The Peters story is even more extraordinary in that it fails to do what it is intended to do.
The intent is to say something along the lines of “The land was pretty much empty before the Zionists got here, so the Zionists have the right to the land and the Arabs don’t.”
But, in Peter’s story, the Arabs migrated into the country over the same period that the Zionists were migrating into the country. This should give them equal rights to the Zionist migrants.
So it is not merely fiction, but pointless fiction.
“And denying the Jewish people their right to self determination is a per se violation of universal human rights,”
Bearing in mind the distinction between moral and legal rights,
1. What do you mean by “the right to self determination”?
2. Why is this RSD a universal human right?
3. Why do you think “the Jewish people” have this right?
Until you can answer those questions, I will regard your comment as meaningless.
If you do present answers, I will be delighted to debate them with you.
“if they get away wtih suppressing free speech on Palestine who know’s [sic] who’s next. LGBT supporters, Blacks, Latinos, who knows….”
It is already happening. People are being punished for saying the wrong things about LGBT.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/israel-folau-set-to-be-sacked-by-rugby-australia/10993856
Contractors who discriminate against Blacks, Latinos and LGBT are denying those people their human rights.
Prohibiting the US federal government from doing business with those contractors is to support human rights.
Israel is denying the Palestinians their human rights. The US federal government should be prohibited from doing business with Israel.
(America’s ally – ha!)
I thought the American citizenship was just a temporary measure. Ask your prime minister about it.
That’s a pretty parlous state these days.
(And your anti-Monégasque attitude has been noted.)
“To argue that only Jews, among all the peoples of the world, are not to be permitted to have a national home (or more precisely, to return to their national home) is to deny Jewish peoplehood.”
And Lipstadt goes on to make it clear that by “Jewish peoplehood” she means that Jews are an n-nation.
I have already denied that. Whatever sort of group Jews are, they are not an n-nation, regardless of what they call themselves.
Thus, any arguments by analogy with n-nations fail. The argument “other n-nations are permitted to have national homes, so the Jews should also be permitted to have a national home” does not work.
(And the subsequent “and anyone who disagrees can only be disagreeing from anti-Semitism” is unfounded.)
But I will set that aside, and discuss the “national home” idea without assuming that Jews do not qualify.
First, we need to know what is meant by “national home”. Given the context, it seems she means “a territory in which the n-nation has established a state”.
Now it is obvious that there are n-nations which have not established a state, and I cannot imagine that even Lipstadt is unaware of this. For this reason I suspect she means something on the lines of “Other n-nations are in some way entitled to establish a state, but anti-Zionists deny that the Jews are so entitled. (Because they are anti-Semites, of course.)”
I cannot see what characteristics of n-nations entitle them to establish states.
A common language and a common culture are certainly good things for a state (the slogan “diversity is strength” is both fashionable and official, so it can hardly fail to be complete bollocks) but they are not necessary* and are not sufficient to give a right to establish a state.
(Provided there is fair amount of agreement on key issues and values, states can function reasonably well despite diversity. Canada and Switzerland manage adequately even though portions of their populations speak French!)
If there is no entitlement or right for n-nations to establish states, then it is not anti-Semitic to deny the entitlement to Jews.
But regardless of whether there is such a right or entitlement, or whether the other n-nations which established states were permitted to do so without having the right, the denial of permission to the Jews is still not anti-Semitic.
There is no right to do wrong.
Permission should not be given for wrongdoing.
And Zionism involved major wrongdoing. The aim of the Zionists was to invade Palestine and take it from the native inhabitants. To deny that they had a right to do this, or to deny permission, is simple morality. No anti-Semitism involved.
I think all Americans and Canadians should pledge an oath of loyalty to Australia. And perhaps another to Monaco.
Neither HC’s articles nor your refusal to understand the bleedin’ obvious are important.
The ROR holds until the negotiations are completed and the result accepted.
A bit OT, but interesting.