If I'm ever fired for taking a pro-Palestinian stance, I will spend the rest of my life suing everyone involved. The capital community has crossed so many lines in their witch hunt for pro-Palestinan voices that it's not even funny. Our industry has reached a breaking point and I'm not sure what's going to happen since most of the VCs are extremely pro-Zionism and a huge portion of people under the age of 45 are pro-Palestinian, including most engineers and tech people I know.

I’m very pro-Palestinian. That’s yet another reason why I want Hamas gone. There’s no chance for social justice while terrorists are running the show.

If the conditions in Gaza continue as they have for multiple generations now, the eradication of Hamas will just beget the founding a different group with the same approach, or near to.

The conditions in Gaza are the result of Hamas and similar groups. Israel ended their occupation of Gaza twenty years ago and dragged Israelis out. Israel invested in Gaza infrastructure, but Hamas ripped it out and used it to make weapons. Israel allowed Gazans to work in Israel, who then told Hamas where to attack. Israel tried ceasefire after ceasefire, but Hamas just sent suicide bombers and rockets. And when as a result Israel tightened their border and built the Iron Dome, people say they're in the wrong. Those same people also never think about why Egypt also has a tight border with Gaza.

Israel has a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza. The residents of Gaza are second generation refugees from the cities that Israel ethnically cleansed in Nakba in 1948. Israel also bombed Gaza's only airport. Israel has routinely murdered, sniped, arrested and abused all forms of non-violent protest such as the March of Return.

A blockade? You mean the defenses set up by Israel and Egypt after Hamas started attacking?

Ethnically cleansed in Nakba? You mean when Arab countries declared war on Israel and then lost?

Non-violent protests? You mean using molotov cocktails, rifles, and grenades?

You're describing effects but ignoring the causes.

Egypt has a tight border because Israel has a history of launching retalitory strikes against neighboring nations from which terrorist cells originated.

How would that explain Egypt not letting Gazan refugees in?

Hamas will only end along with the Zionist occupation.

How does this work out? Let's say Israel admits defeat and gives Hamas everything it wants. How does this remove Hamas from power?

It doesn’t automatically. But it can’t happen until the occupation ends. And ultimately Hamas gained prominence precisely because of the occupation which destroyed all other groups with any influence.

You understand that your illogical and immoral death pact works both ways, right?

Who is dominant militarily? Does it look like the U.N. is going to be able to continue the theater of pulling the reigns on Israel?

There is a logical reason as to why civilians shouldn't be used as pawns in war. It green lights all civilians and tragically opens the door to ethnic cleansing.

And yet here you are arguing that the war can't end until Israel is removed. Literally demanding the terms, and guaranteeing the results, for the removal of Palestinians. Crazy talk, from someone who pretends to have the interests of the Palestinians at heart.

I’m not demanding anything, merely describing the likely future.

As an analogy, the South African apartheid state was dominant militarily. Over time, through internal and external military and political pressure, this state was defeated and abolished. The indigenous resistance that won established a new state, after which the more violent elements withered away.

Currently, Hamas are a part of the Palestinian resistance. When apartheid ends and the resistance wins, Hamas will either change or end.

This is causally backwards. There are more restrictions on Gaza than the West Bank because of Hamas. The Palestinian civil war after Israel ceeded all of Gaza is what destroyed other groups. They did it to themselves and it's not surprising because Hamas represents very popular positions among actual people who live there.

To be clear, you mean the entire nation of Israel, correct?

The end result is up to the Palestinian people. All demand right of return and ending apartheid. Some want that done through the abolishing of Israel entirely, others through land swaps that allow two states to exist. What actually happens will depend on the relative balance of forces at the time.

What do you think about the historical evidence of Netanyahu promoting Hamas for this very reason?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

Anyway, we can make a similar argument about the Netanyahu regime: it is actively making Jewish, Israeli, and American people around the world less safe. It is almost treasonous that our elected officials are supporting this dangerous regime so uncritically.

I definitely have a client who would fire us if I said anything remotely against Israel.

Paul Graham:

Well, well, well. That felt coordinated. Turns out it was.

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1733146138226614465?ref_src...

Pro-Palestinian views outrank Pro-Israeli online by around 36 to 1 on TikTok and 8 to 1 on other online platforms. https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1721561226151612602

If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views https://twitter.com/committeeonccp/status/173279243496103143...

It also seems like these platforms create (rather than support) anti-Israeli views: https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1730255552738201854

US views skew pro-israel, and GenZ is closer to 50/50, so if there's something going on online, it's not in favor of Israel.

It's probably relevant that there are 1 billion Muslims to 16 million Jews, and that the largest relevant population of pro-Israeli internationals is India and Indian Hindus, and they are not on TikTok (blocked in India).

Anti-semitism in and of itself is unequivocally wrong.

But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike.

Funny how so many otherwise clever people get confused about this.

No one is immune to all propaganda, even the most clever people.

There's no confusion, had Israel or the US busted into civilian homes and raped and murdered women and children, live streaming it - Would you be fine with people marching down the streets the next day in middle eastern countries with Israeli or American flags saying the same thing?

Couldn't agree more. It's a common misunderstanding, perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism.

perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism.

That is the #1 tactic used to build smearing campaigns against people critic of Israel. The difference between being a racist and expressing disgust for what Israel has done in decades to the people of Gaza and the West Bank is so huge that either people using the word "antisemite" in that context are deeply ignorant, or they simply have an agenda. To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant.

To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant.

Then you have not been paying attention. Add this fact to your knowledge: US Republicans really ARE that ignorant. They certainly have an agenda, but they are most certainly ignorant to have such an idiotic agenda, too.

House Declares Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism, Dividing Democrats

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/world/middleeast/house-an...

More than half of House Democrats declined to back the Republican-written resolution, as some argued that equating criticism of the state of Israel with hatred of the Jewish people went too far.

House Democrats splintered on Tuesday over a resolution condemning the rise of antisemitism in the United States and around the world, with more than half of them declining to support a measure declaring that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”

The resolution denouncing antisemitism, drafted by Republicans, passed by a vote of 311 to 14, drawing the support of all but one Republican. Ninety-two Democrats voted “present” — not taking a position for or against the measure — while 95 supported it.

That reflected deep and growing divisions among Democrats between those who have offered unequivocal support for the Jewish state and its actions, and others — especially in the party’s progressive wing — who have been critical of Israel’s policies and its conduct in the war with Hamas.

“Under this resolution, those who love Israel deeply but criticize some of its policy approaches could be considered anti-Zionist,” Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, said in a floor speech before he voted “present.” “That could make every Democratic Jewish member of this body, because they all criticized the recent Israeli judicial reform package, de facto antisemites. Might that be the author’s intention?”

It’s obviously true that criticism of Israel isn’t inherently antisemitic.

But that’s also a convenient excuse used by people who are actually antisemitic.

Both of these things can be true at once.

It's obviously true that calling out or implying anti semitism where it doesnt exist doesnt automatically make the accuser an racist.

But it usually does.

They are, while doing this, implicitly or explicitly endorsing Bibi's "exterminate the palestinians" Amalek trope, Ben Gvir hanging a portrait of Baruch Goldstein on his wall (shot up a mosque, considered to be a hero by ~10% of Israelis) and Isaac Herzog calling race-mixing a "tragedy".

(i dont think it's too controversial to suggest that those 3 people essentially represent Israel)

This practice of calling all and sundry racist in defense of a state founded upon an ideology of racial purity is, of course, probably mostly racist projection.

Indeed, it's hard to be a dedicated anti-racist these days without being accused of being an anti semite at some point.

Don't forget Smotrich, a leader in the current government, who said it was a "mistake" that the first Israeli government didn't "finish the job" of expelling all the Arabs from Israel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-at-knesset-ben-gurion...

The current Israeli government has espoused their views that Palestinians should not have their own state, that all Arabs are terror supporters who are the enemy of Israel, who should be exterminated or removed. And this was happening regularly long before October 7th. I wonder why some Palestinians don't see Israel as a viable partner in peace or that they feel their only option is to destroy Israel before they are destroyed themselves?

One could say the same for "the other part": being pro-Palestinians doesn't mean being pro-Hamas, but that's also a convenient excuse used by people who are actually pro-Hamas.

The problem happens when nobody is given the benefit of the doubt about being in group 1.

It depends on "Israeli what".

Anti Israeli government: It's not antisemitic.

Anti Israeli people: It's antisemitic.

It’s more complicated than that.

Criticizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank is not antisemitic. But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing.

Both are arguably criticisms of the Israeli government.

But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing.

You've got it backwards. The only way for Israel to exist as an ethnostate is through an ethnic cleansing. That's not specific to Israel; that's inherent to the concept of an ethnostate.

The assumption that Israel can only exist as an ethnostate is itself a political assertion - it's the hallmark of right-wing Zionism.

The assumption that Israel can only exist as an ethnostate is itself a political assertion - it's the hallmark of right-wing Zionism.

I had a discussion at length on this with some very historically learned people (far more than me) shortly after the attack, with the context of Biden's response.

The underlying cultural memory is that of the Holocaust, and of thousands of years of oppression and pogroms before, where nobody would ever help the Jewish people if they were in danger. Thus the belief that the second the Jewish people became a political minority in Israel, they would be immediately and inevitably subject to ethnic cleansing and persecution by the government. Jewish supremacy is viewed as the only way for Jews to be safe in a world full of people who either hate them or don't care enough to help.

This explains Biden's "bear hug" diplomatic approach as well, which as much as it was directed to Netanyahu, was actually directed at the Israeli population (and he is now much more popular than Netanyahu is, from approval polling). The only way to defuse the situation long-term is to convince the Jewish people that if they accept peaceful co-existence without enforced ethnic supremacy and apartheid; and the only way to do that is to convince them that if they are threatened, that they will not be left to die alone as they feel they have been so many times before.

The underlying cultural memory is that of the Holocaust, and of thousands of years of oppression and pogroms before, where nobody would ever help the Jewish people if they were in danger. Thus the belief that the second the Jewish people became a political minority in Israel, they would be immediately and inevitably subject to ethnic cleansing and persecution by the government. Jewish supremacy is viewed as the only way for Jews to be safe in a world full of people who either hate them or don't care enough to help.

You're describing the reason that some Jews say they support the creation of an ethnostate. That's still an ethnostate, and treating Israel as synonymous with a Jewish ethnostate is the defining right-wing characteristic of Zionism.

It's important to note that what you're describing is not representative of the general opinion of Jews, either globally or in Israel. Many Jewish Holocaust survivors and their descendants oppose the creation of an ethnostate through ethnic cleansing.

It's weird to describe Israel as an "ethnostate" when it has a large population of Israeli Arabs who live there peacefully that nobody is trying to get rid of. If Palestine wants to live in peace, they can just stop attacking, yet all we seem to hear are calls for Israel to stop resisting.

And it's odd to worry about what's "right wing" while Hamas wants the creation of a new caliphate that constantly chants about how they'd like to remove all the Jews from the area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. mirroring the ethnic cleansing done by many nearby Islamic states in the recent past.

But it is true that the average Israeli does not want to ethnically cleanse anyone, because if they did want that, Israel could have simply destroyed all of Palestine a long time ago.

The only way for Israel to exist as an ethnostate is through an ethnic cleansing.

I don't understand that logic. Would you mind explaining?

Do you live in North America? I identify this perspective with Americans and Canadians and not, say, Norwegians.

This one seems very straightforward to me, so to make an explanation useful, perhaps we need some shared definitions

1. ethnostate: a country that values/prioritizes residents being of a particular ethnicity defined in law and either forbids people of other ethnicities from living there or discourages them by denying them equal rights

2. ethnic cleansing: (EU definition) Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group

Perhaps you are saying that legal discrimination doesn't count as intimidation and therefore denying rights based on ethnicity is not ethnic cleansing? (I would disagree). Or are you using different definitions altogether?

What makes discussion of this difficult is that whenever someone neutrally discusses this, someone invariably jumps in, angry, with an uncharitable whatabout. Please ignore it when it happens.

When you dig into the history of the region, as an interesting topic in its own right, without reference to any current conflict, without motivation to prove any particular side right or wrong, just letting history tell its own story, some patterns emerge. I'll give you the Cliff Notes the way it seems to me, a non-Jew American, culturally leftists. If I'm wrong I'll hear a calm, considered, good-faith-well-sourced-not-weird fact I may not be aware of.

To answer your question, when Israel started, the new state invited its Arab neighbors to participate and this invitation was sincere. This fact is elided quite a lot, but it's true and I can show you receipts. This directly relates to your point. As you might imagine, Zionist Jews were really not interested in fighting. Many Arabs agreed to participate in the new state, stayed, were peaceful and their descendents are full Israeli citizens today. There was no intention for an "ethno-state" by point 2 of your definition at this time, but there was a Zionist desire to defend themselves. The borders of the new democratic state did demographically put Jews in charge, but there wasn't a desire to expel Arabs. I know, hard to fathom, but it's true.

Nevertheless, Arabs were expelled. From the Zionist perspective, they weren't expelled because they were Arabs, but because they participated in a genocidal war with the stated intention to expell and kill Jews.

Where did that intention come from? Surely the Zionists did something to deserve that hate? Stole land?

After really looking at it, from my Western, American perspective, they did no more than Jews did when they immigrated to my own country: start businesses, purchase land, prosper to the envy of some of their neighbors. If you can demonstrate that Zionists literally stole land, lmk. However, instead of emigrating to the Lower East Side, which was rough but still more or less had the rule of law, Zionists immigrated to a lawless backwater of the dying Ottoman Empire where they were were the target of explicitly genocidal attacks by Muslim Arabs. These attacks spilled over to historically Jewish villages, such as Hebron.

So, when I hear "Zionists stole land" I hear "Micks stole our jobs" and not "Boers violently displaced native tribes from fertile farmland". It's a better analogy for what actually happened.

Today, Israel controls lands, the West Bank and Gaza, populated by the descendents of the people who tried to ethnically cleanse them on first go. No one else wants that land and its people. Not Egypt, not Jordan, not Lebanon. Now it's on Israel to try to deal with this.

I actually wonder how to navigate this actually. Like, I have seen criticism of things Israel has enacted in order to ensure that the population is a majority-Jewish, Jewish-own-all-the-political-power. Is that antisemetic to argue against anti-arab laws, if those laws are in place to ensure that Israel is a jewish state first and foremost, as opposed to Israel being a jewish state, if that makes sense?

Why should we in the West support a religious ethnostate? No government has the divine right to exist. Governments succeed or fail by the will of those who live there.

Israel has a population of around 2 million Arab Muslims. They have full citizenship, serve in the police and army, are represented in the Knesset, serve as judges and one of them sits on the Supreme Court. One of them won the Miss Israel competition a while back. Does that sound much like a Jewish ethnostate?

Do you know what the Jewish populations were in Arab states back in the 1940s? It was about 800,000. It’s only the fact that the state of Israel existed, and gave them somewhere to flee to, that so many managed to escape with their lives.

It is true there were expulsions of palestinians during the 1948 invasion by the Arab armies, which is abhorrent, but this was in the context of a concerted, explicitly declared attempt at mass ethnic cleansing of the Jews. They were literally fighting to exist. Then-Secretary-General of the Arab League Abdul Rahman Azzam, said, "This will be a war of destruction and a great massacre." Other Arab leaders made it clear they intended to kill or expel the entire Jewish population, a policy which they actually carried out in their own countries. So we know this wasn’t just rhetoric, where they could do it, they did.

It's codified in law they're second-class citizens. See the "Nation State Law".

The Nakba.

The legal code and constitution also guarantees equal rights under the law. Can you cite an example of an Israeli Arab being denied any legal right due to that law?

Don’t get me wrong, I wish that law didn’t exist. It’s a mistake, but it’s mostly posturing by the Jewish nationalist faction.

The nakba was an appalling catastrophe. It shouldn’t have happened. But then the Arab invasion with the explicit aim of killing and expelling the Jews shouldn’t have happened either. Nor should the expulsion of 800,000 Jews from Arab countries. They were all terrible disasters. The world would be a better place if they hadn’t happened, but they did. Now we live in the world of today.

Are the Arab countries going to let the descendants of their Jewish populations back, and return the property and land confiscated from them? Are they going to grant them citizenship and let them serve in the police, army and judiciary with full democratic rights?

Is this a joke? Do you not know of the occupied territories like Hebron? Like dude, go on Youtube and if you just search "hebron surveillance" you'll find NUMEROUS videos of how it is literally the most surveilled city in the World. Just 10 seconds of ANY video will show you how much of an apartheid regime Israel is. What you've described is all smoke and mirror.

And if you want to understand even an ounce of the terrorism that Israeli soldiers commit against Palestinians in occupied territory, what better way than to listen straight from the mouths of ex-IDF soldiers? Well, good news for you, ex-IDF soliders in early 2000 created an org called "Breaking the silence". Look it up. THere you'll find over 300 video confessions + 200 text confessions of IDF confessing to acts of terrorism. Examples include occupying a home just to watch the World Cup, or to sleep in it while ALL the family sits in one room. Using children as human shields to do their search operations. They literally coined the term "neighborhood procedure" where they use Palestinians to knock on suspected "terrorists" homes to scout them out (Such cowards). You'll come across videos of soldiers confessing to killing an innocent man on the rooftop bc he looked at them weird. Or killing a child 40 min after he threw a molotov. I mean the list goes on and on. All that I described are from the video confessions. No propaganda. No BS. All straight from ex-IDF soldiers. Watch the videos on "Breaking the silence" and then come tell me Israel is not an apartheid regime.

And wow, the utter lies and falsehood you're spreading. Arab leaders wanted to kill or expel the entire Jewish population? Really? Okay. Listen. Jews, Muslims and Christians co-existed peacefully under Muslims rule for 1300 or so years. And then all of a sudden you're telling me Arab leaders just felt like wanting to genocide Jews? LOL You do realize that Muslims protected the Jews the most right? From being persecuted? There are literally so many Jewish scholars like Dean Phillip Bell who've written books and papers on how the Jews THRIVED under Muslim rule. Not only that, scholars like Dean Phillip Bell actually say that Jews experienced something like the golden age just like Islam did under Islamic rule in Spain. Until the Christian massacred and drove everyone away.

Also, the Muslims conquered the lands of Jerusalem in 638 AD where the first Islamic Caliphate, Umar Ibn Khattab, besieged the city and the Christians surrendered. He took over without bloodshed. When Umar Ibn Khattab asked them, where are the Jews? He was surprised to hear they were all slaughtered or driven away by the Byzantine Christians sometime around 138-150 AD. He said, bring 20 Jewish families and establish them here. No lands were stolen, nothing was taken, no forced conversions were made. Jews Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then the Christian crusaders came in the 11th century and SLAUGHTERED everyone, Muslims AND Jews. Then, Islamic leader Salahuddin came 150-200 years later and liberated Jerusalem. Again, same thing. No lands were taken, no forced conversions. He even spared the Christians who slaughtered everyone 150 years ago. Then the Ottomons came and ruled over from 14 or 15th century and implemented the Millet system where every religious community had their own government. Again, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then it allll went down hill from 1917 onwards. I won't go into details but it lead to the Nakba in 1948, where British soldiers were commanded to evict Palestinians. 750K Palestinians displaced. Tens of thousands were killed. Women were raped (watch Tarantulla, watch the Jewish soliders ADMIT TO THIS).

And then you tell us and the rest of the people that "Oh these Arab leaders man, they wanted to kill the entire Jewish population look how evil they are". BULLSH*T. Such lies. Shame on you. You literally cannot reference any material here where you can confidently say Jews were persecuted by Muslims en masse pre-1917. I bet you 100%.

Please go and look at the ethnic makeup of Israel. It’s not an ethnostate. And even if it were there’s many that are supported by the west that are ethnostates. That’s not a reason to not support someone.

Please go and look at the ethnic makeup of the government of Israel. Please go and look at the stated policies of the government of Israel.

The non-Jewish populations are only allowed to exist so long as they provide labor and are second-class citizens under the law.

Only Jewish people have full citizenship rights in Israel. There are "jews only" streets there.

That kind of stuff doesn't fly in a non-ethnostate.

It is interesting that the widespread view of isreali people that Palestinians doesn't have right to have a state is not viewed as bad as the other way around. Ironically it can be called antisemitism too. Because they are Semitic too [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

That's a classic etymological fallacy.

Antisemitism is a word that was coined in the 19th century specifically as anti-Jew.

The fact that Semite today can now refer to non-Jews doesn't mean Antisemitism refers to non-Jews as well.

Why is saying Israeli should not be a Jewish state any different than saying the US should not be a Christian state?

Well Jews are a cultural and ethnic group as well; so saying Israel shouldn’t be a Jewish state is similar to saying Japan shouldn’t be a Japanese state. It was explicitly established to create (or some would say reclaimed) a Jewish homeland. It’s Jewishness is central to it’s raison d'être.

Japan isn't an officially Shinto state, afaik. And it wouldn't be wrong to criticize its subjugation of the indigenous Ainu people. I think that calling for a multi-ethnic, secular Japanese state is fair.

Japan isn’t officially a Japanese country?

Come on mate, thats possibly the most asinine and distasteful argument I have seen on this site.

So wouldn't saying that Israel shouldn't be a Jewish state then be similar to saying that the United States shouldn't be a white state?

The USA is a bad example because it does not have a basic ethnic group. A good parallel would be: "France should not be a French state" or "Ireland should not be an Irish state" or again "Japan should not be a Japanese state."

Criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semitic, and many Israelis and Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its actions (even more than usual during the ongoing political crisis). Many of the critics I see lack nuance (basically, "rooting for the underdog"), but that's a different problem. The problem is complicated, and there is no simple solution (some kind of two-state may work after many years).

But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) and calls for an intifada (de facto violence against Jews) are anti-semitic. Supporting Hamas, whose goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, or saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks is anti-semitic (Hamas is also bad for Gazans, but that's another story). I can go on and on. People holding these views may hold them not because they hate Jews (for example, I don't think that people removing posters of kidnapped Israelis necessarily hate them), but the result is all the same. There is also obvious anti-semitism unrelated to Israel, like attacking synagogues, drawing stars of David on Jewish houses, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about.

And the most vocal anti-Israelis are naturally the most extreme ones and usually include some of the stuff I mentioned. As a result, people call out anti-semitism, usually not referring to anti-Israeli critics you are talking about.

chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country)

What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good.

saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks

Who has said that?

For example, 2017 Hamas charter [1], page 6:

The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah ... There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. ... Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967.

Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. Saying "from the river to the sea" means that all people should be free is akin to saying "arbeit macht frei" is a call for the financial independence of working people.

As for your second question, calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives [2].

[1] https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-is...

Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. Saying "from the river to the sea" means that all people should be free is akin to saying "arbeit macht frei" is a call for the financial independence of working people.

Their "2017 charter" rather dramatically toned down the language. The original version makes no attempt to be politically correct.

their "2017 charter" rather dramatically toned down the language. Go look up the original version which makes no attempt to be politically correct.

Do you happen to know where to find it? Is there an English translation (not an English version published by them, but a translation by someone reliable)? Often all sides in Israel speak differently in English and local languages, afaik.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

I'm not sure the source of the English, if it's an official English version or was translated by a third party.

Among other things, it calls for the "obliteration" of Israel by Islam, asserts that "death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of [the Islamic Resistance's] wishes", and cites noted anti-semitic text "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" among other conspiracy theories. It also says:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

Thank you for some actual evidence. First, to add some detail from reading it, first the cut off part:

However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

And from p.2, where 'Palestine' is defined geographically, which seems to include much or all of Israel (including Israel in a two-state solution). However, a quick search did not turn up Ras Al-Naqurah or Umm Al-Rashrash.

The Land of Palestine:

2. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.

-------------

Second, though I think it obviously weighs significantly on the question, I'll point out some considerations:

* Hamas doesn't speak for Palestinians generally. What does the Palestinian Authority say? Optimally, we'd need information on the Palestinian public now or before Oct 7, when the issue was less politicized and information more reliable.

* Again, the document is significant, but generally, something in a document doesn't reliably tell us the beliefs of the public. Even scripture won't tell you what people are doing or thinking (even the leaders - compare some of their ideas with scripture).

* It's from 2017; I wonder how old the phrase is.

Anyway, hardly criticism; thanks for contributing. It's not an easy question.

calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives

Warfare, including as currently conducted by Israel, is not the only means of Israel defending itself. IMHO elliding the two seems like an obviously disingenous attack, and it undermines all supporters of Israel by making their other claims equally suspect.

did not turn up Ras Al-Naqurah or Umm Al-Rashrash.

Ras Al-Naqurah, I think, is Rosh HaNikra [1], the current northern border of Israel. Umm Al-Rashrash is now Eilat [2], the southernmost Israeli city. For me, both were the first google links.

Optimally, we'd need information on the Palestinian public now or before Oct 7, when the issue was less politicized and information more reliable.

You can check the polls from July 2023 [3]. For example, 50% thought that Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction.

Again, the document is significant, but generally, something in a document doesn't reliably tell us the beliefs of the public.

Would you use a slogan actively used by some racist organization to call for white supremacy because it also meant something else you believe in?

Warfare, including as currently conducted by Israel, is not the only means of Israel defending itself.

I don't see how else you can possibly defend yourself from armed people killing your citizens in their homes. Again, this specific call happened while Hamas was still killing Israelis in Israel.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_HaNikra_Crossing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat [3] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...

Thanks again for making serious contributions.

Ras Al-Naqurah, I think, is Rosh HaNikra [1], the current northern border of Israel. Umm Al-Rashrash is now Eilat [2], the southernmost Israeli city. For me, both were the first google links.

If that's true (as expected), then IMHO the Hamas document effectively calls for driving Jews out of Israel. I expect that if they got their "formula for national consensus", essentially the two-state solution, they'd still aim for the bigger goal.

Would you use a slogan actively used by some racist organization to call for white supremacy because it also meant something else you believe in?

Good point; I wouldn't (and I don't say that). Though the slogan could be appropriated by Hamas for that reason. We see that plenty these days and this is an extremely politicized issue.

I don't see how else you can possibly defend yourself from armed people killing your citizens in their homes. Again, this specific call happened while Hamas was still killing Israelis in Israel.

Again, that doesn't seem genuine. You can't think of any other way? I'm sure the Netanyahu government discussed other ways. Almost everyone in the world can think of other ways.

Focusing on one specific statement (and citing an WSJ opinion piece!) also sounds like a call to outrage, not reason. Don't trust WSJ opinion pieces: They always end the same way, which tells you they will say anything to reach that end. Contrast the NYT op-ed page, which has opinions across the spectrum (with the major exception that the conservatives abandoned Trump). Don't trust any opinion pieces - they are all liars, on all sides, is my strong opinion.

Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum.

"From the river to the sea, palestine will be free" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide.

If you're looking for slogans that genuinely impute racist genocidal intent look no further than the Israeli Prime Minister's references to Amalek.

People who say that they support Israel may not believe this imputed genocidal intent is what they support that in a practical sense it is.

"From the river to the sea, palestine will be free" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide.

To read it literally (and choose one of many possible literal interpretations), doesn't work in this situation, if it ever works. It's not a statement someone just now made up on the spot in an isolated context; it's a slogan in an extremely politicized situation, with many years of history and meaning upon it.

"Arbeit macht frei" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide.

One of my favorites is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - North Korea. See, they're a democracy - for the people! :) Words, by themselves, are so easy to lie with.

River to the Sea has clear meaning regarding the establishment of palestine and the eradication of israel.

You can draw a very neat line between the number of jews currently permitted to live peacefully in palestine vs the number of muslims living within israel.

its not complicated, confusing, unclear or opaque.

River to the Sea means to end the israeli state, and the end of that does not have a happy ending for any jews living on that land.

Jews, Muslims and Christians have lived in that region relatively peacefully for a long time.

The end of Israel as an exclusionary apartheid state does not have to mean the end of Jews living there, in a pluralist state guaranteeing equal access to Christians, Jews and Muslims to their holy sites and shared ancestral homeland.

From the river to the sea is the entirety of Israel plus Gaza/west bank of landmass. Then calling Palestine shall be free is a call to end the state of Israel. hopefully Oct 7th should demonstrate what that means, which is indiscriminately killing of all Israeli civilians.

If you doubt it ask a few Palestinians what would happen to the Jews living in the area if “Palestine is free”.

My (current, possibly misinformed) understanding is that "from the river to the sea" refers to a Palestinian state that stretches from the west bank to Gaza. Under the current reality, I don't see how this would be accomplished without a mass genocide of (Jewish) Israelis.

I'm open to the suggestion that (some?) people chanting this hope for this to be accomplished without violence, but speakers at such events have also glorified the actions of Hamas on October 7th.

For what it's worth, I don't support the actions of Israel, or the occupation of West bank and Gaza. I support a free Palestine in the sense that West Bank / Gaza should be left alone. There's a good chance that without the blockade, those territories would better arm themselves and it would result in a war which would impact Israel much more significantly as West Bank + Gaza would likely move to reclaim Israeli land. But at this point I don't see an alternative without Israel continuing its egregious human rights violations and genocide of the Palestinian people.

Kind of a shit situation all around.

There is a well-established solution to conflict, called democracy. People fight it out in ballots and legislatures; they resolve differences by the universal rules (apply to everyone) in indepedent tribunals (courts; they all are guaranteed human rights.

It doesn't work beautifully or easily or perfectly, but it keeps a lid on things generally. Our recent abandonment of it is awful, and serves only the warmongers, hateful, and power-hungry - the people who benefit from the absence of things like universal human rights.

That democracy evaporated very quickly in Gaza.

So an essential solution hasn't worked everywhere every time. Should we abandon it? Should the founders of the US quit after the Articles of Confederation didn't work out? Later after the Civil War?

The well established solution called democracy generally concludes that people should be allowed to continue living in separate jurisdictions rather than being consolidated into one territory between "river and sea" for reasons of history and religious symbolism though.

As it happens, the Palestinians are slightly outnumbered in the area between the river and the sea, which means that when it crops up in the Hamas charter it's difficult to imagine that democracy is how they would seek to maintain control over the region, even ignoring recent history (And yeah, the same question marks about how exactly they would stay in power applies to all the Palestinian and Israeli groups before them that defined the "river and the sea" as the territories they thought their brethren should assume control of, as they pointedly focused on the idea of historical unity rather than self determination)

I'm sure there are people who sincerely believe in the position that a single state solution with some form of democracy would be best for the region and a moderating influence but I don't think they overlap much with the river sea border slogan people...

Yes, I didn't mean a one-state democracy (though I see how it could be interpreted that way). I agree about a two-state solution.

As it happens, the Palestinians are slightly outnumbered in the area between the river and the sea, which means that when it crops up in the Hamas charter it's difficult to imagine that democracy is how they would seek to maintain control over the region

It's long been a basic assumption of experts that Palestinian's higher population growth would result in them having a much larger population in Israel than Jews. That's been a reason and incentive for the two-state solution: Israeli Jews would not want to be a minority in the 'Jewish state'.

The fact that the Israeli right wing has abandoned the two-state solution raises the question of what they intend. Clearly they don't intend being a minority; what other plan do they have?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

QUOTE

The phrase was popularised in the 1960s as part of a wider call for Palestinian liberation creating a democratic state freeing Palestinians from oppression from Israeli as well as from other Arab regimes such as Jordan and Egypt.[6][7] In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah, although this was later expanded.[8][9] Palestinian progressives use it to call for a united democracy over the whole territory.[10] while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians."

/QUOTE

Even in the most charitable interpretations about what happens to the Jews living there, it is a call to replace the state of Israel with a completely different state.

Even in the most charitable interpretations about what happens to the Jews living there, it is a call to replace the state of Israel with a completely different state.

Completely different state appears to be roughly the same state, minus apartheid. If it worked in South Africa, why wouldn't it work here?

Wouldn't you have to have apartheid in the first place, in order to minus it?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-thresh...

Hello there, a Palestinian from the west bank here speaking, let me tell you something, our resistance has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state, if my brother stole my house and killed my children i will fight him just the same, and you would too and everyone else (I assume). jewish, muslim, christian, vegan.. doesn't matter.

Now Hamas does play on the string of religion to get to people, and so does Israel (isn't it the promised land after all?).. but the main goal is to free the people from the oppressive occupation!

and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!

and like Bassem Youssef said, let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone

Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?

if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!

But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better. For the same reasons, the right of return for every descendant won't work. We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations? Do you think any side is ready to give up West Jerusalem or their right of return stance?

let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank.

I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza (even before 7/10), and more importantly, there are ways to improve it.

how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

I don't justify the settlement expansion; I think it is a wrong practice. Do you think removing settlements (plus, say, some territory exchange where removal is too complicated) would solve all West Bank problems?

A so-called "2 state solution" is an oxymoron. A state, by definition, has a sovereign monopoly on violence. Your 2 states already exist and they are inevitably at war.

It's the "solution" part that is important, i.e., agreeing on the border that satisfies both, solving other claims towards each other, removing the presence of each state from the other state's territory, etc.

Mere "peace" is absolutely not the meaning of the phrase. If it were, the phrase would be unnecessary.

The phrase was dreamt up by Western Israeli allies to promote an oppressive pipe-dream border arrangement that was not even remotely acceptable by any reasonable standards. Only propagandized westerners even speak of it.

This is done so the Western media can frame Palestinians as uncooperative.

Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?

Reminds me of "Defund the police." Led to people having to constantly explain that they didn't actually mean that police should have zero funds and be abolished. But, except, a lot of people on Twitter countered that they did mean exactly that, and that all cops are bad and they're all racist. :facepalm:

Any slogan will be denounced by people who hold opposing views. See how "Black Lives Matter" was perverted into "All Lives Matter" by detractors. It's not possible to satisfy people acting in bad faith, nor should one try to do so.

In order to be able to live together we need to learn our history, and of course being Palestinian myself i am biased, but I think the Israelis in particular need to learn their history, have you watched the documentary Tantura btw? you can find it here https://archive.org/details/tantura_2022.

Israel needs to first admit that it's establishment was on the expense of another people that are still suffering until today, without that, it's difficult to move forward, as well as continuing this conversation.

Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?

Maybe, I don't know what else can it be! the slogan is not calling for killing anyone, FREEDOM = Dignity, Human Rights, I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.

But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone....

Why not?

The right of return for every descendant won't work

Why not?

In order to be able to live together we need to learn our history

Strong disagree. History is important, but we need to solve present problems. It is possible to live a good life without returning to grandpa's home from 80 years ago. And while Israel did shitty things in 1948, I don't think Jordan or other Arab countries did better. It's impossible to say, but if the proposed borders were accepted, I'm pretty sure there would be much less suffering from both sides.

I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.

But other Palestinians want more. You could get your beach in Camp David, any peace attempts included as much, and the disagreement never was around freedom of movement of Palestinians.

Why not?

Because that would mean to displace people currently living there. Two wrongs do not make a right. And Jews were minorities in many different countries, and it turned out not that good many times. Specifically, Jews had to flee multiple Arabic countries not that long ago. How can we be sure it won't happen again?

But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better.

South Africa managed to pull it, and end apartheid. Why wouldn't it work for Israel?

Is it really worth fighting over a piece of land for generations?

It's just dirt, there's nothing special about it. Almost all borders are the results of war and conquest throughout history, it's better to accept that and move on.

It's their home and they have nowhere else to go. Wouldn't you want to preserve your community, culture and homeland?

They have a home in Gaza and the west bank - most of Palestinians today have never been inside the 67' borders so how exactly is it their home?

I'm pro a 2 state solution based on the 67' borders, fighting over some "right of return" to a place you've never been for generations just seems like a waste of life.

And if you even take the very long term view, a 2 state solution could eventually lead to open borders, and an implicit "right of return" (after decades of peace and building trust).

There are millions of people in Africa who have been born and grown up in refugee camps, and you are arguing that they should all simply give up and consider themselves settled there forever because they’ve never been to the places their parents or grandparents fled? For one thing, they might believe that an entire farm would be better to live in than a single flattened apartment?

And then you argue for the ‘67 borders: that’s 50 years ago, what makes those the borders we should roll back to when almost no Palestinians of today were alive before then?

Where do you suggest they go?

Sure, move on to where? do what? I'm curious, how much do you know about the situation here?

I don't think you even understand the gravity of the situation.

Not only did Palestinians were forcibly evicted in 1948 (The Nakba), they're being continuously occupied by an apartheid, racist and terrorist regime.

This is not a matter of conquest my friend. Because look. And bear with me. This might be long. But it's worth it. The Muslims conquered the lands of Jerusalem in 638 AD where the first Islamic Caliphate, Umar Ibn Khattab, besieged the city and the Christians surrendered. He took over without bloodshed. When Umar Ibn Khattab asked them, where are the Jews? He was surprised to hear they were all slaughtered or driven away by the Byzantine Christians sometime around 138-150 AD. He said, bring 20 Jewish families and establish them here. No lands were stolen, nothing was taken, no forced conversions were made. Jews Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then the Christian crusaders came in the 11th century and SLAUGHTERED everyone, Muslims AND Jews. Then, Islamic leader Salahuddin came 150-200 years later and liberated Jerusalem. Again, same thing. No lands were taken, no forced conversions. He even spared the Christians who slaughtered everyone 150 years ago. Then the Ottomons came and ruled over from 14 or 15th century and implemented the Millet system where every religious community had their own government. Again, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then it allll went down hill from 1917 onwards. I won't go into details but it lead to the Nakba in 1948, where British soldiers were commanded to evict Palestinians. 750K Palestinians displaced. Tens of thousands were killed. Women were raped (watch Tarantulla, watch the Jewish soliders ADMIT TO THIS). So mate, there's a massive difference. It's not just a piece of land. It's generations upon generations of families. And their homes being stolen. They're being KICKED off their lands. Generations where they've experienced so many atrocities. Atrocities that are being committed still to this day.

And if you want to understand even an ounce of the terrorism that Israeli soldiers commit against Palestinians in occupied territory, what better way than to listen straight from the mouths of ex-IDF soldiers? Well, good news for you, ex-IDF soliders in early 2000 created an org called "Breaking the silence". Look it up. THere you'll find over 300 video confessions + 200 text confessions of IDF confessing to acts of terrorism. Examples include occupying a home just to watch the World Cup, or to sleep in it while ALL the family sits in one room. Using children as human shields to do their search operations. They literally coined the term "neighborhood procedure" where they use Palestinians to knock on suspected "terrorists" homes to scout them out (Such cowards). You'll come across videos of soldiers confessing to killing an innocent man on the rooftop bc he looked at them weird. Or killing a child 40 min after he threw a molotov. I mean the list goes on and on. All that I described are from the video confessions. No propaganda. No BS. All straight from ex-IDF soldiers. Watch the videos on "Breaking the silence" and then come tell me if they can just "accept and move on". So it's not just about land my friend. It's about occupation, oppression, etc.

1948 was a result of a war that Arab nations started so not quite one sided as you portray.

Did Israel commit some crimes during 1948? Sure, but it's kinda silly to expect Israel to not use a war that was forced upon them to better their situation, especially when when the Arab nations tried to wipe out Israel.

You can't start a war to wipe someone out, lose that war and later call foul play on such a response.

And again, I think Israel should stop the occupation in the west bank, which is what "breaking the silence" is all about, I'm not trying to protect israel's actions.

And if it's not about land and all about peace and prosperity, what's the issue with a two state solution?

And why didn't you go all the way back to the kingdom of judea in your history lesson?

I specifically said it's not ONLY about land...

Well, there have been many proposals for a 2-state solution but at many times, both sides have jeopardized and rejected offers.

Better their situation? Really? At the expense of displacing almost a million people? Come on man, are you hearing yourself? Not only have they displaced them, they've killed tens of thousands of them. On top of that, they've been taking more and more land as the decades have gone by. Not to mention the acts of terrorism they've inflicted on Palestinians in occupied territory.

1948 was a result of a war that Arab nations started? Can you elaborate on that? Why did they start it? Please elucidate me.

And how many Jews live in any of the neighboring Muslim ruled countries? As you say "if my brother ... killed my children I will fight him just the same". The very reason for the wall between Israel and Gaza is because people from Gaza have repeatedly sent terrorists to kill people in Israel. Before Oct 7th (and continuing up to this day) they continually launch rockets that would have killed tens of thousands of Israelis were it not for the Iron Dome.

I'm not an expert on this but from watching the odd documentary I get the impression that 90%+ of Palestinians think similar to yourself but a minority, maybe 1% are into the hardline islam must defeat the jews type position which Hamas seems to adopt. And then while the others try to live somewhat peacefully the minority unfortunately do October 7 massacre type things which then of course causes retaliation. I'm not sure how this ends unless they drop that?

  > Hello there, a Palestinian from the west bank here speaking,

Israeli here, and I'm glad to see you here.

  > let me tell you something, our resistance has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state, if my brother stole my house and killed my children i will fight him just the same, and you would too and everyone else (I assume). jewish, muslim, christian, vegan.. doesn't matter.

Makes sense. I happen to agree with you.

I should address "stole your house" and "killed your children" separately. The "stealing houses" issue started during the 1948 war - what you call Nakba and I call Independence. The UN partitioned the holy land, and the Arabs were unsatisfied so started conquering land. Their specific intention was to "steal houses" or "steal land" or however else you want to phrase it. Ergo, this things happened though it did not turn out how they intended. Likewise, no fewer Jews than Arabs had their houses stolen. How many Jews remained in the West Bank after the 1948 war? Zero. How many Arabs remained in the new state of Israel? Hundreds of thousands. And do not forget the houses stolen from the Jews of Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Tunis, and other Arab states.

As for the "killed your children" there are so many ways that children both Palestinian and Jewish have been killed. Do you agree with me that Palestinian children are often involved in violence? I'll tell you that the first time I ever saw an Arab with a rifle he was shooting it in one arm (in the air, but towards Israels myself included) and a small child, maybe four or five, in the other. And I've seen enough similar things myself since. I have no doubt that innocent children have been killed - no doubt at all. But I do dispute the idea that the Israeli state is deliberately killing children. I served in the army, and anybody who would ever say anything remotely stupid to the hint of deliberately hurting a civilian was disciplined severely. I'm sure the entire army is not as my small battalion was, but I do believe that my battalion was representative.

  > let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

Just to make you aware, despite all the resistance to Israelis building homes in the West Bank, it is in fact not only legal under international law, but actually encouraged by Ottoman law which nobody today has the authority to change. This is pretty much a copy-paste of a previous comment of mine. League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the West Bank today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.

Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.

Many Israelis seem to live in an alternate world with alternate histories and alternate facts. Read Ilan Pappé to break out of that bubble.

Supporting Hamas ... is anti-semitic

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

Then the Times of Israel is on the record with articles accusing Netanyahu of being anti-semitic. I don't think those things you list are anti-semitic - they just happen to be politically bad for Jews right now. There is a difference (an important one) between policies-bad-for-a-group and being motivated by an unreasonable hatred of a group.

The term "anti-semetic" is in and of itself "anti-semetic". It obfuscates the fact that palestinians are true semites by conflating itself with any anti-jewish sentiment or criticism.

The modern israeli's are not semites. Those that settled after WW2 were eastern european converts, khazars, with no genetic ties to the middle east. Those that are not ashkenazi are migrants from the surrounding countries, who largely did not move to the area until after the occupation of palestine.

The term "anti-semite" was invented to reinforce the lie that the ruling class of israel have some ancestral claim to the land. Using it is playing into that propaganda.

It's dangerous, tricky terrain. Regardless of your beliefs, anti-Semites benefit.

* The anti-Semites are not idiots, mostly; they don't spew anti-Semitism publicly but say what is acceptable, which is to criticize Israel, and obviously anything anti-Israeli helps their cause.

* There's an implication whether people like it or not: Israel defines itself as The Jewish State. Also, many people are unware that Judaism is non-hierarchical overall; there's no pope-equivalent in Israel to which Jewish people have some allegiance (remember the old Papist accusation against Roman Catholics for dual loyalty); though Israel has some special things and history, it has no other role in non-Israeli Jewish people's religion, but people make that association regardless. Also, many are unaware that most Jewish people in the US oppose Netanyahu and the Israeli right, and afaik are sympathetic to the Palestinians. Anti-Semites will benefit from that implication, even though you don't want them to.

* Not everyone will respect that essential division between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic speech, and there's a significant risk that large-scale anti-Semitism could spill over. It was already at the highest levels in recent history (like other prejudices). It's easy to dismiss as as unlikely when you aren't at risk; a small risk of catastrophe is a big issue when it's your life.

People absolutely need to be able to criticize Israel, but I hope they are careful (not silent) and aware that there is no easy answer. You are anti-Israel (in this case, at least) and not anti-Semitic, but you will help the latter to some degree - hopefully a minimized one.

I think the major problem is that we've abandoned and actively attack the former social prohibition against prejudice, stereotypes, intolerance, race/sex/gender/religious discrimination, etc. It used to be verboten, but then we are all familiar with the contemporary reactionary attack on it (however you perceive it, whatever words you use), which seems to have been very successful. A very major loss is that without that high wall between us and the bad guys and bad behavior, without that bright line, there is much more spillover in what we do, and much more risk of them walking right in.

Another possible explanation for this skew is that TikTok and IG are primarily video platforms.

The videos of destruction and death in Gaza are far more horrific than corresponding videos in Israel, because the scale of what Israel is doing to Gaza is so much greater than what Gaza has done to Israel.

Another way of saying it is, it makes sense that someone who spends hours on apps optimized for empathy-based addiction would be more sympathetic to Gazans than someone who reads the newspaper or watches talking heads on TV news, since the latter portray the occupation as a two-sided tit for tat.

It's also the nature of the violence. It's generally acceptable to show shots of bombed-out buildings and the like, or even display injured or dead bodies. The footage we and Israel have from Hamas depicts first-hand murder, rape and torture - all things which are going to violate TOS.

I'm confused when you say that its acceptable to display injured or dead bodies, and yet its violating TOS to display murder or torture. The photo of a murder vs a photo of a bombed body is not something I understand to be distinctly different nor something that would be able to be detected by the algorithm.

[Small addition: I've actually seen videos of (alleged) hamas torture, particularly the torture and killing of a specific woman, from Oct 7, not taken down from TOS. I just was under the impression, because there are literally more Palestinian dead people, there will be more photos of dead Palestinians.]

[Edited to add, since I'm apparently posting too fast: no, I really do mean there were censored videos of that naked woman in the back of a hamas truck from Oct 7! And that one video of an Israeli woman who lives close enough to the bombing that she can hear it in the context that it gives her peace to know the bombing is happening!]

Rape and torture were not featured [1] in the recent propaganda movie Israel screened to select people in the West, so there's no reason to believe such footage exists.

1. https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1729487180630786219

That's possible. I'm aware that Hamas filmed much of what they did, and that they committed rape and torture in addition to murder; I'm not aware of the contents of much of the footage available because I'm, frankly, too squeamish to seek it out or watch it myself. Do you think this substantively detracts from my overall point, though?

What's available that I've seen falls into several categories:

- Uniformed Gazan fighters (not just Hamas/Al-Qasam, but also PIJ's Saraya Al-Quds, PFLP and some others) breaking the fence infrastructure (cams, remote controlled sentry gun towers, fence walls, fence itself, drone footage, preparations the night before - it shows that fighters of various groups commingled quite a bit). Fighters attacking Israel's military installations (border crossings, destroying some stationary military vehicles not manned at the time, etc.)

- Gazan fighters running around, or riding on motorcycles and pickup trucks, shooting at people and vehicles from small arms, and kidnapping people. This is the bulk of actual action in available footage.

- Footage of masses going from Gaza and looting settlements in Gaza envelope.

- Some grenade throwing into enclosed spaces with people inside.

- Almost no footage of fighters fighting with Israel army's armor, almost no footage of torture.

- No footage of child killings (there's some footage where only parents were killed and children left living). Small children were ~1% of killed victims on Oct 7, so lack of footage is not surprising.

- IDF killing a group of people that was apparently surrendering.

- Videos of IDF attack helicopters shooting at crowds of people and cars.

Footage of aftermath:

- Lots of footage of dead, burned bodies, either in cars or in houses. It's not clear who these people are a lot of the time, or who caused the fire, or how they died. (Israel overcounted its casualties by ~2 hundreds, due to misidentification of burned bodies.)

- At least 7 videos of corpse abuse by Israelis in the aftermath.

Oftentimes it's clear who's doing what, whether fighters or mob. Sometimes it's not.

Lot of "barbarity" of "Hamas" as portrayed in the media or even by some politicians, is made up/overblown (oven baked babies, 40 beheaded babies, children/people collected together tied and burned alive intentionally, ...). It seems to be designed to show that Hamas is way different in humanity than IDF, or whatnot, but it just ends up throwing doubt on other eyewitness descriptions of gruesome things that may be truthful.

There's an article in Haaretz about this problem: https://archive.ph/2023.12.03-221527/https://www.haaretz.co....

I have heard of footage showing rape , but that it was left out, due to respect for the victims.

In any case there are other evidence for that to happen.

Given the massive propaganda value of these claims in terms of justifying the current assault on Gaza, it's hard to imagine they wouldn't have found a way to include them. Maybe there's some other evdence but it seems odd that people are asserting that "footage exists" based on nothing.

The videos of destruction and death in Gaza are far more horrific than corresponding videos in Israel

Maybe you haven't seen enough of what happened in 10/7 then. I would rather get hit by a bomb then tortured to death in the most horrific way possible.

Would you rather get tortured to death horrifically or have your closest 200 relatives crushed to death in the rubble of everything they own? If we're comparing experiences, this might be a more typical choice.

That's pivoting from the experience of one person to comparing deaths in numbers. If we talk about the ratio we'll then need to include a bunch of other factors to explain it because it's not as simple as comparing experiences at the individual's level.

As of right now there are likely hundreds or thousands of Palestinians trapped under the rubble of their houses slowly suffocating or dying of dehydration. A process that takes days or weeks.

Nobody said that about the Germans during WW2, so I guess the disagreement is how bad the Hamas guys are.

And also we can't let them prove themselves to be as bad as the Nazis (if we start comparing numbers), it's about preventing it.

Nobody said what?

That the Allies shouldn't attack Germany because there would be too many civilian casualties. Same with Japan.

Even when dug out at some point, following a long and painful agony people crushed under collapsed buildings almost always die. Particularly in Gaza where medical supplies are now non-existent.

Lots of innocents are dying; there is IMO absolutely no amount of reasoning that can justify it, under any circumstances. It's just wrong. It must stop, period.

Yeah, that's pretty bad, but it lacks the terror and the brutality. Many people survive accidents of that magnitude and recover sooner or later. I cannot imagine being taken hostage, seeing your family members tortured and killed in front of you and dehumanized. I don't think anyone comes back from that.

there is IMO absolutely no amount of reasoning that can justify it

Unfortunately, I don’t see any other way. But I would be very happy to know of any that will eradicate hamas, and let both sides’ civilians finally live in peace.

You're taking it backward. You must not kill children. Everything else flows from this point. If your "solution" implies to kill children, it's not a solution, it's not defensible, it's not to be debated. Period. Else you're just as bad (or worse) as the other side. If you're not a fascistic fanatic (like the other side), then don't call for murder and crime (like the other side). Simple, uh?

In war there can be no justice. Now consider what is more just: not killing perpetrators, or killing innocents? Obviously, not killing is preferable. As Socrates said 2400 years ago, it's worse to commit injustice than to suffer it.

If you want an intelligent commentary on the current situation, please listen to Yuval Noah Harari on Sam Harris' podcast about this.

So what is your solution? Not doing anything is always the easy way, but it’s not a way out of most problems. Life is not a zero-sum game — in most situations there is no zero-cost decision.

There is a general human bias to do something, without considering if doing nothing could be better.

Israeli people must jail Netanyahu and his gang and negociate seriously for a two-states solution. There is no other way out. Military retaliation has exactly zero role to play here. It only creates more hatred and more Hamas militants to come.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-two-state-solution-is-still...

Can you show us some first-hand sources of what exactly did happen in 10/7? If not suitable for TikTok (though gore and violence upon Palestinians are readily visible), there must be available somewhere on PeerTube or blockchain platforms.

Pro-Palestinian views outrank Pro-Israeli online by around 36 to 1 on TikTok and 8 to 1 on other online platforms.

If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views.

That platforms prioritize one over the other is just one possible explanation. An alternative explanation is that more people already have those views. And it's dishonest to present one explanation and omit the other.

Nothing inflames people like injustice.

I don't think that parent is suggesting that platforms are actively prioritising one over the other.

I think they are saying that the composition of users of these apps skews one way rather than the other due to pre existing stances, and the fact that the apps are not available in some markets.

As a result, certain views are prioritised as a byproduct of the fact that all modern social media apps have an algorithm that shows you more of what you already agree with, in order to maximise ad profits.

I think they are saying that the composition of users of these apps skews one way rather than the other due to pre existing stances

I think the notion that the vast chunk of Twitter or TikTok had a pre existing stance on Israel/Palestine before Oct 7 is kind of silly, imo? Before this I could scroll Twitter without seeing anything about Israel or Palestine for... idk. Weeks, months at a time. I'll maybe see one thing on Palestine being oppressed, usually about West Bank settlements, from the one or two people who happen to be Palestinian. Now I literally cannot avoid it whenever I open either app.

I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7.

I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7.

I grew up in the 1980s and recall intense flareups on this subject matter for as long as I can remember. The arrival of the Web and social media simply amplified them.

This is the correct view. The Palestinian issue is a deeply-felt issue for a quarter of the world's population, give or take.

Are those population’s countries accepting Palestinian refugees?

The palestinian diaspora at this point is basically worldwide, which is somewhat ironic considering who caused it.

This has little to do with the actual point, though.

A (further) removal of Palestinians from their land is the definition of ethnic cleansing, so no I would hope they wouldn't be supporting that.

Mmmm.

It's not like the collective West (aside from USA) offered safe haven to Jews. We kinda just threw them into that corner of the world.

The important issue here is the obviously shrinking pseudo-state of Palestine. The 1947 borders of Palestine have shifted dramatically in Israel's favor, but Israel continues to send settlers to the West Bank.

---------

Hamas was wrong to attack Israel. But Israel is wrong to continue expanding its borders.

This conflict has been a huge thing since the 90s. I would argue the vast majority of people in the west had an opinion on that conflict.

Since 1948, when modern Israel was founded.

since the 1880's at least. The status of palistance was the cause for the crusades so I think we need to understand there is no resolution possible.

I don't think the crusades are especially relevant to the current issues, other than they happened to happen in the same place. WWI and the defeat of the Ottomans is basically where the current situation arose from.

I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7.

This appeared repeatedly as important news, sadly mostly due to wars and terrorism.

Jerusalem relevance alone for multiple religions with its holy sites made it important topic for many.

People being aware of the issue isn't the same as the issue being their primary interest. Or even being in their top ten interests.

I think it's pretty unfair this person is being down voted.

Yes, most Americans knew the conflict existed previous to this past October, but few who weren't Jewish or Muslim and/or Arab (I think most Arab Christians are generally/vaguely pro-Palestinian, but not sure) would have had strong opinions about it or been able to tell you much. I don't think the issue has ever featured this heavily in the US news cycle since oil embargoes in the 70s, and the issue is a lot more contentious now due to a few different factors.

Right now, unless someone consumes zero news media and has very curated social media feeds, I don't see how they could avoid understanding this has all been a major geopolitical event that is continuing to unfold.

I think your interpretation is wrong.

OP stated: "If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views".

They're explicitly stating that they believe pro-palestinian views are prioritized.

Prioritized in what exact way? You are fed what you are interested in and like, on TikTok. It is easy to read yourself of topics or content you are uninterested in or dislike.

Make a brand new account and visit TikTok. You will be shown lots of pro Palestinian content

The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine, a stance that is reflected in numerous UN General Assembly votes. Holding a pro-Israel position in this context represents a very US centric view, which is not similarly echoed in the rest of the world.

The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine

The majority of the global ruling class is for Israel's occupation of Palestine.

History is incomprehensible if we ignore class conflict.

No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza.

The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.

No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza.

I'm not sure what you are opposing. I wrote that majority of the world is against Israel's occupation. And it's not only West Bank, this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg

The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.

Pro Palestine doesn't mean pro Hamas or pro terrorist. Here is another general assembly vote, from 26th October where majority of the world voted differently than Israel, and in favor of Palestine:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847

The term "Israel's occupation of Palestine" is overloaded. It depends on how you define Palestine. Hamas defines it as all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel.

Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?

The term "Israel's occupation of Palestine" is overloaded. It depends on how you define Palestine. Hamas defines it as all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947.

The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel.

I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties. There are accusations of Israel committing war crimes. Recently, an independent investigation into the killing of a Reuters journalist suggested that it was a deliberate attack by the IDF on civilians, constituting a war crime. They told Palestinians to go south to be safe and then they bombed them there. Responding to atrocities from 7th of October with further atrocities is not justifiable. The strategy to eradicate Hamas might be counterproductive, potentially leading to the creation of more militants than are eliminated, due to the civilian casualties caused.

Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?

No one is advocating for a cessation of the fight against Hamas, but there has been a loss of world support due to the methods employed. Even the US, as indicated by Blinken either today or yesterday, has stated that there are insufficient efforts being made to protect civilian lives and that Israel is saying one thing but the reality and numbers coming from Gaza says something different.

And where do you think that comes from? Some coherent well researched culturally deep understanding of history and the current status of things by the entire population? Of course not, it’s propaganda. There are ethnic conflicts worldwide that often have more bloodshed, many occurring simultaneously right now, but this gets all the rhetoric and attention.

If you watch some of the content in question you’ll see that it actually is often in-depth analysis of history done by younger people. I’ve seen many clips discussing Nakba and the right of return for instance.

This explains my gripe with most of the messaging on socials (I came across at least) . You see accounts who never cared to post anything of this conflict suddenly being outraged and reposting stuff. It’s not that they should not care, but it’s a “outrage of the week” sort of thing, and as you say, often with nothing of the careful history and understanding.

For sure it’s a tragedy.

I think you're overlooking the fact that it's located in an area that has religious significance for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, which most other conflicts don't. Hundreds of millions of people believe in the idea of a supreme deity who takes a close personal interest in this specific part of the world.

I've long time stopped believing its about religion. Yes, religion is used as greese to get groups of people to "side". But the underlying reasons are --as always-- material.

You think the "red scare" was actually about the commies attacking? No, it was about limiting an alternative economic system == resource control.

An alternative explanation is that more people already have those views.

Treading a fine line here between Bayesian priors and stereotypes, but the worldwide Muslim/Jewish population split is something like 112:1. Obviously that's not going to be the same proportion on a given media-service, but it should still inform our expectations of what is the "default" state before theorizing about platform algorithm-tweaking or propaganda-campaigns.

This also presumes that any Muslim will be pro-Palestine and any Jewish person would be pro-Israel, a pretty strong statement given that entire communities within Israel are staunchly opposed to their ongoing actions against Hamas, which increasingly seem to be actually against Palestinian people, whom themselves also have a wide and diverse set of opinions about Hamas.

The war is shockingly unpopular on both sides of itself and seemingly the only people who are in favor of Israel's current plan of action is the Israeli government and the people who, for PR reasons, refuse to criticize Israel since Israel has done such an excellent job propagandizing people into thinking being anti-Israel in any way is synonymous with being anti-Semetic.

have a wide and diverse set of opinions about Hamas

75% of Palestinians "support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th." 76% have positive views of Hamas (other armed terrorist groups have even larger support).

https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20...

I really wish people would stop citing pollsters with no pedigree. What is the Arab World for Research & Development? Who is funding them? Who is conducting their polls? Who staffs them? Are their results reliable?

Even if these numbers are true, you have to look at them within the lens of colonial warfare. How many black South African supported the ANC against the Apartheid regime? How many Kenyans supported the Mau Mau against the British imperial army? How many Vietnamese supported the Viet Cong against the American army?

Today these are considered liberators, but during the colonial wars they were all considered terrorists who conducted inhumane acts. Perhaps people knew that but still supported their fight, simply because they considered the oppression inflected by their colonizers worth fighting against.

This times a thousand. None of this can possibly be understood even remotely well without the broader context of settler colonialism that persists to this day, as Israeli settlers continue colonizing land that is not theirs even now, today.

The amazing amount of historical revisionism where once it became so obvious and irrefutable that the causes of these various entities were, in fact, correct the entire time at which point colonial powers suddenly do an about face and call them freedom fighters instead of terrorists in genuinely nauseating. ALL groups in this vein commit various kinds of atrocities, because war, especially guerilla war, is itself largely an atrocity. And more war will only breed more of these groups as more people who do not belong in an area, do not share it's culture, and blatantly do not give a steaming shit about either of those things continue to meddle in their affairs.

Hamas will not do open battle with Israel, because of course they'd fucking lose, just like the Taliban would've to us, or the Viet Cong to us, or anyone else. They can't field an army and they know that, they aren't stupid. But what else would you have them do? Just waive the white flag and let the Western powers redraw their borders again, fuck up their cities and culture and treat them like brainless savages to avoid being killed?

Their clients and partners include The World Bank, UN, Save the Children, European Commission, USAID, CARE International (https://www.awrad.org/en/article/10467/Partners--Clients-201...) and their polling dates back to at least 2007: https://www.awrad.org/files/server/analysis.pdf

But if you don't believe these numbers, here is one from the Washington Institute in July 2023:

"Overall, 57% of Gazans express at least a somewhat positive opinion of Hamas"

"But it is organizations like Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Lion’s Den that receive the most widespread popular support in Gaza. About three quarters of Gazans express support for both groups, including 40% who see the Lion’s Den in a “very positive” light, an attitude shared by a similar percentage of West Bank residents."

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...

At least on the Israeli side, this is wrong. An enormous majority of people are convinced that the war is justified. 1200 dead; that would be the equivalent of 40,000 Americans. 240 kidnapped, with 137 still there. Hamas have proven their capabilities and determination. And then they say[1] that they intend to do it again. When someone tells you that they want you annihilated, and intend to attack you, believe them.

[1] https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-official-ghazi-hamad-we-will-...

Of course they're convinced. They had their 11S to convince them of attacking a dense city full of people. The fifth military budget in the world by GDP wasn't able to detect a breach in a hyper secured wall with 24/7 cameras and reacted several hours later killing a lot of his own people. We need to carefully review and research the facts because this seems a reverse false flag event. A desired event for zionists in order to justify carpet-bombing a city to kill, displace and clear the zone for future settlers.

The alternative explanation seems unlikely. I'd think that if it were true, there'd be even one single instance of that having come up in conversation prior to bad graffiti and printed propaganda showing up all over my neighborhood. Getting a glimpse of what people allow themselves to be subjected to on the various platforms seems to indicate it's younger, easily influenced, volatile reactionary people suddenly being inflamed by whatever hot conflict of the day it is; people I wouldn't normally talk to anyway and who wouldn't have any authentic connection with it. The only time it's come up in real life was when I bumped into some Israeli guests at a hostel, and they were talking about what their families were going through and whether they'd have to go back and serve.

It doesn't come up on my Instagram presumably because I had previously unfollowed everyone who posted about whatever other injustice they'd been told to be pissed about, and shockingly I don't feel the need to go and vandalize property to spread the word.

You've specifically isolated yourself from people who would talk about the issue, so you're not in a position to determine whether or not people have been talking about it. In my social circles, the conversation about injustice in Palestine is over a decade old.

In my social circles, the conversation about injustice in Palestine is over a decade old.

Indeed, I would say that anyone older than 10 has participated in such conversations. The person you're responding to makes it sound like it's a new thing.

It's clearly not a new thing, and it's clearly something that people should have likely been vaguely aware of for decades, but it's not really important for anyone not directly connected to the conflict, territory, or heritage to be actively concerned with on a moment to moment basis, and it's not something that's ever organically come up, at least beyond acknowledgement that some conflict is always happening. That's not to say it hasn't come up in any circle, but it does seem to be a suspiciously recent topic, and I'd simply argue that people tend to subject themselves to arbitrary issues to be consumed by regardless of the bearing it has their life, and largely influenced by media.

When I had the conversation about it in real life, I expressed sympathy and discussed a few aspects that they informed me of since I hadn't heard about the instigating attack, and then I went on about my life, thankful that my family and nobody I know personally is on either side.

You choose not to care, I get it. But why are you so upset that others care?

Are there not degrees of what caring should mean? What criteria should someone use to determine how much of their energy is used to on any given contentious issue?

and it's not something that's ever organically come up, at least beyond acknowledgement that some conflict is always happening

Maybe around you. I probably wouldn't talk about the topic around you if we were in the same circles, because it might feel pointless.

it does seem to be a suspiciously recent topic

You're right, it's not a coincidence! Recent conversation is driven by the recent killing of 20,000 Palestinian civilians.

and then I went on about my life

Nothing wrong with that if you don't feel you have nay power to effect change. But it rather seems like you don't even care if it happens or not. However, many people do care and believe they can influence policy through conversation and protest. (Reminder: they can about the ongoing mass murders of civilians, which started recently and is happening at this very moment. It's time-sensitive.)

There is an ocean of injustice in the world and this one issue causes more anger than many that are equally abhorrent.

It's one of very very few issues where America and most of the west have stood firmly in support of violence and oppression for decades, even on issues like settlements where the US formally acknowledges the illegality and takes no action.

Of course people care primarily about the actions of their own democratically elected government, that's the whole point. There's no need to protest when people agree with their government.

Settlements are of course wrong, but I don't really see any concrete action that Israel could take other than removing settlements. Even if they did that the fundamental facts on the ground wouldn't change. I don't see how they lift the blockade and any 2 state solution seems a nonstarter.

Settlements are of course wrong, but I don't really see any concrete action that Israel could take other than removing settlements.

It could do a lot in the West Bank (where the fully or partially PA administered territory is divided into 166 non-contiguous regions), and anything there xould be done in a way that it looks like a win for the Fatah-led PA, weakening the perception that Hamas and its violence is the only entity capable of delivering for the Palestinian people, undermining Hamas politically.

OTOH, the whole reason Israel fostered Hamas during the direct occupation of Gaza was to create an Islamist competitor for the more secular and sympathetic to non-Muslim states PLO, and the reason they've (and government ministers have said this explicitly) continued to support them in between periods of active conflict is to deflect pressure for peace and a two-state solution, so there’s zero chance of the Netanyahu government doing this.

I think I agree with that. Which is the PA should be boosted and rewarded with increased freedom and autonomy as a counter example to Gaza. As it stands right now Israel is almost rewarding being more intransigent.

The PA have no legitimacy with the majority of Palestinians especially in Gaza. Israel tried to ignore the vote that brought Hamas's political wing into power in Democratic elections in Gaza, and supported what was essentially a coup by the PA. But, the Palestinians rose up against the PA and its Israeli backers and reclaimed control of Gaza.

Funny since Israel originally supported (including arming) Hamas* hoping the religious Hamas would split the populations support for more secular nationalist movements in Palestine. But, you can be both religious and nationalist.

*Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood; Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Are there actually many equally abhorrent issues right now? I can think of like, 2, and they're both involving the exact same actors.

Doctors were forced at gunpoint to leave premature babies to rot at Al Nasr hospital. And you're surprised that the world is horrified?!

Journalists and healthcare staff and schools have been targeted at a shocking rate. Civil infrastructure and historic churches blown up without the thinnest veil of a reason. More UN staff killed than any 'conflict' in history. Human rights groups and genocide experts are calling this genocide, ethnic cleansing, and worse.

And this wasn't done by some poor, decimated, tin pot dictatorship. This was done by a nuclear power, and it was supported by England and American politicians against the express wishes of a large majority of their populations.

There's no gain; none. No conceivable good can come from this. Believing that such acts will end Hamas/terror is profoundly delusional.

This comes off as ignorant of events happening elsewhere.

Approximately 600,000 people died in the Tigray conflict in Ethiopia in the two years from November 2020 to November 2022. 40% of the Ethiopian population is children.

The Yemeni civil war (2016-present) had killed at least 377,000 people, as of two years ago. By now, many more than that.

There are mass graves in Mali and Sudan where hundreds of bodies are just piled up on top of each other, visible from space, thanks to collaboration between Wagner Group and the local regime.

Syria is bombing their own population once again at this very moment, in continuation of their 10 year civil war which has killed at least 300,000. Notably, many, many images from the Syrian civil war have been recycled as supposed footage from Gaza (https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2023/12/08/images-of-syrian-...) for propaganda purposes - not that there isn't plenty of legitimate horrible footage from Gaza too.

None of these events are ones where American bombs, taxpayer funded, make up so much of the deadly weaponry.

None of them have higher civilian death rates per day.

None of them have so many murdered children, journalists, UN workers per capita per day (and often even in absolute terms).

None of them are so drastically David and Goliath, where one clear oppressor and occupier is killing so, so many more people.

Sudan, Libya, and Ethipoia aren't spending tens of millions of dollars funding propaganda to smear anyone who suggests they might stop genociding a people.

Even if these "events happening elsewhere" were as bad, or were as directly funded by the West, or were as one-sided - so what? What exactly is your point? What are you calling ignorant?

The repetition of any and all anti-Israel rumors and dismissal of anything pro-Israel, and the rabid fury therewith, suggests that there's something more going on than just sympathy for the plight of the poor beleaguered Palestinian people. No one - not even fellow Arabs - protested on behalf of the Palestinians expelled from Kuwait, Jordan, Syria or Egypt. So, something unique about Israel, I guess. I wonder what it could be.

Rendall played the anti semitism card.

It's not very effective.

I am curious though; what are you calling rumours? The murder of thousands upon thousands of innocent Palestinian children? The four premie babies left to rot in Al Nasr hospital? The hundred plus murdered UN workers? The targeted journalists and academics and poets? Reem and Tarek?

Those aren't rumours. They're all on video, and the world has seen them. You can go on Shaun King's Instagram and see hundreds of similar atrocities whenever you like, and so can the entire planet. They're not rumours, they're documented war crimes.

We can all see the residential blocks vaporised under cover of night. We can all see the aftermath of bombed refugee camps and humanitarian corridors and UN schools.

It is infuriating.

So, yes, I'm furious. But if anyone is rabid, it's the people committing these war crimes and atrocities, the people cheering it on, and the people accusing anyone who calls for a ceasefire of anti semitism.

If you're looking for rumours that lack evidence, try the Hamas command bases in hospitals, or the 40 beheaded babies, or the babies in ovens, or the pregnant women slit open, or the "mass rapes"; all proven lies that were spread by Israel and corporate media only to be debunked weeks later.

Right now, there is nowhere else in the world where so many civilians are being killed. Nothing else even comes close. 20k deaths in just two months is a massive death toll for such a short conflict. For comparison, it's more than the civilian death toll in the nearly 2-year-old war in Ukraine.

The other thing is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades, and many people have formed strong opinions on it. The United States is deeply involved in the conflict, as it is Israel's major international backer. There are both Palestinian and Jewish diasporas all around the world that care deeply about the issue. There are many reasons why this conflict captures so many people's attention.

20k deaths includes Hamas militants. So far the militant to civilian casualty ratio is actually lower than most other modern urban conflicts. Some being as high as 10 civilians for every 1 militant death.

Where does your militant data come from? And does it differentiate between fighters active before the invasion and those after?

Because large numbers of formerly peaceful men will now be engaged in the fight, either from grief at losing their families, or the natural instinct to resist an invader.

That's just untrue. Sudan, Yemen and (earlier) Ethiopia had much much more, without even going into Ukraine (nobody should accept the Russian figures) or Syria (death toll exceeding all Israeli-Arab wars combined). Doing a death toll per month analysis is misleading because high intensity can't last very long due to geography alone.

No, it's true. Roughly 1% of Gaza's pre-war population has already been killed by Israel. 81% has been displaced and over 60% of all buildings have been damaged or destroyed. The amount of destruction Russia was brought upon Ukraine doesn't even come close.

Buildings and temporary displacement inside the Strip aren't interesting - some Gulf states will cover reconstruction, and the royal houses will have a few less yachts.

Ukraine lost a double-digit % of its population when you include permanent displacement (these refugees will not return), and its civilian casualties are absurdly underestimated (yea, Mariupol had 1K, right - when the Russians bombed places with the writing 'children' on them). Syria had an official 500K - only because they stopped counting - and millions of refugees. These are literally on another scale by both time and damage, without even going into Sudan/Yemen which are on a scale of their own.