5 ms·

Notice how your defenses of Israel are identical to the colonial regimes of old. We’re progressive and secular and advanced and humane, not like those terrorist

Notice how your defenses of Israel are identical to the colonial regimes of old. We’re progressive and secular and advanced and humane, not like those terrorist savages who attack us for no reason. The rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of the French justifying their hold on Algeria, or the Japanese over Korea, or the white settler regimes of Africa, or China over the Uighers. If you need it spelt out for you, it’s very simple: Israel is a settler-colonial project in a world where settler-colonialism is seen as immoral and illegal. You’re not supposed to subjugate and dispossess other peoples, even if you bring them the benefits of an advanced civilization.

smitty1e 5y ago
But...the Israelis have deep roots in the Levant, as evidenced by a certain book of note. The 'colonial' argument rings hollow.
- clavicat 5y ago
  That is like saying that the Greeks would be justified in invading Turkey and annexing Istanbul and all of Eastern Anatolia because they had an ancient presence there and that their domination over the subjugated Turks wouldn’t constitute colonialism. Attempts at ethnic revanchism based on where humans once lived thousands of years ago is weird, creepy shit. It’s creepy when Hitler did it, and it’s creepy when you do it.
  - Protostome 5y ago
    Jews didn't invade Israel, that's the only difference. Israel accepted the 1947 partition of the land, while the arabs rejected it. That led to a war, in which the arabs lost. They went all in and lost. One can only imagine what would have happened to the jews in Israel if they would have won.
    - foota 5y ago
      Why should they have accepted it? It was their territory, was it not?
      - bawolff 5y ago
        (Honest question) under what basis was it "their" territory? Its not like they had soverign control over those lands at that point in history, and from what i understand, in the original partition plans the religious breakdown of the jewish part of the division had more jews in it than palestinians. Of course in the end that plan didn't happen, but i'm not sure i see why either side really had the superior claim to the land.
      - Protostome 5y ago
        No it wasn't. The territory was under the British control and before that was under Ottoman rule for several hundreds of years.
        candiodari 5y ago
        Yes but Ottoman rule should be understood to span many ethnic and religious groups. There was no "Ottoman people", the way you have, say, Germans. The Jews were there under Ottoman rule, for example (in fact the Ottoman sultan gave them independence in trade for a lot of money). So while there are long-time-there Palestinian bedouins, there are also Jewish bedouins, and even smaller groups like Druze or even Catholics. There were many semi-states under the Ottoman empire that have since warred and lost or gained territory. The British attempted to keep Ottoman governmental structures largely in place, and they failed badly. Turkey was conquered by the Turks, from Greeks, Armenians, and various smaller groups. Big parts of it not that long ago (~1 century). Somalia was conquered from Ethiopia. Pakistan from India. Bangladesh from Pakistan. Hell, Northern Iraq was conquered from the Kurds ... by Arab Nazi's. Seriously. History can be funny at times. Most of these conquests are younger than Israel is. Why don't we see people follow Indian demands for re-annexation (and religious suppression) of Pakistan? Pakistan demands the same of Bangladesh (and yes religious suppression. "There are no sects in Islam" is part of Islamic doctrine. There are no splits in Sunni Islam, but somehow Pakistan and Bangladesh don't belong to the same Sunni Islam ... and are hundreds of millions of believers each). Ethiopia wants to re-annex Somalia (and restore religions to where they were 100 years ago), and so on. Hell, there exist Indian extremists that would like to see Indonesia annexed too. Oh, and unlike the Israel-Palestine conflict, India and Pakistan are threatening to nuke each other. And China is now threatening them too, also with nukes, so there's plenty of new trouble brewing in that neighbourhood. And we haven't even mentioned China ... Is anyone seriously suggesting undoing the conquests? For one thing that would be extremely impractical and a massive operation, even if they would cooperate (and I guarantee there'll be war in every case). Why is this conflict so important? Compared to the India-Pakistan issue, it doesn't affect very many people (Israel and Palestine, even together, are at best the population of a medium US city, India-Pakistan-Bangladesh is 4-5 times the size of the entire US) But I think I do see some factors. Israel-Palestine is so very, very small that it is actually conceivable that the west actually does something about it. India-Pakistan? We have zero chance to play a meaningful role there. Also the Israeli consider themselves part of the West, so they actually want the approval of the rest of the West.
    - smitty1e 5y ago
      Likely something tragic akin to what occurred just ahead of 1947.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    "About those poor, innocent Turks..." said Armenians. But the second paragraph juxtaposing the Israelis is more interesting still in its tending toward Godwin's Law. I've never before now heard of the whole Zionist movement cast in terms of colonialism. I am grateful for the insight, as that will require some pondering.
  - sershe 5y ago
    Well, going by that logic, now that Israel is where it is, does somebody else's "ancient presence there" matter?
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Or maybe not everything was bad about "colonial regimes of old". At this point in history, it seems likely every human being is descendant of people who at some time conquered other people.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Very few contemporary nations (perhaps the Icelanders and some other remote island nations) took a pristine, empty land that belonged to no one. Most of us live on graves and ruins of other civilizations or at least tribes. Much of that displacement was coerced or outright violent. Ironically, if the previous entity was obliterated completely (e.g. Carthage), there is no one left to nurture resentment.
Protostome 5y ago
How is it a settler colonial project when even the name 'Jew' is derived from Judea - which is a kingdom that existed where Israel exists today. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ can be considered settler's colonies much more than Israel since the europeans who settled there had anything whatsover with those places.
- foota 5y ago
  It's a fucking region with no relation to the modern state of Israel.
  - Protostome 5y ago
    Well, that's simply not true. Judea is the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel. The region was named after the tribe, not the other way around
- mclightning 5y ago
  Are you saying Israelites that relocated to Israel today are ethnogenetically closer to the region than the Arabs that lived there? I would suspect most of the Israelites that moved there are actually western/european descent, whereas I would not be surprised if a lot of the Arabs there had actual ancient Jewish genes. All that aside, are we really discussing who can claim ownership to a land based on ancient history, rather than human impact of change of ownership?
  - rafi25 5y ago
    Actually, most Israelies came from Arab countries. The rest are from Asia (Russia) and east Europe. Less than 5% are from Western countries.
    - candiodari 5y ago
      And most Palestinians are recent (2-3 generations at most) immigrants into Palestine. They also mostly come from Arab countries. Ethnically there is no real difference, to the point that a disguised Jew or Muslim, provided they know the other language well, can blend in without any problem, even for longer periods. Which is a big problem for catching terrorists. And it's even the case that when it comes to habits, even religious habits, there's a lot shared between Jews and Muslims that does not actually date back to ancient Judaism or come from Islam, but are for example not-that-old Iraki or Yemeni customs.
auganov 5y ago
If Israel constitutes settler colonialism then any immigration or self determination by an eventually successful group must be considered so. Legally settling somewhere and then asserting self determination by necessity seems to be quite different morally from unprovoked military contest by an existing nation. Under this moral framework if there's no nation you like you're forever doomed to being a second class citizen. If attacked , the only moral choice is to let aggressors kill you.
bawolff 5y ago
Isn't that just the rhetoric of any asymetrical conflict (except the secular part which varries)? Whether its Rome complaining about the "barbarians" or America talking about 9/11? I don't think i have ever heard of an armed international conflict where one side was like "so the other side is super chill, too bad we are at war with them".
inglor_cz 5y ago
Hamas and Islamic Jihad are terrorist savages, though. Much like ETA, IRA etc. No need to sugarcoat terrorism in the name of self-determination. (For the record, Irgun or the Lehi Gang were terrorists too.) Israel would find it much harder to keep control of Palestinian territory if their opponents quit the idea of violent jihad and turned to non-violence. Unlike China, Israel is a democratic and fairly small country, and obvious oppression of non-violent opponents would not fly there. Both the internal and the international pressures against the hawks would have become unbearable. I know a fair share of Israelis. They aren't bloodthirsty conquerors and slavers. They are mostly afraid of pizzerias, schools and buses being bombed again, and it is not an irrational fear.
joelbluminator 5y ago
It's not exactly like the French and Algeria - Israelis don't really have anywhere to "go back to" as opposed to the French.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Notice how your comparison of Israel to colonial powers distorts reality: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Israel_and_Arab_states_map_k.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Israel_a... You propose that a country as small as Israel is colonizing the middle east. I am against the illegal settlements, but the compassion to colonies just doesn't fit at all.
- clavicat 5y ago
  What a bizarre objection. Colonial entities can be as small as a city-state, e.g. Singapore. The point is that a newly imported population is imposing their domination on the people that were previously there.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Israel isn't a colony even if that is a fantasy of many people. Some of those "newly imported" people were driven out of muslim countries, which are numerous as you can see on the map. Most importantly, many in those countries also don't want to deal with the problem of people living in the west bank or the Gaza strip. I believe people have a problem with Jews, a fairly know phenomenon and a problem in the culture that has to change.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  Japan had colonies in China, though they are physically smaller than China.

smitty1e 5y ago

But...the Israelis have deep roots in the Levant, as evidenced by a certain book of note. The 'colonial' argument rings hollow.

clavicat 5y ago
That is like saying that the Greeks would be justified in invading Turkey and annexing Istanbul and all of Eastern Anatolia because they had an ancient presence there and that their domination over the subjugated Turks wouldn’t constitute colonialism. Attempts at ethnic revanchism based on where humans once lived thousands of years ago is weird, creepy shit. It’s creepy when Hitler did it, and it’s creepy when you do it.
- Protostome 5y ago
  Jews didn't invade Israel, that's the only difference. Israel accepted the 1947 partition of the land, while the arabs rejected it. That led to a war, in which the arabs lost. They went all in and lost. One can only imagine what would have happened to the jews in Israel if they would have won.
  - foota 5y ago
    Why should they have accepted it? It was their territory, was it not?
    - bawolff 5y ago
      (Honest question) under what basis was it "their" territory? Its not like they had soverign control over those lands at that point in history, and from what i understand, in the original partition plans the religious breakdown of the jewish part of the division had more jews in it than palestinians. Of course in the end that plan didn't happen, but i'm not sure i see why either side really had the superior claim to the land.
    - Protostome 5y ago
      No it wasn't. The territory was under the British control and before that was under Ottoman rule for several hundreds of years.
      - candiodari 5y ago
        Yes but Ottoman rule should be understood to span many ethnic and religious groups. There was no "Ottoman people", the way you have, say, Germans. The Jews were there under Ottoman rule, for example (in fact the Ottoman sultan gave them independence in trade for a lot of money). So while there are long-time-there Palestinian bedouins, there are also Jewish bedouins, and even smaller groups like Druze or even Catholics. There were many semi-states under the Ottoman empire that have since warred and lost or gained territory. The British attempted to keep Ottoman governmental structures largely in place, and they failed badly. Turkey was conquered by the Turks, from Greeks, Armenians, and various smaller groups. Big parts of it not that long ago (~1 century). Somalia was conquered from Ethiopia. Pakistan from India. Bangladesh from Pakistan. Hell, Northern Iraq was conquered from the Kurds ... by Arab Nazi's. Seriously. History can be funny at times. Most of these conquests are younger than Israel is. Why don't we see people follow Indian demands for re-annexation (and religious suppression) of Pakistan? Pakistan demands the same of Bangladesh (and yes religious suppression. "There are no sects in Islam" is part of Islamic doctrine. There are no splits in Sunni Islam, but somehow Pakistan and Bangladesh don't belong to the same Sunni Islam ... and are hundreds of millions of believers each). Ethiopia wants to re-annex Somalia (and restore religions to where they were 100 years ago), and so on. Hell, there exist Indian extremists that would like to see Indonesia annexed too. Oh, and unlike the Israel-Palestine conflict, India and Pakistan are threatening to nuke each other. And China is now threatening them too, also with nukes, so there's plenty of new trouble brewing in that neighbourhood. And we haven't even mentioned China ... Is anyone seriously suggesting undoing the conquests? For one thing that would be extremely impractical and a massive operation, even if they would cooperate (and I guarantee there'll be war in every case). Why is this conflict so important? Compared to the India-Pakistan issue, it doesn't affect very many people (Israel and Palestine, even together, are at best the population of a medium US city, India-Pakistan-Bangladesh is 4-5 times the size of the entire US) But I think I do see some factors. Israel-Palestine is so very, very small that it is actually conceivable that the west actually does something about it. India-Pakistan? We have zero chance to play a meaningful role there. Also the Israeli consider themselves part of the West, so they actually want the approval of the rest of the West.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    Likely something tragic akin to what occurred just ahead of 1947.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  "About those poor, innocent Turks..." said Armenians. But the second paragraph juxtaposing the Israelis is more interesting still in its tending toward Godwin's Law. I've never before now heard of the whole Zionist movement cast in terms of colonialism. I am grateful for the insight, as that will require some pondering.
- sershe 5y ago
  Well, going by that logic, now that Israel is where it is, does somebody else's "ancient presence there" matter?

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

Or maybe not everything was bad about "colonial regimes of old". At this point in history, it seems likely every human being is descendant of people who at some time conquered other people.

inglor_cz 5y ago
Very few contemporary nations (perhaps the Icelanders and some other remote island nations) took a pristine, empty land that belonged to no one. Most of us live on graves and ruins of other civilizations or at least tribes. Much of that displacement was coerced or outright violent. Ironically, if the previous entity was obliterated completely (e.g. Carthage), there is no one left to nurture resentment.

Protostome 5y ago

How is it a settler colonial project when even the name 'Jew' is derived from Judea - which is a kingdom that existed where Israel exists today. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ can be considered settler's colonies much more than Israel since the europeans who settled there had anything whatsover with those places.

foota 5y ago
It's a fucking region with no relation to the modern state of Israel.
- Protostome 5y ago
  Well, that's simply not true. Judea is the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel. The region was named after the tribe, not the other way around
mclightning 5y ago
Are you saying Israelites that relocated to Israel today are ethnogenetically closer to the region than the Arabs that lived there? I would suspect most of the Israelites that moved there are actually western/european descent, whereas I would not be surprised if a lot of the Arabs there had actual ancient Jewish genes. All that aside, are we really discussing who can claim ownership to a land based on ancient history, rather than human impact of change of ownership?
- rafi25 5y ago
  Actually, most Israelies came from Arab countries. The rest are from Asia (Russia) and east Europe. Less than 5% are from Western countries.
  - candiodari 5y ago
    And most Palestinians are recent (2-3 generations at most) immigrants into Palestine. They also mostly come from Arab countries. Ethnically there is no real difference, to the point that a disguised Jew or Muslim, provided they know the other language well, can blend in without any problem, even for longer periods. Which is a big problem for catching terrorists. And it's even the case that when it comes to habits, even religious habits, there's a lot shared between Jews and Muslims that does not actually date back to ancient Judaism or come from Islam, but are for example not-that-old Iraki or Yemeni customs.

auganov 5y ago

If Israel constitutes settler colonialism then any immigration or self determination by an eventually successful group must be considered so. Legally settling somewhere and then asserting self determination by necessity seems to be quite different morally from unprovoked military contest by an existing nation. Under this moral framework if there's no nation you like you're forever doomed to being a second class citizen. If attacked , the only moral choice is to let aggressors kill you.

bawolff 5y ago

Isn't that just the rhetoric of any asymetrical conflict (except the secular part which varries)? Whether its Rome complaining about the "barbarians" or America talking about 9/11? I don't think i have ever heard of an armed international conflict where one side was like "so the other side is super chill, too bad we are at war with them".

inglor_cz 5y ago

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are terrorist savages, though. Much like ETA, IRA etc. No need to sugarcoat terrorism in the name of self-determination. (For the record, Irgun or the Lehi Gang were terrorists too.) Israel would find it much harder to keep control of Palestinian territory if their opponents quit the idea of violent jihad and turned to non-violence. Unlike China, Israel is a democratic and fairly small country, and obvious oppression of non-violent opponents would not fly there. Both the internal and the international pressures against the hawks would have become unbearable. I know a fair share of Israelis. They aren't bloodthirsty conquerors and slavers. They are mostly afraid of pizzerias, schools and buses being bombed again, and it is not an irrational fear.

joelbluminator 5y ago

It's not exactly like the French and Algeria - Israelis don't really have anywhere to "go back to" as opposed to the French.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Notice how your comparison of Israel to colonial powers distorts reality: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Israel_and_Arab_states_map_k.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Israel_a... You propose that a country as small as Israel is colonizing the middle east. I am against the illegal settlements, but the compassion to colonies just doesn't fit at all.

clavicat 5y ago
What a bizarre objection. Colonial entities can be as small as a city-state, e.g. Singapore. The point is that a newly imported population is imposing their domination on the people that were previously there.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Israel isn't a colony even if that is a fantasy of many people. Some of those "newly imported" people were driven out of muslim countries, which are numerous as you can see on the map. Most importantly, many in those countries also don't want to deal with the problem of people living in the west bank or the Gaza strip. I believe people have a problem with Jews, a fairly know phenomenon and a problem in the culture that has to change.
tomjen3 5y ago
Japan had colonies in China, though they are physically smaller than China.