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.
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.
I intend no disrespect or hurtfulness, nor would I mean to suggest the Jewish people would be a monolith. I do not believe that even most pro-Israel supporters want or advocate for an pure ethnostate outside of the extreme religious rightwing. I may also be wrong, but I believe that most regular Israelis would happily welcome peaceful and equal relations with Palestine. My understanding of Zionism is also that it is similarly quite diverse in meaning an intention for each individual. If you do feel like letting me know anything specifically that I said that is being received as hurtful, I am happy to review and learn more.
I did take some time to review some publications by the Jewish Voice for Peace as suggested, and do fine a rather hard line extreme left slant. It appears that JVP is advocating for the dissolution of the Israeli state and repatriation of the land to Palestinians, but it is not clear how this is recommended in relation with the existing population. I also feel that the JVP’s apparent stance that anyone advocating for a right for Israel’s existence is advocating for a Jewish ethno-supremasist state is reductive in an “if you’re not with us your against us” or an “anyone to the right of us may as well be alt right” format. It is definitely worth engaging with their material even if I may not agree with everything though. It has given me further insight on a facet I never would have thought about from the original “death to Israel” comment that started my inquiry. If you have any other recommendations for more insight I am open to it. I may support the existence of both Israel and Palestine in the long run, but I am always happy to expand my scope of understanding.
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.
I intend no disrespect or hurtfulness, nor would I mean to suggest the Jewish people would be a monolith. I do not believe that even most pro-Israel supporters want or advocate for an pure ethnostate outside of the extreme religious rightwing. I may also be wrong, but I believe that most regular Israelis would happily welcome peaceful and equal relations with Palestine. My understanding of Zionism is also that it is similarly quite diverse in meaning an intention for each individual. If you do feel like letting me know anything specifically that I said that is being received as hurtful, I am happy to review and learn more.
I did take some time to review some publications by the Jewish Voice for Peace as suggested, and do fine a rather hard line extreme left slant. It appears that JVP is advocating for the dissolution of the Israeli state and repatriation of the land to Palestinians, but it is not clear how this is recommended in relation with the existing population. I also feel that the JVP’s apparent stance that anyone advocating for a right for Israel’s existence is advocating for a Jewish ethno-supremasist state is reductive in an “if you’re not with us your against us” or an “anyone to the right of us may as well be alt right” format. It is definitely worth engaging with their material even if I may not agree with everything though. It has given me further insight on a facet I never would have thought about from the original “death to Israel” comment that started my inquiry. If you have any other recommendations for more insight I am open to it. I may support the existence of both Israel and Palestine in the long run, but I am always happy to expand my scope of understanding.