Post New

Holy crap, look at those downward revisions: the U.S. added 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than the Labor Department first reported.

A downward revision of a quarter-million jobs!

The U.S. only added 19,000 jobs in May compared to an initial report of 144,000, and only 14,000 in June after an initial report of 147,000, according to the BLS. Those two paltry totals, plus a July jobs gain of 73,000, means the U.S. added just 106,000 jobs over the past three months.

106,000 jobs over three months?

Only the healthcare and social assistance sectors are showing much hiring.

Manufacturing is down 11,000 jobs.

But, well, sure, like republicans here like to say, they love Mad King Donald Thee Pedophile for his excellent governance.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


https://thehill.com/business/5431805-us-job-growth...

From Fox News, "This absolutely abysmal jobs report really raises questions about Hillary Clintons past!"

Well played, sir. Well played.

his excellent governance

Trump can't deliver excellence in anything but grifting. Maybe it is possible that his chaotic and ignorant policies will somehow deliver something good? Seems highly unlikely.

His first administration looks pretty good in hindsight because it wasn't stuffed with incompetent sycophants, but actually had some reasonably good staff. Trump's worst impulses were restrained. Not now.

Is today the day that the stock market snaps out of it?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/stock-market-t...

A downward revision of a quarter-million jobs!

And it was only yesterday that Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick was crowing about how this was Trump's economy now: "He owns it". Wonder if Leavitt will agree. Queue backtracking excuses in 3. 2. 1...

This is the worst jobs report since the last time Trump was president!..

Reminder:
Trump ended his first presidency with an economy that had -2.7 million fewer jobs than when he started —
becoming the first president in modern history to experience a net loss of jobs over his time in office.
Literally the worst jobs president that God ever created!

"This is what we voted for!" ~Dope

Trump can't deliver excellence in anything but grifting. Maybe it is possible that his chaotic and ignorant policies will somehow deliver something good? Seems highly unlikely.- ges

-----------------

Secure border.

Doubled Child Tax Credit.

No tax on Tips and Overtime

Iran's nuclear program turned into rubble.

Eliminated USAID

Success with numerous prisoner exchanges

All branches of Military exceeding recruitment goals

Supportive of Parental Rights and School Choice

Getting men out of women's sports and private spaces

Aggressively fighting antisemitism on college campuses

Secure border.

Spankee's diapers sealed at the edges with Gorilla Glue.

Doubled Child Tax Credit.

No kids = no credit.

No tax on Tips and Overtime

Salaried workers get neither.

Iran's nuclear program turned into rubble.

US economy turned into rubble. 35k jobs/month created under Spankee--IF THAT MANY. Iran can quickly make nuclear weapons. Spankee couldn't create jobs if its life depended on it.

Eliminated USAID

Even more US citizens on welfare. NO JOBS. US farmers lost billions in crop sales.

Success with numerous prisoner exchanges

All prisoners at CECOT released due to Spankee's ongoing failures. Triple murderer returned to US and THEN RELEASED INTO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

All branches of Military exceeding recruitment goals

Pedophile Impotus Spankee McBoingBoing Bonespurs--need one say more?

Supportive of Parental Rights and School Choice

Only if the parents are white and Christian....

Getting men out of women's sports and private spaces

Pedophile Spankee entered young women's dressing areas for years.

Aggressively fighting antisemitism on college campuses

He is the most stupid antisemite in the universe.

You have to understand, Mike - the board’s libs aren’t able to post about current events any longer because they can’t take losing.

So they bring up things that they believe will make them feel good about themselves.

Once you look at all their posts through that lens, their ravings make perfect sense.

the board’s libs aren’t able to post about current events any longer because they can’t take losing.

How about that BLS jobs report? Oh, that is NOT "current events"? ROFLMAO !!!

bighairymike:

Secure border.

Umm,fentanyl is still making its way into the United States. But, yeah, nobody wants to become an American anymore and no one is interested even in seeking asylum. As you celebrate keeping those black- and brown-skinned folks out of America, bear in mind that immigrant workers will add an extra $7 trillion to the U.S. economy within the next decade and an extra $1 trillion in federal tax revenue. Or, would have.

Doubled Child Tax Credit.

The child tax credit went up $100; it was doubled back in 2017. Of course, the largest increases went to higher income families (previously the benefit had phased out at household incomes over $110,000). It's interesting, though, that republicans celebrate something like the CTC as a win for American families but condemn college loan forgiveness as socialism.

No tax on Tips and Overtime

Many tipped workers don't earn enough income to owe any federal taxes and will earn no deduction. For those who do earn enough to take the deduction, if they buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, starting in 2026, they will no longer receive $7,513 in enhanced premium tax credits toward reducing their premium. This will eclipse their gains under “no tax on tips.”

Iran's nuclear program turned into rubble.

Not according to several sources. At best, their program has been set back a few years; at worst a few months. But the Obama administration had slowed their efforts considerably without dropping bunker busters and destabilizing an already destabilized region.

Eliminated USAID

Why anyone would love the idea of killing children with HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis or starving children by eliminating this highly successful and relatively inexpensive program is beyond me.

Success with numerous prisoner exchanges

Every president has accomplished successful prisoner exchanges. But you might want to go ask the Warmbier family about those successes.

All branches of Military exceeding recruitment goals

You mean recruitment goals were missed during and post-COVID? What a shocker. And it didn't hurt that the U.S. military spent more than $6 billion over the past three years to recruit and retain service members. And BTW, all but the Navy exceeded their recruitment goals during the Biden years.

Supportive of Parental Rights and School Choice

Yeah, their hands were so tied during the Biden years.

Getting men out of women's sports and private spaces

Yeah, those seven trans athletes who were never especially competitive and had already been excluded from high school and college women's team competition during the Biden years are, well, umm, still unable to compete.

Aggressively fighting antisemitism on college campuses

I'm not sure "blackmailing" is the kind of aggressive action needed but whatever.


https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opp...

https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-bri...

https://apnews.com/article/military-pentagon-recru...

America has lost 116k manufacturing jobs over the last year—that's the fastest pace of job loss since the early COVID era, the last time Trump was President.

Big drops in the transportation (-49k) & electronics (-32k) industries drive most of the decline.

It's totally expected that insane policies are having negative consequences.

Also:
*REUTERS POLL -- NEARLY 90% ECONOMISTS, 89 OF 100, SAY THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUALITY OF OFFICIAL U.S. ECONOMIC DATA.
(In other words, the fascist regime is lying.)

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-economic-data-...

bighairymike: Aggressively fighting antisemitism on college campuses

Oh, yeah... one more thing: all of those college students that you guys were calling Hitler and Hamas kinda' had a point now that we've all witnessed Israel indiscriminately firing into crowds and killing men, women, and children lining up for food because they're literally starving to death since Israel caused a famine in Gaza.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/31/the-...

since Israel caused a famine in Gaza. - CO

-----------------

since Hamas caused a famine in Gaza...

since Israel caused a famine in Gaza. - CO

-----------------

since Hamas caused a famine in Gaza...


Since Hamas AND Israel caused a famine in Gaza.

Looks like we have another thing to add to the library fantasy list.

You know who is starving to deal in Gaza? Hamas’ hostages.

since Hamas caused a famine in Gaza

If you are going to play that game, then what/who caused Hamas??

Aussi

If you are going to play that game, then what/who caused Hamas??


The Muslim Brotherhood.
Can’t blame da Joooz for everything.

bighairymike: since Hamas caused a famine in Gaza...

The "He started it!" argument doesn't work for ten-year-olds but sure, go ahead and give that one a try.

Hamas is to blame for much in the region but not the current starvation of Palestinian children in Gaza. Control of food aid into Gaza is entirely under the control of the Israelis and as Graham-Harrison's article explains"data compiled and published by Israel’s own government makes clear that it has been starving Gaza. Between March and June, Israel allowed just 56,000 tonnes of food to enter the territory, Cogat records show, less than a quarter of Gaza’s minimum needs for that period.

Even if every bag of UN flour had been collected and handed out, and the GHF had developed safe systems for equitable distribution, starvation was inevitable. Palestinians did not have enough to eat.

A “worst-case scenario” famine is now unfolding in Gaza, UN-backed food security experts said this week. Food deliveries are “at a scale far below what is needed”, amid “drastic restrictions on the entry of supplies”, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) said in a report citing Israeli figures on aid.


Two Israeli-based rights groups this week declared that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, with reports citing evidence including the weaponization of hunger. B’tselem described an “official and openly declared policy” of mass starvation.

Sorry, this chapter of the story is being entirely written by Israel.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/31/the-...

Since Hamas AND Israel caused a famine in Gaza.

Yup.

Please explain to me the role Hamas has played in curtailing the flow of food into Gaza.

Was it Hamas teenagers delaying and destroying shipments on their way into Gaza?

Was it really Hamas recruiting UNRWA workers to their cause forcing Israel to evict UNRWA relief workers from Gaza?

Was all the "adequate supply" of food supplied by Israel sequestered by Hamas and sold on the black market for profit?

Please tell me again Hamas' role in the propagating the famine in Gaza?

And let's not overlook the 1/2 trillion $ natural gas deposits off the coast of Gaza as an additional motivator beyond Israel's quest for ethnic purity and general cultural hatred of Palestinians.

fd

Please explain to me the role Hamas has played in curtailing the flow of food into Gaza.

October 7th.

Simple. Hamas takes all the aid money and builds tunnels and buys weapons. Then controls the food distribution.

bighairymike: since Hamas caused a famine in Gaza...

CommonOne: Sorry, this chapter of the story is being entirely written by Israel.

And that's the truth. The math of the calories and populace (including Hamas) intuitively doesn't point to Hamas. Stick it in google AI and you'll see all the factors that cause wasting, which we are seeing in GAZA and is present in fishing villages and barrios in the Philippines. That's why a lot of the TB in the PI is in the fishing villages, counterintuitive it seems. Malnutrition wastes, stunts lives, and kills.

Alfa Wolf

Are you suggesting that the actions of Hamas on Oct 7, as violent and reprehensible as they were, justify the 1000 to 3000x death toll that the IDF has inflicted on innocent men, women, and children civilians?

The world sees Israel as guilty of war crimes and genocide and it is morally correct vision.

fd




















are

the actions of Hamas on Oct 7, as violent and reprehensible as they were, justify the 1000 to 3000x death toll that the IDF has inflicted on innocent men, women, and children civilians?

They chose Hamas. Therefore, they bear the cost of making their choice. They are not "innocent". Many of their own family members are in Hamas, so they have made their choice. Otherwise, there could be no Hamas.

Are you suggesting that the actions of Hamas on Oct 7, as violent and reprehensible as they were, justify the 1000 to 3000x death toll that the IDF has inflicted on innocent men, women, and children civilians?

No, nor did I ever say that.

You originally asked:
Please explain to me the role Hamas has played in curtailing the flow of food into Gaza.

The role Hamas played in curtailing the flow of food into Gaza was reigniting tensions in the area with their terrorist attack on Israel.

Hamas knew there would be serious repercussions that would impact innocent civilians and they didn’t care.

Did the Israelis take something really bad and make it worse? Yep.

It takes two to tango.

regarding civilian genocide due to radical extremists :
now do saudi arabia for 9\11.

oops, wrong nation bombed?

What is happening now in Gaza is a continuation of the ethnic cleansing started in 1948, though the Zionist project to claim Palestine began in the 1800's. The difference is that now the window dressing has been removed, and the pace has been accelerated to extermination rates. I refer you to "The 100 Year War on Palestine" by Kalidi; a factual if heartbreaking history of Zionist involvement there.

No 2000 year old claims of prior residency nor promises by your religious figure are legitimate. And besides:

Thou shalt not kill;

Thou shalt not steal;

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods;

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

fd

No 2000 year old claims of prior residency

Why is that not legitimate? The Jews are indigenous to the region. That's not a "claim" - there's plenty of Roman records of the Roman Empire's administration of the Jews back when this was called Judea (from which the demonym derives). There's historical records of the various conflicts between the native Jews and the occupying Romans, leading to the expulsion of the Jews and their diaspora:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish%E2%80%93Roman...

Why is that not legitimate?

Fact checkers NOT ALLOWED. Otherwise, the right could NEVER say anything again.

albaby

The legitimacy of the Jewish claim to all of the once inhabited biblical lands rests on the foundation of delegitimizing the claims of all the subsequent inhabitants if the intervening 2000 years, not the least of which were the current inhabitants.

Israelis filter out the existence of any people other than themselves.

The legitimacy of the Jewish claim to all of the once inhabited biblical lands rests on the foundation of delegitimizing the claims of all the subsequent inhabitants if the intervening 2000 years, not the least of which were the current inhabitants.

Not at all. Many (most?) Jews are perfectly comfortable with the "one lands, two peoples" argument. And even for those that don't, it's simply incorrect to say that the Jews don't also have a claim to be indigenous to those lands.

Yes, it makes the situation very difficult to resolve - perhaps intractable. But it's absolutely false to say the Jews do not have a claim to being indigenous to the region. It's literally where our people originated. It's not a "biblical" claim - there's no dispute that the Jews inhabited the area during Roman times, until they were driven out in the Roman-Judea wars in the second century.

the subsequent inhabitants if the intervening 2000 years

Tell us: How long is "long enough" to be able to claim the land is "yours"?

Why is that not legitimate? The Jews are indigenous to the region.

So are the Palestinians. The land has changed hands several times over the millennia.

The native American's can claim occupation of this land at least as long as the Jews of Judea. Maybe longer. Are we going to give the continental USA back to them, and return to the -mostly- European lands of our ancestors? You think the white folks would go along with that? Then why do you expect the Palestinians to?

Just playing Devil's Advocate to make a point.

IMO, the Jews mostly wanted to return to that land (which is the only land in the region that has no oil) because of religion. It's where their huge temple was, and various -often fictitious- persons puttered around that area in their holy tomes.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I have nothing against either group of people. I do have something against bombing, shooting, and kidnapping innocents, as well as genocide. Hamas wants to push the Jews into the sea, and Israel is conducting what can only be called a genocide. Not cool on either part. I don't see how it can end, unless they manage to hunt down every last Palestinian and kill him/her. According to their holy tomes, they have experience with that with the Midianites. Also the Canaanites, but we know that is wrong...the Canaanites were not exterminated, they just relocated and became what we know today as the Israelites. Israeli archeologists have told us that.

So are the Palestinians. The land has changed hands several times over the millennia.

Yes. You can credibly argue that both the Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to the area.

It is not correct to say that the Jews are not.

Why is that not legitimate? The Jews are indigenous to the region.

So are the Palestinians.

Albaby spoke up for a two-state solution, a solution that most Jews worldwide support, but is opposed by America's right wing and right-wing Jews in Israel who are intractably opposed to a two-state solution. Some in Netanyahu's coalition are even opposed to the continued existence of Palestinians.

Seems that ethnic cleansing is a feature, not a bug of right-wing, nationalist and authoritarian leadership.

Albaby spoke up for a two-state solution, a solution that most Jews worldwide support, but is opposed by America's right wing and right-wing Jews in Israel who are intractably opposed to a two-state solution. Some in Netanyahu's coalition are even opposed to the continued existence of Palestinians.
*****

First off, agree with the above point.

BUT has the poster shown equal concern about the people who do NOT want Israel to exist?

If yes, it's credible.

If not, well, just another 401K'er, anti Israel bent.


Disclosure: I'm even - don't give a shit either way. One cannot diminish the huge accomplishments of Israel and its people and diaspora. No way in hell. BUT there are times where one also synpathizes with generatin after generation after era and era, and sort of understands the Ivy league chants -- even if they don't

Albaby spoke up for a two-state solution, a solution that most Jews worldwide support, but is opposed by America's right wing and right-wing Jews in Israel who are intractably opposed to a two-state solution. Some in Netanyahu's coalition are even opposed to the continued existence of Palestinians.

I did. But I think your description above is out of date. It used to be that it was Israel's right-wing Jews that were opposed to a two-state solution. My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews now oppose it. This is not just a feature of the right-wing coalition over there anymore. It's the mainstream, nay the dominant position.

I have a fair amount of family in Israel. No guarantee they're representative of Israeli Jewish thought - they're not a random sample. But their sense is that if there was a Palestinian state, that wouldn't bring any end to the conflict. That state would still be trying to eliminate Jewish presence in the area. They would just have the resources available to a fully sovereign state, rather than be limited to "insurgency" type attacks. IOW, the equivalent of Hamas - but with an actual air force and tanks.

They do not believe that the Palestinian people, as a group, necessarily reject the idea of peaceful coexistence. But they believe that the most likely outcome of a Palestinian state right now would be for Hamas or its successor members to govern. I mean, how could Hamas not be put in charge? They would have won for the Palestinians the ultimate prize. They would be the Founding Fathers. You think the Palestinian people would choose the Palestinian Authority, or any other group that was ineffectual for decades in getting them a state, over the folks who actually did it?

For them, the two-state solution means trading Hamas cowering in tunnels for Hamas with an army and tanks and an air force. It's not hard to see why they're leaning against that...

It is not correct to say that the Jews are not.

I agree. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. Did I imply otherwise?

But I do think realities have to take precedent. Native Americans have a claim on this land going back thousands of years. But this is now the USofA. Rightly or wrongly, that isn't going to change. The aboriginal people of Australia aren't getting Australia back. Etc. It's unreasonable to expect lines to be redrawn in the modern age without a lot of push-back.

Arguably, it was wrong to say to Palestine "hey, you no longer exist...these other folks also have a claim on the land, and they're moving in". As I understand it, many Palestinians were displaced; their land taken (stolen, really). That wasn't cool. I suspect there was a lot of land not privately owned where they could have settled. Though, I must confess ignorance about many of the details. I just know the general history.

I agree. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. Did I imply otherwise?

No. That was fb's original position, and why I responded to him. He suggested that it wasn't legitimate to argue that the Jews were indigenous to the country.

Albaby spoke up for a two-state solution, a solution that most Jews worldwide support, but is opposed by America's right wing and right-wing Jews in Israel who are intractably opposed to a two-state solution. Some in Netanyahu's coalition are even opposed to the continued existence of Palestinians.

True. There is also Hamas (and others) who oppose this, too. They want nothing short of "driving the Jews into the sea". I forget who said that, but someone of prominence did.

And they did -sort of- try the two-state solution. The Palestinians eventually voted-in Hamas (which was the last time they were able to vote, courtesy of Hamas). Hamas made no secret of their objectives, so the Palestinians of 30 years ago got what they asked for (i.e. continued conflict).

Part of the problem is the Temple Mount, which is claimed by both Judaism and Islam. Again...religion. Incompatible for that reason.

Hamas wants to push the Jews into the sea

Yet Hamas has "issues" with THEM being pushed into the sea. What *could* it be ???

Part of the problem is the Temple Mount, which is claimed by both Judaism and Islam. Again...religion. Incompatible for that reason.

Oh that’s an easy one. You guys get it Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, those guys get it Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. Now swap again. The first guys get it Saturday, Sunday, Monday, the second group gets it “Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Now swap again. Nobody gets it “every Sabbath”, everybody gets it “some Sabbaths”. 6 days possession rotate over 7 days of the week.

For two religions that use lunar based calendars and where holidays jump all over the damn place, this should be simple.

Can I have my Nobel Prize now?

Native Americans have a claim ..... The aboriginal people of Australia aren't getting Australia back.

Native Americans have some autonomy on reservation lands. Maori and Aboriginals are both working to establish autonomy in their respective homelands.

If Native Americans started bombing cafes, busses, shooting rockets at Phoenix, Tuscon,and Albuquerque, autonomy on the rez would disappear; life on the rez would change for the worse.

If Native Americans started bombing cafes, busses, shooting rockets at Phoenix, Tuscon,and Albuquerque, autonomy on the rez would disappear; life on the rez would change for the worse.

Yeah. Life on the rez is bad, but it would be A LOT worse if they started that. Our history with native Americans isn't great, even as recently as Wounded Knee (1970s).

Interesting how we have an actual movement that is peaceful. There are nativist Hawaiians who maintain the US illegally incorporated Hawaii into the USA, and they want to revert to being an independent nation. No bombing buses, or kidnapping people. Theirs is a peaceful (and probably hopeless) crusade. Compare and contrast to Israel/Palestine.

There is no oil in Israel/Palestine, but there is 1/2 trillion dollars of Nat gas just off the coast of Gaza.

Genetically speaking, some Jews have ancestral roots to the "Holy Land". Sephardic Jews certainly are genetically linked to the region. Ashkenazy Jews, not so much.

Now speaking religiously and culturally, the picture is painted quite differently. I have more faith in the scientific view than ethereal interpretations.

Nonetheless, had European Jews come the Levant in 1948 with ploughshares and a cooperative spirit instead of guns and terror, the whole scenario might look different today.

fd

Nonetheless, had European Jews come the Levant in 1948 with ploughshares and a cooperative spirit instead of guns and terror, the whole scenario might look different today.

And had they been greeted with something other than guns and terror, both in 1948 and in the decades before then, the whole scenario might look different today as well.

Or had the plan of Partition been accepted, painful and disruptive as it would have been in that region as it was in India, the scenario might look different as well.

Alas, that's not what happened.

Why is that not legitimate? The Jews are indigenous to the region. That's not a "claim" - there's plenty of Roman records of the Roman Empire's administration of the Jews back when this was called Judea (from which the demonym derives). There's historical records of the various conflicts between the native Jews and the occupying Romans, leading to the expulsion of the Jews and their diaspora ...

But don't the Christians and Muslims have the same "claim" since the Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine are decedents of the same people? The Christians were converted Jews, as were the Muslims (alongside Christian converts). You are spouting Israeli State (Zionist) propaganda here.

But don't the Christians and Muslims have the same "claim" since the Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine are decedents of the same people?

Perhaps. But this question isn't about whether more than one people have a claim to the land. It's about whether the Jews do, regardless of whether others do.

The Jews are indigenous to the region. It is where we are from. This is not a claim based on divine grant. As a historical fact, the Jewish people originated in this part of the world and were driven out of their homeland by invading colonists.

It's anti-Zionist propaganda to claim that Jews aren't indigenous to the area.

anti-Zionist propaganda to claim that Jews aren't indigenous to the area.

Of course you can be very indigenous and have it count for nothing. Ask the native Americans in encampments around the US, or First Nations or Inuit of Canada, or the Aborigines of Australia, or the Amari of Peru, Guranis of Brazil, or …

Any territory that has been colonized has native populations, but generally that doesn’t amount to much. C’est la vie, eh?

Any territory that has been colonized has native populations, but generally that doesn’t amount to much. C’est la vie, eh?

Yep. It may not amount to much but generally speaking we will try to acknowledge that the native populations were, in fact, native to the area. Rather than try to erase that fact. We might not always act on it - in fact, we usually don't. But it's generally regarded as quite wrongful to deny that the indigenous people are indigenous.

Well, there are Jews, and then, there are Jews. Sephardic Jews are certainly genetically linked to the Mideast, as are the Berber, Adeni, Baghdadi, Persian, Karaites, and Ethiopian Jews. Ashkenazy Jews are genetically Eastern European. It is telling that the former above groups are generally not invited to immigrate to the Jewish state.

Palestinians are unequivocally native to the area. Problems did not start between Palestinians and Jews until proto-Israeli Zionists started showing up there in the late 1800's.

Regardless the beliefs or motivations of the settlers, it is a settler colonial project with the usual disregard and disdain for native inhabitants.

fd

It is telling that the former above groups are generally not invited to immigrate to the Jewish state.

What are you talking about? More than half of the population of Israel is Sephardic. There was a massive influx of those folks in the years after the 1948 war, as the other Arab states in the region purged their Jewish populations (some of which had been living their since the Babylonian exile, not just the Roman one). Since then, those Jews have been more than welcome to emigrate to Israel.

Problems did not start between Palestinians and Jews until proto-Israeli Zionists started showing up there in the late 1800's.

Which they had every right to do. Those folks were legally immigrating to the region, with the support and endorsement of Abdul Hamid II. It's not surprising that some people who live in an area get very upset when people who are different than them are allowed to start emigrating there - just look at our experience with that here in the U.S. - but that doesn't make it wrong.

Regardless the beliefs or motivations of the settlers, it is a settler colonial project with the usual disregard and disdain for native inhabitants.

Except, of course, that the "settlers" are themselves indigenous to the area. Which makes this more of a "one land, two peoples" situation, regardless of the beliefs or motivations of the group that wants to claim that the other isn't indigenous.

This would be a much easier situation if it was a typical settler colonial project. If the Jews weren't indigenous to the region, if the increase of emigration of Jews to the area in the 1890s had been at the behest of a European colonial power rather than under Muslim rule. But we are indigenous, Zionism started with ordinary - and explicitly welcomed - immigration back in the 1800's, and partition (two state solution) would have been the just and appropriate response to that situation. As was originally proposed here, and as was successfully (though inarguably traumatically) implemented in India. The world would be a much better place if the original Partition plan had been allowed to go into effect, but sadly that was not to be....

Which makes this more of a "one land, two peoples" situation, regardless of the beliefs or motivations of the group that wants to claim that the other isn't indigenous.

Which is why a two state solution makes the most sense for future peace in the region.

One day will the UN be having the same conversation about America :)

Indeed :)

What is happening now in Gaza is a continuation of the ethnic cleansing started in 1948, though the Zionist project to claim Palestine began in the 1800's. The difference is that now the window dressing has been removed, and the pace has been accelerated to extermination rates. I refer you to "The 100 Year War on Palestine" by Kalidi; a factual if heartbreaking history of Zionist involvement there.

FD. Doncha remember when Netanyahu and Yassar Arafat were coming to peaceful terms and it looked like there would be a settlement? The Oslo accords? I remember Netanyahu coming to us and saying the terrorist groups want all the Jews dead, a religious crusade - an intifada. So the Arabs themselves used the Palestinian conflict as a focal point and they didn't want the conflict settled. It was advantageous to Hussein, etc., back then. What is happening now is horrific, but let's not skip chunks of history that we lived through.

“ It's anti-Zionist propaganda to claim that Jews aren't indigenous to the area.”

Zionism claims the right to a Jewish state in the land of Israel. The current Israeli state is embarking on a Zionist project of establishing a greater Israel. The Zionist claim to the Jewish right to statehood in the Jewish lands of Israel denies the indigenous Christians and Muslims rights to citizenship and self determination in their ancestral lands. Where two rights exist, power decides. Hence the current Palestinian genocide.

Zionism claims the right to a Jewish state in the land of Israel. The current Israeli state is embarking on a Zionist project of establishing a greater Israel. The Zionist claim to the Jewish right to statehood in the Jewish lands of Israel denies the indigenous Christians and Muslims rights to citizenship and self determination in their ancestral lands. Where two rights exist, power decides. Hence the current Palestinian genocide.

None of which would make it true that Jews aren't indigenous to the area. Or diminish their right to citizenship, independence, and self-determination.

It is exceedingly difficult to find a just and equitable outcome when there are two separate peoples who are indigenous to an area who both want to have self-determination and and independents and who don't beleive their self-determination will be effectuated if they are in the minority in a single state. This is a normal and common trait among peoples, whether they be religious or ethnic or nationalist communities. Hence the existence of so many efforts of smaller communities to seek independence, autonomy, or liberation from larger states - whether it be the Basque community in Spain, the Walloons in Belgium, the Quebecois in Canada, or what have you.

The solution that was applied successfully in India (but with traumatic impacts) was partition. The same proposal was contemplated in Palestine, but it was unable to be implemented.

Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people should have their own country, the same way the Japanese people or the Italian people or the Thai people or many other peoples of the world are allowed to have their own country. That belief can exist independently of the position of the current right-wing parties in Israel that such country's territory should include 100% of areas that were originally slated to be "Arab" under the 1948 partition plan. Partition would have been a way to effectuate both the Jewish people's and the Palestinian people's legitimate desires to have that level of self-determination, independence, and autonomy. Alas, it was not to be.

Alas, it was not to be.

What? Ergo genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the west bank?!? What exactly are you arguing here???

I won't speak for him. He has said that the situation is intractable, and his relatives there don't want a two-state deal because they fear state-supported terrorism on their border. I can't say that they're wrong, either.

We can argue about what "should have been" all day. But, given the present situation, is there a solution? I don't see one that doesn't involve wiping out one of the populations**. Which is unacceptable. But there you go...

I suppose they could try the "reservation" model, but they sorta already have. And the Palestinians chose their leadership to be Hamas, who wants to annihilate Israel, and with Iranian support, started bombing buses and cafes and anything else they could get at.


**The "Arabs" want to drive Israel into the sea. Israel wants all the land that the Torah says is theirs. There isn't much middle ground that enough of either population is willing to abide.

I won't speak for him. He has said that the situation is intractable, and his relatives there don't want a two-state deal because they fear state-supported terrorism on their border. I can't say that they're wrong, either …

Jeez, do you guys hear yourselves?!? It’s a fucking genocide and you’re offering a shoulder shrug and an “oh well” at best, and a “well my family says they deserve it” at worst?!? The grotesque historical irony is obvious.

If this is Albabys stance (you don’t want to put words in his mouth) then he stands as a supporter of the ongoing Palestinian genocide. The shrug, “it’s intractable”, stance is no different than the passivity and denial of Americans who shrugged at the Nazis Jewish policy in the thirties.

What? Ergo genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the west bank?!? What exactly are you arguing here???

I am arguing that the Jewish people are indigenous to the area, and have the same rights to self-determination, independence, and to a country for their people as any other people in the world.

I am not arguing in support of genocide or ethnic cleansing. But I am arguing against the erasure of legitimate Jewish claims to the area, that sit side-by-side with Palestinian claims. This is a "one land, two native peoples" situation - not a settler colonist situation. The Jews have a legitimate claim to also be indigenous to the area, despite being displaced by the colonial powers of their day (first the Babylonians, then the Romans, and later the Muslim conquest of the area under the Rashidun Caliphate).

I'm afraid you're making the mistake of conflating Zionism - the belief that the Jewish people have the same rights to have a country for their people as any of the other peoples of the world - with the very specific policies of the current right-wing government of Israel towards the West Bank and Gaza. They are not identical.

If this is Albabys stance (you don’t want to put words in his mouth) then he stands as a supporter of the ongoing Palestinian genocide.

It is not my stance. I think it might help if I gave a quick summary of what I believe:

1) The Jewish people have the same right to have a country as any of the other peoples of the world to have their own country.
2) The same is true of the Palestinians.
3) It is wrong for the Israeli government to attempt to displace the Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza, and it is wrong for them to permit (or directly cause) the expansion of settlements in those areas.
4) Prior to the October 7 attacks, I believed that the best chance for a lasting and just peace was Partition along the lines of the Indian Partition. Separation of the physical territory into two lands, within which each people would have sovereignty and independence from each other.
5) After the October 7 attacks, I believe that creating a Palestinian state in any near-term time frame would most likely result in Hamas becoming the "Founding Fathers" of the new Palestinian state - and we would end up right back where we are now. Hamas would attack again (because they are committed to doing that), but this time with the resources of having their own actual military and air force, and Israel would have to counter-attack.

I do not support any genocide against the Palestinians. They are also indigenous people to the area. The Jews and the Palestinians will need to find a way to coexist - there is no getting rid of either of them, despite what the contemptible and detestable fools that currently comprise the Israeli government think.

,i>
Jeez, do you guys hear yourselves?!? It’s a fucking genocide and you’re offering a shoulder shrug and an “oh well” at best,

I understand your focus, but it's misplaced methinks. After the Oslo accords the peace that was forming was undone by outside forces - Iran was a major player there. Recognition of Israel was happening recently and it was undone by outside forces again. Arafat reneged on going after terrorists too. The mass shootings reported every day do look like murder, but Hamas also doesn't seem to worry one bit about killing innocents or getting them killed by their policies and tactics. It's no peace in sight at the moment.

I am arguing that the Jewish people are indigenous to the area, and have the same rights to self-determination, independence, and to a country for their people as any other people in the world.

I am not arguing in support of genocide or ethnic cleansing. But I am arguing against the erasure of legitimate Jewish claims to the area, that sit side-by-side with Palestinian claims. This is a "one land, two native peoples" situation - not a settler colonist situation. The Jews have a legitimate claim to also be indigenous to the area, despite being displaced by the colonial powers of their day (first the Babylonians, then the Romans, and later the Muslim conquest of the area under the Rashidun Caliphate).

This is a patently absurd trans-historicist claim in support of EXACTLY the kind of settler colonialism that you are rejecting. This claim, rooted in some notion of a natural and universal law of ethnic and national identity, is not natural and universal at all, but rather has concrete historical origins in nineteenth century nationalist movements like Zionism. Indeed, in their own mythology, the Hebrew people hail from Egypt, not the lands of Canaan. When the Hebrews settled Canaan there were already indigenous people there--the Canaanites. Regardless, territorial claims to an ethnically and culturally defined nationhood did not exist in this ancient period and only emerged with the modern state in sixteenth century Europe and the modern NATION state a little later in the nineteenth century. The modern Zionist movement is part of that historical process of developing territorial claims around politically constructed ethnic and cultural identities. This idea of "ingenuousness" is itself a creation of modern nationalism as it assumes a natural correspondence between people, identity, and the land. This conception is premised on the already existing modern state and did not exist before the sixteenth century. The modern state is centered on a claim to political authority over a geographically bounded territory and governmental control over its inhabitants. Prior to the modern state their were kingdoms, empires, city-states, tribal bands, etc. Empires were born, expanded, crashed into each other, and collapsed.People moved of their own volition or were displaced as a result of these grand forces in their lives. The fluidity of the human race in space was "natural". Freezing this historical process in some nationalistic narrative around "naturalistic" claims to a land is a political act that has nothing to do with the past. It is exactly this kind of nationalist fever dream that led to the holocaust, and the fever has spread to the current Israeli state.

I'm afraid you're making the mistake of conflating Zionism - the belief that the Jewish people have the same rights to have a country for their people as any of the other peoples of the world - with the very specific policies of the current right-wing government of Israel towards the West Bank and Gaza. They are not identical.

I am conflating nothing. The current Israeli government is stocked with extreme ultra nationalists who advocate for and are actively pursuing the vision of a greater Israel. Bezalel Smotrich, to name just one of these ministers, is himself a settler/occupier in the West Bank and has called for the expulsion of Palestinians or their subjugation under Israeli rule. Apparently genocide isn't off the table. The conflation that is taking place is confusing anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

The shrug emoji is not a defensible position in the face of the genocidal policies of the Israeli state.

Regardless, territorial claims to an ethnically and culturally defined nationhood did not exist in this ancient period and only emerged with the modern state in sixteenth century Europe and the modern NATION state a little later in the nineteenth century.

So what? If the Palestinians are allowed to advocate for having a state of their own - and indeed every other people of the world - why not the Jews? If you want to say that things like countries shouldn't exist for anyone, that would be an interesting conversation to have. But saying that only the Jews are not permitted to advocate for an ethnically and culturally defined nationhood, while all other ethnically and culturally cohesive groups are permitted to do so, is not a legitimate position to take.

The conflation that is taking place is confusing anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. Why are the Jews, among all the peoples of the world, not allowed to want and advocate for having a country of their own?

I understand your focus, but it's misplaced methinks. After the Oslo accords the peace that was forming was undone by outside forces - Iran was a major player there. Recognition of Israel was happening recently and it was undone by outside forces again. Arafat reneged on going after terrorists too. The mass shootings reported every day do look like murder, but Hamas also doesn't seem to worry one bit about killing innocents or getting them killed by their policies and tactics. It's no peace in sight at the moment.

This all sounds like a justification for genocide. Regardless of these facts, true or not, the only fact that matters is that the state of Israel has political and military authority over the territory of Gaza and the West Bank, and it is presiding over genocidal policies in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Daily Palestinian people are being murdered and starved at the hands of the Israeli state. Pointing at Iran and saying "but Biden" is a weak justification, and really provides moral support, for these genocidal policies. I find it increasingly hard to believe that people will seek out justification for supporting the systematic elimination of a people in the 21st century. Really, these arguments are no different than the nonsense many of you reject from posters like Dope.

Where does Egypt show up in this inquiry? It doesn't seem to. The Levant, Mesapotamia, and Canaan figure in, but not Egypt as far as I can see.

AI Overview

The Hebrews – Western Civilization
The historical roots of the Hebrew people are traced through their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as described in the Hebrew Bible, though archaeological evidence suggests they may have originated in the Levant rather than Mesopotamia. The term "Hebrew" likely refers to migrants from the "other side" of the Euphrates or Jordan River. The Hebrew people developed into the ancient Israelites, who are the ancestors of modern Jews, established a kingdom in Canaan, and left behind a rich history recorded in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible).

Biblical Origins

Patriarchs: According to the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrews trace their lineage to the patriarch Abraham, his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob (also called Israel).

Eber: The term "Hebrew" itself is derived from Eber, an ancestor of Abraham.
Covenant: Abraham made a covenant with God to become the father of a great nation, and in return, his descendants were promised a land and prosperity.

Possible Mesopotamian Origins

The Hebrew Bible states that Abraham left Mesopotamia around 1900 BCE to become a wandering herdsman.

The word "Hebrew" itself may be a reference to "crossing over", and the term "Hebrew" could refer to migrants who came from "across the river," meaning the Euphrates or Jordan.

Archaeological and Alternative Theories

While the Bible suggests a Mesopotamian origin, archaeological evidence indicates that the early Hebrews may have actually emerged from within the Levant.

The early Hebrews were likely semi-nomadic herders and farmers who lived in small, hilltop villages.

Development into Israelites and Jews

The Hebrews eventually became known as the Israelites after settling in the land of Canaan.

After the Babylonian Exile, they became known as Jews.
Genetic studies show that Jews worldwide share a common Middle Eastern origin and a common gene pool dating back millennia.

Hebrews - Wikipedia
The most generally accepted hypothesis today is that the text intends ivri as the adjective (Hebrew suffix -i) formed from ever (עֵ...
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hebrew | People, Religion, & Location - Britannica
Hebrew, any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were the ancestors of the Jews. Biblical scholars use the term Hebre...
Britannica
4.6: Ancient Hebrew History - Humanities LibreTexts
Aug 26, 2022 — According to the Hebrew Bible, the first patriarch (male clan leader) of the Hebrews was Abraham, a man who led the He...
Humanities LibreTexts

Show all

So what? If the Palestinians are allowed to advocate for having a state of their own - and indeed every other people of the world - why not the Jews? If you want to say that things like countries shouldn't exist for anyone, that would be an interesting conversation to have. But saying that only the Jews are not permitted to advocate for an ethnically and culturally defined nationhood, while all other ethnically and culturally cohesive groups are permitted to do so, is not a legitimate position to take.

(Not that you want or need my help in this particular debate, but):

It would help if the Palestinians dropped their "From the River to the Sea" ideology and accepted a Jewish state alongside theirs. But they haven't, instead agitating for, starting and losing wars in 1948/1967/1973/1982. While Israel has created a beautiful and prosperous nation the Palestinians have been ruled by corrupt despots who've funneled money to themselves and created an infrastructure for terrorism.

Two peoples, two sets of decisions, two paths taken. And now we're here.

So what? If the Palestinians are allowed to advocate for having a state of their own - and indeed every other people of the world - why not the Jews? If you want to say that things like countries shouldn't exist for anyone, that would be an interesting conversation to have. But saying that only the Jews are not permitted to advocate for an ethnically and culturally defined nationhood, while all other ethnically and culturally cohesive groups are permitted to do so, is not a legitimate position to take.

I never said any of that. What I am saying is that ethnically pure states are a myth, the pursuit of which lead to the Holocaust and continues to lead to genocide where ever the pursuit of a single "nation" state happens. Italy is not a country built around a people with a common history and language. This is a myth. It is a polyglot society comprised of culturally and linguistically distinct peoples forced together in a movement of national unification (poor word, it should really be national creation). In that process some dialects were elevated, others lost. Some regions won power, others lost. And even today there are national political struggles over who is Italian and who is not.

The problem here is not me, it is you. You cling to a unitary ethnic and cultural definition of the state that necessarily excludes some of the indigenous people of the territory. That ethnic group exercising control over the state does so in the name of only one part of the indigenous population of that territory, and since the definition of statehood excludes those not included in the cultural definition of citizenship, the state knows not what to do with those who are not citizens. Some within the state have an answer, which we are seeing unfold in Gaza and the West Bank. Recognizing this does not deny Jews the right to political representation in a state, although the Israeli state does deny political representation to the "Arabs" who live within its political jurisdiction (and I include all territories under Israeli military authority here). The problem of Zionism is that its definition of the state, and citizenship within the state (it is a Jewish state after all), does not permit a resolution to the "indigenous but not Jewish" question. Without an answer to that question, extremist Zionism will seek solutions that eliminate the cause of the question: i.e., non-Jewish indigenous people. This is the crux of the genocidal policies currently pursued by the Israeli state.

Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. Why are the Jews, among all the peoples of the world, not allowed to want and advocate for having a country of their own?

This is a ridiculous, but effective, conflation. Point to a country where only one narrowly defined religious and/or ethnic community exists while denying indigenous people who do not belong to that narrowly defined group citizenship rights in the territory that this ethno-state effectively governs? This is, after all, what you are arguing for here. Do political rights only come through the denial of those rights to others, because that seems to be you claim when you are saying that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. Do you mean to argue that every Jew is a zionist, by definition, and that any opposition to the current Zionist project of pursuing a greater Israel is an attack on all Jews? If so, what is the distinction between Judaism and Zionism?

Regardless of your answer to my questions, you still have no answer for what is to be done about the Israeli state policies of genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. By the way, many Jews in Israel are opposed to these extreme Zionist policies. Are they antisemitic?

The problem of Zionism is that its definition of the state, and citizenship within the state (it is a Jewish state after all), does not permit a resolution to the "indigenous but not Jewish" question.

Why not? Many countries in the world have an indigenous population that is not a member of the ethnic and cultural group that predominates. To use one example, Japan has has managed to resolve the "indigenous but not Japanese" question posed by the Ainu people by....well, by not doing anything particular at all. As a general, abstract principle there's not really a problem with having an "indigenous but not _______" population in a country.

Implementing partition could have resolved many of the specific problems faced in the area. That would have been traumatic, just as it was in India - but with the benefit of hindsight it would have been far less traumatic than what has ensued.

Do you mean to argue that every Jew is a zionist, by definition, and that any opposition to the current Zionist project of pursuing a greater Israel is an attack on all Jews?

No, because opposition to the current government is not opposition to Zionism. Zionism is the general support for the existence of a Jewish state, not any specific government coalition or set of policies that a specific government might adopt. Again, to return to Japan, one can argue that the current government of Japan is terrible, or that one or more of their specific policies are terrible - without arguing that Japan should not exist in its current form (to be clear - I have no opinion about the government of Japan, I'm just using them as an example).

If so, what is the distinction between Judaism and Zionism?

Jews are a distinct religious, ethnic, and cultural people; Judaism is typically a term that refers to the religious and cultural practices of that people. Zionism is the belief that this people should be allowed to have their own country. Anti-zionism is the belief that Jews should not be permitted to have their own country. This is distinct from believing that the current government is terrible and what they're doing is terrible.

To give a comparable analogy, I think Trump is a terrible President and I think many of the specific policies of his Administration are terrible. That does not make me anti-American. It means I am against this specific government, but not against either the existence of America or America as a concept. Being anti-American means more than just being against the specific government or its specific policies. Similarly, being anti-Zionist is more than being against the Netanyahu government or its policies (or prosecution of the war) - it means opposing the existence of a Jewish state generally.

If I were to say that I'm fine with every other people in the world having their own country, but I think the Japanese should not be allowed to have their own country, I think most people would regard that as being anti-Japanese. I'm not sure I understand why people think it's okay, or not anti-Semitic, to espouse the analogous belief about the Jews....

According to Hebrew mythology, the Hebrews lived in Goshen, in the Nile river delta, before Exodus.

According to Hebrew mythology, the Hebrews lived in Goshen, in the Nile river delta, before Exodus.

That's in the bible and well documented. They lived in Goshen for 400+ years before the Exodus.

So then is Goshen the original homeland? Apparently not. How come? Where were they before they were in Goshen? (Asked by someone who knows nothing of the history of Israel!)

https://theisraelbible.com/the-land-of-goshen-wher...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Goshen

[ Note: I'm someone who believes that the current Israel policy of maximum military pressure on Hamas, that's resulting in huge number of civilian casualties is very very bad, but I have no solution. Even if every Palestinian - including those living outside of Israel/Gaza/The West Bank - even a little sympathetic toward Hamas could be magically killed, I fear it would only rise again after a time. ]

That's in the bible and well documented. They lived in Goshen for 400+ years before the Exodus.

So then is Goshen the original homeland? Apparently not. How come? Where were they before they were in Goshen? (Asked by someone who knows nothing of the history of Israel!)

According to wikipedia, the majority opinion among archaeologists and other scholars is that the Hebrews emerged as a separate people indigenously from the population in Canaan - but may have been shaped by the addition of some peoples who traveled to the area:

Modern scholarship generally views ancient Israel's origins as emerging primarily from the indigenous population of Canaan.[35][36] According to this view, the early Israelites likely consisted of diverse elements drawn from Late Bronze Age society, including rural villagers, former settled peoples, displaced peasants, and pastoralist groups.[37][35] These were joined by marginal segments of society, such as the 'Apiru and Shasu, who lived on the fringes of settled areas.[37][35][b] Additional external elements may have included fugitive or runaway Semitic slaves from Egypt, who likely constituted at least part of the emerging Israelite population.[35][39][40]

At the same time, scholars argue that the Exodus story may preserve a kernel of historical truth, though it has been reshaped over time. Various Semitic peoples lived in Egypt at different periods, and the biblical narrative could reflect the experiences of a particular group which was later expanded into a national saga.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_I...

There does not seem to be any historicity to the biblical tale that the Jewish people existed somewhere else and then migrated en masse into the region from elsewhere.

There does not seem to be any historicity to the biblical tale that the Jewish people existed somewhere else and then migrated en masse into the region from elsewhere.

So is the Exodus not historically true as it is written? Deliverance from slavery (presumably in Goshen) in Egypt not true?

Yet it is apparently taken as indisputable truth that Yahweh allocated Israel as The Promised Land and that's the land that is taken to be their indigenous home. Which would have happened after living in Goshen in Egypt for hundreds of years prior to that.

The bible seems to say that both things happened (Exodus from Goshen/Egypt and the "giving" of The Promised Land), but only the later is now taken as fact?

PS - I find the whole notion of an indigenous land to be a foreign concept. As a 3rd (or 4th?) generation immigrant American with great grandparents hailing from Ireland, England and Germany, I make no claim to any indigenous land and wouldn't care if I was transplanted elsewhere as long as I could have the same standard of living!

So is the Exodus not historically true as it is written? Deliverance from slavery (presumably in Goshen) in Egypt not true?

Yet it is apparently taken as indisputable truth that Yahweh allocated Israel as The Promised Land and that's the land that is taken to be their indigenous home.

Right? Shocking, isn't it - that a collection of oral traditions passed among goatherders that was later written down thousands of years ago might not be historically accurate?

There are some deeply religious folks (not all of them Jewish!) who genuinely take the bible as indisputable truth. Obviously, I don't think it is - and I don't think that's considered much of an argument in international law or many other circles.

As a 3rd (or 4th?) generation immigrant American with great grandparents hailing from Ireland, England and Germany, I make no claim to any indigenous land and wouldn't care if I was transplanted elsewhere as long as I could have the same standard of living!

Fair enough - but not everyone feels that way. I turn again to Japan as an example (mostly because I don't think most people have a lot of strong opinions about the existence of the country of Japan). A 3rd generation Japanese-American who's perfectly happy living in the United States but deeply connected to their Japanese heritage might have no desire to emigrate to Japan....but they might care very deeply if one were to propose that Japan should no longer be allowed to exist as a separate nation. You might personally not have much of a connection to Ireland, England or Germany - or even the U.S., if you were talking about prospectively being transplanted elsewhere. But a broad swath of humanity, and I daresay the majority, tends to regard themselves as members of a "people" (whether that's a national, ethnic, religious, or all of the above group), and draw meaning and importance from their connection to that group beyond their experience as an individual.

Argh. Sorry for the blank post.

I have a very stupid question.

Why could they not establish Israel between Germany and Poland, taking land away from the former concentration camps and surrounding areasand just be a European state which they pretend to be anyway (like in music competitions)? Yes, yes, the Bible. specifically the old testament.
But a lot of it is just made up and it should have been obvious, especially to the enlightenment thinkers and to so many Jews, who are extremely intelligent people as a rule.
It would have been the easiest solution for everybody concerned.
I know Jews had been returning to the so-called homeland since way before in the 19th and early 20th century. But nobody liked them there, not the British, not the Palestinians. Whereas Germany and Poland, grudgingly or not, could have been made to pay for their sins that Palestinians are now paying for.
My ancestors migrated from one specific town in Tajikistan 5000 years ago. Am I entitled to claim that town as my birthright now? What makes the Jews entitled to the land that is Israel now, when they have not lived there for almost 2000 years?

Why could they not establish Israel between Germany and Poland, taking land away from the former concentration camps and surrounding areasand just be a European state which they pretend to be anyway (like in music competitions)?

Because it’s not their ancestral homeland.

Many countries in the world have an indigenous population that is not a member of the ethnic and cultural group that predominates. To use one example, Japan has has managed to resolve the "indigenous but not Japanese" question posed by the Ainu people by....well, by not doing anything particular at all. As a general, abstract principle there's not really a problem with having an "indigenous but not _______" population in a country.

The Ainu people are an infinitesimally small percentage population of Japan, and their language and identity as a people were actively repressed by the Japanese in the late nineteenth century, much like indigenous Americans and Australians. It's a poor response to my point since the Japanese refused to recognize the Ainu people as a distinct culture and compelled them into Japanese citizenship. If Israel refused to recognize Palestinians as Muslims and Christians, and compelled them to convert to Judaism and to speak Hebrew only then would the analogy work. Of course that is absurd because Muslims and Christians comprise about 50% of the population of "greater Israel". But you of course chose this absurd analogy because you want to avoid more apt comparisons of societies in which indigenous people are denied citizenship rights in the land of their birth, isn't it? More apt comparisons like Apartheid South Africa, or Myanmar? Again, none of what you have to say is a response to the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Zionism is the belief that this people should be allowed to have their own country.

Zionism is not the belief that the Jewish people should be allowed to have their own country. It is a political project to establish a country in which only Jews have a majoritarian right to citizenship and statehood. That project has been ongoing for a century and a half, and the most recent manifestation of that project is the current government of Israel which is pursuing this project on a grander scale as it tries to build greater Israel. Not every state is a "nation" state. While the US was founded on a genocidal Anglo American project to build a national state, the evolution of that project has been a multi-ethnic society which offers citizenship to all people born within the territorial purview of the state. This is very different, and I think much better, than the idea of an ethnically pure state in which cultural and ethnic identity are the basis of civil rights and political inclusion. Such ethno-national states inevitably lead to the kinds of genocidal policies we see in the Israeli state today because they cannot resolve the question of what to do with the indigenous people who are not "us".

Zionism is a political ideology and a racist state building project. Period. The ethnocidal policies of Japan respecting the Ainu people was an equally racist state building project. The difference between 21st century Japan and 21st century Israel is that one of those two countries has acknowledged the error of their ways.

Why could they not establish Israel between Germany and Poland, taking land away from the former concentration camps and surrounding areasand just be a European state which they pretend to be anyway (like in music competitions)? Yes, yes, the Bible. specifically the old testament.
But a lot of it is just made up and it should have been obvious, especially to the enlightenment thinkers and to so many Jews, who are extremely intelligent people as a rule.

Interestingly, in the early 19th century there was an attempt to establish a Jewish city state in western New York.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ararat,_City_of_Refu...

Because it’s not their ancestral homeland.

We have established that multiple groups of people have legitimate claims to that space as a homeland. Determining whose homeland it "really" is apparently requires acts of genocide.

Zionism is not the belief that the Jewish people should be allowed to have their own country. It is a political project to establish a country in which only Jews have a majoritarian right to citizenship and statehood.

Which is what many (if not most) countries are - political divisions which have historically been formed around a discrete and cohesive people that share common culture, language, and history. Why do you think borders get drawn the way they are? Why do India and Pakistan have the borders they have?

You might not like that. You might not like the fact that humans tend to organize themselves around conceptions of a "people," rather than a multi-ethnic multi-cultural amalgamation that ignores nearly all aspects of personal identity and instead is based solely on physical proximity and geography. That individuals tend to draw meaning and importance from their participation and membership in a specific group, rather than undifferentiated "humanness." But that's the way most people are. That's how most countries are. They are almost all "political projects" intended to provide self-determination and independence and autonomy to a people in a way that being part of a much larger and more undifferentiated grouping would not.

Being anti-Zionist is to say, "but not the Jews." Every other people and every other country (save a small handful), is allowed to be organized this way - a country for the Thai, a country for the Pakistanis, a country for the Slovaks - but not the Jews. You're not decrying the dissolution of Czechoslovakia as a "racist state building project," even though the resulting Partition resulted in - and was a "political project" intended to result in - the creation of separate states that are majority inhabited by two separate and distinct people. Just the Jews. Only the Jews.

There's nothing wrong with finding the current government of Israel or its policies reprehensible. I share that view. But being anti-Zionist - believing that the Jewish people, alone among the peoples of the world, should not be allowed to engage in the project (political or no) of having their own country? That's anti-semitic.

many (if not most) countries are - political divisions which have historically been formed around a discrete and cohesive people that share common culture, language, and history.

This. Is. A. Myth. I would suggest you look at this classic statement on the mythological origins of the modern nation state.

https://ia601200.us.archive.org/25/items/benedict-...

You might not like that. You might not like the fact that humans tend to organize themselves around conceptions of a "people," rather than a multi-ethnic multi-cultural amalgamation that ignores nearly all aspects of personal identity and instead is based solely on physical proximity and geography. That individuals tend to draw meaning and importance from their participation and membership in a specific group, rather than undifferentiated "humanness." But that's the way most people are. That's how most countries are.

This has nothing to do with what I am suggesting about the "nation state". I'm pretty sure you haven't heard a word of what I have been saying.


Being anti-Zionist is to say, "but not the Jews."

It is not what I am saying. I am saying that all ethno-nationalist "projects", with Zionism being the ethno-nationist project of some Jewish nationalists, is premised on the political construction of a state based on an imagined community of "people". This project, in which civil rights and citizenship is limited to "the nation", is a racist project. Worse than that, it frequently leads to ethnocide, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The Zionist project is itself a product of various nineteenth century European projects that didn't know what to do with Jewish minorities. The problems of inclusion and exclusion in any state building project centered on an imagined community of homogeneous people is that "us" can never be clearly and definitively achieved. Even today the state of Israel is engaged in heated battles of who is really a Jew worthy of citizenship.

You're not decrying the dissolution of Czechoslovakia as a "racist state building project,"

I spent a good part of my youth involved in activism against the racist state building project of white South Africans. I was arrested for that activism. While not active politically in opposing these, I would point to Rwanda, Myanmar, and our own American history as catastrophic nation building projects. None of these had to happen this way. Canada, while not perfect, has pursued a more admirable path toward nation building.

The problem with Zionism isn't that it's a Jewish state project. The problem is that it is, at this moment, a genocidal state building project. This is the almost inevitable result of any nation building project.

This. Is. A. Myth.

The phrase describes the political concept of a
nation-state, which emerged in Europe after the decline of feudalism. While it represents an ideal where a state's political boundaries align with a unified cultural group, it is a contested term and not an accurate description of "most" countries today.
What is a nation-state?

A nation is a group of people who share common characteristics like language, culture, religion, or history.
A state is a political entity with a defined territory, a government, and sovereignty.
A nation-state is a sovereign state in which most citizens share a common national identity.

It's never perfect, the idea that there's perfection to it is odd.

This. Is. A. Myth. I would suggest you look at this classic statement on the mythological origins of the modern nation state.

I will read that when I have the chance....but it's literally hundreds of pages long. I'm not going to have the opportunity to read it in the context of this discussion. Perhaps you might try to summarize the these and explain it in terms of, say, Slovakia or the Partition of India, so that we can continue this conversation? I think I can intuit the form of the argument as it would apply to nations like Germany or Britain or the U.S., which are clearly the synthesis of multiple groups and where the common identity came after the political entity. So I think it would help if you could summarize the argument for how the "nation forming around identity" principle is a myth for states like Slovakia or Pakistan or Armenia.

I am saying that all ethno-nationalist "projects", with Zionism being the ethno-nationist project of some Jewish nationalists, is premised on the political construction of a state based on an imagined community of "people". This project, in which civil rights and citizenship is limited to "the nation", is a racist project.

Which is fine - but there is a difference between being "anti-ethno-nationist state" and "anti-Zionist." Because if you're holding the latter view, you're singling out only the Jewish state. Not the Slovak state, not the Thai state, not the Japanese state - just the Jewish one.

To give an example, if someone comes to me and tells me they don't think Jews should be allowed to own real property, I will (rightly) consider them anti-Semitic. And not a particularly original anti-Semitic person at that, since denying Jews the right to own real property was a classic debility that governments imposed. If he comes back to me later and says, "ah, but you see, I object to the idea of real property in principle - I think it's a tool of the modern capitalist system to impose artificial equality, perpetuate privilege, etc."....that's not going to change the fact that claiming that Jews specifically shouldn't be allowed to own real property is anti-Semitic. Because it's the singling out, the identifying that particular group as the one who shouldn't be allowed to own property (or who should be prohibited from owning real property first) that's the issue.

It's the difference between being against anyone owning real property and being against the specific instantiation of Jews owning property. One is anti-Semitic, and the other is not.

I can easily understand why you might prefer people to eschew building nations around conceptions of identity (whether real or mythical), but many nations today aren't like Canada. Many nations are not a synthesis of many diverse ethnic or other identity groups bound together solely or primarily as a political construct, and instead reflect a political body that evolved around a common tribe or culture or sect or whatever group. Or one that was specifically constructed to match a pre-existing group of people (again, Pakistan or Slovakia or Armenia). If you are opposed to all of those states by virtue of the fact that they are nations built around that sense of identity (real or mythical), then have at it - but "anti-Zionist" isn't the term to describe that general opposition to nation-states. Anti-Zionist is the term that describes being against one nation-state. The Jewish one.

I don't have a problem with boundaries being drawn and then forces like "print capitalism" reinforcing the idea of a community where there wasn't one before. In fact it's another interesting view of humanity.

Here's the AI summary:

AI Overview

In "Imagined Communities," Benedict Anderson argues that nations are "imagined political communities" and not natural entities, but rather cultural constructs that emerged from specific historical contexts, primarily in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. He emphasizes the role of print capitalism in fostering national consciousness by enabling the dissemination of shared language and narratives, creating a sense of belonging among individuals who may never meet.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Imagined Community:
Anderson defines a nation as an imagined community because its members, regardless of their actual interactions, share a sense of connection and belonging. This is an "imagined" community because it is impossible for all members to know each other personally, yet they still perceive themselves as part of a unified whole.

Origins of Nationalism:

Anderson connects the rise of nationalism to the decline of religious communities and dynastic realms, and the emergence of print capitalism. The weakening of traditional sources of identity and authority created a space for nationalism to take hold as a new framework for belonging.

Print Capitalism:
The printing press played a crucial role in creating a shared national consciousness. By standardizing languages and disseminating information through books and newspapers, it allowed people to imagine themselves as part of a larger community that shared a common language and culture.

Cultural Artifacts:
Anderson highlights how cultural artifacts like folklore, literature, and history were reinterpreted and utilized to construct national identities. These cultural narratives, often selectively chosen and promoted, contributed to the development of national consciousness and a sense of shared heritage.

Limitations and Sovereignty:
Anderson emphasizes that nations are imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. The concept of limitedness refers to the understanding that nations have boundaries and distinguish themselves from other nations. The concept of sovereignty highlights the idea that nations have the right to govern themselves.

Beyond Primordial Ties:
While acknowledging the importance of face-to-face communities, Anderson argues that nations are distinct from these primordial ties because they are imagined as horizontal fraternities, uniting individuals across social divisions.

In essence, "Imagined Communities" provides a framework for understanding the social, cultural, and historical factors that have shaped the modern concept of the nation and the powerful force of nationalism.

Here's the AI summary:

Which is consistent with what I was able to glean from his argument by reading the introduction. It's of course not fair to think his argument is accurately summarized in the introduction - it's just an overview. But from the beginning, it seems his claim that the modern nation-state is imaginary is based on the premise that every community that's larger than a small village is imaginary:

In fact, all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even
these) are imagined. Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.

I mean....yes? Obviously? If start from definition of a non-imaginary community requires that all of the members be engaged in face-to-face contact for it to be real, then of course something like a nation (or nationalism in general) has to be imaginary?

But I don't think many people would ever accept that starting principle as true, from a cultural or sociological or even a political point of view. No communities exist higher than Dunbar's number? I mean, obviously that would mean that the Black community is imaginary, the Jewish community is imaginary, the gay community is imaginary, the chess community is imaginary - not just world-wide, but in the U.S. or even a single state. There is no gay community in New York state. There is no gay community in New York City. There is no theater community in New York, no community of Shavians in England, no community of Miami-Dade County environmentalists.

So there's no such thing as a community of Slovaks. There's no such thing as a community of Armenians. Or of of Thai. Even though the tribe known as "Danes" formed as a distinct cultural grouping more than a thousand years before the formation of the modern nation state, and established self-governance for themselves over a defined geographic area, forming their own language and traditions and cultural observances common to themselves and distinct from their neighbors....the "Danes" are an imaginary community. Always have been, for as long as they were more than a village in number. They were imaginary in 900 AD, and imaginary in 1400 AD, and so they were obviously imaginary in 1648 AD. So clearly "Denmark" as a community has to be imaginary as well.

I suppose that's all well and good if you want to build a theoretical critique of modern nationalism, and I look forward to reading the book. But I don't think that is has any utility for guiding what people should or should not do in the real world. I don't think that many people - or even more than a primordial village's worth of people - would accept the proposition that all communities larger than a few score are imaginary for any practical purpose.

So I think it would help if you could summarize the argument for how the "nation forming around identity" principle is a myth for states like Slovakia or Pakistan or Armenia.

I already did this by reference to the "Italian" nation. The idea that the people of the Italian peninsula and neighboring islands were a common people with a shared language and culture then only needed Garibaldi to unify them into a single nation is a myth. While Garibaldi did assist in creating the modern Italian state, the idea that he helped unify what already existed culturally, historically, and linguistically is a myth. Italy is a polyglot society comprised of dozens, if not hundreds, of regional dialects and cultures. Each dialect is derived not from "Italian" but rather from Latin, Greek, and Arabic. The Sicilian dialect is nearly incomprehensible to Ligurian or Lombardian. It continues to exist in Sicilian villages and families even as the Italian project has actively work to extinguish it through teaching the "Italian" language and "Italian" history in the national schools. The only reason there is an "Italian" language is because Dante wrote in the Florentine regional dialect and, through writing (and eventually printing) this dialect was adopted by Italian nationalists as "the" Italian language. The creation of the modern Italian "people" was premised on the ascendancy of the cultural and language of one region and its imposition on all the other regions. The creation of the Italian nation inevitably involves the subordination, and even extermination, of other "indigenous cultures" present in the territory claimed by the emerging ethno-nationalist state project.

Each region also has it's own history, often unrelated to other regions on the peninsula. The creation of a nation-state involves the creation of a mythology of nationhood rooted in essentialist claims about a common people with a common history and culture. It is no accident that Italian nationalism, especially in its fascist form, venerated Rome and turned to Roman history as the origin of the Italian culture, language, history, and people. Nevermind that Rome was a polyglot empire with fluid borders, and even within the "core" of the Roman empire centered on the Italian peninsula there were people who spoke other languages and whose roots were in other cultures than those of the Latins and Etruscans. The city of Naples, for example, was a greek city (Neo-Polis) with Greek being the principle language spoken. To this day, the Neopolitan dialect has a lot of greek in it. Despite their cultural differences, Neopolitans were Romans once they became citizens of Rome. Indeed there is growing evidence that some Jews were citizens in Rome.

My point here is that the nationalist and fascist mythology of the unification of the "Italian people", in which the common cultural and historical origins of this imagined nation rests in the common history of Rome and the latin language that unites all Italian people, is untrue even for Rome itself. The entire project is a fiction. A story told by nationalists to justify the political authority of the emerging modern state, and to claim legitimacy for this state authority over the people in its territory by asserting their ethnic belonging to the newly created political community. The nationalists are only bringing together what already existed.

This is bullshit. Every nation state is founded on these kinds of origin mythologies. They serve to unify the people in the newly established territory of the state, to define who has civil and political rights within this state, and in so doing, to create others who are a problem for this mythology either because they reject it or because they cannot be forcibly assimilated to this new "national identity". Every nation building program encounters its Ainu, and every nation building project has its "Indian Question" or "Bantu Question" or "Rohingya Question" or "Palestinan Question". The question is always the same--what to do about these indigestible bits of nation building mythology? In some cases it is ethnocide (forced assimilation), in others it is ethnic cleansing (expulsion), and in others it is genocide.

The modern nation state has been a human catastrophe, and it remains one where ever the question of "who belongs" is the principle concern of the state. The problem with Zionism is that it remains wedded to this nineteenth century nationalism, rife with the questions of inclusion and exclusion and how to digest the indigestible. We face the same problem in America today as we once again return to definitions of citizenship intended to exclude and deny human beings basic civil and political rights. What is going on in the US today is not just disgusting. It is criminal. However it doesn't (yet) border on the genocidal.

I already did this by reference to the "Italian" nation.

Yes, I understand how the argument applies to Italy - which is one of several European states that were created out of the synthesis of a number of independent kingdoms. But if you're offering the idea that nation-states are universally based on some imaginary unreality, I'd like to see you that would apply to a state that didn't have that kind of origin story. A state like Slovakia or Armenia, which wasn't a synthesis of numerous smaller groups but was deliberately drawn to provide self-determination and independence for a single group.

Every nation state is founded on these kinds of origin mythologies.

Every nation state? Really? On those specific types of origin mythologies. Again, it doesn't seem like that's how the people in Slovakia would describe the origin of their country. Or the folks in Denmark. Or the Thai. These countries weren't assembled out of constituent states after the Treaty of Westphalia. Some modern state were just the evolution of kingdoms that date back many centuries before 1648 (or whenever the Westphalian model came to their part of the world). Other modern states are of very recent vintage and were created out of struggles for independence or separation, motivated by the very real desire of a specific coherent group of people to have their own autonomy over their group.

The modern nation state has been a human catastrophe, and it remains one where ever the question of "who belongs" is the principle concern of the state.

That's such a weird position to take. It seems to me that reality is the exact opposite. The modern nation state is an amazing human invention, because it allowed for the first time the question of "who belongs" to be answered by something other than "just our tribe/clan/kin/religious brethren."

It's not like all the countries/kingdoms/fiefdoms (or whatever) before the modern nation state were models of inclusion, tolerance, and acceptance. England didn't need to be a modern nation state to kick us Jews out in 1290, or Spain in 1492. The question of "who belongs" has always been the principle concern of the "state" - even when the functional equivalent of the "state" didn't even remotely resemble the modern nation state. There was always some person or institution that was in charge, that got to decide "who belongs," and was deeply concerned with the question of "who belongs" - and who was more than willing to decide that execution/torture/banishment was a legitimate consequence of not being the right sort of "who belongs."

The existence of indigestible bits of people who aren't "who belongs" is not a product of the modern nation state - it's always existed. Whether the society deals with those indigestible bits of people in a humane way or an inhumane way isn't dependent on whether that society is organized in a modern nation state or a pre-modern kingdom (or tribe or clan), and I would wager that the modern nation states (despite their horrors) have a better record on the whole than the old way of dealing with them.

That's such a weird position to take. It seems to me that reality is the exact opposite. The modern nation state is an amazing human invention, because it allowed for the first time the question of "who belongs" to be answered by something other than "just our tribe/clan/kin/religious brethren."

And yet, this philosophy (that you're replying to) explains so much of the really left wing elements of the progressive movements. If nation states are a disaster and borders are arbitrary...and "who belongs" is an open question...then of course one would throw open the border for "more deserving" folks.

I don't disagree that it can be criminal, but I think we've been doing that for some 20,000 years. I think that's how old the slaughtered tribe found in Africa was. We'll likely find more. I don't blame the Nation State for the genocides we have because I think they've been happening all along.

It isn't the Nation State causing the genocides, it's US. WE DO IT!

This is the way we are, and we have to accept it and teach that we too can be monsters, that we have to guard against it, or IT WILL HAPPEN. The possibility of something leading to a genocide is never zero.

My two bits - I like a two state solution - with the Palestinians getting some good land.

The Jews and the Palestinians will need to find a way to coexist...

Can you see a way for them to do that? Assuming that "settlers" are forced to give back the lands they illegally occupied?

I came up with an analogy. Not a perfect one, but perhaps illustrative. Florida is given to the Palestinians. Florida is no longer Florida, it is Palestine. Floridians are relocated (at least partially) to make room for the incoming Palestinians. How do you think that would go over with Floridians? Would there ever be peace?

I suppose I could reference Native Americans removed from Florida forcibly (the Seminoles) through the Trail of Tears atrocity. Suddenly declare Floridians have to give back the land to the Seminoles (and, I think, Cherokee?) of Oklahoma, because they have an ancestral claim to the land. That's reflects actual history (i.e. Trail of Tears). Floridians would no-doubt fight back with violence and terrorism. Which would be understandable.

Why do India and Pakistan have the borders they have?

Because the British drew them that way? I once read an essay that the British redrew lines in many places so that only a superpower could manage the region (of which Britain was a superpower at that time, relative to the rest of the world). They messed up Palestine, Afghanistan, and India/Pakistan. India and Pakistan were just recently shooting at each other, so the legacy lives on, it seems.

BTW, I have no objections to the Jews having their own nation. The Palestinians, too. My only real curiosity about this is how anyone can make it work without wiping out another population. It seems no solution for coexistence is acceptable to both parties.

I came up with an analogy. Not a perfect one, but perhaps illustrative. Florida is given to the Palestinians. Florida is no longer Florida, it is Palestine. Floridians are relocated (at least partially) to make room for the incoming Palestinians. How do you think that would go over with Floridians? Would there ever be peace?

Maybe. There is precedent.

I've mentioned the Partition of India from time to time. The British Raj was simply cut into two countries - one Muslim, and one non-Muslim. The countries were formed from that division in order to give two different peoples/nations two different countries.

It was horribly traumatic. Somewhere between 12 to 20 million people ended up on the "wrong" side of the line and were driven to/forced to become refugees. Most of them lost everything they had. Up to two million people died in the upheaval and violence.

But today, while relations between India and Pakistan are....fraught, to say the least, there is something approaching peace.

BTW, a rhyming piece of history took place when Bangladesh violently pulled itself out of Pakistan, as the ethnic Bengali population grew tired of the discrimination and violence that they faced as part of a multicultural and multiethnic state. They wanted their own country that was built around the Bengali nation as a people, so that they could have control over their own protection and futures. That separation was also terribly bloody and violent - the Pakistani forces committed horrors against the Bengali population in east Pakistan, resulting in many hundreds of thousands or several millions killed and hundreds of thousands of Benghali women raped. Today, their relations are difficult, but peaceful (perhaps helped by the fact that India lies between them).

[BTW, I'm well aware that this is both an example of the horrors of the artificial nation state (which is what lumped Pakistan and Bangladesh together in the first place) and an example of how nation states can be formed around in-group identities rather than vice-versa.]

Those three countries have a very different origin story and history than, say, the unifications of the various constituent states that became Germany and Italy. And together, they make up about 2 billion people - about a quarter of the world lives in just those three countries, whose nation-states were sized to fit the underlying group identities and not the other way 'round. So I am a little curious

Because the British drew them that way? I once read an essay that the British redrew lines in many places so that only a superpower could manage the region (of which Britain was a superpower at that time, relative to the rest of the world).

They're drawn that way because the western part of the Raj (now Pakistan) and the very eastern part of the Raj (now Bangladesh) were almost entirely Muslim, and the rest (now India) was almost entirely not. Once British withdrawal from the Raj became a fait accompli, the Muslim and Hindu populations were in conflict over the future of India. The Muslim League was agitating for independence for the majority-Muslim areas, and while the various groups explored the possibility of a federalist system that had some shared autonomy, that never gained much traction. By 1946-1947, the prospects of rising violence and imminent civil war were stark. Even though Gandhi opposed partition, Patel and Nehru came to realize that it was necessary to avoid massive bloodshed.

There was bloodshed anyway, but probably not on the scale that would have occurred if Partition had not happened (witness the atrocities in Bangladesh a few decades later).

Whoever you’re replying to’s analogy is a bit off.

The Palestinians wouldn’t accept the partitioning agreement and teamed up with neighboring Arab nations in a war meant to drive out the Jews and snuff out the new Israeli state.

They lost.

They tried again in the sixties and again in 1973. They lost again.

Since then they’ve refused to adapt to reality. All those decisions are on them. Not Israel.

I'm not sure why you are dismissing the example of Italian state formation as I think it explains the problem I'm raising with the nation state and nationalism very well. I'm not sure what relevance the process of the territorial formation of the nation state bears on my argument. Whether the nation state is formed through the process of territorial amalgamation (Italy) or fragmentation (Slovakia) the role of nationalism in that process is the same.

But if you're offering the idea that nation-states are universally based on some imaginary unreality, I'd like to see you that would apply to a state that didn't have that kind of origin story. A state like Slovakia or Armenia, which wasn't a synthesis of numerous smaller groups but was deliberately drawn to provide self-determination and independence for a single group.

I reject the claim that I am saying nation-states are based on unreality. They are based on an imagined reality. The Florentine language of Dante is real, not unreal, but calling it Italian and assuming it is the language of a common people in the Italian peninsula is a feat of imagination that can only be achieved through the force of a coercive national state. Your request, however, points to the problem with the nation state that I have been articulating throughout this discussion. You are requesting me to provide an example of something that I am telling you DOES NOT EXIST. You are asking me to give you an example of the formation of a state with political authority over a territory in which all the people share a cultural, historical, and linguistic identity. Your request assumes that Slovakia and Armenia somehow formed nation states governing homogeneous populations and thus negate the claim that nation states are a fiction. I don't know the history of state formation in Slovakia or Armenia so I cannot speak to those specific processes. But even a cursory examination of Slovakian state formation shows that Slovakia emerged from the post cold war disintegration of Czechoslovakia. Based on Wikipedia I can see that 80% of the people speak Slovakian, with over 7% speaking Hungarian and ~2% speaking Roma. The State Language Act privileges the Slovakian language and represses minority languages in official communications and education (typical of all nationalist projects. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_law_of_Slov...). There is rampant and systematic discrimination against the Romani people, who may comprise as much as 15% of the population of the country, despite laws protecting minority language rights. The Romani are entitled, under the law, to have schools where children are taught in the Romani language, but none exist.

The point is that a national state exercising political authority over a territorial population and organized around the presumed shared national identity of that population, doesn't exist here either. The attempt to imagine an independent Slovakian nation with self determination for the Slovakian people comes at the cost of those Romani, Hungarian, and Jewish residents of Slovakia who do not share the presumed homogeneity of the nation. Are they citizens? Sure. Do they have full civil and political rights? Not exactly. How can they in a nation state that privileges the culture, language and history of one assumed homogeneous group in society that it is pledged to protect and represent?

There are other ways to do territorial political authority without basing it on the presumed national identity of the population. The US has pursued this for the past half century until the recent rise of neo-fascism (I'm looking at you, Dope). MAGA is all about returning to some imagined homogeneous past (the racism at the heart of this fever dream is obvious). Canada has provided an alternative model, especially its federalist approach to the French speaking population of Quebec. Post-Apartheid South Africa is another example of a political state attempting to create conditions for the coexistence of diverse populations. Their constitution has twelve official languages. Interestingly, under apartheid the African population developed linguistically and culturally pluralistic communities in the cities with multilingualism becoming quite common, in part because they were powerless and there were no political authorities using ethnicity to organize the population for political and economic gain. Indeed, the shared goal of black liberation united the people across ethnic, religious, and racial lines.

Equal civil and political rights should be granted to all people living in a territory claimed by a state regardless of culture, religion, language, or presumed natural rights to occupancy of the land, and all people should be given access to the means necessary to live fulfilling and meaningful lives within that territory.

Why put the word "deserving" in your statement?

've mentioned the Partition of India from time to time. The British Raj was simply cut into two countries - one Muslim, and one non-Muslim. The countries were formed from that division in order to give two different peoples/nations two different countries.

THIS IS A MYTH!!! I have a fried who's Hindi family was removed from Pakistan during the partition. They didn't want to leave. They were forced. There are well over 100 million Muslims in India AFTER the partition. So much for your imagined homogeneity.

By the way, you are celebrating ethnic cleansing here.

I like a two state solution - with the Palestinians getting some good land.

They get Florida. Problem solved.

I'm not sure why you are dismissing the example of Italian state formation as I think it explains the problem I'm raising with the nation state and nationalism very well.

Because you're suggesting that these problems are universal to the nation state and nationalism generally, and the way that the Italian state formed isn't an especially representative example. There are some European states that did form that way - Germany, the UK, Italy. Accumulations of disparate individual political states into a larger kingdom or republic, and a national identity was forged later in order to unify them. But there are a lot of countries that absolutely did not form that way. The notion of being a "Dane" or an "Armenian" or a "Slovak" predates by many centuries the formation of the nation-states that were built around those peoples/nations. They don't follow that model.

You are asking me to give you an example of the formation of a state with political authority over a territory in which all the people share a cultural, historical, and linguistic identity.

No, I'm not. No one pretends that there exists any nation-state where 100% of the people share exactly the same identity, down to the last single individual.

What I am pushing back on is the idea that the national identity is an imaginary one, created out of whole cloth to serve the nation-state or as part of the creation of the nation-state, rather than something that actually existed prior to the creation of the nation-state among most of, or perhaps nearly all of the people. There were Danes before there was Denmark, Algerians before there was an Algeria, Bengalis before there was a Bangladesh, etc. These identities are not universal down to the last individual. But those nation-states were created to give autonomy and self-determination to the peoples that were already there, and the identities those nation-states foster and give self-determination to pre-date the nation state.

Not every nation-state was formed like Italy was, or how Benedict Anderson models them. Not every nation has to be the multi-cultural, multi-lingual amalgamation that you appear to esteem. In fact, quite a few modern nations formed because the multi-cultural, multi-lingual amalgamation goes horribly wrong. So while I wholeheartedly agree that this would be ideal:

Equal civil and political rights should be granted to all people living in a territory claimed by a state regardless of culture, religion, language, or presumed natural rights to occupancy of the land, and all people should be given access to the means necessary to live fulfilling and meaningful lives within that territory....

....the reason we have countries like Armenia (who were brutalized by the Turks) and Bangladesh (who were brutalized by the Pakistanis) is because that ideal is not often met. In fact, the reason we have most countries is because most peoples/nations strongly desire autonomy and self-determination without having that desire subject to the willingness of a larger majority. It's why Pakistan broke away from India - the majority Muslim community did not want to be subsumed into a larger entity with the much larger non-Muslim (mostly Hindu) community.

Those self-identifications of groups of people much larger than a primordial village (again, borrowing Anderson's description) are not imaginary. And the nation-states that were created around them are in service to those identities, not an imaginary one.

THIS IS A MYTH!!! I have a fried who's Hindi family was removed from Pakistan during the partition. They didn't want to leave.

What is a myth? I never claimed that all the people who ended up on the wrong side of the lines wanted to leave. I made a point of noting - at every mention - that Partition was horrible and traumatic.

The reason for the Partition wasn't that every single Hindu in Pakistan, or every Muslim in India, wanted to live in a homogenous country. Or that Partition would result in a homogenous country. It was because the many tens of millions of Muslims in the western part of the Raj did not want to live in a country where they would be permanently a small minority, with the lost of self-determination and autonomy that would entail. They were not going to accept it (even if your Hindi friend's family had a different perspective). The country was staring down a path of violent civil war, and Partition was the less-worse option than a Muslim War of Independence.

This is what

By the way, you are celebrating ethnic cleansing here.

That's just false. Again, I have tried to describe the effects of Partition as being absolutely terrible for the people involved whenever I mention it. I think it was horrible that the minority groups that found themselves on the "wrong" side of the line were subjected to the terrors of Partition, and I think all the ones who wanted to stay (like your friend's family) should have been allowed to do so with full rights as a protected minority in those states.

I'm not celebrating ethnic cleansing. What I am pointing out is that most nations/peoples have a legitimate (not imaginary) identity and community structured around their people, and that most (not every) nation-state has been formed in order to implement that real (not imaginary) desire for autonomy and self-determination of the people that make up the majority (not 100% down to the individual) of those peoples.

Tying that back to the subject at hand - forming a nation-state around the contours of a people in order to effectuate the autonomy and self-determination of that people, as well as to protect them against the all-too-common depredations that are inflicted on the minority members of a community by the majority (in any political structure whether nation-state or no), is not an illegitimate political project. It's not artificial, or imaginary, or whatever other imprecation you want to label it as. It's something that peoples throughout the world and throughout time have sought for themselves, and most peoples in most of the world today live in a country where that is available to them. There is nothing wrong with Jews wanting the same for themselves, and I think it's anti-Semitic to claim that they - and they alone of all the peoples of the earth - should not be allowed to pursue that goal.

There is nothing wrong with Jews wanting the same for themselves, and I think it's anti-Semitic to claim that they - and they alone of all the peoples of the earth - should not be allowed to pursue that goal.

A question you should ask your sparring partners is this one:

Would the Palestinians in Gaza/West Bank accept a state where they would live side-by-side with the Jews?

The answer, of course, is no.

It’s a fucking genocide and you’re offering a shoulder shrug and an “oh well” at best, and a “well my family says they deserve it” at worst?!?

And what do you propose we do? Attack Israel?

In that same post I said genocide was "unacceptable". But I also see the reality that this -as it stands today, and a few decades prior- is intractable. If you have a solution, you'll get a Nobel Peace Prize for sure. I admit I don't have one. I'm also not willing to bomb Israel back to the stone age to stop the genocide (trading one genocide for another isn't a "win").

The shrug, “it’s intractable”, stance is no different than the passivity and denial of Americans who shrugged at the Nazis Jewish policy in the thirties.

Hindsight is 20/20. We arguably should have gone into Germany and crushed the Reich (not that the other western powers were military leviathans, so it would have been non-trivial). They didn't know WWII was coming down the pike. However, we did more than "shrug". We pulled a Trump, and actually denied Jewish refugees from Europe (ref: the SS St Louis). I suspect that in May 1939, people probably knew a war was coming (Germany invaded Poland in September). But Americans didn't care (and wouldn't enter the war for over two years after that). And antisemitism was rife. So the SS St Louis was turned away, in classic Trump style (i.e. I'm sure he would have approved).

But that's a tangent. I'm not "shrugging". I just don't have a solution that isn't at least as bad (if not worse) than the current situation. The best bet I can see is getting the UN in there, just like they went into Serbia/Bosnia/Herzegovena. But Israel is no Serbia, and would probably mandate an actual invasion to accomplish this (Serbia was militarily no match). Which, again, leads to lots of dead people.

By the way, you are celebrating ethnic cleansing here.

No he's not. You were having a civil difference up until this. Back off, there is no celebration.

There was at one point a great chance that the Palestinians would come to terms with the Israeli. Iran, Iraq, and a few other countries intervened and didn't let that happen. IIRC Arafat was given arms as it promised to rid itself of terrorists and Arafat reneged. I remember Arafat stating that there were new terrorists that wanted all the Jews dead, and later on we found out he was right.

Israel does deserve to have its own nation-state. No discussion of imaginary nation states will change that as it's an academic discussion, not a practical political one. What's happening to the Palestinians is horrific, and Israel should cease, but Hamas need tgo be taken out of the equation and the Palestinians meed to show they can police terrorists.

I despise what Netanyahu has become but that doesn't help end the problem one bit.

Tying that back to the subject at hand - forming a nation-state around the contours of a people in order to effectuate the autonomy and self-determination of that people, as well as to protect them against the all-too-common depredations that are inflicted on the minority members of a community by the majority (in any political structure whether nation-state or no), is not an illegitimate political project. It's not artificial, or imaginary, or whatever other imprecation you want to label it as.

Being more specific, in Israel they had that for a brief time. But Israeli "settlers" would move across borders and take land (often by force), and the Palestinians voted in an organization whose stated goal was to drive Israel into the sea. Both were nation-states drawn around people of common heritage and community. But both have what appear to be irreconcilable goals. In situations like that, someone is going to win, and someone is going to lose.

I'm sure part of this is ancestral claims to land. But I think another factor, or perhaps a "force multiplier", is that one particular area is important to multiple peoples. And entirely for make-believe (i.e. religious) reasons. Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Each "side" views the others' presence there as a blasphemy.

...but Hamas need tgo be taken out of the equation...

You can't kill an idea. Even if they manage to exterminate every last Hamas member, the idea will still be there. And it will take root in the minds of people who will carry it on.

Yeah...I'm not optimistic about the situation over there.

You can't kill an idea. Even if they manage to exterminate every last Hamas member, the idea will still be there. And it will take root in the minds of people who will carry it on.

Yeah...I'm not optimistic about the situation over there

It is intractable. Once they were invited in, the situation becomes unresolvable. Hamas or a new Hamas will be there.

It's not artificial, or imaginary, or whatever other imprecation you want to label it as.

Imagination isn't artificial or unreal. It is an act of envisioning, and act of creation. Nations, as "imagined communities" are formed through the creative act of envisioning a community and then creating it. The formation of the modern nation state is an act of imagination resulting in a real process of creation. Creating modern nation states around imagined communities of a common "people".

forming a nation-state around the contours of a people in order to effectuate the autonomy and self-determination of that people, as well as to protect them against the all-too-common depredations that are inflicted on the minority members of a community by the majority (in any political structure whether nation-state or no), is not an illegitimate political project.

It is a political project based on imagining who the "people" are and claiming their historical and cultural existence as a common community with a legitimate claim to civil and political rights within a geographically defined space. This imaginative act of creation has led to a lot of violence in our modern world. With very few (if any) exceptions, this process of nation state formation results in violent acts of cultural and linguistic homogenization, forced assimilation, bantustanization, dislocation and ethnic cleansing, and, in the worst cases, genocide. Indeed the only defense against the violence of nation state formation for indigenous and minority communities that are excluded is their own nationalism and claims to statehood. Because there are no essential identities, and no necessary correspondence between claimed national identities and geographic space, we see political fragmentation resulting everywhere. On the flip side, we see neo-nationalist movements excluding more and more people from access to civil and political rights in the countries of their birth because they are not part of "the people".

The problem is that while we might wish that nation states are the expression of the political will of a common people, they cannot provide civil and political rights to all the people without abandoning the nationalism that was the basis of nation state formation. They do not, and cannot in this world, provide "self determination and autonomy" for a common people because the idea of a self determined common people is a myth. It doesn't exist (not even in Denmark). While the nation state may try to juridically define "the people" in its territory, doing so necessarily excludes "not the people" from access to civil and political rights. In most countries in the world today this means immigrants and the decedents of those original immigrants.

Let's be clear. I am not denying Jewish people the right to self determination and autonomy in pointing any of this out. I am saying that this Zionist project, as with every nationalist project of state formation, cannot create the conditions for Jewish autonomy and self-determination without violence, and most recently genocidal violence. This is not a problem of the Jewish state, it is a problem of the nation state. Because the territory of the Israeli state (and I include all the territory over which the state exercises military authority) is full of "not Jews", the realization of the Zionist project must address this Palestinian question. The lack of answers to this question points to the fundamental violence at the heart of the modern nation state.

Ultimately the Israeli state has all the power over the territories and peoples it controls, so it is responsible for the consequences of its policies including the violence inherent in Zionist policies of creating a greater Israel.

No he's not. You were having a civil difference up until this. Back off, there is no celebration.

Celebrating in the sense that he is claiming the ethnic cleansing of the partition was a reasonable solution to the problems of British decolonization.

This imaginative act of creation has led to a lot of violence in our modern world. With very few (if any) exceptions, this process of nation state formation results in violent acts of cultural and linguistic homogenization, forced assimilation, bantustanization, dislocation and ethnic cleansing, and, in the worst cases, genocide.

I think that we're clearly in the "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" realm here.

These things aren't particular to the process of nation state formation. They're not products of nation states generally. They've been near universal parts of the human experience long before 1648 (or whenever you want to date the idea of a "nation state" too). People have been engaged in violent acts of homogenization for millennia before Westphalian states existed. It has nothing to do with whether the majority group organizes itself around a "nation state," or a kingdom or clan or tribe or caliphate or whatever. It existed long before "nation states" did. Protestants in Bloody Mary's England in the 16th century, Jews and Moors in Spain in the 15th century, everyone in late Sengoku Japan in the 16th century - forced assimilation, dislocation and ethnic cleansing, and genocide were (tragically) near-universal aspects of societies long before anyone thought of a modern nation state.

The liberal (small "l") ideal of how people should live in society is to be free to pursue their own idea of the good life and to be largely indifferent (tolerant) to how other people want to pursue their idea of the good life, within certain rules. Which is lovely in theory, but not how many (most?) people want to live their lives. Many (most) people want to live their idea of the good life within a community that also shares that idea. They draw value and meaning by being part of a community that shares their culture, language, values, observances and rituals, and concept of what a good and just and worthwhile life should be. They also derive a sense of security and protection from being the majority. They do not want to be a tolerated minority (even one with full rights!) within a community where another group is the majority. They want to be the majority.

That's not how liberals (small "l") conceive of the good life, and not how they want the world to be. But many (most) humans aren't atomistic, but social, beings. They want to be part of a majority community. Hence we see in the U.S. a lot of people "shifting" into red and blue communities - the Big Sort - so that they can live in communities where their values are put into practice community-wide, not just by individuals.

The ills you describe above are not caused by the nation-state. They are caused by this very widespread desire of humans to be in a community where they are the majority.

Personally, I think the nation-state helps solve this problem more than it hurts, because it creates the possibility of organization a society that doesn't depend on homogeneity to function. Whereas most of the pre-nation state societies regarded lack of homogeneity as an existential threat to the stability of the governmental structure. If your nation is organized as a kingdom where the king's basis to rule derives from being the anointed by god, religious minorities who don't believe in your god (or the Pope) are a fundamental threat to rule and order.

JCelebrating in the sense that he is claiming the ethnic cleansing of the partition was a reasonable solution to the problems of British decolonization.

Again, absolutely not. I have taken great pains - to the point of being annoyingly repetitive - to point out with every single mention of Partition how horrible the accompanying violence and dislocation was to people who experienced it.

The decision to have two countries, rather than one, after the British left was a reasonable solution. It resulted in a line between the two nations that was established by talking and negotiations, rather than being drawn in blood after a horrific civil war. Which would have inevitably resulted had Patel and Nehru and Gandhi rejected Partition.

I absolutely do not claim that the ethnic cleansing was a reasonable solution to the problems of decolonization, and I fervently wish that Partition had been able to happen without the people on the "wrong" side of the line being forced to or feeling they had to leave. But I also fervently believe that the ethnic cleansing wasn't caused by Partition, but rather the fundamental drive for self-determination by the Muslim community that led Partition to be adopted in the first place. It's like I mentioned in my last post. The ethnic cleansing wasn't caused by the structure of the nation-state - it was caused by the desire of the Muslim minority to have self-determination and autonomy and to live in a state where they, and not the Hindus, were the majority.

Your friend's Hindu family was forced to leave Pakistan, but that wasn't because Partition happened. Because had the Raj not been divided peacefully in 1947, they would have been forced to leave Pakistan when the horrifically violent civil war broke out in the area - or in whatever year after 1947 the Muslim separatists had won the horrifically violent civil war and set up the same government in that year that they would have in 1947.

Many (most) people want to live in a society that is governed with their community having majority control. This desire is not a product of the nation-state, or the political project of imagining a nation-state into being, or however you want to characterize it. Your friend's family would have had to leave Pakistan with or without Partition, because the "project" of a majority Muslim society was going to be pursued regardless of whether that involved a negotiated Partition or an all-out civil war. I don't know the particulars of the family's experience, and so I'll just assume it was horrific and not say that they particularly were better off with the negotiated Partition rather than the civil war. But I'm pretty confident that overall, the negotiated Partition caused less suffering (while still being terrible and traumatic) than a civil war would have been (which would have been a catastrophe).

There was bloodshed anyway, but probably not on the scale that would have occurred if Partition had not happened

Albaby,
I love your posts, but I think you may be off in this line of thinking.
15 million people were butchered during the Partition. I don't know what scale you're thinking of, but it was unnecessarily bloody 100%.
The British were quickly getting rid of the unprofitable parts of their empire and did not particularly care how they did it. They fought viciously for Kenya and Malaysia because those were profitable, they just wanted to get rid of India, Pakistan, Israel, and Palestine.

And to your other point, almost all successful empires have always been multiethnic. The Roman empire, the Persian empires(#1 and #2), the British empire, you name it. Homogenous groups can form a nation state, but they don't get very big or powerful as a rule.

I love your posts, but I think you may be off in this line of thinking.
15 million people were butchered during the Partition. I don't know what scale you're thinking of, but it was unnecessarily bloody 100%.

I think you're conflating the number of deaths with the number of people displaced. Displaced persons were between 12-20 million. Deaths were at between several hundred thousand or up to two million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

I think both of those numbers are vastly lower than what would have occurred if India had not been partitions, and the British and Indian representatives (Nehru, Patel, Gandhi) had tried to keep the Muslim areas locked into the new country. There would have inevitably been civil war (violence had already started even in anticipation of the Muslim areas not being given their own country. It would have been horrific.

And to your other point, almost all successful empires have always been multiethnic. The Roman empire, the Persian empires(#1 and #2), the British empire, you name it.

They were no less capable of horrors and brutality than a nation state, and typically reserved governance to the home country (typically ruled by a discrete and coherent people distinct from the ruled). The Romans weren't immune to genocide or ethnic cleansing (Carthage, Judaea, the Epirus) - nor were the Persians or Mongols or the Greeks or Ottomans (sorry, Armenia).

I’m not retired, so my time to dedicate to this discussion is limited. Let me conclude by saying that ideology is a powerful thing. I suspect you cling to the idea that ethnic cleansing was a reasonable solution to the problems created by the British decolonization process on the Indian subcontinent because you cling to the same idea for the Palestinian question for Zionism.

There can be no solutions within a nationalist framework. The choice for Zionism is genocide or ethnic cleansing. Here’s to good golfing at Trump’s next seaside resort.

I’m not retired, so my time to dedicate to this discussion is limited.

No worries. I've enjoyed the conversation.

Let me conclude by saying that ideology is a powerful thing.

I completely agree. Where I disagree is the implicit assumption that nationalism is responsible for, or is the source of, the ideology that causes all of the legitimate issues (and horrors) you identify. I submit that it is not. The world has been filled with those horrors since recorded history, long before and irrespective of the existence of the modern nation-state. Whether nation-state, kingdom, empire, feudal fiefdoms, church-state, or just a "people." The horrors that stem from "us vs. them" are not in any way contingent on having a Westphalian nation-state.

I suspect you cling to the idea that ethnic cleansing was a reasonable solution to the problems created by the British decolonization process on the Indian subcontinent because you cling to the same idea for the Palestinian question for Zionism.

That's grossly unfair of you. I do not believe that ethnic cleansing was a reasonable solution to decolonization of India. The ethnic cleansing was horrible. It should never have happened. But I believe that creating two political entities - two states - was a reasonable way to keep that from being worse. Had they not partitioned India, the ethnic cleansing still would have happened. Just many, many times worse. The country still would have split, but instead of the horrors of Partition there would have been the even worse horrors of a full-out civil war.

The ethnic cleansing wasn't caused by the fact that the immediate post-colonial structure was two states rather than one - it was caused by the fact that people in the Muslim regions considered themselves to be a separate people from the rest of the Raj. The Partition did not create that belief. It prevented that belief from expressing itself in a horrific civil war.

I believe the same was true within the Mandate area of Palestine. With two peoples, having two states would have been much more stable and avoided many of the horrors that we have seen over the years.

There can be no solutions within a nationalist framework.

The nationalist framework has nothing to do with it. Whether the two peoples are to be structured (or desire to be structured) as nation-states, kingdoms, quasi-religious theocracies, or any other system of organizing their society will have no impact on the conflict. The two peoples want autonomy and independence from the control of the other. That's why the Palestinians were fighting against the Jordanians when Jordan had control over the West Bank, even though the Palestinians were given full citizenship and seats in the Jordanian parliament and everything. They didn't only want rights (though certainly that) - they wanted independence and autonomy. Their own country (whether a nation-state or any other type of country). That desire will out, regardless of the shape of the government or societal order.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.