19 ms·

Ashkenazis are Europeans.

dralley 8mo ago
Less than half of Israelis are Askenazi, and unless your solution is to "ethnically cleanse" by sending people back to the countries their grandparents fled, it hardly matters. Americans and Europeans have the false notion that Israeli Jews are predominantly European. They are not.
- siltcakes 8mo ago
  Returning land to the people it was brutally taken from is not “ethic cleansing”. The right of return is still valid.
  - dralley 8mo ago
    Do you not understand the irony of what you are saying?
    - siltcakes 8mo ago
      I’m speaking historically, not ironically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
  - xdennis 8mo ago
    No land was stolen. All land was purchased before the war. All land taken after wars was taken after wars started by the Arabs. That's always been the case with nations who lost wars. Germany lost the war and lost land because of it. Should Germany take back land that was "brutally taken from them"? Or should they maybe just accept that they shouldn't have started the war? The Germans certainly have accepted that.
    - lostlogin 8mo ago
      If a war has finished, should the victor still be able to keep taking land off the loser? What’s the duration of that right?
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > If a war has finished, should the victor still be able to keep taking land off the loser? What’s the duration of that right? Practically? In 2026? As long as you can keep it. We're back to deciding borders through force versus treaty. Which, based on the rhetoric around Gaza, is ambiguously worse.
      - s1artibartfast 8mo ago
        Largely yes. That is a risk of starting a war. If an aggressor is defeated, the victor gets to make demands and set terms for ending hostilities.
        lostlogin 8mo ago
        And after that? How long can they keep taking?
  - nailer 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
  - mjevans 8mo ago
    At some point, all land has been taken either by direct force, or by the threat of force. All land, everywhere. It is NOT a natural right that anyone owns any land, nor that any countries exist. That is something everyone's ancestors fought each other for and created as a system of human society. Of course that's written in the past tense. Facing reality rather than the fantasy presented in history books and documentaries; not only did our ancestors do that, it hasn't stopped. The bloodshed still happens today in so many places. Those we might hear about in the news, and others forgotten even in the news because it is considered normal and thus ignored. We are not yet a species of plenty. Scarcity still exists, at the very least in the real form of land where people want to be.
    - defrost 8mo ago
      Seems overstated and contrived to use 'all land'. Antarctica is Earth's southernmost and least-populated continent. Situated almost entirely south of the Antarctic Circle and surrounded by the Southern Ocean [ and ] is the fifth-largest continent, being about 40% larger than Europe, and has an area of 14,200,000 km2 (5,500,000 sq mi). ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica There was no one to "take it from" and when it was divided up by "Great powers" that was more by competition (race to open routes) and some notion of good sport: Antarctica was claimed by several states since the 16th century, culminating in a territorial competition in the first half of the 20th century when its interior was explored and the first Antarctic camps and bases were set up. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Antarctica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Antarctica Then there are the more remote parts of Australia, nominally "taken" by the English (despite not being reached for some time) and later returned (post Mabo) to the descendants of what seems likely to be first settlers some tens of thousands of years past (the multiple waves of settlement arguments and other aspects of the History Wars in the Black Armband / Quadrant circles are looking thin in these days of genetic markers). But that one's a complex can of worms that takes some time to unpack.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > At some point, all land has been taken either by direct force, or by the threat of force You're broadly correct. But there is land that was settled within the historical record. The Levant, obviously, is not that. It was settled prior to the historical record. It is the coast closest to our cradle of civilisation. Every human with ancestry outside Africa has some sort of claim to lineage to that land.
  - adrian_b 8mo ago
    While I agree that the land has been taken by force, unfortunately returning the land is no longer an acceptable option. The land of Israel has been developed in such a way that it has become completely different from what it was one century ago, and there is no doubt that its previous owners could have never succeeded to do a similar development, due to a combination of lacking both the financial means and the skilled labor capabilities. While I believe that returning the land would be unjust at this time, I also believe that the never-ending war between Israelis and their neighbors can be stopped in only 2 ways, one of which is not acceptable in the modern world and which would bring eternal shame on Israel if they would ever succeed to realize it. The second option is for Israel to do the same that Israel has demanded and has obtained from states like Germany. This means that Israel should admit that they have occupied the land by force and they should repair this by paying a just compensation to the remaining descendants of the former inhabitants, exactly like Israel has received from countries responsible for the oppression against Jews during WWII.
    - siltcakes 8mo ago
      You need to take into account that Zionists are aging out of the population. The younger generations in the West absolutely support military action against Israel. If it was taken by force, it can be returned by force. I would definitely support US military action against Israel to defeat Zionism.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > younger generations in the West absolutely support military action against Israel The West–and America in particular–has always had a contingent that believes in drawing foreign borders through force. Particularly in the Middle East. It goes back to Sykes and Picot. I wouldn't put a war with Israel out of the cards in my lifetime. But it’s not happening in the next two decades—our neo-imperial ambitions have found purchase closer to home.
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> Ashkenazis are Europeans Okay? So are most American Jews. Most humans can legitimately claim ancestry to the Levant. It's the coast closest to the cradle of civilization. There is absolutely evil happening in Gaza. But pretending this is black-and-white, from an ocean away, is just alienating. It turns what should be a broad political discussion into a niche issue.
- siltcakes 8mo ago
  Most people on the planet view this as a black and white issue. Zionists are the modern day Nazis and I don't see a lot of sympathy for them.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Most people on the planet view this as a black and white issue. Zionists are the modern day Nazis and I don't see a lot of sympathy for them. No. Most people see the nuance. There are a small number of extremists (on both sides, granted) who see this as a black-and-white issue requiring extermination.
    - siltcakes 8mo ago
      Do most people see nuance with the Nazis? I suggest you talk to some Gen Z people as they most definitely view Zionists as Nazi equivalent. A view I think most of the non-Western world also holds.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > suggest you talk to some Gen Z people I have Gen Z friends. > they most definitely view Zionists as Nazi equivalent Some of them do. They’re concentrated in a few cities. (Principally New York.) Most of them see the back and forth and minority of extremists in each camp not representing the others. (There are more than two factions at play before we even figure on the international elements.) > most of the non-Western world also holds Most of the non-Western world doesn’t know what Zionism is because it’s irrelevant to them. Ukraine was my pet war. I had to fight the tendency to reduce every geopolitical and domestic political issue through it. Because it’s not true. We aren’t abandoning Ukraine because of some Russia conspiracy, we’re abandoning it because most voters care much more about pocketbook issues.

Less than half of Israelis are Askenazi, and unless your solution is to "ethnically cleanse" by sending people back to the countries their grandparents fled, it hardly matters. Americans and Europeans have the false notion that Israeli Jews are predominantly European. They are not.

siltcakes 8mo ago
Returning land to the people it was brutally taken from is not “ethic cleansing”. The right of return is still valid.
- dralley 8mo ago
  Do you not understand the irony of what you are saying?
  - siltcakes 8mo ago
    I’m speaking historically, not ironically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
- xdennis 8mo ago
  No land was stolen. All land was purchased before the war. All land taken after wars was taken after wars started by the Arabs. That's always been the case with nations who lost wars. Germany lost the war and lost land because of it. Should Germany take back land that was "brutally taken from them"? Or should they maybe just accept that they shouldn't have started the war? The Germans certainly have accepted that.
  - lostlogin 8mo ago
    If a war has finished, should the victor still be able to keep taking land off the loser? What’s the duration of that right?
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > If a war has finished, should the victor still be able to keep taking land off the loser? What’s the duration of that right? Practically? In 2026? As long as you can keep it. We're back to deciding borders through force versus treaty. Which, based on the rhetoric around Gaza, is ambiguously worse.
    - s1artibartfast 8mo ago
      Largely yes. That is a risk of starting a war. If an aggressor is defeated, the victor gets to make demands and set terms for ending hostilities.
      - lostlogin 8mo ago
        And after that? How long can they keep taking?
- nailer 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- mjevans 8mo ago
  At some point, all land has been taken either by direct force, or by the threat of force. All land, everywhere. It is NOT a natural right that anyone owns any land, nor that any countries exist. That is something everyone's ancestors fought each other for and created as a system of human society. Of course that's written in the past tense. Facing reality rather than the fantasy presented in history books and documentaries; not only did our ancestors do that, it hasn't stopped. The bloodshed still happens today in so many places. Those we might hear about in the news, and others forgotten even in the news because it is considered normal and thus ignored. We are not yet a species of plenty. Scarcity still exists, at the very least in the real form of land where people want to be.
  - defrost 8mo ago
    Seems overstated and contrived to use 'all land'. Antarctica is Earth's southernmost and least-populated continent. Situated almost entirely south of the Antarctic Circle and surrounded by the Southern Ocean [ and ] is the fifth-largest continent, being about 40% larger than Europe, and has an area of 14,200,000 km2 (5,500,000 sq mi). ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica There was no one to "take it from" and when it was divided up by "Great powers" that was more by competition (race to open routes) and some notion of good sport: Antarctica was claimed by several states since the 16th century, culminating in a territorial competition in the first half of the 20th century when its interior was explored and the first Antarctic camps and bases were set up. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Antarctica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Antarctica Then there are the more remote parts of Australia, nominally "taken" by the English (despite not being reached for some time) and later returned (post Mabo) to the descendants of what seems likely to be first settlers some tens of thousands of years past (the multiple waves of settlement arguments and other aspects of the History Wars in the Black Armband / Quadrant circles are looking thin in these days of genetic markers). But that one's a complex can of worms that takes some time to unpack.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > At some point, all land has been taken either by direct force, or by the threat of force You're broadly correct. But there is land that was settled within the historical record. The Levant, obviously, is not that. It was settled prior to the historical record. It is the coast closest to our cradle of civilisation. Every human with ancestry outside Africa has some sort of claim to lineage to that land.
- adrian_b 8mo ago
  While I agree that the land has been taken by force, unfortunately returning the land is no longer an acceptable option. The land of Israel has been developed in such a way that it has become completely different from what it was one century ago, and there is no doubt that its previous owners could have never succeeded to do a similar development, due to a combination of lacking both the financial means and the skilled labor capabilities. While I believe that returning the land would be unjust at this time, I also believe that the never-ending war between Israelis and their neighbors can be stopped in only 2 ways, one of which is not acceptable in the modern world and which would bring eternal shame on Israel if they would ever succeed to realize it. The second option is for Israel to do the same that Israel has demanded and has obtained from states like Germany. This means that Israel should admit that they have occupied the land by force and they should repair this by paying a just compensation to the remaining descendants of the former inhabitants, exactly like Israel has received from countries responsible for the oppression against Jews during WWII.
  - siltcakes 8mo ago
    You need to take into account that Zionists are aging out of the population. The younger generations in the West absolutely support military action against Israel. If it was taken by force, it can be returned by force. I would definitely support US military action against Israel to defeat Zionism.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > younger generations in the West absolutely support military action against Israel The West–and America in particular–has always had a contingent that believes in drawing foreign borders through force. Particularly in the Middle East. It goes back to Sykes and Picot. I wouldn't put a war with Israel out of the cards in my lifetime. But it’s not happening in the next two decades—our neo-imperial ambitions have found purchase closer to home.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

> Ashkenazis are Europeans Okay? So are most American Jews. Most humans can legitimately claim ancestry to the Levant. It's the coast closest to the cradle of civilization. There is absolutely evil happening in Gaza. But pretending this is black-and-white, from an ocean away, is just alienating. It turns what should be a broad political discussion into a niche issue.

siltcakes 8mo ago
Most people on the planet view this as a black and white issue. Zionists are the modern day Nazis and I don't see a lot of sympathy for them.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > Most people on the planet view this as a black and white issue. Zionists are the modern day Nazis and I don't see a lot of sympathy for them. No. Most people see the nuance. There are a small number of extremists (on both sides, granted) who see this as a black-and-white issue requiring extermination.
  - siltcakes 8mo ago
    Do most people see nuance with the Nazis? I suggest you talk to some Gen Z people as they most definitely view Zionists as Nazi equivalent. A view I think most of the non-Western world also holds.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > suggest you talk to some Gen Z people I have Gen Z friends. > they most definitely view Zionists as Nazi equivalent Some of them do. They’re concentrated in a few cities. (Principally New York.) Most of them see the back and forth and minority of extremists in each camp not representing the others. (There are more than two factions at play before we even figure on the international elements.) > most of the non-Western world also holds Most of the non-Western world doesn’t know what Zionism is because it’s irrelevant to them. Ukraine was my pet war. I had to fight the tendency to reduce every geopolitical and domestic political issue through it. Because it’s not true. We aren’t abandoning Ukraine because of some Russia conspiracy, we’re abandoning it because most voters care much more about pocketbook issues.