this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024

68 points (77.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43856 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!

Open-ended question
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.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Realistically, how can Palestine gain it's freedom? (suppo.fi)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by bartolomeo@suppo.fi to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

102 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Historical references are also valuable in this discussion, like slave revolts or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, although hopefully in the case of Palestine a peaceful and successful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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] danhakimi@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

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 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Actually you're both wrong, in 2005:

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]

A British Parliamentary commission, summing up the situation eight months later, found that while the Rafah crossing agreement worked efficiently, from January–April 2006, the Karni crossing was closed 45% of the time, and severe limitations were in place on exports from Gaza, with, according to OCHA figures, only 1,500 of 8,500 tons of produce getting through; that they were informed most closures were unrelated to security issues in Gaza but either responses to violence in the West Bank or for no given reason. The promised transit of convoys between Gaza and the West Bank was not honoured; with Israel insisting that such convoys could only pass if they passed through a specially constructed tunnel or ditch, requiring a specific construction project in the future; Israel withdrew from implementation talks in December 2005 after a suicide bombing attack on Israelis in Netanya[28] by a Palestinian from Kafr Rai.[79]

Gaza hasn't been free since at least 1967.

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

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How much land do you think Ukraine should cede for peace? How much control should Russia have in Ukraine's government in exchange for ending the occupation?

These are honest questions, I would like to know what you and others think.

Also, are you aware of Palestine's proposal to respect the 1967 borders, which Israel rejected?

[–] danhakimi@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How much land do you think Ukraine should cede for peace?

For a war Russia started? With no justification? None. Not even land swaps.

How much control should Russia have in Ukraine’s government in exchange for ending the occupation?

As much as it takes for Russian civillians to be safe, which is to say, again, none. Ukraine does not have a history of massacring Russian civilians, they haven't repeatedly stated that they'd repeat attacks on Russian civilians ad infinitum after any hypothetical ceasefire.

Also, are you aware of Palestine’s proposal to respect the 1967 borders, which Israel rejected?

Which proposal?

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I totally agree with you on Ukraine.

I think the main success of the current narrative on Palestine is disguising Israeli expansion as Israeli self-defense. Here's a map of the UN partition plan for Palestine and you can check today's borders to see how much land Palestine has ceded to Israel, unwillingly of course. Israel was created as a result of the Palestine Civil War and have been expanding ever since. That was the plan the whole time, as it says in the above linked page:

Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.

I don't see how Palestine is any different from Ukraine in terms of needing to cede land to the invader in exchange for peace. What do you think? I'm sure there's a lot I'm not aware of.

About the negotiations and truce offered to Israel:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24235665

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders

Oh and one more thing, you said

For a war Russia started? With no justification?

but there was justification, I believe it was NATO encroachment or something about Nazis in Ukraine. I'm not saying it was good justification but I would like to point out that there was justification (just like Colin Powell in front of congress with a vial of white powder that was something something WMDs in Iraq) and I'm sure someone, somewhere was saying "doesn't Russia have the right to self defense?". If I understand correctly, the justification for Israel invading Palestine in the first place was "we are God's chosen people and we want this land" which is an extremely flimsy justification but that might just be my personal opinion because I'm not religious.

[–] danhakimi@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

I think the main success of the current narrative on Palestine is disguising Israeli expansion as Israeli self-defense. Here’s a map of the UN partition plan for Palestine and you can check today’s borders to see how much land Palestine has ceded to Israel, unwillingly of course. Israel was created as a result of the Palestine Civil War and have been expanding ever since. That was the plan the whole time, as it says in the above linked page:

Arabs rejected that partition plan and waged war after war against Israel. Land changed hands both ways in the late 1940s—the great sin of Israel is that it won more land than it lost, that's what the Arabs can't forgive them for. The Arabs started the war thinking they could beat the Jews and expel them altogether.

Some of the land taken in 1967 is up for debate, but regions like the Golan Heights have a large strategic value and have historically been used to attack Israel. Israel happily returned Sinai to Egypt for peace. I'm generally opposed to settlement expansion, but that's almost never framed as self-defense. And the current war in Gaza is really not expansionist.

I don’t see how Palestine is any different from Ukraine in terms of needing to cede land to the invader in exchange for peace. What do you think? I’m sure there’s a lot I’m not aware of.

I'm assuming you're talking about the Olmert proposal or similar, since land isn't really a big part of the Gaza debate, Israel wants the hostages back and Hamas gone.

Peace is the concession being made by Palestine, not for Palestine. many Palestinians are strongly opposed to peace with Israel. Hamas is categorically opposed. Palestinians want an end to the occupation, control of East Jerusalem, as much land as they can get, and a totally unrealistic "right of return" that would realistically end Israel.

The deal in question included East Jerusalem, removal of Israeli settlers from the west bank, an end to the occupation, acceptance of a number of Palestinian immigrants into Israel, and was just a starting point.

The land swaps—not a one-sided cession, swaps—are designed around areas that are already mostly Israeli settlers. Practically, moving multiple townfulls' worth of settlers is really unrealistic. Israel removed 80,000 settlers from Gaza unilaterally during 2005, and is willing to remove more but removing hundreds of thousands, especially from towns that are already mostly Israeli, is an extreme challenge and land swaps are a practical way to get around it.

About the negotiations and truce offered to Israel:

Lol, I assumed you were talking about a peace deal. Hamas was really open about this one: permanent concessions (there was more to it than just the land), in exchange for a temporary truce that was just a strategic aim on their part to shore up resources so they could more effectively massacre all of Israel when the truce had ended. And there's no way they'd be able to keep the truce going for as long as they said, they couldn't even handle the days-long truce in the current war.

but there was justification, I believe it was NATO encroachment or something about Nazis in Ukraine.

Lol, Ukraine never joined NATO, even after the Donbas invasion, Ukraine was literally run by a Jew, and the Russians have turned the Azov battalion into heroes. And none of that would have been grounds for war, if it made any sense to begin with.

the justification for Israel invading Palestine in the first place was “we are God’s chosen people and we want this land”

... what the fuck are you talking about? Are you attempting to describe the Israeli War of Independence? Or something else? I'm so confused.