The natives have colonized their native lands!
To them coloniser is just token word they can use to get people on their side
ignoring any factual contradictions between whoever has the strongest ties to the land (which it’s probably not ashkenazi european jewish people) i have found this tendency to use the language of indigeneity highly interesting, because it’s both used in conversations with flagrant ‘israeli’ settlers and simultaneously misused by very nominal western ‘leftists’ lacking in any proper and effective analysis (or at least i recall from my days on west social media yore)–‘us ‘israelis’ are the true indigenous,’ ‘land back for hong kong/tibet/ukraine’
there was a post i found back then that pretty succinctly summed up how people with reactionary and liberal tendencies coopt the struggle and identity of indigenous people, im too busy to fish it out of my messy files so i’ll just paraphrase even though i think it was really good.
i think it went something like: indigenous is not JUST who has a historic connection to the land, as a way to say who is the sole group entitled to the land because to extend that to its natural conclusion as an analysis. it’s kind of obvious, i mean, eviscerating diamat from your analysis leaves you with a hollow if not inconsistent and spineless or reactionary shell, but here’s an example:
land back for ukraine -> slava ukraini -> thank you to our glorious azov troops for saving us from the russian mongoloid orcs.
that part i guess can just be neatly tied up as ‘libs cant understand the distinction emancipatory or chauvinistic nationalism so then theyre reactionaries’ but i just think the tendency of so many people to use this framework and get so excessive with it is kind of interesting because they veer into often like very obviously fascist principles. i often ascribe it to the fact that western educated libs simply don’t actually understand what fascist ideology IS or why it’s actually wrong but it’s honestly baffling considering they’re trying to be progressive about it and it should be a pretty easy cakewalk to get from that conclusion to the other
it leads to reactionary social views on precolonial times, the mythologized history as a pure and unsullied period, and if we’d never gotten colonized Then Nothing Bad Would Have Ever Happened Because We Were Pure Before The Cultural Degeneracy Of Technology… it’s so weird. i feel like i see it all the time. sorry, that’s quite far removed from the blatant and open just trying to lie and say we’re from here that we’re talking about in israelis, but it just makes me think
i cannot explain this part but it FEELS the same as when people say all AES states are not existing socialism ackshually.
like the misreading of many other states randomly as settler colonies or having ethnic oppression (usually implying it’s to the severity of the usa) is so bizarre, because i’ve seen these accusations levied against like russia and the PRC (han supremacy anyone does anyone remember that).
when it’s sincere belief it feels like a plain admission many people dont think different ethnic groups can get along and share a state under any circumstance (i mean the exceptional usa can’t so can anyone???), same as people dismissing out of hand any real attempt to build socialism since it’s (in essence whether they admit this or not) impossible to make anything good because nothing is pure (which is usually and almost always in the west just anti-socialism dressed back up in leftist terminology)
Standing with these terrorist groups is the opposite of standing with the Lebanese, the Palestinians, the Iranians, and the Yemenis.
As if standing with the IDF were at all better. What a joke.
Any simpleton with a basic grasp of modern Palestinian history can surmise that the ‘State of Israel’ was ultimately a product of European colonialism. Otherwise, al-Quds/Jerusalem would not have looked like this:
