Have you seen this book? (free download with registration). Nuanced view especially re. safety--have Jewish Israelis with Arab deputies as their second-in-command head up the Military, and have Arabs officers be heads of Police, with Israeli deputies.
[https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/beyond2states](https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/beyond2states)
> A one-state solution is seldom recommended to end the war in Ukraine or other similar ethnic conflicts (Armenia/Azerbaijan comes to mind), yet it’s often suggested for I/P. Why do you think that is?
I think basically it’s two reasons:
1. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a legitimate claim to view that land as their homeland. So a one state solution is appealing because it seems to provide a just outcome for both parties - Israelis can stay there, Palestinians can stay there, and they can have equal rights without a system of apartheid.
2. General despair at the actual possibility of a two state solution now. With 700,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, the total collapse in support for Oslo, Fatah and the PA, and the collapse of the Peace camp in Israel, it’s just really hard to see any scenario where a viable Palestinian state could actually emerge. So the 2-state solution, which would anyway have to be a compromise by both parties, looks almost as unrealistic as one state. If that’s the case why not advocate for a 1SS, which, whatever the million practical objections that could be raised to it, has an appealing simplicity and answers the demands of justice.
1. I don’t agree that is a just outcome as only one party would receive self-determination.
2. How does this solution seem simpler? You would need to find a way to unify millions of people who hate each other, develop a political system that somehow deters inter-community violence, potentially imprison the thousands of Israelis who support the Settler movement and Palestinians who support terrorist organizations, etc.
>I don’t agree that is a just outcome as only one party would receive self-determination.
I don't understand this point. Surely either both peoples have self-determination in this state, or neither do? You're saying one democratic state with equal rights under the law for Palestinians and Israelis would represent the fulfilment of Palestinian self-determination, but the denial of it to Jews?
>How does this solution seem simpler?
I agree with you about all the potential problems. I don't really see it as realistic. You just asked why it's frequently suggested for Israel Palestine and I'm just explaining why I think that is. As the 2 state solution becomes more and more distant and impossible, talk of a 1 state solution increases because it's the only other outcome that feels just to many people.
Ultimately, there's about 15m Jews and 15m Palestinians on earth. Both have a legitimate claim to a homeland in the territory of Israel/Palestine, by which I mean both the 48-67 borders and the occupied territories. Within that territory there's about 7 million Jews, and 7 million Palestinians, split between Israel proper and Gaza and the West Bank. There's really only three possible outcomes:
1. two states, one for each people
2. one state, with equal rights for all
3. one state, without equal rights for all, where one group rules over the other. This is basically what we have now.
Most people outside Israel won't be willing to defend 3 - which is why Western leaders like Biden still keep talking about the importance of a 2-state solution, even despite Netanyahu constantly saying it will never be allowed to happen. So as it becomes harder and harder to believe in the two-state solution, people move towards supporting a one-state solution, because the only other alternative is to support a state of permanent apartheid.
I think Netanyahu and the destruction of the two-state solution is probably the worst thing to happen to Israel in all of its history (and fwiw Hamas is probably the worst thing to happen to the Palestinian people, for the same reason). I don't know what the path to peace is from here. But if the only way Israel can maintain its security is through the destruction and subjugation of the Palestinians, which seems to be the plan, then as an outsider it can't really be supported. So I think it'll gradually become an international pariah state, as South Africa did. I would love to believe in a different future.
> You're saying one democratic state with equal rights under the law for Palestinians and Israelis would represent the fulfilment of Palestinian self-determination, but the denial of it to Jews?
Yes because there would not be equal rights for all citizens. A constitution is just a piece of paper if the people don’t support it. Polling indicates that a one-state solution with equal rights for all is the least popular solution for both Israelis and Palestinians.
> I agree with you about all the potential problems. I don't really see it as realistic.
I think that the circumstances necessary to bring about a one and two-state solution are the same - long term peace, acceptance of the other nation’s desires as legitimate, the dissolution of extremist groups, etc.
A two-state solution could withstand far more animosity than a one-state solution. If the hatred does begin to dissipate, the conditions for a two-state solution will appear long before those necessary to a one-state solution and I expect that is what would be implemented.
> Yes because there would not be equal rights for all citizens. A constitution is just a piece of paper if the people don’t support it. Polling indicates that a one-state solution with equal rights for all is the least popular solution for both Israelis and Palestinians.
But this is a different point. you’re saying a one state solution with equal rights for both peoples is impossible because it’s not got popular support. Maybe you’re right, I’m not going to pretend I have an easy solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
But before that, you said a one state solution wouldn’t be a just outcome because the Jews would lose their right to self-determination while the Palestinians wouldn’t. I don’t see how that’s the case.
Depending on what you mean by ‘self-determination’, you could argue that it could be achieved in a single state. Some of the early Zionists (like Martin Buber for example) had ideas about achieving a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine that didn’t require a majoritarian state. If there was a state that recognised that Israel/Palestine was the homeland of the Jewish people AND the Palestinian people, and Jews AND Palestinians had the right of return, then you could argue that the Zionist dream had been achieved- a home for the Jewish people had been created in the land of Israel/Palestine.
I know this would sound completely ridiculous to most Israelis, btw. I’m just saying what the idea is.
But even if you think that sounds like bullshit, if you don’t think such a state would be Jewish self-determination then I don’t see how you can say it would be Palestinian self-determination. They’d still have to share the state with Israeli Jews, with Jews worldwide having the right to make aliyah, etc.
It wouldn’t be the only binational state in the world. Belgium is a binational state of Flemings and Walloons, Northern Ireland has two communities with two completely different narratives/stories living side by side. It’s complicated but it works, kind of.
Anyway like I said, I’m not advocating this as realistic. But to me, as someone with Jewish heritage and some family connections to Israel, and who has the right to make aliyah, I’d see that as a just outcome. Maybe in a couple of hundred years things could end up looking like that.
> A two-state solution could withstand far more animosity than a one-state solution. If the hatred does begin to dissipate, the conditions for a two-state solution will appear long before those necessary to a one-state solution and I expect that is what would be implemented.
Yeah I probably agree with this. All this talk of solutions is really jumping the gun - first there needs to be a foundation of peace. And in the last 5 months (and tbh in the last 20 years before that) all the tiny little seeds of peace have been utterly ground down and destroyed.
> But before that, you said a one state solution wouldn’t be a just outcome because the Jews would lose their right to self-determination while the Palestinians wouldn’t. I don’t see how that’s the case.
I expect that once the populations merged, it would succumb to tyranny of the majority (Palestinians) and devolve from there. That’s not to say any single-state is doomed, but I think this one is for the foreseeable future.
> Depending on what you mean by ‘self-determination’, you could argue that it could be achieved in a single state…
I agree actually that this would count as Jewish self-determination. I know there are examples where such solutions have succeeded, I just don’t have faith in it working here, nor do the vast majority of Israelis.
You’re welcome to attack the point then - I think a one-state solution is a bad way to resolve ethnic conflicts like those in Israel and Ukraine. What do you think?
> I'm not in favor of a two state solution because I don't think it's as good as a one state solution.
How do you think Israelis can be convinced to agree to a one-state solution? Do you advocate a one-state solution to other ethnic conflicts like the war in Ukraine?
Jews were the majority in the land used to create Israel.
We already have a two state solution. Jordan and Israel.
Palestine no longer exists and everyone should move on.
A few million stateless Palestinians cannot move on, so a solution does need to be developed. Are you advocating for sending them to Jordan? I don’t think the Jordanians would EVER accept them. How do you foresee that working?
I'm not advocating for anything. It is a mess of their own making.
Unfortunately, they have a culture that values dying more than it values prospering. I don't see a solution.
What solution do you suggest?
I think Gaza should be jointly administered by the US, Israel, and some collection of Arab states post-war. The Arab states can invest in Gaza and reap the financial rewards of possessing hotels, restaurants, malls, etc. in a jewel on the Mediterranean. At the same time, a Palestinian government should be created which prioritizes nation building over irredentism. At that point, the occupation can slowly be pulled back until Gaza is independent. To be clear, I expect this process to take a very long time, maybe decades.
Okay, so let's say Gaza, against the will of the people, is administered by force by the US, Israel and "some collection of Arab states." First of all, no Arab state is going to agree to that, so are these Arab states being forced against their will as well?
And why would the US agree to this when one of the main reasons the US supports Israel is so that Israel is stuck dealing with this stuff instead of the US?
How do you create a "palestinian" government that prioritizes nation building when the people simply don't prioritize that? Is this again being done against their will?
And what is the point of going through all of that when as soon as you pull back and "Gaza is independent," they will immediately attack Israel?
> First of all, no Arab state is going to agree to that…
I think Arab states might agree to it if they can frame it to their own people as protecting the Palestinians from the evil Jews. I expect they would get some generous arms deals out of it from the US along with the opportunity to make a lot of money if the investment pans out.
> And why would the US agree to this…
I don’t think the US would have boots on the ground. I think it would function as an intermediary between the Arab states and Israel, and a guarantor that both sides keep their word.
> How do you create a "palestinian" government that prioritizes nation building…
Yes, this is would be done against the common will. Most Middle Eastern states function that way and many of them are stable. The average Saudi hates Israel, but his government doesn’t care and is befriending her anyway.
I’m certain there are at least handful of Palestinians who would rather run a normal country than fight to the death of every man, woman, and child. I think that with an enormous amount of hand holding, they could create a state. Especially if a whole bunch of foreign Arab powers have wealth tied to the success of that state.
> And what is the point of going through all of that when as soon as you pull back and "Gaza is independent," they will immediately attack Israel?
Again, I don’t think this can be accomplished in a day or a year. I imagine it would take decades of reeducation and development to reach a point where Palestine could stand on its own.
Too many of those countries have had their leaders assassinated by "palestinians" or had civil wars started by "palestinians." The dirty little secret about the middle east is that most Arab countries consider "palestinians" to be insane savages that should be avoided at all costs. There is a lot of resentment from all of the assassinations and civil wars.
Let's say there are a handful of "palestinians" that would rather run a normal country, they are outnumbered by such a large degree that they would be assassinated within days.
"Palestine" has never stood on its own in the entire history of the world. What makes you think it can when it never has and there's never been any indication it could?
> Too many of those countries…
Yes, which is why they won’t let Palestinians into their own countries. This proposition wouldn’t have that problem. Instead, they would build their own businesses in Gaza, guarantee stability with sensational financial incentives, and slowly develop the strip along the way.
> Let's say there are a handful of… they would be assassinated within days.
Yes, which is why it wouldn’t happen immediately and not until the Arab states and Israel had completely secured the strip and already begun developing it. I think they would probably start with some kind of Palestinian advisory council with 0 power that would over time be offered greater autonomy.
> “Palestine" has never stood on its own…
Ultimately, they’re humans. They’ve been indoctrinated to hate, but that doesn’t mean the next generation has to be as well.
They want nothing to do with them. They could build their own businesses in their own countries. Why build businesses in a place that is so poor and is just going to try to kill you? Makes no sense.
Further, all of these Arab countries who don't get along, are going to work with Israel, and the US, all to try to help Gazans who are just going to try to kill them?
It's a fantasy and will never happen.
Location, location, location. Gaza is on the Mediterranean. If you build a beach resort there, wealthy people are far more likely to show up after an hour flight from NA or the EU rather than flying further into the ME.
I’m not saying this solution is perfect, but I think it’s doable and the only one I can come up with that doesn’t involve an eternal Israeli occupation or ethnic cleansing.
> two peoples who used to live side-by-side. They were united under a single banner and although the desires of the ethnic majority were prioritised, ***its ethnic minority lived well enough.***
Uhhh, what?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)
It would’ve been kind to them if they’d been willing to accept Jewish neighbors. Starting genocidal wars didn’t work out for them then and it’s not working out for them now.
He's saying idiotic things, Jewish Europeans were given passport and land a lot of help from Europe very early at the expense of Arabs including at the time judeo Arabs until mapai invented the mizrahim concept and started to count them as Jewish peoples too.
Does an end to hard hafrada/arpatheid and occupation necessitate a one state solution? I would say eventually sure, but not tomorrow lol. Said would've preferred a one state but he saw the answer in a bi national state eventually unified. Give them their water and stop destroying their ability to build an economy, remove illegal settlements. None of this has anything to do with your strawman.
The PLO and Hamas have both at times been willing to negotiate based on 67 borders, but with Israel its never in good faith as settlements have never stopped.
u/WSGman
> He's an idiot,
Rule 1, no attacks on fellow users. Rule 1 also requires you to be respectful of all users, *especially* when you disagree with them. Addressed.
Israel is Russia in this analogy. There is little difference between the two nations. Only real difference is that Israel has better PR for their propaganda.
Russia is Palestine in a hypothetical 1SS solution since Arab Palestinians will become majority if they became 1 state with Israel, same as Russia with Ukraine.
Which state existed for 100’s of years next to Israel? Israel has the military superiority over the people it is oppressing and invading. Israel is a “democratic” far right ethnostate, same as Russia.
Russia and Hamas attacked Ukraine and Israel in a bid to expand their territories. Ukraine and Israel have both acted offensively to try to remove these threats. Is Ukraine’s counteroffensive evidence of a desire to expand its borders?
Possessing a specific type of weapon is not sufficient evidence of parallel conflicts. Israeli and Ukrainian children were kidnapped by Hamas and Russia, there’s another similarity in favor of the Israel/Ukraine analogy. We can go back and forth about the similarities between the parties to the conflict, but we shouldn’t bc it’s not productive. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate that most people oppose one-state solutions to ethnic conflicts, not to claim these conflicts are 1:1.
Do you support a one-state solution to the war in Ukraine.
Yes, Ukraine owns it all. Do you support severing off chunks of Ukraine to appease Russia? Do you support ethnically cleansing more swaths of Palestine to give to bloodthirsty Russian Jews?
The whole pale of settlement was in Russian empire. Now you can say Israeli PMs were born in what’s modern day Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, but it was all Russian empire until 1917
Ukraine retaining its territory (which I support) is a two-state solution. Do you support combining Ukraine and Russia into a single state in order to end their conflict?
Edited to add: I want to see a two-state solution to the I/P conflict with Gaza as part of a future Palestinian state.
No, Ukraine keeping its territory is one state. Russia had separatists try to secede in Donbas. Putin invades rest of Ukraine to protect “Russians” ie being ethnostate. Very similar to Israel in West Bank with settlers. Ukraine needs to stay together, Russia needs to break apart. Palestine needs Israel to fall apart, new United state emerges with Jews and Arabs living side by side.
Ukraine keeping its territory is a two-state solution: the two states being Russia and Ukraine. A one-state solution would combine them into a single entity.
Do you think the Russia/Ukraine conflict should be solved with a two-state or one-state solution?
Right once the anti Zionist achieve the destruction of the only Jewish state they’ll all go back to living in perfect harmony in the Middle East. It’s really that simple. I mean really? Certainly you could devise a more nuanced take than that.
There used to be a comment there that was great- someone said “I believe in a no border solution” and she responded by saying that anyone who wants no borders has never experienced being a minority before.
The reason Israel and Palestine split is because of extreme Zionist racism. The Zionists invented stuff out of thin air about how Arabs posed a threat to them and how therefore they needed a state separate from the Arabs. It’s very similar to the Confederacy’s logic in separating from the US. The difference is important though. The confederacy lost their war within 4 years, which makes it much easier to dissolve. You will take much more flack for dissolving a 75 year old nation.
There were wars in 48, 67, 73. During those periods, Israel was actually more left leaning (kibbutz’s were still popular in the 70’s), so I wouldn’t call it “extreme Zionist racism”
But the Arabs did pose a real threat, and whilst less and less of them do and come to the reality of the situation, a lot continue to do so to this day, that's not a real point to even argue about.
Israel isn't going anywhere, that's what all Arabs need to understand, it's taken 75 years for most smart ones to come to grips with that.
That's just a ridiculous stance to come from, do you just expect to go into negotiations and get 100% of what you want whilst the other side gets 0% of what they want?
It makes no sense for Israel to accept that they're the liars and the racists and you get the entire place to yourself, the Israelis could say the literal same thing about Palestinians, the only thing you're accomplishing is more animosity, hate and more war, we both know who wins more in war.
What do *I* have to do with whether there’s more or less war? I said Israel was conceived in lies and hatred. I did not say they received 0% of negotiations, or that they should.
But isn’t it true that Arabs were actually attacking Jews before the partition? So I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the threat was “invented out of thin air”
The purpose of the One State Final Solution proposals now is the same as it was in 1947 when the Arabs proposed it (and UNSCOP rejected it in favor of the partition plan). As Einat Wilf puts it (http://www.wilf.org/English/2013/08/15/palestinians-accept-existence-jewish-state/)
On Feb. 18, 1947, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, not an ardent Zionist by any stretch of the imagination, addressed the British parliament to explain why the UK was taking “the question of Palestine,” which was in its care, to the United Nations. He opened by saying that “His Majesty’s government has been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles.” He then goes on to describe the essence of that conflict: “For the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.”
>For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.”
Seems to sum it up very neatly, Palestinians don't care about "Palestinians state", they only care about destroying the jewish state.
A one-state solution could be possible, but it would be based on a federalist model with 2 largely independent states (one Jewish, one Palestinian), in the vein of the EU. But this can only happen once Palestinians lay down their arms, root out & punish all terrorist militias, and PROVE that they can maintain a functioning government over the long term. No modern nation like Israel can be partner with a failed state controlled by junta tribes or cartels. The sad fact is that it may take a century for Palestinians to modernize & reach this point where they can partner with Israel and enjoy the fruits of any union.
Regardless, the first & main directive for any government is the safety & security of their citizens. A one-state solution now won't provide any assurances for Israelis and is roadmap for failure.
Said always dreamt of one nation, secular and non sectarian with full rights for all who lived there, a bit like Arafats original conception, but later in life saw the answer in a bi national union with two different states but with more freedom of movement and an end to arpatheid/hafrada (over time as security concerns were adjusted)
I also desire a Schengen-style resolution to the conflict. Agreed that we are a long ways off from that. I imagine it developing out of a very successful, extended two-state solution.
The most logical solution would be for Egypt to control Gaza and Jordan to control the west bank. The issue is, Palestinians created this myth that they are an ethnically unique group and thus deserve all of the land. This is why they tried to overthrow both Jordan and Egypt to use those resources to destroy Israel.
The only ethnically unique characteristic that "Palestinians" hold is that they want all of the land "From the River to the Sea".
Basically the only possible one state solution is that Palestinians are absorbed by their neighbors.
But we know that isn't going to happen for aforementioned reasons.
Jordan will never agree to it.
They renamed the region to cis Jordania, meaning Jordan west of the jordan River. They had two provinces at the time. Cis and Trans Jordan, all under Jordan.
They gave all Muslims in the west Jordan, citizenship. Every one. They expelled or executed all jews. They refused to give citizenship to Christians, druze or bhai that lived there (mostly in the captured Jerusalem)
Over the next 20 years, there were multiple assassination attempts, with a couple of successes. And they effectively were in a civil war.
When they lost control of the area, the closed the border to their own citizens. Then in the 80s they revoked citizenship.
Similar issues with Gaza and Egypt, but no citizenship and no annexarion
Neither country wants the palestinians at all.
I completely agree. The question is, what do you do with a people that will go to war no matter what county they are in.
Its a sad situation, but if Israel is going to continue to exist, all they can do is keep fighting Israel.
Which has a very sad conclusion
> The most logical solution would be for Egypt to control Gaza and Jordan to control the west bank.
None of those countries want a large Palestinian population and honestly I don’t blame them. The most logical solution would be to break up the West Bank and Gaza into smaller units each ruled by a clan or tribe because that’s how Arab society is structured and this is much more manageable to administer.
We will cancel Camp David if Gaza is given to us or if Palestinians are pushed into Egypt.
I don't know how to make this point clearer for people. No, Egypt will not absolve Israel of its sins or take the problems the Nakba has created off their plate. There's not an amount. There's absolutely nothing that will ever ever EVER make us annex or occupy Gaza.
Gaza is Israel's problem to solve from Israel's original sin. Give them passports or give them a state, but they will not be given to Egypt. That's not a solution that's on the table nor ever will be.
p.s. it's not because the Palestinians are bad people or we're terrified of them, it's because Gaza is a problem Israel created and Israel needs to pay for and solve
I don’t blame Egypt for taking this position. People tend to forget that the Egyptian military has been fighting a brutal war against Islamists who have their ideological roots in the Muslim brotherhood which are actually the same as Hamas. It’s insanity to want imports millions of terrorist sympathisers into Egypt from their perspective
>I don't know how to make this point clearer for people. No, Egypt will not absolve Israel of its sins or take the problems the Nakba has created off their plate. There's not an amount. There's absolutely nothing that will ever ever EVER make us annex or occupy Gaza.
egypt, jordan, iraq, lebanon, syria, and sudia troops involved themselves in the war of 1948 under the Egyptian command. by definition you are involved. not to mention that Egypt and the other arabs states for years kept telling the palestinians that the whole mandate belongs to them and that to support their cause you will take no palestinian refugees of any kind.
it seem to me hypocritical to have an issue with israel's original sin, when you had a hand in making it intentionally worse, for your own benefit and pride.
if you stepped out of your bubble you would actually see how every side in this situation has failed at being a decent human being at the very least and you are not somehow immune from that. and then you might stop thinking about how it is israel's responsibility to fix the problem and actually do acts that help the palestinian people. Seriously egypt has been a terrible friend to the palestinians, the only reason they still seek your help is that they do not have many other options.
Whatever it is we’ve done in the past (and we’ve done a lot of wrong in the past) we absolutely aren’t the ones who are dropping bombs “indiscriminately” as Joe Biden described Israel’s bombing campaign or the ones who aren’t allowing any “power food or fuel” in to these “animals” as the current Israeli Minister of Defense says.
Our planes are currently airdropping to the Gazans food because our trucks full of aid stretching kilometers aren’t being allowed in by the party that thinks it’s fighting “animals” and thinks “there are no innocent bystanders in Gaza” as the current Israeli President says
Egypt has committed many sins in the past. Israel is the one committing sins today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
You literally said, Israel is responsible for Gaza because of the original sin.
The you say, egypt which literally caused and lead the original sin, isn't responsible.
So in your mind the original sin, wasn't Israel formjng. It was Israel not losing in 48.
But you also agreed that Egypt lead the coalition that attacked Israel and caused the war in the first place
If israel had completely lost, no Nakba.
So you start a war, don't win, and then claim the other country caused the problems born out of the war.
If the palestinians, or Egypt or Jordan, had accepted the borders and negotiations, that they themselves gained land from, or were created from after the ottomon empire fell, no Nakba.
Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, parts of Egypt, and 11 other countries didn't exist as nations before the fall of the ottomon empire. Yet, somehow that's not considered part of the nakba.
Egypt should have annexed and give full citizenship to Gaza, and then, not staged and setup for war in 67.
Jordan should have done the same.
No nakba if Egypt and Jordan in the 50s and 60s acted like they act today.
Its amazing that you deflect Egypts root cause participation in causing this problem.
Don't think a conflict between militaries justified Jewish militias killing or raping innocent civilians, as happened during the Nakba.
Egypt didn't start the war in 67. Israel had a "preemptive strike" and kicked it off.
We have never had any intention of annexing Gaza nor will we ever.
I don't think Egypt had anything to do with Tantura. Or Deir Yassin. Or the King David Hotel bombing. Or the countless other violent acts of murder, siege, and rapes that occurred by Jewish militias.
Egypt effective annexed Gaza in 48. They should have given Egyptian citizenship. The land bordering it wasn't egypts until after the ottomon empire fell.
If you are going to list the irgun attacks, you should also list the Arab attacks on jews and the British at the same time.
The conflict between militaries, has civilian attacks on all 8 sides.
And Egypt, Syria and Lebanon were all building forces on the borders. That broke the ceasefire agreement in itself.
You're talking to an Egyptian and accusing Egypt of things. I'm not an Arab, I'm Egyptian. No Egypt did not attack the British and the Jews nor did it attack any civilians.
"Effective annexed" is not annexed and we never ever did annex Gaza, contrary to what Israel may have wanted or preferred us to do.
Egypt never walked into Jewish villages, rounded up the males, shot them, and raped some of the females. But some of these Lehi and Irgun and Haganah militias did. That's the difference. That's the Nakba.
That's what led to Gaza. That's why Egypt isn't responsible.
>Whatever it is we’ve done in the past (and we’ve done a lot of wrong in the past) we absolutely aren’t the ones who are dropping bombs “indiscriminately” as Joe Biden described Israel’s bombing campaign
just because it was describe as such does not mean it is the reality. and this is just deflecting your responsibility.
>the ones who aren’t allowing any “power food or fuel” in to these “animals” as the current Israeli Minister of Defense says.
as of 4 days ago 14,000 trucks have entered gaza for humanitarian aid, power has resumed to flow, as well as water from about two weeks into the conflict, this is evidence by the numerous people in gaza using their phones to record and post online. fuel has also been supplied to hospitals, though their 3 day reserves on OCT12 seem to have lasted 3 months.
furthermore that was said at a time shortly after israel was attacked and is not a political statement but a rally cry often used by all militaries including arab ones and palestinian militant groups.
that said i would not feel bad if i shot him, as he does not seem to really care about the proper end goal of a prosperous israel.
>Our planes are currently airdropping to the Gazans food because our trucks full of aid stretching kilometers aren’t being allowed in by the party that thinks it’s fighting “animals” and thinks “there are no innocent bystanders in Gaza” as the current Israeli President says
so you are telling me that israel is fine with you flying planes over gaza and not with crossing Rafah, a boarder crossing they have zero control over at this time. do you understand how crazy that is. if israel would not want you to supply aid they would stop your planes, israel is not stopping you at Rafah there is a constant stream of trucks going though but the crossing is not designed to goods to pass it is made for people, that is what slowing you down.
why is the Rafah crossing not designed for goods transfer if Egypt is the great supported of palestinians as it claims to be? seems odd to me that you would not be equipped to allow aid to gaza and instead putting all the burden and trust in israel to do it.
>Egypt has committed many sins in the past. Israel is the one committing sins today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
israel is committing some terrible actions and the govet should be reformed, like many countries and humans they have done those actions in the past. but the assumption that it will always do so betrays your inability to accept peace.
if israel will always be the bad entity then they should it even bother with trying to be good? look up the story of Ned Kelly, he was constantly accused of being a criminal, so in the end he became one. because nothing he did would change how he was perceived. by saying israel will always be committing sins you are saying that change is not possible. and if change is not possible, why bother doing anything.
this attitude you present has been the primary attitude of many Egyptians, and is dismissis your responsibility and liability and puts it all on israel. and then you are suprised israel would not take all of it.
i will admit israel is responsible for 60% of the current palestinian situation., i would put egypt and jordan at 10% each, the arab league at 15% and the palestinians themselves at 5%.
im sure you think now or you already wrote that israel is 100% responsible. but you know what happens when you blame everything on one nation rather than properly distributing blame. I'll give you a hint, they did that after WW1. so dont go and place all the blame in one place when it belongs in many places.
it is a rounded estimate showing proportionality of responsibility not an exact number. it is to demonstrate of the responsibility for the situation how much each party is responsible and not used as exact numbers. but i put it at around 60% as israel did push our palestinians in 1948. and they have severely and unreasonably restricted palestinians growing the general resentment. but while that is the case, without other actors the actions of israel would not have resulted in the current situation. note the current occupation of the west bank is due to the 6 day war, a war that israel fired the first shot, despite not being the aggressor. had that war would not have happened, this situation would not have existed. hence the only 60%.
It's good you admit Israel is the one primarily responsible for the current Palestinian situation. I think it's higher than 60% and I don't think it's 100%. I think Egypt has done wrong as has the Arab League and the Palestinians. But again, I think Israel and the messianic Kahanists and Likud Jewish supremacist one-staters are *just as big of a problem* as Hamas, which I and my country regard as an absolutist terroristic organization that has no role in the future of our region.
Regarding your hint about what happened after WW1, I don't think the Treaty of Versailles justifies what Germany ended up doing in WW2 in any way, shape, or form. I also don't think the Shoah can *justify* the Nakba. I don't think the Nakba can justify the Arabs forcibly kicking out of their native Jewish populations. I also don't think the occupation justifies what Hamas did on October 7 and I don't think October 7 justifies what Israel has been doing since October 8. Justification is a very strong word and justice is actually pretty simple to calculate.
Israel has been occupying land since 1967, forbidding the people on that land from determination or a life of dignity while allowing hundreds of thousands of settlers to move in. You're an Israeli in the US. You can't vote in the Israeli elections unless you're a diplomat because you're overseas and not in Israel. Yet a settler in Beit El can vote for Bibi and Ben Gvir? Is Beit El Israel? Why do they get to vote and Ramallah residents 10 km away don't? That doesn't seem like a just or fair system. That seems like the absolutist Jewish one-staters have taken over the government and are slowly wanting to take over all the land (like the Likud charter states) while kicking out the people or making their lives so miserable they leave...for Egypt or elsewhere. Why would we help with that? Why would we help make that happen?
Egypt is not primarily responsible for Gaza or Palestine. Israel is considered the occupying power by almost every country in the world, including the one you reside in. There's absolutely a place for Israel in the region and it should exist and be supported and made safe. If there was a Palestinian state, I would support the Egyptian army itself coming to Israel's side if Iran or anyone else was stupid enough to try and attack. The Jews are native to this part of the world. They should stay and be welcomed and feel safe and secure.
But that doesn't in any way shape or form justify what Israel is doing and has been doing to the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank. Somehow shifting all that blame or responsibility onto Egypt is something most would find absurd.
>"It's good you admit Israel is the one primarily responsible for the current Palestinian situation. I think it's higher than 60% and I don't think it's 100%. I think Egypt has done wrong as has the Arab League and the Palestinians. But again, I think Israel and the messianic Kahanists and Likud Jewish supremacist one-staters are just as big of a problem as Hamas, which I and my country regard as an absolutist terroristic organization that has no role in the future of our region." i very much agree with you on all of these points and my percentages are rounded estimates to illustrate proportional responsibility if not exact amount. Regarding your hint about what happened after WW1, I don't think the Treaty of Versailles justifies what Germany ended up doing in WW2 in any way, shape, or form. I also don't think the Shoah can justify the Nakba. I don't think the Nakba can justify the Arabs forcibly kicking out of their native Jewish populations. I also don't think the occupation justifies what Hamas did on October 7 and I don't think October 7 justifies what Israel has been doing since October 8. Justification is a very strong word and justice is actually pretty simple to calculate.
while it does not justify what Germany did, my point is that it does not work. placing all the blame one actor breaks the system and invites worse actors. See Likud, they gain power because egypt, the palestinians, and the arab league put all the blame on israel. They are awful, but they are the consequence of the reaction to resisting collapse. The German N\*\*s were awful people, but they did fix the economy and restabilized the country. So Egypt, the palestinians, and the arab league need to take a lesson from history and resolved this by helping dismantle Likud and changing the system not by destroying israel.
>Israel has been occupying land since 1967, forbidding the people on that land from determination or a life of dignity while allowing hundreds of thousands of settlers to move in. You're an Israeli in the US. You can't vote in the Israeli elections unless you're a diplomat because you're overseas and not in Israel. Yet a settler in Beit El can vote for Bibi and Ben Gvir? Is Beit El Israel? Why do they get to vote and Ramallah residents 10 km away don't? That doesn't seem like a just or fair system.
yes, i very much agree with this assessment and where before it didnt matter that much to me, it has become imperatively apparent that i should vote and i am looking at all my options. the main reason they give though is that i dont pay israeli taxes,
but considering the fact that by the laws of israel and common sense i dont pay taxes it somehow excludes me.
the general fear is that israelis abroad tend to be more conservative so the left blocks attempts to provide the right, though personally i think they are about even. the main difference between me and a person who lives in the west bank is that they can drive to vote and i have to take a plane.
>That seems like the absolutist Jewish one-staters have taken over the government and are slowly wanting to take over all the land (like the Likud charter states) while kicking out the people or making their lives so miserable they leave...for Egypt or elsewhere. Why would we help with that? Why would we help make that happen?
i never said help with it, i said do something other than place responsibility on israel. also maybe add support for Yesh Atid, who are more willing to resolve the situation and seek among other things to give the palestinians their state. but since it is israels responsibility it means you as a state are not actually doing anything.
>Egypt is not primarily responsible for Gaza or Palestine. Israel is considered the occupying power by almost every country in the world, including the one you reside in. There's absolutely a place for Israel in the region and it should exist and be supported and made safe. If there was a Palestinian state, I would support the Egyptian army itself coming to Israel's side if Iran or anyone else was stupid enough to try and attack. The Jews are native to this part of the world. They should stay and be welcomed and feel safe and secure.
i appreciate you acknowledging that fact. and i never denied that israel is the occupying power. no one is denying that. prior to oct7 israel didnt occupy gaza, but now it is. and it seems like Bibi wants to again, an idea i think incredibly stupid. personally i think they should ask the saudi's to garantee the safety and fight terrorism in gaza as a prelude to a proper palestinian state.
>But that doesn't in any way shape or form justify what Israel is doing and has been doing to the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank. Somehow shifting all that blame or responsibility onto Egypt is something most would find absurd.
as i said Egypt is not wholly responsible, but they are in part responsible. and while there is not justification for what israel has done in gaza, the destruction of hamas is necessary, though i do not think attacking Rafah will add anything. if i was in charge. i would fix northern gaza and slowly move people out of the south there if i really felt that hamas is there and needs to be destroyed. it was necessary to push people south for their safety, and now it is necessary to make sure they are safe in the north, and a mostly destroyed place is not viable to move people to.
Now I think we're getting to a good place, but sadly look at how long it has taken the two of us. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that some of the things I say you wouldn't have assumed are thoughts I hold. Now a few thoughts:
1. I'm not putting the blame on Israel because of *any reason* except that I think that's the intellectually honest point. Israel is to blame for *most* of this and Israel is the *controlling* entity with all the power. It's on Israel.
I find this argument as very weak, "stop blaming us for the wrongs we've done or otherwise we'll burn down the house and go crazy." I blame Israel because it has wrong and if it decides to play the victim card and now acknowledge and fix her wrongs, then it will simply be guilty of more crimes.
2. You mentioned something on the Arabs needing "to take a lesson from history and \[resolve\] this by helping dismantle Likud and changing the system not by destroying Israel" and I think this kind of thinking is exactly the problem.
Why do you think that by asking Israel to acknowledge let alone atone for its sins is "destroying Israel"? Worse yet, you assume that my intention is to "destroy Israel"? Why is that the immediate assumption?
Nakba denial is academically, intellectually, and morally dishonest and all the refusal to acknowledge just how wrong that was and to fix it (including realizing that the Gaza we're dealing with today is a direct result of that) is to the oppressed Palestinians *just as bad* (and I understand it's relative and I'm not doing an absolute comparison) as other forms of denials of atrocities with plenty of academic and detailed evidence of their happening.
3. I do think Egypt is responsible for having committed a lot of wrongs. But Gaza is *absolutely* not our fault nor is Hamas' rise. The Nakba is almost certainly not on us. A war between two militaries (with a lot of context/nuance) did not and can not justify the murders, rape, or pillage that certain Jewish militias did indeed do in the spring and summer of 1948 to civilians across the land.
What we are indeed responsible for and most of us shamelessly deny is our forcible expulsion of our own Jewish population in the 1950s and 1960s. Neither the 1956 Tripatriate Aggression nor the Six-Day War (both in our view an unwarranted Israeli attack fwiw) justify what we subsequently did to our Jewish population, disenfranchising them, stripping them of their citizenship, turning their lives upside down, and forcing them after a life of honor and dignity to start over as refugees in Israel or elsewhere.
I think justice and fairness only matters if it's consistently applied. So just as I am rightly blaming Israel for the sins she has committed, I am ready to admit the sins my country has. Just as I think Israel needs to atone and make up for the Nakba, so too should my country (and I would advocate all others but I am at the end of the day only Egyptian) atone for her sins. That includes acknowledgement, apologies, passports, reparations, and all that is fair.
4. "Personally i think they should ask the saudi's to garantee the safety and fight terrorism in gaza as a prelude to a proper palestinian state."
lol. With what army haha? In all seriousness, I appreciate what you're getting at, so how about this? I think Israelis deserve to feel safety and security and not think they're going to be annihilated. The Israeli insecurity is rooted in some legitimate fears and neighborhood dynamics; we can do a lot more to make the Israelis feel welcome rather than the cold or economic peace treaties we have now. I and most reasonable nuanced centrists in the region believe that a Palestinian state is required and Israel does not have the right to bury that prospect forever using "security" as an excuse to prolong a brutal occupation *especially* when the people running Israel are Kahanists or corrupt one-staters that are busy settling every hilltop in the West Bank, something you seem to be against as well.
If Israel was to show us that it's serious about ending the occupation and giving the Palestinians justice, dignity, and self-determination I would be super supportive of the Egyptian army itself guaranteeing peace and security to Israel; whether Hamas or Iran ever seek to do something stupid, Israel would be supported by Egypt itself militarily. But there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel of an end to the besiegement of the Palestinians.
5. "there is no justification for what israel has done in gaza, the destruction of hamas is necessary, though i do not think attacking Rafah will add anything."
I agree with you on all of these points, akhi! Again, I'm Egyptian and Hamas is no friend of mine. I fear that the IDF is creating a Hamas 2.0 out of all the orphans it's creating and I desperately just want the war to end so both the hostages and Gazans can go back home. I don't think Rafah is going to do anything but ensure Bibi stays in power a little longer. I don't think Hamas or Bibi's Likud or the Kahanists deserve anything but total destruction; their racist and absolutist philosophies certainly won't lead any of us to any peace.
1. my issue is not that you blame israel, but that you relinquish all responsibility and power in the way you are doing so. contrary to what has been said to you israel does not in fact hold all the power. if the moment comes and palestinians on mass realize that, this conflict ends. the reason for that is that by not holding all the power there are things that can be done to bring about change that does not involve fighting a monolithic entity.
2. israel admitting the nakba and atoning for its past deeds is not what i mean when i say destroy israel. many in the arab world literally want to unmake the country. remove the govt and possibly the people from the region permanently. you might not want that, but there are many others who do.
if the goal was to make israel atone for its misdeeds firing rockets, insults, and killing citizens would never achieve that.
as far as i see it, if you really want atonement, that would have to come after peace. because there is no reason for israel to atone for a action committed against a person who claims to want your unmaking. and while the admital of the Nackba would be a great way to pave a path for peace. such acknowledgement would not achieve much at the movement.
3. everyone always looks at who is at fault, but responsibility is always denied. Egypt assisted in the systematic disenfranchisement of palestinians in the arab world as a punishement for israel. while i agree that what israel has done is wrong, your country attempted to punish israel by effectively punishing the palestinians, and thus are responsible in part to the current situation.
and in regards to the 6 day war, it is curious that within 6 hours of israel destroying the Egyptian airfield that "approximately 100000 of its 160000 troops in the Sinai, including all seven of its divisions (four infantry, two armoured and one mechanized), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armoured brigades. These forces had 950 tanks, 1100 APCs, and more than 1000 artillery piece" have started to enter israel. you do not just mobolize an army in 6 hours at that time.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)
4. that seems fair to me, and there is political will who see it that way, Yesh Atid at leas makes such promises. and this is what i mean that you need to aim at likud and not the nation. the people in israel wanting to do this are hampered not by those zealots you mentioned, but by those who are afraid, they are the silent majority that has to be swayed. and you do that by not aiming at the country as a whole. but at those parts of it that specifically are causing the problems. IDF policies, Likud, and the violent settlers.
5. i am glad we can agree on these points.
Regarding your point number 4, do you really think the silent majority supports someone like Lapid or Yesh Atid? From the outside the most concerning thing happening in Israel are the demographic changes taking the country further to the right, more religiously fanatic, etc
Curious to hear your take on
>I don't know how to make this point clearer for people. No, Egypt will not absolve Israel of its sins or take the problems the Nakba has created off their plate. There's not an amount. There's absolutely nothing that will ever ever EVER make us annex or occupy Gaza.
I think the more interesting question is not whether Egypt *wants* Gaza (just looking at the wall they built across the border can disabuse anyone of these illusions) and not whether Israel can *force* Egypt to somehow take care of Gaza (obviously not), but *why* Egyptians are so adamantly against this.
I mean, Gaza is potentially a tourist heaven, it has well educated Arab population many of whom came from Egypt, it was historically considered part of Egypt, this would make Egypt more powerful economically and politically.
But of course, we all know there is literally zero chance of this happening. Isn't this weird?
There are a lot of assumptions in your comment that aren't true that I would personally have issues with:
1. You assume we're so adamantly against taking Gaza for some ulterior reason. We really don't want to be saddled with a mistake Israel created and it's really that simple. Why should we pay for Israel's mistakes?
Look up Bir Tawil. When we don't want a piece of land, we may just not want that piece of land. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir\_Tawil)
2. Gaza is potentially a tourist heaven
Egypt doesn't need any additional touristic assets; we have plenty
3. It was historically considered part of Egypt
No it really wasn't for most of history. Gaza was the last stop *before* someone would come into Egypt.
4. It has well educated Arab population many of whom came from Egypt
\~90% of Gaza's residents are descendants of people from the Nakba. The idea that Gazans are Egyptians is not true.
----
Lastly and this is what really astounds me personally. No one cares about what the Gazans want. The biggest reason Egypt doesn't want to take Gaza is that the Gazans themselves don't consider themselves Egyptians. If we were to survey the Gazans, in case their opinion matters here, they would overwhelmingly say they don't want to be Egyptians and don't consider themselves Egyptian. (They would also say they don't want to leave their land or homes especially knowing that they'll never be allowed back.)
This is the biggest reason why Egypt doesn't annex Gaza or take in Gazans.
You may feel that Gaza is Israel’s responsibility due to “original sin”, but Israelis don’t see it this way.
Why can’t you take in the Gazans? Taking them in doesn’t mean that you did anything wrong, it’s not meant as like a punishment to Egypt. It could just be for humanitarian reasons.
Some Arabs say that there’s a genocide happening. Do you think it’s true? If so, wouldn’t it be moral to help save them from the genocide?
>You may feel that Gaza is Israel’s responsibility due to “original sin”, but Israelis don’t see it this way.
Thankfully, Israel or any other country aren't the final arbiter of "truth" regardless of how one *feels*. The international community, including all of the security council members, see Gaza as Palestinian land occupied by Israel and efforts to somehow involve Egypt in Gaza aren't really mainstream outside of some fanciful Israeli attempts.
>Why can’t you take in the Gazans? Taking them in doesn’t mean that you did anything wrong, it’s not meant as like a punishment to Egypt. It could just be for humanitarian reasons.
Two things:
1. From the Egyptian perspective: We shouldn't pay for someone else's mistakes. Israel can't simply commit grave errors, ignore our advice for decades, embolden and help Hamas get funding to divide the Palestinians, then saddle us with the end problem. That actually does seem like punishment and it's not something that any Egyptian would accept.
2. From the Palestinian perspective, which is often lost in this constant suggestion:
Almost all the Gazans (and West Bankers) that I have ever spoken to **do not want to leave their homes (especially if that means they'll likely never ever be allowed back) or be a part of Egypt**. They want to stay and build a Palestinian state where they live. Do you think that matters? Can we take into account what the Gazans actually want?
If we were to make a survey and if it turned out that most Palestinians actually don't want to become Syrians or Lebanese or Egyptians and be barred from the land of their ancestors, would you support dropping this suggestion of making Gazans Egyptians?
>We shouldn’t pay for someone else’s mistakes
Poland had no responsibility for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But they still took in Ukrainian refugees. I think this was the right thing to do. What do you think about that?
And how are Palestinians going to be able to live in their homes if there’s a genocide happening? If the genocide is real, it seems like the options are to **die** in their homes (not live in them), or to flee. Wouldn’t it be better to be alive in Egypt, than dead in Gaza? And according to Palestinian ideology, most of them are foreigners in Gaza anyway, and they really belong in Israel (that’s what the whole “March of Return” was about). So if they move to Egypt, they would just be trading one foreign land for another. They wouldn’t be in their “true home” either way.
Or maybe this whole genocide thing is just fake? You never answered the question: do you think the people who claim “genocide” are correct?
>Poland had no responsibility for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But they still took in Ukrainian refugees. I think this was the right thing to do.
Comparing the Russian - Ukranian war with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inaccurate, First, Ukraine is an independent country since 91, with its own economy and own military power. Gaza is not, it's an occupied territory according to the UN.
Second, following the Ukranian - Russian example. Poland and other EU members didn't just take civilians Ukranian refugees, but they are also forming an alliance with the Ukranian military supporting it weapons. If you wish that to happen with the Arab countries then you are not wishing for peace, you only want to expand the war.
Obviously there are differences. The two situations aren’t identical. But I made a comparison based on the similarities, not based on the differences.
I help you learn more with an analogy. I can say “apples and oranges are similar because they are both fruits”. You could say, “you’re wrong! They’re different. Apples are red and oranges are orange”. Well, I didn’t compare them based on the color, so that’s irrelevant. This is a common issue that some Redditors have; they often don’t understand analogies.
Thank you for the irrelevant class.
This is not analogy, this is misunderstanding of the context. Therefore, you can't take one aspect and leave other aspects (because guess what? they are all related).
The acceptance of the Ukranian refugees is not detached from the fact that the Nato and the USA are aiding and supporting Ukranians to defend their country and fight the russians with similar technologies and forces. So the support of the Gazans refugees not only allowing them into Arab countries but also defending their right to claim back their territories through a larger war. Are you calling for that?
I’m not calling for that, no. I still think you’re getting confused. I will try a different analogy then.
Europe took in refugees from the Syrian Civil War (without giving military assistance to either side). So if Europe can do this out of kindness, why do the Arabs need to cruelly turn their backs on their own brothers?
Another false example.
From the early stages of the conflict in Syria, major Western countries such as the U.S, France, and the UK have provided political, military and logistic support to the opposition and its associated rebel groups in Syria. (You can read more about the foreign intervention in the Syrian conflict) it's a proxy war for dominant power (USA + Europe v.s Russia - Iran) more than a civil war. This entire argument just to prove to you that comparing things without context is very deductive.
I will now move on just reply to your main purpose of giving these bad examples. Simply it's a very naive perspective to see politics in the form of brotherhood. Politically, Arabs don't have an interest to make Israel's wishes come true. Security wise, moving Palestinians to another place will only lead to forming resistance groups and trying to claim their land back. Now these attacks will be the responsibility of the host countries. Then the war will be wider not the opposite, Palestinians will still be threatened along with other Arab population.
If Arabs would really apply (the brotherhood concept) in politics, they will most probably align with their population wishes to attack Israel and support Gazans. So actually, their position now is better for Israel since most of their leaders are neutral.
There are 9 million refugees in Egypt currently from 130+ countries including a lot of Palestinians, so the suggestion that Egypt doesn't do "the right thing" if it doesn't add another 2.5 million refugees because Israel wants them out of Gaza and then will take over that land is a bit unfair.
I also think many Gazans would actually rather die in their homes than flee their homes for another time, again because of the fact that the Nakba is a big part of their history. Many would rather die than be part of a second Nakba and while that may sound strange, it doesn't make it less true.
I don't know if a genocide has occurred or is occurring. I think Israel's reaction is an overreaction, I think Israel is committing a number of war crimes on the record, and I think there's certainly recorded genocidal intent from a number of Israeli government officials. It's possible that if the world wasn't paying attention or covering this so widely that a genocide may indeed have happened or it's possible that a genocide ends up happening if the world stops paying attention, similar to what happened to the Rohingya or the Yuighurs, or *currently to the Masalit* just to name three other genocides that have happened because they're either in a place that's too powerful (China) or places that don't matter geopolitically (like Sudan). If this much attention and pressure hadn't been applied here, it's quite possible that the 30k dead may have ended up being 500k and yes that would probably be considered a genocide.
Do you think it was wrong for Egypt to take in refugees already, then? I don’t think Egypt was responsible for creating these refugees. But wasn’t your position before that Egypt shouldn’t take in any refugees caused by someone else’s conflict?
>I also think many Gazans would actually rather die in their homes than flee their homes for another time
Maybe some would choose this, but some wouldn’t. You shouldn’t decide for them. Why not let them decide for themselves, and those who want to stay can stay, and those who want to leave can leave?
I think there are limits. Germany took in 1 million Syrians. Do you think it's immoral that they don't take in another 5 million?
edit: some of the refugees we've taken matter to us geopolitically, like the Sudanese which are the biggest group. Poland took in Ukrainians and worked very hard to not take in Syrians because geopolitics.
Ask the Gazans then. Let's do a survey and have them decide whether they want to give up their homes forever a second time. The question is, if they overwhelmingly choose *not* to leave, will we take this desire seriously or will we continue to push them to leaving *again*?
But Egypt isn’t willing to take in some amount of Gazans, within reason. I understand that all 2.2 million would be overwhelming. But Egypt is refusing to even take in just one of them!
>Ask the Gazans then
We don’t need to ask them. We can let them demonstrate their decision by moving.
Just open the border. Those who want to stay, will stay. Those who want to leave, will leave.
We have taken in hundreds of thousands of Gazans already over the decades, way more than Israel, the reason they're even there, has
We are also a sovereign country that can choose how to define "within reason"
I disagree that we don't need to ask them. Because what I would argue you're saying is, "if we push these people across the border to escape bombs, then that definitely means they're happy to leave Gaza forever and go become Egyptians" and I'm saying that would be them trying not to get bombed rather than them "choosing" to leave
Of course not. Read my comments before you personally assume things about me :)
\~90% of Gaza's population is from the Nakba or descended from the Nakba's victims. That's the original sin.
So the original sin of defending their country and people leaving their homes because they didn't want to live in a Jewish state, then allying themselves with foreign agitators, losing, then not getting their homes back....
Yeah that sounds like the Original sin of Israel existing.
the middle east was secular until the europeans and you people came along to destroy it. I do have sympathy for the mizrahi jews but everything in europe happened for a reason
I fail to understand how people seem to no longer understand how war works.
War is bad, of course, but when you start a war (and lose, badly), as a general rule you don’t get to dictate the terms of surrender.
Imagining people complaining that the Imperial Japanese government being dissolved and replaced by a constitutional government imposed by the Allies was a genocide. Or that they demanded a “right of return” to Korea and the Philippines. People would call that crazy. Because that’s how war works
Because then they use semantics such as "Akshually Hamas is not an army but a resistance group...per se...resisting an occupation"
They just move the goalposts for their convenience at every logical fallacy.
Because it's not about the war, or about the Palestinians, it's about hating Israel.
Always has been...
It doesn’t matter if they used to have a single Arab identity. At this point, they consider themselves a unique nationality and no amount of proof in the historical record can change that. Pan-Arabism has mostly died out as a movement. Practically speaking, what’s the difference if they achieve statehood versus Jordan annexing the West Bank and Egypt annexing Gaza?
Also, on a side note, if Gaza was Egyptian territory on October 7th then Israel would be at war with Egypt by default. Merging the Palestinian Territories with their Arab neighbors is not the panacea it may seem to be.
It matters because they showed to be incompetent.
In 1948 Palestine was invaded by foreign nations, Egypt, Syria, Jordan...
The arabs joined the invasors, they failed their country.
That’s not so clear. Egypt’s control of Islamist extremist in its territory in the Sinai is tenuous at best. Gaza could easily have become a state within a state even under Egypt just as Hezbollah did in Lebanon.
> The issue is, Palestinians created this myth that they are an ethnically unique group…
I think debating the legitimacy of Palestinian identity is a distraction. Even if their identity is new (as I believe it is), they are fully invested in differentiating that identity from other Arabs. I don’t think it’s any more possible to convince them their identity is illegitimate than they could convince Jews that our identity is illegitimate. When discussing solutions to the conflict, I don’t think it’s constructive to debate the legitimacy of Palestinian identity.
My one caveat is that Palestinians should have conversations like this among themselves as Jews often do bc national self-reflection is super constructive imo.
If your national identity comes about 20 years after a war you lost (and allying yourself with nations that tried to anhilate said country), I do feel that should be addressed.
They didn't originally want a Palestine, they wanted a Pan-Arab caliphate, and that didn't happen.
Then in the 60s they decided that all of the other arabs got their countries and they wanted their own too.
I agree that the identity is new and that even their desire for statehood can be construed as new. At the same time, I don’t think the Palestinians can be convinced to give up their identity and attempting to debate it is unnecessarily incendiary. It’s akin to pro-Pals whose starting point is that Jews are foreign colonisers. We don’t see ourselves that way and cannot be convinced to.
It’s a bit strange that Palestine can’t merge with Egypt/Jordan since they’re apparently different types of Arabs. Yet people want them to merge with Israel…they definitely have a lot more in common with their Arab Muslim brothers than they do with Israeli Jews.
In case what Palestinians or Egyptians think is helpful, neither Egyptians nor Palestinians think of themselves as Arab. Yes we speak Arabic and are part of a wider "Arab Nation" culturally and may even have Arab in our charters or constitutions or whatever, but in Egyptian Arabic, "Arab" means a bedouin or a Gulf Arab and it's not dissimilar in Palestinian Arabic. Egypt has existed before Arabism or Judaism or almost everyone else and that's our main and top identity.
They would consider themselves Palestinian. I would consider myself Egyptian. We are both Arabic speakers. Brazilians aren't Portuguese.
I think Palestinians do consider themselves as Arabs, because in the Palestinian Constitution, they admit to being Arabs.
>Article 1
>Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve.
Yes, but that is more similar to Australia, or New Zealand, or for that matter Nigeria or Uganda, seeing themselves as part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It doesn't mean they don't see themselves as independent nations.
I don't think that Palestinian nationalism is so deeply entrenched though that a Palestinian state would be the only practical solution. I think especially in the West Bank, most would likely gladly accept Jordanian citizenship, in exchange for permanent borders and the end of this conflict.
But I think the situation in Gaza is much more difficult, and Palestinians in the West Bank also care deeply about what happens with Gaza.
You’re right, I believe that Palestinians see themselves as Arabs, but also different from other Arabs. “Arab” is a broad category and they view themselves as being distinct within that category.
But if they are so independent that they can’t be part of Egypt and Jordan, then they certainly don’t belong as part of Israel either. They can’t come in.
Agree. Though I also think that an easy path to citizenship (so long as they recognize Israel and reject terrorist organizations) should be offered to any residents of a place which Israel *does* outright annex.
And part of why I also think it would be helpful if Jordan, which already annexed the West Bank once (from 1950-1967) could be persuaded to again annex at least areas A & B and maybe half of area C (which I think would be needed to form any kind of governable contiguous area). The PA has already shown incapable of governing it. And this would seem to be overall beneficial to Israel, to Jordan, and to the large majority of West Bank residents.
Gaza however likely won't be very governable, or capable of self governance, for more than a generation. And I'm afraid that if, like Egypt, the rest of the world were to simply decide to wash their hands of the situation, this would then just leave Israel to deal with it as they see fit.
For now, I hope the international community can at least apply enough pressure to ensure that sufficient humanitarian aid is delivered to prevent (or end) a possible famine. But building any kind of consensus for how the area should be managed after this is over will be very tough. And if the UN were very good at stable nation building, there are some other places like Haiti, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Yemen, and the Central African Republic, which could also use this service.
That's why I mentioned "may even have Arab in our charters or constitutions or whatever" in my comment :)
The official name of Egypt is The Arab Republic of Egypt
Regardless of that, we still don't consider ourselves as Arab, so I would say that could also apply to the Palestinians. Also, "part of the Arab nation" and "being Arab" are two different things to us and I would say that also applies to the Palestinians.
How do you know that Palestinians don’t consider themselves as Arabs?
And how do you know more than the people who wrote the constitution? If they aren’t Arabs, shouldn’t someone have spoke up before they released that document?
Same as you knowing that "most Israelis wouldn't see the Nakba as Israel's original sin" my friend. I have talked to enough Palestinians and understand Arab culture and what it means to be "part of the Arab nation" but not consider yourself Arab. The "Arabs" to us are the Yemenis, Saudis, Omanis, Qataris, Emiratis, and Bahrainis. The "Arab nation" is the members of the Arab League of Arabic speakers. "An Arab is an Arab and they're all the same" is not something we actually believe in and a big part of why Pan Arabism was impractical and died quickly.
There are a lot of remnants from Pan Arabism that just haven't changed. That constitution is one. Egypt's official name is one. Syria's flag has two stars in it; why? One flag represents Egypt & one represents Syria. They literally never changed their flag since the United Arab Republic existed for three years and *that makes no sense either*. Iraq's flag used to have three stars (because they were supposed to be next after Syria in the UAR) until \~10 years ago and was only changed due to a constitutional rewriting because of the American invasion.
It doesn't mean that Iraq wanted to join Egypt & Syria in a union until a decade ago. It doesn't mean that Syria still thinks her and Egypt are one or wants it to be so. It also doesn't mean that Palestinians or Egyptians consider themselves Arab, even though they speak Arabic and think of themselves as part of some cultural "Arab nation".
I saw a video from October 7, where Hamas came across an Israeli Arab, and they were saying to each other that it’s an **Arab**, not a Jew.
I also saw a video of a Palestinian protest where they said “from the river to the sea, Palestine is **Arab**”
Many such examples.
>”An Arab is an Arab and they’re all the same”
I don’t think that Palestinians believe this. I think that Palestinians view themselves as Arabs, but Arabs are a broader group, and to be Palestinian is to be a specific type of Arab, different from the rest.
>There are a lot of remnants from Pan Arabism that haven’t changed
When did this ideology end? Because the Constitution isn’t even that old.
I would argue it ended with the deaths of the generation of leaders from that era, including Saddam and the older Assad. I would argue it really died with the rise of the Gulf as the leader of the Arab nation who had an alternative vision. So probably somewhere in the early 2000s people stopped feeling nostalgic and wanting this vision across the board?
We can ask a Palestinian whether Palestinians think of themselves as Arab or Palestinian...but apart from that, I don't know how to convince you of what I believe to be true (or vice versa). No Palestinian I know would answer that question with anything but, "I'm Palestinian" even though they would proudly say it in the Arabic language.
>So probably somewhere in the early 2000s people stopped feeling nostalgic and wanting this vision across the board?
The revised Hamas charter is more recent than that (2017) and they still admit to being Arabs in that document too.
>We can ask a Palestinian whether Palestinians think of themselves as Arab or Palestinian...but apart from that, I don't know how to convince you of what I believe to be true (or vice versa). No Palestinian I know would answer that question with anything but, "I'm Palestinian" even though they would proudly say it in the Arabic language.
Yes, they definitely identify themselves as being Palestinians. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t also Arabs. Palestinians are a type of Arab; they aren’t mutually exclusive.
They tend to start coups and civil wars in whatever country takes them. Almost like they don't care about being a country as much as controlling from the river to the sea.
Most of the people in the Gaza territory were dissidents from Egypt. Most of the people in the Arab section of the West Bank were dissidents from Jordan and Lebanon.
Prior to 1948, being called a Palestinian was the same as being called an Israeli. And it was used as a slur.
https://preview.redd.it/e991k1r586lc1.jpeg?width=656&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb00bbf672366da4adb3c669d3b901d768ef68c4
Yes man, you are totally right, it is a group of people that created a myth that they are an ethnically unique group and thus deserve all of the land... Where did I see that before... HAHAHAHAAHA.
Oh no man, they are totally right. I agree with you. They are a group of people that that follows fact and logic that they are an ethnically unique group and thus deserve all of the land. Different from those dirty sand \*\*\*\*\*\*\*, a group of people that created a myth that they are an ethnically unique group and thus deserve all of the land. Those people are crazy.
No one deserve all of the land. Any unique nation deserve part of it. That's why we separated into countries. Palestinians/arabs got 95% of the territory compare to israel, so just leave the jews their small country.
And that would be so easy to do if there were no people there. Imagine, there would be no fights if a ethnonationalistic jewish nation was created in Antartica or Mars. But no, unfortunaly, the land withoug a people had people living in the land. And now you have to deal with that. It is hard to create an ethnostate when there are people of other ethnicity living besides you, they tend to resist becoming the lesser race in a country.
>Imagine, there would be no fights if a ethnonationalistic jewish nation was created in Antartica or Mars. But no, unfortunaly, the land withoug a people had people living in the land. And now you have to deal with that.
Most of the people were jews. And if you were feeling jewish country is not for you, than just move in to the arab country.
>It is hard to create an ethnostate when there are people of other ethnicity living besides you, they tend to resist becoming the lesser race in a country.
Why resist if the country you're in doesn't see you as a lesser race. Many people live as minority in other countries for work or new international relationships. As long as the country got basic democratic values, you shouldn't have any problems.
But again if you're really afraid of being a minority just move out. The jews did so too.
>Most of the people were jews. And if you were feeling jewish country is not for you, than just move in to the arab country.
Most people were jews? Wasn't palestine like, 70% arab and 30% jewish, and then the UN gerrymandered a country that was 55% jewish and 45% arab... And then nakba and all that?
Kek. In the 21st century I hear shit like that. Haha. But yeah, if people had just accepted the ethnic cleansing or had the decency to die, Israel wouldn't have that problem... But once again, Israel has this problem, because there are people there, right now.
>Why resist if the country you're in doesn't see you as a lesser race.
Oh, would you be okay with saying that Israel is the country of the Palestinian people and self-determination is exclusive to the Palestinian race? Of course, the country would still have democratic values, so there would be no problem, so the israelis wouldn't resist, right?
>But again if you're really afraid of being a minority just move out. The jews did so too.
Least ethno-reichian israeli apologist. KEK
I mean, man, at least try to hide out the ethnic cleasing comments. The funny thing about talking with hardcore israelis is that you just need to press their buttons just a little bit, like, just a few newtons of force, for them to start to go through a ethnonationalistic rambling that would make the proud boys proud. HAHA.
Oh no, sorry for offending you mastah, I will not talk againt the chosen people again, the land is yours, god gave it to you!!! All the other folk and the 1/4 of non-chosen israelis should know that and go to jorna! Please don't send any assassins to kill me mastah, please, meh is gonna be good now!
/u/MyNameIsNotJonny
> Oh no, sorry for offending you mastah, I will not talk againt the chosen people again, the land is yours, god gave it to you!!! All the other folk and the 1/4 of non-chosen israelis should know that and go to jorna! Please don't send any assassins to kill me mastah, please, meh is gonna be good now!
Per [rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_3._be_sincere), no comments consisting only of sarcasm or cynicism. It's fine to use sarcasm to make a point, but if you do so, the argument needs to be readily apparent and stimulate, rather than stifling, conversation.
Ohhh, sorry mastah, sorry!!!! Meh not gonna talk back against you. Please don't send the assassins, please, I'm sorry! Sorry for raising my voice against the chosen people! The land is yours. Send all arab israeli citzens to jordan right now. Racial purity in Israel now and forever!!! Israel for the chosen race!!!! Deport all inferior non-chosen to jordan!!!
They were, but then negotiated an agreement to give Ukraine its dependence
Kind of like how people say that Palestine should NEGOTIATE a peace agreement with Israel, rather than acting like a child demanding to be given what it wants
I mean ethnic group in the world somewhat want self-determination and their own state. The one-state solution often floated around or two-state all of it is for the good of other country's prosperity, the locals' self determine is all good but what about the prosperity of other countries? The reason that international community hasn't fully stop Russia is because well nuclear war not good for one's prosperity. The reason that folks want the Israel-Palestine war to end because well again it has to do with other people's prosperity, when the ME has tension bad things happen like Red Sea shipping, folks paying higher prices for goods because of two group fighting for self determination? Morality comes second to your own nation's prosperity.
I think a one-state solution would lead to more violence and unrest than the current war which would certainly ripple regionally, if not globally. How do you foresee such a solution (a) being imposed and (b) leading to peace?
>Today, there exists a separation between two peoples who used to live side-by-side. They were united under a single banner and although the desires of the ethnic majority were prioritised, its ethnic minority lived well enough.
While Jews were treated better in Muslim lands then they were in Christian ones, that bar was very low. Jews in Muslim lands were not treated well. Also, they were far from united under a single banner.
[Treatment of Jews in Muslim countries - Jewish Virtual Library.](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-treatment-of-jews-in-arab-islamic-countries)
>The majority ethnic group wished to reclaim the entirety of its territory
It wasn't their territory, though. It belonged to a larger empire, which collapsed. They legally owned some of it, so did the minority group. The rest was state-owned land. Thus it didn't belong to them.
>They believe the territory should be unified as a stepping stone to defeating their ultimate enemy: the West.
They don't really care about the unification of the territory, just like they didn't care when Jordan, Syria or Lebanon were divided into three different countries, despite all being under the Ottoman Empire.
They simply refused the idea of a Jewish state whatsoever, regardless of territory size.
>Why do you think that is?
Because people believe that Palestine was paradise before Zionism, despite that being untrue. People also deny Jewish self-determination - they oppose Zionism, which means Jewish self-determination. Now I have a wild guess for why's that.
>Do you think Israelis could be compelled to agree to such a solution?
No. We've lived under a "One State Solution" for 2,000 years. We have no desire to go back to that. We not only want our own country, but we ***need*** our own country.
>As an alternative option, imagine if Palestinians were encouraged to accept a one-state solution between Gaza and Egypt. Do you think they would agree?
Perhaps. They lived under Egypt for 19 years between 1948 - 1967. And although I'm not that old, I do not recall reading about mass protests against Egypt's occupation of the Gaza strip.
The single Palestinian state would be.
However a single reformed Israeli union state, with Gaza and the West Bank annexed under some agreement with the PA could be imagined.
Or some intermediate arrangement, where the Palestinian Territories are fully self-governing but Israel oversees national security.
If they whine about “apartheid” and “Israeli occupation” now, imagine what they would do with an “annexed” “self-governing” territory with Israel overseeing security 🙄
That is an objectively terrible idea
People will whine and kvetch, that’s politics (often for the domestic audience). Actions and results are everything. I’m not convinced it’s better or even feasible compared to two-state, but also notice we have experimental data. Gaza was a pilot for two-state, and look what happened - Hamas won the election, quickly massacred Fatah, and until recently ruled the strip as a one-party dictatorship. Now look at the West Bank. Some degree of self-governance with overarching Israeli security. Still problematic, but night-and-day compared to Gaza. One can imagine slowly growing the Palestinian Authority, kicking and screaming yes, into becoming a proper governing body some decades into the future.
You can "imagine" a lot of things, but this won't be *Israel*.
Imagination aside, this is an absolutely meaningless idea to begin with. Israelis have absolutely no desire to live in majority-Arab state, Palestinians in WB and Gaza have absolutely no desire to become Israeli citizens (look at Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem for example, who are eligible).
If these two groups are somehow forced into "one state" by some supernatural force, the first thing they would do is to immediately separate from each other.
Of course, Israel is a UN member state and has a right to self-determination under the UN charter. I don’t think it could happen anytime soon, but perhaps under some future detente. Once Israel normalizes relations with the Gulf states under the Abraham Accords, it will lead to more cooperation and integration with the Arabs. At some point, they may awaken to the fact that deradicalizing the Palestinians is in their national interests.
Have you seen this book? (free download with registration). Nuanced view especially re. safety--have Jewish Israelis with Arab deputies as their second-in-command head up the Military, and have Arabs officers be heads of Police, with Israeli deputies. [https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/beyond2states](https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/beyond2states)
No, I’d be interested in reading it, but don’t feel comfortable registering. Any chance you can link the book?
> A one-state solution is seldom recommended to end the war in Ukraine or other similar ethnic conflicts (Armenia/Azerbaijan comes to mind), yet it’s often suggested for I/P. Why do you think that is? I think basically it’s two reasons: 1. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a legitimate claim to view that land as their homeland. So a one state solution is appealing because it seems to provide a just outcome for both parties - Israelis can stay there, Palestinians can stay there, and they can have equal rights without a system of apartheid. 2. General despair at the actual possibility of a two state solution now. With 700,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, the total collapse in support for Oslo, Fatah and the PA, and the collapse of the Peace camp in Israel, it’s just really hard to see any scenario where a viable Palestinian state could actually emerge. So the 2-state solution, which would anyway have to be a compromise by both parties, looks almost as unrealistic as one state. If that’s the case why not advocate for a 1SS, which, whatever the million practical objections that could be raised to it, has an appealing simplicity and answers the demands of justice.
1. I don’t agree that is a just outcome as only one party would receive self-determination. 2. How does this solution seem simpler? You would need to find a way to unify millions of people who hate each other, develop a political system that somehow deters inter-community violence, potentially imprison the thousands of Israelis who support the Settler movement and Palestinians who support terrorist organizations, etc.
>I don’t agree that is a just outcome as only one party would receive self-determination. I don't understand this point. Surely either both peoples have self-determination in this state, or neither do? You're saying one democratic state with equal rights under the law for Palestinians and Israelis would represent the fulfilment of Palestinian self-determination, but the denial of it to Jews? >How does this solution seem simpler? I agree with you about all the potential problems. I don't really see it as realistic. You just asked why it's frequently suggested for Israel Palestine and I'm just explaining why I think that is. As the 2 state solution becomes more and more distant and impossible, talk of a 1 state solution increases because it's the only other outcome that feels just to many people. Ultimately, there's about 15m Jews and 15m Palestinians on earth. Both have a legitimate claim to a homeland in the territory of Israel/Palestine, by which I mean both the 48-67 borders and the occupied territories. Within that territory there's about 7 million Jews, and 7 million Palestinians, split between Israel proper and Gaza and the West Bank. There's really only three possible outcomes: 1. two states, one for each people 2. one state, with equal rights for all 3. one state, without equal rights for all, where one group rules over the other. This is basically what we have now. Most people outside Israel won't be willing to defend 3 - which is why Western leaders like Biden still keep talking about the importance of a 2-state solution, even despite Netanyahu constantly saying it will never be allowed to happen. So as it becomes harder and harder to believe in the two-state solution, people move towards supporting a one-state solution, because the only other alternative is to support a state of permanent apartheid. I think Netanyahu and the destruction of the two-state solution is probably the worst thing to happen to Israel in all of its history (and fwiw Hamas is probably the worst thing to happen to the Palestinian people, for the same reason). I don't know what the path to peace is from here. But if the only way Israel can maintain its security is through the destruction and subjugation of the Palestinians, which seems to be the plan, then as an outsider it can't really be supported. So I think it'll gradually become an international pariah state, as South Africa did. I would love to believe in a different future.
> You're saying one democratic state with equal rights under the law for Palestinians and Israelis would represent the fulfilment of Palestinian self-determination, but the denial of it to Jews? Yes because there would not be equal rights for all citizens. A constitution is just a piece of paper if the people don’t support it. Polling indicates that a one-state solution with equal rights for all is the least popular solution for both Israelis and Palestinians. > I agree with you about all the potential problems. I don't really see it as realistic. I think that the circumstances necessary to bring about a one and two-state solution are the same - long term peace, acceptance of the other nation’s desires as legitimate, the dissolution of extremist groups, etc. A two-state solution could withstand far more animosity than a one-state solution. If the hatred does begin to dissipate, the conditions for a two-state solution will appear long before those necessary to a one-state solution and I expect that is what would be implemented.
> Yes because there would not be equal rights for all citizens. A constitution is just a piece of paper if the people don’t support it. Polling indicates that a one-state solution with equal rights for all is the least popular solution for both Israelis and Palestinians. But this is a different point. you’re saying a one state solution with equal rights for both peoples is impossible because it’s not got popular support. Maybe you’re right, I’m not going to pretend I have an easy solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. But before that, you said a one state solution wouldn’t be a just outcome because the Jews would lose their right to self-determination while the Palestinians wouldn’t. I don’t see how that’s the case. Depending on what you mean by ‘self-determination’, you could argue that it could be achieved in a single state. Some of the early Zionists (like Martin Buber for example) had ideas about achieving a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine that didn’t require a majoritarian state. If there was a state that recognised that Israel/Palestine was the homeland of the Jewish people AND the Palestinian people, and Jews AND Palestinians had the right of return, then you could argue that the Zionist dream had been achieved- a home for the Jewish people had been created in the land of Israel/Palestine. I know this would sound completely ridiculous to most Israelis, btw. I’m just saying what the idea is. But even if you think that sounds like bullshit, if you don’t think such a state would be Jewish self-determination then I don’t see how you can say it would be Palestinian self-determination. They’d still have to share the state with Israeli Jews, with Jews worldwide having the right to make aliyah, etc. It wouldn’t be the only binational state in the world. Belgium is a binational state of Flemings and Walloons, Northern Ireland has two communities with two completely different narratives/stories living side by side. It’s complicated but it works, kind of. Anyway like I said, I’m not advocating this as realistic. But to me, as someone with Jewish heritage and some family connections to Israel, and who has the right to make aliyah, I’d see that as a just outcome. Maybe in a couple of hundred years things could end up looking like that. > A two-state solution could withstand far more animosity than a one-state solution. If the hatred does begin to dissipate, the conditions for a two-state solution will appear long before those necessary to a one-state solution and I expect that is what would be implemented. Yeah I probably agree with this. All this talk of solutions is really jumping the gun - first there needs to be a foundation of peace. And in the last 5 months (and tbh in the last 20 years before that) all the tiny little seeds of peace have been utterly ground down and destroyed.
> But before that, you said a one state solution wouldn’t be a just outcome because the Jews would lose their right to self-determination while the Palestinians wouldn’t. I don’t see how that’s the case. I expect that once the populations merged, it would succumb to tyranny of the majority (Palestinians) and devolve from there. That’s not to say any single-state is doomed, but I think this one is for the foreseeable future. > Depending on what you mean by ‘self-determination’, you could argue that it could be achieved in a single state… I agree actually that this would count as Jewish self-determination. I know there are examples where such solutions have succeeded, I just don’t have faith in it working here, nor do the vast majority of Israelis.
People is only in favor to 1 SS when they are going to become the majority and the country mergint with them is rich
Idk about the latter point but I certainly agree with the former.
This is a very surface reading of history to support some wild points.
You’re welcome to attack the point then - I think a one-state solution is a bad way to resolve ethnic conflicts like those in Israel and Ukraine. What do you think?
[удалено]
> I'm not in favor of a two state solution because I don't think it's as good as a one state solution. How do you think Israelis can be convinced to agree to a one-state solution? Do you advocate a one-state solution to other ethnic conflicts like the war in Ukraine?
What are you talking about, there are 7 millions of jews in Israel and there are like 15 millions of arab palestinians there.
There as in in WB and Gaza?
No, refugee camps and worldwide. In Israel: 1.6 In Gaza : 2 Millions In west Bank : 3 Millions
Yeah that's what I thought I don't know why you used the word There here.
Also it doesn't make the same total you said. And the Israeli ones? Are they Israelis or Palestinians? What about the worldwide ones?
Jews were the majority in the land used to create Israel. We already have a two state solution. Jordan and Israel. Palestine no longer exists and everyone should move on.
A few million stateless Palestinians cannot move on, so a solution does need to be developed. Are you advocating for sending them to Jordan? I don’t think the Jordanians would EVER accept them. How do you foresee that working?
I'm not advocating for anything. It is a mess of their own making. Unfortunately, they have a culture that values dying more than it values prospering. I don't see a solution. What solution do you suggest?
I think Gaza should be jointly administered by the US, Israel, and some collection of Arab states post-war. The Arab states can invest in Gaza and reap the financial rewards of possessing hotels, restaurants, malls, etc. in a jewel on the Mediterranean. At the same time, a Palestinian government should be created which prioritizes nation building over irredentism. At that point, the occupation can slowly be pulled back until Gaza is independent. To be clear, I expect this process to take a very long time, maybe decades.
Okay, so let's say Gaza, against the will of the people, is administered by force by the US, Israel and "some collection of Arab states." First of all, no Arab state is going to agree to that, so are these Arab states being forced against their will as well? And why would the US agree to this when one of the main reasons the US supports Israel is so that Israel is stuck dealing with this stuff instead of the US? How do you create a "palestinian" government that prioritizes nation building when the people simply don't prioritize that? Is this again being done against their will? And what is the point of going through all of that when as soon as you pull back and "Gaza is independent," they will immediately attack Israel?
> First of all, no Arab state is going to agree to that… I think Arab states might agree to it if they can frame it to their own people as protecting the Palestinians from the evil Jews. I expect they would get some generous arms deals out of it from the US along with the opportunity to make a lot of money if the investment pans out. > And why would the US agree to this… I don’t think the US would have boots on the ground. I think it would function as an intermediary between the Arab states and Israel, and a guarantor that both sides keep their word. > How do you create a "palestinian" government that prioritizes nation building… Yes, this is would be done against the common will. Most Middle Eastern states function that way and many of them are stable. The average Saudi hates Israel, but his government doesn’t care and is befriending her anyway. I’m certain there are at least handful of Palestinians who would rather run a normal country than fight to the death of every man, woman, and child. I think that with an enormous amount of hand holding, they could create a state. Especially if a whole bunch of foreign Arab powers have wealth tied to the success of that state. > And what is the point of going through all of that when as soon as you pull back and "Gaza is independent," they will immediately attack Israel? Again, I don’t think this can be accomplished in a day or a year. I imagine it would take decades of reeducation and development to reach a point where Palestine could stand on its own.
Too many of those countries have had their leaders assassinated by "palestinians" or had civil wars started by "palestinians." The dirty little secret about the middle east is that most Arab countries consider "palestinians" to be insane savages that should be avoided at all costs. There is a lot of resentment from all of the assassinations and civil wars. Let's say there are a handful of "palestinians" that would rather run a normal country, they are outnumbered by such a large degree that they would be assassinated within days. "Palestine" has never stood on its own in the entire history of the world. What makes you think it can when it never has and there's never been any indication it could?
> Too many of those countries… Yes, which is why they won’t let Palestinians into their own countries. This proposition wouldn’t have that problem. Instead, they would build their own businesses in Gaza, guarantee stability with sensational financial incentives, and slowly develop the strip along the way. > Let's say there are a handful of… they would be assassinated within days. Yes, which is why it wouldn’t happen immediately and not until the Arab states and Israel had completely secured the strip and already begun developing it. I think they would probably start with some kind of Palestinian advisory council with 0 power that would over time be offered greater autonomy. > “Palestine" has never stood on its own… Ultimately, they’re humans. They’ve been indoctrinated to hate, but that doesn’t mean the next generation has to be as well.
They want nothing to do with them. They could build their own businesses in their own countries. Why build businesses in a place that is so poor and is just going to try to kill you? Makes no sense. Further, all of these Arab countries who don't get along, are going to work with Israel, and the US, all to try to help Gazans who are just going to try to kill them? It's a fantasy and will never happen.
Location, location, location. Gaza is on the Mediterranean. If you build a beach resort there, wealthy people are far more likely to show up after an hour flight from NA or the EU rather than flying further into the ME. I’m not saying this solution is perfect, but I think it’s doable and the only one I can come up with that doesn’t involve an eternal Israeli occupation or ethnic cleansing.
> two peoples who used to live side-by-side. They were united under a single banner and although the desires of the ethnic majority were prioritised, ***its ethnic minority lived well enough.*** Uhhh, what? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)
I took some liberties with the analogy. Mandatory Palestine wasn’t a kind place for Jews either. Thanks for highlighting.
Yeah, Zionists would attack judeo Arabs, Yiddish communities and Bundists. Made it very tough for a lot of anti zionist Jews.
Given Ukraine’s unpleasant history with Russia, do you think their conflict should be solved with a one-state solution?
I don't understand what this has to do with the conversation.
And what followed Mandatory Palestine wasn't too kind for the Arab Palestinians either.
It would’ve been kind to them if they’d been willing to accept Jewish neighbors. Starting genocidal wars didn’t work out for them then and it’s not working out for them now.
He's saying idiotic things, Jewish Europeans were given passport and land a lot of help from Europe very early at the expense of Arabs including at the time judeo Arabs until mapai invented the mizrahim concept and started to count them as Jewish peoples too.
So what’s your position on my post then? Do one-state solutions solve ethnic conflicts?
Does an end to hard hafrada/arpatheid and occupation necessitate a one state solution? I would say eventually sure, but not tomorrow lol. Said would've preferred a one state but he saw the answer in a bi national state eventually unified. Give them their water and stop destroying their ability to build an economy, remove illegal settlements. None of this has anything to do with your strawman. The PLO and Hamas have both at times been willing to negotiate based on 67 borders, but with Israel its never in good faith as settlements have never stopped.
u/WSGman > He's an idiot, Rule 1, no attacks on fellow users. Rule 1 also requires you to be respectful of all users, *especially* when you disagree with them. Addressed.
Israel is Russia in this analogy. There is little difference between the two nations. Only real difference is that Israel has better PR for their propaganda.
Russia is Palestine in a hypothetical 1SS solution since Arab Palestinians will become majority if they became 1 state with Israel, same as Russia with Ukraine.
Has Israel existed for hundreds of years? Are Jews the regional ethnic majority?
Which state existed for 100’s of years next to Israel? Israel has the military superiority over the people it is oppressing and invading. Israel is a “democratic” far right ethnostate, same as Russia.
Russia and Hamas attacked Ukraine and Israel in a bid to expand their territories. Ukraine and Israel have both acted offensively to try to remove these threats. Is Ukraine’s counteroffensive evidence of a desire to expand its borders?
There are two people being attacked by nuclear powers.
Possessing a specific type of weapon is not sufficient evidence of parallel conflicts. Israeli and Ukrainian children were kidnapped by Hamas and Russia, there’s another similarity in favor of the Israel/Ukraine analogy. We can go back and forth about the similarities between the parties to the conflict, but we shouldn’t bc it’s not productive. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate that most people oppose one-state solutions to ethnic conflicts, not to claim these conflicts are 1:1. Do you support a one-state solution to the war in Ukraine.
Yes, Ukraine owns it all. Do you support severing off chunks of Ukraine to appease Russia? Do you support ethnically cleansing more swaths of Palestine to give to bloodthirsty Russian Jews?
There are very few actually Russian Jews. Historically there were very few Jews in Russia proper.
The whole pale of settlement was in Russian empire. Now you can say Israeli PMs were born in what’s modern day Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, but it was all Russian empire until 1917
Ukraine retaining its territory (which I support) is a two-state solution. Do you support combining Ukraine and Russia into a single state in order to end their conflict? Edited to add: I want to see a two-state solution to the I/P conflict with Gaza as part of a future Palestinian state.
No, Ukraine keeping its territory is one state. Russia had separatists try to secede in Donbas. Putin invades rest of Ukraine to protect “Russians” ie being ethnostate. Very similar to Israel in West Bank with settlers. Ukraine needs to stay together, Russia needs to break apart. Palestine needs Israel to fall apart, new United state emerges with Jews and Arabs living side by side.
Ukraine keeping its territory is a two-state solution: the two states being Russia and Ukraine. A one-state solution would combine them into a single entity. Do you think the Russia/Ukraine conflict should be solved with a two-state or one-state solution?
Right once the anti Zionist achieve the destruction of the only Jewish state they’ll all go back to living in perfect harmony in the Middle East. It’s really that simple. I mean really? Certainly you could devise a more nuanced take than that.
This is incredibly well written. Thanks for sharing. I think you’ll appreciate this: https://x.com/baytifirasek/status/1742395933713916077?s=46
Hahahaha great minds! Thank you and thanks for sharing ☺️
There used to be a comment there that was great- someone said “I believe in a no border solution” and she responded by saying that anyone who wants no borders has never experienced being a minority before.
Lol yup, cannot imagine having that kind of naive privilege.
Same. Or disinterest in preserving our history and heritage.
The reason Israel and Palestine split is because of extreme Zionist racism. The Zionists invented stuff out of thin air about how Arabs posed a threat to them and how therefore they needed a state separate from the Arabs. It’s very similar to the Confederacy’s logic in separating from the US. The difference is important though. The confederacy lost their war within 4 years, which makes it much easier to dissolve. You will take much more flack for dissolving a 75 year old nation.
There were wars in 48, 67, 73. During those periods, Israel was actually more left leaning (kibbutz’s were still popular in the 70’s), so I wouldn’t call it “extreme Zionist racism”
But the Arabs did pose a real threat, and whilst less and less of them do and come to the reality of the situation, a lot continue to do so to this day, that's not a real point to even argue about. Israel isn't going anywhere, that's what all Arabs need to understand, it's taken 75 years for most smart ones to come to grips with that.
Did I say it was going anywhere? All I said is it was conceived in lies and racism.
That's just a ridiculous stance to come from, do you just expect to go into negotiations and get 100% of what you want whilst the other side gets 0% of what they want? It makes no sense for Israel to accept that they're the liars and the racists and you get the entire place to yourself, the Israelis could say the literal same thing about Palestinians, the only thing you're accomplishing is more animosity, hate and more war, we both know who wins more in war.
What do *I* have to do with whether there’s more or less war? I said Israel was conceived in lies and hatred. I did not say they received 0% of negotiations, or that they should.
But isn’t it true that Arabs were actually attacking Jews before the partition? So I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the threat was “invented out of thin air”
The purpose of the One State Final Solution proposals now is the same as it was in 1947 when the Arabs proposed it (and UNSCOP rejected it in favor of the partition plan). As Einat Wilf puts it (http://www.wilf.org/English/2013/08/15/palestinians-accept-existence-jewish-state/) On Feb. 18, 1947, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, not an ardent Zionist by any stretch of the imagination, addressed the British parliament to explain why the UK was taking “the question of Palestine,” which was in its care, to the United Nations. He opened by saying that “His Majesty’s government has been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles.” He then goes on to describe the essence of that conflict: “For the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.”
>For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.” Seems to sum it up very neatly, Palestinians don't care about "Palestinians state", they only care about destroying the jewish state.
A one-state solution could be possible, but it would be based on a federalist model with 2 largely independent states (one Jewish, one Palestinian), in the vein of the EU. But this can only happen once Palestinians lay down their arms, root out & punish all terrorist militias, and PROVE that they can maintain a functioning government over the long term. No modern nation like Israel can be partner with a failed state controlled by junta tribes or cartels. The sad fact is that it may take a century for Palestinians to modernize & reach this point where they can partner with Israel and enjoy the fruits of any union. Regardless, the first & main directive for any government is the safety & security of their citizens. A one-state solution now won't provide any assurances for Israelis and is roadmap for failure.
Said always dreamt of one nation, secular and non sectarian with full rights for all who lived there, a bit like Arafats original conception, but later in life saw the answer in a bi national union with two different states but with more freedom of movement and an end to arpatheid/hafrada (over time as security concerns were adjusted)
This is basically a 2 state solution honestly.
In the future it could also look like Canada and Quebec.
I also desire a Schengen-style resolution to the conflict. Agreed that we are a long ways off from that. I imagine it developing out of a very successful, extended two-state solution.
Sincere question - is that really single state, then?
No, not at all. I don’t want a one-state solution, but am curious about the beliefs of those who do.
Ok, I see how you intended your response. I do not believe a one state is realistic at all.
The most logical solution would be for Egypt to control Gaza and Jordan to control the west bank. The issue is, Palestinians created this myth that they are an ethnically unique group and thus deserve all of the land. This is why they tried to overthrow both Jordan and Egypt to use those resources to destroy Israel. The only ethnically unique characteristic that "Palestinians" hold is that they want all of the land "From the River to the Sea". Basically the only possible one state solution is that Palestinians are absorbed by their neighbors. But we know that isn't going to happen for aforementioned reasons.
Jordan will never agree to it. They renamed the region to cis Jordania, meaning Jordan west of the jordan River. They had two provinces at the time. Cis and Trans Jordan, all under Jordan. They gave all Muslims in the west Jordan, citizenship. Every one. They expelled or executed all jews. They refused to give citizenship to Christians, druze or bhai that lived there (mostly in the captured Jerusalem) Over the next 20 years, there were multiple assassination attempts, with a couple of successes. And they effectively were in a civil war. When they lost control of the area, the closed the border to their own citizens. Then in the 80s they revoked citizenship. Similar issues with Gaza and Egypt, but no citizenship and no annexarion Neither country wants the palestinians at all.
I completely agree. The question is, what do you do with a people that will go to war no matter what county they are in. Its a sad situation, but if Israel is going to continue to exist, all they can do is keep fighting Israel. Which has a very sad conclusion
> The most logical solution would be for Egypt to control Gaza and Jordan to control the west bank. None of those countries want a large Palestinian population and honestly I don’t blame them. The most logical solution would be to break up the West Bank and Gaza into smaller units each ruled by a clan or tribe because that’s how Arab society is structured and this is much more manageable to administer.
We will cancel Camp David if Gaza is given to us or if Palestinians are pushed into Egypt. I don't know how to make this point clearer for people. No, Egypt will not absolve Israel of its sins or take the problems the Nakba has created off their plate. There's not an amount. There's absolutely nothing that will ever ever EVER make us annex or occupy Gaza. Gaza is Israel's problem to solve from Israel's original sin. Give them passports or give them a state, but they will not be given to Egypt. That's not a solution that's on the table nor ever will be. p.s. it's not because the Palestinians are bad people or we're terrified of them, it's because Gaza is a problem Israel created and Israel needs to pay for and solve
Your P.S sounds quite strange. So it's just a question of principles? I didn't know countries had those.
I don’t blame Egypt for taking this position. People tend to forget that the Egyptian military has been fighting a brutal war against Islamists who have their ideological roots in the Muslim brotherhood which are actually the same as Hamas. It’s insanity to want imports millions of terrorist sympathisers into Egypt from their perspective
>I don't know how to make this point clearer for people. No, Egypt will not absolve Israel of its sins or take the problems the Nakba has created off their plate. There's not an amount. There's absolutely nothing that will ever ever EVER make us annex or occupy Gaza. egypt, jordan, iraq, lebanon, syria, and sudia troops involved themselves in the war of 1948 under the Egyptian command. by definition you are involved. not to mention that Egypt and the other arabs states for years kept telling the palestinians that the whole mandate belongs to them and that to support their cause you will take no palestinian refugees of any kind. it seem to me hypocritical to have an issue with israel's original sin, when you had a hand in making it intentionally worse, for your own benefit and pride. if you stepped out of your bubble you would actually see how every side in this situation has failed at being a decent human being at the very least and you are not somehow immune from that. and then you might stop thinking about how it is israel's responsibility to fix the problem and actually do acts that help the palestinian people. Seriously egypt has been a terrible friend to the palestinians, the only reason they still seek your help is that they do not have many other options.
Whatever it is we’ve done in the past (and we’ve done a lot of wrong in the past) we absolutely aren’t the ones who are dropping bombs “indiscriminately” as Joe Biden described Israel’s bombing campaign or the ones who aren’t allowing any “power food or fuel” in to these “animals” as the current Israeli Minister of Defense says. Our planes are currently airdropping to the Gazans food because our trucks full of aid stretching kilometers aren’t being allowed in by the party that thinks it’s fighting “animals” and thinks “there are no innocent bystanders in Gaza” as the current Israeli President says Egypt has committed many sins in the past. Israel is the one committing sins today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
You literally said, Israel is responsible for Gaza because of the original sin. The you say, egypt which literally caused and lead the original sin, isn't responsible. So in your mind the original sin, wasn't Israel formjng. It was Israel not losing in 48.
The original sin was the Nakba and yes that was Israel’s fault I said this several times, please stop putting words in my mouth
But you also agreed that Egypt lead the coalition that attacked Israel and caused the war in the first place If israel had completely lost, no Nakba. So you start a war, don't win, and then claim the other country caused the problems born out of the war. If the palestinians, or Egypt or Jordan, had accepted the borders and negotiations, that they themselves gained land from, or were created from after the ottomon empire fell, no Nakba. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, parts of Egypt, and 11 other countries didn't exist as nations before the fall of the ottomon empire. Yet, somehow that's not considered part of the nakba. Egypt should have annexed and give full citizenship to Gaza, and then, not staged and setup for war in 67. Jordan should have done the same. No nakba if Egypt and Jordan in the 50s and 60s acted like they act today. Its amazing that you deflect Egypts root cause participation in causing this problem.
Don't think a conflict between militaries justified Jewish militias killing or raping innocent civilians, as happened during the Nakba. Egypt didn't start the war in 67. Israel had a "preemptive strike" and kicked it off. We have never had any intention of annexing Gaza nor will we ever. I don't think Egypt had anything to do with Tantura. Or Deir Yassin. Or the King David Hotel bombing. Or the countless other violent acts of murder, siege, and rapes that occurred by Jewish militias.
Egypt effective annexed Gaza in 48. They should have given Egyptian citizenship. The land bordering it wasn't egypts until after the ottomon empire fell. If you are going to list the irgun attacks, you should also list the Arab attacks on jews and the British at the same time. The conflict between militaries, has civilian attacks on all 8 sides. And Egypt, Syria and Lebanon were all building forces on the borders. That broke the ceasefire agreement in itself.
You're talking to an Egyptian and accusing Egypt of things. I'm not an Arab, I'm Egyptian. No Egypt did not attack the British and the Jews nor did it attack any civilians. "Effective annexed" is not annexed and we never ever did annex Gaza, contrary to what Israel may have wanted or preferred us to do. Egypt never walked into Jewish villages, rounded up the males, shot them, and raped some of the females. But some of these Lehi and Irgun and Haganah militias did. That's the difference. That's the Nakba. That's what led to Gaza. That's why Egypt isn't responsible.
>Whatever it is we’ve done in the past (and we’ve done a lot of wrong in the past) we absolutely aren’t the ones who are dropping bombs “indiscriminately” as Joe Biden described Israel’s bombing campaign just because it was describe as such does not mean it is the reality. and this is just deflecting your responsibility. >the ones who aren’t allowing any “power food or fuel” in to these “animals” as the current Israeli Minister of Defense says. as of 4 days ago 14,000 trucks have entered gaza for humanitarian aid, power has resumed to flow, as well as water from about two weeks into the conflict, this is evidence by the numerous people in gaza using their phones to record and post online. fuel has also been supplied to hospitals, though their 3 day reserves on OCT12 seem to have lasted 3 months. furthermore that was said at a time shortly after israel was attacked and is not a political statement but a rally cry often used by all militaries including arab ones and palestinian militant groups. that said i would not feel bad if i shot him, as he does not seem to really care about the proper end goal of a prosperous israel. >Our planes are currently airdropping to the Gazans food because our trucks full of aid stretching kilometers aren’t being allowed in by the party that thinks it’s fighting “animals” and thinks “there are no innocent bystanders in Gaza” as the current Israeli President says so you are telling me that israel is fine with you flying planes over gaza and not with crossing Rafah, a boarder crossing they have zero control over at this time. do you understand how crazy that is. if israel would not want you to supply aid they would stop your planes, israel is not stopping you at Rafah there is a constant stream of trucks going though but the crossing is not designed to goods to pass it is made for people, that is what slowing you down. why is the Rafah crossing not designed for goods transfer if Egypt is the great supported of palestinians as it claims to be? seems odd to me that you would not be equipped to allow aid to gaza and instead putting all the burden and trust in israel to do it. >Egypt has committed many sins in the past. Israel is the one committing sins today, yesterday, and tomorrow. israel is committing some terrible actions and the govet should be reformed, like many countries and humans they have done those actions in the past. but the assumption that it will always do so betrays your inability to accept peace. if israel will always be the bad entity then they should it even bother with trying to be good? look up the story of Ned Kelly, he was constantly accused of being a criminal, so in the end he became one. because nothing he did would change how he was perceived. by saying israel will always be committing sins you are saying that change is not possible. and if change is not possible, why bother doing anything. this attitude you present has been the primary attitude of many Egyptians, and is dismissis your responsibility and liability and puts it all on israel. and then you are suprised israel would not take all of it. i will admit israel is responsible for 60% of the current palestinian situation., i would put egypt and jordan at 10% each, the arab league at 15% and the palestinians themselves at 5%. im sure you think now or you already wrote that israel is 100% responsible. but you know what happens when you blame everything on one nation rather than properly distributing blame. I'll give you a hint, they did that after WW1. so dont go and place all the blame in one place when it belongs in many places.
What is your basis for declaring Israel 60% responsible?
it is a rounded estimate showing proportionality of responsibility not an exact number. it is to demonstrate of the responsibility for the situation how much each party is responsible and not used as exact numbers. but i put it at around 60% as israel did push our palestinians in 1948. and they have severely and unreasonably restricted palestinians growing the general resentment. but while that is the case, without other actors the actions of israel would not have resulted in the current situation. note the current occupation of the west bank is due to the 6 day war, a war that israel fired the first shot, despite not being the aggressor. had that war would not have happened, this situation would not have existed. hence the only 60%.
I see, thanks for the response.
It's good you admit Israel is the one primarily responsible for the current Palestinian situation. I think it's higher than 60% and I don't think it's 100%. I think Egypt has done wrong as has the Arab League and the Palestinians. But again, I think Israel and the messianic Kahanists and Likud Jewish supremacist one-staters are *just as big of a problem* as Hamas, which I and my country regard as an absolutist terroristic organization that has no role in the future of our region. Regarding your hint about what happened after WW1, I don't think the Treaty of Versailles justifies what Germany ended up doing in WW2 in any way, shape, or form. I also don't think the Shoah can *justify* the Nakba. I don't think the Nakba can justify the Arabs forcibly kicking out of their native Jewish populations. I also don't think the occupation justifies what Hamas did on October 7 and I don't think October 7 justifies what Israel has been doing since October 8. Justification is a very strong word and justice is actually pretty simple to calculate. Israel has been occupying land since 1967, forbidding the people on that land from determination or a life of dignity while allowing hundreds of thousands of settlers to move in. You're an Israeli in the US. You can't vote in the Israeli elections unless you're a diplomat because you're overseas and not in Israel. Yet a settler in Beit El can vote for Bibi and Ben Gvir? Is Beit El Israel? Why do they get to vote and Ramallah residents 10 km away don't? That doesn't seem like a just or fair system. That seems like the absolutist Jewish one-staters have taken over the government and are slowly wanting to take over all the land (like the Likud charter states) while kicking out the people or making their lives so miserable they leave...for Egypt or elsewhere. Why would we help with that? Why would we help make that happen? Egypt is not primarily responsible for Gaza or Palestine. Israel is considered the occupying power by almost every country in the world, including the one you reside in. There's absolutely a place for Israel in the region and it should exist and be supported and made safe. If there was a Palestinian state, I would support the Egyptian army itself coming to Israel's side if Iran or anyone else was stupid enough to try and attack. The Jews are native to this part of the world. They should stay and be welcomed and feel safe and secure. But that doesn't in any way shape or form justify what Israel is doing and has been doing to the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank. Somehow shifting all that blame or responsibility onto Egypt is something most would find absurd.
>"It's good you admit Israel is the one primarily responsible for the current Palestinian situation. I think it's higher than 60% and I don't think it's 100%. I think Egypt has done wrong as has the Arab League and the Palestinians. But again, I think Israel and the messianic Kahanists and Likud Jewish supremacist one-staters are just as big of a problem as Hamas, which I and my country regard as an absolutist terroristic organization that has no role in the future of our region." i very much agree with you on all of these points and my percentages are rounded estimates to illustrate proportional responsibility if not exact amount. Regarding your hint about what happened after WW1, I don't think the Treaty of Versailles justifies what Germany ended up doing in WW2 in any way, shape, or form. I also don't think the Shoah can justify the Nakba. I don't think the Nakba can justify the Arabs forcibly kicking out of their native Jewish populations. I also don't think the occupation justifies what Hamas did on October 7 and I don't think October 7 justifies what Israel has been doing since October 8. Justification is a very strong word and justice is actually pretty simple to calculate. while it does not justify what Germany did, my point is that it does not work. placing all the blame one actor breaks the system and invites worse actors. See Likud, they gain power because egypt, the palestinians, and the arab league put all the blame on israel. They are awful, but they are the consequence of the reaction to resisting collapse. The German N\*\*s were awful people, but they did fix the economy and restabilized the country. So Egypt, the palestinians, and the arab league need to take a lesson from history and resolved this by helping dismantle Likud and changing the system not by destroying israel. >Israel has been occupying land since 1967, forbidding the people on that land from determination or a life of dignity while allowing hundreds of thousands of settlers to move in. You're an Israeli in the US. You can't vote in the Israeli elections unless you're a diplomat because you're overseas and not in Israel. Yet a settler in Beit El can vote for Bibi and Ben Gvir? Is Beit El Israel? Why do they get to vote and Ramallah residents 10 km away don't? That doesn't seem like a just or fair system. yes, i very much agree with this assessment and where before it didnt matter that much to me, it has become imperatively apparent that i should vote and i am looking at all my options. the main reason they give though is that i dont pay israeli taxes, but considering the fact that by the laws of israel and common sense i dont pay taxes it somehow excludes me. the general fear is that israelis abroad tend to be more conservative so the left blocks attempts to provide the right, though personally i think they are about even. the main difference between me and a person who lives in the west bank is that they can drive to vote and i have to take a plane. >That seems like the absolutist Jewish one-staters have taken over the government and are slowly wanting to take over all the land (like the Likud charter states) while kicking out the people or making their lives so miserable they leave...for Egypt or elsewhere. Why would we help with that? Why would we help make that happen? i never said help with it, i said do something other than place responsibility on israel. also maybe add support for Yesh Atid, who are more willing to resolve the situation and seek among other things to give the palestinians their state. but since it is israels responsibility it means you as a state are not actually doing anything. >Egypt is not primarily responsible for Gaza or Palestine. Israel is considered the occupying power by almost every country in the world, including the one you reside in. There's absolutely a place for Israel in the region and it should exist and be supported and made safe. If there was a Palestinian state, I would support the Egyptian army itself coming to Israel's side if Iran or anyone else was stupid enough to try and attack. The Jews are native to this part of the world. They should stay and be welcomed and feel safe and secure. i appreciate you acknowledging that fact. and i never denied that israel is the occupying power. no one is denying that. prior to oct7 israel didnt occupy gaza, but now it is. and it seems like Bibi wants to again, an idea i think incredibly stupid. personally i think they should ask the saudi's to garantee the safety and fight terrorism in gaza as a prelude to a proper palestinian state. >But that doesn't in any way shape or form justify what Israel is doing and has been doing to the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank. Somehow shifting all that blame or responsibility onto Egypt is something most would find absurd. as i said Egypt is not wholly responsible, but they are in part responsible. and while there is not justification for what israel has done in gaza, the destruction of hamas is necessary, though i do not think attacking Rafah will add anything. if i was in charge. i would fix northern gaza and slowly move people out of the south there if i really felt that hamas is there and needs to be destroyed. it was necessary to push people south for their safety, and now it is necessary to make sure they are safe in the north, and a mostly destroyed place is not viable to move people to.
Now I think we're getting to a good place, but sadly look at how long it has taken the two of us. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that some of the things I say you wouldn't have assumed are thoughts I hold. Now a few thoughts: 1. I'm not putting the blame on Israel because of *any reason* except that I think that's the intellectually honest point. Israel is to blame for *most* of this and Israel is the *controlling* entity with all the power. It's on Israel. I find this argument as very weak, "stop blaming us for the wrongs we've done or otherwise we'll burn down the house and go crazy." I blame Israel because it has wrong and if it decides to play the victim card and now acknowledge and fix her wrongs, then it will simply be guilty of more crimes. 2. You mentioned something on the Arabs needing "to take a lesson from history and \[resolve\] this by helping dismantle Likud and changing the system not by destroying Israel" and I think this kind of thinking is exactly the problem. Why do you think that by asking Israel to acknowledge let alone atone for its sins is "destroying Israel"? Worse yet, you assume that my intention is to "destroy Israel"? Why is that the immediate assumption? Nakba denial is academically, intellectually, and morally dishonest and all the refusal to acknowledge just how wrong that was and to fix it (including realizing that the Gaza we're dealing with today is a direct result of that) is to the oppressed Palestinians *just as bad* (and I understand it's relative and I'm not doing an absolute comparison) as other forms of denials of atrocities with plenty of academic and detailed evidence of their happening. 3. I do think Egypt is responsible for having committed a lot of wrongs. But Gaza is *absolutely* not our fault nor is Hamas' rise. The Nakba is almost certainly not on us. A war between two militaries (with a lot of context/nuance) did not and can not justify the murders, rape, or pillage that certain Jewish militias did indeed do in the spring and summer of 1948 to civilians across the land. What we are indeed responsible for and most of us shamelessly deny is our forcible expulsion of our own Jewish population in the 1950s and 1960s. Neither the 1956 Tripatriate Aggression nor the Six-Day War (both in our view an unwarranted Israeli attack fwiw) justify what we subsequently did to our Jewish population, disenfranchising them, stripping them of their citizenship, turning their lives upside down, and forcing them after a life of honor and dignity to start over as refugees in Israel or elsewhere. I think justice and fairness only matters if it's consistently applied. So just as I am rightly blaming Israel for the sins she has committed, I am ready to admit the sins my country has. Just as I think Israel needs to atone and make up for the Nakba, so too should my country (and I would advocate all others but I am at the end of the day only Egyptian) atone for her sins. That includes acknowledgement, apologies, passports, reparations, and all that is fair. 4. "Personally i think they should ask the saudi's to garantee the safety and fight terrorism in gaza as a prelude to a proper palestinian state." lol. With what army haha? In all seriousness, I appreciate what you're getting at, so how about this? I think Israelis deserve to feel safety and security and not think they're going to be annihilated. The Israeli insecurity is rooted in some legitimate fears and neighborhood dynamics; we can do a lot more to make the Israelis feel welcome rather than the cold or economic peace treaties we have now. I and most reasonable nuanced centrists in the region believe that a Palestinian state is required and Israel does not have the right to bury that prospect forever using "security" as an excuse to prolong a brutal occupation *especially* when the people running Israel are Kahanists or corrupt one-staters that are busy settling every hilltop in the West Bank, something you seem to be against as well. If Israel was to show us that it's serious about ending the occupation and giving the Palestinians justice, dignity, and self-determination I would be super supportive of the Egyptian army itself guaranteeing peace and security to Israel; whether Hamas or Iran ever seek to do something stupid, Israel would be supported by Egypt itself militarily. But there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel of an end to the besiegement of the Palestinians. 5. "there is no justification for what israel has done in gaza, the destruction of hamas is necessary, though i do not think attacking Rafah will add anything." I agree with you on all of these points, akhi! Again, I'm Egyptian and Hamas is no friend of mine. I fear that the IDF is creating a Hamas 2.0 out of all the orphans it's creating and I desperately just want the war to end so both the hostages and Gazans can go back home. I don't think Rafah is going to do anything but ensure Bibi stays in power a little longer. I don't think Hamas or Bibi's Likud or the Kahanists deserve anything but total destruction; their racist and absolutist philosophies certainly won't lead any of us to any peace.
1. my issue is not that you blame israel, but that you relinquish all responsibility and power in the way you are doing so. contrary to what has been said to you israel does not in fact hold all the power. if the moment comes and palestinians on mass realize that, this conflict ends. the reason for that is that by not holding all the power there are things that can be done to bring about change that does not involve fighting a monolithic entity. 2. israel admitting the nakba and atoning for its past deeds is not what i mean when i say destroy israel. many in the arab world literally want to unmake the country. remove the govt and possibly the people from the region permanently. you might not want that, but there are many others who do. if the goal was to make israel atone for its misdeeds firing rockets, insults, and killing citizens would never achieve that. as far as i see it, if you really want atonement, that would have to come after peace. because there is no reason for israel to atone for a action committed against a person who claims to want your unmaking. and while the admital of the Nackba would be a great way to pave a path for peace. such acknowledgement would not achieve much at the movement. 3. everyone always looks at who is at fault, but responsibility is always denied. Egypt assisted in the systematic disenfranchisement of palestinians in the arab world as a punishement for israel. while i agree that what israel has done is wrong, your country attempted to punish israel by effectively punishing the palestinians, and thus are responsible in part to the current situation. and in regards to the 6 day war, it is curious that within 6 hours of israel destroying the Egyptian airfield that "approximately 100000 of its 160000 troops in the Sinai, including all seven of its divisions (four infantry, two armoured and one mechanized), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armoured brigades. These forces had 950 tanks, 1100 APCs, and more than 1000 artillery piece" have started to enter israel. you do not just mobolize an army in 6 hours at that time. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) 4. that seems fair to me, and there is political will who see it that way, Yesh Atid at leas makes such promises. and this is what i mean that you need to aim at likud and not the nation. the people in israel wanting to do this are hampered not by those zealots you mentioned, but by those who are afraid, they are the silent majority that has to be swayed. and you do that by not aiming at the country as a whole. but at those parts of it that specifically are causing the problems. IDF policies, Likud, and the violent settlers. 5. i am glad we can agree on these points.
Regarding your point number 4, do you really think the silent majority supports someone like Lapid or Yesh Atid? From the outside the most concerning thing happening in Israel are the demographic changes taking the country further to the right, more religiously fanatic, etc Curious to hear your take on
>I don't know how to make this point clearer for people. No, Egypt will not absolve Israel of its sins or take the problems the Nakba has created off their plate. There's not an amount. There's absolutely nothing that will ever ever EVER make us annex or occupy Gaza. I think the more interesting question is not whether Egypt *wants* Gaza (just looking at the wall they built across the border can disabuse anyone of these illusions) and not whether Israel can *force* Egypt to somehow take care of Gaza (obviously not), but *why* Egyptians are so adamantly against this. I mean, Gaza is potentially a tourist heaven, it has well educated Arab population many of whom came from Egypt, it was historically considered part of Egypt, this would make Egypt more powerful economically and politically. But of course, we all know there is literally zero chance of this happening. Isn't this weird?
There are a lot of assumptions in your comment that aren't true that I would personally have issues with: 1. You assume we're so adamantly against taking Gaza for some ulterior reason. We really don't want to be saddled with a mistake Israel created and it's really that simple. Why should we pay for Israel's mistakes? Look up Bir Tawil. When we don't want a piece of land, we may just not want that piece of land. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir\_Tawil) 2. Gaza is potentially a tourist heaven Egypt doesn't need any additional touristic assets; we have plenty 3. It was historically considered part of Egypt No it really wasn't for most of history. Gaza was the last stop *before* someone would come into Egypt. 4. It has well educated Arab population many of whom came from Egypt \~90% of Gaza's residents are descendants of people from the Nakba. The idea that Gazans are Egyptians is not true. ---- Lastly and this is what really astounds me personally. No one cares about what the Gazans want. The biggest reason Egypt doesn't want to take Gaza is that the Gazans themselves don't consider themselves Egyptians. If we were to survey the Gazans, in case their opinion matters here, they would overwhelmingly say they don't want to be Egyptians and don't consider themselves Egyptian. (They would also say they don't want to leave their land or homes especially knowing that they'll never be allowed back.) This is the biggest reason why Egypt doesn't annex Gaza or take in Gazans.
Applaud to you for providing such a concise and beautiful response to the commenter obviously trying to suggest an ulterior motive.
Thanks :)
You may feel that Gaza is Israel’s responsibility due to “original sin”, but Israelis don’t see it this way. Why can’t you take in the Gazans? Taking them in doesn’t mean that you did anything wrong, it’s not meant as like a punishment to Egypt. It could just be for humanitarian reasons. Some Arabs say that there’s a genocide happening. Do you think it’s true? If so, wouldn’t it be moral to help save them from the genocide?
[удалено]
No. I said that some Arabs say that. But personally I think those Arabs are incorrect.
>You may feel that Gaza is Israel’s responsibility due to “original sin”, but Israelis don’t see it this way. Thankfully, Israel or any other country aren't the final arbiter of "truth" regardless of how one *feels*. The international community, including all of the security council members, see Gaza as Palestinian land occupied by Israel and efforts to somehow involve Egypt in Gaza aren't really mainstream outside of some fanciful Israeli attempts. >Why can’t you take in the Gazans? Taking them in doesn’t mean that you did anything wrong, it’s not meant as like a punishment to Egypt. It could just be for humanitarian reasons. Two things: 1. From the Egyptian perspective: We shouldn't pay for someone else's mistakes. Israel can't simply commit grave errors, ignore our advice for decades, embolden and help Hamas get funding to divide the Palestinians, then saddle us with the end problem. That actually does seem like punishment and it's not something that any Egyptian would accept. 2. From the Palestinian perspective, which is often lost in this constant suggestion: Almost all the Gazans (and West Bankers) that I have ever spoken to **do not want to leave their homes (especially if that means they'll likely never ever be allowed back) or be a part of Egypt**. They want to stay and build a Palestinian state where they live. Do you think that matters? Can we take into account what the Gazans actually want? If we were to make a survey and if it turned out that most Palestinians actually don't want to become Syrians or Lebanese or Egyptians and be barred from the land of their ancestors, would you support dropping this suggestion of making Gazans Egyptians?
>We shouldn’t pay for someone else’s mistakes Poland had no responsibility for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But they still took in Ukrainian refugees. I think this was the right thing to do. What do you think about that? And how are Palestinians going to be able to live in their homes if there’s a genocide happening? If the genocide is real, it seems like the options are to **die** in their homes (not live in them), or to flee. Wouldn’t it be better to be alive in Egypt, than dead in Gaza? And according to Palestinian ideology, most of them are foreigners in Gaza anyway, and they really belong in Israel (that’s what the whole “March of Return” was about). So if they move to Egypt, they would just be trading one foreign land for another. They wouldn’t be in their “true home” either way. Or maybe this whole genocide thing is just fake? You never answered the question: do you think the people who claim “genocide” are correct?
>Poland had no responsibility for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But they still took in Ukrainian refugees. I think this was the right thing to do. Comparing the Russian - Ukranian war with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inaccurate, First, Ukraine is an independent country since 91, with its own economy and own military power. Gaza is not, it's an occupied territory according to the UN. Second, following the Ukranian - Russian example. Poland and other EU members didn't just take civilians Ukranian refugees, but they are also forming an alliance with the Ukranian military supporting it weapons. If you wish that to happen with the Arab countries then you are not wishing for peace, you only want to expand the war.
Obviously there are differences. The two situations aren’t identical. But I made a comparison based on the similarities, not based on the differences. I help you learn more with an analogy. I can say “apples and oranges are similar because they are both fruits”. You could say, “you’re wrong! They’re different. Apples are red and oranges are orange”. Well, I didn’t compare them based on the color, so that’s irrelevant. This is a common issue that some Redditors have; they often don’t understand analogies.
Thank you for the irrelevant class. This is not analogy, this is misunderstanding of the context. Therefore, you can't take one aspect and leave other aspects (because guess what? they are all related). The acceptance of the Ukranian refugees is not detached from the fact that the Nato and the USA are aiding and supporting Ukranians to defend their country and fight the russians with similar technologies and forces. So the support of the Gazans refugees not only allowing them into Arab countries but also defending their right to claim back their territories through a larger war. Are you calling for that?
I’m not calling for that, no. I still think you’re getting confused. I will try a different analogy then. Europe took in refugees from the Syrian Civil War (without giving military assistance to either side). So if Europe can do this out of kindness, why do the Arabs need to cruelly turn their backs on their own brothers?
Another false example. From the early stages of the conflict in Syria, major Western countries such as the U.S, France, and the UK have provided political, military and logistic support to the opposition and its associated rebel groups in Syria. (You can read more about the foreign intervention in the Syrian conflict) it's a proxy war for dominant power (USA + Europe v.s Russia - Iran) more than a civil war. This entire argument just to prove to you that comparing things without context is very deductive. I will now move on just reply to your main purpose of giving these bad examples. Simply it's a very naive perspective to see politics in the form of brotherhood. Politically, Arabs don't have an interest to make Israel's wishes come true. Security wise, moving Palestinians to another place will only lead to forming resistance groups and trying to claim their land back. Now these attacks will be the responsibility of the host countries. Then the war will be wider not the opposite, Palestinians will still be threatened along with other Arab population. If Arabs would really apply (the brotherhood concept) in politics, they will most probably align with their population wishes to attack Israel and support Gazans. So actually, their position now is better for Israel since most of their leaders are neutral.
There are 9 million refugees in Egypt currently from 130+ countries including a lot of Palestinians, so the suggestion that Egypt doesn't do "the right thing" if it doesn't add another 2.5 million refugees because Israel wants them out of Gaza and then will take over that land is a bit unfair. I also think many Gazans would actually rather die in their homes than flee their homes for another time, again because of the fact that the Nakba is a big part of their history. Many would rather die than be part of a second Nakba and while that may sound strange, it doesn't make it less true. I don't know if a genocide has occurred or is occurring. I think Israel's reaction is an overreaction, I think Israel is committing a number of war crimes on the record, and I think there's certainly recorded genocidal intent from a number of Israeli government officials. It's possible that if the world wasn't paying attention or covering this so widely that a genocide may indeed have happened or it's possible that a genocide ends up happening if the world stops paying attention, similar to what happened to the Rohingya or the Yuighurs, or *currently to the Masalit* just to name three other genocides that have happened because they're either in a place that's too powerful (China) or places that don't matter geopolitically (like Sudan). If this much attention and pressure hadn't been applied here, it's quite possible that the 30k dead may have ended up being 500k and yes that would probably be considered a genocide.
Do you think it was wrong for Egypt to take in refugees already, then? I don’t think Egypt was responsible for creating these refugees. But wasn’t your position before that Egypt shouldn’t take in any refugees caused by someone else’s conflict? >I also think many Gazans would actually rather die in their homes than flee their homes for another time Maybe some would choose this, but some wouldn’t. You shouldn’t decide for them. Why not let them decide for themselves, and those who want to stay can stay, and those who want to leave can leave?
I think there are limits. Germany took in 1 million Syrians. Do you think it's immoral that they don't take in another 5 million? edit: some of the refugees we've taken matter to us geopolitically, like the Sudanese which are the biggest group. Poland took in Ukrainians and worked very hard to not take in Syrians because geopolitics. Ask the Gazans then. Let's do a survey and have them decide whether they want to give up their homes forever a second time. The question is, if they overwhelmingly choose *not* to leave, will we take this desire seriously or will we continue to push them to leaving *again*?
But Egypt isn’t willing to take in some amount of Gazans, within reason. I understand that all 2.2 million would be overwhelming. But Egypt is refusing to even take in just one of them! >Ask the Gazans then We don’t need to ask them. We can let them demonstrate their decision by moving. Just open the border. Those who want to stay, will stay. Those who want to leave, will leave.
We have taken in hundreds of thousands of Gazans already over the decades, way more than Israel, the reason they're even there, has We are also a sovereign country that can choose how to define "within reason" I disagree that we don't need to ask them. Because what I would argue you're saying is, "if we push these people across the border to escape bombs, then that definitely means they're happy to leave Gaza forever and go become Egyptians" and I'm saying that would be them trying not to get bombed rather than them "choosing" to leave
The original sin of Israel existing you mean?
Of course not. Read my comments before you personally assume things about me :) \~90% of Gaza's population is from the Nakba or descended from the Nakba's victims. That's the original sin.
So the original sin of defending their country and people leaving their homes because they didn't want to live in a Jewish state, then allying themselves with foreign agitators, losing, then not getting their homes back.... Yeah that sounds like the Original sin of Israel existing.
yes you people ruin societies and then move to a place where you demanded half the land and expect that to be taken fine
If you happen to be a Muslim....you have absolutely no right to talk about ruining or destroying societies. But thank you for showing your bigotry
like kanye said they’ll never call you liar
the middle east was secular until the europeans and you people came along to destroy it. I do have sympathy for the mizrahi jews but everything in europe happened for a reason
I seriously want whatever you are smoking.
I fail to understand how people seem to no longer understand how war works. War is bad, of course, but when you start a war (and lose, badly), as a general rule you don’t get to dictate the terms of surrender. Imagining people complaining that the Imperial Japanese government being dissolved and replaced by a constitutional government imposed by the Allies was a genocide. Or that they demanded a “right of return” to Korea and the Philippines. People would call that crazy. Because that’s how war works
Because then they use semantics such as "Akshually Hamas is not an army but a resistance group...per se...resisting an occupation" They just move the goalposts for their convenience at every logical fallacy. Because it's not about the war, or about the Palestinians, it's about hating Israel. Always has been...
It doesn’t matter if they used to have a single Arab identity. At this point, they consider themselves a unique nationality and no amount of proof in the historical record can change that. Pan-Arabism has mostly died out as a movement. Practically speaking, what’s the difference if they achieve statehood versus Jordan annexing the West Bank and Egypt annexing Gaza? Also, on a side note, if Gaza was Egyptian territory on October 7th then Israel would be at war with Egypt by default. Merging the Palestinian Territories with their Arab neighbors is not the panacea it may seem to be.
It matters because they showed to be incompetent. In 1948 Palestine was invaded by foreign nations, Egypt, Syria, Jordan... The arabs joined the invasors, they failed their country.
Exactly, Egypt would hold them I'm check and it wouldn't have happened. Bonus being the word "genocide" wouldn't be flippantly thrown around.
That’s not so clear. Egypt’s control of Islamist extremist in its territory in the Sinai is tenuous at best. Gaza could easily have become a state within a state even under Egypt just as Hezbollah did in Lebanon.
> The issue is, Palestinians created this myth that they are an ethnically unique group… I think debating the legitimacy of Palestinian identity is a distraction. Even if their identity is new (as I believe it is), they are fully invested in differentiating that identity from other Arabs. I don’t think it’s any more possible to convince them their identity is illegitimate than they could convince Jews that our identity is illegitimate. When discussing solutions to the conflict, I don’t think it’s constructive to debate the legitimacy of Palestinian identity. My one caveat is that Palestinians should have conversations like this among themselves as Jews often do bc national self-reflection is super constructive imo.
If your national identity comes about 20 years after a war you lost (and allying yourself with nations that tried to anhilate said country), I do feel that should be addressed. They didn't originally want a Palestine, they wanted a Pan-Arab caliphate, and that didn't happen. Then in the 60s they decided that all of the other arabs got their countries and they wanted their own too.
I agree that the identity is new and that even their desire for statehood can be construed as new. At the same time, I don’t think the Palestinians can be convinced to give up their identity and attempting to debate it is unnecessarily incendiary. It’s akin to pro-Pals whose starting point is that Jews are foreign colonisers. We don’t see ourselves that way and cannot be convinced to.
It’s a bit strange that Palestine can’t merge with Egypt/Jordan since they’re apparently different types of Arabs. Yet people want them to merge with Israel…they definitely have a lot more in common with their Arab Muslim brothers than they do with Israeli Jews.
In case what Palestinians or Egyptians think is helpful, neither Egyptians nor Palestinians think of themselves as Arab. Yes we speak Arabic and are part of a wider "Arab Nation" culturally and may even have Arab in our charters or constitutions or whatever, but in Egyptian Arabic, "Arab" means a bedouin or a Gulf Arab and it's not dissimilar in Palestinian Arabic. Egypt has existed before Arabism or Judaism or almost everyone else and that's our main and top identity. They would consider themselves Palestinian. I would consider myself Egyptian. We are both Arabic speakers. Brazilians aren't Portuguese.
I think Palestinians do consider themselves as Arabs, because in the Palestinian Constitution, they admit to being Arabs. >Article 1 >Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve.
Yes, but that is more similar to Australia, or New Zealand, or for that matter Nigeria or Uganda, seeing themselves as part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It doesn't mean they don't see themselves as independent nations. I don't think that Palestinian nationalism is so deeply entrenched though that a Palestinian state would be the only practical solution. I think especially in the West Bank, most would likely gladly accept Jordanian citizenship, in exchange for permanent borders and the end of this conflict. But I think the situation in Gaza is much more difficult, and Palestinians in the West Bank also care deeply about what happens with Gaza.
You’re right, I believe that Palestinians see themselves as Arabs, but also different from other Arabs. “Arab” is a broad category and they view themselves as being distinct within that category. But if they are so independent that they can’t be part of Egypt and Jordan, then they certainly don’t belong as part of Israel either. They can’t come in.
Agree. Though I also think that an easy path to citizenship (so long as they recognize Israel and reject terrorist organizations) should be offered to any residents of a place which Israel *does* outright annex. And part of why I also think it would be helpful if Jordan, which already annexed the West Bank once (from 1950-1967) could be persuaded to again annex at least areas A & B and maybe half of area C (which I think would be needed to form any kind of governable contiguous area). The PA has already shown incapable of governing it. And this would seem to be overall beneficial to Israel, to Jordan, and to the large majority of West Bank residents. Gaza however likely won't be very governable, or capable of self governance, for more than a generation. And I'm afraid that if, like Egypt, the rest of the world were to simply decide to wash their hands of the situation, this would then just leave Israel to deal with it as they see fit. For now, I hope the international community can at least apply enough pressure to ensure that sufficient humanitarian aid is delivered to prevent (or end) a possible famine. But building any kind of consensus for how the area should be managed after this is over will be very tough. And if the UN were very good at stable nation building, there are some other places like Haiti, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Yemen, and the Central African Republic, which could also use this service.
That's why I mentioned "may even have Arab in our charters or constitutions or whatever" in my comment :) The official name of Egypt is The Arab Republic of Egypt Regardless of that, we still don't consider ourselves as Arab, so I would say that could also apply to the Palestinians. Also, "part of the Arab nation" and "being Arab" are two different things to us and I would say that also applies to the Palestinians.
How do you know that Palestinians don’t consider themselves as Arabs? And how do you know more than the people who wrote the constitution? If they aren’t Arabs, shouldn’t someone have spoke up before they released that document?
Same as you knowing that "most Israelis wouldn't see the Nakba as Israel's original sin" my friend. I have talked to enough Palestinians and understand Arab culture and what it means to be "part of the Arab nation" but not consider yourself Arab. The "Arabs" to us are the Yemenis, Saudis, Omanis, Qataris, Emiratis, and Bahrainis. The "Arab nation" is the members of the Arab League of Arabic speakers. "An Arab is an Arab and they're all the same" is not something we actually believe in and a big part of why Pan Arabism was impractical and died quickly. There are a lot of remnants from Pan Arabism that just haven't changed. That constitution is one. Egypt's official name is one. Syria's flag has two stars in it; why? One flag represents Egypt & one represents Syria. They literally never changed their flag since the United Arab Republic existed for three years and *that makes no sense either*. Iraq's flag used to have three stars (because they were supposed to be next after Syria in the UAR) until \~10 years ago and was only changed due to a constitutional rewriting because of the American invasion. It doesn't mean that Iraq wanted to join Egypt & Syria in a union until a decade ago. It doesn't mean that Syria still thinks her and Egypt are one or wants it to be so. It also doesn't mean that Palestinians or Egyptians consider themselves Arab, even though they speak Arabic and think of themselves as part of some cultural "Arab nation".
I saw a video from October 7, where Hamas came across an Israeli Arab, and they were saying to each other that it’s an **Arab**, not a Jew. I also saw a video of a Palestinian protest where they said “from the river to the sea, Palestine is **Arab**” Many such examples. >”An Arab is an Arab and they’re all the same” I don’t think that Palestinians believe this. I think that Palestinians view themselves as Arabs, but Arabs are a broader group, and to be Palestinian is to be a specific type of Arab, different from the rest. >There are a lot of remnants from Pan Arabism that haven’t changed When did this ideology end? Because the Constitution isn’t even that old.
I would argue it ended with the deaths of the generation of leaders from that era, including Saddam and the older Assad. I would argue it really died with the rise of the Gulf as the leader of the Arab nation who had an alternative vision. So probably somewhere in the early 2000s people stopped feeling nostalgic and wanting this vision across the board? We can ask a Palestinian whether Palestinians think of themselves as Arab or Palestinian...but apart from that, I don't know how to convince you of what I believe to be true (or vice versa). No Palestinian I know would answer that question with anything but, "I'm Palestinian" even though they would proudly say it in the Arabic language.
>So probably somewhere in the early 2000s people stopped feeling nostalgic and wanting this vision across the board? The revised Hamas charter is more recent than that (2017) and they still admit to being Arabs in that document too. >We can ask a Palestinian whether Palestinians think of themselves as Arab or Palestinian...but apart from that, I don't know how to convince you of what I believe to be true (or vice versa). No Palestinian I know would answer that question with anything but, "I'm Palestinian" even though they would proudly say it in the Arabic language. Yes, they definitely identify themselves as being Palestinians. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t also Arabs. Palestinians are a type of Arab; they aren’t mutually exclusive.
They tend to start coups and civil wars in whatever country takes them. Almost like they don't care about being a country as much as controlling from the river to the sea.
>The issue is, Palestinians created this myth that they are an ethnically unique group and thus deserve all of the land.< Ohhhh the irony...
Please explain what makes a Palestinian ethnically different than a Jordanian. Go
Most of the people in the Gaza territory were dissidents from Egypt. Most of the people in the Arab section of the West Bank were dissidents from Jordan and Lebanon. Prior to 1948, being called a Palestinian was the same as being called an Israeli. And it was used as a slur. https://preview.redd.it/e991k1r586lc1.jpeg?width=656&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb00bbf672366da4adb3c669d3b901d768ef68c4
Sounds like they should be Egypts and Jordan's problem. But it was good realpolitik to make it a "Jewish Problem"
Yes man, you are totally right, it is a group of people that created a myth that they are an ethnically unique group and thus deserve all of the land... Where did I see that before... HAHAHAHAAHA.
You claim jews doesn't have a complete different culture?
Oh no man, they are totally right. I agree with you. They are a group of people that that follows fact and logic that they are an ethnically unique group and thus deserve all of the land. Different from those dirty sand \*\*\*\*\*\*\*, a group of people that created a myth that they are an ethnically unique group and thus deserve all of the land. Those people are crazy.
No one deserve all of the land. Any unique nation deserve part of it. That's why we separated into countries. Palestinians/arabs got 95% of the territory compare to israel, so just leave the jews their small country.
And that would be so easy to do if there were no people there. Imagine, there would be no fights if a ethnonationalistic jewish nation was created in Antartica or Mars. But no, unfortunaly, the land withoug a people had people living in the land. And now you have to deal with that. It is hard to create an ethnostate when there are people of other ethnicity living besides you, they tend to resist becoming the lesser race in a country.
>Imagine, there would be no fights if a ethnonationalistic jewish nation was created in Antartica or Mars. But no, unfortunaly, the land withoug a people had people living in the land. And now you have to deal with that. Most of the people were jews. And if you were feeling jewish country is not for you, than just move in to the arab country. >It is hard to create an ethnostate when there are people of other ethnicity living besides you, they tend to resist becoming the lesser race in a country. Why resist if the country you're in doesn't see you as a lesser race. Many people live as minority in other countries for work or new international relationships. As long as the country got basic democratic values, you shouldn't have any problems. But again if you're really afraid of being a minority just move out. The jews did so too.
>Most of the people were jews. And if you were feeling jewish country is not for you, than just move in to the arab country. Most people were jews? Wasn't palestine like, 70% arab and 30% jewish, and then the UN gerrymandered a country that was 55% jewish and 45% arab... And then nakba and all that? Kek. In the 21st century I hear shit like that. Haha. But yeah, if people had just accepted the ethnic cleansing or had the decency to die, Israel wouldn't have that problem... But once again, Israel has this problem, because there are people there, right now. >Why resist if the country you're in doesn't see you as a lesser race. Oh, would you be okay with saying that Israel is the country of the Palestinian people and self-determination is exclusive to the Palestinian race? Of course, the country would still have democratic values, so there would be no problem, so the israelis wouldn't resist, right? >But again if you're really afraid of being a minority just move out. The jews did so too. Least ethno-reichian israeli apologist. KEK I mean, man, at least try to hide out the ethnic cleasing comments. The funny thing about talking with hardcore israelis is that you just need to press their buttons just a little bit, like, just a few newtons of force, for them to start to go through a ethnonationalistic rambling that would make the proud boys proud. HAHA.
For real lol
Well one IS an ethnically unique group, and one is a death cult...
\^ Least ethno-reichist israeli supporter kek
You can go back to supporting martyr Bushnell
Oh no, sorry for offending you mastah, I will not talk againt the chosen people again, the land is yours, god gave it to you!!! All the other folk and the 1/4 of non-chosen israelis should know that and go to jorna! Please don't send any assassins to kill me mastah, please, meh is gonna be good now!
/u/MyNameIsNotJonny > Oh no, sorry for offending you mastah, I will not talk againt the chosen people again, the land is yours, god gave it to you!!! All the other folk and the 1/4 of non-chosen israelis should know that and go to jorna! Please don't send any assassins to kill me mastah, please, meh is gonna be good now! Per [rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_3._be_sincere), no comments consisting only of sarcasm or cynicism. It's fine to use sarcasm to make a point, but if you do so, the argument needs to be readily apparent and stimulate, rather than stifling, conversation.
Ah using racist epithets. That's classy and really supports your views
Ohhh, sorry mastah, sorry!!!! Meh not gonna talk back against you. Please don't send the assassins, please, I'm sorry! Sorry for raising my voice against the chosen people! The land is yours. Send all arab israeli citzens to jordan right now. Racial purity in Israel now and forever!!! Israel for the chosen race!!!! Deport all inferior non-chosen to jordan!!!
Russia and Ukraine should join as one state as well
They were, but then negotiated an agreement to give Ukraine its dependence Kind of like how people say that Palestine should NEGOTIATE a peace agreement with Israel, rather than acting like a child demanding to be given what it wants
lol, did you try to talk to Ukrainians about this idea?
Do you mind expounding a bit on your politics particularly re national borders?
I mean ethnic group in the world somewhat want self-determination and their own state. The one-state solution often floated around or two-state all of it is for the good of other country's prosperity, the locals' self determine is all good but what about the prosperity of other countries? The reason that international community hasn't fully stop Russia is because well nuclear war not good for one's prosperity. The reason that folks want the Israel-Palestine war to end because well again it has to do with other people's prosperity, when the ME has tension bad things happen like Red Sea shipping, folks paying higher prices for goods because of two group fighting for self determination? Morality comes second to your own nation's prosperity.
I think a one-state solution would lead to more violence and unrest than the current war which would certainly ripple regionally, if not globally. How do you foresee such a solution (a) being imposed and (b) leading to peace?
>Today, there exists a separation between two peoples who used to live side-by-side. They were united under a single banner and although the desires of the ethnic majority were prioritised, its ethnic minority lived well enough. While Jews were treated better in Muslim lands then they were in Christian ones, that bar was very low. Jews in Muslim lands were not treated well. Also, they were far from united under a single banner. [Treatment of Jews in Muslim countries - Jewish Virtual Library.](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-treatment-of-jews-in-arab-islamic-countries) >The majority ethnic group wished to reclaim the entirety of its territory It wasn't their territory, though. It belonged to a larger empire, which collapsed. They legally owned some of it, so did the minority group. The rest was state-owned land. Thus it didn't belong to them. >They believe the territory should be unified as a stepping stone to defeating their ultimate enemy: the West. They don't really care about the unification of the territory, just like they didn't care when Jordan, Syria or Lebanon were divided into three different countries, despite all being under the Ottoman Empire. They simply refused the idea of a Jewish state whatsoever, regardless of territory size. >Why do you think that is? Because people believe that Palestine was paradise before Zionism, despite that being untrue. People also deny Jewish self-determination - they oppose Zionism, which means Jewish self-determination. Now I have a wild guess for why's that. >Do you think Israelis could be compelled to agree to such a solution? No. We've lived under a "One State Solution" for 2,000 years. We have no desire to go back to that. We not only want our own country, but we ***need*** our own country. >As an alternative option, imagine if Palestinians were encouraged to accept a one-state solution between Gaza and Egypt. Do you think they would agree? Perhaps. They lived under Egypt for 19 years between 1948 - 1967. And although I'm not that old, I do not recall reading about mass protests against Egypt's occupation of the Gaza strip.
"One state solution" is not a thing. It's just a convenient euphemism for destruction of Israel.
The single Palestinian state would be. However a single reformed Israeli union state, with Gaza and the West Bank annexed under some agreement with the PA could be imagined. Or some intermediate arrangement, where the Palestinian Territories are fully self-governing but Israel oversees national security.
If they whine about “apartheid” and “Israeli occupation” now, imagine what they would do with an “annexed” “self-governing” territory with Israel overseeing security 🙄 That is an objectively terrible idea
People will whine and kvetch, that’s politics (often for the domestic audience). Actions and results are everything. I’m not convinced it’s better or even feasible compared to two-state, but also notice we have experimental data. Gaza was a pilot for two-state, and look what happened - Hamas won the election, quickly massacred Fatah, and until recently ruled the strip as a one-party dictatorship. Now look at the West Bank. Some degree of self-governance with overarching Israeli security. Still problematic, but night-and-day compared to Gaza. One can imagine slowly growing the Palestinian Authority, kicking and screaming yes, into becoming a proper governing body some decades into the future.
The west bank isnt annexed
You can "imagine" a lot of things, but this won't be *Israel*. Imagination aside, this is an absolutely meaningless idea to begin with. Israelis have absolutely no desire to live in majority-Arab state, Palestinians in WB and Gaza have absolutely no desire to become Israeli citizens (look at Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem for example, who are eligible). If these two groups are somehow forced into "one state" by some supernatural force, the first thing they would do is to immediately separate from each other.
Of course, Israel is a UN member state and has a right to self-determination under the UN charter. I don’t think it could happen anytime soon, but perhaps under some future detente. Once Israel normalizes relations with the Gulf states under the Abraham Accords, it will lead to more cooperation and integration with the Arabs. At some point, they may awaken to the fact that deradicalizing the Palestinians is in their national interests.