this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
64 points (76.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43983 readers
1209 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's essentially the reality of the situation, though. The land was populated by Palestinians before Europe and the rest of the Middle East NIMBY'd their remaining Jewish populations to Israel.
Maybe if it was the 1940s this would be a bit more accurate, but at this point, we're a couple generations removed from the original mass displacements. Most Israelis today were born there.
Like I said, the way towards progress lies with both sides finding a way to get over historical grievances of who started what and who's to blame for this and that and instead accepting the fact that they're both here now and need to find a way to exist with each other.
You donβt fix colonialism is a few generations.
And you do, which starts with Israel not locking up the original owners of the land in a two small locations and bombing them and stealing their homes.
And they have every right to fight back against you because your crimes are still being committed.
I agree, it would be great for Israel to stop doing that, but again, regardless how you or I feel about it, they won't unless they feel their security is ensured.
Even if you grant that Palestinians have the right to some level of armed resistance, which I wouldn't even entirely disagree with, that doesn't make it a pragmatic and productive idea. There is zero world in which Palestine wins freedom by armed resistance.
I'm much less interested in who has whatever moral superiority and much more interested in what would actually lead to a peaceful resolution, and we've already seen what one episode of Palestinian violence causes.
Again, I'm not saying it's right. But this is the real world. Being right or wrong doesn't count for very much when you have a bunch of guns pointed at you.
Peacefully protesting hasnβt and never will bring meaningful change
Armed resistance has us sitting here talking about how can we save them.
And honestly if your people were slowly being genocided would you sit by and try to find a peaceful solution with the genociders?
It also has 24,000 people dead, all so we can talk about it?
What has been gained? Are we any closer to peace? Is there now some path towards the end of the state of Israel? No, we just have a bunch of corpses. Some progress. Oh, and I guess we get to have conversations.
If the alternative was our assured complete destruction, yes, absolutely. Lives saved are worth so much more than my or anyone else's pride.
There is though. Hamas's method of "Make Israel keep turning the world's people against it" seems to be bearing fruit, and will bear more as older people die off. The sacrifice being paid in return is questionable, but we can't deny the results. It's definitely more results than the peace process that came before it.
If Jews are indigenous to Judea does that mean that Jews never intermarried with Jews of other countries? And if they did, how can they then be called indigenous any more?
Actually the opposite, it's a line of reasoning that supposes that no-one is really indigenous to anywhere in particular, thereby avoiding the good ol' extreme claims to sovereignity.
The history of Israel is littered with invasion anyway, so again, the idea of indigenous peoples at this point requires a reworking of the definition of 'indigenous' to people who have lived there for some time.
I'm expecting a bit of the ol' 'It was the Jew's to begin with' so I'll just say in advance there's no point in my continuing if that starts cropping up in replies.