There's a flood of well-funded disinformation out there about what the phrase "from the river to the sea" means, to people who support the human rights of the Palestinian people. So let me make it very clear what I mean when I use it.
I mean that Palestinian people have an inalienable right, as indigenous people, to live in and travel the entire length of their traditional lands. From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
That's all.
(1/2)
The geopolitical implications are a separate discussion. But FWIW, here's my answers to a few FAQ;
1) Do Jewish people also have a right, as indigenous people alienated from their ancestral lands, to live in and travel in Palestine?
Yes.
Those whose ancestors never left the region have exactly the same inalienable rights of tenure as Palestinians. Because they *are* Palestinians. Those who have arrived after generations lived elsewhere have a weaker claim, but I still recognise it.
(2/?)
Despite what colonisers inevitably claim - including those who have occupied Palestine in the name of the Jewish diaspora - being alienated from ancestral lands by the use of unprovoked violence does not extinguish land rights.
But those who have arrived in the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean since the establishment of the state of Israel, are in the same situation I would be in if I my family moved to Scotland. Where our ancestors haven't lived for at least 5 generations.
(3/?)
Our claim to a right of residence in Scotland, and any other rights (eg citizenship), would be weaker than the claim of those for whom Scotland has always been their home. I would not expect to be able to set up a colony for descendants of the Scottish diaspora, constantly expand its borders with illegal occupations and violence against native Scots, and then claim to be the sovereign government of not only Scotland, but former Scottish territories now forming part of England, etc.
(4/?)
2) Do I support replacing the Jewish ethnostate with a Palestinian ethnostate?
No.
For a start, as an anarchist, I don't support the establishment of new states at all. But even as a pragmatist, who accepts that states are a thing many people want to participate in, I utterly reject the very concept of ethnostates. They are a fascist pipedream that can only lead to racist violence, and eventually to genocide. As we now see in the IDF's genocidal actions against Palestinians.
(5/?)
3) Do I support a 2 state solution?
No.
For the same reason I said no to question 2. Having 2 ethnostates competing for territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean can only lead to more sectarian conflict. As has Likud enabling Hamas to govern Gaza as an proto-ethnostate.
A peaceful 2 state solution relies on the people governing Israel being willing to stop expanding their borders through military violence. It's now very clear they have every intention of continuing to expand.
(6/?)
4) Do I support a multi-ethnic state governing the entire area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean as a liberal democracy?
Perhaps. I'm not against it as a pragmatic solution. But I have my doubts about whether its workable. For the same reason integrating Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland hasn't been.
(7/?)
Liberal democracy relies on the unifying myth of a nation, on behalf of which the state holds sovereignty. I suspect the intergenerational antipathy between Israeli Jews and Palestinians is too strong for them to see themselves as part of one nation, until there's been at least a few generations of peaceful coexistence.
So the problem the 1 state solution is proposing to solve needs to be solved before it could become viable.
(8/?)
But beyond that, I suspect the age of 'nation-states' is coming to an end, and with it, liberal democracy as a model. We see signs of this throughout the anglophone world, as unifying national myths collapse into both ethnic and ideological sectarianism. We see it also, ironically, in China's stubborn commitment to transnational "multilateralism", especially in trade and environmental policy.
These are not conditions that support the emergence and stabilization of new "nation-states".
(9/?)
It's cliche now to quote the melodramatic translation of Gramsci that says "this is the time of monsters". But referencing Gramsci is dead right in diagnosing the geopolitical ailment of the age.
The old order ("rules-based", "neoliberal") has been slowly collapsing since the late 1990s, and was dealt a deathblow when the global financial system exploded in 2008. UN and other inter-state institutions were set on fire by shrapnel.
There is no sign of consensus so far on what comes next.
(10/?)
But I think there are new models of political sovereignty and public service coordination that we - and the people living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean - can look to. As we try to figure out what replaces the nation-state system.
What the people of the Chiapas have been doing, for example, in indigenous territory claimed by the state of Mexico. Or the autonomous region created by the Rojava Revolution, in territory claimed by Syria and neighbouring states.
(11/?)
5) Do I accept the right of the Jewish diaspora to have their own state in the region between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?
Depends. On precisely what's meant by "their own state".
If it means a state that protects the full human rights of Jewish people, including their right of residency in their ancestral lands, then I absolutely support that. Within the caveats I've already laid out, about the preeminent rights of those with unbroken lines of occupation, and nowhere else to go.
(12/?)
But as I made clear in my answer to question 2, I reject the legitimacy of ethnostates. So if "their own state" means the state of Israel in its current form, then no.
Actually-existing Irael is a failed state, rapidly devolving into a genocidal, technofascist military regime, with a heavily indoctrinated population attached. Its continued existence, in its current form, is not something any opponent of fascism can accept.
I want to see a democratic revolution by its population ASAP.
(13/?)
That's the top 5 questions covered, I think. Happy to answer any others, from anyone, regardless of what angle they're coming from.
Except fascists and their collaborators, appeasers and Useful Idiots, including both antisemitic and pro-semitic varieties. They can go punch themselves in the face until they come to their senses, and if they stray into my @mentions they will either be Muted and ignored, or ruthlessly mocked .
(14/14)
@strypey Many also suspected that "intergenerational antipathy" between "races" in South Africa was "too strong for them to see themselves as part of one nation" before "a few generations of peaceful existence."
Indeed the outcome is sub-optimal, but way better than the bloodbath that was beginning. The crucial factor was international pressure (including a UN arms embargo, followed by Cuban military action).
@jmopp
> One other difference between South Africa and Israel is that even though the races were legally separated, they were never fully socially separated
Another big difference is that the Apartheid government in South African was not engaged in open genocide against the black population, bombing their cities and hospitals, and murdering them by the thousands.
Maybe with enough Peace and Reconciliation sessions Palestinians growing up in this could forgive and forget, but ...
@danrodary
> I am thinking about the many generations of conflict already lived by these two groups : could it not be the base for a shared will to try together, after some sort of revolution toward a non-racist and non-colonial state
1) I don't see why or how
2) The Irish were not bombed by the English military and murdered by the thousands, including children. Yet a single Irish state has not been possible. This suggests its even more unlikely in the case of Israeli Jews and Palestinians.
Strypey
Orion Ussner kidder
Michael Graaf
·J Mopp
Daniel Rodary