Again. I didn't say they were inherently. But they are attended by antisemitic people and there's a lot of rhetoric flagged there that denies the right of Israel to exist. They fuel antisemitism. Even if you think you and your friends have nuance and the ability to differentiate, the fact is it's a mob that gets inflamed with often ignorant anti-Israel rhetoric (even if you personally are not ignorant it's a mob).
> American university campuses simply are not antisemitic places.
Explain the Ivy league letter. Justifying the murder of Jews?
Explain the presidents of the Universities who are so careful about protecting every other race/gender... Suddenly silent on antisemitism. I'm even seeing it here, I have an opinion which you might disagree with. But I think it's valid and reasoned.
Yet when I was a bit upset because a person here indicated that my country has no right to exist and we should all die... Well, it annoyed me. So dang limited my account. If I would have defended the cause of any other minority or the rights of any other minority to exist in its country, I doubt I would have gotten the same treatment.
The number of people I've talked to in the past year who think Israel shouldn't exist is concerning. The people who repeat racist tropes about Jews is also very concerning.
> That criminal has been repeatedly elected, and has been in charge for much of the last 30 years.
Also repeatedly cast out. He's a snake. To be fair he used to claim to be for a Palestinian state (liar obviously) and voted for leaving Gaza back in the day. The only reason Ben Gvir/Smotrits are in the government is due to Bibi.
The only reason Bibi came to power is due to Hamas. During the Oslo years the peace was working wonderfully. Until busses started blowing up all over Tel Aviv killing many people. Some of them right below my old home in Disengof. That was the Hamas sabotaging the peace by blowing up civilians in suicide bombings.
That helped Bibi get elected on the basis of "safety". Every time he and the Hamas used each other to promote themselves.
> "22% of the way" (not even halfway)
Stop with that nonsense. My fathers family no longer have their ancestral home in Morocco. My Spouses father probably won't be welcomed by the Houthis back in Yemen. I can go back to my mothers family who ran from Russia all the way through Europe losing home after home and most of their family.
Sh*t happened. It isn't our fault and it isn't theirs. We can't go back and neither can they. Keeping this sort of nonsensical rhetoric is redundant.
> Palestinians have given up their claim to places like Haifa and Jaffa
The vast majority of the Palestinians who still live there and are Israeli citizens sure as hell don't want to be ruled by the Palestinian authority. You'd be shocked to know how many of them vote for the Likud party.
> So far, no Israeli government has reciprocated and acknowledged a Palestinian "right to exist."
They exist and Israel tried to do that. The difference is that if the Hamas had the option it would kill all of us. Everyone. They already promised to repeat Oct 7 at least 3 more times.
> You're ignoring the millions of Palestinian refugees who deeply desire to return to their home towns inside what is now Israel.
Most of these lands are long gone. We had 70 years of wars. No way of reaching people who fled to countries that were at war. OTOH the people who stayed kept all their rights and properties. That's probably better than the alternative situation if the other side would have won.
That's how wars work. Every single country was founded that way. If we need to go through the list of the places every single Jewish family lost through history the list would be ridiculous. I'm sorry for them, but there are problems we can't solve.
But blaming it on Israel is low. WTF was Israel supposed to do?
Hold onto land for 70+ years?
Get an enemy state to open the borders to send people, who might be enemies too, back?
Why don't you give back Manhattan to the native Americans while you're at it...
Why not clear Northern Ireland of protestants and give it back to Ireland. There's a huge double standard that people only apply to Israel and no other country...
Why didn't the Ottomans (Turks) give the Palestinians a state? Why didn't the Egyptians or the Jordanians?
They all held these lands.
> The settlements were built illegally, with the express intention of making a Palestinian state impossible.
Some of them were built illegally. Immorally I would agree but a lot of them had legal standing. Flawed legal standing... But legal.
> The Palestinians have agreed to drop their claims to everything beyond the Green Line, and Israel should/must do the same.
That's not how reality works. We might not like the settlements but they are there and some of them are massive. Israel can't clear 900,000 people. It won't. Just building alternative hosing for everyone isn't technically viable. Again, the longer the Palestinians wait with a deal the more they will lose.
History is repeating itself again. Palestinians think they get a raw deal. Choose extremist leader. Fight Israel. Lose. Get even less the next time around.
The reality is that the offers that Barak and Olmert made will probably never happen again. I'm still optimistic to think that a Palestinian state will happen in my lifetime. But I doubt east Jerusalem will be a part of it.
The best thing we can do for a Palestinian state is to help them face that reality.
> Because there haven't been any offers that would lead to a sovereign Palestinian state, as I explained earlier. The most that has ever been offered is a Palestinian "entity" that gets to manage some of its own internal matters, but which is still firmly under Israeli military control.
There are demilitarized states that are doing just great. Hamas is pretty much proving Israels point of the need for that. Imagine living in NewYork while the guys from New Jersey keep firing rockets at your home and occasionally raiding/kidnapping/raping/murdering... Should they have an army too?
The problem is that Hamas constantly tries to escalate the violence to move to the "next level". As far as they are concerned this operation is a huge success. The number of deaths on "their side" is meaningless to them. Imagine them with an army. The results would be catastrophic all around.
> On October 6th, there was no prospect of a Palestinian state.
I would argue that it was quietly moving, but to some degree I agree.
But the fault here was due in large part to Hamas and their never ending rocket campaign against Israel. Hamas is behind the rise of the right wing in Israel and their staying power.
> > Oslo accord started thanks to the PLOs decision to stop the violence.
>
> And then it didn't lead to a Palestinian state.
Partially because of Hamas and Partially because Palestinian leaders refuse to compromise. See above.
> The Israelis have succeeded in convincing the Palestinians that a peaceful approach brings nothing. A violent approach also brings nothing. Nothing brings anything.
Nope. They needed to compromise, they had an option. Just like the Irish compromised on Northern Ireland and it worked out well for them in the long run. You're framing this as if Israel needs to give everything, which is also ridiculous.
Hamas wants the entire country, nothing less. This has nothing to do with Israels willingness to compromise.
> Until the US gets tough on Israel, this will not change.
Do you know the US and UK wanted to bomb Israel?
Do you know Israel survived just fine without their support. The reason for their support is that Israel is a good proxy state.
E.g. why are we in the current war?
The US didn't like the Iranian democracy so they installed a dictator which triggered the Islamic revolution. This cascaded to the current conflict which is fulled in a large part from Iran.
> That's why the demonstrations in the US are so important.
No. They will backfire and make matters worse for you and us.
These demonstrations will probably help Trump rise back to power which is terrible for all of us.
But let's say that your most blue sky wishes take place and everything you wish for happens. Biden suddenly threatens to bomb Tel Aviv if Israel doesn't immediately move to the 67 line and Israel complies instantly. Or maybe a more realistic situation with a long term plan and agreement with the moderate PLO leadership.
What would happen then?
As it is now, Hamas isn't defeated. On the contrary. It's stronger. Once they have a state they will attack Israel again. They already announced it. But this time Israel will be ready and it will be a bloodbath. We will end up in a worse place than we were to begin with.
Political pressure is important. I'm thankful to Biden for putting pressure on Bibi and I hope he'll pressure him more. But this is a very delicate balance. E.g. at the moment the ceasefire offer is delayed by Hamas, not by Israel.
I'm not going to get sucked even deeper into a debate over history. I've already said too much. I'll just state my bottom line, which is that the idea of founding a Jewish state in an Arab land, Palestine, was 100% guaranteed to lead to a massive conflict, because it necessitated the expulsion of most of the native population. You're correct that the US also committed massive injustices against the Native Americans, but that doesn't make what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians any better.
> Explain the Ivy league letter. Justifying the murder of Jews?
I haven't seen anyone in the Ivy League doing that. Antisemitism is extremely rare at Ivy League schools nowadays, and if you go to those campuses, you'll see that a large (probably disproportionate) fraction of the pro-Palestinian demonstrators are Jewish. Young Jewish Americans skew very differently from older Jewish Americans on this issue. That is doubly true for young left-wing Jewish Americans, and university students are more left-wing than the general population.
> the idea of founding a Jewish state in an Arab land, Palestine
Why is it an Arab land?
According to the Quran/Bible etc. it is very much the ancestral land of the Jews.
But I agree this is a pointless discussion. Decisions were made, wars were fought. Complaining over what happened in 1947 is as bad as Jews complaining about what happened 2000 years ago. It's history.
> that doesn't make what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians any better.
I didn't say that what Israelis did to the Palestinians was good or justified. On the contrary. I agree the settlements are horrible and a lot of the stuff Israelis did was pretty terrible. But not one sided. The victim role by both sides is stupid and redundant. Both have weaponized it instead of compromising.
Unfortunately, the protests seem to look at the act of pressuring as one sided: Israel should be pressured. This is especially galling when Hamas is holding 130 civilians (including women and children) hostage. This hurts the Palestinian civilians most of all and prolongs the conflict.
> > Explain the Ivy league letter. Justifying the murder of Jews?
>
> I haven't seen anyone in the Ivy League doing that.
That means you haven't looked. The letters signed by many organizations justify murder of Jews and have a twisted recap of history. They redefine Hamas as a resistance movement rather than as a murderous terrorist organization.
Imagine students writing literally the day after 9/11, claiming that the US is at fault for the attack and that it was justified resistance.
> a large (probably disproportionate) fraction of the pro-Palestinian demonstrators are Jewish.
Sure. But also look at Israelis who want to enter the universities and can't. These are not right-wing lunatics who are pro war etc. We're talking people who are 100% for a two state solution. Barred from entry.
Young people in general skew badly on this issue because they don't remember the history. I lived through the bombings in Tel Aviv. I remember the charred busses from Hamas's terrorism. I also remember the earlier Oslo years and the optimism as a Casino opened in Jericho and Israelis flocked to it as part of an optimistic shared future.
Young people haven't seen evil. They think people can be reasoned with. They think everyone is what they say they are and that western mentality is universal. Older people understand that this isn't the case. People who smile over the death of their son or strap on a suicide vest are not the same. They are no freedom fighters.
> But also look at Israelis who want to enter the universities and can't. ... Barred from entry.
Israelis are not barred from entry. I know of only one individual Israeli who has been barred from entering the Columbia main campus, and that's because he has more than 50 harassment claims against him, and because he tried to lead a counterprotest directly into a protest. The administration told him to hold the counterprotest at a nearby location, so as not to create a direct physical confrontation.
Jews started coming back to Israel in the 19th century. That land was occupied by empires since the Jews were outcasts. Everyone who came there was a vagrant following the Ottoman empire. That doesn't make their land "theirs" anymore than it is ours.
> Israelis are not barred from entry. I know of only one individual Israeli who has been barred from entering the Columbia main campus, and that's because he has more than 50 harassment claims against him, and because he tried to lead a counterprotest directly into a protest. The administration told him to hold the counterprotest at a nearby location, so as not to create a direct physical confrontation.
E.g. Shai Davidai. He's a professor and was followed by quite a few people so they were all barred from entering. He specifically supports a two state solution, so what would he have to counter protest?
Then there's all the Israeli students who were physically attacked? Including most ironically Yosef Hadad who's a Palestinian Israeli and was physically assaulted at Colombia.
For many hundreds of years, until the British Empire took over and began supporting Zionist colonization of Palestine. The British denied the native population, which was almost 100% Arab, the right to determine what would happen with the land they lived on. Instead, Britain promised Palestine to an outside group.
> E.g. Shai Davidai.
He's the only person who's been banned from campus, for the reasons I stated before: he has been harassing and doxxing students, and he tried to lead a counter-protest directly into the protest. Saying that Jewish students in general are banned from campus because one specific harasser has been banned is not accurate.
> Then there's all the Israeli students who were physically attacked?
"All the Israeli students"? There haven't been any physical attacks on Israeli students at Columbia. Yosef Hadad isn't a student. He's a professional pro-Israel campaigner who went to campus, started yelling in the faces of protesters, and then got shoved by one of them.
On the other hand, there have been plenty of assaults on pro-Palestinian students. A group of former IDF members on campus sprayed a bunch of pro-Palestinian protesters with a noxious chemical, sending them to the hospital. The university administration didn't care.
The British and French and Europe generally denied the entire world self-determination in that time period: literally every state surrounding Israel is the product of Sykes-Picot, just as one instance. Horrible ethnic violence and subjugation has been in endemic in all of those states. Israeli Jewish people, who are themselves plurality MENA people (contrary to the popular narrative that they're all displaced Europeans), correctly notice that they're the only ones whose residency is invalidated by appeals to the British.
None of this is to say that Israel's treatment of Gaza is defensible; rather, just to point out that you don't have to pick at the history of the region to make your case, especially because doing so isn't going to help you make that case.
I don't know of any other case in modern times in which the British or French promised a country to people who didn't even live there.
British colonial administrators themselves quickly came to realize the insanity of what they were doing. The Balfour Declaration was basically a declaration of war against the population they were ruling over in Palestine, a population whose interests they were nominally supposed to rule in. Lord Curzon, who was the only British cabinet minister with expertise in the Middle East, warned about this before the Balfour Declaration was issued.
> Israeli Jewish people, who are themselves plurality MENA people (contrary to the popular narrative that they're all displaced Europeans)
Israel was founded pretty much solely by European Jews. Arab Jews emigrated to Israel years after it was founded, because the expulsion of the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict unleashed a wave of antisemitism across the Arab world.
Oldest Palestinian dynasties are from around 18th century. Notice that calling them Palestinian is a stretch since they rarely had a unified identity as a people.
Jews started coming back to Israel en-mass in the 19th century, well before the British arrived. They bought land and at its peek owned a significant amount of land privately.
> which was almost 100% Arab
This is very false. If it was true Israel would have lost its independence war in which not only the Palestinians but also the surrounding countries attacked. Furthermore, notice that those Arab countries didn't give the Palestinians a country despite holding the west bank and Gaza. Neither did the Muslim Ottoman empire.
> > E.g. Shai Davidai.
>
> He's the only person who's been banned from campus
Many were locked out. Many spoke of fear to come to classes. Half the people in the encampment in NY weren't even students there. Professional agitators from outside the campus were guiding the students on maximizing their impact.
There are quite a lot of these testimonials but they don't appear as prominently in the US media as they do on Israeli media where people feel more comfortable to speak out. There's claims that "Students for Justice for Palestine" are really cover organizations for terrorists just like BDS. There's a lawsuit of Oct 7th victims aimed to unmask them.
> Yosef Hadad isn't a student. He's a professional pro-Israel campaigner who went to campus, started yelling in the faces of protesters, and then got shoved by one of them.
So that's OK? He's a Muslim who came to help break people out of their distorted reactionary mold and got attacked.
> On the other hand, there have been plenty of assaults on pro-Palestinian students.
See how that starts?
See why these things are useless. Everyone plays the victim here. Palestinians have been playing the victim for a century. It made some sense in the past. But hasn't made any sense since the 90's. Right now they need to grow up and settle. Hamas is keeping a redundant conflict going because it refuses to accept the right of Israel to exist. It's delusional and you're part of the reason it keeps going.
> Oldest Palestinian dynasties are from around 18th century.
Most of the ancestors of the Palestinians have lived in the region for as long as anyone can trace. The average Palestinian Arab is much more closely related to ancient Levantine people than the average Israeli Jew. Not that this should matter: what matters is that the foundation of the state of Israel required the mass expulsion of the native population, which was nearly 100% Arab.
> Jews started coming back to Israel en-mass in the 19th century, well before the British arrived.
There were small numbers of Jewish colonists who arrived in the late 19th Century, but they were still only a single-digit percentage of the population when the British took over.
>> which was almost 100% Arab
> This is very false. If it was true Israel would have lost its independence war
When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, the vast majority of its Jewish population had recently immigrated to Palestine. Just a few decades earlier, when the Zionist movement was founded, the native population of Palestine was nearly 100% Arab.
> violence and intimidation towards Jews on campus
This whole narrative about antisemitism on American campuses is completely fabricated. A fairly large share of the pro-Palestinian protesters are Jewish. They may even be the single largest ethnic group represented among the protesters. Columbia is a liberal campus in the middle of New York City, the city with the largest Jewish community in the world. The idea that Columbia is a den of antisemitism is particularly absurd.
> Jews are taking part in the pro-Palestinian protests in large numbers.
That is the equivalent of the "I have a black friend so I can't be racist" argument. Quite a few Jews are ignorant of the situation and falsely blame Israel. To be fair, there's justified blame to lay on Israel about many things in the current situation. But the current demonstrations are definitely stupid and aren't helping.
> what matters is that the foundation of the state of Israel required the mass expulsion of the native population
Agreed. And now they want to perform a mass exodus of the Jews who live here.
> Israel required the mass expulsion of the native population,
That's a lie. There was some violence in 1947/8 before the state was properly formed and some militias were more violent than others due to lack of proper government. Blaming Israel for that is ridiculous. Israel was attacked violently in large numbers against the decision of the UN. Violence went both ways and a massive amount of Jews died in that war.
There was a massive exodus from Arab lands. Before 1947 there were Jews living all over Arab countries in large numbers. We were chased away from our homes. Can we have them back?
My fathers family ran from Morocco. I'm sure the Huties of Yemen won't welcome my spouse if she wants to go back to her paternal land. Her maternal land of Romania slaughtered most of her relatives as happened to my ancestral maternal relatives in Europe.
That's how history works. Sh*t happens. We got over it. Palestinians could have had a country multiple times in history and repeatedly chose to sabotage the process by refusing to settle with Israel. That is 100% self sabotage.
> There were small numbers of Jewish colonists who arrived in the late 19th Century, but they were still only a single-digit percentage of the population when the British took over.
Keep in mind that Jews had mobility issues both in Europe and in the Ottoman empire. They were barred from coming to Israel even if they wanted to and they tried.
The country during these years was practically empty by today's standards. 660,000 people in total. Today without including the occupied territories we have over 9M people 2.6M of them are not Jews.
Calling the number of Jews small and calling the country Arab is pretty disingenuous since the total number of people in Palestine was tiny. Even then the 600k number wasn't entirely Arab. There are many other minorities with roots in this country.
> When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, the vast majority of its Jewish population had recently immigrated to Palestine.
I wonder what happened that made so many Jews run away in search of somewhere to live... On the eve of WWII there were 449,000 Jews in Israel which is a significant number.
> when the Zionist movement was founded, the native population of Palestine was nearly 100% Arab.
Population was close to 8% and on a growing trend.
Other than placing redundant, mostly incorrect facts. What's your point?
Your point is that the Palestinians are victims. Well... Welcome to the club, we're the bloody club presidents. In 1992 I went on a trip with Palestinian youth to Europe as part of a teen peace delegation. The goal was to show the "adults" that even kids can make peace. During most of that trip we had a lot of grandstanding from both sides. The Palestinians played a lot of the victim card which was redundant. They understood us once we took a trip to a concentration camp together. They understood that victim-hood is pointless and brings nothing.
I wish more Palestinians would learn Jewish history. They are deeply misinformed about us.
Maybe that would trigger an understanding that the only path forward is acceptance of the current situation and negotiation.
> This whole narrative about antisemitism on American campuses is completely fabricated
You might think that. But even here I get people repeating tropes like "Jews controlling all the money". Antisemitism has always been around and is being cynically exploited by some people.
The demonstrations on campus are comprised mostly of people who have very little understanding of the actual situation. They are refined by external forces many of which are no part of academia.
> A fairly large share of the pro-Palestinian protesters are Jewish.
That is no longer true. This was true initially but most left. Think about the demands of the demonstration: blacklisting Israel. It's an academic embargo on Israel which is already taking place to some degree. Israeli academia members are finding it harder to go to conference and share research. It's harder to get grants and take part in research. This is also about investments which is probably nothing financially, but a symbolic "anti-Israel".
Jews are not anti-Israel. Most of us are liberal and this includes Israel which is one of the most liberal countries anywhere. We have one of the most progressive human rights laws, progressive gay rights and labor laws that would make San Francisco blush. But you don't understand the other side. You're thinking of them with the same sensibilities. This isn't the case. You can't think of people who crash airplanes filled with families into buildings with the same thought process we have here.
> Columbia is a liberal campus in the middle of New York City, the city with the largest Jewish community in the world. The idea that Columbia is a den of antisemitism is particularly absurd.
There's a common trope of the self hating Jew. It is a trope but it has some point, we're the first to blame ourselves, even here. The problem is that they think the antisemitism is caused by Israeli action, but it's bolstered by them as they are confirming a false narrative about Israel.
I'm sure you would accept that Trump has bolstered a lot of racism towards black people and Mexicans. Yet a lot of them support him. Does that make the first statement false?
If you can accept the last paragraph but can't accept the previous one, that's your confirmation bias ringing loudly...
You've yet to provide examples of people barred from the campus for reasons other than specific, well-documented charges against them (in the case of Davidai, of stalking and harassing other students. And then he wasn't even barred from the campus per so, but simply from the West Lawn).
None of them are Davidai and all of them look very dangerous (sarcasm). I've read what Davidai wrote and the claims that he's harassing seem ridiculous. He's trying to fight harassment from people who literally support terrorism and are hurting both sides of the conflict.
Here are four lecturers talking about being barred
That's not what the article says. Of the 4 academics, 1 of them (Hoftman) spoke of being assaulted after approaching the protests (just as protesters have been assaulted by folks from the pro-Israel side). Not of being "barred from entry" into the campus per your description:
But also look at Israelis who want to enter the universities and can't.
So far you are unable to substantiate this claim.
But US press doesn't write many of these stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the publishers.
Of course it does - the Hoftman story was all over Fox News for example. It's viewers love to gobble up stories like these.
It's pretty interesting that you choose to ignore all the other supporting evidence of aggression I provided and focus only on a narrow claim. I have confirmation bias since I obviously have a side. A side that doesn't want his children stuck in a redundant war loop like we have been.
Furthermore, you choose to accept unsubstantiated claims against Davidai as fact because it supports your confirmation bias.
> “Jewish students…get a second-class education where they are relegated to their homes to attend classes virtually and stripped of the opportunity to interact meaningfully with other students and faculty and sit for examinations with their peers,” the lawsuit said. “The segregation of Jewish students is a dangerous development that can quickly escalate into more severe acts of violence and discrimination.”
and:
> The lawsuit alleges that a subset of protesters has committed acts of violence, harassed Jewish students and faculty and incited hate speech and acts of violence.
There's plenty of that online.
Finally, about your point of two sides. That's absolute nonsense. One side started the demonstrations and mass agitation, the reacting side can't be blamed. This is pretty typical of this entire situation, Israel gets attacked then blamed for response, results and its defense.
Own it. People were violent and racist. Outside forces came in and manipulated students most of which are ridiculously ignorant about the situation. They were manipulated, in much of the same way as Trump voters are manipulated, to believe blatant lies.
> Jewish students…get a second-class education where they are relegated to their homes
Jews are taking part in the pro-Palestinian protests in large numbers. The idea that Jewish students are treated as second-class citizens at Columbia, in New York City, is simply absurd.
I provided multiple links confirming everything I said in the thread here and other threads. I provided a link to the president of the university receiving threats and even bomb threats. You choose not to accept the possibility that you MIGHT be wrong. You're choosing to assume that your side, a side that is literally on the same side as a mass murdering terror group, is somehow 100% peaceful. A side that has been infiltrated by outside forces in large amounts and professional agitators. A side that is filled with young students who are deeply ignorant of the subject matter.
A side that literally broke into offices and barricaded themselves. I have a confirmation bias. Yes, I know Israel has been far from perfect on many aspects. I 100% own it. I suggest you own it too.
Also, again. Nitpicking is sad. You're using it to keep your confirmation bias. Clinging to one thing in the hope of finding a tiny mistake in my arguments that you can use to invalidate everything I said. That's much easier than looking into the mirror and acknowledging that you might not know much about the situation and you might be doing harm to your cause.
Except those links don't substantiate the factual claims you're trying to make.
And when you people draw attention to this, you say they're "nitpicking". And then you switch to entirely different topics and give people links to those topics.
What point? That some of the protestors were threatening and violent?
The fact that you're doubting that is pretty astounding. It's a large group of people half of which weren't even students in NYU. The assumption that this group won't contain racist, violent people is detached from reality. I provided a link showing the president of a university was threatened and bomb threats were made (here it is again): https://nyunews.com/news/2024/05/03/mills-email-paulson-cent...
The protesters are for the most part ignorant people who are being manipulated by outside forces. None of that is good for the Palestinians. It is helping: Trump, Russians, Iranians and Hamas.
> The vast majority of the Palestinians who still live [Haifa and Jaffa] and are Israeli citizens sure as hell don't want to be ruled by the Palestinian authority. You'd be shocked to know how many of them vote for the Likud party.
Tell me how many ethnic Palestinians with Israeli citizenship that identify as such live in Jaffa and Haifa and vote for the Likud party (or other hard Zionist parties). This is HN and we like to share nerdy data like that.
I don’t speak Hebrew nor am I familiar with the Israeli media landscape, so it is hard for me to find the data, but I did some internet searching. There are around 1.4 million people that live in the Tel Aviv urban area, of which 4% are Muslims or Arab Christians. This puts an upper bound of around 50000 Palestinians living in Jaffa. Another Wikipedia article has 16000 Arabs (excluding Arab Jews) living in historic Jaffa.
Regarding polling numbers, I found one article from 2022[1] which stated some 18% of Arab Israelis preferred Netanyahu over other candidates to serve as Prime minister. I really wished to find direct polling of “who would/did you vote for” but couldn’t.
With all that said, it is a known tactic of colonizers to assimilate the colonized population. The I very much doubt that many of the Arab Muslim or Arab Christian population in Israel still identifies as Palestinian. Decades of assimilation does that.
In 2021 they got 4%. Notice that this is despite Bibi using slogans like "Bibi is good for the Jews" or using rhetoric to his base of "Arabs are rushing to vote". So it's amazing he got this much.
You will see that the center right party got most of the votes. All of them are Zionist parties. Also notice that all Arab parties (which get most of the votes) are pro-Israel. They believe in a two state solution but aren't anti-Zionist.
The previous government also included an Arab party as part of the coalition government which was pretty fantastic. Unfortunately, the coalition collapsed due to dirty politics as it was hanging by a thread.
The Arab population in Jaffa is roughly 33%. A lot of that is due to the growth of the city.
> With all that said, it is a known tactic of colonizers to assimilate the colonized population. The I very much doubt that many of the Arab Muslim or Arab Christian population in Israel still identifies as Palestinian. Decades of assimilation does that.
Many don't identify as Palestinian I don't know how many though. Notice that Israel has many Muslim minorities that are decidedly not Palestinian e.g. the Druze and Bedouin populations both of which typically serve in the army as well (quite a few were murdered and even kidnapped in Oct 7th).
He's an Arab Israeli who served in the Israeli Army. He tries to bring Jews and Arabs together as a shared destiny which is fantastic. He came to speak at Colombia but was physically attacked.
> The Arab population in Jaffa is roughly 33%. A lot of that is due to the growth of the city.
I’m a bit confused here. I was under the impression that Jaffa was annexed into Tel Aviv in 1949. Jaffa today is only a neighborhood, a district, or a part of a larger city. According Wikipedia[1] the Arab population of that portion of Tel Aviv called Jaffa is 33%, which is still only 16000 people. Before the Nakba the population was around 95 000 (of which 15 000 Jews). Only 3800 Arabs remained during the Nakba. So in historic terms, Jaffa hasn’t recovered to previous population numbers.
Aside, the annexations of Jaffa into Tel Aviv, is colonialism 101. The eradication of the place names and administration boundaries is straight from the playbook of the colonization of Ireland by the British.
When you say stuff like: “The vast majority of the Palestinians who still live there and are Israeli citizens sure as hell don't want to be ruled by the Palestinian authority.” I thing is very disingenuous given the history of the place. The thing is, they don’t still live there, they were overwhelmingly displaced, and those that remained were assimilated into the culture of the colonizer. To the extent they mostly identify as Arab Israelis (not Palestinian as you call them; it is of course up to them if they want to identify as Palestinians though, and I bet some do). By the same logic you could claim that Dublin has no claims on Belfast because Belfast has some Catholics that vote for the DUP.
Aside 2, the way the British finally achieved peace in Northern Ireland was by actually recognizing the fact that Dublin does have claims to Belfast and it is up to the citizens of Belfast to decide if they ever want to reunite with the Republic of Ireland. Just compare that to how Israel is responding to a crisis of similar nature.
EDIT: If we crunch the numbers of the 2022 elections (very interesting link btw.) we get 14% of all Arab voters that voted for Zionist parties. Only 53% of Arabs voted in that election, and that number includes Druze and Bedouin. This comes down to a grand total of 36230 votes, 13000 of those are for Yesh Atid and Labour which are a liberal/reformist versions of Zionism (kind of like the Alliance party in Northern Ireland). I also wonder about the methodology here as the tally is broken down by Arab neighborhoods, so if a Jew is living in an Arab neighborhood, they are counted, and if an Arab is living in a majority Jewish neighborhood, they are not (I also wonder how East Jerusalem is counted here here).
I wanted to see how this compares to Unionist support among Northern Irish Catholics, but I was just as bad as finding numbers of that as in Israel (turns out speaking the language is not enough). The best numbers I found was from a 2014[2] poll which got hardline Unionist parties 1% of Catholic votes, and nonsectarian got 6%.
I don’t think this is enough to compare, given the different methodology, difference in participation, etc.
But what I get from this is this is that it is not that easy to claim that “Palestinians” that still live in Jaffa vote Likud in shocking numbers.
Is 53% turnout a lot or a little in Israel? It's a lot in the US, obviously. What does it matter that the number includes Druze and Bedouin? Other than that both communities are harshly discriminated against in the surrounding countries without reaction or even notice from the commentariat?
I understand arguments about colonization vis a vis Gaza and (especially) the West Bank, whose occupations represent the threat of an in-progress appropriation and "colonization", if we're going to use that word. I don't understand what discussion about the "colonization" of Jaffa gets you. Jaffa is to Tel Aviv what Saint Paul is Minneapolis. It's not going anywhere. What's to advocate for? You would literally be on firmer footing advocating for the return of San Antonio to Mexico.
The report linked by my parent talks about 53% being a great turnout for Arab voters, as it was up from only 44.6% a year earlier. However this number has been going down all this century. If compared to Israel as a whole, it is very worrying to a point where I would call it a democratic flaw, as the general population has election participation around 70%.
Talking about the colonization of Jaffa was in response to the peace deal, where DiogenesKynikos said:
> This is a massive concession, because the Palestinians have given up their claim to places like Haifa and Jaffa, which used to be almost 100% Palestinian cities, and which they were unjustly driven out of. So far, no Israeli government has reciprocated and acknowledged a Palestinian "right to exist."
Jaffa was colonized in 1948 by displacing almost all of their residents, most are still to this day refugees in Gaza or Lebanon, two-three generations later. Jaffa still exists as a placename, but the city does not, it has been completely annexed into Tel Aviv, which used to be a suburb of Jewish settlers (according to the Wikipedia article I just read). I don’t see a comparison with Saint Paul (which is still an independent city) or San Antonio.
The concession of relinquishing claims to Jaffa is nothing short of the concessions which the Irish nationalists did when they relinquished claims to Belfast. In return Ireland actually got statehood and eventual independence. Years later Catholics living in Belfast got equal rights, political representation and a political avenue for decolonization.
If the British would have behaved like Israel, they would have driven almost every Catholic out of what would become Northern Ireland before 1921 (they had already renamed all their placenames centuries prior) made sure those that remained had no affiliations with Catholics in the Free state, denied them the right to return, moved British Protestants into the vacant areas (they had also done that centuries prior), and never actually given the Irish free state political recognition. Even after the nationalists gave up any claims to Belfast.
Jaffa isn't Belfast. Its history is nothing like that of Belfast's. It's status is closer to that of San Antonio (except with the complexity of the exchange of displaced populations). I still don't understand what the point of trying to call out its "colonial" status is. It's not going anywhere.
Every case is unique, and yes Jaffa is nothing like Belfast. I simply brought it up because Belfast was also a settler colonial city claimed by the colonized peoples before the colonized relinquished their claim of it in a deal. However unlike Jaffa, when the nationalists relinquished their claim of the city, the colonizers reciprocated and gave them recognition of their state in return.
So, if I understand the argument, it's that calling out the "colonization" of places like Jaffa is moral leverage in an argument for recognizing Palestinian statehood in Gaza and the West Bank?
(I don't think you need more leverage for that argument; I think it's self-evident. But ok!)
Jaffa is to Tel Aviv what Saint Paul is Minneapolis.
A deeply broken analogy.
Jaffa, unlike Tel Aviv, was 70 percent Arab in 1945 and was considered the cultural and economic capital of Palestine. It was attacked in a major offensive by the Irgun in April, and later by the Haganah in May of 1948 (before the Declaration of Independence and the "defensive war" that followed it).
I'm sure you know all about the Irgun; here's a description of their tactics from an Israeli historian:
In one attack, on 13 December, a barrel packed with explosives was dropped from a vehicle next to the entrance to the Alhambra (al-Hamra) Cinema, adjacent to the Jaffa City Hall on King George Boulevard. The barrel rolled down the street and came to a stop outside Cafe´ Venezia. Some of the clients noticed it and rushed to take shelter in the kitchen or fled out the back door. The ensuing explosion killed six clients and passersby, among them a ten-year-old boy, the others aged 16 –24. The building and the nearby cinema were badly damaged. On the same day, the IZL blew up houses in the villages of Yahudiyya-‘Abbasiyya and Yazur, killing seven Arabs. On 30 December, the IZL launched another attack on Jaffa’s rear. This time the squads landed from the sea and tried to attack Arab cafe´s in the port area, but local fighters stationed nearby drove them off, apparently without losses on the Arab side. The next day, IZL men, dressed as Arabs, again entered Jaffa and threw a bomb into an Arab cafe´.
Around 100,000 people were forced to flee (from the city proper and surrounding towns) - some 10-20k of which were literally pushed into the sea. Of course, very few were allowed to return. 90 percent of the smaller towns were completely depopulated. The 4000 Arab residents who remained were forced to live in a small corner of the city in dilapidated housing, and under martial law. From a recent New Yorker piece:
“Ajami is about to be closed off with a barbed-wire fence that will rigorously separate the Arab neighborhood and the Jewish section,” an Israeli official wrote in 1949. “That arrangement will immediately render Ajami a sealed-off ghetto. It is hard to accept this idea, which stirs in us associations of excessive horror.”
After the "defensive war" Arab houses were looted and given to migrants from Europe. Streets and public places were renamed. Arab Jaffa was effectively wiped off the map.
What's to advocate for?
A reasonable understanding (and non-erasure of) extremely basic and uncontested regional history.
I am aware of the history, and avoided getting into it because a prolonged litigation over which populations were abused and displaced when wasn't going to get us any closer to an outcome in this conversation.
To wit: you can recall the civilian deaths and mass displacement of Palestinian Arabs in or around Jaffa and Israel in general, and I can recall the Aden Pogroms and the Farhud (and point out that the time period you're calling out was just three years --- a single Macbook generation --- from the Holocaust itself). And that rather than a "tit for tat" exercise, these facts establish an exchange of displaced populations, such as has not occurred in U.S. cities, which are not by and large peopled by the victims of Mexican and Indigenous American-led assaults elsewhere.
The point, which we arrived at downthread before you picked this scab, is that there is nothing to be done with this information. The displacement of indigenous Americans was both criminal and vital to the establishment of American cities, but we don't seriously discuss the return or "decolonization" of those cities, for obvious reasons. And my point is: the issue is no less obvious with Jaffa, which is very firmly the sovereign territory of the most powerful (and nuclear-armed) state in the Middle East.
'runarberg clarifies that they brought Jaffa up as moral leverage for demands that Israel recognize Palestinian statehood. That makes sense to me, and I push back only to the extent that I don't think additional moral leverage of this kind is needed to make that argument.
As for your argument, I'm at a loss for where you're hoping to go with it. Is the point that Israel is bad? If so: practically every state is bad, yes.
(I didn't flag your post; in fact, I wrote this response to it --- the flagged version --- and was irritated when, on hitting the "Submit" button, I had to scramble with the back button to save it. I don't think commenting on the flag button is a particularly good idea. Reposting flagged comments is normally considered abusive here. Commenters are specifically asked not to provide "explanations" for flags.)
People do actually talk about the return or the decolonization of Belfast. The difference is that Northern Irish Nationalists were given a political avenue to continue decolonization efforts (but only after decades of armed resistance).
The moral argument here is that Hamas is not even asking for that, instead only asking for the right of return of the displaced Palestinian families and their descendants, and a recognition of a Palestinian state which doesn’t include Jaffa. This is a much lesser ask than what the IRA was asking regarding Belfast, all the way up to the Good Friday agreement. The IRA actually went so far as fight a civil war against other nationalist factions over Belfast.
So the moral argument here is, in short, that one of the worst colonial empire in history (the British) were actually far more reasonable then modern day Israel.
You've lost me by bringing up Hamas. Is there a way forward in this conversation that does not require me to take Hamas seriously? Does it help us for me to give an accounting of why Hamas is not a viable actor in the region?
I believe Palestinians must have self-determination in a sovereign state, and that that state should include the whole of Gaza and the West Bank, including the rolling back of Israeli settlements in the West Bank to the '67 borders.
Do we need to go past that to keep talking? If Hamas is still in the conversation after this reply, what we're going to be litigating is my argument that it is the obligation of the entire world to destroy Hamas by all available military means short of the invasion or at-scale air assault of Gaza. If that's a conversation you want to have, we can have it, but my hope would be we don't have to --- that the actual thing we're talking about here doesn't depend on us settling the Hamas issue.
If you want we can talk about Palestinian armed resistance more generally with out bringing up specific organizations engaging in said resistance, sure we can do that. However I don’t see how that is any better. But I’ll try.
My main point here (and the point which sparked this discussion a dozen posts upthread) is that there does not exist a political avenue for Palestinian self-determination, and the main actor preventing that is Israel, not any of the number of organization—some bigger and more successful then others—which engages in armed resistance. Israel has shown time and time again, that no matter how many people or states want Palestine to have self-determination, it is simply not going to happen without armed resistance.
I bet people also said the same of the IRA, a terrorist organization which targeted civilians, that it simply wasn’t a viable actor in the region. However, without the IRA, or other groups engaging in Armed resistance, there would not have been an Easter Uprising, and Ireland would not have been free. The way the British got rid of the IRA was with a ceasefire negotiations which gave the Irish nationalists political rights. Treating the IRA as a non-viable actor would have prolonged the troubles and resulted continuing violence for many years more.
It was just such an eye-poppingly bad analogy that I felt I had to chime in.
Also, you seemed perplexed at where the term "colonization" fits in. Well, the post-1948 situation in Jaffa (and certain other places I'm sure you know all about as well) arguably fits the dictionary definition of the term by any objective measure (give or take some fine-grained nuances we really don't need to litigate).
Before you picked this scab,
I'd go on perhaps, but with that statement I can't say I appreciate your tone. Be civil to me and I'll be civil with you, if you wish.
The point of the analogy was to relate Jaffa and Tel Aviv to another comparable "Twin City". It wasn't to compare the history of the two cities. Again, my overarching point is: you're not going to ligate your way to a Jaffa that is part of a sovereign Palestine. It's simply not going to happen. Work on decolonizing Texas instead. You have a better chance. And a clearer moral argument!
I believe that if you read back up the thread, you'll see that the comment you're replying to was making that point. You chose to engage and push back, which is fine, but I don't think you can reasonably be taken aback by the suggestion that that's what you're doing.
If, in the future, you read something I wrote, think I'm broadly right but importantly wrong about some details, you can write something like "I think I broadly agree with you, but you have some of these details very wrong", rather than "You are aware of this history, right?" Or you can not, but roll with it when I infer that you disagree with me completely.
I don't think you can reasonably be taken aback by the suggestion that that's what you're doing.
To my eyes it does read as a misattribution on your part (especially given that my commentary was explicitly timeboxxed, and unlike the other commenter's posts on the matter, didn't make reference to the current situation at all). I wasn't so much taken aback, as simply declining your invitation to pursue the matter further.
"You are aware of this history, right?"
Even though I've been somewhat puzzled by some of the things you've been saying (given that they just don't seem historically grounded) -- I acknowledge that the above statement of mine was lame and inappropriate.
So I do apologize (and I did proactively remove it before I saw your response to that post).
You're doing fine. I'm being serious. I'm just pointing out where the disconnect is between us. I'm not trying to dunk on you.
If you think I'm flat-out wrong about something, obviously you should say so. But I think most of what you're seeing is me limiting the surface area of what I'm discussing on HN, because I think it is basically unreasonable to expect to resolve Israel/Palestine on a forum like HN. I get involved in these things when pro-Israel people claim that Gazans are equivalent to Hamas, and I get involved when pro-Palestine people claim that Israelis are all European. I'll pop up when people try to valorize the Houthis, and, if it comes up in a thread I'm already involved in, I'll probably go ham on post-2017 Hamas.
Otherwise: my views on Israel are complicated. Internet forums are rife with fundamental attribution errors, which makes those complications hard to perceive. I've already done that to you once already!
Hey, thanks. As to views of the regional situation, I'm in the "actually, it's not that complicated" camp. But on the whole, I think we're good for now.
Just to add a note here - historically, Palestinian citizens of Israel (commonly referred to as Israeli-Arabs) have had complicated feelings about taking part in Israeli elections. I don't think I can speak properly on this topic as I'm not a Palestinian myself, but if you're interested it's worth trying to look into this.
Despite making up 20% of the Israeli population, 2021 was the first time an independent Arab party was part of an Israeli government. This was a huge deal at the time and the "Israeli Arab" vote was very actively pursued (and the Israeli right wing used all sorts of horrible tactics to try to suppress it).
I did find this quote interesting from the IDI poll[1]
> Asked by the IDI which issue should be at “the heart of the election campaign,” 54% said violence in Arab society, 16% said housing, 11% said the status of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem, and only 5% said the Palestinian issue.
What I take from this is that Israeli-Arabs care a lot more about their own community as Israeli-Arabs than the prospects of their neighbors in Palestine having a free Palestinian state.
Jaffa and Tel Aviv are now a single municipality, it's considered a mixed city where we have both Arabs and Jews. This has advantages and disadvantages. Gentrification raises prices which make it hard for typically larger families to get homes (impacts Arab families more). But it also means that education and work opportunities are more equal. We get to live together and know each other.
A lot of Arabs fled during the independence war. There were atrocities done on both sides during that war which was especially tragic.
> Aside, the annexations of Jaffa into Tel Aviv, is colonialism 101. The eradication of the place names and administration boundaries is straight from the playbook of the colonization of Ireland by the British.
That is pure nonsense. Tel Aviv is a new city that evolved and grew. It wasn't built on top of anything. Jaffa is ancient and as such has very limited growth potential. The names in Jaffa are the same as ever as are the mosques and everything there. New construction sometimes gets new names, that's it.
> The thing is, they don’t still live there, they were overwhelmingly displaced
That's a strawman argument. I specifically said "still live there". You're trying to bring people who never saw Jaffa into this argument. It's ridiculous redundant and pointless. Should I refer to our ancestors from 2,000 years ago and their connection to Jaffa and Jerusalem?
> By the same logic you could claim that Dublin has no claims on Belfast because Belfast has some Catholics that vote for the DUP.
Let's talk about the Irish. The Irish were able to finally get a country when they accepted reality and compromised with the British. Yes, it sucked. Yes, the British did some pretty nasty things. But they compromised and negotiated.
Do the Irish want to take back Belfast by force? Are they opening a war on England in an attempt to do so?
That's the right analogy.
> 13000 of those are for Yesh Atid and Labour which are a liberal/reformist versions of Zionism
They are mostly centrist, I vote left of both. Notice that even the Arab parties in the election recognize Israel and its borders as they are legally defined. Based on our definition of Zionism, they are all Zionists.
Zionism means the desire of Jews to return to Zion. That's it. People often pull words they don't understand and associate false meaning with them trying to pollute the discussion. That is one such victim of the discussion.
> But what I get from this is this is that it is not that easy to claim that “Palestinians” that still live in Jaffa vote Likud in shocking numbers.
To me this is a shocking number, especially with how bad the Likud is in terms of policies towards minorities. Historically they were far more popular with the arab/Palestinian population as their message was more about helping the downtrodden population. Bibi slowly burned down their support, especially since coupling with Ben Gvir.
You probably know a lot more then me about this, and I apologize for speaking above my weight here. I will back down on this issue, thanks for informing me.
However, I want to keep talking about the Irish. To claim they got their independence via compromising is very simplistic. They were only able to compromise after 2½ years of violent resistance following the Easter Uprising, and even after the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922 they still suffered almost a year of civil war as a consequence of that compromise. If not for the Easter Uprising, there would not have been an Anglo-Irish treaty, and the British would have gotten all they wanted. Ireland would probably have to wait until the decolonization period of the 1960s or the 1990s for any sort of political avenue for their statehood prospects.
I’m pretty sure there were people during the onset of the 1920s claiming that the IRA was “sabotaging” any peace treaty, especially since (unlike Hamas) they actually didn’t want to cede Belfast. And unlike Israel, the British negotiated despite the IRA not wanting to compromise. The IRA fought other nationalists in a civil war over this (and so did Hamas,,, kinda).
I'm not saying that all violent resistance is wrong. In fact the analogy of the PLO fits here perfectly. In the 70's PLO terrorists invaded the north of Israel and killed children. They were brutal. Yet Israel came to terms with them, some of which hold to this day.
The split between the two sides is also a good analogy. The Irish here are a bit in the middle between Israelis and Palestinians. I think this is one of the main reasons Palestinians keep loosing and Israel keeps winning.
During the resistance years to the British occupation of Israel/Palestine, both Palestinian and Jews had groups. Palestinians remained divided to familial groups which is a division that holds to this day. They are rivals and never truly unified under compromise of a single ruler.
OTOH the more extreme Jews were led by Begin, they conducted terror attacks (which are moderate by today's standard) but still extreme. This led to several attacks from the moderate side led by Ben Gurion. This included turning in the extremists to the British (effectively betraying their own people) and even shooting at one of their ships.
Here Begin showed his greatness. He surrendered. He understood that if he continues there will be a civil war. The country unified around Ben Gurion and Begin was cast into opposition for 30 years. This willingness to sacrifice his ideology in favor of unity and compromise is one of the most important reasons Israel is unified to this day. Palestinians don't have figures like that. Never have.
Arafat was fantastically rich. Abu Mahazen is famously corrupt. The leaders of Hamas are living off in Qatar in a lavish style with millions they stole from their own people (they used to charge a heavy fee to smuggle through their tunnels).
The problem is that the structure of Palestinian society makes it very difficult to anyone who isn't corrupt to rise to the top and hold power. The right wing in Israel usually say's that there's no partner for peace. I think that's a terrible excuse but they do have a point.
> since (unlike Hamas) they actually didn’t want to cede Belfast
Hamas won't cede any part of Israel so the IRA seems far more moderate. I'd say the analogy would be like the IRA demanding the entire UK.
Again. I didn't say they were inherently. But they are attended by antisemitic people and there's a lot of rhetoric flagged there that denies the right of Israel to exist. They fuel antisemitism. Even if you think you and your friends have nuance and the ability to differentiate, the fact is it's a mob that gets inflamed with often ignorant anti-Israel rhetoric (even if you personally are not ignorant it's a mob).
> American university campuses simply are not antisemitic places.
Explain the Ivy league letter. Justifying the murder of Jews?
Explain the presidents of the Universities who are so careful about protecting every other race/gender... Suddenly silent on antisemitism. I'm even seeing it here, I have an opinion which you might disagree with. But I think it's valid and reasoned.
Yet when I was a bit upset because a person here indicated that my country has no right to exist and we should all die... Well, it annoyed me. So dang limited my account. If I would have defended the cause of any other minority or the rights of any other minority to exist in its country, I doubt I would have gotten the same treatment.
The number of people I've talked to in the past year who think Israel shouldn't exist is concerning. The people who repeat racist tropes about Jews is also very concerning.
> That criminal has been repeatedly elected, and has been in charge for much of the last 30 years.
Also repeatedly cast out. He's a snake. To be fair he used to claim to be for a Palestinian state (liar obviously) and voted for leaving Gaza back in the day. The only reason Ben Gvir/Smotrits are in the government is due to Bibi.
The only reason Bibi came to power is due to Hamas. During the Oslo years the peace was working wonderfully. Until busses started blowing up all over Tel Aviv killing many people. Some of them right below my old home in Disengof. That was the Hamas sabotaging the peace by blowing up civilians in suicide bombings.
That helped Bibi get elected on the basis of "safety". Every time he and the Hamas used each other to promote themselves.
> "22% of the way" (not even halfway)
Stop with that nonsense. My fathers family no longer have their ancestral home in Morocco. My Spouses father probably won't be welcomed by the Houthis back in Yemen. I can go back to my mothers family who ran from Russia all the way through Europe losing home after home and most of their family.
Sh*t happened. It isn't our fault and it isn't theirs. We can't go back and neither can they. Keeping this sort of nonsensical rhetoric is redundant.
> Palestinians have given up their claim to places like Haifa and Jaffa
The vast majority of the Palestinians who still live there and are Israeli citizens sure as hell don't want to be ruled by the Palestinian authority. You'd be shocked to know how many of them vote for the Likud party.
> So far, no Israeli government has reciprocated and acknowledged a Palestinian "right to exist."
They exist and Israel tried to do that. The difference is that if the Hamas had the option it would kill all of us. Everyone. They already promised to repeat Oct 7 at least 3 more times.
> You're ignoring the millions of Palestinian refugees who deeply desire to return to their home towns inside what is now Israel.
Most of these lands are long gone. We had 70 years of wars. No way of reaching people who fled to countries that were at war. OTOH the people who stayed kept all their rights and properties. That's probably better than the alternative situation if the other side would have won.
That's how wars work. Every single country was founded that way. If we need to go through the list of the places every single Jewish family lost through history the list would be ridiculous. I'm sorry for them, but there are problems we can't solve.
But blaming it on Israel is low. WTF was Israel supposed to do?
Hold onto land for 70+ years?
Get an enemy state to open the borders to send people, who might be enemies too, back?
Why don't you give back Manhattan to the native Americans while you're at it... Why not clear Northern Ireland of protestants and give it back to Ireland. There's a huge double standard that people only apply to Israel and no other country...
Why didn't the Ottomans (Turks) give the Palestinians a state? Why didn't the Egyptians or the Jordanians?
They all held these lands.
> The settlements were built illegally, with the express intention of making a Palestinian state impossible.
Some of them were built illegally. Immorally I would agree but a lot of them had legal standing. Flawed legal standing... But legal.
> The Palestinians have agreed to drop their claims to everything beyond the Green Line, and Israel should/must do the same.
That's not how reality works. We might not like the settlements but they are there and some of them are massive. Israel can't clear 900,000 people. It won't. Just building alternative hosing for everyone isn't technically viable. Again, the longer the Palestinians wait with a deal the more they will lose.
History is repeating itself again. Palestinians think they get a raw deal. Choose extremist leader. Fight Israel. Lose. Get even less the next time around.
The reality is that the offers that Barak and Olmert made will probably never happen again. I'm still optimistic to think that a Palestinian state will happen in my lifetime. But I doubt east Jerusalem will be a part of it.
The best thing we can do for a Palestinian state is to help them face that reality.
> Because there haven't been any offers that would lead to a sovereign Palestinian state, as I explained earlier. The most that has ever been offered is a Palestinian "entity" that gets to manage some of its own internal matters, but which is still firmly under Israeli military control.
There are demilitarized states that are doing just great. Hamas is pretty much proving Israels point of the need for that. Imagine living in NewYork while the guys from New Jersey keep firing rockets at your home and occasionally raiding/kidnapping/raping/murdering... Should they have an army too?
The problem is that Hamas constantly tries to escalate the violence to move to the "next level". As far as they are concerned this operation is a huge success. The number of deaths on "their side" is meaningless to them. Imagine them with an army. The results would be catastrophic all around.
> On October 6th, there was no prospect of a Palestinian state.
I would argue that it was quietly moving, but to some degree I agree.
But the fault here was due in large part to Hamas and their never ending rocket campaign against Israel. Hamas is behind the rise of the right wing in Israel and their staying power.
> > Oslo accord started thanks to the PLOs decision to stop the violence. > > And then it didn't lead to a Palestinian state.
Partially because of Hamas and Partially because Palestinian leaders refuse to compromise. See above.
> The Israelis have succeeded in convincing the Palestinians that a peaceful approach brings nothing. A violent approach also brings nothing. Nothing brings anything.
Nope. They needed to compromise, they had an option. Just like the Irish compromised on Northern Ireland and it worked out well for them in the long run. You're framing this as if Israel needs to give everything, which is also ridiculous.
Hamas wants the entire country, nothing less. This has nothing to do with Israels willingness to compromise.
> Until the US gets tough on Israel, this will not change.
Do you know the US and UK wanted to bomb Israel?
Do you know Israel survived just fine without their support. The reason for their support is that Israel is a good proxy state.
E.g. why are we in the current war?
The US didn't like the Iranian democracy so they installed a dictator which triggered the Islamic revolution. This cascaded to the current conflict which is fulled in a large part from Iran.
> That's why the demonstrations in the US are so important.
No. They will backfire and make matters worse for you and us.
These demonstrations will probably help Trump rise back to power which is terrible for all of us.
But let's say that your most blue sky wishes take place and everything you wish for happens. Biden suddenly threatens to bomb Tel Aviv if Israel doesn't immediately move to the 67 line and Israel complies instantly. Or maybe a more realistic situation with a long term plan and agreement with the moderate PLO leadership.
What would happen then?
As it is now, Hamas isn't defeated. On the contrary. It's stronger. Once they have a state they will attack Israel again. They already announced it. But this time Israel will be ready and it will be a bloodbath. We will end up in a worse place than we were to begin with.
Political pressure is important. I'm thankful to Biden for putting pressure on Bibi and I hope he'll pressure him more. But this is a very delicate balance. E.g. at the moment the ceasefire offer is delayed by Hamas, not by Israel.
But don't take this from me, take this from him: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/message-from-a-gazan-to...