7 ms·

> No, that's not how this works. My 23&Me says my family came from Africa (as did all people), then southwest Asia then Europe but that doesn't give me the righ

by edanm 2y ago

> No, that's not how this works. My 23&Me says my family came from Africa (as did all people), then southwest Asia then Europe but that doesn't give me the right to go to one of those countries and claim land. You brought up indigeneity. In what way are Jews not indigenous? I agreed with you that it's irrelevant right after. I don't think it automatically gives anyone right to claim any land. > Yes, Jews fleeing the Holocaust did find refuge in Palestine but fleeing an ethnic cleansing of their own doesn't make the colonization that was already ongoing more legal. Who exactly were the colonizers? The Jews who legally immigrated to that land under the Ottoman Empire? The Jews who legally immigrated to that land under British rule? The 90% of the Jews who came to Israel because they literally had no where else to go after being in DP camps after WW2 and the UN voting for them to move to that land? I'm not sure who are these mythical colonizers who came in and violent expelled Palestinians from the land. Most of the Jews either came legally through immigration or were refugees. > A 2 state solution is not the only way, it is colonization. This is literally the first time I've ever heard this claim. A two state solution is the stated goal of the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. It was the goal of Arafat. Are you seriously saying that their goal, had it been reached, was a continuation of colonization? I really don't know what to make of this argument. Two people live on a land and don't want to be part of the same state, for good reason. Both have reasonable reasons to consider that land theirs (certainly at this point) and nowhere else to go. What can be more sensible than splitting up that land?

hmcq6 2y ago
>A two state solution is the stated goal of the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. It was the goal of Arafat. Are you seriously saying that their goal, had it been reached, was a continuation of colonization? I'm sorry but wasn't this also you? > OK. Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before? Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that *granted them statehood* and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land. This isn't a serious line of questioning, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't say they're doing more colonization without the deal and then say the deal was bad for Palestine.
- edanm 2y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. To clarify some things that maybe are unclear: First, occupation is not the same as colonization. Second, I was speaking of Gaza specifically when I talked about there being more vs. less occupation - not all of Israel. > Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that granted them statehood and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land. So I don't understand what you're advocating. You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization. What solution do you think is a) the right one and b) the practical one? I don't understand how my advocating of what probably 95% of peace activists are advocating is wrong.
  - hmcq6 2y ago
    Occupation is not tautological to colonization but occupation can be the first step to colonization. > You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization. It is a continuation of the colonization. It is also something the Palestinians *have* agreed to, that's what the Oslo Accords are. > On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. I'm fine with a 2 state solution if that's what the Palestinans want. My issue is that Israel is unlikely to follow the rules given their current behavior so why not just make it 1 state with equal rights? Is that really so scary? Equal rights? But none of that matters because the first thing that has to happen before even a 2 state solution is a ceasefire.
    - edanm 2y ago
      > I'm fine with a 2 state solution if that's what the Palestinans want. My issue is that Israel is unlikely to follow the rules given their current behavior so why not just make it 1 state with equal rights? Is that really so scary? Equal rights? YES! I don't know how else to say this. Giving equal rights which would effectively double the voting base with people who fundamentally oppose many things you think are important is terrifying. Again, if you were LGBTQ in Israel, and I told you we're bringing in 100% more voters who mostly think homosexuality is a sin and could now vote to make it illegal, wouldn't you think it's a bad idea? And that's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the the new state acts like every other state that has a Jewish minority, and eventually decides to kill the Jews. Made even more likely given the years of animosity between the two peoples. You are again and again asking if it's really so bad to do something that 99% of people, including almost all peace activists, say will end in the destruction of the Jews in Israel, one way or another. If that is the only option, it is one that will never be accepted. I don't understand why you can't see that, unless you think you know better than almost everyone else that lives in the area or has studied the area. (I'm totally open to different arrangements like A Land For All, which aim to make an Israeli/Palestinian federation, basically a two-state solution that has deals in place like the EU which would allow citizens to move between the countries.)

by edanm 2y ago

hmcq6 2y ago

>A two state solution is the stated goal of the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. It was the goal of Arafat. Are you seriously saying that their goal, had it been reached, was a continuation of colonization? I'm sorry but wasn't this also you? > OK. Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before? Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that *granted them statehood* and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land. This isn't a serious line of questioning, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't say they're doing more colonization without the deal and then say the deal was bad for Palestine.

edanm 2y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. To clarify some things that maybe are unclear: First, occupation is not the same as colonization. Second, I was speaking of Gaza specifically when I talked about there being more vs. less occupation - not all of Israel. > Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that granted them statehood and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land. So I don't understand what you're advocating. You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization. What solution do you think is a) the right one and b) the practical one? I don't understand how my advocating of what probably 95% of peace activists are advocating is wrong.
- hmcq6 2y ago
  Occupation is not tautological to colonization but occupation can be the first step to colonization. > You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization. It is a continuation of the colonization. It is also something the Palestinians *have* agreed to, that's what the Oslo Accords are. > On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. I'm fine with a 2 state solution if that's what the Palestinans want. My issue is that Israel is unlikely to follow the rules given their current behavior so why not just make it 1 state with equal rights? Is that really so scary? Equal rights? But none of that matters because the first thing that has to happen before even a 2 state solution is a ceasefire.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > I'm fine with a 2 state solution if that's what the Palestinans want. My issue is that Israel is unlikely to follow the rules given their current behavior so why not just make it 1 state with equal rights? Is that really so scary? Equal rights? YES! I don't know how else to say this. Giving equal rights which would effectively double the voting base with people who fundamentally oppose many things you think are important is terrifying. Again, if you were LGBTQ in Israel, and I told you we're bringing in 100% more voters who mostly think homosexuality is a sin and could now vote to make it illegal, wouldn't you think it's a bad idea? And that's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the the new state acts like every other state that has a Jewish minority, and eventually decides to kill the Jews. Made even more likely given the years of animosity between the two peoples. You are again and again asking if it's really so bad to do something that 99% of people, including almost all peace activists, say will end in the destruction of the Jews in Israel, one way or another. If that is the only option, it is one that will never be accepted. I don't understand why you can't see that, unless you think you know better than almost everyone else that lives in the area or has studied the area. (I'm totally open to different arrangements like A Land For All, which aim to make an Israeli/Palestinian federation, basically a two-state solution that has deals in place like the EU which would allow citizens to move between the countries.)