The idea that indigenous peoples should be subjugated and forcefully integrated by settlers is an inherently racial problem. This was just as true in Canada and the US as it was true in South America as it is in Palestine today.
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, the indigenous people of North America should be free.
And that’s part of the reason the Israel-Palestine conflict is so contentious. Both peoples are indigenous to the region, having strong ancestral ties to the Canaanite peoples that inhabited the area over many periods of external rule and migrations.
That the Jewish people were once forced from the area but retained their identity in new lands doesn’t diminish their right to live in their ancestral home. Nor does it give them the right to treat their distant cousins (who also have ancestral claim) the Palestinians the way the state of Israel has.
I don’t know what the solution is, but many Palestinians and Israelis just want peace, contrary to the rhetoric of their governments.
I’m starting to lean towards a one state solution myself. Especially the more I’ve learned about the fact that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all used to get along in the area before the colonization of European and Western Jewish people into the area and displacement of the locals.
Give them democracy with a strong Constitution where everyone is equal, remove all traces of ethno nationalism or theocracy from the government (except for some public holidays). Integrate the security forces, courts, and other agencies of power together, enforce human rights, try to learn from South Africa, the Troubles in England, and I heard what they did in New Zealand to integrate with the indigenous worked, too. Mix up the schools so the next generation learns to grow up without the hate for the “other” their elders have.
I don’t think any sort of one state solution that would exist between the two countries would classify as an empire, and “enforced stability” is a funny way to try to make people not killing each other sound bad. Also if you want to talk about enforced, that word seems perfectly applicable to Israel’s relationship with Palestine now.
During the crusades the region was controlled by the Abbasid Caliphate, and ruled as a Muslim land. The only reason the Christians, Jew, and Muslims “got along” there was due to being under the rule of a single and powerful empire. It wasn’t like the Middle East of the time was separate kingdoms who got along, it was controlled by empires for almost all of its history.
The idea that indigenous peoples should be subjugated and forcefully integrated by settlers is an inherently racial problem. This was just as true in Canada and the US as it was true in South America as it is in Palestine today.
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, the indigenous people of North America should be free.
And that’s part of the reason the Israel-Palestine conflict is so contentious. Both peoples are indigenous to the region, having strong ancestral ties to the Canaanite peoples that inhabited the area over many periods of external rule and migrations.
That the Jewish people were once forced from the area but retained their identity in new lands doesn’t diminish their right to live in their ancestral home. Nor does it give them the right to treat their distant cousins (who also have ancestral claim) the Palestinians the way the state of Israel has.
I don’t know what the solution is, but many Palestinians and Israelis just want peace, contrary to the rhetoric of their governments.
I’m starting to lean towards a one state solution myself. Especially the more I’ve learned about the fact that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all used to get along in the area before the colonization of European and Western Jewish people into the area and displacement of the locals.
Give them democracy with a strong Constitution where everyone is equal, remove all traces of ethno nationalism or theocracy from the government (except for some public holidays). Integrate the security forces, courts, and other agencies of power together, enforce human rights, try to learn from South Africa, the Troubles in England, and I heard what they did in New Zealand to integrate with the indigenous worked, too. Mix up the schools so the next generation learns to grow up without the hate for the “other” their elders have.
The crusades would like a word.
I mean there’s a good 600-700 years of stuff that was happening from the end of the crusades to the late 1940s
You mean the time when the area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, which enforced stability on it?
I do agree, if we put the whole area under a single Empire’s influence again it would likely be a lot more stable.
I don’t think any sort of one state solution that would exist between the two countries would classify as an empire, and “enforced stability” is a funny way to try to make people not killing each other sound bad. Also if you want to talk about enforced, that word seems perfectly applicable to Israel’s relationship with Palestine now.
@Tavarin the Crusades originated in Europe though. It wasn’t the locals infighting, more like warmongering tourists.
True, but it was due to religious hegemony in the region.
@Tavarin I don’t think it really was. That’s what the Pope wanted people to think at the time, but historians have other explanations.
The early Crusaders attacked other Christians as well as Jewish settlements and Muslims.
During the crusades the region was controlled by the Abbasid Caliphate, and ruled as a Muslim land. The only reason the Christians, Jew, and Muslims “got along” there was due to being under the rule of a single and powerful empire. It wasn’t like the Middle East of the time was separate kingdoms who got along, it was controlled by empires for almost all of its history.
@Tavarin sure. I’m not disputing that. I’m just saying the crusades weren’t their fault.
Many of the organization in Gaza understand this: they have a desire to fight for their freedom, but not a desire to lead.
Don’t forget Australia!