The first part applies to… Most of the world outside of Europe?
The second part applies, to lesser degrees, to a large part of the world. Such as the USA.
What even is this argument. Israel’s not a state? Well fucking great, so following that logic which state should we hold responsible for Israel’s crimes then?
Europe’s colonial past is a whole-ass subject but amongst all the potential ways to try to make up for it, “stop formally recognizing former colonies because we fucked it up too badly” is one of the worst takes I’ve heard.
state held responsible? PEOPLE, individuals, yes. People who are running that terrorist shitshow. Members of various places around the world. And yes. That includes a lot of people. Sanctions on a state never work. People need prison. for crimes against humanity.
Stop pretending it is ok that israel exist as a recognized nation; it is younger than some of the people still living there!
So there are two interpretations I could make of your comment, one of which is more charitable than the other.
You are using the Chinese and Israeli playbook of weaponizing statehood recognition as a value judgement. That is profoundly problematic, both on a practical and a philosophical level. De-humanization should not be a tool we have to use on our enemies. Our moral high ground should speak for itself.
Your are dog-whistling for the genocide and/or deportation of all Israelis. In which case our conversation is done here.
To be clear, Israel is committing genocide and every single member of its government and of the IDF should be tried at The Hague. But laws and international order exist for a reason, and trying to circumvent them like this is a very bad look that Israel has been rightfully criticized for for decades.
where do I mention a people should not exist? never.
the state itself was created by a group knowing full well they would need genocide to make their state. they call it, these days, “mowing the lawn.” the criminals need prison and the working class people who just want peace deserve it. in Palestine.
the tricky part of these convos is not conflating the nation state, israel with the Jewish people. Or zionism with the Jewish people. Or the state israel with the followers of Israel.
So no Israel, just Palestine? That would leave Israelis a majority population in Palestine. Do you expect Israelis to magically not outvote the Palestinians, or are you proposing an autocracy or an apartheid system stripping Israelis of their voting rights?
I would also strongly suggest you do some reading on the factors leading up to the Rwandan genocide. A “just” peace isn’t enough; after generations of life under apartheid, there are no easy or quick paths to lasting peace. I won’t commit the hubris of pretending I have a definitive solution, and I think it’s important to underline that as outsiders to the conflict, the best we can do is offer to safeguard peace. That’s what the Two-State Solution was meant to do, that’s what arms sanctions are meant to do, that’s what the threat of economic retaliation would be meant to do (granted each with their own significant shortcomings). Denying the practical existence of either Israel or Palestine is antithetical to building a path towards lasting peace and a meaningful international effort towards safeguarding said peace.
For a practical example, assuming a peace treaty ever gets signed, sending UN Blue Helmets would be diplomatically easier if all parties involved recognized Palestine and Israel as sovereign states. Even if that all seems like a moot point right now what when neither Israel nor most Western nations are actually looking forward to peace.
israel is a group of invasive terrorists who, for almost a century now, or more depending on inclusion of zionism, have invaded a land that was already a nation on its own and already recognized by the world.
Isn’t a group a “they” and not a “what”. Israel is a nation of people who sees themselves as Israeli. Entire generations are born there and consider that land their home. You can’t be born a terrorist.
It’s possible in the future to build some kinda secular Haifa Republic but this war has made that an incredibly utopian prospect.
It’s not clear what position you advocate except the continuation of war.
so where was that logic when palestine was literally invaded by a group of europeans calling themselves zionists? or europeans claiming some sort of “british mandate”?
revert it to palestine. it’s what it was before our grandparents generation invaded.
Did I give some indication that I disagree with that idea? Lol
I find that “recognition” is just a tool that powerful nations use to oppress less powerful polities. That’s why I am arguing against it.
There’s no contradiction between this argument and anarchism. As I said elsewhere in the thread, I don’t believe states should exist. But giving the US, China, and other imperial powers the right to decide which ones are acknowledged or dismissed is part of the problem.
Not recognizing would mean to not have any treaties with them, no general Visa rules, to limit trade, obviously no weapons shipments, denying port for any ships delivering arms to a non state actor…
States are invented, lines are drawn on maps and people are divided by elites, it’s silly to insist that a genocidal ethno state should simple continue to exist because it already exists.
We don’t want a two state solution, we want one state where everyone is treated equally regardless of religion.
No, I’d rather see them abolished. But they do exist, and allowing the US or Europe to decide which ones are acknowledged is a big problem in today’s world.
People who exercise their own autonomy should have that autonomy acknowledged. Full stop. Pretending it doesn’t exist is harmful, even if that autonomy is being used to hurt people.
Of course we can. We can stop funding them financially and militarily, we can stop doing business with them, and we can refuse their citizens travel, until they stop genocide and end apartheid.
You’re pretending like this isn’t common place already, it’s just unfathomable that it can happen to Israel for some reason?
That has nothing to do with “stop recognizing them as a country” and the west loses more by not allowing citizens travel (because people wouldn’t be able to go to holy sites, it works both way).
And man, the EU can’t even properly sanction Russia, do you really think they care about the middle east at all? Specially when not even the countries around care about Palestina.
Pretending it doesn’t exist is harmful, even if that autonomy is being used to hurt people.
What? What is this “pretending”? What do you think we’re talking about? And what makes pretending Israel isn’t a state, if that’s what you understood being said, harmful?
I’d rather see them abolished
That’s what we’re talking about. Let’s abolish Israel, and create a new state for all the people, historically we’d call that Palestine, but I’m okay with coming up with a new name.
Ending borders is a noble ideal but it’s not currently practical. People need many of the services their country provides, like healthcare, elderly care, pensions, unemployment assistance etc.
With no national boundaries, and no alternative system in place, society as we know it collapses.
Good, civilization should collapse. I want the human species to go extinct! Preferably before we wipe out the rest of all the animals and plants! Fucking pathetic humans.
well i guess law was originally derived from people’s ambition towards power and society’s need to still be organized. that’s a universal phenomenon, even if you encountered an exotic animal species on another planet, i reckon.
that’s what makes it more universal than you think.
a lot of details in our law are arbitrary, but so is math notation and even a lot of conventions that we use (consider 2π = 6.28 instead of π = 6.28). still, the core of the field is universal, i believe.
1+1 does not equal 2 even if you “notate” it differently. That’s the thing about math. compared to power structures invented by humans who have to kill each other over the “science” behind sharing a fucking drinking fountain with a black person.
There are and have been many different legal systems throughout the world and history. The one we’re familiar with is from the Romans - hence all the Latin legal terms - and was spread by colonialism.
It is nothing like math, which was discovered independently by various cultures around the world.
For more details read chapter 7 of David Graeber’s “Debt”
Non tangible things are still real. Families are real.
The creation of complex systems is uniquely human and is what allows development and progress.
Without these systems, laws and things including incorporatng non human entities has pros and cons. Development of healthcare and increasing longevity and increased food production, sanitation and reduction in hunger are a benefit. War and genocide are a problem. However, wars still happened before the introduction of borders. See Norse vikings, Roman empire creation etc.
They are inter-subjective realities. As opposed to subjective realities - the sky looks blue to me - and objective realities - the sky is blue because of the refraction of light and varies in color due to atmospheric conditions.
Laws exist because we say they do. Society and people follow patterns because of these laws. Abolishing these laws and borders would lead to societal breakdown without an alternative system to replace them.
Families are also constructs, borne of genetic reproduction. however we now understand them to include marriage and adoption and blended families. All constructs. All legalized also.
However, wars still happened before the introduction of borders
The concept of borders did not exist yet but the earliest wars was definitely about territories control for accessing more natural resources . It’s basically the same
This implies that the resources the people of Nataruk had at the time were valuable and worth fighting for, whether it was water, dried meat or fish, gathered nuts or indeed women and children. This shows that two of the conditions associated with warfare among settled societies—control of territory and resources— were probably the same for these hunter-gatherers, and that we have underestimated their role in prehistory.
Yes, of course. However, look at even ancient Greece, and legends of war for troy about love. The concept is older than the concept of countries. War is always about resource allocation, of you include people as a resource, which they are on a societal level. The designation of borders and countries is also partly about resource allocation.
Lol so I agree with you 100%. There is a strong case against the recognition of any states on that basis.
But, so long as we have a legal system that functions on the basis of this social construct, the idea that we should capriciously decide to recognize or not recognize various states doesn’t serve any practical purpose that I can see.
Especially when they, as a matter of fact, do exercise authority over a given territory.
Not recognizing states that obviously exist is extremely silly.
Yeah. exactly why Palestine should be recognized. israel is, however, a european invention and terrorist colony.
The first part applies to… Most of the world outside of Europe?
The second part applies, to lesser degrees, to a large part of the world. Such as the USA.
What even is this argument. Israel’s not a state? Well fucking great, so following that logic which state should we hold responsible for Israel’s crimes then?
Europe’s colonial past is a whole-ass subject but amongst all the potential ways to try to make up for it, “stop formally recognizing former colonies because we fucked it up too badly” is one of the worst takes I’ve heard.
🤔 🤔🤔 🤔🤔 🤔
state held responsible? PEOPLE, individuals, yes. People who are running that terrorist shitshow. Members of various places around the world. And yes. That includes a lot of people. Sanctions on a state never work. People need prison. for crimes against humanity.
Stop pretending it is ok that israel exist as a recognized nation; it is younger than some of the people still living there!
So there are two interpretations I could make of your comment, one of which is more charitable than the other.
To be clear, Israel is committing genocide and every single member of its government and of the IDF should be tried at The Hague. But laws and international order exist for a reason, and trying to circumvent them like this is a very bad look that Israel has been rightfully criticized for for decades.
where do I mention a people should not exist? never.
the state itself was created by a group knowing full well they would need genocide to make their state. they call it, these days, “mowing the lawn.” the criminals need prison and the working class people who just want peace deserve it. in Palestine.
the tricky part of these convos is not conflating the nation state, israel with the Jewish people. Or zionism with the Jewish people. Or the state israel with the followers of Israel.
hope that helped.
So no Israel, just Palestine? That would leave Israelis a majority population in Palestine. Do you expect Israelis to magically not outvote the Palestinians, or are you proposing an autocracy or an apartheid system stripping Israelis of their voting rights?
I would also strongly suggest you do some reading on the factors leading up to the Rwandan genocide. A “just” peace isn’t enough; after generations of life under apartheid, there are no easy or quick paths to lasting peace. I won’t commit the hubris of pretending I have a definitive solution, and I think it’s important to underline that as outsiders to the conflict, the best we can do is offer to safeguard peace. That’s what the Two-State Solution was meant to do, that’s what arms sanctions are meant to do, that’s what the threat of economic retaliation would be meant to do (granted each with their own significant shortcomings). Denying the practical existence of either Israel or Palestine is antithetical to building a path towards lasting peace and a meaningful international effort towards safeguarding said peace.
For a practical example, assuming a peace treaty ever gets signed, sending UN Blue Helmets would be diplomatically easier if all parties involved recognized Palestine and Israel as sovereign states. Even if that all seems like a moot point right now what when neither Israel nor most Western nations are actually looking forward to peace.
What’s an “israeli”?
In this context? Someone who is currently on the good side of the current apartheid system in Israel/Palestine.
Don’t play dumb with me, you know full well what I meant. If you have a point, make it.
You don’t have to think Israel should exist. But what good does it do to pretend they don’t when they obviously do?
I am not speaking of a “they”, but of a “what.”
israel is a group of invasive terrorists who, for almost a century now, or more depending on inclusion of zionism, have invaded a land that was already a nation on its own and already recognized by the world.
Isn’t a group a “they” and not a “what”. Israel is a nation of people who sees themselves as Israeli. Entire generations are born there and consider that land their home. You can’t be born a terrorist.
It’s possible in the future to build some kinda secular Haifa Republic but this war has made that an incredibly utopian prospect.
It’s not clear what position you advocate except the continuation of war.
so where was that logic when palestine was literally invaded by a group of europeans calling themselves zionists? or europeans claiming some sort of “british mandate”?
revert it to palestine. it’s what it was before our grandparents generation invaded.
Like seriously? Who puts Liberty in their username? Nations exist to oppress and enslave us. Liberty… What a fucking joke.
You can be an anarchist if that’s what you believe is best. But belittling people who don’t think like you is stupid and childish.
some of us are already anarchists.
I’m sure. So?
Did I give some indication that I disagree with that idea? Lol
I find that “recognition” is just a tool that powerful nations use to oppress less powerful polities. That’s why I am arguing against it.
There’s no contradiction between this argument and anarchism. As I said elsewhere in the thread, I don’t believe states should exist. But giving the US, China, and other imperial powers the right to decide which ones are acknowledged or dismissed is part of the problem.
Not recognizing would mean to not have any treaties with them, no general Visa rules, to limit trade, obviously no weapons shipments, denying port for any ships delivering arms to a non state actor…
Why? Do you actually believe states have rights?
States are invented, lines are drawn on maps and people are divided by elites, it’s silly to insist that a genocidal ethno state should simple continue to exist because it already exists.
We don’t want a two state solution, we want one state where everyone is treated equally regardless of religion.
No, I’d rather see them abolished. But they do exist, and allowing the US or Europe to decide which ones are acknowledged is a big problem in today’s world.
People who exercise their own autonomy should have that autonomy acknowledged. Full stop. Pretending it doesn’t exist is harmful, even if that autonomy is being used to hurt people.
Israel may have been a mistake in 1947 but there is no point in not recognizing them. They are there, they exist, you can’t undo what happened in 47.
Of course we can. We can stop funding them financially and militarily, we can stop doing business with them, and we can refuse their citizens travel, until they stop genocide and end apartheid.
You’re pretending like this isn’t common place already, it’s just unfathomable that it can happen to Israel for some reason?
That has nothing to do with “stop recognizing them as a country” and the west loses more by not allowing citizens travel (because people wouldn’t be able to go to holy sites, it works both way).
And man, the EU can’t even properly sanction Russia, do you really think they care about the middle east at all? Specially when not even the countries around care about Palestina.
What? What is this “pretending”? What do you think we’re talking about? And what makes pretending Israel isn’t a state, if that’s what you understood being said, harmful?
That’s what we’re talking about. Let’s abolish Israel, and create a new state for all the people, historically we’d call that Palestine, but I’m okay with coming up with a new name.
States only exist in our minds.
And our legal system.
Ending borders is a noble ideal but it’s not currently practical. People need many of the services their country provides, like healthcare, elderly care, pensions, unemployment assistance etc.
With no national boundaries, and no alternative system in place, society as we know it collapses.
Good, civilization should collapse. I want the human species to go extinct! Preferably before we wipe out the rest of all the animals and plants! Fucking pathetic humans.
The legal system also only exists because we wrote our thoughts down. It’s barely more real than a border.
so does math. still nobody would argue that math is wrong or arbitrary because of that
math exists outside of humanity though. it is a priori. nation states exist because some people decided to enslave others.
well i guess law was originally derived from people’s ambition towards power and society’s need to still be organized. that’s a universal phenomenon, even if you encountered an exotic animal species on another planet, i reckon.
that’s what makes it more universal than you think.
a lot of details in our law are arbitrary, but so is math notation and even a lot of conventions that we use (consider 2π = 6.28 instead of π = 6.28). still, the core of the field is universal, i believe.
1+1 does not equal 2 even if you “notate” it differently. That’s the thing about math. compared to power structures invented by humans who have to kill each other over the “science” behind sharing a fucking drinking fountain with a black person.
Our system of law was derived from the Romans who thought people could own other people.
There are and have been many different legal systems throughout the world and history. The one we’re familiar with is from the Romans - hence all the Latin legal terms - and was spread by colonialism.
It is nothing like math, which was discovered independently by various cultures around the world.
For more details read chapter 7 of David Graeber’s “Debt”
Non tangible things are still real. Families are real.
The creation of complex systems is uniquely human and is what allows development and progress.
Without these systems, laws and things including incorporatng non human entities has pros and cons. Development of healthcare and increasing longevity and increased food production, sanitation and reduction in hunger are a benefit. War and genocide are a problem. However, wars still happened before the introduction of borders. See Norse vikings, Roman empire creation etc.
They are inter-subjective realities. As opposed to subjective realities - the sky looks blue to me - and objective realities - the sky is blue because of the refraction of light and varies in color due to atmospheric conditions.
Realities nonetheless.
Laws exist because we say they do. Society and people follow patterns because of these laws. Abolishing these laws and borders would lead to societal breakdown without an alternative system to replace them.
Families are also constructs, borne of genetic reproduction. however we now understand them to include marriage and adoption and blended families. All constructs. All legalized also.
The concept of borders did not exist yet but the earliest wars was definitely about territories control for accessing more natural resources . It’s basically the same
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-brutal-massacre-may-be-earliest-evidence-war-180957884/
Yes, of course. However, look at even ancient Greece, and legends of war for troy about love. The concept is older than the concept of countries. War is always about resource allocation, of you include people as a resource, which they are on a societal level. The designation of borders and countries is also partly about resource allocation.
States are a…state of mind
Lol so I agree with you 100%. There is a strong case against the recognition of any states on that basis.
But, so long as we have a legal system that functions on the basis of this social construct, the idea that we should capriciously decide to recognize or not recognize various states doesn’t serve any practical purpose that I can see. Especially when they, as a matter of fact, do exercise authority over a given territory.
Yes, as long as the people with guns say I must believe in states I will pretend to believe in states.
Like a toddler of the corn with an imaginary friend.