View Single Post
  #219  
Old 03-09-2019, 05:55 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
In my opinion, which I realize doesn't count for very much, I think the concept of founding Israel was a good idea, but it should have been founded somewhere else. Almost ANYWHERE else, actually. Israel is a small country. A territory of that size could probably have been carved out of existing land in another area of the world that was not 1. already occupied by other people, and 2. surrounded by hostile nations. There was a lot of uninhabited land at the time that Israel was created. The same way the British set aside the Mandate of Palestine, they could have presumably done the same thing somewhere else (Australia?)
I think this is wrong for the right reasons - fundamentally the problem is that for most populated parts of the world, there are far more ethnic groups than states. Supposedly there are over a hundred ethnic groups in Myanmar, for example. If you try to give a state to every ethnic group, you either balkanize the world and create even more situations where people can no longer move around in areas they are used to doing so, or about 1000 ethnic groups have to all agree to move to Siberia (or Australia).

In the case of Jews post-WWII, Palestine was a place that had a significant Jewish population already, many Jews were migrating to Palestine, and it was a British territorial holding so they had a lot of reign to do what they wanted with it. One of the biggest mistakes the Brits made was promising it to both Jews and Arabs. Obviously the religious significance both created a stronger motivation for Jews to move there, and caused Muslims to view it as something they weren't going to compromise on.

Quote:
But there's no point in dwelling on what COULD have been. The fact is, Israel exists, where it is, right NOW, and it's not going anywhere. So how do we discuss it, as it pertains to politics, with the greatest likelihood of 1. not pissing off lots of Jews, and 2. actually achieving something resembling progress?
I strongly agree with this. I sort of understand not recognizing a state you feel was established illegitimately, but several generations onward when almost the entire country was born after it's founding, Arab states and pro-Palestinian groups really need to accept reality, recognize Israel as a state and not call for it's destruction.

Quote:
1. Avoid use of the word "Zionist." It flat out IS used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle a lot. Zionism was a political movement that originated in the late 19th century. As an ideology it has little relation to current day Jews and Israelis. The word "Zionist" just sounds antiquated and outdated to me, like "Mohammedan" or "Oriental."
The problem here is that Zionism is an actual ideology, and it is one of the reasons for Israel's settlement policy, and some of Israel's policies concerning religion. It's used by some people as a code word for Jew, but if the word was no longer used we would need another word for "Believers in establishing Eretz Ysrael".

Quote:
2. Spin the foreign-aid issue as "Israel shouldn't need to be dependent on the US, they're a solid country and can stand on their own". I'm not saying that ALL money to Israel should be shut off - America gives money to a lot of other countries - but the amount could be reduced incrementally. And instead of making it seem like a punitive measure, it could be spun as "helping them help themselves" - shit, isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?
I generally agree with this, although it clearly has a political motivation besides just "Israel should stand on it's own." I think people would see through that and still debate all the political questions underlying this type of decision.