4 ms·

>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

by 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.)
    - ta20240528 2y ago
      > basically a two-state solution A genuine second state? One with its own defence force, choice of allies, no blockades, selection of weapons (all the way up the periodic table), etc. I.e. one with the same rights as Israel's citizens grant themselves, or a crippled bantustan? Because equal is equal.
      - edanm 2y ago
        Yes, of course I think they should have their own state like any other state. That's what a two state solution means. I think there will need to be some security guarantees to prevent it from turning out similarly to Gaza. I have no idea what that should look like, from either side's perspective - but that's part of the negotiations for actually making the two states. And I'm sure there will have to be similar security guarantees from the Israeli side, so Israel doesn't just decide after two weeks to invade because of a random terror attack.

by hmcq6 2y ago

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.)
  - ta20240528 2y ago
    > basically a two-state solution A genuine second state? One with its own defence force, choice of allies, no blockades, selection of weapons (all the way up the periodic table), etc. I.e. one with the same rights as Israel's citizens grant themselves, or a crippled bantustan? Because equal is equal.
    - edanm 2y ago
      Yes, of course I think they should have their own state like any other state. That's what a two state solution means. I think there will need to be some security guarantees to prevent it from turning out similarly to Gaza. I have no idea what that should look like, from either side's perspective - but that's part of the negotiations for actually making the two states. And I'm sure there will have to be similar security guarantees from the Israeli side, so Israel doesn't just decide after two weeks to invade because of a random terror attack.