374
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
374 points (84.1% liked)
Political Memes
8882 readers
2467 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Over 70% of Israelis were born in Israel.
Many of the remainder were young at the age of immigration, as most immigrants to Israel were historically not single working folk, but already-established families.
Many of those immigrants are not European (or North American).
A large proportion of those remaining are from countries which are either legitimately deeply antisemitic or no longer exist (such as emigrants from the Soviet Union).
Would you advocate that policy of "Go back where you came from!" for the immigrants of any other country on earth?
Saying that Israelis can be expelled 'back to Europe' is not only ethnic cleansing, but utterly insane and racist besides.
Reminder that I asked a question to clarify whether or not my position, which is not the same as the position your meme is criticizing. So I don't really see why you think it's necessary to attribute that position to me.
I'll repeat what I said specifically so you can clarify whether or not MY specific, NUANCED position is also problematic.
So, based on the new evidence, I'll even adjust what I'm saying. Is it fair, then, to call for the relocation of dual citizens, that come from countries like the US or UK, who moved into the country as an adult after visiting Israel on their birthright trip? People who I would consider to be first generation colonizers? Forget those other people. I am not a bad faith nazi trying to get you to conflate the two groups and walk into some gotcha question. Just answer the actual question that I am posing.
Clarifying that most Israelis are native-born is absolutely relevant when discussing expulsion of non-native Israelis. People often cloak their ethnic cleansing shitheadery by implying that most Israelis are immigrants, without acknowledging that the reverse is the truth.
So when Ukraine takes back Crimea and the Donbass, you're in support of ethnically cleansing anyone who wasn't born there?
For a more extreme example, would you take this position for the US? There's still an ongoing situation of unequal treatment of the Native population on reservations; surely you wouldn't allow filthy colonizers to remain just because they were immigrants?
No more than it would be fair to expel immigrants of any other nation based on ethnic origin. At most, I would regard extremely recent immigrants (~5 years, maybe) as negotiable in practical terms, if distasteful and a violation of the treatment of human beings equally, rather than trying to apply some insane notion of ethnic correctness to the 'crime' of existing.
What would you call people who are invited in by the native-born population of a country which also run its legitimate government? Immigrants, or colonizers?
Israel didn't 'have' to happen at that point. Israel 'happening' has much more to do with Interwar politics, not WW2 - the vast majority of those present in Israel at the date of its creation were those who engaged in colonization projects during the British Mandate of Palestine, with Jewish survivors of WW2 largely not emigrating until after the state of Israel had been formed.
You can argue that the desire to escape European antisemitism was valid, but Zionism, as a project, was never all that wholesome in practical terms. From the start of the British Mandate after WW1, Zionist settlers were very clear that they envisioned their colonization in terms that European colonizers would have been familiar with - the suppression of the indigenous population under the presumption that they brought 'real' and racially superior civilization - even though the post-WW1 world order had become increasingly hostile to such notions even from Christian Europeans.
So you're either woefully misinformed or defending the Nakba. Which is it?