Well, when you want to establish your homeland somewhere that people are already living, yeah it takes displacement. But they’re not just displacing them, they’re killing them.
If being a victim of the Holocaust entitles you to your own government, how comes you’ve never argued for establishing a homeland of the Romani people?
For a person born in Germany, raised in Germany, taught to speak, read and write German, their homeland is Germany. German Jewish victims of the Holocaust ought to have been extraordinarily repaired, and given the pleasure of seeing their victimizers fallen in disgrace, tried, condemned and punished (part of which did happen), not told to pack their bags and leave to a country they’ve never set a foot in. The idea that someone who’s born in a specific ethnic group has their “homeland” at some special, historical place is an extremely ideological view that has much more to do with nazism than with the ideals of freedom and human rights.
By the way, you haven’t answered my question. In your racist worldview that ethnicities belong to specific strips of land, where do the Romani belong?
Well, Germany was split in two after the war, and most Jews who survived the holocaust weren’t German Jews, so if we were to send all of European Jews to West Germany, you are still having to deal woth the displacement aspect that you are currently using to build a case for genocide.
I’m also going to set aside your childish accusations of racism, because it isn’t true. You willingly chose to enter a discussion, the bare minimum is mutual respect and if you can’t accomplish that, there will be no discussion going forward. As for the Romani people, the Romania’s homeland wasn’t still under British rule, and thus couldn’t offer to have them go back India. I’m not even sure the Romani people wanted to return to India. Is that something they were pushing for or are you just making a hypothetical?
Can you connect two and two? I used German Jews as an example, didn’t say that Polish Jews or Russian Jews or French Jews should have been taken to Germany. Also you can migrate to a country, rather than occupy it and have the population that already lived there displaced, as the colonizers who founded the State of Israel did with Palestinians. I genuinely cannot believe you wrote this:
you are still having to deal woth the displacement aspect that you are currently using to build a case for genocide.
In good faith.
I’m also going to set aside your childish accusations of racism, because it isn’t true.
It is, you just don’t understand it yet. A Romani born in Spain who wants to live in Spain has one homeland: Spain. As of today, they have nothing in common with India, nor did they 50, 100, 150 or 400 years ago - much like Ashkenazi Jews didn’t have anything to do with Palestine in 1750. We just have the good sense to practice policies that allow for the healthiest pluralist society possible that respects both Romani and non-Romani, unlike 1940s dumbfuck Brits who thought that a sensible solution for Jews was to invite them to get the fuck out of Europe in a colonial project. Would you tell Italians living in the USA to leave to Italy during the time of the Italian mafias? Would you tell Arabs to go to the Middle East after the 9-11? If you don’t think telling an immigrant ethnicity to leave after or during a tumultuous period where they have or might be the target of hate is usually a good idea, dogmatically changing that principle to argue that it was sensible to ethnically cleanse Palestinians after WWII is indeed a racist bias. But I have faith you will eventually outgrow it, after one month or fifty.
Ethnic nationalism is just racism, whether practiced by white supremacist MAGA Americans or Holocaust survivors. In a liberal democracy, the government serves all people regardless of race. I’m confused by your premise that Holocaust survivors were entitled to their own ethnic state for some reason.
Also, the Zionist movement was not a response to the Holocaust. It was a colonial enterprise that began well before the Holocaust in response to widespread persecution especially in Central Europe. Many Jews opposed the Jewish nationalism undergirding Zionism for the same reasons liberals today reject virtually all nationalist movements. Many emigrated to liberal democracies like the United States where they could live free of ethnic discrimination. Zionists instead chose to respond with their own ethnic persecution.
It is worth recalling in this connection that at the turn of the century,
Zionism’s similarities to other projects of colonization were not a source of
embarrassment or shame for most of the movement’s adherents; indeed, they
often saw them as a selling point. Zionist leaders studied and sought to learn
from the experience of European colonial-settlement enterprises in places like
Algeria, Rhodesia, and Kenya, and many imagined their own endeavor as
similar in certain ways. Moreover, the Zionist movement readily used such
terms as “colony,” “colonial,” and “colonization” to refer to its activities; thus,
for example, the original name of its financial arm was the Jewish Colonial
Trust. It was only later, after the First World War, that colonialism came to
have strongly pejorative connotations for many Europeans. As a consequence
the Zionist movement sought to dissociate itself from other European projects
of colonization and settlement, began to stress the uniqueness and noncolonial
character of its mission and methods, and stopped using such terms, at least
in languages other than Hebrew.
Zachary Lockman, Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in
Palestine, 1906-1948 (University of California Press, 1996) 21-57.
You’re not going to get far using a definition of Zionism that practically vanished after WII and the founding of Israel, least of all in the current climate. Simply not the opportune moment.
Also already back then there were Zionists who saw it as an explicitly settler-colonial project.
The end goal of a Jewish homeland has always been genocide of Arabs?
I suspect that isn’t true but am willing to read whatever you are basing this claim off of.
Well, when you want to establish your homeland somewhere that people are already living, yeah it takes displacement. But they’re not just displacing them, they’re killing them.
www.google.com/search?q=define+zionism
Trusting Google results? In the days of the LLM takeover? Nah
You don’t trust the Google result for defining a word? Really? You think this is an LLM mediated result? Really?
Where else were the survivors of the holocaust credibly being offered the establishment of their own government beside their actual homeland?
If being a victim of the Holocaust entitles you to your own government, how comes you’ve never argued for establishing a homeland of the Romani people?
What are you suggesting should have been done with the Jewish survivors if returning to their homeland itself is unacceptable to you?
For a person born in Germany, raised in Germany, taught to speak, read and write German, their homeland is Germany. German Jewish victims of the Holocaust ought to have been extraordinarily repaired, and given the pleasure of seeing their victimizers fallen in disgrace, tried, condemned and punished (part of which did happen), not told to pack their bags and leave to a country they’ve never set a foot in. The idea that someone who’s born in a specific ethnic group has their “homeland” at some special, historical place is an extremely ideological view that has much more to do with nazism than with the ideals of freedom and human rights.
By the way, you haven’t answered my question. In your racist worldview that ethnicities belong to specific strips of land, where do the Romani belong?
Well, Germany was split in two after the war, and most Jews who survived the holocaust weren’t German Jews, so if we were to send all of European Jews to West Germany, you are still having to deal woth the displacement aspect that you are currently using to build a case for genocide.
I’m also going to set aside your childish accusations of racism, because it isn’t true. You willingly chose to enter a discussion, the bare minimum is mutual respect and if you can’t accomplish that, there will be no discussion going forward. As for the Romani people, the Romania’s homeland wasn’t still under British rule, and thus couldn’t offer to have them go back India. I’m not even sure the Romani people wanted to return to India. Is that something they were pushing for or are you just making a hypothetical?
Can you connect two and two? I used German Jews as an example, didn’t say that Polish Jews or Russian Jews or French Jews should have been taken to Germany. Also you can migrate to a country, rather than occupy it and have the population that already lived there displaced, as the colonizers who founded the State of Israel did with Palestinians. I genuinely cannot believe you wrote this:
In good faith.
It is, you just don’t understand it yet. A Romani born in Spain who wants to live in Spain has one homeland: Spain. As of today, they have nothing in common with India, nor did they 50, 100, 150 or 400 years ago - much like Ashkenazi Jews didn’t have anything to do with Palestine in 1750. We just have the good sense to practice policies that allow for the healthiest pluralist society possible that respects both Romani and non-Romani, unlike 1940s dumbfuck Brits who thought that a sensible solution for Jews was to invite them to get the fuck out of Europe in a colonial project. Would you tell Italians living in the USA to leave to Italy during the time of the Italian mafias? Would you tell Arabs to go to the Middle East after the 9-11? If you don’t think telling an immigrant ethnicity to leave after or during a tumultuous period where they have or might be the target of hate is usually a good idea, dogmatically changing that principle to argue that it was sensible to ethnically cleanse Palestinians after WWII is indeed a racist bias. But I have faith you will eventually outgrow it, after one month or fifty.
…so you would be against the Native Americans of the US and Canada being given their homeland back?
Ethnic nationalism is just racism, whether practiced by white supremacist MAGA Americans or Holocaust survivors. In a liberal democracy, the government serves all people regardless of race. I’m confused by your premise that Holocaust survivors were entitled to their own ethnic state for some reason.
Also, the Zionist movement was not a response to the Holocaust. It was a colonial enterprise that began well before the Holocaust in response to widespread persecution especially in Central Europe. Many Jews opposed the Jewish nationalism undergirding Zionism for the same reasons liberals today reject virtually all nationalist movements. Many emigrated to liberal democracies like the United States where they could live free of ethnic discrimination. Zionists instead chose to respond with their own ethnic persecution.
Zachary Lockman, Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in Palestine, 1906-1948 (University of California Press, 1996) 21-57.
Why did you respond to a question yet refuse to answer the question?
Dingdingding and there we have it, antisemitism by calling all Jews zionist.
What?
You’re not going to get far using a definition of Zionism that practically vanished after WII and the founding of Israel, least of all in the current climate. Simply not the opportune moment.
Also already back then there were Zionists who saw it as an explicitly settler-colonial project.