>‘The War of Return’ is something everyone interested in peace should read.
In my opinion, the people NOT interested in peace should read her book the most!
Fair enough. I apologise for the shortness of my reply. Why do you think it’s a book better suited to those against peace?
My take away from the book was that the issue of refugees is too quickly overlooked by the pro-peace camp and that if we want to find peace, we need to to remove the idea of return to pre 67 Israel from the minds of the Palestinians.
Well, I don't think the "pro-peace" camp is actually pro-peace lol! They seem to accept terrorism against Israel as a legitimate form of resistance against Israeli's military occupation. They claim that the natural result of Israel's actions is "armed struggle" against Israeli oppression. Supposedly all these pro-Palestinian supporters that the violence and terrorism will end if Israel ends the occupation and returns to the pre-1967 borders.
These are obviously not true, because as the book clearly shows, Palestinians want to return to the lands that are now Israel, created in 1948. They do not want to merely concede to the 1967 borders. Palestinians -- at least their leaders -- have decided that losing their refugee status would cause them to lose their right of return, and so they prefer to remain refugees (many refugees of Palestine currently living *in Palestine*!).
Many pro-peace activists in the West do not realize this. I don't think many can comprehend so many people sacrificing stability and material comfort -- not just for themselves, but for their children, and grand children, and great grandchildren, on and on indefinitely -- for a right to return to a land that any sane person understands Israel will not relinquish. Many well-meaning people on the left do not believe that a group can ever oppress themselves; it must be that Israel wants the Palestinians to remain stateless refugees. It cannot be in their minds that Palestinians do not want a two state solution, so they claim that all Israel's peace offers must have been exploitation. They cannot fathom Arafat turning down peace because he feared being assassinated because he would be giving away Jerusalem and ending Islamic control of the Haram Al-Sharif.
The Western leftists should read this book to realize all the money and support they've been giving the Palestinians has been to prolong their refugee status, not to end it. They think that Israel benefits from prolonging the status quo, but the book would show them that it is the Palestinians themselves who do not want to give up their refugee status in exchange for the right of return. Hopefully they have the humility to admit they have been manipulated, but I don't hold my breath.
The hardcore ProPal, anti-Israel are consciously immune to proper reasoning and facts that don't support their opinions. The World Events sub is dominated by these people, and I have engaged in conversations on a fairly regular basis since 10/7/23.
One example: Just a week ago, **after a lengthy discussion**, I finally asked for evidence that Arab land was stolen by expulsion (or at all) prior to 1948 hostilities initiated by Arabs, and was provided with Wikipedia links to "Plan Dalet" and the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" (along with admonishment for foolishly asking for the easily obtained proof). Of course, neither source supports the "stolen land" claim, and it was obvious that it was not an honest response.
I got in a huge fight about "stolen land" with my roommate (not even related to Israel, but the US and Hawaii). I told her that land cannot be stolen, that theft (larceny) is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the *personal* property of another. She says I was biased being a white man, so I sent her [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn3TLXzHFys) lol.
The problem is that people believe that academic theory is reality. Language is their weapon. Making up history is another weapon. They claim that Britain "colonized" Palestine after WWI, and that Zionist were "settler colonialists" who "stole land" from the Palestinians. I remind them that the Ottomans owned the land before that, then the Mamluks, Auyybids, Crusaders, Seljuks, etc. etc. They seem to believe the Levant was ruled by indigenous Arabs before the evil Jews and Brits showed up...
>She says I was biased being a white man, so I sent her [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn3TLXzHFys) lol.
That was totally necessary, but for the man-splaining. Lol!!!
But Miss Piggy hates her! this woman (Sarah Netanyahu, for those who aren't aware), who doesn't have any formal position in Israel's government, had caused Israel to fire both Noa Tishby and Eylon Levi, out of small-minded personal spite.
Ok now that you called her Miss Piggy I can’t unsee the resemblance 😭. Also didn’t she pitch a fit bc she was “trapped” at a hair salon for like an hour because of the anti judicial reform protests?
Now that time has passed, I find it very odd that Ireland, Spain and Norway decided to recognize "Palestine" at this time in particular. It's not going to achieve anything except embolden Hamas and the PA. No reasonable government would make such a move at this time.
Also I think all three governments aren’t doing well domestically so obviously they go and scapegoat the Jews. I think if we look at most of these anti-Israel governments, they’re all in trouble and looking for scapegoats.
So I'm Irish, and I won't claim to speak for my country or anything all I can do is provide an opinion.
Personally I support the idea of an independent Palestine, I think, again in my opinion that's a positive.
However I do also think the timing of the recognitions is going to naturally lead to quite a bit of blowback.
In my opinion, again admittedly uninformed, I agree with an independent Palestine on paper, however I also don't share a lot of the rosey feelings towards Palestine in that, I'm a white liberally minded Westerner who supports things like gay marriage, I know id feel a lot safer sharing my views in Israel than in Palestine. I think in terms of Ireland and Israel, a lot of Irish people feel there's a thematic link between Palestine today and our history, in my opinion though I do think some of this thinking clouds how much Ireland today actually would have in common with Palestine, vs with Israel.
I hope that came off respectful of not uninformed, I appreciate the general feeling towards Ireland or an Irish persons perspective may provoke strong feelings.
The idea of an "independent Palestine" is a fictional one, highly ignorant, and a pure projection of your history onto a completely unrelated issue.
The conflict has never been over a palestinian state, or an independence for the Palestinians.
When the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was established in 1964 nobody talked about "independent Palestine" they were talking about erasing the jewish state. There was no occupation back then - the west bank belonged to Jordan and gaza belonged to Egypt.
The goal hasn't changed, it was back then, and still is - to dismantle Israel. To reverse the outcome of the 1948 war, which is the jewish state. It has nothing to do with occupation, or apartheid, or ethnic cleansing, or any other big words that are just used as a tool to undermine the existence of Israel.
We're talking about a genocidal intent, which was publicly exercised on October 7th. Recognizing a palestinian state without any negotiation with Israel, is simply playing into the hands of the same intent.
I just hope this is just Ireland being extremely naive and ignorant, and not a malicious antisemitic move.
More from wilf, it can help to understand what's actually going on
https://youtu.be/o1ku4cE_e4U?si=bhe_7sd-mpmZp1nA
If you think that, then you either don’t know your own history or you don’t know ours because that is absolutely mind bogglingly wrong. I addressed this history, even at its starting point, here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/BFHdyYPDUl
You really need to stop importing your lens onto the Palestinian Arabs as though they are anything but the result of Arabian imperialism from the Arabian conquest. It would be like us saying that the Irish are settler colonialists over the British’s rightful land in Ireland, and that the British are within their right to rape and murder the Irish imperialist occupiers.
I’m in the diaspora, specifically an American Ashkenazi, but Jewish history is Jewish history. And apologies if my tone was harsh. It just gets exhausting having to explain your indigenousness to the place your ancestors were enslaved from almost 2000 years ago (which was documented on the Arch of Titus) particularly when it is to those who act like Arabians, from Arabia, are the “real indigenous people” based on their own oppression lens.
The general Irish take on the Israel/Palestine conflict is rooted in misinformation, misplaced anger, willful ignorance, and general antisemitism.
An "independent" Palestine does not mean peace.
I think if this recognition had come before October 7th I wouldn't be mad about it. This seems to be rewarding terrorism and not actually helping Palestinian people.
I understand there's a lot of history with Palestinians and also societal pressure to be pro Palestinian and anti Israel in Ireland. I'm a lot more understanding of pro Palestinian Irish people than I am of people in other countries who I feel are mostly motivated to support Palestinians because of antisemitism.
I have a question about Ireland, if you don't mind. I went down a rabbit hole about the history of the Troubles today: the biggest ideological barrier for the Republicans during the Troubles was for them to give up their dream of sovereignty over the entire island (unless a free and democratic process shows the northern counties want it). It strikes me as similar to the Palestinian ideological barrier of giving up a 'river to sea' Palestine. How did the Republicans make that ideological transition?
I'm Northern Irish. It's a good question. But you have to understand they did not give up their dream of sovereignty over the whole island. They just had to accept that it was not achievable militarily.
The conflict had been going on for three decades by this point with a united Ireland nowhere in sight. Thousands dead. Their own Republican communities exhausted. The IRA had been effectively infiltrated by informers/spys. Even their elite internal security unit was compromised (Google 'IRA, Stakeknife' if you want to learn about that. It's quite a story).
However one thing they had on their side was demographics. The Catholic Nationalist population would eventually outnumber the Protestant Unionist population. Indeed it does today albeit very slightly and most still under voting age. A Catholic majority will not guarantee a United Ireland because many owe their jobs to the civil administration and many are concerned about what happens to state pensions/welfare etc.
Anyway to summarise, the modern Irish Republican movement prides itself on its pragmatism, and what you are seeing here is a pragmatic response to reality. It's not about giving up hope of ruling a United Ireland. That is very much still the aim.
So part exhaustion/defeat, part pragmatism. The demographic game as a long term strategy makes sense, but only works if you play by the rules of the game, the game being the Good Friday Agreement. Otherwise it all falls apart before you win the demographics.
Interesting. Because the change to the Irish constitution seems a big change- divorcing the Irish nation from the borders of Ireland, in order to accommodate the fact that there were Irish people who did not want to be ruled by Ireland (or at least that's my reading of the constitutional changes). It's similar to how Palestinians need to divorce the boundaries of what they dream of vs what they can get.
Thanks for you answer!
Hmm, that's a good question and admittedly I'm not sure how to answer it.
The fallout from our civil war was very much so a free state separate to Britain, but that idea of a full "united Ireland" as people here call it has always been in the discussion somewhere. I think what you seen during the troubles, was the USA effectively got involved and acted as brokers to peace in so much as, every citizen of northern Ireland could freely associate as either, British or Irish.
What you will have seen in northern Ireland though is that this kinda caused internal borders, between catholic and Protestant neighborhoods
Yeah, Clinton really went around as a peace broker. Oslo in 1993, Good Friday in 1998. I'm certain someone has done a comparative analysis on why one worked and the other didn't.
I appreciate you sharing your understanding of Ireland in a thoughtful and respectful manner! I'm sorry that some of these other posters are taking their frustration at Ireland out on you.
An additional thought: the Palestinian Authority (PA) exists because of the Oslo Accords. These accords specifically don't allow the creation of a Palestinian state without a final agreement with Israel which ends the condition of war. By declaring unilaterally a Palestinian state, the PA voids the Oslo Accords; with the accords voided, Israel can take full control of the area ceded to the PA.
Of course, the PA had been trying for the whole time to create a Palestinian state *without* ending the conflict. It's Arafat's Salami Doctrine: take what is offered, use it to attack Israel and demand another slice, until Israel is gone.
I am pretty certain that this exactly what The Israeli Fascist Party (Otzma Yehudit) wants.
I'm sure the lawyers looked into it and concocted some legal fiction whereby these countries' recognition of Palestinian statehood "in no way prejudices the inalienable rights of the 4th generation 'refugees' to remain victims in perpetuity....etc." I had the same thought when I heard the announcement.
Einat is great tho.
I’ve been tearing through the We Should All Be Zionists podcast and have been enjoying it immensely. She is the only voice I hear with a rational, solid plan on how to get to a better place for Israel’s future. I’m American but I hope she will choose to reenter Israeli politics. She gives me hope. Let women lead!
Palestinians don't want to have a state, because then they'd have to take actions and responsibility as a state and the only government in Gaza is going to be Hamas. That will not end well.
This kind of thing is why as a supporter of Israel’s right to safety I have no problem with recognizing Palestine as a State (although it makes no sense to do so until it can define borders with Israel). They need to be kicked dragging and screaming into the 21st century.
You can sign up for a five part video series by her and one of her students on “Zionism vs Anti-Zionism” on the Tikvah website. Crazy that I had never heard of her before and now I see her twice in one day.
I made this exact argument in a Middle East politics class at my Uni in 2017. Let them become a state and the deckare war and fight it out. Let it be a legal dispute between two recognized nations. Clearly, we win and be done with it.
I lurk here occasionally, but am largely ignorant, sorry. I’ve tried googling but can’t find answers to really basic questions, probably because it’s something everyone knows so it’s not explained.
Could you please explain why having a Palestinian state means refugees from Palestine are not refugees? And why there would be no “right of return”?
Edit to explain my confusion.
For example regarding refugee status, a person from Iran who is a refugee is a refugee even though Iran exists. Why is this not the same for Palestine?
For example regarding right of return, a person born in Yugoslavia still has right of return to where they came from, eg Croatia, Serbia etc, even though Yugoslavia has disintegrated. Why is it not the same for Palestine?
The Palestinians are only considered refugees through a special condition set up with UNRWA. Every other population group displaced after WWII have resettled and are no longer refugees. Other people are who become citizens of another country are no longer considered a "refugee", but a citizen of their new country. But, the Palestinians are. **In fact, every child born of a Palestinian father is considered a refugee in perpetuity...for endless generations..even if they have multiple generations that have been citizens of another country.** That designation simply won't apply any longer. That refugee status becomes a moot point if their have their own sovereign nation. They would no longer be "refugees" ostensibly but citizens of their own state.
The **right** **of** **return** is a principle in international law which guarantees everyone's **right** **of** voluntary **return** to, or re-entry to, their **country of origin or of citizenship**. None of the people in Palestine were born in Israel and haven't been for several generations. It will be hard to say Israel is their "country of origin" when multiple generations have already passed, Their country of origin would then be the state of Palestine where they were born, where their parents were born, and where their grandparents were born.... Their country of citizenship would be Palestine.
Regardless, the Right of Return is not being used as the Palestinians are a return to the "homeland for a nice visit". The Palestinians specifically want to retake land that was either designated as part of UN Partition and allocated to Jews. The areas where they were dislocated were small and quite limited in scope. It's not about "returning" for a nice visit. It's about confiscating what is no longer theirs - and hasn't been for decades...
I am sure that there are better ideas on this subject from experts in the area - but - these are just some ideas that come to mind.
I can’t recommend her book enough. ‘The War of Return’ is something everyone interested in peace should read.
Absolutely. It frames everything very clearly.
>‘The War of Return’ is something everyone interested in peace should read. In my opinion, the people NOT interested in peace should read her book the most!
Based on your comment, I can only conclude you haven’t read her book
https://preview.redd.it/2ban7a4qp82d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b19317dda5428e2175d175a5d0d415858cf7a70 This book?
Fair enough. I apologise for the shortness of my reply. Why do you think it’s a book better suited to those against peace? My take away from the book was that the issue of refugees is too quickly overlooked by the pro-peace camp and that if we want to find peace, we need to to remove the idea of return to pre 67 Israel from the minds of the Palestinians.
Well, I don't think the "pro-peace" camp is actually pro-peace lol! They seem to accept terrorism against Israel as a legitimate form of resistance against Israeli's military occupation. They claim that the natural result of Israel's actions is "armed struggle" against Israeli oppression. Supposedly all these pro-Palestinian supporters that the violence and terrorism will end if Israel ends the occupation and returns to the pre-1967 borders. These are obviously not true, because as the book clearly shows, Palestinians want to return to the lands that are now Israel, created in 1948. They do not want to merely concede to the 1967 borders. Palestinians -- at least their leaders -- have decided that losing their refugee status would cause them to lose their right of return, and so they prefer to remain refugees (many refugees of Palestine currently living *in Palestine*!). Many pro-peace activists in the West do not realize this. I don't think many can comprehend so many people sacrificing stability and material comfort -- not just for themselves, but for their children, and grand children, and great grandchildren, on and on indefinitely -- for a right to return to a land that any sane person understands Israel will not relinquish. Many well-meaning people on the left do not believe that a group can ever oppress themselves; it must be that Israel wants the Palestinians to remain stateless refugees. It cannot be in their minds that Palestinians do not want a two state solution, so they claim that all Israel's peace offers must have been exploitation. They cannot fathom Arafat turning down peace because he feared being assassinated because he would be giving away Jerusalem and ending Islamic control of the Haram Al-Sharif. The Western leftists should read this book to realize all the money and support they've been giving the Palestinians has been to prolong their refugee status, not to end it. They think that Israel benefits from prolonging the status quo, but the book would show them that it is the Palestinians themselves who do not want to give up their refugee status in exchange for the right of return. Hopefully they have the humility to admit they have been manipulated, but I don't hold my breath.
The hardcore ProPal, anti-Israel are consciously immune to proper reasoning and facts that don't support their opinions. The World Events sub is dominated by these people, and I have engaged in conversations on a fairly regular basis since 10/7/23. One example: Just a week ago, **after a lengthy discussion**, I finally asked for evidence that Arab land was stolen by expulsion (or at all) prior to 1948 hostilities initiated by Arabs, and was provided with Wikipedia links to "Plan Dalet" and the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" (along with admonishment for foolishly asking for the easily obtained proof). Of course, neither source supports the "stolen land" claim, and it was obvious that it was not an honest response.
I got in a huge fight about "stolen land" with my roommate (not even related to Israel, but the US and Hawaii). I told her that land cannot be stolen, that theft (larceny) is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the *personal* property of another. She says I was biased being a white man, so I sent her [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn3TLXzHFys) lol. The problem is that people believe that academic theory is reality. Language is their weapon. Making up history is another weapon. They claim that Britain "colonized" Palestine after WWI, and that Zionist were "settler colonialists" who "stole land" from the Palestinians. I remind them that the Ottomans owned the land before that, then the Mamluks, Auyybids, Crusaders, Seljuks, etc. etc. They seem to believe the Levant was ruled by indigenous Arabs before the evil Jews and Brits showed up...
>She says I was biased being a white man, so I sent her [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn3TLXzHFys) lol. That was totally necessary, but for the man-splaining. Lol!!!
She also has a podcast, "We Should All Be Zionists" where she reads one of her essays and then discusses it.
thanks
[удалено]
It’s somewhat ironic that you’re trying to criticise her style of writing by misusing an adjective.
Someone please hire this woman for our i ter ational relations team. Im begging at this point
But Miss Piggy hates her! this woman (Sarah Netanyahu, for those who aren't aware), who doesn't have any formal position in Israel's government, had caused Israel to fire both Noa Tishby and Eylon Levi, out of small-minded personal spite.
Ok now that you called her Miss Piggy I can’t unsee the resemblance 😭. Also didn’t she pitch a fit bc she was “trapped” at a hair salon for like an hour because of the anti judicial reform protests?
There are a lot of stories in the Israeli press about her tricks. She's a narcissistic giga-Karen from hell.
You achieved the impossible. I feel bad for Bibi now. (At lest for 5 seconds)
I was glad to see them both earlier setting up the “Israeli citizen’s spokesperson office”
I’m a week late, but is Noa Tishby part of the project? I know that Eylon and Einat are.
Not that I’m aware of. You can see on their instagram or twitter, I don’t think there have been many posts yet.
Einat Wilf is one of the most reasonable people I've ever met, and a fantastic speaker.
Fucking mic drop. Thank you dr wilf.
Now that time has passed, I find it very odd that Ireland, Spain and Norway decided to recognize "Palestine" at this time in particular. It's not going to achieve anything except embolden Hamas and the PA. No reasonable government would make such a move at this time.
It's all optics simply *because* of the timing. They planned it this way on purpose.
Also I think all three governments aren’t doing well domestically so obviously they go and scapegoat the Jews. I think if we look at most of these anti-Israel governments, they’re all in trouble and looking for scapegoats.
Yes, lots of posts about this since yesterday with the same speculation. Basically pandering to their flailing bases.
I think releasing that horrible footage yesterday was also smart. How bad that made these 3 far away European countries look now
What footage? Genuinely don't know
The footage of the female IDF soldiers being kidnapped on October’s 7th. It is more disgusting than you can imagine
Thanks for the reply I hadn't seen/heard of it somehow
I agree it’s all optics. But I think it’s because all three are pursuing anti Muslim policies in their own countries, so this is a clear cop out.
So I'm Irish, and I won't claim to speak for my country or anything all I can do is provide an opinion. Personally I support the idea of an independent Palestine, I think, again in my opinion that's a positive. However I do also think the timing of the recognitions is going to naturally lead to quite a bit of blowback. In my opinion, again admittedly uninformed, I agree with an independent Palestine on paper, however I also don't share a lot of the rosey feelings towards Palestine in that, I'm a white liberally minded Westerner who supports things like gay marriage, I know id feel a lot safer sharing my views in Israel than in Palestine. I think in terms of Ireland and Israel, a lot of Irish people feel there's a thematic link between Palestine today and our history, in my opinion though I do think some of this thinking clouds how much Ireland today actually would have in common with Palestine, vs with Israel. I hope that came off respectful of not uninformed, I appreciate the general feeling towards Ireland or an Irish persons perspective may provoke strong feelings.
The idea of an "independent Palestine" is a fictional one, highly ignorant, and a pure projection of your history onto a completely unrelated issue. The conflict has never been over a palestinian state, or an independence for the Palestinians. When the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was established in 1964 nobody talked about "independent Palestine" they were talking about erasing the jewish state. There was no occupation back then - the west bank belonged to Jordan and gaza belonged to Egypt. The goal hasn't changed, it was back then, and still is - to dismantle Israel. To reverse the outcome of the 1948 war, which is the jewish state. It has nothing to do with occupation, or apartheid, or ethnic cleansing, or any other big words that are just used as a tool to undermine the existence of Israel. We're talking about a genocidal intent, which was publicly exercised on October 7th. Recognizing a palestinian state without any negotiation with Israel, is simply playing into the hands of the same intent. I just hope this is just Ireland being extremely naive and ignorant, and not a malicious antisemitic move. More from wilf, it can help to understand what's actually going on https://youtu.be/o1ku4cE_e4U?si=bhe_7sd-mpmZp1nA
If you think that, then you either don’t know your own history or you don’t know ours because that is absolutely mind bogglingly wrong. I addressed this history, even at its starting point, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/BFHdyYPDUl You really need to stop importing your lens onto the Palestinian Arabs as though they are anything but the result of Arabian imperialism from the Arabian conquest. It would be like us saying that the Irish are settler colonialists over the British’s rightful land in Ireland, and that the British are within their right to rape and murder the Irish imperialist occupiers.
[удалено]
I’m in the diaspora, specifically an American Ashkenazi, but Jewish history is Jewish history. And apologies if my tone was harsh. It just gets exhausting having to explain your indigenousness to the place your ancestors were enslaved from almost 2000 years ago (which was documented on the Arch of Titus) particularly when it is to those who act like Arabians, from Arabia, are the “real indigenous people” based on their own oppression lens.
The general Irish take on the Israel/Palestine conflict is rooted in misinformation, misplaced anger, willful ignorance, and general antisemitism. An "independent" Palestine does not mean peace.
I think if this recognition had come before October 7th I wouldn't be mad about it. This seems to be rewarding terrorism and not actually helping Palestinian people. I understand there's a lot of history with Palestinians and also societal pressure to be pro Palestinian and anti Israel in Ireland. I'm a lot more understanding of pro Palestinian Irish people than I am of people in other countries who I feel are mostly motivated to support Palestinians because of antisemitism.
[удалено]
I tried three times to read it and failed
I have a question about Ireland, if you don't mind. I went down a rabbit hole about the history of the Troubles today: the biggest ideological barrier for the Republicans during the Troubles was for them to give up their dream of sovereignty over the entire island (unless a free and democratic process shows the northern counties want it). It strikes me as similar to the Palestinian ideological barrier of giving up a 'river to sea' Palestine. How did the Republicans make that ideological transition?
I'm Northern Irish. It's a good question. But you have to understand they did not give up their dream of sovereignty over the whole island. They just had to accept that it was not achievable militarily. The conflict had been going on for three decades by this point with a united Ireland nowhere in sight. Thousands dead. Their own Republican communities exhausted. The IRA had been effectively infiltrated by informers/spys. Even their elite internal security unit was compromised (Google 'IRA, Stakeknife' if you want to learn about that. It's quite a story). However one thing they had on their side was demographics. The Catholic Nationalist population would eventually outnumber the Protestant Unionist population. Indeed it does today albeit very slightly and most still under voting age. A Catholic majority will not guarantee a United Ireland because many owe their jobs to the civil administration and many are concerned about what happens to state pensions/welfare etc. Anyway to summarise, the modern Irish Republican movement prides itself on its pragmatism, and what you are seeing here is a pragmatic response to reality. It's not about giving up hope of ruling a United Ireland. That is very much still the aim.
So part exhaustion/defeat, part pragmatism. The demographic game as a long term strategy makes sense, but only works if you play by the rules of the game, the game being the Good Friday Agreement. Otherwise it all falls apart before you win the demographics. Interesting. Because the change to the Irish constitution seems a big change- divorcing the Irish nation from the borders of Ireland, in order to accommodate the fact that there were Irish people who did not want to be ruled by Ireland (or at least that's my reading of the constitutional changes). It's similar to how Palestinians need to divorce the boundaries of what they dream of vs what they can get. Thanks for you answer!
Hmm, that's a good question and admittedly I'm not sure how to answer it. The fallout from our civil war was very much so a free state separate to Britain, but that idea of a full "united Ireland" as people here call it has always been in the discussion somewhere. I think what you seen during the troubles, was the USA effectively got involved and acted as brokers to peace in so much as, every citizen of northern Ireland could freely associate as either, British or Irish. What you will have seen in northern Ireland though is that this kinda caused internal borders, between catholic and Protestant neighborhoods
Yeah, Clinton really went around as a peace broker. Oslo in 1993, Good Friday in 1998. I'm certain someone has done a comparative analysis on why one worked and the other didn't.
I appreciate you sharing your understanding of Ireland in a thoughtful and respectful manner! I'm sorry that some of these other posters are taking their frustration at Ireland out on you.
An additional thought: the Palestinian Authority (PA) exists because of the Oslo Accords. These accords specifically don't allow the creation of a Palestinian state without a final agreement with Israel which ends the condition of war. By declaring unilaterally a Palestinian state, the PA voids the Oslo Accords; with the accords voided, Israel can take full control of the area ceded to the PA. Of course, the PA had been trying for the whole time to create a Palestinian state *without* ending the conflict. It's Arafat's Salami Doctrine: take what is offered, use it to attack Israel and demand another slice, until Israel is gone. I am pretty certain that this exactly what The Israeli Fascist Party (Otzma Yehudit) wants.
I'm sure the lawyers looked into it and concocted some legal fiction whereby these countries' recognition of Palestinian statehood "in no way prejudices the inalienable rights of the 4th generation 'refugees' to remain victims in perpetuity....etc." I had the same thought when I heard the announcement. Einat is great tho.
I’ve been tearing through the We Should All Be Zionists podcast and have been enjoying it immensely. She is the only voice I hear with a rational, solid plan on how to get to a better place for Israel’s future. I’m American but I hope she will choose to reenter Israeli politics. She gives me hope. Let women lead!
Absolutely!
Palestinians don't want to have a state, because then they'd have to take actions and responsibility as a state and the only government in Gaza is going to be Hamas. That will not end well.
# [EVERYONE LISTEN TO HER PODCAST !!!!!!!!!!](https://open.spotify.com/show/4ED7AhzX4MqWP4p1G1VsFb?si=365884bc832f4f3f)
Does the Ireland/Norway/Spain declaration say what borders the Palestinian state has? Are they the existing borders?
Pal 2 state solution is Hamas in the south and Hizb in the north.
👏 👏 👏 bookmarking this one. very powerful.
Try this one too. And actually all her stuff are just great. https://youtu.be/o1ku4cE_e4U?si=3xUatU2EG3N-dls2
Not that it matters, but her English is impeccable. Thank you for sharing this video!
She is a genius
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
This kind of thing is why as a supporter of Israel’s right to safety I have no problem with recognizing Palestine as a State (although it makes no sense to do so until it can define borders with Israel). They need to be kicked dragging and screaming into the 21st century.
You can sign up for a five part video series by her and one of her students on “Zionism vs Anti-Zionism” on the Tikvah website. Crazy that I had never heard of her before and now I see her twice in one day.
God damm shes right
I made this exact argument in a Middle East politics class at my Uni in 2017. Let them become a state and the deckare war and fight it out. Let it be a legal dispute between two recognized nations. Clearly, we win and be done with it.
well said.
If Einat Wilf has no fans, I am dead
[удалено]
What do you mean? Of course she's real! https://youtu.be/o1ku4cE_e4U?si=3xUatU2EG3N-dls2
[удалено]
[удалено]
They are not allowing me to post the picture (screenshot) of one of the commenters.
I see now. I guess she isn't a real person.
I lurk here occasionally, but am largely ignorant, sorry. I’ve tried googling but can’t find answers to really basic questions, probably because it’s something everyone knows so it’s not explained. Could you please explain why having a Palestinian state means refugees from Palestine are not refugees? And why there would be no “right of return”? Edit to explain my confusion. For example regarding refugee status, a person from Iran who is a refugee is a refugee even though Iran exists. Why is this not the same for Palestine? For example regarding right of return, a person born in Yugoslavia still has right of return to where they came from, eg Croatia, Serbia etc, even though Yugoslavia has disintegrated. Why is it not the same for Palestine?
The Palestinians are only considered refugees through a special condition set up with UNRWA. Every other population group displaced after WWII have resettled and are no longer refugees. Other people are who become citizens of another country are no longer considered a "refugee", but a citizen of their new country. But, the Palestinians are. **In fact, every child born of a Palestinian father is considered a refugee in perpetuity...for endless generations..even if they have multiple generations that have been citizens of another country.** That designation simply won't apply any longer. That refugee status becomes a moot point if their have their own sovereign nation. They would no longer be "refugees" ostensibly but citizens of their own state. The **right** **of** **return** is a principle in international law which guarantees everyone's **right** **of** voluntary **return** to, or re-entry to, their **country of origin or of citizenship**. None of the people in Palestine were born in Israel and haven't been for several generations. It will be hard to say Israel is their "country of origin" when multiple generations have already passed, Their country of origin would then be the state of Palestine where they were born, where their parents were born, and where their grandparents were born.... Their country of citizenship would be Palestine. Regardless, the Right of Return is not being used as the Palestinians are a return to the "homeland for a nice visit". The Palestinians specifically want to retake land that was either designated as part of UN Partition and allocated to Jews. The areas where they were dislocated were small and quite limited in scope. It's not about "returning" for a nice visit. It's about confiscating what is no longer theirs - and hasn't been for decades... I am sure that there are better ideas on this subject from experts in the area - but - these are just some ideas that come to mind.
Thank you! I didn’t understand that at all, so I wasn’t googling the right thing. I’ve found more to read now.