🇳🇱
I am just going to start referring to Palestinians by the more accurate term "natives".
@lonelyowl That would be less accurate than the argument I made... More like, these are the people who have been living there fore generations that go back to before there are any records of individual land ownership, in some cases dozens of generations recorded, and many more lost to time.
This is bad argument anyway, it explains nothing and mainly used for demogoguery. If you believe that ethnic cleansings are always bad, you simply don't need it.
Even in the case that the palestinian folks are the first generation to live in the territory, that still wouldn't excuse murder or deportation of them.
I assume we do care about "native" people in other countries not because a fact they're "native" somehow make them more valuable, but because we do care about people in general 🤷♀️
> This is bad argument anyway, it explains nothing and mainly used for demogoguery.
It explains quite a bit, the most important bit... that they have lived ont he land many generations. It literally explains that.
Now if you want to use it for demogoguery thats on you. But the fact is most people recognize that someone who has generationally owned and lived on a land has a right to be a citizen of that land.
> I assume we do care about "native" people in other countries not because a fact they're "native" somehow make them more valuable, but because we do care about people in general 🤷♀️
When you are displacing people off their land who has been there many generations absolutely has relevance. The reason we give special powers to native shere isnt "because we care about people" its specifically because their native and yes they get special privilages for having their land stolen from under them.
> It literally explains that.
Yes, probably. I just think it isn't important for finding an answer to the question "are ethnic cleansings bad?"
I personally don't see a difference between deporting a group that has been there for around 1000 generations and a group that has been there for the first generation. I don't see gradations of the "badness" of ethnic cleansings, except for their scale and corpse count.
@lonelyowl I am not suggesting either group be deported... its too late for that. but clearly the group whose land was stolen should have it given back. That can resemble a simple single state singel vote for everyone.
Right, I care that these are people whith generational ries right up to the modern day going back thousands of years.. The jews are int he wrong for starting that but as I said their there now and I would recognize anyone **born** on the land (or any land) as a citizen of that land.
I'd love to hear y'alls thoughts on the usual retort about 1 state == genocide.
Do you feel confident that the non-Jewish majority that there would be in such a river-to-the-sea single state won't do something awful to the Jews that live in the state, like kick them all out, deny them rights in some important way, and so on?
I don't know what the best evidence is that this would happen, but you occasionally see poll results like "Seventy-one percent of Palestinians support the terrorist murder of two Israeli Jews in..." and so on. Is there good analysis of this?
In countries like the US, democracy "works" in that sense only because the percentage of voters who would like to do things like expel entire ethnic groups is generally pretty low, like I estimate 1 or 2%. Maybe 5%. But certainly they aren't winning elections.
Second question: regardless of that analysis, why is some kind of 2-state solution obviously so much more awful?
(Lonelyowl great point about how the history here, while interesting and worth learning, is ultimately completely irrelevant to what should happen now.)
> Do you feel confident that the non-Jewish majority that there would be in such a river-to-the-sea single state won't do something awful to the Jews that live in the state
Ofcourse no! This is middle east. More than, i am super confident they will try to do something awful. I just can't come up with something smarter than saying "just stop the goddamn ethnic cleansing".
Usually people tend to follow crazy violent ideologies because of social and economic problems. The safer people feel and the more prosperous they are, the less inclined they are to violence (on average). So including the palestinians in the israeli economy might be a good first step towards getting them away from the hamas nonsense.
> So including the palestinians in the israeli economy might be a good first step towards getting them away from the hamas nonsense.
To put it another way, by the jews killing them, and herding them into small ghettos with little or no resources, they have created extreme poverty and over time caused the growth of Hamas directly by their own actions.
When you abuse civilians and punishment for a minority of militants the end result has **always** been radicalization.
If i accept the importance of the historical argument, it would mean that bibi and his far-right minions might have a point, since the jews owned the land long before the arabs came here.
This is why i don't like historical justice arguments for current events, as with some mental gymnastics they can be used to justify any insane stuff.
The crimea question taught me this argument is silly.
@lonelyowl That wasnt the argument made.. it was the argument you tried to claim i was making that I rejected.
I didnt claim the argument was historic, or whoever is there first wins.. I suggested the people who have been there **in recent history**, born ont he land and having been generationally born ont he land for some 2000 years win. Its not because they were there first, its because they were there now, during this generation, and being evaded by people who werent there now, and during this, or any recent generation.
Are you trying to make "This is historically X's land" type of argument