I didn’t ask you if it was or not. Why do you think a new state would be worse than the present genocidal settler-colonial state of Israel?
In order to be against a new one-state solution, you’d have to prove why you think the present situation is preferable, or that there aren’t better alternatives.
As it stands, you are tacitly approving the genocide and settler-colonialism, even if you don’t morally agree with it, which is why I am asking what your problem with a one-state solution is.
I’d really fucking love to stop oil companies from polluting our planet and making climate change worse by the day, but it’s not realistic to shut them down tomorrow. Do I need to explain why that’s not realistic either?
Vibes are truly the pinnacle of material geopolitical analysis.
You have no points, just vibes. Push for a one-state solution, come up with a meaningful alternative that is factually better, or admit that you’re okay with the status quo of genocide and settler colonialism.
The mistrust between the Israeli population and the Palestinian population goes back decades. And here you come - an outsider, am I right? - to decide for us what the best solution is and to essentially “just get along”. Do you have any idea what people in Palestine and Israel actually think, and actually feel? You’re completely tone deaf. To decide as an outsider what we should be doing is rooted in exactly the same origins as colonialism - western powers think they can decide what the world should look like, and bend everyone to their will. Even if you think you’re right, you’re just tone deaf.
Why do you think whoever gains power in the aftermath would be any better than that?
Why do you think a new state being formed would be worse than the current genocidal settler colonial state slaughtering children for sport?
I never said what Israel’s doing is remotely okay
I didn’t ask you if it was or not. Why do you think a new state would be worse than the present genocidal settler-colonial state of Israel?
In order to be against a new one-state solution, you’d have to prove why you think the present situation is preferable, or that there aren’t better alternatives.
As it stands, you are tacitly approving the genocide and settler-colonialism, even if you don’t morally agree with it, which is why I am asking what your problem with a one-state solution is.
As I said, I don’t have a problem with it. I literally said that’s what I’d be happy with. I just don’t see it as realistic.
Why not?
Because of gestures at everything maybe?
I’d really fucking love to stop oil companies from polluting our planet and making climate change worse by the day, but it’s not realistic to shut them down tomorrow. Do I need to explain why that’s not realistic either?
Vibes are truly the pinnacle of material geopolitical analysis.
You have no points, just vibes. Push for a one-state solution, come up with a meaningful alternative that is factually better, or admit that you’re okay with the status quo of genocide and settler colonialism.
The mistrust between the Israeli population and the Palestinian population goes back decades. And here you come - an outsider, am I right? - to decide for us what the best solution is and to essentially “just get along”. Do you have any idea what people in Palestine and Israel actually think, and actually feel? You’re completely tone deaf. To decide as an outsider what we should be doing is rooted in exactly the same origins as colonialism - western powers think they can decide what the world should look like, and bend everyone to their will. Even if you think you’re right, you’re just tone deaf.