• Shyfer@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      At this point, one state solution is the only possible way forward. A two state solution will not work unless conditions radically change. Maybe it never would have worked, maybe the Israeli government only pretended to be willing to go with a two state solution.

      Such a thing is unacceptable to the current Israeli government because it would end their ethnostate but i don’t see an option between that and complete extermination of the Palestinians.

    • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      the more I’ve learned about the fact that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all used to get along

      The crusades would like a word.

      • Rambi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean there’s a good 600-700 years of stuff that was happening from the end of the crusades to the late 1940s

        • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Rambi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        @Tavarin the Crusades originated in Europe though. It wasn’t the locals infighting, more like warmongering tourists.

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            @Tavarin I don’t think it really was. That’s what the Pope wanted people to thinkat the time, but historians have other explanations.

            • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.