|
99pct of germs posted:Aren't Jewish diaspora seen as expendable to Zionists anyway? I distinctly recall and article about Israeli society largely having a dim view of non-Israeli Jews. Even using the word diaspora to describe Jews not living in Israel is playing into the Zionist idea that Israel is objectively the Jewish homeland.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
KillHour posted:Even using the word diaspora to describe Jews not living in Israel is playing into the Zionist idea that Israel is objectively the Jewish homeland. You don't have to be Zionist to be aware that the Jewish people were dispersed into the Roman empire after centuries of war in Palestine and specifically the Bar Kochba revolt in the second century AD. I mean, a diaspora technically exists, Jews did not descend from space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Roman_Empire
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 20:35
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:You don't have to be Zionist to be aware that the Jewish people were dispersed into the Roman empire after centuries of war in Palestine and specifically the Bar Kochba revolt in the second century AD. I mean, a diaspora technically exists, Jews did not descend from space. Jews continued to as a sizable minority in Palestine until the Mamluk pogroms a thousand years later but yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
The mainstream media continues to be absolutely and utterly unhinged in its portrayal of the anti-genocide student protests. MSNBC had NYU marketing professor Scott Galloway on "Morning Joe," who had this to say: https://twitter.com/JuliannaFrieman/status/1782744889681179045 Note that Julianna Frieman is a Daily Caller writer, so presumably she approves of what Galloway is saying here. Her tweet undersells how absolutely execrable this segment is, though. Galloway's comparison of what's going on on campuses to someone shouting anti-LGBTQ+ or racist slurs goes completely unchallenged by the host, of course. And this is said to be the POTUS' favorite show. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Even using the word diaspora to describe Jews not living in Israel is playing into the Zionist idea that Israel is objectively the Jewish homeland. It objectively is...? In the same way in most languages the term "motherland" usually refers to a place seen as historically as being the place where a given people originate from. The "rodina" or Russian Motherland being "Mother Russia" etc. Of course this will differ based on ones degree of assimilation and this swaps to a different cultural context, i.e Nth generation immigrants to the US who are now "American" and thus America becomes their homeland; so this relies a lot on ones self-identification and sense of belonging. Israel can be objectively a or the jewish homeland, with jews having a long standing historical claim without the genocide of Palestinians being justified of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:12
|
|
|
What do you mean “a long standing historical claim”? Do you mean a claim to that being their motherland or an actual claim to the physical land itself?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
almost as if there were two peoples both with valid millennias-old claim to live there weird oh well, no solution possible, back to the genocides!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
The idea that people of a certain ethnicity can lay claim to a "historic homeland" as theirs by right, is literally blood and soil nationalism is it not ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:The idea that people of a certain ethnicity can lay claim to a "historic homeland" as theirs by right, is literally blood and soil nationalism is it not ? yeah there's a direct through line from 1848 to 1948 unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Even using the word diaspora to describe Jews not living in Israel is playing into the Zionist idea that Israel is objectively the Jewish homeland. this is not true. being in a diaspora has been a fundamental part of judaism for a really long time. that's what rabbinic judaism is in just my personal opinion: the jewish homeland was lost not just in place, but in time, and i consider israeli jews to still be part of the diaspora
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:What do you mean “a long standing historical claim”? Do you mean a claim to that being their motherland or an actual claim to the physical land itself? Both in this case? But in any case "Claims" (whether for arbitrary clay, i.e Japanese claims on the Kurils, or Korea's or China's claims on random islands, etc, or for something that counts as a homeland) aren't something that is discretely owned by nation-states as casus beli like its a game of Europa Universalis, but is something that the group collectively has that the "State" or "Country" representing the Nation i.e Nation-State manages on their behalf via the government that represents their interests in the general case. In the case of a people without a government no one can really say they don't have a particular claim either to land or a homeland. Unless you're the sort of person who thinks national identities and cultural identities are "imagined communities" than maybe this isn't something you ascribe currency towards but in general this is how it generally works. As Lum indicates and implies above, both peoples in this case have long standing historical ties to the region, this can be a true statement but also not justify Israel's recent actions. OctaMurk posted:The idea that people of a certain ethnicity can lay claim to a "historic homeland" as theirs by right, is literally blood and soil nationalism is it not ? That's not what's being said here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
So if and when Israel assaults Rafah how exactly is that supposed to work? Like isn't it just completely jam packed with all the Palestinians that were driven out of the northern areas or have they mostly returned to those areas now (to completely destroyed homes)? Like is Israel going to literally drive their tanks into the tent encampments and start blasting? I mean it's Israel we're talking about so I can totally believe they would do that but it seems almost too barbaric even for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So if and when Israel assaults Rafah how exactly is that supposed to work? Like isn't it just completely jam packed with all the Palestinians that were driven out of the northern areas or have they mostly returned to those areas now (to completely destroyed homes)? Like is Israel going to literally drive their tanks into the tent encampments and start blasting? I mean it's Israel we're talking about so I can totally believe they would do that but it seems almost too barbaric even for them. The plan is for Israel is to "concentrate" them in some sort of "camps" https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1782421635619856806 https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1782423294714511606 https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1782824793798046201
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So if and when Israel assaults Rafah how exactly is that supposed to work? Like isn't it just completely jam packed with all the Palestinians that were driven out of the northern areas or have they mostly returned to those areas now (to completely destroyed homes)? Like is Israel going to literally drive their tanks into the tent encampments and start blasting? I mean it's Israel we're talking about so I can totally believe they would do that but it seems almost too barbaric even for them. what about the last 6 months (or much longer for that matter) would make you think that killing people in tents would be too barbaric for them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
Piell posted:The plan is for Israel is to "concentrate" them in some sort of "camps" Lol I believe the friendly term is "humanitarian islands"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It objectively is...? In the same way in most languages the term "motherland" usually refers to a place seen as historically as being the place where a given people originate from. The "rodina" or Russian Motherland being "Mother Russia" etc. Of course this will differ based on ones degree of assimilation and this swaps to a different cultural context, i.e Nth generation immigrants to the US who are now "American" and thus America becomes their homeland; so this relies a lot on ones self-identification and sense of belonging. nah Israel was'nt 'the jewish land' for like 1900 years in-between the roman conquest and the collapse of the british empire rights to return are all well and good but if you think they stretch back into literal ancient history to justify creating an ethnostate i've got bad news for you e: Nebalebadingdong posted:this is not true. being in a diaspora has been a fundamental part of judaism for a really long time. that's what rabbinic judaism is  alternatively: Lum_ posted:almost as if there were two peoples both with valid millennias-old claim to live there don't be a biden be an alexander unleash the B52s to finally flatten the whole region, create a wasteland, and call it peace. not like anyone will be left to fight over the resulting real life radioactive fallout theme park suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:50
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Piell posted:The plan is for Israel is to "concentrate" them in some sort of "camps" That's only enough tents for a few thousand people. does not bode well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Both in this case? But in any case "Claims" (whether for arbitrary clay, i.e Japanese claims on the Kurils, or Korea's or China's claims on random islands, etc, or for something that counts as a homeland) aren't something that is discretely owned by nation-states as casus beli like its a game of Europa Universalis, but is something that the group collectively has that the "State" or "Country" representing the Nation i.e Nation-State manages on their behalf via the government that represents their interests in the general case. In the case of a people without a government no one can really say they don't have a particular claim either to land or a homeland. The concept of "imagined community" with regards to nationalism doesn't mean it's made up out of whole cloth, but rather that it's a large group of people for whom their shared sense of community exists mostly in their imagination because they couldn't possibly know every other member of that community. Instead they have shared values, culture, religion, language, all the hallmarks what makes up "a people" or "a nation". So Zionism is not different at all from various ethnic nation states of Europe in principle but it is by circumstance. The various nation-states in Europe were made ethnically more homogenous than their regions had ever been in the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, and they can have all sort of policies to make sure it stays that way, but Israel was established in a region where the Israelis would have to displace those who were there previously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 22:02
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:nah Israel was'nt 'the jewish land' for like 1900 years in-between the roman conquest and the collapse of the british empire As I mentioned multiple times now it can be true that a people can have a ties to a particular area without it justifying violent acts in order to return to that land; this is specifically in regarding KillHours assertion which implies peoples don't have "objective homelands"; likewise "claims" for a general use of the term, doesn't justify violence (for anyone). In any case your claim here is incorrect, as was discussed earlier in the thread there was a significant Jewish presence in what we could call the Holy Land for hundreds of years even after the revolts against the Romans, and there were multiple pogroms and efforts by the different conquerers of the region to expel the jews, there was still a pretty significant presence until around 700ish years ago. But if you want to go on to say "Well 700 years is too long either" I can just say that I don't really think its particularly convincing as an argument, as Native Americans have had crimes against them dating back to a similar length of time ago by Europeans (lets say 500 years) and I think it doesn't really pass muster to say that whats past is past and nothing can be done to rectify the damage done to them. I don't think there is a statute of limitations on genocide as long as some number of the victimized group still exists today who carry on the memory of what happened to them. Grimnarsson posted:The concept of "imagined community" with regards to nationalism doesn't mean it's made up out of whole cloth, but rather that it's a large group of people for whom their shared sense of community exists mostly in their imagination because they couldn't possibly know every other member of that community. Instead they have shared values, culture, religion, language, all the hallmarks what makes up "a people" or "a nation". So Zionism is not different at all from various ethnic nation states of Europe in principle but it is by circumstance. The various nation-states in Europe were made ethnically more homogenous than their regions had ever been in the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, and they can have all sort of policies to make sure it stays that way, but Israel was established in a region where the Israelis would have to displace those who were there previously. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying or how it relates to what I'm saying. I think it is correct to say that it is true that a random Frenchmen can't possibly know every other Frenchman, but it is still true that a Frenchman will generally see themselves as being in a community with a random Frenchman even if they don't know them, because that idea, that ideal they hold about the community of their nationality holds value to them and many others as shaped by history and material conditions. The circumstance isn't really relevant here for the context of this discussion, because even if Israel never came to exist, jews around the world would likely still continue to feel a connection to the region, it would still be their homeland, would want to do pilgramages there and visit it, or move there if legally and economically able and so on; these are all very understandable and commonly understood sentiments that aren't really disputable in a similar way by analogy a 3rd generation Russo-American might want to visit Russia because of stories he's heard from his grandma about the domovoi. The actual country in question that exists isn't relevant beyond the qualifier "but still wouldn't justify the violence they're doing", we're talking specifically about KillHour's claim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Both in this case? But in any case "Claims" (whether for arbitrary clay, i.e Japanese claims on the Kurils, or Korea's or China's claims on random islands, etc, or for something that counts as a homeland) aren't something that is discretely owned by nation-states as casus beli like its a game of Europa Universalis, but is something that the group collectively has that the "State" or "Country" representing the Nation i.e Nation-State manages on their behalf via the government that represents their interests in the general case. In the case of a people without a government no one can really say they don't have a particular claim either to land or a homeland. Israel doesn’t really have long standing historical claims to the land, do they? They have the one very old claim, that Jews lived there thousands of years ago. But my understanding of the situation is that until modern Zionism emerged as a political force in the late 1800s, really until they got the backing of the British government in the early 1900s, there wasn’t a significant Jewish population in Palestine for hundreds of years. Edit: I see this point has already been made Gripweed fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
I don't see how this is relevant unless you're denying that Palestinians also have a long standing historical claim to the land, and that their rights to it aren't violated by the creation of a Jewish ethnostate in that land.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Israel doesn’t really have long standing historical claims to the land, do they? They have the one very old claim, that Jews lived there thousands of years ago. But my understanding of the situation is that until modern Zionism emerged as a political force in the late 1800s, really until they got the backing of the British government in the early 1900s, there wasn’t a significant Jewish population in Palestine for hundreds of years. Why is living in that land the only way to maintain a "claim"? Returning to Palestine has been a central value of Jewish religion, and correspondingly of Jewish culture, for about 2000 years without interruption. Does that count for nothing because they didn't have the minimum number of people (how many did they need) in the land itself to maintain rights in some racialized property framework? If so, does that mean that if Israel kicks all the Palestinians out of Palestine for long enough, then the Palestinian claim will simply expire like the Jewish one apparently did? I think there are just examples of how it is not reasonable to ascribe rights, particularly property rights, to national identities or ethnic cohorts. Raenir Salazar's insistence that "this is how it generally works" isn't compelling to me either. I think Israel is another example showing that "how it generally works" is in fact unworkable, that recognizing ethnic cohorts as agents with rights is highly problematic. Because the ethnic cohorts lack strict definition and capacity to choose unless laws are passed to reify racist ideology, and because recognizing ethnic cohorts as agents with rights is not meaningful unless those rights might supersede the rights of individual people to live in dignity and security without forced transfer or undemocratic representation. In Israel we have seen both of these problems for decades, culminating in today's vicious horrors. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Many Palestinians are ultimately the result of cultural continuity between Semitic (originally Jewish, Samaritan, or pagan) Canaanites, or (probably Greek) Philistines, all of which can be traced back to the same timeframe, or before, as the particular Hebrew ethnogenesis. These populations converted in various proportions to Christianity, and (some) then to Islam. Culture isn't static - as these populations are different from their ancient forbearers, so the Hebrews of 100 CE were vastly different from those of 600 BC, and those of today. Regardless, it is stupid, immoral, and incoherent to treat ethnic tenure as having any bearing on a human's right to live at some location. As such, it makes a lot of sense that Raenir Salazar would hold such an opinion. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Many Palestinians are ultimately the result of cultural continuity between Semitic (originally Jewish, Samaritan, or pagan) Canaanites, or (probably Greek) Philistines, all of which can be traced back to the same timeframe, or before, as the particular Hebrew ethnogenesis. I think we agree and you're sharing this just to push back against a Zionist "land without a people" narrative, but just to be clear, the belief that this is relevant to a Palestinian's right to live in Palestine is insanity, literal "blood-and-soil" stuff. Everyone who lives in Palestine has the right to live there because forced population transfer is a demonic war crime. And they furthermore have the right to free movement and democratic representation by a state whose sole mission is to provide them with safety and dignity. Not because of who their parents or ancestors were, or where they lived, just because they're people who live in the area. If you are a random immigrant who showed up in Palestine yesterday, you are entitled to these rights as someone who can trace their entire ancestry back to ancient Canaanites who never left the land ever. Nebalebadingdong posted:this is not true. being in a diaspora has been a fundamental part of judaism for a really long time. that's what rabbinic judaism is Completely agree with the first paragraph and thank you for making that correction, second paragraph I kinda agree (there are both theological and literal layers to exile just like there are theological and literal layers to any relationship). Israeli Jews really do live in the geography and climate to which the whole Jewish religion is calibrated, and they do not live as ethnic minorities - they are not literally in exile. But theologically, as long as the Shechinah is in exile, every Jew and maybe every person is too. Anyway I think you might be interested in Shaul Maggid's "Necessity of Exile" which is his own take on these questions. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 23:41
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I think we agree and you're sharing this just to push back against a Zionist "land without a people" narrative, but just to be clear, the belief that this is relevant to a Palestinian's right to live in Palestine is insanity, literal "blood-and-soil" stuff. e: Peace in the Levant, if it comes, will be through a truth-and-reconciliation process. Jews are not leaving, and the Palestinians aren’t leaving either. If it can work in South Africa, it can work in Israel. South Africans recognize that both Blacks and Whites have the right to live there. It can work the same in Israel. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Apr 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I don't see how this is relevant unless you're denying that Palestinians also have a long standing historical claim to the land, and that their rights to it aren't violated by the creation of a Jewish ethnostate in that land. That's the core problem with Zionism, and it's shared by every colonial project: the annoying reality that people already live in that bright untamed land you found for yourself/are reclaiming for the glory of centuries past. Zionists tend to react to this by either denying Palestinians exist (really, you can tell when this is happening because they refer to them as "Palestinians", and insist that the very concept of Palestinians as a people were invented in the 1960s), saying they should all move to Jordan (neither Palestinians nor Jordan are not wild about this idea for some reason) or just sticking their fingers in their ears and hoping the problem goes away magically on its own (this has been the Israeli governmental policy for the past 25 years). Ironically the one Zionist willing to actually acknowledge that their new land was already taken was one of the hardest-line Zionists, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who was the spiritual father of Likud (via Irgun, the terror group he founded). While his contemporaries advocated ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population, Jabotinsky insisted that the Zionist project would fail if the Palestinians were not given full and equal rights in the new state: in his words, "in every cabinet where the prime minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab and vice versa." It's safe to say he would be absolutely horrified by today's religious Zionism and its apartheid implementation where the few Arab members of the Knesset are treated as un-people. The idea of a nation shared by two people is unthinkable now more than ever; what Gazan will ever want to talk to an Israeli Jew ever again, after the past six months? And the Israeli government is ensuring through its messianic zionist/fascist factions that a two state solution will never happen, assuming it ever could. Unless something *dramatically* changes, the region will suffer neverending war for the next generation, if not more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:19
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Israel doesn’t really have long standing historical claims to the land, do they? They have the one very old claim, that Jews lived there thousands of years ago. But my understanding of the situation is that until modern Zionism emerged as a political force in the late 1800s, really until they got the backing of the British government in the early 1900s, there wasn’t a significant Jewish population in Palestine for hundreds of years. Insofar as its been said that "Israel != Jews", and not sure why you're saying this as I never said it; jewish people absolutely have a long standing historical claim to the land, and it can be said that "objectively" can consider it to be their homeland. And as I already wrote, not thousands of years ago, mere hundreds. Civilized Fishbot posted:Why is living in that land the only way to maintain a "claim"? Returning to Palestine has been a central value of Jewish religion, and correspondingly of Jewish culture, for about 2000 years without interruption. Does that count for nothing because they didn't have the minimum number of people (how many did they need) in the land itself to maintain rights in some racialized property framework? I think fwiw you're misunderstanding me, what I am saying is how it "generally works" is the idea that a people can generally be said to have a homeland and historical ties to the land, or "claims" in a vague sense, more narrow the ability to claim that they came from there and that it is very important to their identity that this is so. That's all I'm saying. cat botherer posted:So the claim of Jewish people to the land based on hundreds of years of occupation trumps the Palestinian's claim to the land, also based on hundreds of years of occupation? Do you have a coherent point that makes any goddamn sense, or are you talking out of your rear end in service of a demented preconception? It's a good thing I didn't make this argument. e: Thread timeout apparently applies to anyone who posts so: cat botherer posted:To recap, I still don't see where I am making the argument you say I'm making? Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Apr 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Insofar as its been said that "Israel != Jews", and not sure why you're saying this as I never said it; jewish people absolutely have a long standing historical claim to the land, and it can be said that "objectively" can consider it to be their homeland. And as I already wrote, not thousands of years ago, mere hundreds. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:e: Peace in the Levant, if it comes, will be through a truth-and-reconciliation process. Jews are not leaving, and the Palestinians aren’t leaving either. If it can work in South Africa, it can work in Israel. South Africans recognize that both Blacks and Whites have the right to live there. It can work the same in Israel. I hope you're right, but given the ongoing death toll which is far and away an order of magnitude past anything the Afrikaners ever managed in a century of apartheid, I am not encouraged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
To recap,Raenir Salazar posted:Insofar as its been said that "Israel != Jews", and not sure why you're saying this as I never said it; jewish people absolutely have a long standing historical claim to the land, and it can be said that "objectively" can consider it to be their homeland. And as I already wrote, not thousands of years ago, mere hundreds. cat botherer posted:So the claim of Jewish people to the land based on hundreds of years of occupation trumps the Palestinian's claim to the land, also based on hundreds of years of occupation? Do you have a coherent point that makes any goddamn sense, or are you talking out of your rear end in service of a demented preconception? Raenir Salazar posted:It's a good thing I didn't make this argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:To recap, Raenir Salazar thinks that Jews and Palestinians both have "historical claims" to the land and neither can be assumed to trump the other. I think the language of "historical claims" forces an analysis through the lens of property rights belonging to entire race/ethnicity cohorts, which is unworkable for many reasons, including that it necessarily incites inane conversations about which races belong in the land more than which other races. The "claim of the Jewish people to the land" and "the Palestinian's claim to the land" are understandable reasons that people might immigrate to Palestine, or do tourism there. They should not have a role in any legal framework, not international law, not domestic law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Raenir Salazar thinks that Jews and Palestinians both have "historical claims" to the land and neither can be assumed to trump the other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I think that might be an overly-charitable interpretation. The rights of Israelis to live in the Levant are not under threat. The rights of Palestinians to live in the Levant are under threat, and lethally so. That isn't an overly charitable interpretation, it's clearly the plain meaning of my words. fool of sound posted:So have you changed your mind about your support for the partition then? I'm not sure what the relevance is, but if you want to relitigate a past conversation you can always DM me. e to add that your added screenshot I still don't see the relevance or any discrepancy that would be relevant. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Apr 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 00:57
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That isn't an overly charitable interpretation, it's clearly the plain meaning of my words. So have you changed your mind about your support for the partition then? e: as a reminder this is where we were when you vanished from the thread 
fool of sound fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Apr 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 01:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The mainstream media continues to be absolutely and utterly unhinged in its portrayal of the anti-genocide student protests. MSNBC had NYU marketing professor Scott Galloway on "Morning Joe," who had this to say: Morning Joe's the show that Biden watches and trusts a ton, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 01:05
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:To recap, You're assuming that he is saying the Israeli claim trumps the Palestinian one, when he isn't saying that. Look at what you quoted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 01:07
|
|
|
I don't really understand why ancestors give anyone a "historical claim" to land they've never been to where other people already live. My ancestors are from Scotland and the Netherlands, do I have a right to move there regardless of what the people already there have to say about it? Do I get specific land can I pick a plot and kick a Scotsman off? What if his ancestors immigrated to Scotland more recently. Humans migrate all over the earth, always have, claiming some right to go back and take land based on the vibes my ancestors picked up from walking on it sounds like a way to guarantee endless bloodshed
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 01:23
|
|
|
You get to keep whatever land you kick a Scotsman off and there is no upper cap of how much land you can amass
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 01:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't really understand why ancestors give anyone a "historical claim" to land they've never been to where other people already live. So part of this is its about people as a group, and not about you the individual. You might not care, but others might. I vaguely feel a calling to Manitoba because I'm part Metis, and being descended from Louis Riel is a part of my family history. Maybe you don't have the sort of family traditions or context where it makes sense to you, but I think the important thing here is being open to the way others might feel differently; especially people who regularly do communal activities like going to gatherings like a church or community centers where people mingle with other people with the same traditions. Like many nations have community outreach centers in various ethnic enclaves, China with Chinatowns for example; where the overseas community, the Chinese diaspora for example, still maintain regular contact with friends and relatives with the PRC and vice versa. Recently you had riots in Japan between the overseas Armenian and Turkish communities who still very clearly despite settling in Japan felt very strong ties to their homelands. Of course as I said, just having a claim doesn't mean you have the "right" to use violence in trying to deepen your ties or act on them in some or whatever manner, I dunno how many times I've said this or have to say this. The point I am saying is that it is in fact reasonable for a group of people to say that they view Scotland as your homeland, if you identify that way, and if you want to move to scotland or visit random people aren't really credibly able to say you shouldn't hold that belief or act on it in of course non-violent ways. Scotland and Ireland are interesting examples because of British Imperialism probably displacing people against their will and there's probably some families around the world who still pass down bitter feelings about the British, that feeling as an example, of being wronged, and more generally that connection is valid to hold onto. It's not really about "vibes" or arbitrary ancestors but what could be reasonably construed as deeply held cultural and communal beliefs and I'm not saying this justifies violence in pursuit of it. e: Butter Activities posted:The concept of a singular Jewish people not as a faith but ethnicity is absurd anyway- there are numerous ethnicities that are Jewish with very different cultural traditions and histories, from Ethiopian Jews to Ashkenazi. You can click on the quote chain to refer back to the original post being responded to. KillHour posted:Even using the word diaspora to describe Jews not living in Israel is playing into the Zionist idea that Israel is objectively the Jewish homeland. And the "why" of it, I just disagree with it and think its unhelpful? I'm not sure there needs to be anything "about" this? Lives aren't on the line in an online discussion forum. e2: VitalSigns posted:I don't see what any of that has to do with I/P See above, I'm not sure how you can say there's no claim to I/P in this discussion when it was clearly a claim relating to the I/P conflict that prompted the discussion, you'll have to explain to me why you don't see a connection there. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Apr 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
The concept of a singular Jewish people not as a faith but ethnicity is absurd anyway- there are numerous ethnicities that are Jewish with very different cultural traditions and histories, from Ethiopian Jews to Ashkenazi. Raenir Salazar posted:That isn't an overly charitable interpretation, it's clearly the plain meaning of my words. Okay what actually is your point in all this? What is any of this about? What ultimate point relevant to anything we’re talking about right now is it important that we quibble over the nature of historical ethnic claims to land with you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 01:42
|
|
