6 ms·

I can't imagine why the tour guide would be offended – head scarves are by no means out of place in Israel, or anywhere in the region. Many Israelis that I know

I can't imagine why the tour guide would be offended – head scarves are by no means out of place in Israel, or anywhere in the region. Many Israelis that I know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger diplomatic ties (and with that, peace) in the region. Israel has previously made big concessions for diplomacy, like giving up the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty.

CameronNemo 6y ago
Perhaps Israelis differ significantly in their perception of neighboring cultures, just like Americans differ greatly in their perception of Latin American immigrants?
Udik 6y ago
> Many Israelis that I know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger diplomatic ties (and with that, peace) And how do they feel about returning the territories they have illegally annexed or occupied- the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank? Because otherwise "peace" just means enjoying what you stole without fear of consequences.
- shliachtx 6y ago
  There are consequences to starting wars of aggression intending to destroy a nation. One of those consequences is losing land if you lose the war.
  - Udik 6y ago
    It's a pity you just made this "rule" up, because the delivery was very convincing. No, such a rule doesn't exist. Seems more like "an eye for an eye" than any form of civilized law.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    Did the villagers of Iqrit and Biram start a war of aggression?
- jordan_curve 6y ago
  Your question seems to be Plenty of Israelis would happily vote to trade some or all of those regions for stable alliances with their neighbors. After the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, that dream was never going to happen though. Israelis largely care about national security. If you could assure them that giving up those regions would guarantee peace, you would win an election.
  - Udik 6y ago
    > If you could assure them that giving up those regions would guarantee peace, you would win an election. Eh. Are you sure you thought this through? There are about 800 thousand Israelis living in occupied and annexed territories. That's 10% of the country. Do you think they would vote to leave their homes? That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket? Come on, let's not kid ourselves: land is monstrously valuable, Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation. You're pretending it's indifferent, that Israelis just want peace. But for the meanwhile they'll just keep getting more free land, thank you very much.
    - helge9210 6y ago
      >That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket? 70% would. Government would. >Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation. Some israelis. Most just pay for it, not getting anything in return.
      - Udik 6y ago
        >That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket? > 70% would. Government would. Please. Stop and think. There are countries who had their youth decimated in atrocious wars to conquer portions of new territory proportionally smaller then the one Israel is occupying almost without damage. This cavalier attitude you're showing is part of the self deception of Israelis in regards to the occupation. They keep building cities in land that doesn't belong to them, but refuse to admit they're actually reaping any benefit. That the country is becoming substantially larger and more spacious. That there is space- or there will be some time in the future- for more industries, more fields, more suburbs, more people to come and live in Israel- the people Israeli leaders keep inviting to move from France, from the UK, from the US. But of course this would be an admissions that Israel is reaping some unjust benefit. That it might want peace, but it also wants to keep what it gained. That peace is a negative, because it implies an end to the progression of appropriations.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
You know, I may not remember all the pertinent details. It may have had something to do with going into a particular location? Would going into a synagogue or something with a head scarf be abnormal? The anecdote was mentioned though in the context of the generally tense relations and hostilities that he was arguing still plagued the region. He was a history professor with I think a relatively pro-Israel stance.

CameronNemo 6y ago

Perhaps Israelis differ significantly in their perception of neighboring cultures, just like Americans differ greatly in their perception of Latin American immigrants?

Udik 6y ago

> Many Israelis that I know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger diplomatic ties (and with that, peace) And how do they feel about returning the territories they have illegally annexed or occupied- the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank? Because otherwise "peace" just means enjoying what you stole without fear of consequences.

shliachtx 6y ago
There are consequences to starting wars of aggression intending to destroy a nation. One of those consequences is losing land if you lose the war.
- Udik 6y ago
  It's a pity you just made this "rule" up, because the delivery was very convincing. No, such a rule doesn't exist. Seems more like "an eye for an eye" than any form of civilized law.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  Did the villagers of Iqrit and Biram start a war of aggression?
jordan_curve 6y ago
Your question seems to be Plenty of Israelis would happily vote to trade some or all of those regions for stable alliances with their neighbors. After the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, that dream was never going to happen though. Israelis largely care about national security. If you could assure them that giving up those regions would guarantee peace, you would win an election.
- Udik 6y ago
  > If you could assure them that giving up those regions would guarantee peace, you would win an election. Eh. Are you sure you thought this through? There are about 800 thousand Israelis living in occupied and annexed territories. That's 10% of the country. Do you think they would vote to leave their homes? That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket? Come on, let's not kid ourselves: land is monstrously valuable, Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation. You're pretending it's indifferent, that Israelis just want peace. But for the meanwhile they'll just keep getting more free land, thank you very much.
  - helge9210 6y ago
    >That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket? 70% would. Government would. >Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation. Some israelis. Most just pay for it, not getting anything in return.
    - Udik 6y ago
      >That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket? > 70% would. Government would. Please. Stop and think. There are countries who had their youth decimated in atrocious wars to conquer portions of new territory proportionally smaller then the one Israel is occupying almost without damage. This cavalier attitude you're showing is part of the self deception of Israelis in regards to the occupation. They keep building cities in land that doesn't belong to them, but refuse to admit they're actually reaping any benefit. That the country is becoming substantially larger and more spacious. That there is space- or there will be some time in the future- for more industries, more fields, more suburbs, more people to come and live in Israel- the people Israeli leaders keep inviting to move from France, from the UK, from the US. But of course this would be an admissions that Israel is reaping some unjust benefit. That it might want peace, but it also wants to keep what it gained. That peace is a negative, because it implies an end to the progression of appropriations.

Enginerrrd 6y ago

You know, I may not remember all the pertinent details. It may have had something to do with going into a particular location? Would going into a synagogue or something with a head scarf be abnormal? The anecdote was mentioned though in the context of the generally tense relations and hostilities that he was arguing still plagued the region. He was a history professor with I think a relatively pro-Israel stance.