I wrote in this post that I’m uncomfortaple to argue “genetical[ly] or genealogical[ly]” why people “belong” in some place or another. I think that’s ethno-nationalist reasoning and a “weapon of the enemy” reasoning applies. Even if it’s in favour of Palestinians.

But apparently, that’s “settler-colonialist apologism” for dessalines. Ethno-nationalism is ok if it’s targeting “the right” people, I guess. /s

I think the reasoning of the comment removal is bollocks. Just because I don’t want to argue why someone “belongs” someplace because of their genes, I’m not all of a sudden in favour of settler-colonialism.

  • mrdown@lemmy.world
    93·
    23 days ago

    Israel wasn’t established until 1948. Herzl also proposed Argentinia. The Holocaust was the main trigger that led the UN to greenlight the project Israel.

    Why do you keep embarrassing yourself? Herzl ended up picking Palestine in the end. Herzl is referred as the spiritual father of the Jewish State in Israel declaration of independence.

    International politics rarely/never happens because of notions of justice or fairness, but always out of expedience of the actors involved. It was expedient for the west to establish Israel. Especially for post-war Germany. Look up what Adenauer said about Israel.

    This is besides the point. The point is that the justification to steal land for people who had nothing to do with the holocaust is the biggest BS you can spew

    UN decision was based on the reality on the ground in palestine and not the holocust. UN support had zero effect on preventing the creation of israel and helping it creation

    Where in that argument does genetics come into play?

    Genetics provide information’s about a population indigeneity