Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Josquius]

I never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.

I feel like the word "colonialism" has just become a terrible slur, and that just by calling Israel a "settler/colonial state" automatically makes it bad and evil.

With respect there are better and worse forms of colonialism.

This is where I'm going to be a defensive Canadian, but we (that is, Britain and then later Canada) did colonialism the right way.  We signed agreements with the local inhabitants.  We haven't always been perfect in living up to those agreements but they have been upheld in the courts repeatedly.  Indigenous people were not forcefully relocated (there are a couple of exceptions, but it was far from the norm).  We certainly didn't fight any wars with the local inhabitants in order to assert ownership.

You can contrast that with the US (which signed treaties, but would break them, and did fight wars), or some of the African land grabs which just arbitrarily divided up the continent without any input from the local inhabitants.

I mean heck - in Canada we had some whole native tribes move from the US to Canada because indigenous people were perceived to be treated so much better.

As said its complicated.
No doubt on average Canada did things much better than the US. But looking at the history of colonialism overall you find all manner of things under its banner, some little different to the interactions between European states and others the more text book "Do you have a flag? No? Well I do. Mine.".

Call colonialist a slur if you will, but it does accurately (remembering its a broad word) sum up how Israel came to be. Some would take this to an extreme of therefore it shouldn't exist and all those people born and raised there should leave, which is of course silly. Nonetheless it certainly highlights that there were crimes in the creation of Israel and any lasting peace should seek to compensate for them.

Applying any terms of "indigenous" to Palestinians goes against how that word has always been used.

The typical definition of indigenous people is "the earliest known group" in a region, often used in reference to a group that has been colonized by a colonizing nation.

Arabs are not the earliest known group in the region. Because we are talking about the Levant here--an area that geographically is right around where civilization and writing started at their earliest points, which means the known history of the area is among the oldest of any region on earth.

Because of that we know the area has had tons of different groups move in, get moved out, assimilate, emerge as new peoples, fight and trade land back and forth etc. There is no clear claim of indigenous status for any extant peoples today to the region that makes up Israel.  The region has also been significantly "diverse" with many different ethnic and religious groups cohabiting the same overall area.

The Palestinians despite being Arabic speaking didn't all show up with the Arab conquest. A large chunk of their genetic heritage stretches back into the mists of history covering ancient Israelites and their contemporaries.

This is a really annoying thing I see Israel fanboys often doing- pointing to ancient maps of the area and the existence of biblical Israel and going "See! The Jews were there first!". Aye. And guess who the descendants of those Jews are? The Palestinians.

I'm really not sure about this earliest known group definition of indigenous too. That would mean basically nobody outside of a small handful of groups like the Maori and Australian aborigines are indigenous- though even there surely you often had different groups overrunning other earlier groups.

This is a typical flaw in the right wing world view- that it all must be based on fixed, definable, measurable, rules. You are either A or B.
The world is usually a far fluffier place than this with basically everyone in the western half of Eurasia having a super mixed heritage if you look back far enough.

[Tamas]

I love the Guardian headline:

Israel-Hamas war live: Hamas leader says 'we are close to reaching a truce' but Israel yet to comment

This can probably be filed next to: "2nd May 1945: Nazi Germany say they are close to reaching a truce, the Allies are yet to comment"

[Admiral Yi]

I love the Guardian headline:

Israel-Hamas war live: Hamas leader says 'we are close to reaching a truce' but Israel yet to comment

This can probably be filed next to: "2nd May 1945: Nazi Germany say they are close to reaching a truce, the Allies are yet to comment"

Bibi has publicly offered a four day cease fire in exchange for all the hostages, so not created out of thin air.

[Admiral Yi]

Call colonialist a slur if you will, but it does accurately (remembering its a broad word) sum up how Israel came to be. Some would take this to an extreme of therefore it shouldn't exist and all those people born and raised there should leave, which is of course silly. Nonetheless it certainly highlights that there were crimes in the creation of Israel and any lasting peace should seek to compensate for them.

What about the creation of Israel can accurately be called colonialism?

The Jews immigrated and bought land under the Ottoman Empire.  Tamas immigrated to the UK and bought property.  Is he a colonist?

Palestine was partitioned by the UN.  India was partitioned by the UK.  Is Pakistan a colony?

[OttoVonBismarck]

What about the creation of Israel can accurately be called colonialism?

If you want Josq's answer in real time just look on a .ru domain site or some communist activist website and you'll be there.

[Grey Fox]

Russia is on your side nowadays OvB.

[Jacob]

Russia is on your side nowadays OvB.

Eh?

How so?

[Grey Fox]

Russia is on your side nowadays OvB.

Eh?

How so?

His general side, not Israel is right. Russia is a proto-fascist state, OvB is, historically, too.

[Admiral Yi]

If you want Josq's answer in real time just look on a .ru domain site or some communist activist website and you'll be there.

I don't just want a flameware answer.  I want to enter into a conversation.  I want to enter into a dialectic.  I can't do that on a troll site.

[Josquius]

What about the creation of Israel can accurately be called colonialism?

If you want Josq's answer in real time just look on a .ru domain site or some communist activist website and you'll be there.

Again with the useful idiot and his projection. You're the only one mindlessly parroting whatever crap the Russian troll farms are putting out these days.

Call colonialist a slur if you will, but it does accurately (remembering its a broad word) sum up how Israel came to be. Some would take this to an extreme of therefore it shouldn't exist and all those people born and raised there should leave, which is of course silly. Nonetheless it certainly highlights that there were crimes in the creation of Israel and any lasting peace should seek to compensate for them.

What about the creation of Israel can accurately be called colonialism?

The Jews immigrated and bought land under the Ottoman Empire.  Tamas immigrated to the UK and bought property.  Is he a colonist?

Palestine was partitioned by the UN.  India was partitioned by the UK.  Is Pakistan a colony?

..

https://jewishstudies.washington.edu/israel-hebrew/why-israel-isnt-a-settler-colonial-state/

They claim it isn't a colonial state. But their evidence clearly shows its history is as one with the settlers themselves considering it colonialism.
The basis under which these guys claim it isn't is that it wasn't for the benefit of a metropole. Which seems a chronic misunderstanding of colonialist motivations.

[Admiral Yi]

NPR reporting a deal in the works.  4 day cease fire, 50 Israeli children and women hostages for 150 Palestinian children and women prisoners.

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881

Terrible CBC article about the phrase "From the River to the Sea".

Spoiler warning: the phrase is fine, mostly.

Ultimately they quote four different experts.  Three of them feel the phrase is fine, pointing to different ways the phrase has been used historically and currently.  They are quoted extensively.  There is one person quoted who says it is hate speech saying "because it is into the sea that they seek to send the Jews".  That is the sum total that he is quoted in the entire article, while the others are quoted extensively.

The article also makes sure to include a graph of representative Israeli vs Palestinian casualties since 2009, even though noting that the casualty totals are estimates only in the fine print. So of course this makes it seem like the Israelis have nothing to complain about from Oct 7.  The graph has nothing to do with the meaning of "from the river to the sea", and of course makes no attempt to distinguish between civilian and military casualties.

So of course language can be nebulous.  I have no doubt that when some people talk about "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" they only mean civil rights for Palestinians.  But you can't possibly separate it from A: what does Hamas mean when they say it (hint: they call for the destruction of Israel) and B: the context that it's being chanted in the aftermath of the deliberate murder of 1200 Israeli civilians.

So anyways, if anyone wants an example of how the CBC can appear fair and neutral, but really be pretty biased, here's an example.


Edit: one more point.  They compare it to the phrase "black lives matter".  The problem is that while phrases can have meaning infused on them through context and history, they also have a very plain and literal meaning.  The very literal meaning of "black lives matter" should be 100% uncontroversial.  Of course black lives matter.  The problem is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" has a pretty obvious and literal meaning as well - that a country of Palestine should exist in the entire territory of Israel and the occupied territories.  A better comparison would be "defund the police", which yes some people meant as just reforming the police, but the literal meaning is to abolish the police.

[Josquius]

.


Edit: one more point.  They compare it to the phrase "black lives matter".  The problem is that while phrases can have meaning infused on them through context and history, they also have a very plain and literal meaning.  The very literal meaning of "black lives matter" should be 100% uncontroversial.  Of course black lives matter.  The problem is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" has a pretty obvious and literal meaning as well - that a country of Palestine should exist in the entire territory of Israel and the occupied territories.  A better comparison would be "defund the police", which yes some people meant as just reforming the police, but the literal meaning is to abolish the police.

Only if you believe Palestinian freedom is somehow connected to Israelis not being free.

Purely just looking at the words themselves saying a land should be free is pretty uncontroversial.

[Razgovory]

A land free of what?

[Admiral Yi]

All these experts telling me what it *can* mean are beside the point.  What I care about is what the people who chant it actually mean.