this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
385 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22056 readers
39 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, there's no point in time that would grant Israel legitimacy. The same way America/Canada has to confront their colonial past over Native Americans, or Australia with the Aboriginiees, or any other number of colonial nations, despite the time that's passed since. I'm sympathetic to the plight of Israelis that were born into an apartheid system and now feel they have a claim to the land and a life there, but by saying they have equal claim by nature of being born there you let time erode the culture and heritage of the Palestinian people that were also born into that space, but into a different and much more unfair system. That concept of time granting increasing legitimacy to Israel as a state is exactly what Israel needs, the longer it's able to commit these atrocities to enable further existence of the state of Israel, the more and more ridiculous "why not just give it back?" Seems as an argument.
Palestinians do have more of a right to violence, but I don't think that violence should be directed at those of whom don't have power within that system (civilians). Violence is a tool of the oppressed to fight back against the oppressor. The child who was born into Israel and hasn't even been able to grow enough to form an opinion on the system they were born into isn't an oppressor in the same way the Israeli government is, the same way the idf is, the same way other facets of the system that serve to squash Palestinians are, and as a result should not be a target of that violence. That's abhorrent. But Palestine's very existence, these people's lives are at stake if they don't fight back. Ignoring how unfair a two state solution even is to people whose homes were robbed from them in 1947, Israel hasn't even been so much as willing to come to the table regarding that solution, so Palestine needs to fight for its continued right to exist outright, and that's a natural consequence of Israel trying to weaponize the passage of time to further legitimize it's existence as a state, and giving them that is dangerous for the lives of those Israel has a vested interest in murdering.
You got a lot wrong about how Israel and Palestine were created. And it was Palestine which refused a two state solution several times. That's the sole reason why they are still not a state. Perhaps they want that now, after they saw that Israel will just continue to grow and snatch land from them. But at least Hamas will only accept if Israel is gone completely.
Israel and Palestine did not exist before and "Palestinian" was an ethnonational name for some of the Arabic people living there, mixed with all the other groups like Jews, other Arabic people like the Bedouins, some Christians, etc.
Since Arabic countries also exiled and killed Jews and of course World War 2, the British Empire thought it would be a good idea to create an official state for Jewish people. And the area (at that time called Transjordan) is the only place with native Jewish people. There were also growing conflicts already then, between Arabs and Jews (and Christians, but they were just moving away I guess).
To find a supposedly fair solution for both major groups in the area the British Empire in their infinite wisdom did what was totally hip at the time and tried to divide the land into to countries: Palestine and Israel.
But you had Arabs on one side who didn't want an influx of Jews to the area, they wanted all the land and have a Muslim state. And on the other hand you had more and more Jewish refugees and of course Zyonists coming there who wanted all the land and have a Jewish state.
At that time Palestine refused multiple times to agree to the two-state-solution out of greed. And Israel started stealing land out of greed.
Out of guilt and because there are really few Jews on earth the west equipped Israel with weapons to defend against the Arabic countries who didn't want them there. Israel flourished and some of the Arabic countries thought: how nice to have a rich neighbour in the area. And totally forgot about the not so rich neighbour which were the Palestinians, still hoping to somehow get a better deal for a country.
I thought there was a trial period of the 2SS but it failed because the PLO leadership was corrupt - Palestinians shamed two ministers into quitting but Arafat refused to quit.
That was my takeaway from the Wikipedia entry anyhow.
However I did watch a documentary once about Shin Bet (interviewing many ex Shin Bet leaders) which gave the impression that the 2SS failed because of Jewish religious zealots who assassinated one of the 2SS architects: Rabin.
Can someone clarify please?