This is just obstructionist post-modernism to essentially delegitimize anyone’s presence on any given territory thus justify displacement by force as legitimate as concurrent presence.
I speak academic. The comment is saying you’re nitpicking over what words mean to the point you’re equating expulsion from an area to two different groups of people living in the same area simultaneously. In this case you’re equating the ideology of Zionism, which seeks to expel or subdue the Palestinian population, to the idea of a free Palestine. There’s also a historical basis for Palestine having Jews and Arabs live together in the area for hundreds of years.
Personally I don’t think you’re equating these two things, I think maybe you’re asking stuff in good faith
Yeah i’m not trying to equate them, and I do genuinely want to learn since i’m new to Marxism. I guess I need to study the history of the levant more, I have no idea how life was for Jews in the area before Israel was founded
You’d be very interested in reading specifically about British Palestine. Jews and Arabs (often those two groups weren’t distinct) coexisted in the area for centuries during the Ottoman Empire. British control coincided with the rise of political Zionism and settlement of Palestine by European Jewish immigrants. These immigrants set up their own communities, complete with their own armed soldiers who would do things like burn down the homes of Arab families. It got so bad the UK had to try limiting Jewish immigration into the area, which resulted in the Zionists attacking British military facilities. So on so on, the Zionist Entity declares independence in 1948.
How did palestine earn the right to the land? Is it because they were living there first before they were kicked out? In that case, I’m unsure how this is different from Zionists claiming that they were there first, or any other group of people who ever lived in the region?
Because Palestinians are the native inhabitants of that land. Unlike Zionists there was never a mass expulsion by “Arabs”, rather just an organic cultural shift.
Because the Zionist entity is a colonial project and Palestine isn’t. The colonization is currently ongoing and shouldn’t occur. Furthermore, Zionists claim they were indigenous thousands of years ago, whereas Palestinian victims of the Nakba are currently still alive. Surely that lends more authority to who the land belongs to. Zionists also claim that all Jews worldwide, except perhaps Ethiopians, have a right to expel Palestinians from the area, even if they’re a Yiddish speaking Jew from Brooklyn.
I definitely agree with you that Palestinians have more of a “right” than Zionists to live in the area. I’m just taking issue with your original comment implying that land should be divided according to what group has the “right” to live there, since as an internationalist I believe in freedom of movement.
People can exert self-determination over where they live without necessarily expelling or displacing anyone else. That’s all I mean. People can coexist together in an area and mutually control that area. A main issue in the world today is imperialism by western powers. Israel is a major culprit of this. Self-determination in this sense often means the ability for a people to control their own political, economic, social, etc formation without the external threat of imperialism. Vietnam wanted to be rid of French influence, various socialist movements of Latin America wanted to be rid of the CIA, and Palestine today wishes to be rid of the US and Zionist interference.
the land rightfully belongs to Palestinians and shouldn’t be nuked because of its occupation
Ok, yours is the correct take.
Does land in general rightfully belong to anyone? Isn’t this the same argument Zionists use to justify Israel?
This is just obstructionist post-modernism to essentially delegitimize anyone’s presence on any given territory thus justify displacement by force as legitimate as concurrent presence.
Post-modernist shit. When will they learn that marxism is a totalizing, universalizing theory? (Not the little guy you’re responding to tho)
ima be real, i have no idea what you said
I speak academic. The comment is saying you’re nitpicking over what words mean to the point you’re equating expulsion from an area to two different groups of people living in the same area simultaneously. In this case you’re equating the ideology of Zionism, which seeks to expel or subdue the Palestinian population, to the idea of a free Palestine. There’s also a historical basis for Palestine having Jews and Arabs live together in the area for hundreds of years.
Personally I don’t think you’re equating these two things, I think maybe you’re asking stuff in good faith
Yeah i’m not trying to equate them, and I do genuinely want to learn since i’m new to Marxism. I guess I need to study the history of the levant more, I have no idea how life was for Jews in the area before Israel was founded
You’d be very interested in reading specifically about British Palestine. Jews and Arabs (often those two groups weren’t distinct) coexisted in the area for centuries during the Ottoman Empire. British control coincided with the rise of political Zionism and settlement of Palestine by European Jewish immigrants. These immigrants set up their own communities, complete with their own armed soldiers who would do things like burn down the homes of Arab families. It got so bad the UK had to try limiting Jewish immigration into the area, which resulted in the Zionists attacking British military facilities. So on so on, the Zionist Entity declares independence in 1948.
Is wikipedia a good source for reading about this topic or is it biased?
Yeah just check the sources and it’s often fine
Yes the land rightfully belongs to Palestine. No, this isn’t the same thing zionists claim.
How did palestine earn the right to the land? Is it because they were living there first before they were kicked out? In that case, I’m unsure how this is different from Zionists claiming that they were there first, or any other group of people who ever lived in the region?
Because Palestinians are the native inhabitants of that land. Unlike Zionists there was never a mass expulsion by “Arabs”, rather just an organic cultural shift.
Because the Zionist entity is a colonial project and Palestine isn’t. The colonization is currently ongoing and shouldn’t occur. Furthermore, Zionists claim they were indigenous thousands of years ago, whereas Palestinian victims of the Nakba are currently still alive. Surely that lends more authority to who the land belongs to. Zionists also claim that all Jews worldwide, except perhaps Ethiopians, have a right to expel Palestinians from the area, even if they’re a Yiddish speaking Jew from Brooklyn.
I definitely agree with you that Palestinians have more of a “right” than Zionists to live in the area. I’m just taking issue with your original comment implying that land should be divided according to what group has the “right” to live there, since as an internationalist I believe in freedom of movement.
What you’re talking about isn’t mutually exclusive though
how so?
People can exert self-determination over where they live without necessarily expelling or displacing anyone else. That’s all I mean. People can coexist together in an area and mutually control that area. A main issue in the world today is imperialism by western powers. Israel is a major culprit of this. Self-determination in this sense often means the ability for a people to control their own political, economic, social, etc formation without the external threat of imperialism. Vietnam wanted to be rid of French influence, various socialist movements of Latin America wanted to be rid of the CIA, and Palestine today wishes to be rid of the US and Zionist interference.
Zionists don’t deserve that.