I also find that interesting in contrast to the constant outrage about the situation of Palestinians in Israel which certainly has many highly problematic aspects but to me still seems to be a far cry from the situation of Muslims in China or the treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia. It seems to be quite hypocritical by the governments of Muslim countries.
It is not a far cry, it is in fact almost exactly the same situation, although to my knowledge the crimes of Israel are much more well documented by many sources. Also note that it has taken almost a decade to get to this level of awareness and still to this day Israel critics are called anti-semites and worse. Hopefully more widespread awareness and outrage about the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang comes soon.
EDIT: Wow, actually more than a decade now since the original BDS statement.
Ok, so:
Israel has currently ~4500 Palestinians detained = < 0.1% [1]
China has about 1.8m Uygurs in internment camps = 14% [2]
I would call that a far cry.
Also, many other statistics of welfare, e.g. child mortality or GPD/capita in the West Bank and Gaza are about the same or better than in the neighboring countries (Jordan, Egypt). On the other hand, there seems to be quite substantial evidence for mass sterilizations and abortions forced on Uygurs in China. I have never heard of anything like that committed by Israel.
Again, I do believe that there are overreaches and overreactions on the Israeli side to actions by the Palestinians and there are innocent lives lost on both sides. I really hope, that they at some point manage to either live together peacefully or agree on a two state solution.
But there is a very substantial difference between that and the plight of the Uygurs.
There have been several (terrorist) attacks against Chinese civilians in Xinjiang over the years. The perpetrators have been lone wolfs, and people part of organized groups. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_conflict
Personally I think that attack on civilians cannot justify the actions of Chinese state or of the Israeli state (massive repression against civilians and continued colonization). And while I condemn both China and Israel for such actions, the two situation are very different.
Yeah, a lot of the issues have to do with the systemic denial of resources and oppression in the region. For the most part like in most of Mainland China, the goal of the CCP has been to convert the local ethnic groups and populations to a singular Han identity. Accompanying this being that they both actively send people from the Mainland over to take over jobs of the local inhabitants it's pretty clear why a lot of this is occurring. A lack of respect for the locals and the systemic destruction of their identity leaving them with nothing. A strategy used by the CCP in China since their great cultural revolution of the early 60s.
Though the CCP claim to not be doing so, it's been a trademark of their party for generations and overall, nothing new. We're just seeing a glimpse of it now, because of the dawn of the internet age.
If you want to see more there are several Chinese state sponsored English media outlets that cover it in great detail, though they like to pretend to have no affiliation. Continued development in the region is expected along with the belt and road initiatives. And a long list of other issues as well.
If you want an unbiased source of information about the ongoing event in China check out.
https://www.neican.org
Some Uighur did turn Jihadist. Oppression and denial of resources in an area is perfect for radicalization, including Jihadist radicalization if this area/population is mostly Muslim. But so far, the vast majority of Uighur and Kazakh in China are not Jihadist, not even Islamist.
>In recent years, ETIM has set up bases outside China to train terrorists and has dispatched its members to China to plot and execute terrorist acts including bombing buses, cinemas, department stores, markets and hotels. ETIM has also undertaken assassinations and arson attacks and has carried out terrorist attacks against Chinese targets abroad. Among the violent acts committed by ETIM members were the blowing up of the warehouse of the Urumqi Train Station on 23 May 1998, the armed looting of 247,000 RMB Yuan in Urumqi on 4 February 1999, an explosion in Hetian City, Xinjiang, on 25 March 1999 and violent resistance against arrest in Xinhe County, Xinjiang, on 18 June 1999. These incidents resulted in the deaths of 140 people and injuries to 371.
Indeed, only the actions of the oppressor are "almost exactly the same".
The Uygars have so far been a lot more peaceful in their oppression.
I also find that Israel is very good in presenting itself in the western MSM, while China seems to have the western MSM against it lately. That makes me also a bit more hesitant to accept the MSM's China critiques.
Israel for all its faults vis-a-vis the Palestinians is not committing ethnic cleansing or anything close to it. People who claim genocide by the Israelis are either anti-semetic or basing their opinions on anti-semitic disinformation.
> Where are the death camps? The gas chambers? This comment has no place on HN for sheer idiocy and sensationalism.
Gaza itself is an open air internment camp, under Israeli occupation; they use illegal munitions on civilian targets, and claim that its extremist reside within those homes. Their is a literal wall surrounding all of Gaza in order to keep them in place, and you have the audacity to make such a claim?
Any aid that tries to come results in the same situation: volunteers get killed illegally by the Israeli military as expansion into the West bank continues.
Just because YOU refuse to acknowledge the Crimes doesn't mean they don't take place.
> I find it funny when Israel is accuse of "controlling the borders of Gaza". I mean, by the same logic, the US controls the borders of Canada.
They literately prevent aid from coming into Gaza, and you think it's the same thing?
Moreover, Palestinian fisherman aren't allowed to go beyond 1 mile out to shore as the Israeli State forbids them from going any further and are monitored and surveilled, under some obtuse justification. Shelling of civilian areas is a common occurrence.
What you should find funny is your capacity for false equivalences, and perhaps how sick of a sense of humour you have that you can find any of this even remotely amusing.
None of this funny, it's a blight on humanity that such a thing occurs in the 21st Century (be it in China, Russia or Israel) and that we can still deem people 'less than' based on some a cult like nationalist, and genocidal ideology which is what Nazism was ultimately based on.
I use that work specifically to reflect the hypocrisy of the Zionist agenda because they have used it for so long to shut down any discourse on the matter and has allowed this to occur in the first place, but I could easily refer to any other number of genocides, too. I choose not to.
The point is: I choose my words carefully, so should you.
It is funny because the words are chosen carefully to gloss over the actual situation.
Hamas is at war with Israel. I don't find it unusual in the least that a country at war tightly controls its land crossings. Do you?
The more important question might be - why is the border crossing with Egypt also closed down or tightly controlled? Isn't Egypt an Arab ally? Why would they do that?
Calling Zionism equivalent to Nazism seems to be an overgeneralization. It would be better served to point out the similarities of both movements as overtly nationalistic, militant, and carried strongly by an undercurrent of racism. Furthermore, the current definition of Nazi is shifting away from that of the political party of the 30's and 40's and blending with a multitude of other racist and nationistic sentiments.
The persecution of an ethnic group towards the annihilation of their identity and way of life is inherently genocidal, but genocide predates Nazism and Zionism by millennia.
I think that what you said is an important point to make, and thanks for making it.
Note, that you lost some people when you said "anyone with a even a shred of reason would conclude that Zionism is the very reincarnation of Nazism". That's too dramatic: say bold things in subtle ways. If you're comparing Israel's and WW2 Germany's oppressive and violent tendencies, say that without generalizing, otherwise you might sound lazy or dogmatic.
> No, they are called Nazis, when anyone with a even a shred of reason would conclude that Zionism is the very reincarnation of Nazism and is used to suit their own agenda and narrative.
What? Israel doesn't run concentration camps, forced labor camps, or rounds up and executes Palestinians for being Palestinians.
That comparison is not just factually wrong, it's one of the most morally despicable takes I have ever had the displeasure of reading here on HN.
> That comparison is not just factually wrong, it's one of the most morally despicable takes I have ever had the displeasure of reading here on HN.
According to who, you?
Have you actually looked at what and how Palestinian's are forced to live during occupation and then made worse after COVID?
Here is an example of fored labour via poverty [0]:
Construction and infrastructure projects in Israel, and in Israeli settlements within the West Bank, are hugely dependent upon Palestinian labor. Under a lockdown in a pandemic this means that Palestinian workers are exposed to serious health risks while helping Israel cement its control over Palestinian land and people.
You want to see death squads in Palestine? But how about just watching illegal phosphorous munitions (a war crime) being used on Civilians [1]. You can also look into all of the atrocities of disproportionate violence against civilians by the Isreali military (which is to say the Israeli Citizens themselves since it's mandatory) from re-settlement on your own.
Your selective biases and forced narrative work with those with woke political bends, that much is clear, but they fall under even the slightest amount of scrutiny for anyone who is willing to look.
And before you resort to the absurd notions of antisemitism, I've been helping in Ukraine since the Maidan Revolution which has a large Jewish population, specifically in Lviv which is where I've spent the most time.
This has nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do with calling people who are driven by genocidal and ethnic cleansing ideology what they are: Israelis as a whole have become the very thing they supposedly detested and have behaved that way since the re-settlement after WWII.
The international community looks at Israel and sees Arab citizens, Arab judges including on the supreme court, the 14 current elected Arab members of the Knesset.
They look at the ancient, vibrant jewish communities that have historically been well integrated across the predominantly Arab nations of the Middle East for thousands of years and...
Sorry, who are the Nazis?
I'm in no way trying to justify everything done by the Jewish state, the persistent harassment of Palestinians and encroachments in the West bank are deplorable. However equating that to naziism, while glossing over the utter apocalyptic devastation visited on Jewish communities all over the region is frankly revolting. Neither side in that conflict has come out of it looking good. Yes extremist zionists are some of the worst of the worst, but equivalent extremism on this issue is utterly normalised in the Muslim world and is in fact the national policy of many Muslim states.
Meanwhile China gets an unconditional free pass because money.
The problem here is the gap between Israeli Arabs (citizens, full rights, political participation) and Palestinean Arabs (live in the same country, limited rights and political participation, citizens of partially recognizes quasistate).
I've made it quite clear, and you even stated you think Zionism is abhorrent, why would you ask such a myopic question? Much worse, think that 'whataboutism' is an adequate deflection of what has been blatant genocide and crimes against Humanity.
I'm not going to indulge your Zionist propaganda about flourishing cities.
It's not whataboutism trying to misdirect to an unrelated issue, it's a broadening of the examination of the same conflict and behaviour by the same involved parties.
I would actually agree with you that some incidents perpetrated by the Israeli military and government probably do rise to the level of war crimes. That's quite true. However I don't think it's misdirection to point out that in the same conflict the frequently stated objective, and in some cases official policy of many parties on the other side of the conflict is the planned execution of war crimes and genocide.
In China you are a member of an ethnic minority if one of your grandparents was of that ethnicity, who themselves might only have had one grandparent of that ethnicity. There are also incentives for people to register as members of minority groups such as scholarships*, yet also stark differences in the treatment of members of minorities who are or are not integrated into Chinese culture and the communist party in particular.
It's a deliberate program of ethnic and cultural dilution and assimilation. As a result the CCP, police, etc in these regions are packed with "members of ethnic minorities" who are culturally entirely Han/Commnist and may have had an ethnic ancestor, or at least have a certificate that says so. This process is much more advanced in regions like Inner Mongolia, but they're grinding away at the native culture in Xinjiang and Tibet.
* Funnily enough the criteria for scholarships open to minority groups emphasise academic performance in secular subjects, in the Chinese language and often with a political dimension heavily favouring students with strong Han cultural backgrounds.*
> In China you are a member of an ethnic minority if one of your grandparents was of that ethnicity, who themselves might only have had one grandparent of that ethnicity.
I mean, America has the one drop rule too, and you’re highly suggested to pick your most minority group any time you apply to a job, school, or basically anything. So you have people who are 1/128th Cherokee trying to game diversity benefits while people who actively culturally identify with their tribe are on reservations and basically forgotten by the world.
The situation for indigenous people in the USA is awful, sure, but it's not even remotely equivalent. The tribes determine who is or isn't a tribal member. In China the state determines such things and are actively packing the minorities with Han.
In fact it's mainly simply a matter of identification, it's extremely rare for anyone's ethnicity to be investigated or challenged officially. Where it does matter is in public life, particularly politics and when people purport to represent a group or ethnicity. In the US this undergoes considerable public scrutiny and if a minority group thinks someone is trying to usurp their identity or represent them inappropriately they tend to be very vocal about it and exert considerable pressure to ensure that representation is genuine.
Not so much in China.
Clearly representation and biases based on ethnicity in the US and west in general is a significant issue. There are many injustices. Nevertheless I think it's a bit distasteful to create false equivalences which trivialises or normalise the systematic oppression and cultural erasure that's currently succeeding at wiping out Uighur identity.
Is this surprising? Polities care about things happening in their backyard, and societies' goals tend to be much more pragmatic than what it says on the tin. The Palestinian situation is happening in their backyard, with people whose history is intertwined with theirs, and a refugee situation that affects them directly. There's not a country in the world that doesn't ultimately prioritize geopolitical concerns and a heaping dose of "people who look like me" prioritization.
For example, it's not "surprising hypocrisy" that Israel has a problem with racism towards some Jewish ethnic groups (Mizrahi, Ethiopian), despite Israel's supposedly deeply-held identity as a homeland where all Jews are welcome.
Note that this isn't a criticism of Israel! Just an acknowledgement that everywhere, people are people, and most people happen to be monsters. The fact that Arab countries care more about Arabs than a Muslim group halfway across the world seems almost tautological to me.
I think that's adequately explained by the fact that, unlike China, Israel is considered an ally in the west. That means we are in some way more responsible for the actions of Israel than the actions of China, as continued support implies agreement with those actions, to some extent.
Yes - the US and many other western nations have propped up Israel, in many ways enabling the continued aggression towards Palestine, though much of the west has an economic incentive to continue turning a blind eye towards the ongoing persecution of the Uyghur population. We are not blameless in their struggle.
Here's your problem; trying to talk about "the situation of Muslims in China" is incoherent. Islam has been an accepted (though small) part of Chinese culture for many centuries, and it still is. The Uyghurs are highly atypical Muslims in China who don't speak Chinese and don't participate in Chinese culture, instead preferring their own rival culture. That (and rebelliousness) is why they're oppressed.
Uyghurs have problems in China. Muslims don't, except to the extent that negative views of the Uyghurs start bleeding over into negative views of Muslims generally (which is indeed happening).
I've been confused for years about why the Western press seems so determined to demonstrate that it has no idea what it's talking about by representing oppression of Uyghurs as "oppressing people because of their religion". The case just can't be made. It would be trivial to call it "oppressing people because of their race"; that case is easy to make. But I guess the Western audience wouldn't see race-based oppression as being all that villainous?
What does "participate in Chinese culture" mean, and why shouldn't the culture of China's Xinjiang province count as "Chinese culture", assuming we accept the official description of China as a 多民族國家 multi-ethnic country?
I do get what you mean about language, insofar as most people of the Hui ethnic group do tend to speak the dominant Sinitic language of the region in which they live and not an entirely different language family like most Uyghur people. But that's more of a geographic inevitability than some kind of fundamental cultural difference - people from Inner Mongolia don't speak a Sinitic language either, does that make them equally as un-Chinese as people from Xinjiang? And if that matters so much, why does the Chinese government insist on holding on to these provinces whose culture is apparently unacceptably divergent from what they deem to be Chinese?
In any case, even Hui face some degree of discrimination in China, documented most recently in national anti-halal actions that expanded well beyond Xinjiang[0]. Like most minority ethnicities in the country, their culture is often joked about or dismissed in ways that "mainstream" Han culture is not. While this may not be blatant bigotry, the discrimination is something that would not be considered appropriate in countries whose people are more welcoming of ethnic diversity.
> But that's more of a geographic inevitability than some kind of fundamental cultural difference
No, speaking a different language is the most fundamental cultural difference there is.
> And if that matters so much, why does the Chinese government insist on holding on to these provinces whose culture is apparently unacceptably divergent from what they deem to be Chinese?
I asked this question of a Chinese high school student once. His response was that the Chinese didn't want to be conquered by the people of those regions. (Which notably happened in the 13th and 17th centuries.)
Wikipedia says that when the Qing dynasty fell, the idea was brought up that Xinjiang and similar regions should be divested from China as not being Chinese; they see the retention of non-Chinese territory as more a matter of no one being willing to take the responsibility/blame for the country getting smaller.
> assuming we accept the official description of China as a 多民族國家 multi-ethnic country?
Responding separately to this bit of inanity, if we're going to take Chinese official descriptions at face value, the Uyghurs aren't being oppressed in any way. They're in charge of their own 自治区.
US media has a long history of conflating race, religion, and socioeconomic class, in part due to the tangled nature of the 'States own biases and prejudice.
I think this is nearly entirely wrong. It's entirely about power and god.
Xi Jinping has cracked down on Christianity shutting down many churches. China has other ethnicities besides the Han, which don't speak Mandarin. If the Uyghurs had no faith they would be safe.
There is little room for religion unless the religion is centralized and submissive to the state. In some sense religion undermines the state.
In the 21st century, especially under the CCP, they're just competing forces more than direct adversaries, they both strive to do the same thing. And for most of History, the Church was the State.
It's parallels are quite visible, and now most wars are fought not for the deliberate imposition of deities, but rather for the new pantheon of self-declared god's: political leaders.
>And for most of History, the Church was the State.
Would you agree that the "Party" in CCP is something entirely different from what this term means in the west, and that it's closer in its meaning to a secularised version of a centralised church?
People wash away the misdeeds of the CCP during COVID because it suits their agenda, all the while their were was dissent fomenting during lockdowns. Han Chinese have been starved in Shanghai, those make shift hospitals were a joke and they under reported the deaths etc...
No, I'm very open about my disdain about the CCP, it's a cancer on the World and it should be seen for what it is.
Thank you; we might disagree on moral judgement of CCP (I'm not sure if I even have any consistent opinion), but the reason I've asked is that knowing about that semantical difference - bordering on mistranslation - makes it much easier to make sense of the situation, and I found it non-obvious.
> And for most of History, the Church was the State.
This is wildly false. The Church of England is about as close as things get. What historical periods are you thinking of in which the Church and the State were identified?
The Spanish crown during it's imperial rule, Isabella was called the Catholic FFS. Greece and Rome were all driven by their deities will as well. The Holy Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire...
In short most of the impactful societies, specifically in the West have had hardcore religious zealotry.
> The Spanish crown during it's imperial rule, Isabella was called the Catholic FFS.
It would be difficult for Isabella to be called the Catholic without being religiously subordinate to the Pope.
> Greece and Rome were all driven by their deities will as well.
This is a bizarre claim. Pagan Greece and Rome didn't have organized religion at all, not in any sense we would understand. And both were riddled with mystery cults. The Church was unified with the classical Greek State only in the same sense that it was unified with the olive oil industry, or that the modern American Church is unified with the modern American State.
You win a war to get a stable Chechen political regime that sort-of works and turn a warzone into a reasonably peaceful region.
That seems to be a very high bar if we compare it with USA/NATO/EU/Chinese endeavours in any of Muslim regions.
The grandparent made it sound like the devastation were ongoing, which it's not. Stopping the violence is a good thing. If you don't acknowledge it, you can't even tell failure from success and all of your (Xinjiang and otherwise) efforts would be misguided.
Russia started war in Chechnya (first indirectly by arming opposition, then by literally starting war). Spinning it to say that they tried to win the war to turn Chechnya to peaceful region is very disingenuous.
It is a region of Russia and it is practically landlocked from all sides by other Russia, and also it seems to have started the war by attacking Dagestan (also in Russia).
So even comparing it to Xinjiang, which China could plausible give away, Russia could not get rid of Chechnya even of it wanted.
What other outcome would you expect? But, that has ended 15 years ago, by now.
It is not region of Russia. Russia did not had to get rid of it, Chechnya was its own state. Russia had no business invading it first time in the first place. And it has no business to excuse own crimes in second round by the Chechnya being country previously invaded by Russia.
Russia should stop destroying everything around it.
It is absolutely a region of Russia, much like Idaho which is a region of the US.
Try to secede Idaho and see what happens.
Meanwhile, Abkhazia is absolutely a country, with a history of statehood and real state border, which you fail to recognize. Would you make Georgia stop ruining everything around it? When it recognizes Abkhazia, we can talk.
"treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia" is pure BS FUD accusations. Chechens are mostly treating themselves in the last 15 years. And it turns out relatively benign, compared to stuff like ISIS, Afghanistan, Xinjiang, Lybia, Israel, Yemen.
And that's the context of early XXI century, there's really no other one. You're not the World Police to judge others, likely you are a much worse perpetrator yourself.
You said Russia fought for a "stable Chechen political regime that sort-of works". Jataman606 says it's disingenuous to suggest that - and you just let it go.
And he's right. Grozny was demolished, no civil society left, horrendous human rights violations, no justice for survivors, just appeals to the corrupt, absolute power of Kadyrov. To say that sort-of-works is disingenuous and lets Russia off the hook for its part in backing him.
You don't have to be the world police to condemn atrocities. Just like you don't have to defend Russia in order to criticise other powers.
Russia has got a stable Chechen political regime that sort-of works. Jataman606 did not really refute it, instead pivoting into biased history diving.
"No civil society left, horrendous human rights violations" is what there were before the Second Chechen war - there was an alpha version of ISIS there, with slave markets and kidnappings for ransom. Was it worth it fighting ISIS? Absolutely. Was it worth it fighting Ichkeria? Absolutely-ish.
I don't really like Kadyrov, but we are talking about a Muslim region and not yours and mine personal preferences. You seem to assume that any Muslim region would want, and implement, a liberal democratic power structure. Well, tough luck finding that between Iraq and Afghanistan. Or in Russia for that matter.
I just don't feel that it's an atrocity. The fate of Afghanistan is an atrocity. Chechnya, not so much, it's just people living up to their own political preferences and capabilities.
And Russia levelled it. They could have chosen to develop it, establish courts and other institutions, try war criminals. But their intentions were laid bare when they backed a dictator with many of the same human rights problems. That's why Jataman606 called your argument disingenuous, he's right and you haven't refuted that.
"Chechnya is just people living up to their own political preferences and capabilities."
First, Russia is in charge, but somehow it's on Chechens and Muslims for failing to turn their country around and implement liberal reforms. How does that work? Why are you so keen to fight off criticism of Russia and its obvious, self-evident record of political wasteland wherever it treads? And don't whatabout America/China/X this time.
Second, your arguments drip with the bigotry of low expectations - seeing Chechens and Muslims as people essentially capable of only primitive political organisation. You just ignore every tortured journalist, every silenced student or professor so you can reduce the lack of political development to something essential to the people themselves. Every large group contains people wanting peace, freedom, justice etc.
And I don't make any assumptions about what 'all Muslims' or 'all Chechens' want, my argument doesn't need to. I can ask 100 of them and accept as many answers, but your argument can't do that. And you confuse what they want with what they have while glossing over the many things that can go wrong when trying to turn the first into the second. But sure, let's blame their genes/culture/whatever, just not Mother Russia.
Just in case you're confused about all the down votes.
I think that's a "no true scotsman" fallacy. You blame Russia for not doing things that also have not been done anywhere in the world in the same time frame. And then you blame Russia for doing things that have also been done elsewhere on a grand scale.
Where are all of those Muslim countries which were turned around by courts and institutions ex machina? Even Dubai struggles with essentially the same problems as modern Chechnya.
I'm not wondering about the down votes from the people who can't take blame for ISIS and Afghanistan along other things. It's a bad but unsurprising thing that you are not smarter than that.
Liberal reforms have been implemented by central governments al over the world. England -> Hong Kong, EU -> Poland, US -> Mississippi. That's just more whataboutism. Where other countries fail to do that, I'll fault them just as strongly too.
Not that it's relevant, since the Russian government isn't Muslim but Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran have all had governments that at some point implemented liberal reforms using state institutions. And they obviously imposed that on their provinces, just as Russia could - since Russia is ultimately in charge of Chechnya, not its 'Muslim' vassalage. How long those reforms held up is irrelevant to the effort put in, which Russia doesn't even attempt because its government hates liberalism.
You've never spoken to anyone more critical or Daesh or of the instability the sudden US pullout will create in Afghanistan. And you've ignored my central argument. Dubai/Chechnya? It's pretty clear why you're deflecting.
Just be upfront that your stance is pro-Putin and your bigotry anti-Muslim and save everyone the time.
Lebanon - a country torn apart by religious conflicts which could not even solve the physical security problem, as well as recognize the existence of its most important neighbour. Had plenty of run time mostly wasted. Worse than Chechnya.
Tunisia. Had a mild democratization which did not backfire to this point. Looks OK. Probably better outcome than Chechnya.
Egypt. Had a pointless coup which removed existing corrupt autocratic government and installed a new corrupt autocratic government, with a spark of terrorism in between. Large country which is punching under its weight. Worse outcome than Chechnya.
Iraq. I'm not really sure what to say. Let's pretend you didn't suggest it.
Iran. Had a lot of time to normalize relations with the West and failed to do so. In some respects a worse theocracy than Chechnya. Unlike Chechnya, which enjoys freedom of movement within Russia, you have nowhere to hide from the deeply islamist regime of Iran short of emigration. The largest outcast state (at least before Feb 24, 2022). Worse than Chechnya.
So let's see, it looks that from your list, Chechnya gets silver medal. I think that's quite good. You think that's not enough. Do you agree on the analysis?
"Russia is ultimately in charge of Chechnya" sounds like you expect imperialism to not have any alternatives. So you are saying that Russia can override whatever pre-existing culture there is and "install" liberal democracy? Did it work for you in Iraq?
I'm not even sure what's your central argument.
Speaking of which, let's return to the original form: "treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia".
I think that being the virtual #2 of our successful Muslim states list an OK-ish "treatment". But it works a different way for you:
> pro-Putin
We don't like Putin -> We don't like Russia -> Let's say something mean about it.
This is something I would expect from YouTube comments section, but on HN it's pure disappointment.
You're pretty selective about the time periods you base your arguments on, ignoring anything before the 80s but you're certain there can't be another Chechen war 15 years after the last one - because it will always be bastion of stability now and tinderboxes aren't a thing. All of those countries listed have had liberal periods (Iraq - check your history) but you fail to explain how the complex causes for subsequent breakdowns can be simply distilled down to 'because Islam'.
As if Mubarak or Gaddafi or Saddam were religious figures. Millions of Muslims stood ready to build on liberal reforms and died for it. You don't get to just ignore them because you can't deal with nuance.
I could use the same logic to ask you to name one province under Russian rule that hasn't turned into a corrupt political dumpster fire. If Chechnya/Dagestan/Cherkess/Tatarstan etc. were the only such wastelands your case against Islam might be less empty - but it's the same for every oblast in the entire country.
Russia is illiberal - because Putin hates liberalism - and that is why it will impose illiberal systems on its territories. That is enough of a reason to criticise it (because murdering critics and journalists for example is bad). Don't pretend it's hamstrung by the brutality of its uncivilised Muslims, that's just you projecting your bigotry.
We don't like Putin -> We don't like his impact on Russia -> And you're damned right we're going to say something about it.
If having liberal periods does not lead to better outcome for a country, this is a very bad news for liberalism.
The prevailing narrative is such: A country is a poor and corrupt, then it becomes a liberal democracy and becomes a permanently stable, prosperous country. But that's not what happens to Muslim countries. After a "liberal period" they tend to resume being theocratic, autocratic or defunct, and barely solvent, states. Why have those periods at all then? What did those millions of Muslims die for?
I don't think you are qualified to be in this discussion if you consider whole Russia a "dumpster fire", even more if you think Russia "turned into" a dumpster fire (compared to what period?). This shows a significant level of "liberal" bigotry and chauvinism. I visit Tatarstan's (one of the most economically developed regions) capital Kazan' every year and I don't consider it a "dumpster fire". Neither are its residents unless they happen to be acolytes in your "liberal democratic" cult.
Because it introduces an alternative to people who remember nothing but injustice, violence and corruption. We're not at the end of history, and don't know how such efforts will play out next year, or next decade. I notice you ignored my point about how Chechnya could also have another war in the coming decade too, as if Russia leaves anything resembling stability wherever it goes.
No one says liberal democracies necessarily become permanently stable. You know nothing about political development if you believe this. In many ways it's considered the opposite in its early stages, fragile, needing constant work and refinements to build on incremental improvements. In these stages any ham-fisted strongman or warlord has a good chance to destroy the gains that have been made before informal institutions gain real authority. And when there is momentum behind old tribal, religious and feudal systems, this is a long, slow, vulnerable process.
And during that time you'll observe gains and losses over literally decades. Which is why you'll see liberal reforms make small gains, then fail for a while before they can resume. But they build slowly and that's what people die for. This has been the case for every developed country in existence. You're happy to give Europe 300 years of ugly fighting to get to this stage but if Muslim countries can't succeed within 50 you'll call the end of the game now to reinforce your biased conclusions. But sure, keep using your myopia and lack of education to keep hating on the Muslims.
The issue with Putin is he doesn't even try, because, like every autocratic asshole, he can make more power for himself and his friends this way than through real development. And he can count on weak-minded bigots with poor political and historical context to unquestioningly back his cynical aims.
But forgetting about terminology, and without whatabouting your way out of it, explain how you can excuse a leader who who effectively makes himself president for life, poisons his opponents, secretly enriches himself, murders critical journalists, backs corrupt friends and jails protesters after show trials. Isn't the fact that he doesn't do just ONE fewer of these things enough to criticise him?
Your argument by anecdote assumes political oppression and development should both be equally visible, ignoring clear statistical evidence on police use of torture, corruption and violence against journalists and activists. Lucky the Tatars immediately around you like what Russia has done to their land - because they have no choice or voice if they don't. Just see what happens to people who say otherwise, like Asan Akhtemov, Nariman Ametov and see what anti-insurgent animals did to Reshat Ametov. Maybe for your next holiday you can travel further south and ask some Tatars in Crimea how they are feeling about the totally not-corrupt, shining beacon of political enlightenment that is Russia right now. Since they're so free to give honest answers, just imagine how qualified to discuss you'll be then.
Your baseless, paper-thin arguments blow over each time and all you can do is repeat them, ignore the criticism and latch onto tangential issues. It's getting kinda boring.
> introduces an alternative to people who remember nothing but injustice, violence and corruption
So you're saying that liberal democracy is a cult, that makes its followers feel good. Okay.
The rest of your message pivots into discussion of Putin's personality, of whom I am not a fan and which is also irrelevant to answer whether Tatarstan is a "dumpster fire" or not.
So it's a cult where every member has a right to publicly express their opinion of its dear leader, and also the right to select a new leader every few years if they choose... But sure, of all the known political systems, it's Liberal Democracy that stand out as cult-like!? Not the one under the 20 year autocrat?
You're coming off as grasping for any straw you can now.
Putin is the subject of only 2 out of 7 paragraphs above, you confuse personality traits with political methods, when such methods are directly relevant to the state of political freedom in Tatarstan, your anecdotally chosen example which doesn't invalidate anything since it's just one province in a repressed country... Just weak.
There's quite a few sacred cows in Liberal Democracy. May I not remind you some of those because you can get banned just by mentioning them with not enough piety.
The state of political freedom in Tatarstan is pretty bad. It's "just" bad in Russia and somewhat worse in Tatarstan. Nobody is denying that.
But at the same time it is absolutely not a "dumpster fire". It is a thriving, economically developed region with somewhat high quality of life.
You seem see Russia as an concentration camp where people drag out their grey lives waiting for some miracle to happen and save them. That's not how they see it. People are just living their lives, seizing their day and trying to be happy, have some capital, etc, etc. They often have enough means for it even if the political regime leaves a lot to be desired. They would likely not want to bet all that stuff to get a breath of "Muslim democracy" such as the one Arab spring brought. They would like the real democracy if they're confident their medium-term quality of life will not suffer.
In my experience the constant outrage over Palestine is driven more by hatred of Israel than concern about Palestinians. Antisemitism is universal in the Muslim world,[1] not so with anti-Sino sentiment. Note that the wealthy Arab states surrounding Palestine aren’t leaping to admit refugees from Palestine.
[1] I think my home country of Bangladesh is thousands of miles away from any significant population of Jews. Yet the casual antisemitism is off the charts.
EDIT: Got some anonymous hate mail from a BDS saying “the tide is turning” and threatening me for my support of the “apartheid state Israel.” Sorry for exposing the things folks say “just between us.”
Well the wealthy Arab states aren't the ones surrounding Palestine - the poor countries that do surround Palestine have taken in an enormous number of refugees - there are 2 million Palestinians in Jordan, nearly as many as there are in Palestine, the vast majority of which descend from those that fled Palestine between '47 and '67. Of the states actually bordering Israel and Palestine, Egypt is really the only one that hasn't pulled its weight.
The sabre rattling by the gulf states is 100% motivated by distracting their people with rage rather than by actual concern for Palestinians - but don't let that distract you from the fact that the states on Palestine's doorstep have genuinely dealt with their share of the human tragedy caused by the conflict. Close to a quarter of Jordan's citizens are now Palestinians, and the intake of refugees in Lebanon even triggered a 15 year civil war when the delicate Christian-Muslim political balance in the country was disrupted.
Before 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. They administrated those territories in a far worse manner than the Israelis currently do.
" They administrated those territories in a far worse manner than the Israelis currently do."
Currently Gaza is under partial blockade by Israelis, with extreme consequences on the population and the economy. And colonization continues on west bank, with many many check points... While heavy critics can certainly be made against administration of those territories by Egypt and Jordan, arguments would be welcome to support your view.
Your comment could be read like: Muslim people "support" Palestinians because they are antisemitic... I mostly disagree.
1) While antisemitism was prevalent all over (including in Muslim countries) the world before Israel existed, we've seen a shift in the Arabic world, and more generally in the Muslim population, after the creation of Israel, and the series of conflicts ensuing. e.g. Before the creation of Israel Jewish and Muslim lived in relative peace together in Morocco. So a case could be made that antisemitism is ALSO driven by how Israel was created and behaved (and let be clear, I condemn antisemitism).
2) Jerusalem is an holly city of Islam (and of Christian), so of course, any big thing happening there against Muslim bear much more weight ! This point is not necessity linked to antisemitism.
3) Israel became also the symbol of "Western imperialism" and of the humiliation of third word, and particularly of Muslims. That is a "Western country" that is seen as having stole the land of people and evicted 700.000 people. That is a country that continues colonization, evictions and repression... while being very actively supported for decades by US. This symbolic weight also explain why such attention.
4) And that is an old story, with many episodes. Just like a good TV show (with all the element above), when you've been exposed to many episodes, you are more keen to see the new episodes...
-
DoughnutHole answered you about the refugees. Some countries also support(ed) financially Palestine and Palestinians (in Palestine or refugees).
The only wealthy state neighbouring the Palestinian territories is Israel (which is in some ways more of a suzerain than a neighbour).
Anti-semitism went through the roof when Zionists started taking large tracts of land for a new state that wasn't recognised by its neighbours. Pan-Arabists and muslim groups, knew their land could be next if the precedent went unchallenged and stirred up bigotry in response. The hatred was initially more of the idea of Israel than of Jews.
And they were prepared to throw Palestinians under a bus too, banishing them to a multi-generational life of homelessness and refugee status rather than allow full citizenship, so as to keep pressure on Israel and prevent normalisation of the situation. Of course they don't care about Palestinians either.
Now, in the Gulf states it's about business. Outside the Gulf States it's about domestic politics. But beneath the bigotry, the principled opposition to land annexation by foreign powers still remains.
