omw_68
6d ago
States people like are justified. States that they don't like are illegitimate and based on colonial white supremacy. It's just who/whom.
I tend to agree with this. I would like to see a clear, consistent set of criteria for determining whether a state is "legitimate." Failing that, "legitimate" is just another strategically ambiguous social justice word like "racism," "apartheid," "genocide," "privilege," and so on.
omw_68
6d ago
This is just might makes right
I agree, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that "might makes right" is difficult to get away from.
So for example, if I understand your post correctly, you incorrectly implied that there had been an Arab state in Palestine immediately before the founding of Jewish Israel. In reality, the land had been under control of the Ottoman Empire, which had conquered the area previously from someone else. Who conquered it from someone else. And so on back to the Arab conquerors. Who conquered the area from someone else. And so on.
So yes, there was an Arab state there at one point. And countless others as well.
If you point to one state (or one group of people) as being the legitimate owner of an area, you are implicitly endorsing "might makes right" -- at least in the Middle East, since all of the land there has been repeatedly invaded and conquered countless times.
Even if the Arab state had been in control of Palestine immediately prior to the founding of Israel, it's difficult to see how this makes a difference. Because that Arab state would have been established the same way as any other state in the area -- conquest.
omw_68
6d ago
I feel that your response would be more appropriate had I written a much more vulgar text about Israel in particular, and the plight of the pitiable and sympathetic Arabs underneath the boot of the settler colonial power, and so on
Well your post seemed to have some red flags about it.
For one thing, you seemed to assume that there was an Arab state in Palestine before Israel (there wasn't).
For another, although you clarified it/denied it, you seemed to imply that modern Israel is forever tainted by the circumstances of its founding.
In another post, you dismissed Israel as a "vanity state," ignoring the very legitimate reasons why the early Zionists thought it would be a good idea to have a Jewish state.
In another post, you seemed to be holding Israel to an extremely high standard - your "higher purpose" standard. And you seemingly declined to identify a few other states which in your view meet this standard.
In my experience, this type of messaging is very common among the Israel-hater crowd.
omw_68
6d ago
land thieves
It's worth noting that this phrase pre-supposes that ownership of the land in question is settled and undisputed.
Here's an example of what I mean:
In the 1920s and 1930s the Arabs successfully ethnically cleansed Hebron of Jews, despite Jews having lived there for hundreds of years if not longer. As a result of this ethnic cleansing, a lot of people view Hebron as "Palestinian Land" In other words, it became Arab land forever, and any Jews attempting to move to Hebron are "land thieves" even if they legitimately buy property there.
Here's another example:
There are many areas of J & S, which were unoccupied and, in effect, owned by the Ottoman Empire until its collapse in the early 20th century. For a lot of people, this land automatically became "Palestinian Land" at this point despite being unoccupied.
Of course, these principles only seem to work in one direction. According to believers in the concept of "Palestinian Land," there's no territory which automatically became Jewish land, even land which was bought and paid for by the Jewish National Fund. Now that there are Jews living in Hebron again, it's still not "Jewish Land" according to these people.
So I think that the phrase "land thieves" is loaded. It smuggles in extremely biased assumptions about ownership which are unwarranted.
If you want to use the phrase "land thieves" in this context, it is incumbent on you to explain how a group of people gets to own a piece of land.
omw_68
6d ago
Do indigenous activist even want to expel white people from North America and return to governance under various native policies, like in the sense of they rub a lamp and have any three wishes, would they use them for that? It seems to me they just want free shit.
If "free shit" means a little more in terms of money, land, and unearned privileges; and no amount of "free shit" ends the demands for more "free shit," then where does it end?
omw_68
6d ago
if they were refugees, then they did the equivalent of Syrian refugees setting up a Caliphate in Europe.
That's not necessarily so terrible. I mean, suppose a bunch of Druze had been chased out of Syria into what is now France during the days of the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire had collapsed. Would it be so wrong for those Druze to set up their own state in part of what's now France? I mean, at the time it wasn't carved in stone that France needed to be a state at all, let alone a state with the borders we know today.
Of course not
Ok, then why are we discussing the legitimacy of Israel at all? Is this a purely academic exercise?
Okay, read it as the Arabs in Palestine, their religion doesn't matter to me.
Arabs in the Ottoman Empire, many of whom migrated to Palestine around the same time as large numbers of Jews were making aliyah. (And apparently it wasn't a coincidence.)
one that is not morally better than the Muslims living there before.
There was no state there before. Unless you mean the Ottoman Empire. Is that what you are referring to?
it is a waste of scarce land that it should go to a vanity state for a micro-ethnicity that failed to have a state for 2000 years
I object to this characterization for at least two reasons. First, Israel is minuscule in comparison to the Ottoman Empire; the Muslim world; the Arab world. Probably less than 1% of the total land area. There's more than enough land to accommodate everyone.
More importantly, Israel is far more than just a vanity state. There was (and is) a huge problem with persecution of Jewish minority populations in many many places. In fact, part of the reason so many Jews were killed by the Nazis was a lack of a viable destination for people to flee to.
Anyway, it seems you didn't answer my question from before. I am really interested in your answer:
There is nothing new or elevated about Israel. What is the higher purpose?
Can you give a few examples of states which meet this higher purpose standard?
Also, given that the pre-existing state to modern Israel -- the Ottoman Empire -- collapsed due to external reasons, and given that there were many Jewish people in Palestine at the time, what do you feel should have happened? Should an Arab state have been established? (Actually multiple Arab states were established -- Lebanon; Syria; etc.) Should the French and British simply annexed their mandates?
I'm genuinely curious what you think should have happened which would not have been a "waste" as you put it.
Last, give you believe that any illegitimacy of Israel's founding does not carry forward to the present, why are you bringing up the topic? Is it purely an academic issue for you?
omw_68
7d ago
In other words Israel is predicated on the mass immigration of aliyah; the Jewish population grew from about 25,000 in the 1880s to about 630,000 by 1948, mostly through immigration. It is merely, then, the armed and coercive organisation of that population.
From what I understand, a lot of those Jews were displaced persons who were sent there after World War II. Another big chunk were refugees who were chased out of countries like Iraq, Yemen, etc.
I'm not sure how this plays into your standards of justice, but I do think it's worth noting.
What sort of just foundation is that? Consider this: when one man declares himself sovereign, he is a laughing stock, like an ape. When a few men do it, they are criminals; yet when many men do it, I am supposed to profess that they are just?
I think you need to clarify what you mean by "they" here. I mean, let's suppose that the initial founding of Israel in 1948 was unjust by some standard. Does that mean that the Israel of 2026 is illegitimate? That Israel is tainted forever?
There is nothing new or elevated about Israel. What is the higher purpose?
Can you give a few examples of states which meet this higher purpose standard?
crowding out the Muslims in Palestine, for nothing higher at all
As a point of information, it's worth noting that (1) there has always been a significant Christian Arab population alongside the Muslim Arab population, at least until recently until the Christians started getting chased out in large numbers; and (2) a lot of the Palestinian Arabs are the descendants of Arabs who migrated internally within the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries from places like what are now Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. That's why it's common for Palestinian Arabs to have names like "Masri" which means Egypt.
The situation is so dire that people dream of settling Mars, a desert with no water and no breathable air, because at least it is not yet scourged by a state.
If there were a Jewish colony on Mars which eventually became successful and prosperous, you can bet that there would be a lot of outrage over it. People would accuse the Jews of invading and seizing land which should be the common property of all mankind.
omw_68
7d ago
I get the "Republicans are my enemies" part. Why "fentanyl zombies who occupy public parks" are the dearest of friends who must be protected and enabled by endless lawfare and progressive DAs is more mysterious.
That's the way the Liberal Script works. The liberal makes a big show of siding with the downtrodden, the poor, the underdog etc. against his out-group who are cast in the role of the villain who is oppressing the downtrodden. It's just virtue signalling. It's a scam that's probably as old as time.
Do you have a source? I can't find anything about that, and given all the other dumb bullshit that gets made up about him, my priors are extremely low on a 13 year old being an active collaborator.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2006-09-29/html/CREC-2006-09-29-pt1-PgE1917.htm
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get
shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that
that's when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should
understand and--and anticipate events and when--when one is
threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it
was a--a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this
protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted
godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of
property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that
would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many,
many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not--not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child
you don't--you don't see the connection. But it was--it
created no--no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
George Soros was a literal child when the Nazis occupied Hungary.
If I'm not mistaken, he was 14 or 15 when he collaborated with the Nazis.
omw_68
8d ago
I think his public history with negative-sum investment antics against whole nations seems relevant
Also it probably doesn't help that he was a Nazi collaborator.
omw_68
8d ago
And it's like, "why is Soros wrecking our cities, why is he meddling in local elections". It is certainly bizarre. As if I were funding random communists in Lyons, France just to see the world burn.
Well the most charitable interpretation is that Soros and his ilk sincerely believe that criminals are that way because the system treats them like criminals. That they are otherwise honest decent people, who make a small mistake and get caught up in a system that turns them into hardened career criminals. So that if only the system were more lenient and understanding, there would ultimately be less crime.
For what it may be worth, I don't think that Soros types really believe this. They may believe that they believe it, but what gives the game away is when members of their out-group misbehave (or are accused of misbehaving) there is no push for leniency or compassion or understanding. Rather, the full hammer of the law must be brought down on such people.
It's just conflict-theory, virtue-signalling and who/whom IMO.
omw_68
8d ago
When you crank it up to 110% for the entire post it doesn't make it better. You need to have something plausible to engage with and then a FEW firecrackers thrown in there.
Agreed, the bait is a little too on-the-nose, so to speak.
omw_68
8d ago
I think this whole post is a troll, but it does give me the opportunity to bring this up: why are right-wingers so obsessed with George Soros in particular?
My sense is that Soros is really in the weeds. For example, his organization apparently came up with a strategy of getting progressives elected to DA positions in liberal-leaning jurisdictions. Apparently he correctly realized that you can really have a huge impact on policy (and cause a lot of grief for your outgroup) by getting hard-core true believers into DA positions.
I'm trying to resist the urge to respond to the OP (it seems like trolling/parody to me) but I will also note that Soros supports a lot of anti-Israel organizations. Which kind of undercuts the idea that he's a Mossad agent.
omw_68
9d ago
Much worse? When was the last time Israel accepted 1947 borders? 1947?
I'm not sure what you mean by "1947 borders." Do you mean the 1947 UN partition plan which was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs?
Certainly that was a far worse deal than a hypothetical deal I mentioned above where Israel is limited to the Green Line. It was less territory, it did not include any part of Jerusalem, and (obviously) did not guaranty peace.
Do you disagree with any of this?
omw_68
9d ago
I haven't studied this issue carefully, but it occurs to me that a few states will surely defect from general sentiment and welcome data centers for selfish reasons.
omw_68
9d ago
The marketplace of ideas can stay irrational longer than you can stay alive.
Well put.
I did not mean to imply that. I do not consider their actions in Gaza to be a war of expansion, it seems more like a punitive expedition.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, the obvious interpretation (of Israel's conduct) is that Israel is simply trying to kill everyone in Hamas that it can both for incapacitation and deterrence.
However, the Netanyahu government has clearly encouraged Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including through military force, while also driving out the native Palestinians.
Would you mind providing two examples of this so I can understand what you are getting at here?
I doubt it. They could assassinate the leaders of their neighbors and turn their cities into Gaza, but so far they have been unable to even occupy the population of Gaza, even though that would likely be effective at breaking Hamas control. (I mean, when the Allies reached Munich, they did not encircle it with a wall and starve it, hoping that the population would eventually get tired of the Nazis. They took and occupied the city, which allowed them to fight pockets of resistance a lot more selectively than through airstrikes.)
How do you know that Israel simply isn't trying to occupy Gaza the way the allies occupied Berlin? After all, the Battle of Berlin entailed a phenomenal amount of death and destruction. Over 100,000 civilians killed and far more soldiers. And as far as I know, the Nazis for the most part weren't hiding behind women and children. The obvious explanation is that Israel's leadership simply thinks that it's not worth the trouble to occupy Gaza in the same way as Berlin.
By the way, it might be argumentatively convenient to accuse Israel of a starvation strategy, but the actual facts tell a different story.
Anyway, let me ask you this: Can you at least agree that (1) Israel is currently occupying Southern Lebanon and could simply stay there without much risk of getting pushed out (2) Israel could pretty easily retake the Sinai just like it did in 1967 (before giving it back to the Egyptians a few years later); and (3) Israel could pretty easily push into Syria enough to set up an allied Druze state?
Edit: I will answer my own question.
-
The Israeli military is physically in southern Lebanon at the moment and has been in the past. There is no military force in Lebanon which is in a position to object them so they could stay indefinitely rather than withdrawing as they did in the past.
-
Israel entered, took control of, and annexed part of what used to be Syria -- the Golan Heights. (This area had been used as a staging ground by the Syrians to launch artillery barrages against Israelis in the North). Given the Syrian civil war, it would not be hard at all for Israel to push further. The hardest part was taking the Heights in the first place. Moreover, there is a large Druze population in this area; there is strong sentiment among the Druze that other groups in Syria pose a big threat to them while at the same time they see that their fellow Druze in Israel are being treated just fine.
-
With a much weaker military in 1967, Israel captured the entire Sinai in just a few days from Egypt. Rather than stay there, they left in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt. Currently the area is largely demilitarized. It is difficult to see that Israel would have much trouble re-capturing much or all of the Sinai in a surprise attack.
Israel could do all these things, and yet it doesn't. All of this is consistent with the pro-Israel position, which is that Israel's primary military motivation is self-defense. And completely in contradiction to the claim by anti-Israel types that Israel's motivation is military expansionism. So I have to conclude that you are dead wrong. And in fact, I strongly suspect that this is yet another example of the "argumentative convenience" you cited. i.e. Israel's detractors are not stating their actual objection to Israel but rather something that's more palatable and convenient to say.
omw_68
9d ago
The probability means the Knesset votes for it.
I strongly disagree. Given that Israel accepted much worse deals in the past, it's reasonable to expect that Israel would jump on this. Unless you can demonstrate that something has changed dramatically in the Israeli mindset.
omw_68
10d ago
What does 'permanent' as far as public opinion and culture goes' even mean, anyway?
I'm not sure, but here's a possible way of thinking about it. A couple hundred years ago, the issue of slavery in the United States was a culture war issue. (Actually it was later a real war issue.) Anyway, I think it's fair to say that the abolitionists won permanently. In the sense that they won, they got their way, and their opposition has dwindled away into essentially nothing.
Will there be slavery again in the United States? Seems unlikely, but if it does happen, it's not going to be because pro-slavery institutions worked for hundreds of years and finally got their way. Rather, it will be because new constituencies emerged.
Same thing with women's suffrage. There used to be an organization called the New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. It's long gone. Will women eventually lose the right to vote? I think it's unlikely, but again, if it does happen, it won't be because the NYSAOWS finally succeeded.
I would say that these situations could reasonably be called "permanent victory"
omw_68
10d ago
I don't think the answer is this obvious. If the final (3) would be "and the Palestinians forever forget about their [claimed] Right of Return to what is now Israel", then I would give the peace a probability of around 25%. If you added (4) "and Israeli Arabs move to Palestine", then I would raise the probability to 33%.
I'm not sure what you mean by "would give the peace a probability." The hypothetical assumes "total peace." This includes Palestinian Arabs giving up any claims that they have some kind of right to live in Israel.
I mean the whole journalistic-military-industrial-@Dean complex, not you specifically.
That's quite a gotcha you found. But to the extent you have (1) invented a group; (2) attributed a position to that group; and (3) claimed a "gotcha" against me for (allegedly) contradicting that group's position, it kinda shows that I'm not actually a part of that group.
omw_68
10d ago
The whole point I am making is that religious Zionist parties (excluding Likud, which has always had a religious Zionist faction which has become more significant over time) went from 9 Knesset seats in 1992 (when the Rabin government that did Oslo was elected) to 19 in 2026 (if you allocate half of B'Yachad's seats to Naftali Bennet), due to a change in Israeli demographics. Religious Zionists would definitely reject the hypothetical deal you discuss, and Netanyahu built his political career based on opposition to the "worse deals in the past" that Israel accepted, so I suspect most Likudniks would as well.
Well can we agree that if Religious Zionists were calling the shots, then at a minimum they would (1) annex all of area C; (2) restore Jewish settlements to Gaza; and (3) open southern Lebanon to settlements?
omw_68
10d ago
They’re permanent as far as public opinion and culture goes.
I disagree with this as well. Certainly there are some parts of the United States where the public opinion and culture is very much opposed to abortion. Given the strong growth rates of very religious populations, I would expect this opposition to grow.
To a large extent I agree with this, but I think it's worth asking a couple of questions.
First, against what state was Israel's foundational conquest? The British? The British voluntarily withdrew from the area and recognized a Jewish state in writing. The Arabs? There was no Arab state there at the time. The Ottomans? The Ottoman empire collapsed in 1922, long before Israel was founded and for reasons largely unrelated to Zionism.
Second, what are we to make, for example, of the ethnic cleansing of Hebron? When the Jews were kicked out of Hebron, this wasn't some mythical event the details of which were lost in the mists of time. On the contrary, it's very well documented. And yet, anti-Israel types generally treat Hebron as "Palestinian Land."
So I think there's more in play than timing. As with most things, I think there's an element of who/whom.
More options
Context Copy link