[tasn]

I'm not sure I fully follow what you were saying, but here's an attempt at responding:

> Why does believing that Israel's system of only allowing a minority ethnicity in the land it controls to have political power and rights but claiming to be a democracy is wrong, and why do you assume people who believe this also believe in whatever weird conspiracy you're talking about.

1. Jews are a majority in Israel. 2. Non-Jews have equal rights (actually slightly better rights as they are exempt from military service). 3. I wasn't assuming he believes in that, he said "what can we do ... about Israeli control of western politics", which is the conspiracy.

> Maybe the blood of one's ancestors doesn't make it okay for someone thousands of miles away who never lived in a place be eligible to move there while someone who lived in their own home a few miles away can never return to it in the same piece of land? Isn't that obviously wrong to you?

I think what you're asking is: why is it OK to have the "right of return" to Jewish people to get automatic citizenship based on them being Jewish while someone that lives in Gaza and was born in Israel can't return there?

Let's split this part to two. Let's start with the right of return: sovereign countries can make their own laws, which includes immigration laws. In fact, many countries do. Is it fair that if you're rich you can buy a New Zealand citizenship and if you're poor it's much harder? Maybe not, but that's their right to do it.

Additionally, you can't remove this law from the general context in which it lives: Jews have been persecuted throughout history wherever they lived, culminating in the murder of 6 million Jews in the holocaust. Jews have therefore fled from all over the world to the only country in the world where they are protected, which is Israel. This persecution btw happened in the Muslim world as well, which is why you don't see many Jews still living in any Muslim countries anymore.

The second part of your statement was about the Gazans coming back to Israel. The UN resolution that created Israel also created Palestine. Though unlike the Jews that accepted it, the Muslims did not, and they, along with Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon decided to attack Israel. In fact, if you look at the history of wars in the region it's always: someone attacked Israel, and Israel defended itself. Not one war started by Israel.

Anyhow, the Arab forces lost and during the wars Palestinians fled. This is not even conquered land btw, this is part of the original UN decision. Wars are awful, and it's sad that they decided to flee, but they didn't have to. In fact, there are many Muslims living in Israel (and with equal rights, unlike your original claim) which are descendants of the ones that didn't flee. Should they be allowed to emigrate to Israel? I don't think in the history of the world any country has allowed the descendants of a losing army to emigrate to their country. I also don't think they want to do that, they want to make Israel their own ("from the river to the sea...").

Additionally, I know that it's easy to look at Israel now and think wow, this is what Palestinians are losing on. Though Israel was mostly swamps and desert and was built by Israelis. Here is downtown Tel-Aviv and the founding families that built the city: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%AA...

There was no such thing as Palestine in the way that you think about it. E.g. the Palestinian flag was created in 1964, and Israel was created in 1948 (16 years prior). All the silly memes you see showing coins and stamps from Palestine in 1914 actually all say "Palestine (Land of Israel)" in Hebrew, it just says Palestine as well because that was the name the region was called by Brits when they took over the area. In fact, if memory serves, the name Palestine comes from the Romans who conquered Judea (source of the word Jew, was the Jewish kingdom) and wanted to spite the Jews so they renamed it to something else (Palestine).

Anyhow, ended up being quite long, I hope it was interesting.

[runarberg]

For the record, Greenland did not have a flag until 1985, but that has no bearing on the existence of the Greenlandic national identity. And it certainly does not give Denmark (with a flag created in the 13th century) any right displace say all of West Greenland and then refuse them the right of return.

[tasn]

I wasn't questioning that Palestinians have an identity nowadays. All I was saying is that this identify is based on "let's destroy Israel" and is a newer thing. There were no struggles for recognition as a Palestinian state in 1940, and anyway the lines drawn are arbitrary following the British and French mandates. The whole notion of this identify would have some legitimacy if the map drawn was some map of some ancestral land controlled by a group. Though they map they draw is just the state of Israel. They for some reasons don't want their supposed lands in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, and for whatever reason the land they claim follows the exact arbitrary lines drawn back then. That's also why you see internal wars in all of the region. It was just random disconnected tribes in the region.

Having an identity, not to mention one based on hate, doesn't automatically mean you'll get your wishes. E.g. ISIS wants a world under sharia law. They have a flag and that's what they want, doesn't mean we need to give them that.

[runarberg]

You are making up history and creating excuses. The state of Palestine existed in 1940 albeit as a colony of the UK. There was a popular demand for independence, and there was even a three year long revolt for independence which the British suppressed using armed violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_...

Israel did not exist in 1936 so the claim that this identity is based on “lets destroy Israel” is ahistorical, and frankly, just made up by you. I would even go so far as calling this racist. You are supposing a political opinion and projecting hate over a whole people group. And comparing the national identity of Palestinians with ISIS indeed very racist. I hope you realize that.

Regarding the arbitrary borders, that also has no bearing on the notion of national identity. Most former colonies (by far) keep their colonial borders, even though those borders are arbitrary and cross ethnic lines, and included “random tribes”.

I also want to add, that I was being too kind to you in the post above. What you are doing here is very racist and has no place on a tech formum.

[tasn]

I meant to write 1910, the 1940 was a typo/brain-fart. The link you shared about the Arab revolt, that was a revolt because of British support in creating the state of Israel, so exactly what I said, reactionary to anti-Israel.

Israel does not need to exist for people to be against Israel, they can be against the imminent founding of Israel or the fact that Jews were buying lands in Mandatory Palestine.

Though you don't need to take my word for it, it literally says so in the Wikipedia article about Palestine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#History

I also didn't compare Palestinian to ISIS, you just misconstrued what I said.

> Regarding the arbitrary borders, that also has no bearing on the notion of national identity. Most former colonies (by far) keep their colonial borders, even though those borders are arbitrary and cross ethnic lines, and included “random tribes”.

Mandatory Palestine existed from 1920-1948, there was no such thing as Palestine before that. It was part of a larger region controlled by the Ottoman empire.

P.S, this will be the last response by me to this thread, as I don't think you're engaging in good faith based on this and other comments.

[runarberg]

I’m not gonna answer any of your points here on material grounds. I think they speak for them selves, and reveal what you are attempting to do here.

I am gonna admit that I am not arguing in good faith. Off course I am not, I believe you are arguing from a racist belief that the Palestinian people do not have the same rights to their existence as you. There is no good faith argument to be had against such belief. The best I can attempt is call it out for what it is, and hope the moderators take it from there.

[chimineycricket]

>2. Non-Jews have equal rights >I think what you're asking is: why is it OK to have the "right of return"...[because] Jews have been persecuted throughout history wherever they lived

This is a contradiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression_Olympics

>Not one war started by Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

If you want to claim it wasn't the country of Israel, congratulations I guess.

[tasn]

Contradiction: this law does not discriminate against citizens, it discriminates among people who want to become citizens using that specific law. In the US you can get an investor visa, does that discriminate against poor people? Or if you're Indian the wait times for green cards are very long, does that discriminate against Indians? No...

King David bombing: yeah, that wasn't the state of Israel who did it. It also wasn't Israel starting a war, it was an ongoing conflict with the Brits. Though this is anyway unrelated as the implied context was with the Muslim world.

[chimineycricket]

It does. That's a clear indication of the preference of one kind of citizen vs another.

The moment European migrants started stealing land with EU guns, they started a war.

[tasn]

> It does. That's a clear indication of the preference of one kind of citizen vs another.

Like literally every other country in the world. The children of British citizens, even if born abroad, get citizenship. You can buy citizenship in New Zealand. Every country has its own unique immigration policies, and the ones in Israel are absolutely legal and normal by international standards.

Additionally, a Palestinian state would be much worse for minorities if judging by literally every other Muslim country in the world. So I don't think this argument is very valid if what you're advocating is replacing something that you don't deem good by something that you deem worse.

Wanna talk about second class citizens? Jews already had second-class citizens status in the Arab world before 1948, but after 1948 they were expelled, lost even more rights, got their property nationalized etc.

> The moment European migrants started stealing land with EU guns, they started a war.

Factually not true. (1) Jews purchased the lands (even though Jewish residents weren't allowed to own land there during the Ottoman days, again, this is what REAL second-class citizens look like), (2) Jews were under American and British arms embargo, they had to smuggle weapons from wherever they could get it, it's not like it was a European push, (3) the Jews in Europe were referred to as "brown" by the locals, in fact they fled persecution there because they didn't belong, (4) as I mentioned above, 850,000 of them were actually living in the region and got kicked out of neighboring Muslim countries, (5) many Jews were already living in that exact area, (6) it literally says so in the bible (which Islam is derived from) that this was the land of the Jews, so implying that they don't belong there (like you did) is a bit dishonest. You can say that the fact that Jews are from there doesn't matter, but not that they are just some European migrants.

[runarberg]

The myth that Israel does not do apartheid in Israel proper has to be answered.

First of all, one cannot excuse apartheid by drawing arbitrary borders and declare some of them as apartheid-free zones, while doing apartheid in others. That is not how apartheid works. But even if it did, Israel proper still has dozens of discriminatory laws[1] with a few more in the works. And even with out those, there are in practice dozens of exclusionary policies which displaces and denies Palestinians (as well as Bedouin) access to land and homes, including but nut limited to those displaced by the Nakba. Your parent actually spends a lot of words (way to many words in fact) only to say they agree with this policy of denying Palestinians the right to the land which was stolen from them. There is no way to describe this denial of access to their own land but with Apartheid.

1: https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index

[tasn]

The first item in the link you shared is revocation of citizenship/residency for people who were paid to commit a terrorist act in Israel. What's discriminatory about that?

Second law is about non kosher food in hospitals during Passover. A law that affects everyone, including secular Jews (majority in Israel). Doesn't discriminate against anyone. It's like saying that supermarkets being closed in Europe on Sundays (Church day) is discriminatory.

I can go one by one and comment on this list, but the first two are already ridiculous.

What's also not shown there: the rights of Jews and Christians in the Muslim world (and Palestine in particular) which are much worse. Not to mention the rights of gays, and other communities that are protected in Israel. Mind you, this is not whataboutism, as the people compiling these lists are often closely tied to the Muslim world, and Palestinian rule is the alternative that's suggested by Palestinian supporters.

[aprilthird2021]

1. Jews are not a majority in Israel and Palestine combined and Israel has de facto control over all of Palestine and they would describe it as area under their control rather than as a separate state.

2. Non-Jews can never ever ever be allowed to be a majority of the voting populace in Israel, so that's why the ones in Palestine (under Israeli control, on the rez, so to speak) are not given any rights in the country that controls them. The Israeli Arabs would be stripped of their political rights if they ever outnumbered Israeli Jews and you know this very well.

3. I'm not interested in any conspiracy frankly.

> Let's start with the right of return: sovereign countries can make their own laws, which includes immigration laws.

Sure. But I think these ones are disturbing because they make one minority ethnicity, often from abroad, the kings over all the others who live on the same land with the power to remove them from their homes whenever convenient (as happens in the West Bank daily).

> Jews have therefore fled from all over the world to the only country in the world where they are protected, which is Israel

Jews are less safe in Israel than in Europe and America. (E.g. https://forward.com/opinion/536469/antisemitism-may-be-most-...)

But also, I don't think any country "deserves" to exist to right any wrong in the world. Countries force themselves into existence. Israel did the same, often resorting to the exact same terror tactics (yes even the Haganah conducted military operations using civilian buildings as cover) they now bemoan the Palestinians for resorting to to establish their own state. Whether or not it is the only country for Jews is irrelevant to me. Many ethnicities will never have their "own" nation, and some have multiple, but that has little to do with whether I find the exalting of one ethnicity over the others to such a degree that the others must be made stateless and right-less to be good or bad.

> Should they be allowed to emigrate to Israel? I don't think in the history of the world any country has allowed the descendants of a losing army to emigrate to their country.

It's not emigrating to their country it's movement within the same country. Again, the entire problem I have is that Israel needs to strip the people who live in the land it controls of political rights to maintain its ethnic minority led democracy. This is like saying the Native Americans cannot leave the reservations and live among Americans because their ancestors lost the wars against the Colonists.

> There was no such thing as Palestine in the way that you think about it

This is always the least convincing argument because it doesn't matter and it has nothing to do with how Israel must make the people who aren't Jews stateless and rights-less for its ethnic minority democracy to function. You can call them Plutons for all it matters, I care what Israel is doing that's wrong. I don't believe that a national identity that is "new" means anything about whether human beings should be denied rights solely because of their ethnicity.

Thanks for sharing. I am always open to hear other perspectives. Hope you're similarly open to mine

[tasn]

> 1. Jews are not a majority in Israel and Palestine combined and Israel has de facto control over all of Palestine and they would describe it as area under their control rather than as a separate state.

Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005 to let them self govern. They used all of the foreign aid to arm themselves and built the weapons infrastructure they used against Israel during the October 7th attacks and since. Israel still doesn't control Gaza. It is however under a blockade by BOTH Israel and Egypt exactly because of them using imports to being offensive capabilities. They however have their own laws, own elections, own police, own everything except for an army.

Being under a blockade by a state doesn't make a region part of that state.

* The above was written as of October 6th, things are obviously different atm.

> 2. Non-Jews can never ever ever be allowed to be a majority of the voting populace in Israel, so that's why the ones in Palestine (under Israeli control, on the rez, so to speak) are not given any rights in the country that controls them. The Israeli Arabs would be stripped of their political rights if they ever outnumbered Israeli Jews and you know this very well.

Israel is a Jewish state by law. I don't know what the mechanism would be if there would ever be a non-Jewish majority in parliament, but it's a theoretical edge case. Jews are an 80% majority. Non-Jews are represented in parliament.

I think what's always missing from these discussions is what I wrote in another comment: the suggested alternative (Palestinian state) would be worse for Jews, Christians and Muslims in terms of rights. So it's not that anyone is suggesting replacing the Jewish state with something more enlightened, but rather always for something worse.

> 3. I'm not interested in any conspiracy frankly.

I wasn't saying you did. You responded to my response to someone using an old and tired antisemitic conspiracy.

> Sure. But I think these ones are disturbing because they make one minority ethnicity, often from abroad, the kings over all the others who live on the same land with the power to remove them from their homes whenever convenient (as happens in the West Bank daily).

This sounds scary when put it like this, but in practice, 50,000 Jews emigrated to Israel in 2023, and a similar number left. So it's not as if this law matters for the purpose of this discussion. Also, they are not kings, they are normal citizens like everyone else, including the Arabs.

As for the power to remove them from their homes daily: many (most?) Israelis are against the settlements. Though it's not the way you describe it. No one is removed from their home in the way you think about it (people forced to live their residence and a Jewish family moving in). Do you really think anyone with a sane mind would want to live in a vacated home in a Muslim village surrounded by the cousins of the displaced? It's much more subtle than that (but still not OK!). It's also not sanctioned by Israel, but in some times in its history (including nowadays) the government turns a blind eye or even encourages it.

Unfortunately the same way that extremist Arabs are allowed in parliament so do the right wing settles crazies.

> Jews are less safe in Israel than in Europe and America. (E.g. https://forward.com/opinion/536469/antisemitism-may-be-most-...)

This is an opinion piece from someone that lives in Los Angeles, CA. I'd take it with a grain of salt.

Also, I've lived in Europe, the US, and Israel, and I can tell you that at least from my experience that's bullshit. Safe doesn't just mean death, it also means harassment and non lethal physical harm.

> But also, I don't think any country "deserves" to exist to right any wrong in the world. Countries force themselves into existence.

I didn't say that Israel deserves to exist because of that, but it already DOES exist, and it's within its rights to decide to be a safe haven for a persecuted minority.

> Israel did the same, often resorting to the exact same terror tactics (yes even the Haganah conducted military operations using civilian buildings as cover) they now bemoan the Palestinians for resorting to to establish their own state. Whether or not it is the only country for Jews is irrelevant to me. Many ethnicities will never have their "own" nation, and some have multiple, but that has little to do with whether I find the exalting of one ethnicity over the others to such a degree that the others must be made stateless and right-less to be good or bad.

I don't remember all the details of the pre-Israel wars so can't make blanket statements though from my recollection pre-Israel organizations always targeted military targets (indeed with civilian casualties). Palestinians are targeting civilians by stabbing kids, bombing civilian buses, etc. It's really not the same.

Additionally, from my memory of reading about history, I don't think the world (or Jews) were complaining that the Brits were hitting "civilian" targets that were used for military purposes, but today the world is against Israel for taking these "civilian" targets that are essentially just military bases. Israel is very careful about saving civilians in Gaza but there will be collateral damage when fighting people that hide in civilians area.

> It's not emigrating to their country it's movement within the same country. Again, the entire problem I have is that Israel needs to strip the people who live in the land it controls of political rights to maintain its ethnic minority led democracy. This is like saying the Native Americans cannot leave the reservations and live among Americans because their ancestors lost the wars against the Colonists.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement here, but they are not the same country. How do I know? There's a border, they have a Palestinian passport, they don't recognize the existence of Israel, they have their own police, etc. It's not the same country. So no, it's not like saying anything about the native americans. Though btw, the descendants of the Mexicans that fled California during the wars don't get automatic American citizenship.

> This is always the least convincing argument because it doesn't matter and it has nothing to do with how Israel must make the people who aren't Jews stateless and rights-less for its ethnic minority democracy to function. You can call them Plutons for all it matters, I care what Israel is doing that's wrong. I don't believe that a national identity that is "new" means anything about whether human beings should be denied rights solely because of their ethnicity.

I commented about it elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43704181

The problem is not that the national identity is new, the problem is that the national identity is "let's destroy Israel". See the other comment for more info.

Also as said above, it's not an ethnic minority, because they have a Palestinian passport, they are part of Gaza, not Israel.

[aprilthird2021]

I will skip over the "withdrew so not de facto control, etc." we are both aware of the history and the level of control Israel can and does exercise over Gaza. Your main point is:

> Being under a blockade by a state doesn't make a region part of that state.

But I'm not saying it's a part of Israel. I'm saying the people of Gaza are subjects of the state of Israel because their lives are de facto controlled by Israel, and must be so for Israel to exist at all. Israel must control them and must also not allow them political power or it's ethnic minority democracy cannot exist in the combined region. I think you can agree with that sentiment. Both sides will obviously have different characterizations of who is to blame for this state of affairs, but blame back into history is a fruitless game, and this is the state of affairs, yes? Can we find common ground on that?

> So it's not that anyone is suggesting replacing the Jewish state with something more enlightened, but rather always for something worse.

No one is advocating for a Palestinian supremacist state to replace a Jewish supremacist one. It is a useless effort to replace one form of wrong with the same form of wrong in a different shade of blue.

The 2 state and 1 state solutions are precipiced on equal rights. Either within the same state or in separate states of mutual defensibility (e.g. detente).

> So it's not as if this law matters for the purpose of this discussion. Also, they are not kings, they are normal citizens like everyone else, including the Arabs.

No, it does matter. It is entirely the reason for which Jewish people have rights over Arabs. No Arabs can move to Israel and kick someone out of their West Bank home. Only Jews can do that. Arabs can never be allowed to be the majority voting populace of Israel. Only Jews can do that. That is what makes it an ethnostate, and compounded onto that is that it is an ethnostate where a minority rule over the majority which they keep in a blockaded area away from them.

> It's also not sanctioned by Israel, but in some times in its history (including nowadays) the government turns a blind eye or even encourages it.

I think we agree there. It's not okay, but the state sometimes (like right now, when legalizing illegal settlements to "punish" the Palestinians collectively) encourages it.

> Also, I've lived in Europe, the US, and Israel, and I can tell you that at least from my experience that's bullshit. Safe doesn't just mean death, it also means harassment and non lethal physical harm.

Fair enough. The feeling of safety may be there. But the likelihood of dying in combat or from an attack is higher for a Jew in Israel than in Europe or America. That is what I and the opinion piece author meant. And it is true. I don't think that feeling of safety is worth making millions of people stateless because of their ethnicity. Perhaps this is the ultimate root of our disagreement. Maybe you think that price is well worth paying, and I disagree.

> it's within its rights to decide to be a safe haven for a persecuted minority.

Yes that is fine, but it comes at the expense of another people, and that's what's wrong about it. If Israel gave equal rights to the Palestinians or allowed them a state with equal ability to defend itself, no one would bat an eye at the idea of opening their citizenship up to Jews. But one comes at the expense of the other, and that's what is wrong about the situation.

> There's a border, they have a Palestinian passport, they don't recognize the existence of Israel, they have their own police, etc. It's not the same country.

It seems very similar to Indian Reservations. They have a bunch of things like a state has, but they are ultimately in the total control of the USA. At least the USA allows them to choose whether to live in the main US or remain in their reservation.

The Schrodinger's Palestinian state exists when it can exculpate Israel from its treatment of the Palestinians, but it doesn't exist when it might provide what Palestinians would consider defense against Israel and what Israel would consider a threat to their existence.

But ultimately, the truth in the area is that Israel completely controls the Palestinians and cannot allow them political power of any kind for its ethnic democracy to exist because they are not the majority in the region. I believe the route to the problem begins with Israelis. When they realize that ethnic supremacy only lengthens the conflict, and that whatever feeling of security (as you noted it is a feeling rather than a statistic) they gain is not better than the wrong needing to be committed to maintain it. I think that is when they will be open to either a 1 or 2 state solution. Unfortunately they were more open to it in the past than now. But I think, that time will come. They are the only ones who can choose it though as they are the ones who control what happens in the region.

> The problem is not that the national identity is new, the problem is that the national identity is "let's destroy Israel".

I don't agree with that. And it is a shifting of your position from what you originally said. Originally your sole claim was that the nationality isn't "native" or "old" enough. When I said it doesn't matter (because it doesn't), the claim shifted to being about the nationality being fraudulent in order to kill Jews. It seems like you are just trying to discredit them for wanting a nation. It sounds almost exactly like anti-Semitism but applied to Palestinians instead of Jews. Again, this is why it's the least convincing argument. It doesn't matter how "legitimate" their claims to a nationality are. What matters is what's happening on the ground, and it is ultimately the ethnicity of the Palestinians (non-Jewish) which has resigned them to have less rights than Jews in the same land.

Palestinians are the ethnic majority in the region, not the minority. If they were the minority, the Israeli issue would be a lot easier. They could simply all be citizens of the Israeli state and any violence could be dealt with as an internal issue, like Kashmir in India, or Catalan separatism, etc. Israels need for Jews to hold the majority of power while being the minority in the region is the root of why this continues to be a conflict.

Thanks again for your response. I learn from it a great deal. Hope you are also learning something from mine.

[tasn]

Part 2:

> It seems very similar to Indian Reservations. They have a bunch of things like a state has, but they are ultimately in the total control of the USA. At least the USA allows them to choose whether to live in the main US or remain in their reservation.

Indians are American citizens with a US passport, Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. The US asserts ownership over the reservations (but does give them some additional freedoms), Israel does not. This is not nearly the same situation. Though anyway the Indians aren't trying to kill Americans and chat from the Atlantic to the Pacific. You keep on trying to make this false statement, but Palestine is not Israel.

> The Schrodinger's Palestinian state exists when it can exculpate Israel from its treatment of the Palestinians, but it doesn't exist when it might provide what Palestinians would consider defense against Israel and what Israel would consider a threat to their existence.

Same as Germany post WW1 and WW2. They get full autonomy except for arming themselves.

Palestinians don't need defense against Israel, because Israel has never attacked Palestine. It was always in self defense. This is not a hyperbole, you can go one by one all of the wars since 1948.

> But ultimately, the truth in the area is that Israel completely controls the Palestinians and cannot allow them political power of any kind for its ethnic democracy to exist because they are not the majority in the region. I believe the route to the problem begins with Israelis. When they realize that ethnic supremacy only lengthens the conflict, and that whatever feeling of security (as you noted it is a feeling rather than a statistic) they gain is not better than the wrong needing to be committed to maintain it. I think that is when they will be open to either a 1 or 2 state solution. Unfortunately they were more open to it in the past than now. But I think, that time will come. They are the only ones who can choose it though as they are the ones who control what happens in the region.

Again, Palestine is not Israel. In Israel Arabs have FULL equal rights and in fact they make ~8% of the Israeli Parliament. So this is a false statement.

This statements also robs Palestinians of agency and shifts the blame to Israel. It's kind of like blaming France for destabilizing Europe during WW1 because to stop the fighting all they need to do is cede control to Germany. The path forward for Palestinian is easy: (1) stop indoctrinating children that terrorism is good, and killing civilians is good, (2) stop paying suicide bomber/terrorist families for every Jew they kill, (3) accept peace and stop arming yourself, (4) acknowledge Israel's existence, (5) probably a few other things. The moment you prove yourself you can be a trusted neighbor people will trust you.

> I don't agree with that. And it is a shifting of your position from what you originally said. Originally your sole claim was that the nationality isn't "native" or "old" enough. When I said it doesn't matter (because it doesn't), the claim shifted to being about the nationality being fraudulent in order to kill Jews. It seems like you are just trying to discredit them for wanting a nation. It sounds almost exactly like anti-Semitism but applied to Palestinians instead of Jews. Again, this is why it's the least convincing argument. It doesn't matter how "legitimate" their claims to a nationality are. What matters is what's happening on the ground, and it is ultimately the ethnicity of the Palestinians (non-Jewish) which has resigned them to have less rights than Jews in the same land.

Not shifting, it's elaborating on what I meant. What I meant by "new" is what I shared afterwards, which is this is not some identity that's been going for generations, the identity is anti-Israel. Though it doesn't matter what I communicated, it matters what the truth is. It says it on the Palestine wikpedia page, that the efforts to start a Jewish state (Zionism) was a major part of the notion of Palestinian nationalism. There was no such concept before Israel was envisioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#History

Additionally, it's not racist to repeat what people say. The Hamas charter literally says that their goal is to destroy Israel and kill every Jew around the world. Yes Hamas is a more recent leadership than 1948, but whether you like it or not that's the government that represents the Palestinian people.

> Palestinians are the ethnic majority in the region, not the minority. If they were the minority, the Israeli issue would be a lot easier. They could simply all be citizens of the Israeli state and any violence could be dealt with as an internal issue, like Kashmir in India, or Catalan separatism, etc. Israels need for Jews to hold the majority of power while being the minority in the region is the root of why this continues to be a conflict.

As I said above, I checked the numbers (Israel wikipedia page, and Palestine wikipedia page) and it's actually not true. And again, you keep on conflating Israel and Palestine. In Israel this is wildly untrue, and in the whole region it is just not true (but closer to true).

[runarberg]

It was very hard to read this wall of lies, racist projections, state exceptionalism, and more. I believe that you actually believe this, and are arguing in good faith, but from a misinformed and racist point of view. Worse, I believe your obviously wrong and harmful believes are so ingrained that there is nothing we can say which will change your mind.

I hope I am wrong and you will find it in your heart to look at the things you are saying and see how it is not only wrong, but targeted harm against victims of systemic state violence, oppression and injustice. That you have been arguing for their ongoing oppression while creating excuses or even justifying it. I hope you do this soon. You are pretty far down the radicalization rabbit hole it seems. It will be harder and harder for you to find your self out of there.

[tasn]

Thanks for your response. I'm going to stop with this thread after this response as it's already a significant time sink. I will make an effort to read whatever you respond with though!

Also, the comment ended up being too long, as I had to split it to two (HN wouldn't let me post it).

> I will skip over the "withdrew so not de facto control, etc." we are both aware of the history and the level of control Israel can and does exercise over Gaza.

I don't think we are. Israel forcibly removed settlers from Gaza in 2005 and complied emptied the place. The only influence is the blockade, but zero influence on anything else. Gaza could have become a beautiful place, but they invested all the money in terror infrastructure.

> But I'm not saying it's a part of Israel. I'm saying the people of Gaza are subjects of the state of Israel because their lives are de facto controlled by Israel, and must be so for Israel to exist at all. Israel must control them and must also not allow them political power or it's ethnic minority democracy cannot exist in the combined region. I think you can agree with that sentiment. Both sides will obviously have different characterizations of who is to blame for this state of affairs, but blame back into history is a fruitless game, and this is the state of affairs, yes? Can we find common ground on that?

I wasn't sure about exact numbers, so I went ahead and checked it. It looks to me (hard to get exact figures) that Jews are ~55% of the population in the combined region. Though again, this is not a combined region. Israel most not give them political power because they are not Israeli, the same way that Mexicans don't vote in US elections although in practice the US exerts certain powers over Mexico due to its economical position.

So (1) even if we go with the combined region I don't think it's actually an ethnic minority, but (2) we shouldn't be going with the combined region. I reject this notion completely, the same way we don't talk about the combined North American region that includes Canada and Mexico when talking about US elections. Yes, it's not exactly the same, but it's the same thinking.

> No one is advocating for a Palestinian supremacist state to replace a Jewish supremacist one. It is a useless effort to replace one form of wrong with the same form of wrong in a different shade of blue.

This is patently false. "From the river to the sea" which is THE chat of the pro-Palestinian movement is very clear about this. The river Jordan to the sea.

They also use the map of Israel as the map of Palestine in literally every sign and memorabilia. They are also not shy about it, it's a very specific and clear statement and claim. Remember, as well, that Israel founded due to the UN partition resolution which Palestinian rejected (yes, that was a long time ago, but goes to show this was specifically rejected in the past, in addition to everything I just showed).

> The 2 state and 1 state solutions are precipiced on equal rights. Either within the same state or in separate states of mutual defensibility (e.g. detente).

This is an utopian ideal, but it's not a reasonable way forward. The one state solution is not a reasonable one. Even if the Gaza population was peaceful towards the Israeli one, why should Israel be forced to accept hostile population into its borders? A much better solution would be: Gaza absorbed into Egypt and West Bank into Jordan. Though neither countries want that, which is why the Egypt-Gaza border is more fortified than the Israel-Gaza one.

The 2 state solution is probably the long term way to go, but you can't just magically wish it to be true. As I said above, they are very clearly saying they want to wipe Israel off the map. This is not some theoretical question, it's stated. You don't even need to believe them, you can just see all the wars in the history of Israel which have been started by the neighboring Arab countries. Letting Palestine get tanks, fighter jets, advanced weapons, is a crazy notion. They have proven time and time again that they wouldn't hesitate using it against unarmed civilians, so letting this happen would be a death sentence to Israel.

We don't need to go very far though, there's a recent example of a way to a 2 state solution: Germany after WW1 and WW2. The world let them be independent (at some point), but limited their ability to build an army and arm themselves. That could have been Gaza by now, but they keen on rearming and attacking. If Gaza was quiet for the last 20 years and actually built something there, the world would be a much better place.

Though asking Israel to let an aggressive neighbor arm themselves is naive.

> No, it does matter. It is entirely the reason for which Jewish people have rights over Arabs. No Arabs can move to Israel and kick someone out of their West Bank home. Only Jews can do that. Arabs can never be allowed to be the majority voting populace of Israel. Only Jews can do that. That is what makes it an ethnostate, and compounded onto that is that it is an ethnostate where a minority rule over the majority which they keep in a blockaded area away from them.

1. West Bank is not Israel. There are literally different laws and legal systems applied there. You keep on conflating the two.

2. What you're describing about Jews kicking Arabs out of their West Bank homes is just not true. I said it in a different comment, do you think anyone is crazy enough to move their family in the middle of a hostile neighborhood after taking over their neighbors house? They won't survive the night. The "taking lands" that people talk about talks about empty lands that the settlers take over and build an area there. You can look at pictures, it starts as caravans and they then build more. This is still not OK, but it's not what you're portraying.

3. As said above, Jews are actually the majority or at least not the minority in the land. So this is also portraying a false narrative.

4. I can't stress it enough, but West Bank and Gaza are not Israel. Arabs in Israel have equal rights.

> Fair enough. The feeling of safety may be there. But the likelihood of dying in combat or from an attack is higher for a Jew in Israel than in Europe or America. That is what I and the opinion piece author meant. And it is true. I don't think that feeling of safety is worth making millions of people stateless because of their ethnicity. Perhaps this is the ultimate root of our disagreement. Maybe you think that price is well worth paying, and I disagree.

At THIS PRESENT POINT IN TIME, which is an important distinction, as Israel was created after the Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews. Though I think Israel, even with all the wars, is a safer place for the Jews, and the Jews worldwide are safer knowing that Israel exists.

Also, let's not forget the implied context: we are taking the fact that Palestinians target civilians as a fact of life, but it doesn't have to be.

> Yes that is fine, but it comes at the expense of another people, and that's what's wrong about it. If Israel gave equal rights to the Palestinians or allowed them a state with equal ability to defend itself, no one would bat an eye at the idea of opening their citizenship up to Jews. But one comes at the expense of the other, and that's what is wrong about the situation.

No it doesn't. Does China have to give Koreans citizenship? No? So why would Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation and can decide on its own immigration policies.

"No one will bat an eye about opening their citizenship to Jews": we have examples to draw from, and this is false. Jewish residents were not allowed to buy land under Ottoman rule (that why all the land acquisitions in Israel were done by foreigners), Jews have lower rights in other Muslim countries, and you can bet your ass that if Jews were anywhere close to being a majority in Syria they would do something about it. In fact, Syria was controlled by an ethnic minority (10% of the population) until recently and no one said anything. So given the examples from the neighbors, I doubt this statement would be true. Though it's only theoretical anyway.

[asacrowflies]

So what are your thoughts on setting up a similar nation in North America? By force. A native American nakba if you will.... I assume you'd be fine with it or at least stay out the way right??? /S