4 ms·
In this conflict the narrative defines your position. A Jewish person might say those people occupied my historical homeland to which they have no right to and
by YZF 6y ago
In this conflict the narrative defines your position. A Jewish person might say those people occupied my historical homeland to which they have no right to and from which I've been forcefully removed. A Palestinian can say the Jewish people displaced my ancestors from my home by force. They're both right (to some degree) and both positions are not useful to actually getting a peaceful resolution, they are typically used to justify non-peaceful actions. There's also a lot more detail/colour to those statements and history than meets the eye, some agreed to facts and a lot of historical debates.
I would also add to that that IMO the specific criticism of Jewish people borders on antisemitism. There are very few people on this planet who live on land that was not taken by force from someone at some point, sometimes in very recent history (is there a statue of limitation on this stuff?). There are also many people who immigrated in recent history from one place to another. At the same time there's certainly much to be critical of. I would also say the characterization above of "turned into colonies" is factually wrong. Even if we look at it solely from the Palestinian narrative I think you want to tread pretty carefully, especially if you want someone to listen to your position/argument and maybe change their minds.
All that said, we have to move forward (both in Israel and the rest of the world) through some sort of reconciliation that can acknowledge the wrongs and make amends while at the same time realizing we can't turn the clock backwards. Clearly (to me) there are win-win solutions that are much preferable to the ongoing conflict.
EDIT: I find this story very inspirational and something that hopefully can show everyone that despite all the challenges it is possible to move forward to a better place.
- DSingularity 6y agoI agree about the narratives. That being said, the recent events — those in the historical record of these lands — should not be dismissed simply because “everyone lives on land taken by someone”. I mean, are you proposing to ignore the nakba? In my opinion, it is one thing to say we that should move on from what happened centuries ago to indigenous populations in the Americas and another thing entirely to say let’s ignore a settler colonial movement which operates in the modern era. Regarding what you mentioned on the anti-semitism of criticizing Jewish people: what should the approach be for good-faith critics? Say I want to criticize the modern day policies of the Israeli military/government which create a reality of Jewish supremacy in the occupied territories, how do I do it? This is the unfortunate reality of today and we should be able to speak out against it without being labeled as anti-semites.
- YZF 6y agoI don't think there's a problem with you being critical of any specific action without being labelled an anti-semite. Some things are just plain wrong. Some things are more nuanced so it's nice to acknowledge this nuance, e.g. "I disagree that X is a good reason for Y" rather than saying "I condemn Y". Sweeping generalizations are probably less useful. That said, if one's focus is 100% on "things that Jews do wrong" .. maybe that's something else. Also indigenous populations in the Americas are still being wronged today!