First of all, since we're going to get technical and criticize someone's use of the word "too," let me be the first to point out that in every post you've conflated hundreds of Native American tribes into a singular entity that deserves a separate country (yes in singular terms) when Native Americans represent a wide range of cultures with different histories and even different demands on what they want in terms of autonomy and self-determination. You can even extend that further and say that you're essentialism of an entire group of cultures is worse because you used them to make a slippery point about Israel and Palestine. As to Israel's existence, I haven't logged in here in months so apparently you've been talking a lot about Israel. Well, what exactly is your issue with Israel and its existence? Seriously, dont be coy and hide behind another topic. If you want to discuss Israel, just say it. Or just come out and say most of you would probably agree that Native Americans deserve some self-determination, why shouldnt the palestinians get that?
Ottomaton and geemisbored, Can you both get a grip please? I've stated what I want already. I don't need to come here and announce to you what I think about the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is a place for discussion, and I obviously have my own opinions. However, the central topic has been beaten to death. As I have mentioned, I am trying to draw comparisons between two situations. YES, I'm trying to find out ,with this fairly similar example, if given the same circumstances you would give up part of your country willingly. If I want to discuss Israel, I'll say it. I won't be coy for you two lol. There are people on this board who can genuinely debate a topic. You two, on the other hand, appear to be the type of people who are so chained to their opinions that they assume everyone else is just like them. God forbid I try to explore the topic from different angles. I apologize if I've offended you with my original post. But, as you know, you're free to NOT reply to threads and, at the same time, show your dissatisfaction with it. But in this case, I think you've overreacted a bit. If there's a consensus that I shouldn't expose my opinion, as I've done in this thread, then I'll gladly delete it. But it seems there are people who want to discuss the topic and I'm sure they are just as witty as you are when it comes to searching my posting history. P.S. Obviously, I don' mean to offend Native Americans in any way. If I have, it's not because I'm rude or don't value the uniqueness of their people, but because I simply don't know much more about them than I've picked up here and there. I try to be as PC as possible.
I got confused when I learned this was a pro-Palestinian argument. I'm sympathetic to a sovereign or autonomous Palestine. But, giving a similar status to an American Indian group sounds like a terrible idea. They don't have a singular, cohesive identity; many are now well-assimulated into American culture (with language, religion, and practice); their numbers are tiny compared to the size of the US; they are citizens who can reap benefits from a large and powerful country (benefits they would not get as a sovereign nation). The Palestinians, on the other hand, have a more cohesive identity, are not assimulated into Israeli culture, speak a different language and practice a different religion from the Israelis, are numerically very significant (and gaining), and are denied citizenship by Israel. It would seem to me that to liken the Palestinian plight to that of modern Native Americans is to significantly weaken the argument for a Palestinian state.
