u/1Palestine

The Pentagon has announced the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq. This withdrawal is in line with the agreement the U.S. reached with Iran, and possibly with ongoing negotiations between them.

As we celebrate this withdrawal, we remember the 1.5-2 million Iraqis who died because of the aggressions of the U.S. and its allies. We point to the fact the U.S. military presence in Iraq was sanctioned by the U.S.-instaured regime to point to the limitations of what "legal" means. And we call on citizens worldwide, both within the U.S. and outside it, to organize to impose the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from the other 80+ countries where they are still present, including occupied Palestine.

The Pentagon has announced the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq. This withdrawal is in line with the agreement the U.S. reached with Iran, and possibly with ongoing negotiations between them.

As we celebrate this withdrawal, we remember the 1.5-2 million Iraqis who died because of the aggressions of the U.S. and its allies. We point to the fact the U.S. military presence in Iraq was sanctioned by the U.S.-instaured regime to point to the limitations of what "legal" means. And we call on citizens worldwide, both within the U.S. and outside it, to organize to impose the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from the other 80+ countries where they are still present, including occupied Palestine.

The Pentagon has announced the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq. This withdrawal is in line with the agreement the U.S. reached with Iran, and possibly with ongoing negotiations between them.

As we celebrate this withdrawal, we remember the 1.5-2 million Iraqis who died because of the aggressions of the U.S. and its allies. We point to the fact the U.S. military presence in Iraq was sanctioned by the U.S.-instaured regime to point to the limitations of what "legal" means. And we call on citizens worldwide, both within the U.S. and outside it, to organize to impose the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from the other 80+ countries where they are still present, including occupied Palestine.

The Pentagon has announced the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq. This withdrawal is in line with the agreement the U.S. reached with Iran, and possibly with ongoing negotiations between them.

As we celebrate this withdrawal, we remember the 1.5-2 million Iraqis who died because of the aggressions of the U.S. and its allies. We point to the fact the U.S. military presence in Iraq was sanctioned by the U.S.-instaured regime to point to the limitations of what "legal" means. And we call on citizens worldwide, both within the U.S. and outside it, to organize to impose the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from the other 80+ countries where they are still present, including occupied Palestine.

The colony has launched a campaign against anti-Zionism, probably as part of its recently-approved 730-million dollar propaganda budget. It is making use of anti-Zionists that are motivated by hatred of Jews: racist statements by anti-Zionist figures and influencers, anti-Jewish rhetoric used by anti-Zionist political movements, and —as we have recently seen— Nazis holding anti-Zionist demonstrations.

An instinctive response might be to deny the problem exists. We might recall the well-known fact that Zionism taxes all anti-Zionists as antisemitic, or maybe even feel that fascists are not real anti-Zionists. Yet the fact Zionism plays the antisemitic card does not mean actual Jew-haters cannot be anti-Zionist. “Anti-Zionism” is simply denial of the colony’s alleged right to exist—it says nothing about the motivation behind it. So how can democratic anti-Zionists deal with this?

Of course, we can make the apologia of our anti-Zionism, and repeat that what we are fighting is settler colonialism, not Jews. But the expression “anti-Zionism” encompasses both those who fight Zionism and refuse its conflation with Jews, and those who fight Zionism because they accept its conflation with Jews and hate Jews. The “anti-Zionism” umbrella is wide—very wide.

The solution is not to drop anti-Zionism. It is to clarify, not just what we are against, but what we are for: One democratic Palestinian state. A state that deals with its society on the basis of citizenship not identity. A state that grants privileges to none and rights to all. The anti-thesis to both Zionism and Nazism.

By doing so, we will move to where fascists can’t follow. We will also strip Zionism of its more potent arguments: Zionism can point to racist anti-Zionist elements, but it cannot attack a vision for democracy and equal citizenship without revealing its own colonial and supremacist nature. Centering our efforts on One Democratic State moves us from defense to counter-attack.

This should not be mere individual efforts. Political organizations, solidarity movements, syndicates, activists, influencers, whether Palestinian or allies, must actively work to align their vision with the historical Palestinian vision for liberation. The One Democratic State Initiative has been working on this for years. We call on you to join our efforts.

The intensity of the genocide in Gaza has decreased since the so-called ceasefire agreement. The colony’s intentions, however, are still there. Prior to the Al-Aqsa Flood, Netanyahu held a map of “Israel” that included Gaza. And more fundamentally, the colony was founded on genocide and will raze as many Palestinians from as much of Palestine as it can. So the full-scale genocide will resume as soon as the colony finds that the balance of power allows for that. How do we stop that then?

The global movement for Palestine in the past few years failed to stop the genocide and to uproot the systems that enable it. Understanding why reveals what we need to work on. The One Democratic State Initiative identifies three areas.

First, most humans are not in political organizations. This is in line with the growing trend of individualism. It deprives us of the capacity to organize efforts and therefore to effect change. It often leads to us using our time in oral expressions of solidarity or condemnation instead of work that actually affects the balance of power. An example is the "All eyes on Rafah" campaign which was one of the most successful twitterstorms of history by social media metrics but did not stop the razing of Rafah.

Second, many organizations are depoliticized. This is in line with the global trend of neoliberalism. We particularly noticed this as the hundreds of organizations we engaged in discussions with in Palestine, Al-Sham and the world fiercely resisted adopting a political vision for Palestine—whether a vision for one democratic state or any other. The reasons are diverse:

- Those who focus on electoral work view the adoption of any political choice as costly in terms of votes and prefer broader messages such as solidarity with Gaza or not supporting the genocide.

- Those established in reaction to events such as the genocide do not see the need for a political vision and view analyzing what is enabling the event and determining the solution to that structure as mere theory.

- Those based on identity, geographic presence or specific means of action resisting adopting a political vision that might cause a split between them.

Third, we lack political education and critical capacity. Many of us are unaware of concepts such as the theory of value, cultural hegemony, historical blocs, the politicization of identity, differences between tribal and state structures, and others—and oftentimes don't see the need to learn them. On the other hand, many who are aware of such concepts adopt them doctrinally, even religiously, with little appetite for questioning them or applying them critically in specific contexts. This leads to work that is largely out of touch with reality and therefore ineffective.

There may be criticism of this identification and identification of other areas. What matters is that we recognize that we were unable to discern the network of power that that connects the interest groups that benefited from the genocide, including capital that controls the media and decision-makers, the technological and military industries, and the settler entity in Palestine. Unless we remedy this situation, we will remain unable to adopt and impose a political program that is in opposition to theirs. We can affect the balance of power if we build the needed political capacity.

The One Democratic State Initiative has taken a number of steps in this regard. They include the "Key Political and Societal Concepts" section of our website, the "Qadirun" revolutionary program (so far only in Arabic) and the building of political relations in Al-Sham and throughout the world. We call on humans worldwide to make the best out of those tools, to engage in discussions of everything expressed here and to join political organizations that share this worry at humankind's depoliticization and this desire for freer and happier societies.

The intensity of the genocide in Gaza has decreased since the so-called ceasefire agreement. The colony’s intentions, however, are still there. Prior to the Al-Aqsa Flood, Netanyahu held a map of “Israel” that included Gaza. And more fundamentally, the colony was founded on genocide and will raze as many Palestinians from as much of Palestine as it can. So the full-scale genocide will resume as soon as the colony finds that the balance of power allows for that. How do we stop that then?

The global movement for Palestine in the past few years failed to stop the genocide and to uproot the systems that enable it. Understanding why reveals what we need to work on. The One Democratic State Initiative identifies three areas.

First, most humans are not in political organizations. This is in line with the growing trend of individualism. It deprives us of the capacity to organize efforts and therefore to effect change. It often leads to us using our time in oral expressions of solidarity or condemnation instead of work that actually affects the balance of power. An example is the "All eyes on Rafah" campaign which was one of the most successful twitterstorms of history by social media metrics but did not stop the razing of Rafah.

Second, many organizations are depoliticized. This is in line with the global trend of neoliberalism. We particularly noticed this as the hundreds of organizations we engaged in discussions with in Palestine, Al-Sham and the world fiercely resisted adopting a political vision for Palestine—whether a vision for one democratic state or any other. The reasons are diverse:

- Those who focus on electoral work view the adoption of any political choice as costly in terms of votes and prefer broader messages such as solidarity with Gaza or not supporting the genocide.

- Those established in reaction to events such as the genocide do not see the need for a political vision and view analyzing what is enabling the event and determining the solution to that structure as mere theory.

- Those based on identity, geographic presence or specific means of action resisting adopting a political vision that might cause a split between them.

Third, we lack political education and critical capacity. Many of us are unaware of concepts such as the theory of value, cultural hegemony, historical blocs, the politicization of identity, differences between tribal and state structures, and others—and oftentimes don't see the need to learn them. On the other hand, many who are aware of such concepts adopt them doctrinally, even religiously, with little appetite for questioning them or applying them critically in specific contexts. This leads to work that is largely out of touch with reality and therefore ineffective.

There may be criticism of this identification and identification of other areas. What matters is that we recognize that we were unable to discern the network of power that that connects the interest groups that benefited from the genocide, including capital that controls the media and decision-makers, the technological and military industries, and the settler entity in Palestine. Unless we remedy this situation, we will remain unable to adopt and impose a political program that is in opposition to theirs. We can affect the balance of power if we build the needed political capacity.

The One Democratic State Initiative has taken a number of steps in this regard. They include the "Key Political and Societal Concepts" section of our website, the "Qadirun" revolutionary program (so far only in Arabic) and the building of political relations in Al-Sham and throughout the world. We call on humans worldwide to make the best out of those tools, to engage in discussions of everything expressed here and to join political organizations that share this worry at humankind's depoliticization and this desire for freer and happier societies.

We invite you to read more about our vision and our initiative on odsi.co.

Netanyahu’s government is guilty of settler colonialism and genocide. With the Knesset elections coming up, is the colony’s opposition the solution? Let’s take a look at key figures.

Neftali Bennet, leader of the “Bennett 2026” Party. He describes himself as “more right-wing than Netanyahu”. He said that Gaza’s children “are not children but terrorists trying to kill our children” and called in 2023 for a total blockade on Gaza. He was head of an umbrella organization of Jewish settlements called the Yesha Council, and supports the annexation of the West Bank.

Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the “Yashar” Party. He speaks of “equal rights” within the colony. He was chief of the staff of the colony’s occupation army and led ethnic razing operations in the West Bank. He supported the massive bombing of infrastructure in Beirut as a means of deterrence against the Lebanese resistance, and applied the same in Gaza as part of the “War Cabinet”.

Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the “Yisrael Beiteinu” Party. He spoke of a two-state “solution” on the basis of the ethnic razing of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship from 1948-occupied Palestine to areas under the “Palestinian Authority”. He supports the colony’s focus on “preemptive” military action and claimed that there are “no innocents in Gaza”.

Yair Golan, leader of the “Democrats” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution”. He criticized the colony’s “killing babies in Gaza” but not the genocide itself. He says the colony’s army is “an occupying military” yet believes it is “justified”. He served as an officer in the occupation army which he believes is “a moral army that protects human dignity”.

Yair Lapid, leader of the “Yesh Atid” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution”. He said that the media should present “only the Israeli side” as “presenting both sides would serve Hamas”. He supports annexation of occupied Syrian territory. He also expressed support of “Greater Israel”, which he defined as expanding the colony’s borders “as much as possible”.

Alon-Lee Green, co-leader of the “Makom Lekulanu” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution” and “equal rights” within the colony. He supports “radical empathy” and spoke of occupation soldiers killed by the Palestinian resistance as “innocent victims”. His Party does not mention the right of return and has stated it will support the candidate “best poised to oust Netanyahu”—i.e. one of the above.

The above paints a picture of the colony’s opposition, clearly showing it opposes Netanyahu, not settler colonialism. One need not delve into that many details, however. Zionism is, by definition, the support of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. One’s support of Zionism is enough to make one guilty, regardless of one’s statements regarding solutions, rights or peace.

The truth is clear: The problem is not the Netanyahu government for the solution to be a different government. The problem is the genocidal settler-colonial state of Israel and the solution is its dismantling and the establishment of its antithesis: One democratic Palestinian state, for all its citizens, from the river to the sea.

Netanyahu’s government is guilty of settler colonialism and genocide. With the Knesset elections coming up, is the colony’s opposition the solution? Let’s take a look at key figures.

Neftali Bennet, leader of the “Bennett 2026” Party. He describes himself as “more right-wing than Netanyahu”. He said that Gaza’s children “are not children but terrorists trying to kill our children” and called in 2023 for a total blockade on Gaza. He was head of an umbrella organization of Jewish settlements called the Yesha Council, and supports the annexation of the West Bank.

Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the “Yashar” Party. He speaks of “equal rights” within the colony. He was chief of the staff of the colony’s occupation army and led ethnic razing operations in the West Bank. He supported the massive bombing of infrastructure in Beirut as a means of deterrence against the Lebanese resistance, and applied the same in Gaza as part of the “War Cabinet”.

Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the “Yisrael Beiteinu” Party. He spoke of a two-state “solution” on the basis of the ethnic razing of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship from 1948-occupied Palestine to areas under the “Palestinian Authority”. He supports the colony’s focus on “preemptive” military action and claimed that there are “no innocents in Gaza”.

Yair Golan, leader of the “Democrats” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution”. He criticized the colony’s “killing babies in Gaza” but not the genocide itself. He says the colony’s army is “an occupying military” yet believes it is “justified”. He served as an officer in the occupation army which he believes is “a moral army that protects human dignity”.

Yair Lapid, leader of the “Yesh Atid” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution”. He said that the media should present “only the Israeli side” as “presenting both sides would serve Hamas”. He supports annexation of occupied Syrian territory. He also expressed support of “Greater Israel”, which he defined as expanding the colony’s borders “as much as possible”.

Alon-Lee Green, co-leader of the “Makom Lekulanu” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution” and “equal rights” within the colony. He supports “radical empathy” and spoke of occupation soldiers killed by the Palestinian resistance as “innocent victims”. His Party does not mention the right of return and has stated it will support the candidate “best poised to oust Netanyahu”—i.e. one of the above.

The above paints a picture of the colony’s opposition, clearly showing it opposes Netanyahu, not settler colonialism. One need not delve into that many details, however. Zionism is, by definition, the support of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. One’s support of Zionism is enough to make one guilty, regardless of one’s statements regarding solutions, rights or peace.

The truth is clear: The problem is not the Netanyahu government for the solution to be a different government. The problem is the genocidal settler-colonial state of Israel and the solution is its dismantling and the establishment of its antithesis: One democratic Palestinian state, for all its citizens, from the river to the sea.

Netanyahu’s government is guilty of settler colonialism and genocide. With the Knesset elections coming up, is the colony’s opposition the solution? Let’s take a look at key figures.

Neftali Bennet, leader of the “Bennett 2026” Party. He describes himself as “more right-wing than Netanyahu”. He said that Gaza’s children “are not children but terrorists trying to kill our children” and called in 2023 for a total blockade on Gaza. He was head of an umbrella organization of Jewish settlements called the Yesha Council, and supports the annexation of the West Bank.

Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the “Yashar” Party. He speaks of “equal rights” within the colony. He was chief of the staff of the colony’s occupation army and led ethnic razing operations in the West Bank. He supported the massive bombing of infrastructure in Beirut as a means of deterrence against the Lebanese resistance, and applied the same in Gaza as part of the “War Cabinet”.

Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the “Yisrael Beiteinu” Party. He spoke of a two-state “solution” on the basis of the ethnic razing of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship from 1948-occupied Palestine to areas under the “Palestinian Authority”. He supports the colony’s focus on “preemptive” military action and claimed that there are “no innocents in Gaza”.

Yair Golan, leader of the “Democrats” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution”. He criticized the colony’s “killing babies in Gaza” but not the genocide itself. He says the colony’s army is “an occupying military” yet believes it is “justified”. He served as an officer in the occupation army which he believes is “a moral army that protects human dignity”.

Yair Lapid, leader of the “Yesh Atid” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution”. He said that the media should present “only the Israeli side” as “presenting both sides would serve Hamas”. He supports annexation of occupied Syrian territory. He also expressed support of “Greater Israel”, which he defined as expanding the colony’s borders “as much as possible”.

Alon-Lee Green, co-leader of the “Makom Lekulanu” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution” and “equal rights” within the colony. He supports “radical empathy” and spoke of occupation soldiers killed by the Palestinian resistance as “innocent victims”. His Party does not mention the right of return and has stated it will support the candidate “best poised to oust Netanyahu”—i.e. one of the above.

The above paints a picture of the colony’s opposition, clearly showing it opposes Netanyahu, not settler colonialism. One need not delve into that many details, however. Zionism is, by definition, the support of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. One’s support of Zionism is enough to make one guilty, regardless of one’s statements regarding solutions, rights or peace.

The truth is clear: The problem is not the Netanyahu government for the solution to be a different government. The problem is the genocidal settler-colonial state of Israel and the solution is its dismantling and the establishment of its antithesis: One democratic Palestinian state, for all its citizens, from the river to the sea.

Netanyahu’s government is guilty of settler colonialism and genocide. With the Knesset elections coming up, is the colony’s opposition the solution? Let’s take a look at key figures.

Neftali Bennet, leader of the “Bennett 2026” Party. He describes himself as “more right-wing than Netanyahu”. He said that Gaza’s children “are not children but terrorists trying to kill our children” and called in 2023 for a total blockade on Gaza. He was head of an umbrella organization of Jewish settlements called the Yesha Council, and supports the annexation of the West Bank.

Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the “Yashar” Party. He speaks of “equal rights” within the colony. He was chief of the staff of the colony’s occupation army and led ethnic razing operations in the West Bank. He supported the massive bombing of infrastructure in Beirut as a means of deterrence against the Lebanese resistance, and applied the same in Gaza as part of the “War Cabinet”.

Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the “Yisrael Beiteinu” Party. He spoke of a two-state “solution” on the basis of the ethnic razing of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship from 1948-occupied Palestine to areas under the “Palestinian Authority”. He supports the colony’s focus on “preemptive” military action and claimed that there are “no innocents in Gaza”.

Yair Golan, leader of the “Democrats” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution”. He criticized the colony’s “killing babies in Gaza” but not the genocide itself. He says the colony’s army is “an occupying military” yet believes it is “justified”. He served as an officer in the occupation army which he believes is “a moral army that protects human dignity”.

Yair Lapid, leader of the “Yesh Atid” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution”. He said that the media should present “only the Israeli side” as “presenting both sides would serve Hamas”. He supports annexation of occupied Syrian territory. He also expressed support of “Greater Israel”, which he defined as expanding the colony’s borders “as much as possible”.

Alon-Lee Green, co-leader of the “Makom Lekulanu” Party. He speaks of a two-state “solution” and “equal rights” within the colony. He supports “radical empathy” and spoke of occupation soldiers killed by the Palestinian resistance as “innocent victims”. His Party does not mention the right of return and has stated it will support the candidate “best poised to oust Netanyahu”—i.e. one of the above.

The above paints a picture of the colony’s opposition, clearly showing it opposes Netanyahu, not settler colonialism. One need not delve into that many details, however. Zionism is, by definition, the support of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. One’s support of Zionism is enough to make one guilty, regardless of one’s statements regarding solutions, rights or peace.

The truth is clear: The problem is not the Netanyahu government for the solution to be a different government. The problem is the genocidal settler-colonial state of Israel and the solution is its dismantling and the establishment of its antithesis: One democratic Palestinian state, for all its citizens, from the river to the sea.

حكومة نتنياهو مذنبة بالاستعمار الاستيطاني والإبادة الجماعية. فهل المعارضة داخل النظام الصهيوني هي الحل؟ لنلقي نظرة على الشخصيات الرئيسية.

نيفتالي بينيت، رئيس حزب "بينيت 2026". يصف نفسه بأنه "أكثر يمينية من نتنياهو". قال إن أطفال غزة "ليسوا أطفالًا بل إرهابيين يسعون لقتل أطفالنا" ودعا في عام 2023 إلى فرض حصار شامل على غزة. كان رئيسًا لمجلس "يشا" لمستوطنات يهودية في الضفة وهو يؤيد ضم الضفة الغربية.

غادي آيزنكوت، رئيس حزب "ياشار". يتحدث عن"المساواة في الحقوق" داخل الكيان. شغل منصب رئيس أركان جيش الاحتلال وقاد عمليات الإزالة العرقية في الضفة الغربية. أيد القصف المكثف للبنية التحتية في بيروت كوسيلة لردع المقاومة اللبنانية وطبّق الاستراتيجية نفسها كعضو "مجلس الحرب" في غزة.

أفيغدور ليبرمان، رئيس حزب "إسرائيل بيتنا". تحدث عن "حل" الدولتين مع وطرح تهجير الفلسطينيين الحاملين للجنسية الإسرائيلية من الداخل المحتلّ عن طريق نقلهم إلى مناطق خاضعة لـ"السلطة الفلسطينية". وزعم أن "لأ أبرياء في غزة" ويؤيد تركيز الكيان على العمل العسكري "الوقائي".

يائير غولان، رئيس حزب "الديمقراطيين". يتحدث عن "حل" الدولتين. وقد انتقد "قتل الأطفال الرضع في غزة" لكنه لم ينتقد الإبادة الجماعية نفسها. ويقول إن الجيش الصهيوني هو "جيش احتلال" لكنه يعتقد أن ذلك "مبرر". وخدم كضابط في جيش الاحتلال الذي يرى أنه "جيش أخلاقي يحمي كرامة الإنسان".

يائير لابيد، رئيس حزب "يش عتيد". يتحدث عن "حل" الدولتين. قال إن على وسائل الإعلام أن تعرض "الجانب الإسرائيلي فقط"، وليس "كلا الجانبين لأن ذلك يخدم حماس". وهو يؤيد ضم أراضي سورية محتلة. كما أعرب عن تأييده لـ"إسرائيل الكبرى"، التي عرّفها بأنها توسيع حدود الكيان "بقدر الإمكان".

ألون-لي غرين، الرئيس المشارك لحزب "مكوم لكولانو" ("لكلنا مكان"). يتحدث عن "حل" الدولتين و"المساواة في الحقوق" داخل الدولة اليهودية. يدعو "للتعاطف الجذري" ووصف جنود قتلتهم المقاومة بالـ"ضحايا الأبرياء". كما أن حزبه لا يذكر حق العودة وينوي دعم المرشح "الأكثر قدرة على الإطاحة بنتنياهو"، أي إحدى الشخصيات المذكورة هنا.

ما ورد هنا يرسم صورة للمعارضة الإسرائيلية: تعارض نتنياهو، لا الاستعمار الاستيطاني الإبادي. لكن لا داعي للخوض في كل هذه التفاصيل. فالصهيونية، بحكم تعريفها، هي تأييد وجود دولة يهودية في فلسطين. ويكفي أن يدعم المرء الصهيونية ليكون مذنبًا، مهما تكلم عن حلول وحقوق وسلام. والترشح لانتخابات الكنيست يشترط تأييد الصهيونية.

الحقيقة واضحة: المشكلة ليست حكومة نتنياهو حتى يكون الحل حكومة أخرى. المشكلة في وجود دولة إسرائيل الاحتلالية الإبادية والحل تفكيكها وإقامة النقيض التام لها: دولة فلسطينية ديمقراطية واحدة، لجميع مواطنيها، من النهر إلى البحر.

This is a follow-up on our previous post, "The Algerian solution: Remove all settlers?"

In 1962, Algeria was liberated from French colonization. The Évian accords between France and the Algerian resistance set the terms for the establishment of an independent Algerian state and gave previous settlers the choice between becoming Algerian citizens, remaining as French residents under Algerian Law, or leaving. This has often been mentioned as a possible model for the liberation of Palestine.

However, a number of settlers founded the Secret Army Organization (OAS) to prevent decolonization. It ran terrorist campaigns that killed hundreds of Algerians. The French-majority city of Oran was a particular target: The OAS blew up the Town Hall and killed Algerians there on a near daily basis. In July 1962, as FLN forces entered Oran as part of the implementation of the accords, they were fired on. Mob violence ensued and Algerians killed 100-300 Pieds-Noirs. This massacre is often cited as a counter-argument to the establishment of One Democratic State in Palestine. Is it really?

The answer is: No.

First, the Oran massacre was a direct reaction to settler violence. The lesson to learn from it is not that Palestinians should accept the existence of the Jewish state in order to prevent hypothetical internal violence in a free Palestine. It is that Jews must join Palestinians in ending settler violence and dismantling the structures that enable and nurture its existence.

Second, the Oran massacre was the exception, not the rule. Following the liberation of Algeria, although most Pieds-Noir chose to leave Algeria, the hundreds of thousands of them who remained lived in peace. Focusing on it seems to be a desperate argument in favor of occupation rather than a genuine concern for Jewish lives—let alone Palestinian lives.

Finally, those citing the Oran massacre seem to be less interested in encouraging Jews to leave Palestine to “save themselves” than in discouraging Palestinian liberation. In no case can potential harm to an oppressing population be used to justify the actual and ongoing harm to an oppressed population.

The above does not mean that the Algerian model must be copy/pasted in Palestine. Each situation is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. What it does mean is that the Oran massacre or other similar outbreaks of violence are not arguments against the establishment of one democratic state in Palestine. And more generally: That there are no valid arguments against liberation.

This is a follow-up on our previous post, "The Algerian solution: Remove all settlers?"

In 1962, Algeria was liberated from French colonization. The Évian accords between France and the Algerian resistance set the terms for the establishment of an independent Algerian state and gave previous settlers the choice between becoming Algerian citizens, remaining as French residents under Algerian Law, or leaving. This has often been mentioned as a possible model for the liberation of Palestine.

However, a number of settlers founded the Secret Army Organization (OAS) to prevent decolonization. It ran terrorist campaigns that killed hundreds of Algerians. The French-majority city of Oran was a particular target: The OAS blew up the Town Hall and killed Algerians there on a near daily basis. In July 1962, as FLN forces entered Oran as part of the implementation of the accords, they were fired on. Mob violence ensued and Algerians killed 100-300 Pieds-Noirs. This massacre is often cited as a counter-argument to the establishment of One Democratic State in Palestine. Is it really?

The answer is: No.

First, the Oran massacre was a direct reaction to settler violence. The lesson to learn from it is not that Palestinians should accept the existence of the Jewish state in order to prevent hypothetical internal violence in a free Palestine. It is that Jews must join Palestinians in ending settler violence and dismantling the structures that enable and nurture its existence.

Second, the Oran massacre was the exception, not the rule. Following the liberation of Algeria, although most Pieds-Noir chose to leave Algeria, the hundreds of thousands of them who remained lived in peace. Focusing on it seems to be a desperate argument in favor of occupation rather than a genuine concern for Jewish lives—let alone Palestinian lives.

Finally, those citing the Oran massacre seem to be less interested in encouraging Jews to leave Palestine to “save themselves” than in discouraging Palestinian liberation. In no case can potential harm to an oppressing population be used to justify the actual and ongoing harm to an oppressed population.

The above does not mean that the Algerian model must be copy/pasted in Palestine. Each situation is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. What it does mean is that the Oran massacre or other similar outbreaks of violence are not arguments against the establishment of one democratic state in Palestine. And more generally: That there are no valid arguments against liberation.

في الوقت الذي تكرّر فيه القيادات والنخب الفلسطينية، للعقد الثاني أو الثالث على التوالي، خطابات المشاركة البراغماتية والمقاطعة الطهرانية، ما زالت غزة تنزف والضفة تهوَّد. فالعدو لا يدَع انتخابات الكنيست تلهيه عن طرح المشاريع ومناقشتها والاختيار بينها وتنفيذها. فماذا عنا؟

ما يغير الواقع ليس إدانته إنما طرح البديل عنه. فما تحتاجه فلسطين، لاسيما غزة والضفة، هو مشروع سياسي يرى فلسطين واحدة في وجه سعي العدو لتفكيكها، ويعمل (قدر المستطاع) لبناء اكتفاء غزة والضفة الذاتي في وجه الحصار والتهجير، ويشرك المجتمع بالنقاش والخيار والمواجهة على قاعدة العداء للاحتلال، ويحشد طاقات الفلسطينيين في ساحات مواجهة تؤثر على موازين القوى. لكي تكون الانتخابات فرصة للتقدم لا فخًا يشتّتنا عن قرع جدران الخزان، على القوى والقيادات والنخب، المشارِكة كما المقاطِعة، بلورةُ مشروع لإنقاذ غزة وتحرير فلسطين والعمل على فرضه.

"انتخابات المجلس التشريعي: فرصة أم فخ؟"، مقال لألان علم الدين على صحيفة العربي الجديد - ملحق فلسطين:

https://mobadara.ps/ar/articles/انتخابات-المجلس-التشريعي-فرصة-أم-فخ؟

Algeria is often cited as the example of decolonisation where the revolution was completed and the settlers were all kicked out. Accordingly, it is proposed that Palestine follow this strategy and aim for the “removal of all settlers”. This is contrasted with alternative examples of “coexistence”, primarily South Africa, where much of the modern economic power is still controlled by “former settlers”.

This fundamentally misunderstands Algeria—it wasn’t “kick out all the French”, it was “become Algerian citizens, reside under Algerian Law, or leave”. This was the agreement proposed to the Pied-Noirs by the FLN in 1954 and agreed on with France in 1962. Most were stuck in their colonial identity, feared retribution or the loss of their economic privileges and left, but many stayed and remain to this day as Algerians.

The Algerian solution is therefore perfectly compatible with the concept of One Democratic State. Equal rights for all on the basis of citizenship, dissolve the settler-native dichotomy. However, each situation is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. For example, Algeria was part of France, a single metropole, of which all settlers (even those who had lived there for generations) were citizens.

This means that after the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian state, ex-Israelis will have to weigh matters related to their practical ability to leave and their readiness to drop colonial privileges, and many will mirror the Pied-Noirs and choose to leave. Meanwhile, matters regarding justice and reparations for Palestinians will have to be addressed as a foundation for liberation and a democratic legitimacy. History can teach lessons about such situations, but every material circumstance is unique and must be treated as such.

Algeria is often cited as the example of decolonisation where the revolution was completed and the settlers were all kicked out. Accordingly, it is proposed that Palestine follow this strategy and aim for the “removal of all settlers”. This is contrasted with alternative examples of “coexistence”, primarily South Africa, where much of the modern economic power is still controlled by “former settlers”.

This fundamentally misunderstands Algeria—it wasn’t “kick out all the French”, it was “become Algerian citizens, reside under Algerian Law, or leave”. This was the agreement proposed to the Pied-Noirs by the FLN in 1954 and agreed on with France in 1962. Most were stuck in their colonial identity, feared retribution or the loss of their economic privileges and left, but many stayed and remain to this day as Algerians.

The Algerian solution is therefore perfectly compatible with the concept of One Democratic State. Equal rights for all on the basis of citizenship, dissolve the settler-native dichotomy. However, each situation is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. For example, Algeria was part of France, a single metropole, of which all settlers (even those who had lived there for generations) were citizens.

This means that after the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian state, ex-Israelis will have to weigh matters related to their practical ability to leave and their readiness to drop colonial privileges, and many will mirror the Pied-Noirs and choose to leave. Meanwhile, matters regarding justice and reparations for Palestinians will have to be addressed as a foundation for liberation and a democratic legitimacy. History can teach lessons about such situations, but every material circumstance is unique and must be treated as such.

Algeria is often cited as the example of decolonisation where the revolution was completed and the settlers were all kicked out. Accordingly, it is proposed that Palestine follow this strategy and aim for the “removal of all settlers”. This is contrasted with alternative examples of “coexistence”, primarily South Africa, where much of the modern economic power is still controlled by “former settlers”.

This fundamentally misunderstands Algeria—it wasn’t “kick out all the French”, it was “become Algerian citizens, reside under Algerian Law, or leave”. This was the agreement proposed to the Pied-Noirs by the FLN in 1954 and agreed on with France in 1962. Most were stuck in their colonial identity, feared retribution or the loss of their economic privileges and left, but many stayed and remain to this day as Algerians.

The Algerian solution is therefore perfectly compatible with the concept of One Democratic State. Equal rights for all on the basis of citizenship, dissolve the settler-native dichotomy. However, each situation is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. For example, Algeria was part of France, a single metropole, of which all settlers (even those who had lived there for generations) were citizens.

This means that after the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian state, ex-Israelis will have to weigh matters related to their practical ability to leave and their readiness to drop colonial privileges, and many will mirror the Pied-Noirs and choose to leave. Meanwhile, matters regarding justice and reparations for Palestinians will have to be addressed as a foundation for liberation and a democratic legitimacy. History can teach lessons about such situations, but every material circumstance is unique and must be treated as such.