Are these somewhat extreme views?

[confusedthirtysomething2]

I’ve changed a few details…

My niece (let’s call her Stella) visited for the summer. She’s just graduated from Oxford and spent a lot of time protesting for Palestine. I’m half Ashkenazi but I completely understand the backlash against the Israeli govt and what they’re doing. However, some of her views concerned me and I don’t know whether I’m being over dramatic.

Firstly, something about Palestinians being the original levantines and Jews in Israel are European converts.

It’s a myth that democracy is the right/only way to run a country.

The Islamic revolution in Iran was a backlash against American imperialism so the pictures of women in Iran prior to the Islamic revolution was never what the people wanted and it’s only the past ten years they’ve had a fascist government.

Japan are only rebelling against China for independence because they’ve forgotten their own heritage and have been brainwashed by the west.

She’s always been very left but I found these views quite fringe. She’s a lovely, intelligent woman (always had straight As) but I’m worried she’s on a slippery slope. Or AIBU because I’m not really used to having my worldview challenged? I live in a rural town and never went to uni.

It's quite difficult to disagree with. The definition of controversial is something that causes prolonged disagreement or heated discussion.

You don't have to be speaking for or against something to call it controversial, it wasn't me representing a viewpoint on the issue itself.

The movement started as a desire to establish a Jewish state. Which, I agree isn't controversial in itself but the methods of achieving it have been extremely controversial throughout the movement's history.

"There's no doubt that the Zionist movement is controversial"

And that all depends on how you define Zionism.

Wiki defines it as "the ideology supporting the protection and development of Israel as a Jewish state and has been described as Israel's national or state ideology."

Unfortunately for many on the left anti Zionism is simply a code word and a cover for being anti Semitic.

Does she mean Taiwan? Taiwan is essentially original China before the communist revolution.

This thread is not about this topic, but this is a wildly inaccurate understanding of Chinese history @divinededacende

Not only are there 2500+ years of imperial Chinese history before the KMT emerged, but KMT rule was contemporary with the Chinese communist revolution (it wasn't a revolution that followed the same pattern as other famous communist revolutions) and the KMT Government usually didn't control much of China during the majority of its reign. Since the end of the civil war Taiwan has experienced its own violent history and so much societal transformation and political reorganisation that it's difficult to call it 'original' in many ways.

I did elaborate on that in a previous reply.

Zionism existed as a movement long before the establishment of Israel as a state. The original movement didn't even start with Israel in mind and other options were on the table. The development of the ideology and how it was implemented is where things get controversial and, as I've said in a previous reply, that isn't me speaking for or against it, that's just fact.

You're right that people on all sides can use anti-zionism as a cover for anti-semitism but that doesn't make anti-zionism inherently anti-semetic.

Fair point and thanks for expanding on that. I suppose it just highlights the point that simple statements about these situations can never really capture the complexity that sits underneath.

Completely agree with you on that.

In case you are interested, a read of just the Wikipedia pages for the Long March (kind of like a foundational myth of the Chinese Communist Party) or the 228 Incident or the White Terror (periods of repression that eventually led to the reemergence of Taiwan as a modern state) are really interesting reads that I find people in the UK have never heard of!

Thanks, I remember reading up on it a few years ago but it's one of those things where if you never use the information again, it completely dissappears from your mind. I've started keeping a notebook for interesting things I learn hoping that writing it down might keep the knowledge intact for longer - or at least make it easier to refer back to!

The definition is not controversial in itself, and nor is the definition given earlier in the thread about self determination, but both interpreted differently by different people. The definition from wiki you quoted is not clear is because 3 borders of Israel are disputed and the concepts of state, protection, development and self determination can be interpreted in different ways. In relation to borders and self determination, Israel is seen variously by different groups as:

• the entire land along the lines of "from the river to the sea"
• two state with Israel's borders fixed along 1967 lines
• two state solution along today's lines

as well as in other ways, and you can see how some people might find any of the above controversial depending on their own personal ideology. Would you agree?

Going back to OP, I am not sure it is realistic to go back to biblical-era borders whether here or anywhere else in the world. Do you agree?

I am part Jewish and find antisemitism abhorent. I find the concept of making any race or culture or religion inferior abhorent.

@confusedthirtysomething2 I think that "extreme" means believing in genocide, or that terror/terrorism is a justifiable way to achieve political ends, and that sort of thing. If you didn't get the feeling that your neice had formed such beliefs, I think "extreme" is probably the wrong way of putting it.

It is also possible that you have misunderstood or taken some of the things said out of context as you have said that your knowledge of world affairs was not great, I think?

Eg she may have been talking about history when talking about levantines, rather than proposing that people's dna 2000 years ago is relevant to solving border disputes of today? In relation to totalitarian vs democracy, these are oversimplified terms which can take very different meanings. Was she talking about whether "democracy" today is really democratic or whether how we do democracy in the UK meets people's needs? Or was she analysing specific policies eg if construction is more state controlled then it is much cheaper to provide public housing, state services, infrastructure at base cost compared with countries where the construcion industry is run by the private sector for profit, etc?

Just because someone has straight A’s and went to Oxford doesn't mean they haven’t fallen down the conspiracy theory black whole of the internet and gets their information from a range of reputable sources.

Abhorrent views and huge red flags there.

Hole?

Did you mean not reputable sources?

She’s a lovely, intelligent woman (always had straight As)

She neither lovely nor very clever going by her shitty views. Straight As these days is more a sign of being a robotic little mugger than intelligence.

Regardless of spelling mistake and verb agreement error, saying it 'doesn't mean they.... get[s] their information from a range of reputable sources' is perfectly sensical. In fact, saying 'not reputable sources' wouldn't really make sense at all.

I'm sure you felt really big posting purely to correct someone else's writing, but it comes across quite poorly to everyone else. I'm sure you're glad it's anonymous to post here.

Agree.

Really unpleasant @thefuturewillbegreat. Do you also sneer at people with dyslexia?

Your post is ridiculously rude - I can't see any conspiracy theory black holes in the thread, hence the question mark, and I honestly didn't understand what she was saying about reputable sources - whether she meant not reputable or reputable. Nothing to do with verb agreement. Sorry but your final paragraph basically applies to you, not me.

Same for you too. I didn't understand what she meant. How do you know I don't have dyslexia?!

Sorry I will rephrase. Where are the conspiracy black holes? Or did you not mean that? And did you mean not reputable sources?

I think a recent Oxford graduate is likely to be able to distinguish sources, but they might lack life experience - ie there is a reason why lawyers have to do work experience after getting a degree before being admitted as qualified - as one example, the same applies in relation to other professions - few graduates leave uni and immediately understand everything about the world.

Sorry if I misunderstood your post.

No, the paragraph applies to you. You can try and back track all you want but if you think readers don't understand that your message, which only pulls out a spelling mistake and an [incorrectly perceived] sytax error, was intended to be condescendingly corrective, you must also think we came down in the last shower.

What she meant about reputable or not reputable was completely unclear to me and though my "hole?" question did correct the spelling my real question there, again, is - where are the conspiracy theory black holes here? Can you or your friend name one single one?

Otherwise your posts are rude and you are judging others by your own standards. I have also apologised to the other poster. None of my other posts are about language, they are about content.

There are a lot of really unpleasant comments about a young woman who is not party to the thread and who quite likely has been misquoted, why don't you pick up on those and berate the posters?