That line of thinking is paradoxical. The zionist entity is a jewish-supremacist settler colony whose existence itself is predicated on the type of genocide required to steal the land of an indigenous population. The existence of the zionist entity is inextricably and fundamentally linked to the violent ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide of the Palestinian people.
Intentions are irrelevant, the phrase “the zionist entity has a right to exist” functionally means whoever says it gives their ok to the fact that a bunch of settlers got together in the 1940s to murder enough people en masse in Palestine so that they could steal and occupy their land. Furthermore “israel” itself is fundamentally an ethnostate, if it was not an ethnostate it would not exist, very simple.
Settler colonies in whatever form require genocide and apartheid to exist so if they stopped the genocide and apartheid they would cease to exist. Without the ethnic cleansing, theft, and genocide of the Palestinian people, the zionist entity would simply not be.
I believe that the paradox is exactly the point, because he is extremely focused on the substance of the issue and is very insistent when people try to get him to say “has a right to exist as a Jewish state” that he says “has a right to exist as a state with equal rights,” i.e. that its right to exist (something that I don’t believe any state has, but that’s not especially relevant) is predicated on having equal rights, and that the right of any state to exist is so-predicated.
It’s exactly the point of why he is saying it this way that there is no Israel without apartheid, because based on his strategy he only has a brief period to deal with the most bad-faith people in existence who have a thousand rhetorical traps for him, and he seeks to redirect any such conversation to the statement “Apartheid and genocide must end,” because taking the argument on the terms of the zionist is just going to end in confusion and smears, while focusing on “Apartheid and genocide must end” will not give them the space to do anything except either concede or explicitly defend apartheid and genocide, and we know this because when they have tried to fight it they have looked completely ridiculous to the public, such as at the primary debate.
That there can be no Israel without apartheid is the point. That Israel having only the right to exist if it is an equal state and therefore not having a right to exist at all is the point.
because he is extremely focused on the substance of the issue
The substance of the issue is that the sovereign country of Palestine has been invaded by fascist ethnonationalists (zionists) who have committed a genocide against the indigenous Palestinians to steal their land and establish a settler colonial entity. To say “israel has the right to exist” basically signals to everyone that you are fundamentally ok with the settler colonial invasion and genocide. Its simple.
That there can be no Israel without apartheid is the point. That Israel having only the right to exist if it is an equal state and therefore not having a right to exist at all is the point.
You would already be pro-genocide by using this paradox because this is exactly the type of flawed doublethink that liberal zionists use to justify the zionist entity’s continued existence as a settler colony. “Israeli” liberal zionists themselves say this (“we should still exist but Palestinians need equal rights!”) while happily living in someone’s stolen home and serving in the SS.
Furthermore this is just a rationalization for some liberal zionist accepting a liberal zionist framing of an invasion and genocide. You can skip this whole set of mental gymnastics and just say “no I dont believe in settler colonial ethnostates so israel does not have a right to exist” or something similar and then go off on their genocidal crimes against the Palestinian people before the copers start playing the “antisemetism” card.
Sometimes you need to have a backbone otherwise you just legitimize and manufacture consent for genocide on live television. But to be clear at this point the guy is a liberal zionist who doesn’t really care so its not really a problem of having a backbone.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Is it more likely that he’s actually a based commie doing 5D chess to outsmart everyone and hide his power levels, or that he’s just a milquetoast social chauvinist who makes watered down social chauvinist statements?
If you pay attention to what he says about this issue, since he has spoken a lot about Palestine, it is clear that he opposes Israel. This isn’t 5D chess, it’s a simple rhetorical refocusing that is similar to how he handles almost everything because, even outside of “Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?” people are constantly throwing insipid gotchas at him that he tries to redirect to cost of living, listening to the expressed needs of New Yorkers, etc.
That line of thinking is paradoxical. The zionist entity is a jewish-supremacist settler colony whose existence itself is predicated on the type of genocide required to steal the land of an indigenous population. The existence of the zionist entity is inextricably and fundamentally linked to the violent ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide of the Palestinian people.
Intentions are irrelevant, the phrase “the zionist entity has a right to exist” functionally means whoever says it gives their ok to the fact that a bunch of settlers got together in the 1940s to murder enough people en masse in Palestine so that they could steal and occupy their land. Furthermore “israel” itself is fundamentally an ethnostate, if it was not an ethnostate it would not exist, very simple.
Settler colonies in whatever form require genocide and apartheid to exist so if they stopped the genocide and apartheid they would cease to exist. Without the ethnic cleansing, theft, and genocide of the Palestinian people, the zionist entity would simply not be.
I believe that the paradox is exactly the point, because he is extremely focused on the substance of the issue and is very insistent when people try to get him to say “has a right to exist as a Jewish state” that he says “has a right to exist as a state with equal rights,” i.e. that its right to exist (something that I don’t believe any state has, but that’s not especially relevant) is predicated on having equal rights, and that the right of any state to exist is so-predicated.
It’s exactly the point of why he is saying it this way that there is no Israel without apartheid, because based on his strategy he only has a brief period to deal with the most bad-faith people in existence who have a thousand rhetorical traps for him, and he seeks to redirect any such conversation to the statement “Apartheid and genocide must end,” because taking the argument on the terms of the zionist is just going to end in confusion and smears, while focusing on “Apartheid and genocide must end” will not give them the space to do anything except either concede or explicitly defend apartheid and genocide, and we know this because when they have tried to fight it they have looked completely ridiculous to the public, such as at the primary debate.
That there can be no Israel without apartheid is the point. That Israel having only the right to exist if it is an equal state and therefore not having a right to exist at all is the point.
The substance of the issue is that the sovereign country of Palestine has been invaded by fascist ethnonationalists (zionists) who have committed a genocide against the indigenous Palestinians to steal their land and establish a settler colonial entity. To say “israel has the right to exist” basically signals to everyone that you are fundamentally ok with the settler colonial invasion and genocide. Its simple.
You would already be pro-genocide by using this paradox because this is exactly the type of flawed doublethink that liberal zionists use to justify the zionist entity’s continued existence as a settler colony. “Israeli” liberal zionists themselves say this (“we should still exist but Palestinians need equal rights!”) while happily living in someone’s stolen home and serving in the SS.
Furthermore this is just a rationalization for some liberal zionist accepting a liberal zionist framing of an invasion and genocide. You can skip this whole set of mental gymnastics and just say “no I dont believe in settler colonial ethnostates so israel does not have a right to exist” or something similar and then go off on their genocidal crimes against the Palestinian people before the copers start playing the “antisemetism” card.
Sometimes you need to have a backbone otherwise you just legitimize and manufacture consent for genocide on live television. But to be clear at this point the guy is a liberal zionist who doesn’t really care so its not really a problem of having a backbone.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Is it more likely that he’s actually a based commie doing 5D chess to outsmart everyone and hide his power levels, or that he’s just a milquetoast social chauvinist who makes watered down social chauvinist statements?
If you pay attention to what he says about this issue, since he has spoken a lot about Palestine, it is clear that he opposes Israel. This isn’t 5D chess, it’s a simple rhetorical refocusing that is similar to how he handles almost everything because, even outside of “Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?” people are constantly throwing insipid gotchas at him that he tries to redirect to cost of living, listening to the expressed needs of New Yorkers, etc.