I'm in favor of Story #3.

Primary effect: Jews and Arabs immigrate at different rates.

Secondary effect: Enmity arises between the two groups, helped by the politics of the day.

Tertiary effect: One side eventually outweighs the other leading to resentment, desperation, and violence.

It's a story that's played out many different times in many different places.

From: mikedilger at 10/13 15:31

> Can we then pull up out of the weeds? Forget the details and the long screeds. I see two fundamentally different overarching narratives:

>

> Story #1:

> Primary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

> Secondary effect: Arab violence in retaliation

> Tertiary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

>

> Story #2

> Primary effect: Arabs eternally hate Jews and will be violent when they can

> Secondary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

> Tertiary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

>

> The first story is more believable to me. Every part of it is emminantly believable. We know if you get your land stolen you will get very very angry and that can lead to violence. We all agree (both stories) that violence of Arabs puts a security risk on the Jews. Nothing is out of place in this story.

>

> But the second story seems crafted in order to justify land stealing. In order to pull this off, they have to invoke this concept that the eternal hatred of Arabs towards Jews is primary. The reason that is less believable is because (1) Arabs and Jews got along together before WWI, and (2) Palestinians live in peace with Jews inside of Israel right now.

>

> Anyhow I really want to shut up now, I'm tired of this topic, but I wanted to share my high-level comparison before I quit.

CC: #[7]

CC: #[8]