|
On July 31 2014 02:30 BlueSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Declare a temporary ceasefire and withdraw temporarily from Gaza. Return to the table and start a dialog with Abbas trying to somehow include Hamas. Stop ridiculing and sidelining Kerry. We can start from there.
They tried to cease fire, but Hamas refused because Israel wanted to continue destroying the tunnel network into Israel. The West Bank asked for a cease fire and Hamas refused to stop, formally rejecting the cease fire. At this point I only think Hamas will accept a cease fire if Israel pulls back, but leaves all the tunnel networks intact, which Israel isn't going to go for.
And due to that, we have no cease fire.
|
On July 31 2014 02:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:30 BlueSpace wrote:On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Declare a temporary ceasefire and withdraw temporarily from Gaza. Return to the table and start a dialog with Abbas trying to somehow include Hamas. Stop ridiculing and sidelining Kerry. We can start from there. They tried to cease fire, but Hamas refused because Israel wanted to continue destroying the tunnel network into Israel. The West Bank asked for a cease fire and Hamas refused to stop, formally rejecting the cease fire. At this point I only think Hamas will accept a cease fire if Israel pulls back, but leaves all the tunnel networks intact, which Israel isn't going to go for. And due to that, we have no cease fire.
Do you have a source for this being the reason Hamas refused the ceasefire?
|
On July 31 2014 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 31 2014 02:30 BlueSpace wrote:On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Declare a temporary ceasefire and withdraw temporarily from Gaza. Return to the table and start a dialog with Abbas trying to somehow include Hamas. Stop ridiculing and sidelining Kerry. We can start from there. They tried to cease fire, but Hamas refused because Israel wanted to continue destroying the tunnel network into Israel. The West Bank asked for a cease fire and Hamas refused to stop, formally rejecting the cease fire. At this point I only think Hamas will accept a cease fire if Israel pulls back, but leaves all the tunnel networks intact, which Israel isn't going to go for. And due to that, we have no cease fire. Do you have a source for this being the reason Hamas refused the ceasefire?
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/29/gaza-israel-airstrikes.html
It seems like Hamas will only agree to the ceasefire if Israel completely stops blockading Gaza.
Needless to say I think they're asking something of Israel that they can't agree to at this point, and I'm pretty sure Hamas is well aware of that.
|
On July 31 2014 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 31 2014 02:30 BlueSpace wrote:On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Declare a temporary ceasefire and withdraw temporarily from Gaza. Return to the table and start a dialog with Abbas trying to somehow include Hamas. Stop ridiculing and sidelining Kerry. We can start from there. They tried to cease fire, but Hamas refused because Israel wanted to continue destroying the tunnel network into Israel. The West Bank asked for a cease fire and Hamas refused to stop, formally rejecting the cease fire. At this point I only think Hamas will accept a cease fire if Israel pulls back, but leaves all the tunnel networks intact, which Israel isn't going to go for. And due to that, we have no cease fire. Do you have a source for this being the reason Hamas refused the ceasefire?
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/07/29/mideast-crisis.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/29/world/meast/mideast-crisis/
I think the BBC reported it too, but I can't find the link. I don't think anyone can stop them from firing those rockets at this point.
|
On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred.
Stop filling up their parliament with warmongers and religious fundamentalists, withdraw from every occupied territory, mark up the borders of livable and sovereign Palestinian state that's not divided into chunks (and not in the middle of the desert while we keep the green parts a'la 1947), make a gesture to every neighbour they've been at war in the past plus Iran, allow the Palestinians right to return or pay tons of compensation.
If they still faced Hamas like opponents en masse THEN they'd have the moral high ground for doing whatever they decide to do. Their army would most certainly be able to defend them anyway..
|
On July 31 2014 02:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 31 2014 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 31 2014 02:30 BlueSpace wrote:On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Declare a temporary ceasefire and withdraw temporarily from Gaza. Return to the table and start a dialog with Abbas trying to somehow include Hamas. Stop ridiculing and sidelining Kerry. We can start from there. They tried to cease fire, but Hamas refused because Israel wanted to continue destroying the tunnel network into Israel. The West Bank asked for a cease fire and Hamas refused to stop, formally rejecting the cease fire. At this point I only think Hamas will accept a cease fire if Israel pulls back, but leaves all the tunnel networks intact, which Israel isn't going to go for. And due to that, we have no cease fire. Do you have a source for this being the reason Hamas refused the ceasefire? http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/07/29/mideast-crisis.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2014/07/29/world/meast/mideast-crisis/I think the BBC reported it too, but I can't find the link. I don't think anyone can stop them from firing those rockets at this point.
Hamas wants Israel to lift a blockade it began on Gaza in 2007, a move Israel has said was necessary to stop Hamas and other allied militant group from bringing weapons into Gaza. But Israel has been under fire for sealing the borders, with aid groups saying the blockade has cut off basic supplies and created a humanitarian crisis.
You characterized this slightly differently. Its not entirely about tunnels, but the implications of a blockade for Palestinian people.
|
On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred.
Open the borders, allow Palestinians (and arabs in general) proportionate representation in the knesset. Remove the travel restrictions, outlaw the apartheid practices of community settlements. Basically removing all of Israel's Jim crow laws. This is of course operating under the rather reasonable assumption that Israel is unwilling to remove illegal settlements in the west bank or give up any land whatsoever. A fairly reasonable assumption if you look at Israel's actions since before it was founded until the present day.
|
|
|
On July 31 2014 02:49 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Open the borders, allow Palestinians (and arabs in general) proportionate representation in the knesset. Remove the travel restrictions, outlaw the apartheid practices of community settlements. Basically removing all of Israel's Jim crow laws. This is of course operating under the rather reasonable assumption that Israel is unwilling to remove illegal settlements in the west bank or give up any land whatsoever. A fairly reasonable assumption if you look at Israel's actions since before it was founded until the present day.
Problem is almost every politician preaches how Israel must stay a "Jewish democracy" - a phrase not so often repeated and frowned upon as the Islamic republic - if they really want to keep it that way then a one state solution cannot work.
|
|
|
On July 31 2014 02:49 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Open the borders, allow Palestinians (and arabs in general) proportionate representation in the knesset. Remove the travel restrictions, outlaw the apartheid practices of community settlements. Basically removing all of Israel's Jim crow laws. This is of course operating under the rather reasonable assumption that Israel is unwilling to remove illegal settlements in the west bank or give up any land whatsoever. A fairly reasonable assumption if you look at Israel's actions since before it was founded until the present day.
Actually 10% of Knesset seats are held by Arabic Israelis, with 20% of the population being Arabic. I haven't checked the numbers but I guess that's better than Turkish representation in the Bundestag or representation of African-Americans in the Congress.
|
On July 31 2014 02:47 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:40 Plansix wrote:On July 31 2014 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 31 2014 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 31 2014 02:30 BlueSpace wrote:On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Declare a temporary ceasefire and withdraw temporarily from Gaza. Return to the table and start a dialog with Abbas trying to somehow include Hamas. Stop ridiculing and sidelining Kerry. We can start from there. They tried to cease fire, but Hamas refused because Israel wanted to continue destroying the tunnel network into Israel. The West Bank asked for a cease fire and Hamas refused to stop, formally rejecting the cease fire. At this point I only think Hamas will accept a cease fire if Israel pulls back, but leaves all the tunnel networks intact, which Israel isn't going to go for. And due to that, we have no cease fire. Do you have a source for this being the reason Hamas refused the ceasefire? http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/07/29/mideast-crisis.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2014/07/29/world/meast/mideast-crisis/I think the BBC reported it too, but I can't find the link. I don't think anyone can stop them from firing those rockets at this point. Show nested quote +Hamas wants Israel to lift a blockade it began on Gaza in 2007, a move Israel has said was necessary to stop Hamas and other allied militant group from bringing weapons into Gaza. But Israel has been under fire for sealing the borders, with aid groups saying the blockade has cut off basic supplies and created a humanitarian crisis. You characterized this slightly differently. Its not entirely about tunnels, but the implications of a blockade for Palestinian people.
Its a request that is never going to happen. There are valid grievances with the blockade, but launching rockets into Israel is not going to make Israel more inclined to lift it. It is going to have the exact opposite effect.
It is literally the dumbest plan I have heard of in a while. The blockade is in place because Israel is afraid that Hamas would use open bordered to arm themselves and attack Israel. To get the blockade lifted, Hamas as decided to attack Israel.
|
On July 31 2014 02:35 Nyxisto wrote:
@ Jormundr:
No, that's not what I argue. Yes, if you're defending your country (what in my opinion Israel is doing) then military operations are a legitimate last resort. I think Israel wants to live in peace with the Palestinians,they simply have no ideological or practical reason not to. There is nothing to gain for them in this war. If they'd simply want to annex all the territory they could have done so 20 years ago and no one would have stopped them.
The Hamas on the other hand is not fighting for freedom. They're fighting to fight, they thrive on the war as does every other jihadist group. The concessions Israel has made have only been answered with more violence by the Hamas. If the Palestinians truly wanted peace as a people they should start by getting rid of the terrorist part of their government. If the Palestinians are unable to do this (which I think they are) then Israel should break the Hamas up.
And to answer your question: I'd obviously prefer to live in Israel, but I don't know what that has to do with anything.
Ideological - they don't like muslims. This is not an argument, this is a fact. I grew up in the rural south, and I've met fairly influential figures in the KKK. The casual racism I saw in Israel (both societal and institutionalized) in comparison to what I grew up with makes the KKK look like the NAACP. As for practical reasons:
1. Economics. See east and west germany, north and south korea. Re-unification of largely isolated states in different stages of economic development is generally pretty painful.
2. There will be blood. The type of generational hatred fostered on both sides would result in terrorism from both sides for a long time.
|
On July 31 2014 01:02 Nyxisto wrote:
No single country would sit together at the negotiation table with a group that has declared the jihad on you. The US started a war at the other end of the world to fight people not unlike the Hamas, and they had way fewer reasons than Israel to do so. What people are asking of Israel is completely unrealistic. The "you don't negotiate with terrorists" guideline is pretty much an established standard for basically any civil country. Why do people hold Israel to such different standards?
Even the USA negotiates with the taliban... so what you are saying doesn't make any sense. You can only achieve peace trough negotiation with all parts involved in this conflict.
|
On July 31 2014 02:49 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Open the borders, allow Palestinians (and arabs in general) proportionate representation in the knesset. Remove the travel restrictions, outlaw the apartheid practices of community settlements. Basically removing all of Israel's Jim crow laws. This is of course operating under the rather reasonable assumption that Israel is unwilling to remove illegal settlements in the west bank or give up any land whatsoever. A fairly reasonable assumption if you look at Israel's actions since before it was founded until the present day.
I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't do these things, but what will be the result? Palestinians will simply take advantage of the situation and conduct more terrorist operations in Israel. They aren't going to let their grievances go, so we'll be back to square one.
|
On July 31 2014 03:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:49 Jormundr wrote:On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Open the borders, allow Palestinians (and arabs in general) proportionate representation in the knesset. Remove the travel restrictions, outlaw the apartheid practices of community settlements. Basically removing all of Israel's Jim crow laws. This is of course operating under the rather reasonable assumption that Israel is unwilling to remove illegal settlements in the west bank or give up any land whatsoever. A fairly reasonable assumption if you look at Israel's actions since before it was founded until the present day. I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't do these things, but what will be the result? Palestinians will simply take advantage of the situation and conduct more terrorist operations in Israel. They aren't going to let their grievances go, so we'll be back to square one.
Plus if they give "all the land back" that conversation ends with them living in the ocean. That is not a very large country. The rest of the stuff makes sense, but the rockets need to stop flying before anyone will talk about that.
|
On July 31 2014 03:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:49 Jormundr wrote:On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Open the borders, allow Palestinians (and arabs in general) proportionate representation in the knesset. Remove the travel restrictions, outlaw the apartheid practices of community settlements. Basically removing all of Israel's Jim crow laws. This is of course operating under the rather reasonable assumption that Israel is unwilling to remove illegal settlements in the west bank or give up any land whatsoever. A fairly reasonable assumption if you look at Israel's actions since before it was founded until the present day. I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't do these things, but what will be the result? Palestinians will simply take advantage of the situation and conduct more terrorist operations in Israel. They aren't going to let their grievances go, so we'll be back to square one.
Yes, but the mentality that "they won't change even if we do XYZ" simply promotes perpetual violence.
|
On July 31 2014 03:04 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 01:02 Nyxisto wrote:
No single country would sit together at the negotiation table with a group that has declared the jihad on you. The US started a war at the other end of the world to fight people not unlike the Hamas, and they had way fewer reasons than Israel to do so. What people are asking of Israel is completely unrealistic. The "you don't negotiate with terrorists" guideline is pretty much an established standard for basically any civil country. Why do people hold Israel to such different standards? Even the USA negotiates with the taliban... so what you are saying doesn't make any sense. You can only achieve peace trough negotiation with all parts involved in this conflict.
Over the last 10 years The United States have conducted a full-fledged war against the Taliban and many missions and drone attacks with the goal to dismantle them completely, with civil casualties reaching into the hundred thousands(Iraq+Afghanistan). In contrary to the Iraq war the Afghan war has never seen a lot of criticism and neither have people complained very loudly about the asymmetrical nature of the wars. I think that raises the question where the differences are that makes what Israel does so much more condemnable.
|
On July 31 2014 03:13 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2014 02:49 Jormundr wrote:On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Open the borders, allow Palestinians (and arabs in general) proportionate representation in the knesset. Remove the travel restrictions, outlaw the apartheid practices of community settlements. Basically removing all of Israel's Jim crow laws. This is of course operating under the rather reasonable assumption that Israel is unwilling to remove illegal settlements in the west bank or give up any land whatsoever. A fairly reasonable assumption if you look at Israel's actions since before it was founded until the present day. I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't do these things, but what will be the result? Palestinians will simply take advantage of the situation and conduct more terrorist operations in Israel. They aren't going to let their grievances go, so we'll be back to square one. Yes, but the mentality that "they won't change even if we do XYZ" simply promotes perpetual violence.
No, you have it wrong. I'm saying that the only way to end the violence is for one side to conquer and fully subjugate the other. I haven't seen anything resembling a plausible alternative that would end the violence.
EDIT: In other words, "peaceful co-existence" is not an option.
|
On July 31 2014 02:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 02:49 Jormundr wrote:On July 31 2014 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
For all of the Palestinian apologists around here, I'd love to hear your proposal for what Israel should be doing given the circumstances. The last time that I posed this question, I didn't get anything resembling a satisfying answer.
And just to help jump start the conversation, let me make the point that I made the last time this came up: even if Israel decided to be "nice" to Palestinians going forward, what are the chances that Palestinians reciprocate in kind? Zilch. There's too much bad blood on both sides. Total subjugation of one side by the other is the only realistic outcome, which makes sense if you think about this in the context of the past five thousand years of human history as opposed to just the past one hundred. Open the borders, allow Palestinians (and arabs in general) proportionate representation in the knesset. Remove the travel restrictions, outlaw the apartheid practices of community settlements. Basically removing all of Israel's Jim crow laws. This is of course operating under the rather reasonable assumption that Israel is unwilling to remove illegal settlements in the west bank or give up any land whatsoever. A fairly reasonable assumption if you look at Israel's actions since before it was founded until the present day. Actually 10% of Knesset seats are held by Arabic Israelis, with 20% of the population being Arabic. I haven't checked the numbers but I guess that's better than Turkish representation in the Bundestag or representation of African-Americans in the Congress.
You would have to compare to non-whites in america, as that would be much closer to the current situation.
as to the arabic representation within the knesset:
If you allowed everyone within israel's declared borders to vote the arab vote would look like:
1.658 million in israel + 2.676 m in west bank + 1.816 m in gaza = 6.15 million
divided by
8.134 million (israel) + 4.492 in gaza/wbank = 12.626 million total population
6.15 million out of 12.626 million = 48.7%
All numbers taken from the respective wikipedia articles. Note that this would mean that there would be an equal number of ethnically jewish and ethnically arab people. 6.13 million jewish to 6.15 million arab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
