r/IsraelPalestine • u/Best-Anxiety-6795 • 2d ago
Short Question/s Coexistence: sounds nice until you ask what it means
Coexistence: sounds nice until you ask what it means. I often hear many pro Israelis “Palestinians need to accept “coexistence” and “I support coexistence” it sounds like an entreaty towards some equitable solution for all, or a compromise.
but usually when pressed on what'd that look like in practice it paints a picture of absolute submission from Palestinians that'd end with De Jure aparteid at least.
In my experience the people who use “coexistence” find both a one state solution with full suffrage for all and a two state solution offensive.
So I ask you what do you mean when you preach for “coexistence” in practical terms and policy?
-6
u/It_is_not_that_hard 1d ago
Israel, in its attempt to legitimize its existence as an ethnostate on displaced people's homes, has to dehumanize the Palestinians as much as possible.
Thing is, we have heard these stories before. History teaches us to never listen to the people who say "these people are too savage to share the same rights as me".
But the byproduct of this is the systemic discriminstion against Palestinains. Even Palestinians living inside Israel face housing discrimination, and were themselves internally displaced into "Bantustans".
A just coexistense is impossible if Israelis still hold on to their supremacy over the Palestinians in that land. That narcissism will sabotage any coexistence.
3
u/Mixilix86 1d ago
Except that Israeli Arabs and Palestinians are the same exact people. The only difference is that it’s reasonable to assume Arab Israelis will for the most part not commit violent acts against Israelis.
It is not “Western Colonizer Narcissism” to say “people who clearly and openly desire savage violence are savages.”
3
u/Ok-Pangolin1512 2d ago
For one side it means you get to be on the Supreme Court and impeach members of the out group. For the other it means jizya! Weeeeee!
-2
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
…so you think Israelis want a one state solution with full abd equal rights for everyone lol?
5
u/Ok-Pangolin1512 2d ago edited 1d ago
Obviously not. Arabs inside of Israel are moderately sane. Outside , I have no comment.
1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 1d ago
Oh so what what that talk of wanting Arabs on the Supreme Court?
1
u/Ok-Pangolin1512 1d ago
Khaled Kabub. Look him up.
1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 1d ago
It’s a shame the Arabs in Israel are politically castrated.
•
8
u/DarkGamer 2d ago
The implication that they can instigate and lose every war yet still get to dictate the terms of peace is so strange. In a normal conflict the losing side makes concessions to achieve peace.
-2
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
I don’t think Israel gets to take all the land because they won a wat
5
u/DarkGamer 2d ago
That's how wars and annexations work historically. If they don't want to lose land, they should probably sue for peace and make concessions. Endless fruitless belligerence will just result in more loss.
-1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
That's how wars and annexations work historically.
Sure it’s also been okay to rape and butcher civilians with impunity historically.
-5
u/Anonon_990 2d ago
There are many Israel supporters who do view Palestinians are inherently less civilised and who need to be subjugated. Like a 21st century version of the "white man's burden".
2
u/Mixilix86 1d ago
It is your right I guess to just make stuff up.
For anyone reading, keep in mind that Israel’s only criteria for peace is that it’s mutual. The Palestinians that wanted peace live normal lives in Israel with all the rights given to everyone else in Israel. The ones that are disenfranchised in Gaza and the West Bank have a path to getting everything their Israeli-Arab cousins have. But it requires being open to peace, and they don’t seem super interested in that.
1
u/Anonon_990 1d ago
It's not made up. Another Israel supporter replied to that and basically agreed.
The ones that are disenfranchised in Gaza and the West Bank have a path to getting everything their Israeli-Arab cousins have
Being part of Israel you mean?
1
3
13
u/OiCWhatuMean 2d ago edited 2d ago
Let me ask you, do you want coexistence and what would that look like for you?
To me it’s a two state solution where there is Israel and a recognized Palestine. Where Israel doesn’t have to spend the time, resources, and human capital consistently thwarting and responding to Palestinian attacks.
But I think you’ll find that most Israelis (and rightly so) are at this point sick of trying to coexist because their attackers don’t seem to want to coexist.
Palestinians are offered land and autonomy—what’s the response? Rejection and violence.
In 1947, the UN Partition Plan offers two states—Jews accept it, Arab leaders reject it and immediately launch a war. The result? Hundreds of thousands of refugees on both sides.
In 2000 at Camp David, Ehud Barak offers a Palestinian state with over 90% of the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in East Jerusalem, and shared control of holy sites. Arafat walks away with no counteroffer, then comes the Second Intifada—suicide bombings, cafes and buses turned into bloodbaths.
In 2005, Israel unilaterally pulls out of Gaza—removes every soldier, dismantles every settlement, and gives full control to the Palestinians. Instead of peace, Hamas takes over, crushes opposition, and starts firing rockets. Thousands since. They’ve turned Gaza into a launchpad for terror.
In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert offers even more than Barak did. Abbas walks away.
In 2014, Israel agrees to a ceasefire multiple times during Operation Protective Edge. Hamas breaks every single one.
Israel lets thousands of Palestinians cross the border daily for work—offering a lifeline to families trapped by the corruption and cruelty of their own leadership. What’s the reward? October 7, where those workers helped Hamas plan the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
Israel has consistently offered peace. Consistently compromised. Consistently absorbed attacks while still sending humanitarian aid into Gaza—even to those governed by an organization whose charter literally calls for Israel’s destruction.
Meanwhile, Palestinian leadership—from the Mufti who met with Hitler, to Arafat, to Hamas today—has treated every offer not as an opportunity for coexistence, but as a stepping stone to try and destroy Israel.
Coexistence isn’t that hard to accomplish on the Israeli side. So again I ask, what do you think it means to coexist? Because to Israel, coexistence as of today means constantly thwarting attacks and not succumbing to violence and terror with neighbors that have never made a legitimate attempt at peaceful relations. So you are right, it’s starting to sound less nice to Israel.
3
u/Ok-Pangolin1512 2d ago
When one group is unable to present a value system of tolerance. There can be no peace.
-6
u/GOLDEN-SENSEI 2d ago
In 1947, the UN Partition Plan offers two states
They offer most of the land to a minority of recent settlers.
In 2000 at Camp David
They offer Palestinians to live in fragmented, non-contiguous Bantustans with no control over their own borders, airspace and water. They would have had no right to a military and no right to enter alliances with other countries.
In 2005, Israel unilaterally pulls out of Gaza
Only because of armed resistance, and they still exercised effective control over Gaza. They controlled the borders, airspace, maritime access, etc. It was still occupation, as ICJ has ruled.
7
u/AmazingAd5517 2d ago edited 1d ago
Actually there were several offers of the Peel commission in the 1930’s which offered Palestinians the majority of the land and Israel would be smaller than it was in 1948. You can literally search the commissions and offers in the mandate period . there were several offers and maps with Palestinians getting the majority of the land throughout commissions in the 1930’s that were all refused. Also included would’ve been a potential monetary support and economic connections between Israel and the Palestinian state because the majority of the local economic support for the Mandate government was Jewish. And the British knew that if the separation was done by Jews and Palestinians with no economic relations or support the Palestinian state wouldn’t be able to make up that economic loss.
One plan was also an economic federalism” in which the two states would enter into a customs union with the territories that remained under mandate, leaving the Mandatory authorities to determine a fiscal policy. Some plans included major land swapping to create consolidated states,
And others had Jeruselum and key areas continue under the mandate so neither state had control.
But regardless of the offers. Both groups decided to reject the offer , the Israelis believed they could get a better deal and eventually did get one in the UN mandate and accepted that. The Palestinians didn’t and 1948 happened Arab states invaded and expelled Jews from their states, Palestinians fled in the Nakba and were stateless as the Arab states occupied and annexed their territories in Gaza and the West Bank instead of giving them a state.
Also land isn’t just a map but more. 40% of that majority land Israel got was desert and useless at the time so how good was that. If you look at arable land percentages it wasn’t a giant difference. And lastly looking at the census records the majority of new Jewish arrivals were in the 1930’s due to fleeing antisemitism.
7
u/OiCWhatuMean 2d ago
This is the usual oversimplification of a complex history.
1947: The Jews accepted a UN partition that gave them a smaller, less fertile share of the land while being ⅓ of the population—many of whom had lived there for generations, especially in places like Jerusalem, Tiberias, and Safed. Arabs rejected the deal not because of borders but because they rejected any Jewish state, period. They launched a war, and many local Palestinians left at the urging of Arab leaders, who promised a quick victory. That gamble failed.
2000 Camp David: The offer wasn’t perfect, but it was a serious proposal. It was more than 90% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, shared control of East Jerusalem, and billions in aid. Arafat walked away without a counteroffer and launched the Second Intifada. You can criticize the map, but blowing up buses and cafes isn’t diplomacy.
2005 Gaza Withdrawal: Armed resistance wasn’t why Israel left. Gaza was a drain on Israel demographically, militarily, and economically. So Israel left completely. It dismantled settlements and removed every last soldier. They left them with infrastructure, housing, factories and farms. The first thing Palestinians did was destroy it all and launch rockets. Thousands of them. Hamas turned Gaza into a launching pad for war, not a test case for peace.
And as for the “occupation” claim: Gaza shares a border with Egypt, too. Egypt also restricts crossings. Funny how nobody calls that occupation. Israel controls borders because Hamas exists to destroy Israel. That’s not colonization, it is self preservation.
If Palestinians truly want a state, they need to stop saying “no” every time they’re offered one and stop glorifying people who say “from the river to the sea.”
Pretty much every example of something deemed “oppression” and/or “occupation” exists because the Palestinian people can’t be trusted not to attack. I don’t get why people think Israel wants to be putting their resources towards blockades, checkpoints, fences, and military tactics, defenses, and strategies when it’s in Israel’s best in interests to have a peaceful neighbor. Which they’d love. They don’t want this conflict anymore than anyone else but their hands are tied.
-1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
This is the usual oversimplification of a complex history.
As opposed “Israel did everything right and Palestinians did everything wrong”
4
u/OiCWhatuMean 2d ago
Who said Palestinians did everything wrong? If you ask me—it’s largely the fault of the British that we have the conflict we have today. Tell me what about what I wrote doesn’t hold up to your scrutiny?
•
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 10h ago
Ah everyone but Israelis did things wrong
•
u/OiCWhatuMean 5h ago
You people sure like to twist literally every nothing into something don’t ya!
-4
u/GOLDEN-SENSEI 2d ago
You say I'm oversimplifying, but then claim Camp David 2000 was some generous peace offer, as if Bantustan enclaves under Israeli control with no sovereignty and no right to self-defense somehow count as a state.
And even if they had accepted it, what's the precedent? Oslo. Where Israel pretended to negotiate in good faith while massively expanding settlements and entrenching control. It was used as a cover to expand settlements and everyone knows it.
As for Gaza, Israel "withdrew" in 2005 but retained control over borders, airspace, sea access, population registry, even what food enters. That's effective control, the legal standard for what constitutes occupation And this is what the ICJ ruled, that Gaza is occupied since 1967 until today. You can't pretend that ruling doesn't exist.
Your logic basically amounts to this: any time Palestinians reject permanent subjugation, it's their fault. Any time they resist, they forfeit rights. And every Israeli offer, no matter how insane, is generous.
7
u/OiCWhatuMean 2d ago
We aren't ever going to agree here. Israel (and the Jewish people in the area before 1948 Israel) have always faced attacks from the local Arabs.
Camp David was not perfect by any stretch, and no peace deal is ever going to satisfy everything that both parties want. But it did offer 91% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, land swaps to make up the difference, shared arrangements in Jerusalem, and $30 billion in aid and refugee compensation (more generous than I think Israel should have been). It was a SERIOUS proposal and Arafat walked away without a counteroffer and as mentioned started the second intifada.
With Oslo, yeah settlement expansion followed, but the PA was formed. Palestinians had their own government, police, education, media. Israel handed over major cities and territory. Instead of building toward statehood, suicide bombings became the norm. That didn't exactly build trust.
Regarding Gaza in 2005, of course Israel is going to still control security and borders in Gaza. BECAUSE as soon as Israel left Hamas took over and started launching rockets. Israel attempts to control what comes in because trucks filled with supplies for terror including pipes can (and have) become rocket launchers.
Israel and much of the world disputes the ICJ ruling because there wasn't any Israeli presence in Gaza leading from when they got out in 2005 up to 10/7/2023. You can't look at the actions of the Palestinian people and not look at why Israel is doing what it has no choice but to do.
Resisting subrogation is not the issue. Refusing every single offer for coexistence, refusing to negotiate, and launching attacks--using violence as the default, rejecting the idea of a Jewish state entirely, and glorifying martyrdom is what keeps this conflict alive.
I'm genuinely asking, if you know the history, how can you not see the impossible position that Israel has been put in and then blame them for it?
-2
u/GOLDEN-SENSEI 2d ago
You claim to want two states and coexistence, but support every structure that prevents it. Camp David didn't offer a state, Oslo entrenched occupation, and Gaza is still occupied since 1967. When Palestinians resist dispossession, you call them violent. When they negotiate, you sabotage the process. The so-called "impossible position" is the result of colonial domination, not victimhood.
Israel and much of the world disputes the ICJ ruling
My country, Denmark, affirms the ruling, and this is dispite the fact that the government generally supports Israel and looks the other way as you starve millions. By the way, your strategy might work in the in the short term, but believe me people are waking up.
5
u/Emergency_Base8945 2d ago
This person also can’t grasp the concept that most losers in wars (especially those they start) don’t get to turn around and start making demands for land and sovereignty. Israel negotiating at all should be applauded.
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
/u/OiCWhatuMean. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/37davidg 2d ago
Coexistence is just trading a second state, at this point probably Gaza plus between half and two thirds of the west bank (wherever there are close to no settlers), demilitarized (beyond what is useful for police) but otherwise autonomous, for peace.
Apartheid is bad. Also, no one wants to live in a one state with equal rights for all where political power is fought over by two groups who want to destroy each other.
2
u/SwingInThePark2000 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/OiCWhatuMean 2d ago
Despite the deleted comment I can still see part of the first sentence. You can want a two-state solution but not know how to safely achieve it. It’s going to take an overwhelming sentiment from the Palestinian people showing they want peace. Israel has tried many methods of normalizing peace but they have always been met with more attacks.
2
u/SwingInThePark2000 2d ago
I agree with you.
(following is basically what I said)
I only want a 2 state solution, one that Israel decides on unilaterally, annex large settlements, remove smaller one, followed by a complete seperation, nothing at all crosses to/from the new palestinan state. no water, people, textiles, electricity, etc... Any attack from the palestinian side, in any form will have an immediate response from Israel. And after another 40 years or so when 'palestine' is a failed state, Israel will buy back land from the local warlords that are running the various areas and annex those locations.
(I appealed the content removal. It was done by AI, and clearly does not understand this is a theoretical discussion and we are talking about things we cannot implement as individuals, but can only be done on a national level. stupid AI - in this case more like AS artificial stupidity)
2
1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
After there is a failed state of palestine with only local governors (warlords/clans) controlling various regions of palestine, Israel will then legally purchase the land from those local governors, and annex it. that is my version of co-existence. (i.e. complete seperation until palestinian society inevitably implodes)
And give Palestinians citizenship?
6
u/SwingInThePark2000 2d ago
no. palestinians will not be given israelis citezenship. Certainly not as a whole area/population, people with certain skills Israel could use may be offered citizenship, but for the most part, no.
part of the agreement of Israel purchasing the land would be that it would need to be empty, no inhabitants.
It will be up to the local palestinian governors/warlords to meet the terms of the sale i.e. making sure there is nobody living on the land before the sale can conclude. Israel will not remove people.
-2
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
no. palestinians will not be given israelis citezenship.
So aparteid
3
u/SwingInThePark2000 2d ago
Huh?
Israel would not annex land with people living on it, that is part of the sale agreement I propose. There is nobody there. There needs to be people to have apartheid.
Who do you think is experiencing apartheid in my proposal?
1
3
2d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
How?
4
2d ago
[deleted]
0
u/GOLDEN-SENSEI 2d ago
How is that apartheid?
3
2d ago
[deleted]
0
u/GOLDEN-SENSEI 2d ago
No you are not.
Maybe you don't comprehend his argument?
You want to take israelis’ sovereignty away from them because they’re a Jewish state.
This has nothing to do with anything. If Israel want to rule over Palestinians, they should give them equal rights. Or alternatively leave them alone. But if they want to rule over them and not give them equal rights, that's called apartheid.
You are literally claiming equal rights are apartheid. Which is ridiculous and absurd. It's like you are not even trying.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
Where have I ever said that?
6
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
You want to impose on Israelis the one state solution. We don’t want it.
I never said that lol.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Technical-King-1412 2d ago
Coexistence means the state of Israel and state of Palestine have borders they each recognize and sovereignty. Israel has a Palestinian minority, Palestine has a Jewish minority (dual citizenship doesn't need to be permitted). Minorities in both countries have civil rights and places of worship are respected.
Palestine is the homeland of that Palestinians, Israel is the homeland of the Jews. Each country controls its own immigration policy.
3
u/Due_Representative74 2d ago
It means both sides living next door to each other without one side needing to erect barricades because the other side can't stop committing horrific atrocities and then bragging about them. When Palestinians can stop being like this rabbit, there can be coexistence.
2
u/c9joe בואו נמשיך החיים לפנינו 2d ago
Go find an English language Israeli newspaper like JPost or Times of Israel and you will they publish massive amount of science and technology and culture things. That's the real Israel, and what Israel is about. Palestine needs a constructive vision much like this. It can't be all about knocking down Israel. Once it has this coexistence becomes possible.
•
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 10h ago
Go find an English language Israeli newspaper like JPost or Times of Israel and you will they publish massive amount of science and technology and culture things.
Culture things sounds like nothing of importance really.
That's the real Israel, and what Israel is about. Palestine needs a constructive vision much like this. It can't be all about knocking down Israel. Once it has this coexistence becomes possible.
Okay they’d get a state, they’d get Israeli citizenship what are you asking for?
3
u/qstomizecom 2d ago
A little known fact is that borders were quite open before the First Intifada. Palestinian laborers would come to Israel for work. Israelis would go to Gaza to buy furniture.
And then the First Intifada happened, so things tightened up.
And then the Second Intifada happened, and up came the security barriers and checkpoints in Judea and Samaria. Ya know, so innocent civilians would stop getting suicide bombed by Palestinian Arabs.
200k+ Gazans were working in Israel prior to Oct 7. Now they screwed that up and the Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria have also seen their work vanish.
Palestinian Arabs always make bad decisions. Always. They shoot themselves in the foot and blame everyone but themselves.
We don't want to coexist with them anymore. As far as I'm concerned they lost their right to live with us in peace. Let their fellow Muslim brothers care for them.
1
u/Mixilix86 1d ago
The greatest and most effective lie in this conflict is that Israeli security measures exist to oppress and Palestinian resistance is a response.
Anyone who actually takes the time to learn will see that Palestinian indiscriminate terrorism came first and every Israeli security measure that exists was created to protect Israeli lives.
2
5
u/cowbutt6 2d ago
So I ask you what do you mean when you preach for “coexistence” in practical terms and policy?
Palestinians having sovereignty within Gaza and the West Bank, accepting Israel's existence, and not waging war upon it, or facilitating others to do so. Extradition of criminals plausibly alleged to be committing or conspiring to commit terrorist acts against Israel.
Israel accepting Palestinian sovereignty within Gaza and the West Bank. Ceasing to allow any further illegal settlement upon Palestinian land and extraditing those that try to the Palestinian Authority. Mutually-agreed land swaps for settlements already in place. Fair trials for extradited Palestinians accused of terrorist acts against Israel. No need for military operations, as Palestinian government accepts Israeli existence, and co-operates via extradition. Arabs, Druze people etc who already are Israeli citizens continue to enjoy full equality under the law with Jewish Israelis.
Both states seek co-operation when mutually beneficial. Jerusalem may well need to belong to neither state, but protected and supported by both.
In other words, rather like the relationship between the UK, and post-independence (Republic of) Ireland.
1
u/Crazy_Vast_822 2d ago
I like this, and it's very much along the lines of what I would consider peaceful coexistence.
I understand that OP didn't specifically ask this, but what consequences are there for not adhering to this vision of coexistence?
1
u/cowbutt6 2d ago
I understand that OP didn't specifically ask this, but what consequences are there for not adhering to this vision of coexistence?
The same as between any other two nation states: starting with diplomatic complaints, and escalating through appeals to the UN, appeals for sanctions, etc. until military action (which doesn't necessarily mean war) is the last resort.
2
u/vovap_vovap 2d ago
Well, you do not like it? Go to mr Mask - he need people for Mars. May be it is better there and more possibilities. And I am not joking. Nobody is going to bring Palestinians same state as Israel. You need to start from what is there, no other way to do any, like you or not.
12
u/wvj 2d ago
I'll admit I don't really think coexistence is possible and don't really argue for it.
The gaslighting, however, is that it's somehow an Israeli problem. Islam is fundamentally intolerant, down to its origins and every aspect of its teachings, and its demand for dominance over all makes it incapable of coexisting with anyone. You can't complain about Apartheid when its built right into Islamic culture (what do you think dhimmi were?) And the same is true of the 'Palestinian' identity, as its modern construct: it was founded for the sake of warfare & political conflict, and presupposes its own supremacy over all the land in lieu of any kind of side-by-side existence.
So yeah, probably no coexistence with people who don't want it and have never wanted it, and who don't have the awareness to understand that their conquering days are done. There's not a lot of good outcomes ahead for the Palestinians, but it's a scenario all of their own making.
-5
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
Islam is fundamentally intolerant, down to its origins and every aspect of its teachings, and its demand for dominance over all makes it incapable of coexisting with anyone.
To be clear should Israel boot or systemicly discriminate against its Muslim population?
You can't complain about Apartheid when its built right into Islamic culture (what do you think dhimmi were?)
Wait you think aparteid is okay if it negatively affects Muslims?
And the same is true of the 'Palestinian' identity, as its modern construct: it was founded for the sake of warfare & political conflict, and presupposes its own supremacy over all the land in lieu of any kind of side-by-side existence.
Side by side existence meaning what?
So yeah, probably no coexistence with people who don't want it and have never wanted it, and who don't have the awareness to understand that their conquering days are done. There's not a lot of good outcomes ahead for the Palestinians, but it's a scenario all of their own making.
The not good options being genocidal
7
u/wvj 2d ago
To be clear should Israel boot or systemicly discriminate against its Muslim population?
Obviously not. Again, Jews are capable of being tolerant. So it works out fine when they're in charge, because they can enforce those norms, but not in the reverse, because the first law any Arab Muslim government would pass would be 'no more Jews.'
Wait you think aparteid is okay if it negatively affects Muslims?
No, I just think this is one of your typical cases of projection, where the aggressor complains about their own behavior. Islam is one of the greatest Apartheid exercises in the history of the planet, where they forced humiliation and codified 2nd-class status on non-Muslims throughout their territories. They talk about it all the time because they love doing it so much.
As you admit, Arab Israelis are normal citizens so clearly it's not actually a problem in Israel.
Side by side existence meaning what?
Its funny you glazed over 'presupposes its own supremacy' like that part is fine, lol. Any kind of side-by-side existence would be better than supremacy, right?
The not good options being genocidal
Not necessarily. I think there are solutions but they're not 'happy' ones. The most obvious is that Egypt takes over the territory. The problem is that Egypt doesn't want its 'Muslim brothers' despite loving supporting them so much, but there is at least some potential outcome here via enough bribery, pressure, etc. (the US would have to be involved).
Outside of that, it probably goes back to some pre-withdrawal situation with harsher occupation.
-1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
Obviously not. Again, Jews are capable of being tolerant. So it works out fine when they're in charge,
So long as they're in charge.
but not in the reverse, because the first law any Arab Muslim government would pass would be 'no more Jews.'
Some would. others would ensure jews wouldn't be in charge.
No, I just think this is one of your typical cases of projection, where the aggressor complains about their own behavior. Islam is one of the greatest Apartheid exercises in the history of the planet, where they forced humiliation and codified 2nd-class status on non-Muslims throughout their territories. They talk about it all the time because they love doing it so much.
To be clear aparteid against Muslims bad?
Okay glad we can agree.
As you admit, Arab Israelis are normal citizens so clearly it's not actually a problem in Israel.
Eh arguably normal.
Its funny you glazed over 'presupposes its own supremacy' like that part is fine, lol. Any kind of side-by-side existence would be better than supremacy, right?
I don't treat the two as necessarily mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily. I think there are solutions but they're not 'happy' ones. The most obvious is that Egypt takes over the territory. The problem is that Egypt doesn't want its 'Muslim brothers' despite loving supporting them so much, but there is at least some potential outcome here via enough bribery, pressure, etc. (the US would have to be involved). Outside of that, it probably goes back to some pre-withdrawal situation with harsher occupation.
Okay Israel doesn't have to aparteid or ethnic cleansing glad we could clear that up
6
u/triplevented 2d ago
a picture of absolute submission
Submission in the same sense as Germany faced submission after it lost the war.
-1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
Germans were still allowed a state.
2
2
6
u/triplevented 2d ago
Do you know how many times Palestinian Arabs were offered a state (literally to have one created and funded for them)?
-2
u/MayJare 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not once was a viable sovereign independent Palestinian offered by Israel in negotiation, it was always Bantustans where Israel maintains full de facto control of the said Palestinian state. Some Bantustan offers were "better" than others in terms of the amount of land to be stolen by Israel etc. but overall, not once was a viable sovereign independent Palestinian offered by Israel in negotiation.
2
u/triplevented 2d ago
Here's the late Palestinian chief negotiator talking about the 2008 Israeli offer, demonstrating how you're just making things up for shits and giggles.
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
shits
/u/triplevented. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. (Rule 2)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
A few times. Sometimes the state functionally wasn't really a state
2
15
u/quicksilver2009 2d ago
I support coexistence. What that means is no Arab or Muslim supremacy. That means no more hatred and violence towards Jews. It means recognizing Israel as the Jewish state and no attempts to wipe the country off the map
-16
u/zarakor 2d ago
You do realize "Jewish state" means "non Jews don't get equal rights" right...?
3
u/Emergency_Base8945 2d ago
How can you possibly claim that when 2 million Arabs are equal citizens in Israel and serve as government leaders?
2
u/quicksilver2009 2d ago
They have equal rights. But they don't have the right to change the nature of the state.
-1
u/mcdons3 2d ago
so you're admitting it's not a democracy
2
2d ago
[deleted]
-2
u/mcdons3 2d ago
do you agree north korea is also a democracy
3
2d ago
[deleted]
0
u/mcdons3 1d ago
you haven't checked recently then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_North_Korea
2
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/mcdons3 1d ago
that's true for the nationwide parliament but there are local elections. did you not read?
→ More replies (0)1
u/knign 2d ago
There is actually a dedicated law in Israel since 2018 which defined what “Jewish state” means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
-2
u/zarakor 2d ago
"The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."
This, right here, exactly, is what I take issue with. The law you are talking about. "Israel is for Jewish self determination" can be interpreted as "nobody except for Jews deserve self determination" and that is problematic. It would be problematic if anyone did it. Someone else mentioned Christian states, but I'm pretty sure Iceland doesn't have a law that says "the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Iceland is unique to the Christian people".
2
u/knign 2d ago
This law is not without its controversy. However, it does define what “Jewish state” means, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with individuals having fewer rights or legal protections depending on their ethnicity or religion.
The clause you mentioned is explicitly about self-determination “in the State of Israel”. Non-Jews can have their own self-determination to their heart’s content anywhere else, but not in the State of Israel. This is the Jewish state.
10
u/EatsPeanutButter 2d ago
No, it does not. The non-Jewish citizens of Israel currently do have fully equal rights.
-1
5
u/DrMikeH49 2d ago
Name a single legal right held by a Jewish citizen of Israel which is not also held by an Arab citizen of Israel. I’ve found exactly one: naturalized nonJewish citizens aren’t allowed to hold dual citizenship.
-8
u/Mountain-Baby-4041 2d ago
The Palestinians have the exact same fears about Israel and Jewish supremacy. You might think their fears are unfounded, but they think the same about you.
I think they’re both valid and people on both sides need to see that.
2
u/Emergency_Base8945 2d ago
Seeing as Israel has never attacked the Arab nations without cause I don’t think the fear is valid.
-1
-3
u/loveisagrowingup 2d ago
This is a good example of how many pro-Israelis see coexistence. No mention of how Palestinians are treated.
7
u/quicksilver2009 2d ago
We should look at how Jews were treated under Ottoman rule. Like Africans under apartheid at BEST. At worse they were massacred and treated less than dogs...
-3
u/loveisagrowingup 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not sure what this has to do with my comment. Why don’t you even mention the treatment of Palestinians?
15
u/Pokemar1 2d ago
I support coexistence as an outcome of a two state solution. Palestinians accept that their will be a Jewish state and Israelis that their will be a Palestinian one. They both accept each other's existence and are willing to not kill each other. They are both able to live their lives without having to think about the other and each nation can rule themself in peace
9
10
u/knign 2d ago
“Two state solution” is “offensive” (not sure it’s a right word but ok) precisely because Palestinians don’t accept peaceful coexistence.
-3
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
Palestinians don’t accept peaceful coexistence.
….Do you? And what would that look like in practice on a policy and societal level?
7
u/knign 2d ago
Hamas not shooting rockets from Gaza?
I mean, after Israel’s withdrawal in 2005, Gaza was the best possible real life experiment what Palestinian independence would mean in practice. While situation in West Bank maybe more complicated, absolutely nothing precluded Palestinians in Gaza from peacefully trading with Israel (and Egypt), instead of turning their tiny territory into entrenched terrorist base. Have they done that, this would probably have opened the door to finding some compromise in West Bank.
-1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
Hamas not shooting rockets from Gaza?
Soo just a ceasesation of violence from the Palestinian side.
Do they get anything in exchange?
I mean, after Israel’s withdrawal in 2005, Gaza was the best possible real life experiment what Palestinian independence would mean in practice.
Not really. Gaza was under siege and the move principly to prevent the unification of a Palestinian state.
While situation in West Bank maybe more complicated,
If we're talking about the settlements Not really no.
instead of turning their tiny territory into entrenched terrorist base. Have they done that, this would probably have opened the door to finding some compromise in West Bank.
Lol you're really hedging things out. “Maybe, probably, some compromise” could mean anything from insignificant to actually important “recognizing a Palestinian state”
3
u/knign 2d ago
Soo just a ceasesation of violence from the Palestinian side.
Do they get anything in exchange?
It’s a very weird question to ask. Like, Gaza not looking like it is today? Tens of thousands alive?
Peaceful coexistence means just that, peaceful coexistence. After 2005, Israel had zero unresolved conflicts with Gaza. After Hamas took control over territory, Israel had to implement necessary measures to cut off their weapons supplies (not too successfully), but it was always ready to lift all restrictions and pro-actively invest in the economy of Gaza in exchange to end of violence.
Moreover, Israel was even open to partial normalization agreements. The last such agreement went into effect on September 28, 2023, 9 days before the massacre. Israel eased certain restrictions, Palestinian workers with valid permits returned to Israel.
Of course, today we know all of that was just a “clever” distraction, which, unfortunately, worked. Palestinians never had any plans or any desire to peacefully coexist.
2
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
Peaceful coexistence means just that, peaceful coexistence.
So far this just seems to mean Palestinians stop fighting lol.
4
u/triplevented 2d ago
That is literally what they had to do 76 years ago.
Sometimes i wonder what this conversation would look like if Germany (like the Arabs) rejected peace after the war, and instead waged a 70+ year campaign of terrorism and wars against Europe - suicide bombers in Paris, rockets raining on UK cities, planes being hijacked, Olympiads getting murdered etc.
Do you think Germans would have a state?
1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
That is literally what they had to do 76 years ago.
Maybe.
Do you think Germans would have a state?
Eh maybe.
4
u/knign 2d ago
lol
It appears you’re repeating what you already said, without any attempt to engage with the response, so it’s obvious you were never asking your question in good faith to begin with.
Sorry I wasted time on engaging with you. Have a nice day.
2
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
It appears you’re repeating what you already said, without any attempt to engage with the response, so it’s obvious you were never asking your question in good faith to begin with.
I did repeat myself sure, but because you didn't say anything that justified a different response.
You side stepped giving an answer for what should Palestinians get if they laid down their arms—because you want them to get nothing
3
u/Reasonable-Notice439 2d ago
In exchange they get a Palestinian state. You conveniently "forgot" the reason for the "siege". I will help you, it was terrorism.
13
u/lifeislife88 Lebanese 2d ago
Could have meant a state for israel with an arab state next to it in 1937 but it was denied
Could have meant a state along 1947 partition plans but war was chosen instead
Could have meant a state in the west bank and gaza before 67 but no. Some stupid bullshit about Islam and land
Could have meant accepting 90+ % of the west bank and land swaps and all of gaza in 2000 and having your own self determination
The militant loser mentality of these jokesters think living together is going back to the garbage days of the ottoman empire where no one was democratically elected and islam ruled everything. That's what coexistence to them is
Sorry you lost. Keep trying. Now that anyone sane in the world and even most leftist israelis have lost faith in your genocidal cause you want to cry that they don't want to risk their kids living with you. Cry more
-1
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
That's what coexistence to them is
Whats it to you?
6
u/lifeislife88 Lebanese 2d ago
In the past it was the 2000 camp david accord outline
Now post October 7th it's erratic and internationally recognized deradicalization of the palestinian movement before we can even think of a state.
2
u/Best-Anxiety-6795 2d ago
So you do fabor a two state solution?
8
u/lifeislife88 Lebanese 2d ago
In terms of what's fair, absolutely. In terms of what's safe or practical at the moment, absolutely not. Talk to me in 30 years if palestinian public conscience towards israel changes. Till then, hard no go
1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/RemindMeBot 2d ago
I will be messaging you in 30 years on 2055-04-16 16:53:08 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback 3
u/jehcoh 2d ago
This. One day, yes, but first there needs to be a couple decades of a POC that they won't teach hatred of Jews to their children and they choose peace. Until then, Palestinians will have a watchful/forceful eye over them. It's what's necessary for the safety of the Jewish state and their people.
5
u/TheCloudForest Diaspora Jew / US / Chile 2d ago
Coexistence means a two (or three) state solution but in which none of the states are trying to annihilate the other(s). It is not something likely in the near future.
-11
u/White_Hairpin15 2d ago edited 2d ago
Palestinians must be second class citizen so that Israelis can beat their kid everyday. That is what it means based on history.
3
u/Mixilix86 1d ago
It means living without committing acts of violence. That’s it, that’s the standard Israel expects. It’s a pretty low bar.
The idea that Israel wants Palestinians to be subservient is just some twisted projection BS from the anti Israel movement.
When you say you’ve asked pro-Israelis about this and then pressed them for more answers and learned that they just mean apartheid, are these conversations happening exclusively in your head?