Palestinian activist arrested by ICE while expecting U.S. citizenship interview

> This guy is not a Buddhist.

Literally counter to what he claimed. Even claiming publicly as a lie that you are a Buddhist, this endangers your life in Islam... and Palestine is VERY Muslim. That's what doesn't make sense. He's not (at least not anymore) a death-cultist, even if he does use some of the same language.

Israel does not need to exist for people to be against Israel, they can be against the imminent founding of Israel or the fact that Jews were buying lands in Mandatory Palestine.

Though you don't need to take my word for it, it literally says so in the Wikipedia article about Palestine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#History

I also didn't compare Palestinian to ISIS, you just misconstrued what I said.

> Regarding the arbitrary borders, that also has no bearing on the notion of national identity. Most former colonies (by far) keep their colonial borders, even though those borders are arbitrary and cross ethnic lines, and included “random tribes”.

Mandatory Palestine existed from 1920-1948, there was no such thing as Palestine before that. It was part of a larger region controlled by the Ottoman empire.

P.S, this will be the last response by me to this thread, as I don't think you're engaging in good faith based on this and other comments.

> Being under a blockade by a state doesn't make a region part of that state.

But I'm not saying it's a part of Israel. I'm saying the people of Gaza are subjects of the state of Israel because their lives are de facto controlled by Israel, and must be so for Israel to exist at all. Israel must control them and must also not allow them political power or it's ethnic minority democracy cannot exist in the combined region. I think you can agree with that sentiment. Both sides will obviously have different characterizations of who is to blame for this state of affairs, but blame back into history is a fruitless game, and this is the state of affairs, yes? Can we find common ground on that?

> So it's not that anyone is suggesting replacing the Jewish state with something more enlightened, but rather always for something worse.

No one is advocating for a Palestinian supremacist state to replace a Jewish supremacist one. It is a useless effort to replace one form of wrong with the same form of wrong in a different shade of blue.

The 2 state and 1 state solutions are precipiced on equal rights. Either within the same state or in separate states of mutual defensibility (e.g. detente).

> So it's not as if this law matters for the purpose of this discussion. Also, they are not kings, they are normal citizens like everyone else, including the Arabs.

No, it does matter. It is entirely the reason for which Jewish people have rights over Arabs. No Arabs can move to Israel and kick someone out of their West Bank home. Only Jews can do that. Arabs can never be allowed to be the majority voting populace of Israel. Only Jews can do that. That is what makes it an ethnostate, and compounded onto that is that it is an ethnostate where a minority rule over the majority which they keep in a blockaded area away from them.

> It's also not sanctioned by Israel, but in some times in its history (including nowadays) the government turns a blind eye or even encourages it.

I think we agree there. It's not okay, but the state sometimes (like right now, when legalizing illegal settlements to "punish" the Palestinians collectively) encourages it.

> Also, I've lived in Europe, the US, and Israel, and I can tell you that at least from my experience that's bullshit. Safe doesn't just mean death, it also means harassment and non lethal physical harm.

Fair enough. The feeling of safety may be there. But the likelihood of dying in combat or from an attack is higher for a Jew in Israel than in Europe or America. That is what I and the opinion piece author meant. And it is true. I don't think that feeling of safety is worth making millions of people stateless because of their ethnicity. Perhaps this is the ultimate root of our disagreement. Maybe you think that price is well worth paying, and I disagree.

> it's within its rights to decide to be a safe haven for a persecuted minority.

Yes that is fine, but it comes at the expense of another people, and that's what's wrong about it. If Israel gave equal rights to the Palestinians or allowed them a state with equal ability to defend itself, no one would bat an eye at the idea of opening their citizenship up to Jews. But one comes at the expense of the other, and that's what is wrong about the situation.

> There's a border, they have a Palestinian passport, they don't recognize the existence of Israel, they have their own police, etc. It's not the same country.

It seems very similar to Indian Reservations. They have a bunch of things like a state has, but they are ultimately in the total control of the USA. At least the USA allows them to choose whether to live in the main US or remain in their reservation.

The Schrodinger's Palestinian state exists when it can exculpate Israel from its treatment of the Palestinians, but it doesn't exist when it might provide what Palestinians would consider defense against Israel and what Israel would consider a threat to their existence.

But ultimately, the truth in the area is that Israel completely controls the Palestinians and cannot allow them political power of any kind for its ethnic democracy to exist because they are not the majority in the region. I believe the route to the problem begins with Israelis. When they realize that ethnic supremacy only lengthens the conflict, and that whatever feeling of security (as you noted it is a feeling rather than a statistic) they gain is not better than the wrong needing to be committed to maintain it. I think that is when they will be open to either a 1 or 2 state solution. Unfortunately they were more open to it in the past than now. But I think, that time will come. They are the only ones who can choose it though as they are the ones who control what happens in the region.

> The problem is not that the national identity is new, the problem is that the national identity is "let's destroy Israel".

I don't agree with that. And it is a shifting of your position from what you originally said. Originally your sole claim was that the nationality isn't "native" or "old" enough. When I said it doesn't matter (because it doesn't), the claim shifted to being about the nationality being fraudulent in order to kill Jews. It seems like you are just trying to discredit them for wanting a nation. It sounds almost exactly like anti-Semitism but applied to Palestinians instead of Jews. Again, this is why it's the least convincing argument. It doesn't matter how "legitimate" their claims to a nationality are. What matters is what's happening on the ground, and it is ultimately the ethnicity of the Palestinians (non-Jewish) which has resigned them to have less rights than Jews in the same land.

Palestinians are the ethnic majority in the region, not the minority. If they were the minority, the Israeli issue would be a lot easier. They could simply all be citizens of the Israeli state and any violence could be dealt with as an internal issue, like Kashmir in India, or Catalan separatism, etc. Israels need for Jews to hold the majority of power while being the minority in the region is the root of why this continues to be a conflict.

Thanks again for your response. I learn from it a great deal. Hope you are also learning something from mine.

Also, the comment ended up being too long, as I had to split it to two (HN wouldn't let me post it).

> I will skip over the "withdrew so not de facto control, etc." we are both aware of the history and the level of control Israel can and does exercise over Gaza.

I don't think we are. Israel forcibly removed settlers from Gaza in 2005 and complied emptied the place. The only influence is the blockade, but zero influence on anything else. Gaza could have become a beautiful place, but they invested all the money in terror infrastructure.

> But I'm not saying it's a part of Israel. I'm saying the people of Gaza are subjects of the state of Israel because their lives are de facto controlled by Israel, and must be so for Israel to exist at all. Israel must control them and must also not allow them political power or it's ethnic minority democracy cannot exist in the combined region. I think you can agree with that sentiment. Both sides will obviously have different characterizations of who is to blame for this state of affairs, but blame back into history is a fruitless game, and this is the state of affairs, yes? Can we find common ground on that?

I wasn't sure about exact numbers, so I went ahead and checked it. It looks to me (hard to get exact figures) that Jews are ~55% of the population in the combined region. Though again, this is not a combined region. Israel most not give them political power because they are not Israeli, the same way that Mexicans don't vote in US elections although in practice the US exerts certain powers over Mexico due to its economical position.

So (1) even if we go with the combined region I don't think it's actually an ethnic minority, but (2) we shouldn't be going with the combined region. I reject this notion completely, the same way we don't talk about the combined North American region that includes Canada and Mexico when talking about US elections. Yes, it's not exactly the same, but it's the same thinking.

> No one is advocating for a Palestinian supremacist state to replace a Jewish supremacist one. It is a useless effort to replace one form of wrong with the same form of wrong in a different shade of blue.

This is patently false. "From the river to the sea" which is THE chat of the pro-Palestinian movement is very clear about this. The river Jordan to the sea.

They also use the map of Israel as the map of Palestine in literally every sign and memorabilia. They are also not shy about it, it's a very specific and clear statement and claim. Remember, as well, that Israel founded due to the UN partition resolution which Palestinian rejected (yes, that was a long time ago, but goes to show this was specifically rejected in the past, in addition to everything I just showed).

> The 2 state and 1 state solutions are precipiced on equal rights. Either within the same state or in separate states of mutual defensibility (e.g. detente).

This is an utopian ideal, but it's not a reasonable way forward. The one state solution is not a reasonable one. Even if the Gaza population was peaceful towards the Israeli one, why should Israel be forced to accept hostile population into its borders? A much better solution would be: Gaza absorbed into Egypt and West Bank into Jordan. Though neither countries want that, which is why the Egypt-Gaza border is more fortified than the Israel-Gaza one.

The 2 state solution is probably the long term way to go, but you can't just magically wish it to be true. As I said above, they are very clearly saying they want to wipe Israel off the map. This is not some theoretical question, it's stated. You don't even need to believe them, you can just see all the wars in the history of Israel which have been started by the neighboring Arab countries. Letting Palestine get tanks, fighter jets, advanced weapons, is a crazy notion. They have proven time and time again that they wouldn't hesitate using it against unarmed civilians, so letting this happen would be a death sentence to Israel.

We don't need to go very far though, there's a recent example of a way to a 2 state solution: Germany after WW1 and WW2. The world let them be independent (at some point), but limited their ability to build an army and arm themselves. That could have been Gaza by now, but they keen on rearming and attacking. If Gaza was quiet for the last 20 years and actually built something there, the world would be a much better place.

Though asking Israel to let an aggressive neighbor arm themselves is naive.

> No, it does matter. It is entirely the reason for which Jewish people have rights over Arabs. No Arabs can move to Israel and kick someone out of their West Bank home. Only Jews can do that. Arabs can never be allowed to be the majority voting populace of Israel. Only Jews can do that. That is what makes it an ethnostate, and compounded onto that is that it is an ethnostate where a minority rule over the majority which they keep in a blockaded area away from them.

1. West Bank is not Israel. There are literally different laws and legal systems applied there. You keep on conflating the two.

2. What you're describing about Jews kicking Arabs out of their West Bank homes is just not true. I said it in a different comment, do you think anyone is crazy enough to move their family in the middle of a hostile neighborhood after taking over their neighbors house? They won't survive the night. The "taking lands" that people talk about talks about empty lands that the settlers take over and build an area there. You can look at pictures, it starts as caravans and they then build more. This is still not OK, but it's not what you're portraying.

3. As said above, Jews are actually the majority or at least not the minority in the land. So this is also portraying a false narrative.

4. I can't stress it enough, but West Bank and Gaza are not Israel. Arabs in Israel have equal rights.

> Fair enough. The feeling of safety may be there. But the likelihood of dying in combat or from an attack is higher for a Jew in Israel than in Europe or America. That is what I and the opinion piece author meant. And it is true. I don't think that feeling of safety is worth making millions of people stateless because of their ethnicity. Perhaps this is the ultimate root of our disagreement. Maybe you think that price is well worth paying, and I disagree.

At THIS PRESENT POINT IN TIME, which is an important distinction, as Israel was created after the Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews. Though I think Israel, even with all the wars, is a safer place for the Jews, and the Jews worldwide are safer knowing that Israel exists.

Also, let's not forget the implied context: we are taking the fact that Palestinians target civilians as a fact of life, but it doesn't have to be.

> Yes that is fine, but it comes at the expense of another people, and that's what's wrong about it. If Israel gave equal rights to the Palestinians or allowed them a state with equal ability to defend itself, no one would bat an eye at the idea of opening their citizenship up to Jews. But one comes at the expense of the other, and that's what is wrong about the situation.

No it doesn't. Does China have to give Koreans citizenship? No? So why would Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation and can decide on its own immigration policies.

"No one will bat an eye about opening their citizenship to Jews": we have examples to draw from, and this is false. Jewish residents were not allowed to buy land under Ottoman rule (that why all the land acquisitions in Israel were done by foreigners), Jews have lower rights in other Muslim countries, and you can bet your ass that if Jews were anywhere close to being a majority in Syria they would do something about it. In fact, Syria was controlled by an ethnic minority (10% of the population) until recently and no one said anything. So given the examples from the neighbors, I doubt this statement would be true. Though it's only theoretical anyway.