Comment by EvgeniyZh
2 years ago
> and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone
Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
> if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!
But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better. For the same reasons, the right of return for every descendant won't work. We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations? Do you think any side is ready to give up West Jerusalem or their right of return stance?
> let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank.
I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza (even before 7/10), and more importantly, there are ways to improve it.
> how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?
I don't justify the settlement expansion; I think it is a wrong practice. Do you think removing settlements (plus, say, some territory exchange where removal is too complicated) would solve all West Bank problems?
In order to be able to live together we need to learn our history, and of course being Palestinian myself i am biased, but I think the Israelis in particular need to learn their history, have you watched the documentary Tantura btw? you can find it here https://archive.org/details/tantura_2022.
Israel needs to first admit that it's establishment was on the expense of another people that are still suffering until today, without that, it's difficult to move forward, as well as continuing this conversation.
> Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
Maybe, I don't know what else can it be! the slogan is not calling for killing anyone, FREEDOM = Dignity, Human Rights, I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.
> But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone....
Why not?
>The right of return for every descendant won't work
Why not?
> In order to be able to live together we need to learn our history
Strong disagree. History is important, but we need to solve present problems. It is possible to live a good life without returning to grandpa's home from 80 years ago. And while Israel did shitty things in 1948, I don't think Jordan or other Arab countries did better. It's impossible to say, but if the proposed borders were accepted, I'm pretty sure there would be much less suffering from both sides.
> I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.
But other Palestinians want more. You could get your beach in Camp David, any peace attempts included as much, and the disagreement never was around freedom of movement of Palestinians.
> Why not?
Because that would mean to displace people currently living there. Two wrongs do not make a right. And Jews were minorities in many different countries, and it turned out not that good many times. Specifically, Jews had to flee multiple Arabic countries not that long ago. How can we be sure it won't happen again?
> > In order to be able to live together we need to learn our history
> Strong disagree. History is important, but we need to solve present problems.
I'll go a step further. All history surrounding this must be forgotten, to move forward. There are grievances and counter-grievances, ancestral claims and counter-claims, and conflicting divine proclamations. Those have to all be thrown away, and instead consider only the current situation.
There was a war, you lost. There is no right to return for you anymore than I have a right to return to nowadays Polish Silesia. We had a term for these people in Germany - the "forever refugees", there aren't many left because even then people rightly realized to break the chain of violence is to build your life in the circumstances you found yourself in.
(And guess what, now I can go to Polish Silesia anytime I want! Not that I ever would, because my connection to that place is as tenuous as yours to Israeli land)
> But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better.
South Africa managed to pull it, and end apartheid. Why wouldn't it work for Israel?
I wouldn't cite south africa as an example of a successful nation, or of a successful integration.
Israel should end the apartheid in the west bank, but israel proper (67' borders) is a liberal democracy, there's no reason to give that up.
> Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
Reminds me of "Defund the police." Led to people having to constantly explain that they didn't actually mean that police should have zero funds and be abolished. But, except, a lot of people on Twitter countered that they did mean exactly that, and that all cops are bad and they're all racist. :facepalm:
Any slogan will be denounced by people who hold opposing views. See how "Black Lives Matter" was perverted into "All Lives Matter" by detractors. It's not possible to satisfy people acting in bad faith, nor should one try to do so.
"Defund the police" was a particularly bad slogan, since it's ambiguous as written. I think actually the original intent was "Eliminate all police," and it was softened down by others.
But yes, I agree that detractors will co-opt language. It's an effective tactic.
>Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
They're not responsible for what supporters of Israel infer from this phrase.
>But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone
Those who are unsatisfied with not living within a racist ethnostate would be welcome to leave and doubtless many would.
Many South Africans packed their bags and left after apartheid.
>We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations?
The two state solution failed many times because of a lack of good faith on Israel's side. They supported the creation of Hamas as an Islamist bulwark against the PA precisely to stymie a two state solution.
The only thing that would get them to negotiate in good faith is losing American support. That is key.
>I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza
They are oppressed and murdered at a far lower tempo. If youve ever seen the way Israelis in, say, Hebron treat Palestinians (i.e. like subhuman scum) you wouldnt ever say that they had it good.
A so-called "2 state solution" is an oxymoron. A state, by definition, has a sovereign monopoly on violence. Your 2 states already exist and they are inevitably at war.
It's the "solution" part that is important, i.e., agreeing on the border that satisfies both, solving other claims towards each other, removing the presence of each state from the other state's territory, etc.
Mere "peace" is absolutely not the meaning of the phrase. If it were, the phrase would be unnecessary.
The phrase was dreamt up by Western Israeli allies to promote an oppressive pipe-dream border arrangement that was not even remotely acceptable by any reasonable standards. Only propagandized westerners even speak of it.
This is done so the Western media can frame Palestinians as uncooperative.
3 replies →