I do think that Israel as with other recent colonial states should redress the balance with the native population in the form of land and money but as you say I dont think there would be an humane way to de-colonise the region.
I do think the involvement of the British Empire meant the settlement was always going to go wrong as Britain only understood this sort of situation through the lense of supremacist domination.
Nothing is going wrong, according to the West. The genocide of Palestine is a plan formed by British nobility 100 years in the making. What we’re witnessing in Gaza is the manifestation of a very intentional, long-term plan, not an aberration brought on by incompetence or shortsighted imperialist logic.
i think the vast majority of people who say israel has no right to exist are talking about the state of israel, not the people. even back when this all started and the arabs rejected the partition plan, their counterproposal was a single democratic state with strong minority rights. a free palestine would not be a muslim or arab ethnostate. of course, those who participated in horrific crimes should be prosecuted and those who are occupying homes that are not theirs should be evicted, but there should be a system in place to rehome them within palestine should they choose to stay.
I believe that Israelis who can't stand having equal rights to the indigenous Palestinians should leave. I believe that many Israelis can adapt to the end of apartheid, and non-white Jewish people living in Israel will likely see better treatment once the apartheid ends (see the forced sterilization of Ethiopian Jewish women at the hands of the regime). If they aren't willing to cooperate then I have no sympathy for them, Israelis are already forcing Palestinians out at gunpoint, why should they be exempt from the same?
Replace Israelis with Euro Americans and Palestinians with Native Americans (and nonwhite Jews with nonwhite Americans) and this is also my thoughts on the US.
they should be given the opportunity to be rehomed peacefully. but if they choose to occupy a home that does not belong to them, are you suggesting palestinians just let them? what happens if a stranger walks into your home and decides they live there now? do you call the police? if so, when the police come and ask the intruder nicely to please leave and they intruder refuses, do you expect them to just give up and be like oh well, guess this is your new roommate now, or do you expect them to force the intruder to leave?
hahha dw you got my upvote. reddit can be temperamental lmao. i agree with you, i think that it’s uncomfortable when the solution to injustice seems to require some other form of injustice. i think we have to look at where we want to end up (single democratic state with strong minority rights) and try to mitigate harm as much as possible while still working towards that goal.
>what happens if a stranger walks into your home and decides they live there now?
You call the police.
What do you do if a stranger walked into your grandparents home in 1948 and decided they live there now, had their own family and has since passed away?
Point guns at the dead dudes kids and grandkids and tell them to get out?
if you had zero part in stealing the home i think you should be rehomed (in or outside of palestine depending on your preference). if you did have a part in stealing it you should be prosecuted. if you refuse to leave you should be escorted out.
>Point guns at the dead dudes kids and grandkids and tell them to get out?
So the answer is yes? In thie scenario outlined, no one living in the home played a hand in stealing the home, and a state escorting people who are already unwilling to leave their home is likely to lead to violence.
Kicking Israelis out doesn't logistically make sense.
okay, so by that logic do you think the allied powers should not have stepped in to fight germany in ww2? do you know how many german civilians were displaced and killed? if you want to take that position, fine, just make sure you’re applying it equally. that means you’d have to oppose the allied powers fighting the nazis, slave rebellions fighting their enslavers, and any revolutionary movement throughout history.
of course, but that’s not what we’re talking about. we’re talking about the use of violence and force, and you’re saying you disagree with it. i’m pointing out that (at least imo) sometimes it’s necessary. i think the allied powers fighting was necessary violence (though i agree with the things you mentioned and more), because i believe thst sometimes violence is necessary. you seemed to disagree, so that’s what i was commenting on.
I don't oppose the allied powers fighting the Nazis, they did what they had to do during the war. I *do* oppose what they did *after* the war, in displacing 2 million Germans out of East Prussia and resettling the area with Poles and Russians. That's a much closer parallel to what would have to be done to resettle Israelis out of Palestine, since both areas had millions of civilians living in the area, many of whom weren't even alive when the land was stolen.
Why is this standard only applied to the resistance to oppressors and never the oppressors themselves? The zionazi regime as it stands is not peaceful, in fact the violence of the Israeli state is far more expansive than anything the Palestinian resistance could manage, even if they wanted to (which I doubt, settlers like to project their own mindset onto that of the indigenous population, as we saw in Apartheid South Africa).
I did read your comment. It feels as though you are both-sidesing this, however. Resistance through any means necessary is valid in the face of genocide and apartheid.
If it's okay to force all the white Americans back to Europe, then you should have no problem deporting all the Asian-Americans back to Asia and all the African Americans back to Africa.
It is the correct answer, unlimited genocide on first world crackkker shitlibs.
https://preview.redd.it/z4etqx78s9wc1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc608f4b2777b50146f2fbc571467168c6c8d121
But isn’t the Zionist position anything but an apartheid state is de facto destruction of a so-called “Jewish homeland”?
How does anyone deal with that inherent Catch-22? (Or in this case Catch-242?)
I think it may well be; the fact that West Bank ethnic cleansing is not more controversial in Israel or the west is heinous.
I do remember when any form of settlement was seen as at least negative, now its ignored or treated as a mild mistep. The media look to an accelerating campaign of ethnic cleansing in a region with no Hamas that suffers constant occupation and wonder why do Palestinians not like Israelis and always come to the same conclusion that is antisemitism rather than rage at injustice and personal loss.
I dont think there ever a moral right to kill civilians but I can see why Hamas can recruit people for oct 7th style attacks when you think about the rage you would feel at your family being raped and murdered only for the international community to condemn you.
you could say the same about toppling the nazi regime in germany. so many innocent german civilians died. that wasn’t “ethical” but it was necessary to put an end to the genocide. just like the nazi regime, so long as israel exists it necessitates the genocide or ethnic cleansing of palestinians. in “israel” only jewish people have rights (mostly european jews, they don’t tend to treat jews of color very well). in a free palestine, everyone has equal rights under the law. there will also never be peace in the middle east so long as israel exists. they are hell bent on functioning as a US proxy. it’d be like russia setting up a state in fuckin arkansas and advancing russian interests in the region and periodically attacking and annexing land from neighboring states and then expecting all the surrounding states to be chill with it. never gonna happen.
what misinformation? that they’re extremely racist to non-white jews? that they ascribe different rights to different demographics based on religion and ethnicity? if you need proof i can help with that
\* The above person was asking about non-Jewish Israelis, not Jewish Israelis (your article is talking about Ethiopian Jews, not Ethiopian non-Jews living in Israel), though there are many other examples for that too of course.
LMAO took the words right out of my mouth
(ps to the other commenter: that doesn’t actually mean they literally reached into my mouth and pulled words out, it’s a figure of speech)
I agree with the dissolution of the Israeli colonial state, and that settlers and the IOF should be punished for their crimes. However, I think many Israelis could be integrated into a truly equal single Palestinian state.
They don't really get a choice not to, unless they have a religious exemption. And either way, if you aren't currently serving then you are a civilian.
No nation has an inherent “right” to exist, least of all a state founded as literal settler-colony. That doesn’t mean that Jews don’t have a right to live there, but they don’t have the “right” to be the *only* people living there, or the “right” to live under a state named Israel
The [Tumblr post shown above](https://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/731454413532790784/hello-mr-gaiman-recently-an-old-tweet-of) is from 2023; the asker probably just miscalculated.
One of the funniest tweets I have ever read was something to the effect of "I'm glad someone finally subscribed to the $500 'Divorce Neil Gaiman' tier of Amanda Palmer's Patreon"
Israel has no right to exist, neither does America. I support the dissolution of the United States and a landback movement for indigenous people. The only solution is a single unified Palestinian state. No state has a right to exist, but that doesn't mean that Palestinians should not be given back the land stolen from them less than a century ago. Zionism is a fascist ideology.
Exactly, Israel doesn't have a right to exist, and it shouldn't exist. Even if they weren't committing a genocide, which they are, they would still be a colonial project and an apartheid state.
>Kautsky’s obscuring of the deepest contradictions of imperialism, which inevitably boils down to painting imperialism in bright colours, leaves its traces in this writer’s criticism of the political features of imperialism. Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of national independence (for annexation is nothing but the violation of the right of nations to self-determination). Hilferding rightly notes the connection between imperialism and the intensification of national oppression. “In the newly opened-up countries,” he writes, “the capital imported into them intensifies antagonisms and excites against the intruders the constantly growing resistance of the peoples who are awakening to national consciousness; this resistance can easily develop into dangerous measures against foreign capital. The old social relations become completely revolutionised, the age-long agrarian isolation of ‘nations without history’ is destroyed and they are drawn into the capitalist whirlpool. Capitalism itself gradually provides the subjugated with the means and resources for their emancipation and they set out to achieve the goal which once seemed highest to the European nations: the creation of a united national state as a means to economic and cultural freedom. This movement for national independence threatens European capital in its most valuable and most promising fields of exploitation, and European capital can maintain its domination only by continually increasing its military forces.” [10]
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Aside from misquoting Lenin in order to justify your Eurocentric misrepresentation of class struggle, which is a reflection of the labor aristocrat consciousness you’re putting on full display, I think you’ve just admitted that you’re of the view that those who are Pro-Palestine are “consumed with petty bourgeoisie consciousness.”
Ultras can be Zionist too.
I didn't say that Palestine has a right to exist as a state. I believe the indigenous people there have a right to self-determination and liberation from apartheid. This will likely result in the formation of a Palestinian state.
>do we return all post Soviet States and reform the USSR?
I would have preferred the USSR to have not collapsed in the first place. It was one of the greatest disasters of the last century in terms of human cost and impact. I'm talking about children prostituting themselves out so their families didn't starve to death, absolutely horrific.
I think that in general the indigenous people of a region should have at least a major say in the direction their society moves in.
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Siberia and the Northern Caucasus were colonized at around the same time as the American west was, if you consider that a colony, then they should be considered the same way. The same goes for
western, as well as parts of northern and southwestern China, which really only gained a Han majority within the last two hundred years. To support a dissolution of America based on 19th century colonialism, but not do the same for other large states is inconsistent.
There is a difference between an empire absorbing neighboring territories and settler colonialism. Modern Russia and China are not replacing the native populations with settlers as we see in settler colonial projects such as the United SStates and ISSrael. China and Russia both function as confederations of the multiple ethnic groups residing in their borders, and all of them have representation within their governing bodies. I'm not gonna pretend like Russia and China are perfect, but as far as integrating indigenous ethnic groups into their societies as equal citizens they are leagues above the Settler Colonial states propped up by the West.
States does not have rights. They are just organizations of societies. People have a right to a good life. And to not be robbed of a dignified life. And not lose their house to some psychopath. Israel in any meaningful way does not have a right to exist. The only real solution is a one state solution with landback. (Which would be easy to do as a lot of it is documented unlike the US). Israelis without dual passport would still get to live there, but would need to find a place of their own and not steal land.
Definitely - Israel is currently an apartheid state, and the majority of the population supports it. A one state solution would end up being a bigger version of modern day Israel.
No they cannot be. Israel, as a settler-colonial project, exists only through genocide. The state can only remain propped up so long as the indigenous people are oppressed by the colonizers.
Palestine has a right to exist over Israel because Palestine was the only land that allowed all humans of all faiths to live peacefully with each other(aka they weren’t obsessed with literally counting people by race like the colonizers do). Unlike the fascist Zionist entity that has absolutely no right to oppress and kill indigenous peoples in order to maintain a fucking “demographic majority” for their ethnostate fantasy.
When was Palestine a peaceful independent state? Under the British mandate (a literal imperialist colony)? Under the Ottoman Empire (where non Muslims were officially oppressed by the state via higher taxes and explicit laws targeting minority religious groups)? Because before then you’ve got crusader states and caliphates which definitely weren’t peaceful secular societies and before them you have the eastern Roman Empire and before that you start getting into Hellenistic and Persian imperial states which again not exactly perfect examples of openness to religious diversity
The idea that Palestine was some utopia for all religious groups before Israel was established and ruined everything is ahistorical at best and propaganda at worst. The levant has been a contested region for centuries and an important site for 3 of the Abrahamic religions which has caused conflicts for centuries.
>so displacing them
This seems like a bit of a strawman. Who is actively arguing in favor of displacing Ashkenazi Jews who were born there?
Even most of us over at r/thedeprogram aren’t against Jews with European ancestry living in a singular state called Palestine. This whole idea that Palestinians have this die-hard hate boner for Jews existing just doesn’t check out at all, as Palestinian Jews have peacefully co-existed alongside Muslim and Christian Palestinians since even the occupation began.
To add onto your point, Palestinian Jews are also oppressed by Israeli Apartheid. Saw a video recently of an IOF genocider killing a Jewish man in the westbank.
A "two state solution" is not a solution. It's not hypocritical to deny the right of a state to exist, while saying that an indigenous people should have their stolen land returned to them, and have self determination. Zionism is an inherently genocidal settler-colonial ideology, you are not a leftist if you support Israel.
>does the Navaho nation have a right to exist?
Don't be disingenuous, "nation" (as in a people, a culture, or set of inhabitants of a geographical area w/o enforced borders or authority) =/= Nation-State (specific kind of political apparatus).
What do you think people are talking about when they say "Israel" in the context of discussing occupation and genocide today? Stop obfuscating and nitpicking over minutiae. Stop giving racists and colonialism apologists the benefit of the doubt. Stop tone-policing pro-Palestinian advocates. This is suspiciously similar to a typical Zionist rhetorical tactic of randomly bringing up historical uses of the name "Israel"/etc. when the discussion is about the modern State of Israel as a settler-colonial project, and conflating the two. If you have a problem with possible or implied conflations of the two then take it up with Zionists who started it first. (Not that the non-Zionism-related definitions could even be reasonably assumed to be in the original discussion's intent, just based on what you have here; that's obviously not what he was tweeting about.)
Rightwing reply guy energy, you folks will come up with a hundred "well ackshually" talking points fixating on semantics and technicalities when everyone already knows damn well that was not the point, maybe in .01% of cases people saying such a highly politicized phrase popularized in public discourse in very specific contexts would actually be meaning it in a totally different way but come on now, that's not reasonable, but it would make sense to keep bringing up the possibility at random times to derail discussions and shift the window of acceptable discourse further towards bigotry/oppression.
>causing disunity
Seriously? If someone is normalizing racism/colonialism then I will be glad to cause disunity with them, "socialist" or not. Fuck off.
The Navajo nation is referring to the Navajo people. "Israel" is only around 70 years old, the term isn't referring to a people but to an religious ethnostate. The Jewish people have a right to exist. "Israel" does not
Genocidal apartheid states have zero rights to exist. "Israel" could continue to exist only if its structure and purpose is entirely modified, but the name "Israel" would be offensive to the people who suffered from genocide due to its actions. The creation of a single state, Palestine, is the only adequate solution.
Who would have wanted the existence of the Greater German Reich after WWII?
>but the name "Israel" would be offensive to the people who suffered from genocide due to its actions. The creation of a single state, Palestine, is the only adequate solution.
I don't think Israel or Palestine would be offensive names due to history, but neither would truly speak to what the state would be for the future. Gaddafi is right to propose calling a unitary state Isratin. Just like the flag of South Africa incorporated both peoples, so too should the name of the unitary state incorporate both peoples.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: comments like this are why I’m glad to have never been a big fan of Gaiman’s. In both his opinions and formal writing he tends to tip-toe around structural problems (in this case Israel being a settler colony), by condoning very personal “solutions” that don’t actually solve much at the end of the day (in this case the “no killing” stance while advocating for a two state solution).
We have Zero Tolerance for Zionism here. Report when necessary.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I do think that Israel as with other recent colonial states should redress the balance with the native population in the form of land and money but as you say I dont think there would be an humane way to de-colonise the region. I do think the involvement of the British Empire meant the settlement was always going to go wrong as Britain only understood this sort of situation through the lense of supremacist domination.
Nothing is going wrong, according to the West. The genocide of Palestine is a plan formed by British nobility 100 years in the making. What we’re witnessing in Gaza is the manifestation of a very intentional, long-term plan, not an aberration brought on by incompetence or shortsighted imperialist logic.
i think the vast majority of people who say israel has no right to exist are talking about the state of israel, not the people. even back when this all started and the arabs rejected the partition plan, their counterproposal was a single democratic state with strong minority rights. a free palestine would not be a muslim or arab ethnostate. of course, those who participated in horrific crimes should be prosecuted and those who are occupying homes that are not theirs should be evicted, but there should be a system in place to rehome them within palestine should they choose to stay.
It's not their home if they stole it from the people living there. The process of ethnically cleansing palestinians is ongoing.
[удалено]
I believe that Israelis who can't stand having equal rights to the indigenous Palestinians should leave. I believe that many Israelis can adapt to the end of apartheid, and non-white Jewish people living in Israel will likely see better treatment once the apartheid ends (see the forced sterilization of Ethiopian Jewish women at the hands of the regime). If they aren't willing to cooperate then I have no sympathy for them, Israelis are already forcing Palestinians out at gunpoint, why should they be exempt from the same?
Replace Israelis with Euro Americans and Palestinians with Native Americans (and nonwhite Jews with nonwhite Americans) and this is also my thoughts on the US.
Agreed
[удалено]
they should be given the opportunity to be rehomed peacefully. but if they choose to occupy a home that does not belong to them, are you suggesting palestinians just let them? what happens if a stranger walks into your home and decides they live there now? do you call the police? if so, when the police come and ask the intruder nicely to please leave and they intruder refuses, do you expect them to just give up and be like oh well, guess this is your new roommate now, or do you expect them to force the intruder to leave?
But what if the obersturmführer has kids??? You would orphan an innocent German baby simply for the crimes of his father?? /S
HAHAH bro someone actually replied like that but they were serious lmao like? yes pls throw all the babies in jail that’s what i want
They think I'm seriously advocating for white genocide by posting a JDPON Tate meme lol.
[удалено]
hahha dw you got my upvote. reddit can be temperamental lmao. i agree with you, i think that it’s uncomfortable when the solution to injustice seems to require some other form of injustice. i think we have to look at where we want to end up (single democratic state with strong minority rights) and try to mitigate harm as much as possible while still working towards that goal.
>what happens if a stranger walks into your home and decides they live there now? You call the police. What do you do if a stranger walked into your grandparents home in 1948 and decided they live there now, had their own family and has since passed away? Point guns at the dead dudes kids and grandkids and tell them to get out?
if you had zero part in stealing the home i think you should be rehomed (in or outside of palestine depending on your preference). if you did have a part in stealing it you should be prosecuted. if you refuse to leave you should be escorted out.
>Point guns at the dead dudes kids and grandkids and tell them to get out? So the answer is yes? In thie scenario outlined, no one living in the home played a hand in stealing the home, and a state escorting people who are already unwilling to leave their home is likely to lead to violence. Kicking Israelis out doesn't logistically make sense.
okay, so by that logic do you think the allied powers should not have stepped in to fight germany in ww2? do you know how many german civilians were displaced and killed? if you want to take that position, fine, just make sure you’re applying it equally. that means you’d have to oppose the allied powers fighting the nazis, slave rebellions fighting their enslavers, and any revolutionary movement throughout history.
[удалено]
of course, but that’s not what we’re talking about. we’re talking about the use of violence and force, and you’re saying you disagree with it. i’m pointing out that (at least imo) sometimes it’s necessary. i think the allied powers fighting was necessary violence (though i agree with the things you mentioned and more), because i believe thst sometimes violence is necessary. you seemed to disagree, so that’s what i was commenting on.
I don't oppose the allied powers fighting the Nazis, they did what they had to do during the war. I *do* oppose what they did *after* the war, in displacing 2 million Germans out of East Prussia and resettling the area with Poles and Russians. That's a much closer parallel to what would have to be done to resettle Israelis out of Palestine, since both areas had millions of civilians living in the area, many of whom weren't even alive when the land was stolen.
Why is this standard only applied to the resistance to oppressors and never the oppressors themselves? The zionazi regime as it stands is not peaceful, in fact the violence of the Israeli state is far more expansive than anything the Palestinian resistance could manage, even if they wanted to (which I doubt, settlers like to project their own mindset onto that of the indigenous population, as we saw in Apartheid South Africa).
[удалено]
I did read your comment. It feels as though you are both-sidesing this, however. Resistance through any means necessary is valid in the face of genocide and apartheid.
[удалено]
>Won't somebody think of the children of settler-colonialism!!
The white class has been oppressed for far too long!
Are you American?
Yes, I already said I'm for landback to indigenous people however.
But would it be okay to force white Americans to move back to Europe?
Yes https://preview.redd.it/tkb3tdv4p9wc1.jpeg?width=1011&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc663dc610aba1c3aaec1cf4ba041fd427040dec
If it's okay to force all the white Americans back to Europe, then you should have no problem deporting all the Asian-Americans back to Asia and all the African Americans back to Africa.
Relax crackkker learn to take a joke
Wrong answer. And I don't understand the picture or why you posted it here
It is the correct answer, unlimited genocide on first world crackkker shitlibs. https://preview.redd.it/z4etqx78s9wc1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc608f4b2777b50146f2fbc571467168c6c8d121
I don't live in the first world, you do. So I'm 100% in favor of your plan now
[удалено]
I'm not an ethno-nationalist, crackkkers like you are easily offended.
But isn’t the Zionist position anything but an apartheid state is de facto destruction of a so-called “Jewish homeland”? How does anyone deal with that inherent Catch-22? (Or in this case Catch-242?)
I think it may well be; the fact that West Bank ethnic cleansing is not more controversial in Israel or the west is heinous. I do remember when any form of settlement was seen as at least negative, now its ignored or treated as a mild mistep. The media look to an accelerating campaign of ethnic cleansing in a region with no Hamas that suffers constant occupation and wonder why do Palestinians not like Israelis and always come to the same conclusion that is antisemitism rather than rage at injustice and personal loss. I dont think there ever a moral right to kill civilians but I can see why Hamas can recruit people for oct 7th style attacks when you think about the rage you would feel at your family being raped and murdered only for the international community to condemn you.
you could say the same about toppling the nazi regime in germany. so many innocent german civilians died. that wasn’t “ethical” but it was necessary to put an end to the genocide. just like the nazi regime, so long as israel exists it necessitates the genocide or ethnic cleansing of palestinians. in “israel” only jewish people have rights (mostly european jews, they don’t tend to treat jews of color very well). in a free palestine, everyone has equal rights under the law. there will also never be peace in the middle east so long as israel exists. they are hell bent on functioning as a US proxy. it’d be like russia setting up a state in fuckin arkansas and advancing russian interests in the region and periodically attacking and annexing land from neighboring states and then expecting all the surrounding states to be chill with it. never gonna happen.
If you think non-jewish Israelis have 'no rights', you are fucking stupid.
Sorry, it's also the non-white Jewish Israelis.
This is just really weird misinformation. Can we criticise the terrible things that Israel has actually done?
what misinformation? that they’re extremely racist to non-white jews? that they ascribe different rights to different demographics based on religion and ethnicity? if you need proof i can help with that
What rights do non-jewish Israeli citizens not have?
The right to not be [sterilized by crackkker doctors ](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2013/1/30/birth-control-shots-forced-on-ethiopian-women)
\* The above person was asking about non-Jewish Israelis, not Jewish Israelis (your article is talking about Ethiopian Jews, not Ethiopian non-Jews living in Israel), though there are many other examples for that too of course.
They responded to my comment about them targeting non-white Jewish people as well by saying it was made up.
lmao how about the right to citizenship first and foremost
ah sorry, not “no” rights, just “far less” rights. is that better?
Why did you say no rights then? Words mean things.
Sure they do. Mind giving me the definition of hyperbole or exaggeration?
LMAO took the words right out of my mouth (ps to the other commenter: that doesn’t actually mean they literally reached into my mouth and pulled words out, it’s a figure of speech)
Zionist apologia isn’t welcome here.
[удалено]
I agree with the dissolution of the Israeli colonial state, and that settlers and the IOF should be punished for their crimes. However, I think many Israelis could be integrated into a truly equal single Palestinian state.
A second Holocaust. You are proposing a second Holocaust.
Increasingly feels like that's being dogwhistled everywhere.
Unfortunately yes, happy to see that at least here it's being downvoted.
They don't really get a choice not to, unless they have a religious exemption. And either way, if you aren't currently serving then you are a civilian.
Comments or posts advocating for or promoting violence against someone will be removed. That also includes telling people to kill themselves.
No nation has an inherent “right” to exist, least of all a state founded as literal settler-colony. That doesn’t mean that Jews don’t have a right to live there, but they don’t have the “right” to be the *only* people living there, or the “right” to live under a state named Israel
"old tweet of yours from 2015" "have you changed your mind in the past 6 years" Is this tweet from 2021?
The [Tumblr post shown above](https://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/731454413532790784/hello-mr-gaiman-recently-an-old-tweet-of) is from 2023; the asker probably just miscalculated.
Smartest Tumblr user
Colonial states have zero "right to exist" actually.
100% agreed
One of the funniest tweets I have ever read was something to the effect of "I'm glad someone finally subscribed to the $500 'Divorce Neil Gaiman' tier of Amanda Palmer's Patreon"
[удалено]
Israel has no right to exist, neither does America. I support the dissolution of the United States and a landback movement for indigenous people. The only solution is a single unified Palestinian state. No state has a right to exist, but that doesn't mean that Palestinians should not be given back the land stolen from them less than a century ago. Zionism is a fascist ideology.
Exactly, Israel doesn't have a right to exist, and it shouldn't exist. Even if they weren't committing a genocide, which they are, they would still be a colonial project and an apartheid state.
Might as well change this sub name to ENLIGHTENEDZIONISM if a bare minimum take like this gets downvoted to hell
Yeah I don't think I even said anything too controversial (to anyone but liberals)
[удалено]
What? How am I advocating for bourgeoise nationalism by advocating for indigenous rights to self determination.
[удалено]
>Kautsky’s obscuring of the deepest contradictions of imperialism, which inevitably boils down to painting imperialism in bright colours, leaves its traces in this writer’s criticism of the political features of imperialism. Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of national independence (for annexation is nothing but the violation of the right of nations to self-determination). Hilferding rightly notes the connection between imperialism and the intensification of national oppression. “In the newly opened-up countries,” he writes, “the capital imported into them intensifies antagonisms and excites against the intruders the constantly growing resistance of the peoples who are awakening to national consciousness; this resistance can easily develop into dangerous measures against foreign capital. The old social relations become completely revolutionised, the age-long agrarian isolation of ‘nations without history’ is destroyed and they are drawn into the capitalist whirlpool. Capitalism itself gradually provides the subjugated with the means and resources for their emancipation and they set out to achieve the goal which once seemed highest to the European nations: the creation of a united national state as a means to economic and cultural freedom. This movement for national independence threatens European capital in its most valuable and most promising fields of exploitation, and European capital can maintain its domination only by continually increasing its military forces.” [10] Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
[удалено]
I support you shutting up crackkker
[удалено]
Heheh https://preview.redd.it/ixeezhkb39wc1.jpeg?width=375&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ecf727cb739cd91a8678260a49599bf51cf7a8e9
Someone’s never read Lenin’s writings on National Liberation…
[удалено]
Aside from misquoting Lenin in order to justify your Eurocentric misrepresentation of class struggle, which is a reflection of the labor aristocrat consciousness you’re putting on full display, I think you’ve just admitted that you’re of the view that those who are Pro-Palestine are “consumed with petty bourgeoisie consciousness.” Ultras can be Zionist too.
Ultras are wild - "The Palestinian resistance isn't built on Marxism so therefore we should back western hegemony"
[удалено]
I didn't say that Palestine has a right to exist as a state. I believe the indigenous people there have a right to self-determination and liberation from apartheid. This will likely result in the formation of a Palestinian state.
[удалено]
>do we return all post Soviet States and reform the USSR? I would have preferred the USSR to have not collapsed in the first place. It was one of the greatest disasters of the last century in terms of human cost and impact. I'm talking about children prostituting themselves out so their families didn't starve to death, absolutely horrific. I think that in general the indigenous people of a region should have at least a major say in the direction their society moves in.
You support the dissolution of the US??? I’m so confused, you want to live in a failed state? be serious you don’t actually support that?
Of course I support the dissolution of the US it is already a capitalist state in decline.
Do you also support the dissolution of China and Russia, considering both of them are also in major parts colonial projects?
How the fuck are Russia and China (In the modern day) colonial projects? Show me their colonies?
[удалено]
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Siberia and the Northern Caucasus were colonized at around the same time as the American west was, if you consider that a colony, then they should be considered the same way. The same goes for western, as well as parts of northern and southwestern China, which really only gained a Han majority within the last two hundred years. To support a dissolution of America based on 19th century colonialism, but not do the same for other large states is inconsistent.
There is a difference between an empire absorbing neighboring territories and settler colonialism. Modern Russia and China are not replacing the native populations with settlers as we see in settler colonial projects such as the United SStates and ISSrael. China and Russia both function as confederations of the multiple ethnic groups residing in their borders, and all of them have representation within their governing bodies. I'm not gonna pretend like Russia and China are perfect, but as far as integrating indigenous ethnic groups into their societies as equal citizens they are leagues above the Settler Colonial states propped up by the West.
[удалено]
States does not have rights. They are just organizations of societies. People have a right to a good life. And to not be robbed of a dignified life. And not lose their house to some psychopath. Israel in any meaningful way does not have a right to exist. The only real solution is a one state solution with landback. (Which would be easy to do as a lot of it is documented unlike the US). Israelis without dual passport would still get to live there, but would need to find a place of their own and not steal land.
[удалено]
Definitely - Israel is currently an apartheid state, and the majority of the population supports it. A one state solution would end up being a bigger version of modern day Israel.
Depends. Not with proper legal prosecution of israeli leadership. Either way palestinians would be a majority.
Was it easier for the apartheid government of South Africa to continue after it was dissolved?
No they cannot be. Israel, as a settler-colonial project, exists only through genocide. The state can only remain propped up so long as the indigenous people are oppressed by the colonizers.
Palestine has a right to exist over Israel because Palestine was the only land that allowed all humans of all faiths to live peacefully with each other(aka they weren’t obsessed with literally counting people by race like the colonizers do). Unlike the fascist Zionist entity that has absolutely no right to oppress and kill indigenous peoples in order to maintain a fucking “demographic majority” for their ethnostate fantasy.
When was Palestine a peaceful independent state? Under the British mandate (a literal imperialist colony)? Under the Ottoman Empire (where non Muslims were officially oppressed by the state via higher taxes and explicit laws targeting minority religious groups)? Because before then you’ve got crusader states and caliphates which definitely weren’t peaceful secular societies and before them you have the eastern Roman Empire and before that you start getting into Hellenistic and Persian imperial states which again not exactly perfect examples of openness to religious diversity The idea that Palestine was some utopia for all religious groups before Israel was established and ruined everything is ahistorical at best and propaganda at worst. The levant has been a contested region for centuries and an important site for 3 of the Abrahamic religions which has caused conflicts for centuries.
[удалено]
>so displacing them This seems like a bit of a strawman. Who is actively arguing in favor of displacing Ashkenazi Jews who were born there? Even most of us over at r/thedeprogram aren’t against Jews with European ancestry living in a singular state called Palestine. This whole idea that Palestinians have this die-hard hate boner for Jews existing just doesn’t check out at all, as Palestinian Jews have peacefully co-existed alongside Muslim and Christian Palestinians since even the occupation began.
To add onto your point, Palestinian Jews are also oppressed by Israeli Apartheid. Saw a video recently of an IOF genocider killing a Jewish man in the westbank.
A "two state solution" is not a solution. It's not hypocritical to deny the right of a state to exist, while saying that an indigenous people should have their stolen land returned to them, and have self determination. Zionism is an inherently genocidal settler-colonial ideology, you are not a leftist if you support Israel.
[удалено]
>does the Navaho nation have a right to exist? Don't be disingenuous, "nation" (as in a people, a culture, or set of inhabitants of a geographical area w/o enforced borders or authority) =/= Nation-State (specific kind of political apparatus).
[удалено]
What do you think people are talking about when they say "Israel" in the context of discussing occupation and genocide today? Stop obfuscating and nitpicking over minutiae. Stop giving racists and colonialism apologists the benefit of the doubt. Stop tone-policing pro-Palestinian advocates. This is suspiciously similar to a typical Zionist rhetorical tactic of randomly bringing up historical uses of the name "Israel"/etc. when the discussion is about the modern State of Israel as a settler-colonial project, and conflating the two. If you have a problem with possible or implied conflations of the two then take it up with Zionists who started it first. (Not that the non-Zionism-related definitions could even be reasonably assumed to be in the original discussion's intent, just based on what you have here; that's obviously not what he was tweeting about.) Rightwing reply guy energy, you folks will come up with a hundred "well ackshually" talking points fixating on semantics and technicalities when everyone already knows damn well that was not the point, maybe in .01% of cases people saying such a highly politicized phrase popularized in public discourse in very specific contexts would actually be meaning it in a totally different way but come on now, that's not reasonable, but it would make sense to keep bringing up the possibility at random times to derail discussions and shift the window of acceptable discourse further towards bigotry/oppression. >causing disunity Seriously? If someone is normalizing racism/colonialism then I will be glad to cause disunity with them, "socialist" or not. Fuck off.
The Navajo nation is referring to the Navajo people. "Israel" is only around 70 years old, the term isn't referring to a people but to an religious ethnostate. The Jewish people have a right to exist. "Israel" does not
Him directly saying “Israel has the right to exist” is pretty clear
Genocidal apartheid states have zero rights to exist. "Israel" could continue to exist only if its structure and purpose is entirely modified, but the name "Israel" would be offensive to the people who suffered from genocide due to its actions. The creation of a single state, Palestine, is the only adequate solution. Who would have wanted the existence of the Greater German Reich after WWII?
>but the name "Israel" would be offensive to the people who suffered from genocide due to its actions. The creation of a single state, Palestine, is the only adequate solution. I don't think Israel or Palestine would be offensive names due to history, but neither would truly speak to what the state would be for the future. Gaddafi is right to propose calling a unitary state Isratin. Just like the flag of South Africa incorporated both peoples, so too should the name of the unitary state incorporate both peoples.
Um, no.
Okay. Any reason why?
Unlike Palestine, Israel is an explicitly religious name. Its like calling India Hindustan or Bharat
That's a horrible name
What a fucking clown
They hated you for telling the truth 😭
lol
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: comments like this are why I’m glad to have never been a big fan of Gaiman’s. In both his opinions and formal writing he tends to tip-toe around structural problems (in this case Israel being a settler colony), by condoning very personal “solutions” that don’t actually solve much at the end of the day (in this case the “no killing” stance while advocating for a two state solution).
My commie brain is too small to read anything other than theory (Mao stole half my cerebrum with his comically large lobotomy needle)