this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
412 points (96.4% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2284 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disablist@lemdro.id 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Good is relative. What you mean is that there isn't a perfect solution. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

So if your argument is that a two state solution isn't perfect, therefore we shouldn't do it, then that's tacit approval for my first solution...a final solution if you will. Just pick a side, and poof.

If you're not comfortable with genocide, then a two state solution is the only viable path forward with any hope of chance of being made into a good outcome, even if not a perfect one.

So pick one: a final solution or a two-state solution, but stop with the wishy-washy "the status quo must remain until a perfect solution is found".

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Don’t get me wrong I’d love a two state solution or really any solution where they stop killing each other. But in order for a two state solution to happen, you need both sides to agree on the borders, and good luck with that.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I would love a solution in which they both integrate into one state with equal rights... I know it sounds impossible

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They are far too eager to kill each other for that to work.

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well one side is a lot more eager to kill the other. Meanwhile, the other side has just been trying to defend themselves and get their homes back for 70 years.

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago

Yes because shooting rockets with the aim of mass civilian casualties is the definition of self defense.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just remind the Israeli government who holds the biggest stick and which hand feeds them.

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Reminder that the UN has tried to implement the two state solution before but the Arab side said “No we want all of it”

[–] beardown@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

Black South Africans wanted the entire country too. That Mandela guy sure was radical about that

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The UN is the one that caused this problem by giving away land other people already lived in to Zionists. And rarely has Israel had any good faith in the negotiations. They've generally picked terms that were extremely one-sided to avoid a two-state solution. It's why they supported Hamas in the first place. Israel doesn't a sovereign Palestinian state. They want all the land, and their attempted offerings have always had that with them getting way more land, refusing right to return for Palestinians, and keeping de facto control over their territory and people. During one negotiation, even the US negotiator said they wouldn't take the Israeli offer if he was in the shoes of the Palestinian leader at the time.

[–] june@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

To be clear, I support a free Palestine and condemn Israel’s actions.

But, something that you, and most people I see discussing this, are missing is that this isn’t just a political or land issue. This is a fundamentalist religious issue too. Both parties believe they have a sacred right to the land and that the other does not. The two parties ideologies are fundamentally incompatible with anything other than the removal of the other party. There is not, and never has been, a road to a two state solution and the actions we’re seeing now have likely always been the plan for Israel. Israel has squeezed and squeezed the Palestinians until, surprise!, they (or at the very least a subset of them) decide it’s time to fight back. That’s the excuse Israel has been looking for, an event large and egregious enough for an all out assault and to ultimately push the Palestinians into the ocean and remove them from the equation.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's like calling the Russian invasion of Ukraine a holy Christian war.

The Zionists very clearly do not have any right to Palestine and the Palestinians very clearly do have the right to their land.

The fact that israel has been committing genocide for over 75 years there doesn't magically give them the right to anything.

[–] june@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You’ll notice, I don’t support either’s religious claim in my comment. I’m conveying what they believe and why it’s an untenable situation. It is, in fact, a religious war.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a political war. They are not the same.