-
I respect that and am aware - nothing like a non-violent, just, fair and peaceful resolution which we all desire I imagine (bar some war-mongering crackpots of course). South Africa might be the most pertinent example that you mention, which is why there's growing popularity of scholarly work comparing the Palestine case with South Africa and the apartheid regime.
Whether applying that strategy (boycotting, divesting, sanctioning etc.) leads to the desired outcomes - we don't know yet, but it's certainly worth a try for those that way inclined morally. I've noticed that some of the key figures of this movement, including Chomsky and Israeli historian Pappe have shifted to a one-state solution mindset: a Palestine for all without the dangers of Zionism and the respondent Islamic extremism (I hate using this over-used and blanket term but you know what I mean) which might disrupt that.
Another comparison drawn is with former European colonies around the globe. Think South America and the Caribbean, Africa (for Palestine the North of is particular relevance), the Indian sub-continent to an extent, and elsewhere. By and large, these were much more bloody episodes that have gone down in history for what they were; struggles for justice and freedom.
The idealist wishes for one solution, but the realist recognises the efficacy of the uglier of the two. I'm not advocating anything here, just a desire for the best solution, as vague as that may sound.
You are reading a single comment by @infmz and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
infmz
Well reasoned, but this logic will lead nowhere, because Israel now exists, it's people exist, and only another atrocity can reverse that.
South Africa, USA, Canada, Australia are all states built on colonialism and atrocities. All have deep problems obviously, but the only solutions to them are peaceful.
Edit, of course it took a civil war to end slavery in US ...