I don't know the context is of where what you cited.
And once again, we'd need unbiased scholars to give an unbiased translation - as what you're citing could likely be purposefully or poorly mistranslated to change, even slightly, the context or scope - and when doing so could completely change the meaning.
So where exactly did you pull this quote from? And does it cite where it's pulling the original quote from, or is it pulling from someone else who may have dishonestly translated it to begin with?
You'd have to agree with me that confirmation bias exists - and is a very difficult minefield for any individual to navigate, right? Especially a difficult trap or valley to climb out of if someone may have been deeply indoctrinated into certain a weave of "disgust" producing narrative lines/threads for nearly a century, passed on through multiple generations?
There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember, so it's okay if one side does it - but not the other?
The rabbit hole goes very deep - has many misleading paths - and the problem is is proper conversation is heavily prevented and suppressed, primarily by one side, for example: Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, while being deceitful - in public attempting to organize a public debate with Candace Owens - behind the scenes in parallel were applying for and got a gag order on her.
Do you think preventing people from "either side" from diving into long-form, thorough discussion to hash out as many points as possible - is good or bad?
Thankfully people like Piers Morgan are having some of these people on to discuss, and it allows the general population to see for themselves who uses dishonest and disgusting tactics as part of their arguments - and which side aren't deceitful or avoidance, who are clear and articulate, etc.
And should I bring up again now that the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" was first used by Israel? How about I mention again the Israeli government (I think it was Netanyahu himself but I don't remember at the moment) showed a map of Israel - that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it. So it's okay when Israeli uses it but demonized and misrepresented as to its meaning when Palestinians use it?
The very same document you were dissecting - the 1988 charter. The phrases are easy to find in any reliable translation you have handy. Just look for keywords like "Judgement", "tree", "Jew", "battle". The other questions you're raising are also interesting, but if you don't mind -- for now I'd be keen to know your interpretation of the phrases cited in the post above this one.
The context for each phrase would be the immediately surrounding text, of course.
(Yes, is a turgid sprawl, the '88 charter. But give it a shot!)
> that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it
1) Look at a map of Palestine in 1947. Now look at the Palestinian flag side by side with the Jordanian flag. I bet you can figure this one out.
2) When did the nation of Palestine ever have their own land and national identity, prior to 1948? Who was their president/leader?
3) On that note, where was Arafat born?
The thing is- this whole farce of "Palestine" is, in fact, nonsense, and the obvious real answer to peace if the Arab refugees from 48 want to call themselves after an old Roman slur to the Jews is for Jordan to designate a chunk.
There's like, what, two million so-called Palestinians in Jordan already.
> There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember
I call B.S. the Torah not only doesn't encourage murdering Arabs of any kind, it outright prohibits it. The idealized Torah-based government encourages all the nations of the world to come and live and visit in Israel, provided they follow the 7 Noahide laws (which moderate forms of Islam do).
Be honest- did you just completely make up this point? What could you possibly be misremembering? Netanyahu has issues, but misquoting the Torah and using that misquote as a basis for an extreme position of genocide is _very_ out of character for him, doesn't ring true at all.
(there _is_ an imperative in the Torah to kill Amalekites. They don't exist anymore and it's completely irrelevant.)
That's the question we should be asking and the pressure Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan need to be put under by Saudi Arabia, UAE, US, France, Russia, China, etc.
I realize that's a stretch- but it shouldn't be.
Fantasy scenario: it just happens. Many Palestinian/Arabs continue to live in Israel under Israeli sovereignty because they like the job opportunities or whatever. No persecution, they live and flourish no problem (assuming they genuinely accept Israeli government). Many emigrate to Palestine in eastern Jordan because they feel a connection to the land their great grandparents grew up in, it's worth the tradeoff for them (assuming it's less prosperous than Israel which of course may be inverted, who knows)
If 80% of the energy from world hatred of Jews went to actually trying to solve the problem, we'd be in a far better place- less war, less innocents dying, less needing to censor treasonous media, etc.
To be completely honest, it boggles my mind that this _isn't_ happening. Instead we have pointless shit like Gays for Palestine blocking entrance to Disneyland. The world has lost its mind on this issue.
Many emigrate to Palestine in eastern Jordan because they feel a connection to the land their great grandparents grew up in, it's worth the tradeoff for them (assuming it's less prosperous than Israel which of course may be inverted, who knows)
In an optimistic scenario -- approximately what percentage of the current Palestinian/Arab population (in the West Bank + Gaza) need to make this move in order to create conditions for peace, in your view?
0% of those who accept Israeli government wholeheartedly, choose to live as law-abiding citizens, and teach their children to do the same (similar to many Israeli-Arab and Druze populations today).
100% of those who actively support the eradication of Israel and driving every Jew into the sea.
In the middle, it may need to lean to less tolerance due to the reality of democracy and demographics, but I'm not sure.
My hope would be that most would fit in the 0% category.
It sounds you are basically advocating for the Decisive Plan as put forth by the current Minister of Finance.
Am I reading you correctly, here?
Do you have a sense as to what portion of the non-Arab population in Israel would support such a project? A rough percentage estimate would be greatly appreciated.
Interesting.. believe it or not, I don't pay much attention to politics as I often feel like they miss the forest for the trees and exchange integrity for votes.
But at a glance- it seems like I am in fact proposing something like his Decisive Plan.
I suppose the main difference is I am dreaming that it comes about through peace and with world support- especially Arab support.
I don't want it to be forced through violence. Unfortunately, it may be inevitable... I can't even get people on hacker news to retract their erroneous accusations of genocide. What hope is there for a peaceful "180 degree" turn?
I keep wanting to believe the world is not full of anti-semites, it's just an issue of misunderstanding, and I keep finding I am wrong... in that context, something like the decisive plan may need to be forced through war eventually. God I hope it doesn't come to that.
Re: stats, I don't have that info.. if I had to guess, I would say that a plan like this is hugely unpopular in Israel- but I would also guess that it's like that because it implies a lot of suffering in today's climate, and it would be much more accepted if the Palestinians wanted it too.
Your 0% category fits into a schoolbook example of colonialism. If your hope is that most people accept being colonized and loosing any prospect of self determination, and potentially their identity, then your hope is that a whole peoples just allows a colonizer to determine their fate in peace.
It is not only unrealistic, but also an outdated 19th century view of geopolitics, with a history full of racism, genocide and other horrors.
You have it completely inverted. I am talking about the indigenous people returning to their land. I am talking about the original (and much more prolific) religious claims to land being restored over subsequent weak-claimed usurpers.
That's literally the opposite of colonialism.
(by "weak" I just mean the opposite of prolific.. not sure what the right word would be there, i.e. Judaism has super strong ties to Israel- agricultural laws of orlah and shemittah, recorded purchase and significance of Hebron, daily prayer for over 2000 years to rebuild Jerusalem. No other religion has anywhere near this strong of a connection to the land).
The colony in Palestine took off, due to the British preference of solidifying european control over Ottoman region, and the convenient façade of the historical claim.
People lived there before this are descendents of those who lived there in the past. Many stayed even after the expulsion by Romans, many returned. Some, obviously would have changed their faith, but none of that gives the European descendents any more right over it. We can all colonise Ethiopia if we were to go on like this.
And once again, we'd need unbiased scholars to give an unbiased translation - as what you're citing could likely be purposefully or poorly mistranslated to change, even slightly, the context or scope - and when doing so could completely change the meaning.
So where exactly did you pull this quote from? And does it cite where it's pulling the original quote from, or is it pulling from someone else who may have dishonestly translated it to begin with?
You'd have to agree with me that confirmation bias exists - and is a very difficult minefield for any individual to navigate, right? Especially a difficult trap or valley to climb out of if someone may have been deeply indoctrinated into certain a weave of "disgust" producing narrative lines/threads for nearly a century, passed on through multiple generations?
There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember, so it's okay if one side does it - but not the other?
The rabbit hole goes very deep - has many misleading paths - and the problem is is proper conversation is heavily prevented and suppressed, primarily by one side, for example: Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, while being deceitful - in public attempting to organize a public debate with Candace Owens - behind the scenes in parallel were applying for and got a gag order on her.
Do you think preventing people from "either side" from diving into long-form, thorough discussion to hash out as many points as possible - is good or bad?
Thankfully people like Piers Morgan are having some of these people on to discuss, and it allows the general population to see for themselves who uses dishonest and disgusting tactics as part of their arguments - and which side aren't deceitful or avoidance, who are clear and articulate, etc.
And should I bring up again now that the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" was first used by Israel? How about I mention again the Israeli government (I think it was Netanyahu himself but I don't remember at the moment) showed a map of Israel - that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it. So it's okay when Israeli uses it but demonized and misrepresented as to its meaning when Palestinians use it?