Credit Andy Singer 2024
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
1182 points (87.8% liked)
Comic Strips
12583 readers
3966 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Jewish settlers didn't live in Palestine, they lived in Europe and then moved to Palestine to steal the land. They're white.
Just because one ancestor a dozen generations ago lived somewhere doesn't mean you have a right to evict the actual people living on that land.
"Israeli Jews are white" - Lmfao I can't believe that people still believe that old racist trope
That thinking is like believing you have the right to expel the people that lives in the house your grandmother lived on but left when she got married. But now the house is yours because "here lived my family".
Yeah, but then add a dozen or more generations. Not your grandma, your many times removed ancestor from before the printing press or some shit.
I said grandmother to show an example that can't be used with the "but it's an historical thing".
So you created an example that doesn't match on purpose?
To show how dumb is that argument. "My ancestors from 2000 years ago lived there, therefore this land is mine" is as dumb as "my grandmother lived there, therefore this house is mine". With the same reasoning, Italy could claim all the Mediterranean coast belongs to them. And if it's from "God gave us this land", Spain and Portugal divided the Earth (except Europe) for them "because God". Does this mean Spain and Portugal can claim "their land" back?
I don't agree on wording in the first paragraph, but do agree with the second paragraph.
What now? Evicting all 8 millions of Israeli to make Hamas happy?
How about ending apartheid and making a multiethnic, multi-religious democratic state from the river to the sea? Israelis can become Palestinian, they don't need to leave.
Hmm which state is apartheid again? The one that is 20% Arab where they have full rights... Or the one that is 100% Arab where anyone who is not like them is killed with extreme prejudice?
Yes, how about we all end the wars, and just live happy on our beautiful Earth? 😊
Sounds horrible
As we all know, ending apartheid and constructing multiracial democracy is impossible. 🙄
have you ever seen an israeli or a palestinian?
Neither like eachother. And honestly for good reasons. Good luck with that idea.
TL;DR this is basically like going "why dont the USSR and US just become one state" during the cold war.
They don't like each other because one is a colonizer coming to steal land and ethically cleanse the population. If they stopped doing that I think they could get along.
Black people and whites mostly get along on the US these days. Different peoples can live together.
maybe, but we're also forgetting that this has literally been a thing since the founding of israel, older than most of entire living families, and most of their grand parents as well.
I'm not really sure something like this could just be "swept under the rug" and forgotten in such a manner, though if they decided to do a one state solution, i'm not going to stop them either lol. I just think a two state solution is the only realistic solution here, given the historical context and pretext of the conflict.
Black and white people mostly get along now, which is true, but it took many, many years. For that to actually be the case, 1964 was the year the civil rights act was passed. But this was also a population that was subjugated and had their rights removed, not one that is militarily backed into a corner. So these are a little bit different.
Plus we also can't really apply US culture onto the middle east, they just experience the world differently over there.
It would definitely require a process similar to denazification in Germany, where the people are reeducated and all members of the previous administrative apparatus are removed from power. Like the radical reconstruction in the South after America's Civil War (before white terror overthrew their multiracial democracy I mean)
But Jews live in Germany now, and Germany is a great friend of Israel. Much like Black people in the US and whites, things can change.
We're all human, I have no idea why you think "they just experience the world differently over there" like they're aliens. I'm not making a 1-1 comparison but like, there ARE similarities!
maybe, personally i'm hesitant to throw shit like that around as it's really extreme, but i'm not the collective UN governing body so i can't make that decision lol.
well i mean yeah, but that's after literally every country except for like japan, went to war with them. They fucking imploded. Though granted germany would've eventually collapsed in on itself after trying to expand too aggressively anyway. Fascism is a silly thing.
they literally do in the same way that someone with color blindness experiences the world differently to someone with schizophrenia, to someone with tinnitus, to someone with a physical disability, everybody experiences the world differently, there's nothing inherently bad about that. Eastern culture is different from western culture, it doesn't take more than like 5 minutes to discover that places like japan have vastly different cultural and social experiences of the world. Thinking anything otherwise is just modern western elitism if we're playing the funny words game. Realistically it's probably just western people being uneducated about different cultures and being stuck in a very individualistic line of thinking.
The middle east is very Islamic, and they tend to have a pretty hard-line religious conceptualization of the world. Israel being situated in the middle east and jewish, is kind of innately opposed to this, since they're a different religion and are in the middle east, so it sort of provides grounds for conflict there. At least that's my western educated and "uninformed" take on it so take it with a grain of salt.
Thinking that you can take someone from china, the middle east, asia more broadly, or even just a remote tribe and then plop them into america and expect them to immediately adapt is just wild. I mean there is SO much study on this in psychology/sociology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_shock
like to be clear, there are similarities, for example, we're people. But that's sort of the primary one, even ignoring global culture, you and i have completely different views on a lot of things, Israel Palestine for example are one thing where we would probably vehemently disagree. I also experience socialization and interaction with other people much differently to normal people as well. I'm aro/ace and neurotic so i don't really care about relationships at all, and i wish to simply fuck off and stop existing in the broader humanity. Most people would consider that insane, but i don't really care.
I think the internet tends to have a really shallow effect on how people perceive others, which can be good in some cases, but it's also bad in others. It can be equally as bad to assume that others are going to be the same as you, as to assume that others are going to be different to you. People are different in a lot of ways, and they are similar in a lot of ways. It's important to keep that in mind when talking about things that are cross cultural.
The grounds of conflict are colonial! It's not a religious conflict, it's Europeans invading Palestine and ethnically cleansing the land of Palestinians. Zionists around the turn of the 1900s openly called it colonialism when they were discussing it and in their writings.
Obviously the conflict has evolved since that initial infusion of Europeans, so now most Israelis are born in the region, but they're still the descendents of those colonists. That's why my initial comparison was with the US because it's very similar - a bunch of racist Europeans invaded the land for colonization and expelled the indigenous people already living there.
Thinking that you can't learn from historical examples because everybody is too different to ever compare anything is nonsense.
i didn't say it was religious, if i did point me to it so i can fix that lol.
Also they aren't europeans, they're jews? Who historically inhabit the same lands that palestine sits on, that's why israel was put where it was originally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
what you think nobody lived in palestine prior to this? That's literally how making new countries works. People are everywhere, the governments around them change, the bodies around them change, colonization is a thing that has happened throughout all of human history. Not trying to defend colonialism, but it's just something that has existed throughout history, it's been done now, if palestine were to "decolonize" israel, that would also be colonization. You might be able to justify it in your mind, but at the end of the day everything pretty much just boils down to colonization.
do you think i'm talking about the conflict specifically? I'm not, i don't think i did once. If you think i do you're either wrong or misreading something. Or you're trying to deflect from the point i was making in order to bait me into a line of reasoning i didn't intend on getting into.
Did i ever say that you can't learn from historical examples? It sounds to me like you're just making shit up here, but maybe i'm wrong and went into a fugue state and wrote a three hundred page report on this. I'm so baffled as to why you're trying to tell me this right now.
I thought this article had some interesting insight into how living in Israel can distort someone's perspective on these issues.
That's how colonizers always are. Think about how much Afrikaners wailed and gnashed their teeth? Or French Algerians? Or, again, the white US South which construted a whole identity around being victims?
Settlers are settlers wherever they go. The decolonial struggle not only rehumanizes the colonized, it rehumanizes the colonizer as they are forced to recognize the pain and suffering of others. They still have to be defeated, regardless of their own whining.
That's also why denazification is necessary - these people need to be forced to recognize the humanity of others or they'll just migrate to Europe and America and be racist there.
shouldn't this technically be anti-colonial instead?
Anticolonial struggles are struggles against colonialism, the decolonial struggle is the struggle for decolonisation once colonization has already happened.
how are those significantly different?
Anti colonialism would be against colonialism as you said. Presumably to stop encroaching colonialism, to stop existing colonialism, or to gain independence.
decolonialism just seems like a really weird specific to use here since normally context would provide that. Also if we're talking about palestine, wouldn't israel be actively colonizing palestine, instead of having already colonized it? Like you can't just start making outposts in a region that you haven't already colonized. You can't just make settlements in a place that isn't already colonized.
They wouldn't be settlements/outposts if they weren't colonial by nature. Like surely it can't already be colonized if hamas exists. The end game of colonization is literally integration and assimilation. A decolonial struggle would be something like hawaii being brought back to the ownership and independence of the natives.
The settlements are colonial. Resistance against already existing settlements and settlers is decolonial. Preventing more settlements is anticolonial.
They're both relevant in the Palestinian context, I just focused on decolonisation because it recognizes the already existing colonization. I guess it probably should be anticolonial/decolonial to recognize both.
i mean i guess in that context it would be, but then wouldn't this be an anti/de colonial resistance? Since there are most definitely both going on.
yeah this was pretty much my thinking.
I think if you wanted to recognize the colonial aspects it's probably better to just mention the outposts and settlements lol. Sometimes demonstrating a concept is more powerful than the concept itself.
I also consider the so-called state of Israel to be an example of colonization, because literally it took a bunch of European Jewish settlers to come down from Europe and drive out the indigenous population during the Nakba. It's not just the settlements and outposts.
man there is so much reading material here you could literally write a PHD dissertation on it.
So from the skim reading i've done, it seems that the early "israel" state as it exists today (it has historical roots as well, if you go back into religion the area that is referred to as "palestine" is also israel, so there's that) but going back to the very beginning, it seems that they initially purchased land from the ottoman empire, which would've been a thing at that time. And probably shortly after that i would imagine, tensions rose and conflict started to become a problem, basically up until 1948 it seems there was constant conflict between palestine and israel. So that's a thing. Unfortunately i'm not a history scholar with a PHD on the history and conflict between these two nations so i can't really pin anything down here.
But just based off of what wikipedia is telling me, this is probably "colonization spurred by conflict" although more arguably "convenient colonization"
Idk as far as colonization goes i just consider war and conflict to be a constant within humanity, and therefore colonization follows in suit, the loser gets colonized. It'd be bad military strategy to kill an entire population, demolish their productive base, and then just, fucking leave. As well as bad for the society, colonized or not. Obviously the alternative here is not doing a war, but good luck with one.
It'd be nice if animals stopped killing each other over territorial disputes, but that's just how the animal kingdom works, and i think this is basically just an extension of that for humans. Anyway, i think this is also sort of a defective argument, because depending on how "pure" your stance on colonization is, humanity should literally just roll back every modern society until nothing is left except for like, 12 people. Because i'm almost certain that war and colonization is such an influential part of human history, that it would basically end up producing a constant chain of colonization.
There are also other examples of colonization as well, russia invading ukraine for example, the annexation of crimea, although people cope by saying that the "public voted for it" which sure, but, idk about that one tbh. And of course theres the territory that only russia recognizes to be "russian" when it's globally considered to be ukrainian. You also get into weird places like ownership over the sea floor, russia is especially pushing hard for this one, there has long been a massive contest on whoever owns parts of the artic circle for example. Would this be considered colonization by extension?
What about shit like uninhabited islands, theres snake island, there's a few near korea, there's also contests over who owns ocean territory and airspace (although these are more of a meme) china being a prominent example, pushing really aggressive stances on military power staging in the south china sea, claiming they own more than they do. And the classic meme of "leave the airspace immediately" "this is international airspace"
I feel like you could basically talk without end on this topic if you really tried, and i'm not really convinced it has productive value. Like i said in my previous comment, i would rather talk about specifics, than generics that don't really make sense, or apply in the first place.
For some reason tankies like to do this, using big fancy words in places they really shouldn't, i guess it makes them look more read up when in reality they still know almost nothing. Fascists do something tangential, they just make shit up instead though. Tankies are unique in this case for some reason.
Palestinians didn't live in Palestine during that time, either. they migrated when everyone else did.
A ton of them just converted from Judaism. This idea that Arabs flooded into Palestine after kicking all the Jews out is racist revisionist history.
that's not what I said at all.
How am I supposed to read this as anything other than "Palestinians migrated into Israel when the Jews migrated out"? Which, I must reiterate, is a racist myth.