this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
18 points (100.0% liked)
Explain Like I'm Five
14021 readers
21 users here now
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The more I look into this conflict, the more I go back and forth on my position lmao. Essentially, yes, you have it right. However, you’re trivializing the post WW2 mandate for Israel. The entire world was carved up post WW2, and I don’t think it’s correct to say that this particular mandate should be reneged. If you look at it objectively, there was a ton of land transfer post WW2, so you’ll have to argue why Israel in particular should be repossessed.
Practicality-wise, Israel is a fairly progressive country that upholds LGBT rights, religious freedom (mostly), has a democratic government, etc. Palestine on its own would be just like any other Arab state and would not be as pro-human rights.
Sure, so the Palestinians, not matter if they are suited to rule this land, but they are the native people on it? Meaning, they were living there before Israelis were relocated there?
I'm just trying to put in perspective, if a whole nation would be moved onto my homeland, and from now on it wouldn't be my homeland, but theirs. Is that how it worked?
“If a whole nation would be moved into my homeland, and from now on it wouldn’t be my homeland”
Yes, this is your ELI5. Majorities come and go. Governments come and go. I’ll give you two examples right next door to Israel:
Egypt was a dynastic system, then Geek, then Roman, then Christian nation then an Arab nation beginning in the 7th century. During each of the periods, a particular ethnicity did exactly the above: they moved in and became the majority. There was a point where it was overwhelmingly correct to call Egypt any one of the above after dynastic rule concluded. Today, Egypt is a Muslim majority country, but if for some reason christians poured in (the British kindof started to do this in the early 19th-20th century in the protectorate period) it would, at some point, become christian.
Constantinople was a Christian capitol city for centuries until the Ottoman conquest in 1453. The city was renamed Instanbul in 1928, but wasn’t recognized as such until a year later in 1929.
The takeaway from all this is that land changes hands in various ways. It’s the point at which the definition of a land changes that is sometimes controversial until a kind of revolution takes place.
Interesting point!
In your opinion, who is at wrong in this conflict? Or would you say both sides are right to some extent and there is no "fair" outcome?
Who do you side with?
My personal opinion is that both sides are in the wrong here. Israel is overstepping its borders, but Palestine is not controlling Gaza and isn’t exactly cracking down on the extremism or defending their borders. Israel is taking advantage of the weak, poorly organized, poorly administered Palestinian (and Syrian!) land by annexing small plots slowly over time.
If you talk to Palestinians, they want to return Palestine and its lands to a Muslim country. They have an overall nationalistic view that I don’t find conducive to peace or overall benefit to everyday people.
As a general idea, I’m all for self determination, but I’m also for the rule of plurality. Because of that, and Israel’s general secular liberal principals (not in the modern American definition of the term), I side with Israel.
My genuine gut feeling is to benefit the most amount of people possible, and thus support the side that more closely adheres to the declaration of human rights.