On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) over comments she made advocating for Palestinians to be free.
So here’s my honest question, why are the Jewish people relatively singled out as excluded from being allowed to desire a state/homeland? Is there an argument that the Jewish people did not originate from that area of the world, and if so, where is the actual Jewish homeland? Did the Jewish people spring forth fully developed from Zeus’s forehead? The argument seems to be that all indigenous peoples should have at least parts of their lands and autonomy restored to them all over the world; except for the Jews, because fuck them they don’t deserve a country for non-antisemetic reasons and they should have integrated into a new Arabic country of Palestine instead of splitting the land.
Ignoring the history of Jewish treatment in other countries around the globe for centuries, I don’t understand how, for a land that is the historical birthplace of several peoples, it is considered good for one of those peoples to fight for it and bad for another of those peoples to do the same. It all seems to come down to where anyone’s specific biases fall, while everyone claims to not have any biases.
You’re premise is nonsense, there are anti-apartheid movements whereever apartheid states exist. There was an anti-apartheid movement in South Africa way before now.
The premise that the Jewish people might deserve a country is nonsense? If it is, I am asking why do they not deserve one while other ethnicities do? Obviously an individuals views on whether Israel is running an apartheid state fall under the biases I mentioned, because some people do not recognize it as such, and I was not addressing the anti-apartheid movement. That definitely deserves its own discussion, but is layers above my question. South Africa is also different in that the apartheid government was formed from outside colonial settlers who had zero historic roots in the area. Israel/Palestine is closer to the bloody formations of India and Pakistan or the many other African wars caused by departing colonial powers arbitrarily redrawing maps on their way out, than South Africa’s white apartheid government in underpinning if not human cost.
I am asking what the people calling for Israel to cease existing and be replaced in it’s entirety by Palestine believe the Jewish people should do? If the region should be Palestine because of Palestinian genealogical roots, why do the Jews not get any claim in the region for the same reason? Is it because they were conquered and removed from the region in the past and the Palestinians weren’t? Mainly, if a two state solution isn’t desirable, it seems to be either because the Jewish people have insufficient or lacking genealogical claim in the region, or because they don’t deserve the same “rights” as the Palestinians for a myriad of other reasons.
On that we are agreed. Should your statement be taken as the Jews being settler colonizers though? I would argue that an ethnicity cannot truly be a colonizer on the land they originated from. For that to be true, we have to acknowledge an absolute right of conquest for territory after a certain amount of time has elapsed. I believe a peaceful and fully autonomous two state solution is the most logically fair outcome, but am not holding my breath for that.
If the argument is that they are colonizers now, would the same be true in the extremely unlikely hypothetical that the United States was forced to return a state to the native tribes that were originally there? Would we call the returning native tribes settler colonizers if the current inhabitants had to leave the new tribal lands? The land has belonged to the current inhabitants for over 200 years after all, and if not, how long is the cutoff?
This mostly boils down to the question: if you can’t have a permanent loss of claim to a historical homeland through conquest, then why would there be an exception to this rule for the Jewish ethnicity? And if you can lose claim to a historical homeland if conquered well enough, why would there be any substance to return native lands anywhere else?
On that we are agreed. Should your statement be taken as the Jews being settler colonizers though? I would argue that an ethnicity cannot truly be a colonizer on the land they originated from.
Okay, two things
taking this logic at face value, no one can colonize specific areas of Africa where humans are from. So it is obviously wrong. Do you mean what you said or are you trying to say something else?
If Celtics colonized London and started doing apartheid that would also be unjustifiable.
If the argument is that they are colonizers now, would the same be true in the extremely unlikely hypothetical that the United States was forced to return a state to the native tribes that were originally there? Would we call the returning native tribes settler colonizers if the current inhabitants had to leave the new tribal lands? The land has belonged to the current inhabitants for over 200 years after all, and if not, how long is the cutoff?
Why would the indigenous people forcefully get all the settlers out if they overthrew the system that was perpetuating genocide against them to this day? Have you talked to indigenous people about what their political project is?
This mostly boils down to the question: if you can’t have a permanent loss of claim to a historical homeland through conquest, then why would there be an exception to this rule for the Jewish ethnicity?
This relies on the reader buying into the assumption that territorial claims last forever.
Also buying into a notion of a homeland needing to be a settler colonial state.
You could have a secular Palestine where immigrant Jewish people could live in peace as equals alongside Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians, who had a long period of relative peace before the founding of the settler colonial project.
And if you can lose claim to a historical homeland if conquered well enough, why would there be any substance to return native lands anywhere else?
You could argue that there isn’t, there is only a moral mandate to end the current systems of violence and take proactive measures to produce equity in material conditions.
taking this logic at face value, no one can colonize specific areas of Africa where humans are from. So it is obviously wrong. Do you mean what you said or are you trying to say something else?
If Celtics colonized London and started doing apartheid that would also be unjustifiable.
To clarify 1) That would be abstracting it further than I’d intended with my point, though there is merit in the view that humans is humans. I was arguing from a more narrow ethnicity band such as Jewish or Palestinian or Celtic. The British aren’t generally called colonizers on the English Isles, but when they left Europe they became colonizers on those new lands.
I once again would like to reiterate, an apartheid is unjust whether Israel has a right to be a country or not. If England was somehow defeated in a war, dissolved, and the UN recognized Wales as an independent country with split control of London with the Britons, no one would call the Welsh colonizers, even if they made an apartheid government. The same goes for Serbia and Kosovo, or Turkey and the Kurdistan. Lots of ethnic violence and cleansing attempts, but Israel seems to be labeled colonizers because it’s an extra layer of bad while also implying they just showed up from somewhere else to steal land they were never involved with.
This relies on the reader buying into the assumption that territorial claims last forever.
The only reason I ask about territorial claims and their duration is because the argument for the creation of Palestine as a country comes from this historical territory claim just as much as Israel. When the Ottoman Empire was defeated and broken up, the two groups with the greatest historical claim in the region (Palestinians and Jews) both wanted independent states.
Also buying into a notion of a homeland needing to be a settler colonial state.
That is a bit of soft logic, ethnic groups by and large prefer to be self governed. By your same logic, the Kurds should be happy to stay under Turkish rule, since otherwise they would need to “colonize” territory from Turkey. The Irish shouldn’t have recolonized part of their island after the British solidified their territory. Oppressed peoples tend to want to have a sovereign country. That does not then in turn excuse the oppressed from becoming oppressors themselves, but that doesn’t just completely invalidate a right to exist
You could have a secular Palestine where immigrant Jewish people could live in peace as equals alongside Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians, who had a long period of relative peace before the founding of the settler colonial project.
That buys into the notion that Palestine has greater claim to exist than Israel. It also glosses over that the Jewish people had been persecuted and killed for centuries that culminated in the Holocaust, which should be an obvious zeitgeist for not wanting to be immigrants again just in a new place. This is again not permission for Israel to commit their own atrocities. Palestine was also never going to be secular even under Mandatory Palestine, but that is a helluva quagmire to try and wade through and I am not a scholar of the Levant region.
You could argue that there isn’t, there is only a moral mandate to end the current systems of violence and take proactive measures to produce equity in material conditions.
That is more or less my general stance: humans have fought for most of the planet for millennia, genociding the losers for most of that history, and have only tried to be “better” when at war for less than 100 years. The only constant is change, and humans is humans. Someday hopefully we get over the whole war thing altogether, which will probably require widespread fusion energy to fuel a post scarcity society globally, and probably will still need a global existential threat to unite everyone. It would be great if both sides would agree to return to the '67 borders and stop attacking each other, but the leadership of both sides doesn’t want that. The only way the cycle of violence stops is for one side to essentially surrender at this point, but the unelected Hamas leadership only has incentive to keep attacking and hurt Israel’s international support and Israel is unlikely to be the first country on earth to voluntarily dissolve and invite their war opponent to take them over.
As a reminder, my whole section of this thread was for those who want Israel destroyed and a one state Palestine, as I don’t understand not seeing both ethnic group’s claims on the region as more or less equal on the whole. I don’t see any reason a two state solution can’t work except for certain people’s refusal to see the other side as equal, and those certain people managing to be the ones in charge.
You know, i had family that were directly affected by the nazi persecution of Jewish people. I do not have some craving for a Jewish ethnostate.
At this point we are talking in circles and you’re saying some deeply hurtful things about jews out of ignorance to the implications of what you’re saying.
I would encourage you to go to Jewish voice for peace led events and learn more about the issue, I am disengaging from this conversation, you are entitled to the last word.
Yes, death to Israel
So here’s my honest question, why are the Jewish people relatively singled out as excluded from being allowed to desire a state/homeland? Is there an argument that the Jewish people did not originate from that area of the world, and if so, where is the actual Jewish homeland? Did the Jewish people spring forth fully developed from Zeus’s forehead? The argument seems to be that all indigenous peoples should have at least parts of their lands and autonomy restored to them all over the world; except for the Jews, because fuck them they don’t deserve a country for non-antisemetic reasons and they should have integrated into a new Arabic country of Palestine instead of splitting the land.
Ignoring the history of Jewish treatment in other countries around the globe for centuries, I don’t understand how, for a land that is the historical birthplace of several peoples, it is considered good for one of those peoples to fight for it and bad for another of those peoples to do the same. It all seems to come down to where anyone’s specific biases fall, while everyone claims to not have any biases.
You’re premise is nonsense, there are anti-apartheid movements whereever apartheid states exist. There was an anti-apartheid movement in South Africa way before now.
The premise that the Jewish people might deserve a country is nonsense? If it is, I am asking why do they not deserve one while other ethnicities do? Obviously an individuals views on whether Israel is running an apartheid state fall under the biases I mentioned, because some people do not recognize it as such, and I was not addressing the anti-apartheid movement. That definitely deserves its own discussion, but is layers above my question. South Africa is also different in that the apartheid government was formed from outside colonial settlers who had zero historic roots in the area. Israel/Palestine is closer to the bloody formations of India and Pakistan or the many other African wars caused by departing colonial powers arbitrarily redrawing maps on their way out, than South Africa’s white apartheid government in underpinning if not human cost.
I am asking what the people calling for Israel to cease existing and be replaced in it’s entirety by Palestine believe the Jewish people should do? If the region should be Palestine because of Palestinian genealogical roots, why do the Jews not get any claim in the region for the same reason? Is it because they were conquered and removed from the region in the past and the Palestinians weren’t? Mainly, if a two state solution isn’t desirable, it seems to be either because the Jewish people have insufficient or lacking genealogical claim in the region, or because they don’t deserve the same “rights” as the Palestinians for a myriad of other reasons.
Literally no ethnicities deserve settler colonial apartheid states.
On that we are agreed. Should your statement be taken as the Jews being settler colonizers though? I would argue that an ethnicity cannot truly be a colonizer on the land they originated from. For that to be true, we have to acknowledge an absolute right of conquest for territory after a certain amount of time has elapsed. I believe a peaceful and fully autonomous two state solution is the most logically fair outcome, but am not holding my breath for that.
If the argument is that they are colonizers now, would the same be true in the extremely unlikely hypothetical that the United States was forced to return a state to the native tribes that were originally there? Would we call the returning native tribes settler colonizers if the current inhabitants had to leave the new tribal lands? The land has belonged to the current inhabitants for over 200 years after all, and if not, how long is the cutoff?
This mostly boils down to the question: if you can’t have a permanent loss of claim to a historical homeland through conquest, then why would there be an exception to this rule for the Jewish ethnicity? And if you can lose claim to a historical homeland if conquered well enough, why would there be any substance to return native lands anywhere else?
Okay, two things
taking this logic at face value, no one can colonize specific areas of Africa where humans are from. So it is obviously wrong. Do you mean what you said or are you trying to say something else?
If Celtics colonized London and started doing apartheid that would also be unjustifiable.
Why would the indigenous people forcefully get all the settlers out if they overthrew the system that was perpetuating genocide against them to this day? Have you talked to indigenous people about what their political project is?
This relies on the reader buying into the assumption that territorial claims last forever.
Also buying into a notion of a homeland needing to be a settler colonial state.
You could have a secular Palestine where immigrant Jewish people could live in peace as equals alongside Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians, who had a long period of relative peace before the founding of the settler colonial project.
You could argue that there isn’t, there is only a moral mandate to end the current systems of violence and take proactive measures to produce equity in material conditions.
To clarify 1) That would be abstracting it further than I’d intended with my point, though there is merit in the view that humans is humans. I was arguing from a more narrow ethnicity band such as Jewish or Palestinian or Celtic. The British aren’t generally called colonizers on the English Isles, but when they left Europe they became colonizers on those new lands.
The only reason I ask about territorial claims and their duration is because the argument for the creation of Palestine as a country comes from this historical territory claim just as much as Israel. When the Ottoman Empire was defeated and broken up, the two groups with the greatest historical claim in the region (Palestinians and Jews) both wanted independent states.
That is a bit of soft logic, ethnic groups by and large prefer to be self governed. By your same logic, the Kurds should be happy to stay under Turkish rule, since otherwise they would need to “colonize” territory from Turkey. The Irish shouldn’t have recolonized part of their island after the British solidified their territory. Oppressed peoples tend to want to have a sovereign country. That does not then in turn excuse the oppressed from becoming oppressors themselves, but that doesn’t just completely invalidate a right to exist
That buys into the notion that Palestine has greater claim to exist than Israel. It also glosses over that the Jewish people had been persecuted and killed for centuries that culminated in the Holocaust, which should be an obvious zeitgeist for not wanting to be immigrants again just in a new place. This is again not permission for Israel to commit their own atrocities. Palestine was also never going to be secular even under Mandatory Palestine, but that is a helluva quagmire to try and wade through and I am not a scholar of the Levant region.
That is more or less my general stance: humans have fought for most of the planet for millennia, genociding the losers for most of that history, and have only tried to be “better” when at war for less than 100 years. The only constant is change, and humans is humans. Someday hopefully we get over the whole war thing altogether, which will probably require widespread fusion energy to fuel a post scarcity society globally, and probably will still need a global existential threat to unite everyone. It would be great if both sides would agree to return to the '67 borders and stop attacking each other, but the leadership of both sides doesn’t want that. The only way the cycle of violence stops is for one side to essentially surrender at this point, but the unelected Hamas leadership only has incentive to keep attacking and hurt Israel’s international support and Israel is unlikely to be the first country on earth to voluntarily dissolve and invite their war opponent to take them over.
As a reminder, my whole section of this thread was for those who want Israel destroyed and a one state Palestine, as I don’t understand not seeing both ethnic group’s claims on the region as more or less equal on the whole. I don’t see any reason a two state solution can’t work except for certain people’s refusal to see the other side as equal, and those certain people managing to be the ones in charge.
You know, i had family that were directly affected by the nazi persecution of Jewish people. I do not have some craving for a Jewish ethnostate.
At this point we are talking in circles and you’re saying some deeply hurtful things about jews out of ignorance to the implications of what you’re saying.
I would encourage you to go to Jewish voice for peace led events and learn more about the issue, I am disengaging from this conversation, you are entitled to the last word.