Why you were worried about the driving? Your kollel friend must have taken to heart your article about believing that hishtadlus is an illusion and just like Hashem provided him with a car Hashem would also make sure his Torah learning protected him while the car was driving.
"most Palestinians are basically aligned with Hamas."
This was basically proven on the 2006 Palestinian election. There were six party lists. The two that had no connection to terrorist groups finished fifth and sixth, conbining for three percent of the vote. One can argue based on those results that not all Palestinians support an Islamic extremist state, as Hamas won only a plurality of votes, but you cannot argue that the majority of Palestinians don't want to destroy Israel by violence. An overwhelming majority. And no, sentiment has not changed since then.
This is also why Israel should not annex the occupied territories. Not because it will be bad for world opinion, but because a valid annexation means making all the residents of the annexed area into full citizens of the annexing power. The Knesset would have dozens of Hamas and Farah members. And that is a best case outcome.
Amazing how anti-Semitism of others can be twisted to be an argument for us not to act in our own self-interest. Amazing, but I suppose not surprising.
So here's a simple solution: Annex the land without giving citizenship to the residents.
Oh no! We do that, there might be massive protests against in Israel on the streets of London every week! Jews might be attacked on the streets of the diaspora! What shall we do?
Oh, too much for your sensitivities? Sorry. OK, we can start by annexing all the land that doesn't have any Arabs living on it. Like Area C. Or pretty much all of Gaza, heh heh.
Nonsense. No modern country since World War II has kept a population without citizenship. Israel would be seen and treated as a pariah state worse than South Africa by the entire western world, complete with sanctions and embargoes and travel restrictions, and would be lucky if it were left to make treaties and trade with Russia and North Korea.
The approach of holding land without giving its residents citizenship just doesn’t work in the modern era and, like I said, not a single country in the world has done it since World War II, which should tell you something.
It didn't even work hundreds of years ago. It has long been acknowledged that if country A wants to take over part of country B it has to make the residents of that part of country B have allegiance to country A. The United States granted citizenship to people living in annexed territories eight times in the 19th century. Lots of examples in Europe and elsewhere as well. The annexation without citizenship advocates don't understand that calling something an annexation without making the residents into full citizens is doing nothing.
And all of those examples are applicable here why? Europe? Countries with a common culture, a common religion, countries not out to murder each other? Countries with lots of space, lots of people? That applies here?
Because the definition of annexation applies everywhere. Including the Middle East. For example, the Ottoman Empire made the Jews, Christian, and Muslims of Eretz Yisrael into Ottoman subjects in 1517 whether they liked it or not. The Muslims were conscripted into the Ottoman Army.
An annexation without citizenship for the residents is not an annexation. That isn't sensitivities that is a fact. You are suggesting the equivalent of an kosher pig.
Which is one of the arguments to NOT annex the area!
If you are a Zionist you have to accept international standards as to what constitutes a sovereign state and what rules they have to play by. I guess if you aren't you can remain in your alternative reality.
But the actual reality is that an annexation without full citizenship for the residents isn't an annexation at all. It is indeed unfair. For example, the Syrian Druze in the Golan still are Syrian and owe allegiance to the Assad regime. That allows them to cross the border. Few have applied for citizenship in Israel. But that makes the Golan Heights not within the borders of Medinat Yisrael, as to make that happen you have to make the Syrian Druze into Israeli Druze over their objections.
In 1847, Mexicans fought the US in a war. The US annexed half of Mexico after the war. Mexicans there became US citizens if they didn't return to what was left of Mexico within one year. Whether they liked it or not. And even if they were shooting at the US Army months earlier. You don't have to like the rules and definitions but like I said, the rules say a pig isn't kosher.
'The Americans here will probably laugh at me. I had no idea that self-driving cars are a real thing!'
We laught at you because the first thing that came to your mind was to blame charedim.
🎯
Just want to say, I like this post.
Why you were worried about the driving? Your kollel friend must have taken to heart your article about believing that hishtadlus is an illusion and just like Hashem provided him with a car Hashem would also make sure his Torah learning protected him while the car was driving.
And this was necessary because.....?
…it was funny. 🤣
"most Palestinians are basically aligned with Hamas."
This was basically proven on the 2006 Palestinian election. There were six party lists. The two that had no connection to terrorist groups finished fifth and sixth, conbining for three percent of the vote. One can argue based on those results that not all Palestinians support an Islamic extremist state, as Hamas won only a plurality of votes, but you cannot argue that the majority of Palestinians don't want to destroy Israel by violence. An overwhelming majority. And no, sentiment has not changed since then.
This is also why Israel should not annex the occupied territories. Not because it will be bad for world opinion, but because a valid annexation means making all the residents of the annexed area into full citizens of the annexing power. The Knesset would have dozens of Hamas and Farah members. And that is a best case outcome.
Amazing how anti-Semitism of others can be twisted to be an argument for us not to act in our own self-interest. Amazing, but I suppose not surprising.
So here's a simple solution: Annex the land without giving citizenship to the residents.
Oh no! We do that, there might be massive protests against in Israel on the streets of London every week! Jews might be attacked on the streets of the diaspora! What shall we do?
Oh, too much for your sensitivities? Sorry. OK, we can start by annexing all the land that doesn't have any Arabs living on it. Like Area C. Or pretty much all of Gaza, heh heh.
Nonsense. No modern country since World War II has kept a population without citizenship. Israel would be seen and treated as a pariah state worse than South Africa by the entire western world, complete with sanctions and embargoes and travel restrictions, and would be lucky if it were left to make treaties and trade with Russia and North Korea.
The approach of holding land without giving its residents citizenship just doesn’t work in the modern era and, like I said, not a single country in the world has done it since World War II, which should tell you something.
It didn't even work hundreds of years ago. It has long been acknowledged that if country A wants to take over part of country B it has to make the residents of that part of country B have allegiance to country A. The United States granted citizenship to people living in annexed territories eight times in the 19th century. Lots of examples in Europe and elsewhere as well. The annexation without citizenship advocates don't understand that calling something an annexation without making the residents into full citizens is doing nothing.
And all of those examples are applicable here why? Europe? Countries with a common culture, a common religion, countries not out to murder each other? Countries with lots of space, lots of people? That applies here?
And the current situation is better?
Because the definition of annexation applies everywhere. Including the Middle East. For example, the Ottoman Empire made the Jews, Christian, and Muslims of Eretz Yisrael into Ottoman subjects in 1517 whether they liked it or not. The Muslims were conscripted into the Ottoman Army.
The Muslims were conscripted? What about the Jews and Christians?
And that's not even touching the *actual* history, which you should look up.
And that's not even addressing the little point that, um, Israel isn't the Ottoman Empire.
"No country since World War II" is a rather arbitrary cutoff, isn't it? Why not 1900? Why not 1000 BC? Who decides this?
And do you really want to bring up South Africa as an example?
"No modern country since World War II has kept a population without citizenship."
Communist Hungary.
An annexation without citizenship for the residents is not an annexation. That isn't sensitivities that is a fact. You are suggesting the equivalent of an kosher pig.
Kosher pig? Israel allowing non-Jews to decide its fate is a kosher pig. Israel allowing a large hostile population within it is a kosher pig.
It's all well and good when you decide to apply foreign standards. We have our own. Have you ever heard of the Givonim?
Which is one of the arguments to NOT annex the area!
If you are a Zionist you have to accept international standards as to what constitutes a sovereign state and what rules they have to play by. I guess if you aren't you can remain in your alternative reality.
But the actual reality is that an annexation without full citizenship for the residents isn't an annexation at all. It is indeed unfair. For example, the Syrian Druze in the Golan still are Syrian and owe allegiance to the Assad regime. That allows them to cross the border. Few have applied for citizenship in Israel. But that makes the Golan Heights not within the borders of Medinat Yisrael, as to make that happen you have to make the Syrian Druze into Israeli Druze over their objections.
In 1847, Mexicans fought the US in a war. The US annexed half of Mexico after the war. Mexicans there became US citizens if they didn't return to what was left of Mexico within one year. Whether they liked it or not. And even if they were shooting at the US Army months earlier. You don't have to like the rules and definitions but like I said, the rules say a pig isn't kosher.
Nobody ever said that rules are fair.
Well, I guess if I "have to," I have to.
Finally someone spells "toe the line" correctly.
And maybe finally you'll be persuaded of the power of audio over a vast swathe of the population ...
Self driving cars? Days of Flash Gordon are here. What’s next.
October 7 wasn't "nu nu".
Who would get upset at seeing a photo with you and Ben Shapiro?
Nice to see you have a friend in kollel :)
It's irrelevant. There's a clear sequence that takes place over more than a few thousand years.
Dinosaurs were not concurrent with people.
Because they are found in different layers.