What does 'Free Palestine' mean to you?

[TwigletsAndRadishes]

I just read that Rachel Zegler shared the trailer for Snow White and commented attached to it, '....and always remember, free Palestine.'

It just got me thinking, what does 'Free Palestine' or 'A Free Palestine' mean to you?

What is it you would want to see in order to be satisfied that Palestine is free and Palestinians are free?

Yep, and I will like to add the total indoctrination of Palestinians to support them

To me it is a situation where Palestinians can roam freely with access to the same opportunities and rights as Israelis.

And you have to pay yourself to demolish your house so I can build my new house on it .

Have you ever read the book "I am Pilgrim" . It is not about Palestine but Afghanistan (I think).

Anyway it follows the story of a man who becomes radicalized against America after seeing his father beheaded and subsequently goes on to carry out a terrorist attack.

Israels actions are creating more support for Hamas than they could themselves.

Remember
17000 orphans .
Highest number of child amputees per capita.

@TwigletsAndRadishes , firstly one has to confront the elephant in the room which is that Palestine as a state is a deeply contentious issue. Then I think we must address what ‘Palestine’ wishes to be freed from. Then and this is vital we must have an answer to the question of the commitment of the interested parties to find and live in a lasting and harmonious peace. The freedom of all the people of that area will never come until peace matters more than hatred.

And if you show any kind of rage you are a terrorist who hates Jews.

These are interesting. Looks like they have been able to get opinions from Gaza through someone there.

j

e

N

More than 1300 houses were demolished last year by Israeli forces in the West Bank.

This is another one with young Palestinians in the West Bank.

A

Oh sorry, I thought your question was in good faith, but it's clear from your whataboutism that it isn't.

If you don't believe Palestinians deserve self determination then you stand for oppression. That's the starting point. The rest of the conversation follows from there, and I'm not interested in having it with people who don't believe in the humanity of my family.

Which territory are you describing as the Palestinians’ “house”? The entirety of what used to be the British mandate of Palestine?

No one at all has said that why are you trying to goad people into denying Israels right to exist. They have talked about two states side by side with equal rights and defined borders.
I agree with @Yazzi this thread is not in good faith .it appears many are trying to put words in others mouths that they do not want Israel to exist when literally no one has said that on this thread.

I wasn’t goading anyone, simply asking a question to clarify what PP meant.
The analogy of ‘I keep your house’ rather than ‘Let’s devide our house’ makes it sound as if they regarded the entire territory as inherently Palestinian.

I had a hunch it wasn't started in good faith and the responses by the OP has confirmed that. It's also in pretty bad taste considering Palestinians are being killed in huge numbers right now, perhaps a deflection from the ongoing slaughter.

From reading the posts it would appear clearly that it was on response to another poster who said it was the fault of the West Bank residents who deserve to have their houses taken by Israeli settlers because they had not accepted deals that would have left them with significantly less land.

Hence the house and shed analogy.

Again No one has said they regard the entire territory as Palestinian.

I'm sorry but I genuinely have no idea what you mean by my 'whataboutery.' I know what whataboutery means, I just don't understand how I've committed it in the post you've quoted. Or anywhere in this thread in fact. I am asking a really simple question, though the answer may not be simple and I appreciate that not every Palestinian (or non-Palestinian who supports the concept of a 'free Palestine' ) may have the same answer. But I want to understand what 'a free Palestine' would need to look like to the majority of Palestinians, to considered accomplished. And what does that mean for the future of Israel? Obviously it goes without saying that pro=Palestine supporters want the bombing of Gaza and the resultant killing of any innocents to stop, but that doesn't touch on what a free Palestine is, and how people think it might be achieved.

Do you not wish to answer the question? Or do you just find it difficult to articulate your answer? Or do you even know the answer?

Freedom from occupation.

Freedom from persecution, oppression and efforts at annexation.

Freedom from externally-funded terrorist groups backed by governments who use them to further oppress and isolate Palestinians.

Freedom for the many innocent people abducted and detained without due process, in inhumane conditions.

International recognition of the harms caused to innocent people and steps taken to make amends - the harms cannot be undone, but reparations, for example, can help recovery. Rather than the suppression or denial of evidence of harms or of concerning reports which should really be investigated further, there should be international recognition of these and appropriate responses.

International recognition of Palestine by the countries still refusing to recognise it, and full membership of and involvement in international communities.

Safeguarding of territorial integrity and sovereignty. It may be that a negotiated two-state solution would require some concessions and exchanges (eg an internationally mediated 'buffer zone'), but there would need to be a way of ensuring land wasn't just going to be re-occupied and that people wouldn't be shot for walking too close (subjectively) to a buffer zone.

Opportunities to create a new way forward in terms of trade, diplomacy and government. This may take a long time, as initially there would need to be external contributions and planning due to how fragmented everything is by decades of occupation and oppression and over a year of destruction and war.

Efforts to bring people to justice for what they have done (locally, regionally and globally) to the innocent people there and to Palestine itself.

How do you define what is started in good faith and what isn't and what have I said that has confirmed for you that this thread is in bad faith? I know it's a hunch , but based on what specifically?

I have expressed absolutely no opinions on anything, I have merely asked questions because I want to understand what it is that people who identify as Palestinian want and need, to be able to feel that Palestine is free.
Do the majority of Palestinians wish to absorb Israel into what will then officially become the recognised state of Palestine, and live side by side in peace with any Jews who wish to remain? Or do they want new boundaries drawn with either a hard border or a soft border and for Israel to continue to exist but perhaps with differently drawn borders?

Do you believe the state of Israel should be allowed to continue to exist in its current geographical location, and if so, presumably you support a two state solution. As do I, I think, if you want an opinion out of me. But honestly, I have no idea how best that could be achieved for both sides in any workable way and I know I am nowhere near well enough read on the subject to try add anything meaningful to that discussion. I want to understand it better, but I have no interest in reading books that are heavily biased to one side of the argument or the other. I think I need a better grasp of the facts before I start listening to too many opinions.

Thank you for that.

"Free Palestine" ?

It means Jew hatred to me. Endemic in the Middle East - so so deep that most people see it as normal.

Exactly. I’m a supporter of the two state solution. A proper, internationally recognised Palestine with secure borders, food, energy, and healthcare. All the things we take for granted in this country.

Mossad is supposedly one of the best intelligence services, so it’s not actually necessary to flatten Gaza to get to Hamas. Prepares it nicely for building Israeli seaside resorts though, and forces ordinary Palestinians to leave their homeland so they’re not cluttering the place up. The Israeli administration doesn’t want to live in peace, it won’t be happy until it’s occupied all of Gaza, more of Syria, and maybe a bit of Lebanon for good measure.

It’s time the knee jerk dog whistle reaction to criticism of anything done by the Israeli government stopped. Supporting an independent Palestine does not equal calling for the extermination of Israel.

How is a Palestine that exists within its borders side by side with a free Israel Jew hating.
Surely a peaceful life for both countries is the ultimate aim here.

In theory I believe everyone should have a right to self determination, but we all know in practice it's not always feasible unless 100% of the people in any given disputed territory all feel exactly the same way about it. Self Determination would see England divided into the nations of Kernow and Yorkshire and probably a few others as well, if we were to listen to everybody who demanded their right to self determination, but what about the rights of those who are quite happy with the status qup and don't want a new nation split off from the existing one? Catalonia, the Basque Country, Brittany, where does it end? But that's what democracy is for and I believe in letting it do its job.

But anyway, assume I do support Palestinians right to self determination in theory, and I don't stand for the oppression of anybody. What did I say in my post that immediately led you to think that was not the case? What does Palestinian self determination mean, in realistically? And what does that, in turn, mean for Israel?

Well, October 7th rather proved Hamas is not interested in peace and they demonstrated pretty clear Jew hatred. Or maybe butchering 1200 people simply because they were Jewish isn't quite enough Jew hatred?

You are naïve if you think Hamas will co-operate with a peaceful two-state solution. I saw how the PLO behaved in the 1970s (you're probably not old enough to remember). Arafat simply walked away when the Israelis offered all he asked for & more. I saw how the Israeli athletes were gunned down at the Olympics in 1972. I remember how other middle Eastern countries gathered on the boundaries around Israel ready to attack in the late 1960s. And then there were the skyjackings by the PLO and others connected to Palestinian terrorists.

Yes, a two state solution would be ideal. But Hamas (and whoever comes after them) do not want peace. They want the eradication of the Jewish race. The first statement of the PLO manifesto was the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.

So there's peace for you. A final solution perhaps?

@TwigletsAndRadishes most people I know recognise the reality of Israel's existence and the right of Israel to exist. Freedom for Palestine can happen alongside the continued existence of Israel.

The establishment of the modern state of Israel was relatively recent and there are people alive today who remember being evicted (often violently or under threat of violence) from their homes in those early years of its establishment, as well as people who have been evicted (again, often violently or under threat of violence) in more recent decades. There is a lot of trauma there. People received little in the way of recompense or support. Some people would like a single state (and wouldn't be concerned what it was called) in which all people are citizens with equal rights and equal votes; however, there are concerns about what that would mean for Israel as a Jewish country (eg the population would probably quickly no longer have a majority Jewish demographic and could lose parts of the identity which are so important for many people), what that would mean for security and safety (there have been a lot of harms caused between Palestinians and Israelis, and it could be very hard and unrealistic to expect everyone to be ok with becoming one integrated population), and whether people could be trusted to actually give each other equal respect and rights. A two-state solution is often argued as being more realistic, because there are two populations, both with valid claims and desires to remain in their homeland, neither of whom can be forcibly removed without violating international law, who need a way to co-exist despite decades of conflicts.