"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

As this is probably the most divisive topic that exists right now, the comments should be as thoughtful and substantive as commenters can make them. At a minimum, that means no flamebait, no name-calling, and no snark. Thank you.

If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views https://twitter.com/committeeonccp/status/173279243496103143...

It also seems like these platforms create (rather than support) anti-Israeli views: https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1730255552738201854

US views skew pro-israel, and GenZ is closer to 50/50, so if there's something going on online, it's not in favor of Israel.

It's probably relevant that there are 1 billion Muslims to 16 million Jews, and that the largest relevant population of pro-Israeli internationals is India and Indian Hindus, and they are not on TikTok (blocked in India).

I think it is currently about an order of magnitude more civilians deaths have resulted from the actions of Likud (Netanyahu etc..., who control the government and hence the IDF) than from the actions of Hamas. IDF is apparently disrupting civilian aid, destroying infrastructure including hospitals, and causing mass population movements into areas that cannot support them, so the risk of death from starvation and infectious disease at a massive scale as an indirect result is high. The Likud-controlled IDF are also apparently enforcing a 'lock down' of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank while allowing Israeli citizens to seize land by force and further expand the occupied territories.

So the scale of the atrocities seems to be much higher on the Likud side than the Hamas side, covers both the West Bank and Gaza, and it makes sense that the Palestinian victims of those atrocities would receive more support. That doesn't mean that all the people who care about the plight of the Palestinian population are anti-Israel (they are just not posting about it because they are likely prioritising issues).

In some perverse way, the objection to the two state solution forces the one state solution, which is likely the only solution that would ever work. Jews and Arabs living side by side in the same country as equal citizens. Hamas isn't interested in that solution either.

Except that Israel has Arabs already, living side by side with the Jews there. Palestinians have rejected that.

Palestinians did not reject a one state solution. Most Israelis don't want that. I.e. annex the West Bank and Gaza and have a single country, let's call it "Israel-Palestine".

I think the Israeli Arabs are a model/proof that it can work. It might need a generation or two to get there.

If you want more radical ideas then if all Palestinian Arabs convert to Judaism we can also solve the problem pretty quickly...

Even though the current Israeli government may be more conservative than the ones previous, I see few possibilities for a more socially liberal government if Israel were to combine with the more-conservative majority-Muslim Palestinian states, given that there is not a single majority Muslim country in the world that is close to as socially liberal as Israel is, even now. Especially given that Muslim majority countries have a tendency to start employing Sharia law, even in Malaysia, far separated from the Middle-Eastern Muslim world.

> Even though the current Israeli government may be more conservative than the ones previous, I see few possibilities for a more socially liberal government if Israel were to combine with the more-conservative majority-Muslim Palestinian states

According to some forecasts, roughly 50% of all Israeli children born in 2065 will be Haredi. [0] If that's right, Israel could well end this century with a majority of the population being Haredi, and Haredi parties in control of the Knesset and Israeli government. I doubt a socially liberal Israeli government could be possible in that circumstance; whatever remains of the secular minority may not be "strong", it may be politically weakened, demoralised, and increasingly diminished by emigration and a low birth rate.

And all that's assuming there is no change to the relationship with the Palestinians. So maybe a change won't do as much as you think – it might just hasten the inevitable.

[0] https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-05-22/ty-article-opinio...

Because it would mean the end of a Jewish state. Combine Israel and Palestine and you get roughly 50% Jews, 50% Arabs. (5.3M Arabs in Palestine, 7.1M Jews in Israel and 2M Arabs in Israel).

What else is the long term trajectory here? Israel can't keep occupying Palestinians indefinitely (and I'm using the term "occupy" in the Israeli meaning, not in the Palestinian meaning, fwiw). Two states as we've seen is not going to work. Anyways, I know this is a hard time to talk about this.

Two states are much better than one in my opinion, and the PA-led pseudo-state is much better than Hamas-controlled Gaza. Israel and Palestine need a manageable divorce, not a forced and unhappy marriage.

Regardless, the PA does not advocate for one state, Hamas does not advocate for one state, and the vast majority of Israelis do not want one state, so I think this is kind of a moot point.

The reason Arabs supported the British against the Ottomans was because they wanted to create a unified Arab nation: https://awayfromthewesternfront.org/campaigns/egypt-palestin.... And Arabs got the overwhelming majority of the territory they wanted (notwithstanding the many minority groups they had conquered in the Levant), with the exception of what became Israel. Put differently, you could say that Arabs got 0% of Israel, and that’s technically true. But it’s not an accurate description of what they got in comparison to what they actually wanted.

I was (obviously) referring to their share of the population of Mandatory Palestine specifically.

Talking about “how much of Mandatory Palestine the Arabs got” is contrived, when it was just a part of a much larger Arab territory under the Ottomans, and was planned to be part of a much larger Arab territory after the Ottomans.

The implicit assumption is that any place with a majority of "Arabs" would ethnically cleanse all the Jews or become an Islamic theocracy, so we must view everything through the lens of competing ethno-states. It's important to challenge this assumption. Ethno-states are inherently violent because every population is a mixture of different ethnicities, and an ethno-state needs to maintain a majority of a certain population. If the "wrong" group's population grows in an ethno-state, it becomes a "demographic problem" that the government needs to "solve". This is why carving up the world into such states is never a lasting solution for peace.

Aside: "Arab" and "Jew" are not mutually exclusive. You can be an Arab Jew in the same way you can be a Hispanic Jew - Arab is a distinction based on one's mother language not one's religion. This is why the Arab League includes countries in north Africa where most people aren't descended from ancestral Arabians. The history of and literature of Judeo-Arabic is an interesting rabbit hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Jews

I'm sure Hamas feels the same way! I'm not going to say whether one or two-state solution is best, that's for Palestinians and Israelis to decide, but something's gotta give.

This is simply not true. Almost none of the world is ethnostates.

The biggest cosmopolitan countries are the United States and Brazil if I remember correctly. Maybe Canada too. Europe is moving in that direction. Countries that have a diverse citizenry are more of an exception though. Not that I disagree with your probable view that we should all live in diverse secular democracies, I just think your claim that almost none of the world is ethnostates is somewhat suspect.

I agree with the idea that Israel would ideally be a single secular state, but navigating that transition while preserving it as the safest place the Jews of the world can go would be an enormous challenge. The situation sucks and resists simple answers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-adopts-divisive-la...

Or this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaization_of_the_Galilee

These are simply not normal things for a country to do in the 21st century. That doesn't mean I don't have massive problems with what these other countries are doing, or what the US is doing, but to say they're ethno-states like Israel in my view is a false equivalency.

> but navigating that transition while preserving it as the safest place the Jews of the world can go

Is it though? I know Jewish folks in the US with family in Israel, and it doesn't seem like they'd feel safer in Israel. These policies don't seem to be making Jews safer.

> Saudi Arabia is named after the Arabs.

nit: It's named after Arabia which is a geographic region that's been named after the Arabs for centuries. The disturbing part of the name Saudi Arabia is that it's named after a specific family of despots, not that it refers to Arabia. But even being named after an ethnic group doesn't make your country an ethno-state.

Hardliners in the current Israeli government (e.g Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, Amichai Eliyahu) want to "annex Judaea and Samaria". There seems to be a bit of ambiguity about whether they mean only Area C, or the whole of the West Bank (or even annex Area C now as a precursor to annexing A and B later.)

If they did that, what would happen to the Palestinians living in those areas – would they become Israeli Arabs? Would they first have to request Israeli citizenship? Would they be entitled to it, or would it be up to the Israeli government to decide whether to extend it to them?

"One state solution" is an idea primarily associated with Israel's peacenik far left, but maybe the best way to achieve it might (paradoxically) be to let the Israeli far right get a big chunk of what it wants?

> If you want more radical ideas then if all Palestinian Arabs convert to Judaism we can also solve the problem pretty quickly...

Speaking of radical ideas, I find the "cantonization" proposals [0] for the future of Israel rather fascinating. Basically convert it into a federation of different "cantons" representing the different sectors of Israeli society (secular, religious, Haredi, Arab). These cantons might be partially geographical and partially personal – i.e. every citizen belongs to a canton personally, the canton also controls the territory where its members are a majority, but has to protect the rights of minorities from other cantons in its territory; individuals will receive some government services from the canton of residence (e.g. public utilities), others might be provided by their personal canton (e.g. education, family law)

[0] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-05-05/ty-article-ma...

Sort of apartheid.

It's more wishful thinking than a plan.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/unrwa-continues-to-teac...

Imagine that was done here (in the US), those teachers might get a talking to, but nobody would buy that they're teaching hate unless students or observers say something.

If someone were to scrub your social media accounts, would they find 0 likes or shares of 'hateful content'? Depending on who you follow, that could be anything from sharing videos of the IDF's attacks, Hamas' attacks, Likud's charter, or even some dude that edited their viral post to inject something positive about Mein Kampf

The US has huge military presences in both countries, and if they really wanted to shut down funding to those institutions they could do it tomorrow.

We know that Netanyahu deliberated supported these groups to shut down opposition in Gaza by his own accord and that he has even recently asked to send more funding[1]. The talking heads also want you to believe that this is some sort of protection money out of goodwill for the poor civilians in Gaza.

I listened to some Palestinians on twitter spaces the other day and they told explained to people how the political landscape is actually a lot more complex than we are led to believe from media.

One person breaking down Hamas really well has been Brian Berletic from the new atlas[2]. Some people here might not like him, because he very much in favour of China, but I still urge everyone to take a look at his Palestine analysis.

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossad-chief-top-general-visit...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPJaNoxtE20

How?

How did Hamas come into power? What are its goals? What have they promised to do to accomplish those objectives?

Their goals are of malicious intent, and they have demonstrated that they're willing to do anything to accomplish them.

About innocent Palestinians, I understand their fears (at least I hope I do). But, _as of this moment_, focusing the narrative on them and Israel is just a cunning way to further drive a wedge between them, and muddle the waters.

Re: "any other way is a can of worms". I agree with this statement.

Putting these two statements together means there will never be peace in Palestine. It sucks....

So what exactly is your solution then? To create 10-20 times the suffering that has led to the growth of Hamas to begin with?

But let's say, for the sake of the argument, that that line of reasoning is justified, which for the record, I don't think it is. How does that then justify the violence, and the killings happening in the West Bank? How does it justify shooting Palestinians in the US?

Nobody here wants to hear it, but the only country that has gotten a hold of its Islamist terrorism problem without mass bombing is China. And contrary to what people in the US like to hear the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which comprises dozens of Muslim countries, have praised Chinas efforts to build infrastructure and schools. The US shouts about Uyghur rights all the time and then bombs them the moment they hang out with the Taliban for training[1].

Even the guy who came up with the Uyghur genocide says that the people working in the factories are treated well, and yet that's somehow a bad thing[2].

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-targets-chinese-uighu...

[2] https://twitter.com/adrianzenz/status/1732406580623098274

The parents of Ethan Crumbley's victims asked for maximum penalty - sounds a lot like eye for an eye right and is right here in the US. A dad of one of Nasser's victims asked to be alone with Nassar for 5 minutes. When the judge (obviously) declined that request that guy jumped over the fence in the courtroom trying to get to Nassar.

What do you think regular people would do when their kids are killed? Or their brothers and sisters are killed?

I remember reading about a psychology case of two sisters getting constantly raped by their father.

One of them finally grabbed the dad’s rifle and shot him. One of them recovered and went on to live a normal life and the other spent the rest of her life in treatment.

But what’s ultimately clear is that Israel in its current form is not sustainable. Either they change, meaning they stop calling and treating people they don’t like, like animals, or they launch an all out war with all their neighbors in which case all bets are off. The media is guilty in this. If they hadn’t perpetuated this myth that the USA is infinitely powerful and will defeat anyone standing in Israel’s way they would have had to find a way to arrange themselves with their neighbors.

For individuals, that is simply wrong. If my brother were to kill an innocent kid and that kid's father were to kill my brother, as much as I love my brother, I'd hate him for killing an innocent kid and I'd totally understand the father of the kid killing my brother.

Would I suffer? Sure. And I'd be ashamed of what my brother did. But I wouldn't go out and kill the kid's father.

It's totally ridiculous to consider killers doing mass shooting should be given a second chance to mass shoot again and it's totally normal parents of some of the dead kids want lifetime jail (or the death penalty).

And I don't think the parents of the mass shooter would, in turn, go on a killing spree. They know fully well what their kid got is well deserved.

How did Hamas come to power? Via democratic elections and by winning a subsequent civil war.

What are their goals? Total Palestinian liberation and the restoration of the pre 1948 borders (a.k.a one state solution).

How do they promise to achieve these goals? Via armed struggle, a.k.a. intifada and revolution.

Hamas came into power after a fair democratic election in 2006. Outside observers monitored the elections and all agreed they were correct and fair. The only major interference actually came from Israel which backed the rival political group Fatah. Following the election the Palestinian civil war broke out in Gaza, which Hamas won. After which they took full control of the Gaza strip. There has not been an election since then, neither on Gaza nor on the West Bank. Aside: The legislative council in Gaza was demolished by the Israeli army last November.

Meanwhile on the West Bank Fatah took power, where they control the Palestinian Authority. It is interesting to see the fate of the territory each faction controls. While Gaza suffers a blockade and constant military interventions, the West Bank is suffering from constant incursion from settlers and military raids as well as further partitioning of their lands, illegal settlements, military checkpoints, etc.

In simple terms, Fatah supports the two state solution, among with most of the international community, which is why many Western nations view them as the legitimate government despite Hamas having won the election fair and square. Hamas on the other hand at first did not recognize Israel as a state, and wanted all of historic Palestine under Palestinian control. Since 2006 they have somewhat eased their stance against Israel, but are still calling for decolonization and one state.

The Palestinian Authority (and Fatah by extension) is not popular among Palestinians. The way I understand it is that people view them as a colonial government, pandering to the interest of their colonizers. It is my understanding that Hamas is viewed favorably, as pandering to the interests of the colonizers has not left the West Bank in a nice state for the indigenous population.

In short, in simple terms (as per my limited understanding), the two state solution is not seen as the right path inside Palestine, so people actually support Hamas’ one state solution, and see the fight for decolonization as legitimate. This may be a tough reality for westerners to accept as Hamas is only portrait by their very real and devastating atrocities, but seldomly seen as liberation fighters and never recognized for their decolonization efforts.

Instead of relying on western analysis of the situation, I actually like to take in some historic comparisons. The Mau Mau in Kenya were indeed very brutal, and conducted very severe crimes against, however their fight—with the hindsight of history—was indeed very just, and resulted in the liberation of Kenya from the oppressive British colonial rule. Another example is FLN in Algeria, which probably had even more popular support then the Mau Mau, and were even more brutal in their fight against their French colonial oppressors.

This is an oversimplification. A few months before the election, Israel pulled out all its forces/settlements/infrastructure from Hamas-dominated Gaza, while keeping them in place in the West Bank where Hamas was stronger. This was a huge victory handed on a silver platter to Hamas, by the administration of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon (who the Palestinians call the "Butcher of Beirut" [0]).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...

Fatah had more support in elections (yellow) in areas with former Israel settlements.

> In the lead-up to the elections, on 26 September 2005 Israel launched a campaign of arrests against PLC members. 450 members of Hamas were detained, mostly those involved in the 2006 PLC elections. The majority of them were kept in administrative detention for different periods.[19] In the election period, 15 PLC members were captured and held as prisoners.[20]

> On 21 December 2005 Israeli officials stated their intention to prevent voting in East Jerusalem, which, unlike most of the Palestinian-inhabited areas that were planned to participate in the election, was under Israeli civil and military control.

> On the day of the election, the ballot boxes were held in Israeli Post Offices inside Jerusalem. Israeli police officers were present to monitor the proceedings of the election. At the end of the day the Israeli authorities transferred the ballot boxes to the Palestinian Authority.[19]

Question: How is withdrawing from Gaza interfering with the election while these actual examples of interference aren’t?

It seems to me if your narration of history were true (which I’m not sure it is) then withdrawing from Gaza but not the West Bank was merely a dumb move, not interference.

EDIT: To be clear, I don’t believe—as did observers at the time—that these interference efforts had a significant impact on the results. I believe these elections were fair and accurate despite some inference efforts by Israel. Whatever politics Israel conducted before the election was just that, politics. Every participant or stakeholder in election which holds any amount of power over the electorate does these politics before and during elections.

I made no narration of history.

It’s not always “right” to measure just action in terms of lives saved or lost, but it’s hard for me (and so many other American Jews) to see anything right or just about 10 dead Palestinians for every dead Israeli.

The Japanese killed a few dozen civilians in Pearl Harbor. America killed 10,000x as many during their bombings of Japan. Had they not surrendered, they likely would have killed an order of magnitude more. The only alternative would have been for the US to completely blockade Japan indefinitely to prevent them from rebuilding their military. Actually, they wouldn't be able to do that either because that would make Japan an "open air prison."

I don’t have easy answers here. But I think we’ve lost an important piece of the plot here if we can’t look at one terrible human tragedy, and then another, and then ask ourselves whether the first had to beget the second.

If your suggested law of war isn't 'majority or ruthless minority, get to do everything they want because they have more causalties', than you need an alternative. The alternative is the current laws of war, which allow for strikes with collateral damage (what Israel says it's doing), but not for terrorist attacks aimed at civilians.

* Suicide bombers, Iranian mullahs sending kids with 'plastic keys to heaven' to dismantle minefields, or current refusal of Hamas to allow civilians to use its tunnels as shelters. We could fill the page with examples really.

** Funny, I don't recall opposition to America's post 9/11 response based on counts. Almost as if the same rules don't apply.

Just do a web search restricted from 2001 to 2007 for discussions of the civilian death toll.

“Collateral damage” is one of those bloodless wartime euphemisms for killing innocent men, women, and children. It’s a dirty, unavoidable reality. But I don’t believe for one second that Israel’s hands are so sufficiently constrained that the current degree of civilian death is necessary. I say that as a Jew, with family in Israel, who I worry about.

The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities: Israel’s argument is that they don’t have to follow the laws because Hamas is breaking them.

Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations.

>The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities.

This is wrong. Medical facilities can be struck if they are used for war.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234...

Moreover, this is not what happened in Gaza - there were raids but not dropping bombs from airplanes, the former being much less destructive.

Not true.

I certainly wouldn’t refer to “the US did it” as a cite for “it’s not a war crime”, but that article appears to be saying they attacked a place not thought to be currently active as a civilian medical facility.

Murder is not just worse than manslaughter it is on a different level.

Western criminal codes generally allow for no punishment, perhaps even no guilt, for a manslaughter. If Israel could remove Hamas without injuring any non-combatants I think they would. It makes a difference. Almost by definition suggesting that scale is a factor is implying that collective punishment is acceptable.

Criminal punishments are more about the social consequences than about the crime itself. If someone gets X years in prison for crime A and another person gets 2X years for crime B, it doesn't mean that crime B was twice as bad. It only means that after taking a large number of factors into account, it made sense to give twice as long sentence for crime B.

Surely you jest. How is this attack supposed to remove Hamas? It seems designed to strengthen Hamas, just as Israel has been supporting Hamas since their formation.

The existence of Hamas prevents a united Palestinian people while simultaneously giving Israel the excuse to reject a 2-state solution. If Hamas didn't exist, Israel would have to create a Hamas from scratch.

>while condemning the massacre of civilians under the orders of Likud (and other far right parties)

When has Likud ordered massacres of civilians? Or when has any modern Israeli party? I also don't believe Likud is considered far-right in Israel; just "right". There are parties far to the right of them. Not that that's necessarily a good thing, but it's a relative designation.

Considering that they killed 15K+ civilians in various ways in just a couple of weeks , and bombed two thirds of the buildings in north gaza including hospitals, refugee camps, they were certainly not trying very hard not to kill them. So practically, this doesn't make a big difference.

It seems the order were "bomb anything that may have a hamas member nearby, and don't bother about any civilian nearby (even israelis hostages).

Begin is rolling in his grave as we speak. There is nothing between today's Likud and any historic version of that party. That's one thing.

The Likud (under the leadership of Sharon, who is also rolling in his grave) is also the party that withdrew from Gaza and handed it to the Palestinian Authority, dismantling settlements (by force). The Likud (under Begin's leadership) was the party that made peace with Egypt and gave Sinai back, also dismantling Israeli settlements (by force).

I don't think the history of the Irgun is really relevant here. At any rate, the views of the Likud shifted substantially and current party called "Likud" has really zero connection to the Likud at the time of Begin/Shamir/Sharon etc.

Strongly disagree. There are honest debates and questions here. I am learning from them, though I’m also fact checking everything that surprises.

You need to zoom in, zoom out, the history is vast, there's the big picture, there are details. Most of what you'll encounter online and in the media, on both sides really, is propaganda.

I hate sports analogies (doubly so with something as serious as this), but… you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take or the debates you don’t have.

Actually I find the discussion on HN has brought up many useful insights on a complex conflict that provokes emotional responses. It's a model that many other communities could learn from.

- Israeli Prime Minister (!!) Benjamin Netanyahu: "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember." [1]

- IDF spokesman Daniel Hagari: "we're focused on what causes maximum damage" [2]

- Israeli defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "I have ordered a complete siege on Gaza: no electricity, no food, no fuel, no water. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly." [3]

- Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir: “As long as Hamas does not release the hostages in its hands - the only thing that needs to enter Gaza are hundreds of tons of explosives from the air force, not an ounce of humanitarian aid” [4]

- IDF Reservist Major General Giora Eiland: “The State of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in" and "Creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieve the goal." [5]

- Israeli President Isaac Herzog: "It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true." and "Of course there are many, many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree to this — but unfortunately in their homes, there are missiles shooting at us, at my children." [6]

- IDF Reservist Ezra Yachin: "Be triumphant and finish them off and don’t leave anyone behind. Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers and children. These animals can no longer live." and "Every Jew with a weapon should go out and kill them. If you have an Arab neighbour, don’t wait, go to his home and shoot him." [7]

- IDF Reservist Major General Giora Eiland: "The international community is warning us against a severe humanitarian disaster and severe epidemics. We must not shy away from this. After all, severe epidemics in the south of Gaza will bring victory closer" and "there’s no reason why the Hamas generals in southern Gaza wouldn’t surrender when they have no fuel, no water, and when plagues will reach them and the danger to the lives of their family members will increase" [8]

- Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "Hezbollah is close to making a grave mistake. The ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon. What we do in Gaza we know how to do in Beirut" [9]

- Israeli Minister for Agriculture and former head of Shin Bet Avi Dichter: "We are now actually rolling out the Gaza Nakba" [10]

- Likud Knesset member Galit Distel-Atbaryan: "Invest this energy in one thing; Erasing all of Gaza from the face of the earth." and "A vengeful and cruel IDF is needed here. Anything less is immoral." [11]

- Israeli Energy Minister Israel Katz: "Humanitarian aid to Gaza? No electrical switch will be turned on, no water pump will be opened and no fuel truck will enter until the Israeli abductees are returned home" [12]

- IDF Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, in response to Wolf Blitzer asking if the IDF knew there were civilians in Jabalya refugee camp before they bombed it: "This is the tragedy of war, Wolf — as you know, we've been saying for days, move south." [13]

[1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netany...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/right-now-it-i...

[3] https://twitter.com/marwasf/status/1711392643908071789

[4] https://x.com/davidrkadler/status/1714362716565979534

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/15/opinion/israel-united-sta...

[6] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-gaza-isaac-herzog_n_65...

[7] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-vete...

[8] https://twitter.com/hahauenstein/status/1726326606782984506

[9] https://twitter.com/alihashem_tv/status/1723369208191287738

[10] https://twitter.com/hahauenstein/status/1723441134221869453

[11] https://twitter.com/GalitDistel/status/1719689095230730656

[12] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/energy-minister...

[13] https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/171941227835150748...

This is very propaganda. I've been following the conflict pretty closely and I speak Hebrew. The parent is correct, there is and was no order to massacre civilians.

It's probably safe to say that protecting Palestinian civilians is not Israel's main priority, but there's a big difference between that and painting a picture of Israel trying to massacre as many civilians as possible.

If the critics were clear about their issue being how Israel measures proportionality with respect to every single target they go after, and they were able to support their case comparing to other similar military campaigns, and there was a very clear outcome of that comparison, I think that's very fair and I'd even be able to get behind it. But that's not what the critics are doing.

What you hear instead are thinly-veiled justifications. Oh, we had to bomb those hospitals because there were tunnels there. So sorry about the civilian deaths at a refugee camp, but we just wanted to get that one commander.

Let’s be real here. Israel shut off food, water, medicine and electricity to Gaza. They’ve damaged over 2/3 of the buildings there [1]. As of a month ago, they’d dropped almost 2x the amount of explosives the US delivered to Hiroshima [2].

These are not the actions of a country “going after military targets even at some cost to civilians”. Israel is doing exactly what Hagari said: inflicting maximum damage.

[1] https://x.com/tksshawa/status/1732447886237974898

[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/11/9/israel-att...

Meanwhile, Palestine has shown no restraint at all in their 10/7 massacre and no Jews live in Palestine, whereas many Arabs live peacefully in Israel.

Your second point is wrong, by the way. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews living in settlements in the West Bank.

- Killed almost 18,000 people

- Displaced 1.9 million people

- Cut off food, water, medicine, fuel, electricity and Internet access

- Limited press access except for footage reviewed by the IDF

- Dropped ~2x as much explosive as the US dropped in Hiroshima

- Damaged over 2/3 of buildings

- Bombed basically every hospital

- Bombed an ambulance

- Told people to move south and then bombed Rafah crossing, on the border with Egypt

- Kidnapped thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank

- Tortured Palestinian abductees

- Handed out weapons to West Bank settlers

- Stripped civilians and paraded them through the streets

This is all after October 7th — before that, Israeli settlers were responsible for pogroms and dozens of murders in the West Bank.

- Israel did displace a lot of people. Partly for their own safety while Israel attacks the area they live in. I think your number are correct.

- We already covered the "cut off" in another thread so I (edit: didn't want to but I guess I did anyways) want revisit it. Water was off, and then on, food and medicine are allowed in but maybe not enough, Internet access is on most of the time in this war zone, electricity is mostly cut off (partly because the power station ran out of fuel I think, not strictly because Israel cut it off). This is a snarky comment but I'm pretty sure the tunnel vents still have power. Northern Gaza and Southern Gaza are also different (with more restrictions on Northern Gaza). I would call this statement misleading.

- Israel did drop a lot of bomb tonnage on Gaza but we can't really compare this to the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima. There were 60-80 thousand dead in Hiroshima which was much less populated/dense than Gaza (total population was about 350,000). As a piece of trivia, between 241,000 and 900,000 people died in Japan in the bombing campaigns of WW2. I would fact check this statement as misleading.

- There is plenty of press access from the Palestinian side. I think we're getting more footage from the war zone compared to many other war zones. Israel does review footage of press that embeds with the IDF in Gaza for operational-security reasons. I think that's pretty normal. I don't recall large complaints from the media about this, but they do note it in their reports. So correct but misleading.

- Do you have a reference for "dozens of murders by settlers prior to Oct 7th"? Are you going all the way back to Baruch Goldstein? Even with that "dozens" seems incorrect to me. There's no room for any violence by settlers but let's get the facts right. My very quick research has failed to substantiate this claim.

- Reference for "paraded them through the streets"? Also do we know they're all civilians? Israel strips people they arrest (to their underwear) to make sure they're not suicide bombers. I have seen those photos/videos as well. I agree it's pretty humiliating (and) the pictures didn't look good. I hope the people that are uninvolved will be released quickly. I know you're going to take issue with what I say here, but this was in Northern Gaza where civilians have been asked to evacuate and Hamas combatants operate in civilian clothing. Hamas has a lot of history with suicide bombers so it's not unreasonable to expect this tactic. I would call this partly misleading.

- I also take issue with "kidnapped" and "tortured". I would say arrested Islamic Jihad and Hamas activists. Torture is illegal in Israel (maybe allowed if there's a "ticking bomb", I don't recall) and while it's possible there have been cases I don't think it's systemic, any evidence to the contrary?

- You're technically correct about the move south and bomb the south but I think it's important to note there was significantly less bombing in the south than the north and Israel has said specifically they will still bomb the south if they have clear targets. Israel never said it won't bomb the south. It just said it's safer. And if you check the statistics you'll see that's true. This is where "technically right" can be misleading.

- West bank settlers have had weapons forever pretty much. Most of the handing of weapons these days is to people in Israel proper.

- I think there was a single incident with an ambulance where Israel claimed it was being used for a military purpose. There is a long discussion about the status and usage of ambulances here: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/attacks-misuse-ambulances-durin...

- I'm pretty sure "bombed every hospital" is false. Reference? We had the possible Islamic Jihad rocket falling in a hospital parking lot, we had some bombings close to hospitals, we had fake news from other conflicts presented as Israel bombing hospitals, but "bombed every hospital" is new to me. I think "did not bomb any hospitals" is closer to the truth. How many people were killed by Israel's bombing of hospitals?

- I've seen different accounts for the percentage of buildings damaged. 2/3 seems on the high side. References?

Do you realize that isreal is the side who killed at least 10x the number that the other side kill. I can see that you describe hamas's action as horrible but there is no way of condition that justifies what isreal did and is still doing to Palestinian civilians (no matter how you think you can)

https://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-hamas-palestinian-casua...

Why are we playing this numbers game? If Hamas hypothetically had killed 30,000 Israels would you be saying that Israel still has 12,000 to go? Every person matters and in a war there are no targets for how many people are killed, in wars people get killed for achieving some other objectives. I would imagine that even if Hamas had only killed 150 people in Israel we'd be in exactly the same place and the ratio would be 100x because there's a point where Israel has to (well, at least they think) reoccupy Gaza at any cost. Israel was almost there in previous conflicts, but backed off.

There is no war in history, as far as I know, but willing to be corrected, where the measure or who is wrong and who is right, or when the war should end, was some threshold or ratio in the number of dead people. A war continues until both sides agree to stop it. Wars have a terrible human price. I think something like 400,000 people have died in the war in Yemen. I think there are hundreds of thousands of dead in the Russian-Ukraine war (mostly soldiers but they're people, and young people, too. Many civilians.). Sudan is pretty bad. 600,000 killed in the Syria civil war.

As to the latter part, you're pulling a trick to imply that the 10x are all civilian non-combatants, which is just as bad as the other people pretending that all the teen-aged Hamas soldiers who have been killing people are non-combatant children.

If that was the goal, wouldn't you think more Palestinians be dead by now? How does this goal benefit Israel in any way?

But it's a fair question what would it take to convince me. I think you'd need to show me enough incidents of Israel intentionally targeting civilians with the clear goal of maximizing civilian deaths. e.g. carpet bombing of civilians in the south with casualties in the 10's of thousands from one bombing raid or indiscriminate artillery firing on the south like we see the Russians doing in Ukraine.

Just a by the way, do you know what exactly "refugee camp" means in the context of this conflict? Can you describe what that is and why it's called a refugee camp. I'm asking because it seems many do not know (and if you don't, it's not actually what you think it is).

Haven't you seen large numbers of civilians walking from the north part of Gaza to the south part of Gaza right by Israeli soldiers and tanks? I've seen IDF soldiers give them water as they're passing by. There were photos of civilians arrested yesterday (and treated poorly, doesn't look good) ... but alive.

Israel does provide water now to Gaza. It did temporarily shut down its water supply to Gaza which is part of how Gazans get water (but not the sole source). How many people have died from lack of water? Food is restricted but is getting in. Probably not enough. How many people have died from starvation?. Medicine is coming in. Israel is not providing electricity. It's a war! Many, one might say too many, have died.

Can you provide references to other major wars where one side was providing the other side with water, food, electricity, medicine? When siege was laid on Mosul did the US provide all those to the citizens of the city? Did the Russians to Mariupol? And sure, I understand Gaza's situations is a bit unique so it's hard to find parallels (and definitely don't want Israel to be compared to Russia).

There is definitely wide scale destruction to structures. I've seen the figure 1/3 today. It's all one big combat zones, when tanks fire inside cities and airplanes drop bombs, and artillery shells targets there is widespread damage. Very much like major scale war in other urban areas around the world, Bahkmut, Mariupol, are two examples from the other active conflict. I don't take it as proof of targeting civilians. It is a tactic to avoid urban warfare, booby traps, remove cover that the enemy can use etc. I agree it's a pretty brutal tactic but not one specifically disallowed in the rules of war.

Have you ever been to Israel? I'm just curious. Do you know many Israelis?

> Israel does provide water now to Gaza. It did temporarily shut down its water supply to Gaza which is part of how Gazans get water (but not the sole source). How many people have died from lack of water? Food is restricted but is getting in. Probably not enough. How many people have died from starvation?. Medicine is coming in. Israel is not providing electricity. It's a war! Many, one might say too many, have died.

Shutting off these things is targeting civilians! You may think it's justified or that there's precedent, but that doesn't change the fact that the goal of the attack is to harm every human being there.

> Can you provide references to other major wars where one side was providing the other side with water, food, electricity, medicine? When siege was laid on Mosul did the US provide all those to the citizens of the city? Did the Russians to Mariupol? And sure, I understand Gaza's situations is a bit unique so it's hard to find parallels (and definitely don't want Israel to be compared to Russia).

I opposed the US conquering Iraq, I oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine and I oppose Israel's bombing in Gaza (and, as you alluded to, Gaza's situation is unique among those examples in that they are more or less blockaded by and dependent on Israel). I don't really find "but what about other wars" a compelling argument — war is bad!

As to your last question, although I don't know why it's relevant: I'm a diaspora Jew who has not been to Israel from a fairly large Jewish community in the US. Not sure what counts as "many" but yes, I know some Israelis.

My problem is that the terms are not necessarily the common definition of those terms.

Clearly civilians are impacted by Israel's actions. Nobody can argue with that. And the impact is major. Someone used to live in a nice house and have their basic needs met, and now they're crammed in a tent somewhere with almost nothing. Their house could be destroyed. And yes, many civilians have died. This is not what I take to mean by "Israel is intentionally targeting civilians", what that means to me, and likely to many others, is that Israeli soldiers are looking for civilians and killing them wherever they can find them, intentionally, as many as they can. This matters. Words matter. By your definition every war targets civilians, and it's sort of maybe true, but again, not really how most people IMO think about it.

The reason I asked my "Israeli" questions is that I do think most Israelis are moral, decent, people. As a whole they would prefer not to be in this war at all. You can say maybe they're misguided but their goal is the security of their country, not inflicting pain on others. Intent does matter.

I think there's a minority of Israelis that are not that (e.g. we just had the case of an Israeli settler soldier killing an Israeli civilian who was no threat because he thought he was Arab and we had other similar cases).

That doesn’t mean that “the highest ranking Knesset members are secretly ordering their soldiers to kill civilians!” I don’t think they have to, in the same way that high ranking police in the US don’t have to tell officers to target Black people. I think there is a culture of supremacy and racism, and the IDF is collectively taking advantage of this moment to act on their worst impulses. I think they are at best indiscriminately attacking and making only token efforts to avoid civilian harm. Insofar as they are showing restraint, I think it’s only from the vague threat of losing the support of the US — just tonight, the sole abstaining vote on a UN security council demand for ceasefire — and if they could get away with even more outright genocide or ethnic cleansing, they would.

And yes, if it’s not clear, I am talking about the state of Israel, its government and military, not its citizens (although if reports in the US are to be believed a lot of y’all are real bloodthirsty right now — not that many Americans aren’t just as bad). I certainly don’t equate a government with its civilians: 2/3 of all Americans and almost 80% of Democrats support a ceasefire even as our Democratic president continues to defend this war.

I think you need to self reflect a bit harder. Unless you are the dali lama, i'm sure you can understand the need for revenge and looking for a sense of security. Not saying it's the right thing to do, but it sure is easy to grasp.

It looks more as a civilian massacre than a war. Yes, it's pretty obvious that they don't try to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible. But they clearly show no consideration for civilian lives. What we're witnessing is extremely disturbing to say the least, and we should make Israel stop because nothing can justify what they do. They are entitled to live safely, not to kill thousands of innocents because it suits them.

> Have you ever been to Israel? I'm just curious. Do you know many Israelis?

How is that relevant to the discussion? having Israeli friends should make us accept these horrors? I don't think so.

If Israel stops now, and Hamas kills 2000 Israelis in 5 years, and then Israel kills 50,000 Palestinians because Hamas is much stronger and the war is much more complex and the population is denser, should we stop now? What is the probability of this outcome? What are the range of outcomes of stopping now, beyond the obvious of less people will die over the next week or 2 weeks, or month, until the next round flares up. We have had many rounds of violence.

How do we weigh the continuation of rocket fire into Israel from Gaza into the equation? What happens if Hamas figures out a technological solution to defeat the iron dome?

There are many many other factors.

How do we weigh the motivation/chances that Hezbollah would attack Israel from the north?

Clearly all the dead people are not coming back to live. All the damage that has been done is done. It's all extremely tragic. The question is where do we go from here. You're saying "we should make Israel stop". Assuming that's even an option (I don't think anyone can make Israel stop at this point) who is going to pay the price of that decision down the road? "we" or Israel?

I don't know. I don't have answers. My opinion is that stopping now will result in more deaths in the future. But I'm not sure. If I was convinced stopping now is the best option for peace I would certainly support it. I hope we are getting very close to the end of the war, at least the more intense phase of it.

I think knowing Israelis will give you some sense of what kind of people they are, and will let you relate to them as people. Something I think is missing from a lot of the discourse. I agree we're seeing horrors. By the way, you should also talk to some Palestinians and get to know them as well fwiw. I've had some pretty interesting discussions in the past with a Palestinian friend.

I feel the "question of that cost" is where the differences in opinion lie.

For example, if Israel considered the civilians of Gaza as Israel citizens of equal importance to all other Israeli citizens, you'd expect them to consider that cost to be much higher, and it would force them to maneuver much more carefully in their military operations in order to minimize it. Yes, it would make it a lot harder for them to fight and make headway against Hamas as well if they did.

Some people hold the belief that this is how Israel should treat civilians, no lesser than they'd treat their own.

I think another contentious issue, is around the outcome of the war, and what it means for those civilians as well. Is the idea to force the One-State solution, but not as a binational state with equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of ethnicity or religion, but instead as a state with dominant Jewish identity? The impression to this question can change your opinion of the civilian casualties, are they an unfortunate price to pay towards their liberation from Hamas, and their incorporation into a more just, equal, fair, democracy, where they can live a better life? Or is it actually towards their further oppression by Israel?

Or if it is to force a Two-State solution, again, what would it mean of those civilians, would the Palestinian state be forced to harsh conditions as part of treaties if they lose the war, which would hurt those civilians further, etc.

It's complicated, but I do think most of it is about this "cost of civilian casualties", and what worth you attribute to it, and what worth you attribute to the end in order to justify the means.

That's like saying the Nazis just wanted Jews "gone", gassing them wasn't a priority.

Here is a German phrase you must learn:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorauseilender_Gehorsam

People murder -- to not mince words, some people act and think like Nazis, as Yeshayahu Leibowitz so very correctly pointed out -- and they know they'll get away with it. There are rarely "explicit explicit" orders, the general atmosphere, the words and deeds you saw others get away with, is enough.

[1] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231024-security-minister...

[2] https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17327731468585127...

[3] https://twitter.com/NimerSultany/status/1731736295666282707

[4] https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17330661183302657...

- Amichai Eliyahu, Israel's heritage minister: "that "there are no non-combatants in Gaza," adding that providing humanitarian aid to the Strip would constitute 'a failure.'" [8]

In the same interview: "When asked by the interview whether a nuclear weapon could be used on Gaza, Eliyahu responded: 'That's one way.' " [9]

[8]https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-05/ty-article/ne...

[9]https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-minister-suggested-nu...

So there is a very real sense in which there _are_ two mutually exclusive groups. There is also a third group wishing for nuance and understanding and thoughtful discourse of the historical context, but that group gets coded as the “other” by both of the black-and-white groups.

The 1% most extreme on both sides want to drag you down to their level, don't let them.

* There really isn't any better deathrates when the other side is explicitly based on indifference to its own civillian casualties. Mosul had 40K civillian deaths in a 2.5x smaller city (by population)[0]. I fail to see why Israel can't use the same legal tactics** the US used to defend itself versus jihadists, except the Israeli death rate is lower and the US had far less justification.

* Focusing on the Likud is a mistake. Every Israeli political party would have counterattacked at Gaza, with about the same (legal) tactics, but probably much more aggressively. Leaving next door to a genocidal terrorist regime was unacceptable, actually moreso to the Israeli Left. After all, what's the point of two states if the other side can do _anything_ and get support afterwards?

And I mean anything - the attack was into 1967 lines, deathrates much higher than in Gaza. The irony is that many people that say they support 2ss are trying to enshrine impunity here, basically destroying any hope that either side will support 2ss. That's why Bibi was the pretend 'cautious' here, because of very cynical calculation - Hamas staying weakened but alive lets Bibi kill 2ss - WB Palestinians flock to 'victorious' Hamas, while Israeli Left approach is discredited - but his hand was forced.

* Focusing on Hamas is also somewhat of a mistake, given polls show widespread crosscutting Palestinian support to Hamas action[1].

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/mosul-m...

[1] https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20...

** When we ignore scaremongering about 'starvation/disease at a massive scale' when it's not happening, the only thing the list has are actions into hospitals which even the US believes are used by Hamas.

What I would and do blame the current government for is that Oct 7th even happened, the scale, and the immediate response.

EDIT: I also blame the current government for trying to eliminate any possibility of a two state solution and effectively supporting the Hamas rule in Gaza as means of accomplishing that. I can probably blame them for lots more. That said the actual Oct 7th attack is all on Hamas and the response is pretty much the only response you'd have seen from any Israeli government (or anyone else in that position for that matter). We're in a place today that is a different place and we can talk all we want about what other possible places we could be.

I'll agree with you on the west bank policy being a Likud/right-wing policy in general. We can also talk about why the Israeli public is more right wing leaning and the left has all but disappeared.

I think those two groups are really more mutually exclusive than what you're trying to portray. At least to most Israelis they are. Because for most Israelis, when you say "peaceful within 1967 borders", it reads as "kill all the Jews in Israel". Many (most?) Palestinians will also not accept this statement because they consider Israel in the 1967 border to be the Palestinian state. If there was an overlap we wouldn't really be where we are, we'd have peace. I have not met many people who are in this overlap, i.e. they're both "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" in a meaningful way. Most people do not hold nuanced views at all, don't know that much about the conflict, don't really understand what's going on, hold on to simplistic narratives and "windows" they get from the media and social media. For me as an (ex-) Israeli your equating the response of Israel to the Hamas puts you squarely in the anti-Israeli camp. You blank statement "massacre of civilians under the orders of Likud (and other far right parties)" feels like a blood libel. This is just my emotional response to how you phrase things. So that doesn't seem to be an overlap of pro-israeli and pro-palestinian.

That would be a nuanced view. The reality is that most people and especially most people who post their views online are not capable of seeing things that way.

Not once did you mention what atrocities were committed on Hamas’s side and instead you spent all your effort justifying Hamas by arguing how you think Lukid is worse.

What actions in your opinion would be an appropriate response for people (& government) of Israel to respond to the targeted rape, murder, beheadings of the elderly, men, women, and children, which was filmed by Hamas and sometimes live-streamed on the social media accounts of their victims to show off what they have achieved?

I’m not sure you can claim to be in the middle or support ‘both sides / both peoples’ when you only have bad things to say about one of them.

Also, a reminder that Putin and Hamas were also democratically elected, and I don’t see why that has any relevance to whether their actions should be condemned or not.

Democratic processes are good because it holds those in power accountable for their actions and should not just be hand waved away as if it doesn’t matter.

And no, what Hamas has done was not mentioned, all that was said was ‘the actions of Hamas’. What actions - did they hold a bake sale? It is unclear and minimized.

> If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views.

That platforms prioritize one over the other is just one possible explanation. An alternative explanation is that more people already have those views. And it's dishonest to present one explanation and omit the other.

Nothing inflames people like injustice.

Treading a fine line here between Bayesian priors and stereotypes, but the worldwide Muslim/Jewish population split is something like 112:1. Obviously that's not going to be the same proportion on a given media-service, but it should still inform our expectations of what is the "default" state before theorizing about platform algorithm-tweaking or propaganda-campaigns.

The war is shockingly unpopular on both sides of itself and seemingly the only people who are in favor of Israel's current plan of action is the Israeli government and the people who, for PR reasons, refuse to criticize Israel since Israel has done such an excellent job propagandizing people into thinking being anti-Israel in any way is synonymous with being anti-Semetic.

[1] https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-official-ghazi-hamad-we-will-...

And we DIDN'T EVEN GET BIN LADEN THERE. We captured him years after entering the region, in PAKISTAN, a FRIENDLY state, with a single company of marines. No invasion required, no massive civilian casualties, and to my knowledge, we didn't give any terrorist groups a fresh fleet of well maintained vehicles either during that particular one.

Like, at this point, if you still believe that the answer to these terrorist organizations is force, then you really need to bring some evidence to the table, because every time we go to places we are not wanted, and inflict our will upon people who do not want us there with fire and fury, we leave a decade later with an entire city's worth of PTSD afflicted soldiers, leaving behind billions of dollars in military assets, and accomplishing exactly nothing but giving the war profiteering class a fresh infusion of cash.

75% of Palestinians "support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th." 76% have positive views of Hamas (other armed terrorist groups have even larger support).

https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20...

But if you don't believe these numbers, here is one from the Washington Institute in July 2023:

"Overall, 57% of Gazans express at least a somewhat positive opinion of Hamas"

"But it is organizations like Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Lion’s Den that receive the most widespread popular support in Gaza. About three quarters of Gazans express support for both groups, including 40% who see the Lion’s Den in a “very positive” light, an attitude shared by a similar percentage of West Bank residents."

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...

I think they are saying that the composition of users of these apps skews one way rather than the other due to pre existing stances, and the fact that the apps are not available in some markets.

As a result, certain views are prioritised as a byproduct of the fact that all modern social media apps have an algorithm that shows you more of what you already agree with, in order to maximise ad profits.

OP stated: "If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views".

They're explicitly stating that they believe pro-palestinian views are prioritized.

> They're explicitly stating that they believe pro-palestinian views are prioritized.

I'm also saying that they are prioritised, here is a sentence from my previous comment:

> As a result, certain views are prioritised

This is an important clause here. It means that they do not believe that pro-Israel views are prioritised but __if__ any it is the case that there are prioritised views are pro-Palestinian views.

Now, you could argue that this is a bad faith rhetorical device but it is not “explicitly stating that they believe pro-Palestinian views are prioritised”.

The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.

I'm not sure what you are opposing. I wrote that majority of the world is against Israel's occupation. And it's not only West Bank, this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg

> The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.

Pro Palestine doesn't mean pro Hamas or pro terrorist. Here is another general assembly vote, from 26th October where majority of the world voted differently than Israel, and in favor of Palestine:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847

The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel.

Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?

  > I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947.

  > I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties.

In an ideal world what you’re saying would be true. Hamas could be eradicated without civilian casualties. No children would get hurt.

But you’re not proposing an alternative — and part of the reason is that Hamas has made it explicitly hard to do so.

Is the verdict that any territory that is sufficiently populated can’t be retaliated against?

  > this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg

1. The geographical area of Palestine, also often called The Holy Land among other names, that was not inhabited by Jews.

2. The area that the UN Partition Plan designated for an Arab state.

3. The areas that the Palestinian Authority has both civil and military control over.

The problem with the first definition is obvious: It displays a geographical area with a racial modifier. That would be like showing a map of France with all the areas where French people live highlighted, then assuming that 100% of the remaining areas are "Immigrant Land". In reality, the far majority of the land was not settled by Jews nor Arabs in time frame of this map - it was so empty that the Ottomans created laws specifically to increase both Arab and Jewish settlement in the area, they didn't care so long as the taxes were paid.

The UN Partition Plan was not perfect, but it for the most part proposed an Arab state in the areas that were Arab majority, and a Jewish state in the areas with a Jewish majority. The Arabs rejected this plan in an attempt to conquer more land - so complaining that the borders changed from these borders is disingenuous. The Arabs started a war (well, more than one) with the specific intent of changing these borders.

The aforementioned organization in no way represents “the majority of the world” or “the rest of the world”; it makes a joke out of the values of freedom and human rights.

The majority of the global ruling class is for Israel's occupation of Palestine.

History is incomprehensible if we ignore class conflict.

It has been a relatively prominent issue in Ireland, and especially Northern Ireland for some time. You can find plenty of images over the years of republican murals with Palestinian flags on them (e.g. 10 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/189yeg/o... ), or conversely unionist bonfires with palestinean flags on it: (e.g. last year https://nitter.dafriser.be/M_AndersonSF/status/1542523209311... )