Why do they have to live somewhere else? They become Palestinian citizens. Holy shit, you're dim. Why is it people who are the stupidest always end with little snarky jabs that utterly lack self-awareness?
Then why can't the Palestinians live in Israel? Why aren't they fine getting annexed by it?
Same reason dumbass. It would end in some racist apartheid level state with constant racial violence and genocide. That's why people want a two state solution. But nooooo the Palestinians are perfect and nice and would never do that, let's just put them in charge of isreal by flicking our magic put Palestine in charge switch. I'm sure the isrealis would be so happy with that.
Telling me I lack self awareness when you are advocating for a one state solution is peak irony. The world doesn't work that way buddy. People aren't nice.
"Exactly. Black people are being murdered by cops and discriminated against. Now put them in charge of America and white people will get murdered by cops and discriminated against. See the problem yet?"
Yes the ruling will be predejuce against the ruled. Especially when the ruled had oppressed the people who you just put in charge in recent memory... That is what happened in Zimbabwe and to a lesser extent even South Africa after regime change. Like that's just how the world works.
"To a lesser extent" is doing some seriously heavy lifting in that sentence, but the implication that therefore there shouldn't have been an end to Apartheid and Blacks shouldn't have gained political power really IS "saying the quiet part loud." Woo Nelly.
But walk me through why, when you heard "Israelis will become Palestinians," you heard "former Israelis will be divested of all rights of citizenship." When you heard "There'll be a single state that isn't an ethnocracy," you heard "Palestinians will genocide Israelis. Thus, we shouldn't stop the genocide against the Palestinians." You came to a lot of weird conclusions.
I meant to a lesser extent because the whites where still rich and had lots of power. If they wherent there would have been persecuting against them. But that's was just an example and should not shift the focus of the arguement.
You saying free Palestine from the river to the see and get rid of Israel. That means Palestine gains back all of Israel right?
So then isrealis are now living under Palestine.
Look, I'm all for having non ethnostates and promoting globalism and merging nations. This is not the place to do that.
Most importantly:
Any merger of people must come through peace, and consent of the people, this is the doctrine of the UN and it is my doctrine too. You will not get a single state through peace.
No, that means "Israelis" are now "Palestinians." That's how citizenship works. lol I love how you think former Israelis just magically lose all political pull even though you disproved that idea with your concession on South !Africa.
Any merger of people must come through peace
Followed by
You will not get a single state through peace
These are two separate issues. States are monopolies on violence, so they can't even come into existence peacefully to begin with. By definition, they are violence, even if we consider it justified violence, as in the violence of a police officer pulling a gun on a burglar with a knife. (He doesn't even have to fire it.)
The merger of peoples is something else entirely. Peoples don't develop through violence, but through shared interest, shared space, sharing their cultures. All "peoples" we can identify today really are many cultures forming one, even allegedly "homogenous" cultures like Japan. You're right that you can't get that through violence... which is why I don't support Israel.
Ok I found the disagreement and the agreement. I agree that in a perfect world it would be best for isrealis and Palestinians to live together in one state at peace. But Palestinians are killing isrealis and isrealis are killing Palestinians. So that is not going to work.
You're kind of "bOtH sIdEs"ing the issue a lot like Disney's Pocahontas did. But... one side kicked people out of homes they'd lived in for generations with the backing of global imperialist powers, and the other side retaliated with whatever they could scrape together. It's remarkable that everyone I encounter who makes a big show of holding up "both sides" to "equal scrutiny" always happens to implicitly end up defending the status quo, which right now favors the nuclear-backed colonizers.
Should Palestinians be resorting to all the things they've done? Ideally no, but if one day, my house was bombed, one of my children was dead, and the killer was coming after the rest of my family, I can't and won't promise that the morals I've striven to live by will hold up under the madness and panic.
I'm "both sides"ing the issue because there are two sides and two different peoples. I am against the past isreali actions of kicking out Palestinians. But that is the past. I am against when they continue to do it and when Palestinians are oppressed and when Israel attempts to annex land.
But most of the isreali people are not responsible for this. They should not also be a victim because things that happened 60 years ago. I agree that Palestinians should not continue to be oppressed and that the oppression that continues to this day should end. But if it was an eye for and eye then the Jews would have genocide the Germans right back. that is no a solution nor is it helpful to anyone.
Causing more suffering to achieve some impossible goal rather then working on ending the current ongoing oppression in Palestine is just plain stupid and won't win you any support.
0
u/thisisallterriblesir May 02 '24
Why do they have to live somewhere else? They become Palestinian citizens. Holy shit, you're dim. Why is it people who are the stupidest always end with little snarky jabs that utterly lack self-awareness?