65
Firstly:
Okay now for the post.
When Palestine is liberated, I think the vast majority of settlers will either be [redacted] or forced out of the region. There is no way that any Arab in the region will accept having a settler in their land, and the settlers know this. The plan will have to be a mass exodus for the west, both for their safety and livelihood (I can see many going into ghoul industries like defense, tech, and police training).
That being said, how would you react if your country decides to accept settlers? Would you support the move? If they were going to live in your community/ neighborhoods how would you feel?
The idea that "Arabs" are going to slaughter so-called "Israelis" on mass is just racist Zionist gobbledyremoved that you're taking way too seriously. The settlers do not "know" that they will get "redacted", they've been propagandized to believe that this will happen. I can assure you that this is in fact not going to happen, any more than the end of apartheid saw a mass slaughter of white South Africans nor the end of Rhodesia saw a mass slaughter of white Zimbabweans — even if (frankly, especially since) the Zionist settlers comprise about half of Palestine's population last I remember. Like, there's a reason why the DDR had so many former Nazis as bureaucrats, right? They denied the Nazis institutional power, but when there's so many of them so thoroughly integrated into every nook and cranny of society, then you pretty much just have to put them to work somehow, right?
So Palestinians are not going to Thanos snap the better educated half of their homeland's population right after a devastating conflict and their own people's maiming and genocide; nor are those settlers going to throw away their lives in the name of an ideology which literally collapsed before their very eyes. Do not forget how incompetent the IOF is at "fighting" anyone but children armed with sticks and stones: the settlers "fight" not out of genuine commitment, but out of a bought, fickle, and above all else temporary loyalty which will (for most of them) not withstand any sort of genuine threat to their lives. The settlers only believe the propaganda and ideology they're fed as long as they're materially incentivized to do so; once the going gets tough they'll freeze up and whimper like the cops in Uvalde.
Kill the settler-colonial dynamic and you've pretty much already killed the settler, is basically my thinking.
I myself am the European-born child of a former settler born on occupied Turtle Island, so I see no reason whatsoever why I should not welcome so-called "Israelis" with open arms to this country, provided that the "Israelis" do not act like a bunch of goddamn "when-wes". If I were in charge I'd even mandate reeducation and perhaps some employment restrictions.
But yeah, we have to remember that a major reason why fascists have supported Zionism throughout history has been to decrease the Jewish populations across the world, and so to openly welcome Jews to different countries — even Jews who were born settlers — would mark the supreme failure of antisemitism, of fascism, and of Zionism.
All in all I think I'd hold settler-refugees from the Zionist Entity to the same standards as anyone else: hiss at the ones who engage in reactionism and show no remorse, the ones who work in ghoulish industries or get "paperclipped" as someone else said, the ones who hoard wealth... But if you as a former Zionist settler now find yourself in an unfamiliar country, working a regular nine-to-five job (or perhaps struggling to find one), and you're for the first time in your life being exposed to honest to God actual antisemitism instead of the propagandized caricature of antisemitism you were taught in school growing up, and you're actually experiencing second-hand citizen status due to being a refugee... Then yeah, I think you deserve whatever help you need, in the same way as, like, former convicts with just absolutely horrifying criminal records.
Colonialism first asks of colonizers to throw away their empathy, to practically throw away their humanity. Colonizers are then able to regain their empathy and humanity by engaging in anti-colonial struggle, and often this might happen precisely because the circumstances push them to, right?
I have heard people argue that so-called "Israelis" are basically just treated as 100% white and so will comfortably fit in any country in the Global North... But I don't think this is necessarily the case. The "Israelis" who are useful to the satanic machinery of the Global North, yes, the ones who are wealthy, the ones who go to the rest of the Global North under the implicit understanding that they'll "go back" or at the very least won't get "too numerous"... I think that once it's clear to the West that it needs to switch into a neocolonial rule of liberated Palestine, that it will focus on accruing as many refugees as possible, to make them into another steady stream of cheap labor, and this will include former Zionist settlers. Compare this to the situation with Ukrainians right now: on the one hand "brave martyrs for Western democracy fighting against the Asiatic hordes" or whatever, and on the other hand "your degree ain't worth shit here, something something Ukrainian strippers, something something you can be sent to the frontlines at any moment".
The children of former Zionist settlers after the liberation of Palestine are practically guaranteed to be normal people, in any case.
.02 and probably wrong at points
100% the only sane take. The revenge fantasy of killing millions of people is really gross.
I can add a bit to this. Israeli demographics are a bit odd by western standards. They consider anyone that is Jewish to be an Israeli Jewish citizen regardless of ethnic background. Other citizens are "Arab Citizens of Israel" which means Palestinian and either of Muslim or Christian background. So Palestinian Jews in Israel are considered Jews under the law despite their former historical neighbors being considered in the second-class citizen category. Part of what makes that interesting is that the Mizrahim and Sephardim Jewish ethnic groups which do make up significant enough portions of Israel's total Jewish demographic are demonstrably not "white" and are systematically treated accordingly by Israelis of Ashkenazi background. The Israel politic and society favors the generally wealthier Jewish people of European origin. Thus, a lot of the people in the IOF doing the genocide are also not "white" people, and would not pass as white in the west. Israeli society is really, really fucked.
I think this is also important relevant to the idea that Jewish Israelis are entirely white European settlers with a place of origin to "go back to". Many have heritage in the middle east and were essentially forced out of their countries. Even a lot of the Ashkenazi population doesn't have a clear country that they are from.
Sounds pretty western to me
well it sort of is, but the novelty is that Palestinian is a uniquely dehumanized identity in Israel. It is essentially denied that they exist at all, and in practice non-white Jewish people are still people, can't be discriminated against within the law in the same ways. Arab citizens of Israel live under Jim Crow conditions, West Bank Palestinians live under apartheid, and Gazan Palestinians are experiencing genocide.
Great addition, I had considered mentioning this but by the time I was done writing my first comment the sun had already gone up
GOOD POST
Side note but the Sremovedhorpe problem strikes again with gobbledyremoved lol
i even cant figure out what word its meant to be lol
Theres a town in England called Scun-thorpe with no hyphen and it often gets profanity filtered in online forms making it impossible for residents to sign up for certain things
Apparently including Hexbear's profanity filter
Boy did I run into some problems with that one when I tried to make a thread asking about a certain kind of Japanese gambling machine.
I once couldn't post a link to an article about union activity because the word for union in my language contains the three-letter English slang for a cigarette/slur for a gay man.
Good post. I agree with everything.
From a strategic point of view it would also be wise to preemptively offering settlers a way out. If they know that going to Europe is an option it would counter zionist propaganda about "having nowhere else to go" and make giving up the occupation of Palestine easier.
I would like to add though that accepting ex-'Israeli' migrants doesn't mean that you have to accept the crimes they have committed. Welcoming ex-settlers should be paired with a close partnership with Palestinian authorities to identify and extradite war criminals and extremists to face criminal charges in Palestine.
Domestic security agencies should also closely monitor gusano activity, preventing revanchist organising and racism among resettled ex-settlers.
Absolutely, absolutely.
i think you're at a profound impasse if the alleged "morally correct" decision directly conflicts with the morals of the people in question that would carry it out
"We’ve had first genocide yes, but what about second genocide?"
go search for this user's name in the modlogs
I say worse things about the Japanese for what they did to my family and it honestly pales in comparison to what the Israelis are doing to Palestinians. It would be hypocritical of me to give the Israelis a pass.
It would be fine if you restricted what you said to israelis, people here say it often enough
You and i both know thats not why your were temp banned
Do you think the Haitians were wrong to revolt? An oppressed group fighting against their oppressor is not the same as their oppressor committing a genocide against said group.
We're talking in hypotheticals, and the hypothetical situation is, from my understanding, occurring after the state of Israel has already been abolished. Your post is asking where to send the refugees, I stand by my stance to not kill refugees.
Trying to paint me as being against revolution for not wanting to kill refugees seems a little disingenuous.
I wouldn't call settlers who got rightfully kicked off indigenous land by indigenous people refugees. It's actually pretty problematic since it ends up confirming a lot of the right wing/reactionary myths about refugees and migrants. That they will take your land, and that they will treat you like 2nd class citizens in your own home.
I left a comment below about this; the only reason I use the term "refugee" is bc I don't know what to call a settler that kicked off the land.
Which Israeli citizens qualify as a settler? Every single one? Fine.
Unless you have a way to identify which settlers are real genocidal maniacs and which were just born in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't think you can treat every single one as the former.
I'm sure many Israelis don't necessarily "deserve" refugee status. However, I believe in immutable human rights, and until you can prove someone engaged in or enabled the genocide, those rights still stand.
As for the optics of allowing settlers to be seen as refugees, I feel like that definitely takes a back seat to defending human rights.
It's not about optics, you're doing every refugee and migrant a disservice by lopping ex-settlers with them. Refugees and migrants don't steal land and attempt to turn the native population into second class citizens, that's just a reactionary myth.
Except the Israelis actually did do that, so you can't say they're the same thing as Syrians, Sudanese, Congolese, etc escaping war and genocide.
You don't have to "punish" people on behalf of the Palestinians, but you also can't act like they're the same thing as South/ Central American migrants coming to the US to escape poverty and violence just for a chance to give their family a better life.
I don't think settlers are genociders necessarily, but that doesn't mean that they have a right to any land either.
The Haitians weren't without compromise; under l'ouverture they were prepared to have peace with France, but then the French tricked him arranging for a meeting and then took him hostage.
The French rejected l'ouverture's peace and got Dessaline instead. Me? I would've preferred if l'ouverture had been successful, but it's entirely on France that he didn't; and I ONLY favor l'ouverture because I wasn't there, if I was a Haitian myself I could easily imagine I wouldn't chance treachery by the French and would rather be lead by Dessaline from the get-go.
I saw a quote of the horrors the former slaves had endured and I don't doubt for a moment it still undersells the brutality they faced under the French. The quote was horrifyingly similar to a quote I read of people living under Batista's regime in Cuba, over a hundred plus years later. Luckily for the butchers of Cuba they didn't murder their l'ouverture and Castro even invited (the UN?) to bear witness to the trials after the revolution themselves (which of course they rejected).
No indigenous group is without compromise, in fact every indigenous group's history is filled to the brim with broken promises and broken treaties. Name a time when settlers were willing to honestly engage with indigenous people and not stab them in the back?
The French got Dessaline for a reason, and that's not something to attack the Haitians for, it's not like they're obligated to consider the safety of the French settlers and slavers.
If the French wanted their safety to be considered they should've considered the safety of the Haitians. They didn't, and the revolution went the way of eye for an eye (almost).
I absolutely do not condemn the Haitians or Dessaline (my guilty pleasure nickname for him that I didn't mention cause I thought it cheesy is the iron man); the oppression the slave owners gleefully visited on their victims solidly puts them in my eyes in the same place as Nazis, and I wish them a very
and 
However because they basically brought their children to the front lines of their slave holdings, and because the indigenous population themselves were amenable to peace I would have preferred l'ouverture had not been deceived and his attempts at peace not thrown out, but I acknowledge that that is solidly on the French. The very oppression and brutality they visited on their fellow man condemns them.
Unlimited Genocide on settlers.
If the native nations of America started armed revolt against the US it's fair game if I die in the process. If for some reason I end up bombing children in reservations like the zionists do then yeah I'd rather kill myself. Israel had the choice to go down the path of South Africa and they decided against it.
You have a point there.
The average American is absolutely not like the average Israeli, this would be like saying the Americans of today are absolutely no different than the Confederate Americans who wanted to continue slavery.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. You're telling me that Americans today- who are not commiting an active genocide with their own hands, who are not in a conscripted SS butchering and expelling native Americans, who are absolutely not living in an apartheid or even under Jim crow law, who would protest and may even take up arms against the government if that threat were actually on the table- are exactly like israelis who are doing the exact opposite of all that and actually prefer things to be that way?
Be so ffr, please
That’s a really important difference tho, though ofc as someone born in Settler Hell I mean Amerikkka I mean the US I am going to probably have some sort of crakkker bias. It’s just that someone who misses their complicity in evil specifically designed to be harder to notice is blatantly less evil than someone who is seeing it very obviously and is endorsing it. I’m still profiting off the stolen spoils of genocide, yeah, and I think that’s morally fucked up, but no one I know (that isn’t otherwise a piece of shit) would endorse anything like the genocide of Palestinian people.
I still agree with the general point that “unlimited genocide” on the Israeli populace when taken entirely is a weird position, but I always read statements like that as a bit anyway, especially because there are presumably Israeli people who have draft dodged etc just by the law of large numbers
I would say that allowing the people who genocided your people for decades to live is actually morally correct to the point of being saintly, and also difficult to the point of being unrealistic due to the common threat of violence from said genocidal people, so the reason we tend to criticize people who suggest such things is because it’s unrealistic to expect those who are being genocided and having their land occupied by settlers to do such absurdly costly and saintlike things that even among privileged people are often very difficult.