You’re merely quoting some history to back your opinion. I’ve quoted others that quote history to back their opinion. Same difference.
You said you were leaving. So long.
It’s what both parties need.
You haven’t quoted anything remotely related to actual history. That’s the difference.
Oh, well if it’s what both parties need then that solves everything. It really does just magic away any issues, hatreds, hostilities or history. I’m amazed nobody came up with this detailed solution to the Middle East problem before you. Bravo, sir, bravo.
What I need is to know what exactly you mean by the term “necessarily oppressive.” If you believe you’ve adequately defined the term upthread, I must confess that I failed to comprehend it. Please explain it to me like I’m, say, thirteen.
N.B. I would appreciate it if no one undertakes to answer this before @InfraBlue has made an attempt.
That’s an interesting take. It is historically false.
The one really pluralistic state in the middle east was Lebanon. It is not a shining beacon that anyone is likely to aspire to.
Yeah, me, too. That doesn’t make a one state solution a good idea.
Ah, you have misunderstood. “The deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust” may well be true. But it was much less deadly than any number of pograms that were routine occurrences before the founding of the state of Israel. It’s the “before Israel” situation that Israelis are trying to avoid.
And since the founding of Israel, Jews have fled from a number of places that used to have routine pograms and moved to Israel. That’s one of the reasons you haven’t seen any other pograms in your lifetime.
I have some issues with the state of Israel. But we can’t even have a conversation if you don’t understand the basic reason Zionism happened.
Really. One might just as well offer the solution of installing a government that will satisfy everyone’s concerns. Yeah, that would be great.
These types of suggestions remind me of the Monty Python chat show skit where they taught us how to play the flute: technically accurate and completely unhelpful.
If it was so easy to just establish a “democratic, egalitarian, and pluralistic state” then why on Earth would we stop with Israel and Palestine? Let’s just abolish all national governments and create one world-wide “democratic, egalitarian, and pluralistic” government for everyone on the planet.
In fact, if we could snap our fingers and make that situation manifest, it would probably be a good thing. But that’s not how human nature works. If we tried it we’d end up with enormous suffering and ethnic cleansing on a never before seen scale.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t a worthy end goal. A couple hundred years from now if we are still governing through nation-states I’d be quite disappointed in us as a species.
But you have to put in the work to get there. The best model I can think of that pushes us in the right direction is the EU model. Expanding the EU or creating similar groups in other places seems like a reasonable first step.
It justifies having a separate Israel, where Jews can be relatively safe from the people that want to exterminate them all TODAY, RIGHT NOW. It shows that your fairy tale that everyone would be happy in a single state and the Jews and Palestinians could somehow (TOMORROW) live in harmony is laughably wrong.
The evidence shows clearly that your fantasy country would quickly lead to the extermination of the Jewish population there. And somewhat coincidentally, this is just what Hamas wants. Your arguments are transparent Hamas talking points.
But what if the global community takes decisive action to stop the attrocities? Here’s what that would look like:
Moderating
Keep up this type of posting and a suspension will be next. That is pretty close to trolling, it is the second time at least you directed remarks like that to @Dissonance in this thread.
Watch your posting. Thin Ice and all that jazz.
I also prefixed the thread title to make it a lot less bait and switch-like.
Again, you are beginning to look like a troll to me with these actions.
Except that they have already lost a founding member for mumble mumble reasons.
Which just goes to show how difficult this process is going to be.
How do you figure?
Let’s not aspire to Lebanon, then.
Yeah, I’m familiar with the Zionists’ rationalizations for the existence of the state of Israel.
Move this thread to the pit, then.
I think that’s a great idea.
The pograms that Jews have suffered do not justify Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people.
Okay, but while
is a legitimate argument.
Is just false. Rudiculously so. I’m not going to bother debating the first with someone who asserts the second. Because they obviously either don’t give a shit about whether Jews are routinely murdered, or at best, get their information from sources that has that view.
Any possibility solution to the Palestinian issue needs to take into account the interests of both Palestinians and Israelis. And Israelis tend to care a lot about having a place where Jews are safe from pogroms.
Thirded.
Most certainly.
“Necessary” i.e. essential, indispensable, or requisite. In regard to Israel, essential, indispensable, or requisite for its existence. “Oppressive,” i.e. tyrannical, unjustly harsh. “Oppress,” i.e. to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority. In regard to an oppressor, to subjugate by cruelty, force, etc. In regard to Israel, its treatment of the Palestinian people is tyrannical, with unjust use of force and authority in their subjugation of the Palestinian people as it denies the Palestinians’ rights in Palestine.
So your claim is that it is necessary for Palestinians to be oppressed for the State of Israel to exist?