So there is one argument I keep encountering in discussions of the Nakba that I find increasingly difficult to stomach: “Why should Palestinians have paid for the Holocaust? Germany should have given the Jews part of Germany instead.” This I often hear from palestinians.

I find this extraordinarily insensitive, frankly, at times disgusting, because it talks as though Germany emerged from 1945 territorially intact, with its civilian population comfortably sitting at home, and the Allies simply neglected to send Germany the bill.

Around 12–14 million Germans were forcibly expelled from their homes across Central and Eastern Europe in one of the largest episodes of forced population removal in modern history. In many regions, German populations whose ancestors had lived there since the Middle Ages were deliberately and almost completely removed. Their homes, farms and property were confiscated; people were driven from their towns and villages, interned in camps, deported, subjected to forced labour and transported under brutal conditions. Civilians were subjected to killings, rape, abuse, hunger and disease, and hundreds of thousands died during the expulsions, internment, deportations and their immediate consequences. Entire centuries-old populations were effectively erased from regions where they had lived for generations.

Nor were these simply Nazi settlers who had recently arrived in occupied Poland or Czechoslovakia. Most of these areas were majority German. The large medieval German settlement movements into parts of Central and Eastern Europe began in the 12th and 13th centuries. By 1945, some of the communities being destroyed had therefore existed for something approaching eight centuries. That does not make every territory “eternally German.” Central Europe was much more complicated than that (the migration period).

Germany lost approximately a quarter of its prewar territory in the east. Silesia, Pomerania, East Brandenburg and East Prussia were transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union, and ethnic Germans outside the new borders were to be removed. The victorious Allies institutionalized the population transfer at Potsdam. Expellees who had previously owned farms, houses or businesses could arrive essentially destitute and spend years in camps, barracks or emergency accommodation.
In West Germany alone, refugees and expellees eventually constituted around one fifth of the entire population. So I find “Germany should have given the Jews land instead” almost grotesque in its casualness.

Because land is not empty.
And I think this is particularly worth remembering when discussing Palestinians. One of the arguments I completely understand is that saying “Palestinians are Arabs, they could simply live somewhere else in the Arab world” misses the point because that applies here too. Germany itself was unified only in 1871 and remains constitutionally federal. Historically, Germans belonged to very different states and regions. A Silesian expelled to Bavaria had not simply moved from one interchangeable piece of “German land” to another.

The NSDAP never received a majority in a free national election. Hitler’s dictatorship resulted from electoral success combined with political manoeuvring, presidential appointment and then the destruction of constitutional democracy. However: Germany eventually accepted the borders. The expellees became citizens rather than a permanently stateless refugee population. Their descendants can talk openly about what happened to their families without demanding that today’s inhabitants of Wrocław, Szczecin or elsewhere leave. Germany and Poland today can have a fundamentally normal relationship while acknowledging an extraordinarily violent history. The EU has gone even further. Today a descendant of an expelled German family can generally move to Poland or Czechia, work there and live there. Most don’t.

To me the question is rather: To me it raises almost the opposite question. Why did these enormous European refugee and expellee populations eventually become citizens whose historical trauma could be remembered without remaining an active territorial conflict, whereas the Palestinian refugee question never reached that political endpoint?

For those who see the Nakba as fundamentally different from the other mass expulsions of the 1940s: what exactly is the reasoning? This is similar but more than tenfold.

Why must the solution be an inherited right of return, rather than citizenship, compensation, Palestinian statehood and normalization of borders, as ultimately happened after other enormous forced displacements?

And for those who say “Germany should have given up land instead”: given that 12–14 million Germans were themselves expelled and Germany had already lost vast territories, what exactly do you think should have happened to the people living on that additional German land?

(The title is in quotation marks because I copied and pasted it from where I asked the mods if this post was ok and forgot to remove them lol, to avoid confusion; it is the question I'm posing)

I've been in this sub a couple of months now, and it is the only Israel-Palestine sub I visit and engage in on a regular basis. However, what I've found when visiting elsewhere is that other Israel-Palestine subs seem to have much more focus on events happening right now in the conflict. Lots of news is posted and discussed, including events that aren't widely reported in the media.

My experience with this sub is that posts and discussions tend to be more philosophical, historical or abstract. Examples of what I'm talking about are things like (these are all paraphrased generalisations rather than specific posts): "Are Palestinians even a real thing?", "What does the word genocide really mean?", "Is anti-Zionism antisemitism?", "What does your ideal future solution look like?", "Does Israel have a right to exist?", and so on and so forth.

The only 'breaking' news shared here tends to be that which relates to NGOs rather than directly to events happening in Gaza, Israel or the West Bank. This is especially noticeable at the moment as tensions in the West Bank rise and generate near-daily salient news stories.

I wanted to include some screenshots of this sub's feed and r/Israel_Palestine to exemplify my point, but images aren't allowed in OPs, so I'll pop them in a comment after I've posted this. (The lack of photos in OPs may actually exaggerate the difference a bit, tbh, since at a glance it makes other subs look more 'news-y' simply by virtue of all the media thumbnails, but I still think there is a genuine difference.)

Obviously I have my own thoughts on why this is, but I'd rather pose the question before providing my own answer.

Ben Gvir has gained a lot of popularity in Israel, especially among the youth, but he’s also a very controversial figure. Here’s a bit of background first:

Itamar Ben-Gvir is an Israeli politician and lawyer who has served as the minister of national security since 2022, except for a two-month gap in early 2025. He is the leader of Otzma Yehudit ("Jewish Power")

Ben Gvir is one of the representatives of the Israeli settlers, and he shares the Kahanist worldview introduced by Rabbi Meir Kahane. In his view all Arabs must be expelled from Israel and the West Bank & Gaza must be annexed.

CNN has published an article about him yesterday, after he released a video mocking Palestinian prisoners.

There was another article about him last week, written on the Jewish newspaper "Forward" - Ben-Gvir offers as a complete ideological package. He offers the product in its purest form. Consider the Palestinian question. Much of the Israeli right wants permanent Israeli control of the West Bank. But millions of Palestinians live there, and permanent Israeli sovereignty ultimately requires an answer to their political status. If Israel permanently governs millions of Palestinians without equal political rights, its claim to liberal democracy becomes impossible to sustain

I think he is pretty problematic for the state of Israel because of his extremist ideology, but how do you view him (as Israelis or outsiders)? And do you think he will get stronger in the next Israeli elections taking place on October 27th 2026?

Every time I've tried to make this argument, historically illiterate people default to the lazy insult that I’m performing “bothsidesism." In a recent video essay on my channel, HistoryFlights #14: Christopher Nolan's American Odyssey, I deconstructed that lie with evidence rooted in material archaeology, historical demographic movements, and my firm stance for universal human rights, which is the exact opposite of the easily strawmanned neutrality overly online people on either side imagine they can box anyone who doesn't shout their empty slogans into.

In the relevant section of my video, I cite Eric H. Cline's work in 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed, where he describes how the Menetaph Stele uses a specific Egyptian hieroglyphic designating "Israel" as a foreign people, but not an established city or state like Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam. I argue from this, the surrounding history of the Late Bronze Age Collapse (hopefully for all our survival, the raising of such into public consciousness by Nolan will help avoid a repeat of this in our own Silicon Age!), and my previous video on Arab intermarriage with remaining Canaanites after the Arab Conquests to form the ancestors of the Arab Palestinians that both modern Jewish and Palestinian populations have demonstrable genetic and settlement continuity dating back to ancient Canaanite peoples. Neither group is an artificial graft on the region. They both have an inherent right to self-determination rooted in thousands of continuous history, and that includes sovereignty and safety.

This isn't an argument for symmetry of circumstances; state power, military capabilities and material conditions on the ground are indeed very asymmetrical in favor of Israel. I also am an atheist who rejects metaphysical land claims and religious fundamentalism categorically. What it does mean is naming bad actors no matter who they are and holding power accountable to a single standard: the standard of tears like mine when my cousin died on 9/11 that no one should ever have to lose a loved one to terrorism in the name of "justified armed resistance," nor should anyone again have to dig their families out of rubble in the name of "justified self-defense." In the essay, I explicitly called out Hamas's eliminationist charter and terror tactics, while simultaneously calling out Netanyahu's expansion of settlements and his government's dehumanization of Palestinians that Hamas only sees as sacrificial pawns to gain sympathy.

In the video, I also talk about "team sportification"- the deliberate divide-and-conquer tactic used by autocrats of every stripe to pit populations against each other while they grow rich off our burning planet and ordinary people whether Jew or Palestinian, "civilized" or "Sea People" pay the price. Treating self-determination as a zero-sum game for anyone guarantees this nightmare will repeat forever. Therefore, we need to learn from the echoes of history that both peoples have deep, legitimate roots in this land, which is the only rational starting point for both peoples realizing they need to sweep away both hateful leaderships and work towards coexistence.

Hello,
This might be off topic but I’ve been learning about my East African history and stumbled upon the history of Palestine and Israel. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this region has been in constant conflict and always had something going on. There has always been a dispute on who has the right to this land even before the 1900s. I do understand that this time around it’s different due to the politics and big guys like the USA meddling in y’all business. Did this all stem from religion, tribal dispute, or something else? I’ve always been pro Palestinian just by the nature of supporting the underdogs but this conflict feels so much bigger and deeper than I realized. I wanted to hear from y’all to learn about ancient history and what exacerbated the culture that surrounds this conflict. The more I state why I don’t like Israel the more I realize that I’m basically an Israeli to the indigenous people of America so I feel like a hypocrite. Is the government of Israel just using Jewish people and their history to gain access to the Middle East? Whenever pro Israel supporters bring up Sudan being overlooked it reminds me that the people harming Sudan have good relations with Israel. That’s why I never got the Muslims vs Jewish people arguments because there are many muslim leaders in good standing with Israel. I also feel bad for Jewish people because all the bad stuff Israel does is directly taken out on them regardless of where they are at. It reminds me of how people blame all Muslims for things they have no connection to. I'll never be able to live in my homeland due to destabilization but I still yearn to be near people that look like me and not be the minority. Both Palestinians and Jewish people yearn for the same thing too. Any resources to learn about this history with little bias and goes to the root of the problems? 

Namaste! I’m going to the West Bank soon to volunteer with Protective Presence, accompanying Palestinian villages and helping provide a protective presence around settler violence. It’s my first time doing anything like this, so I was wondering what I should expect and if you have any tips for a first-timer. Is there anything you wish you had known before going for the first time?

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is a prominent, New York-based nonprofit organization founded in 1981 to defend global press freedom and the rights of journalists to report safely. It is widely cited by international media, human rights groups, and governments for its comprehensive databases tracking journalists who are imprisoned, injured, or killed in conflict zones.

CPJ's lists are heavily relied upon. In the case of Israel and Gaza, for example, South Africa cited CPJ's work in both their January 2024 oral ICJ submission of their genocide allegation against Israel and their May 2024 ICJ submission. Amnesty International used CPJ's work in their December 2024 report accusing Israel of genocide as did B'Tselem in a July 2025 report and the UN Commission of Inquiry in a September 2025 report.

However, the integrity of their casualty data in the Gaza conflict has come under serious scrutiny. Evidence suggests that they haven't been reliably verifying the individuals included. Recently, CPJ removed 20 names from its database — including eight who were later confirmed to be active combatants, plus others who were non-journalists or even still alive. By their own admission, CPJ verified each person’s death and journalistic credentials but presumed that the death was connected to journalistic work unless definitively proven otherwise. That is a presumption, not case-by-case verification of the work connection.

Pro-Israel media watchdog HonestReporting found significant ongoing issues. They identified 25 individuals still on CPJ’s list for whom militant organizations or related bodies had published martyr posters or videos, often naming units or military roles. For example, CPJ currently has a page on their website devoted to killed journalist Ahmed Abu Eisha. They cite his colleague Safaa al-Hasanat as saying that he was “polite, calm, and kind; someone who avoided conflict." Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) identified him as an operative and unit commander nearly a year after his death.

A major structural flaw is CPJ’s two-source verification rule. Relying on local sources — which can include relatives, colleagues, or local press groups — does not guarantee accuracy in a highly partisan conflict zone. Two connected sources can easily repeat the same claim, conceal a person's military role, or simply lie.

Even after addressing the errors – and while acknowledging that the dataset remains under review – CPJ continues to describe its methodology as “longstanding and rigorous” and to call the war “the deadliest on record for journalists" (article updated June 2026) while confidently claiming that 75 journalists and media workers were “directly targeted and killed by Israeli forces in direct reprisal for their work.” It also still asserts (as of this writing) that Israel is conducting “the deadliest and most deliberate effort to kill and silence journalists that CPJ has ever documented."

However, because Hamas and PIJ are still retroactively identifying fighters killed as far back as 2023, it is impossible for CPJ to know how many concealed military roles remain on their list. Acknowledging these issues, CPJ promised a full internal audit of its Gaza database by July 2026, but that deadline has passed and the audit remains unpublished. Ultimately, what CPJ is presenting is a provisional, demonstrably error-ridden list — not settled evidence.

Across the 232 names ever included in CPJ’s relevant database, we can see 36 cases with factional or related military-role evidence. Thirty-two had a dated public mujahid (holy warrior) notice. The median interval between death and the cited publication was ~697 days:

Time between death and recognition by militant groups and number of recognitions:

<6 months: 3 6 months to 1 year: 2 1 to 1.5 years: 8 1.5 to 2 years: 4 2 to 2.5 years: 10 \>2.5 years: 5

This isn't the first time a list of killed journalists or media workers has been examined. In December 2025, the Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center published a report which found that 60% of individuals classified or reported as journalists and were killed during the war in Gaza were members of or affiliated with terrorist organizations, primarily Hamas and PIJ. Their findings were covered by The Jerusalem Post and by Times Now of India.

Israeli politics shifted after October 7th. People generally see the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a necessary part of Israel

The only Jewish left wing party, The Democrats, is getting only 8-12 seats in average (in polls).

There’s a shift in the youth and many secularists are leaving Israel due to the recent laws passed by Ultra-Orthodox parties

A new Tel Aviv University study found those starting new chapters abroad are predominantly under age 40, and include many physicians, engineers, tech workers, and academics. If the trend continues unchecked, researchers warn, it could threaten Israel’s economy

Knesset member Itamar Ben-Gvir, a follower of far-right ideologue Meir Kahane, is surging in popularity

So my question is - And do you think it’s a good thing or a bad one? And do you think the Israeli left can ever rehabilitate itself in the future?

I’m asking both Israelis and outsiders

i was a kid when this happened. the assasination of Salah Shehade, who was responsible for suicide bombings against hundreds of israeli civilians.

the idf dropped a one ton bomb on his neighborhood in gaza. 8 homes were destroyed and 14 people were killed aside from Shehade, including his wife and daughter. and 7 of those killed were children.

i remember the attack received somewhat significant condemnation by israeli society. around 20 israeli reserve and active duty pilot signed a letter saying they will never participate in “illegal and immoral” attacks that caused mass civilian casualties which damages israel‘s reputation.

but the discourse around the mass civilian casualties in gaza seems to be different today. like more israelis today feel less shame for mass civilian casualties. so i’m wondering, what caused this shift in opinion in israeli society?

looking for israelis to answer

just an fyi, i hate hamas and october 7 and the cheering for the death of people is sickening

The story goes: Rome destroyed the Temple in 70 CE and expelled the Jews. When you point out no such expulsion is documented, people fall back on Hadrian in 135.

Hadrian did ban Jews... from Jerusalem. He rebuilt it as Aelia Capitolina and barred them from entering, which is why they were later allowed in once a year on Tisha B'Av to mourn. That's a real decree. It covers a city, not a province. Nothing in the sources removes Jews from the country.

And the evidence on the ground makes it impossible anyway. The Mishnah was compiled at Sepphoris around 200 CE. The Jerusalem Talmud at Tiberias around 400. The Sanhedrin kept operating in the Galilee for centuries, and Rome formally recognised the Patriarch as head of Palestinian Jewry into the 400s. There are dozens of synagogues from the 3rd–6th centuries with elaborate mosaic floors - Beit Alpha, Hammat Tiberias. You don't get four hundred years of legal codification and monumental building in a country you've been thrown out of.

What actually happened: Judea proper was devastated, the centre of Jewish life moved north to the Galilee, and the population declined slowly over the next six centuries through Byzantine Christian pressure, conversion, and Arabisation after 638.

The diaspora also predates all of this. By the 1st century there were already more Jews in Alexandria, Babylon and Rome than in Judea. The Babylonian community dated to 586 BCE and mostly declined to return when Cyrus let them.

The myth comes from galut - exile as a theological condition, divine punishment awaiting divine remedy - later read backwards as history with a Roman decree attached.

This isn't a fringe position. Israel Bartal, who savaged Shlomo Sand's book, still said flatly that no serious Jewish historian defends the uprooting story. Sand got a lot wrong. He didn't get this wrong.

Worth adding: the same evidence showing continuous Jewish presence long after 135 also means a lot of Palestinians descend from people who never left and eventually converted. Which is more or less what the genetics says too: Two populations with heavy shared Levantine ancestry arguing over a place both are actually from.

Sources: Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society; Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem; Bartal's 2008 Haaretz review of Sand.

The article can be found here
https://israel365news.com/419041/after-october-7-majority-of-israelis-support-rebuilding-the-temple-up-from-30-in-2

Since the atrocities of 10/7 public opinion in Israel has shifted. Most Israeli's now believe the Temple Mount should be returned to Israeli and the Dome be dismantled. IMHO the appropriate way to accomplish this is to offer hamas a deal, unconditional surrender or forfeit the Temple Mount.

There'd be some kicking and screaming but there also might just be sufficient pressure on hamas to keep its word and actually surrender. If not, there'd be a visual reminder on the Mount of both the failures and consequences of terrorism.

Now Jewish public opinion in Israel isn't going to mirror Jewish public opinion outside of Israel but I'm curious what Reddit might say ? It seems a victory for national pride would be appropriate response as well as the obvious victory in Gaza. That and what if hamas capitulated ? Just the threat could end any more loss of life and a quick and easy end to all this.

Seems like a good political move if you ignore all the freaking out it would create and just consider the pressure it'd put on hamas to surrender for real this time.

Common refutations ? Can't think of a single rational reason Israel shouldn't try and use Temple Mount as leverage to force hamas to surrender. If the argument is that the Muslims might complain, well let em, the idea is that tolerating a few complaints is far better than continuing to waste resources in what's left of Gaza.

I mean, even Russia sentenced two of their own soldiers to life in prison in 2024 for killing a Ukrainian family of 9. Similarly, in 2003, a Russian military court sentenced Yuri Budanov to prison and stripped him off his rank for the kidnapping and murder of a Chechen woman, though I doubt any sane person with a brain and a heart would look at these few instances and say "Russia is the most moral army in the world." Prosecutions for the Israeli army usually do not happen, as was the case for the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. And none have followed so far in the Gaza war, despite deadly strikes like the Engineer's Apartment Building airstrike, in which Airwars identified 133 civilians dead, including 67 children.

An overlooked example is al-Wafa hospital in 2014 Operation Protective Edge. An aerial photo was published, claiming to be a rocket launcher outside the hospital, though this was not the hospital compound, and the International Solidarity Movement identified it to be the Right To Life Society Building. Later videos were published, allegedly showing Hamas militants stealing an ambulance and shooting from the hospital. Though, this was not militants shooting from the hospital, and rather an abandoned building (even one of the soldiers in the audio refers to it as a house), but it wasn't even in the same war, as this was recorded in 2009 during Operation Cast Lead (same for the ambulance video). Still, strikes (with warnings) and calls persisted, leading to the full evacuation of the hospital, and it being subsequently leveled. This was also Gaza's only rehabilitation hospital. No proper evidence has been provided to show its military use, quite the contrary.

Even in the case of a rocket launcher nearby or some use, a precise munition could absolutely be used and does not require leveling the hospital. If you don't believe me, you can take Israeli officers' word for it in their admissions to +972 Magazine and Local Call on "‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza," where one of the officers states "Sometimes the army found something in a high-rise building that was related to Hamas, but it was also possible to hit that specific target with more accurate weaponry. The bottom line is that they knocked down a high-rise for the sake of knocking down a high-rise." The article is deemed accurate, as David Kirkpatrick wrote for the New Yorker: "Former U.S. officials pointed me to an article in the Tel Aviv-based news site +972 about the war’s first weeks, which they said was consistent with intelligence reports. According to the article, during this period Israeli war planes deliberately targeted civilian structures such as office towers, apartment buildings, government ministries, utility companies, banks, and universities. Israel used phone calls, texts, and air-dropped flyers to warn civilians to evacuate, but, the article reported, it appeared to be more lax about those precautions than it had been during previous conflicts. These “power targets,” which were attacked in an effort to terrorize Palestinians into pressuring Hamas to capitulate, accounted for about half the strikes in the first five days of Israel’s air campaign."

The same example can be made for the al-Badr flour mill in 2009 (refutation: the UN found aircraft artillery contradicting the IDF's claims), as well as the four high rise buildings bombed in May 2021 (the officers in the article also make reference to their bombing strictly being used to create a "shock" to get civilians to put pressure on Hamas).

In essence, it comes from the Dahiya doctrine, where General Gadi Eizenkot described wielding "disproportionate force" to "harm the population;" "restraining Nasrallah," after "the population was evacuated for its protection." Indeed, the author of that +972 Magazine and Local Call article makes reference to the Dahiya doctrine.

Also, not to mention the fact that systematic expulsion from homes is an act of genocide, if it is being done to deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part, as stated in the trial judgement for Jean Paul-Akayesu in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Why don’t more pro-Palestine activists actively and explicitly condemn Hamas, and what are the long-term political and moral consequences of allowing an extremist group to hijack the Palestinian liberation movement?

I want to ask a fundamental question to the pro-Palestine community here that I think gets glossed over far too often: why is there such a widespread hesitation or outright refusal among pro-Palestine activists to unequivocally condemn Hamas?

When you look at the actual reality on the ground, Hamas has spent years oppressing, persecuting, and brutalizing the very Palestinian people activists claim to champion.

Look at figures like Gazan-American analyst Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, who supported the BDS movement and lost over thirty family members to Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, yet faces intense attacks, vilification, and ostracization from online activist spaces simply because he speaks out against Hamas's authoritarian grip.

Hamas has a long history of violently suppressing domestic Palestinian dissent. Look at the 2019 "We Want to Live" movement, where ordinary Gazans took to the streets to protest crippling economic conditions, corruption, and tax hikes.

Hamas didn't listen to them; their security forces raided homes, beat peaceful protesters with batons, fired live ammunition into crowds, arbitrarily detained journalists, and expelled or jailed grassroots peace advocates.

If advocating for Palestine means uplifting Palestinian voices, why are the voices of Gazans directly suffering under Hamas tyranny routinely ignored or silenced by Western activist circles?

What is the logical consistency in rightly condemning Israel for targeting Palestinian civilians and committing war crimes, but completely giving a pass to an organization that routinely engages in the exact same atrocities?

Before October 7th, Hamas was responsible for decades of indiscriminate suicide bombings targeting civilians in buses and cafes.

On October 7th itself, we saw them commit unspeakable acts, including the filmed murder and beheading of foreign workers, like Thai agricultural laborers who had zero involvement in the geopolitical conflict.

The threat of violent Islamic fundamentalism is not a theoretical abstraction — it is a brutal reality.

You only have to look at how radical fundamentalist groups operate in places like Nigeria, where both Christian and Muslim communities are subjected to horrific terror, displacement, and massacres under religious extremist ideologies.

This is precisely why framing the October 7th attacks as a modern equivalent to the Nat Turner slave rebellion falls completely flat.

Nat Turner’s rebellion was an uprising against an institutional system of chattel slavery; it was not an attempt to establish an authoritarian, fundamentalist theocracy designed to strip away civil liberties, purge political dissidents, and subjugate its own populace under a totalitarian regime.

What is the point of freeing Palestine from foreign occupation if the end result is simply surrendering millions of Palestinians to an Islamic authoritarian tyranny?

Ultimately, this brings me back to my core question for the sub: why don’t more pro-Palestine activists actively and explicitly condemn Hamas, and what are the long-term political and moral consequences of allowing an extremist group to hijack the Palestinian liberation movement?

There is so much talk about how anti Zionism is anti semitism and pally wood but no recognition of the content we see coming from Zionists and the Israeli government and the IDF themselves.

“Oh it’s just a few people and you can’t judge everyone”

But it’s not a few fringe people. It’s thousands. It’s the words of the government itself. It’s the videos coming from IDF soldiers, from Zionists.

The ones bragging about murdering children. The ones mocking children in pain and suffering. It’s the Israeli people who block aid trucks from entering Gaza, it’s the officials saying they’re human animals and they all need to go.

Why can’t you see that these people are the ones who are representing Israel and making people hate it? Why do I never see any of you speaking out against them or to them?

I often see pro Palestinians calling people out for anti semitism but not the other way around.

I also noticed that most (or all) of these people are teenagers. They post "FREEE PALESTINEEEE" on TikTok and YouTube without any context. Then they blame Gal Gadot for supporting her own country (???). I wonder if they know that Hamas started it all. Then they post videos of Palestinian women being raped. Which is really terrible, but to wish the same on Israeli women who literally did nothing but were born in Israel?!!! You're not normal. And these people are playing big feminists. I admit, I don't care at all about the war between 2 countries that I've never had any connection to. I don't need to. Everyone has their own problems, and I'm not a politician. Don't get me wrong, everyone needs a basic empathy. And that's a good thing. But to write things like "well, you were born in Israel, so you're a bad person" (???), it's like you hate all of America because 50% of them voted for Trump. I'm really pissed off now because I was listening to one of the Eurovision winners, Netta, and there are so many idiotic comments during the video clip like "im from tel aviv and this is my fav music", and they're definitely not Israeli, they're just mocking. In the past, they hated this music because it's cringeworthy, and now it's because this unfortunate woman comes from a war-torn country. No, don't support Israel's actions, but neither do Hamas's. However, you should support both civil sides, and don't use "weeeeell but palestinians are more poor than Israel so only they need support" as an excuse. Or they'll tell them to replace the president. How??? I think if your country was at war, you'd probably go to parliament and say stop, and then they'd shoot you. I don't understand why only now? Do these people know that the war between them has been going on since 1948??? No, I won't respect you if I see "free palestine" in your life if you have nothing to do with Palestine, no relatives, not even close to your country. You don't even know me. They talk about how many people hate palestine because of religion, while they do the same with israel. And I know that these KIDS don't do this because they really hate jews, but because it's a trend. And the whole thing is that singers ban their music for civilians. No, they didn't ban it for soldiers or the president, they banned it for civilians!! congratulations, she'll definitely start a war!! Then I saw fans who wrote that they would stop listening to Lana Del Rey because she went to israel to sing for her fans. At least someone cares about her fans :D, and why does it matter that israel has concerts too? It's not a problem that there are so many parties in Ukraine despite the war in one part of the country? To exist with such a small brain..... these people live their lives just like us. They are addicted to their phones, they go to work, they are religious, they are with their families, etc. If you think that all of Israel is pro-war because they grew up there, then by that logic you should hate Palestine too. Let me quote a very good comment: "do you think a million sociopathic celebrities and a lot of uneducated teenagers don't know the history of Israel? noooooo dude, they definitely know what they are doing". Sarcasm.

Could you please cite to your sources in answering this question, as it is subject to a lot of controversy. The question is straight forward. When did Palestinians form a national identity. The earlier source I could find is 1921 with the appointment of the Al-Husseini the Grand Mufti of Palestine. Is there a earlier point than this? My understanding is they did not take on the name Palestinian until 1964?

Hello All! I just joined and read the rules. Hopefully, my post is agreeable to the rules of the sub.

So, for a while, I was agreeing with the idea that Israel is committing genocide. It sure looked like it from the awful things I kept seeing on the news and hearing about on podcasts. The last few days, I decided to research a little. Now, I do not think it should be called genocide. Here is why:

First, when I compared it to other genocides, it doesn't really come close. In the Armenian genocide, about 50 to 75% of all Armenians in the Ottoman area died. In the Rwandan genocide, about 60 to 70% of the Tutsis were killed. In the holocaust, 63 to 67% of all European Jews were killed. In Cambodia, Pol Pot's genocide killed about 25% of the total population. Israel is responsible for the deaths of approximately 3% of Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinians have not been attacked in East Jerusalem, nor in the West Bank (where there is no Hamas).

In all those previous genocides, there was vociferous hate speech regularly on the radio of those countries, and substantial government propaganda labeling the victims as undesirable for society. To my understanding, this has not happened in Israel. I'm sure it would be on the news or blasted on social media if it was happening.

The number of Palestinian deaths is actually quite a bit less than when the US invaded Iraq, and when US invaded Afganistan.  176,000 to 212,000 is the estimate of deaths in Afganistan. In Iraq, 180,000 to 200,000 is the estimate of Iraqi deaths. Palestinian deaths are around 73,400. Nobody was shouting "genocide" at the US during those wars, and we killed way more people. Why was that not considered genocide by everyone? We were also responding to a terrorist attack, like Israel now.

Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world. If they really wanted to kill the other 97% of Gaza, I'm sure they could.

In reference to wars, about 1.5% of the French population was killed in WWII. Belgium lost 1% of it population in WWII. UK lost 1%. Italy, slightly over 1%. Holland, 2 to 3% of the population. The current Israel/Hamas war matches these numbers much more closely.

It sucks and it's sad seeing so many women and children and innocent men die. It's absolutely a humanitarian crisis. But I don't think it is genocide anymore. It's just plain old war. Any thoughts?

***thanks for everyone sharing on both sides of the discussion. I have learned many more things from all the posting. I appreciate you all! This feels like a million times more complex and nuanced than I realised. Mostly, the interpretation of the word "genocide" is like a 100-foot wall for everyone.

Let me first post my biases.

- Hamas is a terrorists organisation
- Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish country.

That said, i don’t agree with a lot of Israel policies, and im appalled at some of the stuff done / said by Israelis.

I wish the war could end. Honestly, I don’t want anyone to die on either side.

But I see a lot of accusations that horrible videos of civilians getting killed are AI. That most of what is shown as war crimes is fake.

Now, I honestly believe that Israel probably has done stuff that is considered war crimes. Compared to how the Ukrainian force is coming off, Israel does seem like idiots at times.

But that doesn’t mean Israel is wrong to try to kill Hamas.

But about the videos… do you guys have any proof of false videos? Or horrible war crime videos that are proven not to be fake?

I would love to hear from both sides. Because i don’t believe there are any angels in this war. And I just want to try to get closer to the truth.

Is it me or is their update frequency worrying? https://maps.apple.com/frame?map=satellite&center=31.340452%2C34.339623&span=0.004338%2C0.008842

Reality in 2026 https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ Select layer; esri world imagery

As the title states, I believe Zionism can be justified purely from the lens that fact that Israel exists as a functional civilisation.

I will start with an analogy. Many oppose the treatment of native Americans by English settlers and then the USA itself, but not many, even those in the anti Zionist crowd would claim that invalidates the existence of the US itself, and it should all be turned over to the native Americans. I think their reason for this comes down to the fact that it would be completely impractical to do such a thing. A functional, thriving, and powerful country has been formed, and pretty much nobody alive engaged in the original sin of colonialism. So those are the two standard. Enough time has passed and it would be completely impractical even the status of the original colonists creating a functional state.

So even if you accept Israel is committing a genocide

Even if you think a Palestinian state should exist

Even if you oppose the Israeli government

Even if you believe Israel’s occupation of the Wesf bank is apartheid

you still must answer for why Israel itself shouldn’t exist, and why a full civilisation with culture should be destroyed to allow reclamation of a land that hasn’t been the Palestinians for almost 80 years. And if you genuinely think that Israel still shouldn’t exist then I wonder do you hold the same logic to America, Canada, Australia?

Should we prune all Normans from Britain? Then the Anglo Saxons since the took it from the celts? The Turks took Istanbul from the Byzantines so why don’t we give the Eastern Orthodox control over it or maybe the Greeks. The vast majority of Arab countries, (I think actually all except the peninsula itself although maybe I’m wrong) were colonised so why don’t we ship all Arabs back to Arabia? At a certain point we may as well all go back to Africa since all homo Sapiens come from there and we colonised the rest from other human groups.

You see where I’m going with this? Everyone must draw a line at how extreme decolonisation is. So my ultimate question is why doesn’t Israel fit within the group where it is agreed upon that decolonisation is absurd. And thus, if decolonisation of Palestine is absurd, then Israel remains, and you are a Zionist.

Perhaps you can point to a one state solution. Israel shouldn’t exist, but Jews should remain in the land ad equals with Palestinians. Thus we don’t need to deport millions, but we can disregard Zionism. I would respond by questioning the feasibility of such an endeavour. After all, practicality is the point of my entire argument, and I don’t believe a 1 state solution is practical for various reasons that I can talk about if you want.

2 State is compatible with Zionism so that works with my argument, although at this point it seems only slightly more feasible than 1 state solution.

Hi all, I'm hoping I could get some clarity on Palestine and Israel's history. Recently I went on a trip to Israel that was dedicated towards having college students learn more about the history and cause of Israel, seeing for themselves the lifestyle of citizens, speaking with citizens and non-citizens (ie residential Palestinians who have a right to live within Israel but do not have the right to vote), speaking with survivors and soldiers, to learn about their political opinions and perspectives. However, since I know that this trip was sponsored by Jewish organizations and done in Israel, I understand that the history I've been told is the history in an Israeli perspective (ex. calling a war the "War of Independence" because that's what it is to Israel, but it's called the Nakba to Palestinians). As such, the following is what I can recall being told during the trip between Palestine and Israel (note: not in chronological order).

1517-1917 - Jews were living under Ottoman rule and iirc did have freedom to practice their faith despite living under Islamic rule. Then WWI occurs and Ottoman empire falls, and they fall under British rule. During British rule (1918-1948) Palestine was called Mandatory Palestine and was ruled by the British, and Palestinians wanted to resist British colonialism.

During both Ottoman and British rule Jews moved in droves to modern-day Israel+Palestine. I was told that during Roman rule, Palestinians were established in the area they are at rn. Part of the reason why it was named Palestine was as a way for Romans to cut off any religious connection to the land by changing it from Judea to Palestine. As such, when the Roman Empire fell, many Jews went back to the land of Judea/Palestine because of the religious significance for them (which, by this point, was occupied by Palestinians).

Jews, having a history of constant persecution, felt that they wanted their own land + felt that they should fight back against their oppressors. The British supported this and allowed Jews to move to modern-day Israel+Palestine. This was also roughly the beginning (?) or at least the popularization of Zionism (which, from what I was told, meant "Jews deserve their own land to be safe from persecution" and that "Jews have a right to defend themselves").

1948 was when the State of Israel was established and when the war of Independence, also known as the Nakba, occurred. From what I was told, there was a UN Partition Plan that was supposed to separate the area into two states: Jewish and Arab. While Jews were in support of this plan (though apprehensively as I was told that Jews accepted it as a "this isn't what we want but it's a step towards it" type of way), Arabs refused it (see next point). Later, there was Zionist militia (who later became the IDF) who aimed to establish their own territory (ie Israel). This led to the War of Independence/Nakba and ended with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced from their homes.

I was told that the reason why Arabs refused the Partition Plan ranged from "Arabs refused to acknowledge a State of Israel and be ordered around by the British" to "Arabs felt that the establishment of the State of Israel was representative of their failure as people". For the second point, it's because I was told that Arabs conquered so much land and were able to rule it for so long and they attributed it to their religion (ie the reason why they're so successful is because they have God on their side). However, when their empire fell, they felt that it was because they were no longer close to God. Even more-so, they felt that if they were on-par with Judaism (a religion that has been persecuted and displaced many times over history), then they themselves could easily be persecuted and displaced. The establishment of Israel would mean that they were "weaker" since they are now being forced to share their holy land 50-50 (bc iirc it was majority Arab Muslims in the area) with another religion despite being the majority. I have no idea how true this is, and I don't know enough about either religions or histories to believe it or not. But this is what I was told.

Later, a ton of Jews began moving to Israel. I was told that the reasoning was varied; from people who wanted to return to their homeland, people who wanted to feel safe in a country essentially created for them, and people who may be escaping discrimination/hate crimes/attacks in Arab countries.

After this came multiple Arab Israeli wars, of which included the Sinai Campaign (1956), the Six-Day War (1967), Yom Kippur war (1973), the First Lebanon War (1982), the Gulf War (1991), Second Lebanon War (2006), and most recently the Israel-Palestine War (2023-now). I don't remember all the details for these wars (there was a major emphasis on the origins that I shared above but not as much detail for the other ones) but these are from the notes I took:

Sinai Campaign - with Britain and France, against Egypt. Egypt was in the Gaza Strip and had a blockade against Israel as well as permitting (or encouraging, depending on who you ask) terrorist attacks on Israelis. As such, Israel attacked in hopes of opening up the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran so that they can have access for trade + to stop the terrorist attacks. The Straits of Tiran opened but the Suez Canal wouldn't for at least another couple years, and eventually Israel left the Sinai Peninsula + Gaza Strip in 1957. However, Israel said that closing off the Straits of Tiran would be considered an act of war.

6-Day War - against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Israel heard that Egypt was planning to do an air strike on them, so before Egypt could attack, Israel attacked first. It also doesn't help that the Straits of Tiran were closed, and Israel said that they would consider the closing as an act of war. Israel took out a ton of Egypt's air force, and since Syria and Jordan were in alignment with Egypt (I forgot the name but basically, they had a contract that said if one country were attacked then all of them are being attacked) Israel attacked Syria and Jordan's air forces as well. Syria retreats from the Golan Heights and Jordan retreats from the West Bank, and Israel takes over those areas as well as the Sinai Peninsula.

Yom Kippur War - against Egypt and Syria with support from many other Arab countries. This time, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel during Yom Kippur in hopes of getting back the Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. Israel got support from the US, among other allies, and the war ended in 1979 when Israel and Egypt managed to have a peace treaty (with the UN assisting).

First and Second Lebanon War - Israel and Lebanon were allies against Hezbollah and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, both of which Israel considered to be terrorist groups. The first war was against PLO because PLO were attacking Israelis, and they were already in an ongoing attack/counter-attack war, but PLO moved from Syria to Lebanon. They had military operations in Beirut but ended up leaving the city, though they did stay in Southern Lebanon. They didn't leave Lebanon til 2000. The second Lebanon war was because of the rise of Hezbollah and their takeover of South Lebanon (after Israel left), having attacked, raided, and kidnapped Israel/Israeli soldiers. This ended with the UN having the two do a ceasefire and later a prisoner swap between Hezbollah and Israel.

Gulf War - Against Iraq. It started because Saddam Hussein fired at Israel and Israel didn't fire back because they were told not to by the US (because of the US having their own coalition against Iraq). But, because Israel couldn't retaliate, they built a bunch of bomb shelters so that, in the event of a bombing, people have a safe place to run to.

Again, this is everything that I was told during the trip. I would appreciate if people could tell me other perspectives of this information, such as why the Partition Plan was rejected or additional context for the wars that Israel participated in. Thanks so much!

Chaim Weizmann, a Jewish chemist, developed a fermentation process during World War I that enabled Britain to produce large quantities of acetone, a crucial ingredient in the manufacture of cordite for artillery shells. His contribution made him valuable to senior British officials, including David Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour, and gave him unusual access to Britain's political establishment. Weizmann used that influence to advocate for a Jewish national home in Palestine, at a time when Britain was considering the future of the Ottoman Empire's Middle Eastern territories.

In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, expressing support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine while also promising not to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the territory's existing non-Jewish population.

The popular story that Britain effectively rewarded Weizmann with Palestine for his acetone discovery is too simplistic and is disputed by historians: British support for Israel had numerous strategic, political, religious, and ideological motivations.

Nevertheless, Weizmann's wartime scientific contribution helped elevate his influence at a crucial moment, and the Balfour Declaration became an important part of the chain of events that eventually produced the competing Jewish and Palestinian national claims underlying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

And the UN bungled it from there, taking over for Britain in 1948.

Acetone. Britain. The UN. Those are the botch agents right there

This is coming from a pro-palestine who hates when every mention of Israel gets flagged as antisemitic, but I genuinely see it used to spread a lot of obviously disgusting antisemitism. So I guess my question is, do you see that too? And does this use make these memes antisemitic even though the premise is not inherently antisemitic?