Hey, letting you know that post about Neil Gaiman being a zionist reeks of subtle anti-semitism. His point is in favor of the two-state solution, not Zionism. He's not supporting the abuse of Palestinians. The two state solution aims for their freedom, and supporters are on both sides. They are using Zionism as a dog whistle, intentionally or not. Labeling him as "doubling down" on Zionism is concerning. Saying Israelis shouldn't have to be relocated or removed from a land they also have history with (even if there was a gap in that history) shouldn't be the issue... Especially if he's also saying Palestinians have a right to be there and to be treated fairly. If he's saying Palestinians have a right to be there, that's not Zionism the way that post is using it.
-a pro-palestine jewish historian
P.s. I hope this doesn't come off as rude. I just wanted to extend the info. I hope you have a good day
I can understand how you would come to that conclusion; I do think there's a fine line between being anti-Zionist and antisemitic and it's important to take care when discussing how the Jewish diaspora fit into the picture.
That being said, the two-state solution as it is commonly discussed mainly serves to maintain Israel's colonial gains and lending the settler colony legitimacy, rather than actually providing a fair deal to both Palestinians and Israelis. A two-state solution would only address the symptoms of the Palestinian question and not the root cause, which is Zionist settler colonialism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
On the other hand, a one-state solution seeks to establish a "decolonized, unitary, secular, democratic" Palestine for all of its inhabitants instead of merely granting Palestinians civil rights within the framework of an Israeli state. The one-state solution would seek to grant its citizens equal rights regardless of ethnicity, rather than Israel currently allocating rights based on ethnicity instead. This very solution was proposed by the Palestinians prior to the original partitioning of the region, but it was rejected by the Zionist movement.
TL;DR: I understand where you're coming from, but Palestinians are not interested in displacing Jewish Israelis under a free Palestine, and a two-state solution does nothing to address the fact that Palestinians were historically there first and that Zionists waged extensive ethnic cleansing to establish Israel as an ethnic settler colony.
I may have worded that confusingly and poorly. Palestine had historically been home to a myriad of different peoples and cultures under different rulers through different periods of time. You are correct, however, in that the region was not always named Palestine.
What I meant to say was that centralized, deliberate efforts towards establishing a Jewish-majority nation-state in the region ran against Palestine's historical reputation for being home to Muslims as well as Christians and Jews, as late as the Ottoman era.
This website describes it in far better detail than I can. There's still a lot I don't know about the history of Palestine, but I can tell you that Zionist ideology was a relatively recent development for a region that was inhabited since prehistory.
