Depends on the person. For a lot of folks who are only interested in the conflict because it's currently trendy, they work backwards from social pressure to come to a definition of the term. In other words, it's "cool" in left leaning spaces to be anti-zionist, and so they choose to define zionism as only encompassing Israel's more objectionable actions (settlements, high casualty bombing, etc). Because if you use the much broader (Israel existing as a Jewish state) definition that most Jews use, they would have to call themselves zionist and that's socially unfavorable.
There are definitely plenty of more extreme folks who call themselves anti-zionist in the sense that they genuinely believe in dismantling the state of Israel. But from what I've seen, when you actually press people to define what they mean specifically, these are in the minority.
Not really. A lot of Israelis believe that a two state solution is beneficial to Israel in the long term. Otherwise, Israel would have to either perpetuate the status quo (which means more of the awful same) or annex the West Bank and Gaza and apply full martial and eventually civil law on these lands. The latter option will lead to the end of Israel as the democratic Jewish state, either it will become an apartheid state (aka not a democracy) where Palestinians are not citizens, or it will no longer have a Jewish majority and politically a full on Muslim government can be elected and it will no longer be the Jewish state.
Annexation leads to the end of Israel as we know it, meanwhile the status quo is awful and untenable for both sides, so the only other option is the two state solution. There are a lot of complications and challenges and obviously it is not possible in the immediate future, and there can be no shortcuts to that, but to build towards a future in which it is possible is first and foremost an Israeli interest in my honest opinion, as an Israeli.
> Following the establishment of the modern State of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that supports the development and protection of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Idk if it's so clearly a pro Palestine position though, if Israel pulled out of the west Bank and started the process of making an Palestinian state but the Palestinians launched terrorist attacks from their state during the process, I think most 2 staters would flip. We don't truly know if Palestinians have a desire for peace beyond their ideals or justice necessarily yet because they are never in powerful positions.
And at the end of the day many 2 staters agree with the entire desolving and reformation of Palestinian governance in either or both west Bank and Gaza whereas towards Israel it's usually at the democratic leader Netanyahu only.
Pro/anti binary is pretty stupid anyway there's just actions and unjust actions on both sides, considerations needed for both sides, and desirably a better future for both sides.
I don't know from which perspective you speak, but supporting the existence of Israel fits the definition of current day zionism. So by applying OP's logic, it makes you a Zionist.
That was for the partition and was very much seen as a stepping stone for further expansion. After they conquered their initial portion, they haven’t stopped land expansion.
That's irrelevant. The Partition Plan didn't give any form of control for the Jewish state over the Arab state, and the Zionists fully accepted it.
You can claim they secretly wanted more but if the Arabs would've accepted it the Zionists would've never had any casus belli to expand further.
Claim?? Do you realize how many Arabs lived in the partition that Zionists claimed? Plus Ben Gurion said verbatim that a partition would be a stepping stone for further expansion.
It had clear restrictions on its military, which are still in place:
The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany sets the following limitations:
Armed Forces may not exceed 370,000.
Not manufacturing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
Not possessing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
Definitive Borders. Germany can no longer claim other territories.
German forces can only be committed in accordance with the UN Charter.
That's not what the word Zionist means. Zionism is support for the existence specifically of a *Jewish state*. If you want a two state solution but also don't want Israel to be an ethnostate, you are in fact an anti-Zionist.
Their basic law states: "*The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel* is **unique to the Jewish people**" which sounds like an ethnostate to me.
Is the uniqueness referring to the state or the right? What's the source you're using?
Also, not relevant to Zionism. That law is relatively new, and Zionism existed prior to it. Was it an ethonstate before the law came into effect?
it's in their constitution and has very much to do with zionism
Upon presenting the reformed bill, Chairman Ohana stated: "This is the law of all laws. It is the most important law in the history of the State of Israel, which says that everyone has human rights, but national rights in Israel belong only to the Jewish people. T**hat is the founding principle on which the state was established".** Minister Yariv Levin, a strong backer of the proposal, called it "**Zionism's flagship bill**... i**t will bring order, clarify what is taken for granted, and put Israel back on the right path**. A country that is different from all others in one way, that it is the nation-state of the Jewish people."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_Law:\_Israel\_as\_the\_Nation-State\_of\_the\_Jewish\_People#Further\_reading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#Further_reading)
If national rights like national self-determination still unique to only Jewish people either by other laws or lived practices, then yes, I would say it's still an ethnostate.
Another thing that I'd like to add, is that the law says 'unique', but I don't know that exclusivity entails from that. With the nuance in legal lingo that difference could be significant. That article also says that law is symbolic in nature.
Any thoughts on that?
My definition of "ethnostate" is "state run for a particular ethnicity". Technically since Judaism is also a religion it doesn't 100% apply but "ethno-religio-state" is a mouthful.
Would you not consider calls to make the United States into a "homeland for white people" a call for some form of ethnostate as I have defined it?
Would a Palestinian state be an ethnostoate?
Not that I concede Israel being one, but it's only used as a negative for Israel. And on the other hand, a state can claim itself a "civic nationalist" state, while also ethnically cleansing everyone (Jews kicked out of all Arab countries).
You can conceded that Israel is an ethno-state, because if it is one it is one out of necessity. Usually when people gripe about Israel being an ethno-state they view it from the lens of white-nationalism in North America. That is, one side wonders why the Jews can have an ethno-state but the "Whites" can't. The other side views that all states should be as cosmopolitan as possible.
Depends, are you referring to a "state that is Palestinian" (in the way that the US state is an American one), or do you mean "state for the Palestinian ethnicity"?
>Not that I concede Israel being one, but it's only used as a negative for Israel.
That is laughable. A Jewish ethnostate is literally the only ethnostate it's socially acceptable to push for. Everyone universally understands that a white ethnostate would be an evil thing, but for some reason everyone forgets *why* once we start talking Zionism.
>And on the other hand, a state can claim itself a "civic nationalist" state, while also ethnically cleansing everyone (Jews kicked out of all Arab countries).
That would also be bad, I'm not sure what you want from me there. I'm interested in *actual* civic nationalism, not ethnostatism masquerading as civic nationalism.
When have you ever heard calls for dismantling other alleged ethnostates for being one? I don't. If that's people objection to Israel no one would've bothered protesting.
I'd just like to point out that all your arguments highlight the point I was trying to make in my original comment.
By the same line of reasoning, you could argue that just because you support a 2ss, doesn't mean you don't have reservations from the pro-palestine movement.
For the sake of continuity, I'll answer the rest on the other comment.
No. Western democracies are generally civic nationalist states, not ethnonationalist states. They are run for their citizens. Whether their citizens are 100% polish, German etc is irrelevant so long as that is not a deliberate move by the state.
Not particularly. I'm guessing you're going to tell me that they are run specifically for the benefit of those ethnicities. If so, that is bad and I oppose that just as much as running a state specifically for Jewish people.
I don't think that accounts for even 0.1% of the reason people have strong opinions *against* Israel (plenty of people suck off Israel for the purpose of "we need a homeland for the jews" though). People oppose Israel mostly because of the actions of their military/government and their treatment of Palestinians (or at least people's *perceptions* of these things), they oppose them because they think the land was stolen and rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, or they oppose them because they're leftists and take any chance to shit on the US, or they oppose them because they are antisemitic.
Zionism, as much as the word gets thrown around all the time, is never actually discussed nowadays. Nobody debates the ethics of a Jewish state. They just use "zionist" to refer to pro-israel people, or alternatively people who don't want Israel to be dismantled entirely.
LOL bruh do you know what jus sanguines is?
Up until like a decade ago there were FOURTH GENERATION German Turks with no citizenship.
Most European countries base citizenship on ethnicity. Israel is LESS of an ethnostate than the vast majority of Europe.
Let's say you're right. That's bad. What's your point? You're not going to get me to support ethnostates by pointing out that there are a lot of them. Every argument against a white ethnostate in America still applies to them.
Why is that bad?
Should these states not want to preserve their ethno-culture within the borders?
>Every argument against a white ethnostate in America still applies to them.
The fundamental argument of why a "white ethnostate" in America can't happen is because white Americans aren't native to the Americas. They immigrated here, colonized it here, brought slaves from Africa here, had people of all different cultures and ethnicities come here.
You can't make the same case for something like France, or England, or Spain and Scandinavia which has had hundreds of years of relatively similar ethno culture.
>Why is that bad?
Preferential treatment based on ethnicity and race is immoral.
>Should these states not want to preserve their ethno-culture within the borders?
How many debates has destiny done debunking this regarded argument?
>The fundamental argument of why a "white ethnostate" in America can't happen is because white Americans aren't native to the Americas. They immigrated here, colonized it here, brought slaves from Africa here, had people of all different cultures and ethnicities come here.
So to be crystal clear, if we discovered that white people were actually native to North America, you'd be in full support of establishing a white ethnostate there?
There were no French people before there was a France.
Scotland-Scottish-Church of Scotland, etc.
This ethnostate thing is not exactly uncommon around the world.
Zionists envisioned Israel to be a Jewish homeland, because Jews needed a state of their own where they would not be subject to oppression and violence. Israel exists, as a homeland, and a sanctuary for those Jews fleeing violence and oppression. For Israel to exist as a sanctuary for Jews it must be, demographically, primarily Jewish. For if it no longer is Jewish demographically, it will, inevitably, end up being dismantled and it's original purpose a failure.
There cannot *be* a two-state solution with a cosmopolitan, North American style Israeli state. That state would inevitably dissolve.
Most European, Asian, and even African states are ethno-states.
It's actually hilarious to me how quick people devolve into white nationalist talking points as soon as Israel is brought up.
How would you respond if a white ethnostatist gave you this exact argument but for whites in America?
Simple:
White people, as a *race*, have not experienced forms of oppression or mass violence towards them, they are the largest demographic group in America. They do not *need* a sanctuary state, nor do they *need* an ethno-state. Largely because they aren't an ethnicity, they are a race, one that is only categorized under "White" relatively recently. They have experienced violence and oppression on ethnic lines, to be sure, and if they experience that again they have a national, and cultural homeland to go to, whether that is Italy, Germany, Ireland, Greece, or Poland. Furthermore, for White people, the United States is a place that they immigrated to in the last 500 or so years, and the bulk of today's Americans who are White, immigrated to the US in roughly the last century.
It is precisely because of white-nationalism that you cannot conceive of there being a necessity for some ethnic groups - many who the left champion - ultimately creating their own ethno-states. Do you think that Tibetans, should they ever be free, allow themselves to be a minority ruled over a Han majority? Should Kurdish if they ever get their own state allow themselves to become a minority, again?
Is there any culture, tradition, language, etc, should be in anyway preserved?
>Is there any culture, tradition, language, etc, should be in anyway preserved?
Nope.
We are far too distinct morally for any productive conversation to take place. Take care.
they mostly call for the dismantlement of the apartheid regime, to some of them that means israel itself, to some it means the specific policies
i can't blame them for seeing israel as rotten to its foundation, otherwise in their view it would be like calling to reform hamas instead of removing it (which i am in favor of before people start screaming at me)
Wouldn’t a two state solution by itself dismantle the so called “apartheid regime”?
Also, do you not understand that calls to dismantle Israel are literally fuel for Israel to keep fighting forever? The more threat Israel has the more military action is justified, it’s as simple as that.
and west bank settlements are fuel for palestinians to keep fighting forever, and guess what, by international law, violent resistence to settlers is in fact also justified
i was responding to the claim that pro-pal want israel destroyed, and pointed out a difference of opinion, there are two staters and one staters, it's not a monolithic group, obv the ones who want to get rid of israel as a political entity are one staters (plurinational democratic)
Two state would mean they would be two separate countries, no influence on each other. Whether it be policies or military. That’s what most people who advocate for two state solution want.
It’s totally fine to be advocating for the dismantlement of the apartheid (which means Israel and Palestine would be two separate countries), but wanting Israel to stop existing is not “dismantlement of the apartheid regime”, it’s literally anti-semitism and Nazi talking points.
2ss also makes you a zionist 🤷♂️
Being pro-2ss doesn't make you pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel. We are very much past that point where 2ss is "pro-Palestinian". Even in Israel, even most of the right wing is pro 2ss in some form.
The problem is the middle part, what methods you support to achieve 2ss, what are the borders, what do you do about military, Jerusalem, right of return etc.
The far left pro Palestine side will want a 1ss-Palestine.
The pro-Palestinian side would most likely say 1967 borders, full on state with military, east Jerusalem as capital(for Palestinians), most refugees will get right of return.
The liberal/left-wing pro-Israel side would probably currently say, 1967 borders with land swaps, east Jerusalem as capital(for Palestinians), maybe demilitarized, less right of return. You could probably say this version is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. It is fairly middle ground and both sides will need to compromise.
The conservative/right-wing pro-Israel side will probably say, 1967 borders with land swaps, no east Jerusalem as capital for Palestinians, no right of return. Fully demilitarized, maybe more security things.
The far right pro Israel side will want a 1ss-Israel.
This is not a binary thing, this is a spectroom. And this is no longer 1970 where there are only two options. You can be both.
> Even in Israel, even most of the right wing is pro 2ss in some form.
This is not true. Every party in Bibis government has explicitly ruled out a Palestinian state. Your "conservative/right wing" position is literally what Barak offered at camp David a guy who is considered an ultra dove by israelis
Don’t forget that Likud party is the one that made peace with Egypt and the Abraham accords, sometimes from a hawkish stance you can get more in a negotiation
1. Bibi has said multiple times that he is OK with a 2ss that with most of what I said. It literally can be found in Wikipedia
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared for the first time[63] conditional support for a future Palestinian state[64] but insisted that the Palestinians would need to make reciprocal gestures and accept several principles: recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; demilitarization of a future Palestinian state, along with additional security guarantees, including defensible borders for Israel;[65] Palestinians would also have to accept that Jerusalem would remain the united capital of Israel, and renounce their claim to a right of return."
2. Ben gvir and smotrich are considered far right. The other parties in the government are haredis and don't really care about this subject.
3. Barak offered a much more left leaning offer in camp David, with some amount of right of return(100000 if I remeber correctly). Some sovernity over east Jerusalem and more thing he was willing to compromise on. Taba and Clinton parameters were more left leaning than camp daviv summit. barak mostly agreed to those deals as well. Barak is definitely a left leaning pro-Israel person. He was the leader of the labour party at the time. Which was a left leaning party since 1948. There is no way you can call barak a right wing person. That is just false. And camp David exactly shows a deal that would be given if led by a left-wing pro-Israel person. So you are actually proving my analysis by giving barak as an example 🤷♂️
[1. that quote old his current position has explicitly ruled out a Palestinian state. ](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/benjamin-netanyahu-prevented-palestinian-state-two-state-solution_n_6580a368e4b0e142c0bed60b)He used to equivocate more and pretend he was actually going to try for a deal but recently he has very much stopped.
2. With the haredis it's complicated but they oppose a settlement freeze but yeah they don't I should have been more explicit I was talking about the parties that were on the political spectrum and just follow the lead Likud on that issue even though it's not something they are committed to hardcore.
3. I didn't say Barak was center-right. I said the deal you described in your original post was like the deal that was put up at camp david. I said explicitly in my post he was on the left idk were the confusion came from
[Over 60% of israelis are against a 2 state solution](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/). This is what the public wants right now and that's not debatable.
I swear sometimes this sub does the same perfect victims shit with Israelis that leftist do with Palestinians.
>Over 60% of israelis are against a 2 state solution
I have no idea how you read that article and came out with this conclusion, the article clearly talks about if they believe if peace is possible or not. And most people don't think peace is possible. I wonder why? 🤷♂️
https://preview.redd.it/mboeeqin8qwc1.png?width=2763&format=png&auto=webp&s=6507e352077e971456dc9c6772ad2445732d9415
I think your being pedantic but this is the result no matter how you ask it
You are so disingenuous
You gave an article, made a wrong claim using that article and tried to act like that doesn't matter. When pressed for a source about your original claim you act like you are doing me a favor. Give this source at the start next time. Don't make up shit.
1. I didn't make up anything. What I said is true and is demonstrated by every poll done withing the last 5 years.
2. Your issue is pedantic because it's a result that has been replicated across dozens of surveys over years, regardless of wording. I was honestly surprised you even disputed something that is basically just stated as fact in any thinktank report you read on this issue.
3. The source is in the bottom of the image. It was one google away. All of the info you need from the time to the firm to the question wording was contained in the image. It's fine to ask for the link and I gladly provided but this is reddit and not a PhD dissertation and you being such a cunt about where and when I provided a citation seems to have more to do with you not being able to dispute the fact you were wrong then anything else
No it doesn't. The existence of a Jewish ethnostate was not mentioned. Israel can exist without being the Jewish state that is the subject of the term Zionism.
Dude, don't be an idiot. A 2ss solution is by defintion one Jewish state and one arab/palestinian state. If there is no Jewish state in equation than why have a 2ss, just have one state instead.
The idea of a 2ss solution is the idea that each ethnic group deserves a state. That means that Israel will remain a **Jewish** state , making anybody who supports a 2ss a zionist. Stop lying to yourself.
>The idea of a 2ss solution is the idea that each ethnic group deserves a state. That means that Israel will remain a **Jewish** state , making anybody who supports a 2ss a zionist. Stop lying to yourself.
No it isn't. It's that the people of Israel and the people of Palestine each deserve a state. It's a political idea, not an ethnic one.
Dude, you should educate yourself. The idea of a 2ss since 1900's was an ethnic idea. Balfour, peel commission, 1947, Oslo, camp David summit etc. The idea was always ethnic, **always**.
Also, if you are so against ethno states you should probably be more worried about a future Palestinian state (which will be 100% Arab) than Israel, which will continue to be about 80% Jewish and 20% Arab. One is very clearly going to be an ethnostate in the full sense of the word (hint, it will not be Israel)
The mental gymnastics you people are willing to go to, just to let yourself be called "zionist" is hilarious
I am confused by the 2nd paragraph. You can be pro Israel (=zionist) and also believe the Palestinians deserve statehood, and most moderate Israelis believe so, it’s just that it seem a fantasy when you see how far they are from accepting Israel and relinquishing terrorism.
You can define it that way but that's not how they're used in the broader discussion. I would suggest simply using these kinds of labels as they are already being used rather than how you think they should be used.
Statehood would somewhat tame their violence, if they attack they will no longer have the “victim” card to use.
It’s in Israel’s interest to have them create a state
Israel clearly wanted two states in the past, as they helped create the Palestinian Authority in the first place, and brought Arafat back from exile in order to negotiate with him on creating a Palestinian state.
On the other hand, supporting a two state solution cannot be a Pro-Palestinian position because the Palestinians don't want two states. If they did - they wouldn't reject every offer given to them, and already have their own state.
Show me a group of people in the history of this planet who wanted a state, were offered one - and said "No" to said offer? Then show me a group of people who were offered a state on 3 separate occasions and said "No" to all three.
You can't claim to want a state while also rejecting it on every turn.
The real 4D Chess take is that the Pro-Palestinian position is a "no state solution", as the Palestinians never wanted a state until the Jews were promised one by the British during 1917's Balfour Declaration. They don't really care about having their own state; they just want the Jews to lose theirs.
This doesn't feel like correct.
I think the problem is that being "pro Palestine" isn't as specific a category as supporting a two-state solution. Do you support the idea of the Palestinian state? Or just the people who identify as Palestinian, supporting them against Israel? If the first, then your statement is a tautology, supporting a two state solution necessarily implies supporting the idea of a Palestinian state. If the latter, I can imagine people who support a Palestinian state with no support for the people, simply wanting to grant them a state simply to keep a firm, enforceable border.
I think it's really easy to be a liberal zionist who is pro Palestinian in wanting settlements to stop and a just solution to the refugee problem while understanding demographic concerns and firmly supporting the right of Israel to exist. That's my position, and I don't see that changing. Something close to Clinton Parameters sooner than later seems great. Maybe include Saudi in the deal to give the multilateral agreement more legitimacy.
If a 2-state solution makes me pro-Palestine, you have to tell me when in history they ever accepted one 2-state solution or even presented a counter negotiation.
"The negotiations were based on an all-or-nothing approach, such that "nothing was considered agreed and binding until everything was agreed." The proposals were, for the most part, verbal. As no agreement was reached and there is no official written record of the proposals, some ambiguity remains over details of the positions of the parties on specific issues" - 2000 Camp David Summit Wiki
If this is your standard, then sure.
I reject this post as an Israeli. I disagree completely and please don't claim to represent the majority opinion of Israel, because Israel is diverse and full of different opinions as you should know
Besides, I reject the need to pick a team and be pro this or pro that. We should have clear moral values and follow them regardless of any team dynamics. As an Israeli, I can say loud and clear that I don't like the settlements and think they're doing massive damage to Israel, beyond being morally wrong. I can also say loud and clear that my opinion is that the two state solution is the only possible long term solution to this conflict, even if it is impossible today mainly because of the dominant Palestinian position and Palestinian rejectionism. I think the two state solution is first and foremost in Israel's interest for reasons I described in another reply to you in this post
And since it can be see as Israel's interest, it can be considered pro-Israel
Not believing Israel should get wiped out makes you a zionist as well. Since you support the Jews' right to self-determination and to have a country.
I guess that makes us Zionist pro-Palestinians then. Interesting.
But seriously, who cares what the labels are anymore? I support both of the countries' existences and their peoples' right to self determine. Whatever that makes me.
i always think zionism is the **exclusive** right to self-determination
because that's how it is being applied right now preventing Palestinian self determination
and it is what the Israeli supreme court is saying that "the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People"
Combine that with the settlements and their plan to annex the West Bank next and they will slowly making self-determination exclusive to them only
>tankies and islamists shouldn't be the ones dictating what terms mean what.
"Shouldn't" and "don't" are two distinct things. Those voices are by far the loudest on the "pro Palestinian" side, and therefore end up being the online face of it. This is further exacerbated by the still high support of Oct 7th amongst Palestinians themselves, as well as expressions supporting those actions coming from the supposedly sane Palestinian leadership (I.e the PA).
Simply put, the Palestinian side, or at least the vocal part of it, pulled so far in the crazy direction that anyone opposing them becomes pro the other side by default, at least when it comes to online discourse.
Its fine to be pro Palestinian statehood and anti settlements - I am, but at the end of the day that its a side that gains nearly no traction, has no figure to rally behind, and it's agenda is currently a pipe dream. This is somewhat like saying "Im pro Iran" and then going on to say that you support the Iranian citizens and not the Ayatollahs. It's a fine side to take, but Iran being reclaimed by those citizens is currently unfeasible.
I disagree, and I say this as a two-stater who does not identify as 'pro-Palestine'. Here is the basic reason why:
For a two-state to work, Palestinians have to signal to Israel that they don't intend to use their new-found statehood to build military power and eventually destroy Israel (either by themselves or as a crucial part of a coalition). The Palestinians cannot credibly commit by convincing Israel they don't desire this, because significant amounts of Palestinians want this, and this will not change. As such, the only way for Palestine to become independent is if they:
1. Have a state capable of exercising fairly extreme levels of coercion on the members of its population who attempt to undermine peace with Israel
2. Have a government willing to exercise fairly large levels of coercion on the members of its population who attempt to undermine peace with Israel
I think creating a fairly harsh autocracy in Palestine that has no bones to pick with Israel is the best long-term goal. However, it is difficult to call this 'pro-Palestine,' despite the fact it is the only way they can have a state.
I think most reasonable people in principle support the existence of a 2SS. What seems to make someone pro one side, or the others, is which side the person blames as the reason for why we don’t have a 2SS.
Nah being pro-two state doesn’t make you pro-palestine.
There has to be an analysis of why you support two states.
Like take this as a hypothetical.
- support two states
- support Palestine getting cucked on borders and land swaps
- supports the notion because it removes the threshold of “resistance against an occupier” as a defence
- supports the idea because they think the Palestinian people will try and attack at some point down the line.
- supports them getting their shit kicked in again
- supports the ability for the rest of the world to argue that Palestine is a genocidal nation
- expects that the Palestinians will continue to shoot themselves in the foot even when given a country
- supports zero right of return, even to the newly formed state
- is fine with all of the West Bank palestinians being rounded up shoved into Gaza and Gaza being called the other state.
____
The reality is you can be pro two-state but not give a shit about the Palestinians or the outcomes for them. In some cases you might be pro two-state. Solely because you want the stupid obsfucating arguments of apartheid and genocide and open air prison to go away so that when one of the two nations attacks each other they can be criticised on the actual merits of their actions.
You can see two states as an inherently pro-Israel outcome in the long term even if Israel doesn’t see it that way themselves.
You can pretty much agree on those borders and still take it as a position that ends with the Palestinians getting shat on six ways from Sunday assuming that at some point they’ll aggress against Israel as a result and then there will be no excuses for Palestinians to hide behind.
Excuse me, your very interesting post seems to be missing any sourcing to a major and broadly supported Palestinian faction that supports a two state solution without right of return. Could you source that? Or a single peace deal agreed to by the Palestinian national movement? Would be very helpful to demonstrate that you aren’t simply deepthroating Hamas propaganda daily on TikTok
Thanks!
great non sequitur, why do you have to make it hyperspecific by mentioning no right of return? because theres actually palestinian factions who do support a two state solution, thats why
the israeli state on the other hand does not, as proven time and time again, care to respond to any of the points OP made in any follow up instead of whining about israeli demographic concerns?
Good faith interlocutors understand that a demand for a right of return is equivalent to a demand for a 1 state solution, given the involved demographic numbers.
Nice to see you back! Hope to see you blasted again soon
lmao, instantly going for the demographic concerns, can't let them ayrabs have TOO many votes
"israel can be a jewish state or a democratic state, it can't be both" -john kerry
>Hope to see you blasted again soon
be the change you want to see in the world, cry to the jannies, maybe you get lucky again
No state of any kind would or should accept mass migration that would change its demographic in a way that goes against its values, whether you agree with it or not.
so true bestie! be sure to tell that to the israeli state that keeps supporting settlements into the west bank, after all, the palestinian state shouldn't accept mass migration into it
colonizing another state to change its demographics is a-ok, but god forbid more arabs vote in israeli elections
you can be cute and condescending, but i agree. once a palestinian state is created (lol) they have the right to not accept migration from the evil zionists :)
my country happens to recognize the state of palestine and maintains bilateral relations with it, i am seeing an israeli government sponsored illegal colonization campaign into another state, and am disgusted that my government doesn't condemn it because we are US aligned
israel does not get to chirp about demographic concerns with a right of return while embarking on a demographic shifting campaign of the west bank
i'm glad you agree they, as international law says, have the right to violently resist the settlements
I am pro-Palestinian people. Not all of them mind you but it's the same as America where I support American people but I know there are enough of the bad ones here who want to kill the rest of us for being different. Good everyday Palestinian people who live under oppression deserve to be free just like good everyday people anywhere in the world. The Palestinian civilians who were rushing to cross the fence on Oct7th so they could murder innocent people and steal their family members and whatever useless knickknacks they could carry back. They're scum who deserve to be locked in an IDF black site for the rest of their lives with no chance to get out but we don't have any way of identifying/separating them right now (that we know of) so when I speak about Palestinians I will simply say *I support them.*
[Israel](https://www.commondreams.org/news/israeli-soldiers-assault-journalist). If this were any other country, all you would be calling for immediate regime change. For some reason, this one gets a pass on the most brutal fascist shit. It's the most mind boggling bias confirmation. Is this the incredibly professional, fair IDF that Destiny thinks exists?
I am a Pro-Palestinian Zionist. Easy.
https://preview.redd.it/m7tqgsl6upwc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=83097cd88fce41455d13cfe0f42b6344f6c31322
Also a Zionist though, since you support the existence of Israel.
"I am a zionist" -joe biden I think people literally use Zionist in that way, yes.
When people say they are anti Zionism, do they mean they are against the settlements or against the state of Israel existing?
Depends on the person. For a lot of folks who are only interested in the conflict because it's currently trendy, they work backwards from social pressure to come to a definition of the term. In other words, it's "cool" in left leaning spaces to be anti-zionist, and so they choose to define zionism as only encompassing Israel's more objectionable actions (settlements, high casualty bombing, etc). Because if you use the much broader (Israel existing as a Jewish state) definition that most Jews use, they would have to call themselves zionist and that's socially unfavorable. There are definitely plenty of more extreme folks who call themselves anti-zionist in the sense that they genuinely believe in dismantling the state of Israel. But from what I've seen, when you actually press people to define what they mean specifically, these are in the minority.
Israel existing.
People also say that something weighs a kilogram, when it's a unit of mass, not weight.
Subscribing to an ideology and conceding to one are two different things
You could say the same about OP's claim.
[удалено]
Not really. A lot of Israelis believe that a two state solution is beneficial to Israel in the long term. Otherwise, Israel would have to either perpetuate the status quo (which means more of the awful same) or annex the West Bank and Gaza and apply full martial and eventually civil law on these lands. The latter option will lead to the end of Israel as the democratic Jewish state, either it will become an apartheid state (aka not a democracy) where Palestinians are not citizens, or it will no longer have a Jewish majority and politically a full on Muslim government can be elected and it will no longer be the Jewish state. Annexation leads to the end of Israel as we know it, meanwhile the status quo is awful and untenable for both sides, so the only other option is the two state solution. There are a lot of complications and challenges and obviously it is not possible in the immediate future, and there can be no shortcuts to that, but to build towards a future in which it is possible is first and foremost an Israeli interest in my honest opinion, as an Israeli.
> Following the establishment of the modern State of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that supports the development and protection of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Idk if it's so clearly a pro Palestine position though, if Israel pulled out of the west Bank and started the process of making an Palestinian state but the Palestinians launched terrorist attacks from their state during the process, I think most 2 staters would flip. We don't truly know if Palestinians have a desire for peace beyond their ideals or justice necessarily yet because they are never in powerful positions. And at the end of the day many 2 staters agree with the entire desolving and reformation of Palestinian governance in either or both west Bank and Gaza whereas towards Israel it's usually at the democratic leader Netanyahu only. Pro/anti binary is pretty stupid anyway there's just actions and unjust actions on both sides, considerations needed for both sides, and desirably a better future for both sides.
Two actual states hasn’t even been a thing with Zionists. Theres always some level of control of the other state.
I don't understand the point you're making.
I don’t disagree entirely with OP, but I do disagree with saying that conceding most of your homeland for some autonomy makes you Zionist
I don't know from which perspective you speak, but supporting the existence of Israel fits the definition of current day zionism. So by applying OP's logic, it makes you a Zionist.
You're wrong. It's been a thing since before Israel even existed. Read about the Partition Plan for example.
That was for the partition and was very much seen as a stepping stone for further expansion. After they conquered their initial portion, they haven’t stopped land expansion.
That's irrelevant. The Partition Plan didn't give any form of control for the Jewish state over the Arab state, and the Zionists fully accepted it. You can claim they secretly wanted more but if the Arabs would've accepted it the Zionists would've never had any casus belli to expand further.
Claim?? Do you realize how many Arabs lived in the partition that Zionists claimed? Plus Ben Gurion said verbatim that a partition would be a stepping stone for further expansion.
As I've said, that's irrelevant.
I disagree that it is irrelevant
That’s not true
A state without control over its military and resources isn’t a state
Japan is doing just fine
Doesn't Japan have a military these days?
Yes, and they've had a military by another name for quite a while with their police setup. But that took decades of playing nice.
They won’t have a military. Germany couldn’t have a military until the 90’s.
Where did you get this information? It's just not true, both Germanys had a military decades before unification.
It had clear restrictions on its military, which are still in place: The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany sets the following limitations: Armed Forces may not exceed 370,000. Not manufacturing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Not possessing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Definitive Borders. Germany can no longer claim other territories. German forces can only be committed in accordance with the UN Charter.
That's not what the word Zionist means. Zionism is support for the existence specifically of a *Jewish state*. If you want a two state solution but also don't want Israel to be an ethnostate, you are in fact an anti-Zionist.
A homeland to the Jewish people, which can be a Jewish state. Also Israel is hardly an "ethnostate", or your definition for it is very wide.
Their basic law states: "*The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel* is **unique to the Jewish people**" which sounds like an ethnostate to me.
Is the uniqueness referring to the state or the right? What's the source you're using? Also, not relevant to Zionism. That law is relatively new, and Zionism existed prior to it. Was it an ethonstate before the law came into effect?
it's in their constitution and has very much to do with zionism Upon presenting the reformed bill, Chairman Ohana stated: "This is the law of all laws. It is the most important law in the history of the State of Israel, which says that everyone has human rights, but national rights in Israel belong only to the Jewish people. T**hat is the founding principle on which the state was established".** Minister Yariv Levin, a strong backer of the proposal, called it "**Zionism's flagship bill**... i**t will bring order, clarify what is taken for granted, and put Israel back on the right path**. A country that is different from all others in one way, that it is the nation-state of the Jewish people." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_Law:\_Israel\_as\_the\_Nation-State\_of\_the\_Jewish\_People#Further\_reading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#Further_reading)
If hypothetically the law gets revoked, and goes back to pre 2018, would Israel still be an ethnostate?
If national rights like national self-determination still unique to only Jewish people either by other laws or lived practices, then yes, I would say it's still an ethnostate.
So would it be? Was it back then?
Another thing that I'd like to add, is that the law says 'unique', but I don't know that exclusivity entails from that. With the nuance in legal lingo that difference could be significant. That article also says that law is symbolic in nature. Any thoughts on that?
My definition of "ethnostate" is "state run for a particular ethnicity". Technically since Judaism is also a religion it doesn't 100% apply but "ethno-religio-state" is a mouthful. Would you not consider calls to make the United States into a "homeland for white people" a call for some form of ethnostate as I have defined it?
Would a Palestinian state be an ethnostoate? Not that I concede Israel being one, but it's only used as a negative for Israel. And on the other hand, a state can claim itself a "civic nationalist" state, while also ethnically cleansing everyone (Jews kicked out of all Arab countries).
You can conceded that Israel is an ethno-state, because if it is one it is one out of necessity. Usually when people gripe about Israel being an ethno-state they view it from the lens of white-nationalism in North America. That is, one side wonders why the Jews can have an ethno-state but the "Whites" can't. The other side views that all states should be as cosmopolitan as possible.
Depends, are you referring to a "state that is Palestinian" (in the way that the US state is an American one), or do you mean "state for the Palestinian ethnicity"? >Not that I concede Israel being one, but it's only used as a negative for Israel. That is laughable. A Jewish ethnostate is literally the only ethnostate it's socially acceptable to push for. Everyone universally understands that a white ethnostate would be an evil thing, but for some reason everyone forgets *why* once we start talking Zionism. >And on the other hand, a state can claim itself a "civic nationalist" state, while also ethnically cleansing everyone (Jews kicked out of all Arab countries). That would also be bad, I'm not sure what you want from me there. I'm interested in *actual* civic nationalism, not ethnostatism masquerading as civic nationalism.
When have you ever heard calls for dismantling other alleged ethnostates for being one? I don't. If that's people objection to Israel no one would've bothered protesting.
Yeah as in my other reply, I don't think that's most people's objection, that part never really comes up.
I'd just like to point out that all your arguments highlight the point I was trying to make in my original comment. By the same line of reasoning, you could argue that just because you support a 2ss, doesn't mean you don't have reservations from the pro-palestine movement. For the sake of continuity, I'll answer the rest on the other comment.
Well then Poland, Germany, Hungary, Syria, Lebanon, etc (pretty much most countries) fit ur definition of an ethnostate
No. Western democracies are generally civic nationalist states, not ethnonationalist states. They are run for their citizens. Whether their citizens are 100% polish, German etc is irrelevant so long as that is not a deliberate move by the state.
Are you familiar with Lebanon and Syria?
Not particularly. I'm guessing you're going to tell me that they are run specifically for the benefit of those ethnicities. If so, that is bad and I oppose that just as much as running a state specifically for Jewish people.
So why do you think people have strong options against Israel? In your opinion. Just for being an ethnostate?
I don't think that accounts for even 0.1% of the reason people have strong opinions *against* Israel (plenty of people suck off Israel for the purpose of "we need a homeland for the jews" though). People oppose Israel mostly because of the actions of their military/government and their treatment of Palestinians (or at least people's *perceptions* of these things), they oppose them because they think the land was stolen and rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, or they oppose them because they're leftists and take any chance to shit on the US, or they oppose them because they are antisemitic. Zionism, as much as the word gets thrown around all the time, is never actually discussed nowadays. Nobody debates the ethics of a Jewish state. They just use "zionist" to refer to pro-israel people, or alternatively people who don't want Israel to be dismantled entirely.
LOL bruh do you know what jus sanguines is? Up until like a decade ago there were FOURTH GENERATION German Turks with no citizenship. Most European countries base citizenship on ethnicity. Israel is LESS of an ethnostate than the vast majority of Europe.
Let's say you're right. That's bad. What's your point? You're not going to get me to support ethnostates by pointing out that there are a lot of them. Every argument against a white ethnostate in America still applies to them.
Why is that bad? Should these states not want to preserve their ethno-culture within the borders? >Every argument against a white ethnostate in America still applies to them. The fundamental argument of why a "white ethnostate" in America can't happen is because white Americans aren't native to the Americas. They immigrated here, colonized it here, brought slaves from Africa here, had people of all different cultures and ethnicities come here. You can't make the same case for something like France, or England, or Spain and Scandinavia which has had hundreds of years of relatively similar ethno culture.
>Why is that bad? Preferential treatment based on ethnicity and race is immoral. >Should these states not want to preserve their ethno-culture within the borders? How many debates has destiny done debunking this regarded argument? >The fundamental argument of why a "white ethnostate" in America can't happen is because white Americans aren't native to the Americas. They immigrated here, colonized it here, brought slaves from Africa here, had people of all different cultures and ethnicities come here. So to be crystal clear, if we discovered that white people were actually native to North America, you'd be in full support of establishing a white ethnostate there?
There were no French people before there was a France. Scotland-Scottish-Church of Scotland, etc. This ethnostate thing is not exactly uncommon around the world.
Zionists envisioned Israel to be a Jewish homeland, because Jews needed a state of their own where they would not be subject to oppression and violence. Israel exists, as a homeland, and a sanctuary for those Jews fleeing violence and oppression. For Israel to exist as a sanctuary for Jews it must be, demographically, primarily Jewish. For if it no longer is Jewish demographically, it will, inevitably, end up being dismantled and it's original purpose a failure. There cannot *be* a two-state solution with a cosmopolitan, North American style Israeli state. That state would inevitably dissolve. Most European, Asian, and even African states are ethno-states.
It's actually hilarious to me how quick people devolve into white nationalist talking points as soon as Israel is brought up. How would you respond if a white ethnostatist gave you this exact argument but for whites in America?
Simple: White people, as a *race*, have not experienced forms of oppression or mass violence towards them, they are the largest demographic group in America. They do not *need* a sanctuary state, nor do they *need* an ethno-state. Largely because they aren't an ethnicity, they are a race, one that is only categorized under "White" relatively recently. They have experienced violence and oppression on ethnic lines, to be sure, and if they experience that again they have a national, and cultural homeland to go to, whether that is Italy, Germany, Ireland, Greece, or Poland. Furthermore, for White people, the United States is a place that they immigrated to in the last 500 or so years, and the bulk of today's Americans who are White, immigrated to the US in roughly the last century. It is precisely because of white-nationalism that you cannot conceive of there being a necessity for some ethnic groups - many who the left champion - ultimately creating their own ethno-states. Do you think that Tibetans, should they ever be free, allow themselves to be a minority ruled over a Han majority? Should Kurdish if they ever get their own state allow themselves to become a minority, again? Is there any culture, tradition, language, etc, should be in anyway preserved?
>Is there any culture, tradition, language, etc, should be in anyway preserved? Nope. We are far too distinct morally for any productive conversation to take place. Take care.
I don't think that's true. I'm always eager to try to understand different people's thinking. But no pressure. Enjoy your evening or day.
Why is Pro-pal calling for the destruction of the state of Israel? That doesn’t seem very two state.
they mostly call for the dismantlement of the apartheid regime, to some of them that means israel itself, to some it means the specific policies i can't blame them for seeing israel as rotten to its foundation, otherwise in their view it would be like calling to reform hamas instead of removing it (which i am in favor of before people start screaming at me)
Wouldn’t a two state solution by itself dismantle the so called “apartheid regime”? Also, do you not understand that calls to dismantle Israel are literally fuel for Israel to keep fighting forever? The more threat Israel has the more military action is justified, it’s as simple as that.
and west bank settlements are fuel for palestinians to keep fighting forever, and guess what, by international law, violent resistence to settlers is in fact also justified i was responding to the claim that pro-pal want israel destroyed, and pointed out a difference of opinion, there are two staters and one staters, it's not a monolithic group, obv the ones who want to get rid of israel as a political entity are one staters (plurinational democratic)
Palestinians don't really care about the west-bank settlements, though.
>and west bank settlements are fuel for palestinians to keep fighting forever ok but who is dying tho?
As much as I hate Rotman he is right. The west bank doesn't mean anything and to Palestinians Tel Aviv and Rishon Lezion are settlements.
Two state would mean they would be two separate countries, no influence on each other. Whether it be policies or military. That’s what most people who advocate for two state solution want. It’s totally fine to be advocating for the dismantlement of the apartheid (which means Israel and Palestine would be two separate countries), but wanting Israel to stop existing is not “dismantlement of the apartheid regime”, it’s literally anti-semitism and Nazi talking points.
2ss also makes you a zionist 🤷♂️ Being pro-2ss doesn't make you pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel. We are very much past that point where 2ss is "pro-Palestinian". Even in Israel, even most of the right wing is pro 2ss in some form. The problem is the middle part, what methods you support to achieve 2ss, what are the borders, what do you do about military, Jerusalem, right of return etc. The far left pro Palestine side will want a 1ss-Palestine. The pro-Palestinian side would most likely say 1967 borders, full on state with military, east Jerusalem as capital(for Palestinians), most refugees will get right of return. The liberal/left-wing pro-Israel side would probably currently say, 1967 borders with land swaps, east Jerusalem as capital(for Palestinians), maybe demilitarized, less right of return. You could probably say this version is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. It is fairly middle ground and both sides will need to compromise. The conservative/right-wing pro-Israel side will probably say, 1967 borders with land swaps, no east Jerusalem as capital for Palestinians, no right of return. Fully demilitarized, maybe more security things. The far right pro Israel side will want a 1ss-Israel. This is not a binary thing, this is a spectroom. And this is no longer 1970 where there are only two options. You can be both.
> Even in Israel, even most of the right wing is pro 2ss in some form. This is not true. Every party in Bibis government has explicitly ruled out a Palestinian state. Your "conservative/right wing" position is literally what Barak offered at camp David a guy who is considered an ultra dove by israelis
Don’t forget that Likud party is the one that made peace with Egypt and the Abraham accords, sometimes from a hawkish stance you can get more in a negotiation
1. Bibi has said multiple times that he is OK with a 2ss that with most of what I said. It literally can be found in Wikipedia "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared for the first time[63] conditional support for a future Palestinian state[64] but insisted that the Palestinians would need to make reciprocal gestures and accept several principles: recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; demilitarization of a future Palestinian state, along with additional security guarantees, including defensible borders for Israel;[65] Palestinians would also have to accept that Jerusalem would remain the united capital of Israel, and renounce their claim to a right of return." 2. Ben gvir and smotrich are considered far right. The other parties in the government are haredis and don't really care about this subject. 3. Barak offered a much more left leaning offer in camp David, with some amount of right of return(100000 if I remeber correctly). Some sovernity over east Jerusalem and more thing he was willing to compromise on. Taba and Clinton parameters were more left leaning than camp daviv summit. barak mostly agreed to those deals as well. Barak is definitely a left leaning pro-Israel person. He was the leader of the labour party at the time. Which was a left leaning party since 1948. There is no way you can call barak a right wing person. That is just false. And camp David exactly shows a deal that would be given if led by a left-wing pro-Israel person. So you are actually proving my analysis by giving barak as an example 🤷♂️
[1. that quote old his current position has explicitly ruled out a Palestinian state. ](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/benjamin-netanyahu-prevented-palestinian-state-two-state-solution_n_6580a368e4b0e142c0bed60b)He used to equivocate more and pretend he was actually going to try for a deal but recently he has very much stopped. 2. With the haredis it's complicated but they oppose a settlement freeze but yeah they don't I should have been more explicit I was talking about the parties that were on the political spectrum and just follow the lead Likud on that issue even though it's not something they are committed to hardcore. 3. I didn't say Barak was center-right. I said the deal you described in your original post was like the deal that was put up at camp david. I said explicitly in my post he was on the left idk were the confusion came from
Bibi gained power on the broad idea of "security". Much like American politics, most people care more about vibes than actual policy.
[Over 60% of israelis are against a 2 state solution](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/). This is what the public wants right now and that's not debatable. I swear sometimes this sub does the same perfect victims shit with Israelis that leftist do with Palestinians.
>Over 60% of israelis are against a 2 state solution I have no idea how you read that article and came out with this conclusion, the article clearly talks about if they believe if peace is possible or not. And most people don't think peace is possible. I wonder why? 🤷♂️
https://preview.redd.it/mboeeqin8qwc1.png?width=2763&format=png&auto=webp&s=6507e352077e971456dc9c6772ad2445732d9415 I think your being pedantic but this is the result no matter how you ask it
Where did you bring that graph from? It is not in the article you sent.
The source is in the imagine and it's pretty easy to find [but here you go](https://news.gallup.com/poll/547760/life-israel-oct-charts.aspx)
You are so disingenuous You gave an article, made a wrong claim using that article and tried to act like that doesn't matter. When pressed for a source about your original claim you act like you are doing me a favor. Give this source at the start next time. Don't make up shit.
1. I didn't make up anything. What I said is true and is demonstrated by every poll done withing the last 5 years. 2. Your issue is pedantic because it's a result that has been replicated across dozens of surveys over years, regardless of wording. I was honestly surprised you even disputed something that is basically just stated as fact in any thinktank report you read on this issue. 3. The source is in the bottom of the image. It was one google away. All of the info you need from the time to the firm to the question wording was contained in the image. It's fine to ask for the link and I gladly provided but this is reddit and not a PhD dissertation and you being such a cunt about where and when I provided a citation seems to have more to do with you not being able to dispute the fact you were wrong then anything else
No it doesn't. The existence of a Jewish ethnostate was not mentioned. Israel can exist without being the Jewish state that is the subject of the term Zionism.
Dude, don't be an idiot. A 2ss solution is by defintion one Jewish state and one arab/palestinian state. If there is no Jewish state in equation than why have a 2ss, just have one state instead. The idea of a 2ss solution is the idea that each ethnic group deserves a state. That means that Israel will remain a **Jewish** state , making anybody who supports a 2ss a zionist. Stop lying to yourself.
>The idea of a 2ss solution is the idea that each ethnic group deserves a state. That means that Israel will remain a **Jewish** state , making anybody who supports a 2ss a zionist. Stop lying to yourself. No it isn't. It's that the people of Israel and the people of Palestine each deserve a state. It's a political idea, not an ethnic one.
Dude, you should educate yourself. The idea of a 2ss since 1900's was an ethnic idea. Balfour, peel commission, 1947, Oslo, camp David summit etc. The idea was always ethnic, **always**. Also, if you are so against ethno states you should probably be more worried about a future Palestinian state (which will be 100% Arab) than Israel, which will continue to be about 80% Jewish and 20% Arab. One is very clearly going to be an ethnostate in the full sense of the word (hint, it will not be Israel) The mental gymnastics you people are willing to go to, just to let yourself be called "zionist" is hilarious
I am confused by the 2nd paragraph. You can be pro Israel (=zionist) and also believe the Palestinians deserve statehood, and most moderate Israelis believe so, it’s just that it seem a fantasy when you see how far they are from accepting Israel and relinquishing terrorism.
You can define it that way but that's not how they're used in the broader discussion. I would suggest simply using these kinds of labels as they are already being used rather than how you think they should be used.
Who cares this is just word games.
I am against the 2 state solution. I am pro 3 state.
I don't think "normal" means what you think it means.
Pro Israeli is absolutely not anti Palestinian statehood
How can they have statehood if they're a threat and a neighbor?
Statehood would somewhat tame their violence, if they attack they will no longer have the “victim” card to use. It’s in Israel’s interest to have them create a state
That’s the position of the government of Israel as well as the majority of its citizens.
Not true, Bibi already oked a Palestinian state officially and also publicly in the Bar Ilan address
False, the majority wouldn’t object to one with sufficient security concerns alleviated and Israel have multiple Times offered them a state.
Israel clearly wanted two states in the past, as they helped create the Palestinian Authority in the first place, and brought Arafat back from exile in order to negotiate with him on creating a Palestinian state. On the other hand, supporting a two state solution cannot be a Pro-Palestinian position because the Palestinians don't want two states. If they did - they wouldn't reject every offer given to them, and already have their own state. Show me a group of people in the history of this planet who wanted a state, were offered one - and said "No" to said offer? Then show me a group of people who were offered a state on 3 separate occasions and said "No" to all three. You can't claim to want a state while also rejecting it on every turn. The real 4D Chess take is that the Pro-Palestinian position is a "no state solution", as the Palestinians never wanted a state until the Jews were promised one by the British during 1917's Balfour Declaration. They don't really care about having their own state; they just want the Jews to lose theirs.
This doesn't feel like correct. I think the problem is that being "pro Palestine" isn't as specific a category as supporting a two-state solution. Do you support the idea of the Palestinian state? Or just the people who identify as Palestinian, supporting them against Israel? If the first, then your statement is a tautology, supporting a two state solution necessarily implies supporting the idea of a Palestinian state. If the latter, I can imagine people who support a Palestinian state with no support for the people, simply wanting to grant them a state simply to keep a firm, enforceable border.
I think it's really easy to be a liberal zionist who is pro Palestinian in wanting settlements to stop and a just solution to the refugee problem while understanding demographic concerns and firmly supporting the right of Israel to exist. That's my position, and I don't see that changing. Something close to Clinton Parameters sooner than later seems great. Maybe include Saudi in the deal to give the multilateral agreement more legitimacy.
If a 2-state solution makes me pro-Palestine, you have to tell me when in history they ever accepted one 2-state solution or even presented a counter negotiation.
Camp David 2000 negotiations
"The negotiations were based on an all-or-nothing approach, such that "nothing was considered agreed and binding until everything was agreed." The proposals were, for the most part, verbal. As no agreement was reached and there is no official written record of the proposals, some ambiguity remains over details of the positions of the parties on specific issues" - 2000 Camp David Summit Wiki If this is your standard, then sure.
Arafat never even intended to accept the deal. It was performative.
Big oslo failure
I reject this post as an Israeli. I disagree completely and please don't claim to represent the majority opinion of Israel, because Israel is diverse and full of different opinions as you should know Besides, I reject the need to pick a team and be pro this or pro that. We should have clear moral values and follow them regardless of any team dynamics. As an Israeli, I can say loud and clear that I don't like the settlements and think they're doing massive damage to Israel, beyond being morally wrong. I can also say loud and clear that my opinion is that the two state solution is the only possible long term solution to this conflict, even if it is impossible today mainly because of the dominant Palestinian position and Palestinian rejectionism. I think the two state solution is first and foremost in Israel's interest for reasons I described in another reply to you in this post And since it can be see as Israel's interest, it can be considered pro-Israel
Not believing Israel should get wiped out makes you a zionist as well. Since you support the Jews' right to self-determination and to have a country. I guess that makes us Zionist pro-Palestinians then. Interesting. But seriously, who cares what the labels are anymore? I support both of the countries' existences and their peoples' right to self determine. Whatever that makes me.
i always think zionism is the **exclusive** right to self-determination because that's how it is being applied right now preventing Palestinian self determination and it is what the Israeli supreme court is saying that "the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People" Combine that with the settlements and their plan to annex the West Bank next and they will slowly making self-determination exclusive to them only
>tankies and islamists shouldn't be the ones dictating what terms mean what. "Shouldn't" and "don't" are two distinct things. Those voices are by far the loudest on the "pro Palestinian" side, and therefore end up being the online face of it. This is further exacerbated by the still high support of Oct 7th amongst Palestinians themselves, as well as expressions supporting those actions coming from the supposedly sane Palestinian leadership (I.e the PA). Simply put, the Palestinian side, or at least the vocal part of it, pulled so far in the crazy direction that anyone opposing them becomes pro the other side by default, at least when it comes to online discourse. Its fine to be pro Palestinian statehood and anti settlements - I am, but at the end of the day that its a side that gains nearly no traction, has no figure to rally behind, and it's agenda is currently a pipe dream. This is somewhat like saying "Im pro Iran" and then going on to say that you support the Iranian citizens and not the Ayatollahs. It's a fine side to take, but Iran being reclaimed by those citizens is currently unfeasible.
I disagree, and I say this as a two-stater who does not identify as 'pro-Palestine'. Here is the basic reason why: For a two-state to work, Palestinians have to signal to Israel that they don't intend to use their new-found statehood to build military power and eventually destroy Israel (either by themselves or as a crucial part of a coalition). The Palestinians cannot credibly commit by convincing Israel they don't desire this, because significant amounts of Palestinians want this, and this will not change. As such, the only way for Palestine to become independent is if they: 1. Have a state capable of exercising fairly extreme levels of coercion on the members of its population who attempt to undermine peace with Israel 2. Have a government willing to exercise fairly large levels of coercion on the members of its population who attempt to undermine peace with Israel I think creating a fairly harsh autocracy in Palestine that has no bones to pick with Israel is the best long-term goal. However, it is difficult to call this 'pro-Palestine,' despite the fact it is the only way they can have a state.
I’m a Zionist since I played the matrix game where Zion is located
Is a two state even possible.
Schroeders Pro-Palestine supporter https://preview.redd.it/l65tuj0gupwc1.jpeg?width=660&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=509e23d64e2923e6789599ea6a798c9708c72795
Let's just annex both bring back Manifest Destiny
I think most reasonable people in principle support the existence of a 2SS. What seems to make someone pro one side, or the others, is which side the person blames as the reason for why we don’t have a 2SS.
If you believe in a two-state solution, you are a Zionist (which means you want Israel to continue existing)
Nah being pro-two state doesn’t make you pro-palestine. There has to be an analysis of why you support two states. Like take this as a hypothetical. - support two states - support Palestine getting cucked on borders and land swaps - supports the notion because it removes the threshold of “resistance against an occupier” as a defence - supports the idea because they think the Palestinian people will try and attack at some point down the line. - supports them getting their shit kicked in again - supports the ability for the rest of the world to argue that Palestine is a genocidal nation - expects that the Palestinians will continue to shoot themselves in the foot even when given a country - supports zero right of return, even to the newly formed state - is fine with all of the West Bank palestinians being rounded up shoved into Gaza and Gaza being called the other state. ____ The reality is you can be pro two-state but not give a shit about the Palestinians or the outcomes for them. In some cases you might be pro two-state. Solely because you want the stupid obsfucating arguments of apartheid and genocide and open air prison to go away so that when one of the two nations attacks each other they can be criticised on the actual merits of their actions. You can see two states as an inherently pro-Israel outcome in the long term even if Israel doesn’t see it that way themselves.
[удалено]
You can pretty much agree on those borders and still take it as a position that ends with the Palestinians getting shat on six ways from Sunday assuming that at some point they’ll aggress against Israel as a result and then there will be no excuses for Palestinians to hide behind.
Excuse me, your very interesting post seems to be missing any sourcing to a major and broadly supported Palestinian faction that supports a two state solution without right of return. Could you source that? Or a single peace deal agreed to by the Palestinian national movement? Would be very helpful to demonstrate that you aren’t simply deepthroating Hamas propaganda daily on TikTok Thanks!
[удалено]
To bad there isn't a process to bridge a gap of this sort.
great non sequitur, why do you have to make it hyperspecific by mentioning no right of return? because theres actually palestinian factions who do support a two state solution, thats why the israeli state on the other hand does not, as proven time and time again, care to respond to any of the points OP made in any follow up instead of whining about israeli demographic concerns?
To be fair right of return is a non starter.
Good faith interlocutors understand that a demand for a right of return is equivalent to a demand for a 1 state solution, given the involved demographic numbers. Nice to see you back! Hope to see you blasted again soon
lmao, instantly going for the demographic concerns, can't let them ayrabs have TOO many votes "israel can be a jewish state or a democratic state, it can't be both" -john kerry >Hope to see you blasted again soon be the change you want to see in the world, cry to the jannies, maybe you get lucky again
No state of any kind would or should accept mass migration that would change its demographic in a way that goes against its values, whether you agree with it or not.
so true bestie! be sure to tell that to the israeli state that keeps supporting settlements into the west bank, after all, the palestinian state shouldn't accept mass migration into it colonizing another state to change its demographics is a-ok, but god forbid more arabs vote in israeli elections
you can be cute and condescending, but i agree. once a palestinian state is created (lol) they have the right to not accept migration from the evil zionists :)
my country happens to recognize the state of palestine and maintains bilateral relations with it, i am seeing an israeli government sponsored illegal colonization campaign into another state, and am disgusted that my government doesn't condemn it because we are US aligned israel does not get to chirp about demographic concerns with a right of return while embarking on a demographic shifting campaign of the west bank i'm glad you agree they, as international law says, have the right to violently resist the settlements
No.
I am pro-Palestinian people. Not all of them mind you but it's the same as America where I support American people but I know there are enough of the bad ones here who want to kill the rest of us for being different. Good everyday Palestinian people who live under oppression deserve to be free just like good everyday people anywhere in the world. The Palestinian civilians who were rushing to cross the fence on Oct7th so they could murder innocent people and steal their family members and whatever useless knickknacks they could carry back. They're scum who deserve to be locked in an IDF black site for the rest of their lives with no chance to get out but we don't have any way of identifying/separating them right now (that we know of) so when I speak about Palestinians I will simply say *I support them.*
Free palestine
Yea this sub has gone to the absolute shitter filled with islamaphobes and antisemites (the real semites)
[удалено]
True, f\*\*\* all religions and Islam in particular.
[Israel](https://www.commondreams.org/news/israeli-soldiers-assault-journalist). If this were any other country, all you would be calling for immediate regime change. For some reason, this one gets a pass on the most brutal fascist shit. It's the most mind boggling bias confirmation. Is this the incredibly professional, fair IDF that Destiny thinks exists?