[RD] Hamas/Israeli War News One: Hostages and Invasion

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I would hazard your reply will be: every country in the new world, Australia and New Zealand.

immigration?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

There's a stark difference between immigration and colonization

 

[amadeus]

There's a stark difference between immigration and colonization

I would say I agree with qualifications. If we’re going to say the difference is stark, how are we going to define the two? America was colonized, but I don’t think an Englishman moving to Chicago today would classify himself as a colonist. 1900? 1850? 1800? 1700?

In relation to Israel, who are the colonists? Jews who fled Europe before and during the war? In the immediate aftermath? During the cold war? What if they fled from other Mideastern and N. African countries (hundreds of thousands did!) Some of them we might be able to classify as both colonists and refugees.

I wouldn’t expect you to have answers for every ? mark in this post—I don’t, but I don‘t think the difference is as stark as it looks on first glance.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Weasel words

In what world does advertising palestinian homes and space for people who are nominally jewish by descent, even if they aren't practicing lt, not count as a form of colonization

Regardless of what caused it, sending millions of Jewish people to a single area in hopes of turning it "ethnically Jewish" is colonization

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It becomes even worse for your argument @amadeus when they actively deny Palestinians the right to return to their homes, Nevermind that this entire conversation is happening in response to on going Israeli attempts at ethnic cleansing of said remaining Palestinians

 

[pigswill]

Also most everywhere in Europe but centuries earlier. In Britain for instance the Celts moved up from Iberia and became the dominant culture, then the Romans came and became the dominant culture, followed by the Saxons, followed by the Danes, followed by the Normans.

 

[Gorbles]

In relation to Israel, who are the colonists? Jews who fled Europe before and during the war? In the immediate aftermath? During the cold war? What if they fled from other Mideastern and N. African countries (hundreds of thousands did!) Some of them we might be able to classify as both colonists and refugees.

The Zionist project (as defined at the time by actual self-professed Zionists) made it an explicitly colonial venture even if it accepted those displaced by the horrors of the Holocaust (and any other antisemitism).

 

[NinjaCow64]

1. What makes them an ethnic group?

An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment.

My knowledge on the history of the region is very limited, so the only part that I know is that the Mandate for Palestine came into existence after the surrender of the Ottomans—I’m not familiar with how they governed the other Arab groups under their control, now Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, but I know they had some division and as far as I know it took very little into account re: grouping people together based on an ethnic identity.

From my understanding Palestinians were considered separate from the Turks, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians ect for a very long time.

I would hazard your reply will be: every country in the new world, Australia and New Zealand.

Just because it happened everywhere does not make it a good thing we should continue to do.

If we’re going to say the difference is stark, how are we going to define the two? America

[...]

I wouldn’t expect you to have answers for every ? mark in this post—I don’t, but I don‘t think the difference is as stark as it looks on first glance.

While we could have a nuanced discussion about America or even the Israel of ~80 years ago, the difference between settler and immigrant in Israel is incredibly obvious and stark.

An article published in 2020 shows that migration into Israel can be easily classified into four categories:

1. (Usually white) Jewish migrants returning under the law of return that, in theory, grants Israeli citizenship to Jews and their children immediately upon immigration (there are certain important caveats).
2. Non-Jewish migrants, primarily from the former Soviet Union (FSU) and Ethiopia, arriving under the auspices of the 1970 amendment of the Law of Return.
3. Temporary labor migrants, chiefly from Asia, who were recruited to replace Palestinian workers after the first Intifada (the Palestinian uprising in 1987)
4. Asylum seekers from sub-Saharan Africa crossing the southern Egyptian border without authorization since the middle of the 2000s.

The four groups are treated very differently.

Jews returning under the right of return are given a great deal of financial and government support.

As the self-defined homeland for the Jewish diaspora, Israel is committed to the successful integration of those arriving under the Law of Return. These newcomers not only have privileged access to citizenship and its benefits, but they also have access to specific integration policies and generous programs, including financial assistance during their first year in Israel. Other integration supports include free Hebrew instruction, loans for buying a house, grants for university students, assistance in finding employment, job retraining, and financial support for employers who hire immigrants.

Non-Jewish migrants are usually either relatives of Jewish people who move to Israel under the Law of Return (usually by marriage) or Ethiopians from the Beta Israel community (these Ethiopians are known as Falas Mura). While I believe these groups also benefit from the financial and social benefits given to new Jewish arrivals, Ethiopian Jews are treated extremely poorly in part because their ancestors converted from Judaism to Christianity and also because of blatant racism against Africans. They are subject to horrific things such as forced sterilisation and general mistreatment.

Before relations between Israel and the occupied territories soured, Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank who weren't Israeli citizens were used as a labour force for all the jobs that Israelis didn't want to do (e.g construction, agriculture and customer service). When relations between Israelis and Palestinians turned sour, the Israelis felt they could no longer rely on Palestinian labour for these tasks so they turned to what western countries do when they have jobs that need doing that locals don't want to do - turn to immigrant labour from the third world. They also expanded immigrants to do caregiving work for the elderly.

Temporary labor migrants are formally recruited mainly for three main sectors: agriculture, construction, and domestic caregiving. Unlike the construction and agriculture sectors, where labor migrants replaced Palestinian workers, the recruitment of foreign workers for the domestic caregiving sector created an entirely new employment niche staffed exclusively by non-nationals. The Long-Term Care Insurance Act, implemented in 1988, marked the first large-scale arrival of caregiving workers. The law permits those in need of geriatric care to hire non-Israeli workers to provide round-the-clock care, allowing the elderly to continue living at home. The Israeli government sets quotas for labor migrants in agriculture and construction (approximately 29,000 workers in each sector in 2019); work permits for non-Israeli caregivers are not capped.

Labour migrants have no permanent path to citizenship and are often treated extremely poorly.

While Israel has progressive laws protecting workers’ rights for all residents, citizen or not, in practice, there is a huge gap between the laws on paper and their implementation. The violation of migrant workers’ social and civil rights owes more to the lack of infrastructure around the laws, compounded by the state’s unwillingness to enforce them. The precarious status of foreign workers confines them to the margins of the Israeli economy and society.

The next group are refugees, primarily arriving from North Africa. Like all countries in the global north, refugees are treated extremely poorly, they are often detained indefinitely, subject to restrictions on internal movement and are often cocered into departure back into their own country. While there is a theoretical path to citizenship and aslyum, of applications recieved only 1% have been processed and accepted.

What can we conclude from all this?

Well, clearly the difference between settler, immigrant and undesirable subhuman in Israel is clearly deliniated and based on race and religion. This is another point in favour of calling Israel an aparthied state, as they clearly seperate people into distinct groups based on race:

1. (Usually white) Jewish Israeli settlers by birth or immigration and their families. They are given money to either live in Israel or further deprive Palestinians of land (Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza are given even more money by the state).
2. Ethiopian and Arab Israeli citizens who are treated racistly and subject to state and public harassement.
3. A subclass of non-citizen workers who perform all the most backbreaking and poorly paid labour that Israelis don't want to do.
4. Refugees who are detainted, harassed and coerced into returning to their own country.
5. Palestinians who exist to be driven out of the country or exterminated to make room for more Israeli settlers.

This is a horrific system and it must be opposed.

 

[Zardnaar]

Where in history did this happen

Any Colonial country, Turks, Magyars, Roman Empire, various tribes in now whats Ukraine and Balkans.

Central Asian nomads.

 

[pigswill]

I'm attempting a summary because its a big and confusing subject. Obviously any attempt at a summary will result in a gross over-simplification of complex issues

The concepts of 'race' and the 'nation state' were very much 19th century inventions. Zionism was a product of the 19th Century zeitgeist. Zionism expressed the idea that Jews were a racial group that should have their own nation state, located in the former kingdom of Israel. The facts that Israel as an independent political entity disappeared more than two thousand years earlier and the area that constituted the former kingdom of Israel had a significant Palestinian population for a couple of thousand years were largely ignored.
As a result there was an increase in the immigration of Jews to Israel/Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries which accelerated in the 1930s/40s. Britain (yes, my country) messed things up in the early 20th century by promising the Palestinians and the Jews their own national homelands in the same area, with perhaps a somewhat naive idea that they would just get along in the same country.
Unfortunately for Britain a significant number of Jews and a significant number of Palestinians weren't interested in sharing, leading to the declaration of an independent Jewish state of Israel in 1947, subsequent attempts by the surrounding Palestinians and Arab States to eliminate Israel which all basically failed and lead to the geographical expansion of Israel, the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel and the expulsion of Jews from the surrounding Arab states.
Israel was then in a position to essentially control Palestine which was divided into the two areas of Gaza and the West Bank, hived off the civil government of these areas to nominally independent administrations while maintaining strict military and border controls. Perhaps unsurprisingly a number of Palestinians were really quite unhappy with this situation, with the most recent expression of this unhappiness occurring on October 7, 2023.

 

[Yeekim]

Well, clearly the difference between settler, immigrant and undesirable subhuman in Israel is clearly deliniated and based on race and religion.

This conclusion ignores existence of ~20% of Israeli citizens, who share race and religion with Palestinians...

 

[soundjata]

I'm attempting a summary because its a big and confusing subject. Obviously any attempt at a summary will result in a gross over-simplification of complex issues

Nice attempt at a summary.

I don't agree with your last sentence though. "7th of October.. expression of unhappiness"
You and I don't know the motivation behind the acts of the perpetrators. We know it was a shockingly violent bloodshed.
That most Palestinians have had (and still have) reasons to be unhappy remains true of course. We can give it a name : oppression.

 

[Gorbles]

This conclusion ignores existence of ~20% of Israeli citizens, who share race and religion with Palestinians...

I recommend reading up more on Arab-Israelis before trying (as usual, apparently is the case) to trying to gotcha people. Heck, just reading the entire post you quoted a part of would be enough.

 

[pigswill]

soundjata: you should be aware that two essential British traits are colonial exploitation and understatement.

 

[Kyriakos]

Is the israeli plan really to expel everyone (virtually everyone) from Gaza and then the WB? Because it does look like it. Another massive gamble, of course, unless it is certain the US public (Eu doesn't matter) won't force any change in US policy - because if US policy changes, Israel will now be in real existential threat.

There is also the looming risk of a generalized conflict, and ultimately premature WW3 due to piling of wars.

 

[Yeekim]

I recommend reading up more on Arab-Israelis before trying (as usual, apparently is the case) to trying to gotcha people. Heck, just reading the entire post you quoted a part of would be enough.

You are free to quote relevant parts of that post explaining (or otherwise enlighten me) on how "Arab-Israelis" and "Palestinians" are separated based on race and religion.

 

[Gorbles]

You are free to quote relevant parts of that post explaining (or otherwise enlighten me) on how "Arab-Israelis" and "Palestinians" are separated based on race and religion.

You're saying something different to what you were previously. That's two attempted gotchas in a row, sorry, but you can do your own reading. It's literally there on the page, and you skimmed past it to quote an excerpt in order to try and dunk on NinjaCow.

In order for good faith to prevail, you have to actually put in the legwork as well. NinjaCow did.

 

[Kyriakos]

You are free to quote relevant parts of that post explaining (or otherwise enlighten me) on how "Arab-Israelis" and "Palestinians" are separated based on race and religion.

Those stayed, for a number of reasons, and weren't kicked out after the nakba. You can say it was at least less monstrous from Israel to not run pogroms against them (others in the region have), but it's too little. Israel also refuses the right of the ethnically same group that was kicked out in the nakba, to return.

I could rephrase it as such: Israel isn't as backward as virtually everyone else in the region, but surely that isn't to be brought up to justify them killing (already) 1% of all palestinian children in Gaza. It's a genocide. You wouldn't bring up ww2 Germany being less backward than Poland (who also run a small war, against Czechoslovakia, to grab land) etc in some respects then, to excuse their actions, so don't do it for Israel either.

 

[Yeekim]

You're saying something different to what you were previously. That's two attempted gotchas in a row, sorry, but you can do your own reading.

I am not.

The post in question concluded that treatment of Palestinians as "undesirable subhumans" is based on their race and religion.

Existence of significant Israeli Arab minority, sharing both race and religion with Palestinians, demonstrates this conclusion to be erroneous.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Britain (yes, my country) messed things up in the early 20th century by promising the Palestinians and the Jews their own national homelands in the same area, with perhaps a somewhat naive idea that they would just get along in the same country.

The Jews were very influential in finance particularly in the USA, and the UK had been
desperately borrowing money from the USA to fight a war (WW1) it had looked like losing.

The idea was that by sending that Letter they would gain support from jews worldwide,
but most particularly from wealthy Jews in the USA.

Decode being: help us pay for the war and you can have that bit of the Ottoman empire.

And I have no doubt that President Woodrow Wilson regarded British flexibility as part
of his price for the USA entering WW1 on the side of Britain and France.