5 ms·

I agree with the means, one has to but economic pressure on Israel, but the BDS movement holds some non-viable positions.

School-Cotton 1y ago
Like what? (Honest question).
- ars 1y ago
  The head of the BDS supports the expulsion and/or murder of all Jews in Israel. Quote: Omar Barghouti, the founder of the BDS movement, made that perspective clear: “Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution.” Barghouti also opposed a bi-national Arab and Jewish state: “I am completely and categorically against binationalism … because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land and, therefore, we have to accommodate both national rights. I am completely opposed to that.”
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    He wants a unitary democratic state with equal rights for Jews and Arabs and the right of return for Palestinian refugees abroad and their descendants. Is that too idealistic to ever happen? Yes, probably. But it’s nowhere near what you’re claiming he says.
    - ars 1y ago
      That's the "sanitized" version of what he wants. He actually wants the Jews gone, it's pretty obvious from the other words he has said, and especially from his outright refusal to condemn attacks.
      - School-Cotton 1y ago
        If that’s obvious from other things he said, why don’t you cite those, instead of something completely different?
        ars 1y ago
        It seemed like a good summary to me. I mean saying he wants the end of peaceful coexistence is not enough for you? And he claims the Jews will have zero rights, and that's also not enough? If you need more, well, I gave you his name, he has said lots of stuff.
        School-Cotton 1y ago
        Come on, you are badly misreading these quotes. > saying he wants the end of peaceful coexistence He does not say this. He says he wants the end of the two-state solution; that is, he wants the entire area to be one state (in which people coexist peacefully). > he claims the Jews will have zero rights No he doesn't. He says they will have no national right; that is, they will not have the right to claim the land as the exclusive home of the Jewish Nation. They will still have civil rights as normal citizens like everyone else. In fact, let me paste the full quote, since you left off the clarifying explanation that immediately follows it: > I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land and therefore, we have to accommodate both national rights. I am completely opposed to that, but it would take me too long to explain why, so I will stick to the model I support, which is a secular, democratic state: one person, one vote — regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, and so on and so forth … Full equality under the law with the inclusion of the refugees — this must be based on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In other words, a secular, democratic state that accommodates our inalienable rights as Palestinians with the acquired rights of Israeli Jews as settlers.
      - cholantesh 1y ago
        "trust me bro, I'm psychic"
  - rixed 1y ago
    > The head of the BDS supports the expulsion and/or murder of all Jews >> peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs What is going on here?
- thenaturalist 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - vkou 1y ago
    Anti-zionism is not the same thing as anti-semitism.
    - thenaturalist 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - School-Cotton 1y ago
        > Ai'nt no other minority people have the guts to tell them where their ancestral homeland is or isn't. That's just... not true. The Celts originated in Central Europe. If a bunch of people who identify as Celts (from Scotland, Ireland, etc.) moved to Czechia and tried to take it over from the people currently living there, a lot of people would oppose that.
        thenaturalist 1y ago
        [flagged]
        School-Cotton 1y ago
        I do not particularly think the Muslim conquest of half the world was a good thing, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. History is not merely an epic struggle between Muslims and Israelis where one of those are the good guys and the other are the bad guys. It is possible that Muslims were in the wrong at some point in history, and that Israel is in the wrong now. Ancient Hebrews, who Jews traditionally identify as the originators of their culture, lived in what is now Palestine during the Roman Empire, correct. However this is unrelated to the point that was being made.
  - c0nducktr 1y ago
- danbruc 1y ago
  Do you mean what non-viable positions? First and foremost the unrestricted right to return as this has the potential to end the state of Israel as a Jewish state if Palestinians become the majority population.
  - tmnvix 1y ago
    As a humanist, I consider the right of return to be undeniable. Given your logic, this would make the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state the unviable option. I've been of that opinion for some time now. Nothing to do with antisemitism as some might try to suggest - just the logical conclusion of a humanist position. I'm heartened to see that more people are coming to this same conclusion. Talk of a 'two state solution' has always been a convenient excuse for more of the same as far as I am concerned.
    - danbruc 1y ago
      Israel will not agree to a right to return that might result in the destruction of its status quo. So even if you think that this would be the morally desirable outcome, it is not going to happen. How many of the people displaced during the Nakba are even still alive? We are not talking about letting people displaced a couple of years ago return, we are talking about people and their descendants that have been displaced generations ago, most of them have never lived in the place you want to let them return to. Make them a good enough offer to forfeit their right to return.
    - tmnvix 1y ago
      In response to the dead response... (not sure why it is dead) > Israel will not agree to a right to return This government will not. My view is that the Israeli state is failing through its own actions and at some point will experience regime change (i.e. a drastic change in government - possibly, or possibly not as a result of a democratic election). I expect that a new regime may not be Zionist (at least not in the exclusionary sense we are familiar with) and could well introduce something similar to South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission. That type of government could very possibly recognise the right of return - possibly in some compromised form such as a willingness to pay compensation as has happened following other colonialist endeavours.

School-Cotton 1y ago

Like what? (Honest question).

ars 1y ago
The head of the BDS supports the expulsion and/or murder of all Jews in Israel. Quote: Omar Barghouti, the founder of the BDS movement, made that perspective clear: “Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution.” Barghouti also opposed a bi-national Arab and Jewish state: “I am completely and categorically against binationalism … because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land and, therefore, we have to accommodate both national rights. I am completely opposed to that.”
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  He wants a unitary democratic state with equal rights for Jews and Arabs and the right of return for Palestinian refugees abroad and their descendants. Is that too idealistic to ever happen? Yes, probably. But it’s nowhere near what you’re claiming he says.
  - ars 1y ago
    That's the "sanitized" version of what he wants. He actually wants the Jews gone, it's pretty obvious from the other words he has said, and especially from his outright refusal to condemn attacks.
    - School-Cotton 1y ago
      If that’s obvious from other things he said, why don’t you cite those, instead of something completely different?
      - ars 1y ago
        It seemed like a good summary to me. I mean saying he wants the end of peaceful coexistence is not enough for you? And he claims the Jews will have zero rights, and that's also not enough? If you need more, well, I gave you his name, he has said lots of stuff.
        School-Cotton 1y ago
        Come on, you are badly misreading these quotes. > saying he wants the end of peaceful coexistence He does not say this. He says he wants the end of the two-state solution; that is, he wants the entire area to be one state (in which people coexist peacefully). > he claims the Jews will have zero rights No he doesn't. He says they will have no national right; that is, they will not have the right to claim the land as the exclusive home of the Jewish Nation. They will still have civil rights as normal citizens like everyone else. In fact, let me paste the full quote, since you left off the clarifying explanation that immediately follows it: > I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land and therefore, we have to accommodate both national rights. I am completely opposed to that, but it would take me too long to explain why, so I will stick to the model I support, which is a secular, democratic state: one person, one vote — regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, and so on and so forth … Full equality under the law with the inclusion of the refugees — this must be based on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In other words, a secular, democratic state that accommodates our inalienable rights as Palestinians with the acquired rights of Israeli Jews as settlers.
    - cholantesh 1y ago
      "trust me bro, I'm psychic"
- rixed 1y ago
  > The head of the BDS supports the expulsion and/or murder of all Jews >> peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs What is going on here?
thenaturalist 1y ago
[flagged]
- vkou 1y ago
  Anti-zionism is not the same thing as anti-semitism.
  - thenaturalist 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - School-Cotton 1y ago
      > Ai'nt no other minority people have the guts to tell them where their ancestral homeland is or isn't. That's just... not true. The Celts originated in Central Europe. If a bunch of people who identify as Celts (from Scotland, Ireland, etc.) moved to Czechia and tried to take it over from the people currently living there, a lot of people would oppose that.
      - thenaturalist 1y ago
        [flagged]
        School-Cotton 1y ago
        I do not particularly think the Muslim conquest of half the world was a good thing, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. History is not merely an epic struggle between Muslims and Israelis where one of those are the good guys and the other are the bad guys. It is possible that Muslims were in the wrong at some point in history, and that Israel is in the wrong now. Ancient Hebrews, who Jews traditionally identify as the originators of their culture, lived in what is now Palestine during the Roman Empire, correct. However this is unrelated to the point that was being made.
- c0nducktr 1y ago
danbruc 1y ago
Do you mean what non-viable positions? First and foremost the unrestricted right to return as this has the potential to end the state of Israel as a Jewish state if Palestinians become the majority population.
- tmnvix 1y ago
  As a humanist, I consider the right of return to be undeniable. Given your logic, this would make the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state the unviable option. I've been of that opinion for some time now. Nothing to do with antisemitism as some might try to suggest - just the logical conclusion of a humanist position. I'm heartened to see that more people are coming to this same conclusion. Talk of a 'two state solution' has always been a convenient excuse for more of the same as far as I am concerned.
  - danbruc 1y ago
    Israel will not agree to a right to return that might result in the destruction of its status quo. So even if you think that this would be the morally desirable outcome, it is not going to happen. How many of the people displaced during the Nakba are even still alive? We are not talking about letting people displaced a couple of years ago return, we are talking about people and their descendants that have been displaced generations ago, most of them have never lived in the place you want to let them return to. Make them a good enough offer to forfeit their right to return.
  - tmnvix 1y ago
    In response to the dead response... (not sure why it is dead) > Israel will not agree to a right to return This government will not. My view is that the Israeli state is failing through its own actions and at some point will experience regime change (i.e. a drastic change in government - possibly, or possibly not as a result of a democratic election). I expect that a new regime may not be Zionist (at least not in the exclusionary sense we are familiar with) and could well introduce something similar to South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission. That type of government could very possibly recognise the right of return - possibly in some compromised form such as a willingness to pay compensation as has happened following other colonialist endeavours.