View Single Post
  #586  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:08 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,575
clairobscur:

Quote:
Let's be clear : if your country is occupied, and the occupying power, with a complete disregard for the opinion of your fellow countrymen on the matter, decides to let some millions of Chinese people immigrate, Chinese who subsequently generously agree to share the country with you, you wouldn't have any issue with it?
If it was "my" country, I might have a right to have an issue with it, though of course if the government didn't agree with me, I'd be SOL in my wishes.

Quote:
So, a colonial power ruled the land, this colonial power decided to let them immigrate because it furthered its own interests, without regard for the opinion of the local population , but that totally wasn't a colonial enterprise.
I never said it wasn't a colonial enterprise. But that was the order of the day back then. The idea of native self-government as a universal ideal is a new one on the world scene. World history is full of empires and conquests, displacements and annexations. The winners controlled the land and doled it out to whomever they wished. Israel is hardly the only modern country created in this way. Why just next door, the British set up a Saudi prince as absolute monarch of his own newly-minted country full of natives who were never consulted about who would rule over them.

But there's no reasonable way, nor is there any international will, to somehow rewind the clock of history until we can somehow tie every clan since Cro-Magnon wanderings to the virgin territory it was the first to occupy. That way lies madness. For every country, there is the understanding that the local sovereignty begins where the most recent imperial or colonial sovereignty from the times that borders were considered re-writable and conquest was considered acceptable ended. To single out Israel as the one exception to this rule, the one country whose existence is problematic because its presence was allowed by the most recent imperial/colonial power rather than by consultation of natives with no say over their political futures is not a valid line of reasoning.