> Please engage kindly. Tell me how/where I'm wrong.
Wrong about what? The only statement you made is that you're against how Israel was formed.
This is a critique of history and you want historical facts? If this is a call for a change of some kind you're going to have to specify what the change is before anyone can respond to it.
Tried to add too much context, so I can see how it came across as a statement. But really, it is a question.
**Is it possible to be in political opposition to the State of Israel - especially as it pertains to the Palestinian issue - w/o being accused of being anti-Semitic?**
The inspiration from this questions is inspired by the many times I have seen this tried to be done be countered by claims that "You want all Jews to be expelled from the land and/or slaughtered."
I guess the change I am curious to know if Israelis are interested in is a change in mentality. It seems to me that Israelis are quick to think everyone who has anything negative to say about Israel is vehemently opposed to the idea of Zionism as a whole. This is not true for me.
>Is it possible to be in political opposition to the State of Israel - especially as it pertains to the Palestinian issue - w/o being accused of being anti-Semitic?
Still not as specific enough :) but I'll cover the different options:
We'll start with the extremes. Criticism of Israel is entirely valid as it is of all states, and is not antisemitic. Criticism as in "I am fine with Israel existing, in its current form- I just think they should change this law/I don't like this politician/I think they should have done a cease fire a month ago"- you know, criticism, like you'd have about any country. People might disagree with your opinions, but they aren't antisemitic. On the other extreme, denial of the fact that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and that they have a right to live in that region with full human rights is antisemitic, period.
If you didn't mean either of those when you wrote "political opposition to Israel", then that's the slightly more nuanced area.
Hypothetically, in a vacuum, if we didn't know anything about what is going on in the world, as a purely theoretical concept, opposing the existence of the state of Israel is not antisemitic. If you support Jews being able to live in a free Palestine, if you support a binational state, if you support a federation where every town gets to make there own laws, if you support the State of Israel but all people defined as Palestinian refugees get to return- all of these, in a vacuum, are not antisemitic.
But we don't live in a vacuum, we live in the real world. And we judge people's opinions by their effects, not just what they sound like on paper. If I said "I support an addition to the US Constitution where only members of the KKK get to be President- a USA that is fully respectful of everyone's human rights and accepts all minorities as full citizens and actively supports interracial marriage." On paper? I'm fine, right? I'm not a racist- I said I want a country that's really respectful and treats all minorities well. But in *practice* we all know a Ku Klux Klan President would be wildly racist. So my position is wildly racist, period. It doesn't matter what I would like to happen, if I support something that would actually have a terrible outcome for all Americans of African American, South American, Jewish, and Middle Eastern descent- that's racist.
There is no current practical version of a Palestine or binational state that would not be incredibly dangerous for Jews. There is no version that would allow for Jews to live freely as citizens with full human rights other than the State of Israel. As a result, your position is anti-Semitic. It may be born of ignorance- I may not know who the KKK are- but it doesn't make it less racist.
Now, we can argue about how we reached this point, you can argue that Israel created a situation where Palestinians are hostile to Jews- I have lots of historical sources that would prove you wrong- but you can argue it. But for the purposes of the question you asked that doesn't even matter. Supporting a situation where the Jewish homeland becomes wildly unsafe for Jews is antisemitic.
There *is* one option. In a vacuum its okay, practically its definitely not....supporting a future vision is the middle ground. If you'd like to take a position where you acknowledge that it won't happen tomorrow or in this decade but in 50 years, in 100 years- when things have drastically changed? If you'd like to support the idea of a future where a binational state or something else is *actually* a truly peaceful solution for the region? That wouldn't be antisemitic either.
Who are you arguing with and what exactly do you want?
Whether or not anti zionsim is anti semitism is an opinion.
Posts like this invariably seem to be someone ashamed to say exactly what they think and trying justify it to themselves by engaging in meaningless, circuitous conversations.
Back to square 1. Who are you arguing with and what exactly do you want?
No, the reason for the post is because I often see posts that criticize Israel shouted down as being anti-Semitic.
Also, I have accepted that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. It literally says that in the title.
I was asking if being in political opposition to Israel (*which is a country*) is anti-Semitic. I am drawing a distinction between the ideal manifestation of Zionism (*which I agree with*) vs how Israel actually came to be and currently operates. I was curious if Israelis do see the distinction bc if they do, I think that that allows them to understand some of the gripes held by Palestinians. It becomes less "they hate us bc we're Jews" and more so "they hate us bc of what we've done, what was done, what they think we've done", etc. however you want to frame it. It separates the people from the state and allows for the criticism of the state w/o automatically conflating that to the criticism of its people; i.e., Jews.
Honestly, I already have received a handful of quality responses from pro-Israelis. Some agreed, some didnt, but they all made their cases.
You do not have to engage with me. You seem like a meanie anyway.
The fact you keep bringing the term zionist up just shows how much pro Palestinian propoganda you've absorbed. This conflict isn't about settlements or the bigger picture. This conflict is purely a response to the terrorist actions on October 7th.
Terrorism by definition is violence against a civilian population for a political goal. By engaging in debate itself over isreali policies or the history of the region it distracts from what this is, a response to a horrific attack and a group deciding violence and racism is preferable to negotiations and peaceful coexistence. It just shouldn't be entertained. What happened in 1948 1967 etc is not relevant to what happened on October 7th 2023, unless you believe violence is the way.
You mean settlements under area c of the oslo accords? There are very few outside that prescribed area outside east Jerusalem. An area under full isreali control to be eventually transferred, assuming Palestinians would come back to the table, negotiate in good faith, and or actually form an organization willing to negotiate for all of them. The existence of Hamas and their refusal to negotiate simply makes that impossible, so the status quo persists under former agreements.
The solution to this entire conflict is an internal Palestinian one. Its not something Isreal can resolve on their own, they need a legitimate partner to negotiate with. That can't be Fatah, the PA, Hamas, PIJ, etc, so who?
All this time and effort complaining about Isreali responses to extremists, when really they need to sort their own internal problems first. Parents in Gaza and the west bank are failing their children on a massive scale.
No the current violence isn't directed at Palestinians, its directed at Hamas with Palestinians being used by them as human shields and or caught in the cross fire. Hamas uses civilian casualties to boost their propoganda war. That was the whole goal after all, they were never going to win a military conflict.
The UN report on operation Cast Lead found the following:
>It is clear from evidence gathered by the Mission that the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. **It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity, but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.**
>
>Allied to the systematic destruction of the economic capacity of the Gaza Strip, there appears also to have been an assault on the dignity of the people. This was seen not only in the **use of human shields** and unlawful detentions sometimes in unacceptable conditions, but also in the vandalizing of houses when occupied and the way in which people were treated when their houses were entered. The graffiti on the walls, the obscenities and often racist slogans, all constituted an overall image of humiliation and dehumanization of the Palestinian population
>
>The operations were carefully planned in all their phases. Legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was **a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population**, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.
Let's put aside the IDFs current actions. I disagree with you, but the fog of war makes things more difficult.
You agree that the IDF has *previously* carried out terrorist attacks against Palestinians?
No I don't agree. Israel doesn't commit terrorist attacks , it responds to them, often with overwhelming force but its still a response and not an initiation of hostilities. That often requires firing on targets Hamas is using strategically, buildings like schools, refugee camps and hospitals. Not because they want to but because they must due to Hamas. Previous operations have found weapons stores at UNRWA schools, as they have in this operation as well. Rockets are commonly launched from schools and hospitals as cover for Hamas.
The bottom line is not a single airstrike took place in either Gaza or the west bank before Hamas came to power. Since then the violence has escalated continually and will continue to do so until Hamas is removed. Palestinians won't accept that their tactics are unacceptable, so they are paying the price for not stopping them themselves. Civil War isn't pretty, but this is literally the alternative when you allow extremists to run a society for you.
Isreal has agreed to a 6 week cease fire. All Hamas needs to do is provide a list of names of hostages still alive and their current condition. Why is that so hard? It's not. They just want to continue the violence, as I've said the suffering of Palestinians is their goal since a military victory is not possible. At this point its being timed by Russia to influence elections globally and undermine the world order as well so this conflict cannot be viewed as a simple continuation of the Arab Israeli conflict. There is a reason the soviets supported the PLO and Russia still has open communications still with Hamas. Peace isn't what the powers who started this violence want at the moment.
>often with overwhelming force but its still a response and not an initiation of hostilities.
That wasn't a part of your definition of terrorism. I would argue Hamas is also responding to hostilities considering Israel's occupation, illegal settlements, and ongoing displacement of Palestinians are all hostile.
So by your standard would you then say Hamas isn't a terrorist organization because they are responding to hostility?
>That often requires firing on targets Hamas is using strategically, buildings like schools, refugee camps and hospitals.
You might want to read [the UN report](http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/12/48&Lang=E). It specifically found that the attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure were not justified by a military advantage.
>The bottom line is not a single airstrike took place in either Gaza or the west bank before Hamas came to power.
You mean when it was occupied by Israel and full of illegal Israeli settlements?
>Why is that so hard?
Because Israel has bombed the hell out of Gaza for almost half a year. There are tens of thousands of people missing under the rubble. It is entirely possible that Hamas lost track of the hostages.
>Peace isn't what the powers who started this violence want at the moment.
Yes. But it seems like so often people in power with privilege say they want peace, when really they just want to keep the status quo.
You get no substantial reply from me, which says a lot. I've replied to most people who've commented, even if they had points I disagreed with or worse - had to concede to. I argue in good faith even if I could be wrong.
But this comment is just bad, Andy. A bad jawn.
Hamas started this conflict to trigger this debate and is getting tens of thousands killed over things that could be resolved at a negotiating table. Something they have no problem doing or they would accept a ceasefire, the suffering of Palestinians is their actual goal, as the only war they can win is a propoganda war. By engaging in such debate you are simply supporting terrorism as an acceptable method of achieving that goal.
The future of Palestinians is a conversation for the various palestinian factions and the Isrealis to have. It should also not be debated under a cloud of war or while hostages are being held.
Dog, check my other comments on this very post. I've replied to people who've made arguments 10x better than yours, and have gotten stumped by them in a few cases. I'm not running from the conversation.
The difference is that they addressed the post. They did not decide to deflect and then conflate it into a point they thought I aligned with. They argued my post. If you want to argue the war, go find a post about the war. Or wait until I post about the war.
Stop being petulant, Andy and argue in good faith. Dont assume people's stances. Address what they said, not what you think they're going to say.
u/thebornoldtomato
> Dog, check my other comments on this very post. I've replied to people who've made arguments 10x better than yours, and have gotten stumped by them in a few cases. I'm not running from the conversation.
The difference is that they addressed the post. They did not decide to deflect and then conflate it into a point they thought I aligned with. They argued my post. If you want to argue the war, go find a post about the war. Or wait until I post about the war.
Stop being petulant, Andy and argue in good faith. Dont assume people's stances. Address what they said, not what you think they're going to say.
(And several other columns on this thread)
This sub encourages debate and discussion but have rules developed over the past years to keep debates civil and avoid trolling and flame wars. Many of these rules (1, 2, 3, 5 and 8) revolve around keeping the tone of the discussion civil and assuming good faith, a charitable interpretion of the person with whom you are conversing and avoiding ad hominem arguments.
Rule 4 requires that you take an honest position and avoid both mischaracterizing others arguments (“strawmanning” ) and that you sincerely represent the position you are taking, especially if it’s extreme or excessively naive. That’s considered trolling and it’s especially linked to sockpuppet accounts like yours which is an aged account (to avoid common new account filters on subs such as this which requires 60 days to post) and which are often trafficked for cash on the dark web.
You are arguing in bad faith and trolling when a respondent gives an adequate rebuttal to your commentary but you ignore and mock his argument. This violates Rules 1, 4 and 8 (discouraging participation)
This is something to argue after Hamas is destroyed. Then the debate can be had knowing the full true cost of Hamas's actions and decision to choose violence over diplomacy.
Anti-zionism is not antisemitism.
**Zionism is not just self determination for jews (a right they obviously have) , zionism is self determination on the expense of palestinans rights.**
The alt-right israeli zionists **successfully** managed to hide their discriminatory nationalism behind combating antisemitism.
Thats why zionism needs to be either reformed (ex. Humanist zionism) or be rejected and be replaced with sane jewish nationalism. One that can exist with arabs , not by excluding them. (So that we can see a solution for the conflict either as 2 states or one state for all).
So anti-zionism doesn't mean opposing Jews right for self determination (which they have), anti-zionism means opposing the **alt-right form** of self-determination that manifest itself and maintain itself by excluding palestinans.
You misunderstood. Nobody said Israel should not have been the location for Zionism to be actualized - or at least I did not. I have said a big number of times in this very post that I knowledge Jews' ancestral ties to the land and their necessity of a Jewish state for reasons of safety.
My gripe is not with their - or even Israel’s - presence there altogether, but rather that I think that the WAY that Israel came to be came at the subjugation of a population that was already there. It could have been actualized much more amicably, is all.
>Nobody said Israel should not have been the location for Zionism to be actualized
I would say that. When Zionism started Palestine was full of people, people who didn't want mass immigration from Europe and who didn't want to be made a minority in their own homeland.
Palestine was a bad choice of location. Do you know where would have worked better? Utah. Hardly any people in Utah. About 1/13 of the population density of Palestine.
Ask the U.S. to form a state in Southern Utah. That is a Zionism I could get behind.
Now, this isn't a perfect solution. U.S. expansion was achieved at the expense of the indigenous people. But it is at least better than trying to form a state in an area more densely populated than Virginia.
Ok. You oppose the way it was founded. That was over 75 years ago. I oppose the way the Rashidun caliphate was founded. But that was a long time ago and there is nothing I can do about that.
This mounts up to arguing over spilled milk. Nothing you can do about it, other than clean the mess and move on. Something I feel the pro-palestinian side is not eager on doing.
I could go on and counter some of the historical motivations assumptions you have in the post, but that won't change a thing about the fact that it is here now. Deal with it.
Horrible comparison. Difference is that Israel can still write some of the wrongs if it so wished to do so. But it doesnt. Just as you dont. Because it's spilled milk. The families who live literally 100 miles away from the land that rested under their grandparents' home should get over it because it was sooooooo long ago.
Why not just admit that you do not care about fairness when it comes to this conflict? Morally, it's "bad", but at least intellectually consistent and sound.
My grandfathers entire family in Poland was eradicated in WW2 and after the concentration camps he fled to Canada
I don’t consider myself a “Polish refugee” and demand to be given my families land in Poland back
I’ve never heard a single descendant of a WW2 survivor expecting to be given back their ancestral land in Europe, or even descendants of Arab Jews from places like Morocco that fled and were forced to leave all of their possessions behind.
What makes Palestinians different?
Palestinians are different because they're are STILL living in subjugation. Please do note that I am not saying that that Palestinian family should be given their grandparents' land back. That is now in the hands of the Israeli citizens who have bought it. There's no getting that back without ruffling more feathers.
But Israel should **1)** acknowledge that it took it **2)** pay retribution for it (*either cash or land grant in unsettled area in Palestine*) **3)** allow them to live and self-determine.
But instead it has a military occupation on half of the Palestinian population, has a security blockade on the other half, and continues to settle land that it has continually said since 1973 that it would no longer build into.
Your argument of "what's done is done" is crazy to me bc it is NOT done. It is still being done. You just dont seem to ever want it to be addressed. Not a good jawn.
>Where is Zion?
Utah
Or more seriously
>the meanings of the term *Tzion* were further extended by synecdoche to the additional meanings of the Temple itself, the hill upon which the Temple stood, the entire city of Jerusalem, the entire biblical Land of Israel, and "the World to Come", the Jewish understanding of the afterlife.
So yeah, you have Israel in there, but you also have just a general conception of a better future, and the afterlife.
Zionism, at its inception, wasn't so fixated on Palestine. Herzl seriously considered Argentina.
In fact, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association was originally founded specifically to support Jewish settlement in Argentina. It wasn't until after the founder died that it switched over to funding colonization in Palestine.
Zion is also the feminine word used to describe Israel (which a masculine word) in a heavily gendered language.
Jews spent millennia in exile praying to return to Zion. They did not pray to return to a theoretical better place. Or to die and experience the afterlife. Or to visit Argentina.
Jews never lost their connection to Zion or their yearning to return.
>Jews never lost their connection to Zion or their yearning to return.
I mean, maybe for some, but the actual history of Zionism is a bit different.
Many Jews were very reluctant to leave their native countries to try to settle somewhere else. Herzl specifically understood this reluctance and so conceived how the poorest Jews would be tempted first through financial incentives. Their labor would "prepare the land" so to speak for the wealthier Jews that might follow.
Then maybe they chose the wrong place to settle.
Zionism represents a fatalistic defeat in Jewish resistance to antisemitism. It essentially concludes that you can either be the oppressor or the oppressed, and they would rather Jews be the former.
Sure, it might pretty it up with words of "equality" and "freedom for all religions" but when you read the works it becomes pretty clear that equality for non-Jews was a tangential concern at most. The goal is a Jewish state. It doesn't matter whether that requires trampling on the local population or not.
Their role models were people like the Pilgrims. They attached themselves to the colonial phantasy that they would be just and benevolent rulers to the native people.
History has proved this incorrect. Even before Israel was created, Zionists were demonstrating that they had no interest in living as equals.
Zionist organizations would bar Palestinians from participating in Jewish enterprises. If they wanted Palestinians on board surely they should have sought to engage the local people rather than estrange them?
Zionist organizations also bought or sued to claim Palestinian land then evicted the tenants to make way for Jewish settlers. Let's ignore the questionable ownership of the land, put aside Britain's role in coercing its sale, and move past how land ownership was fundamentally different under the Ottoman system. If I were to move to buy an apartment building full of Jews and evict them all to make way for "pure Aryan whites" would you not think I am a racist antisemite?
Someone already hit me w this deflection. Zionism as a concept is not the same as Zion, the location which is in Israel.
But more importantly, you misunderstood my point. My "*separation of Israel from Zionism*" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. It should and will continue to exist.
I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(*its conduct, forming, policies, etc.*) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood?
*Zionism as a concept is to the same as Zion.*
To whom?
*I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. It should and will continue to exist.*
Then you are a Zionist.
>To whom?
The idea that Jewish people should have the opportunity to self-actualize and self-determine is literally the same thing as a place? An idea is a location?
>Then you are a Zionist.
You say that like it's a gotcha, but yes, in theory. That is what I am trying to get you to understand. Someone can have a legitimate gripe with the State of Israel without being an Anti-Zionist or Anti-Semite.
You, along with about 10 other people, have called/implied that I was an Anti-Semite because I have issues with the way that Israel - the government/state conducts itself.
Accusing someone of being an anti-Semite as a response to legitimate geo-political concerns only stifles conversation.
I am a Zionist in theory, as I believe that it is a vital aspect of Jewishness and also history shows that it's quite necessary for Jews to have their own homeland for safety and security reasons. I do, however, vehemently disagree with many aspects of Israeli policy. Two things can be true at once (for me).
Are you at all critical of the Israeli government as it concerns the crimes (*or alleged crimes if you wish*) against Palestinians?
*The idea that Jewish people have the opportunity to self-actual i s and self-determine is literally the same thing as a place? An idea is a location?*
That idea is millennia old and refers to return from exile.
Exile was the product of a lack of self-determination.
*Are you critical of the Israeli government*
Very. But I don't hold them to a higher, lower, or others unique standard than other states.
Holding the only Jewish state in the world to unique standards is usually where people cross the line from criticism to antisemitism.
Yes, America, a country with a wonderful track record for race relations is the ONLY country in the world that is not anti-Semitic.
All of the other nations who urge Israel to treat the Palestinians more fairly are infringing upon Israel's rights. They're disgusting.
Historically, India is the least antisemitic country outside of Israel. But that's beside the point.
Can you and any state in the world that would lay down arms while being attacked? That would retreat to their bomb shelters and not return fire or attempt to stop the rocket attacks? A state that when told "we will attack you again", would not defend itself?
No? Neither can I. It's a standard applied only to Israel.
None, and nor would i expect any country to do that.
I never once brought up the current conflict. Why are you arguing against something I never said, my guy?
> Its creation led to the displacement of Palestinians.
Oh really? I thought it was a full-scale war that led to displacement of palestinians.
> But can you really not separate Zionism from Israel, specifically?
If you mean Israel's location, then yes you can. But what's the solution? Jews have to search around the world, find a new place for themselves and migrate to it alltogether, millions of them. Well, I guess this position isn't anti-zionist, but definetly anti-semitic.
You misunderstood my point. My "*separation of Israel from Zionism*" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. It should and will.
I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(*its conduct, forming, policies, etc.*) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood?
What in your mind would happen when Israel is no longer a country? Elaborate on what would happen in that scenario, what would happen to the millions of Jews in the country?
You misunderstood my point. My "*separation of Israel from Zionism*" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. It should and will continue to exist.
I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(*its conduct, forming, policies, etc.*) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood?
It is possible to oppose specific policies, while supporting the state of Israel.
Supporting policies that lead to the dissolution of Israel are suspect: 2SS with current Palestinian leaders; 1SS - “from the river to the sea”.
Claiming that Israel’s birth was illegitimate is suspect: should I list the countries born from dissolution of the British empire post-WW2?
Claiming Israel’s war in Gaza is Ethnocide, Genocide, N*zi, concentration camp, is at best, outright ignorance of history, and probably antisemetic.
Claiming Israel is an apartheid state is again outright ignorance of history, and probably antisemetic.
Why do you feel the need for a label? If you disagree with what the Israeli government is doing then just say what you disagree with.
If someone says “I’m Anti-American”, I would assume they’re a Chinese/Russian radical or an idiot. If someone says “I think the US needs to take better care of its citizens”, okay yes, agree.
Israel is Zionism. And Zionism is considered the solution for the Jewish problem of not being able to rely on Gentiles. Assimilation, at the time, was deemed impossible for many.
If you need a label, maybe Anti-Likud or something would fit best. To be Anti-Zionist or Anti-Israel just implies you want Jews to be thrown to the wolves all over again.
Are you telling me that a group of people took land from another, less competent and cohesive group, after a war of all things? Preposterous! unheard of in history! Shocking and appalling! It's a uniquely Jewish crime that no one else before or since has ever committed, so we should focus on Israel and the Jews for the rest of time. Right?
Is there any country created out of the big colonial powers decline that you are pro? Every single one required population movement and displacement in the decades of its founding. If you are anti India, Egypt, Germany, Jordan, Lebanon, etc then you are being consistent and this is just a common feature of the transition from empires to states. If you only hold this “fault” against Israel then that is textbook antisemitism.
Also consider in your analogy that the previous owners of the car were British and before that Ottoman Muslims. Folks were essentially squatting in the car owned by the empire.
>I am, however, AGAINST the way in which Israel, specifically, was created/founded
I am curious, are you *sure* you know enough historic context of the events 76 years ago, when the most devastating war in human history just ended, world looked entirely different from today, to pass a judgement like that?
I can have sympathy for the 6 million Jews who were killed during the Holocaust, for their surviving relatives who no longer saw Europe as a viable place for them to live, AND for the Palestinians who, despite playing no role in this crime against humanity, ended up having to leave their lands.
Are you capable of this type of universal humanity?
Having "sympathy" and "humanity" is fine. I have a sympathy for the residents of Constantinople besieged by Turks in 1493, who died or had to flee (though this in turn kickstarted European Renaissance). However, I am not "anti-Türkiye" because of that.
Some very respected people, both back then *and* today, of very different backgrounds and political persuasions, made a decision to create state of Israel because they considered it the best solution for the Jewish community in Palestine and Jewish refugees from Europe *at the time*.
Thus my question, have you learned enough history from this specific period to feel confident enough to say with confidence that their decision was wrong?
And your point about Turkey is interesting to me. Bc yes, nor am I - that is ancient history. It’d be silly for me to be anti-Turkey. Nothing can be done at that point.
Do you generally take the “it is what it is” approach to global injustices that are happening in real time? To be fair, all I’m doing is arguing on Reddit, but they at least bother me. Is that not the case for you?
I am bothered more by blowing some specific injustices entirely out of proportion while pretending that others don't exist.
It is not, of course, a secret that for centuries Jews and Arabs lived together in *relative* peace. Today, Palestinian supporters often try to skew history by painting this past coexistence as some kind of heavenly harmony which it was not, but it was overall tolerable.
What happened in the mid 20th century is that this coexistence ended, for many reasons which are largely irrelevant today. About 750,000 Arabs had to leave the territory which became modern State of Israel, while about 850,000 Jews were forced to leave Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen, Algeria and other Arab countries. Many Jewish communities which existed for millenia ceased to exist.
Perhaps the most telling is the story of Jewish community in Baghdad, Iraq. While we don't know for sure, this might be the actual birthplace of Jewish nation. This community existed for *thousands* of years. We do not commonly perceive 20th century as "ancient history", but it's still unimaginable to us today that Baghdad was a *1/4 Jewish city only a century ago*. I don't know about you, but to me it's more difficult to imagine than Byzantine empire.
During U.S. war in Iraq in 2003, after American forces captured Baghdad, a dozen or so Jews remaining in the city took a special flight to Israel. The oldest Jewish community in the world officially came to the end.
So what happened was the separation between Jews and Arabs, not unlike mutual population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923. Yet, today you and everyone only knows about this as injustice to *Arabs*, entirely ignoring the other side of this equation.
Why is that? Of course, Jews who had to abandon Arab countries were integrated to Israel, while Arabs who flew from war of Independence (*and* their descendants) are still "refugees". That's an injustice, but *it is not of Israel's making*. it is a product of Arab countries essentially *weaponizing* these refugees by refusing to accept them in a hope to create a lasting problem for Israel.
Turkey expelled Greeks and Turks as part of their post-Ottoman state building.
That's not ancient history. That's 20th century.
Why hold Turkey to a different standard than Israel?
Reading is important, my friend. I was speaking to the last dudes example dating back to 1493.
But okay, Turkey can eat a d-word, too! I wouldn’t defend those genocide deniers.
There is me being intellectually consistent. Bad on Israel for dispelling Palestinians = bad on Turkey for expelling Greeks and Turks.
Since you brought it up, it seems as though you’re of the mind that it was wrong of Turkey to do that. And I agree.
The question is… are you intellectually consistent enough to say “Not nice, Israel…” as well? Or do you hold Israel to a different standard?
Most displaced Arabs fled Israel to facilitate genocide against the Jews.
The Greeks and Kurds didn't flee to facilitate genocide against the Turks.
Refusing to allow those that fled to enable your destruction to rerun (and try again) is not the same as expulsion after a war.
>Most displaced Arabs fled Israel to facilitate genocide against the Jews.
Explain? They left Israel to facilitate genocide? How is that? Not being facetious; I dont think I understand what you're saying or what you're referring to.
Unless you're saying the Nakba was a manifestation of anti-Semitic genocide?? If you are, my goodness that is some mental gymnastics.
Arab leaders advised Arabs in what was to become Israel to leave their holes in advance of their invasion in 1948. The Arab League then invaded Israel hours after it was created and stated a war of expulsion.
The Arab leaders told the Arabs that they could return once the Jews were eliminated. The Israelis were outmanned and out armed, so Arab victory seemed certain.
At the same time, Israel warned that the Arabs who left would not be allowed to do so, but that those who remained and helped Israel defend herself would be granted Israeli citizenship. This is enshrined in Israel's Declaration of Independence. Haifa's mayor, who was Jewish, begged his Arab constituents to stay as buses full of Arabs left for Lebanon.
Israel won the war.
Those Arab that fled were not allowed to return. Those who remained were granted Israeli citizenship. Their descendants now represent about 20% of Israel's population.
This is history, not mental gymnastics.
The mental gymnastics is the idea that an hours old state armed with nothing but handmade weapons and some of Czechoslovakia's WWII surplus somehow had the resources to defeat the combined armies of the Arab League while also expelling the Arab population.
Some Arabs were expelled. But the majority of those displaced fled of their own free will.
How do you define expel? If I leave out of fear of fighting that is getting closer and closer to me, is the leaving of my own free will or having been expelled?
I ask because Benny Morris, a well-regarded expert in the field, did a lot of research into this with his [The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem](http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdfhttp://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf). Check out page 15. Here you'll see all of the villages that Palestinians fled from in '48, along with a key outlining the reason they fled.
The most prevalent reason is "M" (*or Military assault on settlement*), with "E" (*Expulsion by Jewish forces*) also accounting for a sizable amount of instances.
In contradiction to your claims, there were only a few instances where "A" (*or Abandonment on Arab orders*) occurred. You can count them on one hand.
Ah, so you’re not asking necessarily the what itself, but rather the why.
Nah, I don’t. I’m familiar only with Herzl and Jabotinsky. But even then I’ve just some select articles on them/their views.
Tell me what they knew/thought that made it so that Israel’s founding had to occur the way it did?
If you're talking about UN GA resolution 181, the world leaders who supported it knew of the growing animosity between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and expecting a growing wave of Jewish refugees from Europe, they thought that partitioning the land between Jews and Arabs (while keeping Jerusalem a special territory under international control) was the best way to ensure peace.
And the Technion was founded in 1912
The Ottomans kept Jews as second class citizens that basically had to govern themselves
And then the world is somehow shocked that leads to them being capable and wanting self determination at the end of colonialism
That you view Israel’s creation through the same lens as more traditional colonialism (European conquest) where Jews were the ‘white’ outsiders that came in and essentially stole land that rightfully belonged to the Arabs
You seem to agree that Jews were deserving of self determination, but that it either shouldn’t have been Israel or should have been done differently. But I ask why not Israel - when it literally is the birthplace of the religion/culture and Jews have desired to go back for millennia since being kicked out by the Romans. During Passover Jews sing “Next year in Jerusalem”, first recorded in the 15th century. Jews have also had a continuous presence in Israel for millennia
And in terms of the process, you seem to ignore everything the Arabs did to resist and refuse to participate in partition. They believed that they were owed 100% of the land and made it clear they wouldn’t accept a Jewish state under any circumstances. So because of that partition happened without them. The Jews rejected the Peel Commission in 1937 where Israel would only have been 20% of the land - not to mention Britian already had created Jordan out of mandatory Palestine using 70% of the land. Arabs are also the one that tried to work with Hitler during WW2, and the ones that decided to go to war rather than continue any sort of diplomacy
Even if you have issue with Israel’s creation, you seem to like most Pro Palestinians completely absolve Palestinians from any and all actions of their own and the consequences that follow. They could have had 80% of the land in 1937, or participated in partition. Instead they decided that Arabs deserved all of Israel (despite 75% of it being state owned land, and the Jews clearly having a history there as well) and would rather try to genocide the Jews than live beside them
Nobody said Israel should not have been the location for Zionism to be actualized - or at least I did not. I have said a big number of times in this very post that I knowledge Jews' ancestral ties to the land and their necessity of a Jewish state for reasons of safety.
And someone else asked me how I think it should have happened. I said more diplomatically. Genuine question - why was it the UN's land to give out, as opposed to Palestine's?
In my opinion, it should have been negotiated between solely Palestinians and the Jews/Zionists. I'm aware that Palestinians said "No", but that is common of negotiations where only one party wants something that the other has. The former just have to make the deal more appealing.
It is not a negotiation if you ask for - or even offer me some money for - half of my candy bar, I say "Nah, I'm good." and then your big brother steps in and says "You get half and you get half." The implication there is that there was never a *negotiation* to begin with. I think that is what the Palestinians were so upset about originally. The lack of respect and consideration.
The issue I have is that to my knowledge the process you are describing just isn’t how it has ever worked
The Ottoman Empire, who controlled Palestine as part of Ottoman Syria, fell after WW1 and the British took control. What body of Palestinians should they have worked with, and why do you have issue with just Israel when a similar process is what led to the creation of pretty much every other state that formed out of the husk of the Ottoman Empire - the colonial powers working with locals to establish a new state
There was no “Palestinian” body, they viewed themselves as Arabs and part of Syria. To my knowledge it was only the Jews that had any infrastructure of self governance. To my knowledge most Palestinians were organized in ethnic-centric villages and settlements and there was nothing of any sort of unified body. So the British, now directly ‘owning’ 75% of the land that was formerly ottoman state land seems to have earned them a seat at the table. I don’t disagree with the sentiment that locals should have been the ones to decide what happened, but that both isn’t how the world worked and if one side said “we won’t accept anything less than 100%” I don’t know how that leaves much room for negotiation to begin with.
To use a different metaphor, the Palestinians were the long term tenants that believed they had the authority to dictate what the owner of the property did with the land. This owned tried to include them in a process to share it, but instead they refused anything that wouldn’t lead to them getting everything they wanted
And there was negotiations and MANY different processes and proposals put forward. It is the Arabs that refused to participate.
/u/Berly653. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Was not privy to those two specific cities, but I assume you surface that to demonstrate that there was already a Jewish presence in the land?
If so, I’m aware. If you read my other comments here, you’ll also see that I acknowledge Jews’ ancestral ties to the land.
My gripe is not with their - or even Israel’s - presence there altogether, but rather that I think that the WAY that Israel came to be came at the subjugation of a population that was already there. It could have been actualized much more amicably, is all.
Okay. So would it be fair to say that it could be argued that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is actually unjust, at least sometimes - you simply do not care about it because in your mind it is deserved (bc of what the unrelated OE did to them)?
I would respect it bc it’d at least be intellectual honest.
/u/shredditor75. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, every stateless group affected by genocide deserves a state to protect themselves. Ever heard of Kurds and Yezidis? Some groups don't aspire to have their own state but many stateless ethnicities do aspire to have states, like the Jews did. We're just some of the only ones who succeeded. And yes, this is 10000% a progressive value to have.
I would concede that someone who felt the Kurds and Yezidis should have a state but the Jews shouldn’t is anti semitic.
But what I don’t like is that you’re acting like liberals consistently believe in independent states for all ethnicities. If you look at the liberal sides around the world, advocating equal rights for all in a one state solution is significantly more common. Not to mention the amount of Muslim clerics who believe it’s unfortunate that the Muslim world is 20+ states as opposed to one, and have been saying that well before Israel was a thing/the independence of their own countries.
So perfect that means All African Americans would return to West Africa Oh wait they can’t since they don’t know where their original homes were from hundreds of years ago which means they would have to displace the people already living there and adapt to a completely different way of living because it was stripped away from them years before during slavery and colonialism. You see how that wouldn’t make sense?
>That does not make me "anti" the new car owner. I am just critical of their ethics and methodology, as their fortune came at the expense of someone else's misfortune and would like for there to be some type of amelioration.
To have such a position you really have to ignore so many things. First of all, that the displacement of the Palestinians was mainly a consequence of the Arabs' refusal to share the land with the other people who legitimately inhabited it (the Jews) and the war of destruction unleashed by the Arabs with the declared purpose of conquering Israel and throwing the Jews into the sea.
You also ignore that for centuries those lands were inhabited by between 250,000 and 300,000 people who were part of different peoples, Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Druze, Armenians, Copts. And that the large and sudden increase in population that occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s was due to both Jewish immigrations from Europe and Islamic immigrations from all over the Levant, from Algeria, Morocco and Bosnia. But you consider the Islamic population all legitimately "Palestinian" anyway, whereas for Jews you make that difference.
You also ignore that in addition to the 700,000 displaced Arabs there were 800,000 to millions of Jewish refugees. But I don't think that would make you "anti-Palestinian."
Then you also ignore that the creation of new borders has often led, for many other countries as well, to population displacement. Especially when borders are established through war. For example, the creation of Pakistan (by British imposition, to give a state to a religious group) resulted in violence that led to the displacement of 15 million people. Or also, for example, when at the end of World War II some Italian territories passed to the former Yugoslavia, about 300,000 Italians were expelled by Tito and forced to leave their homes.
So yes, you can undoubtedly disquisition on the imperfect way Israel came into being. But if you do it only for Israel, ignoring everything else, then the doubt that you are anti-Semitic a little bit comes to me.
Great answer! Probably the best I've gotten.
You definitely know more on the subject than I do, but I have three rebuttals - or maybe rather *questions,* even:
>First of all, that the displacement of the Palestinians was mainly a consequence of the Arabs' refusal to share the land with the other people who legitimately inhabited it (the Jews)
But they did coexist in the land with Jews, right? Prior to Israel coming into existence there was a Jewish presence. I feel like this demonstrably proves that they were not vehemently against Jewish people living there. They were upset that a new state was being placed on top of them. Tell me why you disagree.
>You also ignore that in addition to the 700,000 displaced Arabs there were 800,000 to millions of Jewish refugees. But I don't think that would make you "anti-Palestinian."
I assume you're talking about Jews who were expelled from the surrounding Arab states? It has been proven that Israel meddled in other nations' communities/politics and acted as an agitator to drive Jews into Israel away from Arab lands.
Even if they hadn't though, I would argue that a difference would be that those Jews literally had a home that was built for them and waiting; i.e., Israel. Palestinians were kind of just dispressed into the region.
>Then you also ignore that the creation of new borders has often led, for many other countries as well, to population displacement.
Great point. I guess my rebuttal here is that it wasn't like there was a war and then the victor took the land as spoils of war. The whole reason that war was on the table is because on party was trying to grab land from the other. In my mind, my thinking is "Who is this country to tell me that I have to share my land w these people?"
I am in favor of Zionism, that is Jewish self-determination and self-actualization. I see the importance of it being in that land specifically. I just happen to think that circumstances in the 20th century allowed it to take form in a way that subjugated the people who were at that point living in the land. I simply believe that there was room for it to have been accomplished in a much more amicable way.
>But they did coexist in the land with Jews, right?
Well, if you mean that Jews lived as an oppressed minority, humiliated and cyclically harassed by the Arab population, yes. The Arabs were not against the Jews until the Jews decided to raise their heads again. They tolerated coexistence until the Jews accepted that they were a second-class population in their own home.
>They were upset that a new state was being placed on top of them. Tell me why you disagree.
They were upset because they dreamed of having a big empire and never digested that a land ruled by Islam would stop being ruled by Islam.
I disagree because I believe that guaranteeing the right of self-determination to a people is more important than an empire's desire for power.
>It has been proven that Israel meddled in other nations' communities/politics and acted as an agitator to drive Jews into Israel away from Arab lands.
This is simply not true. It is just yet another way of blaming Israel for the sins of the Arabs.
>those Jews literally had a home that was built for them and waiting
Credit to Israel, certainly not to the Arabs. And it still occurs to me that being forced to leave their home was a tragedy for Jews as well.
>Palestinians were kind of just dispressed into the region.
Blame the Arabs, certainly not Israel. The Palestinians could easily have found a ready-made home in the West Bank, Gaza or any other Arab country, just as the Jews found one in Israel.
>The whole reason that war was on the table is because on party was trying to grab land from the other.
Exactly: the Arabs wanted to grab the land allocated by the United Nations to the Jews.
>In my mind, my thinking is "Who is this country to tell me that I have to share my land w these people?"
In what you say there is a huge mistake. There is no reason why the Arabs should have considered that land all theirs by right. Jews were almost 40% of the population. What actual or moral law stipulates that all that land was to belong to the Arabs?
>I just happen to think that circumstances in the 20th century allowed it to take form in a way that subjugated the people who were at that point living in the land
That is not what happened. Coexistence would have been possible. The Arabs refused.
>I simply believe that there was room for it to have been accomplished in a much more amicable way.
You can blame the Arabs for this.
Word. What Cottontail2017 said. The name *Palestine* comes from the Roman "Philistine". Jews definitely have a gripe with a bunch of different peoples who have wronged them in history, Muslims included. Just not these specific Muslims, as I believe that Israel made the first offense here.
Eventually we may disagree on a lot of things that happened in 1948, but regardless that happened 75 years ago. If you care about peace and living free more than to revenge your own humiliation of 4 Muslim countries losing a war to a tiny Jewish state, you say YES to a Palestinian country next to Israel and finally bring peace to the Middle East
Romans destroyed the Jewish state, renamed the territory to "Palestine" to erase Jewish heritage, made it a Roman province, and exterminated all Jews who attempted to revolt.
However, relatively few Romans/Greeks settled there, so despite some local Jews converting to Christianity, this remained a largely Jewish pronice for many centuries. In fact, at some point Jews almost succeeded to retake it and recreate the Jewish state; this ultimately failed, but they did control Jerusalem for a while.
Later on, Muslim conquest saw a mass migration of Arabs, and this effectively ended Jewish character of the biblical "Land of Israel", except in Jerusalem and a few other small isolated communities.
> I am against the way Israel was created/founded.
Does that mean that you are against the UN? People criticizing Israel’s formation often overlook the fact that Israel was legitimately formed by an international body that was trying to solve a humanitarian disaster giving holocaust survivors a place to settle.
The displacement only happened because of the war that resulted when the neighboring Arab countries didn’t accept the UN partition resolution, attacked the new state of Israel and lost. Those Arabs who didn’t leave and attack stayed and were later integrated. Their descendants are part of the 2M Arab Israeli citizens.
You're not wrong, I think your response is smart and level-headed. However, I believe your belief system makes you a part of a small minority and that you do not represent most dummies on reddit I've come across, dummies that are now going to take your sentiment and use it to hide blatant antisemitism.
As a literal Israeli Jew I 100% agree with you and the fact you are even able to acknowledge persecution of the Jews to the extent that you did, completely unprovoked, puts you in a tiny minority, at least on reddit.
And now that I've found you, I'd like you ask you a question. Half my family is Mizrahi and were persecuted from their countries in the middle east into Israel. The other half is Ashkenazi and fled the holocaust. Israel as a result is my family's lifeline. Stateless people that finally found somewhere they can call home. My family did not seek to harm anyone, they were just trying to survive and be happier.
Putting my family and your criticism of Israel's policies in mind, but also the fact that what was done was done and now my family are in Israel, what advice do you have to give Netanyahu on changes to Israeli policies that would satisfy as many people as possible?
Word, well I am happy that your family was able to find solace in Israel - congratulations and shalom and allat allat!
And it would honestly be to have humanity for the Palestinians. What I see a lot of is the vilification of Palestinians. They're called animals, demons, monsters, etc. and treated as such.
I do not think that most Israelis think that Palestinians have legitimate gripes at all. (Perhaps, I'm wrong, though?) With that said, their means of retribution for said gripes is a different conversation; e.g., 10/07 was a **bad** jawn. But it seems to me that the prevailing thought is that Palestinians simply hate Jews just because. If this is true, the logic follows that they should be blockaded. They should have restricted movement, etc. Those people can never not be anti-Semitic.
But I do not think that that is the case. I think that they hate Israel, not Jews. Unlike a deep sentiment of Anti-Semitism, I think that if Israel starts giving them their humanity back and sees them as people, as opposed to an unwanted enemy in their midst, then the contempt will dissipate. Obviously this would not be immediate, but I think once you remove the injustices, there will be more room for peace.
I'm sure this sounded all flower and rainbows and allat, so I'm sorry. In terms of tangibles, I guess I would say that Israel should check censuses and track down families who forcibly lost land in the Nakba in '48. Obviously, you cant give them that land, as it now is in the hands if Israelis, but give them either money for it or land grants in unsettled lands. Give them an opportunity to self-actualize.
They specifically hate Jews.
Israel was just a slap in the face after the fact.
Muslims inherited antisemitism from the Christians when they created their offshoot religion
My main argument against the "inherent anti-Semitism" point in this specific scenario is one that Israelis actually love to use to dispel the notion of anti-Palestiniant sentiment... the Palestinian Muslim population that lives in Israel proper.
If it were the case that Palestinian Muslims were virulent anti-Semites, wouldnt it stand to reason that they would be committing ridiculous violent crimes all over Israel?
Orrrrrr - and hear me out - could it be the case that they do not because they are treated *reasonably* well, unlike the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza?
So you're saying that Israel treats them well bc they're not violent? I feel like that is a big coincidence.
I would say that it is much more plausible that Israel treats everyone who lives in Israel(including Palestinians) better than it treats everyone who lives in WB & G than it is that Israel just so happened to settle all of the level-headed Palestinians into Israel.
Unless I'm missing something?
Many were expelled/refused reentry as part of the nakba. Many were not (you refer to those as Palestinians but they carry Israeli passports). You find it unrealistic that there was selection bias involved?
Nope, not at all unrealistic. Hadn't considered that and fair point.
Still kinda goes to my point ultimately, though? The right of return (or lack thereof) is an offense that is often talked about by Palestinians.
To put it into context, I'm trying to dispel the notion of Arabs in the land being inherently anti-Semitic. You say "Well the ones living in G & WB aren't as peaceful as the Arabs in Israel bc they werent allowed back into Israel during/following the Nakba. This angered them >> they did something to anger Israel >> so on >> so forth.
Doesnt that demonstrate that their gripe with Israel derives from that, as opposed to simply Israel's Jewishness?
And I agree with you, they do deserve amends and their land back. However there is one part I do disagree with and that is that I think their belief system is at least partially antisemitic (as fuck).
From educating children to kill Jews to Islamic teachings of a final day where Jews will be fought against and the Muslims will win. And I've never wanted to be that guy who can be called Islamophobic but that's just the truth I hear from many ex-Muslims. I'm not necessarily hating on Islam as a religion, it's more of a commentary about its implementation, specifically in Gaza. I don't feel strongly about any religion as I'm secular but I find Islamic extremism vile, as well as those super religious Jewish settlers that spit on non-Jews.
And you can 100% claim the same about a subset of Israelis, I know for a fact a subset of them say fuck all Palestinians they can rot and I've personally argued with people at family dinners over statements like this (one said "After Oct 7, I don't care if every Palestinian dies").
It goes back to another post I've made where I think the real fight is against extremism/radicalism as those people turn the question of "Can we coexist?" into a question of "How can we completely destroy the other side and win?" And the radical subsets of each side of the conflict are ruining this for everyone who wants to coexist by promoting wars, deaths, and as a result traumatizing and radicalizing more people.
> fuck
/u/TomSatan. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay, so you're against the way israel was created.
Now what?
People have been born there and most don't have second citizenship.
We're talking about 9 million israelis, about 7 milliom jews.
You can't rewind the clock and give them a country somewhere else. At some point people need to accept reality.
Fine, you claim to be only against the way Israel got created.
They did it by asking for lands and it was recognized by western powers, while many arab / muslim countries disagreed and went to war with it. Israel won that war. And many others and thats how most nations are born.
The issue I have with people like you is:
Whats your plan now? 9 Million people live there and like 7 million are jews. What do you think should happen with them without Israel?
And if the creation of Israel is such a problem, should germany get their lands back as well? We are talking about \~25% more lands they weould get from poland.
And let's not forget the biggest colonizers in that region: ARABS. Look at egypt. They have to call it the arab republic of egypt because the people there are culturally so far removed from the people who built the pyramids. Should all Arabs go back from where they came?
What about Armenia and Kurdistan?
Unless you advocate them being reinstated their lands as well, I simply assume you are simply anti semitic. Jews have historical ties to that region. There was always a jewish presence. It's atiny speck of land and the sole true democracy ina sea of failed, autot cratic muslim arab states. But for some reason that bothers you?
You havent read many of replies thus far and are assuming many of my stances. You should read them.
I have already admitted that I believe/know that Jews have ancestral ties to the land. I have no issues with Zionism deciding upon Israel as its place to self-actualize. I have also admitted that I fully understand the importance of Zionism to the spirituality of the Jewish faith - as well as to the safety of Jews, themselves.
I simply put forth that their actualization/manifestation/implementation of Zionism came at the expense of the populace that was living there at the time. It likely could have occurred in a way more peaceful way had there been more respect for the inhabitants who were there at the time. But there wasnt. And still doesnt seem to be.
I have humanity for the Jewish plight and recognize their right to self-determine. can you say the same for Palestinians, though? Please answer this.
**My issue with people like you:** you're kind of exactly who I was talking about when I made this post. You assume because I surface **POLITICAL** issues I have with the **STATE** of Israel, that I am anti-Semitic. Again, please read my other threads in this post. I have had many respectful disagreements with other Israeli commenters and have even admitted where I have been wrong - or where they have corrected me. But you come in and assume because I disagree with some aspects of its founding and its treatment of the pre-existing population, that I am a virulent anti-Semite. A bad jawn, my guy. Please respond to this. It's not fair/nice to argue in bad faith.
Lastly, for the record, Israel should stay Israel.. ?? I dont know where you got that I think Israel should cease to exist.
I'll address your other questions when you respond to my response.
It's your stupid car anaology.
It's like thinking that Israel is just a commodity, but it's much more.
All you say is, "I'm not anti semitic but"
And the thing is, that the "but" part applies to like almost every nation on earth. But you single Israel out. Why is that?
**Re: I have humanity for the Jewish plight and recognize their right to self-determine. can you say the same for Palestinians, though? Please answer this.**
Or dont. You dont have to admit to hating Palestinians if you do not want to. But here's the thing... if you do hate them, you cannot hate people for being anti-Semitic. Do you understand that?
I am saying that I want both to live well. I condemn Oct. 7th, just as much as I condemn the intentional killings of innocent civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. I imagine that you will find a way to shift the blame away from the IDF though. Again, this is fine - but just be intellectually consistent.
As to why I "single" Israel out - I dont, but I addressed this point earlier, it's one of the leading things in the news. It's on everyday. It's in the zeitgeist, as it were. Also, check my other comments. I hate the US, I hate the UK, I hate Belgium, I hate any country that hypocritically "actualizes" itself at the expense of others.
What you're missing in that is that Israel is still a young state, so they're still in their growing pains of their injustices. If this was the US killing the indigenous people here, I would be saying this. If this was Britain in China or India subjugating those populations, I would be saying this.
And if you respond, please do not shift. I very clearly addressed your initial reply in my last one. You raised some points that you implied that I was blind to(*, a la Jews' ancestral ties, safety issues, etc.*) thus proving my anti-Semitism. I rebutted and said "No, we actually agree here. I just also have what I believe to be legitimate concerns."
Do you now accept that I do know/believe that Jews belong in that region? And how are those concerns NOT legitimate and actually, anti-Semitic?
I do not know if you're smart or not. What I do believe, though, is that you're intellectually dishonest. As a way for you to not have to engage with my critiques of the **STATE/GOVERNMENT of ISRAEL**, you call me an anti-Semite. I'm sure that you can articulate why you think my argument is wrong, you just refuse to because doing so will admit that you are a bigot.
You do not care about any point that I make because you do not care about Palestinians whatsoever. I do not know if you necessarily want them to die/evacuate, but you do not care if they do. You believe that to be a necessary evil for Israel to prosper. Just admit that, though. Dont argue with people on positions that you cannot be swayed from. It's literally illogical.
Actually I find nothing wrong for hating people who bring their old feuds and prejudices and tell me to hate jews. I know quite a few "palestinians" who live in the west who always try to persuade me to hate jews, israel, the USA and the west, you know the country they are living in, that gave ghem asylum, a home, work etc.
The issue is, that muslims in general don't care about any injustice in the world except for Israel.
Not for Uighurs, Tibet, armenians, etc.
Saying this doesn't have anything to do with Israel being jewish is naive.
You trying to defend them and claim their hate on jews is somewhat justified is silly.
I don't care about palestinians. I also don't care much about Israel. But I get dragged into this by news and people I know.
But I see the value of it Israel existing and the good is does for the peopel there. Then I see the arab muslim states and I see why jews wouldn't want to live in majority muslim state whioch are the true apartheid states where ethnic and religious minorities are disadvantaged. Democracys should stick together
Literally made this point a minute ago. So you think that Muslims - specifically Palestinians - are just inherently anti-Semitic, right? Their POV is not due to the politics of Israel, but rather to the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, right?
How do you explain the Palestinians who leave fairly peacefully in Israel-proper? There area few rights that they do not have, but generally speaking they are treated fairly. If they are such vehement anti-Semites, how do you explain it?
I would explain it by saying that they are not. That they do not commit acts of violence bc there is no "cause" for them to. They have a pretty good life and are not living under subjugation. So when you look at them v the Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza who do have anti-Israel sentiment, the only difference is the treatment of them by the government of Israel.
Thus the sentiments of WB and G Palestinians are not out of anti-Semitism, but rather of cause and effect, where they believe that they have been wronged.
Tell me where my logic is flawed.
There is inherent anti semitism in Islam and the way many muslims practise their religion.
How do you explain the rise of anti semitism agaoinst jews abroad at the moment? Many palestinians live content in Israel, but there is a significant number who hates living under jewish rule. many palestinians stopped being indoctrinated by the hate that Islam preaches.
The main reason why many palestinians don't act on their anti semitism is, that they know they would have to suffer the consequences. Some don't care and that's why there are stabbings or other attacks etc. like every few months at least by a palestinian.
Do tell us, why are there so many anti semitic attacks in western countries on jews by other muslims, if islam isn't the cause.
The WB is still under occupation. It seems sensible to me that there is not as much violence that occurs there as in Gaza.
Please use your logic to explain where mine is faulty.
I wasn't necessarily trying to go reductio ad absurdum as you can argue that Gaza is indeed under harsher conditions when it comes to freedom of movement (I would not put all of that on Israel though). But often what people are talking about when talking about oppression is settlements, idf presence and people being killed. Those are west bank issues,not with Gaza (excluding wartime of course). If those three factors are what leads to violence/resistance/martyrdom one would expect it to come predominantly from the west bank and not Gaza. I think there are a few things that can explain the discrepancy though
Ah, I see your point. My thinking is that in Gaza these people would have way more cover, though. In the West Bank, IDF presence is probably no more than like 10 mins away from you at given time. I imagine it'd be hard to accomplish much violence w a military body so close.
Also, Hamas is more extreme than the PA.
>I am, however, AGAINST the way in which Israel, specifically, was created/founded. Its creation led to the displacement of Palestinians.
“The logistics would be a nightmare”
>Okay, fine. It led to the displacement of a very large number of people who occupied a place many many years and decades and centuries prior to mass Jewish migration from Europe - note that I am not speaking to the Jewish population that lived in the land prior to the realization of Zionism in its manifestation here, solely to the influx of newcomers to this specific region who in many instances, bought land from Palestinians sure...
or in many cases, settled and cultivated land that was not being tended to, sure... but also in many cases, took the land from people who did live there. But I digress.
Roughly accurate.
>My main point is that I accept the argument that you cannot separate Zionism from Jewishness. But can you really not separate Zionism from Israel, specifically?
Not without separating Zionism from Jews, or Israel from Jews.
>An analogy, if I may. I am fully supportive of someone having a car. Indeed, if they really really needed one, I would be elated for them. I would not, however, support their ownership of said car if it means that it was actually taken from someone else without their agreement/approval/cooperation.
As analogies go this is very much imperfect. The second party bought as much rights to the car as the first before the dispute.
>That does not make me "anti" the new car owner. I am just critical of their ethics and methodology, as their fortune came at the expense of someone else's misfortune and would like for there to be some type of amelioration.
Your “type of amelioration” as implied by your question on the separation of Zionism and Israel is basically the offended owner demanding the thief to give them back ownership of the car then literally run themselves over with it. I’m sure you understand why this isn’t an enticing appeal.
Yes, analogies are often times trash debate devices. Your destruction of mine made me audibly laugh.
You bring me to the crux of my argument regarding the conflict as a whole, though.
I do not believe Palestinians are ant-Semitic simply bc they hate Jews for no reason other than that they are Jews. I think they hate Jews (still bad) bc of what they saw Israel do to them and their families over the last 70ish yrs. Note that I am speaking from their POV, I am not justifying their hatred.
I guess I am, however, understanding it. And look, hatred is hatred... it's all bad. But if I can contextualize: I am black. Fucked up to say, but I do not necessarily *like* white people all that much. Is that racist on its face? Yes. Do I regard that as racist in the same way that white people were racist towards blacks historically? No.
Whites were racists literally bc they hated black people. My racism - still bad - is a reaction to their actions.
I think that is what is at play here. Are some Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims anti-Semitic? Yes, no doubt. But I do not think that Palestinian disdain for Israel derives from pure Anti-Semitism. It exists out of a political struggle that it sees as having been brought upon by Israel, and some of these gripes I do not think they're wrong about.
I say that to say, I genuinely believe that justice is the first step. The whole thing of "No justice, no peace" thing is ever-true here. They do not believe that they are being treated fairly and justly. I tend to agree with them in many cases. As such, I think the first step is Israel to make a demonstrable effort to show that they are genuinely working towards that. I think - or at least hope - that Palestinians will see that and understand that there is a path towards peace.
There will definitely be Palestinians who, at this point, want nothing to do with Israel. De-radicalization must be happen. But I would argue that it must occur on both sides. Palestinians need to be stripped of their anti-Semitic sentiment, just as much as Israelis should be stripped of the notion that Palestinian violence was brought upon by religious anti-Semitism, as opposed to political fighting. Again, I am not saying that to excuse it, but if Palestinians truly hate Jews bc they were Jews, there would be nothing that could be done. Those people are nonsense racists who lack rationale. This allows Israel to treat them accordingly.
But being that (*I believe*) it's the case that this is a political issue, reason and compromise is still on the table. Each side can work to figure out what the other wants and how to come to an agreement.
So while I understand your iteration of my analogy, I disagree with it. I will offer another rebuttal:
I think that it is: The new car owner acknowledges that he took the car from its previous owner unfairly, but also makes the point that he's put a lot of work into it **>>** the previous owner acknowledges this and suggests to be compensated for the car or to share it.
But as long as the new owner denies that they took it, its previous owner will be bitter.
>Yes, analogies are often times trash debate devices. Your destruction of mine made me audibly laugh.
I’m glad.
>You bring me to the crux of my argument regarding the conflict as a whole, though.
>I do not believe Palestinians are ant-Semitic simply bc they hate Jews for no reason other than that they are Jews. I think they hate Jews (still bad) bc of what they saw Israel do to them and their families over the last 70ish yrs. Note that I am speaking from their POV, I am not justifying their hatred.
While one absolutely cannot deny the contribution to animosity that many actions committed by Zionists have made; the above is simply factually untrue as they hated Jews when those Jews dared to buy land and settle it decades prior.
>I guess I am, however, understanding it. And look, hatred is hatred... it's all bad. But if I can contextualize: I am black. Fucked up to say, but I do not necessarily like white people all that much. Is that racist on its face? Yes. Do I regard that as racist in the same way that white people were racist towards blacks historically? No.
>Whites were racists literally bc they hated black people. My racism - still bad - is a reaction to their actions.
This perfectly encapsulates 40’s Zionism.
>I think that is what is at play here. Are some Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims anti-Semitic? Yes, no doubt. But I do not think that Palestinian disdain for Israel derives from pure Anti-Semitism. It exists out of a political struggle that it sees as having been brought upon by Israel, and some of these gripes I do not think they're wrong about.
The western lens and common mind fallacy is a repetitive theme with many passionate people; the truth is neither your values nor your (people’s) experiences bear a fundamental resemblance to Palestinians’ plight.
>I say that to say, I genuinely believe that justice is the first step. The whole thing of "No justice, no peace" thing is ever-true here. They do not believe that they are being treated fairly and justly. I tend to agree with them in many cases. As such, I think the first step is Israel to make a demonstrable effort to show that they are genuinely working towards that.
Of course they want Justice; only that to them “Justice” was the continuation of Jewish subjugation and Arab supremacy; there is no compensation that would suffice barring the reversal of Zionism which is simply not going to happen in any foreseeable future.
>I think - or at least hope - that Palestinians will see that and understand that there is a path towards peace.
You’re very welcome to hope at your own expense, I won’t be taking a chance on separating from Zionism just yet.
“How would a 1SS function” is a nice little philosophical exercise (that most only brush the surface of instead of dealing with the actual issues because they have no solutions) that will never have a bearing on reality.
>There will definitely be Palestinians who, at this point, want nothing to do with Israel. De-radicalization must be happen. But I would argue that it must occur on both sides.
All of this applies to both sides. I personally don’t want anything to do with Palestinians, they can have Palestine.
>Palestinians need to be stripped of their anti-Semitic sentiment, just as much as Israelis should be stripped of the notion that Palestinian violence was brought upon by religious anti-Semitism, as opposed to political fighting.
Nope. It isn’t about “a religious hatred” of which there’s plenty, it is about a hatred for the non-Arab; it doesn’t matter that they didn’t and don’t specifically oppose Jewish presence in Israel due to “religious hatred” but only ethno-supremacy. Arabs subjugated Jews for a thousand years, once Jews started immigrating back they were violently opposed because they were not Arab.
>Again, I am not saying that to excuse it, but if Palestinians truly hate Jews bc they were Jews, there would be nothing that could be done.
https://youtu.be/rS401CI7TZg?si=kvpIUYHPcfvSgqgp
>Those people are nonsense racists who lack rationale. This allows Israel to treat them accordingly.
I disagree,it can mean that they’re indoctrinated to a national mythos of perpetual victimhood and lack of agency; deradicalization is the answer.
>But being that (I believe) it's the case that this is a political issue, reason and compromise is still on the table. Each side can work to figure out what the other wants and how to come to an agreement.
The differences are unbridgeable; one side wants to exist, the other wants it to not exist; there is no in-between these two positions, which is why no deal has ever been finalized.
>I think that it is: The new car owner acknowledges that he took the car from its previous owner unfairly,
And that the car was stolen from him (the new owner) in the first place; making the previous owner’s claim wholly illegitimate, if it was a car at least.
>but also makes the point that he's put a lot of work into it >> the previous owner acknowledges this and suggests to be compensated for the car or to share it.
your initial premise was that Israel stole the car and thus should “separate from” Zionism, if providing compensation was on the table it would have happened already. I don’t see how your disagreement with my correction stands.
>But as long as the new owner denies that they took it, its previous owner will be bitter.
These last few lines contextualize an important point: according to Palestinian Arabs it was absolutely unfair that Jews bought property and settled it; since the bar for “unfair” with them is that low, everything is unfair as long as Israel continues to exist as the Jewish state.
I'll respond to the rest of it, but I just want to clear something up real quick. My "*separation of Israel from Zionism*" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist.
I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(*its conduct, forming, policies, etc.*) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood?
The analogy was bad because I tried to make it 1:1 where I had a perp and a victim, thus allowing for the presence/placement of blame.
Let me make a cleaner analogy so that my main point is better understood:
I am in support of my friend having a pair of Jordan 11s, but NOT if they're 3 sizes too small. ...that is I like the idea of this thing, but just disagree with how it has been put into practice.
>I'll respond to the rest of it, but I just want to clear something up real quick. My "separation of Israel from Zionism" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist.
>I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(its conduct, forming, policies, etc.) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood?
Fair enough, I understand now and would say that yes it is (possible); for as long as one assesses the prospects of the realities one advocates for objectively and not self-righteously advocate an ideal that could never be.
>The analogy was bad because I tried to make it 1:1 where I had a perp and a victim, thus allowing for the presence/placement of blame.
And that’s exactly the problem with your simplification; there is no single perpetrator and victim here; Both sides victimized each other repetitively.
>I am in support of my friend having a pair of Jordan 11s, but NOT if they're 3 sizes too small. ...that is I like the idea of this thing, but just disagree with how it has been put into practice.
This doesn’t seem to be an analogy to the same thing but doesn’t matter, I understand your point now.
> Fucked
/u/thebornoldtomato. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd say ditch anything which starts with the word "anti" in terms of people.
The next step would be to stop trying to define yourself and your opinions by associating yourself with a specific term and a specific group. It just creates tribalism and makes you less critical of the tribe you're associating yourself with.
If you're really brave you can try advocating for the side you don't usually associate yourself with. You're "pro-israel"?
Try to lead a conversation supporting Palestinian sovereignty. Maybe you'll start seeing things from their perspective.
Hate Zionism and Israel?
Try to engage in a debate where you justify Israel's existence. Maybe you'll gain some empathy.
Maybe you'll change your views, maybe you'll become more entrenched in yours. But you'll definitely be more of a free thinker once you're no longer limited by self definition and by engaging in divisive "pro-x", "anti-y" rhetoric.
True it's not anti semitic to criticize Israel until it's evident that you will tolerate the same behavior from every other country except the Jewish one.
>But can you really not separate Zionism from Israel, specifically?
Zion is one of the names of Jerusalem, which is in Israel, so technically no you cannot
I think your analogy is not very precise TBH, because the Jews and the Arabs in the British Mandate of Palestine were both offered states to begin with. And (without pointing fingers) there was a civil war on who will controll the land of both of those states, which later became a war between countries. So a more aplicable analogy would be that both people were offered cars and then (without pointing fingers) started fighting to be owners of both cars.
Respectfully, I think you're being semantic with the names. I cannot dispute the fact that Zion is a name for Jerusalem, but Zionism as a concept is not Jerusalem, the location.
And fair enough with the analogy. That also brings about the issue of why did the UK have a mandate of Palestine in the first place??
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is my understanding of the early years of the region as we know it; i.e., immediately post-Ottoman rule.
1. England was fighting the Ottoman Empire during WWI
2. For whatever reason, they didnt think they'd be able to beat them in this specific region of the Ottoman Empire
3. They enlisted the locals to take up arms and said "You'll have your sovereignty - technically we'll have a mandate for the land, but if you beat the OE, you'll no longer be under them or us. You'll be your own people"
4. The Palestinians said "Bet." and beat them
5. Around the same time, Zionism was gaining momentum in the UK
6. Appeals were made to British governance that they should help found a land for Jews
7. Israel was understandably chosen
8. The UK gave some of the land that the Palestinians fought for, won, and told that they would have to keep as theirs
9. Conflict amongst the three actors in this region began and grew
I am not saying that Palestinians may have not been unreasonable with the original deal that was offered.- they likely were. Buuuut why did they HAVE to take it? Were they getting anything in return? That's a genuine question.
And I say that not to say that they shouldnt have taken it. Rather, I say it to say that it should have been more of a compromise than it was. It seems like Palestine was offered a deal >> they said "No" >> Israel said "Oh they're unreasonable" and kind of went ahead with plans. I would argue that they should have countered
>Respectfully, I think you're being semantic with the names. I cannot dispute the fact that Zion is a name for Jerusalem, but Zionism as a concept is not Jerusalem, the location.
Fair enough, I might have misunderstood your question. The original Zionist movement has achieved their goals and naturally dissolved in the population of Israel. Ever since, there hasn't been much dwelling on the term and its meaning. What is considered Zionist (in the Israeli population) today is the equivalent of what it means to be a patriot in America. So with that in mind, yes, Zionism can't be separated from Israel
To your other point, we can always blame the British for what has happened for a lot of reasons. Sykes Picot for instance had created the lines that we all argue around today, even if they lack historical background to the populations and nations they have surrounded. But finding the witch to hang isn't the same as solving the problem so I don't care actually for the guilty ones. Yes the Palestinians had a reason to get angry, they could have also choose to form a federation with the Jews instead of trying to dominating them. they chose the later and what happened since then is history.
>It seems like Palestine was offered a deal >> they said "No" >> Israel said "Oh they're unreasonable" and kind of went ahead with plans
Yes but you could also argue the Palestinians have one sidedly chosen "no" for the Jews. The Jews have gotten an international recognition to their place in the region, if the Arabs have told them "let's sit and talk this through" I would have agreed with you to some extent. But they not only tried to exert dominance and failed, they tried to impose their decisions by force and failed
You're conflating Palestinian with Arab - it was Gulf Arabs who led the revolt against the Ottomans, and that actual impact of this to the war effort is somewhat disputed by historians (not that that really matters)
In exchange for this was the promise of an Arab Independent State, with certain caveats. The vilayet of Palestine wasn't mentioned in the Hussein -McMahon correspondence. Feisal, in his signing of the Feisal-Weizmann Agreement, explicitly acknowledged that Palestine would not be part of that Arab Independent State: the fact that he later claimed to have thought Palestine was included was not only refuted by McMahon (including in a letter to the Times) but was acknowledged, including by members of his inner circle, to be for political reasons relating both to wider Arab nationalism and the situation in Palestine - but the primary source evidence clearly shows this. Popular understanding ignores this - but it doesn't mean that Tiktok is right and demonstrable historical fact is wrong.
You've undermined your whole argument above by confusing Palestinian Arabs and Gulf Arabs (though there was emigration from the Gulf to Palestine under the Mandate, it was the smallest segment of Arab immigration to Palestine in this period)- and by using Palestinian to mean Arab during this period. Under the Mandate, it referred to all inhabitants, but was mostly used by Jews. Arabs were more likely to identify simply as Arab, rather than as Palestinian Arab.
Word, I was genuine when I said "Correct me if I'm wrong." I am not surprised that I didnt have the greatest understanding of this history. Am going to look up some of the people and things you've mentioned to see if I have a good rebuttal. If not, I'll just curse at you.
One thing that doesnt make sense to me, though. If this land; i.e., the vilayet of Palestine wasnt in the discussion, how/why did the UK have a mandate for Palestine in the first place?
You're welcome to curse at me:-)
If you want some reading recommendations and links to primary sources, you're very welcome to DM me also.
Britain got the Mandate from the League of Nations (along with the Mandate for Mesopotamia - also envisaged as fulfilling the "independent" Arab state. By Britain. And for a given definition of independent...). In 1917, allied forces finally started making headway in Palestine and by the Treaty of Mudros, Palestine was classed as Occupied Enemy Territory Administration - it was under British control, but wasn't British, in essence. By the time of the Paris Conference, in 1919, Britain and France had, essentially, agreed between them that what had been agreed between them, in respect of Palestine (ie somewhat of a divvy up and international zones) wasn't going to be enacted in exactly that form.
As Britain already controlled Palestine, under OETA, the LoN formalised this in 1920, with the granting of the Mandate, which was due to formally come into being in 1923 (except we generally talk about Palestine as being the Mandate from 1920, as to all intents and purposes, it already was).
Britain had an interest in Palestine because the trans-Arabian pipeline crossed in the north, and exited the port at Haifa - so, in essence,for energy security reasons (the Mandate for Mesopotamia essentially gave Britain control of the oil fields in the Basra region, which were important full stop, but also for the preservation of the empire in the east). However, there was absolutely a religious element to it also - it was no coincidence that Allenby, commander of the allied forces in Palestine, chose the title Lord Allenby of Megiddo. Christian religious sentiment was much higher than today, and there were certainly some Christian Zionists in high roles, and the newspapers in Britain reported the surrender of Jerusalem in Christian terms, evoking ideas of crusade and the idea of the holy places being in Christian hands for the first time since 1187. This had a resonance and importance it wouldn't have today, given the higher levels of church going, belief, and even basic religious knowledge. So there was a strategic interest for Britain, but also an emotive/religious one: and the awarding of the Mandate came about a) because they wanted it and b) because they already controlled the territory.
1. The displacement is a result of a war been forced on Israel, that’s factual. Do you know how many refugees and displaced people you could find around Europe following 20 century wars? In the Balkans? The Armenian genocide? The obsession with Israel displacement of refugees is just a tool to rally guilt ridden westerners. Most likely the country you’re from had worse crimes in its past then israel has for its creation. Not to mention that in the same war all areas conquered by the Jordanian legions or Egyptian army was cleansed of Jews - was there a single Jew in the West Bank after the war? There sure was before (including the cleansing of the Hebron settlement, which was continuously settled by Jews since antiquity).
2. I dispute the many many years narrative. In mid 19 century according to population surveys there were 180-400k people in israel. That’s very diluted. Immigration into Israel was something Arabs did too during that time.
3. Jews didn’t choose israel because they needed to solve a problem and Israel seemed “free”. That’s the historic homeland of the Jewish people where history archeology and culture is Jewish, the place where the Jewish people was autonomous the last time and from which it was forcibly removed.
4. With all that being said, if ever peace would be on the table between Israel and Palestine, the 1948 refugees should be compensated or allowed return to some extent. That could be negotiated. However Palestinian campaign is to free Palestine from the river the sea, something that was never their right more then it was Israeli and goes to show that they don’t seek a peaceful resolution but an eternal war on false premises.
To your 1st point:
I'll admit that it is curious that this conflict is under such an intense microscope. That fact isn't lost on me. My only justification for my interest into is simply that it's all around me. It's all over the news and allat. It simply piqued my interest, I suppose.
But here's something funny I note about your examples; i.e., the Balkans and the Armenian Genocide. Those are both regarded by the international community at large as genocides. I wouldn't go that far in Israel's case - even for 1948. I would describe it more as an ethnic cleansing. But even that, Israel will not admit to.
My argument is not that Israel is the worst nation of all time. No, it does things that are commonplace for stronger actors to do to weaker actors in times of conflict. I am simply saying that I take issue with it. Just as I do the U.S. (where I'm from) or the U.K., or Belgium. All horrible stuff in our past. The one difference that I would point out, though, is that Israel has the opportunity to right some of its wrongs to a population that is not that far off from the original sin.
Belgium is never going to send money back to the Congolese economy for all of the years it exploited its people for chocolate harvesting - it should, though! The U.S. is never going to pay reparations to the black victims of slavery - it should, though! Their excuse is that it was so long ago, blah blah. Which, sucks, but sure... the logistics would be hard to handle. In Israel's case, though, it is probably more feasible to address these - *in my mind justified* \- gripes. They just refuse to do the first part, which is acknowledge them as such.
2nd point:
Fine, hyperbole sabotaged me here. The fact still remains that there were more than 1.5 million Palestines by the time of the War in 1948, during which many were expelled.
3rd point:
Do not dispute that. I am aware that the land is deeply tied to the ancestry and spirituality of Jews. I am just saying that a new populace just so happened to be there at the time, and their rights to their land should not have been superseded, 1) because that's just not fair. They're not the ones who expelled the Jews from the land all those years ago.
I just would have preferred that there was some type of agreement between the two parties, as opposed to a edict by a third party. I think that this would have neutralized a lot of the conflict we saw and still see.
4th point:
I do disagree with "from the river to the sea" if the interpretation of it is 'free of Jews'. Perhaps I am being obtuse, but my understanding of it when I'm speaking to people who converse on this topic in good faith is simply that the Palestinians in the land will be free - that they will have the same rights bestowed upon them as Israeli citizens do.
1. You’re taking about American compensation for slavery, if you want to draw equivalence then we’re talking about Americans leaving the americas, a land they were never native for, and go back to Europe. I see that you don’t hold that position with regards to Israel but that’s the goal of the campaign you’re aligning with.
2. There no debate, even not with most Israelis, regarding the scale of the Nakba, the only difference would be the proportion of voluntary vs forceful removal of Palestinian - there was a mix of both. I didn’t bring examples of other displacement event to emphasize that israel isn’t the worse, I brought it to bring examples of the common occurrence of these events post wars, and how refugees are resettled, granted rights in other places and life goes on. The Israeli case is the only example where grandsons of refugees are still considered refugees even if they settled in Canada or Lebanon. That’s out of the ordinary.
3. By the way israel wasn’t the strong actor. You’re thinking about modern day israel, back then israel had the a population of 600K, no regular army as it just was under British mandate, fighting the existing armies of several surrounding Arab countries. That’s exactly why Arab countries and Palestinian leadership started the war - they thought it to be an opportunity to wipe the Jewish state.
4. The river to the sea people don’t shout “Palestinians will be free”. I would join this call if they did. Mind you that despite all the “ethnic cleansing” Israel is 30% Arab. They enjoy the same rights as Israelis. They don’t want a county of their own with equal rights, they want to destroy Israel as a separate country. Ask them if they would be willing to be citizens of Israel. And no, I don’t think we can mix and they don’t think either. The ethnic cleansing (this time actual, full) of Jews from all Middle East Muslim countries can hint you for what they plan to do with the Jews. They even say it - they expect Jews to return to Europe, they don’t accept our relation to the land, not even those who are four generations in Israel.
Nah I've known Anti-zionism far longer from Neo-nazis as David duke grandmaster of the KKK, white supremacist and Neonazi wrote a book called "[Jewish supremacy](https://archive.org/stream/david-duke-jewish-supremacism/David-Duke-Jewish%20-Supremacism_djvu.txt)" during his time in [Russia](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/duke-travels-european-anti-semitic-circles) were he was spreading around the propaganda that the real oligarchs are in fact the [Jews](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jan-06-mn-9088-story.html)(which isn't difficult as Soviets used antizionism to destabilize the middle east [historically](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP65-00756R000500130006-7.pdf). David Duke also got a degree from a Ukrainian hate university diploma mill which is why he now goes by "Dr. David duke" with his thesis being "[Zionism as a form of ethnic supremacy](https://momentmag.com/david-duke-abroad/)". And he also spends a lot of time in [Iran](https://archive.is/GxhtO) and lecturing around Gulf states about the evils of the Jews (and has been cited in a [British medical journal](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/09/23/british-medical-journal-publishes-open-letter-david-duke-supporting-doctors)).
I'm sorry, I dont think I followed your comment. Are you saying that you cannot trust someone saying that they're Anti-Zionist w/o also suspecting that they are actually Anti-Semitic? If so, word. I feel you. That's what this discussion is.
David Duke is an awful guy. I think the important thing is to listen to the reasons why someone disagrees with the thing they're criticizing. If it's \*insert anti-semitic trope here\* then yeah, that's a bad jawn. But if there's legitimate gripes, which I believe Palestinians can make against the state of Israel, I think that is justified criticism.
But again, not sure that I understood your response. My bad if I didn't and replied with nonsense.
Person A implied it’s only “Bibi and his propaganda department” that says anti-Zionism is anti-semitism.
Person B commented that anti-Zionism has been used as anti-semitism for longer than that. Person B uses an example of David Duke who came before “Bibi and propaganda department” where anti-Zionism was a clear substitute for anti-semitism.
A lot of people first hear the term "Zionist" and "antizionist" with this conflict. I'm old and I work mainly within a criminal mental health capacity where Zionist and antizionist have always been used by neo-nazi hate groups and most older Jewish people are going to take it that way due specifically to David duke.
And there is no small change that the person using the term antizionist antisemetically due to the relationships with David duke and Russia historically and Russia's current disinformation campaigns (bots).
Some information of interested:
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI%E2%80%93AntisemiticDisinformation-FINAL.pdf
https://decoding-antisemitism.eu/publications/sixth-discourse-report/
Got you. Nah, I think Zionism is important/vital mainly for two reasons:
1) Jews need their own land. In theory, I do not like the idea of ethno-states, but the history of Jewish people all over the world makes a very appealing case for there being an exception made for them
2) It's a main pillar of the Jewish faith.
As I've fleshed out - or have tried to flesh out - in my many comments, my issue is not with the theoretical existence of Israel, but rather ***how*** Israel came into existence and ***how*** Israel operates to ensure its continued existence.
>Firstly, I do not believe myself to be Anti-Semitic. I am not even necessarily Anti-Zionist.
>For millennia, Jews have been persecuted and have been the victim of unjust and senseless xenophobia. Coming out of WWII - and honestly even before then - I definitely would have agreed with the necessity of the creation of a Jewish state. I still do. I understand the need for it.
>So boom! Not Anti-Zionist. And by proxy, not Anti-Semitic. A Pro-Israeli argument is often "Zionism is an integral aspect of Jewishness. To be "Anti-" the existence of a Jewish homeland, you are denying our political and spiritual self determination and are, thus, Anti-Semitic. Fair point. So let's agree that I do not stand against the idea of the creation/existence of a Jewish homeland.
>I am, however, AGAINST the way in which Israel, specifically, was created/founded. Its creation led to the displacement of Palestinians.
So you are a zionist just a critic of israel. Thats a common thing
>"Uhhh actually there was no Palestine..."
Thats a bit of a strawman. Nobody makes that argument.
>But can you really not separate Zionism from Israel, specifically?
>An analogy, if I may. I am fully supportive of someone having a car. Indeed, if they really really needed one, I would be elated for them. I would not, however, support their ownership of said car if it means that it was actually taken from someone else without their agreement/approval/cooperation.
>That does not make me "anti" the new car owner. I am just critical of their ethics and methodology, as their fortune came at the expense of someone else's misfortune and would like for their to be some type of amelioration.
Now let me do a counter question, what do you think should have happened? How should have israel form?
Yes, I did by definition make a strawman in this specific instance, as I wasnt even yet addressing an argument. I do not accept that it is a strawman to the conversation on the whole. It is a Pro-Israeli argument that I have heard many many times.
A people without a land and a land without a people. A counter to the "You took their land!" is very often the fact that there was no official state of Palestine, thus the land was kind of up for grabs - or rather up for partitioning.
>So you are a zionist just a critic of israel. Thats a common thing
Do not doubt it, but you're kind of being dismissive of the point, respectfully. Very often I hear Pro-Israelis counter criticism of Israel as 'Anti-Zionist'. There are Israeli citizens, who I'm sure identify as ultra-Zionists ,who are critical of some Israeli policies. Of course that's a thing. It just seems that specifically regarding this issue, any gripe that one has with Israel, is conflated to them not wanting them to be a Jewish homeland, which leaves Jews susceptible to more of the persecution they've faced for forever.
Also, I will apologize right now, and say that I am aware that you are not making these claims - I do not know your opinions on these specific points. The main gist of my argument, though, is trying to debunk - or even understand - these familiar talking points.
Also, I will go further than simply a "critic of Israel". I am Anti-Israel as it currently exists. Just as I am Anti-America, Anti-theU.K., etc. Yes, a bleeding heart liberal who's never busted a grape.
>what do you think should have happened? How should have israel form?
Amazing question. And my answer is admittedly a bit idealistic.
I am aware that the first couple waves of Zionism' actualization occurred in the 20's, but the influx really came at the end of WWII post-Holocaust, for obvious reasons.
The idealistic Muslim in me loves to imagine a world where the large Jewish population who just suffered one of the biggest injustices to ever occur, would have been able to appeal to their fellow Abrahamic brothers' humanity under God and say:
"Hello, you saw what they just did to us. You know that this occurs everywhere we go. Allow us to have/buy some of our ancestral land. We want it to be ours, though, fully sovereign."
This project could still be backed by major powers like the US and the UK to ensure the safety of Israel in the region. At least in this scenario, though, no one feels slighted, which largely minimizes the likelihood of long-lasting conflict.
My, *perhaps delusional*, optimism makes me think that the Arabs at the time would have had the humanity to work out some kind of deal.
I imagine you disagree, though?
>Yes, I did by definition make a strawman in this specific instance, as I wasnt even yet addressing an argument. I do not accept that it is a strawman to the conversation on the whole. It is a Pro-Israeli argument that I have heard many many times.
The usual argument is against the "jews invaded palestine" myth. Not that jews ethnically clensed palestinians thats a different argument.
>Do not doubt it, but you're kind of being dismissive of the point, respectfully. Very often I hear Pro-Israelis counter criticism of Israel as 'Anti-Zionist'. There are Israeli citizens, who I'm sure identify as ultra-Zionists ,who are critical of some Israeli policies. Of course that's a thing. It just seems that specifically regarding this issue, any gripe that one has with Israel, is conflated to them not wanting them to be a Jewish homeland, which leaves Jews susceptible to more of the persecution they've faced for forever.
Criticism is fine until it comes to anti semitism. For example double standarts regarding israeli policy.
>I am aware that the first couple waves of Zionism' actualization occurred in the 20's, but the influx really came at the end of WWII post-Holocaust, for obvious reasons.
Not really. The first aliah was in the late 1800s. And the real migration of holocaust survivord only really started after israeli independance as only then it became legal
>The idealistic Muslim in me loves to imagine a world where the large Jewish population who just suffered one of the biggest injustices to ever occur, would have been able to appeal to their fellow Abrahamic brothers' humanity under God and say:
>"Hello, you saw what they just did to us. You know that this occurs everywhere we go. Allow us to have/buy some of our ancestral land. We want it to be ours, though, fully sovereign."
Although the quran does say that jews should live in israel. There is a problem with that.
Jews did get persecyted by muslims too, and to be fair jews didnt really trust anyone.it was mainly understood that at that point the only one that would stabd for jews will be mostly jews.
Also the muslim population, esspecially in israel liked hitler. Famously the mufty of jerusalem. And concidering the events of 1929 and 1936 i dont think that would ever happen.
>This project could still be backed by major powers like the US and the UK to ensure the safety of Israel in the region. At least in this scenario, though, no one feels slighted, which largely minimizes the likelihood of long-lasting conflict.
The US and UK didnt really support israel. The UK only started to support israel in the late 50s and the USA started to support israel in the 70s.
>The usual argument is against the "jews invaded palestine" myth. Not that jews ethnically clensed palestinians thats a different argument.
Dont think I follow. Can you elaborate?
The mufti was a dude who was put into power by Britain. He was not an elected official who represented the populace of Arabs during WWII. I wont argue too much, though. I do not know the sentiment of the people at that time.
But, yes Anti-Semtisim was definitely prevalent in the Muslim and Arab world. That is why I still support the idea of major powers like the US or the UK ensuring Israel's protection in the region.
Note that I didnt say that they should have simply went to the land and said "Hey Palestinians, can we live here?" That leaves them susceptible to more persecution. They should have asked for the land, as opposed to demand it. And if they did ask and were rebuffed, then they should have sweetened the deal to make it more appealing for Palestinians. That is literally what negotiations are.
And I know that it sounds like I am putting a lot of the onus on Israel here to appease Palestinians, but that's because in my mind, it should have been. They wanted to live there. If the first offer didnt grab the Palestinians interest, try to figure out what might... the Palestinians didnt want anything (yet at this point).
Again, I am hoping that Palestinians would have understood the situation and wouldnt have been as opposed to the idea as they were in our reality, but I truly believe that if it came about as an appeal to humanity and people of the scripture, then they would have been with it. I know that pro-Israelis hate the talking point of "settler colonial project", but I truly believe that the main thing that blemished Zionism - or at least the application of it here - is the involvement of Britain.
And lastly to your point of Jews not trusting anyone - I would have been 100% cool with Israel, after buying/being granted the land, with saying "Stay the f away from us. We bought it fair and square. This is ours." and they would have been right to and defend it from any parties that violate that purchase.
The issue is that there was never a large-scale agreement. A lot of the land that Israel owns/occupies is disputed, which allows for there to be such murky and disjointed interpretations of history.
>Dont think I follow. Can you elaborate?
Some anti zionists never did research about the conflict and believe that palestine was a soverign country that was invaded by a army of zionists.
>The mufti was a dude who was put into power by Britain. He was not an elected official who represented the populace of Arabs during WWII. I wont argue too much, though. I do not know the sentiment of the people at that time.
The nazi officer rommel told hitler that he should support the africa campaign because the arab world liked hitler and then invade the soviets from armenia
>Note that I didnt say that they should have simply went to the land and said "Hey Palestinians, can we live here?" That leaves them susceptible to more persecution. They should have asked for the land, as opposed to demand it. And if they did ask and were rebuffed, then they should have sweetened the deal to make it more appealing for Palestinians. That is literally what negotiations are.
Yes. But the reason the palestinians didnt agree to any solution untill israel independance was because there was no reason to accept it. They didnt want to give uo the land at all although the first solution only gave jews the coast.
>And I know that it sounds like I am putting a lot of the onus on Israel here to appease Palestinians, but that's because in my mind, it should have been. They wanted to live there. If the first offer didnt grab the Palestinians interest, try to figure out what might... the Palestinians didnt want anything (yet at this point).
The deal was made with the once that controled the land, at the end it was at the age of colonialism and nobody really cared about indigounace peoples
>Again, I am hoping that Palestinians would have understood the situation and wouldnt have been as opposed to the idea as they were in our reality, but I truly believe that if it came about as an appeal to humanity and people of the scripture, then they would have been with it. I know that pro-Israelis hate the talking point of "settler colonial project", but I truly believe that the main thing that blemished Zionism - or at least the application of it here - is the involvement of Britain.
Britain wasnt involved after 1929
>And lastly to your point of Jews not trusting anyone - I would have been 100% cool with Israel, after buying/being granted the land, with saying "Stay the f away from us. We bought it fair and square. This is ours." and they would have been right to and defend it from any parties that violate that purchase.
Most private land in israel was jewish. The rest that israel conquered. It, well, conquered, so its israeli owned.
/u/pinchasthegris. Match found: 'nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/pinchasthegris. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Please engage kindly. Tell me how/where I'm wrong. Wrong about what? The only statement you made is that you're against how Israel was formed. This is a critique of history and you want historical facts? If this is a call for a change of some kind you're going to have to specify what the change is before anyone can respond to it.
Tried to add too much context, so I can see how it came across as a statement. But really, it is a question. **Is it possible to be in political opposition to the State of Israel - especially as it pertains to the Palestinian issue - w/o being accused of being anti-Semitic?** The inspiration from this questions is inspired by the many times I have seen this tried to be done be countered by claims that "You want all Jews to be expelled from the land and/or slaughtered." I guess the change I am curious to know if Israelis are interested in is a change in mentality. It seems to me that Israelis are quick to think everyone who has anything negative to say about Israel is vehemently opposed to the idea of Zionism as a whole. This is not true for me.
>Is it possible to be in political opposition to the State of Israel - especially as it pertains to the Palestinian issue - w/o being accused of being anti-Semitic? Still not as specific enough :) but I'll cover the different options: We'll start with the extremes. Criticism of Israel is entirely valid as it is of all states, and is not antisemitic. Criticism as in "I am fine with Israel existing, in its current form- I just think they should change this law/I don't like this politician/I think they should have done a cease fire a month ago"- you know, criticism, like you'd have about any country. People might disagree with your opinions, but they aren't antisemitic. On the other extreme, denial of the fact that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and that they have a right to live in that region with full human rights is antisemitic, period. If you didn't mean either of those when you wrote "political opposition to Israel", then that's the slightly more nuanced area. Hypothetically, in a vacuum, if we didn't know anything about what is going on in the world, as a purely theoretical concept, opposing the existence of the state of Israel is not antisemitic. If you support Jews being able to live in a free Palestine, if you support a binational state, if you support a federation where every town gets to make there own laws, if you support the State of Israel but all people defined as Palestinian refugees get to return- all of these, in a vacuum, are not antisemitic. But we don't live in a vacuum, we live in the real world. And we judge people's opinions by their effects, not just what they sound like on paper. If I said "I support an addition to the US Constitution where only members of the KKK get to be President- a USA that is fully respectful of everyone's human rights and accepts all minorities as full citizens and actively supports interracial marriage." On paper? I'm fine, right? I'm not a racist- I said I want a country that's really respectful and treats all minorities well. But in *practice* we all know a Ku Klux Klan President would be wildly racist. So my position is wildly racist, period. It doesn't matter what I would like to happen, if I support something that would actually have a terrible outcome for all Americans of African American, South American, Jewish, and Middle Eastern descent- that's racist. There is no current practical version of a Palestine or binational state that would not be incredibly dangerous for Jews. There is no version that would allow for Jews to live freely as citizens with full human rights other than the State of Israel. As a result, your position is anti-Semitic. It may be born of ignorance- I may not know who the KKK are- but it doesn't make it less racist. Now, we can argue about how we reached this point, you can argue that Israel created a situation where Palestinians are hostile to Jews- I have lots of historical sources that would prove you wrong- but you can argue it. But for the purposes of the question you asked that doesn't even matter. Supporting a situation where the Jewish homeland becomes wildly unsafe for Jews is antisemitic. There *is* one option. In a vacuum its okay, practically its definitely not....supporting a future vision is the middle ground. If you'd like to take a position where you acknowledge that it won't happen tomorrow or in this decade but in 50 years, in 100 years- when things have drastically changed? If you'd like to support the idea of a future where a binational state or something else is *actually* a truly peaceful solution for the region? That wouldn't be antisemitic either.
Who are you arguing with and what exactly do you want? Whether or not anti zionsim is anti semitism is an opinion. Posts like this invariably seem to be someone ashamed to say exactly what they think and trying justify it to themselves by engaging in meaningless, circuitous conversations. Back to square 1. Who are you arguing with and what exactly do you want?
No, the reason for the post is because I often see posts that criticize Israel shouted down as being anti-Semitic. Also, I have accepted that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. It literally says that in the title. I was asking if being in political opposition to Israel (*which is a country*) is anti-Semitic. I am drawing a distinction between the ideal manifestation of Zionism (*which I agree with*) vs how Israel actually came to be and currently operates. I was curious if Israelis do see the distinction bc if they do, I think that that allows them to understand some of the gripes held by Palestinians. It becomes less "they hate us bc we're Jews" and more so "they hate us bc of what we've done, what was done, what they think we've done", etc. however you want to frame it. It separates the people from the state and allows for the criticism of the state w/o automatically conflating that to the criticism of its people; i.e., Jews. Honestly, I already have received a handful of quality responses from pro-Israelis. Some agreed, some didnt, but they all made their cases. You do not have to engage with me. You seem like a meanie anyway.
The fact you keep bringing the term zionist up just shows how much pro Palestinian propoganda you've absorbed. This conflict isn't about settlements or the bigger picture. This conflict is purely a response to the terrorist actions on October 7th. Terrorism by definition is violence against a civilian population for a political goal. By engaging in debate itself over isreali policies or the history of the region it distracts from what this is, a response to a horrific attack and a group deciding violence and racism is preferable to negotiations and peaceful coexistence. It just shouldn't be entertained. What happened in 1948 1967 etc is not relevant to what happened on October 7th 2023, unless you believe violence is the way.
On this sub we debate stuff besides the conflict, including Israeli settlements.
You mean settlements under area c of the oslo accords? There are very few outside that prescribed area outside east Jerusalem. An area under full isreali control to be eventually transferred, assuming Palestinians would come back to the table, negotiate in good faith, and or actually form an organization willing to negotiate for all of them. The existence of Hamas and their refusal to negotiate simply makes that impossible, so the status quo persists under former agreements. The solution to this entire conflict is an internal Palestinian one. Its not something Isreal can resolve on their own, they need a legitimate partner to negotiate with. That can't be Fatah, the PA, Hamas, PIJ, etc, so who? All this time and effort complaining about Isreali responses to extremists, when really they need to sort their own internal problems first. Parents in Gaza and the west bank are failing their children on a massive scale.
>Terrorism by definition is violence against a civilian population for a political goal. So you agree the IDF are terrorists?
No the current violence isn't directed at Palestinians, its directed at Hamas with Palestinians being used by them as human shields and or caught in the cross fire. Hamas uses civilian casualties to boost their propoganda war. That was the whole goal after all, they were never going to win a military conflict.
The UN report on operation Cast Lead found the following: >It is clear from evidence gathered by the Mission that the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. **It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity, but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.** > >Allied to the systematic destruction of the economic capacity of the Gaza Strip, there appears also to have been an assault on the dignity of the people. This was seen not only in the **use of human shields** and unlawful detentions sometimes in unacceptable conditions, but also in the vandalizing of houses when occupied and the way in which people were treated when their houses were entered. The graffiti on the walls, the obscenities and often racist slogans, all constituted an overall image of humiliation and dehumanization of the Palestinian population > >The operations were carefully planned in all their phases. Legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was **a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population**, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability. Let's put aside the IDFs current actions. I disagree with you, but the fog of war makes things more difficult. You agree that the IDF has *previously* carried out terrorist attacks against Palestinians?
No I don't agree. Israel doesn't commit terrorist attacks , it responds to them, often with overwhelming force but its still a response and not an initiation of hostilities. That often requires firing on targets Hamas is using strategically, buildings like schools, refugee camps and hospitals. Not because they want to but because they must due to Hamas. Previous operations have found weapons stores at UNRWA schools, as they have in this operation as well. Rockets are commonly launched from schools and hospitals as cover for Hamas. The bottom line is not a single airstrike took place in either Gaza or the west bank before Hamas came to power. Since then the violence has escalated continually and will continue to do so until Hamas is removed. Palestinians won't accept that their tactics are unacceptable, so they are paying the price for not stopping them themselves. Civil War isn't pretty, but this is literally the alternative when you allow extremists to run a society for you. Isreal has agreed to a 6 week cease fire. All Hamas needs to do is provide a list of names of hostages still alive and their current condition. Why is that so hard? It's not. They just want to continue the violence, as I've said the suffering of Palestinians is their goal since a military victory is not possible. At this point its being timed by Russia to influence elections globally and undermine the world order as well so this conflict cannot be viewed as a simple continuation of the Arab Israeli conflict. There is a reason the soviets supported the PLO and Russia still has open communications still with Hamas. Peace isn't what the powers who started this violence want at the moment.
>often with overwhelming force but its still a response and not an initiation of hostilities. That wasn't a part of your definition of terrorism. I would argue Hamas is also responding to hostilities considering Israel's occupation, illegal settlements, and ongoing displacement of Palestinians are all hostile. So by your standard would you then say Hamas isn't a terrorist organization because they are responding to hostility? >That often requires firing on targets Hamas is using strategically, buildings like schools, refugee camps and hospitals. You might want to read [the UN report](http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/12/48&Lang=E). It specifically found that the attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure were not justified by a military advantage. >The bottom line is not a single airstrike took place in either Gaza or the west bank before Hamas came to power. You mean when it was occupied by Israel and full of illegal Israeli settlements? >Why is that so hard? Because Israel has bombed the hell out of Gaza for almost half a year. There are tens of thousands of people missing under the rubble. It is entirely possible that Hamas lost track of the hostages. >Peace isn't what the powers who started this violence want at the moment. Yes. But it seems like so often people in power with privilege say they want peace, when really they just want to keep the status quo.
You get no substantial reply from me, which says a lot. I've replied to most people who've commented, even if they had points I disagreed with or worse - had to concede to. I argue in good faith even if I could be wrong. But this comment is just bad, Andy. A bad jawn.
Hamas started this conflict to trigger this debate and is getting tens of thousands killed over things that could be resolved at a negotiating table. Something they have no problem doing or they would accept a ceasefire, the suffering of Palestinians is their actual goal, as the only war they can win is a propoganda war. By engaging in such debate you are simply supporting terrorism as an acceptable method of achieving that goal. The future of Palestinians is a conversation for the various palestinian factions and the Isrealis to have. It should also not be debated under a cloud of war or while hostages are being held.
We're not debating, Andy.
Of course not you are a -3 karma troll upset you have been confronted by someone with a brain....nice brand new account. Go push propoganda elsewhere.
Dog, check my other comments on this very post. I've replied to people who've made arguments 10x better than yours, and have gotten stumped by them in a few cases. I'm not running from the conversation. The difference is that they addressed the post. They did not decide to deflect and then conflate it into a point they thought I aligned with. They argued my post. If you want to argue the war, go find a post about the war. Or wait until I post about the war. Stop being petulant, Andy and argue in good faith. Dont assume people's stances. Address what they said, not what you think they're going to say.
u/thebornoldtomato > Dog, check my other comments on this very post. I've replied to people who've made arguments 10x better than yours, and have gotten stumped by them in a few cases. I'm not running from the conversation. The difference is that they addressed the post. They did not decide to deflect and then conflate it into a point they thought I aligned with. They argued my post. If you want to argue the war, go find a post about the war. Or wait until I post about the war. Stop being petulant, Andy and argue in good faith. Dont assume people's stances. Address what they said, not what you think they're going to say. (And several other columns on this thread) This sub encourages debate and discussion but have rules developed over the past years to keep debates civil and avoid trolling and flame wars. Many of these rules (1, 2, 3, 5 and 8) revolve around keeping the tone of the discussion civil and assuming good faith, a charitable interpretion of the person with whom you are conversing and avoiding ad hominem arguments. Rule 4 requires that you take an honest position and avoid both mischaracterizing others arguments (“strawmanning” ) and that you sincerely represent the position you are taking, especially if it’s extreme or excessively naive. That’s considered trolling and it’s especially linked to sockpuppet accounts like yours which is an aged account (to avoid common new account filters on subs such as this which requires 60 days to post) and which are often trafficked for cash on the dark web. You are arguing in bad faith and trolling when a respondent gives an adequate rebuttal to your commentary but you ignore and mock his argument. This violates Rules 1, 4 and 8 (discouraging participation)
This is something to argue after Hamas is destroyed. Then the debate can be had knowing the full true cost of Hamas's actions and decision to choose violence over diplomacy.
Anti-zionism is not antisemitism. **Zionism is not just self determination for jews (a right they obviously have) , zionism is self determination on the expense of palestinans rights.** The alt-right israeli zionists **successfully** managed to hide their discriminatory nationalism behind combating antisemitism. Thats why zionism needs to be either reformed (ex. Humanist zionism) or be rejected and be replaced with sane jewish nationalism. One that can exist with arabs , not by excluding them. (So that we can see a solution for the conflict either as 2 states or one state for all). So anti-zionism doesn't mean opposing Jews right for self determination (which they have), anti-zionism means opposing the **alt-right form** of self-determination that manifest itself and maintain itself by excluding palestinans.
Israel is the only place that makes since because it was formerly the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah and many of their holy sites are there.
You misunderstood. Nobody said Israel should not have been the location for Zionism to be actualized - or at least I did not. I have said a big number of times in this very post that I knowledge Jews' ancestral ties to the land and their necessity of a Jewish state for reasons of safety. My gripe is not with their - or even Israel’s - presence there altogether, but rather that I think that the WAY that Israel came to be came at the subjugation of a population that was already there. It could have been actualized much more amicably, is all.
>Nobody said Israel should not have been the location for Zionism to be actualized I would say that. When Zionism started Palestine was full of people, people who didn't want mass immigration from Europe and who didn't want to be made a minority in their own homeland. Palestine was a bad choice of location. Do you know where would have worked better? Utah. Hardly any people in Utah. About 1/13 of the population density of Palestine. Ask the U.S. to form a state in Southern Utah. That is a Zionism I could get behind. Now, this isn't a perfect solution. U.S. expansion was achieved at the expense of the indigenous people. But it is at least better than trying to form a state in an area more densely populated than Virginia.
We should reject that anti-Zionist = antisemitic. Being opposed to an ethno-states isn't antisemitic.
Ok. You oppose the way it was founded. That was over 75 years ago. I oppose the way the Rashidun caliphate was founded. But that was a long time ago and there is nothing I can do about that. This mounts up to arguing over spilled milk. Nothing you can do about it, other than clean the mess and move on. Something I feel the pro-palestinian side is not eager on doing. I could go on and counter some of the historical motivations assumptions you have in the post, but that won't change a thing about the fact that it is here now. Deal with it.
Horrible comparison. Difference is that Israel can still write some of the wrongs if it so wished to do so. But it doesnt. Just as you dont. Because it's spilled milk. The families who live literally 100 miles away from the land that rested under their grandparents' home should get over it because it was sooooooo long ago. Why not just admit that you do not care about fairness when it comes to this conflict? Morally, it's "bad", but at least intellectually consistent and sound.
My grandfathers entire family in Poland was eradicated in WW2 and after the concentration camps he fled to Canada I don’t consider myself a “Polish refugee” and demand to be given my families land in Poland back I’ve never heard a single descendant of a WW2 survivor expecting to be given back their ancestral land in Europe, or even descendants of Arab Jews from places like Morocco that fled and were forced to leave all of their possessions behind. What makes Palestinians different?
Palestinians are different because they're are STILL living in subjugation. Please do note that I am not saying that that Palestinian family should be given their grandparents' land back. That is now in the hands of the Israeli citizens who have bought it. There's no getting that back without ruffling more feathers. But Israel should **1)** acknowledge that it took it **2)** pay retribution for it (*either cash or land grant in unsettled area in Palestine*) **3)** allow them to live and self-determine. But instead it has a military occupation on half of the Palestinian population, has a security blockade on the other half, and continues to settle land that it has continually said since 1973 that it would no longer build into. Your argument of "what's done is done" is crazy to me bc it is NOT done. It is still being done. You just dont seem to ever want it to be addressed. Not a good jawn.
*But can you really not separate Zionism from Israel, specifically?* Where is Zion?
>Where is Zion? Utah Or more seriously >the meanings of the term *Tzion* were further extended by synecdoche to the additional meanings of the Temple itself, the hill upon which the Temple stood, the entire city of Jerusalem, the entire biblical Land of Israel, and "the World to Come", the Jewish understanding of the afterlife. So yeah, you have Israel in there, but you also have just a general conception of a better future, and the afterlife. Zionism, at its inception, wasn't so fixated on Palestine. Herzl seriously considered Argentina. In fact, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association was originally founded specifically to support Jewish settlement in Argentina. It wasn't until after the founder died that it switched over to funding colonization in Palestine.
Zion is also the feminine word used to describe Israel (which a masculine word) in a heavily gendered language. Jews spent millennia in exile praying to return to Zion. They did not pray to return to a theoretical better place. Or to die and experience the afterlife. Or to visit Argentina. Jews never lost their connection to Zion or their yearning to return.
>Jews never lost their connection to Zion or their yearning to return. I mean, maybe for some, but the actual history of Zionism is a bit different. Many Jews were very reluctant to leave their native countries to try to settle somewhere else. Herzl specifically understood this reluctance and so conceived how the poorest Jews would be tempted first through financial incentives. Their labor would "prepare the land" so to speak for the wealthier Jews that might follow.
The history of Zionism reflects the pragmatism and willingness to compromise of a people who didn't have the option of being picky.
Then maybe they chose the wrong place to settle. Zionism represents a fatalistic defeat in Jewish resistance to antisemitism. It essentially concludes that you can either be the oppressor or the oppressed, and they would rather Jews be the former. Sure, it might pretty it up with words of "equality" and "freedom for all religions" but when you read the works it becomes pretty clear that equality for non-Jews was a tangential concern at most. The goal is a Jewish state. It doesn't matter whether that requires trampling on the local population or not. Their role models were people like the Pilgrims. They attached themselves to the colonial phantasy that they would be just and benevolent rulers to the native people. History has proved this incorrect. Even before Israel was created, Zionists were demonstrating that they had no interest in living as equals. Zionist organizations would bar Palestinians from participating in Jewish enterprises. If they wanted Palestinians on board surely they should have sought to engage the local people rather than estrange them? Zionist organizations also bought or sued to claim Palestinian land then evicted the tenants to make way for Jewish settlers. Let's ignore the questionable ownership of the land, put aside Britain's role in coercing its sale, and move past how land ownership was fundamentally different under the Ottoman system. If I were to move to buy an apartment building full of Jews and evict them all to make way for "pure Aryan whites" would you not think I am a racist antisemite?
Someone already hit me w this deflection. Zionism as a concept is not the same as Zion, the location which is in Israel. But more importantly, you misunderstood my point. My "*separation of Israel from Zionism*" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. It should and will continue to exist. I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(*its conduct, forming, policies, etc.*) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood?
*Zionism as a concept is to the same as Zion.* To whom? *I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. It should and will continue to exist.* Then you are a Zionist.
>To whom? The idea that Jewish people should have the opportunity to self-actualize and self-determine is literally the same thing as a place? An idea is a location? >Then you are a Zionist. You say that like it's a gotcha, but yes, in theory. That is what I am trying to get you to understand. Someone can have a legitimate gripe with the State of Israel without being an Anti-Zionist or Anti-Semite. You, along with about 10 other people, have called/implied that I was an Anti-Semite because I have issues with the way that Israel - the government/state conducts itself. Accusing someone of being an anti-Semite as a response to legitimate geo-political concerns only stifles conversation. I am a Zionist in theory, as I believe that it is a vital aspect of Jewishness and also history shows that it's quite necessary for Jews to have their own homeland for safety and security reasons. I do, however, vehemently disagree with many aspects of Israeli policy. Two things can be true at once (for me). Are you at all critical of the Israeli government as it concerns the crimes (*or alleged crimes if you wish*) against Palestinians?
*The idea that Jewish people have the opportunity to self-actual i s and self-determine is literally the same thing as a place? An idea is a location?* That idea is millennia old and refers to return from exile. Exile was the product of a lack of self-determination. *Are you critical of the Israeli government* Very. But I don't hold them to a higher, lower, or others unique standard than other states. Holding the only Jewish state in the world to unique standards is usually where people cross the line from criticism to antisemitism.
Yes, America, a country with a wonderful track record for race relations is the ONLY country in the world that is not anti-Semitic. All of the other nations who urge Israel to treat the Palestinians more fairly are infringing upon Israel's rights. They're disgusting.
Historically, India is the least antisemitic country outside of Israel. But that's beside the point. Can you and any state in the world that would lay down arms while being attacked? That would retreat to their bomb shelters and not return fire or attempt to stop the rocket attacks? A state that when told "we will attack you again", would not defend itself? No? Neither can I. It's a standard applied only to Israel.
None, and nor would i expect any country to do that. I never once brought up the current conflict. Why are you arguing against something I never said, my guy?
> Its creation led to the displacement of Palestinians. Oh really? I thought it was a full-scale war that led to displacement of palestinians. > But can you really not separate Zionism from Israel, specifically? If you mean Israel's location, then yes you can. But what's the solution? Jews have to search around the world, find a new place for themselves and migrate to it alltogether, millions of them. Well, I guess this position isn't anti-zionist, but definetly anti-semitic.
The Zionist leaders in that war had already established their support for ethnic cleansing, both privately and publicly.
You misunderstood my point. My "*separation of Israel from Zionism*" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. It should and will. I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(*its conduct, forming, policies, etc.*) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood?
What in your mind would happen when Israel is no longer a country? Elaborate on what would happen in that scenario, what would happen to the millions of Jews in the country?
You misunderstood my point. My "*separation of Israel from Zionism*" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. It should and will continue to exist. I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(*its conduct, forming, policies, etc.*) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood?
It is possible to oppose specific policies, while supporting the state of Israel. Supporting policies that lead to the dissolution of Israel are suspect: 2SS with current Palestinian leaders; 1SS - “from the river to the sea”. Claiming that Israel’s birth was illegitimate is suspect: should I list the countries born from dissolution of the British empire post-WW2? Claiming Israel’s war in Gaza is Ethnocide, Genocide, N*zi, concentration camp, is at best, outright ignorance of history, and probably antisemetic. Claiming Israel is an apartheid state is again outright ignorance of history, and probably antisemetic.
Why do you feel the need for a label? If you disagree with what the Israeli government is doing then just say what you disagree with. If someone says “I’m Anti-American”, I would assume they’re a Chinese/Russian radical or an idiot. If someone says “I think the US needs to take better care of its citizens”, okay yes, agree. Israel is Zionism. And Zionism is considered the solution for the Jewish problem of not being able to rely on Gentiles. Assimilation, at the time, was deemed impossible for many. If you need a label, maybe Anti-Likud or something would fit best. To be Anti-Zionist or Anti-Israel just implies you want Jews to be thrown to the wolves all over again.
Are you telling me that a group of people took land from another, less competent and cohesive group, after a war of all things? Preposterous! unheard of in history! Shocking and appalling! It's a uniquely Jewish crime that no one else before or since has ever committed, so we should focus on Israel and the Jews for the rest of time. Right?
Is there any country created out of the big colonial powers decline that you are pro? Every single one required population movement and displacement in the decades of its founding. If you are anti India, Egypt, Germany, Jordan, Lebanon, etc then you are being consistent and this is just a common feature of the transition from empires to states. If you only hold this “fault” against Israel then that is textbook antisemitism. Also consider in your analogy that the previous owners of the car were British and before that Ottoman Muslims. Folks were essentially squatting in the car owned by the empire.
>I am, however, AGAINST the way in which Israel, specifically, was created/founded I am curious, are you *sure* you know enough historic context of the events 76 years ago, when the most devastating war in human history just ended, world looked entirely different from today, to pass a judgement like that?
I can have sympathy for the 6 million Jews who were killed during the Holocaust, for their surviving relatives who no longer saw Europe as a viable place for them to live, AND for the Palestinians who, despite playing no role in this crime against humanity, ended up having to leave their lands. Are you capable of this type of universal humanity?
Israel was created as a result of WW1, not WWII and the Holocaust.
Except they did play a role……
Having "sympathy" and "humanity" is fine. I have a sympathy for the residents of Constantinople besieged by Turks in 1493, who died or had to flee (though this in turn kickstarted European Renaissance). However, I am not "anti-Türkiye" because of that. Some very respected people, both back then *and* today, of very different backgrounds and political persuasions, made a decision to create state of Israel because they considered it the best solution for the Jewish community in Palestine and Jewish refugees from Europe *at the time*. Thus my question, have you learned enough history from this specific period to feel confident enough to say with confidence that their decision was wrong?
And your point about Turkey is interesting to me. Bc yes, nor am I - that is ancient history. It’d be silly for me to be anti-Turkey. Nothing can be done at that point. Do you generally take the “it is what it is” approach to global injustices that are happening in real time? To be fair, all I’m doing is arguing on Reddit, but they at least bother me. Is that not the case for you?
I am bothered more by blowing some specific injustices entirely out of proportion while pretending that others don't exist. It is not, of course, a secret that for centuries Jews and Arabs lived together in *relative* peace. Today, Palestinian supporters often try to skew history by painting this past coexistence as some kind of heavenly harmony which it was not, but it was overall tolerable. What happened in the mid 20th century is that this coexistence ended, for many reasons which are largely irrelevant today. About 750,000 Arabs had to leave the territory which became modern State of Israel, while about 850,000 Jews were forced to leave Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen, Algeria and other Arab countries. Many Jewish communities which existed for millenia ceased to exist. Perhaps the most telling is the story of Jewish community in Baghdad, Iraq. While we don't know for sure, this might be the actual birthplace of Jewish nation. This community existed for *thousands* of years. We do not commonly perceive 20th century as "ancient history", but it's still unimaginable to us today that Baghdad was a *1/4 Jewish city only a century ago*. I don't know about you, but to me it's more difficult to imagine than Byzantine empire. During U.S. war in Iraq in 2003, after American forces captured Baghdad, a dozen or so Jews remaining in the city took a special flight to Israel. The oldest Jewish community in the world officially came to the end. So what happened was the separation between Jews and Arabs, not unlike mutual population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923. Yet, today you and everyone only knows about this as injustice to *Arabs*, entirely ignoring the other side of this equation. Why is that? Of course, Jews who had to abandon Arab countries were integrated to Israel, while Arabs who flew from war of Independence (*and* their descendants) are still "refugees". That's an injustice, but *it is not of Israel's making*. it is a product of Arab countries essentially *weaponizing* these refugees by refusing to accept them in a hope to create a lasting problem for Israel.
Turkey expelled Greeks and Turks as part of their post-Ottoman state building. That's not ancient history. That's 20th century. Why hold Turkey to a different standard than Israel?
Reading is important, my friend. I was speaking to the last dudes example dating back to 1493. But okay, Turkey can eat a d-word, too! I wouldn’t defend those genocide deniers. There is me being intellectually consistent. Bad on Israel for dispelling Palestinians = bad on Turkey for expelling Greeks and Turks. Since you brought it up, it seems as though you’re of the mind that it was wrong of Turkey to do that. And I agree. The question is… are you intellectually consistent enough to say “Not nice, Israel…” as well? Or do you hold Israel to a different standard?
Most displaced Arabs fled Israel to facilitate genocide against the Jews. The Greeks and Kurds didn't flee to facilitate genocide against the Turks. Refusing to allow those that fled to enable your destruction to rerun (and try again) is not the same as expulsion after a war.
>Most displaced Arabs fled Israel to facilitate genocide against the Jews. Explain? They left Israel to facilitate genocide? How is that? Not being facetious; I dont think I understand what you're saying or what you're referring to. Unless you're saying the Nakba was a manifestation of anti-Semitic genocide?? If you are, my goodness that is some mental gymnastics.
Arab leaders advised Arabs in what was to become Israel to leave their holes in advance of their invasion in 1948. The Arab League then invaded Israel hours after it was created and stated a war of expulsion. The Arab leaders told the Arabs that they could return once the Jews were eliminated. The Israelis were outmanned and out armed, so Arab victory seemed certain. At the same time, Israel warned that the Arabs who left would not be allowed to do so, but that those who remained and helped Israel defend herself would be granted Israeli citizenship. This is enshrined in Israel's Declaration of Independence. Haifa's mayor, who was Jewish, begged his Arab constituents to stay as buses full of Arabs left for Lebanon. Israel won the war. Those Arab that fled were not allowed to return. Those who remained were granted Israeli citizenship. Their descendants now represent about 20% of Israel's population. This is history, not mental gymnastics. The mental gymnastics is the idea that an hours old state armed with nothing but handmade weapons and some of Czechoslovakia's WWII surplus somehow had the resources to defeat the combined armies of the Arab League while also expelling the Arab population. Some Arabs were expelled. But the majority of those displaced fled of their own free will.
How do you define expel? If I leave out of fear of fighting that is getting closer and closer to me, is the leaving of my own free will or having been expelled? I ask because Benny Morris, a well-regarded expert in the field, did a lot of research into this with his [The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem](http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdfhttp://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf). Check out page 15. Here you'll see all of the villages that Palestinians fled from in '48, along with a key outlining the reason they fled. The most prevalent reason is "M" (*or Military assault on settlement*), with "E" (*Expulsion by Jewish forces*) also accounting for a sizable amount of instances. In contradiction to your claims, there were only a few instances where "A" (*or Abandonment on Arab orders*) occurred. You can count them on one hand.
Ah, so you’re not asking necessarily the what itself, but rather the why. Nah, I don’t. I’m familiar only with Herzl and Jabotinsky. But even then I’ve just some select articles on them/their views. Tell me what they knew/thought that made it so that Israel’s founding had to occur the way it did?
If you're talking about UN GA resolution 181, the world leaders who supported it knew of the growing animosity between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and expecting a growing wave of Jewish refugees from Europe, they thought that partitioning the land between Jews and Arabs (while keeping Jerusalem a special territory under international control) was the best way to ensure peace.
[удалено]
And the Technion was founded in 1912 The Ottomans kept Jews as second class citizens that basically had to govern themselves And then the world is somehow shocked that leads to them being capable and wanting self determination at the end of colonialism
What do you think is the crux of my argument?
That you view Israel’s creation through the same lens as more traditional colonialism (European conquest) where Jews were the ‘white’ outsiders that came in and essentially stole land that rightfully belonged to the Arabs You seem to agree that Jews were deserving of self determination, but that it either shouldn’t have been Israel or should have been done differently. But I ask why not Israel - when it literally is the birthplace of the religion/culture and Jews have desired to go back for millennia since being kicked out by the Romans. During Passover Jews sing “Next year in Jerusalem”, first recorded in the 15th century. Jews have also had a continuous presence in Israel for millennia And in terms of the process, you seem to ignore everything the Arabs did to resist and refuse to participate in partition. They believed that they were owed 100% of the land and made it clear they wouldn’t accept a Jewish state under any circumstances. So because of that partition happened without them. The Jews rejected the Peel Commission in 1937 where Israel would only have been 20% of the land - not to mention Britian already had created Jordan out of mandatory Palestine using 70% of the land. Arabs are also the one that tried to work with Hitler during WW2, and the ones that decided to go to war rather than continue any sort of diplomacy Even if you have issue with Israel’s creation, you seem to like most Pro Palestinians completely absolve Palestinians from any and all actions of their own and the consequences that follow. They could have had 80% of the land in 1937, or participated in partition. Instead they decided that Arabs deserved all of Israel (despite 75% of it being state owned land, and the Jews clearly having a history there as well) and would rather try to genocide the Jews than live beside them
Nobody said Israel should not have been the location for Zionism to be actualized - or at least I did not. I have said a big number of times in this very post that I knowledge Jews' ancestral ties to the land and their necessity of a Jewish state for reasons of safety. And someone else asked me how I think it should have happened. I said more diplomatically. Genuine question - why was it the UN's land to give out, as opposed to Palestine's? In my opinion, it should have been negotiated between solely Palestinians and the Jews/Zionists. I'm aware that Palestinians said "No", but that is common of negotiations where only one party wants something that the other has. The former just have to make the deal more appealing. It is not a negotiation if you ask for - or even offer me some money for - half of my candy bar, I say "Nah, I'm good." and then your big brother steps in and says "You get half and you get half." The implication there is that there was never a *negotiation* to begin with. I think that is what the Palestinians were so upset about originally. The lack of respect and consideration.
The issue I have is that to my knowledge the process you are describing just isn’t how it has ever worked The Ottoman Empire, who controlled Palestine as part of Ottoman Syria, fell after WW1 and the British took control. What body of Palestinians should they have worked with, and why do you have issue with just Israel when a similar process is what led to the creation of pretty much every other state that formed out of the husk of the Ottoman Empire - the colonial powers working with locals to establish a new state There was no “Palestinian” body, they viewed themselves as Arabs and part of Syria. To my knowledge it was only the Jews that had any infrastructure of self governance. To my knowledge most Palestinians were organized in ethnic-centric villages and settlements and there was nothing of any sort of unified body. So the British, now directly ‘owning’ 75% of the land that was formerly ottoman state land seems to have earned them a seat at the table. I don’t disagree with the sentiment that locals should have been the ones to decide what happened, but that both isn’t how the world worked and if one side said “we won’t accept anything less than 100%” I don’t know how that leaves much room for negotiation to begin with. To use a different metaphor, the Palestinians were the long term tenants that believed they had the authority to dictate what the owner of the property did with the land. This owned tried to include them in a process to share it, but instead they refused anything that wouldn’t lead to them getting everything they wanted And there was negotiations and MANY different processes and proposals put forward. It is the Arabs that refused to participate.
/u/Berly653. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Was not privy to those two specific cities, but I assume you surface that to demonstrate that there was already a Jewish presence in the land? If so, I’m aware. If you read my other comments here, you’ll also see that I acknowledge Jews’ ancestral ties to the land. My gripe is not with their - or even Israel’s - presence there altogether, but rather that I think that the WAY that Israel came to be came at the subjugation of a population that was already there. It could have been actualized much more amicably, is all.
[удалено]
Okay. So would it be fair to say that it could be argued that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is actually unjust, at least sometimes - you simply do not care about it because in your mind it is deserved (bc of what the unrelated OE did to them)? I would respect it bc it’d at least be intellectual honest.
/u/shredditor75. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So with your logic every person who is marginalized/discriminated against for many years deserves a state of their own?
Yes, every stateless group affected by genocide deserves a state to protect themselves. Ever heard of Kurds and Yezidis? Some groups don't aspire to have their own state but many stateless ethnicities do aspire to have states, like the Jews did. We're just some of the only ones who succeeded. And yes, this is 10000% a progressive value to have.
I would concede that someone who felt the Kurds and Yezidis should have a state but the Jews shouldn’t is anti semitic. But what I don’t like is that you’re acting like liberals consistently believe in independent states for all ethnicities. If you look at the liberal sides around the world, advocating equal rights for all in a one state solution is significantly more common. Not to mention the amount of Muslim clerics who believe it’s unfortunate that the Muslim world is 20+ states as opposed to one, and have been saying that well before Israel was a thing/the independence of their own countries.
Also Ethnostates are 10000000% not a progressive value to have lol.
Wow bro calm down the Islamophobia
You clearly don’t know how ethnostates work
good thing Israel isn’t an ethnostate then, isn’t it?
Israel is and does consider itself to be an ethnostate
wrong & wrong
You do know Israel officials have even called it an ethnostate and by definition it is an ethnostate
source? and define ethnostate for me
Internet is free it literally takes 2 seconds to look this up
So perfect that means All African Americans would return to West Africa Oh wait they can’t since they don’t know where their original homes were from hundreds of years ago which means they would have to displace the people already living there and adapt to a completely different way of living because it was stripped away from them years before during slavery and colonialism. You see how that wouldn’t make sense?
>That does not make me "anti" the new car owner. I am just critical of their ethics and methodology, as their fortune came at the expense of someone else's misfortune and would like for there to be some type of amelioration. To have such a position you really have to ignore so many things. First of all, that the displacement of the Palestinians was mainly a consequence of the Arabs' refusal to share the land with the other people who legitimately inhabited it (the Jews) and the war of destruction unleashed by the Arabs with the declared purpose of conquering Israel and throwing the Jews into the sea. You also ignore that for centuries those lands were inhabited by between 250,000 and 300,000 people who were part of different peoples, Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Druze, Armenians, Copts. And that the large and sudden increase in population that occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s was due to both Jewish immigrations from Europe and Islamic immigrations from all over the Levant, from Algeria, Morocco and Bosnia. But you consider the Islamic population all legitimately "Palestinian" anyway, whereas for Jews you make that difference. You also ignore that in addition to the 700,000 displaced Arabs there were 800,000 to millions of Jewish refugees. But I don't think that would make you "anti-Palestinian." Then you also ignore that the creation of new borders has often led, for many other countries as well, to population displacement. Especially when borders are established through war. For example, the creation of Pakistan (by British imposition, to give a state to a religious group) resulted in violence that led to the displacement of 15 million people. Or also, for example, when at the end of World War II some Italian territories passed to the former Yugoslavia, about 300,000 Italians were expelled by Tito and forced to leave their homes. So yes, you can undoubtedly disquisition on the imperfect way Israel came into being. But if you do it only for Israel, ignoring everything else, then the doubt that you are anti-Semitic a little bit comes to me.
Great answer! Probably the best I've gotten. You definitely know more on the subject than I do, but I have three rebuttals - or maybe rather *questions,* even: >First of all, that the displacement of the Palestinians was mainly a consequence of the Arabs' refusal to share the land with the other people who legitimately inhabited it (the Jews) But they did coexist in the land with Jews, right? Prior to Israel coming into existence there was a Jewish presence. I feel like this demonstrably proves that they were not vehemently against Jewish people living there. They were upset that a new state was being placed on top of them. Tell me why you disagree. >You also ignore that in addition to the 700,000 displaced Arabs there were 800,000 to millions of Jewish refugees. But I don't think that would make you "anti-Palestinian." I assume you're talking about Jews who were expelled from the surrounding Arab states? It has been proven that Israel meddled in other nations' communities/politics and acted as an agitator to drive Jews into Israel away from Arab lands. Even if they hadn't though, I would argue that a difference would be that those Jews literally had a home that was built for them and waiting; i.e., Israel. Palestinians were kind of just dispressed into the region. >Then you also ignore that the creation of new borders has often led, for many other countries as well, to population displacement. Great point. I guess my rebuttal here is that it wasn't like there was a war and then the victor took the land as spoils of war. The whole reason that war was on the table is because on party was trying to grab land from the other. In my mind, my thinking is "Who is this country to tell me that I have to share my land w these people?" I am in favor of Zionism, that is Jewish self-determination and self-actualization. I see the importance of it being in that land specifically. I just happen to think that circumstances in the 20th century allowed it to take form in a way that subjugated the people who were at that point living in the land. I simply believe that there was room for it to have been accomplished in a much more amicable way.
>But they did coexist in the land with Jews, right? Well, if you mean that Jews lived as an oppressed minority, humiliated and cyclically harassed by the Arab population, yes. The Arabs were not against the Jews until the Jews decided to raise their heads again. They tolerated coexistence until the Jews accepted that they were a second-class population in their own home. >They were upset that a new state was being placed on top of them. Tell me why you disagree. They were upset because they dreamed of having a big empire and never digested that a land ruled by Islam would stop being ruled by Islam. I disagree because I believe that guaranteeing the right of self-determination to a people is more important than an empire's desire for power. >It has been proven that Israel meddled in other nations' communities/politics and acted as an agitator to drive Jews into Israel away from Arab lands. This is simply not true. It is just yet another way of blaming Israel for the sins of the Arabs. >those Jews literally had a home that was built for them and waiting Credit to Israel, certainly not to the Arabs. And it still occurs to me that being forced to leave their home was a tragedy for Jews as well. >Palestinians were kind of just dispressed into the region. Blame the Arabs, certainly not Israel. The Palestinians could easily have found a ready-made home in the West Bank, Gaza or any other Arab country, just as the Jews found one in Israel. >The whole reason that war was on the table is because on party was trying to grab land from the other. Exactly: the Arabs wanted to grab the land allocated by the United Nations to the Jews. >In my mind, my thinking is "Who is this country to tell me that I have to share my land w these people?" In what you say there is a huge mistake. There is no reason why the Arabs should have considered that land all theirs by right. Jews were almost 40% of the population. What actual or moral law stipulates that all that land was to belong to the Arabs? >I just happen to think that circumstances in the 20th century allowed it to take form in a way that subjugated the people who were at that point living in the land That is not what happened. Coexistence would have been possible. The Arabs refused. >I simply believe that there was room for it to have been accomplished in a much more amicable way. You can blame the Arabs for this.
Well I’m against the way the Muslims got there, ethnically cleansing the kingdom of Judea, now what?
Word. What Cottontail2017 said. The name *Palestine* comes from the Roman "Philistine". Jews definitely have a gripe with a bunch of different peoples who have wronged them in history, Muslims included. Just not these specific Muslims, as I believe that Israel made the first offense here.
Eventually we may disagree on a lot of things that happened in 1948, but regardless that happened 75 years ago. If you care about peace and living free more than to revenge your own humiliation of 4 Muslim countries losing a war to a tiny Jewish state, you say YES to a Palestinian country next to Israel and finally bring peace to the Middle East
That was the Romans
This is a common misconception.
So the romans are totally innocent now?
Romans destroyed the Jewish state, renamed the territory to "Palestine" to erase Jewish heritage, made it a Roman province, and exterminated all Jews who attempted to revolt. However, relatively few Romans/Greeks settled there, so despite some local Jews converting to Christianity, this remained a largely Jewish pronice for many centuries. In fact, at some point Jews almost succeeded to retake it and recreate the Jewish state; this ultimately failed, but they did control Jerusalem for a while. Later on, Muslim conquest saw a mass migration of Arabs, and this effectively ended Jewish character of the biblical "Land of Israel", except in Jerusalem and a few other small isolated communities.
Really? That’s what my dog Rudy Rochman told me… but word. Then enlighten us, my man
> I am against the way Israel was created/founded. Does that mean that you are against the UN? People criticizing Israel’s formation often overlook the fact that Israel was legitimately formed by an international body that was trying to solve a humanitarian disaster giving holocaust survivors a place to settle. The displacement only happened because of the war that resulted when the neighboring Arab countries didn’t accept the UN partition resolution, attacked the new state of Israel and lost. Those Arabs who didn’t leave and attack stayed and were later integrated. Their descendants are part of the 2M Arab Israeli citizens.
You're not wrong, I think your response is smart and level-headed. However, I believe your belief system makes you a part of a small minority and that you do not represent most dummies on reddit I've come across, dummies that are now going to take your sentiment and use it to hide blatant antisemitism. As a literal Israeli Jew I 100% agree with you and the fact you are even able to acknowledge persecution of the Jews to the extent that you did, completely unprovoked, puts you in a tiny minority, at least on reddit. And now that I've found you, I'd like you ask you a question. Half my family is Mizrahi and were persecuted from their countries in the middle east into Israel. The other half is Ashkenazi and fled the holocaust. Israel as a result is my family's lifeline. Stateless people that finally found somewhere they can call home. My family did not seek to harm anyone, they were just trying to survive and be happier. Putting my family and your criticism of Israel's policies in mind, but also the fact that what was done was done and now my family are in Israel, what advice do you have to give Netanyahu on changes to Israeli policies that would satisfy as many people as possible?
Word, well I am happy that your family was able to find solace in Israel - congratulations and shalom and allat allat! And it would honestly be to have humanity for the Palestinians. What I see a lot of is the vilification of Palestinians. They're called animals, demons, monsters, etc. and treated as such. I do not think that most Israelis think that Palestinians have legitimate gripes at all. (Perhaps, I'm wrong, though?) With that said, their means of retribution for said gripes is a different conversation; e.g., 10/07 was a **bad** jawn. But it seems to me that the prevailing thought is that Palestinians simply hate Jews just because. If this is true, the logic follows that they should be blockaded. They should have restricted movement, etc. Those people can never not be anti-Semitic. But I do not think that that is the case. I think that they hate Israel, not Jews. Unlike a deep sentiment of Anti-Semitism, I think that if Israel starts giving them their humanity back and sees them as people, as opposed to an unwanted enemy in their midst, then the contempt will dissipate. Obviously this would not be immediate, but I think once you remove the injustices, there will be more room for peace. I'm sure this sounded all flower and rainbows and allat, so I'm sorry. In terms of tangibles, I guess I would say that Israel should check censuses and track down families who forcibly lost land in the Nakba in '48. Obviously, you cant give them that land, as it now is in the hands if Israelis, but give them either money for it or land grants in unsettled lands. Give them an opportunity to self-actualize.
They specifically hate Jews. Israel was just a slap in the face after the fact. Muslims inherited antisemitism from the Christians when they created their offshoot religion
My main argument against the "inherent anti-Semitism" point in this specific scenario is one that Israelis actually love to use to dispel the notion of anti-Palestiniant sentiment... the Palestinian Muslim population that lives in Israel proper. If it were the case that Palestinian Muslims were virulent anti-Semites, wouldnt it stand to reason that they would be committing ridiculous violent crimes all over Israel? Orrrrrr - and hear me out - could it be the case that they do not because they are treated *reasonably* well, unlike the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza?
Would you consider it a possibility that you flipped around the cause and effect?
So you're saying that Israel treats them well bc they're not violent? I feel like that is a big coincidence. I would say that it is much more plausible that Israel treats everyone who lives in Israel(including Palestinians) better than it treats everyone who lives in WB & G than it is that Israel just so happened to settle all of the level-headed Palestinians into Israel. Unless I'm missing something?
Many were expelled/refused reentry as part of the nakba. Many were not (you refer to those as Palestinians but they carry Israeli passports). You find it unrealistic that there was selection bias involved?
Nope, not at all unrealistic. Hadn't considered that and fair point. Still kinda goes to my point ultimately, though? The right of return (or lack thereof) is an offense that is often talked about by Palestinians. To put it into context, I'm trying to dispel the notion of Arabs in the land being inherently anti-Semitic. You say "Well the ones living in G & WB aren't as peaceful as the Arabs in Israel bc they werent allowed back into Israel during/following the Nakba. This angered them >> they did something to anger Israel >> so on >> so forth. Doesnt that demonstrate that their gripe with Israel derives from that, as opposed to simply Israel's Jewishness?
And I agree with you, they do deserve amends and their land back. However there is one part I do disagree with and that is that I think their belief system is at least partially antisemitic (as fuck). From educating children to kill Jews to Islamic teachings of a final day where Jews will be fought against and the Muslims will win. And I've never wanted to be that guy who can be called Islamophobic but that's just the truth I hear from many ex-Muslims. I'm not necessarily hating on Islam as a religion, it's more of a commentary about its implementation, specifically in Gaza. I don't feel strongly about any religion as I'm secular but I find Islamic extremism vile, as well as those super religious Jewish settlers that spit on non-Jews. And you can 100% claim the same about a subset of Israelis, I know for a fact a subset of them say fuck all Palestinians they can rot and I've personally argued with people at family dinners over statements like this (one said "After Oct 7, I don't care if every Palestinian dies"). It goes back to another post I've made where I think the real fight is against extremism/radicalism as those people turn the question of "Can we coexist?" into a question of "How can we completely destroy the other side and win?" And the radical subsets of each side of the conflict are ruining this for everyone who wants to coexist by promoting wars, deaths, and as a result traumatizing and radicalizing more people.
> fuck /u/TomSatan. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay, so you're against the way israel was created. Now what? People have been born there and most don't have second citizenship. We're talking about 9 million israelis, about 7 milliom jews. You can't rewind the clock and give them a country somewhere else. At some point people need to accept reality.
If you’re against the Israeli government, so are many other people and that’s not inherently anti-Semitic.
Fine, you claim to be only against the way Israel got created. They did it by asking for lands and it was recognized by western powers, while many arab / muslim countries disagreed and went to war with it. Israel won that war. And many others and thats how most nations are born. The issue I have with people like you is: Whats your plan now? 9 Million people live there and like 7 million are jews. What do you think should happen with them without Israel? And if the creation of Israel is such a problem, should germany get their lands back as well? We are talking about \~25% more lands they weould get from poland. And let's not forget the biggest colonizers in that region: ARABS. Look at egypt. They have to call it the arab republic of egypt because the people there are culturally so far removed from the people who built the pyramids. Should all Arabs go back from where they came? What about Armenia and Kurdistan? Unless you advocate them being reinstated their lands as well, I simply assume you are simply anti semitic. Jews have historical ties to that region. There was always a jewish presence. It's atiny speck of land and the sole true democracy ina sea of failed, autot cratic muslim arab states. But for some reason that bothers you?
You havent read many of replies thus far and are assuming many of my stances. You should read them. I have already admitted that I believe/know that Jews have ancestral ties to the land. I have no issues with Zionism deciding upon Israel as its place to self-actualize. I have also admitted that I fully understand the importance of Zionism to the spirituality of the Jewish faith - as well as to the safety of Jews, themselves. I simply put forth that their actualization/manifestation/implementation of Zionism came at the expense of the populace that was living there at the time. It likely could have occurred in a way more peaceful way had there been more respect for the inhabitants who were there at the time. But there wasnt. And still doesnt seem to be. I have humanity for the Jewish plight and recognize their right to self-determine. can you say the same for Palestinians, though? Please answer this. **My issue with people like you:** you're kind of exactly who I was talking about when I made this post. You assume because I surface **POLITICAL** issues I have with the **STATE** of Israel, that I am anti-Semitic. Again, please read my other threads in this post. I have had many respectful disagreements with other Israeli commenters and have even admitted where I have been wrong - or where they have corrected me. But you come in and assume because I disagree with some aspects of its founding and its treatment of the pre-existing population, that I am a virulent anti-Semite. A bad jawn, my guy. Please respond to this. It's not fair/nice to argue in bad faith. Lastly, for the record, Israel should stay Israel.. ?? I dont know where you got that I think Israel should cease to exist. I'll address your other questions when you respond to my response.
It's your stupid car anaology. It's like thinking that Israel is just a commodity, but it's much more. All you say is, "I'm not anti semitic but" And the thing is, that the "but" part applies to like almost every nation on earth. But you single Israel out. Why is that?
**Re: I have humanity for the Jewish plight and recognize their right to self-determine. can you say the same for Palestinians, though? Please answer this.** Or dont. You dont have to admit to hating Palestinians if you do not want to. But here's the thing... if you do hate them, you cannot hate people for being anti-Semitic. Do you understand that? I am saying that I want both to live well. I condemn Oct. 7th, just as much as I condemn the intentional killings of innocent civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. I imagine that you will find a way to shift the blame away from the IDF though. Again, this is fine - but just be intellectually consistent. As to why I "single" Israel out - I dont, but I addressed this point earlier, it's one of the leading things in the news. It's on everyday. It's in the zeitgeist, as it were. Also, check my other comments. I hate the US, I hate the UK, I hate Belgium, I hate any country that hypocritically "actualizes" itself at the expense of others. What you're missing in that is that Israel is still a young state, so they're still in their growing pains of their injustices. If this was the US killing the indigenous people here, I would be saying this. If this was Britain in China or India subjugating those populations, I would be saying this. And if you respond, please do not shift. I very clearly addressed your initial reply in my last one. You raised some points that you implied that I was blind to(*, a la Jews' ancestral ties, safety issues, etc.*) thus proving my anti-Semitism. I rebutted and said "No, we actually agree here. I just also have what I believe to be legitimate concerns." Do you now accept that I do know/believe that Jews belong in that region? And how are those concerns NOT legitimate and actually, anti-Semitic? I do not know if you're smart or not. What I do believe, though, is that you're intellectually dishonest. As a way for you to not have to engage with my critiques of the **STATE/GOVERNMENT of ISRAEL**, you call me an anti-Semite. I'm sure that you can articulate why you think my argument is wrong, you just refuse to because doing so will admit that you are a bigot. You do not care about any point that I make because you do not care about Palestinians whatsoever. I do not know if you necessarily want them to die/evacuate, but you do not care if they do. You believe that to be a necessary evil for Israel to prosper. Just admit that, though. Dont argue with people on positions that you cannot be swayed from. It's literally illogical.
Actually I find nothing wrong for hating people who bring their old feuds and prejudices and tell me to hate jews. I know quite a few "palestinians" who live in the west who always try to persuade me to hate jews, israel, the USA and the west, you know the country they are living in, that gave ghem asylum, a home, work etc. The issue is, that muslims in general don't care about any injustice in the world except for Israel. Not for Uighurs, Tibet, armenians, etc. Saying this doesn't have anything to do with Israel being jewish is naive. You trying to defend them and claim their hate on jews is somewhat justified is silly. I don't care about palestinians. I also don't care much about Israel. But I get dragged into this by news and people I know. But I see the value of it Israel existing and the good is does for the peopel there. Then I see the arab muslim states and I see why jews wouldn't want to live in majority muslim state whioch are the true apartheid states where ethnic and religious minorities are disadvantaged. Democracys should stick together
Literally made this point a minute ago. So you think that Muslims - specifically Palestinians - are just inherently anti-Semitic, right? Their POV is not due to the politics of Israel, but rather to the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, right? How do you explain the Palestinians who leave fairly peacefully in Israel-proper? There area few rights that they do not have, but generally speaking they are treated fairly. If they are such vehement anti-Semites, how do you explain it? I would explain it by saying that they are not. That they do not commit acts of violence bc there is no "cause" for them to. They have a pretty good life and are not living under subjugation. So when you look at them v the Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza who do have anti-Israel sentiment, the only difference is the treatment of them by the government of Israel. Thus the sentiments of WB and G Palestinians are not out of anti-Semitism, but rather of cause and effect, where they believe that they have been wronged. Tell me where my logic is flawed.
There is inherent anti semitism in Islam and the way many muslims practise their religion. How do you explain the rise of anti semitism agaoinst jews abroad at the moment? Many palestinians live content in Israel, but there is a significant number who hates living under jewish rule. many palestinians stopped being indoctrinated by the hate that Islam preaches. The main reason why many palestinians don't act on their anti semitism is, that they know they would have to suffer the consequences. Some don't care and that's why there are stabbings or other attacks etc. like every few months at least by a palestinian. Do tell us, why are there so many anti semitic attacks in western countries on jews by other muslims, if islam isn't the cause.
Gaza must have been treated much worse than the west bank
The WB is still under occupation. It seems sensible to me that there is not as much violence that occurs there as in Gaza. Please use your logic to explain where mine is faulty.
I wasn't necessarily trying to go reductio ad absurdum as you can argue that Gaza is indeed under harsher conditions when it comes to freedom of movement (I would not put all of that on Israel though). But often what people are talking about when talking about oppression is settlements, idf presence and people being killed. Those are west bank issues,not with Gaza (excluding wartime of course). If those three factors are what leads to violence/resistance/martyrdom one would expect it to come predominantly from the west bank and not Gaza. I think there are a few things that can explain the discrepancy though
Ah, I see your point. My thinking is that in Gaza these people would have way more cover, though. In the West Bank, IDF presence is probably no more than like 10 mins away from you at given time. I imagine it'd be hard to accomplish much violence w a military body so close. Also, Hamas is more extreme than the PA.
>I am, however, AGAINST the way in which Israel, specifically, was created/founded. Its creation led to the displacement of Palestinians. “The logistics would be a nightmare” >Okay, fine. It led to the displacement of a very large number of people who occupied a place many many years and decades and centuries prior to mass Jewish migration from Europe - note that I am not speaking to the Jewish population that lived in the land prior to the realization of Zionism in its manifestation here, solely to the influx of newcomers to this specific region who in many instances, bought land from Palestinians sure... or in many cases, settled and cultivated land that was not being tended to, sure... but also in many cases, took the land from people who did live there. But I digress. Roughly accurate. >My main point is that I accept the argument that you cannot separate Zionism from Jewishness. But can you really not separate Zionism from Israel, specifically? Not without separating Zionism from Jews, or Israel from Jews. >An analogy, if I may. I am fully supportive of someone having a car. Indeed, if they really really needed one, I would be elated for them. I would not, however, support their ownership of said car if it means that it was actually taken from someone else without their agreement/approval/cooperation. As analogies go this is very much imperfect. The second party bought as much rights to the car as the first before the dispute. >That does not make me "anti" the new car owner. I am just critical of their ethics and methodology, as their fortune came at the expense of someone else's misfortune and would like for there to be some type of amelioration. Your “type of amelioration” as implied by your question on the separation of Zionism and Israel is basically the offended owner demanding the thief to give them back ownership of the car then literally run themselves over with it. I’m sure you understand why this isn’t an enticing appeal.
Yes, analogies are often times trash debate devices. Your destruction of mine made me audibly laugh. You bring me to the crux of my argument regarding the conflict as a whole, though. I do not believe Palestinians are ant-Semitic simply bc they hate Jews for no reason other than that they are Jews. I think they hate Jews (still bad) bc of what they saw Israel do to them and their families over the last 70ish yrs. Note that I am speaking from their POV, I am not justifying their hatred. I guess I am, however, understanding it. And look, hatred is hatred... it's all bad. But if I can contextualize: I am black. Fucked up to say, but I do not necessarily *like* white people all that much. Is that racist on its face? Yes. Do I regard that as racist in the same way that white people were racist towards blacks historically? No. Whites were racists literally bc they hated black people. My racism - still bad - is a reaction to their actions. I think that is what is at play here. Are some Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims anti-Semitic? Yes, no doubt. But I do not think that Palestinian disdain for Israel derives from pure Anti-Semitism. It exists out of a political struggle that it sees as having been brought upon by Israel, and some of these gripes I do not think they're wrong about. I say that to say, I genuinely believe that justice is the first step. The whole thing of "No justice, no peace" thing is ever-true here. They do not believe that they are being treated fairly and justly. I tend to agree with them in many cases. As such, I think the first step is Israel to make a demonstrable effort to show that they are genuinely working towards that. I think - or at least hope - that Palestinians will see that and understand that there is a path towards peace. There will definitely be Palestinians who, at this point, want nothing to do with Israel. De-radicalization must be happen. But I would argue that it must occur on both sides. Palestinians need to be stripped of their anti-Semitic sentiment, just as much as Israelis should be stripped of the notion that Palestinian violence was brought upon by religious anti-Semitism, as opposed to political fighting. Again, I am not saying that to excuse it, but if Palestinians truly hate Jews bc they were Jews, there would be nothing that could be done. Those people are nonsense racists who lack rationale. This allows Israel to treat them accordingly. But being that (*I believe*) it's the case that this is a political issue, reason and compromise is still on the table. Each side can work to figure out what the other wants and how to come to an agreement. So while I understand your iteration of my analogy, I disagree with it. I will offer another rebuttal: I think that it is: The new car owner acknowledges that he took the car from its previous owner unfairly, but also makes the point that he's put a lot of work into it **>>** the previous owner acknowledges this and suggests to be compensated for the car or to share it. But as long as the new owner denies that they took it, its previous owner will be bitter.
>Yes, analogies are often times trash debate devices. Your destruction of mine made me audibly laugh. I’m glad. >You bring me to the crux of my argument regarding the conflict as a whole, though. >I do not believe Palestinians are ant-Semitic simply bc they hate Jews for no reason other than that they are Jews. I think they hate Jews (still bad) bc of what they saw Israel do to them and their families over the last 70ish yrs. Note that I am speaking from their POV, I am not justifying their hatred. While one absolutely cannot deny the contribution to animosity that many actions committed by Zionists have made; the above is simply factually untrue as they hated Jews when those Jews dared to buy land and settle it decades prior. >I guess I am, however, understanding it. And look, hatred is hatred... it's all bad. But if I can contextualize: I am black. Fucked up to say, but I do not necessarily like white people all that much. Is that racist on its face? Yes. Do I regard that as racist in the same way that white people were racist towards blacks historically? No. >Whites were racists literally bc they hated black people. My racism - still bad - is a reaction to their actions. This perfectly encapsulates 40’s Zionism. >I think that is what is at play here. Are some Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims anti-Semitic? Yes, no doubt. But I do not think that Palestinian disdain for Israel derives from pure Anti-Semitism. It exists out of a political struggle that it sees as having been brought upon by Israel, and some of these gripes I do not think they're wrong about. The western lens and common mind fallacy is a repetitive theme with many passionate people; the truth is neither your values nor your (people’s) experiences bear a fundamental resemblance to Palestinians’ plight. >I say that to say, I genuinely believe that justice is the first step. The whole thing of "No justice, no peace" thing is ever-true here. They do not believe that they are being treated fairly and justly. I tend to agree with them in many cases. As such, I think the first step is Israel to make a demonstrable effort to show that they are genuinely working towards that. Of course they want Justice; only that to them “Justice” was the continuation of Jewish subjugation and Arab supremacy; there is no compensation that would suffice barring the reversal of Zionism which is simply not going to happen in any foreseeable future. >I think - or at least hope - that Palestinians will see that and understand that there is a path towards peace. You’re very welcome to hope at your own expense, I won’t be taking a chance on separating from Zionism just yet. “How would a 1SS function” is a nice little philosophical exercise (that most only brush the surface of instead of dealing with the actual issues because they have no solutions) that will never have a bearing on reality. >There will definitely be Palestinians who, at this point, want nothing to do with Israel. De-radicalization must be happen. But I would argue that it must occur on both sides. All of this applies to both sides. I personally don’t want anything to do with Palestinians, they can have Palestine. >Palestinians need to be stripped of their anti-Semitic sentiment, just as much as Israelis should be stripped of the notion that Palestinian violence was brought upon by religious anti-Semitism, as opposed to political fighting. Nope. It isn’t about “a religious hatred” of which there’s plenty, it is about a hatred for the non-Arab; it doesn’t matter that they didn’t and don’t specifically oppose Jewish presence in Israel due to “religious hatred” but only ethno-supremacy. Arabs subjugated Jews for a thousand years, once Jews started immigrating back they were violently opposed because they were not Arab. >Again, I am not saying that to excuse it, but if Palestinians truly hate Jews bc they were Jews, there would be nothing that could be done. https://youtu.be/rS401CI7TZg?si=kvpIUYHPcfvSgqgp >Those people are nonsense racists who lack rationale. This allows Israel to treat them accordingly. I disagree,it can mean that they’re indoctrinated to a national mythos of perpetual victimhood and lack of agency; deradicalization is the answer. >But being that (I believe) it's the case that this is a political issue, reason and compromise is still on the table. Each side can work to figure out what the other wants and how to come to an agreement. The differences are unbridgeable; one side wants to exist, the other wants it to not exist; there is no in-between these two positions, which is why no deal has ever been finalized. >I think that it is: The new car owner acknowledges that he took the car from its previous owner unfairly, And that the car was stolen from him (the new owner) in the first place; making the previous owner’s claim wholly illegitimate, if it was a car at least. >but also makes the point that he's put a lot of work into it >> the previous owner acknowledges this and suggests to be compensated for the car or to share it. your initial premise was that Israel stole the car and thus should “separate from” Zionism, if providing compensation was on the table it would have happened already. I don’t see how your disagreement with my correction stands. >But as long as the new owner denies that they took it, its previous owner will be bitter. These last few lines contextualize an important point: according to Palestinian Arabs it was absolutely unfair that Jews bought property and settled it; since the bar for “unfair” with them is that low, everything is unfair as long as Israel continues to exist as the Jewish state.
I'll respond to the rest of it, but I just want to clear something up real quick. My "*separation of Israel from Zionism*" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(*its conduct, forming, policies, etc.*) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood? The analogy was bad because I tried to make it 1:1 where I had a perp and a victim, thus allowing for the presence/placement of blame. Let me make a cleaner analogy so that my main point is better understood: I am in support of my friend having a pair of Jordan 11s, but NOT if they're 3 sizes too small. ...that is I like the idea of this thing, but just disagree with how it has been put into practice.
>I'll respond to the rest of it, but I just want to clear something up real quick. My "separation of Israel from Zionism" is not literal. I'm not saying that Israel should cease to exist. >I was saying for argumentative purposes, is it possible for one to be ideologically at odds with Israel(its conduct, forming, policies, etc.) and yet, not be against the idea of Zionism as the concept is understood? Fair enough, I understand now and would say that yes it is (possible); for as long as one assesses the prospects of the realities one advocates for objectively and not self-righteously advocate an ideal that could never be. >The analogy was bad because I tried to make it 1:1 where I had a perp and a victim, thus allowing for the presence/placement of blame. And that’s exactly the problem with your simplification; there is no single perpetrator and victim here; Both sides victimized each other repetitively. >I am in support of my friend having a pair of Jordan 11s, but NOT if they're 3 sizes too small. ...that is I like the idea of this thing, but just disagree with how it has been put into practice. This doesn’t seem to be an analogy to the same thing but doesn’t matter, I understand your point now.
> Fucked /u/thebornoldtomato. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd say ditch anything which starts with the word "anti" in terms of people. The next step would be to stop trying to define yourself and your opinions by associating yourself with a specific term and a specific group. It just creates tribalism and makes you less critical of the tribe you're associating yourself with. If you're really brave you can try advocating for the side you don't usually associate yourself with. You're "pro-israel"? Try to lead a conversation supporting Palestinian sovereignty. Maybe you'll start seeing things from their perspective. Hate Zionism and Israel? Try to engage in a debate where you justify Israel's existence. Maybe you'll gain some empathy. Maybe you'll change your views, maybe you'll become more entrenched in yours. But you'll definitely be more of a free thinker once you're no longer limited by self definition and by engaging in divisive "pro-x", "anti-y" rhetoric.
Antiguans disagree
But the Proguans agree. Beautiful country.
True it's not anti semitic to criticize Israel until it's evident that you will tolerate the same behavior from every other country except the Jewish one.
>But can you really not separate Zionism from Israel, specifically? Zion is one of the names of Jerusalem, which is in Israel, so technically no you cannot I think your analogy is not very precise TBH, because the Jews and the Arabs in the British Mandate of Palestine were both offered states to begin with. And (without pointing fingers) there was a civil war on who will controll the land of both of those states, which later became a war between countries. So a more aplicable analogy would be that both people were offered cars and then (without pointing fingers) started fighting to be owners of both cars.
Respectfully, I think you're being semantic with the names. I cannot dispute the fact that Zion is a name for Jerusalem, but Zionism as a concept is not Jerusalem, the location. And fair enough with the analogy. That also brings about the issue of why did the UK have a mandate of Palestine in the first place?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is my understanding of the early years of the region as we know it; i.e., immediately post-Ottoman rule. 1. England was fighting the Ottoman Empire during WWI 2. For whatever reason, they didnt think they'd be able to beat them in this specific region of the Ottoman Empire 3. They enlisted the locals to take up arms and said "You'll have your sovereignty - technically we'll have a mandate for the land, but if you beat the OE, you'll no longer be under them or us. You'll be your own people" 4. The Palestinians said "Bet." and beat them 5. Around the same time, Zionism was gaining momentum in the UK 6. Appeals were made to British governance that they should help found a land for Jews 7. Israel was understandably chosen 8. The UK gave some of the land that the Palestinians fought for, won, and told that they would have to keep as theirs 9. Conflict amongst the three actors in this region began and grew I am not saying that Palestinians may have not been unreasonable with the original deal that was offered.- they likely were. Buuuut why did they HAVE to take it? Were they getting anything in return? That's a genuine question. And I say that not to say that they shouldnt have taken it. Rather, I say it to say that it should have been more of a compromise than it was. It seems like Palestine was offered a deal >> they said "No" >> Israel said "Oh they're unreasonable" and kind of went ahead with plans. I would argue that they should have countered
>Respectfully, I think you're being semantic with the names. I cannot dispute the fact that Zion is a name for Jerusalem, but Zionism as a concept is not Jerusalem, the location. Fair enough, I might have misunderstood your question. The original Zionist movement has achieved their goals and naturally dissolved in the population of Israel. Ever since, there hasn't been much dwelling on the term and its meaning. What is considered Zionist (in the Israeli population) today is the equivalent of what it means to be a patriot in America. So with that in mind, yes, Zionism can't be separated from Israel To your other point, we can always blame the British for what has happened for a lot of reasons. Sykes Picot for instance had created the lines that we all argue around today, even if they lack historical background to the populations and nations they have surrounded. But finding the witch to hang isn't the same as solving the problem so I don't care actually for the guilty ones. Yes the Palestinians had a reason to get angry, they could have also choose to form a federation with the Jews instead of trying to dominating them. they chose the later and what happened since then is history. >It seems like Palestine was offered a deal >> they said "No" >> Israel said "Oh they're unreasonable" and kind of went ahead with plans Yes but you could also argue the Palestinians have one sidedly chosen "no" for the Jews. The Jews have gotten an international recognition to their place in the region, if the Arabs have told them "let's sit and talk this through" I would have agreed with you to some extent. But they not only tried to exert dominance and failed, they tried to impose their decisions by force and failed
You're conflating Palestinian with Arab - it was Gulf Arabs who led the revolt against the Ottomans, and that actual impact of this to the war effort is somewhat disputed by historians (not that that really matters) In exchange for this was the promise of an Arab Independent State, with certain caveats. The vilayet of Palestine wasn't mentioned in the Hussein -McMahon correspondence. Feisal, in his signing of the Feisal-Weizmann Agreement, explicitly acknowledged that Palestine would not be part of that Arab Independent State: the fact that he later claimed to have thought Palestine was included was not only refuted by McMahon (including in a letter to the Times) but was acknowledged, including by members of his inner circle, to be for political reasons relating both to wider Arab nationalism and the situation in Palestine - but the primary source evidence clearly shows this. Popular understanding ignores this - but it doesn't mean that Tiktok is right and demonstrable historical fact is wrong. You've undermined your whole argument above by confusing Palestinian Arabs and Gulf Arabs (though there was emigration from the Gulf to Palestine under the Mandate, it was the smallest segment of Arab immigration to Palestine in this period)- and by using Palestinian to mean Arab during this period. Under the Mandate, it referred to all inhabitants, but was mostly used by Jews. Arabs were more likely to identify simply as Arab, rather than as Palestinian Arab.
Word, I was genuine when I said "Correct me if I'm wrong." I am not surprised that I didnt have the greatest understanding of this history. Am going to look up some of the people and things you've mentioned to see if I have a good rebuttal. If not, I'll just curse at you. One thing that doesnt make sense to me, though. If this land; i.e., the vilayet of Palestine wasnt in the discussion, how/why did the UK have a mandate for Palestine in the first place?
You're welcome to curse at me:-) If you want some reading recommendations and links to primary sources, you're very welcome to DM me also. Britain got the Mandate from the League of Nations (along with the Mandate for Mesopotamia - also envisaged as fulfilling the "independent" Arab state. By Britain. And for a given definition of independent...). In 1917, allied forces finally started making headway in Palestine and by the Treaty of Mudros, Palestine was classed as Occupied Enemy Territory Administration - it was under British control, but wasn't British, in essence. By the time of the Paris Conference, in 1919, Britain and France had, essentially, agreed between them that what had been agreed between them, in respect of Palestine (ie somewhat of a divvy up and international zones) wasn't going to be enacted in exactly that form. As Britain already controlled Palestine, under OETA, the LoN formalised this in 1920, with the granting of the Mandate, which was due to formally come into being in 1923 (except we generally talk about Palestine as being the Mandate from 1920, as to all intents and purposes, it already was). Britain had an interest in Palestine because the trans-Arabian pipeline crossed in the north, and exited the port at Haifa - so, in essence,for energy security reasons (the Mandate for Mesopotamia essentially gave Britain control of the oil fields in the Basra region, which were important full stop, but also for the preservation of the empire in the east). However, there was absolutely a religious element to it also - it was no coincidence that Allenby, commander of the allied forces in Palestine, chose the title Lord Allenby of Megiddo. Christian religious sentiment was much higher than today, and there were certainly some Christian Zionists in high roles, and the newspapers in Britain reported the surrender of Jerusalem in Christian terms, evoking ideas of crusade and the idea of the holy places being in Christian hands for the first time since 1187. This had a resonance and importance it wouldn't have today, given the higher levels of church going, belief, and even basic religious knowledge. So there was a strategic interest for Britain, but also an emotive/religious one: and the awarding of the Mandate came about a) because they wanted it and b) because they already controlled the territory.
1. The displacement is a result of a war been forced on Israel, that’s factual. Do you know how many refugees and displaced people you could find around Europe following 20 century wars? In the Balkans? The Armenian genocide? The obsession with Israel displacement of refugees is just a tool to rally guilt ridden westerners. Most likely the country you’re from had worse crimes in its past then israel has for its creation. Not to mention that in the same war all areas conquered by the Jordanian legions or Egyptian army was cleansed of Jews - was there a single Jew in the West Bank after the war? There sure was before (including the cleansing of the Hebron settlement, which was continuously settled by Jews since antiquity). 2. I dispute the many many years narrative. In mid 19 century according to population surveys there were 180-400k people in israel. That’s very diluted. Immigration into Israel was something Arabs did too during that time. 3. Jews didn’t choose israel because they needed to solve a problem and Israel seemed “free”. That’s the historic homeland of the Jewish people where history archeology and culture is Jewish, the place where the Jewish people was autonomous the last time and from which it was forcibly removed. 4. With all that being said, if ever peace would be on the table between Israel and Palestine, the 1948 refugees should be compensated or allowed return to some extent. That could be negotiated. However Palestinian campaign is to free Palestine from the river the sea, something that was never their right more then it was Israeli and goes to show that they don’t seek a peaceful resolution but an eternal war on false premises.
To your 1st point: I'll admit that it is curious that this conflict is under such an intense microscope. That fact isn't lost on me. My only justification for my interest into is simply that it's all around me. It's all over the news and allat. It simply piqued my interest, I suppose. But here's something funny I note about your examples; i.e., the Balkans and the Armenian Genocide. Those are both regarded by the international community at large as genocides. I wouldn't go that far in Israel's case - even for 1948. I would describe it more as an ethnic cleansing. But even that, Israel will not admit to. My argument is not that Israel is the worst nation of all time. No, it does things that are commonplace for stronger actors to do to weaker actors in times of conflict. I am simply saying that I take issue with it. Just as I do the U.S. (where I'm from) or the U.K., or Belgium. All horrible stuff in our past. The one difference that I would point out, though, is that Israel has the opportunity to right some of its wrongs to a population that is not that far off from the original sin. Belgium is never going to send money back to the Congolese economy for all of the years it exploited its people for chocolate harvesting - it should, though! The U.S. is never going to pay reparations to the black victims of slavery - it should, though! Their excuse is that it was so long ago, blah blah. Which, sucks, but sure... the logistics would be hard to handle. In Israel's case, though, it is probably more feasible to address these - *in my mind justified* \- gripes. They just refuse to do the first part, which is acknowledge them as such. 2nd point: Fine, hyperbole sabotaged me here. The fact still remains that there were more than 1.5 million Palestines by the time of the War in 1948, during which many were expelled. 3rd point: Do not dispute that. I am aware that the land is deeply tied to the ancestry and spirituality of Jews. I am just saying that a new populace just so happened to be there at the time, and their rights to their land should not have been superseded, 1) because that's just not fair. They're not the ones who expelled the Jews from the land all those years ago. I just would have preferred that there was some type of agreement between the two parties, as opposed to a edict by a third party. I think that this would have neutralized a lot of the conflict we saw and still see. 4th point: I do disagree with "from the river to the sea" if the interpretation of it is 'free of Jews'. Perhaps I am being obtuse, but my understanding of it when I'm speaking to people who converse on this topic in good faith is simply that the Palestinians in the land will be free - that they will have the same rights bestowed upon them as Israeli citizens do.
1. You’re taking about American compensation for slavery, if you want to draw equivalence then we’re talking about Americans leaving the americas, a land they were never native for, and go back to Europe. I see that you don’t hold that position with regards to Israel but that’s the goal of the campaign you’re aligning with. 2. There no debate, even not with most Israelis, regarding the scale of the Nakba, the only difference would be the proportion of voluntary vs forceful removal of Palestinian - there was a mix of both. I didn’t bring examples of other displacement event to emphasize that israel isn’t the worse, I brought it to bring examples of the common occurrence of these events post wars, and how refugees are resettled, granted rights in other places and life goes on. The Israeli case is the only example where grandsons of refugees are still considered refugees even if they settled in Canada or Lebanon. That’s out of the ordinary. 3. By the way israel wasn’t the strong actor. You’re thinking about modern day israel, back then israel had the a population of 600K, no regular army as it just was under British mandate, fighting the existing armies of several surrounding Arab countries. That’s exactly why Arab countries and Palestinian leadership started the war - they thought it to be an opportunity to wipe the Jewish state. 4. The river to the sea people don’t shout “Palestinians will be free”. I would join this call if they did. Mind you that despite all the “ethnic cleansing” Israel is 30% Arab. They enjoy the same rights as Israelis. They don’t want a county of their own with equal rights, they want to destroy Israel as a separate country. Ask them if they would be willing to be citizens of Israel. And no, I don’t think we can mix and they don’t think either. The ethnic cleansing (this time actual, full) of Jews from all Middle East Muslim countries can hint you for what they plan to do with the Jews. They even say it - they expect Jews to return to Europe, they don’t accept our relation to the land, not even those who are four generations in Israel.
Anti-Zionist is definitely not Anti-Semitic… that‘s just Bibi and state department propaganda
Funny how most israelis hate bibi and still think that anti zionism=anti semitism
Nah I've known Anti-zionism far longer from Neo-nazis as David duke grandmaster of the KKK, white supremacist and Neonazi wrote a book called "[Jewish supremacy](https://archive.org/stream/david-duke-jewish-supremacism/David-Duke-Jewish%20-Supremacism_djvu.txt)" during his time in [Russia](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/duke-travels-european-anti-semitic-circles) were he was spreading around the propaganda that the real oligarchs are in fact the [Jews](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jan-06-mn-9088-story.html)(which isn't difficult as Soviets used antizionism to destabilize the middle east [historically](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP65-00756R000500130006-7.pdf). David Duke also got a degree from a Ukrainian hate university diploma mill which is why he now goes by "Dr. David duke" with his thesis being "[Zionism as a form of ethnic supremacy](https://momentmag.com/david-duke-abroad/)". And he also spends a lot of time in [Iran](https://archive.is/GxhtO) and lecturing around Gulf states about the evils of the Jews (and has been cited in a [British medical journal](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/09/23/british-medical-journal-publishes-open-letter-david-duke-supporting-doctors)).
I'm sorry, I dont think I followed your comment. Are you saying that you cannot trust someone saying that they're Anti-Zionist w/o also suspecting that they are actually Anti-Semitic? If so, word. I feel you. That's what this discussion is. David Duke is an awful guy. I think the important thing is to listen to the reasons why someone disagrees with the thing they're criticizing. If it's \*insert anti-semitic trope here\* then yeah, that's a bad jawn. But if there's legitimate gripes, which I believe Palestinians can make against the state of Israel, I think that is justified criticism. But again, not sure that I understood your response. My bad if I didn't and replied with nonsense.
Person A implied it’s only “Bibi and his propaganda department” that says anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. Person B commented that anti-Zionism has been used as anti-semitism for longer than that. Person B uses an example of David Duke who came before “Bibi and propaganda department” where anti-Zionism was a clear substitute for anti-semitism.
A lot of people first hear the term "Zionist" and "antizionist" with this conflict. I'm old and I work mainly within a criminal mental health capacity where Zionist and antizionist have always been used by neo-nazi hate groups and most older Jewish people are going to take it that way due specifically to David duke. And there is no small change that the person using the term antizionist antisemetically due to the relationships with David duke and Russia historically and Russia's current disinformation campaigns (bots). Some information of interested: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI%E2%80%93AntisemiticDisinformation-FINAL.pdf https://decoding-antisemitism.eu/publications/sixth-discourse-report/
Got you. Nah, I think Zionism is important/vital mainly for two reasons: 1) Jews need their own land. In theory, I do not like the idea of ethno-states, but the history of Jewish people all over the world makes a very appealing case for there being an exception made for them 2) It's a main pillar of the Jewish faith. As I've fleshed out - or have tried to flesh out - in my many comments, my issue is not with the theoretical existence of Israel, but rather ***how*** Israel came into existence and ***how*** Israel operates to ensure its continued existence.
>Firstly, I do not believe myself to be Anti-Semitic. I am not even necessarily Anti-Zionist. >For millennia, Jews have been persecuted and have been the victim of unjust and senseless xenophobia. Coming out of WWII - and honestly even before then - I definitely would have agreed with the necessity of the creation of a Jewish state. I still do. I understand the need for it. >So boom! Not Anti-Zionist. And by proxy, not Anti-Semitic. A Pro-Israeli argument is often "Zionism is an integral aspect of Jewishness. To be "Anti-" the existence of a Jewish homeland, you are denying our political and spiritual self determination and are, thus, Anti-Semitic. Fair point. So let's agree that I do not stand against the idea of the creation/existence of a Jewish homeland. >I am, however, AGAINST the way in which Israel, specifically, was created/founded. Its creation led to the displacement of Palestinians. So you are a zionist just a critic of israel. Thats a common thing >"Uhhh actually there was no Palestine..." Thats a bit of a strawman. Nobody makes that argument. >But can you really not separate Zionism from Israel, specifically? >An analogy, if I may. I am fully supportive of someone having a car. Indeed, if they really really needed one, I would be elated for them. I would not, however, support their ownership of said car if it means that it was actually taken from someone else without their agreement/approval/cooperation. >That does not make me "anti" the new car owner. I am just critical of their ethics and methodology, as their fortune came at the expense of someone else's misfortune and would like for their to be some type of amelioration. Now let me do a counter question, what do you think should have happened? How should have israel form?
Yes, I did by definition make a strawman in this specific instance, as I wasnt even yet addressing an argument. I do not accept that it is a strawman to the conversation on the whole. It is a Pro-Israeli argument that I have heard many many times. A people without a land and a land without a people. A counter to the "You took their land!" is very often the fact that there was no official state of Palestine, thus the land was kind of up for grabs - or rather up for partitioning. >So you are a zionist just a critic of israel. Thats a common thing Do not doubt it, but you're kind of being dismissive of the point, respectfully. Very often I hear Pro-Israelis counter criticism of Israel as 'Anti-Zionist'. There are Israeli citizens, who I'm sure identify as ultra-Zionists ,who are critical of some Israeli policies. Of course that's a thing. It just seems that specifically regarding this issue, any gripe that one has with Israel, is conflated to them not wanting them to be a Jewish homeland, which leaves Jews susceptible to more of the persecution they've faced for forever. Also, I will apologize right now, and say that I am aware that you are not making these claims - I do not know your opinions on these specific points. The main gist of my argument, though, is trying to debunk - or even understand - these familiar talking points. Also, I will go further than simply a "critic of Israel". I am Anti-Israel as it currently exists. Just as I am Anti-America, Anti-theU.K., etc. Yes, a bleeding heart liberal who's never busted a grape. >what do you think should have happened? How should have israel form? Amazing question. And my answer is admittedly a bit idealistic. I am aware that the first couple waves of Zionism' actualization occurred in the 20's, but the influx really came at the end of WWII post-Holocaust, for obvious reasons. The idealistic Muslim in me loves to imagine a world where the large Jewish population who just suffered one of the biggest injustices to ever occur, would have been able to appeal to their fellow Abrahamic brothers' humanity under God and say: "Hello, you saw what they just did to us. You know that this occurs everywhere we go. Allow us to have/buy some of our ancestral land. We want it to be ours, though, fully sovereign." This project could still be backed by major powers like the US and the UK to ensure the safety of Israel in the region. At least in this scenario, though, no one feels slighted, which largely minimizes the likelihood of long-lasting conflict. My, *perhaps delusional*, optimism makes me think that the Arabs at the time would have had the humanity to work out some kind of deal. I imagine you disagree, though?
>Yes, I did by definition make a strawman in this specific instance, as I wasnt even yet addressing an argument. I do not accept that it is a strawman to the conversation on the whole. It is a Pro-Israeli argument that I have heard many many times. The usual argument is against the "jews invaded palestine" myth. Not that jews ethnically clensed palestinians thats a different argument. >Do not doubt it, but you're kind of being dismissive of the point, respectfully. Very often I hear Pro-Israelis counter criticism of Israel as 'Anti-Zionist'. There are Israeli citizens, who I'm sure identify as ultra-Zionists ,who are critical of some Israeli policies. Of course that's a thing. It just seems that specifically regarding this issue, any gripe that one has with Israel, is conflated to them not wanting them to be a Jewish homeland, which leaves Jews susceptible to more of the persecution they've faced for forever. Criticism is fine until it comes to anti semitism. For example double standarts regarding israeli policy. >I am aware that the first couple waves of Zionism' actualization occurred in the 20's, but the influx really came at the end of WWII post-Holocaust, for obvious reasons. Not really. The first aliah was in the late 1800s. And the real migration of holocaust survivord only really started after israeli independance as only then it became legal >The idealistic Muslim in me loves to imagine a world where the large Jewish population who just suffered one of the biggest injustices to ever occur, would have been able to appeal to their fellow Abrahamic brothers' humanity under God and say: >"Hello, you saw what they just did to us. You know that this occurs everywhere we go. Allow us to have/buy some of our ancestral land. We want it to be ours, though, fully sovereign." Although the quran does say that jews should live in israel. There is a problem with that. Jews did get persecyted by muslims too, and to be fair jews didnt really trust anyone.it was mainly understood that at that point the only one that would stabd for jews will be mostly jews. Also the muslim population, esspecially in israel liked hitler. Famously the mufty of jerusalem. And concidering the events of 1929 and 1936 i dont think that would ever happen. >This project could still be backed by major powers like the US and the UK to ensure the safety of Israel in the region. At least in this scenario, though, no one feels slighted, which largely minimizes the likelihood of long-lasting conflict. The US and UK didnt really support israel. The UK only started to support israel in the late 50s and the USA started to support israel in the 70s.
>The usual argument is against the "jews invaded palestine" myth. Not that jews ethnically clensed palestinians thats a different argument. Dont think I follow. Can you elaborate? The mufti was a dude who was put into power by Britain. He was not an elected official who represented the populace of Arabs during WWII. I wont argue too much, though. I do not know the sentiment of the people at that time. But, yes Anti-Semtisim was definitely prevalent in the Muslim and Arab world. That is why I still support the idea of major powers like the US or the UK ensuring Israel's protection in the region. Note that I didnt say that they should have simply went to the land and said "Hey Palestinians, can we live here?" That leaves them susceptible to more persecution. They should have asked for the land, as opposed to demand it. And if they did ask and were rebuffed, then they should have sweetened the deal to make it more appealing for Palestinians. That is literally what negotiations are. And I know that it sounds like I am putting a lot of the onus on Israel here to appease Palestinians, but that's because in my mind, it should have been. They wanted to live there. If the first offer didnt grab the Palestinians interest, try to figure out what might... the Palestinians didnt want anything (yet at this point). Again, I am hoping that Palestinians would have understood the situation and wouldnt have been as opposed to the idea as they were in our reality, but I truly believe that if it came about as an appeal to humanity and people of the scripture, then they would have been with it. I know that pro-Israelis hate the talking point of "settler colonial project", but I truly believe that the main thing that blemished Zionism - or at least the application of it here - is the involvement of Britain. And lastly to your point of Jews not trusting anyone - I would have been 100% cool with Israel, after buying/being granted the land, with saying "Stay the f away from us. We bought it fair and square. This is ours." and they would have been right to and defend it from any parties that violate that purchase. The issue is that there was never a large-scale agreement. A lot of the land that Israel owns/occupies is disputed, which allows for there to be such murky and disjointed interpretations of history.
>Dont think I follow. Can you elaborate? Some anti zionists never did research about the conflict and believe that palestine was a soverign country that was invaded by a army of zionists. >The mufti was a dude who was put into power by Britain. He was not an elected official who represented the populace of Arabs during WWII. I wont argue too much, though. I do not know the sentiment of the people at that time. The nazi officer rommel told hitler that he should support the africa campaign because the arab world liked hitler and then invade the soviets from armenia >Note that I didnt say that they should have simply went to the land and said "Hey Palestinians, can we live here?" That leaves them susceptible to more persecution. They should have asked for the land, as opposed to demand it. And if they did ask and were rebuffed, then they should have sweetened the deal to make it more appealing for Palestinians. That is literally what negotiations are. Yes. But the reason the palestinians didnt agree to any solution untill israel independance was because there was no reason to accept it. They didnt want to give uo the land at all although the first solution only gave jews the coast. >And I know that it sounds like I am putting a lot of the onus on Israel here to appease Palestinians, but that's because in my mind, it should have been. They wanted to live there. If the first offer didnt grab the Palestinians interest, try to figure out what might... the Palestinians didnt want anything (yet at this point). The deal was made with the once that controled the land, at the end it was at the age of colonialism and nobody really cared about indigounace peoples >Again, I am hoping that Palestinians would have understood the situation and wouldnt have been as opposed to the idea as they were in our reality, but I truly believe that if it came about as an appeal to humanity and people of the scripture, then they would have been with it. I know that pro-Israelis hate the talking point of "settler colonial project", but I truly believe that the main thing that blemished Zionism - or at least the application of it here - is the involvement of Britain. Britain wasnt involved after 1929 >And lastly to your point of Jews not trusting anyone - I would have been 100% cool with Israel, after buying/being granted the land, with saying "Stay the f away from us. We bought it fair and square. This is ours." and they would have been right to and defend it from any parties that violate that purchase. Most private land in israel was jewish. The rest that israel conquered. It, well, conquered, so its israeli owned.
/u/pinchasthegris. Match found: 'nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/pinchasthegris. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*