If I don’t clickbait the title people don’t click.
With the recent events happening in Gaza, I decided to first tackle this line of argument in my essay Zionism is antisemitism, and Palestine.
People were quick to say “yes Israel is bad, but Hamas…” (kidnapped 200 people, killed 1000, take your pick).
When you’re saying this, you’re actually saying that one israeli is worth 7 Palestinians. Read that again if you need to; it’s an ethnosupremacist position.
What is the logical conclusion of this argument? What is it supposed to achieve except convey empty platitudes and declaring to the world that you just don’t care enough to have any valuable input?
It’s fine not to care. I’m not your dad, I’m not going to try and change you.
But don’t declare it publicly. Don’t proudly say “well actually both sides are bad”. You don’t look smarter or wiser than anyone else who is taking a clear stance. You’re not taking the “middle ground”. Everyone who has taken sides and is trying to be productive about this (and not just the Gaza genocide, but really any situation where you can apply “both sides”) really doesn’t have time for this holier-than-thou bullshit.
Gaza “kidnapped” 200 settlers and that’s a war crime apparently. It’s not really, but whatever. Let’s say it is. Israel has killed 7000+ Palestinians in retaliation, now likely more than 10k as they cut off communications in Gaza last night.
Both sidesers: what’s your solution to this. If you say anything other than “I should not get involved” then you don’t actually believe both sides are bad and you are picking a side. It’s time you realize where you stand.
As I understand it the Zionist movement and initial wave of Jews started around 1880, however back then it was more like normal legitimate immigration. (Edit: Actually, it seems Jewish migration can be traced back as far as ~1500). Then, after WW1 the Ottoman empire was disbanded, Britain established a path for Jewish people to more easily gain citizenship and also divided the country up in 1917. 1933 and 1947 were further steps in that direction. The war in 1948 led to what we have now.
I agree with a one state solution. However, I feel like the only way to make that happen is to literally remove almost everyone from the region and have an external government established that represents all sides neutrally. This would essentially require disbanding the Israeli government, which is all but impossible - there is no existing pathway to do it under international law. Basically, the region should be managed like Jerusalem is supposed to be managed, by a neutral entity that represents each religion and group of people that has a stake in the area.
Well, there’s always the wartime way. It’s pretty well established a government can be toppled by violence. The U.S. are experts in doing this.
In practice, Palestine succeeding in a military takeover of Israel is the most realistic good outcome.
Removed by mod
Sources?
I’ve provided mine elsewhere in this thread — Hamas has explicitly stated their target is not civilians, but the Zionist state.
Israel also state they’re not targeting civilians. Your sources before were official statements, just like Israel’s, as well as a survivor eye witness account that said the people they met were nice and reasonable. There are other witness accounts that weren’t so friendly.
Frankly, I’m reluctant to go digging for sources, because then it becomes a game of you discrediting whatever I present and me trying to find something else, without having a productive discussion. Forums are for discussions, links and citations are ancillary. Let’s discuss.
Hamas have not exclusively targeted military targets. Neither have Israel, but I’m trying to point out that flipping the coin doesn’t really make things any better. You, yourself, said that you “don’t think that a one-state solution should involve expelling all the Jews”, but that implies that there are people who do, and many of those people will kill any Israeli that doesn’t leave before they meet them. Many Israelis would do the same.
Both are generally in the wrong. It is perhaps less likely for a Palestinian to be in the wrong, because they’re the underdog defending, but just because you’re defending doesn’t mean nothing you do is wrong.
The wider issue is that no one is enforcing what is right and wrong. Israel is allowed to get away with atrocities, and Hamas is encouraged to comit atrocities of their own. None of this serves the general population living in the region, it only serves warmongers who don’t have to deal with the fallout.
Edit: lol, first you make your comment, then a little later my comment gets downvoted, then a little later your comment gets upvoted. It’s pretty clear that the two votes weren’t the same 3rd party account, even if it might be intended to be presented as such.
Edit2: Do you really think more votes on a comment thread completely buried in a sea of other comments, where the latest comment can only be found after digging through the rest, yet with no other comments or interactions in the thread, would be seen as legitimate? Come on.
Lmao you get one downvote and you’re pissed off enough you make two edits to cry foul? 😂
I’m just commentating - but thank you for identifying yourself.
Do you want to have a discussion? I’m game.
How about the other way around? ie, Israel reaching their end goal of pushing out all resisting Palestinians?
I said “good outcome”
The main historic takeaway for me is that through the fall of the Ottoman empire and the period under the British mandate, everyone knew a vacuum would be created in '48, with substantial Arab and Jewish populations ready to seize it.
The UN tried the ‘clean’ solution of two states.
But both the nationalist Arabs as zionist Jews were ready to grab the entire territory for themselves, bullying the other side out or killing them if that was necessary.
If the zionists had lost that initial war, or any of the subsequent ones, we’d have seen the same but with the surpressor and oppressed reversed…
Zionists have no legitimate claim on Palestine. That was the reason for the wars. They were an occupier from day 1.
Zionists are funny, they have to twist reality every which way to get a flimsy, just barely coherent argument out.
“What would have happened to Zionists in Palestine if Israel had lost the war??” idk those who lived there before 1945 would have stayed and those that emigrated would have gone back home? Doesn’t seem as complicated as you make it seem.
The difference between those two factions vying for land is the the Arabs already lived there, while the Zionists were trying to conquer it after leaving Europe.