Well it was nice to have a few minutes thinking that people would finally let it go despite everything we know and have seen, but I guess not.
I don't dismiss concerns of colonialism, but I think some people here don't quite understand the difference between exploitation colonialism, and settler colonialism. Israel wasn't established as a colony of the US, UK or any country in Europe for reasources or other agendas like some colonies (exploitation colonialism.) It was established by people running away from countries with the intention of permanently settling in Palestine, in many cases they acted criminally in order to replace the original population.
But now the question is how to deal with this colonialsm. In all examples I know of settler colonialsm (the US, New Zealand, Autralia) - The solution ended up being a recognition of both settler and native rights, without depopulation of settlers, and over time more and more recognition of natives rights, narrative etc.
I'm sympathetic to a great deal of what he is saying but why did he bring up Alaska? Was that an actual proposal at some point?
I think it sort of betrays his well-meaning both-sidesism to suggest that maybe European Jews should have taken land that originally belonged to another group of Indigenous people. It's a really strange way of looking at colonialism or more specifically, the project of Zionism.
I'm trying to read this without any bias but between "The Israelis who were killed in this attack largely have nothing to do with those conditions other than being born at a time when Israel and Jews have the upper hand in this conflict. Some of the victims weren't even Israeli — they were just tourists. This is why we describe them as "innocent" and why Hamas has only reaffirmed that they are a brutal terror organization with this attack — an organization that I hope is quickly toppled, for the sake of both the Palestinian people and the Israelis" and the line about "Well the Palestinian leaders should have accepted the deal", it does feel a bit one side in how it's viewing it.
It's a little bouncing around and often kind of contradicting itself, but it is a bit of a meandering twitter thread about something deeply personal to them so I'm not going to grab the pitchfork and condemn them over it.
Yes, Alaska was a proposal at one point. There's an alternate history novel, The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon, that explores what might have happened if it had panned out in place of the real-world Israel.
I beg your pardon? I asked for clarification because I thought it was a strange thing to mention. Literally started by saying I'm very sympathetic to his perspective. In my mind, the purpose of posting and sharing information is to discuss it, not just praise something and move on.
Please actually read the quote by Saul and the reasoning for it:
In other words, the Jews do have a historical claim to the land of Israel because they originally lived in Israel before being expelled by the Roman Empire.
As for why the Jews returned, in the wake of World War 2, it was critical to give the Jews a homeland because the rest of the world could not be trusted to treat Jews as equals and not massacre them by the thousands - and the Jews wanted to return to Israel.
My question here is that if not Israel, then where should the Jews have sought refuge after World War 2? If your answer to this is to deny them a state, keep them in Europe, and leave them at the mercy of the European powers that had just thrown them into gas chambers as I've seen far too many limousine leftists suggest, then you really need to educate yourself on the Holocaust and the history of the Jews in Europe.
Acknowledging this does not justify the IDF bombing civilians at all or Israel implementing an apartheid state because the IDF did not need to bomb civilians or institute an apartheid state in order to live safely in Israel. This should not be difficult to understand.
Last edited:
I don't think these are real solutions. The Native folks in the US, for example, are treated horribly.
I think he will be done next election, even with a National Unity Government with the opposition joining.
Not really? Many journalists were actually on the ground and saw some dead bodies themselves. They didn't say "the IDF told us about the kibbutz attack" they were actually able to walk around recording videos of the aftermath. But none of them actually said "we saw dead bodies of babies and children", let alone shared photos of those.
I'm sorry about babies and kids dying, we see video footage of this all the time from journalists on the ground in Gaza. But this coming days afterwards directly from the PM's office (where the story effectively originated) instead of actual journalists is hard to take seriously when the fucking IDF are known for stirring and making shit up all the time.
I edited my post that was my mistake especially in a sensitive topic like that.
to be clear, the 'solution' to settler colonialism in the americas, australia, etc, still involved massive amount of illegal and unacknowledged land occupation, mass death, displacement, and assimilation, and the consequences live today in massively disadvantaged and disenfranchised enclaves whose sovereignty or right to self-governance has never been respected on any level of colonial government.
it's not a solution or model to look toward and certainly not one to look toward if you're making a case about equity.
it's not a solution or model to look toward and certainly not one to look toward if you're making a case about equity.
"The Arab states had already rejected a partitioned Israel repeatedly before World War II and rejected it again after the Holocaust and the end of the war. They did not want to give up even a little bit of their land to a bunch of Jewish interlopers who were granted it all of a sudden by British interlopers who had arrived a hundred years prior. Who could blame them? It had been centuries since Jews lived there in large numbers, and now they wanted to return in waves as secularized Europeans. Many of us would probably react the same way. So, just as humans have done forever, they fought. The many existing Arab states turned against the burgeoning new Jewish state. One side won and one side lost. This is the brutal and broken and violent world we live in, but it is what created the global world order we have now.
...But if you want to blame Israeli leaders for continuing to expand and settle land that does not belong to them (as I do), then you should also spare some blame for Palestinian leaders for repeatedly not accepting a partitioned Israel during the 20th century that could have led to peace (as I do)."
A little bit? It was an unfair deal. Majority of the land was going to Jewish state, and a lot of the land was not fit for agriculture. There were plans to expand and get more of Palestinian land. This whole post comes across as centrist misinformation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
"Zionists attributed Arab rejection of the plan to mere intransigence. Palestinian Arabs opposed the very idea of partition but reiterated that this partition plan was unfair: the majority of the land (56%) would go to a Jewish state, when Jews at that stage legally owned only 6–7% of it and remained a minority of the population (33% in 1946).[127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135] There were also disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish control contained 45% of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab state.[135] However, most of the proposed Jewish state was the Negev desert.[56][55] The plan allocated to the Jewish State most of the Negev desert that was sparsely populated and unsuitable for agriculture but also a "vital land bridge protecting British interests from the Suez Canal to Iraq"[136][137]"
Proposals for a Jewish state - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Proposed in 1939, turned down.
Perfect, thanks guys! It's a certainly a strange idea, I should read up on it.
S'all good
And Australia is really not a great example of settler colonialism turning out well for the Indigenous population either. Particularly at this second of time considering what tomorrow is, and the likely outcome of that. The historic solution was genocide at worst (and side-lining for 'polite society' at best), just not as full throated as the biggest examples that comes to mind which gives the non-Indigenous population of Australia a thin veil to fool themselves into thinking of Australia as a just and moral nation that should be modelled after.
The modern solution is continue to ignore them, and continue to not listen to them while the status quo of poor outcomes in basically every metric condemns them to generational destruction, slowly but surely, all while we pat ourselves on the back for being a nation that upholds the ideals of equality and fairness.
Of course - the solution they got to took a lot of time and many atrocities. I'm not looking at the process it took as inspiration, but at the END result, in which eventually in virtually every instance of settler colonialism settlers and natives managed to get to a point they live side-by-side with equal rights (at least in the legal sense - I get they are still facing many discriminations, but they at least have equal rights under the laws of the countries they live in) At the very least as an inspiration, especially places like say New Zealand.
Yep. The 1940 Slattery Report recommended the land of Alaska for the temporary refugee settlement of European Jews who were facing persecution and genocide by Nazis. The person most responsible for preventing the vote on the report was the Alaska delegate to US Congress, Anthony Dimond. Only 3 towns in Alaska endorsed the proposal.
Slattery Report - Wikipedia
Unrelated but there was an award winning alternate history detective novel by Michael Chabon called The Yiddish Policeman's Union, where instead of Israel European Jews settled in Alaska
The Yiddish Policemen's Union - Wikipedia
Edit: oops too late nvm
As someone from the balkans, whose ancestors were on both sides of the WW2, I am very well educated on the history of the holocaust, thank you very much.
As for they have a claim since their predecessors lived there 2000 years ago, where do you get this from? What gives them that right? Do all the other people whose predecessors lived somewhere else 2000 years ago have the same rights then? Do the Irish have a claim on the entirety of the British Isles due to this? How about Albanianas, who are the closest descedants of the Illyrians, do they have a claim on the entirety of the Balkans, where slavs live now? If this is true in every case then our world would get messy real fast. If it is not true in those cases, why is it true for the Jews then?
And I do agree there should have been land given to the Jews, for their state. But it should have been done by the ones that killed them, not innocent people thousands of miles away. I would have had no issues with Bavaria or North Rhine-Westphalia being given away to them to found a state. But that did not happen.
This particular gem gets me. If you have to leap centuries behind to make your argument, perhaps,maybe... you're in the wrong?
"Are Israelis and British people "colonizers" because of this 20th century history? Sure. But that view flattens thousands of years of history and conflict, and the context of World War I and World War II. I don't view Israelis and Brits as colonizers any more than the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Romans or the Mongols or the Egyptians or the Ottomans who all battled over the same strip of land from as early as 800 years before Jesus's time until now. The Jews who founded Israel just happened to have won the last big battle for it."
A fair portion of the conversation surrounds the veracity of the report/reporting. So it's going be fixated on for a while from both sides of the spectrum.
No this does not put it to rest. There are no verifiable images or videos. Stop saying nonsense.
CNN just posted an update to these stupid claims.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/12/middleeast/israel-hamas-beheading-claims-intl
I understand the position of the media to be a sympathetic party to the Israeli's atm. But it's incredible to see my news feed just read chock full of what can only be described as a full blast of Israeli propaganda. The Atlantic has just been article after article from Israeli's practically calling for the end of Palestine. It's wild.
I mean look at this shit. My news feed is full of it
In this case it's Eliot Cohen. But my general point I think still stands.
I mean look at this shit. My news feed is full of it
In this case it's Eliot Cohen. But my general point I think still stands.
Last edited:
Knock off the derail
Its just typical zionist message wrapped up in an IDF-hippy-centrist package to make it go down better with folks. But the underlying consents is still the same as any extreme zionist:
1. Jews had a right to the state
2. Arabs didnt accept the scraps they were give so actually they wanted this violence, the poor colonialists just wanted to coexist
Most of Israel is unfit for agriculture, with the bulk of that being the Negev desert, which was allocated to the Jewish state. In other words, both were given pretty shitty and very small pieces of land by American standards. To add some perspective: the state of New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S. and it's orders of magnitude sparser and greener than any part of Israel. This was always a case of "fighting over scraps".
User warned: continuing derail
Absolutely horrible. I imagined it was similar to the US but I didn't know enough about Australia's history to say for sure.
Equal rights under law does not equate to equal rights in practice or even equal treatment under law.
We shouldn't be looking at any of these as models for the decolonization of Palestine.
All the questions you raise are addressed in the Twitter thread.
It still won't convince everyone. "But what if they're deepfakes?"
It's horrific and there are no words, just like there's no suitable words for the quarter-million Gazans reportedly displaced. There's clearly no coherent military strategy here if the objective is to topple Hamas. (Yes, I'm anticipating the responses and I agree with that too.)
It was bad everywhere. Even online had different reporters calling other reporters liars at times.
This article is originally older, even though it was updated today. The Verifiable images are being reported in the past hour or so. Think folks need to keep calming down about trying to discredit specifics, as I've said multiple times, because does it matter if the babies were beheaded, burned, or shot in the head as matter of death?
I get healthy skepticism in the face of such a serious situation, but at this point the room is filled with blinding smoke and flames yet we still have people wondering if there is a fire.
At some point you just have to admit you were wrong that the horrible event occured.
View: https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1712483791657181303
They simply don't see a difference between Hamas and Palestinian civilians. They don't care. Fucking monsters.
Yes, because "babies were beheaded" is going to evoke a more visceral reaction than that babies were killed. You can see this in practice by Biden including it in his statement, there is a reason he chose to include that specificity. It is to stoke a higher level of anger and disgust.
This is being incredibly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
As I have said before, the reason why Jewish statehood was so critical in the 1940s was because the Jews had barely survived the Holocaust. There's a difference between that and the Irish or the Albanians, which right now are not coming straight out of a genocide that killed six million of their people. The Jews getting land from Germany and the other Axis members was the ideal scenario - but it was an ideal scenario that was never going to occur, because the Europeans were absolutely not willing to give any land to the Jews in the 1940s and perfectly able to finish the Holocaust if they asked for European land, and as such, the choice the Jews actually got was Israel or no state at all and be left at the mercy of the European powers.
Again, this does not justify the IDF's war crimes or the apartheid treatment of the Palestinian people because neither of this was at all required for Israel as a state to continue existing. Neither was Israel violating the original partition plan and expanding past the 1948 or 1967 borders required for Israel's security.
Last edited:
Show me... because all I see is him posting a picture of a bloody bed. Have you seen any of these actual photos or are you just blindly following Netanyahu
By their same logic Israeli citizens are the same as the IDF. It's a Monstrous position for anyone to hold.
How is it that this discussion keeps revolving around "how badly were the babies mutilated?" But far more potent questions such as "what happened to EU attempts to build water salinization plants in Gaza?" are buried?
To me, that feels like a symptom of morbid and grotesque aspects of this crisis overshadowing the ones that really matter if you claim to care about human lives...
To me, that feels like a symptom of morbid and grotesque aspects of this crisis overshadowing the ones that really matter if you claim to care about human lives...
Palestine wasn't willing just the same. Europe shouldn't have this privilege
Didn't realize Israel had been so influenced by Russian culture, going all "everyone we fight is Nazis".
Someone has already posted it in this thread. Scroll up some. I think it's the one that has trouble loading.
The photos are of dead charred babies. It's fucking horrifying. I'm not blindly following anyone.
