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Historical references are also valuable in this discussion, like slave revolts or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, although hopefully in the case of Palestine a peaceful and successful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.

  • Stovetop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        You literally just described a settler state, complete with using reproduction as an occupying tactic.

        Israel, the state, is illegitimate and needs to be dissolved. The Israeli people can integrate and co-createba society with the Palestinians or they can GTFO. Any that stay to explicitly disrupt this and form reactionary movements can get rekt.

        However, as you say, this reality won’t stop the genocide. So a two-state solution is the most likely interim step.

    • danhakimi@kbin.social
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Admetus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        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?

        • danhakimi@kbin.social
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          … 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?

          • Admetus@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • danhakimi@kbin.social
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.