8 ms·

I don't want to get into the rest of your argument, but just wanted to say that based on my reading of history, pretty much all of the borders on Earth "were a

I don't want to get into the rest of your argument, but just wanted to say that based on my reading of history, pretty much all of the borders on Earth "were a colonization project from the start".

solosoyokaze 6y ago
Important to remember but not quite the same as colonizing a region in the 20th century. This isn’t the distant past, it’s actively happening.
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  Which is why Poland and Germany constantly fight over the border that was imposed post-WWII (20th century, yes) and the population displacement that took place at that time, right? It's really easy to declare things as black and white. It's seldom accurate. (Important note: a large fraction, a majority depending on how you count it, of Israel's population are descendants of Jews who were ejected from other Middle Eastern countries after the establishment of Israel? Are they to be considered "colonizers" in your framing?)
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    > a large fraction, a majority depending on how you count it, of Israel's population are descendants of Jews who were ejected from other Middle Eastern countries after the establishment of Israel This is not modern history. Yes they are colonizers. By your logic, anyone could just invade Africa and start a country there since all humanity's ancestors descended from the region. > It's really easy to declare things as black and white. Colonization and genocide are actually pretty black and white. Israel is violating international law and committing human rights violations.
    - bzbarsky 6y ago
      > This is not modern history. Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing: we're talking about the mass ejections of Jews from various Middle Eastern and North African countries in the 50s, 60s, and 70s of the 20th century, right? And if that's not modern history, then how is the establishment of Israel at the same time modern history? > Yes they are colonizers. They were refugees, more precisely. But just to be specific, what is your concrete proposal for where they should have gone? > By your logic, anyone could just invade Africa and start a country there since all humanity's ancestors descended from the region. No, I don't see how that's an analogous situation at all. My question about Israel is a pretty specific one: I challenge its presentation as a "European" or "Western" colonial project. Though maybe that was not your intent? > Colonization and genocide are actually pretty black and white We'd have to clearly define "colonization", since I suspect we disagree on whether specific actions constitute it. Genocide is pretty black and white, I agree. I am opposed to genocide. We may disagree on whether there is genocide, or attempted genocide going on in various situations, unfortunately. Concretely: Do you feel that Israel is attempting a genocide campaign against the Palestinians? Do you feel that the Israeli electorate supports such a campaign? Do you feel that the Palestinians are attempting a genocide campaign against Jews? Do you feel that their electorate (using that term loosely, due to lack of elections) supports such a campaign? Fundamentally, I disagree with both the "from the river to the sea" narrative and the "all of Judea and Samaria" narrative... (And I do note that neither of those is necessarily genocidal, though both can be nice jumps onto slippery slopes towards there.) > Israel is violating international law and committing human rights violations. Yes, I agree. But just to make sure we're on the same page, so are the Palestinians, every single country Israel has a border with (on the human rights violation parts of the ledger for sure), and quite a number of other entities. Including, I am 99% sure, the country you live in. There are questions of scope and degree, of course. Please don't mention the words "false equivalence", because I am not claiming that anything here is "equivalent" to anything else, and if I were we'd likely disagree on what equivalences are "true" vs "false". More practically, what specific actions do you think would be required for Israel to stop committing what you perceive as human rights violations and international law violations? And if your answer is "dissolve itself as an entity and have all the Jews go somewhere else", then I can see how that's a consistent moral position, but that does not match either international law nor morality as I perceive it. If that's not your position, then were back to trying to figure out various shades of grey, as far as I can tell, which we're probably not going to manage to work out in this sort of discussion.
    - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
      I admire your ability to bite the bullet and call Mizrahi Jews colonizers for being ethnically cleansed and fleeing to their indigenous homeland.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ocschwar 6y ago
  So's the arrival of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, which is still ongoing.
someperson 6y ago
I think the point was fair. We try to have a world where force is not used to reshape borders. Eg, we rightfully call out Russia's annexation of Crimea and sanction them. If we are to call out China's genocide of the Uighers, we should also call out the Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States when they commit human rights abuse. It's about applying human rights and international law as impartially as possible, and using economic might to sanction any country which breaks the rules.
- smachiz 6y ago
  I mean... economic might is a version of human rights abuses. Ask the Cubans. The are no simple applications of pithy thoughts. The world is messy, subjective and everyone has an inherent bias to their world view. And most importantly, it isn't fair or just. We just hopefully try to do better than yesterday.
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    There are officially recognized war crimes and crimes against humanity. There's national sovereignty. These aren't "pithy thoughts", they're well regarded basics that Israel regularly violates with the support of the US.
    - smachiz 6y ago
      Officially by whom? Go look at the UN Council on Human Rights, which is historically a literal who's who of human rights abusers. The UN Security Council is actually the only UN group that can officially declare Human Rights Abuses... but of course a single veto prevents that. The ICC has its own host of issues around bias. I guess my point is most issues are not as clear cut in the moment as they are in retrospect. Some are clearer than others, of course. But life is messy, and the victors have always written the narrative that past events are judged. It's a relatively recent artifact where we can argue about this stuff in real time.
watoc 6y ago
You're right but that doesn't mean we should accept it. Why we didn't accept it when Saddam invaded Koweit or when Russia annexed Crimea? Colonization of Palestine has very negative direct and indirect consequences on our world.
- smachiz 6y ago
  Sorry - has something changed with Crimea? Begrudging acceptance seems to be exactly where we're at....
  - watoc 6y ago
    AFAIK very few countries have recognized Crimea as part of Russia. So my comment is still valid, most countries did not accept the annexion.
    - smachiz 6y ago
      but also haven't really done much about it right? We threw some sanctions on them... that appear to be fairly toothless.
    - slavak 6y ago
      No countries recognize Israeli claims to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and even the comparatively tame annexation of the Golan Heights is recognized by very few. That means, formally, Israeli actions in the OPT are even less accepted than Russia's annexation of Crimea. Practically, begrudging acceptance seems to be a very apt description, arguably of the latter even more so than the former.
      - watoc 6y ago
        Didn't the Trump administration declare that the settlements were not illegal? Palestine is not even fully recognized as an independent state. Besides the comparaison with Crimea, the point was that borders throughout history have been shaped by colonizations and invasions but that cannot be used to justify colonization itself.

I don't want to get into the rest of your argument, but just wanted to say that based on my reading of history, pretty much all of the borders on Earth "were a colonization project from the start".

solosoyokaze 6y ago

Important to remember but not quite the same as colonizing a region in the 20th century. This isn’t the distant past, it’s actively happening.

bzbarsky 6y ago
Which is why Poland and Germany constantly fight over the border that was imposed post-WWII (20th century, yes) and the population displacement that took place at that time, right? It's really easy to declare things as black and white. It's seldom accurate. (Important note: a large fraction, a majority depending on how you count it, of Israel's population are descendants of Jews who were ejected from other Middle Eastern countries after the establishment of Israel? Are they to be considered "colonizers" in your framing?)
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  > a large fraction, a majority depending on how you count it, of Israel's population are descendants of Jews who were ejected from other Middle Eastern countries after the establishment of Israel This is not modern history. Yes they are colonizers. By your logic, anyone could just invade Africa and start a country there since all humanity's ancestors descended from the region. > It's really easy to declare things as black and white. Colonization and genocide are actually pretty black and white. Israel is violating international law and committing human rights violations.
  - bzbarsky 6y ago
    > This is not modern history. Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing: we're talking about the mass ejections of Jews from various Middle Eastern and North African countries in the 50s, 60s, and 70s of the 20th century, right? And if that's not modern history, then how is the establishment of Israel at the same time modern history? > Yes they are colonizers. They were refugees, more precisely. But just to be specific, what is your concrete proposal for where they should have gone? > By your logic, anyone could just invade Africa and start a country there since all humanity's ancestors descended from the region. No, I don't see how that's an analogous situation at all. My question about Israel is a pretty specific one: I challenge its presentation as a "European" or "Western" colonial project. Though maybe that was not your intent? > Colonization and genocide are actually pretty black and white We'd have to clearly define "colonization", since I suspect we disagree on whether specific actions constitute it. Genocide is pretty black and white, I agree. I am opposed to genocide. We may disagree on whether there is genocide, or attempted genocide going on in various situations, unfortunately. Concretely: Do you feel that Israel is attempting a genocide campaign against the Palestinians? Do you feel that the Israeli electorate supports such a campaign? Do you feel that the Palestinians are attempting a genocide campaign against Jews? Do you feel that their electorate (using that term loosely, due to lack of elections) supports such a campaign? Fundamentally, I disagree with both the "from the river to the sea" narrative and the "all of Judea and Samaria" narrative... (And I do note that neither of those is necessarily genocidal, though both can be nice jumps onto slippery slopes towards there.) > Israel is violating international law and committing human rights violations. Yes, I agree. But just to make sure we're on the same page, so are the Palestinians, every single country Israel has a border with (on the human rights violation parts of the ledger for sure), and quite a number of other entities. Including, I am 99% sure, the country you live in. There are questions of scope and degree, of course. Please don't mention the words "false equivalence", because I am not claiming that anything here is "equivalent" to anything else, and if I were we'd likely disagree on what equivalences are "true" vs "false". More practically, what specific actions do you think would be required for Israel to stop committing what you perceive as human rights violations and international law violations? And if your answer is "dissolve itself as an entity and have all the Jews go somewhere else", then I can see how that's a consistent moral position, but that does not match either international law nor morality as I perceive it. If that's not your position, then were back to trying to figure out various shades of grey, as far as I can tell, which we're probably not going to manage to work out in this sort of discussion.
  - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
    I admire your ability to bite the bullet and call Mizrahi Jews colonizers for being ethnically cleansed and fleeing to their indigenous homeland.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ocschwar 6y ago
So's the arrival of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, which is still ongoing.

someperson 6y ago

I think the point was fair. We try to have a world where force is not used to reshape borders. Eg, we rightfully call out Russia's annexation of Crimea and sanction them. If we are to call out China's genocide of the Uighers, we should also call out the Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States when they commit human rights abuse. It's about applying human rights and international law as impartially as possible, and using economic might to sanction any country which breaks the rules.

smachiz 6y ago
I mean... economic might is a version of human rights abuses. Ask the Cubans. The are no simple applications of pithy thoughts. The world is messy, subjective and everyone has an inherent bias to their world view. And most importantly, it isn't fair or just. We just hopefully try to do better than yesterday.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  There are officially recognized war crimes and crimes against humanity. There's national sovereignty. These aren't "pithy thoughts", they're well regarded basics that Israel regularly violates with the support of the US.
  - smachiz 6y ago
    Officially by whom? Go look at the UN Council on Human Rights, which is historically a literal who's who of human rights abusers. The UN Security Council is actually the only UN group that can officially declare Human Rights Abuses... but of course a single veto prevents that. The ICC has its own host of issues around bias. I guess my point is most issues are not as clear cut in the moment as they are in retrospect. Some are clearer than others, of course. But life is messy, and the victors have always written the narrative that past events are judged. It's a relatively recent artifact where we can argue about this stuff in real time.

watoc 6y ago

You're right but that doesn't mean we should accept it. Why we didn't accept it when Saddam invaded Koweit or when Russia annexed Crimea? Colonization of Palestine has very negative direct and indirect consequences on our world.

smachiz 6y ago
Sorry - has something changed with Crimea? Begrudging acceptance seems to be exactly where we're at....
- watoc 6y ago
  AFAIK very few countries have recognized Crimea as part of Russia. So my comment is still valid, most countries did not accept the annexion.
  - smachiz 6y ago
    but also haven't really done much about it right? We threw some sanctions on them... that appear to be fairly toothless.
  - slavak 6y ago
    No countries recognize Israeli claims to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and even the comparatively tame annexation of the Golan Heights is recognized by very few. That means, formally, Israeli actions in the OPT are even less accepted than Russia's annexation of Crimea. Practically, begrudging acceptance seems to be a very apt description, arguably of the latter even more so than the former.
    - watoc 6y ago
      Didn't the Trump administration declare that the settlements were not illegal? Palestine is not even fully recognized as an independent state. Besides the comparaison with Crimea, the point was that borders throughout history have been shaped by colonizations and invasions but that cannot be used to justify colonization itself.