World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I believe I understand what they're proposing, as the same as your interpretation.
But my point is that whichever way you cut it, it's really not a viable solution in practice. It's lovely to imagine a country where Palestinians and Israelis live together in peace and harmony. But in practice, there's no form of such a state that is an acceptable outcome for either side in the short or even medium term. The Israelis see themselves as Israelis and the Palestinians see themselves as Palestinians, and both of them have a right to self determination. Maybe some form of federal/confederate system would be somewhat possible, but the federal powers would have to be so weak that it would really be a unified state only in name.
But it's somewhat viable to find a two-state solution that is somewhat mutually acceptable, and so pursuing that is the best bet for finding a way to end the conflict.
The Israelis that would threaten violence to resist a one-state solution are the same ones who are doing violence against Palestinians now. There's no two-state solution that is an acceptable outcome for those pursuing Israeli dominance over the entire area. There were white South Africans who also found the end of apartheid unacceptable. Some people will just be unhappy with any solution that isn't total dominance.
But Israelis and Palestinians already are semi-integrated. Israel has a sizable Arab minority and Palestinians from the occupied territories have been working in Israel. Gaza is undergoing famine now because almost all their food, power, and water come from Israel. Most people there aren't rabid fundamentalists, they just want to live their lives, and that often involves trade or other interaction with people living just a few miles away.
It's not easy to transition from apartheid to integration, but it's been done before, in a place that also had terroristic resistance, brutal oppression, and hardliners that wouldn't "accept" it. And a two-state solution isn't radically more feasible. It sounds easy to just say "set the borders and stop fighting", but there's huge issues like the right of return and the status of east Jerusalem that make setting mutually acceptable final borders a tall task.
This is such a rainbows and butterflies way to describe the siege of Palestine.
What Two-State Solution are you proposing?
I'm not proposing any specific implementation, because I'm not a professional diplomat, and defining the terms of a specific two state solution is far outside my knowledge.
But the return of some amount of territory that includes settlements is well within the reasonable bounds of an agreement.
The major difficulty of a Two-State Solution is that there isn't any reasonable way to give back Palestinian Land in the OPTs, because of how the West Bank has been divided and how many settlers there are. I consider Avi Shlaim and Ilan Papp experts on the history and details of Israel Palestine. I was also a proponent of a Two-State Solution until I learned the full reality of the settlements on-the-ground.
This wouldn't be like the resettlement of the 8,000 Israeli settlers in Gaza in 2005, which got resettled into the West Bank. The forced relocation of up to nearly 700,000 of settlers, many militant, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem isn't reasonable to me.
Alternatively, the de juro annexation of 60-88% of the West Bank also isn't reasonable.
On the other hand, a Binational Secular State would also solve the issue of the Palestinian refugee crisis by giving Right of Return for all Palestinians.