I guess by obtaining a different citizenship and renouncing the original one, but tbh I expect parent poster meant folks who were born in another country from Palestinian parents.
Hardly, a Palestinian has no governing authority allowing it to issue a passport or proof of citizenship. This again is controlled by Israel. So your argument does not hold water.
I found the use of the term "Former Palestinian" offensive. It implies that you are no longer such. Regardless of your citizenship, your ancestry defines your ethnic group. Palestinians are an ethnic group. Those born by parents of said ethnic group are de facto of that ethnic group.
This is the kind of thing I was talking about, nobody can even decide if Palestine exists, so when you say "he used to be a Palestinian" some people think you're trying to verbally erase an entire ethnicity even if you just meant "he got out."
You aren't always defined by your ancestry.
My parents had to emigrate to more human respecting lands, and they still feel they're more part of that land than the one they were born in.
You cannot escape your DNA... Other than American Indians, everyone else in the USA emigrated there. So you can assimilate another culture, but ethnically (DNA-wise) you will always carry your ancestry around, and so will your descendants.
> a Palestinian has no governing authority allowing it to issue a passport
Statelessness is technically illegal according to international treaties, so the lack of specific documentation does not necessarily means lack of citizenship. Besides, acceptance for new citizenship is determined by the new country, not the old.
The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
Collective punishment is prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
Cultural property must be respected.
People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.
None of which are being respected.... so I ask again, who is morally reprehensible? and if you are referring to the debunked lies about october 7th, I urge you to read up
There is the legal - armed resistance to an occupation is legal - and there is moral - armed resistance attacking unarmed civilians is never morally right.
Settling occupied territory is neither legal, nor moral. Bombing hospitals is both illegal and immoral, as so many other things the IDF has been doing for the past months. Then there are the crimes committed against Palestinians over the past 80 or so years - it's not because the government is different that your ownership rights can be ignored.
This becomes worse when the governing political parties in question, Hamas and Likud, have charters that exclude the possibility of peaceful coexistence.
FWIW, Hamas's charter states that it's issue is with the Zionist Project and not Jews. They specifically speak about coexistence, albeit in a single entity called Palestine. There is not language to exclude other ethnicities or religions, only to remove the colonialist movement referred to as Zionism - which is not Judaism.
> FWIW, Hamas's charter states that it's issue is with the Zionist Project and not Jews.
Oh yes! Still, that's an untenable position. Israel was created so that all Jews could have a state of their own because of the suffering inflicted upon them. There really is no going back on that.
For me, a single democratic and secular state, with a legal framework that protects everybody's rights equally and fairly would be the best possible solution, but that would be a multi-generation effort (about 80 years too late, BTW).
FWIW, Palestine was a country made up of multiple ethnicities and religions. The official languages were Arabic, English and Hebrew. Jews made up 1.7% of the total population at the time. More and more of them were arriving from Europe to live there.
What ruined everything was the Zionist project, which funded land purchases for farms and then only allowed Jews to work on those farms. Essentially, excluding the majority muslim and christian population from an equal opportunity to work.
These exclusionary measure created tension which resulted in the armed and terroristic attacks by the Zionist groups the Stern Gang and Irgun. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stern-Gang)
So yes, they could have lived in peace and were living in peace, but Zionism...
But yet, a single democratic secular state is something that is in the hands of the occupier and their supporters.
The Palestinian Authority agreed to the Oslo Accords in 1993 to create a 2 state solution - why has Israel and the USA dragged their feet? Israel has constantly and consistently broken the terms of this agreement without repercussion. We would not be in this situation now if this was enforced then.
The status quo is already effectively a single-state solution. Israel is the only party with an army, the only party that can elect politicians, the only party with airports and a harbor, and a functioning economy. Israel also has almost total control over Golan, West Bank and Gaza. Why would Israel award citizenship and the right to vote to the oppressed minority?
If the majority between the river and the sea wanted a pluralistic, democratic and secular state it would have happened a long time ago. The status quo is what the people of Israel want (revealed preference by their votes). And Palestinians don't get a vote.
This is a gross simplification. Both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have tried to hold elections, last time was in 2021. The Palestinian Authority actually held local elections in the West Bank that year. However being occupied does not make elections easy. In 2021 in particular the national elections fell through because Israel didn’t allow Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem to participate. Hamas wanted to hold the election despite that, but the Palestinian Authority cancelled the elections.
Hamas was elected almost two decades ago, and Palestinians in Gaza have been occupied ever since by Israel. Yes, they do have a political system, but said political system is not democratically driven. It is driven by the Israeli occupying forces, in ultimate control by Israeli voters. Both the military administration, Israeli politicians, and Israeli voters show no desire to change this.
