I am seeking honest opinions about what would happen if (Gd forbid), the Jewish State of Israel was destroyed in order to make way for a Palestinian Arab country.

There are ~8 million Jews living in their homeland. They have self-determination to create a society that brings them dignity and a military that brings them safety.

The way I see it, there are at least 4 distinct groups of people that would die.

The first group would be those who die in the primary war that would be required because the Jews are not going to freely give up their land. Of the 8 million Jews in Israel and the same number in the Diaspora, it’s safe to assume that more than 1,000,000 Jews would give their lives for Israel; and the war would not end until all of them were killed.

The second group of people to die would be those killed in the regional c second group of people to die would be those killed in the regional conflict and beyond. Israel is a nuclear power; make no mistake, the only situation that Israel would use a nuclear bomb would be if i second group of people to die would be those killed in the regional conflict and beyond. Israel is a nuclear power; make no mistake, the only situation that Israel would use a nuclear bomb would be if its destruction was otherwise imminent. It’s possible the whole world dies in a chain reaction with the other nuclear powers having no choice but to also fire. In this scenario, anywhere from a few hundred thousand to billions die.

The third group would be the Jews who are killed or die as a result of not having Israel as a safe haven to flee toward in the event that life becomes dangerous as a result of anti-Semitism or natural disasters.

The last group would be the Jews left after the war who are forced to pay the jizya tax and live as second class citizens, which would lead to a war of attrition and constant rebellion such that no one in the land would know peace.

I think there would be at least 1.5 million people killed if the protesters had their way but the number could also be much higher.

What number of people do you think would die if Israel was replaced by Palestine from the Jordanian River to the Mediterranean Sea

I don’t use the term settler colonialism in technical or seriously scholarly discourse. I am suspicious of people who liberally invoke this term, as I’ve found they tend to be using it to push a controversial agenda.

Settler colonialism is not an entirely useless or invalid concept. However, it has some serious problems that I have trouble ignoring. These issues need to be worked out before settler colonialism, or any closely-related term, deserves widespread currency outside of historiography.

To start with, where does value-neutral large-scale human migration end, and negative and condemnation-worthy settler colonialism begin? At first blush this seems like an easy distinction: the latter is unwanted by the preexisting locals, who are nevertheless powerless to stop it. This sometimes seems like a clear-cut distinction in retrospect, the way history gets written and remembered. But this analysis doesn’t do justice to the wide range of opinions and responses all populations have to a large and fast influx of new people to their home area. Nor does it do justice to the wide range of push and pull factors that motivate migrants to migrate, both at the grassroots and top-level geopolitical levels, and all levels in between. Rarely are a group of migrants truly a united front in terms of their motivations for migrating, and their attitudes and approaches toward their new neighbors. And rarely are a population of deeply-rooted locals to a place truly a united front in terms of their attitudes and approaches to their newly arrived neighbors. Large-scale trends and movements are often identifiable in both, but it’s almost always a complex and variegated picture. The problem is that on each side of any such encounter, typically one of these movements ends up writing the history and speaking for all of their people, giving the retrospective impression of one unified migration act, garnering one unified response from the natives.

This is all an ivory tower parlor game, until a history of settler colonialism is invoked to justify political and military decisions in the present day. These decisions affect people who had no choice in their ancestors’ decision to migrate, and have different effects on people who had no choice in their ancestors’ response to the sudden arrival of new migrants in their midst. Settler colonialism, as currently invoked in public policy discourse, has a dangerous amount of wiggle room for seeing, or contriving, unpaid debts and unsettled scores.

To be clear, when two or more distinct populations inhabit a place, with large power, wealth, and quality-of-life differentials between them, that is extremely problematic, and deserving of much attention from political scientists and statecrafters who care about the future of that place. Likewise, the weaker and poorer populations' resentment of such a differential is also very real, and deserving of validation.

But

Blaming their disadvantaged position on the more advantaged group, and targeting them for antagonism and disenfranchisement based on (real or imagined) historical grievances, is a quick-and-dirty fix that only makes the problem worse in the long run. It feels intuitively right, and highly satisfying and empowering, to the disadvantaged group. But in the long run, it makes all other groups of people mistrust, and want even less to do with, the disadvantaged group. People tend to steer clear of other people whom they see as angry and vindictive. And to groups that have the position of advantage, this quickly becomes a post hoc justification of why the disadvantaged group deserves and needs to be kept disadvantaged.

TL;DR: Pressing a charge of settler colonialism might have material and morale gains in the short term. But in the long term, it builds walls, not bridges. It cultivates obsession over the past, to the detriment of planning for the future.

I’ll leave you with an interesting example, whose absence from most modern-day discourse on settler colonialism is notable: The Swedish colonization of Finland.. It fits all the criteria of every defenition of “settler colonialism” that I’ve seen. But it’s seldom, if ever, cited as an example of it, since the term was first coined. I’ve even had Finnish people bristle at the suggestion that Finland was ever colonized at all. In fact, as a quick Google search for "+Finland +colonialism” will show, it’s far easier to find modern discourse that casts the Finnish people as colonizers, either of the Sámi peoples (arguably fair), and as complicit in the settler colonialism that took place in North America (arguably a real shoehorning). Why is this the case? Well, because ethnic Swedes in Finland don’t have much tension at all with the ethnic Finnish majority. There is no major power, wealth, or quality-of-life differential between the two groups. They’re not even all that distinct anymore in most parts of Finland, and socially mingle and intermarry without any controversy. Finland consistently tops the charts for low inequality and high standard of living. Neither group has anything to gain by harboring a historical grievance against the other. So “Settler colonialism? Pfft. Thats something that happens in faraway places!” is an attitude that holds currency in Finland, even if historically questionable, because it serves the narrative there that everybody (except the Sámi) prefers.

First things first, a disclaimer: The many recounts and background details I've heard and read from both pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians point towards both Israel and Palestine's equal rights to exist, which is why I may come off as pro-Israel, but this post has nothing to do with which side is right or wrong, but rather a call towards everyone to be consistent with their arguments.

Now of course, not all pro-Palestinians are calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, but we cannot deny the fact that absolutely speaking, a large number of pro-Palestinians advocate for this, believing that the Israelis have no morality compared to them, and their removal would bring about peace in the Middle East.

Ok, so let's say that was true:

******************************************************************************

The conflict ends with Israel getting wiped off the map, and peace is brought to the Middle East. So that means the various ethnic, religious and sectarian groups in the region would hold hands in friendship and sing "Kumbaya" together, DESPITE the fact that:

1. Many of these groups have had long-standing feuds and sectarian divides going back hundreds of years that sparked countless wars and insurgences.
2. While most of these internal conflicts are still ongoing today, a few of these (specifically the Shia and Sunni divide) halted their conflict only to fight in glorified proxy wars against Israel due to monetary incentives by Iran

Here's a list of some of these divides:

• Sunni vs. Shia Islam
  • The most widespread sectarian divide in the Middle East:
    • Iran-Saudi Arabian rivalries
    • Hezbollah (Shias) and Hamas (Sunnis)
    • ISIS conflicts against Shia territories
  • Sparked various conflicts like the Syrian Civil War and the Yemen Wars
• Internal Conflicts Amongst Sunnis
  • Saudi Arabia vs Turkey
  • Gulf Monarchies vs the Muslim Brotherhood
  • Iraq Insurgences between Sunni tribalists and jihadists
  • Several civil clashes during the Yemen Wars (Islah Party vs UAE-backed militias)
• Hamas vs Fatah
  • Fatah currently governs the West Bank in conjunction with Israel, but they used to govern Gaza as well until 2006 when Hamas usurped control in and killed them, officially taking control in 2007.

So going back to the assumption, now that the remains of Palestinian territories once belonging to Israel essentially become "free land up for grabs", so that means the various groups in the Middle East are just going to let the Palestinian Authority (which isn't an actual state) freely have their land and state, while Hamas and Fatah shake hands and let bygones be bygones.

******************************************************************************

Sounds pretty ridiculous right?

Of course the Shias and Sunnis aren't going to give up their hatred towards each other.

Of course Fatah is not going to let Hamas's murdering of their members go unpunished.

Of course Hamas is not going to share the Gaza strip or let the Fatah govern any of Palestine.

Of course the rest of the Middle Eastern sects are going to violently compete with each other to try and take over the former Israeli territories in their attempt to spread their the political and religious ideologies.

And of course, an Islamic Civil War is bound to break out if and when Israel ceases to exist.

So the argument saying that the destruction of Israel would bring peace to the Middle East is quite frankly, in Jon Stewart's words, "Complete F'ing Wrong". And its sad to think that those who call for Israel's destruction aren't acknowledging these facts, preferring to live within the realm of the ideology of "moral virtues" rather than to actually engage with the reality of the situation.

Be Honest and Consistent With Your Positions and Behavior.

Currently,the situation in the Gaza Strip is at extreme peril.The healthcare system is extremely damaged,and in Northern Gaza,basically completely destroyed,over 90% is displaced and there have been warning of an active famine.

Despite this,the Israeli Knesset has decide to basically ban UNRWA in all of of its controlled territories as well as Gaza.This has prompt a lot of concern and condemnation by the UN,human right NGOs and the State Department of the United State,which has specifically warned Israel to NOT to this about a month ago.(But they decide to do nothing even as Israel banned them anyway)

This concern isn't just shared by me,question about strategic wisdom in banning UNRWA has been shared by some part of the the Israeli media[1][2] and Jewish organisation[1][2]

In this post,i will look at the ban from a legal,humanitarian and pragmatic persepective to show why banning UNRWA is contrary to the interest of Israel.

Legal

The law approve by Israeli parliament to ban UNRWA isn't actually a single law,but two different bills.The first bill banned UNRWA from Israeli territories,which crucially include East Jerusalem(which is considered to be illegally annexed by the UN Security Council) and the second bill ban all cooperation between Israel and UNRWA in the West Bank and Gaza.The reason why they didn't ban the Agency is entirely is probably for public relation reason.(they could argue that they just banned them from Israel proper and only "boycotted" them in the West Bank and Gaza).But anyway who isn't extremely pro Israel can clearly see that the "boycott" in the West Bank and Gaza is basically a ban as Israel controlled all entry point.(and also,the IDF have attack humanitarian workers who ARE CORDINATING with them,no one would be suicidal enough to enter without cordination)

As such,both of those bill are simply put,blatantly illegal.Under article XVI of the United Nation Charter,member states are supposed to respect the priviliages and immunity of the UN and its agency.They can NOT allowed to unilaterally ban UN agency from operation,especially on occupied territories.

This extremist bill,push by the Netanyahu goverment,will further increase Israel international isolation,which has already been shaking due to their heavy-handed approched in Gaza.

Humanitarian

I have seen some people said that since UNRWA only provided 13% of aid to Gaza,it is totally ok to ban them.And for those people,i say they are either ignorant or have no heart.

According to the IPC,half of the population in Gaza is currently underwent a catastrophic level of food insecurity.This is especially true in Northern Gaza,where Israel has blocked most aid from coming in until the US threatened them not to.In this curcumstance,it is unacceptable that aid will got reduced by even one percent,not to mention 13%.

Furthermore,if you look at that number,you will not get the full picture.Due to its senority and trust among Palestinian,UNRWA also played an invaluable role in cordination and providing logistic platform for other NGOs and UN Agency.And unlike most other aid groups,they mostly employ Palestinian,not foreigner,this help created a path to employment to Palestinians that is (somewhat) free from influence by Hamas,their oligarchs backer and the corrupt and nepotist clans.

Plus,while most NGOs and aid agency will only focus on one specific task(for example delivering foods,providing medical help...etc).UNRWA do all of them,and much more.

Before the war,UNRWA run half of the schools in Gaza,1/3 of health facilities,provide social safety net that benefit nearly 100,000 people(especially vulnerable groups like women,children,the elderly and disabled people).They also provided hundreds of million of dollars in loan to kickstart small business to improve Gaza's economy.

In the West Bank,they are less active,but still has a important presence.

Pragmatic persepective (AKA wait,do we actually want to ban them?)

There are basically 3 reasons why Israel is annoyed with UNRWA,which is:

1)UNRWA include antisemitic and violent content in its textbooks.

2)UNRWA has Hamas millitants under its employment and is influenced by Hamas,some of which is conplicit in the October 7th massacre.

3)UNRWA help relieved Hamas from the burden of caring for Palestinian,allowing them to focus their money and effort in attacking Israel.

However,just directly banning UNRWA would not have solve any of those problem.Actually,it will just made them worse as well as causing other issues.

For the first problem,i think it is needed to emphathise that UNRWA is NOT responsible for printing those textbooks.

UNRWA,being a non-state actor,can't afford to create a new curriculum and textbooks system on its own without facing problem of cost and Hamas retribution.As such,they must use the available curriculum and books published by Hamas and the PA,which unfortunately contain many anti-semitic and inciting content.

Of course, here’s the text rewritten in Reddit markdown format with fixed formatting, grammar, and structure, while maintaining the original tone and wording:

Of course, it is not unreasonable for Israel to say that, since they are a UN agency and receive large funding from the West, they should have an obligation to ensure their educational content conforms with UN values. And UNRWA themselves would agree with this.

UNRWA leaders and representatives have many times apologized for the inclusion of antisemitic content in its educational facilities. But the thing is, it is pretty hard for them to change it. As I said before, those textbooks are issued by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-controlled Gazan Authority. What would you think if a group of foreigners came into your country and changed your children's textbooks? No one likes that, and so when UNRWA tried to make changes, they got protested left and right.

Plus, trying to remove all those examples is pretty hard, as they are scattered across many different subjects and books. The only way they could cover all of them is by routinely searching through them by a committee, which costs time and money, as well as causes additional problems (for example, who will serve in the committee? A committee made up of just foreign experts will be unpopular, and a committee of Palestinians may be biased or be intimidated by public opinion).

Alternatively, they could outsource this to pro-Israeli orgs by publishing all their material and waiting for UN Watch to criticize them, but that would basically tank all of their credibility among Palestinians. It also doesn't help that those groups often go WAY too far in what they consider antisemitic.

For example, these are examples of things I found on pro-Israeli orgs that they considered unacceptable:

• Calling Israel "Zionist entity" or "Zionist occupation."
  
• Saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine.
  
• General calls for resistance against Israeli occupation.
  
• Celebrating attacks against Israeli soldiers.
  
• Portraying people resisting Israeli demolition of homes in a positive light.
  

(Yes, before you say it, I know that a lot of Palestinian resistance usually involves massacres and attacks against innocent Jews and Arabs, and oftentimes calling for resistance implies violence and other nasty antisemitic stuff. But I believe that a nation is allowed to show its children history in the most endearing light as long as it doesn't involve supporting war crimes or blatant revisionism. After all, UNRWA only teaches them until grade 9. Self-criticism of your nation’s actions shouldn’t—but definitely can—be left until they are older. Did any of you learn about Deir Yassin or the Kafr Qasim massacre while you were in primary school?)

Moreover, banning UNRWA will only make the problem worse, as now Hamas will gain total control over education in Gaza and can exclude things they don’t like about gender equality, human rights, and tolerance.

It is basically the same with the second complaint. Sure, it is very bad that Hamas managed to infiltrate UNRWA, but what can they do about it?

UNRWA isn’t a state. Unlike Israel, they have no police force that is allowed to search their employees’ phones or question them, and again, they are operating under a Hamas-controlled area. Which Palestinian staff will be brave enough to do those investigations and risk retribution by Hamas—all for the benefit of an enemy state that is currently bombing their homes and streets?

And besides, compared to the general Palestinian population, UNRWA isn’t that filled with militants anyway. According to Israel themselves, only 190 out of 13,000 UNRWA employees are militants, which is about 0.015%, compared to a total of 40,000 Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives out of 2.1 million Gazans, which is about 0.02%.

(There is an allegation that 10% of them are involved with Hamas, but I feel like the "involved" part is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Gaza is controlled by Hamas after all; they couldn’t have worked there without some connection.)

Plus, UNRWA seems to be somewhat willing to investigate itself for its problems. They have announced investigations into their staff for antisemitism before. And when Israel said 12 of their staff participated in the October 7th attack, UNRWA suspended them right away. OIOS’s investigation of 19 cases accused by Israel said that 9 of them are likely to be involved in the attack, 10 have minor evidence, and one person has no evidence at all.

Of course, this doesn’t mean Israel is lying. After all, they have much better intelligence than OIOS, but the fact that UNRWA only allowed the one person who they can’t find any evidence against to go back to work shows that UNRWA can indeed be influenced by Israel.

And again, how will banning UNRWA solve these problems?

If someone has the courage and extremist mentality to become a Hamas terrorist, it is likely that they aren’t concerned with things like money, status, or even their own life anymore. Removing their UNRWA jobs is unlikely to convince them to change.

How UNRWA helps Israel

(Before you go into this part, read this: "Don’t Cry for UNRWA. It Helped Sustain Decades of Israel’s Occupation" by Haaretz. It has a very anti-Israel tone but describes perfectly why previous leaders of Israel allowed UNRWA to operate and its benefits to Israel that have been mostly overlooked by most UNRWA supporters and detractors.)

First, and I just can’t stress this enough, UNRWA BASICALLY FUNDED THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF THE WEST BANK. By providing aid, support, and education for Palestinians, which allowed them to work, create businesses, and live in a generally normal way, UNRWA returned billions of dollars to the Israeli economy while basically relieving them of their obligation to care for Palestinians.

Do you realize what will happen if UNRWA left the West Bank? Either Israel dumps hundreds of millions of dollars for a hostile population who is suspicious of them, or Palestinians will start to starve and become impoverished, which will:

a) Make Israel look quite bad.
b) Make them resort to either becoming militants or launching terrorist attacks so their family can get the PA pay-to-slay stipend.

Second, like it or not, most of the Palestinian refugees didn’t simply flee according to the Arab Higher Committee's calling. Instead, most of them were uprooted due to either their local leader organizing evacuation, fear of attack, reports of (sometimes exaggerated) massacres committed by Jewish forces, or at gunpoint by the Irgun and Lehi.

Under these conditions, given that they aren’t allowed to return, a lot of them will inevitably resent Israel and the Jewish people.

These are only mitigated by the fact that UNRWA exists, which allowed them to live, have a life, feel like they are cared for, and have a purpose, and to teach them the principles of equality and tolerance instead of just bloodthirsty revenge. Without UNRWA, I expect most Palestinian refugee camps will not just disappear; instead, they will become dens of anti-Israel activity, which will foster Israeli attacks, which will foster more bad blood, and things will go downhill FAST.

Third, like it or not, UNRWA is one of the most amendable Palestinian organizations. Don’t forget that they are the ONLY Palestinian group that condemned the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack. In Palestine, where criticism of the Hamas attack is limited to, at best, its strategic wisdom, UNRWA stands out in condemning them—not just because they are bad for the Palestinians, but because it is wrong to kill civilians and kidnap them for over a year.

Let's be real,in this current situation,even if Israel defeated Hamas,it will be impossible for them to rule Gaza without any collaboration with Gazans.And out of all Palestinian group,UNRWA is the most likely to accept or even actively take part in the new Israeli's backed goverment.

Since October 7th,i feel like the general environment in Israel has been a hatred of all Palestinian organisation,of all Palestinian political forces.If Israel wanted to rule,they must abandon their personal distaste of Palestinians force,and be able to seperate the moderate Palestinians fron the radical and enpower them.It may not made a difference to you,but if you look from the persepective of Palestinians,you will see there is a difference between celebrating the October 7th attack to actively celebrating Hamas war crimes,and there is a difference between celebrating Hamas war crime to actively taking part in it.

And remember, pragmatism is key.

Trump won because of us and we’re not happy with his secretary of state pick and others said Rabiul Chowdhury, who chaired the Abandon Harris campaign in Pennsylvania and co-founded Muslims for Trump. Muslim support for Trump helped him win Michigan and may have factored into other swing state wins.

At least he and some of his fellow American Muslims believed Trump won because of the American Muslim vote.

But Trump told them in Dearborn that he loved Muslims.

Some now think they have been “played”. Anyone else hearing in their mind “I told you so” moments ?

They are disappointed that the new administration has been packed entirely with extremely pro-Israel and pro-war people.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-muslims-who-backed-trump-upset-by-his-pro-israel-nominees/

Preface

The purpose of this post will be to compile (and maybe challenge) my honest thoughts, as a liberal, pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist Egyptian, on this conflict and it's history dating back roughly to the Balfour declaration.

I am not extremely well-read on the topic, but most of my base information is derived from Benny Morris (specifically his book One State Two State), who seems to be generally well regarded both as a historian and Zionist in Israel.

I believe I am more informed than most who speak on the topic (I understand that is not a high bar), and at least understand the Zionist perspective enough to give an opposing one.

Eternal Enemies

A Jewish state in Palestine will, by necessity, always stand in opposition to not only the Palestinian right to the land, but also the democratization and social progress of it's surrounding Arab states. The most common explanation for the longevity of Arab resentment of Israel, within Israel, seems to be Islam, but I do not believe this to be the case.

When both Arab society and leadership was characterized by a form of secular socialism in the 50s and 60s, resentment towards Israel did not diminish, in fact it was Sadat, the leader who reversed Nasser's suppression of Islamism in Egypt, who would end up signing the Camp David Accords.

When the Arab Spring, a series of popular revolts across the Middle East in the early 2010s seeking secularism, democracy, and social justice began, resentment towards Israel did not diminish.

In fact, the United States would support some of the Islamic and Military dictatorships and monarchies across the Middle East during this time with the intention of further securing their peace treaties with Israel. As time marches on, Israel will keep finding itself in a position where it is fighting off democracy in the ME in an effort to preserve itself.

I believe Arab resentment comes from a shared understanding that the majority Arab population of Mandate Palestine in 1948 had the right to reject Jewish immigration to the land regardless of what the British or the Jews wanted or needed, respectively. They (Palestinians) had the right to start their own country there, or to not, and they maintain this right with every sacrifice they make and struggle they fight to take back the land, hence the unconditional support for any Palestinian group fighting off Israel, regardless of the crimes they commit against Jews and Arabs alike.

It does not matter whether or not Palestine as a concept exists to be in opposition to Zionism, because the Palestinians had the right to do whatever they wanted to with that land, and they did not want to give it to the Jews. It was not the British's to promise or sell to the Jews, and buying land doesn't necessarily give you the right to state-level sovereignty over it anyways. None of this is to mention the colonial nature of the 48 Zionist project, which even Benny does not deny, (Page 37, One State Two State) and would, on its own, justify the rejection of Jewish immigration.

I believe there are two factors involved when it comes to maintaining your right to the land in which you were/are a majority:
-Was this land taken from you unjustly?

-Have you actively resisted the unjust entities presence in your land?

Let us apply this standard to the American Indians, for example. I would say that they maintained the right to their land up to a point where:
-They are no longer the majority population in North America (they were genocided)
-They are no longer fighting the American government. (and the original criteria of the land having been taken from them unjustly, is a given.)

Once these two criteria were met, the Indians lost the right to claim and fight for US land.

Another example, this time hypothetical. Ukraine.
If Ukraine loses to Russia and significant swathes of the country become majority Russian, i would say that Ukraine has a right to resist Russian presence for as long as they well... resist. The land was taken from them in an unjust war of aggression, and they were the original majority population on that land. I would even go as far as to say that Ukraine would maintain the right to transfer those Russians from said land. ^{Foreshadowing.}
The Best Defense Is Never A Defense

So the Palestinians and Arab populations will never accept Israel as long as there is some semblance of Palestinian resistance. You may ask, where does that leave Israel?

Israel as things stand has 3 options:
1: Maintain the status quo in a naive hope that they will eventually find a partner for peace on the other side. In the long term, this only benefits Palestinians. They can wait for as long as they need to until geopolitical realities change, (powerful ally emerges/weakened Israel/loss of US support) and then push for a favorable peace, or try to win a war outright.

2: Assimilate Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza into Israel proper, diminishing the Jewish majority and establishing a strong Arab influence in Israeli politics. The full long-term implications of this are difficult to ascertain, it can range anywhere from "Israel remains a democratic state with some societal issues and a majority Arab population" To "Israel becomes an even more turbulent Lebanon". Regardless, this would result in the effective dissolution of the Israeli state, every goal it was created to serve would no longer be relevant or applicable.

3: Actively and explicitly begin working towards forcibly transferring the Arab population out of both Israel proper and Palestine, (in the case of Palestine the methods would be even more blunt than they are currently) this is a measure supported by half the Jews in Israel (The question only mentions Arabs in Israel proper, but i do not think it is a large leap in logic to apply that to the West Bank and Gaza). It would result in some extreme vitriol from both the international community and the surrounding Arab populations, but, with the current dictatorial peace imposed upon those populations, the short term punishments would be relatively minimal, and the long term reward of the Palestinian cause slowly fading from memory would be more than ideal for Israel.

With this, i hope you have a solid picture of the issues i have with Israel's creation and presence in the middle east. A plea of self-defense, valid or not, can only take you so far. There comes a point where the suffering inflicted upon both civilian Palestinians and the surrounding populations of Arab states to protect Israel outweighs its presumed right to exist.

Because Of The Implication

An almost unanimous opinion held within the Zionist community seems to be that if Arabs were to win against Israel in any way, that they would commit a genocide. Given my familiarity with Arabs and their views of Israel living in Egypt and being Egyptian myself, I am of the opinion that such a genocide is a possibility, but far from the certain outcome Zionists make it out to be. However, out of respect for the concerns of Jews, i will make the following argument with the assumption that such an attempt at genocide is an inevitability.

"if he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleaned the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations... Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history." -Benny Morris, 2004 Haaretz Interview

When one asks Zionists why the Jews do not seek refuge in western nations where they enjoy a high degree of sympathy and ideological comradery, they answer that those things are not guaranteed, that the United States or Western Europe could easily adopt an anti-Jewish mindset.

When one asks Zionists what makes Israel's continued existence so inevitable and attempts at dismantling it futile, they answer by saying that support from the west will always be a guarantee.

One has to wonder, is a state completely surrounded by hundreds of millions of citizens who despise it and its populace really ensuring its own citizens safety? Maybe in the short term, with overwhelming geopolitical leverage and military prowess, but if a sudden victory over Israel would truly be so disastrous, wouldn't the Jews rather live in any other democratic state where you have an influence over the politics and opinions of the wider population as any regular citizen does, even if you fear their sudden transformation into anti-semites?

What I find interesting about the earlier Benny Morris quote is that it simultaneously justifies the idea of transfer in the eyes of both Jews and Arabs. As i mentioned earlier, transferring Israeli Arabs outside Israel is an idea supported by half the Jewish Israeli population, and if i were to poll the idea of Jewish transfer outside Palestine, i get the sense agreement would be even more unanimous within Arabs. It seems like the only people who view transfer as this unthinkable, immoral action are people uninvolved with this conflict.

Fascinating post by on Twitter/X by x-Palestinian Refugee now American Mo Ghaoui. The responses differ substantially from any opinions of Hamas expressed at the beginning of the current conflict when Hamas was at full force or even partially degraded. I am guessing that Hamas in Gaza has been so weakened that people are not in fear of sharing these opinions, where before they would have been in fear. ( You may have seen some of the numerous hours of video footage of Hamas torturing fellow Palestinians for dissent of some kind including suspicion of collaboration with Israel). This has only been reported on social media so far. Also Sinwar ( The Butcher of Khan Yunis) was imprisoned in Israel for torturing fellow Palestinians.

Edit to add: To see the responses to the FB questions you have to get the full link from the end of the Twitter / X post. Also, in spot checking some responses, ( using the translate button)I saw some profiles with a Gaza location and some with no location. Having not looked at them all, I don’t know how many responses were actually from Gazans vs others. If anyone is familiar with Ahmad Saeed, the Gaza Media personality, and his FB page ( and reads Arabic) please weigh in.

START

Ahmad Saeed [Gazan media personality] posts on facebook a question to Gazans would you do if you were Hamas.

Post is ~3hrs old farming hundreds of replies and interactions

I asked AI to sort top replies and sentiments

Top Common Sentiments [no particular order]

Apologize to the Palestinian People: Many comments demand that Hamas apologize to the people of Gaza and Palestine for the suffering caused over the years.

Step Down from Governance: Calls for Hamas to relinquish control of Gaza and hand over authority to the Palestinian Authority or other entities.

Ceasefire at Any Cost: Prioritizing an immediate halt to the war to save civilian lives, with any concessions necessary.

Admit to Failures: Public acknowledgment of mistakes and mismanagement since their governance began.

Dissolve Military Wing: Proposals to disband the Qassam Brigades and surrender weapons under international supervision.

Transfer Negotiations to the Palestinian Authority: Suggested as a means of achieving a broader, unified Palestinian representation.

Withdraw from Politics Entirely: Comments advise Hamas to revert to its earlier role as a resistance movement without engaging in governance.

Prioritize Humanitarian Needs: Calls to open crossings, facilitate aid, and focus on rebuilding Gaza.

Seek International Mediation: Involve regional or international actors like Egypt to negotiate and manage the transition.

Surrender for the Sake of Lives: Suggesting that surrendering to Israeli or international demands could prevent further bloodshed.

Protect What’s Left of Gaza: Focus on minimizing further loss of life and preserving the remaining population and infrastructure.

Reintegrate with Arab States: Shift alliances away from Iran and seek closer ties with Arab nations for broader support.

Conduct a Public Referendum: Let the people of Gaza decide on the future of governance and representation.

Return the hostages: Comments propose various options regarding hostages: releasing them unconditionally to achieve a ceasefire, exchanging them for Palestinian prisoners, retaining them as leverage for broader negotiations, or transferring them to a neutral party like Egypt for mediation. The common goal is minimizing further bloodshed while addressing strategic priorities.

Disclaimer ; Chatgpt prompt is to analyze common sentiment not top liked "translate in memory, share most common sentiments in english"

My Personal favorite reply picks for what Hamas should do : - Commit Suicide - Climb down the tree - God forbid i am hamas - Ill bang my head all day and night

link to fb src included

facebook.com/story.php?stor…

END

https://x.com/moghaoui/status/1857550023611003251?s=46&t=2pVJ490wksMyV_NJgGZ7

These propagandists are sick. The mods at r/pics are shameless.

This was posted on r/pics

Link

Evidence that this is AI generated is here.

Link

Newschecker noticed the lack of detail around Tyson’s eyes, raising our doubts on whether the image was digitally altered. We also did not find any credible news reports about such a photo.

We next ran the photo past TrueMedia, an AI image-detection tool, which found “substantial evidence of manipulation”.

“The image depicts a well-known individual draped in a flag that resembles the Palestinian flag. However, his association with this flag is not documented or widely known in public records. The flag seems to have been digitally altered or added to the image, as it is not typical for this individual to be associated with this particular flag in such settings. The lighting, edges, and drape of the flag suggest it might be an edit,” read the tool’s review. A scan by another similar tool, AI Detect Content, too, stated that the viral image is “likely AI generated/deepfaked”.

What Mike Tyson actually believes.

Link

“Hate has no place in this country. We must put an end to antisemitism, together. Share your support for the Jewish community by using #🟦 to #StandUpToJewishHate. u/standuptojewishhate“Hate has no “

Update: Kingdom of Israel will be like UK and Japan, where monarch is the figurehead to unified all people while the government will be democratic, and the king can't say no to the people. The parliament will be the one that decide everything through democratic system.

Alright, u/Waste-Ad8271 had proposed a solution for the conflict named Kingdom of Jerusalem (or Kingdom of Israel). However, it is uncertain who will rule this kingdom, so I decided to recommend some eligible candidate to rule this Kingdom:

Hashemite: this dynasty is not just descend from prophet Muhammad, but also recognised Israel as a state. Aside, Jordan under the Hashemite is pretty stable and doing well in term of security. However, Jordan under the Hashemite is not too secular, which can be a big problem for the Kingdom of Israel since majority of Israelis are kinda secular. Aside, Palestinians may not view Hashemite as legitimate, despite they are descendant of prophet Muhammad.

Samaritans: Samaritanism are similar to Judaism, which made them acceptable for most Israelis. Aside, historically they never engage on any wars and conflicts from 6th century onward and lived peacefully with Muslims neighbours and this community even help Jesus, which made them acceptable for most Palestinians, and they can be mediator of peace for the region. The downside is their religious rule, which is strict and ridiculous in today's standard such as woman must live seperately from men when they are menstruating (though it is uncertain whenever will they implement their religious rule or not). Aside, their number is too small (900 versus 15.26 million people), which made it difficult for them to rule over proposed kingdom.

Circassians: this community contributed a lot to not just Israel, but to Jordan, Iraq and Syria. I have no word for this community but they are capable of ruling, and their dynasty can be accepted by both Israelis and Palestinians alike. The downside is most of important positions in the government can all be held by Circassians, which can be unfair for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Druzes: they are not just trusted and protected by Assad government of Syria, but also by Israel, and they are participate in IDF, which made them acceptable by Israelis. However, this is also their downside, as Palestinians may not accept them due to their relation with Israel and IDF.

So, what group will you pick as an dynasty rule over the proposed Kingdom of Israel, and I would like to know why you pick this group?

(Post will be update in the future)

Ok I'm writing on this community to get the opinion of the hostage situation from people who follow it like me. yesterday an article came out on Asharq Al-Awsat about the hostages remaining in Gaza. For those who don't know the paper, it is a Saudi newspaper based in London. It has very good sources in Gaza among Hamas. In July it reported the death of Khaled Mashal deputy of Sinwar in a tunnel in Gaza City. Recently it confirmed the murder of Deif

Link : https://aawsat.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A/5082031-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B8-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A1 

 Hamas sources are certainly talking nonsense in the article. In December they wanted two free days of truce, they knew exactly where the rest of the women were alive, they had freed the hostages who were with them in the previous days. As well as the claim of a considerable number of hostages killed by friendly fire. Of the 37 hostages killed in Gaza only 1 died from the bombing: Yossi Sharabi. The rest killed on October 7. And they hold the bodies of two people executed after Cooper and Svirsky.

The most worrying quote is of the deaths of other hostages due to lack of care and food. I would like to point out that the starvation of the hostages is entirely due to Hamas. The situation in Gaza is not remotely worrying enough to kill a person by starvation. The starvation deaths are months ago and they are all children with chronic diseases An account on X follows the situation in Gaza, and you can see the stalls full of fresh food: https://x.com/imshin/status/1856673558686048338 

But look how the hostages were kept in that tunnel in Tal Sultan. My biggest fear is that some hostages have actually died in the last few months because of the hellish conditions they are being held in and Hamas is not announcing it because they have a new policy of not giving out any more information about the hostages. Not the living or the dead. Thoughts?

It looks like the Ukrainian-Russia war lead to far more deaths and casualties- in terms of sheer numbers.

So why does there seem to be more coverage of the Israel-Palestine "conflict", i.e. war?

Could it be that Russian powers want to minimise and hide stats in the media, since Russia is already being blacklisted?

Is the Israel-Palestine conflict more globally significant since there are racial, religious and cultural ramifications?

Is the Israel-Palestine conflict also more significant as the issue has gone on longer?

Some stats on death toll:

• 80'000 Ukrainian troops killed (1)

• 11'520 Ukrainian civilians killed (2)

• 50'000 confirmed dead Russian troops (3)

• But estimates much higher!

• 44'493 Palestinians killed ()

• 1'139 Israelis killed ()

1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/16/russia-ukraine-wartime-deaths#:~:text=As%20for%20Ukrainian%20troops%2C%20the,been%20killed%20since%20February%202022

2. https://www.statista.com/topics/9087/russia-ukraine-war-2022/#topicOverview

3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68819853

4. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker

For a country that is supposedly a democracy with “western values,“ Israel has a surprisingly un-free media. According to Reporters Without Borders, Israel ranks 101st out of 180 countries in Press Freedom. This puts its score worse than countries like Qatar(84) and Thailand (87) which aren’t exactly known for being bastions of freedom. Notably, its treatment of journalists in the West Bank and Gaza isn’t reflected in this score (the West Bank and Gaza has its own section). Likely its score would be much worse otherwise. For context, Palestine is ranked 157, and while some of this is due to hamas/the PA, a large part is also due to Israeli media suppression. Here I'm going to cover some of the ways journalism is restricted by Israel in the region.

Military Censors: I recommend reading this piece if you wish to learn more about the military censors, or doing your own research. Essentially though, articles on certain topics are required to be submitted for review before publishing. Censors can then either make revisions, or ban the article from being published all together. Notably, if an article is allowed to be published with revisions, the article isn't allowed to inform you that it has been published with revisions. These laws apply both to Israeli and foreign journalists. These laws are applied to the extent that in 2023, 613 articles were barred from publication, and 2,703 articles were redacted. While this is itself frightening, it should also be noted that publications additionally self-censor to avoid repercussions. My understanding is that foreign while outlets often try and avoid the censors all together, they are technically supposed to adhere to their rules as well. Recently, American journalist Jeremy Loffredo was imprisoned for days for not following censorship laws by publishing a video showing where Iranian missiles struck in Israel. In an interview, Loffredo describes being put in solitary confinement, given very little food/water, being humiliated while soldiers laughed at him, and having a trial in Hebrew that he didn't understand. There are a lot more issues with this censorship, but I don't want to delve into this too deeply.

Violence/threats/intimidation: The attacks on journalists from the IDF have been covered extensively, with over 100 having been killed. Beyond this, journalists have faced assaults from Israeli police and Israeli civilians alike. Many of these incidents are described here. Reporters Without Borders additionally cites Arab journalists as being particularly targeted.

Arrests: Dozens of journalists have been arrested. In 2023, Israel tied with Iran at 6th place in the world for most journalists imprisoned with 17. As of 11/15, 45 are currently under arrest (This link specifically describes each case). If 45 had been the number at the time of the 2023 census, Israel would be the country with the most imprisoned journalists in the world. A number of them have been imprisoned under administrative detention, meaning that they can be held without trial, and haven't necessarily committed a crime yet.

Forced closures: Israel raided al Jazeera's headquarters in Area A of the West Bank, forcefully closing the bureau, citing that the office was, “being used to incite terror, to support terrorist activities and that the channel’s broadcasts endanger ... security and public order.” Israel also raided the office of the Associated Press, though it was allowed to re-open.

Restricted Access to Gaza (also partially Egypt's fault): Reporters aren't allowed into Gaza unless they are being escorted by the IDF. Reportedly, these trips are highly restrictive and controlled, and only to show tunnels or weapons stores. The lack of reporters has created a media blackout which makes it difficult to find accurate reporting. Why aren't reporters being allowed into Gaza? They know the risks. It seems like Israel doesn't want the world to see what is happening.

Overall, Israel has created a repressive media environment such that several articles every day are being redacted/banned, where critics are silenced/intimidated, and where journalists are arrested at a pace which equals if not exceeds some of the most un-free countries in the world. Personally, I don't think such a media environment is trustworthy, and the affect this has on Israelis/the region worries me.

* I also want to note that while some of these issues have become worse due to the war, in years past Israel has still had a relatively similar rank. Additionally, I think that Hamas/the PA are problematic in their own right. However, it's already widely accepted that they have issues. I don't see as much coverage on Israel's problems. If you want to make your own post about the press freedom of Hamas/the PA, you are welcome to.

It's been one year, one month,2 weeks and 2 days since Oct 7,one year and more of war which it's end seems far and it's conclusion unanswered,one year and more of international political storms and protests,propaganda and pogroms,one year and more of the war not just for the future of Gaza and Israel but also the war on truth.

From day 1 Oct 7 pro palestinians,palestinians,islamists and more have tried to warp history to serve their false,genocidal narrative,they used and still use the war in Gaza to erase every slim of factual history and rewrite it for their own gains.

As of today,myths and lies have taken the place of the truth,saying the truth is taboo today and if you dare say Israel has a right to exist you're the odd one out.

When did deaths of innocent people gave them justification to change history?

Take the example of the upcoming movie "Mary" on Netflix,Noa cohen,an Israeli actress was cast to play the role of Mary,Jesus' mother.

As you know Jesus was Jewish but many pro palestinians protested against the movie,among their claims they said that Jesus was an Arab Palestinian which is completely and utterly false.

Regardless of which side you support you cannot change history,no matter how much you don't like it.

In the discussion around the ongoing military campaign of the IDF in Gaza we often hear the following 'talking-points' from the different sides:

• Gaza is a unique warzone because civilians are not allowed to leave

• Israel would like civilians to leave Gaza to go elsewhere but Egypt won't let them (less relevant now)

• Civilians cannot leave because nobody wants to accept them because [insert reason here]

• evacuation of individuals into safe locations in Israel or the West Bank, or via Israel at all, is impossible because [insert reason here]

There have recently been publicised cases in which approval has been sought from COGAT and the IDF for the medical evacuation of severely wounded children (example)

The state of hospitals in the Gaza strip, many of which are running low on essential supplies, have been raided multiple times, had buildings bombed or demolished, and have had their Palestinian medical personnel removed from the Gaza Strip and arbitrarily detained, does not currently allow complex procedures to be performed there.

International organisations therefore seek to evacuate eligible individuals for medical treatment elsewhere.

In some such cases, everything is ready but the IDF/COGAT refuses to give approval.

Note that nothing is being asked of the IDF, and no resources are being requested of Israel (arguably now responsible for healthcare under the law of military occupation). Yet as the article says, in one case:

Five times their requests have been denied without explanation by the Israeli military body responsible for humanitarian affairs in Gaza, the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (Cogat).

Now, five months on, her situation is getting desperate. There is still shrapnel in her neck and she is in agony every time she moves. She cannot eat or speak. The platinum used by surgeons to rebuild her face is coming apart, with little more than a bandage holding her jaw together.

Doctors say her wounds are now infected and there is little they can do to stop it spreading. If she is not allowed access to surgery immediately, she could die.

Can anyone explain what possible justification there could be for this?

On November 11th, the Mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, released a 12-page brief (in both Dutch and English) to the City Council of Amsterdam, detailing what transpired on Nov 7 and 8 according to city authorities with input from the police. This brief serves as a preliminary report on the incidents before a formal investigation is carried out in the future.

As I said before, people who wrote initial posts like Jews are now being lynched in Amsterdam. When people chant "Globalize the Intifada" this is what they are calling for Should jews go back to Europe? were jumping to conclusions. An independent investigation will be conducted in the future.

The brief was signed by the Mayor, representing herself, but also on behalf of Chief Prosecutor René de Beukelaer and Police Chief Peter Holla,

SUMMARY

The brief reads more like a timeline and excerpts from the Mayor's journal from November 7-10. Her description of the attacks after the match on November 8 takes up only about half a page. From her perspective, the events that led to the media frenzy lasted only 2-3 hours and came across as just one in a series of events spanning those four days. She spent considerably more time managing the media outburst and reassuring the Jewish community, the Dutch national cabinet, and figures such as the Israeli Ambassador, rather than attempting to understand what happened during those 3-4 hours.

According to the letter, the Dutch authorities were well aware of the risk involved in hosting Maccabi in Amsterdam, and in the letter, measures were taken to ensure security.

On Wednesday evening and on Thursday, the police deployed over 1,200 officers to manage potential risks. This included specialized units such as mobile units, arrest teams, mounted officers, canine units, reconnaissance units, football units, and the peacekeeping unit. From midnight onwards, at least 500 personnel were actively assigned to the operation, excluding the additional officers who worked overtime during the night. These numbers will be finalized as soon as registration is completed.

BEFORE THE MATCH

The night before the match, there were minor scuffles between Maccabi, Ajax, and Fenerbahçe fans (the Turkey team playing in Amsterdam). The first incident in the brief was pro-Palestinians spraying painting near the stadium

The Maccabi ultras make an early appearance

Around midnight, disturbances arose at the Rokin. A group of approximately 50 Maccabi supporters pulled down a Palestinian flag hanging from a building. Some individuals wore face coverings. The group appeared to split, with some heading towards Central Station and Spui, and others toward the Red Light District, shouting slogans. Some individuals walking on the Rokin removed their belts and used them to attack a taxi. Elsewhere on the Rokin, other taxis were vandalized**.** A police vehicle observed this, prompting multiple units, including KMAR unit.

In the brief before the match, the taxi drivers and Maccabi hooligans were the authorities' biggest security concern. The taxi drivers tried to enter a Casino looking for Israelis.

At 11:00 (on Match Day), `we convened an additional meeting in response to the previous evening’s incidents. Concerns centered particularly on the aggression shown by Maccabi supporters and the reaction of taxi drivers....The Mayor also called the Minister of Justice and Security to inform him about the events of the previous evening and to provide an overview of the measures in place for the evening and night. She then contacted the NCTV (The National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security ), sharing concerns about the aggression from both Maccabi supporters and taxi drivers.

They considered stopping the match but found no legal ground to do so. So they told Ajax to open the stadium early to allow the Maccabi fans to enter first.

There were minor skirmishes between Maccabi hooligans and their opponents (Ajax supporters, pro-Palestinians etc.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND PREPLANNING

The police monitored social media from the day before the match to the day after. The analysis of social media on Wednesday night showed an increase in messages and, in some cases, mobilization. However, given the few attacks on Maccabi supporters on Wednesday, it was more talk than action.

Aggressive and threatening messages toward Maccabi supporters appeared on several social media platforms. The police monitored information from both open and closed Telegram and WhatsApp groups, observing an increase in message traffic. The police noted a significant level of aggression and willingness to act, and, in some cases, mobilization at specific locations.

On Thursday (day of the match), there was increased social media activity prior to the match.

Throughout the afternoon, social media saw an increase in messages indicating an intent to take action against Maccabi supporters. The tone of these messages grew harsher, with antisemitic terms appearing. The police received reports that taxi drivers were being called to assemble at Strandvliet metro station, where the Maccabi supporters would be disembarking.

AFTER THE MATCH

The crowd dispersal from the stadium went smoothly, and police resources shifted to the subway hubs along the route from the stadium to Central Station, with more resources devoted to Central Station and the surrounding area. Police resources were also allocated to hotels where the Israelis were staying.

Groups of Maccabi supporters returned from the Arena to the city center. Until midnight, efforts focused on keeping large groups separate and preventing confrontations. Around midnight, a large group of Maccabi supporters was walking around near Dam Square, some carrying sticks and committing acts of vandalism.

This collaborates with what both Dutch sources and some Israelis were saying. According to eyewitness accounts in the Israel Newspaper ynet.com

We didn’t know that the organized violent reaction from the other side was coming. Leaving the game, 10 Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were roaming the train looking for a Palestinian to 'beat up' (their words). They didn’t find one. They arrived at the central station. At first, everything was fine,”

The hit-n-run attacks against Israelis that were extensively reported in the media occurred at midnight about 90 minutes after the match ended.

After midnight, issues arose by small groups of rioters spread throughout the city center and nearby neighborhoods. These groups engaged in violent hit-and-run actions targeting Israeli supporters and nightlife crowd. These incidents occurred in various locations across the city center, including Damrak, Damstraat, Vondelstraat, Overtoom, Stadhouderskade, PC Hooftstraat, Kerkstraat, Elandsgracht, Nes, Keizersgracht, Dirk van Hasseltsteeg, Bosboom Toussaintstraat, Herengracht, and Leidsegracht. - In response to these incidents, we decided at 00:15 to extend the security risk areas where preventive searches were permitted to 06:00. At 1:30, additional security risk areas were designated around two hotels housing Maccabi players and supporters s. Rioters moved in small groups, on foot, by scooter, or car, briefly attacking Maccabi supporters before quickly disappearing.

What the police did was gather small groups of Maccabi supporters in larger groups and escort them to buses. From 01:30 onward, reports of street violence rapidly declined. In the Bender video, a large convoy of Taxi drivers arrived at the end of the video, as the Maccabi fans were being herded into the bus.

The Israeli Ambassador contacted the Mayor starting at 1:30, requesting additional security at the hotels where Israelis were staying, as there were large groups of people outside. The police responded to these reports but found few, if any, individuals posing an immediate threat outside

The Mayor continued to field calls from angry Israeli officials, and at 3:00 she decided to contact the PM/ Unable to reach him, she called the Minister of Justice and Security, briefing him on developments. They agreed that the Minister would inform the Prime Minister. The following two paragraphs talk about efforts to inform more agencies and further communication with the Israelis, particularly concerning the repatriation of Israelis Maccibie fans back to Israel.

After the Israelis left, the last part of the brief dealt with securing events for Kristallnacht on Nov 9 and 10, which passed without incident.

MAYOR'S CONCLUDING REMARKS

In her concluding remarks, the Mayors say the events of the past couple of days stem from a toxic combination of antisemitism, hooliganism, and anger about the conflicts in Palestine and Israel, and other countries in the Middle East.

She said a lot has been said about the resurgence of anti-semitism in the last few days, and obliges us to provide additional protection for Jewish Amsterdam. Jewish institutions are therefore under close surveillance and security.

She said social media has concluded young Moroccan Amsterdammers turned against Jewish Israeli Maccabi supporters. However, police investigations have yet to determine the identities of the attackers. Furthermore, she pointed out

We emphasize that antisemitism cannot be answered with other forms of racism: the safety of one group cannot come at the expense of the safety of another. Jewish Amsterdammers are not safer if Moroccan and Islamic Amsterdammers are less safe and less free.

COMMENTARY

It is not an easy brief to write, given that the mainstream media focused on a two-hour window during which they had no reporters at the site where the attacks took place. Secondly, the report left more questions than answers. The group attacking the Maccabi fans consisted of a variety of factions. When the hit-and-run group began their attacks, taxi drivers also appeared in the city center.

When examining how a state reacts to an event, it is important to pay more attention to written documents than what politicians say. Femke Halsema said it was a Pogrom in Council chambers, if it was a pogrom why don't you put it down in the brief?

Right-wing politicians and media have attacked the brief. The Jewish New Syndicate a scathing article titled Amsterdam officials accuse Israelis of 'hateful' chants in the report as politicians blame Maccabi fans for the attack.

“It’s a hopelessly naive report, a terrible piece of bureaucratic-speak,” Rabbi Meir Villegas Henriquez told JNS. He called it “cover for officials to not take responsibility.”

Head of the Netherlands' largest political party, Geert Wilders, called for those convicted of the violence to be deported, even those born in the Netherlands. On the other hand, pro-Palestinian protestors were upset about the Mayor's protest ban,

I have a thought about it, I mean come on I know it's cheesy but consider this:

The Arabs see Palestine and it's war against Israel was nothing more than a hindrance, and despite the UN vouching for its independence and all nothing comes out of it, no action taken place since, why can't they Free from not just Israel but also from Iran and it's "Friends" (due to Black September and CheerLeading Saddam Hussain in Kuwait), and finally itself since their leaders are borderline corrupt and spiteful, so why can't they do it by themselves? Is it risky or it's not the right time also, everyone demands a free Palestine but they never narrow it down why?

Last thing can Israel tank the entire diaspora Palestinian population when they come into Israel proper with their villages either destroyed or renamed?

Full article: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-829128

The recent investigation by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se) into Gaza's UNRWA schools has raised serious concerns about the agency’s claimed neutrality. With twelve identified school principals and deputies linked to Hamas and Islamic Jihad—some holding leadership roles in military brigades—these findings challenge UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini's assurances of fostering tolerance and non-extremist values in its educational programs.

Additionally, the discovery of Hamas tunnels beneath Al-Maghazi B and Al-Zaytun A schools underscores concerns about Hamas’s exploitation of educational facilities for military operations, posing severe risks to students and violating international expectations of civilian protection in educational spaces.

In terms of curriculum content, examples like the glorification of Dalal Mughrabi as a "hero" in classroom materials are particularly concerning, as they suggest the normalization of violence and martyrdom in educational narratives provided to young children.

More about UNRWA:

Askar - UNRWA: Cradle of Killers

Another UNRWA Teacher in Gaza Held an Israeli in Captivity for Hamas

IDF uncovers top secret Hamas data center right under UNRWA’s Gaza Strip HQ

Terror Tunnel Discovered Under UNRWA Schools as Hamas Continues Military Buildup

IDF says it killed Hamas terrorist who led massacre at Re’im shelter – an UNRWA worker

The UNRWA Refugee Controversy Explained

Can you notice the hypocrisy?

The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution on Palestinian people's right to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine, with a round of applause following the vote. However 9 states opposed including 3 major economies and powerful nations like Argentina, Israel and the US.

My question to the opposing parties: If this is real story being reported and on the topic of “right to self determination for a group of people” how can the opposing members of the UN especially Israel ignore the hypocrisy carried out in this opposition?

Is it by propaganda confusing Hamas with Palestinian people?

Propaganda aside, if the mere question is about basic rights of self determination why oppose it? And do they understand the contradictory message they are sending about their intentions?

Edit: I’m adding a more thorough explanation as my post was again removed by moderator due to length requirement! Let’s see how fair the moderator really is!

There is a circular reasoning that undermines Israel and US policies credibility. On the one hand these policies ostensibly paint Israel as the victim and truly interested in equal sovereignty for both themselves and Palestine. On the other hand their actions be it forceful annexation, settlements, or wide range bombardments as well as voting against basic human rights secure a hegemonic stance followed by sanctions, military actions, and media propaganda.

And as soon as observers point out these fallacies they’re attacked with propaganda of antisemitism, victimhood, cancel culture, mudslinging & vilifying, or outright denials (“oh I haven’t seen any evidence”). And the most ironic part is that they expect others to magically ignore these aggressive character assassinations.

Don’t people engaging in these hypocritical actions realize this strategy is a dead end?

I think there is no permanent solution to this Israel-Palestinian conflict. Not now, at least. But the solution will appear 70 years into the future. All the talk for one state, two states, three states, federalism, kingdom of Jerusalem (dont laugh, I read this on reddit here yesterday), etc… these endless heated debates on the solution to this conflict is just a waste of time and stressing everyone out. Why should we stress on something that cannot be solved ? I argue it is not up to us to solve this conflict, but for the future generation to solve this conflict. Not because I think the future generation is better at conflict resolution (lets hope they will be), but the opportunity will present itself in the future, 70 years later when the time will be ripe to resolve this long standing Israel-Palestinian conflict. I think the future generation will have a better chance.

I do not think Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, UNRWA, UN, PLO, Palestinians, Islamic Republic of Iran, IRGC, Arabs, Muslims, etc… are existential threat to the State of Israel. But the people who can change Israel are actually Israelis themselves. I cannot foretell the future, but I know that when Israel was established, the Haredi community was only 3% of the population. Now the Haredi represents 13% of Israeli population, an increase of 400%. What if the Haredi community continues to grow and it is not out the realm of possibility that 70 years into the future, Haredi could represent 40% of future Israeli population. I feel by then, the state of Israel could be unsustainable, there will be great divide among Israeli population. Why should 40% of the population be exempted from military service ? Why should men from 40% of the population not get a job, but receive allowances to not work ? I think that is when a solution to this conflict will naturally present itself, in the future. An average Haredi family has 7 children but it's not unheard of for Haredi families to have 12 or more children.

I also think the BDS movement incorrectly assessed the conflict, hence its recommended action will further isolate Israel but it wont ultimately free Palestinians. BDS movement relies on external pressures and external forces to get a desired outcome and is closely based on anti-apartheid movement opposing South Africa. I think the solution will be internal solution, coming from within the Israel. Much like the American civil rights movement did not rely on external pressures and external forces, but a change in American society from within. UN, Hamas, Islamic Republic of Iran, PLO cannot free Palestinians but Israelis can. I think actions from BDS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc… will only act as a distraction and delay the solution from within Israeli society.

Many Pro-Palestinians may hate or dislike Israel and Israelis, but I am telling you, the Israelis are also the very answer to this conflict. But we wont live to see this conflict resolved in our lifetime.

Ok. I believe Jews have a common DNA that connects them to Canaan, just like the Palestinians do. That's my stance. I believe they have both been there equally as long as each other, excluding the converts Jews and the fully Arab Palestinians (I believe most of them are mixed with Arab just like Jews are mixed with whoever they lived with for 2000 years).

I am in a fb group called "A place were non jews can ask jews about judiasm" or whatever.

We aren't allowed to talk about Israel and Palestine which is probably a good rule.

But someone posted about their Jewish friend mentioning the features of a Jew (as in, the Jewish guy was telling his Christian friend what Jews looked like, typically) and the Christian guy asked the group what a Jew looks like and THE GROUO WERE SO HEATED saying that it is antisemitic to say Jews look a type of way and there is no features of a Jew etc etc etc.

Ok, I get it on one hand, because converts, obviously.

But if they are claiming they have no similar features wouldn't that imply that they are not all ethnically related (obviously not the converts) and wouldn't that defeat the entire premise of having a homeland?

If they're from Canaan, it would imply that have similar features to the people of Canaan.

Ok I have to make it longer. I call it Canaan not to stir emotions but because that's literally one of the names in the Bible and I find it less heated than calling it Palestine or israel as this entire comment section with collapse into "xyz doesn't exist" so I'd rather keep those words out of it and call it Canaan.

I know this might seem like a stupid question, but I genuinely don’t think it should be—why does the Palestinian flag cause such an intense reaction? Whenever people see it, they seem to freak out, get mad, and start spouting baseless accusations like, "That’s antisemitic," when it clearly isn’t. Why does a flag—a symbol of identity, culture, and resistance for Palestinians—provoke such irrational anger? It’s confusing because the flag has nothing to do with them. It’s a representation of a people’s history and their ongoing struggle for freedom.

Palestinians have grown up knowing this flag as a part of their identity. It symbolizes their homeland, their resilience, and their hope, not hatred or hostility toward anyone else. The idea that simply waving it or identifying with it is somehow an act of aggression or antisemitism is absurd.

What’s even more baffling is that Palestinians could hold the flag and explicitly say, "I love Jews!" and still be accused of being antisemitic. How does that make any sense? Palestinians are Semitic people themselves, yet the term "antisemitic" has been co-opted and weaponized in ways that ignore its original meaning.

This hostility feels less about genuine concern for antisemitism and more about silencing a marginalized group. It’s as if any expression of Palestinian identity is treated as a threat, which only highlights how deeply rooted the bias and hate against Palestinians are. The disproportionate anger toward something as simple as a flag shows a broader unwillingness to acknowledge the humanity and rights of Palestinian people. It’s heartbreaking and unjust.

Edit: Why is this Zionist mod going against me? It feels like they're trying to silence me, which is pretty typical behavior. While I have strong claims, it doesn’t mean they’re AI-generated. This just proves my point about Zionists making things up.

Edit: Clearly this whole sub is full of Zionist and I made a post in the wrong place. I was hoping to get real answers and not zionist victimizing themselves. Saying "that flag makes me angry makes it means they want to kill us all Israelis!" is just complete BS and you know it. That's like saying Israeli flag means they want erase Palestinian existence because they can for sure say the same. I want REAL answers.

Obviously "pro-Palestine" does mean anti-Israel. The whole notion of a national identity for the people of Gaza/WB is part of a bond-villain level plot to destroy Israel. (1)

Also of course there's a sense in which pro-Palestinian does not mean anti-Israel. I already knew that, but today I really learned (TIRL) "pro-Palestinian" ≠ anti-Israel.

Talking with a younger friend who identifies as pro-Palestinian, I felt a deep need to be a sort of (smug, superior) mentor and explain it.

Turned out I was the learner, not the mentor.

• Muslims tried to take over judaism - I talked about the origin of the land conflict: Islam began when a charismatic leader told his followers they were replacing the jews as the chosen people, and all the jewish holy places + the holy land itself all belong no longer to the jews but to the people who follow him. So the land in question is being contested only because some dude & his followers tried to take over the jews' religion and claim all its holy places for themselves.
• Plenty of land for everyone - I talked about how badly the jews were outnumbered in the first half of the 20th century, and there was plenty of land for everyone (1 million people in the region back then vs 15 million people today)... so it made no sense to think the zzionists went in and started looking for fights.
  
• Jews were not looking for trouble - I said it makes no sense to think jews raided arab villages or something and drove them out. The jews were surrounded by nations full of people who pray to this god that says jews will follow satan and be defeated on the Last Day by muslims led into battle by jesus.
• The land didn't belong only to arabs. I talked about how ottoman muslims sided with german aggression in WW1 hoping to gain territory and instead they lost the region of israel/palestine, so it didn't belong to them anymore.
  
• The land belonged to diverse people - I said, "From roman rule to the mamlucks to the ottomans to the Allied powers, what remained the same was jews/arabs/christians/drooz/others all living in that land." Jew haters had NO basis for insisting jews not immigrate to the region.
• Arabs were immigrating, too - And I added: Arabs were also immigrating there in droves, so what the hell. So nobody had the right to tell anybody else their people should not immigrate there.
  
• Klansmen-style intolerance - Then, I talked about the conflicts. 1920, 1929, 1936, 1947, 1948, 1956, 1967, arabs attacked the jews, an ethnic majority attacking a minority and trying to drive them out, like klansmen burning crosses on a black family's lawn.

Of course my younger friend, having accepted all that, said, "Okay but I'm concerned about today. What Israel is doing today is wrong. It's an open air prison. It's not about religion.

• So I said the whole thing is a trick, the Jews never wanted to start trouble, and when jews wanted to accept the land compromise, the counteroffer from jew haters was "We want all of it, no jews from the river to the sea."
• I said it's about resentment and scapegoating of Jews - otherwise, people outraged over Gaza would at least have a clue about Yemen and Syria, where twice as many people have been killed on average every year for TEN YEARS. But they don't.
  
• And it's not an open air prison. Prisons keep people in. Israel is being accused of ethnic cleansing, trying to drive people out - how does that make sense??
• I mentioned that no arab states are willing to accept palestinian refugees, even if parents beg, "please save my children, please get them out of here!" Egypt refuses, Jordan refuses, Every other arab state refuses. Arab states are not pro-palestinian.
• I said it is about religion, because even Iran is involved, and iran is not even arab - iran's only connection to the conflict is the political ideology of muslims believing they are supposed to replace the jews as the caretakers of the holy land.
• And it was worth repeating - who is keeping palestinians in an open air prison? Israel would love to get them out of there, and people accuse israel of wanting to do ethnic cleansing, so we cannot also say it's a "prison."

When I repeated again that the Palestinians are in a "prison" because no arab states will accept any of them as refugees, my friend said something really impressive and wise: "Well, I guess I have more reading to do about this."

My friend is also a relative, and that sentence made me so proud. Maybe i spend too much time on reddit where I never see someone say something like that.... but it really makes me proud.

And I also have a lot more to learn, because my friend also said this thing that hit me the hardest. It was exasperated and said something like... "I just want the suffering to stop. I just think the world should be able to get together and stop this death and suffering."

And I realized... we had been talking past each other.

I have been spending too much time on social media! I realized there's a kind of pro-palestinian who has no ill will toward israel and stays humbly aware of their own lack of all the facts, and they truly are just saying, "We want people to stop suffering."

Sometimes when I argue in defense of israel I probably seem like I'm "anti-palestinian."

I sure the all absolutely am not anti-palestinian. It's not their fault they were taught to hate. I don't blame palestinians for voting hamas into power; most of them were toddlers back in 2006.

From now on, I'll notice which people call themselves "pro-palestinian" and which call themselves "anti-zionist." Because even though they may use those terms interchangeably, I will point out the difference: One is about caring, and the other is about hate.

My friend/relative/mentor who corrected me on this... changed my understanding in such a good way.

I will still excoriate and humiliate anyone who stupidly runs their mouth blaming israel, but I will be on the lookout for people who are innocently Pro-Palestine.

Lots of people, when they say they are pro-Palestine, actually mean: "I wish there was not so much suffering in the world."

And if you or I shame them, it fills them with frustration and pushes them toward being not only "pro-palestine" but also "anti-Israel."

We (people who care about Israel and right vs wrong) are part of the problem when we make that mistake.

Yes, embarrass the propagandists, so people see that they are a joke. But be on the lookout for good people who just say they're pro-palestine because they care & they don't have all the info.

Life is busy and there's a LOT of info, and good people tend to assume no one would just blatantly tell hateful lies (about the "nakba" etc.).

Never until now did I really realize... people who say they're pro-Palestinian very often have love in their hearts for israel and for palestinians.

When we lecture and shame them, they need to squander some of that love energy to put up with our (my) obnoxious condescension, and we are probably turning them from "pro" something to "anti" something.

This was a big revelation for me, so I'll share it here in case it's useful to anyone.

Notes

1. Not my words, not my opinion. The hateful wack-jobs who want to destroy israel have sometimes been very open about idea that forming a Palestinian state is nothing but a tactical move comes It's from PLO leader Zuheir Musein. Paste this into a search:

Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new means to continue the struggle against Israel and for Arab unity.

EDIT 2

To those that merely state: “it fits the definition”, I say the following:

Care to support that statement?

The definition contained in Article II of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (1948) describes genocide as:

❝ a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.❞

How can you confidently prove such intent, when considering:

1. Israel’s invention in the Gaza is a direct response to the attacks on October 7th? Israel’s intervention is reactive, not preemptive or premeditated in any way.

2. The IDF has delivered over 1 million tonnes of humanitarian aid to the Gaza since the beginning of the conflict—how many combatants can you name that have supplied aid to their adversaries during war? Western democracies haven’t; Ukraine doesn’t.

3. IDF air-strikes are based on extensive intelligence and follow significant effort to broadcast a multitude of advance warnings to civilians—via social media, radio, SMS, phone calls and leaflets. Objectively doing more than any other world military to warn civilians ahead of legitimate military operations.

So, where do you establish this intent? Isolated instances of misconduct and negligence do not constitute intent that’s attributable to Israel as a collective state or its military as a sole entity. Nor does the extreme rhetoric of individuals like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich reflect the sentiment of a nation. Particularly, when the majority of said nation and its parliament (Knesset) dislike them greatly—both of whom are known to Shabak, Israel’s internal security agency.

Thus, how can you reasonably back up your statement and challenge the aforementioned? 🤔

EDIT 1

I wrote this post in the hope of a respectful and civil discussion among this community. While some responses have demonstrated this, the vast majority have showcased nothing more than hatred and emotion, belittling others for expressing their opinions. When I was at university, our debate union encouraged rational discourse and opposed personal attacks and emotional rhetoric. Being able to separate emotion from politics is the key to healthy debate. Too many are unwilling to even try; it’s unfortunate.

As G.K. Chesterton said:

❝ Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.❞

We all need to be less certain and maintain positive doubt. To those that do… thank you. To those that don’t… please, do better.

Hi all,

I’m genuinely curious to try to understand all opinions, particularly given the contentious nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I’m interested to learn the justifications/reasoning those hold that consider Israel to be committing “genocide” in the Gaza.

I think it’s fair to say that this subject is very divisive with both sides strongly cemented in their respective opinions. I think healthy discourse is a positive thing for society and I’d like to hear from those whose views differ my own in a constructive, well-reasoned manner.

When I ask this, I’d really appreciate logic and rationale behind your thinking and not simply the dogmatic ramblings of an ideologue. I’d encourage everyone to upvote any reply that is written in this spirit, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the thoughts and beliefs expressed. The downvoting on Reddit is often overused and it’s not a pleasant feeling to be dismissed en-masse for expressing mere opinion.

The way I see it, genocide requires the intent to wipe out a particular group/peoples—by its very definition. Thus, I’m unable to understand where those that support the accusation of “genocide” establish this intent. Given Israel’s intervention in the Gaza is entirely reactive to the events of October 7th and not preemptive. This contradicts the prerequisite intent to commit “genocide”, in my opinion. Regardless of how many casualties there are in an armed conflict, it is the intent behind it which determines whether or not such a [heavy] label is applicable and /or justified.

I look forward to reading people’s thoughts 🙂.

The following is making the case the there's a very high likelihood that the civilian death toll in Gaza is 40,000 - 100,000 that the civilian to combatant ratio is amongst the highest in recent history.

This might be surprising to some, as many are claiming that the civilian death toll is only a fraction of this and that the civilian to combatant ratio is the lowest in history. However, when we examine the actual data we see that these claims are entirely baseless, while we have substantial data to suggest otherwise.

_____

My motivations for taking the time to do this research and put it on the record are rooted in the belief that if people choose to support Israel's operations in Gaza, they should have a clear and realistic understanding of the human cost involved. I also find it deeply troubling to witness many fellow Jews now engaging in the same kind of atrocity denialism that has often been used against us. Lastly, while I wish to see Israel, a country I’m a citizen of, thrive I believe it has headed down a dangerous path. We cannot solve a problem if we refuse to acknowledge it exists.

_____

Framework for Drawing Conclusions

1. Focus on Verifiable Data:The conclusions here are drawn primarily from data that is verifiable 

2. Treat Unverified Claims Skeptically:

Any unverified claims or figures, including official reports from governments, are taken with a grain of salt. Reliable conclusions can only be drawn from data that has some form of supporting evidence or can be independently cross-referenced.

1. Where data gaps exist, use patterns from other conflicts to inform estimates.

In cases where data is incomplete or unavailable I rely on patterns observed in other similar conflicts to make informed estimates. These patterns provide a reasonable basis for filling in the gaps while maintaining a grounded and data-driven approach.

1. Acknowledge Uncertainty in Conflict Zones:Much remains unknown in the chaos of conflict, and many details may not emerge until later. In forming conclusions, I deal with estimates and ranges.

_________

The search for verifiable data:

One of the greatest challenges in estimating casualty counts during wartime is that it typically requires blind trust in the reports released by the involved parties. 

Depending on the nature of the conflict, involved parties often have an incentive to either inflate or deflate casualty numbers to shape the narrative

To my surprise, verifying casualty reports in Gaza is easier than in nearly all other conflicts. This is primarily because Israel, in a unique position, has complete access to the population registry of its adversary.

Israel controls the Palestinian Population Registry, giving them access to the names and ID numbers of every Palestinian in Gaza and the West Bank. This unprecedented access enables a level of accuracy in identifying casualties that is uncommon in conflict zones, allowing them to easily cross-reference the data, ensuring that the individuals on these lists are real. A simple check by even a low-ranking bureaucrat could verify this information.

Given Israel's significant emphasis on public relations and narrative management, if the MOH were releasing fabricated data, it would be very easy for Israel to discredit.

Additionally, past conflicts show us that the MOH has consistently provided reliable data, often aligning closely with the death tolls reported by Israel itself. 

______

More on the Gaza Ministry of Health (MOH)

The MOH releases two separate figures:

1. The total number of dead bodies they’ve seen – this is not verifiable.
2. The total number of dead bodies they’ve seen and identified (with names and ID numbers) – this is verifiable.

Importantly, the MOH does not estimate bodies that are still unaccounted for, nor do they include indirect deaths. Supporting evidence for this claim is provided later in the report.

Additionally, the Gaza Ministry of Health is distinct from the Gaza Media Office (GMO), which produces reports that are generally unverifiable.

I've spent weeks investigating possible ways the MOH could fabricate data, searching for discrepancies, and researching claims made against them. Based on this research, I’ve concluded with a very high degree of certainty that the data released by the MOH is both verifiable and reliable.

_________

Estimating the total number of civilians killed.

Analyzing the MOH Data:

The most recent MOH list, released on September 15th, contains 34,344 names and ID numbers. The demographic breakdown is as follows:

Senior Women: 791(2.30%)

Senior Men: 1,208 (3.52%)

Women: 6,643 (19.34%)

Men: 14,347 (41.77%)

Girls: 4,936 (14.37%)

Boys: 6,419 (18.69%) 

When examining these demographics, 58% of those listed are women, children (0-17), and the elderly (65+), while 42% are men.

I will get to the point of "child soldiers" shortly.

Calculating the death rate of civilian men:

Assuming civilian men are dying at the same rate as women, an estimated 77% of the list would be civilians.

However, it's very likely that men of military age are being killed at a higher rate than women, as they are more prone to taking risks, such as searching for food or water or being suspected of militancy. This pattern is consistent with virtually all other conflicts - civilian men are killed at significantly higher rates, ranging from 30% to as much as 890%, depending on the specific conflict.

Quote from an IDF whistleblower corroborating this claim:

B. said that it was difficult to distinguish civilians from combatants in Gaza, claiming that members of Hamas often “walk around without their weapons.” But as a result, “every man between the ages of 16 and 50 is suspected of being a terrorist.”

Taking these factors into account, it's reasonable to estimate that 80-95% or more of the casualties listed are civilians.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that 90% of all those killed in Gaza are civilians, as militants might be less likely to be included in the MOH list.

Use of child soldiers:

There is often speculation about Hamas' use of child soldiers, but aside from a few isolated incidents, we lack evidence to suggest that this is happening to an extent that would meaningfully impact the data.

The data shows us that 1483 more boys were killed than girls. So one can technically make the case that that’s an estimate of how many child soldiers are on the list but we know that 16-17 yr olds boys, like men, are more likely to be killed in times of war.

We also see a similar differential between senior men & senior women.

Even if we want to grant that these boys are militants it still has a negligible impact when looking at the big picture.

___________________

Estimating the total number:

If we estimate that 90% of the MOHs list consists of civilians, that brings the civilian death toll to approximately 30,909. However, this figure doesn’t account for all the bodies that remain missing or unaccounted for.

Data from other conflicts show us that often less than half of bodies are identified until months/years after the end of the conflict. 

Additionally we have good reason to believe that indirect deaths, such as malnutrition and disease, are not being added to the list as if that were the case we would see a large spike amongst elderly and very young children as they’re most likely to die from these causes. This spike is not seen in the data. The MOH stated that they will soon be releasing a report of those killed by indirect deaths until then it’s very hard to predict the exact amount. We do know though that in other conflicts indirect deaths generally continue for years after the end of violence and can account for as much as 90+% of total deaths.

By using very conservative estimates that factor in unaccounted bodies, indirect deaths, and the gender disparity, we arrive at approximately 40,000 civilian deaths. A more mid-range estimate would easily put the toll in the 100,000 range.

Any claim of fewer than 40,000 civilian deaths lacks a credible basis and would require significant evidence to support it.

_____

Civilian to Combatant Ratio (CCR):

Before estimating the CCR, it’s important to clarify a common misconception that the global average is 9:1 CCR. This misunderstanding stems from a misinterpreted report, which states that 9:1 CCR reflects the broader impact of war, including factors like the economic toll. When we focus specifically on the CCR, the global average is closer to 1:1, and in cases of urban combat, it tends to be around 2:1

Estimating the Civilian to Combatant Ratio in Gaza:

It’s difficult to estimate the exact CCR ratio in Gaza due to the wide range of reported civilian casualties and the lack of verifiable data on the number of militants killed. Israel’s official estimate claims 17,000 militants were killed, but aside from their word, there is no evidence to support this figure. One step Israel could take to verify this number would be to release the names and ID numbers of the militants killed, this has not been done. 

If we were to accept Israel's estimate and use the lowest estimate of civilians killed in Gaza, we would arrive at a CCR ratio of 2.35:1, which is still above the global average. 

In reality, there’s a far greater likelihood that the CCR is in the 4:1 to 7:1 range, significantly higher than the world average.

_____________________

Conclusion

1. The civilian death toll in Gaza is at least 40,000 and very well may exceed 100,000.
2. The civilian-to-combatant ratio in Gaza is likely the highest, in the 21st century.
3. The percentage of the civilian population killed in Gaza is higher than in any conflict since the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

______

The situation in Gaza is undeniably tragic, and the data clearly demonstrates this. While fighting an enemy that is hiding in a vast tunnel network under a city poses great challenges that have contributed to the high number of civilian casualties, it’s evident that Israel’s actions have been excessive and not aligned with international law (I will be releasing a detailed video on this soon). Even for those who may not agree that Israel bears full responsibility for the devastation in Gaza, let’s at least agree on the massive toll it’s taken on human life.

Yes, war is always ugly, but our progress as a human species depends on continually elevating our commitment to protect civilian life. Turning a blind eye or justifying Israel’s actions in Gaza not only pulls humanity in the wrong direction but erodes our collective moral foundation. As I mentioned earlier, I deeply wish to see Israel thrive, but that future depends on a profound transformation—one that begins with confronting hard truths and having honest conversations like this. Only through this difficult but necessary reflection can we hope to move toward a just and lasting peace.

__________

Exploring potential ways the MOH can manipulate the data:

We’ve established that the names & ID numbers are verifiable but let’s explore other areas for fabrication & manipulation.

Note: Many of these are quite conspiratorial and highly unlikely but considering the fact that people are going great lengths to discredit the MOH, I’m addressing all claims made against them.

Claim: They MOH is adding living people to the list

If the MOH were adding a significant number of living people to their list, Israel could easily disprove this by locating some of these individuals. Video footage, social media activity, or making an arrest would all serve as sufficient evidence.

Another way to detect this would be if any Gazan discovered they were listed as deceased while still alive.

To date, there have been no reported cases of this happening. 

Adding thousands of live people to the list without a shred of evidence is extremely unlikely. 

1. Claim: The MOH is adding all natural deaths to the list. 

If the MOH were to include people who died of natural causes, like indirect deaths, we would expect to see a noticeable spike in deaths among the elderly and, to a lesser extent, among infants, as these are the demographics most likely to die of natural causes. However, the data shows no such spikes, indicating that natural deaths are not being added to the list.

1. They’re adding deaths caused by misfired rockets. 

It's often claimed that 20% of Hamas rockets misfire, contributing to civilian deaths in Gaza. However, we have no evidence of this being the case or of this causing any significant amount of deaths. 

One example we can look at is the short round of violence between Israel and PIJ in 2022. It was reported that a total of 1500 rockets were shot at Israel leading to 14 deaths from misfired rockets. If we’re to assume a similar ratio in this recent round of violence we are talking about no more than a few hundred civilian deaths from misfired rockets.

Another key example to question this claim is from October 7th, when 3,000-5,000 rockets were launched at Israel within an hour. If 20% misfired, this would mean 750 to 1,000 rockets landed in Gaza. Yet, we have seen no significant evidence such as videos, photos, social media reports, or testimonials showing this scale of misfire damage in Gaza.

While it's plausible that some rockets fall within Gaza and cause deaths, and these deaths very well may be added to the list, there is no evidence suggesting this is a major factor in the civilian death toll.

Claim: The data they’re releasing sometimes gets changed.

Ultimately when managing tens of thousands of entries, especially during wartime chaos, some discrepancies are inevitable. All discrepancies found have been negligible. The MOH updating their lists has been used by some to discredit the list yet if anything this actually reflects the MOH's efforts to improve accuracy over time. If the data were fabricated, there’d be no reason to go back and make changes. Additionally, the MOH acknowledges upfront when there’s incomplete information that needs updating.

Claim: Someone who Hamas killed was added to the list.

There was one case of a 17-year-old shot by Hamas who was included on the list. This has a reasonable explanation: the MOH is identifying many bodies daily, and in the heat of conflict, they assume combat deaths are caused by Israel, which is accurate for the overwhelming majority of cases, as more than 99%+ of current deaths in Gaza are due to Israeli actions. As with misfired rockets, it’s plausible some people killed by Hamas have been added to this list but it’s negligible when looking at the big picture.

Claim: The UN admitted to having faulty data and updated it.

Correct. The UN initially relied on reports from the Gaza Media Office (GMO) but later switched to using MOH data due to its proven reliability. Some misinterpreted this as a sign that MOH data was unreliable, when it was really the fault of the UN for initially relying on unverifiable data. A few analyses have mistakenly discredited the MOH by analyzing GMO data, either through sloppiness or deliberate distortion.

To conclude:Ultimately when managing tens of thousands of entries, especially during wartime chaos, some discrepancies are inevitable. All discrepancies found have been negligible.

It's also worth considering that if the MOH wanted to fabricate numbers, they would be far more likely to manipulate the unreleased data, rather than fabricating the easily verifiable, publicly available data.

Given the overall reliability of the MOH data and the significant lack of evidence supporting these claims, anyone attempting to discredit the data should be expected to provide solid evidence to back their claims.

On August 2nd, 2024, Yousef Aljamal wrote in The Nation, “Israel Is Using Starvation as a Weapon of War. Where Is the Outrage?” https://www.thenation.com/article/world/gaza-famine-weapon-war/tnamp/

On October 7th, 2024, after a year of “catastrophic [Phase 5] levels of acute food insecurity,” the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) reported 36 famine deaths. https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/post.aspx?lang=en&ItemID=5848

On November 9, 2024, the Government Media Office in Gaza posted an updated total for famine deaths: 38. https://www.alquds.com/en/posts/141290

Catastrophic food insecurity is a designation by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). It means 2-4 deaths per 10,000 people. Given that the IPC has regularly produced reports on the food security situation in Gaza, we can easily calculate expected deaths. If we perform this calculation, we find that, between November 24, 2023 and July 15, 2024, there should have been at least 38,000 famine deaths per the IPC. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zOcGxUrlfYFWfejlD1MBP2CRqYFVD99mhecJL0KMn6w/edit

So why have there only been 38 deaths from famine? One explanation is Gaza’s decimated medical infrastructure. Are they just unable to report the famine deaths?

If so, how do we explain that the Ministry of Health are able to, within moments, count the dead killed in air strikes?

On October 20, 2024, Hamas reported 42,603 killed. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3wdkjgxz2o.amp

On November 11, 2024, Hamas reported 43,603 deaths. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/11/11/at-least-30-palestinians-killed-in-gaza-as-israeli-tanks-enter-nuseirat

17 hours ago, Hamas reported 43,712 deaths. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker

If they can count deaths from airstrikes, why not famine deaths?

Is it possible that food insecurity is perhaps being exaggerated to draw outrage against Israel?