this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
22845 readers
256 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m sorry… I just disagree on this. At this point you can’t just eject an entire group of people from there. That’s barely better than zionists who want to send all Palestinians somewhere else. They need to learn how to coexist, because you can’t just undo it now.
Sure you can eject them, just like you can import them, and there are plenty of places (see Siberia or the American Midwest) with lots of unused space to put the ones who don't have homes to go back to already (because many actually would). As the kids say, "decolonization is not a metaphor".
I get having qualms about the prospect of removing settlers, because of course. However I’m going to caution against equating (even couched in “barely better”) colonization and ethnic cleansing with the just (if violent) return of their land to the colonized. If Nazi settlers in Poland or Czechoslovakia kicked residents out of their homes and posted up until the 21st century, would it be barely better than the ethnic cleansers to push them out and take the homes back? Or does that seem a bit unreasonable, even as we understand that both presented scenarios involve violence?