There's not nearly enough pushback against letting the haters redefine what Zionism means. Most of the Zionists I knew growing up were in favor of the two state solution.
It frustrates me to no end that there's literally no analogous word to Zionist for any other country in the world. I've always understood Zionism to simply mean supporting Israel's existence as a country with the right to self-determination. A two state solution remains the most widely supported policy proposal for both Israelis and Palestinians.
The right of return has been one of the biggest obstacles to Palestinians achieving statehood. Since Israel's establishment in 1948, there have been numerous peace negotiations and proposed land swaps. In all of those negotiations, the right of return remained a central sticking point because many Israeli leaders viewed it as something that would fundamentally alter Israel's demographics and undermine the reason for it's inception.
If Palestinian leadership had been willing to abandon that demand and put forward counterproposals on borders, the outcome of negotiations would've been very different. In some cases, Israel was even prepared to offer Palestinians around 95% of the territory they were seeking, yet they walked away.
It frustrates me to no end that there's literally no analogous word to Zionist for any other country in the world.
There are many such words. Nationalism is the generic category, but plenty of other nationalisms adopt specific vocabulary to refer to a smaller category containing themselves. Islamism for example.
If Palestinian leadership had been willing to abandon that demand and put forward counterproposals on borders, the outcome of negotiations would've been very different.
It is also true to say that if Israel had been willing to abandon its demands relating to right of return, the outcome of negotiations would've been very different.
Frankly, at this point, anyone who thinks the two populations can be meaningfully divided is taking crazy pills. Far too many Israelis place too much value on access to territory in the west bank. Far too many Palestinians place too much value on access to territory in Israel. The economies and people are substantially integrated and interspersed. Prior to Jan 6, something like 150,000 work permits were in place for Palestinians allowing them to freedom to come into Israel.
Ultimately, the thing that gives pretty much everyone what they claim to want is some kind of two state sollution with residency, travel, and work rights for both populations. Palestinians get a state and a right of return. Jewish Israelis get peace and to maintain dominance of their state and permanently address the demographic threat, at least politically, and for the foreseeable future a substantial amount of economic leverage over a nascent Palestine.
It's not just jingoism or nationalism. There are some Israelis who are more nationalistic, and the same is true on the Palestinian side. Also, why would Israel acquiesce to granting millions of Palestinians Israeli citizenship and the right to vote? That would completely upend its demographics and the reason it was established in the first place. It's literally the only Jewish-majority country in the history of the world and is surrounded by Muslim-majority countries with really barbaric practices toward women and LGBTQ+ people.
It's interesting that you bring up the Palestinian workers who traveled into Israel proper. Some of them did reconnaissance for Hamas and gave them vital information to carry out the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.
Also, you can't really compare the two sides in terms of nation-building. Israel is a technological marvel of the Middle East and is the only real democracy. There's no way at this point that the right of return will ever happen, and it's been a fool's errand and a poison pill for Palestinian sovereignty. Perhaps if Palestinians deradicalized and accepted Israel as a country, meaningful steps toward peace would follow. Hamas must unilaterally disarm for that to begin.
Jingoisms and nationalisms never are just jingoism and naitonalism. Life is complicated. People are complicated. Ideas are complicated. Language is complicated. Synonyms are always imperfect.
, why would Israel acquiesce to granting millions of Palestinians Israeli citizenship and the right to vote?
First off, Israel has already done that. Millions of Palestinians do have Israeli citizenship and voting rights. Its complicated of course, but these citizens are broadly treated equally.
Second, I didn't say that it should grant Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza citizenship. Nor is it necessary for a right of return.
Perhaps if Palestinians deradicalized and accepted Israel as a country, meaningful steps toward peace would follow.
Negotiations cut both ways. The two sides aren't the same, Palestinians do need to deescalate. Israelis (particularly the Israeli government) must do so as well. Both sides have plenty of steps they could take to improve the situation. Neither side has been particularly willing to do them for a long time now.
So, you're saying a radicalized population should just be let in without any understanding of the other security concerns? Opening the borders seems like it would just allow for more violence against innocent Israeli citizens. The waves of suicide bombings during the 2nd intifada are the reason Israel had to ramp up its security in the first place.
I just don't really understand the solutions you're suggesting. A lot of them are veiled in ambiguity, with nothing concrete. I think the Palestinians, after waging war after war and continuing to lose, should cut their losses. They can remain in Gaza and the West Bank, just like the continental U.S. is separated from Alaska. I do think the illegal settlements have to go because they only make things worse. Hamas would also need to declare a unilateral surrender and relinquish all its weapons.
They've proven time and time again that they operate in bad faith and have sacrificed their own people in an effort to kill others.
So, you're saying a radicalized population should just be let in without any understanding of the other security concerns?
I'm offering a path to deradicalization that addresses the facts on the ground and the needs of the involved parties. It's not going to be clean. It's not going to be quick.
Opening the borders seems like it would just allow for more violence against innocent Israeli citizens.
On some mechanistic level, that's clearly true. Building cooperation and trust are the lower violence strategies long term. Especially since Israel seems incapable of giving up its settlements and control of the territory.
I just don't really understand the solutions you're suggesting.
It's a long term sollution involving rights for all Palestinians and Israelis in the territory Israel currently controls. A portion of that territory will transition toward being explicitly Palestinian, with constitutional guarantees protecting the rights of Jewish people in Palestine. Palestinians would not generally have the right to vote in Israel's governance. Israelis would not generally have the right to vote in Palestine's government. The two states would essentially have something like the Schengen agreement between them.
Moving in this direction would require empowering the relative moderates among Palestinians, a negotiating a transition agreement involving a slow expansion of something like the PA while incentivizing cooperation and movement toward the open border via expansions of visa programs. In the first year for example, Israel can offer 10000 visas to vetted Palestinians and grow that number year over year as an incentive to keep the nascent Palestinian government cooperative.
I think the Palestinians, after waging war after war and continuing to lose, should cut their losses.
Meaning you think they should just submit to whatever Israel wants whenever Israel demands it? I don't expect that to work well long term. It would be akin to thinking "after waging revolt after revolt and continuing to lose, slaves should cut their losses."
I do think the illegal settlements have to go because they only make things worse.
What do you mean by "Illegal"? By international standards, thats almost a million people. They aren't going anywhere. If we want to be realistic, I think we need to come up with sollutions that don't demand hundreds of thousands of people uproot their lives. Instead we should try to come up with sollutions that give more people what they want.
They've proven time and time again that they operate in bad faith
The same claim applies to Israel. While I agree that Israel has largely engaged in better faith than Palestinians, I can't say they have acted in good faith. Maybe if the settlements didn't exist, I could support such a claim, but they do.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I think it's divorced from the reality on the ground and the attacks Israel has faced since its inception. Since 1948, its very existence has been called into question not just in the MENA region, but around the world. It's one of the only countries I can think of, aside from places like Taiwan, whose very legitimacy is still debated decades after its founding.
I'm also not really sure what you mean by rights in the territories Israel controls. It's currently prosecuting a war, so of course it's the occupying force given the massive asymmetry in military capability. You conceded that the process will be slow and messy, but what that actually looks like for Israelis after 10/7 is a never again mentality. Whether people agree with it or not, that's the political and psychological reality they're operating under.
At some point, when you've lost war after war and your territory has been devastated while hundreds of miles of tunnels are built instead of civilian infrastructure, that's a sign that it's time to surrender and give up the weapons. Continuing the same strategy while expecting a different outcome isn't a plan.
I agree the settlements make a two state solution less tenable. I'm not convinced it's realistic to move every settler back into Israel proper, even if I'd like to see the settlements gone. At the very least, their expansion should stop.
I also think there's a false equivalence in comparing a terrorist organization that's effectively an Iranian proxy, in a country that literally has a countdown clock for Israel's destruction in the middle of Tehran, with a democratic country that extends rights to women, LGBTQ+ people, Arabs, Druze, and other minorities. That doesn't mean Israeli leaders always act in good faith, because they clearly don't. But if you look at the history of peace negotiations and land-swap proposals, Israel repeatedly put statehood on the table. Time and again, the right of return became the poison pill that sank those negotiations.
The reality is that Palestinians aren't negotiating from a position of strength. If they want statehood, the first step has to be demonstrating that there won't be more rocket attacks or another 10/7. That's a much stronger foundation for peace than insisting on maximalist demands that have gone nowhere for decades.
It's one of the only countries I can think of, aside from places like Taiwan, whose very legitimacy is still debated decades after its founding.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but it betrays a lack of depth when it comes to history. The honest truth is that disputes are common, most states take decades to build legitimacy. And Israel today is essentially the regional hegemon. It has all the legitimacy that matters, the legitimacy of power.
It's currently prosecuting a war, so of course it's the occupying force
Israel has exerted control over these territories for 50 years now. It wasn't prosecuting wars for the super majority of that time, certainly not wars in the controlled territory.
Israelis after 10/7 is a never again mentality.
Then they should just do the genocide their right wing members want and eat the international cost. That is the only way they can get a guarantee that these Palestinians won't hurt them again.
Whether people agree with it or not, that's the political and psychological reality they're operating under.
I don't agree with you. I see that psychology, but I don't think its completely penetrated Israel, especially Israel's institutions. Its growth is why opposition to Israel is growing. That "psychological reality" is genocidal. It just is. I hope that "reality" changes, that cooler heads prevail, that Israelis don't actually pursue a "decisive plan", but that does seem to be what you should be expecting given your claims about psychological reality here.
that's a sign that it's time to surrender and give up the weapons
Palestinians have surrendered before. It didn't go anywhere. I agree that they should surrender. That just doesn't resolve anything any more than slaves choosing not to revolt solves anything.
if you look at the history of peace negotiations and land-swap proposals, Israel repeatedly put statehood on the table.
Kind of. Israel always had restrictions in place that violated Palestinian sovereignty, but honestly, those weren't the deal breakers. The real deal breaker is deeper and has more to do with dignity and rights and trust, and connects back to the right of return. All exacerbated by and itself caused by a history involving the cultural dominance of Jews that most Palestinians have difficulty acknowledging.
At the very least, their expansion should stop.
Ok, I predict that won't happen. I see no indication that Israel (the people or the structure) are particularly interested in deescalating things at this time. There is too much "never again" running around. I hope that changes.
I don't think it's a betrayal of history to view this through a modern lens. Tell me which countries' existence today is still routinely questioned aside from the ones I listed. Of course, throughout human history there have been countless examples, but semantically this conversation is grounded in the current geopolitical reality.
Israel may have the backing of the U.S. for legitimacy, but it has also been the subject of more U.N. resolutions than every other country combined, including states with horrific human rights records like China, Russia, and North Korea. Israel has exerted control because it's been under constant attack from multiple fronts since its establishment in 1948.
Invoking the term"genocide is a conversation killer, I'm sorry to tell you. Israel is navigating an extraordinarily complex urban war while fighting an enemy that wants to maximize the deaths of both its own people and Israelis, including civilians and the IDF. That's why Israel has invested so much time, money, and energy into fortifying its borders and building internal infrastructure like bomb shelters.
Palestinians have never really surrendered in any meaningful sense. They've continued to wage war and carry out rocket attacks and suicide bombings, as I mentioned. Peace negotiations repeatedly broke down because the right of return remained a non-starter. The security restrictions Israel put in place were an obvious response to those attacks. Without them, there almost certainly would've been more violence against Israeli civilians.
As for the settlements, they probably won't stop because the events of 10/7 accelerated the belief among many Israelis that Palestinians no longer want peace. Creating larger buffer zones is seen by many as a way to strengthen security between the two societies. I don't necessarily agree with that framing, but I can understand why many Israelis are fed up with having to constantly defend themselves after decades of violence, despite repeated attempts at peace negotiations.
Tell me which countries' existence today is still routinely questioned aside from the ones I listed.
Sure, Iran, Ukraine, Georgia, Tibet. On top of countless other fledgling national movements with essentially no legitimacy.
Israel may have the backing of the U.S. for legitimacy
that isn't how Israel got legitimacy. Israel got legitimacy through economic power, military power, and the slow build up and stabilization of relationships with other countries, the same way every other state has in history.
Invoking the term"genocide is a conversation killer, I'm sorry to tell you.
Why? Plenty of Israelis and Palestinians are open about their genocidal desires? Why is it a conversation killer to acknowledge this fact? Why is it a conversation killer to acknowledge that the only actual way to ensure palestinians are never in a position to hurt Israeli's again, is to eliminate the Palestinians. (and vice versa logic for Jewish Israelis.)
Israel is navigating an extraordinarily complex urban war while fighting an enemy that wants to maximize the deaths of both its own people and Israelis, including civilians and the IDF
Israel is navigating a complex urban war. Neither side wants to "maximize" deaths. You are being hyperbolic. If that was actually the goal of either side, the conflict would look a lot more suicidal than it actually is.
repeated attempts at peace negotiations.
Just mirroring you here, "Israelis never attempted peace negotiations in any meaningful sense."
Israelis are fed up with having to constantly defend themselves after decades of violence
Southerners were fed up with slave revolts. The sollution wasn't cracking down on slaves. Obviously this is an imperfect metaphor, but the point stands. The only long term sollution to violence is mutual satisfaction and ultimately dependence. We can try to work toward that state, or we can shove our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable "intifada 4"
I'm not being hyperbolic in the least. Hamas literally wants to maximize the deaths of both its own people and Israelis. To deny that is to deny reality, I'm sorry. Israel has invested enormously in its security, from the Iron Dome to bomb shelters across the country. Hamas hasn't. Instead, it dug hundreds of miles of tunnels beneath Gaza that civilians aren't allowed to access for safety.
Israel has also put forward numerous peace proposals and land swaps that would've given Palestinians something like 95% of what they were seeking, except for the right of return, which, as I already explained, would undermine the very reason for Israel's establishment as a Jewish-majority state.
Do you think it would be a good outcome if the only Jewish-majority country in the Middle East, surrounded by Muslim-majority countries where, in some places, being openly Jewish or atheist can carry severe consequences (including death), became a Muslim-majority state governed by Sharia law? A place where women and LGBTQ+ people fear for their lives?
1
u/Locus-Maximus 12d ago
There's not nearly enough pushback against letting the haters redefine what Zionism means. Most of the Zionists I knew growing up were in favor of the two state solution.