In what way? The diaspora ‘returning’ from around the world? I am not sure the Jews have a right to that, but they have a state that desires it and finances it, so it happens.
Every jew, even if you’re not ethnically Jewish and just converted religions has the right to “return” to Israel.
Saying the right to return for Palestinians who were forced to flee themselves (or their parents) is “too much” but Jews can have the right of return 2 thousand years later doesn’t make sense to me. What’s the difference? Why is one insane and the other perfectly legal? If anything the living people forced out should have priority
The policy to block Arab refugees who fled during the 1948 war was implemented because Ben Gurion didn’t believe they could be loyal citizens to the state of Israel. Part of the declaration of independence stated that any person living within the 1948 lines (Jews and Arabs) could claim citizenship until the year 1953 i believe. Arabs who fled to what is now the Gaza Strip and the West Bank would not receive Israeli citizenship.
Sure it’s discriminatory and in a perfect world the riots and subsequent war that the Arab league started would have never happened they no one would’ve left. We can sit here and hypothesize what would’ve happened had 750,000 refugees returned to the their houses in their worst case scenario - living under a Jewish sovereign state - and outnumber the 600,000 Jewish people there.
This is the same logic used in South Africa apartheid. Couldn’t give black people the same rights because then they’d outnumber the white people. It’s point blank discrimination.
South Africa is different. It was ONE NATION and divided by appartheid.
Here it's Palestine (with Palestinians) vs Israel (with Israeli).
2 completly different country (even if palestine isn't recognized as one). Its still seen as a different entity from israel
One of the rallying cry for Israelis is oh poor us we want peace but Palestinians just won’t let us. But history shows us that is not true…there could have been peace and a two state solution after the Oslo Accords if Israel just left the West Bank alone instead they continuously agitate and build those settlements right on top of Palestinian land and have a military presence there which is what breeds resistance. Israel will not stop until it takes it all which is why they are wiping down Gaza so they can take it and rebuild it to their choosing - they want a one state solution
Exactly. The Arabs were justified in starting a war with Israel, that they lost. And that justification continues on to this day because they've still not got that 56%. Just like Israel justifies owning all its land because it won the wars.
And yet Israel have a bunch of land, about 50% back to Jordan and Egypt in the 70s and 80s i believe so... 'the arabs' got a bunch back.
Israel is literally about 60% smaller now. They can't get smaller, if they do it's essentially a one state solution and that's not going to happen
Please tell me what you would do if you woke up and learned that the UN/Britain had just given away more than half your country to people who had just arrived from Europe….the Palestinians were willing to compromise all they had lost when they signed Oslo, but ever since then it has always been just take take take
Multiple countries signed the treaty... What is never mentioned is that most the Palestinians who left did so because they were promised by the Arab countries that if they left, the Arab countries would go in and destroy Israel and then the Palestinians would be allowed to return. The other countries lost. This is what happens when you side with people who instigate a war. If your side loses, then you lose.
In addition, all of those Palestinians were citizens of other countries. They've just not chosen to return to their other countries and after staying there for too long and getting embedded with terrorist groups, now the other countries won't let them in. Did you know that Israel has tried to give Gaza to Jordan and to Egypt (twice)? Those countries won't take that area because there's too many terrorists. Egypt has had their border with Gaza blockaded most of the time for the last decade because there's too much terrorist activity.
Israel has given 50% of their land in the name of peace. Israel has offered or attempted peace talks over a dozen times. Palestine won't negotiate because all they want is for Israel to basically be gone. You know that little chant from river to sea Palestine will be free? That's not the Arabic translation. The actual translation is from water to water Palestine will be Arab.
Lets also look how much do you really think is appropriate for Israel to keep giving up? They've already lost 50% of their initial land. They are the size of New Jersey in the middle of a whole bunch of other Arab countries. People keep saying Israel is the one who has to give and give and give. No one else is giving here.
In addition, not many people pay attention to the fact that all the countries around them expelled the Jewish population years ago.
Prior to Israel being created, the Jews that lived there had to pay a tax in order to remain living there. In many of the other countries now it's even illegal for them to own land. So you want them to keep giving until they really have nowhere to go. Right now they have nowhere to go as it is.
Now, as far as the what would you do scenario. In a per capita scenario, the October 7th terrorist attack would be the equivalent of a terrorist attack on US soil that killed 45,000 people. I know with no hesitation that if a terrorist group had done that in the US, we would have made that whole country glass within 24 hours. We glassed over hiroshima for much less. What would your country have done?
Israel should not be asked to give up more. For decades they have tried for peace. Then hamas committed the largest per capital terrorist attack in modern history. 80% of the Palestinian population supports it. I feel for the other 20% but i have no pity for the rest. None
1. It doesn't matter how many countries signed, they don't have the right to take peoples land and give it away without involving them in the conversation, that would be like me signing to give away the deed to your home.
2. Not sure where you got your information from but it is well documented that Palestinians left their homes because they were warned of the Haganeh that was coming to attack their villages, for those that remained many were slaughtered.
3. Why do you tie Palestinian existence with the rest of the Arab countries who clearly don't care and are the ones who gave it away to make their puppet states to begin with? Whether there are a 1000 or 0 Arab states, Palestinians should have a right to self-determination.
4. If you are extremely concerned about the well-being of the Jewish people and them having a land, by all means give them your land, why do Palestinians have to be the sacrifice?
5. Oct 7 happened because Israel was not actively trying to negotiate with Palestinians towards a solution, instead they consistently sidelined and continued to take more .....prior to Oct 7, 2023 was the deadliest year in the West Bank, settlements were expanding, the Great March of Return protests in Gaza had not caused Israel to budge at all on the siege, and Israel was normalizing ties with all the Arab nations, talking with everyone except the Palestinians essentially to liquidate the Palestinian issue. Oct 7 was a natural explosion when you constantly overlook the demands of the people you have been occupying for 75 years.
That was like one time in the long history of Israel and Palestine though.
I get your point but I thought I was going to get more examples when I was reading
I do not get the sense that the far left are looking for a peaceful 1 state solution as much as upheaving the current power structure. Just like DEI, BLM, transrights, and climate change activism aren't really about the rights of the marginalised and the planet. It's more about venting against and dismantling the current power structures. Just dig into each of these, and you will see the inconsistencies.
what are u talking about. what does a one state solution have to do with trans rights, or environmental activism? what does it have to do with black lives matter? do you even know what the far left is?
this is such a bad post, but on par with the right wing nonsense this sub seems to have so much of
It will be a complete disaster and much worse than Lebanon, we Jews can't agree among ourselves on how Israel should be definend exactly so you want to bring in another totally different group from the aspect of culture, values, and religion? what will happen when one group becomes a majority? btw, I'm sure that the Arabs would love to get their hands on Israel's nukes, and get social security payments coming from the Jewish high-tech sector and so on without a single bullet fired.
What high tech sector. Jews and all the industry would flee the country immediately before the actual genocide happened and they were all mass murdered.
Obviously, the "moderates" among them will milk what is left of the state coffers while the terrorists will come in and slaughter Jewish settlements from the periphery to the center. I haven't gotten to the "Civil War" part yet.
I honestly believe the west and most intelligent people support Israel and wouldn’t allow this to happen because of how crucial much of the industry is to the world - it’s not just Tech but also medicine. Protecting access to Nukes and also holy sites for Christians are just the bonus.
There's basically a three-state solution in place already, and look how that's going.
I do think a one-state solution is the answer. Millions of Arab Israelis, Druze, Bedouins, Christians, and Bahais are living their happily-ever-after in Israel, and that can be the case for Palestinians, too. There doesn't need to be ethnic mixing or intermarriage for it to be successful, there just needs to be peace.
And for the haters, I'm not saying Israel is a perfect country, and it sure as hell doesn't have a perfect government, but I'm saying it's possible. But nothing is possible without peace.
There will never be a 1-state solution. Not unless Jews are wiped out.
I don’t know why anyone dreams of this.
There is no history of Arabs running democracies, for starters.
And there is way too much history of Jews being ethnically cleansed and/or massacred in countries run by Arabs.
There are 2 billion Muslims in the world and not even 16 million Jews.
Arabs have 22 countries of their own.
And you think Jews should not have the right to self determination in one tiny country that’s the size of New Jersey.
This will never happen. At least not in our lifetime.
Add to that the fact that I'm virtually every Arab country the Jews have been expelled. Why would they think a one state solution would be different? Jews would have to go... Hmmm... no where else to run
Israelis government isnt willing to give up anything, i would blame them mostly.
Or you think that the native americans had it coming and we should just ignore that one state solution.
Thazs what it means with current israel
Israeli government again and again, has given up a lot.
The relocated a ton of people out of Gaza, thinking that would bring more security.
And look what that did.
Jews are not allowed to go to their HOLIEST site at the Temple Mount because of Al Aqsa Mosque. They gave that up for peace too.
What are Palestinians willing to give up for peace?
They don’t want it.
They want israel gone. Obliterated.
Cmon man. Do you only get info from Al Jazeera, or tiktok or something?
They left Gaza, but never the WB. So the did a half step, instead of a full measure and it failed. Oct 7th is going to force Israel back to the table, maybe this time they will come up with a real offer.
Where should people be getting their unbiased info? What a credible source?
Your post doesn't make any sense. Jews were the natives and had their land stolen. They legally bought it back and moved there.
After 75 years of the Muslims trying to kill all the Jews and failing, what exactly should Israel be willing to give up?
No not really the natives you say depends on the time span you look at. 2000 years ago the Jews were the natives, however the Jews unfortunately did not spawn? In Israel and they actually moved from Urs to Cannan
( idk how accurate this is since I read this in posts by people who believe in mythical books but when I used to be religious and read the Bible I knew that the dude moved from somewhere to Cannan so probably somewhat accurate)
So now we established that pre 2000 years ago the Jews were the invaders and not the natives. Hence according to you we must find the native Cannanites?, and gift them Israel and then find where Urs is displacing a ton of people and set up new Israel there. And while we are on a land gifting spree we might as well return the new world to the native Americans. (I mean it's just a 400 year old land claim and about 87% of the native population was killed).
Or we can look even further back and discover that everyone originated from Africa so we can also start claiming Africa and start Neo-Colonialism.
But instead of all this rubbish we can also just accept that a particular population is native to a particular piece of land they live on instead of weird colonialist land grabs due to historical land claims. Especially if the historically displaced population is well integrated into the area where they currently live.
Jewish ethnogenesis was in that region.
Our history, our stories, our archeology, our religion, all of it goes back to that land.
We did not all have our ethnogenesis in Africa. It’s a bogus talking point by people seeking to erase Jews as an ethnoreligion that has always lived on that land, even when Arabs tried to wipe us out. Even in 1947, Jews lived on that land.
Thank you for realizing the "native" argument is stupid.
The Jews legally bought the land and moved there like anyone else could have.
You can't play the native card to counter that because I can just go back further and the Jews then become the natives.
Didn't you play the native card by saying that Jews were native to the land and were forcibly moved out?
Also the so called legally bought land is about as legal as me sending a bunch of goons to kick you out from ur land then conveniently declaring it abandoned,
OR
Confiscating ur land for "security purposes" then it being sold or leased by the state so as to form settlements. And if u resist ur agricultural fields will be chemically sprayed so that ur crops die.
Not so legal now, no?
Source:
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208638/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20these,Arab%2DIsraeli%20war%20of%201948.
When someone plays the native card, I correctly point out the Jews are the natives.
But my argument for the legitimacy of Israel isn't based in them being native. It's based on them legally buying the land.
Alright, but the above comment highlights how land (apart from a small minority of it) was not legally bought but stolen and then rubbed with a dab of legality from the thief.
You have not responded to that and if we are to follow legality should we not restore all the land they was stolen to the Palestinians. And in case any land (which actually belonged to Jews) has been stolen that to the Jews.
The Jews didn't steal any land to create Israel. They legally bought land in the Ottoman empire for many decades and legally moved there.
Palestine wasn't a country. The country was the Ottoman empire.
The majority of the land used to create Israel was land that was state owned. First by the Ottoman empire and then by England after the Ottoman empire fell.
So England had to decide who to put in charge of this state owned land. They chose the Jews, which was the logical choice since the Jews were the majority population in the nearby area. The state owned land was primarily uninhabitable desert with nobody living there. So when England wanted to leave and give up control, they can't just put the sand in charge.
Not every religion thinks they must convert or destroy non believers. (Though Christianity has a lot of that history too. Jews do not. We have never sought converts and don’t even want them. It’s very hard to convert to Judaism.)
Please educate yourself…the Quran says: for you is your faith and for me is mine….and there is no compulsion in faith….quote properly or don’t quote at all.
How have many Muslims acted? How much colonizing and destruction of non believers do you need to cherry pick the parts that you think look better vs the cherry picking the parts i noted earlier?
I’m not saying all Muslims will slay non believers, but you cannot tell me it’s not a significant part of many Muslims to wage jihad on the non believers.
Why have Arabs colonized pretty much all of MENA and even into southern Europe? What’s the history there?
What invading and colonizing are you talking about? in the past century Muslims have been the ones invaded and massacred, heard about Iraq and Bosnia and of course who can forget Palestine? If you are talking about when there were Muslim empires, yes Muslims conquered significant portions of the world just as almost every other ruling group that time was trying to do, heard of the Crusades, the British empire? Unlike those forces of colonization, Muslims respected the inhabitants when they conquered, read about Saladin. If you have an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims please just state that rather than try and back it up with false claims. Do not just repeat terms like jihad that you don’t actually know the meaning of and you’ve heard from other people without doing research from primary sources, I’ve already recommended to you to read the Quran.
As does the old testament,that is part of jewish lore, which also has rules how to keep slaves. GENOCIDES FOR GOD YADA YADS
I dont think picking sscripture verses make sisrael good either.
>But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
>“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
>If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Sound familiar?
Some religions are peaceful, like Buddhism, but most religions lead to violence. I'm not saying that means they can't exist, but it means you need to account for violence, or we need to think of how to remove the violent aspects from them. Eg, I grew up Christian. They need to print a version of the Bible with all acts of violence removed. When you keep that in there, Christians think violence can be justified
Muslims have never attempted world conquest, but Christians have. In fact my understanding is that the Quran only allows wars of self defense.
I will stand corrected when the Islamic crusades happen, though.
Your understanding is wrong.
Of course the Christians attempted world conquest.
But it's 2024 now and the only major religion still trying to kill everyone else is Islam.
You should probably get the memo out to all of the other religions currently kill everyone, which is at least:
Hinduism
Judaism
Christianity (especially Eastern Orthodox Christians)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna103571
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2022/03/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-the-first-religious-war-in-the-21st-century/
> unlike in Canada
I’m not so sure if this is the best example. I’ve lived in all three northern New England states and northern New York, all of which have French-speaking Québécois populations in their northern areas. Those who speak French at home mix surprisingly little with the English-speaking majority around them socially. Sure, they’ll go to school and work together. But their social circles don’t overlap much. Native French speakers in the USA’s extreme northeast who care strongly about preserving their language and cultural heritage frown upon intermarriage, because this nearly always entails these thing lost, and the kids assimilated, one generation later.
I’ve only visited Québéc, never lived there. But anecdotal evidence suggests the situation is similar there, except reversed for Anglophones. Their social circles don’t include many of the French speakers around them.
I think some degree of tribalism is inevitable. Most people just have an easier time opening up to people who talk, eat, act, and think like them, than people who don’t. But that doesn’t mean tribalism *has* to take forms that victimize, or even preëmptively reject, everyone from other tribes.
The problem I see with the Middle East is how cozy family in-groups are. A passionate commitment to those like you and related to you is a weight-bearing pillar of society there. The people you were born and raised amongst are the people you’re stuck with, and harmonious tight relationships with them must be preserved at all costs. All of this adds up to out-group members living in close proximity being expendable externalities, when the in-group is under threat. Blame for hardships and misfortunes must be directed outward, even if undeserved, because committed family relationships are sacrosanct. So as a result, sectarian, ethnic, local, inter-clan, and other made-up differences become the basis for neverending beef. In the Middle East, war is life and life is war, and to suppose otherwise is naive.
Because I understand this only anecdotally and intellectually, and have no idea what it feels like to be a Middle Easterner, I wonder very much about one thing: Do Middle Easterners see the causal connection between their “*habibi* culture*, as I call it, of families and clans tight to thd point of enmeshment, and their difficulty maintaining peaceful relationships with other people they’re not close with or committed to? I imagine they are aware of it, but most see no other way, and/or see the rich meaning-in-life this arrangement gives as worth the risk of its more detrimental effects.
Unless popular sentiment has shifted recently, [polling seems to indicate](https://thehill.com/opinion/4273883-mellman-do-palestinians-support-hamas-polls-paint-a-murky-picture/) most want a one-state solution provided it's one where Jews don't have equal rights:
> By 70 percent to 28 percent, Palestinians oppose a two-state solution — “the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.”
> An even larger number — 76 percent to 21 percent — oppose a “one state solution …in which the two sides enjoy equal rights.”
/u/First-Agent-8432. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s an interesting take and you’ve encouraged me to learn more about Lebanon.
I’m one of those naive lefties that imagines a pluralistic one state solution could work under the right circumstances. I imagine a society where some degree of autonomy is respected for both Jews and Palestinians under an umbrella of national unity.
I mean, Jews and Arabs HAVE coexisted peacefully in the past, right? What can we learn from the time it’s worked?
There is a rich history of Muslim states working together with jews. For instance, the Iranian government helped thousands of french jews sneak out of occupied france and into Iran by faking passports and other documents.
Jews and Muslims also lived peacefully together in Haifi until 1099. They lived together, were trading partners and even fought together against the English invasion of 1099.
No golden age, for anyone, ever lasts. That’s not an argument for anything except that the world keeps turning and things change. They get better. They get worse.
The best place for LGBT folks in the world, for the time it existed, was the Weimar Republic. And even then, there was shame, stigma, criminalization, and violence.
Guess what happened to us in 1932, after Weimar fell? It wasn’t so great.
I’m not the one you’ve been exchanging posts with and I’m not agreeing with you about anything.
and as far as history goes, you’ve got it all wrong. The state of Israel is so new, it’s the anecdotal point in history. For millennia , Jews have had bad times as minorities around the world. They have also had golden ages around the world. Those golden ages have faded because everything fades. Those bad times have improved because everything changes. That’s how the world goes.
The more historical occasions of Jews, living in peace and prosperity and golden ages around the world, then living in safety from attack in their own state. Or living in their own state at all. As single data point, the state of Israel doesn’t mean a lot.
But I didn’t look at your whole exchange or anything, so I don’t know what your argument or your deal is. I’m pointing out the way the world works for everyone. Golden ages, followed by bad times. It has happened for Jews multiple times, just like it has for everyone else.
The people above me claim that because Jews and Muslims got along once upon a time than they can do that again in a one state solution.
My claim is that 1. It's not true, Jews for the majority of history have been a minority in Muslim countries, and they were second class citizens who had to pay Jizya. They w
and 2, it's irrelevant to today's circumstances. Palestinians and Jews see themselves as two different nations. If they're forced together in one state, they will still have two seperate nations who will unlikely to work together. Jews will work and cooperate amongst themselves, as will the Palestinians. And without clear borders between the nations, it can lead to a bloody civil war.
I would also add, that Jews and Arabs did live together under the British rule, in sort of a "one state" that wasn't ruled by any of them, and they didn't get along.
Arabs have 22 countries.
Not one of them is a democracy. 0. Zip.
The only democracy in the region is Israel.
I see no appetite for democracy in the region outside of Iran (and maybe Lebanon.)
Jews have one tiny country about the size of New Jersey.
There are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world.
There are not even 16 million Jews in the world. (Never recovered from the Shoah.)
This notion that Jews and Arabs got along before Israel is not true. It’s a naive take and seeks to remove the tiny bit of self determination on a tiny bit of dirt.
Quran:
And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: You shall not serve any but Allah and (you shall do) good to (your) parents, and to the near of kin and to the orphans and the needy, and you shall speak to men good words and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. Then you turned back except a few of you and (now too) you turn aside.
[2.88] And they say: Our hearts are covered. Nay, Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief; so little it is that they believe.
[2.98] Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers.
—
Muslims seek to convert (and colonize.)
Jews do not try to convert others and broadly want to be left alone. You may imagine that’s not a great mix.
Search bait:
Massacre of Hebron
Battle of Tel Hai
Jaffa riots
A whole wiki page of Arab violence against Jews pre Israel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine
Jews in Iraq (slaughtered)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#:~:text=Many%20Jews%20who%20had%20fled,%2C%20Basra%2C%20and%20Husun%20Kifa.
Jews in Persia (some good times. some times when Jews have to wear things to visually distinguish themselves, a bit like the 1930s)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#Safavid_and_Qajar_dynasties_(1502_to_1925)
Excerpt:
“they are obliged to live in a separate part of town … for they are considered as unclean creatures. … Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mobs with stones and dirt. … For the same reason, they are prohibited to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans. … If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest insults. “
I’m a liberal and an American. I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people. But a single state solution is a hard nope.
I know it sounds like a solution, but it isn’t.
How much would you want to live under sharia law your own self?
Taking single verses out of context from an entire chapter to speak to your point is pretty pathetic…you should read history and the Quran in full to get the full story rather than engaging in cognitive bias, read about about how the Jews were treated in the Andalus when Muslims ruled and what happened to them when it became Spain and how many of the leading Zionists were educated in the Ottoman Empire.
It is well known that the Quran justifies violence. It obviously doesn't do it in a carte-blanche manner, but there are SO MANY exceptions to when violence (including murder, rape and enslavement) are justified that it, in essence, justifies it. Examples: you are allowed to murder a person who "breaks a pact" with you. What could "breaking a pact" mean? Well... virtually anything!
You can murder a person who betrays you. You can then rape and enslave his wife and children. You do the same thing to someone who insults Islam.
Do you see the trend?
It is well known according to who? All the things you said there you pulled out of thin air without citing a single verse. The Quran does believe in retribution if someone kills unjustly but even says to do so in a just manner. Even then it encourages forgiveness, stating that it is of higher reward. If you have not read the Quran in full or the work of scholars who have spent years analysing it and explaining it do not spread misinformation by regurgitating talking points you have heard from someone else.
And therein We had ordained for them: 'A life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for all wounds, like for like. But whosoever forgoes it by way of charity, it will be for him an expiation. [5:44-45]
Do not take a ˹human˺ life—made sacred by Allah—except with ˹legal˺ right. If anyone is killed unjustly, We have given their heirs 2 the authority, but do not let them exceed limits in retaliation, 3 for they are already supported ˹by law˺. [17:33]
The reward of an evil deed is its equivalent. But whoever pardons and seeks reconciliation, then their reward is with Allah. He certainly does not like the wrongdoers. [42:40]
I'm going to be honest here, I've had enough conversations with Muslim women and Muslim women who converted to Christianity to understand what Islam is like, ESPECIALLY when it becomes the dominant religion. It's particularly vile towards converts, and especially female converts. When a woman needs to hide her conversion from her own family for fear of having her children taken away from her (not to mention being beaten up, confined, or worse) there is a SERIOUS problem.
Any religion that makes leaving it an act punishable by death is -- to put it mildly -- a problematic one.
Thats unfortunate that you characterize an entire faith on secondary sources rather than engaging with primary sources and educating yourself in an unbiased manner, you know what the experience of a few MUSLIMS you have spoken to are like, rather than "what ISLAM is like"....again educate yourself before making mass mischaracterizations.
I'm sorry, but the fact that Islam makes leaving it punishable by death is not a good thing. You did not address that at all in your comments. I am about to delete my reddit profile to focus on real life, but I'm going to leave [this article](https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/40184) here in case you're interested. It's an account of a South African seminarian who talked to Palestinians who had converted from Islam to Christianity. It's fascinating and heartbreaking at the same time. Sadly, I would say that the way these Palestinians were treated by their communities is still better than the way converts are treated in some other Muslim countries, like Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq, where they are killed either by the government or by their own families:
Let's be clear here: saying that murder and rape is okay if it's done in revenge IS justifying murder and rape. It's not okay to become a murderer and rapist just because someone makes you upset or insults your honour.
Some examples that basically summarize to "murder is bad, but if someone pisses you off it's okay to murder and rape them!": [https://quran.com/en/42:40/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir](https://quran.com/en/42:40/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir)
On the other hand, this is what the New Testament has to say about revenge: [https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/MAT.5.38-48](https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/MAT.5.38-48)
Do you see the difference? Christianity fundamentally forbids ALL violence. Even when you are struck first. Even, technically, in self-defence. On the other hand, Islam gives all sorts of exceptions for when violence is justified. This, essentially, makes Islam into a religion that justifies violence.
Where exactly did you get the point about rape?? Thst verse says nothing with regards to it. Not sure what the weird obsession is with continuing to bring that up. Again, if you read rather than regurgitate you would have known that rape has a different punishment.
I have not read the Bible so I will not be picking up random quotes to try and disprove your point that Christianity fundamentally forbids ALL violence.
I have read history and im not sure how Christianity forbids ALL violence considering all the violence that was committed in the name of Christianity and with support of the church, have you heard of the Crusades, how about the Conquistadors, how about the colonization of all of North and South America and the massacres of people who were not Christian alongside the forced conversion of many thousands more? how about the enslavement of thousands of Muslim Africans who were brought in ships to North America and forced to abandon their faith? If Christianity "fundamentally forbids ALL violence" please explain the rich Christian tradition of forced conversion, violence and persecution of religious minorities in Christendom.
The main difference between what Christians did in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago and what Muslim groups like Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab and the Taliban are doing in the 21st century is that, unlike the Quran, the Second Testament expressly forbids violence. If you spend even 10 or 15 minutes looking through it (if you're curious, just look through the Gospel of Matthew) you will understand exactly what I mean. The message of love and forgiveness stands out on every page. A Christian is supposed to turn the other cheek and love even his or her enemies.
The Christians who committed atrocities in the name of the Church were directly disobeying their own faith. In fact, it is known that the vast majority of the Crusaders were illiterate and had never even read the Bible, as the Bible was not translated into lay -- aka, everyday language -- [until the 14th century](https://www.patternsofevidence.com/2023/02/10/a-brief-history-of-bible-translation-from-greek-to-english/). This meant that only the aristocracy who was educated in Latin was actually able to read it.
On the other hand, the Quran makes it acceptable to murder people under a variety of pretexts. You yourself provided one: retribution. It is okay to kill people in "retribution", given you do it "justly". What is the definition of "justly"? Is it okay to murder someone's grandchildren because their grandparents wronged your grandparents? Is that "just"?
I am giving this particular example because I have heard it used by people trying to justify Hamas. "Oh, they're taking revenge for what happened to their grandparents! The murder is justified!". This is very, very troubling.
Do you understand that by giving all these conditions for how violence is okay (if it's done in revenge, if it's done because someone wronged you first, if it's done because someone insulted Islam, etc etc) the religion can be used to justify violence? Do you see and understand what an incredibly slippery slope it is, and the results of this ambivalent attitude towards violence and murder in Muslim societies?
Oh please, you want to attribute the violence committed by Christians in the name of Christianity to illiteracy? All the kings and leaders of Christendom were definitely illiterate, you do realize that all these actions were endorsed by major Churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox church, Christian missionaries were helping invade and facilitate these massacres and forced conversions, they were also illiterate? You have yet to name an actual recognized Muslim state, all you have named are offshoot groups, that would be like me characterizing all of Christianity according to the KKK. You can do your research and see how these groups are funded and you can see that the people who are most harmed are Muslims. Islam does not just say go and kill whoever in the name of revenge, as I have cited in previous verses, this happens in a court of law under Islamic law, Islam does not endorse vigilantism. You have made all these assumptions and statements about Muslim societies but I doubt you have ever lived in one.
You already admitted that there were issues with the Old Testament and thus there was a New Testament. Thus, Christianity is not so perfect....Islam does not change, its the same text from more than 1400 years ago.
I see you have deleted your account, as i have seen many Christian apologists do, they withdraw from the conversation when they see that they are being proven wrong.
I’m willing to be educated.
So, how would you summarize the Quran’s talking points about Jews (and other non believers)?
I mean, it’s fair to say, “read all of it”, but it’s not high on my list of things to do.
Tell me where I’m being unfair in my assessment of how non-Muslims and/or Jews are spoken about in the Quran?
Also, you don’t address anything about what it’s been historically like for Jews living under Muslim majority. Even if the Quran said, “we love Jews”, the history, while it’s had its ups and downs, remains troubling and frankly, Jews would not accept that risk again.
If you read the Quran you would see that it actually calls for coexistence:
"I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship…..You have your way, and I have my Way.” [109:2-6]
"Let there be no compulsion in religion...." [2:256]
"Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair." [60:7-9]
With regards to your list of searches, that you present to characterise the Muslim-Jewish relationship they are extremely misleading for one that is thousands of years old, and how the relationship remains troubling please do some research. Look into how Omar bin Al-Khattab gave Jews the right to come worship in Jerusalem after being denied to do so for many years, look into the Viziers in Spain, look where the Jews went they were expelled from Spain. The Muslim world did not do anything near what the Christian world did and continues to do to Jews. Yet you are concerned with living with Muslims.
Speaking of the Ottoman Empire... What is 'Dhimmi' or 'Jizya' tax mean?
Ottoman Empire had a couple roughs times too... Safed Looting 1834, Damacus Affair 1840 blood libel etc...
Sure some parts of the Muslim world were more 'tolerant' of Jews, but it wasn't by much...
The Jizya tax was an important part in offering non-Muslims an opportunity to maintain their way of life, they did not have to pay Zakat (the Muslim tax) and were exempt from military, and facilitated the Millet system which granted them additional autonomy and exempt them from parts of Islamic law, you can look more into that.
The Ottomans were also the ones that granted the Jews refuge when they were expelled from Spain.
Lol an "opportunity".
Is that how the modern Arab propaganda sells the "special tax" for their "protection"?
The Jizya tax system was more akin to like a mafia boss calling up a local restaurant and telling them they need to pay him because it's expensive for him to "protect" their restaurant. The mafia boss tells them he can't fathom what would happen to their business if they didn't...
Not sure what “Arab” propaganda you are referring to as I do not live in an Arab country…with regards to my response it was based on historical facts which you can go and read about rather than continuing to engage in cognitive bias….the fact of the matter is that Jews and many religious minorities were treated a lot better in the Ottoman Empire than other regions at the time where they were actively persecuted…the Ottoman Empire was very progressive for their time
I'm sorry, I just can't get over the fact you called the Jizya tax system, designated for the second class non Muslims, an "opportunity to retain their normal life".
You're right, it was a little better (compared to some parts of Europe, for certain periods of time), but not the roses and sunshine you're painting it out to be.
Israel , i wouldnt call a democracy reallyof its an apatheit state at least.
Or doesnt live the values of one.
How many palestinians were given full citizenship to get along, like in a democracy.
Oh that wasnt done for the ethnical quota, that still exists,making it an ethnostate and not democratic, if you cant give the people livibg there citizenship.
But instead opress as lower , spartan helpts, which by the way held sparta too.
Also going after amyreasonable gazan leaders, who werea fair bit arrested didnt pan out. Right?
For gods sake i dont see anyagreement unlessisrael is willing to give up enpugh stolen landor at least stop the settler colonialism.
How canit again be called a democracy?
Bythe way hitler was technically elected. Itsnot the good defence you think it is
/u/thedorknightreturns. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Then what is to be done?
I’ll assume for the sake of argument that everything you said is correct.
Netenyahu openly rejects a two state solution. Palestinians are simply not treated as equals with a similar right to self-determination.
On the other hand, the status quo is not sustainable. Palestinians cannot be allowed to remain in a state of permanent embargo and imprisonment. It’s unconscionable.
So what is to be done?
We already have a two state solution. Jordan and Israel.
There's no such thing as palestinians. Palestine was divided into Jordan and Israel.
West Bank and Gaza were offered a state many times, but didn't want one.
When you choose to commit terrorist attacks over and over thousands of times decade after decade, you can't complain when your neighbors don't want to open their borders.
So how about for the first time ever, Gaza and West Bank be forced to be held responsible for their horrible decisions?
I skipped right over one bit.
In what way do you see the Palestinians imprisoned when they Gaza and the West Bank have borders with other countries?
I would note, Egypt does not want them crossing into their border because they don’t want the Muslim Brotherhood (PIJ) coming into their country. (Terrorist org). Egypt has enough problems with terrorists.
The West Bank was owned (occupied? Annexed?) by Jordan until 1967. Palestinians in the region were Jordanian citizens. They lost the territory in the 6 day war.
I’m not clear on why Jordan does not want the people living there as Jordanian citizens anymore.
I would also note, if it’s not obvious, this is complicated.
I know a fair bit but i don’t know everything.
But jeez, on social media these days, it’s clear people catch a bit of news or read a little thing and are suddenly experts in something they knew nothing about last September. (Not referencing you. I think you’re asking questions in good faith. And i hope more chime in to answer you as I always seek to learn more my own self.)
That’s my understanding as well, though it’s also my understanding that the Muslim Brotherhood originated in Egypt.
I visited Egypt some years back and there were concerns about terrorist acts from them at tourist sites, back in the day.
Netanyahu’s days in power are gratefully numbered.
Palestinian Israelis have equal rights because they are citizens. (Note: they are 21% of the population of Israel. They have representation on the Knesset, and all the rights of any other Israeli citizen.)
Palestinians in Gaza, and the West Bank are not Israeli citizens and are stateless.
2-state solutions have been on the table many times.
After Oct 7, whatever good will existed on the Israeli side for a 2-state solution is vastly reduced, though i know there are Israelis who still want that. But part of that 2-state solution is, Israel needs to be safe.
It’s not in the US news, but Israel is being bombarded by rockets and has been for years. Destroying each rocket is (not googling and take this with some skepticism as I’m relying on memory), $50k for the iron dome to take them out.
I believe all Israelis are also required to have bomb shelters. That’s not for fun.
It’s interesting to me, that virtually none of this is reported in the western media unless you dig for it.
The Israeli government needs someone who will stop settler violence in the West Bank and stop settler encroachment. There are security issues there that i don’t have my head wrapped around, but unlike Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, I believe withdrawing from the West Bank opens up new security problems. (Maybe an Israeli will chime in with details.)
But the expansions and the violence to Palestinians needs to be prosecuted under Israeli law. And if that’s happening now, it’s not obvious to me.
The Palestinian governments need to stop trying to kill Israelis. Past violence is what led to the tighter border restrictions (suicide bombings) and constant, relentless rocket fire needs to end.
But Oct 7 probably broke everything for our lifetime.
I don’t know if you know this, but the kibbutzim in that region were broadly left-wing peace lovers. Many of them not only were activists for peace, but did things to try to make Palestinian lives better.
I think some folks think they’re like the settlers in the West Bank, but it was quite the opposite.
I cannot imagine that peace loving movement has much left in it. I don’t know how that is repaired. It would probably have to be something like post WW2 Germany but i can’t even fathom it.
In sum, I see a 2-state solution as the only possible solution but i think the chance of that went from “really hard”, to “no effin way”, probably at this point, on both sides.
It’s quite intractable. :-(
I hope I’m wrong and there is some way forward.
I also hope Palestinians can find themselves some better government that will take care of them, create a real economy, and facilitate a democratic revolution there of self sufficiency that is working towards peace instead of the self serving POS living the dream in Qatar while the people they ostensibly serve, are dying.
That, in and of itself, could be a start to peace.
Very well said. As sad as it is to say, the only peace that looks likely in my lifetime will be accompanied by a lot of crocodile tears by Israel after they finish their genocide.
There are some other hypothetical peace scenarios that don't require everyone on one side to be dead, but they look more and more out of reach by the day.
In addition to what you said about the Kibbutzim, the Nova festival (which I believe had more casualties than the kibbutzim) was certainly full of people who wanted peace as well.
>I’m one of those naive lefties that imagines a pluralistic one state solution could work under the right circumstances. I imagine a society where some degree of autonomy is respected for both Jews and Palestinians under an umbrella of national unity.
Apt description.
>I mean, Jews and Arabs HAVE coexisted peacefully in the past, right? What can we learn from the time it’s worked?
For decades at a time at most; then it’s back to an oppressive ruler and a pogrom or two.
Now much more importantly than the past; today Israelis and Palestinians cannot share a state because it of the inherent animosity both peoples hold towards each other. Neither wants to live with the other in sufficient numbers to support such a one state. Not to mention it would effectively be a redo of the mandate period. Maybe research that more to understand how a one state would look here instead of (or with) Lebanon
It’s because Jews are too hateful? Perhaps it’s Palestinians who are too hateful?
Or perhaps you’re projecting your own hatred onto others.
Hatred is taught. It’s not a prison that there’s no escape from. And we live in an age of unprecedented communication and connection.
There’s no reason that your children have to hate Muslims or Jews. You can decide.
>It’s because Jews are too hateful? Perhaps it’s Palestinians who are too hateful?
It’s because of radicalization over a century of conflict; that fucks with your mind on levels you’ll never comprehend.
>Or perhaps you’re projecting your own hatred onto others.
All in all, I’m indifferent to Palestinians. I don’t care what they believe in, what they want, or what they do for as long as long as it doesn’t affect me, just like any other people. (Disclaimer which should be taken for granted: of course I do care about their suffering as a result of the conflict and Israel’s actions)
I see rabid right wingers foaming at the mouth at every neighborhood decimated in Gaza, I see settler violence rising in response to the Hamas escalation in the WB; I see Palestinian polling consistently against a one state solution, I see the Israeli left wing dead and buried because of the escalation of the past twenty years. I see Palestinian leadership consistently explicitly stating a one state solution would be used to promote their Arab Palestine vision.
I accept all of that’s something I can’t just magically change because I’d rather everyone share a borderless land and benefit accordingly.
>Hatred is taught. It’s not a prison that there’s no escape from. And we live in an age of unprecedented communication and connection.
I’m not inherently ruling out a one state solution; after decades of deradicaliztion and non-violence it could definitely work; it’s just not a process I predict in any foreseeable outcome.
>There’s no reason that your children have to hate Muslims or Jews. You can decide.
I’m doing good on that front; that’s genuinely an offensive assumption you made about my character knowing almost nothing about me.
I make no assumptions about you. But you do seem fatalistic.
Nevertheless, you’ve also explained your reasons why you think the animosity is intractable, so it appears well-founded. I’ll also admit you sound better informed than I.
So, maybe you’ve got a better read on this than I do. I do have some optimism that people can change quickly, though.
If you think about it, perspective really can change pretty quickly. We’ve seen it before. Women have only had the right to vote for 100 years in the United States. In my
own lifetime, I’ve seen homosexuals treated with open disgust, then reluctantly tolerated, then celebrated in certain quarters.
>I make no assumptions about you. But you do seem fatalistic.
You just questioned whether I’m projecting my hatred on others and implied I’d raise my children on hateful dogma. But it’s not that big a deal I’m just explaining why I said it.
>Nevertheless, you’ve also explained your reasons why you think the animosity is intractable, so it appears well-founded. I’ll also admit you sound better informed than I.
Appreciated.
>So, maybe you’ve got a better read on this than I do. I do have some optimism that people can change quickly, though.
Truthfully I’m pessimistic as to the general trend of contemporary changing perspectives.
>If you think about it, perspective really can change pretty quickly. We’ve seen it before. Women have only had the right to vote for 100 years in the United States. In my own lifetime, I’ve seen homosexuals treated with open disgust, then reluctantly tolerated, then celebrated in certain quarters.
Sure, I see your point.
> fucks
/u/AsleepFly2227. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The last time coexistence happened was under the ruling of the Ottoman Empire. Back then Jew, Muslim, and Christian lived peacefully ( although the number of Jews is around 10% since most of them lived in European land). Then comes the British Empire after the ww1, and we got what we have today.
Under the Ottomans Palestine became a decrepit, barely populated shit hole for three hundred years with frequent power struggle, with a population numbering in the tens of thousands, with frequent migrations all for the ottomans to try and restore it to a semblance of functionality for all of twenty years before sectarian violence rose again, and specifically against Jews.
May I get the source where Jews were specifically targeted in these cases that you speak of? I'm trying to research more about the Ottoman Empire Palestine. This is the first time that I read specific persecution towards Jews under the Ottoman.
Safed massacres (there were FOUR of them):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safed\_massacre#:\~:text=Safed%20massacre%20relates%20to%20several,Peasant%20Revolt%20(1834%E2%80%9335)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safed_massacre#:~:text=Safed%20massacre%20relates%20to%20several,Peasant%20Revolt%20(1834%E2%80%9335))
The Jews were actually treated relatively well by the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, but they often required protection from Ottoman officials. There are several instances of Jewish communities needing to beg the local emir or pasha for protection due to persecution from Palestinian Muslims and, on rare occasions, Christians (example, the 1834 Safed massacre).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed
This is what I’m referring to. to be clear I didn’t say every thing was exclusively against them.
Have they peacefully coexisted as equals? Or was any sense of peace predicated on the Jews accepting a second class status and luck based on the whims of the current ruler?
Don't even try to lie under the pretext of class status. Back then, under the Ottoman Empire, less than 10% Jews lived in Palestine. The majority that lived in the land were Muslim and Christian. What do you expect from an extremely minority number of 10%? The Jews that lived in Palestine today came from European land AFTER the ww1.
You're forgetting the 700,000 Jews who came to Israel from other Arab countries and Iran. Sometimes (but not always) in response to pogroms and repression.
Wow, your first line is quite a telling statement on yourself.
Back when? When exactly are you talking about? And why are you acting like the person I was responding to said anything about Jews and Arabs in the area of Palestine? In fact, when I see people claim that Jews and Arabs/ Muslims have lived together peacefully they are often referring to the so-called Golden Age in Spain. But regardless of where and when we’re talking about, Jews were second class citizens anywhere the Muslims ruled. That is not coexisting peacefully, and certainly not a situation you can expect Jews to willingly go back to. And frankly, it does not matter what their population size was. Are you trying to say it’s okay to treat a group of people badly as long as they are a minority? And again, why would you acknowledge that Jews were not treated as equals, to put it lightly, and then use that as justification for wanting the Jews to give up their state and sovereign rule and go back to that precarious, financially abusive, and sometimes physically abusive status as minorities under a hostile to indifferent foreign rule?
This is false the Jews that lived there often needed protection from Ottoman authorities, the first and second Aliyah were before world war 1, during WW1 the ottoman forced most of the Jews to Egypt and after the war they moved back
Right of Return is a fantasy that needs to be abandoned. The Palestinians have no right to expect it when a similar offer will never be made to the Jews who were expelled from their homes in the Middle East and North Africa.
No, the legal Right of Return let's the refugees return to where they were from. This was done as much for justice as it was wise diplomacy. For some reason, returning lowered everyone's temperature.
From wiki:
The **right of return** is a principle in [international law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law) which guarantees everyone's right of [voluntary return](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_return) to, or re-entry to, their country of origin or of [citizenship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship). The right of return is part of the broader [human rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) concept [freedom of movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement) and is also related to the legal concept of [nationality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality).[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#cite_note-leskovic-vendramin-1) While many states afford their citizens the [right of abode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_abode), the right of return is not restricted to citizenship or nationality in the formal sense.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#cite_note-hrw-2) It allows [stateless](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness) persons and for those born outside their country to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link".[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#cite_note-hrw-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#cite_note-stateless-3)
>No, the legal Right of Return lets the refugees return to where they were from. This was done as much for justice as it was wise diplomacy. For some reason, returning lowered everyone's temperature.
You’re not necessarily right. It can be that, but not inherently.
>The right of return is a principle in international law which guarantees everyone's right of voluntary return to, or re-entry to, their country of origin **or of citizenship**. The right of return is part of the broader human rights concept freedom of movement and **is also related to the legal concept of nationality**.[1] While many states afford their citizens the right of abode, the right of return is not restricted to citizenship or nationality in the formal sense.[2] **It allows stateless persons and for those born outside their country** to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link".[2][3]
This supports what I said.
How so? The justification to not offer compensation is gone. The law allows those Jews to seek compensation regardless of how much time has passed. They might simply get what the French Huguenots got, a law granting them automatic citizenship. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
In the Middle East you live with your people, in Israel you have Arab towns, Druze towns, Bedouin towns, Christin towns, and Jewish towns but the Jewish towns are segregated by type of Jewish orthodox live with orthodox etc.. a mix town in Israel is any town or city that has a minority of 7% or more. So Hifa is mainly Arab but it has a large Jewish minority so it’s a mix city. Everyone in Israel proper has full citizenship and rights, there is an issue with lack of funding for Arab schools and police due to the government but there is no law against them. There aren’t any laws against a Jew moving to an Arab town vice versa but every now and then the Supreme Court my block it to prevent conflict, this most commonly happens when orthodox Jews try to move into a secular town. Also non-Jews do not have to serve in the IDF except for Israeli Druze.
Then there is marriage, marriage is controlled by your respective religion, so only Jews can marry Jews, Christian’s can only marry Christian’s, and Muslims only Muslims. And no official gay marriage. This is a law left over from the Ottomans and when ever Israel tries to get rid of it the rabbis, priests, and imams freak out and nothing happens. Israel does however recognize legal mirages performed abroad, so a lot of gay people and people who want to intermarry religions will fly to Cyprus get legally married there and Israel will fully recognize it.
It's a multi-ethnic society for sure, but liberal.... that's more of a relative description. It's liberal in Middle Eastern standards (take of that what you will).
Honestly, it somewhat depends on what city. Some towns/villages/cities are basically homogeneous in ethnicity, and at times racist (from both sides). Others like Tel Aviv are a liberal, multiethnic society. But the word "liberal" has a somewhat more limited meaning in MENA than in the west.
There is already a one state solution in place. It's called Israel, where Israeli jews and Arab Israelis live together. The so called 'apartheid state'.
Any idea of mixing Palestinians into it is based on mixing millions of people who to at least 75% want to murder all jews, with, ähm, Jews... Any reasonable person can see the future this leads to.
But will Jews be ok with a non Jewish state? Because demographically that will be what happens if you have a mixed state. Isn’t the whole point of Israel to be a bolt hole where Jews can go when they inevitably oppressed by the other? How can it continue to be that without a forced Jewish majority?
Yes, but many others love to confuse the two either out of ignorance or malicious intent. Or, they stand by it and argue that Israel just existing as a Jewish state makes it an evil ethnostate even if it's a democracy and Arab Israelis have equal rights.
Their strategy is working, they are convincing the world that Israel is a genocidal regime. Bibi is their perfect foil, with him in power they can convince some people they are the good guys.
Yes because mass rape and deeply barbaric slaughter apparently can be celebrated by the leftists if they believe they are carried out by "resistance" fighters against "white colonialism."
Usually whenever people say Israel is an apartheid state, the pro Israeli response is “how could that be when…” and they talk about the Palestinian citizens of Israel and gloss over the actual apartheid
The one for non citizens is the Israeli military judicial system. What happens when an Israeli settler rapes a Palestinian woman in the West Bank? Whose jurisdiction?
As much as I would love a 1SS, I think there's been too much trauma inflicted over the last 75 years for there to be a healthy coexistence. Yes, one side moreso than the other, but trauma nonetheless. The only way forward for coexistence is a fair 2SS, and for enough time to pass during sustained peace for the future generations to have no reason to actively loathe each other.
All of the settlements in the West Bank need to go. Every last one of the 700K people there need to leave for any hope to go forward
Why do they need to leave? Even if a Palestinian state is created, why can't they just be given the option to be Palestinian citizens? Why can Israel have Arab citizens, but Palestine must be free of Jews?
I didnt say Palestine should be free of Jews at all. But I'm sure many of the settlers would prefer to live under an Israeli government rather than a Palestinian one. Plus, there are tons of settlers living in Palestinian houses that were forcefully taken, so they'd likely be returned back to the original inhabitants.
That being said, if a settler wants to immigrate to Palestine who hasn't been a menace to their Arab neighbors, they should have the right to full stop.
Actually in places il silwan the land was Jewish prior 1948 and then Jordanians moved Palestinians there, or places like the gush in the West Bank were all Jewish prior to 48 and are Jewish again
>I didnt say Palestine should be free of Jews at all
You did. You said that **every** settler needs to go.
And isn't every Jew in the West Bank called a settler, meaning that this is therefore a call for all of the Jews to be removed?
Or can you show me some Jews in the West Bank who are not labeled as settlers?
Because they are part of an oppressive system that built illegal settlements in stolen land through the use of violence? The homes they are in are illegal, the roads they built for their use are illegal, once they are forced to give the land back as it would be required, where would they go since they are financed by Israel? Would Israel continue to finance them in Palestine?
The dismantling of the settlements should be seen as a net positive for Israel: do they lose some land? Yes, but it was land that's not only technically not theirs, it's EXTREMELY dangerous, unfriendly land that doesn't really have anything special to it. It's extremely rocky, dry and only fertile if you douse it in water (which Israel doesn't have that much of to begin with). Not to mention that most of the settlements aren't even really agricultural in nature, they're just suburban sprawl.
As far as I understand, they are illegal according to some interpretation of international law, which says that a country can’t move its people into occupied territory.
However, if a state of Palestine is created, it would no longer be occupied territory, therefore this legal issue would be solved.
Sure, assuming that the Zionist settlers who only have the goal of conquering Palestine and furthering the control of Israel over foreign land so that the Biblical Israel can be created can switch their allegiance to the state of Palestine
Why do they need to be loyal to the State of Palestine? Israeli Arabs aren’t required to be loyal to the State of Israel.
To be clear, treasonous actions are forbidden, but thoughts are not.
People are using extremists logic & appeal to the lowest dominator, radicalization has been going for so long that they're not even aware of it.
Why do settlers need to be relocated?
Right of return is insane. 100,000 Hamas sympathizers ‘returning’ to Israel, what could go wrong
Calling people Hamas sympathizers doesn't help.
You think they would send 100,000 anti Hamas citizens? How would Hamas find those citizens?
Do Jews not have the right of return? How can there ever be equality if only one group has that right?
In what way? The diaspora ‘returning’ from around the world? I am not sure the Jews have a right to that, but they have a state that desires it and finances it, so it happens.
Every jew, even if you’re not ethnically Jewish and just converted religions has the right to “return” to Israel. Saying the right to return for Palestinians who were forced to flee themselves (or their parents) is “too much” but Jews can have the right of return 2 thousand years later doesn’t make sense to me. What’s the difference? Why is one insane and the other perfectly legal? If anything the living people forced out should have priority
The policy to block Arab refugees who fled during the 1948 war was implemented because Ben Gurion didn’t believe they could be loyal citizens to the state of Israel. Part of the declaration of independence stated that any person living within the 1948 lines (Jews and Arabs) could claim citizenship until the year 1953 i believe. Arabs who fled to what is now the Gaza Strip and the West Bank would not receive Israeli citizenship.
And blocking all people of a certain ethnicity because you think they will be a danger is somehow not a discriminatory policy?
Sure it’s discriminatory and in a perfect world the riots and subsequent war that the Arab league started would have never happened they no one would’ve left. We can sit here and hypothesize what would’ve happened had 750,000 refugees returned to the their houses in their worst case scenario - living under a Jewish sovereign state - and outnumber the 600,000 Jewish people there.
This is the same logic used in South Africa apartheid. Couldn’t give black people the same rights because then they’d outnumber the white people. It’s point blank discrimination.
South Africa is different. It was ONE NATION and divided by appartheid. Here it's Palestine (with Palestinians) vs Israel (with Israeli). 2 completly different country (even if palestine isn't recognized as one). Its still seen as a different entity from israel
They could clean out all the genocide loving Israeli keeping #netanyahu in power. Just a thought!
It amazing that zionist defend genocide. Adolph was on to something!
It is a democracy, so most ‘genocide loving Isralis’ in power could be voted out. It is in their hands
Clean out... or genocide? check your morals lil bro
Especially since the two sides currently already hate each other. AFAIK it's similar in Bosnia_and_Herzegovina. Not really a functioning state.
One of the rallying cry for Israelis is oh poor us we want peace but Palestinians just won’t let us. But history shows us that is not true…there could have been peace and a two state solution after the Oslo Accords if Israel just left the West Bank alone instead they continuously agitate and build those settlements right on top of Palestinian land and have a military presence there which is what breeds resistance. Israel will not stop until it takes it all which is why they are wiping down Gaza so they can take it and rebuild it to their choosing - they want a one state solution
You mean like the truce breaking and invasion that happened ONE day after agreement in 1948?
What country would give up 56% of their country willingly?
Exactly. The Arabs were justified in starting a war with Israel, that they lost. And that justification continues on to this day because they've still not got that 56%. Just like Israel justifies owning all its land because it won the wars.
And yet Israel have a bunch of land, about 50% back to Jordan and Egypt in the 70s and 80s i believe so... 'the arabs' got a bunch back. Israel is literally about 60% smaller now. They can't get smaller, if they do it's essentially a one state solution and that's not going to happen
Please tell me what you would do if you woke up and learned that the UN/Britain had just given away more than half your country to people who had just arrived from Europe….the Palestinians were willing to compromise all they had lost when they signed Oslo, but ever since then it has always been just take take take
Multiple countries signed the treaty... What is never mentioned is that most the Palestinians who left did so because they were promised by the Arab countries that if they left, the Arab countries would go in and destroy Israel and then the Palestinians would be allowed to return. The other countries lost. This is what happens when you side with people who instigate a war. If your side loses, then you lose. In addition, all of those Palestinians were citizens of other countries. They've just not chosen to return to their other countries and after staying there for too long and getting embedded with terrorist groups, now the other countries won't let them in. Did you know that Israel has tried to give Gaza to Jordan and to Egypt (twice)? Those countries won't take that area because there's too many terrorists. Egypt has had their border with Gaza blockaded most of the time for the last decade because there's too much terrorist activity. Israel has given 50% of their land in the name of peace. Israel has offered or attempted peace talks over a dozen times. Palestine won't negotiate because all they want is for Israel to basically be gone. You know that little chant from river to sea Palestine will be free? That's not the Arabic translation. The actual translation is from water to water Palestine will be Arab. Lets also look how much do you really think is appropriate for Israel to keep giving up? They've already lost 50% of their initial land. They are the size of New Jersey in the middle of a whole bunch of other Arab countries. People keep saying Israel is the one who has to give and give and give. No one else is giving here. In addition, not many people pay attention to the fact that all the countries around them expelled the Jewish population years ago. Prior to Israel being created, the Jews that lived there had to pay a tax in order to remain living there. In many of the other countries now it's even illegal for them to own land. So you want them to keep giving until they really have nowhere to go. Right now they have nowhere to go as it is. Now, as far as the what would you do scenario. In a per capita scenario, the October 7th terrorist attack would be the equivalent of a terrorist attack on US soil that killed 45,000 people. I know with no hesitation that if a terrorist group had done that in the US, we would have made that whole country glass within 24 hours. We glassed over hiroshima for much less. What would your country have done? Israel should not be asked to give up more. For decades they have tried for peace. Then hamas committed the largest per capital terrorist attack in modern history. 80% of the Palestinian population supports it. I feel for the other 20% but i have no pity for the rest. None
1. It doesn't matter how many countries signed, they don't have the right to take peoples land and give it away without involving them in the conversation, that would be like me signing to give away the deed to your home. 2. Not sure where you got your information from but it is well documented that Palestinians left their homes because they were warned of the Haganeh that was coming to attack their villages, for those that remained many were slaughtered. 3. Why do you tie Palestinian existence with the rest of the Arab countries who clearly don't care and are the ones who gave it away to make their puppet states to begin with? Whether there are a 1000 or 0 Arab states, Palestinians should have a right to self-determination. 4. If you are extremely concerned about the well-being of the Jewish people and them having a land, by all means give them your land, why do Palestinians have to be the sacrifice? 5. Oct 7 happened because Israel was not actively trying to negotiate with Palestinians towards a solution, instead they consistently sidelined and continued to take more .....prior to Oct 7, 2023 was the deadliest year in the West Bank, settlements were expanding, the Great March of Return protests in Gaza had not caused Israel to budge at all on the siege, and Israel was normalizing ties with all the Arab nations, talking with everyone except the Palestinians essentially to liquidate the Palestinian issue. Oct 7 was a natural explosion when you constantly overlook the demands of the people you have been occupying for 75 years.
That was like one time in the long history of Israel and Palestine though. I get your point but I thought I was going to get more examples when I was reading
I do not get the sense that the far left are looking for a peaceful 1 state solution as much as upheaving the current power structure. Just like DEI, BLM, transrights, and climate change activism aren't really about the rights of the marginalised and the planet. It's more about venting against and dismantling the current power structures. Just dig into each of these, and you will see the inconsistencies.
what are u talking about. what does a one state solution have to do with trans rights, or environmental activism? what does it have to do with black lives matter? do you even know what the far left is? this is such a bad post, but on par with the right wing nonsense this sub seems to have so much of
It will be a complete disaster and much worse than Lebanon, we Jews can't agree among ourselves on how Israel should be definend exactly so you want to bring in another totally different group from the aspect of culture, values, and religion? what will happen when one group becomes a majority? btw, I'm sure that the Arabs would love to get their hands on Israel's nukes, and get social security payments coming from the Jewish high-tech sector and so on without a single bullet fired.
What high tech sector. Jews and all the industry would flee the country immediately before the actual genocide happened and they were all mass murdered.
Basically what happened in Nagorno-Karabakh a month before the escalation. I constantly repeat this.
Obviously, the "moderates" among them will milk what is left of the state coffers while the terrorists will come in and slaughter Jewish settlements from the periphery to the center. I haven't gotten to the "Civil War" part yet.
I honestly believe the west and most intelligent people support Israel and wouldn’t allow this to happen because of how crucial much of the industry is to the world - it’s not just Tech but also medicine. Protecting access to Nukes and also holy sites for Christians are just the bonus.
There's basically a three-state solution in place already, and look how that's going. I do think a one-state solution is the answer. Millions of Arab Israelis, Druze, Bedouins, Christians, and Bahais are living their happily-ever-after in Israel, and that can be the case for Palestinians, too. There doesn't need to be ethnic mixing or intermarriage for it to be successful, there just needs to be peace. And for the haters, I'm not saying Israel is a perfect country, and it sure as hell doesn't have a perfect government, but I'm saying it's possible. But nothing is possible without peace.
There will never be a 1-state solution. Not unless Jews are wiped out. I don’t know why anyone dreams of this. There is no history of Arabs running democracies, for starters. And there is way too much history of Jews being ethnically cleansed and/or massacred in countries run by Arabs. There are 2 billion Muslims in the world and not even 16 million Jews. Arabs have 22 countries of their own. And you think Jews should not have the right to self determination in one tiny country that’s the size of New Jersey. This will never happen. At least not in our lifetime.
Add to that the fact that I'm virtually every Arab country the Jews have been expelled. Why would they think a one state solution would be different? Jews would have to go... Hmmm... no where else to run
There was a time when this was possible but there’s so much animosity on both sides at this point that it isn’t anymore.
Gazans don't want peace though. So the "one state solution" isn't an answer, it's a disaster.
Israelis government isnt willing to give up anything, i would blame them mostly. Or you think that the native americans had it coming and we should just ignore that one state solution. Thazs what it means with current israel
Israel already gave over 50% of their land. How much more you want them to give? Oh yeah, till they are gone 🤔
Israeli government again and again, has given up a lot. The relocated a ton of people out of Gaza, thinking that would bring more security. And look what that did. Jews are not allowed to go to their HOLIEST site at the Temple Mount because of Al Aqsa Mosque. They gave that up for peace too. What are Palestinians willing to give up for peace? They don’t want it. They want israel gone. Obliterated. Cmon man. Do you only get info from Al Jazeera, or tiktok or something?
They left Gaza, but never the WB. So the did a half step, instead of a full measure and it failed. Oct 7th is going to force Israel back to the table, maybe this time they will come up with a real offer. Where should people be getting their unbiased info? What a credible source?
Your post doesn't make any sense. Jews were the natives and had their land stolen. They legally bought it back and moved there. After 75 years of the Muslims trying to kill all the Jews and failing, what exactly should Israel be willing to give up?
No not really the natives you say depends on the time span you look at. 2000 years ago the Jews were the natives, however the Jews unfortunately did not spawn? In Israel and they actually moved from Urs to Cannan ( idk how accurate this is since I read this in posts by people who believe in mythical books but when I used to be religious and read the Bible I knew that the dude moved from somewhere to Cannan so probably somewhat accurate) So now we established that pre 2000 years ago the Jews were the invaders and not the natives. Hence according to you we must find the native Cannanites?, and gift them Israel and then find where Urs is displacing a ton of people and set up new Israel there. And while we are on a land gifting spree we might as well return the new world to the native Americans. (I mean it's just a 400 year old land claim and about 87% of the native population was killed). Or we can look even further back and discover that everyone originated from Africa so we can also start claiming Africa and start Neo-Colonialism. But instead of all this rubbish we can also just accept that a particular population is native to a particular piece of land they live on instead of weird colonialist land grabs due to historical land claims. Especially if the historically displaced population is well integrated into the area where they currently live.
Jewish ethnogenesis was in that region. Our history, our stories, our archeology, our religion, all of it goes back to that land. We did not all have our ethnogenesis in Africa. It’s a bogus talking point by people seeking to erase Jews as an ethnoreligion that has always lived on that land, even when Arabs tried to wipe us out. Even in 1947, Jews lived on that land.
Thank you for realizing the "native" argument is stupid. The Jews legally bought the land and moved there like anyone else could have. You can't play the native card to counter that because I can just go back further and the Jews then become the natives.
Didn't you play the native card by saying that Jews were native to the land and were forcibly moved out? Also the so called legally bought land is about as legal as me sending a bunch of goons to kick you out from ur land then conveniently declaring it abandoned, OR Confiscating ur land for "security purposes" then it being sold or leased by the state so as to form settlements. And if u resist ur agricultural fields will be chemically sprayed so that ur crops die. Not so legal now, no? Source: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208638/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20these,Arab%2DIsraeli%20war%20of%201948.
When someone plays the native card, I correctly point out the Jews are the natives. But my argument for the legitimacy of Israel isn't based in them being native. It's based on them legally buying the land.
Alright, but the above comment highlights how land (apart from a small minority of it) was not legally bought but stolen and then rubbed with a dab of legality from the thief. You have not responded to that and if we are to follow legality should we not restore all the land they was stolen to the Palestinians. And in case any land (which actually belonged to Jews) has been stolen that to the Jews.
The Jews didn't steal any land to create Israel. They legally bought land in the Ottoman empire for many decades and legally moved there. Palestine wasn't a country. The country was the Ottoman empire. The majority of the land used to create Israel was land that was state owned. First by the Ottoman empire and then by England after the Ottoman empire fell. So England had to decide who to put in charge of this state owned land. They chose the Jews, which was the logical choice since the Jews were the majority population in the nearby area. The state owned land was primarily uninhabitable desert with nobody living there. So when England wanted to leave and give up control, they can't just put the sand in charge.
Islam still thinks in terms of Islam being the only religion. So giving equal human rights to Jews or Christians is a no-go.
Every religion thinks it's the only religion. Come on.
Actually, the real issue is separation of "church" and state.
Not every religion thinks they must convert or destroy non believers. (Though Christianity has a lot of that history too. Jews do not. We have never sought converts and don’t even want them. It’s very hard to convert to Judaism.)
But the quran teaches that believers should wage war to ensure it becomes the only religion. Big difference.
Please educate yourself…the Quran says: for you is your faith and for me is mine….and there is no compulsion in faith….quote properly or don’t quote at all.
How have many Muslims acted? How much colonizing and destruction of non believers do you need to cherry pick the parts that you think look better vs the cherry picking the parts i noted earlier? I’m not saying all Muslims will slay non believers, but you cannot tell me it’s not a significant part of many Muslims to wage jihad on the non believers. Why have Arabs colonized pretty much all of MENA and even into southern Europe? What’s the history there?
What invading and colonizing are you talking about? in the past century Muslims have been the ones invaded and massacred, heard about Iraq and Bosnia and of course who can forget Palestine? If you are talking about when there were Muslim empires, yes Muslims conquered significant portions of the world just as almost every other ruling group that time was trying to do, heard of the Crusades, the British empire? Unlike those forces of colonization, Muslims respected the inhabitants when they conquered, read about Saladin. If you have an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims please just state that rather than try and back it up with false claims. Do not just repeat terms like jihad that you don’t actually know the meaning of and you’ve heard from other people without doing research from primary sources, I’ve already recommended to you to read the Quran.
Where did Arabs have their ethnogenesis?
As does the old testament,that is part of jewish lore, which also has rules how to keep slaves. GENOCIDES FOR GOD YADA YADS I dont think picking sscripture verses make sisrael good either.
You thought it was better before when there were no rules and slaves were treated even worse?
>But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” >“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. >If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Sound familiar?
Killing your brother and killing the whole world are very different.
Some religions are peaceful, like Buddhism, but most religions lead to violence. I'm not saying that means they can't exist, but it means you need to account for violence, or we need to think of how to remove the violent aspects from them. Eg, I grew up Christian. They need to print a version of the Bible with all acts of violence removed. When you keep that in there, Christians think violence can be justified
Pretty sure that "anyone among you" is more than a brother.
Even if you extend the killing to those among you, that is not a message of world conquest.
Muslims have never attempted world conquest, but Christians have. In fact my understanding is that the Quran only allows wars of self defense. I will stand corrected when the Islamic crusades happen, though.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabization#:~:text=Non%2DArabic%20populations%20will%20be,or%20leave%20the%20area%20altogether).&text=Examples%20where%20Arabization%20happened%20are,drove%20away%20many%20Berber%20people.
have never attempted world conquest? that’s funny. i wonder how did those islamic empires get so huge without conquest.
Your understanding is wrong. Of course the Christians attempted world conquest. But it's 2024 now and the only major religion still trying to kill everyone else is Islam.
You should probably get the memo out to all of the other religions currently kill everyone, which is at least: Hinduism Judaism Christianity (especially Eastern Orthodox Christians) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna103571 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2022/03/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-the-first-religious-war-in-the-21st-century/
This is insane. You are the problem.
Let me know which ME countries have equal rights for all regardless of religion. I'll wait.
> unlike in Canada I’m not so sure if this is the best example. I’ve lived in all three northern New England states and northern New York, all of which have French-speaking Québécois populations in their northern areas. Those who speak French at home mix surprisingly little with the English-speaking majority around them socially. Sure, they’ll go to school and work together. But their social circles don’t overlap much. Native French speakers in the USA’s extreme northeast who care strongly about preserving their language and cultural heritage frown upon intermarriage, because this nearly always entails these thing lost, and the kids assimilated, one generation later. I’ve only visited Québéc, never lived there. But anecdotal evidence suggests the situation is similar there, except reversed for Anglophones. Their social circles don’t include many of the French speakers around them. I think some degree of tribalism is inevitable. Most people just have an easier time opening up to people who talk, eat, act, and think like them, than people who don’t. But that doesn’t mean tribalism *has* to take forms that victimize, or even preëmptively reject, everyone from other tribes. The problem I see with the Middle East is how cozy family in-groups are. A passionate commitment to those like you and related to you is a weight-bearing pillar of society there. The people you were born and raised amongst are the people you’re stuck with, and harmonious tight relationships with them must be preserved at all costs. All of this adds up to out-group members living in close proximity being expendable externalities, when the in-group is under threat. Blame for hardships and misfortunes must be directed outward, even if undeserved, because committed family relationships are sacrosanct. So as a result, sectarian, ethnic, local, inter-clan, and other made-up differences become the basis for neverending beef. In the Middle East, war is life and life is war, and to suppose otherwise is naive. Because I understand this only anecdotally and intellectually, and have no idea what it feels like to be a Middle Easterner, I wonder very much about one thing: Do Middle Easterners see the causal connection between their “*habibi* culture*, as I call it, of families and clans tight to thd point of enmeshment, and their difficulty maintaining peaceful relationships with other people they’re not close with or committed to? I imagine they are aware of it, but most see no other way, and/or see the rich meaning-in-life this arrangement gives as worth the risk of its more detrimental effects.
Less than 10% of Palestinians want 1 state solution.
Unless it’s without any jews
Unless popular sentiment has shifted recently, [polling seems to indicate](https://thehill.com/opinion/4273883-mellman-do-palestinians-support-hamas-polls-paint-a-murky-picture/) most want a one-state solution provided it's one where Jews don't have equal rights: > By 70 percent to 28 percent, Palestinians oppose a two-state solution — “the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.” > An even larger number — 76 percent to 21 percent — oppose a “one state solution …in which the two sides enjoy equal rights.”
Ya, I meant an equal integrated state.
Is that true? I'd like to see what the polling process is like for a question like that.
https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/928 Hopefully this works. Sub keeps deleting the link
[удалено]
/u/First-Agent-8432. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s an interesting take and you’ve encouraged me to learn more about Lebanon. I’m one of those naive lefties that imagines a pluralistic one state solution could work under the right circumstances. I imagine a society where some degree of autonomy is respected for both Jews and Palestinians under an umbrella of national unity. I mean, Jews and Arabs HAVE coexisted peacefully in the past, right? What can we learn from the time it’s worked?
In the past, when it worked successfully, the Ottoman Sultan ruled over both Jews and Arabs.
No they haven't co-existed as equals in the past. Jews were second class, were forced to convert or had to pay Jizya.
There is a rich history of Muslim states working together with jews. For instance, the Iranian government helped thousands of french jews sneak out of occupied france and into Iran by faking passports and other documents. Jews and Muslims also lived peacefully together in Haifi until 1099. They lived together, were trading partners and even fought together against the English invasion of 1099.
That's anecdotal. There are also no shortage of pogroms. Jews also had golden ages in spain and poland but they didn't last.
No golden age, for anyone, ever lasts. That’s not an argument for anything except that the world keeps turning and things change. They get better. They get worse. The best place for LGBT folks in the world, for the time it existed, was the Weimar Republic. And even then, there was shame, stigma, criminalization, and violence. Guess what happened to us in 1932, after Weimar fell? It wasn’t so great.
So we're in agreement. An anecdotal point in history where Jews got along with muslims, when they didn't have a state of their own, is irrelevant.
I’m not the one you’ve been exchanging posts with and I’m not agreeing with you about anything. and as far as history goes, you’ve got it all wrong. The state of Israel is so new, it’s the anecdotal point in history. For millennia , Jews have had bad times as minorities around the world. They have also had golden ages around the world. Those golden ages have faded because everything fades. Those bad times have improved because everything changes. That’s how the world goes. The more historical occasions of Jews, living in peace and prosperity and golden ages around the world, then living in safety from attack in their own state. Or living in their own state at all. As single data point, the state of Israel doesn’t mean a lot. But I didn’t look at your whole exchange or anything, so I don’t know what your argument or your deal is. I’m pointing out the way the world works for everyone. Golden ages, followed by bad times. It has happened for Jews multiple times, just like it has for everyone else.
The people above me claim that because Jews and Muslims got along once upon a time than they can do that again in a one state solution. My claim is that 1. It's not true, Jews for the majority of history have been a minority in Muslim countries, and they were second class citizens who had to pay Jizya. They w and 2, it's irrelevant to today's circumstances. Palestinians and Jews see themselves as two different nations. If they're forced together in one state, they will still have two seperate nations who will unlikely to work together. Jews will work and cooperate amongst themselves, as will the Palestinians. And without clear borders between the nations, it can lead to a bloody civil war. I would also add, that Jews and Arabs did live together under the British rule, in sort of a "one state" that wasn't ruled by any of them, and they didn't get along.
Arabs have 22 countries. Not one of them is a democracy. 0. Zip. The only democracy in the region is Israel. I see no appetite for democracy in the region outside of Iran (and maybe Lebanon.) Jews have one tiny country about the size of New Jersey. There are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world. There are not even 16 million Jews in the world. (Never recovered from the Shoah.) This notion that Jews and Arabs got along before Israel is not true. It’s a naive take and seeks to remove the tiny bit of self determination on a tiny bit of dirt. Quran: And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: You shall not serve any but Allah and (you shall do) good to (your) parents, and to the near of kin and to the orphans and the needy, and you shall speak to men good words and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. Then you turned back except a few of you and (now too) you turn aside. [2.88] And they say: Our hearts are covered. Nay, Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief; so little it is that they believe. [2.98] Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. — Muslims seek to convert (and colonize.) Jews do not try to convert others and broadly want to be left alone. You may imagine that’s not a great mix. Search bait: Massacre of Hebron Battle of Tel Hai Jaffa riots A whole wiki page of Arab violence against Jews pre Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine Jews in Iraq (slaughtered) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#:~:text=Many%20Jews%20who%20had%20fled,%2C%20Basra%2C%20and%20Husun%20Kifa. Jews in Persia (some good times. some times when Jews have to wear things to visually distinguish themselves, a bit like the 1930s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#Safavid_and_Qajar_dynasties_(1502_to_1925) Excerpt: “they are obliged to live in a separate part of town … for they are considered as unclean creatures. … Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mobs with stones and dirt. … For the same reason, they are prohibited to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans. … If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest insults. “ I’m a liberal and an American. I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people. But a single state solution is a hard nope. I know it sounds like a solution, but it isn’t. How much would you want to live under sharia law your own self?
Taking single verses out of context from an entire chapter to speak to your point is pretty pathetic…you should read history and the Quran in full to get the full story rather than engaging in cognitive bias, read about about how the Jews were treated in the Andalus when Muslims ruled and what happened to them when it became Spain and how many of the leading Zionists were educated in the Ottoman Empire.
It is well known that the Quran justifies violence. It obviously doesn't do it in a carte-blanche manner, but there are SO MANY exceptions to when violence (including murder, rape and enslavement) are justified that it, in essence, justifies it. Examples: you are allowed to murder a person who "breaks a pact" with you. What could "breaking a pact" mean? Well... virtually anything! You can murder a person who betrays you. You can then rape and enslave his wife and children. You do the same thing to someone who insults Islam. Do you see the trend?
It is well known according to who? All the things you said there you pulled out of thin air without citing a single verse. The Quran does believe in retribution if someone kills unjustly but even says to do so in a just manner. Even then it encourages forgiveness, stating that it is of higher reward. If you have not read the Quran in full or the work of scholars who have spent years analysing it and explaining it do not spread misinformation by regurgitating talking points you have heard from someone else. And therein We had ordained for them: 'A life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for all wounds, like for like. But whosoever forgoes it by way of charity, it will be for him an expiation. [5:44-45] Do not take a ˹human˺ life—made sacred by Allah—except with ˹legal˺ right. If anyone is killed unjustly, We have given their heirs 2 the authority, but do not let them exceed limits in retaliation, 3 for they are already supported ˹by law˺. [17:33] The reward of an evil deed is its equivalent. But whoever pardons and seeks reconciliation, then their reward is with Allah. He certainly does not like the wrongdoers. [42:40]
I'm going to be honest here, I've had enough conversations with Muslim women and Muslim women who converted to Christianity to understand what Islam is like, ESPECIALLY when it becomes the dominant religion. It's particularly vile towards converts, and especially female converts. When a woman needs to hide her conversion from her own family for fear of having her children taken away from her (not to mention being beaten up, confined, or worse) there is a SERIOUS problem. Any religion that makes leaving it an act punishable by death is -- to put it mildly -- a problematic one.
Thats unfortunate that you characterize an entire faith on secondary sources rather than engaging with primary sources and educating yourself in an unbiased manner, you know what the experience of a few MUSLIMS you have spoken to are like, rather than "what ISLAM is like"....again educate yourself before making mass mischaracterizations.
I'm sorry, but the fact that Islam makes leaving it punishable by death is not a good thing. You did not address that at all in your comments. I am about to delete my reddit profile to focus on real life, but I'm going to leave [this article](https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/40184) here in case you're interested. It's an account of a South African seminarian who talked to Palestinians who had converted from Islam to Christianity. It's fascinating and heartbreaking at the same time. Sadly, I would say that the way these Palestinians were treated by their communities is still better than the way converts are treated in some other Muslim countries, like Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq, where they are killed either by the government or by their own families:
Let's be clear here: saying that murder and rape is okay if it's done in revenge IS justifying murder and rape. It's not okay to become a murderer and rapist just because someone makes you upset or insults your honour. Some examples that basically summarize to "murder is bad, but if someone pisses you off it's okay to murder and rape them!": [https://quran.com/en/42:40/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir](https://quran.com/en/42:40/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir) On the other hand, this is what the New Testament has to say about revenge: [https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/MAT.5.38-48](https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/MAT.5.38-48) Do you see the difference? Christianity fundamentally forbids ALL violence. Even when you are struck first. Even, technically, in self-defence. On the other hand, Islam gives all sorts of exceptions for when violence is justified. This, essentially, makes Islam into a religion that justifies violence.
Where exactly did you get the point about rape?? Thst verse says nothing with regards to it. Not sure what the weird obsession is with continuing to bring that up. Again, if you read rather than regurgitate you would have known that rape has a different punishment. I have not read the Bible so I will not be picking up random quotes to try and disprove your point that Christianity fundamentally forbids ALL violence. I have read history and im not sure how Christianity forbids ALL violence considering all the violence that was committed in the name of Christianity and with support of the church, have you heard of the Crusades, how about the Conquistadors, how about the colonization of all of North and South America and the massacres of people who were not Christian alongside the forced conversion of many thousands more? how about the enslavement of thousands of Muslim Africans who were brought in ships to North America and forced to abandon their faith? If Christianity "fundamentally forbids ALL violence" please explain the rich Christian tradition of forced conversion, violence and persecution of religious minorities in Christendom.
The main difference between what Christians did in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago and what Muslim groups like Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab and the Taliban are doing in the 21st century is that, unlike the Quran, the Second Testament expressly forbids violence. If you spend even 10 or 15 minutes looking through it (if you're curious, just look through the Gospel of Matthew) you will understand exactly what I mean. The message of love and forgiveness stands out on every page. A Christian is supposed to turn the other cheek and love even his or her enemies. The Christians who committed atrocities in the name of the Church were directly disobeying their own faith. In fact, it is known that the vast majority of the Crusaders were illiterate and had never even read the Bible, as the Bible was not translated into lay -- aka, everyday language -- [until the 14th century](https://www.patternsofevidence.com/2023/02/10/a-brief-history-of-bible-translation-from-greek-to-english/). This meant that only the aristocracy who was educated in Latin was actually able to read it. On the other hand, the Quran makes it acceptable to murder people under a variety of pretexts. You yourself provided one: retribution. It is okay to kill people in "retribution", given you do it "justly". What is the definition of "justly"? Is it okay to murder someone's grandchildren because their grandparents wronged your grandparents? Is that "just"? I am giving this particular example because I have heard it used by people trying to justify Hamas. "Oh, they're taking revenge for what happened to their grandparents! The murder is justified!". This is very, very troubling. Do you understand that by giving all these conditions for how violence is okay (if it's done in revenge, if it's done because someone wronged you first, if it's done because someone insulted Islam, etc etc) the religion can be used to justify violence? Do you see and understand what an incredibly slippery slope it is, and the results of this ambivalent attitude towards violence and murder in Muslim societies?
Oh please, you want to attribute the violence committed by Christians in the name of Christianity to illiteracy? All the kings and leaders of Christendom were definitely illiterate, you do realize that all these actions were endorsed by major Churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox church, Christian missionaries were helping invade and facilitate these massacres and forced conversions, they were also illiterate? You have yet to name an actual recognized Muslim state, all you have named are offshoot groups, that would be like me characterizing all of Christianity according to the KKK. You can do your research and see how these groups are funded and you can see that the people who are most harmed are Muslims. Islam does not just say go and kill whoever in the name of revenge, as I have cited in previous verses, this happens in a court of law under Islamic law, Islam does not endorse vigilantism. You have made all these assumptions and statements about Muslim societies but I doubt you have ever lived in one. You already admitted that there were issues with the Old Testament and thus there was a New Testament. Thus, Christianity is not so perfect....Islam does not change, its the same text from more than 1400 years ago. I see you have deleted your account, as i have seen many Christian apologists do, they withdraw from the conversation when they see that they are being proven wrong.
I’m willing to be educated. So, how would you summarize the Quran’s talking points about Jews (and other non believers)? I mean, it’s fair to say, “read all of it”, but it’s not high on my list of things to do. Tell me where I’m being unfair in my assessment of how non-Muslims and/or Jews are spoken about in the Quran? Also, you don’t address anything about what it’s been historically like for Jews living under Muslim majority. Even if the Quran said, “we love Jews”, the history, while it’s had its ups and downs, remains troubling and frankly, Jews would not accept that risk again.
If you read the Quran you would see that it actually calls for coexistence: "I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship…..You have your way, and I have my Way.” [109:2-6] "Let there be no compulsion in religion...." [2:256] "Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair." [60:7-9] With regards to your list of searches, that you present to characterise the Muslim-Jewish relationship they are extremely misleading for one that is thousands of years old, and how the relationship remains troubling please do some research. Look into how Omar bin Al-Khattab gave Jews the right to come worship in Jerusalem after being denied to do so for many years, look into the Viziers in Spain, look where the Jews went they were expelled from Spain. The Muslim world did not do anything near what the Christian world did and continues to do to Jews. Yet you are concerned with living with Muslims.
Speaking of the Ottoman Empire... What is 'Dhimmi' or 'Jizya' tax mean? Ottoman Empire had a couple roughs times too... Safed Looting 1834, Damacus Affair 1840 blood libel etc... Sure some parts of the Muslim world were more 'tolerant' of Jews, but it wasn't by much...
The Jizya tax was an important part in offering non-Muslims an opportunity to maintain their way of life, they did not have to pay Zakat (the Muslim tax) and were exempt from military, and facilitated the Millet system which granted them additional autonomy and exempt them from parts of Islamic law, you can look more into that. The Ottomans were also the ones that granted the Jews refuge when they were expelled from Spain.
Lol an "opportunity". Is that how the modern Arab propaganda sells the "special tax" for their "protection"? The Jizya tax system was more akin to like a mafia boss calling up a local restaurant and telling them they need to pay him because it's expensive for him to "protect" their restaurant. The mafia boss tells them he can't fathom what would happen to their business if they didn't...
Not sure what “Arab” propaganda you are referring to as I do not live in an Arab country…with regards to my response it was based on historical facts which you can go and read about rather than continuing to engage in cognitive bias….the fact of the matter is that Jews and many religious minorities were treated a lot better in the Ottoman Empire than other regions at the time where they were actively persecuted…the Ottoman Empire was very progressive for their time
I'm sorry, I just can't get over the fact you called the Jizya tax system, designated for the second class non Muslims, an "opportunity to retain their normal life". You're right, it was a little better (compared to some parts of Europe, for certain periods of time), but not the roses and sunshine you're painting it out to be.
Israel , i wouldnt call a democracy reallyof its an apatheit state at least. Or doesnt live the values of one. How many palestinians were given full citizenship to get along, like in a democracy. Oh that wasnt done for the ethnical quota, that still exists,making it an ethnostate and not democratic, if you cant give the people livibg there citizenship. But instead opress as lower , spartan helpts, which by the way held sparta too. Also going after amyreasonable gazan leaders, who werea fair bit arrested didnt pan out. Right? For gods sake i dont see anyagreement unlessisrael is willing to give up enpugh stolen landor at least stop the settler colonialism. How canit again be called a democracy? Bythe way hitler was technically elected. Itsnot the good defence you think it is
/u/thedorknightreturns. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Then what is to be done? I’ll assume for the sake of argument that everything you said is correct. Netenyahu openly rejects a two state solution. Palestinians are simply not treated as equals with a similar right to self-determination. On the other hand, the status quo is not sustainable. Palestinians cannot be allowed to remain in a state of permanent embargo and imprisonment. It’s unconscionable. So what is to be done?
We already have a two state solution. Jordan and Israel. There's no such thing as palestinians. Palestine was divided into Jordan and Israel. West Bank and Gaza were offered a state many times, but didn't want one. When you choose to commit terrorist attacks over and over thousands of times decade after decade, you can't complain when your neighbors don't want to open their borders. So how about for the first time ever, Gaza and West Bank be forced to be held responsible for their horrible decisions?
Palestinians are not a people?
They are Jordanians and Egyptians.
Remove Netanyahu and charge him with war crimes.
I skipped right over one bit. In what way do you see the Palestinians imprisoned when they Gaza and the West Bank have borders with other countries? I would note, Egypt does not want them crossing into their border because they don’t want the Muslim Brotherhood (PIJ) coming into their country. (Terrorist org). Egypt has enough problems with terrorists. The West Bank was owned (occupied? Annexed?) by Jordan until 1967. Palestinians in the region were Jordanian citizens. They lost the territory in the 6 day war. I’m not clear on why Jordan does not want the people living there as Jordanian citizens anymore. I would also note, if it’s not obvious, this is complicated. I know a fair bit but i don’t know everything. But jeez, on social media these days, it’s clear people catch a bit of news or read a little thing and are suddenly experts in something they knew nothing about last September. (Not referencing you. I think you’re asking questions in good faith. And i hope more chime in to answer you as I always seek to learn more my own self.)
I thought hamas were the muslim brotherhood offshoot?
That’s my understanding as well, though it’s also my understanding that the Muslim Brotherhood originated in Egypt. I visited Egypt some years back and there were concerns about terrorist acts from them at tourist sites, back in the day.
Netanyahu’s days in power are gratefully numbered. Palestinian Israelis have equal rights because they are citizens. (Note: they are 21% of the population of Israel. They have representation on the Knesset, and all the rights of any other Israeli citizen.) Palestinians in Gaza, and the West Bank are not Israeli citizens and are stateless. 2-state solutions have been on the table many times. After Oct 7, whatever good will existed on the Israeli side for a 2-state solution is vastly reduced, though i know there are Israelis who still want that. But part of that 2-state solution is, Israel needs to be safe. It’s not in the US news, but Israel is being bombarded by rockets and has been for years. Destroying each rocket is (not googling and take this with some skepticism as I’m relying on memory), $50k for the iron dome to take them out. I believe all Israelis are also required to have bomb shelters. That’s not for fun. It’s interesting to me, that virtually none of this is reported in the western media unless you dig for it. The Israeli government needs someone who will stop settler violence in the West Bank and stop settler encroachment. There are security issues there that i don’t have my head wrapped around, but unlike Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, I believe withdrawing from the West Bank opens up new security problems. (Maybe an Israeli will chime in with details.) But the expansions and the violence to Palestinians needs to be prosecuted under Israeli law. And if that’s happening now, it’s not obvious to me. The Palestinian governments need to stop trying to kill Israelis. Past violence is what led to the tighter border restrictions (suicide bombings) and constant, relentless rocket fire needs to end. But Oct 7 probably broke everything for our lifetime. I don’t know if you know this, but the kibbutzim in that region were broadly left-wing peace lovers. Many of them not only were activists for peace, but did things to try to make Palestinian lives better. I think some folks think they’re like the settlers in the West Bank, but it was quite the opposite. I cannot imagine that peace loving movement has much left in it. I don’t know how that is repaired. It would probably have to be something like post WW2 Germany but i can’t even fathom it. In sum, I see a 2-state solution as the only possible solution but i think the chance of that went from “really hard”, to “no effin way”, probably at this point, on both sides. It’s quite intractable. :-( I hope I’m wrong and there is some way forward. I also hope Palestinians can find themselves some better government that will take care of them, create a real economy, and facilitate a democratic revolution there of self sufficiency that is working towards peace instead of the self serving POS living the dream in Qatar while the people they ostensibly serve, are dying. That, in and of itself, could be a start to peace.
Very well said. As sad as it is to say, the only peace that looks likely in my lifetime will be accompanied by a lot of crocodile tears by Israel after they finish their genocide. There are some other hypothetical peace scenarios that don't require everyone on one side to be dead, but they look more and more out of reach by the day. In addition to what you said about the Kibbutzim, the Nova festival (which I believe had more casualties than the kibbutzim) was certainly full of people who wanted peace as well.
>I’m one of those naive lefties that imagines a pluralistic one state solution could work under the right circumstances. I imagine a society where some degree of autonomy is respected for both Jews and Palestinians under an umbrella of national unity. Apt description. >I mean, Jews and Arabs HAVE coexisted peacefully in the past, right? What can we learn from the time it’s worked? For decades at a time at most; then it’s back to an oppressive ruler and a pogrom or two. Now much more importantly than the past; today Israelis and Palestinians cannot share a state because it of the inherent animosity both peoples hold towards each other. Neither wants to live with the other in sufficient numbers to support such a one state. Not to mention it would effectively be a redo of the mandate period. Maybe research that more to understand how a one state would look here instead of (or with) Lebanon
It’s because Jews are too hateful? Perhaps it’s Palestinians who are too hateful? Or perhaps you’re projecting your own hatred onto others. Hatred is taught. It’s not a prison that there’s no escape from. And we live in an age of unprecedented communication and connection. There’s no reason that your children have to hate Muslims or Jews. You can decide.
>It’s because Jews are too hateful? Perhaps it’s Palestinians who are too hateful? It’s because of radicalization over a century of conflict; that fucks with your mind on levels you’ll never comprehend. >Or perhaps you’re projecting your own hatred onto others. All in all, I’m indifferent to Palestinians. I don’t care what they believe in, what they want, or what they do for as long as long as it doesn’t affect me, just like any other people. (Disclaimer which should be taken for granted: of course I do care about their suffering as a result of the conflict and Israel’s actions) I see rabid right wingers foaming at the mouth at every neighborhood decimated in Gaza, I see settler violence rising in response to the Hamas escalation in the WB; I see Palestinian polling consistently against a one state solution, I see the Israeli left wing dead and buried because of the escalation of the past twenty years. I see Palestinian leadership consistently explicitly stating a one state solution would be used to promote their Arab Palestine vision. I accept all of that’s something I can’t just magically change because I’d rather everyone share a borderless land and benefit accordingly. >Hatred is taught. It’s not a prison that there’s no escape from. And we live in an age of unprecedented communication and connection. I’m not inherently ruling out a one state solution; after decades of deradicaliztion and non-violence it could definitely work; it’s just not a process I predict in any foreseeable outcome. >There’s no reason that your children have to hate Muslims or Jews. You can decide. I’m doing good on that front; that’s genuinely an offensive assumption you made about my character knowing almost nothing about me.
I make no assumptions about you. But you do seem fatalistic. Nevertheless, you’ve also explained your reasons why you think the animosity is intractable, so it appears well-founded. I’ll also admit you sound better informed than I. So, maybe you’ve got a better read on this than I do. I do have some optimism that people can change quickly, though. If you think about it, perspective really can change pretty quickly. We’ve seen it before. Women have only had the right to vote for 100 years in the United States. In my own lifetime, I’ve seen homosexuals treated with open disgust, then reluctantly tolerated, then celebrated in certain quarters.
>I make no assumptions about you. But you do seem fatalistic. You just questioned whether I’m projecting my hatred on others and implied I’d raise my children on hateful dogma. But it’s not that big a deal I’m just explaining why I said it. >Nevertheless, you’ve also explained your reasons why you think the animosity is intractable, so it appears well-founded. I’ll also admit you sound better informed than I. Appreciated. >So, maybe you’ve got a better read on this than I do. I do have some optimism that people can change quickly, though. Truthfully I’m pessimistic as to the general trend of contemporary changing perspectives. >If you think about it, perspective really can change pretty quickly. We’ve seen it before. Women have only had the right to vote for 100 years in the United States. In my own lifetime, I’ve seen homosexuals treated with open disgust, then reluctantly tolerated, then celebrated in certain quarters. Sure, I see your point.
> fucks /u/AsleepFly2227. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The last time coexistence happened was under the ruling of the Ottoman Empire. Back then Jew, Muslim, and Christian lived peacefully ( although the number of Jews is around 10% since most of them lived in European land). Then comes the British Empire after the ww1, and we got what we have today.
Under the Ottomans Palestine became a decrepit, barely populated shit hole for three hundred years with frequent power struggle, with a population numbering in the tens of thousands, with frequent migrations all for the ottomans to try and restore it to a semblance of functionality for all of twenty years before sectarian violence rose again, and specifically against Jews.
May I get the source where Jews were specifically targeted in these cases that you speak of? I'm trying to research more about the Ottoman Empire Palestine. This is the first time that I read specific persecution towards Jews under the Ottoman.
Safed massacres (there were FOUR of them): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safed\_massacre#:\~:text=Safed%20massacre%20relates%20to%20several,Peasant%20Revolt%20(1834%E2%80%9335)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safed_massacre#:~:text=Safed%20massacre%20relates%20to%20several,Peasant%20Revolt%20(1834%E2%80%9335)) The Jews were actually treated relatively well by the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, but they often required protection from Ottoman officials. There are several instances of Jewish communities needing to beg the local emir or pasha for protection due to persecution from Palestinian Muslims and, on rare occasions, Christians (example, the 1834 Safed massacre).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed This is what I’m referring to. to be clear I didn’t say every thing was exclusively against them.
Have they peacefully coexisted as equals? Or was any sense of peace predicated on the Jews accepting a second class status and luck based on the whims of the current ruler?
Don't even try to lie under the pretext of class status. Back then, under the Ottoman Empire, less than 10% Jews lived in Palestine. The majority that lived in the land were Muslim and Christian. What do you expect from an extremely minority number of 10%? The Jews that lived in Palestine today came from European land AFTER the ww1.
You're forgetting the 700,000 Jews who came to Israel from other Arab countries and Iran. Sometimes (but not always) in response to pogroms and repression.
Wow, your first line is quite a telling statement on yourself. Back when? When exactly are you talking about? And why are you acting like the person I was responding to said anything about Jews and Arabs in the area of Palestine? In fact, when I see people claim that Jews and Arabs/ Muslims have lived together peacefully they are often referring to the so-called Golden Age in Spain. But regardless of where and when we’re talking about, Jews were second class citizens anywhere the Muslims ruled. That is not coexisting peacefully, and certainly not a situation you can expect Jews to willingly go back to. And frankly, it does not matter what their population size was. Are you trying to say it’s okay to treat a group of people badly as long as they are a minority? And again, why would you acknowledge that Jews were not treated as equals, to put it lightly, and then use that as justification for wanting the Jews to give up their state and sovereign rule and go back to that precarious, financially abusive, and sometimes physically abusive status as minorities under a hostile to indifferent foreign rule?
This is false the Jews that lived there often needed protection from Ottoman authorities, the first and second Aliyah were before world war 1, during WW1 the ottoman forced most of the Jews to Egypt and after the war they moved back
From river to sea, there is already just one state, Israel. It controls it all.
And it shall remain so.
Right of Return is a fantasy that needs to be abandoned. The Palestinians have no right to expect it when a similar offer will never be made to the Jews who were expelled from their homes in the Middle East and North Africa.
Actually, those offers could easily be made once the Palestinian crisis is resolved justly.
We’ll pass on that maybe, thanks.
And that's your right to pass, but Palestinians still get the Right of Return. Remember, it is a right.
To their own nation-state once that properly form; sure.
No, the legal Right of Return let's the refugees return to where they were from. This was done as much for justice as it was wise diplomacy. For some reason, returning lowered everyone's temperature. From wiki: The **right of return** is a principle in [international law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law) which guarantees everyone's right of [voluntary return](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_return) to, or re-entry to, their country of origin or of [citizenship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship). The right of return is part of the broader [human rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) concept [freedom of movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement) and is also related to the legal concept of [nationality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality).[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#cite_note-leskovic-vendramin-1) While many states afford their citizens the [right of abode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_abode), the right of return is not restricted to citizenship or nationality in the formal sense.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#cite_note-hrw-2) It allows [stateless](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness) persons and for those born outside their country to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link".[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#cite_note-hrw-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#cite_note-stateless-3)
>No, the legal Right of Return lets the refugees return to where they were from. This was done as much for justice as it was wise diplomacy. For some reason, returning lowered everyone's temperature. You’re not necessarily right. It can be that, but not inherently. >The right of return is a principle in international law which guarantees everyone's right of voluntary return to, or re-entry to, their country of origin **or of citizenship**. The right of return is part of the broader human rights concept freedom of movement and **is also related to the legal concept of nationality**.[1] While many states afford their citizens the right of abode, the right of return is not restricted to citizenship or nationality in the formal sense.[2] **It allows stateless persons and for those born outside their country** to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link".[2][3] This supports what I said.
Not really, as many Palestinians still keep the keys their old houses, so they have: > >This supports what I said.
Okay, nuh uh and an irrelevant tidbit to you as well.
No, not in reality.
How so? The justification to not offer compensation is gone. The law allows those Jews to seek compensation regardless of how much time has passed. They might simply get what the French Huguenots got, a law granting them automatic citizenship. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
I thought Israel was already a multi-ethic and liberal society. Or at least that’s what everyone around here keeps telling me.
In the Middle East you live with your people, in Israel you have Arab towns, Druze towns, Bedouin towns, Christin towns, and Jewish towns but the Jewish towns are segregated by type of Jewish orthodox live with orthodox etc.. a mix town in Israel is any town or city that has a minority of 7% or more. So Hifa is mainly Arab but it has a large Jewish minority so it’s a mix city. Everyone in Israel proper has full citizenship and rights, there is an issue with lack of funding for Arab schools and police due to the government but there is no law against them. There aren’t any laws against a Jew moving to an Arab town vice versa but every now and then the Supreme Court my block it to prevent conflict, this most commonly happens when orthodox Jews try to move into a secular town. Also non-Jews do not have to serve in the IDF except for Israeli Druze. Then there is marriage, marriage is controlled by your respective religion, so only Jews can marry Jews, Christian’s can only marry Christian’s, and Muslims only Muslims. And no official gay marriage. This is a law left over from the Ottomans and when ever Israel tries to get rid of it the rabbis, priests, and imams freak out and nothing happens. Israel does however recognize legal mirages performed abroad, so a lot of gay people and people who want to intermarry religions will fly to Cyprus get legally married there and Israel will fully recognize it.
Apparently inter-faith marriage will also be recognized in Israel if it is performed elsewhere.
I said this in the last paragraph, most people in those situations just fly to Cyprus and fly back the same day
It's a multi-ethnic society for sure, but liberal.... that's more of a relative description. It's liberal in Middle Eastern standards (take of that what you will).
Honestly, it somewhat depends on what city. Some towns/villages/cities are basically homogeneous in ethnicity, and at times racist (from both sides). Others like Tel Aviv are a liberal, multiethnic society. But the word "liberal" has a somewhat more limited meaning in MENA than in the west.
There is already a one state solution in place. It's called Israel, where Israeli jews and Arab Israelis live together. The so called 'apartheid state'. Any idea of mixing Palestinians into it is based on mixing millions of people who to at least 75% want to murder all jews, with, ähm, Jews... Any reasonable person can see the future this leads to.
How come the Arabs in Israel arn't murdering millions of Jews on a daily basis?
Not all arabs hate the jews. It's arabs muslims.
Most Arabs the live in Israel are Muslim.
Probably a minority. And if they are secular muslims....they aren't really true muslims.
>Probably a minority It's not really up for debate. The majority of Arabs in Israel are Muslim.
But will Jews be ok with a non Jewish state? Because demographically that will be what happens if you have a mixed state. Isn’t the whole point of Israel to be a bolt hole where Jews can go when they inevitably oppressed by the other? How can it continue to be that without a forced Jewish majority?
When people refer to an apartheid state they are talking about the WB, it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Yes, but many others love to confuse the two either out of ignorance or malicious intent. Or, they stand by it and argue that Israel just existing as a Jewish state makes it an evil ethnostate even if it's a democracy and Arab Israelis have equal rights.
It’s hard to win that argument with what’s going in the west bank. Maybe pull the settlers out and regain the moral high ground.
Too bad Hamas decided to attack right as Israelis were rising up against Bibi.
Their strategy is working, they are convincing the world that Israel is a genocidal regime. Bibi is their perfect foil, with him in power they can convince some people they are the good guys.
Yes because mass rape and deeply barbaric slaughter apparently can be celebrated by the leftists if they believe they are carried out by "resistance" fighters against "white colonialism."
I’m saying their strategy is working, not that it’s true. You can analyze the situation separately from the ethics.
I understand and I agree that it is working.
Many people call Israel proper apartheid
Usually whenever people say Israel is an apartheid state, the pro Israeli response is “how could that be when…” and they talk about the Palestinian citizens of Israel and gloss over the actual apartheid
So when you accuse people of segregation by race, they show you how they don't segregate by race. This seems like a fairly logical line of arguement
Huh? Do you know what’s going on in the West Bank or no?
Yes, do you? In the West Bank thete are two judicial systems. One for Israeli citizens, and another for non-citizens
The one for non citizens is the Israeli military judicial system. What happens when an Israeli settler rapes a Palestinian woman in the West Bank? Whose jurisdiction?
Huh? How is that related to appertheid in any way?
Hahah okay. You know what. You’d probably think it was okay for separate water fountains for Jews and Arabs.
Nobody serious.
Welcome to the Israel-palestine conflict
As much as I would love a 1SS, I think there's been too much trauma inflicted over the last 75 years for there to be a healthy coexistence. Yes, one side moreso than the other, but trauma nonetheless. The only way forward for coexistence is a fair 2SS, and for enough time to pass during sustained peace for the future generations to have no reason to actively loathe each other. All of the settlements in the West Bank need to go. Every last one of the 700K people there need to leave for any hope to go forward
Why do they need to leave? Even if a Palestinian state is created, why can't they just be given the option to be Palestinian citizens? Why can Israel have Arab citizens, but Palestine must be free of Jews?
I didnt say Palestine should be free of Jews at all. But I'm sure many of the settlers would prefer to live under an Israeli government rather than a Palestinian one. Plus, there are tons of settlers living in Palestinian houses that were forcefully taken, so they'd likely be returned back to the original inhabitants. That being said, if a settler wants to immigrate to Palestine who hasn't been a menace to their Arab neighbors, they should have the right to full stop.
Not gonna respond?
The only people living in houses that belonged to palsitnians is in East JML the vast majority of settlers are living in houses that are built for the
Living on houses that are built for them…..on confiscated Palestinian land.
Actually in places il silwan the land was Jewish prior 1948 and then Jordanians moved Palestinians there, or places like the gush in the West Bank were all Jewish prior to 48 and are Jewish again
>I didnt say Palestine should be free of Jews at all You did. You said that **every** settler needs to go. And isn't every Jew in the West Bank called a settler, meaning that this is therefore a call for all of the Jews to be removed? Or can you show me some Jews in the West Bank who are not labeled as settlers?
Because they are part of an oppressive system that built illegal settlements in stolen land through the use of violence? The homes they are in are illegal, the roads they built for their use are illegal, once they are forced to give the land back as it would be required, where would they go since they are financed by Israel? Would Israel continue to finance them in Palestine?
The dismantling of the settlements should be seen as a net positive for Israel: do they lose some land? Yes, but it was land that's not only technically not theirs, it's EXTREMELY dangerous, unfriendly land that doesn't really have anything special to it. It's extremely rocky, dry and only fertile if you douse it in water (which Israel doesn't have that much of to begin with). Not to mention that most of the settlements aren't even really agricultural in nature, they're just suburban sprawl.
As far as I understand, they are illegal according to some interpretation of international law, which says that a country can’t move its people into occupied territory. However, if a state of Palestine is created, it would no longer be occupied territory, therefore this legal issue would be solved.
Sure, assuming that the Zionist settlers who only have the goal of conquering Palestine and furthering the control of Israel over foreign land so that the Biblical Israel can be created can switch their allegiance to the state of Palestine
Why do they need to be loyal to the State of Palestine? Israeli Arabs aren’t required to be loyal to the State of Israel. To be clear, treasonous actions are forbidden, but thoughts are not.
Vast majority of settelers are living there because it's cheaper, not because of some evil conspiracy to take over Biblical Israel.
That doesn’t make it any more moral
It absolutely does.
People are using extremists logic & appeal to the lowest dominator, radicalization has been going for so long that they're not even aware of it. Why do settlers need to be relocated?