this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
66 points (76.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43428 readers
1615 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
66
Realistically, how can Palestine gain it's freedom? (suppo.fi)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by bartolomeo@suppo.fi to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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Historical references are also valuable in this discussion, like slave revolts or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, although hopefully in the case of Palestine a peaceful and successful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
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

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 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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 8 months 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 (1 replies)
[–] Tedrow@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 0 points 8 months ago

Very interesting, thanks.

[–] small44@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 1 points 8 months ago

I'm afraid that sounds about right. Have to rely on the generosity of the oppressor.

[–] kemsat@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Realistically, it can’t.

[–] chobeat@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months 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.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago

[Feels like he supports the holocaust.]

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Realistically?

They can't. Not without a major change in American politics, which is unlikely given the amount of lobbying power that Israel has, and the grip that Evangelicals have on right-wing political power in the US. Anti-BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) laws intended to prevent people from protesting Israeli policies by cutting funding to the country have passed in nearly all states. We can see, with the way that current events are unfolding, that even expressing support for the Palestinian people is resulting in people being labelled as antisemitic.

(For reference - Evangelicals support Israel as a Jewish apartheid ethnostate because they believe that the Jews need to control Jerusalem and Israel in order for Jesus to return. It has nothing to do with Evangelicals liking Jews, which they mostly don't. If you don't want to believe that, I can certainly help you find sermons from megachurch pastors saying precisely that, but I generally try to avoid listening to that trash.)

We're very slowly starting to see that kind of change now, with the way that the youngest generations in the US as more supportive of the Palestinian people. But it's not likely to mean much, since by the time they have enough political power to do anything, Israel will have completed genocide.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Good points. Regarding Evangelicals, don't they believe that when Jesus returns (is that called the rapture?) all the Jews will die or something?

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Not exactly; I think that it's supposed to be more like the Jews will finally realize that Jesus was their messiah all along, and will convert on the spot to christianity. There are other things that need to happen at the same time, like the whole world turning against Israel (...like, say, because Israel was a genocidal apartheid ethnostate run by murderous far-right authoritarians...?), that two or three prophets will be killed in Jerusalem and the bodies will remain in the street for a few days, etc. The so-called prophecy is loose enough that people can always say that the end times are nigh.

I've been out of that for nearly 20 years, so I'm not nearly as well versed in it as I used to be.

[–] joelthelion@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure, not insinuating anything about you personally. It's just that very few people would say "Israel should adhere to the 1967 borders" or "Israel should respect UN resolution 181” or any variation on Israel respecting international law.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

I've heard a lot of people say exactly that, that Israel should adhere to those borders etc.

A large problem is that while there was a chance for that, Palestine and surrounding nations didn't accept it, and invaded Israel instead. (Whereupon Israel fought back and expanded their borders.)

So despite being UN mandated, it's not like there was a nice clean solution there that would work if only Israel (and/or Palestine) respected it.

Besides, the UN aren't "Boss of the World"; they're a diplomacy effort. That's a bit of a tangential discussion, but I feel sometimes people treat it as if the UN have a God-given mandate to govern the world, which isn't really true and muddies the context I think. Not that their involvement isn't valuable - but it's still involvement not okay daddy's finally going to fix things since you two can't play nice

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Hamas exists because the PLO was gaining too much political power for Israel to keep stonewalling them; Hamas was funded by far-right Israeli politicians specifically to prevent the PLO from doing all of what you describe.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What is "normal warfare?"

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There is no such thing as "normal" or "good" or "moral" warfare. War is war. And war is hell. Regardless of where it's happening or what reasons are given to justify it. Every bit of time, resources, and effort directed toward war is time, resources, and effort stolen from advancing humanity and uplifting ourselves. By it's very nature, war has no rules. The dream of a "self-contained, limited-casualty, non-permanent damage" warfare is frankly naive. My experience may be colored by having grown up in and witnessed war in various times in my life, but there is NEVER a reason for war. Because at the end of each and every disagreement, conflict, war...etc., one thing happens: they have to sit down and talk. So it's all just futile and wasted effort. We steal from ourselves and our children only to end up doing the very thing we should have been doing all along: putting ego (in the psychological sense) aside and talking.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That is assuming war is a single entity. War is more like a series of actions due to how blurry it is. Certainly a hacking is far better than sending a nuclear missile for example. It is these actions that are condemnable when we say war is condemnable. Sometimes a war is even one-sided enough we don't even call it a war. In Palestine's case, had they not resorted to what amounts to forcing the burden, they'd have less dismissal than, say, simply sending regular units.

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

had they not resorted to what amounts to forcing the burden

This is a justification (and not a good one, imo), like the ones I was talking about above. There is no just war. No just response. It just creates more death and destruction.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 1 points 8 months ago

I think it's when

  1. both countries have a military

  2. the countries at war are not bound by occupation law.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

How could they engage in normal warfare?

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

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months 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.

[–] sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months 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.

[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

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

[–] itsnotits@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

gain its* freedom?

[–] hanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't think Lemmy is powerful enough to enforce that.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 1 points 8 months ago

Not with that attitude us is not!

[–] TH1NKTHRICE@lemmy.ca -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Here’s a decent framework in my opinion.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 8 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

a decent framework in my opinion

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago

I dont feel that a two state solution would actually fix things. Creating a Palestinian state would be incredibly difficult, it’s why attempts to do so have failed. Israel would object to all but the most disfavorable terms for the Palestinians, and as seen in the past, Palestinians will object to disfavorable terms.

Forcing a two state solution on them will not work either, wherever state lines have been drawn in the past there has been conflict because of those borders.

A Palestinian state would also give some legitimacy for Israel to create conflicts with them, and due to their hyper-militization and incredible intelligence capabilities (much less, the capabilities of the USA helping them out) would certainly make any conflicts with the fledgling nation. There will be no peace when there is official means for the two sides to fight amongst them selves, especially when adding religion, border disputes, and Israel’s history of oppression.

Ideally, as an anarchist, I’d love a no state solution, as it would be impossible for state mechanisms to oppress any group of people with no state. But I think that is not geopolitically feasible because states like states, and creating a stateless society would harm the legitimacy of states themselves.

Realistically, I think a one-state solution is necessary, but not in the sense of making it an ethnostate for any one group. We would need to follow in the footsteps of attempts to do similar tasks, be it the de-apartheidization of south africa, as well as from the horrors America did in the wake of reconstruction and their colonial expansion, abd various other former setteler-colonial countries. And we should certainly learn from the mistakes of the past. Speaking as an American, with an American-centric view, I think the best way forward is decolonization.

Israel is rightfully concerned by becoming the minority, they’ve done unspeakable evils to Palestinians, and many Israelis think they are beyond forgiveness, that they are too far gone. Combine that with a long history of minority jewish groups being oppressed by many states all over the world, and their anxiety on this is very understandable.

However, as long as there is oppression, there will not be peace. Putting a minority group on par with a majority group gives an unequal advantage to the minority, but letting the minority group get trampled is just as bad. I think that in order to protect the religious rights, the state must be secular, and it must have inalienable rights enshrined to everyone equally.

I think the only way to lower tensions is for Palestinians to forgive Israelis, and the only way for that to happen is for Israel to make up for their crimes. State leaders should be prosecuted, war criminals should be prosecuted, and Israel should fund the repairs needed to provide housing to Gazans, and Palestinians who fled. Palestinians should be able to return to their homelands, and if their homes still exist, they should return to them. If this involves kicking out an Israeli, the state should fund housing for them.

This isn’t a complete plan by any means, and I don’t want to insinuate that it is. This is just my statist idea on how peace could be achieved, even if I believe that a stateless anarchist revolution would do waaaay better.

Free Palestine. FTRTTS

load more comments
view more: next ›