> It is not a colonist by any standard definition.
Yes they are. It's true that before the British Mandate of Palestine the population of Syria Palaestina was 3-11% Jewish (Mizrahi Jews) but most of the Jewish population of Israel is not indigenous to that region of the world (like how the Ashkenazi Jews are from Europe and Eastern Russia).
> Apartheid - more complicated.
It isn't, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch recognize it is Apartheid. As do Ireland and South Africa (countries who have both been victim to Colonist Apartheid violence).
Israel does not allow free passage between Gaza and the West Bank, that in itself is a war crime. Israel literally has a two tiered society, Israeli Arabs do not have the Right To Return like Jewish Israelis do. 50% of Arab Israelis are under the poverty line because of wage discrimination and other factors https://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SocialReport2016... . Israel was even caught practicing eugenics on the beta Israelis.
> Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis?
What are you filling in the blank with...? Nobody is asking for them to be deported. I mean obviously people like Yaakov Fauci would have to give back the houses they literally stole but a "1 state solution" does not require the deportation/killing of the Israelis. Elsewhere in this thread I linked the Oslo Accords, I suggest you read about them, peace is possible.
> It's true that before the British Mandate of Palestine the population of Syria Palaestina was 3-11% Jewish (Mizrahi Jews) but most of the Jewish population of Israel is not indigenous to that region of the world (like how the Ashkenazi Jews are from Europe and Eastern Russia).
Firstly, Jews are originally indigenous to that part of the world, they were ethnically cleansed from that area by Rome. This is not even disputed.
Of course Palestinians are also indigenous to the land! Many of them more recently.
And of course, multiple generations have Israelis have now been born and lived their entire lives in that land.
But none of this really matters. The standard colonial pattern is of a country sending its population to colonize a new land. That is just emphatically not what happened. Israel was largely founded by refugees who were fleeing persecution, or by Jews ethnically cleansed from their homes. That is just not what most people are thinking of when thinking of colonialism.
Hence the standard outcome that happens in colonies is that the people leave and return to the land they are "from", which is just irrelevant here, because the children of refugees have nowhere else to "return" to.
> It isn't, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch recognize it is Apartheid. As do Ireland and South Africa (countries who have both been victim to Colonist Apartheid violence).
Yes, and many groups disagree with this, including the US and EU iirc. Human Rights Watch in particular is a very problematic organization that has a lot of complaints against it of being biased against Israel.
That said, I'm pretty sure that what I said is consistent with what they say in their report - there's a plausible case for apartheid in the Occupied Territories. They think it has now crossed the line to being legally apartheid, others disagree. This is relevant for the OT but not the rest of Israel.
Israel has a lot of discrimination and other issues with its Israeli Arab population, but it's almost entirely not legal discrimination.
> Israel literally has a two tiered society, Israeli Arabs do not have the Right To Return like Jewish Israelis do.
That is actually a very untrue example. Right of Return is a right of citizenship, the fact that some people have a right of return and others don't is not a discrimination against existing citizens.
I don't have the right to become a British citizen, that doesn't mean Britain is discrimination against me. It is just doing what every state does - defining who its citizens are via some metric, usually by being born to parents who are citizens, though different states define this differently. Israel is doing similarly.
> 50% of Arab Israelis are under the poverty line because of wage discrimination and other factors.
Wage discrimination does not prove apartheid or any systemic discrimination.
Let's remember that Israeli Arabs can vote, can be any profession they want, a large percentage of the doctors in Israel are Arabs, there are Israeli-Arab supreme court judges, members of the Israeli Congress, etc.
> Nobody is asking for them to be deported. I mean obviously people like Yaakov Fauci would have to give back the houses they literally stole but a "1 state solution" does not require the deportation/killing of the Israelis.
That is exactly what Hamas is asking for. Deportation and/or killing of all Israeli-Jews.
A one state solution is a ridiculous idea that is not what anyone in the region wants, not what anyone who has ever seriously considered what to do in the region that has had any power has advocated, and would almost certainly lead to the death of one or both of the ethnic groups in the region.
Even if not, what country would ever agree to double its voting population with a population that is completely culturally different?
What do you tell Israeli members of the LGBT community, that it's totally ok to have a one state solution by adding 100% more voters that come from a society that wants to make homosexuality illegal? Do you think they should agree to that idea?
> Elsewhere in this thread I linked the Oslo Accords, I suggest you read about them, peace is possible.
Great! I'm in favor. Like any other serious solution, this process aimed to create two states for two people. As I said elsewhere, this process largely died, in my opinion, because sincere efforts of the Israelis were met with refusal to sign an actual deal from the Palestinians, and then met with violence and terror attacks.
And the last ~17 years have seen Israelis completely convinced that there is no partner for peace and never will be, while ignoring that Israel itself is causing the conditions for there being no partner for peace!
Both sides have to just accept the fundemantal reality - there are 7 millions Jews and 7 million Arabs on this land, neither is going anywhere, the only solution is to reach a peace agreement. This will not happen through violence, only through a negotiated deal.
> Firstly, Jews are originally indigenous to that part of the world
No, that's not how this works. My 23&Me says my family came from Africa (as did all people), then southwest Asia then Europe but that doesn't give me the right to go to one of those countries and claim land.
> The standard colonial pattern is [...] That is just not what most people are thinking of when thinking of colonialism.
Man, you can't quote me talking about the British Mandate of Palestine and then say they're not colonizers. Literally before the Holocaust Britain was arming Jews to go colonize Palestine. Yes, Jews fleeing the Holocaust did find refuge in Palestine but fleeing an ethnic cleansing of their own doesn't make the colonization that was already ongoing more legal.
I'm not even gonna address the rest of this point by point, you're just insisting that a 2 state solution is the only way because a 2 state solution is legalized perpetuation of the colonization.
A 2 state solution is not the only way, it is colonization.
No, Hamas does not want the death/expulsion of all Jews, that's simply a lie.
> No, that's not how this works. My 23&Me says my family came from Africa (as did all people), then southwest Asia then Europe but that doesn't give me the right to go to one of those countries and claim land.
You brought up indigeneity. In what way are Jews not indigenous? I agreed with you that it's irrelevant right after. I don't think it automatically gives anyone right to claim any land.
> Yes, Jews fleeing the Holocaust did find refuge in Palestine but fleeing an ethnic cleansing of their own doesn't make the colonization that was already ongoing more legal.
Who exactly were the colonizers? The Jews who legally immigrated to that land under the Ottoman Empire? The Jews who legally immigrated to that land under British rule?
The 90% of the Jews who came to Israel because they literally had no where else to go after being in DP camps after WW2 and the UN voting for them to move to that land?
I'm not sure who are these mythical colonizers who came in and violent expelled Palestinians from the land. Most of the Jews either came legally through immigration or were refugees.
> A 2 state solution is not the only way, it is colonization.
This is literally the first time I've ever heard this claim. A two state solution is the stated goal of the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. It was the goal of Arafat. Are you seriously saying that their goal, had it been reached, was a continuation of colonization?
I really don't know what to make of this argument. Two people live on a land and don't want to be part of the same state, for good reason. Both have reasonable reasons to consider that land theirs (certainly at this point) and nowhere else to go. What can be more sensible than splitting up that land?
>A two state solution is the stated goal of the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. It was the goal of Arafat. Are you seriously saying that their goal, had it been reached, was a continuation of colonization?
I'm sorry but wasn't this also you?
> OK. Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before?
Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that *granted them statehood* and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land.
This isn't a serious line of questioning, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't say they're doing more colonization without the deal and then say the deal was bad for Palestine.
First, occupation is not the same as colonization. Second, I was speaking of Gaza specifically when I talked about there being more vs. less occupation - not all of Israel.
> Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that granted them statehood and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land.
So I don't understand what you're advocating. You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization.
What solution do you think is a) the right one and b) the practical one? I don't understand how my advocating of what probably 95% of peace activists are advocating is wrong.
Occupation is not tautological to colonization but occupation can be the first step to colonization.
> You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization.
It is a continuation of the colonization. It is also something the Palestinians *have* agreed to, that's what the Oslo Accords are.
> On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held.
I'm fine with a 2 state solution if that's what the Palestinans want. My issue is that Israel is unlikely to follow the rules given their current behavior so why not just make it 1 state with equal rights? Is that really so scary? Equal rights?
But none of that matters because the first thing that has to happen before even a 2 state solution is a ceasefire.
> I'm fine with a 2 state solution if that's what the Palestinans want. My issue is that Israel is unlikely to follow the rules given their current behavior so why not just make it 1 state with equal rights? Is that really so scary? Equal rights?
YES! I don't know how else to say this. Giving equal rights which would effectively double the voting base with people who fundamentally oppose many things you think are important is terrifying. Again, if you were LGBTQ in Israel, and I told you we're bringing in 100% more voters who mostly think homosexuality is a sin and could now vote to make it illegal, wouldn't you think it's a bad idea?
And that's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the the new state acts like every other state that has a Jewish minority, and eventually decides to kill the Jews. Made even more likely given the years of animosity between the two peoples.
You are again and again asking if it's really so bad to do something that 99% of people, including almost all peace activists, say will end in the destruction of the Jews in Israel, one way or another. If that is the only option, it is one that will never be accepted. I don't understand why you can't see that, unless you think you know better than almost everyone else that lives in the area or has studied the area.
(I'm totally open to different arrangements like A Land For All, which aim to make an Israeli/Palestinian federation, basically a two-state solution that has deals in place like the EU which would allow citizens to move between the countries.)
Yes, of course I think they should have their own state like any other state. That's what a two state solution means.
I think there will need to be some security guarantees to prevent it from turning out similarly to Gaza. I have no idea what that should look like, from either side's perspective - but that's part of the negotiations for actually making the two states.
And I'm sure there will have to be similar security guarantees from the Israeli side, so Israel doesn't just decide after two weeks to invade because of a random terror attack.
> YES! I don't know how else to say this. Giving equal rights which would effectively double the voting base with people who fundamentally oppose many things you think are important is terrifying. Again, if you were LGBTQ in Israel, and I told you we're bringing in 100% more voters who mostly think homosexuality is a sin and could now vote to make it illegal, wouldn't you think it's a bad idea?
It's wild to imply Israelis are great to the gay community. It's clear Israel is fine with discrimination.
> Forty-eight percent of Israeli Jews said they agreed with the statement that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, where they make up 19 percent of the population of 8.4 million.
> In addition, about 8 in 10 Arabs complained of heavy discrimination in Israeli society against Muslims, the largest religious minority, while 79 percent of Jews questioned said Jewish citizens deserved preferential treatment.
And don't forget that I cited to you how Israel did eugenics on the Ethiopian Jewish community until at least 2013.
> And that's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the the new state acts like every other state that has a Jewish minority, and eventually decides to kill the Jews. Made even more likely given the years of animosity between the two peoples.
That is just mass hysteria. There are many diaspora Jews who feel safe where they currently live and acting like all Jews think Israel is the only safe place for them is actual antisemitism. Jews are not a monolith.
> You are again and again asking if it's really so bad to do something that 99% of people, including almost all peace activists, say will end in the destruction of the Jews in Israel
A ceasefire? I just told you hours ago that the first thing I really care about is a ceasefire.
You're just not responding to anything I actually said or anything I actually believe.
You asked why not give Palestinians "equal rights", meaning make them citizens of Israel with voting rights. I answered with why I think this would effectively roll back many liberal values of Israel, including LGBT rights, not to mention be an enormous risk for Jewish Israelis.
That has nothing to do with pinkwashing anything, I didn't say anything about the war (or what you call "the genocide"). You just haven't responded to my point, at all.
> It's wild to imply Israelis are great to the gay community.
The areas under full Israeli control are great for the gay community. Not perfect, and some areas of Israel are better than others, but far better than many countries.
It seems like in your zeal to only say bad things about Israel you refuse to actually see reality as it is.
> And don't forget that I cited to you how Israel did eugenics on the Ethiopian Jewish community until at least 2013.
I didn't forget, but I don't know anything about this topic at all and didn't have time to look into it. I don't comment on things I know nothing about, no matter what "side" it's on.
> That is just mass hysteria. There are many diaspora Jews who feel safe where they currently live and acting like all Jews think Israel is the only safe place for them is actual antisemitism. Jews are not a monolith.
Ok I was speaking with some hyperbole, but historically, except for the last 80 years, Jews have been discriminated against, killed or kicked out of most countries of which they are minorities.
Anyway, I just don't understand what is your actual view about the world, other than "Israel bad".
What do you think would happen if 7 million Palestinians become citizens of Israel and are granted the vote? What does that state look like in twenty years? That's what you're advocating, I want to understand what you think would happen.
> A ceasefire? I just told you hours ago that the first thing I really care about is a ceasefire.
Look, I'm in favor of a ceasefire. You are too.
I'm in favor of arriving at a peaceful solution that both sides are OK with. You are too.
The main thing I was pushing back on in my comment, was the idea of a one-state solution being anything other than ridiculous, whether in the guise of a new state, or by just "giving Palestinians equal rights" in Israel as it exists.
If you want to push for peace - it's worth advocating for things that a) have some chance of happening, and b) would not lead immediately to a situation that is 100x worse for everyone involved. That's why I advocate a two-state solution, as does almost anyone else seriously involved in pushing for peace.
Yes they are. It's true that before the British Mandate of Palestine the population of Syria Palaestina was 3-11% Jewish (Mizrahi Jews) but most of the Jewish population of Israel is not indigenous to that region of the world (like how the Ashkenazi Jews are from Europe and Eastern Russia).
> Apartheid - more complicated.
It isn't, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch recognize it is Apartheid. As do Ireland and South Africa (countries who have both been victim to Colonist Apartheid violence).
Israel does not allow free passage between Gaza and the West Bank, that in itself is a war crime. Israel literally has a two tiered society, Israeli Arabs do not have the Right To Return like Jewish Israelis do. 50% of Arab Israelis are under the poverty line because of wage discrimination and other factors https://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SocialReport2016... . Israel was even caught practicing eugenics on the beta Israelis.
> Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis?
What are you filling in the blank with...? Nobody is asking for them to be deported. I mean obviously people like Yaakov Fauci would have to give back the houses they literally stole but a "1 state solution" does not require the deportation/killing of the Israelis. Elsewhere in this thread I linked the Oslo Accords, I suggest you read about them, peace is possible.