3 ms·

You're taking a complicated issue and trying to turn it into a soundbite. Why does the US claim it's a democracy if Mexicans can't vote in the US, even if they

by edanm 10y ago

You're taking a complicated issue and trying to turn it into a soundbite. Why does the US claim it's a democracy if Mexicans can't vote in the US, even if they live there? It's because they're not citizens. Similarly, Palestinians living in the West Bank are not citizens of Israel. Other people, including many Arabs, that are citizens of Israel, do vote. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong btw - there's a lot of valid questions around whether it's OK or not that Palestinians are not citizens of Israel even though Israel controls their land (e.g. right of return, the idea that Israel should've annexed the land, etc). I'm just pointing out that what you bring up as a rebuke of Israel really isn't.

pastProlog 10y ago
Comparing an 80 year old Palestinian in Nablus whose family has been in Nablus for centuries with a Mexican who moved to the US five years ago is silly. Also, there was a 2000 amnesty bill, so it is Mexicans who chose to move to the US within fifteen years in that category. Also, a Jew who moves into a settlement next to Nablus can vote. You can say Palestine is another country - but then why are settlements and the IDF there? Why does Israel fight UN bills saying Palestine is a country?
- edanm 10y ago
  My point wasn't to make a direct comparison to Mexicans in the US - my point was that it's citizenship that makes the difference, not physical location. As long as they're not citizens, it makes sense that they don't vote. There's a totally valid discussion around whether they should be citizens, but that's a separate discussion. "You can say Palestine is another country - but then why are settlements and the IDF there?" Well, I think the official position of Israel is that it isn't a separate country, it's a territory that's occupied by Israel, but that Israel chooses not to officially annex. I don't love this arrangement, and I certainly don't like that there continue to be settlements there, but like most people, I don't have an easy solution to this situation. Annexing the lands and turning the Palestinians into citizens means effectively destroying the entire point of Israel's existence (a country for the Jewish religion/nationality). I think the majority of people today consider a two-state solution the only true option - make it actually another country, at which point, as you point out, there can't be settlements there and the IDF would have to completely stay out. But while this is probably a desired situation, it's not the situation now.
WayneBro 10y ago
I think American Indians instead of Mexicans would have worked better in your example since the Jews basically kick the Palestinians out of the area in order to take it over.

by edanm 10y ago

pastProlog 10y ago

Comparing an 80 year old Palestinian in Nablus whose family has been in Nablus for centuries with a Mexican who moved to the US five years ago is silly. Also, there was a 2000 amnesty bill, so it is Mexicans who chose to move to the US within fifteen years in that category. Also, a Jew who moves into a settlement next to Nablus can vote. You can say Palestine is another country - but then why are settlements and the IDF there? Why does Israel fight UN bills saying Palestine is a country?

edanm 10y ago
My point wasn't to make a direct comparison to Mexicans in the US - my point was that it's citizenship that makes the difference, not physical location. As long as they're not citizens, it makes sense that they don't vote. There's a totally valid discussion around whether they should be citizens, but that's a separate discussion. "You can say Palestine is another country - but then why are settlements and the IDF there?" Well, I think the official position of Israel is that it isn't a separate country, it's a territory that's occupied by Israel, but that Israel chooses not to officially annex. I don't love this arrangement, and I certainly don't like that there continue to be settlements there, but like most people, I don't have an easy solution to this situation. Annexing the lands and turning the Palestinians into citizens means effectively destroying the entire point of Israel's existence (a country for the Jewish religion/nationality). I think the majority of people today consider a two-state solution the only true option - make it actually another country, at which point, as you point out, there can't be settlements there and the IDF would have to completely stay out. But while this is probably a desired situation, it's not the situation now.

WayneBro 10y ago

I think American Indians instead of Mexicans would have worked better in your example since the Jews basically kick the Palestinians out of the area in order to take it over.