• acargitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Wake me up when Israel institutes universal suffrage and legal equality for everyone from the river to the sea, elects Marwan Barghouthi as president and changes it flag and anthem to incorporate Palestinian national symbolism. If such a country would like to still call itself Israel, I will be happy to be proven wrong.

    Because this is what ending apartheid means, buddy. Not just getting rid of Netanyahu, but deep structural change, and a commitment to justice, truth and reconciliation.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I favor a two state solution myself, as it is my understanding that is the desire of the majority of Palestinians.

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Yes, it is the Fatah line as well. If it were feasible, I would also support it. However, Israeli created “facts on the ground” say it isn’t. It is impossible to extract the entrenched colonists from the West Bank and it is impossible for Israel to accept a sovereign Palestine that is anything more than a Bantustan. Worse, it might just mean that Israel will have not one but two Gazas on its doorstep. It’s a recipe for more death and destruction.

        The 2SS was reasonable 30 years ago. That time has very sadly passed. Just like the Palestinians lost their chance in '48, so did the Israelis lose their chance at Camp David in 2000. The current mess is a knot that can only be solved by a single state solution. And if that is the case, and we agree that either side “cleansing” the other is completely unacceptable, then universal equality from the river to the sea, a democratic country, is the only game left.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The current mess is a knot that can only be solved by a single state solution. And if that is the case, and we agree that either side “cleansing” the other is completely unacceptable, then universal equality from the river to the sea, a democratic country, is the only game left.

          We disagree on whether a two state solution is possible but do agree that either side committing genocide on the other is unacceptable.

          I disagree that a single state solution is possible, even if we named it Peaceland because the same conflict you say prevents the two state solution will still exist and the conflict will continue within the single state. Forcing two opposing cultures into a single state against their will is how we get ethnic cleansing, aka genocide.

          • acargitz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            We obviously also disagree on what causes the conflict. I don’t see it as a clash between opposing cultures, which by definition is irreconcilable. It is a clash over land, over sovereignty, over rights, over resources. These can of course be resolved and have been resolved even at least tentatively in many countries in the region. With justice can come peace.

            If Serbs and Muslims can coexist in Bosnia, if Macedonians and Albanians can coexist in North Macedonia, if Protestants and Catholics can coexist in Northern Ireland, if Flemings and Waloons can coexist in Belgium, if the various denominations can coexist in Lebanon, if English and French can coexist in Quebec, then Israelis and Palestinians can work it out as well. Note that the above examples are at a varying degree of peace and harmony, from not very much to quite a lot. But none of them are genocidal cases. In fact, a couple are societies that coexist after a genocide took place (Bosnia, Ireland).

              • acargitz@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                You bringing up the Bosnian Genocide reinforces my point rather than undercut it.

                The Bosnian genocide happened, just like the Nakba did (or arguably still is) and still after it happened, the Bosnia and Herzegovina of today exists. In Bosnia today Serbs and Muslims coexist, even if Serbs massacred the Muslims in the past. Same for Israelis and Palestinians: the Bosnia of today is a case study of what an Israel/Palestine of tomorrow might look like.

                That’s exactly why I mentioned Bosnia and Ireland in the first place.

                • snooggums@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  We could also learn something from that and the other genocides and not force the conflict to escalate in the hope that the future survivors work things out.

                  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    I really don’t understand how ending apartheid is an escalation from where we are now. It’s precisely the opposite: de-escalation and peace.

                    We are living the genocide moment, right now, and we have been living it for several decades. This is about ending this genocidal status quo. What the fuck are you talking about?