All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.
It's a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.
You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).
Joke pivots on the interpretation of the word 'address'. In this context it would mean 'how do you handle this problem'.
However, it can also mean 'what is the proper way to refer to something (Ms, Mrs, Your Majesty, etc).
The joke is instead of addressing meaning handle the dangerous situation it means what is the proper way to refer to the elephant.
The vast majority of Israeli's were born there at this point.
It's not a stolen home to them. It's the only home they've ever known.
What question do you want answered? Most of what you stated seemed to be rhetorical.
Why is this "Where do they go? 😞 " question relevant only now and only one way?
Because someone specifically told me that every Israeli should just leave Israel?
Are you not following the converstation here?
That's what makes the whole thing complicated, isn't it?
Israel shouldn't have existed to begin with and when it did, it shouldn't have acted the way it has since its inception.
Yes, Israel is to blame for Hamas having power in Gaza today as well.
I'm not arguing that Israel isn't a bad guy here.
What I'm arguing is I don't see an alternative that doesn't just kick the can down the road.
considering a lot of them have second citizenships elsewhere...how about those places?
That only accounts for maybe 20-30% of the population these days. Most Israelis alive today were born in the country, not immigrants.
So again, where do they go?
And go where?
Good. Embrace me technology.
Hasn't happened to me yet, but I know it will.
Sucks; but to be honest most of the YouTube things I watch have been moving off YouTube for awhile anyway.
First Reddit, now YouTube. This year is a year of change for my Internet habits.
Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.
If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.
There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.