Hamas has been an assset for the Israeli right because it helps prevent a two state solution. The goal is really to weaken the Palestinian Authority. In recent years most of Hamas' crimes were against Palestinians and nobody cared. Forcing this dichotomy today is certainly a strategy but I don't think that was really a strategy pre-Oct 7th. I.e. I don't recall ever Israel trying to justify settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank as being a response to Hamas- wouldn't make any sense.

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

> Jews and Arabs living side by side in the same country as equal citizens.

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

Yes yes. I'm from Israel. I know that story.

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

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

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

> then if all Palestinian Arabs convert to Judaism we can also solve the problem pretty quickly...

A creative solution to the whole "right of return" issue. I like that.

They might have to change what the UNRWA schools in Palestine (among others) are teaching to get people on board with that first:

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

That report is based on policing the likes and shares in social media accounts of teachers, not on what they taught the children or what they themselves did or wrote.

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

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

No, there were actual textbooks used in classes too.

Arabs rejected a two-state solution at the very inception of Israel. An Arab majority Israel-Palestine would drive out its Jews, just as every other Arab country has done.

Arabs rejected getting <50% of the land (and being evicted at gunpoint from the rest) when they were ~2/3rds of the population in 1948. 1948 was 75 years ago, things have changed since then.

Arabs got the vast majority of the land, which became Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt.

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

> Arabs got the vast majority of the land

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

Mandatory Palestine was an artificial creation of the British, which existed less than 30 years. For the 400 years before that, it was part of a single Ottoman province along with what is now Syria and Jordan (except for Jerusalem which was split off into a separate distinct in 1872).

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

Yes, what really mattered to the ordinary people on the ground wasn't the borders on a map; it was "my family has lived in this house and farmed this land for generations, but now men with guns say the house belongs to them and we have to leave."

You think a forced expulsion from their homes is what drove the 1948 war?

Is it not though? The expulsion started immediately after UN partition recommendation of Nov 1947, the Arab-Israeli war started in May 1948, that is only 6 months later

The war started the day after the UN resolution, in November 20 1947. The war wasn’t caused by the expulsion of Arabs. The Arab states refusing to recognize the creation of a Jewish state caused the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war

> The war had two main phases, the first being the 1947–1948 civil war, which began on 30 November 1947,[19] a day after the United Nations voted to adopt the Partition Plan for Palestine, which divided the territory into Jewish and Arab sovereign states, and an international Jerusalem (UN Resolution 181). Partition was accepted by the Jewish leadership, but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders and the Arab states.

Yes, exactly, Arabs rejected a partition plan that would expel them from their homes.

The partition plan wouldn’t have expelled anyone from their homes. Most of the land that became Israel belonged to the Ottoman Empire itself. Part of it was purchased by Jews over decades. Arabs weren’t to be expelled from the remainder, they would just become part of the new Jewish state. And, of course, it never would’ve affected Arabs in Syria, Jordan, etc.

> purchased by Jews

Many of these purchases were from wealthy Ottoman landowners who had in many cases never seen the land they owned. The peasant families that actually lived on the land for generations had no say in the matter. I'm not faulting the purchasers for conducting legal business transactions, if anything the fault belongs to the feudal system of the Ottoman Empire—but none of that matters to someone who has suddenly lost their home and livelihood.

> Arabs weren’t to be expelled from the remainder

I don't think the historical record bears that out. Why did Israel not let the civilians it displaced return once the war ended, if the displacements were merely a temporary military necessity? And certainly massacres like Deir Yassin were not military necessities, though they did scare many Palestinians into fleeing.

You’re mixing up two different things.

The question we were talking about above is: What caused the Arabs to attack Israel the day after the UN Declaration? Note: it was not just Arabs in Mandatory Palestine, it was Arabs in Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, and Iraq. All of them attacked Israel. Why? It wasn’t Arabs in Palestine being forced to leave their land. That wasn’t part of the partition plan, and hadn’t happened yet. The Israeli Declaration of Independence specifically asks Arabs to stay and become equal citizens.

As to why Israel hasn’t allowed Arabs who fled to return, I suspect it’s because the Arab countries tried to kill Israel in its crib, and then expelled a million Jews from their own lands.

> That wasn’t part of the partition plan, and hadn’t happened yet.

I must admit I don't know as much as I would like about this, so please correct me if I say something stupid (and share reading recommendations), but: my understanding is, "Israel" at this point was composed of several factions who disagreed greatly about methods. Probably Ben-Gurion did not have ethnic cleansing in mind, but Irgun and Lehi did, which was enough—the most radical factions were also most willing to fight, which gave them outsize power. (Though even Ben-Gurion did not intend to stay only within the borders allotted by the UN, he intended to take control of even Jewish settlements outside the partition borders.)

As for the war: the invasion by the Arab countries upon Israel's declaration of independence was an expansion of a civil war within Palestine that had already been going on for more than 5 months, and that the Palestinians were decisively losing. The Arab states hoped mostly to save face and to stop the flood of Palestinian refugees that would result if the current trajectory continued.

My aunt lives in Tel Aviv from 1933 to 1952. She told me they actually started shelling the city that night, not the next day.

As well, there was fighting in the streets. They had to turn off the lights at night and hide in the basement to avoid raids. There was a sniper who was shooting at their apt from a nearby mosque and they would find shells on their balcony. They lived on Ben Yahuda St.

Just thought readers might appreciate a first hand account of what it was like to be a Jewish Israeli at the time.

I was discussing 1948 with a Palestinian and he insisted on downplaying the Arab attacks, saying they were weak, their attacks were not serious etc. I've found that in online discussions as well including people telling me that Arab countries didn't even exist at the time. The Egyptian Air Force bombed Tel Aviv that night.

We live in a post truth era and not sure what can be done about that. You'd think that with the Internet and access to information people can do research but research is hard. There are many, sometimes conflicting accounts of historical events. It's so easy to be sucked into echo chambers. Any thesis you have can be easily supported.

Thank you for sharing. Unfortunately, Israel lost the war on this decades ago. Not just Arabs, but the entire Muslim world has bought a particular narrative, and nothing will convince them otherwise. I’m from a non-Arab Muslim country, and they actually have a lot of conflict with Arabs (exporting Wahhabism, etc). But when it comes to Israel and Palestine, it’s a unified front.

Unfortunately, it’s part of a larger victimhood narrative that has become an important part of Muslim identity. “Our once proud civilization has been oppressed by the west, including ripping away our holy city of Jerusalem and giving it to the Jews.” And because the Muslim world was an important participant in the worldwide socialist movement, that narrative has taken hold among European leftists who otherwise wouldn’t have a horse in the race.

100% this.

I'd say your focus on what happened in other areas of Ottoman control is contrived. It seems obvious that what should have mattered to the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine is the disposition of Mandatory Palestine - it doesn't help them at all to say "well, these other guys over there got a whole country."

You’re projecting western individualism onto the situation. The correct analysis is to look at how the territory was partitioned between Arabs and Jews. Thats how Arabs themselves viewed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War. Why did Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, and Yemen all attack Israel the moment it was created, and several times after that?

Why do the Arab countries care so much about Palestine? It’s not like they go around spending their blood and treasure to protect other oppressed groups. Saudi just bombed the shit out of Yemen. The reason they want to get rid of Israel is because they view this as a matter of Arab territorial integrity.

My Bangladesh family is posting the paratrooper meme on my FB. Why? Because they view the existence of Israel as an affront to territorial integrity of the Islamic world. You cannot understand the situation Israel is in from a western secular point of view.

> Why did Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, and Yemen all attack Israel the moment it was created, and several times after that?

Since after Israel's founding, the Arab states have initiated war against it exactly once: the 1973 Yom Kippur war. (Technically, I guess you could count Iraq's 1991 rocket attacks as a second time?) In all other cases, either Israel attacked first, or Israel's opponent was not a recognized state actor.

This argument completely ignores both the cultural distinctions between the different areas of the former Ottoman empire, and the fact that a person's home is not interchangeable with any other place. Nobody would expect a Polish person in 1939 to say "well, we Slavs have the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia so I guess it's fine that German settlers took my farm at gunpoint and forced me to leave".

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

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

Most of the world is competing ethnostates, including most if not all Arab states. (I’m certainly glad my parent’s generation secured our ethnostate, at great cost.) Whether there is a better way is an open question. But anybody would be an idiot to sacrifice their ethnostate for that experiment. It’s never ended well.

> Anybody would be an idiot to sacrifice their ethnostate

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

The only workable solution is two states, and Arabs giving up the idea of retaking Jerusalem and rebuilding the caliphate. They got to keep nearly all their territorial gains from their conquest of the Levant, that should be good enough.

> The only workable solution is two states, and Arabs giving up the idea of retaking Jerusalem and rebuilding the caliphate.

Yes, I don't think Palestinian Christians would love the idea of a caliphate in any case…

> Territorial gains from their conquest of the Levant

Again, for the daily life of the average resident of Gaza or the West Bank, this matters not a whit.

> Most of the world is competing ethnostates, including most if not all Arab states.

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

Countries like China and Japan are de facto ethnostates. There's also countries with religious majorities like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and India, many of which are associated with an ethnicity. Saudi Arabia is named after the Arabs. You could make the argument that many European states have dominant ethnic groups like the French, though they are nominally secular nations.

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

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

Good analysis. Any ideas on solutions?

Not a fucking clue man. These people hate each other and they both have reason to. Maybe you need a solution administered by a third party like the UN but no solution is going to leave everyone happy, and the UN itself is pretty flawed. There's plenty of insane people on both sides including Hamas.

I don't really see what the UN can do. Even if you had a solution that no one likes how do you force it on both parties?

The UN doesn't have the firepower to force Israel to do anything it doesn't want to do, and doesn't have the desire to force Palestine to do anything it doesn't want to do.

I suppose one approach is just sanction/isolate the entire region, until both sides reach their own solution. But… unlikely the entire world would unite in that, resulting in incomplete sanctions and messy alliance networks, with probably new enemies for each in the aftermath, and sadly perhaps new “scores to settle” against those who sanctioned them.

As an outsider to this feud, perhaps the best thing for me to do is not to judge either of them. I think it’s human to want to pick a side, but they’re not making it easy either way, by now. War is ugly, and I feel sad about and disappointed in that region for reminding me how bad people can be…

I wish they would stop fighting and dying but i got no power to change that. If that’s what they wanna do, it’s up to them.

I was really looking forward to a trip to Israel this year but now i guess that’s on hold…too dangerous

I would love to say I shouldn't have an opinion on this. Unfortunately my government is giving our tax dollars to one side so it can bomb the other. If they would prefer I didn't have an opinion, maybe they can stop taking our money to buy bombs.

Yeah, I like your thinking. It's tricky. Inextricable government-citizen stuff. I'm more of a global citizen right now, I don't really feel that. But I get it. Must be tough. Democracy...whaddayagonnado?

One issue with that is we only provide a small portion of their military budget and use a lot of that influence to persuade them to treat the Palestinians better.

I'm assuming you're American and on this basis, it's safe to point out this expenditure is primarily defensive, funding the iron dome. You don't hear about the iron dome in the news much as it would get boring reading day in, day out of the same defences against "exploratory" missiles fired into Israel. These defensive missiles are really expensive.

De-facto seems to be doing a lot of work there. Which of these countries have things like this?

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

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

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

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

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

> Saudi Arabia is named after the Arabs.

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

> These policies don't seem to be making Jews safer.

I agree.

And I'm not saying that any countries are better or worse at being an ethnostate than Israel, just that there are many countries where racial identity is prominent. China as an ethnostate is complicated (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Dream for some examples), but 91% of people in China are Han Chinese. That culture is predominant and the Chinese state has an official language associated with that identity. Likewise, foreigners make up just about 2% of the population in Japan (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Japan). Japan is known to be an insular country that has a reputation for xenophobia. That's what I meant by de facto. Both countries have a dominant culture in a more pronounced way than the United States, for example. China also practices ethnic clensing with things like the Uyghur cultural genocide, which could be compared to some of the policies you linked.

Right. Asian countries that aren’t technically ethnostates are effectively such, by way of something that functions like an ethnic identity. E.g. nearly everyone assimilating into Han ethnic identity in China. Similarly, Arab identity.

Most European countries historically functioned like ethnostates. They’re trying to change that, but not successfully.

I don’t believe diverse countries are sustainable in the long run. Look at what happened to Jews in Europe. They were living in peace with their neighbors for hundreds of years, and then their neighbors turned on them and massacred them.

"They were living in peace with their neighbors for hundreds of years, and then their neighbors turned on them and massacred them."

Progroms were not exactly a new thing in europe, but frequently happened over the centuries. The 19. and beginning of the 20. century was rather a quite peaceful episode, with jews getting equal citizen rights etc. but the hate did not go away, as can be seen, once the Nazis took over.

Wait what? China as an ethnic state? That would require a pretty large stretch. Europe is populated by Europeans, but saying it's an ethnic state is not very useful. China is a huge country with many ethnic groups with their own identities. The Han may dominate but the country functions more like a colonial empire.

Calling France an ethnic state is saying the Normans are the same group as the Provençal. It's like doing the same in Spain; a sure way to lose new friends. France and Spain are also old empires.

Japan is something else. The description makes sense there. Maybe also for the Nordic countries of Europe.

> The Han may dominate but the country functions more like a colonial empire.

At the level of spoken language, Han natively speak several mutually unintelligible languages; even at the written level, most of the mutually intelligibility only exists in the more formal registers. Are Han really one ethnic group then? Or more like a family of closely related ethnic groups?

> Japan is something else. The description makes sense there

Are Ryukyuans the same ethnic group as Yamato Japanese?

> You could make the argument that many European states have dominant ethnic groups like the French, though they are nominally secular nations.

France officially rejects the idea of French ethnic nationalism. France’s nationalism is civic and linguistic - the French nation is defined in terms of citizenship and language, not in terms of ethnic ancestry - in fact, the French government does not even know the ethnic/racial composition of their country, since they refuse to collect statistics on it. So I disagree with the suggestion that France is an “ethnostate”

> Saudi Arabia is named after the Arabs

Both the Saudi royal family and the Saudi religious establishment have always opposed Arab nationalism; the only significant Arab nationalist force in Saudi politics was the outlawed Arab Socialist Action Party opposition, which was mostly crushed by the Saudi regime in the 1980s, and by 1991 or so was extinct.

Every nation in that area is an Islamic theocracy, monarchy, a failed state or a military dictatorship.

If we waived a magic wand and made Palestine and Israel one country we wouldn't have peace. We'd have a a bloody civil war that makes the current conflict look like childs play.

Exactly. Show me an Arab country where Jews live as equals and prosper. There isn’t one. There’s just a few thousand Jews in the Arab countries. Less than 100 in Syria and Lebanon, about 100 in Egypt. Five in Iraq. Officially, zero in Saudi.

Ethnostates are still highly relevant today, especially for Jews.

In my country, the US, many people once believed that slavery was morally wrong, but still argued against freeing the slaves because they might try to take revenge on the rest of the population. Those fears were, in fact, confirmed on several occasions. And even today, areas with a high population of descendants of slaves fare far worse by almost every economic and social measure.

Freeing the slaves (a task which required us to fight the deadliest war in our history) was still the right and necessary thing to do. "You broke it, you bought it."

The Israelis are not just going to dissolve Israel and give it to the Palestinians just like the US won't dissolve itself and give itself back to the Native Americans.

> dissolve Israel and give it to the Palestinians

That's not what I'm asking for. In the US, Native Americans and descendants of slaves have full legal and political rights (in fact, Native Americans have extra political rights not granted to other citizens). Israel also can give Palestinians full legal and political rights, either in a separate state or as part of a one-state solution, without compromising its continued existence.

A statement like that unfortunately muddies the waters, it takes two to tango. Sadly things have deteriorated but at one stage there was a path to citizenship of Israel also there were offers of a state.

If native Americans made up 60% of the population and voted hamas into power the last time they had an election it would have been a much tougher choice for the us to give them voting rights.

What has American slavery to do with Arab imperialism?

> Most Israelis don't want that

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

I think it's workable with a constitution that guarantees rights for Jews such that the 50% Arabs can't change that and with a long slow process of building that single state (30 years? 50 years?). There might need to be other safeguards, Arabs today don't really serve in the IDF so maybe that would need to continue.

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

Adding a larger population that doesn't serve in the army isn't going to help IMO — the non-religious Jews are already very mad about the carveouts for Haredim not serving in the army. An "equal state" where a Jewish minority are forced into the military or else imprisoned, and the non-Jews aren't, is not going to go well.

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

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

They only stopped advocating for one state after the Arabs suffered humiliating losses against the Israelis in all those wars (where the Arabs were the aggressors). Given the choice between a one state Palestinian country where Jews are a repressed minority, and a two state solution with a trillion dollar aid package for Palestine, the Palestinians will still choose the first option.

The PA and Hamas never advocated for one state. If by "they" you mean "the Palestinians in 1948," the Palestinians in 1948 did not advocate for one state for both Jews and Arabs either. They explicitly advocated for genocide, and wanted one state with just them and with no Jews at all — their leader explicitly said he wanted a second Holocaust in the Middle East (and had formerly volunteered for the Nazis).

Sorry, that is exactly what I had meant (which I didn't stress upon further). Palestinians only want a "one state solution", as long as it is a Palestinian state where Jews are either repressed or genocided.

What I'm trying to describe here is a solution that Israel implements whether the Palestinians want it or not. Israel has control and it can chart a path towards one state where Jews are not repressed or killed. It is effectively already doing that anyways but without thinking things through. I'm also describing something that should happen over a period of perhaps 50 years.

I think if Israel stated that is the goal, to make Palestinians equal citizens in the larger single country, and had a plan as to how that goal could be accomplished, that would be more constructive than the current stall until things blow up plan. I'd like to think many/some Palestinians would buy in and the rest would get no choice anyways.

This plan naturally involves dismantling the PA and taking complete civilian control over the entire territory including formally annexing it to Israel. It should also include some clear continuous benefits to Palestinians from where they stand today (which is pretty bad, so shouldn't be a problem).

A variation of this plan could be some sort of federation, where the country is "Israel" and there are two states under that country. Not unlike Canada or the US. That could also address the population ratios vs. democracy (just like democracy in the US or Canada isn't a proportional system). So we can have a parliament some fixed representation for different parts. I think Lebanon also has something along those lines. I'm sure over time we'll see coalitions that cross those "state" boundaries.

As long as there's a constitution, and there are the right mechanisms, checks and balances, to maintain that, and enough time to get beyond the current tribal let's kill everyone mindsets, it can work.

I genuinely don’t believe that’s a goal for more than perhaps a small percentage of people in either Palestine or Israel, I think Israel will simply continue to occupy (but not absorb) and shrink through land grabs and attrition the Palestinian Territories until the demographic changes happening internally create an Orthodox majority - and beyond that I can’t predict.

The modern cry "from the river to sea" usually advocates for a one state solution via genocide as well (in disguise).

> Combine Israel and Palestine and you get roughly 50% Jews, 50% Arabs

It it leads to a peaceful and stable state that would be a good thing.

Is there a need for a Jewish state? Lots of ethnic groups do not have their own state. Mine does not - a much smaller number of us, and we are disappearing through mixing.

I don’t really know, but I guess the argument is that historically Jewish minorities have not really been free from oppression in any country at any time until the end of the Second World War.

So maybe there’s no strict need for a Jewish state, but I can see how going back to a collective of (often oppressed) minorities is not appealing.

Historically, wherever Islam is in majority or has political power, they have problems with non-muslims, unless the latter become muslims. In fact, Christians have had problems with Jews too. One core element of anti-semitism stems from Christianity as a religion: for more, read James Carroll's Constantine's Sword:The Church and the Jews, A History

You’re not just wrong but also racist. There are numerous historic examples of historic muslim majority countries and empires which had thriving non-muslim minorities. An easy example is the Ottoman Empire which had Jews, Christians and Muslims living under muslim rulers. Persia/Iran has always had non-muslim minorities for over a 1000 years, some thriving more than others.

But you don’t even need to look into history. Today Malaysia and Indonesia both have non-muslim minorities. Bosnia and Herzegovina has slight muslim majarity and is doing relatively fine.

Bosnia is a terrible example. It is not doing fine precisely because Muslims in Bosnia are 51% of the population and demand a centralized government so that they can overrule Christians any way they please.

When Turks left about 100 years ago Muslims were a minority but thanks to much higher birth rate they now want to set the rules in Bosnia. Serbs know that, that's why they resisted, and still resist, a unified Bosnia.

Ottoman Empire tolerated Christians, true, but to achieve anything in life you had to convert to Islam. Otherwise you could just remain a haraç-paying Christian peasant without any chance of education or growth. Haraç was a tax for being a non-Muslim.

It was super hard to be a thriving Christian under Turks. In fact the Turkish policy was to demographically and economically slowly bleed Christians and for those with ambition to convert to Islam.

I said relatively fine because under Serbia, Bosnian muslims were genocided. Yes there is ethnic tension now, but nothing anywhere close to what it was three decades ago.

"Under Serbia", oh my. I'm sorry you have to comment on things you know nothing about. They're not ethnic but religious tensions.

The word genocide was coined for what the Ottomans did to Christians.

I don't see how the minority of Israeli Arabs can so easily be used as proof. The Arab population of Israel is around 20% at 2 million. The population of the two Palestinian territories is at around 5 million Arabs and they have a strong Muslim majority. Israel's population is considered to be 3/4 Jewish. If Israel and the Palestinian territories were to become combined into a single state, it would no longer have a strong Jewish majority and would also cease to have its strong secular minority. It would cease to be Israel.

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

> If Israel and the Palestinian territories were to become combined into a single state, it would no longer have a strong Jewish majority and would also cease to have its strong secular minority. It would cease to be Israel.

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

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

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

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

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

So destruction now or destruction some time after 2065? I know what I'd pick ...

> So destruction now or destruction some time after 2065? I know what I'd pick ...

Well, realistically, no big change is likely to happen to the relationship with the Palestinians in the near future. Maybe in another 20-40 years. So the time gap between the two scenarios may be smaller than you suggest.

My of the situation is different: Hamas is a business model. Dead Palestinians (and a show of killing Jews/Israeli, the superiority of islam/repressed people) for a LOT of money. It worked for the PLO, but it seems Abu Mazen suddenly decided he cares about human beings (AFTER becoming a billionnaire this way)

I don’t think Hamas has a clear strategy going forward. October 7 only happened because Israel was caught off-guard, that isn’t going to happen again. So what does Hamas do next? They will try to get as much leverage as they can out of the hostages; but they only have so many hostages, so that strategy can only take them so far. Then what do they do?

October 7 was calculated to derail the peace negotiations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and in the short-to-medium term it succeeded. But, I expect that (privately) MbS is really angry at Hamas for doing that, and I think most other Arab governments likely feel similarly. That doesn’t bode well for Hamas in the long-run.

I think it's telling that Putin visited Saudi Arabia ... landed ... and nothing. Clearly he came with an offer MbS couldn't refuse, and MbS refused it.

It also shows, of course, that Arab countries have not changed and have zero interest or respect for the ICC or the UN. But they do seem to respect that Iran wants to destroy them. And if stopping Iran requires war in Gaza, then they're perfectly ok with that. They have barely denounced Israel over it, in fact most haven't done that at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hardliners real plan is to Annex Judea and Samaria, make the Palestinians second-class citizens and convince them to immigrate.

Sort of apartheid.

It's more wishful thinking than a plan.

Possible outcome: they win the argument on annexing Judaea and Samaria, which is the first step of their plan, but then they fail to achieve the subsequent steps (denying Palestinians citizenship, mass deportation of Palestinians, etc) – which could produce an end result which is a long way from what they actually want – e.g. Israeli annexation could make all West Bank Palestinians eligible for Israeli citizenship, and then what if large numbers of them decide they want it, and end up getting it? Suddenly the "binational one-state solution" seems a lot closer to reality, as Arabs become an increasing percentage of Israeli citizens – even though what the hardliners actually wanted to achieve by annexation was the "mononational one-state solution" (Israel gets all the land while the Palestinians all leave and give up their Palestinian identity)

I don't know what the fix is but that's impossible. Israel has to stay a relatively united nation with a powerful military and nuclear power status or the Arab nations will immediately bulldoze it.

> I don't know what the fix is but that's impossible. Israel has to stay a relatively united nation with a powerful military and nuclear power status or the Arab nations will immediately bulldoze it.

Under the "canton" proposal, there would still be a national government in charge of the military, intelligence agencies, diplomacy, foreign trade, the currency, the banking system, etc. The "cantons" would primarily control local matters, schools, housing, family law, religious affairs, etc. So I don't think it would make much difference to military.

It would basically be transforming Israel from a unitary state (like New Zealand) to a federal state (like the US, Canada, Australia, Germany, Switzerland) - however, with the added factor that the top-level national subdivisions would be based on cultural factors rather than purely geographical ones – which would be a system more like that of Belgium.

You would wonder if there would be sufficient unifying factors for government to remain functional or it'll end in stalemate. At best leading to stagnation or at worst leading to near failed state. An example of how it could go wrong would be Lebanon. Also a certain faction could play the long game with end goal of constitutional change.

Something rather similar manages to work in Belgium. Sure, Belgian politics can be a crazy mess sometimes, but who would call a Belgium a “failed state”?

Regarding Lebanon-for all of Lebanon’s woes, it still survives, it hasn’t broken up into a new civil war; and for all the criticism of its political system, maybe its unique political system has been one of the factors preventing that outcome. And I think Lebanon’s biggest problem is that the national government lacks a monopoly on force, with sectarian political parties controlling their own militias beyond state control (of which Hezbollah’s is the most significant example.) I don’t think the “cantonalisation” proposal for Israel is going to lead to that, since all the versions of it I’ve seen have the military, intelligence, law enforcement, prisons, etc under the 100% control of the national government. Lebanon’s problem in that area is a leftover of its civil war; Israel is not going to have the same problem unless it has a civil war (which I still think is very unlikely)

I'd say in Belgium's case the country is sufficiently developed and it's institutions are also sufficiently developed to function without changes. The state can run itself (it's still in control) and there's little need for bold, perhaps controversial government decisions (long term versus short term). In the longer term it could be to their detriment if they are not able to act on changes needed in a future changed version of the world.

I'm not doubting it will be grounded in peace, a stalemate can be a form of that as nothing will happen. A state not only keep residents safe (ideally they should try do this). It becomes a failed state when a state is no longer in control. When other government services like utilities are no longer delivered, that's when the failed state question can also come into being. Lebanon isn't quite there thank goodness but it's not great either.

Chomsky called it. Then again he stated that none of it is hidden. Those ideas were floated in the open, but not covered in US at all.

I have the impression that Israel's government does want a one state solution, but only after expelling as many as possible of the Palestinians into neighbouring countries to join those already in exile; they certainly don't want to grant them Israeli citizenship.

> I think the Israeli Arabs are a model/proof that it can work

Because they’re a minority. Look at what happens when Jews are a minority in a Muslim-majority country.

Even if Palestinian Arabs could get okay with Jews it would be a powder keg long term. Because the whole Muslim world hates the idea of Jews in the holy land, and uses Palestinians as a proxy against Jews. I’m from a “moderate” Muslim country. Out of thousands of Jews that used to live in the country, only a few families are left (openly). It’s really as bad as people think.

Israel won’t allow the right of return for Palestinians from the world. Be real here.

And Arab counties won't take them either because they cause trouble. Egypt in particular absolutely refuses to take refugees from Gaza.

They don't take refugees, because they are already not well-off economy wise. Having millions of refugees would cause their economy to collapse, and they don't have the capacity to feed them all and shelter them. They also can't ensure that every refugee is not a militant that would try to attack Israel back, from their borders, causing the IDF to lob bombs onto Egyptian territories.

Why are your trying to blame all Palestinians, like as if they are a monolith and all of them are troublemakers?

The Economy is (population)*(productivity per citizen).

If Egypt was smart they would ask for them all, ask the world for major help, look like hero's, and grow the economy.

They could certainly demand the US and Europeans, US and Gulf State to kick down some coin to pay for it. The problem is Hamas is an offshoot of the Islamic brotherhood and so everyone especially in the middle east sees them as radioactive.

Arabs in isreal are treated worse than black people in America are treated.

You're making a good point about the symbiotic relationship with the Israeli right. This reminds me of a recent interesting discussion on the Skeptics StackExchange: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56315/did-netan...

The crazy thing is that the pro war machine talking heads keeps trying to make this about Iran, when it's really Qatar and Turkey financing Hamas, in part using illegal Oil sales from Syria. Nikki Haley was talking about "finishing them". It's also worth remembering that Hamas actively fought AGAINST Syria and it's allies(Iran) with the other Islamist rebels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How?

It's well-known in these areas that these sales are done through ships in the Mediterranean. The same US warship that captured the Somalis last week (initially they claimed to have caught Yemenis) could be focusing on those ships that take off from Turkish ports instead (or, really, in addition)

Dichotomy promotes the narratives of all belligerents.

How do you honestly support people who elected Hamas, openly support them, and keep them in power? How many people in “Gaza” are and are not part of Hamas? It’s insane how normalized antisemitism is you people don’t even see it

That's not a good line of argument to take here given that Israel has mandatory military service and given what its democratically-elected government has been doing to the Palestinians for generations.

Part of the reason why the conflict drags on and is making that little pocket of the world a festering sore of evil is because so many Palestinians and Israelis think like this.

Be part of the solution, not the problem. It is not as easy as simply believing that whatever your group is doing is right, some other group is less worthy of moral consideration than yours, and wallowing in the victim-mentality that anyone criticizing your actions or position is racist towards you. That's how you know it is right.

It doesn't matter if they support hamas you still cannot genocide them.

I suppose that these are people who do not understand Arab culture. Just recently (as in, I remember it was October 22 because I had an appointment in Beersheba that day) an Arab explained to me, more or less because the conversation was not in English, that "You Jews always argue and protest and fight with each other. We don't do that, we listen to our fathers. We have families". He was explaining to me how the different families fight between them, like they'll shoot at each others houses but the goal is to assert family honour, not to actually shoot somebody. But the point he was struggling to make, is that in Arab societies, everybody thinks the same. There is no room for division, no room for dissent, no room for contrary opinions. He specifically mentioned that he has family in Gaza (and yes, this was already two weeks into the current conflict) and everybody there is Hamas. He said "is Hamas", up to me (and you) to interpret that as being actual members of the organization or supporters.

I actually talk to Arabs often here, and I don't shy away from the hard questions. The Beduins specifically will happily tell you all you want to hear, with me (maybe naively) feeling that I'm in danger. Just yesterday I had a half hour conversation with a Beduin about such matters, in my house as my guest.

I know you're just sharing your personal experiences, but I got to say that this not only does not match my personal experience, but it also sounds very much like something you hear Israeli settlers say to justify settlement expansions and violence.

I would like to hear your personal experience, then. I've heard similar things from many Arabs, I often ask questions to understand their culture better. Most of my contact is with Beduins, just because we live close to each other.

> Most of my contact is with Beduins, just because we live close to each other.

I think that's a pretty niche subset of Arabs, for one thing.

Why bother trying to generalize based on folky anecdotes like that? Like, I think you are smart enough to know that such a casual pronouncement isn't an articulation of a reliable rule for understanding the behavior of large groups of people.

When I'm specifically discussing their culture, and I find aspects pretty much uniform between the Sabuaia Beduins and the Arabs of Haifa (where I lived for a few years), then I generalize. I haven't been to Haifa for quite a while, which is why I mentioned the Beduins specifically.

You think the settled Arabs were big fans of the Bedouin?

The settled Arabs don't really know much about the Bedouins, and neither do the Jews. The settled Arabs of today really don't have much an opinion of the Bedouins, but I suppose that might have been different in generations past. Both populations have separate conflicts with the Jewish state.

Both the settled Arabs and the Bedouins tell that the settled Arabs came long after the Bedouins. The settled Arabs say that the Bedouins were here before they came, but the Bedouins were only in the بر (which is somehow different than صحراء but I don't know what the difference is, both seem to mean "desert" in my language). Now the Bedouins are found further north too. The settled Arabs came mostly from Egypt and some from Syria, and some from other places. They came looking for work and land, and married with the local populations. They consider themselves local since time immemorable because they married with the local populations, though they will tell of their forefathers in Egypt.

The Bedouins say that they came a few hundred years before, from Saudi Arabia. Some Bedouins also tell of great-great grandfathers from Egypt. They actually will be very frank about not liking the settled Arabs, and they will be just as frank when talking about their relationship with the Jews. I happen to know of injustices that the Jews did to the Bedouins that the anti-Jewish crowd would absolutely love to parade, if they only really cared about the welfare of the people and not just the establishment of an Arab state to displace the Jewish state.

"Arab culture", "Arab societies", "in Arab societies, everybody thinks the same", etc.

It's ridiculous to paint all "Arab societies" across Asia and Africa with such a wide brush and deny differences.

Then you tell me how the Arabs view themselves. Because Arabs that I've spoken with from Palestine, Lebanon, Tunis, and Iraq all mention that they see themselves as a common culture and brotherhood. Interestingly, Moroccans don't seem to share this view from what I've gathered.

My samples mostly come from people that I've met abroad or the HelloTalk app which is designed to connect people learning each others' languages. So my sample might be biased, but I don't see how that selection would bias this particular issue.

They aren’t a monolith. Levant Arabs have a hard time understanding people from the Maghreb (North Africans). North Africans think differently than Iraqis, and everyone despises Gulf Arabs and their easy oil money and the Wahhabist tendencies of the Saudis.

The one thing they have in common is they don’t like the way Palestinians have been treated but have ceased viewing it as “their” fight long ago.

Yes, I agree with your first paragraph. The second paragraph I agree with less, as the Iraqis that I've talked to do in fact seem to see the Palestinian struggle as their own struggle as well. But I don't claim to really know Iraqi culture.

That’s because both Iraqis and Palestinians were occupied and brutalized by America and Israel respectively. so there is much to share. Just like South Africans commiserate with Palestinians or African-Americans about their experiences.

But that doesn’t mean Iraqis are going to fight a war for the Palestinians. They have their own problems to deal with.

Thank you.

  > Levant Arabs have a hard time understanding people from the Maghreb

Do you mean that the Levant Arabs do not understand the Maghrebi language or the Maghrebi culture?

Interesting how they see themselves as a brotherhood yet not a single Arab country has ever taken in so called Palestinian refugees in the last 50 years. Jordan most recently just expelled them all! What a brotherhood

Or how about that Shiite and Sunni brotherhood going on?

> It’s insane how normalized antisemitism is you people don’t even see it

breakdown

1. normalized antisemitism = there is antisemitism AND it is normalised. Neither claim backed up.

2. 'you people don’t even see it' = there is a flaw in your world perception, not the posters'. Totally subjective so impossible to dispute.

3. keep them [Hamas] in power - isn't that what the Israeli gov't has done?

(Hamas are appalling but the IDF response is also appalling, and counterproductive in being exactly what Hamas wants. Keep pushing and the local conflict may spread and pull in bigger anti-Israel actors)

"How do you honestly support people who elected Hamas"

Speaking against mass destruction of key societal institutions and infrastructure, mass murder and attrocities, and starvation of Gazans by Israel's government policy in its current military operation against Gaza, is not a high mental bar for giving "support". It's easy to support that.

I don't have anything against Jews. But I can see that people in Gaza, being under siege by Israel for almost two decades, and under direct occupation before that, and being displaced or having ancestors displaced from their original homes, by Israel before the occupation, may dislike Israel or Jews. (easy to conflate the two, given that that's the Isreal's media policy) And I'll not judge them for that.

If this is insane, fine...

On the flip side, Jewish populations have been expelled (or worse) throughout the middle east. Israel rationally fears an unlimited right to return or a single state solution that results in them being demographically swamped. Further, we're talking about radicalized populations that no other neighboring state wants to accept-- Egypt does not want Gaza back. States in the Arab world remembers Black September.

The situation in Gaza isn't stable. Hamas needs to be displaced for any chance at peace. And then, that peace is going to have to take the form of a two state solution where no one gets exactly what they want, and it may have to be a generation away.

> On the flip side, Jewish populations have been expelled (or worse) throughout the middle east. Israel rationally fears an unlimited right to return or a single state solution that results in them being demographically swamped. Further, we're talking about radicalized populations that no other neighboring state wants to accept-- Egypt does not want Gaza back. States in the Arab world remembers Black September.

Yes, everyone has legitimate fears. I just don't see how the current AI assisted military operation of killing all of "Hamas" members and their families, will help deradicalize the population. Or how making Gaza unlivable will help assuage the fears of surrounding Arab countries around uncontrolled mass immigration, or lead to two-state solution that Israel rejects outright, at the moment.

> I just don't see how the current AI assisted military operation of killing all of "Hamas" members and their families,

I don't think Israel has done perfectly, but I do think they have a pretty low amount of collateral damage for fighting in an urbanized area. Keep in mind the "civilian" casualties numbers for Palestine come from Hamas-controlled entities, and count all fatalities as civilians.

> will help deradicalize the population

I think the current situation with Hamas on top reaches pretty much peak radicalization possible. It doesn't serve Palestinians well, either, being a kleptocracy that is systematically stealing aid for personal enrichment and terrorism.

Leaving things as they were wasn't a great option; negotiating with Hamas wasn't an option; attempting to contain Hamas and wait them out has proven to be a really bad option.

> or lead to two-state solution that Israel rejects outright, at the moment.

There's no doubt that Netanyahu and Israel's right are terrible.

> pretty low amount of collateral damage for fighting in an urbanized area. Keep in mind the "civilian" casualties numbers for Palestine come from Hamas-controlled entities

I am not sure about what you mean by "pretty low" collateral damage when almost half of the infrastructure of Gaza has been damaged or destroyed, including historical and heritage sites. More than 17,000 Palestinians have been killed, around 70% being women and children. I guess those "civillian" casualties are militants to you.

It is also disingenuous to say that the casualty numbers cannot be trusted as they are from "Hamas-controlled" entities when historically the numbers the Gazan health ministry gave has tallied with Israeli numbers in every war prior. It is like conflating that the FDA cannot be trusted if Trump said not to get vaccines, because they are under the same government. Different agencies are not held to the same standard and they might not have the same goals, Hamas is mainly a military wing, while the Gazan health ministry cares for the health and survival of their people.

Also, Israel keeps track of every person born and dead in Gaza, they have state-wide surveillance there, they could have chosen to send in surgical strike forces and taken out the militants strategically, but instead chose to carry out one of the heaviest bombardments in the current decades. Netanyahu has also said their military won't leave Gaza, after the war. Seems like they plan to expand their West Bank Occupation operations to Gaza.

> 17,000 Palestinians have been killed, around 70% being women and children.

Unfortunately, 1) these numbers come from Hamas; 2) count militants; 3) a large fraction of "children" appear to be militants.

> while the Gazan health ministry cares for the health and survival of their people.

Every real government tracks civilian and military deaths separately. Here we're given one misleading lump of a number (that includes significant incentive to lie).

> Also, Israel keeps track of every person born and dead in Gaza, they have state-wide surveillance there, they could have chosen to send in surgical strike forces and taken out the militants strategically,

I think this is unrealistic and any effort to do so would be suicide.

> Netanyahu has also said their military won't leave Gaza, after the war.

Netanyahu has said just about every possible thing depending upon whom he's been talking to. There's no disagreement he and his government are trash.

> Unfortunately, 1) these numbers come from Hamas

The official Israeli count is higher than the Hamas count.

We're talking about the demographic fractions. The official Israeli counts support that they're killing militants to civilians at a ratio of 2:1 --- which is horrible, but better than warfare in urban areas usually achieves

It is probably not as favorable of a ratio as Israel states), but not as terrible as the Gaza Health Ministry numbers that imply substantially all of the casualties are civilians.

Unfortunately, Israel's adversary has chosen a set of tactics that put civilians in greater danger.

> The official Israeli counts support that they're killing militants to civilians at a ratio of 2:1 --- which is horrible, but better than warfare in urban areas usually achieves

Official counts by a party to the conflict also are invariably better than what the actual war they are prosecuting achieves.

Of course-- this is a point already made in my comment-- "It is probably not as favorable of a ratio as Israel states". We obviously cannot simply take the numbers from either Israel or Hamas.

> 1) these numbers come from Hamas

Let me reiterate that the numbers have been accurate so far and for previous conflicts, you can't just brush it away by saying "Hamas said". I can also say "IDF said" and brush everything away, but when there is evidence time and time again that they are accurate, you can't erase them away. Moving on...

I am not sure why you don't consider infrastructure as collateral damage too. That would too shallow of an analysis to forgo. Without infrastructure, like hospitals, power plants, water desalination plants/water towers and even homes, that the IDF has been destroying, there would be no electricity, water, sanitation, healthcare and shelter for the civilians that are left alive after all the bombings. It is already a humanitarian crisis situation, but the loss of infrastructure is almost amounting to a genocide, because there is no support structure left for the people, who are already barricaded in and have no chance to flee. They will just die from dehydration, disease, malnutrition or the weather, if the bombs don't get to them first. I also don't mean the definition of "genocide" that has happened after the successful killing of thousands of people, I mean genocide that shouldn't and cannot happen, because we can't let it happen. "Never again" applies to all human beings. Also the "aid" that is going in, is not enough to sustain the civilians, hundreds of trucks need to go in daily but that many trucks may only go in, in a week.

> 3) a large fraction of "children" appear to be militants.

If you think it's justified to kill women and the "children", than you are no better than the supposed militia you are fighting. I am not sure what to say, further than that. Even B'Tselem would have a stroke hearing that.

> I think this is unrealistic and any effort to do so would be suicide.

I also don't think the carpet bombing is justified and more could have been done. A combined operation from ground and air would have been better, than full air bombardment.

I am not sure how Netanyahu is not in jail after his corruption charges from 2019, who in Israel keeps allowing him back in power if they hate him so much? Just a rhetorical question.

> If you think it's justified to kill women and the "children", than you are no better than the supposed militia you are fighting.

I'm just going to stick to one point, because I've been trying to say it and it hasn't been heard. When you define "children" in a way that it includes a big fraction-- perhaps a majority of those-- taking up arms, it stops being a useful measure.

Israel's current estimate is a lower bound of "over 7,000" militants killed. The algorithm they use to determine someone is a militant is:

- found dead with a weapon

- or over 14 years old and male at a rocket launch site, a Hamas tunnel, or in a position which was firing upon the IDF

- or if you're known to Shin Bet as a Hamas/PIJ/etc member

- or if you're over 14, male, and killed with a large group of people meeting criteria above.

It's obviously imperfect; it overcounts in some ways and undercounts in others.

This means a lot of 14..18 males are counted both as "children" and "Hamas militants"

Israel has allowed civilian aid in, does "knocking" to reduce deaths from their bombing, supplied the water Palestine was using to begin with, etc. so when Hamas fighters have literally been robbing the civilians of the food aid, it rings a bit hollow.

It's weird that you want to ignore how we ended up with the current borders to begin with (let's just ignore the war that was started, then lost), ignore the peace deals they signed and reneged on, the intifadas, etc. in this analysis.

> Israel has allowed civilian aid in...

Yeah, I also do (sometimes, not often, yeah) "knock" a few minutes before I kill someone along with their entire extended family, just so that it's all legit. Fuck the criples who can't move fast enough, they deserve it anyway. And then I (sometimes) don't shoot at other people that try to bring aid to my surviving victims. I allow aid, you know. Much better than just giving it. Although I've killed about 110 of those UN aid people, hm. But! I still demand to inspect and delay/ban aid at will. And I also "israelsplain" the situation to the people on the Internets, because apparently it's so hard for people to understand how moral and fair I am. And Internets still hate and flag me, those anti-semites. Whatever. I have the guns to do what I want anyway, whatever UN or internets blabber about rights or intl. law or somesuch.

Such high morals. :D /s

You can't post like this to HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are, or how wrong others are or you feel they are. This is exactly the sort of comment that my pinned comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38573652) is asking users not to post to this thread (or indeed any thread).

We have to ban accounts that keep posting like this, so please don't do it again.

(Needless to say, this goes for both sides of the conflict, not just one.)

Would sourcing every single point in my sarcastic comment help? Or should I just not use sarcasm?

I'm never quite clear on what the word "sarcasm" means but I think the answer to your question is yes, you should just not use it - at least not in an aggressively-argumentative way. The guidelines try to cover this with rules like "Be kind. Don't be snarky." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

> It's weird that you want to ignore

Please make your substantive points without swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's fair, I will try to do better, but this is a hard one to discuss neutrally. There's a huge mess, it has long been a huge mess, and a lot of people want to focus on only half of the story.

Yes, and everyone has a different half of the story that they want to focus on, and a lot of the time we struggle to include, or even acknowledge, the other "halves".

I know it's extremely difficult. But it's work that we all have to do together if we want our community to survive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Let's take a very clear, narrow lens on the issue. Let's also separate Palestinian civilians from those exerting power unto them in Gaza. I say this because any other way is a can of worms.

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

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

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

Re: "Let's also separate Palestinian civilians from those exerting power unto them in Gaza" - I do not think you can. A lot of Palestinians are radicalized. What do you think a father who lost his kids in an airstrike will do next? Or a brother who lost his sister / brother? Do you think these people will care about rule of law, or turn the other cheek, etc...?

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

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

We learnt a lot since 9/11 about how radicalization works. It's not happening mainly through personal trauma, but through indoctrination, usually through schools and universities.

Sageman’s “bunch of guys” theory has really won out now that anybody can interact with terrorists on social media. You can’t run a big terrorist organization made up of people seeking revenge because they’re power-seeking and will replace you. Instead you take a bunch of guys out of college, give them a way to seek status that conveniently involves them dying before they can replace you, and then go out and fundraise.

We can’t extrapolate 9/11 to all instances of radicalization but exclude Israel.

I can tell you exactly how I would react if someone were to do something to my daughter, which is the biggest source of joy to me right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did not justify that line of reasoning. I am just saying is human nature.

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

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

For some people over time this becomes a will to make peace so others don't have to suffer like they did. The immediate reaction is revenge but eventually you come to terms. Otherwise conflicts would never end, but they do.

> Otherwise conflicts would never end, but they do.

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

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

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

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

Some people recover, others don’t. That is actually how humans are.

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

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

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

> I do not think you can. A lot of Palestinians are radicalized.

Yes

> What do you think a father who lost his kids in an airstrike will do next?

That’s not how people get radicalised. Students are taught in Gaza that the Jews stole their land, that Jews are from Europe, that dying as a martyr is the best death and that when they grow up they should kill as many Jews as possible. Many of Hamas’ fighters are only 15 or 16 years old.

These are good questions and I hope someone with more knowledge then me answers them more thoroughly. In short my answers are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> The only major interference actually came from Israel which backed the rival political group Fatah.

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

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

Let's use the right timeline. The pullout you describe was in 2005, and handed Gaza to _Fatah_. The Palestinian elections in 2006, and Hamas did not control Gaza prior to 2007.

Quick wikipedia check:

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

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

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

From your own source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made no argument, just an observation about coincidence between areas of removed settlements and higher Fatah support in the same area compared to Hamas.

I made no narration of history.

Wasn’t Hezbollah operating out of Lebanon?