In general, do you side more with Israel or Palestine?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think that one national identity is more legitimate or valuable than the other, no.

One is over 2500 years old, the other is a recent invention.

The US is a recent invention. Glad we're agreed that it isn't a legitimate country either.

The best part to me is how closely this logic mirrors Putinist propaganda about Ukraine being a "made up nation".

People who think they're entitled to decide which nations/ethnicities/cultures are "real" and which are "fake" are always just a few steps away from genocide advocacy. This rhetoric should not be tolerated here.

[buritobr]

Palestine, but I am not like some crazy far leftist who think that the state of Israel should not exist

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Support for Palestine is non-negotiable.
Support for an apartheid state is non-forgivable.

[Aurelius]

Support for Palestine is non-negotiable.
Support for an apartheid state is non-forgivable.

Israel is not an apartheid state.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Brother, I'm a American

[America Needs R'hllor]

I don't think that one national identity is more legitimate or valuable than the other, no.

One is over 2500 years old, the other is a recent invention.

The US is a recent invention. Glad we're agreed that it isn't a legitimate country either.

The best part to me is how closely this logic mirrors Putinist propaganda about Ukraine being a "made up nation".

People who think they're entitled to decide which nations/ethnicities/cultures are "real" and which are "fake" are always just a few steps away from genocide advocacy. This rhetoric should not be tolerated here.

Agreed- and I'd note this applies to both sides.

Israel, unequivocally -the Palestinians lost my sympathy forever when they launched the Second Intifada after the collapse of negotiations at the 2000 Camp David Summit due to Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept Ehud Barak's peace terms. 

I agree with you on the historical facts, but this is the type of events that makes this conflict so hard to handle. Surely wrongs committed by the Palestinians cannot legitimize keeping millions in military occupation and expanding settlements aimed at preventing any chance for peace, thus keeping these millions effectively locked out of any chance for self-determination and basic civil and human rights for them and their decendents.

The history of this conflict is full of mistakes and heinous acts committed by both sides (more by the Palestinians, I'd argue, and I haven't seen any counter-argument that wasn't rooted by explicit or implicit antisemitism that denies Jews their self-determination so far). The fact that the Palestinians attempted effective genocide of the Jews in Israel in 1948 and were very much the aggressor doesn't mean that their national tragedy, the Naqba, isn't a legitimate tragedy. The fact that it's legitimate doesn't mean that Israel must cede its status as a Jewish nation and open the doors for the numerous decendents of the refugees created by this tragedy. The fact that the Israeli government illegal settlements does not legitimize heinous terrorist attacks on schools, buses, restaurants etc by the Palestinians, sponsored by their leadership. The fact that the Palestinians preferred to use force against civilians to avoid compromise and refused to engage several good-faith Israeli governments does not legitimze further settlement expansion and refusal to negotiate by recent Israeli governments.

Until both sides understand these facts and the legitimacy of the other side, nothing will change. The fact that international discourse on the issue is poisoned by bad-faith activist groups who simply do not view the other side's interests as legitimate makes it much worse, because it prevents foreign governments from laying down logical policy and trying to contribute to the solving of this complex conflict.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Israel.  Period.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Israel, though I oppose the settlements.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The margin here surprises me. I would have expected a roughly 55-4 or 60-40 margin for Isreal over Palestine.

81 votes in and Isreal now leads 43-38 (53-47%). It seems pro-Palestinian votes were banked on Election Day but they didn't do so well in mail-ins and absentees.

[Mr. Smith]

Here: Palestine

At a random protest around People's Park: Israel

On a vacation in Bhutan: Neither.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Mr. X and Ray Goldfield are rather quiet this time.

I almost never stick my head in this forum, actually!

Anyway, Israel, obviously. That includes opposing self-destructive actions that will give their enemy ammunition, but the survival and thriving of the half of the world Jewish population that lives there will always be my primary concern.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The fact that the Palestinians attempted effective genocide of the Jews in Israel in 1948 and were very much the aggressor doesn't mean that their national tragedy, the Naqba, isn't a legitimate tragedy. The fact that it's legitimate doesn't mean that Israel must cede its status as a Jewish nation and open the doors for the numerous decendents of the refugees created by this tragedy. The fact that the Israeli government illegal settlements does not legitimize heinous terrorist attacks on schools, buses, restaurants etc by the Palestinians, sponsored by their leadership. The fact that the Palestinians preferred to use force against civilians to avoid compromise and refused to engage several good-faith Israeli governments does not legitimze further settlement expansion and refusal to negotiate by recent Israeli governments.

Until both sides understand these facts and the legitimacy of the other side, nothing will change. The fact that international discourse on the issue is poisoned by bad-faith activist groups who simply do not view the other side's interests as legitimate makes it much worse, because it prevents foreign governments from laying down logical policy and trying to contribute to the solving of this complex conflict.

Agree completely, and it should be noted as far as bad-faith actors in the international dimension go that various foreign governments and ideological factions have always been involved on both sides of this conflict (some more directly than others, especially in the early decades of the conflict) and most of that foreign involvement, regardless of “side”, has been entirely unhelpful.

Almost as if a lot of powerful people, governments, institutions around the world have rather cynical or other impure motives, or an ideological axe to grind that this conflict is a proxy for, and that the lives and welfare of this region’s inhabitants are not actually the main concern!

[Comrade Funk]

Israel, though I oppose the settlements.

Well you can't separate the two, can you?

[Illiniwek]

I support the right for the State of Israel to exist.
I support the right for a state of Palestine to exist.
I support efforts to stop the State of Israel from oppressing the occupied Palestinians.
I support efforts to stop Palestinian terrorists from posing a threat to any Israelis.

[Canis]

I support the right for the State of Israel to exist.
I support the right for a state of Palestine to exist.
I support efforts to stop the State of Israel from oppressing the occupied Palestinians.
I support efforts to stop Palestinian terrorists from posing a threat to any Israelis.

This is my position on the issue too and it should be everyones. Israel and Palestine are complicated nations full of people and human life. This Isn't twilight or the world cup. I also oppose the settlements as well. 

[HisGrace]

Israel is more sympathetic than Palestine if it's a simple binary, their actions have been more justified and humane.

This is pretty much my position. The Palestinians probably got a raw deal in 46 and the Israelis have been the aggressors in some of the conflicts, but they're at least willing to try and compromise, whereas the position of the Palestinian leadership since ever has pretty much been "give us every single thing we want or we'll murder random civilians". Arafat was straight up offered a two state solution with Israel recognizing a Palestinian state and he turned it down because he preferred to keep being a terrorist and blowing up school buses.

This isn't the Palestinian people's fault, and again, it's not like Israel's been perfect, but the Palestinian leadership's refusal to negotiate in any kind of good faith is the biggest reason why this has dragged on as long as it has.

[LBJer]

I don't think that one national identity is more legitimate or valuable than the other, no.

One is over 2500 years old, the other is a recent invention.

The US is a recent invention. Glad we're agreed that it isn't a legitimate country either.

The best part to me is how closely this logic mirrors Putinist propaganda about Ukraine being a "made up nation".

People who think they're entitled to decide which nations/ethnicities/cultures are "real" and which are "fake" are always just a few steps away from genocide advocacy. This rhetoric should not be tolerated here.

Agreed- and I'd note this applies to both sides.

Israel, unequivocally -the Palestinians lost my sympathy forever when they launched the Second Intifada after the collapse of negotiations at the 2000 Camp David Summit due to Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept Ehud Barak's peace terms. 

I agree with you on the historical facts, but this is the type of events that makes this conflict so hard to handle. Surely wrongs committed by the Palestinians cannot legitimize keeping millions in military occupation and expanding settlements aimed at preventing any chance for peace, thus keeping these millions effectively locked out of any chance for self-determination and basic civil and human rights for them and their decendents.

The history of this conflict is full of mistakes and heinous acts committed by both sides (more by the Palestinians, I'd argue, and I haven't seen any counter-argument that wasn't rooted by explicit or implicit antisemitism that denies Jews their self-determination so far). The fact that the Palestinians attempted effective genocide of the Jews in Israel in 1948 and were very much the aggressor doesn't mean that their national tragedy, the Naqba, isn't a legitimate tragedy. The fact that it's legitimate doesn't mean that Israel must cede its status as a Jewish nation and open the doors for the numerous decendents of the refugees created by this tragedy. The fact that the Israeli government illegal settlements does not legitimize heinous terrorist attacks on schools, buses, restaurants etc by the Palestinians, sponsored by their leadership. The fact that the Palestinians preferred to use force against civilians to avoid compromise and refused to engage several good-faith Israeli governments does not legitimze further settlement expansion and refusal to negotiate by recent Israeli governments.

Until both sides understand these facts and the legitimacy of the other side, nothing will change. The fact that international discourse on the issue is poisoned by bad-faith activist groups who simply do not view the other side's interests as legitimate makes it much worse, because it prevents foreign governments from laying down logical policy and trying to contribute to the solving of this complex conflict.

I'm not sure it's so clear that the Palestinians were the aggressors in 1948.  Couldn't they argue that Israel was the aggressor since it was created without their consent, and that they should have had a voice where the issue was concerned?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Israel, though I oppose the settlements.

Well you can't separate the two, can you?

The land was divided between Jews and Arabs.  I support the Jewish side's right to exist and defend itself, but I oppose some of the things the Israeli government has done/allowed in recent years.

[LBJer]

I don't think that one national identity is more legitimate or valuable than the other, no.

One is over 2500 years old, the other is a recent invention.

The US is a recent invention. Glad we're agreed that it isn't a legitimate country either.

The best part to me is how closely this logic mirrors Putinist propaganda about Ukraine being a "made up nation".

People who think they're entitled to decide which nations/ethnicities/cultures are "real" and which are "fake" are always just a few steps away from genocide advocacy. This rhetoric should not be tolerated here.

Agreed- and I'd note this applies to both sides.

Israel, unequivocally -the Palestinians lost my sympathy forever when they launched the Second Intifada after the collapse of negotiations at the 2000 Camp David Summit due to Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept Ehud Barak's peace terms. 

I agree with you on the historical facts, but this is the type of events that makes this conflict so hard to handle. Surely wrongs committed by the Palestinians cannot legitimize keeping millions in military occupation and expanding settlements aimed at preventing any chance for peace, thus keeping these millions effectively locked out of any chance for self-determination and basic civil and human rights for them and their decendents.

The history of this conflict is full of mistakes and heinous acts committed by both sides (more by the Palestinians, I'd argue, and I haven't seen any counter-argument that wasn't rooted by explicit or implicit antisemitism that denies Jews their self-determination so far). The fact that the Palestinians attempted effective genocide of the Jews in Israel in 1948 and were very much the aggressor doesn't mean that their national tragedy, the Naqba, isn't a legitimate tragedy. The fact that it's legitimate doesn't mean that Israel must cede its status as a Jewish nation and open the doors for the numerous decendents of the refugees created by this tragedy. The fact that the Israeli government illegal settlements does not legitimize heinous terrorist attacks on schools, buses, restaurants etc by the Palestinians, sponsored by their leadership. The fact that the Palestinians preferred to use force against civilians to avoid compromise and refused to engage several good-faith Israeli governments does not legitimze further settlement expansion and refusal to negotiate by recent Israeli governments.

Until both sides understand these facts and the legitimacy of the other side, nothing will change. The fact that international discourse on the issue is poisoned by bad-faith activist groups who simply do not view the other side's interests as legitimate makes it much worse, because it prevents foreign governments from laying down logical policy and trying to contribute to the solving of this complex conflict.

I'm not sure it's so clear that the Palestinians were the aggressors in 1948.  Couldn't they argue that Israel was the aggressor since it was created without their consent, and that they should have had a voice where the issue was concerned?

Genocidal intent against the Jews of Mandate Palestine by the Arab forces?

Since you appear to have missed it:

the Arab side did not reject the Plan because of the proposed distribution of land, but because they opposed the whole principle of partition and the creation of any kind of sovereign Jewish entity in Palestine. That is why they refused to participate in the work of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which devised the plan.

They "didn't have a voice" because their unelected and undemocratic leadership - just like their equally undemocratic successors, Arafat and Abbas - refused to even work with the UN, nor were they wise enough to see the need to compromise.

Instead they insisted on all or nothing and got nothing. Which is what the Palestinians now have.

First of all, the whole premise that there was "genocidal intent" is in dispute.  Secondly, your argument again assumes that the moral onus was on the Palestinians to compromise, whereas what I was saying was that they could see Israel as being illegitimate since it was created without their consent and, therefore in their view, denied them their own right to self-determination. 

There are no easy solutions when two groups of people claim the same piece of land.  "Compromise" isn't the magic pill you seem to think it is. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unequivocally Israel.

[LBJer]

As I stated, a necessary precondition for a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians admit defeat and accept whatever terms the Israelis are willing to give them.

And with that comment you show you have no credibility. 

[LBJer]

As I stated, a necessary precondition for a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians admit defeat and accept whatever terms the Israelis are willing to give them.

And with that comment you show you have no credibility. 

Your post does not. Israel holds all the cards. As far as Israelis are concerned, the "conflict" is over and Israel has won.

Then Israel has a lot of growing up to do. 

[Biden his time]

Israel is an illegitimate apartheid state

[All Along The Watchtower]

Israel is an illegitimate apartheid state

So are most countries in the Islamic world. Albania excepted.

Tiresome comments from both of you.

This truly is an impossible subject to discuss.

[All Along The Watchtower]

As I stated, a necessary precondition for a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians admit defeat and accept whatever terms the Israelis are willing to give them.

And with that comment you show you have no credibility. 

Your post does not. Israel holds all the cards. As far as Israelis are concerned, the "conflict" is over and Israel has won.

The only truly reliable “card” Israel holds is the US veto on the UN Security Council.