In a secret location due to right-wing attacks in previous years, bereaved families recognized each other’s grief and called for a shared future.
In a secret location due to right-wing attacks in previous years, bereaved families recognized each other’s grief and called for a shared future.
Yes, they’re tactics. Tactics to create a false equivalency of suffering between the occupied and the occupier.
These groups don’t call for ending occupation as those words mean, they mean leaving the West Bank. If Israel exists as a Jewish supremacist ethno-religous state on stolen Palestian land, the occupation isn’t over. If they dismantle all their checkpoints, if they tear down the wall on Palestinian territory, if they remove their soldiers and stop shooting out children for sport, they’re still occupying our land, our only access to the ocean, our oil, our fresh water sources, our fertile lands, our grandparents’ graveyards, and our homes to which we still have keys. The “two state solution” is a liberal Zionist tool used to make the colonization of Palestine palatable for western audiences.
Ending occupation means a free Palestine from the river to the sea, and these groups aim to twist the meaning of words to make forcing us into a small land with no military and choking us economically so we continue to leave in search of better life. They want to end “occupation” so they can focus on colonization.
Of course the more extreme don’t like that plan, they want to exterminate Palestinians and get it over with as quickly as possible. That’s where their opposition comes from, not from a principal disagreement on the existence of a Jewish only state on colonized land, they all agree on that part.
You know, we aren’t just sitting around debating these issues a few times a year when Israel is in the news. We spent decades thinking about this, and we have a very mature body of literature on the topic. Ghada Karmi, Ali Abunimah, Yousef Munayyer, Mouin Rabbani, Hani Faris, Edward Said, and Ghassan Kanafani are just a few Palestinian intellectuals/authors you could read to better understand this very much settled debate.
The existence of collaborators and propagandized Palestinians who aren’t well read on their own history (as a product of the ongoing colonization) doesn’t mean the “jury is out on the debate”, they aren’t part of the debate.
Yet you feel compelled as an outsider to speak with such authority and conviction.
I’m not going to enter into a discussion about the righteousness or the feasibility or political usefuless of this or that solution as my opinion on the matter ultimately doesn’t matter.
I will only point to this key phrase of what you wrote:
Because this what it boils down to, right? Palestinians are not a monolith, even if you, a Palestinian, cast out of the story some (a few?) other Palestinians as irrelevant to recreate a kind of monolith that you can call “a very mature body of literature” (and whoever is outside that is “not part of the debate”, i.e., outside the monolith).
And here’s the thing. You can do that. I can’t. You have a “we” to refer to. I don’t. I only have a “you” (the plural you, vous, εσεις). So, I don’t have the standing to take this step and label Palestinians who don’t share your political vision as “collaborators” and “propagandized” even if yours is the majority opinion. Small example: the Barghouthis are calling for releasing Marwan Barghouthi as a step to revive the two state solution. Am I to start going around like an asshole calling Marwan fucking Barghouthi a propagandized collaborator? You can, without being an asshole. I can’t. Same with the people whose event the other commenter called a joke. You can call them a joke. The other commenter can’t.
So, I am also not going to start going around like a western asshole shitting on people on the ground who risk their safety, going against the genocidal Israeli right on a project of shared grief like this. In the exact same way that I don’t go around blanketly condemning groups that take on armed struggle to exercise the Palestian people’s legal right to armed resistance to occupation under international law.
And for the same reason, I’m going to call the other commenter out, just like I would (and have) call out someone for blanketly denouncing Palestinian armed resistance.
I don’t claim authority. I do claim the conviction of my own ideas and a measure of consistency in their application.
Are Trump supporters part of the intellectual debate on democracy?
No, we’re not a monolith, but not everyone can contribute intellectually. Yes, Fateh and Mahmoud Abbas are widely seen as collaborators, and have been for a long time now, but especially what they’ve done to oppress Palestinians since the Gaza genocide started.
I think Marwan Bargouti has potential to unite people, and if anything radicalizes you to not collaborate with Israel it’s Israeli prison. And he has spoken more recently in support of a one state solution so I think he has potential, but the narrative that he’s our Mandela is a romantic myth; imagine if Mandela fought for a black only ghettos as a state within South Africa instead of pushing for economic sanctions against the apartheid government.
That said, his children arguing for his release using the two state solution rhetoric doesn’t have as much weight as you’re implying it does.
False equivalence.
Stick to the latter. “this kind of attitude is ridiculous and disconnected from the reality of Palestinians” this is you engaging in an argument on behalf of Palestinians and their reality, and you should expect to be called out in the same manner as the user you called out, who expressed an opposing Palestinian viewpoint.
Why do you feel entitled to express a Palestinian viewpoint but they aren’t? Have a measure of consistency in applying your criticism.
I didn’t exclude them from the intellectual argument and literature, they are absent from it.
Not every Palestinian wants Marwan released, and not for the reason you might think, some view him as a violent murderer who stands in the way of peace, believe it or not a lot of Palestinians oppose armed resistance, which you rightfully said shouldn’t be condemned.
I hope I’m not being repetitive and I hope I’m getting my point across. We’re not a monolith, but not every opinion deserves to be entertained respectfully by the simple merit of coming from a Palestinian’s mouth. I’ll bring up Trump supporters as an analog, a lot of them genuinely believe they are supporting the best future for their country and people (we’ll ignore the truly racist and just want others to suffer portion for now), does their view that Trump is protecting democracy and freedom need to be amplified and given equal weight because Americans are not a monolith?
It’s a stretchy analogy, I know, we live in Idiocracy now, but you understand what I’m saying?
I think you mean well, but I think you consume too much liberal Zionist propaganda, which is really convincing if you don’t interrogate it strongly.