Liberalism required violence because its built on the principal of a class segmentation. So I’m not sure your point is the point you think you are making.
Jabotinsky and Herzl are different schools of thought in Zionism, but its absolute historical revisionism to suggest that the advocate of violence wasn’t foundational to the formation of Zionist philosophy.
I’m not interested if you buy it or not. Liberal democracy, as in, Western liberal democracy was built directly on the back of an era of global colonialism (1500-1700). The decolonialisation of these democracies was a political afterthought, and where and when it occured, it was simply because the resources or people being abused were simply exhausted. And in the rare instances where a group of the colonized razed up against their (also) access to the keys of democracy, they were struck down. Take the example of the Haitian revolution, where a slave population broke the chains of their masters, and were required to effectively pay reparations for their own lives for literally generations. Fundamentally, liberal democracy as a modern philosophical paradigm is a direct extension of settler colonialism. The segmentation of a population into a apartheid state is fundamental to western democracy, where some populations in the system are afforded the liberties associated with liberalism, and other populations are other-ed, not considered to be worthy of liberty, and extracted from, and is a central aspect of all major western “liberal democracies”, even if they out-grew that period later in their history.
Its not something up for debate, so your dissent is irrelevant.
Liberalism required violence because its built on the principal of a class segmentation. So I’m not sure your point is the point you think you are making.
Jabotinsky and Herzl are different schools of thought in Zionism, but its absolute historical revisionism to suggest that the advocate of violence wasn’t foundational to the formation of Zionist philosophy.
I’m sorry, but we are just not going to find common ground on that.
I’m not interested if you buy it or not. Liberal democracy, as in, Western liberal democracy was built directly on the back of an era of global colonialism (1500-1700). The decolonialisation of these democracies was a political afterthought, and where and when it occured, it was simply because the resources or people being abused were simply exhausted. And in the rare instances where a group of the colonized razed up against their (also) access to the keys of democracy, they were struck down. Take the example of the Haitian revolution, where a slave population broke the chains of their masters, and were required to effectively pay reparations for their own lives for literally generations. Fundamentally, liberal democracy as a modern philosophical paradigm is a direct extension of settler colonialism. The segmentation of a population into a apartheid state is fundamental to western democracy, where some populations in the system are afforded the liberties associated with liberalism, and other populations are other-ed, not considered to be worthy of liberty, and extracted from, and is a central aspect of all major western “liberal democracies”, even if they out-grew that period later in their history.
Its not something up for debate, so your dissent is irrelevant.
they need to read more history ig, great reply :D