Palestine

[AlicetheKurious]

Your post got me thinking, tapitsbo, and this is what came out. I hope it gets other people here thinking, too.

I have trouble understanding the "last bastion of Western colonialism" thing. Living in a Western country where Harper's governement attempted to pass laws banning criticism of Israel, it feels as though the colonialism is the other way around (Western countries being subordinated to Israel, at least in the 20th Century). But that's a controversial argument - seems a lot simpler to just characterise Israel as an ethno-nationalist state ("fascist" if the term hadn't been worn out to meaninglessness).

It's not the last bastion of Western colonialism, and neither is it the seat of an empire. It's something new and different, a shape of things to come. In the past colonial era, France set up French colonies that were subservient to France, and England set up English colonies that remained dependent on, and subservient to, England, etc. Israel is not an independently viable state. It depends on a steady influx of capital and weapons and colonists and technology, among other things, but not on any single country. "The West" is not a country, and it's inaccurate and sloppy to refer to something called a "Western" empire. In any case, Israel's support network that maintains its existence is certainly not limited to "the West", however that's defined. Who set up the "Jewish state", and to whom/what does it remain subservient?

The first Jewish settlements in Palestine were established during the mid-19th century by Moses Montefiore, a Sephardic Orthodox Jewish financier whose family had emigrated from Italy in the early 18th century and had amassed a vast fortune in England. He was married to the sister-in-law of Mayer Anschel Rothschild, and was the Rothschild family's stockbroker and investment adviser. He achieved great prominence in British society, and was elected Sherif of London, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and was first knighted, then made a baron by Queen Victoria. Montefiore and Rothschild installed the first Jewish agricultural settlements in Palestine in the mid-19th century, using their network of contacts to recruit and pay poor Russian Jews to travel there and populate the settlements. Additional money was collected from wealthy Jewish communities all over Europe, North America, and even the Middle East. Although Montefiore and Rothschild built housing, synagogues, hospitals, and other buildings, the Jewish colonists were expected to survive off the land. Life was hard, and the Russians, few of whom knew anything about farming were ordered to learn how to grow crops in Palestine, a very different environment from the one they were used to. They were helped by the nearby Palestinian farmers, who, feeling sorry for these lost strangers, taught them all about the soil and irrigation and native crops.

It wasn't long before the Jewish colonists began to receive paramilitary training, and a steady flow of weapons. After WWI, the British militarily occupied Palestine, and during the period between 1917 and 1947, they helped the Jewish colonies to expand, and to crush the native Palestinian resistance, and ensured that the well-trained Zionist forces outgunned and even outnumbered those of all the Arab countries combined. Then, in 1946-47, the Zionists turned those guns against their erstwhile British mentors, and after a number of terrorist bombings, the British finally withdrew from Palestine, and the State of Israel was officially declared, before it began to expand its borders and continue its ethnic cleansing in a process that continues to this day.

That's just the beginning, but the pattern was set: Israel was never independent, nor was it ever dependent on a singular "mother country" per se, but on an network of powerful Jewish businessmen, bankers and financiers, running their own networks of activists based in a number of countries, including but not limited to countries in Europe and North America. "Transnational capitalism", in other words, is and has been since the earliest times the "mother country" of the colony that came to be known as Israel.

Meanwhile Western colonialism seems to have morphed into transnational capitalism.

Ironically, Israel is often called a "throwback" to colonial times, an anachronism. In fact, it's the opposite: it's the shape of things to come. It is the future, if certain transnational capitalists have their way.

Especially with the constitutional changes defining Israel as a "Jewish State", it provides justification to people seeking segregated ethnic nationalist states everywhere.

As we've seen with the Levant (formerly Syria, which included Palestine, the present Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan), the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, the former Sudan, the former Ethiopia, the former India, and so many others, and much more recently with "ISIS"/Daesh, this is a necessary interim step.

But it's only an interim strategy. Its ultimate purpose is not to create segregated ethnic nationalist states, but to destroy existing nation-states by fragmenting them along ethnic or sectarian lines, and then further aggravating and exploiting even hairline cracks to fragment them still more, into progressively weaker and smaller tribal entities. This process is ongoing not only in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and eastern Europe, but its groundwork is possibly being prepared in Western Europe as we speak.

I acknowledged that Israel is an exception, but I'm saying that it isn't *just* an exception. Treating the country like an absolute nadir and scapegoat only will justify the last-ditch, desperate escalation it seems headed towards. Meanwhile much of the rest of the world is guilty of similar policies and repression. Criticism that is consistent is harder to write off as hypocritical.

Israel is indeed exceptional, in every way. It has no borders, and legally denies Israeli nationality, even for its own citizens. Its citizens' nationality is defined by the Israeli government in solely sectarian/ethnic terms: "Jew", "Arab", "Druze", etc., according to which privileges and rights are granted or withheld. And it routinely invents and enforces other legal monstrosities: if you are a legal native of the land under Israeli rule, and own property from which you were forcibly expelled into a refugee camp under Israeli rule next to your own property, you are defined as a "present absentee" and to have therefore abdicated your right to get it back. At the same time, if are a Jewish citizen of another country, Israel considers your nationality to be Jewish, grants you property rights, and expects and demands your primary loyalty to "the Jewish homeland". In previous decades, Zionist apologists routinely argued that individual Palestinians (whom they only referred to as "Arabs") had no right to own property in "the Jewish homeland", because "the Jews only have one state, but the Arabs have twenty-two."

A similar process is being imposed to degrade and eventually eradicate the concept of nation-state, (countries within fixed and legal geographic borders that are accountable to, and the homeland of, their own citizens), or even the concept of citizenship, using other ethnic/religion/sectarian categories. The still nascent but surprisingly well-funded and often mysteriously backed "Rise of the Right" and various racial and religious "nationalist" movements in a number of countries, including in Western Europe and even the US and Canada, can be understood in this context.

A question for the knowledgeable people here: what is the likelihood that Russia, which supposedly has a great relationship with Israel, won't assist in furthering the Yinon Plan just as the USA was enlisted into doing earlier in the century? I'd love to know more about what is likely to happen here.

Very small. The Yinon Plan is only one part of a much bigger plan. Russia, especially under its current government, is a country that understands better than most what is going on, what it has and will cost to humanity and the world, and along with a growing number of allies, is actively working to defeat and even reverse this process.

[tapitsbo]

Thank you AliceTheKurious

[AlicetheKurious]

You're welcome, and thank you for stimulating me to think.

[backtoiam]

Ironically, Israel is often called a "throwback" to colonial times, an anachronism. In fact, it's the opposite: it's the shape of things to come. It is the future, if certain transnational capitalists have their way.

yes, a fractal reversal.

Ethiopia, thee former India, and so many others, and much more recently with "ISIS"/Daesh, this is a necessary interim step.

But it's only an interim strategy. Its ultimate purpose is not to create segregated ethnic nationalist states, but to destroy existing nation-states by fragmenting them along ethnic or sectarian lines, and then further aggravating and exploiting even hairline cracks to fragment them still more, into progressively weaker and smaller tribal entities. This process is ongoing not only in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and eastern Europe, but its groundwork is possibly being prepared in Western Europe as we speak.

yes. it is the liminal staging area. containers being lined up.

Israel is indeed exceptional, in every way. It has no borders, and legally denies Israeli nationality, even for its own citizens. Its citizens' nationality is defined by the Israeli government in solely sectarian/ethnic terms: "Jew", "Arab", "Druze", etc., according to which privileges and rights are granted or withheld.
yes. this is the temporal fractal manifestation of a global model currently happening in the "nudging" or death by a thousand paper cuts, fractal hologram of stay tuned.

In previous decades, Zionist apologists routinely argued that individual Palestinians (whom they only referred to as "Arabs") had no right to own property in "the Jewish homeland", because "the Jews only have one state, but the Arabs have twenty-two."

Again, this is fractal. Consult the uranograph. A mapping of celestial bodies upon the earth. I could do more on this but I do not have the info at my fingertips, and I can assure you that I am not a master of it. And, this is very difficult to explain...and I probably should not.

[tapitsbo]

Hey Alice, well, my posts are a little sloppy and uninformed

but

what you wrote was full of excellent info but begs a couple questions -

zionism and transnational capitalism surely aren't the same thing.

and the latter surely includes power blocs such as the BRICS, etc. regardless of how dominant a western/zionist model may be.

also it seems obvious that a sizeable proportion of jewish people don't support zionism or even the controlled opposition to it.

also, you are clearly somewhat partisan and understandably so. But a lot of sources DO point to Russia being fairly cozy with the zionist agenda. Despite what I do understand as the strong support Russia has given to Syria and Iran.

the massive opposition to Israel at institutions like the UN is certainly not ALL controlled opposition.

So it would be helpful to better understand how some of this breaks down.

Definitely a world community that can contain different religious groups' and ethnicities' differences and allow them to co-exist would be much preferable to the planned tribal strife you mention. The latter is a noticeable trend, however. What do you and anyone else feel the best avenues for resisting it are?

Finally, it's clear that regimes such as China contain tribal strife to some extent but are not ideal for many reasons.

I'd like to think some people on this board have hope for reconciliation between the various power blocs and the peoples they rule over. I'm stumped as far as trying to figure it out, however.

[BrandonD]

Do you think people would be nationalist without propaganda? Are there nationalists with intelligence or discernment? What does that make them?

I think nationalism is an absolute poison to humanity, so I would be inclined to answer no. But I don't feel confident that I know for sure.

[tapitsbo]

Ideally I'd be inclined to agree with you BrandonD, at least maybe.

But as I was trying to say in the "inheritance" thread I made (about a hypothetical state... err "community" where the family and filiation, ancestry, etc. have been banned in the name of social justice - remember I got this idea from actual academic publications, it's not a reactionary fantasy) the political formations that will replace the "nation" might have some of the same bugs as well as any added features.

Yes there is something somewhat laughable about white nationalism, however I don't think anyone would say the same about, say, indigenous peoples' appeal to their own sovereignty - and right there you have a basic see-saw that sustains these conflicts, taken to its extreme, but present in less polarized form around the planet...

[Nordic]

I think people are hard wired to be tribal. This is what is transformed into Nationalism, the same psychology where people identify with a tribe.

It's a tough thing to break -- just look at how people feel about "their" teams, especially in the pseudo-war sport of Football. They get rabid. They fight, sometimes even to the death.

One can rise above it. I feel like I have, but I'm not normal.

The media feeds this. Once you cut your cable, it's just a matter of time before professional sports fade into meaningless and rather silly-seeming past times.

But sports is just a reflection of the real nationalism that our entire system keeps alive, from the top to the bottom and from the cradle to the grave. It's how people gain and retain power. The last thing they want is for everybody to realize we're all brothers and sisters on a raceless planet.

[backtoiam]

Nordic knocks it out of the park in 31 seconds.

The last thing they want is for everybody to realize we're all brothers and sisters on a raceless planet.

[AlicetheKurious]

zionism and transnational capitalism surely aren't the same thing.

and the latter surely includes power blocs such as the BRICS, etc. regardless of how dominant a western/zionist model may be.

You wondered about how the traditional/historical colonial model applies to the Zionist colony in Palestine, and I explained that it does and it doesn't. "Israel" is a colony, but not, as in past models, a colony set up and maintained by a nation-state. Its "core" is a transnational class, a global financial/economic elite that is geographically rootless. This transnational class is parasitic and opportunistic and unscrupulous, with no loyalties other than to itself, and poses a great danger to the integrity and even the existence of nation-states, of the law, of the very concept of citizenship, indeed of any structure or mechanism that people have developed to pool their resources and collectively protect themselves from predators and from chaos.

Economic blocs like the BRICS are emerging in response to a mutual perceived threat. They are strategic alliances between independent, cohesive nation-states for the purpose of joint defense and empowerment. These are the opposite of what the global economic predators are working to achieve.

also it seems obvious that a sizeable proportion of jewish people don't support zionism or even the controlled opposition to it.

That's been the case all along. Throughout most of its history, Zionism was not a popular, grassroots ideology. In fact, it was actively or passively opposed by the vast majority of the world's Jews, even after the state of Israel was declared. Its peak in terms of widespread popular Jewish support was reached in the period between 1967 and 1982, after which it began to slowly but steadily decline, as the clash between propaganda and reality became impossible to ignore for more and more individual Jews.

But like any overlords worthy of the name, the transnational elite network uses an effective system of reward and punishment to promote those who serve its needs and to eliminate or neutralize those who don't. Political power, money, legal impunity and media exposure are granted or denied depending on an individual's usefulness. As for the opposition, to the extent that the elites consolidate and control the means of shaping our understanding of ourselves and our world, they are able to ensure that any opposition is ineffective, scattered and weak. In fact, the very existence of this impotent opposition, and its occasional meaningless "victories" which change nothing, serve to further reinforce the elites' power, by obscuring its true scope and reinforcing the illusion that the least effective resistance is the best. It's not reality that matters, but the perception of reality, and the elite monopolize the tools to create and manipulate that perception among the masses.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Link

Reality still exists, and makes itself known. But the ensuing cognitive dissonance, while unpleasant, has not and will not produce an opposing power capable of an effective defense against such a formidable enemy, with such formidable weapons and resources at its disposal. And people alone, whether individuals or organized in groups, cannot fight back. All they can do is console themselves with self-indulgent feelings of virtue, and rejoice in trivial advances, while ignoring massive setbacks.

Nor can armies alone mount a strong defense. Only an alliance of strong, cohesive nation-states can do that.

Hence the predators' need to eliminate the very concept of nation-state which, like all human constructs, is necessarily imperfect, but is humanity's only hope.

also, you are clearly somewhat partisan and understandably so. But a lot of sources DO point to Russia being fairly cozy with the zionist agenda. Despite what I do understand as the strong support Russia has given to Syria and Iran.

Regardless of those "sources", and it goes far, far beyond Syria and Iran, the exact opposite is true.

the massive opposition to Israel at institutions like the UN is certainly not ALL controlled opposition.

Not at all. On the contrary. But the UN has issued dozens of resolutions condemning Israeli violations of international law and Geneva Conventions. So?

World court tells Israel to tear down illegal wall
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Saturday 10 July 2004 00.02 BST

The world court yesterday branded Israel's vast concrete and steel barrier through the West Bank a political not a security measure, and a de facto land grab. The judges told Israel to tear it down and compensate the victims.

The International Court of Justice at The Hague said signatories to the Geneva convention, such as Britain and the US, are obliged to ensure Israel upholds the ruling.

It condemned what it described as the widespread confiscation and destruction of Palestinian property, and the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians, caused by construction of what Israel calls the "anti-terror fence". It also called on the UN to consider measures against Israel. Sanctions appear unlikely in the face of US opposition, but Palestinians hailed the ruling as a landmark judgment that could mobilise international opinion.

"Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated," the court ruled.

The decision, endorsed by all but the American judge on the 15-person bench, is non-binding. But the Palestinian leadership said it would use the ruling to seek UN action against Israel.

"This is an excellent decision," said the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. "This is a victory for the Palestinian people and for all the free peoples of the world."

But Israel rejected the ruling as politicised and one-sided, saying that it failed to address "the very reason for building the fence - Palestinian terror".

Raanan Gissin, the Israeli prime minister's spokesman, said: "I believe that after all the rancour dies, this resolution will find its place in the garbage can of history. The court has made an unjust ruling denying Israel its right of self-defence."

The US said the issue of the barrier should be resolved through the peace process not in court. The European commission said the ruling reinforced the EU's call for Israel to remove the fence and wall.

The court's damning judgment will be a severe public relations blow to Israel.

The court said that Israel had a duty to protect the lives of its citizens from "numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence", but that did not permit it to flout international law.

The court found that construction of the first 125 miles of what is planned as a 435-mile barrier "has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory".

It said the land seizures further entrenched illegally built Jewish settlements in the West Bank. In doing so, Israel was responsible for illegal destruction of homes and the forced removal of Palestinians from their villages, which is changing the demographic face of the West Bank.

The court concluded that the wall and fence severely impedes the Palestinian right of self-determination in breach of the Geneva convention and international humanitarian law.

Israel says the barrier - a series of fences and 8m (26ft) high walls with barbed wire, trenches and electronic motion detectors - has greatly reduced the number of suicide bombings. The Palestinians argue that the same result could have been achieved by building it along the 1967 border without cutting off people from land, work or schools.

The world court agreed. "The court considers that the construction of the wall and its associated regime create a fait accompli on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterisation of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation," it said.

Israel, which refused to put its case to the court because it said the ICJ had no jurisdiction, has previously argued that the fourth Geneva convention governing the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, and various elements of international humanitarian law, are not applicable in the West Bank.

The court said otherwise and called on other signatories to the Geneva convention to ensure they are upheld. It also referred its ruling back to the UN.

"The court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the general assembly and the security council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime," it said.

Israel's justice minister, Yosef Lapid, said that whatever the UN general assembly may decide, his government would only recognise decisions by Israel's own courts.

Last week the high court in Jerusalem ordered that the route of part of the barrier be changed because of its impact on Palestinians but said construction was legal as a security measure. Link

Four months later, Yasser Arafat, who had been so happy and hopeful after this decision, was dead, poisoned by the Israelis. Eleven years later, the International Court's decision is not worth the paper it was printed on. Global public opinion has grown increasingly against Israel's "policies" (rather than its very existence, which remains a taboo thoughtcrime), but the Zionist genocide has only escalated, unimpeded.

That's because the opposition to Israel is managed, to ensure it can never accomplish anything real. No amount of grassroots organizing, or chanting or demonstrating or boycotting Israeli hommos will stop Israel in its tracks, still less reverse the damage it has done so far. No new UN resolution added to the pile of dozens already condemning Israel's this and ordering Israel to do that, will change anything on the ground. The only way to fight effectively is by reintegrating people with their governments and their national institutions, to form a cohesive, organic whole greater than the sum of its parts. In other words, "a house divided cannot stand." People need to act, not to protest what's happening half-way across the world, but to counteract the fragmentation and division of their own nations, and force them to be accountable to the citizens, not to corporate entities or to any party that weakens nation-state by serving foreign interests above the nation's own good.

So it would be helpful to better understand how some of this breaks down.

Definitely a world community that can contain different religious groups' and ethnicities' differences and allow them to co-exist would be much preferable to the planned tribal strife you mention. The latter is a noticeable trend, however. What do you and anyone else feel the best avenues for resisting it are?

I hope I've just answered your question as clearly as possible, not once, but many times. Nevertheless, I'll try one more time:

ONLY strong, integrated, cohesive, economically viable and militarily powerful nation-states are capable of mounting an effective resistance, especially if a number of them form an alliance. Anything that weakens a state, or divides it, or alienates the people from their national institutions, or divides them into "mini-nations" or warring "identities" whose loyalty is to each other rather than to the nation as a whole, is a gift to the enemy and therefore an act of treason for which all people have paid and will pay very dearly. It makes them easy prey.

Finally, it's clear that regimes such as China contain tribal strife to some extent but are not ideal for many reasons.

There are no ideals, except in the writings and thoughts of individuals, far from the nitty gritty of reality. But the world is rapidly approaching the point of no return, when one after the other, nations will be plunged into maelstrom of chaos and violence and anarchy from which it will not be possible to recover. What will be left will be fatally weak entities structurally incapable of defending themselves or their people.

On a more hopeful note, the danger has been identified and a strategy for countering it is taking shape. Not among the masses, particularly in the West, many of whom have been brainwashed into assigning negative connotations to the word "nationalism". Symptomatic of this is the word "patriot", whose very definition in much of the West has become polluted beyond recognition.

patriot
[pey-tree-uh t, -ot or, esp. British, pa-tree-uh t]

noun
1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.
3. (initial capital letter) Military. a U.S. Army antiaircraft missile with a range of 37 miles (60 km) and a 200-pound (90 kg) warhead, launched from a tracked vehicle with radar and computer guidance and fire control.

The first definition is the classic, the true one. But now "patriot" has been given new meanings in the collective consciousness, that connote fanaticism, divisiveness and violence. These have overtaken the original, positive meaning in too many people's minds, leaving them intellectually incapable of comprehending the threat, let alone mounting an effective defense.

This is what is transformed into Nationalism, the same psychology where people identify with a tribe.

This is an example of how the word 'nationalism' has been perverted into its exact opposite in people's minds. Tribalism is the opposite of nationalism. The nation is a rational unifying construct in which each inhabitant is a citizen with consequent rights and responsibilities to the whole. It's an organizing principle for collectively defending and running the affairs of citizens inside clearly delineated borders. Its legitimacy derives from the citizens themselves, not from any outside entity, and from the primacy of the national identity over any tribal or other self-identification. Tribalism is the anti-nationalism, as we can see in many real-life examples occurring all around us, as nation-states are being deliberately collapsed into tribalism, with catastrophic consequences.

At the risk of repeating myself, I will paraphrase something I said in the "Decoding the 'Middle East'" thread. I just substituted "the citizens" for "the Arabs", and "their own" for "Arab", and it sums up everything I've been trying to say:

One side is fighting to divide; the other is fighting to unite. One side is sowing chaos; the other is struggling to re-establish order and the rule of law. One side aims to despoil the citizens of their wealth and to eradicate them culturally and politically; the other is determined to build a new model of prosperity through collaboration on the basis of mutual respect for each country’s sovereignty, to preserve, celebrate and develop their own culture, and to give citizens hope and a real stake in their country’s future.

Just think about it.

[backtoiam]

Alice I have seen you write a lot of awesome and brilliant pieces, but this one, was truly awesome. I applaud you, in the deepest sense of. You are truly brilliant. That was awesome. Especially the part about teaching people to hate the words "nationalism" and "patriot" which is of course the false mapping of terms to negative connotation. You are absolutely on the mark. Why should people not be left alone in their own cultural habitat? Why should they be coerced into scurrying around all over the world, scattered like chickens, scared, hungry, and depressed? You are absolutely correct.

There is one point that I have not satisfied myself with, and it is this one.

But the UN has issued dozens of resolutions condemning Israeli violations of international law and Geneva Conventions. So?

Why should we suppose this is nothing other than staged false opposition to appease the masses? We know who controls the U.N. It is the same rascals that are responsible for this whole mess.

Why should we trust any appearances from that group? I am dubious, but also a chronically cynical. So ya know? I just don't trust an image given by the U.N. It appears to be nothing but another stage for theater on a global scale. If it were not, the world would not be this way?

[tapitsbo]

Really though, why not live in a world-nation that allows for differences but invokes a degree of peace and fairness (economically, ecologically, culturally, etc.)?

But the UN and similar institutions ask for this but it's easy to read between the lines and find corporate or even imperialist double-speak.

Who's to say an Aleksandr Dugin "patchwork of civilizations" won't likewise involve its own forms of colonization and elites who define other peoples on their own terms?

People can't help but scurry if they have nothing to eat or drink. Blame this on an ecosystem of rascals or warlords, on climate change or something else, but an idealized mosaic of nations needs to deal with crises without war against each other. There doesn't need to be war in its current, extremely vicious form. If certain pressures were eased, it would abate.

To me it's telling that Alice's post invoked the formula "order vs. chaos". Just saying.

Maybe we need to do service to our tribes or nations (although many have neither of these) but we need to be thinking outside of them, too.

It's funny how the welfare of the human species has become so obscured as a goal, but not surprising given that talk about "human rights" has come to sound like a cynical power grab thanks to misuse of such terms in the service of a destructive, greedy way of exercising power.

I regret adding this post since the thread seems to be dragging away from the subject of Palestine. Something tells me nationalism is not the answer to all problems, although it may have value in some situations such as yours, AliceTheKurious. Certainly in the case of Israel nationalism seems to have gone a bit too far (too far, in my opinion, too, in the voices of those who want segregated white nation states in North America.)

[AlicetheKurious]

Certainly in the case of Israel nationalism seems to have gone a bit too far (too far, in my opinion, too, in the voices of those who want segregated white nation states in North America.)

I've been trying to explain that "nationalism" is not a concept that applies in the case of Israel. Israel is not a real nation-state, and I listed some of the reasons why. As for "those who want segregated white nation states in North America", skin color alone can't be the basis for tribal affiliation even, let alone for a nation-state.

Tribalism exists, and it's a part of being human. I'm not saying that tribalism has no place at all in a healthy nation-state, but that place needs to be far below allegiance to the collective citizenship and territorial integrity that together define the nation-state. Anything else is treason. Best of all is when the tribe is well integrated and takes pride in, and is valued for, its unique and positive contributions to the nation as a whole. Otherwise, unresolved grievances and feelings of alienation can easily be exploited by the nation's enemies and the "tribe" turned into a weapon for subversion, fatally weakening both itself and the entire nation, from within. In any case, one's "tribe" can't be based on something like skin color. A shared history and culture and local roots, perhaps a shared dialect and collective memories yes, but skin color as the basis for tribal affiliation? That smacks of hostile social engineering.

[tapitsbo]

Exactly, the arguably hostile social engineering that caused a wide variety of "tribes" to be assimilated and de-racinated in a "melting-pot" some decades ago. That's literally where "white" comes from, technically, as do similar racial markers. Saying they refer to skin colour is disingenuous although of course that's part of racism.

I'm sure some posters here would say Canada and the United States aren't legitimate nation-states thanks to colonialism. The latter has even turned against its "propositional" notions of freeze peach and the right to bear arms and is triggered by spelling them correctly. So what is it about?

[BrandonD]

Pride based upon one's tribe (whatever arbitrary line one chooses to draw as a distinction) makes no sense to me.

Most would agree that one's birth family is his most direct and literal "tribe". My own family consists almost entirely of conservative southern baptists. Should I be proud or ashamed of my tribal inheritance?

From my perspective it is entirely irrelevant to me, I am an individual just as they are. Their life choices as an adult have nothing to do with me.

If my own direct blood family is nothing like me, what does this say about my "race" or "nationality"?

It has been argued that nationalism or tribalism is beneficial to groups that have been oppressed or marginalized. I agree that this may be true in the short term, but it is negative towards humanity as a whole in the long term, from the larger perspective. It is an error, this idea that it's necessary to identify with an arbitrarily delineated group in order to feel pride in one's self as a human being.

This idea has a broader application, such as with ideological tribes like liberals and conservatives. Liberals in this case would be the oppressed minority, struggling against the conservative majority. Identifying one's self with this tribe is helpful in the short term but it is harmful in the long term. Names and external identifiers inevitably become more important than whatever ideals or beliefs originally formed the basis of that tribe.