3 ms·

Jaffa and Tel Aviv are now a single municipality, it's considered a mixed city where we have both Arabs and Jews. This has advantages and disadvantages. Gentrif

Jaffa and Tel Aviv are now a single municipality, it's considered a mixed city where we have both Arabs and Jews. This has advantages and disadvantages. Gentrification raises prices which make it hard for typically larger families to get homes (impacts Arab families more). But it also means that education and work opportunities are more equal. We get to live together and know each other. A lot of Arabs fled during the independence war. There were atrocities done on both sides during that war which was especially tragic. > Aside, the annexations of Jaffa into Tel Aviv, is colonialism 101. The eradication of the place names and administration boundaries is straight from the playbook of the colonization of Ireland by the British. That is pure nonsense. Tel Aviv is a new city that evolved and grew. It wasn't built on top of anything. Jaffa is ancient and as such has very limited growth potential. The names in Jaffa are the same as ever as are the mosques and everything there. New construction sometimes gets new names, that's it. > The thing is, they don’t still live there, they were overwhelmingly displaced That's a strawman argument. I specifically said "still live there". You're trying to bring people who never saw Jaffa into this argument. It's ridiculous redundant and pointless. Should I refer to our ancestors from 2,000 years ago and their connection to Jaffa and Jerusalem? > By the same logic you could claim that Dublin has no claims on Belfast because Belfast has some Catholics that vote for the DUP. Let's talk about the Irish. The Irish were able to finally get a country when they accepted reality and compromised with the British. Yes, it sucked. Yes, the British did some pretty nasty things. But they compromised and negotiated. Do the Irish want to take back Belfast by force? Are they opening a war on England in an attempt to do so? That's the right analogy. > 13000 of those are for Yesh Atid and Labour which are a liberal/reformist versions of Zionism They are mostly centrist, I vote left of both. Notice that even the Arab parties in the election recognize Israel and its borders as they are legally defined. Based on our definition of Zionism, they are all Zionists. Zionism means the desire of Jews to return to Zion. That's it. People often pull words they don't understand and associate false meaning with them trying to pollute the discussion. That is one such victim of the discussion. > But what I get from this is this is that it is not that easy to claim that “Palestinians” that still live in Jaffa vote Likud in shocking numbers. To me this is a shocking number, especially with how bad the Likud is in terms of policies towards minorities. Historically they were far more popular with the arab/Palestinian population as their message was more about helping the downtrodden population. Bibi slowly burned down their support, especially since coupling with Ben Gvir.

runarberg 2y ago
You probably know a lot more then me about this, and I apologize for speaking above my weight here. I will back down on this issue, thanks for informing me. However, I want to keep talking about the Irish. To claim they got their independence via compromising is very simplistic. They were only able to compromise after 2½ years of violent resistance following the Easter Uprising, and even after the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922 they still suffered almost a year of civil war as a consequence of that compromise. If not for the Easter Uprising, there would not have been an Anglo-Irish treaty, and the British would have gotten all they wanted. Ireland would probably have to wait until the decolonization period of the 1960s or the 1990s for any sort of political avenue for their statehood prospects. I’m pretty sure there were people during the onset of the 1920s claiming that the IRA was “sabotaging” any peace treaty, especially since (unlike Hamas) they actually didn’t want to cede Belfast. And unlike Israel, the British negotiated despite the IRA not wanting to compromise. The IRA fought other nationalists in a civil war over this (and so did Hamas,,, kinda).
- invalidname 2y ago
  I'm not saying that all violent resistance is wrong. In fact the analogy of the PLO fits here perfectly. In the 70's PLO terrorists invaded the north of Israel and killed children. They were brutal. Yet Israel came to terms with them, some of which hold to this day. The split between the two sides is also a good analogy. The Irish here are a bit in the middle between Israelis and Palestinians. I think this is one of the main reasons Palestinians keep loosing and Israel keeps winning. During the resistance years to the British occupation of Israel/Palestine, both Palestinian and Jews had groups. Palestinians remained divided to familial groups which is a division that holds to this day. They are rivals and never truly unified under compromise of a single ruler. OTOH the more extreme Jews were led by Begin, they conducted terror attacks (which are moderate by today's standard) but still extreme. This led to several attacks from the moderate side led by Ben Gurion. This included turning in the extremists to the British (effectively betraying their own people) and even shooting at one of their ships. Here Begin showed his greatness. He surrendered. He understood that if he continues there will be a civil war. The country unified around Ben Gurion and Begin was cast into opposition for 30 years. This willingness to sacrifice his ideology in favor of unity and compromise is one of the most important reasons Israel is unified to this day. Palestinians don't have figures like that. Never have. Arafat was fantastically rich. Abu Mahazen is famously corrupt. The leaders of Hamas are living off in Qatar in a lavish style with millions they stole from their own people (they used to charge a heavy fee to smuggle through their tunnels). The problem is that the structure of Palestinian society makes it very difficult to anyone who isn't corrupt to rise to the top and hold power. The right wing in Israel usually say's that there's no partner for peace. I think that's a terrible excuse but they do have a point. > since (unlike Hamas) they actually didn’t want to cede Belfast Hamas won't cede any part of Israel so the IRA seems far more moderate. I'd say the analogy would be like the IRA demanding the entire UK.

runarberg 2y ago

You probably know a lot more then me about this, and I apologize for speaking above my weight here. I will back down on this issue, thanks for informing me. However, I want to keep talking about the Irish. To claim they got their independence via compromising is very simplistic. They were only able to compromise after 2½ years of violent resistance following the Easter Uprising, and even after the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922 they still suffered almost a year of civil war as a consequence of that compromise. If not for the Easter Uprising, there would not have been an Anglo-Irish treaty, and the British would have gotten all they wanted. Ireland would probably have to wait until the decolonization period of the 1960s or the 1990s for any sort of political avenue for their statehood prospects. I’m pretty sure there were people during the onset of the 1920s claiming that the IRA was “sabotaging” any peace treaty, especially since (unlike Hamas) they actually didn’t want to cede Belfast. And unlike Israel, the British negotiated despite the IRA not wanting to compromise. The IRA fought other nationalists in a civil war over this (and so did Hamas,,, kinda).

invalidname 2y ago
I'm not saying that all violent resistance is wrong. In fact the analogy of the PLO fits here perfectly. In the 70's PLO terrorists invaded the north of Israel and killed children. They were brutal. Yet Israel came to terms with them, some of which hold to this day. The split between the two sides is also a good analogy. The Irish here are a bit in the middle between Israelis and Palestinians. I think this is one of the main reasons Palestinians keep loosing and Israel keeps winning. During the resistance years to the British occupation of Israel/Palestine, both Palestinian and Jews had groups. Palestinians remained divided to familial groups which is a division that holds to this day. They are rivals and never truly unified under compromise of a single ruler. OTOH the more extreme Jews were led by Begin, they conducted terror attacks (which are moderate by today's standard) but still extreme. This led to several attacks from the moderate side led by Ben Gurion. This included turning in the extremists to the British (effectively betraying their own people) and even shooting at one of their ships. Here Begin showed his greatness. He surrendered. He understood that if he continues there will be a civil war. The country unified around Ben Gurion and Begin was cast into opposition for 30 years. This willingness to sacrifice his ideology in favor of unity and compromise is one of the most important reasons Israel is unified to this day. Palestinians don't have figures like that. Never have. Arafat was fantastically rich. Abu Mahazen is famously corrupt. The leaders of Hamas are living off in Qatar in a lavish style with millions they stole from their own people (they used to charge a heavy fee to smuggle through their tunnels). The problem is that the structure of Palestinian society makes it very difficult to anyone who isn't corrupt to rise to the top and hold power. The right wing in Israel usually say's that there's no partner for peace. I think that's a terrible excuse but they do have a point. > since (unlike Hamas) they actually didn’t want to cede Belfast Hamas won't cede any part of Israel so the IRA seems far more moderate. I'd say the analogy would be like the IRA demanding the entire UK.