|
kiminewt posted:A one state solution is also, regrettably, awful, but it's the only one that's semi practical. I don't know how you'd pull it off without a massive amount of violence, but you already have a massive amount of violence and at least in this solution the Palestinians might be free. Why's it awful? A multi-ethnic state where Palestinians, Jews and other ethnicities have equal rights would be the ideal solution. South Africa integrated the white dominated apartheid state and it's controlled Bantustans into a single state. No reason the same can't happen there. Though it won't happen until Zionist supremacy faces a major defeat as the White supremacists in South Africa did against Angola. Marenghi fucked around with this message at 19:27 on May 15, 2024 |
#
?
May 15, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
Jai Guru Dave posted:Ah. A time traveler from October 6. If you cut off my post, yeah. The rest of it says "...that were normal in antisemitic Europe and, to a much lesser extent, Muslim states." That's a certain kind of violence, enabled by the state choosing to either permit or actually contribute to mob violence, that modern Israelis don't experience. October 7 was an attack by a guerilla resistance against the state, the political dynamic and even the form of violence is not comparable to anything in Jewish history between the collapse of Judea and the construction of Israel. To pick an arbitrary example, Jews in 1941 Romania couldn't and didn't wait for the army to come save them, it was the army that was leading the crusade against them. The goal of Zionism was to create a state where the army could not possibly be anti-Jewish, not a state that doesn't do war or a state where nobody is ever murdered or a state totally immune to attacks on its civilians, because such states are not real. You are clearly not an apologist for Israel so it's bizarre I have to explain to you that October 7 was not an antisemitic pogrom. You might as well point to 1,200 Israelis dying in an earthquake and say Zionism has failed - it is a misunderstanding of the problem Zionism was supposed to solve. quote:America and Australia, whatever their other flaws, are unlikely to start a war against their own prisons, and fail to win within seven months - let alone lose. Israel now exists on the sufferance of American Christians. The colonizing states in America and Australia in fact had many wars with their indigenous populations, over multiple centuries, even after forcing them onto increasingly small patches of frontier. They also maintained that support from the metropole was essential to their survival. Marenghi posted:South Africa integrated the white dominated apartheid state and it's controlled Bantustans into a single state. No reason the same can't happen there. Though it won't happen until Zionist supremacy faces a major defeat as the White supremacists in South Africa did against Angola. Apartheid is a horrible crime, I really don't think thr South African apartheid state ever did anything like murdering 35,000 Black South Africans in half a year while starving the rest to the point of mass famine, while loudly trumpeting outright genocidal politics. I think there is a limit to what Truth and Reconciliation Commissions can accomplish, and while South Africa has shown that the limit is high, this war has crossed that limit. I simply cannot imagine being a person alive in Gaza today (I could stop the sentence here) and then consenting to share a democracy, including an army and a police force, with an IDF veteran in Tel Aviv. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:59 on May 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
A two state solution doesn't make sense if one of the states is still an ethnostate. You are just kicking the can down the road. The same issues will pop up in a decade or two A one state solution with full and equal rights for the Palestinians is essentially erasing the state of Israel as we know it because it's entire essence is based on apartheid. Either way Israel needs to grapple with the fact that it is based on a colonial mindset that cannot exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:A one state solution with full and equal rights for the Palestinians is essentially erasing the state of Israel as we know it because it's entire essence is based on apartheid. I disagree. Was the United States erased by the 14th amendment, or by the end of Jim Crow, or by the Civil Rights Act? If a Democratic state has an "essence" it's the political coalitions that comprise its electorate. In a one state solution, everyone who voted for Netanyahu is still a voter in the Palestinian Republic or whatever you call it. It is not realistic to expect any Gazan to accept the authority of a military and police force in a country where those voters are still a huge chunk of the electorate. So I think if Gaza is integrated into the State of Israel, even if the State of Israel has a new name and liberal constitution, it will functionally be a conquest. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
There no good options. But expelling the settlers is less horrific then the violence it would take to make Israelis accept a one state solution. October 7th clearly hardened the hearts of Israel both in terms of accepting losses and against compromise of any kind.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I disagree. Was the United States erased by the 14th amendment, or by the end of Jim Crow, or by the Civil Rights Act? Functionally the point is moot because the Israeli populace won't allow it. They are huffing the great replacement theory harder than the entirety of fox news.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
There is a group advocating for a pair of confederated states, who are at least sane/marketable enough to occasionally get inches in Haaretz, but I link them mainly as a point of curiosity rather than an idea that has any better chance of implementation than any other non-terrible one.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
This discussion about one state vs two states is all fascinating but the two state solution is simply dead. Israel spent decades throttling it. You're asking the wrong question. It isn't 'would you rather one state vs two', it's 'what one state is preferrable'. For a two state solution to be feasible, you'd at the very least need: Palestinian sovereignty over all their land, sea, water and air resources across the West Bank and Gaza The right of return of all Palestinians to Palestine (ie West Bank and Gaza) or Israel. I'm not interested in hearing about the feasibility of this because Israel's government wants to preserve Jewish ethnic domination East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital or an internationalised Jerusalem as a shared capital Palestinian sovereignty over its borders, imports, exports, telecommunications and monetary & fiscal policy Reparations for decades of destruction wreaked during the occupation including the burning of more than 800,000 olive trees (many of which were older than a century), the over-burdening of the Gaza aquifer, the exploitation of West Bank aquifers etc Shared control over the dead sea Some arrangement for access to the Red Sea should also be made Removal of all Israeli settlers (or giving Israeli settlements limited autonomy until integration into a Palestinian state is feasible) I mean... all of this and much more is what would give feasibility. Israel would never concede on any of these points. Its consistent position since Rabin has been: no real state West of the Jordan river; limited autonomy so the occupation manages and pays for itself. It's basically annexed the West Bank and has spent the last 7 months eradicating the Gaza Strip. So. It's one solution. What's the one?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 20:36
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I think there is a limit to what Truth and Reconciliation Commissions can accomplish, and while South Africa has shown that the limit is high, this war has crossed that limit. Our Palestinian in Gaza, especially given a right to return to where their family originally lived in 1967 or 1948, would have no complaint that a Catholic citizen of Northern Ireland would have after reunification in a secular 32-county republic. It’s the IDF veteran, like the Unionist, who would have to accept democracy. Zionism will not rest without Jerusalem and the West Bank, and will not have the strength to impose Israeli rule on those places permanently. Therefore it’s a failure. Lots of polities have been successful before falling to internal or external realities. Israel did well by the standards of, say, previous crusader states.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
This inevitability of Israel's failure just reads like wishful thinking. The entire course of the last 75 years has been one of Israel steadily getting stronger and the Palestinian position getting weaker. There's no evidence at all that Israel's position is actually unsustainable and plenty that the facts on the ground will continue to bend it its direction.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 20:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This inevitability of Israel's failure just reads like wishful thinking. The entire course of the last 75 years has been one of Israel steadily getting stronger and the Palestinian position getting weaker. There's no evidence at all that Israel's position is actually unsustainable and plenty that the facts on the ground will continue to bend it its direction. I don't think it's inevitable and they can keep on trucking as long as the US funds them but more IDF soldiers and Israeli cops have been killed in the past 8 months than had died in the past half century of the occupation. In a single day Hamas killed about as many soldiers and cops as had died in the First and Second Intifadas which combined were over a period of 12 years. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 21:13 on May 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
I'm at a loss to see any long-term future for Israel as a state without pulling the US into a regional war that would probably destroy Israel anyway. Even if every Palestinian in the world vanished tomorrow, it seems that the nationalist project must push them to achieve Greater Israel, which they absolutely cannot do without US troops. (Serious question, is there any developed nation with a worse-disciplined military than Israel? Setting aside human rights violations, it seems that a staggering percentage of their losses are down to friendly fire and incompetence. Like, I don't know anything about military training in Iceland, but I assume both of the guys they deployed to Iraq managed not to get themselves killed by wandering around looking for mobile service in a warzone.)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
There's a significant portion of Israel that will either leave or die fighting to prevent any kind of solution that isn't Israel having complete control over all the lands of Palestine. Until the apartheid regime is dismantled there can't be any solution at all. Once that is complete, a single Democratic Palestine would be the only way forward. If you're saying that Palestinians and Jews simply can't live in the same area at all, then I don't see how two states would work without constant warfare and eventual conquest regardless.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:There no good options. But expelling the settlers is less horrific then the violence it would take to make Israelis accept a one state solution. Disagree. Hong XiuQuan's post about this is excellent, but just to emphasize the point: Expelling the settlers fixes nothing. Israel will never permit an independent Palestine to exist. Even if you could wave a magic wand and create a sovereign Palestine, Israel would just invade it. You would need a force permanently stationed in the region to essentially keep Israel in line, and it's not at all clear that this would involve less violence than dissolving Israel, especially over the long run. A one-state solution is the only way there can be any hope of future reconciliation. A two-state solution preserves the Zionist project, and it is not possible for people in the region to live peacefully alongside an expansionist fascist ethnostate. Alchenar posted:This inevitability of Israel's failure just reads like wishful thinking. The entire course of the last 75 years has been one of Israel steadily getting stronger and the Palestinian position getting weaker. There's no evidence at all that Israel's position is actually unsustainable and plenty that the facts on the ground will continue to bend it its direction. Largely fueled by American support. US dominance appears to be waning, which may make Israel much less impregnable, both politically and militarily. I think if anything, the last 75 years show that fascist ethnostates can't maintain their racial hierarchies once external support dries up. I doubt Israel will be special in this regard.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
The compromises and negotiations required to reach a two-state solution were always going to be extremely difficult at the best of times, and it's now even harder to imagine it happening. However, proposed one-state solutions that involve 'dissolving' a nuclear-armed nation by military force are ludicrous fantasies, even if we assume the US makes a massive policy reversal and stops supporting it. If in some wild hypothetical Israel's neighbours invade and manage to defeat its conventional forces then every population centre in the region will cease to exist.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 00:55
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:The compromises and negotiations required to reach a two-state solution were always going to be extremely difficult at the best of times, and it's now even harder to imagine it happening. However, proposed one-state solutions that involve 'dissolving' a nuclear-armed nation by military force is a ludicrous fantasy, even if we assume the US makes a massive policy reversal and stops supporting it. If in some wild hypothetical Israel's neighbours invade and manage to defeat its conventional forces then every population centre in the region will cease to exist. Lmao the loving Zionist freaks will succumb to internal pogroms, purges and civil war following a couple military defeats long before they reach for the nukes.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
My personal opinion is that Israel's status in American politics has been irreparably damaged, and it's only through Biden's extreme devotion to Israel that this damage hasn't manifested in practical terms. Newer generations of politicians—who have never been indoctrinated into the concept of Israel as a beautiful secular utopia that made the desert bloom—are only going to know of Israel as an annoying ethnostate that degrades US international standing (at a critical time in which US power is degrading) in exchange for being a surveillance tech testbed. They're not going to be as willing to completely destroy their legacies & jobs to defend Israel like Biden is. US public opinion has turned, young Jewish Americans have turned, AIPAC is increasingly being seen as a partisan Republican tool, the ADL under Greenblatt has thrown away any guise of being an anti-discrimination organization, and people are moving away from traditional, captured media. Their only intact card is the massive trove of foreign money that AIPAC channels into races, and it's not out of the question that democrats turn their attention towards exposing that (perhaps under the guise of "curbing Russian and Chinese influence") if AIPAC continues to fundraise against Democrats who aren't even anti-Israel: https://x.com/akela_lacy/status/1789307272931217906
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 01:05
|
|
|
Re Gaza and West Bank as a unified state, I have two questions that wikipedia isn't enough for me to rely on 1) in 67/73, Israel took Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights. Apparently, Golan Heights has been fully absorbed into Israel. My question is what was different there, just a small population? 2) If Gaza and West Bank had a unified government, would Pakistan and East Pakistan/Bangladesh be a good example of what could go wrong? Can anyone inform me of the failings in that partition, something I'm completely unfamiliar with other than the fact it occurred?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 01:14
|
|
|
straight up i do not know close to enough to even have an opinion. so i'd just like to ask a couple questions i have from my limited research that i can't seem to get solid answers on. even official sources are all "it depends on your definition of..." like...israel controls most palestinian territory right? they literally expanded their control into their territory, right? palestine went from a big country to a couple territories? and, currently, israel controls who goes in and out of most of it, right? Am i reading this right? israel took over, by force, a bunch of land and now control who goes in our out of the remaining land? like if american reservations were still called "sovereign territory" instead of the bullshit fairytale it is now? is that a semi-proper analogy? again, i freely admit i'm an idiot. i don't even know enough to know who to trust on the issue. i haven't even tried to read this thread first because these things seem a very fundamental part of what's happening but i guess it's very complicated so everyone has an opinion to something that just seems like facts?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 01:33
|
|
|
trevorreznik posted:1) in 67/73, Israel took Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights. Apparently, Golan Heights has been fully absorbed into Israel. My question is what was different there, just a small population? It going back to Syria in exchange for normalized relations (like with the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt) is still theoretically on the table, although given that previous talks collapsed and Trump's recognition of the territory as Israeli that seems increasingly unlikely.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 01:54
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind, I'm probably not informed enough to comment on this.
Clarste fucked around with this message at 02:09 on May 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 02:06
|
|
|
Quantum Cat posted:Lmao the loving Zionist freaks will succumb to internal pogroms, purges and civil war following a couple military defeats long before they reach for the nukes. Neurolimal posted:My personal opinion is that Israel's status in American politics has been irreparably damaged, and it's only through Biden's extreme devotion to Israel that this damage hasn't manifested in practical terms. I do feel these things are related, in that all involved have the exact same "Burn the world down because The Youth don't respect me" brainworms
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 02:22
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:My personal opinion is that Israel's status in American politics has been irreparably damaged, and it's only through Biden's extreme devotion to Israel that this damage hasn't manifested in practical terms. I would like for this to be true but I think you're significantly off on a few things. 1) us support for Israel is much broader and deeper than the personal will of Biden. Israel remains (concerningly) overwhelmingly supported by most American politicians and most of the natsec/defense establishment. I mention these two specific things because they actually are shaping American policy wrt Israel. I do put a ton of responsibility for this on Biden specifically as he's been uniquely harmful in how willing he has been to materially support and to run cover for Israel, but his support is more of a product of than the cause of American pro-Israel institutional and political inertia. 2) I don't think people (and particularly voters) either see or care about American prestige degrading in any way that even remotely connects to reality. Generally foreign policy has remarkably little bearing on domestic American politics and 'prestige' is a nebulous, abstract concept even more removed from basic FP questions that might impact elections, like 'should we be bombing the middle east,' though even that doesn't significantly impact elections. 3) AIPAC has always been pretty transparent in its purpose and the only thing really changing there is maybe wrt the norms of how much you can call it out, though even then I don't think we're even remotely close to AIPAC's role in American politics being re-examined or even a significant change in how willing people are to call out AIPAC. Lastly I think young people are increasingly disillusioned with Israel, which frankly was already a trend for a long time before this, too, but idk how many of those people vote or are otherwise politically active in ways that will even remotely impact the people making American foreign policy decisions. I do think that there will be significant consequences of American (both in general and Biden's specifically) support of Israel's efforts to genocide Palestinians, but I am very skeptical that they'll be electoral in nature. I would prefer that your reading of things is right though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 04:24
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I disagree - Zionism has been an enormous success, even more than the colonization of America or Australia. There is now a country where being Jewish is normal, and it's in the exact land of Jewish ethnogenesis. Jews living in this country do not experience the vulnerability to violence, economic marginalization, or cultural humiliation that were normal in antisemitic Europe and, to a much lesser extent, Muslim states. These were the goals of Zionism. Tell that to the African Jews who experience all those things. Or the Orthodox Jews who are beaten by the IDF. There is plenty of Jew on Jew hatred and discrimination in Israel. Israel is a failed State and always has been. Has there ever been an ethnostate that has survived? I can’t think of one. But the ruling majority cannot accept any solution other than purging Israel of all Palestinians. So I think we are headed to a really bad place in the future. Hope I’m wrong, but I think we will find out what the world does when a nuclear power commits genocide.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 05:39
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I think this is outside the scope of this thread, but the idea that it was the Soviets that had the nazi problem and not the West, which essentially integrated entire branches of the nazi state into its postwar apparatus and maintained those neonazi organizations you're talking about anticommunist forces is completely ahistorical. America has had presidents who owe their family's fortune to collaboration with nazi industrialists. Again it's too much to get into here, I think, but some dipshits with sonnenrad tattoos in eastern Europe (who are themselves a legacy of cold war western machinations!) are small potatoes compared to the integration of the nazis into western wealth and power structures. There's a better case for Japan though. Whatever may be said about West Germany, there wasn't an equivalent of a Nobosuke Kishi becoming prime minister of Japan. But what's even crazier about that story is that the U.S. really did try to purge the war criminals. MacArthur (of all people!) suggested to Katayama, the socialist prime minister, to form a coalition government with the communists! The reforms he oversaw while acting as the potentate of Japan alarmed his right-wing supporters back in the U.S. too when foreign correspondents who had been in Spain in the 30s remarked that it was similar to what went on in Republican Spain. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 06:31 on May 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 06:27
|
|
|
Could a one state solution not look something like Lebanon or Northern Ireland where power sharing between both groups is enshrined in law? I guess Lebanon isn’t a great example of this system working.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 07:17
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:The compromises and negotiations required to reach a two-state solution were always going to be extremely difficult at the best of times, and it's now even harder to imagine it happening. The point being made is that a two-state solution is impossible. Even if you handwave away whatever is required to reach it, you'll be left with a Palestine that's cut into weird little pieces on one side, and a fascist ethnostate thirsting for lebensraum on the other. It can't work. You can't free Poland while also preserving Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 08:13
|
|
|
ObamaAkbar. posted:Could a one state solution not look something like Lebanon or Northern Ireland where power sharing between both groups is enshrined in law? The system is also non-functional in NI. I mean yes, the killing has largely stopped, but it's not a functional administrative state
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 08:37
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:The system is also non-functional in NI. I mean yes, the killing has largely stopped, but it's not a functional administrative state But that's the thing. People will take 'non functional and clearly long turn unsustainable' if its good enough to stop people killing each other. That's the argument for a lovely two state solution. Not because its sustainable but because the road to something sustainable requires both sides to climb a ladder of not trying to kill each other the moment the other's back is turned.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 08:56
|
|
|
trevorreznik posted:2) If Gaza and West Bank had a unified government, would Pakistan and East Pakistan/Bangladesh be a good example of what could go wrong? Can anyone inform me of the failings in that partition, something I'm completely unfamiliar with other than the fact it occurred? When you're completely unfamiliar with something, Wikipedia is as good a place to start as any. Yes, Wikipedia has flaws and biases, but so do people on internet forums. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh#Union_with_Pakistan The upshot is that not only did Pakistan and East Pakistan have significant cultural differences... Pakistan controlled the power in East Pakistan and treated East Pakistan's people like a colonizer. Economic discrimination, exploitation, extracting economic resources for Pakistan's profit and leaving East Pakistan with scraps, refusing international aid, refusing to share power with the local people, etc. It got bad enough that there was a push for East Pakistan to become its own nation of Bangladesh. Pakistan responded by starting an extremely horrific war that notoriously used mass rape and mass rape-murder as genocidal weapons against women in the would-be independent state of Bangladesh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War Bangladesh's Hindu minority were especially targeted, but thousands of Muslim Bangladeshi women were targeted too. It was conducted by the Pakistani military, and similar to Imperial Japan's "comfort women" rape and death camps. Could a similar colonizer-colonized relationship followed by a genocidal war happen between two split parts of a hypothetical Palestinian state? I have doubts. The geographical and cultural divide wouldn't be quite as large. It is possible that if all power is concentrated in one of the two halves then the other half could be tyrannized. But all of this is purely hypothetical since right now Israel is the colonizer conducting an ongoing genocide. Victar fucked around with this message at 10:07 on May 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 09:58
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Actually, can someone go into jewish-muslim relations before Israel was established? This isnt the first time I've seen someone post that the muslim states (Ottoman Empire?) were much more relaxed than Europe Someone more knowledgeable than me should check on me here because it's possible I've only been exposed to biased historiography on this, but my understanding is this: In terms of racialised antagonism, the Ottoman Empire institutionally predated the modern concept of nationalism born from the French revolution - to the absolute monarchist state, nationalism that puts the nation ahead of the monarchy is a threat, non-muslim subjects of the monarchy have their own obligations and privileges towards the state but are otherwise discrimination against them would be harmful to the monarchy's independence from ideals such as national or religious supremacy. As far as nationalism goes, there would be two things that seem relevant: Arab nationalism, which to my understanding in that time period saw muslim and jewish middle easterners as racially equal (easy to forget that arabs are a semetic people when antisemitism is invoked nowadays), and Zionism which was more relevant to the Jews in Europe who wanted an idealistic nation-state project of their own after seeing all the European countries get in on that and started drawing up plans and courting European support for it. I found this article that seems well-sourced and researched that goes into a good amount of detail in how Zionism shaped or created racialised divisions: https://merip.org/2021/08/tracing-the-historical-relevance-of-race-in-palestine-and-israel/ An excerpt: quote:As Labor Zionism gradually emerged as the dominant force in Zionist politics in subsequent decades, however, efforts by its leaders to improve the employment conditions and wages of Palestinian workers were sporadic at best. Instead, Labor Zionists turned to what they termed the conquest of labor, seeking to guarantee jobs for Jewish immigrants in Jewish enterprises at the expense of Palestinian Arabs.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 10:25
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Virtually the entire Syrian population of the Golan Heights (the main exception being the Druze) fled during or was expelled after the war (estimated to be around 130,000 people). There are currently only about 20,000 Syrians left there, compared to millions of Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza. There is zero chance Israel is giving back the Golan Heights for anything. It is 100% considered a part of Israel by Israeli society. It doesn't get mentioned in the same sentence or even the same book as the west bank or Gaza. There are a bunch of Israelis who live there, and that's legal from Israel's perspective because unlike the west bank, Israel officially annexed the Golan Heights (in 1981!) This law isn't in line with international law, but Israel doesn't seem to care and most people even outside of Israel treat the entire thing as fait accompli
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 10:48
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:This discussion about one state vs two states is all fascinating but the two state solution is simply dead. Israel spent decades throttling it. You're asking the wrong question. It isn't 'would you rather one state vs two', it's 'what one state is preferrable'. As difficult as that would be its still "easier" than a one state solution.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 10:52
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I disagree - Zionism has been an enormous success, even more than the colonization of America or Australia. There is now a country where being Jewish is normal, and it's in the exact land of Jewish ethnogenesis. Jews living in this country do not experience the vulnerability to violence, economic marginalization, or cultural humiliation that were normal in antisemitic Europe and, to a much lesser extent, Muslim states. These were the goals of Zionism. This is the framing that Zionists insist on advocating and Biden cosigned but is wrong, at least historically, in Muslim states and definitely in the modern context of Western states.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 11:45
|
|
|
One cannot simultaneously claim that Israel is inherently unstable and will inevitably collapse despite having gone from strength to strength over 75 years, but then on the exact same timescale say that antisemitism is no longer an endemic problem in the modern context. E: not that you specifically made that claim in that post, but those claims exist in this thread side by side as assumed truths.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 12:39
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:Tell that to the African Jews who experience all those things. Or the Orthodox Jews who are beaten by the IDF. There is plenty of Jew on Jew hatred and discrimination in Israel. Moroccan and Ethiopian Jews, and other Jews who can trace ancestry to Africa, do not experience antisemitism in Israel. They experience racism, but Zionism wasn't supposed to fix racism against people from Africa, or "hatred and discrimination" in all their forms. it was a movement developed by Ashkenazim to produce freedom from antisemitism. And this succeeded - Jews in Israel do not regularly experience antisemitic violence or abuse because they live in a country where being Jewish is normal, being non-Jewish is abnormal, and the state openly concerns itself with the welfare and rights of Jews specifically. Basically every Jew in Israel is Orthodox. The non-Orthodox movements that comprise most of American Jewish life (Reform, Conservative etc) are negligible in Israel. The relevant division of Israeli Jews is not Orthodox/non-Orthodox but Hiloni/Masorti/Dati/Haredi - secular, traditional, religious, ultra-Orthodox (literally translates to "tremblers"). What you're trying to describe is Haredi Jews who live in constant tension with everyone else largely because they refuse to enlist in the army (not out of concern for Palestinians but because it's seen as a waste of time v Torah study, and sociologically it exposes their youth to influences and opportunities outside Haredi life), and for other reasons like government funding of yeshivos (Torah-all-day religious schools), a vastly disproportionate rate of reliance on government welfare payments, and general contempt between Haredi and non-Haredi communities toward each others' level of religiosity. Again this is not antisemitism. If Zionism has failed here it is actually the proportion and prominence of Haredim in Israel at all, as Zionism is foundationally a secular movement designed to make Jews like normal Europeans and Haredim are obviously neither secular nor normal Europeans. Israel is obviously not only a settler-colony, which means it depends on brutal racialized violence to maintain itself, but also gripped by internal racial hierarchy, corrupt politics, a culture polarized on many different dimensions, etc. It is still an enormous success when compared to the ambitions of Zionists at the time the project began: there once was not a Jewish nation-state, now there is - a whole country where it is normal to be Jewish and where antisemitism is not a significant political or cultural force. That is the success of Zionism. We can all look at that success and say, like the successful colonization of anywhere else - it shouldn't have happened, it resulted in mass suffering like we are seeing right now. That's anti-Zionism, if you believe that like I do, then like me you are an anti-Zionist. You can't use anti-Zionist priorities to show Zionism failed because Zionists had, and continue to have, completely different priorities. It's like saying the colonization of America was a failure because of mass deforestation - that's incorrect, because the colonists did not set out to protect and preserve American forests, they set out to build, plunder, and subjugate, and they successfully accomplished all of those things. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 13:28 on May 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 12:49
|
|
|
Palestine has been a border region between various empires since antiquity but we can start loooking at it with Ottoman Empire as a starting point from its first conquest in the 15th C which took over from the Mamluks of Egypt and largely sustain3d the political structures of the latter (formally and informly accepting the ancient name of Palestine or Filastin in Arabic), centered around Jerusalem and Gaza, which have always been robust centers of trade and politics in the region. You see high and low tides of Empire centralization and decentralization, with Palestinian local elites more or less in control depending on the time, but oppression and rebellion does not seem to fall into religious lines anything like modern times or the poo poo storm of pogroms against Jewish people regularly occurring in Europe, with even Palestinian sheiks encouraging Jewish immigration at times to revitalize the local economy like in 1750 quote:Zahir's control of cotton and olive oil prices drew great revenues from European merchants, and these funds enabled him to marshal military resources needed to fend off military assaults by the governors of Damascus.[443] Moreover, the monopolies ended the foreign merchants' manipulation of prices and financial exploitation of the local peasantry.[444] Together with significantly improved general security and social justice, Zahir's economic policies made him popular with the local inhabitants.[445] Zahir also encouraged immigration to Palestine and his rule attracted large numbers of Jews and Melkite and Greek Orthodox Christians from throughout Ottoman Syria, revitalizing the region's economy.[443] Zahir founded modern-day Haifa in 1769. Europeans writing about Palestine in the 19th C were awed by the multitude of people coexisting harmoniously, Jewish and Christians and Muslims, with enmity drawn in regional terms rather than religious ones fending off incursions from Damascus, Egypt and the occasional European War party, like Napoleon (i.e. the Peasants War of 1834). This was before the ramp up in literal colonialist societies and colonial language that dove tailed with British attempts at controlling the Levant towards the end of the 19th C. Here's writers noting the change at the time quote:+972 Magazine 19th and 20th Zionism brought in a hierarchical and racist framework imported like they were, from Europe.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 12:52
|
|
|
Going back to current events for a moment. Another spectacularly bad case of friendly fire by the IDF in Jabaliya. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-69019655 quote:Two tanks in the area fired two shells at a building being used by the battalion's deputy commander, according to a statement. It once again points to the indiscriminate character of IDF's military activities or, at best, very low discipline among the soldiers on the ground. I can't imagine they could see a gun barrel and couldn't see Israeli uniforms. https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-soldiers-killed-7-hurt-in-friendly-fire-incident-in-northern-gazas-jabaliya/ quote:The tank forces had arrived at the area in the morning, and several hours later, the paratroopers reached the area and established a post in the building. Later in the evening, another group of paratroopers reached the area and notified two of the tanks there that they were entering the building. There were literally Israeli tanks nearby, too. 'Saw some people - shot some people' sounds much more likely to me than them spending enough time surveying the building from afar to spot a gun barrel but literally nothing else. 15% dead to friendly fire and accidents has to be some kind of a record.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 13:03
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:My personal opinion is that Israel's status in American politics has been irreparably damaged, and it's only through Biden's extreme devotion to Israel that this damage hasn't manifested in practical terms.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:This is the framing that Zionists insist on advocating and Biden cosigned but is wrong, at least historically, in Muslim states and definitely in the modern context of Western states. What part of it is wrong? That the overarching goal of Zionism was to resolve the Jewish question by producing a Jewish nation-state with sovereign territory, or that it successfully created a Jewish nation-state with sovereign territory? Maybe you are disputing the idea that Zionism was an attempt to resolve the fact prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, the diaspora condition was at best problematic and at worst lethally dangerous. I don't know why. The history of Jews in Europe before WWII, during WWII, and even after WWII, is well-known. In Muslim states - much less of interest to the Ashkenazim who led the Zionist movement - Jews didn't have to deal with nearly that level of violence, not even remotely. But they were still an ethnic and religious minority with corresponding vulnerability to whatever ethnic or religious chauvinism might seize popularity. And when Zionism looked at these conditions it declared that vulnerability unacceptable. A coherent response to Zionism demands acknowledgement that that vulnerability *is* unacceptable - not only should ethnic and religious minorities never live as second class citizens, never be forced into ghettos, never face mob violence, they should never even have to worry about these things. In fact that's one reason anti-Zionism is a moral imperative, because Zionism demands Palestinians experience all this and more. Other political movements have proposed other solutions to safeguarding minorities - for example liberal democracy with constitutional protections. I think that's what you mean when you reference "the modern context of Western states" and it's true this has vastly reduced antisemitic violence, enabled Jews to engage in cultural expression and business much more freely, etc. it hasn't totally solved the issue of ethnic/religious marginalization/repression, not in general and not in the Jewish context, but maybe close enough in the Jewish context, as antisemitic violence in the diaspora amounts to maybe 1 death per year. This doesn't mean Zionism was unsuccessful, it means that one of Zionism's goals could have been satisfied without the vicious forced displacement, apartheid, and even genocide on which the Israeli state is dependent. It is a reason to be anti-Zionist, but it's not a reason to pretend that Zionists did not succeed in their objectives. We can spit on Herzl's grave, but he's not spinning in it. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:30 on May 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 15:04
|
|