Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Nivsch]

Former Head of IDF (2002-2005) and Minister of Defense (2013-2016) Moshe Ya'alon. Translated from hebrew (as always).

Edited August 30 by Nivsch

[Viking]

On 8/26/2024 at 2:33 AM, Leo Gura said:

There could be ethical Zionism if settlement expansion is stopped, and if lies and manipulation stops, if shameless self-bias stops, and if there is a good-faith effort toward a 2-state solution. That would be about as ethical as Zionism could realistically be.

Two states is an existential threat to israel given the current leadership of Iran. If Palestine would have its own military Israel would be done for. 

With Iran-funded Hezbollah, the north of Israel is in shambles, so since the palestinian lands are at the center of Israel, the current state of Israel's north could basically be all of Israel.

Also, the "destruction of Israel" mindset of the majority the arabic population won't go away any time soon. Two state solution wouldn't fix it. The only thing now which would fix that mindset is the destruction of the state of Israel.

The most pragmatic solution right now is to aim for as high quality of life in the occupied lands as possible while maintaining the security of Israel. 

If Iran will be dealt with, the threat to Israel will diminish greatly and the quality of life of palestinians would rise quite fast.

[Raze]

54 minutes ago, Viking said:

Two states is an existential threat to israel given the current leadership of Iran. If Palestine would have its own military Israel would be done for. 

The current situation is an existential threat to Palestinians as they have few rights and are massacred daily. 2 million are stuck in Gaza which is becoming uninhabitable and settlers and idf have killed 400 in the West Bank while actively removing others from their homes and holding thousands in prison without charges.

This is the actual threat to Israel as it riled up hatred towards them and outside groups can fund Palestinian resistance.

The former head of Shin Bet himself said during his term when two states negotiations was looking like it was going well, he saw a decrease in attacks. 

Even if Israel would be safer with a Palestinian state, they aren’t entitled to deprive millions of people of their rights and safety just incase.  Should America have kept slavery or segregation in case blacks when given freedom would seek revenge? Should the UK have continued stifling Irish freedom in case they’d seek revenge if they had independence? No, and in both cases it actually reduced resentment and conflict to give people their rights.
That especially makes no sense when Israel is actively destroying Palestine, so Israel is allowed to destroy a people because they might try to destroy israel if they had freedom, but no one is allowed to try to resist Israel as it actively destroys them? 

It also is not true. Egypt was Israel’s mortal enemy for decades but made peace with them despite Israel treating the Palestinians worse and worse. It would have probably been even easier to make peace with them if the Palestinian issue was resolved.

Iran would have near zero support If they tried attacking Israel when it wasn’t occupying Palestinians. That’s the entire basis of their behavior. They’d also lose their biggest assets, men to recruit, as many would simply not join if they had a future.

Hezbollah only formed initially as resistance to the Israel occupation of Lebanon. 
 

Oct 7 as well proved definitively the threat to Israel’s safety is the occupation, it breeds resistance. On the other hand when Israel deals with with states it fares much better. You can make peace with states, not with people who you occupy.

If Israel is truly that afraid of a Palestinian state than make a true one state, tell Palestinians they can be Israeli citizens with full rights. But endless occupation of a people just creates violence and ethnic cleansing them is a crime.

Edited August 30 by Raze

[Viking]

20 minutes ago, Raze said:

The current situation is an existential threat to Palestinians as they have few rights and are massacred daily. 2 million are stuck in Gaza which is becoming uninhabitable and settlers and idf have killed 400 in the West Bank while actively removing others from their homes and holding thousands in prison without charges.

This is the actual threat to Israel as it riled up hatred towards them and outside groups can fund Palestinian resistance.

The former head of Shin Bet himself said during his term when two states negotiations was looking like it was going well, he saw a decrease in attacks. 

Even if Israel would be safer with a Palestinian state, they aren’t entitled to deprive millions of people of their rights and safety just incase.  Should America have kept slavery or segregation in case blacks when given freedom would seek revenge? Should the UK have continued stifling Irish freedom in case they’d seek revenge if they had independence? No, and in both cases it actually reduced resentment and conflict to give people their rights.
That especially makes no sense when Israel is actively destroying Palestine, so Israel is allowed to destroy a people because they might try to destroy israel if they had freedom, but no one is allowed to try to resist Israel as it actively destroys them? 

It also is not true. Egypt was Israel’s mortal enemy for decades but made peace with them despite Israel treating the Palestinians worse and worse. It would have probably been even easier to make peace with them if the Palestinian issue was resolved.

Iran would have near zero support If they tried attacking Israel when it wasn’t occupying Palestinians. That’s the entire basis of their behavior. They’d also lose their biggest assets, men to recruit, as many would simply not join if they had a future.

Hezbollah only formed initially as resistance to the Israel occupation of Lebanon. 
 

Oct 7 as well proved definitively the threat to Israel’s safety is the occupation, it breeds resistance. On the other hand when Israel deals with with states it fares much better. You can make peace with states, not with people who you occupy.

If Israel is truly that afraid of a Palestinian state than make a true one state, tell Palestinians they can be Israeli citizens with full rights. But endless occupation of a people just creates violence and ethnic cleansing them is a crime.

If I understand what you're saying, you're saying that a two state solution will bring peace. Palestine will be a state and have freedom, and Israel will be a state and be secure.

The assumption here is that Iran does what it does to liberate the palestinian people, but the reality is they don't care about the palestinians. They see themselves as the higher race of muslims, way above the palestinians and all the rest. Proof of that is that they never do anything directly for the palestinians but only through their proxies - Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. All at the cost of palestinian lives. They only attack if they themselves get attacked. 

Iran wants to have power over the middle east and Israel stands in their way. There is absolutely no chance that hostility towards Israel would stop if Palestine has a state.

Regarding the comparison to the UK and the US - for Israel it's not a matter of "just in case" as you said. The UK and the US are superpowers which could handle any revenge or retaliation. Israel doesn't have the luxury those countries had. Israel is a very small country geographically speaking, and 7th Oct proved that. If Israel would give the palestinians a state, Iran would destroy Israel in the following decade or cause severe losses and damage. What happened in the towns surrounding the Gaza strip, would happen in central cities in Israel like Tel Aviv with much higher casualties.

I understand that from the palestinian perspective it doesn't seem that bad for what they have suffered and are still suffering, but I'm just explaining why the ethical thing for Israel is not go for a two state solution. Ethically speaking, self preservation is above anything else.

That's why practically I think the solution which would be best both for Israel and the Palestinians is the handling of Iran first and foremost, and the slow investing in the quality of life of the palestinians, still under the Israeli defense suprevision.

[Raze]

31 minutes ago, Viking said:

If I understand what you're saying, you're saying that a two state solution will bring peace. Palestine will be a state and have freedom, and Israel will be a state and be secure.

The assumption here is that Iran does what it does to liberate the palestinian people, but the reality is they don't care about the palestinians. They see themselves as the higher race of muslims, way above the palestinians and all the rest. Proof of that is that they never do anything directly for the palestinians but only through their proxies - Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. All at the cost of palestinian lives. They only attack if they themselves get attacked. 

Iran wants to have power over the middle east and Israel stands in their way. There is absolutely no chance that hostility towards Israel would stop if Palestine has a state.

Regarding the comparison to the UK and the US - for Israel it's not a matter of "just in case" as you said. The UK and the US are superpowers which could handle any revenge or retaliation. Israel doesn't have the luxury those countries had. Israel is a very small country geographically speaking, and 7th Oct proved that. If Israel would give the palestinians a state, Iran would destroy Israel in the following decade or cause severe losses and damage. What happened in the towns surrounding the Gaza strip, would happen in central cities in Israel like Tel Aviv with much higher casualties.

I understand that from the palestinian perspective it doesn't seem that bad for what they have suffered and are still suffering, but I'm just explaining why the ethical thing for Israel is not go for a two state solution. Ethically speaking, self preservation is above anything else.

That's why practically I think the solution which would be best both for Israel and the Palestinians is the handling of Iran first and foremost, and the slow investing in the quality of life of the palestinians, still under the Israeli defense suprevision.

1) After the shah was overthrown the US engaged in a strategy to encircle and try to destroy Iran, they put them under massive sanctions and funded anti Iranian groups such as Iraq during their war. Iran countered this by trying to fund their own rebel groups and expand influence around their country.

2) they use proxies so neither Israel nor the US can easily justify attacking them when they want to strike 

3) you’re not understanding my point that Iran cannot destroy Israel if Palestinians have a state. For one it would be much harder for Iran to recruit Palestinians to fight for them if they now had something to lose. Hamas itself offered to throw down its arms if Palestinians were given a state and the leader of Hezbollah said he’ll accept what the Palestinians accept and no longer attack Israel if the situation is resolved.

4) You assuming a Palestinian state means instantly giving them a massive military. There are plenty of solutions to this. Work out an arrangement where they get security from a mutually agreed third party. Have them agree they cannot take funding from Iran or they’ll suffer huge sanctions, or that if they attack Israel, the US and Israel will respond. Also, I don’t see how Palestinians having a state suddenly gives Iran the ability to destroy Israel anymore than they have now, at best they could make another small rebel group that the IDF would still dwarf. As you mentioned Iran doesn’t even directly attack Israel, it just finds small rebel groups. 

5) Apartheid and mass murder against a population because you fear otherwise a different country will arm them and they’ll attack is not ethnical. You can’t justify war crimes based on what you think might happen. During the Syrian civil war Israel and the US supplied rebels trying to overthrow Assad, would it be ethical for Assad to occupy Israel and the US eternally and strip their people of rights if he could as they were trying to destroy him? No.

6) If the occupation is was making Israel safer the largest attack on them in their history wouldn’t have happened, but it did on oct 7

7) Long before Iran was funding Hamas, Israel was still brutally occupying the Palestinians. So it doesn’t really make sense to say it’s just a measure of safety against Iran.

8) Iran has itself shown willingness to negotiate multiple times. They offered to turn the Middle East into a nuclear weapon free zone and got rejected, they offered to suspend funding of Palestinian militants and got rejected, offered to suspend their nuclear program in the nuclear deal but Israel pressured the US to reject it. It’s not really accurate to say they are hell bent on war.

9) Handling Iran will probably fail based on US attempts at handling smaller countries in recent history ending in far worse situations. 

US military reports actually found Iran had low military spending and was mostly basing its strategy on defense. However they have expanded it after the US and Israel continually threatened to invade and assassinated their leaders and scientists.

Edited August 30 by Raze

[hundreth]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

Even if Israel would be safer with a Palestinian state, they aren’t entitled to deprive millions of people of their rights and safety just incase.  Should America have kept slavery or segregation in case blacks when given freedom would seek revenge? Should the UK have continued stifling Irish freedom in case they’d seek revenge if they had independence? No, and in both cases it actually reduced resentment and conflict to give people their rights.
That especially makes no sense when Israel is actively destroying Palestine, so Israel is allowed to destroy a people because they might try to destroy israel if they had freedom, but no one is allowed to try to resist Israel as it actively destroys them? 

I'm assuming you meant even if Israel would be less safe... 

In which case that's absurd. This isn't an "in case" - it's clear cut intentions they don't even remotely try to hide. I'm not saying that Israel should destroy an entire civilian population, but they should absolutely go after groups that are outright hostile to their existence. That is reasonable. 

When there are groups whose entire purpose is to eliminate you, the priorities change. 

It is unfortunately the same chicken and egg debate we've always had here. Anti Israel voices believe that if Israel gave Palestinians whatever they want, there would be peace. Israelis don't buy that for a second.

The classic question. State before peace or peace before state? 

I believe statehood will always be impossible until there is a culture shift in Palestinian culture as well as the greater Muslim world. Israel will never put their survival at stake with blind trust in groups who hate you and want to kill you. With that said, Israel hasn't done themselves any favors in terms of fostering good will and giving them a reason to shift.

[hundreth]

18 minutes ago, Raze said:

3) you’re not understanding my point that Iran cannot destroy Israel if Palestinians have a state. For one it would be much harder for Iran to recruit Palestinians to fight for them if they now had something to lose. Hamas itself offered to throw down its arms if Palestinians were given a state and the leader of Hezbollah said he’ll accept what the Palestinians accept and no longer attack Israel if the situation is resolved.

4) You assuming a Palestinian state means instantly giving them a massive military. There are plenty of solutions to this. Work out an arrangement where they get security from a mutually agreed third party. Have them agree they cannot take funding from Iran or they’ll suffer huge sanctions, or that if they attack Israel, the US and Israel will respond. Also, I don’t see how Palestinians having a state suddenly gives Iran the ability to destroy Israel anymore than they have now, at best they could make another small rebel group that the IDF would still dwarf. As you mentioned Iran doesn’t even directly attack Israel, it just finds small rebel groups. 

Lol.

[Raze]

22 minutes ago, hundreth said:

I'm assuming you meant even if Israel would be less safe... 

In which case that's absurd. This isn't an "in case" - it's clear cut intentions they don't even remotely try to hide. I'm not saying that Israel should destroy an entire civilian population, but they should absolutely go after groups that are outright hostile to their existence. That is reasonable. 

So why aren’t Palestinians reasonable to attack Israel when it is in favor of destroying Palestine? Israel kept 2 million locked in Gaza, settlers and IDF regularly kill and steal land in the West Bank, the Israeli government openly says it is against Palestinians ever having a state. If Israel can attack Palestinians groups that are against Israel’s existence, why can’t Palestinians attack the israel government hostile to theirs?

22 minutes ago, hundreth said:

It is unfortunately the same chicken and egg debate we've always had here. Anti Israel voices believe that if Israel gave Palestinians whatever they want, there would be peace. Israelis don't buy that for a second.

The classic question. State before peace or peace before state? 

Hamas has offered long term cease fires in exchange for a state multiple times. 

https://inkstickmedia.com/israel-rejected-peace-with-hamas-on-five-occasions/

The PLO hasn’t engaged in armed resistance against Israel for decades and said they recognize Israel.

Yet the blockade was still on Gaza, and the West Bank was still being carved up.

22 minutes ago, hundreth said:

I believe statehood will always be impossible until there is a culture shift in Palestinian culture as well as the greater Muslim world. Israel will never put their survival at stake with blind trust in groups who hate you and want to kill you. With that said, Israel hasn't done themselves any favors in terms of fostering good will and giving them a reason to shift.

Most Muslim countries were no longer funding anti Israeli resistance, Saudi Arabia said and still says it will make a deal with Israel if Palestinians have a state.

22 minutes ago, hundreth said:

I believe statehood will always be impossible until there is a culture shift in Palestinian culture as well as the greater Muslim world. Israel will never put their survival at stake with blind trust in groups who hate you and want to kill you. With that said, Israel hasn't done themselves any favors in terms of fostering good will and giving them a reason to shift.

Except the continued occupation is worsening the cultural shift 

 

source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512828/palestinians-lack-faith-biden-two-state-solution.aspx

This was an exit poll done on the Gaza election that brought Hamas to power:

https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/478

Quote

exit poll results clearly indicate that a clear majority of Fateh supporters as well as the combined voters of all other nationalist lists as well as one third of Hamas voters support the basic elements of the peace process such as the two state solution, the implementation of the Road Map, and the collection of arms from all armed militias and groups.

Palestinians like any pretty much any group resort to violence when they have no alternative.

Edited August 30 by Raze

[Nivsch]

On 26.8.2024 at 3:40 AM, Leo Gura said:

Yes, it is an ethnic group but so much of that culture is grounded in Biblical stories.

Jews were really the majority on this land for many centuries, before became a minority for another similar amount of centuries, and then the Zionist movement started when the emotions became critically too strong to go back to this land.

Edited August 30 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Jews were really the majority on this land for many centuries,

You mean in biblical times?

But today's Jews are barely related to those people.

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You mean in biblical times?

Yes.

Ok (checked more accurately) and:

11 centuries Jews were the majority from 10 BCE to 1 CE

From 13 BCE to 11 BCE it is unknown whether they were majority or not because they were in a process of settling.

From 1 CE to 3 CE minority under Rome but still a significant part of the population.

4 CE majority.

5 to mid 20 CE - minority.

If I understood it all right.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

But today's Jews are barely related to those people.

Yes this is an interesting question I don't know for now what is more true. Probably education through all those centuries took place, but also the maybe bad experience Jews felt when were abroad all those centuries what perhaps made them want their own country again. 

To say how can they feel emotions (except through education) to a land their generations have never step on? Well at least they could know by negation what isn't good for them.

And then they crossed it with education.

If I were a Jew back then in Europe in the middle ages, could I intuite I want to go to the land of Israel even without education? 

I will have to learn more about the countries Jews were in during 5th-19th centuries before I have a better answer.

Edited August 30 by Nivsch

[Viking]

5 hours ago, Raze said:

 3) you’re not understanding my point that Iran cannot destroy Israel if Palestinians have a state. For one it would be much harder for Iran to recruit Palestinians to fight for them if they now had something to lose. Hamas itself offered to throw down its arms if Palestinians were given a state and the leader of Hezbollah said he’ll accept what the Palestinians accept and no longer attack Israel if the situation is resolved.

Taken from the official updated charter of Hamas, stating its objectives, link to it: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

"Palestine symbolises the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital."

"Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit."

 

If Hamas said they'll lay down arms they lied. If Hezbollah said they'll stop attacking Israel they lied. 

To think that it will be more difficult for Iran to recruit palestinians to fight for them if they had a state is naïve at best. If anything, it will most likely once they tasted success raise their motivation to take all of the land from the river to the sea, no matter if they have something to lose or not.

None of them will rest until the entirety of Israel is palestine. They state this over and over again and they act on it. Anything else is lies. 

This is ideology. Not practicality. That's how it is in the middle east. 

Israel will be under an enormous threat given a palestinian state.

[Hardkill]

Mearsheimer says that Israel wants a war with Iran in order to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and to have a bigger opportunity to ethnically cleanse Gaza and the West Bank. Also, they know that they would be able to drag the US into such a war with them because the US will always support Israel militarily no matter what.

Yet, if Israel does go to war with Iran then their country's economy and development would be devastated, which would be politically suicidal. 

So, is Israel waiting for some kind of pretext for starting a real war with Iran?

Edited August 30 by Hardkill

[kray]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You mean in biblical times?

But today's Jews are barely related to those people.

Yea European Jews are like 99% European with only a small percentage of Levantine dna 

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Viking said:

Taken from the official updated charter of Hamas, stating its objectives, link to it: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

"Palestine symbolises the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital."

"Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit."

 

If Hamas said they'll lay down arms they lied. If Hezbollah said they'll stop attacking Israel they lied. 

It says this in the document

Quote

However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

So we are supposed to not believe this statement but believe the other one, within the same document?

If this really was Israel’s issue then explain why

1) they purposefully funneled money to Hamas and officials privately admitted they wanted Hamas to win the election & purposefully blockaded Gaza to put the economy on the brink as a putative tool

2) why they continue carving up the West Bank, forget about Hamas and Gaza, why not give the West Bank Palestinians freedom as Hamas has no control there, not only is the PLO not attacking Israel it isn’t even practicing self defense as settlers and IDF constantly kill Palestinians and rarely does anything happen to them 

3 hours ago, Viking said:

To think that it will be more difficult for Iran to recruit palestinians to fight for them if they had a state is naïve at best. If anything, it will most likely once they tasted success raise their motivation to take all of the land from the river to the sea, no matter if they have something to lose or not.

None of them will rest until the entirety of Israel is palestine. They state this over and over again and they act on it. Anything else is lies. 

This is ideology. Not practicality. That's how it is in the middle east. 

Israel will be under an enormous threat given a palestinian state.

The occupation itself creates a threat. Leaving thousands of orphans trapped in Gaza to be recruited & letting settlers steal homes and hunt Palestinians, all while also refusing to give them any future will continue to create anti Israel sentiment. Do you expect them to just decide to roll over and die? That is not naive, that’s playing out before our eyes. 

If a state puts Israel at threat, what does the occupation do? Palestinians don’t have a state and they’ve just suffered the worst attack in their borders in their entire history, a huge amount of international criticism, and certainly motivated extremists to rally against them for decades. 

And what happens if this persists, it will be more of the same. Palestinians stage violently resist, Israel slams down on them, international outcry, extremists use it to recruit, ect. Eventually it will be too much.

Edited August 31 by Raze

[Raze]

Quote

IDF says documents found in Gaza show Hamas was falsifying prominent polling results

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-documents-found-in-gaza-show-hamas-was-falsifying-prominent-polling-results/

Quote

The IDF has recovered Hamas documents from the Gaza Strip that it says prove the terror group has been secretly falsifying the results of polls conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR).

Still, the IDF says that the documents do not prove that PCPSR was cooperating with Hamas, but rather that the terror group was conducting clandestine actions to fraudulently influence the results of the polls.

Quote

An alleged Hamas document released by the IDF shows the results of a PCPSR poll from March 2024, with both the original data and the falsified numbers. The published poll showed 71% of Palestinians supporting the October 7 Hamas attack, while the IDF says the actual data showed support from just 30.7% of respondents.

This is interesting. I’m inclined to believe this because the IDF is strongly claiming it has proof, also this data doesn’t exactly make the operation look better as it means much of the suffering of Gazans isn’t even of Gazans who privately supported Oct 7.

If this is really true I wonder what Hamas’s actual goal is, as the second the war ends even if they remain in power, it’s entirely possible the Gazans will revolt against them if they are this unpopular. 

[hundreth]

20 hours ago, Raze said:

So why aren’t Palestinians reasonable to attack Israel when it is in favor of destroying Palestine? Israel kept 2 million locked in Gaza, settlers and IDF regularly kill and steal land in the West Bank, the Israeli government openly says it is against Palestinians ever having a state. If Israel can attack Palestinians groups that are against Israel’s existence, why can’t Palestinians attack the israel government hostile to theirs?

Israel's objective has never been to destroy Palestinians. They moved towards a two state solution and were rejected. Now Israeli society has shifted to more aggressive motivations. If Palestinians believe this is an existential threat, they can attack the Israel government - not the civilians. That's the major crux of the issue. Hamas doesn't differentiate, they kill whatever they can kill. There isn't a military objective. It's just to kill Jews. 

Quote

Hamas has offered long term cease fires in exchange for a state multiple times. 

https://inkstickmedia.com/israel-rejected-peace-with-hamas-on-five-occasions/

I don't know why you think this matters. Hamas is a terrorist organization whose objective is to destroy Israel. There can never be peace with them. You just won't accept this reality.

Quote

The PLO hasn’t engaged in armed resistance against Israel for decades and said they recognize Israel.

Yet the blockade was still on Gaza, and the West Bank was still being carved up.

Most Muslim countries were no longer funding anti Israeli resistance, Saudi Arabia said and still says it will make a deal with Israel if Palestinians have a state.

Except the continued occupation is worsening the cultural shift 

 

source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512828/palestinians-lack-faith-biden-two-state-solution.aspx

This was an exit poll done on the Gaza election that brought Hamas to power:

https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/478

The PLO is not what you think they are.

Quote

Palestinians like any pretty much any group resort to violence when they have no alternative.

The Palestinians do have alternatives. They can take the billions of aid money they receive and use them to better their lives and develop the areas under their control. That's the tragedy of the situation. If Palestinians valued their people's well being over the destruction of Jews and Israel, they would immediately have better lives and a clear roadmap to peace. Israel and the surrounding nations would be exponentially less afraid of a state who's priorities are on their own well being over destruction.

It's so unfortunate that anti Israel voices have determined that the Palestinian people's path lies solely in the hands of Israel and Jews. That they have no agency. That there are no alternatives but to kill Jews. That everything is 100% Israel's fault. That Hamas is an inevitability. All of this is nonsense. 

And so instead of helping Palestinians help themselves, these Pro Palestinians help them drag Israel through the mud and rationalize terrorist attacks.

[hundreth]

22 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You mean in biblical times?

But today's Jews are barely related to those people.

By what metric? Those biblical Jews were exiled from the region and kept a religious tradition for thousands of years which revolves around Israel. How much more related can you get?

Literally their entire worldview revolves around Israel and maintaining a connection to those biblical tribes, yet now they're "barely related."

[Raze]

On 8/31/2024 at 10:29 AM, hundreth said:

Israel's objective has never been to destroy Palestinians. They moved towards a two state solution and were rejected. Now Israeli society has shifted to more aggressive motivations. If Palestinians believe this is an existential threat, they can attack the Israel government - not the civilians. That's the major crux of the issue. Hamas doesn't differentiate, they kill whatever they can kill. There isn't a military objective. It's just to kill Jews. 

Israel never offered a acceptable two states solution, only two were decent but even the US negotiator admitted if he was Palestinian he wouldn’t accept the first one, and the second one was done by a PM who had no support and was going to prison and had little chance of being put into action.

they’ve also rejected far more offers from the Palestinian.

If Israel’s objective isn’t to destroy the Palestinians, they wouldn’t have separated the palestinians for a generation, kept half trapped inside Gaza and then allowed settlers to constantly steal from and murder the other half. Israel keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison on bogus or sometimes no charges. Smotrich openly calls for Annexing the West Bank. Other Israeli politicians publicly discuss redistributing Gaza’s survivors in different parts of the world. This is all systematic destruction of a society.

Hamas hasn’t attacked Jews outside of Palestine / Israel 

On 8/31/2024 at 10:29 AM, hundreth said:

I don't know why you think this matters. Hamas is a terrorist organization whose objective is to destroy Israel. There can never be peace with them. You just won't accept this reality.

Hamas offered peace multiple times as I linked you.

If that isn’t enough, by that logic there can’t be peace with Israel as the Likud charter has the same demand of never allowing Palestine to exist, but unlike Hamas they are actually doing it.

On 8/31/2024 at 10:29 AM, hundreth said:

The PLO is not what you think they are.

Whatever problems they have, it is nothing compared to Israel. Israel has been told multiple times the settlements are war crimes yet they keep expanding them, the IDF is complicit in letting settlers kill Palestinians by the hundred. They just approved the largest land grab. The PLO isn’t even fighting back anymore. They aren’t the bad guys here.

On 8/31/2024 at 10:29 AM, hundreth said:

The Palestinians do have alternatives. They can take the billions of aid money they receive and use them to better their lives and develop the areas under their control. That's the tragedy of the situation. If Palestinians valued their people's well being over the destruction of Jews and Israel, they would immediately have better lives and a clear roadmap to peace. Israel and the surrounding nations would be exponentially less afraid of a state who's priorities are on their own well being over destruction.

It's so unfortunate that anti Israel voices have determined that the Palestinian people's path lies solely in the hands of Israel and Jews. That they have no agency. That there are no alternatives but to kill Jews. That everything is 100% Israel's fault. That Hamas is an inevitability. All of this is nonsense. 

And so instead of helping Palestinians help themselves, these Pro Palestinians help them drag Israel through the mud and rationalize terrorist attacks.

The aid money isn’t enough to counter the crushing blockade Israel keeps on Gaza, which they have admitted is purposefully designed to keep their economy on the brink.

The Palestinians path to peace does lie solely on Israel because they are the obstacle blocking a two states solution which the entire UN has agreed on. Israel is the one blockading Gazas, Israel is the one expanding settlements in the West Bank.

The UN votes on a two state solution every year, every year Israel and the US reject it. Palestine is destroyed every day, because they do not have rights nor safety every day they don’t have equal rights.

Hamas or groups like it are inevitable because when every peace proposal by Palestinians is rejected, their peaceful protests are responded to with extreme violence, and the occupation gets more and more crushing, some of them are going to resist with violence.
 

Edited September 1 by Raze

[Leo Gura]

22 hours ago, hundreth said:

By what metric? Those biblical Jews were exiled from the region and kept a religious tradition for thousands of years which revolves around Israel. How much more related can you get?

Literally their entire worldview revolves around Israel and maintaining a connection to those biblical tribes, yet now they're "barely related."

What percentage of DNA do modern Jews have with Biblical Jews?

Honest question. I don't know.