Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celebratedrecluse wrote

Hey, let's get some movement on this: I think there has been a good consensus that we should remove the essay that is currently linked, in my opinion. I was moved by the arguments in favor, for my part.


celebratedrecluse wrote

Suggestion: We could replace "Anarchists against the wall, for the no-state solution!" with:

In solidarity with Palestinian movements against settler colonialism & for self-determination.

Eventually, we could create a list of essays, media sources, etc that are made by Palestinian radicals/anarchists, but for now I think that phrasing is a good substitute.


kittybecca wrote

As a Jew who lives on Seneca land (because my ancestors had to escape persecution in Hungary and Germany somehow), I think "settler colonialism" is a particularly un-nuanced way of looking at the founding of the state of Israel. Israel was founded by people who, after being expelled from Palestine, lived as constant others throughout the entire world, never being considered full members of their society, always serving as scapegoats, for millennia until the Zionist movement decided (wrongly) that a state was the answer. Israel was founded by people who experienced traumas on top of traumas on top of traumas, and inherited traumas on top of traumas on top of traumas.

European Jews were never real Europeans; we have never been full members of European societies. Not only that, but around 50% of Israelis are either Sephardic or Mizrahi, meaning that their ancestors most likely came there to escape persecutions elsewhere in the Middle East.

Israel is an apartheid state, as it fits the legal definition of apartheid, but to call it "settler colonialism" is to equate Jews with British and Dutch capitalists who colonized the world for purely financial benefit, which is patently false. Jews went there because they were fighting for their lives, to escape from their persecutors. There was no equivalent of the Dutch or British East India Company; there was simply a desire to escape constant and intense persecution.


[deleted] wrote


celebratedrecluse wrote

white anarchists in North America don't stop being settlers because they showed up to Standing Rock and do their best to be in solidarity with anti-colonial movements that are ongoing. I refer specifically to those anarchists acting in good faith. Frankly, I disagree with anyone of any background who says otherwise, I'm skeptical of white people who articulate this, and I'm pretty sure there are at least a few indigenous comrades who share that perspective in all three places you mentioned. But beyond that, it's just how I am defining the words.

don't get me wrong, doing solidarity as a white person is a good thing to enact, but anyone who is part of a settler colonial society is a settler, there aren't moral hierarchies of settler & not-settler depending on your politics. It's just a description of fact: if you are part of these societies, were raised in them, etc, then you are benefiting from settler colonialism by being a settler.


conseil OP wrote

I was just using the definition given to me by an indigenous activist I know somewhat well. I'm ultimately not that educated in this.

Though, its not my place to define it so I'll keep as much to myself.