Non tangible things are still real. Families are real.

The creation of complex systems is uniquely human and is what allows development and progress.

Without these systems, laws and things including incorporatng non human entities has pros and cons. Development of healthcare and increasing longevity and increased food production, sanitation and reduction in hunger are a benefit. War and genocide are a problem. However, wars still happened before the introduction of borders. See Norse vikings, Roman empire creation etc.

The legal system also only exists because we wrote our thoughts down.

so does math. still nobody would argue that math is wrong or arbitrary because of that

Isn't a group a "they" and not a "what". Israel is a nation of people who sees themselves as Israeli. Entire generations are born there and consider that land their home. You can't be born a terrorist.

It's possible in the future to build some kinda secular Haifa Republic but this war has made that an incredibly utopian prospect.

It's not clear what position you advocate except the continuation of war.

so where was that logic when palestine was literally invaded by a group of europeans calling themselves zionists? or europeans claiming some sort of “british mandate”?

revert it to palestine. it’s what it was before our grandparents generation invaded.

Did I give some indication that I disagree with that idea? Lol

I find that “recognition” is just a tool that powerful nations use to oppress less powerful polities. That’s why I am arguing against it.

There’s no contradiction between this argument and anarchism. As I said elsewhere in the thread, I don’t believe states should exist. But giving the US, China, and other imperial powers the right to decide which ones are acknowledged or dismissed is part of the problem.

So there are two interpretations I could make of your comment, one of which is more charitable than the other.

1. You are using the Chinese and Israeli playbook of weaponizing statehood recognition as a value judgement. That is profoundly problematic, both on a practical and a philosophical level. De-humanization should not be a tool we have to use on our enemies. Our moral high ground should speak for itself.
2. Your are dog-whistling for the genocide and/or deportation of all Israelis. In which case our conversation is done here.

To be clear, Israel is committing genocide and every single member of its government and of the IDF should be tried at The Hague. But laws and international order exist for a reason, and trying to circumvent them like this is a very bad look that Israel has been rightfully criticized for for decades.

where do I mention a people should not exist? never.

the state itself was created by a group knowing full well they would need genocide to make their state. they call it, these days, “mowing the lawn.” the criminals need prison and the working class people who just want peace deserve it. in Palestine.

the tricky part of these convos is not conflating the nation state, israel with the Jewish people. Or zionism with the Jewish people. Or the state israel with the followers of Israel.

hope that helped.

So no Israel, just Palestine? That would leave Israelis a majority population in Palestine. Do you expect Israelis to magically not outvote the Palestinians, or are you proposing an autocracy or an apartheid system stripping Israelis of their voting rights?

I would also strongly suggest you do some reading on the factors leading up to the Rwandan genocide. A "just" peace isn't enough; after generations of life under apartheid, there are no easy or quick paths to lasting peace. I won't commit the hubris of pretending I have a definitive solution, and I think it's important to underline that as outsiders to the conflict, the best we can do is offer to safeguard peace. That's what the Two-State Solution was meant to do, that's what arms sanctions are meant to do, that's what the threat of economic retaliation would be meant to do (granted each with their own significant shortcomings). Denying the practical existence of either Israel or Palestine is antithetical to building a path towards lasting peace and a meaningful international effort towards safeguarding said peace.

For a practical example, assuming a peace treaty ever gets signed, sending UN Blue Helmets would be diplomatically easier if all parties involved recognized Palestine and Israel as sovereign states. Even if that all seems like a moot point right now what when neither Israel nor most Western nations are actually looking forward to peace.

In this context? Someone who is currently on the good side of the current apartheid system in Israel/Palestine.

Don't play dumb with me, you know full well what I meant. If you have a point, make it.

those folk are Palestinian. that’s my entire point.

yes apartheid exists. shooting for a two state solution codifies this apartheid. that is wrong.

it needs to be completely reverted and the folks physically doing the genocide given the proper sentences.

it’s simple:

the criminals doing a genocide go to prison.

the nation state gets dissolved.

one state is left, palestine.

stop being so thick about this. the nation of israel should not exist. that does not mean the people who follow israel. you know the difference.

And I want a unicorn for Christmas.

Look, right now I don't even have a good reason to hope that Israel will be stopped before they finish their genocide. But step 1 is to get a permanent ceasefire in place. Whatever fantasies we might have beyond that is a moot point. But recognizing both parties as sovereign would go some way towards facilitating the terms and enforcement of that ceasefire.

yeah. it might. but it’s never ever worked out in the history of man when one party is doing a genocide. it took a few million russians to stop a famous genocidal ass in the 20th century.

the key here is that we cannot enable this behavior by acknowledging it as any kind of “ok.”

Of course we can. We can stop funding them financially and militarily, we can stop doing business with them, and we can refuse their citizens travel, until they stop genocide and end apartheid.

You're pretending like this isn't common place already, it's just unfathomable that it can happen to Israel for some reason?

That has nothing to do with "stop recognizing them as a country" and the west loses more by not allowing citizens travel (because people wouldn't be able to go to holy sites, it works both way).

And man, the EU can't even properly sanction Russia, do you really think they care about the middle east at all? Specially when not even the countries around care about Palestina.

This is part of that process. France is sort of saying that they are willing to put boots on the ground to stop this, without saying exactly that.

Because being a member state of the UN comes with perks, like the ability to request UN peace keepers.

It's still important to recognise Palestine as a state. And it doesn't delay any other action.

It seems to me that the progress you see is not the progress you want, so you consider it pointless. But the truth is, it's still progress, and it doesn't take away from the other priorities you mention.

So, once again, I don't understand your point.