The state of Israel, yes, the Israelis, not even remotely, the answer to genocide isn’t more genocide, it’s coexistence.
The states of Israel and Palestine must both be dismantled for an internationally defended and policed Levantine Confederation, where all Arabs and Israelis are equal voting citizens.
The only long term resolution is ending Israel as an ethno-state. It’s a European colony built ontop of another group of people’s land, and it’s not just some regretable historical factoid from the distant past, the colonization is happening as we speak. It shouldn’t be talked about in the past tense because there are literally people alive today who were alive when Israel was first fabricated out of thin air.
It should instead be a state in which both Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights as citizens. No more apartheid state and treating Palestinians as second class citizens.
A two state solution, while still better than the current situation, is probably the least likely thing to bring peace. Just go look at a map of Palestinian territory as it is now, it has been divided completely into these territorial islands by the Israelis, the map is Swiss cheese. The Israelis did this deliberately to prevent a state from being possible.
So you want to give control of the entire Levant to Hamas? The weird coded language only reinforces my previous assumptions about the linguistics involved here.
First of all, Hamas could have held elections in Gaza or joined the PA any time. Second, the debate over what Hamas has or has not done with its opportunity to govern in Gaza, or to what degree it has had a real opportunity to build a society post-occupation, or whether it can be a trustworthy partner, are all secondary to my question here.
My understanding of the anti-zionist stance is that there can be no two state solution, and that Israel must be forcibly dissolved, typically with little concern about what comes after that. That is what I am trying to better grasp here.
Is an opposition to settlements, condemnation of functional apartheid and being in favor of a two state solution really anti-zionism now? I have held those stances for a long time, but I have serious concerns about mixing those positions with what has historically been perceived as a significantly more extreme stance, via language used by some particularly problematic groups I do not want as bedfellows.
The anti Zionist stance is simple: Currently israel can accept a two state solution as offered by the Palestinians. Even Hamas is offering this. If israel accepts it israel loses their status as Nazi terror colonizers and gains the right to exist.
But because israel is Nazi-like state that wants to keep expending their Lebensraum far beyond Palestine into Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and even as far as Turkey in the future, israel will not accept this. It’s like asking if Hitler could just divide the land
Now for your other question, Hamas is a resistance movement not the government of the state of Palestine. If the state of Palestine is re established it can hold elections and Hamas will be a candidate in the political race.
So we want to exterminate Israel or what? I’m genuinely confused what the anti-zionists want.
The state of Israel, yes, the Israelis, not even remotely, the answer to genocide isn’t more genocide, it’s coexistence.
The states of Israel and Palestine must both be dismantled for an internationally defended and policed Levantine Confederation, where all Arabs and Israelis are equal voting citizens.
The solution is something neither side will agree to? Basically resurrecting Mandatory Palestine?
Now I’m even more confused.
Sovereignty is a right for leaders who don’t have active designs on lebensrauming neighbors’ territory
The only long term resolution is ending Israel as an ethno-state. It’s a European colony built ontop of another group of people’s land, and it’s not just some regretable historical factoid from the distant past, the colonization is happening as we speak. It shouldn’t be talked about in the past tense because there are literally people alive today who were alive when Israel was first fabricated out of thin air.
It should instead be a state in which both Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights as citizens. No more apartheid state and treating Palestinians as second class citizens.
A two state solution, while still better than the current situation, is probably the least likely thing to bring peace. Just go look at a map of Palestinian territory as it is now, it has been divided completely into these territorial islands by the Israelis, the map is Swiss cheese. The Israelis did this deliberately to prevent a state from being possible.
You can have Germany without Nazi Germany.
You can have Palestine without israel.
So you want to give control of the entire Levant to Hamas? The weird coded language only reinforces my previous assumptions about the linguistics involved here.
Sorry when did Palestine == Hamas I must have missed that.
By the way Hamas has stated they will participate in elections of a Palestinian state and accept the result.
Do you have a source for that claim that Hamas is willing to participate in secular government?
Democracy isn’t secularism. Israel is in no way secular either. America arguably isn’t secular.
Hamas is a not just a resistance movement but also a political party that would participate in elections. Comparable to the ANC in South Africa.
First of all, Hamas could have held elections in Gaza or joined the PA any time. Second, the debate over what Hamas has or has not done with its opportunity to govern in Gaza, or to what degree it has had a real opportunity to build a society post-occupation, or whether it can be a trustworthy partner, are all secondary to my question here.
My understanding of the anti-zionist stance is that there can be no two state solution, and that Israel must be forcibly dissolved, typically with little concern about what comes after that. That is what I am trying to better grasp here.
Is an opposition to settlements, condemnation of functional apartheid and being in favor of a two state solution really anti-zionism now? I have held those stances for a long time, but I have serious concerns about mixing those positions with what has historically been perceived as a significantly more extreme stance, via language used by some particularly problematic groups I do not want as bedfellows.
The anti Zionist stance is simple: Currently israel can accept a two state solution as offered by the Palestinians. Even Hamas is offering this. If israel accepts it israel loses their status as Nazi terror colonizers and gains the right to exist.
But because israel is Nazi-like state that wants to keep expending their Lebensraum far beyond Palestine into Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and even as far as Turkey in the future, israel will not accept this. It’s like asking if Hitler could just divide the land
Now for your other question, Hamas is a resistance movement not the government of the state of Palestine. If the state of Palestine is re established it can hold elections and Hamas will be a candidate in the political race.
Then you are not very bright.
Or more likely you’re very disingenuous with this comment.
Have you tried asking any or googling it?
That’s what I’m doing