ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, stops short of ordering ceasefire

Israel must face the reality that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land. There is no solution until that happens. Just like apartheid South Africa was dismantled, Israel has to face the same fate or forever be locked into warfare and oppressing Palestinians.

> that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land

I’ve heard this line from people who say the West Bank and Gaza are the occupied land, to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme.

> like apartheid South Africa was dismantled

South Africa wasn’t as militarised as the Levant has become, unfortunately. As long as Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, itself and through its proxies, any Mandela-type accounting is probably fruitless. (I am open to being convinced otherwise.)

It's not "hate speech" to call to the end of an apartheid government.

Isn't that exactly the view of reality that the Israeli right wing holds? They would agree that the choices are either dismantling the state of Israel, or eternal warfare. Since they don't want to dismantle the state of Israel, they elect for eternal warfare.

It's funny how on some questions, the most extreme people on both sides agree on the answer. Hamas and the Israeli right wing both agree that the only viable solution is for one ethnic group to control all the land from the river to the sea.

> They just want Palestinians to have full human rights on their land, from the river to the sea

This is presumably a one-state solution?

The problem here being the Jews would be a minority in this state. Which leads to existential concerns regarding their survival. That can’t be easily brushed aside. Particularly when members of Iran’s Axis sport “death to Israel, a curse upon Jews” [1]. (Hamas and the Houthis sharing a backer isn’t insignificant.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movemen...

> Calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state is hate speech

I’m generally pro-Israel, but I don’t agree with this at all. Israel is a theocracy, and an increasingly right-wing one at that. Arguing against even theocracies in principal would technically argue for dissolving Israel as a Jewish state; I would hardly call that hate speech.

Is there a Christian state?

Anyone can go on Google Earth, look at the official UN borders of Israel, then do a search in Hebrew or "synagogue" (obviously not every synagogue is Israeli) or "checkpoint" and very clearly see the Israeli settlements outside Israel's legal borders. Search "Hizma" for a good example [1].

To make it even more obvious, toggle the "street view" layer over one of these areas and see what gets highlighted.

There is a clear apartness between the neatly-planned Israeli settlements, often built on demolished Palestinian villages, and the organic scattering of indigenous, primarily Arab Palestinian villages. With militarized checkpoints in between. Anyone can see it, if they have the will and a web browser.

[1] - https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot...

Everything blue on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_Religions.svg

I feel that's an extremely naive view. How many Jews live peacefully and enjoy human rights under Arab rule in the middle east? Zero. How many in Gaza under Hamas? Zero. How many live in the west bank in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority? Zero.

So "Hamas" only wants Tel-Aviv "returned", Jersualem "returned", Haifa "returned", from the river to the sea, but somehow in that vision all the Jewish population lives peacefully and enjoys human rights that don't exist anywhere in the middle east?

No. The Israeli right wing is trying (and succeeding at) making all of the land between the river and the sea exclusive property of the Jewish people. A quick glance at how the borders have evolved since 1948 makes this evident.

Most Palestinians (and thankfully also a good number of Israeli citizens) want a pluralistic solution, without checkpoints and borders, with equal rights and equal representation for all.

A two-state solution was possible 20 years ago, but with the current settlements in the West Bank with 450k or so Settlers and Gaza's total dependence on Israel for water, internet, electricity and many other of life's necessities, all paths towards a two-state solution have been severed.

Now that Gaza has been bombed and bulldozed what possibility is there for a Palestinian state? All records have been destroyed. The courts are gone. The universities are gone. It's all gone.

Israel will accept neither a one-state or two-state solution. By systematically destroying everything Palestinian the question resolves itself. That seems to be the strategy. And if we can take Israeli politicians at their word, this seems to have been the strategy for the past 20 years at least.

> They just want Palestinians to have full human rights on their land, from the river to the sea.

What's the word for word translation of the original slogan again? "From the river to the sea, all land shall be Arab" if my dictionary doesn't fail me...

I'm not sure what point are you trying to make here.

Nobody, including Israelis, will argue about the status of Palestinians living outside of Israel's border, in areas that are occupied (a terminology of international law that Israel also agrees to, https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation ) do not enjoy equal rights to Israelis (Arabs, Jews, Christians and other) living within Israel's borders. During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections? It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little).

"often built on demolished Palestinian villages" - I think this isn't generally true in the west bank, if that was what this statement was about. There are certainly demolished villages within Israel's borders (going back to the 1948 war).

> They just want Palestinians to have full human rights

Hamas certainly doesn't want Palestinians to have full human rights. Regardless of how unjustifiable some Israel's actions are or what one might think about them Hamas is a fundamentalist terrorist organization and they certainly were/are/would be unwilling to extend "full human rights" to Palestinians or anyone living in Gaza or anywhere else.

The charter of Hamas explicitly calls for the eradication of the state of Israel, the death of presumably all Jews, Muslim rule of all of Palestine, the explicit rejection of peace or any negotiated settlement (with explicit condemnation of the Camp David Accords), and Jihad as individual duty in order to achieve the aforementioned goals.

Huh? Israel is a parliamentary democracy not a theocracy. It is more irreligious than USA/Canada and plenty of Europe:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irrelig...

That's certainly what you (and me) would very much like Hamas to want but it is certainly not what Hamas actually wants

You can only ignore who they are if you don't listen to what they say

> During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could

Which was a temporary state and certainly didn't last for 50 years.

> It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little).

There are no countries in Europe where US is maintaining military bases without full consent of their governments.

> could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections?

How is this relevant? The people living in the occupied territories do not enjoy equal rights with the illegal Israeli settlers who have taken parts of them over. It's basically colonialism.

While I mostly agree with you, your point does not seem to contradict at all the point of the comment you are responding to

You're correct that the Israeli right wing would really like the entire land to be ruled by the Jewish people. Their "success" since 1967 has really been driven by the Arab countries and the Palestinians. The political violence and the wars they waged pushed the Israeli public to become more extreme and unable to imagine a future where it's possible for everyone to live in peace on the same land. I think this is pretty much fact. Rabin who was trying to make peace was assassinated as a direct result of the heated atmosphere in the wake of Hamas' suicide bombing campaign against Israel, which had the goal of sabotaging the peace process.

I don't think it's correct that most Palestinians want what you say they want (surveys?). And even if it's true, the majority of Palestinians has no means of getting what they want. In areas under their control it's certainly hasn't been "pluralistic with equal rights and representation", it's been more like "I have a gun do what I say or else".

I think the two state solution is impossible but not for the reasons you mention. I don't think we need Gaza's courts or universities. It's also not the dependency on electricity etc. It's impossible for other reasons. On the Israeli side nobody is willing to live with an aggressive entity that wants to destroy it having their own state 5 minute driving distance from all their major cities. Gaza (the withdrawal of Israel and the rise of Hamas and their militarization) to them is proof there's no way that can work. There is no trust that the Palestinians will respect any agreement. On the Palestinian side there's no body that actually represents the Palestinians and there are armed factions that have already said they'll reject any agreement and keep on fighting.

Israel has dismantled settlements in Sinai and in Gaza. I don't think the settlements are the problem. If there was a viable option for real peace Israel would dismantle the settlements (+/- maybe some land exchange around major blocks). Ofcourse the settlements don't help because their existence creates friction and hate and they're sort of illegal.

Maybe external parties will somehow enforce a two state solution. It's kind of hard to see now. Maybe we need enough time to pass so we get social processes that take us somewhere better. Also kind of hard to see right now. Maybe Israel will expel all Arabs from the region eventually (or enough of them that they can annex the occupied territories). Also hard to see. Maybe the Palestinians will unite and reject violence as means of making political progress and that will convince Israelis to let them in as equal citizens. Also hard to see. I.e. no solution. Partly has to do with broader geo-political processes, namely China and Russia's conflict with the west. If that's resolved (also hard to see) maybe progress can be made in the middle east as well.

The West Bank holds the forth largest Jewish population in the world, after France. Now the West Bank is occupied territory, controlled by Israel, so perhaps that doesn’t count.

According to this Wikipedia article[1] there are around 2-3000 jewish people living in Morocco, 1-2000 in Tunisia, and about 100 in Syria and Lebanon (not including the Golan Heights).

I am aware that there were persecutions in the past in many Arabic countries, but the same is true of Europe. Beirut even restored one of their last Synagogues in 2010 after it was damaged, ironically, in an Israeli airstrike.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country

Hamas controls Gaza, where Israel withdrew nearly 20 years ago. First thing Hamas did: destroy all the infrastructure set up by Israelis. Or maybe Hamas murdered the Fatah officials first. In any case, there was little Israeli left in all that time, and there's a border with a supposedly friendly neighbor, tons of money and expertise by the global community invested in that area, and they squandered it all in favor of raping and pillaging the hippie communities of the Israeli peace movement.

I don't think it makes sense to talk about what the extremists in a conflict want when one side is a regional superpower and the other side has no army to speak of (that's why Hamas hides in tunnels).

It's about what the parties can actually accomplish. Hamas gambles on international sympathy because they cannot do anything militarily. They have no bargaining leverage either during possible peace talks. I don't approve of antisemitic slogans wishing for the destruction of Israel but the world will never allow it to happen. Never. Zero chance of that happening.

So while extremists on both sides are the same in the abstract, only one side is facing possible extermination.

If Jordan took back the west bank and Egypt took Gaza back then this also wouldn't last for 50 years. This is a unique situation where the party the land was occupied from doesn't want it back and the party that occupied it doesn't want it and the people living on this occupied land also don't really want it (or at least not willing to make peace in exchange for getting it). Because it's so hard to solve we've been stuck for 50 years. Still the legal status of this territory is the same as occupied Japan or Germany. It's a "temporary state", just a very long one.

In terms of "colonialism" I don't think it quite fits the strict definition of the word. Again it's a bit of a unique situation. If we compare to Europe many of the borders were drawn as a result of war, and this would be no different. The difference is that in Europe the population might have been expelled (e.g. like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czec... ) and the area annexed. Another interesting history to look at is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_change...

My point was specific to Palestinian Authority controlled areas of the west bank.

My second point (maybe not so obvious) was about human rights situations in the Arab world and under Palestinian rule. e.g. the Jews living in Morocco can't elect their government because Morocco is a dictatorship ("Monarchy"), ruled by a king.

I.e. there's no Jews living under Arab rule while meeting those two conditions. Being able to live in a democratic, free, country with human rights, and under Arab or Palestinian rule. I was well aware there is some (tiny) Jewish population in some Arab countries.

So are there 6 million Stateside Puerto Ricans living in one of the 50 United States who have equal rights to other US citizens. Puerto Rico is still a colony of the United States. Mind you that the Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico have infinitely more rights then Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank or occupied East Jerusalem.

Read Hamas' charter, they are open about their goals: to kill or expel Jews from the river to the sea.

> Which was a temporary state and certainly didn't last for 50 years.

Because the population in neither one enacted a serious of terror campaigns or "Intifadas" against them. If they did it's almost certain that the allies would still occupy Germany and the US Japan.

edit: Also, until the 2+4 treaty, formally known as the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" was signed in 1990 the allies still held part of their occupational rights over Germany. Not 50 years, but 45 at least.

I should point out to people who might not be as familiar with Israeli history that Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli right wing extremist.

As for the rest, while I appreciate the civil response I don't think we agree enough on the facts to have a fruitful discussion.

There are at least 5 parties in the ruling coalition that have specific religious orthodoxy as primary parts of their platform.

I agree that the traditional definition of theocracy is probably overkill when describing the Israeli government but specific religious beliefs drive politics there well out of proportion to the beliefs of the constituents.

In a way that feels out of line with secular western democracy at times.

> the party that occupied it doesn't want it

That's not that obvious considering all the illegal settlements. I'm sure they want the land just not the people living there.

But yes, no clear solution especially considering that the only (non-Hamas) option for self government, the Palestinian Authority/Fatah is thoroughly incompetent and corrupt.

> the entire land to be ruled by the Jewish people

Not Jewish people, a very select subset of that group: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2784649

>They just want Palestinians to have full human rights on their land, from the river to the sea.

What about the rights to elections? Free speech? To be gay and not be thrown off a building? They don't even support these basic human rights in the land they rule, for the people they claim as their own.

Israel likes to say this, but it is not true. The hasidic jews especially enjoy rights that other Israelis just dont have, and they have a large amount of control over the government.

I specifically think the mixed use of the word "occupation" to imply that the state of Palestine should include all of the current state of Israel one of the largest trust busting tricks in the modern discourse. I think it is natural to think that the Gaza and West Bank situation is bad and I suspect the majority of even slightly western views would agree.

What shocked me, is that there are some on the far left that fully think all of Israel is an occupation of Palestine. More, they got rather upset when I pointed out that that line of thinking is, ironically, in support of people that have shown genocidal intent.

Curious if you have numbers on how many intentionally refer to all of Israel in this way? (Also curious if my take on that is unfair to folks?)

I'm not sure why we have to bring the Ethiopian Jews into this discussion. I think a lot has changed in this regard since 1993 when this paper was published. Ethiopian jews are much more integrated into Israeli society. But yes, this statement is more complicated than meets the eye, but I don't think this particular topic is current or relevant. I.e. I don't think your typical religious right-wing settler has a problem with including an Ethiopian Jew into their definition of who they think should control the "god given land of Israel". They're probably happier with them than e.g. with some more "modern" Jewish people from the US.

I'm curious but I also appreciate the civil discussion. Thanks for the extra context re: Rabin. This topic doesn't lend itself to one liners.

apartheid is a loaded term of opinion, not of fact. comparing israel to other true apartheid regimes, such as south africa, is hyperbolic. there exist discriminatory policies that ought to be reformed but i do not believe that word is appropriate.

israel does, in fact, exist on some occupied land that she should return, including many west bank settlements. however, there is something to be said for keeping parts as a bargaining chip against those motivated largely by religious and nationalistic fervor mixed with some basic hatred. other parts of her land were obtained legitimately, going all the way back to the first aliyah after the kiev pogroms in which tens of thousands of jews were massacred. many immigrated legally, though the ottoman empire later threw up some barriers to immigration with hopes to limit their numbers. many were later moved legitimately under the authority of the british in mandatory palestine.

legal immigrants are not necessarily "occupiers". there is also a period past which land becomes naturalized, just like most of the world has been taken and settled by force at some point or another. most of the people who are descendants of those ancient conquerors are just as indigenous as those who were there before. i'd venture to say much of israel, while it ought to be shared better, is populated with naturalized inhabitants.

It is true… that is literally their governmental type. There are religious parties in Israel (just like the religious are largely in the GOP in the USA) but that doesn’t make it theocratic… unless you bend the definition of theocracy beyond all meaning.

That is all not to mention my second point which is that Israel isn’t even a particularly religious country compared to the west.

What rights and privileges do Protestants in England & Denmark enjoy which are denied to those of other faiths?

You could say the same of Europe prior to 1945. However today hundreds of thousands of Jewish people live in Europe enjoy equal rights and democracy.

What makes you think that Palestine can’t become one of those countries if ever allowed to be democratic and independent?

A two state solution is still possible. Why do people assume Palestinians want a state of only Palestinians. Palestine had Jews living in it before and a hypothetical future state of Palestine can too. They are not committed to an ethnostate they just want freedom.

Theres no reason democracies cant be theocracies. You can come up with a pained definition to make it so, but if everyone votes for the religious party I think most would agree that thats a theocracy.

Well they are not not indigenous.

But calling them "the indigenous" is not correct. DNA studies done by Israeli scientists on Palestinian subjects show that they descend from indigenous groups including Judea.

All metaphors are wrong, some metaphors are useful. The word "burn" applies to both first and third degree burns.

Characteristics of apartheid can exist even if it is not at the severity experienced by black south Africans. The analogy here has utility, and racism towards Palestinians is unfortunately a huge problem in Israeli society.

Actually, if you believe that the bible is true, they killed the indigenous people there first

More historically certain is that there was a stream of people living and moving through that area during waves of human immigration outside of Africa (look up the Sahara pump theory).

This is a good summary of Islamic radicalization propaganda that seeks to use Palestinian civilians as pawns, with no regard for them. It is this narrative that keeps the Palestinains in prison.

The counterpoint is that you "must" face the reality that this is never going to happen, and that asserting that it will or should is equivalent to damning the Palestinians to the existence that they currently occupy.

Greater Islam does not have an army that can stand against the West, let alone do the Palestinians. All that they have are manipulated terrorists whose actions always cause much more destruction on their side than the inverse.

So I say again, the only realistic and humane view is to take your oppopsite position, recognize the immovable force, and actually attempt to save Palestinian lives via deradicalization and a relocation campaign.

Where is Palestine state proposal from Palestinians so I can read it? Or is this just fantasy made up by outsiders?

it makes total sense to discuss this: because in effect by tipping the balance of power you don't really change anything.

If you made Israel as small as Palestine tomorrow, and Palestine as large as Israel: the same (or, some would argue: worse) situation would exist and the same sentiments from the same sorts of extremists.

Thats what we are talking about, power doesn't matter, only sentiment and perspective has been discussed here.

Hamas has repeatedly refused to disavow the original charter, and, of course, their actions on October 7 certainly affirm it.

Would it be democratic if it became independent, though?

Hamas specifically came to power via elections, but hasn't held any elections since then under various excuses, so they clearly aren't champions of democracy.

I feel like you’re assuming that everyone thinks the same way you do. I don’t really think the evidence or history bears out “they just want freedom”. There were many obvious opportunities for this in the past.

The people living on this land wasn't ever offered a credible "this is your land & we leave you alone on it" deal, though. No sovereign country would tolerate a complete blockade of its borders, yet that is seemingly what Israel expected from Palestinians when "giving" them Gaza.

Israel has a fairly large Palestinians population and most of them want to stay under Israeli control so maybe they know something that you don't?

"Everybody else in the region" is mostly descendants of various Semitic peoples who lived in that area for just as long. Palestinians in particular seem to be related to Canaanites, which - if you take the Torah at face value - would actually make them the indigenous people that were a target of genocidal conquest by the original Jewish settlers in the area (although archeologists say that this was more likely intra-ethnic warfare between different groups, and the whole notion of Canaanites as distinct peoples was created to justify the conquest of neighbors).

There was also a near-complete blockade.

> Israel is a parliamentary democracy not a theocracy

Israel legally defines itself in law as the nation-state of the Jewish people [1].

It isn’t a textbook theocracy, but neither is Iran. Elected governments with theocratic characteristics?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nat...

Gaza wasn't blockaded when it was handed to the Palestinians. Only later when Hamas came to power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

EDIT: Just want to add that the reality is more nuanced. Naturally Israel affects control over its border with Gaza and Egypt affected control over its border. Israel has definitely refused to let Gaza operate an airport or a sea port and so it maintained some amount of control together with Egypt. That said a lot of how this evolved was around choices made by Palestinians and the rise of Hamas led to the official blockade being imposed. I do think this was an opportunity for Palestinians to demonstrate how they can govern territory controlled by them and be peaceful neighbors which ofcourse did not happen.

> people living on this land wasn't ever offered a credible "this is your land & we leave you alone on it" deal, though

Nobody in the former Ottoman Empire did.

> No sovereign country would tolerate a complete blockade of its borders

Plenty of enclave countries exist. The blockade clamped shut when Hamas took power [1]. A coup, mind you, which overthrew Gaza’s fledgling (and flawed) democracy.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

This just isn't true. There are even (a few thousand) Jews living in Iran, and the Ayatollahs have come out in defence of Judaism proper.

The main problem for Jews in the region is the fact that the certain Israeli factions aggressively conflates Judaism with Israeli nationalism/Zionism, sacrificing the former to protect the latter. Above all else, that makes it dangerous to be Jewish outside Israel or one of its Western sponsors. And even inside. Because uninformed people, and actual antisemites, buy into that cynical framing.

They have tried to hold election. Last attempt was in 2021. Israel prevented occupied East Jerusalem from participating which was a noop for Abbas who cancelled them. Also notable was that EU asked to observe the election, but Israel did not allow that. There have also been local elections on the West Bank, last one in 2021.

Holding elections with two distinct governments and a third one occupying both is not easy. Even Ukraine has difficulty holding a general election with only a portion of its territory occupied and a single government.

But yeah, I think, and I think most would agree, that an independent Palestine would defiantly be democratic.

Bingo

That just plainly isn’t what a theocracy is though- by your definition the US could easily be called a theocracy for most of its history and even today. Beyond that you continue to ignore my other point - the people in Israel are less religious than the US/Canada and much of Europe. They are a less religious democracy than the US and yet you continue to call it what it just patently isn’t?

> to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme.

In what way is it not? The state was created by western powers less than 100 years ago and has aggressively pursued European and US immigration since then.

The current state of things is an entirely manufactured situation and it's becoming more and more farcical. There's only so many times you can interview a guy with a British or New York accent talking about his ancestral right to the desert before things start looking a little bit weird.

There were definitely persecutions and ethnic cleansing campaigns following 1948 in the neighboring Arab countries, especially in Iraq, Syria, and following 1967 in Lebanon, which drove a lot of Arab speaking Jews to Israel. Israel’s immigration policy was also very aggressive in inviting Jews from Arabic countries into Israel. Some even believe Israel went as far as stealing people from Ethiopia. So a lot of Jewish communities that once existed outside of Israel have now been absorbed into Israel.

That said, I think it is a mistake—and honestly a bit racist—to claim that Jewish people can’t live and prosper in smaller communities among certain ethno-religous majorities today.

> And if we can take Israeli politicians at their word, this seems to have been the strategy for the past 20 years at least.

Do you also take Palestinian leaders at their word? Because if so their strategy is to drive out Jews by whatever means necessary. None of them are talking about equal rights and representations, that's just not how their society works and they definitely don't want that together with Jews.

I know that there are significant numbers who don't think like I do. I am stating a possibility that is ignored as an option. "they just want freedom" is based on every conversation I've ever had with a Palestinian. Did you ask any of them?

> That said, I think it is a mistake—and honestly a bit racist—to claim that Jewish people can’t live and prosper in smaller communities among certain ethno-religous majorities today

How is it racist ? There are indeed entire areas where Jews can't really live normally due to harassment. Even in Europe.

Many black Americans chose to stay in the USA rather than emigrate to Liberia in the 1800s when given the opportunity. What can you conclude about the situation for black people in America based on that historical fact?

I don't follow what the clowns in Hamas, Fatah, or the PLO say. But I know some people personally.

Have you ever talked to a Palestinian person, megaman821?

> The state was created by western powers less than 100 years ago

That's not entirely accurate at all. There was indeed a UN decision to partition the land and to acknowledge Israel, but no one was enforcing it. The Arabs and Jews were left to battle it out in a horrible war. Jews were facing the real possibility of a second extermination only 3 years after the holocaust (I don't think I'm exaggerating the consequences of what defeat would have looked like had the Jews lost that war).

The British policy towards Jews in Palestine was not consistent at all, and at a certain point they sided with the Arabs and banned Jewish immigration to Palestine - even at the height of the holocaust.

It is racist to zero in on a specific ethno-religous group and say that they in particular are unable to maintain a functioning democracy accommodating of certain minorities. It is the sort of crap that colonial Europe did to justify the horrors of the colonial period.

This is also in the Likud(Israeli far-right party charter) and actually denotes even more land in the region(Jordan) as property of Israel.

It was implemented as a response to indiscriminate rocket fire at civilians.

Seems like a weird comparison given that arab israelis are citizens with equal rights and most likely have much more information as opposed to people in the 1800s.

Not the mention that in the long term living in the USA was the right "bet", and pretty sure that if you ask black americans today if they'd like to emigrate to Liberia i assume 99.9% would say no.

There are many places in the world that are not maintaining a functioning democracy, that includes not respecting minorities to Western standards. Blows my mind this is a racist statement to you, but we'll have to disagree then.

They killed 1200 people, most of them civilians, raped dozens (at least), filmed murders and posted those videos to the victims Facebook pages. I am, in this one instance, comfortable with the application of Cancel Culture.

There is no advocacy one can pursue more antithetical to the cause of Palestinian human rights than to cheerlead for Hamas.

The likud is not far right, it’s just a right wing party. There are other far right parties. Can you link me to that part of the likud charter? Because the one I’ve read mentions none of that.

> That's not entirely accurate.

It's fair to say that it wasn't directly created by them but their actions in the years prior did lead to the end result. The UK administered the region and had committed to making it a "national home" for the Jewish people. That doesn't necessarily mean a state, but the result was a rapid shift in demographics.

It didn't help that the UK had also made promises of independence to other groups in the region.

> There was indeed a UN decision to partition the land and to acknowledge Israel, but no one was enforcing it. The Arabs and Jews were left to battle it out in a horrible war. Jews were facing the real possibility of a second extermination only 3 years after the holocaust (I don't think I'm exaggerating the consequences of what defeat would have looked like).

I entirely agree with you on the situation that Jews in the region were faced with at the time. One of the depressing things is that despite the proximity to the holocaust, antisemites in allied countries saw the situation as a way to encourage Jews to leave.

I can see how things might have turned out better if there hadn't been so much migration in such a short period of time.

I don’t live in Gaza, nor do any of the Palestinians that I’ve known. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that the opinion sample is going to be representative for many reasons.

An interesting current data point for me is that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians support the actions of Hamas on October 7th specifically. If someone “just wants freedom” but doesn’t support the slaughter and kidnap of innocent Israeli citizens, they would actually be in the minority — so I don’t think your characterization is broadly correct. This isn’t even considering other historical events and opportunities for independent statehood.

"burn" is commonly applied to a range of conditions. "apartheid" is applied with exceptional rarity, and in common parlance, people associate it with the south african regime. in your analogy, this is equivalent to calling a first-degree burn third-degree

> I can see how things might have turned out better if there hadn't been so much migration in such a short period of time.

Not enough migration if you asked me, millions of Jews could have been saved from the holocaust. If not in Palestine a real effort should have been made to take them in other places, yet no one was doing it - not in Palestine or anywhere else.

Mexico has better chances of winning against the US and driving out the Americans than Hamas has against Israel. Hamas has no advanced military capability.

Palestinians have over the years engaged in many good faith peace talks. Honored their side of many cease-fire agreements. And this is exactly what you would expect. After all, Palestinians stand to gain much more by a sustained peace than Israel does. The status quo (before Oct 7) was pretty great for Israel and terrible for the Palestinians. When actions, words, and incentives all point in the same direction I'm inclined to believe the words. Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state with state rights nor does it want millions of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Palestinians will gladly take any serious peace deal, even if that deal strongly favors Israeli interests, because the status quo is unbearable. But none of this matters because Israel has refused to engage in peace talks ever since Hamas got elected.

History teaches us that peace is possible between bitter enemies when both parties want peace and stand to gain by it. When one party desperately needs peace and the other party doesn't, there won't be peace.

This comment is in bad faith, it is attempting to paint my retort as cheerleading for Hamas despite the actual content of my comment. You can do better than this, maybe.

I think it's a pair of relatively straightforward and banal observations and you have a choice about how personally you want to take them. You can simply say nothing, and reasonable people might reasonably assume that you of course repudiate Hamas wholesale. I'm happy to do so as well.

At the point in which I entered the thread, there was some dispute as to the intent and good faith of Hamas itself. All I care about is that we establish that no such good faith exists. Your own personal beliefs are not something I feel the need to litigate.

> Palestinians have over the years engaged in many good faith peace talks.

So has Israel

> Honored their side of many cease-fire agreements.

So has Israel

> The status quo (before Oct 7) was pretty great for Israel and terrible for the Palestinians.

The status quo was partially the result of Israel being repeatedly attacked.

> Palestinians will gladly take any serious peace deal, even if that deal strongly favors Israeli interests, because the status quo is unbearable.

I think that if this was the case, October 7th would not have happened, Hamas would have surrendered, and the hostages would have been returned.

Having said this, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is highly complex.

> Mexico has better chances of winning against the US and driving out the Americans than Hamas has against Israel. Hamas has no advanced military capability.

I disagree. This isn't Hamas alone, Hamas is backed by Iran. Big proxy armies have been built by Iran and are surrounding Israel - mostly in Lebanon and Syria and now also Yemen. Hundreds of thousands of different kinds of rockets - many of them accurate with big warheads. As for moral support - significant parts of the Muslim world and the Western liberal elites are promoting and supporting the idea that Israel should be dismantled (The Muslims mostly see this done by force. The liberal left by sanctions, but are sympathetic to the idea of violent struggle because of 'oppression').

As for the chances of this working out - I don't think it's low at all. With a patient strategy like this it can eventually happen. They've been at it for around 100 years why can't they go on for another 100? But whatever I think about the chances, I'm positive most Palestinians themselves and the resistance axis supporting them are quite confident in their chances and feel religiously compelled to keep it up.

> After all, Palestinians stand to gain much more by a sustained peace than Israel does

This is a Western approach, not how Palestinians think. You either don't read what the Palestinians are saying or you don't believe them. When they say from the river to the sea - they mean it. It's a big part of their national and religious identity, not something they can give up for a small 1967 border state. Sure, they would have had better GDP and lives had they taken a 67 state with no occupation etc, but that would break their dreams and passions and identities and somewhat their religious beliefs. Those things are more important to them them than safety and GDP, as irrational as it may seem to you. I wish I was wrong about all this but nothing I've seen over the years led me to feel like I'm wrong.

I was referring to the period after the war. To be clear, I don't think that having escaped the holocaust is a negative.

> If not in Palestine a real effort should have been made to take them in other places, yet no one was doing it - not in Palestine or anywhere else.

Agreed, the scale of the migration to palestine, even prior to 1945, indicates an abdication of duty by western countries. At the time Palestine was primarily under the control of the UK.

When you mentioned rapid demographic shift, I was assuming you meant the Jewish immigration in the early 20th century that brought bigger numbers of Jews into Palestine and the beginning of the Palestinian rejection of Zionism. There is a popular view that this (or basically Zionism altogether) should have never been allowed to take place because it eventually led to Palestinian displacement.

The early immigration certainly caused issues between two groups and I do think that the decision to support the zionists of the time was incorrect. For many, the purpose seems to have been to reduce their own Jewish populations.

While still a cause of tension, immigration was much lower before the war. The result was just as you said, European Jews were faced with an existential threat a few years after the holocaust.

One of the things I found quite interesting was that Palestine wasn't the only option considered by early Zionists. At some point places like Argentina and Uganda were potential candidates.

> For many, the purpose seems to have been to reduce their own Jewish populations.

I'm not really aware of much European support for Zionism outside the Balfour declaration in those years. The declaration remained a declaration and pretty soon the Brits flipped their policy and banned Jewish immigration. You had tiny movements of Christians Zionists (Churchill was a Zionist for instance) but I'm not aware of any substantial support they gave. After the war the big immigration waves were actually from Middle Eastern Jews, not from Europe. Jews from Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Syria etc etc whose lives became increasingly dangerous. So my main point is its quite unclear if there was any major support for Zionism in the West in those years. Only after the holocaust could you find a majority that supported establishing Israel in the UN.

If you want to dig into this look into where Israel got its weapons from during its war of survival in 48: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_shipments_from_Czechoslov.... From the communists.

When Hamas got elected Israel aborted all peace talks and built a fence with gun turrets around Gaza. No peace talks means no peace.

The belief that “the other” is fundamentally unreasonable can be used to justify arbitrary amounts of violence. Lets not forget that Hamas is pretty unpopular in Gaza and that most people just want to live their lives and not see their children get blown up. This is not my biased western perspective.

We have very clear instances from history where the opposite is true. The amount of senseless wars and violence is staggering. Arguably more often than not. I don't think this is different, we are going to disagree on that.

It turns out being the group who sent suicide bombers to restaurants, nightclubs, and busses, and who call for genocide of the jews regularly, are not a credible partner for peace.

And when israel does work with them, people say "See, bibi was supporting hamas!"

Sure. We can say the same about the middle ages and prehistoric societies. It's entirely possible that one day Palestine (or we can call it Israel who cares what the country is named) can become a country where all these people that want to kill each other today and lay their claims to the land can be more like Switzerland. The likelihood of that happening in the immediate future is pretty slim. These are long term processes. If we want to experiment let's pick another location in the region that's less complicated, like Syria, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt- pick one. when those become like the UK or Switzerland or France or Germany, i.e. prosperous, free, democratic countries, then we can try this in "Palestine"/"Israel". And really, if we turned the entire middle east into the EU then the tiny little piece of land people are fighting over becomes less of a problem anyways because there's not the same shortage of land/resources. I'm sure many Jewish people would prefer to live and work in Beirut for example or live in some remote area in Syria or Iraq and grow weed. "A wolf will reside with a lamb, and a leopard will lie down with a young goat; an ox and a young lion will graze together, as a small child leads them along." - beautiful.

The US tried to bring democracy to Iraq ... and Russia. That didn't quite end up as expected.

Seriously though, I think it could become. One day. It's been going the opposite direction. These are processes that are measured in generations. There are some major issues that would need to be addressed (like being a safe haven for Jews from persecution) even if the middle east emerges from it's "dark ages". Also I don't think the parties here really want this sort of solution right now (i.e. they wouldn't even be willing to work towards it and they're actively working against it).

defiantly? So you really think that the Hamas would abide by a democratic result that removes it from power? After it took power in Gaza by force, killing many Palestinians (hundreds!) that belonged to Fatah? I think there's little indication that Palestinians in power are interested in democracy, human rights, personal freedoms etc. Neither Fatah/PA nor Hamas. If Israel withdrew unilaterally from the entirety of the west bank it'd be a carbon copy of Gaza. Militarized, dug up with tunnels, rockets aimed at Israel, Jihadi antisemitic education system, zero human rights, rule by force, corruption. The only reason the PA is able to keep existing is because the IDF is supporting it, otherwise the Hamas would already be ruling the west bank cities (and/or Israel would retake them and re-establish the military rule over them).

There's a path to Israeli citizenship for Arabs living in east Jerusalem and Israel has de-facto annexed it. But Israel did allow the 2006 elections to happen there. I wasn't really aware of the details about 2021 but I think you forgot to mention that Hamas refused to allow the elections to take place in Gaza (and participate at all?). At the end of the day this is just another political battle tool. I think it would make sense for the Palestinians to have elections in the areas under their control, by insisting on extending those to areas not in their control they are making a political statement and trying to push towards the outcome they want to see. It's only fair that Israel pushes the opposite direction towards the outcome it prefers to see. There is still a dispute and the sides do not agree. If Palestinians were truly concerned about democracy they would restrict the process to the areas they control ("A" territory in the west bank and Gaza) which would make sense, i.e. give the people that live in areas under Palestinian control a say in who runs those areas, and wouldn't really make a statement as to what the eventual agreement would look like.

I don't know if you missed my point below but can Jews in Iran live in a democracy? Do they enjoy human rights and freedoms similar to what Jews enjoy in Israel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews#Legal_discriminat...

"For example, if a Jew were to kill a Muslim, the family of the victim would have the right to ask that the death penalty be imposed, but if a Muslim kills a Jew, the penalty would be left to the discretion of the judges with the wishes of the victim's family carrying no legal weight" - I mean only fair, right?

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

"There were two waves of confiscation of homes, farmlands and factories of Jews in Iran. In the first wave, the authorities seized the properties of a small group of Jews who were accused of helping Zionism financially. In the second wave, authorities confiscated the properties of Jews who had to leave the country after the Revolution. They left everything in fear for their lives and the Islamic Republic confiscated their properties using their absence as an excuse"

So no, it's is not reasonable to ask Jews in Israel to live under similar conditions that Jews are subjected to in Iran (and really it's much worse than you're painting it). I stand by my original statement.

I think your last statement really tells it all. "makes it dangerous to be Jewish" tells us that the problem really is antisemitism. Israels' critics are the ones "conflating" things and the treatment of Israel by its haters is primarily coming from a place of hating Jews (and sorry, I'm going to put "uninformed" in the same bucket, because if you hate Jews because you're uninformed you're still an antisemite). As a Jewish person living out of Israel I see this in play. Israel is saying that much of the criticism against it is antisemitism and I think that's not way off the reality. It's also true that there's plenty of criticism that's not antisemitic but the bulk of it is. Saying Israel is somehow responsible for this is just victim blaming. If we were more aggressive about antisemitism not being ok/acceptable then we'd just be left with the valid criticism (of which there's plenty) and Israel wouldn't be able to hide behind the antisemitism defense. It's not that hard to tell whether criticism is valid or not, just s/Israel/Non-Jewish country/g and see if it still rings reasonable. That's the test Israel tries to get its critics to apply. Then it's either accused of whataboutism or colonialism or something else by people who don't want to apply this test.

EDIT: another by the way is that Iran is not an Arab country.

> Maybe external parties will somehow enforce a two state solution.

IMO, this should've always been the solution. What has happened is akin to parents letting teenage brothers bloodily beat each other up for many many decades without properly dictating a peaceful intervention assured by a much more powerful force. The world needs to acknowledge that these two parties have shown they are unable to form a peaceful equilibrium, and it's just enabling killing to continually be hands off. Get all the world powers positions on the floor, split the difference, tell Israel and Palestine these are the borders and security arrangement, guaranteed for X decades. No more lives will be lost as long as support for upsetting that agreement (intifada/nakba/etc.) is severed. Letting two extremist right wing sides religiously duke it out over "the holy land" isn't acceptable in the 21st century.

> At the end of the day this is just another political battle tool.

Show me a democracy where elections aren’t just another political battle tool. In anarchist circles there is even a saying: “If elections changed anything, they would abolish it.”

Of course the Palestinian governments are no different. Hamas wanted general elections because they thought they could gain more power. Fatah didn’t because they thought they would loose power. The game of politics happened and they had elections which were boycotted by Hamas and everybody (already in power) wins.

The onset of the Palestinian civil war is a whole lot more complected than to blame it on Hamas. Remember that the Irish also had a civil war after the 1921 treaty, and today both the North and the Republic are thriving democracies. The reality is that it is a whole lot easier to hold power in the modern world via elections (unless you are occupied, or otherwise exploited by a colonial power), and you have no reasons to believe that Hamas or Fatah or any governing body in a future free Palestine wouldn’t see that.

Sorry, but describing an entire region of the Earth as “emerging from its ‘dark ages’” comes a cross as a bit racist.

The ‘Dark Ages’ is a rejected term in historiography and kind of only serves to demonstrate the author’s disrespect for the time period which they are describing. Describing a current regions as being in the ‘dark ages’ does the same to my ears. The fact that you talk this way about the Middle East shows me that you may not respect this region and the people that live there.

> The US tried to bring democracy to Iraq

The US (and allies) invaded and occupied Iraq. That is (a) not a way to bring democracy, and (b) a proven way of hampering many economical and governmental prospects. It ended up exactly as expected—and vocally predicted by experts at the time—in a complete travesty.

Finally (and this is kind of an aside) turning the Middle East into the EU is a very colonial way of thinking. The Middle East deserves their own democracy. The EU holds a legacy, and owes much of its wealth, to colonialism. Some EU members even hold colonies to this day, others exploit cheaper labor markets (including in the Middle East) in what has been described as Neo-colonialism (a misnomer IMO as it cheapens the horrors of the actual colonial period). I certainly hope the Middle East won’t copy this from the EU and start prospering off of exploiting a different region of for its resources.

Hamas is more popular in Gaza than the Republican party is in the US. It is not true to say that they are "pretty unpopular."

> I think your last statement really tells it all. "makes it dangerous to be Jewish" tells us that the problem really is antisemitism. Israels' critics are the ones "conflating" things

The cynical conflation of Judaism/Jewish ethnicity with Israeli Zionism is absolutely driven by the Zionist regime and their hasbara appendages like ADL. Do you know what the "ADL definition of antisemitism" is and why that is significant? It explicitly equates "criticism of Israel/Zionism" with antisemitism. They have literally legalized this conflation in many respects.

It is totally disingenuous to imply that antisemites are the ones driving this confusion. They certainly benefit from it, but so does the Zionist regime, both at the expense of Jewish people of all backgrounds.

You can read HN threads about this issue and see the kernel of truth on both sides of the argument of whether antisemitism is "weaponized" by supporters of Israel, but you do your side of the argument no favors throwing around phrases like "their hasbara appendages like ADL". I'm well aware of the criticisms leveled against the ADL, and they may well be valid, but you're obliged to introduce them more seriously and carefully if you don't want to come across sounding like you believe any Jewish advocacy group is definitionally politically Zionist and thus ineligible to charge antisemitism.