It has always been a trilemma for them: Israel can be large, Jewish, democratic, pick two. They seem to have frozen the first variable, making the trilemma a dilemma: a Jewish state or a democratic one.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Considering Zionism is inherently a fascist principle I think they're pretty clear on which one they favor.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes and no. It was originally the dilemma until they got around it by committing the Nakba.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca -5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't think so. In the context of the eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans, the Nakba is (sadly) not that unique.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is unique in the perpetrators being colonizers.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don't see it. Same shit happened all over the Balkans, Anatolia and the Caucasus. Hell it's not even the most recent example. Cyprus has been subjected to colonization by Anatolian Turks since the 1974 war, and that's after the Yom Kippur War.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean maybe it's not, but I don't see how that's related to my point.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The way I understood your point is that their foundational atrocity, the Nakba, makes majority-Jewish democracy impossible. I.e., it could have never at any point in its history have been a democratic country. Did I understand your point wrong?

To that point I responded that other ethnostate democracies exist in the region that also have foundational atrocities in their history but are now pretty democratic and pretty peaceful, ...all things considered. But they had to learn the lesson the hard way. That's my point, that Israelis need to at some point also face the harsh reality of the impossibility of their nationalist delusions. Just like the Greeks, the Turks, the Bulgarians etc.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Speaking at a meeting of his Religious Zionism party, Smotrich told colleagues that he was “establish[ing] facts on the ground in order to make Judea and Samaria [an Israeli term for the occupied West Bank] an integral part of the state of Israel”.

The comments by Smotrich echoed recorded remarks he made at a gathering of supporters in the West Bank, first disclosed by the New York Times, in which he appeared to refer to the administrative changes as “mega-dramatic”.

As the Guardian revealed last week, the Israeli military recently quietly handed over significant legal powers in the occupied West Bank to pro-settler civil servants working for Smotrich.

An order posted by the Israel Defense Forces on its website on 29 May transferred responsibility for dozens of bylaws at the Civil Administration from the military to officials led by Smotrich at the defence ministry.

Speaking after the transfer of powers was disclosed, Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer, said: “The bottom line is that [for] anyone who thought the question of annexation was foggy, this order should end any doubts.”

Reports in the Israeli media say US officials have privately discussed the possibility of imposing sanctions on Smotrich over his destabilising impact on the West Bank, where he lives in a settlement that is illegal under international law.

The original article contains 750 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!