4 ms·

That's the question we should be asking and the pressure Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan need to be put under by Saudi Arabia, UAE, US, France, Russia, China,

by dakom 2y ago

That's the question we should be asking and the pressure Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan need to be put under by Saudi Arabia, UAE, US, France, Russia, China, etc. I realize that's a stretch- but it shouldn't be. Fantasy scenario: it just happens. Many Palestinian/Arabs continue to live in Israel under Israeli sovereignty because they like the job opportunities or whatever. No persecution, they live and flourish no problem (assuming they genuinely accept Israeli government). Many emigrate to Palestine in eastern Jordan because they feel a connection to the land their great grandparents grew up in, it's worth the tradeoff for them (assuming it's less prosperous than Israel which of course may be inverted, who knows) If 80% of the energy from world hatred of Jews went to actually trying to solve the problem, we'd be in a far better place- less war, less innocents dying, less needing to censor treasonous media, etc. To be completely honest, it boggles my mind that this _isn't_ happening. Instead we have pointless shit like Gays for Palestine blocking entrance to Disneyland. The world has lost its mind on this issue.

racional 2y ago
Many emigrate to Palestine in eastern Jordan because they feel a connection to the land their great grandparents grew up in, it's worth the tradeoff for them (assuming it's less prosperous than Israel which of course may be inverted, who knows) In an optimistic scenario -- approximately what percentage of the current Palestinian/Arab population (in the West Bank + Gaza) need to make this move in order to create conditions for peace, in your view?
- dakom 2y ago
  0% of those who accept Israeli government wholeheartedly, choose to live as law-abiding citizens, and teach their children to do the same (similar to many Israeli-Arab and Druze populations today). 100% of those who actively support the eradication of Israel and driving every Jew into the sea. In the middle, it may need to lean to less tolerance due to the reality of democracy and demographics, but I'm not sure. My hope would be that most would fit in the 0% category.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    Your 0% category fits into a schoolbook example of colonialism. If your hope is that most people accept being colonized and loosing any prospect of self determination, and potentially their identity, then your hope is that a whole peoples just allows a colonizer to determine their fate in peace. It is not only unrealistic, but also an outdated 19th century view of geopolitics, with a history full of racism, genocide and other horrors.
    - dakom 2y ago
      You have it completely inverted. I am talking about the indigenous people returning to their land. I am talking about the original (and much more prolific) religious claims to land being restored over subsequent weak-claimed usurpers. That's literally the opposite of colonialism. (by "weak" I just mean the opposite of prolific.. not sure what the right word would be there, i.e. Judaism has super strong ties to Israel- agricultural laws of orlah and shemittah, recorded purchase and significance of Hebron, daily prayer for over 2000 years to rebuild Jerusalem. No other religion has anywhere near this strong of a connection to the land).
      - dunekid 2y ago
        I am not sure who do you mean by usurpers. Here is the colonisers association, tasked with creating colonies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Colonisation_Association https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Colonisation_Associat... The colony in Palestine took off, due to the British preference of solidifying european control over Ottoman region, and the convenient façade of the historical claim. People lived there before this are descendents of those who lived there in the past. Many stayed even after the expulsion by Romans, many returned. Some, obviously would have changed their faith, but none of that gives the European descendents any more right over it. We can all colonise Ethiopia if we were to go on like this.
        dakom 2y ago
        Starting in the 1800's is pretty arbitrary. Try going back a couple thousand years. I am not interested in debating Ethiopia, I know nothing about it, and wouldn't presume to take a strong position on a subject I know so little about. "Usurpers" in that context was specifically about religious claim, where Islam has both a far weaker and far later claim than Judaism

by dakom 2y ago

racional 2y ago

Many emigrate to Palestine in eastern Jordan because they feel a connection to the land their great grandparents grew up in, it's worth the tradeoff for them (assuming it's less prosperous than Israel which of course may be inverted, who knows) In an optimistic scenario -- approximately what percentage of the current Palestinian/Arab population (in the West Bank + Gaza) need to make this move in order to create conditions for peace, in your view?

dakom 2y ago
0% of those who accept Israeli government wholeheartedly, choose to live as law-abiding citizens, and teach their children to do the same (similar to many Israeli-Arab and Druze populations today). 100% of those who actively support the eradication of Israel and driving every Jew into the sea. In the middle, it may need to lean to less tolerance due to the reality of democracy and demographics, but I'm not sure. My hope would be that most would fit in the 0% category.
- runarberg 2y ago
  Your 0% category fits into a schoolbook example of colonialism. If your hope is that most people accept being colonized and loosing any prospect of self determination, and potentially their identity, then your hope is that a whole peoples just allows a colonizer to determine their fate in peace. It is not only unrealistic, but also an outdated 19th century view of geopolitics, with a history full of racism, genocide and other horrors.
  - dakom 2y ago
    You have it completely inverted. I am talking about the indigenous people returning to their land. I am talking about the original (and much more prolific) religious claims to land being restored over subsequent weak-claimed usurpers. That's literally the opposite of colonialism. (by "weak" I just mean the opposite of prolific.. not sure what the right word would be there, i.e. Judaism has super strong ties to Israel- agricultural laws of orlah and shemittah, recorded purchase and significance of Hebron, daily prayer for over 2000 years to rebuild Jerusalem. No other religion has anywhere near this strong of a connection to the land).
    - dunekid 2y ago
      I am not sure who do you mean by usurpers. Here is the colonisers association, tasked with creating colonies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Colonisation_Association https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Colonisation_Associat... The colony in Palestine took off, due to the British preference of solidifying european control over Ottoman region, and the convenient façade of the historical claim. People lived there before this are descendents of those who lived there in the past. Many stayed even after the expulsion by Romans, many returned. Some, obviously would have changed their faith, but none of that gives the European descendents any more right over it. We can all colonise Ethiopia if we were to go on like this.
      - dakom 2y ago
        Starting in the 1800's is pretty arbitrary. Try going back a couple thousand years. I am not interested in debating Ethiopia, I know nothing about it, and wouldn't presume to take a strong position on a subject I know so little about. "Usurpers" in that context was specifically about religious claim, where Islam has both a far weaker and far later claim than Judaism