The facts are clear that Palestine’s Jewish population was not at risk of extermination or displacement by the Arab armies.
The same author (Morris) also said this:
While Benny Morris considers the real picture of the Arab aims to be more complex, notably because they were well aware they could not defeat the Jews,[101] he argues that the Yishuv was indeed threatened with extinction and feared what would happen if the Arabs won.
We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.
Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.
They’ll never live in one state, as they each have reasonable doubt about the respective other side - hence everyone still advocating the idea of one side surpassing the other and taking over the other part is only ensuring that this conflict will never end. This includes Israelis that want to destroy Palestine - this includes Palestinians that want to destroy Israel - and those on the outside advocating either of it.
We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.
I mean I quoted a fact; you quoted an opinion. Notice that as an avowed Zionist and Nakba apologist Benny Morris isn’t an unbiased actor here, so while his statements of fact do mean something as a historian his opinions mean jack shit.
Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.
Who said anything about either of that? In the event of a one-state solution, military apparatuses on both sides should be dismantled, in the same way militias stopped operating in post-Troubles Ireland.
As far as I can tell, we both stated something Morris said. I wouldn’t consider one thing a fact and the other a biased view, no matter which one. I wouldn’t consider both things “a fact” per se. But as I said, we can exchange those snippets all day long and won’t get anywhere, so I don’t see a point.
Who said anything about either of that?
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
I don’t think Hamas has been pitching itself as the future rulers of Palestine (they’re not anywhere near that delusional), but either way there’s no reason for us to accept either of those. If the international community gives Israel an ultimatum saying “equal rights for Palestinians now or no weapons” the whole problem will fix itself in a few election cycles as Israel is forced to accept and Palestinians are in no position to refuse the prospect of not being genocided.
The same author (Morris) also said this:
We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.
Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.
They’ll never live in one state, as they each have reasonable doubt about the respective other side - hence everyone still advocating the idea of one side surpassing the other and taking over the other part is only ensuring that this conflict will never end. This includes Israelis that want to destroy Palestine - this includes Palestinians that want to destroy Israel - and those on the outside advocating either of it.
I mean I quoted a fact; you quoted an opinion. Notice that as an avowed Zionist and Nakba apologist Benny Morris isn’t an unbiased actor here, so while his statements of fact do mean something as a historian his opinions mean jack shit.
Who said anything about either of that? In the event of a one-state solution, military apparatuses on both sides should be dismantled, in the same way militias stopped operating in post-Troubles Ireland.
As far as I can tell, we both stated something Morris said. I wouldn’t consider one thing a fact and the other a biased view, no matter which one. I wouldn’t consider both things “a fact” per se. But as I said, we can exchange those snippets all day long and won’t get anywhere, so I don’t see a point.
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
I don’t think Hamas has been pitching itself as the future rulers of Palestine (they’re not anywhere near that delusional), but either way there’s no reason for us to accept either of those. If the international community gives Israel an ultimatum saying “equal rights for Palestinians now or no weapons” the whole problem will fix itself in a few election cycles as Israel is forced to accept and Palestinians are in no position to refuse the prospect of not being genocided.