Comment by amluto
2 years ago
> pro-Palestine (Anti-zionist)
And you’re conflating being pro-Palestine with being anti-Zionist :)
At least, if one discussed pro- or anti-Israel sentiments, it’s a little bit clear what “Israel” means. It’s a country, with something vaguely resembling identifiable borders, with a particular government, citizens, a military, etc.
What, exactly, is “Palestine” if one is pro-Palestine or anti-Palestine? Is it the people? (If so, which people? Those who lived in the area currently known as Israel + Gaza + the West Bank and their descendants, but not the descendants of the Jews who settled in the region since the Zionist movement got started? Is it Palestinian refugees as defined by UNRWA? Is it the current civilization in Gaza and the West Bank? What about the multigenerational refugees in camps in nearby countries? [0]. Is it the land itself? Is it the current governments (plural!)? Is it the idea that Israel ought not to exist? (If so, what does Israel not existing even mean?). Is it the idea that innocent Gazans ought not to feel safe in their homes and have access to food, clean water, electricity, and medicine?
The whole situation is an unbelievable mess, both because the present situation is a mess and the history is a mess. I don’t a critically considered opinion can be summarized by a single hyphenated term or even two of them.
[0] Yes, there are people born in refugee camps in a couple of neighboring countries who are somehow not citizens of those countries. From a US perspective, this is very strange. The descendants of people who fled to the US are most definitely citizens. I don’t think most of them consider themselves to be refugees, nor do many other people consider them to be refugees, nor do they live in refugee camps.
> Yes, there are people born in refugee camps in a couple of neighboring countries who are somehow not citizens of those countries. From a US perspective, this is very strange. The descendants of people who fled to the US are most definitely citizens.
US citizenship law says that everyone born in the US is a citizen of the US (jus soli, "right of the soil"). (With some rare and obscure exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats.) But, most countries worldwide don't define citizenship in terms of birthplace, they define define it in terms of descent. So it doesn't matter if you are born in the country, you are only a citizen if at least one of your parents is (jus sanguinis, "right of the blood"). So the real reason it is strange is because the US is unusual by global standards, not because what is happening in these countries is really that unusual by those standards.
If you look at the Middle East, most countries in that region define citizenship in terms of descent not birthplace – which can result in people who have lived in the same place for generations but lack citizenship. It occurs in cases which have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine at all - for example, the stateless "Bidoon" people of Kuwait. It also occurs in Israel - Israeli law says that (non-Jewish) people born in Israel's sovereign territory only become Israeli citizens if one of their parents is, with the result that the majority of Arabs/Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are living in land which Israel legally claims to have annexed (not merely militarily occupied), yet without Israeli citizenship – Israeli law says they have to apply for naturalisation, most don't want to, and even of those who do apply, only around a third have their applications approved (commonly denied either due to insufficient fluency in Hebrew, or vaguely defined "security reasons").
I guess I meant pro-Palestine in the context of the comment I was responding to--but sure, saying Palestinian could be considered fuzzy. I my mind I meant the people who were forced out of Israel and their descendants living in Gaza, the West Bank and elsewhere.
> I my mind I meant the people who were forced out of Israel and their descendants living in Gaza, the West Bank and elsewhere.
Even this definition is associated with what seems to me to be a biased agenda, for two different reasons.
First, while the history seems pretty muddled, I don’t think all the people (or their ancestors, anyway) were forced out of what is modern Israel, nor is it particularly clear that Israel or those fighting on Israel’s side did anywhere near 100% of the forcing.
Second, there’s something quite bizarre about the “elsewhere” part of this. As an analogy, there’s a rather notable war going on, and there is a group of opinions referred to as “pro-Russian.” I suspect that most people with Russian ancestors but who live far from Russia, including those whose ancestors were, in some sense, forced out, do not want to be lumped in with the “pro-Russian” opinion. A lot of them don’t identify as Russian except by heritage. None of them get to vote in Russian elections, I imagine that very few of them would want to vote in Russian elections, and precious few indeed would want anything to do with a unified Russian + Ukraine.
Now I don’t know how actual people of Palestinian heritage but who live far from Palestine feel, and I bet it’s generally pretty complicated. But I think a lot of nuance is lost here.
Here’s an interesting article:
https://rli.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2021/07/20/refugee-ever-after-wh...
It's not muddled. I doesn't have to be that 100% of the people living on Gaza are refugees from Israel for the current situation to be an atrocity. I am also not saying every Israeli is responsible for that atrocity.
I also don't think Russia/Ukraine is comparable to Israel/Gaza. I find it hard to believe Palestinians living far from Gaza/West Bank/Middle East would have anything but total sympathy for those in Gaza... but that's just a feeling.
Thanks for the link.
1 reply →