#ofc at a certain point we're just talking semantics -- but i don't think forced deportation of ethiopian-israelis to ethiopia is on the

[familyabolisher]

re: this post, where are, for example, ethiopian jews in israel (who are not to my knowledge currently treated well by the israeli government etc, but that may be a different discussion) meant to go if coexistence is not an option? (this is a genuine question—to my knowledge ethiopia is not a safe place for jewish people!)

i was acting on the assumption that the "coexistence" in the post referred to the two-state solution rather than the literal side-by-side existence of 'israeli' jews and palestinians following the decolonisation of palestine;

this is why i balk at people hoping for coexistence. coexistence goes against the very founding strategy of israel. it goes against every principle and long term plan israel has for itself. israelis themselves do not want coexistence, they want gaza flattened and the west bank annexed, they want palestine destroyed and the palestenian people extinct.

^the wording here implies that what's being discussed is a question of 'coexistence' concurrent with the continued existence of so-called 'israel,' hence the noting that 'coexistence' goes against its founding strategy. so what's being refuted seems to be the appeal to 'coexistence' that characterises the two-stater position, or eg. the calls for a ceasefire, both of which call for states by which the colonisation of palestine can continue.

the physical removal of all israelis from palestinian land is not a prerequisite for the decolonisation of palestine, nor is the physical removal of all settlers the prerequisite for the decolonisation of any settler colony. decolonisation is a violent process, yes, and -- as the post notes -- formerly-israeli jews in a decolonised palestine would need to be prepared to accept palestinian sovereignty in a way that many simply are not willing to do at this present moment in time, and i'm not naive enough to believe that the decolonisation of palestine would be a case of peaceful acquiescence on the part of israeli citizens. however, acknowledging the reality of israeli attitudes towards palestinians is v different to regarding all critique of discursive appeals to 'coexistence' as necessarily demanding physical removal, especially when appeals to 'coexistence' tend to discursively communicate a) a reprimanding of palestinians for the 'violence' of their resistance and/or b) the two-stater position. imo it's a critique of a discourse.

from decolonise palestine's piece on the mandate years leading up to the nakba:

This followed a long series of Zionist rejection of overtures by the native Palestinians. In 1928, for example, the Palestinian leadership voted to allow Zionist settlers equal representation in the future bodies of the state, despite them being a minority who had barely just arrived. This was faced with Zionist rejection. Even after this, in 1947 the Palestinians suggested the formation of a unitary state for all those living between the river and the sea to replace the mandate to no avail. There were many attempts at co-existence, but this simply would not have benefited the Zionist leadership who never intended to come to Palestine to live as equals.

obviously, the social conditions of palestine under the british mandate are very different to those today, but i think this contravenes the idea that palestinians are merely braying for jewish blood and seeking to physically remove palestine's jewish population.

#ask #ofc at a certain point we're just talking semantics -- but i don't think forced deportation of ethiopian-israelis to ethiopia is on the #table either way #like---when people say most israelis are white usamericans with dual citizenship they are wrong. that is factually incorrect. #& we ought to be able to develop materialist analysis w/o resorting to comfortable mythologies lol