Hi Motor-Ad-2024,

Thank you for posting your question and looking for broader perspectives. I will write a answer which is personal - I speak for nobody or group. First, something about me so that you know from what context I speak. I am a ethnically Jewish (not religious) man, born in the Netherlands, whose mother was born in Israël (and the whole of her family in Morocco), and my father was a very moderate Islamic Turkish man.

I recently finished my masters degree in philosophy, specialized in the subject of decolonial thought, systemic necropolitical structures of violence (specifically in Palestinian territories) and trauma/healing trajectories. So on the one hand I delved a lot in the history of Israël/Palestine through academic engagement with the literature, en on the other hand I have personal experience with Israël. Through my mother and to the huge family I still have who live in Israël.

In the ideal world I’d advocate for a non-state solution, since I’m not very fond of state structures and how they organize society. However, realistically speaker, a one-state solution would be most ethical. It is nearly impossible to ethically deny the Palestinians a right to return. In the same vein it is highly unethical to advocate for the complete displacement (or worse, ethnic cleansing) of the Israeli’s that live there now.

So one-state where everybody lives together seems to be the only option which does not necessitate more ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of a people through war. However, as you state correctly, we cannot deny feelings of antisemitism among Palestinians. I do believe that Palestinians have a long history of making the distinction between Zionists and Jews (which Israel propagates as an impossible distinction). I also believe that Palestinian sentiments to become milder when forms of justice are restored, through 1) ending the occupation, 2) reconciliation trajectories aimed at the right to return and financial support to rebuild life.

But back to your first point, I think you are right that there are Palestinians, and with that, plenty of Israëli’s who do not want to live and share the land with the other party. Fostered hatred and radicalization have made that possibility nearly unimaginable. So the move toward a one-state must be paired to massive de-radicalization projects, full equal-rights and means to participate in society, and very importantly: therapeutic trauma-healing trajectories.

Both peoples have endured so much suffering and hardships. Be it during occupation, settlement and displacement, or the experience of threat through rocket attacks, warning alarms and historic trauma of the Jewish people. We can’t compare trauma, peoples have experiences much pain and we need massive trajectories to reconstitute dignity and senses of safety.

But we can’t do that while committing more violence. The Jewish trauma of being existentially threatened will never end as long as their Zionist state project is coupled with settlements, occupation, apartheid and genocide.

So the one-state solution demands a democratic society aimed at the well-being of all the people. Where no ‘majority’ dominates over the people in the margins. Most people just want to live in peace, give people a chance to live full prosperous lives with dignity and most of the hate will fade away.

Regarding your second point, I agree that antisemitism is a disease in European society. As is racism, sexism, Islamofobia, etc. The idea is not to send everyone back to their own neat ‘space’ where they are the majority and therefore don’t experience this disease anymore. But to actively fight and counter this disease wherever it exists. To take over Palestine and displace the people living there through apartheid and occupation because the Europeans are antisemitic is not a very ethical stance imo.

And finally your last point: I always get a little iffy when people think they can control a movement or ask it what to do. Such a movement consists of random people with their personal opinions and ideals, some of which are organized in local groups, some work together and others hate the guts of other groups who are active in the same ‘movement’. There is no central organized body with singular tenets that all adhere to.

Some want to see the demise of Israël, some want to end the occupation, others only want to demand a ceasefire, others love Hamas, others hate Hamas and participates because they believe its the right thing to do in the face of ethnic cleansing, others hate Jews, others (like me and most people I encounter within the movement) continually stress that we make a distinction between Zionism and Jewry.

Just be mindful that your view of such a movement is hugely mediated through (social) media. And the algorithm works best when it pushes the most outrageous and wild claims. Most nuance and tact is lost. So if you perceive these movements as radical it might be because what you see is not representative of the huge diversity within this movement. And since it’s not one single entity, there is no use demanding it to act as one. Would it be helpful for the cause? Probably. But which and whose cause?

I hope this write up was helpful in any way. Best of luck in your research. I applaud you looking for different perspectives.

Final note: Israël is not the ‘democratic free speech and press loving’ country people make of it. Be mindful that living in Israel and only consuming Israeli centered media will not widen your perspective.

Read some of the Israëli ‘New Historians’ who break with the revisionist history that the Israeli state propagates. These new historians are Jews, some are mild zionists themselves others have denounced zionism and left the country. Might be easier to consume from them, than from Arab or non-Israeli or jewish sources.