DawnC

Yes, But it is important to understand that for many Jewish people, it was a choice between returning to their historical homeland or remaining at the mercy of other nations, enduring what they had endured. I don't believe this can be disregarded, especially considering that there were no distinct Palestinian people at that time but a larger Arab society that included Syria and other regions. This is actually a very interesting point we've reached, because I believe it's a fundamental area of disagreement that may persist even when the complete historical background of the peoples and region is known to us both. I suppose it comes down to biases and the difference in value preferences. Anyway, the historical context from the beginning up until today is crucial in forming a solid moral standpoint. Even if you consider the foundational stance of the Zionists to be immoral, it's essential to reassess your moral position as circumstances evolve. This is what I meant when I wrote 'you can sympathize with whomever you want, but you have to understand the current situation and history'. For instance, would you consider destroying Israel now to be moral just because you don't agree with their original moral stance? From my understanding, when you examine the historical trajectory and the current state of affairs, even under the assumption of Zionism's immorality, the entire perspective shifts. And I've written quite a bit about it, so I think I'll leave it at that.

It is a form of danger. But you're jumping into the middle of the conversation. The conflict could have been avoided entirely, and it could have been resolved on several occasions if they were open to compromise.

Maybe, I don't entirely agree. Read what I just wrote to Lina...

The question of legitimacy is tied to your moral assessment.. I believe that a people striving to return to their historical homeland and establish sovereignty, especially after enduring such cruelty and indifference from the world, is not illegitimate. It does pose challenges and complexities, but I don't find it unwise either. Yes, I do think it is a nuanced issue, even from a moral perspective. And my point is, that regardless of your moral stance, historical decisions from the beginning of this conflict suggest that, as collectives, the Israeli vision has been to coexist peacefully with everyone, while the Palestinian vision has been to live in peace without Israelis and they have been solely focused on that. If Israelis were to abstain from using violence, they would face peril. The opposite is evidently not the case.

I never dismissed the Palestinian point of view. I understand their perspective, their hostility, and their desires well enough. It's just that they are not alone. It is actually you (and the Palestinians) who completely disregard the feelings and history of the other party involved. These are people who attempted to assimilate in other nations around the world, only to endure a real holocaust. They also have both emotional and historical connections to that land, and even if you consider it to be bullshit you still fail to realize it is genuine. Yes, I empathize with the Palestinian point of view and believe they have valid grievances. But their perspective does not justify the history of the past 100 years. It doesn't justify engaging in violent acts for 100 years, many time intentionally against civilians, consistently rejecting compromises, initiating a war with the aim of destroying Jewish aspirations, evading the consequences of a lost war, avoiding criticism regarding their lack of interest in the development of their own people, refusing to negotiate, engaging in massacres and terror, supporting irresponsible leadership, or perpetuating refugee status for multiple generations.

There was a slight Jewish majority (~55%)

This is either ignorance and self-deception in the better case, or deliberate lying in the worst. It has more value to learn about the speaker's tendencies and deceptions than to learn about Zionism from this video.

I think that when you are researching an ongoing conflict, you have to consider the fact that people often have a strong inclination to persuade others to their side. Many individuals may be misinformed and simply repeat things they have heard, but there are also those who are willing to manipulate, conceal important details, and even deliberately deceive you. This video is a very low quality source. It is replete with inaccuracies, manipulations, and it fails to address many details that do not support its narrative, among other forms of deception. A tip: set aside the blame game paradigm and focus on understanding what was truly happening. You can establish your moral stance later. Some points: Regarding the partition plan as a displacement plan is inaccurate. There was a call for Arabs in the Jewish part to choose their citizenship (and for the small Jewish portion in the Arab part) and there were suggestions over the years before about transfers but it wasn't the proposed partition plan. I recommend reading the actual proposal or attending an academic lecture with an unbiased lecturer, this is a very difficult topic to learn about. Btw, I believe it's reasonable to think that the partition plan favored the Jews (in many aspects it did). One question is why. If you will research that, you will discover for example, that the Arab leadership refused to negotiate terms and sought the entire country for themselves (this was a pattern that began then and continues to this day). Even if it does favor the Jews, does that justify starting a war to entirely suppress the Jewish nationality? Would you recommend that side to initiate a war in order to quash the aspirations of Zionists and establish a Palestinian state from the river to the sea? Is it immoral for the Zionists to fight in that war in order to secure a victory? Saying that the Israelis knew they had a stronger army or wanted the war in order to displace the Arabs is also not true. They feared the entry of the Arab countries very much, and their triumph was far from obvious. What would have happened if the Palestinians and Arab countries had their way? The narrative that the British and Zionists worked together against the Palestinians is historically inaccurate. The British relationship with Arabs and Zionists evolved over the years. There were times when the British were actually hostile towards the Zionists. The narrative that it was the British who prevented the Palestinians from laying the foundations needed for a nation is also inaccurate historically. The Palestinians faced significant internal challenges even during that period. There was no established 'Palestinian nationalism' at that time, and society's focus was not primarily on nation-building. While it's true that British rule was in place, they were not the primary reason for the Palestinians' difficulties in building the foundations for a nation. It's important to ask: Who were the leaders of Palestinian society at that time? Did they cooperate effectively? What were their primary focuses? Why didn't the Palestinians advocate for a Palestinian nation when they were under the rule of Jordan and Egypt? The reason Israelis didn't allow Palestinian refugees to return is because they are not suicidal. They did permit a small number to come back, and they were willing to negotiate the return of more only in the context of a peace agreement with the surrounding Arab countries. Would you have welcomed a large population into your country if you knew they had previously initiated a war against you, with the likelihood of more conflicts to come? It's also worth considering why, three to four generations later, these individuals are still classified as refugees. Is there a comparable situation in history? Why or why not? Who benefits from the Palestinians remaining refugees? why are the Palestinians still under occupation? They are indeed subject to Israeli occupation, but they have had opportunities to end it on three separate occasions. What factors might be influencing their decision? Could it be that the destruction of the Israeli state is deemed more important to them than the establishment of their own nation? Essentially, the video (and Lina's perspective) is rooted in the narrative that views the Zionist movement as a form of colonialism supported by external powers. This perspective also distinguishes the Arabs in the land of Israel and Palestine (in the early days of the conflict) from other Arabs and treats them as a separate cultural entity, attributing to them separate national aspirations (Palestinian nationality) and weaker capabilities that are solely a result of colonialism. I believe this narrative simply doesn't present an unbiased research of history. What emerges from that research is a complex conflict, marked by two conflicting national aspirations that both struggled and had complicated relations with the British power. These national movements are not classical in the sense of a typical European national movement, they are both unique in many ways. And there is a general pattern of one side (The Palestinians) refusing to acknowledge the fact that the other side is gonna get his share and having many internal difficulties with nation building.

Unfortunately Iran is not a liberal democracy. And I'm not in the business of interfering with their domestic decisions. I'm in the business of being aware that some nations/regimes can be hostile, harbor bad intentions, and may be willing to act against other countries. The spectrum of options available to nations includes these choices as well.

This is not an Israeli perspective, but rather a historical and scientific viewpoint. This individual is one of the experts on this issue. If you are genuinely interested, I believe this provides a solid historical background on the Palestinian refugees. It's not the complete story, but it offers enough to grasp the complexity of the situation and the harsh realities of war that manifest in this conflict. If I see more I will share it.

Keep in mind that the terms need to be handled carefully. For example, when this text discusses the Arabs, it refers to a larger group that also includes Syria, Lebanon, and I believe even Egypt and Iraq. The Arab national movement encompassed those areas as well. Anyway, it all took place around 1916 (while Zionism had formed a bit earlier). Another thing to consider is the term "Palestinian". Keep in mind that it was just a name given to that piece of land in the same manner that Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan were separated. It's not as if there was an actual concept of a 'Lebanese nationality' in the same way that there wasn't a Palestinian one. I never said they weren't. But it's important to consider the historical context. The lands (West Bank and Gaza) were occupied by Israel in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt, not directly from the Palestinians. Additionally, neither Jordan nor Egypt sought to reclaim these territories when they signed peace agreements. This action was taken in response to the mobilization of Arab countries under the leadership of Nasser, who were preparing for an attack against Israel. Since then, Israel has made three peace initiatives. The first attempt was disrupted when the Palestinians initiated an intifada and deaths of hundreds of Israelis, many of them in suicide bombings. The second and third initiatives (led by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert) were rejected. Anyway, my point was this: Hamas is not solely the responsibility of Israel.I never said that the Israelis were angels. But they did express a desire for peace and historically showed a greater willingness to compromise. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs among the Palestinians suggests that they are incapable of establishing a stable, non-violent regime. What can be done? I'm not sure. I do believe that some of the settlements exacerbate the situation, particularly those that disrupt predominantly Palestinian populated areas. But I'm not convinced that the Palestinians are currently capable of reaching a historical compromise. I used to think that the Israeli policy of withdrawing from Gaza without an agreement with the Palestinians (2005) was a smart move, but now I am not sure. Perhaps a similar approach could be taken, but without allowing militarization in the West Bank, as has occurred in Gaza. The way I see it, it was. It was a tragedy nonetheless. But if you attempt to resolve things through force and you end up losing, you can't claim victimhood. This doesn't diminish the tragic nature of what happened to you. Btw it's worth noting that most Palestinians who lost their homes did not necessarily get forcibly expelled, but rather chose to flee. It's important to recognize that this conflict wasn't just an army-vs-army war, there were also instances of civil conflict in areas where both Arabs and Jews resided. It's also worth mentioning that many Jews from Arab countries also lost their homes (hundreds of thousands) in places like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and more. Keep in mind that this conflict occurred in 1948, in close proximity to WW2 and prior to the establishment of the Geneva Conventions. In comparison to other conflicts of that era, the Israelis' moral standards were satisfactory.

We did stray from the original discussion. But you did decide to start a thread stating that a genocide is being perpetrated. And you had your own perception in mind regarding what was going on that led to that. Don't you think that realizing you were wrong, if you were, is important? Is a discussion about genocide just another distraction like spending too much time on social media?

The more the situation involves content that is emotionally difficult, the harder it's going to be for everyone to respond maturely. I appreciated you being conscious about it and your intention to improve the discussion. We can only control our side of the discussion and strive to approach it with honesty, an open mind, love and respect.

Yes, this is one of the arguments that people who empathize more with the Palestinian aspiration in the early days are making. On the other hand, those weren't immigrants who chose that piece of land out of the blue, and when they initiated their national aspiration, there was no actual Palestinian nationality but scattered tribes. That was a point made by people who sympathize more with the Israelis. Please read what I have written again, Does any of that make my point any less relevant?

If you are truly interested, you can put a little more effort into this research. Clearly, the Palestinian Arab leadership, opposed the establishment of a Jewish state and they viewed the partition plan as unfair and illegitimate. And clearly, they were concerned about displacement. Does that imply they were responsible people? Does that mean their intentions were not hostile? Does that make them a victim? The thing is, during the time of the partition plan, there were two distinct national aspirations for the same piece of land (we can delve even further back if you're interested, this issue is more nuanced). The jews had some agenda about their historical connection to the land and the Palestinians had their own. You can empathize with whichever side you choose. However, would you support a violent solution for one side? Would you recommend the side you sympathize with to initiate a war in order to suppress the aspirations of the other side? What was the Palestinian leadership's decision at that time? A mature, responsible, and peace-oriented approach from the Palestinian side, even if they found it unfair, would have been to renegotiate the terms or even present a militant threat to do so, in order to maximize their share. This didn't happen, and it wasn't by chance. It was a result of the Palestinians' choice of leaders. I suggest you read about Amin el-Husseini and the Arab Higher Committee. They were interested in eradicating Jewish aspirations altogether. Even if you consider war to be a legitimate measure in those circumstances, you have to consider the fact that wars can be lost. And the Palestinians lost. Even the support of four surrounding countries and a numerical advantage over Israelis didn't help them. Initiating war and losing bears consequences. This is why responsibility is important. Should someone be allowed to dictate terms when instead of negotiating things without violence they initiate a war and lose? Is that the way consequences and justice work? Does victimizing someone because of the consequences of a war they started constitute a wise approach to eradicating violent means? Even from 1948 to 1967, the Palestinians were under Jordanian control in the West Bank and Egyptian control in Gaza. Their aspirations for a Palestinian state were barely acknowledged under Jordan and Egypt. This was not a coincidence. It reflects their focus that is not on nation building, but on an unattainable historical justice. This type of thinking is irresponsible and immature. The Palestinian leadership not only opposed the specific partition plan, but also struggles with the ability to engage in any form of compromise and to accept the reality of a Jewish entity to this day.

There is a huge difference between having a desire to live peacefully with your neighbors and caring for them the same way you care about your own people. The Gulf countries, Middle Eastern nations, stability in the region, Ukraine, the US and Europe, along with Iran's secular and moderate populations—essentially, the Iranian regime poses a threat to the civilized world. Their entire belief system is built on opposing America and the West, and they are determined to gain control over their entire region. Ask yourself what made the Abraham Accords possible. The moderate Gulf countries understand this threat better than any of us.

Unfortunately for me, since I'm interested in geopolitics and international relations, and I understand a little bit of Arabic, I was connected to Telegram channels before 7/10. I was exposed to original videos by Hamas in Telegram channels on 7/10. I saw kidnappings in brutal ways, executions, burned bodies, and body parts torn off. I saw a body torn apart from a brutal, ongoing beating. I saw naked women's bodies on a truck. I saw two burned bodies that were tied to a burning bed. There are evidence of body parts being cut off and brutal rapes, which I intentionally avoided. I think I'm emotionally stable, but this is just too much.

If you dig far enough, you'll find the horrifying videos. To my understanding, it's quite the contrary. The Israeli government doesn't post those videos because they are aware of their responsibility. They understand that the Israeli public would be completely shocked and traumatized, and they want to prevent the public from calling for irresponsible and extreme measures due to strong emotions. The question is, what do you need to see to believe? Don't succumb to conspiracy-like thinking. There are videos and photos out there if you so desire.

So the Israelis should treat their own civilians the same way they treat Palestinian civilians? Don't you see the absurdity of that expectation? When has that kind of thinking ever been present in the decision-making of any country in any conflict in world history? You can have criticism about a military tactic, but this expectation is just absurd. This is exactly the immature perspective I was talking about. Iran poses a significant danger to freedom, democracy, and humanity, actually. You may have different ways to address this, but the danger is very clear.

@Something Funny Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of criticism for Israel and large parts of their society, especially concerning the way they address this conflict. The thing is, it's very easy to get lost in the details of this criticism and miss the larger picture. I mentioned WW2 to emphasize the point that you can criticize the US for Dresden and Hiroshima all you want, but it's a mistake to conflate that with the larger overall picture. Yes, Hamas is not Nazi Germany, but Israel is far from Dresden as well. The accusations are also exaggerated. And the bigger picture is very clear.

1. If Hamas were indeed more militarily capable, the Israelis would miss the aesthetics of the gas chambers. So will the Israeli Arabs btw, they were butchered in the same manner. 2. Hamas is part of a global threat that is heavily supported by Iran, which includes Hezbollah, large parts of Syria, the Houthis, and other militant groups. These are not kids in a playground. This is a real threat. I don't think Nazi Germany and Hamas pose the same danger to the world at all. But the moral stance is not that far off in terms of clarity.

Thank goodness that WW2 didn't occur in today's political landscape. People might draw comparisons between the US and the Nazis based on the higher number of German civilian casualties. A profoundly immature and distorted moral compass.

Israel does bear some responsibility. But the major part of it lies with the Palestinian society. If you trace back to the beginning of this conflict and examine the leadership their society supported (it begins with Amin al Husseini) and their irresponsible decisions, it becomes evident. Take a look also at their educational system. Don't solely base your judgment on the current power imbalance.

It's good to have compassion for suffering, but a moral stance should be grounded in a realistic understanding of what is going on.

I don't think you misunderstand what genocide is. It is your perception of what is really going on that is distorted. I will give you just a few examples: The numbers you are taking seriously originate from Hamas (which had no problem lying to you about the hospital bombing). You don't take into account the fact that Hamas uses teenagers as militants and later regards them as children casualties. You forget that there are hundreds of misfired rockets, like the one fired at the hospital. From a strategic perspective, you misunderstand the fact that Hamas has a strategic goal of having the most children casualties possible and doesn't place much value on children's lives, while Israel is genuinely concerned about their image as they need European and US support. So, even if they were to desire such actions, they are aware that it would be a major strategic mistake. You also fail to consider the fact that Hamas uses children as human shields to protect its militants when they are targeting civilians (for example, shooting rockets from schools or civilian houses) and that is a very difficult situation to deal with militarily. You totally misunderstand Israeli society, academia, and the like, which would never allow for such a thing to happen. Basically, although they might be less careful about civilian casualties than in the past or as you would want them to be, Israel doesn't target civilians for the sole purpose of intentionally killing them. Definitely not systematically.