حرية لفلسطين

Silence = Complicity:

For those who have passionately spoken out against other instances of genocide and massacres, yet fall silent when it comes to the suffering endured by Palestinians, their silence becomes a glaring indictment of the value placed on Palestinian lives and perpetuates a dangerous narrative that suggests Palestinian suffering is somehow less worthy of outrage, less deserving of empathy and less human than that of others.

By choosing silence in the face of Palestinian suffering, those with influential platforms inadvertently contribute to the erasure of Palestinian voices and experiences. They perpetuate a narrative of invisibility that allows the injustices inflicted upon Palestinians to continue unabated, shielded from the spotlight of global scrutiny.

Their silence sends a chilling message of complicity to the world – one that suggests Palestinian lives are expendable, their struggles inconsequential and their humanity negotiable. It emboldens perpetrators of violence and oppression, granting them impunity under the guise of indifference.

To remain silent in the face of Palestinian suffering is to betray the very essence of activism – the relentless pursuit of justice for all, without exception or equivocation. It’s a betrayal not only of the Palestinian people but of the universal principles of human dignity and equality and instead is a tacit endorsement of the dehumanization and marginalization of an entire population.

True activism demands consistency and integrity, an unwavering commitment to speaking truth to power and standing in solidarity with the marginalized and oppressed, regardless of geography or politics.

Two-state solution:

The two-state solution, once hailed as the path to peace, has proven itself to be a hollow promise, built upon the fractured dreams of generations of Palestinians. It has served as a smokescreen for the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, the entrenchment of occupation, and the perpetuation of systemic discrimination against Palestinians. In essence, it has enshrined a reality where Palestinian statehood is nothing more than a distant mirage, forever out of reach amidst the ever-expanding borders of Israeli control.

Israeli politicians themselves have cast irrefutable doubt on the feasibility of a two-state solution, with absolutely heinous statements made across both left and right-wing government officials that’ve made it clear Israel has always rejected and in fact worked against a two state solution. All the heinous remarks they’ve said recently have been widely documented but these beliefs have predated even this decade. In 2009, Israel’s new foreign minister completely dismissed the resolution of a two state solution.

In contrast, a one-state solution offers a vision of a future where individuals coexist as equals, sharing a common destiny and forging a shared identity based on principles of justice, dignity, and mutual respect within Palestine. It recognizes the inherent rights of all individuals to live in freedom and security, free from discrimination and oppression.

To advocate for a one-state solution is to reject the notion that peace and justice can only be achieved through the partitioning of land that has been soaked in the blood and tears of generations of Palestinians. It is a recognition that true reconciliation can only be built on a foundation of equality, where every individual – regardless of ethnicity, religion, or background – enjoys the same rights and opportunities under the law.

Central to the call for a one-state solution is the right of return for all Palestinian refugees – a right enshrined in international law and denied for far too long. It is a recognition of the historical injustice inflicted upon millions of indigenous Palestinians who were forcibly expelled from their native homes before, during and after the Nakba, as well as a commitment to rectifying this injustice by granting them the opportunity to return to their homeland.

Affirming Israel's "right to exist":

The phrase “Israel’s right to exist” is not grounded in international law but functions as a political demand designed to erase and neutralize the foundational violence upon which the Israeli state was established. No country has an enshrined “right to exist” under international law; what is codified, instead, is the right of peoples to self-determination. Yet Palestinians — an indigenous population subject to forced displacement, occupation, and apartheid — are uniquely coerced to affirm not just Israel’s existence, but its existence as a Jewish ethnostate. The demand to recognise an illegal state built on the erasure of Palestinians serves a clear colonial function: to reframe a settler-colonial project as a matter of mutual recognition, while masking the dispossession and ongoing subjugation of the native population.

Reaffirming this “right” without condition is not neutral — it is a weaponized narrative that forces the oppressed to validate the conditions of their own oppression. It silences the Nakba, the mass expulsion of over 750,000 Palestinians in 1948; it ignores the demolition of over 500 villages; it legitimizes the denial of the right of return, a right Palestinians hold under UN Resolution 194. In reality, this dog-whistle turns a settler-colonial enterprise into a moral imperative, requiring Palestinians to grant legitimacy to a state that continues to colonize their land, suffocate Gaza, fragment the West Bank, and implement apartheid policies across all territories it controls.

This language operates as a form of colonial gaslighting by shifting the global discourse from justice, land, and liberation to “recognition,” painting Palestinians as irrational or hostile if they refuse to validate a system structured on their displacement. It allows Israel to demand unconditional acceptance while giving nothing in return — not rights, not reparations, not even a meaningful recognition of the Palestinian people as equals. Internationally, it upholds a model where settler-colonialism is not only protected but sanctified, positioning Israel as eternally under threat while Palestinians are cast as aggressors for simply insisting they too have a right to exist with dignity on their ancestral land.

In this way, the assertion that “Israel has a right to exist” functions not as a principle of peace, but as a discursive tool of imperial domination, maintaining asymmetry and preventing justice. To challenge it is not to deny Jewish safety or personhood — it is to refuse the erasure of a people whose lives, land, and future have been systematically stripped under the banner of legitimacy. True peace cannot be built on the demand that the colonized affirm the righteousness of their own dispossession.