaningless except as a propaganda tool.
Thank you for this. You add to my argument in this article.
Whether we like it or agree with it, there is the beginning of a criteria of this sort in international law. It’s called the right of self-determination of peoples. This is certainly messy to sort out, but here’s a way to look at it. Of course every single ethnic and religious minority can’t have its own country, that would be too much. Human rights law, with its prohibitions on discrimination, religious freedom, and so forth exists specifically to enable minorities to live securely without their own state. However, if a distinct ethnic/ religious group in a defined territory can demonstrate that national civil law and international law are not safeguarding their rights, then they may be entitled to remedy this by self-determination, which essentially means to have their own country. The Palestinians argue that they are a ‘people’ with a distinct territory and identity, and that many of their rights such as equality before the law, non-discrimination, and so forth are currently being violated by Israel (which unfortunately does seem to be true.) Therefore the statement that ‘Palestinians deserve self-determination’ is at least sensible or arguable in international law.
Very well argued. Two states is predicated on an end to violence. That was the heart of the Oslo bargain. Without keeping the commitment to end violence, the Palestinian state is not possible. That is the equation which the Durban agenda has tried to utterly erase.