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.
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.