hundreth

Do you know what those words mean? They don't mean what you say they mean. Science literacy might help here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews Here is a good resource which gives a good high level overview. Suffice to say, there's ample evidence.

What are you talking about? You can see through genetic testing a clear lineage to biblical Israel.

As a Mizrahi (middle eastern) Jew, this is wrong as well. Ashkenazi Jews have historic ties to Israel just the same. This has been proven through genetic testing in recent times.

Yeah this "holocaust" speak has become very fashionable. Outsiders like to mental masturbate to Jews committing a "holocaust" but we know even at our worst it's extremely different.

Has any world leader been convicted for war crimes in modern times? Netanyahu is a boy scout compared to some of the psychos walking this earth and leading nations in recent times. But of course, everything with Israel will be amplified.

As Jews & Israelis we need to be careful. As you say, we have these incidents that don't reflect the greater vision or plan. If we don't do anything to stop this from happening, we're allowing it to happen. And given everything that happened, there's little space for compassion in the current landscape. But we need to be very careful.

I wouldn't even disagree with that. I don't see how. "Israel has the right to defend itself" means it should be able to protect it's citizens. There's nothing especially outrageous about that. Yeah, Israel has stopped listening and you see a lot of the discourse around the U.N. not condemning the Oct 7 attacks. The language around it matters.

Iran is also held in check by Israel.

Because Israel is sane enough not to use them and has not explicitly stated their goal is to remove a nation from this planet.

So by you bringing Iran into the equation, I'm guessing you meant Iran will pack their bags and lay out a red carpet for them?

Appreciate you going mask off. Sure, let's go no holds barred war to eliminate Israel, one of the only nations in the region with nuclear capabilities. I'm sure it will work out and result in peace.

What are 1947 borders? The British Mandate? Should the UK come rule over the lands again? Most sane people advocate for 1967 based two state solution, but both sides will need to come to the negotiation table. And it won't be as simple as you say. There will have to be security considerations, land swaps and trust established over time. If we want change to happen, we need to be realistic.

That's not how I interpreted Destiny's remarks. He acknowledges the history and plight of the Palestinians, but unlike most assigns a level of accountability towards them which is unheard of in many leftist circles. He challenges the notion that they have been negotiating for peace in good faith.

"Hamas is not a state and Israel is legally still the occupying power in Gaza. You don't have the right to self-defence against a territory you occupy." Statements like these are nothing more than playing semantic games and intellectualization gone too far. Should Israel go on the offensive? No. But of course any nation is going to defend itself and it's citizens from a threat, whether "external" or "internal". When you suggest Israel should just lay down and die because you've convinced yourself they don't have the moral high ground, you've lost any ability to effect change in the region and your perspective will be ignored by those with power in the region. If the United States, France, or even Ireland had a terrorist faction ruling over a subset of it's people, stealing funds, stealing aid, and shooting rockets into neighboring towns, Ireland would shut them down immediately. And that's even if you believe all those territories are internal to Ireland.

Right, everything is Israel's fault. It's always because of Israeli provocations. Yada yada. Has nothing to do with rockets being sent over every single day. Nothing to do with tunnels being built into Israel and attacks being planned / orchestrated. This is what I mean. Zero accountability and this is why this is ignored by Israelis. How many times has this pattern played out already? Gazans attack, Israel retaliates, ceasefire. When has any path been laid out? Why would this time be any different than any of the others? Netanyahu has no incentive to change anything during a ceasefire. Hamas has no incentive to change anything. The United States has no incentive. Who is going to carve a path forward? At least if Hamas is no longer in power, there is a possibility for change. C'mon, this is simple. Obviously Israel can't destroy the identity or ideology of Hamas. Hamas is effectively destroyed when they no longer have political and military power in the region. If they aren't strong-arming Gazans, something else will take it's place. As you said, it could be good or bad. Hopefully we collectively steer it in the right direction. If Israel rejected it, this is where pressure should be placed. A peacekeeping force will need to be in the region for some time until tensions die and the opportunity presents itself. You're convinced you know what "Israel" wants. Israel is a diverse nation, things could be different a year from today when Netanyahu may no longer be in power. It's hard to say what will happen. I hope for the best. I didn't respond to everything you wrote, just trying to focus on where we probably have the most disagreement.

The U.S. is also funding the Gazan populace, fully separating them from Hamas is not reality. But my point is more the way leftists speak about the issue actually goes so far that Israelis have completely tuned out these voices, and so whatever influence you hoped to create has fallen on deaf ears. They're also ignore concerns and realities that Jews and others around the world consider when discussing the issue. I agree with you, but who benefits from a ceasefire? No one except Hamas. What does a ceasefire achieve except a continuation in the pattern we've seen for over 70 years? Fighting will stop, Hamas will rebuild power and weaponry. Then they will orchestrate another attack. Israelis will be livid, and then kill just as many Palestinian civilians again. Expecting anything different is living in a fantasy world. See my above point. A ceasefire achieves nothing except a temporary pause in violence which then leads to ultimately more violence. If you care about Palestinian civilians, you should actually be for Hamas being destroyed and creating space for a different possibility. Hamas is not exactly the greatest representative of the Palestinians to work with. To pretend that Hamas was an honest peace broker in the region is ridiculous. I can concede that Israel has been the aggressor under certain circumstances, but let's not act like Hamas has not been complicit. This fantasy world from the leftists is exactly what I'm talking about. In any event, it's better to focus on what's happening today. How do we actually get somewhere? You can argue back and forth for centuries about who is more at fault, and it will only pull both sides further apart. All of them suggest this. I don't have the time to start scouring over hours of video. If you've seen a different representation from them, please show me. Edit: I didn't realize you responded to me point by point and were referring to the move to America bit. That's something I've read here and in different threads online. Even the YT progressives aren't this insane. You see, unlike many pro Palestinian voices I actually have shown concern about and condemned many of Israel's actions and strategies. I've acknowledged many times that they need to be more careful when dealing with civilians. When looking at the actions of Hamas, it's very easy to understand the motives. Kill as many as possible and cause as much mayhem as possible in a short time. Unfortunately, Israel's actions can't be deciphered as easily. We don't know the motivation behind every single action. There are many voices, commanders, leaders and players to contend with. Trying to find an overall direction is impossible. It's also difficult to decipher exactly what happened in every situation. Couple that with more military footage than in any other time in history, and it becomes a very novel and painful to watch situation. Re: Iran, again you aren't contending with reality. Iran and Syria are much weaker than they appear. Re: New Hamas group. Entirely possible. What I believe should happen is that a UN peacekeeping force is present in Gaza until tensions die down. Perhaps this will create space for a more moderate government to take shape there. For progress to be made, the international community will actually need to help with feet on the ground. This includes the surrounding Arab nations.

I've directly engaged with these opinions and arguments, even in this thread. There have been many detailed back and forths between zazen and I. Sometimes even leading to some level of mutual understanding. This doesn't change the broader discussion though.

Not ignored at all. Seen, acknowledged, and in some cases condemned.

I personally have no issue with being sympathetic towards Palestinians. The problem for me is that too often I see all the blame placed on the Israelis, no accountability at all for the Palestinian side, and the proposed solutions being 100% concessions from the Israeli side with no regard for the realities on the ground. Examples: Q: "What should Israel do??" "I don't have to answer that, I'm not the one occupying Palestinians" "How about not bombing Gaza" "How about a ceasefire?" "How about giving Palestinians a state immediately with no security assurances for Israelis?" "How about leaving Palestine and going to America?" It gets ridiculous, and what could be seen as voices of reason which improve relations instead spur more violence by perpetuating myths that Palestinians will have the whole pie from the river to the sea, that they have no responsibility, that Israelis can do no right and do not belong... and so Israelis have completely tuned them out.

He is an echo of a prominent left wing narrative provided by many prominent voices in the space such as Breaking Points, Majority Report, Secular Talk, etc. They all present a very simplistic "Israel are evil mass murderers and Palestinians are all innocent saints, except Hamas which is a distinct minority which cannot and should not be eliminated and the only answer is a ceasefire" story.

There are many saying that in the broader discussion. For example Cenk Uygur repeatedly claimed in his discussion with Destiny that Israel kills as many civilians as possible while creating plausible deniability. In general I think this was a well done conversation.

It's too late for that. Israel's objective is to eliminate Hamas, rightly so. A cease fire achieves nothing except a pause until the next Hamas episode where this entire process repeats. What do you think is going to happen if there's a ceasefire? It's going to last forever? No. Hamas is going to attack again. Israel is going to retaliate again. It won't be pretty. At least eliminating Hamas creates space for something to change. I want to be clear, that's not to say Israel shouldn't be careful about how they treat civilians. It's apparent there are some Israelis going too far. It very much saddens me. I hope Hamas is eliminated with as little bloodshed as possible. Do I think Israel has a policy to kill as many civilians as possible? No. They're killing less than one civilian per bomb dropped. Do I think that they could exercise more caution? Yes. Do some Israelis believe in ethnic cleansing? Yes. Do many Israelis want peace and a two state solution? Yes.

Yeah, this is a well done and well informed conversation.

I never think of it in terms of societal development and Spiral dynamics stages. I don't expect the Palestinians to have a culture shift overnight and I understand your concerns. I also don't think it falls squarely on them. What I do feel is that the international community needs to shift it's focus from victimization to empowerment. The international community will need to step up and directly invest peacekeeping forces and business initiatives to kick start the process. Also, I have no disillusions about Israel being oppressive and abusive. I know they are. But just as you've mentioned a 7 decade long process for Palestinians to have their viewpoints, Israelis have also endured 7 decades of wars of annihilation, terrorist attacks, and bad faith negotiations where peace was never truly the agenda of the Palestinians. The destruction of Israel is the goal. From the river to the sea as they say. Today this phrase has been rebranded, but Jews don't forget. It's telling that pro Palestinian voices insist on using a loaded phrase with genocidal undertones. Even if you use it with a different meaning, you're aware that many use the same phrase for nefarious purposes. You would never do such a thing in any other context. I believe Israelis from previous generations were way more invested in peaceful outcomes than today. What you see today is a product of decades of frustration and zero progress.

I don't believe anyone actually feels the way you're framing it. There are some Israelis for whom there are no conditions which warrant the Palestinians gaining sovereignty. I'm not one of them. There are others who want to see the Palestinians doing well. When they're doing well, the focus on retribution, hate, anger and violence greatly lessens. Trust is built over time. Of course the Israelis have their own side in this to play in terms of a culture and leadership shift on their ends. It feels like you're only able to hold one viewpoint at once. Either all of the responsibility must be placed on the Palestinians, or all of it must be placed on the Israelis. Why are they mutually exclusive? It's perfectly fine to want to see internal change from both sides.