🇳🇱
I am just going to start referring to Palestinians by the more accurate term "natives".
@lonelyowl That would be less accurate than the argument I made... More like, these are the people who have been living there fore generations that go back to before there are any records of individual land ownership, in some cases dozens of generations recorded, and many more lost to time.
This is bad argument anyway, it explains nothing and mainly used for demogoguery. If you believe that ethnic cleansings are always bad, you simply don't need it.
Even in the case that the palestinian folks are the first generation to live in the territory, that still wouldn't excuse murder or deportation of them.
I assume we do care about "native" people in other countries not because a fact they're "native" somehow make them more valuable, but because we do care about people in general 🤷♀️
> This is bad argument anyway, it explains nothing and mainly used for demogoguery.
It explains quite a bit, the most important bit... that they have lived ont he land many generations. It literally explains that.
Now if you want to use it for demogoguery thats on you. But the fact is most people recognize that someone who has generationally owned and lived on a land has a right to be a citizen of that land.
> I assume we do care about "native" people in other countries not because a fact they're "native" somehow make them more valuable, but because we do care about people in general 🤷♀️
When you are displacing people off their land who has been there many generations absolutely has relevance. The reason we give special powers to native shere isnt "because we care about people" its specifically because their native and yes they get special privilages for having their land stolen from under them.
> It literally explains that.
Yes, probably. I just think it isn't important for finding an answer to the question "are ethnic cleansings bad?"
I personally don't see a difference between deporting a group that has been there for around 1000 generations and a group that has been there for the first generation. I don't see gradations of the "badness" of ethnic cleansings, except for their scale and corpse count.
@lonelyowl I am not suggesting either group be deported... its too late for that. but clearly the group whose land was stolen should have it given back. That can resemble a simple single state singel vote for everyone.
Right, I care that these are people whith generational ries right up to the modern day going back thousands of years.. The jews are int he wrong for starting that but as I said their there now and I would recognize anyone **born** on the land (or any land) as a citizen of that land.
I'd love to hear y'alls thoughts on the usual retort about 1 state == genocide.
Do you feel confident that the non-Jewish majority that there would be in such a river-to-the-sea single state won't do something awful to the Jews that live in the state, like kick them all out, deny them rights in some important way, and so on?
I don't know what the best evidence is that this would happen, but you occasionally see poll results like "Seventy-one percent of Palestinians support the terrorist murder of two Israeli Jews in..." and so on. Is there good analysis of this?
In countries like the US, democracy "works" in that sense only because the percentage of voters who would like to do things like expel entire ethnic groups is generally pretty low, like I estimate 1 or 2%. Maybe 5%. But certainly they aren't winning elections.
Second question: regardless of that analysis, why is some kind of 2-state solution obviously so much more awful?
(Lonelyowl great point about how the history here, while interesting and worth learning, is ultimately completely irrelevant to what should happen now.)
> Do you feel confident that the non-Jewish majority that there would be in such a river-to-the-sea single state won't do something awful to the Jews that live in the state
Ofcourse no! This is middle east. More than, i am super confident they will try to do something awful. I just can't come up with something smarter than saying "just stop the goddamn ethnic cleansing".
Usually people tend to follow crazy violent ideologies because of social and economic problems. The safer people feel and the more prosperous they are, the less inclined they are to violence (on average). So including the palestinians in the israeli economy might be a good first step towards getting them away from the hamas nonsense.
> So including the palestinians in the israeli economy might be a good first step towards getting them away from the hamas nonsense.
To put it another way, by the jews killing them, and herding them into small ghettos with little or no resources, they have created extreme poverty and over time caused the growth of Hamas directly by their own actions.
When you abuse civilians and punishment for a minority of militants the end result has **always** been radicalization.
If i accept the importance of the historical argument, it would mean that bibi and his far-right minions might have a point, since the jews owned the land long before the arabs came here.
This is why i don't like historical justice arguments for current events, as with some mental gymnastics they can be used to justify any insane stuff.
The crimea question taught me this argument is silly.
@lonelyowl That wasnt the argument made.. it was the argument you tried to claim i was making that I rejected.
I didnt claim the argument was historic, or whoever is there first wins.. I suggested the people who have been there **in recent history**, born ont he land and having been generationally born ont he land for some 2000 years win. Its not because they were there first, its because they were there now, during this generation, and being evaded by people who werent there now, and during this, or any recent generation.
@freemo So like the IDF is a british occupation force then? Of course, it's ALWAYS the british. smh.
Joke aside, though: my history is a little rusty. Is this by any stretch accurate according to the common definition of "native"?
@admitsWrongIfProven The IDF is certainly an occupational force. But they arent aligned to britain, even if britain started it.
@freemo Am honestly more interested in the validity of the native claim.
The slap at britain is just some harmless fun on the side, like handing out opium.
@admitsWrongIfProven I cant imagine anyone would dispute it... I have never heard anyone, even a jew, claim the arabs of the region arent native there.
@freemo Well, there's just so much complex history, and no ocean to stop migrations before the advent of ocean worthy vessels, so i wasn't sure.
With the US/Canada, it's pretty clear that native americans and inuit must have been there a long time and the europeans colonizing it were invaders.
In the middle east it would be possible that entire peoples moved hundreds of kilometers in a relevant timespan. Native? Put there shortly before (british occupation could have done something)? A large part immigrated just before? All possible. My lack of knowledge is thus keeping me from assuming anything there.
@admitsWrongIfProven YEs people migrated like crazy. Thats sorta the problem with jews... they once had the land but have migrated away and intermixed with populations over thousands of years. so the people who carry ont he heritage of the jews arent really a distinct race anymore, not to mention many dont even have lineage back to the region. So while some jews may also have some native heritage they are so far removed over such a long period of time it no longer has any relevance in modern day. Unlike palestinians who have remained in the area consistantly both from anctient times and in modern times.
@freemo Hmm, if you mean "indigenous" by "native", at least the wikipedia definition would have to include jewish people, since before they were pushed out, they were known to live there - and the definition says "earliest known inhabitants". They are known to have lived there.
This makes the whole thing absurd. Indigenous people against indigenous people. Humans really waste their ability to abstract thinking for the most stupid shit.
@admitsWrongIfProven yes, ancesteral jews were indeed native.. modern jews however have been disoplaced for 2000 years and integrated into other cultures.. so while culturally they preserved soem jewish heritage they are not jewish in the same sense anymore. This is clear for anyone who has met a modern jew, very few if any even retain middleeastern characteristics. they are such a small fraction jewish at this point its irrelevant.
@freemo As a german i can tell you that this "integration" you speak of is not a process that has led to a safe life as part of the local populations.
I doubt the relevance of the "small fraction" you mention, as long as they are identified as jewish people, people that wish them harm will not relent on some genetics argument (or similar).
I am assuming we are in agreement that securing human rights for all humans is the most important goal, so i ask: if there are perceived characteristics that make people think other people are of a group, would that not be more relevant than actual match with the group? After all, no attacker will look at this scientifically.
Nonewithstanding that the "dump them there and then send thoughts and prayers" shit is not working.
Other aspect would be: if "indigenous" status goes away after being expelled from a region, would we not enable attackers? Keep them away long enough, they loose their rights?
That's a really hard question i think, if the line gets pushed too far, just about anyone could claim to belong.
> I doubt the relevance of the "small fraction" you mention, as long as they are identified as jewish people, people that wish them harm will not relent on some genetics argument (or similar).
People wanting harm on them doesnt really have any relevance to them steealing someones home and commiting mass genocide. While I understand the need well there are plenty of groups that would love a home thqat doesnt have one all to themselves from pagans on up
> I am assuming we are in agreement that securing human rights for all humans is the most important goal, so i ask: if there are perceived characteristics that make people think other people are of a group, would that not be more relevant than actual match with the group? After all, no attacker will look at this scientifically.
More relevant to what? If they can steal land that has no relationship to them at all (since we established they are a different ethnic group)? No of course not. Them being abused as a group has relevance for us to want to protect them from that harm.
So why dont you give them part of germany, after all germany was the source of most of the harm they expiernced this century, sounds like if you think they deserve land of their own you should be giving them German land to protect them no? That way you arent using Nazi tactics on one group (palestinians) to benefit another, contradicting your purpose int he process.
> Other aspect would be: if "indigenous" status goes away after being expelled from a region, would we not enable attackers? Keep them away long enough, they loose their rights?
Indigienous status doesnt go away when you are expelled from a region. It goes away when you are no longer those people. A jew by religion only, with little or no jewish lineage is a religious jew. That would be like me calling myself african because somewhere 2000 years ago in my family tree there was a african ancestor once.
@freemo
I did not condone what you are talking about - please try to re-focus: i set out to define "indigenous" and expand on context of long expulsion from indigenous lands.
I did not say or mean to condone any violence outside of a very strict definition of self defense and defense of others.
The topic of where should be a land to keep anyone safe is a hard question in general, much more so in this topic - i did not adress it since i do not have a good solution. It is also not my place to suggest one.
You hint at the topic of agression by the state, or better put gouvernment of israel. That is a problem, i have no clear data on what exactly is happening - but whatever happens outside of strictly self defense is bad. It irks me that some people seem to say it does not matter and want to write a blank check. To a nation with nuclear weapons. smh.
So yeah, emotional topic due to much violence that has happened. I assure you, what you read from my toot was not what i meant.
Are you trying to make "This is historically X's land" type of argument