I didn’t say that, you’re responding to a product of your own deranged imagination. Explain to me why the Ukrainians have the right to their own state and the right to defend it with force but Israelis don’t.
Would you agree then that Ukraine is in fact a Ukrainian supremacist state with no right to remain Ukrainian supremacist? And that the best solution to their conflict with Russia is a single state, one man one vote, with everyone living together in equality?
Suppose a NATO-backed Ukraine successfully repels Russian forces in all territory in the internationally recognized pre-2014 borders and the Kyiv government moves to reassert sovereignty over that territory.
Now suppose further that, in retaliation, all pro-Russia Ukrainians from those territories were demoted to second-class citizenship or to no citizenship at all in the aftermath. They lost all recourse to petition the Kyiv government to address their needs and security. Western and diaspora Ukrainians were encouraged to move to the Donbas and subsidized to bulldoze the homes of the inhabitants and assert ownership of the land. The Ukrainian military could declare firing zones, no matter how specious and fraudulent, anywhere east of the Dnipro River and force evacuations.
Meanwhile all of Russia and the international community would condemn it (those anti-Ukrainian bigots!)
When all that happens, it might be worth taking your analogy seriously.
You’re changing the subject. This isn’t about the occupation. Read the article you linked to. The problem to Beinart and those like him is Jews having their own state. Try again.
Well, that’s the rub, ain’t it? The rights of non-Jews living in the land under control of a Jewish state?
If there were 20 million Jews living in Israel it could grant full rights and citizenship to everyone living there and those who lay claims to the land living elsewhere and still be a Jewish and democratic state by virtue of favorable demographics. But there are not and so it cannot.
To what extent do the rights of Jews to self-determination impose constraints on and/or supersede that same right for Palestinians? Under liberalism, there is a clear boundary. Under modern zero-sum Zionist ideology—or at least those most assertively claiming to speak for it—Jewish rights in the historic land of Palestine are all but unbounded.
The Ukraine-Russia analogy fails because this element of self-determination versus minority rights is entirely missing.
You are aware that there are eight million ethnic Russians living in Ukraine right Paul? Living in a state that isn’t “for” them? Living as “second class citizen” one might say? The rights of non Ukrainians living in a Ukrainian state.
It’s actually quite a good analogy. Now answer my questions.
I didn’t say that, you’re responding to a product of your own deranged imagination.
Explain to me why the Ukrainians have the right to their own state and the right to defend it with force but Israelis don’t.
https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/does-israel-have-a-right-to-exist-61a
Would you agree then that Ukraine is in fact a Ukrainian supremacist state with no right to remain Ukrainian supremacist? And that the best solution to their conflict with Russia is a single state, one man one vote, with everyone living together in equality?
Answer carefully now, Paul.
Suppose a NATO-backed Ukraine successfully repels Russian forces in all territory in the internationally recognized pre-2014 borders and the Kyiv government moves to reassert sovereignty over that territory.
Now suppose further that, in retaliation, all pro-Russia Ukrainians from those territories were demoted to second-class citizenship or to no citizenship at all in the aftermath. They lost all recourse to petition the Kyiv government to address their needs and security. Western and diaspora Ukrainians were encouraged to move to the Donbas and subsidized to bulldoze the homes of the inhabitants and assert ownership of the land. The Ukrainian military could declare firing zones, no matter how specious and fraudulent, anywhere east of the Dnipro River and force evacuations.
Meanwhile all of Russia and the international community would condemn it (those anti-Ukrainian bigots!)
When all that happens, it might be worth taking your analogy seriously.
You’re changing the subject. This isn’t about the occupation. Read the article you linked to. The problem to Beinart and those like him is Jews having their own state. Try again.
Well, that’s the rub, ain’t it? The rights of non-Jews living in the land under control of a Jewish state?
If there were 20 million Jews living in Israel it could grant full rights and citizenship to everyone living there and those who lay claims to the land living elsewhere and still be a Jewish and democratic state by virtue of favorable demographics. But there are not and so it cannot.
To what extent do the rights of Jews to self-determination impose constraints on and/or supersede that same right for Palestinians? Under liberalism, there is a clear boundary. Under modern zero-sum Zionist ideology—or at least those most assertively claiming to speak for it—Jewish rights in the historic land of Palestine are all but unbounded.
The Ukraine-Russia analogy fails because this element of self-determination versus minority rights is entirely missing.
You are aware that there are eight million ethnic Russians living in Ukraine right Paul? Living in a state that isn’t “for” them? Living as “second class citizen” one might say? The rights of non Ukrainians living in a Ukrainian state.
It’s actually quite a good analogy. Now answer my questions.