So, this was an intentional reframing of the peace plans since Oslo on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which have almost universally presumed that land with Israeli settlers will be ceded to Israel. I wondered, what if instead those settlers became citizens of a secular, multi-ethnic state of Palestine, with fully protected human rights?
I'm glad to see such a high positive response, although my guess is that many people only considered "should unauthorized immigrants ... have a path to citizenship", a universally good thing in any country, and not what the nature of that unauthorized immigration has been in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
My answer is strong yes. I think a peace plan that retains the pre-1967 borders of the occupied territories, and provides a path to citizenship for Israeli settlers inside those borders, would be a great outcome.
@evan I mean I believe that everybody deserves citizenship rights everywhere. This system of using violence to keep people close to where they're born unless they have money or connections is inhumane. We see it as a horrible example of authoritarian dictatorship when it happens in a single country. But are totally fine with it on a global scale.
@evan I answered QY before considering the settlements. But considering them, I would say OK, sure, but they would still be subject to the laws of Palestine, which would make them criminals (land theft, murder, other violence, etc.).
@jamesmarshall that might be something that the terms of a peace process might require amnesty for. I'd compare, say, European settlers in other colonized nations around the world.
@evan Something too many in the US are unaware of or choose to overlook: ALL UN member states are expected to provide citizenship paths to refugees, and to have reasonable criteria for discerning who is and who is not a refugee.
Also, the biggest impedance on proposed "two state" solutions to date, has been that none have offered Palestinian citizenship or intl sovereignty, to a Palestinian state. All have worked w/in an Apartheid structure. Which is also illegal.
@evan The dehumanizing rhetoric of "illegals" is intentional, in addition to painting immigrants as criminals. Most are seeking asylum; not "our jobs." While most lefties tend to grok that, the legal basis for it is less understood—and both recognizing it & shutting down the rhetoric, feels important.
We said the same thing about Jewish Europeans in the Holocaust. For children, there's also a robust "Christian" adoption market dependent on these crisis, globally. Colonist narratives, FTW.
@ninavizz I should be clear that the poll is a reframing of the question of settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. I hope as the quest for Israel-Palestine peace develops, we keep this compassionate approach to people on both sides of the lines.
@evan I absolutely agree; and moreso agree with @rabble's assessment that concepts of "citizenship" have been proven as too vulnerable an opportunity for gross abuses of power. The UK and US are colonist nations whose economic clout & mobility are dependent on the ongoing subjugation of millions; and, they're Israel's primary backers. TL;DR, Jewish safety & self-determination in parallel with the same for the Palestinian people, are regrettably the factors of least authority. :(
@evan strange poll?
all undocumented immigrants everywhere should be given a path to citizenship. many countries in the world don’t recognise palestine as a state so it’s documented or undocumented citizens are not treated as citizens of other countries. palestinians should be allowed self determination free from colonial rule, same as ireland.
@evan ah this did not parse to me but reading your other replies i understand the framing re settlers.
reply about palestine being denied statehood and international sovereignty feels like it’s supplants this question abt what they might do if that weren’t the case. if settlers were not an oppressive, violent, colonial and apartheid force, things would be immensely different. how can a state not in control of its borders make immigration policy?
@AppleCoreThing right. I think the question presumes a state of Palestine that has control of its own borders and immigration policy, as well as retaining the integrity of the pre-1967 borders. So, settlements are not carved out as in the Clinton or Olmert plans. The settlers are treated like anyone else who lives in a sovereign nation without authorization. What should the State of Palestine do in those conditions?
@evan inapplicable. Zionists arrived with guns and tanks and immediately started a war with the inhabitants; if the Palestinians could've resisted the combined might of the West steamrolling their homeland they would've (and tried their best to), much like Native Americans many years prior. It's a completely different situation than an empire destabilizing countries whose citizens then flee, unarmed, into the empire to try and survive.
@railmeat@evan the state of Israel was declared in May 1948. Before then was the 1907 Bar-Giora armed militia, the 1914 kibbutz antagonizing Arabs with economic exclusion, 1918 Jewish and British conquest of Palestine, 1920 Arab resistance and formation of a new Jewish militia, 1936-39 killing of 10% of adult Arab men after another uprising, the 1946 Jewish bombing of Britain's HQ... shall I continue?
Zionism has been violent expulsion of Arabs since at least 1938 by Ben Gurion's own words.
@railmeat@evan if China decided that America should become a homeland for their people and sent their people over here until they made up 30% of the country and then overthrew it, declared a United States of China, and got both light and heavy armanents shipped in to by their own admission repress and expel Americans from their homes, at what point is it morally acceptable for the Americans to say "no, fuck that" and revolt?
Was the American Revolution staged and won by terrorists?
Add comment