-
Displacing the Palestinians was basically ethnic cleansing. The Romans did similar to the Jews. Israel now exists and a bunch of people have been born into it. A two-state solution seemed for a long time like the only workable solution to those competing claims to the same land. I can see the intellectual appeal of a pluralistic one-state solution but it doesn’t seem in anyway achievable in the foreseeable future. Maybe a two-state solution could be a stepping stone in that direction.
In the meantime, the lack of trust between the two sides means that any call for a one-state solution is seen as a call for the expulsion of one or other side. It’s disingenuous to say ‘oh but I didn’t mean it that way’ when some people clearly do mean it that way.
h2o-
So how far back do we have to go, till we are ok with ethnic cleansing?
The discussion of born there is moot, as it overlooks those that were born there and then forcefully moved. It is not like top trumps.
As you mentioned a one state solution, can you explain how there can be one when the basis seems to be selectively born in the area.
lynx
Hola, did I mention or reply to the point of those born there? As that doesn't sit well with removing the rights of the people that were there before 1946. Or how do you see that?
The point is not if you voted for some one but greater population 'pay' for the actions (sins) of our leaders. Feels to me like you are judging others actions like Israel are with the you are in that area, leave or you are the enemy.
The point is that people are radicalised by the action of the UK/US government (killing innocent members of others population) to commit suicide (is that the right word?) and kill members other innocent members of the general population as some sort of retribution (is that the right word)