To all those people who keep saying that in order to not have Trump back in 2025, everyone must suck it up and vote Biden, this is why that just can't happen.
Sure Trump is bad in many ways but Biden's insistence on helping Netenyahu no matter what will lose him the election.
I'm not making a case for Trump, btw. Both things can be bad at the same time. For people who are seeing Gazans die for no reason, Biden cannot come back into office again. Does that mean we want Trump? Of course not, and that's why voting for anyone else makes sense.
If voting for anyone else means you're voting for Trump, so be it!
Also remember that whenever anyone tries to tell you that you shouldn't be bringing up Biden's genocide support because it might hurt his chances in the US election, they are also doing genocide denial. They are genocide deniers.
They may not be denying that the genocide is happening, they're just denying that we should talk about it. They're denying its importance.
And sure, Trump would probably be worse at this, so vote. But if Biden genuinely needs widespread genocide denial to win then that is not only not an acceptable thing to ask of voters, it is also unhinged. People know about the genocide, they know Biden is dragging his feet on the issue and pretending that's not happening just to protect him makes his case look extremely weak.
If you really think that no amount of denouncement and excoriation will influence him to stop supporting genocide then again, you are saying awful things about him without realising it.
Well, when you want to establish your homeland somewhere that people are already living, yeah it takes displacement. But they're not just displacing them, they're killing them.
If being a victim of the Holocaust entitles you to your own government, how comes you've never argued for establishing a homeland of the Romani people?
For a person born in Germany, raised in Germany, taught to speak, read and write German, their homeland is Germany. German Jewish victims of the Holocaust ought to have been extraordinarily repaired, and given the pleasure of seeing their victimizers fallen in disgrace, tried, condemned and punished (part of which did happen), not told to pack their bags and leave to a country they've never set a foot in. The idea that someone who's born in a specific ethnic group has their "homeland" at some special, historical place is an extremely ideological view that has much more to do with nazism than with the ideals of freedom and human rights.
By the way, you haven't answered my question. In your racist worldview that ethnicities belong to specific strips of land, where do the Romani belong?
Well, Germany was split in two after the war, and most Jews who survived the holocaust weren't German Jews, so if we were to send all of European Jews to West Germany, you are still having to deal woth the displacement aspect that you are currently using to build a case for genocide.
I'm also going to set aside your childish accusations of racism, because it isn't true. You willingly chose to enter a discussion, the bare minimum is mutual respect and if you can't accomplish that, there will be no discussion going forward. As for the Romani people, the Romania's homeland wasn't still under British rule, and thus couldn't offer to have them go back India. I'm not even sure the Romani people wanted to return to India. Is that something they were pushing for or are you just making a hypothetical?
Can you connect two and two? I used German Jews as an example, didn't say that Polish Jews or Russian Jews or French Jews should have been taken to Germany. Also you can migrate to a country, rather than occupy it and have the population that already lived there displaced, as the colonizers who founded the State of Israel did with Palestinians. I genuinely cannot believe you wrote this:
you are still having to deal woth the displacement aspect that you are currently using to build a case for genocide.
In good faith.
I’m also going to set aside your childish accusations of racism, because it isn’t true.
It is, you just don't understand it yet. A Romani born in Spain who wants to live in Spain has one homeland: Spain. As of today, they have nothing in common with India, nor did they 50, 100, 150 or 400 years ago - much like Ashkenazi Jews didn't have anything to do with Palestine in 1750. We just have the good sense to practice policies that allow for the healthiest pluralist society possible that respects both Romani and non-Romani, unlike 1940s dumbfuck Brits who thought that a sensible solution for Jews was to invite them to get the fuck out of Europe in a colonial project. Would you tell Italians living in the USA to leave to Italy during the time of the Italian mafias? Would you tell Arabs to go to the Middle East after the 9-11? If you don't think telling an immigrant ethnicity to leave after or during a tumultuous period where they have or might be the target of hate is usually a good idea, dogmatically changing that principle to argue that it was sensible to ethnically cleanse Palestinians after WWII is indeed a racist bias. But I have faith you will eventually outgrow it, after one month or fifty.
Ethnic nationalism is just racism, whether practiced by white supremacist MAGA Americans or Holocaust survivors. In a liberal democracy, the government serves all people regardless of race. I'm confused by your premise that Holocaust survivors were entitled to their own ethnic state for some reason.
Also, the Zionist movement was not a response to the Holocaust. It was a colonial enterprise that began well before the Holocaust in response to widespread persecution especially in Central Europe. Many Jews opposed the Jewish nationalism undergirding Zionism for the same reasons liberals today reject virtually all nationalist movements. Many emigrated to liberal democracies like the United States where they could live free of ethnic discrimination. Zionists instead chose to respond with their own ethnic persecution.
It is worth recalling in this connection that at the turn of the century,
Zionism's similarities to other projects of colonization were not a source of
embarrassment or shame for most of the movement's adherents; indeed, they
often saw them as a selling point. Zionist leaders studied and sought to learn
from the experience of European colonial-settlement enterprises in places like
Algeria, Rhodesia, and Kenya, and many imagined their own endeavor as
similar in certain ways. Moreover, the Zionist movement readily used such
terms as “colony,” “colonial,” and “colonization” to refer to its activities; thus,
for example, the original name of its financial arm was the Jewish Colonial
Trust. It was only later, after the First World War, that colonialism came to
have strongly pejorative connotations for many Europeans. As a consequence
the Zionist movement sought to dissociate itself from other European projects
of colonization and settlement, began to stress the uniqueness and noncolonial
character of its mission and methods, and stopped using such terms, at least
in languages other than Hebrew.
Zachary Lockman, Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in
Palestine, 1906-1948 (University of California Press, 1996) 21-57.
The fact is, however, that they impinge— as they always have— on the Arab residents of the territories, and then they have a distinct cutting edge to them. Both in theory and in practice their effectiveness lies in how they Judaize territory coterminously with de-Arabizing it.
There is privileged evidence of this fact, I think, in what Joseph Weitz had to say. From 1932 on, Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund; in 1965 his diaries and papers, My Diary, and Letters to the Children, were published in Israel. On December 19, 1940, he wrote:
_". . . after the Second World War the question of the land of Israel and the question of the Jews would be raised beyond the framework of “ development"; amongst ourselves. !t must be clear that there is no room for hoth peoples in this country. No 'development' will bring us closer to our aim. To be an independent people in this small country. If the Arabs leave the country, it will be broad and wide-open for us. And if the Arabs stay, the country will remain narrow and miserable.
When the War is over and the English have won, and when the judges sit on the throne of Law, our people must bring theirpetitions and their claim before them; and the only solution is Eretz Israel, or at least Western Eretz Israel, without Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point! The Zionist enterprise so far, in terms of preparing the ground and paving the way for the creation of the Hebrew State in the land of Israel, has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with ‘‘land-buying ’— but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all: except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a singlevillage, not a single tribe. And the transfer must be directed to Iraq, to Syria, and even to Transjordan. For that purpose we’ll find money, and a lot of money. And only with such a transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers, and the Jewish question shall be solved, once and for all. There is no other way out."_
These are not only prophetic remarks about what was going to happen; they are also policy statements, in which Weitz spoke with the voice of the Zionist consensus. There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists, beginning with Herzl. and when ‘salvation' came it was with those ideas in mind that the conquest of Palestine, and the eviction of its Arabs, was carried out.
~The Question of Palestine, Edward Said
There's literally dozens of other quotes like this one from people instrumental in the founding of Israel in this chapter, and they are similarly genocidal. It was honestly pretty transparent what they were going for.
