We know what happens with peaceful protests, elections, and foreign interference (and more foreign interference), so how can Palestine gain it’s freedom? Any positive ideas are welcome, because this situation is already a humanitarian crisis and is looking bleaker by the day.
Historical references are also valuable in this discussion, like slave revolts or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, although hopefully in the case of Palestine a peaceful and successful outcome can be achieved, as opposed to some of the historical events above.
Here’s a decent framework in my opinion.
I feel like he totally misunderstood the concept of a Palestinian “right of return.” They’re not asking for a right to return to a future Palestinian state, that isn’t a controversial thing, they would obviously be in control of their own immigration policy. They want a right for millions of Palestinians to “return” to Israel.
Israelis view this not only as an unacceptable danger, but as a move that would end Israeli democracy; an instant majority of Muslim voters, many of whom were raised to believe that Israeli civilians should not be allowed to live, would turn Israel into, you know, the rest of the Middle East. Ban alcohol, ban homosexuality, ban apostasy, ban building synagogues or churches, do everything else every other Muslim-majority country does.
This was one of the major sticking points at Camp David. And this guy just totally missed it.
By not killing civilians maybe. By engaging in actual normal warfare if it insists it cannot achieve success peacefully. By not encouraging persecution around the world or siding with nations such as Russia and North Korea. By respecting human rights within its borders. Can’t be too much to ask.
How could they engage in normal warfare?
Edit: also, does killing civilians make a whole country fair game to be attacked violently or something?
Targeting civilians is bad.
Terrorists, including those who target civilians, are combatants, and are valid targets. They remain valid targets when they use schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, and residential areas as bases for combat operations. This is pretty clear in international law.
Israel still must not target civilians, and must take reasonable measures to minimize civilian casualties of war. We’ve seen Israel, in at least some contexts, take quite extreme measures to warn civilians, help evacuate civilians, and carefully target munitions to minimize civilian death despite Hamas and PIJ using those civilians as human shields.
The raw numbers are still gruesome… unless you compare them to other instances of urban warfare, in which case the numbers are actually lower than many would expect. The civilian death ratio, as far as we’ve been able to estimate (since Hamas does not estimate), appears to be lower than usual.
Civilian deaths are tragic. It would obviously be much better if Hamas had not started this war, or if they would agree to the ceasefire Israel offered, or if they weren’t so committed to war in general. But they are. They frequently condemn even the concept of peace, and insist that they will repeat the October 7th attack as often as they can. There is no avenue to peace while they remain in power.
So the war will continue. And we will continue to hope that Israel does its best to minimize harm to civilians.
What is “normal warfare?”
Warfare that is self-contained, distinguishes between combatant and non-combatant, does not cause damage that ends up being permanent, and doesn’t make metaphorical deals with the devil.
Maybe ask Israel to stop occupying Gaza (and the rest of Palestine) before demanding that. This isn’t a war between countries; this is an occupied territory fighting for freedom.
Gaza has not been occupied since 2005.
Palestinian arabs have been launching pogroms against Jews without rest since 1920, but Israel didn’t occupy the West Bank or Gaza until 1967. Maybe if Israelis felt they could possibly be safe without occupying the West Bank, they would try it. Like they tried with Gaza. Gee, look how that played out.
Gee, I wonder how Germany and Japan managed to get freedom from occupation… Oh right, they went with peace!
Ask the UN what they think of Gaza’s status. Hint: They won’t say “independent state”.
I don’t care what their opinion is, Israel in fact ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005.
People are now upset about a blockade that started in 2007. Aside from ignoring the reasons for the blockade, and totally ignoring the two years between the end of the occupation and the start of the blockade, people like to pretend the blockade is an occupation because it’s not very nice and they don’t know how to talk about an unoccupied Gaza (or because they’re just too stupid to know what’s going on there).
The simple answer is, realistically, Palestine can’t do it alone without help. Some other country will have to step up and get involved.
Currently, even the countries who don’t necessarily back Israel aren’t interested in helping Palestinians, including major Muslim countries in the Middle East.
It could have something to do with the history of Jordanian Civil war, which was a war between the King of Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Islamic countries like Jordan and Egypt haven’t exactly been stellar friends to the people of Palestine ever since. (Whether that position is justified is up to you to decide, I am not here to argue whether it is good or bad.)
So unless things change somehow, they will likely not gain their freedom.
on the other hand, there could be an enemy of my enemy situation, because everyone in the Middle East hates Israel (and for good reason too: not only is Israel run by genocidal fucks, but they stole everyone’s land). it’s not impossible that Jordan, Egypt, and neighboring countries would gang up on Israel.
I mean, the Olmert proposal was an opportunity. The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was an opportunity. It doesn’t seem that “freedom” was good enough for Palestinians back then.
Netanyahu has been winning because Israeli attempts at peace never seem to work.
The Olmert proposal where Israel wanted to keep 10% of the West Bank (not that we know much about the proposal or why it failed, but from that point it’s a no-go)? And what opportunity in 2005 they fucking blockaded the place as soon as they left.
The Olmert proposal where Israel wanted to keep 10% of the West Bank (not that we know much about the proposal or why it failed, but from that point it’s a no-go)?
No, the actual Olmert proposal. It involved land swaps for about 6.3% of the West Bank (to help minimize the number of Israelis who need to be forced out of their homes), giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the capitol…
Abbas didn’t feel like negotiating from that starting point. Because he either didn’t want peace, or didn’t think he could swing it politically (with a Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority). A not-one-inch even-with-land-swaps even-with-this even-with-that policy is not conducive to peace.
And what opportunity in 2005 they fucking blockaded the place as soon as they left.
No, the blockade started in 2007. You’re missing the two years where Gaza was totally free and Hamas used that freedom to ramp up rocket fire, kill their opponents in Fatah, and gain a majority in the PA.
How much land do you think Ukraine should cede for peace? How much control should Russia have in Ukraine’s government in exchange for ending the occupation?
These are honest questions, I would like to know what you and others think.
Also, are you aware of Palestine’s proposal to respect the 1967 borders, which Israel rejected?
How much land do you think Ukraine should cede for peace?
For a war Russia started? With no justification? None. Not even land swaps.
How much control should Russia have in Ukraine’s government in exchange for ending the occupation?
As much as it takes for Russian civillians to be safe, which is to say, again, none. Ukraine does not have a history of massacring Russian civilians, they haven’t repeatedly stated that they’d repeat attacks on Russian civilians ad infinitum after any hypothetical ceasefire.
Also, are you aware of Palestine’s proposal to respect the 1967 borders, which Israel rejected?
Which proposal?
I totally agree with you on Ukraine.
I think the main success of the current narrative on Palestine is disguising Israeli expansion as Israeli self-defense. Here’s a map of the UN partition plan for Palestine and you can check today’s borders to see how much land Palestine has ceded to Israel, unwillingly of course. Israel was created as a result of the Palestine Civil War and have been expanding ever since. That was the plan the whole time, as it says in the above linked page:
Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.
I don’t see how Palestine is any different from Ukraine in terms of needing to cede land to the invader in exchange for peace. What do you think? I’m sure there’s a lot I’m not aware of.
About the negotiations and truce offered to Israel:
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24235665
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders
Oh and one more thing, you said
For a war Russia started? With no justification?
but there was justification, I believe it was NATO encroachment or something about Nazis in Ukraine. I’m not saying it was good justification but I would like to point out that there was justification (just like Colin Powell in front of congress with a vial of white powder that was something something WMDs in Iraq) and I’m sure someone, somewhere was saying “doesn’t Russia have the right to self defense?”. If I understand correctly, the justification for Israel invading Palestine in the first place was “we are God’s chosen people and we want this land” which is an extremely flimsy justification but that might just be my personal opinion because I’m not religious.
I think the main success of the current narrative on Palestine is disguising Israeli expansion as Israeli self-defense. Here’s a map of the UN partition plan for Palestine and you can check today’s borders to see how much land Palestine has ceded to Israel, unwillingly of course. Israel was created as a result of the Palestine Civil War and have been expanding ever since. That was the plan the whole time, as it says in the above linked page:
Arabs rejected that partition plan and waged war after war against Israel. Land changed hands both ways in the late 1940s—the great sin of Israel is that it won more land than it lost, that’s what the Arabs can’t forgive them for. The Arabs started the war thinking they could beat the Jews and expel them altogether.
Some of the land taken in 1967 is up for debate, but regions like the Golan Heights have a large strategic value and have historically been used to attack Israel. Israel happily returned Sinai to Egypt for peace. I’m generally opposed to settlement expansion, but that’s almost never framed as self-defense. And the current war in Gaza is really not expansionist.
I don’t see how Palestine is any different from Ukraine in terms of needing to cede land to the invader in exchange for peace. What do you think? I’m sure there’s a lot I’m not aware of.
I’m assuming you’re talking about the Olmert proposal or similar, since land isn’t really a big part of the Gaza debate, Israel wants the hostages back and Hamas gone.
Peace is the concession being made by Palestine, not for Palestine. many Palestinians are strongly opposed to peace with Israel. Hamas is categorically opposed. Palestinians want an end to the occupation, control of East Jerusalem, as much land as they can get, and a totally unrealistic “right of return” that would realistically end Israel.
The deal in question included East Jerusalem, removal of Israeli settlers from the west bank, an end to the occupation, acceptance of a number of Palestinian immigrants into Israel, and was just a starting point.
The land swaps—not a one-sided cession, swaps—are designed around areas that are already mostly Israeli settlers. Practically, moving multiple townfulls’ worth of settlers is really unrealistic. Israel removed 80,000 settlers from Gaza unilaterally during 2005, and is willing to remove more but removing hundreds of thousands, especially from towns that are already mostly Israeli, is an extreme challenge and land swaps are a practical way to get around it.
About the negotiations and truce offered to Israel:
Lol, I assumed you were talking about a peace deal. Hamas was really open about this one: permanent concessions (there was more to it than just the land), in exchange for a temporary truce that was just a strategic aim on their part to shore up resources so they could more effectively massacre all of Israel when the truce had ended. And there’s no way they’d be able to keep the truce going for as long as they said, they couldn’t even handle the days-long truce in the current war.
but there was justification, I believe it was NATO encroachment or something about Nazis in Ukraine.
Lol, Ukraine never joined NATO, even after the Donbas invasion, Ukraine was literally run by a Jew, and the Russians have turned the Azov battalion into heroes. And none of that would have been grounds for war, if it made any sense to begin with.
the justification for Israel invading Palestine in the first place was “we are God’s chosen people and we want this land”
… what the fuck are you talking about? Are you attempting to describe the Israeli War of Independence? Or something else? I’m so confused.
Within Israel, the vast majority of people don’t particularly care about any kind of manifest destiny style reclamation of the West Bank or Gaza, and if that were the only issue, I genuinely don’t think there would be a significant problem.
What essentially everyone does care about, however, is repeatedly having rockets lobbed at them. When people feel under threat, reason starts to fall away, people begin dehumanizing the “other”, and you get the massive mess we have today. The fact of the matter is that Israel will never accept any situation where its people are under threat. No matter what you think about what acts are or aren’t justified or your opinion on how various parts of the history played out, none of that changes this basic reality.
Palestine is not going to be able to militarily eradicate Israel. There is precisely zero chance that Israelis allow themselves to be subjected to a second diaspora and they’ll fight to the death to prevent this, and that’s to say nothing of external players like the United States. Again, whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a true thing.
On the flip side, Israel is perfectly capable of essentially eradicating the Palestinians, though this would subject it to massive international condemnation that would also have huge economic impacts. You’re already beginning to see whispers of this as the world increasingly sees Israel’s response in Gaza as being excessively harsh. The most they could do is a slow and steady degradation of Palestinian society while encouraging them to “voluntarily” leave, which is arguably what the strategy has essentially been under Likud with settlements and the like.
So, what’s required for a peaceful co-existence? Firstly, you need a mutual acknowledgement from both leaders (and also, a legitimate Palestinian leadership in the first place) that the other side exists and has a right to do so, ie, Palestinians giving up on the idea of eradicating Israel and Israelis giving up on the idea of fully annexing and ethnically cleaning Palestinian lands. This is not a trivial thing. The Israeli far-right, though they’re not dominant, are growing and believe they have a divine right to the West Bank, with the Arabs being seen as little more than animals in the way. The extreme Palestinian side is that all Israelis are essentially foreign invaders and should be forcibly removed or killed. Both of these positions must be completely taken off the table.
Secondly, Israel will not engage unless it is confident that its security will not be threatened, which will in practice mean that Palestinian authorities must be de-militarized beyond what’s necessary for basic local law enforcement. Again, this might seem unfair, and hell, it probably is. But the fact of the matter remains that Israel is the side holding the guns here, so you either play by their rules and try to find some positive outcome, or you flip the table and enjoy the complete loss, but with some moral satisfaction. Similarly, there would probably need to be some kind of border controls for imports that Israeli authorities can inspect for covert weapons shipments, since it’s a known thing that Iran does regularly try to bring weapons into Gaza. Ideally, this would be some kind of bi-national force with Palestinian cooperation.
If you reach these points, then you still have other very big questions to deal with, like precise borders, land swaps, the question of Jerusalem, how to connect Gaza and the West Bank, any right of return for displaced Palestinians both recently and during the Nakba, and plenty of other things I’m sure I’m forgetting about. But ultimately, if you have a Palestinian and Israeli leadership that are actually interested in peace and accept the existence of the other, and both agree to cooperate on matters of security and prioritizing that peace above and past grievances, no matter how legitimate, that gives you a real foundation you can build from.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up though.
The extreme Palestinian side is that all Israelis are essentially foreign invaders and should be forcibly removed or killed.
That’s essentially the reality of the situation, though. The land was populated by Palestinians before Europe and the rest of the Middle East NIMBY’d their remaining Jewish populations to Israel.
Maybe if it was the 1940s this would be a bit more accurate, but at this point, we’re a couple generations removed from the original mass displacements. Most Israelis today were born there.
Like I said, the way towards progress lies with both sides finding a way to get over historical grievances of who started what and who’s to blame for this and that and instead accepting the fact that they’re both here now and need to find a way to exist with each other.
That’s essentially the reality of the situation, though. The land was populated by Palestinians before Europe and the rest of the Middle East NIMBY’d their remaining Jewish populations to Israel.
This is all kinds of wrong.
Zionism was a Jewish movement. Antisemitism was not NIMBYism, that’s a pretty horrible thing to say, it was persecution, pogroms, attacks, the holocaust, a constant stream of hate and oppression. Zionism was certainly not a movement of the Europeans and Middle Easterners who persecuted us. It was our movement. Zionism was not just an escape, but also a long held dream of the Jewish people that coalesced as it became plausible in late Ottoman policy. It was finally possible for Jews to buy land in, and immigrate to, Israel, so many of us did.
We are not foreign to Israel. It is our indigenous homeland. As the rest of the world rejected us, we no longer felt safe as strangers in strange lands. We considered the possibility of having our own nation on borrowed land from the Russians, or from the Germans, or in Alaska. We didn’t care for those ideas because of how stupid they were. We wanted a homeland in our homeland. If you don’t understand Jewish indigeneity in Judea, maybe you’re not ready to talk about complex topics.
As for the Palestinian ties to the land—Palestinian nationalism barely existed before Jewish people started returning to Israel. Arabs in the various Ottoman Sanjaks or whatever division there was at the time were mostly traveling merchants or pilgrims; there was, of course, a small permanent population, which included Jews (always, despite various efforts to remove them or ban them), Christians, and Muslims, but that population expanded dramatically starting in the mid-late 1800s on all fronts. The Arabs then either continued to call themselves Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians (“Jordan” and “Palestine” were part of the same colony, I hope you know), or they subscribed to some conception of pan-Arabism. The word “Palestinian,” to the extent was used at all before the ~1960s, was used largely to refer to whoever happened to be in Palestine (like “New Yorker,” not referring to a race of some kind), or specifically, in Europe, to refer to Jews. Palestinian nationalism largely gained traction in the 1960s as a political movement, and even then, many leaders were committed to pan-Arabism but treated Palestinian identity as a useful political fiction; Zuhair Moshen in particular, as a leader of the PLO, pushed these ideas, and in much of the politics between the West Bank and Jordan through that period. Of course, since the 1940s, Palestinian identity has taken on new meanings, but many of these meanings are young, and the vast majority of these peoples’ ties to the land start between the 1800s and 1948—a beat before similarly-shaped spikes in the Jewish return.
Palestinian nationalism is now used in other Arab countries to keep Palestinian Arabs oppressed; Jordan revoked their Jordanian citizenship, Lebanon refuses to grant them basic rights, UNRWA refuses to resettle them across multiple generations.
If Jews are indigenous to Judea does that mean that Jews never intermarried with Jews of other countries? And if they did, how can they then be called indigenous any more?
… what?
“Jews of other countries” are also indigenous to Israel / Judea / Canaan / Palestine / whatever you want to call it. I’m a Persian-American Jew. Before Iran, my community came from Israel. Is it possible that there are some Russian Jews in my family tree? Or Egyptian Jews? Or Bucharian Jews? Or Iraqi Jews? Yes. Are they all still indigenous to Israel? Yes.
Conversion to Judaism is extremely rare, but it does happen. Is it possible that some portion of my family tree converted to Judaism and is not indigenous to Israel? Sure. Does one drop of Iranian blood in m DNA make me somehow not indigenous to the place the rest of my ancestors are from? Hell the fuck no. Especially given that my ancestors in Iran were never welcome for long. It’s also worth noting that, since the Arab Conquest reached Iran, conversion from Islam has been, for most of that time, illegal (it’s currently punishable by death!), so the idea of converts to Judaism is extremely rare.
This is a strange, disturbing line of reasoning. You wouldn’t ask Native Americans with ancestors from two different tribes how they can be called indigenous, would you?
What’s going on here?
Actually the opposite, it’s a line of reasoning that supposes that no-one is really indigenous to anywhere in particular, thereby avoiding the good ol’ extreme claims to sovereignity.
The history of Israel is littered with invasion anyway, so again, the idea of indigenous peoples at this point requires a reworking of the definition of ‘indigenous’ to people who have lived there for some time.
I’m expecting a bit of the ol’ ‘It was the Jew’s to begin with’ so I’ll just say in advance there’s no point in my continuing if that starts cropping up in replies.
Actually the opposite, it’s a line of reasoning that supposes that no-one is really indigenous to anywhere in particular, thereby avoiding the good ol’ extreme claims to sovereignity.
… what? So you don’t know what indigeneity is, so you just said, “fuck it, we’re going to do away with the concept altogether so nobody has a right to live anywhere at all!”
I’m always baffled as to where you people think the Jews should be living.
Leftist government in Israel (like Rabin) would help
China having more global influence than USA would help
China having more global influence than USA would help
… would it? I’m not sure I see how.
