4 ms·

> Why should the losers of a conflict get to decide the terms? Because might doesn't make right. Because there's such a thing as international law. Because it'

> Why should the losers of a conflict get to decide the terms? Because might doesn't make right. Because there's such a thing as international law. Because it's wrong to steal land and force people out of their homes. > The way I see it, the fairest and best outcome was a two-state solution with Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem -- this would have represented a compromise on both sides. The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. They only want the rump: East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Most big Israeli cities used to be Palestinian cities, until the Israelis conquered and ethnically cleansed them in 1948. The standard 2-state solution is already a massive concession by the Palestinians. It's not the starting point for more concessions. You're asking them to now concede the most cherished piece of Palestine that they haven't yet given up: East Jerusalem. That would be such a humiliation that the Palestinians would never accept it. The way out of this is massive international pressure on Israel. Israel is strong as long as it's beating up on almost completely defenseless Palestinians. But Israel is a small country that could be pressured by the US and EU fairly easily. Instead, they back it to the tune of billions of dollars a year and give it diplomatic support.

dlubarov 1y ago
> The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. You seem to be conflating the region of Palestine, which has always included a mix of religions including Jews, with the modern Palestinian national identity.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  Jews were only a few percent of the population before Europeans started moving in at the end of the 19th Century. The people we now call Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the whole region of Palestine. They've given up 78% of it.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    Yes, there was a certain period when Jews were a small minority; so what? If we're using "Palestinian" to mean someone from Palestine, why wouldn't we count a family from the First Aliyah as Palestinian? The Second Aliyah? Holocaust refugees? Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Would you say they're not real Palestinians, because they joined too recently? How about Arafat, who doesn't have a "pure" unbroken Levantine lineage (being born in Cairo)? Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights, perhaps less voting power, than families who have been here for multiple centuries?
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
      That "certain period" was over a thousand years. For at least hundreds of years until the about 1900, the region of Palestine was inhabited by the people we now call the Palestinians, not by the ancestors of the Israelis. > Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Relatively few. Not enough to have much of an impact on the overall Arab population of Palestine. This is radically different than the Zionist colonization of Palestine, which was a mass influx of people with the explicit intention of taking over control of the territory. > Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights I think you would accept that the following two situations would be very different: 1. People immigrate to the US, settle down, send their kids to school, and eventually become American citizens. 2. A large group of people enter the US with the explicitly stated goal of founding their own country - a country in which they want there to be as few Americans as possible. They have their own militias and operate completely outside the control of any government that the people of the United States control. Just to make this scenario more realistic, we can say that the US is currently under the rule of a foreign empire, so that Americans have no say in their own government. The foreign settlers start taking over large parts of the country. Finally, the UN says that the US should be split in two, giving half of it to the foreign settlers. The foreign settlers agree, but Americans think it's unfair and don't agree. War erupts. The foreign settlers, based on superior political organization and funding from abroad, quickly establish massive military dominance over the Americans, and go on to conquer 78% of the United States, expelling 80% of the American population from the territory they control. Not exactly the same thing.
      - dlubarov 1y ago
        > Relatively few. Not enough to have much of an impact on the overall Arab population of Palestine. The numbers are largely unknown for border crossings. But the point is that it's a gross oversimplification to say that Palestinians are native to Palestine (even those born outside?) while Jews are not. The intentional naming collision encourages this oversimplification. And if we move past the rather old-fashioned idea that more recent immigrants don't count, the more relevant figure is that there was a (slight) Jewish majority within the partition plan borders. > mass influx of people with the explicit intention of taking over control of the territory Many of them simply had no choice, having been driven out of other MENA states. > with the explicitly stated goal of founding their own country I don't think that it's wrong to legally immigrate, regardless of any statehood aspirations, or that such immigrants are less deserving of any rights than other residents.
A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
> Because it's wrong to steal land and force people out of their homes. When has this stopped any army? And hasn't this very thing happened to Jews in Middle Eastern countries, who were sent packing without any hope of compensation? > You're asking them to now concede the most cherished piece of Palestine that they haven't yet given up: East Jerusalem. That would be such a humiliation that the Palestinians would never accept it. The same goes for the Israelis, who swear a religious oath by Jerusalem every year, and time has shown (repeatedly, at that,) that no Israeli leader will be induced to give it up. At some point, you've got to admit defeat, or else the conflict will simply continue forever, very much to the detriment of all involved, and their children, who are innocent. The passions obviously run high, but obviously both sides should compromise from the position of the status quo, and it's wishful thinking to suppose that the side that has prevailed in combat will knuckle-under and let the loser decide the terms of the peace. This is quite literally something that has never happened before. Granted, the Israelis are fighting their war in a way that is deranged and quite dangerous for their own long-term survival. If they were somewhat more chivalrous, their own goals would be far better served; there appears to be a very nasty edge to Israeli democracy.

dlubarov 1y ago

> The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. You seem to be conflating the region of Palestine, which has always included a mix of religions including Jews, with the modern Palestinian national identity.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
Jews were only a few percent of the population before Europeans started moving in at the end of the 19th Century. The people we now call Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the whole region of Palestine. They've given up 78% of it.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  Yes, there was a certain period when Jews were a small minority; so what? If we're using "Palestinian" to mean someone from Palestine, why wouldn't we count a family from the First Aliyah as Palestinian? The Second Aliyah? Holocaust refugees? Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Would you say they're not real Palestinians, because they joined too recently? How about Arafat, who doesn't have a "pure" unbroken Levantine lineage (being born in Cairo)? Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights, perhaps less voting power, than families who have been here for multiple centuries?
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    That "certain period" was over a thousand years. For at least hundreds of years until the about 1900, the region of Palestine was inhabited by the people we now call the Palestinians, not by the ancestors of the Israelis. > Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Relatively few. Not enough to have much of an impact on the overall Arab population of Palestine. This is radically different than the Zionist colonization of Palestine, which was a mass influx of people with the explicit intention of taking over control of the territory. > Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights I think you would accept that the following two situations would be very different: 1. People immigrate to the US, settle down, send their kids to school, and eventually become American citizens. 2. A large group of people enter the US with the explicitly stated goal of founding their own country - a country in which they want there to be as few Americans as possible. They have their own militias and operate completely outside the control of any government that the people of the United States control. Just to make this scenario more realistic, we can say that the US is currently under the rule of a foreign empire, so that Americans have no say in their own government. The foreign settlers start taking over large parts of the country. Finally, the UN says that the US should be split in two, giving half of it to the foreign settlers. The foreign settlers agree, but Americans think it's unfair and don't agree. War erupts. The foreign settlers, based on superior political organization and funding from abroad, quickly establish massive military dominance over the Americans, and go on to conquer 78% of the United States, expelling 80% of the American population from the territory they control. Not exactly the same thing.
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      > Relatively few. Not enough to have much of an impact on the overall Arab population of Palestine. The numbers are largely unknown for border crossings. But the point is that it's a gross oversimplification to say that Palestinians are native to Palestine (even those born outside?) while Jews are not. The intentional naming collision encourages this oversimplification. And if we move past the rather old-fashioned idea that more recent immigrants don't count, the more relevant figure is that there was a (slight) Jewish majority within the partition plan borders. > mass influx of people with the explicit intention of taking over control of the territory Many of them simply had no choice, having been driven out of other MENA states. > with the explicitly stated goal of founding their own country I don't think that it's wrong to legally immigrate, regardless of any statehood aspirations, or that such immigrants are less deserving of any rights than other residents.

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago

> Because it's wrong to steal land and force people out of their homes. When has this stopped any army? And hasn't this very thing happened to Jews in Middle Eastern countries, who were sent packing without any hope of compensation? > You're asking them to now concede the most cherished piece of Palestine that they haven't yet given up: East Jerusalem. That would be such a humiliation that the Palestinians would never accept it. The same goes for the Israelis, who swear a religious oath by Jerusalem every year, and time has shown (repeatedly, at that,) that no Israeli leader will be induced to give it up. At some point, you've got to admit defeat, or else the conflict will simply continue forever, very much to the detriment of all involved, and their children, who are innocent. The passions obviously run high, but obviously both sides should compromise from the position of the status quo, and it's wishful thinking to suppose that the side that has prevailed in combat will knuckle-under and let the loser decide the terms of the peace. This is quite literally something that has never happened before. Granted, the Israelis are fighting their war in a way that is deranged and quite dangerous for their own long-term survival. If they were somewhat more chivalrous, their own goals would be far better served; there appears to be a very nasty edge to Israeli democracy.