Besser ist wohl.

Vollkommen unangemessener Tonfall. Geht das auch sachlich, oder brechen wir hier ab?

Aus dem Quarks-Artikel:

Rassismusforscher Fereidooni beschreibt es so: „Wenn jemand zu dir Kartoffel sagt oder dich als Weißen beleidigt, erfährst du situativ eine Diskriminierung. Aber das Wort Kartoffel hat keine rassistische Traditionslinie. Wenn du diese spezifische Situation verlässt, dann weißt du ganz genau: Maximilian, wenn du eine Wohnung suchst, bist du privilegierter als Karim.

Mag sein. Mein Beispiel spielte aber nicht in Deutschland, sondern im Ausland, wo ich als Deutscher beleidigt werde. Da verlasse ich eben nicht die spezifische Situation, indem ich das Gespräch verlasse, sondern bleibe auch so fremd und mitnichten priviligierter als die dort vorherrschende Gruppe.

Darüber hinaus widerspricht er ebenfalls dem Artikel des Volksverpetzers, indem er eine ganz andere Definition von Rassismus als Grundlage nimmt. Welche gilt nun?

E: Klarstellung: Volksverpetzer nimmt Memmos Definition als laut Experten “in der Rassismusforschung am Weitesten verbreitetste” Quarks nennt erst die Definition der UN, um sich dann auf die Definition von Essed zu stützen, “auf die viele Rassismusforscher” verweisen. Ist es nicht schwierig, in Ermangelung einer tatsächlich allgemeingültigen Definition derart absolute Aussagen zu treffen?

Rassismus im Sinne von systemischer Rassismus sicher nicht. Wie das im Sinne von rassistisch motivierter Diskriminierung durch einzelne aussieht, da wäre ich mir nicht so sicher. Ich sehe da für diesen Fall auch in dem von dir verlinkten Artikel des Volksverpetzers nichts, was dem definitiv entgegenstehen würde und nicht debattierbar wäre.

Macht es für dich denn einen qualitativen Unterschied, ob man wegen seiner “Ethnie” oder seiner “Nationalität” diskriminiert wird?

Warum eine Frage runtervoten?

Wenn mich Leute aufgrund meines Deutschseins beleidigen, du aber sagst, dass für dich deutsch nichts mit Ethnie zu tun hat, dann würde ich gerne wissen, auf welcher Grundlage ich da denn stattdessen beleidigt werde.

Abseits dessen kann man feststellen, dass es unter anderem asiatische, arabische oder Afrodeutsche gibt, „deutsch“ also ein multiethnischer Begriff ist.

Aber wenn ich bspw im Ausland von Leuten, die wissen, dass ich aus Deutschland komme, als Deutscher beleidigt werde, weil ich Deutscher bin, wie soll man das nennen?

Seine Beiträge dort sind wahrscheinlich genauso fundiert wie in einer Politiksendung…

Fine by me. If you think I’m “Zionist” for acknowledging that also Israel has legitimate interests and refusing to see it in only black and white, then go ahead, be just another one of those in this conflict with a very strong but one-sided opinion. It’s what kept this conflict running for decades and apparently it won’t be running out of new people any time soon. Thanks and bye.

Okay I’m not getting sucked down this hole again.

I understand that it is easier to avoid this, as it is one of those points that makes it hard to simplify the conflict to black and white, but I can only encourage you to still give it a try. The normalisation of the intent to annihilate Israel as a state - irrespective of the actions of their current government - within certain groups is a problem.

Not only because wanting to annihilate a state is absolutely not normal and clearly puts you in the wrong, but because it also hinders international partners to exert the pressure on a corrupt and violent politician such as Netanyahu without putting Israel’s people at risk, which they vowed to protect. Why gift an evil person such as Netanyahu the opportunity to hide by being evil yourself? Also, the aspiration to annihilate Israel for almost 80 years now has primarily weakened Palestine and not Israel. Palestinians have been primarily paying the price for this dead end idea and I think it is high time to finally bury it.

Kleingärtner. Wäre das beste für alle, wenn man einfach nie wieder irgendetwas von ihm hören würde und er sich auf die Anzucht von Kartoffeln, Karotten und Kohl konzentrieren würde.

Israel will always be able to use one group or another as a “threat” to its security.

Only that they aren’t imagining it but there really are enough groups poised to destroy it. Maybe also think about that for a moment, as I cannot come up with a lot of other countries that share this fate. Take Russia for example: I utterly despise what they do in Ukraine and I would rather have Putin gone today than tomorrow - still I don’t want to annihilate Russia as a whole and can accept its existence. Somehow this doesn’t apply to Israel?

What did she have against the EU? :)

I don’t think that at least the core supporters of Israel will realistically stop supporting it as long as there is parties in the region openly aiming to destroy Israel.

So instead, as Palestinians, I’d secure my own support from these countries. The main cause of the Palestinian people, living peacefully in their own country, is absolutely non-controversial. It is only when this ‘defensive’ desire is turned into an ‘aggressive’ one by e.g. Hamas by including the entirety of Israel in this own country that support is dwindling.

I hope that Palestinians free themselves of those like Hamas who poison the rightful and appropriate cause for a Palestinian state, even if it is Netanyahus Israel that currently is in the wrong and it is so easy for me to say it. But I’m certain this isn’t about being right but about achieving something that is so long overdue.

The fighting stops (at least for a while) - the threat remains. As in all decades before…

There is a lot Israel is responsible for in this conflict and has to take care of. Ending the threat to annihilate Israel isn’t one of them. That’s a task for the side actually striving for it.

Was heißt schon Adel. Im großen Fast-Food-Restaurant ums Eck wurde ich früher am Drive-In auch oft von einer Frau von Nachname bedient. Die war zwar mit Abstand die beste Mitarbeiterin, sah aber immer eher nach linksalternativer WG als nach exklusivem Golfplatz aus. Ob du ein Arschloch bist, entscheidet sich nicht am Namen in deinem Pass.

I’d say the problem is that we deviated a bit from the point I originally made. I tried to point out why, realistically, a country such as Germany but also others, do support Israel - despite them waging this war the way they do. Because Israel is being threatened with annihilation - not only since Oct. 23 or since them escalating this war in the past months, but since the moment it was founded. You might think that this threat is and has been legitimate and if that’s your opinion, fine. We won’t agree on this but we also don’t have to.

Nevertheless, if you actually want to achieve these countries putting Israel under effective pressure, you’d have to acknowledge and address these threats.

Thanks for the discussion and have a nice day!

Hamas could be literally the devil and that wouldn’t excuse a single atrocity of the dozens Israel commits against Palestinians daily.

I don’t say it does. I’m just trying to make you understand why Israel is still getting support (not because they like the way Israel is waging it’s war, but because Israel is facing the threat of annihilation, e.g. by Hamas).

And let’s not forget that Christians get to live peacefully in Gaza, so clearly it’s not a Muslim state for Muslims.

I think you know exactly what I mean. As it also won’t be enough for you that Christians can live peacefully in Israel…

How does that in any way excuse what Israel is doing?

It doesn’t. It only hampers Palestinians in getting international support.

Partition had always been a prelude to Zionist conquest of all of Palestine.

Your interpretation. Especially since it wasn’t Israel that invaded it’s neighbours after being founded but the other way round. The Arab States lost a war they started themselves. Nevertheless, partition has been internationally agreed upon and it won’t disappear. A peace has to acknowledge this, an entity still dreaming of conquering everything will not be able to succeed. On both sides.

Certainly not because they kept doing shit like this.

Again, we can exchange links to massacres each supporting our argument all day long and won’t get anywhere. You might for example check out what happend to the Jewish population in Gaza in the late 20s. Fighting has been going on there for a very very long time and I don’t think anyone can reasonably pinpoint which side is to blame!

Did you want the Arab states to ignore the ethnic cleansing happening right on their doorstep?

Starting (and losing!) that war has lost them a ton of land and pride. I don’t really think it was worth it - as no violence in that conflict was worth it in the end.

Then you went on a diatribe about the evil Arabs refusing to accept Israel’s Apartheid and ethnic cleansing-riddled existence.

You might not agree with what I’m saying. But at least you should be open to listen to it. I didn’t say anything about “evil Arabs”. I don’t think they’re evil. But I also don’t think the Arab side did not contribute to this conflict as a whole by their own actions. Now, to be perfectly clear, that doesn’t excuse the way Israel is waging this war right now! But as a whole, it isn’t as black and white as you’re trying to make it look.

Your whole argument is that western powers have to keep supporting Israel even through its genocide until Palestine demonstrates sufficient dedication to peace (that they already have).

No. My argument is that western powers will realistically keep on supporting Israel as long as there are players in the region that want to destroy it. If you and I agree with that or not. And I see Hamas as one of those players. If you want to keep the support to end, i.a. Hamas (or their main goal) has to disappear.

How in the actual fuck is that relevant to what I was saying?

You criticise Israel for being a Jewish state for Jews, while Hamas isn’t aiming for a secular state for all religions but a Muslim state for Muslims. That’s not better. And following the partition, not only where Muslims expelled from Israeli parts, but also Jews from Palestinian parts.

There’s no shortage of problems Palestinians of all shapes and stripes have with Israel.

How does that affect the fact that Hamas is aiming for a Muslim state, the only difference to Israel being which religion discriminates which? Do you expect only one side to end discrimination?

So fucking do that. It’s not that complicated.

Except it is. There is no trust in the other side, so no willingness to do the first step.

Why does Israel deserve protection and not Palestine?

Who says that?

The problem is that the Arabs/Palestinians didn’t want to take part in the partition plan and accept the existence of Israel. In invading Israel from all sides the moment it was founded in '48 and subsequently for a long time refusing to accept the mere existence of Israel, the Arab states achieved to be perceived as ongoing threats to Israel security and as the aggressors. That’s where the ongoing support for Israel is coming from.

It didn’t help the Palestinian cause either that they fully refused the partition plan and the idea of two states, given that Israel exists, hence making them look like not wanting to be part of a solution.

A Palestine with a leader who clearly accepts the existence of Israel and their common borders, and who puts an end to any conquering aspirations and puts the priorities on peace and establishment of a proper Palestinian state would do wonders for the Palestinian cause. Hamas doesn’t.

Weil?