UN apologists: respond to this.

[Mouthwash]

They don't have to be part of European culture to have a reason to live in Europe.

I know. I'm being sarcastic.

"Artificial" in the sense that the vast majority majority moved there. Mouthwash said there are millions of native-born Israelis, and while that is true, prior to the 1920s the native born people in Palestine were not Jewish, certainly not Israelis as Israel did not exist.

Why should that be relevant? Arabs regularly moved around and migrated within the Middle East (the root of the famous Arab culture of hospitality was in fact their common interaction with outsiders). Furthermore, it wasn't like most of the residents had a sense of Palestine being an Arab 'territory,' which they ought to have collective control over, prior to the twentieth century. Jewish nationalism took root in Palestine before Arab nationalism did.

Immigrating to a country en masse and then engaging in an "ethnic struggle" with the indigenous people to assume control of it is invasion, plain and simple.

But you're stating those events as if they were some kind of plan. If you recall, the Arabs rejected partition. They wanted to assume control of an entire Jewish society that had (by then) already tens of thousands of native children, and a separate society, culture, and consciousness. I don't see any way to justify this reaction without invoking racial rights to land.

Interlopers is an apt term to describe what happened. The "birthright" I referred to is simply the fact that the indigenous people are the ones with a claim to establish governance over the land, not the migrants who then conquered the indigenous people and established control over it.

What constitutes "indigenous" and why should it be respected?

@Mouthwash: i very sincerely hope you stay safe in the IDF. As you know, i do think you should reconsider, but it is your choice. For the record, i am sure that if/when you see actual atrocities, you won't like it at all, and again hope you stay safe.

A large proportion of my family has been in the IDF and despite operating in hotspots like Lebanon and the West Bank none of them ever seem to recall atrocities. Maybe they're just hiding their scars, which is odd, because they seem like pretty well-adjusted, successful people.

For their own safety though, we can move that nationstate to another landmass. What would be wrong with that?

Well, uprooting them from their land completely would result in a dissolution of identity, so it isn't simply a matter of rearranging things. Also, I consider ethnic cleansing justified in order to prevent ethnic strife but not to stop interstate conflicts, no one would ever be willing to push their citizens out of an eight thousand square mile area, if they were there'd be no reason not to move the Palestinians there instead (Israel hasn't fought surrounding states since '73 and if this wasn't the case then having enough power to transplant millions of people elsewhere ought to be sufficient to pressure the aggressors to stop), and Israel isn't actually existentially threatened anymore.

Why isn't this reasoning applied to eastern Ukraine? Russia is grabbing land there, and giving it to them outright ought to solve the conflict. I can't help but feel that this line of thought is directed at Israelis because of predetermined conclusions about whether they belong there.

...what does any of this have to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population of Israel is of European origin and Israel is not in Europe? That is what makes them foreigners, at least with respect to the Palestinians.

1. This is literal and explicit racialism. Is it acceptable to kick Arabs and Roma out of Europe due to not having European origins? Even the Jews were originally Near Eastern immigrants.

2. Your assumption is itself false: over sixty percent of Israeli Jews are Sephardic/Mizrahi. They do often come from faraway places, but aside from Turkish and Persian Jews they were very similar to the Palestinians in culture. I'm a child of a Moroccan myself.

There are black people who support Donald Trump, too. Doesn't make him less racist.

I mentioned him being a member of Knesset. This important because he actually represents the attitude of Israeli Druze- it isn't mere tokenism. Here are some more examples.

These are moral transgressions whether they are formally defined as crimes or not. The UN is completely irrelevant

Then stop appealing to the UN.

It frankly terrifies me that the IDF would allow a person who openly says they see nothing wrong with ethnic cleansing

Under very particular circumstances.

and have spoken positively about creating Bantustans in America.

The IDF isn't monitoring my internet and wouldn't refuse me on the grounds of a three-year-old troll thread in any case.

Then again, this is the same country where some people see nothing wrong with setting up lawn chairs to watch artillery bombardments of cities,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_trauma

 

[FriendlyFire]

And this is different from the Nazi claims on the Polish Corridor how?

What constitutes "indigenous" and why should it be respected?

Can you reconcile these two opposing statements ?

 

[Lexicus]

1. This is literal and explicit racialism. Is it acceptable to kick Arabs and Roma out of Europe due to not having European origins? Even the Jews were originally Near Eastern immigrants.

Who said it was acceptable to kick anyone out of anywhere? What I said was that I don't think the Zionists have the right to govern one square inch of Palestine.

2. Your assumption is itself false: over sixty percent of Israeli Jews are Sephardic/Mizrahi. They do often come from faraway places, but aside from Turkish and Persian Jews they were very similar to the Palestinians in culture. I'm a child of a Moroccan myself.

The majority of Israel is European. We are not talking genetically but culturally.

I mentioned him being a member of Knesset. This important because he actually represents the attitude of Israeli Druze- it isn't mere tokenism. Here are some more examples.

You've sort of lost me...I don't see how a list of prominent Druze has anything to do with whether there is systemic discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel (passing over in silence the status of the population in the occupied territories...)

Then stop appealing to the UN.

I didn't appeal to the UN, - you brought up the UN.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Ethnic groups which are forced to live together, not merely by being in the same state, but by being actually being physically intermingled.

Do you just assume that every country with ethnic minorities will end up in a backlash for them? Are you then in turn proposing that only homogenous states are the solution? Genuinely asking, not trying to be sarcastic.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Well, uprooting them from their land completely would result in a dissolution of identity, so it isn't simply a matter of rearranging things. Also, I consider ethnic cleansing justified in order to prevent ethnic strife but not to stop interstate conflicts, no one would ever be willing to push their citizens out of an eight thousand square mile area, if they were there'd be no reason not to move the Palestinians there instead (Israel hasn't fought surrounding states since '73 and if this wasn't the case then having enough power to transplant millions of people elsewhere ought to be sufficient to pressure the aggressors to stop), and Israel isn't actually existentially threatened anymore.

Reading this is just completely hilarious considering you openly spoke out for ethnic cleansing, how it is often times the best resolution in order to avoid violent conflict, then you go out of your way to say how traumatic it would be for Israelis and that in this case it does not apply.

Israeli settlers came to the west bank with zero legitimacy. They literally claimed Palestinian territory and started out as a very small minority. According to the standards you said, the best solution would have been to push the Israeli settlers out of westbank as soon as there was any ethnic conflict.

 

[JollyRoger]

We could give the Israelis double the land and half the conflict if we forcibly placed them in the American Mountain West.

 

[timtofly]

We could give the Israelis double the land and half the conflict if we forcibly placed them in the American Mountain West.

So instead of displacing Native Palestinians, they can displace Native Americans?
We could exile all US bureaucrats to Palestine, as a swap.

 

[Mouthwash]

Can you reconcile these two opposing statements ?

Before that, you should point out why you think they oppose each other.

Who said it was acceptable to kick anyone out of anywhere? What I said was that I don't think the Zionists have the right to govern one square inch of Palestine.

In democratic countries, the majority gets to govern. The majority in Israel are Zionists. How do you propose to remove 'Zionist' sovereignty without also removing democracy?

The majority of Israel is European. We are not talking genetically but culturally.

That is absolutely false (they get a lot of European music and media, but the same goes for almost any country on Earth). Israeli culture is deeply Sephardic even outside of Sephardi-majority towns. Even my mother, who is Russian-Polish by descent, only listens to Mizrahi music.

Unless you're talking about things like supporting democracy and tolerating heretics and homosexuals. They're pretty unlike the Palestinians in that regard.

You've sort of lost me...I don't see how a list of prominent Druze has anything to do with whether there is systemic discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel

It's difficult to claim that the Zionists 'subjugated' the native inhabitants when so many of those inhabitants seem to be friendly towards them.

(passing over in silence the status of the population in the occupied territories...)

Silence does suit you.

I didn't appeal to the UN, - you brought up the UN.

"[Netanyahu] has presided over war crimes, the crime of apartheid, and has violated international law by settling Israelis in territory under Israeli military occupation."

Do you just assume that every country with ethnic minorities will end up in a backlash for them? Are you then in turn proposing that only homogenous states are the solution? Genuinely asking, not trying to be sarcastic.

I wouldn't advocate ethnic cleansing unless mutually hostile ethnic groups were too intermingled with each other to be separated by partition. But yes, I think it will usually result in homogeneous states.

Keep in mind that 'ethnicity' refers more to identity than to language or religion. I wouldn't call Switzerland a multi-ethnic country.

Reading this is just completely hilarious considering you openly spoke out for ethnic cleansing, how it is often times the best resolution in order to avoid violent conflict, then you go out of your way to say how traumatic it would be for Israelis and that in this case it does not apply.

No, I simply pointed out that there were different consequences. If it were a choice between large-scale massacres and deportation, I would choose deportation. But I also described why that situation doesn't apply to Israelis in great detail, so perhaps the opportunity to label me a hypocrite was too attractive to be stopped by reading the next sentence.

Israeli settlers came to the west bank with zero legitimacy.

JollyRoger wasn't talking about the settlers.

They literally claimed Palestinian territory and started out as a very small minority. According to the standards you said, the best solution would have been to push the Israeli settlers out of westbank as soon as there was any ethnic conflict.

In general, yes- I supported removing the settlers until about a year ago. But for political reason, I think they should all stay until a Palestinian state is viable, which I don't think will happen for several more decades. It's worth mentioning that (if memory serves correctly) annexing eighty percent of the settlements to Israel would be about 9% of the West Bank. Norman Finkelstein, who is no hasbara-ist, has gone on record supporting a settlement where Israel keeps 60% of the settlements. So they aren't really *that* intermingled.

I don't respond to videos or links on this issue. Making claims is much easier than refuting them, and the claim-makers have a much easier time here since there is a dedicated online propaganda movement to assist them.

We could give the Israelis double the land and half the conflict if we forcibly placed them in the American Mountain West.

Let's do Switzerland before we talk about Israel. I vote Siberia.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

>I wouldn't advocate ethnic cleansing unless mutually hostile ethnic groups were too intermingled with each other to be separated by partition. But yes, I think it will usually result in homogeneous states.

>Keep in mind that 'ethnicity' refers more to identity than to language or religion. I wouldn't call Switzerland a multi-ethnic country.

You misunderstood my question. What I asked was whether you think ethnically (your definition) homogenous states are the only stable states.

>No, I simply pointed out that there were different consequences. If it were a choice between large-scale massacres and deportation, I would choose deportation. But I also described why that situation doesn't apply to Israelis in great detail, so perhaps the opportunity to label me a hypocrite was too attractive to be stopped by reading the next sentence.

I did read your entire post, I just disagree with the reasoning you laid out.

>JollyRoger wasn't talking about the settlers.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow your discussion with him. I was talking about settlers complete independent of what JR said.

>In general, yes- I supported removing the settlers until about a year ago. But for political reason, I think they should all stay until a Palestinian state is viable, which I don't think will happen for several more decades. It's worth mentioning that (if memory serves correctly) annexing eighty percent of the settlements to Israel would be about 9% of the West Bank. Norman Finkelstein, who is no hasbara-ist, has gone on record supporting a settlement where Israel keeps 60% of the settlements. So they aren't really *that* intermingled.

Fair point. Obviously now it's a huge problem to get rid of them - Me personally I don't think that'll ever happen. They came to stay, it's clearly to some degree supported by the govt who wanted it to happen.

>I don't respond to videos or links on this issue. Making claims is much easier than refuting them, and the claim-makers have a much easier time here since there is a dedicated online propaganda movement to assist them.

I didn't post the video specifically for you, but rather as general info for everyone itt. Besides there is nothing to "respond to" there, it's just a video explaining the history of westbank settlements. Doesn't require an answer at all.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why should that be relevant? Arabs regularly moved around and migrated within the Middle East (the root of the famous Arab culture of hospitality was in fact their common interaction with outsiders). Furthermore, it wasn't like most of the residents had a sense of Palestine being an Arab 'territory,' which they ought to have collective control over, prior to the twentieth century. Jewish nationalism took root in Palestine before Arab nationalism did.

If you believe that nationalism is a truthful proposition, then surely it doesn't matter when the national project is discovered, only that it is discovered? For example, was Zionism untrue in the many centuries before a majority of Jews became Zionists?

 

[Mouthwash]

Back from my hiatus, and I think it's better form to respond to these rather than just leave them hanging.

You misunderstood my question. What I asked was whether you think ethnically (your definition) homogenous states are the only stable states.

In the end, yes. Even if a multinational state remains reasonably stable and peaceful for fifty years, that's no guarantee that a future Black Swan event won't rip it apart. That's what happened to Syria.

I did read your entire post, I just disagree with the reasoning you laid out.

Then you should perhaps explain your disagreement rather than strawmanning me.

If you believe that nationalism is a truthful proposition, then surely it doesn't matter when the national project is discovered, only that it is discovered?

I don't think that nationalism is rigid or eternal. You didn't always exist, but it doesn't follow from that that you don't exist now. And what about versions of you from alternate Everett branches? Do they refute your existence? The fluidity of nationalism is not really a refutation of it.

For example, was Zionism untrue in the many centuries before a majority of Jews became Zionists?

Kind of. But I think it was a natural progression of Jewish identity. Even if this form of Zionism never existed, it's hard to believe that some other form wouldn't have taken its place.

 

[Ajidica]

In the end, yes. Even if a multinational state remains reasonably stable and peaceful for fifty years, that's no guarantee that a future Black Swan event won't rip it apart. That's what happened to Syria.

Because Syria having a problem with Islamists and a government whose authority wasn't the most secure was a totally unforeseeable situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_uprising_in_Syria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre

 

[Mouthwash]

Because Syria having a problem with Islamists and a government whose authority wasn't the most secure was a totally unforeseeable situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_uprising_in_Syria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre

I don't think that anyone other than Nassim Nicholas Taleb predicted the possibility of a full-scale sectarian civil war. But if you insist, there's also the 'Switzerland of the Middle East.'

 

[Ajidica]

I don't think that anyone other than Nassim Nicholas Taleb predicted the possibility of a full-scale sectarian civil war. But if you insist, there's also the 'Switzerland of the Middle East.'

I know, who could foresee the instability of a government relying on a delicate balancing act of ethnic and religious groups given separate political authority -in a highly volatile region- in a country that just over 17 years before had seen an occupation of Beirut by US marines to maintain order?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lebanon_crisis

While I'm often the first one to point out the flaws of "predicting history", expecting continued ethnic, religious, and political turmoil in Lebanon and Syria are hardly unforeseeable events.

 

[Agent327]

I don't think that anyone other than Nassim Nicholas Taleb predicted the possibility of a full-scale sectarian civil war. But if you insist, there's also the 'Switzerland of the Middle East.'

It's interesting that you should mention Lebanon, as it's the instance when the UNSC intervened to restore Lebanese authority in South Lebanon. (True, it didn't prevent the Israeli invasion of 2006, but they're still in place. And the mere fact that both Israel and Hezbollah have criticized UNIFIL shows they're doing a fairly good job there.) In spite of the occasional Israeli politician making snarky remarks about it, UNIFIL presence is entirely in the interest of Israel itself. But you probably won't hear that voiced loudly

In democratic countries, the majority gets to govern.

Not necessarily.

It's difficult to claim that the Zionists 'subjugated' the native inhabitants when so many of those inhabitants seem to be friendly towards them.

Very odd argument. The same could be said about North Korea and Communists.

I wouldn't advocate ethnic cleansing unless mutually hostile ethnic groups were too intermingled with each other to be separated by partition. But yes, I think it will usually result in homogeneous states.

Keep in mind that 'ethnicity' refers more to identity than to language or religion. I wouldn't call Switzerland a multi-ethnic country.

Seeing as you already mentioned Lebanon as the Switzerland of the Middle East, that's a rather quaint statement. (Switzerland has 4 official languages, by the way, which pretty much define their speakers identity - apart from being Swiss, that is.) But, more importantly, even by your own definition Israel is a very multi-ethnic country as well.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't think that anyone other than Nassim Nicholas Taleb predicted the possibility of a full-scale sectarian civil war.

If you read between the lines in his calls for being aware of 'black swans' and becoming 'anti-fragile', you will notice this guy is basically an apologist for sectarianism, because that is 'anti-fragile'. He is the Thomas Hobbes of the Lebanese civil war, except that unlike Hobbes, Nassim Taleb is a reactionary full of self-deceit.

Of course it is easy to predict civil war if you are aware that Syria is multi-ethnic and the Syrian government is favouritist towards the Shi'a's. It only tells us that Nassim Taleb knows a lot about Syria compared to the average Westerner. It doesn't mean his epistemology (if may even put dirt on that word) is right, because it is as obscurantist as hell and therefore defeats its own purpose. Before he termed political systems and other matters of cybernetics 'fragile', you could use the term single point of failure; yours is his deference to him.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think that nationalism is rigid or eternal. You didn't always exist, but it doesn't follow from that that you don't exist now. And what about versions of you from alternate Everett branches? Do they refute your existence? The fluidity of nationalism is not really a refutation of it

None the less, my existence is prior to my recognition of my existence. By the same token, a nationalist must argue, the nation is prior to the identification of the nation; that the national community is a really-existing phenomenon which is discovered, rather than which is simply invented. The relative lateness, therefore, of the Palestinian discovery of national self-identity has no bearing on their authenticity of that national identity, any more than the Romanians are less a nation than the French because they took longer to realise themselves in those terms. It might have been invented, but in a nationalist framework, it wouldn't matter if it wasn't invented today or three hundred years ago, because the point is never time but authenticity.

Kind of. But I think it was a natural progression of Jewish identity. Even if this form of Zionism never existed, it's hard to believe that some other form wouldn't have taken its place.

By which you are claiming that Jewish national identity pre-dates the Zionist political project, and that Zionism is simply a realisation of Jewish national identity. Therefore, the authenticity of the Jewish nation does not depend on Zionism being a successful or popular project. So, on what grounds should Palestinian nationalism be held to that more rigid standard?

If one comes at the issue from the perspective of a nationalist, at any rate.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's interesting that you should mention Lebanon, as it's the instance when the UNSC intervened to restore Lebanese authority in South Lebanon.

Countries like the US can intervene according to their desires by labeling their troops as being "international." The UN doesn't even have troops of its own.

I mean, just read this piece from 2004 if you want to see what happens when it doesn't have political backing by a state:

"Renegade commanders captured this strategic Congolese town [Bukavu] Wednesday, setting off a crisis that threatened the fragile transitional government and a peace process that ended five years of war....U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemned the capture of the eastern Congo city and called on the region's warring parties to abide by an earlier cease-fire. The United Nations defended its troops' inaction against the factions that took Bukavu, saying the mandate of its 10,800-strong Congo force did not extend to battles... Hundreds of people rioted outside U.N. headquarters in Kinshasa and in the main northeast city of Kisangani, blaming U.N. forces for failing to stop Bukavu's fall. The crowds in Kinshasa threw stones at U.N. headquarters and set vehicles afire, while protesters in Kisangani burned U.N. vehicles and a U.N. office."

The "mandate" of the UN doesn't apparently extend to fighting. Even though it had an overwhelming force in that situation.

Very odd argument. The same could be said about North Korea and Communists.

Israeli Arabs have the freedom to express their political beliefs and they can emigrate. As far as I know, the same rights are not afforded to North Koreans.

Seeing as you already mentioned Lebanon as the Switzerland of the Middle East, that's a rather quaint statement.

I've already said the Switzerland is not a multi-national country.

But, more importantly, even by your own definition Israel is a very multi-ethnic country as well.

Yeah, kind of. But the entire national culture revolves around the Jewish constituency. The Israeli Arabs tend not to identify as Israeli.

If you read between the lines in his calls for being aware of 'black swans' and becoming 'anti-fragile', you will notice this guy is basically an apologist for sectarianism, because that is 'anti-fragile'.

How so? I mean, he is kind of a sectarian apologist, but that's more a consequence of where he lives. I don't see how his idea of fat-tails or antifragility lead into sectarianism.

Of course it is easy to predict civil war if you are aware that Syria is multi-ethnic and the Syrian government is favouritist towards the Shi'a's. It only tells us that Nassim Taleb knows a lot about Syria compared to the average Westerner.

Again: who else predicted the Syrian civil war? The Assad regime didn't even look like it was in trouble while Lebanon and Iraq crumbled around it.

It doesn't mean his epistemology (if may even put dirt on that word) is right, because it is as obscurantist as hell and therefore defeats its own purpose.

It's an outside view argument. Taleb has disdain for the inside view, but that doesn't make his epistemology 'obscurantist.'

None the less, my existence is prior to my recognition of my existence. By the same token, a nationalist must argue, the nation is prior to the identification of the nation; that the national community is a really-existing phenomenon which is discovered, rather than which is simply invented.

A nation is a societal object. Therefore, it exists by merit of people acting as though it exists. The more relevant question is what the nationals view their identity as being about. In the case of secular Zionism, it was common interests among a class of people excluded from the rigid nationalism Europe as well as perceived common roots. The reason that this form of Zionism is dying is that it really doesn't have much relevance anymore.

The relative lateness, therefore, of the Palestinian discovery of national self-identity has no bearing on their authenticity of that national identity, any more than the Romanians are less a nation than the French because they took longer to realise themselves in those terms. It might have been invented, but in a nationalist framework, it wouldn't matter if it wasn't invented today or three hundred years ago, because the point is never time but authenticity.

What is authentic at one point may not be authentic at another. Regardless, I agree that timing doesn't matter in nationalism. I'm just responding to people here who think it does, using their own assumptions.

By which you are claiming that Jewish national identity pre-dates the Zionist political project, and that Zionism is simply a realisation of Jewish national identity. Therefore, the authenticity of the Jewish nation does not depend on Zionism being a successful or popular project. So, on what grounds should Palestinian nationalism be held to that more rigid standard?

Zionism is authentic because Israeli Jews believe it is more natural to live among other Jews, to have representatives for the Jewish community as a whole, and that their fate should be bound up with that of their fellow Jews. Palestinian nationalism may have similar ideas, but they all come back to one thing: possessing the land of Palestine. If they achieved their goal, they would simply fall into sectarianism or tribalism.

 

[Ajidica]

Zionism is authentic because Israeli Jews believe it is more natural to live among other Jews, to have representatives for the Jewish community as a whole, and that their fate should be bound up with that of their fellow Jews. Palestinian nationalism may have similar ideas, but they all come back to one thing: possessing the land of Palestine. If they achieved their goal, they would simply fall into sectarianism or tribalism.

If Zionism isn't bothered about where they are living, then why reject the British idea to stick them all in Uganda?

Countries like the US can intervene according to their desires by labeling their troops as being "international." The UN doesn't even have troops of its own.

I mean, just read this piece from 2004 if you want to see what happens when it doesn't have political backing by a state:

"Renegade commanders captured this strategic Congolese town [Bukavu] Wednesday, setting off a crisis that threatened the fragile transitional government and a peace process that ended five years of war....U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemned the capture of the eastern Congo city and called on the region's warring parties to abide by an earlier cease-fire. The United Nations defended its troops' inaction against the factions that took Bukavu, saying the mandate of its 10,800-strong Congo force did not extend to battles... Hundreds of people rioted outside U.N. headquarters in Kinshasa and in the main northeast city of Kisangani, blaming U.N. forces for failing to stop Bukavu's fall. The crowds in Kinshasa threw stones at U.N. headquarters and set vehicles afire, while protesters in Kisangani burned U.N. vehicles and a U.N. office."

The "mandate" of the UN doesn't apparently extend to fighting. Even though it had an overwhelming force in that situation.

Nice job providing a source and not providing the full quote.

 

[Mouthwash]

If Zionism isn't bothered about where they are living, then why reject the British idea to stick them all in Uganda?

Because Zionism is bothered about where they are living. I'm just explaining some principles of nationalism to Traitorfish.

(The land of Israel was a large part of Jewish nationalism, but it wasn't the only part, as is the case with the Palestinians. Uganda was a glorified refugee camp: clearly better than death, but not a place anyone would want to start a nation in. Meanwhile, Palestine was relatively unpopulated and peaceful, not to mention situated on the Mediterranean.)

Nice job providing a source and not providing the full quote.

The article is down. Regardless, the story is true and the details are all verifiable.