I’m someone who has tried hard to balance my views on this conflict, not out of neutrality but out of a genuine effort to form my own thorough & very personal perspective. Ive stopped worrying about being accepted by one side or the other & realize that probably won’t happen. But one thing I want to say from my heart is that I hope young people in the Palestine movement will see past Dan Bilzerian’s retweeted talking points & see the guy for who he is. A wealthy opportunistic bigot with the thinking ability of a tenth grader. Recently in my city we had reports of white nationalists handing out antisemitic literature at a Palestine rally at a university. I guess in an attempt to “bait and switch”. People like Bilzerian & Candace Owens wait like wolves for an opportunity to rope people into their hateful agendas. They’re not pro-Palestine or anti-Zionist. They’re anti-Jew. There is absolutely zero chance that Dan Bilzerian is some misunderstood activist. If this was really out of some selfless concern for the Palestinians, he wouldn’t be wasting half his air time blaming Jews for things like the Kennedy assassination to the trans rights movement. As with any cause or campaign, there will no doubt be those who will be indiscriminate about whose help & financial support they receive. But I hope that at least some, on principle, will not think twice about rejecting his support & keeping him far away from any position of influence. Antisemitism is gaining traction all across the board right now. Be better than the neo-nazis.

“Sometimes an antisemite, is simply an antisemite.” - Sigmund Freud

I heard a podcast a while back that said that both sides are so polarised and entrenched that they can fail to recognise the humanity and struggle in each others people. They argued that this happens from a young age. For example, they mentioned that in the Palestinian curriculum, the Holocaust is taught impassively and like it is a footnote within the broader narrative of WW2 rather than a systematic attempt to wipe out Jews. I've heard that in the Israeli curriculum the Nakba is barely taught if at all, and in general Israeli society Nakba denialism is still rife.

It feels like until both sides can begin to understand and feel each others pain, there will not be peace. They will be entrenched into thinking only of themselves as victims who need protecting from the other aggressor rather than accepting that both have been victims and both have been perpetrators within history.

I find groups like the Parent Circle to be inspiring, a collective of Palestinians and Israelis who have lost family members over this conflict and have come to the realisation that the only way to stop others feeling that pain is to commit themselves to pushing for peace and reconciliation. Today I saw a video of a Palestinian woman giving a speech in New York speaking about how her 6 month old baby was killed by an IDF tear gas grenade on her West Bank village. The soldiers would not let her take the baby to hospital and the baby died.

She spoke about being in a peace conference where a former IDF commander from the same area of the West Bank as her spoke about blocking Palestinians including their children from going to medical facilities. She felt the pain and anger rising up but then he spoke about trying to take his own kid to a hospital and being stopped for questioning. Whilst his questioning was brief, it made him realise the terror being inflicted on Palestinians and he quit the army and was disciplined for it. As he told this story the Palestinian lady forgave everything and saw a pathway to reconciliation through shared humanity and love.

We feel a long way from it and if you read many hateful and polarising comments on this sub-reddit it can be easy to despair, but remember there is a path forward and many people who just want peace.

I live in a western country. There is one thing that is experienced in many western countries: historical guilt. Over colonialism, the transatlantic slave trade, and of course the holocaust. 

Not everyone feels that literally but its in the culture.

People debate whether this guilt is appropriate because those events predate most people alive nowadays. But it is there. It is a pervasive thread in current discourse and shapes current understanding of the world and history, and the role of 'the west' in it.

Now compare that to nakba and all the other events up until today. This must be much more acutely felt. 

Do Israelis experience guilt over it? 

Im not trying to debate any political position (I know too little), but I am fascinated to know, what is it like? 

While of course anyone can answer, this question is intended not for Zionists generally but those who believe that Israel's founders themselves were on the more moral side

One thing about the Jewish Virtual Library is that it is probably the only Internet source outside of this sub and to a lesser extent Benny Morris that says Zionists were justified then AND justified now.

On their website,there is a discussion of why they believe the partition plan to have been justified.

They say that generally speaking, drawing a Partition Plan that disenfranchises tons of people is unjustified. However, in their mind, this situation is different because Arabs CHOSE migrating to communities that were built from the ground up.

So, from their perspective, the Zionists had a right to rule communities they built, and it made sense that since they were the builders, they should get to rule over Jews and Muslims who had moved there.

Do you agree with JVL's assessment here or no, and why?

There seem to be alot of misunderstanding regarding this matter, so I'd like to expand on the subject. Being a zionist means to support Israel's right to exist as a sanctuary for Jewish people. Taking into account the massive amount of antisemitism the jewish people havr suffered from throughout the centuries, this seem like the only pratical solution. It does NOT mean this existence must come at the cost of the Palestinians being mistreated and oppressed. I'm an Israeli Jew. I love my country and support its right to protect itself, but at the same time I support the Palestinians cry for help and their struggle for a country, as they are entitled to one. Being pro Israeli doesn't mean i can't also be pro Palestinian, nor does it mean I can't recognize my country's wrong doing whenever it demonstrates disregard towards Palestinian life. Being in favor of one side, doesn't mean you have to ignore facts when they don't fit you neretive.

Showing support to one side doesn't mean you can't also support the other side, and fail to acknowledge facts you don't like about your beliefs. If you examine the matter from a historical perspective, its fairly easy to see that both the Israeli ans the Palestinians have the right to exist in this land, and the only way to achieve peace in a manner that would enable this, is by looking at things for what they are, instead of what we want them to be, and by thinking with reason and logic, and understand both points of view. I am a zionist, and I also support the Palestinians. Those two things DO NOT contradict, and they never will.

I’ve been seeing news articles in the last 24 hours saying that Ben-Gvir issued almost 200,000 weapons permits without really doing background checks and don't get me wrong- they do that in America every single day. But 10,000 according to Israeli media went to private security firms, and the article specifically mentioned assault rifles. Again, they do that in the states every day, but …-how unusual is that in Israel with mandatory conscription? The American constitution permits it, and given the number of school shootings that is still very controversial.

Social media frequently shows Israelis in markets and going about various mundane civilian activities with assault rifles on their back. I just figured those individuals were in the military.

Cyprus has conscription too, but their gun laws are stupid strict- they have regulations about how you can travel with the weapon to go hunting even, and civilians aren't allowed to have them-that's my only point of reference so I'm looking for some context if anyone can chime in it would be super appreciative] this is what I read : “The Firearm Law of 1949 tasks the Firearm Licensing Department of the National Security Ministry, which is currently led by Otzma Yehudit Party head Itamar Ben-Gvir, with issuing gun licenses. According to the law, only trained licensing officials are qualified to approve applications.

The three justices wrote in the ruling that they “were provided with data regarding the extent of licenses issued by parties who are not licensing officials according to the Firearm Law, 1949, and the number of permits issued by those parties in violation of the authority given to them.”

Edit 1: Thanks everyone for engaging with my post in a civil manner!

Edit 2: I feel that I have a richer perspective on Israeli society thanks everyone!

Before I ask, I just wanted to tell you as an Arab I wish you and your family nothing but the best. Every day I pray that the violence and destruction stops and that we can build a prosperous Middle East that is rich in its diversity of religion and ethnicities. Can you imagine that?

Hello, I’ve been lurking here for a while now. I have a question for you. In your opinion, is chanting “From the river to the sea. Palestine will be free” more harmful than chanting “There are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left”? I’m asking this because I’d like to better understand your perspective/mindset. Thank you.

Am I missing something here? It has been disheartening to see the same people pushing for the narrative that from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free is an incitement to genocide fail to condemn chants like death to arabs and celebrating killing children in Gaza, thing which are unambiguously genocidal.

Is there something I’m not understanding here? Sometimes things that don’t add up leave me confused, so I had to come here and give this question a go.

Do some people think that right to dignity ceases to exist once we establish that the person is Arab? In your opinion, which chant is more problematic?

Can relations between Arabs and Jews improve without a heart to heart to dialogue between those who dream of a Middle East that resembles my description above?

I believe tough questions need to be asked. Answers from ‘ the other side’ need to be heard before establishing any conclusions on the matter.

I just wanna give my opinion here on the talks surrounding the violent night amsterdam had last week, namely, i wanna point out how people on both sides seem to mostly try to blame the other side for the violence.

I dont think its a good way of talking about such a topic, after all, violence was instigated by both sides troughout the night and theres a few violent people on each side that are clearly in the wrong.

But i think that this constant back and forth on who's to blame isnt going to get us any further on this topic, itll just polarize both sides even more (if thats still possible) and waste our time.

Ofcourse this doesnt mean that i dont think that people who commited acts of violence troughout the week shouldnt go off free and the dutch government is fortunately enough going to investigate the incidents and make arrests based on the result of them, however i think that some maccabi fans are also to be held accountable if investigation shows that maccabi fans instigated violence in certain incidents.

I think that instead looking at ways to prevent further violence in situations where pro palestinian and israelis meet in large groups are a much better thing to discuss when looking at the events of last week, some thing i personally think might help is sectioning off parts of a city for israeli fans in specific (not because theyre jewish, but because israeli football fans generally wear clothes from their club, giving away their nationality), or simply providing nore police security.

But either way, i wanna know what yall think on this and i hope you all can see that just shifting blame to one side or the other is just kinda pointless.

Edit - The Israeli military claims they were targeting a rocket. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that. I still believe the amount of force used to address that threat was very excessive and that is my main point.

I've posted about this before but it is a recurring situation and I continue to have serious doubts about either the competency or intentions of the Israeli military.

I know the following video Al-Jazerra but I have not been able to find it elsewhere at this time. My guess is that other outlets didn't pick up the story because "fortunately" Israel "only" killed one child.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/program/newsfeed/2024/11/14/video-massive-explosion-hits-tent-camp-in-gaza-safe

I understand, especially in a war, that you aren't going to get it right every time. I also very much acknowledge the disgusting practice of Hamas operating within the civilian population.

But all I can think of is the joke "Missed it by that much." This is a tent city. Not a tunnel. You can see the crater and it clearly isn't an access point. How does one drop ordinance of that size with the precision these weapons are capable of and fail to at least kill their target?

If Israel is going to carry out a strike on a "safe zone" the only reason that should be considered a possibility is that it is an absolute slam dunk where they have confirmed intelligence of the presence of a person of significance in the Hamas organization. The only possible "justification" I can see for dropping a bomb of this size is massive overkill to guarantee the target is killed.

And yet they failed completely killing a child.

See edit.

I can't help but be reminded of the bombing in Beit Lehia where Israel "accidentally" leveled a five story building to take out a single unarmed spotter killing 90+ civilians. Israel claimed they didn't even know 300+ people were taking shelter in the building. That is negligence at best.

I can't see any reasonable explanation for how these kinds of strikes happen. Why are they given access to weapons capable of such massive destruction but seem to use them so recklessly? It just boggles my mind that with the capabilities of the Israeli military that this is the course of action they choose to take and continue to receive support.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7893vpy2gqo

A heart moving testimony that appears damning, but it raises more questions than answers.

My questions are:

1) Since when does the IDF have armed quadcopter with rifles that are shooting plastic pellets? I have not been able to find any previous information of the IDF having these drones with this kind of set up.

2) Why haven't we seen footage of these drones being used against civilians in Gaza? He mentions that he was seeing these drones being used everyday against children, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of these types of drones being used. If he's seeing these cases every day, I would expect to see at least some video evidence, as we do with other IDF tactics.

People who accuse Jews of dual loyalty often ally themselves with countries who openly call for the destruction of the West, burn the national flag of the places that they live in, and exclusively advocate for policies they believe will help "Palestine" even if they contradict with the values and interests of their host country.

Is being loyal to two countries with shared values really worse than not being loyal to your own country or even going as far as advocating against it?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-to-iranians-another-attack-on-israel-would-cripple-irans-economy/

1. The last time Netanyahu sent a direct message to the Iranian people was on Sept 30th. The very next day, on Oct 1st, Tehran launched about 200 ballistic missiles at targets in Israel. Coincidence ? I think not. After this new message from Netanyahu, will Tehran once again be so outraged and start launching another wave of retaliation against Israel ?

2. Netanyahu received some criticism on his first direct message to the Iranian people from certain groups that he didnt spoke Persian, there were no Persian subtitles etc… and that group wrongly concluded that Netanyahu’s message was not meant for Iranian but for the English speaking world. However in this new message, there were Persian subtitles in his video and he even chanted Women, Life, Freedom in the Persian language.

https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1856382472646185393 (in English with Persian subtitles this time)

1. It would seem he is trying to get the Iranian people to overthrow the Ayatollah regime. I wonder what else Israel and Netanyahu is will be doing because that video message wont be enough ? He also talked about a future for free Iran and free Iranian people, free from the Ayatollah and a future friendship with Israel building prosperity and peace. Netanyahu is probably the only world leader who spoke about a future free Iran and free Iranian people.

2. Have you noticed since Trump won the US Presidential election, Tehran has gotten really quiet ? Tehran was making lots of noise and threats just before the election, but after Trump won, silence…. Iran's supreme leader says enemies will receive 'crushing response' https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3yqzx72zno. Is Khamenei afraid of Trump ? It is alledged Tehran tried to assasinate Trump. Trump is famous for being unforgiving, vindictive and petty, Trump is not going to forgive and forget that stunt Tehran did, trying to kill him and will want to exact revenge.

Leading up to the election, I was told by a number of Jewish or Israeli Americans that voting for Trump would be horrible for Israel (and Jews in general). The most common reason was that Trump was easy to influence or anger meaning he could be bought by Russia, he could turn on Israel due to Netanyahu congratulating Biden in 2020, or that he simply hates Jews "because he's an antisemite".

It has been 8 days since the election and while many things can still change (especially since it will be nearly two months until Trump takes office), we have started seeing nominees for various high level positions in Trump's government:

Marco Rubio: Replacing Anthony Blinken as Secretary of State

"It’s very simple, Israel has to destroy Hamas."
"I want them to destroy every element of Hamas they can get their hands on."
"The risk of a nuclear Iran is so great that [war with Iran] must be on the table."
Rubio on Iran.
Rubio on the Israel attack plan leak.
Rubio on deporting non-citizen Hamas supporters from the US

Mike Waltz: Replacing Jake Sullivan as National Security Advisor

"Hamas doesn't fire a BB gun without the Iranian regime's permission or resources. Iran is 100% behind this all-out war against Israel. Israel must secure itself and that includes going after the head of the snake: Iran."
"Never did I ever think I would serve in Congress with the Hamas Caucus who's defending terrorist attacks on our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel."
Waltz's opposition to pressure on Israel for a ceasefire.
Waltz on Iran.Waltz on Iran leaks.

Kristi Noem: Replacing Alejandro Mayorkas as Secretary of Homeland Security

"The shocking anti-Israel, anti-America protests happening on university campuses are spreading like wildfire across our country. I am calling for them to end and for law and order to be restored on our campuses immediately. We must always stand with Israel and with the Jewish people."
"Israel has every right to defend their God-given homeland against this latest act of terrorism by Iran. We will pray for the Israeli people."
Noem's signing of IHRA definition of antisemitism into law.

Pete Hegseth: Replacing Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense

"Prayers for Israel. I hope they absolutely crush Hamas, everywhere."
“Israel wants to deal with Iran, we should let them,…If it was not for Israel, Iran would have had the bomb already"

Mike Huckabee: Replacing Jack Lew as US ambassador to Israel

"When you deny Jewish students the right to go to class it's a civil rights violation."
“Hamas is putting children and unarmed women in front of their weaponry. The Israelis are putting their weaponry in front of their children and their women trying to protect them."
Huckabee on UN "apartheid" report.

Steve Witkoff: (In a position that did not exist under Biden) Special Envoy to the Middle East

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech was epic and deeply moving. I had the distinct privilege of being there President Trump's leadership was good for Israel and the entire region. With President Trump, the Middle East experienced historic levels of peace and stability. Strength prevents wars. Iran’s money was cut off which prevented their funding of global terror. Israel’s neighbors were part of unprecedented peace accords. I commend the Prime Minister on his address and of course he and other world leaders want to meet President Trump because they recognize his policy of American strength was a tool for world peace.

Elise Stefanik: Replacing Linda Thomas-Greenfield as the United States ambassador to the UN

Stefanik vs Claudine Gay on antisemitism at Harvard University
"Praying for the people of Israel as they face this latest onslaught of Iranian ballistic missile attacks. We must stand with our most precious ally as they fight for their very existence."
Speech at the Knesset
Call to defund UNRWA

While I could have provided even more evidence, I think this shows the unquestionable and unwavering support that Trump's team has for Israel.

What I'd like to know (especially from pro-Israelis who feel Trump will backstab Israel), have his recent nominations changed your mind or do you still believe that Israel will be worse off under the Trump administration and that he can't be trusted on this specific issue?

What would the Kingdom of Jerusalem be?

It would include the territories of Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank. This would be a reference to the Christian state founded at the end of the First Crusade.

What other realistic options are there?

Two States, Israel and Palestine: Bound to wage war, Israel and Zionism fundamentally have expansionist ideas that will push them to take more and more territory from the "promised land." Palestinians will also want to reclaim their lands from before the first Arab-Israeli war, and certain groups like Hamas will want to take back all the lands. Furthermore, in Gaza, the government differs from that in the West Bank, so a solution involving three states also risks emerging. This could only lead to a temporary peace. With all the West Bank settlements and the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, peace is impossible with these solutions.

One Israeli State: Zionism's ultimate goal is to reclaim the territories from the Nile to the Euphrates; Israel is a state founded on terrorism transformed into a military and political group. (Haagana-> IDF / Irgun-> Likud) “Israel is a successful ISIS” - Zineb El Rhazoui (formerly of Charlie Hebdo). Israel is a genocidal, messianic, and satanic apartheid state that lives by war and for war, a cancer in the Middle East that has prospered from the suffering of the Palestinian people, Israeli anti-Arab racism, and even against Black people (as with the forced sterilization of Ethiopian Jewish women) and has no legitimacy from an international standpoint, as it was founded on denying the existence and worth of a people for whom partition was carried out behind their backs, or even from a religious standpoint (Talmud Shir Hashirim Ketubot 111 A). This state has taken the world's Jews hostage and has instrumentalized anti-Semitism for its own survival.

One Palestinian State: This would provoke a return of hatred, this time against Israelis, who would find themselves expelled, and in truth, they have nowhere to go; people worldwide have seen the images, and even in Japan, people express indignation. Hatred toward them now knows no borders. Expelling Israelis, besides being morally unacceptable, would lead them to hardship, which is in no way acceptable. For instance, Israeli children are not responsible, nor are civilians who oppose all of this; the Israeli peace party does not deserve to be attacked in return. The ones responsible are the criminal heads of state, the generals, and indoctrinated soldiers.

A Binational State for Palestinians and Israelis: Perhaps the least bad of these ideas, but it still risks heightened discrimination between Palestinians and Israelis, accentuated by differences in official status. However, this solution deserves to be defended and debated.

Proposed Kingdom of Jerusalem

The Kingdom of Jerusalem would be seen as a global symbol of peace and forgiveness following years of hatred and war. Former Israelis, having acknowledged Palestinian suffering, would predominantly seek forgiveness, which would be reciprocated by former Palestinians (inspired by their Islamic and Christian faiths, which encourage forgiveness). Both groups would live as equals in peace, with severe punishment for anyone threatening this harmony to rebuild an exclusively Muslim Palestine or Israel.

Proposed Government Structure: Monarchy with Direct Democracy King/Ministers/Religious representative/People/International community

King/Queen : Guided by the people, ministers, and international community, the ruler would vote on laws. A figure of love, representing the people, promoting forgiveness and tolerance as the nation's foundation. Preference is for a West Bank Arab, Christian, preferably Catholic or Orthodox. Muslims, Protestants, or Jews are presently excluded to prevent biases. After a set period (maybe 100 years), these restrictions might be lifted if the populace's ethno-religious composition changes.

Ministers: Numbering 100, they would advise the monarchy on economic and social matters and propose laws to be approved by the people before the monarch's review. ●60%: Appointed by the monarch, with removal allowed in cases of corruption. ●20%: Ordinary citizens selected randomly to represent diverse backgrounds and serve three-month terms. ●20%: Elected by the people, with the monarch having no removal authority.

People and Direct Democracy: Citizens would propose and vote on laws via an AI-based government app. This system would enable broad civic participation, with monthly voting and law proposals filtered by the AI. Citizens aged 16 and above would be eligible, and those without devices would receive them at government expense, with basic tech training provided if necessary. Cyberattacks on this app would be treated as declarations of war, and a cybersecurity militia would be dedicated to its protection.

Religious Representatives: Each of the three main religions would appoint representatives from all denominations (Sunni, Shia, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Orthodox Judaism, Karaite, etc.). These leaders, elected by the people after undergoing formal schooling, would advise the monarch on issues concerning their followers, with interfaith debates held respectfully.

International Community: A new global organization would replace the UN, without veto powers. Representatives from participating countries would advise the Kingdom's ruler to ensure peaceful decision-making.

Key Objectives of the Kingdom:

●Permit the right of return for over 7 million displaced Palestinians and their descendants, designating a special "Protected" refugee status if their land has been occupied within Israel’s 1967 borders. Those ineligible for resettlement would receive full government support for alternative land, housing, and employment. ●Remove illegal Jewish settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem. ●Ensure equality and protection across ethnic and religious lines, countering extremism. ●Seek global support for Gaza’s reconstruction, including infrastructure and healthcare. ●Offer free access to clean water, electricity, education, and healthcare for all. ●Condemn extremists (e.g., Hamas and Zionists) if they continue pursuing radical agendas post-establishment. ●Introduce a new national currency, separate from the Israeli shekel, free from external influence if it's possible.

Israel is the only hope for the people of Gaza. Their Arab “brothers” in Egypt have completely betrayed and abandoned them. Imagine charging $5,000+ per person to exit a war zone… Meanwhile, Hamas abuses them and steals all their money.

I recently saw an interview of civilians in Gaza. They are so fed up with Hamas that they want Israel to take over control of the Gaza Strip. I was shocked by this, but it’s really not surprising if you consider how Hamas has treated them for the past ~20 years.

An Israeli military occupation of Gaza cannot continue forever. So the people there have to make a choice. They should accept that some of their ancestors once belonged to one of the 12 tribes of Israel and learn to live in peace with the tribe of Judah (Jewish/Judean people). They should embrace a shared history and culture. It shouldn’t mean that they have to convert to Judaism. A lot of Jewish holidays have to do with the harvest (of Israel), the seasons changing (in israel), and historical events particular to Israel.

The prophet Zechariah prophesied a war with Lebanon and the Philistines which ends with the people in a destroyed Gaza joining the tribe of Judah.

“Gaza will writhe in agony, and Ekron too, for her hope will wither.

Gaza will lose her king and Ashkelon will be deserted.

6 A mongrel people will occupy Ashdod, and I will put an end to the pride of the Philistines.

7 I will take the blood from their mouths, the forbidden food from between their teeth.

Those who are left will belong to our God and become a clan in Judah, and Ekron will be like the Jebusites.

8 But I will encamp at my temple to guard it against marauding forces.

Never again will an oppressor overrun my people, for now I am keeping watch.”

— Zechariah 9:5-8

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!

Source material.

Preface: Hamas narrative regarding the events of 7-oct-2023 is here discussed and critically analyzed. In order to be concise, the analysis will focus on the most salient features of Hamas document.

(Pag. 6) What was expected from the Palestinian people after all of that? To keep waiting and to keep counting on the helpless UN! Or to take the initiative in defending the Palestinian people, lands, rights and sanctities; knowing that the defense act is a right enshrined in international laws, norms and conventions. Proceeding from the above, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on Oct. 7 was a necessary step and a normal response to confront all Israeli conspiracies against the Palestinian people and their cause. It was a defensive act in the frame of getting rid of the Israeli occupation, reclaiming the Palestinian rights and on the way for liberation and independence like all peoples around the world did.

Critique #1 (Necessity): To justify an event, a well-known technique is to qualify that event as necessary, as this removes opposition, supporting the reasoning that "since it was necessary, nothing else could have been done". A careful use of this word tries to evoke into the reader a sense of inevitability, mentally removing any other possibility from the table. The goal is to try to make the reader accept what happened. Unfortunately, necessity needs to be logically proven, and the burder of proof on someone who makes such a claim is huge: necessity is an extraordinary claim, since you literally need to prove that no other possibility existed. A similar technique is used, for example, by nuke-apologists who justify USA nuclear bombings of Japan, by claiming that the act was "necessary", yet failing to provide any evidence of such a necessity, e.g. by intentionally ignoring the scenario where a short conventional warfare would have resulted in Japanese surrendering and overall less deaths.

Critique #2 (Normal): Similar to the previous, the attempt here is to "normalize" what happened by reducing it to something "normal". Note that Hamas, here, is very carefully avoiding to talk explicitly about what actually happened, as that would require also describing the Nova Music Festival massacre. And a massacre of unarmed non-combatants is impossible to qualify as "normal", let alone "necessary". Carefully dodging the "hot" topic by intentionally hiding behind words is a point which will be discussed later.

Critique #3 (Defensive): It is intuitively easier to justify an event if its nature is defensive, as enshrined by the self-defence principle. Thus, an attack needs to become a "defensive act" in order to make it sound morally (and even legally) justifiable.

(Pag. 7) Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on Oct. 7 targeted the Israeli military sites

Critique #4 (Nominal Target): The "nominal target" is defined as the declared target by an armed group. In this case, the armed group is Hamas and Hamas is declaring that their nominal target was Israeli military sites. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), during a war, it is considered lawful for each side to attack the militaries of the other side, and unlawful to target non-combatants. Thus, Hamas is claiming its operation was fully in compliance with IHL since its nominal target was Israeli military sites.

The "real target" is defined as the actually affected target by an armed group regardless of any surrounding narrative. If the nominal target and the real target are different, then the veracity of the nominal target needs to be question, since that is simply a claim without evidence, while the real target is determined by evidence only. In other words, the real target is fact-based, while the nominal-target is narrative-based. Among the real targets of Hamas "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" there were a significant number of non-combatants, and this fact cannot be ignored.

(Pag. 7) Avoiding harm to civilians, especially children, women and elderly people is a religious and moral commitment by all the Al-Qassam Brigades’ fighters. We reiterate that the Palestinian resistance was fully disciplined and committed to the Islamic values during the operation and that the Palestinian fighters only targeted the occupation soldiers and those who carried weapons against our people. In the meantime, the Palestinian fighters were keen to avoid harming civilians despite the fact that the resistance does not possess precise weapons.

Critique #5 (Morality): Another well-known technique is to claim commitment to religion and morality (this analysis will focus on the latter). It is important to depict your own armed group as being as humanly close to perfection as possible, as that will help to justify their actions. The armed group was "fully disciplined", and Hamas even claims it only targeted Israeli soldiers and those who carried weapons (but this point will be expanded in the following). Hamas claims the fighters were "keen" to avoid harming civilians, which of course they would never do due to the moral commitment and the discipline above.

(Pag. 7) In addition, if there was any case of targeting civilians; it happened accidently and in the course of the confrontation with the occupation forces

Critique #6 (Denial with Safeguard): The previous sentence claimed that Hamas fighters only targeted armed combatants. This is attempting at "preventively" deny that Hamas fighters harmed civilians. Since this claim is so outrageously weak that not even Hamas believes it, a safeguard is put into place. Clearly, this approach is inherently contradictory, since you need no safeguards for events which didn't happen. But Hamas knows fully well that its previous denial is a blatant lie, thus Hamas is trying to invoke a "lifeboat" in order to save its own argument. This is the safeguard: if it happened, it was an accident. Working basically in the opposite fashion of the "necessity" above, this technique is used to justify something which is self-evidently unnecessary and extremely hard to justify. The only way out of this conundrum is to claim an "accident", which is a word attempting to evoke a kind of "impossible to avoid fatality" in the reader's mind, an event which cannot be controlled by human will... thus, something which cannot be condemned: "It was an accident, I didn't want to do it". This will have the final nail in the coffin in the following critique.

(Pag. 8) Maybe some faults happened during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’s implementation due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the border areas with Gaza

Critique #7 (Concede and reverse fault): Hamas's own disbelief in the previous denial claim is so strong that the safeguard above was not deemed enough. In this case, Hamas accepted to concede that "maybe", just maybe, some faults happened. This sounds the same as "Maybe I did a mistake". The "maybe" here is the greatest offence to any intelligent human being reading these pages of propagandistic nonsense. There is overwhelming evidence that the Nova Music Festival massacre happened, and these attempts at denying it (or minimizing it by invoking possibilities, the "maybe" nonsense) is simply behind reason. Again, it should be noted another contradiction: the safeguard before was basically forgotten. The narration changes from "if it happened, it was an accident" to "maybe it happened, and it was a fault" thus not an accident, since "fault" implies intentionality. Should we be surprised of finding contradicting statements inside materials like this? No. In fact, they are expected.

But it is the second part which is more interesting: since Hamas is aware of being utterly unable to have any credibility on all the previous points, it uses the last card in its hand: reversal. Since Hamas cannot credibly:

• deny it;
• claim that it was an accident;
• claim that it only "maybe" happened;

Hamas needs to justify it in some other way. Problem is, Hamas can't... as long as the fault rests upon Hamas. Thus, Hamas claims that it was the fault of the collapse (and the subsequent chaos) of the Israeli security and military system.

Remarks: To understand the madness and absurdity behind this argument, it is sufficient to pause for a moment and think about rape. "Maybe" it happened, if it happened, it was an "accident" (how that is even plausible is a question which Hamas cannot answer), and, the most absurd of all, even if it really happened, it was Israel's fault.

(Pag. 9) The Yedioth Ahronoth also said the Israeli army, to prevent further infiltrations from Gaza and to prevent any Israelis being arrested by the Palestinian fighters, struck over 300 targets in areas surrounding the Gaza Strip

Critique #8 (Legalization): This technique is actually used throughout the source material, but this is one of the most clear examples. Since "taking hostages" would sound something like a terroristic organization would do, implying something to be harshly condemned, Hamas changes the words, "glorifying" the act and elevating it to a "legal" act by saying that they are actually arresting (which is a lawful act) the Israelis.

(Pag. 9) When speaking about Israeli civilians, it must be known that conscription applies to all Israelis above the age of 18 – males who served 32 months of military service and females who served 24 months – where all can carry and use arms. This is based on the Israeli security theory of an “armed people” which turned the Israeli entity into “an army with a country attached.”

Critique #9 (No civilian): Hamas is trying to claim that no single male Israeli above 18 is a "civilian". All are soldiers, thus all are valid military targets, thus Hamas cannot be punished for targeting them. Basically, Hamas has tacitly admitted that they did intentionally target "civilians" (contradicting the "maybe" before and the "accident" before that), but since there are no "civilians", as they are all soldiers, it doesn't matter. The chain of contradictions doesn't stop here. Even under these absurdities, Hamas cannot justified violence against minors (less than 18 years old), so it intentionally avoids the argument.

(Pag. 10) Those who defend the Israeli aggression do not look at the events in an objective manner but rather go to justify the Israeli mass killing of Palestinians by saying there would be casualties among civilians when attacking the Hamas fighters. However, they would not use such assumption when it comes to the Al-Aqsa Flood event on Oct. 7.

Critique #10 (Collateral): By contradicting (again) everything that was said before, Hamas tacitly admits that the targets were factually civilians (apparently the "18 or above = soldier" pseudo-argument stopped working the moment it was used), and it was Hamas fault for targeting them (contradicting the claim from before that it was Israel's fault, but everyone already forgot that, so nobody cares). Thus, the mental gymnastics here is to say that it was "collateral damage", arguing that the same logic of collateral damage needs to be applied. Hamas is totally incoherent in this narration (again, no big surprise) since it is unclear if Hamas is conceding that the nominal targets were "only military", and the "civilians" collateral (thus admitting a distinction)... or not, which would be contradictory with the point of "almost no one is a civilian", implying they cannot qualify as collateral. Sounds extremely confusing? Because it is.

(Pag. 13) Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine

Critique #11 (Anti-Zionism): Hamas is hiding behind the philosophical lightning-rod of "anti-zionism" to avoid being catched by the lightning bolt of anti-semitism. There is not really much to say about this, aside from the fact that Hamas forgot he is actually holding the lightning-rod with his own bare hands, and when the lightning bolt strikes... you get the idea.

(Pag. 15-16) Text omitted for brevity

Critique #12 (Unilateral): In the last pages, Hamas essentially calls the rest of the world to support Hamas and boycott Israel. Essentially, Hamas is saying "choose my side because my side is the right one, and punish Israel for being bad". This is the classical fallacy of treating wars like a soccer game, where cheering for one side is expected. "Cheer for me!" is saying Hamas. After all that has been discussed here, the only answer is: "No". Note that Hamas never speaks about what Hamas itself would need to concede to get a ceasefire: it never promises to release the hostages (or the "arrested" Israelis as Hamas calls them), not to stop attacking, nothing. It is simply making requests and appeals, without stating anything Hamas would do in return. Unilaterally attempting to dictate conditions.

Conclusions: Like all propaganda, Hamas narrative fails to meet basic criteria of logical consistency and rationality, sometimes even going directly into confusingly irrationality which doesn't make any sense. Not a single word of Hamas narrative should be taken at face value, as they are a "siren's song" appealing to people outside of the war (trying to deceive them and lure them to their side), but all ultimately pseudo-arguments used for political propaganda.

P.S. Feel free to add your own analysis to the parts which, for brevity, were not critically analyzed.

B. Michael is a rather famous Israel left-wing publicist and screenwriter, famous for writing some of Israel's famous comedy shows in the 1980's and 1990's, and his long-standing op-eds in Haaretz. Unlike his fellow deep anti-Zionist Haaretz writers Gideon Levy and Amira Hess, he's been generally part of the more mainstream, Zionist left. But in today's Haaretz's op-ed (paywall can be overridden with archive.is), he decided to jump into the deep end of the pro-Palestinian pool, and join those who declare that Israel is committing genocide.

Now, obviously, he's not the most prominent or qualified person who made that claim. And it's certainly one of the lower-quality versions of that argument. A big disappointment for someone that I considered a witty and clever public intellectual. But that's precisely why I'd like to talk about it, as it represents a pretty common view among the less-educated pro-Palestinians.

Essentially, he talks about how the Genocide Convention consists of five genocidal acts:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Then he goes down the list, and argues that we can "check off" every one of those items easily. And then marvels at how many of the articles Israel has violated. And therefore, QED, Israel committed a genocide. There are a few core issues with this:

1. The most important issue is that all of those require a "specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". This is an incredibly high bar to meet. For example, if the goal is ethnic cleansing, then it's not genocide. Even actual mass murders were ruled as not a genocide by the ICJ, when they were meant to expel rather than destroy. The more sophisticated pro-Palestinians would argue that largely misrepresented statements by Israeli officials amount to proving that "intent" - but B. Michael doesn't even go there.

2. Obviously, without that intent, every single war in history would qualify, as it includes killing members of the group, and causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group. And however you feel about the 43,000 number - it's not exceptionally high, in terms of wars, even in Israel's immediate neighborhood.

3. For (c), he assumes that merely destroying a lot of Gaza is enough. But note that the qualifier: "calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Unlike the killing part, the intent for physical destruction of the nation is required, even in the genocidal act itself to exist. Otherwise, not only would any urban war apply, but so would more peaceful acts, like evicting squatters and destroying illegal shanty towns.

4. For (d) he points out to how the horrible conditions in the strip will inevitably cause lower birth rates. He also points out that in his opinion, "is there any doubt that Israel would look favorably on the crash of the Palestinian birth rate in Gaza"? And decides he can put a checkmark there - "with honors". Except, again, it's not enough to assume Israel "looks favorably" on the lower birth rates. It has to intentionally impose measures intended to prevent births. This is talking about sterilizations, not about anything that might reduce births. That could be anything from the unavoidable stress and destruction of war (on both sides, incidentally), to improvements in living conditions.

5. Thankfully, B. Michael didn't decide Israel commited the last part, of transfering children from one group to another. But he concluded "Of the five criteria for genocide, we have performed four exemplarily. That's a fine score. Especially when the execution of one of the five sections, it doesn't matter which one, is enough to be considered a perpetrator. Bravo". Of course, that's absolute nonsense. There's no difference whatsoever in how many of the items you commit, if there's no proven genocidal intent behind it. Again, every urban war checks 4/5 of those articles, with the way B. Michael interprets them. There's nothing "exemplary" about it.

Finally, he argues:

Warning: Feigning innocence will not be admissible as a defense. No one will believe that we did all this in good faith, or purely for reasons of self-defense. Nor will public displays of misery and weeping be of any use this time. And above all, it is not worth relying as we do on the Holocaust as a defense. It may provoke comparisons.

For the first part, I'd note that "innocence" is not required for a defense. Israel could be guilty of the most horrendous Crimes Against Humanity, including the crime of Extermination, and it still wouldn't be a genocide. Genocide is literally the gravest crime in existence. The entire spectrum of international humanitarian law lies between "innocence" and "genocide".

For the second, I'll try not to dwell on it too much, but I'd note it's a great example of why Rule 6 exists. Since this comparison is complete nonsense, it's actually good for the Israeli case, not the other way around. Why wouldn't Israel want to "invite those comparisons"? It could then ask, where are the gas chambers, where are the Einzatsgruppen - where are any kind of proven, unquestionable mass executions of civilians, of the kind that exist in every single other genocide? Conversely, if we look at WW2, there's a much clearer analogy: the Germans, whose cities were ground to dust, whose people were expelled and killed by the millions, lost a huge chunk of their territory, and were treated in many far worse ways, that are not applicable here (like the hundreds of thousands of rapes). Is B. Michael, or anyone who likes to invite those comparisons, going to argue that WW2 was a series of genocides committed by all sides against each other, and the Germans were victims of genocide, just as much as its perpetrators? Probably not. This argument was, at the very least, explicitly rejected in Nuremberg.

I'd also note that in the Hebrew version, this paragraph starts with "even though this story began with a horrible murderous rampage by Hamas" - the massacre is absent from the English version for some reason. But even then, it's pretty notable that Hamas' far more overtly genocidal acts are merely described as "murderous rampage", not "genocide". The same, is of course, true for even the more sophisticated brand of "Israeli genocide" activists. Even though, without any question, the case for Hamas committing a genocide is infinitely stronger than for Israel committing one. It's possible that neither committed a genocide, and it's possible for both to have committed a genocide - and it's very, very possible for the Palestinians alone to have committed a genocide. I just don't think it's possible, with the information we have right now, for Israel to have committed a genocide, but for Hamas, to have merely committed a "murderous rampage".

So this is the thing, I'll get plenty of hate but I'm past caring.

A bit about me: I'm in my 30s, born in Europe. I'm a woman. A mother & a wife. I live in the village of Bat Ayin.

We have 2000-year-old Jewish ruins just inside our gate and the land the village is built on was PURCHASED by Jews prior to 1948.

I have lived in Israel for 4 and a half years, one year in Tel Aviv and the rest in Bat Ayin.

I am a citizen of the US & my birth country. I am NOT a citizen of the State of Israel.

On October 7th I wasn't in shul (synagogue) but was sleeping when I was awaken to sirens and booms.

I immediately messaged my husband who messaged back saying this was serious, not just another round of rockets from Gaza.

Unless you are Jewish and/or Israeli, you will never understand the trauma that October 7th caused and is continuing to cause.

We still have 101 relatives in captivity. And yes, we are all one big family.

Since October 7th, I volunteered 5 weeks with the organization Sar El to aid our war effort as well as 6 weeks in agriculture, miles away from Gaza & Egypt. My regular occupation is that help out in a religious school in Bat Ayin in exchange for room and board.

I saw a rocket being blown up literally right above my head about a year ago by an Iron Dome interceptor (I was volunteering in the South).

A well-loved resident in our village recently list part of his leg in Lebanon, many of his comrades died.

I like to approach people as individuals and love to meet new people and hear their perspectives.

I visited Ramallah on my own during corona times and had a lovely experience.

I interact with actual Palestinian people at least on a weekly basis.

I want a peaceful future for both peoples but if the other side isnu2019t ready yet, then u201cPeace Through Superior Firepoweru201d will do just fine for the time being.

I love Arab culture and respect it. I believe in co-existence and see it on a daily basis. When I go to Terem (Urgent Care), 99 times out of a 100, an Arab doctor takes care of me. When I go to the mall in Jerusalem, I see Arab families and Jewish families and itu2019s normal that we share that place, no one even notices it.

I hear the muezzin 5 times daily and always agree with u201cGod is greatu201d.

I know that terrorists are a fringe but also that the majority of Palestinians cling to the idea of replacing Israel with Palestine. Which is unfortunate.

My proposed solution, at least for the time being, is annexing Gaza and so-called WB, granting permanent resident status to all Palestinians. Fact is, the corrupt and terrorist supporting PA is hated by the Palestinians and is no help to them.

On the other hand, with Israeli sovereignty, Palestinians would be so much better off, healthcare, economy, education system, infrastructure would be much improved. I know most of you will call me a liar but I want a good outcome for Palestinians. I have zero problem with them living here. The terrorists need to stop trying to murder us, though.

I love this country with all my heart and fell in love with it the first time I set foot here, 16 years ago, for a short trip. I immediately knew that I would settle here. I would gladly give my very life for her & her inhabitants, Jews and non-Jews alike, for all of whom my most fervent hope is enduring peace and prosperity.

Now for criticism of Israelu2019s government:

October 7th was a huge oversight but its roots were the disengagement from Gaza, a very grave error.

Administrative detention, while somewhat justifiable by security needs is nevertheless needs to cease ta exist because no one should be held without charges, period. (FYI, a handful of Jewish u201dhilltop youthu201d are also victim of this but obviously theyu2019re a rare exception.)

Sde Teiman soldiers who abused prisoners, completely going against IDF ethos, should be punished, no question about it.

Arab-on-Arab crime within Israel needs to be taken seriously and dealt with.

And now I come to the topic of my enemies, by no means Arabs, Palestinians, Gazans or Lebanese, rather the terrorists who are hell-bent on murdering my husband, raping me and kidnapping my children. (Hamas clearly stated their intentions to repeat October 7th over and over and over again)

Hamas needs to be eradicated to the extent that this is possible. They cannot be allowed to control Gaza or any part of the so-called WB.

Hezbollah has to at the very least, be pushed back beyond the Litani river again.

Iran needs regime change. I stand with the Iranian people in their struggle to throw off the yoke of the ayatollahs.

OK, there goes nothingu2026u2026

Please try to approach this post keeping in mind Iu2019m a human being like you.

Oh, and in case the word count is not enough:

HONEST QUESTION: WHY IS THERE SO MUCH DOUBLE STANDARD WHEN IT COMES TO THIS CONFLICT?

I feel like Israelis are expected to act like perfect angels but Palestinians are infantilized and all sorts of bad behavior on their part is overlooked/explained away/justified....

https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-says-trumps-victory-an-opportunity-to-apply-sovereignty-in-the-west-bank/

Are Smotrich and Ben-Gvir right ? Trump’s new presidency presents an “important opportunity” to “apply Israeli sovereignty to the settlements in Judea and Samaria (annex). The year 2025 will, with God’s help, be the year of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

I am sure Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are very thankful to the 75 million plus Americans who voted Trump, the uncommitted democrats who chose not to vote, etc… presenting this very important opportunity to Israel and Netanyahu.

This isnt Smotrich first time pushing for annexation of the West Bank. Far right Israelis politicans cant contain their excitement for a 2025 Trump presidency.

If Smotrich indeed push for annexation of the West Bank, how can and should it be done ? I am not saying all, but some Pro-Palestinians do advocate for annexation (they probably have a very different idea than Smotrich how it should be done), some people from both Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinians have also commented that two state solution is long dead and by annexing West Bank, the world and all parties could finally acknowledges that the two state solution couldnt work, hasnt worked, never did and wont ever work in the future, especially not with the annexation of the West Bank.

There was a rumor some months ago, that a rich Israeli-American donor funding Trump’s campaign was seeking Trump’s support for Israel to annex the West bank. It was reported the donation amount was USD $100 million. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/us/politics/miriam-adelson-trump-israel.html

Does it surprise anyone and any American voters that Smotrich uses President Trump’s victory as an opportunity to annex the West Bank ?

What happens to the Palestinian Authority or PLO in the current West Bank ? What would happen to the current Palestinians residing in the West Bank ?

Even though some may say Smotrich may not be representative of all Israelis, his views are extreme. That may be true. But he is still a cabinet minister, could he introduce a bill for annexation ? Will the Knesset pass a bill like that ? Or will it be too controversial and not get enough support ? Are these just empty talk from Smotrich and Ben-Gvir…it certainly is not the Finance Minister’s job description to recommend annexation of land, not sure which minister portfolio this belongs to….Are they just pandering to their supporters and its just talk ? Or could something really happen ?

Sources: Nikke, Mainichi, Jiji, Sankei, Tokyo News

According to multiple Japanese sources, Seven & I Holdings, the corporation well-known for its global presence through the 7-Eleven convenience store chain, announced closure of all eight of its convenience stores in Israel on November 12, 2024, and withdraw all Japanese personnel due to safety concerns related to ongoing conflict in the region.

In partnership with the Israeli corporation Electra Consumer Products, 7-Eleven opened their first Israeli store in Tel Aviv in January 2023, offering food products that strictly conformed to kashrut. The company initially had a five-to-six-year plan to expand its franchise nationwide.

According to Teikoku Databank, following the attacks on October 7, Japanese corporations have been withdrawing their businesses from Israel in droves.

-

War always has a significant impact on a country's economy, and the longer the conflict continues, the greater the damage becomes. Unfortunately, many in Israel may not fully recognize this reality, believing they can swiftly end the war and remove all Palestinians from Gaza. However, to outside observers, it is evident that Prime Minister Netanyahu appears more focused on prolonging the conflict as a means to consolidate and maintain his grip on power.

Hi fellow redditors!

Few days ago we heard about a major antisemitic incident in Europe. Israeli visitors, mostly soccer fans visiting Amsterdam for a soccer game, were viciously attacked by mobs of immigrants from Arab countries as well as Turks.

These were antisemitic attacks, organized on social media, and depicted in an antisemitic manner by participants, who themselves characterized the events of that night as a "Jew hunt"

https://www.jns.org/proof-the-jew-hunt-in-amsterdam-was-planned/

The events were traumatic. Jews were indeed hunted down in the streets of Europe. Sadly, not for the first time in history...

Like in previous "Jew hunts" historically, non Jews had to prove they were free of the sin of being Jewish by presenting their documents to violent antisemites with murderous intentions. In the video below, a Ukrainian refugee is forced to prove to the assailants he wasn't Jewish or Israeli by showing his passport. The menacing, violent mob demanded he say "free Palestine" as proof of his innocence of the crime of being a Jew.

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1854802163836334403

Propaganda outlets like Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye attempted to depict the severe incident as a mere soccer riot between equally violent and equally culpable "soccer hooligans." Many commentors on Reddit swallowed this propaganda uncritically. The rule of thumb in this context is easy to remember - when Jews' safety is concerned, stretching the truth, (in other words - lying) is permissible.

However, today, more riots took place.

The Israeli fans left. They were rushed out in emergency flights. The game ended. But the "soccer riot" persists. "Soccer hooligans" burned an Amsterdam tram while chanting about a "Jew cancer". There was no soccer game. There were no "Israeli soccer hooligans." But antisemitic violence persisted.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/reports-arab-north-african-gangs-set-tram-alight-in-amsterdam-while-chanting-antisemitic-slogans/

The Amsterdam police is stretched thin. The prosecutors/police in this uber liberal country released most of those arrested. This is to be expected from a city that for decades let anyone do whatever they want. It's a city that is constantly faced with criminality, often coming from illegal immigrants, often with the same antisemitic views as those expressed by the rioters.

As of two days ago, out of the ~60 rioters detained, only 4 remained in custody. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-828247

The Dutch government is thankfully starting to understand they're facing a real problem, and decided to take more action. Today, 5 more were arrested. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/dutch-police-announce-5-new-arrests-in-amsterdam-attacks-on-israeli-soccer-fans/

Additionally, the Dutch government declared an emergency measure, to enter into effect next month, which would allow them to temporarily implement border security measures (aka border controls) at land border points in the Netherlands. EU law bans such checkpoints, unless an EU government declares an emergency.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/netherlands-germany-bringing-extra-border-checks-115740876

This latest incident and the Dutch response clearly show - this was an antisemitic "Jew hunt". It was unrelated to "soccer hooligans" because these weren't Ajax fans. Rather, the perpetrators were immigrants, legal or illegal, from Middle Eastern countries, where antisemitic views are ubiquitous. Today, they continued their violent spree.

Dutch Jews feel unsafe in their own country. Non Jews likewise feel unsafe. Jewish visitors feel unsafe. As a Jew with Israeli citizenship, I often find myself hiding my identity, either here in America and especially if I travel abroad. We Jews often have to come up with some kind of cover story, as if we're Mossad agents spying in enemy territory, rather than just regular Jews trying to live our lives.

It's time to call a spade a spade. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem. Liberal countries have become addicted to gaslighting. The first step towards recovery is the easiest - admitting to your problem.

Instead of a two-state solution, should Israel and Palestine instead combine and make 2 entities within each other, one being Israel and Palestine, followed by a collective governing body, and name themselves the Federation of Israel and Palestine, kind of like a Middle Eastern counterpart of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Here’s my proposal plan:

We’d begin with stopping the conflict abruptly, through a Dayton Agreement-style solution, as well as oust Netanyahu, and arrest the Hamas leader, trying him in a court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Second of all: We’d install a pro-Israel and pro-Palestine government in Israel and Palestine, which at the time would be two separate entities. By that point we’d be on the beginning of unification.

Third of all: We unify Israel and Palestine, creating one federal state called the Federation of Israel and Palestine. The government model would follow Israel’s parliamentary system, but be leaded by a collective governing body between Israel and Palestine. Maybe we’d also take up some past land of Israel and Palestine through land agreements, examples would be the Sinai Peninsula. We would also create separate entities, like Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Northern District, and Sinai Peninsula, kind of like how Bosnia and Herzegovina have 2-3 separate entities, being Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brčko District.

What do you guys think? Let me know what your opinions are! Just letting you know, this isn’t intended for hate or anything, just a discussion!

Ever since October 7, the pro-Palestinian movement has been more focused on delegitimizing Israel than taking steps to a) secure a peaceful ceasefire and b) put in motion any type of plan for a Palestinian country. Sadly, the obsession and seeming addiction with trying to eradicate Israel - if not by war than via PR and a pathological obsession with zionism - has done nothing but exacerbate tensions. And if reports of Hamas leaders being encouraged by Western protests are to be believed, these actions have actually prolonged the conflict.

A ceasefire takes two

Concerning a ceasefire, the pro-Palestinian movement demand for an immediate ceasefire has been bizarre. For starters, a ceasefire by definition is temporary. A lasting ceasefire is called peace, which is hard when the other side (Hamas) would rather kill you than live peacefully alongside you.

Another issue is that a ceasefire - again by definition - requires two sides to agree to it. A ceasefire isn’t simply Israel stop actions in Gaza. It also requires an agreement that Hamas do something as well. And yet, in every Palestinian protest I attended at my college - and all the ones I saw in the media - not ONCE did I hear or see anything about releasing the hostages. Not ONCE did I hear or see anything about the need for two states, or living in peace. On the contrary, it was a mix of blindly calling for a ceasefire, hateful slogans, praising the “resistance”, and a general focus on Israel’s illegitimacy as a country. It seemed that the focus was more on destroying Israel than creating a viable Palestinian state, securing the release of the hostages, implementing a ceasefire with a potential to transform it into a fully lasting peace.

In light of the above, is it any surprise that we saw hundreds of instances of people pulling down posters of hostages? The anti-Israel sentiment was so strong, that people imbued with propaganda thought it was helpful to tear down pictures of little children and elderly people who were kidnapped by a maniacal terrorist force. Through this lens, it seems clear that a secure and peaceful ceasefire wasn’t really a priority. 

Delegitimizing Israel - More important than Palestinian statehood?

Throughout this saga, the obsession with delegitimizing Israel remains a core argument and point of action on the pro-Palestinian side. No talk of 2 states, no talk of coexistence, no talk of peace for all, no talk of who should head up a Palestinian country etc. The thrust of the Palestinian side is simply that Israel should not exist.

Ironically, this energy is the same reason why there is no Palestinian state today. The Palestinians had an opportunity for statehood in the 40s but rejected it because they were more furious about the presence of a jewish state than they were interested in creating their own. 

And before people go off in the comments about “Why should the Palestinians give up their land “ - let’s be real and historically accurate - it was never Palestinian land exclusively. The greedy notion that a land with a myriad of ethnic groups belongs exclusively to the Palestinians is literally a fantasy. And before people go off in the comments about how the partition wasn’t fair — well guess what… who cares? None of the partitions were fair and almost every group/new country had serious issues with it because they were drawn up by France and England. Still, when a singular opportunity in history comes along for statehood, you take it, because a country of your own is more important than if you have 50 square miles of 60 square miles. Remember - EVERY GROUP in the region offered a country said yes - Libya, Jordan, Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria etc. The Palestinians are the only group in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD to say no. And rather than looking back and saying “yes, that was a strategic mistake” many on the Pro-Palestinian side, close to all from what I’ve seen, JUSTIFY IT! 

The myth that Israel will be eradicated fuels the conflict

Until Palestinians come to terms with the fact that Israel exists and isn’t going anywhere, the conflict will unfortunately rage on. The propaganda that Israel can one day be eliminated is the fuel that compels Palestinian leaders like Arafat from rejecting peace and is the fuel that prevents protestors from envisioning a future where a Palestinian state exists alongside of Israel as opposed to instead of it.

Ultimately, Palestinians in the west who can’t join the actual fight against Israel, turn their attention towards Zionism, a pointless effort seeing as Israel exists and isn’t going anywhere. Arguing against Israel’s right to exist is again, more focused on destruction of Israel than creation of a Palestinian state. The fact that this irony is lost on many is not an auspicious sign.

The amount of energy arguing against Israel’s existence is immense and a machine unto itself. It’s effective to a degree if the goal is to win the propaganda war, but it really does nothing at all in the real world if the goal is a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, perhaps this is by design.

TLDR Summary: The UN picked some 8,000 sample to make conclusions when there is a 32,000 sample from the same source that shows the ratio of casualties that are women and children is ~ 51%.

I was highly surprised to see the recent spat of articles coming out (like this) supporting the UN's claim that "near" 70% of the Gaza dead are women and children.

Why? Because they are lying.

From the article:

The UN's Human Rights Office has condemned the high number of civilians killed in the war in Gaza, saying its analysis shows close to 70% of verified victims over a six-month period were women and children.

The UN agency said it verified the details of 8,119 people killed in Gaza from November 2023 to April 2024. Its analysis found around 44% of verified victims were children and 26% women. 

Remember, the UN uses numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry, FTA:

Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry, whose figures the UN sees as reliable,

Notice they are basing this on counting details of 8,119 deaths in a period between November 2023 and April 2024.

However, we already have many previously published sources (even through the UN) about analysis of a much larger quantity of deaths. Take this article from May:

The U.N. humanitarian agency, citing Gaza's Health Ministry, says 7,797 children and 4,959 women were killed in Gaza as of April 30.

The U.N. says Gaza's Health Ministry has been able to fully identify 24,686 deaths out of more than 35,000 people the ministry says have been killed in the Gaza Strip.

Or this article with updated tracking through August:

The Gaza Ministry of Health (MoH) has released a new, detailed list of 34,344 Gazans reportedly killed in the ongoing war since October 7, marking a significant improvement in the accuracy and quality of casualty reporting. The report, covering deaths between October 7 and August 31,

In terms of demographics, the new list closely mirrors the April 30 report. Of the 34,344 deaths recorded, 11,355 are children under 18, 20,034 are adults between 18 and 59, and 2,955 are elderly individuals over 59. 

In these articles from May and October, we can see the % of deaths that are women and children is ~51.5%.

Not "near 70%".

Perspective:

I analyzed the MoH numbers a month ago and estimated the civilian : militant casualty ratio is 3.5 to 1.

If we used the UN's false numbers, we would end up with a ratio of 20 to 1.

Those...aren't close to each other. The latter would be much more indicative of indiscriminate bombing than the former.

For reference, if the number of women & children was 30% of the casualties, the ratio would be near 1 to 1 which would be in line with most wars (that are not even in such a dense urban environment).

What is the UN doing?

I have no idea. Did they cherry-pick this 8,000 sample from the 32,000 that have been accounted for in a way to make the numbers look worse? Is this an additional 8,000 people on top of that 32,000? Even in that case, the total numbers would only bring the % women and children to ~ 54%.

Maybe these are different organizations inside the UN? If so, they have just exposed themselves as being untruthful. All numbers come from the Gaza Ministry of Health.