3 ms·

> Also Israel's Jewish population is made up majorly of people not tied to Europe / the Holocaust. Those latter are the minority. The majority were largely ref

by edanm 2y ago

> Also Israel's Jewish population is made up majorly of people not tied to Europe / the Holocaust. Those latter are the minority. The majority were largely refugees that were ethnically cleansed from the Arab world, so not sure that really changes anything. > Again, a state built around one ethnicity that by its founding requires people of a separate ethnicity who were equally living in the same land to become stateless, that's wrong and should not happen. Israel's founding did not require anyone to become stateless. The land was effectively inhabited by two separate groups that did not want to become one state, and rules by the British - then the British gave the UN the task of deciding what to do, and they suggested what everyone else who has ever looked at the problem has suggested, and what any five year old would suggest - split the land into two, and give one to each group. The Jews accepted this split - and the Arabs refused, and started a war to conquer all the area (and let's leave to the imagination what they would've done with the Jewish population in the area). But, all of that is history at this point. I don't think it matters as much now - Israel exists and has existed for 75 years as a fully reocgnized state. It no more makes sense to talk about "it's wrong for Israel to exist" as to talk about "it's wrong for the US" to exist. Do we routinely look at any other country's founding and talk about them not making sense any more? Many of which were also founded based around ethnicities? > Now, the Holocaust is nearing 100 years old, does the raison d'etre of the country even apply anymore and does it justify the current state of things which has not changed since then? Countries don't need a raison d'etre to continue existing. If by "current state of things" you mean the Palestinians having no state, I don't think anything justifies that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to change that - multiple attempts have been made at a peace process that gets the Palestinians a sate, which the Palestinians have refused each time. By most surveys or interviews I've seen, most Palestinians do not want peace with Israel - they want Israel gone. And to top it off, the last 15ish years have seen Israel become ever more extreme right, partially driven by the Israeli left's total failure to create a peace with the Palestinians - so it's not like the Israeli side is encouraging peace at this point, in fact quite the opposite.

aguaviva 2y ago
Israel's founding did not require anyone to become stateless. Only that they have no meaningful rights of self-determination within the proposed Jewish State.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
> If by "current state of things" you mean the Palestinians having no state, I don't think anything justifies that. So we're all on the same page then. I never said Israel shouldn't exist, and your whole history lesson before (as much as you're leaving out) doesn't really matter. The ethnostate nature of Israel now is what matters, and that it requires Palestinian statelessness is key. At least this is the approach of the current Israeli government. > multiple attempts have been made at a peace process that gets the Palestinians a sate, which the Palestinians have refused each time Leaving out that the PA renounced violence against Israel as part of the Oslo Peace Process, which only led to more land theft, that Israelis so badly did not want Palestine to have a state that they murdered Rabin to stop it, that multiple Israeli PMs constantly sabotaged the process to Palestinian statehood thru the PA (most notably Netanyahu preferring to allow Hamas to threaten their rule and ultimately expel them from Gaza). Let's be honest about failures on both sides, not prop up one story or the other solely. > By most surveys or interviews I've seen, most Palestinians do not want Doesn't really matter what people want though. Like I replied to you earlier: "You're talking about what Palestinians inherently "want", but that's not really related to peace. Peace exists when nations can deter each other" Unfortunately, giving Palestine the one thing that can actually enable peace (deterrence) is also a huge risk for Israel. One day Israelis will have to decide if that risk is worth it to have a nation not constantly at war, not constantly on edge, not constantly bowing to the "strong" far-right, and not constantly sending its children to do all the things they are doing in Gaza, some necessary in war, and some absolutely beyond normalization. Palestinians could change entirely tomorrow and it won't make any difference, the way the power lies right now. That is largely borne out by seeing what happened to the PLO/PA after they changed themselves substantially to aid the peace process.
- edanm 2y ago
  > So we're all on the same page then. I never said Israel shouldn't exist, and your whole history lesson before (as much as you're leaving out) doesn't really matter. Yes, I believe we are. I kind of have to be pro-actively defensive about the history, because lots of other people (even in this very thread) express exactly that - that Israel shouldn't exist, or that Israelis are uniquely evil, or something. > The ethnostate nature of Israel now is what matters, and that it requires Palestinian statelessness is key. At least this is the approach of the current Israeli government. I don't think this is fair, though. First, calling the "nature of Israel" an ethnostate is misleading - it's not any more an ethnostate than France is an "ethnostate" for the French. Indeed, Israel has a sizeable Arab/Palestinian minority (~20%) that have full rights and full voting rights. And I certainly don't think anything about Israel requires Palestinian statelesness. But yes, the current government is certainly of the approach that the Palestinians should never have a state - they literally voted on disallowing them ever having a state. The current government is awful, and not just for the Palestinians - dragging Israel towards dictatorship is (IMO, of course) a terrible thing for Israelis too! > Leaving out that the PA renounced violence against Israel as part of the Oslo Peace Process, which only led to more land theft, that Israelis so badly did not want Palestine to have a state that they murdered Rabin to stop it, that multiple Israeli PMs constantly sabotaged the process to Palestinian statehood thru the PA (most notably Netanyahu preferring to allow Hamas to threaten their rule and ultimately expel them from Gaza). Let's be honest about failures on both sides, not prop up one story or the other solely. I believe I am honest about the history, certainly honest about the experience of the Israeli left. There was a genuine push for peace, sustained over many years and multiple PMs, and the experience of the country is that every push for peace ended up with more violence and less security, which just doesn't make any sense - why did the Palestinians ramp up the violence when on the way to getting what they ostensibly want? It makes sense from the POV of Palestinian extremists like Hamas, because they were explicitly against the peace process, and explictly refused to accept anything except getting rid of Israel. So for them, any concessions on the Israeli side were "proof" that Israel would eventually be able to be pushed out, which is what they really want, and represents (afaict) a majority view. > Unfortunately, giving Palestine the one thing that can actually enable peace (deterrence) is also a huge risk for Israel. I really, really disagree with this. Again, Mexico and the US have peace, but it's not because Mexico deters the US in any meaningful way. They just aren't fighting because they aren't competing over anything. If Mexico tomorrow decided that it has a claim on (say) Texas, and were determined to conquer it - and started shooting rockets at the US and invading the US - would your reaction really be "well the only thing that can solve this is the US giving Mexico enough weapons so there was mutual deterrence"? What brings peace is agreeing to live next to each other without killing each other.

by edanm 2y ago

aguaviva 2y ago

Israel's founding did not require anyone to become stateless. Only that they have no meaningful rights of self-determination within the proposed Jewish State.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

> If by "current state of things" you mean the Palestinians having no state, I don't think anything justifies that. So we're all on the same page then. I never said Israel shouldn't exist, and your whole history lesson before (as much as you're leaving out) doesn't really matter. The ethnostate nature of Israel now is what matters, and that it requires Palestinian statelessness is key. At least this is the approach of the current Israeli government. > multiple attempts have been made at a peace process that gets the Palestinians a sate, which the Palestinians have refused each time Leaving out that the PA renounced violence against Israel as part of the Oslo Peace Process, which only led to more land theft, that Israelis so badly did not want Palestine to have a state that they murdered Rabin to stop it, that multiple Israeli PMs constantly sabotaged the process to Palestinian statehood thru the PA (most notably Netanyahu preferring to allow Hamas to threaten their rule and ultimately expel them from Gaza). Let's be honest about failures on both sides, not prop up one story or the other solely. > By most surveys or interviews I've seen, most Palestinians do not want Doesn't really matter what people want though. Like I replied to you earlier: "You're talking about what Palestinians inherently "want", but that's not really related to peace. Peace exists when nations can deter each other" Unfortunately, giving Palestine the one thing that can actually enable peace (deterrence) is also a huge risk for Israel. One day Israelis will have to decide if that risk is worth it to have a nation not constantly at war, not constantly on edge, not constantly bowing to the "strong" far-right, and not constantly sending its children to do all the things they are doing in Gaza, some necessary in war, and some absolutely beyond normalization. Palestinians could change entirely tomorrow and it won't make any difference, the way the power lies right now. That is largely borne out by seeing what happened to the PLO/PA after they changed themselves substantially to aid the peace process.

edanm 2y ago
> So we're all on the same page then. I never said Israel shouldn't exist, and your whole history lesson before (as much as you're leaving out) doesn't really matter. Yes, I believe we are. I kind of have to be pro-actively defensive about the history, because lots of other people (even in this very thread) express exactly that - that Israel shouldn't exist, or that Israelis are uniquely evil, or something. > The ethnostate nature of Israel now is what matters, and that it requires Palestinian statelessness is key. At least this is the approach of the current Israeli government. I don't think this is fair, though. First, calling the "nature of Israel" an ethnostate is misleading - it's not any more an ethnostate than France is an "ethnostate" for the French. Indeed, Israel has a sizeable Arab/Palestinian minority (~20%) that have full rights and full voting rights. And I certainly don't think anything about Israel requires Palestinian statelesness. But yes, the current government is certainly of the approach that the Palestinians should never have a state - they literally voted on disallowing them ever having a state. The current government is awful, and not just for the Palestinians - dragging Israel towards dictatorship is (IMO, of course) a terrible thing for Israelis too! > Leaving out that the PA renounced violence against Israel as part of the Oslo Peace Process, which only led to more land theft, that Israelis so badly did not want Palestine to have a state that they murdered Rabin to stop it, that multiple Israeli PMs constantly sabotaged the process to Palestinian statehood thru the PA (most notably Netanyahu preferring to allow Hamas to threaten their rule and ultimately expel them from Gaza). Let's be honest about failures on both sides, not prop up one story or the other solely. I believe I am honest about the history, certainly honest about the experience of the Israeli left. There was a genuine push for peace, sustained over many years and multiple PMs, and the experience of the country is that every push for peace ended up with more violence and less security, which just doesn't make any sense - why did the Palestinians ramp up the violence when on the way to getting what they ostensibly want? It makes sense from the POV of Palestinian extremists like Hamas, because they were explicitly against the peace process, and explictly refused to accept anything except getting rid of Israel. So for them, any concessions on the Israeli side were "proof" that Israel would eventually be able to be pushed out, which is what they really want, and represents (afaict) a majority view. > Unfortunately, giving Palestine the one thing that can actually enable peace (deterrence) is also a huge risk for Israel. I really, really disagree with this. Again, Mexico and the US have peace, but it's not because Mexico deters the US in any meaningful way. They just aren't fighting because they aren't competing over anything. If Mexico tomorrow decided that it has a claim on (say) Texas, and were determined to conquer it - and started shooting rockets at the US and invading the US - would your reaction really be "well the only thing that can solve this is the US giving Mexico enough weapons so there was mutual deterrence"? What brings peace is agreeing to live next to each other without killing each other.