Absolutely spot on as always Scarlet. States, if they wish to exist, must prove why they should be allowed to exist - simple as that. There's nothing inherent about a state's "rights" to exist, and there never should be. States must demonstrate that their mandates are centered around taking care of their people and the world around them - not abusing their statehood and newfound power to commit systemic structural violence against us for ill-gotten gains shared only by the powerful few. That's why world history is littered with labor militancy, organization, and mobilization: when the state inflicts violence upon it's people, the people respond in kind and demand a better alternative. States that fail their people deserve rebellion, not reverence. As you perfectly said: "What states have is responsibilities, to their people, to the environment, to the world." If a state isn't delivering for it's people, the environment, and the world, then what point does it serve outside as being a cudgel for domination?
The fact that this question is continuously pushed, in regards to Israel especially, really does expose the core truth beneath it: "We know it's a genocidal ethno-nationalist apartheid state, and we expect you to accept that and refrain from pressing any further. Otherwise, your life is basically forfeit." I really appreciate how clearly and bluntly you articulated the case in this piece. It shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp but when you have an entire ecosystem dedicated to ramming a false framing down our throats, one can see how folks get swept up and lost in the weeds. You took the next steps from what Zohran said, and the people will be better equipped to answer these questions as a result.
Always appreciate getting to read your work Scarlet!
This is getting to the heart of the issues that lay as the fundamentals for political philosophy as I start to get older. There is a certain level of beauty in recognizing the humanity of every single individual within each community. Cultures, societies, and political ideals are all important on their own, but none of them should ever be more important than the least powerful person who has dedicated themself to that cause. Like, for instance, on a meta scale I think most religions have caused more harm than good, but so much of religion is about finding this radical transcendental empathy with others. I know I'm not doing a good job verbalizing things in this comment or really in any of the writing I've done, but I appreciate this piece for at least helping me to start getting to the core of some things I've been thinking about. Sorry for rambling. Thanks for a good piece.
The nation state as a sacrosanct entity is, as you say, very recent and very arbitrary. The land Israel
exterminates people to occupy was created by French and British politicians in a room with a ruler (the wooden / metal kind!) on a piece of paper. It rather looks as though to them, Arabs were "less than" back in 1918.
I'm imagining what it must be like to have been nomadic or semi-nomadic moving as conditions required around the beautiful land of Palestine and now to be reduced to prisoners bombed to pieces within their own prison.
Absolutely spot on as always Scarlet. States, if they wish to exist, must prove why they should be allowed to exist - simple as that. There's nothing inherent about a state's "rights" to exist, and there never should be. States must demonstrate that their mandates are centered around taking care of their people and the world around them - not abusing their statehood and newfound power to commit systemic structural violence against us for ill-gotten gains shared only by the powerful few. That's why world history is littered with labor militancy, organization, and mobilization: when the state inflicts violence upon it's people, the people respond in kind and demand a better alternative. States that fail their people deserve rebellion, not reverence. As you perfectly said: "What states have is responsibilities, to their people, to the environment, to the world." If a state isn't delivering for it's people, the environment, and the world, then what point does it serve outside as being a cudgel for domination?
The fact that this question is continuously pushed, in regards to Israel especially, really does expose the core truth beneath it: "We know it's a genocidal ethno-nationalist apartheid state, and we expect you to accept that and refrain from pressing any further. Otherwise, your life is basically forfeit." I really appreciate how clearly and bluntly you articulated the case in this piece. It shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp but when you have an entire ecosystem dedicated to ramming a false framing down our throats, one can see how folks get swept up and lost in the weeds. You took the next steps from what Zohran said, and the people will be better equipped to answer these questions as a result.
Always appreciate getting to read your work Scarlet!
🎯✍🏼🫂
This is getting to the heart of the issues that lay as the fundamentals for political philosophy as I start to get older. There is a certain level of beauty in recognizing the humanity of every single individual within each community. Cultures, societies, and political ideals are all important on their own, but none of them should ever be more important than the least powerful person who has dedicated themself to that cause. Like, for instance, on a meta scale I think most religions have caused more harm than good, but so much of religion is about finding this radical transcendental empathy with others. I know I'm not doing a good job verbalizing things in this comment or really in any of the writing I've done, but I appreciate this piece for at least helping me to start getting to the core of some things I've been thinking about. Sorry for rambling. Thanks for a good piece.
Careful now; you're almost starting to sound libertarian!
Completely agree with you by the way!
Flawless 💎
Well said 👏👏👏
The nation state as a sacrosanct entity is, as you say, very recent and very arbitrary. The land Israel
exterminates people to occupy was created by French and British politicians in a room with a ruler (the wooden / metal kind!) on a piece of paper. It rather looks as though to them, Arabs were "less than" back in 1918.
I'm imagining what it must be like to have been nomadic or semi-nomadic moving as conditions required around the beautiful land of Palestine and now to be reduced to prisoners bombed to pieces within their own prison.