zlacker

[parent] [thread] 16 comments
1. insick+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-12-09 02:01:27
> Most Israelis don't want that

Because it would mean the end of a Jewish state. Combine Israel and Palestine and you get roughly 50% Jews, 50% Arabs. (5.3M Arabs in Palestine, 7.1M Jews in Israel and 2M Arabs in Israel).

replies(2): >>YZF+71 >>graeme+pX
2. YZF+71[view] [source] 2023-12-09 02:09:46
>>insick+(OP)
I think it's workable with a constitution that guarantees rights for Jews such that the 50% Arabs can't change that and with a long slow process of building that single state (30 years? 50 years?). There might need to be other safeguards, Arabs today don't really serve in the IDF so maybe that would need to continue.

What else is the long term trajectory here? Israel can't keep occupying Palestinians indefinitely (and I'm using the term "occupy" in the Israeli meaning, not in the Palestinian meaning, fwiw). Two states as we've seen is not going to work. Anyways, I know this is a hard time to talk about this.

replies(1): >>reissb+B9
◧◩
3. reissb+B9[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 03:21:55
>>YZF+71
Adding a larger population that doesn't serve in the army isn't going to help IMO — the non-religious Jews are already very mad about the carveouts for Haredim not serving in the army. An "equal state" where a Jewish minority are forced into the military or else imprisoned, and the non-Jews aren't, is not going to go well.

Two states are much better than one in my opinion, and the PA-led pseudo-state is much better than Hamas-controlled Gaza. Israel and Palestine need a manageable divorce, not a forced and unhappy marriage.

Regardless, the PA does not advocate for one state, Hamas does not advocate for one state, and the vast majority of Israelis do not want one state, so I think this is kind of a moot point.

replies(1): >>fakeda+yg
◧◩◪
4. fakeda+yg[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 04:38:49
>>reissb+B9
They only stopped advocating for one state after the Arabs suffered humiliating losses against the Israelis in all those wars (where the Arabs were the aggressors). Given the choice between a one state Palestinian country where Jews are a repressed minority, and a two state solution with a trillion dollar aid package for Palestine, the Palestinians will still choose the first option.
replies(1): >>reissb+aA
◧◩◪◨
5. reissb+aA[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 08:24:15
>>fakeda+yg
The PA and Hamas never advocated for one state. If by "they" you mean "the Palestinians in 1948," the Palestinians in 1948 did not advocate for one state for both Jews and Arabs either. They explicitly advocated for genocide, and wanted one state with just them and with no Jews at all — their leader explicitly said he wanted a second Holocaust in the Middle East (and had formerly volunteered for the Nazis).
replies(2): >>fakeda+wI >>mlyle+1l1
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. fakeda+wI[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 10:00:11
>>reissb+aA
Sorry, that is exactly what I had meant (which I didn't stress upon further). Palestinians only want a "one state solution", as long as it is a Palestinian state where Jews are either repressed or genocided.
replies(1): >>YZF+Q63
7. graeme+pX[view] [source] 2023-12-09 12:14:04
>>insick+(OP)
> Combine Israel and Palestine and you get roughly 50% Jews, 50% Arabs

It it leads to a peaceful and stable state that would be a good thing.

Is there a need for a Jewish state? Lots of ethnic groups do not have their own state. Mine does not - a much smaller number of us, and we are disappearing through mixing.

replies(2): >>ephime+K11 >>rainco+8H1
◧◩
8. ephime+K11[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 12:56:05
>>graeme+pX
I don’t really know, but I guess the argument is that historically Jewish minorities have not really been free from oppression in any country at any time until the end of the Second World War.

So maybe there’s no strict need for a Jewish state, but I can see how going back to a collective of (often oppressed) minorities is not appealing.

◧◩◪◨⬒
9. mlyle+1l1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 15:41:04
>>reissb+aA
The modern cry "from the river to sea" usually advocates for a one state solution via genocide as well (in disguise).
◧◩
10. rainco+8H1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 18:09:14
>>graeme+pX
Historically, wherever Islam is in majority or has political power, they have problems with non-muslims, unless the latter become muslims. In fact, Christians have had problems with Jews too. One core element of anti-semitism stems from Christianity as a religion: for more, read James Carroll's Constantine's Sword:The Church and the Jews, A History
replies(1): >>runarb+k02
◧◩◪
11. runarb+k02[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 19:57:41
>>rainco+8H1
You’re not just wrong but also racist. There are numerous historic examples of historic muslim majority countries and empires which had thriving non-muslim minorities. An easy example is the Ottoman Empire which had Jews, Christians and Muslims living under muslim rulers. Persia/Iran has always had non-muslim minorities for over a 1000 years, some thriving more than others.

But you don’t even need to look into history. Today Malaysia and Indonesia both have non-muslim minorities. Bosnia and Herzegovina has slight muslim majarity and is doing relatively fine.

replies(1): >>hahama+4c2
◧◩◪◨
12. hahama+4c2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 21:02:09
>>runarb+k02
Bosnia is a terrible example. It is not doing fine precisely because Muslims in Bosnia are 51% of the population and demand a centralized government so that they can overrule Christians any way they please.

When Turks left about 100 years ago Muslims were a minority but thanks to much higher birth rate they now want to set the rules in Bosnia. Serbs know that, that's why they resisted, and still resist, a unified Bosnia.

Ottoman Empire tolerated Christians, true, but to achieve anything in life you had to convert to Islam. Otherwise you could just remain a haraç-paying Christian peasant without any chance of education or growth. Haraç was a tax for being a non-Muslim.

It was super hard to be a thriving Christian under Turks. In fact the Turkish policy was to demographically and economically slowly bleed Christians and for those with ambition to convert to Islam.

replies(1): >>runarb+0g2
◧◩◪◨⬒
13. runarb+0g2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-09 21:33:23
>>hahama+4c2
I said relatively fine because under Serbia, Bosnian muslims were genocided. Yes there is ethnic tension now, but nothing anywhere close to what it was three decades ago.
replies(1): >>hahama+RN2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
14. hahama+RN2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-10 02:17:21
>>runarb+0g2
"Under Serbia", oh my. I'm sorry you have to comment on things you know nothing about. They're not ethnic but religious tensions.
replies(1): >>dynode+UII
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
15. YZF+Q63[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-10 06:20:28
>>fakeda+wI
What I'm trying to describe here is a solution that Israel implements whether the Palestinians want it or not. Israel has control and it can chart a path towards one state where Jews are not repressed or killed. It is effectively already doing that anyways but without thinking things through. I'm also describing something that should happen over a period of perhaps 50 years.

I think if Israel stated that is the goal, to make Palestinians equal citizens in the larger single country, and had a plan as to how that goal could be accomplished, that would be more constructive than the current stall until things blow up plan. I'd like to think many/some Palestinians would buy in and the rest would get no choice anyways.

This plan naturally involves dismantling the PA and taking complete civilian control over the entire territory including formally annexing it to Israel. It should also include some clear continuous benefits to Palestinians from where they stand today (which is pretty bad, so shouldn't be a problem).

A variation of this plan could be some sort of federation, where the country is "Israel" and there are two states under that country. Not unlike Canada or the US. That could also address the population ratios vs. democracy (just like democracy in the US or Canada isn't a proportional system). So we can have a parliament some fixed representation for different parts. I think Lebanon also has something along those lines. I'm sure over time we'll see coalitions that cross those "state" boundaries.

As long as there's a constitution, and there are the right mechanisms, checks and balances, to maintain that, and enough time to get beyond the current tribal let's kill everyone mindsets, it can work.

replies(1): >>lazyas+Te5
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
16. lazyas+Te5[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-11 04:54:35
>>YZF+Q63
I genuinely don’t believe that’s a goal for more than perhaps a small percentage of people in either Palestine or Israel, I think Israel will simply continue to occupy (but not absorb) and shrink through land grabs and attrition the Palestinian Territories until the demographic changes happening internally create an Orthodox majority - and beyond that I can’t predict.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
17. dynode+UII[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-23 23:59:36
>>hahama+RN2
The word genocide was coined for what the Ottomans did to Christians.
[go to top]