4 ms·

Questioning the purity and peacefulness of thoughts and intentions of (a subgroup of) a people living under colonial occupation is satire at best. Check out [1]

Questioning the purity and peacefulness of thoughts and intentions of (a subgroup of) a people living under colonial occupation is satire at best. Check out [1] for one of many well-written articles on this topic. I will only say that if Russia invaded and occupied Finland (again), that the Finnish probably would not appreciate being questioned whether their calls for their freedom are made under absolutely no ill will towards the Russian occupation forces and settlers that are colonizing their territory. [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/10/how-international-law-is-used-to-cover-up-israeli-settler-colonialism https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/10/how-internatio...

rendall 3y ago
> Questioning the purity and peacefulness of thoughts and intentions of (a subgroup of) a people living under colonial occupation is satire at best. There is an answer to the question "What do Palestinians generally mean when they say Free Palestine" and it is directly relevant to what will happen when Palestine is freed. Discovering the answer to that question is what we would attempt to do here. And at all times applying the best interpretation possible given the evidence. That is to say, where more than one interpretation is possible, assuming good faith. Perhaps it means only "individual autonomy and personal freedom for all". We make no assumptions. Would you like to investigate with me? Applying history in that way is thinking by analogy, not from first principles. Finland is not Palestine, Russia is not Israel. What principles are you applying to bring you to your political stance? Do they apply equally to Palestians and Israelis? If not why not? What is the principle involved? Is genocide always bad or sometimes ok in the right cause, in your opinion?
- rendall 3y ago
  But to your point, if there were a serious movement to "Free Karelia" that meant ethnic cleansing of Russians from the area, I would vehemently oppose it. Finland's position wrt to Karelia is more like Jordan wrt the West Bank: released all claims, the Finnic peoples there are governed by Russia, for better or worse. But the analogy is a bad one, really not worth discussing.

rendall 3y ago

> Questioning the purity and peacefulness of thoughts and intentions of (a subgroup of) a people living under colonial occupation is satire at best. There is an answer to the question "What do Palestinians generally mean when they say Free Palestine" and it is directly relevant to what will happen when Palestine is freed. Discovering the answer to that question is what we would attempt to do here. And at all times applying the best interpretation possible given the evidence. That is to say, where more than one interpretation is possible, assuming good faith. Perhaps it means only "individual autonomy and personal freedom for all". We make no assumptions. Would you like to investigate with me? Applying history in that way is thinking by analogy, not from first principles. Finland is not Palestine, Russia is not Israel. What principles are you applying to bring you to your political stance? Do they apply equally to Palestians and Israelis? If not why not? What is the principle involved? Is genocide always bad or sometimes ok in the right cause, in your opinion?

rendall 3y ago
But to your point, if there were a serious movement to "Free Karelia" that meant ethnic cleansing of Russians from the area, I would vehemently oppose it. Finland's position wrt to Karelia is more like Jordan wrt the West Bank: released all claims, the Finnic peoples there are governed by Russia, for better or worse. But the analogy is a bad one, really not worth discussing.