Under the proposal, anyone who publicly or at a gathering denies the right of the State of Israel to exist, or calls for its elimination, would face punishment.
archive: https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-902237
original url : https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-902237
German parliament advances bill to criminalize denial of Israel’s right to exist
One can recognize Israel’s “right to exist” and still be genocidal towards Israeli Jews (e.g., “it has the right to exist as a Gaza-sized enclave in the area of present day Tel-Aviv, subjected to the same conditions currently applied by Israel to Gaza”).
One can refuse Israel’s “right to exist” and champion the rights of Israeli Jews to live in security as citizens with full political and legal equality in a post-apartheid democratic, non-sectarian, and non-ethno-supremacist, secular state of Palestine.
“Israel’s right to exist” is not any kind of guarantee against genocide. It is merely a political technology aimed to paint decolonial perspectives as “antisemitic”.
What?? How does that change the fact that the headline was butchered?
Also it doesn’t really make sense.
I was responding to this bit only:
My argument is that “denial of Israel’s right to exist” does not equate “genocide”.
OK, I got it all wrong, sorry.
Don’t pretend Israel has any intention of keeping Gaza intact. That’s bullshit. Palestine has been shrinking for decades, and Israel explicitly supported the new US Admin whose stance is “death or exodus”. They don’t believe in Palestine’s right to exist, they want to eradicate them.
There is even leaked intel that the Israeli admin knew the music festival attack was coming and did nothing to stop it.
Nothing I wrote supports the assertion that “israel has any intention of keeping Gaza intact”.
The conditions applied to Gaza by Isreal do NOT respect its right to exist.
I specifically brought up this fictional horror scenario as an example of genocidal thinking, with the intent precisely to distinguish between the fictional “right to exist” of a state and the very real “right to exist” of a people.
Interestingly enough, it was argued many times over by Plato in his writings that the purpose of having a family, getting married, etc. is the value it would bring to the State.
Plato was writing about the Polis. That is a much different polity and a much different socio-cultural milieu that any kind of mass modern nation-state.
I don’t think it would hold up in German Court, but hey maybe we’ll see.