[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.