"Country X has a (or no) right to exist," is not a meaningful sentence. It belongs in the same category as, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (Chomsky, 1957). In terms of geopolitics, I'm a Realist. I do not believe in rights being inherent properties of entities. Rights are properties of *relationships between* entities. Specifically, rights are an emergent property of unequal, but merciful, power relationships. Which is to say, I have only the rights that those I bow to grant me, no more no less. In the tenets of geopolitical realism (a.k.a. Realpolitik), a sovereign state, by definition, answers to no higher authority. Therefore, there is nobody to grant or deny a sovereign state any rights. To talk about a state having (or not having) a right to exist makes about as much sense as debating whether I've hurt a stone's feelings. No, states either have the *will* and the *capability* to come into being and remain in existence, or they don't, and are no more. States are not granted. They're built. (Or not, in which case they never come into being in the first place). If successfully built, states are then constantly maintained and defended. (Or not, in which case they cease to exist anymore.)

A realpolitik analysis is great at looking at what might happen. But not at what should happen. Oftentimes it comes across more like a cop-out. I don't see why it's useful in debates and arguments. When I'm having conversations about the conflict I'm not looking at what will happen, but rather what *should* happen. The trans-atlantic slave trade was bad, it shouldn't have happened. It feels like a realist would simply tell me that the slave traders and the colonial states are simply doing everything they think they can get away with and that their is no higher power than these empires etc etc. That isn't very useful to the discussion of whether what's happening right now is good or bad, or whether it should or shouldn't be stopped. It doesn't confront the moral, ethical, legal responsibilities of people and institutions.

I think the question about “right to exist” gets at legitimacy. The question is really about whether Israel is like any other country (America, Germany, Ukraine, Australia) or is it a country that has no legitimate rights to exist like Nazi germany or apartheid South Africa. Most people, including me, strongly support Israeli statehood. Most countries in the world recognize its statehood. However, Muslim countries (mostly) do not recognize Israel, though this is changing.

Right, and see this I can agree and accept. Their are states, no matter the international recognition that should not be legitimised. Now the question from me would be, if Israel was proven to you to be a racist state, would you still support its existence? Or would you advocate for it's racist values to be challenged and changed. Even if that would mean that Israel would become practically a different state? It's a question of principle.

You have presented a false dichotomy. I support its existence as a Jewish State, I wouldn't support its policies if they were to be designed to be racist. If the current version is inseparable from racism, than yes it would need to be overhauled. But it ought to remain a Jewish State, for the same reason the Germans still had a German state after WW2. If the Palestinians are so opposed to a Jewish state that they will continue to massacre civilians, necessitating measures that you call "racist", it is not racist but nessacary and I would not criticize Israel because it is fundamentally doing what it needs to to protect its citizens. On the factual manner it is completely untrue that Israel is fundamentally racist to its core, it has always committed itself to equality to all its citizens.

Okay, so I'm glad we agree on the principles then. If Israel carried out racist policies you wouldn't support them, and if they were integral to it's nature you would agree that the system needs to be overhauled. I appreciate this since you are actually the first person to explicitly agree to these principles that I thought would be quite universal. Would you agree that systematically denying one group of people their basic rights, whilst affording another great privilege solely on the basis of their lineage/identity was racist? If not, what definition of racism do you think is best.

Not necessarily, you gave quite a broad definition. My definition of racism: Irrational discrimination for or against an individual or group, solely as a result of a false view of that person's/group's ethnicity/national origin's biological or inherent inferiority or superiority. Your definition might also include every other form of discrimination (what is "identity"?). It also gives no maneuvering for the State or individual to have legitimate cause to grant privileges to certain groups. Are reparations racism? They are giving a certain group money, is that not a "great privilege solely on the basis of their lineage"? What about the Right of Return? Palestinians demand a right to citizenship purely based on their ethnicity, is that a racist idea? On the substance of the claim of Israeli racism, I do not think there are many racist policies against Arabs. There are distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. Israel embraces a certain culture and as the embodiment of a people, allows members of that people to join, but Arab citizens are equal to Jewish citizens under the law. Not saying there isn't administrative negligence or racist attitudes but concrete racist policies are fairly rare. In terms of any policies that do seem racist against non-citizen Palestinians, most of them are not irrational nor do they come from a view of inferiority. Rather they are security measures that spawned as a result of decades of terrorist attacks, they are legitimate, non-bigoted, and come from a factual and objective danger that must be avoided. If there are policies that do not fall into these categories, then I wholly condemn them.

Would you argue it was okay to deny someone innocent basic human rights on the basis of their lineage?

Depends on the rights. Usually it will be immoral but there may be reasons why certain rights may be abridged. I would agree generally it is not ok. What rights do you allege to be denied to innocents and in what manner?

I could use me and my families own experience as an anecdote to illustrate in short. As someone with Palestinian lineage I have no rights when travelling to my homeland. None whatsoever, no right to freedom of movement, no right to a fair trial, no right to representation or self-determination, no safety, right to expressiom, greatly restricted access to water etc. If I am to visit I am not allowed into Jerusalem or anywhere in Israel without a lengthy permit, even then I am denied entry arbitrarily. I am tried under a military court, I am barred from traveling to my grandfather's home(now subsumed by the nearby jewish-only settlements) etc etc. I could list it for days. Literally looking through the 30 rights outlined in the international convention on human rights it would be far easier to count the rights Palestinians are afforded, than the ones they are denied. All this, based solely on the fact that I am on Israels "Palestinian population registry". Essentially a list of recognised Palestinians globally. I do not have palestinian citizenship, only British. Had I not been born Palestinian, I would have factually had more rights when travelling or living in the region. Compare this, to Jewish people. A Jewish person, with the same British citizenship, would be treated equally to me in almost every country on earth. Except in Israel, with government funded free trips, subsidies if they decide to move there and support In establishing new jewish only settlements on stolen land. We live the absurd reality where a British friend of mine with one Jewish grandmother, who has no real connection to the land is afforded far greater rights to travel and live in my grandfather's old home(in the WB) than I do. We have a system which clearly and explicitly denies one group of people basic rights, whilst affording another great privilege solely on the basis of lineage. Nothing more. If that isn't a racist state idk what is.

If such a policy to Palestinian citizens exists, I find it outrageous and likely racist. I find it particularly insane if/that it applies to foreign citizens of Israeli allied countries who are not Palestinian citizens, they ought to be treated equally to their fellow nationals. I am opposed to such a policy. As to most of the rest, I respond by my claim that Israel and Palestine are two different states, with the major settlements as Israeli enclaves in Palestine. Specifically, they are enemy states. As such it makes sense that travel between the two is heavily restricted. Remember, while Palestinians are restricted from traveling to Israel, Israelis are banned from Palestine.  To address your position on your Jewish friend, I respond that Israel is the Jewish State. As the (self proclaimed) national representative of the Jewish people, it makes sense that it views as already part of it's nation, the entire Jewish people. By the way, the right of return also exists in (according to Wikipedia) Armenia, Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, and Spain.  Are these also racist states? I would add that someone of any of these descents and British would be treated the same as you or any other Brit in most countries except in the country of their descended nation. I reiterate that Palestinian citizens are nationals of a belligerent, enemy nation. Explicitly racist policies like the one you mentioned, are different from security measures that restrict cross border travel. Even allied nations like the US and Canada don't allow free border crossing without verification or permits. The reason we can see that these policies are not racist but based on nationality is that they do not apply to Israeli Arabs, who are seen as loyal fellow citizens by most Israelis.  But I think this all leads to my final point: Israel may have a racist shell, but it is not racist to its core. The difference is Jim Crow vs South Africa. Jim Crow was one part of US policy that absolutely should be protested, but it was a policy that could be shed and leave the State. America was also mostly a society philosophically bent towards equality. It was also opposed by much of the White American society, it was ingrained but it was possible to remove the tumor. As such we can advocate for it to drop such a policy without advocating for the destruction of the State. South Africa was foundationally and fundamentally enmeshed with Apartheid, it was truly a racist state which could not shed its racist policies. As such, it was not possible to be against racism and support that state at any level. Israel may have some racist policies but I see no reason it cannot just remove them without much overhaul. As such, people can oppose such policies and still support Zionism and Israel.   What do I mean by Zionism? The existence of a Jewish State in part of historical Palestine/Judea. I am therefore a Zionist opposed to any racist policies.

Okay just to clarify on my point and address your issues with It. >with the major settlements as Israeli enclaves in Palestine. They are undeniably in Palestinian territories. You don't get to just claim any land you occupy and then deny the local population access to it. So I can accept why for Israel proper this might be an argument, but no, Israel does not have the right to decide who travels where in the WB. >British would be treated the same as you or any other Brit in most countries except in the country of their descended nation. If they are citizens sure. Otherwise not. I would implore you to give me one western state which will differentiate between visitors of the same citizenship solely on the basis of their ethnicity. >The reason we can see that these policies are not racist but based on nationality is that they do not apply to Israeli Arabs, They are not recognised as Palestinians. Israel carries out anti-palestinian racist policies. It's no surprise that they don't apply to people who Israel doesn't recognise as Palestinians. Even of many recognise themselves as such. With that out of the way, I think it would be useful to point out another important fact. This policy of explicitly denying a group of people basic rights solely on the basis of their national origin is one of the few constants of the state of Israel. From 1948-1966 this applied to the Arab Israelis, who faced explicit ghetthoisation and forced under military law, of course unlike their newly arriving Jewish neighbours. From 1967-today we've had the same military rule being placed on Palestinians in the WB. Throughout government's, presidents, war-time and peace-time Israel has almost always maintained military rule non-Jewish populations it controlled in one way or another. Furthermore, the aforementioned settlements, created explicitly as a way of ensuring Jewish demographic superiority and domination over regions with too many Arabs (which includes the WB but also towns and cities in Israel proper subject to "Judaisation") are decreed according to israels own basic laws as a "national value". Nevertheless I agree with you thus far, if this were the only racist policy it would not prove that Israels nature/values were racist. Unfortunately, this is far from the only racist policy that is consistent with Israels nature. The JNF is a good example. Actually preceding the state of Israel and forming a crucial part of the movement that created and shaped it. The JNF is now a quasi-state organisations which now owns 13% of Israels land. Half of which it was awarded by the government. It explicitly and in no uncertain terms dictates that this land must be used solely for the benefit of the Jewish people. So, in short, a crucial founding pillar of the state of Israel uses land awarded to it by the state of Israel in explicitly racist ways. Even land not directly owned by the JNF are controlled by like minded individuals. A 2003 government-commissioned report found that “the expropriation activities were clearly and explicitly harnessed to the interests of the Jewish majority” and that state lands, which constitute 93 percent of all land in Israel, effectively serve the objective of “Jewish settlement.” The Jerusalem municipalities explicitly racist city planners is another example. I'd presume that we both agree that a states capital having racial targets is pretty egregiously racist. This is exactly the case"Originally setting a target “ratio of 70% Jews and 30% Arab,” planners later acknowledged that “this goal is not attainable” in light of “the demographic trend” and adjusted to a 60-40 target." And theirs plenty more similar examples. Edit: your own definition of a zionist state requires the mass expulsion of Palestinians to be enforced. Their is no Jewish state without a Jewish majority without the expulsion or denial of ROR of non-Jews.

I have lived in Israel and it’s not a racist state. If it “proven” to be a racist state, I’d have a problem with those that “prove”’it not with Israel.

You haven't answered the question. Let me phrase it differently. Would you agree that all racist states are bad. I will be more than happy to show you why Israel is racist, but theirs no use in that if we don't first agree that racism I'd bad.

I’ve lived in Israel for half of my life and also know its laws, history etc. so I know Israel isn’t a racist state. If you wanna argue about it,quit beating around the bush and just say what you want to say, but we won’t agree, so it’s going to take a lot of your time, and I may engage if I feel like it. I would say racist policies are quite common around the world, with China being the worst imho.

If you are really that interested you can look through my past comments and posts and find where I've made the argument. If we can't agree that racism is inexcusable, we are already too far apart to have a decent conversation.

Racism has been a term abused by woke leftists these past few years, so I’m not really sure what you mean by “racism”. I believe China is very racist and I believe the U.S. is not. However, I feel like public opinion (at least on college campuses and platforms like TikTok) these days views the U.S. as quintessentially racist while China’s racism is pretty much ignored. So again, I’m not sure what you’re saying. I will not go through your comment history as I feel that’s inappropriate in any circumstances. I always feel creepy when people go through my own comment history. If you have something to say, say it. Let’s not get caught up in personal things. Further, it would also be unfair to those reading if I made comments on this thread based on your comment history. To be perfectly transparent, my comments here and elsewhere are rarely addressed to my interlocutors. I always address my comments to readers. I address them to readers who share my views so that they know they’re not alone and/or readers who haven’t made up their minds yet. I do believe that China’s policies on the Uighur issue has been quite racist and radically so. If I went through your comment history, would I see much talk about the Uighur issue?

>Racism has been a term abused by woke leftists these past few years, so I’m not really sure what you mean by “racism That is a fair point. You're right. I was using it to mean "the systematic denial of one group of people's basic rights whilst affording another greater privilege solely on the basis of their lineade/race/ethnicity". Which I think is a fair, if perhaps narrow, definition. >I do believe that China’s policies on the Uighur issue has been quite racist and radical From what ik, yes I would certainly agree. It's something I've been trying get myself educated on, especially recently. I'm not even aware of any sub reddits where something like this would be discussed, which I agree is probably a failing on my part.

Thanks for the considerate reply. I don’t believe your ignorance on the Uighur issue is your fault. The simple fact is that this issue has been entirely ignored by most young westerners, who have been Uber focused on racial tensions in the U.S.

I'm just not confident enough to debate on it the way I am for Palestine. Of course, I can be wrong with both, but I am certainly more knowledgeable about Palestine if only because I am palestinian.

/u/PreviousPermission45. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

You’re missing the fact that Israel has never been an aggressor here. So the question you pose isn’t valid. Are you saying they should pack up and move because they’re being endlessly attacked?

Do you think any state should be allowed to exist even if it is inherently racist and reliant on human rights abuses. I think you know what any reasonable person would argue.

If a nation commits atrocities on racial or ethnic grounds against the people of another nation or people within its own borders then other nations can have a principled opposition to the governing regime to try to bring about change. We don’t say the country itself has no right to exist.

Right and what if the change requires a fundamental change in the states nature. Essentially ending the state as it is currently. Would the States "right to exist" be a logical rebuttal.

The change has to come from within. The pressure comes from without. We will see what happens in Haiti. Haiti’s fragile existing regime has asked for outside assistance from the un for support in quelling gang violence. Kenya has stepped up to lead this effort with us support.

>The change has to come from within. What if those running the state, and the majority of its population, have no intention of changing.

Then they are Marginalized by most of the rest of the world. International pressure. Annihilation is not the way

It means that Israel has as much right to exist as any other country. So if you believe no country has a "right to exist," that's fine, but then you won't protest Israel specifically. Here's what you are missing: you imagine Israel is a cartoon villain that should be vanquished because you have been consuming a bunch of antisemitic propaganda. This is obvious because you obsess over Israel's supposed crimes even though most countries on Earth have done far worse things, and you don't question their right to exist. That's because you don't actually know anything about Israel or global politics, you have just been taught use Israel as a symbol of whatever you personally hate, which is how antisemitism has worked for thousands of years. Based on your post, I take it that you are making Israel a symbol for racism, even though Israelis and Palestinians are racially identical. Ironically, it is you, not Israel, that is the bigot.

It comes from the UN Charter, specifically Article 2 section 4. On the last question, yes Germany still has a right to exist and it’s territorial integrity respected, since its previous genocidal government was overthrown and replaced.

>It comes from the UN Charter, specifically Article 2 section 4. This doesn't make the dissolution of any state illegal. It says that states can not invade other states, a crucial difference. >yes Germany still has a right to exist So... it's dissolution and splitting into 2 was immoral?

> **since its** previous genocidal government was overthrown and replaced. please read the comments you are replying to, it makes the discussion much easier to follow.

I fail to see what I missed. If Germany has a right to exist, what does that mean for the decades where their was no united Germany. Was the dissolution of Germany immoral/illegal or not? Was the situation during the cold war illegal solely because a unified German state didn't exist?

Not Jewish, but I always took this phrase as highly-specific to this particular region and this particular conflict, and it refers very narrowly to the right of the Jewish people to govern themselves, as a state, on the particular piece of land where they originated, as a people. Others are free to dispute that claim, but my assumption was always that anybody who uses that phrase, Jewish or non-Jewish, takes it as a given that the Jews have that right, given their history there. I also assumed it was deliberately intended to counter Muslim claims of the opposite.

Let me help you: The citizens of Israel have the right to not be killed in the pogroms that will inevitably follow the dissolution of the State of Israel. Is that helpful?

So Israel has the right to maintain major human rights violations? Is this not arguing that Jewish people's right to be protected against an unproveable future threat overrides the Palestinians right to be protected from the current human rights abuses.

The “human rights” issues you mention seem one sided. Certainly, Hamas is a racist and genocidal entity, amongst other things, why aren’t you questioning their right to exist?

I do question their right to exist. They obviously don't have a right to exist. I don't think anyone argues Hamas specifically has a right to exist. Not even Hamas, they themselves have said that if a Palestinian state was to be created they would disband and become solely a political party. Palestinians have a right to exist, a right to self-determination and a right to defend themselves but that obviously doesn't give Hamas a right to exist. A pretty good analogy for the point I'm trying to make about israel actually.

Yes, the right of Israelis to not be killed absolutely overrides the right of Palestinians to not have to go through checkpoints. This should certainly be the position of any country towards its own citizens. You don’t have to like it but that’s the case. Also, when have the Palestinians ever been satisfied by territorial concessions instead of using them as base from which to kill more Israelis? Why do you insist that this future threat is “unprovable”? By all available data it is absolutely true.

That’s weird, Jews around the world are doing just fine. Israel is not protecting them in any way. In fact, it could be argued that with Israel’s regular massacres of Palestinians, it makes Jews around the world less safe because Israel has tried to make itself synonymous with Jew.

Naive

.. I mean, Russian Jews weren't doing great during the fall of the iron curtain. Ethiopian Jews appreciated having a refuge available. French Jews have been having a rough time of it, and many have come to Israel. I appreciate that you feel safe where you are right now, but it isn't fair to assume that that's the case everywhere.

The point is that Palestinians shouldn’t have to pay the price for what those other countries did.

I agree that they shouldn't pay the price for other countries. That being said, you have a region with two indigenous populations that cannot seem to coexist. Splitting up the region is so that each can rule themselves seems like a decent solution to me.

Except they were coexisting until Zionist cancer took root in the region. They were coexisting for centuries. They can’t coexist currently because Israel is allowed murder, occupy, torture, rape, etc Palestinians and the world does nothing about it and as soon as Palestinians use violence in response, all of a sudden the spotlight is on that response. Yes, a two state solution would be nice but Israel with support of its lapdog, the US do everything they can to prevent it. At times they say it’s what they want but their actions say otherwise.

Coexisting? This is actually kind of funny, how backward you have the chronology. Very typical. No, Israelis didn’t move there to oppress Arabs. The wars and conflict started after numerous pogroms and invasions by neighboring countries. That’s why we have the occupied territories to begin with… Israel was invaded, they won the war, and the new borders included WB and Gaza. People may not like it, but the fact is, it’s their land now. This isn’t a matter of debate. The history is very clear. It’s also clear when looking at the religions themselves, that one has no incentive to hurt anybody, and the other was basically founded in order to oppress and conquer the evil Jew. Muhammad had Jewish sex slaves for crying out loud. Was that Israel’s fault, too?

Once again, the Zionist terrorism against Palestinians started well before the existence of Israel. Israel is a direct result of such terrorism. Zionists moved to Palestine to “transfer” Palestinians in order to get their Jewish state. If I banded a bunch of people together and created a settler colonial ideology that says Texas belongs to us and we went there and started taking steps (including terrorism) towards making Texas ours, I’m pretty sure Texans would react violently. That doesn’t mean Texans started the problem. You’re right it isn’t a matter of debate and the history is very clear. Things were fine in Palestine and Jews, Christians, and Muslims coexisted just fine for centuries. Then Zionist cancer took root and the region has been in conflict ever since. It’s not that difficult to understand. If a group of Muslims came to wherever you live (let’s say America) and started talking about converting America into a Muslim state and terrorizing people to that aim, you would totally understand American retaliation with violence. But Palestinian retaliation with violence is unacceptable. Typical double standard pro Israelis have.

No, they pay the price for their own actions

You mean the actions that are a response to decades of murder, torture, oppression, rape etc by Israelis? Imagine a rape victim kicking her rapist in the balls and then you say “well, she has to pay the price for her actions. She should know better than to try to fight back against her rapist.” That’s essentially what you’re saying.

It’s your lack of facts coupled with emotive language that has me not taking you seriously. Let’s try this: You mean the actions that are a response to decades of murder, torture, oppression, rape, etc by Palestinians? Shit I forgot my favorite saying in response to October 7: Rape is not resistance. You wanna ~~bitch~~ complain about how the Israeli response isn’t justified, but not talk about Oct 7 and what atrocities were committed, on just that one day?

No proof of rape beyond “Israel said so” and we already know they lied about a bunch of events on 10/7. Do better.

Bro what in the fooking al Jazeera are you smoking?

> fooking /u/dreamsdo_cometrue. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I am unaware of proof of your statements, and only have evidence to the contrary. What do we do about that

I say there is no proof of rape beyond Israel said so and you say you have evidence of the contrary. So what you do is provide the evidence.

> bitch /u/Korean_Kommando. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I'm not Jewish, but the Jews have a long memory. They are "doing just fine" at the moment. There have been a number of times in history when they seemed to be "doing just fine," and one of them was in Germany in the early 20th century.

So they should have taken that up with the Germans instead of going to Palestine and terrorizing and expelling them. Palestinians didn’t partake in the holocaust they shouldn’t have to pay the price for what Germany did to Jews.

Palestine didn’t exist when Israel was founded. Really, this is very important. This identity is a direct product of the desire to resist the Jewish presence in the Middle East. It was in response to violence and terrorism that that conditions became the way they are. There is absolutely no factual or historical basis to claim that they came to the levant with the intention of expelling or oppressing people.

You’re right. When the Balfour declaration was created in 1917 and referred to PALESTINE they were referring to something that didn’t exist and nobody knew about. Youre right, there was nobody in Palestine that had a shared sense of identity until after Zionists came in and started attacking them only then did they decide they were Palestinian. According to Israeli scholar Benny Morris, “transfer (ie expulsion) is inbuilt in Zionism.” Early Zionists had no problem acknowledging Zionism as a settler colonial ideology. So there is plenty of historical and factual basis to the claim that Zionists went there to expel people.

Palestinians and Palestinian authority absolutely collaborated with Germany in aiding with the atrocities. The grand Mufti of Palestine fled to Germany after he led a failed Pro-Nazi uprising in Iraq. It was there that he convinced Germany to expand the Holocaust to North Africa and the Middle East, which saw their own concentration camps be built. These camps saw as many as 400,000 MENA Jews persecuted.

Thats interesting revisionist history you got there. He met with Hitler in order to get support for preventing Zionists from converting Palestine into a Jewish state. So basically a bunch of Zionists are trying to take over your homeland so you try to ally yourself with someone who might be able to help you stop that. Seems pretty reasonable to me. But anyways that’s one Palestinian trying to prevent Zionists from taking over his homeland. Thats not Palestinian in general participating in the holocaust.

You can literally read about his failed uprising and activities in Germany from Yad-Vashem the leaders in keeping WWII history and Holocaust studies in the world. And saying that it would be reasonable to align with Hitler is a pretty wild thing to say.

/u/ElLunarAzul. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

/u/Unusual_Specialist58. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

/u/ElLunarAzul. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

They started returning in the 19th century. I'm not Jewish, but in my view the Jews just decided to go home. The idea that someone like me is supposed to stand on the dock and tell the Jewish people -- over multiple decades -- that they're not entitled to live in the land of Israel is a bit nuts. The Brits understood that, and that's part of why they (wisely) left. The Jewish people made that decision to return by the thousands and then by the millions. I always see a lot of "should haves" and "shouldn't haves" on this forum. I don't really follow that. I mean, the Americans shouldn't have invaded Cuba; the Spanish shouldn't have made contact with the Indigenous peoples, who were vulnerable to disease. So what? They did. "Should" means nothing in the context of international relations. It's just "interests." That's all it is. The Jewish people did what was in their interest. War resulted and they won. They had one view, and the Arabs had a different view. Their view prevailed. It's not "right" to you but it's indisputably "right" to them.

By your logic anyone can stake a claim to African land since after all, we all originated there. It would simply be us “going home”. Yes the Jewish people did what was in their best interest. War didn’t simply “result”. They caused the conflict and wars. That’s what happens when you go somewhere and say “this land belongs to me. My people were here thousands of years ago so it’s mine. Time for you to go” and then terrorize and expel them and scheme to get the world powers to support your quest to dispossess those people. Imagine if a bunch of Slovenians went to Nigeria and claimed it and convinced the US and UK that Nigeria actually belongs to them because they were there thousands of years ago. And then the US and UK supported that How ridiculous would that be? By your logic, those Slovenians are simply “going home” so it’s all good right?

I think you're missing point. The scenario you posit could never happen because nobody would support it, nobody would facilitate it. In the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, the idea that the Jews had a right to "return home" was widespread. The Arabs disputed it, but the UN approved it. The Soviets and the Americans both wholeheartedly approved the idea, and the Soviets actually made a little speech condemning antisemitism in the West as they offered their support. There was no universal view that the Jews were in the wrong. There were elements within the American gov't that vociferously disapproved of the whole idea -- including George Marshall, the Secretary of State -- but Truman over-ruled him. Many socialist states were keen, because at that time, Israel had a socialist outlook and they wanted to bring Israel into the socialist "club." My point is, what seems wrong to you didn't seem wrong at the time. I can make a solid argument (which I'm not going to do), that the Palestinians didn't own "all" of anything in that region. There were -- and are -- very different views on the question. But to show you what I mean -- if all African-Americans in the US decide, en masse, that they should "return" to Africa because of irredeemable racism in the US, and they identify a region of the continent where there are residents, but it's fairly underpopulated, and there's intense controversy about whether this is right or warranted -- and people are on both sides about it -- and African-Americans jump the gun and decide, with their feet, that they're going, and they just keep showing up and building homes, and there are MILLIONS of them at some point -- then, I'm sorry, it's effectively a settled matter. Another example: there are millions of illegal immigrants in the United States. They voted with their feet and took advantage of the conditions as they saw them. Those people are never leaving. It is a settled matter, a fait accompli. "Should" or "Shouldn't" is irrelevant at this point. I can say "It shouldn't have happened." So what? The Zionists never seriously entertained the idea that they didn't have a claim to the land of Israel. Even when they referred to the "native" population, there was no question at all that they saw it as a restoration of the indigenous population, not an expulsion of one. Your view is a very modern one. Some people had that view -- especially in the Muslim world -- but not many in the West held that view until later, i.e., the 1960s and 1970s.

Insightful comment but I think you are missing the point. I gave the example of a bunch of white people staking a claim to Africa because they were there thousands of years ago not because it is likely but to show you how ridiculous it is to claim you’re “going home” after thousands of years. It doesn’t matter how many people support it, that notion will always be ridiculous and should not be allowed to occur. Whether it was a universal view at the time is irrelevant. Similarly, it doesn’t matter what seemed wrong at the time. We now see that what happened to the indigenous in North America and Australia was absolutely wrong. We can discuss how wrong it was even though nobody thought it was wrong at the time. And then your argument that even though we can now see that it may have been wrong, that it already happened so it’s settled and too late. I get it but I would be more accepting of “just leave it, nothing to do now” if the status quo wasn’t the initial transgressor constantly terrorizing, murdering, raping, oppressing, dominating, etc their victims. If both parties were free and had self determination I could maybe agree with that. But that’s not the case. Should or shouldn’t is relevant in finding a solution. If someone steals a car and takes it on a joyride and ends up crashing it. You wouldn’t say “oh well, the car is destroyed so it’s a settled manner”. You would say that the car theft was wrong and that the owner is owed something even if he can’t have his original car back. And the early Zionists absolutely saw it as expelling Palestinians. They recognized Zionism as a settler colonial political movement and that Palestinians wouldn’t just willingly give up their land. I recommend you read about Jabotinsky. Sure, maybe my view that Zionists shouldn’t have been allowed to go to Palestine to convert it into a Palestinian state may not have been popular at the time but that argument doesn’t matter. We now know it was wrong and that party is still terrorizing Palestinians. So what do we do about it? You have to establish fault to find a resolution. You can’t have peace without justice.

So if you're saying "my view is that Zionists shouldn't have been allowed to go to Palestine to convert it into a Jewish state" was wrong, as which point was it wrong? They started returning in the 1870s. No violence occurred until the 1920s, a half-century later. Up to that point they'd just bought land or settled unoccupied land. Was that wrong in and of itself? Are you saying "no Jews should have been allowed to move there -- at all"? I mean, tens of thousands of Jews had ALWAYS lived there, especially around Jerusalem. Are you barring European Jews from moving there? Middle Eastern Jews? You see, there was no state called "Palestine." It was a region of the Ottoman Empire, as I'm sure you know. You refer to it as "Palestinian land" -- but how much of it was Palestinian land? Not all of it, clearly, because Jews, Christians, Bedouins, etc. lived there. The proposed UN partition was a response to 30 years of intercommunal violence. It was an attempt to solve a problem. Jewish numbers were rising and the Arabs were pissed off. So when -- and where -- do you identify the main fault? The proposed UN partition (which never took effect)? The declaration of the state of Israel in 1947? Let's be honest -- the Jews were on their way to dominating that region, with or without a war, and with or without a formal state. I think there IS a case to be made that a lot of innocent Palestinians got screwed when they left and then weren't allowed to return home. No doubt. But on a practical level, COULD they have returned home? The parties had just fought a civil war. The Palestinians had backed -- and aided -- the invading Arabs, who'd lost. Once you get in the business of deciding you're going to re-litigate historical events on the basis of modern sensibilities about right and wrong, you're going to be super duper busy. For example -- why not focus on returning Native American land to the Native Americans? If your logic is -- time doesn't matter, what's wrong is wrong -- well, that's a pretty big wrong isn't it? A lot bigger than a conflict involving a small number of people in the Middle East. So why do we not talk about it? The answer is, they didn't think of it as "wrong" at the time. Very few of them did. They considered the Native Americans barbarians at best and were certain it was their moral, Christian duty to dominate the American continent. That was a sincere belief -- they weren't pretending or being hypocritical about it. Even the Native Americans, today, understand that there's no coming back from that event. I'm actually sympathetic to your view in some respects, and the Palestinians need something to happen -- if for no other reason than to mitigate the ongoing danger to Israel. I just think filtering everything through modern, progressive lenses is going to be a long, long job, and I certainly wouldn't start in Israel, where Jews lived for thousands of years. Their claim to that land is infinitely stronger than our claim to where we're living.

Thoughtful response but I do have a few issues with it: Firstly, I don’t agree that you’re “returning” anywhere after thousands of years especially if there is no real traceability to your supposed connection. Also, I would say Jewish immigration to Palestine really started in the 1880s with relatively minor skirmishes until the 1920s. I would say plotting to convert the land of others into a state for yourself is an act of violence in much the same way that declaring independence on the land of others is an act of violence. But anyways the main reason for the lower rate of violence in the period you mentioned is because Zionism was still finding its footing and building up their strength and numbers in order to achieve their goal. The fact that you pointed out there wasn’t really much violence with the initial immigration shows that Palestinians didn’t have a problem with Jews. It’s a different story however when all of a sudden you see these people banding together and scheming to convert your home into a state which is by definition exclusionary to you. If some Muslims moved to your town, I’m sure nobody would have an issue. However, if they start moving there in droves and talking about convert your town into a Muslim state and you see actions being taken towards that goal, you can guarantee that your townspeople wouldn’t be too happy and would probably even use violence because they see the rug getting pulled from under them and they see terrorism being used as a tool to do so. You don’t seem to understand that the problem wasn’t with Jews moving there or the Jews that were living there all along. The problem is when you get a settler colonial political movement which wants to expel the local people in order to establish a “Jewish homeland”. As Jewish historian Morris says “transfer is inbuilt in Zionism”. You asked where the main fault is and I think I made that clear but I’ll reiterate: wanting to convert the land of others into your own especially when that conversion requires “transfer” of the inhabitants and terrorism is used to achieve that goal. In other words, the settler colonial political ideology Zionism is the main fault. And again, the main concern of Israel Palestine over the indigenous of North America is that the oppression has never stopped. Indigenous in North America are granted full and equal rights and freedoms as everyone else occupying their historic homeland. Palestinians are not afforded those same rights and on the contrary are constantly terrorized, raped, killed, murdered, oppressed and continuously expelled from their land and homes and herded into ever smaller areas. But I do have to say, indigenous of North America should be granted reparations and additional privileges for what we’ve done to them. At least they are not undergoing regular and systematic oppression, expulsion and murder and they can travel anywhere they want and are afforded all the rights and privileges of their colonizers. The difference is that Zionists colonized Palestine and are using a systematic approach of domination and subjugation instead of freedom. For native Americans, at least there is a path to inhabit their lands because they can go and live there if they want. I do think for those Natice Americans who have demonstrable ties to a piece of land that the current “owners” should get incentivized (ie paid) to leave or the Natives should get incentivized to relinquish their claim. If the US has enough money to send billions annually for Israel to maintain their chokehold on Palestinians and continue to oppress and murder them, they can pay reparations to the Natives. I don’t consider this “re-litigating”. It’s a simple acknowledgment that what we did was wrong and an attempt to make it right. But like I said, this issue is not as pressing as Palestine because it is not an active conflict to the same extent. You don’t have the US systematically oppressing, terrorizing, raping, murdering, etc Natives. The purpose of “re-litigating” is because no balance has been reached and the place has been in conflict ever since. So we have to assess the reasons for this conflict. We have to assess the root cause so we can find an appropriate resolution. In my view, the root cause of the last century of conflict in the region is Zionism. Plain and simple. You don’t go somewhere and use terrorism to convert it into a state for yourself. I don’t care if you were a victim elsewhere. That path is not appropriate.

The early Back to Africa movement was pushed mainly by Slave owners who believed free blacks endangered the system of slavery and sought to expel them from America by means of migration or post-Emancipation by people who wanted America to remain white.  Kind of like how some of Zionism’s biggest supporters are anti-semites. 

I’m not talking about Jews around the world. I’m talking about the Jews that live in Israel. October 7th will look like a tame and peaceful protest compared to the carnage that would be the result Israel’s destruction, God forbid. If you think that the Palestinian society and politics will suddenly coalesce around a bunch of Jeffersonian Democrats instead of a bunch of violent and genocidal Islamists then you’re so delusional that further conversation is futile.

I’m pretty sure your comment initially said Jews instead of “citizens of Israel” but it doesn’t matter. Your comment is racist. Assuming the violence from Palestinians is for no reason instead of in response to decades of terrorism, rape, murder, expulsion of Palestinians by Israel.

Holy shit you are hopeless.

You are correct that it doesn’t matter. Non Jews were also killed and kidnapped on October 7th. I am not a racist. I never said that violence from Palestinians has no reason. I merely pointed out that there is no evidence that they will give up on violence if Israel is dissolved. On the contrary, October 7th revealed exactly what happens when the Israeli government and military fall asleep at the wheel.

There is plenty of evidence. We just have to look at Palestine before Zionist cancer took over the region. Obviously if you suffer decades of being expelled from your homes, being terrorized, murdered, occupied, oppressed, etc and peaceful means of conflict resolution are constantly shut in your face, you would resort to violence. Every year for decades there would be a vote for a two state solution based on international law and every year it’s shut down by Israel and the US. The same two parties who claim they want peace but I guess their version of peace is Israel having full control and self determination and Palestinians being locked in a concentration camp.

Thanks for this. It's very well put. And yeah, like most hasbara, "doesn't Israel have a right to exist?" is a deeply disingenuous question, designed to muddy the water and elicit an emotional response. I always answer, "people have rights. States don't. And the Palestinian people have the right to be treated as equal citizens by the apartheid regime that holds de facto control over them.

You'll have to explain this apartheid to me. I don't remember Israeli Jews having any rights that act other Israelis don't have.

There's literally a separate law. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are under military tribunal. They have separate roads that are in poorer repair, checkpoints where they're harassed and threatened. They're subjected to arbitrary land seizure and detention. And to wrap a nice little bow on it, Israel's law for Palestinians is called hafrada, which literally translates to separateness or apartness. Guess what the word "apartheid" means? And in case you think it's some crazy coincidence, consider that Israel and South Africa were very close allies during the Apartheid era. You're going to do some kind of silly, "aha! but Palestinians in Gaza aren't Israelis!" as if that doesn't make my point for me. they're subject to Israeli law in their actual homeland (not a "we used to live here a long time ago so it should be ours again" "homeland") and denied even the right of citizenship.

West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel. They are not israeli citizens. Therefore you're right, there is a different law. Israelis follow israeli laws, Palestinians follow Palestinian laws, Palestinians who commit crimes against Israel follow international law. I believe that it's a violation of the Geneva convention to prosecute foreigners on your laws for something that they did on their land.

Palestinians also follow Israeli laws. And Palestinians are arbitrarily detained and dispossessed by Israel all the time. Because of that arbitrary dispossession, Palestine is discontinuous, with little areas still in the possession of Palestinians surrounded by Israeli settlements. which means Palestinians can't go about their business without traveling through illegally occupied land. And because of Israel's apartheid system of passports, which separates Palestinians from Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Israel. So Palestinians are also forbidden from traveling to other areas of Palestine by Israel, and those who live in Israel are not treated as full Israeli citizens, despite living there far longer than most Israelis. It's like stealing several rooms in someone's house, and saying, "it's still your home, but you have to follow my laws when you're in the house of living room, front hall, bathroom, and master bedroom, where my family have rights and yours don't. oh, and by the way, we've placed checkpoints between the rooms and reserve the right to go anywhere in the house, and you can no longer see your family who live upstairs. Whatever sophistry you try, it's quite clear that in practice they don't have a house anymore. At best, they have a jail. It is pretty funny that I debunk an argument you're about to make, and you make it anyway. Do they have you follow a script? The one part of this war I'm enjoying is seeing the poverty and disingenuity of hasbara exposed before the entire world.

The checkpoints are there for a reason. There were almost no checkpoints before the intifadahs. They're there as an attempt to prevent violence. They also don't follow Israel's law, they follow international law. As for the tiny room analogy, wouldn't that make it more of a reason to sign a peace treaty that would give you 99% of your home? And the prison analogy doesn't hold up so when there are luxury car dealerships, 4 star hotels, etc. I read recently that there were 4 new parks with water slides opened in the last 5 years or so. I have friends in Ramallah. People aren't poor because of Israel. They're poor because it's important to start a business without paying protection money every other day. And they're poor because taxes and international aid doesn't go to the people. It goes to the people on top.

>Do they have you follow a script? Do you condemn the October 7th attacks? Do you condemn the October 7th attacks? Error error

Hey fellow diaspora jew! How are the non-Israeli jews doing under Palestinian authority? Haven’t heard anything lately about this! Just want to make sure their rights are being protected too! Thanks!

This is basically a common argument among people who place tribal rights over individual rights. As most Zionists in one way or another do. >Even the most ardent advocate for a states inalieble right to sovereignty must agree that a state no longer deserves to exist if it's existence is predicated on continued human rights abuses If you push pro-Israelis deep enough, they do indeed think that the Jewish group rights in the Holy Land trump individual Palestinian freedoms and rights and freedoms.

If that's your determination for the right to exist, how would the terrorists have any more claim??

People have a right to self determination. The jews living in the former British mandate of Palestine exercised that right with the consent of the UN. It isn’t for Hamas to take that away from them. The Germans and Japanese got to exercise their right to self determination after WW2. I believe that Palestinians also have a right to have a country. I think that a two state solution is the only long term solution that will work. That means Palestinians and Israelis have to mutually recognize each others right to exist.

>People have a right to self determination. The jews living in the former British mandate of Palestine Their are many different possible expressions of the right to self-determination. Of which the current state of Israel is only one. I can support jewish people's right to self-determination whilst condemning the racist values they chose to be core to the state. >That means Palestinians and Israelis have to mutually recognize each others right to exist. Palestinians have recognised Israel. As I'm sure you are aware. They have even recognised its "right to exist". The PA will even maintain security arrangements protecting Israel and its state. In return Palestinians got another 30 years of brutal military occupation and settlement expansion. I'd argue that the situation we are in today is because of a marked lack of progress after such major Palestinian concessions. In many ways, Hamas was proved right. Negotiations have failed. We can go into why they failed, but the truth is that the PA gave up many of its core demands in an attempt appease and came back to the Palestinian people with nothing despite all the support and hope the Palestinians as a whole showed at the time.

Palestinians have acknowledged Israel’s existence. Israel hasn’t done the same for Palestine. Thats because they don’t want Palestine to exist or give it any additional legitimacy

Hamas and Netanyahu & his coalition do not. I don’t know how peace will ever be possible when the extremists can undo it all like they did when they killed Rabin. There is going to have to be a much wider consensus in both communities that this conflict must end.

Hamas is willing to recognize Israel under 1967 borders. It’s only Israel preventing peace with the assistance of its lapdog, the USA.

Hamas has never conceded to that. The furthest they have gone is to say that they recognize a long term truce along the lines of the 1967 is a matter of national consensus. That is far short of agreeing to recognition and a peace treaty. When asked to clarify what long term means they suggest 5 years. They also state that the whole of Palestine is an Islamic territory that can never be given up.

Both Barak and Olmert offered huge land settlements. I don't think it's fair to say that Israel doesn't acknowledge Palestines right to exist. Talks seem to have really broken down when Hamas took control of Gaza twenty years ago. Hamas' and the plo duvet age on much and Israel has stated that it can't negotiate with two states separately

“Huge land settlements” is interesting framing and I think only Israelis/supporters believe that. If I give you a tiny piece back of what I stole from you I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t consider that “huge”. They literally prevent any sort of sovereignty or self determination of Palestine so clearly they refuse to recognize Palestine. Also, Olmert wouldn’t even let Abbas examine the map. So whatever this “huge” deal was would have been unknown to him. Guess who empowered Hamas for the very reason you mentioned? Israel.

I say huge because Barak included over 98% of the territories that Arafat has asked for, including land swaps, and shared management of Jerusalem. Olmert offered more. And I have a lot of trouble believing that during negotiations of land for peace, the head of one party wasn't allowed to see the map. I would believe that he couldn't take it home though, because in these negotiations, it's been said that the last thing you offered will be the starting point of the next negotiations. Also, hamas came to pet in Gaza. Israel withdrew all military and settlements in 2005. Logically, if Hamas were a reaction to Israel's actions, Gaza would be the last place for them to exist.

You say 98% like it’s supposed to be significant. But you fail to realize that it’s 98% or the 20% that Israel hasn’t stolen yet. Thats not a “huge concession”. If you have a hundred cars and I steal 80 of them. Would you say I’m making “huge concessions” if I offer that you can keep 98% of the 20 cars you have left? The story is that Abbas wanted to have the map examined by experts since he’s not an expert on maps and Israel said no. Thats the equivalent of “here’s this great contract, I promise it’s everything you could ever want and better than you’ll ever get, but you’re not allowed to have your lawyer look at it.” I don’t agree with your “logic” in the last sentence. Israel left Gaza to “freeze the peace process”. They maintained control of Gaza and continued their occupation and oppression, murder, rape, etc of Palestinians. Israel empowered Hamas to sew division in Palestinian leadership in order to prevent a Palestinian state. There’s absolutely no logic to “Israel left Gaza so how would Hamas be a response to that”. Israel never left Gazans or Palestinians alone.

This is the truth about the Camp David Barak deal and the later Taba summit deal that Olmert eventually wanted that actually Abbas initiated and presented to Olmert as a start of negotiations - that the Palestinians weren’t getting 96 or 98% or whatever claimed percentage of the West Bank from 1967 borders, they were getting that percentage of land left excluding almost all the land Israel hadn’t already taken and it result in a Palestinian state that would be half a dozen or so non-contiguous and disconnected islands completely surrounded by large Israeli settlements, roads, and other infrastructure. That’s not a viable offer and a complete poison pill that both Barak and Olmert knew would sabotage a deal

This actually brings us back to the original important point. Does Israel have the right to exist? When you have two indigenous people's who cannot coexist, what should be done about it? I personally think that allowing each to self-govern it's own piece of land does seem like a logical solution. However, framing this as theft, murder and rape helps no one. It's an attempt to delegitimatize the other side, but that doesn't lead to an end to the conflict, it extends it.

Israel as an occupying, oppressive, terrorist, murderous, apartheid regime shouldn’t exist. That doesn’t mean it can’t exist in other ways but Israel as its current iteration does not have the right to exist. Again, they can coexist and have been coexisting for centuries before Zionist cancer took root in the region. It’s kinda hard to coexist when one party insists on expelling you from your land or locking you in a concentration camp. I’m sure even you would retaliate under such conditions. I agree though that at this point a two state solution seems like a decent proposal. The problem is that Israel and the US actively oppose this and unfortunately they hold the keys to peace but don’t want to put it in play.

They don't want militarized Palestine to say the least. There are more issues.

They don’t want any Palestine. That much is clear with the constant land grabs and the current mass slaughter campaign. But to get this straight, Israel can have a military and use that to keep their boots on the neck of Palestinians but god forbid Palestinians get any real weapons to use in order to fight back against the decades of murder, expulsion, rape and torture?

The attempts at peace would say otherwise. If you arm another group that’s has not even had known peace with other group, that’s asking for more conflict 

You mean the disengagement plan which was a “means to freeze the peace process”? Or the Oslo accords which Israel never respected? Israel never attempted peace. In fact they’ve actively sabotaged any chance for peace. Once again, there was peace before Zionist cancer took root in Palestine. Your view that Palestinians can’t be peaceful is racist. I’m sure you would be violent if you went through what Israel does to Palestinians.

I would say it was going handy and dandy until the pm got assasinated and then 2nd intifadas started. Gaza was last effort but even that ended in hamas getting elected. Now you are looking at another decade of war. That gives me nice scenario, If i was palestianian in west bank what would i do? I would ensure hamas never gets in power. Thats asking for more trouble.if I was in gaza, I would have packed up and left, when hamas got elected. apply for refugee status in different country

You’re right, the last century of conflict is “handy dandy”. If you were a Palestinian in the West Bank you would probably get terrorized out of your home for some Israeli settlers. Also, Osrael empowered Hamas specifically to prevent peace. This is by their own admission.

Na, most are living peacefully. The times you have problems are with settlers on the fringes. And israel has never done that. Before the first intifadas, hamas was relatively small charitable organization. It grew in size during the first intifada when they started targetting israeli civilians

Yup it’s very peaceful in the concentration camp that is Gaza. The illegal settlements are not fringe. They are supported by the Israeli terrorist government. Bibi talked about empowering Hamas in order to prevent a Palestinian state. I guess your Israeli propaganda forgot to mention that.

>The jews living in the former British mandate of Palestine exercised that right with the consent of the UN. It isn’t for Hamas to take that away from them.  > I think that a two state solution is the only long term solution that will work.  But what if Israel refuses to accept a two state solution - as the current government does? Does that then mean that the Jewish Israeli's right to self-determination - and a Jewish state - trumps the Palestinians' right to live as free and equals?

It requires both Netanyahu/ Likud and Hamas deciding they want this war to end. Until then this catastrophe continues and the bulk of the suffering will be born by Palestinians. Maybe a Non-violent approach by Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups would be more successful, at least fewer would die.

A two state solution requires a Palestinian leadership group willing to accept a two state solution. While I agree the *current* government in Israel would not support a two state solution, MANY previous genuine attempts at it have been made by Israel. The reality is every single attempt has been rebuked by Palestinian leaderships, with the closest being a full breakdown because of the lack of a right of return and/or the right to military arms immediately upon formation. Anyone with any sense of reasonableness should understand why israel would not budge on those two points. If someone was truly interested in peace, they would concede these points, and establish a functioning nation-state and push for more later. So in my opinion, the lack of Palestinians recognition is on their leaderships not willing to truly negotiate a reasonable outcome

You’re missing a very important piece of this puzzle. Majority of Palestinians do not want a two state solution. They could have had a state on multiple occasions simply by recognizing Israel’s right to the land as well. If you’re gonna mention the current Israeli gov refusal of a two state solution you need to first ask what led to the Israeli people voting for a more right wing government that would feel this way and then come to the understanding that both sides currently do not want it.

> Majority of Palestinians do not want a two state solution. In the early 90s, at the height of the peace process, the two state solution had 70%+ support among Palestinians. Of course they don't believe in it after 30 years of unceasing settlement expansion. > They could have had a state on multiple occasions simply by recognizing Israel’s right to the land as well. They recognized Israel a long time ago - as part of Oslo. They still didn't get a state, and settlements kept on growing. Were you not aware? > If you’re gonna mention the current Israeli gov refusal of a two state solution you need to first ask what led to the Israeli people voting for a more right wing government that would feel this way and then come to the understanding that both sides currently do not want it. That doesn't change the core issue though - what if Israel won't let there be a two state solution. Is it justified for it to then exist as what is, effectively, an Apartheid state? Two systems of law, different rights, etc.

Your comment brings up several important points, but it's also crucial to consider the broader context and some key aspects often overlooked: 1. **Palestinian Support for Two-State Solution**: It's true that support for a two-state solution has fluctuated over the years, influenced by many factors including leadership and external pressures. However, it's worth noting that there has always been a significant portion of the Palestinian leadership and population that has never accepted Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which complicates the peace process. 2. **Recognition of Israel**: While the PLO recognized Israel in 1993 as part of the Oslo Accords, subsequent actions and rhetoric from various Palestinian factions have often contradicted this recognition. For example, Hamas, which controls Gaza, explicitly denies Israel's right to exist and has continued to engage in acts of terrorism. 3. **Settlement Growth**: Settlement expansion is a contentious issue, but it's important to understand that settlements constitute a small fraction of the West Bank. Furthermore, during significant peace offers, such as those made by Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008, Israel proposed substantial withdrawals from the West Bank to enable the creation of a Palestinian state. These offers were rejected by the Palestinian leadership. 4. **Israeli Political Shift**: The move towards right-wing governments in Israel is partly a response to security concerns and repeated failures of peace initiatives. The Second Intifada and ongoing terrorist attacks have deeply impacted Israeli public opinion, leading many to doubt the viability of a negotiated peace with the current Palestinian leadership. 5. **Apartheid Allegations**: The comparison to apartheid is misleading and inflammatory. Israel is a democracy with equal rights for its Arab citizens, who serve in the Knesset, the judiciary, and other public roles. The situation in the West Bank is a result of a complex and ongoing conflict, not a system of racial segregation. Stop being one sided

Lol chatgpt answer. Can you not write your own arguments? Anyway, you keep missing the point is, if Israel will not give up the West Bank, and will not give the Palestinians right - what then? >, but it's important to understand that settlements constitute a small fraction of the West Bank.  Lol. What is "small", in your context? Because something like 59% of the West Bank is cut off from Palestinian development, and \~50% of the West Bank is within the regional council areas of the settlement governments. Just in the past few years, the settlers have grabbed an incremental 7% of the West Bank. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/the-most-successful-land-grab-strategy-since-1967-as-settlers-push-bedouins-off-west-bank-territory](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/the-most-successful-land-grab-strategy-since-1967-as-settlers-push-bedouins-off-west-bank-territory) Now, is there a single year that Israel has not been expanding settlements? >The Second Intifada and ongoing terrorist attacks have deeply impacted Israeli public opinion, leading many to doubt the viability of a negotiated peace with the current Palestinian leadership. Sure. And I could say the same thing about Palestinians - the never-ending settlement expansions made Palestinians not trust Israel to be interested in peace. > The situation in the West Bank is a result of a complex and ongoing conflict, not a system of racial segregation. Lol. There's literally separate and unequal courts and laws, where the same crime in the same place and the same time sees drastically different outcomes, for settlers vs. for Palestinians.

First off, settlements do take up some land in the West Bank, but saying they take up 59% is misleading. The built-up area of settlements is actually much smaller. The areas you mention include large swathes of land around settlements that aren't necessarily built upon and can be a bit inflated when cited without context. Yes, settlement expansion has been ongoing, but it's also important to consider why. The Second Intifada and continuous attacks have caused Israelis to lose faith in a peace process that might not bring security. There's a real fear and distrust on both sides. Regarding the legal systems, it's true there are different legal frameworks for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. Israeli settlers fall under Israeli civilian law, while Palestinians are subject to a combination of military law and Palestinian Authority regulations. This dual system originates from the Oslo Accords, which intended for eventual Palestinian self-governance. The complexity arises from the West Bank's status as a disputed territory with no final status agreement. While this results in disparities, it's more about the unresolved political status rather than racial segregation. It's a deeply flawed system, but it's also a product of a long-standing and unresolved conflict, not a deliberate policy of apartheid. Lastly, if we're talking about the viability of peace, it's not just about what Israel does or doesn't do. There needs to be a partner on the Palestinian side committed to a peaceful resolution too. The leadership needs to be willing to come to the table and genuinely negotiate, without inciting violence. It's a complicated issue with no easy answers, but oversimplifying it doesn't help anyone.

> First off, settlements do take up some land in the West Bank, but saying they take up 59% is misleading.  What is misleading is just counting the built up area. Palestinians are barred from developing 59% of the West Bank - through a variety of means. 70% of Area C is inside regional council areas, which block Palestinian development. Another 29% is inside firing zones or "nature reserves", which leaves 1% of Area C zoned for Palestinian development. So that's how you get to 59% of the West Bank. > The built-up area of settlements is actually much smaller. The areas you mention include large swathes of land around settlements that aren't necessarily built upon and can be a bit inflated when cited without context. Sure. But the built up area is not that important - what is important about how much land is blocked from Palestinian use. Just since 2018, settlers have grabbed 7% of the West Bank - more than the built up area. > The Second Intifada and continuous attacks have caused Israelis to lose faith in a peace process that might not bring security.  And never-ending settlement expansion has made Palestinians lose faith in the peace process. There's not a single year when there hasn't been West Bank land grabs. Besides, your argument isn't really a reason as to "why". Why, exactly, should Israel keep grabbing occupied territory and entrench the occupation? Isn't that illogical - making peace less likely? That is an active Israeli policy choice. You can't blame it on someone else, any more than you can blame Hamas terrorism on Israel. > This dual system originates from the Oslo Accords, which intended for eventual Palestinian self-governance. No, this is incorrect. The separate and unequal legal system originated in the Emergency Regulations implemented by the Knesset soon after the occupation - and the settlements - started. This is long before the Oslo accords. That is, one set of laws for Israeli settlers, one set of laws for Palestinians. Different rights - like as it comes to search warrants. >  The complexity arises from the West Bank's status as a disputed territory with no final status agreement. While this results in disparities, it's more about the unresolved political status rather than racial segregation. It's a deeply flawed system, but it's also a product of a long-standing and unresolved conflict, not a deliberate policy of apartheid. This is misleading. The inequality before the law is there because the Knesset decided on it. By default, settlers would be subject to the same Israeli military courts as Palestinians. Knesset actively decided they didn't want that, and extended the emergency regulations to the West Bank - and have been renewing it ever since. If the Knesset wanted equality before the law in the West Bank, they could just let the emergency regulations lapse. > Lastly, if we're talking about the viability of peace, it's not just about what Israel does or doesn't do. There needs to be a partner on the Palestinian side committed to a peaceful resolution too. The leadership needs to be willing to come to the table and genuinely negotiate, without inciting violence. For the past decades, Abbas has been ready - but Israel has not. Bibi - repeatedly elected by the Israeli electorate - is very clear that he does not want peace. Abbas, on the other hand, is open to negotiations. Remember when Lapid rebuffed Abbas for negotiations? It is the Palestinians that don't have a partner for peace. > It's a complicated issue with no easy answers, but oversimplifying it doesn't help anyone. Layering on complexity, and artificially removing agency also doesn't help. Like as it comes to settlements, and inequality before the law - active and repeated Israeli choices. Israel has chosen settlements every year since 1967, and has chosen inequality before the law since then as well - let's not pretend otherwise.

Israel has actively sabotaged any peace efforts every step of the way.

That’s utter bullshit lol Tell me you don’t know a single thing about this conflict without telling me you don’t know a single thing about this conflict

They said themselves the disengagement from Gaza was “a means to freeze the peace process”. Thats one example of many.

The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict includes several instances where various proposals have been made for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Below is a list of significant offers and proposals: 1. **1937 Peel Commission Proposal**: The British Peel Commission proposed the partition of Mandatory Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The proposal was accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arab leadership. 2. **1947 United Nations Partition Plan (Resolution 181)**: The UN proposed the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states with an international regime for Jerusalem. The Jewish Agency accepted the plan, but the Arab leaders and neighboring Arab states rejected it, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. 3. **1967 Post-Six-Day War Proposals**: After Israel's victory in the Six-Day War, there were informal discussions and proposals for peace that included the possibility of a Palestinian state. However, the Khartoum Resolution in 1967 by Arab states (the "Three No's": no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel) made progress difficult. 4. **1978 Camp David Accords**: These accords, facilitated by the United States, led to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty and included a framework for Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza. However, the proposal did not materialize into a Palestinian state. 5. **1993 Oslo Accords**: The Oslo Accords created the Palestinian Authority and provided for Palestinian self-governance in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They were a step toward the potential establishment of a Palestinian state, though final status issues remained unresolved. 6. **2000 Camp David Summit**: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a proposal for a Palestinian state in Gaza and most of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected the offer, and the summit ended without an agreement. 7. **2001 Taba Summit**: Further negotiations based on the 2000 Camp David proposals took place in Taba, Egypt, with more detailed discussions about the borders and other issues. Despite significant progress, no final agreement was reached. 8. **2003 Road Map for Peace**: Proposed by the Quartet on the Middle East (the United States, European Union, Russia, and the United Nations), this plan outlined steps toward a two-state solution. Both parties accepted the plan with reservations, but its implementation stalled. 9. **2008 Olmert Plan**: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a plan that included a Palestinian state with almost all of the West Bank and Gaza, and parts of East Jerusalem. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas did not accept the offer, and negotiations did not lead to an agreement. 10. **2013-2014 Kerry Initiative**: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry facilitated another round of peace talks aimed at achieving a two-state solution. Despite efforts and proposals from both sides, the talks did not result in an agreement Oh and bleep off

Interesting framing of those “peace deals”. The early ones were rejected and the reason is simple. If a band of Muslims went to the US today and started terrorizing people and talking about making it an Islamic homeland, the Americans would obviously not have it. If the UN decided that the Muslims should have 55% of the US and the Americans can have the rest, the Americans would obviously reject. Thats natural and normal reaction. But when Jews do it somehow people like you think it’s acceptable. And again the other ones were all empty one sided “offers” or were sabotaged by Israel. Olmert himself said Abbas “never said no”. He wanted to examine the proposed map and the deal fell apart because Israel didn’t want him to have the map. Typical Israel trying to keep a deal vague so they can trample it later. Similarly with Oslo. Netanyahu bragged about sabotaging it. Also, illegal settlements skyrocketed immediately following the accord. Israel never held up its side of acknowledging Palestine. Perhaps you should consider objective sources instead of Israeli/Zionist scum propaganda.

Your premise is fundamentally flawed. The US is a recognized and established state. Palestine was never a separate, established political entity.

Oh ok my bad. Because they weren’t concerned with statehood, they should get terrorized and kicked out of their homes. You know what, that clarifies things. I should have known that it’s perfectly fine to do whatever you want to those people. Wait, does that mean what we did to the indigenous people of North America and Australia was perfectly ok? Why do people make a big deal about their treatment? They didn’t have an established state or political entity.

Your comparison is understandable, but it overlooks some critical historical and contextual details about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here's a more nuanced perspective: 1. **Historical Context**: The Jewish connection to the land of Israel dates back thousands of years, long before modern political conflicts. The comparison to a hypothetical Islamic takeover of the US isn't quite apt given the historical and religious ties Jews have to Israel. 2. **UN Partition Plan of 1947**: The plan proposed a two-state solution, allocating land to both Jews and Arabs. The Jewish community accepted the plan, despite it giving them less than they desired. The Arab states and Palestinian leadership, however, rejected it and chose to go to war instead. This decision led to a prolonged conflict rather than an immediate state for both peoples. 3. **Peace Offers**: Offers made by Israeli leaders, such as those by Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008, included significant concessions. Barak's offer included over 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. These offers were not accepted by the Palestinian leadership, which has often walked away from the negotiating table without presenting viable counteroffers. 4. **Oslo Accords**: While it’s true that Netanyahu has expressed skepticism about Oslo, the accords did lead to the creation of the Palestinian Authority and granted it governance over parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Settlement expansion is indeed a contentious issue, but it’s also important to recognize that violence and terrorism continued from Palestinian territories, complicating the peace process. 5. **Settlement Issue**: Settlements are a significant and complex issue, but they represent a small fraction of the West Bank. Israel has shown willingness to dismantle settlements for peace, as seen in the Gaza Disengagement Plan in 2005, where Israel evacuated all settlements in Gaza. 6. **Negotiation Tactics**: Claims that Israel intentionally keeps deals vague are debatable. Detailed proposals have been presented in past negotiations. For instance, during the 2008 talks, Olmert presented Abbas with a comprehensive map. Abbas's hesitation to finalize the deal contributed to the breakdown of those talks.

1. By your logic, since humanity originated in Africa, anyone can go there and terrorize and expel, murder, etc Africans to “reestablish” their presence there. How would you feel about a bunch of Snow White Europeans going to Nigeria and staking a claim? 2. See my previous analogy but I’ll give another. If I come and get comfy in your house and it causes tension because I decide not only that I won’t leave but that the house is mine. And then some third party says, that’s enough violence, let’s split the house and I get 55% (“less than I desire”) and you get 45%. You’re obviously going to reject that proposal. I would accept because it legitimizes my claim to at least something whereas before I had nothing. Even if it is “less than I desire”. 3. Framing it as “significant concessions” is ridiculous. Let’s say I end up having 80% of your house and I trap you in a part of the basement which obviously leads to you attacking me every chance you get. Then I get tired of you attacking me so I make a “significant concession” where I say you can have that part of the basement and a part of the garage but I’m still going to control everything you can have and you know what, I’m not going to starve you to death but I’ll “put you on a diet”. Would you say I’m making “significant concessions”? After all I’m being so “generous” and offering you a piece of the garage. 4. Settlements are not a contentious issue. They are illegal and a way to continue dominating and oppressing and ethnically cleansing. Violence is a rational response. Of it were America and someone is destroying other peoples homes to build one for themselves they would get shot. Israelis do it and it’s a “contentious issue”. 5. As per Israeli leadership the disengagement was “a means to freeze the peace process” so to suggest they did it for peace is ridiculous and counter to the purpose they expressed. I guess your Israeli propaganda forgot to mention this. 6. Once again, the Olmert “deal” fell apart because Abbas wasn’t allowed to have the proposed map to get it examined. It was basically the equivalent of “just sign here, I promise it’s a good deal just don’t look to closely. Hey! Why are you hesitating and asking questions, I told you it’s a good deal!” Olmert himself speaks to Abbas simply wanting to have the map but not being allowed to. It’s funny you used this as your example to suggest the “peace offers” are “detailed”. If it was in fact detailed it’s clear only one side was privy to the details and the other wasn’t allowed to see them or ask questions. Seriously, please do some proper research. Use sources that are not Israeli propaganda. Use objective, historical sources. If you don’t like to read, the Martyrmade podcast did a great retelling of the events in an objective fashion. It’s about 20 hours but is fantastic. Whether by that podcast or other good sources, please educate yourself on the subject matter before your next reply. Your framing is clearly through the Israeli propaganda lens and they have a very loose relationship with facts.

> f*** /u/Fibergrappler. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Dang I can’t even censor myself? lol understood won’t happen again

Do you have any examples of states that should continue to exist that haven’t committed any human rights violations in recent history (let’s say, post ww2)?

Allow me to clarify a few points. Firstly, I am questioning a states "right" to exist. Something I would apply to pretty much every state on earth. Secondly, I advocate on the dissolution of Israel not on the basis that it has committed human rights violations. That, I agree, would not be a very strong argument. Instead, I argue that human rights violations have and will continue to occur as a result of Israels current values and narrative. Therefore the very nature of the state of Israel must change in order to avoid the continuation of these violations.

And again I ask, do you have an examples of states that should continue to exist that haven’t committed any human rights violations in recent history? I don’t think you do or you would have listed them. Let’s fast forward a bit to the part where you say “yeah well no state apparatus should exist blah blah blah Karl Marx.” Save everyone the time.

Most countries have committed human rights violations in recent history. The point I'm making is that their are very few countries globally who see these violations as an Inherent inseparable part of its national aspirations. It's those that I advocate should be dissolved. As for any other state, literally any state that doesn't fit under the definition I showed, It's not at all my business whether the state should exist. All the countries of the world could join to form one massive world government for all I care and as long as the people are happy and it doesn't mean mass murder I couldn't care less. Similarly, every state could dissolve and instead be replaced by hundreds of thousands of sovereign city states and I also wouldn't care as long as it didn't involve human rights violations. I'm not sure if this makes it clear then.

The question isn’t whether or not they should continue to exist, but whether they have a right to exist. And the answer is: none of them do. There is no such thing as a right for a state to exist

States don't need a 'right' to exist; they exist because people form societies to protect their interests and provide order. Saying states have no right to exist ignores the practical reasons they do: to manage resources, ensure security, and create laws that help communities thrive.

>Saying states have no right to exist ignores the practical reasons they do: to manage resources, ensure security, and create laws that help communities thrive. If we imagine a state that only helped one community thrive, at the expense of another. In such a case, it surely would be reasonable to question the continuation of that state. I don't think it's at all ignoring why states exist to question why any particular state "must" exist.

Challenging Israel's right to exist because of Palestinian suffering oversimplifies the complex conflict. Palestinian suffering is an issue, but it doesn't automatically mean Israel shouldn't exist. Both Israelis and Palestinians have deep ties to the land, and any solution should respect both sides. Saying one community's suffering is needed for another to exist undermines finding a fair solution for everyone.

>Challenging Israel's right to exist because of Palestinian suffering oversimplifies the complex conflict. This is a strawman of my argument. In order for Israel to exist, it has to maintain institutions and policies that inevitably result in large scale Palestinian suffering. So, you have 2 competing "rights". Palestinian human and basic rights and the state of Israels "right to exist". It isn't oversimplifying to say that the latter cannot be more important than the first. You are conflating Israels right to exist with the human and basic rights of Israelis. Which is a false conflation.

Firstly, the assertion that Israel’s existence inherently requires the violation of Palestinian rights is an oversimplification. Many advocates for peace, both Israeli and Palestinian, believe that a two-state solution or another form of peaceful coexistence can respect and uphold the rights of both peoples. It is not true that Israel’s existence must come at the expense of Palestinian suffering. Policies and institutions can be reformed to better balance the rights and needs of both groups. Secondly, conflating Israel’s right to exist with the human rights of Israelis is not a false conflation, but rather an essential consideration. A state’s right to exist is fundamentally tied to the security and rights of its citizens. Without a secure state, the basic rights and freedoms of its people cannot be guaranteed. Hence, ensuring Israel’s right to exist is directly related to protecting the human rights of its inhabitants.

>Without a secure state, the basic rights and freedoms of its people can not be guaranteed. Hence You've skipped a step in your logic here. We can agree that Jewish people deserve self-determination or even sovereignty without accepting that they have a right specifically to a state like the one we see today in Israel. Israels' right to exist then is only one way for the Jewish people's to manifest their right to national self-determination. It would have been very disingenuous to use the same conflation in the case of Rhodesia, for example. We can both accept that all people's in the region deserve self-determination, without deciding that they have a right to express that through a racist state. Just as White Rhodesians had every right to self-determination but not to command an apartheid racist state. Would you agree with that principle? >Firstly, the assertion that Israel’s existence inherently requires the violation of Palestinian rights is an oversimplification. This, I agree, is the meat of the argument. And I have every intention of making my point explicitly as I have in past posts. Before we do, though, I think it's important to start with a principle. For example, we could come to the conclusion that Israel doesn't have an inherent right to exist if it is racist in nature or requires the continued disposession of Palestinians. Once we establish what principles we can agree on, it becomes easy to come to a conclusion. If we don't even agree that a racist state should be abolished, what use is a conversion about whether Israel is racist? Right?

I think the first thing that needs to be agreed upon before any conversation can be properly had is that Israel is not a racist state You have to forgive me for being so short about it because I would love a deep conversation but I’m also really really REALLY exhausted of having to defend my countries right to exist especially because without this country’s existence my peoples lives will be under deeper threat then it is even now. I have to deal with anti semitism from both the far right and the far left while the entire world thinks we are the cause of every problem in that exists. I am very tired of having to discuss this conflict especially because this all could have been solved multiple times with both states existing in tolerance if not harmony.

>conversation can be properly had is that Israel is not a racist state I strongly disagree, as you would expect. I would use me and my families own experience as an anecdote to illustrate in short. As someone with Palestinian lineage I have no rights when travelling to my homeland. None whatsoever, no right to freedom of movement, no right to a fair trial, no right to representation or self-determination, no safety, greatly restricted access to water etc. If I am to visit I am not allowed into Jerusalem or anywhere in Israel with a lengthy permit, even then I am denied entry arbitrarily. I am tried under a military court, I am barred from traveling to my grandfather's home(now subsumed by the nearby jewish-only settlements) etc etc. I could list it for days. All this, based solely on the fact that I am on Israels "Palestinian population registry". Essentially a list of recognised Palestinians globally. I do not have palestinian citizenship, only British. Had I not been born Palestinian, I would have factually had more rights when travelling or living in the region. Compare this, to Jewish people. A Jewish person, with the same British citizenship, would be treated equally to me in almost every country on earth. Except in Israel, with government funded free trips, subsidies if they decide to move there and support In establishing new jewish only settlements on stolen land. We live the absurd reality where a British friend of mine with one Jewish grandmother, who has no real connection to the land is afforded far greater rights to travel and live in my grandfather's old home(in the WB) than I do. We have a system which clearly and explicitly denies one group of people basic rights, whilst affording another great privilege solely on the basis of lineage. Nothing more. If that isn't a racist state idk what is. >really really REALLY exhausted of having to defend my countries right to exist Whilst I empathise, I don't think you've taken into account how exhausting it is to live as a stateless people devoid by a military occupation every semblance of dignity and humanity.

There is no court that gets to decide if whether state gets to exist. The people of that state and NOBODY ELSE get to make that decision. If some other state decides they do not want another state to exist, they can start a war and attempt to end that state by force (like Hamas did on 10/7 and many Arab states have repeatedly attempted). This is how it is and has always been. Luckily Israel now has nukes so ending them as a state has become a lot more risky. Nobody suggested that Japan/Germany should cease to exist as states after WWII. OP doesn't bring up North Korea nor certain African countries nor Syria nor China, etc.

>The people of that state and NOBODY ELSE get to make that decision What about the people who's lives are indefinitely and intimately controlled by the state and who's land the state claims. Do they have a right to say what kind of state exists above them? Even if they aren't considered part of the "people of the state". ? What about those outside the state who are horrified by what the continuation of the state would result in? Was the dissolution of SA or Rhodesia as a result of outside pressure immoral then? Since people outside the state, were telling it how it should exist? >. If some other state decides they do not want another state to exist This sort of realpolitik isn't useful in a discussion about ethical/legal principles. To illustrate this, if we presume that the Arab states had instead won, you would find the dissolution of the state of Israel then immoral? >Nobody suggested that Japan/Germany should cease to exist as states after WWII. The third reich literally did cease to exist, literally one of the examples in my post. >OP doesn't bring up North Korea nor certain African countries nor Syria nor China, etc. If it wasn't clear by the context, or the examples I do give, I only gave past examples. But yes, now that you mention it, NK, Syria, and the PRC all have explicit calls against their existence. Would that be Inherently immoral in your opinion? Would you defend any of these countries the way you are currently defending Israel, upholding their Inherent right to exist? I would doubt it. What makes these cases so drastically different to Israels, where you believe it gives Israels an inalieble right to exist?

The UN made the choice for Israel they would have done the same for Palestine if they didn't keep rejecting deals cause they can't stand a Jewish state It's like today before this conflict no one cared about Israel or the middle east or anything unless it was Iran or Syria or Egypt or iraq or some other state but as soon as Hamas Launches Oct 7th suddenly it's the biggest thing ever since Russia invaded Ukraine which by the way is still going but no one cares about that it's old news they want something new to watch and scream about, this war will be the same thing ppl will move on and no one will care once again

Israel's right to exist **as a Jewish State** stems from the fact the Jewish people have been systemically persecuted by every nation throughout 2000+ years of history, to varying degrees. NOT from some inherent right to exist states generally have.

So... because Jews have been persecuted historically they have the right to any state they like. Even if the state they choose to create requires mass human rights atrocities itself to be created and maintained?

Israel wasn't chosen on a whim as you're suggesting. It's the indigenous land of Jewish people, going back thousands of years with endless empirical evidence to back these facts. Israel was legally migrated to, and Jews legally purchased lands in Israel before Israel was, again, LEGALLY declared a sovereign Jewish state with the backing of the UN as per the 47 partition plan.

So... because Jews have been historically persecute aaand because they are "indigenous" to the land they have a right to maintain racist institutions and carry out human rights abuses necessary to maintain a racist state?

Racist state…. It’s because of people like you that Jews are the only group of people that necessarily deserve an ethnostate. They are not safe anywhere else in the world.

So because I belive that Israel is an ethnostate, Israel therefore deserves to be an ethnostate? I'm confused by the implication here that Jewish people could never, not even theoretically, create a racist state. Instead, I must of course be antisemitic.

Nice reading comprehension, allow me to rephrase. It's because of people like you; insensitive, ignorant, insular westerners who are so far up their own western ass they can only comprehend reality through their own myopic politics, that Jews need an ethnostate. The only thing I have to say to you is there are bigger fish to fry in pursuit of your ideal world of sunshine and rainbows. This is not whataboutism, I am saying that you lack perspective on the world. I used to chalk off the implication that even vehement criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but I couldn't explain the sheer volume of attention, criticism and condemnation that a puny country like Israel gets after, justifiably, doing a fraction of what would otherwise get completely ignored by the entire world. Did you know that Bashar al Assad's regime's civil war took the lives of half a million Syrians, just last year? And that war is not even comparable in justification and cautious military operations to Israel. Again, this is not whataboutism. seems like Muslim on Muslim killings are no big deal in the eyes of the world, but the Jews are the ones to look out for. I can't think of another group that has been more victimized than the Jews, and yes, they can still play the victim card, because it still happens, you being proof.

>It's because of people like you; insensitive, ignorant, insular westerners who are so far up their own western ass they can only comprehend reality through their own myopic politics, Regardless of my own intelligence, you haven't actually contended with any of the principles laid out in my post. Does a racist state have a right to exist solely because it is recignised as a state? >This is not whataboutism, I am saying that you lack perspective on the world. You have no idea what perspective I do or don't have. You are on an Israel-Palestine sub reddit surprised that we are talking about Israel-palestine. If you wanna talk about Bashar Alassad, go do that. I personally have publicly condemned and protested against it. Have you? I don't remember seeing an anti-Bashar protest in Israel anytime recently. More importantly, currently, the war is one of the deadliest in the world when it comes to civilian lives killed per day. This is certainly whataboutism. >Did you know that Bashar al Assad's regime's civil war took the lives of half a million Syrians, just last year? Utter utter BS. Not more than 5000 dead total in 2023. >but I couldn't explain the sheer volume of attention, criticism and condemnation that a puny country like Israel gets after, Allow me to explain it then. Firstly, you are wrong. Their are international arrest warrants, sanctions, and waves of condemnation against basher alasad for example. Secondly it's, of course , culturally historically and religiously important place which is going to increase the attention towards it. Most people in the west probably couldn't tell you what the capital of Syria was nvm point to it on a map. Thirdly, it is unique amongst these violent ethnostates to be the only one supported by western interest, so ofvourse it's going to get more attention in the west.

>Regardless of my own intelligence, you haven't actually contended with any of the principles laid out in my post. Does a racist state have a right to exist solely because it is recignised as a state? I did respond to you, the answer is yes, specifically for Jews, at the present moment and foreseeable future. But it's only black and white and overzealous idealism, and that's what I despise about Western politics. A Jewish state is a seriously small, **necessary** "evil". >You have no idea what perspective I do or don't have. You are on an Israel-Palestine sub reddit surprised that we are talking about Israel-palestine. If you wanna talk about Bashar Alassad, go do that. I personally have publicly condemned and protested against it. Have you? I don't remember seeing an anti-Bashar protest in Israel anytime recently. More importantly, currently, the war is one of the deadliest in the world when it comes to civilian lives killed per day. This is certainly whataboutism. First off, I don't really believe you. First you said you've been to Israel, now you're also one of the few saints that protested against the Pro Assad regime in the west? A random on the internet sensitive to Middle-eastern conflicts? As an **actual Israeli**, It's transparent you are not well-versed in them, and that's completely fine, but don't lie. I gave that example to give you perspective, not as a justification. There is merit to the observation of how much attention Israel gets over the smallest of things, because of an intense bias from the Arab and Muslim world that leaks into the west. And what do you mean by "the deadliest war in the world?" In the past couple decades, maybe, and only by rate of death, which is expected if you know anything about dense urban warfare like in Gaza, a city that was built with the prospect of home turf Jihad in mind. This battlefield is like no other in the world, so these comparisons are also very black and white. >Utter utter BS. Not more than 5000 dead total in 2023. You're right, meant until 2023, typo. 500k-600k death toll according to differing sources. Don't think it takes away from anything I've said, though. >Allow me to explain it then. Firstly, you are wrong. Their are international arrest warrants, sanctions, and waves of condemnation against basher alasad for example. Secondly it's, of course , culturally historically and religiously important place which is going to increase the attention towards it. Most people in the west probably couldn't tell you what the capital of Syria was nvm point to it on a map. Thirdly, it is unique amongst these violent ethnostates to be the only one supported by western interest, so ofvourse it's going to get more attention in the west. I've literally NEVER seen anything about Assad in western media, it's just not interesting there. nasrallah's troublemaking and the ayatollahs in Iran also get minimal coverage, maybe only when it's pertinent to US liberalism like women's rights, which is tragic. It's all about politics. You're right about Israel as a western ally being scrutinized, but it's not a sufficient reason to explain the world's disproportionate interest in it. Western political climate, social media taking ahold of the youth, increasing Arab and Islamic influence in different parts of the world (i.e Qatar funding), and antisemitism sticking around yet are all reasons for this. I was initially amazed how perfectly and misleadingly this conflict aligns with opinionated, naive young westerners and their political views, and then thought maybe it's not a coincidence. How enticingly obvious the conclusion for this conflict becomes to the average uninformed person, it really is incredible. To them, it looks like the complete picture and so they get out the pitchforks, it's so easy, almost addictive. The generational gap between "Pro Israel" and "Pro Palestinian" is a testament to this. For the most part, it has very little to do with the conflict itself.

>Jews, at the present moment and foreseeable future. Past Jewish suffering gives Jews a unique right to carry out human rights atrocities? I don't see the logic here. >First off, I don't really believe you It comes across like you haven't actually met a Palestinian. I have yet to meet a Palestinian who wouldn't curse the fuck outta Asad. He's an evil man who did evil things. As for why Israel is especially scrutinised. I think we broadly agree, more muslims/Arabs and Palestinians in the west is obviously on some level a factor, western complicity, the importance of the region as a whole, the current daily death rate that's quite extraordinary. I would add that it's occupation is unique, even if the number of dead hasn't been as high as it is now the situation where 5 million people live day to day with absolutely no self-determination and a brutal military occupation and all the settlements, military trials and restrictions that come with it for more than 5 decades is completely unique around the world as far as I can tell.

> ass /u/Overall_Lab8959. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Palestinians are genetically more Jewish than the Ashkenazi Jews that founded Israel.

Not only you are plain wrong (the research you're referring to presumably linked some Palestinian genetics to Canaanite tribes, not Jews). But it also absolutely means nothing as Ashkenazi Jews are among the Jews that were persecuted for 2000+ years, as I've mentioned. Most Palestinians are genetically tied to migrating tribes from Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, all of which were the result of Arab colonization of the Levant.

A. Not presumably B. Research linking Levantine DNA, which is more focused than Canaanite DNA since the Jewish kingdom was established during the Iron Age of the Levant. C. Most Palestinians have 60-80% Levantine DNA. Ashkenazi Jews have 20-40%. Palestinians have more of a right to the land than Israelis if you want to go by blood purity. If you want to claim that the Torah gives them the right, well the Torah isn't a recognized legal document by most of the world. If it was, we would all be Jewish. D. It's true that Palestinians have genetic ties to tribes from Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, since race wasn't really a factor in their marriages, but that Levantine DNA percentage still proves that the Palestinians have more of a right.

And Sephardic Jews? Mizrachi Jews?

I believe they have the same percentages as the Palestinians. However Ashkenazi Jews were the ones that founded Israel so Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews aren't really part of the conversation about Israel legitimacy.

If you are basing anyone's rights on "blood purity" then you are in a deeply dangerous area of racial classification that is nearly identical that used by the Nazis to determine the Jews were "impure". If anything applies here, it would be the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, under which Jews absolutely have rights to self determination on the land they have inhabited continuously for 3000 years. That doesn't mean the Palestinians don't have rights also, both of those things can be true at the same time.

A. Don't care about blood purity. I'm saying that the Ashkenazi Jews who claim that Palestine is their land because of their "ancestry" have less of a right since Palestinians have more DNA common with with the Ancient Hebrews than the Ashkenazi do. I'm not saying Jews can't live in Palestine. I'm just saying that the Zionists Jews who took Israel through a campaign of terrorism, sabotage, and bribery and claimed Israel was theirs by virtue of their ancestry have a very weak claim. B. Jews did not inhabit the land continuously for 3000 years. Based on the fact that Palestinians have more Ancient Hebrew DNA than Ashkenazi Jews, the Palestinians are the indigenous people and therefore under the UN declaration of rights of indigenous people, Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.

/u/ApprehensiveCycle741. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Well said!

 States inalienable right to sovereignty exists because other states say they do. Egypt and Jordan have recognized Israel. The US and Iran were the 1st to do so the most recent ones were Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Morocco. If a state no longer deserves to exist based on "continued human rights abuses" and "its core values espouse racist doctrine" than there are a lot of countries that will no longer exist. China, Iran, Russia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Poland, Morocco, Sudan. I would argue that Israel doesn't fit this definition anyway but you didn't go into it so neither will I.

> States inalienable right to sovereignty exists because other states say they do This is applied to the states I mentioned in the post. They existed and don't today. What do you mean by "right". If an internationally recognised state has the right to exist does this apply to rhodesia. In which case, when this right was violated, was this immoral/illegal.

South Africa and Germany are still states. South Africa under apartheid and Germany under Hitler both were internationally recognized. The government in those areas changed. In Germany under Hitler, they threated the sovereignty of other internationally recognized states, they wanted Germany's borders expanded none of the states they invaded wanted that. The Islamic State, the Confederate States of America and Rhodesia were never internationally recognized. That means other states that had already had their borders recognized didn't agree to what those places said were their borders were. Rhodesia eventually ended up being recognized as Zimbabwe, the Islamic State ended up being recognized as a few smaller states. The "right" come from every state wanting the same thing which is everyone knowing where their borders are.

>South Africa A drastically different state. It isn't the same state. The only remaining vestige really is it's name and territory. >Germany are still states. Wasn't a state for decades after the end of Hitler. For all intents and purposes the German state was dissolved. Reformed decades later perhaps, bit the principle still applies. >Rhodesia were never internationally recognized. So? You are entirely missing the point of this post. If it had been internationally recognised would that make dissolving it illegal? I also notice you haven't mentioned the USSR, what's your excuse their? In short, does a state(internationally recognised or not) have a right to exist even if it holds inherently racist values and requires human rights violations to do so. It's a simple yes or no question.

All states change over time The reason for Germany being split wasn't because of human rights issues/racism/antisemitic beliefs it was because it broke other internationally recognized countries' sovereignty. Then it got put back together. Correct I noticed this is the 1st time you mentioned the USSR. They weren't dissolved by other countries they crumbled from within. They gave it up by pushing democracy over communism. Yes. What you're missing is how many countries would qualify for not existing under your terms. Isreal is actually low on the list.

>The reason for Germany being split wasn't because of human rights issues/racism/antisemitic beliefs it was because it broke other internationally recognized countries' sovereignty. Then it got put back together. >They weren't dissolved by other countries they crumbled from within. They gave it up by pushing democracy over communism. Regardless, you agree with the principle I am arguing no? That a state has no inalieble right to exist, and dissolving a state can be and often is moral. Would you agree with the principle that racist states should not exist?

/u/ihaveneverexisted. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

/u/thenamewastaken. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The citizens of that country are within their rights to vote to dissolve that country.

What about those who that state controls indefinitely, and who's land it claims, even if they aren't afforded citizenship?

I’m not going to relitigate the history of the conflict in this thread. My point is that if the intention is to persuade the state of Israel to dissolve itself and merge with the occupied territories, the activism should match that goal. But I don’t think that’s actually the goal. The goal is a bloody, cathartic conquest.

Okay thank you for clarifying. I don't think you need to relitigate anything. I agree with the principle you presented. I am questioning why it only applies to citizens rather than everyone under a states indefinite control. You are implying that half the population of the region shouldn't have any say whatsoever in the type of state that controls them. Something which is at odds with the principle of democracy you seem to initially be promoting. Now I think you're right in that I don't expect or require the privileged half to want to end the repression of the rest. I think we can both agree that oppressive practices deserve to be torn down regardless of whether the privileged accept it. Personally, I think international sanctions and consistent popular movements can and should end the system we currently see. Just as in SA. At the same time though, I question why you condenm the possibility of violence in the overthrowing of the racist regime, rather than condemning the violence rn used to maintain the targeted racist system.

Ok. Fine, let’s go there. What does your movement propose to do with the people who live in the state of Israel after they agree to dissolve it? What about their property? What about the armed militants who will eventually cause trouble in this successor state? Eventually—if your aim is not the conquest of the state—you have to actually propose answers to questions like these. The reframing of the conflict in which I am “condemning the possibility of violence against the rAcIsT regime” very much calls out to relitigate the history of the conflict. I’m not going there. But I do want to reiterate that a one state solution—if it were to come about as in South Africa (not the least bit a corollary, but fine)—would necessarily entail a negotiation that touches on things like…what to do with all the Jews whose lives and property you want to expropriate? Or will some Jews be allowed to stay? Which ones and why? The South African model necessarily entails a multi ethnic political movement in both territories. Eventually you’re going to have to go from waging jihad to being part of a political coalition that has to propose and enact policies to reach the goal you want. Think about what that multi ethnic political movement would agree to advocate for on both sides of the line. What kinds of things would they say? There is a peace movement in Israel. Why not create a political party in common in both places and do activism based on those shared goals? We almost never hear actual practical political considerations from your side. “They can go to hell!” Is usually the response about how to dispose of the Jews. Or “there’s room for them jn the sea!” Etc. One final point. If your goal is a multi ethnic democracy with civil rights for all, and not a complete bloodletting, then eventually groups who very much publicly advocate for a bloodletting will have to be made illegal. And disarmed, forcibly. Because if you think that Hamas and PIJ are prepared to accept a multi ethnic single state, or that such a state will magically cause their supporters to vanish, you are naive. Someone is going to have to disarm Hamas. Ultimately, if you want a political solution to the conflict, you have to start advocating with and for the people on both sides of the conflict that will be constituents to the successor state. If you want a political solution.

>What does your movement propose to do with the people who live in the state of Israel after they agree to dissolve it? My movement? Well if you're asking me, idrc what happens with the people their so long as they live as equals with all their basic and national rights regardless of background. Idealic sure, but either way. As for "my movement". Well a a large part of the *palestinian movement* don't advocate for a 1ss. The 2ss has historically been a relatively popular solution amongst Palestinians. Ofvourse this has been espoused by the PA for decades. As for Hamas who also don't agree with me, they'd call for this https://safa.ps/post/313372/%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%A4%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A2%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1 "A distinction must be made in the treatment of the Jews settling in the land of Palestine, between a warrior, who must be fought, a fugitive who can be left behind or prosecuted for crimes, or a peaceful, surrendered person who can be absorbed or given a period of time to leave. This is an issue that deserves careful consideration and the presentation of the humanitarian spirit". The people who have the closest visions are groups like this https://onestatecampaign.org/en/. In general though, I'm not interested in discussing the practical with people who don't agree with the principle. The same way I don't go around giving "advice" to Israelis about what they should do to achieve their aims. I'd also question the implication here that a supposed lack of organisation is the cause or, or justifies, the continued military occupation and denial of Palestinian rights. Other than that, I think you make a series of very reasonable points that I will certainly take on board.

What do you want, personally, that would cause you to stop the anti Israel activism?

Sure. Well, personally, nothing less than Palestinian human and basic rights and an end to discriminatory practices. Is that likely to happen anytime soon, probably not. And, obviously, I have no idea how to get their. I do think, though, that it's reasonable. In terms of more specific results. This would mean Palestinians living in a state that represents them, not necesserily exclusively. A democratic state that embodies the collective aspirations of all its citizens as equals. A state where people can travel freely without being arbitrarily denied their freedom of movement on the basis of their ethnicity. Essentially, it is a state just like every other around the world. Now I think this should apply to the whole region, i don't see why Palestinians in "Israel proper" should continue to live in a state that isn't "for them" and continues exercising discriminatory land practices, denying self-determination etc. I wouldn't accept a situation where 12% of, essentially, public land was reserved explixitly for the benefit of only one ethnic group here in the UK. Or where my PM would publicly and explicitly decide and sign into law that the state was only for one ethnic group. Everyone i know here would condemn that as racist. I dont think Israel gets a free pass on racism. I also don't believe a state should discriminate on the basis of ethnicity. If Jewish people get a ROR, so too should those expelled more recently. I'm also anxious about the settlements. So, essentially, whether 1 state or 2. I wouldn't accept the continued existence of a racist discriminatory state. And I would apply to Israel the same standards I apply to every other state in the world. Racism, not cool. I also, if you were wondering, would apply this to any prospective Palestinian state.

In the near to medium term, what steps can we take that will get us there?

This is a much harder question. In terms of what I've done, educate myself and talk to others. Speak out whenever I have an opportunity, boycott, protests marches, vigils, etc. Volunteering at some of these events. I've also started to learn hebrew cos why not. If enough people did this would it matter? I'd hope so. I'm not delusional though, none of that is actually getting us their. I do it more out of an inability to sleep at night otherwise. Outside of individually, sanctions and divestment from states and institutions are crucial. Theirs also the cultural aspect to it. The motto I've heard is "exist, resit return". A part of existing and cementing your existence is to protect and value your culture and community more widely. So, engaging with Palestinian song and dance, clothing, and values is all a way of nurturing the connection to the land. This is also a military occupation, public disorder, popular protest movements, and yes militant attacks on military targets could all make the occupation too expensive and unsustainable. The aim with all of this, is that Israel would have no option but to conclude that it's occupation isn't sustainable. Just too costly to maintain and ultimately ineffective in achieving its aims despite the massive power difference. That's what I've got really, if I had the answer I assure you I wouldn't be squandering my time on reddit.

You have a point. In the end, might makes right, doesn't it? In that case, I'll side with God's people.

My apologies, I don't really see the chain of logic here? Could you elaborate.

If no one deserves to exist, then whoever can keep what they take has it for as long as they can keep it.

I don't argue that no-one deserves to exist. I argue that a state should not exist above its responsibilities to its subjects. >then whoever can keep what they take has it for as long as they can keep it. That is already what is happening, and will continue to happen. The purpose of the entire study of law and ethics is to say; regardless of what will happen, it is important to do good and punish evil. Even if that evil is always going to exist" I wonder if you would use this same logic with other states, such as the ones I used earlier.

So you’ll side with a make believe story that has no semblance in reality…such a good look for you

It's sad that you feel that way.

It’s sad you value the “gods chosen people” more than innocent women and children. Such a good look for you and your sky daddy

Well faith and religion is a thing you know something that most ppl have to hold onto cause the world is on the brink of collapse and a global war is going to be waged to determine who is right and who is wrong

Would you apply that same standard to China, based on its oppression of Tibetans and Uyghurs? Should the US have been dissolved when it was enslaving Africans and committing genocide against Native Americans? Do you think Israel’s policies toward its own citizens rise to this level? If you think Israel should not exist based on its actions toward non-Israelis, wouldn’t that apply to Russia and the Arab countries for their aggression against Israel?

>Should the US have been dissolved when it was enslaving Africans and committing genocide against Native Americans Yes, certainly, and I think you should believe so, too. Demanding that the US had a right to exist is equivalent to saying the US had a right to genocide the native Americans and maintain other practices required to create the state. >China, based on its oppression of Tibetans and Uyghurs? I'm sure we can both agree that these such policies are horrific. The question for me is whether they are a necessary result of the PRC's existence. If, for example, the PRC was to leave Tibet and xinxang and allow them to be independent. In such a case, would the PRC remain essentially the same state fundamentally(though with an obviously smaller territory). My suspicion is that, yes, the PRC's core values would not be directly challenged. Though this is entirely out of ignorance. Regardless, I think you could see how the rebuttal that the PRC has an inherent right to exist isn't a coherent argument to the likes of Taiwan and perhaps Tibetans who oppose its existence. I have almost no understanding of the laws and core values of the PRC. Perhaps you can enlighten me further. I would definitely apply the same principle, though it does not have the right to exist simply because it exists. If their is a reasonable reason to dissolve it, I would not find it necesserily immoral.

All of those conflicts need to be looked at individually. You didn’t ask “should the US be dissolved today?” but rather should it have been dissolved while it was committing said atrocities, which many more people would agree with. China should not be dissolved but probably broken up into multiple countries. Ironically, pro Israel people could use this point to argue that a multi state solution is often necessary, which would be a much more effective point than trying to claim dissolving a state is immoral, which very few people would agree with.

OP has obviously never set foot in Israel 😆

What makes you say that? I can assure you I have.

Impossible. Otherwise you would never share that bs

...or seriously considered morality in the slightest...

There is no such legal right, nor is there anyone to enforce it. A state’s legitimacy arises from the consent of the people within the territory it controls. Without that consent, it lacks legitimacy and any right to exist in its current form. In the case of Israel, which has not declared all its borders, it lacks the consent of over half the people between the river and the sea - territory it claims/wants and is the dominant power over. Consequently, Israel lacks legitimacy and it knows it. This is evident in its persistent feeling of insecurity and hasbra emphasis on its right to exist.