The problems with this motion include the insistence on a one state solution
Because only the most ignorant or naive think that being a separate nation protects anyone from the aggression of the West’s favorite fascist regime.
If you think being a neighboring country that isn’t aggressive towards Israel keeps you safe, you should have a word with someone from the Golan Heights or the part of Syria they RECENTLY started illegally occupying.
(against the expressed wishes of the Palestinian people)
Gonna need a source on that.
and a threat of wholesale proscription of Jewish communities.
That sounds like classic antisemitic conflating of Zionism and Jewdom, as well as ridiculous hyperbole. Specifics, please.
If you want to understand things, you have to read past the headline. It’s the only way.
I did. None of the things you claimed (other than 4/5 of the MPs being against it) were actually in the article afair from reading it last night.
As someone who hasn’t read the actual motion itself - sure, being a separate state doesn’t protect against Israel, but the issue seems to be that this motion insists on a one state solution.
Why?
Being a single state obviously doesn’t help. So what is the benefit? Why is it insisting on this?
Because a single state that doesn’t discriminate based on religion and ethnicity IS the only solution that could possibly create lasting peace and justice.
As long as there’s a Jewish supremacist apartheid ethnostate on or next to their land, no Palestinian will be safe.
Being a single ethnostate with several ethnicities being oppressed by the dominant oneobviously doesn’t help
Fixed it for you. Like South Africa before it, the solution is to overthrow the tyrannical apartheid system of government, not portioning out a tiny parcel of land next to it that the overlords will always scapegoat and vilify.
So what is the benefit? Why is it insisting on this?
Because only the most ignorant or naive think that being a separate nation protects anyone from the aggression of the West’s favorite fascist regime.
If you think being a neighboring country that isn’t aggressive towards Israel keeps you safe, you should have a word with someone from the Golan Heights or the part of Syria they RECENTLY started illegally occupying.
Gonna need a source on that.
That sounds like classic antisemitic conflating of Zionism and Jewdom, as well as ridiculous hyperbole. Specifics, please.
I did. None of the things you claimed (other than 4/5 of the MPs being against it) were actually in the article afair from reading it last night.
As someone who hasn’t read the actual motion itself - sure, being a separate state doesn’t protect against Israel, but the issue seems to be that this motion insists on a one state solution.
Why?
Being a single state obviously doesn’t help. So what is the benefit? Why is it insisting on this?
Because a single state that doesn’t discriminate based on religion and ethnicity IS the only solution that could possibly create lasting peace and justice.
As long as there’s a Jewish supremacist apartheid ethnostate on or next to their land, no Palestinian will be safe.
Fixed it for you. Like South Africa before it, the solution is to overthrow the tyrannical apartheid system of government, not portioning out a tiny parcel of land next to it that the overlords will always scapegoat and vilify.
See above.