Comment by biorach
1 year ago
The issue is that after the Winter war there was still a Finland, after WWII there was still a Poland, and a Germany and a Turkey and a Greece and an Armenia.
There is now no real Palestine state and no realistic prospect of one. Somewhere between 5 and 8 million Palestinians are now condemned to be extremely unwilling subjects of an endless military occupation by a hostile state and reduced to second class status in their own homeland.
_That_ is the crucial difference.
>There is now no real Palestine state and no realistic prospect of one.
There was never a real Palestinian state. Locally there were Egypt and Jordan, two states that still exist in the same way that Finland does.
I don't think that's a crucial enough difference to be in favour of destroying an entire country and deporting or killing the people in it. You can totally be in favour of freedom for Palestine, for a one or two state solution, in all kinds of configurations, without supporting the "kill or deport the Jews" argument.
It's really not very nuanced at all - if you want to kill or deport all the Jews, even when formulated in fluffy terms like "give those poor Palestinians their homeland back", you're not really trying to make the world a better place are you? You'd be just like those far right Israelis who seem to want to kill or deport all the Palestinians. It's the exact same vibe, just aimed in the other direction. They're both the baddies. Don't be like them.
> to be in favour of destroying an entire country and deporting or killing the people in it.
woah! dial it back there. I advocated no such thing
please take a few deep breaths and read slowly over the thread making note of who said what. then please reconsider slinging accusations like that around.
I'm in favour of a two state solution.
My main point is that the long term actions of the Israeli state, especially in the West Bank, have made the viability of a Palestinian state (i.e. one in coexistence with Israel) completely impossible.
This thread is about this sentence from another commenter:
> When you occupy someone's land, there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily
This is advocating for destroying an entire country and deporting or killing the people in it. This is the context in which I read your comment, because you came to their defense. I read your comment as explaining why you thought their comment was a perfectly OK one.
I'm happy to read you don't actually agree on this with them, and I think we pretty much agree.
6 replies →