Not actually that recent, but pretty cool nonetheless.
You know, the one that gives housewives/full-time mothers a pension— wages for housework?
It’s ONLY A HUGE VICTORY FOR FEMINISM, SOCIALISM, AND WOMEN OF COLOR. Not a big deal or anything. Tumblr is mysteriously silent about this.
I take it you mean the 1947 partition plan. Alright, this might be a tad bit long, but let’s talk about that, shall we?
The 1947 partition plan, was a framework proposed by the UN in an attempt to divide historical Palestine into 2 states for 2 peoples. This was to be implemented at the end of the British Mandate of Palestine. There would be as they named it one “Arab state”, and one “Jewish state”. Jerusalem would remain an international city open for all.
Unsurprisingly, the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs, refused this. Why? Let’s go over the basics. And I mean the very bare basics, you could write a book on this, so I’m just sticking to the essentials.
A common argument I see from a lot of pro-Israelis, is that Palestinians had the chance to have peace, and have a state of their own if they had just accepted this plan. The state we could have gotten, would have been much larger and all of this fighting would have been unnecessary.
As you know, historical Palestine has always had a Jewish community. This was never contested, there never were issues with the indigenous Jewish Palestinians.
No, the root of the matter truly began with Zionism. Zionism was an ideology developed by Theodor Herzl (and others) that promoted the creation of a Jewish state. This ideology in practice is basically very heavy on the settler colonialism. If you read any of Herzl’s books you will find them chock full of “White man’s burden” mimicry, and other examples that would make any colonial proud.
There were many candidates for the location of this Jewish state, including Argentina, but in the end they chose Palestine, despite the fact that Palestine was already inhabited.
The first significant waves of European Zionist migration began at the end of the 19th century. So in the 1880s upward. The partition plan was proposed in 1947. So by the time this plan came along, the vast majority of the Zionist population in Palestine had barely been on the land for a few decades, at most.
Despite this massive immigration to Palestine, the Zionist population was still a minority. The most generous of estimates are that they made up only a third of the population, and owned land no more than 6-7% of historical Palestine.
So what exactly were the specifics of the partition plan?
The “Arab” state, despite the Arab Palestinians being the vast majority, would receive ~43% of the land of historical Palestine, relegating them to the mountainous regions, a third of the coast, and losing any access to the red sea.
The “Jewish” state, despite the Zionists being a minority with not a single district outside of Yaffa having a Jewish population majority (port city, most immigrants off the boat ended there), were given around ~56% of the land of historical Palestine. With the majority of the coastline and fertile agricultural lands.
Btw, just to show how small the Zionist population was, even the “Jewish” state would have only had a 55% Jewish population.
So, answer me this: Why should the indigenous population give up more than half of their historical homeland? What sense would that make? And not only that, they’d be giving it up for a minority of newcomers fresh off the boat. Who in their right mind would not resist this?
This is not a question of living together peacefully, the only way Zionists could have their self determination in this context was to deny Palestinians their self determination. The only way they could have a Jewish state with a vast Jewish majority (A Zionist goal), was if the Palestinians were removed from the picture. And we were.
Just so you understand what I mean by this, here is but one example of a quote from David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel in 1948:
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
So when people ask me why we didn’t accept the 1947 partition plan..the only thing I can think of is this line by Ghassan Kanafani:
“They rob you of your bread, but leave you a small chunk, they then command you to thank them for their generosity. Oh their audacity.”
If you are broken, remember that He is al-Jabbar, the One Who Mends, Restores, Repairs.
The essence of the root j-b-r is the irresistible restoration of something, and the name al-Jabbâr describes the nature of the One who is the ultimate restorer of the soundness, wholeness and righteousness of all things. For a human being, any claim to such irresistible power would be false pride and arrogance, but for Allâh it is simply the truth. [x]
Humanities and Political Science, Carleton University.
"The Evolution of Public Thought from Utopia to Distopia, and the Effect on Public Policy"
The killing of women and children is horrific—but in the reiteration of these disturbing facts there is something missing: the public mourning of Palestinian men killed by Israel’s war machine. In 1990 Cynthia Enloe coined the term “womenandchildren” in order to think about the operationalization of gendered discourses to justify the first Gulf War. Today, we should be aware of how the trope of “womenandchildren” is circulating in relation to Gaza and to Palestine more broadly. This trope accomplishes many discursive feats, two of which are most prominent: The massifying of women and children into an undistinguishable group brought together by the “sameness” of gender and sex, and the reproduction of the male Palestinian body (and the male Arab body more generally) as always already dangerous. Thus the status of male Palestinians (a designation that includes boys aged fifteen and up, and sometimes boys as young as thirteen) as “civilians” is always circumspect.
This gendering of Israel’s war on Gaza is conversant with discourses of the War on Terror and, as Laleh Khalili has argued persuasively, counter-insurgency strategy and war-making more broadly. In this framework, the killing of women and girls and pre-teen and under boys is to be marked, but boys and men are presumed guilty of what they might do if allowed to live their lives. Furthermore, these boys and men are potentially dangerous not only to the militaries that occupy them, but to those womenandchildren who actually are civilians. The young boys, after all, may grow up to be violent extremists. Thus, kill the flesh—extinguish the potential.
The Israeli war machine, much like the US war machine in Afghanistan or Iraq, does not protect Palestinian queers and women and children. It kills them, maims them, and dispossesses them alongside their loved ones—for the simple reason that they are Palestinian, and thus able to be killed with impunity while the world watches. Today, the difference between Palestinian womenandchildren and Palestinian men is not in the production of corpses, but rather in the circulation of those corpses within dominant and mainstream discursive frames that determine who can be publicly mourned as true “victims” of Israel’s war machine. Thus the sheer number of womenandchildren dead are enough to mobilize the US president and the UN to make statements “condemning” the violence—but the killing, imprisonment, and maiming of Palestinian men and boys in times of war and ceasefire goes uncited. In Israel men, settlers, and even soldiers are framed as victims of Palestinian terrorism and aggression. All are publicly mourned. In an almost direct reversal, while Palestinian boys and men have been the primary target of Israel, as evidenced by the population of political prisoners and targeted assassinations, are not seen by western based mainstream media as victims of Israeli terrorism and aggression. Palestinians are put in the self-defeating position of having to fight to be recognized as human, to be recognized in death and in life as victims of Israeli policies and actions.
And how hard is it to land even a minimum-wage job? This year, the Ivy League college admissions acceptance rate was 8.9%. Last year, when Walmart opened its first store in Washington, D.C., there were more than 23,000 applications for 600 jobs, which resulted in an acceptance rate of 2.6%, making the big box store about twice as selective as Harvard and five times as choosy as Cornell. Telling unemployed people to get off their couches (or out of the cars they live in or the shelters where they sleep) and get a job makes as much sense as telling them to go study at Harvard.
As many as 15 percent of freshmen at America’s top schools are white students who failed to meet their university’s minimum standards for admission, according to Peter Schmidt, deputy editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education. These kids are “people with a long-standing relationship with the university,” or in other words, the children of faculty, wealthy alumni and politicians.
According to Schmidt, these unqualified but privileged kids are nearly twice as common on top campuses as Black and Latino students who had benefited from affirmative action.
This is EXTREMELY blatant on college campuses. The fact that these things need to be clarified is sad.
Legacy is the real affirmative action…and yet we don’t see certain types of entitled people suing to dismantle that.