The American media loves saying that, but does it really have a right to exist? Does an apartheid colonizing regime have the right to exist in someone else’s land?
No.
It really doesn’t. Neither does Amerika for that matter; but the settlers would never accept that as an answer.
So what’s your solution to this issue?
Decolonization and mandatory re-education of settler-descent persons is really the only sane answer. I could be saying a half-dozen more overtly ghoulish things; but the first step of least harm is a ceding of power and privilege from the colonizers to the colonized, and education as to the fuckery that this country-- and as a result, Israel-- perpetuated to come into existence, and why what they did is an aberration.
Who is included in the colonized and colonist categories in this sense? All “white” people? All white passing people no matter background? Recent (last 50 years) migrants of all races?
What would the differentiation be, and what is the line in the sand? This doesn’t seem to be nearly as cut and dry as “Isreali vs Palestinian”.
The differentiation is “can we trace your geneaology up to a slave owner, or further up to the pilgrim ships”. There’d need to be a party apparatus for this sort of records-checking; but I imagine in this day and age, there’s likely a technological solution for this that I’m not immediately landing on. Beyond that, I’m not above the idea of re-educating anyone who’s ever flagged themselves “Caucasian” on a federal census; but the priorities are ‘do you have slave-owner in your blood’.
That does seem like a good criteria, but that is an extremely small and limited amount of people. Slave owners were by far concentrated in the South, and only the ultra-wealthy could afford to own slaves to begin with. It was only a 1-2 percent of people owning 95%+ of all slaves. As most free people in the South, white or black, were themselves near destitute and extremely poor.
Plus records of that would be difficult to work with, yes a direct relative would be an easy find, but we would go after someone for their great great great great great uncle twice removed owning slaves?
Also the Caucasian label is itself extremely tenuous, as you would catch the decent majority of slavs, turks, some arabs, Romani, and a whole hell of a lot of bizarre and “non-white” groups by going after the Caucasian label.
Plus then you run into the problem of a decent chunk of people being mixed, meaning no single label would work well for them, or you could have a family where one partner could have had a slave owning ancestor, while their partner had a ancestor who was a slave, and one of their children is extremely dark, while one of their siblings could be much lighter, and then another that’s white as snow. There would be an absurd amount of unique scenarios you would have to grapple with, this is just one.
Is it such a sin to want to see those who self-identify a certain way educated on the baggage they’ve associated themselves with? You raise fair points on the concept of mixed families; but beyond that, while self-identification is fine and all, I see a use case for the education.
But its not really “self-identification”, its not really a personal choice is it? You can’t just self-identify as another ethnicity, race, or background, and most people don’t give theirs a second thought.
Education should just be done overall. I just don’t see the point in otherizing and targeting certain groups on factors such as race, sexuality, ethnicity, or background, barring other overt reasons. I’m definitely not defending racist white chuds and they’re the first ones that could use reeducation, but it just feels like belief and views should be a primary concern. I’ve met plenty of gusanos, extremely out of touch extremely wealthy minorities, and people with racist families who grew beyond that. It just feels the main separator is class and education more then anything.
Again, going back to it, dividing a clean cut colonizer and colonized just seems to be near impossible in the United States. It feels like other factors should be taken into account first.
That does seem like a good criteria, but that is an extremely small and limited amount of people. Slave owners were by far concentrated in the South, and only the ultra-wealthy could afford to own slaves to begin with. It was only a 1-2 percent of people owning 95%+ of all slaves. As most free people in the South, white or black, were themselves near destitute and extremely poor.
people rented slaves, and for the purposes of this discussion, that should be at least partial credit for “owning”
Sure, but how in the world would you ever prove that? I doubt less then 1 percent of the receipts from those transactions survived.
ceding of power and privilege from the colonizers to the colonized
How do you envision this?
They can either give it up peacefully, or we can get into some Greenwood, into some Watts shit again. Would I rather see a ‘peaceful transition of power’ the way the crackers think their ‘democracy’ works? Of course. Am I really that naive, though? Hell fuckin’ no. I might’ve been born at night; but it sure as hell wasn’t last night, and when I balance out my scales, the weight of a settler life does not mean HALF as much to me as a life of one colonized.
So in the face of that, and a country in which we cannot live with these crackers, cannot be safe around these crackers, cannot find the cultures, practices, and names that were stolen from us by these crackers, and cannot pursue our own self-determination around these crackers, what do you propose we do? Just sit here, lookin stupid, letting these crackers keep exploiting us, raping us, thieving from us, incarcerating us without cause, and eventually killing us?
They can either give it up peacefully, or we can get into some Greenwood, into some Tulsa shit again, but flipped
They who? Capitalists? Politicians? Every white person, going by the poorly defined US definition of white?
By this point you might think I’m some lemmy-tier debate pervert, hampering endlessly for trolling. That is not the case. I’m trying to make sense of what the comrades over at the core envision their future struggles to be, because you know this is coming eventually over to my periphery.
Part of me genuinely does. The only reason I’m still humoring this conversation is because I recognize your username and have seen you about on this fed before.
I see a future in which we have to fight against all whiteness. In which the current-day clarion calls of the politicians and capitalist elites toward the populace to rally 'round in protection of whiteness itself are heeded in full. Every time you hear a casual “slava ukraini” in the west, you are hearing the reaffirmation of solidarity with global whiteness. They’ve chosen their side and their praxis.
“When Zelensky, Biden, Macron, talk about “common European values,” Africans and all non-European peoples understand its real meaning. It is a call for white Western solidarity in response to the global shift of power away from the West. It is essentially an appeal to support white supremacy through the maintenance of white material power that is based on the extractivist, parasitic relationship between the “West” and the rest of us.” – Ajamu Baraka
They’ve started imprisoning our forefront activists again in attempts to shut us up, looking at what’s been done to the Uhuru 3, and the RICO charges filed against anti-Cop City protesters. They’ve already started, and the “White Lives Matter” movements are gaining steam hand-in-hand with the Banderites nourished by the Democrats. This will not end cleanly, and frankly, I’d say it lost the chance to end cleanly years ago.
Just like it has for Palestine.
They who? Capitalists? Politicians? Every white person, going by the poorly defined US definition of white?
I think we can look at the Cuban revolution for some answers. They started building their socialist project, and the opponents of that basically self selected. The ex-Cubans of Miami seem in general much whiter than people in Cuba.
I don’t think there’s a reason to proactively define colonial lines or whatever (though I agree with @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml ).
I think a revolution in the U$ will have to be lead (or mostly driven by) colonized people, and decolonization will be a part of that.
The people who benefitted from Cuban plantations, and wanted to keep those benefits, weren’t removed in a process separate from the revolution - they opposed the revolution (and the restructuring that came afterwards), and were dealt with because of that.
The people who benefitted from Cuban plantations, and wanted to keep those benefits, weren’t removed in a process separate from the revolution - they opposed the revolution (and the restructuring that came afterwards), and were dealt with because of that.
See, now that is the logic I can actually follow. That makes sense. Thank you
Decolonial Marxism as layed out by Walter Rodney
Guess I’ll get back to you after at least skimming that
Give them a bit of germanny as reparations for the holocaust and move them there.
And would that not count as settler colonialism?
Most of em were originall from there yidish is a germanic language after all. And it would be more justified since we can all agree germany did the holocaust. And the jews need their own state to protect themselves from future instances of that. So if the germans broke it they should fix it. Way should the palestinians pay for the duck?
This solution may have been sensible in 1945, for reasons you have described. But now? How many people in Israel even speak Yiddish?
Makes more sense than settling them in the middle east.
They are an european (germanic) people and they were persecuted by europeans(mainly germans) so it should fall to europeans to decide the compensation not to middle easterners.
Absolutely not. The Zionists are colonizers and all land must be returned immediately to the Palestinians
In the abstract sense in that current “Israeli” borders are maintained when it becomes a Palestinian state? Yes. It should not be reduced or divvied up among its neighbors.
As it currently stands as a geopolitical entity that we consider Israel? No. What is considered currently as Israel should be a Palestinian state.
Maybe not the Golan heights
Sure, but that’s not really Israeli borders. No one recognizes it as theirs. It is still “Syrian” territory.
That makes sense!
Israel has the right to exist
…in the dustbin of history
There’s something that irks me about this question but I can’t quite figure out what it is until now.
States don’t have rights; people have rights. The state only exists to promote the interests of a certain class. And in this case, the Israeli state promotes the interests of the Israeli bourgeois, and enforces its will over not only the Israeli people but also the Palestinian people due to a weakened Palestinian state.
By framing the state as having rights, you’re suggesting the fate of the Israeli state as being equivalent to the Israeli people, which is a false equivalency.
deleted by creator
No state has a right to exist, frankly, but Israel is extra not having the right to exist
No
以色列是人类在20世纪犯下的最大的错误，但是我们已经失去了妥善解决这个问题的机会 Israel is the biggest mistake made by mankind in the 20th century, but we have lost the opportunity to properly solve this mistake.
"يتنوع الخطاب عن ومع فلسطين في “الشمال العالمي”؛ بين المؤسسات الأكاديمية والإعلامية والحركات الاجتماعية والسياسية التي ترى في فلسطين إمّا سؤالاً أخلاقياً أساسياً، أو روابط وثيمات مشتركة، أو انتهزت فرصةً تاريخية لتحاول نزع صفة “الاستعمار” عن عملها – بمعنى آخر، تقول هذه الكيانات وبشكل غير مباشر: “قد نعمل مستفيدين من ثروات استُحصلت من عمليات استعمارية مختلفة، ولكننا نحاول، وجزء من محاولتنا هذه، أن نكون مع فلسطين”. يتحوّل فعل التضامن بدوره إلى محاكاة – أو محاكاة للمحاكاة، لا تمت إلى الواقع بصلة، وتنفصل عنه، لا بنيّة تحريفه بالضرورة، ولكن بهدف التهرّب من مواجهته أصلًا. يتماشى هذا الفعل جنبًا إلى جنب مع الفرضية التي مفادها أن الفلسطيني بالأصل ضحية، وأحيانًا يتحوّل إلى مقاوم.
وهذا الواقع، ليس بالضروري ناتجٌ عن أي مخطط مسبق، أو نية أذيّة، بقدر ما هي خلاصة انفجار تناقضات مختلفة لم يُتعامل معها. والواقع أن هذه الأسئلة حول ماهية التضامن “الغربي” مع فلسطين لم تتجاوز في السابق حدود الاستفسار عن النوايا. وبعكس المتوقّع، أُسست ديناميكية التضامن على أساس تلقّي المتضامن معه وقبوله كل أشكال المحبّة هذه، حتى ولو كانت مؤذية له في الأساس."
-إسلام الخطيب
English:
"The discourse about and with Palestine in the ‘global North’ varies; between academic institutions, media outlets, social movements, to political entities that view Palestine either as a fundamental moral question, through shared common realities and themes, or in seizing a historical opportunity to attempt to remove the label of ‘colonization’ from their actions and work. In other words, these entities indirectly state: ‘We may benefit from the wealth acquired through various colonial operations, but as part of our attempt, we stand with Palestine.’ Solidarity, consequently, becomes a simulacrum – or a simulation of simulation, detached from reality – not necessarily with the intention of distorting it but to avoid confronting its essence. This action goes hand in hand with the assumption that Palestinians are inherently (primarily) victims and only sometimes transform into resistors.
This reality is not necessarily the result of any preconceived plan or ill intent, but rather the culmination of various unaddressed contradictions. The fact is that these questions about the nature of ‘Western’ solidarity with Palestine have never gone beyond the boundaries of inquiring about intentions. Contrary to intentions, the dynamics of solidarity are built on the basis of the recipient embracing all forms of this love, even if it is actually harmful to (them) in the first place."
-Islam Al-Khatib
Could you please add the translation at the bottom?
deleted by creator
Hope that clears it up for everyone.
do nation-states have rights? are rights even a coherent thing?
The “state of Israel” has no right in Palestine, never had any right in Palestine and never can have any right in Palestine. Apartheid and imperialism are inherently illegitimate systems and the Zionist entity occupying Palestine has as little right to exist as did Rhodesia, Belgian Congo or apartheid South Africa.
Not only does the “state of Israel” have no right to exist, it’s continued existence is an affront to the right of everyone living in Palestine, regardless of religion or ethnicity, to live in peace and dignity.
If the Brits wanted Israel to exist so bad they should’ve offered up England.
