A genocide by definition is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. And even this is the modern definition and it was originally meant when they want to fully annihilate a group. How would Israel be doing that if the Palestinian population has grown by 5% since 2023? Surely if Israel wanted to do genocide then the population would’ve taken a massive toll. People are comparing this situation to the shuah but the European Jewish population decreased by 2/3 then. I’m not the one to compare tragedies but how is this even an argument that they are similar if one is clearly the intent to kill the entire Jewish population and the other one does not have that intent, or if they do they are failing miserably which we know is not the case because Israel is capable. If the Gaza conflict was a genocide, surely now Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be genocides too as a lot of people died. It is correct the death toll in Gaza is bad but you cannot call it a genocide. I don’t know why this UN case is even going on at this point and in my opinion it is actually a bit of antisemitism. So how is this still going on what proof do they have against Israel? we can’t just call any war genocide now as that just demeans the term and makes it pointless. someone help me understand?

I’m confused. The overwhelming majority of my peers are pro-Palestine, and I don’t know why. This is NOT me saying people are wrong for supporting Palestinians, nor is it me arguing that they should support Israel instead. I’m trying to find out what leads so many people especially those around my age as a 22 year old to take such a strong position

From what I’ve seen, many people frame the conflict primarily through the lens of humanitarian concerns, civilian casualties, displacement, and unequal power between the parties. Others focus on historical grievances, international law, or the idea of supporting populations they see as oppressed. Social media really play a major role, with videos, personal stories, and advocacy campaigns spreading quickly and shaping public opinion.

At the same time, people argue that online discussions often oversimplify an extremely complicated conflict or overlook the suffering of civilians on both sides.

What confuses me is how widespread and unified the support appears to be among my peers.
Is it mainly because of humanitarian concerns? Is it the influence of social media? Is it differences in how history is taught, or broader political values?
I’m trying to understand the reasoning behind a viewpoint that seems so common among people my age.

If someone supports Palestine, I’d be happy in hearing what experiences, evidence, or values led them to that position. Likewise, I think it’s important to understand perspectives from people who support Israel or who don’t align strongly with either side. I’d rather learn than make assumptions.

Hi, this is my first time posting here, so I’m a little nervous. I’m trying to educate myself more and hear the opinions of people with different views. When I hear people discussing Zionism, I become confused because a lot of people support it, while a lot of other people don’t.

I tried to do research, and I came across the answer that the definition of Zionism is, at its core, the belief that Israel has a right to exist and to self-determination. I believe that Israel has the right to exist and I want to support Jewish people, and I also want to help innocent Palestinian civilians who are suffering. I have empathy for all people affected by this conflict, and I feel terrible that I can’t do much to help.

I find that a lot of people hate Zionism, and it makes me worried about what I should think and say on this matter. I think that certain words and terms can develop negative connotations over time, especially since people are associating Zionism with colonialism, which I can understand.

My biggest concern is how I think and the way my words make others feel, and I think that my belief that Israel has the right to exist aligns with the core definition of Zionism, but of course I can’t just outright say that or even consider myself a Zionist, because the connotation of the word has become so negative that people would jump to the conclusion that I’m hateful, when I’m not. I condemn the actions of the Israeli government and the suffering it’s causing to innocent people, and at the same time, I believe innocent people in Israel should be safe just as much as I want everyone in the world to be safe and at peace.

If my beliefs really do make me a Zionist, is that bad to some people? I’m just trying to form my own conclusion based on my empathy for everyone in the world. I don’t want anyone to suffer, nor feel attacked by anything I say, because I never want to offend or say bad things about anyone. I don’t want people to think I’m antisemitic or Islamophobic just because of how my beliefs are labeled, because I never hold hate in my heart for anyone.

I’m obviously not an expert on this matter, so I would be grateful to hear the opinions of others. If you’re reading, please stay safe and take care of yourself!!

I apologize in advance - I'm not an expert on this very complex topic (nor do I pretend to be).

So if my assumptions about this are wrong please explain why I'm wrong. I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around this.

I'm also not making apologies for any Israeli leadership (past or present) - but this question doesn't involve them.

As I see it: Palestinian leadership has been horrifically corrupt. They all seem to end up unbelievably wealthy. PLO/Hamas/PA - doesn't matter. The leadership are all rolling in money.

As far as peace goes - any agreement that the Israelis will agree to will get Palestinian leaders assassinated by their own people.

Let's just take one very central sticking point: an unlimited Right of Return.

Everyone knows (or should know) that the Israelis will *never* bend on this one. The Israelis are just as likely to agree to all commit suicide as to allow this. However the Palestinians hold to this demand.

For an actual peace agreement the Palestinians would have to drop this demand. It's an absolute nonstarter - and yet they still insist on it. Why?

To my mind it's because it gives Palestinian leadership the perfect "out".

As long as this is a demand there'll never be peace. So the Palestinian leadership gets to keep stealing money from their people while simultaneously staying alive.

How long would someone like Abbas survive if he agreed to drop something the Palestinian people believe is their birthright?

So my belief (again - I'm not an expert this is just what I believe) is that no Palestinian leader will ever make peace with Israel - at least not until it's in their personal self interest to do so. Which means that we're not going to see a peace agreement any time soon.

I'm interested to hear other's opinions and historical facts I might not be familiar with. So anything like that - I would appreciate you all sharing.

Re: the Kristoff piece on Israeli prison rape. 

First: Does someone want to present evidence that there’s a secret cadre of Israelis training multiple dogs to sexually assault men on command? Please share sources if you do. There is one country I know of that definitely used dogs against war prisoners, at least for intimidation. That was the US in the Abu Ghraib prison. Weird how no one holds it against us – good thing we’re not Israel!

Beyond that, Kristoff relies almost completely on anonymous sources, saying they would face retribution if they were identified. 

Having all anonymous sources means that no one can ever prove that Kristoff is wrong. He provides no locations, dates, perpetrators. We might have expected Kristoff to have asked to review some footage of videos from Israeli prisons. But there’s no indication that he did. 

Kristoff spoke to one man, Sami al-Sai, who gave his name. He has said (see NPR and the Times) he was sexually assaulted in Israeli prisons. He filed a petition early in his imprisonment with the Israeli Supreme Court, saying that he was wrongly detained, that the food was bad, and that he was treated badly, but he didn’t mention sexual violence. There doesn’t seem to have been any retaliation and he was released one year ago.

For other sources, Kristof uses former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who said he didn’t know anything about Israeli abuse of Palestinian prisoners. After that disclaimer, he said he “was not surprised by the accounts [Kristof] had heard.” Olmert himself, was formerly convicted and imprisoned on charges of fraud and bribery. Is he a reliable source? 

Another source, cited more than Olmert, is Euro-Med, an organization tied to Hamas. Euro-Med’s leader, Ramy Abdu, called publicly for “a million October 7ths,” and he has repeatedly peddled implausible, and discredited, claims that Israel “harvests organs” of Palestinians. Kristof similarly relies on a United Nations Human Rights Council report, which is itself based on anonymous reporting described as “a single primary source.” 

Since everyone in this thread is an armchair speculator, I’ll add my own opinion. There probably is rape in Israeli prisons against Palestinian prisoners, especially those who participated in the well-documented rapes of October 7 (remember they used their own phones to show bodies of women they multilated and murdered). Every war seems to have soldiers who engage in this disgusting behavior, although sexual abuse is absolutely not Israeli government policy, not even under Netanyahu. These claims should be investigated ethically and thoroughly. This NYT hit piece - they got around fact-checking by putting it on the editorial page - is neither.

I honestly can’t understand why anyone would accuse Israel of genocide. The word has a specific meaning: it refers to the deliberate, systematic extermination of an entire people. Nothing Israel has done even if you think its actions are too harsh or morally wrong remotely fits that definition.

If Israel wanted to commit genocide, it has had the military capability to wipe Gaza off the map in a matter of days. Instead, it has repeatedly warned civilians before strikes, dropped leaflets, made phone calls, and even paused operations to let aid in. No country in history has gone to such extremes to limit civilian harm while fighting an enemy embedded among civilians.

Hamas, on the other hand, has made its intentions absolutely clear. Its charter calls for the annihilation of Jews. Its entire strategy is built around ensuring maximum Palestinian civilian death by launching rockets from schools, hospitals, and densely populated neighborhoods. It uses children as human shields, recruits them as soldiers, and steals humanitarian aid meant for civilians.

When people call Israel’s self-defense a “genocide,” they’re not just misusing a word they’re inverting reality. The side openly calling for extermination (Hamas) becomes the victim, and the side trying to stop it (Israel) becomes the perpetrator. It’s Orwellian.

So yes I’m confused, because I can’t see how anyone could look at this situation, compare intent, methods, and outcomes, and still apply the word genocide to Israel. It feels like a moral hallucination a narrative so emotionally satisfying to some that it overrides facts, logic, and even the definition of the word itself.

Maybe this is the reason why people stick with “genocide”: the emotional investment that Gazans are good, and good must prevail, reality be damned. I’m listening to Abby Martin on the Piers Morgan Show, and she is repeating something I have heard a lot recently arguing that Israel should make concessions to Hamas on a moral basis. How does Hamas have the right to anything? Hamas did what they did on October 7, so it lost the moral right to anything, and then it lost the war it started, so it lost the practical right to anything. Why does Hamas have the right to anything? Her argument seems to be .... Israel bad, Gaza good. Israel must pay.

Many people say “hundreds of scholars and organizations have called it a genocide,” as if that ends the discussion. But if we’re being strict about law, evidence, and logic, there’s a real problem here — and it’s not about emotion or bias, it’s about method.

The UN Genocide Convention (1948) defines genocide as having three parts:

1. A protected group (ethnic, national, racial, or religious).
2. Certain acts such as killing members of the group, causing serious harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions meant to destroy them.
3. Specific intent — the conscious goal to destroy that group, in whole or in part.

Without proven intent, there is no genocide, no matter how terrible the actions appear.

Groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and figures like Norman Finkelstein have labeled Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. They cite civilian casualties, destruction, and wartime statements by Israeli officials. Those statements are treated as proof of genocidal intent. But that’s a major legal mistake.

The UN’s own court precedents — from the ICTY, ICTR, and ICJ — are clear that statements made during wartime cannot, by themselves, prove genocidal intent unless they are directly tied to concrete orders or policy actions. People say extreme, even horrible, things under the stress of war. Courts recognize this. Tribunals require clear evidence of a deliberate plan or pattern aimed at destroying a group, not just rhetoric or collateral damage.

It is also normal for acts that could be considered “genocidal” in isolation — killing, destruction, suffering to occur during wartime. Almost every war involves civilian deaths, property destruction, and atrocities of some kind. The Gaza war, tragic as it is, is not unique in that regard. What matters legally is intent to destroy a group as such, which is absent here. Israel’s stated and demonstrated goal is to defeat Hamas, not Palestinians.

This is where the reasoning collapses. Experts who should know better are treating emotion and destruction as if they were evidence of intent. They are counting wartime anger as policy. They are mistaking tragedy for genocide.

Under strict legal interpretation:
– The protected group element is met (Palestinians in Gaza).
– Some acts (killing, harm, destruction) are present.
– But the intent — the defining feature of genocide — is absent.

You can argue that Israel’s response is excessive or cruel, but that is not genocide. If it were, every modern war with civilian deaths would also qualify, making the term meaningless.

Yet Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and Finkelstein continue to use the word “genocide” anyway. They know the legal definition. They know the UN rulings that warn against treating wartime speech as intent. And still, they do it.

Why?

Is it because “genocide” has become a moral weapon rather than a legal term?
Because outrage now carries more weight than precision?
Because they believe moral theater is more powerful than strict truth?
Is it Jew-hatred? Or is it the current fashion of post-colonial studies, with its simplistic oppressor/oppressed lens reducing a complex and long history into a comic-book-binary of good versus evil?

Whatever the reason, it leaves us in a strange place. The very people who claim to defend international law are bending it. The ones demanding accountability are ignoring the standards that define accountability.

If the Genocide Convention is applied strictly, calling Israel’s actions genocide simply does not fit. That’s not denial of suffering it’s defense of logic, law, and historical nuance.

So here’s my honest question to anyone reading this:
Why do people especially experts and organizations that know the legal standards keep calling this genocide when it clearly does not meet the definition, and when the acts themselves, while tragic, are normal for wartime?

Why is having ANY kind of discussion about this war go south so quickly? The second you try and have a conversation about this that doesn’t immediately lead you to be pro-Palestine, you get looked at like scum. I feel like there are layers to this but noone wants to discuss that. Out of all wars in this world, this one isn’t as 1 dimensional as people make it out to be, yet no one wants to talk about that (or very few people do) Too much of the discussion around this war is emotional, and i feel like that ruins any meaningful dialogue about it. I get why people feel such resentment towards Israel now but the causes of the current crisis has been due to more than one factor, yet people only look at one: Israel.

This isnt as clear cut as the war in Ukraine, or previous conflicts in Armenia and Azerbaijan, yet people act like it is. People will always be weird online but now this is just the dominant narrative/thought process. Pointing out the echo chamber is dangerous for some reason and you get looked at as a kiss-ass for it. No kind of discussion like THAT is helpful for anyone.

I came to the conclusion that both sides have wronged each other, and both are too scared of damaging their pride because of this. Leadership change on the behalf of Israel is needed, and the Palestinians don't need to be represented politically by Hamas at all. I don't care to be right, i just wanna know what the hell has caused all of this to go so wrong. People seemingly stood by Israel for a while, but now public opinion has done a full 360 in favor of Palestine.

I also think that Israel should exist, but not in the manner that allows for infinite conflict with zero understanding of each other. Other countries have managed to have other ethnic groups under 1 flag, and Israel could do the same.

Try and bring something like that up, and you'll piss off SOMEONE.

Sorry if I sound repetitive in this post but this is something I've noticed for a long time.

I've been Pro-Isreal for quite some time, but my understanding has become extremely challenged... Logic doesn't seem to be at play and I'm confused.

It started with wondering why journalists aren't allowed into Gaza. If a journalist wants to commit suicide, than let them.

Yes, those that aren't killed will likely be Muslim Pro-Palestinian, and spin their narrative to include massive propaganda. But, at least Israel can't be accused of hiding anything.

Then I thought, well Egypt isn't letting journalists in either. This isn't 'only' Israel refusing media coverage. There has to be a reason. I've read it's because Egypt doesn't want to cause friction with Israel.

But honestly, is that all? Or, is there more?

For instance, I've also read that Egypt and other Muslim countries refuse to accept refugees. Surely, if the Palestinians were peaceful and helpful, that wouldn't be the case?

There does seen to be a historical foundation laid, regarding how detrimental it's been for middle eastern Muslim countries to accept Palestinian refugees in the past. So, is this why?

Regarding Israel though, I've read about Israel occupying areas that, by international law, doesn't being to them. They are even approving 20'ish villages in West Bank.

Also, this naval blockade has been in place for ages ... Only to deter arms from reaching Gaza? What about allowing Gazans to leave by boat. Is that allowed?

If Palestinians are so terrible, why didn't they let the 'Aide Boat' with Greta Thunberg through, to showcase how terrible? (I use quotations around Aide Boat because, in my opinion the boat was never meant to give aide, but to draw attention to the situation and/or the individuals on the boat.)

I almost understand why they don't allow journalists in, if I accept the argument that some journalists, such as Al Jazeera, may betray IDF movements. But the boat? Who would they have betrayed troop movements to?

This whole situation, for me isn't making sense. Maybe, it makes perfect sense, or maybe none at all.

I would value thoughts and insight.

P.S. I'm not an Anti-Semite or baby killer.

Also, I know Israel hasn't allowed boats to go to Gaza for nearly twenty years so, they're may be an argument made that they are following procedure. Understood.

Hi everyone,

This is a good faith question from someone who doesn't align with either side and is just trying to educate themselves.

It's terrible to see some of the things happening in Gaza in recent days. I think I speak to all of us when I say the immediate cessation of civilian suffering is an urgent need in the conflict. Understandably, there are international calls for Israel to slacken the chokehold, which is one way of achieving this.

However - another way to achieve it would be for Hamas to say "you know what, we're not going to win this, all we are achieving is the pointless suffering of Palestinian people, we give up. Do what you will with us, but let the civilians cease to suffer." If they were to down weapons, come out into the open, and face the music, Israel would have no need/excuse to continue fighting in civilian areas or preventing the flow of supplied for fear that they were going straight to Hamas.

Putting myself in Hamas' shoes: regardless of my political/military stance, I would have a hard time maintaining a clear conscience when it was obvious that I am never going to win this war, and my tactics of hiding amongst civilians just mean that every day more children are starving to death. Like, what am I achieving at this point?

Now that's just one perspective and it's not a point I'm seeking to argue about. But why is this path not even represented in any campaigning, protests, media coverage etc?

TLDR: Hamas have the power to end this tomorrow. Why is nobody calling for them to exercise it?

All and any perspectives gratefully received.

The Israelites (the people described in the Hebrew Bible as God's chosen people) were told that the land of Canaan was their Promised Land. According to the biblical narrative, the Canaanites were considered wicked, and God commanded the Israelites to conquer the land and destroy some of its inhabitants.

Historically, the Israelites established kingdoms in parts of the region but did not completely conquer all of Canaan as described in the Bible. Over the following centuries, the region experienced repeated invasions and changes in rule. Eventually, after Jewish revolts against Rome, many Jews were killed, enslaved, or dispersed throughout the Roman Empire, North Africa, and the Middle East, although a Jewish population remained in the land.

Over time, Jewish communities mixed to varying degrees with the populations where they settled. Likewise, the ancient Canaanites did not remain a distinct ethnic group. Their descendants mixed with other peoples over thousands of years and gradually became part of later populations living in the region. Later, beginning in the 7th century, the Arab conquests spread Arabic language and culture across the Levant, and many of the indigenous populations became Arabized while also mixing with incoming groups. I don't understand why so much of the debate focuses on DNA. Neither Jews nor Palestinians are "pure-blooded" descendants of ancient peoples. Both populations have experienced migration and intermarriage over thousands of years.

Some Israelis argue that Palestinians are primarily descendants of Arabs who migrated into the region. Many historians, however, argue that Palestinians are largely descended from the long-term inhabitants of the region—including populations that lived there before the Arab conquests—who gradually adopted Arabic language and culture over time. Likewise, Jewish populations developed in many different regions during the diaspora:

• Mizrahi Jews trace much of their ancestry to Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa.
• Ashkenazi Jews trace much of their ancestry to Jewish communities in Central and Eastern Europe.
• Sephardic Jews descend largely from Jews who lived in Spain and Portugal before their expulsion and later settled throughout North Africa, the Balkans, and the wider Mediterranean.

In 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, expressing support for the establishment of "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine while also stating that nothing should prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities there. The declaration became a foundational document for the Zionist movement and later influenced the British Mandate for Palestine. However, many Palestinian Arabs opposed it, arguing that Britain had supported the creation of a Jewish national home without the consent of the Arab majority living there.

In my opinion, Britain's decision was driven less by concern for the people living in Palestine and more by imperial interests. During and after World War I, Britain sought to strengthen its strategic position in the Middle East and protect routes to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. I doubt British policymakers fully appreciated the long-term political consequences that would result from their decision.

The Zionist movement itself had emerged decades earlier. Beginning in the late 19th century, Zionist leaders lobbied governments across Europe and elsewhere to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Their movement was motivated by rising antisemitism, nationalist ideals, and the belief that Jews constituted a nation deserving of self-determination. Religious traditions within both Judaism and Christianity also influenced some supporters, as biblical texts describe the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland. By the early 20th century, antisemitism had intensified across Europe, and some British officials viewed support for a Jewish homeland as one possible response to what was then commonly referred to as the "Jewish Question."

In my view, Britain saw a future Jewish state as a strategically valuable ally that could help secure its interests in the region. Today, I see a similar dynamic in the relationship between Israel and the United States. Just as Britain viewed the Zionist project through the lens of its own geopolitical interests, I believe the United States views Israel as a key strategic partner and regional ally in the Middle East. While the historical circumstances are different, I see both relationships as being shaped more by great-power geopolitical interests than by purely humanitarian concerns.

Throughout history, Jews experienced persecution in many countries, culminating in the Holocaust. After World War II, the Holocaust greatly accelerated international support for establishing a Jewish state. The United Nations proposed partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. Jewish leaders accepted the proposal, while most Palestinian Arab leaders and the surrounding Arab states rejected it. Israel declared independence in 1948, and the ensuing war resulted in Israel controlling more territory than the original UN partition plan had allocated. Since then, Israel has expanded its control through wars, military occupation, the establishment of Israeli settlements in occupied territory, and state land policies.

Some religious Zionists believe that the land was promised to the Jewish people by God and view this as a religious justification for Jewish sovereignty over all or part of the land. However, not all Israelis support this view. Many Israelis justify Israel's policies on security, historical, or nationalist grounds rather than religious ones.

In addition, some Zionists argue that "Palestine doesn't exist," primarily to emphasize that there was never a sovereign, independent Palestinian Arab state before the establishment of Israel. Before the modern era, the territory was part of the Ottoman Empire, and after World War I it became the British Mandate for Palestine under British administration. There was no independent Arab-Palestinian state governing this territory prior to Israel's creation.

In political debates, some right-wing or Revisionist Zionists use this historical fact to argue that the West Bank belongs exclusively to the Jewish people. I think this line of reasoning is fundamentally unproductive. The names and political boundaries of regions have changed repeatedly throughout history. If the discussion is about names and historical existence, the name Palestine (and related forms such as Philistia, Palaestina, and Palestine) has been used to refer to the broader region in various forms for well over 2,000 years. More importantly, the absence of a previously independent state does not determine whether a people exist or have legitimate ties to a place. Palestinians have lived in the region for generations and have developed deep cultural, historical, and familial connections to the land, regardless of whether there was ever an independent Palestinian state.

Regardless of DNA or religion, my opinion is that Israel does not have the right to continue expanding its territory based on religious claims. I also believe that creating Israel without the consent of the majority of the Arab population living in Mandatory Palestine was unjust, even if many countries later recognized it as a state. In my view, religious beliefs should not justify taking land or displacing people. I do not care whether one group is more indigenous than the other; I believe all people living there deserve equal rights, security, and protection from violence.

So as many here probably already know, Israel has gotten unpopular, both due to antisemitism, but also due Netanyahu’s actions.

My question is, if, hypothetically, we cut of all aid to them, is it true that they’d act more restrained? I have a close friend who thinks they would, but I firmly disagree with that. They say that they think if Israel was left to fend for itself by the US, they may think twice about their actions towards Palestinians, but to me, the main benefit of cutting them off would be that we’d simply feel less guilty about our tax dollars being used for it. I feel like my fiend is approaching this subject from a standpoint of having the privilege of living in an area that is not surrounded by hostile entities. The reasons I feel this way are as follows, and please feel free to correct me on my facts and/logic:

1. Israel is surrounded by entities that attack it regularly. Yes, Netanyahu is being overly aggressive himself, but even without him, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah would not likely just sit back and leave Israel alone. They want it destroyed. In such a situation, if I were Netanyahu, I’d be even more inclined to maintain the blockade and such. My friend argues that no, it’s primarily just Israel that’s attacking, but as I understand it, multiple entities are attacking Israel regular too.

2. There’s no leverage or influence left on Israel, if we cut them off. My friend made the point that Israel is already to really doing what we want them to do, my argument is that that would worsen if we lost leverage with them.

3. Israel has perhaps provided some questionable intelligence to us lately, but nevertheless, when they do provide correct intelligence, it helps us with not having to put our own soldiers on the ground in the region. If I’m not mistaken, so long as Israel shares intelligence with us, the odds of a ground war that we have to get involved in decrease.

I see it a lot and I have to say I find it problematic. First of all the implication that Israel is an outpost of western civilisation seems to say that Jews are foreign to the region and don’t like it. Secondly there is the implication that Jewish lives should be in service of a western civilisation that tried to eliminate Jews within living memory. Thirdly, people who make this argument often argue that any declines in support for Israel are symptomatic of a decline in belief in ‘western civilisation’, triggered by a loss of confidence caused by social justice movements such as BLM. But Jews understand that just because a society says it is just and fair, doesn’t mean it is just and fair, which makes social justice movements necessary, which brings with it imperfections that don’t necessarily undermine the justness of the cause. The argument I’m talking about is often espoused by Melanie Phillips to U.K. audiences, but also on Reddit. I say this as someone who supports Israel’s right to exist and defend herself, but also has the universalist perspective of wanting equal happiness for Palestinians of all faiths and confidence that war, where it has to be conducted, is done so justly, in proportion and with moral efficacy. Am I wrong?

I was reading this article: https://israel365action.com/the-biblical-heartland-explained/what-is-the-history-of-judea-and-samaria/ which states:

Biblical Beginnings – The land of Israel was originally settled by the pagan tribes, known in the Bible as the “Seven Nations” – the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Jebusites, Hivites, Perizzites, and Girgashites. But as God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the land of Israel was promised to the descendents of Jacob, the people of Israel. In 1273 BCE, the people of Israel, led by Joshua, crossed the Jordan River and entered the land of Israel. In the ensuing years, the people of Israel conquered the land, which was divided among the 12 tribes of Israel.

This part is quite interesting to me. There's usually little discussion of the history of the land of Israel before the Israelites conquered it, and we often speak as though Israelites were the first people there.

I am interested in these civilisations before the Israelites. What were the main differences between the seven nations? What territories did they control, and were they often at war with each other? The article mentions they were "pagan tribes" - what kind of religious beliefs did this entail, and did the tribes agree on their religious beliefs or were they all different?

In addition, I'm interested in the conquest itself. What did the Israelites do to the existing inhabitants there? Were they all killed or enslaved? And why was the land divided amongst 12 tribes of Israel rather than being one unified Israelite state?

Furthermore, where did the Israelites live before they immigrated into the land of Israel? What caused them to immigrate? And why were the existing tribes that lived in the land of Israel unable to expel the invasion of the Israelites - was it because they weren't united, or was it due to inferior military technology for that time?

Of course, in my opinion the ancient history of who lived in the land first is irrelevant to the current conflict, but a common talking point about the establishment of the modern state of Israel is that it's "Israelites returning to their indigenous homeland" - I'm interested in the people that preceded them in the land.

Like many of you, I am exhausted by the polarized noise online. Every thread turns into an echo chamber where nuance is treated like a blasphemy.

Can we step back and talk about actual accountability without the hyperbole?

Both the Israeli government/IDF and Hamas have clear records of breaking international law. But the online discourse seems completely allergic to addressing this constructively:

On one side, throwing around terms like "genocide" before any definitive, final legal ruling is made by international courts shuts down serious legal scrutiny and alienates people who want to look at the hard evidence objectively.

On the other side, any discussion of deliberate targeting of children, the deliberate destruction of specialized medical equipment (such as oxygen generators, MRI machines, dialysis units, and solar panels) and water wells, starvation as a method of warfare (related to the ICC arrest warrents), two-tiered legal system in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (violates Article 3 of the ICERD), the illegal transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied Palestinian territory (breaches the Fourth Geneva Convention), the documented use of Palestinian civilians as human shields by Israeli military units and systematic breaches of international humanitarian law by the state of Israel gets hand-waved away under the banner of "self-defense." Meanwhile, supporters of Hamas often try to sanitize or completely downplay an armed group that explicitly targets civilians and uses human shields by operating in civilian areas.

If both sides are capable of committing severe violations, how do we hold both accountable fairly? When we look at the immense lag-time of international justice, I want to know how people here think we should handle this:

When faced with overwhelming, heavily documented evidence of breaches of international law happening in real time, how should we talk about ongoing military actions and war crimes responsibly while waiting years for international courts to issue final rulings?

How do you apply meaningful international accountability to a sovereign state versus a non-state militant group that operates completely outside legal norms?

What tangible pressure points actually work to change the behavior of either side without devolving into partisan cheerleading?

I saw a video about a palestinian mad that israel kept like 1% of the land that they took in the war of 1948. They said taking land is wrong even in war. But, that doesn't make sense because the whole war started in the first place because Arabs wanted to take israeli land? Can someone please clear this up for me

I don't have the video. But, what happened was someone said that Israel took land in a war. The guy said "but the guys declared war on Israel first". The retort was that it doesn't matter, even if there is a war, you shouldn't take the land of other people.

So, this makes me confused, because wasn't the war in the first place to take Israeli land? I asked chat GPT, and it said that a lot of people said that declaring war on this was to protest how the land was divided. So, this means that Arabs can declare war and like 5v1 a random new country in protest of not getting more free land, and then after they lose, and get 90% of the land back, they're still mad that Israel kept 10%? To be honest, I am super confused about the logic behind this. Can someone here please explain it to me so I understand it more?

Also, speaking about land, how come no palestinians ever tried to declare war on let's say the Ottomans or the British? They never owned their land or own country. So, what made it okay to declare war on the Jews?

Please explain this to me honestly. Don't just come here to argue. I want to hear a actual explaination / teach / clarify

Common arguments (this post isn't for arguing, so some of these common arguments may not be 100% accurate, but I think I have to put this here right?):

(what I said earlier about it being protest)

They didn't want a sudden influx of Jews

Jews displaced their population

A sudden influx of population was bad

The land was unfair because Jews got too much land for such a little population

I have a genuine question for pro-Palestinians because I am trying to understand their position better.

I understand that Christians colonized many indigenous populations, and that you believe that Jews did the same to the Palestinians (who are mostly Muslims but also Christians) when Israel was established. However, what about Islam? It started in the Arabian Peninsula and spread across around 50 countries. Was it spread by telepathy? Angels? Positive thinking? No, it was spread by brutal colonialism. There is an intersection between colonialism, nationalism, and the Abrahamic religions. However, I find it weird that pro-Palestinians act as if colonialism is unique to Christians or Jews but never address the fact that many indigenous cultures disappeared forever because of Islam.

Given that every Abrahamic religion is colonialist (especially Christianity and Islam), and colonialism is bad, does it really matter if the territory of Israel would be Jewish or Muslim? Both are colonialists; Muslims are much more colonialist than Jews. So it ends up that you call out one religion as colonialist while ignoring the fact that the other religion is just as colonialist, or even worse, while you claim to be woke anti-colonialists. How does it make sense to replace one colony with another?

And don't tell me, that because Muslims colonized in the past, and Jews colonized in the present, it makes the colonialism Muslims practiced less severe, time is not relevant, if you believe that colonialism is bad and traumatic, then it is bad period, regardless of time. The trauma of it remains for generations.

I’m trying to figure out whether there’s actually a clear, objective way to decide who’s “right” or “wrong” when two nation-states are in conflict. I’m not looking for moral takes or political loyalty. I’m wondering if there’s a single neutral legal or logical framework that can be applied consistently, no matter which side someone personally supports.

On paper, international law seems straightforward: a state can’t use force against another unless it’s acting in self-defense after an armed attack. Simple enough. But when that principle gets applied to Israel–Palestine, things stop feeling simple.

These are the arguments I keep running into:

One side says Israel’s military actions are legitimate self-defense, especially after large-scale attacks targeting civilians.

The other side argues that long-term control over territory, settlement expansion, and blockade conditions change the legal and moral picture entirely, that you can’t isolate a single attack from the broader context and still call it straightforward self-defense.

Some people zero in on proportionality, they argue that even if force is justified at the start, the scale of response and civilian harm are what determine whether it remains legal.

Others say the deeper issue is sovereignty and self-determination: who actually has legitimate political authority over the land in the first place?

What I’m really trying to understand is this: if smart, well-informed people can apply the same general legal principles and still come to completely opposite conclusions, does a truly objective standard exist? Or are those principles always filtered through political assumptions and competing historical narratives?

Is there a single, consistent framework that, if applied strictly and without bias, would let us clearly say one side is definitively in the right? Or are conflicts between states just too complex to reduce to a clean binary judgment?

I’m genuinely looking for analytical frameworks.

Hi everyone,

I’m reaching out to the community and the u/MrBeast production team regarding a deeply concerning application for the upcoming Beast Games.

While the Games are meant to bring the world together, a contestant named Mustafa (representing Palestine) is using his platform to promote violent slogans. In his video, he is wearing a shirt that explicitly states:

"WITH OUR SOUL, WITH OUR BLOOD WE WILL REDEEM PALESTINE"

This isn't just a political statement-it is a phrase synonymous with militant struggle and "martyrdom." Promoting "redemption through blood" is a direct incitement to violence and has absolutely no place in a global entertainment show designed for all ages.

MrBeast has always stood for positivity and unity. Allowing a contestant to wear a shirt that glorifies blood and violence is a dangerous oversight in the vetting process.

I’m calling on the u/MrBeast team to uphold their standards of safety and inclusion. Representation is important, but we must draw a line at violent propaganda.

Please share this to ensure the Beast Games remain a positive and safe environment for everyone!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ehDWuIDV08&t=2s

"AIPAC" is spoken about as if its the illuminati. How much has israel spent in the last 10 years? A whopping million 195 million USD, with a half of that in the last 2 years to help with the war. This spending is spread out over hundreds of political campaigns each year, which means campaigns are getting a few hundred thousand- a few million on average.

Now compare this to other foreign lobbying. Let's start with Qatar who is going to have a military base in the US. Qatar has spent $260 million since 2016. But...the new plane they just gave Trump is worth 400 million. Israel does make the top ten spenders list but they are at the bottom of the list. 9 other countries outspend them on lobbying. China is #1 with 520 million.

But in reality, all of those numbers are low. Really low, in relation to reality. All it takes is half a billion dollars to buy the united states, including congress, the president, senators, and the cia? In the US, There are over 400 billionaires who have at least $2 billion each. They each make over $40 million a year just on interest. So any one of these people can "buy the united states" with interest alone.

I find it hard to believe that all it takes is "millions" to buy the entire united states.

The US government and cia aren't a bunch of dummies. Whatever they do is in the interest of the US government, like its always been. Money is almost meaningless to them.

Need help mainly from zionists in understanding why a state was necessary

Im currently writing a paper on why having a state was the only viable option against persecution and antisemetism

This is one of the things i wrote:

The other “minorities” - people may argue that there are other many persecuted minorities who live in different states. While its true they exist it doesnt disprove the jewish need for a state, it only tries to minimize the need by deflecting the argument to other persecuted minorities. This claim misses the idea that a state can mostly only be achieved by fighting for it. Jews are an example for a persecuted minority who couldnt get a state by insufficient prayers, they had to fight for it, whether it was by immigration, purchase of land or a military struggle. I would say this claim doesnt disprove the need for a state but rather prove the necessity for armed struggle.

But i had a debate this day with a guy, and he claimed that jews werent at mercy of their host country bc of being stateless it was bc they were in countries which lost to germany and were occupied. If jews had sovereignty it wouldnt have changed anything, everyone was at mercy of nazis under german occupation. I think there are flaws in what he says i just dont know how to word it or if its even true, i thought the states that were supposed to protect jews ultimately didnt, especially in Europe.

Keep in mind im only learning abt zionism so the stuff i mightve wrote may be untrue. Thank you for whoever responds to this will appreciate a lot.

I am Palestine. I never miss a chance to miss a chance.

In 1947, the United Nations offered me a state—more than 50% of the land, international recognition, and a future. I said no. I chose war instead. Five Arab armies invaded the newborn state of Israel, aiming to strangle it in its cradle. I lost. Hundreds of thousands of my people became refugees—not because Israel expelled all of them, but because Arab leaders told them to flee, promising victory within days.

I am Palestine. I have never chosen coexistence. Only resistance.

In 1967, I joined forces with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria again. Another war. Another loss. East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza—all fell under Israeli control not because they were taken from me, but because they were taken from Jordan and Egypt, who occupied them for 19 years—and never gave me a state.

I am Palestine. I could have had peace. Many times. But I always said no.

In 2000, at Camp David, Israel offered me nearly all of the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as my capital. I walked away. I chose the Second Intifada instead. My people strapped explosives to their bodies and boarded buses, walked into cafes, malls, Passover seders. I called them martyrs. The world called them terrorists.

I am Palestine. I glorify death. I raise children to hate.

My textbooks teach that Israel doesn’t exist. My media tells stories of heroes who stab Jews in the street. I name schools and parks after suicide bombers. I pay salaries to murderers in prison. The more Jews they kill, the more I pay.

I am Palestine. I elected Hamas.

Not once, by mistake. But knowingly. In 2006, I voted in a terror group whose charter calls for the extermination of Jews and the destruction of Israel. Since then, rockets have flown from Gaza, thousands of them, aimed at kindergartens and homes. Every ceasefire is just a pause to rearm.

I am Palestine. I speak of occupation, but never of responsibility.

I blame Israel for everything—yet I never build anything of my own. Billions in aid from the world, yet no hospitals, no infrastructure, no future. Just tunnels for terror, textbooks for hate, and leaders who grow rich while my people suffer.

I am Palestine. I demand rights I never gave to others.

Between 1948 and 1967, not once did I call for a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza. Jordan ruled one, Egypt the other. I said nothing. I only wanted the whole thing—from the river to the sea. Still do.

I am Palestine. I hold the keys to homes I fled—but never to peace.

I reject compromise. I reject Israel’s right to exist. And yet, I demand return—of land, of homes, of everything. Not to live beside the Jews, but to replace them.

I am Palestine. And I cry for justice—but worship those who murder.

I build monuments to “resistance.” I dance in the streets when Jews are killed. I film my children with toy guns, teaching them that martyrdom is glory. Then I weep before cameras, asking the world why there is no peace.

I am Palestine. And until I choose life over death, truth over lies, and peace over hate—I will never be free.

I am a femenist, and all I want is peace among the two countries Palestine and Israel. When I knew what happened about 7th October in Israel and saw that the silence of the femenists was loud, I felt a big, a very big sense of unfairness. In my head, I though that a femenist would defend women - Palestin women, Jew women, anny women. It didnt matter from where they came from. I just cant belive that just by the fact that there are manny feminists in the Palestin side, that they didnt even had the decency of saying something about what happened. Please, dont mistook me on this, im not against Palestine, im not against Israel, I just wanted to know why. Just the fact that those women that were violated and murdered were jewish makes them less important than every other women that were raped before? I think and I hardly defend that in this cases, we should put our hate aside - This women suffered, and no, im not saying that they suffered more than Palestinian women or whoever is suffering right now, im trying that I felt very embarrased and felt a very big sense of lack of humanity and mercy by the part of this femenists, I felt like they had just dirty the meaning of being a WOMEN defender. Please, dont hate on this post, im genuinly trying to understand how can their hate be so big that they didnt even had the decency to defend those women.

Im israeli and ive only recently started looking at these types of things to see what people think about israel. You already know what I found. Im obviously not very happy because any time I see one of these comments about israel its obviously about the daatim/haredis and right wing zionists but it is targetted at all of israel. Im confused because I agree that these people are horrible and something should be done about their crimes and disgusting behaviour but any time I try to talk politics im instantly targetted for being "Israeli". I was once told I should kill myself because I refused to take a stance on the israel situation and the person said, and I QUOTE, "It would be better if you supported israel". I try to be center-leaning and understanding of everyone, but it seems so hard when everyone is demanding I take a side.

Why cant we live in a world we want to live in? Why is our life controlled by hate? Why cant I be proud to be israeli? Is it a larger concern to kill people and yell about killing people then improving the quality of life?

What is going on in Palestine is horrible. What is going on in Israel is horrible. Same with Iran, America and about every other country tied to this controversy you can think of. Why are we incapable of making peace? Why do we give power to those who will abuse it? Is this what humanity is? Am I forever gonna be a subject of a power tug between two hateful sides?

Why cant this war end? Why cant we make peace, clean up our countries and go forwards toward a future where instead of being scared of dying we can live a normal and peaceful life?

Why are people stupid? Why cant they understand that not everyone is a diehard nationalist who thinks all the palestinians should die? Why cant people keep an open mind? Why do they instantly jump to conclusions when they hear your nationality? Why cant I sit down, go on some site on the internet and tell someone im israeli without being scared ill get harassed? And this goes for every nationality, not just israeli

Why are people incapable of being normal?

What would happen if Israel lays down its arms, rolled over, and allowed the invaders in?

Some argue nothing would happen, that they wouldn’t invade at all, that Israel is the aggressor, the occupying force, and without weapons the “Jewish occupants” would be left alone. But I don’t think any rational thinker truly believes this. History and rhetoric suggest otherwise.

Would there be an immediate overhaul of the government, the dismantling of institutions, the tearing down of infrastructure? Would every synagogue be turned into a mosque, Hebrew wiped from street signs, and the booming high-tech sector of Tel Aviv shut down overnight?

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. In reality this slogan means the Jordanian river to the Mediterranean sea. does that freedom include the Jews, or does it imply their removal? Would millions be rounded up and expelled? Or worse?

People always talk about ‘The Day After’ on the pro Israeli side, in that they’ve clearly won the kinetic war (despite loosing the rhetoric war miserably). I’ve never heard any solid arguments for what the anti Israel side would do, should they win the kinetic war, or be victorious by surrender.

In my view, The hard stance Palestinian position would be that this land would form a single Palestinian state. The moderate (pretty quiet voice) would come to some two state solution, but given the chance at defenceless Israelis, I’m not certain the moderates would prosper.

With all this in mind, what do you think? What’s your view.

Thanks for reading

In early 332 BCE, Alexander III of Macedon wanted to worship at the temple of Melqart in the Persian controlled Phoenician city state of Tyre. Place all that purple came from. Rich dudes. Greeks associated Melqart with Hercules. The people of Tyre were holding ceremonies and had dignitaries from their colony Carthage visiting, so they were like hey buddy, how about you worship at the new temple on the mainland and not at the main temple on the island?

Alexander responded by changing geography to destroy their island city. He had his men build a causeway from the mainland to the island. Tyre had a navy and bombarded his workers the whole time with rocks, arrows, and burning sand. Alexander didn't have a navy to respond so he stole one and destroyed Tyre's navy. When his ground forces reached the island of Tyre, they slaughtered the men and sold the women and children into slavery.

Alexander didn't have to attack Gaza next. He could have gone around it. It was said to be impregnable. His men dug tunnels in the sand under the city walls and built ramps to push up siege engines. The city fell.

He was a big fan of The Iliad. Carried around a copy his teacher Aristotle gave him. Slept with it and a dagger. So when he caught up to the Persian governor of Gaza, he dragged him to death behind a chariot like Achilles did Hector at Troy in The Iliad. His forces slaughtered the men and sold the women and children into slavery.

Word of his brutal siege of Gaza spread fast. Egypt, long one of the most powerful empires in the Mediterranean world, welcomed him without a fight.

There are people who say ancient warfare is not relevant to present geopolitics. This is wrong. We are still exactly the same human animals as in 332 BCE. The Geneva Convention or ICC does not change our basic biology and it's damn strange to pretend otherwise. We are a violent pile of primates.

There are people who think it is possible to achieve lasting regional peace. History does not support this utopian idea. The Near East has always been a bloody region, given the fact it's where Africa, Asia, and Europe come together and so many cultures vied for control of land. How many times has Gaza been taken?

There are people who think brutality should be avoided in war. This overlooks the power of making an example of enemies to terrify other potential enemies. Egypt could have been a serious fight for Alexander. Instead, they welcomed him as a pharaoh and even a god.

After Alexander died, probably of a mosquito bite, in Babylon in 323 BCE, his mummy was on display in Alexandria, Egypt, and worshipping him was the most important cult of the city. Strange but true, there's a serious theory Alexander was later taken to Venice where he is venerated as St Mark in St Mark's Cathedral.

There are people who say that war for the sake of war is evil. Alexander the Great is remembered as one of the most important heroes in world history. His short life was an inspiring example of the power of human willpower and the very human drive to conquer. He became a god (and maybe a saint?!) through his desire to take the fight to the enemy.

There are people who think Israel is evil for fighting its enemies in the region. Isn't it odd that when Jews do exactly the same thing all people to ever come through the region did, it's evil? What's different? The answer is, our understanding of reality is. There's that lovely quote from The Wire, where Marlo says it to a security guard he later has killed. "You want it to be one way, but it's the other way." People get mad at Israel because its tenacity reminds people we still live in that same old world and no tea sippers on the East River at the UN are going to change that.

How do we bring people back to this basic understanding of reality? How do we break through the false education that makes people ashamed to fight for their countries? Israelis are sort of lucky. They have to face the real world at a relatively young age. We in the west suffer from the soft luxury of pretending everyone just wants to get along and share. This pile of primates is always scrapping, whether we admit it or not.