Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

sun_tzu said:
tell you what... Ill explain why its a strawman after you explain why you are using antisemitic tropes as part of the dialogue?
Click to expand...
I’ve already said the bit about oil is wrong and after reading it again I can definitely see how that last bit about Rothschild wanting to control the oil plays into anti Semitic tropes (honestly it completely went over my head the first time) but overall the summary is consistent with other summaries from Palestinians about the situation.
 
calodo2003 said:
I gave a thought to such, but I just don’t think so.
Click to expand...

It's so.... spectacularly incorrect and full of anti semitic tropes it could well be? People make these kind of documents to laugh at the people/sheep who then retweet and share them.

I dunno though man, this thread just depresses me so much I've almost given up on it. I'm an Israeli supporting guy with genuine sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians (and probably donates more to the clean water initiatives there than half this thread combined), but if you're gonna escalate from protests and burning cars (violent protest is fine, the Israeli police in the mosque were a disgrace) to firing over 1000 fecking missiles and killing babies, you're gonna get an overwhelming military response from ANY modern nation.

It's literally like a fecking black hole here, everything Israel does is a war crime and genocide, and everything Hamas do is justified retaliation. Including suicide bombers in cafes and nightclubs I suspect. Not a single word of sympathy has been given for the Israeli dead, only 'the media mention it too much'

And anybody who dares to have a different opinion is Zionist scum, blablablabla. Plus there's no anti semitism here, it's all perfectly halal.
 
Sara125 said:
I’ve already said the bit about oil is wrong and after reading it again I can definitely see how that last bit plays into anti Semitic tropes (honestly it completely went over my head the first time) but overall the summary is consistent with other summaries from Palestinians about the situation.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you acknowledge your post strays into the territory of antisemitic tropes - given that you acknowledge that wouldnt it be a good idea to delete it rather than spread said tropes ... as I say its a complex issue and one that warrents debate - but not when things like rothscilds.... controling the media and stealing the oil in palestine are involved
 
The Corinthian said:
Which is why you're thinking is half right / daft.
Click to expand...
You tried to use a religious based national identity v a non religious group in a hypothetical scenario as a point that religion isn’t a part of this issue.

At no point has religion not been a part of this issue, none.
 
2cents said:
Britain did not issue the Balfour Declaration (which I assume she is referring to in the fifth paragraph) in order to get rid of all the Jews from Europe. They did it because they assessed it was in the interests of their Empire in the specific context of the First World War. They did not consult the United Nations because the United Nations did not exist in 1917. It is true they did not consult Palestinian Arabs on the matter. In any case, the Balfour Declaration is just one episode in the process that led to the establishment of Israel.

That is just one page. I don’t think I need to go on to show that Instagram history is probably not the best way to go about getting a handle on this topic.
Click to expand...
The League of Nations existed in 1917 and the land belonged to Turkey. It wasn't Britain's to decide what happened to it.
 
sun_tzu said:
I'm glad you acknowledge your post strays into the territory of antisemitic tropes - given that you acknowledge that wouldnt it be a good idea to delete it rather than spread said tropes ... as I say its a complex issue and one that warrents debate - but not when things like rothscilds.... controling the media and stealing the oil in palestine are involved
Click to expand...
Deleted it before I even saw this post
 
owlo said:
It's so.... spectacularly incorrect and full of anti semitic tropes it could well be? People make these kind of documents to laugh at the people/sheep who then retweet and share them.

I dunno though man, this thread just depresses me so much I've almost given up on it. I'm an Israeli supporting guy with genuine sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians (and probably donates more to the clean water initiatives there than half this thread combined), but if you're gonna escalate from protests and burning cars (violent protest is fine, the Israeli police in the mosque were a disgrace) to firing over 1000 fecking missiles and killing babies, you're gonna get an overwhelming military response from ANY modern nation.

It's literally like a fecking black hole here, everything Israel does is a war crime and genocide, and everything Hamas do is justified retaliation. Including suicide bombers in cafes and nightclubs I suspect. Not a single word of sympathy has been given for the Israeli dead, only 'the media mention it too much'

And anybody who dares to have a different opinion is Zionist scum, blablablabla. Plus there's no anti semitism here, it's all perfectly halal.
Click to expand...
It’s unfortunate that issues like these get ‘taught’ via social media, but that’s where we are.
 
shamans said:
Think you're clutching at straws a bit here. You're also wrong about the peaceful living. For that time and era Jewish and Muslims did live peacefully. Look at the amount of Jewish communities all over islamic territories when Israel was formed.

all the way back to the crusades the Jewish took refuge in Muslim lands.
Click to expand...

And look how they treated and expelled the Jews summarily.

The 2nd part is in part correct, in part wrong. Arabs/Muslims regularly slaughtered Jews, just like Christians did. In the 19th century Jews in many Muslim countries lived in ghettos.
 
calodo2003 said:
You tried to use a religious based national identity v a non religious group in a hypothetical scenario as a point that religion isn’t a part of this issue.

At no point has religion not been a part of this issue, none.
Click to expand...
If you re-read what I wrote, I said you're half right. Because of Zionism's link to Judaism. The Zionism movement hinges on their belief that the land is theirs regardless of who is actually physically there.

Their problems would still exist if the Palestinians there were Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic because they're forced out of their own homes, lands and stripped of all basic civil rights.

It's why it's stupid and signals a lack of understanding to reduce this whole issue to a religious one.
 
The Corinthian said:
If you re-read what I wrote, I said you're half right. Because of Zionism's link to Judaism. The Zionism movement hinges on their belief that the land is theirs regardless of who is actually physically there.

Their problems would still exist if the Palestinians there were Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic because they're forced out of their own homes, lands and stripped of all basic civil rights.

It's why it's stupid and signals a lack of understanding to reduce this whole issue to a religious one.
Click to expand...
Reducing it to a religious one would also be dangerous because it'll be so easy to attached anti-Semitic sentiment into the pro Palestine argument. Many of the strong advocates for the Palestinian isn't even Muslims.
 
reelworld said:
Reducing it to a religious one would also be dangerous because it'll be so easy to attached anti-Semitic sentiment into the pro Palestine argument. Many of the strong advocates for the Palestinian isn't even Muslims.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's why the initial post by that poster is such an awful, basic and misinformed take. Completely misses the point on so many levels.
 
The Corinthian said:
If you re-read what I wrote, I said you're half right. Because of Zionism's link to Judaism. The Zionism movement hinges on their belief that the land is theirs regardless of who is actually physically there.

Their problems would still exist if the Palestinians there were Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic because they're forced out of their own homes, lands and stripped of all basic civil rights.

It's why it's stupid and signals a lack of understanding to reduce this whole issue to a religious one.
Click to expand...
Well, the last two groups you mentioned don’t believe in hierarchal religious fiction nor marshal their lives through such fairytales like the others.

The entire issue has religion all through it & has for millennia.
 
calodo2003 said:
Well, the last two groups you mentioned don’t believe in hierarchal religious fiction nor marshal their lives through such fairytales like the others.

The entire issue has religion all through it & has for millennia. It’s bizarre to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
The latter two still probably value their homes, and raising their families where they've lived for generations, and their neighbours and communities, being able to vote and not living in apartheid regimes.

Again, I'm not discounting the religious element of it at all. If I were you, I'd read up on it rather than coming in with random hot takes that make 0 sense.
 
calodo2003 said:
In all honesty, the original post of this person’s take on the previous page should be deleted as well. Doesn’t help the discourse.
Click to expand...

Actually i think its good to have a demonstration of critical analysis of all the junk that gets posted on social media.
 
The Corinthian said:
Thanks for your response. I agree with the full paragraph totally.

The second half - I can't comment on other poster's behalf with what they mean, but there has been a clear dialogue, for over a century on Israel's right to a land and on what basis. Do you not think Palestine had the right to exist as it had done for centuries prior to 1947?
Click to expand...

No, I don't, of course they also do. Mind you I don't necessarily agree with the 'as it had done for centuries' bit (the peasants' revolt of the mid-1830s which comprised of different clans and tribes native to the region marked the beginning of Palestinian nationhood in my opinion), but the bottom line is both sets of people, Arab Palestinians as well as Zionists, for entirely different reasons have the right to exist in the region.

This is the reason why I think the UN Partition Plan, despite the fact that the Palestinians were on the slightly worse end of the deal, was a good last resort after years of endless bickering and disagreements post-1917, and UN members at the time voted on it. The following is common knowledge but I'm going to say it anyway: the overwhelming sentiment at the time among Palestinians was that there weren't going to be a Jewish state in any shape or form in the region under their watch, understandably so, but instead of cooperating with Unscop and make their very legitimate grievances known (and they probably would have got an equitable outcome) their leaders opted for war instead. The rest is history and subsequent efforts by the Palestinians, more often than not, have been counterproductive.
 
shamans said:
You're also wrong about the peaceful living. For that time and era Jewish and Muslims did live peacefully.
Click to expand...

Jews (and Christians) were largely tolerated under Islamic rule, to a greater degree than Jews and Muslims were under Christian rule in pre-modern Europe. However their legal status was inferior to that of Muslims (which is why the Ottoman ulama protested against the imposition of legal equality in the mid-19th century). In certain contexts they could advance and even flourish, but the general story is one of legally-regulated discrimination (nothing unusual in that time) with the occasional outburst of persecution. E.g. there were pogroms directed at Jews in Hebron in the 16th century and Jews in Safed in the early 19th century.
 
The Corinthian said:
The latter two still probably value their homes, and raising their families where they've lived for generations, and their neighbours and communities, being able to vote and not living in apartheid regimes.

Again, I'm not discounting the religious element of it at all. If I were you, I'd read up on it rather than coming in with random hot takes that make 0 sense.
Click to expand...
Yep. I just formulated this opinion in the past few days & wandered in here, guns blazing.

You’re literally devising fantasy arguments in your head & are trying to posit them as fact.
 
2cents said:
Jews (and Christians) were largely tolerated under Islamic rule, to a greater degree than Jews and Muslims were under Christian rule in pre-modern Europe. However their legal status was inferior to that of Muslims (which is why the Ottoman ulama protested against the imposition of legal equality in the mid-19th century). In certain contexts they could advance and even flourish, but the general story is one of legally-regulated discrimination (nothing unusual in that time) with the occasional outburst of persecution. E.g. there were pogroms directed at Jews in Hebron in the 16th century and Jews in Safed in the early 19th century.
Click to expand...
I'd just add to what you say, many Jewish people held high ranking positions in Ottoman parliament/governance. It was certainly better to be a practicing Jew within the Ottoman empire than the Byzantium one.
 
calodo2003 said:
Yep. I just formulated this opinion in the past few days & wandered in here, guns blazing.

You’re literally devising fantasy arguments in your head & are trying to posit them as fact.
Click to expand...
I can recommend some reading for you to bring yourself up if you'd like. There's a book called Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore which has 0 hot takes and is filled with useful historical information.
 
The Corinthian said:
I can recommend some reading for you to bring yourself up if you'd like. There's a book called Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore which has 0 hot takes and is filled with useful historical information.
Click to expand...
So, you aren’t discounting with the religious influence on the issue, but I am just spouting hit tales that contain zero sense.

Got it.
 
The Corinthian said:
I can recommend some reading for you to bring yourself up if you'd like. There's a book called Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore which has 0 hot takes and is filled with useful historical information.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you choose a book that broadcasts it’s not intending to discuss the ramifications of religion in Jerusalem as the reason for it’s being written.

Anecdotes are useful, but not absolute.
 
owlo said:
And look how they treated and expelled the Jews summarily.

The 2nd part is in part correct, in part wrong. Arabs/Muslims regularly slaughtered Jews, just like Christians did. In the 19th century Jews in many Muslim countries lived in ghettos.
Click to expand...

Jews were not expelled. They left after the creation of Israel. Middle east had been full of thriving Jewish communities. If you think otherwise you have probably been brainwashed along with your pro zionism stance.
 
2cents said:
Jews (and Christians) were largely tolerated under Islamic rule, to a greater degree than Jews and Muslims were under Christian rule in pre-modern Europe. However their legal status was inferior to that of Muslims (which is why the Ottoman ulama protested against the imposition of legal equality in the mid-19th century). In certain contexts they could advance and even flourish, but the general story is one of legally-regulated discrimination (nothing unusual in that time) with the occasional outburst of persecution. E.g. there were pogroms directed at Jews in Hebron in the 16th century and Jews in Safed in the early 19th century.
Click to expand...

But this is reframing history with todays lens. Back then we didn't have multicultural equal societies. Cities, towns and nations took their identity from ethnicity and/or religion. Compared to the norms of the world Jewish people were free citizens of the state. Free to practice their religion and live their life, of course as a minority.
 
Sara125 said:
Sorry what part is wrong other than the bit about oil? Literally every summarisation about what stemmed this would tell you it’s because of the Zionist movement and their greed
Click to expand...

Because it so biased and simplistic that it can't be anything other than nonsense.

You might as well say "Once upon a time there were some nasty Germans and Japanese who wanted everything and tried to take it. The British and Amercians stopped them. Thus ends the history of WW2".
 
shamans said:
Jews were not expelled. They left after the creation of Israel. Middle east had been full of thriving Jewish communities. If you think otherwise you have probably been brainwashed along with your pro zionism stance.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. They were expelled and chased out [from most countries], leaving the majority of their property and possessions behind. Restitution has never been made.
 
owlo said:
Incorrect. They were expelled and chased out [from most countries], leaving the majority of their property and possessions behind. Restitution has never been made.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. Maybe from Europe but not Arab countries. The proof is communities lasting all the way till 1948
 
Kopral Jono said:
No, I don't, of course they also do. Mind you I don't necessarily agree with the 'as it had done for centuries' bit (the peasants' revolt of the mid-1830s which comprised of different clans and tribes native to the region marked the beginning of Palestinian nationhood in my opinion), but the bottom line is both sets of people, Arab Palestinians as well as Zionists, for entirely different reasons have the right to exist in the region.

This is the reason why I think the UN Partition Plan, despite the fact that the Palestinians were on the slightly worse end of the deal, was a good last resort after years of endless bickering and disagreements post-1917, and UN members at the time voted on it. The following is common knowledge but I'm going to say it anyway: the overwhelming sentiment at the time among Palestinians was that there weren't going to be a Jewish state in any shape or form in the region under their watch, understandably so, but instead of cooperating with Unscop and make their very legitimate grievances known (and they probably would have got an equitable outcome) their leaders opted for war instead. The rest is history and subsequent efforts by the Palestinians, more often than not, have been counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Thank you - it's a fair response. The thing about mentioning post-1917 is that it raises a couple of things in my mind. Namely, why only look from 1918 onwards?

The reason I say this the land at the time belong to Turkey under the League of Nations. The land was then both promised to the Arabs in Hejaz and to the progenitors of Zionism. The whole conflict on the region can be zeroed in on the British meddling in the fall out from WW1 and promising the land to two different parties.

I know we can't rewind the clock 100+ years, but until that is addressed, whether it's acceptance of accountability or something more then I think we're going to go round in circles. Similar to how certain elements of Britain's involvement in the slave trade were acknowledged in the BLM protests a year ago.

Even if we look at the UNSCOP plan more closely, there's evidence that the US threatened certain countries with withholding aid unless they voted yes. Sam Zemurray (an influential American business man with business activities in South America) managed to secure yes votes from South American countries.

In 1947, as a second, decisive UN General Assembly vote on the partition of Palestine loomed, Zemurray worked his phone, wheeling and dealing with Latin American countries where he did business, securing otherwise mysterious “yes” votes from Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua. “Behind the creation of the Jewish state,” Cohen writes, “was the Gringo pushing his cart piled high with stinking ripes.” And when the Arab states greeted Israel’s independence six months later with an invasion, Zemurray sent shipments of weapons and materiel to Tel Aviv hidden in boxes marked “Food” and shielded by strategic bribes.
Click to expand...

The reason I'm highlighting this that the Palestinians have been handed such a shit hand from over 100 years ago. And they're still being dealt this same shit hand. The land was promised to two different parties (no say was given to the Palestinians living there). The land was then passed in a UN vote by countries that were bribed or threatened. I'm not surprised they rejected the plan - I think anyone in their position (when presented with the facts) would. I'm sure if the roles were reversed, and it was Jewish people living there and an outside Arab group, backed by the British / US, with the use of brown envelopes and threats then said "Hey, here's our partition plan, you guys are worse off but it's pretty fair otherwise" would reject it also. And that'd be their right.

If we look at post 1947, the Palestinians living there are removed from their homes, stripped of all rights, and those that left under fear of death are made stateless. Land that is Palestinian is being taken by settlers and they're building illegal settlements and which contravenes UN law, but they're turning a blind eye to it. And now they're still being persecuted, forced out of their homes, brutalised whilst worshipping in the month of Ramadan.

Sorry this isn't having a go at you at all, it's just I'm trying to highlight the situation for them as it often gets lost when debating these things.

I'd have no issue with Jewish people living in those lands. I'd have no issue with Christians, and Sabians living there. They all undoubtedly have an love and affinity for the region that stems from their faith tradition, and they should 100% be allowed to be there and have freedom there. But this should also extend to the Muslims that were living there and the Muslims that want to return there. I was in Jordan a few years ago, and it was depressing seeing the amount of refugees there who have family and homes back in Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine but have no way of going there. And I can just stroll in because I have a British passport.

The status quo is rotten to the core in my opinion, and there needs to be some international intervention to stop things from getting worse. There also needs to be some discussion about 'righting' the wrongs of the past. I'm not clever enough to be able to say x or y is the perfect plan, but I do know what it doesn't look like. It wouldn't entail the forceful expulsion of Jews (or any other religion) either, but it should be centred around some equity for the Palestinians living there as well.
 
shamans said:
This isn't true. Maybe from Europe but not Arab countries. The proof is communities lasting all the way till 1948
Click to expand...

I meant: "And look how they treated and expelled the Jews summarily [once Israel was formed]."

And they [most arab countries] were complicit and encouraged the Nazis throughout world war II.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem publicly called for a final solution to the 'jewish scourge' from all muslims, but especially all arabs. They actively blocked children leaving concentration camps.

There were no 'flourishing Jewish communities' anywhere in the Arab world in the 20th century. Only oppression and murder.
 
Sultan said:
@Amir @Kopral Jono

Hope you keep safe and life quickly gets back to normality for both sets of people.

Can you kindly explain to those interested why the Palestinians are being evicted to make room for settlers: Is there not enough room in Israel, is it demographics, security?

Where are the majority of these settlers coming from in the world?

Is it as simple as claiming to be of Jewish descent to be fast-tracked to settle in Israel given a house and state aid and are these settlers being shifted to take over jobs the Palestinians were doing previously?

Listening to some of the settlers they seem very fundamentalists in their beliefs and approach.
Click to expand...

Hi Sultan, thank you for the tag. I too wish both sets of people peace and normality but I'd like to make it clear for anyone who may think otherwise that I'm not Israeli. I'm from Indonesia and my background is actually Muslim albeit in name only, no one in my family is actually practicing. Anyway -- I just happen to have taken international law as my major at law school years ago and I did a few coursework on this conflict, and I also happen to agree with Israel's positions more often than not, but I don't think I'm best qualified to answer your questions.

But broadly speaking these aren't evictions in my book, it's settler colonialism and is very much rooted in extremist Jewish nationalism brought into the mainstream by a racist and a bigot by the name of Meir Kahane, who was actually a Brooklynite. Netanyahu is in bed with people of his ilk.
 
The Corinthian said:
I'd have no issue with Jewish people living in those lands. I'd have no issue with Christians, and Sabians living there. They all undoubtedly have an love and affinity for the region that stems from their faith tradition, and they should 100% be allowed to be there and have freedom there. But this should also extend to the Muslims that were living there and the Muslims that want to return there. I was in Jordan a few years ago, and it was depressing seeing the amount of refugees there who have family and homes back in Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine but have no way of going there. And I can just stroll in because I have a British passport.

The status quo is rotten to the core in my opinion, and there needs to be some international intervention to stop things from getting worse. There also needs to be some discussion about 'righting' the wrongs of the past. I'm not clever enough to be able to say x or y is the perfect plan, but I do know what it doesn't look like. It wouldn't entail the forceful expulsion of Jews (or any other religion) either, but it should be centred around some equity for the Palestinians living there as well.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with most of what you say, but it's hard to argue with much/any of this.

I wanted to say that... it would have been far easier to put 'Israel' in Hawaii, Vermont or Russia or something as a semi-confederated state with, and leave the Palestinians and current Jews where they were. In fact, there's a lot of places in the world which post WWII could have happily accommodated a Jewish state and sanctuary without displacing or significantly upsetting the local civilian population. Unfortunately that wouldn't have worked either; because those Jews would not have been protected, and a Jewish state (wherever it was) would have gone to war for them.

I really don't know a workable solution now. Perhaps separate states for each side on opposite sides of the world, with citizenship of Israel being granted to both. (and both sides being responsible for the peace and prosperity of it, forcing them to dialogue and to work together) - Reparation for Palestinians who lost their homes in Israel, and Jews who lost their homes in Arab countries. That's a pipedream though, because workable solutions aren't liked ones.

Geopolitics and nationalism is far too entrenched for anything but a cycle of violence. And hopefully a two state solution at some point so those poor people can at least regain their dignity and statehood and give a life to their kids.
 
The Corinthian said:
The League of Nations existed in 1917 and the land belonged to Turkey. It wasn't Britain's to decide what happened to it.
Click to expand...

The League of Nations was founded in 1920. One of its first acts was to grant the Mandate of Palestine to the British.

shamans said:
But this is reframing history with todays lens. Back then we didn't have multicultural equal societies. Cities, towns and nations took their identity from ethnicity and/or religion. Compared to the norms of the world Jewish people were free citizens of the state. Free to practice their religion and live their life, of course as a minority.
Click to expand...

I agree by the standards of the time the arrangement worked well enough in granting the religious communities the collective space to practice their faith communally and survive, occasional pogroms and outbreaks of violence and intolerance notwithstanding. But “lived in harmony”? Like I said originally, that kind of assertion requires a major caveat.

owlo said:
Incorrect. They were expelled and chased out [from most countries], leaving the majority of their property and possessions behind. Restitution has never been made.
Click to expand...

The Jews of Arab and other Muslims countries who left for Israel after 1948 left for a variety of reasons, according to the differing circumstances in each case. There was no mass expulsions across the board, although severe discrimination and even persecution and violence in places like Iraq, Libya, and Egypt (where the Zionists were not entirely innocent of provoking things) precipitated flight. But poverty and ideology were also sometimes factors. Elsewhere things were better, especially in Morocco.
 
The Corinthian said:
Thank you - it's a fair response. The thing about mentioning post-1917 is that it raises a couple of things in my mind. Namely, why only look from 1918 onwards?

The reason I say this the land at the time belong to Turkey under the League of Nations. The land was then both promised to the Arabs in Hejaz and to the progenitors of Zionism. The whole conflict on the region can be zeroed in on the British meddling in the fall out from WW1 and promising the land to two different parties.

I know we can't rewind the clock 100+ years, but until that is addressed, whether it's acceptance of accountability or something more then I think we're going to go round in circles. Similar to how certain elements of Britain's involvement in the slave trade were acknowledged in the BLM protests a year ago.

Even if we look at the UNSCOP plan more closely, there's evidence that the US threatened certain countries with withholding aid unless they voted yes. Sam Zemurray (an influential American business man with business activities in South America) managed to secure yes votes from South American countries.



The reason I'm highlighting this that the Palestinians have been handed such a shit hand from over 100 years ago. And they're still being dealt this same shit hand. The land was promised to two different parties (no say was given to the Palestinians living there). The land was then passed in a UN vote by countries that were bribed or threatened. I'm not surprised they rejected the plan - I think anyone in their position (when presented with the facts) would. I'm sure if the roles were reversed, and it was Jewish people living there and an outside Arab group, backed by the British / US, with the use of brown envelopes and threats then said "Hey, here's our partition plan, you guys are worse off but it's pretty fair otherwise" would reject it also. And that'd be their right.

If we look at post 1947, the Palestinians living there are removed from their homes, stripped of all rights, and those that left under fear of death are made stateless. Land that is Palestinian is being taken by settlers and they're building illegal settlements and which contravenes UN law, but they're turning a blind eye to it. And now they're still being persecuted, forced out of their homes, brutalised whilst worshipping in the month of Ramadan.

Sorry this isn't having a go at you at all, it's just I'm trying to highlight the situation for them as it often gets lost when debating these things.

I'd have no issue with Jewish people living in those lands. I'd have no issue with Christians, and Sabians living there. They all undoubtedly have an love and affinity for the region that stems from their faith tradition, and they should 100% be allowed to be there and have freedom there. But this should also extend to the Muslims that were living there and the Muslims that want to return there. I was in Jordan a few years ago, and it was depressing seeing the amount of refugees there who have family and homes back in Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine but have no way of going there. And I can just stroll in because I have a British passport.

The status quo is rotten to the core in my opinion, and there needs to be some international intervention to stop things from getting worse. There also needs to be some discussion about 'righting' the wrongs of the past. I'm not clever enough to be able to say x or y is the perfect plan, but I do know what it doesn't look like. It wouldn't entail the forceful expulsion of Jews (or any other religion) either, but it should be centred around some equity for the Palestinians living there as well.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your nuanced response. I wish I have time to respond to each of your arguments but I'm in total agreement with your last sentence, that there should be some equity for Palestinians living in the region. With the proverbial two-state solution ship sailing away fast, I'm now leaning towards a explicitly secular Israeli state where Palestinians are granted citizenship with equal rights and duties. I know that in many ways this sounds like pipe dream but who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.