It's dogshit
Hamas and Israeli hardliners are two sides of the same coin. The choice is not one hardline faction or the other; it is between fundamentalists and all those who still believe in the possibility of peaceful co-existence. There can be no compromise between Palestinian and Israeli extremists, who must be combatted with a full-throated defense of Palestinian rights that goes hand-in-hand with an unwavering commitment to the fight against anti-Semitism.
Utopian as this may sound, the two struggles are of a piece. We can and should unconditionally support Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. But we also must unconditionally sympathize with the truly desperate and hopeless conditions faced by Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied territories. Those who think there is a “contradiction” in this position are the ones who are effectively blocking a solution.
We can and should unconditionally defend US slave owners' property rights. But we also must unconditionally sympathize with the truly desperate and hopeless conditions faced by enslaved people.
We can and should unconditionally support Nazi Germany's right to rid itself of undesirables. But we also must unconditionally sympathize with the truly desperate and hopeless conditions faced by those placed in concentration camps.
Feel free to add your own
Jewish militias have been stealing land and killing people since at least the '30s there, so that standard would bar the single secular state solution from apparently the get go.
I'm not sure you meant it this way, but this is literally ethnic cleansing. And sure while we like to joke about all these people having second homes in Brooklyn, a lot of them were displaced from the Arab world in 1948, and others have been there even longer, so I don't know where you'd want them to go.
I'm talking about removing Israeli's preferential treatment toward Judaism, not some hypothetical Palestinian theocracy.
Well it really depends on how many isntrealis were already living in Palestine when isntreal was established though. Isn't it true that the vast majority of them settled there in the past ~40 years?
As for those who were displaced, they can temporarily be relocated somewhere else, like Europe, while Palestine is rebuilt, then, they can immigrate back as Palestinians.
Tbf yes you are right, it is hyperbolic for me to say that they all should leave. However, I don't understand why you would interpret the assertion that; settlers, who arrived from afar, stole the homes from a group of people, murdered large numbers of them, and threw the survivors into a concentration camp, need to leave and give the homes back, is ethnic cleansing.
Because Im not saying that it's "muh joos" that need to leave because they are "le jooish", its moreso the issue that "people" who believe in the settler colonial project of Isntreal and gladly enforce it with blood and fire deserving to be kicked out of the land they stole by force, by the people who they stole it from, so that they do no more harm and return the stolen homes. Like how the french were kicked out of Haiti.
Isntreal doesn't deserve to exist in its current form, it's a fascist ethnostate that needs to be dissolved.
Yes, but there has always be a minority in the region, 5% of the population or less, but this gets complicated as generations go on. If the dad's family has been there for a millenia, but mom came over from Germany, what does that make you? How far back does that have to go?
I don't think that is a morally abhorrent suggestion, but that does verge on ethnic cleansing. Obviously they aren't entitled to land taken from Palestinians, but uprooting them again should be avoided if at all possible.
I think I large bit of the problem comes from this fluid notion of settler. Someone who moved to Israel and legitimately bought land in 1880 under the Ottoman empire (a multiethnic state) weren't necessarily doing anything too objectionable, but as successive waves came in and started actively and violently displacing Palestinians, their claim to the land becomes much less defensible, and further still, the ones actively engaged in displacement right now in the West Bank despite being told that it's illegal; which is the traditional meaning of 'settler' in the Palestine/Israel context are even more abhorrent.
I think everyone agrees that there's no concern of ethnic cleansing in the final case, but as settler is construed more and more broadly to refer to essentially Jewish family that wasn't there in 1800 the concern for ethnic cleansing rises.
And just a minor quibble, the indigenous of Haiti didn't kick the french out of Haiti; the Taino people were essentially whipped out in that colony and played no role in the uprising and expulsion.
If the person joined the IDF and supports the state of instreal, they are a settler and need to leave. If they don't then they are Palestinian.
There are no roots on stolen land. Isntreali settlers murder people so they can steal their homes. The land they live on is not theirs. Very simple.
Then that person is a Palestinian. "Israel" is a modern invention. Their house was probably bulldozed by the IDF.
I don't think anyone is ontologically conflating "isntreali settler" with "Jew" except the isntreali and American propaganda departments so they can make the claim that "muh anti Israel is anti semitism." Anyone of any race or religion can be a settler if they murder people in other lands to ethnically cleanse them and steal their homes.
I think it's a very, very simple matter of a person having no right to live in a house they stole after killing the family who lived there.
Israel has conscription, which I presume you know, so we're essentially back to they all have to leave, including the descendants of the indigenous Jewish population that have been there for a millennia, which, is fact, the ethnic cleansing you were walking back a second ago.
That's not how they identify, and in reality their grand-children probably serve in the IDF.
I mean, your definition of settler as "IDF service member", taken in conjuction with Israeli law
Would seem to map, in large part, to the same extension even if the intensions are in fact different.
Like I don't think you're actually anti-semitic or want the entire Jewish population kicked out, you're just not treating this as the difficult problem it is and spitballing solutions that just happen to essentially result in all the jews being kicked out.