3 ms·

Nobody advocates for a Palestinian ethnostate, it's a concession that was made to resolve the issues after the Jewish refusal of a bi-national solution that wou

Nobody advocates for a Palestinian ethnostate, it's a concession that was made to resolve the issues after the Jewish refusal of a bi-national solution that would have Jews as the minority.

weatherlite 2y ago
Most Palestinians want a Palestinian ethnostate from the river to the sea.
- racional 2y ago
  Some do, but reliable percentage data on this topic seems to be hard to come by. And many Israelis (and the current extremist regime) want the exact reverse of course. And make no apologies for this fact.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    That's true, regarding the fringe neo-Kahanist "Greater Israel" coalition Netanyahu assembled. But as you know, it's also true of Hamas; that's the "some" you're referring to. Issue polling is tricky, but it's likely that a majority of Israelis oppose the positions of Netayahu's coalition. (It's probably true that a majority of Gazans at this point oppose the Hamas program; it's very difficult to know, because both Israel and Hamas have done their best to make sure that the opinions of ordinary Gazans are suppressed).
    - racional 2y ago
      Not to quibble, but because you like to nerd out on these things: Maximalist land claims from the Israeli side go back much further than the Kahanist movement - specifically to the Revisionist Zionism movement founded circa 1925. Which arguably became the de-facto position of Israel after the 1967 war up to the current day (basically: "We weren't really planning to grab all this territory, but being as things somehow ended up that way we might as well keep it, because after all it's ours anyway.") And in any case was explicitly the ideology of the Herut Party, which eventually morphed into Likud. Hamas's own position in regard to inverse claims is less clear, given the (somewhat) conflicting language in the key passage everyone cites (Paragraph 20) from the 2017 Charter. By my own reading, that paragraph is actually quite straightforward, and tilts decisively towards the "formula of national consensus" re: 1967 borders. Then again, that was the Hamas of 7 years ago. Given their penchant for piling up civilian corpses the minute their fighters assemble on enemy territory in sufficient numbers to do so; and that "explanations" for their actions have been terse and sparse since then -- I'm not sure what they currently believe.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Hamas is an overtly genocidal organization; their charter says it in plain language, and their deliberate massacre of civilians on October 7 ratifies it. There's no argument to have here. Say that Gazans aren't Hamas, and cannot be collectively punished for the actions of a psychotic millenarian military cult, and I'll agree wholeheartedly with you.
        racional 2y ago
        Hamas is an overtly genocidal organization; their charter says it in plain language The 2017 Charter absolutely does not, and if you think it does you'll have to cite specific paragraphs to back up this view. In fact it specifically rejects antisemitism and goes on further to say: Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.
        tptacek 2y ago
        They just launched a genocidal attack on Israeli women, children, and grandparents. I don't have to parse the distinctions between their overtly genocidal charter, which they didn't disavow, and their new document. They re-avowed the original charter on October 7. Only on Twitter is this a live debate. You know what else happened with Hamas in 2017? A huge internal conflict and series of purges that left Yehya Sinwar, who is a literal Bond villain, in charge of the organization. It's wild to see anybody try to rehabilitate Hamas with "2017". (We're still just nerding out on this, I assume).
        racional 2y ago
        [dead]
      - weatherlite 2y ago
        Zionists accepted the 1947 partition plan (and as far as I know Peel's 1937 plan to a much smaller territory). The Palestinian leadership rejected both outright. In addition Zionists proposed the 2 state solution twice (Camp David 2001, Olmert's plan in 2008) to be rejected twice. To this day there hasn't been a clear consent by a Palestinian leader to let go of the Palestinian right of return, nor has there been a prominent Palestinian leader that accepted any kind of border resolution before the Palestinian Nakba. I've never seen it, would be glad to be shown otherwise. So it's pretty much a long trend of Palestinian rejectionism for any kind of solution. You are cherry picking the facts that agree with your world view and ignoring the rest.
- someotherperson 2y ago
  Complete nonsense. The Palestinian National Charter doesn't restrict citizenship to only Arabs, it explicitly keeps citizenship for pre-Israeli Jews and you can bet a million dollars that it wouldn't restrict the Afro-Palestinians, Turkmen or any other groups. The only restriction in the charter for citizenship is for Jews that moved there after the formation of Israel.
  - weatherlite 2y ago
    Israel doesn't restrict citizenship to only Jews, it is probably more heterogenous than Palestine. Israel is 20% Arab. The Palestinian 'right of return' is meant for Palestinian and no one else (perhaps unsurprisngly). I don't see how this isn't the will to create an ethnostate, it's a mirror image of Zionism.
    - racional 2y ago
      Israel doesn't restrict citizenship to only Jews, But its laws extend greatly preferential treatment to (certain kinds of) Jews, of course. "Jews" (or those deemed as such by certain disputed criteria) may naturalize, but with onerous requirements: demonstrating proficiency in Hebrew being one of them (that "other" indigenous language, Arabic, or other common languages of pre-1947 inhabitants such as Armenian just won't cut it). Also, if you're a citizen and you marry a non-national, citizenship is automatically granted -- unless that person that person has the misfortune of being an inhabitant of the West Bank or Gaza (which includes many descendants of people expelled from what is now Israel in 1947-1949 and afterwards of course). Israel probably more heterogeneous than Palestine. Given the 517k or so non-indigenous squatters (nearly all of them fit in this category, anyway) in Area C, and the 240k or so non-Arab residents of illegally occupied (that is to say, "still Palestine" per international law) East Jerusalem -- this is a highly untenable statement to make. I don't see how [the Right of Return] isn't the will to create an ethnostate, it's a mirror image of Zionism. In human terms, one could also look it as an attempt to restore basic dignity and liberty to these folks, more or less on par to what is provided to prospective citizens of Jewish ancestry via the Law of Return.
      - 2y ago

Nobody advocates for a Palestinian ethnostate, it's a concession that was made to resolve the issues after the Jewish refusal of a bi-national solution that would have Jews as the minority.

weatherlite 2y ago

Most Palestinians want a Palestinian ethnostate from the river to the sea.

racional 2y ago
Some do, but reliable percentage data on this topic seems to be hard to come by. And many Israelis (and the current extremist regime) want the exact reverse of course. And make no apologies for this fact.
- tptacek 2y ago
  That's true, regarding the fringe neo-Kahanist "Greater Israel" coalition Netanyahu assembled. But as you know, it's also true of Hamas; that's the "some" you're referring to. Issue polling is tricky, but it's likely that a majority of Israelis oppose the positions of Netayahu's coalition. (It's probably true that a majority of Gazans at this point oppose the Hamas program; it's very difficult to know, because both Israel and Hamas have done their best to make sure that the opinions of ordinary Gazans are suppressed).
  - racional 2y ago
    Not to quibble, but because you like to nerd out on these things: Maximalist land claims from the Israeli side go back much further than the Kahanist movement - specifically to the Revisionist Zionism movement founded circa 1925. Which arguably became the de-facto position of Israel after the 1967 war up to the current day (basically: "We weren't really planning to grab all this territory, but being as things somehow ended up that way we might as well keep it, because after all it's ours anyway.") And in any case was explicitly the ideology of the Herut Party, which eventually morphed into Likud. Hamas's own position in regard to inverse claims is less clear, given the (somewhat) conflicting language in the key passage everyone cites (Paragraph 20) from the 2017 Charter. By my own reading, that paragraph is actually quite straightforward, and tilts decisively towards the "formula of national consensus" re: 1967 borders. Then again, that was the Hamas of 7 years ago. Given their penchant for piling up civilian corpses the minute their fighters assemble on enemy territory in sufficient numbers to do so; and that "explanations" for their actions have been terse and sparse since then -- I'm not sure what they currently believe.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Hamas is an overtly genocidal organization; their charter says it in plain language, and their deliberate massacre of civilians on October 7 ratifies it. There's no argument to have here. Say that Gazans aren't Hamas, and cannot be collectively punished for the actions of a psychotic millenarian military cult, and I'll agree wholeheartedly with you.
      - racional 2y ago
        Hamas is an overtly genocidal organization; their charter says it in plain language The 2017 Charter absolutely does not, and if you think it does you'll have to cite specific paragraphs to back up this view. In fact it specifically rejects antisemitism and goes on further to say: Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.
        tptacek 2y ago
        They just launched a genocidal attack on Israeli women, children, and grandparents. I don't have to parse the distinctions between their overtly genocidal charter, which they didn't disavow, and their new document. They re-avowed the original charter on October 7. Only on Twitter is this a live debate. You know what else happened with Hamas in 2017? A huge internal conflict and series of purges that left Yehya Sinwar, who is a literal Bond villain, in charge of the organization. It's wild to see anybody try to rehabilitate Hamas with "2017". (We're still just nerding out on this, I assume).
        racional 2y ago
        [dead]
    - weatherlite 2y ago
      Zionists accepted the 1947 partition plan (and as far as I know Peel's 1937 plan to a much smaller territory). The Palestinian leadership rejected both outright. In addition Zionists proposed the 2 state solution twice (Camp David 2001, Olmert's plan in 2008) to be rejected twice. To this day there hasn't been a clear consent by a Palestinian leader to let go of the Palestinian right of return, nor has there been a prominent Palestinian leader that accepted any kind of border resolution before the Palestinian Nakba. I've never seen it, would be glad to be shown otherwise. So it's pretty much a long trend of Palestinian rejectionism for any kind of solution. You are cherry picking the facts that agree with your world view and ignoring the rest.
someotherperson 2y ago
Complete nonsense. The Palestinian National Charter doesn't restrict citizenship to only Arabs, it explicitly keeps citizenship for pre-Israeli Jews and you can bet a million dollars that it wouldn't restrict the Afro-Palestinians, Turkmen or any other groups. The only restriction in the charter for citizenship is for Jews that moved there after the formation of Israel.
- weatherlite 2y ago
  Israel doesn't restrict citizenship to only Jews, it is probably more heterogenous than Palestine. Israel is 20% Arab. The Palestinian 'right of return' is meant for Palestinian and no one else (perhaps unsurprisngly). I don't see how this isn't the will to create an ethnostate, it's a mirror image of Zionism.
  - racional 2y ago
    Israel doesn't restrict citizenship to only Jews, But its laws extend greatly preferential treatment to (certain kinds of) Jews, of course. "Jews" (or those deemed as such by certain disputed criteria) may naturalize, but with onerous requirements: demonstrating proficiency in Hebrew being one of them (that "other" indigenous language, Arabic, or other common languages of pre-1947 inhabitants such as Armenian just won't cut it). Also, if you're a citizen and you marry a non-national, citizenship is automatically granted -- unless that person that person has the misfortune of being an inhabitant of the West Bank or Gaza (which includes many descendants of people expelled from what is now Israel in 1947-1949 and afterwards of course). Israel probably more heterogeneous than Palestine. Given the 517k or so non-indigenous squatters (nearly all of them fit in this category, anyway) in Area C, and the 240k or so non-Arab residents of illegally occupied (that is to say, "still Palestine" per international law) East Jerusalem -- this is a highly untenable statement to make. I don't see how [the Right of Return] isn't the will to create an ethnostate, it's a mirror image of Zionism. In human terms, one could also look it as an attempt to restore basic dignity and liberty to these folks, more or less on par to what is provided to prospective citizens of Jewish ancestry via the Law of Return.
    - 2y ago