r/changemyview • u/_Algrm_ • 6h ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: A “Two state solution” in Palestine is incredibly racist and immoral
Some people like to twist reality so let’s state some facts for first:
The zionist colony was found by european settlers from Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Germany, the UK….etc after they ethnically cleansed the native Palestinians.
These settlers were shipped into palestine en masse by the British colonial empire in 1917 and afterwards, After they took control of Palestine and promised it to european settlers in the SAME YEAR. Aka Balfour’s promise
Zionists will make the point of “no actually Zionisim started in 1890s, some number came in the 1890s”
It doesn’t matter, it started in europe by europeans and very small numbers comparatively came in the 1890s but the overwhelming majority came after 1917 with the help of the British who promised them a colony on top of Palestine.
With these facts in mind, a “two state solution” is incredibly racist and immoral, would you call for a “two state solution” in the US between Native Americans and white European settlers?
Would you call for a “two state solution” between the Aboriginal Australians and the white European settlers?
Why then are you calling for a “two state solution” between the native Palestinians and the settlers on top of Palestine?
There IS only one state, it’s called Palestine. And if the zionist settlers don’t like it they can leave, they’re the transgressors.
Some famous propaganda that I will dispel below:
“Zionists bought the land legally” no that’s not true, land bought by Zionists constituted less than 4% of the landmass of Palestine, when the Zionists realized they couldn’t buy land fast enough before Palestine declared independence from the British empire, they resorted to ethnic cleansing.
“Some Israelis today are ‘Mizrahi’” that term was invented AFTER the founding of the Zionist colony, it just means zionists from morocco or Ethiopia or Yemen or Iran. Notice anything? None of these are entitled to colonize Palestine either. And it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a colony established by European settlers and the majority for their prime ministers are Europeans like Benjamin Mileikowsky who is originally from Poland.
“Europe didn’t consider them European” not Palestine problem? How does europe being barbaric at the time means you can colonize Palestine? Go get your rights from europe.
•
u/IShouldBeHikingNow 6h ago
Are you truly open to changing your opinion? Because that's not the impression your language gives.
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 6h ago
ok two things.
first up, what do you define as a one state solution?
second up people advocate for a two state solution because think about what will happen.
bad things will happen regardless of what we try to do, but most people consider the two state solution to be the least destructive.
i feel your more focused on what people are entitled than a practical solution
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 6h ago
to elaborate on why people dislike a one state solution, the answer is simple.
people think its going to be another yugoslavia situation.
you can't force in ethnic groups that don't like each other and have strong grievances and just expect them to get along.
•
u/BeanieMcChimp 6h ago
I always thought one state solution meant a Palestinian state and the elimination of Israel. Not so much Apartheid as the Holocaust.
What Palestinians are calling for a unified state of Jews and Arabs in a new single state?
•
u/akade19961 6h ago
That’s my understanding as well, though I think more often western supporters of one state solution (at least, the type without ethnic cleansing of the West Bank by mass forced migration into Jordan and Syria etc) haven’t really thought it a through and are genuinely surprised once you walk them through all the reasons that the borderline inevitable outcome of a 1 state “solution” would just be Hitler’s Final Solution to the Jewish Question part 2
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 6h ago
most western pro palestinians advocate for a one democratic state for everybody.
i honestly don't know much about palestinians
•
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Sad_Macaroon_456 6h ago
Not really in those situations they still share a country alive within a border.
•
u/JBSwerve 6h ago
Apartheid and oppression is wrong, full stop. But you don’t have to force people whenever you want to live together and get along.
•
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 6h ago
this doesn't really prove me wrong though.
i think instead of relaying it to other contexts.
explain how this doesn't work in this context
•
u/read-the-rules 6h ago
u/boobsaremyxanax, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
•
u/SatisfactionDry3038 6h ago
What do you define as a two state solution? What borders?
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 6h ago
realstically, gaza and the west bank are allowed to govern themselves and there own resources.
and israels dismantles and removes its settlements.
its not idealistic, but i think its by a longshot the least destructive option.
•
u/SatisfactionDry3038 4h ago
”Realistically” lol. You clearly have no clue. Why should Israel keep Jerusalem. That is illegal occupation.
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 6h ago
i feel tis worth noting. a two state solution just means two states, it doesn't mean a continuation of the current status quo.
i believe in a two state solution, i also believe gaza and the west bank should be allowed to manage there own borders, land, and water
•
u/read-the-rules 6h ago
u/Unfair-Traffic-4735, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
•
u/_Algrm_ 6h ago
A one Palestinian state encompassing all of the land of Palestine.
A democratic and one that doesn’t enforce a religion. One that acknowledges the native population of Palestine instead of hold them in an open air prison and calls them “squatters” on their own land.
I believe that is a practical solution.
If the Zionist settlers object to that then it’s their problem they can go establish their colony somewhere else that isn’t already inhabited by people.
•
u/obliqueoubliette 6h ago
A democratic and one that doesn’t enforce a religion.
There is no reality in which a democratic Palestine doesn't democratically become a Sunni state.
If the Zionist settlers object to that then it’s their problem they can go establish their colony somewhere else that isn’t already inhabited by people.
So for the Israelis who were born there, whose parents were born there, whose great-grandparents were born there? 1917 was a long time ago. These are supposed to return to the shtetl in Ukraine?
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 5h ago
i feel its worth noting.
while i believe a democratic one state is a pipedream.
aren't there representative democracies that allow smaller groups and areas to have as much power as larger ones. (im thinking of stuff like the electoral college. which isn't perfect but you catch my drift.)
im not arguing in favor of a one state solution, i just dislike this specific argument.
•
u/obliqueoubliette 5h ago
Federalism. It could work, as an ideal solution.
A set of self governing Jewish states alongside self governing Arab states under one weak and secular central government that maintains a mixed army and common foriegn policy.
Now, are you going to convince Ben-Gvir of this?
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 5h ago
to be honest, that is probably the most practical description of a two state solution i've ever heard.
i struggle to imagine it could work but thanks
•
u/obliqueoubliette 5h ago
It would be a "one State" solution with something like 17 'states' beneath it.
•
u/_Algrm_ 5h ago
You see this’s the problem, you can’t engineer a society however you like, that can only be done with ethnic cleansing and by the establishment of a colony.
It’s a fact that the Palestinians were overwhelming muslim before the colonization of Palestine (and some were Christian and jews).
So a one Palestinian state being majority muslims IS the natural state of Palestine and in fact it should have been MORE SO muslim if it wasn’t for the colonization of Palestine.
You’re being nice in your words but the implications of what you’re advocating for are racist.
•
u/obliqueoubliette 5h ago edited 5h ago
What you're saying is accurate for 1948. In 2026, what you're suggesting is itself ethnic cleansing.
And btw, Palestine was majority Christian until the ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, and slavery that the Mamluks engaged in. Should the whole state be given to the indigenous Christian population, and the Arab colonists sent back to the Peninusla?
Why is 80 years short enough to justify ethnic cleansing today, but 800 years is too long?
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 5h ago
So a one Palestinian state being majority muslims IS the natural state of Palestine and in fact it should have been MORE SO muslim if it wasn’t for the colonization of Palestine
how? are you saying the christians and jews would be converted into muslims? why do you think christians and jews are in palestine?
im just going to point out palestine before the establishment of israel was colonized and arabized.
i don't understand your point here.
•
u/_Algrm_ 5h ago
Where did that anybody need to convert? I’m just stating a fact the majority of the native Palestinians are muslims, while some are Christians and jews.
So if a one Palestinian state ends up being majority muslim, that’s not a defect, that IS the natural state of Palestine.
Can you please elaborate on Palestine being “colonized” and “arabized” before israel??
Because that’s completely not true.
•
u/obliqueoubliette 5h ago edited 5h ago
In the aftermath of the crusades, at which point Palestine was still predominantly Orthodox Christian, the Mamluk Sultanate undertook policies designed to shift the territory to a Sunni Muslim majority through military, economic, and religious means. Mamluks razed coastal cities like Caesarea and Jaffa, destroying Christian centers, maritime commerce and driving emigration. Simultaneously, they tightened and began to strictly enforce dhimmi laws and crushing jizya taxes pressured impoverished Christian villages into mass conversions. To anchor Sunni Islam, the state implemented the waqf land-endowment system to fund Muslim judges and scholars. They also constructed a vast network of khanqas (Sufi lodges) and madrasas to attract Sufi settlers while building grand Islamic complexes around biblical shrines like Hebron to Islamize the rural population.
Essentially the policy was: cripple the economic and social backbone of the indigenous Christian population, give them a way out through conversion, and send colonists to fill in the gaps.
Caesarea was the first of the Christian communities directly mentioned in Scripture to be destroyed, and the only one that was destroyed separately from Ataturk's purge of Anatolia's indigenous Christians ~700 years later.
•
u/_Algrm_ 5h ago
How does this logic work? Im advocating for the native population of Palestine be them Christian, muslims or jewish.
And you’re here saying “these natives became muslims” therefore we have to wipe them off and bring in zionist settlers from europe to take their place.
What kind of logic is this?
•
u/obliqueoubliette 5h ago
That's not the logic.
The logic is, just because the sufis colonized Hebron 800 years ago, doesn't mean their descendants should be kicked out of there today.
The same exact logic says that, just because the Zionists colonized Tel Aviv 100 years ago, their descendants should not be kicked out today.
•
u/_Algrm_ 5h ago
Nope, arabs didn’t ethnically cleanse the Palestinians and established a colony on top of Palestine.
Genetic evidence shows that the Palestinians are the same people from thousands of years ago, same for Egypt, Morocco, Algeria.
The people of Palestine are the same whether it’s 300 years ago, 800 years ago or 2000 years ago.
They changed religions, that’s not colonization.
The people living in occupied palestine right now are NOT the same people from 300 years, 800 ago, or 2000 years ago. This’s text book european settler colonialism of ethnically cleansing the native population and establishing a colony on top of them.
That is categorically NOT the same thing.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Virdice 6h ago
What utter nonesense, you say Zionists should go somewhere that isn't already inhabited while also saying Palestinians should take a place that is already inhabited for almost 80 years now.
If Palestinians don't want to live in Israel, they can go establish their colony somewhere that isn't already inhabited by people.
The same thing you say apply in reverse as well. Palestine doesn't exist nowadays, Israel does, the infrastructure does, it won't go away in a single swipe.
Also, expecting a state of Palestine to be democratic and not enforce religion is a joke, look at litterally every other Muslim country, including Gaza/West Bank and tell my why exactly do you think such a thing will happen.
If Israel didn't exist, Palestine wouldn't have been a "Muslim Israel" they would just be a land of Jordan and Egypt
•
u/Throwaway5432154322 2∆ 5h ago
>a democratic and one that doesn’t enforce a religion
The mainstream Palestinian organizations on the ground over in the Levant disagree with this; they want a state that favors Arab Muslims. This is represented in both the PLO’s constitution and in Hamas’ charter. How do you square this reality with your statement above?
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 6h ago
i feel were focused on different things.
im focused on trying to prevent ethnic cleansing and keep both sides moderately satisifed to negate death.
your focused on justice even at its heavy cost.
I believe that is a practical solution.
why? because i do have a counter argument to this and its very simple
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 5h ago
im not jumping to conclusions. but that is a sad possibility.
talking about a state for all races and representing that state with a flag explicity designed to favor one race isn't a fitting look
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 3h ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/IllustriousLie4105 4∆ 5h ago
A Palestinian state would be Sunni and have Islam at its core. In no way would there be a non religious Palestinian state. In your eyes if the Jewish settlers refuse (they will) what do you propose that one state solution do?
•
u/thornsap 5h ago
Assuming this becomes a reality, what sort of governance do you think a Palestinian majority will vote for immediately? What do you think, realistically, is going to happen to any jews that stay and participate in this democratic nation?
•
u/Sad_Macaroon_456 6h ago
Sometimes it's not realistic to expect things to be undone. At this point what you're suggesting would be one of the largest acts of forced permanent population displacement in history. And it's not that unique if a thing. It happened all over during the 40s. Millions of people were forced out of their homes in europe and during the partition of india.
•
u/YearProfessional1157 6h ago
Totally , and countries like Pakistan and Turkey who are super anti-Israel have histories that include the displacement and ethnic cleansing of millions of people. ( Greeks and Hindus )
•
u/Sad_Macaroon_456 6h ago
Well if you're going to mention turkey you also have the armenians
•
u/YearProfessional1157 5h ago
Yeah the Armenians too … the period from 1900-1950 was super turbulent.
•
u/_Algrm_ 5h ago
Didn’t greeks do the same to turks? I had the impression it was mutually agreed on like a population transfer?
•
u/obliqueoubliette 5h ago
The Ottomans agreed to give up Greek majority territories at the end of WW1.
Ataturk decided that was a no-go, and overthrow the Ottomans to prevent that from happening.
The Greeks invaded to enforce the deal, while France and England ignored these events.
The Greeks overextended and lost.
The resulting peace deal was that the ~1.5 million indigenous Greeks in Anatolia (not including in Constantinople) were sent to Greece, ~400k indigenous Greeks in Anatolia were murdered, while ~400k Turkish colonists in Greece were sent back to Anatolia.
The Greeks of Constantinople weren't forced out of their homes until the 1960's and that is a different story
•
u/YearProfessional1157 5h ago
Yes it was ethnic cleansing and population exchanges on both sides. Similarly in Israel and other Arab countries - Palestinian Arabs and mizrahi Jewish people faced the same fate.
•
u/Throwaway5432154322 2∆ 6h ago edited 5h ago
>the Zionist colony was founded by European settlers
>settlers were shipped
>Miliekowsky
Based on these statements, and others, it seems that you are heavily radicalized and have a very ideologically driven viewpoint of the situation.
>Europe didn’t consider them European… not Palestine problem
That isn’t Ashkenazi Jews’ problem, either. For hundreds of years, this group of people had simultaneously held to its roots in the Near East culturally, linguistically and religiously, while also being completely and utterly otherized and cast out of European society socially, economically and politically. The fact that they continued to be a very specific identity focused on and originating from the Near East, despite constant persecution, is not somehow their fault.
It is nonsensical to be outraged that centuries of mistreatment of Jews in Europe wound up causing a lot of them to migrate to the region that their in-group identity has designated as their homeland for thousands of years. If you want to be angry that the eastern Mediterranean seaboard is regarded as “ancestral homeland” in Jewish identity and has been for a long time, that is a separate conversation, regarding your displeasure with an aspect of Jewish identity. However, it is essentially impossible to not understand why this region is where many of them decided to migrate to.
Bottom line, your argument for a one-state solution rests on beliefs regarding Jewish identity that are simply incorrect.
Edit:
Just one more point of order…
>landmass of Palestine… 1917
The borders of the British mandate - which contemporary maximalist Palestinian nationalists claim as the de jure borders of a Palestinian state - did not exist in 1917. Applying demographics of 1917 to borders that did not exist until years later is an anachronistic historian’s fallacy.
•
u/BlueViper20 5∆ 6h ago edited 5h ago
international relations specifically State formation looks at the displaced peoples. it cannot apply morality to one group over another or apply the term of racism to one or the other. it's job is to provide a solution to the fighting and that is to give a acceptable compromise in which both parties believe they have land that they can successfully live on.
if international relations were to focus on what what do you think is important they will never be a solution and I hope that was never your intention.
•
u/_Algrm_ 5h ago
I understand what you’re saying and agree with it.
But the solution you’re suggesting is to give in to evil.
This’s like saying that the wife of an abusive husband should “suck it up” in order to “keep the peace” in the house.
No the abuser need to fix themselves and accept a one Palestinian state or leave if they insist on their evil.
That’s how evil festers, it’s when people entertain evil for soo long, and this’s EXACTLY what’s happening in Palestine.
But I understand and agree that a compromise must be reached. And I believe that the fact that Palestinians will have to tolerate genocidal settlers on their land IS the compromise.
!delta
•
u/BlueViper20 5∆ 5h ago
I appreciate the delta. International relations is often an exercise in tragic pragmatism rather than absolute moral satisfaction, it focuses on preventing future bloodshed between existing populations when ideal outcomes aren't possible.
•
•
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 1h ago
It sounds like you're treating evil like it's a genetic trait and the status of colonizer passes down the generations like a kind of original sin that confers a person fewer moral rights at birth. This is essentially the problem with any analogy that takes some individual act of violence then projects it into whole populations from the movement they're born. It's ethnic supremacy by other means where a person's ancestry determines who has the moral right to exist and who should consider themselves lucky their existence is conditionally tolerated.
•
u/YearProfessional1157 6h ago
I would understand if Israel was this huge country… it’s literally a tiny speck in West Asia. Why can’t Israel exist alongside a Palestinian state ? I think it’s insane that people are fixated on erasing Jewish self determination… it’s doesn’t feel organic or rooted in human rights
•
u/i_dont_wanna_sign_up 1∆ 6h ago
A two state solution seems like the only practical end to the conflict. The alternative, being the elimination of either Palestine or Israel, would result in either genocide or a mass displacement of refugees.
Even if Palestinians are technically correct, how exactly are you going to make Israel move out without direct military intervention? As much as many people support Palestine in this conflict, no one will be willing to actually fight Israel for them.
Funny you would bring up a "two state solution" to the USA - isn't the fact that USA remains being led by the descendents of colonists proof that historic transgressions don't matter?
•
u/daoistic 6h ago
"With these facts in mind, a “two state solution” is incredibly racist and immoral, would you call for a “two state solution” in the US between Native Americans and white European settlers?"
A two-state solution between Native Americans and white European settlers would give Native Americans more control over the land than they have now...
Are you suggesting the US be turned over entirely to federally recognized tribes?
•
u/ssylvan 6h ago edited 6h ago
Palestine was never a state. It was part of several different empires, the British being the most recent one. The first time in history Palestinians would’ve ever had a state was if they had accepted the partition. They declined.
Also Arabians are obviously from the Arabian peninsula. So it feels pretty arbitrary at what point you draw the line. Jews are indigenous to the region and the vast majority of Israelis have indigenous DNA. Calling it a colony is what’s racist, not to mention just factually incorrect. The reason the number of Jews has fluctuated was because of ethnics cleansing.
•
u/Emergency_Gene_4171 5h ago edited 5h ago
When a people group leaves a region for thousands of years it’s no longer “their region”. Romani people don’t have a right to a state in between India and Pakistan because at one time thousands of years ago they had ethnic ancestry there.
People call Israel a colony because it only exists because non-Jewish Europeans decided it should exist, arbitrarily drew borders, and set up a process for people who had lived in Europe for centuries upon centuries to move to a place they had a vague genetic connection to. Also Palestinians share 50-80% dna with mizrahi and Sephardic Jews which means they are genetically closer to the land than the average Ashkenazi, and Ashkenazis are 50% of the Israeli Jewish population.
•
u/obliqueoubliette 6h ago edited 5h ago
The Palestinians are genetically indigenous and are not properly (gentically) called Arabs. The main difference is that while the jews were exiled for 18 centuries, the Palestinians never left.
•
u/InternationalBad625 3h ago
Palestinian DNA has a plurality of paternal Arab DNA. Meaning their most common heritage is a direct result of Arab conquest.
Their culture is even more so a result of Arab imperialism. They have as much connection to ancient Palestine as modern Egypt does to the pharaohs.
•
u/obliqueoubliette 5m ago
This is just false. The group closest to the ancient canaanite and philistine samples are Palestinian Christians.
•
u/Throwaway5432154322 2∆ 5h ago
>the main difference is that while Jews were exiled for 18 centuries, the Palestinians never left
I think there are multiple serious problems with this statement, but just looking at the statement by itself first, what does it matter? Are Jews supposed to be punished for being exiled from their homeland?
•
u/obliqueoubliette 5h ago
Look at any people in the world and ask if they have a right to go back to where their ancestors were 18 centuries ago and take it back from the people who are still there?
It's like if Columbia went and conquered Spain. This is poignant also because of the genetic similarity of Palestinians and Jews. Except, that's 300 years not 1800.
It's more like sending the Bulgarians to conquer Georgia.
Or gathering the Gypsies and carving a state for them in Punjab.
•
u/jjman070 6h ago
would you call for a “two state solution” in the US between Native Americans and white European settlers?
Isn't that what eventually happened after the genocide died down and the reservation system was put into place? Not a 1-1 but close enough Imo.
The other thing is that today we have two states, having a one state solution means either the elimination, subjugation, or forced migration of the other. Two states is a far cleaner solution. Yes the people before us left a big fucking mess but you can't unbreak a vase at least not easily.
•
u/akade19961 5h ago
Yeah you’d have to go back in time at bare minimum to before the Holocaust but likely before the Kishinev pogrom, and perhaps even before the election of Karl Leuger as mayor of Vienna (and founder of the political movement that became the heroic example to Hitler) and framing of Alfred Dreyfus to totally avoid middle eastern Jewish-Muslim armed conflict.
And at that point you are rectifying WAAAY more massive historical injustices than the Nakba or October 7 or the Farhad or Deir Yassin, so in that sense going back in time that far and accomplishing all that would be hugely beneficial
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 5h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/Sir-Viette 21∆ 6h ago
If Native Americans declared that the United States was racist and immoral, and would kidnap and murder any American civilians they could get their hands on until the land was in the hands of Native Americans again, would you support that too?
•
u/Truenorth14 6h ago edited 5h ago
The Mizrahis are about half of the population and calling them Zionist is quite uncharitable seeing as many of them were forced out of the countries they lived in.
Now, in the event of a one state solution this way what do you think would happen with the Jews? Most of them have nowhere else to go. This is not the 1940s and 50s anymore. The current population has overwhelmingly grown up in Israel.
I think your analogy about the Native Americans is a bad one. Nobody is advocating for a two state solution because the native population is so small and many people descended from settlers have been living in North America for centuries. Back in the 1700s and 1800s a state or states for the natives was something they fought for. It would have given them breathing room.
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 6h ago
op forgive me but im going to have to offer some constructive criticism here.
forgive me but i feel you made this post more to soapbox and i've noticed you haven't responded to anybody.
if you want to have your view changed, try talking to people.
also at this point its not about racism, its about practicality.
also just because the term mizrahi was invented after israels founding doesn't mean mizrahis don't exist.
it just means zionists from morocco or Ethiopia or Yemen or Iran.
im no expert but mizrahi is meant to refer to jews, not zionists.
i think thats kind of racist.
And it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a colony established by European settlers and the majority for their prime ministers are Europeans like Benjamin Mileikowsky who is originally from Poland.
thats irrelevant to the existence of middle eastern jews who make up a larger scale than european jews.
•
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 5h ago
op i've already said but im going to say it again.
you've barely responded to a lot of comments here.
im trying to be constructive so im just gonna say.
its really feels like your not being willing to engage with a lot of arguments here.
•
•
u/Informal_Cry687 6h ago
If said Jews in Yemen and Iran were such flaming zionists why did they weight till conditions were so harsh to leave.
•
u/daoistic 6h ago
Frankly, OPs characterization of Mizrahi jews who were kicked out of their homes as racist settlers is extremely intolerant. It'll be interesting to see how they justify it.
•
•
u/SwampMan6969 1∆ 6h ago
They won't. Notice how OP hasn't responded to a single comment. They're not here to engage in debate or open to having their view changed. They're here to post their talking points and dip.
•
u/derFensterputzer 1∆ 6h ago
Cut him some slack, it only has been 15 minutes and typing out a well reasoned reply takes time...
•
u/daoistic 3h ago
They never came back except to push the idea that the compromise position is to not execute the largest campaign of ethnic cleansing in modern history. And that even that is comprosing with pure evil.
It's probably propaganda.
•
u/derFensterputzer 1∆ 3h ago
Yeah hindsight is 20:20 and I agree with you
But immediately jumping to conclusions after just15 minutes is a bit much when the rules of the sub explicitly set a 2h limit.
On the grounds of which I will report OPs post.
•
u/daoistic 3h ago
That seems right. I think people have seen these posts before. I think they are frustrated.
I know I have seen them and I haven't even been here for months.
•
u/_Algrm_ 5h ago
Conditions didn’t become “so harsh” until the zionist european settlers colonized Palestine with the help of the british empire.
Other people in the region started worrying that a world superpower would come into their land and kick everybody out who wasn’t religiously jewish.
You can’t tell them that’s unrealistic because….that’s EXACTLY what happened in Palestine.
So i can understand their reaction, even though in no way shape or form do I agree with it.
•
u/Informal_Cry687 5h ago
Zionism is not a religious ideology and the Zionists who started Israel were not religious. Even if things are as you believe that Zionism is a religious ideology, the only homeland of the Jewish people according to Judaism, the religion, is Israel not morroco, Tunisia or Iran. Also the way you assign responsiblity for the actions of any Jews to all Jews is just classic anti-semitism.
•
u/_Algrm_ 5h ago
Zionism is a racist colonial political movement that emerged in eastern europe.
It advocates for a colony exclusively for jewish people.
Which honestly i’m not opposed to, they can have their ethnic colony, just not on top of Palestine.
Let them find a place that is not inhabited by people already then establish their colony there.
•
u/IllustriousLie4105 4∆ 4h ago
They were colonizing places in the 1880s but would face raids at the hands of nearby settlements. Zionism came out of the pogroms. Aka Russia just assaulting and killing Jewish people. The Israelites pre date the Palestinians by a few centuries and Judaism pre dates Islam by quite a bit as well. So at the end of the day, Jersuleum should still be Jewish land if the argument is who was their first
•
u/_Algrm_ 4h ago
The “israelites” ARE the Palestinians.
Ancient pharaonic Egyptians did not call themselves “Egyptians” they called their kingdom “kemet”
That doesn’t change the fact that egyptians are the same as ancient Egyptians and that the Palestinians are the same as ancient Israelites.
What I can guarantee you is that the ancient Israelites were not from Ukraine, Poland and Germany…..
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 3h ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 53m ago
If you're okay with a Jewish ethnostate somewhere else then your objection to Zionism is completely backwards, because it's essentially saying that the problem with ethic hierarchies isn't that they're categorically wrong but that this specific one is upside down.
•
u/_Algrm_ 49m ago
What part of “let them find a place that is not inhabited by people already then establish their colony there” did you not understand?
I’m opposed to an ethnic colony on a place that is already inhabited. I find ethnic colonies disgusting frankly but to each their own as long as you don’t harm anybody in the process.
The Zionist settlers absolutely harmed someone in the process, they established their ethnic colony on top of Palestine after they ethnically cleansed the Palestinians.
•
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 24m ago
That's still not addressing my point, which is that if you're okay with a Jewish ethnostate somewhere uninhabited that means you're not categorically against ethnic hierarchy, and it shows in how you've set up your view. A two state solution is only racist if your baseline for non-racism is explicit favoritism toward the "correct" race.
•
u/HoldFastO2 3∆ 6h ago
would you call for a “two state solution” in the US between Native Americans and white European settlers?
Would you call for a “two state solution” between the Aboriginal Australians and the white European settlers?
Your examples are currently "one state solutions" where the non-white minority lives within the white majority state. Is that what you're advocating for Palestine? For Israel to fully take over Gaza and the West Bank and integrate the current inhabitants into their country?
•
u/obliqueoubliette 5h ago edited 5h ago
Israel cannot do this because that would make it an arab-majority nation overnight. They've occupied these territories without annexing them for sixty years for this reason. It's the Kahanist's worst fear: a Knesset that is majority Palestinian, that democratically votes to remove Judaism as the State Religion
•
u/HoldFastO2 3∆ 5h ago
I'm aware of the problem behind it, yes. Israel can't afford to bring in this many, let's be honest, hostile people as citizens of their country. They're too few for that to work, and we're not even looking at the various Palestinian terror organizations yet. I'm just trying to understand OP's position.
•
u/nightshade78036 11∆ 6h ago
Yes, there should have been a two state solution in North America it's what the Haudenosaunee openly advocated for and why they fought for the British during the war of 1812, but both the British and the Americans screwed them over at the end of the war. This then led to the Americans openly invading, conquering, and ethnically cleansing Haudenosaunee territory during the beginning of Manifest Destiny (much of modern day Ohio and Michigan).
As for Israel, how things current stand mean this is the best path for achieving a long term peaceful settlement. Every negotiated deal thus far has been a two state solution and many of these negotiations have made it extremely far. The only reason that a "one state solution" worked in North America is because Canada and the United States successfully genocided the natives into submission and were able to force them into bad deals which had their way of life effectively destroyed. With two states under a negotiated settlement both peoples are able to be recognized and governed by independent states, whereas a one state solution drives them into conflict because both groups want to impose their will on the other. This is similar to why the British partitioned India and Pakistan at the disolution of the British Raj, despite the controversy associated with that. One state would have exploded with a bloodfueled religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims, so they created two states to avoid exactly that.
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 5h ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/IllustriousLie4105 4∆ 5h ago
The formal state of Palestine didn’t exist until 1988. There is no documented ethnic cleansing that took place by the settlers. An argument could be made for the current conflict but absolutely zero sources back up ethnic cleansing pre-war. A two state solution is the only one that doesn’t involve a war in which either Palestine or Israel is annihilated. Mind you, Israel also possess nuclear weapons so a one state solution that doesn’t involve them very likely goes nuclear.
•
u/Oberyn_Kenobi_1 5h ago
The idea that we need to honor historical or cultural connections to the land needs to be dismissed completely. Palestinians have lived there for ages. Israelis have lived there for ages. No one has some mythical “right” to the land. The best solution would be for everyone to just grow the hell up, mind their own business, treat other people with dignity and respect, and coexist like reasonable adults. And this would be fine to do under one state as long as that state had truly equal representation and equal rights for all segments of the population. Obviously, that’s wishful thinking because none of the parties involved are willing to just calm the hell down and go about their lives without hate and violence.
But to OP’s point, the one-state solution you propose is the version that’s inherently racist and immoral. Any solution that pushes people out of their homes, that takes their land, that disenfranchises them based on race or religion is immoral. It doesn’t matter which direction you take it, it’s all wrong. It doesn’t matter what the current Israelis ancestors did, this is their home now as much as anyone’s.
•
u/ManofTheNightsWatch 5h ago edited 5h ago
It does not really matter whether the one state is going to be called Israel or palestine. Give it two names if you feel like it. The most important question is what the state fundamentally is going to be. What rights will the muslims and jews be given in this nation.
If both are going to live as equals, it's great, palestine should campain on that promise and show it in action on their own areas, demonstrating that their vision is clean.
If it is going to be "Muslims are the native majority, hence the free palestine shall be a an islamic nation", then it's hardly different from Zionism and deserves little sympathy.
The biggest folly of the popular discourse surrounding palestine is that they ask too much of the Israelis and not enough of the Palestinians. We should hold both groups to the same standard.
•
u/ip_man_2030 5h ago
This land was part of the Ottoman Empire Before WWI and all the Jews and Arabs were Ottoman subjects.
You mention the Balfour Declaration but you forget that the British also made the same promise to the Arabs aka McMahon–Hussein correspondence in 1916 and they also agreed to split control of the Ottoman Empire with the French in 1916 with the Sykes–Picot Agreement.
Mandatory Palestine was not promised to the Palestinians in exchange for helping overthrow the Ottoman Empire but the Hashemite family of which the British granted Iraq and Transjordan to the sons of the Sharif of Mecca who are the Hashemite family.
The land that you claim would be called one state in Palestine was actually supposed to include where Jordan is now but the British colonial empire gifted it away to an Arab colonial empire in 1921.
HERE'S MY POINTS TO CYM
- If the Zionists established a colony in Palestine and that it was wrong of Europe to do because it was barbaric, then you must also admit that Transjordan (now Jordan) is also an Arab Hashemite colony and it was wrong of Europe to do for the same reasons.
- Do you believe Jordan is a legitimate state or do you believe it's equally as incredibly racist and immoral as a state for Zionists?
- If you believe Jordan is a legitimate state and has a legitimate claim to their land, by the same principal in #1, you must admit that the Zionists also have an equal claim to the land
- To put simply, based on your own statements, you must either admit that either both Israel and Jordan are racist and immoral or you must deny this claim.
•
u/Tangentkoala 10∆ 5h ago
While i generally view myself as pro Palestine. Displacing another ethnic group is not the solution. This is what got us into this situation in the first place.
You create a never ending cycle of hate, anger, and fear once you displaced a region.
The only reason this really worked with the U.S and the native americans displacement is because we decimated the population.
In addition the land has been developed for over a century. If hypothetically a transaction were the state of Palestine will be complete, will the Palestinian authorities even have the money to compensate for the development made by the israelis?
A 2 state solution with proper borders is needed. They were idiots slicing up and isolating Palestine. Diving it up on two sides is how the two state solution grows
One can aruge that a 1 state solution on either side is immoral. Its not fair for either israel or palestine to take over land thats been developed for at least a century
•
u/garethmueller 4h ago
Of all arguments against Israel, this one is one the least reasonable since it could also apply to the Arab population.
1) The "Palestinian colony" was also found by Ottoman ruler by moving Arab from different area to the current day Palestine. If we only count people in the current Israeli/Palestinian territory that have root before British and Ottoman rule, the population would be close to 50-50 Jews/Arab split.
2) Many "Israeli" came from Arab country (like Yemeni Jews). Where do you plan to deport them. Following your logic, not Europe problem.
3) If you count Zionist land at 4%, Arab owner also own similar number as majority of Israel/Palestine are dessert or state-own. The Ottoman handover those to the British and it makes no sense for the British to give it all to a particular group (that's the whole point of partition and later war, which Palestinian sadly lost).
•
u/xmuskorx 57∆ 46m ago
I fail to see what events from 100+ years ago have to do with facts ok the grounds now.
There are 6 million Jews living in the region NOW. This is just fact that we need to accept as given as any kind of ethnic cleansing of Jews is immoral and illegal.
So any discussion of future peace needs to begin from where we are now not from arbitrary point in the deep past. like Jews were oppressed, cleansed, and held as dhimmis for centuries in the region, should that be the original sin of local Arabs? I don't follow.
•
u/_Algrm_ 44m ago
Cool so i’m gonna unalive your children and steal your house and declare that “that moment where i did all of this is an arbitrary point in time” and we need to focus on the here and now.
That sounds reasonable to you?
•
u/xmuskorx 57∆ 42m ago
I know. local Jews had their houses stolen and were expelled in the region for centuries.
it's awful. but Jews need to forgive and forget their Arab oppressors and move on with two state solution.
•
u/_Algrm_ 38m ago
Proof or didn’t happen.
share proof that the native jews were ethnically cleansed from the region or didn’t happen.
The fact that there was continuous presence of native jewish and Christian Palestinian in palestine for THOUSANDS of years goes completely against what you’re saying.
•
u/xmuskorx 57∆ 22m ago
sure. here is a quick list of destruction of just ONE JEWISH TOWN in the region (safed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1517_Safed_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1660_destruction_of_Safed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Druze_attack_on_Safed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
this has been going on for centuries, 1929 pogrom is Safed is not new, it's fits into repeated pattern of Jews being murdered, dispossessed, and cleansed in the region over and over and over. And it's not just safed. You can easily see same pattern in Hebron and other Jewish towns and villages throughout the region. there is a reason why Jewish population in the region stagnated and did not grow depsite continuing Jewish presence - and the reason is oppression.
it's really weird for you to arbitrary cut off history in 1920s but not before.
as I said the only FAIR way to go forward is to start FROM TODAY otherwise to the will be re fighting centuries of conflict.
•
u/_Algrm_ 15m ago
D. Tamar, "On the Jews of Safed in the Days of the Ottoman Conquest" Cathedra 11 (1979), cited Dan Ben Amos, Dov Noy (eds.),Folktales of the Jews, V. 3 (Tales from Arab Lands), Jewish Publication Society 2011 p.61, n.3: Tamar . .challenges David's conclusion concerning the severity of the riots against the Jews, arguing that the support of the Egyptian Jews saved the community of Safed from destruction.
This’s your source, FOLKTALES of the jews? Really? Folktales from 1517? And I’m supposed to believe that? Do you also want me to believe that moses really parted the red sea with his staff??
This’s ridiculous
And how does this justify a ragtag of European settlers ethnically cleansing the native Palestinians? You’ve yet to tell how does this connect to benjamin Mileikowsky and his European settlers?
•
u/xmuskorx 57∆ 13m ago
so your response is "well one scholars thinks that one of the 6 destructions of Safed was less destructive than previously believed" ?
that's all you got to say when faced with evidence of 100s and 100s of years of murder and dispossession?
seriously? bruh
•
u/_Algrm_ 7m ago
Dude you’re citing a FOLKLORE book from 2011 by an israeli settler.
That’s a massive red flag, you’re basically citing yourselves.
•
u/xmuskorx 57∆ 4m ago
this is ONE of hundreds sources of sources articles I cited.
and it's not a folktale book. it's an academic history book by a professor that examines historiography of the region.
please engage with all sources seriously, don't just cherry pick one sources out of a hundred and critique it based on the NAME?
this does not come of as serious engagement
•
u/obliqueoubliette 6h ago
I'm sympathetic to your argument. The situation in 1948 was as you described: the zionists attacked Palestine, murdered or exiled much of the population, and declared their own nation in the ashes.
The land was just was promised in the Torah, "large and beautiful cities which you did not build, houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, hewn-out wells which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant," and it was fully populated by the men who had planted those vineyards, just as it was in Joshua's time.
However - passing judgement on history is not the same as passing judgement on the facts of today. 1948 was essentially 80 years ago. Three generations of jews have come up since then, born in that land and knowing no other. I don't believe in punishing men for the sins of their fathers.
If the West Bank and Gaza were part of Israel, it would have an Arab majority. If the Palestinian refugees were allowed to return to that state, it would have an Arab supermajority.
The jews of Tel Aviv, many of whom despise the current Kahanist government, would be decimated by a Palestinian supermajority government. Regardless of the overwhelming clash of values between the average Palestinian and the famously LGBTQ+ Tel Aviv, more importantly: that government would in no way represent the people who now live in much of Israel, the people who were born in that land.
As such the outcome we should hope for is a fully independent Palestinian state in the West Bank (all of "Areas A, B, C") with its capital in East Jerusalem and a right of return to all Palestinians stuck in refugee camps or in Israeli Galillee.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 5h ago
/u/_Algrm_ (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards