Palestinian activist arrested by ICE while expecting U.S. citizenship interview
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
A second lesson history teaches us is that career politicians in power are ineffective when it comes to taking drastic and crucial action. They calculate using outdated variables and formulae. The game has changed and they find it difficult to even accept that fact. They know the stakes are high, but their focus is preservation and restoration of the game, even when have good intentions, they are incapable of protecting what is most important.
A certain critical-mass of people that actually like their country and are willing to do whatever it takes to preserve it is needed to prevent a nation from collapsing. If those people expect politicians or some other established official entity to take action, by the time they realize there is no one but them who can take action, it will be too late.
The time to act is yesterday.
Now we are righting the ship and removing leftist influence from government agencies, academia, and media.
We are acting, and it is glorious.
You're like a wealthy person burning down his fancy cars, and his property because the servants used it. Not caring your wealth and pride is tied up in those things.
I don't understand opposition to diversity, especially in this country, but hey at least we agree on the the fact that "kowtowing to special interest groups" is probably a bad thing to do.
If you're serious, I hope you reflect on the fact that you're bragging about intentionally removing opposing views from society. I don't believe I can change anyone's mind with a comment but just asking you to double check your internal compass on if you think that kind of thing is actually a good idea.
Then there is living in a constant state of "walking on eggshells" at work, at school etc. employers hiring diverse applicants to use as show ponies for photo ops, the majority class employees being terrified of ever giving honest criticism for fear of being labeled a racist or sexist or whatever-ism that people want to throw around.
Being told subliminally in k-12 and then overtly in higher education that "white people" are the problem or white men are the root of all ills in society.
Seeing all the high school and college valedictorians being mostly female but then reviewing their work and seeing nothing original or meaningful come from it. Wonder what's going on there?
I am for a fair playing field, it if the landscape is such that your appearance gives you an unfair advantage in life then I am against it. And no, being white in America is not an unfair advantage, I am white and I feel like I have been passed over for everything in favor of someone who is presumed to have a harder life than I have. For the record I grew up in poverty and use a wheelchair daily yet I went to college and got a cs degree and took out the loans and put in the years of work. I overcame all my obstacles WITHOUT someone giving me a leg up because I WORKED HARD and bit the bullet. And I paid back the loans!
Seeing all these woke crybaby actors and special interest group people cry because they didn't get a golden escalator to the top as if it was their due is why this conservative revolution is happening.
There are too many softhearted fools who honestly believe the world owes them something for whatever happened to their ancestors generations ago, whether it was slavery, or the church, or the pilgrims/colonizers whatever. They fail to realize you don't get anything by whining. You take it, or you work/trade for it, but you will never get and keep power by crying for attention.
They took it for a while, but now we are taking it back. Damn the fucking rules.
Like, ok, get rid of DEI but can you wait until racial profiling in hiring goes down a bit? like give it at least one more generation? a person who was 20 in 1963 facing "no blacks" signs all over America is 85 today, young enough to still be working in congress, vote and drive still and even serve as CEO or on a board.
> There are too many softhearted fools who honestly believe the world owes them something for whatever happened to their ancestors generations ago, whether it was slavery, or the church, or the pilgrims/colonizers whatever. They fail to realize you don't get anything by whining. You take it, or you work/trade for it, but you will never get and keep power by crying for attention.
Yeah, i don't care for what you said there but people should be treated fairly right? forget history, forget all that. but if you have skills you should have work opportunity right? People are owed a fair chance at life's opportunities. that isn't happening, diversity,dei,etc.. is a flawed approach to address all that. If people like you suggested better ways of solving the racism problem, that would be great, but your solution is to leave racism alone and pretend it isn't a thing.
And if companies are discriminating on race then you wouldn't want to work there anyway. The solution is not to force everyone to get along, that only breeds more resentment.
Far more likely is companies are weighing their liabilities by hiring a black or Latino or gay person or whatever and then facing a lawsuit because said person underperforms and plays the race card when consequences come around. The companies are afraid of upsetting these people so they are in essence elevated above their coworkers in terms of power/protections at work.
The DEI solution is to present a threat of greater liabilities immediately to companies by not hiring these people.
If I own a business and I want a peaceful cooperative work group I should be allowed to only hire based on what I see as the best fit.
If that means all people of a certain race or group are removed from my hiring pool then that's a stupid strategy because I am leaving competitive employees on the table for other businesses, so I would t do that, unless I had very good reason to believe this particular individual will bring excess friction to the work space.
It's not the governments job to step in and regulate how companies hire their employees.
If companies refuse to hire these people en masse their strategy should be to start their own company and present a real threat of competition to the companies that spurned them.
When I lived in the US on a green card (for 20 years) I was leary about political activity, there were never any obvious rules against it, and I was in this "taxation without representation" state so had to find outlets other than voting in order to have a say about how my taxes were spent (I'm from NZ where people with green card equivalents are very much allowed to vote)
Seems like this guy was doing all the right things, even applying to become a citizen - I guess the american dream has rather soured under an authoritarian government
With this guy, I can find no fault. If you watch his 60 Minutes interview, it seems heartfelt and authentic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grj328-hlhA Plus, if he was born Palestinian and is now a Buddhist, that means that he willingly chose to endure the risk of getting killed as an apostate.
Something must be done.
He's still a Palestine. Palestinians can be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc..
I believe your comment on "getting killed as an apostate" is highly uneducated. I'm a Palestinian, my family is Muslim, one of my uncles is agnostic. He's alive, he's still part of the family. The case is the same with many families, whether Christian's becoming Muslim, or Muslims becoming agnostic.
You say he's agnostic. Would the situation be any different if he was atheist?
Seriously though, the Jewish control of the world (now Israeli/Zionist so you don't sound like an antisemite) is one of the most tired antiemetic tropes.
Also: Zionist expansionism is a ridiculous term. You do understand that Israel is tiny and has given lands to Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Egypt for peace. Open the map and try to locate Israel on the map, it's a speck around a sea of huge countries. Even if Zionist expansionism was a thing, and Israel doubled in size it would still be tiny.
The other claims in your post are also weak, and I'd encourage you to learn more about the conflict from different perspectives. This is obviously a loaded topic and both sides are trying to control the narrative, but I believe you've been getting a very specific set information and haven't been exposed to the other side.
Maybe the blood of one's ancestors doesn't make it okay for someone thousands of miles away who never lived in a place be eligible to move there while someone who lived in their own home a few miles away can never return to it in the same piece of land? Isn't that obviously wrong to you?
> Why does believing that Israel's system of only allowing a minority ethnicity in the land it controls to have political power and rights but claiming to be a democracy is wrong, and why do you assume people who believe this also believe in whatever weird conspiracy you're talking about.
1. Jews are a majority in Israel. 2. Non-Jews have equal rights (actually slightly better rights as they are exempt from military service). 3. I wasn't assuming he believes in that, he said "what can we do ... about Israeli control of western politics", which is the conspiracy.
> Maybe the blood of one's ancestors doesn't make it okay for someone thousands of miles away who never lived in a place be eligible to move there while someone who lived in their own home a few miles away can never return to it in the same piece of land? Isn't that obviously wrong to you?
I think what you're asking is: why is it OK to have the "right of return" to Jewish people to get automatic citizenship based on them being Jewish while someone that lives in Gaza and was born in Israel can't return there?
Let's split this part to two. Let's start with the right of return: sovereign countries can make their own laws, which includes immigration laws. In fact, many countries do. Is it fair that if you're rich you can buy a New Zealand citizenship and if you're poor it's much harder? Maybe not, but that's their right to do it.
Additionally, you can't remove this law from the general context in which it lives: Jews have been persecuted throughout history wherever they lived, culminating in the murder of 6 million Jews in the holocaust. Jews have therefore fled from all over the world to the only country in the world where they are protected, which is Israel. This persecution btw happened in the Muslim world as well, which is why you don't see many Jews still living in any Muslim countries anymore.
The second part of your statement was about the Gazans coming back to Israel. The UN resolution that created Israel also created Palestine. Though unlike the Jews that accepted it, the Muslims did not, and they, along with Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon decided to attack Israel. In fact, if you look at the history of wars in the region it's always: someone attacked Israel, and Israel defended itself. Not one war started by Israel.
Anyhow, the Arab forces lost and during the wars Palestinians fled. This is not even conquered land btw, this is part of the original UN decision. Wars are awful, and it's sad that they decided to flee, but they didn't have to. In fact, there are many Muslims living in Israel (and with equal rights, unlike your original claim) which are descendants of the ones that didn't flee. Should they be allowed to emigrate to Israel? I don't think in the history of the world any country has allowed the descendants of a losing army to emigrate to their country. I also don't think they want to do that, they want to make Israel their own ("from the river to the sea...").
Additionally, I know that it's easy to look at Israel now and think wow, this is what Palestinians are losing on. Though Israel was mostly swamps and desert and was built by Israelis. Here is downtown Tel-Aviv and the founding families that built the city: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%AA...
There was no such thing as Palestine in the way that you think about it. E.g. the Palestinian flag was created in 1964, and Israel was created in 1948 (16 years prior). All the silly memes you see showing coins and stamps from Palestine in 1914 actually all say "Palestine (Land of Israel)" in Hebrew, it just says Palestine as well because that was the name the region was called by Brits when they took over the area. In fact, if memory serves, the name Palestine comes from the Romans who conquered Judea (source of the word Jew, was the Jewish kingdom) and wanted to spite the Jews so they renamed it to something else (Palestine).
Anyhow, ended up being quite long, I hope it was interesting.
Having an identity, not to mention one based on hate, doesn't automatically mean you'll get your wishes. E.g. ISIS wants a world under sharia law. They have a flag and that's what they want, doesn't mean we need to give them that.
Israel did not exist in 1936 so the claim that this identity is based on “lets destroy Israel” is ahistorical, and frankly, just made up by you. I would even go so far as calling this racist. You are supposing a political opinion and projecting hate over a whole people group. And comparing the national identity of Palestinians with ISIS indeed very racist. I hope you realize that.
Regarding the arbitrary borders, that also has no bearing on the notion of national identity. Most former colonies (by far) keep their colonial borders, even though those borders are arbitrary and cross ethnic lines, and included “random tribes”.
I also want to add, that I was being too kind to you in the post above. What you are doing here is very racist and has no place on a tech formum.
Israel does not need to exist for people to be against Israel, they can be against the imminent founding of Israel or the fact that Jews were buying lands in Mandatory Palestine.
Though you don't need to take my word for it, it literally says so in the Wikipedia article about Palestine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#History
I also didn't compare Palestinian to ISIS, you just misconstrued what I said.
> Regarding the arbitrary borders, that also has no bearing on the notion of national identity. Most former colonies (by far) keep their colonial borders, even though those borders are arbitrary and cross ethnic lines, and included “random tribes”.
Mandatory Palestine existed from 1920-1948, there was no such thing as Palestine before that. It was part of a larger region controlled by the Ottoman empire.
P.S, this will be the last response by me to this thread, as I don't think you're engaging in good faith based on this and other comments.
I am gonna admit that I am not arguing in good faith. Off course I am not, I believe you are arguing from a racist belief that the Palestinian people do not have the same rights to their existence as you. There is no good faith argument to be had against such belief. The best I can attempt is call it out for what it is, and hope the moderators take it from there.
This is a contradiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression_Olympics
>Not one war started by Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
If you want to claim it wasn't the country of Israel, congratulations I guess.
King David bombing: yeah, that wasn't the state of Israel who did it. It also wasn't Israel starting a war, it was an ongoing conflict with the Brits. Though this is anyway unrelated as the implied context was with the Muslim world.
The moment European migrants started stealing land with EU guns, they started a war.
Like literally every other country in the world. The children of British citizens, even if born abroad, get citizenship. You can buy citizenship in New Zealand. Every country has its own unique immigration policies, and the ones in Israel are absolutely legal and normal by international standards.
Additionally, a Palestinian state would be much worse for minorities if judging by literally every other Muslim country in the world. So I don't think this argument is very valid if what you're advocating is replacing something that you don't deem good by something that you deem worse.
Wanna talk about second class citizens? Jews already had second-class citizens status in the Arab world before 1948, but after 1948 they were expelled, lost even more rights, got their property nationalized etc.
> The moment European migrants started stealing land with EU guns, they started a war.
Factually not true. (1) Jews purchased the lands (even though Jewish residents weren't allowed to own land there during the Ottoman days, again, this is what REAL second-class citizens look like), (2) Jews were under American and British arms embargo, they had to smuggle weapons from wherever they could get it, it's not like it was a European push, (3) the Jews in Europe were referred to as "brown" by the locals, in fact they fled persecution there because they didn't belong, (4) as I mentioned above, 850,000 of them were actually living in the region and got kicked out of neighboring Muslim countries, (5) many Jews were already living in that exact area, (6) it literally says so in the bible (which Islam is derived from) that this was the land of the Jews, so implying that they don't belong there (like you did) is a bit dishonest. You can say that the fact that Jews are from there doesn't matter, but not that they are just some European migrants.
First of all, one cannot excuse apartheid by drawing arbitrary borders and declare some of them as apartheid-free zones, while doing apartheid in others. That is not how apartheid works. But even if it did, Israel proper still has dozens of discriminatory laws[1] with a few more in the works. And even with out those, there are in practice dozens of exclusionary policies which displaces and denies Palestinians (as well as Bedouin) access to land and homes, including but nut limited to those displaced by the Nakba. Your parent actually spends a lot of words (way to many words in fact) only to say they agree with this policy of denying Palestinians the right to the land which was stolen from them. There is no way to describe this denial of access to their own land but with Apartheid.
Second law is about non kosher food in hospitals during Passover. A law that affects everyone, including secular Jews (majority in Israel). Doesn't discriminate against anyone. It's like saying that supermarkets being closed in Europe on Sundays (Church day) is discriminatory.
I can go one by one and comment on this list, but the first two are already ridiculous.
What's also not shown there: the rights of Jews and Christians in the Muslim world (and Palestine in particular) which are much worse. Not to mention the rights of gays, and other communities that are protected in Israel. Mind you, this is not whataboutism, as the people compiling these lists are often closely tied to the Muslim world, and Palestinian rule is the alternative that's suggested by Palestinian supporters.
2. Non-Jews can never ever ever be allowed to be a majority of the voting populace in Israel, so that's why the ones in Palestine (under Israeli control, on the rez, so to speak) are not given any rights in the country that controls them. The Israeli Arabs would be stripped of their political rights if they ever outnumbered Israeli Jews and you know this very well.
3. I'm not interested in any conspiracy frankly.
> Let's start with the right of return: sovereign countries can make their own laws, which includes immigration laws.
Sure. But I think these ones are disturbing because they make one minority ethnicity, often from abroad, the kings over all the others who live on the same land with the power to remove them from their homes whenever convenient (as happens in the West Bank daily).
> Jews have therefore fled from all over the world to the only country in the world where they are protected, which is Israel
Jews are less safe in Israel than in Europe and America. (E.g. https://forward.com/opinion/536469/antisemitism-may-be-most-...)
But also, I don't think any country "deserves" to exist to right any wrong in the world. Countries force themselves into existence. Israel did the same, often resorting to the exact same terror tactics (yes even the Haganah conducted military operations using civilian buildings as cover) they now bemoan the Palestinians for resorting to to establish their own state. Whether or not it is the only country for Jews is irrelevant to me. Many ethnicities will never have their "own" nation, and some have multiple, but that has little to do with whether I find the exalting of one ethnicity over the others to such a degree that the others must be made stateless and right-less to be good or bad.
> Should they be allowed to emigrate to Israel? I don't think in the history of the world any country has allowed the descendants of a losing army to emigrate to their country.
It's not emigrating to their country it's movement within the same country. Again, the entire problem I have is that Israel needs to strip the people who live in the land it controls of political rights to maintain its ethnic minority led democracy. This is like saying the Native Americans cannot leave the reservations and live among Americans because their ancestors lost the wars against the Colonists.
> There was no such thing as Palestine in the way that you think about it
This is always the least convincing argument because it doesn't matter and it has nothing to do with how Israel must make the people who aren't Jews stateless and rights-less for its ethnic minority democracy to function. You can call them Plutons for all it matters, I care what Israel is doing that's wrong. I don't believe that a national identity that is "new" means anything about whether human beings should be denied rights solely because of their ethnicity.
Thanks for sharing. I am always open to hear other perspectives. Hope you're similarly open to mine
Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005 to let them self govern. They used all of the foreign aid to arm themselves and built the weapons infrastructure they used against Israel during the October 7th attacks and since. Israel still doesn't control Gaza. It is however under a blockade by BOTH Israel and Egypt exactly because of them using imports to being offensive capabilities. They however have their own laws, own elections, own police, own everything except for an army.
Being under a blockade by a state doesn't make a region part of that state.
* The above was written as of October 6th, things are obviously different atm.
> 2. Non-Jews can never ever ever be allowed to be a majority of the voting populace in Israel, so that's why the ones in Palestine (under Israeli control, on the rez, so to speak) are not given any rights in the country that controls them. The Israeli Arabs would be stripped of their political rights if they ever outnumbered Israeli Jews and you know this very well.
Israel is a Jewish state by law. I don't know what the mechanism would be if there would ever be a non-Jewish majority in parliament, but it's a theoretical edge case. Jews are an 80% majority. Non-Jews are represented in parliament.
I think what's always missing from these discussions is what I wrote in another comment: the suggested alternative (Palestinian state) would be worse for Jews, Christians and Muslims in terms of rights. So it's not that anyone is suggesting replacing the Jewish state with something more enlightened, but rather always for something worse.
> 3. I'm not interested in any conspiracy frankly.
I wasn't saying you did. You responded to my response to someone using an old and tired antisemitic conspiracy.
> Sure. But I think these ones are disturbing because they make one minority ethnicity, often from abroad, the kings over all the others who live on the same land with the power to remove them from their homes whenever convenient (as happens in the West Bank daily).
This sounds scary when put it like this, but in practice, 50,000 Jews emigrated to Israel in 2023, and a similar number left. So it's not as if this law matters for the purpose of this discussion. Also, they are not kings, they are normal citizens like everyone else, including the Arabs.
As for the power to remove them from their homes daily: many (most?) Israelis are against the settlements. Though it's not the way you describe it. No one is removed from their home in the way you think about it (people forced to live their residence and a Jewish family moving in). Do you really think anyone with a sane mind would want to live in a vacated home in a Muslim village surrounded by the cousins of the displaced? It's much more subtle than that (but still not OK!). It's also not sanctioned by Israel, but in some times in its history (including nowadays) the government turns a blind eye or even encourages it.
Unfortunately the same way that extremist Arabs are allowed in parliament so do the right wing settles crazies.
> Jews are less safe in Israel than in Europe and America. (E.g. https://forward.com/opinion/536469/antisemitism-may-be-most-...)
This is an opinion piece from someone that lives in Los Angeles, CA. I'd take it with a grain of salt.
Also, I've lived in Europe, the US, and Israel, and I can tell you that at least from my experience that's bullshit. Safe doesn't just mean death, it also means harassment and non lethal physical harm.
> But also, I don't think any country "deserves" to exist to right any wrong in the world. Countries force themselves into existence.
I didn't say that Israel deserves to exist because of that, but it already DOES exist, and it's within its rights to decide to be a safe haven for a persecuted minority.
> Israel did the same, often resorting to the exact same terror tactics (yes even the Haganah conducted military operations using civilian buildings as cover) they now bemoan the Palestinians for resorting to to establish their own state. Whether or not it is the only country for Jews is irrelevant to me. Many ethnicities will never have their "own" nation, and some have multiple, but that has little to do with whether I find the exalting of one ethnicity over the others to such a degree that the others must be made stateless and right-less to be good or bad.
I don't remember all the details of the pre-Israel wars so can't make blanket statements though from my recollection pre-Israel organizations always targeted military targets (indeed with civilian casualties). Palestinians are targeting civilians by stabbing kids, bombing civilian buses, etc. It's really not the same.
Additionally, from my memory of reading about history, I don't think the world (or Jews) were complaining that the Brits were hitting "civilian" targets that were used for military purposes, but today the world is against Israel for taking these "civilian" targets that are essentially just military bases. Israel is very careful about saving civilians in Gaza but there will be collateral damage when fighting people that hide in civilians area.
> It's not emigrating to their country it's movement within the same country. Again, the entire problem I have is that Israel needs to strip the people who live in the land it controls of political rights to maintain its ethnic minority led democracy. This is like saying the Native Americans cannot leave the reservations and live among Americans because their ancestors lost the wars against the Colonists.
I think this is the crux of the disagreement here, but they are not the same country. How do I know? There's a border, they have a Palestinian passport, they don't recognize the existence of Israel, they have their own police, etc. It's not the same country. So no, it's not like saying anything about the native americans. Though btw, the descendants of the Mexicans that fled California during the wars don't get automatic American citizenship.
> This is always the least convincing argument because it doesn't matter and it has nothing to do with how Israel must make the people who aren't Jews stateless and rights-less for its ethnic minority democracy to function. You can call them Plutons for all it matters, I care what Israel is doing that's wrong. I don't believe that a national identity that is "new" means anything about whether human beings should be denied rights solely because of their ethnicity.
I commented about it elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43704181
The problem is not that the national identity is new, the problem is that the national identity is "let's destroy Israel". See the other comment for more info.
Also as said above, it's not an ethnic minority, because they have a Palestinian passport, they are part of Gaza, not Israel.
> Being under a blockade by a state doesn't make a region part of that state.
But I'm not saying it's a part of Israel. I'm saying the people of Gaza are subjects of the state of Israel because their lives are de facto controlled by Israel, and must be so for Israel to exist at all. Israel must control them and must also not allow them political power or it's ethnic minority democracy cannot exist in the combined region. I think you can agree with that sentiment. Both sides will obviously have different characterizations of who is to blame for this state of affairs, but blame back into history is a fruitless game, and this is the state of affairs, yes? Can we find common ground on that?
> So it's not that anyone is suggesting replacing the Jewish state with something more enlightened, but rather always for something worse.
No one is advocating for a Palestinian supremacist state to replace a Jewish supremacist one. It is a useless effort to replace one form of wrong with the same form of wrong in a different shade of blue.
The 2 state and 1 state solutions are precipiced on equal rights. Either within the same state or in separate states of mutual defensibility (e.g. detente).
> So it's not as if this law matters for the purpose of this discussion. Also, they are not kings, they are normal citizens like everyone else, including the Arabs.
No, it does matter. It is entirely the reason for which Jewish people have rights over Arabs. No Arabs can move to Israel and kick someone out of their West Bank home. Only Jews can do that. Arabs can never be allowed to be the majority voting populace of Israel. Only Jews can do that. That is what makes it an ethnostate, and compounded onto that is that it is an ethnostate where a minority rule over the majority which they keep in a blockaded area away from them.
> It's also not sanctioned by Israel, but in some times in its history (including nowadays) the government turns a blind eye or even encourages it.
I think we agree there. It's not okay, but the state sometimes (like right now, when legalizing illegal settlements to "punish" the Palestinians collectively) encourages it.
> Also, I've lived in Europe, the US, and Israel, and I can tell you that at least from my experience that's bullshit. Safe doesn't just mean death, it also means harassment and non lethal physical harm.
Fair enough. The feeling of safety may be there. But the likelihood of dying in combat or from an attack is higher for a Jew in Israel than in Europe or America. That is what I and the opinion piece author meant. And it is true. I don't think that feeling of safety is worth making millions of people stateless because of their ethnicity. Perhaps this is the ultimate root of our disagreement. Maybe you think that price is well worth paying, and I disagree.
> it's within its rights to decide to be a safe haven for a persecuted minority.
Yes that is fine, but it comes at the expense of another people, and that's what's wrong about it. If Israel gave equal rights to the Palestinians or allowed them a state with equal ability to defend itself, no one would bat an eye at the idea of opening their citizenship up to Jews. But one comes at the expense of the other, and that's what is wrong about the situation.
> There's a border, they have a Palestinian passport, they don't recognize the existence of Israel, they have their own police, etc. It's not the same country.
It seems very similar to Indian Reservations. They have a bunch of things like a state has, but they are ultimately in the total control of the USA. At least the USA allows them to choose whether to live in the main US or remain in their reservation.
The Schrodinger's Palestinian state exists when it can exculpate Israel from its treatment of the Palestinians, but it doesn't exist when it might provide what Palestinians would consider defense against Israel and what Israel would consider a threat to their existence.
But ultimately, the truth in the area is that Israel completely controls the Palestinians and cannot allow them political power of any kind for its ethnic democracy to exist because they are not the majority in the region. I believe the route to the problem begins with Israelis. When they realize that ethnic supremacy only lengthens the conflict, and that whatever feeling of security (as you noted it is a feeling rather than a statistic) they gain is not better than the wrong needing to be committed to maintain it. I think that is when they will be open to either a 1 or 2 state solution. Unfortunately they were more open to it in the past than now. But I think, that time will come. They are the only ones who can choose it though as they are the ones who control what happens in the region.
> The problem is not that the national identity is new, the problem is that the national identity is "let's destroy Israel".
I don't agree with that. And it is a shifting of your position from what you originally said. Originally your sole claim was that the nationality isn't "native" or "old" enough. When I said it doesn't matter (because it doesn't), the claim shifted to being about the nationality being fraudulent in order to kill Jews. It seems like you are just trying to discredit them for wanting a nation. It sounds almost exactly like anti-Semitism but applied to Palestinians instead of Jews. Again, this is why it's the least convincing argument. It doesn't matter how "legitimate" their claims to a nationality are. What matters is what's happening on the ground, and it is ultimately the ethnicity of the Palestinians (non-Jewish) which has resigned them to have less rights than Jews in the same land.
Palestinians are the ethnic majority in the region, not the minority. If they were the minority, the Israeli issue would be a lot easier. They could simply all be citizens of the Israeli state and any violence could be dealt with as an internal issue, like Kashmir in India, or Catalan separatism, etc. Israels need for Jews to hold the majority of power while being the minority in the region is the root of why this continues to be a conflict.
Thanks again for your response. I learn from it a great deal. Hope you are also learning something from mine.
> It seems very similar to Indian Reservations. They have a bunch of things like a state has, but they are ultimately in the total control of the USA. At least the USA allows them to choose whether to live in the main US or remain in their reservation.
Indians are American citizens with a US passport, Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. The US asserts ownership over the reservations (but does give them some additional freedoms), Israel does not. This is not nearly the same situation. Though anyway the Indians aren't trying to kill Americans and chat from the Atlantic to the Pacific. You keep on trying to make this false statement, but Palestine is not Israel.
> The Schrodinger's Palestinian state exists when it can exculpate Israel from its treatment of the Palestinians, but it doesn't exist when it might provide what Palestinians would consider defense against Israel and what Israel would consider a threat to their existence.
Same as Germany post WW1 and WW2. They get full autonomy except for arming themselves.
Palestinians don't need defense against Israel, because Israel has never attacked Palestine. It was always in self defense. This is not a hyperbole, you can go one by one all of the wars since 1948.
> But ultimately, the truth in the area is that Israel completely controls the Palestinians and cannot allow them political power of any kind for its ethnic democracy to exist because they are not the majority in the region. I believe the route to the problem begins with Israelis. When they realize that ethnic supremacy only lengthens the conflict, and that whatever feeling of security (as you noted it is a feeling rather than a statistic) they gain is not better than the wrong needing to be committed to maintain it. I think that is when they will be open to either a 1 or 2 state solution. Unfortunately they were more open to it in the past than now. But I think, that time will come. They are the only ones who can choose it though as they are the ones who control what happens in the region.
Again, Palestine is not Israel. In Israel Arabs have FULL equal rights and in fact they make ~8% of the Israeli Parliament. So this is a false statement.
This statements also robs Palestinians of agency and shifts the blame to Israel. It's kind of like blaming France for destabilizing Europe during WW1 because to stop the fighting all they need to do is cede control to Germany. The path forward for Palestinian is easy: (1) stop indoctrinating children that terrorism is good, and killing civilians is good, (2) stop paying suicide bomber/terrorist families for every Jew they kill, (3) accept peace and stop arming yourself, (4) acknowledge Israel's existence, (5) probably a few other things. The moment you prove yourself you can be a trusted neighbor people will trust you.
> I don't agree with that. And it is a shifting of your position from what you originally said. Originally your sole claim was that the nationality isn't "native" or "old" enough. When I said it doesn't matter (because it doesn't), the claim shifted to being about the nationality being fraudulent in order to kill Jews. It seems like you are just trying to discredit them for wanting a nation. It sounds almost exactly like anti-Semitism but applied to Palestinians instead of Jews. Again, this is why it's the least convincing argument. It doesn't matter how "legitimate" their claims to a nationality are. What matters is what's happening on the ground, and it is ultimately the ethnicity of the Palestinians (non-Jewish) which has resigned them to have less rights than Jews in the same land.
Not shifting, it's elaborating on what I meant. What I meant by "new" is what I shared afterwards, which is this is not some identity that's been going for generations, the identity is anti-Israel. Though it doesn't matter what I communicated, it matters what the truth is. It says it on the Palestine wikpedia page, that the efforts to start a Jewish state (Zionism) was a major part of the notion of Palestinian nationalism. There was no such concept before Israel was envisioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#History
Additionally, it's not racist to repeat what people say. The Hamas charter literally says that their goal is to destroy Israel and kill every Jew around the world. Yes Hamas is a more recent leadership than 1948, but whether you like it or not that's the government that represents the Palestinian people.
> Palestinians are the ethnic majority in the region, not the minority. If they were the minority, the Israeli issue would be a lot easier. They could simply all be citizens of the Israeli state and any violence could be dealt with as an internal issue, like Kashmir in India, or Catalan separatism, etc. Israels need for Jews to hold the majority of power while being the minority in the region is the root of why this continues to be a conflict.
As I said above, I checked the numbers (Israel wikipedia page, and Palestine wikipedia page) and it's actually not true. And again, you keep on conflating Israel and Palestine. In Israel this is wildly untrue, and in the whole region it is just not true (but closer to true).
I hope I am wrong and you will find it in your heart to look at the things you are saying and see how it is not only wrong, but targeted harm against victims of systemic state violence, oppression and injustice. That you have been arguing for their ongoing oppression while creating excuses or even justifying it. I hope you do this soon. You are pretty far down the radicalization rabbit hole it seems. It will be harder and harder for you to find your self out of there.
Also, the comment ended up being too long, as I had to split it to two (HN wouldn't let me post it).
> I will skip over the "withdrew so not de facto control, etc." we are both aware of the history and the level of control Israel can and does exercise over Gaza.
I don't think we are. Israel forcibly removed settlers from Gaza in 2005 and complied emptied the place. The only influence is the blockade, but zero influence on anything else. Gaza could have become a beautiful place, but they invested all the money in terror infrastructure.
> But I'm not saying it's a part of Israel. I'm saying the people of Gaza are subjects of the state of Israel because their lives are de facto controlled by Israel, and must be so for Israel to exist at all. Israel must control them and must also not allow them political power or it's ethnic minority democracy cannot exist in the combined region. I think you can agree with that sentiment. Both sides will obviously have different characterizations of who is to blame for this state of affairs, but blame back into history is a fruitless game, and this is the state of affairs, yes? Can we find common ground on that?
I wasn't sure about exact numbers, so I went ahead and checked it. It looks to me (hard to get exact figures) that Jews are ~55% of the population in the combined region. Though again, this is not a combined region. Israel most not give them political power because they are not Israeli, the same way that Mexicans don't vote in US elections although in practice the US exerts certain powers over Mexico due to its economical position.
So (1) even if we go with the combined region I don't think it's actually an ethnic minority, but (2) we shouldn't be going with the combined region. I reject this notion completely, the same way we don't talk about the combined North American region that includes Canada and Mexico when talking about US elections. Yes, it's not exactly the same, but it's the same thinking.
> No one is advocating for a Palestinian supremacist state to replace a Jewish supremacist one. It is a useless effort to replace one form of wrong with the same form of wrong in a different shade of blue.
This is patently false. "From the river to the sea" which is THE chat of the pro-Palestinian movement is very clear about this. The river Jordan to the sea.
They also use the map of Israel as the map of Palestine in literally every sign and memorabilia. They are also not shy about it, it's a very specific and clear statement and claim. Remember, as well, that Israel founded due to the UN partition resolution which Palestinian rejected (yes, that was a long time ago, but goes to show this was specifically rejected in the past, in addition to everything I just showed).
> The 2 state and 1 state solutions are precipiced on equal rights. Either within the same state or in separate states of mutual defensibility (e.g. detente).
This is an utopian ideal, but it's not a reasonable way forward. The one state solution is not a reasonable one. Even if the Gaza population was peaceful towards the Israeli one, why should Israel be forced to accept hostile population into its borders? A much better solution would be: Gaza absorbed into Egypt and West Bank into Jordan. Though neither countries want that, which is why the Egypt-Gaza border is more fortified than the Israel-Gaza one.
The 2 state solution is probably the long term way to go, but you can't just magically wish it to be true. As I said above, they are very clearly saying they want to wipe Israel off the map. This is not some theoretical question, it's stated. You don't even need to believe them, you can just see all the wars in the history of Israel which have been started by the neighboring Arab countries. Letting Palestine get tanks, fighter jets, advanced weapons, is a crazy notion. They have proven time and time again that they wouldn't hesitate using it against unarmed civilians, so letting this happen would be a death sentence to Israel.
We don't need to go very far though, there's a recent example of a way to a 2 state solution: Germany after WW1 and WW2. The world let them be independent (at some point), but limited their ability to build an army and arm themselves. That could have been Gaza by now, but they keen on rearming and attacking. If Gaza was quiet for the last 20 years and actually built something there, the world would be a much better place.
Though asking Israel to let an aggressive neighbor arm themselves is naive.
> No, it does matter. It is entirely the reason for which Jewish people have rights over Arabs. No Arabs can move to Israel and kick someone out of their West Bank home. Only Jews can do that. Arabs can never be allowed to be the majority voting populace of Israel. Only Jews can do that. That is what makes it an ethnostate, and compounded onto that is that it is an ethnostate where a minority rule over the majority which they keep in a blockaded area away from them.
1. West Bank is not Israel. There are literally different laws and legal systems applied there. You keep on conflating the two.
2. What you're describing about Jews kicking Arabs out of their West Bank homes is just not true. I said it in a different comment, do you think anyone is crazy enough to move their family in the middle of a hostile neighborhood after taking over their neighbors house? They won't survive the night. The "taking lands" that people talk about talks about empty lands that the settlers take over and build an area there. You can look at pictures, it starts as caravans and they then build more. This is still not OK, but it's not what you're portraying.
3. As said above, Jews are actually the majority or at least not the minority in the land. So this is also portraying a false narrative.
4. I can't stress it enough, but West Bank and Gaza are not Israel. Arabs in Israel have equal rights.
> Fair enough. The feeling of safety may be there. But the likelihood of dying in combat or from an attack is higher for a Jew in Israel than in Europe or America. That is what I and the opinion piece author meant. And it is true. I don't think that feeling of safety is worth making millions of people stateless because of their ethnicity. Perhaps this is the ultimate root of our disagreement. Maybe you think that price is well worth paying, and I disagree.
At THIS PRESENT POINT IN TIME, which is an important distinction, as Israel was created after the Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews. Though I think Israel, even with all the wars, is a safer place for the Jews, and the Jews worldwide are safer knowing that Israel exists.
Also, let's not forget the implied context: we are taking the fact that Palestinians target civilians as a fact of life, but it doesn't have to be.
> Yes that is fine, but it comes at the expense of another people, and that's what's wrong about it. If Israel gave equal rights to the Palestinians or allowed them a state with equal ability to defend itself, no one would bat an eye at the idea of opening their citizenship up to Jews. But one comes at the expense of the other, and that's what is wrong about the situation.
No it doesn't. Does China have to give Koreans citizenship? No? So why would Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation and can decide on its own immigration policies.
"No one will bat an eye about opening their citizenship to Jews": we have examples to draw from, and this is false. Jewish residents were not allowed to buy land under Ottoman rule (that why all the land acquisitions in Israel were done by foreigners), Jews have lower rights in other Muslim countries, and you can bet your ass that if Jews were anywhere close to being a majority in Syria they would do something about it. In fact, Syria was controlled by an ethnic minority (10% of the population) until recently and no one said anything. So given the examples from the neighbors, I doubt this statement would be true. Though it's only theoretical anyway.
I was born and raised in Tel-Aviv (Israel), lived in London for the last decade, and I'm now back in Israel."
I suggest you learn more about the conflict from different perspectives if you think the claim of genocide is "weak". Criticism of your country's extensive human rights abuses is not antisemitism. You are representing your country very poorly with this post.
I do my best to learn about it from different perspectives. As for the genocide claim: I think it has been argued a lot online so no need to rehash it here.
> Criticism of your country's extensive human rights abuses is not antisemitism.
I disagree with the statement, though that's not the statement that he made. He made a statement about "Israeli control of western politics" which is just a tired trope. At least a hundred years old (see Wikipedia), but probably much older than that.
> You are representing your country very poorly with this post.
I was thinking twice before posting this, as I figured I'd be attacked for it. Though sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, and the Elder's of Zion nonsense had to be called out.
Though I think this is a false equivalence: pro Palestinian demonstrations include burning the American flag. Pro Israeli include raising and honoring it. These are not the same.
Edit: I forgot to comment about the "you can no longer protest them" part. You can most definitely protest Israel (and the US) in US universities. However, if you're on a visa and defy the terms of your visa by e.g. assaulting students, destroying university property, and supporting terrorist organizations you may get deported.
A country doesn't belong to the majority, it belongs to the ones willing to fight for it.
US is not my country, it's yours. But not if you're not willing to defend your rights and values. If you stay passive, others will decide for you.
Edit: https://www.fiftyfifty.one/ April 19.
> How would they do that?
Due to offshoring and outsourcing, perhaps China could choke the US economy until it agrees to become a strong nation by studying Xi?
The the GP was probably imagining some liberal savior riding in a white horse, but that ain't gonna happen. Liberals are too weak everywhere.
I guess he was right.
I just don't think his pace of destruction is sustainable. He will soon, unavoidably, be faced with an angry mob. Not angry about freedom of speech or rule of law, probably, but inflation, recession and (lack of) leadership in crisis. He is brewing a cocktail of enormous discontent at a breakneck pace, and doesn't show the leadership or even interest to deal with it, never mind any external shock.
Communism in Poland fell, ultimately, over the price of meat.
Combined with the successful efforts to make it illegal to boycott Israeli products or companies, it's a grim situation.
What part of that is Hamas-like to you?
Meanwhile an American citizen can actually sign up for and fight in a foreign army, commit war crimes there, and come back here happy as a clam. Insane world we live in.
I don’t particularly think it applies to this case, tbh, given that his actions were focused on Palestine, not on Hamas, but I am curious if there’s any existing legal basis for the claim that someone could be convicted of such material support simply for saying, for example, that the IRA wasn’t unreasonable given the situation at the time.