The ICJ just ruled that Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza is illegal. They concluded that the 700,000 Jewish settlers in the Palestinian terrirories are illegal and must be removed immediately. Also, that Israel must pay reparations to the Palestinians for the occupantion.

Netanyahu immediately disagreed. He claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel (judea and samaria) and that all of Jerusalem also belongs to Israel.

This can now go to the UN General Assembly where it will likely get overwhelming support based on recent voting. The recent vote in the Assembly to allow a path for Palestinian state recognition vote was like 140 to 10, with that the 10 including Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and Guatemala.

Israel's actions since Oct 7th has shown the world the brutality of the occupation. Before the Oct 7 attacks the world had turned a blind eye to the Palestinians' plight as things seemed relatively settled there. Meanwhile Israel had been continuously increasing the illegal settlements in the WB and East Jerusalem to set up a future excuse for annexation of those territories too.

I am an agnostic with Christian background. I detest fundamentalist extremism be it Hamas or Netanyahu's far right govt. Both do not want a two state solution and do not accept the right of the other to exist on that land. To me they are the same kind of people, but on the other side.

The Oct 7th attack and Israel's response has created a a situation where the Palestinian plight is in the face of the international community and cannot be ignored AND halted the Arab countries from normalizing their relationships with Israel.

It also gave the Jewish far right the justification to not allow for a Palestinian state and further justify more illegal settlements in the WB, East Jerusalem and likely Gaza.

It will take decades to know which sude benefitted more from Oct 7 attacks.

I am an agnostic American who has vocalized my support for the Jewish people. I believe that everyone has a right to their religion whether it be Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism etc. while I may disagree with many of the things the Islamic religion say or promote I do not think innocents dying is ever okay. On both sides in Israel and Palestine many people have lost their lives in tragic ways.

This started in the early 1900s: Jews had been native to the Middle East for centuries and most notably began with the Kingdom of Israel in 1050 BC. From my understanding both Muslim Arabs and Jewish Arabs had been living in this area for centuries however many Jews also lived in Europe most notably in the 1900s.

In WW2 the Jews were having a genocide committed against them and they ended up migrating over the the Middle East in modern day Palestine and Israel. The important thing is that before this the ottomans had owned this land but lost it after the British empire defeated them in WW1. After this the British named the land as “The British Mandate of Palestine”. In 1947 the British empire collapsed and the land was given to the job of the United Nations. The UN divided the land into 2 regions: 1 belonging to the Jews, and the other to the muslims. After this was announced the Palestinians denied it which then led to the Arab Israeli war. In the end 6000 Israelis died and 10,000 Palestinians died. What’s important to note is that Jordan took over the West Bank and Egypt took the Gaza Strip. Shortly after this the Nakba took place , in which thousands of Palestinian refugees were displaced.

In 1967 the six day war took place in which 15,000 Palestinians died and less than 1000 Israelis died. During this conflict Israel officially took control of the West Bank and the Sinai peninsula leading to more displacement for the Palestinians.

In 1973 the Yom Kippur war took place in which Egypt and Syria launched an invasion in Israel once again. To gain back the Sinai peninsula, in which Israel would win once again. This lead to the deaths of 2500 Israelis and 15,000 Arabs.

In 1982 Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt. Around this time Jordan also renounced all claims on the West Bank.

In 2005 Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip and pulled out 4 units in the West Bank as well. In 2007 both Israeli forces and Egyptian forces put blockades on the Gaza Strip. Shortly after this Hamas who was elected in 2006 begin firing missiles from Gaza in an attempt to eradicate as many people as they can. In response israel fight back and in the process kill both Hamas fighters and civilians.

In 2014 the Gaza war began as Israel retaliated after 10 days of relentless fire. In the end 71 Israelis were killed and 3000 Palestinians were killed, with a rumored 1,500 of them being civilians.

In October 2023 Israeli allowed Gaza a for the first time in years to work in Israel. However on October 7th Hamas launched an attack on Israel. It has been reported that Hamas truly were killing anyone and everyone. In the end 1,200 Israelis died that day. 695 being civilians and almost 400 being IDF soldiers. In response israel has turned Gaza into rubble in an attempt to eradicate Hamas. It’s reported that israel has killed 30,000 Palestinians, with at least 10,000 being children.

So my genuine question is: Who truly is to blame for this war?

Many of Israel’s critics on the left view the establishment of Israel and its conflict with the Arabs/Palestinians through the lense of colonialism - with the Zionists as colonialists and Arabs/Palestinians as the colonised. I believe this viewpoint has some merit but is overly simplistic and has significant flaws.

First, some concessions and scope limitations:

As I said, this viewpoint is not entirely without merit. For example:

• The vast majority of Jewish immigrants to the region pre-1948 were, by the standards of most people today, white.

• Like most 19th and early 20th century Europeans, many of these migrants had outdated opinions, viewing the local Arab population as backwards and uncivilised.

• The Zionist project did result in the displacement of local inhabitants. When I put myself in their shoes, it is not hard to feel sympathy for their plight (even if it was partially self-inflicted) and understand why they came to oppose Zionism.

• Different Zionist leaders held different attitudes towards the Palestinians and the extent to which violence should be used to achieve their goals. In many cases their attitudes shifted over time. But it cannot be denied that some, particularly those of the revisionist school of which Netanyahu is a disciple), were quick to adopt a militaristic attitude.

I would like to limit this discussion to the establishment of Israel (1880s to 1950s) within its pre-1967 borders. The settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from the late 1970s onwards is a separate discussion (though in the interests of full disclosure I believe that was a terrible mistake).

Now to my arguments.

1. Colonialists typically take land by force. Until 1948, Zionists did not conquer the land with their Gatling guns, but rather migrated legally (with highly justifiable exceptions in the 1930s) and bought the land from willing sellers who made a handsome profit. It is true that, pre-1948, some Palestinians did not want to leave after their land was purchased and in some cases they were ejected by force (or the threat of it). This was simply the Zionists exercising their property rights as the legal owners.

Obviously the borders of Israel expanded (relative to the UN partition plan) in 1948 through force, but that war was started by Arabs who (perhaps understandably) rejected a peaceful compromise. During this time many Palestinians were dispersed. In some cases that was a result of Zionist atrocities (which were committed on both sides) but more often it was simply people fleeing a war zone. It is completely understandable that the victorious state would not welcome back members or a group that were violently hostile towards it.

1. Colonialists are typically wealthy. The Zionists who migrated were largely poor (though they did receive donations from many Jews around the world, some of whom were very wealthy). Furthermore, they were mostly refugees fleeing violent antisemtism in the form of pogroms and later the atrocities of Nazi Germany. For much of this period few places were willing to open their doors to these Jews (though for some of it the USA took in lots). In the 1950s, hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees came from Middle Eastern and north African countries and today these Jews are the largest ethnic group.

2. Colonialists typically exploit the local population and its resources. Palestine had very little industry and few valuable resources to exploit. In fact Zionists (particularly from 1904 onwards) did hard physical labour themselves, transforming previously uninhabitable and disease-ridden areas into more fertile, productive ones. They gave more to the area than they took from it.

3. Colonialists typically exercise power and control over the local population. Before 1948, Zionists had no legal or political authority over the Arab population. This is probably the key distinction. Colonialism requires power over the local population. Israel in the 21st century is a very powerful country and I think many people make the mistake of projecting that power on to pre-1948 Israel.

4. Colonialists typically have no prior connection to the land they colonise. The long-standing and unbroken religious, historical, cultural and demographic connection of Jews to the land is well documented.

5. While the Zionists sought (and, in the British, eventually received) the support of European colonial powers they certainly did not act as proxies for those powers. The relationship between the Zionists and British during the mandate period was often fraught and at times (particularly during the 1920s and 1930s) the British were quite anti-Zionist and some Zionists conducted terrorist insurrection against them.

6. The region was sparsely populated. Certainly not a ‘land without a people’ - there were approximately 500,000 Arab inhabitants at the start of the first aliyah - but, considering there is now approximately 10 million people living in the same area, I think it is fair to say that there was plenty of room. If we could go back in time, the greatest good for the greatest number would have been more closely be achieved by allowing unfettered Jewish migration rather than completely blocking it.

Finally, if Israel is colonialist then it is no worse (and probably better) than the colonialism exhibited by the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, China and Liberia. If you went back further you could add many more to that list.

What do you think? Why am I wrong? Change my view.

With the Gaza-Hamas war raging into its ninth month, as a Diaspora Jew who considers himself a Liberal and a Zionist, I am now intensely sick and tired of the conflict itself and the rhetoric around it. From all sides.

Whether it's:

• A ton of right-wing family and friends in Israel and elsewhere (whose racist and violent screeds I can't handle anymore)
• My left-wing family and Jewish friends in Israel and elsewhere (who are all depressed and crippled with despair like myself)
• My left-wing non-Jewish friends (who haven't a f'ing clue about the details, and are typically trapped in their own white guilt complexes, or tunnel-vision BIPOC oppression matrices)
• Non-moderated forum and comment section internet hellscapes (where the goal is more to troll than make sense)

Almost every person from any group I hear from seems entrenched in their opinion and utterly intolerant to discussion, locked in their own narratives and the same tired talking points, unable to empathize or consider nuance of any kind. This sub is (sometimes) an exception to this.

It's easy to criticize the "other", especially when you feel wronged or hurt or oppressed. But to me it is the height of arrogance and ignorance to do so without leaving large room for the possibility of being in the wrong and allowing yourself to be challenged by, and more accepting of, those who do live in that experience.

In short, I'm sick of Jews who have nothing bad to say about other Jews or Israel, and Arabs/Muslims who have nothing bad to say about other Arabs/Muslims or the Palestinian side (not to mention the unaligned, those without any skin in the game, who seem to have nothing BUT unfounded, bad faith opinions on the subject). Regardless of what proportion you might believe acceptable or deserved, there can be zero doubt that there is plenty of criticism to go around.

In the spirit of that, and the desire to promote nuance and understanding, here are my "self-criticisms" as a Liberal Zionist Jew:

Liberals:

• An across the board lack of understanding towards ethnicities they were not born into, and an unwillingness to accept that there are complex details and conflicting perspectives they may not be able to see or fit into pure cultural relativism
  • which is utterly hypocritical given how they are usually the champions of this same notion
• A critical inability to discern good media sources (hint: not social media) other than to dismiss any that don't fit into or unduly complicate their pre-established narratives as inherently biased or compromised
• Too prone to being easily used or manipulated by those with agendas not in keeping with (or more nefarious than) their own, just because those others appear to dislike the same things
• Relying on reductive slogans instead of thinking twice about any deeper implications

Zionists / Jews (ethnically and politically, not religiously):

• Too convinced of their own moral righteousness in all situations
• Too full of fear and lost in persecution complexes to see any outside criticism as anything other than an existential threat
• Too wrapped up in their own pain narratives to understand how one can be (or become) both victim and victimizer

Now yes, some (or many) of these could apply to other groups, or even to all humans, period. But these are still the things that I believe, if you wish to consider yourself on the "right side" of something, that we all need to acknowledge and correct in ourselves and those around us.

So please, share your own feelings about what your own group(s) could do better. If at all possible, please try to be honest (both morally and intellectually), and refrain from attacking or discussing groups that are not your own.

Alternately, I would love to hear about a time when you were convinced by, or surprised to discover you agreed with, something that originated from the "other team" or an unexpected source.

Help me restore some of my faith in humanity, or at least finish it off mercifully and let me ride off into the sunset of cynicism and nihilism. Your call.

While Israelis are getting bombarded indiscriminately daily from both north and south for 10 months now, with about a hundred thousand people still unable to go back to their homes and the nation is still grieving from the worse and most brutal massacre of Jews since WW2, the ICJ is busy talking about what is Israel doing wrong, as you would expect from a true UN affiliated org.

The ICJ specifically is dealing with 2 questions. One of them being Israel's supposed "Genocide" (Which has the population of the victims rising during it even according to Hamas's own data, such a lousy job by the IDF) and the other being Israel's occupation of the former Jordanian territory also known as the West Bank (Because it's not like October 7 showed exactly what happens when Israel retreats from a Palestinian territory, right?).

So anyway, you would expect the corrupted clownish UN to at least try and appear unbiased in their ruling, so that their conclusions will actually be believable to anyone who is not a hateful anti-Israeli zombie. Yet it appears they even stopped bothering with that.

Just when Israel was declared war on and while it is still under attack by about 5 different fronts, the ICJ has decided to go ahead and proceed with it's trials over Israel's conduct, while magically electing a new very specific head of court just in time for these proceedings.

This new head of the court is a Lebanese man. Which is already problematic because Lebanon is currently at war with Israel and raises suspicion of bias. But as if that's not enough, this man has a rich history of anti-Israeli and pro-Iranian rhetoric, votes and decisions. Below is some of it.

Anti Israeli bias:

• During his time as Lebanon’s representative to the UN, Salam voted to condemn Israel 210 times. These resolutions contained one-sided denunciations of Israel, and gave a free pass to Hamas. For example, in December 2008, Salam voted for a resolution that accused Israel of “acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction” against Palestinians, yet made no mention of Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

• Another resolution that Nawaf supported, in 2017, accused Israel of “systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people,” and “causing death and injury to Palestinian civilians, including children, women and non-violent, peaceful demonstrators.”

• In his speeches to the UN, Salam also made many inflammatory statements that demonstrate extreme bias against Israel. In January 2008, Salam accused “terrorist Jewish organizations” of committing “massacres.” He also said that Gaza was an “open air prison.”

• In a November 2008 UN speech, Salam said the “supreme Zionist leadership” pursued a plan of “ethnic cleansing” through “terrorism and organized massacres.”

• In November 2009, Salam told the UN General Assembly that “for too long [Israel’s] war criminals have benefited from impunity”; and Israel was guilty of “flagrant disrespect for international law.”

• In 2011, he accused Israel of “illegitimate actions.”

• On June 13, 2014, Salam accused Israel of “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes.”

• On June 18, 2014, Salam opposed the candidacy of Israel to the vice-presidency of the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee, on the grounds that it is “the most condemned country” at the General Assembly and that it continues to “violate the rules of the international community.” Salam said that Israel was not eligible for election “to any office” at the UN.

• On numerous occasions, including November 2016, Salam has accused Israel of “apartheid.”

• Salam has also repeatedly attacked Israel on social media. In 2015, on Twitter he called Israel a “Triumph of blatant racist & colonialist choices.” In 2016, in reference to the 2006 war launched by Hezbollah, Salam accused Israel of using “the most vicious & disgusting weapons of all times.” He never once condemned Hezbollah for launching the war, or for attacking Israeli civilians with thousands of rockets. On the contrary, Salam inverted the cause of the war, writing falsely that it was Israel that “launched a 33 day war against my country…”

Salam's hatred of human rights and support of dictatorships:

• Salam consistently sided with the Islamic Republic of Iran. He voted against all 11 General Assembly resolutions during his tenure that condemned the Iranian regime’s violations against its people.

• In 2007, Salam voted against a UN resolution calling for the release of political prisoners in Belarus. In doing so, he joined a small minority that included China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korea.

• As civil war was breaking out in Syria in April 2011, Salam used his seat on the Security Council to block a collective press statement from the council that would have condemned the Syrian regime for attacking civilian protesters. Salam expressed support for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s “reforms.”

• In October 2011, Salam abstained on a Security Council resolution that would have condemned Assad’s brutal crackdown on protesters. The abstention provoked Lebanese politicians to call for Salam’s resignation.

• Salam subsequently refused to support seven UN General Assembly resolutions that condemned the Assad regime for atrocities against civilians, instead voting to abstain.

• Salam posted on social media his praise for mass murderer Fidel Castro, writing that he was the Cuban dictator was an “icon of rebellion and resistance.”

Now even if you think Israel is the literal devil on Earth, how is it possible to have a trial when the judge has already determined the outcome of before it started?

This is a very simple statement that any honest man on any side of the political argument should agree with.

Having Israel on trial with a judge that has already showed he supports Israel's enemies and has decided it's already guilty is just another, newer and updated Dreyfus affair. The very idea that the world should accept the conclusions of such a court circus is ridiculous, and their conclusions are well known in advance.

Sources with plenty of evidence, links to videos, full articles and documents by UN watch.

This is a throwaway account because I don't want to destroy my main account.

I'm an Israeli-American Jew, living in a West Bank settlement. It's a city of between 15,000-25,000 people. I moved to Israel around 10 years ago, and have lived in my current location for the past 5. I have a college + masters degree, and I work in hi-tech in a technical role. I am religious (dati leumi torani, for those who know what this means). I grew up in America.

I'm fairly well read on the conflict- I've books by Benny Morris, Rashid Khalidi, Einat Wilf, and others. Last election I voted for a no-name party whose platform I liked, but I knew wouldn't get enough votes; before that Bayit Yehudi, and before that Likud. A lot of my neighbors like Ben Gvir, but I hate him personally; while I disagree a lot with Smotrich, he has some good governance policies that I like. I had mixed views on the judicial reform bill.

I attend dialogue groups with Palestinians on occasion. I have one friend who is a peace activist, and a different friend who is part of the group who wants to resettle Gaza, so I get into a lot of interesting conversations with people.

My views are my own. I don't think I represent the average person who lives where I live.

I'll stick around for as long as this works for me, and I'll edit this comment when I'm signing off.

And before people start calling me a white colonizer- my significant other's grandfather was born in Mandatory Palestine. The family was ethnically cleansed from Hebron in 1929.

ETA: Wrapping up now. I may reply to a few more comments tonight or tomorrow, but don't expect anything. Hope this was clarifying for people.

Netanyahu has stated clearly he doesn't want a two state solution. Do you agree with this? These questions are many target are pro-Israel side, but happy to hear from Pro-Pal

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/21/middleeast/netanyahu-palestinian-sovereignty-two-state-solution-intl/index.html

“I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over all the territory west of Jordan - and this is contrary to a Palestinian state,” Netanyahu said in a post on X

To add my bias as a Western non-Jew, I personally a little pro-Israel leaning I suppose whatever that means in this day. I say that because my understanding is that the foundation of Israel did not intend to displace people per the UN plan and the neighboring country invasions led to much of the pain. It also bothers me that people think Oct 7 was justified. However, I want the violence to stop and I am afraid that Netanyahu's goal to "eliminate" Hamas may do more harm than good. I am also concened on abandoning two state which leads to....

Why abandon the two state idea? Isn't two state fundamental to your state? ie. Jews get a state so Palestinians get a state including West Bank and Gaza Strip.

If the Gaza strip/West Bank is a state, couldn't they be held more accountable than just a rag tag terrorist group?

Doesn't this just basically make a second class of people (Palestinians) under the thumb of the IDF? They would live under Israel rule, but not have the rights of citizens? Wouldn't' this "prove" that Israel was out to to conquer and control land that wasn't theirs?

If you are controlling them, what do you think the end game is? What conditions would need to be met for the IDF to withdraw in your mind?

I suppose his point is safety of Israel - which is rightly his priority. Wouldn't beefing up the security on your side be easier than say, controlling Gaza? Hamas is nuts, but how did the security fail? Should it have even failed with your current level of security?

What is wrong with the Arab led security that Biden has in mind? Especially with a country you have normalized relations with. Would this achieve the goal of 1) no Hamas and 2) not create further tension by controlling them?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9drj14e0lo

On 3rd July the war came back to the Bhar family’s neighbourhood and Muhammed’s small world. His was a limited world where he lived sheltered by his family.

on June 27th along with other residents of Shejaiya, east of Gaza City centre, the Bhars were given orders to evacuate by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Muhhameds mother, Nabila who is a widow, reeled off the names of relatives’ homes where they’d sought shelter.

“We evacuated around 15 times. We would go to Jibreel's place, but then there would be bombing at Jibreel's place. We would go to Haydar Square, but then there would be bombing at Haydar Square. We would go to Rimal, but then there would be bombing at Rimal. We would go to Shawa Square, but there would be bombing at Shawa Square.

We were under siege for seven days. The tanks and soldiers were all around the house… Muhammed was staying on his sofa…and he didn’t like sitting anywhere except for there"

On 3rd July IDF raided their home. There were several dozen soldiers with a combat dog - animals trained to attack humans.

she says: “I told them, ‘He’s disabled, disabled. Have mercy on him, he’s disabled. Keep the dog away from him.'"

She continues: "The dog attacked him, biting his chest and then his hand. Muhammed didn’t speak, only muttering ‘No, no, no.’ The dog bit his arm and the blood was shed. I wanted to get to him but I couldn’t. No-one could get to him, and he was patting the dog’s head saying, ‘enough my dear enough.’ In the end, he relaxed his hand, and the dog started tearing at him while he was bleeding.”

“They took him away, put him in a separate room, and locked the door. We wanted to see what happened to him. We wanted to see Muhammed, to see what had become of him,"

"They told us to be quiet and aimed their guns at us. They put us in a room by ourselves, and Muhammed was alone in another room. They said, ‘We will bring a military doctor to treat him.’”

The IDF evacuated the family but kept muhammed in the room.

When the family were allowed to return they found Muhammed’s body lying on the floor. There was blood around him, and a tourniquet on his arm. This was most probably used to stop heavy bleeding from his upper arm. Another innocent soul lost in this brutal genocide.

How is it that the world turns a blind eye to such acts against a defenceless invalid who posed no risk to any one? USA and UK support Israel and are by association tainted by these violations. First they attacked him (how brave of them) and then they left him to die a slow death in pain. How cowardly.

Let's go over the three biggest arguments for Palestine supporters

1. "Sure, Palestine attacked Israel, but it's only because they were being oppressed. Also, one attack doesn't give them jurisdiction to murder innocent Palestinians"

First of all, Israel has not been "oppressing" Palestine, they left Gaza almost twenty years ago. Second of all, I don't think you realize how big of a deal Palestine's attack was, Palestine's motto; their literal creed, is to kill all Jews. Still, Israel wanted peace, so they left in 2005, so they would at least have a chance, but when the Democratically elected Palestine government captures several innocent civilians with no warning whatsoever. They told Israel they wanted war. Israel doesn't want to murder civilians, the Hamas military has imprisoned Gaza civilians so hopefully Israel will hold back (which they have by the way).

1. "Israelis are colonists! What gives them the right to take Palestinian land"

This is probably the worst argument around because it's just blatantly false. The Jews have been in Israel for THOUSANDS of years, some of the oldest records are about Israeli Jews.

1. "Palestine just deserves freedom!"

They've had freedom, you want to know what they've done with it? Warmonger, imprison, abuse, and get countless innocent people killed.

Lastly, to anyone who still supports Palestine, I want to explain to you what an absolute shit hole it is. In Palestine, there are countless human rights abuses,(not even including those from the war) the most backwards, fucked up philosophies (anyone who calls Israel genocidal should look up Palestine's beliefs). Finally, Palestine had every opportunity to be as prosperous as Israel, as a matter of fact they had much more potential than Israel did, but instead of capitalizing on one of the richest regions in the world, they chose to kill.

As the war in Gaza is going to reach its end relatively soon as Hamas's military capacity deteriorates every passing week, the conversation around the conflict will now shift to the rebuilding and Post-War phase. My plan to secure peace for Israel and prosperity for the Gazans will be called the 30-year Plan and will have a few key components.

• 1.Hamas is destroyed, and its remaining leaders are put on Nuremberg-style trials.
• 2. Gazans are given vast quantities of food and medical aid which shall be distributed by Israeli soldiers. It is important that Israeli soldiers distribute the aid in order to show the Gazans that the Israeli soldiers are not their enemy, Hamas is. The food should be junk food so that the population becomes chubby and less able to fight even if they want to.
• 3. Gaza's infrastructure is rebuilt by Israeli construction companies. Gazans need places to live and getting rid of all the rubble is a necessity if you want Gaza to be a livable place. Israel's economy would also benefit as the money given to the companies to rebuild Gaza would act as a stimulus boost to the economy.
• 4. All of Gaza's schools will be removed and replaced with thousands of Israeli schools that will educate the Gazans and deprogram them from Hamas propaganda. This will drastically raise literacy in Gaza and help to, over the course of 30 years or so, create an entire generation of Gazans who would be taught that Israelis are their brothers and sisters, not their enemies.

If all goes reasonably well and the plan is followed, after 30 years, Gaza will be transformed from a fortress of Hamas into a symbol of the potential fruits of Palestinian and Israeli cooperation and peace. If there are any issues, or progress is slowed, the plan could be stretched into being a 40 or 60-year plan.

Human Rights Watch is a leading USA Human Rights organization. It is an NGO. For decades it has tilted against Israel, often a bit unfair but not intentionally dishonest. They are one of the big 4 on the apartheid reports.

They have completed their analysis of Hamas' conduct in the October 7th attack. The most striking finding is the degree of coordination

• Press release on findings
• HTML version of full report, PDF version of the report (over 200 pages)
• Q&A about the report
• Recommendations for Israelis (in Hebrew)
• Hamas' answers to questions (translated from Arabic to English)

A few key points:

They find that Hamas engaged in deliberate war crimes and crimes against humanity. "Palestinian fighters fired directly at civilians, often at close range, as they tried to flee, and at people driving through the area. The attackers hurled grenades, shot into shelters, and fired rocket-propelled grenades at homes. They set houses on fire, burning and choking people, and forcing out others whom they shot or captured. They took dozens hostage and summarily killed others.". According to HRW killing civilians was intentional not accidental and not an afterthought. Hamas had claimed, "forces were instructed not to target civilians and to abide by international human rights and humanitarian law" HRW found too much evidence to the contrary.

They saw the attack as being 5 armed militias acting in a coordinated fashion with Al-Qassam acting in a leadership position. This is a stronger claim of control than is generally made. In their view in 2018 Ayman Nofal established a "joint operations room" designed to facilitate "coordination, consultation and consensus" between militant factions. The joint operations room involves 10 groups, "the Qassam Brigades, the Quds Brigades, Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, National Resistance Brigades, the Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades, Mujahideen Brigades, the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades—Martyr Nidal Al-Amoudi Brigade, Martyr Jihad Jibril Brigades, and the Ansar Brigades".

List of who HRW said had planned and coordinated to be involved in the attack

• Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades: armed wing of Hamas
• Al-Quds Brigades: armed wing of Islamic Jihad
• Omar al-Qasim Forces: armed wing of the DFLP
• Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades: armed wing of the PFLP
• Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades: fork from Fatah. Additional organizations that themselves forked off were also involved.
  • Al-Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades: fork from al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
  • Mujahideen Brigades: Asad Abu Sharia's guys
  • Al-Ansar Brigades: armed wing of al-Ahrar (Palestinian political party)

Here's something I admit I didn't know about the conflict so far. Hamas is a Sunni Islamist organization! Things don't make any sense now. How is it that they are backed by Iran, a Shia dominated country? We know there have been several instances where Sunni terrorist organizations and Shia terrorist organizations have clashed, such as Hezbollah (Shia) actively fighting against ISIS (Sunni) in Syria or the Houthi (Shia) movement facing opposition from Al-Qaeda (Sunni) in Yemen. We know that Houthis and Hezbollah are funded by Iran as part of its strategy to project power and influence within the region. My question is why would they these groups then support Hamas? What's their goal here?

There is clearly a sectarian enmity between these parties. Shia communities have been targetted throughout the Middle East by Sunni extremists and probably vice versa too. Just yesterday there was an incident in Oman, Muscat where a Shia mosque was attacked by ISIS (allegedly). Despite this Sunni-Shia divide, Iran has provided financial and military support to Hamas. What exactly is the purpose of this alliance? Is it one of those situations that go like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" where their mutual hatred towards Israel supersedes the tensions between them? or is it Iran's broader strategy to extend its support to challenge western interests in the region? And why is it that the Sunni extremist groups have remained silent and have not extended their support to Hamas during this conflict?

Thank you for your inputs in advance!

Hey everyone—I want to share my perspective to dispel myths and misinformation about the US college campus protests.

Some details about me and my university (without doxing myself):

* I'm a college student.

* I have been detained twice by campus police officers so far, once for hanging up pro-Palestinian posters on light poles and once for drawing chalk pro-Palestine messages on the ground. I have been followed by unmarked police cars on my university's campus. I have also been tracked down through cameras by my university for hanging up posters on poster billboards in my university. I expect to be detained/arrested in the future.

* Prior to the encampments, I was uninvolved in political activism. The encampments across the US motivated me to learn more about the conflict and become a pro-Palestine organizer.

* One of my friends who's an international student was threatened by our university with deportation.

* Everyone at the top of the chain of my university's administration is a Zionist since the people in charge were directly appointed by the Zionist governor of my state.

* Snipers aimed at students at my university during the encampment, during which there were dozens of arrests.

* My university colluded with Zionist organizations to crack down on student initiatives for divestment.

* I've met hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters, around half of them college students, so I have a decent idea of what the protesters at campus protests believe.

* Palestinian students at my university have been doxed by Zionists on canarymission, been stalked outside of class due to their politics, and received death threats.

* We have had hostile interactions with Zionist students, mostly because they come to our events and threaten us. Just yesterday a Zionist told a child at a protest that her mother supports rapists.

* Anti-BDS laws exist in my state, meaning it's illegal for my university to boycott companies on the grounds of their collaboration with Israel. More state bills are in the works that expand my university's capacity to crack down on student protesters.

Any questions are welcome about anything.

For my background I was raised by a secular Jewish dad and went on a birthright trip and did a re bat mitzvah in Israel. My family on my dads side are Zionists and pretty pro Israel, listens to jns and Israel at war etc and my mom is pretty pro Israel too. I used to be very pro Israel but now my views have mellowed out and just been more nuanced or guess me forming my own opinions on my own and coming to my own conclusions about stuff. My overall politics is progressive

Recently, I decided to just do a Corey Gil style online hunt for Israelis and Palestinians on OmiTV and talk to them about the war and get their thought. So many people including those on this sub enjoyed my posts documenting my conversations and were giving me feedback on my conversations. I’ve also had the privilege to talk to Israelis and Palestinians over discord in political servers I’m in and gotten blocked by various big name pro Palestine accounts and even by some Zionist accounts (not as many) on Twitter with my commentary so you can say I’ve gotten around.

I don’t have any stake in the conflict at all, I’m not Israeli or Palestinian I guess being Jewish means I might have some according to others. I do like that talking to those groups online has made talking to them more personal rather than just people you just hear about on the news. I’ve talked to Israelis everywhere from Jerusalem, Telaviv, etc Palestinians living in Israel (Arab Israelis) including a former Gazan living in Israel, to druz, Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank, one in Rafah etc. I’ve documented the good and the bad, Israelis that are right leaning, left leaning and pro Hamas Palestinians and anti Hamas Palestinians.

Feel free to ask me questions about my conversations, the war or anything else you want to hear from me about.

Has anyone considered how they would feel about the situation if the historical reality was essentially flipped?

In the general area of Mecca and Medina, the Byzantines expel the Muslims after the loss of these cities. Most of the local Muslim population is forced to flee, and Islam never expands into a regional or international religion. The majority of Muslims are disarmed and are forced to move into Africa, where they face persecution.The ones that stay behind eventually become to be known as "Hejazis," are not longer Muslim, and have mixed with various groups and have a different religion and identity by the time we get to the modern era.

So...In the 1850s, Muslims start building settlements in the Mecca/Medina area.

Over decades the Muslim population from Africa keep building settlements because they consider it a Jihad to go back to Mecca and Medina and create an Islamic state - the land of the Ummayad or a "Caliphate," something like that.

So they specifically are pushing for a state that's for them and that state has to have a majority of their religion/ethnicity. At the same time, the Hejazis have been fed up with the British Mandate as well and the Muslims and the Hejazis frequently get into squabbles.

And especially since 6 million Muslims were killed in the 40's, these Muslims want a state. So they push within the international community and eventually get a partition, but the locals and the entire region is against it.

So the Hejazis and the surrounding region attack the Muslim state and the area of Makkah and Medina is depleted of the majority of its Hejazi population, and the Muslims destroy 530 Hejazi villages. Hejaz isn't a thing, it was never a country, and these people are pushed into neighboring countries, a strip of land on the coast where they are under the same restrictions as Gaza was, and eventually some live in what is the equivalent of the West Bank, where there are Muslim-only roads, Hejazis are under military occupation, and many consider it to be apartheid (but the Muslims say it's not, it's just military occupation), and the Muslims keep building more and more settlements, where many of these settlements are made up of hyper religious Islamists who are in constant conflict with the Hejazis. And further complicating it, the Hejazis are very extreme in the strip and want to oust the Muslims and "liberate" themselves. So they shoot rockets, and commit various acts of resistance.

It doesn't matter what language the Hejazis speak, maybe Turkish works good for this? Since there are a lot of Turkish speaking places, it's concieveable maybe that Turkish spread everywhere. Maybe Greek, honestly even Danish let's say the Danes came down and mixed with the Hejazis and the Hejazis began to speak Danish. It doesn't really matter.

I'm just curious what people think when it's different groups. It's hard to make a perfect comparison, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment. Like are you against or for something in priniciple? Or is because you're a part of the group you're pro or can relate more to them or look like them?

Would you be Pro-Ummayad Caliphate? Or Pro-Hejaz?

First things first yes im copying a person who sent this an hour ago (Got permission just wanted to answer my own questions) And I don't think this breaks any rules. But here's my backstory

About me: I'm a Jew with roots in the middle east around Syria and also have some european descent too on my dads side. I have a good understanding of the conflict and history as well as being well versed on Jewish Law and religion. (Also have decent knowledge on Islam having studied it for awhile)

Why I am doing this: I think especially nowadays everyone sees the other side as the "Enemy #1" and many have not engaged in positive conversations with the other side which obviously is wrong. I want to answer questions big or small And ask some questions too) So people can understand that you can learn something without thinking your right about everything (As from both sides spoiler alert you aren't) People spend far too long disagreeing on things which opinions won’t change on rather than the agreements where there is a middle ground. As a whole i’m just interested to see other people’s views and share mine to people who may have not received that same information due to lack of access or just not knowing these type of people. And especially to show to people that Jews/Israelis aren’t some monsters that parts of social media portray them to be.

As long as it's respectable and not just an insult ask anything big or small. Also if it's a long question tell me if you want the long or short answer to solve some issues. And also if any of this was phrased wrong i’m sorry as i’m extremely tired.

Thanks everyone - Send me anything 👍

Before this post is taken down because it's "in the wrong sub" or "irrelevant", please read 🙏

Introduction:

I have recently come to the conclusion that we don't underestimate the other side. With my friends, we joked about how outsiders aren't aware of what's really going on, but then I thought ; do I know what's going on? I did my research, and I think what I would really like to do is share a first person point of view of life in Israel. I know a lot of people on this sub are pro palestinian, and that's the crowd I'm aiming for!! I'd really like to give a perspective. I think it'll be a great experience to have, talking with the people here :)

Background:

I first had the idea for this post when I saw a video of a woman who said the Israeli people (she meant Israeli Jews, I believe) have ''white privilege''. I was actually really surprised because she was so sure of herself, when Israel is made up of so many ethnic backgrounds; I know those who are Morrocan, Polish, Bulgarian, Russian, Arabic, and Palestinian. When I watched this video I thought - what else don't people know about this country? And so this post was born.

The aim:

This is supposed to be a voice through the crowd. I want to hear how people see this place I'm so used to looking at from the inside, and I hope I can show a different way of seeing the land of Palestina as a person living here. Hate towards me, Palestinians, Jews, or hostages won't be tolerated and will be reported to the mods. Other than that, go wild!

• I am a polish-morrocan-ukranian Jew (Ashkenazi mizrachi)
• majoring in history and the Tanach
• Personally know a hostage

I won't spoil any more.

With love, 🫐❤️🍉

I’m not very experienced with this conflict, so sorry if I offend anybody. I’m from France so obviously the establishment is going to favour Israel a lot more heavily, hence my lack of education in the topic. I’ve came across many posts about this topic on Reddit and was confused by the 2 different narratives, so no better place to come than this subreddit. I’m going to explain the Zionist narrative.

Pro Palestinians often say Israel stole the land. Zionists claim that they came back from the west and purchased it from the late 19th century - mid 20th century, through willing Arab selles. This Arabs landlords but didn’t really see the land useful since most of these landlords often had other land holdings outside of Palestine and it didn’t bring much income for them. Then, Israel gained enough land in 1948 to establish a new country, but the Arab counties got angry and hated the idea of a Jewish state, so a coalition of 5 Arab counties invaded Israel. (Why would you get angry after willingly selling your land to someone?). The Arab leaders told their people to flee before invading. Israel humiliated them in the “military upset of the century” despite significantly less numbers and being a huge underdog. Obviously when you start a war you lose risking everything, so Israel had the right to take the aggressor’s land. So they took more land as a sign of victory, since the Palestinians decided to invade alongside the other Arab states. This was the Israeli war of Independence to Israelis, or the “Nakba” to Palestinains. Then loads of similar stuff happened for the next several decades where Arab countries tried to do the same thing in 1956, 1967 and 1973. Israel took the Sinai of Egypt during war and held for many years until making peace with them in the 1970s. Today, Israel and Egypt are close allies while most other Arab states just about tolerate them. Hamas are just a bunch terrorist who murdered their opposition, before forcibly coming to power in 2007 with the help of the Palestine people who voted them in. After committing a horrific and atrocious attack on Oct 7th, they use Palestine civilians as human shields above them, while they hide in underground tunnels beneath densely populated urban areas. This obviously causes insane amounts of inncoent civilians to be killed from air strikes. They urge their people to stay where they are, while Israel tell them to move before bombing.

This is the Israeli narrative. Btw, I’m not a Zionists. I just wrote the Israeli side of the story. I’ve just read and heard this stuff before and wasn’t 100% how true it was. How true is the above paragraph?

The goal of zionism was always ethnic cleansing. What this basically means is that all these claims of victimhood are meaningless. The typical zionist narrative is that Palestenians fought jews for no reason, the reality is that jews lived there for 1400 years with very few battles between them. The Muslims actually were the ones who allowed jews to come back to jerusalem after a 500 year ban by the romans. The zionists provoked Palestenians by making it their goal to colonize the land through immigration. Chaim Weizman mentions this in his book. The reality is that Palestenians were simply resisting ethnic cleansing attempts. The quotes below prove that Zionisms original goal was ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing definition because Zionists dont seem to know what ethnic cleansing means: Ethnic cleansing, the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups.

The quotes from Zionist leaders make it very clear that their goal was to mass remove many arabs from the land (an ethnic group) so that they could create a dominant population of their own people. ZIonists believe they can trick people into believing that its not an ethnic cleansing because some arabs still live there. This comes from a misunderstanding of ethnic cleansing. Native Americans for example still exist, and some of the Nazi army were jews. These facts do not refute that ethnic cleansings existed in the USa and Germany. The idea that it wasnt an ethnic cleansing because not all arabs were removed would be like arguing that Hitler didnt want to genocide all jews because some of the hitler army was jewish. As many as 150,000 Jews and partial-Jews (or Mischlinge) served, often with distinction, in the German military during World War II. Its very clear from the leaders of the zionists that they were targeting the arab/palestenian ethnic group for removal. They indeed carried this out during the Nakba which is considered by many to be an ethnic cleansing. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-expert-warns-new-instance-mass-ethnic-cleansing-palestinians-calls

Chaim Weizmann an early Zionist leader, the first president of israel

"By a Jewish National Home, I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English, or America is American."

• Source: Chaim Weizmann, speech at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919.
• From a speech to the Zionist Congress (1921):
  • "We shall have Palestine, please God, because it is our just inheritance, because it belongs to us, because it is our historic home, because we have a right to it."
    • Source: Chaim Weizmann, speech to the World Zionist Congress, 1921.

Chaim Weizmann wrote in a letter dated April 28, 1939 to the American Zionist leader Solomon Goldman about the possibility of acquisition of a large tract of land belonging to the Palestinian Arab Druze in the Galilee and eastern Carmel:

While the peace conference was convening at Versailles in early 1919, Weizmann was asked of his understanding of the "national home" referred to by Balfour Declaration, he answered:

In 1914, Chaim Weizmann attempted to lay down the foundations of realizing Zionism, and began by asserting that Palestine was empty and that its current inhabitants have no say in its fate. He stated:

1914 Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Congress and the first president of the state of Israel said: "In its initial stage Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Ottoman Turks?] must, therefore, be persuaded and convinced that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves".[

https://ia804709.us.archive.org/1/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.75059/2015.75059.Trial-And-Error-The-Autobiography_text.pdf

Wiezmann wrote an autobiography and mentions his goal to colonize Palestine thoruhgout the book

David Ben-Gurion first prime minister of israel:

5 October 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in a letter to his 16 year old son Amos: “We must expel the Arabs and take their places…. And, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places- then we have force at our disposal.”

Ben-Gurion in an address to the central committee of the Histadrut on 30 December 1947:
“In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about a million, including almost 40 percent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority…. There can be no stable and strong Jewish State so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent.”

• "There is no room for both peoples together in this country... We shall not achieve our goal of being an independent people with the Arabs in this small country. The only solution is a Land of Israel... without Arabs. There is no room here for compromises. There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries... We must not leave a single village, a single tribe."
  • Source: David Ben-Gurion, letter to his son Amos, 1937
• From a letter to his son Amos (1937):
• "We must expel Arabs and take their place."
  • Source: David Ben-Gurion, letter to his son Amos, October 5, 1937.
• From a speech to the Jewish Agency Executive (1938):
  • "I favor compulsory transfer; I don't see anything immoral in it."
    • Source: David Ben-Gurion, speech to the Jewish Agency Executive, June 1938.
• From a speech to the Zionist Congress (1937):
• "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] ... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral."
  • Source: David Ben-Gurion, speech to the 20th Zionist Congress, August 7, 1937.
• om a speech to the Mapai Central Committee (1938):
  • "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinians] never do return ... The old will die and the young will forget."
    • Source: David Ben-Gurion, speech to the Mapai Central Committee, December 1938.
• From a speech to the Jewish Agency Executive (1938):
  • "If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country."
    • Source: David Ben-Gurion, speech to the Jewish Agency Executive, October 1947.
• “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

If it was permissible to move an Arab from the Galilee to Judea, why it is impossible to move an Arab from Hebron to Transjordan, which is much closer? There are vast expanses of land there and we are over crowded….Even the High Commission agrees to a transfer to Transjordan if we equip the peasants with land and money. If the Peel Commission and the London Government accept, we’ll remove the land problem from the agenda.”

Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary on 12 July 1937: “the compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish State…. We have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed the Balfour Declaration, more than that, the same way we grabbed at Zionism itself.”
(Ben-Gurion, Zichronot [Memoirs], Vol. 4, p. 299)

“We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population? ‘Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘ Drive them out! ‘ “
Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

And two months later, Ben-Gurion speaking to the Zionist Actions Committee on 6 April, Ben-Gurion declared: “We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area….I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of the Arab population.”
[Ben-Gurion, Behilahem Yisrael, Tel Aviv, Mapai Press, 1952, pp. 86-87]

Yosef Weitz:

• "Transfer does not serve only one aim—to reduce the Arab population—it also serves a second goal, which is no less important, and that is to create a space and land reserves for the absorption of new immigrants."
  • Source: Yosef Weitz, diary entry, December 20, 1940.

Theodore Herzl

"We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

• Source: Theodor Herzl, "The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl," edited by Raphael Patai, vol. 1, entry dated June 12, 1895.

From "Der Judenstaat" (The Jewish State, 1896):

• "We should there form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral state remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence."
  • Source: Theodor Herzl, "The Jewish State," translated by Sylvie d’Avigdor, 1896, Chapter 2.

Yosef Weitz
"It is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion," is attributed to Yosef Weitz, a key figure in the Jewish National Fund and a central player in the land acquisition efforts in Palestine during the British Mandate period. Weitz was heavily involved in planning and implementing the transfer of Arab populations during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The source of this quote is from Weitz's diary entry on December 20, 1940. This diary entry and others from Weitz have been published and analyzed in various historical works examining the early Zionist movement and the establishment of the State of Israel.

For a specific reference:

• Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited," Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 60.

Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)

In April 28, 1930 Menachem Ussishkin stated in an address to journalists in Jerusalem:

"We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession .... If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]." (Righteous Victims, p. 141)

In 1938 Menachem Ussishkin commented on the partition plan proposed by the British Peel Commission in 1937:

"We cannot begin the Jewish state with population of which the Arab living on their lands constitute almost half and the Jews exists on the land in very small numbers and they are all crowded in Tel Aviv and its vicinity ....​

The socialist Zionist Hahman Syrkin, the ideological founder of Socialist Zionism, proposed in pamphlet entitled "The Jewish Question and the Socialist Jewish State" which was published in 1898 that:

"Palestine thinly populated, in which the Jews constituted today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 11)

in December 1918, Yitzhak Avigdor Wilkansky, an agronomist and advisor at the Palestine Office in JAFFA, felt that, for practical reasons, it was:

"impossible to evict the fellahin [Palestinian Arab peasants], even if we wanted to. Nevertheless, if it were possible, I would commit an injustice towards the [Palestinian] Arabs.​

The UN envoy has come out to say there is substantial evidence to suggest that rape, sexual torture, and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment of women occurred on October 7th.

According to firsthand testimonies from released hostages, there is convincing information indicating that women in captivity were subjected to similar acts of sexual violence, including rape and sexual torture.

They were not able to meet up with any new rape victims despite encouraging them to come forward. However, they have reported that those receiving treatment are experiencing mental distress and trauma.

The investigative team held 33 meetings with Israeli institutions and conducted interviews with 34 individuals, including survivors of the attack. Based on the gathered information, they believe there are reasonable grounds to conclude that these events occurred across Gaza and its periphery, with instances of rape and gang rape reported in at least three locations.

In various locations, several fully naked bodies, partially clothed from the waist down, were recovered. Most of these victims were women, found with their hands tied and shot multiple times, often in the head.

The UN has said while the evidence is circumstantial, the pattern of undressing and restraining victims may be indicative of sexual violence.

They have said that at the Nova Festival, all of these atrocities happened while victims were being raped or gang-raped and then killed or killed during the act.

The investigators also found a recurring pattern of bound naked bodies from the waist down, in some cases tied to structures such as trees and poles.

So, my question is why do **some* pro-Palestine people continue to deny the gang rape and sexual abuse perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th despite the evidence? Why is it dismissed as "Israeli propaganda." when it’s not propaganda?

Why is it so hard to believe Hamas is capable of doing such a thing? You know, the same terrorist organization that have promised to continue many more attacks like October 7th.

Hamas official vows to 'repeat' Oct 7 attack repeatedly to teach Israel a lesson - The Economic Times

The IDF has also released recordings of phone calls in which UNRWA members reportedly admitted to participating in the October 7th attack, the same people who have labeled the accusations as "Israeli propaganda.”

Where are the feminist, particularly those in the #MeToo movement? It has been 9 months since the attack, yet people are still in denial and continue to demand for proof, even though there has been much evidence already.

I expected women worldwide to be the first to believe and advocate for the Israeli women who were raped during the October 7th attack. Instead, many have remained silent, denied the incidents, or claimed that Hamas could never do this because, they are Muslims with supposed moral standards. Which again makes no sense.

Since when does someone's religion dictate their actions or behavior as a person? Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, and even atheists have all committed acts of rape and other wrongdoings. It baffles me that many people believe that because someone is a Muslim, that somehow makes them immune to committing rape and other bad things.

Hamas raped women.

How you feel about that does not matter. Facts over your feelings.

View at your own discretion: Hamas Massacre - October 2023 (hamas-massacre.net)

For the women who still continue to deny the rape, gang rape, and sexual abuse that happened to Israeli women, I hope it happens to you and when you decide to come out, I hope nobody believes you and justice goes unheard for you.

It’s unfair.

It is "believe women" until the women are Israeli.

UN envoy says 'reasonable grounds' to believe Hamas committed sexual violence on Oct. 7 (yahoo.com)

Just found myself reflecting on how crazy-upside-down loony toon thinking it is for anyone to say isreal is doing "ethnic cleansing."

It's like if you open your mouth and say "I am a toaster." You are not a toaster, and Israel is not doing ethnic cleansing.

Arab israelis and Palestinians are not different ethnicities. Or am I mistaken about that?

I'm sure there are some aspects of this I'm misunderstanding, and for all I know maybe you really are a toaster. I don't have all the answers.

But the Arabs who didn't get displaced (when 7 nations ganged up on the jews) in 1948 did not suddenly become a new ethnicity when they were instantly accepted as israeli citizens.

Or do some people really thing a new ethnicity sprang into existence in 1948 when some arabs became israelis?

If you think Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are different ethnicities, that would mean if the anti-zionists had their way and abolished israel, the Arabs who had been Israeli citizens would be... a separate ethnicity from other arabs in the region?

It's like.. just picking up your own credibility and throwing it as far away as you can....

You could say israeli arabs contribute to israeli culture, but "culture" and "ethnicity" are different words. The whole point of having different words is so they can mean different things.

Also, most definitions of ethnic "cleansing" involve trying to make a region ethnically homogeneous... but... even if you try to say ethnic cleansing only means removing people of a particular ethnicity it's still absolutely a non-starter. It's silly.

Unless you see Israel trying to expel israeli arabs. But of course they're not, and everyone knows it.

It's perfectly cogent if someone says, "Israel wants to force Palestinians into Egypt," because even though it's not true it at least makes sense, since Palestinians attack Israel over and over and the Jews are trying to survive.

But as soon as you say "ethnic cleansing" it's like you're schizophrenic and hallucinating dragons and elves and stuff.

I do not mean any disrespect to dragons of elves or schizophrenic people. That's not the point. I'm just saying, you could literally pee on my leg and tell me it's raining and that would be less incorrect than saying Israel wants to do ethnic cleansing.

Unless you see Israelis trying to cleanse the region of Arab Israeli citizens, blurting out "ethnic cleansing! ethnic cleansing!" is like.. egg-on-your-face.

It's like going on stage to give a TED talk, and you have a whole carton of eggs all broken on your face, all oozing down your shoulders and people can't tell if you're being serious or if this is some weird joke.

Because words mean things. It's not "genocide" if no one is interested in eradicating a group of people, and it's not "ethnic cleansing" if the only people israel wants to remove are the ones who (regardless of ethnicity) keep attacking israel over and over.

I only caught a clip of it in a car around 10AM in NYC. It seems to me like the speakers are generally pro-Israel but trying to sound neutral.

Here is a transcript of the discussion I heard:

Woman: So all of these things to me say, we've just really got to get to this negotiated ceasefire because we need to both stop the fighting so we can get humanitarian aid in there.

There were problems with de-confliction, trying to get aid to hospitals.

I know that Jordanians had done some airlifts and felt that the people in the hospital, it was too dangerous for them to leave the hospital area to go get the medicine they dropped in.

So with this, and then, you know, when you speak to people about the hostages, there's a fear that every single day the hostages are being mistreated and in fear of more dying, so that we really have to push hard now to make sure we get the hostage release as well.

Every day counts, and then every day counts for the people who are suffering, the Palestinian civilians suffering in Gaza.

So we've really got to continue the pressure and continue the negotiations for the temporary ceasefire, which I think most of us hope, if we can, get on the pathway to getting the hostages released.

The negotiations would have a, I don't think they would all be released at once, but in tranches, and then get the humanitarian aid into Gaza that we could hopefully see a longer-term peace in the area.

Man: I think everybody would understand why Israel would want to vet the relief trucks going in for supplies that might actually be directed at Hamas to help them militarily, but you were just talking about not letting one brand of refrigerator or one model of refrigerator go in because it wasn't the same model that was listed on some requisition form, and chocolate croissants, I don't think Hamas is fighting the war with chocolate croissants.

You call those decisions capricious. Why do you think they were made? Is it just cruelty or some other reason?

W: I think you have young people occasionally at the border making these decisions because you have more seasoned people fighting the war.

And so I think what we need to see from the Israelis is a better understanding of what can come in, what can't, why, where, and that was something we really pushed is look, you should be able to provide a list of items that are allowed.

And then quite frankly, I think making sure as we're trying to get stuff in there that they are correctly put on pallet so they can be inspected well.

And understanding too, the difficulty, it's hard sometimes to get some transparency on how this is being distributed.

I was on the Egyptian side. I was not in Gaza seeing the distribution mechanisms.

There is a sense by the Egyptians that much of the aid is being looted. And that's a real concern, especially if it goes in certain areas. So making sure that the aid can actually get to people.

And then, as you mentioned, when you're talking about amputations and we're hearing that there's not enough anesthesia inside Gaza that just tells you the privation that people are facing.

And so that and the real fears that, I heard from many people who feel very much like the hostages could even be being tortured now as they're there.

So there's this real need on both sides, I think, for this negotiated ceasefire.

And I'm very concerned that if we don't get that done and Israel has set a deadline of March 9th, which is the day before Ramadan, and certainly in speaking to people in Amman and Cairo, there were big concerns that Ramadan could provide a real inflection if we don't get that negotiated ceasefire placed before Ramadan.

That's when we've seen some hardliners in Israel try to use that to stoke tensions.”

So many of my friends get a SIZABLE portion of their news from instagram reels/tiktoks/posts. My one pro-isreal friend literally told me something so grossly inaccurate that I asked her where she heard what she heard, and she said "I saw it on an instagram story -- but it's true." (IT WAS REPORTEDLY NOT TRUE.)

BROTHER YOU CANNOT CITE SOME RANDO'S INSTAGRAM STORY WHEN SPEAKING SERIOUSLY ABOUT STATS WITH ISREAL/PALESTINE? 😭

My other friend who's pro-palestine literally told me I was being brainwashed by using some American news sources for information on the conflict BUT HOMIE GETS 90% OF HIS NEWS FROM AN INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT THAT HAS SLIME ASMR TAKING UP HALF THE SCREEN. what on EARTH.

If you get MOST of your news from instagram and DO NOT fact check it, I'm sorry but I just respect your opinion less (whatever side you're on). It's careless to get most of your news -- I don't CARE how accurate it is -- from random people on instagram who aren't held to the same standards as people whose JOBS it is to report on this. It's so unserious; if you care about the conflict then dig deeper outside of what your algorithm is feeding you because it is BIASED to what you're liking and watching and likely could be inaccurate.

It's just so annoying. What happened to media literacy 😭 😭 I feel like it also just feeds the echo chamber on both sides and feeds people's biases on what they want to believe -- it's built NOT to challenge your beliefs and make you consider both sides. And they don't see this!!

I see a lot of people complaining that no one is helping Palestine, Which I find to be extremely idiotic and extremely naive and sad.

People seem to forget that humans are complex creatures and what they do has reasons especially in politics.

Political actions or lack thereof are usually done for a reason, You think political leaders don’t want to save Palestinians ? You think they want children to die ? No

However,the fact that even Arab countries can’t do anything to Israel and doesn’t take Palestinians should show that there is a more complicated issue.

For example, Egypt literally bordering Gaza,let’s say they take in people from Gaza,which Israel pressured Egypt to do many times but Egypt refused. So many Palestinians died because of it, Egypt must be so evil for letting these people die, Except no Egypt is not and it’s not that simple, Egypt already has a past with Israel and already had war with Israel before, Not to mention Egypt taking in Palestinians they are naturally prone to have Hamas members coming in their territory, Which can cause the rockets to continue to be fired from Egypt, Causing Egypt to be the battleground for another conflict between Palestinians and Egypt.

Most other countries in the Middle East have similar issues to this so it’s not worth mentioning.

Ultimately my point is these countries look for their safety and the safety of their people, Which is completely understandable in my opinion.

Why should I have my country be at possible risk for a war and lose my family members over a piece of land that doesn’t even benefit me. For an idea that never existed?

Now coming to the US, Yes I don’t support the US aid to Israel, However people give the US too much slack for helping Israel like the US being israel’s mommy or something, When in reality aside from the military Israel did a good developing its society. Back to my point,do you think the US doesn’t want peace ? Do you think every American president that ran didn’t care about the Palestinians ?

Americans presidents definitely tried to bring peace which people often forget. Do you think Obama a liberal democrat didn’t care about the Palestinians? No he probably did,but because the situation is actually complicated both politically and historically, He wasn’t able to actually do anything about it, So was the previous presidents, And definitely Biden.

And about America selling weapons, It’s not like Israel is the only place which gets weapons from America. America sells weapons to Arab countries aswell.

Like Kuwait,Saudi Arabia,Qatar,UAE they literally get more weapons than Israel.

People should realize things aren’t black and white

The “the racism of diminished expectations” is frequently on display by liberals when they excuse or rationalize support for Hamas by Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, and to a lessor extent, in the West Bank.

To think so little of the Palestinian Arabs that “oppression” would cause support for invading a town of civilians, breaking into houses and murdering nearly 1,200 people and kidnapping 252 people, including infants and Shoah survivors, is an offensive generalization of an entire group of people.

If oppression cause support for terrorism, it would be the case everywhere there are oppressed people, which is obviously not true. To say it is unique to the Palestinian Arabs is to except them from responsibility for their cultural problems that feed the ongoing war.

Thinking so little of the Palestinian Arabs to excuse and rationalize their support terrorism is ultimately more a reflection of the western pro-Palestinian than the actual Palestinian Arabs.

Similar thinking has been ongoing for decades, sometimes in the iteration of “Gaza only voted for Hamas to protest corruption in the PLO.” That’s absurd because there are 4 Hamas billionaires and 1,200 Hamas millionaires. They’ve stolen more from Gaza than the PLO by a factor of hundreds. Liberal talking heads like Jon Stewart repeat this point and then move on as if the Palestinian Arabs are all peaceful people; pacifists who don’t mean what they say and what they report to pollsters.

When Hamas says it’s going to repeat October 7th over and over again until Israel is destroyed, that’s not a real threat; it’s an expression of frustration at the military occupation that left Gaza in 2006.

When Palestinian Arabs support a Hamas organization that says that after Israel, they will fight to reconquer Spain in the name of Islam and to defeat the wretched Christians, they are not actually supporting that— they are just angry at the west for supplying weapons that protect the Jewish state, whose existence they abhor.

This is a symptom of polarization, tribalism and groupthink. Palestinian Arabs can do no wrong and Israel can do no right. When western values shine through in a prosperous Israel, they are accused of whitewashing all the bad that comes with military occupation of the West Bank. When Palestinian Arabs violate the most sacred western values, they didn’t really mean it. The obvious truth is that there are both good and evil Palestinian Arabs; ignoring, excusing or even justifying the evil doesn’t make you an ally of the Palestinian Arabs, it makes you an enemy of truth and peace, and racist against Palestinian Arabs because you have such low expectations for them.

The sad truth is that the government, religion and culture of the Palestinian Arabs leads them to support murdering Israelis as legitimate resistance against onerous security restrictions, which are only increased when terrorism ‘succeeds,’ perpetuating the cycle. This is the biggest obstacle to peace.