136
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
136 points (85.8% liked)
Communism
9344 readers
6 users here now
Discussion Community for fellow Marxist-Leninists and other Marxists.
Rules for /c/communism
Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.
- No non-marxists
This subreddit is here to facilitate discussion between marxists.
There are other communities aimed at helping along new communists. This community isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism.
If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.
- No oppressive language
Do not attempt to justify your use of oppressive language.
Doing this will almost assuredly result in a ban. Accept the criticism in a principled manner, edit your post or comment accordingly, and move on, learning from your mistake.
We believe that speech, like everything else, has a class character, and that some speech can be oppressive. This is why speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned.
TERF is not a slur.
- No low quality or off-topic posts
Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed.
This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on lemmy or anywhere else.
This includes memes and circlejerking.
This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found.
We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.
- No basic questions about marxism
Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed.
Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum.
- No sectarianism
Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here.
Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable.
If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis.
The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.
Check out ProleWiki for a communist wikipedia.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
As I understand it the Zionist movement and initial wave of Jews started around 1880, however back then it was more like normal legitimate immigration. (Edit: Actually, it seems Jewish migration can be traced back as far as ~1500). Then, after WW1 the Ottoman empire was disbanded, Britain established a path for Jewish people to more easily gain citizenship and also divided the country up in 1917. 1933 and 1947 were further steps in that direction. The war in 1948 led to what we have now.
I agree with a one state solution. However, I feel like the only way to make that happen is to literally remove almost everyone from the region and have an external government established that represents all sides neutrally. This would essentially require disbanding the Israeli government, which is all but impossible - there is no existing pathway to do it under international law. Basically, the region should be managed like Jerusalem is supposed to be managed, by a neutral entity that represents each religion and group of people that has a stake in the area.
Well, there’s always the wartime way. It’s pretty well established a government can be toppled by violence. The U.S. are experts in doing this.
In practice, Palestine succeeding in a military takeover of Israel is the most realistic good outcome.
In some sense, yes, but only if you ignore the fact that Palestinian armed forces explicitly want to kill all Israelis in their path. This was the goal in 1948, it was the goal 50 years ago in 1973 in the last Yom Kippur war, and it's the same goal today. I don't see that as better or worse than what we have now, it's still one side set on killing everyone they oppose to achieve their goal. It wouldn't be a true one-state solution, but genocide in the other direction.
For balance, I would say that Israeli forces also want to kill all Palestinians. The difference is they don't openly say it - they're more deceptive, which is a different kind of wrong. That, and assassinating impartial journalists or sinking allied ships, makes the Israeli side very guilty in their own right.
The good solution should be no genocide in either direction. Any solution that involves genocide is inherently wrong.
Sources?
I’ve provided mine elsewhere in this thread — Hamas has explicitly stated their target is not civilians, but the Zionist state.
Israel also state they're not targeting civilians. Your sources before were official statements, just like Israel's, as well as a survivor eye witness account that said the people they met were nice and reasonable. There are other witness accounts that weren't so friendly.
Frankly, I'm reluctant to go digging for sources, because then it becomes a game of you discrediting whatever I present and me trying to find something else, without having a productive discussion. Forums are for discussions, links and citations are ancillary. Let's discuss.
Hamas have not exclusively targeted military targets. Neither have Israel, but I'm trying to point out that flipping the coin doesn't really make things any better. You, yourself, said that you "don't think that a one-state solution should involve expelling all the Jews", but that implies that there are people who do, and many of those people will kill any Israeli that doesn't leave before they meet them. Many Israelis would do the same.
Both are generally in the wrong. It is perhaps less likely for a Palestinian to be in the wrong, because they're the underdog defending, but just because you're defending doesn't mean nothing you do is wrong.
The wider issue is that no one is enforcing what is right and wrong. Israel is allowed to get away with atrocities, and Hamas is encouraged to comit atrocities of their own. None of this serves the general population living in the region, it only serves warmongers who don't have to deal with the fallout.
Edit: lol, first you make your comment, then a little later my comment gets downvoted, then a little later your comment gets upvoted. It's pretty clear that the two votes weren't the same 3rd party account, even if it might be intended to be presented as such.
Edit2: Do you really think more votes on a comment thread completely buried in a sea of other comments, where the latest comment can only be found after digging through the rest, yet with no other comments or interactions in the thread, would be seen as legitimate? Come on.
Lmao you get one downvote and you're pissed off enough you make two edits to cry foul? 😂
I'm just commentating - but thank you for identifying yourself.
Do you want to have a discussion? I'm game.
How about the other way around? ie, Israel reaching their end goal of pushing out all resisting Palestinians?
I said "good outcome"
The main historic takeaway for me is that through the fall of the Ottoman empire and the period under the British mandate, everyone knew a vacuum would be created in '48, with substantial Arab and Jewish populations ready to seize it.
The UN tried the 'clean' solution of two states.
But both the nationalist Arabs as zionist Jews were ready to grab the entire territory for themselves, bullying the other side out or killing them if that was necessary.
If the zionists had lost that initial war, or any of the subsequent ones, we'd have seen the same but with the surpressor and oppressed reversed...
Zionists have no legitimate claim on Palestine. That was the reason for the wars. They were an occupier from day 1.
Zionists are funny, they have to twist reality every which way to get a flimsy, just barely coherent argument out.
"What would have happened to Zionists in Palestine if Israel had lost the war??" idk those who lived there before 1945 would have stayed and those that emigrated would have gone back home? Doesn't seem as complicated as you make it seem.
The difference between those two factions vying for land is the the Arabs already lived there, while the Zionists were trying to conquer it after leaving Europe.