r/JewsOfConscience Non-Jewish Ally (Jewish ancestry & relatives) 9d ago

Discussion - Flaired Users Only Please evaluate my line of thinking // Sometimes it seems as if State of Israel supporters want to exempt Israeli society from the principle, "elections have consequences."

In my area of the U.S. (I live in Jamaal Bowman's Congressional District . . . .), local Zionist advocates (who supported Latimer) will make comments such as that they strongly oppose Netanyahu and see him as an objectionable, right-wing figure, but at the same time will make much of their own nominal support for a "two-state solution," as if their moderation in this regard vindicates their pro-Israel stances.

In my view, some years ago, a peaceful settlement was much more possible, and a two-state solution (whether I agreed with it in principle or not) was viable.

But Netanyahu has worked systematically to make moderate solutions less and less possible, including by constant settlement expansion in violation of both international law and U.S. policy (the national platform of the Democratic Party in the U.S. says "we oppose settlement expansion").

The settlement expansion among other issues simply makes it much much harder to draw any kind of territorial map that will effectuate a two-state solution. The way in which Netanyahu has systematically worked to increase tensions has made it less likely that a peace deal will be popularly accepted and successfully implemented.

Thomas Friedman: "From 30,000 feet, Prime Minister Netanyahu really had a very intentional policy of strengthening Hamas and weakening the Palestinian Authority. So strengthening the Palestinian group that would never recognize Israel while weakening the one that would."

In my view, with moderate solutions increasingly far-fetched, radical solutions become more appropriate. This situation flows directly from Israeli policies, as implemented by popularly elected Israeli officials over a period of years. Although the more radical solutions to the conflict (which is now not only a conflict but a severe crisis), such as a 'one democratic state' solution or even (as grows increasingly defensible) simply allowing an Arab or Arab-Islamist government to rule the territory, are not desired by mainstream American Zionists, the narrowing of options flows from democratic choices by Israeli society and it seems to me that the "elections have consequences" principle should apply.

26 Upvotes

23 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Hi everyone,

'Discussion' posts require users to choose an appropriate flair in order to participate. Here's how you can pick a flair:

https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair

Please remember the human & be courteous to others. Thanks!


Archived links Video links (if applicable)
Wayback Machine RedditSave
Archive.is SaveMP4
12ft.io SaveRedd.it
Ghostarchive.org Viddit.red

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

14

u/daudder Anti-Zionist 8d ago edited 8d ago

The only solution to colonialism is decolonisation. It is not about the state-count. Justice is impossible with colonialism and without justice there will not be peace.

Anyone advocating for a colonialist-Zionist state in any border is an enemy of justice and peace.

There is very little that distinguishes Netanyahu from Lapid, Ganz and the others. Theirs is a debate on tactics. None are legitimate and none can bring about any solution nor do they wish to.

The strategy of all the Zionists is and always has been the complete subjugation of the Palestinians and whatever bit of Palestine they may carve out to allocate to them will be a bantustan at best, with the rest a colonialist, ethno-supremacist, apartheid state.

5

u/[deleted] 8d ago

So, then, in your eyes what needs to happen with the situation on the ground?

Let's say you have full autonomy over the immediate region. You can draw lines, move people, etc. 

What do you do to make this right?

I'm legitimately asking because I'm trying to educate myself on all viewpoints.

6

u/daudder Anti-Zionist 8d ago

Decolonise. Removal of colonial privilege. A state of its citizens.

8

u/daudder Anti-Zionist 8d ago

Equality under law, RoR, property restitution, one person one vote, egalitarian state. The Zionists have made partition impossible.

Citizenship for all Israelis and Palestinians. Check out the One Democratic State Initiative (ODSI) for a more detailed analysis.

6

u/[deleted] 8d ago

Thank you. Now I'm even more confused because there are zionists I know who agree with this precise thing you're describing. 

6

u/PlinyToTrajan Non-Jewish Ally (Jewish ancestry & relatives) 8d ago

I think there are forms of Zionism that do agree with it. These aren't the predominant forms of Zionism, but they do exist. The philosopher Martin Buber identified as a Zionist and advocated a single, bi-national state.

3

u/[deleted] 8d ago

Buddy, I agree with you, but be forwarned you're about to get scolded by someone for not being anti zionist in all shapes and forms. 

For some, there is no form of zionism that's good.

Good luck.

3

u/[deleted] 8d ago

BTW Buber is totally my jam. Glad you mentioned him 

5

u/daudder Anti-Zionist 8d ago

I wish. Ethno supremacism is a core tenet of Zionism and always has been. Your statement is inaccurate at best.

3

u/[deleted] 8d ago

No, not all Zionists are ethno supremacists. You're describing a specific kind.

3

u/daudder Anti-Zionist 8d ago

Do you have a source?

3

u/[deleted] 8d ago

A source for what? One showing every last Zionist is not an ethno supremacist? That's kind of a silly request. 

You're generalizing. Not all Zionisms are created equal. If I were you I'd look into Martin Buber, a Zionist who advocated for a Jewish/Arab binational state. That's just to start. There are several others. 

3

u/daudder Anti-Zionist 8d ago

A source as to who this mythical egalitarian Zionist you refer to.

E.g., Brith Shalom who advocated a more enlightened, potentially less brutal form of colonialism. Certainly not egalitarian.

In other words “egalitarian Zionism” is an oxymoron. Those that gave lip service to equality either had no practical influence or when it came to practicalities, turned out to be as racist supremacist as the rest.

The most “moderate” of Zionists advocated for Apartheid - a.k.a. “a Jewish state” in a part of Palestine.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

Could you be more specific? 

1

u/adeadhead Masortim 7d ago

Jews and Palestinians share DNA that is not shared by others even from the levant. Both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous.

2

u/daudder Anti-Zionist 7d ago

Absent continuous presence there can be no indigeneity. People whose recent generation’s ancestors came from outside Palestine are not indigenous to it by definition no matter what their genetics.

Like other terms, the Zionists seek to redefine “indigenous” to justify colonialism.

5

u/Thisisme8719 Arab Jew 8d ago

I'm not sure how much more possible a 2SS was in 2000/2001 or 2008. Certain sticking points weren't closer to a resolution back then than they are now. Eg Israeli negotiators wouldn't concede on either evacuating Ariel or letting the PA annex it, even though it's deep in the West Bank and probably the most important area for water because of the aquifer underneath. If anything the ICJ clarified what must be done with the settlements in 2024 (they must be evacuated altogether) which they did not do in 2004 (they just said they're illegal but didn't go as far as saying what should be done with them). The General Assembly also overwhelmingly affirmed the international support of the advisory opinion in Sept. So the Palestinians have a stronger basis to refuse any territorial compromises if negotiations ever resume. They could magnanimously offer Palestinian annexation over settlements, but they don't have to consider allowing Israel to retain any of them. Would that mean Israel has to evict hundreds of thousands of them? Tough shit for the settlers. While the situation has obviously gotten worse in the past couple of years, let alone in the past 25 years, I'm not sure that they're in a worse negotiating position now than before.

Regardless of that, I agree with your main point. The burden of handling the settlements and the facts on the ground should rest squarely with Israel. The Palestinians didn't choose to implement and support the settlement policies, it's something which passed through Israeli governments of various coalitions. There's no reason why the Palestinians should be expected to accommodate the settlers

2

u/loselyconscious Traditionally Radical 8d ago

Sure, but I don't think this is unique to Israel supporters.