Hacker News Reader

Comment by SauciestGNU | Hacker News Reader

I don't want to pick on you because I think you raise reasonable points, but I see frequently the notion that if you have a one state solution, the Arab majority would treat the Israel minority in the way that the Israelis have been treating the Arab. I think this is spurious, we have no indication that this would actually be the case. I believe that this isn't a religious conflict and that an the to apartheid and occupation could actually bring peace. But it bothers me that people see the Arab Palestinian population as one incapable of accepting peace and driven by revenge or antisemitism.

View on HN

> But it bothers me that people see the Arab Palestinian population as one incapable of accepting peace and driven by revenge or antisemitism

What do you think drives the Palestinian movement and what are its main goals? If it was simply to get their own state surely they could have achieved it by now (as far back as in 1947). So there seems to be much more going on than simply attaining statehood - there is a very strong irredentist force among Palestinians that wants to go back to the way things were 80 or a 100 years ago. Which means returning to their original homes (I don't see how you could do that without throwing out the Jewish 'colonists').

To me that does seem to be motivated at least partly by revenge. As for antisemitism among Palestinians, it's there and widely documented (you could come up with good reasons why it's there, but denying it's there is wrong).

>If it was simply to get their own state surely they could have achieved it by now

The PLO has accepted a two-state solution since 1981, for nearly 44 years. This is what Avner Yaniv called the "peace offensive", and is especially dangerous because it weakens Israeli attempts to deny a Palestinian state. The solution to this is simple: provocation to encourage extremist elements. Of course in 1982 Israel went a bit further and used provocation to set a precedent to invade Lebanon in an attempt to destroy the PLO entirely.

>Which means returning to their original homes (I don't see how you could do that without throwing out the Jewish 'colonists').

This is not what the right to return is. This is what Amnesty has to say about return:

>Where possible, Palestinians should be able to return to their original home or lands. If this is not possible -- because they no longer exist, have been converted to other uses, or because of a valid competing claim -- they should be allowed to return to the vicinity of their original home.

"Valid competing claim" includes the modern-day owner of the home.

> This is what Amnesty has to say about return:

So Amnesty decides for the Palestinians what the right of return means? Nice. Yeah, sounds super realistic that's what Hamas means when they talk about the right of return.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com