Embed Notice

@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