> Israel has been defending itself against for 78 years in both the physical and informational domain, and will continue to do so, just like any other country on earth.
Of course we could argue any country try to defend itself, but an ever expanding bellicose colony stealing lands from adjacent countries is hardly what could be described as a "defending" stance.
> People need to wake up to the one-sided lies of the antizionist hate movement that single it out and want to destroy it and its people.
The end of a State doesn't mean the end of its citizens.
It simply mean that a state apparatus and power structure is taken down and replaced by something else.
Depend of the state, could be internal turmoil (revolution), peaceful change with new constitution and ideal, or external force imposing change (like Germany post-WW2, being split between alors).
I would hope for a truly secular state with a multicultural population, paid reparation to displaced Palestinian families and farmers and a memory duty (museum, memorial, documentaries and school teaching) to counter the years of propaganda.
And mass prosecution of head of State and army top brass.
Truly secular states simply don't exist anywhere in the middle east so it seems wild to expect it there of all places and a multicultural population simply means barelling towards a monocultural future for much of the israelis I think. aka Lebanon's drastic demographic shift (https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...) but much worse for various reasons.
And it's not like that rapidly decline of their share of the population (which let's be real is somewhat incompatible with an at least a temporarily required Millet system or something like lebanon's gov sectarianism) necessarily means they get a managed peacefull decline. Not a single minority in the wider region has actually gotten that. Kurds, copts, fur, zaghawa, masalit, azeris, asyrians. None. It's all a slow managed decline with gov discrimination and occasional brutalisation or outright killings. Druze might be the only expception to it but they don't relate to power or the rest of islam in quite the same way.
I believe they're very much aware of this. (especially the mizrahi who are more adverserial to the palestinians) So given that they're never going to willingly accept or roll with it if forced....they'll either bail the country faster than the christian lebanese have been doing and/or fight to the death prior.
edit: I think it's with that in mind that one has to look towards a reasonable or semi desirable end result. Chances are there isn't a happy or even fully acceptable ending for both sides. Outside long term enforcement might be best but the brits were already having trouble keeping the lid on that pot well before israel came to be as a state and when the population was a fraction of the current one so it'll not necesarily be all nice either.
The thing is nobody wants to be South Africa.
Decline, corruption, sectarian parties and a general bleak long term outlook for the population who gave up control.
The jews in this picture would likely see a much bleaker fate due to their current standing of having brutalised the palestinians in a repeating game of mutual retaliation and escalation but also the diaspora and sheer prevalence of arabs around them.
Think how Lebanon went from a christian country to a muslim one in no time with hezbollah calling a deceptive amount of the shots but... worse.
>with more returning of ancestrally owned land I reckon.
A huge part of the black population of SA wasn't there before the boers so the sins of the father or 'blood and soil' rethoric makes a lot more sense for the palestinians. I think it's a valid feeling but also one that cuts on both sides. However the biggest growing group in israel and a big part of the later migration and thus settlement are the mizrahi who have defined a lot of the current hard line stance and to them this western/christianity morality idea of atonement makes no sense. They'd be giving up this land the most but also wouldn't be given their ancestrally owned land back and are also the most adversarial to the palestinian population.
Not really - the green map famously pretends that all government land owned by the British by the Ottomans belonged to the Arab people that called themselves Palestinians in 1960. It also equates people that lived in British and Ottoman Palestine to those people, whereas both those places were multi ethnic states. It also ignores the proposed 23rd Arab state that was rejected by the Arabs.
this is the Green map. It’s widely known to be a hoax. It’s based on assuming all the government land that belonged to the British government and the Ottomans belonging only to the Palestinian Arabs (which it did not), British Palestine being a state only for Arabs (which it was not), an Arabs accepting partitioning (which they did not)
Of course we could argue any country try to defend itself, but an ever expanding bellicose colony stealing lands from adjacent countries is hardly what could be described as a "defending" stance.
> People need to wake up to the one-sided lies of the antizionist hate movement that single it out and want to destroy it and its people.
The end of a State doesn't mean the end of its citizens. It simply mean that a state apparatus and power structure is taken down and replaced by something else.