Ireland, Spain and Norway have announced they will formally recognise a Palestinian state on 28 May, triggering an immediate response from Israel, which said it would retaliate by recalling its ambassadors from Dublin, Madrid and Oslo, and withholding vital funds from the Palestinian Authority.
The three European governments made the long-awaited announcements in coordinated moves on Wednesday morning that they said were intended to support a two-state solution and foster peace in the Middle East.
“We are going to recognise Palestine for many reasons and we can sum that up in three words: peace, justice and consistency,” Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, told the parliament in Madrid, to applause. “We have to make sure that the two-state solution is respected and there must be mutual guarantees of security.”
… What?
THEY SAID HOPEFULLY THIS IS A STEP TOWARD DISMANTLING THE BRUTAL APARTHEID REGIME THAT HAS COLONIZED PALESTINE FOR 76 YEARS
Whadda ya, stoopid or sumpthin’?
They are saying they hope it will lead to the end of Israel.
Or at a minimum, getting Israel out of the internationally recognized Palestinian Territories (West bank, Gaza) and allowing Palestinians to self-rule.
That’s an intrepretation only possible if you ignore most of that post.
The logical interpretation after reading the entire post is that they hope this will lead to the end of Appartheid in Israel.
Or are you saying that there is no possible way for Israel to exist either than as an ultra racist etnostate that systemically discriminates against a part of its population based on their etnicity? Because that’s the only way you could logically claim that Israel without Appartheid would not exist.
Not who you’re asking but as a citizen of a country that’s working through that transition I hope it could be possible, but fear it will take decades.
So far it’s working in South Africa, for all the problems it had and is having, as well as in what used to be Jugoslavia, and there is a very long History of etnically diverse populations either ending up cohexisting or segregating into separate independent nations without being constantly at war with each other.
I would even go as far as saying that integration (willful or forced) or peaceful separation into two states are far more common situations than an etnostate successfully suppressing a population without ending up murdering or expelling the entirety of the second largest etnicity.
If you look at History, most conquering of land succeeds because the conqueror actually wants the locals to subject to the rule of the elites of said conqueror rather than pushing them all out, so the people of the conquered territory generally end up integrated into the culture of the conquering nation.
The really special thing with Israel is that it’s an etnostate with a core principle that one etnicity is “favoured by God” whilst trying to pass itself as a Democracy, which is also a conqueror in somebody else’s land, so fully integrating people with equal rights from a large different etnicity that live in that conquered land (something which would be real Democracy) would directly go against the core etnostate principl (as those other people are not from the “favoured by God” etnicity) and would even change the way the conqueror is ruled because equal rights for a sizeable majority means equal voting rights.
So over the years the leadership in Israel has threaded a thin line where they integrated only a few of the local etnicity in order to seem Democratic but not enough for them to actually have real power versus the etnic majority, and only did so by giving them second class rights, while at the same times using techniques like outright giving on Israeli nationality with full rights to anybody from the favoured etnicity who are not yet Israelis in order to boost the number of that etnicity in Israel. So a small number of people from the not-favoured etnicity are second class citiziens, whilst the vast majority of them kept entirelly powerless (with not even second class citizenship), not just in the conquered land but also in Israel proper.
IMHO a Democracy as a conquering nation can only ultimatelly live in peace in that situation if the people in the conquered land are integrated into it (so equal citizens with equal votes) or live so far away from the conqueror’s mainland that they can be kept oppressed and their violence does not reach the mainland (and as we’ve seen when the US did things like conquer Iraq, that doesn’t last), and Israel because of being an etnostate can never accept integrating people from a different etnicity and at the same time sits right next to the very people whose land it conquered and which it oppresses because it cannot integrate them and still remain an etnostate.
There are only three ways for there to be Peace in this situation:
I would say that most outsiders who are not rabidly pro-Israel are aiming for the last one.
Your interpretation is only possible if you didn’t read the post fully. It said it wanted to dismantle the apartheid regime, not to dismantle apartheid. The regime is the Israeli government.
Of course it’s the Israeli Government, same as the South African Appartheid government had to be dismantled to end Appartheid there, the Fascist Government in Greece had to be dismantled to bring Democracy there and the Communist Government in Poland had to be dismantled to bring Democracy there.
It’s hardly big fat news that the Zionists have to go for there to be peace in the region.
Since “country” is not at all the same as “regime”, wanting the end of a regime is not at all the same as wanting the end of the country, as the current status of all the countries I mentioned in my examples above (all alive and well) shows.
Your claim that people hoped for the end of Israel (the country) is not supported by you pointing out that those people want to dismantle the regime, because they’re quite different things and the latter absolutelly can be dismantled without the “end” of the former (in my examples above the countries didn’t even suffer, quite the contrary: all those countries are better of now that those regimes were dismantled than they were before).
Removed by mod
Dismantle verb
To get rid of a system or organization, usually over a period of time:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dismantle
Except this guy specifically said he hopes the current Israel is dismantled. At best they could be hoping that Israel changes into a better government, but I don’t think that’s their meaning.
No where does that say dismantling Israel.
So who are they talking about then?
Dismantling Israel as an apartheid state and replacing it with a secular binational state that has equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis?
Well that can’t be what he thinks, I listed that as an option in my original response
But he clearly said
So what entity which has colonized Palestine for 76 years, but isn’t the current Israel does he mean?
EDIT: Words have meaning, if the words you use don’t mean what you mean, then admit that you used the wrong words and be more clear or else people must assume you mean what you say. Coming in after the OP and attributing meaning that they didn’t give doesn’t suddenly change what they said. A reminder, the original post was;
Dismantling the regime. If someone said we need to eliminate the Chinese Communist regime, would you think they want to destroy the entirety of China?
So you do agree that Israel is a colonizer country?
I don’t really like the use of the word colonizer in this context, it just doesn’t fit right with me. The definition technically fits, but colonization to me is more like an invasive species moving in and slowly overwhelming the native population. This is more akin to what we were seeing with settlers moving into the West Bank.
What’s going on in Gaza is more akin to straight up scorched earth takeover and land theft. Hell, calling it an invasion and genocide feels more accurate.
I never said I was ok with what Israel is doing, my argument was on the meaning of words. Leftists in general are really terrible about saying what they mean, because they don’t seem to know the meaning of the words they use.
The cycle seems to go like this:
I am sorry for the hard time you have here. People just want to see their believes confirmed.