Normal israelis used to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
For all the good that did Palestinians. The fact of the matter is that no serious attempt at a two state solution (if we even consider Oslo that) has come from Israel since Rabin, and we all know how that ended. Israeli “support” for Palestinian liberation is too fickle and too noncommittal to be counted on as a basis for anything, and peace talks between the PA and Israel would remain as farcical as ever even as support for a two-state solution hit its peak (about 70%). As MLK describes in A Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “later” and “if you behave” have always been synonyms for “never” in liberation politics. To repeat: There was only one man willing and capable to make significant “concessions” to end the conflict, and Israelis killed him and elected Hitler for it. By the time “normal Israelis” can get their heads out of their asses and stop their ethnic cleansing project, Palestine won’t exist for them to benefit form this oh so gracious change of heart.
But regular missile attacks and air raid sirens desensitised them in recent times.
Israeli support for a two-state solution peaked after the notoriously violent Second Intifada, so I’m not convinced the amount of violence exercised by Palestinians is playing a significant role here. What’s more likely is that the late 90s and early 2000s were an anomaly and now Israel is experiencing a pendulum swing in the opposite direction, helped along by the rise of fascism in Western-aligned democracies.
Israelis nearly got rid of Netanyahu, but attacks like Oct 7 galvanised the public behind him.
They were going to get rid of him because he’s corrupt, not because support for his agenda had soured. Case in point: They refuse to get rid of him, even though an overwhelming majority wants him to resign, because they’re prioritizing the genocide.
I lived the resistance of the ANC in the late 80s. Umkhonto weSiswe was a lot less prominent by then since the change in strategy.
The late 80s was after most prerequisite progress had already happened and reform was a serious prospect; this is like saying “see? The Good Friday Agreement proves violence was unnecessary in North Irish liberation!” Like, of course violence will be less necessary with serious talks underway; the problem is forcing those talks to happen in the first place. By the way, you said in your original comment that the ANC had stopped its armed struggle, so why are you contradicting yourself?
What I am advocating for is that in all similar situations around the world, armed attacks on the civilians of the other side have NEVER resulted in success.
I’m not advocating attacking civilians specifically, but… North Ireland? What do you think the IRA was doing?
The image you’re pushing of exclusively nonviolent resistance to settler colonialism is simply not backed by reality, as shown by your own example.
For all the good that did Palestinians. The fact of the matter is that no serious attempt at a two state solution (if we even consider Oslo that) has come from Israel since Rabin, and we all know how that ended. Israeli “support” for Palestinian liberation is too fickle and too noncommittal to be counted on as a basis for anything, and peace talks between the PA and Israel would remain as farcical as ever even as support for a two-state solution hit its peak (about 70%). As MLK describes in A Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “later” and “if you behave” have always been synonyms for “never” in liberation politics. To repeat: There was only one man willing and capable to make significant “concessions” to end the conflict, and Israelis killed him and elected Hitler for it. By the time “normal Israelis” can get their heads out of their asses and stop their ethnic cleansing project, Palestine won’t exist for them to benefit form this oh so gracious change of heart.
Israeli support for a two-state solution peaked after the notoriously violent Second Intifada, so I’m not convinced the amount of violence exercised by Palestinians is playing a significant role here. What’s more likely is that the late 90s and early 2000s were an anomaly and now Israel is experiencing a pendulum swing in the opposite direction, helped along by the rise of fascism in Western-aligned democracies.
They were going to get rid of him because he’s corrupt, not because support for his agenda had soured. Case in point: They refuse to get rid of him, even though an overwhelming majority wants him to resign, because they’re prioritizing the genocide.
The late 80s was after most prerequisite progress had already happened and reform was a serious prospect; this is like saying “see? The Good Friday Agreement proves violence was unnecessary in North Irish liberation!” Like, of course violence will be less necessary with serious talks underway; the problem is forcing those talks to happen in the first place. By the way, you said in your original comment that the ANC had stopped its armed struggle, so why are you contradicting yourself?
I’m not advocating attacking civilians specifically, but… North Ireland? What do you think the IRA was doing?
The image you’re pushing of exclusively nonviolent resistance to settler colonialism is simply not backed by reality, as shown by your own example.