4 ms·

> create a homeland for the Jewish people This is clearly colonialism by definition. It’s the entire story because there is no justification for oppressing and

> create a homeland for the Jewish people This is clearly colonialism by definition. It’s the entire story because there is no justification for oppressing and colonizing others, even if the people doing it also face discrimination. It’s not an excuse and shouldn’t be part of the conversation.

joelbluminator 5y ago
Its really not though, the declaration never went into specifics on what parts will become Jewish exactly for this reason. It said a Jewish home IN Plaestine, not that all of Palestine will become Jewish. And even if it is "the definition of colonialism", what does it have to do with anything now?
- luffapi 5y ago
  A colony is the establishment of a new state on or in territory occupied by someone else. This is as textbook a case of colonialism as there is. > And even if it is "the definition of colonialism", what does it have to do with anything now? It’s literally the basis for every problem we’re discussing. Israel didn’t magically become not a colony, it’s enforced its apartheid state since it was created by western superpowers.
  - joelbluminator 5y ago
    > A colony is the establishment of a new state on or in territory occupied by someone else That's you interpreting Balfour / Zionism the way you see fit, there were movements in Zionism that wanted to split the land, in fact the main movement wanted to split the land since 1937 for sure (agreeing to the Peel committee split plan) and maybe even before that. But the declaration itself just says - a national Jewish home in Palestine. There were unoccupied territories in Palestine 100 years ago. In fact there still are, even when this tiny land inhabits 15 million people and not just 1.5 millions like 100 years ago. If Balfour wanted to say explicitly that all of Palestine is to become Jewish he would have said so. It doesn't even say a state or a country, just a "national home". You're attributing to Balfour more than what was written.
    - luffapi 5y ago
      Those territories weren’t “unoccupied” though. They were occupied and not consulted in the formation of Israel. It really is the root of the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declaration#Opposition_in_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declarati...
      - joelbluminator 5y ago
        Define unoccupied. It was scarcely populated, definitely then and definitely by today's standards, and the Palestinian national movement was only in it's infancy. Most Palestinian wanted to be part of Syria back then afaik. It wasn't inconceivable that two people can create two states there then, and still isn't now. So no, I don't buy that everything was a colonialist plot. Some Zionists saw it as an expansionist enterprise and some didn't. We know for sure that on 1937 Zionism was seeking a split to the land or at least willing to make it happen. If the Palestinian agreed to the Peel committee in 1937 which offered Israel a very small state we wouldn't have been having this discussion now.
        luffapi 5y ago
        The estimate is around 700k people, of which a minority was Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#British_Mandate_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palesti... Just because it wasn’t a dense urban area, it doesn’t mean it was “unoccupied”.
        joelbluminator 5y ago
        700k is very thinly populated.
        luffapi 5y ago
        Stealing sovereignty from one person is too much. Oppressing 700k is a crime against humanity.
bzbarsky 5y ago
I think there's an interesting argument to be had here about the point at which "self-determination" becomes "colonialism". A group that is sufficiently geographically diffuse does not have a right to self-determination (ipso facto, because it's not the majority anywhere). Your position seems to be that an attempt by such a group to concentrate geographically somewhere in order to exercise the right to self-determination is fundamentally illegitimate because any such attempt is "colonialism". Is that an accurate representation of your views? If not, what is?
- luffapi 5y ago
  > Your position seems to be that an attempt by such a group to concentrate geographically somewhere in order to exercise the right to self-determination is fundamentally illegitimate because any such attempt is "colonialism". If that relocation involves creating a new state or otherwise taking power over the region, then yes that’s my definition of colonialism.
  - bzbarsky 5y ago
    > If that relocation involves creating a new state Creating a new state is what the right to self-determination is all about, yes. It sounds like we have some fundamental disagreements on definitions here, though I would be interested in your take about how you feel the right to self-determination can be meaningfully exercised by a geographically dispersed group, if at all.
    - luffapi 5y ago
      I don’t think a new state can ethically be created without a democratic choice to do so by the existing population of a region. I think a humanitarian route would be to lobby for open immigration in existing democracies. For instance, I think we all would have been a lot better off if instead of creating the state of Israel, we offered US citizenship to anyone who needed it after WWII. I’m also a proponent of a modern day open border policy for the US (where I’m a citizen).

joelbluminator 5y ago

Its really not though, the declaration never went into specifics on what parts will become Jewish exactly for this reason. It said a Jewish home IN Plaestine, not that all of Palestine will become Jewish. And even if it is "the definition of colonialism", what does it have to do with anything now?

luffapi 5y ago
A colony is the establishment of a new state on or in territory occupied by someone else. This is as textbook a case of colonialism as there is. > And even if it is "the definition of colonialism", what does it have to do with anything now? It’s literally the basis for every problem we’re discussing. Israel didn’t magically become not a colony, it’s enforced its apartheid state since it was created by western superpowers.
- joelbluminator 5y ago
  > A colony is the establishment of a new state on or in territory occupied by someone else That's you interpreting Balfour / Zionism the way you see fit, there were movements in Zionism that wanted to split the land, in fact the main movement wanted to split the land since 1937 for sure (agreeing to the Peel committee split plan) and maybe even before that. But the declaration itself just says - a national Jewish home in Palestine. There were unoccupied territories in Palestine 100 years ago. In fact there still are, even when this tiny land inhabits 15 million people and not just 1.5 millions like 100 years ago. If Balfour wanted to say explicitly that all of Palestine is to become Jewish he would have said so. It doesn't even say a state or a country, just a "national home". You're attributing to Balfour more than what was written.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    Those territories weren’t “unoccupied” though. They were occupied and not consulted in the formation of Israel. It really is the root of the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declaration#Opposition_in_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declarati...
    - joelbluminator 5y ago
      Define unoccupied. It was scarcely populated, definitely then and definitely by today's standards, and the Palestinian national movement was only in it's infancy. Most Palestinian wanted to be part of Syria back then afaik. It wasn't inconceivable that two people can create two states there then, and still isn't now. So no, I don't buy that everything was a colonialist plot. Some Zionists saw it as an expansionist enterprise and some didn't. We know for sure that on 1937 Zionism was seeking a split to the land or at least willing to make it happen. If the Palestinian agreed to the Peel committee in 1937 which offered Israel a very small state we wouldn't have been having this discussion now.
      - luffapi 5y ago
        The estimate is around 700k people, of which a minority was Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#British_Mandate_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palesti... Just because it wasn’t a dense urban area, it doesn’t mean it was “unoccupied”.
        joelbluminator 5y ago
        700k is very thinly populated.
        luffapi 5y ago
        Stealing sovereignty from one person is too much. Oppressing 700k is a crime against humanity.

bzbarsky 5y ago

I think there's an interesting argument to be had here about the point at which "self-determination" becomes "colonialism". A group that is sufficiently geographically diffuse does not have a right to self-determination (ipso facto, because it's not the majority anywhere). Your position seems to be that an attempt by such a group to concentrate geographically somewhere in order to exercise the right to self-determination is fundamentally illegitimate because any such attempt is "colonialism". Is that an accurate representation of your views? If not, what is?

luffapi 5y ago
> Your position seems to be that an attempt by such a group to concentrate geographically somewhere in order to exercise the right to self-determination is fundamentally illegitimate because any such attempt is "colonialism". If that relocation involves creating a new state or otherwise taking power over the region, then yes that’s my definition of colonialism.
- bzbarsky 5y ago
  > If that relocation involves creating a new state Creating a new state is what the right to self-determination is all about, yes. It sounds like we have some fundamental disagreements on definitions here, though I would be interested in your take about how you feel the right to self-determination can be meaningfully exercised by a geographically dispersed group, if at all.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    I don’t think a new state can ethically be created without a democratic choice to do so by the existing population of a region. I think a humanitarian route would be to lobby for open immigration in existing democracies. For instance, I think we all would have been a lot better off if instead of creating the state of Israel, we offered US citizenship to anyone who needed it after WWII. I’m also a proponent of a modern day open border policy for the US (where I’m a citizen).