So… when will the western world and media wake up? And call it for what it is?
Because the only thing more gross than that is to stand back and pretend it isn’t happening
As soon as half of Americans stop watching fox news?
CNN, NYT, WP all outlets that famously do not have a pro Israel bias, am I right?
FFS.
Fox isn't the only outlet supporting israel, not by a long shot.
At what point do we start to have the discussion that the Israeli state, as it exists now, maybe doesn't have a right to exist.
That's not actually a viable solution though, in the same way as "deleting Germany" wasn't a viable resolution to the second world war.
Their citizens won't just magically disappear, forcibly displacing them would constitute a war crime, and transferring ownership of the entire region to a Palestinian state is just setting up the dominoes for civil war and extending the instability and suffering in the region.
Deleting Nazi Germany was absolutely a viable solution. Israel as a state not existing doesn't mean the citizens go away, it means that as an institution it doesn't exist, which means getting rid of the apartheid regime, the land grabs, the ethnic cleansing, the genocide, etc.
The country should not be based on a racial or ethnic identity, it should be a more fair system accounting for the diversity that is there, like it was back when it was known as Palestine.
apartheid regime, the land grabs, the ethnic cleansing, the genocide
All of the above are consequences of Israeli colonialism/imperialism, not a direct consequence of its existence as a state.
The German example is odd, because not only did Germany not cease to exist, but in fact the exact opposite of what you're proposing was done. That equivalent would be if a victim of Nazi Germany - say, Belgium - annexed Germany in its entirety.
There isn't a one-state solution that creates an environment where both Palestinian and Israelis can live peacefully, because Israeli citizens are unwilling to live under a Palestinian state, and Palestinians are (of course) unwilling to live under an Israeli state.
Israel's founding principles are all those terrible things and the state was formed around them, just like how Nazi Germany was formed on fascism, racism, genocide, land grabs, etc. Nazi Germany is not the same as the Germany we know today or the Germany which existed before Nazi Germany. You're tying the people to the state even though the state can change without forcing everyone out of it.
There was a one-state solution where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived peacefully and that was Palestine long before the formation of Israel. Of course, there are always agitators who push for discrimination to grab power, but peace is a never-ending struggle that requires vigilance. If we can denazify Germany, we can deisraelize Palestine.
Nazi Germany is not, but it is still Germany nonetheless. Your proposal is equivalent to the elimination of the concept of Germany in its entirety.
Basing your solution on a state that last existed in 1516 is an awful approach, and ignores the Israeli people's right to self determination.
Additionally, the number of people who identify as Israeli significantly outnumbers the number of those who identify as Palestinian, so your one state solution still involves a state in which Palestinians continue to be a minority in a nation where Israelis have political control.
And you haven't even begin to consider how you'd actually make it happen - are you expecting netanyahu to volunteer to join Palestine, or are you proposing a full fledged invasion of Israel, a regional military superpower?
Really, this is one of those situations where an idea is so bad, that it's not viable to list all the reasons why it's a bad idea
Basing your solution on a state that last existed in 1516 is an awful approach, and ignores the Israeli people's right to self determination.
Yea, the whole "Make Judea Great Again" idea holds no water, yet here we are.
I don't know how you determined that to be my proposal, unless you think the people of Israel cannot exist without all the racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, etc. Even when we defeated Nazi Germany, most of the people living there still lived there.
I'd say basing solutions on what worked in the past is a good approach, actually. I'm not saying that we turn back the clock since that's impossible and not even optimal. What we should be doing is moving towards a society that promotes peace and harmony, using what worked and improving it with lessons learned in the modern age. Israel as it exists now does not do that at all, and in fact does the opposite in many cases.
The idea would be to combine Israel and Palestine to form a new country where everyone can participate democratically and the rights of the minority are protected.
Huge numbers of Jews (and Christians) were expelled from historic Palestine so this is not a very accurate assessment of history.
Different peoples were expelled from Palestine at different times. You're going to have to be more specific.
Well rather than summarizing the entire history of the region, maybe you can specify which period you felt embodied this spirit of coexistence? Perhaps I am simply unaware but I cannot think of such a time period. Peace often exists in the gaps of history as we perceive it, because the noteworthy events are often quite violent. So it’s possible I am missing the full picture.
By the way, I fully agree that this should be the goal—I just don’t think the implication that things were totally peaceful and pluralistic prior to the advent of Zionism is accurate. That may not have been what you were saying, but I’ve seen it often enough that I feel it needs some pushback or clarification.
One could tenuously make an argument that it was somewhat the case under Ottoman rule, in that non-muslims were much less oppressed than minority religious groups in other countries at that time.
But the conditions for non-muslims even then would still be considered an apartheid state by modern standards.
I think they are referring to Israel existing as an apartheid state. In its place, a state with Equal Rights for all Israelis and Palestinians in historic Palestine.
More forced dispossession won't solve the conflict or bring any justice; which is now the problem with any Two-State Solution due to the hundreds of thousands of settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Occupied Palestinian Territories are hundreds of enclaves divided by Israeli settlements, military bases, and checkpoints. To many New Historians like Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe, settler colonialism has made a Two-State Solution with Palestinian Sovereignty not viable due to the facts on-the-ground, with a Binational One-state as an inevitable outcome.
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
I believe I understand what they're proposing, as the same as your interpretation.
But my point is that whichever way you cut it, it's really not a viable solution in practice. It's lovely to imagine a country where Palestinians and Israelis live together in peace and harmony. But in practice, there's no form of such a state that is an acceptable outcome for either side in the short or even medium term. The Israelis see themselves as Israelis and the Palestinians see themselves as Palestinians, and both of them have a right to self determination. Maybe some form of federal/confederate system would be somewhat possible, but the federal powers would have to be so weak that it would really be a unified state only in name.
But it's somewhat viable to find a two-state solution that is somewhat mutually acceptable, and so pursuing that is the best bet for finding a way to end the conflict.
It’s lovely to imagine a country where Palestinians and Israelis live together in peace and harmony. But in practice, there’s no form of such a state that is an acceptable outcome for either side in the short or even medium term.
The Israelis that would threaten violence to resist a one-state solution are the same ones who are doing violence against Palestinians now. There's no two-state solution that is an acceptable outcome for those pursuing Israeli dominance over the entire area. There were white South Africans who also found the end of apartheid unacceptable. Some people will just be unhappy with any solution that isn't total dominance.
But Israelis and Palestinians already are semi-integrated. Israel has a sizable Arab minority and Palestinians from the occupied territories have been working in Israel. Gaza is undergoing famine now because almost all their food, power, and water come from Israel. Most people there aren't rabid fundamentalists, they just want to live their lives, and that often involves trade or other interaction with people living just a few miles away.
It's not easy to transition from apartheid to integration, but it's been done before, in a place that also had terroristic resistance, brutal oppression, and hardliners that wouldn't "accept" it. And a two-state solution isn't radically more feasible. It sounds easy to just say "set the borders and stop fighting", but there's huge issues like the right of return and the status of east Jerusalem that make setting mutually acceptable final borders a tall task.
But Israelis and Palestinians already are semi-integrated. Israel has a sizable Arab minority and Palestinians from the occupied territories have been working in Israel. Gaza is undergoing famine now because almost all their food, power, and water come from Israel.
This is such a rainbows and butterflies way to describe the siege of Palestine.
What Two-State Solution are you proposing?
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
I'm not proposing any specific implementation, because I'm not a professional diplomat, and defining the terms of a specific two state solution is far outside my knowledge.
But the return of some amount of territory that includes settlements is well within the reasonable bounds of an agreement.
The major difficulty of a Two-State Solution is that there isn't any reasonable way to give back Palestinian Land in the OPTs, because of how the West Bank has been divided and how many settlers there are. I consider Avi Shlaim and Ilan Papp experts on the history and details of Israel Palestine. I was also a proponent of a Two-State Solution until I learned the full reality of the settlements on-the-ground.
This wouldn't be like the resettlement of the 8,000 Israeli settlers in Gaza in 2005, which got resettled into the West Bank. The forced relocation of up to nearly 700,000 of settlers, many militant, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem isn't reasonable to me.
Alternatively, the de juro annexation of 60-88% of the West Bank also isn't reasonable.
On the other hand, a Binational Secular State would also solve the issue of the Palestinian refugee crisis by giving Right of Return for all Palestinians.
I mean there is the one state solution. Israel coukd stop existing without being displaced
One of the nations trying to enforce a one-state solution is exactly the issue that got us here in the first place
It didn't have a right to land so that's how we are here. Not because of one-state solution.
Two state solution is probably the only way it'll ever be over, like happened with Kosovo.
Well apart from letting them complete their genocide.
Can't wait for the Israeli Nuremberg trials....
Not to be callous or contradicting your comment with all the following, but this would only serve these zionist Israeli terrorists' interests. Put forward a few high profile scapegoats, and some monetary compensation for keeping on committing genocide and utilizing stolen land all those decades. Easy trade.
7 decades of forced indignity, loss of life, loss of culture, forced poverty and famine, total blockade and forced regression on any chance at prosperity would be washed clean by pointing fingers at a dozen people and called justice. Fuck that.
The state of Israel has a lot to pay for. With money, with effort, with patience, with acceptance, with toiling in the hell they created on Earth. Nothing less would make the cut to be called justice.
I hope this is being documented somehow.
Even if it takes 40 years for the perpetrators of these war crimes to be brought to justice, as in some other cases, it still should happen.
We live in a world where everyone has a video camera in their pockets. The IDF can't break or confiscate all of them. It is being documented and it has all been documented.
I mean, to the standards required for a court of law (e.g. forensic proof that these were patients) but I take your point.
The worst thing is the advent of AI image generation. Until now, faking a photo took a lot of skilled effort to do well. Holocaust deniers get shot down fairly easily due to the diligent documentation done at the time. One of the generals even ordered it despite protests (it slowed down giving aid). He knew that future generations wouldn't believe the level we can sink too.
Now (or in the near future) generating near flawless fakes will be easy. A photograph of a war crime will be no more believable than a scene from an action movie. We'll likely find work around, but until then, we are in a dead zone on reliability of images.
Yes if I were documenting this I would want hours of witness testimony, forensics, etc.
Ho Ho Holocaaaust
Example picture and video of the mass graves: NSFL: Twitter link
This is horrific! This makes me think that the lesson that Israel learned from the Holocaust is how best to commit a genocide.
The images are nsfl, but everyone should see them.
Because this is a very short article. Is this:
a hospital held by Israel while being sieged for two weeks, and Israel killed those captive,
was the hospital being sieged by Israel and when they got in they found mass graves of people killed by those holding it,
a hospital that everyone died in during a siege by Israel, that is now virtually a mass grave?
The headline says "A mass grave....occupied by Israeli forces"
So there's that too
Yes, occupied after a two week siege.
Did they occupy it and cause it, cause it trying to occupy it, or found it when they occupied it? Bet US forces found mass graves when they occupied Germany too. They can't exactly find a mass grave somewhere they aren't so it still doesn't answer the question.
I know what its written to imply though.
I hate this comments section.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/