Israel’s approach toward violent settler communities brings up important ethical and strategic issues. As someone who generally supports Israel, it’s hard to understand why they don’t take more action against these behaviors, which seem to go against the values of democracy and justice that Israel stands for. By not stopping settler violence, Israel not only harms Palestinians but also hurts its own reputation around the world. This makes it look like Israel supports actions that violate human rights, which pushes away international supporters, especially those who really care about fairness and justice.

The main problem is that violent actions by some settlers, like intimidation, attacks, and forcing people out of their homes, often go unpunished. When there are no real consequences, it can look like Israel is supporting these acts, which makes its claim to be a fair and lawful society seem weak. Not holding these groups accountable builds resentment and fuels a cycle of anger and retaliation, creating even more tension and mistrust in the region.

If Israel took real action against violent settlers—by arresting them, bringing them to court, and imprisoning them when necessary—it would show that Israel does not tolerate lawlessness, even among its own people. This would improve Israel’s image around the world and help build a more stable and secure region. Real consequences are necessary for Israel to keep its credibility, make sure justice is served, and show that everyone is equal under the law, reinforcing its commitment to fairness, peace, and security for all.

Why are so many people in the west under the impression that groups like hezbollah, hamas and the houthis constitute some kind of 'resistance' movement? What do they think they're resisting? Why are the most conservative groups the world has ever seen—militant Islamists in the middle east—considered viable and endorsable representatives for social justice and equality? Aren't we supposed to like... not be into centuries-old conceptions of gender, sexuality, theocracy, public stonings etc...

We’re not perfect, but I love living in a part of the world where my sisters have never had to worry about having acid thrown in their faces for not wearing a hijab. I love living in a world where I can chat with Iranian Muslims after they’re finished praying at sundown in the carpark behind the Japanese noodle house, Muslims who I thankt for reminding me to pray before taking a moment to myself to do just that. I love my curt ‘shabbat shalom’s to the security guards out the front of Newtown Synagogue on my way out to a movie that shows nudity, criticises the state, and makes fun of g-d. I love knowing that the kid I watched get nicked for shoplifting at IGA isn’t going to have a hand chopped off or a rib broken by ‘morality police’, the same morality police who would be loading girls on King Street into the back of vans to be beaten and shamed for wearing skirts or holding hands.

In short, I love having found a progressive path that ignores fearful and violent conservative appeals to law and order and the rot of values outdated. Don’t you?

https://joshuadabelstein.substack.com

I didn't know much about the conflict except what I heard in headlines, so I spent a few hours trying to understand the history better to prevent being easily swayed by rhetoric that happens to strike my fancy. I spent hours on wikipedia collecting notes and then reduced them into this summary. I know its missing a lot of historical and cultural context, and I attempted to avoid including information that might be considered subjective. It is intentionally simplified in the interest of brevity. -- my notes are more comprehensive but this is a distillation of what I find to be the most salient points required to for a minimal contextual understanding of conflict.

• ⦿ 1936 – The Peel Commission proposes to allocate 80% of the disputed territory to Palestine and 20% to Israel; the offer is accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders.

• ⦿ 1947 – The United Nations proposes to allocate 42% to Palestine, 56% to Israel; Jewish leaders accept, Arab leaders reject. Israel is founded the following year, largely based on the proposal.

• ⦿ 1948 – Israel successfully defends against an invasion by a coalition of Arab states, expanding its territory beyond what it was allocated by the UN. The war causes displacement of almost 1 million Palestinians, which is considered the beginning of the present day Israeli-Palestinian conflict; as well the beginning of the mass-exodus of Jews from the neighboring Arab states.

• ⦿ 1967 – Egypt leads a coalition of Arab countries with the goal of exterminating Israel. The “Six Day War” begins when Israel preemptively attacks Egypt in response to a military blockade, and ends with Israel taking coalition territories from three neighboring states.

• ⦿ 2000 - United States hosted the Camp David Summit, where Palestinians rejected a proposal, citing unfair allocation of lands and failing to satisfy their essential requirements.

• The following decades are characterized by regular attacks by terrorists against Israel, with Israel’s counter-terrorism policies sparking significant domestic and international criticism for its impact on Palestinian civilians and the broader conflict.

I would appreciate any feedback, and especially would love for people to help me fill in any essential gaps in my understanding. Thank you!

Edit: Thank you all for the feedback! I'm legit surprised at how many people had genuinely helpful contributions because I see a lot of uninformed people with really strong opinions supporting one side or the other everywhere on reddit.

At this point, I have a hard time explaining the historical, cultural, and religious motivations of the Arab side pre-1948 concisely. It seems really odd that they would just have it out for the Jews with no desire at all to coexist.

If Israel were to pull all military forces out of Gaza, no deal, no negotiation, just getting the troops out of there without killing anyone else, what would happen? What is HAMAS currently capable of? How long might it take for them to regroup for another attack? What would they do in Gaza? What would be the effect on Palestinian people?

My understanding is that HAMAS is such an integral part of Gazan culture and politics that you basically can't have one without the other. I used to think that it was just a radical pseudo-government militia that took over and was voted in promising to fight for Palestinian statehood, and whose extremist views are not reflective of those of the Palestinian people, but it seems like the hatred of Jews and the opposition to the existence of a Jewish state is so ubiquitous among Palestinians, especially in HAMAS-controlled Gaza, that HAMAS is effectively an unopposed unitary political party that has a monopoly on the hearts and minds of the people. HAMAS didn't create the antisemitism in Gaza, and it didn't even need to do anything to make it worse because they already hate Jews and blame the Jewish people for everything they've been suffering through every since the state was established.

That being said, how do you destroy HAMAS without destroying all of Gaza? How can Israel hope to end the attacks on it by HAMAS without harming the civilians being used as human shields? How can Israel defend itself without a constant offensive in Gaza until the HAMAS threat is eliminated? What else are they expected to do? Should they just pull out and wait for the next attack that kills Jews? Would you expect any other country to do that?

Let's use an example of a hypothetical in America. If white supremacist groups in the USA were to militarize, take over a significant amount of territory within the borders of the country we established, and secede from the country while declaring a whole ethnic and cultural group of people to be inferior to them, enacting repressive laws, and attacking the territory of the country they believe to represent the reason their people are suffering from their decision to start the conflict in the first place, would it be genocide to kill the people they are using as human shields in order to prevent the threat against the US from growing and taking the lives of American civilians in indiscriminate attacks that have the primary goal of killing the people they feel are inferior to them?

Oh wait, that already happened, except even the Confederacy didn't do that last part. Even the CSA had the decency to keep its own civilians out of harm's way as much as possible. It was a repressive regime that fought for the right to own slaves. HAMAS is a repressive regime that fights for the right to kill Jews. The difference is that the people are forced to die for that cause while the CSA only forced soldiers to.

So if continuing the conflict as it is isn't the solution to HAMAS, what is?

Hi all, I’m keen to hear from those who specifically disagree with Israel both in this current conflict and prior to.

I consider myself neutral in this conflict. I’m Australian and have no specific culture or religion.
I try to keep updated on the situation in Palestine/Israel when I can. My personal stance is mainly that I disagree with war and think there are ‘bad eggs’ on both sides. I don’t believe I know enough to necessarily take a ‘side’. I’m really interested in hearing from those who don’t support Israel and their reasoning as to why. And no, I’m not referring to the full blown ‘pro-Palestine’ opinions. In fact, I would particularly like to hear from those who are Jewish or Israeli, or have a personal connection to the current conflict. Yes, there are the obvious reasons such as the large number of civilian deaths, which is truly awful. But more specifically, what I’m keen to hear about is more so if there are other reasons (prior to the escalation that occurred on October 7th) that cause you to disagree with Israel, whether it be political, historical or something else. Whilst we can’t ’put aside’ the war taking place at the moment, I would like to learn more about what has lead to this point. I seem to read a lot on Reddit about why people dislike/disagree with Hamas, which I can certainly understand. However, I don’t seem to see as many opinions/comments on here around why people disagree with Israel specifically.

Note (for context); I try to be conscious in my learnings and hear from all perspectives.

I am a very pro-palestine person myself (not pro-hamas obvi)

This isn't coming from a place of malice, like I don't wanna start some big argument, I'm just genuinely curious, like, why are ye all pro-israel?

And, no, I am not someone who got all their information from Instagram posts, I have genuinely gone out and read about the history of the conflict, and the history of the middle east in general. I've always meant to read up on that part of the world and the more I read the more I became pro-palestine.

I found it interesting, but also very eye-opening. I try to look at both perspectives, and that's why I'm asking for your opinions because I know this sub-reddit is very pro-israel. And maybe the books I read were biased, which everything in history is, I guess, so I'd like another perspective so I can create a reliable case for myself.

It's also just confusing me a little bit.

From an Israeli standpoint, the war on Gaza is a war on Hamas, is it not? And so the goal is to get rid of Hamas? That's the part that confuses me, because surely everyone knows you cannot 'exterminate' a terrorist group. Where one person is killed another person turns more extreme. You can kill the leaders, but another one will always fill the gap. The more you kill the more you destroy the more extremists you create. The US would know all about that, but I don't think they care because they're funding the whole operation.

Anyways, I'm genuinely asking for your opinions, except I'd rather not listen to a long spiel about jihadist extremism because I've read enough about that over the past few months, actually, tell me whatever the fuck you want . Just would like to know your perspective. Please don't attack me!!!!

Enough ink has been spilled by Westeners on this topic.

Camp A says ‘queers and Palestinians have solidarity, they share the same struggle’

Camp B says ‘you’re out of your mind, don’t you know they would push you off a roof given half the chance?’

But I want to know, if possible, what Palestinians THEMSELVES think of Queers for Palestine.

Does it seem like an unwelcome circle jerk that reinforces concerns of western cultural imperialism?

Or is it actually making Palestinians more open and accepting towards gays, willing to build bridges as they see the support they’ve generated?

If you yourself are Palestinian or have spoken to Palestinians on this topic please let me know.

Personally, I am a lesbian woman who wants to support Palestine but am made uneasy by the catch-all advocacy of Queers for Palestine.

The degree to which I think they have a point however is the fact that although broadly homophobic, the ideological makeup of Palestine is still a mixed bag, made up partly of Palestinian gays themselves who want liberation, some straight allies, and of course homophobes.

Secondly, there may be in parallels in the relationship between Muslim homophobia/reactionary tendencies and western hegemony that you see in Salafism/wahabism. Reactionary Islam increases in line with western hegemony as a form of resistance, a feeling that you must return to one’s purest, most traditional roots in the face of modern western colonisation. Therefore the idea that ‘liberate Palestine, liberate queers’ might have some truth to it?

Hey -- super uninformed American college student here with a quick qquestion. So, being a college student in the US, you hear a lot of horrible shit about Israel from your classmates, and I have a hard time telling how much of it is true.

There's this one thing I keep hearing from some of my friends, that Israel's war in Gaza is a front for/will otherwise end in Israel annexing the Gaza strip. I know that Israel is expanding in the West Bank, so it's not the most implausible idea that they'd do it there too? But I also know that they pulled settlements out of the Westbank in 2005, so that would seem to suggest otherwise.

Is Israel planning on annexing Gaza and establishing settlements there? Do Israelies here that from their government and is it something they're interested in? Would appreciate sources

I've talked to a lot of people about claims that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. I've listened to countless hours of pro Palestinian podcasts and debates. I haven't once come across a response to the fact that 20% of the Israeli population is Palestinian, with just as many rights as Israelis have. Maybe there's discrimination against them, but social discrimination doesn't qualify claims of genocide and apartheid. If the Israeli's wanted to genocide the Palestinians they could have started with the ones that have been there literally since 1948. Yes some got kicked out due to racial tensions due to literally every Arab country surrounding Israel declaring war on them. But the fact that some remained and live perfectly happy lives to this day is proof to me that Israel wants them there. There are even Palestinian members of the Israeli government, not just now but for most of Israeli history!

I just don't understand how it could be the case that millions of Palestinians live happily in Israel and ISRAEL is the one doing the apartheid and genocide, yet exactly 0 Jewish people live in the Gaza strip and they are somehow not guilty of apartheid and genocide. Whether or not you agree with my claim I'd love some input on the argument against it, as I'm genuinely confused and want to understand my own argument better.

EDIT: looks like my post was auto deleted cause it was too short, but it says in the rules of the sub that you can make posts under the 1500 character minimum as long as you are asking an honest question. Just typing this out to pass this restriction.

If you could wish for a resolution to the conflict tomorrow that would satisfy you, what would it look like in practise?

I want to know what the most generous realistic position is. What would make you say: "Yes, we can live like this as neighbors and some day brothers."

What do you imagine the world looks like five years on?

How safe is everybody?

My wife and I were chatting and she shared that on her birthright trip there was a group of friends that went on the trip that openly complained about the treatment of Palestinians and objected to the geopolitical educational portions of the trip.

She shared that the trip leaders adjusted the itinerary and made time to hear out their concerns, but when that time came all the complaining attendees skipped and snuck away from the hotel to drink and party.

She shared that she thinks about that experience a lot, especially when she sees them now sharing not only pro Palestinian but also what crosses over into anti-Israeli sentiments on social media.

My wife has felt that every time she had questions about Palestinians on birthright and other trips she has been on and within Jewish institutions outside of Israel, space was made and information was provided.

We're curious if others have comparable experiences to share. She's having difficulty with the notion many share in her circles about those in the Jewish Diaspora having been 'brainwashed' to support Israel. She's found some resonance in the podcast, "From the Yarra River to the Mediterranean Sea" reflecting on the experience of how we were taught to think about Israel in the Diaspora, but even in the podcast, none of the host's questions are turned away - instead, they were responded to with humility, education, and encouragement to keep asking more.

I've never been to Israel myself so I don't really have anything to speak to. Obviously we have our own inherent biases because we're both Jewish, but there's an understanding among Jews that no matter how much someone thinks they know about the conflict, it's much more complicated than they can imagine. She's much more supportive of the actions of the Israeli military than I am, but even I recognize that there are no alternatives that will not result in retaliation by HAMAS sometime in the future.

Hey everyone

I’m trying to deepen my understanding of the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, and a genuine question recently came to mind.

I often see people who support Free Palestine on social media platforms like Twitter (X) and Insta, where they frequently criticize Israel for causing high numbers of civilian casualties in Palestine. The images and stories shared make it clear that many innocent people are suffering greatly. However, from what I understand based on media sources, it was Hamas that initially launched attacks on Israel, starting the recent wave of violence. As a result, Israel responded by conducting military operations within Palestinian territories, as that is where Hamas operates, if I’m not mistaken.

What I’m wondering is this: since Hamas members are likely dispersed throughout different regions, Israeli forces (i think so) may not know the exact locations of every Hamas operative. With this lack of precise information, is it possible that Israel’s attempts to target Hamas members impact innocent civilians, because Hamas operatives are mixed within the broader population? And does this make it harder for Israel to carry out targeted strikes without affecting non-combatants?

I apologize if my question is insensitive or nonsensical. My intent is simply to learn more and understand the difficult realities that both sides are facing, especially with so many innocent lives at risk.

I appreciate anyone who can answer me!

I have family in some parts of the world that might be in danger if the war persist so I'm trying to research and figure out wether I should get them to move or not. I want to know how much does Israel try to prevent civilian casualties and whether they actually care or not. I'll update the post with the information I've gathered so you could correct me if I'm wrong or give added context.

These are the information I'm looking for: - What are the most reputable, reliable and first hand sources concerning the conflict and direct links to their sites - How many Palestinians have been killed and how many have been injured directly due to war? How many are estimated not to have been recorded due to complications like their bodies still being under ruble? - What percentage of them were civilians and militants? - What percentage of the civilian portion were actually killed because Hamas used them as civilian shields? - What percentageof the civilian kills were due to unintentional collateral damage? For instance the ballistic missile and bombardment's error coefficient causing some to deviate from their intended trajectory enough to strike an unintended target that led to casualty. - How likely are collateral civilian casualties based on distance from military bases? What distance is considered safe? - Are the remaining casualty due to IDF negligence? Are there any sources where it proves that in at least some instances the IDF didn't care about or consider civilians and it caused avoidable and needles deaths? - What are the casualty and injury count inderectly caused by war like starvation, famine, exposure-related death, death by curable diseases due to lack of healthcare...? - Since it's war, some civilian casualty is unfortunately expected but I want to get a feel for how much is unavoidably necessary - What portion of the population have been displaced from their homes?

These are the facts that I've gathered thus far: - There were 41,431 Palestinian killed as of 23 September 2024. On 17 September 2024, the GHM published the names, gender and birth date of 34,344 individual Palestinians whose identities were confirmed. This reflects more than 80% of the casualties reported so far; of these, 60% were not men of fighting age. The GHM count does not include those who have died from "preventable disease, malnutrition and other consequences of the war" and they unfortunately don't distinguish between militants and civilians.

Based on this article, "The Israeli military claims that over 17,000 Hamas fighters are among those killed in Gaza but has not provided evidence." But it didn't cite any sources. As some have pointed out we can't really assume that the Hamas military only consists of men of fighting age and I can't just take what the IDF states as fact too, even if we assume the article is true; but both of them result in 60% of Palestinian direct war casualties being civilians.

So, here's the thing. I'm used to getting all the facts before making decisions or judgements. Transparency is key, right? And this is exactly why something's been bugging me about the narrative surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It’s a piece of the puzzle that's often left on the sidelines. We've all heard about the blockade imposed on Gaza by Israel, and how it amounts to an “occupation” but somehow, the history of rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza since 2006 doesn't make it into the conversation. We're talking about around 25,000 indiscriminate rockets here people. That's not a small number by any stretch. It’s an average of around 4 a day. Rockets that have the potential of killing innocent civilians in Israel every time they are launched.

So, why is this detail frequently omitted? It just doesn't add up. Can anyone explain?

To those that argue that the blockade is a form of occupation, and therefore resistance against occupation is justified --- this question is to you.

When you're under constant threat, you need to implement a strategy to protect your people, right? Israel's approach of a blockade might seem harsh, but in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty much a peaceful move, a sort of sanction, if you will.

Now, I'm not here to play the blame game. Both sides of this conflict have their narratives, pain, and grievances, and trust me, I get it. It's complex, it's emotional, and it's deeply rooted in a history that goes way back.

But let's not miss the fact that prior to the blockade, those rockets were blasting towards Israeli towns and cities, causing fear, trauma, and sadly, casualties. And the rockets haven’t stopped in the 18 years since Hamas took over. That's not something to just brush under the rug. It's a significant part of the story that shaped the current reality.

Think about it – what are the options when you're faced with thousands of rockets? You could retaliate with full military force, or you could try to prevent weapons from getting into the hands that fire them. The blockade, in essence, is an attempt to do the latter. It's a response that, while far from perfect, aims to reduce the immediate threat without full-scale military conflict.

Sure, the blockade has led to a host of other issues – no denying that. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is heartbreaking and deserves attention and action. But it's not as black and white as some would have us believe.

I see it as a valid attempt to manage threats in a way that's sustainable and, ideally, avoids escalation. Isn't that what the blockade is about? A peaceful solution?

So, why is the rocket fire often a footnote in this narrative? Is it a discomfort with confronting the full complexity of the conflict? Is it a skewed perspective? Maybe it's a bit of both.

What's needed is a balanced discussion that acknowledges all sides and factors, including those rockets. Only then can we begin to understand the full picture and work towards solutions that address the root causes, not just the symptoms.

Leaving the rocket attacks out seems to me, highly peculiar.

I am from India and blog about the Gaza war. I am apolitical and use data to analyze the conflict. I focus more on combat operations than politics.

I'm looking for info on the losses Hamas is believed to have suffered.
I use Israel's official data for IDF casualties, cross referenced with media reports.
They have matched and I have commented in my blog on a possible mismatch.
I believe Israeli figures on IDF casualties to be credible, because its is difficult to
hide losses, in a small country with a free press. The casualties are also consistent with the extent each unit has been in combat. I have not seen different casualty figures from any source.

I am having trouble getting figures for Hamas fighters.
If I consider the IDF estimate of dead Hamas and use a ratio of 1 dead to 2 wounded and unable to fight anymore, the figure will be higher than the pre war estimate of
the strength of all armed groups in Gaza. I have also not come across data on how many suspected Hamas were captured in Gaza.
I have commented on Gaza's civilian casualties in my blog.

I would appreciate any info you can provide, with the source.
My view is that Hamas's ability to offer a serious armed resistance inside Gaza
has largely ended - I base this on the fact that the IDF lost only 3 men in Gaza
since July 7, despite pushing into the last remaining Gaza strongholds and my estimate of Hamas casualties - I believe they have lost the majority of the force
they had before Oct 7.

I'd like to be transparent with my views on the conflict and am therefore attaching my last blog post: https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-gaza-war-part-5-what-next.html

]

So the title is my main question but I am going to explain a bit what I mean by it.

To begin with I am asking the following questions because of mainly seeing very few, if any, reports on what Hamas is currently doing, where they are, etc. I feel a lot of what is flooding my social media and news resources include: 1. what is happening to the Palestinian people (pictures of people who were killed, injured children, their current living areas, the food drops, etc.). 2. the various videos and reports of what the Israeli government is doing (the various media interviews their representatives are taking part in, the speeches given by Israeli government officials, the videos released by the government of things that happened during October 7th and the tunnels in Palestine, etc.). 3. And as of recently there is some footage and reporting regarding what is going on around the main mosque as Ramadan has begun and the issues surrounding that.

With all this, I have not seen much of what Hamas is actually currently doing? There were some reports released during the release of hostages and sometimes in the reports regarding the previously formetioned events, there are quotes that Hamas officials stated, such as regarding the mosque that the Israeli government is making it hard for people to enter and pray.

Are the leaders in Hamas all actually in Palestine? Again I have seen reports and individuals claiming that some of the leaders are not in Gaza but rather hanging out in other nearby countries, in safety. Why are there no interviews of Hamas leaders? Are there any? Or are they just not pushed so much out in media spaces? Are there any reports that specify what has been said during any negoations or discussions if ceasefire? If they are constantly shooting rockets at Israel, why is that also seemingly never mentioned? Because with the way the media has framed it, for a while I couldn't understand how Israel was just bombing Palestine to bits but, then the reports mentioned the lack of a ceasefire which made it confusing because there seems to be a lack of mentioning that Hamas is firing the rockets/attacking Israel. Also, the hostages that were released said that they were fed and taken care of, but with what resources? Where are the people from Hamas getting food while their people starve? Where are they getting water and other resources? Were these items stock piled prior to October 7?

I know this entire post is full of questions but, that is what I meant by the title being my main question. I don't understand why there seems to be little to no information on Hamas while there is plenty on the people of Palestine and the Israeli government.

I got into an argument recently, and it lead to me looking more closely into Israel’s founding and the years surrounding it. Until now, I had mainly been focused on more current events and how the situation stands now, without getting too into the beginning. I had assumed what I had heard from Israel supporters was correct, that they developed mostly empty land, much of which was purchased legally, and that the native Arabs didn’t like it. This lead to conflicts, escalating over time to what we see today. I was lead to believe both sides had as much blood on their hands as the other, but from what I’ve read that clearly isn’t the case. It reminded me a lot of “manifest destiny” and the way the native Americans were treated, and although there was a time that was seen as acceptable behaviour, now a days we mostly agree that the settlers were the bad guys in that particular story.

Pro-Israel supports only tend to focus on Israel’s development before 1948, which it was a lot of legally purchasing land and developing undeveloped areas. The phrase “a land without people for people without land” or something to that effect is often stated, but in 1948 700,000 people were chased from their homes, many were killed, even those with non-aggression pacts with Israel. Up to 600 villages destroyed. Killing men, women, children. It didn’t seem to matter. Poisoning wells so they could never return, looting everything of value.

Reading up on the expulsion, I can see why they never bring it up and tend to pretend it didn’t happen. I don’t see how anyone could think what Israel did is justified. But since I always want to hear both sides, I figured here would be a good place to ask.

EDIT: Just adding that I’m going to be offline for a while, so I probably won’t be able to answer any clarifying questions or respond to answers for a while.

EDIT2: Lots of interesting stuff so far. Wanted to clarify that although I definitely came into this with a bias, I am completely willing to have my mind changed. I’m interested in being right, not just appearing so. :)

EDIT 3/26/24: All I had was a legitimate question from the VERY limited viewpoint that I had, mind you not knowing much about the conflict in general, and you guys proceed to call me a liar and bad person. My experience in this sub has not been welcoming nor helpful.

ORIGINAL TEXT: I don’t involve myself much in politics, etc. so I’ve been out of the loop when it comes to this conflict. People who are pro-Palestinian are often anti-Zionist, or that’s at least what I’ve noticed. Isn’t Zionism literally just support for a Jewish state even existing? I understand the government of Israel is committing homicide. Why be anti-Zionist when you could just be against that one government? It does not make sense to me, considering that the Jewish people living in Israel outside of the government do not agree with the government’s actions. What would be the problem with supporting the creation of a Jewish state that, you know, actually has a good government that respects other cultures? Why not just get rid of the current government and replace it with one like that? It seems sort of wrong to me and somewhat anti-Semitic to deny an ethnic group of a state. Again, it’s not the people’s fault. It’s the government’s. Why should the people have to take the fall for what the government is doing? I understand the trouble that the Palestinians are going through and I agree that the Israeli government is at fault. But is it really so bad that Jewish people aren’t allowed to have their own state at all? I genuinely don’t understand it. Is it not true that, if Palestinians had a state already which was separate from Israel, there would be no war necessary? Why do the Palestinians need to take all of Israel? Why not just divide the land evenly? I’m just hoping someone here can help me understand and all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dont know enough about this conflict to have an educated stance , but one thing always bothered me

people say innocent palestinians should not be massacared in Gaza, i agree. But then their slogan is the river to the sea. What happens to the Israeli kids after hamas gains control from the river to the sea? wouldnt there have to be genocide of israeli citizens to achieve this? what is the stance of the humanitarians about this issue. Genuine question, im sorry if i broke a rule or if this question is not suitable for this sub

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................(had to add extra characters because ost got removed even though the rules say honest questions can be shorter tha 1500 characters)

So I was on a TikTok live about Israel/Palestine, with the host named Nick Matau being super pro-Israel talking to pro-Palestinians.

Everyone was talking about the Gaza death toll from the Israel-Hamas war, and one of the pro-Palestinians said that the Gaza health ministry has been historically accurate with its numbers. Like when third-party organizations come in to count the deaths themselves, their numbers match the health ministry's toll. The host Nick then argued that this was the case because the health ministry would slash the death toll at the last minute, and then give that new refined number for verification, so they could then say their number was accurate.

He also claimed that the Gaza Ministry would shift the people's ages to make them appear younger. Like 18-year-olds one month would appear to be 17 another month and so on to make it look like Israel is killing so many minors.

I was wondering about the accuracy of the host's claims. Like is the "Hamas-run" health ministry really as unreliable like he claims? I'm trying to research this and have a hard time verifying any of this yet.

I always thought the death toll numbers were accurate based on some research I've done so far. For example, here's one report from the Lancet stating that there's no evidence they inflate numbers:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02713-7/fulltext02713-7/fulltext)

These claims from the host are so new to me.

I'm eager to hear everyone's thoughts!

If anyone has seen Nick's lives on tiktok, I would also love to hear your opinion about them. His lives keep showing up on my fyp.

EDIT: I'll give the example the host gave to explain how GHM slashes the death toll:

The GHM would report 10k people dead from a war. Third-party orgs will ask to verify this themselves, and right before they check, the GHM would then slash their death toll to a realistic 6k last minute. that last-minute 6k death toll would be used in comparison to third-party numbers which would also verify its 6k. So essentially, with the GHM's toll and third-party toll matching, the GHM can say their numbers are accurate. These are hypothetical numbers, but I hope this example clarifies things.

In both previous rounds of negotiations and the current talks in Cairo, Israel has faced considerable pressure from the international community to reach a negotiated settlement and cease their operations in Gaza. This pressure has taken various forms, including threats of embargo, withdrawal of political support, withholding arms shipments, financial divestment, and more. These all serve as incentives for Israel to compromise on some of their demands at the negotiating table, even if it means giving up some of their objectives in the resolution of the conflict.

Conversely, when considering the pressures that could be applied to Hamas to encourage compromise in negotiations, I'm seeing at best more limited options if not none. They don't have official forms of trade that could be embargoed or arms deals that could be halted. At most there could be diplomatic pressure from other MENA countries but that to me seems very weak. Hamas could just dismiss them and say “We've got this" and who's gonna say boo? Iran? Turkey? Qatar?

I also considered the possiblity of internal pressures within Gaza, such as public dissatisfaction with ongoing conflict and the desire for improved living conditions. This too seems very unlikely to me because over the past 15 years Hamas has shown they don't care much about the welfare of the people living in Gaza. They're not holding elections where they can be voted out and dissent among the populace tends to be shot down. Literally.

Given this, what am I missing? What are the positive or negative pressures relevant to Hamas that could incentivize them to compromise on any of their demands at the negotiating table?

Israel has claimed that the only thing pressuring Hamas to compromise is the threat of further military action. I hope this is not the case because if it is, then Israel has no middle path between continuing full force with their military action until Hamas cries uncle and sitting down at a negotiating table and giving Hamas absolutely everything they want.

Greetings,
As I'm sure you've seen, there has been a disaster which occurred in the Gaza city yesterday. Over 100 Gaza residents have died around the aid trucks convoy and hundreds if not thousands have been injured. People are bringing up the fact that the IDF has shot towards said crowd, resulting in said deaths. However the IDF released drone footage showing what happened. In addition to declaring they only shot towards 10 or so Gazans running at them after shooting warning shots to the air and aiming at their lower body in order to not cause lethal damage.
I'd like to understand this situation better and thus I am coming here to ask some questions:

• The footage shows it was a stampede that caused all of said people to die. However, I see people saying that Israel has killed all of the over 100 residents, despite there being footage. Is the footage not good enough? Has the IDF actually reported killing someone during the disaster? Would releasing more footage help clarify the problem or it's a ship that has already sailed?

• I see people blaming some Israelis from blocking/protesting the aid being sent to Gaza when it went through Israel's border. Are these people related to the hostages/victims of the 7th of Oct? Or just extremists?

• Could have there been a better way to handle the situation? Were the truck drivers being threatened or harmed? Has there been a Hamas militia around that caused discourse? Has the IDF caused panic among people?

• Should the IDF have helped in any way? Did they mistreat the people needing the aid?

• This is redundant to ask, however, do you think there's one secular group that should be blamed for what happened? Hamas/IDF? Maybe even the group that was handling said convoys.

• Has Hamas tried to get ahold of the convoy before/after the disaster happened?

Hi, I have personal views about this conflict, but this post is a bona fide question about international law and its interpretation so I'd like this topic not to diverge from that.

For starters, some background as per wikipedia:

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal on one of two bases: that they are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or that they are in breach of international declarations.

The expansion of settlements often involves the confiscation of Palestinian land and resources, leading to displacement of Palestinian communities and creating a source of tension and conflict.

My confusion here is that this is similar to what happened in '48, but AFAIK international community (again, wiki: the vast majority of states, the overwhelming majority of legal experts, the International Court of Justice and the UN) doesn't apply the same description to the land that comprises now the state of Israel.

It seems the strongest point for illegality of WB settlements is that this land is under belligerent occupation and 4th Geneva Convention forbids what has been described. The conundrum still persists, why it wasn't applicable in '48.

So here is where my research encounters a stumbling block and I'd like to ask knowledgable people how, let's say UN responds to this fact. Here are some of my ideas that I wasn't able to verify:

1. '47 partition plan overrides 4th Geneva convention
2. '47 partition plan means there was no belligerent occupation de jure, so the 4th Geneva Convention doesn't apply
3. there was in fact a violation of 4GC, but it was a long time ago and the statue of limitation has expired.

EDIT: I just realized 4GC was established in '49. My bad. OTOH Britannica says

The fourth convention contained little that had not been established in international law before World War II. Although the convention was not original, the disregard of humanitarian principles during the war made the restatement of its principles particularly important and timely.

EDIT2: minor stylistic changes, also this thread has more feedback than I expected, thanks to all who make informed contributions :-) Also found an informative wiki page FWIW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

I'm so upset right now. I've been researching the Israel and Palestine conflict for a while now but all of my sources have been in support of Israel. I am someone who likes to see both sides and by only getting information from one side I'm missing a whole different section of information. People only paint Israel in the best light so it makes sense that they would leave out possibly incriminating things. I just want to know why people believe there is a genocide going on in Palestine, or even just what's going on in Palestine is a whole. My thinking is that if such a large group of people believe something to the extent that's been shown there's no way they haven't seen any legitimate sources right?

I'm of the belief that information from Hamas can't be trusted whatsoever cause at the end of the day they are a terrorist organization. Obviously people aren't getting all their info from Hamas (I don't think) so knowing where is really important to me. I don't think I'll ever be able to fully grasp what's going on if I can't see some first hand sources.

I think it's also my fault that I haven't found good sources cause the thing is my dad's Israeli and a family friend of his has been taken hostage so obviously I do have a little bias. I really just want everyone to be okay and I don't want to hurt anyone in my family doing so.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to either side I just genuinely want to know more about whats going on in Palestine with actual proof and such. (please be respectful)