64
Also putting quotes around "indigenous" to imply there's no settler colonial relation
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 11 Dec 2023
64 points (97.1% liked)
GenZedong
4283 readers
106 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
The Morning Star is usually a decent publication but this is a massive miss. I don't know who anything about the author of this particular article but i hope they don't reflect the views of the newspaper as a whole.
Setting aside the weirdness of putting indigenous in quotation marks, we need to address the fundamental problem with the 1947 partition plan which is that it was purely an imposition of the imperialist powers in which the actual population living there had no say. Any borders drawn by an outside power for post-colonial states are fundamentally illegitimate. It denies the Palestinians self-determination in order to erect a Anglo-European colonial bridgehead in West Asia. That's the first and most glaring problem.
The second is that you can see just by looking at a map how little sense this partition makes. Let's pretend for a second that a Zionist "state of Israel" wasn't a fundamentally genocidal settler-colonial project that could never be satisfied with the 1947 borders. A Palestinian state with these borders will never and would never have been viable, chopped up into separate pieces which do not connect to each other. And they knew this when they drew up this map because they did not chop up the "Israeli state" in the same way - they made it territorially contiguous! Also, what possible justification could there be for giving the Negev desert to the "Israeli state"? In no universe do they have any claim on that region either demographic or historical. It is and was Bedouin territory. The only reason they were given it in the partition is to allow the imperialist powers (of which the "state of Israel" was always conceived as a proxy) access to a Red Sea port while denying one to the Palestinian state.
You don't even need to be a Marxist to see all of this, you just need to use a little common sense. Morning Star really dropped the ball on this one. If you want to advocate for a partition then at least do so in sensible borders that take into account sea access, resource distribution (in particular access to fresh water sources) and military defensibility. Those of us who advocate for full decolonization will still vehemently disagree but at least you won't look like an idiot who has no understanding of what it takes to make a state viable in the real world.
Don't get me wrong, I buy Morning Star often as it is an important paper as the only daily voice for Socialism in Britain, however this article is undoubtedly a reflection of the overall revisionist turn that has been repeatedly taken by the CPB(which has voiced support for 2-states) and the British left in a wider sense.
As i said, if they want to advocate for a "two state solution" they should at least do so with borders that make sense. Ultimately it won't make a difference because a "two state solution" is an impossibility as long as one of the two is driven by Zionist ideology. All that advocating for a "two state solution" and seeing it get trashed again and again by the Zionists does is convince the world that it is impossible to reason with these genocidal fanatics. At some point even the densest British revisionists should get this.
In the meantime they should be focusing on what actually urgently needs to be done which is stopping the genocide and siege of Gaza, and ending the occupation of the West Bank (and of the Golan Heights!). How they managed to write a whole article about Palestine and not mention either of these things is beyond my comprehension. Speaking in the abstract about "peace and equality" is just not enough. Clearly they don't like the term indigenous but are British "socialists" now even too afraid to say the words apartheid and occupation?
British people seem incapable of reason at this point lol, I don't wanna live here anymore but I can't abandon my shared responsibility to fix this shitfuck of a nation.
Exactly my thoughts.