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
Bro why should there be "peaceful co-existence" between a people and an invading nation, the very existence of which in any capacity is contingent on the violent forceful displacement and genocide of the said people?
I thought this guy does his research? Doesn't he know about how Israel came to be, how it destroyed Palestine and relentlessly torments the survivors in a concentration camp hell? Has Zizek gone senile?
Isn't peaceful coexistence the sort of premise of the one secular state solution that's the standard leftist line though?
Peaceful coexistence within a free Palestinian state, not "peaceful coexistence" of so-called two states or "peaceful coexistence" within an Israeli apartheid state. The possibility of peaceful coexistence only exists if Israel ceases to exist and the colonization stops, and I think it would be pretty generous to Zizek to assume that's what he meant here.
Oh yeah an absolute mountain of stuff would have to chain for that to be workable agreed, but I was just wondering if the commenter I was responding to envisioned another endgame
Idk what the leftist line is but to me the option of "1 secular state" fell off the table long ago when Israel started stealing land and killing people as a Western imperialist puppet. They all need to leave the bloodstained ethnostate they built on top of Palestine. That is the 1 state solution. Furthermore we in the west have no right to declare that some nation over 9000km away should go secular when they are currently being persecuted because of their religion. That decision and process is up to the Palestinians themselves when they are free.
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.
I think thats a very bad faith reading of what I wrote because you're focusing on some technicality about IDF conscription instead of the fact of the matter that if you steal someone's home and kill half their family, you have no claim to it and need to leave.
I don't care whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc. the fact remains is that those living in Isntreal, land recently stolen, have committed a heinous crime against humanity and need to give it back. How they go about doing so and where they go is not my problem, its up to isntreal and the western governments who prop it up to decide because they are the aggressors who have committed a genocide and stolen land, in this situation. Saying that "oh but they have to stay and continue to benefit from the homes they have stolen without giving anything back because muh TINA" is the same flavor of cope as "oh but capitalism needs to kill over 10 million people each year and destroy humanity because muh TINA".
What part about that is so difficult to understand?
Also
is probably a trivial portion of the population, because if we take a look at population statistics: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/population-of-israel-1948-present
We can observe that 1) This is an artificially inflated population driven by settler colonialism, most of these people haven't lived there for 4 generations (~80 years) let alone a millennia & 2) Records literally start from 1948, Israel Isntreal.
Moreover, are you literally saying that the land presently colored in green in the image below is owned by the "indigenous peoples" who lived there for "millennia"?
Look if you're going to suggest a policy for removal, I don't know how I'm supposed to evaluate that if not literally.
Some of them have, some of them haven't. Some Israelis have been living there for millennial, even more from 1880 on during the first wave of legal, nonviolent immigration, and they and there descendants have pretty much totally fair claim to that land. They don't have claim to Israel as a religious ethnostate political entity like it currently exists, but if you insist that all Israeli must leave because Israel as a political entity has committed crimes against humanity (which it has), you're doing ethnic cleansing of individuals, some of which had nothing to do with those crimes and are in fact indigenous to the area.
The difficult part to understand is that you shift seamlessly from insisting all the Israelis have to leave (like I quoted above), to insisting you only mean some of them, the non-indigenous ones have to leave, without having any workable way of demarcating it. Your first criteria (IDF service) literally corresponds to essentially all Jews by law, even indigenous ones.
Records and estimates of the Jewish population of the region date back to before 1948 I was looking at them earlier.
No. I'm claiming that a small subset of that land, and probably even small amounts of yellow land, were privately owned by Jewish families whose descendants are currently in Israel and identify as Israeli. If your end goal for Palestine doesn't include the option of peaceful coexistence for those people as a protected minority, then you're calling for an ethnic cleansing. Which I don't think you are, but you keep stumbling awfully close to it accidentally by pretending this problem, is "like, actually, super simple when you think about it."
I don't know how you look at: "if you steal someone's home and kill half their family, you have no claim to it and need to leave" as: "omg this is advocating a policy of ethnic removal". They are the ones who did the removal.
My son, Isntreal came to being in 1948. There is no "living there for millennia" because there wasn't a "there" to begin with, it always was and will continue to be Palestine first and foremost. "Israeli" is also a bullshit nationality for the same reason.
Fair claim to their ancestral homes as reformed honorary Palestinians in small villages here and there? Yes. The entirety of Palestine? No.
Yeah if you strongly identify as an Isntreali, even after having a proper historical education, you need to be leave because Isntreal is a fascist settler colonial state and you're probably living on the rubble of someone's destroyed home. If you identify as Palestinian (which a minority of people who live in Isntreal do btw) then you still need to give back the stolen land. Not individually ofc this has to be done on a sociological scale but again, its not my problem to determine the specifics how this will happen. Because the bottom line is that the genocide and theft that occurred on that land needs to be addressed and atoned for somehow. Do you understand?
Please refer to the population statistics again:
Most isntrealis are not indigenous to the region, they are settler colonial imports who live on stolen land to further the west's colonial ambitions in the region. It isn't just "some", its "most".
If you live on green land where the land was once yellow , on the rubble of someone's home, you need to give back what was stolen and leave. Very straightforwards! If you have stolen someone's home in a fascist project of ethnic cleansing, you need to give it back!
How can you look at this map and seriously claim that "oh ackshually its ethnic cleansing if you want the people living on recently occupied land to give it back because somehow the map has magically been green for 1000000 gorillion years."
There is no "peaceful coexistence" if you're a fascist living on top of someone's destroyed home saying that its akshually yours because "muh 1000 billion year old ancestry". For the fraction of a fraction of "isntrealis" you describe who are living in "isntreal" in their ancestral homes which are not built on the remains of bulldozed homes, yes, they don't need to leave. But the vast majority should really, really give back what they stole and fuck off elsewhere! They are the ones who have been performing a genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing for the past 80 years. Please do NOT conflate saying they should stop, give back what they stole, and leave with "removal".
From what I gather you took the hyperbole of "all Isntrealis must go" too literally because the "all" would include the tiny minority of "Israelis" who are actually living in their ancestral homes in occupied Palestine and happen to identify as "Israeli". Those bastards need harsh re-education for daring to identify with a fascist ethnostate but ofc they can stay in Palestine because its their home too. However, the vast majority are settler colonial imports from the past ~80 or so years who live on stolen land, therefore, they need to give back what they stole and leave, maybe for that one Russian province that is majority Jewish.
From the statistics I cited, about 8% of households in Jerusalem were Jewish in the 1800s. We're not talking about infinitesimals here. So yeah, when you say "all Israelis have to go", it sounds like you mean them too. I'm glad you don't, but you don't have to act so put out about being asked to clarify that you don't actually mean the ethnic cleansing that you may have accidentally, literally called for.
The Hamas militants have been following guidelines for treatment of prisoners of war, the IDF is the one that's been dropping bombs and firing tank rounds at the Israeli hostages.