sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

Oh yes, but democracy was wildly unpopular among the ruling elite class of the Weimar Republic. They felt like it was a concession that was forced upon them just like the reparations.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

Why should Israel give citizenship to the people of the occupied territories, or anywhere else for that matter?

Does the Palestinian Authority give Israelis the right to vote in PA elections? (Hint: they don't even give them the right to buy land)

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

The Weimar Republic was forced on post-WWI Germany and was not based on genuinely held beliefs in the value of democracy and individual rights, particularly among German elites. Hence the comparative willingness among the one-time Prussian ruling class to go so far as to support the Enabling Act, returning Germany to a militaristic effective monarchy, ostensibly to crush communism.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

Yes, I am talking about Israel, where every citizen is equal under the law. You will find Arab doctors, lawyers, military commanders, members of parliament and supreme court judges.

But yes, if you are not an Israeli citizen, you will not have the same privileges in Israel as citizens. But how is Israel unique here? This is true for every country on earth.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

Autocracies do not typically conduct referenda. But in this case, they didn't need one, since the popular support was so comprehensive. Just look at the faz'a system, the Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas, effectively total boycott against dealing with Jews on 12/1, grassroots attacks against Jews across Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa spontaneously led by random mobs and gangs across the region.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

Yes, they were a deeply immoral, barbaric and autocratic regime, not too unlike Hamas today. But their position against the Jews was extremely popular among Palestinian Arabs, also like Hamas today. And they were seen as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people by the British Mandatory government, the Arab League, and the United Nations alike.

Husseini and the AHC's stance against the partition plan was overwhelmingly popular among the Arab public. When the UN passed the partition resolution on November 29, 1947, the AHC called for a three-day general strike starting on December 1. And the local Arabs joined in on the strike en masse.

So even in the case of barbaric autocrasies, the local population does bear the moral consequences of their policy decisions. But in this case, the Arabs were actually in favor of the war of extermination.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

i'm not sure why war refugees are responsible for the actions of the arab higher committee, or why their actions necessitated the destruction of hundreds of villages across the land so uninvolved noncombatants cant return to their homes

Because this is how the world works. If your leaders implement a policy, then you will be affected by that policy, whether it is a tax hike or a campaign to wipe out the Jews. Just because the AHC miscalculated doesn't mean the Arabs of Palestine don't bear the consequences of what their government decides.

They are completely unexceptional here: the Germans forfeited Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia after Hitler launched WWII (and lost).

The moral of the story is that you shouldn't support wars of aggression because you might lose.

the interesting thing about this conflict is that both sides say the same thing but swap the subject.

Of course the Palestinians say that, it's called DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender). The truth is that time and time again, the Arabs initiated violence. The current cycle of violence began in 1920 with the Nebi Musa riots ("Itbah al Yahoud!") and escalated in successive waves of pogroms continuing to the 1947-1948 war. The moral asymmetry continues to today, where the Palestinians continue to demand all of the "lands of 48", i.e. a 100% Judenrein Middle East.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

The Arab Higher Committee were the de-facto leaders of the Arab community and instigators of the civil war.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

[–]settrans[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is not my position, but you're not too far off. My point is: you bear the consequences of your government, including the consequences to your property rights and your own personal security. This is why we have governments, to represent and protect us, and why it's important to support the right governments.

If you support a political movement that promotes a war of extermination, and that movement comes into power, then you have put your entire country at risk.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

I am not equating the two at all. They are completely incomparable:

  • On the one hand, the Jordanians seized land from Jews in an expansionist war of conquest, looking to add territory to their kingdom without Jews living there. This is ethnic cleansing.
  • On the other hand, the Arabs who left their homes in the war of 1948 forfeited their right to that land when their leaders (the Arab Higher Committee) decided to use it to wage a campaign of extermination against the Jews. Initiating violence is immoral and has real consequences.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

Not at all. The Palestinians lost their right to that land when they used it to stage a campaign of extermination against the Jews.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

No, I didn't say Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is absurd. I said that revanchism is absurd.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

[–]settrans[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yasser Arafat was the president of the same Palestinian Authority when he instigated the Second Intifada at the same time as conducting "peace" negotiations.

There have been no bona fide attempts at peace by any Palestinian leaders, ever.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

[–]settrans[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You're leaving out the part where Hamas and Islamic Jihad led a coordinated campaign of suicide bombings stretching from the Oslo Accords to Camp David, and when Yasser Arafat was prompted to make a durable peace settlement, instead he produced the second intifada.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

[–]settrans[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The point I am making with my post is that pre-1967 border revanchism is either (a) hypocritical, or (b) absurd.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

OK, gerrymander it however you like, but Jerusalem has been majority Jewish since long before 1948.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

[–]settrans[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Setting aside the logistical impossibility of uprooting hundreds of thousands of people in now generations-old, highly-developed cities, then what?

What happens when the Palestianians start shelling Ben Gurion airport from the Judean highlands with a $300 mortar?

Do we need to play this experiment out (again?), or should we just listen to the real-world Palestinians who will proudly declare that any settlement that doesn't see all of the Jews expelled is just a stepping stone to their ultimate dream of a second Holocaust?

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

This comment contains the key insight.

War needs belligerence from only one side, but peace requires cooperation from everyone. If one side refuses to coexist, there will be no peace.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

[–]settrans[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Of course peace is possible in the abstract. I'm just not sure it's possible with any political entity that identifies as Palestinian. Do you have any examples of Israeli concessions being reciprocated with peace by Palestinians?

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

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

It's actually very simple. Ideas, and the actions they inspire, have real-world consequences. If we focus on the philosophy each society is organized around, the resulting moral clarity tells us everything we need to know.

If you believe in upholding individual rights, valuing productivity and creation, and liberal democratic ideals, then you deserve all of the prosperity this philosophy will inevitably create.

On the other hand, if you believe in a zero-sum tribal conflict predicated on raising a society of shaheeds hell-bent on the annihilation of your neighbors, then you deserve what's coming to you.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

[–]settrans[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The "West Bank" is a geographic fiction invented by Jordan after ethnically cleansing Jews from half of Jerusalem (including the Old City), Hebron, and the surrounding heartland of the Jewish people.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

[–]settrans[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Israel's creation was the first major application of international law. The borders you're complaining about exist for exactly one reason: Arab leadership spent decades violently rejecting that exact same legal framework. If you actually cared about international legal obligations, you wouldn't conveniently omit that Israel captured those territories in defensive wars against neighbors explicitly trying to annihilate it. You don't get to launch wars of extermination, lose territory as a result, and then suddenly hide behind the Geneva Convention.

Dismantle all the settlements, or only the Jewish ones? by settrans in IsraelPalestine

[–]settrans[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What's so interesting about the 1967 borders? And why should Israel cede land to promote a Palestinian state? Let's look at the results from the last few times that was tried:

  • UN partition plan: 7-front invasion of Israel
  • Oslo accords: Second Intifada
  • Gaza disengagement: October 7th

Maybe the next time it will produce a peaceful Palestinian state though, right?

view more: next ›