7 ms·

We Westerners want peace, prosperity and sovereignty for Palestinians. For us, a 2 state solution seems so reasonable. But we're not the ones who matter. Among

We Westerners want peace, prosperity and sovereignty for Palestinians. For us, a 2 state solution seems so reasonable. But we're not the ones who matter. Among Palestinians and Arabs in general, advocates for a 2-state peaceful coexistence is such a miniscule minority that yes, you can effectively paint the entire pro-Palestinian movement as genocidal. This is hard for Westerners to swallow, but that is the reality.

edanm 2y ago
No, I still disagree, on a few points: 1) The official position of most Arab countries is aiming for a 2 state solution, iirc. The Palestinian Authority - which is the effective government of the West Bank Palestinians, and the official representative of Palestinians - officially recognize the State of Israel and endorse a two state solution. Yes, support among the populace right now is weak - both Israelis and Palestinians - but that's probably because of the breakdown of the peace talks and living for the last 15 years in a situation in which Israel itself isn't really pursuing any kind of peace. 2) You write: "you can effectively paint the entire pro-Palestinian movement as genocidal." Even if they don't support a two-state solution, calling them genocidal is going way too far. 3) When you talk about the "entire pro-Palestinian movement", it sounds like you're including the Western pro-Palestinian movement as well. They are definitely not genocidal, and very relevant in the current context. 4) Most importantly - the best way to get to peace isn't to ignore the peaceful voices on either side as fringe, it's to amplify them. There are genuinely pro-peace people on all sides of these issues, and pretending they don't exist is exactly the kind of rhetorical message that leads to more hate and violence. "No one on the other side is reasonable" is both wrong, and very harmful.
- rendall 2y ago
  > They are definitely not genocidal... I'll just direct you to the Hamas Charter (pdf): https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attachments/jps-articles/2538093.pdf https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attach... Also to the history of Arab violence on Jews, both in the Levant and in the Middle East in general: https://medium.com/@Ksantini/the-list-of-crimes-committed-by-muslims-against-jews-since-the-7th-century-0ff1a8eb0ad0 https://medium.com/@Ksantini/the-list-of-crimes-committed-by... Also to the latest attack on October 7th. > There are genuinely pro-peace people on all sides of these issues, and pretending they don't exist is exactly the kind of rhetorical message that leads to more hate and violence. No one pretends they don't exist. I genuinely love them. They are considered traitors and get a lot of hate, but all the more power and support to them. But it's foolish to pretend they are not rare. John Aziz is amazing: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/gaza-israel-air-strike-family-home/677016/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/gaza-israe... Not supporting a two-state solution is genocidal, because it would require putting people who have explicitly stated that they want to kill Jews, in power. By their statements and behavior, Hamas, with overwhelming Gazan support, want a 1-state solution with Muslims in charge.
  - edanm 2y ago
    I don't think we're disagreeing about any facts here, only framing. I wrote: >> > They are definitely not genocidal... You responded: > I'll just direct you to the Hamas Charter (pdf) But I was specifically talking in that line about the Western pro-Palestinian movement, not Hamas. In other parts of my comment, I specifically called out the position of the PA as the official representative of the Palestinians. You really don't need to remind me of the actions of Hamas. I agree with you about them. They are clearly genocidal and, more importantly, anti-peace. (I say more importantly because they can't actually commit genocide, but they can and have blocked peace from happening.)
    - rendall 2y ago
      > But I was specifically talking in that line about the Western pro-Palestinian movement, not Hamas. Oh I see. I did misunderstand. But, honestly, I'm not so sure. Maybe you and I consume different news sources, but organizations and movements I once considered to be bastions of Western morality continue to distort the reality of the conflict so egregiously that I have a hard time understanding how it could be accidental. Continuing to report Hamas statistics without qualification and then using them to accuse Israel of "genocide" is unconscionable, for instance. In 2021, the UN Human Rights Council published a resolution titled "Human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel," which accused Israel of widespread abuses without substantial mention of the barrage of rocket attacks from Hamas that provoked some of these responses. This selective reporting led readers to believe that Israel was the primary aggressor in the conflict. In May 2021, during a conflict between Israel and Hamas, the BBC headlined, "Israel intensifies attacks in Gaza as conflict escalates," without equally highlighting the hundreds of rockets fired into civilian areas of Israel by Hamas. This portrayal skewed public perception, framing Israel as the initiator rather than acting in retaliation. In April 2021, HRW released a report titled "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution." This report categorically labeled Israel as an apartheid state, a term deeply contentious and debated, suggesting an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians. In February 2022, Amnesty International issued a report stating that Israel's policies towards Palestinians amount to apartheid. The report asserts, "Israel’s cruel policies of segregation, dispossession, and exclusion across all territories under its control clearly amount to apartheid." This statement casts Israel's actions and policies in strictly negative terms, intensifying global anti-Israel sentiment without a balanced discussion of the complex security and political challenges that inform these policies. Labeling Israel's policies as "apartheid" is both inappropriate and harmful because it inaccurately applies a term specifically defined under international law to the unique and complex Arab-Israeli conflict. Apartheid, as legally defined, refers to an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another. The situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories involves a national and territorial conflict, marked by security concerns and political disputes that differ fundamentally from the racial segregation and legal discrimination that characterized apartheid in South Africa. Using the term "apartheid" to describe the Israeli-Palestinian context distorts understanding by simplifying a multifaceted conflict into a one-dimensional moral failing, which undermines the nuanced approach needed to resolve such disputes. It prevents meaningful dialogue, polarizes opinions, and can incite further tension by misrepresenting the nature of the conflict. This characterization shifts focus from seeking viable solutions to assigning blame, which is counterproductive for peace efforts and does a disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians who are impacted by these complex issues. While I'm sure that many leftists think "Free Palestine" means freedom, self-rule, sovereignty, I know that the movement depends on that ambiguity to dog whistle to racists who, unfortunately, infect some of our human rights watch dogs. So, no, I'm not convinced that Western pro-Palestinians are not on some level intentionally genocidal. I cannot otherwise explain the level of hate and vitriol directed at Israel way out of proportion to any other conflict or situation on the planet.

edanm 2y ago

No, I still disagree, on a few points: 1) The official position of most Arab countries is aiming for a 2 state solution, iirc. The Palestinian Authority - which is the effective government of the West Bank Palestinians, and the official representative of Palestinians - officially recognize the State of Israel and endorse a two state solution. Yes, support among the populace right now is weak - both Israelis and Palestinians - but that's probably because of the breakdown of the peace talks and living for the last 15 years in a situation in which Israel itself isn't really pursuing any kind of peace. 2) You write: "you can effectively paint the entire pro-Palestinian movement as genocidal." Even if they don't support a two-state solution, calling them genocidal is going way too far. 3) When you talk about the "entire pro-Palestinian movement", it sounds like you're including the Western pro-Palestinian movement as well. They are definitely not genocidal, and very relevant in the current context. 4) Most importantly - the best way to get to peace isn't to ignore the peaceful voices on either side as fringe, it's to amplify them. There are genuinely pro-peace people on all sides of these issues, and pretending they don't exist is exactly the kind of rhetorical message that leads to more hate and violence. "No one on the other side is reasonable" is both wrong, and very harmful.

rendall 2y ago
> They are definitely not genocidal... I'll just direct you to the Hamas Charter (pdf): https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attachments/jps-articles/2538093.pdf https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attach... Also to the history of Arab violence on Jews, both in the Levant and in the Middle East in general: https://medium.com/@Ksantini/the-list-of-crimes-committed-by-muslims-against-jews-since-the-7th-century-0ff1a8eb0ad0 https://medium.com/@Ksantini/the-list-of-crimes-committed-by... Also to the latest attack on October 7th. > There are genuinely pro-peace people on all sides of these issues, and pretending they don't exist is exactly the kind of rhetorical message that leads to more hate and violence. No one pretends they don't exist. I genuinely love them. They are considered traitors and get a lot of hate, but all the more power and support to them. But it's foolish to pretend they are not rare. John Aziz is amazing: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/gaza-israel-air-strike-family-home/677016/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/gaza-israe... Not supporting a two-state solution is genocidal, because it would require putting people who have explicitly stated that they want to kill Jews, in power. By their statements and behavior, Hamas, with overwhelming Gazan support, want a 1-state solution with Muslims in charge.
- edanm 2y ago
  I don't think we're disagreeing about any facts here, only framing. I wrote: >> > They are definitely not genocidal... You responded: > I'll just direct you to the Hamas Charter (pdf) But I was specifically talking in that line about the Western pro-Palestinian movement, not Hamas. In other parts of my comment, I specifically called out the position of the PA as the official representative of the Palestinians. You really don't need to remind me of the actions of Hamas. I agree with you about them. They are clearly genocidal and, more importantly, anti-peace. (I say more importantly because they can't actually commit genocide, but they can and have blocked peace from happening.)
  - rendall 2y ago
    > But I was specifically talking in that line about the Western pro-Palestinian movement, not Hamas. Oh I see. I did misunderstand. But, honestly, I'm not so sure. Maybe you and I consume different news sources, but organizations and movements I once considered to be bastions of Western morality continue to distort the reality of the conflict so egregiously that I have a hard time understanding how it could be accidental. Continuing to report Hamas statistics without qualification and then using them to accuse Israel of "genocide" is unconscionable, for instance. In 2021, the UN Human Rights Council published a resolution titled "Human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel," which accused Israel of widespread abuses without substantial mention of the barrage of rocket attacks from Hamas that provoked some of these responses. This selective reporting led readers to believe that Israel was the primary aggressor in the conflict. In May 2021, during a conflict between Israel and Hamas, the BBC headlined, "Israel intensifies attacks in Gaza as conflict escalates," without equally highlighting the hundreds of rockets fired into civilian areas of Israel by Hamas. This portrayal skewed public perception, framing Israel as the initiator rather than acting in retaliation. In April 2021, HRW released a report titled "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution." This report categorically labeled Israel as an apartheid state, a term deeply contentious and debated, suggesting an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians. In February 2022, Amnesty International issued a report stating that Israel's policies towards Palestinians amount to apartheid. The report asserts, "Israel’s cruel policies of segregation, dispossession, and exclusion across all territories under its control clearly amount to apartheid." This statement casts Israel's actions and policies in strictly negative terms, intensifying global anti-Israel sentiment without a balanced discussion of the complex security and political challenges that inform these policies. Labeling Israel's policies as "apartheid" is both inappropriate and harmful because it inaccurately applies a term specifically defined under international law to the unique and complex Arab-Israeli conflict. Apartheid, as legally defined, refers to an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another. The situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories involves a national and territorial conflict, marked by security concerns and political disputes that differ fundamentally from the racial segregation and legal discrimination that characterized apartheid in South Africa. Using the term "apartheid" to describe the Israeli-Palestinian context distorts understanding by simplifying a multifaceted conflict into a one-dimensional moral failing, which undermines the nuanced approach needed to resolve such disputes. It prevents meaningful dialogue, polarizes opinions, and can incite further tension by misrepresenting the nature of the conflict. This characterization shifts focus from seeking viable solutions to assigning blame, which is counterproductive for peace efforts and does a disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians who are impacted by these complex issues. While I'm sure that many leftists think "Free Palestine" means freedom, self-rule, sovereignty, I know that the movement depends on that ambiguity to dog whistle to racists who, unfortunately, infect some of our human rights watch dogs. So, no, I'm not convinced that Western pro-Palestinians are not on some level intentionally genocidal. I cannot otherwise explain the level of hate and vitriol directed at Israel way out of proportion to any other conflict or situation on the planet.