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.
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.
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?
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”?
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.
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.
Yes they had no military leverage left and decided to strike a bad deal.
Palestinians haven’t struck a deal. The second Western support for Israel collapses, the whole Apartheid will collapse. And at that point Israel will have no claim to any of the land. It all belongs to Palestinians.
Israel can do a 1948 deal right now if it wants to. Even Hamas said they are willing to accept that extremely bad deal. But Israel doesn’t because they are an expansionist genocidal ethnostate believing they can colonize more. So that is their gamble. And by taking that gamble, Israel still has no right to any land at this very moment. And if they ever lose their military advantage before striking a deal with Palestinians, then they lose all the land they colonized with it.
If you recognize the borders as defined by the UN charter you’re a Zionist. All of the stolen land belongs to Palestinians.
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.
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.
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?
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”?
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.
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.
Oh no not a “reverse genocide” apologist. You can’t do genocide against colonists. That’s called decolonisation.
Deals under duress are no deals at all. Ever read about the Trail of Tears. Tell me now that was a deal that was in good faith by both sides.
Sounds like you just like the idea of killing people.
Yes they had no military leverage left and decided to strike a bad deal.
Palestinians haven’t struck a deal. The second Western support for Israel collapses, the whole Apartheid will collapse. And at that point Israel will have no claim to any of the land. It all belongs to Palestinians.
Israel can do a 1948 deal right now if it wants to. Even Hamas said they are willing to accept that extremely bad deal. But Israel doesn’t because they are an expansionist genocidal ethnostate believing they can colonize more. So that is their gamble. And by taking that gamble, Israel still has no right to any land at this very moment. And if they ever lose their military advantage before striking a deal with Palestinians, then they lose all the land they colonized with it.
Can’t do it all at once