Israel / Palestine

Interesting article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67266475

@Aldosterone - thank you for your well-made points, I agree with you entirely.

To everyone else who is debating the ‘river and the sea’ language - here’s that language being weaponised against the Palestinian cause, because sadly some are indeed using it as a dog-whistle for the elimination of Israel. https://x.com/mishtal/status/1718925092091043956?s=46

I’m not endorsing that thread just flagging it up as an example, to be completely clear.

Thought I had replied to this at 8 this morning.

No, that is not my logic. How do you get to that?

Not saying everything he's posted is bunkem but he's one the few accounts I've muted on Twitter cos he posts shit like this and it appears in my feed for some reason.

In response to my pointing out that there are now generations of Israelis who have been born there and don’t have anywhere to go, you said that they’d voted for their warmongering leaders (as had the British for Blair). What point are you making by saying that, if you’re not insinuating that every citizen is culpable for the actions of their government and therefore fair game?

Yeah the guy is a twat because none of his arguments are in good faith, but it does show how dangerous this ‘river to the sea’ slogan can be.

.

But it is not just drawing of borders, it isn't that simple.

Hola, did I mention or reply to the point of those born there? As that doesn't sit well with removing the rights of the people that were there before 1946. Or how do you see that?

The point is not if you voted for some one but greater population 'pay' for the actions (sins) of our leaders. Feels to me like you are judging others actions like Israel are with the you are in that area, leave or you are the enemy.

The point is that people are radicalised by the action of the UK/US government (killing innocent members of others population) to commit suicide (is that the right word?) and kill members other innocent members of the general population as some sort of retribution (is that the right word)

Displacing the Palestinians was basically ethnic cleansing. The Romans did similar to the Jews. Israel now exists and a bunch of people have been born into it. A two-state solution seemed for a long time like the only workable solution to those competing claims to the same land. I can see the intellectual appeal of a pluralistic one-state solution but it doesn’t seem in anyway achievable in the foreseeable future. Maybe a two-state solution could be a stepping stone in that direction.

In the meantime, the lack of trust between the two sides means that any call for a one-state solution is seen as a call for the expulsion of one or other side. It’s disingenuous to say ‘oh but I didn’t mean it that way’ when some people clearly do mean it that way.

So how far back do we have to go, till we are ok with ethnic cleansing?

The discussion of born there is moot, as it overlooks those that were born there and then forcefully moved. It is not like top trumps.

As you mentioned a one state solution, can you explain how there can be one when the basis seems to be selectively born in the area.

Do you see the similarities with Russia invading Crimea/Ukraine and side with Russians being in the right?

Ethnic cleansing is never okay. Which is why it should never be a ‘solution’ to ‘rectify’ historical ethnic cleansing.

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say with the rest of your post.

Nope.

Indeed. But thats how it starts.

Yep India/Pakistan being one proof.

There are theories that Neanderthals were driven to extinction by violence from modern homo sapiens, so perhaps we have to go back that far.

We seem to be ok with Moses and his people (I have no idea what his people were as they have become so many different people) removed (ethnically cleansed) the people who's land it was when Moses turned up. As time passed different people came along and did there version of intergration and ethnic cleansing. At which point do we decide that from here on in the past that is who is right to be in that land? Empires collapse, the Romans are no more, nor are the Vizigoths (insert your goth of choice, which may have been part area dependent, it has been a long time since learning this) was then taken over by the Byzantine and then ottoman.

You mentioned people being born there, (in the now Israel) having a right to be there but this takes away the right of those that were there before the UN drew lines. Hence it is a moot point. The two cancel each other out. Don't they?

The fact that Russia sent people to live in the area (Crimea/Ukraine) then after the break up of the United Soviet states those area returned to the pre (ISH) USSR countries so the current claim of Russia of that it's people are there so they identify as Russian so those countries should be Russia.

Homo sapiens should fuck off back to where they came from?

Was that gonwandaland? Or later than the continents drifting?

Some say leaving the water was a bad idea and they went back to the sea ;)

Christ you ramble out some nonsense.

At which point do we decide that from here on in the past that is who is right to be in that land?

Stewart Lee addressed this point once and for all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KVO378tjsw

Lots of armchair generals and historians out tonight

Which bit don't you agree with, or see as nonsense.

This is an open discussion.

Look closer to home at the British plantation of Northern Ireland. You’ve find that the British are the masters of divide and conquer.