Settler colonialism in action

[rotting bones]

Ignoring the rights of communities means that majorities can simply win an election, then oppress minorities.

Why do we have to give up on fixing injustice within communities? Do we still need rights of communities if we can have that?

I dunno, ask the person who has the weird opinion you are criticizing.

If we can fix injustice within each community, do we still need rights of communities?

[rotting bones]

Personally, my position is that Palestinians should be given human rights. The only entity in a position to do this is Israel.

If Israel gives Palestinians rights without doing anything else, that is a one-state solution. If Israel creates a separate Palestinian state, that's a two-state solution.

Either option is fine by me as long as humans get basic rights in Palestine. Furthermore, this will not happen if Islamists are in charge.

[zompist]

Why do we have to give up on fixing injustice within communities? Do we still need rights of communities if we can have that?

I dunno, ask the person who has the weird opinion you are criticizing.

If we can fix injustice within each community, do we still need rights of communities?

Yeah, because of human history.

I already gave examples, and also stated this explicitly: the majority can and will vote to stomp on a minority.

The typical US response is to focus on individual rights, set some broad limits on what governments can do, and hope that things work. And they work... better than a dictatorship, but not so great for certain minorities. Waiting for the majority to be more benign can take centuries.

There have been many attempts to address the problem constitutionally or legally or diplomatically. I don't think anything is a cure-all, but all the approaches are worth looking at and revising. E.g. Nigeria requires presidential candidates to win a large number of regions rather than just one. Canada has special protections for the French language (hugely controversial at first, but Canada seems to have survived fine). Sometimes local autonomy works, as in Scotland, but isn't felt to go far enough, as in Scotland. The EU has a very cumbersome structure with the paradoxical result that both nations and sub-nations have rights. Lebanon used to have longstanding political balancing, which ultimately failed because they didn't keep up with demographics.

If Israel simply made Palestinians full citizens, that'd solve a lot of problems. But not all problems. Again, I've mentioned a few: is their Friday respected? Do Muslims get to control and visit the al-Aqsa Mosque? Are government offices prepared to speak Arabic and support halal? Are Jewish and Muslim and Christian schools equally funded? Is there a right of return for Palestinians as well as Jews?

The hard part is the first step, of course, and Israel hasn't been willing to take it at all. But if it did, it wouldn't suddenly be an egalitarian utopia; it'd be a normal bi-ethnic country with the problems that such countries have.

[keenir]

This is what I mean when I say I have never seen a human find a truth convincing.

well, you're human, and you believe in the truth of that statement, right?

Nope, I oppose all my opinions.

Including that one?

basically, you're saying, This statement is a lie.
(but if its a lie, then it can't be a lie)

They were hoping India would be depopulated and the English settlers would occupy it like America. At the time, they didn't know why Native Americans were more susceptible to disease.

When was John Snow?

I remember that meme..."You know nothing, John Snow!"

"I know one thing."

"Yes?"

"Germ theory."

[rotting bones]

Yeah, because of human history.

I already gave examples, and also stated this explicitly: the majority can and will vote to stomp on a minority.

I'm not explaining myself clearly. I'm saying that balancing tensions between communities through external impositions is a stopgap. Ultimately, they should be fixed immanently from within communities wherever possible.

I'm not convinced this approach has been comprehensively tried. Currently, liberalism is usually attempted at federal levels, and most communities are mired in ignorance and prejudice. People enjoy this, and see it as a preservation of traditional culture.

Personally, I don't think liberalism goes far enough. We haven't even fixed the most fixable systemic problem yet: capitalism. Ethnic tensions are fanned by artificial scarcity and the fact that most routes that alleviate this scarcity are funded by people who are incentivized to increase them to protect their power.

If Israel simply made Palestinians full citizens, that'd solve a lot of problems. But not all problems. Again, I've mentioned a few: is their Friday respected? Do Muslims get to control and visit the al-Aqsa Mosque? Are government offices prepared to speak Arabic and support halal? Are Jewish and Muslim and Christian schools equally funded? Is there a right of return for Palestinians as well as Jews?

If it's a federal system, why not?

Actually, Arabic was co-official with Hebrew until recently. I have seen people argue on the ZBB that Israel should be supported for that reason.

[rotting bones]

Including that one?

basically, you're saying, This statement is a lie.
(but if its a lie, then it can't be a lie)

Yes, it's turtles all the way down: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logi ... onsistent/

When was John Snow?

I remember that meme..."You know nothing, John Snow!"

"I know one thing."

"Yes?"

"Germ theory."

Back then, a leading theory was that the disappearance of non-Christians was the will of God.

[keenir]

"Germ theory."

Back then, a leading theory was that the disappearance of non-Christians was the will of God.

In all my scrounging through the aisles of libraries and other locales of stored history, I've never come across that theory...but, given your stated beliefs, I can fully believe that you believe it was held as true.

[rotting bones]

In all my scrounging through the aisles of libraries and other locales of stored history, I've never come across that theory...but, given your stated beliefs, I can fully believe that you believe it was held as true.

Keep reading, and you'll find it. The philosopher Hegel even turned it into a philosophical theory, where the melting away of Native Americans was interpreted as the movement of the World Spirit.

[keenir]

In all my scrounging through the aisles of libraries and other locales of stored history, I've never come across that theory...but, given your stated beliefs, I can fully believe that you believe it was held as true.

Keep reading, and you'll find it.

I haven't come across it in 40+ years of reading, and that was enough time to find beliefs like Pelaganism and the political groups who were overshadowed by the Brother Of Jesus (Boxer era, not Herodian era) and "If you meet the Buddha, kill him."

[Raphael]

The US used Japan and South Korea as forward bases to exert influence on the Far East too: https://youtu.be/12ddOpt7Hio

Yeah, but both of those are geographically larger and have significant numbers of US troops stationed there, so the US can use them as bases for operations.

[rotting bones]

Yeah, but both of those are geographically larger and have significant numbers of US troops stationed there, so the US can use them as bases for operations.

The US uses Taiwan to project power against China. Taiwan may be larger than Israel, but compare the proportions of China to Taiwan vs. Arab resistance to Israel.

One purpose of Israel, I think, is to ensure the safety of the East-West shipping routes. Iran encourages the Houthi rebels to undermine those routes at a choke point. The West is upset at Israel because its recent actions endangered those routes.

[rotting bones]

I haven't come across it in 40+ years of reading, and that was enough time to find beliefs like Pelaganism and the political groups who were overshadowed by the Brother Of Jesus (Boxer era, not Herodian era) and "If you meet the Buddha, kill him."

I'm pretty sure you'll find this one if you Google it. I don't know why you randomly refuse to believe obviously true things. I think you have been reading things inefficiently.

Of the things I said recently, I'm most unsure of Nietzsche's positions since he constantly contradicts himself.

[Travis B.]

They were hoping India would be depopulated and the English settlers would occupy it like America. At the time, they didn't know why Native Americans were more susceptible to disease.

British India was an exploitation colony, which is distinct from British North America, which was a settler colony.

[Ares Land]

I'm skeptical of a two state solution, tbh: look at it from, say, Jordan's perpective -or Syria or whatever: as long as you have a nuclear ethnostate right around the corner, and one that supports illegal settlements on your land to boot, peace is simply not a smart choice for you. the one state solution, one where israel ceases to be an ethnostate, though, is inimical to the very idea of israel itself.

I still think it'd be a matter of years before start US, Russian, French, British (or all of the above) troops land at Tel Aviv.
Tensions in an hypothetical One State would be incredibly high and nobody wants a nuclear power going through a mass civil and ethnic war.

of course, if the israelis stopped voting in likud, things could change, but the other parties have ruled in the past and there hasn't been a lot of -that i know of, i'd love to be informed otherwise- progress.

I think we have to back to 1999 for a time when either Likud or Kadima wasn't ahead in the Knesset. As I recall the peace process was excruciatingly slow, but at least something was going on.
Going back to that sort of political situation, unsatisfying as it was, would be a huge improvement. But I don't really see that happening. Why the Israelis keep voting for Likud goes way beyond my understanding of their politics, though as I said, voting for increasingly deranged right-wingers is a worldwide trend.

I'm not sure it's contradictory. Nazis support Zionism because they want Jews to move out of Western countries. This is why Zizek said he wants Jews to live in the West. They make valuable contributions there.

Oh, that's a good observation.

It's not an analogy. There really is an indigenous population that was removed to settle people from elsewhere.

Colonialism doesn't always collapse. All the colonial countries where disease decimated the local population are still here.

The 'people from elsewhere' were in Palestine because elsewhere, everybody were mostly actively trying to kill them; as it happens Israel is where the Jews originally were from. It doesn't excuse the Nakba, or the Israeli settlements in the West bank... but it's not nothing, either.

A 'Republic of the Holy Land' would quickly turn into a puppet state.

People seem to think Israel is a puppet state already.

There is a difference between 'acting at times as a puppet state' and 'definitely a US (subst. Russian if you feel it appropriate) puppet state, complete with occupation force'
I'm pretty convinced the one state solution would in the long run turn out to be Mandatory Palestine, revisited.

I'm positive the Native Americans were much more numerous than the colonial settlers at first. Then the Nature Americans were hit with diseases and nonstop genocidal wars to wipe them out.

If we're still talking about the US, as I recall, Native American communities were already heavily depopulated when the settlers came around.

Back then, a leading theory was that the disappearance of non-Christians was the will of God.

As I recall, the observation was more like that wonderfully fertile land was miraculously depopulated. Now, was it naivete or cynicism? Possibly both.

[Travis B.]

I'm positive the Native Americans were much more numerous than the colonial settlers at first. Then the Nature Americans were hit with diseases and nonstop genocidal wars to wipe them out.

If we're still talking about the US, as I recall, Native American communities were already heavily depopulated when the settlers came around.

Disease spread much faster than the colonists did. This is part of why the European-Americans saw America as essentially "empty" ─ because disease that had been introduced to the Americas by the Spanish had already killed so many Native Americans before they even arrived (if I recall correctly the Native American population fell by 80% to 95% simply due to disease, without taking genocide into account).

[Ares Land]

Disease spread much faster than the colonists did. This is part of why the European-Americans saw America as essentially "empty" ─ because disease that had been introduced to the Americas by the Spanish had already killed so many Native Americans before they even arrived (if I recall correctly the Native American population fell by 80% to 95% simply due to disease, without taking genocide into account).

I think scholarship agrees now that the 95% figure was too high -- I think they figure some people inflated the numbers to sidestep the whole genocide issue.
It's still clear that what was to become the US was still depopulated.

[rotting bones]

The 'people from elsewhere' were in Palestine because elsewhere, everybody were mostly actively trying to kill them; as it happens Israel is where the Jews originally were from. It doesn't excuse the Nakba, or the Israeli settlements in the West bank... but it's not nothing, either.

But then Europeans could have invaded places in Africa with the justification that we are are all originally from there.

There is a difference between 'acting at times as a puppet state' and 'definitely a US (subst. Russian if you feel it appropriate) puppet state, complete with occupation force'
I'm pretty convinced the one state solution would in the long run turn out to be Mandatory Palestine, revisited.

The US sends Israel yearly funding and practically infinite weapons for their support.

If we're still talking about the US, as I recall, Native American communities were already heavily depopulated when the settlers came around.

As I recall, the observation was more like that wonderfully fertile land was miraculously depopulated. Now, was it naivete or cynicism? Possibly both.

Disease spread much faster than the colonists did. This is part of why the European-Americans saw America as essentially "empty" ─ because disease that had been introduced to the Americas by the Spanish had already killed so many Native Americans before they even arrived (if I recall correctly the Native American population fell by 80% to 95% simply due to disease, without taking genocide into account).

There were many empty lands, and the indigenous people were seriously weakened. The whole continent wasn't empty. There were entire native confederacies the colonists had to deal with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois There were initially a very small number of settlers, not enough to build federations. The empty lands helped the colonists gain a foothold.

I'm not sure how it's possible that only I have heard of this: https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-m ... ing-indian

[rotting bones]

British India was an exploitation colony, which is distinct from British North America, which was a settler colony.

The British were always looking to resettle their local troublemakers elsewhere. They would have turned India into a settler colony if destiny had cooperated.

[rotting bones]

Iroquois is the most famous Native American confederacy, but this one was right on the Northeastern coast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabanaki_Confederacy There are still 66,748 registered Mi'kmaq people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi%27kmaq

[Ares Land]

But then Europeans could have invaded places in Africa with the justification that we are are all originally from there.

Were the Swiss or the French treated as third-class citizens and kicked out or killed off by brutal pogroms everywhere they lived?

The US sends Israel yearly funding and practically infinite weapons for their support.

Increasingly less so, as Israeli capacity ramped up -- and for that matter so did the USSR -- but that's neither here nor there. People are generally not happy with Israel being a US ally; but I don't think they'd be terribly happy with Israel and Palestine looking like Iraq in 2005 except worse.

On US settlers vs. Native Americans: I don't think anybody here disputes the genocide. Myself, I just think the analogy with Palestine just isn't working. If it fits for you, well, I still don't get why, but let's agree to disagree.