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
[–] [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