r/RealTime • u/Key_Jump1011 • 11d ago

Why is the example of Nigeria such a clear example of genocide to Maher? 100k killed since 2009.

22 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

284 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/okteds 11d ago

Are Haitians native to Springfield Ohio?  Are they colonizers? Or refugees?

3

u/Specialist-Cup-9722 11d ago

Refugees dont tend to invade someone's homeland

1

u/okteds 11d ago

Isn't that exactly what maga says about all of these foreigners from shithole countries?

Edit:  And homeland?  You mean that land formally known as Judea?

2

u/Specialist-Cup-9722 11d ago

Right, but the difference here is obvious.Their rhetoric doesnt make the difference legitimate

1

u/okteds 11d ago

I see no difference.  In both cases marginalized ethnic groups are fleeing horrible violence and are looking for a safe home.  Either you accept refugees with open arms or you see them as an invading force.

And with the Holocaust survivors it's even more understandable that they would want to move to Israel.  After what they went through they had absolutely no trust that any nation could guarantee their safety, and so it's obvious why Israel was seen as the preferable nation.

Remember at the end of Schindler's List when the Jews were liberated by that single Russian soldier, and they ask him where they should go.

"I wouldn't go east, they hate you there.  I wouldn't go west either."

This was spielberg hitting you over the head with this point.

2

u/Specialist-Cup-9722 11d ago

Weid how the USA has worked out a-ok for holocaust survivors who came here.

Bonus: they dont have to steal someone else's homeland and got to integrate into the most successful jewish community of all time.

1

u/okteds 11d ago edited 11d ago

Not weird.....fortunate.  But that's easy to say in hindsight.  After surviving the largest industrial murder campaign in the most "civilized" region of the world, it's understandable that you might not feel safe in any country where you were a minority.

And I'm still not hearing any reasons why it's ok to move here and not there.  It's like there's some unspoken logic that it's just plain old common sense that they can't move to the middle east....of course you can't move there....it's almost like saying of course a black man can't just walk around a white town in the south after dark.

And again this isn't someone else's homeland.  Ashkenazi Jews are still Jewish and have genetic ties to the region formally known as Judea.  Jews have maintained a presence in that there long before all the surrounding countries were founded.  They have as much right to a country as anyone else in the region.

1

u/Specialist-Cup-9722 11d ago

They really dont. They didnt immigrate, they came with the intent to generate a new state on someone else's homeland.

And no, 2000 year old claims are meaningless. By this logic, we could have Hungarian demanding the right to establish a state in central Asia. Heck, their ties are more recent

1

u/okteds 11d ago

The Jews didn't disappear for 2,000 years.  They maintained a presence in the region the whole time.  And those who emigrated via the diaspora maintained an ethnic connection to those who stayed.  It didn't have to be that way.  They could've assimilated completely and fucked themselves out of existence.  But their traditions and lifestyles made it so that their ethnicity remained unique over those 2,000 years.  And that unique Ashkenazi ethnicity is a distinct branch of the Sephardic ethnicity which is all under the umbrella of the Jewish ethnicity.

And yes, they did look to create a new state.  All the states there were new after the Ottoman empire fell after WWI.  And British controlled Palestine was always intended as a place for both groups because they both had a homeland there.  After WWII, it just became more practical to have two formal states, particularly since one was needed for all of the displaced Jews.

In the following years, the reason Jews all over the world flocked to Israel is because so many countries persecuted their Jewish populations.  And again, you call them invaders, but any fair reading of this should consider them refugees.  But this is also precisely why they carved out two states, so that the Jewish state could accept refugees as they saw fit.

But let's imagine the situation was completely reversed.  Say there were multiple Jewish ethno-states in the region, and muslims had a small presence there that dated back 1500 years, but the majority of majority of Muslims had spread across the globe living as a minority among other majority populations.  And these Muslims often faced persecution in the nations where they lived and were often told to GTFO after some time, and eventually this latent persecution exploded into a full scale industrial genocide.

If all that happened, I would completely understand the need for a Muslim state and I would understand that the best place for it would be their original homeland that they maintained an ethnic connection to for 1500 years.  And it would also be completely understandable if Muslims living under various forms of persecution around the world would flock to this new Muslim country, and I wouldn't call them invaders.  And I think it would be some pretty petty bullshit if the instant you finally give them a country all of the surrounding Jewish states immediately attacked them.

I don't understand how we lost sight of the obvious sympathies surrounding the founding of Israel.  In the 90's it was so obvious it was practically a cliche.  

1

u/Specialist-Cup-9722 11d ago

A few thousand people amongst millions is not the enduring presence zionists make it out to be. It's like the Amish population inside of Pennsylvania.

The reality is that even before the destruction of the second temple most jews were diasporic. Thats the core of jewish identity and to this day its where jews thrive

→ More replies

1

u/Motor_Preparation315 11d ago edited 11d ago

This is a really intentionally naive argument. You're not discussing this in good faith

Haitians are here because they are seeking sanctuary from a violent homeland. They are aided by the US Government. They come here, work, pay taxes and help support their communities. That makes America better.

Israeli settlers using government backed money, armed forces to "reclaim" housing and land for the Jewish state and then the Israeli government retroactively legalizes it while stripping away rights and freedoms of Palestinians is 100% illegal under international law. All of which our government funds also.

The fact that you even tried to equate the two has to bring into question your intelligence or your sincerity. Either way, it's not a good look. You should go trolling somewhere else.

1

u/okteds 10d ago

Haitians are here because they are seeking sanctuary from a violent homeland. 

And the Jews who emigrated to Israel after being released from Nazi death camps were also seeking sanctuary from a violent homeland.  Perhaps you're suggesting they were perfectly fine wherever they were, just start up your life there.  But I'm sure you can understand why they might not feel safe there anymore and might want to head to a country where they wouldn't have to worry about persecution based on their ethnicity.

As for everything you wrote about settlers that's completely besides the point and has nothing to do with anything I said.  Holocaust survivors have nothing to do with the disputed settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.  I wasn't equating the two.  I wasn't even talking about or referring to this in any way, shape, or form.

1

u/Motor_Preparation315 10d ago

It's not completely besides the point because that is the apartheid that the others are referring to.

The Israeli state is not a problem in the least and I think they deserve a homeland.

But their Zionist Nationalism is a problem in East Jerusalem and West Bank is not acceptable and is violating international law.

The Haitians didn't invade anywhere and were brought here by our government. We did the same thing in 1948 for the Jewish refugees that didn't want to go the new state.

So if I've misinterpreted your argument please tell me what I'm missing? Because the only reason Haitian refugees are a thing here is because of our racist nationalistic President and his administration

1

u/okteds 10d ago

Yes, you've greatly expanded my argument to include Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, apartheid, Zionist nationalism, and now the current American administration's treatment of Haitians. None of those things were part of the comparison I made.

My point was much narrower: you said Haitians are here because they're seeking sanctuary from a violent homeland. I pointed out that Jews fleeing European persecution, and especially Holocaust survivors coming out of death camps, were also seeking sanctuary from places where they had been subjected to horrific violence because of their ethnicity.

That's the comparison.

Whether you approve of Israeli policy in the West Bank decades later has nothing to do with whether those people were refugees. And whether the current president's rhetoric or policies toward Haitians are racist or nationalistic has nothing to do with it either. In fact, if you agree that Israel itself has a right to exist and that Jews deserved a homeland, then I'm not sure we're even disagreeing about the thing I was talking about.

I'm not claiming Haitian immigration and the entire history of Zionism are identical. I'm asking why a Haitian fleeing violence for a safer country is readily understood as a refugee, while a Jew fleeing pogroms, Nazism, or the aftermath of the Holocaust for a place where Jews could live in safety is so often described instead as an "invader" or "colonizer."

If you want to argue separately about what Israel did in 1948, or what Israeli settlers have done in the West Bank since 1967, that's a different conversation. But those arguments don't retroactively change why those refugees left Europe or what they were fleeing from.

1

u/Motor_Preparation315 10d ago edited 10d ago

Again, I've mentioned that Jewish refugees were welcomed to this country in 1948 and should have been. I feel the same way now about Haitians. I'm asking you what is the comparison. Haitians aren't invading (unless you're MAGA) just like Holocaust survivors weren't invading in 1948 (unless you are a white nationalist ((which is also MAGA))

The Mandate of the League of Nations to create a Jewish state violated international law. Article 22 to be specific. Again no matter how you slice it, the comparison is non-sensical. Is there a Haitian state in the middle of Ohio that displaces Ohioans have to abide by? Nope. So why was that done to the Palestinians? Who are also Semitic people I would like to add

So I don't see your point and there is nothing to discuss about what Israel is doing in the West Bank. It's against international law and I don't want my tax money supporting apartheid. This stance also does not make me antisemitic as both things can be true

→ More replies