I had posted about my desire to leave Gaza,

even though I am innocent and have no guilt for what is happening.

Some people supported me and some sub-humans from the extremists attacked me.

Some of them said I am an Israeli Zionist pretending to be Palestinian,

and some said I am a terrorist and deserve it, and some accused me of celebrating on October 7th seeing humans like me being killed.

In any case, I will forgive everyone for the insults.

Today I will talk to you about one of my sufferings in gaza that perhaps for some is nothing.

At the beginning of the war and after being displaced from house to house, we were confused, we didn't know where to go, the bombing was everywhere.

We were asked to evacuate, everyone who is in the north of Wadi Gaza to the south of Wadi Gaza.

And on the day we were asked to evacuate, and after exactly fifteen minutes, we had complied with the orders of the Israeli army because we know it is war (genocide) and nothing should be underestimated.

The Hamas leadership at that time was urging people not to comply with the orders of the Israeli army and we understood that they wanted us as human shields, so we didn't care about them and only cared about surviving.

We didn't know anyone in the south and we were afraid.

So we went to one of the schools, we found all places full and we found only a place under the school stairs, we were 17 people in a tight place only 1 meter high.

And the place was not enough for all of us to sleep in, so we took turns sleeping.

The biggest problem was the bathroom. The school bathroom was very dirty, I could never use it, so I decided to refrain from eating so as not to use the bathroom, and as for urinating, I would look for any alley and urinate.

I thought it would take a day or two like this then we would return to our homes, and I refrained from eating food and that situation continued for a month and I did not defecate and every day I ate only one bite.

I feared for myself then and decided to knock on the door of one of the neighbors to ask them to let me use the bathroom, and this is what everyone around me was doing, especially women, as the neighbors were sympathetic to women, but we men had to be more patient and endure.

I knocked on the door of neighbors, it was an old lady, I asked her to use the bathroom and she said, come in.

And after a month this was the first time I used the bathroom.

And I had gotten constipated which made me cry in the bathroom.

And it continued with me for another month, I am by nature shy to ask to enter a house to use their bathroom, and this situation continued with me, suffering for 9 months eating one bite a day so as not to defecate except once a month.

It was very difficult and harsher than death, I was craving death at that time.

This is a small part of the suffering I went through.

Believe me I don't deserve this.

I am not biased to any side.

I did not celebrate on October 7th.

And I did not participate in that tragedy.

I have not harmed anyone and I do not accept seeing someone harm another person.

Please, if you have any doubt that Israel and Hamas are both involved in the blood of innocents, then do not comment on my post

Im sure everyone here who doesnt live under a rock sees what is happening right now in europe and espiecly in france and belgium . If there is something common in all of those events besided the barbarity of the looting , pillaging and assults , is the palestine flag . The behviour in those protests also mirrors most of the pro palestinian " protests " we saw in the us and espiecly in campuses all across the west. Benjamin netanyauh ( wich i dont like before all you pro pally folks jump into accustions of me being a bibi stan ) famously told macronn that if israel doesnt stop hamas in gaza , they would see them in paris . Its within my opinion that pro palestinianism and the rest of the omnicauses we see the global left preach are just a trojan horse , used by the wests enemies like russia ( who coincedently when their data centers went off , pro palestinian content dropped by 70%) and iran to make us weak . We as the west imported the orcs into the shire , millions of undocumnted islamists . and now we see destruction in places like paris and nice , that we didnt even see inder the nazi occuption of paris . We see landmarks , churches and synagouges ( notice no mousqes went blazing ) burning to the ground . I want to hear your opinion on those coincidences , thanks for reading this

I’m interested in understanding how Hamas recruits people in Gaza, particularly what motivates someone to join its armed wing rather than simply support it politically.
I realize Hamas is not a single, uniform organization. It has political, social, and armed components, and I imagine someone’s reasons for supporting its political activities might differ from their reasons for joining the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. I’m hoping to understand those distinctions rather than treat everyone associated with Hamas as having the same motives.
One question I keep coming back to is the role of violence in recruitment. If someone loses a parent, sibling, child, or home during an Israeli military operation, does that experience make them more likely to seek out Hamas? Or is that assumption too simplistic? Grief and anger might motivate some people, but presumably others respond by rejecting armed groups or wanting to avoid further violence. I’m curious whether researchers have studied this specifically in Gaza.
I’m also interested in other possible factors: religious or nationalist ideology, family connections, friendships, social status, economic hardship, pressure from other people, and the desire for protection or belonging. Is joining generally a deliberate choice, or are there credible reports of coercion? How have these dynamics changed across different periods of the conflict?
Another distinction I think matters is between popular support for Hamas, voting for it, working in institutions it controls, and actively participating in its armed operations. These are not interchangeable categories, and I’d appreciate answers that keep them separate.
I’d especially like to hear from people familiar with research on armed-group recruitment, Palestinian society, or firsthand testimony. If you have studies, interviews, or reporting that address these questions, please share them. I’m interested in understanding the evidence, including findings that challenge the idea that military violence necessarily increases recruitment.
To be clear, asking why people join an armed organization is not the same as excusing attacks on civilians. I want to understand the processes that drive recruitment, whether those processes can be interrupted, and what the available evidence actually shows. I’d appreciate thoughtful responses from multiple perspectives rather than slogans or assumptions about what all Gazans believe.

I'm a Leftist and most of my affiliates are very Pro Palestine.

I'm not saying I'm very Pro-Israel, in fact my tune is souring on them the longer this conflict drags on; However, I will admit this is a very large aspect of the West's (Left's) hate on Israel. It seems as though a lot of the left's perception of white people is that they are always the oppressor and will forever be tied to that label. Obviously, I do not believe that's true; anyone can be the oppressed or the oppressor both systemically and organically.

When you actually look at the demographics of the state of Israel depending on the source 50-70% of the country are Mizrahi Jews. Mizrahi Jews (If I'm getting my facts right [in which case if I'm not please let me know]) are Jews that are of Arab decent, so I think it'd be kinda weird to call them white under the US's context of what constitutes as white. Sephardic Jews are Jews that descend from around the Mediterranean regions of the world; This can be white countries like Italy, Spain, Greece, etc. or I guess it could be like Ethiopian and Egyptian Jews (But pretty sure those would classify more as Mizrahi by both the West and Israel's definition.....But again.....Prove me wrong). Ashkenazi's are Jews from the Northern ends of Europe like Germany, England, and the Slavic countries.

With all that; The vast majority Jews in the west are of Ashkenazi ancestry. They are either considered white or white passing by people on both sides of the political spectrum with both their actual phenotypic traits (blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin, freckles, etc) but also because they are close religiously to Christianity (At least closer than Muslims).

I’d be willing to bet this has been said before, but on the chance that it hasn’t I figured I should say it, or at least say it again for those who don’t know.

In short, if in an Antizionist statement you replace the word Zionist or Israel with Jew or world Jewry and the statement turns into something that is bar for bar a classic antisemitic statement then it's probably just antisemitism.

For example: “Zionists control the world's media” (something I’ve heard someone say before)
Turns into “Jews control the world's media” this makes the above statement not a criticism of Zionism but Antisemitism (conscious or otherwise) masquerading as a critique of Israel or Zionism. 

Alright because this probably isn’t enough of an explanation for some let me do so:

For starters I should first establish that Antisemites have been using the word Zionist for Jews as a way to cover for their Antisemitism for a long time. When David Duke popularized the term Zios it probably wasn’t because of the KKKs grand wizards affection towards the Palestinians but his hatred of Jewish people. When the ANP (American Nazi Party) sets out its program to execute all Jews found guilty of Zionist plots, it isn’t a concerned citizen of the US, it's a Neo Nazi expressing their hatred towards Jewish people.

Now someone might be quick to point out that the ANP and the KKK are things of the past and have no bearing on what is going on in modern times. To evidence of modern supremacists working to infiltrate their bigoted language into the mainstream I would point to the proliferation of the term “Slop”. For those not in the know the popularization of the term slop in current slang stems from its use of 4Chan, where the term was Goyslop. The term meant a piece of media or food that was made horrible on purpose by Jews so it could be fed to the “Goys” Non-Jews.

So yes antisemites do try and infiltrate the mainstream and do try and change their language so it goes unnoticed. So is it so far-fetched that antisemites would try to infiltrate Antizionist movements with their antisemitism by swapping the word Jew with Zionist? 
_______________________________________________
End of my argument but I’m just going to get some answers to rebuttals that I think are going to be common.

“But you can replace any word with X group of people and it would sound bigoted”: Yes but Zionism is specifically a Jewish movement, so Jewish people do have a relevance here. That and antisemitic tropes are very specific to the point that I doubt it is just a coincidence if an Antizionist statement sounds the same as a antisemitic trope if you swap the words.

“But Antisemitism means hatred of semites not just Jews”: A term created by a German race scientist to justify his hatred of Jews as being on the grounds of language as opposed to religion. It is a term that has always meant hatred towards Jewish people. It is an imperfect word but it's the one that we have, and to say that it means something other than its definition on the basis of its roots is an etymological fallacy.

Something that has been on my mind recently is if Mahmoud Abbas accepted the plan proposed by Ehud Olmert, like how would that shape politics in the Middle East today and how would the relations between Israel and Palestine be? Somewhat still tense or resolved? Please let me know and thank you

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/10/18/world/trump-netanyahu-elections-relations-intl

Trump called Netanyahu a Great Warrior Prime Minister in a post on social media, which he said serves as his Complete and Total Endorsement of Bibi Netanyahu.

Talk about electoral foreign intervention. How big of a deal is Trump endorsement in the eyes of Israeli voters ? Considering Trump's popularity in Israel, will it help Netanyahu in the upcoming expected tight election race ?

Early this year, Trump also endorsed Viktor Orban saying he is a true friend, fighter and WINNER, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/04/10/8029590/index.amp Despite Trump's endorsement, Viktor Orban was defeated after 16 years in power.

Why would Trump want to endorse Netanyahu ? Netanyahu is so difficult to work with and such a sly fox. Does Trump really want to re-start war with Iran and finish the job ? Netanyahu vowed for complete elimination of the Iranian threat to Israel, the United States and the wider world. The only way that you can deal with it is basically to get rid of this regime (overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran regime) . I hope they have a better plan for securing with the Hormuz Strait and Bab al-Mandab Strait this time. Can it really be completed within the remainder two years of Trump's term ?

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202610185731

If Trump wants to restart war with Iran, will Netanyahu be the best choice ? Despites all his short-coming, wanted by ICC, refusing to take responsibility to prevent the Oct 7th attack, critics call him a warmonger.

Personally, I really hate Ben-Gvir, what he utters out of his mouth is so vile. Ben-Gvir says he thinks Netanyahu will backstab him and will exclude him from the next government.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-gvir-says-netanyahu-pledged-to-exclude-him-from-next-government-as-election-nears/amp/ Netanyahu denies it. I dont know who is speaking the truth,... Netanyahu is quite infamous for back stabbing and untrustworthy in Israeli politics, a very shrewd politician. It's not wrong for Ben-Gvir to be on his guard against Netanyahu.

I am a Jewish teen and genuinely want to understand this viewpoint, because I know a lot of what I have learned has been biased and skewed a certain way. I ask this with genuinely no malicious intent— I am trying to deconstruct what I have been taught, and I have had a hard time navigating this myself. I was hoping I could get some insight from those that understand these topics. I’ve had no control over what I have been taught, and I am trying to change that.

Why is what Israel is doing considered worse than what early colonizers in America did? From what I have seen, it is generally the same thing. I obviously do not support colonization, and recognize the immense harm that has come from both situations (the one in America and the one in the Middle East.) But from what I’ve seen, the two cases seem like textbook definition of the same. Both used more advanced technology to attack the other side, pushed them into an area that was designated for their community, etc and other things that are basically following the same patterns.

I have seen others make this argument, and they are immediately shot down by just being called a colonization apologist without any actual explanation.

I can’t understand why it’s fair for Israelis (especially those that were born in Israel and didn’t make the choice to move there) to receive so much hate by descendants of Americans colonizers who did the exact same thing. I am not trying to be intentionally dense here, i really don’t understand the difference.

People have told me that their first thought when I tell them I’m Jewish is that I am a Zionist, but when i tell people i am American their first thought isn’t that i support the genocide that happened to the native Americans. I don’t support Israel at all, but why does this make all Israelis bad people? There are people in America that don’t support trump’s presidency just as there are Israelis that don’t support Netanyahu, so why is one different than the other?

Would anyone be willing to explain this to me please? I appreciate it !!!!

People keep saying that the Palestinians should just surrender. That raises the question: under what conditions should they surrender? Should they surrender to the conditions in Areas B and C, where settlers engage in terrorism backed directly by the IDF, amounting to state-sanctioned terrorism? Then there are the permit system, police behavior, judicial system where it's civillian for Israeli's and Miliary for Palestinians which extremely different conviction rates and ability to access evidence for accused individuals, and Knesset, all of which are blatantly anti-Palestinian.

If the conditions in the West Bank were normal and law and order existed, with settlers being arrested and sent to prison for trespassing, property damage, and theft, then I would fully agree that Gaza should surrender so that its people could live in peace. Then a peace deal could be signed that gave the Palestinians full sovereignty (minus a military), and for the people who want to know what topics full sovereignty means is: electro magnetic spectrum, ability to issue their own currency, control of own borders (land, air and sea), able to control who is on their land (as in no settlers or IDF without permission), in control of their own water.

However, since the conditions in Areas B and C are intentionally made horrible by Israel, those are not the conditions under which peace can take place. So why would people surrender? Just to have minimally better conditions that are still tyrannical?

People usually bring up the argument that Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally. First, those countries launched unprovoked attacks against several other countries, carried out brutal occupations, and were determined to achieve world domination. Palestinians, on the other hand, are resisting occupation and blockade, which are drastically different circumstances.

Also, after the war, Germany and Japan were rebuilt and went on to develop thriving economies. I've looked into Israel's economic actions over the decades, and it has consistently targeted the Palestinian economy through blockades, permit requirements, the destruction of agriculture, restrictions on dual-use goods, and limits on exports, which are allowed to go only to the West Bank and Israel. That's not going to create a self sufficient economy. Working labor jobs in Israel isn't a self sufficient economy either.

Based on this history, it doesn't seem likely that Gaza will be rebuilt in a way that allows it to develop a thriving economy that will create conditions for peace. Which then starts getting into the topic of income disparity/poverty and it's correlations with crime/terrorism. We see that concept happening through time and in various countries. We see in 1st world nations that ghetto areas have high crime. Thus if I was Israel, I would want the Palestinians thriving, so they want to work their jobs and live normal lives. Instead Hamas is able to do easy recruiting pitches that all their economic problems are due to Israel.

Israel has full control of 50% of the West Bank. 500,000 Jewish settlers live there, among 150,000 native Palestinians. Settlements continue to be established and expanded. Palestinian land continues to be seized to build Israeli-only settlements. Arabs can rarely get building permits, face daily terrorism from Jews. So what's the endgame for Zionists here? Annex Area C and make Area B & A permanent Arab autonomous reservations? Keep the status quo?

In the past year since I started down this rabbit hole, I've come to realize something. And of all the things that I can say with absolute certainty, it's this. We know too little about what's going on, and that's terrifying. It keeps myself and others under constant stress, makes us tug at our hair, knocks us into bouts of existentialism and depression. And when we look around, we see constant chaos. How did we even get here?

A few weeks after Hamas' attack on October 7th, Israel, led by the Netanyahu administration at the time I'm writing this, officially declared war on Gaza. Since then, many people have died, families have been ripped apart, and homes destroyed. These are things that we can verify. And yet whenever I see a news article covering this war, which has gotten unbearable as of late, I notice the same pattern: all of the information is second-hand.

On the news, from respected organizations, and even from our own leaders, we're only getting an account they've heard from someone or someplace else. Coverage? We have very little, even from sources within the area. The only footage we've seen is in brief clips shown on the news or social media. The death count? Impossible to verify. Reporters, even those from Israel, can't access Gaza to verify that those numbers are true. The numbers are often from outside observers, and more often than not, cite the numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry. The Ministry, which is run by Hamas, a designated terrorist group who would benefit greatly from spreading misinformation.

To make matters worse, more and more kids and young adults are getting their information from social media. Like a campfire story, one person tells it to their fellow campers, then they tell the story to others, and on and on until the story's nothing like how it started. It's everywhere. On this site, on YouTube, Twitter, Blue Sky, and most of all, on TikTok, the story has spread far and wide. Each account is drastically different. But these sources have the exact same problem: they're second-hand sources.

So in the end, what are we left with? Even with bias taken into consideration, what true evidence do we have? Nothing. We have nothing, and yet so many people are circulating this like it's the Big Bang Theory. And this deeply terrifies me.

It terrifies me — and I know it terrifies other people on here too — because everywhere I look, I see turmoil. I see a war in our own cultures. Everyone is divided, everyone has fully bought into one version of the story or another, spewing vitriol. Friends have been torn apart and prejudice has skyrocketed, especially antisemitism.

Just last year, a father and son (Sajid and Naveed Akram) gunned down over a dozen people at Bondi Beach and attempted to bomb the rest… on Hannukah. In my home country — I'm from the US — a pair at the Israeli Embassy were brutally murdered by a guy who, when he was arrested, shouted "Free Palestine!" to the top of his lungs.

On the opposite side, I've seen some people talk about Gazan civilians in the same way. Some even go as far as to suggest "carpet bombing" (i.e. bombing Gaza to oblivion) or dumping toxic waste there to make it unlivable. I get that Hamas has a foothold there and anti-Israel and antisemitic ideology is prominent there, but does it have to resort to talking about civilians like that?

This is the reality we live in currently. This deep, burning hatred has penetrated so deeply, turned us against each other. And along with other factors including Iran's blocking the Strait of Hormuz (and the Houthis' blocking of the Red Sea) which threaten economies worldwide, and for Israel, a woefully incompetent government that ignored a vicious attack looming over the horizon, it's because of our lack of solid information. And I fear without solid information and our current inability to get it, this will likely continue with devastating consequences.

The sole reason the Palestinian cause has captivated the far left is undoubtedly that it appears to fit their narrative.  A system of white power, Jewish Israelis, characterized as a western colonial entity, is systematically oppressing brown Arab Muslims, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Despite the obvious inaccuracy and drastic oversimplification of this hasty generalization, the attitudes toward the war in Gaza produced by this mindset follow in its path of coloring the gray area as merely black and white. More importantly, we should look at why this is true. The pro-Palestine left, when they hold a mirror up, see a marauding force of peace-seeking, anti-oppression, anti-genocide activists, who will fight until their last breath to “Free Palestine” from the horrible reality it faces, which they see as Israeli-orchestrated. While perhaps noble that this crowd should so vehemently believe in justice, it is my contention that they are wholly misinformed, and have molded a complex issue into a new shape designed to elevate themselves to the moral high ground over those who endorse more pro-Israel, Zionist beliefs. 

While normally one might want to write a post on a topic like this with a broader context to lead in to the main arguments, I’m of the opinion that it is more quintessential to address what presses us the most - the war in Gaza, and the accusations the Israeli military and leadership have faced of war crimes. I should clarify that I don’t think the war should have stretched as long as it did, and I do honestly believe that part of a reason for the many months it continued to endure was Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to stay in power as the head of the emergency government. Additionally, I think military strategy in Gaza was probably flawed in some cases, and that it certainly could have been handled better so as to avoid so much destruction - for instance, former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennet’s proposal that Gaza be divided, and Hamas isolated into certain zones, in order to “smoke out” Hamas fighters rather than tear through an entire territory, and leave so much devastation in Israel’s wake. Nevertheless, for some obnoxious white teenager to preach “well, I don’t think it’s so controversial to say that I don’t want innocent people to be killed” to justify being anti-Israel in regard to the war is completely inappropriate and logically flawed.

My arguments for my claim go as follows:

1. Why only Israel? A thought experiment works well to demonstrate this. I would like you to imagine that a gang of Mexicans crossed into Texas. They ravage border towns, killing over 1000 people, and take hundreds more back into Mexico, holding them hostage. Please honestly consider what America, under any administration, would do. There is not the slightest shred of doubt in my mind, or yours, that there would be HELL. It would be all out war on Mexico. I don't think I need to describe the gruesome scenes that would follow. Moreover, hardly anybody would decry this. And to think to accuse America of genocide? That wouldn't cross a singular mind. But Israel is somehow expected to tolerate something just like this. Why? Can any Palestine supporter seriously answer why?

Common Refutation: Israel's response to October 7th was disproportionate, and that's why it's wrong. Some military action, if lesser, would've been appropriate.

Rebuttal: Most people argue this on the basis of casualties. To me, that's intellectual disingenuous. International Humanitarian Law, Proportionality in Attack (Rule 14):

"Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited."

Notice the bolded text - not excessive in relation to opposing casualties, but to the military advantage. Therefore, appealing to the authority of international humanitarian law, if Israel strikes a school where 10 Hamas leaders are staying and there is an armory full of rockets, and 20 civilians die, one could argue that isn't actually disproportionate. Somehow that's a hard pill to swallow for people who refuse to condemn terrorists who mutilated women's genitals and raped them before slaughtering them like animals in their own home.

Additionally, Israel's sole objective wasn't retaliation. For instance, Israel could not have reasonably ended the war before all the hostages were out. Thus, it had to put pressure on Hamas for a deal, and that isn't going to come from a small skirmish. Of course, Israel probably felt it necessary to do all they could to more or less dismantle Hamas' military capabilities.

I think Palestine supporters know all this. They turn a blind eye so they can feel like their Martin Luther King, when it just is not at all that simple.

1. Sort of as a derivative of the first point, you cannot call yourself a moral person while asking for accountability from a military that drops pamphlets and calls phones hours before a strike, while demanding no such accountability from the leaders of Gaza (Hamas) who call their family members in pride, sharing pictures on WhatsApp, after massacring families in the streets. This isn't a strawman argument - I can name a plethora of examples:

Cornel West in a CNN interview refusing to condemn October 7th (https://ktvz.com/politics/cnn-us-politics/2024/04/12/cornel-west-and-running-mate-melina-abdullah-refuse-to-condemn-hamas-actions-in-first-joint-tv-interview-2/)

Columbia University Apartheid Divest affirms support for Palestinian liberation through armed resistance (https://senate.columbia.edu/sites/senate.columbia.edu/files/content/Reports_2024-25/The%20Sundial%20Report_3.31.2025.FINAL_.pdf)

check out this website (https://www.palestine-saintjohn.ca/faqs) - do you see a single time where they condemn Hamas?

Again, it's selective outrage. It isn't hard to see that Hamas is just as much an enemy of the Palestinian people as Israel will ever be. But that doesn't fit the pro palestine narrative, so they'll never mention it.

Common Refutation: The Gazan/Palestinian people have been repeatedly persecuted by Israel, and they were at a breaking point. The Norman Finkelstein slave rebellion comparison argument.

Rebuttal: The very basis of this argument is just completely flawed, even if you do see Israeli policies in Gaza before the war as unjust. It just cannot follow from that, through any sort of sound logic, that October 7th is then justified. Explanation is not the same as justification - confusing the two is an extremely clear example of lacking any sort of moral compass. If historical suffering can justify atrocities against civilians, then almost any group with a sufficiently traumatic history could invoke its victimization to excuse otherwise indefensible violence.

In summary, true morality means applying what you believe to be moral principles to all. Doing that means what you believe isn't performative, it isn't to play to some sort of agenda or feel good about yourself, it is about honestly pursuing justice.

That's my proposed solution to the conflict.

Like I do believe that what Israel is doing in Gaza may quite likely meet the official definition of genocide. Even if it doesn't it's still absolutely horrendous how Israel is slaughtering civilians en masse, systematically starving the population, targeting hospitals and schools, or murdering journalists and medics.

And let's not even get started with the brutal apartheid system Israel has imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank.

Israel's actions are grotesque and despicable without a doubt.

I also think that Israel essentially in many ways created the conditions that led to the emergence of Hamas after oppressing the people of Gaza for decades and keeping their economy in a severe stranglehold. And Netanyahu even facilitated the funding of Hamas in order to eventually justify a brutal all-out war of destruction, that he could have never justified on the world stage against a more secular Palestinian nationalist movement.

All that being said though, Hamas are a brutal Islamic terrorist group who should be condemned and who are making things only worse. And the October 7 terrorist attack where they murdered teenagers at a music festival was absolutely despicable.

There isn't any possible sustainable long-term solution to the conflict with Hamas in charge. And the control that Hamas has over the Gazan education system and media, which promotes a never-ending cycle of religious martyrdom has to be addressed.

As critical as I am of Israel Hamas' vision of an Islamic one-state solution is absurd. A two-state solution is the only possible hope, as both sides are just so radically at odds with one another that a one-state solution could never work, let alone an Islamic one-state solution envisioned by Hamas.

So Hamas needs to go. At the same time though it's clear that Gazans would never accept governance by Israel. Which is why I propose something that would be more acceptable to Gazans, which is temporary governance by a coalition of trustworthy Arab nations. Those Arab nations are to shape laws and educational curriculums in line with the culture and religious beliefs of the people of Gaza, while simultaneously working to eradicate religious extremism and the culture of martyrdom that Hamas has worked so hard to create.

A coalition of countries like the UAE, Egypt or Jordan would come to mind. Those countries are fairly neutral towards Israel but are also known to take counter-terrorism seriously and have worked hard to combat extremism in their education system. Let them negotiate a peaceful transfer of power with Hamas in order to establish a temporary government of Gaza with the aim of handing governance over to the locals after de-radicalization efforts have been achieved.

Now with regards to Israel it's clear that the IDF is essentially a terrorist organization as well. I've already mentioned many of the reasons above. Of course the pro-Israel crowd will never accept that. But any reasonable person knows that the IDF is clearly not "the most moral army on earth" or whatever nonsense they want us to believe. They keep committing grotesque war crimes and on top of that are actively aiding and abetting civilian settler terrorists in the West Bank.

Which is why I propose that a coalition of fairly neutral countries do a thorough audit of the IDF, and that the findings will be published for the entire world to see what war crimes have occurred and the names of IDF soldiers and commanders who have committed those crimes. All those involved should be discharged from the IDF and criminally charged. There should also be a transitional period where this coalition of countries will extensively work with the Israeli authorities to transform the IDF from a terrorist organization into an actual national defense force, whereby the entire leadership and vision of the IDF will be re-shaped from the ground up in order to comply with international law and basic morality.

Israel is of course to also withdraw entirely from the West Bank and from Gaza and allow the Palestinians there to have true political autonomy that would allow for a sustainable two-state solution. All Israeli settlers are to be relocated back to Israel proper. And ideally there should be some reparation payments in combination with international aid if that can be successfully negotiated to allow for the rebuilding of Palestinian society after decades upon decades of destruction and oppression by Israel.

So again, Hamas needs to go. But the IDF also has to be entirely reshaped as they are also currently nothing more than a state-funded terrorist organization.

If we can achieve that, have Hamas hand over governance of Gaza to a coalition of neutral Arab countries for a transitional period, have Israel withdraw from the West Bank, and transform the IDF from a terrorist organization into an actual national defense force that respects international law, then hopefully there can be sustainable peace in the region.

This is my second post in what will probably become a series of posts where I compile information and resources about the conflict. In my first post of this series, I made a comprehensive list of NGOs working to foster peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.

For this post, I made a table of all UN member states and non-member states and their positions on the recognition status of Israel-Palestine. This table simply shows whether Israel and/or Palestine is recognized. Not whether diplomatic relations have been established. For that extra information and maps laying out this information, check out the sources used for this list here:

International recognition of Israel

International recognition of Palestine

I made this table because I couldn’t find a single table that listed this information regarding recognition side by side, and I thought it would be interesting to visualize it this way. Anyway, I’ll get to the data sets I compiled now.

Recognition of Israel and Palestine by UN Member States

Recognition of Israel and Palestine by non-UN Member States

Recognition Between Israel and Palestine

I know this last part may be controversial, so I’ll explain the distinction. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the umbrella organization representing Palestinians internationally, formally recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security in 1993 during the Oslo peace process. Israel reciprocated by recognizing the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, rather than recognizing a Palestinian state.

However, in 2018, the Palestinian Central Council adopted a decision to suspend recognition of Israel. The council reaffirmed this position in 2022.

Let me know if I made any errors in the table or if you suggest any changes, additions, or removals. I want to make this as accurate as possible.

I was always an active member of this community until the ceasefire last year. But when the Instagram posts came out about Fauda Season 5, I decided to come back to this political topic. I had never heard of this show before so I started with season 1 and liked how every season shows the emotional view of both sides without making it look like the other side are pure villains. The fact that they show how both sides contribute to the cycle of violence made me want to keep going because I would not have watched this show if it was just a one-sided narrative. So eventually I came across episodes 7 and 8 of season 5 and boy did it hit hard. Particularly the plot of Hagit and her kids. I had to hold my breath for every second I spent watching her trying to shelter and keep her kids safe. And then the last scene comes where Hagit willingly allows herself to be violated to protect her underage daughter only to witness a Hamas terrorist shoot both her kids before getting r**ed anyway. I know that acts of sexual violence happened on October 7th but watching this plot really did something to me. I started tearing up and knew that I had to look away from the screen especially when Eli came home to discover what happened. For every person who suffered the loss of a family member on that horrific day or faced acts of brutality committed against them, my heart goes out to you and I hope you find comfort in God always. To those barbaric Hamas dogs, I sincerely hope you get the karma for everything you did on that day.

❤️ to 🇮🇱 from 🇮🇳. We're with you always!

First, a Washington Post journalist gets attacked, and now this.

By Israel's logic, shouldn't the settlers be deemed terrorists? Why is the Israeli public supporting this kind of behaviour if they condemn the actions of Hamas? The Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to these kinds of attacks every day. Don't they have the right to self-defence against terrorist attacks, just as the Israelis have the right to self-defence against them?

Critics of Israel have portrayed NAZA as a Snowden-like whistleblowing moment for Israel. However, this comparison is fundamentally inaccurate. Edward Snowden leaked a massive collection of classified U.S. intelligence documents that exposed controversial government programs. The credibility of his revelations rested on authentic, previously classified documents that could be independently examined and verified. NAZA, by contrast, relies exclusively on anonymous testimony and secondary journalistic reporting rather than comparable, independently verifiable primary evidence. Unlike Snowden’s disclosures, which were substantiated by extensive primary-source evidence, NAZA provides no independently verifiable evidence to support its allegations.

Critics of Israel who routinely dismiss statements from the Israeli government and its defense personnel suddenly treat the claims of former IDF personnel who challenge the broader military consensus as unquestionable truth, even in the absence of independently verifiable evidence, as demonstrated by their response to the film NAZA. Yet these same critics dismiss the IDF’s official response to NAZA, which rejects the film’s central allegations, as well as the counter-film Naza: The Real Story. Certainly, these responses align with the Israel’s position, and they too rely on testimony and allegations rather than independently verifiable primary evidence or declassified government documents. However, the same evidentiary limitations apply to NAZA itself. If anonymous testimony and uncorroborated allegations are sufficient grounds for accepting one account as credible, why should an opposing account be dismissed simply because it supports the official Israeli position? The standard of evidence should remain consistent, regardless of whether the allegations support or contradict the narrative.

Under this selective standard of credibility, former Israeli officials become reliable sources precisely when their claims contradict the establishment. If challenging the broader government consensus is what makes a former official credible. We must look beyond NAZA to uncover the full truth, one that humanity may not yet be ready to hear. Haim Eshed, the former head of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s Space Division, a position he held for nearly three decades, revealed that extraterrestrial civilizations not only exist but have been secretly communicating with Israel for years. This was not some anonymous individual making extraordinary allegations, but a highly decorated former senior Israeli defense official who had spent decades overseeing Israel’s military space program. According to Eshed, a clandestine Galactic Federation has established contact with humanity, entered into agreements with representatives from Earth, and even maintains a secret underground base on Mars where human astronauts and extraterrestrial representatives cooperate. He further alleged that humanity has not been told the truth, because humanity was not yet prepared for such a revelation. These extraordinary disclosures come directly from a former head of an Israeli Defense Ministry division whose claims challenge the established consensus. Surely, by the same standards applied to NAZA, his testimony must be treated as equally credible. After all, who are we to question the former head of Israel’s Defense Ministry Space Division going against Israel’s general consensus simply because his allegations lack independently verifiable evidence?

First to clarify if you use or have used chicken for KFC in these discussions I genuinely believe you are hypocrite because you’d never tell progressives or liberals in your society to not care about your or your family’s or friends or community’s wellbeing if they thought you were transphobic. And if pushed I know 99.999 % of the time I’ll be able to get someone making this point to admit to wanting to strip some legal rights for trans people at the very least.

Now for the problem with queers for Palestine.

Or I’d like to say queers against Israel because often these people don’t give a damn about Palestinians as any more than proxies for their bigger grievances with western society in general;

They often choose the most progressive-liberal faucets of society and demand all queer activism be geared towards hating Israel.

A legitimately pro queer rights politician shouldn’t be allowed at a pride event if they’re suitably anti Israel.

If a parade didn’t make hating and condemning Israel apart of their platform they might as well have hung a Palestinian child on a float and pelted rotten fruits at their body.

And to those who’d excuse such actions with “well protest isn’t supposed to be uncontroversial or not annoying” I agree that a protest should be annoying and attention grabbing. But it’s stupid to use attacking potential allies to do just that.

And I know well if protesters decided to stage a mass disruption at a pro Palestinian rally many people would go ballistic.

Indeed pro Palestinian rallies and parades can have the homophobic pieces of stuff be their speakers at their parades and rallies because of their views on Israel-Palestine.

I’m asking because in Gasa, it’s pretty clear we disagree on the IDF’s intents. To the contrary, Im not aware of any fact based disagreements we have. We tend to agree on the settlements and their purpose, and what the actual treatment of Palestinians is, but rather we disagree on the morality of it.

I do also think Zionists take the PR around the WB more seriously because it appears to have harmed Israel’s reputation more than Gaza, though they see it as a far more uphill battle.

A lot of Zionist opinion policies, especially those who are Christian, will say things like, “we need to protect Israel’s reputation abroad because the safety of Jews depends on it.”

This is a bit of a Trojan horse argument in say. Firstly, it presupposes that anti Israel people are not only inherently antisemitic, but also likelier to harm Jews. This is silly because if one is unintelligent enough to proscribe a foreign nation’s actions to Western Jews, they were likely to harm them regardless. Public opinion of Israel has barely anything to do with it.

Secondly, Zionists presuppose that the best way to stop this is to compel people to agree with Israel. Now, if Zionists stopped at defending Israel, this would make sense. They’d be wrong but it would make sense. But they, especially Christian Zionists, actually compel, or attempt to compel, anti Zionists into agreement.

Regardless of your beliefs on Zionism or anti Zionism, compelling people to believe any argument doesn’t protect anybody anywhere. It just increases overall anger. A multitude of opinions is a part of most Western societies, and any effort it take that away will only increase hatred against those trying to take it.

Point being, don’t bring diaspora Jews into this. The anti Zionist movement does not hate diaspora Jews or any Jews. We are anti Zionist, not anti Jew, be it Israeli nor non Israeli Jew.

If anything, it’s an example of Zionists recycling tropes. They assume 1SS advocacy must mean hatred of Israeli Jews, because in their minds they falsely equivocate the two, and likewise Western anti Zionism is equivocated with hatred of diaspora Jews. It’s all baseless whichever way this logic is applied.

The irony with Zionists is random Westerners are held to a much, much higher standard than MENA nations.

The standard for MENA nations is essentially don’t attack Israel. It applies to nations that have attacked it in the past and made peace and those that never have. MENA nations can put anything about Israel on their radios that they wish to about Israel, but as long as they don’t attack both Israel and any other MENA nation are good.

With the Westerner civilian, Israel and Zionists essentially becomes much more sensitive and much more easy to essentially ragebait.

Isreal and Zionists react to the slightest accusations against it in a very strong manner. Of course, they have free speech just as we do, but it’s interesting to see how such a minority of civilians in a different continent accusing it of genocide or apartheid gets such a massive response.

This hurts it in two ways.

Firstly, like we’ve discussed before, one such a massive entity as Israel gets mad at genocide and apartheid accusations, they only look guiltier of both. Israel is obviously much more powerful than a minority of Western civilians in any Western country you pick. Logically, you’d think Israel should ignore both of these accusations, and when they don’t it raises valid questions as to why.

Secondly, Israel claims to be “pro free speech,” but if it were, it would make sense to start abroad first. Sure, one can be pro free speech and disagree with accusations on Israel, that is fine, but once one is accusing people of directly harming Israel and/or the West with their speech, they are no longer pro free speech.

And it should go without saying that if one supports actual limitations of speech against Israel, especially outside of Israel, then they are really, really against free speech.

But the dichotomy between the standard actual established MENA nations are held to and that of random pro Palestinians are held to is pretty funny.

MENA nation doesn’t attack Israel but has tons of verbal criticism = they have learnt the benefits of peace

Random Westerner doesn’t attack Israel but has even a tenth of the criticism = they are actually against peace. They are also actually pro Hamas too as a bonus. Also, the full fury of Zionist anger, and possibly the anger of Israel itself, must be delivered to them.

But anyways, Israel should respect criticism abroad instead of being defensive and rage baited over it.

Of course, they should respect criticism inside its borders too, but their treatment of the NAZA filmmakers shows they are miles away from that. They can start with outside Israel first.

And the comparison to MENA shows it is indeed a choice, just one they choose not to make.

Hey!

I see now that Palestine problems are spreading across the world.
Their people are committing terrorism acts around the globe, especially in Europe, they're bombing the Israel and only cause bad things.

So I have a question: Why such powerful countries such as USA and Israeli won't just mass wipe them out ? I think given the difference in weapons they don't even need nuclear weapon for that. IF they do that - world will become a better place.

What's stopping them ?

disclamer: IDGS about moral

What I've noticed is that a lot of Gen Z seem to support Palestine because of the way they experience the conflict through social media. They are constantly exposed to videos and images of suffering in Gaza and the West Bank, often without the wider historical context, which naturally creates a strong emotional reaction and can make Israel appear to be the sole aggressor.

Many younger people have learned about issues like occupation, settlements, displacement and Palestinian suffering, but some have had less exposure to the history of antisemitism, Jewish persecution, Israel's security concerns and the decades of terrorism and attacks that Israelis have experienced.

Gen Z also tends to view conflicts through the lens of human rights and power imbalance, so many identify with what they see as the weaker side. The problem is that social media often simplifies a very complex conflict and can leave out important facts, including Hamas' ideology and its attacks on Israeli civilians.

I'm Gen X and non-Jewish and I've spent some time in Israel some years ago, so my perspective on the conflict is quite different to Gen Z. I support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, while also recognising that Palestinians have legitimate rights. I do not support Hamas in any way.

For those of you who have strong views on this conflict, supporting either side, what has been your own exposure to the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you live in Israel, have you studied the conflict history, visited the region, are you Jewish, have you spoken with Israelis or Palestinians, or is most of your understanding coming from what you see on social media?