[Deutschmania]

Yes, it foes seem like the defenders of the genocide want to portray Zionists as Indigenous people because they (the genocide defenders) think Indigenous people have some “privilege” that will benefit Zionists.

I remember hearing of this argument before , in a video which deconstructs and critiques it . In my view , such a Zionist talking point is nothing more than a repurposed appropriation of the concept of "blood and soil" .

[wat0n]

Yes, it foes seem like the defenders of the genocide want to portray Zionists as Indigenous people because they (the genocide defenders) think Indigenous people have some “privilege” that will benefit Zionists.

Or maybe because it's a perfectly coherent narrative, internally and when considering historical and genealogical research.

Or maybe because the left claims to care about indigeneity.

Or maybe to illustrate how nonsensical the whole thing is.

I remember hearing of this argument before , in a video which deconstructs and critiques it . In my view , such a Zionist talking point is nothing more than a repurposed appropriation of the concept of "blood and soil" .

The leftist desire to ethnically cleanse, if not outright exterminate, the Jews of Israel because they're "Western colonizers" is an obvious example of blood and soil.

[Pants-of-dog]

It might be an argument, or it might not.

This debate is not really about Jews, though. It is about a genocidal government for a settler colonialist society that is currently enacting war crimes and famine, and the protesters that oppose them.

There are Jews on both sides of this debate.

[wat0n]

Can the indigenous be settler colonialist?

[Pants-of-dog]

If we assume that Indigenous communities were diverse enough to practice all the different types of relationships between nations that we see in the rest of the world, then we can safely assume that some communities that are now considered Indigenous did engage in settler colonialism at some point in their past.

If this seems like a logical assumption, then settler colonialist nations can be (or become) Indigenous.

[wat0n]

Then how can settler colonialists become indigenous?

What's the cutoff here?

What happens when we're dealing with a territory like the Eastern Mediterranean, where even the ancestral populations show to be the result of admixture between different populations? Including Europeans, specifically Mycenaeans.

Or maybe, like race and even gender, indigeneity is an arbitrary social construct?

[Pants-of-dog]

All that to say that simply claiming that Zionists are Indigenous to Israel does not refute the claim of settler colonialism.

[wat0n]

Settler colonialism is done by colonizers, indigenous peoples would not fall into that category. Am I correct here?

As in, when indigenous peoples do exactly the same actions in the territory they come from, they're still not settler colonialist.

[Pants-of-dog]

If anyone thinks settler colonialism is a series of events or actions, then they do not know what settler colonialism is.

Again, settler colonialism is a structure.

For anyone (including Indigenous people) to he able to engage in settler colonialism, there has to be a whole structure of unequal power dynamics in place.

You cannot magically have one group doing settler colonialism and then magically have the opposing group do it the next day.

[wat0n]

You did not answer the question, @Pants-of-dog. And such structure implies a series of events and actions.

Since indigeneity is as bullshit as race, concepts derived from it like settler colonialism would are also bullshit.

[Pants-of-dog]

No one claimed that the idea settler colonialism is derived from indigeneity.

Settler colonialism can also happen to people who are not Indigenous.

[wat0n]

Settler colonialism is inherently related to indigeneity.

Indigenous people can't be settler colonialist in their own land.

[Pants-of-dog]

This seems incorrect.

By defining "indigenous" as "being targeted by settler colonialism", and then defining Zionists as Indigenous seems like a semantic way to avoid claims of settler colonialism.

[wat0n]

I'm not defining "indigenous" that way. This seems like a straw man.

But the fact that you insist on it, does show how indigeneity has as little value as race since the threshold to determine it is arbitrary.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's another glimpse behind the Israeli mask. Ethnic cleansing is the goal and always has been, if people have to die as a result then so be it, the land is "Ours" cries the fanatical racist Zionists, taken from today's news:

[Sherlock Holmes]

@Sherlock Holmes you really need to do some reading here, those laws are relatively common in Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_ ... _of_return

The rest of your post is just leftist racism (and ignorant of the genealogical studies on Jews).

It is you who needs to do some reading sir, consider Austria:

Under Section 58c of the Austrian Citizenship Act (German: Staatsbürgerschaftsgesetz), Austrians and their descendants who were persecuted or feared persecution by Nazi Germany can become Austrian citizens.

This is referring to nationality not ethnicity. A Jewish Austrian, an Indian Austrian are all included and equally, this is the case for almost all of the cases you cited with the possible exception of Greece.

The Israeli law has nothing to do with nationality but ethnicity through ancestry. I am entitled to Australian Citizenship because my mother was born in Australia and so she has citizenship, nothing to do with ethnicity.

Read, from July 2018

[Deutschmania]

Liberia is one such example of indigenous settler colonialism . The freed Americo-Liberians came to hold hegemony over the already present population .

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/foundations-liberia

[wat0n]

^ Is the story of freed Liberians even seen as settler colonialism? Is this just your interpretation?

It is you who needs to do some reading sir, consider Austria:



This is referring to nationality not ethnicity. A Jewish Austrian, an Indian Austrian are all included and equally, this is the case for almost all of the cases you cited with the possible exception of Greece.

The Israeli law has nothing to do with nationality but ethnicity through ancestry. I am entitled to Australian Citizenship because my mother was born in Australia and so she has citizenship, nothing to do with ethnicity.

Read, from July 2018

Why do you ignore the other examples?

Article 14 of the Constitution of Armenia (1995) provides that "[i]ndividuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship of the Republic of Armenia through a simplified procedure."[31] This provision is consistent with the Declaration on Independence of Armenia, issued by the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Armenia in 1989, which declared at article 4 that "Armenians living abroad are entitled to the citizenship of the Republic of Armenia".[citation needed]

German law allows (1) people descending from German nationals of any ethnicity or (2) people of ethnic German descent and living in countries of the former Warsaw Pact (as well as Yugoslavia) the right to "return" to Germany and ("re")claim German citizenship (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler, "late emigrants"). After legislative changes in late 1992 this right is de facto restricted to ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union. As with many legal implementations of the right of return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin or their descent from German nationals has been controversial. The law is codified in paragraph 1 of Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937, as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person".[35] Those territories had a Polish minority, which also had German citizenship and after World War II lived in Poland. These Polish people are also Aussiedler or Spätaussiedler and came especially in the 1980s to Germany, see Emigration from Poland to Germany after World War II. For example Lukas Podolski and Eugen Polanski became German citizens by this law.[36] Paragraph 2 of Article 116 also provides that "Former German citizens who between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945 were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial or religious grounds, and their descendants, shall on application have their citizenship restored".[35] The historic context for Article 116 was the eviction, following World War II, of an estimated 9 million foreign ethnic Germans from other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Another 9 million German nationals in the former eastern German territories, over which Joseph Stalin and eastern neighbour states extended military hegemony in 1945, were expelled as well. These expellees and refugees, known as Heimatvertriebene, were given refugee status and documents, and—as to foreign ethnic Germans—also West German citizenship (in 1949), and resettled in West Germany. The discussion of possible compensation continues; this, however, has been countered by possible claims for war compensation from Germany's eastern neighbours, pertaining to both Germany's unconditional surrender and the series of population transfers carried out under the instruments of Potsdam. Between 1950 and 2016 it is estimated that up to 1,445,210 Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler and their family members, including many ethnic Poles according to Deutsche Welle[37] (for example Lukas Podolski and Eugen Polanski), emigrated from Poland.[38]

Various phenomena throughout Greek history (the extensive colonization by classical Greek city states, the vast expansion of Greek culture in Hellenistic times, the large dominions at times held by the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, and the energetic trading activity by Greeks under the Ottomans) all tended to create Greek communities far beyond the boundaries of modern Greece.

Recognizing this situation, Greece grants citizenship to broad categories of people of ethnic Greek ancestry who are members of the Greek diaspora, including individuals and families whose ancestors have been resident in diaspora communities outside the modern state of Greece for centuries or millennia.[41]

"Foreign persons of Greek origin", who neither live in Greece nor hold Greek citizenship nor were necessarily born there, may become Greek citizens by enlisting in Greece's military forces, under article 4 of the Code of Greek Citizenship, as amended by the Acquisition of Greek Nationality by Aliens of Greek Origin Law (Law 2130/1993). Anyone wishing to do so must present a number of documents, including "[a]vailable written records ... proving the Greek origin of the interested person and his ancestors".

Albania has demanded since the 1940s that Greece grant a right of return to the Muslim Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II – a demand firmly rejected by the Greeks (see Cham issue).

In 2010, Hungary passed a law granting citizenship and the right of return to descendants of Hungarians living mostly on the former territory of the Kingdom of Hungary and now residing in Hungary's neighbouring countries. Slovakia, which has 500,000 ethnic Magyar citizens (10% of its population), objected vociferously.[42]

According to the law passed in 2013, any person who themself or whose parent or grandparent had Latvian or Livonian ethnicity, did not voluntarily chose a different ethnicity and lived on Latvian territory between 1881 and 17 June 1940, may register Latvian citizenship upon providing proofing documents and passing a language exam.[44]

Also a couple of examples of competition with Israel:

On April 12, 2013, the Portuguese parliament unanimously approved a measure that allows the descendants of Jews expelled from Portugal in the 16th century to become Portuguese citizens.[46]

Sephardi Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492. Despite the requirement by general rule for obtaining Spanish nationality after five years of residence in Spain, by royal decree on 20 December 1924, Sephardi Jews can obtain Spanish nationality with two years of residence in Spain. From 1924 until 2015 Sephardi Jews living abroad could also ask the Spanish Government for a conferment of Spanish nationality, but the Government enjoyed full discretion as to the decision whether to grant Spanish nationality. On 24 June 2015, the Spanish Parliament approved the 12/2015 Act, the Law Granting the Nationality to Sephardi Jews, that grants the Spanish nationality automatically to Sephardi Jews living abroad, provided they can prove that they are descendants of the Sephardi Jews expelled in 1492.

In 2007, the Spanish Parliament approved the 57/2007 Act, the Law of Historical Memory. The 57/2007 Act provides for the descendants of Spaniards living abroad that left Spain because of political persecution during the Civil War and Franco's dictatorship – that is the period between 1936 and 1975 – to obtain Spanish nationality.

Finally, following the Anglo-Dutch capture of Gibraltar in August 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession, the Spanish population left, citing their loyalty to the Bourbons and establishing themselves in the surrounding area (which has come to be known as the "Campo de Gibraltar"). The Spanish population established institutions similar to those they maintained in Gibraltar, including the census and the archives in the City of San Roque, which is the city "where Gibraltar lives on". Some of the population's descendants have cited the right of return in order to return to Gibraltar, although their requests have not been currently addressed by the Spanish government.[citation needed]

And one from Africa, too:

Ghana allows people with African ancestry to apply for and be granted the right to stay in Ghana indefinitely, known as the Right of Abode.[39][40]

[Unthinking Majority]

As long as you have abandoned the argument that everyone who criticizes settler colonialism in Israel is antisemitic and wants to kill all the Jews.

I never made this argument.

Yes, the KKK do this quite often. And they often get police protection.

And they actually and openly want to kill all the Jews.

I guess these protesters are worse than the Klan?

None of this answers my question to you of whether the KKK protesting support for killing black people (or Jews, or anyone else) is peaceful protest?

I'm sure there's pro-Palestine protestors who don't advocate killing anyone and just want a ceasefire and to stop Israel's military campaign in Gaza and any human rights abuses like the alleged withholding of food aid. But among the protestors there's also people who support the Oct 7 genocidal attack so yes those individuals are as bad as the KKK.

The occupation of Gaza.

Is it legitimate?

The general military occupation of Gaza to kill Hamas and other jihadists who carried out Oct 7 I think is legitimate since Oct 7 was an act of war where it is ethical to defend against. Any possible war crimes like specifically targeting innocent civilians or withholding humanitarian aid is not legitimate and should be investigated as war crimes.

Also note that the Israeli settlement building in the West Bank is clearly not legitimate, and if Hamas/jihadists had only attacked military targets on Oct 7 as a response to the settlement building etc then that form of attack would also be legitimate IMO. But the jihadists didn't do that, they went on a genocidal rampage targeting civilians.

1. In this context, obviously.

2. Because social media has lots of footage of cops hitting protesters. Convince me this is the minimal amount of violence necessary.

1. But I don't know all the details to make any judgement either way.

2. No because i'm not arguing it was the minimal amount of violence necessary. I have no idea if it was or not. If it wasn't then the civilians should sue the police dept and the cops should be fired. If the cops were overly violent then they should be held accountable. The protestors who didn't comply with the law should also be held accountable.

You seem to only care about the law when the police break it, but don't care at all when pro-Palestinian protestors break it. The law applies to everyone, it doesn't operate based on your personal biases. This concept is called "the rule of law": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

You generally have a lot of double-standards based on which identity group is involved in an issue. You think people should be treated differently based on their group identity or whether you agree/disagree with them politically. Universal human rights, democracy, and the rule of law don't work like that, thankfully.

[Pants-of-dog]

I never made this argument.

Then clarify exactly what you meant when you said that all the protesters are advocating for genocide of the Jews.

None of this answers my question to you of whether the KKK protesting support for killing black people (or Jews, or anyone else) is peaceful protest?

Yes, it does.

Again, the answer is “yes”.

Yes.

Yes.

Is that clear?

I'm sure there's pro-Palestine protestors who don't advocate killing anyone and just want a ceasefire and to stop Israel's military campaign in Gaza and any human rights abuses like the alleged withholding of food aid. But among the protestors there's also people who support the Oct 7 genocidal attack so yes those individuals are as bad as the KKK.

So, a movement where everyone wants to kill all the Jews is just as bad as protesters trying to stop a genocide and the only moral position is to invest in companies and regimes that commit war crimes.

Is this seriously your moral argument?

The general military occupation of Gaza to kill Hamas and other jihadists who carried out Oct 7 I think is legitimate since Oct 7 was an act of war where it is ethical to defend against. Any possible war crimes like specifically targeting innocent civilians or withholding humanitarian aid is not legitimate and should be investigated as war crimes.

Okay. What about the occupation of Gaza?

Also note that the Israeli settlement building in the West Bank is clearly not legitimate, and if Hamas/jihadists had only attacked military targets on Oct 7 as a response to the settlement building etc then that form of attack would also be legitimate IMO. But the jihadists didn't do that, they went on a genocidal rampage targeting civilians.

Okay.

What about the occupation of Gaza?

1. But I don't know all the details to make any judgement either way.

Then why are you defending the cops in this context?

2. No because i'm not arguing it was the minimal amount of violence necessary. I have no idea if it was or not. If it wasn't then the civilians should sue the police dept and the cops should be fired. If the cops were overly violent then they should be held accountable. The protestors who didn't comply with the law should also be held accountable.

So you are unable to show or defend that the protesters were doing anything to merit such police reaction.

You seem to only care about the law when the police break it, but don't care at all when pro-Palestinian protestors break it. The law applies to everyone, it doesn't operate based on your personal biases. This concept is called "the rule of law": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

Yea, I am proud to care more about state violence against individuals exercising their free speech than I care about some tents placed on grass without proper paperwork.

It seems morally questionable to argue we should look at both as the same. If this is a personal bias, then I guess I have a personal bias to treat different situations differently.

You generally have a lot of double-standards based on which identity group is involved in an issue. You think people should be treated differently based on their group identity or whether you agree/disagree with them politically. Universal human rights, democracy, and the rule of law don't work like that, thankfully.

Since this is just about your feelings about what you imagine my feels to be, this can be ignored.