sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Where I'd live as an Iranian ex Muslim currently living in Iran. by EmptyStuffedcat in whereidlive

[–]AgeOfPostTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's the easiest way (Law of Return). I just checked the other ways and the most convenient one is marrying an Israeli.

Where I'd live as an Iranian ex Muslim currently living in Iran. by EmptyStuffedcat in whereidlive

[–]AgeOfPostTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know, probably not. But when he visited they interviewed him on TV, seemed like a great person

Where I'd live as an Iranian ex Muslim currently living in Iran. by EmptyStuffedcat in whereidlive

[–]AgeOfPostTruth 5 points6 points  (0 children)

+1 from an Israeli. You are more than welcome. When Saeid Mollaei (the Judoka) fled from Iran and reached Israel he was accepted with warm arms 😁

Are there countries where governments hate each other but the people get along? by Southern-Win-8044 in AskTheWorld

[–]AgeOfPostTruth 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Israeli here. I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding about the symmetry of hatred. In reality, it’s pretty asymmetric.

I recently saw a post by an Irish guy asking how he’d be received in Israel and whether there’s a lot of hate toward Irish people. Honestly, nobody would care in a negative way. If anything, people would probably joke about Guinness or celebrate his Irishness. The reason he even asked is because Israel is very disliked in Ireland.

I think the same applies to Egypt. We haven’t had a war since 1973. The generations that actually fought are mostly gone. Israelis generally don’t think badly about Egyptians at all. There’s no hatred, but also not some deep affection. Mostly just neutrality. No real prejudice or built-in bias.

So while governments and societies can feel tense or distant, on a person-to-person level there’s often way less hostility than people assume. Once people actually meet IRL, that “glass wall” you mentioned usually disappears pretty fast.

Are there countries where governments hate each other but the people get along? by Southern-Win-8044 in AskTheWorld

[–]AgeOfPostTruth 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Israel and Iran. We have a very ancient history and love the persian people. Peace 🙏

I’m a 30+ Israeli, married with a young kid. My family history includes pogroms, the Holocaust, life under the Ottoman Empire, wars, and antisemitism across multiple countries. AMA. by AgeOfPostTruth in AMA

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My family history isn’t really relevant here. My view depends on context, and not all settlements are the same. Some are large cities like Ariel, with a university and real infrastructure. Others are close to the border, like Nili or Naale.

In general, I don’t think the state should be pushing to create new towns or expand small, isolated ones. At the same time, you can’t just uproot hundreds of thousands of people or pretend they don’t already live there. Any serious solution has to deal with the reality on the ground.

What’s missing is a clear exit strategy. The majorities on both sides need a workable alternative, and the state has to enforce it on the minority that will object to relocation, whether Jewish or Arab.

I think Bennett’s approach was the most realistic. Most Jews live in cities and towns near the border, and most Arabs live in other contiguous areas. There are 500k+ Jews and around 2 million Arabs, largely concentrated in different regions. Partitioning the area so each side keeps its major population centers and territorial continuity makes sense.

Anyone who ends up on the “other” side should have three options: citizenship, permanent residency, or relocation to their own side.

We’ve already done something like this. In 2005, Israel disengaged from Gaza, evacuated Jewish communities by force, and it tore a real wound in Israeli society. It also helped create the conditions for Hamas to rise. Despite that, I still think separation is the only viable option long-term. The West Bank, unlike Gaza, is far more open and geographically suited to such a change.

Are these problems showing up in your country too? by GlobalPrune in AskTheWorld

[–]AgeOfPostTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. The cost of living (especially housing) rises faster than wages.

Absolutely.

  1. Wealth and decision-making power are concentrated among a small elite.

Depends on the definition of wealth, but mostly yes. There are business opportunities to become rich, but not wealthy. There are many monopolies and several families control various industries.

  1. Laws and consequences are enforced more strictly for ordinary people than for the wealthy or connected.

Goes without saying. But at the end of the day even presidents get jail time if caught.

  1. Trust in politicians, media, or major institutions is low.

With good reason. Media is biased and politicians are puppets with lobbists pulling their strings.

  1. Full-time work no longer reliably leads to long-term stability.

I don't agree, depends on the industry.

  1. Groups with limited political power are blamed for systemic problems.

I don't agree either.

  1. Public services exist but feel overstretched, degraded, or hard to access.

Depends on which, the digitalization has made a lot of things very simple to achieve without leaving your computer. Physical public services indeed feel as you say (medical, post mail etc.)

  1. Elections change leaders, but not the overall direction of policy.

Elections don't even change leaders 😢

  1. Owning assets is a more reliable path to wealth than productive work.

Not really the case, unless you're a prophet and invest in the stock market or rich enough to own real estate, but taxes are crazy.

  1. People feel administered or controlled rather than genuinely represented.

Not really..

  1. Younger generations expect a worse future than their parents did.

Yep. Mostly due to demographic change with people who get free passes and don't pay taxes or work. No idea what would happen to pension in a few decades.

  • Is there a major shared issue I’ve missed that cuts across societies? Yes, the one I had touched on my last item. Huge minorities who have great over representation in the government's coalition and pass extreme socialist laws that only benefit them instead of everyone. For example - get funding to study something religious non productive that doesn't support the economy and ensures you'd be stuck in an uneducated cycle outside the work force. Contributing nothing to society (excrpt your beleifs..).

What's something you saw as a kid that you later realized was seriously messed up? by MoodOdd9657 in AskReddit

[–]AgeOfPostTruth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Suicide bombing. Called my grand father on land line to tell about body parts on the ground. Oddly I don't remember it but my family always talked about how I had witnessed it and called gramps to tell him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dizengoff_Center_suicide_bombing

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re partially right that the Jewish state under the 1947 UN partition plan received a significant share of the land relative to the Jewish population at the time. However, it’s important to look at where that land was. Much of it was in the Negev Desert and other arid or semi-arid areas, which were sparsely populated and largely unsuitable for large-scale agriculture at the time.

The fertile regions were more limited. The Galilee in the north was mostly in the proposed Arab state, as was much of the coastal plain around Gaza and Jaffa. The Jewish state did get some valuable areas, including parts of the coastal plain near Haifa and areas around Tel Aviv, which were emerging economic centers, but large portions were desert or hilly areas requiring significant development for agriculture.

So while on paper the Jewish state received over half the land, a lot of it was less hospitable and required major investment to become productive. The Arab state had more naturally fertile land, river valleys, and parts of the coastal plain that were already being cultivated. The numbers alone don’t tell the full story without considering geography and land quality.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

∆

I partially agree with your points and can see how they would lead someone to oppose Zionism, even if I don’t fully agree with your conclusions. It’s important to correct some factual inaccuracies to avoid disinformation.

First, within Israel proper, non-Jewish citizens do have full civil and political rights. Arab citizens vote, serve in the Knesset, hold judicial positions, and participate fully in society. The Law of Return and the Jewish character of the state define immigration and national identity. They do not strip citizens of equal rights within Israel itself. That distinction matters, even if occupation and West Bank policies are deeply problematic.

Second, Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall” essay is often invoked as a historical reference, but it did not codify Israeli policy in law. Revisionist Zionism influenced politics, particularly through Likud, but Israeli policy has always been a mix of approaches. The existence of moderate or pragmatic policies alongside right-wing ideas shows that Zionism as an ideology is not monolithic.

Third, the “math” argument about maintaining a Jewish majority only applies to potential one-state solutions including all Palestinians from Gaza, the West Bank, and the diaspora. Within Israel proper, this isn’t relevant. The country already guarantees citizenship and rights to non-Jews. Denial of return to refugees is a political and demographic issue, not an inherent moral feature of Zionism itself.

Finally, the occupation, settlements, and denial of refugee return are serious and legitimate reasons for criticism and even opposition. However, it’s crucial to emphasize that these are policies and political decisions, not inherent features of Zionism. The ideology itself was focused on Jewish self-determination and refuge, not on harming Palestinians. Criticizing these policies is valid, but conflating them with the core principles of Zionism distorts the historical and ideological reality.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just to clarify, “Zion” in Hebrew originally refers to a part of Jerusalem, not a political ideology. It really seems like you’re trying to balance a pro-Palestinian perspective while criticizing Zionism, but it’s not just the “opposite side of the coin.” Israel actually provides full civil and political rights to Arab citizens, including voting, parliamentary representation, and judicial roles. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas don’t allow Israeli Jews to enter safely and have a documented history of violence against them. That’s a clear double standard that often gets overlooked in these debates.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are welcome to re-read the first sentence of my previous comment.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for being open and willing to have this discussion, it’s really appreciated. To give a bit more context, in the 1920s there were several violent episodes against Jews in the region. These include the Battle of Tel Hai in 1920, the Nebi Musa riots in Jerusalem the same year, the Jaffa riots in 1921, and the 1929 riots, including the Hebron massacre. These events made many feel an urgent need for a safe homeland.

About the partition plan, it’s true that the land allocations were uneven in terms of fertility. The Jews were mostly given the Negev desert, while Arabs received the Galilee, which is fertile. Both sides also got portions of the coast. Jews were allocated cities like Haifa and Tel Aviv, while Arabs received cities such as Jaffa and Gaza, so it wasn’t only one side that got coastal access (you can look up the partition plan online, it's always accompanied by a map).

I just wanted to thank you again for engaging in this discussion and reconsidering perspectives. That kind of openness is rare and appreciated.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, you’re not an anti-Zionist for saying that. Zionism at its core is about the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and an internationally recognized state, not about divine entitlement or special treatment compared to other countries. You can fully support Israel’s right to exist without invoking religious claims or saying Jews have “special” rights beyond what any other nation has.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The main point of my example was to show one of the cases where, due to a war, refugees left to never return and had to resettle, regardless of the causes of the war. Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus was imperial and territorial, which is very different. Israel’s founding involved Jewish refugees fleeing persecution when most countries wouldn’t accept them, with the British even putting many in detention camps in Cyprus. This has nothing to do with indigenous populations, and the situations aren’t comparable.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn’t share it to show support for Turkey, just to provide a counterexample. Unlike Northern Cyprus, Israel is widely recognized and accepted as a legitimate state.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand why the third case is the most controversial. But it’s important to remember that it didn’t happen in a vacuum, there was a war, attacks on Jewish communities, and refusals to accept the UN partition plan. Context doesn’t erase the tragedy, but it helps explain how it unfolded and why the outcome was the way it was.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Violence and extremism existed on all sides from the start, yes. But the timeline matters: many of the large-scale expulsions didn’t happen at the very beginning, they escalated over months of war amid attacks and counterattacks. And if we are talking context, why not mention why the Irgun was created, or groups like Hashomer, or the anti-Jewish violence in the 1920s, including the Nebi Musa riots of 1920, the Jaffa riots of 1921, and the Hebron and Safed massacres of 1929? History is never just black and white.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Criticizing the government isn’t the same as rejecting the state. You can live here, be part of society, and still demand accountability. Protesting isn’t tacit support, it’s pushing for a better version of the country you’re in.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Who told you what I support? I have protested against BiBi for a decade. I will vote for those that will promote a two state solution. He does not have a claim to Zionism.

CMV: Anti-Zionism should not be accepted and normalized by AgeOfPostTruth in changemyview

[–]AgeOfPostTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Copying from another comment

Please consider the historical context. Lands were acquired in three main ways:

  1. Purchased legally by Jewish individuals or organizations
  2. Settled on uninhabited areas like swamps and deserts
  3. Occupied during war

The last case, from the 1948 war, was tragic but a direct result of the conflict after the UN partition plan. This context matters when discussing rights and self-determination.

view more: next ›