374
When lunatics start talking about expelling all Israelis 'Back to Europe' instead of integrating them in a one-state solution (europe.pub)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
346 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I don't know what you thoght when typing up the post, but I do know what I understood when I read it.

A one-state solution is "never" going to work because that's the current solution. There's one state of Israel and no state of Palestine. And currently, Israel hasn't show itself to be all too nice to the palestinians, what with the settling, apartheid and recently as transparent genocide as it gets.

What a one state solution will do is keep the current oppressive power structures. Meaning nothing will truly change. The Israeli press has shown itself to be very anti-Palestinian, and a lot of the population is indoctrinated to think Jews are entitled to settle the land at all costs towards the Palestinians.

There are a lot of examples on YouTube of 'regular' Israelis talking of it in the most gruesome and off-putting words imaginable. One might call it cognitive dissonance, but it's pure indoctrination.

And breaking such indoctrination, cultivated potentialy since the dawn of the sigle state, takes both time and effort.

Effort which is most lukely to succeed were the Palestinians given their own, fully autonomus, UN-recognized and in all aspects equal state free from Israeli control of all types.

Why?

Because Israel has shown itself to be unworthy of having authority over Palestinians.

Systematic oppression needs an equally systematic way of undoing it. Any attepmts at molding the current power structures are unlikely to stop the mistreatment of Palestinians.

The current Israel was and continues to be a one-state solution. A failed solution, that lead to the current genocide. The only way in which such a solution would work is through radical changes to the power structures of the current State, or a new one altogether. One with new laws, a new government, artificially made to overrepresent Palestinians to try to undo the equally artificial, but ingrained in Israeli society opression of them.

Previous such solutions have had a very bad success rate. Such an artificial state is truly like a house of cards. A bad compromise. Neither side is happy for a long time - both feel entitled to more than they get.

So in my humble opinion, one could say that Israel has been given a chance to govern the Palestinians. What they ended up doing is commiting systematic opression a d as of late, a very transparent genocide against them.

If you ask me, any goodwill they've gotten to that end was rescinded as of late, and anything less than a two-state solution will be rewarding the perpetrators.

Obligatorily: I'm not saying that Israelis are all genocidal maniacs, or activelly commiting genocide. But the state, their state, is. And such a state cannot reasonably be expected to stop of its own accord or by a finger-wag from the UN. Since the figer-wagging has been done consistently for quite some time now, way before the recent escalations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    A one-state solution is “never” going to work because that’s the current solution.

    Again, that's not what "one-state solution" means. "One-state solution" necessarily implies, for one, that there is a current problem in need of a solution; it would be extremely strange to say "The solution to the problem is the status quo."

    When people say "One-state solution", they generally mean a single state encompassing all of Palestine and Israel with equal rights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So, there being one state isn't a solution?

    And how would you solve it?

    By not changing the fact that there's one state non-solution out there?

    Of course there's a problem. But you seem to imply as if the problem is brand-new and no solutions have been tried. Not doing anything (or in this case enough) is a solution. A bad one, for sure, but even not doing anything requires some action.

    One state with equal rights will not happen. And how do I know that?

    I'm acquainted with the history of the Middle East.

    This isn't the first conflict between Israel and Palestine by a long shot. Israel's had plenty of ample opportunities to show some humanity, humility and respect for human rights. We all know very well how they answered that call.

    As I see it, there are three hypotheitical possibilities (scenarios) with a one state "solution" (as if it'll be anything new):

    a) Nothing changes (obviously). Palestibians keep being opressed. The war and the genocide stops, but in essence, they stay opressed.

    b) The Israeli government falls. Palestinians take over. The opressors become the oppressed. Again, nothing fundamentally changes, just the roles swap.

    c) A magical "middle-way" coalition wins power. All current laws get rewritten. Palestinians get equal rights, and a way to reclaim lost land. Everyone is happy.

    I hope you see how only one of these makes aby sense in the real world. One is impossible, and the other a fucking fairytale (read: equally as impossible).

    A two-state solution lets Bibi do what he's been doing (Fascism Lite), while stopping the genocide and giving Palestinians basic human rights.

    Anything else isn't a realistic solution (read: it'll never work or quickly break down with the current simulation parameters).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I would argue that a two-state solution is equally unlikely under the current circumstances.

    But my overall point is not whether a one-state solution is viable, only that it is ideal, and I used it in the title to emphasize that I am not arguing against even people who want to completely dissolve the state of Israel as it exists now, but only against the idea that directly making statements that are antisemitic or in favor of ethnic cleansing is what I'm objecting to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    To paraphrase: I wouldn't argue it's a viable solution, merely that it's the ideal one.

    Wouldn't the ideal solution also need to be viable, at the very least?

    While I'm also not arguing against the people denying Israel's right to exist, I am also not arguing for them either.

    And about antisemitism: I'd like to think of myself as against all types of totalitarian control and oppression. I'm also very lucky to not have a personal stake in any armed conflict current or past, which I feel gives me relatively unclouded judgement. I'm also very much against genocide, as I view it as a specific form of oppression.

    Now, whether or not I am an antisemite largely defends on how you define the word.

    I'd like to think that i'm not. However, that assumes the "classic" definition of antisemitism - having something against the Jews by way of religion or ethnicity and discriminating because of that.

    I have something (a lot, in fact) against oppression and genocide. If not supporting everything Israel says and does uncritically and without reservation then yes, I am antisemitic. I do not support Israel's genocide.

    Hovewer, I feel this "new" use of the term is only going to harm not only Israel's interests, but all Jews (Jews themselves inherently, not merely "their interests"). Abusing the term to refer to any dissent from Israeli policy will only remove all "teeth" from the original meaning. Of course, I wouldn't want that, but that's what I not only feel will happen, but is already happening, and it's not because of me.

    As always, Israel doesn't represent all Jews, nor do all Jews constitute Israel. Much less so if we look at Israeli leaders' official stance and world outlook. Conflating the three is a grave mistake.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent