> I think so too. But: does [Israel] need to exist where it currently exists? Does it need to exist in the way it currently exists? Does the Jewish state need to behave like it currently does?
If it were up to me, no! I think it was a huge mistake to have Israel where it is. Granted I basically don't care about religion, nor do I care about "historical ties" to the land. For sure I don't care about them more than all the deaths that have occurred.
That said...
> [...] I have problems with almost every one of those arguments, including the argument of 'now it is so so it should stay so' (the argument by default).
I mean, what's the alternative? Almost every country in the world was founded in a way that is, shall we say, not ideal. It's not like Israel can up and move at this point. Advocating for Israel to no longer exist is like advocating for the Native Americans to take back the United States.
The only realistic way out of this mess is a compromise between Palestinians and Israelis. It's shitty that the world works this way, but it does, in every case.
> Just like the Arab world kills Israelis the Israelis seem - from my perspective at least - to have very little restraint when it comes to killing Arabs/Palestinians. What is happening in Gaza right now is utterly disproportional and merely a reflection of how much the Israeli government values Palestinian lives.
I will note that while I have a lot of problems with the Israeli government, I don't agree with you on this. I don't even think "proportionality" is the correct frame here - it's a war, the object is to win. It's not a "they did this attack so we'll do that attack" situation, it's a "we have an enemy on our border that is legit trying to kill us, we need to stop them" situation. People (in the West) have forgotten what wars our like, but this is what a war is like.
Specifically, I don't think it's true that Israel indiscrimnately kill civilians. I think Israel takes great pains to not kill civilians, more than most armies. The situation is made far worse because Hamas uses human shields, on purpose, in order to have them killed. It's hard to believe that Israel is trying not to kill people indiscriminately given the amount of dead, but I'm comparing Israel vs. how other countries behaved in similar situation, and I honestly don't think Israel is different, and in many ways behaves better, than in similar situations. (Again, just compare to the States attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.)
>> > If I and others like me leave, while it wouldn't cause Israel to disappear as you said, it will only push Israel to being even more extreme as the populace will be ever more extreme. The population of Israel is rising, but it's largely driven by the religious population, not by secular leftists.
> I'm aware of that.
Well I'm not sure about the morality here, but even if I leave Israel, I don't think I'll ever not feel responsible for what it does. For one thing, despite everything else, it will always be the only true "safe haven" for me as a Jew. It's sad that the world works this way, but it's not my fault - it's the fault of the fact that the world has decided to blame and kill Jews over and over again throughout history.
> I've read myself silly about this conflict and my main take-aways are:
I don't disagree with you on all these points, but I think you are giving the Zionist movement more blame than it necessarily deserves. It really is true that there was never a Palestinian state, and that large amounts of the land of Israel were undeveloped. The first Jews that moved in did so completely legally by buying up the land and being granted entry by the existing owners of the land (the Ottomans, then the British).
So it's not like they found a full functioning country and decided to conquer it, not at all.
Also, there really were strong Jewish ties to that land, including Jews having continuously lived in that land for the last 2000 years. (I'm not saying you, but some people think this is only a religious belief - it's really not, it's historical fact that the Jews lived in that land and were scattered, and always had some presence there.)
That said, yes, there was strife for a big part of the time, and as I said before, especially given what we know today, I would've much preferred a different location for Israel.
> The religious population of Israel - the outgoing part of it, anyway - is spoiling it for everybody else and the militant Arabs are spoiling it for everybody else as well.
Agreed. Though I don't even think it's fair to say "the religious population of Israel", it's not just them - there are plenty of secular people with pretty terrible views on this conflict too. Many, but not all settlers are religious. etc.
Apologies for the slow reply but it's been super busy here today.
> If it were up to me, no! I think it was a huge mistake to have Israel where it is. Granted I basically don't care about religion, nor do I care about "historical ties" to the land. For sure I don't care about them more than all the deaths that have occurred.
Ok.
> That said...
> I mean, what's the alternative? Almost every country in the world was founded in a way that is, shall we say, not ideal. It's not like Israel can up and move at this point. Advocating for Israel to no longer exist is like advocating for the Native Americans to take back the United States.
Agreed, and it will likely continue to exist. But unless all parties climb down from their respective religious high horses - and that includes Iran - this isn't going to be resolved. So either we accept the fact that Israel will be forever at war or something will have to change. In some way America shielding Israel from the consequences of each and every action poisons the world against Israel, it's as if only the opinion of the USA and Israel matter. I've seen veto after veto of things that made quite a bit of sense to me whereas if any other country would do things like that it would likely backfire in much more concrete ways.
>
> > Just like the Arab world kills Israelis the Israelis seem - from my perspective at least - to have very little restraint when it comes to killing Arabs/Palestinians. What is happening in Gaza right now is utterly disproportional and merely a reflection of how much the Israeli government values Palestinian lives.
> I will note that while I have a lot of problems with the Israeli government, I don't agree with you on this. I don't even think "proportionality" is the correct frame here - it's a war, the object is to win. It's not a "they did this attack so we'll do that attack" situation, it's a "we have an enemy on our border that is legit trying to kill us, we need to stop them" situation. People (in the West) have forgotten what wars our like, but this is what a war is like.
But what if there is no 'win' possible, and all that can be done is to destroy more and more lives for zero actual gain in the longer term? Because a short-term win could easily translate in a long term bigger loss. That's why you have this Hamas mess in the first place: in the (previous) short term backing Hamas seemed like a great way to keep the other side divided and neutered, but that has now resulted in a massive backfire. There is a pretty good chance that that will happen again with more short term thinking.
> Specifically, I don't think it's true that Israel indiscrimnately kill civilians.
That's not the outward image right now: as long as there is a massive asymmetry between Israeli armed forces casualties and Palestinian civilians that picture will just get worse and worse. Note that from many thousands of kilometers away it is easy for me to pontificate, if it was my house that was in danger I'd probably feel different. And I feel just the same about the way Hamas has been targeting Israeli civilians. It's barbarian.
> Well I'm not sure about the morality here, but even if I leave Israel, I don't think I'll ever not feel responsible for what it does. For one thing, despite everything else, it will always be the only true "safe haven" for me as a Jew.
The quotes are not an accident I take it. Safe as in 'relatively safe' but not perfectly safe in practice due to the number of parties that aim to destroy Israel in toto. And in a way that is the real issue: by making Israel Jewish majority state (at least, in the foreseeable future this will likely hold true) it also paints a huge target on it.
Israel, the Jewish Religion and the Jewish identity are strongly overlapping and given the number of attempts at wiping out the Jews I totally understand that that identity has been re-inforced to the point where self protection of the Jews overrules any other consideration. But no country is an island, and Israel is today surrounded by countries that would like to see it disappear and just like with other security issues they only have to get it right once whereas Israel has to be successful for eternity. That spells to me that a security rooted in violence is eventually going to fail.
> I don't disagree with you on all these points, but I think you are giving the Zionist movement more blame than it necessarily deserves. It really is true that there was never a Palestinian state, and that large amounts of the land of Israel were undeveloped. The first Jews that moved in did so completely legally by buying up the land and being granted entry by the existing owners of the land (the Ottomans, then the British).
> So it's not like they found a full functioning country and decided to conquer it, not at all.
No, that's clear. What conquering was done was after Israel had been founded. But it almost immediately led to the displacement of a large number of people and that alone should have been avoided at all costs.
> It's sad that the world works this way, but it's not my fault - it's the fault of the fact that the world has decided to blame and kill Jews over and over again throughout history.
Indeed. And that should stop.
> Also, there really were strong Jewish ties to that land, including Jews having continuously lived in that land for the last 2000 years. (I'm not saying you, but some people think this is only a religious belief - it's really not, it's historical fact that the Jews lived in that land and were scattered, and always had some presence there.)
Yes, plenty of them, iirc never less than tens of thousands up to hundreds of thousands.
> That said, yes, there was strife for a big part of the time, and as I said before, especially given what we know today, I would've much preferred a different location for Israel.
But it's a done deal and moving Israel isn't going to happen. And even if a fraction would want this where would it go and what would happen to the remainder? It would be another exercise in forced migration.
>> The religious population of Israel - the outgoing part of it, anyway - is spoiling it for everybody else and the militant Arabs are spoiling it for everybody else as well.
> Agreed. Though I don't even think it's fair to say "the religious population of Israel", it's not just them - there are plenty of secular people with pretty terrible views on this conflict too. Many, but not all settlers are religious. etc.
Right, that's absolutely true and I should have been more careful there. But from what I know - and feel free to correct me, you are obviously much better informed - it is mostly the religious fanatics that drive the ongoing settlement program.
> But unless all parties climb down from their respective religious high horses - and that includes Iran - this isn't going to be resolved. So either we accept the fact that Israel will be forever at war or something will have to change.
Agreed.
> No, that's clear. What conquering was done was after Israel had been founded. But it almost immediately led to the displacement of a large number of people and that alone should have been avoided at all costs.
I mean, yes, but it was mostly conquering because Israel was attacked. The UN did decide to partition the land into a "Jewish" part and "Palestinian" part, and the Palestinians are the ones that rejected it, while the Arab world attacked Israel. It's not that Israel decided to go out a-conquering.
> But it's a done deal and moving Israel isn't going to happen. And even if a fraction would want this where would it go and what would happen to the remainder? It would be another exercise in forced migration.
Yes. That's the reality that the Palestinians have to accept if we have any hope of peace.
> Right, that's absolutely true and I should have been more careful there. But from what I know - and feel free to correct me, you are obviously much better informed - it is mostly the religious fanatics that drive the ongoing settlement program.
That's an interesting question. People become settlers for various reasons; partially it's religious, partially it's ideological, but also partially it's an economic decision - living in the territories is much cheaper (both because of less demand, and also because the government gives economic advantages to living in the territories IIRC, which btw is another way the current government of Israel is undermining peace.)
While the main ideological thrust of wanting a "greater Israel" is religious, it certainly isn't enough, and there's the implicit backing of enough of the population for this to continue. This is driven partially because of security concerns after so many years of strife, partially out of apathy, partially out of some form of "racism", partially at this point some people just consider Palestinians to be the enemy, so everything is justified... it's a mix.
I think if the religious component didn't exist, there wouldn't be a settlement program, but I think for sure a large part of the Israeli population is complicit in the ongoing settler situation, unfortunately.
> I mean, yes, but it was mostly conquering because Israel was attacked. The UN did decide to partition the land into a "Jewish" part and "Palestinian" part, and the Palestinians are the ones that rejected it, while the Arab world attacked Israel. It's not that Israel decided to go out a-conquering.
That's true. And I could see how a buffer zone would have made good sense after the six day war, but to turn it into a landgrab was effectively not letting a crisis go to waste and that in itself became a serious problem. And you have to appreciate the level of naivety in the UN and in the USA at the time for thinking that such a massive restructuring of a region where there had already been long term stability issues would not lead to some kind of upheaval.
I wonder if there was even a single person there who didn't see it coming or whether or not there was some other agenda at work (but that's my cynical side). It's clear that the USA didn't have any real friends in the region (not for lack of trying) and Israel may well have been viewed as some kind of forward base or staging area. The Russians too were making plans to invade and they may well have done so if not for United States unequivocal support for Israel. This is pretty ugly especially given that many Russian Jews had fled to Israel by then. It also had the potential to spiral out of control into a nuclear conflict.
> I think if the religious component didn't exist, there wouldn't be a settlement program, but I think for sure a large part of the Israeli population is complicit in the ongoing settler situation, unfortunately.
Interesting, ok, thank you for setting me straight on that. It also explains better why the government doesn't act more forcefully against the settlers, effectively they are executing on an undeclared agenda that suits a much larger swath of the Israeli population than I was aware of. Unfortunately that also makes it a much harder problem to solve.
> effectively they are executing on an undeclared agenda that suits a much larger swath of the Israeli population than I was aware of.
I mean, I don't want to overstate things. I haven't done statistics on this, and obviously I'm a fairly left/liberal leaning Israeli, so I tend to look on all pro-settlement people fairly critically. I'm giving you my personal sense of things.
> It's clear that the USA didn't have any real friends in the region (not for lack of trying) and Israel may well have been viewed as some kind of forward base or staging area.
I think US support of Israel was far smaller in the 1960s, back then France was a closer ally iirc. But I wasn't alive back then, I'm not sure how accurate this is.
> That's true. And I could see how a buffer zone would have made good sense after the six day war, but to turn it into a landgrab was effectively not letting a crisis go to waste and that in itself became a serious problem.
Yes. I wonder what would've happened if we hadn't gotten that land, and the Palestinians had just continued to be refugees of other countries.
I'm not sure, but I think it was well understood by the Israeli government at the time that taking that territory, along with the refugees, would be a problem.
Thanks again for the conversation, it has definitely given a lot of valuable background and insights. If you ever want to mail off-site then my email is in my profile. Best of luck there and stay safe!
If it were up to me, no! I think it was a huge mistake to have Israel where it is. Granted I basically don't care about religion, nor do I care about "historical ties" to the land. For sure I don't care about them more than all the deaths that have occurred.
That said...
> [...] I have problems with almost every one of those arguments, including the argument of 'now it is so so it should stay so' (the argument by default).
I mean, what's the alternative? Almost every country in the world was founded in a way that is, shall we say, not ideal. It's not like Israel can up and move at this point. Advocating for Israel to no longer exist is like advocating for the Native Americans to take back the United States.
The only realistic way out of this mess is a compromise between Palestinians and Israelis. It's shitty that the world works this way, but it does, in every case.
> Just like the Arab world kills Israelis the Israelis seem - from my perspective at least - to have very little restraint when it comes to killing Arabs/Palestinians. What is happening in Gaza right now is utterly disproportional and merely a reflection of how much the Israeli government values Palestinian lives.
I will note that while I have a lot of problems with the Israeli government, I don't agree with you on this. I don't even think "proportionality" is the correct frame here - it's a war, the object is to win. It's not a "they did this attack so we'll do that attack" situation, it's a "we have an enemy on our border that is legit trying to kill us, we need to stop them" situation. People (in the West) have forgotten what wars our like, but this is what a war is like.
Specifically, I don't think it's true that Israel indiscrimnately kill civilians. I think Israel takes great pains to not kill civilians, more than most armies. The situation is made far worse because Hamas uses human shields, on purpose, in order to have them killed. It's hard to believe that Israel is trying not to kill people indiscriminately given the amount of dead, but I'm comparing Israel vs. how other countries behaved in similar situation, and I honestly don't think Israel is different, and in many ways behaves better, than in similar situations. (Again, just compare to the States attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.)
>> > If I and others like me leave, while it wouldn't cause Israel to disappear as you said, it will only push Israel to being even more extreme as the populace will be ever more extreme. The population of Israel is rising, but it's largely driven by the religious population, not by secular leftists.
> I'm aware of that.
Well I'm not sure about the morality here, but even if I leave Israel, I don't think I'll ever not feel responsible for what it does. For one thing, despite everything else, it will always be the only true "safe haven" for me as a Jew. It's sad that the world works this way, but it's not my fault - it's the fault of the fact that the world has decided to blame and kill Jews over and over again throughout history.
> I've read myself silly about this conflict and my main take-aways are:
I don't disagree with you on all these points, but I think you are giving the Zionist movement more blame than it necessarily deserves. It really is true that there was never a Palestinian state, and that large amounts of the land of Israel were undeveloped. The first Jews that moved in did so completely legally by buying up the land and being granted entry by the existing owners of the land (the Ottomans, then the British).
So it's not like they found a full functioning country and decided to conquer it, not at all.
Also, there really were strong Jewish ties to that land, including Jews having continuously lived in that land for the last 2000 years. (I'm not saying you, but some people think this is only a religious belief - it's really not, it's historical fact that the Jews lived in that land and were scattered, and always had some presence there.)
That said, yes, there was strife for a big part of the time, and as I said before, especially given what we know today, I would've much preferred a different location for Israel.
> The religious population of Israel - the outgoing part of it, anyway - is spoiling it for everybody else and the militant Arabs are spoiling it for everybody else as well.
Agreed. Though I don't even think it's fair to say "the religious population of Israel", it's not just them - there are plenty of secular people with pretty terrible views on this conflict too. Many, but not all settlers are religious. etc.