Yes, MLK was one of the most moderate representatives of the movement, yet even he was a democratic socialist (even if that played much less of a role in his convictions than his christianity)
I think the problem lies with the definition of consent more than with the definition of suffering. If the alternative is something worse, then that's not consent. That's coercion.
Now, whether it's still appropriate to still call it suffering when applied to someone enthusiastically consenting, I'm not sure.
The status quo is that Palestinians have no rights (legal, human, you name it), while the Israeli state protects the Israeli citizens. They don't get to vote, they don't get to travel, and they don't even get to keep their homes and lives in the face of the Gaza genocide and state-sponsored settler-colonialism.
Now, there is no reason that liberation for Palestinians must mean some sort of displacement or genocide for Israelis. The very fact that Zionists want you to believe that liberation is a zero-sum game is very telling.
One option would be a secular state that represents both Israelis and Palestinians, with appropriate measures to protect whichever ethnic group may be in the minority.
Another would be a recognized, democratic Palestinian state alongside Israel, in the borders of 1949 (or perhaps 1967), with a robust right to return. The illegal settler occupations erected since then would obviously need to be removed.
There are, of course, other avenues, some more utopic than others (as an anarchist, I favor a no state solution but I am pragmatic enough to recognize that this is wishful thinking for the near-future). But none of them, at least the serious ones, include dispelling all Israelis.
itslilith @ itslilith @lemmy.blahaj.zone Posts 11Comments 1,644Joined 2 yr. ago
That's how you get weekly leaks