ethnonationalism bad

Oof. It's not been a good few, uh, decades to be a Russian. At least, it seems that way looking from the outside.

Israel was an act of decolonization. See my comment above.

In the U.S., it's from anger at the Democratic party. Mostly anger at, "when they go low, we go high," "reach across the aisle," "we need a strong Republican party," tolerance paradox, and that kind of stuff. Liberal economics isn't really compatible with leftism either.

Liberals are right-winger in most of the world. Only backward countries like britain still have conservative. We had the intelligence of shooting them a long time ago,

It's the new wrench to move the ratchet

I think it's American rugged individualism, conservatives have an easy time agreeing on binary decisions (women's rights bad, science bad, immigrants bad, etc) whereas anything progressive requires complications solutions and problem definitions. In that there are many right answers, and liberals seem willing to be more angry with someone 95% in agreement with them rather than the people trying to drag the country backwards.

I'm gonna invent my own political ideology ("I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side" and all that) and call it responsibilitarianism. OK, the word kinda defeats it alone. Point being that a political structure is as good as the fullness and equality of responsibility for its citizens.

No, we're not ignoring Britain's culpability at all. I guess you don't get that Palestine wasn't Britain's land to give, or all the homes and farms Zionist seized.

They had been migrating or atleast trying to since the Ottoman empire controlled the region, Ottoman authorities were able to keep them out to a degree but it was most likely a failing attempt on the long term regardless.

Source? And is it notably different than from, for example, the land the US government "left" for native Americans? Deliberately too small and unproductive to support the population's needs?

Not really, Leopard isn't remembered like Hitler because Hitler's victims were European.

Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a 'modern' way to 'solve' the 'Jewish Question' of Europe. Western Nations supported this instead of instituting legal protections and refuge for Jewish people fleeing persecution.

Adi Callai, an Israeli, does a great analysis of how Antisemitism has been weaponized by Zionism during its history.

Since at least the 1860's, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it's backing of the movement in order to 'solve' the 'Jewish Question' while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.

That's when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.

Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be 'Transferred' to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.

• Page 8, The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

• 10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book

• Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.

The problem starts when you start asking questions like: “How do you do that?” and the actual Zionists, surprisingly, aren’t that interested in the creation of a secular state, or what’s going to happen to the non-Jewish people already living there.

i can see how this is conceptually a problem, but i struggle to understand why people care about it, as far as my understanding goes, you couldn't find a country without a history of some form of colonialism.

you can go as far backward or as forward as you want, but i think there is always going to be some form of colonialism and conflict in humanity, it's just engraved into the evolutionary history of humanity, as it is in most other forms of life, the primary difference is that we figured out how to make guns so we can shoot at each other instead of fighting more traditionally.

As far as government goes, i don't really know how much of that would be a problem, especially considering that this is the middle east and a lot of middle eastern countries have religion explicitly integrated into the government (at least in under my knowledge). If we're talking about giving rights to people, things get more complicated. And i'm not super familiar with this myself, but it is to my knowledge that non jewish people living in israel have the same rights as jewish people (or broadly similar rights) excluding occupied territories of course.

This is also excluding the extremely high tensions between arab/palestinian people and israeli/jewish people in the region as well, which only makes things more messy and complicated.

i suppose on the surface i'm sort of iffy on the idea of israel, but given the broader context of the middle east, i'm not really sure zionism is any worse than the existing structures in the middle east.

If your family got shot for generations your example would work maybe

Not exactly. Zionism was a labor-communist movement with an emphasis on fairly purchasing land from absent landlords, communal ownership, multiculturalism, agriculture, and independence for the native peoples of the region.

I know it goes against the popular narrative these days, but the nice thing about history is that it never changes. I'm happy to share primary sources or mainstream, independent scholarship on any of these points if you have followup questions on any of these points.

For now, here is a poster from 1900 to illustrate the point:

Going against nation states and imperialism will never get you banned from this instance.

is them getting banned for that here in the room with us?

🤡

The establishment of Israel was an act of de-colonialization. There is no other place in the world where Jews have lived continuously for 3,000 years. There's no other place to which the Jewish people have a tribal connection to the land.

you see, every country would be fighting israel rn, if it's land was taken by it, so does it really matter?

Yeah, the reality is the US was too anti-Semitic to do it as well. And it still doesn't solve the problem the Zionists justify their crimes on, as seen with the very real modern possibility that America's protections for religious freedom might fail.

That's not even getting into the fact that America was segregated at the time and it would have been easy enough to whip up resentment against millions of refugees and create a second racial underclass...

Either of course. It just seems the former goes without saying and a large number of people support the latter.

Flip a coin because I don't hire unlucky people

They should choose the more qualified, if there's literally no difference I suppose to be totally fair it should be random.

There are more than enough competent minorities to hire a couple for diversity. And hiring 10 diversity hires, out of a hundred, isn't going to meaningfully impact opportunities for competent non minorities. This is some conservative bullshit trying to sneak in the idea that minorities are dumber than white people.