• cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
      311·
      5 months ago

      This is the correct answer. It doesn’t matter what we think of a deal, it matters what the Palestinian people and their organs of resistance think of it. We should trust them to know if a deal like this is strategically useful to them at this stage in their struggle.

    • ℝ𝔼𝔻 ℂ𝕆𝕃𝕆𝕊𝕊𝕌𝕊@lemmygrad.ml
      211·
      5 months ago

      This. Hamas knows, better than many armchair “experts” online that the goal is not for Israelis to find humanity (impossible) but to be so frightened that they’d rather flee Israel to the US, Europe, Argentina, Australia, etc. Half the nation has a second foreign passport, after the Al-Aqsa Flood, a significant number of Israelis citizens boarded on planes, buses and boats going anywhere for a short holiday. Fear of Hamas from the South and a significantly stronger Hezbollah from the north might, for once, cause a reverse settlement process.

      You have to understand that for a number of decades the IDF has successfully portrayed itself as an unstoppable juggernaut, and therefore many “dual nationality” Jewish people are only there because they have been convinced it’s safe.

  • الأرض ستبقى عربية@lemmygrad.ml
    29·
    5 months ago

    No wonder Israel rejected it. The Gaza Strip being reconstructed is not Israel’s goal. In fact no goal for Israel is achieved here. Not destroying the resistance, not expelling the Palestinians, not colonizing the Gaza Strip, nothing. Israel won’t be held accountable for its crimes as usual, but the Palestinians made several gains since Al-Aqsa Flood.

    I can’t speak for the Palestinian resistance, they know best, but this proposal looks like a win for the resistance.

      • الأرض ستبقى عربية@lemmygrad.ml
        10·
        5 months ago

        I am not making a claim, it is an observation, and I am not the only one who observed it. Palestinian leaders and thinkers, Israeli historians and more. In your penultimate line, you have figured it out. The threat of a second Nakba loomed on Palestinians before the Al-Aqsa Flood. They were doomed if they did and doomed if they didn’t. Albeit it might have continued slowly and silently, most of the world weren’t paying attention or even believed the Israeli narrative.

        Resistance against a militarily superior enemy is not easy, and we have examples of indigenous people resisting only to be nearly wiped out. So I understand why it may seem futile to you. The Palestinians are attached to their land, the greatest regret of those who left in the first Nakba is that they didn’t die fighting for their land, they regret leaving. Palestinians are far less willing to leave now, and they are facing far greater violence. What possibly gives them hope is knowing that there were times when the indigenous resistance has been successful. A lot can be learned if you read about the Algerian resistance to the 132 years of French colonialism (1830–1962), the massacres and the millions who died fighting a superior enemy with nuclear weapons.

        So if you wonder what Palestinians gained, I will tell you: recognition for their right to statehood. This thing which seems so obvious has been denied to Palestinians. Palestinians, except those living within the green line, are stateless people living under a brutal occupation since 1967. Now the world is paying attention.

      • GlueBear [they/them] @lemmygrad.ml
        5·
        5 months ago

        Isntrael’s economic situation as a result of the blockade and “war” is getting worse every day. They fell down a whole credit score back in January as a result.

        This is all deeply destabilizing, and coming at a time when Isntrael’s allies are getting weaker by the day thanks to Russia and China.

  • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
    29·
    5 months ago

    I feel like most of this “plan” is just a return to status quo. The deal says nothing about acknowledging and educating Israeli’s about the horrors of the Nakba and Zionism, or about apologizing for it’s crimes and genocide, or about recognizing Palestinian statehood, just about Israel still having the region in a chokehold.

    • FALGSConaut [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      111·
      5 months ago

      Yup, just brings to mind the section in Martin Luther King’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail about white moderates preferring order to justice

      I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

      • sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml
        51·
        5 months ago

        The European immigrants in North America also continued to elect disciple of Anti-Chirst and censor the widespread leak of Holocaust in Indian Residential fake school death camps even as they criticize the Nazi German for subjugation of Europeans to their own savage policy and the Soviet for unproven Holodomor.

  • caveman@lemmy.ml
    26·
    5 months ago

    I don’t think it’s durable. As long as people kicked out from their properties since 1948 cannot return and Israel keels stealing more and more land there will be no peace.

      • caveman@lemmy.ml
        9·
        5 months ago

        To be honest, even though I want Palestinians to her their stolen property back, due to the robbers (Israel) military might they will never get pre 1948 back.

        They would be very lucky if they got pre 1967 borders. I read that Hamas and PA agreed on that.

        Better ask Palestinians on social network with what they would agree

        • xkyfal18@lemmygrad.ml
          8·
          5 months ago

          They will. The Zionist project is inherent unsustainable. However, I agree that for now it’s unrealistic not to settle for pre-1967 borders (decolonisation of Gaza and West Bank)

          • caveman@lemmy.ml
            6·
            5 months ago

            I read the book “The Jewish Paradox” from Nahum Goldman, the First president of the World Zionist Congress and also president of the World Jewish Congress.

            He was one of the leaders who accepted the UN partition plan. He says that Israelis at the time wanted to kill him, because Israelis wanted all the land for them, no compromise.

            But other leaders were convinced that they would never get a better offer, and also that having a State was a good platform to later take all of the land to them, for with a State you have some minimal stability and you can get an army and all other infra structure that they didn’t have before.

            If the Palestinians also took this into consideration they could, I guess, be far better now.

            I recommend you to read this book because:

            1. Goldman is against the culture created by Ben Gurion of being enemies of Arabs, so he shows many of Israelis misdoings, and also because

            2. you can see some of the strategies they used to create their country.

            The same strategy could be useful for Palestinians.

            • xkyfal18@lemmygrad.ml
              9·
              5 months ago

              Goldman was the most dovish member of the Zionist movement, directly responsible for the idea of a partition plan during meetings in Paris in 1946 program, as opposed to the Biltmore conference, in which scum like Ben-Gurion exalted the idea of taking over all of Palestine. He was the one who pleaded with the British authorities to accept his plan before they transferred the matter to the UN in mid-late 1947.

              for with a State you have some minimal stability and you can get an army and all other infra structure that they didn’t have before.

              Even before the existence of Israel, there was already effectively an embryonic state, called the Jewish agency, with Ben-Gurion serving both as Minister of Defense and Prime Minister. Its military was called the Hagana, which oversaw many ethnic cleansing operations and countless surveillance and reconnaissance operations, known as the “village files”. Their main money source was the JNF (Jewish monetary fund), which they used to buy plots of land from absentee landlords and to fund their campaigns.

              If the Palestinians also took this into consideration they could, I guess, be far better now.

              Pretty sure that with everything I’ve said before, it disproves this claim. They would NOT be better off and had every right to criticise and denounce a plan that came straight out of the zionists. They had been building settlements and kicking out the native population as early as the mid 1910s, when Palestine was still under Ottoman rule. They also tried to accept Britain’s system of “parity” with the settlers (that in practice favoured the latter), only for the latter to reject it and pave way to the 1929 (and in a way 1936) riots.

              Lastly I highly doubt a Palestinian state could ever exist properly alongside the Zionist entity, as the latter’s existence is predicated on genocide, violence and ethnic cleansing, but I can see where you’re coming from. Hamas supports a 2 state solution (probably as a temporary goal), so that gives me enough of a reason to support it too.

              I might check out your book and I also recommend Ilan Pappe’s “the ethnic cleansing of Palestine”. Genuinely amazing