#Palestinian Arab and Jewish States

[suetravelblog]

May 15 Nakba Day Amman Jordan

Nakba Day 2023 – Radio Pakistan Yesterday was the 75th anniversary of The Nakba “catastrophe,” when Palestinians experienced the “dispossession and loss of their homeland”. Amman has a large Palestinian population, and throughout the day, lamented messages echoed from mosques in the city. They were especially noticeable after dusk. I didn’t understand exactly what was being said, but the words…

[gryficowa]

Israel is so protective of Jews that it kills them for their ethnicity

He also stole Yemeni children, so additional proof that Israel is not a country for Jews, but is simply the creation of genocidal maniacs

[rebelwithacauze]

[theupfish]

"The fatwa, a religious edict, rebukes Hamas for its reign of corruption and terror against Palestinian civilians"

[rodeodeparis]

having jewish family from n iraq general area is very strange. n iraq area is a bit of an outlier from its neighbors people group-wise because it’s often kurd = muslim; arab = muslim also; assyrian = christian (or at least an overwhelming amount of christians are assyrian); yazidi = yazidi; but jews are called ‘kurdish jews’? they probably just got that label because they were in the area (some have ‘tribal’ last names if they were from the literal towns the tribes got their names from), but for example syrian jews who lived in aleppo/damascus and spoke arabic are called syrian jews, some people use “arab jew” but afaik most don’t 

in that context “kurdish jew” seems a little...misleading? “assyrian jew” is too, they were both religious minorities and spoke aramaic but jews have a separate history (and due to current politics it feels insensitive but idk.) and both of those can be used by israeli govt stuff for propaganda purposes, so looking into sources for this is nigh impossible. tbh i prefer ‘mesopotamian jew’

[gregor-samsung]

“ Given present circumstances, there are three possible alternatives to the two-state solution [...]. First, Israel could expel the Palestinians from its pre-1967 lands and from the Occupied Territories, thereby preserving its Jewish character through an overt act of ethnic cleansing. Although a few Israeli hard-liners —including current Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman— have advocated variants on this approach, to do so would be a crime against humanity and no genuine friend of Israel could support such a heinous course of action. If this is what opponents of a two-state solution are advocating, they should say so explicitly. This form of ethnic cleansing would not end the conflict, however; it would merely reinforce the Palestinians' desire for vengeance and strengthen those extremists who still reject Israel's right to exist. Second, instead of separate Jewish and Palestinian states living side by side, Mandate Palestine could become a democratic binational state in which both peoples enjoyed equal political rights. This solution has been suggested by a handful of Jews and a growing number of Israeli Arabs. The practical obstacles to this option are daunting, however, and binational states do not have an encouraging track record. This option also means abandoning the original Zionist vision of a Jewish state. There is little reason to think that Israel's Jewish citizens would voluntarily accept this solution, and one can also safely assume that individuals and groups in the [American Israel] lobby would have virtually no interest in this outcome. We do not believe it is a feasible or appropriate solution ourselves. The final alternative is some form of apartheid, whereby Israel continues to increase its control over the Occupied Territories but allows the Palestinians to exercise limited autonomy in a set of disconnected and economically crippled statelets. Israelis invariably bristle at the comparison to white rule in South Africa, but that is the future they face if they try to control all of Mandate Palestine while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land. In any case, the apartheid option is not a viable long-term solution either, because it is morally repugnant and because the Palestinians will continue to resist until they get a state of their own. This situation will force Israel to escalate the repressive policies that have already cost it significant blood and treasure, encouraged political corruption, and badly tarnished its global image. These possibilities are the only alternatives to a two-state solution, and no one who wishes Israel well should be enthusiastic about any of them. Given the harm that this conflict is inflicting on Israel, the United States, and especially the Palestinians, it is in everyone's interest to end this tragedy once and for all. Put differently, resolving this long and bitter conflict should not be seen as a desirable option at some point down the road, or as a good way for U.S. presidents to polish their legacies and garner Nobel Peace Prizes. Rather, ending the conflict should be seen as a national security priority for the United States. But this will not happen as long as the lobby makes it impossible for American leaders to use the leverage at their disposal to pressure Israel into ending the occupation and creating a viable Palestinian state. “

John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy; 1st edition by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, N.Y., 2007.

[deborahdeshoftim5779]

But the awkward, unsayable fact is that a new peace cannot now be found. After the pogrom of October 7, 2023, it must surely be obvious to even the dimmest that the “two-state solution” is just an incantation uttered by people who want to appear serious but are actually not thinking. The idea of a sovereign Arab state right next to the heart of Israel, governed by Hamas or something like it, and separated from the Jewish state by no more than a fence and a raked strip, is so absurd that it is amazing anyone suggests it. But who do the advocates of this “solution” think will govern such a state?

British journalist Peter Hitchens, in his latest article: The U.S. Should Get Out of the Israel-Palestine Game. Someone needs to pass these words onto the U.S. State Department, which is reportedly rushing to advance a Palestinian state in the aftermath of obscene Palestinian terrorism; in other words, rushing to reward the Palestinians for using extreme tactics to achieve their political goals.

[straynoahide]

"jesus of nazareth was a palestinian who 'practiced' judaism" vibes

People who say Palestine existed before Israel and Israel is a ‘new country that’s colonizing’ sound like flat earthers. Every piece of logic and evidence proves that is wrong, yet they deny, deny, deny and say that the government is lying. 

[soon-palestine]

"I’m personally a Holocaust survivor as an infant, I barely survived.

My grandparents were killed in Aushwitz and most of my extended family were killed.

I became a Zionist; this dream of the Jewish people resurrected in their historical homeland and the barbed wire of Aushwitz being replaced by the boundaries of a Jewish state with a powerful army…and then I found out that it wasn’t exactly like that, that in order to make this Jewish dream a reality we had to visit a nightmare on the local population.

There’s no way you could have ever created a Jewish state without oppressing and expelling the local population. Jewish Israeli historians have shown without a doubt that the expulsion of Palestinians was persistent, pervasive, cruel, murderous and with deliberate intent - that’s what’s called the 'Nakba' in Arabic; the 'disaster' or the 'catastrophe'.

There’s a law that you cannot deny the Holocaust, but in Israel you’re not allowed to mention the Nakba, even though it’s at the very basis of the foundation of Israel.

I visited the Occupied Territories (West Bank) during the first intifada. I cried every day for two weeks at what I saw; the brutality of the occupation, the petty harassment, the murderousness of it, the cutting down of Palestinian olive groves, the denial of water rights, the humiliations...and this went on, and now it’s much worse than it was then. It’s the longest ethnic cleansing operation in the 20th and 21st century.

I could land in Tel Aviv tomorrow and demand citizenship but my Palestinian friend in Vancouver, who was born in Jerusalem, can’t even visit! So then you have these miserable people packed into this, horrible…people call it an 'outdoor prison', which is what it is. You don’t have to support Hamas policies to stand up for Palestinian rights, that’s a complete falsity.

You think the worse thing you can say about Hamas, multiply it by a thousand times, and it still will not meet the Israeli repression and killing and dispossession of Palestinians.

And 'anybody who criticises Israel is an anti-Semite' is simply an egregious attempt to intimidate good non-Jews who are willing to stand up for what is true."

[gryficowa]

Oh, yes, the "Anti-Hamas" people got fired up under the post where I drew attention to the guy who wrote that Hitler was right about killing Jews

You forget that Israel is a colonizer, so this is a different situation, how would you be outraged if the indigenous people talked about killing Europeans for their crimes, or black people rebelled against the people who enslave them, fucked up in short

Even Hamas didn't say that Hitler was right, so bravo for being ignorant of the situation, do you seriously want Israel to go unpunished because it was created by Zionists who still speak in the name of Jews, even though they commit disgusting crimes? And before you go out, "For God has told us, "this land belongs to us" is the same argument used by Christians during the colonization of many countries and, like Israel, they treated the indigenous population as bad, because it was shocking, they did not like the fact that they were colonizing their country and taking away their homes.

Well, sorry, but that's the difference between what Hamas said and that idiot from "Hitler was right", we are talking about the resistance movement here (created by a man who saw Israel's crimes at the age of eight), context matters here, regardless of whether whether all Hamas decisions were good or not, still, Israel is a colonizer and the very fact that he can legally colonize Palestine (And has the occupation of Egypt and Iraq on his conscience) is sick, the crimes committed by Israel cannot be explained, Israel has been committing genocide for years, has stolen lands and limited the rights of the indigenous population (Yes, racial segregation, clowns), and he himself fact, that indigenous people were treated as evil is even more disgusting

Well, I'm sorry, but explaining Israel's crimes because "It's a Jewish nation" is fucking disgusting, do you seriously want to be represented by murderers and rapists who kidnapped more hostages than Hamas and, compared to Hamas, treated them the same way they accused Hamas?

At least Hamas had the dignity not to take children hostage when Israel had no such dignity (Yes, there was a situation where they kidnapped people and raped a woman in front of her husband and children, and they couldn't look away because Israel made them watch under threat of killing them, yes, Israel is a country that should not represent Jews and the fact that you say that Jews are an integral part of Israel is fucking anti-Semitic)

If you don't go back and forth between encouraging people to kill the colonizer and saying "Hitler was right," it shows that you are anti-Semites yourself because you want Jews to be associated with rape, hostages, stealing other Jews' children, genocide, etc…, do you Do you seriously want such a country to represent Jews? If so, you are anti-Semites in their purest form

It's sick that the colonizer and his crimes can go unpunished only because of his ethnicity, you will be guilty of future anti-Semitism of future generations of Jews, just because you support a country that considers itself Jewish (It's just a pity that it is for European Jews, because it discriminates against others, or murder)

Seriously, the very fact that you can't see the difference between the two shows how brainwashed these Zionists are that you can't even analyze it without seeing Jews as just victims (Because apparently that's what Jews are supposed to be associated with, being victims, and not what are people and what values ​​do they have, it's anti-Semitic as fuck), that someone was a victim, does not mean that he cannot be a perpetrator (Poles were also victims of the Holocaust, and the post-war situation showed what happens to victims of colonization after years of destroying their national identity, they become extremely dangerous and struggle with problems even many generations later, this shows that the victim can become his own worst enemy, so why do you assume that there were no Jews here supporting Israel and its crimes?)

Think about what values ​​you support, because really, you will have blood on your hands for future generations of Jews because of the history of the "Country" that was supposed to represent them, your values ​​are rotten from the inside and only because you look at yourself through the prism of a victim (But other victims of the Holocaust they exaggerate or are less important… Yes, I'm talking about the Roma, trans people, gays and people with disabilities (I won't mention Poles because I've already done it before), and not through the prism of being human, playing the victim card won't get you far, especially if you use it to defend crimes

The Zionists separated you from other victims, and we should all stick together as we fight for our rights, what Israel does in your name should be a red flag, not something you should defend

If you were a victim, you should know that what Israel is doing is something terrible, don't build your identity on being a victim who can harm others, because you want power, not justice, and there is a big difference

Do you see trans people encouraging the murder of cis people? Do you see gays encouraging the murder of able-bodied people? Do you see people with disabilities encouraging the murder of able-bodied people? Do you see Roma encouraging the murder of white people? By this logic, they should want it because they were victims of the Holocaust, but is that what they want? No, because they do not build their identity on being a Holocaust victim who can do no wrong

Look at the other victims, many of them still hear Nazi rhetoric and no one responds (Gays and trans people), many people are ostracized for their ethnicity (Roma are often chased away), and many of them still struggle with discrimination (People with Disabilities), but would never want a country created in their name who is a colonizer and commits genocides

So yes, think about what country you are defending and look at the rest of the victims, because you can learn a lot from them, or get off your ass and help them, instead of putting yourself first and building your identity on being a victim of the Holocaust

Jews are great not because "They rule the world" or because "They were victims of the Holocaust", but because many of them are good people with big hearts who have been wronged (Not only by anti-Semites, but also by Zionists which decide that they are not "Jewish" enough when they support victims of colonization and genocide)

Look at people through the prism of who they are, not through the prism of ethnicity, gender, orientation, skin color, disability, etc… because you are a bigot and your saying that you "support them" means shit

[mashpotatoe]

im a white jew, i was born in israel,

ive lived there all my life and was brought up in an environment that fosters racism driven by nationalism, nationalism driven by racism.

in israel, they teach you jews and muslims (though usually, they just say arabs) have always been enemies, the same way the US deems the entire middle east as a inherent war zone, ridding them of the responsibility for perpetuating war in thst region.

they tell you "were the fair and humane side who strives for peace! its the arabs who never accept the offer!"

i remember the first time i began doubting that sentiment was in fourth grade, when we were having a discussion in class about the character of Saul from the Torah. the teacher was talking about how Saul, the first monarch of the Kingdom of Israel, used to fight the Philistines, and when she added that the Philistines were the natural enemy of the Israelites, she asked the class what group of people is their modern equivalent to which everyone very eagerly replied "Arabs!" and nevermind that there in that same class sat two arab boys, one of whom sat next to me, who i looked at and thought "but he isnt my enemy? hes just a boy in my class."

they teach you to hate arabs. sometimes they say it outright. sometimes they say it more carefully, or make a distinction between good and bad arabs, those who are with us and those who are against us.

in a state based on the idea of (white) jewish supremacy, they teach you jews are naturally superior. they use the conspiratorial narrative of "jews controlling the world" to their favor, giving their own watered down explanation for why antisemitism exists, saying that it must be driven by jealousy.

the zionist movement always used antisemitism to its advantage, either for reinforcing the notion of jewish supremacy or appealing to the real pain and trauma of generations, people who survived the holocaust, connecting them to stolen land where they are "guaranteed" safety ergo granting "justification" for the suffering of others.

its using peoples real pain that makes fear mongering so effective, and when the israeli population grows up being told all of their neighboring countries want to kill them, they quickly get defensive of the "only land where they can feel safe", but the only explanation ever provided for Why these neighboring countries are considered enemies is because theyre arabs.

and when it comes to palestine, it isnt even recognized as a country, nor identity. just a threat. ive talked to many people who are genuinely unaware of the occupation, and they arent willing to believe it either, because the media narrative has successfully shifted the blame on hamas. because "how could it be us? we want peace! its the terrorists who make us look bad! and their children, they grow up to be antisemites*, might as well get rid of them too!" they never stop to think what environment these children must grow up in to develop these "radical" ideas.

* what they mean by antisemite is really just antizionist, but the term anti/zionist isnt practiced in local dialect, being a zionist is treated as a given

any jew who stands against israels oppression is dubbed a self hating jew, but the biggest contributors to antisemitism is the people in charge of an ethnostate, because at any moment they could decide who is not white enough to be jewish, who is too jewish to be white, who stood against the current coalition government and who is an obedient dog.

israelis arent a monolith, but many of them have been won over, convinced its an "us v them" situation, when in reality it could never be the "us" that "loses"

the israeli government was waiting for an event like the massacre on the seventh of october to declare war, to have the so called "right to defend itself", so they could initiate the final steps of an ethnic genocide and displace, if not kill, all remaining palestinians. under the guise of bringing peace.

it isnt too late to call for a permanent ceasefire, to end the occupation.

please contact your representatives, attend protests and rallies if you are able. palestine will be free, and the flowers will rise again.

[gregor-samsung]

" If Israel remains unwilling to grant the Palestinians a viable state—or if it tries to impose an unjust solution unilaterally—then the United States should curtail its economic and military support. It should do so not because it bears Israel any ill will but because it recognizes that the occupation is bad for the United States and contrary to America's political values. Consistent with the strategy of offshore balancing, the United States would base its actions on its own self-interest rather than adhere to a blind allegiance to an uncooperative partner. In effect, the United States should give Israel a choice: end its self-defeating occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and remain a close U.S. ally, or remain a colonial power on its own. This step is not as radical as it might sound: the United States would simply be dealing with Israel the same way that it has dealt with other colonial democracies in the past. For example, the United States pushed Britain and France to give up their colonial empires in the early years of the Cold War and forced them (and Israel) to withdraw from Egyptian territory following the 1956 Suez War. The United States has also played hardball with plenty of other countries—including close allies like Japan, Germany, and South Korea—when it was in its interest do so. […] public opinion polls confirm that the American people would support a president who took a harder line toward Israel, if doing so were necessary to achieve a just and enduring peace. This policy would undoubtedly be anathema to most—though perhaps not all—elements in the lobby and it would probably anger some other Americans as well. "

John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy; Farrar, Straus and Giroux Editions, N.Y., 2007, pages 344-345.

[halalchampagnesocialist]

How to spot Liberal Zionist Propaganda 101

This post is by no means exhaustive at all. There are many Liberal Zionist talking points but these are just some of the most common ones. While on the surface they seem a little naive and hopeful at best, they are very much harmful. If you claim to be an ally to Palestinians, this post is primarily for you!

For starters, liberal Zionists will often try to both-sides the issue of Palestine, talk about how it's complicated, they'll claim that the conflict hurts both Israelis and Palestinians, how the only way forward is one where Jews and Arabs "just need to get along," amongst other things. They also often like to centre themselves, even when acknowledging Palestinians as the victims of Israel or this "conflict." From time to time, they also like to engage in tokenising certain Palestinians whose views tend to more or less align with theirs. Here are some common arguments you may hear from them:

1. Any form of justifying Israel's existence or claiming that the only solution is two states

It does not really need to be said why justifying Israel's existence is harmful but justifying its continued existence also means legitimising Israel's land theft, its expulsions of Palestinians, and its ongoing harm to Palestinians and other populations. Reducing any sorts of “solutions” into a binary is unhelpful. Needless to say, a 2ss would not even address any legitimate concerns Palestinian have, such as the right of return, and would only legitimise Israel’s colonialism. Talking about a two-state solution also implies that the root of the conflict lies in Palestinians not having their own state rather than being an occupied people. It is very much also possible to construct a paradigm where Jews and Palestinians both live together on the same land as equal citizens that doesn't involve two separate states, much less an ethnostate.

2. Security for Israel could only come through peace

This is a similar talking point to the one above. Not only does it centre Israeli safety and security above Palestinian liberation but it mistakenly assumes that once Israel makes peace with Palestinians, it'll achieve security. The reality, however, is that Israel's imagined security has quite often come at the expense of peace. In fact, "peace" has just acted as nothing more than a smoke-screen for Israel to carry out its expansionist policies, particularly in the West Bank. When liberal Zionists talk about peace juxtaposed with Israeli security, they're talking about attaining a negative peace rather than a positive one.

3. Israelis are not their government.

This point does nothing to actually help Palestinians. It is also an incredibly tone-deaf thing to say when Israel has targeted many Palestinian civilians by having alleged proximity to Hamas, such as being family members of militants or leaders (inc. children!), civil servants in a Hamas-led government, or even any male above the age of 15 they consider to be a potential combatant! It also deliberately erases Israeli civilians' support of and culpability in Israel's actions towards Palestinians.

4. Netanyahu and/or the Israeli right are the source of conflict.

While it is true that things have gotten inadvertently worse under Israel's various right-wing governments, they are not the source of conflict, but rather a product of extremist nationalism and Jewish supremacy perpetuated by the system. Both the 1967 occupations and settlements were undertaken under centre-left governments in Israel, and Israeli policy under non-right wing governments has been just as harmful towards Palestinians and has paved the way for where we are today. Blaming Netanyahu just also obscures the violent nature of Israel's military occupation over Palestinians which long precede him coming into power.

5. Netanyahu and Hamas are two sides of the same coin

I don't think I've seen any allies give validity to this claim but it's an extremely reductionist claim and is sort of similar to the one above. Groups like Hamas are merely a response to the Israeli occupation while Netanyahu is a byproduct of it. While some Israelis may see Hamas or their actions as an "obstacle to peace," Israel's actions and policies long pre-date Hamas and how Israel is currently responding to Hamas is no different to how Israel has engaged with Palestinian militant groups in the past, regardless of political affiliations or political goals. It is also important to note that Hamas has agreed to the establishment of a state along 1967 borders while Netanyahu aims to prolong the occupation and empower the settler movement (some of whom are part of his coalition government) as much as possible.

6. Israel is not a settler-colonial state.

While it is indisputable that Jews have historical connections to Palestine, that doesn’t automatically make you Indigenous or negate Israeli settler-colonialism. Colonialism in particular describes a relationship of exploitation. There are many cases of this, but we most clearly see this in the West Bank where Israel exploits natural resources on occupied Palestinian territory for its own political and economic gains. In terms of settler-colonialism, it is widely known that Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to make way for Jewish refugees and migrants to the new state of Israel, and is still actively facilitating Jewish migration to Israel today while denying Palestinians their right of return.

7. (X) doesn't help Palestinians.

It is not up to anyone to determine whether certain tactics or strategies are helpful or not. This point only seeks to discredit pro-Palestine organising. Only Palestinians get to decide what is actually helpful for the cause or not.

8. Any sort of Hamas-blaming.

On the surface it may seem like there’s nothing wrong with this, but this point is often harmful and usually lends itself to right-wing talking points because its objective is to deflect blame away from Israel. Certain arguments blaming Hamas also aim to minimise Palestinian suffering perpetuated by Israel. It also paints Israeli violence as retaliatory to Palestinian violence which only obfuscates Israel’s (and by extension, the US’) role in its state military apparatus and the differing power dynamics between Israelis and Palestinians. In other contexts, this point seeks to also legitimise certain opposition, such as the Palestinian Authority. Hamas-blaming also tends to sometimes lead to racist diatribes about Palestinians and their culture.

9. Al-Jazeera is not a credible news source.

Al Jazeera is a news source like any other. It has varying editorial policies and therefore will have equally good reporting on certain issues while having terrible reporting on others. The difference is that Al-Jazeera's news on Palestine is credible because it comes directly from their Palestinian reporters on the ground and first-hand eyewitness accounts. Western news sources are no more or less credible than al-Jazeera. Compare this to CNN, NYT, and any other Western news sources where Palestinian voices are often entirely missing from the narrative.

10. Overemphasis of antisemitism on the left

Antisemitism is a real issue and has the potential to fester in left circles if not directly addressed head on. Combatting antisemitism is extremely important, however, it is not an issue exclusive to the left. There is also a double standard in that no one expects Zionists to call out Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. Certain accusations of "antisemitism" also seek to distract from what's going on in Palestine by making it about Jewish comfort and feelings. Combatting antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism etc is always important as the basis of good politics.

Last but not least, be wary of native collaborators or any sort of normalisers! They are Palestinians or Arabs who try very hard to appeal to Western liberal consensus and can end up perpetuating a lot of harm to the cause and/or other activists. You will know them when you see them.

[heritageposts]

By Antony Loewenstein, author of The Palestine Laboratory (2023)

[...] The problem in Israel isn’t solely Netanyahu. He’s the symptom of a major larger societal shift. Replacing him with another carbon copy will change little for the millions of Palestinians who live under a brutal military occupation. One possible successor, Benny Gantz, has spent his career proudly promoting the destruction he’s caused in Gaza in previous wars. [...] Back in 2019, I wrote for the Jewish Forward outlet in the US that anti-Palestinian racism was ubiquitous in Israel, undeniably exploding since 7 October, and Netanyahu had simply been a reflection of contemporary Israel.   A 2016 poll found that close to half of Jewish citizens wouldn’t live in the same apartment blocks as Arabs. Fast forward to early 2024 and 68 percent of Israeli Jews opposed facilitating humanitarian aid to Gaza, according to an Israeli Democracy Institute study. This is at a time when Palestinians in Gaza are starving to death due to Israel’s deliberate policy of withholding lifesaving aid into the besieged territory. As far back as a 2012 poll, a majority of Israeli Jews opposed voting rights for Arabs if the Jewish state annexed the West Bank, and one-third of Israelis wanted Arabs in Israel to be denied the right to vote. In other words, apartheid was the Israeli vision for Palestine.

. . . continues on MEE (1 Apr, 2024)

[thebrightestwitchofherage]

Louder for the people in the back

They start war, we win war, they complain, we get human rights allegations, repeat.