The creation of Israel was not a colonial project

[Babale]

@HMS_Irruncible

Especially not by suggesting that any of this can be justified by the fact that there was like a 1-2% surviving Jewish presence in Palestine. Society shouldn’t encourage people to take land simply because somebody lives there who has the same religion and might be their 63rd cousin.

That’s not the point. The point is that the Jewish people were made homeless and never allowed to settle anywhere else.

[iiandyiiii]

I’m not trying to justify anything. I’m saying that those Jews were desperate people with no good choices, and they took one of those choices anyway because the alternative was risking annihilation.

This thread is really meant to be about facts and history, not feelings or philosophical concepts like justice. Did I get any facts wrong? So far no one has specifically identified any facts that I got wrong.

[Thing.Fish]

@HMS_Irruncible

This is nothing like giving Palestine to a population of European residents who hadn’t lived there for a thousand years, purely based on the claims of religious texts, pretending like the people who already lived there weren’t even people who mattered.

Dude, pay attention. It’s been explained multiple times in this thread that Zionism was an anti-religious movement.

[Odesio]

@MrDibble

It’s decolonialism when *everyone who was there when it was a colony" gets to be free of the colonial power. It’s not decolonialism when you declare yourself free and then move a whole lot of people in who didn’t live there under that colonial power.

Decolonization is one of those funny words that is sometimes tricky to define. I’ve heard of efforts to decolonize the game Dungeons & Dragons for example. The first definition I could find online says that it’s about “cultural, psychological, and economic freedom for indigenous people.” So even if Israel wasn’t created via a colonial project, I suppose the Palestinians count as indigenous people.

[Johnny_Bravo]

@Babale

The point is that the Jewish people were made homeless and never allowed to settle anywhere else.

Gosh, haven’t you been keeping up with the thread? They became Europeans. They settled in Europe. They were the first, uh, true international cosmopolitans! Free as the wind! Beholden to none! It was a wild and joyous ride until they went and kept pogromming themselves from one place to the next.

[Babale]

@HMS_Irruncible

No matter how many consequences you throw at this, you cannot square the circle that who hadn’t lived in Palestine for a thousand years decided to go back and form a country on the backs of people who had been living there a thousand years.

Let me just point out the (unintentionally, I assume) insidious nature of this statement.

According to @HMS_Irruncible the Jews can’t go back to Israel because they hadn’t been there for a thousand years.

But the Jewish People have been homeless for two thousand years. Hence the song -

Our hope is not yet extinguished
The hope that is two thousand years old
To be a free people in our land

But if so sorry, two thousand years is just too long to hold on to a claim and so sorry, settling somewhere you have no claim to is colonialism then there can be only one conclusion:

@Johnny_Bravo

they should have done what they always did - gone back to quietly living on the fringes of society until the next pogroms.

In other words, “Shut up and be thankful we aren’t gassing you”.

Again.

Fuck.

That.

[Thing.Fish]

But the Jews were indigenous to that area first! Well, not “first”, but none of the previous occupants exist as nations anymore.

[Johnny_Bravo]

@Babale

But the Jewish People have been homeless for two thousand years.

Our other great crime was holding onto our identity during the diaspora. We should have had the good taste to commit cultural seppuku after the first thousand years or so.

I mean, look at it from their point of view. It’s kind of embarassing for the western world to have to deal with an ethnicity that it tried to purge again and again and again, and we just keep popping up asking when we can go on home.

[Thing.Fish]

It’s almost as though HMS Irruncible doesn’t actually give a shit about the rights of Jews and would be happy to see us all dead.

[Fear_Itself]

Nnnnmmmm

[What_Exit]

Moderating

Well this is really attacking the poster and not the post. Dial it down a lot please

[Thing.Fish]

Never fucking mind.

[Odesio]

@Thing.Fish

But the Jews were indigenous to that area first! Well, not “first”, but none of the previous occupants exist as nations anymore.

I’m just the messenger here. For any who might be unaware, I just wanted to point out the the idea of decolonization is being used in a lot of different areas. Including in a lot of areas where I don’t see a direct connection to colonization.

[Johnny_Bravo]

Maybe the rule is that if a civilization kicks you out, but then that civilization collapses, you have a 50-year window to return to your homeland. After that, it’s tough luck. You should’ve filed your claim at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri.

[Babale]

@Johnny_Bravo

Maybe the rule is that if a civilization kicks you out, but then that civilization collapses, you have a 50-year window to return to your homeland.

Just so I can be sure that I have my paperwork in order, that’s 50 years from the fall of Rome? Which one?

[Johnny_Bravo]

@Babale

50 years from the fall of Rome? Which one?

with much love to Babale, of course

[DPRK]

I do not know about the State of Israel, but the Book of Joshua describes plenty of unrepentant ethnic cleansing…

[MrDibble]

@iiandyiiii

“Colonialism is always unacceptable” seems to me to be an accepted axiom for most of the left.

Maybe “the left” needs to learn more nuance.

@iiandyiiii

there should be a term separating the truly monstrous exploitation … I thought that term was colonialism.

If it turns out a straightforward application of the term fits an example you don’t like, the issue isn’t with the term. It’s that you like something you think you shouldn’t.

Colonialism is a bad thing. But some bad things are nevertheless somewhat acceptable because other things are worse.

I mean - Mexican colonialism - an unalloyed bad, right? But - hearts ripped out on altars -
could you have made that stop without colonialism? Possibly, there’s always other route, but it certainly did put a stop to it. So that aspect of Mexican colonialism adds grey to the otherwise all-black tale. Similarly, Jews having a place of refuge is a good that tints the bad of Palestinian displacement somewhat.

Whether that renders the Israel situation “acceptable” very much depends on whether you actually believe that European and MENA Jews otherwise had nowhere to go. Me, I’m not so sure, I think America would also have worked.

@iiandyiiii

Where could/should they have gone? Jim Crow/KKK America? How/why could they have had any confidence that America, which tolerated and even encouraged lynchings and white supremacist violence, would have been a safe place for them?

Were there many lynchings of Jews in New York City (2 million Jews out of 7.5 milion total pop. in 1950) or LA (225K/1.5 million) in the postwar era? The idea that post-War America would have been as dangerous a place for Jews as it was for Blacks is a bit much, raising the spectre of lynchings is just misplaced there.