Stop using the word Zionism! It’s racist whether you know it or not. Israelis going anywhere. If you want to be constructive, then support a two state solution, instead of a pipe dream of believing Israel can be driven into the sea. Israel is a nuclear nation, and will destroy the entire Middle East before it surrenders to anyone.
Stop using the word Zionism! It’s racist whether you know it or not. Israelis going anywhere. If you want to be constructive, then support a two state solution, instead of a pipe dream of believing Israel can be driven into the sea. Israel is a nuclear nation, and will destroy the entire Middle East before it surrenders to anyone.
And support for Israel, not Zionism, has been a staple in US relations going back to its formation. So whatever, your belief, at least be realistic or pragmatic.
I do not support Netanyahu or his right-wing government, but I have equal disdain for Hamas and every other Islamic terror group in the region.
And if you think Hamas are truly hero’s, then maybe you should ask the 75% of the Palestinian people who didn’t support Hamas, or believes they are a legitimate government or party. They rule by terror and fear.
If Israel is an occupying force, which they are, then so is Hamas. They haven’t held an election since 2006, when it won its only election with 35% of the vote.
The Palestinian Authority ran too many candidates for each parliamentary seat and they ended up cannibalizing each other; handing the government over to terrorists, bent on Israel’s destruction.
Zionism is an ideology, but the way it’s being used by the Pro-Palestinian movement is racist, because they don’t believe Israel should exist (from the river to the sea). Israel isn’t going anywhere. And Israel is no more an ideology than the Palestinian’s aspirations of a homeland.
Let’s remember, before the 67’ War, Israel proper was controlled by Britain. Gaza was controlled by Egypt, and The West Bank and Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan. There was never a Palestinian state because both Egypt and Jordan were against giving up any land to the Palestinians.
The UN declared a Palestinian state, side by side with Israel. Regardless of belief, the Palestinians never had a state prior to the UN mandate. And the international community is not going to displace Jewish people from the state they declared as the state of Israel.
If we want to claim rights, we’d have to go back to the times of the Babylonian’s and the first mass exodus. And Jews always came back. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Jews and Muslims fought along side each other during the Christian crusades, before the Jews were slaughtered or expelled again. It’s been a vicious cycle of displacement and death for all.
I believe in a Palestinian state, but both people’s future are tied together. Believing you can force 8 million Jews from Israel proper, in itself, would be a genocide as well.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free doesn’t mean that Israeli people will in any way suffer. That’s not revenge, it’s liberation. It’s like claiming that the end of apartheid South Africa implied that the white population there would face oppression. That’s not racist. Being against white supremacy isn’t racism against white people. This is the same thing.
The origins of the chant are embedded in Hamas charter. “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free is laced with genocidal intent.
Its origins started in 1966, when the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the country’s current dictator, said: “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
Hamas has claimed the slogan in their rejection of Israel in the mid 1990’s during the Oslo Peace negotiations.
So regardless of your intent, it has a more nefarious meaning for those committed to Israel’s destruction.
To be clear, being against Zionism and the settler colonial state that is Israel doesn’t mean that the people living in these lands would face oppression. I’m against Zionism and staunchly support the rights of all the people in these lands. I’d love for antisemitism and Zionism to disappear into the annals of history. The pro-Palestinian chant is not originally nor mostly used as a call to oppress Israelis. That some Palestinian extremists have used it this way means that those people are misusing the term. The college students and everyone else supporting Palestinians that use the chant want the liberation of Palestinians from Israeli oppression, not to reverse that oppression back to the millions of Israeli people.
The idea that oppressed people asking to be liberated want revenge as a general goal is in itself rooted in racism. This rhetoric was used by slaveowners, Americans and Canadians invading Native American and First Nation’s people’s land, pro-apartheid South African settlers, and now by pro-Israel talking heads.
Usually it's land and treasure the US coveted, disguised as a Christian mission - Manifest Destiny. Gold and land as God's reward for subduing the "savages."
Don't forget the Doctrine of Discovery out of the Pope that DECLARED AS TRUTH that lands without Christians are "unoccupied" and may be "discovered" and taken. Non-Christians were colonized into the discovering rulers. The Papal Bull of the Vatican so declared in 1493, not ironically, one year after Columbus bumped into the Western Hemisphere. The Church's current Pope Francis finally formally rescinded The Doctrine of Discovery in March 2023, a mere 503 years after it first hit the market. If only history could snap its fingers..... A brilliant analysis suggests the Doctrine, issued before Christians and Catholics separated into two in 1517ish, is a/[The?] Hidden Root of White Supremacy. Clearly, it is there for all too see, once it is brought to light. Check out robertpjones.substack.com. yitb
“The pro-Palestinian chant is not originally nor mostly used as a call to oppress Israelis. That some Palestinian extremists have used it this way means that those people are misusing the term.”
The origins of the chant are embedded in Hamas charter. “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free is laced with genocidal intent.
Its origins started in 1966, when the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the country’s current dictator, said: “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
Hamas has claimed the slogan in their rejection of Israel in the mid 1990’s during the Oslo Peace negotiations.
So regardless of your intent, it has a more nefarious meaning for those committed to Israel’s destruction.
"From the river to the sea" is a Likud statement. Hamas charter does not use the phrase. Please stop saying that the phrase is "laced with genocidal intent" (unlike Bebe's Amalekites reference). Maybe just referencing the Hamas charter intent for dissolution or extinction of the State of Israel would be just as effective?
Not sure what source you used, but the slogan has its origins before the establishment of the Israeli state by Zionists. It was then used by the PLO in the 60s for them wanting a state which encompassed the occupied territories which did include removing the Israelis currently living there. Moving people forcibly is genocidal in nature, but given that at the time many of those calling for that were literally driven out of their homes, I understand the sentiment. The usage of the term has a varied range and seems often relies on context. The term has also been used by Netanyahu to insinuate that Israel will occupy the entire land.
In the context I and many others for Palestine use it in, it includes or insinuates “Palestine will be free.” As in we want an end to the occupation and peace for all people within it. You can’t just claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent and are using it that way because you’re just demonizing a whole movement and excluding crucial context of the actual goals.
“You can’t just claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent and are using it that way because you’re just demonizing a whole movement and excluding crucial context of the actual goals.”
Don’t take my words out of context. I’m not saying all protesters feel this way but there are many who do. The slogan is judged by who uses it as a negative connotation.
The Swat-sticker, before it was appropriated by the Nazi’s was a symbol of peace, prosperity and good fortune by many cultures, east and West going back thousands of years.
The guy who said, "using the word Zionism," is "racist" — and told the original poster to, "support a two state solution, instead of a pipe dream of believing Israel can be driven into the sea" — is now telling someone, "Don’t take my words out of context?"
The guy who said, "Zionism is an ideology, but the way it’s being used by the Pro-Palestinian movement is racist, because they don’t believe Israel should exist (from the river to the sea)?" THAT guy says, "Don’t take my words out of context?"
Because THAT guy:
• Definitely DID "claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent"
• Definitely WAS "demonizing a whole movement"
• Definitely WAS "excluding crucial context of the actual goals"
Just like pikachu said.
In fact, that guy still is doing all of those things; he just walked back the scope of his accusation a little bit. He's now baselessly demonizing "many" pro-Palestine protesters, instead of all of them.
I don't believe, for a minute, that there are "many" pro-Palestinian protesters who are motivated by any manner of immoral intent.
Just like Israel's accusations against innocent Palestinians (and against UNRWA), Zionists' accusations against pro-Palestinian protesters, have fallen apart, one after another (but of course the lies are repeated ad nauseam, in the time it takes to prove a lie false).
It's not racist to use the term. It could be argued that the idea is a racist idea. Anti-Zionist Jews have made it clear that they use that term for themselves. It is a POLITICAL position. It is "racial" in that it defines a political identity for a socio-cultural-religious identity. People's views on the political project of a Jewish State run the gamut - one state (no more strictly Jewish definition of citizenship), two-state, or undecided. There doesn't seem to be an ethical dispute over the position that all people who subscribe to Judaism ought to be able to practice their religion in peace all over the world, regardless of any political borders in place. What seems to be a problem, however, is the litany of excuses that arise when the assertion is made that Palestinian people have the right to exist in peace, wherever they may be existing, and especially in the location where they have already been existing for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Everyone needs to examine these terms and their usage. What is a problem is the use of money and weapons by both governments and individuals in enforcing the restriction of basic human rights to a specific group of people and using the term "terrorism" to deflect scrutiny from the root causes of the conflict at hand. "Semitic" actually refers to all people who speak a semitic language. In modern times, that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and others. Even Wikipedia has a robust explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages People who want to contest that "semitic" only includes "Jewish" people are just claiming an anti-factual colloquialism that is a reflection of their unwillingness to learn, grow, and change through examination of the facts. In America, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the population over Age 55 has NOT gone to college. And most college graduates do not continuously read or learn or even maintain open, inquiring minds. What has changed is the QUALITY of education at both high school and college, not to mention the current events influencing each generation's focus. Hence, the younger generations having a more informed view that is more thoroughly documented than for previous generations. Another piece feeding into this situation is that Israel's own "New Historians" didn't start publishing until the 1980s. Their work was not readily available in America until after that. So we are struggling with GENERATIONS who are ignorant of the documented evidence that was brought to light by these scholars. Of course, there is also "white" and Christian bigotry in play. There are plenty of Jews/Israelis who embrace the term "Zionist" with full clarity that they want a land for Jews only. They want citizenship of that land to be defined by Judaism. They are not hiding from this term or the idea that there should be a nation state that is restricted to those who belong to the Jewish identity. Meanwhile, Americans should question why so many of our tax dollars are going to such a project when it is one that is wholly antithetical to the equality that we have struggled to build here.
Israel has never agreed to give a future Palestine territorial sovereignty, but insists on maintaining a military presence there. It also refuses to give Palestinians the right of return as it is specified in the Geneva Conventions.
Agreed, but that is Netanyahu’s and his fascist government’s position, not the state of Israel. Both sides were close to an agreement during the Oslo Accords. It can be reached today.
When this war ends, the world needs to intervene like it did after’WW2, and force a settlement regardless of what either side wants.
Otherwise, it’s rinse, lather repeat: and the next incursion will be two to three years away. Only deadlier and more costly for both sides.
There is no winning for either side; just varying degrees of losers. Any victory by either side would be pyrrhic…:)
I empathize with your views and I know your right that Hamas is worthless politically and culturally. I also realize that we may have different definitions of what racism is in that I view Netanyahu as an American racist and that his views are based on a peoples' melanin content. I would like to see Palestine AND Israel share the land from the river to the sea but it's not going happen in my lifetime but in the lifetimes of the people that call that shared land home.
I agree with you. Netanyahu and his right-wing fascist government is no better than Hamas, but saner minds need to prevail. Otherwise, both are doomed, but the Palestinians will suffer more in the short run.
Uhh..., is "American racist" a type, a category, a pejorative? ... What meaning has it when referencing Netanyahu, apparently the big boss in Israel right now. Able to ignore the chants from the street to "knock it off." Hanging on fully, first and only for himself.
Should Israel exist or not is a question that anyone should/must ask. We are here to challenge and discuss all ideas. Israel being a nuclear nation does not give it the right to steal land / kill people / ... do whatever it wants. Because if so, every nuclear nation, can invade a non-nuclear nation and do the same and tell the world not to ask any question about its existence. For me : asking people not to question "Israel existence" is part of the propaganda narrative.
I never said being a nuclear nation gives anyone the right to kill or oppress. I’m just stating that for those whose goal is the destruction of Israel, it’s unrealistic.
Israel is also the third largest economy in Western Asia after Turkey and Saudi Arabia. They are the most technologically advanced nation in the region. Its education is the best in the region. International capital for the tech sector is only second to Silicon Valley.
My point is for all of us to push for a two state solution, because whether we like it or not, their fates are tied together…:)
You wrote "Israel is a nuclear nation, and will destroy the entire Middle East before it surrenders to anyone". This is the sentence I was referencing.
The two state solution is illusional. How can you share a land with someone who has already stolen 85% of it? Have you seen the settlements? Have you seen the number of armed settlers? ... etc. What will be the borders of this two-state solution? A new concentration camps? ... Come on !
It would be based on the original UN partition with land swaps to create a continuous land border between Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Any solution won’t be easy, but what’s the alternative? Israel picks up and leaves? That is the pipe dream. Like it or not, this is the only outcome that doesn’t lead to additional death and destruction.
In my opinion and observations, the two state solution has always been a farce to maintain the Zionist status quo. Could you imagine if South Africa created two states within one. White people over here and indigenous black people over there. Nothing would have changed. Only lines drawn.
The PA is just as corrupt as Hamas. Zionism, by the was, is not racist.
Google: "Zionism. European Jewish movement of the 1860s and 1870s that argued that Jews return to their holy land; eventually identified with settlement in Palestine. World Zionist Organization. Founded by Theodor Herzl to promote Jewish migration to and settlement in Palestine to form Zionist state. Western Front."
I’m familiar with that. But it was the most recent return of many. My point: Jews have returned for millennia after being forcibly removed during several mass exodus’s.
I’m not saying the use of the word Zionism is in itself racist, but many people commenting have used the phrase “dirty zionists”, which is a slur and used as a racist dog whistle; no different than the phrase “from the river to the sea.”
What-aboutism & a lack of scaled comparison. A nuclear power is bombing an occupied, enclosed population with no planes, drones or tanks and has been for over a year. Penned & annihilated.
I never read anyone here supporting Hamas. Folks here are against racism, mass murder, torture and inhumanity and the indiscriminate destruction of all infrastructure, schools, mosques, hospitals & the like.
Stop using the word Zionism! It’s racist whether you know it or not. Israelis going anywhere. If you want to be constructive, then support a two state solution, instead of a pipe dream of believing Israel can be driven into the sea. Israel is a nuclear nation, and will destroy the entire Middle East before it surrenders to anyone.
And support for Israel, not Zionism, has been a staple in US relations going back to its formation. So whatever, your belief, at least be realistic or pragmatic.
I do not support Netanyahu or his right-wing government, but I have equal disdain for Hamas and every other Islamic terror group in the region.
And if you think Hamas are truly hero’s, then maybe you should ask the 75% of the Palestinian people who didn’t support Hamas, or believes they are a legitimate government or party. They rule by terror and fear.
If Israel is an occupying force, which they are, then so is Hamas. They haven’t held an election since 2006, when it won its only election with 35% of the vote.
The Palestinian Authority ran too many candidates for each parliamentary seat and they ended up cannibalizing each other; handing the government over to terrorists, bent on Israel’s destruction.
No one here thinks Hamas are heroes. Zionism isn’t a racist term. It’s an ideology.
Zionism is an ideology, but the way it’s being used by the Pro-Palestinian movement is racist, because they don’t believe Israel should exist (from the river to the sea). Israel isn’t going anywhere. And Israel is no more an ideology than the Palestinian’s aspirations of a homeland.
Let’s remember, before the 67’ War, Israel proper was controlled by Britain. Gaza was controlled by Egypt, and The West Bank and Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan. There was never a Palestinian state because both Egypt and Jordan were against giving up any land to the Palestinians.
The UN declared a Palestinian state, side by side with Israel. Regardless of belief, the Palestinians never had a state prior to the UN mandate. And the international community is not going to displace Jewish people from the state they declared as the state of Israel.
If we want to claim rights, we’d have to go back to the times of the Babylonian’s and the first mass exodus. And Jews always came back. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Jews and Muslims fought along side each other during the Christian crusades, before the Jews were slaughtered or expelled again. It’s been a vicious cycle of displacement and death for all.
I believe in a Palestinian state, but both people’s future are tied together. Believing you can force 8 million Jews from Israel proper, in itself, would be a genocide as well.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free doesn’t mean that Israeli people will in any way suffer. That’s not revenge, it’s liberation. It’s like claiming that the end of apartheid South Africa implied that the white population there would face oppression. That’s not racist. Being against white supremacy isn’t racism against white people. This is the same thing.
The origins of the chant are embedded in Hamas charter. “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free is laced with genocidal intent.
Its origins started in 1966, when the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the country’s current dictator, said: “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
Hamas has claimed the slogan in their rejection of Israel in the mid 1990’s during the Oslo Peace negotiations.
So regardless of your intent, it has a more nefarious meaning for those committed to Israel’s destruction.
IMHO…:)
To be clear, being against Zionism and the settler colonial state that is Israel doesn’t mean that the people living in these lands would face oppression. I’m against Zionism and staunchly support the rights of all the people in these lands. I’d love for antisemitism and Zionism to disappear into the annals of history. The pro-Palestinian chant is not originally nor mostly used as a call to oppress Israelis. That some Palestinian extremists have used it this way means that those people are misusing the term. The college students and everyone else supporting Palestinians that use the chant want the liberation of Palestinians from Israeli oppression, not to reverse that oppression back to the millions of Israeli people.
The idea that oppressed people asking to be liberated want revenge as a general goal is in itself rooted in racism. This rhetoric was used by slaveowners, Americans and Canadians invading Native American and First Nation’s people’s land, pro-apartheid South African settlers, and now by pro-Israel talking heads.
Usually it's land and treasure the US coveted, disguised as a Christian mission - Manifest Destiny. Gold and land as God's reward for subduing the "savages."
Don't forget the Doctrine of Discovery out of the Pope that DECLARED AS TRUTH that lands without Christians are "unoccupied" and may be "discovered" and taken. Non-Christians were colonized into the discovering rulers. The Papal Bull of the Vatican so declared in 1493, not ironically, one year after Columbus bumped into the Western Hemisphere. The Church's current Pope Francis finally formally rescinded The Doctrine of Discovery in March 2023, a mere 503 years after it first hit the market. If only history could snap its fingers..... A brilliant analysis suggests the Doctrine, issued before Christians and Catholics separated into two in 1517ish, is a/[The?] Hidden Root of White Supremacy. Clearly, it is there for all too see, once it is brought to light. Check out robertpjones.substack.com. yitb
“The pro-Palestinian chant is not originally nor mostly used as a call to oppress Israelis. That some Palestinian extremists have used it this way means that those people are misusing the term.”
The origins of the chant are embedded in Hamas charter. “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free is laced with genocidal intent.
Its origins started in 1966, when the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the country’s current dictator, said: “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
Hamas has claimed the slogan in their rejection of Israel in the mid 1990’s during the Oslo Peace negotiations.
So regardless of your intent, it has a more nefarious meaning for those committed to Israel’s destruction.
IMHO…:)
"From the river to the sea" is a Likud statement. Hamas charter does not use the phrase. Please stop saying that the phrase is "laced with genocidal intent" (unlike Bebe's Amalekites reference). Maybe just referencing the Hamas charter intent for dissolution or extinction of the State of Israel would be just as effective?
Not sure what source you used, but the slogan has its origins before the establishment of the Israeli state by Zionists. It was then used by the PLO in the 60s for them wanting a state which encompassed the occupied territories which did include removing the Israelis currently living there. Moving people forcibly is genocidal in nature, but given that at the time many of those calling for that were literally driven out of their homes, I understand the sentiment. The usage of the term has a varied range and seems often relies on context. The term has also been used by Netanyahu to insinuate that Israel will occupy the entire land.
In the context I and many others for Palestine use it in, it includes or insinuates “Palestine will be free.” As in we want an end to the occupation and peace for all people within it. You can’t just claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent and are using it that way because you’re just demonizing a whole movement and excluding crucial context of the actual goals.
“You can’t just claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent and are using it that way because you’re just demonizing a whole movement and excluding crucial context of the actual goals.”
Don’t take my words out of context. I’m not saying all protesters feel this way but there are many who do. The slogan is judged by who uses it as a negative connotation.
The Swat-sticker, before it was appropriated by the Nazi’s was a symbol of peace, prosperity and good fortune by many cultures, east and West going back thousands of years.
Not anymore!..:)
The guy who said, "using the word Zionism," is "racist" — and told the original poster to, "support a two state solution, instead of a pipe dream of believing Israel can be driven into the sea" — is now telling someone, "Don’t take my words out of context?"
The guy who said, "Zionism is an ideology, but the way it’s being used by the Pro-Palestinian movement is racist, because they don’t believe Israel should exist (from the river to the sea)?" THAT guy says, "Don’t take my words out of context?"
Because THAT guy:
• Definitely DID "claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent"
• Definitely WAS "demonizing a whole movement"
• Definitely WAS "excluding crucial context of the actual goals"
Just like pikachu said.
In fact, that guy still is doing all of those things; he just walked back the scope of his accusation a little bit. He's now baselessly demonizing "many" pro-Palestine protesters, instead of all of them.
I don't believe, for a minute, that there are "many" pro-Palestinian protesters who are motivated by any manner of immoral intent.
Just like Israel's accusations against innocent Palestinians (and against UNRWA), Zionists' accusations against pro-Palestinian protesters, have fallen apart, one after another (but of course the lies are repeated ad nauseam, in the time it takes to prove a lie false).
But the swastika still isn’t an inherently racist symbol. It’s still very much used in many cultures. Context and intent are important
Did anyone listen to the Israeli chants about the Arabs? I can't hear you talking about it !
Did some read the charter of the running likud party!
It's not racist to use the term. It could be argued that the idea is a racist idea. Anti-Zionist Jews have made it clear that they use that term for themselves. It is a POLITICAL position. It is "racial" in that it defines a political identity for a socio-cultural-religious identity. People's views on the political project of a Jewish State run the gamut - one state (no more strictly Jewish definition of citizenship), two-state, or undecided. There doesn't seem to be an ethical dispute over the position that all people who subscribe to Judaism ought to be able to practice their religion in peace all over the world, regardless of any political borders in place. What seems to be a problem, however, is the litany of excuses that arise when the assertion is made that Palestinian people have the right to exist in peace, wherever they may be existing, and especially in the location where they have already been existing for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Everyone needs to examine these terms and their usage. What is a problem is the use of money and weapons by both governments and individuals in enforcing the restriction of basic human rights to a specific group of people and using the term "terrorism" to deflect scrutiny from the root causes of the conflict at hand. "Semitic" actually refers to all people who speak a semitic language. In modern times, that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and others. Even Wikipedia has a robust explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages People who want to contest that "semitic" only includes "Jewish" people are just claiming an anti-factual colloquialism that is a reflection of their unwillingness to learn, grow, and change through examination of the facts. In America, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the population over Age 55 has NOT gone to college. And most college graduates do not continuously read or learn or even maintain open, inquiring minds. What has changed is the QUALITY of education at both high school and college, not to mention the current events influencing each generation's focus. Hence, the younger generations having a more informed view that is more thoroughly documented than for previous generations. Another piece feeding into this situation is that Israel's own "New Historians" didn't start publishing until the 1980s. Their work was not readily available in America until after that. So we are struggling with GENERATIONS who are ignorant of the documented evidence that was brought to light by these scholars. Of course, there is also "white" and Christian bigotry in play. There are plenty of Jews/Israelis who embrace the term "Zionist" with full clarity that they want a land for Jews only. They want citizenship of that land to be defined by Judaism. They are not hiding from this term or the idea that there should be a nation state that is restricted to those who belong to the Jewish identity. Meanwhile, Americans should question why so many of our tax dollars are going to such a project when it is one that is wholly antithetical to the equality that we have struggled to build here.
Two actual states or one state and one glorified NGO or American Indian reservation?
Two states each with their own territorial sovereignty. They split the resources and land.
Israel has never agreed to give a future Palestine territorial sovereignty, but insists on maintaining a military presence there. It also refuses to give Palestinians the right of return as it is specified in the Geneva Conventions.
Agreed, but that is Netanyahu’s and his fascist government’s position, not the state of Israel. Both sides were close to an agreement during the Oslo Accords. It can be reached today.
When this war ends, the world needs to intervene like it did after’WW2, and force a settlement regardless of what either side wants.
Otherwise, it’s rinse, lather repeat: and the next incursion will be two to three years away. Only deadlier and more costly for both sides.
There is no winning for either side; just varying degrees of losers. Any victory by either side would be pyrrhic…:)
I empathize with your views and I know your right that Hamas is worthless politically and culturally. I also realize that we may have different definitions of what racism is in that I view Netanyahu as an American racist and that his views are based on a peoples' melanin content. I would like to see Palestine AND Israel share the land from the river to the sea but it's not going happen in my lifetime but in the lifetimes of the people that call that shared land home.
I agree with you. Netanyahu and his right-wing fascist government is no better than Hamas, but saner minds need to prevail. Otherwise, both are doomed, but the Palestinians will suffer more in the short run.
Uhh..., is "American racist" a type, a category, a pejorative? ... What meaning has it when referencing Netanyahu, apparently the big boss in Israel right now. Able to ignore the chants from the street to "knock it off." Hanging on fully, first and only for himself.
Should Israel exist or not is a question that anyone should/must ask. We are here to challenge and discuss all ideas. Israel being a nuclear nation does not give it the right to steal land / kill people / ... do whatever it wants. Because if so, every nuclear nation, can invade a non-nuclear nation and do the same and tell the world not to ask any question about its existence. For me : asking people not to question "Israel existence" is part of the propaganda narrative.
I never said being a nuclear nation gives anyone the right to kill or oppress. I’m just stating that for those whose goal is the destruction of Israel, it’s unrealistic.
Israel is also the third largest economy in Western Asia after Turkey and Saudi Arabia. They are the most technologically advanced nation in the region. Its education is the best in the region. International capital for the tech sector is only second to Silicon Valley.
My point is for all of us to push for a two state solution, because whether we like it or not, their fates are tied together…:)
You wrote "Israel is a nuclear nation, and will destroy the entire Middle East before it surrenders to anyone". This is the sentence I was referencing.
The two state solution is illusional. How can you share a land with someone who has already stolen 85% of it? Have you seen the settlements? Have you seen the number of armed settlers? ... etc. What will be the borders of this two-state solution? A new concentration camps? ... Come on !
I understood Jared & friends were planning condos for Gaza AND the West Bank.
It would be based on the original UN partition with land swaps to create a continuous land border between Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Any solution won’t be easy, but what’s the alternative? Israel picks up and leaves? That is the pipe dream. Like it or not, this is the only outcome that doesn’t lead to additional death and destruction.
In my opinion and observations, the two state solution has always been a farce to maintain the Zionist status quo. Could you imagine if South Africa created two states within one. White people over here and indigenous black people over there. Nothing would have changed. Only lines drawn.
The PA is just as corrupt as Hamas. Zionism, by the was, is not racist.
Google: "Zionism. European Jewish movement of the 1860s and 1870s that argued that Jews return to their holy land; eventually identified with settlement in Palestine. World Zionist Organization. Founded by Theodor Herzl to promote Jewish migration to and settlement in Palestine to form Zionist state. Western Front."
I’m familiar with that. But it was the most recent return of many. My point: Jews have returned for millennia after being forcibly removed during several mass exodus’s.
I’m not saying the use of the word Zionism is in itself racist, but many people commenting have used the phrase “dirty zionists”, which is a slur and used as a racist dog whistle; no different than the phrase “from the river to the sea.”
What-aboutism & a lack of scaled comparison. A nuclear power is bombing an occupied, enclosed population with no planes, drones or tanks and has been for over a year. Penned & annihilated.
I never read anyone here supporting Hamas. Folks here are against racism, mass murder, torture and inhumanity and the indiscriminate destruction of all infrastructure, schools, mosques, hospitals & the like.