95
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by bartolomeo@suppo.fi to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

We know what happens with peaceful protests, elections, and foreign interference (and more foreign interference), so how can Palestine gain it's freedom? Any positive ideas are welcome, because this situation is already a humanitarian crisis and is looking bleaker by the day.

Historical references are also valuable in this discussion, like slave revolts or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, although hopefully in the case of Palestine a peaceful and successful outcome can be achieved, as opposed to some of the historical events above.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 70 points 2 years ago

Within Israel, the vast majority of people don't particularly care about any kind of manifest destiny style reclamation of the West Bank or Gaza, and if that were the only issue, I genuinely don't think there would be a significant problem.

What essentially everyone does care about, however, is repeatedly having rockets lobbed at them. When people feel under threat, reason starts to fall away, people begin dehumanizing the "other", and you get the massive mess we have today. The fact of the matter is that Israel will never accept any situation where its people are under threat. No matter what you think about what acts are or aren't justified or your opinion on how various parts of the history played out, none of that changes this basic reality.

Palestine is not going to be able to militarily eradicate Israel. There is precisely zero chance that Israelis allow themselves to be subjected to a second diaspora and they'll fight to the death to prevent this, and that's to say nothing of external players like the United States. Again, whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a true thing.

On the flip side, Israel is perfectly capable of essentially eradicating the Palestinians, though this would subject it to massive international condemnation that would also have huge economic impacts. You're already beginning to see whispers of this as the world increasingly sees Israel's response in Gaza as being excessively harsh. The most they could do is a slow and steady degradation of Palestinian society while encouraging them to "voluntarily" leave, which is arguably what the strategy has essentially been under Likud with settlements and the like.

So, what's required for a peaceful co-existence? Firstly, you need a mutual acknowledgement from both leaders (and also, a legitimate Palestinian leadership in the first place) that the other side exists and has a right to do so, ie, Palestinians giving up on the idea of eradicating Israel and Israelis giving up on the idea of fully annexing and ethnically cleaning Palestinian lands. This is not a trivial thing. The Israeli far-right, though they're not dominant, are growing and believe they have a divine right to the West Bank, with the Arabs being seen as little more than animals in the way. The extreme Palestinian side is that all Israelis are essentially foreign invaders and should be forcibly removed or killed. Both of these positions must be completely taken off the table.

Secondly, Israel will not engage unless it is confident that its security will not be threatened, which will in practice mean that Palestinian authorities must be de-militarized beyond what's necessary for basic local law enforcement. Again, this might seem unfair, and hell, it probably is. But the fact of the matter remains that Israel is the side holding the guns here, so you either play by their rules and try to find some positive outcome, or you flip the table and enjoy the complete loss, but with some moral satisfaction. Similarly, there would probably need to be some kind of border controls for imports that Israeli authorities can inspect for covert weapons shipments, since it's a known thing that Iran does regularly try to bring weapons into Gaza. Ideally, this would be some kind of bi-national force with Palestinian cooperation.

If you reach these points, then you still have other very big questions to deal with, like precise borders, land swaps, the question of Jerusalem, how to connect Gaza and the West Bank, any right of return for displaced Palestinians both recently and during the Nakba, and plenty of other things I'm sure I'm forgetting about. But ultimately, if you have a Palestinian and Israeli leadership that are actually interested in peace and accept the existence of the other, and both agree to cooperate on matters of security and prioritizing that peace above and past grievances, no matter how legitimate, that gives you a real foundation you can build from.

I wouldn't get my hopes up though.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago

What essentially everyone does care about, however, is repeatedly having rockets lobbed at them. When people feel under threat, reason starts to fall away, people begin dehumanizing the "other", and you get the massive mess we have today. The fact of the matter is that Israel will never accept any situation where its people are under threat.

I get what you mean, but the current situation has continued since even before the rocket attacks. Gaza was blockaded before rocket attacks even became a thing (setting aside the second Intifada because that's its own thing). What I mean is: Israeli's feeling under threat is probably a factor, but it's not the main issue.

and also, a legitimate Palestinian leadership in the first place

True enough, but let's remember that it's Israel that engineered a situation where they can claim Palestine has no legitimate leadership. You're not wrong about the fact, but I just wanted to make the cause clear.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago

For sure, I'm not at all trying to portray Israel as blameless here, because they are not.

I think the blockade does have some basic level of merit, at least in principle (it can't really be doubted that Hamas does import weapons and materials with Iranian backing), but it's critical that those kinds of controls only go as far as they're needed and no further. However, the Israeli government has never really cared about not going to far, so Palestinians have no real reason to trust that they're being treated in good faith, violence comes to feel like the only real option, and onwards the mess rolls along.

Along with Palestinians needing to accept that Israel is going to exist in some capacity and that it will not accept any deal that doesn't ensure its security, Israelis need to accept that if they don't take every step towards keeping peaceful paths available and fruitful, then people will turn to violent ones. Israel can of course easily win a conflict of violence, but it doesn't have to be this way

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 5 points 2 years ago

Thanks for the detailed and thought out response. I can't help but notice that it's built on a foundation of autocracy and Israeli exceptionalism i.e. Israel holds all the guns so they call the shots and they have the singular privilege of having non-hostile neighbors while every other country in the world except the U.S. should respect negotiations and international law, and many have hostile neighbors but that's ok. I can't blame you, though, because the narrative is thus constructed: Israel alone has the right to security, Israel alone has the right to self-determination, Israel alone has the right to self-defense, etc. Why doesn't Palestine? The narrative says "because they lob mortar shells over the fence" which is a pure double standard (Israeli exceptionalism). History must be erased to maintain the narrative, like the invasion of Akka among many others. When a country has such a consistent history, it's rational to believe that they will continue annexing Palestinian lands, so it's very important that the narrative removes the Palestinian right to self-defense as well as erasing Israel's colonial history. The truth is different, though.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago

I'm speaking solely to the facts on the ground.

Regardless of anyone's thoughts on the matter, Israel does hold all the guns here. Rights and privileges mean as much as the paper they're printed on. In a perfect world, Israel and Palestine would exist side by side as peaceful partners, each with fully fledged institutions and militaries and all that jazz. But unless Israel is confident that a Palestinian military won't have its destruction as its primary goal, it will not allow that to happen, no matter how much pontificating about rights and narratives and double standards anyone does. I'm not trying to talk about who's "right", whatever that even means. I'm talking about the actual situation and what will actually happen, regardless of anyone's opinions on the matter.

When a country has such a consistent history, it’s rational to believe that they will continue annexing Palestinian lands

And an Israeli would say that Palestinians have a consistent history of attempting to murder Israeli civilians and so it is rational to never allow them to build up any military power, and thus the circus goes round. My point is that no amount of moral superiority means very much if you don't have actual power to go along with it, and Palestinians simply do not. If the goal is actually to develop a real peace rather than avenge any sins of the past, both sides will have to give up on prior grievances and decide that they care more about the lives of their children than their own pride. It's hard to imagine the situation being much worse than it already is (though I'm sure it'll find a way)

[-] SnotFlickerman 37 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The simple answer is, realistically, Palestine can't do it alone without help. Some other country will have to step up and get involved.

Currently, even the countries who don't necessarily back Israel aren't interested in helping Palestinians, including major Muslim countries in the Middle East.

It could have something to do with the history of Jordanian Civil war, which was a war between the King of Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Islamic countries like Jordan and Egypt haven't exactly been stellar friends to the people of Palestine ever since. (Whether that position is justified is up to you to decide, I am not here to argue whether it is good or bad.)

So unless things change somehow, they will likely not gain their freedom.

[-] cali_ash@lemmy.wtf 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Some other country will have to step up and get involved.

Alternatively/Additionally, some countries need to stop getting involved. Mostly Iran. They have no interest in helping Palestinians either, they just care about removing Israel from the map and will back any extremist groups in the area that does so as well.

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 5 points 2 years ago

Thank you, that is a good answer. I have been wondering why Jordan has been pretty hands-off, I'll have to look into the Jordanian civil war.

load more comments (17 replies)
[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 24 points 2 years ago

Realistically? Unless the international community (or the Muslim world) have a change of heart, the Hamas way of "get Israel to broadcast their atrocities to the world as loudly as possible) seems to be the best bet currently. A direct war of liberation is impossible because of the blockade, but at this rate the international community might actually give Israel the Apartheid treatment in two or three decades.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 13 points 2 years ago

The support of Israel in the USA becomes a partisan issue.

We are already seeing division within Democrats for supporting Israel, with younger people mostly anti-Zionism. Likely with the next Democratic President and possibly because of Israeli meddling in supporting Republicans, the USA drops its veto of Palestinian statehood. At this point, Israel likely gets very cagey and may try to start a war to expel all Palestinians, but that act of aggression will be met with a response.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tedrow@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Probably give them Madagascar. I'm sure that will solve it. /s

It will really take a global effort. I don't think Palestine and Israel can be disentangled at this point. It's really just about accountability for the Israeli government at this point and increasing Palestinians presence in governing.

[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago

By not killing civilians maybe. By engaging in actual normal warfare if it insists it cannot achieve success peacefully. By not encouraging persecution around the world or siding with nations such as Russia and North Korea. By respecting human rights within its borders. Can't be too much to ask.

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

How could they engage in normal warfare?

Edit: also, does killing civilians make a whole country fair game to be attacked violently or something?

[-] danhakimi@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

Targeting civilians is bad.

Terrorists, including those who target civilians, are combatants, and are valid targets. They remain valid targets when they use schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, and residential areas as bases for combat operations. This is pretty clear in international law.

Israel still must not target civilians, and must take reasonable measures to minimize civilian casualties of war. We've seen Israel, in at least some contexts, take quite extreme measures to warn civilians, help evacuate civilians, and carefully target munitions to minimize civilian death despite Hamas and PIJ using those civilians as human shields.

The raw numbers are still gruesome... unless you compare them to other instances of urban warfare, in which case the numbers are actually lower than many would expect. The civilian death ratio, as far as we've been able to estimate (since Hamas does not estimate), appears to be lower than usual.

Civilian deaths are tragic. It would obviously be much better if Hamas had not started this war, or if they would agree to the ceasefire Israel offered, or if they weren't so committed to war in general. But they are. They frequently condemn even the concept of peace, and insist that they will repeat the October 7th attack as often as they can. There is no avenue to peace while they remain in power.

So the war will continue. And we will continue to hope that Israel does its best to minimize harm to civilians.

[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

Let me put it this way, how many of us are anti-nuclear-arms? I'm sure most of us are. Nuclear assault is seen as the epitome of abnormal warfare as it kills people who have nothing to do with a conflict, and nuclear war, defined as when the two nations start throwing nuclear weapons at each other, is seen as absolutely unnecessary escalation under any circumstances considered normal as well as no better just because someone fired the first shot. If there is no distinction between "normal" and "abnormal" warfare though, surely nuclear attack wouldn't be off the table.

Other forms of warfare follow this logic. Biological weapons attack indiscriminate people and spread in a population and even cross borders. Arson spreads and doesn't care what it consumes. Landmines like those still littering previously war-torn nations, including those we discuss here, are not programmed to factor in political or religious allegiance. Such things are akin to boxing out of a ring and are highly condemned. If Palestine and its allies don't change its stance on how warfare is supposed to work, then if they did become fully independent, it would be a shameful new existence, built on national character flaws that would haunt and define any who call themselves Palestinian patriots.

When the Ismaili Muslims were still around in the 1100's, their mode of warfare was simply to have spies sneak into a fortress and eliminate the leader, sparing the people who do the dirty work, with the intention that the heir would yield, like how in chess you wouldn't eliminate the other pieces besides the king if you don't have to. It was called fedai warfare and this was the world's most peaceful form of open warfare and perhaps more normal than what we call normal. What a leap we took in modern times, where nobody is safe and nothing is off the table.

[-] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago
[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

Warfare that is self-contained, distinguishes between combatant and non-combatant, does not cause damage that ends up being permanent, and doesn't make metaphorical deals with the devil.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

Maybe ask Israel to stop occupying Gaza (and the rest of Palestine) before demanding that. This isn't a war between countries; this is an occupied territory fighting for freedom.

[-] danhakimi@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Gaza has not been occupied since 2005.

Palestinian arabs have been launching pogroms against Jews without rest since 1920, but Israel didn't occupy the West Bank or Gaza until 1967. Maybe if Israelis felt they could possibly be safe without occupying the West Bank, they would try it. Like they tried with Gaza. Gee, look how that played out.

Gee, I wonder how Germany and Japan managed to get freedom from occupation... Oh right, they went with peace!

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

Ask the UN what they think of Gaza's status. Hint: They won't say "independent state".

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 5 points 2 years ago

The United Nations, international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel.[4] This is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars.[74] They argue that occupation requires an actual, physical presence by a military force that maintains authority.

Following the withdrawal, Israel continued to maintain direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.[4][75]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kemsat@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Realistically, it can’t.

[-] chobeat@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago

no colonial power and no empire ever lasted forever. Everything made by human eventually dissolves. The current strategy of trying to stay alive (kinda) and keeping their identity is more than enough to eventually see the American empire collapse on itself and Israel with it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] joelthelion@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Here's my take on it:

  1. Get rid of all extremists and violent factions internally (extremely hard, of course).
  2. Engage in intense diplomatic lobbying, and be patient. If step 1) has been achieved, I think it would be extremely hard for Israel to resist the pressure, but maybe I'm too naive. Right now, it's extremely easy to dismiss the Palestinian cause because of terrorism. What happened at the beginning of the conflict isn't going to help.
[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 9 points 2 years ago

Thanks for sharing your take. It seems like a lot of people think Palestine needs to do stuff but Israel doesn't. I'm not sure if it's a double standard, racism, Israeli exceptionalism or what.

What happened at the beginning of the conflict isn't going to help.

Do you mean the Palestine Civil War?

[-] joelthelion@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

It seems like a lot of people think Palestine needs to do stuff but Israel doesn’t. I’m not sure if it’s a double standard, racism, Israeli exceptionalism or what.

In my case, it's none of that. It's your question: "how can Palestine gain its freedom".

Now let's be crazy for a moment and imagine that both sides collaborate to fix the issue. I think it would be mostly the same for Israel: get rid of the lunatics, realize that Palestinians are fairly close relatives, work on forgiveness on both sides, and work on a fair two-state solution or even better a single-state solution.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] small44@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

There's no realistic solution right now. The stronger will always dictate the term of the possible solution and the weaker won't accept that and will keep fighting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dirk@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

There really is no other solution than stopping the attacks and trying to establish diplomatic connections.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hanna 7 points 2 years ago

Realistically I think the only option for Palestinians to keep the West Bank and Gaza is for the us to enforce a 2 state solution (basically guarantee the safety of both nations from attack).

Part of the issue with Gaza is Israel is scared if they stop policing the border/sea/air they will be armed by Iran and then attack, some third party has to ensure their defense in order for them to stop.

It isn’t an ideal solution in any sense of the word but at least it could relieve the suffering of the Palestinians and give them the ability to self govern in the places they have left.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] danhakimi@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I mean, the Olmert proposal was an opportunity. The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was an opportunity. It doesn't seem that "freedom" was good enough for Palestinians back then.

Netanyahu has been winning because Israeli attempts at peace never seem to work.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The Olmert proposal where Israel wanted to keep 10% of the West Bank (not that we know much about the proposal or why it failed, but from that point it's a no-go)? And what opportunity in 2005 they fucking blockaded the place as soon as they left.

[-] danhakimi@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

The Olmert proposal where Israel wanted to keep 10% of the West Bank (not that we know much about the proposal or why it failed, but from that point it's a no-go)?

No, the actual Olmert proposal. It involved land swaps for about 6.3% of the West Bank (to help minimize the number of Israelis who need to be forced out of their homes), giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the capitol...

Abbas didn't feel like negotiating from that starting point. Because he either didn't want peace, or didn't think he could swing it politically (with a Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority). A not-one-inch even-with-land-swaps even-with-this even-with-that policy is not conducive to peace.

And what opportunity in 2005 they fucking blockaded the place as soon as they left.

No, the blockade started in 2007. You're missing the two years where Gaza was totally free and Hamas used that freedom to ramp up rocket fire, kill their opponents in Fatah, and gain a majority in the PA.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago

Leftist government in Israel (like Rabin) would help

China having more global influence than USA would help

[-] danhakimi@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago

China having more global influence than USA would help

... would it? I'm not sure I see how.

[-] sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

Seems very unlikely. The most likely way is if Israel gets annihilated, which would require also destroying the US military capacity. Absolute horror and possibly ww3 is the only way.

I think they probably have to leave. They've been treated horribly, but there is no hope on the horizon as far as I can see. Israel is cursed, Gaza is cursed.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
95 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

49827 readers
405 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS