You're viewing part of a thread.
Yes and both are authoritarian. KSA is a monarchy whose legitimacy comes through Allah. China is an authoritarian republic. Republics derive their legitimacy from the masses rather than from a god or a familial line. Republics aren't inherently democratic.
If you are going to reply that China isn't authoritarian pleade explain why the people cannot choose to shift the state from Maoism should they want to.
China is mostly authoritarian, only Democratic on local levels and people have limited influence on policy despite the crackdowns and censorship.
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/political-participation-china-whats-allowed-under-xi
Still a far cry from the human rights abuses of the Absolute Monarchy of Saudi Arabia and certainly the Apartheid State of Israel, which has always been a fascist nation.
Israel has free and fair elections. It has always been an opressive/imperialistic nation but it is not in any way fascist unless your definition is "government I don't like"
Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing and has never stopped being an Apartheid. Zionism has always been a fascist ideology. Elections are not free and fair when huge amounts of the indigenous population under the government's control have no representation.
Quote
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
-
10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book
-
Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.
-
Israel Martial Law and Defence (Emergency) Regulations practiced in the occupied territories after 1967
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades.
Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
(Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ).
The settlements have created hundreds of isolated bantustans within the West Bank, preventing any two-state solution that may have been possible before the Israeli occupation in 1967
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Historian Works on the History
-
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
-
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
-
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The Hundred Years' War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
-
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
-
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
-
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
You keep using the term "fascism" and its derivations incorrectly, why? Are you completely unfamiliar with what the philosophy is or is it hard fir you-to realize democracies can be bad too?
I'm not. Zionism is a fascist ideology. If you think ethnic cleansing isn't inherently fascist, I don't know what to tell you besides you're wrong. There is no rigid definition of Fascism
Why do you think Einstein and Arendt considered the actions of Zionism fascist?
Ethnic cleansing is an action humans have engaged in since they recognized ethnicity as a concept. Fascism is a political philosophy that comes about as a response to Marx's works. There are thousands of years of ethnic cleansings that have nothing to do with fascism.
Fascism is authoritarian in nature and Israel is not a fascist state. There are no fascist democracies.
What a physicist thinks of a political system has the same value as a political philosopher's take on physics.
Edit: you are entirely misrepresenting what the 1948 NYT letter was about which is a rejection of a singular party in Israel and not the state of Israel. Your link does not have Arendt calling Israel fascist but comparing a specific party to fascists. Why are you misrepresenting the truth here?
"free and fair elections" that half the population aren't allowed to vote in.