Am I a "Zionist by default" because I support a two-state solution in Palestine/Israel?

Am I a "Zionist by default" because I support a two-state solution in Palestine/Israel?

I used to be all for one democratic secular state. I really did. But then I did some research over the course of a year and realized that a single state solution would be WORSE for the Palestinians.

Hear my reasoning:

A one-state solution is supposedly the only moral solution, and the only one that is supposed to end imperialism. Israel is a colonial entity with an apartheid system, true. The Zionists took the land illegitimately and under shady circumstances, true.

But….

A one-state solution doesn't entail any kind of land reform or wealth redistribution, which would be necessary if the Palestinians are to truly "take back what was stolen from them". Given the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, you'd see millions of people (not even the original refugees but their children and grandchildren) returning to Tel Aviv, Haifa, Safad, Jerusalem, and all the other cities with very little, all while most Israelis live high quality lives with plenty of wealth. Plus, the Jewish settlements in the West Bank would be kept in-place, meaning Jewish Israelis would still hold a monopoly on land. So, judging from all of this, a one-state solution would be equivalent to South Africa today: you'd see rich Ashkenazi Jews living on the hill all while Palestinian refugees would be shoved into ghettos.

The thing is, in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, whites were never more than 6% of the population, hence why a land reform was even an option to begin with (and despite all of this, we know how messy it turned out). In a one democratic state of Palestine, about half the population between the river and the sea would be Jews. Try doing a land reform where half the population is forced to give up their kibbutzim, housing units, and whatnot. And to make things worse, there are plenty of towns in Israel where the majority of the population are very insular ultra-orthodox Jews (Safad and Beit Shemesh come to mind). How does one go about tampering with their communities without facing some kind of resistance?

A one democratic state won't benefit the Palestinians. They'd remain second-class citizens regardless as to whether or not it's "their" state.

Am I wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

popgen.us/2014/09/23/citizen-science-analysis-of-ashkenazi-y-chromosome-haplogroups/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

There is literally nothing wrong with being a Zionist.

Zionist =/= supporter of Israel

No

I meant supporter of the existing state known as "Israel".

There's absolutely nothing unleftist or reactionary about advocating a two state solution. It's a widely held position among many radical leftists.

Don't worry OP, the only people who will throw the slur "zionist" at you are trve kvlt anti-revisionists, trotskyite splinter groups, and islamists. All irrelevant LARPers except for the third who are outright reactionaries.

You forgot PoMo postcolonial academics too.

some marxposter from a while back said it best. postcolonialism needs to be classified as a mental disorder.

Postcolonialism, "noble savage", and clash of civilizations are all toxic narratives which need to die.

Historical Materialism should debunk all this shit, but unfortunately we've got way too many who take national liberation to mean "apologizing for the worst".

OP here. Thanks for being so reassuring.

Now, do you think my assessment is correct?

What about the no-state solution?

Pretty sure that would be the guys with the most guns win

Not really an option given the existing conditions.

Why not? We have a no-state territory pretty close by, even bordering on Israel. Who says it wouldn't work?

Pretty sure Palestinian society is hierarchical.

I think a much better question to ask here would be: how do we give the Palestinians back what was stolen from them when doing so would face so much resistance?

Deport all Jews from Israel, and make them into refugees, so they'll settle in Europe, particularly in Germany like the Syrians, except this will be a Jewish diaspora.

Nice tankie program.

Palestine would go bankrupt without the Jews.

I'm anarcho-primitivist leaning so I don't give a fuck about economic growth, however I'm pretty certain the Palis DO.

Even in the West Bank today, the main source of income for plenty of Palestinians is working for Israeli companies that are (illegally) operating there. Kick the Jews out and the Palis will be poor as fuck.

why

There are books written by Palestinian scholars about what a proposed single state of Palestine would look like. No, you don't need a land reform because Palestine would be democratic and the Palestinians will vote for what kind of living arrangements they would like to have.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

The Palestinians should be allowed to decide their own destiny. They can fend for themselves without being told what to do by white socialists.

Back to reddit with you.

How does that preclude the need for land reform?

When the refugees return they can tell the new government how they wish to be accommodated.

I don't understand how this works in your head

What's your solution then? A two-state solution is not only impossible and unjust, but flies in the face of socialism. You can't make socialism with colonial entities still intact.

Primitivism and anti-civ are past their prime tbh. Zerzan's appeals to anthropology have long been demonstrated to be false, and since then he and other primitivists and anti-civvers have taken to even worse arguments for primitivism on the basis of spirituality. Despite their valid critiques of civilization, they universalize their subjective enjoyment of green things and come up with ridiculous conclusions that could absolutely never happen even if a primitivist revolution happened, and even if the overwhelming majority of the population wouldn't already fiercely oppose primitivism.

Why are you posting this in a Palestine thread?

Because I got triggered by a mention of primitivism tbh :^)

This is the equivalent of a Scientologist debunking Westboro Baptist Church.

You can't have a socialist Palestine without a land reform, which itself would be unfeasible when 50% of the population doesn't want to give up control over 85% of the land and views their control of the land as sacred.

I disagree with Gillis' market anarchism, but his critique of primitivism is spot-on and he has written some good stuff about science and anarchism, which hasn't gotten nearly enough attention since primitivism has been the more dominant line of thought in contemporary anarchist thought w/r/t science and technology.

Of course, this being Holla Forums, that probably won't matter since nearly everyone here is an economics autist because of the meme that Marxism = economic determinism

Also check that ideology fam. Primitivism has some very valid critiques about civilization, and like it or not it has been very influential in contemporary anarchist thought.

Very little of use comes out of the C4SS crowd. Browsing that site, it's obvious most of the people who write for it have little understanding of Marxism, or anarchism, and barely understand basic sociology or things like base and superstructure. Kevin Carson is a sophist ("hey look guize Marx and Mises are LITERALLY SAYING THE SAME THING"). I want to throw that man in a gulag so much.

...

Can you guys make a new thread about primitivism? Because I specifically made this thread to talk about Palestine, and you're all derailing it.

From reading your post it's obvious that you're yet another Holla Forums anarchist who knows all their theory from memes and is just a few steps away from being a Marxst, so I'll take the C4SS crowd over people like you spouting your hot opinions on Holla Forums, thank you very much.


Excuse me?


I've been saging my posts because of this but the conversation is drifting away from primitivism as well, so I think it'd make more sense to end it here and let the thread continue.

No they wouldn't and this is a huge red herring. The settlements would have to be dismantled according to UN resolutions on the matter.

Very little of Carson's anarchism is anything close to Proudhon or the classical anarchists (whom I'm assuming you mean people like Bakunin or Louise Michel). Carson is basically a Ricardian socialist, or an "an"-cap who accepts Ricardo's LTV. And honestly, I don't see why anyone thinks Benjamin Tucker is still relevant in the 21st century.

Okay I'll stop derailing now.


Yep.

I meant to say, removal of the settlements is a prerequisite for a one-state solution, not a part of it.

I’m a resident Burgerland comrade who’s been living and working among Palestinians in varying capacities on both sides of the Green Line. I have personally no political “solution,” but what OP ignores is that the reality of hilltop Jews and ghettoized Arabs is essentially the reality today, both within 1948-Israel and in occupied Palestine.

There is already a one-state apartheid reality. You have second-class citizen/third-class resident Palestinian Arabs in Israel, and fourth-class stateless serfs in the territories.

Any viable Palestinian State is already impossible; the Israeli colonial infrastructure is too deeply embedded. I’m more or less opposed to the wholesale deportation of settlers, but what worries me is the Israeli Right (which I can guarantee is far more terrifying than international media reveals) using a Palestinian State as a license to expel the Palestinian Arabs lucky enough to remain at home in ‘48-Israel—which half the Jewish population supports.

Pretty much both the one-state and two-state solutions would retroactively ratify Zionist colonialism. The task now is to move beyond it, not keep LARPing about 1947.


kek

No, I've already addressed that in my OP. I, too, have worked with Palestinians and several activist groups within the past 10 years, and I fully recognize that the wealth inequality is something that exists as we speak.

The real problem is, a one-state solution, whether it's the inevitable end or not, does require a land reform. Jews still control the vast majority of land and will continue to do even if a single state of Palestine is declared.

A one-state solution isn't going to magically end the right-wing and racist culture of Israel. Granted, neither will a two-state, but if a one-state is what we're aiming for we're going to have to think these things through a little harder.

I would only support a one-state with a land reform, since that's the only way the Palestinians will receive justice. You say a two-state would be used as an excuse for right-wing Israelis to expel Palestinians. I agree. But a one-state would be an excuse for the Israeli right to pick up guns and carry out attacks on their Palestinian neighbors out of fear.

South Africa and Rhodesia analogies are not entirely accurate in this case, because you're dealing with a population that's roughly 50/50 (or 60/40).

To add, "democratization" means very little if you're dealing with extreme inequalities. In South Africa today, many of the people who benefited from apartheid are still benefiting from it, albeit tacitly. The vast majority of rich are white, poor are black, etc. The problem with SA was that Mandela sold out and didn't enact a land reform like Mugabe.

I fear this is going to be the case with Palestine: you're going to have the Palestinian national bourgeoisie take power who will end up selling out right from the beginning. Even right now, the Palestinians have terrible leadership (most of whom accept the two-state on the 67 border mind you), and I doubt you'd see much progress from them.

Actually, looking at demographics a one state solution would over the next hundred years see the jews outbred. One state solution is dead in the water as a result of this, even if some in the west won't admit it.

The issue of the two state solution is that the palestianians no longer have enough of a rump of land to make a functioning state.

So the settlers will continue agitating then calling in the army when they provoke a response. It's all totally and irreparably fucked.

Perhaps a new state for the Palestinians formed out a chunk of Syria and/or Jordan?

I’d say it’s rather more than wealth inequality. Consider the recent ruling in Afula where the Jewish residents successfully sued the city for selling housing tenders to Arab purchasers; or take a look at the difference in development plans between Nazareth and Nazareth Illit. (Or, you know, the very existence of the Jewish National Fund.) Within Israel proper there is legally sanctioned apartheid with a democratic face.

You’re right that land reform would be essential to any solution. But the wholesale dismantling of the settlement enterprise is neither a realistic goal nor, in my view, a desirable one. My guess is that a modest land reform under a single State is more practicable than the two-state solution’s choice between (1) mass population transfer/dispossession, likely on both sides, and (2) sequestering the messianic hilltop goons in a hostile Arab State.

You’re right also to mistrust the Palestinian bourgeois elite, and their selling out is basically already the whole story of the Oslo Accords regime. As it stands, both Ramallah and Tel Aviv stand to benefit from the status quo. An independent Palestine would be effectively a client State for Israel (e.g., suppressing any irredentist elements, beholden to neoliberal exploitation)—in other words, more of the same, and this is pretty much the story of most postcolonial societies where “liberation” was subsumed into “national sovereignty.”

From a traditional left perspective, the original sin of the two-state solution is not its acceptance of Zionism; it’s the fact that it’s fundamentally bourgeois.

They already tried the Jordanian route and the result wasn’t too pleasant (nor is the entire history of the Palestinians’ presence in surrounding Arab countries). In any case, expecting the Palestinians just to up and move away is about as reasonable, and even less, than expecting the Israelis to do the same.

I say the greater task of the left is not to appease competing nationalisms, but to dismantle the demographic/nationalist spook altogether.

Right but in this specific case we're talking a spook that goes back millenia. Hell the jews know their bible is not historical record giving them divine right to the holy land. They don't care. This is now about clay for both sides.

Not to be too defeatist but sometimes I think they deserve each other.

I think that the Jews have to pay for all the oppression that they have caused to people of Palestine with their labor on rehabilitative work camps and farms.

"Anti-zionism" is the biggest spook in the radical left today.

Actual critical engagement with Middle Eastern politics is mostly downplayed or outright rejected in favour of promoting weird anti-semitic conspiracies. Not to mention the constant anti-semitic conspiracy theories and rants and historical revisionism. The entire Middle East gets carved up by European powers, denying autonomy to almost every ethnic group and minority that isn't Arab: That's not worth complaining about, but that a sliver of it went to The Jew instead of there being another tinpot Baathist dictatorship is somehow the worst fucking thing ever. Fifteen times the amount of people have died in the Syrian Civil War than have died in the entire Israeli-Palestinian confict in almost the last half century combined- but if Israel kills two or three civilians when targeting Hamas militants, there's riots in the streets. Assad barrel bombs a few hundred Arabs, Iran kills off a few hundred Kurds, Pakistan massacres a few dozen Baloch, nobody bats a fucking eyelid. The imperialism of one ethnic minority much oppressed by the dominant ethnic group in an area is somehow equivalent to the holocaust: the continued imperialism of the domiant ethnic minority in oppressing everyone else is completely ignored (or blamed on the uppity minority). It makes zero sence outside of a Leninist ("we must side with whomever is the most anti-West") framework, and I don't think I need to explain why that kind of idea is reactionary and shit.

A two state solution is the *only* viable choice in the short to medium term, preferrably with progressive governments as opposed to right wing reactionaries. The only way forward for Western socialists is to make links with trade unionists and peace activists in Israel and anyone who is against further Israeli colonialism in favour of a two state solution along '68 boundaries.

I agree that a lot of American and European engagement vis-à-vis Palestine is one-dimensional, but I’d hardly characterize them as relevant. Beyond the usual armchair jihadist or hasbara troll, every international activist in Israel/Palestine recognizes the post-Ottoman national vivisection as basically a bad idea, as well as the great grandaddy of all local destabilization; and Palestinians themselves are just as liable to oppose the surrounding Arab regimes (with whom they have no shortage of bad blood).

The main distinction between Zionist colonialism and your whataboutist litany of regional baddies is that the former is still sold to the West as a noble cause, and Western governments are happily complicit.

You can’t complain about Sykes-Picot and all the ensuing turmoil and still think, at the end of the day, that implanting a Western garrison state-colony was a good idea.

Thing is, for most of these Middle Eastern nations, they are simply untouchable because of political sovereignty. In Israel's case, they can do whatever the fuck they want and the Western hegemony will bend over backwards to rationalize it. A fuckload more Palestinian civilians have died than Israeli civilians while the state of Israel slowly chews away at the tiny shreds of territory that Palestine still has. It is Israel's warmongering that put Hamas in power to begin with.

The sad truth is that nobody wants to admit that the Jews are, at the core of their beliefs, just as bad as the Muslims, but demonizing the latter is a priority for the US in order to legitimize its constant fuckery in the Middle East. Criticize anything about Israel? HITLER!

Except doing that gets you labelled an anti-semite.
Fuck off you disingenuous prick.

So the question is should we base our positions on what is or isn't Western, or side with progressive and socialist ideals regardless of their larger geopolitical context? For me, if a country is friends with America is less important than supporting the actual socialists/progressives/degenerate greenies on the ground.

I've been doing this for years and haven't ever been labeled an anti-semite for it. This is exactly the position one of the socialist parties in my country takes, and I have never heard anyone say they've been called anti-semites for it.

Context: I'm not American and I understand things are a bit more sensitive/different in that country on this issue than elsewhere in the world?

...

This is highly deterministic and ignores the fact that the Palestinian birthrate is actually shrinking due to Arab feminism in the region.Even so, putting all eggs in one basket with demographics seems like more of a fascist thing.


A one-state solution would basically be the same, with the Arab elite taking over and selling out from the start.

I honestly don't have much hope in that area, and I think it's kind of pathetic how leftists put so much faith in the Palestinians to take up their political line.

So?

It's wishful thinking. High Palestinian birthrates aren't going to mean shit if the Palestinian resistance remains docile like it is right now. As it is, every other Palestinian male between the ages of 18-35 is desperate to grab a work visa and leave for Dubai, Saudi, or the West. Compare that to the situation during the First Intifada.

Imperialist fuck.

Regardless, a land reform would be a complete necessity, even more so with a one-state. With a two-state, you remove the IDF from the West Bank and the settlers will pack up and leave once their security force is no longer around. Chomsky makes this point a lot better than I do, so watch his lectures on the subject.

In the case of a OSS, you'd see the settlements remain in place plus the creation of new ones now that the Jews would no longer have to worry about international law telling them they can't squat. Again, who has the bigger guns in this scenario?

I've also worked and spoken with Palestinians, and many of them say they wouldn't be happy with a OSS (granted a TSS for them is out of the question) because it wouldn't entail the much of a change if they're totally dependent on Israelis for their livelihood, or if most of the "good land" is still in Israeli hands.

Given that Palestinian socialists barely exist anymore, this dichotomy is basically a wash. The Palestinian NB is going to take over regardless. The Palestinian people are going to continue to be exploited by Israelis regardless. BDS isn't going to change the fact that these social inequalities exist, nor is it going to militarize the Palestinians to rise up and storm the Knesset to seize power.

I want to know how a one-state solution is going to be implemented. How do you just make Israel and its political system dissolve?

...

Not quite bordering, it's on the other side of Syria.

Well, proponents say all you'd have to do in this case is put pressure on Israel to "democratize" so that it becomes a state for all citizens and thus becomes Palestine again.

Of course, it still leaves fundamental questions unanswered. How do you ensure that the culture of said state becomes anti-racist? How do you ensure the Palestinians are compensated? How do you fight the de facto apartheid that would still exist, i.e. Jews and Palestinians not wanting to live together, or Jews being exclusionary in areas where they hold the majority of control?

And to be honest, a one-state solution is really only supported by western intellectuals and hardline Palestinian nationalists. It's not an option as far as international politics is concerned and much of the calls for it by western liberals do nothing but give fuel to the Israeli right.

Why does everyone assume that a two state solution instantly entails neocolonialism? A state of Palestine would instantly be taken up by Russia and used as its own strategic ally to counter the west in the Middle East.

The goal of the left is smashing the economy. It's a fundamentally oppressive institutionthat must be destroyed, not reformed.

I've never been to the West Bank, but I've been to Israel as part of a church trip to Jerusalem and I couldn't imagine why any Palestinian would willingly live next door to the orthodox. Those people are nasty as hell. I know they want their land back and they want full decolonization but holy shit, how many Israelis would just let Palestinians in without a fight?

I saw Muslims in Jerusalem and yeah things are bad but American cities are much more segregated.

You do know, hatred and fanatiscism is not inherit in societies, rather cultivated with time and pressure, right?

I realy don't see much difference between Israle-Palestine and Cyprus.
(Appart from the fact that Cyprus has stable border while Israel is expanding all the time).

I too don't think there can be "one state", cause you'll be asking the people who live in house X for generations, to accept that house X is not theirs any more and someone else will now be living where their ancestors lived.

Yes.

By the way, we already have two states. Israel just doesn't respect the other ones sovereignty and intentionally muddies the waters about their identity and very existence as a people

Zionists pls leave

I propose a no-state solution

Why not a Global State solution?

Thanks for letting us know the entire UN are "zionists by default" too m8.

Is that supposed to be a "gotcha"? Everyone knows that already.

Palestinian here
You're not a ziofag, its too late for a one state solution.
Israel is here and we are going to have to deal with that

Zionist means wanting Israel to exist. Israel exists because of a population swap between Maghrebi/Masriqi Jews and Arabs in the Levant. Jews lived as 2nd class citizens in ArabMuslim countries for hundreds of years, and then got ethnically cleansed before 1948 by Arab nationalists and fascists. Look up the Farhud, there were hundreds of stateless Jews, so they returned to the Levant.

The real dichotomy is pro-indigenous-determination and arab hegemonistic imperialist

...

Yes, returned. Iraqi, Ashkenazi and Sephardic and Indian Jews all have the same Levantine paternal Y-DNA lineages.

That, plus historical documentations of Jews in the Levant by Romans and Greeks prior to any Arab presence there, in addition to archaeological records of early forms of Hebrew, which can be clearly traced back to the Proto-Canaanite languages, makes me think that Jews DID live there.

popgen.us/2014/09/23/citizen-science-analysis-of-ashkenazi-y-chromosome-haplogroups/