The checkpoints and control of roads in the West Bank prevent Palestinians from moving freely. The PLO “controls,” The West Bank, but when an occupying nation controls many of the roads, preventing usage of certain roads by the citizens of your territory and only letting their own citizens travel on them, how can they be considered independent? They lack basic sovereignty, with their citizens not being able to move within their own country due to an occupying force. You claim there is no authority to undermine, but even if correct, the reason for a lack of authority is squarely on Israel.
The idea that Palestine’s population has grown for the entire conflict falls apart when you look at the late 1940s, where over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from their homes by Zionist militias. It was almost half of the Arab population. In just a few years, zealous Zionists used violence to flip the demographics of the region to favor Jews over non Jews. This wasn’t genocide, but was undeniably ethnic cleansing. It’s an important piece of context that Israeli fascists have tried to keep out of the conversation, focusing on population trends after their ethnic cleansing and assuming people won’t investigate.
I might describe Isreal’s practical intentions as genocidal because that’s the only way their strategy can make Israeli citizens safe like they claim to be working towards. Bombing Gaza does not make Israel safer unless they decimate the population enough to exert authoritarian control over the survivors. If they wanted Palestinians to live alongside Israel peacefully, they would ensure that there is a strong Palestinian state with little motivation to invade. If they got rid of settlements in the West Bank, funded a Palestinians state and reinvigorated their economy, and mutually agreed to harshly police hate crimes in both states, then they could coexist. The only ways to defeat Hamas in Gaza through force would be occupation of Gaza, or the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza.
The reason they don’t go all out on purging Gaza probably has to do with Arabs outside Palestine who might attack if it happens too quickly. Israel has nukes, but they still want to avoid all out war. The long term goal of this subset of Zionists, genocidal Zionists, is to take over all of Palestine eventually, something that would likely be genocidal. Some Zionists want two states, but the Zionists in charge want a single Jewish theocracy.
I want peace and safety for Jewish people and Palestinians, something that will not happen without a true two state solution, or a single secular state. The long term plan of the state of Israel is ethnic cleansing at best, and genocide at worst.
The situation with Egypt requires contextual knowledge of their history with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is a breakaway from the MB, and still ally with them. Egypt’s more secular military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood’s democratic government, and the current government doesn’t want them to rise again. Letting in Palestinians would let in Hamas members, who might create problems for the government. It’s not the peacefulness of Palestinians, but the politics of Egypt that prevent them from accepting refugees. If Hamas was exactly the same but would oppose MB forces in Egypt, Egypt would probably let in some refugees. However, it’s hard for a nation with Egypt’s problems, to deal with so many refugees by themselves anyways. Israel, the ones creating refugees out of Palestinians, can’t expect their neighbors to happily foot the bill of caring for people who’s property they stole and destroyed.
Can you elaborate on what genocide means here? I usually think that means to wipe out some race but in this case they aren’t targeting based on race but on who wants to displace or kill them.
Isn’t it the case that Palestine could have sovereignty if they made a deal with Israel to split up the territory? My understanding was that they refuse to make deal as they demand to have have all the land and to expel the Jews.
You mention that Israel is genocidal, maybe some of them are in secret, but mainly they are interested in taking control of the land and stopping their enemies.
You say that Israel displaced Arabs but I thought many of them just left because they oppose Israel not because the Israelis actually told them to leave? Many Arabs stayed in place and they were not kicked out if they were willing to live in peace is Israel.
Israel and many others send aid all the time to Palestine in the hopes of bringing peace but it’s not been effective in making them seek peace.
Palestinians in general still think they should hold out for getting the whole region back, and more or less support Hamas because they have been taught to think this way.
I find it interesting that there are few complaints about how a huge part of Palestine was turned into “the kingdom of Jordan” by the British yet Palestinians did not have a violent rebellion against that decision and Palestine is not demanding that land back today.
Palestine nationals did try to work towards a deal. Zionists did kick Arabs out of their homes, 80% of them in what shortly became Israel. Oh, but they’re not genocidal, they just want to kick the Arabs off their land and make them not exist as a collective people there. Why couldn’t I see that? Those pesky Palestinians need only accept being a minority in a Jewish theocracy, then they don’t have to leave their homes.
Jordan was not unilaterally turned into the kingdom of Jordan by the British, a Transjordan independence movement wanted to prevent immigration of Jews to Mandatory Palestine, but barely managed to unite the land in present day Jordan. Jordan wasn’t a fully independent nation at this time and Mandatory Palestine certainly wasn’t. They didn’t have a choice, and the king would have tried to unite Palestine with Jordan if the British didn’t have plans for it.
You seem to think that a common people with a shared culture will automatically unite as a nation, but organizing a state isn’t easy. Independent tribes need to be convinced of the usefulness of a larger collective in order to form a state. They give up autonomy in creating a nation, so the tradeoff must seem worthwhile. If not for the external threat of Europeans trying to carve up and control peoples in the Middle East for selfish interests, they would prefer to be tribal and borderless. This isn’t because they’re uncivilized or savages, but because regional autonomy is a cool vibe. It’s not true anarchy, but it’s a less centralized mode than what Europeans thought was normal and civilized.
This is why European empires carving up the Middle East and demanding they form nations is so fucked up. They made arbitrary borders, often intentionally drawn to perpetuate and create conflict, because they think centralized governments are just the norm. Centralized governments can be useful, but they’re not without drawbacks and aren’t always superior. They need to come about naturally out of shared interests and the desire to accomplish what can’t be done singularly. This is why the UK leaving the EU was so ironic and hypocritical: they wanted to be more than equal partners because they’re so used to dominating imperially. When you’re used privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Anyhow, your understanding is shallow and ignorant. I’m not in the mood to give you a college course in social science and history that you might not even listen to. The best I can do is advise you to ensure your arguments are supported by evidence. Try to use evidence to inform your opinion and not to cherrypick facts that support your preconceived worldview. It’s a struggle to do this and not as easy or convenient, but it is what people should try to do.
