The resolution makes a dangerous conflation—and quite a few Democrats gave their wholehearted support.

“The resolution suggests that all anti-Zionism—it states—is antisemitism. That’s either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong,” said New York Representative Jerry Nadler, who voted present. “The authors if they were at all familiar with Jewish history & culture should know about Jewish anti-Zionism that was and is expressly not antisemitic. This resolution ignores the fact that even today, certain Orthodox Hasidic Jewish communities … have held views that are at odds with the modern Zionist conception.”

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
    11·
    11 months ago

    I’m not entirely on board with the idea of nations having rights at all. The people living in them do, but I don’t see how an abstract entity should have rights that the people it represents don’t have on their own.

    To give a concrete example: the people of Iraq have a right to exist. But it’s a country composed of ethnic groups that don’t especially like each other, so having them all live in a single country isn’t necessarily great. I don’t think Iraq has a right to be a country, especially if it’s interfering with the right to self-determination of the people living there. Maybe as a practical matter it’s better for the country to exist, but rights aren’t supposed to be contingent on practical concerns.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      3·
      11 months ago

      I’m not entirely on board with the idea of nations having rights at all.

      Well… they did make corporations “people” - so there is that kind of lunacy around.