• Tiresia@slrpnk.netEnglish
    331·
    16 days ago

    That’s when you, the policitian, say “yes” and instantly become a hero of the revolution.

  • ramble81@lemmy.zipEnglish
    291·
    16 days ago

    That one is so easy to get around. “I support the rights of Palestinians to be able to live peacefully and recognize the borders as defined by the UN charter. I do not agree with the ethnic cleansing that they are being subject to”

    Never mentioned Israel by name. Never mentioned Palestine Action.

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      1313·
      16 days ago

      If you recognize the borders as defined by the UN charter you’re a Zionist. All of the stolen land belongs to Palestinians.

      • ramble81@lemmy.zipEnglish
        21·
        16 days ago

        Look, you’re not going to get perfect, and if you can figure it out, I have a Nobel Peace Prize for you. But at least something that does not cause the loss of more land and the genocide of their people is a hell of a better place to be.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          101·
          16 days ago

          if you can figure it out, I have a Nobel Peace Prize for you.

          All of the Palestinian land back to the Palestinians whose land was stolen. Unless the Palestinians agree to something different it’s all still rightfully theirs. Nobody has the right to give their land away except Palestinians themselves.

          • Alex@lemmy.mlEnglish
            141·
            16 days ago

            Good luck with that - but entirely unrealistic. You have to deal with the demographics as they are and not with them at some arbitrary point in the past.

            After you’ve solved Palistine are you going to have a crack at unwinding the effects of colonialism around the rest of the world?

            • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
              54·
              16 days ago

              And a genocidal expansionist Apartheid around the corner is realistic? Like keeping Nazi Germany around the corner after 1945. Surely that can’t go wrong. Your idea is much less realistic.

              In the end you or I don’t get to decide what happens to Palestinian land or what’s realistic. Only Palestinians get to decide that. And unless they themselves give up their land voluntarily to Israel in exchange for some peace deal, all of the land still belongs to them. They are still fighting to get it back to this day who are you to tell them “Israel stole their land fair and square”?

              • ramble81@lemmy.zipEnglish
                33·
                16 days ago

                There’s idealistic and then there’s pragmatic. Following that logic, what are you going to do about lands stolen from Native Americans, or anything as a result of colonialism? “Give them back!” you say. Which may be done idealistically, but in the US for example, where does the other population of 330 Million people go?

                You’re basically advocating for genocide in a different way with a different winner. That’s not a sustainable or realistic outcome.

                • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
                  23·
                  16 days ago

                  The natives struck a deal with the US. Palestinians didn’t. South Africa didn’t give the Apartheiders a state. One mistake South Africa made was not completely disowning the colonists. Palestinians don’t have to make that mistake.

                  You’re basically advocating for genocide in a different way with a different winner. That’s not a sustainable or realistic outcome.

                  Oh no not a “reverse genocide” apologist. You can’t do genocide against colonists. That’s called decolonisation.