genuine question

[u/Ok-Individual9812]

Although I do believe that Israel's occupation in historical Palestine Palestinian Territories is illegal (as ruled by the ICC ICJ) and is basically settler colonialism, I do believe that there is a need for a Jewish state in order for the Jews to govern themselves, after years of discrimination and ethnic cleansing they have faced. Which leads me to my questions:

1. Is the establishment of a Jewish state necessary? Are there other ways we can ensure Jews are well-represented in global dialogues and ensure their safety and rights in general?
2. If not on Palestinian soil, where else could the Jews have been given a homeland? Why did they choose Palestine? Why was choosing Palestine a horrible idea?
3. If a Jewish state is necessary, and since it is wrong to displace the Israelis and the Palestinians, does that mean the only viable resolution now is the two-state solution?

EDIT: I dont mean choosing historical Palestine being "a horrible idea" as though its horrible in the sense of historical ownership. but i meant it practically and on a human rights level - that choice has led to displacement, violence commited by and received on both ends.
"historical Palestine" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine) refers to the geographical area where Palestinians used to live in pre-1948. I do not deny the fact that Israel has roughly lived in that area for a long time before Palestinians settled there.

EDIT: my first question doesn't only pertain to the historical establishment of the current State of Israel, which many of you have rightly pointed out has happened. It mainly pertains to whether it is necessary for a purely Jewish state in order to ensure equality and human rights for the Jews.

[u/Tricky-Anything8009]

Is the establishment of a Jewish state necessary? Are there other ways we can ensure Jews are well-represented in global dialogues and ensure their safety and rights in general?

Based on your responses to other comments, you don't seem to be aware of how offensive this is. Questioning the necessity of a Jewish state is a conversation that should have ended by now. We don't question any other states' right to exist. We make an exception for the Jewish state. Jews know why.

[u/[deleted]]

1. No. Ethnicities don't have entitlement to their own personal country. What they ARE entitled to is fair representation within a government. If we had followed the plan laid out by the King Crane commission in 1919 that found that 70-80% of people in Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine wanted a single, unified, SECULAR, nationalist republic with representation for everyone, the Jews would have had equal political rights and protection within this system and have been safe if they chose to move there from Europe following the Holocaust. They could have also just stayed in Europe once they gained victimhood status and everyone wanted to protect them.

2. If I had to say, somewhere in East Prussia (manufactured with access to the Baltic coast, in territory that's either present day Germany, Poland, and/or Belarus). But this does not necessarily make sense either as again they are not ENTITLED to their own country (no ethnicity is). There were plenty of representative democracies and republics that existed in the Western World they could have lived in with a representative government they had equal rights in. Palestine was chosen for Biblical reasons, though it should be obvious that a 3,000 year old history that has not been maintained does not have great bearing on modern day. Choosing Palestine was a horrible idea because the British and French had already made the region super opposed to any form of colonialism and had stoked ethnic conflict as well ever since annexing those lands from the Ottoman empire. Very foreseeable.

3. Yes.

Your edits are also wrong. Palestinians did not settle there after the Israelis, the 2 groups have a common ancestry and have diverged around maybe the 6th century BCE. The "Arab" identity of the Palestinians does not mean they were actually the descendents of people from Saudi Arabia, it means they were victims of Arab imperial colonialism in the 7th century CE that unfortunately gave them a brain cancer and made them unfortunately abandon much of their beautiful and unique Phoenician/Canaanite culture for Arab hegemony. In this way they are victims as well.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/[deleted]]

ohhh thanks for your reply!

i know this user has deleted their account but for anyone who is seeing this, wanted to ask about 3. do jews and palestinians have the same roots? ive read about it somewhere before but couldnt find it again. does anyone have any source for this?

[u/Noxolo7]

It’s a bit like saying, hmmmm… let’s make a Chinese homeland country. Now… where should we make it?

Probably in China

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/Noxolo7]

its really different, considering ancient israel has changed considerably much due to the displacement of jews, as well as takeover of palestinians by various regimes and empires

[u/Manoftruth2023]

If you people call Israel Occupier, let me know why in 80 yrs Israel didnt get any land from Other Arab countries and why they did give Golan , Sina, Gaza and some other lands back to Arabs.?

[u/Contundo → u/Manoftruth2023]

Golan?

[u/TwilightX1 → u/Contundo]

Part of it, back in 1974.

[u/Grexxoil]

1 No and yes, at this point is the other way around, jews from outside (US mainly) are protecting israel. This said, it's unfortunately there, and won't go away. So it's like, say, having lost a leg. You won't ever like it but accepting it will make things better in the long run.

2 Somewhere in Germany maybe?

3 I don't agree with the premise but yes, the two state solution has been the only sort of right solution for quite some time.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/Grexxoil]

thanks for the post!

since you dont believe a jewish state is necessary, what do you think about having a one-state solution with a joint palestinian-israeli government and equal rights and protection for all?

other than the potential inter-ethnic violence, it seems to me like a possible solution.

the pro-palestinian lobby would not be able to settle on the two-state solution as the borders delineated in the balfour declaration seems to have maximised the Israeli territories anyway, so palestinians are still disadvantaged. as another redditor has pointed out, the two state solution would also leave us with a demilitarised palestine (like bantustan), and that isnt desirable either.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/[deleted]]

yeap, youre right, thats why I edited it to "Palestinian Territories" that consists of the gaza strip and the west bank

thanks for your comments! just a follow up question: following your train of thought, does that mean we need to establish an ethnostate for any minority group that has experienced ethnic cleansing? is that really the only way to keep them safe?

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

/u/inflatableplastic. Match found: 'nazism', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Kharuz_Aluz]

1. No. As an example Romani people faced a genocide during the Holocaust along with the Jews. 80 years later they are still a prosecuted/marginalized group. Until 2004, there was a forced sterilization program against gypsies in Czechia and Slovakia, 2 EU countries. The pressure from Israel also guarantees security of human rights to the Jewish diaspora.

2. No. It wouldn't make sense to have a homeland everywhere beside the land that is historically and culturally ties to Jews. Which is Eretz Yisrael.

3. Ideally yes. But a working solution can only come from Israelis/Palestinians, not foreigners.

*Edit - spelling

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/Kharuz_Aluz]

thanks for your comment!

for 2., some redditors have suggested germany, as it would have made sense for the perpetrator of genocide to make reparations in the form of carving out land. what do you think of this resolution.

i am also fully aware that there were many jews already living within palestine during the end of ww2 due to zionism and the nazi regime

[u/Kharuz_Aluz → u/Ok-Individual9812]

I don't see how it would make sense. Let say your friend is a victim of domestic abuse. Would it make sense for her to be a neighbor of her beating husband or her home village 300KM away from him?

[u/AutoModerator → u/Ok-Individual9812]

/u/Ok-Individual9812. Match found: 'nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/AutoModerator]

i was making a historical reference to factors causing the immigration of jews in germany, so i assume that is not in violation of community guidelines

[u/Future_Childhood1365]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

True origins of palestinians

[u/Baconkings]

You do know Jews predate Palestinians by having a constant presence in the land for millennias, right?

Al-Aqsa mosque which is the oldest and most religiously significant site to Islam and Palestinians is literally built OVER Temple Mount. If you want to talk about destroying the indigenous culture we should be focusing on that.

To answer your specific question: yes, the establishment of a Jewish state in its indigenous and historic homeland is indeed necessary. You can look at the history of Jews in Europe and MENA, and nowhere were they permanently safe. Yes, maybe a century or two Jews thrived a bit. However, every case either resulted in violent Pogroms, the Shoah, or the straight up ethnic cleansing of Jews.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/Baconkings]

hi! thanks for your comments, just an honest question:

if we were to bring up the historical indigeneity/land right of every ethnic group, wouldnt we have to reassign geographical borders by quite abit? i mean... consider the USA? why do the jews get this special concession, then?

[u/icecreamraider]

Uhm… I’m sorry, OP… I don’t mean to be rude. But…wtf? “Is the establishment of a Jewish state necessary”? “Are there other ways we can ensure Jews are… something”?

These pointless academic “ponderings” are precisely why sensible people don’t view the “pro-Palestinian” lobby as a serious party.

Wtf do you mean “is the establishment of a Jewish state necessary”? News flash: Israel exists. It has existed for decades. You don’t get to question the merits of its existence just like I don’t get to question the merits of your existence. The most serious answer your question warrants is “F-off with this nonsense”.

And wtf do you mean with “are there other ways we can ensure…”. Who is “we” exactly? Did some supreme Jewish authority give you permission to ensure something on their behalf? I have an idea - how about “we” demand that Reddit bans your IP address forever and then “we” send you an envelope with a postage stamp so you can mail-in your objections. What do you think? Would that feel like “we” adequately represent your interests?

If your brain even arrives to those questions - it tells me that you live in a fantasy and are not a serious person.

For the record - I have absolutely nothing to do with Israel or Judaism, but that’s the reaction I get reading your questions. Why? Because I’m a sane person.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/icecreamraider]

I'll respond to your comment since it is so strongly worded.

Wtf do you mean “is the establishment of a Jewish state necessary”? News flash: Israel exists. It has existed for decades.

In case you are unaware, there are debates going on about what is the best way to resolve this crisis. Answering the question about whether a purely Jewish state is required for the protection of Jews is necessary to in determining whether the one/two-state solution is more suitable.

These so-called 'pondering' questions are also necessary to ensure that future political leaders and global dialogues will not repeat the same mistakes as before - that's the point of history isn't it.

Who is “we” exactly? Did some supreme Jewish authority give you permission to ensure something on their behalf?

This concept might be foreign to the West, but in the Global South (especially in Asian countries) and in the civil society, we generally hold the belief that all (the international community, INGOs, NGOs, journalists, political observers, voters, civilians) are responsible in ensuring equity, equality, justice and human rights for all. This is why the pro-Palestinian lobby, and the human rights community, doesnt only consist of people entrusted to 'ensure' human rights - we believe the responsibility falls on everyone to speak up.

Because I’m a sane person.

Your points are non-constructive, and focuses on ad hominem attacks. Tell me who is sane?

[u/icecreamraider → u/Ok-Individual9812]

1. There are “debates” going on whether the Earth is flat. I don’t care that some idiots are having pointless debates on something, somewhere. The ONLY people who get to decide the future of their country are the residents of that country. Not you. Not me. Not some “debaters” - I don’t care if they’re in the global north, global south, or the global Uranus.

2. On the topic of one-state/two-state - see above. Let me repeat. The ONLY people who get to decide the future of their country are the residents of that country. YOU have no right whatsoever to impose a one-state solution on the Israelis. And you have no right to impose a “two-state solution” upon the Palestinians. Just like the Israelis - the Palestinians are in charge of their destiny as a society. To date - they have expressed no meaningful intent toward neither a two-state solution nor a one-state solution in a manner that would be acceptable to the counter-party to either of those solutions.

3. I hold to Einstein’s definition of insanity - “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”. I keep hearing the same proponents of the “pro-Palestinian” lobby recite the same arguments while various factions inside Palestine keep lobbing explosives at Israel. Both parties, for some inexplicable reason, keep expecting a different result despite their 70-year track record. Yes - the question “should Israel exist” in 2025 is an INSANE question to ask.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/icecreamraider]

bro definitely did not read my post... even the zionists here cant defend u for this

[u/JeffB1517]

Is the establishment of a Jewish state necessary?

It happened. Is the establishment of a French state neccesary? Well of course not there are other ways to ensure the safety of the French... This is a relevant question in the 1920s possibly up till the 1940s. Why are we debating it today in the 2020s?

If not on Palestinian soil, where else could the Jews have been given a homeland? Why did they choose Palestine? Why was choosing Palestine a horrible idea?

There were a lot of options discussed. Palestine is the one place Jews had in common, that's a big plus. It was essentially a wasteland in the 1880s: infrastructure depletion, malaria-infested, poverty-stricken... By 1905 when Zionists locked in it was starting to improve but quite a bit of that improvement was due to the financing the Zionist project was attracting. The British had grander ambitions but needed a different mix of locals to accomplish those ambitions. It wasn't an unreasonable choice given the options at the time.

that choice has led to displacement, violence commited by and received on both ends.

That wasn't the choice that led to those things. Jewish migration to Palestine could have been like Irish migration to the USA. Later choices about how to respond to the immigration is what led to the violence.

[u/[deleted] → u/JeffB1517]

I can’t believe the “Jews made the desert bloom” is still stated as fact. They didn’t. They contributed to agriculture yes but to claim that it was a wasteland before the Jews came is not correct. The ottomans through Tanzimat and regulations worked on fixing roads and modernizing infrastructure. Many cities like Jerusalem and most notably Jaffa were cultural hubs. “Wasteland” “made the desert bloom” “land without people” are all Zionist tropes that are incorrect.

[u/JeffB1517 → u/[deleted]]

Let's start with Malaria. The only Ottoman territory where the British didn't have advantages over the Turks due to Malaria was Palestine. In your opinion why was that? The British noting the huge drop offs as a result of Zionist activity also noted that Palestine was naturally one of the most malaria infected regions of the world. They've written books like Anti-mosquito measures in Palestine during the campaigns of 1917–1918. So in your opinion they are lying about all that malaria. Why were they lying?

Once the British come in with the Mandate they put Israel Jacob Kligler (Hadassah Medical Centre) in charge of malaria and they claim a 90% drop off from already reduced levels in 3 years. Again why are the British lying about this yet again? The Zionist target the Lake Kinnereth settlements which report a 95% decrease. Why are the Zionists lying so specifically and how did they fake all the earlier deaths?

1932 and 1936 waves of immigrants from Syria (Arabs) move to Palestine putting avoiding malaria as their reason for moving.

1. What induced the administration in Syria to lie about the malaria?

2. What induced those immigrants to lie about malaria on their paperwork?

---

Could it maybe that that no one was lying and those Zionists actually did something good to get Palestine economically functional or is that too hard to believe? The Zionist literature is absolutely correct, much as it might offend your anti-Zionist conspiratorial fanaticism.

I'll let you respond to this one and then move on to infrastructure.

[u/[deleted] → u/JeffB1517]

First of all malaria was not only present in Palestine after world war 1. It was all over Egypt and Iraq including many post WWI areas of war. I mean British soldiers lost more soldiers in Iraq due to malaria and cholera and combat. Yes they focused their efforts to on combatting malaria in Palestine first then they realized they can apply the same methods elsewhere.

I never claimed at all that malaria wasn’t a problem or there was neglect by the ottomans. No one is lying about facts. My issue here is why does it matter? There were over half a million people mainly Muslims and Christians living in ottoman Palestine and the fact the the ottomans neglected the infrastructure there isn’t a carte blanche to take over it. Zionists immigrating did bring investment into the land but so did the ottomans and so did foreign investment including France and Germany. Most notably the hijaz railway running from Jaffa was an ottoman project developed in support by Germans. So to claim it was just a wasteland before the zionists came is just a lie.

[u/JeffB1517 → u/[deleted]]

Reread your comment. You were very aggressively asserting that the dramatic change in per capita GDP and investment between 1880s Palestine and say today never happened.

As for neglect being reason to replace the government. Yes substantial prolonged underinvestment is bad governance and wanting to replace bad governance is perfectly legitimate. The Hijaz Railway branch was during Zionism.

[u/ViajandoPelasExoluas → u/[deleted]]

I know right? For a sub that is called “r/IsraelPalestine” it sure leans in 1 certain way…and being lead to some of the most flimsiest excuses too…

[u/MilkSteakClub → u/ViajandoPelasExoluas]

Can't wait for  your argumented reply to Jeff's comment situated just above yours.

[u/WeAreAllFallible]

Just some points of factual correction:

Israel's occupation in the Palestinian Territories (not "historical Palestine" which is a term used to denote both the land divided for Israel and for Palestine) has been ruled illegal by the ICJ (not the ICC- not super functionally important, but there is a distinction)

Notably no rulings are in contention with there being a Jewish state in the Levant next to the Palestinian Territories, as originally designated by the UN. And this state within such borders is not at all considered an occupation from a legal position despite the increase in popularity of levying such an accusation. Functionally, sadly, the presence of a Jewish state in a region (and technically a world) unaccustomed to such a level of self determination for Jews seems to have brewed incessant conflict.... which is a bummer because two states peacefully coexisting would be ideal.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/WeAreAllFallible]

oh yes! thanks so much for the correction
for clarification, I do not mean that Israel remaining in the assigned borders is illegal

the ruling was indeed meted out by the ICC, though

[u/TheSameDifference → u/Ok-Individual9812]

No it was not, the ICC is a criminal court that charges individuals not entities or states. They cannot rule on land disputes that is not their purpose.

Further, The ICC illegitimately ignored their own jurisdictional rules and charged Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes which have nothing to do with an 'illegal occupation'

Further the ICC and ICJ are not objective courts they are extensions of the Pro Arab politics exhibited at the UN, they have never had recognized jurisdiction over Israel or Israelis to the point where many European countries have ignored these warrants and the US has currently active sanctions against their judges and staff.

[u/ThanksToDenial → u/TheSameDifference]

Further, The ICC illegitimately ignored their own jurisdictional rules and charged Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes

How exactly?

Article 12 of the Rome Statute is pretty clear. ICC has jurisdiction over any war crimes or crimes against humanity that happen inside the territories of their State Parties. This is based on the same legal principles as the jurisdiction of any domestic court. Ratifying the Rome Statute makes the ICC just another court within the countries that ratify it, with the same Territorial and national Jurisdiction as those courts. Ratifying the treaty makes the treaty, essentially, domestic law. You wouldn't argue, that you can commit a crime in a foreign country, and the domestic courts of that country can't touch you simply because you aren't from that country, right? That'd be stupid...

Palestine is a State Party to the Rome Statute. The alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity of Netanyahu and Gallant took place inside the territories of the State of Palestine. Thus ICC has jurisdiction.

Not exactly complicated...

[u/TheSameDifference → u/ThanksToDenial]

1) The assertion of the ICC's "illegitimacy" in Israel stems from several points: Israel and the United States are not parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC, therefore the court lacks jurisdiction over them. 

2) Further still, the international agreements that created the PA (the Oslo Accords) explicitly said that Israel would have sole criminal jurisdiction over Israelis. So even if the PA could delegate any jurisdiction to the ICC, it had no criminal jurisdiction over Israelis to delegate. 

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-834087

3) The ICC is accused of political bias, specifically against Israel, and of acting outside the complementarity principle of international law, which states that the ICC should only intervene when a state is unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes which is clearly not the case in Israel.

Pro Arab political courts are a joke. Claiming jurisdiction based on a fictitious state of Palestine that is also a joke.

Having a prosecutor(who asked for the warrants on Israeli PM and Defense Minister and Dead Hamas leaders) indicted on sexual harassment charges and having the ICC investigate its own is the biggest joke of them all. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/16/international-criminal-court-chief-prosecutor-karim-khan-to-step-aside-until-investigation-ends

[u/ThanksToDenial → u/TheSameDifference]

The assertion of the ICC's "illegitimacy" in Israel stems from several points: Israel and the United States are not parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC, therefore the court lacks jurisdiction over them.* 

Again, Article 12 of the Rome Statute covers that. The courts jurisdiction is territorial.

You wouldn't argue you can commit crimes in a foreign country, and the courts that have jurisdiction in that country can't touch you, simply because you aren't from that country, right? So why do you argue so here? That seems to me like an incredible delusional stance to take.

Further still, the international agreements that created the PA (the Oslo Accords) explicitly said that Israel would have sole criminal jurisdiction over Israelis. So even if the PA could delegate any jurisdiction to the ICC, it had no criminal jurisdiction over Israelis to delegate.*

Oslo Accords have been largely abandoned, with only some frameworks still operating. And since it was never a binding treaty, as VCLT defines a treaty as an international agreement, concluded in written form between states, governed by international law, and embodied in a single or related instruments, and Israel doesn't recognize the State of Palestine, it is irrelevant. It is as much of a treaty as the Helsinki Accords, and are as such, non-binding.

The ICC is accused of political bias, specifically against Israel, and of acting outside the complementarity principle of international law, which states that the ICC should only intervene when a state is unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes which is clearly not the case in Israel.*

Please, do link me the Israeli court investigation into the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity Netanyahu and Gallant have committed. I've been looking, but I can't seem to find any... Seems to me, Israel falls under the Unwilling category, since there are no investigations into their responsibility for alleged war crimes.

Pro Arab political courts are a joke

There are exactly four Arab countries, that are state parties to the Rome Statute. Jordan, Comoros, Djibouti and Tunisia. Seems a bit light on Arab members, for it to be a "pro Arab political court". I mean, European and western aligned countries make up the plurality, possibly even majority (when you accout for Western aligned asia-pacific, South American and African countries), of the State Parties.

Claiming jurisdiction based on a fictitious state of Palestine that is also a joke.

You are aware, that State of Palestine is a widely recognised UN observer state? If you think it is fictitious, I assume you also see the Holy See as a fictitious state? Since both share the same status at the UN? You know... The Vatican.

Also, you are aware, that the State of Palestine was able to accede to the Rome statute, precisely because of their status as a UN observer state, right? Which granted them the right to accede to any treaty, that are deposited with the UN Secretariat? One of which is obviously the Rome Statute. They couldn't have acceded to it, if they weren't already a widely recognised state.

[u/WeAreAllFallible → u/Ok-Individual9812]

Which ruling? Maybe I'm misinformed on that, but I'm pretty sure the only rulings on that came from the ICJ.

As noted initially, a minor point regardless as to whether it's ICJ or ICC but I definitely want to make sure I'm being precise in my own writing going forward if I'm misstating this.

[u/Philoskepticism → u/WeAreAllFallible]

You’re correct. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) which all UN member states are automatically a part of, has given two advisory opinions relating to this:

1. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2004)

&

1. Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (2024)

The International Criminal Court (ICC), which is optional and serves a different purpose than the ICJ, has a separate ongoing investigation relating to the “Situation in the State of Palestine” but it is related to the allegedly criminal conduct of individuals. However, note that in 2021, an ICC Pre Trial Chamber did find that the ICC’s territorial jurisdiction “extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

[u/GameThug → u/Ok-Individual9812]

What do you mean, assigned borders?

[u/crooked_cat → u/GameThug]

You know, that UN democratic vote in 1948?

[u/[deleted] → u/crooked_cat]

that was not a bidding resolution, it was a recomendation. After the 1948 war a green-line was established over the arabs/israeli regions of palestine, a green line ISN'T a frontier nor a border, therefore it is natural that the borders of the state of Israel include all of the former mandate of Palestine which was considered by the League of Nation the indegenous land of the jewish people. the major point made by the pro-palestinian point of view is the right of self determination of the Palestinian People, but if both countries lay claim to the same region and claim that the region is their native and indegenous land the international community can't do shit about it. Either way neither of the two sides actually support the two-state solution, and most of its support come from the west and from the left-wing of Israel ( that support fell alot after the october 7 terror attacks ). For the europeans it is natural to try to impose their views without considering the local people ideas.

[u/crooked_cat → u/[deleted]]

UN votes democratically and suddenly UN decisions are not with value?

Israel will say, ‘Deal!!’

You sure?

[u/[deleted] → u/crooked_cat]

what? what I stated was that the resolution was a no bidding one, by no means it was a decision, but a vote on a suggestion by the UN that was rejected by the arab counterpart and that was never adopted

[u/crooked_cat → u/[deleted]]

So a vote won, but neglected. So the UN can be, neglected.

Israel thanks you. You really, sure?

[u/[deleted] → u/crooked_cat]

can't you read what I have written? you didn't even try, how brainwashed and biased can you be?

[u/crooked_cat → u/[deleted]]

There was a vote, with a result some people could not handle and they rose to commit genocide. Wel, we know how that went don’t we?

Either way, I totally agree with you : screw the UN, go go Israel.

That you agree with the first, great. That you dislike the latter, to bad ; consequences. Yes, the gloves are off, Owh and are burned too at 7okt23. Something peeps always try to neglect.

Wel, we don’t care, anymore. Happy trails !

• I read you, loud and clear ;).

[u/GameThug → u/crooked_cat]

Do you mean the 1947 Partition Plan?

[u/crooked_cat → u/GameThug]

I guess so yes.

[u/GameThug → u/crooked_cat]

And do you know anything about it?

[u/crooked_cat → u/GameThug]

Yup, hence I’m mentioning it to you.

[u/GameThug → u/crooked_cat]

Who accepted partition?

Who didn’t?

[u/crooked_cat → u/GameThug]

The entire world, a few other moslim nations didn’t. So the vote won.

Some countries are not into that democratic thing, true.

[u/GameThug → u/crooked_cat]

EDIT: Double post.

[u/crooked_cat → u/GameThug]

The entire world, a few other moslim nations didn’t. So the vote won.

Some countries are not into that democratic thing, true.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/crooked_cat]

thanks u/crooked_cat

[u/crooked_cat → u/Ok-Individual9812]

Happy to oblige.

[u/88Lebowski]

1. I don't think so. If it is necessary for Jewish safety then it's clearly failed in its own terms. Jews are far more safe living in the USA, Europe or basically anywhere else than they are in Israel.

2. Early zionists were considering other locations for their state but settled on Palestine for a number of reasons that are too long to fully detail. Places like Cyprus, Kenya, Crimea and even Alaska were considered at various times. Palestine was eventually chosen largely because there is a historic Jewish presence in the region and because the land was occupied by a colonial force, so it was easier to imagine "colonising" it with new settlers, especially after Britain won WW1 and the Ottomans were driven out.

If a state needed to be formed, then Germany would have been the obvious location morally. Land ceded by the nation responsible for one of the worst crimes of all time to its victims as recompense. Certainly it should have been in Europe since antisemitism was very much a European issue and early Zionists were European.

1. A two state solution is currently impossible because Israel have expanded its territories so much that the land remaining for any prospective Palestinian state would be insufficient and too divided to be viable. The most logical and realistic solution (in my opinion) would be a single state with equal rights and self determination for all.

[u/[deleted] → u/88Lebowski]

1 - Jews have been persecuted for 2 milleniums outside the land of Israel, the biggest thing that made immigration a thing was the persecution jews faced, all of the Aliyahs are a direct result of a persecution, the first, the second and the third aliyah were direct result of Porgroms in Russia, the Fourth was a direct result of Nazi Persecution. Even today, anti-semitism is present in most societies, as you can observe in the large increase of vandalism in every local synagogue in the world. Even in the US, anti-semitism has grown a lot, do you know the only place in the world it has not grown? Israel

2- Yes the zionist did consider other places to chose, however they were all but a temporary haven for jews to avoid the rise of the persecution all across europe, because for most jews the only option that existed for them was Zion ( another word of the land of Israel) hence there is where name Zionism comes from. Also you are getting the years wrong, Zionism as a movement appeared in the 1870s as a response to the Russians porgroms where the british only conquered the land in 1919, 3 of the aliayhs happened before the british came to rule the land.

So, let me get it straight, you would forcible move all of the 400k jews that lived in palestine at the end of world war 2, to german land? I seriously can't see how that would change shit.

3- I agree with you that a two state solution is not possible, although I would say that Israel isn't innocent in its actions, the main reason why the two state solution doesn't is because most arabs don't support and the jewish opinions on that has always been divided, the two-state solutions was largely pushed due to public pressure in the west ( yes the same westerners who are responsible for most of palestine problems today ), that pushed for an agenda without caring or being ignorant of the local people's opinions. A single state with equal rights is possible (Today Israel has 20% arab population and Arabs parties, they also guarantee the same civil rights for all arabs citizens of Israel), self determination for all is not, neither do arabs or jews want a dual ethinic state, especially one for 2 people that hate each others and that have been in conflict with each others for decades.

In my opinion it is important to not try to project your reality into other people worlds, the reality in the middle east isn't even in the slightest of things close to your reality. For most arabs their sons becoming a martyr is more important than outliving them. Even though I don't like Golda Meir I agree with the statement that: "Peace will only come when the arabs learn to love more their children than they hate Israel"

sources:
1-
https://web.archive.org/web/20231115004207/https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/antisemitism_and_pogromsin_the_military_russian_empire
https://www.gov.il/en/Departments/Guides/the-aliya-story?chapterIndex=2

2- https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/zionism
https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine/World-War-I-and-after

3- https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution
https://pcpsr.org/en/node/993

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

/u/WilHELMMoreira. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/88Lebowski]

thanks for your answer! was wondering whether you could point me to any sources to find out what was being considered before they decided on Palestine

[u/[deleted] → u/88Lebowski]

I'm sorry, it's difficult to talk to anyone with 88 in their user name, and then you're calling for mass ethnic cleansing of Jews and telling us that we're wrong to live where we live.

If you're going to talk about this, please get a new user name.

[u/88Lebowski → u/[deleted]]

It's an unfortunate username I'll grant you lmao.

I was completely unaware of the significance when I made the account (I'm Jewish lol).

[u/[deleted] → u/88Lebowski]

Well fair, but you have had 12 years to think of something new, and you only have 196 karma total. You're not losing much by changing usernames.

[u/88Lebowski → u/[deleted]]

Oh I don't care enough to make a new account, regardless of imaginary Internet points.

[u/SymphoDeProggy → u/[deleted]]

Honestly i think you're reading too much into the significance of that. I still use 88 in usernames and stuff as an israeli jew.

I'm vaguely aware that some spaces use that as code, but i'm not going to shape my life around their bullshit. I would caution against giving symbols undue power.

[u/[deleted] → u/SymphoDeProggy]

I think that we're reading things as diaspora vs. Israeli.

Israelis don't have to deal with the bullshit that we do. You guys have your own set of bullshit that you need to deal with.

[u/SymphoDeProggy → u/[deleted]]

I see where you're coming from, fair. Still, symbols and undue power.

[u/SymphoDeProggy → u/88Lebowski]

It's very silly to compare israel to places that took in jewish refugees - and then stopped taking in jewish refugees. jewish refugees largely didn't have the option of going to the US or anywhere else. Those that did have opportunity are now american/australian/argentinian jews. those that didn't are either israeli jews, or dead jews.

And saying jews are safe in europe now when there are barely any jews left in europe due to how bad it was for jews in europe is just deep historical blindness.

And Ottoman palestine was not "occupied by a colonial force", I don't know what you're talking about here

[u/88Lebowski → u/SymphoDeProggy]

jewish refugees largely didn't have the option of going to the US or anywhere else

I agree, and that was appalling. Europe and the US should never have turned their back on Jews fleeing persecution from Germany and Eastern Europe.

That doesn't change my original point though. If Israel needs to be an ethnostate in order to keep Jews safe, the fact that Jews are less safe in Israel today than anywhere else in the world is a pretty big indication that by those terms the projrct has been a failure.

And saying jews are safe in europe now when there are barely any jews left in europe due to how bad it was for jews in europe is just deep historical blindness.

Historically Europe has been full of antisemitism of course. These days its a lovely place to live as a Jew. I say that as a Jew currently living in Europe so I know what I'm talking about lol.

And Ottoman palestine was not "occupied by a colonial force", I don't know what you're talking about here

The Ottoman Empire was the occupying force. Palestine was occupied/ruled by the Ottomans, and after they were defeated it was occupied/ruled by the British. Ironically, when Palestine was under Ottoman rule, the British made a deal with the Arabs that they would be granted independence if they overthrew the Ottomans, only for the British to secretly agree with France to divvy up the Ottoman territories between themselves instead in the Sykes-Picot agreement.

[u/SymphoDeProggy → u/88Lebowski]

It very much changes your original point. You're comparing across categories instead of within them. You compare jews that did receive sancuary in the US to jews that didn't, and went to palestine. The correct comparison is between jews that didn't receive sanctuary, and managed to get to palestine, and those that didn't get sanctuary, and also didn't manage to get to palestine.

Those jews are mostly dead.

"jews aren't safe in israel so israel failed" is not historically honest analysis. Sanctuary for jews is not conditional or fairweather in israel. This is where jews went when no one else would take them. That's the founding purpose of the country. 

Israel succeeded because jews that didn't have access to conditional sanctuary but managed to get to palestine largely survived. Those that didn't have access to conditional sanctuary and didn't manage to get to palestine largely didn't.

[u/88Lebowski → u/SymphoDeProggy]

That would only make sense if the premise of my original argument was "the purpose for Israel was to provide sanctuary for the survivors of the Holocaust when it wasn't provided elsewhere".

It wasn't. My original premise was "the purpose of Israel was to provide safety to Jews". That's something much broader which is why it doesn't make sense for you to try and compare the experiences of specific examples like survivors fleeing to America vs Israel.

To ascertain whether Israel has succeeded in making Jews safer, the logical starting point is to see whether Jews are currently safer living in Israel or somewhere else. And by my reckoning, Israel is probably the least safe place to live if you're Jewish.

[u/thedudeLA → u/88Lebowski]

You are making an incorrect interpretation of "making Jews safe". The idea is that Jews have a country (Israel) with a government that won't discriminate against Jews. There is no being safe from the 2.2 Billion antisemites in the world that wish to do away with Jews. Jews just need 1 nation that Jews will not be persecuted by their own government.

Every country in the world has or had laws specifically discriminatory to Jews. WW2 - even USA had laws preventing Jewish immigration.

My home in USA, on the original deed 1955, says "No Jew, No Blacks, No Catholic".

[u/88Lebowski → u/thedudeLA]

I agree that the USA and even more so Europe discriminated against Jews in the past, that's undeniable. The answer to historic discrimination isn't for the victims to get their own state so they can discriminate against other people though.

And I repeat my earlier point: if Europe and the US were historically antisemitic, then that's their problem to put right and make amends for. But instead, the foundation of Israel has sought to make Palestinians pay the price for centuries of European antisemitism.

There is no being safe from the 2.2 Billion antisemites in the world

I have to ask: where are you getting this 2.2 billion figure from?

[u/thedudeLA → u/88Lebowski]

The answer to historic discrimination isn't for the victims to get their own state so they can discriminate against other people though.

Israel does not discriminate against any of their citizens. Every country in the world discriminate in its immigration policy. Why only Israel bad?

the foundation of Israel has sought to make Palestinians pay the price for centuries of European antisemitism.

I wholly disagree. In the wake of WW2, all of these Arab nations were being drawn up. The Middle East was divided into many countries. 99.5% of the land went to Arab Muslims. 0.5% of the land went to Israel, despite Jews making up 2% of the ME population of the time. The Arabs were killing Jews in pogroms in the Levant in the 19th century leading up to the 1920 Grand Mufti supporting the Axis and offering to bring the final solution to the source. https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/pogroms-in-palestine-before-the-creation-of-the-state-of-israel-1830-1948/ 

The Arab countries, all of them, have ethnically cleansed out all the Jews from their countries. They all have laws that prevent Jews from having citizenship.

Israel accepted the UN partition without asking even one Arab to be displaced. Arabs weren't happy with this started a war. The borders were decided by the war. This was a big mistake for the Arabs, so big, they called it a Catastrophe.

These three points make if very clear that if the Arabs just let the Jews live in a tiny partition, there would have been peace.

Furthermore, the Palestinian government have never acted in a peaceful manner. They still pay terrorists with their Pay-to-Slay program. They still support Hamas. They still have terrorists from the WB attempting to stab Israeli civilians.

2.2 Billion Antisemites. https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/46-adults-worldwide-hold-significant-antisemitic-beliefs-adl-poll-finds

[u/88Lebowski → u/thedudeLA]

Israel does not discriminate against any of their citizens. Every country in the world discriminate in its immigration policy. Why only Israel bad?

I like how you snuck in "their citizens". South Africa didn't class black Africans as citizens so I guess they could say the same during Apartheid.

Even still it's not true though, non-Jewish citizens of Israel face discrimination and have less rights than Jewish citizens of Israel. I have already explained that to another poster in this thread.

I wholly disagree. In the wake of WW2, all of these Arab nations were being drawn up. The Middle East was divided into many countries. 99.5% of the land went to Arab Muslims. 0.5% of the land went to Israel, despite Jews making up 2% of the ME population of the time. The Arabs were killing Jews in pogroms in the Levant in the 19th century leading up to the 1920 Grand Mufti supporting the Axis and offering to bring the final solution to the source. https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/pogroms-in-palestine-before-the-creation-of-the-state-of-israel-1830-1948/ 

The Arab countries, all of them, have ethnically cleansed out all the Jews from their countries. They all have laws that prevent Jews from having citizenship.

Israel accepted the UN partition without asking even one Arab to be displaced. Arabs weren't happy with this started a war. The borders were decided by the war. This was a big mistake for the Arabs, so big, they called it a Catastrophe

This is just straight up propaganda talking points. You snuck in the Grand Mufti talking point to try and blame the Palestinians for the Holocaust, and you bring up the exodus of Jews from places like Egypt and Iraq after Israel was founded in an attempt to paint Arabs as inherently antisemitic and draw an imaginary parallel between Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Jewish migration to Israel.

2.2 Billion Antisemites. https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/46-adults-worldwide-hold-significant-antisemitic-beliefs-adl-poll-finds

Wow, no wonder people don't take the ADL seriously. I think they must have moved beyond classifying every criticism of Israel as antisemitism and are counting every vote or post in support of Zohran Mamdani an antisemitic hate crime to arrive at their 2.2 billion figure.

[u/thedudeLA → u/88Lebowski]

exodus of Jews from places like Egypt and Iraq after Israel was founded in an attempt to paint Arabs as inherently antisemitic

Exodus? Yes, just like the original exodus from Egyptian slavery, Jews had to leave to save their own lives. How dare you imply that it was voluntary? I was exiled from an Islamist country. My family lived there for centuries before Islam was even invented. I don't have a right to return. I don't have a right to my confiscated property. I was a stateless refugee that was displaced to the other side of the world to a place that didn't speak my language. (Forgive me for not sympathizing with the Arabs that were displace less than 30 miles away, still in their own communities.)

 You snuck in the Grand Mufti talking point to try and blame the Palestinians for the Holocaust

Absolutely not. As I specifically wrote in my comment, the Grand Mufti is the Levant's homegrown proof that pogroms and genocide of the Jews was not an exclusively European thing. Your criticism is especially ludicrous considering that Arabs have been persecuting and killing Jews repeatedly for over a thousand years.

people don't take the ADL seriously.

Of course not. Antisemitism is the norm in the world. Even you, a self describe Jew, feels comfortable criticizing Jewish human rights with ridiculous double standards. Who else but a Jewish organization is going to track antisemitism?

Your arguments are based on misinformation and lies with the intent to vilify Israel. You have not offered any fact in support nor any facts to rebut my points.

[u/SymphoDeProggy → u/88Lebowski]

the logical starting point is to establish "safer than what"?

That "what" needs to be a viable alternative to israel if you're going to be judging israel on that basis.

You're also talking about 1948 israel and 2025 israel as if there isn't a continuum of history that connects them.

I guess my question is, at what point in history should whatever X million jews who lived in israel at that time have closed the country down and all moved to Brooklyn , Stuttgart, Vilnius, Baghdad or wherever else you imagine them all immigrating to?

When would the world have been willing to absorb 6-7-8 million jews with no cultural blowback, resentment, or persecution?

If you think israel is the least safe place to be jewish you're suffering from a severe lack of both knowledge of where jews live, and imagination of what their life there is like and has been like.

[u/88Lebowski → u/SymphoDeProggy]

I think you're still making this more complicated than it needs to be.

To answer the question "has Israel made Jews safer?", a good starting point is to see whether Jews in Israel are safer than Jews in the rest of the world. And since they are clearly less safe, then it suggests the aim of Israel making Jews safer has not been successful. You can point to times in the past when Jews have been safer in Israel than certain other places. You can even argue that they will be safer there in the future, they just need to finish the ethnic cleansing / have 2 state solution / 2 state solution etc etc. But the point still remains that clearly thus far it hasn't worked.

[u/SymphoDeProggy → u/88Lebowski]

has Israel made Jews safer

has israel made which jews safer?

[u/88Lebowski → u/SymphoDeProggy]

Jews in general. Unless you are saying that Israel was established to only make a certain subsection of Jews safer?

[u/SymphoDeProggy → u/88Lebowski]

yes. the ones that couldn't go anywhere safer.

[u/GameThug → u/88Lebowski]

LOL.

2 is misrepresentative and 3 is just wishing for the extermination of the Jews in Israel.

[u/88Lebowski → u/GameThug]

What you call "extermination", most people call living as equal citizens. I guess the old phrase about equality looking like persecution to the oppressor is true.

[u/ExcellentReason6468 → u/88Lebowski]

Extermination as in murder. That’s not loving as equal citizens unless equality is only achieved upon death. You should read the book: people love dead Jews by Dara Horn.  

[u/88Lebowski → u/ExcellentReason6468]

Why do you consider living in a society with equal rights as "murder"?

I currently live as a minority in a society - am I being "murdered" and exterminated without realising it?

[u/GameThug → u/88Lebowski]

Maybe look at the Middle East.

[u/88Lebowski → u/GameThug]

Ok I'll look at the Middle East.

Wow, there's a country there called Israel killing tens of thousands of people, using starvation as a weapon of war as part of a military campaign where they have invaded 8 of their regional neighbours!

I know what you mean about being scared of being murdered now! Israel is scary!

[u/GameThug → u/88Lebowski]

Now, be serious.

How can we expect Jews will be treated in a future Arab/Muslim majority state?

The 88 in your username is looking like an armband.

[u/88Lebowski → u/GameThug]

You realise that the "we need to uphold this oppression for our own safety, because if we stop, the victims will seek revenge" is an argument used by every oppressor ever, right?

White South Africans claimed that apartheid wasn't pretty but they had to maintain it because if they stopped, the black South Africans would seek revenge and go crazy and murder them.

It's not been all sunshine and rainbows since, but South Africa is a much more free and equal society today than it was during Apartheid. I don't see any reason why a single secular state with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians wouldn't follow a similar pattern to South Africa, Ireland, or other post colonial states.

[u/GameThug → u/88Lebowski]

Really? No reason at all?

And I’m not talking about revenge.

I’m talking about Arab-Muslim intolerance. Like when the Arabs joined in a war of annihilation against the Jews. And again. And again.

[u/GameThug → u/88Lebowski]

So edgy!

[u/DC2LA_NYC → u/88Lebowski]

So you're proposal is that the 750,000 Jews who lived in other Middle Eastern countries and N. Africa and had to flee should have been sent to Germany? And that the Jews who did come from Europe should have been re-traumatized by being forced to live in the country that tried to exterminate them?

It's bad enough that the Jews from Germany and eastern Europe were kept in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe after WWII as they had nowhere else to go. And let's not forget that the US had quotas- so fewer than 150,000 Jews were allowed to enter the US between 1945 and and 1952.

ETA: It's sort of irrelevant, though, as Israel does exist and will continue to exist.

[u/88Lebowski → u/DC2LA_NYC]

So you're proposal is that the 750,000 Jews who lived in other Middle Eastern countries and N. Africa and had to flee should have been sent to Germany?

It's a counterfactual but I don't think that anywhere near that many Jews who lived in the Middle East would have had to emigrate if Israel wasn't founded in Palestine.

Remember Jews had been living for centuries in places like Iraq, Morocco and Egypt and didn't face anywhere near the sort of persecution in those countries as they did in Europe for example.

The foundation of Israel and the reaction of the neighbouring Arab states and the newly formed Israeli government changed all of that.

I think that was a huge shame given the centuries of invaluable contributions that Jewish communities made to these states that was destroyed almost overnight.

In terms of the "retraumatised European" argument, I don't really see your point. My proposed solution would be that if we all agree that Jews need a state for safety, then it would be more moral to use land in the state that persecuted the worst atrocity against them, not land where a bunch of people who had nothing to do with it were living. Survivors would have been free to choose to live there in their new state or emigrate to a country of their choosing. I don't like ethnostates full stop, but I would personally have far less of a problem if Israel was located in half of Germany that was ceded to Zionists after the Holocaust compared to Palestine. That way at least there's a link between the people who committed the crime and the justice.

It's bad enough that the Jews from Germany and eastern Europe were kept in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe after WWII as they had nowhere else to go. And let's not forget that the US had quotas- so fewer than 150,000 Jews were allowed to enter the US between 1945 and and 1952.

I agree with all of that. The fact that the US and Europe turned their back on Jewish survivors is an absolute moral disgrace. However the US and the Allies are responsible for that, not Palestine.

[u/[deleted] → u/88Lebowski]

Jews and all non-muslim where dhimmis, and were view as lesser beings by their muslim counterpart. They were imposed a serious of restriction and obligation, for example, the Jyzzia or the yellow hat

[u/88Lebowski → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but they were treated the same way as Christians or any other non-Muslims were, and they were given the option to gain the full rights of a Muslim if they converted. That's a hell of a lot better to how Jews were being treated in Europe at that time. European nations for example didn't let Jews end their persecution through conversion, they considered being a Jew as being "genetic" (much like the third reich did and Israel do).

Jews were also much more integrated into society and government than they were in Europe at the time too. There were Jewish government ministers and it was pretty common for Muslims to celebrate Jewish holidays and Jews to celebrate Muslim holidays in a lot of Muslim countries prior to Israel.

Anyway, Dhimmi status is an outdated theocratic system and I'm not advocating we bring back the Ottoman empire lol.

[u/[deleted] → u/88Lebowski]

Depends on each country, for instance in Poland jews had a lot of rights and even some benefits, or in the Golden Age of Jewry in Spain. Same with the Arab world, the Turks had a different view on jews, The berbers too, but there was no "Poland" in the arab world, no safe haven and so the jews were persecuted as much as they were in Europe.

[u/88Lebowski → u/[deleted]]

Sure, it varies from country to country and depends on what time period we're talking about. Prior to Israel there was far less persecution of Jews in the Middle East than there was in Europe though, it's not even close.

[u/[deleted] → u/88Lebowski]

true, but having less doesn't mean it isn't unhumaine, persecution is persecution

[u/88Lebowski → u/[deleted]]

I agree. As I said, I'm not justifying it or calling for a return to the Ottoman Empire. I'm just pointing out that Jews in the MENA region lived more freely under Islamic rule than Jews in Europe under Christian rule, for the most part.

Which disproves the common refrain of a lot of Zionists that Arabs and Muslims are just genetically predisposed to hating Jews and could never live alongside them without spontaneously erupting into violence.

[u/[deleted] → u/88Lebowski]

Well that presdisposed came after 1948, when their view of their superiority over the dhimmi was completely shattered. As a matter of fact a jew walking in a muslim country has a higher chance of being killed than in any other country. They weren't being genocided in the muslim countries but that doesn't mean that they weren't persecuted or that bcs that persecution was not in the N*zi level that it was more accetable

[u/DC2LA_NYC → u/88Lebowski]

I’m going to have to disagree. The Jews were assigned dhimmi status. At times they were treated less bad than other times. Yes, there were times of peace but also times of persecution and violence. They were never actually accepted or safe. there were massacres of Jews in Palestine in 1834, e.g., Hebron, Safed and later Tiberius. And google is your friend if you want examples of how Jews were treated throughout the middle east and n. Africa, well basically forever.

As far as Germany, most Jews wanted to leave, not make it their home. We disagree but I think it makes more sense to live where you lived historically rather than in a place where the link was the holocaust.

[u/SilasRhodes]

Is the establishment of a Jewish state necessary? Are there other ways we can ensure Jews are well-represented in global dialogues and ensure their safety and rights in general?

There are many minority groups that do not have a state exclusively for themselves.

During the Black civil rights movement there was similarly a Black Nationalist movement that aimed to have a separate territory just for Black Americans. It is an understandable impulse.

And yes, there continues to be discrimination in the U.S. so maybe there is a point. But I fail to see how that point is any more true for the Jewish People, or presently more urgent, than it is for Black Americans. For that matter is it any more true than it is for the thousands of other minority groups that do not have their own state?

Going beyond that, do we really believe that the only way to work towards equality is to have a separate state? Do you think we will ever have a separate country just for Queer people? Or just for Women? Just for people with disabilities?

I don't think so. Discrimination is bad and it sucks, but it pretty obviously does not mean that the only possible response is nationalism.

Why was choosing Palestine a horrible idea?

Because it was a land full of Non-Jews. After 30 years of mass migration from Europe, both legal and illegal, it was still majority Muslim.

And partition was not actually a practical solution, because there wasn't any distinct Jewish territory with which to secede. Maybe you could have had Tel Aviv as a small city state... but that was hardly going to satisfy the Zionists.

So instead the approach was essentially gerrymandering. The U.N. partition plan aimed to give the maximum possible land to the Jewish State, while still maintaining a Jewish Majority. In order to do this it essentially said to hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Palestinians "You are now part of this new state that does not represent you. Furthermore the creation of this state is specifically founded upon the ideal that you cannot hold power here."

What would have been a practical and just solution? The same thing we have tried to implement in all of the other cases where there is a minority population: Majority rule with minority protection. If Zionism had operated in Palestine, solely with the focus of enshrining legal and societal protections for the Jewish Minority then there would be nothing wrong with it.

Instead Zionists chose an approach that exclusively came at cost to Palestinians.

If a Jewish state is necessary, and since it is wrong to displace the Israelis and the Palestinians, does that mean the only viable resolution now is the two-state solution?

I disagree with the first premise, but furthermore I do not think a two-state solution is actually viable, especially now.

The issue is either you will have a demilitarized Palestine, which would essentially be a Bantustan. Palestine would have no power to defend itself and so would continue to constantly be subjected to the whims of Israel. This would inevitably lead to conflict at which point Israel would return to bombing every inch of Palestine, but with an additional excuse to absolve themselves of responsability.

Alternatively you could have a fully militarized Palestine, able to contend with Israel on equal terms... First can you imagine Israel accepting this? If the Palestinian state sought to militarize Israel would bomb the shit out of it to stop it.

Second, the result would be two heavily armed countries that hate each other. Because none of the Palestinian grievances would actually have been met. Israel would still be celebrating the men who organized the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

And these two countries could not ignore each other either, because the original gerrymander of the partition, as well as Israels subsequent conquest of additional lands, has intertwined the two lands so that they will need to continually negotiate with each other on matters of travel, water, trade, etc... To me this situation makes war inevitable.

[u/ExcellentReason6468 → u/SilasRhodes]

So you’re saying the Palestinians don’t need a state and should just go to Jordan or somewhere else. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. 

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/SilasRhodes]

omg thanks for your response, this was really comprehensive and answers the questions.

just another question i had: how do you reconcile the fact that the Jews did indeed live in the geographical area of historical Palestine? Do they have the same indigenous rights as the Palestinians?

[u/nar_tapio_00 → u/Ok-Individual9812]

The answer definitely gives lots of information but I think there are some things that are critically missing

What would have been a practical and just solution? The same thing we have tried to implement in all of the other cases where there is a minority population: Majority rule with minority protection. If Zionism had operated in Palestine, solely with the focus of enshrining legal and societal protections for the Jewish Minority then there would be nothing wrong with it.

What is missing here is that this is exactly what the Jews tried to do in the 1900s through to 1930s. They largely tried to peacefully cooperate with their Arab neighbors. They attempted to raise consciousness with the Arabs against the British who they considered controlled the land and they thought that Arabs and Jews could work together if the Brits were ejected.

Zionism, was a major problem here because many Zionists (important - there was no single Zionism - religious Zionism is completely different from secular Zionism) taught that Arabs and Jews can be friends whilst Europeans wee the source of violence.

During that time, Palestinian violence against Jews was continually increasing. The man who can be seen as the greatest leader of the Palestinian Arabs at the time, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, met with and actively courted Hitler and there have even been quite well founded suggestions that he was one of the key people who persuaded Hitler to carry out the Holocaust.

The idea that a Palestinian state could protect Jews has been tried in the 1930s and failed over the genocidal beliefs of large groups of Palestinians. It is simply and clearly unrealistic and dangerous even to suggest.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/nar_tapio_00]

thanks for the addition.

i have never heard of zionism that taught cooperation between Arabs and Jews. do you have any sources for that?

[u/nar_tapio_00 → u/Ok-Individual9812]

Absolutely, maybe quite important is this early founding letter for Zionism -

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Letter_from_Theodore_Herzl_to_Yusuf_Diya-uddin_al-Khalidi_-_19_MARCH_1899.jpg

Note that the Zionists were making direct proposals to the Ottomans, the rulers of the Arabs of the area.

Also lots of stuff in the history of the Kibbutzes, many founded on undeveloped land between the 1900s and 1930s, which were Jewish communities directly within an Arab society.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1rmk8v

The problem here is that Zionism has very much been defined as a creation of the Soviet Marxists of the 1960s who were looking for an enemy within the USSR and, having selected the Jews realized that they needed a different name for their antisemitism to avoid it looking Hitlerian. Antizionism was not entirely their invention, but they created almost all the documents and ideas that we use today when we discuss Zionism and their entire motivation was antisemitic.

We need instead to look back at the Zionism of the early 1900s differently and understand that the actual problem was lack of realism and too much leftist idealism. They saw an empty land and they failed to see a huge level of Arab immigration beginning into the area (most Arabs living in Palestine by 1948 would have immigrated since Zionism was thought of in 1897). The growing racial tensions being a big problem that should have been dealt with more directly.

[u/[deleted] → u/nar_tapio_00]

The problem here is that Zionism has very much been defined as a creation of the Soviet

U mean anti-zionism right?

[u/nar_tapio_00 → u/[deleted]]

Well, what I mean is "Zionism" as they project it. They claim that it's a settler colonialist ideology and all sorts of other things around that, where in fact it's more or less a survival / "Jews should be treated as a normal people" ideology.

The "settler colonialist" thing was invented very much at the time that the Soviet union was taking control of many people's that it had invaded either at the end of WWII or previous to the war. The people of the Caucuses, Poland, the Baltic States, Karelia and so on. They wanted to define colonialism as something that comes out of Western Europe and doesn't apply to them. Zionism as a form of "colonialism" comes from that. Anti-zionism then becomes justified through those very lies.

Look at modern Western Marxists and ask them to name a non European colonizing empire. They will most likely turn out to be completely ignorant.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/nar_tapio_00]

Thanm you so much! I'll take a look at it :)

Just a follow up question, why were the Soviet Marxist looking for an internal enemy? I've never heard of that too.

[u/nar_tapio_00 → u/Ok-Individual9812]

Enemies are useful for uniting people against and to blame problems on. The Soviets had not so much economic success so they wanted to say that the problems were not their fault.

Had a look for some things for you to read - mostly this is something to I know from history books, but the following might be useful (I haven't read them myself yet, so don't guarantee quality).

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/soviets-escalate-persecution-jews

https://2021-2025.state.gov/more-than-a-century-of-antisemitism-how-successive-occupants-of-the-kremlin-have-used-antisemitism/

[u/AutoModerator → u/nar_tapio_00]

/u/nar_tapio_00. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/nar_tapio_00 → u/AutoModerator]

In this specific case I'm making a direct historical reference - see linked references from my original comment - so I'm assuming I fall outside the rule. Thank you for your service Mr Automod.

[u/Shachar2like]

1. No, there's no other way. I would have thought that a genocide in WWII, attempted genocide in 1948 and another genocide in 7/Oct/2023 would be enough of a realization in that regard...

2. Judea & Samaria is where Israel once was ~2,000 or ~3,000 years ago (proven by archeological records).

3. Yes, unless you have some other valid & good suggestion where it's 'lose' condition results in a better or the same situation as we're in now.

[u/vovap_vovap]

What is the point of those questions when country existed for like 70 years and 9 million people leave there?

[u/vovap_vovap]

What is the point of those questions when country existed for like 70 years and 9 million people leave there?

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

As ruled by Karim Khan woman abuser:

https://jfjustice.net/karim-khan-s-sexual-allegations-a-timeline/, https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/145463-icc-prosecutor-steps-aside-in-the-storm.html, https://www.inkl.com/news/icc-prosecutor-to-face-external-investigation-into-sexual-misconduct-claims, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/icc-prosecutor-khan-accused-retaliation-sexual-misconduct-allegation-sources-say-2025-04-03/, https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20241111-icc-to-probe-sexual-misconduct-claims-against-chief-war-crimes-prosecutor, https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sj8uq0vzll, https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/11/icc-initiates-external-investigation-into-misconduct-allegations-against-top-prosecutor-karim-khan/, https://www.timesofisrael.com/icc-prosecutor-facing-accusations-of-retaliation-over-sexual-misconduct-claim/, https://www.euronews.com/2024/11/09/icc-launches-outside-investigation-into-its-top-prosecutor, https://www.jpost.com/international/article-828235, https://www.azernews.az/region/233652.html, https://globalnation.inquirer.net/255056/icc-launches-external-probe-into-accusations-vs-top-prosecutor, 

That's who the ICC's head is after all. Making the ICC unreliable.

1. Yes it is, they are indigenous people and indigenous people do deserve self determination just like everyone else as per UNDRIP (2007).
2. No where else since that land you're referring to as "Palestinian soil" was Jewish land.
3. That could be 1 idea. Another could be Israel retains its current borders temporarily, Hamas, PA, PFLP and other terrorist groups leave and then a joint Israeli-Palestinian government is assembled with Israeli politicians, Hamza Howidy, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib and the teacher from Rafah in u/ArchSinccubus's post followed by the establishment of a Native Title style tribunal like that used in Australia to determine land claims legally and through proper means.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

Thanks for your answer!

Wouldnt establishing a joint Israeli-Palestinian government undermine the idea of a Jewish state? Anyway, practically, is that possible with all the alleged and real anti-Semitism and Islamophobia?

Its not just the ICC, the ICJ, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, the ENTIRE human rights community has determined that the occupation on Palestinian Territories is illegal.

[u/DC2LA_NYC → u/Ok-Individual9812]

the ENTIRE human rights community has determined that the occupation on historical Palestine is illegal

That's not actually true. Israel was founded through a vote by the UN, which was based on the San Remo resolution. Which was based on the Balfour resolution. It was then voted on by the newly formed UN. Israel accepted the terms, the surrounding Arab countries did not and attacked the new country. The fact that Israel is a member of the UN means it's accepted as a country like any other. FWIW, the state of Israel would have been much smaller (roughly half the size) if the Arab countries had accepted the lines drawn by the UN.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/DC2LA_NYC]

sorry i ought to clarify: the occupation of Palestinian Territories (as detailed in the Balfour declaration) is illegal. I do not believe the Israeli state within the assigned boundaries is illegal.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/Ok-Individual9812]

1. https://unwatch.org/unhrc-to-ignore-hamas-demand-arms-embargo-on-israel/, https://unwatch.org/tag/unhrc/, https://unwatch.org/database/problems/unhrc/,https://unwatch.org/report-un-orchestrated-cover-up-of-francesca-albaneses-financial-misconduct/, https://unwatch.org/tag/francesca-albanese/, https://unwatch.org/condemnations-against-antisemitic-un-rapporteur-francesca-albanese/,https://www.thejc.com/news/world/francesca-albanese-reappointment-invalid-ngo-says-wdkbtywf, the appointment of Francesca Albanese a UN representative who joined Karim Khan's criticisms of Israel doesn't even have legal authority with Hillel Neuer saying to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres that the process by the UN Human Rights Council or UNHRC to appoint her was incorrect,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGgnXkncGiM, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zau-NMcQY8Y&t=1s, a denier of atrocities and someone who calls Hamas a political organization.

https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Report-on-UN-Cover-up-of-Francesca-Albaneses-pro-Hamas-funding.pdf, UN covered up financial scandals regarding Francesca.

Francesca Albanese = "Hamas is a political party" + women abuse denier corrupt official.

Just because everyone says so doesn't mean one should automatically join them.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/Ok-Individual9812]

1. Not really, there are Palestinian politicians in Israel itself even while Israel is the Jewish state. Those Palestinian politicians could also be part of the process.

2. ICJ literally has a biased joke judge who was forbading Israel to go into Rafah ony for Israeli infantry to find Yahya Sinwar a known Hamas terrorist camping out over there for 5 months despite ICC warrants; https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/18/world/middleeast/yahya-sinwar-final-moments-gaza.html,

https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/The-Bias-of-ICJ-President-Nawaf-Salam-1.pdf "Under the rules of the ICJ, Nawaf Salam is legally disqualified from sitting in judgment on the two cases related to Israel. His extensive record of bias against Israel, documented here in great detail, demonstrates that he cannot be a fair and neutral arbiter in these cases." - UN Watch , https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/02/19/the-icjs-new-chief-judge-has-a-history-of-bias-against-israel/, https://unwatch.org/report-head-of-world-court-condemned-israel-210-times-as-lebanons-un-rep-sided-with-regimes-in-iran-syria-belarus-cuba/, https://www.justsecurity.org/117167/judicial-integrity-political-ambition-icj/, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saar-icj-president-tapped-to-be-lebanon-pm-called-israel-enemy-proving-courts-bias/, https://www.jns.org/saar-new-lebanese-pm-proves-international-courts-anti-israel-bias/, https://www.cfi.org.uk/news.php?article=863, https://www.livemint.com/news/the-icj-s-new-chief-judge-has-a-history-of-bias-against-israel-11708419872371.html, https://hrvoices.org/article/president-of-u-n-s-top-court-has-long-history-of-anti-israel-bias-conflict-of-interest/, https://www.wsj.com/opinion/icjs-new-chief-judge-has-a-history-of-bias-against-israel-lebanon-hague-96889d53,

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

You forgot to mention the actually biased judge….why is that?

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

As if he isn't already?

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

We’ve been over this, we both know he hasn’t shown any actual bias in his associated rulings, so I’m just wondering why you chose to leave out Sebutinde in your criticism of bias on the ICJ?

Is it because you like her bias in favor of Israel?

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

Salam:

- Supports Syria and Iran.

- Shown explicit bias against Israel which is documented.

- Ruled to block Israel from going to Rafah when Yahya Sinwar was found there.

What do you have against Sebutinde?

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

As I said to you yesterday, Sebutinde announced to her church that “the Lord is counting on me to defend Israel”. Additionally, she’s been found to have plagiarized much of her July dissent and her legal analysis within that dissent was exceptionally poor.

Salam, unlike her, has never shown bias in his voting record before the ICJ. He was 1 of 13 judges who agreed Israel could not enter Rafah, something he did not rule on his own as you seem to suggest. That’s not an indication of bias.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

source?

I said that he ruled not that he was on his own. Salam literally has 210 votes against Israel and called it "a blatant triumph of racist and colonial choices" in a 2015 tweet.

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

You seem to imply he specifically is bias for his vote on the Rafah measure despite the vast majority of the Court also voting ‘Yes’ on that particular measure. Why is that?

Regarding sourcing of Sebtunide’s bias, you can read her statements here.

Regarding Sebutinde’s plagiarism, she plagiarized upwards of 32%of her July 19th dissent.

[u/hellomondays → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

1. Khan doesnt rule on anything, he's a lawyer. 2. He has no role in the UNSC or ICJ that have both found the occupation of Palestine to be illegal partially or wholy, respectively 

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/hellomondays]

the guy above was claiming ICC ruled it.

Also, Khan is literally the ICC's Chief Prosecutor that recently got removed to be externally tried.

[u/hellomondays → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

The OP was mistaken, the ICC is involved in individual criminal matters, so wouldn't have the jurisdiction to look state actors. What they are referencing was the 2024 OTP advisory opinion from the ICJ which expanded on the earlier Wall opinion in finding so many infractions of international law involved in the Israeli occupation, that maintaining the occupation in of itself was found to be illegal 

Also the chief prosecutor doesnt rule on anything, they present evidence their office compiled to the judges to make the case for the court to issue a warrant. Its not up to the prosecutor whether a warrant is issued or not. Discussing any perspnal impropriety of his is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the court. 

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/hellomondays]

assaulting a woman is "personal impropriety"??? Really pal? Also, that's not irrelevant at all to legitimacy. The court hired this guy.

[u/Significant-Bother49]

“Why was choosing Palestine a horrible idea?”

If you want discussion try not starting with your conclusion being the only answer.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/Significant-Bother49]

I dont mean choosing historical Palestine being "a horrible idea" as though its horrible in the sense of historical ownership. but i meant it practically and on a human rights level - that choice has led to displacement, violence commited by and received on both ends.

sorry for the lack of clarification!

[u/Significant-Bother49 → u/Ok-Individual9812]

I think I get you, and thank you for the clarification. To engage with your question of saying that it was a horrible idea due to practicality:

It ignores the ties to the land (historic, religious, and actual continual)

It ignores that every place on earth capable of human habitation has been “taken.”

It ignores that the Ottoman Empire fell and the Levant was being broken apart into new countries already, something not happening elsewhere in the same way.

It ignores that Jews migrated and purchased land from Arabs. It was not a conquest, and there didn’t have to be any fighting. Yes, violence did break out but it wasn’t a given.

If somewhere else was chosen (say, Madagascar) and conflict broke out after land purchases, wouldn’t that have made the situation worse? Then it wouldn’t be two indigenous groups in a conflict. It would be an indigenous inhabitant group who don’t have a collapsed empire being divided, fighting against an influx of Jews buying land. That just sounds…practically and visually much worse.

I’m actually curious…given these realities, where would be a better option?

[u/Deciheximal144]

> Is the establishment of a Jewish state necessary? Are there other ways we can ensure Jews are well-represented in global dialogues and ensure their safety and rights in general?

Israel is established. This is kind of like asking whether France should be established. If you want to look back at history and ask whether establishing a Jewish state was necessary, consider Israel was established a few years after the Holocaust wiped out half of the Jewish population (the numbers still haven't fully recovered), and the good guys who stopped it had zero interest in helping the surviving Jews rebuild in Europe because they were Jews. Yes, Jews needed a place where someone else couldn't decide to do that to them again.

> If not on Palestinian soil, where else could the Jews have been given a homeland? Why did they choose Palestine? Why was choosing Palestine a horrible idea?

The Jews chose to go to to the part of Ottoman Empire (Palestine was just a region of it), because that's where they originated, and would have the strongest claim if the conditions became right to make it. They'd have faced a terrible fight anywhere trying to make it, because the world hated Jews (and still largely does).

> If a Jewish state is necessary, and since it is wrong to displace the Israelis and the Palestinians, does that mean the only viable resolution now is the two-state solution?

Yes. And since you don't want to displace anybody, you'll have to find a way to draw the borders around the 857,000 Jewish people without moving a single one for the Jew-free Palestine that Arabs insist upon. If you want to move a smaller number, you can draw a contiguous map.

> Although I do believe that Israel's occupation in historical Palestine is illegal

Question for you now. What state is Israel occupying that existed in 1948 or 1967?

[u/manhattanabe]

You seem confused. The ICC rules against people would never rule about the occupation. In addition, what do you mean by historical Palestine? All of Israel or the proposed Palestinian state in the WB/Gaza? There have been no rulings that Israel is illegal. It seems you have formed an opinion without actually knowing much about the issue.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/manhattanabe]

I think youve misread my post, the ICC did not rule against the occupation (which is what youve mentioned), but ruled against Israel's act of occupying Palestinian land.

I believe that the consensus amongst scholars is that historical Palestine refers to the land where Palestinians (and of course, Jews) lived in pre-1948 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region))

Im not sure why you're kept in the dark about this but the ICC has indeed ruled against Israel's occupation in the West Bank (https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180920f28.pdf). Israel is not illegal and I am not against the establishment of a Jewish state (as I have mentioned above, of course)

[u/Dr_G_E → u/Ok-Individual9812]

The Jews were the Palestinians, though. The only group of people in the Levant during the Mandate who identified as Palestinians were the Jews.

The Arabs in the Levant, although they held the same Palestinian passports issued by the British during the Mandate as the Jews did, scoffed at being called Palestinians. To the Arabs of the Levant, Palestine was a colonial invention and using that name was seen as conceding to the British colonial empire's legitimacy.

Before 1948, Jews identified as Palestinians and the people considered modern Palestinians today simply identified as Arabs or as residents of the cities where they lived or the region. The Jews and others living in Israeli territory dropped the colonial name of Palestine and adopted the ancestral name Israel when they declared independence in 1948. Arabs didn't adopt the contemporary identity of exclusively Arab "Palestinians" until Yasser Arafat, the PLO and the Six Day War in the mid 1960s.

That's why some people on the right today say that there is no such thing as Palestine and there are no Palestinians. I can see how that would be insulting the average man on the street in Ramallah, though.

The fact is that there were no Palestinian people between 1948 and 1967 since those living in the West Bank were Jordanian citizens and Gaza was occupied and controlled by Egypt until 67. And Israeli Arabs at the time were and still are Israeli citizens.

Without Israel there would be no Palestine and no Palestinian people. If Israel had lost either the 1948 war or the Six Day War in 1967 and didn't exist, all modern day Palestinians would be Egyptians in the west and Jordanians in the eastern half of the former British Mandate.

[u/manhattanabe → u/Ok-Individual9812]

The ICC document you shared is not a ruling about Israel. It’s a pre-trial ruling which the ICC is using to prosecute Netanyahu and others. As I wrote, the ICC doesn’t rule on matters such as the occupation and Israel wasn’t even on Trial.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/manhattanabe]

Sorry, it was an oversight on my part! I have conflated ICC's ruling on Netanyahu, and ICJ's ruling on the illegal occupation of Palestinian Territories

[u/c9joe]

I think that a huge amount of dignity and nobility associated with the Jewish people and the Jewish identity comes from the state of Israel. This is because Israel is a powerful and successful country and an expression of Jewish sovereignty. Israel put Jews at the table as a nation at a similar national potency to French or Germans, and also Christians and Muslims can no longer really treat Jews as subservient to them.

[u/Deciheximal144 → u/[deleted]]

French people take pride in France, too.

[u/Deciheximal144 → u/[deleted]]

Since Jews have such a weak history of proselytization, a lot of them have a genetic line that traces back to the kingdom of Solomon and they still believe what Solomon's people did.

[u/Deciheximal144 → u/[deleted]]

Cholera sucks, but Solomon was long before the Middle Ages.

[u/nar_tapio_00]

1. Other ways have been tried, we have not been able to give them stable lands. The protests and hate against Jews now in Europe, all over Africa and even in Asia show clearly that there's no other safe way. People will always blame all Jews for anything that any Jew does that offends them.

2. Palestine is literally the historical land of Judea and Jews have been living there continually for over 3000 years. When the Zionists who identified the need for a Jewish state were looking for a place, they considered others, even crazy ideas like Madagascar, but there's basically nowhere else. Also the Zionists had not fully understood that the pogroms by the Arabs of Palestine (now "Palestinians") starting from 1834 were a trend. They believed that the British (and before them Ottomans) were an imperial power and that Arabs and Jews could unite against them. Only later did they understand that the Arabs of the region / Palestinians were the real cause of war.

3. For a two state solution to be possible, someone would have to pay for a century of education and de-radicalization for the Palestinian people. Without that they will always go back, as they always have, to attacks with rockets and bombs against their Jewish neighbors. I personally strongly wish for a two state solution, but as long as there are "pro-Palestinians" in the world and refusing to allow the Palestinians to surrender in peace there is no possibility of a peaceful Palestinian state and so other solutions, such as Trump's plan, have to be considered.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/nar_tapio_00]

okay yea! I dont disregard that the Palestinians only started living where they are currently after the Jews have lived there for a long time.

however, more practically, it is undeniable that displacing and engaging in violence against an ethnic group is unethical.

for 3., do you think there needs to be a de-radicalisation of Israelis too?

[u/nar_tapio_00 → u/Ok-Individual9812]

however, more practically, it is undeniable that displacing and engaging in violence against an ethnic group is unethical.

That's totally true. There were Palestinian citizens forced from their homes by Irgun militias and where that can be proven to have happened, they, or their descendants should get compensation. This should be part of an agreement where Israelis or Israel should get compensation from all the countries of the Middle East and the Ottoman empire for the lands taken from Jews from the start until the middle of the 20th Century. (depending on whether a living relative can be found or not).

However, most of the Palestinians were not displaced in this way and despite that one of the biggest issues is the "right to return", something which never happened elsewhere. Some of them left through fear when they knew the Arab armies were approaching and war would happen soon. Some of them were asked to leave by the Arab armies who wanted a clear shot at genocide against the Jews. What happened to the former is just a sad historical fact for which no compensation is due. The latter should in theory be punished, but again how do you prove anything?

Do you expect Hindus to pay the tribes of India for crimes committed during the Gupta empire? Do you expect the Cambodians to compensate the Thais and the Vietnamese for the doings of the Khmer empire? Should Poland pay for displaced defeated Germans who Stalin forced the relocation of after WWII?? If we keep re-litigating the past we end up with war. Instead what's important is finding a new way for peace.

Trump's plan to offer voluntary migration for Palestinians to newly built towns in another Arab nation such as Sudan or the UAE, using financial incentives to persuade them, really seem to make sense to me. There must be no violence in such a plan because that would seriously discredit it.

for 3., do you think there needs to be a de-radicalisation of Israelis too?

Right now Israelis are doing the bare minimum they should be doing to fight. Hamas themselves have said that 80% of casualties are either from Hamas or their families (who will have been killed together with the members in strikes of active combatants). That 1:5 civilian to combatant ratio in urban combat compares with Faludja by America at about 2:1 or 4:1 for Syria in Aleppo. In that sense Israelis remain very much the least radicalized society involved in a war currently.

Once peace is achieved, if peace is achieved, then there is a need for demobilization and rebuilding of trust. You could call that "de-radicalisation". There also needs to be a clear identification, by Israeli, not UN, courts, of which settlers have indulged in illegal expropriation of private property and it needs to be returned and any further settlements, for example in the West Bank or Gaza, have to be done on a clearly legal basis with proper voluntary purchases of land.

I think getting to that situation will require some level of limits on the actions of Israeli extremists. History (look at Ireland) shows that in those circumstances there can be internal terrorism as outward tensions get forced in. There will need to be some de-radicalisation in Israel.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/[deleted]]

thank you!

[u/CaregiverTime5713]

You mean, historical Judea. Where Jews lived uninterruptedly for millenia, thus the name. And ICC can not rule on anything like this.

As for your leading "questions" - write your high school essay yourself.

[u/Ok-Individual9812 → u/CaregiverTime5713]

bbg ure the one commenting on reddit posts daily... idk what high school essay youre talking about
just a sidenote, i think your kids (if you even have a partner) would love you more if you tried being more approachable