#palestinian sovereignty

[alwaysbewoke]

[euclicide]

DONT STOP TALKING ABOUT IT

[destroyingangelneveragod]

DO NOT GO TO WORK, SCHOOL, OR OPEN YOUR BUSINESS FRIDAY

There is a call for a GLOBAL general strike in solidarity with Palestine to force governments to stop supporting the state of israel and the genocide of Palestinians. I am literally begging you all to act. If you look at past genocides and say, I would not have been complicit in that, then you NEED to act. I am skipping a midterm on Friday that will cause me to fail the class I am in. I've urged the prof to reschedule, but regardless, I will not go. Nothing is more important than stopping a genocide. There is more power in numbers, the more of us who do it globally, the less likely we are to be punished. I am linking below the instagram post that has the full information on the strike. PLEASE reblog and get the word out. PLEASE tag people with far reach. We cannot be complacent and complicit in the face of genocide. If you need posters to plaster around your community, DM me, I have some done (in english as I am not fluent in anything else at the moment). We need committed solidarity from all communities. Free Palestine is disability justice. It is a form of Indigenous liberation. It is connected to all of our struggles.

@metalheadsforblacklivesmatter @bfpnola @palipunk

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Palästina Spricht (@palestinespeaks)

[agentfascinateur]

Post-ICJ Ruling Strategy

• Freeze international arms and aid transfers to Netanyahu's regime

• Ban illegal Israeli settlers' passports worldwide

• Revoke dual citizenship of illegal Israeli settlers

• Depose Netanyahu

• Enact Stand My Ground law in Palestine

• Enact evacuation orders to illegal Israeli settlers in Palestine

• Declare the Israeli Forces illegal in Palestine

• File request for UN peacekeeper force

[carsonjonesfiance]

I know being a an advocate for a two state solution makes me a “Zionist” on a technicality but like y’all are still using that word too liberally.

[butwhypants]

I have a question and I’m not trying to be annoying. I just want to understand because I feel like I have been misunderstanding how Zionism should work.

Obviously, Zionism is the belief that a Jewish state should exist in Israel. The thing I’ve been misunderstanding is how this can be achieved while protecting the Muslim arabs.

What I mean is, there are a lot of Arabs in West Bank and Gaza, and if Israel gave full citizenship to these people, they would outnumber Israeli jews, and this it would no longer be a Jewish state.

How, realistically, would the Jewish state, protect the rights of the Arabs while remaining fundamentally Jewish?

The main solution I have seen is a two-state solution, but I feel like that would force Jews to leave their homes in the West Bank.

I understand if you aren’t comfortable answering this - I’d just like to try to understand both sides. It’s hard to get unbiased info from the news.

Thanks for the polite question.

The problem with the question I think here is twofold, first Zionism is a very specific word. Zion is the name for the hill that Jerusalem is built on, and was used by the Israeli people when we were taken as slaves to Babylon in the 5th century BC. Zionism isn't inherently about a Jewish state existing, but about the right of the Israelite people to return to Zion, now known as Jerusalem.

The second problem, and I don't mean this with any disrespect, is that you've fallen for the Great Replacement theory as espoused by Ben Shapiro and Elon Musk. It's a very common and very insidious idea, which is based on the idea that if "foreign" cultures were allowed to come in to a society that they would outnumber and overthrow the people currently there. That's not true, and in fact a majority of the Palestinian people ARE Israeli citizens, with full legal and voting rights. Israel is not a theocracy (significantly more religious diversity then the US has for example), and maintaining a religious majority should not and can not be our goal. Allowing the Jewish people self determination in our homeland does not have to correlate with oppression or discrimination against the Palestinian people who also live there.

This current war betrays the fact that there is a long history of cooperation and conflict between all these groups - Eretz Israel is the most contentiously fought over piece of land in the history of the world, and this current war isn't even in the top one hundred most deadly. On the other hand though, cooperation has happened before and it will happen again. Muslims and Jews are not automatically enemies - we've both been willing to make sacrifices on hardline religious interpretations for the sake of peace before, and I hope we can do so again.

Fundamentally, the Jewish people have a long history of living in Israel and we have the right to live there safe and free. However, the Palestinian people ALSO have a long history of living in Israel and have the right to live there safe and free. There is no solution here that will create a mono-state of any culture or religion, and especially not when it is the most important place to 4 billion disparate people.

[thehealingsystem]

genocide joe launches apology for america's genocide of its colonized indigenous population while currently enacting genocide against another population they're trying to colonize. sorry some natives may forgive you but I certainly don't

[sarroora]

The mental gymnastics you have to do to somehow make it so that Egypt’s the Bad Guy for refusing to be complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians just proves we live in the Crazy Timeline 😂

[jew-flexive]

what is happening in gaza is a crime and must be opposed by the global community. the israeli government’s role in subjugating palestinians and opposing their justified national aspirations—aspirations shared by the jewish people—is undeniable. bibi is a war criminal, and likud cannot be allowed to continue to drive israel into dark and deeper dark.

october 7th was a day of inhumane brutality, and to deny or undercut the scale of the horror is antisemitic in the extreme. hamas is a terrorist organization that cannot be trusted to build a lasting peace for the region or for their people. hamas refuses to hold elections, has committed war crimes, and has never dealt with the peace process in good faith.

these are all truths we can and must hold in conversation with one another if we are to build a world that ensures the safety, dignity, and humanity of israelis and palestinians. denying history does nothing to ensure a liberated palestine or a homeland for the jewish people. i believe in self-determination for all peoples in their native lands. i refuse to allow my commitment to the jewish and palestinian causes to live in conflict with one another, and i’m sick of so many americans who have no understanding of the conflict or the history of the region and its people refusing to allow room for nuance, discussion, and grief for the victims—all of them.

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS

Mischaracterization of "From the River to the Sea" Slogan as Antisemitic

161 so far! Help us get to 250 signers!

Dear President Biden and Members of Congress,

I am writing to address the recent resolution passed on April 16th, by the House condemning the slogan "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free" as antisemitic. As someone deeply committed to promoting understanding and combating prejudice, I feel compelled to offer clarification on the misinterpretation of this slogan.

The slogan "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free" is deeply rooted in the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and freedom from occupation. Contrary to the characterization of the slogan as antisemitic, its primary aim is to advocate for the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, who have endured decades of dispossession, displacement, and denial of their basic human rights.

At its core, the slogan calls for the realization of the Palestinian right to statehood and sovereignty within the borders delineated by the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It is a powerful expression of the Palestinian people's aspirations for justice, equality, and the right to live free from oppression and discrimination.

It is essential to recognize that advocating for Palestinian rights and supporting the slogan "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free" does not equate to antisemitism. Criticizing the policies of the Israeli government or expressing solidarity with the Palestinian cause should not be conflated with hatred or prejudice towards Jewish people.

As highlighted in Al Jazeera's article, the slogan has historical significance and resonates deeply with Palestinians worldwide as a symbol of resistance against occupation and injustice. To dismiss it as antisemitic is not only inaccurate but also undermines the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people and stifles meaningful dialogue and reconciliation in the pursuit of a just and lasting peace in the region.

I urge you and your colleagues to engage in informed and nuanced discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, recognizing the complexities and diverse perspectives involved. It is through dialogue, empathy, and mutual understanding that we can work towards a future where all people in the region can live in dignity, security, and peace.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this perspective. I remain hopeful that together, we can contribute to a more just and inclusive world for all.

▶ Created on April 16 by Fatima

See how your House Member voted. Check the roll from here:

📱 Text SIGN PYTCSZ to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW FREEPALESTINE to 50409

Follow H.RES.883:

Sources:

[washed-up-wurmcoil]

It's so fucking frustrating trying to talk about palestine with people who are convinced that October 7th happened for no reason and that the Israel palestine conflict is thousands of years old. Like why are people so convinced that Arabs are just violent maniacs and that colonialism and its violence are non-factors in middle eastern conflict?

[agentfascinateur]

The Balfour Declaration

My analysis of the declaration basically points to:

• the admission that Palestine is a country via the inference "in any other country"

• the admission of existing non-jewish communities, thereby refuting the "land with no..." claim of Terra Nullius used by Zionists

• the right of Palestinians to not be harassed by the Israeli transplants

• the limitations of the framework by the UK

These are not negligeable points. What's clear is that the actions of Israelis are unconstitutional as well as illegal under international law.

[sweetest-devotion]

only shedding your liberal tears at brunch today is nothing but your shameless lack of accountability, i hope you cry forever the way you treat your american inflicted genocide and the shredded bodies of our kids by amerikkan "isra*li" weapons as background noise and an afterthought because your full fledged power and privilege have to come first before the dead bodies of 600,000+ Palestinians. the natural cycle of life actions is doing its consequential work of exposing and burning down that garbage dump of a colony that you've been depravedly trying to recycle into relevance every four years at the expense of the extermination and total destruction of whole nations.

[brick-van-dyke]

Gonna review all the sources I've been provided with (they're damning for the zio so rip to them but thanks for the sources lmao), and been searching through more sources from the time periods in question and, well, basically I started a thing.

(sorry for the blurriness) An overall essay going through the evidence and providing a small splash of input as someone noticing a lot of discord in said evidence, which isn't surprising but still it is telling how zionists cherry pick.

Anyway, the more I learn, the more I realise that there's a lot of political and nationalistic push to emit details in some papers, while pushing for certain conclusions based on the framing of the research for others. I think this is legitimately just unproductive when acknowledging the subjectivity of history as a study and the way certain overlap may point to a conclusion that isn't preferable by a variety of people, from researchers to the intuitions that may use or pay for the research to begin with. I find this in studies that delve into contentious topics in general. It's why it's so important to note the overlap and notice the inevitability of bias in understanding these topics.

As far as the history the Middle East goes and who colonised who, I think many disregard the simple theory that, perhaps, colonisation itself can be something inflicted by the post-colonised and equally be something done to a group with connections to conquest, ultimately making both the same in terms of land rights and the concept of legal ownership. Or, more specifically, that Zionists' attempts to become conquests have since reduced their claim, just as it would reduce a Babylonian, despite their deep links to the land and, arguably, being one of the first social groups before or at the same time as the Israelites.

History and Carbon Dating specifically become difficult to assign moral value of land rights to when cultures blossom and change in such extreme ways (to the point of being unrelated or unrecognisable with those from ancient eras) with the passing of time. The racial blame placed by Israel is thus shown to be one of mistaken vengeance and generally racial profiling of modern Arabs, just as the Persian, Turkish, Roman and British empires showed signs of racist attitudes to employ totalitarian tactics of rule over the peasantry. Being the colonised when one is willing to colonise with the same means reduces the ethical claims and, meanwhile, the history itself reflects greater nuance than political nationalists may desire of it.

Ultimately, as I search further and further, I find that the claim of nationalism and identity is a mere shared ideal of all empires formed through conquest and the desire for ownership of abundant resources. Meanwhile, I find that the idea of an ancient homeland to reclaim is obsolete when the people in question do not resemble those they wish to avenge. Culture evolves with geography and time, a constant for every country's history. Religion, culture and the concept of a homeland forms where the resources are abundant, rather than any legitimate greater or lesser claim from neighbouring tribes and civilisations. The wish of a Promised Land is a logical conclusion for any group seeking refuge from the elements; a moral argument filled with human necessity and a shared common ground if faced with an open mind and a willingness to review the past, while simultaneously moving on from it. The complexity becomes simple when it is understood that only the present can take responsibility for the present; and choose a better path than those who horde resources in the modern age of globalised colonialism.

[her-moth]

I wrote an essay 'Stone and Seed', about starvation as a tool of the genocide in Gaza, for Vittles.