[edanm]

> Just say you don't believe Palestinians are people so didn't have any right to their homeland.

This kind of comment is not warranted. It is beneath the standards of Hacker News. It's putting words in my mouth which I vehemently disagree with. I will attempt to answer the rest of your comment civilly, but if you think that anyone who disagrees with you is evil, may I suggest your worldview is... incorrect.

> Moreover, there were not two people living there, there were the people who had been living there for thousands of years, who had been claimed by Britain (though not colonized). Claiming there were "two people" is revisionist BS.

Not sure why you think so. There had always been a minority of Jews in Palestine. By 1890, that was a 10% minority. By 1947, that was a 30% minority. What exactly is bullshit about saying this?

> That is, the government [the UN] sold half your home to a stranger, they agreed to this, you however unreasonably did not. What an asshole you are.

Or how about: the UN, the representative of all countries, which was given custody of the land by Britain, who had owned that land, recognized that there was an issue, both because two different peoples had legitimate aspirations for that land, and because many Jews who had managed to survive the Holocaust had nowhere to go. Given that Jews were by this point a 30% minority on that land, and given the many Jewish refugees, the UN decided to suggest a compromise.

And like I said, you can think this was a bad decision by the UN, it's certainly debatable, though I'm not sure what you think should've happened instead (either to the Jewish refugees of the Holocaust, or to the Jews living in Palestine). Was starting a war probably aimed at wiping out Jews really the correct alternative?

Either way, I don't think calling it "an invasion by Israel" makes any sense, since Israel didn't even exist.

Btw, serious question - what would you have suggested if you were the UN? What would you think should've been done in Palestine, and with the Jewish refugees?

> The jews, who just moved into a country, and seized a pile of land and property from the occupants of that country without the occupants consent "declare independence", starting a war.

It wasn't a "country" into which the Jews moved, it was part of the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century, then later British territory. Also, which land did Jews "steal" from the occupants of that country before 1947?

> When the fighting ends, the refugees returned to their homes to find that the Israeli government had now given their homes to yet more settlers. Opposing that is a criminal offense. > Right, except 100% of Israel is Palestine, and the overwhelming proportion of the Palestinian population has been forced into ghettos

After the war, the Palestinian refugees were actually taken in by Jordan and Egypt. They didn't "return to their homes" and "get put in Ghettos". I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to. The Palestinians that stayed in Israel were kept under some kind of military rule, but eventually made equal citizens.

As for 100% of Israel is Palestine... ok. What do you think should happen to the 9 million Israeli citizens on that land currently (or 7 million Jews if you prefer to split it by ethnicity)?

> You're playing BS semantic games,

I'm really not, I honestly think you're just wrong on many actual facts, as I pointed to above. These are not at all semantic distinctions.

> I want to be absolutely clear, these BS arguments about Israel not be a colonial invader are no different from claiming that there was nothing illegal when the US government sold the land of native Americans to colonists, and allowed them to eradicate those inhabitants.

"Israel" being a colonial invader makes little sense, since Israel didn't exist before that. You may mean "Jews" were colonial invaders, which is more understandable, though still not really in line with a lot of facts, like that they moved in mostly legally, and that most Jews in Israel were actually refugees themselves. Not exactly scheming colonial invaders. Most Israeli Jews had and have nowhere else to go.

As for the legal status of what Americans did in the colonies - firstly, Israel never "eradicated" the Palestinians. Secondly, even assuming your history is 100% spot on - what now? Because of the past, should the Americans living in American now be.. what? Removed? And sent where? Similar questions to what you think should happen to Israelis now.

> pretending Palestinians have equal rights to Israelis (or lets be honest, Israeli jews - the discrimination against muslims and even arabic jews in Israel is well documented - is objectively false.

Let's leave aside "arabic Jews", which is not how most of that group chooses to identify for various historical reasons (and which make up the majority of Israelis, btw).

Yes, there is a lot of discrimination and racism against Israeli-Palestinians. Yes, things are not perfect, not by a long shot. But legally, Isareli-Palestinians have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen, including voting rights. (And including there being many Arab members of the Israeli parliament.)

[racional]

But legally, [non-Jewish citizens of Israel] have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen, including voting rights.

How does this square with the Nation-State Law, which states that the former group has precisely zero rights to "self-determination"? And while you're at it, can you tell as about the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and how that affects the right to apply for citizenship rights for one's spouse, in practice?

(Correcting the term used for this group, given that the vast majority of them do not self-describe as "Israeli", per numerous polls).

[edanm]

> How does this square with the Nation-State Law, which states that the former group has precisely zero rights to "self-determination"?

I highly dislike the Nation-State law. That said, its effect in practice is almost nothing, it is mostly symbolic. I disagree with the symbolism, but it doesn't negate what I said. This is confirmed by the Israeli Supreme Court:

> The court's majority opinion concurred with arguments that the law merely declares the obvious—that Israel is a Jewish state—and that this does not detract from the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens, especially in light of other laws that ensure equal rights to all.

Question - is your criticism of what I said only because of that law? It was passed in 2019. Did you have no criticism before that?

> And while you're at it, can you tell as about the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and how that affects the right to apply for citizenship rights for one's spouse, in practice?

Israel defines its citizens in whatever way it wants, just like any other country. It has immigration laws, just like any other country. Trying to analyze this as something unique is just wrong.

Just like I can't just go to France and instantly become a citizen, unless I have some kind of French ancestry, as defined by France itself, in the same way someone can't just become a citizen of Israel without having what Israel considers Israeli ancestry. Since it was started specifically as the homeland of the Jews, as a place for Jews who had nowhere else to go cause everyone else was too busy killing them, that's what it uses for ancestry.

People try to make this seem weird, but this is pretty consistent with how most democracies work.

[olliej]

> Not sure why you think so. There had always been a minority of Jews in Palestine. By 1890, that was a 10% minority. By 1947, that was a 30% minority. What exactly is bullshit about saying this?

There were the indigenous inhabitants of the region. Then European powers started funding and arming a mass migration into Palestine, and in a totally unsurprising turn of events that increased the proportion of that region that were jewish. This is like saying america was not invaded, people just migrated to it, and suddenly there were more europeans than the indigenous population.

And much like america, the non-invading migrants ended up with all the power and resources.

> "Israel" being a colonial invader makes little sense, since Israel didn't exist before that.

Israel is the name the invaders gave to the country after they seized control of it from the people who lived there prior to the invasion. We could call it a European invasion, because the colonizers were from all over Europe, and were funded by Europe, if that helps?

> Yes, there is a lot of discrimination and racism against Israeli-Palestinians. Yes, things are not perfect, not by a long shot. But legally, Isareli-Palestinians have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen, including voting rights.

I just checked, and indigenous Palestinians can't vote in Israel's elections, so I'm not sure where your getting this claim that they have equal rights? Yes there are _some_ Palestinians that are allowed to vote by magically being classified as Israeli, but the overwhelming majority are not permitted to because Israel decreed that only specific parts of Palestine count as being Israel for the purpose of having rights.

[racional]

We're still waiting for an answer to this most crucial question that you were asked above, as to what should happen once Palestine becomes truly "free":

   What do you think should happen to the 9 million Israeli citizens on that land currently (or 7 million Jews if you prefer to split it by ethnicity)?

[tptacek]

Whoah. The majority of Israeli Jewish people are not European; they're people of MENA origin. And, of course, there are over 2 million Israeli-Arab citizens.

[edanm]

> There were the indigenous inhabitants of the region.

That region has a long history. How do you think those inhabitants got there in the first place? They also migrated there. Long in the past, Jews were there, and were probably there before these current "indigienous" population, if they weren't all part of the same group (Jews and Palestinians are basically cousins, genetically speaking).

But does any of that really matter at this stage? Does the fact that there were 250k Palestinians in that land 200 years ago really mean that all that land now rightfully belongs to them and no one else is ever allowed to live on it, despite it being home to 15 million people now? Does the fact that at this stage, multiple generations of Israelis have been born and raised in Israel not mean anything, because "they weren't there originally"?

> Israel is the name the invaders gave to the country after they seized control of it from the people who lived there prior to the invasion. We could call it a European invasion, because the colonizers were from all over Europe, and were funded by Europe, if that helps?

Why do you insist on calling it an invasion at all? Are the Chinese "invading" the US because some people from China have legally moved to the US?

Invasion implies this was illegal and/or done using force, neither of which is true of the Jews that moved to Palestine.

> Yes there are _some_ Palestinians that are allowed to vote by magically being classified as Israeli, but the overwhelming majority are not permitted to because Israel decreed that only specific parts of Palestine count as being Israel for the purpose of having rights.

There's nothing "magical" about it. Some Palestinians fled Israel when it was founded, for various disputed reasons. Some fled to Jordan, some to Egypt, some to Syria I think, etc, and they had various different statuses until 1967. Some are still in refugee camps in Syria, for example. The ones in Jordan were given Jordanian citizenship. None of these are Israeli citizens, nor did Israel have any control over their lives until 1967.

The Palestinians that didn't flee but rather stayed in Israel, became Israeli citizens, and now have full rights.

The reason Israel has any control over the Palestinians who are not citizens is that there was a war with the Arab countries surrounding Israel, and in that war, Israel captured a few territories from its neighboring countries - Gaza, the West Bank, and the Sinai peninsula. The Palestinians in the West Bank have since then been under military occupation, the ones in Gaza were under occupation until 2005, when Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza and left them to govern themselves (though some people consider it still under some form of occupation because of the blockade and other reasons).

(Worth noting that the Sinai was given back to Egypt for a peace agreement with them, a peace that has held for 50 years.)

The Palestinians themselves, in the Oslo agreements, recognized Israel as a state, and got a form of self-government. They are not Israeli citizens and are not trying to be Israeli citizens; at least officially, the representative of the Palestinian people work towards a two-state solution, which would mean a Palestinian state side-by-side with an Israeli state.

This has unfortunately not been achieved yet, for many reasons, with Israel definitely sharing a lot of the blame IMO. But it is the agreed-upon end-state by almost anyone with any actual position among the Palestinians.

What do you think is a good end-state here? You raise a lot of legit grievances that Palestinians have, and though I dispute much of the details of your history, I don't disagree that Palestinians in some ways got the short end of the stick here. Still, that was 75 years ago - relitigating the past is different from actually trying to solve the situation today, and I wonder what you think should happen.

[racional]

Invasion implies this was illegal and/or done using force, neither of which is true of the Jews that moved to Palestine.

"Invasion" perhaps isn't the best term to use, as it implies some sort of one-shot military deal. The actual process involved multiple steps of course -- Resolution 181 (imposed by European powers); the additional land gains by 1949 (unequivocally by force); the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 (same); and of course the fact that very few people were allowed to return after they were brutally expelled and/or temporarily left during the course of events.

Which after all was said and done, from the perspective of the vast bulk of the pre-1947 inhabitants -- amount to pretty much the same thing.

[edanm]

Resolution 181 was the UN looking at a complicated situation that had arisen, an area that contained two different people who wanted to build a homeland there, and trying to figure out how to deal with it. It was accepted by the Jews, just as they had accepted even earlier plans that gave them even less land. It was rejected by the Palestinians.

The Arab states instead attacked Israel, which is why additional land was gained in 1949. It's true that it was by force, but it's just as true that it was unequivocally a defensive war the Israel fought. If you launch a multi-state attack on another state and you lose, it makes sense you'd lose territory.

1967 is a more complicated story. Israel considers the things Egypt were doing to be tantamount to declaring war, so it launched a pre-emptive strike on Egypt. Israelis usually consider this a defensive war, though I think majority opinion outside of Israel is that it was an Israeli attack.

> Which after all was said and done, from the perspective of the vast bulk of the pre-1947 inhabitants -- amount to pretty much the same thing.

This is simply flattening the actual history. Look, there were legitimately two peoples on that land at the time. They both wanted a home state. One group, the Jews, agreed to every single compromise put forward. The other refused every single one, and with their neighboring friends, launched a war of annhilation against the Jews.

You can't refuse every single compromise without offering an alternative, launch a war to force your way, and then complain when you lose!

It's also worth noting that Arab countries controlled the WB and Gaza for twenty-something years after the founding of Israel. And yet none ever did anything to give Palestinians independence or create a Palestinian state on that land, the same land that everyone is shouting "free Palestine" about, including all those Arab countries.

[racional]

There were mitigating factors, to be sure. But it sounds like, to a first-order approximation, we agree: the land was taken by force.

I'm not trying to flatten history - just to get to the basic point. The other aspects that you're bringing up (Arab aims during 1947-1949; which side has been more intransigent since, etc) touch on narratives that are hotly contested as you know, but in any case are even further from the original topic of this thread (which had something do with Microsoft and Minecraft, apparently).

So if you like we can keep our powder dry in regard to those, and concentrate on hopes for some form of de-escalation and a cessation of massive bloodletting in the current moment.

And of course of further attempts at encroachment upon anyone else's land.

[edanm]

Edit: I removed language that, on reflection (after it being pointed out by my co-partner in this discussion), I shouldn't have used.

> There were mitigating factors, to be sure. But it sounds like, to a first-order approximation, we agree: the land was taken by force.

While it might be a "true fact", it's gaslighting to suggest that despite Jews agreeing to a non-violent plan, despite Israel being attacked with the probable intent of wiping it out completely, despite all that, it's ok to characterize the land capture to help protect itself in this defensive war as "land taken by force". That's just not how most people would use that phrase.

> So if you like we can keep our powder dry in regard to those, and concentrate on hopes for some form of de-escalation and a cessation of massive bloodletting in the current moment.

This I can agree with wholeheartedly. I have no idea what is best for the future (I don't see any peace being achieved with Hamas in place, frankly) but the current situation is awful and has to change.