You never answer my question - why would Israel give full citizenship to people in Gaza and let’s add on top parts (Area C) of the West Bank entirely controlled by the Palestinian Authority?
And the funny part is, the reason Israel control parts of the West Bank is because they were attacked in 3 wars (1948, 1967, 1972) and won.
> The idea that you would be branded as an anti-semite and lose your job because you are critical of Israel also sounds bad.
Sounds very plausible instead. The original cancel culture is exactly that used to silence critics of Israel- the accusation of antisemitism has been used for decades to terminate careers. People have learned very well to keep their mouths shut.
There's lots of critics of Israel. Can you give me 3 (or 10) examples or people who lost their jobs as a result of some reasonable criticism of Israel's policies? Weren't there recent petitions in Google and Amazon to boycott Israel? Did anyone lose their jobs? And this is political activism at your workplace, which isn't exactly the same thing as stating your opinion outside work. If you choose to bring politics into your workplace anything can happen.
Let me tell you how this sounds to me as a Jewish person, it sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory that is alluding that "we" are somehow pulling some invisible strings to get people fired for being justly critical of Israel. I could be paranoid but honestly I've earned the right to be paranoid.
I would fight for anyone's right to criticize Israel. I would also fight for the discussion to be based on facts and for Israel not to be singled out for "preferential" treatment. There is no problem being critical of Israel. Antisemitism is a big problem. If you don't feel like you can draw this line just study the question before commenting. It's really not that hard.
Let me give you a specific example. If you say Israel is intentionally trying to inflict damage on Gaza in order to deter Hamas and the population from re-engaging Israel in the future and that's a questionable tactic. I would say this is reasonable criticism (at least should be discussed). If you say Israel should not be evicting Arabs from their homes at the moment from disputed territories even if they are legally entitled to, or you want to debate said legality. Fair game IMO. However if you say look how many Palestinians died vs. Israelis in the latest round of violence and use it as a measure of morality that is problematic. In war each side tries to minimize damage to their side and inflict as much damage on the other side. People saying this are either incredibly naive or are twisting the (sad) reality to fit some agenda IMO. I don't think what I am saying here is that you can only have a voice if you agree with me. You can even choose to disagree with me on the question of war and proportionality. But you better come to this discussion with some good supporting arguments. There is certainly a lot of history and a lot of room for debate about this.
You can hold any position on Israel up to and including that it does not have the right to exist and still not be anti-Semitic. I do not agree with the formation or expansion of Israel, including the Balfour Declaration. I am not anti-Semitic.
In fact I think anti-Semitism is a very real problem. Historically and now. It also hurts the legitimate arguments against Zionism because invariably real anti-Semites show up and become the focal point.
"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace"
Nobody has banned John Lennon from the radio last time I checked.
Until a position is backed up with some rational arguments it's sort of just your opinion. Why should we care? If you are going public with a certain position and advocating for action the burden of proof is on you. Especially if there are consequences. There's plenty of nonsense going around that doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. But you can "hold" any of those positions wrt/ Israel or any other topic.
This is a non sequitur and a straw man. I don’t agree with the Balfour Declaration because it was strongly opposed by the Palestinians, 90% of the population at the time.
I have no idea why you are quoting John Lennon. It has nothing to do with the topic.
It's good that you are backing your opinion with facts. That's a great start to a rational debate. I don't think the muslims in the region were referred to as Palestinians at the time but it is a fact that they were the majority (I could nitpick specific regions and numbers but sure, as a rule I'd agree). Do you have any reference to their strong opposition? (it sounds reasonable though, so quite likely, but let's differentiate facts from opinions). My counter is that the reason the Jewish population was a minority at the time was that Jews were expelled from the area and prevented from returning. I do support the Balfour Declaration. There are other reasons for my support, such as the persecution of Jews in other countries.
Let's say we have this debate and you convince me, and I agree with you, that the Balfour Declaration was "wrong"(?) because it's not "right" to say people X should take location Y as their country while the locals are not consulted with. Not sure that really gets us anywhere. Lots of countries "exist" without Britain bothering to have declared that they should be countries and lots of countries exist because Britain and France arbitrarily made them so. Saudi Arabia pretty much owns its existence to similar circumstances, the British war on the Ottoman empire. But sure it is part of the long and relevant history of the region.
You can also say the UN should not have passed resolution 181. Again, not sure where that's gonna lead us.
If you have issues with the Balfour Declaration presumably those should be taken up with Britain?
Anyhow, at the end of the day, I think you're saying that despite the long and documented history of the Jewish people to the land of Israel the fact that the Jewish people were a minority in the area for a lengthy amount of time means that they have no right to that area at all. My counter would be that pretty much any country anywhere in the world doesn't actually satisfy your requirements and that if anything the Jewish people have a stronger "right" to that land than most other people living in other countries. And then you'll disagree. And we'll agree to disagree. And the question of how to resolve the situation today remains.
That other countries have also engaged in colonialism, doesn’t mean we have to support it, especially modern day colonialism.
We won’t agree on a solution or even the problem, but my point in this particular case is you can be against Israel as a geopolitical entity and not be anti-Semitic.
There is a reason. Maybe this reason is that the "conflict" has been going on for 70 years? Maybe the reason is that the situation is particularly humiliating for Muslims, who saw the West unilaterally decide to install some Europeans in one of Islam's most historic places? Or maybe the reason is that, different from other injustices, this one is brazenly denied both by the perpetrators and by those who should be witnesses? Because an injustice will upset, but there is nothing more enraging than seeing those in power deny the obvious and pretend that the perpetrators are victims.
So there can be many reasons. Why do you choose the one that, once somehow transferred 5500 km from Bangladesh to Palestine (not sure how much they have in common), puts the Palestinians' struggle in the worst possible light?
Most Israelis come from Arab countries(because they were expelled), this is a common myth that Israeli's are "european", there is many from Eastern Europe, and there are many ashkenazi jewish immigrants from the USA, but this is a fraction. And Jerusalem is the holiest place for Jews, and it has been since before Islam existed
yes it is, look at the numbers. 26 percent from europe, 27 percent from "non white" Middle east mainly, would be 28-29 percent but I am not including potential mizrahim from USA/Canada, even though many are probably persian/iraqi origin.
Look at it carefully, there is no Middle East Continent, look at the countries in the list... Are you saying Iraq is not an Arab country, Because it is in Asia? No arabs in Morocco because it is in Africa? My point is that Israel is not "European Colonials". Argentinian ladino speaking sephardic jews white? An Iranian-American Jewish family moving to Israel is European? You are nitpicking, and more than half of the population is not 'european', also count in the the druze, bedouin, and christian and muslim arabs that live here, with full rights, political representation, and benefits
edit:
Looking at your history "Peace is not possible on occupied land or in an apartheid state." seems like anything I can tell you wont matter because you have already drank the koolaid
Iraq is included in Asia. Asia + Africa = 25.05% which is less than the 30.9% Europe + America. So you were incorrect when you said the majority of Jewish Israeli’s are from Arab nations.
You are still wrong.. when most of the jews were kicked out of Arab countries they went to countries all over the world United States, Europe, Argentina/Brasil.. You are not considering any of this and just pulling census 6 year old census data that doesnt describe ethnicity..
from the article:
"About 44.9% percent of Israel's Jewish population identify as either Mizrahi or Sephardi, 44.2% identify as Ashkenazi, about 3% as Beta Israel and 7.9% as mixed or other"
This is from 2013, and there has been a lot more mixing since then.
That says nothing about their country of origin. These people literally emigrated from Western non-Arab countries. Your statement is just incorrect and now you’re moving the goal posts.
I posted proof, im not goal posting, and you are missing the entire point of what I originally said. Mizrahim/sepharidim are jews from arab/meditaranean/african countries.. they are more than 50% the population of jews in Israel. I am not arguing with any more. Your previous comments describe how you feel already.
You did not post proof. The numbers directly contradict your statement. More emigration happened from Western countries than Arab countries. No amount of goal post moving will change that your original statement is factually incorrect.
> Act.IL is a Social networking service launched in June 2017 that can be used via a mobile app on mobile devices running iOS or Android.[1] It is used by supporters of Israel to oppose "anti-Israel content" such as boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS).[2][3][4]
> the simple reality of nations protecting themselves
Israel is stealing from others (this is an established fact), its victims react, so Israel "protects itself" against that reaction. Are you ok with this? Do you think that robbers have a right to protect themselves from their victims?
Everybody has influence of the Israel-Palestine matter because the conflict exists only thanks to the spin Israel gives to it. They do what they do- and profit from it- because the public opinion in the Western countries (USA in particular) allows them to. That's why it's so important to them to keep shaping that opinion, and that's why it's so important to change it.
There is no Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. There is nothing to solve. There is a country that is slowly expanding in territory it doesn't have a right to, with some resistance from the original population.
This is a crime. Why do they do it? Because it's convenient and nobody stops them. Why nobody stops them? Because they've convinced the world that "there is a conflict", that "it's complicated", that "they're antisemites and they want to kill us all".
That's it. Weapons are just a tool. What enables Israel to keep occupying land and persecute Palestinians is just what people think of the whole thing. As long as people think "it's complicated", "Palestinians are just backwards antisemites", Israel will have a free hand in doing what they're doing. That's why convincing people is fundamental: and Israel knows very well, and that's why they censor as much information as possible.
You bet. Jews immigrated en masse to Palestine, then used their leverage at the UN to have half of the country assigned to themselves alone, then proceeded to ethnic cleanse as many Arab villages as possible. In the decades Israel has used every possible excuse to occupy more land, in violation of all laws and agreements, and install their population, while harassing, persecuting, and killing the indigenous population.
You bet that Hamas wants to kill them! It's because they're vicious anti-semite? No.
So you're saying that the posts should be removed not because of what they say but because of their motives. And who decides what are the posts motives? You, of course.
Israel is running a slow-motion ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians, practices apartheid, and violates international law by building settlements on occupied territories... but you say that the reason Palestinians hate Israelis is because of their race? Yeah, sure.
Race is a very important component on Paletinians hating Jews.
You are uninformed in this matter.
You can find rampant anti-Jewish sentiment in Quran and Hadith, and they are widely circulated in social media.
You maybe living in the West where such posts are not circulated, but they exist outside of your sphere.
There are two narratives. One in English- where they are the victims, and they need saving. Another one in Arabic, where they call for genocide of the Jewish people regularly.
And these were brought into my attention by my friends speaking Arabic.
Just because this narrative exists outside your focus and periphery, does not mean it does not exist.
You did more than anyone else to turn this thread into a flamewar hell. Moreover, this isn't the only time recently that you've broken the site guidelines with flamewar comments and attacking other users (e.g https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27590644).
If it were just the one thread, I'd let you off with a warning, but this is egregious (and it seems you've done this with other accounts in the past, too). Therefore I've banned this account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Edit: just in case anyone is worried about it: when we ban accounts in politically contentious threads, it's not because we secretly disagree with the politics of the banned account. Our goal is simply to enforce the site guidelines and prevent HN from turning into a flamewar hell, the end state of which would be scorched earth (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). The history of moderation comments here—not that anyone would want to slog through it—contains plenty of examples of HN users getting banned from every possible political angle.
> Race is a very important component on Paletinians hating Jews.
This is an entirely irrelevant, even ridiculous, argument, given the present situation. Which is that there is a very concrete and justified reason for Palestinians to hate Israel, and that's because Israel is oppressing them in a way that no people would ever tolerate and that would be classified and prosecuted as a crime if the perpetrators were any others than the West's darlings.
By the way, a friend of mine is a Palestinian from the West Bank who was subject to Israeli persecution, and had in the end to flee elsewhere. She is Christian, as has been her family since time immemorial. I can assure you she heartily hates Israel nonetheless. (10% of Palestinians were Christians, that's something Israel prefers to gloss over, since any empathy from the Christian west is dangerous).
You want to talk about the atavic, religious hatred that Palestinians harbour for Jews? Cool, then remove all the actual, justifiable reasons for that hatred and after that, if there's any left, we can talk about it.
You've entirely ignored the thrust of the parents argument.
I'd also point out that from the perspective of a secular westerner, even if one group is calling for the genocide of the other regularly; is the other group, which is actually committing genocide regularly, able to be held up as morally superior in any way? Is that group (Israeli Zionists) actually worth defending at all?
You have to remember that for the vast majority of the world, neither religious viewpoint holds much weight; only the globally agreed common ethics.
1) most of Palestine and Palestinians are not in Gaza, bug in the West Bank
2) if Palestine is separate territory from Israel, why Israel builds its roads and cities on it?