"There was an open debate in the meeting about whether it is 'fair to talk about whether Israel should exist at all.' There are some people at CBS who think that 'Israel’s existence as a state should be part of fair conversation,' said one CBS source. Can you imagine journalists having that conversation about any other country?"
"There was an open debate in the meeting about whether it is 'fair to talk about whether Israel should exist at all.' There are some people at CBS who think that 'Israel’s existence as a state should be part of fair conversation,' said one CBS source. Can you imagine journalists having that conversation about any other country?"
No, because I cannot think of another ethno-nationalist state artificially created by Western powers after WWII, forced upon the peoples who already dwelled there, and that has received $200+ billion in military funding from the US since its founding: https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts.
If this is the sense in which the subject of whether the STATE of Israel should have been established by Western powers was being debated, that's totally fair to discuss from a historical and prudential standpoint, especially looking back in hindsight at the chaos the Middle East has experienced since then. There's no logical connection between the so-called "Jewish Problem" of the 19-20th C. and the creation of the State of Israel. The best solution to said Problem was for the world to stop problematizing the Jews at all, and welcome them as people within their nations! A pox upon all post-Christian European states that wanted to get rid of the Jews as part of their own satanic ethno-nationalist projects.
But if the debate was over whether the State of Israel should be dismantled or whatever... first, I seriously doubt this was the conversation being had, and second, the answer is "No." Israel exists, and while it in no way represents Jews across the world (nor its own people, necessarily, given that many Israelis are pissed at their own government), it is now an established nation that has a repeatedly confirmed, internationally recognized right to exist.
However, that doesn't mean Israel gets a pass at doing whatever it wants, especially when the US is bankrolling its military and it benefits from US protection and largesse in other ways. It's not in the US' interests, for instance, to support a Netanyahu Administration influenced by these schlemiels:
Funny how I've not seen much coverage of Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, nor of the extremist movements they represent, in the articles of FP. Hmm.
In summary: Right to exist? Maybe, ante hoc. Right to exist? Yes, post hoc. Right to do whatever it wants? No.
And Israel is going to have to answer for its own brutality in the execution of this war, possibly even for war crimes. It should be accountable for this: it was created by the "international community" and benefits from its protections, so it should have to answer to said community perpetually if it wants the world's support. Kvetch all you want about the declining international support for Israel: it's what happens when you overreact in bloodlust and refuse to stop.
If anyone is looking for less biased reporting on Israel than you'll find on the FP, I can't recommend enough the work of Isaac Saul (a fairly centrist Jew, like many of the people at FP) through his Tangle Newsletter: https://www.readtangle.com/oct-7-anniversary-israel-hamas-gaza-war. That's what truly nuanced reporting looks like. Go subscribe and read what he has to say. It's a good counterpoint to the narratives you're reading on this Substack.
Numerous "ethno-nationalist" states were created in Europe after the breakup of empires between 1918 and 1991, to say nothing of ex-colonial states in Africa and Asia. Does every disgruntled expatriate minority, of whom there are plenty both in Europe and elsewhere, get a free pass to bombard its former homeland without retaliation, and parade its grievances before the world in perpetuity ? No, that's the Palestinian Privilege.
Your response is filled with incorrect assumptions. "do whatever it wants"? Israel is - and HAS BEEN - reacting to constant attacks from Palestinians. The checkpoints, the blockade, the violent responses are all the result of being - CONSTANTLY - attacked in the first place. Please point me to a country that would put up with being attacked on a daily basis? As for "bloodlust"? Civilians are killed in almost every war and they are killed far more often than they have been in this war. Which is doubly remarkable given that Hamas is using their civilians as shields. This is also an overt and ongoing war crime, but hey, it's Hamas, what can we do? You can be Israel and try to wipe them out as much as you can. Listen, I get that Palestinians feel Israel shouldn't exist at all and should've never been created by those evil Western powers (unlike non-Western powers who ruthlessly avoided slavery and building empires of their own), but it's not going anywhere. And for the record: there's a reason why the Israel bashers can only compare the death tolls to 21st century conflicts or "recent conflict in a single year". If they start the clock any earlier, Israel has been - by MOST 20th century measures - extremely restrained. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-children-killed-gaza-israeli-military-any-other-recent-conflict
"There was an open debate in the meeting about whether it is 'fair to talk about whether Israel should exist at all.' There are some people at CBS who think that 'Israel’s existence as a state should be part of fair conversation,' said one CBS source. Can you imagine journalists having that conversation about any other country?"
No, because I cannot think of another ethno-nationalist state artificially created by Western powers after WWII, forced upon the peoples who already dwelled there, and that has received $200+ billion in military funding from the US since its founding: https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts.
If this is the sense in which the subject of whether the STATE of Israel should have been established by Western powers was being debated, that's totally fair to discuss from a historical and prudential standpoint, especially looking back in hindsight at the chaos the Middle East has experienced since then. There's no logical connection between the so-called "Jewish Problem" of the 19-20th C. and the creation of the State of Israel. The best solution to said Problem was for the world to stop problematizing the Jews at all, and welcome them as people within their nations! A pox upon all post-Christian European states that wanted to get rid of the Jews as part of their own satanic ethno-nationalist projects.
But if the debate was over whether the State of Israel should be dismantled or whatever... first, I seriously doubt this was the conversation being had, and second, the answer is "No." Israel exists, and while it in no way represents Jews across the world (nor its own people, necessarily, given that many Israelis are pissed at their own government), it is now an established nation that has a repeatedly confirmed, internationally recognized right to exist.
However, that doesn't mean Israel gets a pass at doing whatever it wants, especially when the US is bankrolling its military and it benefits from US protection and largesse in other ways. It's not in the US' interests, for instance, to support a Netanyahu Administration influenced by these schlemiels:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz55y6k0p5go
https://www.ft.com/content/e468283a-04de-4f33-9f10-5eaf4b1dc657
https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-rise-of-ben-gvir-and-smotrich-israel-risks-a-catastrophic-lurch-to-extremism/
Funny how I've not seen much coverage of Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, nor of the extremist movements they represent, in the articles of FP. Hmm.
In summary: Right to exist? Maybe, ante hoc. Right to exist? Yes, post hoc. Right to do whatever it wants? No.
And Israel is going to have to answer for its own brutality in the execution of this war, possibly even for war crimes. It should be accountable for this: it was created by the "international community" and benefits from its protections, so it should have to answer to said community perpetually if it wants the world's support. Kvetch all you want about the declining international support for Israel: it's what happens when you overreact in bloodlust and refuse to stop.
If anyone is looking for less biased reporting on Israel than you'll find on the FP, I can't recommend enough the work of Isaac Saul (a fairly centrist Jew, like many of the people at FP) through his Tangle Newsletter: https://www.readtangle.com/oct-7-anniversary-israel-hamas-gaza-war. That's what truly nuanced reporting looks like. Go subscribe and read what he has to say. It's a good counterpoint to the narratives you're reading on this Substack.
Numerous "ethno-nationalist" states were created in Europe after the breakup of empires between 1918 and 1991, to say nothing of ex-colonial states in Africa and Asia. Does every disgruntled expatriate minority, of whom there are plenty both in Europe and elsewhere, get a free pass to bombard its former homeland without retaliation, and parade its grievances before the world in perpetuity ? No, that's the Palestinian Privilege.
Your response is filled with incorrect assumptions. "do whatever it wants"? Israel is - and HAS BEEN - reacting to constant attacks from Palestinians. The checkpoints, the blockade, the violent responses are all the result of being - CONSTANTLY - attacked in the first place. Please point me to a country that would put up with being attacked on a daily basis? As for "bloodlust"? Civilians are killed in almost every war and they are killed far more often than they have been in this war. Which is doubly remarkable given that Hamas is using their civilians as shields. This is also an overt and ongoing war crime, but hey, it's Hamas, what can we do? You can be Israel and try to wipe them out as much as you can. Listen, I get that Palestinians feel Israel shouldn't exist at all and should've never been created by those evil Western powers (unlike non-Western powers who ruthlessly avoided slavery and building empires of their own), but it's not going anywhere. And for the record: there's a reason why the Israel bashers can only compare the death tolls to 21st century conflicts or "recent conflict in a single year". If they start the clock any earlier, Israel has been - by MOST 20th century measures - extremely restrained. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-children-killed-gaza-israeli-military-any-other-recent-conflict