Only one party has the power to make [reparations and a one state secular solution] a reality, and it isn’t the Palestinians.
How so? That doesn’t fit with my information. Israel has always been willing to negotiate for peace but as they hold all the cards when it comes to the military and realpolitik situation it needs to be on their terms. Palestine has been unwilling to surrender and make viable peace terms since 1948, despite losing every war. In fact, Hamas has it in their original charter that:
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter
This is why things have gotten so bad for them, a refusal to pacify and make concessions. This is a prerequisite to any one-state solution. The Peel commission found that a one-state solution wasn’t viable in the 30’s because animosity was so high after the Arab revolt and I suspect not much has changed since then. However, I’d love to be proven wrong. It seems like a bad idea to try and compromise and form a stable government with enemies who actively want to genocide you, like Hamas does.
As for a secular government, neither party has one but Israel seems a hell of a lot more secular than Gaza, whose government appears to be enforcing something like Sharia Law on the people there:
Following Hamas’ victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections and a conflict with supporters of the rival Fatah party, Hamas took complete control of the Gaza Strip, and declared the “end of secularism and heresy in the Gaza Strip”
Ismael Haniyeh officially denied accusations that Hamas intended to establish an Islamic emirate. However, Jonathan Schanzer wrote that in two years following the 2007 coup, the Gaza Strip had exhibited the characteristics of Talibanization, a process whereby the Hamas government had imposed strict rules on women, discouraged activities commonly associated with Western culture, oppressed non-Muslim minorities, imposed sharia law, and deployed religious police to enforce these laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism_in_the_Gaza_Strip
Islam is very intolerant to those who wish to become secular/leave the religion, as per their rules regarding apostates:
There’s no Hamas in the west bank. Why is Israel killing and driving them out?
I’m not sure what incidents you’re referring to, can you refer me to any articles?
Gaza (Hamas) is being treated very differently than the West Bank (PA) by Israel presently.
Also why should they be peaceful after the literal Nakba? Israel are the ones on stolen land dude.
That’s exactly the sort of thinking that led to Gaza’s current situation, it completely ignores the realpolitik of their situation and will lead to predictable reprisals from a superior force. “Why should I stop poking the bear, it’s in my cave!” Well, here we are, another predictable and preventable mauling.
They’re not carpet bombing them (wow so kind and restrained of them), but they are continuing to steal homes and land. This has been happening before Oct 7th too. This is what happens when you cooperate with Israel.
Yeah, but the “bear” in the situation is a nation state. It’s not an animal or a natural disaster. You’re blaming the victim here, you realize right?
Thanks for the source, I wasn’t sure if you were referring to settlers or something else I wasn’t aware of. Yeah that’s pretty fucked up how some settlers treat local Arabs and I hope crimes like the cold-blooded murder on that video are prosecuted. Terrorism is unacceptable. Extremist settlers seem to be partially responsible for a lot of the recent escalation, their flash mob in the temple mount mosque was cited as one of the motivations for Hamas’ attack. If they are not kept in check they threaten future peace.
This is what happens when you cooperate with Israel.
The 20% of Israel’s population who are Arab/Palestinians and are not belligerent seem to be faring better. Plenty of governments cooperate with Israel with very good results. So, what’s different about these? A long history of warfare and broken promises between them.
You’re blaming the victim here, you realize right?
Just because one is on the losing end of asymmetrical warfare does not mean they are victims with no responsibility for their situation. Ultimately Palestine’s position has mostly to do with declaring war on Israel multiple times and losing, then remaining belligerent and engaging in guerilla attacks against them for the next half-century. Thanks largely to this stoking of animosity despite Palestine’s hopeless military situation, both parties have moved further right. Parts of Palestine embraced Hamas, Israel’s moderate president was assassinated and the government moved more rightwards. Then, there’s the recent attack that killed thousands of civilians. It’s hard to see a territory whose government does that as a victim.
There’s plenty of examples of victimhood to be found on both sides of this conflict, but ultimately one side has been defeated, has no hope to achieve their military goals, yet refuses to surrender or negotiate for a viable peace. Israel is running out of options for security, the carrot and the stick have not worked, and so I suspect they will now try annexation and distance.
The 20% of Israel’s population who are Arab/Palestinians and are not belligerent seem to be faring better. Plenty of governments cooperate with Israel with very good results. So, what’s different about these?
Ultimately Palestine’s position has mostly to do with declaring war on Israel multiple times and losing, then remaining belligerent and engaging in guerilla attacks against them for the next half-century.
Are you talking about 1948, when the Nakba was happening and expelling people from their homeland? Or 1967 when Israel did a “pre-emptive” strike to start the six day war and get a land grab?
This a shouting man yelling obscenities at those who disagree. I understand the anger and wanting to push back, but attacking a foe one cannot defeat is a recipe for further loss.
Are you talking about 1948, when the Nakba was happening and expelling people from their homeland? Or 1967 when Israel did a “pre-emptive” strike to start the six day war and get a land grab?
Both are good examples of defeats.
Man, why does this map keep shrinking? Must be a coincidence. Those darn Arabs did some violence and whoopsie we accidently took more land! Man that’s crazy it always seems to work out like that.
It’s almost like there’s realpolitik consequences for refusing to pacify one’s self and sign a peace treaty after losing wars. Crazy. I expect this trend will continue as long as their belligerence does.
To be fair, you don’t know they can’t defeat them. Vietnam won against the United States. This kind of fascist state can’t last by definition. I only hope it implodes sooner rather than later.
Glad you’ve been on the side of defending apartheid and genocide. Cool chat.
To be fair, you don’t know they can’t defeat them. Vietnam won against the United States. This kind of fascist state can’t last by definition. I only hope it implodes sooner rather than later.
True, but at this point I find it very unlikely. The US wasn’t fighting for its right to exist in Vietnam, there is nowhere for Israelis to withdraw to. This conflict is existential to them.
Glad you’ve been on the side of defending apartheid and genocide. Cool chat.
Genocide: if you mean genocide, as in driving people from their lands, Palestinian-aligned forces practiced that as well in this conflict–when their side annexed Jordan and Jerusalem. By this definition you would be defending those who are genocidal as well.
If you mean genocide as in eradicating an ethnic or religious group, that’s more Hamas’ thing, as I have illustrated above.
Apartheid: you’re ignoring all the Arab-Israeli citizens, who are not kept legally separated and have the same rights as every other citizen there. Their existence makes your accusation of apartheid not make sense. This is clearly about safety and not racial discrimination on the Israeli side.
How so? That doesn’t fit with my information. Israel has always been willing to negotiate for peace but as they hold all the cards when it comes to the military and realpolitik situation it needs to be on their terms. Palestine has been unwilling to surrender and make viable peace terms since 1948, despite losing every war. In fact, Hamas has it in their original charter that:
This is why things have gotten so bad for them, a refusal to pacify and make concessions. This is a prerequisite to any one-state solution. The Peel commission found that a one-state solution wasn’t viable in the 30’s because animosity was so high after the Arab revolt and I suspect not much has changed since then. However, I’d love to be proven wrong. It seems like a bad idea to try and compromise and form a stable government with enemies who actively want to genocide you, like Hamas does.
As for a secular government, neither party has one but Israel seems a hell of a lot more secular than Gaza, whose government appears to be enforcing something like Sharia Law on the people there:
Islam is very intolerant to those who wish to become secular/leave the religion, as per their rules regarding apostates:
Jews are comparatively very tolerant of secularists/atheists among them.
There’s no Hamas in the west bank. Why is Israel killing and driving them out? Performing pogroms and all that.
Also why should they be peaceful after the literal Nakba? Israel are the ones on stolen land dude.
I’m not sure what incidents you’re referring to, can you refer me to any articles?
Gaza (Hamas) is being treated very differently than the West Bank (PA) by Israel presently.
That’s exactly the sort of thinking that led to Gaza’s current situation, it completely ignores the realpolitik of their situation and will lead to predictable reprisals from a superior force. “Why should I stop poking the bear, it’s in my cave!” Well, here we are, another predictable and preventable mauling.
https://www.972mag.com/settler-attacks-west-bank-gaza-war/
They’re not carpet bombing them (wow so kind and restrained of them), but they are continuing to steal homes and land. This has been happening before Oct 7th too. This is what happens when you cooperate with Israel.
Yeah, but the “bear” in the situation is a nation state. It’s not an animal or a natural disaster. You’re blaming the victim here, you realize right?
Thanks for the source, I wasn’t sure if you were referring to settlers or something else I wasn’t aware of. Yeah that’s pretty fucked up how some settlers treat local Arabs and I hope crimes like the cold-blooded murder on that video are prosecuted. Terrorism is unacceptable. Extremist settlers seem to be partially responsible for a lot of the recent escalation, their flash mob in the temple mount mosque was cited as one of the motivations for Hamas’ attack. If they are not kept in check they threaten future peace.
The 20% of Israel’s population who are Arab/Palestinians and are not belligerent seem to be faring better. Plenty of governments cooperate with Israel with very good results. So, what’s different about these? A long history of warfare and broken promises between them.
Just because one is on the losing end of asymmetrical warfare does not mean they are victims with no responsibility for their situation. Ultimately Palestine’s position has mostly to do with declaring war on Israel multiple times and losing, then remaining belligerent and engaging in guerilla attacks against them for the next half-century. Thanks largely to this stoking of animosity despite Palestine’s hopeless military situation, both parties have moved further right. Parts of Palestine embraced Hamas, Israel’s moderate president was assassinated and the government moved more rightwards. Then, there’s the recent attack that killed thousands of civilians. It’s hard to see a territory whose government does that as a victim.
There’s plenty of examples of victimhood to be found on both sides of this conflict, but ultimately one side has been defeated, has no hope to achieve their military goals, yet refuses to surrender or negotiate for a viable peace. Israel is running out of options for security, the carrot and the stick have not worked, and so I suspect they will now try annexation and distance.
Easy, the material conditions, here’s a short that highlights Gaza specifically, and not being under occupation. They have food, water, medical care, aren’t under a permit regime, and aren’t under threat of having their homes violently stolen.
Are you talking about 1948, when the Nakba was happening and expelling people from their homeland? Or 1967 when Israel did a “pre-emptive” strike to start the six day war and get a land grab?
Man, why does this map keep shrinking? Must be a coincidence. Those darn Arabs did some violence and whoopsie we accidently took more land! Man that’s crazy it always seems to work out like that. https://www.palestineportal.org/learn-teach/israelpalestine-the-basics/maps/maps-loss-of-land/
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
material conditions, here’s a short that highlights Gaza specifically
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This a shouting man yelling obscenities at those who disagree. I understand the anger and wanting to push back, but attacking a foe one cannot defeat is a recipe for further loss.
Both are good examples of defeats.
It’s almost like there’s realpolitik consequences for refusing to pacify one’s self and sign a peace treaty after losing wars. Crazy. I expect this trend will continue as long as their belligerence does.
To be fair, you don’t know they can’t defeat them. Vietnam won against the United States. This kind of fascist state can’t last by definition. I only hope it implodes sooner rather than later.
Glad you’ve been on the side of defending apartheid and genocide. Cool chat.
True, but at this point I find it very unlikely. The US wasn’t fighting for its right to exist in Vietnam, there is nowhere for Israelis to withdraw to. This conflict is existential to them.
Genocide: if you mean genocide, as in driving people from their lands, Palestinian-aligned forces practiced that as well in this conflict–when their side annexed Jordan and Jerusalem. By this definition you would be defending those who are genocidal as well.
If you mean genocide as in eradicating an ethnic or religious group, that’s more Hamas’ thing, as I have illustrated above.
Apartheid: you’re ignoring all the Arab-Israeli citizens, who are not kept legally separated and have the same rights as every other citizen there. Their existence makes your accusation of apartheid not make sense. This is clearly about safety and not racial discrimination on the Israeli side.
Cool chat.