Hacker News Reader

Comment by kamaal | Hacker News Reader

>>Zionism is the idea that Jews need a Jewish nation to take Jewish refugees fleeing persecution.

Makes perfect sense. If you settle a persecuted set of people on a totally unoccupied land, which would be totally harmless. What I don't understand is the need to persecute one already existing set of people to accommodate another set of people who just got persecuted.

If a persecuted tribe in Africa decides to settle down in Antarctica people wouldn't have a problem. But will it be OK, if they invade California drive out the existing set of people there and settle down.

View on HN

California has been "invaded" and the existing set of people "driven out" what, two times going on three now? (The Spanish driving out the Indians, Americans driving out the Mexicans, and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans).

This narrative about driving people out is an oversimplification at best, though, just as much for Israel as for California.

>> and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans

I don't see Hispanics flying around in F-16's bombing white American colonies. If they do, I will be the first to speak out. What you seem to be talking about is natural change in demographics, where a group of people grow in population and the other group doesn't grow much. And then there is natural movement(like immigration in case of Hispanics).

Also if its oversimplification, please explain us the right thing.

That's not a fair or intellectually honest response. Go win internet points jousting with other fanatics, preferably on Reddit.

Sorry, You said my statements were an oversimplification. I asked you to explain me how.

As a result you call my response intellectually dishonest, and ask me to go over to Reddit and talk to other fanatics.

Sorry, but no more replies from me. Also If have I hurt you by any means on this thread, accept my sincere apologies.

No, you made an intentionally irrelevant quip about Hispanics in F-16's, thus demonstrating that you are doing everything in your power to deliberately miss the point. Of course there's no point responding to you. Reddit is exactly the place for that kind of nonsense.

"and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans)."

How on earth is the former causally linked to the latter?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But people can (and do) build that kind of narrative all the time, which was my real point. The reality is always more complicated.

I see. I still don't think white flight is a valid comparison to military operations and bulldozing settlements.

It's not even a valid comparison to the Mexican-American war, that's the point. You can oversimplify vastly different issues down to the same narrative if you want to, which is why these simple narratives tell us nothing.

>>If a persecuted tribe in Africa decides to settle down in Antarctica people wouldn't have a problem. But will it be OK, if they invade California drive out the existing set of people there and settle down.

If you think that's analogous to what happened in Palestine you need a history lesson.

From the above comment(from 'philwech') Indians were living in California originally.

Will it be ok, If they drive out existing residents of California?

>>What I don't understand is the need to persecute one already existing set of people to accommodate another set of people who just got persecuted.

But they weren't persecuted - they were paid off.

In 1917, at the end of WW1, Britain was given the mandate of administering Palestine - at the time a chunk of the recently-defeated-and-defunct Ottoman Empire. Part of this mandate was the Balfour Declaration, which basically said that Britain would work to build 'a national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine ("it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine").

They worked with the "Jewish Agency for Palestine" (these days the Jewish Agency for Israel), who had been buying the land in the area from the previous owners - mostly Arab clans and local sheiks and so on. Nothing was seized, nobody was driven out or persecuted.

How does that relate to governance? Depending on the laws of the nation, property ownership and residence may not imply voting rights (or any sort of say in governance, voting or otherwise). I truly have no idea of the laws regarding this in that part of the world, but a simple argument of land purchase without addressing those issues doesn't really sway me too far one way or the other.

One of the things it took me a while to get my head around was that there kinda was no overarching nation at the time in question - at least not in the way we think of it today. The Ottoman Empire was defunct; nominally there were laws of the nation, but it was in no position to enforce them, and many of them hadn't been popular anyway (as they were secularizing).

In practice the people in the area operated as 'millets' - micronations unified by religious belief, governing themselves according to religious law. When the British took over administration of the region in 1917, they didn't try to change this.

So for the most part, the landowners that the Jewish Agency was buying from were the governance. The trade wasn't like one citizen of a nation selling to another citizen of the nation; it was like one country selling land to another country (and so moving its borders).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com