Is an ethnic group entitled to its own state?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

I'm not entirely sure what the left's stance on this issue is, so please forgive my ignorance and feel free to enlighten me if I assert anything woefully incorrect.

Since it has been a hot topic as of late, how about I use Israel as an example? Some here, including one of the admins of this site apparently, support a state for the jewish people.So I'm inferring, due to this, that there exists some desire on the left for separate states relegated to certain ethnic groups. Though I could be wrong. Perhaps, those who support a Jewish state feel that Jews alone(vis-a-vis other currently stateless peoples) deserve this privilege because of their past persecution. It's possible that they would today oppose a state for say the Romani because they believe that the situation of this ethnic group is much different then that of the Jews. Then of course, there are those who claim to be internationalists or anarchists and I imagine would oppose states of all kinds. So, it perplexes me.

Anyway, since the matter seems tentative, I'm asking what you folks think so I can acquire a better understanding.

[Misanthrope]

No leftist supports racial separatism.

[syndicat]

Israel is a complicated case in a number of ways. The creation of Israel by European Jews who moved there was a classic European settler state strategy. Palestine was already inhabited by another people who had been there for centuries. Thru superior military and other forms of power many of the indigenous Palestinian Arabs were pushed out.

The Zionist movement acted in various discriminitory ways. Land was acquired by Jewish agencies from large landowners and Arab tenants were evicted, for example. A kind of separatist or apartheid regime was created...different rights for Jews and non-Jews in the same state. So its effect is to be racist in that one people end up being displaced and oppressed to empower another, whose power is based on the same kinds of superiority that European colonial powers were based on in their actions outside Europe.

The state in this case pursued not only the interests of the capitalists, but also a racialist agenda as well.

I'm against hierarchical state structures in general but the Israeli one is objectionable because of its being a means to a racial separatist agenda, that is, as a means to oppression of another group.

[Robocommie]

It's complicated. There are cases where a very legitimate argument can be made for the self-determination of peoples, like for example, the Basques or ethnic Baluchis, or Tamils in Sri Lanka, for example. I find it hard to agree that these folks don't deserve their own sovereignty and political representation simply because the map right now doesn't recognize it. There's nothing natural about the borders drawn now, they are the way they are as a matter of historical circumstance. Africa, for example, had it's current borders largely drawn without any respect at all for tribal or ethnic affiliation and it's created a great deal of confusion.

The situation with both Jews and the Roma is also complicated. On the one hand, yes Jews and Roma have both faced some very serious persecutions and it could be said that they deserve a place where they can have a government of their own to protect and speak for their own concerns... but then what is it really that makes a people? There have been many arguments made, very convincingly, that the idea of "one Jewish people" is totally bunk, and is not based on fact but on 19th century ethnic history. I'm sure much the same can be said for all the people who are classed as Roma.

Furthermore, the problem comes in that you can't just make a state every single time. Israel had to be formed with land stolen from Palestine, and I believe everyone here is aware of how well that turned out. And the same with the Roma. Just where are they to go? They just don't make new land.

So, like I said, I think it's very complicated, I think you have to evaluate each and every situation as a unique one.

[FreeFocus]

If every ethnic group "had" a state, then we'd have like 100,000 or more states.

A state doesn't serve the interests of an entire ethnic group, it mainly serves the interest of the bourgeoisie (in this case, the bourgeoisie of that particular ethnic group, and most likely outside imperialists). What every ethnic group is entitled to is a nation and the freedom to express its culture and pursue its full social and cultural development. Frankly, I think only anarchism can truly allow for this.

[RedRise]

I think that every ethnic group should have a right to keep it's culture and it's identity but I personally am against the idea of everyone divided up into nations. Especially when a nationality means somebody born in a particular area, what with the way everyone is moving around now. People should be free to have a strong culture but I think we should abolish nations all together.

[Robocommie]

I think that every ethnic group should have a right to keep it's culture and it's identity but I personally am against the idea of everyone divided up into nations. Especially when a nationality means somebody born in a particular area, what with the way everyone is moving around now. People should be free to have a strong culture but I think we should abolish nations all together.

Nation states can serve the purpose of localized implementation of policies, however. A properly socialist society is one that does away with nationally-based or ethnically-based chauvinisms, but I don't think the concept of a nation is inherently flawed, because generally the more local the government the more based in reality its policies will be.

I most certainly agree with you about multiculturalism though!

[Sendo]

Israel finished something that Hitler started: it got rid of the Jews in Europe. Just something to think about. Of all the parties with opinions on Israel I'm sure this factor played a part with some. Hell, the black "move-back-to-Africa" movement posed no problem to white racists in America. Israel was never needed. Sephardi Jews had been living in a multi-religious Middle East for centuries. A large part of the anti-Semitism among people like Ahmadinejad (Holocaust denier?) can be linked to Israel. It only serves to polarize the ethnic groups. A race-based state is a toxic contagion.

[ls]

If every ethnic group "had" a state, then we'd have like 100,000 or more states.

A state doesn't serve the interests of an entire ethnic group, it mainly serves the interest of the bourgeoisie (in this case, the bourgeoisie of that particular ethnic group, and most likely outside imperialists). What every ethnic group is entitled to is a nation and the freedom to express its culture and pursue its full social and cultural development. Frankly, I think only anarchism can truly allow for this.

Don't you support a number of nationstates?

[ComradeRed22'91]

i support no racial nationalism or racial seperatism. to say they 'have the right to self determination' is putting a whole group of people in a box, and act like they're birds flying south for the winter or something. People in general have the right to self=determination.

[Lynx]

Would 'white nationalists' be able to have their 'white homeland' ?

[genstrike]

I have a feeling I'm going to get slagged as a closet Stalinist or fake anarchist or something, like the last time I talked about this, but...

Well, as an anarchist, I don't support states to begin with

However, there are numerous people being denied their self-determination and subject to various forms of oppression based on their nationality given the current configuration of borders and nation-states, and they should have the right to declare independence from these oppressive bodies and not be subjected to their control. Whether that independence takes on the form of a state or not is another question.

So, while I don't support any states, it's not really my place as a Palestinian solidarity activist who has never been south of Minneapolis to deny solidarity to people fighting oppression who may think that a new state might prevent some of that oppression, or take sides on zero, one or two states in my solidarity work. Obviously a new state won't prevent all oppression, but even living under a capitalist state is much better than being in an open-air prison subjected to repeated military attacks. I know people who have "stateless" written on their passport, but in the context of Israeli apartheid, that's not exactly as good of a thing as the gut reaction of some anarchists might be.

And because people are oppressed based on nationality, it's ridiculous to call movements against that oppression "racial separatism" and say no leftist supports them. I believe in class war and ending oppression, and that includes the oppression of the Palestinian and Tamil people, not to mention that of the many indigenous peoples around the world, including in my own backyard.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Opposition to Israel is a question of colonialism. Israel's colonial character can be seen in its plundering of Palestinian land for the benefit of the socially stratified Israeli state and the West who gains a strategic ally out of it.

As communists our goal is to abolish the state and because of the level of globalization, the states are all connected so we must abolish all of them. However, we must acknowledge that today's capitalism is shaped by racial oppression. Colonialism tied ethnicity to the economic system through race-based exploitation. The designation of Africans, Americans, and Asians as "slave nations" was initiated for the benefit of the ruling classes in the always socially stratified societies of Europe. Racism as we know it today exists as a pretext for greater class exploitation. Thus we must fight both racism and classism as they relate to each other in the capitalist world. Colonialism is one of racism's most obvious manifestations, thus we must be both anti-colonial and anti-capitalist. It only makes sense though that the anti-colonial revolutions came before the anti-capitalist revolutions because local capitalists saw these as a means of expanding their own capital. That does not negate the necessity of overthrowing racial oppression; it is a dehumanizing thing which sets poor person against poor person, ignoring the real injustice of capitalism.

Communists support socialist states, which is to say, worker-controlled countries which can defend the social progress put forward by their revolution, handling the transition from class-based hierarchy to equality (assuming that the revolutionary consciousness will develop at different rates in different areas). "Socialist state" can be a misleading term, but supporting a socialist state is to support a continuing struggle against capitalism and the state itself.

[genstrike]

Would 'white nationalists' be able to have their 'white homeland' ?

Those already exist. One of them is called Canada. Another is called the USA.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

At the risk of sounding like I'm bigging up my own org unnecessarily, I really would advise reading Against Nationalism (http://libcom.org/library/against-nationalism), as (IMO) it gives a clear communist/anarchist perspective on this question, and has the added bonus of using Israel as a case study.

The break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into new nation-states was an attempt to solve the problem of ‘oppressed nations’. It didn’t work, for reasons which are integral to nationalism – these new states were not homogenous, and were themselves were full of new minorities. The principle of ‘self-determination’ of ‘peoples’ once accepted, has no end, hence the rapid diffusion of antagonistic minority nationalisms throughout the world, with few countries untouched by them. The fundamental principle of nationalism is that national collectives of human beings have a right to self-determination in and through ‘their’ nation, but when it comes down to it, it is impossible to define exactly which groups of people are ‘nations’ and which aren’t, and there are always smaller and smaller groups claiming this mantle.

[Robocommie]

Would 'white nationalists' be able to have their 'white homeland' ?

Hell no, the existence of "white" as an ethnic group is purely a racist creation. There is no such thing as a "white race" as much as there is Irish, German, Croatian, French, etc.

"White" only came about in contrast to "black" from the slavery era.

[cyu]

Anarchists are technically opposed to any state, however, taking decentralization to its logical extreme, anarchists (or at least my kind of anarchists =) then believe every individual is entitled to his own state. Relationships between individuals then become similar to "foreign relations" and "foreign policy".



The principle of ‘self-determination’ of ‘peoples’ once accepted, has no end


Maybe not "self-determination of peoples" by why not just "self-determination"? If you don't get to decide your own life, who should? Your mom's cousin's dentist?

Personally I see racism as mainly a problem created by the ruling class, in order to distract the general population. If the ruling class is a minority themselves (for example, because they are wealthy or hold unelected office) and they are living off the backs of everyone else, then in order to distract attention away from their oppression, they must find scapegoats. Racial minorities are an easy target. So are homosexuals. So are immigrant minorities. Any small group that is relatively weak becomes a good scapegoat.

[Dimentio]

I'm not entirely sure what the left's stance on this issue is, so please forgive my ignorance and feel free to enlighten me if I assert anything woefully incorrect.

Since it has been a hot topic as of late, how about I use Israel as an example? Some here, including one of the admins of this site apparently, support a state for the jewish people.So I'm inferring, due to this, that there exists some desire on the left for separate states relegated to certain ethnic groups. Though I could be wrong. Perhaps, those who support a Jewish state feel that Jews alone(vis-a-vis other currently stateless peoples) deserve this privilege because of their past persecution. It's possible that they would today oppose a state for say the Romani because they believe that the situation of this ethnic group is much different then that of the Jews. Then of course, there are those who claim to be internationalists or anarchists and I imagine would oppose states of all kinds. So, it perplexes me.

Anyway, since the matter seems tentative, I'm asking what you folks think so I can acquire a better understanding.

Euro-fascists think every ethnic group is entitled an own state. That stance is called "ethnopluralism".

No, no one is entitled an own state. Especially not an ethnic group. All human beings though, are entitled to fundamental human rights, and there comes the right to organise in an ethnic group or to refuse to organise in an ethnic group.

[KC]

Edit

[FreeFocus]

I think that every ethnic group should have a right to keep it's culture and it's identity but I personally am against the idea of everyone divided up into nations. Especially when a nationality means somebody born in a particular area, what with the way everyone is moving around now. People should be free to have a strong culture but I think we should abolish nations all together.

Nations are merely a group of people sharing a common language, history, customs, and regional base. I certainly would tolerate no efforts to "abolish" my nation. American imperialism has attempted that enough.

What is necessary instead is internationalism and a strong respect for intercultural exchanges.

[ls]

Nations are merely a group of people sharing a common language, history, customs, and regional base. I certainly would tolerate no efforts to "abolish" my nation. American imperialism has attempted that enough.

What is necessary instead is internationalism and a strong respect for intercultural exchanges.

Intercultualism is extremely important and it necessarily dwarfs and overcomes the idea of nationality as a whole. Certainly if the USA became socialist, the idea of nationalism should be completely dwarfed by absolute interculturalism and internationalism, achieving equal rights for all and not any specific groups as that is by necessity, a multicultural and nationalistic idea.

[Homo Songun]

I think there is a lot of woolly thinking in this thread because posters aren't bothering to explicitly put forward the definitions of their terms, and they seem to be using them interchangeably. An ethnic group, a people, a race, a nation, and a religion are totally different things.

With regards to the OP's leading question, there is no such thing as a "Jewish people" any more than there is a "Protestant people" or a "Buddhist people", so any question of a "state for the Jewish people" is nonsensical on the face of it.

Historically speaking, the experience of persons living in a Polish shtetl versus some Falasha village in Ethiopia are connected by not much more than some vaguely similar religious rituals and the general human experience. Assertions otherwise are based in ideology not in facts.

So if there is no such thing as a Jewish people then there certainly aren't grounds for a "Jewish nation", which is the bare minimum justification for a separate state as far as I am concerned. This is the also the case for a lot of theorists whose opinion on the subject I've come to respect.

Note that the concept of a "Jewish nation" is separate from the question of an "Israeli nation", which may or may not be exist, or perhaps is currently in the process of coming into existence.

FreeFocus seemed to be alluding to a certain classic definition of nationhood, which in full states that a nation is "a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

I think it is adequate for our purposes. Fine then, we have a working definition of a nation, then what? Do we analyze every separate movement for a state by these criteria, and support them as a matter of course if they fulfill them?

We live in an era of Imperialism as a world system. As a revolutionary, I oppose all that strengthens imperialism, and I support all that weakens it. As such, I oppose the Israeli state and I support it's destruction, whether any such "Israeli nation" exists or not, because Israel as a state strengthens imperialism as a whole, and in particular US imperialism.

Conversely, there are national liberation struggles and states that do weaken Imperialism, not the least of which is the Palestinian one. That is why I support the idea of a Palestinian state.

That this dynamic objectively exists is shown by the fact that the imperialists themselves always support states which will strengthen their interests and/or weaken their enemies; for example, the endless meddling and agitating on behalf of "Kosovo", "East Turkestan", "Darfur" and so on.

At the same time, this is why they routinely isolate, destroy, or at best ignore national liberation struggles that do not strengthen their interests; for example, Tamil Eelam, Palestine, Puerto Rico, etc. Likewise for every actually existing nation-state that stands in their way. Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and the like come to mind.

As far as I can tell, this is the single determining factor for whether New York Times editorials are to shed alligator tears over "poor, oppressed" group x or condemn the "terrorist tactics" of group y. Whether or not said group is a legitimate representative of an oppressed nation is incidental from their point of view.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Maybe not "self-determination of peoples" by why not just "self-determination"? If you don't get to decide your own life, who should? Your mom's cousin's dentist?
Oh, I totally accept the principle of self-determination, but I don't demand a state for myself. That's a crucial difference.

I think the "ethnic groups being entitled to their own state" argument comes from a very ahistorical and pessimistic view of racism that assumes that different ethnic groups can never share a piece of land without oppressing each other. As Marxists (or non-Marxist socialists, for that matter) we should know better.

[cyu]

Oh, I totally accept the principle of self-determination, but I don't demand a state for myself.

I think we ultimately see eye-to-eye on just about everything, but I'm just shooting the, uh, breeze with you here... Why not demand a state for yourself? ...or just declare yourself your own head of state, with a population / democracy of one: you? Isn't that basically anarchism / autonomy?

[robbo203]

At the risk of sounding like I'm bigging up my own org unnecessarily, I really would advise reading Against Nationalism (http://libcom.org/library/against-nationalism), as (IMO) it gives a clear communist/anarchist perspective on this question, and has the added bonus of using Israel as a case study.

Ill second that, Ungovernable. Its a good pamphlet. The question should perhaps be rephrased. Should we be looking to some state, real or imaginary, as the solution? We should we be at all interested in this statist approach? The statists among the Left will no doubt give us their predictable reaction but those interested in the idea of a stateless communist society but have another perspective

[Crusade]

I'm against nations to begin with.

[Dimentio]

The idea that states should correspond to national identity is a product of the early 19th century.

[Homo Songun]

If so, it is probably because nations themselves are a product of "the early 19th century", insofar as nations are a by-product of capitalist development in general.

[Dimentio]

If so, it is probably because nations themselves are a product of "the early 19th century", insofar as nations are a by-product of capitalist development in general.

Partially. But the main reason was the increase of literacy amongst the general population in western Europe during the late 18th century, which created a linguistical revolution, forming a new identity around language. The early European "nation"-states of the 17th and 18th centuries were nothing really but crude war machines composed of territory, population and some sort of bureaucracy.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Partially. But the main reason was the increase of literacy amongst the general population in western Europe during the late 18th century, which created a linguistical revolution, forming a new identity around language. The early European "nation"-states of the 17th and 18th centuries were nothing really but crude war machines composed of territory, population and some sort of bureaucracy.
A key factor was the development of the railways - it allowed for faster transportation of raw materials and finished products - it created the need for a clock - distribution of mail - followed by increased use of contracts and of finance/banks etc. etc. - which led to the need for a formal 'nation' bureaucracy to keep things operating and on time in a fashion required by the bourgeoisie to maintain political and economic control - coupled with the need of a market that could be controlled by vested interests.

[Homo Songun]

D, I already acknowledged the role of language in the definition of the nation in my previous post (incidentally, the only explicit attempt at a definition of terms thus far). While I would love to see a source for your claim that a literacy explosion in the European context was as major of a factor in the rise of the nation concept as any other, for now I am skeptical. According to your schema, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States ought to have had a unitary national consciousness in the 19th century, which of course is false. In fact, "British" national consciousness itself arguably has a variable linguistic spectrum.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think we ultimately see eye-to-eye on just about everything, but I'm just shooting the, uh, breeze with you here... Why not demand a state for yourself? ...or just declare yourself your own head of state, with a population / democracy of one: you? Isn't that basically anarchism / autonomy?
We're clearly in semantic territory here, because such a "state" would have nothing in common with states as they currently exist. I don't have that much in principle against the idea, but it seems a bit pointless (and, on a practical level, I doubt that telling the police that they have no authority over you because you're not a citizen of their state will have much effect).

[cyu]

We're clearly in semantic territory here


Indeed we are :D


I don't have that much in principle against the idea, but it seems a bit pointless (and, on a practical level, I doubt that telling the police that they have no authority over you because you're not a citizen of their state will have much effect).

Depends on how much the ideas of anarchism have spread in your society. For example, if a very large percentage of the population identified with anarchists, then they'd see police aggression against you like they'd see non-police aggression against you.

If we're talking about "international" relations at this point, then a police attack against you could be seen as an "aggressive war" and other anarchist "nations" would take appropriate action in response.

[Lyev]

I believe, in the case Israel or perhaps any other country created for the purpose of housing said ethnicity, it can't work because it almost always will mean uprooting other peoples/ethnicities in the place of those searching for their homeland. Sure it's a nice to have a "safe place" for said nationality to go, but it's never as simple as that. Also I think in the case of two opposing nations, and consequently two opposing faiths, (Palestine-Israel & Islam-Judaism) it's a huge impetus for religious and racist hatred, because people are brought up into a war zone.

Another point in the case of Israel and the Jewish people; I think there's irony there when Jews have been so oppressed and abused throughout history (hence the "justification" for a Jewish homeland) yet one of the most oppressive regimes of the 20th and 21st century has been Israel. You would think that they would find mercy for the Palestinian people as they've obviously suffered a lot of the same things that they subjugate the Palestinians with. It's a sad state of affairs really.

[blake 3:17]

There's no real reason to think that a formerly oppressed people wouldn't in turn become oppressors. I work closely with many anti-Zionist Jews and they play important practical and moral roles in the Palestinian freedom struggle. But they are very much in the minority.

For all of us who consider ourselves internationalists, we need to accept the nations aren't going away any time soon.

[Dimentio]

A key factor was the development of the railways - it allowed for faster transportation of raw materials and finished products - it created the need for a clock - distribution of mail - followed by increased use of contracts and of finance/banks etc. etc. - which led to the need for a formal 'nation' bureaucracy to keep things operating and on time in a fashion required by the bourgeoisie to maintain political and economic control - coupled with the need of a market that could be controlled by vested interests.

The bureaucracies were already there in most cases. Since the 17th century at earliest as the economic depression of the early 17th century forced through a rapid centralisation process.

[piet11111]

we should do away with all states but assuming communism has been achieved i do not see why anyone would want to break away and form their own country.

unless its a bunch of racists like the zionists and i do not see why we should tolerate such a move from groups like that.

[kalu]

I have a feeling I'm going to get slagged as a closet Stalinist or fake anarchist or something, like the last time I talked about this, but...

Well, as an anarchist, I don't support states to begin with

However, there are numerous people being denied their self-determination and subject to various forms of oppression based on their nationality given the current configuration of borders and nation-states, and they should have the right to declare independence from these oppressive bodies and not be subjected to their control. Whether that independence takes on the form of a state or not is another question.

So, while I don't support any states, it's not really my place as a Palestinian solidarity activist who has never been south of Minneapolis to deny solidarity to people fighting oppression who may think that a new state might prevent some of that oppression, or take sides on zero, one or two states in my solidarity work. Obviously a new state won't prevent all oppression, but even living under a capitalist state is much better than being in an open-air prison subjected to repeated military attacks. I know people who have "stateless" written on their passport, but in the context of Israeli apartheid, that's not exactly as good of a thing as the gut reaction of some anarchists might be.

And because people are oppressed based on nationality, it's ridiculous to call movements against that oppression "racial separatism" and say no leftist supports them. I believe in class war and ending oppression, and that includes the oppression of the Palestinian and Tamil people, not to mention that of the many indigenous peoples around the world, including in my own backyard.

I think genstrike has summed up the issue nicely. Not every state may provide the terrain for the development of ethnic antagonisms, but in those places where people are subjected to violence and oppression based on their perceived nationality, I support their "separatist" goals toward national liberation. Of course, each case must be mediated by an awareness of the specific context (for example, the fact that the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka began to "minoritize" Muslims and expel them from newly captured "Tamil lands" in the early 1990s, although the initial goals of Tamil nationalism certainly had greater moral purchase than the rotting corpse of Sinhala chauvinism).

Anyways, during times of massacre and the use of extreme violence against oppressed nations, I think it's more than useless to claim moral purity by supporting only "independent Left dissent", and proffering utopian nostrums about "the agenda of the universal working class" or the need to "smash the state." Surely we can maintain a critical posture and attempt to open spaces of independent Left dissent, while interrogating how our very privilege to do so interacts with the daily struggles of people fighting diverse forms of oppression with whatever means they have available.

[Bitter Ashes]

On the issue of Isreal, I'm not a supporter, but I'd certainly suggest that people consider the other cases of settlers kicking out the native population. Would it for example, be appropriate to kick out all the European settlers from the Americas so that it's left for the natives again? That's me, the fly in the ointment! :P

[Jolly Red Giant]

The bureaucracies were already there in most cases. Since the 17th century at earliest as the economic depression of the early 17th century forced through a rapid centralisation process.
A massive expansion occurred by the mid-19th century. The emergence of the railways was the key in driving ecomonic expansion to heights never seen before or since. And control of the railway network was key - the American Civil War was fought over control of the railway network in the southern states in order to ensure Northern industrial control over the expansion of the railway network to the west. Similarly in Europe - in particular the desire of Prussia to control the expanding railway network in central Europe was a key factor in the creation of the German state and one of the factors in the war with France. The necessity to keep the infrastructure operating efficiently as possible (including timetables, taxes etc) led to a massive expansion of bureaucracy to facilite its operation.

[cyu]

Would it for example, be appropriate to kick out all the European settlers from the Americas so that it's left for the natives again? That's me, the fly in the ointment! :P


Good to discuss this, I think. Excerpt from http://everything2.com/title/Reconciling+Property+Rights+with+Conquest

How far back do you have to go before you consider property valid? If one group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon conquered land from another group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon, do their ancestors have to return it? If not, why not? Is there a "statute of limitations"? If so, how many years does it have to be, and who decides on this number?

Why Have Society?

Personally, I don't (that's right, don't) support giving back everything to the natives (or their descendants). Instead, I assert that the resources be used for the benefit of everyone in that area, whether it's later settlers, recent immigrants, the natives, whatever. Human beings form societies in order to protect themselves. The point of the political, economic, and religious systems they set up is to benefit as many of the individuals in the population as possible. Because property requires society to enforce it, why should society enforce something that is not beneficial to it? It is not an "axiomatic" right - if it has become perverted to the point at which it is judged no longer beneficial, then it (or at least parts of it) should be dispensed with - especially if it is causing the death of others.

[blake 3:17]

^^ Good intentions, a tad disorganized.


On the issue of Isreal, I'm not a supporter, but I'd certainly suggest that people consider the other cases of settlers kicking out the native population. Would it for example, be appropriate to kick out all the European settlers from the Americas so that it's left for the natives again?

There was some silly stuff on one of the Palestine solidarity threads about expelling Jewish Israelis. I don't if it was a hothead or a provocateur, but that's not what any of us are fighting for. We're opposing a genocide, not wanting one to be perpetrated.

In both cases, the most important thing to do is to challenge injustices being done against the oppressed. Support for indigenous peoples doesn't mean becoming an immigrant basher. In the case of North America, massive reparations need to be made its original peoples, both economically and politically. Similarly, reparations for Palestinians for the theft of land and wealth will need to be made.

Very concrete measures towards justice and peace could be made that don't involve people of settler descent being oppressed in any way. Some extra privileges may have to given up by some, but tough. I've never been beaten by teachers because of my native language, arrested because of the colour of my skin, or been denied basic rights of citizenship.

Edited to add: Regarding the OP -- The answer isn't always one way or another. For socialist the limits and boundaries and rights of particular ethnic, racial or national groups doesn't have a one size fits all answer. Certain tendencies within Marxism from the beginning have written off elements of national self determination. There was also an idea of 'peoples without history' -- I know Engels applied it to certain nations and ethnic groups. Rosa Luxemburg, who I admire deeply and profoundly, was virtually racist against Ukranians. Lenin made very important corrections to this. Some Marxists, socialists and anarchists think he went too far in supporting nationalist inspired anti-imperialism.