🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@kravietz

> You call it "stupid", they call it compliance with their political program. Faced with such a massive misjudgment on your side, I'm quite curious how you would describe mass killings that would follow the hypothetical dissolution of state of Israel — probably "silly" would be a suitable word?

No not silly, wrong.. but you lie int he bed you make. If you dont want to be killed by the natives then dont try to exterminate the natives for 80 years. While them trying to kill you is wrong, it should be **expected** as a consequence of your actions. The fact that you were given the choice to leave is quite humane. I'd expect and want most to leave, as well they should since they should have never came as an invading force in the first place.

If i run intop china with a gun and mass murder 1000 people I shouldnt be surprised when a mob tries to kill me in retaliation. Its still wrong, but expected.

@realcaseyrollins

@kravietz

Right, just as those born in high crime areas can either leave, or stay and risk their lives to try to fix the place... that is your choice and a risk we all take.

The difference is the israelis would have to live with hatred they created and is justified (though not the violent acts that may result)... for other people they are stuck in an area of violence with little to do with anything they did.

@realcaseyrollins

@kravietz

I would apply the same rules to the USA yes, but the way you summarized it is **not** what I suggested for israel. Again no one is required to leave.

If it were to be applied to the USA then the US government would dissolve and the native american government would be the default. All people who choose to stay born on the land would become citizens and all people not born on the land may be allowed to stay at the discretion of the new government.

Since we would all be citizens in the new government we could all vote collectively on how or if we want people not born on the land to be treated and if they will be granted residence or not. It is very likely such a vote (Which would largely be non-natives as natives are a small portion of the population) would allow the immigrants to stay.

In the case of israel the same would happen but since the palestinians are in much greater numbers the vote in the new unified nation would be more fairly split between the two, and thus would have some concern for the jews who remain baked in as a result, since they are a huge portion of the vote.

@realcaseyrollins

@Raccoon

You have absolutely no need to defend yourself. You can be on either side of the conflict and as long as you arent racist or something stupid you have every right to have those opinions whether I agree or not.

You also have every right to block whoever you want.

My point was only that his accusations on you are irrelevant and really dont matter to me in the least because I am his admin, not yours.

That said, you did nothing wrong even if i was in a place to judge you.

@nachocarreras

@kravietz

Sure you can. in fact dying for a cause tends to cause much greater change than surviving it.. we call those martyr.

And yea, people might die, and that is sad.. but they also created the hate towards them directly via their actions.. they killed to make people hate them, so while i dont want to see violence against them I also wont use the fact that they are hated for murder as an excuse to allow them to murder.

When you are responsible for creating hatred, violence, and crime, partly due to the very poverty you intentionally inflict, then there are consequences. Cleaning up crime even in america results in a lot of cops dying, that is just part of the process to fix things, so if you dont want cops dying create a society that has less violence rather than complaining about a society being violent when you are the one who made that happen.

Remember the Hamas didnt exist prior to the israel invasion. Also remember several Israeli terrorists groups arose pre-israel long before the hamas even took shape.

@realcaseyrollins

@kravietz

> Well, except the very concept of "land ownership" is a social construct and in the society populating Palestine and Israel nobody cares about how you "determine the ownership" using carefully cherry-picked criteria.

Sure its a social construct, but the criteria I picked is more or less the criteria the world uses rather consistently. Plus it makes logical sense. Much more so than your idea of "well 2000 years ago some people who might be remotely related to me were here"

> The reason why I mentioned this was to point out that the question of "whose land" can be seen in two semantic spaces, which are largely exclusive:

I;d argue botht he legal and the moral are fairly well addressed by the typical standard I put forth. You are the citizen of the land you are born to. Your ties to the land are based on how many generations of birth that may go back as well.

> In any case, you can't honestly pick and mix from these semantic systems.

I didnt, legally I made clear there had to be a clear chain of ownership and/or presence on the land to claim to be the owner, and whoever can show the earliest form of this wins. And morally the rules are largely the same, whoever is born there, is part of there, that is the natural default.

> But Palestinians can?

Yes absolutely. After spending 2 years in the region I can tell you almost every pallestinian, well a lot anyway, have a very proud heritage. In their living room it is common to show a family tree of all the family members born in that house and on that land. They often love to show you their papers and family history and are quite proud to show their ties to the land over many hundreds of years.

Jews on the other hand rarely can show ties to the land, the overwhelming majority can only show ties through an invading force in modern history and can not show a natural connection to the land. You do have some palestinian jews of course who can show ties to the land, but even then it is as a palestinian who is a jew, not as an israelite. Which would give them a right to palestinian citizenship and a home but not an argument for a jewish state.

> I pointed out at, if that needs clarification, that no Jews live under Hamas rule, which is kind of obvious, granted their viciously antisemitic stance.

Then a jew has two options... 1) dont stay if you dont like the region, especially if you are the invader .. or 2) stay and change things.

When a country has crime and hates a certain group thats not an excuse to commit genocide and take over. It is an excuse to clean up your society and try to eliminate the hammas to create a unified country for all palestinians, both jewish palestinians and arab.

> Which makes your whole plan unrealistic as on the hypothetical dissolution of Israel we would immediately witness the largest pogrom in history.

Not if the jews left, which is what most would and should do... I mean maybe you shouldnt commit genocide on the natives if you dont want to be hated as a people, that would be a nice first place to start.. and now that the hatred is there you can leave, or you can take the risk to try and stay and make things right.. but the risks and the unfortunate nature of that choice has no one to blame but you (the israelis) for committing genocide in the first place.

Its like saying "but if they stop committing genocide then everyone might hate them and be violent towards them"... sure... the answer to that isnt to let them continue to commit genocide.

@realcaseyrollins