Say no to authoritarianism, say yes to socialism. Free Palestine 🇵🇸 Everyone deserves Human Rights

  • 0 Posts
  • 51 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: August 18th, 2023
  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Who are the good guys in the Israel/Palestine conflict?
    5·
    4 months ago

    That’s a pretty good summary. I will add that the partition plan was deliberate tactic by Ben-Gurion to set a precedent for the Ethnic Cleansing needed to create the Settler Colonialist Ethnostate within Palestine. The alternative presented by Palestinian Representatives was a Unitary State for both Israelis and Palestinians.

    Partition

    The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units.

    • Pg 132 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine

    On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other.

    • Pg 181 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
    Ethnic Cleansing and Settler Colonialism

    Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.

    This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.

    The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:

    Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:

    While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements

    The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.

    Apartheid Evidence

    Amnesty Report

    Human Rights Watch Report

    B’TSelem Report with quick Explainer

    Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing

    Peace Process and Solution

    Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution

    How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution

    ‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe

    One State Solution, Foreign Affairs

    Hamas proposed a full prisoner swap as early as Oct 8th, and agreed to the US proposed UN Permanent Ceasefire Resolution. Additionally, Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.

    Historian Works on the History
  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Why are so many Pro-Palestine (I am pro-Palestine and anti-genocide) Americans refusing to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel?
    273·
    4 months ago

    I feel like you have to understand the circumstances of those affected most by this genocide to understand. It’s easy to be logical and vote Harris as she is the least worse option, but that’s harder to do when directly affected. I consider the blame to be entirely on the Democratic Administration and Harris’ Campaign Strategy. They have had every opportunity to change course, and them deciding not to may very well cost them the election. I will not blame anti-genocide voters, especially those who are directly affected and have lost loved ones.

    I’m still voting for Harris, on the basis that change from public pressure is far more unlikely under Trump.

    The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.

    https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/

    Here you can track the rhetoric and actions of the Biden Administration month by month. The US has been supplying the weapons used for Israel’s genocide unconditionally for a year. Against international law, against domestic law, against the will of the majority of the population, and all with US taxpayer money. This is pro-genocide foreign policy.

    Harris, instead of breaking from Biden on this issue, has not deviated. She has repeatedly ignored the voices of Palestinian Americans, Arab Americans, and Muslim Americans on this issue. These people are directly affected, they have friends and family in Palestine and Lebanon that have been killed by Israel. She has not only taken their votes for granted, but has offered no concessions and ignored their voices. People are angry at Biden and Harris for this. They desperately want change, but they don’t see that from the Democratic administration.

    Despite Trump’s horrendous track record, he has gained in their support solely because of how Harris has campaigned. It’s not logical, but it’s hard to be when directly affected by the actions of the current administration and no prospect for change. Advocating them to vote for the ‘lesser evil’ doesn’t work when the ‘lesser evil’ is directly responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Trump successfully framed himself as a Dove and Hillary as a warmonger in 2016. He’s using that same tactic now. It would be a completely unsuccessful framing if Harris pivoted to Arms Embargo or Conditional Aid, but that has not happened.

    Breaking from Biden would be a major boost in voter output.

    Quote

    Our first matchup tested a Democrat and a Republican who “both agree with Israel’s current approach to the conflict in Gaza”. In this case, the generic candidates tied 44–44. The second matchup saw the same Republican facing a Democrat supporting “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”. Interestingly, the Democrat led 49–43, with Independents and 2020 non-voters driving the bulk of this shift.

    Quotes

    In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.

    Quotes

    Quotes

    Quotes

    Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.

    Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldtoVideos@lemmy.world•The Real Reason Housing Is So Expensive by Second Thought
    12·
    4 months ago

    I implore you to read more from the sources than just what I quoted. You’re right that it’s not all about money, Pro-immigration should come from a morality standpoint, not just economic. People are people, everyone deserves asylum. There is no reason to curb immigration from anywhere.

    Why are you trying so hard to single certain people out as ‘unworthy’ of being allowed in as immigrants? You’ve provided no evidence that justifies it even from an economic standpoint. I’m sure you’re not talking about any European or First World country, but instead some Third World Country. Of which those people aren’t deserving of immigration to the US for some arbitrary reason. It’s white nativism, which is a form of racism, whether you are aware or not. I’m going to assume you’re not aware, which is why I linked the wiki about nativsm so you can see the history of this kind of sentiment and where it comes from.

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldtoVideos@lemmy.world•The Real Reason Housing Is So Expensive by Second Thought
    1·
    5 months ago

    The ‘Big Lie’ is that Immigrants are bringing crime & drugs across the border, that they negatively impact the economy, and that they take away jobs from & lower wages of US Citizens. These are fabrications not based on any evidence and what the Republican party has run for for years. This is a nativist sentiment.

    There is plenty of evidence that disprove those sentiments.

    Economic Impact

    Myth : Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. Economy and Reducing Immigration would make our economy stronger.

    Fact : The United States needs immigrants to stay competitive and drive economic growth, Particularly as our economy starts to reopen, individuals who create jobs are absolutely critical to our recovery. Immigrants are innovators, job creators, and consumers with an enormous spending power that drives our economy, and creates employment opportunities for all Americans. Immigrants added $2 trillion to the U.S. GDP in 2016 and $458.7 billion to state, local, and federal taxes in 2018. In 2018, after immigrants spent billions of dollars on state and local, and federal taxes, they were left with $1.2 trillion in spending power, which they used to purchase goods and services, stimulating local business activity. Proposed cuts to our legal immigration system would have devastating effects on our economy, decreasing GDP by 2% over twenty years, shrinking growth by 12.5%, and cutting 4.6 million jobs. Rust Belt states would be hit particularly hard, as they rely on immigration to stabilize their populations and revive their economies.

    Taxes and Essential Services

    Myth : Immigrants are a burden to essential services like schools, hospitals, and highways.

    Fact: Immigrants make significant contributions to our economy on virtually every front - including on tax revenue, where they contribute $458.7 billion to state, local, and federal taxes in 2018. This includes undocumented immigrants, who contribute roughly $11.74 billion a year in state and local taxes, including more than $7 billion in sales and excise taxes, $3.6 billion in property taxes, and $1.1 billion in personal income taxes. These billions of tax dollars fund our schools, hospitals, emergency response services, highways, and other essential services. These revenues would increase by $2.18 billion annually if undocumented immigrants were given legal status as part of an immigration reform package. Additionally, immigrants make enormous contributions to Social Security. If current legal immigration levels were cut by 50%, the Social Security fund would lose $1.5 trillion in revenue over the next 75 years.

    IRI

    There are 45 million immigrants living in the United States. Making up 14 percent of the national population, immigrants are a vital part of the social, economic, and cultural life of all American communities.

    The economic role of immigrants has frequently been misunderstood. On the one hand, immigrants are a big and important part of the economy. And, on the other hand, immigrants are disproportionately concentrated in low-wage jobs. Both things are true at the same time.

    Other sources:

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldtoVideos@lemmy.world•The Real Reason Housing Is So Expensive by Second Thought
    5·
    5 months ago

    The problem with housing is not the demand. Housing is a necessity. Blaming a supply problem on demand does not make sense. The issue is with supply. I’m addition to the points I made earlier about making housing more affordable and available, workers are needed to build new housing. More job programs are the answer to that, not restricting immigration.

    Immigrants across the board improve the economy and put more into welfare than they take out. So no, they are not a drain on the economy in any respect.

    Please, share the negative effects of immigration. Because it isn’t crime either. Immigrants are responsible for less crime per capita than US citizens. And the vast majority of drug trafficking is done by US citizens.

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldtoVideos@lemmy.world•The Real Reason Housing Is So Expensive by Second Thought
    72·
    5 months ago

    lowering immigration

    Immigration isn’t the problem with housing, and immigrants aren’t a problem. So why put the blame on them? Are they ‘poisoning the blood of our country’ as certain people would say?

    The only problem with immigration is that it’s not easier to become documented, which creates a two-tier immigration system for the benefit of companies and detriment of workers.

    Housing can be fixed with actually good public housing, rent caps, and removing zoning laws that prevent dense housing from being built.

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•In your opinion how do countries get rid of "terrorists" either within our outside?
    20·
    6 months ago

    Depends on the root cause. If the terrorism comes from a place of desperation for liberation or emancipation, addressing the underlying material conditions would prevent that kind of terrorism. A great example of that is Apartheid South Africa and Ireland. On the other hand, if the terrorism comes from a place of Fascism, like ISIS or the KKK, I think funding progressive and democratic opposition and also education would have the most positive effect. Holding the terrorists responsible for their actions and jailing them accordingly is really important, but to solve the underlying cause is critical to end it entirely. Otherwise, if the root cause isn’t addressed, there is no reason to believe the terrorism will stop.