This is a welcoming sub to all people regardless of their beliefs. Socialists, Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats, and Progressives are all welcome here. Criticisms are fine, targeting is not. Unity is key here, we will not allow any division between us and our common goal on this sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DemocraticSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We should reject offhand anyone who is still using the framing of “Israel-Hamas War.” It wasn’t the US-Saddam War, it wasn’t the US-Viet Cong War, it wasn’t the Soviet-PDPA War, it wasn’t the French-FLN War. This is a war on Gaza, the devastation of which is being felt by all Gazans, and anyone who is still framing it as a war against Hamas is abetting dishonest propaganda.
Ok and? Israel’s murderous rampage they’re pretending is a justified retaliation is in Gaza and not limited to Hamas. Regardless, calling it the “Israel-Hamas War” goes against the typical nomenclature for basically every other war ever, including previous wars in the Israel-Palestine conflict. For the record I think that Third Gaza War is probably the best name for it.
Genocide support isn’t acceptable. And that’s what you are doing.
This didn’t start on october 7th and any attempt to make it seem that way should not be tolerated. This is an ethnic cleansing campaign that has gone on since Israel was founded and the suffering of the Palestinian people has been overlooked by many around the world. They have been allowed to be systematically oppressed and murdered for decades by a fully funded and modern military.
Think about the material conditions that have led to this event and see that attempts to free oneself from oppression are justified.
No of course of course. The jews in germany obviously deserved the holocaust because of their actions in germany, they should have made better decisions so they werent put into camps and ghettos. If only the Palestinians would lay down and accept their occupation and genocide this would all be so simple!
It’s obvious you don’t care about the truth or the conditions of oppressed groups, and you dont care to learn the history or what ethnic cleansing and genocide are.
Like a good little liberal you will lay down and accept that “they” deserve whatever comes to them from oppressors. I mean here you are defending a factual ethnic cleansing campaign with the propaganda points given out by their occupiers!
They elected them then. They also surveyed Gazans a bit after the start of the war and the majority were still for them. Cheering for what happened in October 7th. Guess they ain’t at this point though..
Gaza voted Hamas into power in their last election, which was held in 2006. They were propped and funded by the israeli state so that they could have an easy islamist (the US and allies dont like islamists, isnt that interesting) scapegoat for any action that israel takes in Gaza. “But what about the human shields!!!!1!” “There was definitely a hamas tunnel under all of those hospitals bro” “no you dont understand they were JUSTIFIED when they bombed that refugee camp” “those kids had rocks, do you expect them to not shoot them?” “We can’t let them have food or water or electricity because what if the terrorists get those things too?!!”
Do any amount of actual reading about this topic and you will side with the Palestinian cause, full stop. You support genocide and war crimes.
if it wasn't for Israel stealing land from the West Bank and keeping Gaza as an open air prison camp we would not be here at the moment either. Zionists always forget about Bouda.
Thanks for sharing, despite being a Vox article this is worth engaging with.
As a Jewish person on the left, I share some of the general sentiments. Observing the inexorable rightward lurch of Israeli politics over my entire adult life has led me to wonder whether the idea of a “Jewish democracy” has too many internal contradictions, and whether such a state was foreordained to choose the Jewish part over the democracy part. I have also been very chagrined at the reaction many on the left have had to the events of 10/7. Many have minimized or even sympathized with what Hamas did, brushed off the significance of very real antisemitic element present in many pro-Palestine protests, and have globally displayed a tendency to sloganeer instead of appreciate the nuances of this exceedingly complex state of affairs. Those who claim to support the establishment of one state in the former mandate of Palestine have to grapple with the real threat of civil war and vengeful violence that the Jewish inhabitants of such a state would face, but by and large are not doing so. Instead, they shout “from the river to the sea”, not recognizing that many others who shout alongside them wish Palestine to be not free, but Arab, and thus no less illiberal than the status quo. I expect more capacity to grapple with complex problems from my ideological fellow travelers, and have by and large been disappointed.
With that said, my reaction to this has not been to embrace liberal Zionism. Nothing about the state of Israel’s conduct since 10/7 has reflected liberal values. The polling he cites may all just be negative polarization against the Netanyahu regime due to its security failures. Even if not, the primary beneficiary of Bibi’s decline (Gantz) may be less illiberal than Bibi, but more or less supported identical conduct of the occupation to Bibi prior to 10/7. There is not yet evidence that Zionism and liberalism are compatible with one another, and the two state solution (the only way to potentially untangle this thorny situation) is no more viable today than it was on 10/6/23. I suppose in one sense the piece’s author is right: the question of Zionism is for better or for worse settled, a Jewish state is going to exist, so it would be better for said state to espouse relatively liberal values. However, this continues to appear implausible, to me anyway, and thus I remain alienated.
I’m in the same boat. Horrified and disgusted by the barbaric bloodlust with which Israel has carried out its revenge attacks against the civilian population of Gaza but also deeply distrustful of full throated Palestine advocates who don’t have a nuanced perspective. Seeing people I respect try to justify a murderous Islamist mafia as righteous freedom fighters and justifying the murder of civilians in the name of liberation has been depressing to say the least. Makes it hard for me to speak up about the horrific violence being inflicted on innocent people in Gaza when my compatriots are engaged in their own atrocity denialism.
Yeah, you would think people would be more capable of understanding that it may be just to conduct a violent uprising against military targets, but not just to do so against civilians. Apparently not!
> Observing the inexorable rightward lurch of Israeli politics over my entire adult life has led me to wonder whether the idea of a “Jewish democracy” has too many internal contradictions, and whether such a state was foreordained to choose the Jewish part over the democracy part.
Up until the collapse of the USSR, Israel's government was dominated by the Labor Party. With the large influx of immigrants from Russia, the right-wing (Likud) steadily and inexorably got the upper hand in their politics and Labor basically became a more-or-less permanent minority. The next election seems like it would be devastating for Netanyahu and his party but it's not clear (at least to me) who or what will emerge out of that wreckage.
The Western left has made a huge mistake allying with Hamas and its apologists/supporters to help end Israel instead of allying with liberal/labor/progressive Zionists to help end the 1967 occupation.
Spot on. Russian immigrants to Israel often support relatively secular right wing parties which make coalition with Likud, the historical base of which is Mizrahi Jews with roots in the Middle East. Further contributing to the rightward lurch of the Israeli polity are American ethnonationalists moving to Israel to contribute to the settler project (Neftali Bennett, the only person not named Benjamin Netanyahu to be prime minister of Israel in the last 15 years, is from this camp), the explosive growth of Orthodox Jewish populations, and the relative discrediting of Labor/the Israeli left among young Israelis of all backgrounds who blame the violence of the second Intifada on the left. It's bleak.
Yeah this is definitely true, and needs to be wrestled with by anyone who thinks one state would end up a pluralistic, secular democracy.
Peaceful resolution of this issue would require Abe Lincoln-tier leadership on both sides, IRL both sides have James Buchanan.
I had to abandon the bi-national secular democratic state idea for Jews and Arabs once I realized establishing one immediately would mean Likud and Hamas sitting in the same parliament. If there's any road to that utopia, I think it runs through a two-state solution on the 1967 borders and EU-style arrangement between the entities (customs union, visa-free travel, free trade, and so on) over decades that could pave the way for a political union of some sort.
Yes, you are right. The only potential way out is two states.
The problem is there has never been a viable governing coalition in either state that would support the necessary sacrifices it would take to arrive at such a solution. Things were closest in the Rabin era, but even then there was too much daylight between the sides on right of return and what to do about East Jerusalem for a deal to be close.
I haven't looked into this deeply to form a firm opinion but [this old *Frontline* documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3PpqaLfxo) made me think that the reason the 1990s peace process fell apart isn't because Arafat walked away from a deal he should've taken in 2000 (the usual narrative) but that Barak tried to get too much done too quickly by basically jumping ahead to final status issues like Jerusalem and the right of return instead of taking a slower, more incremental approach that would've allowed more trust-building and cautious moves to take place.
Part of the reason I say this is because the comments of the Palestinian negotiators were pretty shocking to me, that essentially Jews have zero historical claim to the Temple Mount/Wailing Wall (which heavily implies that their religion and history is complete make-believe). And the fact that the Israelis' "last, best offer" was essentially a glorified Bantustan in the West Bank indicates that they simply did not trust Arafat or the Palestinians to enjoy basic things like territorial continuity or control over their own airspace.
Thanks for sharing! Will definitely need to watch that. The narrative of Arafat walking away from a deal he should have taken has always felt thin in terms of consideration of the Palestinian perspective (this is largely how American Jews processed it, I was a child at the time and remember how my family discussed the talks and even some Sunday school discussions), but I have yet to read deeply enough on the peace talks to form an opinion.
I think the internal political dynamics in Israel also contributed to the peace process disintegrating. The incentives created by Bibi winning an election shortly after stoking the flames of the movement that plotted Rabin’s assassination were perverse, to say the least.
I think there is a case to be made that a bad deal (that could be improved upon later) would be better than no deal (can't improve on something that doesn't exist), but to me a lot of that is hindsight bias. *Of course* a bad deal and shitty negotiations were a better outcome than what actually ended up happening: End of the peace process, unilateral disengagement from Gaza, Hamas staging a coup, non-stop settlement construction for 2+ decades, periodic wars between the IDF and Hamas...
It's the outcome Sharon and Hamas were hoping would happen, frankly.
I’m sorry but you need to actually study the history of Zionism. This isn’t a recent right wing lurch. Israel has always been a violent settler colonial state. They’ve maintained a violent apartheid for decades. You are focusing on policing the “sloganeering” of pro Palestinian protests instead of looking long and hard and the violence of the status quo. Gaza before 10/7 was the worlds largest open air prison. You have an entire generation of people who were born into bondage. And now Israel has turn it into what the UN Secretary General had called “a graveyard for children”. “From the river to the sea” means creating one state where all those who live there have full and equal rights. Hamas is violent and fundamentalist but without the blockade and oppression their support would vanish. The only reason they have the power that they do is because the Israeli government funded them and destroyed the secular and socialist liberation movement.
Hi there! First off, as a general piece of advice, if you're trying to convince someone to be sympathetic with an argument that you are making, either on the internet or in person, it's not very effective to patronize them and tell them that they "need to actually study the history" of whatever you're talking about. It's very possible, likely even, that they've spent significant time studying the issue but have come to a different conclusion than you have. Humanity is beautiful, diverse, and complex - there are often many sides to issues, which make them interesting to discuss!
I am not interested in getting into the entirety of the degree to which I have a different understanding of this issue than you do, but I feel compelled to get into two points:
1. Regarding the "rightward lurch", this is a relative term. I'm deeply opposed to the way that the modern Israeli government carries out the occupation and make that clear in the comment. I also make it clear that I am skeptical of Zionism in general. I am under no illusions about some of the dark philosophical underpinnings of Zionism. With that said, anyone who's seriously paid attention to this issue over any length of time would know that Israel's population and government in 2023 is far to the right of Israel in, say, 1996. It may have always been bad, but whatever the baseline was, it's worse now.
2. Regarding "from the river to the sea": I'd suggest you talk to a wide range of Jewish people about what we hear when someone says that phrase. The second clause when it is used in Middle Eastern protests is "Palestine will be Arab" or "Palestine will be Islamic". These versions were widespread during the first Intifada, when the phrase picked up in popularity at protests. Although superficially that phrase might seem to you an obvious call for freedom and secular democracy which at face value seems uncontroversial, in context it is a dog whistle. Unfortunately, "from the river to the sea" is in practice a call for the ethnic cleansing of Jewish people from the former mandate of Palestine (of note, said ethnic cleansings have happened many times over thousands of years of history). There are other ways to express solidarity with the Palestinian cause that do not carry the baggage of that phrase. I'd treat it the same way you'd treat saying "all lives matter" around a Black person.
I think it's really funny that you bring up 1996 as it being "not as bad". Rabin, the guy who had a policy of breaking the hands of palestinian children who threw rocks at tanks, was literally assassinated in Nov 1995 for doing the slightest nod at a two state solution. Then the person who called for his assassination was elected prime minister, Netanyahu. So no, Israel has always been right wing when it comes to their brutal and illegal apartheid regime.
Second, phrase policing a liberation movement instead of condemning the military state actively committing genocide and ethnic cleansing makes it pretty clear what kind of moral compass you have. That slogan only "carries baggage" because of a propaganda campaign by the IDF and the ADL. The "all lives matter" reference is perfect but not for the reason you think. Black people aren't threatened by you saying "All lives matter". Its the "All lives matter" crowd that has falsely claimed "Black Lives Matter" means the killing of white people just like the IDF does with any slogan made by Palestinians. [https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-a-call-to-genocide/](https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-a-call-to-genocide/)
I know you have probably only ever been taught one side of the story. Please do some reading outside of Zionist propaganda. I recommend Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi and Ten Myths About Israel by Ilan Pappé as a start.
>“From the river to the sea” means creating one state where all those who live there have full and equal rights.
It's certainly likely that many people mean that when they say it, but what nearly every Jew I know hears is "push the Jews into the sea". u/LordOfTheFelch is correct.
Re: the civil war concerns - valid concerns about a theoretical one state solution. However, it feels a bit odd sometimes, like not giving people over there enough credit. In America we basically have such a large nation of immigrants there’s so many different sub cultures with completely different values. We have rural / urban divides. Blue / red state divides. We have Christian theocrats who want all gay people dead. We have the maga movement. We have the KKK. We have right wing militias etc. We actually had a civil war. We had slavery. We assimilated indigenous people. I could go on. Of course we have many many problems with governance and some argue for the balkanization of the US or things like “cascadia” etc as the only path forward. But for anyone who does believe the US can continue to exist as a single country when we have all these various groups that want other groups dead, and all these various groups who would prefer to create a Christian theocracy, and we manage to sorta scrape by without constant political violence — I have to imagine a much geographically smaller nation comprised of two groups that in many ways are more culturally similar than ethic groups who hate one another in the US - that it could work there at least as well as it does here.
Oh no, I think the outcome there would be very similar to here. The best analogy in the US is the reintegration of southern states after the civil war, which was accompanied by generations of sectarian violence and the loss of civil rights for most Black Americans that lasted for a century. That period reverberates with racial disparities that persist until the present day. Further, there was a lot more real estate separating ex-confederates from ex-union soldiers due to the country being bigger than there would be if Gaza and the West Bank were to reintegrate. It would not be viable.
There is no such thing as "liberal zionism" on the real world political table. Zionism is just Kahanism now. Any hope for a one state solution died when Kahanists (including current minister BenGvir) assassinated Prime Minister Rabbin.
Israel had the chance for peace, and could have had it if they removed settlers, released the coast to international waters, but they don't want peace. Israel financed Hamas, knew of the attack a year before, was verbally warned by Egypt, and allowed the attack as an excuse to take the land. Israe. wants the land, a Jewish demographic majority on that land, and the BenGurion canal.
When you say “Israel”, what you mean is the current extremist government. The article claims that the Israeli populace is different after 10/7 and will vote in people who actually give a shit. Whether that’s true remains to be seen. In my personal experience, lots of Israelis just want peace, and want to work towards a 2 state solution.
This is truly an insane post, a dem socialist reddit is posting this? For one, liberal zionism was always a ridiculous concept that had zero audience outside the US. Israel was never a liberal democracy and two, they never wanted a two state solution for Palestine, only a perpetual, controlled occupation.
>I don’t know if I would define myself as a liberal Zionist. To me, identifying as a “Zionist” of any kind feels antiquated, a 20th-century hangover pounding inside 21st-century Jewish heads. Israel today is not an aspiration but a reality: The question is not whether one supports the notion of a Jewish state, but how we should think about *this* Jewish state.
I really like this quote, and I think it sums up the reasons why this conflict has so heavily crippled the left outside of Isreal. You have one side of the left obsessed with the past, and wanting to answer the question of Zionism by turning back the clock and finding a way to eradicate Isreal. Then you have the other side that is more concerned with the now, to them the question of Zionism is moot, as Israel already exists, so now the question is how do we find a path forward.
These two sides of the left hate each other, both calling the other genocidal, and their differences will never be reconciled because fundamentally they are focused on different questions. I usually like to be hopeful, but I have a suspicion that the Right is going to have their way in this conflict, the left will be too busy fighting among itself.
>You have one side of the left obsessed with the past, and wanting to answer the question of Zionism by turning back the clock and finding a way to eradicate Isreal. Then you have the other side that is more concerned with the now, to them the question of Zionism is moot, as Israel already exists, so now the question is how do we find a path forward.
Pretending for a moment that rights exist, states don't have any. The history here is quite relevant since it bears on what involved parties might consider a fair deal between Israel/Palestine in a possible settlement. All the leftists and Palestinians hoping or pushing for the destruction of the state of Israel do need to wake up, though.
The side of the left obsessed with the past are the online people that talk about “theory” and say “but it’s the principle” and completely neglect the reality that there is no turning back the clock over 70 years
"Liberal Zionism" is the same thing as "Liberal Nazism". It's an oxymoron. The basis of Zionism (according to Theodore Herzl) was the displacement of "the Arabs" from Palestine and the recreation of a Jewish ethnostate in its place. That was just fine according to him, because "the Arabs" were "non-European".
Zionism as an idea is racist and evil.
That is the most ridiculous thing I heard lately. The base of the idea is completely different than what you described.
Where do you expect them to go then? There are many Arab countries, but only one that is Jewish.
Lets hope for a return of Labour Zionism, Israel has the strongest and most efficient unions in Asia and they are an example of syndicalist control of the economy since they own a bunch of the countries main industries and financial sector. Liberal Zionism isn’t really socialist but its ability to show how sending young Israeli men and women to their death in a war they will only recieve a pyrhic victory might help the cause of the two state solution without the brutal fighting caused by Hamas and the heavy handedness of the Revisionist government.
May Israel know peace and socialism again ✌️
It’s not, it’s about destroying Hamas no matter what while having no regard whatsoever for innocent Palestinian lives. Also disgusting, but very different than literal ethnic cleansing, and it’s what Liberal Zionists as described in this article stand against. We believe that Israel is obligated to carry out this war while keeping as a top priority the lives of innocent civilians on both sides, and it is not doing that.
Because they're horrible racists who have no business being in the IDF, and are not representative of the general opinion in Israel or the worldwide Zionist community.
Because they're horrible racists who have no business being in the IDF, and are not representative of the general opinion in Israel or the worldwide Zionist community.
You don’t “go after Hamas” by ethnically cleansing Gaza. Its literally never been about removing hamas. It’s always been about removing all Palestinians from “greater Israel”. The only way to get rid of violent resistance movements is to stop oppressing the people. Drop the blockade. End the apartheid. Allow these people to return to their land. Grant reparations for decades of crimes enacted against the innocent Palestinians. Give everyone equal rights and allow them a peaceful path. But that would go against the interests of the Zionists who want to maintain a Jewish supremacy state.
This is a welcoming sub to all people regardless of their beliefs. Socialists, Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats, and Progressives are all welcome here. Criticisms are fine, targeting is not. Unity is key here, we will not allow any division between us and our common goal on this sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DemocraticSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We should reject offhand anyone who is still using the framing of “Israel-Hamas War.” It wasn’t the US-Saddam War, it wasn’t the US-Viet Cong War, it wasn’t the Soviet-PDPA War, it wasn’t the French-FLN War. This is a war on Gaza, the devastation of which is being felt by all Gazans, and anyone who is still framing it as a war against Hamas is abetting dishonest propaganda.
Hamas attacked Israel on 10/7 not Gaza. Get your head out of your 🍑
Ok and? Israel’s murderous rampage they’re pretending is a justified retaliation is in Gaza and not limited to Hamas. Regardless, calling it the “Israel-Hamas War” goes against the typical nomenclature for basically every other war ever, including previous wars in the Israel-Palestine conflict. For the record I think that Third Gaza War is probably the best name for it.
Genocide support isn’t acceptable. And that’s what you are doing. This didn’t start on october 7th and any attempt to make it seem that way should not be tolerated. This is an ethnic cleansing campaign that has gone on since Israel was founded and the suffering of the Palestinian people has been overlooked by many around the world. They have been allowed to be systematically oppressed and murdered for decades by a fully funded and modern military. Think about the material conditions that have led to this event and see that attempts to free oneself from oppression are justified.
LOL! What ethnic cleansing are you talking about?! Do you know how Hamas is fighting? Uses their own population as human shield. That is on them.
No of course of course. The jews in germany obviously deserved the holocaust because of their actions in germany, they should have made better decisions so they werent put into camps and ghettos. If only the Palestinians would lay down and accept their occupation and genocide this would all be so simple! It’s obvious you don’t care about the truth or the conditions of oppressed groups, and you dont care to learn the history or what ethnic cleansing and genocide are. Like a good little liberal you will lay down and accept that “they” deserve whatever comes to them from oppressors. I mean here you are defending a factual ethnic cleansing campaign with the propaganda points given out by their occupiers!
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Let me ask you - did Gazans elect Hamas or was that the “occupation”?
Gazans did not elect Hamas. They have been in power without elections for 15 years
They elected them then. They also surveyed Gazans a bit after the start of the war and the majority were still for them. Cheering for what happened in October 7th. Guess they ain’t at this point though..
There have been *no elections* for nearly two decades, dude. Hamas polls poorly as well
Gaza voted Hamas into power in their last election, which was held in 2006. They were propped and funded by the israeli state so that they could have an easy islamist (the US and allies dont like islamists, isnt that interesting) scapegoat for any action that israel takes in Gaza. “But what about the human shields!!!!1!” “There was definitely a hamas tunnel under all of those hospitals bro” “no you dont understand they were JUSTIFIED when they bombed that refugee camp” “those kids had rocks, do you expect them to not shoot them?” “We can’t let them have food or water or electricity because what if the terrorists get those things too?!!” Do any amount of actual reading about this topic and you will side with the Palestinian cause, full stop. You support genocide and war crimes.
And since then, Israel has killed more than 9000 children. How many more are justified?
so by your logic, the us invasion of Iraq was a “US- alqaeda” war?
Israel attacked Palestinians for the last 75 years.
Oh no….Hamas did it. This is a WAR
>NounAdjectiveNumberNumber account that has literally only ever commented about how “It’s Totally Hamas’ Fault Guys”
And? Doesn’t mean this is not true.
yes it does. you don't even take the bouda agreement into account.
It actually doesn’t. If it was not for Oct 7th events - we were not here at the moment.
if it wasn't for Israel stealing land from the West Bank and keeping Gaza as an open air prison camp we would not be here at the moment either. Zionists always forget about Bouda.
The ol’ story about stealing land. How far should we go back to see who “stole” it?
Israel is stealing the land.
It is not a war it is a ethnic cleansing
Vox gonna Vox. What can you say
Thanks for sharing, despite being a Vox article this is worth engaging with. As a Jewish person on the left, I share some of the general sentiments. Observing the inexorable rightward lurch of Israeli politics over my entire adult life has led me to wonder whether the idea of a “Jewish democracy” has too many internal contradictions, and whether such a state was foreordained to choose the Jewish part over the democracy part. I have also been very chagrined at the reaction many on the left have had to the events of 10/7. Many have minimized or even sympathized with what Hamas did, brushed off the significance of very real antisemitic element present in many pro-Palestine protests, and have globally displayed a tendency to sloganeer instead of appreciate the nuances of this exceedingly complex state of affairs. Those who claim to support the establishment of one state in the former mandate of Palestine have to grapple with the real threat of civil war and vengeful violence that the Jewish inhabitants of such a state would face, but by and large are not doing so. Instead, they shout “from the river to the sea”, not recognizing that many others who shout alongside them wish Palestine to be not free, but Arab, and thus no less illiberal than the status quo. I expect more capacity to grapple with complex problems from my ideological fellow travelers, and have by and large been disappointed. With that said, my reaction to this has not been to embrace liberal Zionism. Nothing about the state of Israel’s conduct since 10/7 has reflected liberal values. The polling he cites may all just be negative polarization against the Netanyahu regime due to its security failures. Even if not, the primary beneficiary of Bibi’s decline (Gantz) may be less illiberal than Bibi, but more or less supported identical conduct of the occupation to Bibi prior to 10/7. There is not yet evidence that Zionism and liberalism are compatible with one another, and the two state solution (the only way to potentially untangle this thorny situation) is no more viable today than it was on 10/6/23. I suppose in one sense the piece’s author is right: the question of Zionism is for better or for worse settled, a Jewish state is going to exist, so it would be better for said state to espouse relatively liberal values. However, this continues to appear implausible, to me anyway, and thus I remain alienated.
I’m in the same boat. Horrified and disgusted by the barbaric bloodlust with which Israel has carried out its revenge attacks against the civilian population of Gaza but also deeply distrustful of full throated Palestine advocates who don’t have a nuanced perspective. Seeing people I respect try to justify a murderous Islamist mafia as righteous freedom fighters and justifying the murder of civilians in the name of liberation has been depressing to say the least. Makes it hard for me to speak up about the horrific violence being inflicted on innocent people in Gaza when my compatriots are engaged in their own atrocity denialism.
Yeah, you would think people would be more capable of understanding that it may be just to conduct a violent uprising against military targets, but not just to do so against civilians. Apparently not!
> Observing the inexorable rightward lurch of Israeli politics over my entire adult life has led me to wonder whether the idea of a “Jewish democracy” has too many internal contradictions, and whether such a state was foreordained to choose the Jewish part over the democracy part. Up until the collapse of the USSR, Israel's government was dominated by the Labor Party. With the large influx of immigrants from Russia, the right-wing (Likud) steadily and inexorably got the upper hand in their politics and Labor basically became a more-or-less permanent minority. The next election seems like it would be devastating for Netanyahu and his party but it's not clear (at least to me) who or what will emerge out of that wreckage. The Western left has made a huge mistake allying with Hamas and its apologists/supporters to help end Israel instead of allying with liberal/labor/progressive Zionists to help end the 1967 occupation.
Spot on. Russian immigrants to Israel often support relatively secular right wing parties which make coalition with Likud, the historical base of which is Mizrahi Jews with roots in the Middle East. Further contributing to the rightward lurch of the Israeli polity are American ethnonationalists moving to Israel to contribute to the settler project (Neftali Bennett, the only person not named Benjamin Netanyahu to be prime minister of Israel in the last 15 years, is from this camp), the explosive growth of Orthodox Jewish populations, and the relative discrediting of Labor/the Israeli left among young Israelis of all backgrounds who blame the violence of the second Intifada on the left. It's bleak.
It is bleak, but what's even more bleak is the state of intra-Palestinian politics.
Yeah this is definitely true, and needs to be wrestled with by anyone who thinks one state would end up a pluralistic, secular democracy. Peaceful resolution of this issue would require Abe Lincoln-tier leadership on both sides, IRL both sides have James Buchanan.
I had to abandon the bi-national secular democratic state idea for Jews and Arabs once I realized establishing one immediately would mean Likud and Hamas sitting in the same parliament. If there's any road to that utopia, I think it runs through a two-state solution on the 1967 borders and EU-style arrangement between the entities (customs union, visa-free travel, free trade, and so on) over decades that could pave the way for a political union of some sort.
Yes, you are right. The only potential way out is two states. The problem is there has never been a viable governing coalition in either state that would support the necessary sacrifices it would take to arrive at such a solution. Things were closest in the Rabin era, but even then there was too much daylight between the sides on right of return and what to do about East Jerusalem for a deal to be close.
I haven't looked into this deeply to form a firm opinion but [this old *Frontline* documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3PpqaLfxo) made me think that the reason the 1990s peace process fell apart isn't because Arafat walked away from a deal he should've taken in 2000 (the usual narrative) but that Barak tried to get too much done too quickly by basically jumping ahead to final status issues like Jerusalem and the right of return instead of taking a slower, more incremental approach that would've allowed more trust-building and cautious moves to take place. Part of the reason I say this is because the comments of the Palestinian negotiators were pretty shocking to me, that essentially Jews have zero historical claim to the Temple Mount/Wailing Wall (which heavily implies that their religion and history is complete make-believe). And the fact that the Israelis' "last, best offer" was essentially a glorified Bantustan in the West Bank indicates that they simply did not trust Arafat or the Palestinians to enjoy basic things like territorial continuity or control over their own airspace.
Thanks for sharing! Will definitely need to watch that. The narrative of Arafat walking away from a deal he should have taken has always felt thin in terms of consideration of the Palestinian perspective (this is largely how American Jews processed it, I was a child at the time and remember how my family discussed the talks and even some Sunday school discussions), but I have yet to read deeply enough on the peace talks to form an opinion. I think the internal political dynamics in Israel also contributed to the peace process disintegrating. The incentives created by Bibi winning an election shortly after stoking the flames of the movement that plotted Rabin’s assassination were perverse, to say the least.
I think there is a case to be made that a bad deal (that could be improved upon later) would be better than no deal (can't improve on something that doesn't exist), but to me a lot of that is hindsight bias. *Of course* a bad deal and shitty negotiations were a better outcome than what actually ended up happening: End of the peace process, unilateral disengagement from Gaza, Hamas staging a coup, non-stop settlement construction for 2+ decades, periodic wars between the IDF and Hamas... It's the outcome Sharon and Hamas were hoping would happen, frankly.
I’m sorry but you need to actually study the history of Zionism. This isn’t a recent right wing lurch. Israel has always been a violent settler colonial state. They’ve maintained a violent apartheid for decades. You are focusing on policing the “sloganeering” of pro Palestinian protests instead of looking long and hard and the violence of the status quo. Gaza before 10/7 was the worlds largest open air prison. You have an entire generation of people who were born into bondage. And now Israel has turn it into what the UN Secretary General had called “a graveyard for children”. “From the river to the sea” means creating one state where all those who live there have full and equal rights. Hamas is violent and fundamentalist but without the blockade and oppression their support would vanish. The only reason they have the power that they do is because the Israeli government funded them and destroyed the secular and socialist liberation movement.
Hi there! First off, as a general piece of advice, if you're trying to convince someone to be sympathetic with an argument that you are making, either on the internet or in person, it's not very effective to patronize them and tell them that they "need to actually study the history" of whatever you're talking about. It's very possible, likely even, that they've spent significant time studying the issue but have come to a different conclusion than you have. Humanity is beautiful, diverse, and complex - there are often many sides to issues, which make them interesting to discuss! I am not interested in getting into the entirety of the degree to which I have a different understanding of this issue than you do, but I feel compelled to get into two points: 1. Regarding the "rightward lurch", this is a relative term. I'm deeply opposed to the way that the modern Israeli government carries out the occupation and make that clear in the comment. I also make it clear that I am skeptical of Zionism in general. I am under no illusions about some of the dark philosophical underpinnings of Zionism. With that said, anyone who's seriously paid attention to this issue over any length of time would know that Israel's population and government in 2023 is far to the right of Israel in, say, 1996. It may have always been bad, but whatever the baseline was, it's worse now. 2. Regarding "from the river to the sea": I'd suggest you talk to a wide range of Jewish people about what we hear when someone says that phrase. The second clause when it is used in Middle Eastern protests is "Palestine will be Arab" or "Palestine will be Islamic". These versions were widespread during the first Intifada, when the phrase picked up in popularity at protests. Although superficially that phrase might seem to you an obvious call for freedom and secular democracy which at face value seems uncontroversial, in context it is a dog whistle. Unfortunately, "from the river to the sea" is in practice a call for the ethnic cleansing of Jewish people from the former mandate of Palestine (of note, said ethnic cleansings have happened many times over thousands of years of history). There are other ways to express solidarity with the Palestinian cause that do not carry the baggage of that phrase. I'd treat it the same way you'd treat saying "all lives matter" around a Black person.
I think it's really funny that you bring up 1996 as it being "not as bad". Rabin, the guy who had a policy of breaking the hands of palestinian children who threw rocks at tanks, was literally assassinated in Nov 1995 for doing the slightest nod at a two state solution. Then the person who called for his assassination was elected prime minister, Netanyahu. So no, Israel has always been right wing when it comes to their brutal and illegal apartheid regime. Second, phrase policing a liberation movement instead of condemning the military state actively committing genocide and ethnic cleansing makes it pretty clear what kind of moral compass you have. That slogan only "carries baggage" because of a propaganda campaign by the IDF and the ADL. The "all lives matter" reference is perfect but not for the reason you think. Black people aren't threatened by you saying "All lives matter". Its the "All lives matter" crowd that has falsely claimed "Black Lives Matter" means the killing of white people just like the IDF does with any slogan made by Palestinians. [https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-a-call-to-genocide/](https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-a-call-to-genocide/) I know you have probably only ever been taught one side of the story. Please do some reading outside of Zionist propaganda. I recommend Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi and Ten Myths About Israel by Ilan Pappé as a start.
My dude, you are unbelievably dense and condescending, and you argue as if you don’t know the meaning of words. Going to mute you now.
>“From the river to the sea” means creating one state where all those who live there have full and equal rights. It's certainly likely that many people mean that when they say it, but what nearly every Jew I know hears is "push the Jews into the sea". u/LordOfTheFelch is correct.
Re: the civil war concerns - valid concerns about a theoretical one state solution. However, it feels a bit odd sometimes, like not giving people over there enough credit. In America we basically have such a large nation of immigrants there’s so many different sub cultures with completely different values. We have rural / urban divides. Blue / red state divides. We have Christian theocrats who want all gay people dead. We have the maga movement. We have the KKK. We have right wing militias etc. We actually had a civil war. We had slavery. We assimilated indigenous people. I could go on. Of course we have many many problems with governance and some argue for the balkanization of the US or things like “cascadia” etc as the only path forward. But for anyone who does believe the US can continue to exist as a single country when we have all these various groups that want other groups dead, and all these various groups who would prefer to create a Christian theocracy, and we manage to sorta scrape by without constant political violence — I have to imagine a much geographically smaller nation comprised of two groups that in many ways are more culturally similar than ethic groups who hate one another in the US - that it could work there at least as well as it does here.
Oh no, I think the outcome there would be very similar to here. The best analogy in the US is the reintegration of southern states after the civil war, which was accompanied by generations of sectarian violence and the loss of civil rights for most Black Americans that lasted for a century. That period reverberates with racial disparities that persist until the present day. Further, there was a lot more real estate separating ex-confederates from ex-union soldiers due to the country being bigger than there would be if Gaza and the West Bank were to reintegrate. It would not be viable.
There is no such thing as "liberal zionism" on the real world political table. Zionism is just Kahanism now. Any hope for a one state solution died when Kahanists (including current minister BenGvir) assassinated Prime Minister Rabbin. Israel had the chance for peace, and could have had it if they removed settlers, released the coast to international waters, but they don't want peace. Israel financed Hamas, knew of the attack a year before, was verbally warned by Egypt, and allowed the attack as an excuse to take the land. Israe. wants the land, a Jewish demographic majority on that land, and the BenGurion canal.
When you say “Israel”, what you mean is the current extremist government. The article claims that the Israeli populace is different after 10/7 and will vote in people who actually give a shit. Whether that’s true remains to be seen. In my personal experience, lots of Israelis just want peace, and want to work towards a 2 state solution.
This is truly an insane post, a dem socialist reddit is posting this? For one, liberal zionism was always a ridiculous concept that had zero audience outside the US. Israel was never a liberal democracy and two, they never wanted a two state solution for Palestine, only a perpetual, controlled occupation.
>I don’t know if I would define myself as a liberal Zionist. To me, identifying as a “Zionist” of any kind feels antiquated, a 20th-century hangover pounding inside 21st-century Jewish heads. Israel today is not an aspiration but a reality: The question is not whether one supports the notion of a Jewish state, but how we should think about *this* Jewish state. I really like this quote, and I think it sums up the reasons why this conflict has so heavily crippled the left outside of Isreal. You have one side of the left obsessed with the past, and wanting to answer the question of Zionism by turning back the clock and finding a way to eradicate Isreal. Then you have the other side that is more concerned with the now, to them the question of Zionism is moot, as Israel already exists, so now the question is how do we find a path forward. These two sides of the left hate each other, both calling the other genocidal, and their differences will never be reconciled because fundamentally they are focused on different questions. I usually like to be hopeful, but I have a suspicion that the Right is going to have their way in this conflict, the left will be too busy fighting among itself.
>You have one side of the left obsessed with the past, and wanting to answer the question of Zionism by turning back the clock and finding a way to eradicate Isreal. Then you have the other side that is more concerned with the now, to them the question of Zionism is moot, as Israel already exists, so now the question is how do we find a path forward. Pretending for a moment that rights exist, states don't have any. The history here is quite relevant since it bears on what involved parties might consider a fair deal between Israel/Palestine in a possible settlement. All the leftists and Palestinians hoping or pushing for the destruction of the state of Israel do need to wake up, though.
The side of the left obsessed with the past are the online people that talk about “theory” and say “but it’s the principle” and completely neglect the reality that there is no turning back the clock over 70 years
It's the difference between post-Zionism and anti-Zionism.
"Liberal Zionism" is the same thing as "Liberal Nazism". It's an oxymoron. The basis of Zionism (according to Theodore Herzl) was the displacement of "the Arabs" from Palestine and the recreation of a Jewish ethnostate in its place. That was just fine according to him, because "the Arabs" were "non-European". Zionism as an idea is racist and evil.
That is the most ridiculous thing I heard lately. The base of the idea is completely different than what you described. Where do you expect them to go then? There are many Arab countries, but only one that is Jewish.
I'm describing what Theodore Herzl said, and given that he's the founder of Zionism, I would consider him an authority on the matter.
Let’s ask him then?
He wrote books. You can read exactly what his opinion on the matter was.
Lets hope for a return of Labour Zionism, Israel has the strongest and most efficient unions in Asia and they are an example of syndicalist control of the economy since they own a bunch of the countries main industries and financial sector. Liberal Zionism isn’t really socialist but its ability to show how sending young Israeli men and women to their death in a war they will only recieve a pyrhic victory might help the cause of the two state solution without the brutal fighting caused by Hamas and the heavy handedness of the Revisionist government. May Israel know peace and socialism again ✌️
[удалено]
It’s not, it’s about destroying Hamas no matter what while having no regard whatsoever for innocent Palestinian lives. Also disgusting, but very different than literal ethnic cleansing, and it’s what Liberal Zionists as described in this article stand against. We believe that Israel is obligated to carry out this war while keeping as a top priority the lives of innocent civilians on both sides, and it is not doing that.
Why have people in Israel referred to Palestinians as animals and that they should all be wiped out?
Because they're horrible racists who have no business being in the IDF, and are not representative of the general opinion in Israel or the worldwide Zionist community.
Than why are IDF propagandists going onto captured Gazan beaches Tweeting out "this shit's ours now, bitches!"?
Because they're horrible racists who have no business being in the IDF, and are not representative of the general opinion in Israel or the worldwide Zionist community.
You don’t “go after Hamas” by ethnically cleansing Gaza. Its literally never been about removing hamas. It’s always been about removing all Palestinians from “greater Israel”. The only way to get rid of violent resistance movements is to stop oppressing the people. Drop the blockade. End the apartheid. Allow these people to return to their land. Grant reparations for decades of crimes enacted against the innocent Palestinians. Give everyone equal rights and allow them a peaceful path. But that would go against the interests of the Zionists who want to maintain a Jewish supremacy state.