Israel as a state or the Israeli people? Because most of the jewish immigration to Palestine happened before 1945
Comment on Interesting analogy
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
In my world understanding colonialism was never good, but anything after ww2 is just invalid. There needs to be some cut off date where we say “at this point everyone knew and we had international laws against genocide” after which it just becomes invalid.
Microw@lemm.ee 5 days ago
Shezzagrad@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
No it didn’t. Most of the Jews came after the Palestine nakba/massacre which made Jews feel unsafe in the middle east (jeez I wonder why, but also not their fault.) the Jews who came before the independence were all European terrorist who built armed settlements and militas Far away from Palestinans and Palestinan Jews as they didn’t support them.
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 4 days ago
Let’s read it charitably. Maybe they mean more middle eastern Jews moved to Palestine in the last 6000 years than did europeans in the last 50.
Shezzagrad@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
Thing is, most likely Palestinians are descendants of Jews who lived in Palestine who over time converted to islam, (but not all, Christians and Jews still very much exist tho not sure about numbers) before 1918 the Jewish population was a 56,000 thousand and many of those were immigrants by 1939 they were almost half a million
spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 days ago
i disagree with your logic but you got to the right conclusion so cheers 😆
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
A little convenient that that the cutoff date is after Europeans divided the world for themselves.
carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days ago
right? all colonial states are illegitimate
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 4 days ago
Ofcourse they are, but if you go back to times where colonialism was the norm and in no way internationally frowned upon, then not a single current day country would be legitimate. So it kinda makes sense to set the cut off at a point where colonialism was at an all time low, because if you dont then all you get is world war.
dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days ago
When you mention colonialism wasn’t frowned upon, who were the people that did not frown upon it then?
oneeyestrengthens@lemmy.world 4 days ago
A huge proportion of the world was still under direct colonial control after WWII. Like most of Africa, swathes of Asia. Pick a country on a map and look at the date it was granted independence. I can almost guarantee that it will be later than you expected. Post-WWII is not a low point for colonialism.
I would further argue that many of the countries that were granted independence only received the ability to install administrators who were of an indigenous ethnic group. Trade agreements and terms dictated by loans from groups like the international monetary fund still directed a large proportion of domestic and foreign policy. So even though the government of a country may have had a constitution and veneer of democracy it was still operating at the behest of foreign interests (ex. Shell in Nigeria, Firestone in Liberia, Exxonmobil in Indonesia, etc.), who propped up puppet leaders that allowed them to continue to extract resources under the same or similar agreements they enjoyed under colonialism.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 days ago
It’s also a function of how far back are we willing to go? Are we going to split and merge countries? Or is it more important to get representative governments in place for the people that live there?
dx1@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Saw an excellent video from some Al Jazeera offshoot yesterday. The guy was explaining the concept that Europeans actually tended to put in minority populations in charge that were sympathetic to their interests - Alawites in Syria, the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan, European Zionists in Palestine - and that the borders were essentially designed for colonial administration instead of representing existing groups.