I am amazed that you can frame it this way with a straight face! It's discrimination against Israel in the international theatre that's causing the UN to issue resolutions against Israel's continued history of human rights violations? — fdrake

Is Israel the worst human rights abuser on the planet? Because thats the impression you'd get from the UN. Organizations like the UN need to be able to fairly distribute their criticism. It is imperative for the integrity of an organization.

Is Israel the worst human rights abuser on the planet? — BitconnectCarlos

I feel like the very idea of giving a nation credit for not being the worst human rights abuser on the planet is beyond the point of parody. But if you're willing to say that it really is an abuser of Palestinian human rights and that ought to stop...

You cite 10 different detailed claims which is just too much for me to respond to. — BitconnectCarlos

That's just to show that the issues aren't fabricated, propaganda and actually everything is just fine with the Arab Israelis.

Yes, Israel exempts Arab citizens from conscription because Israel does not believe it civil to force Arab Israelis to fight against their own brethren as Israel is often at war. — BitconnectCarlos

You said it very well: there is no objective to make the Arab citizens to be part of the nation as "their brethren" are the enemy.

Here lies the fundamental problem: Israel views itself as the homeland for jews, and that one group of people have conscription while others have not tells of a problem.

Actually military can be used to integrate people into the nation. It also tells that all citizens are treated equally.

I feel like the very idea of giving a nation credit for not being the worst human rights abuser on the planet is beyond the point of parody. But if you're willing to say that it really is an abuser of Palestinian human rights and that ought to stop... — fdrake

It's actually a surprisingly big deal since humans have an unfortunate tendency to demonize others (the Jews know this all too well), and by singling out one group for condemnation above everyone else you embolden bigots and you reinforce Israeli distrust/paranoia to much of the rest of the world.

I agree that the Palestinians are oppressed and that certain Israeli policies and actions make life worse for the Palestinian people.

Here lies the fundamental problem: Israel views itself as the homeland for jews, and that one group of people have conscription while others have not tells of a problem.

Getting conscripted by the IDF would put a lot of Arab men in compromising positions with their families and communities. It would be the same way if Jews were drafted into Arab armies to fight against Israel -- it is considered backstabbing one's own people.

I agree that the Palestinians are oppressed and that certain Israeli policies and actions make life worse for the Palestinian people. — BitconnectCarlos

What concessions/restoration do you feel Israel owes the people it oppresses, then? Should it at least stop expanding its territory?

This isn't about me, this is about the Jewish people. The Jewish people have the Torah, countless prayers, numerous holidays which have been celebrated for thousands of years that signal their connection to the land. — BitconnectCarlos

There are no "Jewish" people, and it is about you, these are your arguments. The Jewish people don't share possessions, they don't share a history, they don't share a religion, they are a loosely defined ethnoreligious group of individuals who barely have anything to do with each other.

You can have your own thoughts on this type of thinking but it's really just a fact of life, especially in the Middle East. I'm not going to tell the Palestinians or the Arabs or anyone else for that matter that they don't have a right to their own ethnic or cultural history (or to view things in that way.) I just wish they would tell that story in a different way, one that isn't so hostile to the Jews. — BitconnectCarlos

Props on not being a hypocrite? Too bad it's a subject where it'd be better if you were. Why wouldn't you tell the Palestinians or Arabs to cease believing in ethnic, cultural or religious histories when you're aware that the middle east is being torn apart by sectarian violence? For what reason are you unwilling to condemn this tribalistic, destructive thinking?

"Iran, Hamas and Saudi Arabia do it too" is probably the worst excuse imaginable for doing anything. Western opinion of these nations is extraordinarily low, people generally condemn this kind of shit.

Israeli government is based on a parliamentary democracy — BitconnectCarlos

I know.

I feel ties to the Jewish people and Israel - sue me. I'll present a religious/cultural justification, sure, but I would never expect everyone to be convinced by it. If that case works, great, but if not I'll fall back on principles of general statehood that would apply to any other country or group. I would never tell you that you're not allowed to engage or relate to your ancestors or ethnic history. It's all about how you do it. If you don't want to that's fine too, but don't act like no one else has a right to connect to their people's past. — BitconnectCarlos

Why not? I'm a pragmatist, why should I care about "ah but check my DNA, I have a long history and belong to a special people who have done all these things over thousands of years" when I know it's 1. stupid and 2. destructive?

What concessions/restoration do you feel Israel owes the people it oppresses, then? Should it at least stop expanding its territory? — fdrake

The blockade and the checkpoints are for national security. I'm aware that this is every abuser's excuse, but let me ask you this: If people from northeast England had a history and a culture that painted the Scots as the enemy and in their attacks consistently made an effort to maximize civilian casualties, how much protection would you place on your border if you were in charge assuming such measures were practically feasible? Imagine that the people of Scotland elected you. These procedures have uncovered weapons and dangerous materials.

Security procedures are always unpleasant, but so is the cost of not implementing them.

I don't think you got my point: If you fear that your own citizens will turn your back on you and go with the enemy, then you obviously have done something wrong: you have failed in creating social cohesion, you have not integrated your citizens or have successfully instilled the idea of your own country to the people living there. Usually these fears what you are talking have been the racist fears in the population and when politicians start pandering to these fears, the outcome is ugly. People who have believed they are full citizens suddenly have to notice that they are viewed as the enemy by their own country. Many times in history these "unreliable" segments of the citizenry, be they a minority or supporters of political movement have been very loyal.

(Arvid Janhunen fought with the Reds during the Finnish Civil War and later he excelled in battle during WW2 getting the highest war medal in Finland (the Mannerheim-cross) fighting in the army he had 21 years earlier fought against. Many former members of the Red Guard also fought in WW2 in the ranks of the Finnish Army and their commitment in the Winter War showed the unity of the country and that the wounds of the civil war had healed. If Finland would have feared a "fifth column", likely national unity wouldn't have been achieved.)


Yes, I do notice that Arab Israelis can go voluntarily to serve. That they don't do so in large numbers does tell something. And this was just one area where these differences by law appear. And the problem is that Israel is for the Jews. Others come later. Any country that treats a part of it's citizenry as a possible "fifth column" has a serious problem.

There are no "Jewish" people, and it is about you, these are your arguments. The Jewish people don't share possessions, they don't share a history, they don't share a religion, they are a loosely defined ethnoreligious group of individuals who barely have anything to do with each other. — Judaka

would you deny the existence of a group such as, say, the han chinese? do uyghurs exist in your world? it doesn't matter because they exist in our world.

Why wouldn't you tell the Palestinians or Arabs to cease believing in ethnic, cultural or religious histories when you're aware that the middle east is being torn apart by sectarian violence? — Judaka

Because it would be like telling the Russians to stop drinking vodka or the Indians to stop doing yoga.

Why not? I'm a pragmatist, why should I care about "ah but check my DNA, I have a long history and belong to a special people who have done all these things over thousands of years" when I know it's 1. stupid and 2. destructive? — Judaka

I would never phrase it like that.

All I'm saying is that I was born into a culture & a group and I believe that that culture and history and those teachings have something to offer to the world -- value. I think expressing and sharing that can help others solve their problems and I think people from different cultures with their own unique experiences and judgments genuinely can offer different, valuable insights that can broader one's horizons and make people and society better. And that starts with a knowledge of who you are. People should have some sort of roots or identity.

would you deny the existence of a group such as, say, the han chinese? do uyghurs exist in your world? it doesn't matter because they exist in our world. — BitconnectCarlos

I acknowledge them as loosely defined ethnicities, I don't acknowledge ethnic histories, beyond a history of how some DNA exists in some region because of a historical event, or a history of tribalism. I acknowledge tribalism exists in our world, otherwise, I wouldn't have to spend time condemning it.

Because it would be like telling the Russians to stop drinking alcohol or the Indians to stop practicing yoga. — BitconnectCarlos

I can't condemn the practices of cultures? Why not? You won't condemn things provided they're part of someone's culture?

All I'm saying is that I was born into a culture & a group and I believe that story and that history has something to offer to the world -- value. I think it can help others solve their problems and I think people from different cultures with their own unique experiences and judgments genuinely can offer different, valuable insights that can broader one's horizons and make people and society better. And that starts with a knowledge of who you are. People should have some sort of roots or identity. — BitconnectCarlos

The Jews have a continuous history spanning thousands of years, who have warred with other ethnic groups, who have special rights to land, who have a unique experience and history. Your DNA gives you a special history that people without your DNA don't have. Isn't that right? That's how you've been talking in this thread, which means you would phrase it exactly as I did.

How can someone look at the middle east and say ethnic histories are making the world a better place? What about the WW2 examples you love so much, what about the role ethnic histories played there?

There are lines that if you don't cross when it comes to practising your "culture", which is often little more than some kind of tourist attraction. How can you actually be practising the culture of Jewish merchants or farmers thousands of years ago when you're living in an advanced economy in the 21st century? Nonsense. Don't bring your ethnicity into politics, don't advance the interpretative relevance of ethnicity past the point of it being more important than the many other ways to see others, etc.

I can't condemn the practices of cultures? Why not? You won't condemn things provided they're part of someone's culture? — Judaka

You can condemn cultural practices, but when you say

Why wouldn't you tell the Palestinians or Arabs to cease believing in ethnic, cultural or religious histories when you're aware that the middle east is being torn apart by sectarian violence?

You're asking millions of people to renounce a large part of their identities and how they understand themselves and history... including everything that informs their values. What are you trying to replace it with? Are you sure you'll be able to effectively make that transition?

No offense, but it's also enormously arrogant in practice. Are you going to honestly just tell Arabs to stop practicing Islam or observing certain cultural rituals that have developed outside of Islam? What on Earth gives you that position as an outsider? Are you just so sure that everything they do and how they process and understand things is flat out wrong? Ok.

Your DNA gives you a special history that people without your DNA don't have. Isn't that right? — Judaka

So does yours.

How can someone look at the middle east and say ethnic histories are making the world a better place? What about the WW2 examples you love so much, what about the role ethnic histories played there? — Judaka

You said you were a pragmatist earlier. Ought implies can. We have also seen some very, very bad things happen when we, especially as outsiders, try to erase people's history and culture. Do not do it. You can try to change bad practices and you can question, but do not erase.

How can you actually be practising the culture of Jewish merchants or farmers thousands of years ago when you're living in an advanced economy in the 21st century? — Judaka

Cultures change, technology changes... ways of living were never intended to be preserved at all costs. Jews do however preserve plenty of rituals and practices that have extend that far back though - thousands of years.

Alright we can try our best here. I'm not saying that moral judgement is impossible in this area, only that it's more difficult and needs to be considered among other factors as well. Throughout this thread I've tried to introduce morality probably dozens of times and have tried to bring up just war theory. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes I know, but did your position do well in the debate? I think not and there might be a reason for that. I saw your jump to context and identity as an evasive maneuver in the game.

Have you considered that Palestinian authorities in the past will greatly reward the families of suicide bombers providing them with an economic incentive? Maybe bulldozing property could be considered a way of dissipating that incentive. Everything isn't about morality and a narrow focus on morality excludes other important factors. — BitconnectCarlos

Let's say that it is true, is than fair to punish them to offset and advantage that they did not ask for? You cannot play economics personally. Off course we can also bulldozer the houses down the houses of families of people who's son or daughter is into trading drugs on the basis that some of the revenues will flow to the family. We do we not do that? Why would that be? In any legal system worth its salt, reprisals are considered illegal. That is not for nothing. A state that does not punish the offender but non-offenders does not govern through law but through violence. I wonder, are the houses of settles torn down when they commit violence against Palestinians? I think not. It is actually one of the most odious violations of law.

The broader question is how the story of, say, the American civil war is told and how we come to understand it. That matters and it carries real-world repercussions. A set of facts of moral facts, say - X, Y, Z might be true and philosophically sound but this is an entirely different issue from how the bigger picture should be presented and processed and understood.

For instance, while its true that Uyghurs conducted terrorist attacks against Chinese civilians, to present overriding importance to these attacks as opposed to China's ongoing genocide is awful. — BitconnectCarlos

Ohh but I agree with you. It is very much about how the story is told. Therefore I would say we need to include as many perspectives on the story as we can. We need a number of narratives, including the confederate one, or the Israeli one. All those stories weave a tapestry.

Your last point about the Uyghurs intrigues me, because you apply the same kind of reasoning there that I would apply as well, reasoning by proportionality. You might well be right that China's strategy is reprehensible, but reasoning by proportionality is not a safe card for Israel to play. On that from too the body bags lines up on one side makes a much taller stack. You getting yourself into the waters the other posters are drawing you in.

I agree with your point, but I do still believe we need to be careful going forward. I'm perfectly content condemning certain actions or historical events, again I'm just stressing the importance of viewing certain actions and policies in a broader historical and cultural context which historically some philosophers have ignored. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, me too, but one has to be very careful to distinguish between understanding and normatively judging. The Israeli reaction can in my point of view not be seen seperable from the cataclysmic memory of the holocaust. It is an event that has changed the world at large fundamentally and probably changed the victims of it much more fundamentally. That goes a long way to understand (at least as best as you can) the position of Israel. It does not make those actions right though. I agree with you it is impossible to find som ahistorical yardstick, but whenever we judge a certain situation,, like you just id the situation of the Uyghurs, we have to as best as we can try to find some common ground. I think we can find it, that is why I love Sting's song about the Russians so much.

Who are we talking about in particular? The morality of the ground soldiers? How about NCOs or junior officers? Or maybe we could talk about the morality of senior officers like Colonels who may be the ones behind, e.g. a raid? Or are we talking about morality for the entire state of Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

I think we are talking past each other. I apologise for that. With a theory about morality I thought you meant some ethical theory, such as utilitarianism or deontology or another theory of ethics. The offiicerts, privates, civilians, they might have a position, or perspective and valid though they all are for the discussion, they do not amount to any systematic theory about right and wrong.

Just to be clear I meant to deny war crimes in this current flare-up, not across Israel's entire history. I of course acknowledge certain crimes committed by Israeli forces - Jish and Deir Yassin, for example. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok... but I do not see why having family there is important for the denial or acceptance of any war crime. It makes denial understandable, but not sound. Denial or acceptance of the claim than comes down to psychology, but not argument. The difference is that when we talk ethics we see each other as human beings with whom we have common understanding and who can judge on matters of right and wrong. When we reduce ethics to psychology we cannot. Everything becomes 'understandable' but not anymore debatable.

You're not wrong, but when I approach subjects like politics or practical action the language that I use is different from the language that a philosopher would use in a philosophy paper. If you want to you can spend time harping on this fairly irrelevant issue but I'm just going to drop it. I don't see any meaningful difference between what other posters have described Israel as and "evil. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok but would you then agree you are not talking about the same thing anymore? Here you basically say: "I am taking it personal and so I decide what words mean, irrespective of what they mean. I hold on to a similarity that I feel is such and therefore it is such irrespective of my interlocutors." You can live by that rule, but it makes discussion at least on that issue pointless. It also blunts your own arguments on this matter because you invent a meaning of a word and then you accuse others of using it. They do not ascribe to your definition of terms though and for good reason.

What are you trying to replace it with? Are you sure you'll be able to effectively make that transition? — BitconnectCarlos

You're giving so much credit to ethnic histories, the role they serve, it doesn't need to be replaced with anything. They should understand themselves as individuals, which I'm sure even the most ardent believer in ethnic histories already does, it doesn't need to be supplemented with ethnic histories.

No offense, but it's also enormously arrogant in practice. Are you going to honestly just tell Arabs to stop practicing Islam or observing certain cultural rituals that have developed outside of Islam? What on Earth gives you that position as an outsider? Are you just so sure that everything they do and how they process and understand things is flat out wrong? Ok. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not telling anyone to stop practising Islam, or anything like that. Understand this, I am condemning the role of ethnic, religious, racial, cultural histories in politics, prejudice, hate and geopolitics. "Outsider", why would my position be limited to my ethnicity, religion, race or culture, I don't like that kind of thing either. What I can or can't say isn't based on such things and where it is, treating people differently based on such things becomes justified, including the logic of things such as racism. Arabs are humans to me, Jewish people are humans. Humans commenting on the issues of other humans, nothing unusual or problematic with that.

We have also seen some very, very bad things happen when we, especially as outsiders, try to erase people's history and culture. Do not do it. You can try to change bad practices and you can question, but do not erase. — BitconnectCarlos

People can keep their culture, their ethnic histories gotta go.

Look at the situation in Israel from the perspective of ethnic histories. The Jews expelled the Palestinians, stole their land - land they claim is theirs, they are continuing to oppose the Palestinian people through apartheid. The Jews were forced off their land by Arabs, they have been persecuted by Arabs for thousands of years. And on it goes.

You're the one talking about "Jews did this" and "Jews have that", who else is a Palestinian supposed to blame but the "Jews" in your way of recounting history. Do you not see how racism becomes justified? There's no escape either, we can't change our ethnicity, you've inherited acts of aggression against other tribes through your history, you've inherited a history of persecution by other tribes. Is it arrogance to call such an obvious problem out or just basic sense.

People can keep their culture, their ethnic histories gotta go. — Judaka

The problem is that the culture is derived from the ethnic history. Take away the ethnic history and the whole structure collapses. There is simply no Judaism, and in turn no Christianity, if just decide to abandon ethnic histories since the foundational document of Judaism is the ethnic history of the Hebrews.

So your beliefs, traditions, holidays, mannerisms, language, clothing - whatever you would describe as Jewish culture, it all what, disappears without an ethnic history?

Others are managing to maintain their culture without ethnic histories, in Australia, you got Australian citizenship, you're Australian. You don't need to share any specific ethnicity or ethnic history to practice Australian culture. I don't accept your premise. Do you at least see the problem with ethnic histories?

I'm sure you can manage to keep your culture and lose the ethnic history but if you absolutely insist you can't - okay? Maybe some forms of Islam can't stop being anti-LGBTQ, but you'll join me in saying they need to change, same shit here. Time for reform.

BitconnectCarlos Well done for persevering against massive prejudice and irrationality. I can't be bothered any more.

You have my support.

Security procedures are always unpleasant, but so is the cost of not implementing them. — BitconnectCarlos

What security procedure requires annexing more and more of Palestine?

So your beliefs, traditions, holidays, mannerisms, language, clothing - whatever you would describe as Jewish culture, it all what, disappears without an ethnic history? — Judaka

Majors holidays that we'd lose off the top of my head if we abandoned ethnic history: Passover, Hanukkah, Sukkot, Purim. We'd also lose all the Jewish/Israeli national holidays like Holocaust remembrance day, founding of Israel day, and a few others.

Jews came to understand God through our interactions with him as detailed in the OT. If you take away those interactions or you don't link yourself to those people then everything fails. The Jewish people formed a covenant with God in the OT and that covenant is extremely important. It's a promise between God that extends to all modern Jews. You need to make that link and the importance of making that link to one's ancestors is repeatedly made in Judaism.

Other cultures have similar links to their ancestors. This is hardly unique to Judaism.

Without the link it's basically "well these people did these things and had these experiences but nothing applies to me."

Maybe some forms of Islam can't stop being anti-LGBTQ, but you'll join me in saying they need to change, same shit here. — Judaka

Of course.

Do you at least see the problem with ethnic histories? — Judaka

I see a problem in "my people's ethnic history makes my people better than yours." I don't see a problem in "this is my people's ethnic history and I think it's pretty cool and it has something to offer to the world and can help others."

Your analysis here is accurate.

The problem stems from the Independence War of '47-'48 when David Ben-Gurion expelled some of the Arab communities in the area, but not others. I will have to look a little more deeply into why he did this, but regardless the repercussions of this policy are clear. Israeli Arab Muslims frequently call themselves "Palestinians" or "Israeli Palestinians" and many have family ties to Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza as well as elsewhere. Israel is absolutely a country divided.

It's been difficult. I know for a fact that some participated in the second intifata and other violence and relations between Israeli Jews and its Arab muslim minority have been strained.

Note that the Christian Arabs have been much easier to integrate and assimilate than the Muslim ones. Christian Arabs are one of the most educated groups in Israel. Socio-economically, they're much more similar to the Jews than the Muslim Arabs. They're a model minority that's doing better than Israeli Jews on some important metrics.

The Druze are another group that also do well in Israel. The Israelis have good relations with the Druze and 94% of Druze describe themselves as "Israeli-Druze." No violence here.

What security procedure requires annexing more and more of Palestine? — fdrake

What would you like to talk about in particular: The original birth of Israel (which the Arabs consider annexation)? The expansion of '48? '67? A current proposal to annex area C of the West Bank? These are all different issues and deserve their own treatment.

Israel's borders with 3 of its Arab neighbors are either formally settled or de facto settled... the only flexible border is with Syria which has not recognized Israel but there's no Israeli settlers there. Borders with Egypt and Jordan have been fixed. AFAIK Israel has no plans to annex Gaza and I would certainly be against that.

What would you like to talk about in particular: The original birth of Israel (which the Arabs consider annexation)? The expansion of '48? '67? A current proposal to annex area C of the West Bank? These are all different issues and deserve their own treatment. — BitconnectCarlos

You can literally see the expansion of Israel's territory here. Did the people displaced go willingly, or were they removed and subjugated by military force?

Do you see how the situation in Israel is being exacerbated by the perpetuation of ethnic histories? It doesn't appear you accept Israel is expelling ethnic minorities but on the basis of the importance of the Jewish ethnicity in Jewish culture, wouldn't it make sense that Israel cannot assimilate or include non-Jewish minorities into their culture? That non-Jews cannot share in a Jewish culture you say requires Jewish heritage, doesn't that seem like a problem?

Second question, if a Western nation, explicitly tied their culture to an ethnic or racial group, how do you think that would be received by the other Western nations?

a) Yes, I agree here. The Arab-Israeli issue is an ethno-religious problem and persists along ethno-religious lines. [first question]
b) I would like to know who Israel is deporting. In any case, Arab Christian and Druze minorities in Israel have always been welcomed and Arab Christians are doing quite well - they're the most educated group in Israel and they out-do the Israeli Jews on some measures so please stop accusing Israel of being racist. Arab Christians are a model minority. The problem is with the Arab Muslims. It's not that we "assimilate" the Arab Christians - Israel acknowledges their own culture and perspective and caters to that. We don't try to make the Jews, but if they want to then they're welcome to.

Second question, if a Western nation, explicitly tied their culture to an ethnic or racial group, how do you think that would be received by the other Western nations? — Judaka

Very poorly, but in other parts of the world it's the standard. India is for the Indians, China is for the Han Chinese and Japan is for the Japanese. Somehow Jews have been living in India for thousands of years and it's been a great experience for us despite not being the dominant culture or group. The Indians never tried to "assimilate" us/make us more like them, we just dealt with them as equals and respected their traditions. That made for peace. Jews and Indians have never fought. Relations between the two groups are very good.

b) I would like to know who Israel is deporting — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure I'd just say similar things as others already have, so I'll leave that be. As for "Arab Christians", I mean, okay. This is like someone debunking racism in the US by saying "Asians are doing alright", I don't want to respond to this kind of logic seriously, you're smart, give me a break.

Very poorly, — BitconnectCarlos

Yep, well, Israel is held to Western standards, don't act like Israel is being persecuted unfairly when any other Western nation would get the same treatment.



India recognises many ethnicities, there is no "Indian" ethnicity. China is being condemned for their racist treatment of minorities regularly. What's your point anyway? The "rest of the World" is generally doing very poorly on racism, sexism, tribalism, it's terrible. Doing something just because the rest of the world is doing it, that's a pretty lousy justification, nobody is going to accept that.

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about, the culture is inclusive for all and while it's not perfect, it's getting better. The West is just exporting the way they criticise their own culture to others and I support that. How many more times do we need to see history repeat itself before we're allowed to tell others to stay away from this dangerous thinking?

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about, the culture is inclusive for all and while it's not perfect, it's getting better. The West is just exporting the way they criticise their own culture to others and I support that. How many more times do we need to see history repeat itself before we're allowed to tell others to stay away from this dangerous thinking? — Judaka

I largely agree with you but to take the devil's advocate, wouldn't it just be the height of colonial attitude to not only conquer and disintegrate other cultures, but to then deny they ever mattered? You mentioned Australia.. That history goes back to Britain, not France, and unfortunately, not the Aborigines. Rather, it is very much an arm from colonial British times. The language we are communicating now is in English. That is not by accident. That is not the "universal" lingua franca. French still speak French. Germans still speak German.. The fact that English is a preferred language of international communication is more about the history of colonialism and later the dominance of the US after WWII. It certainly isn't because it's just part of the universal "West".

As for "Arab Christians", I mean, okay. This is like someone debunking racism in the US by saying "Asians are doing alright", I don't want to respond to this kind of logic seriously, you're smart, give me a break. — Judaka

There's a huge difference between one country just hating all minorities as opposed to just having an issue with one minority group in particular due to a troubled past. A country which just hates all minorities is bottom of the barrel. There is a big difference here. Of course racism exists in Israel just like it exists everywhere else.

What's your point anyway? — Judaka

My point is that different groups of people have their own traditions and histories and ways of understanding things and that you, as a westerner, do not get to tell others how to govern unless some serious moral boundary has been crossed. this should come from a sense of humility: you are from but one culture, one group of people among many, and even the west does not have all the answers. I'm honestly amazed at the level of confidence you have in telling Israel - a country that you've presumably never been to or studied in depth and lack cultural exposure to - that they must assimilate their Arab Muslim population, full stop, no questions. How on Earth do you have such confidence?

EDIT: Just to be clear there are obviously efforts made to integrate the Arab Muslims and make things easier for them, but no one should be telling them to lose their history or their background. That's ultimately up to the Arabs.

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about — Judaka

But this is changing, don't you see? The old "melting pot" idea is on its way out and "lets talk about our culture and our people" is on its way in. Surely you've been noticing this in the West.

I see your point, the West often allows those of an ethnic minority to hold themselves to different standards. The vast majority of Australians would never say that Australian culture belongs to any ethnicity or race but many would say Aboriginal culture belongs to Aboriginals and only them. We see vastly different consequences for when a powerless minority believes in ethnic histories than when the majority does. I don't like these double standards but I do recognise that it's complicated, probably too complicated to talk about in a thread that is on a totally different topic.

My point is that different groups of people have their own traditions and histories and ways of understanding things and that you, as a westerner, do not get to tell others how to govern unless some serious moral boundary has been crossed — BitconnectCarlos

That's your view. Yet even within if I adopted your view, a serious moral boundary has been crossed. Ethnic histories and their perpetuation are problematic and immoral, and they're at the heart of a conflict that is causing much pain.

But this is changing, don't you see? The old "melting pot" idea is on its way out and "lets talk about our culture and our people" is on its way in. Surely you've been noticing this in the West. — BitconnectCarlos

Not for the majority group but yes. I argue about this regularly, I do notice that the West is allowing or even celebrating minorities having ethnic and racial histories. It's garbage, I don't support that.

It's a mix of both. Jews were similarly being expelled and dispossessed of their property in Arab lands. It was very difficult, heated, chaotic times. Sometimes the Arabs just fled, other times their leaders advised or ordered them to leave, and other times Israel expelled them. The Arab Palestinians had always opposed the creation of the Jewish state and were first to attack it even before the Arabs were able to. Retaliating against this involved going into Palestinian towns where the militias ran their operations. After 1948 Israel was extremely vulnerable with its fragmented borders.

I obviously don't condone everything and the history here is messy. 1967 is its own story. Israel has been willing to give territory back, like Sinai, in exchange for peace with the Egyptians so these territorial acquisitions are hardly permanent. Israel on numerous occasions has offered to give territory back.

I do notice that the West is allowing or even celebrating minorities having ethnic and racial histories. It's garbage, I don't support that. — Judaka

Do you honestly dislike events where people talk about or present their own cultures? I can't imagine thinking that way. I love learning about where other people are from and their experiences.

More importantly, have you noticed that groups without roots tend to struggle more? Groups like Native Americans? African Americans (not Nigerians, who are doing very well)? Was our attempt to assimilate/integrate the Native Americans a good thing?

https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/far-right-party-backs-coalition-against-benjamin-netanyahu-20210531-p57wj3.html

The snake's rein comes to an end. Turns out not even murdering a bunch of Palestinians - a tried and true election strategy - was enough to save his sorry hide. One can't say the same about Israel aparthied policies.