Lots of them are immigrants who understandably don't want to be associated with US-endorsed genocide.
The colonizers sought to impose an objectively unfair partition plan (granting them far more valuable territory and resources in proportion to their population at the time), with the muscular support of their European friends.
The Palestinians rejected this "proposal" outright of course, exactly as any self-respecting people would. Exactly as the Algerians rejected France's proposed "partition" of their historic homeland, and the Vietnamese (by and large) rejected America's proposed carve-out of theirs, etc (just to pick a few notable exactly from approximately the same time frame).
And yes, they made some poor choices of friends (as they readily acknowledge), and woefully miscalculated their own strengths and capabilities and so on. And then there are other factors you're carefully not mentioning, such as the expulsions and massacres already underway in Jaffa, Deir-Yassin and elsewhere before this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack".
But there's no reason to keep punishing the current population for these decisions, and exploiting this history (and the continuing indifference of both their so-called friends in the Arab world and the international community at large) for the sake of current and future land gains. Which is basically what the continuing (having of course never really ended) Nakba (that certain very notable public figures are proudly and openly hoping to officially upgrade to Nakba 2.0, in their own words -- do we need to name any names here?) is really about.
And whatever is happening in the ground today (and however much blame can justly attributed to both sides) -- there's nothing to be gained from nullifying history, or reducing it to such trite oversimplifications as in the parent comment.
Israel is not a colonial power. The British split the land between Muslims and Jews.
The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. The land Israel was founded wasn't prosperous at all, on the contrary. Many years of cultivation made it the place it is today. I don't know what partition you reference as unfair here.
And that is true to today. If you look at the education of kids, you know who really has genocidal ambitions in this region and it isn't Israel.
> this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack"
Israel has the right to fight until the hostages are released.
The real "catastrophe" is the leadership of Palestinians, its teacher keeping the hatred against Jews alive. These are the perpetrators of the current conflict. Israels part is that itself has a problem with rising extremism. In this case it is a reaction to decades of conflict and hatred. That is no excuse but the same is doubly true for those that want to expel the Jews again and take their people hostage.
But life is short, so I'll just respond to one particular item for now:
The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general.
No, the "only problem" was a bunch of armed foreigners attempting to carve an ethnostate out of their ancestral territory. They could have been Greek, Italian, Russian, Turkish, Persian -- it wouldn't have mattered a bit. It was the usurpation of their land, their resources and their rights that took issue with, and rightly so.
So no, it wasn't "because antisemitism".
Nor was the nationalism movements of the 19th century necessary a call for an ethnostate. It was first and foremost a call against empires and for own governments over own nation states. When there were calls for ethno-demographic policies to maintain a supremacy of one ethnicity over others, those were aside policies which differed among proponents of nationalism. These policies were equally—if not more—prominent among empires, than nation states. Even among zionists, only a portion of the original 19th century zionists actually wanted to displace Palestinians (or other indigenous populations of wherever they would establish the jewish state) upon migration. That is only a portion of zionists wanted an ethnostate.
So no, nationalists of the 19th century—arabs, europeans, and others—did not necessarily want an ethnostate.
EDIT: That all said, it is a bit odd to excuse a very real and existing ethnostate, by citing a theoretical ethnostate which never actually existed and at best had very limited support among the public and rulers at the time.
That isn't some misinformation on your part, it is just a malicious lie.
"But the dominant group in Israel has internal diversity; therefore it can't be the dominant group" -- is that the counterargument, here?
Perhaps I lazily assumed the parent would refer to ethnicity when throwing the accusation of an ethnostate around? Which ethnicity would that refer to in your opinion? It should be possible to answer that question if the accusation is in any way substantial.
Some ethnicities (and religions for that matter) might have serious problems in the wider region. Many do flee to Israel for safety in that case. That is the reality here and I would say that this fact is pretty hard to dispute without pointing fingers at less fortunate circumstances that maybe lead to less tolerance than there is in Israel.
Of course the fact of one group being dominant is not sufficient; there need to be deeply structural (legal) mechanisms in place for that group to maintain its dominance, which has certainly been the case with Israel since its very founding.
You may consult the definitions in Wikipedia as to "ethnostate" and "ethnic group" for further detail if you wish.
Which ethnicity would that refer to in your opinion?
The one referred to in Sections 1, 5, 6 and 7 (and whose language is given preferential treatment in Section 4) of the Nation State Bill.
Again, minorities often try to flee to Israel for different reasons, not the other way around. This is easy to observe.
Then Syria is an ethnostate as it is called the Syrian Arab Republic. Egypt is an ethnostate, as it is called the Arab Republic of Egypt. I believe the pattern is obvious?
I cannot shake the feeling that some might utter this criticism because in case of Israel it would likely be a Jewish majority nation. But the existence and political participation of non-Jews makes it clear that you try to use ethnostate differently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy
There may be other countries in the region which satisfy this definition also, or fall on the spectrum; I do not single out Israel for criticism in this regard. The topic only came up in regard to the events 1947-1948, specifically the UNPPP -- and why the indigenous populace were not exactly celebrating this proposal or its likely consequences (which are of course now their day-to-day reality).
In regard to those consequences, specifically: the creation of an ethnostate on a large portion of their ancestral homeland; dominated by foreigners, and intrinsically and permanently hostile to their well-being and their right of self-determination.
Which they naturally opposed, as any self-respecting people would.
If we look at the practices it becomes very clear that Israel meats the criteria of being an ethnostate. The immigration policy prohibits a single ethnic group (Palestinian Arabs) from immigrating, while creating the conditions for that same ethnic group (as well as others, such as Bedouin) to emigrate. The conditions for emigration includes confiscating land, limiting mobility, etc. In the occupied territories these practices become abundantly clear, and we even have an ICJ case backing this narrative[2].
Ethno-states are actually quite rare in history, you need a pretty strong military or police to enforce demographic policies, and before industrialization most states didn’t have that. Ironically one can argue that Roman Judea would meat that critearia when they expelled all the Jews. Notably they didn’t have the same ethno-demographic policies in neighboring Galilee, hinting that this was an expensive policy which the Roman state deemed not worth the costs. After industrialization ethno-states become a much more viable option, but we still mostly see them as a single ethnic regions of empires, most commonly via settler colonialism, where the settler are the ethnic rulers. And even then the policies were usually short lived as local population pushed back.
Syria does not have practices and policies to shift the demography in favor of one ethnic group at the cost of another, and neither does Egypt. One can argue that Turkey does (against the Kurdish people) but this does not come anywhere close to the ethnic policies enacted by Israel today.
https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index
Regarding the myth of a diverse legislator negating an ethnostate, this is easily disprooven by looking at the legislator of unambiguous ethnostates of history. Even Rhodesia had a way more diverse legislator than today’s Israel.
Here is an excerpt from the Judicial examination of the nature of Israeli state by it's own judges.
>At their center stands the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel, where the Jews will constitute a majority; Hebrew is the official and principal language of the State.
The state forces the nature of State, and it's principal language, on what was predominantly an Arab place, with settlers Speaking Yiddish, German, Polish and Russian. Moreover it gives a right to unchecked immigration to one ethnicity.
And it moves it's own population to occupied areas in West Bank, with freedom to carry and use assault weapons, and to Golan heights, etc in violation of humanitarian and legal aspects.
Fact is Israel is the country most friendly to any minority in the wider region and the adaptation or ignorance of facts here is quite telling.
Just a case in point, if we look at historic ethno-states, Apartheid South Africa had dozens of languages. But they still had a policy of carving out bantustans and deporting people into those bantustans, with the hope that the demographics in the remaining South Africa would favor the dominant racial group. Apartheid South Africa was an ethno-state.
That said, Israel obviously is not the most friendly to any minority in the wider region. Israel is currently engaging in an ongoing genocide against a particular minority, they are illegally occupying their territories, and—as the ICJ has just ruled—they are engaging in apartheid against this minority. When all this is evident, how can you say they are “friendly” towards that minority?
---
*: There are millions of metrics to measure this, and you could surely point to the few which conveniently “proofs” your point. You’re not even doing that, so I highly doubt.
The Jim Crow south in the pre civil rights era USA was an apartheid, as the legal framework denied civil rights to Black Americans. It was not however an ethno-state as there was no policy of controlling the demographics of Black Americans. The eugenics movement tried to change that, and if the Eugenics movement had been more successful it is highly likely that some of the states in the USA would have become ethno-states.
In Israel the practices and policies in the West Bank are apartheid, and policies of preventing immigration from occupied territories into Israel, and establishment of Jewish settlements inside the West Bank are behaviors of an ethno-state.
So just like Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa, Israel maintains both an apartheid and an ethnocracy.
This belief demonstrates either a fundamental ignorance or a deep disrespect for this land and the people who have lived there for thousands of years. There was—and still is—a major olive industry. It is not a coincident that Israeli settler terrorist target and destroy olive plantations from Palestinians on the West Bank. Cities like Lyd and Gaza had a major tourist industry before 1948.
The land Israel was founded on wasn’t prosperous for the only reason that the people that had it and knew how to use it were kicked out of there, and replaced with people who didn’t (yet) know how to use it.
So their political preferences aren't really material.
And of course, you have no data to back up your statements.
accept all or leave is not how people usually arbitrage they lives.
There is a morality issue at play here for sure, but there is also an actual personal risk people are taking by knowingly contributing to tech which is used in an ongoing genocide.
No, mostly Muslims see the use of your own people as human shields as very distasteful, and are more likely to blame Hamas for high Palestinian casualties than the IDF. In fact, bringing up IDF's supposed atrocities without also addressing Hamas's willingness to "fight to the last Gazan" seems very disingenuous.
What did Gazans think would happen after October 7th? And the response seems to have been "We must support Hamas even more", I don't know, eventually they need to address that, or they are going to lose the support and sympathy of everyone outside of the Muslim world.
Also, as a minor side-note, you manage to contradict yourself even in this short reply, first claiming that muslims by and large don't support Gaza, but then concluding by claiming that somehow the Gazans being bombed in their homes are behaving so egregiously that they'll soon lose the support of everyone "outside of the Muslim world". I'm not surprised you can't keep your argument straight, as its logic is incoherent in the first place, barely making sense even in this ridiculous framing of the conflict
'... and the problem is: The US is supporting Israel and supplying it with weapons. Neither Presidential candidate has any intention of changing that, nor is there majority Congressional support for changing it.'
The american people are mostly against israel and sending billions to israel. And yet nearly all of congress, presidential candidates, etc are in favor of it. Something is awry with representative government when nearly 100% of the politicians are not representative of the american people.
Your friends and people you interact with may be mostly against. It’s not clear that Americans generally are.
Pew [1] has a pretty much even split on military support for Israel, with 36% favoring it, 35% against it, and 29% either on the fence or unsure. Only 22% in the same poll say that Biden is favoring Israel too much.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-i...
> Pew [1] has a pretty much even split on military support for Israel
That's embarrassing given the decades long pro-israel propaganda campaign and the nearly 100% political backing.
But me and my 'remarkably absurd logic'. Using my 'remarkably absurd logic', I'm guessing this thread is flagged because the 'antisemites' who run this site don't want to see the outpouring of love of israel. Every israel related thread must be flagged because of the impending pro-israel comments from americans. Right?
Every social media platform censors because they don't want americans to drown israelis with love. It all makes sense now.
that reminds me of the "mostly peaceful protests" in Portland.
Face it: not everyone agrees with you. That's our right.
The protestors themselves mostly did property crimes though. The "broken windows" crowd and the far right media tried to make this out to be "violence", but even the police-reported violent crime statistics don't really support that view
“In God we trust, all others bring data.” —Deming (maybe)
Our side? What side is that? Israel's side?
> on your side you have a bunch of snide remarks and mental gymnastics.
If that was the case, you and your buddy/alt account wouldn't be so frantically responding to me.
> “In God we trust, all others bring data.” —Deming (maybe)
You have to do a poll to see if your parents love you too? If america's support of israel is so apparent, you wouldn't need polls. You certainly wouldn't need to censor so heavily.
This is getting stupid. This is the problem with israel. I don't give a shit about it. America ( at least 99% of it ) has nothing to do with it. And yet, it is wasting so much of my time and america's time. I hope within my lifetime we won't have to waste so much time and resources on a foreign nonsense. Whether that be israel, taiwan, cuba, etc. More importantly, I hope one day americans can express ourselves freely as is our right.
"Censor" - I guess that's your term for "disagree." AFAICT you're free to say whatever you like about Israel. Like you're doing right now.
No one has to pay attention to you, though. Maybe that's your idea of censorship.
The side of people who recognize that the following statement is false:
> The american people are mostly against israel and sending billions to israel.
> If that was the case, you and your buddy/alt account wouldn't be so frantically responding to me.
This is funny because you're responding as fast as both of us put together but somehow we're the "frantic" ones.
The rest is more of the same snide remarks and mental gymnastics so I won't bother responding to it.
I'm afraid you're going to need some support for that statement.
https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-i...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-views-divided-us-p...
My lived experience as an american...
Of course with 24/7 blanket pro-israel propaganda, neverending hollywood holocaust propaganda movies and god knows how many holocaust memorials, people will answer in a certain way when asked in a poll. Not to mention you can game polls to push an agenda.
But if the american people really viewed israel favorably, you wouldn't need 24/7 blanket pro-israel propaganda. You wouldn't need hollywood pumping out holocaust propaganda movies year after year. You wouldn't need to build dozens of holocaust memorials in the US.
You wouldn't need censorship against 'anti-semitism' even though israel is not a semitic state, while palestine funnily enough is a semitic state.
Your problem is you live in a censored bubble. Most americans either are ambivalent towards or have a negative view of israel. If what you believed was true, this thread wouldn't be flagged. Notice how every israel related thread is censored?
No, I don't have a "problem"; I just have a different opinion than you do.
But your problem IS: you refuse to admit when you've been proven wrong. You made a statement; I demonstrated it was incorrect. Game over.
You are right. We love israel. So lets tear down those silly holocaust memorials in the US and create memorials for native americans who were actually genocided in the US. A holocaust memorial in the US is as silly as a lenape genocide memorial in germany.
You should let the ADL and the thousands of israel aligned groups in the US that their services are no longer required.
America <heart> israel.
In what way is there hollywood holocaust propaganda? You feel like the events described in the holocaust didn't really take place that way or do you think we should tone them down quite a bit because they "help" Israel too much?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/voyage-of-...
But you're right: they're "tired of hearing about the Holocaust." I'll bet they are.
Source ? Also the issue of monetary aid is different than general support. I assume many Americans don't want to send billions to Europe/Nato either yet they still support Europe.
Conservatives are becoming more isolationist, and would just prefer Arabs and the Middle East descend into a huge war without American involvement. Some liberals take Palestinian sides, but most Americans are actually fairly negative on it right now, with the belief that Hamas is intentionally using its own people as human shields. Politically speaking, there is more sympathy by Americans for Israel than Gaza, but there is a lot of cynicism since it seems like real solutions are not going to happen in our lifetime.
Personally, I'm against it. It's hard to cosign letting the Taliban redo gender apartheid in Afghanistan and banning education for girls and all the rest. But, if Americans are determined to live in a "nuclear-armed Switzerland", interventionism won't work anyway since it needs political will to succeed (see Afghanistan)... sooo I guess I'm an begrudging isolationist too now.
doesn't make any sense. I did justify them and told you where.
The US is supporting Israel and supplying it with weapons. Neither Presidential candidate has any intention of changing that, nor is there majority Congressional support for changing it.