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.
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.
those folk are Palestinian. that’s my entire point.
yes apartheid exists. shooting for a two state solution codifies this apartheid. that is wrong.
it needs to be completely reverted and the folks physically doing the genocide given the proper sentences.
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.