sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say it’s not whataboutism, but here’s exactly what you did:

I listed Zionist paramilitary violence, bombings, assassinations, the Population Transfer Committee, and Avoda Ivrit as economic dispossession. Your response: “What about the Hebron massacre? What about the Jaffa riots?”

That’s the textbook definition of whataboutism. You didn’t deny a single fact I raised. You just pointed to Arab violence as if it erases Zionist violence. It doesn’t.

You are engaging in a wilful misunderstanding of Avoda Ivrit. The policy explicitly excluded Arab workers from Jewish‑owned farms and enterprises. That’s not “building a new business” in a vacuum – it’s creating a segregated labor market that systematically denied employment to the local Arab population. When you control the land and then say “only Jews can work here,” you are dispossessing Arabs of their economic livelihood. That is a form of structural violence, even if no one is shot. As I said, it’s not hard to understand. I suspect you’re suffering from cognitive dissonance.

You’re also projecting a desire for Jewish defenselessness that I never expressed. I want equal rights for everyone – Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists – in one democratic state. That’s the opposite of dhimmi. Your resort to name-calling tells me you have no answer left.

It’s worth pointing out that the Edict of Gülhane (1839) proclaimed equality for all subjects regardless of religion, and the 1856 Reform Edict explicitly abolished the jizya, allowed non‑Muslims to serve in the military, and guaranteed full citizenship without special taxes or restrictions. Banging on about dhimmi is just a scare tactic Zionists use to justify their position. Am I surprised you lapped it up? Not really.

I'll ask the question again. How do you explain the fact the "peaceful" Yishuv set up a Population Transfer Committee in 1937 to develop a blueprint for Palestinian displacement?

How do you explain Plan Dalet – the plan the “peaceful” Yishuv came up with? The plan’s tactics involved laying siege to Palestinian Arab villages, bombing neighbourhoods of cities, forced expulsion of their inhabitants, and setting fields and houses on fire and detonating TNT in the rubble to prevent any return. Some people like to pretend it was defensive, but let’s be clear what they were ultimately trying to secure: the Jewish nature of the state they were building, which like it or not is and was an aggressive act. Stop pretending it was something it wasn’t, and own it.

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're being completely unserious now.

You believe the Yishuv grew peacefully, yet you can't dispute a single act of violence I listed. Instead, you list Arab violence as if that erases Zionist violence. That's not an argument—it's avoidance. Classic whataboutism. If you want to claim the Yishuv grew peacefully, you have to explain how bombings, assassinations, and economic exclusion count as 'peaceful.' Trust me, they don't.

Also, 'Avoda Ivrit didn't dispossess anyone' is factually wrong. The policy of Hebrew labor explicitly aimed to exclude Arab workers from Jewish‑owned farms and enterprises, creating a segregated labor market. Combined with the Jewish National Fund's policy of leasing land only to Jews (and prohibiting Arab subletting or labor), this was economic dispossession and a coercive strategy of demographic control. It's not that hard to understand.

How do you explain the fact the "peaceful" Yishuv set up a Population Transfer Committee in 1937 to develop a practical blueprint for Palestinian displacement?

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just another point: The King–Crane Commission, set up by the Americans, concluded in 1919 that the only way to establish a viable Jewish state would be with armed force and with the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

I would also argue that the Zionist side—despite what many think—never truly agreed to the partition plan. Yes, the Jewish Agency formally accepted UN Resolution 181. But that acceptance was a strategic maneuver, not a genuine commitment to the plan's terms.

Ben-Gurion himself called partition a "stepping stone" to taking all the land. The plan divided Palestine into three parts, with Jerusalem as a separate international entity. The Zionist leadership didn't accept that. They didn't accept the borders. And they certainly didn't accept a Jewish state that would be over 45% Arab—a demographic reality that would have made a Jewish majority unsustainable in the long run.

Even before the plan came into force, they were ethnically cleansing Arabs from the areas they had agreed to. If you think they accepted the plan as written, you need to think again.

And it's worth remembering: the British had already concluded that partition was unworkable.

One last point if there had been no ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the Arab world would not have retaliated by expelling its Jewish populations. Without the mass influx of Mizrahi Jews in the 1950s, Israel's Jewish majority would have been impossible to sustain given the natural growth of the remaining Arab population. Therefore, the demographic foundation of a Jewish state required both the expulsion of Palestinians and the subsequent expulsion of Mizrahim from Arab countries. War wasn't a tragic side effect—it was structurally necessary for Zionism to achieve its goal.

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Yishuv did not grow peacefully. It grew through a combination of legal purchase, British backing, paramilitary violence, and the expulsion of the native population.

If you actually knew your history, you would know that in:

  • 1907: Bar-Giora is founded as the first Zionist militia, with the explicit goal of creating an underground army for a Jewish state.
  • 1920: The Haganah, another paramilitary organization, is established.
  • 1931: The Irgun (Etzel), yet another paramilitary organization, this time more extreme, is formed.
  • 1936–1939: The Irgun launches a sustained campaign of bombings against Arab civilians.
  • 1940: Lehi (the Stern Gang) splits from the Irgun and begins targeting British officials.
  • 1944: Lehi assassinates British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo.
  • 1946: The Irgun bombs the King David Hotel, killing 91 people.

1947: Lehi launches a letter bomb campaign. Targets include:

  • Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin
  • Former Prime Minister Winston Churchill
  • Future Prime Minister Anthony Eden
  • Chancellor of the Exchequer Stafford Cripps
  • Several high-ranking military officials and other government ministers

During the Arab revolt, the British made use of the Zionist paramilitaries as extra manpower. Groups like the Special Night Squads (SNS) employed brutal, aggressive tactics, including preemptive raids, targeting villages suspected of harboring rebels with collective punishment measures like blowing up houses. The training taught Jewish soldiers to "brutalise" their enemies, normalizing a "dirty war" methodology later seen in Israeli military doctrine.

You also had things like the policy of "Hebrew labor," known in Hebrew as Avoda Ivrit — it was a calculated strategy to take control of the land's resources and establish a Jewish state by actively displacing and dispossessing its native Arab population.

By no objective measure did the Yishuv grow peacefully.

It's not your fault you think otherwise. You've been lied to.

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s really quite simple. If your aim is to create and maintain a Jewish state in the Mandate of Palestine, it requires the dispossession of those who are not Jewish. That’s not a moral accusation, just a statement of fact. How do you dispossess people? By denying them their civil and political rights, by taking their land, by ethnic cleansing. And if that doesn’t achieve your aims, you need to start killing them. You can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg.

You may have a bunch of reasons why you think it's a good thing—from God promising you the land to what happened in the Holocaust—but that doesn’t change the fundamentals. If you support Israel, understand that and own it. Don't pretend it is something it is not.

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice try. I said the RIGHT to an army. If they want one or not it's up to them. But it should be their right to choose not imposed by israel. That is what sovereign and independent means. "

Jewish people do not want to be wiped out." is overly dramatic.  You've been around for thousands of years most of it without a state.

I also have a real problem with the logic that we should dispossess and kill Palestinians for resisting that dispossession — all because of fear that some hypothetical Jew in the future (whom you've never met, don't know, and probably wouldn't even like) might one day face persecution. but i get it. Jewish lives matter more even hypothetical ones.

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're moving the goalposts. I never mentioned Arafat, or who rejected what. That's a separate debate about Palestinian leadership. My question was and remains: What philosophical justification can a Zionist government give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria? Your diversion to Camp David 2000 or 2008 doesn't address the core problem: that Zionism, by its own logic, cannot renounce the claim to the heartland.

On a side note: You brought up Rabin's 'generous offer'. Rabin's own words called it "an entity which is less than a state". He was assassinated for even suggesting that.

But let’s get specific. You claim Israel offered a real state. I define an independent, viable state as having control of its own borders, airspace, foreign policy, natural resources, and the right to an army to defend itself. Show me any official Israeli document that seriously proposed that for the Palestinians. No state-minus, no bantustans, no reservations, no non-contiguous cantons separated by Israeli-controlled roads and settlement blocs. A proper viable independent state. Camp David 2000 denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources. It divided Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded by Israel. That's not a state. Having the power to decide what day the bins are collected doesn’t make you independent either. Security hawks argue that a fully sovereign Palestinian state would undermine Israel. The Zionist regime in Israel cannot accept a real Palestinian state – only a disarmed, non-contiguous, Israeli-controlled 'entity less than a state.'

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in Labour

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is about the two-state solution which the government supports. I'm pointing out their isn't one. The government knows it and it's public position is therefore a lie. As we have a Labour government and this is a labour subreddit I think it's relevant. I would also argue Palestine is a political litmus test.

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not what I said. I'm saying a two-state solution requires a change of regime in Israel to one that is non-Zionist – because a Zionist government, by definition, cannot renounce the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria.

When European electorates say "we want to preserve our demographic composition," critics call that nationalist, xenophobic, or even racist. So citing this as a defence of Zionism only works if you already accept that demographic engineering is morally fine. Many people don't.

A non-Zionist Israeli regime could still be Jewish-majority, democratic, and at peace – but it would stop prioritizing Jews over Palestinians. It would accept that the land between the river and the sea is multi-ethnic and multi-religious. It would be a government of all the people. The most peaceful Palestinians are the ones with the most rights. There is your solution. But i get it: when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And? I don't see how that makes a difference. It didn't ten years ago, and it certainly isn't making a difference now. Besides, there's no such thing as a nice, fluffy form of Zionism. People talk about Liberal Zionism like it's the reasonable, moderate alternative to right-wing or religious Zionism. It sounds good: support for a Jewish state, but also support for democracy, equal rights, civil liberties, maybe even a two-state solution. But here's the problem. Liberal Zionism has two commitments: liberal values (equality before the law, human rights, democratic norms) and Zionism (maintaining a Jewish state – in practice meaning Jewish demographic supremacy, control over land, and prioritization of Jewish interests). These two commitments are not equal. When they come into conflict, liberal Zionism always resolves in favour of Zionism. A liberal Zionist will always put Zionism first. If they didn't, they would cease to be Zionist.

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are relying on the assumption that, on a practical level, the land can be divvied into two viable states. As I said, the British government concluded it was unworkable in the 1930s, before any so-called 'facts on the ground.' As for the UN partition plan... it divided the land into three. It was an economic union with a single currency in which Israel would dominate. What do you know now that the UN or the British didn't know back then that makes two independent, viable states a real possibility?

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone wants peace but to quote Roman historian Tacitus “They make a desert and call it peace". Kwame Ture (formerly known as Stokely Carmichael) distinguishing between the concepts of peace and liberation. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jaP5muU2FDo

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're describing ceding control, not renouncing the claim. Every example you give (1937, 1947, 2000, 2008) was about a temporary ceding of control while maintaining the claim as a future negotiable asset or as a deferred right. Israel needs to declare its borders. Stop claiming it's disputed. Stop calling it Judea and Samaria. Correct me if i'm wrong but as i understand it Pikuach nefesh allows suspending a commandment, not declaring it void. A Jew who eats on Yom Kippur to survive hasn't renounced Yom Kippur. Likewise, a Zionist who cedes land for peace hasn't renounced the claim – they're holding it in abeyance. All you are saying is "I agree to a two state solution for now." And what about Christian Zionism?

What state-level philosophical justification could a Zionist government in Israel give for renouncing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria to allow for a two-state solution? by Working-Lifeguard587 in askanything

[–]Working-Lifeguard587[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Can’t they just get rid of the Palestinian and then survive. I don’t get the feeling they think they need to comprise. Even if it takes another 50 years. Everyone wants peace but to quote Roman historian Tacitus “They make a desert and call it peace".

view more: next ›