Haaretz commentator Gideon Levy:
Israel Can't Imprison Two Million Gazans Without Paying a Cruel Price (archived)

Quote:

---

...
On Saturday they were already talking about wiping out entire neighborhoods in Gaza, about occupying the Strip and punishing Gaza "as it has never been punished before." But Israel hasn't stopped punishing Gaza since 1948, not for a moment.

After 75 years of abuse, the worse possible scenario awaits it once again. The threats of "flattening Gaza" prove only one thing: We haven't learned a thing. The arrogance is here to stay, even though Israel is paying a high price once again.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bears very great responsibility for what happened, and he must pay the price, but it didn't start with him and it won't end after he goes. We now have to cry bitterly for the Israeli victims, but we should also cry for Gaza.

Gaza, most of whose residents are refugees created by Israel. Gaza, which has never known a single day of freedom.

---

Zippergate said:

---

To quote you:

The Zionist movement began in the late 19th century; population of Palestine in 1882 has been estimated at 300k with 92% of them non-Jews.


But I don't see how that matters because the country wasn't "liberated" by supposedly enlightened liberal democracies like Britain until 1918. It is at that moment the population should have been given its right to determine their own form of government in accord with the principles expressed in our own Declaration of Independence. At that time the population of Palestine was 660k, still 92% non-Jewish.

Even if we take your statistics at face value, they affirm the point I made.
And you cannot look at the situation without looking at the broader Arab response and general attitude to Jews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Islam

---

How do they affirm your point?

And they're not my statistics, they came from an Israeli source and I could have presented others that are far more favorable to my viewpoint instead.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present

I guess we're done talking about your phantom "source" and its "extensive citations".

Don't cite statistics if you're not prepared to defend them. I stated that the area was inhabited by a small number of bedouins and that Arabs moved in after Jewish improvements to the land. That's completely supported by a more than doubling of the population in less than forty years. And a population of 300k 140 years ago doesn't explain the millions of people who claim to be dispossessed Palestinians. Btw, were these Palestinians the same group that built the Dome of the Rock on top of the 3,000 year-old Jewish temple?

Zippergate said:

---

Don't cite statistics if you're not prepared to defend them. I stated that the area was inhabited by a small number of bedouins and that Arabs moved in after Jewish improvements to the land. That's completely supported by a more than doubling of the population in less than forty years. And a population of 300k 140 years ago doesn't explain the millions of people who claim to be dispossessed Palestinians. Btw, were these Palestinians the same group that built the Dome of the Rock on top of the 3,000 year-old Jewish temple?

---

Sure and before that there were apparently tribes that another Bronze age tribe that became what we think of as Jews conquered.

Who CARES??!!! It doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter that my ancestors were kicked out of England, went to scotland and subsequently kicked out a bunch of Gallic people who they then went over the Irish sea and kicked out of Ulster before Cromwell sent over Protestants and kicked THEM out.

Deal with the reality. Probably around 15 million people. HIGHLY diverse religious beliefs and practices. At least 2 major languages with several dialetics. Income inequality that correlates highly with relgious practices. The only way to solve that is create a secular state with strong individual rights.....or ethnically purge folks.

(BTW - if I was a reform member I would ultimately be worried about the long term trends cause there are a lot of conservative communtiies that don't consider reform "real jews". Once you start down that pathway it never ends good.)

Zippergate said:

---

Don't cite statistics if you're not prepared to defend them. I stated that the area was inhabited by a small number of bedouins and that Arabs moved in after Jewish improvements to the land. That's completely supported by a more than doubling of the population in less than forty years. And a population of 300k 140 years ago doesn't explain the millions of people who claim to be dispossessed Palestinians. Btw, were these Palestinians the same group that built the Dome of the Rock on top of the 3,000 year-old Jewish temple?

---

You say not to present a source if you're not willing to defend it? You and your phantom source with its "extensive citations" that you threw out there and refuse to even identify much less defend? Or the substitute source you presented which addresses none of the relevant claims? What is wrong with you, do you just say whatever you think is convenient for your argument no matter what its foundation is with the plan to simply push forward without acknowledgement if you get called on your bluff?

I presented a source that was decidedly less favorable to my argument because that's a reasonable way to argue. And I'll counter your argument using these less favorable statistics because the argument is obvious but since you obviously don't know you should know that there are a variety of estimates and others have less population growth than this Israeli source.

If a population doubles in 36 years, it has to be that the overwhelming majority of the addition comes from immigration? The native population doesn't have children? Let's say the native population went up by 50% and the rest were immigrants. That would make almost 3/4 of the Palestinians of 1918 native, completely smashing your argument that the Palestinians of Mandatory Palestine were overwhelmingly non-native. And this is with population estimates that are favorable to your argument.

You know who else doesn't buy this revisionist garbage? Benny Morris, a Zionist and one of the most famous Israeli historians in the world. I'm not an expert on Israeli historiography but I'll bet you're not going to find any Israeli historian of that stature who supports this obvious propaganda.

And again, even if 100% of the population growth had been due to immigration, they were still the people of the country at the moment it was liberated and if Britain and the League of Nations had believed in the democratic ideals they'd espoused, the first order of business after securing civil administration would have been to organize elections for a provisional government and a constitutional convention.

As to your latest "btw" the question is completely irrelevant. There was no Palestinian national identity before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, though there was a local Palestinian identity decades before the British came.

kal kommie said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Question: is a two-state solution even feasible? I'm not confident such a thing would actually hold in the long run; the problem is that the Jews and the Muslims both want the same land.

---

If you read historical accounts, the problem is not occupancy of the same land. The division of land was largely resolved (return to 1967 borders, with trades for security and settlements) and some sort of joint authority (dual capitals) in Jerusalem.

I understand the central problem are;

1. To this point, the Palestinians have insisted upon a literal right of return which is interpreted by Israelis as a means to destroy the Jewish character of Israel. There were several attempts to bridge the gap by offering compensation or a limited symbolic right of return. Those were rejected by Abbas.

2. Fundamentally, at this point the Israelis have no basis for expecting their security concerns will be addressed by any formulation

My personal opinion is that Abbas was incapable of making peace because his entire existence was based on being the rebel fighter. His rhetoric - which largely continues to be employed by others to this day - does not prepare the Palestinian people for compromise. "From the river to the sea" is not a call for peace - it is a call for a the destruction of Israel.

Israel has made many mistakes and has contributed to/reinforced many of cycles of violence. But Israel has a large center left/left contingent that advocate for peace. Who are the people in Palestinian society that advocate for a true two state solution? There is a reason most of the Arab world is no longer willing to advocate for Palestinians.

---

In the early 2000s a basis for the resolution of the land questions (including settlements), security, and Jerusalem seemed within reach, at least between the negotiating teams. However 20 years of "facts on the ground" have annihilated that basis. Continued settlement expansion has already redrawn the map of the West Bank and would seriously complicate any land swap. More importantly, Israel no longer appears willing to consider a divided Jerusalem. Netanyahu has repeatedly declared Jerusalem to be the "eternal, undivided capital of Israel" and Israeli public opinion steadily turned from ambivalent on the issue to being strongly against dividing Jerusalem.

I think the understanding of the "central problem" that Bear Goggles presents is generally valid though I would not characterize Abbas or any leader as the main stumbling block so much as the deeply held opinions of the Palestinian people (insofar as I would be willing to characterize Palestinian attitudes as the stumbling block at all as opposed to Israeli attitudes).

1. Right of return

Palestinian negotiating teams in the early 2000s showed willingness to compromise on the right of return through limitations on the number of refugees who would be allowed into Israel and compensation for the remainder, but Palestinian public opinion has always emphatically rejected these compromises, leaving it unclear as to whether any mutually acceptable agreement could ever have been fulfilled.

2. Security concerns

Again, Palestinian negotiating teams in the early 2000s were willing to compromise by accepting in large measures the Israeli demands for that state to be demilitarized and for Israel to retain at least some security installations in Palestinian territory, but again Palestinian public opinion was strongly against these concessions as they would infringe upon the sovereignty of the future Palestinian state. However, this issue seems to me more tractable than the right of return.

Here's a link to a 3rd party observer summary of what some feel is the most viable negotiation ever between Israeli and Palestinian representatives at Taba in 2001. That opinion was expressed by members of both negotiating teams, with the chief Palestinian negotiator having said they needed only six more weeks to conclude the agreement, but Israel pulled out of the Taba Summit before it could be completed, citing its upcoming elections. Since Labor was kicked out of power in that election, it's likely that even if the negotiators had reached a deal, it would have been stillborn.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-200101/

Bear Goggles is plainly mistaken about there being a large "center left/left" contingent" in Israeli politics. Likud has controlled the government for 17 of the last 21 years, during which time the left has been decimated. It took a center + center/left (Labor) + left (small parties) coalition to remove Likud from power between 2006-2009. Labor, once the largest Israeli party, has not received more than 6% of the vote since 2013. In the 2022 elections, the seven largest vote shares comprising 80% of the vote went to center right, right, or far right parties while Labor had been reduced to 3.7%. The electoral rise of the right wing, which originates in the late 1970s, has been accompanied by decades of neoliberal "reforms" as throughout the western world, leading as always to rising inequality and immiseration of the working class, a particularly revolutionary outcome in a state that was once politically defined by its commitment to economic social democracy.

Bear Goggles is also mistaken as to the relative levels of support for "peace" in Palestine and Israel. Support for the two state solution between Palestinians and Israeli Jews has been closely mirrored through this century. Up to 2017, polling had consistently indicated that between 45-55% of both demographics supported the two state solution but support on both sides has severely declined since then to around 30% with Palestinian opinion slightly lower than Israeli. Most tellingly, support for the two state solution by Israeli Arabs has crashed from its historical levels exceeding 80% to under 50%. Support for some form of a one state solution has grown in all groups but optimism regarding the prospects for any negotiated solution are virtually at all time lows.

Those are the facts, now for my opinion. I do not believe the people who really hold power in Israel have ever been interested in either a two state solution or a one state solution. This is also the opinion of two of the foremost experts on Israel/Palestine from the left, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein (both Jewish Americans). A federative single state involves unacceptable power sharing with Palestinians. An integrated single state is incompatible with Israel as a Jewish ethnostate. Any viable Palestinian state created through a two state solution would be an eternal security threat to Israel even if Palestinians agreed at the start to Israel's security concessions.

Moreover, the status quo serves the designs of Israeli maximalists almost perfectly. Remember that just as there are Palestinians who feel their people are entitled to possession of the whole country, there are Israelis who believe the Palestinians are entitled to absolutely nothing, that Eretz Israel belongs entirely to the Jewish people and refuse to consider any concessions except as part of a design to eventually acquire the whole country. This was in fact David Ben Gurion's position with respect to proposals to partition the country, a position he explicitly details in a letter to his son in 1937.

One only needs to consult maps from 1967 and today to see how Israeli maximalists have fulfilled Ben Gurion's vision. The multi-generational process of illegal annexation of the territories conquered in 1967 has slowly but surely disintegrated the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, in addition to netting the Golan Heights and Jerusalem entirely for Israel. On each iteration of the so-called "peace process", Israel is able to confront Palestine with a new set of "facts on the ground". Israel refuses to remove the vast majority of its illegal settlements and those few settlements they are willing to remove become currency in land swaps.

In every negotiation that has ever taken place, the Palestinians are the only ones who are required to make concessions on their rights under international law and the principles of self-determination. They must give some of their unquestionable right to return to their homes lost in the wars and illegal annexations. They must give up some of the sovereignty of their prospective state to the security concerns of their conquerors or endure continued stateless existence. They must legitimize not only the illegal annexations since 1967 but the original negation of their right to political self-determination throughout the country in the creation of the Jewish ethnostate of Israel. Whenever the Palestinians balk at the degree to which they are required to unilaterally surrender rights, Israeli partisans brand them as rejectionist as though they were the ones who have been in continuous violation of international law for 56 years and haughtily refuse to rectify their illegalities.

This is the realist appraisal of the situation, the one taken with the understanding that people are fundamentally self-interested, alone or in groups, and that international relations are based on nothing more than power dynamics. If anyone still does not understand how this applies to the Israeli plan for the the Palestinians, they should consult the candid words of the forthright Israeli warmaster Moshe Dayan after Israel won the 1967 war: "Let's say 'we don't have a solution, and you will continue living like dogs, and whoever wants will go, and we'll see how this procedure will work out." Generations later this is obviously still the plan.

---

You're pretty selective in your conclusions and doing lots of cherry picking - very Chomsky of you. You're quick to point out the things that Netanyahu has said - what have Abbas and Hamas said about sharing Jerusalem or for that matter Israel's right to exist?

Labor is not the only center/center left/left party in Israel. If the right's control of government is so strong, why have there been 5 elections in 4 years? Why were there massive protest by the left recently? The Israeli left has a strong and consistent peace advocacy program that is politically active. Where is the counterpart in the Palestinian community? When was the last time Palestinians ANYWHERE demonstrated against their government, for recognizing Israel, and/or in favor of Peace?

Your extrapolation of the Taba Summit is equally silly. If only they had six more weeks? Really? All parties, including Palestinians, knew that Barak and Clinton were leaving office. It was the last chance after the failed 2000 camp david summit. Arafat missed an opportunity (again).

Settlement policy is unhelpful. But not nearly as unhelpful as continued violence from Gaza and the West Bank. Israel has removed settlements and would do so as part of any peace settlement (or those people would become citizens of the Palestinian state). When have the Palestinians (including Hamas) renounced violence?

And while we're on the subject of elections, what is going on in the West Bank and Gaza?

Your suggestion that Israel is simply pursuing "Ben Gurion's vision" ignores the fact that the Israel has traded land for peace and in fact (by your own admission) offered the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza - that is per the Moratinos non-paper you cited.

And to go "there" your claim that only the Palestinians must give up the right to their homes is laughable. Did history start in 1948? In 1948, were their jews in the West Bank and other Arab countries? How were those people treated? Remind me, what is under the Dome of the Rock? I'm pretty sure there's a Jewish temple there. I find the argument least relevant at this point, but if any claim will be decided on "who was there first", the Jews win. So just stop.

What is most striking about the above is that you completely deny the Palestinians agency (or responsibility). To you, they are just victims. You claim to be a realist, but far from it.

A realist position would acknowledge that the Palestinians have no option but to make compromises to achieve their larger goals. Something their leaders never acknowledged, instead suggesting the impossible - that Israel will be destroyed and Palestinians would control from the river to the sea.

A realist position would acknowledge that the Israelis can never make peace with a country governed by terrorists (or that permits terrorism against Israel). NO COUNTRY would be expected to make the compromises you're asking of Israel given the current situation. You're not a realist; your an apologist.

The Palestinians need to remake their society to be a partner for peace. If you really cared about their suffering (which is very real), you'd be advocating for those types of changes. Instead, you present them as victims and Israel as the sole bad actor. You are perpetuating the problem.

And to be clear, Israel and all other countries/people of good will need to do their part to assist the Palestinians. The first part of that is removing Hamas which is a permanent obstacle to peace.

kal kommie said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Question: is a two-state solution even feasible? I'm not confident such a thing would actually hold in the long run; the problem is that the Jews and the Muslims both want the same land.

---

Why don't they share it like they did for hundreds of years before England got involved?

I will tell you why. A sizable faction of Jews don't want to share the land.

The correct solution isn't a two state solution. It is a one state solution, but the current leaders of Israel will never permit that as Jews would be the minority population.

I am no fan of Hamas but keeping Palestinians holed up in a small section of what was also their land too shows what role Israel thinks they should have in deterring the fate of the country.

Long-term that is unsustainable. They have to figure out a way to integrate them into Israeli society instead of second class citizens.

On the other side, the Palestinians can't engage in terrorism to make their point. Iran and others goad them into these actions instead of diplomatic solutions. It is ill-advised and wholly unnecessary when they have demographics on their side.

---

Fact check time - what is the sizable portion of the Jews who don't want to share the land? What is your number? How does this compare to the percentage of Palestinians that don't want to share the land?

You need to be very specific here because a statement like that treads very close to antisemitism. Is it only Jews that don't want to share?

Which group refused to accept the 1948 partition - which group was unwilling to "share" then? Which group gave up land for peace (Sinai) and has offered to do so again? Which group has people chanting from the river to the sea?

Israel was founded as a safe haven for Jews. Do you have a problem with Jews wanting to have a Jewish state and preserve its Jewish nature? Do you have the same problem with the Vatican and or the 27 countries that have adopted Islam as the state religion? Why do you think its unreasonable for Jews to want to have their own country when so many other countries are explicitly religious?

It is truly awful that the Palestinians live in terrible circumstances that are about to get worse. But the old saying remains true:

If the Palestinians lay down their arms, there will be no more war (and they would have a country). If the Israelis lay down their weapons, there will be no more Israel. Until that changes, the Palestinians are destined to suffer.

The first step to improving conditions for Palestinians is getting rid of Hamas and their corrupt PA. Until that happens, nothing will change.

---

Earlier you insinuated without evidence that support for the two state solution was substantially stronger in Israel than in Palestine. What were your numbers? Did you consult polling or just assert your prejudices? Why didn't you feel the need to be very specific there? Can one only be racist when making unsubstantiated assertions about the attitudes of Jewish populations and not Palestinian ones?

BTW if anyone is interested in learning what Palestinians actually think about these issues, this is an excellent polling resource:

https://www.pcpsr.org/en

The Palestinians of course were the ones who rejected the partition of their country. Why wouldn't they? Let's say the US was conquered by a foreign power which allowed tens of millions of people who claim to be descendants of Native Americans (genetic or spiritual) from all over the world to immigrate to the US so they could carve out a new ethnostate. At the behest of the conquering power, the UN puts together a partition plan which gives the new ethnostate half the country. How willing to "share" would you be?

The UN partition plan allocated 62% of Palestine to the Jewish population that comprised only 32% of the country, the majority of whom had immigrated after 1918. Is it just to condemn the Palestinians for rejecting such an outrageously unfair division of their country?

Do you know the history of Israel's occupation of the Sinai? They conquered during their surprise attack against Egypt in 1967. They never had any legitimate claim to the land. What credit should a conqueror be given for doing what international law demands? Well since Israel has refused to comply with international law as regards its conquered Palestinian territories, maybe credit would have been due to Israel with regard to the Sinai if they had returned it for peace but they didn't, at least not voluntarily.

Egypt did not accept Israel's theft of their territory. After recovering some strength following their defeat in 1967, Egypt offered Israel a full peace treaty in exchange for the return of the Sinai, along with an ultimatum that refusal of the offer would lead to war. Israel, having defeated Egypt in two consecutive wars (both times as the aggressor), refused to return their stolen possession to secure peace. They felt the threat was empty and that even if Egypt did attack, Israel would easily thrash them again. But they were wrong on both counts.

In 1973 Egypt (along with Syria and contingents from other Arab countries) followed through on its threat and Israel was caught off guard. In the early stage of the war, defeat looked like a real possibility but Israel, aided by an emergency supply of US arms, turned the tide and launched a counter-invasion of Egypt. At this point the USSR threatened to intervene and fear of escalation prompted the US to step in. A UN backed ceasefire was arranged and eventually negotiations led to a peace treaty in which the Sinai was returned.

So Israel "gave up land for peace", land which it never had legitimate claim to, after fighting a bloody war rather than return that land. Are you sure this episode is a credit to Israel rather than yet another shameful episode of militaristic self-aggrandizement for which they deserve condemnation?

Should we have a problem with Jews wanting their own ethnostate? Does the existence of other ethnostates excuse "the Middle East's only democracy" from being one itself? How can Israel be as Netanyahu declared "The nation-state of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people alone" and still be a liberal democracy? Aren't liberal democracies supposed to be the state of all of their people without regard to their race, ethnicity or religion?

If Jews did deserve their own ethnostate, did the Palestinians deserve to suffer the loss of their own right to self-determination in their own country so Jews could not only have their ethnostate but have it in the geographic location of their choosing?

Non-Jews were 92% of Palestine when it was liberated from the Ottoman Empire in 1918. According to the principles of democratic self-determination, Palestine should have been assisted in immediately organizing elections for a constitutional convention. Instead the rights of the population to self-determination were abrogated by the western dominated League of Nations so that the country could become the "national home for the Jewish people". Britain had already declared its intention to fulfill that end two years before it even received the mandate. The will of the indigenous population was nugatory.

What right did Britain, the (western controlled) League of Nations, or the (western controlled) United Nations have to gift part of Palestine to European Jewish colonists? Why should the Palestinian Arabs be condemned for rejecting a colonial enterprise that was forced upon them, a rejection that should be expected of any indigenous people anywhere?

Israel was born in injustice. Not only was the indigenous population deprived of its right to political self-determination, they were also robbed, murdered and ethnically cleansed before their permanent subjugation. Now you hypothesize about what might happen if they consigned all of the injustices that Israel has inflicted upon them to oblivion and trusted their conqueror enough to utterly submit? Because that's what you would do in their place, get on your knees and beg for some Bantustan your people could shelter in under Israeli domination? Do you know why Hamas was elected in the first place? Because Palestinians are human beings and as a species we tend not to submit to our conquerors unless we have no other choice but annihilation.

I condemn the intentional killing of civilians in war, whether by Hamas, by the US, by Israel, or anyone else. But Palestinians are entitled to the right of armed resistance to their oppressor. Every civilian who is killed in a war of liberation is beyond all else the responsibility of the subjugator. I don't enjoy reading about the civilians who were killed in slave rebellions in the American south and Caribbean, but I refuse to condemn the liberation movements which produced the murders. When a rebelling slave kills the wife and child of their slave master, the master is as responsible as though he was holding the blade hand-in-hand with the rebel slave. If you really want to end the killing, it is Israel who should receive your pressure, not the Palestinians. Israel holds all of the cards here except one: the will to resist injustice in the face of impossible odds.

---

Putting aside your one sided recitation of the history (your characterization of the 1967 war being most notable), I can't help but wonder. Did history start in 1918? Your entire argument is based on the idea that the Palestinians were there first and were displaced. Jews were there 5,000 years ago indisputably before the people now known as Palestinians. Jews were displaced before the Palestinians were. By your logic, the Palestinians are the occupiers.

At this point, this has devolved into a weird extrapolation of colonialist liberation theory. You really are living up to your board name and that's fine. But the crap in the last paragraph exposes you for what you are. Violence is justified if you like the end. What you fail to see is that the exact same logic supports the (misguided) notion that every Palestinian in Gaza deserves to be killed as the result of the actions of Hamas.

Ultimately, people like you espousing these BS ideologies - that deny all reality - get a lot of Palestinians killed. Sadly you are part of the problem but don't see that (or more likely don't care because it serves your ideology).

BearGoggles said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Don't cite statistics if you're not prepared to defend them. I stated that the area was inhabited by a small number of bedouins and that Arabs moved in after Jewish improvements to the land. That's completely supported by a more than doubling of the population in less than forty years. And a population of 300k 140 years ago doesn't explain the millions of people who claim to be dispossessed Palestinians. Btw, were these Palestinians the same group that built the Dome of the Rock on top of the 3,000 year-old Jewish temple?

---

Sure and before that there were apparently tribes that another Bronze age tribe that became what we think of as Jews conquered.

Who CARES??!!! It doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter that my ancestors were kicked out of England, went to scotland and subsequently kicked out a bunch of Gallic people who they then went over the Irish sea and kicked out of Ulster before Cromwell sent over Protestants and kicked THEM out.

Deal with the reality. Probably around 15 million people. HIGHLY diverse religious beliefs and practices. At least 2 major languages with several dialetics. Income inequality that correlates highly with relgious practices. The only way to solve that is create a secular state with strong individual rights.....or ethnically purge folks.

(BTW - if I was a reform member I would ultimately be worried about the long term trends cause there are a lot of conservative communtiies that don't consider reform "real jews". Once you start down that pathway it never ends good.)

---

I agree with your "who cares" approach. The problem is that many Palestinians and the people supporting them latch on to the "we were here first" argument, as evidenced by some posting in this thread. You're largely arguing with the wrong side on this one.

I question the bolded statement. That might be the "best" way to solve the problem from your perspective - it is a highly subjective conclusion. But it is not the only way. Pakistan says hello as do all of the former republics of the Soviet Union.

The harder question is what measures does a country need/choose to take to maintain its religious or other ethnic qualities. Obviously, immigration policy seems pretty important though birthrates might eventually dictate changes.

---

"The harder question is what measures does a country need/choose to take to maintain its religious or other ethnic qualities. Obviously, immigration policy seems pretty important though birthrates might eventually dictate changes."

A country should not maintain its religious or other ethnic qualities. Countries don't have a religion or ethnicity. People do. A country that chooses to use religion or ethnicity as part of its identity will ultimately end up persecuting some of its population. Even homogenous countries like Japan have been guilty of this.

Jews and Arabs need to learn to share the land that we today call Israel. It is in both of their best interests to do so. Hamas should not have attacked Israel, but Israel's response is not compassionate at all and it plays into the narrative that Israel is the enemy. There are 1 million children in Gaza today that don't understand politics and didn't elect their leaders, but will grow up hating Jews. That's counterproductive.

okaydo said:

---

More than 500 people have died in Gaza after Israel launched massive retaliatory air strikes, according to Gaza's health ministry

More than 700 people have been killed in Israel since Hamas launched its attacks on Saturday

Follow the latest ⬇️

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) October 9, 2023

---

Lesson #1 in how media can manipulate the public into supporting one side or the other in a conflict. pic.twitter.com/ep5cRJxJDt

— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) October 9, 2023

Thousands of terrorists swarmed into Israel in order to massacre Jews. Then Hamas hides behind civilians in order to have as many of them killed as possible for sympathy. Pure evil.

Cal88 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

Neighboring Egypt is one of the least racially diverse countries in the world. There's a reason why Jews don't live in other Arab countries.

---

Egypt does have some racial diversity, the Nubian south is more African while the north is more Mediterranean, with the historical imprint of a large Greek community. As well Arab Jews do racially blend in with their neighbors.



Nikki wants a final solution:

This is not just an attack on Israel—this was an attack on America.

Finish them, @Netanyahu.

They should have hell to pay for what they have just done. pic.twitter.com/0KKDwvOITS

— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) October 8, 2023

I have to say that on this issue, the current administration, people like Sullivan and Blinken, are a bit more rational and measured than the Haleys, Pompeos or Boltons who cater to neocons and ideologically radical endtimers.

---

Their differences are only on the surface. They're all NeoCons.

cbbass1 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Israel has shut off electricity, water, and food to Gaza. Looks like Israel has taken about 800,000 hostages.

The U.S. should not be involved.

---

And certainly not with an aircraft carrier.

---

The aircraft carrier is there as a show of support but also a deterrent to any other countries thinking about jumping in to take advantage of the situation.

It can also help protect shipping and gather intelligence.

There is other civilian support an aircraft carrier can offer as well including use as a hospital should any Americans or allies be injured.

It would be silly not to send an aircraft carrier group into such a volatile situation given how important the Suez Canal is.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

At the core I really do believe that is the core challenge - that the majority in Israel want it as a "jewish state" even though demographics are against them and that too many in the Palestinian community want Palestine as a "muslim state" even though that ignores the reality of 8 million jews without really an enlightenment inspired polical culture that elevates tolerance to a central position. I readily admit that such a view doesn't get us to a solution.

---

Yeah, I generally agree with that. Ethnostates don't work in the long run, but Israel and Palestine want to be ethnostates. Not sure what changes the mindset. Maybe people get tired of all the fighting.

---

A pox on both their houses. America should stay out of it.

---

On this point: what is the case for the US continuing to support Israel? Does it benefit us in some material way?

---

No. In fact it harms us. Gets us involved in things that should have nothing to do with us.

---

It is impossible for America to stay out of it because we are already in it. We are already not simply involved but integral to what has happened there for 50 years. We provide critical military, intelligence, economic, technological, diplomatic and ideological support for Israel in massive quantities.

---

Every journey begins with a single step

---

Naive is one thing, head in the sand is another. Have you been listing to our President and the news of our the actions of our military forces streaming towards the Middle East? Forget history, Biden just promised he will support Israel and when pushed now far that support will go, promised he won't put troops on the ground.....in Gaza.

For a big picture, the US can get a two state solution probably with the PLO and Abbas, but not with Iran backed Hamas controlling Gaza. Thus, having Israel destroy Hamas is in the Biden Administration's interest. You can debate the Biden administration's strategy (and to what degree Biden''s close friend Netanyahu will cooperate), but if Biden pulls all this off, he is line for a Nobel Peace Prize. Sorta the ultimate prize for every US President in the last several decades, being able to bring peace to the Middle East.

---

Weird, but ok. Next time you disagree with our government I'll just say you have your head in the sand. Should be pretty frequent.

---

You can disagree all you want, but to suggest the US won't become involved is very, very, very. late to the party.

---

I'm expressing my opinion, not making predictions about what will happen. Again, your reading comprehension fails you.

---

That is not how it reads, I'm not the only poster that responded this way.

---

Yes, you are

---

Does this sound familiar in your response to your comment:

"It is impossible for America to stay out of it because we are already in it. We are already not simply involved but integral to what has happened there for 50 years. We provide critical military, intelligence, economic, technological, diplomatic and ideological support for Israel in massive quantities."

You might be remiss on commenting on reading comprehension. Why don't you just keep up with the dialog, since there are a lot of interesting points being made. You don't get this deep thinking on the USC site.