zlacker

> 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.

>>graeme+(OP)
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.

>>graeme+(OP)
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

>>rainco+JJ
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.

>>runarb+V21
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.

>>hahama+Fe1
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.

>>runarb+Bi1
"Under Serbia", oh my. I'm sorry you have to comment on things you know nothing about. They're not ethnic but religious tensions.

>>hahama+sQ1
The word genocide was coined for what the Ottomans did to Christians.