this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
256 points (97.4% liked)
World News
31477 readers
704 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Remember, no amount of brown suffering can make up for any amount of white suffering.
I know this isn't necessarily about race, but it is another example of whites getting their way while browns get in the way. Just gonna add another tally.
The idea that indigenous peoples should be subjugated and forcefully integrated by settlers is an inherently racial problem. This was just as true in Canada and the US as it was true in South America as it is in Palestine today.
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, the indigenous people of North America should be free.
And that's part of the reason the Israel-Palestine conflict is so contentious. Both peoples are indigenous to the region, having strong ancestral ties to the Canaanite peoples that inhabited the area over many periods of external rule and migrations.
That the Jewish people were once forced from the area but retained their identity in new lands doesn't diminish their right to live in their ancestral home. Nor does it give them the right to treat their distant cousins (who also have ancestral claim) the Palestinians the way the state of Israel has.
I don't know what the solution is, but many Palestinians and Israelis just want peace, contrary to the rhetoric of their governments.
I'm starting to lean towards a one state solution myself. Especially the more I've learned about the fact that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all used to get along in the area before the colonization of European and Western Jewish people into the area and displacement of the locals.
Give them democracy with a strong Constitution where everyone is equal, remove all traces of ethno nationalism or theocracy from the government (except for some public holidays). Integrate the security forces, courts, and other agencies of power together, enforce human rights, try to learn from South Africa, the Troubles in England, and I heard what they did in New Zealand to integrate with the indigenous worked, too. Mix up the schools so the next generation learns to grow up without the hate for the "other" their elders have.
At this point, one state solution is the only possible way forward. A two state solution will not work unless conditions radically change. Maybe it never would have worked, maybe the Israeli government only pretended to be willing to go with a two state solution.
Such a thing is unacceptable to the current Israeli government because it would end their ethnostate but i don't see an option between that and complete extermination of the Palestinians.
The crusades would like a word.
I mean there's a good 600-700 years of stuff that was happening from the end of the crusades to the late 1940s
You mean the time when the area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, which enforced stability on it?
I do agree, if we put the whole area under a single Empire's influence again it would likely be a lot more stable.
I don't think any sort of one state solution that would exist between the two countries would classify as an empire, and "enforced stability" is a funny way to try to make people not killing each other sound bad. Also if you want to talk about enforced, that word seems perfectly applicable to Israel's relationship with Palestine now.
@Tavarin the Crusades originated in Europe though. It wasn't the locals infighting, more like warmongering tourists.
True, but it was due to religious hegemony in the region.
@Tavarin I don't think it really was. That's what the Pope wanted people to think at the time, but historians have other explanations.
The early Crusaders attacked other Christians as well as Jewish settlements and Muslims.
During the crusades the region was controlled by the Abbasid Caliphate, and ruled as a Muslim land. The only reason the Christians, Jew, and Muslims "got along" there was due to being under the rule of a single and powerful empire. It wasn't like the Middle East of the time was separate kingdoms who got along, it was controlled by empires for almost all of its history.
@Tavarin sure. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying the crusades weren't their fault.
Many of the organization in Gaza understand this: they have a desire to fight for their freedom, but not a desire to lead.
Don't forget Australia!
Last time I checked over half of Israel's population is at least partly of Mizrahi descent. Ie. they have Middle-Eastern, Asian, or North African ancestry.
They're not homogenously white which is blindingly obvious if you look at a picture of ordinary Israelis. That's also ignoring the fact that 'European' Ashkenazi Jews were historically never considered white either.
Applying simplistic quasi-binary American notions of race, and simplistic understandings of colonialism, to a complex conflict is ignorant and stupid, and anyone who upvoted your comment is ignorant for doing so.
It's about as dumb as when Americans go on about the US being incredibly ethnically diverse, because they're too ignorant and racist to realise a country like Uganda is super diverse even if 'they all look the same' to an uneducated American eye. Applying simplistic American notions of race to humanity's birthplace, oblivious to the genetic diversity this entails, and to the fact that countries divided by colonial powers without any respect for existing linguistic, ethnic, national, or cultural borders are likely to be super diverse too.
What is passing complexion? What is colorismo?
I assume those are American concepts, part of American racial politics that primarily focuses on skin colour. But those genuinely aren't as relevant to countries half way around the globe.
America is not the world. Foreign countries are genuinely foreign. No, really. Allow me to illustrate:
Example 1: imagine you just heard someone complaining about racism against white people.
In an American context, you'd likely (often correctly) assume they were a right wing lunatic or a racist.
But here in Europe, the Sámi and Irish travellers would likely seem 'whiter than white' from an American racial politics perspective. IRC there are some theories that suggest Irish Travellers are the descendants of people who lived in Ireland before the celts arrived. We're talking millenia. And yet they face plenty of outright and often pretty nasty racism to this day.
Example 2: Israel.
My understanding is that Mizrahi Jews (sometimes known as 'Arab Jews' although that's considered a pejorative by some) historically and still do face plenty of racism in Israel from 'white' Jews....
And yet they also vote for Netenyahu and Likud en masse. The far right Itamar Ben-Gvir is (still?) the current Minister of Security. Iraqi and Kurdish heritage. Not 'white' by American standards. And yet here's an excerpt from his wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir
TLDR: more complicated than 'brown people/white people'
Colorismo is a Latin American phenomenon.
Also Israel is the 51st state so...
I don't follow
Apparently very outrageous to ask for details lmayo