I think this is important to reiterate. Because forces us to pay close attention to the details. There are extremely reasonable justifications for both sides because both sides have committed atrocities. This conflict goes a long way back and I'm in no position to claim who started it. But I can recognize that one atrocity does not justify another. I can recognize that justifying or dismissing the committing of an atrocity only further enables the conflict. Whichever side you land on, if you do not take a highly nuanced approach you are only further enabling conflict. For that's a key reason the conflict continues today. War always includes psychological warfare because you have to convince humans to do the inhumane. There is no such thing as a righteous war.
War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them — little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.
- [0]
Ever.
Hamas had twenty years to become a government. It was uninterested in doing so. Israel is not the genocidal agent here.
VERY low level.
Israel didn't occupy Gaza so how is an "occupier" controlling everything? What about Egypt? If Israel controlled everything then how did lathes for making rockets, trucks, machine guns, RPGs, grenades, assault rifles, mines, get to Gaza?
Your "open air camp" is my "Singapore". It was up to the Gazans to decide what to do on this piece of land they were given control over. Even if they aspire to have the entire of Mandatory Palestine they could have chosen not to do this using violence.
Israel didn't destroy airports or seaports. Gaza never had a deep seeport, the water is shallow, and the fishing ports exist. Israel does have a naval blockage on Gaza so that Hamas couldn't get tanks and artillery and more weaponry in to attack it with, a fairly reasonable position. Similarly Israel will not allow airplanes to fly in either, for the same reasons.
I'm not following on "non-governmental party", didn't Hamas win the elections and rule Gaza as its government?
> Hamas had twenty years to become a government. It was uninterested in doing so.
This isn't true. Hamas taxes the inhabitants of Gaza [0].
Israel collects taxes on imports and exports from Gaza, and income tax on the pay of Gaza residents who were employed inside Israel. But transactions which occur entirely inside Gaza are not taxed by Israel, only by Hamas.
[0] see e.g. https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/2024/01/23/hamas-fundin...
That's a pretty huge accusation. Why do you think Israel is "inherently inequitable"?
But, to be fair, there is some validity to the idea that it's an ethnostate, in that there is automatic "right of return" only to ethnic Jews. Not to mention there is some legal discrimination against non-Jews (like the new nation-state law) and also a whole lot of non-legal discrimination.
I don't agree with this reasoning - but the situation is complicated so I understand why some people argue otherwise. Like you, I'd say that Israel is just like France - it defined some group of people to be citizens (or the equivalent of "expat" citizens), which included all Jews in the world, and also included the non-Jews on the land at the time. And from then on, acted like any other state. This is very similar to France/Germany/anyone (and Zionism was started as part of the same worldwide move towards nationalism).
Why is one a humanitarian tragedy but the other an unnacceptable attack. You're trying to absolve Israel of its role in the killing of 30,000 civilians over 5 months, to the condemnation of the entire world.
Israel is not entitled to kill civilians under any circumstances, not even if Hamas makes it hard to attack Hamas directly. If you look at the statements of Israeli leaders, it is clear that the killing of Palestinians is intentional [1]. As has been the long policy of apartheid and annexation of the West bank (where, you might remember, there is no Hamas).
Finally, to be clear the protest is of a Google exec by a Google employee over a google policy/contract which is part of the IDF's murderous policy.
The internment of Japanese Americans cannot be justified by “end justify means” arguments. If those people were executed by the US, Your argument would still work.
Ethics and morals may be nuanced, but fortunately something that comes pretty easily to most humans. One must do done serious mental gymnastics to not listen to the heart. There are grey areas, but not so much in this massacre. There scariest realization for the world is that our death switch is at the hands of unstable humans. We, collectively, may already be more screwed than we perceive.
We must hold the IDF to the same standard as we hold Hamas. Neither is allowed kill civilians, neither is allowed starve a population, neither is allowed detain civilians (whether as "hostages" or "administrative detainees"), neither is allowed to commit rape, neither is allowed commit war crimes.
The issue is that the IDF is much worse than Hamas on all these things:
- Israel has killed 30,000 (though the number is suspected to be as high as 50,000 now, and it continues to increase), while Hamas killed 700 civilians (I'll leave aside the very credible claims that Israel killed a good number of it's own)
- Israel has a much worse ratio of civilians to valid military targets (possibly between 5/1 and 8/1 ratio, while Hamas has 2/1 ratio during Hamas' attack, and it is believed many of those were killed by the IDF)
- Hamas has only killed civilians during the Oct 7 attack. Israel is killing hundreds of civilians per day, and has used rhetoric that indicates this is deliberate [4]. Even Biden, who claims he is a zionist, called Israeli bombing of civilian areas "indiscriminate" [5]. There are plenty of videos online of the IDF killing civilians, including today an old deaf man was killed by a soldier, and congratulated by his squad [11].
- Hamas has apologized for killing civilians; Israel has justified killing and claims it can and will continue to do so, including by denying aid (a war crime)
- Israel denies aid to civilians, directly causing a famine; Hamas does not starve civilians
- Hamas has by all accounts treated its detainees well; Israel tortures and rapes and sexually abuses its detainees [1]
- Israel is deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure (it claims Hamas is hiding there, which does not excuse it and this is a war crime)
- Hamas has been alleged to have committed a total of 3 acts of sexual violence (this is heavily disputed, see [2]). However the IDF has committed dozens of acts of torture [9] and rape [1] (this is only counting since Oct 7, but Israel has been killing, torturing and committing sexual violence against Palestinians since 1948, eg [12] )
- Hamas took 250 detainees, Israel had over 1000 before Oct 7 [10] and it increased to over 2000 since Oct 7 [3]. After releasing detainees as part of the short ceasefire, Israel recaptured some of the same people. An Israeli sniper shot a child who celebrated the return of a family member.
- There are multiple credible reports of execution of civilians by the IDF outside of combat situations (that is, they came into a place, expelled the women and children, and executed all the men and older boys) [6] [7]
- Israel has been killing thousands of Palestinians for years, including thousands in Gaza in 2021 and 2014, and of course 15,000 killed and 750,000 displaced in the massacres during the original invasion of Palestine by the settlers who created Israel. [8]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/22/claims-of-isra...
[2] https://www.oct7factcheck.com/sexual-violence
[3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-ho...
[4] https://isitgenocide.com/)
[5] https://apnews.com/article/biden-israel-hamas-oct-7-44c4229d...
[6] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/20/palestinians-accuse...
[7] https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/1/18/video-s...
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
[9] https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6153/
[10] https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention/statistics
[11] https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17664047969095886...
[12] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/4/10/anger-erupts-over-v...
To restate: why is Hamas' attack on Oct 7 bad? It's because they killed civilians. If we condemn that, then we must condemn all the IDF killings of civilians. If we do not, what basis do we have to condemn Hamas?
Israel's killing of civilians is a horrendous war crime. No we are not doing a carve-out because they really want to kill Hamas fighters. Absurd and horrific to suggest that.
https://time.com/6696507/palestinian-death-toll-gaza-israel-...
1 in 100 people have been killed in gaza since october 7th.
Entire neighborhoods have been leveled by bombs and bulldozed.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/07/world/middlee...
All this and you are saying it's up for debate that that they are trying to kill civilians.
Generally the areas leveled and bombed were evacuated from civilians. Yes, there were definitely many cases where civilians died from bombs but your statement is not relevant in the way you claim it is.
If you were Israel, and you have 40,000 combatants in Gaza that want to rape, kill and mutiliate your citizens, and say they will never stop, hold hostages, what do you do? Do you have a magical solution that removes them from the fortified, full of tunnels and booby traps Gaza?
So yes, it's totally up to debate. I am sure there have been cases of civilians being targeted. I am also sure that the finger on the trigger is very light on the Israeli side. But this is very different than intentionally targeting civilians as a matter of policy. There is plenty of proof that is not the case, civilians have evacuated under IDF security from many parts in Gaza and were not killed. Hamas does not differentiate civilians from combatants, uses child combatants, and while maybe the total number is in the ballpark the details are manipulated. This is not to excuse or make light of the heavy price of this conflict in human life.
I know, now we're going to unravel the entire conflict. Talk about Israel's right wing crazies and government, Occupation, resistance, apartheid, genocide, open air prison, etc. No we don't need to unravel the entire conflict. We can judge this from Oct 7th because the significance of that event in scale and barbarism eclipses the entire conflict. If you want to unravel the entire conflict I'm happy to do that too.
Based on what? Killing 200 people per day? Bombing people that are evacuating their homes after telling them to do it?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-wa...
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-10-13/israel...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-g...
Israel's plan to "destroy" Gaza comes from "the highest level of state", the UN's top court has heard.
200 people per day is also not a reasonable metric. Would you prefer a 100 people per day over twice the time? Why do you think this means anything? There were many days in the war in Ukraine where more people died per day under completely different conditions and ofcourse the total number of people killed in that war is significantly higher as well. War. Look at comparable campaigns like the Battle of Mosul. And yes, I already acknowledged many civilians died from bombs and Israel after Oct 7th is certainly concerned less about that than before Oct 7th, but still following the rules of war and not targeting civilians intentionally. If there are 40,000 combatants scattered in a densely populated area and in tunnels and they're being attacked from the air with hundreds of bombs/day what are the expected civilian casualties? Do you think Israel should have done nothing? Would anyone else? Do you think Israeli ground forces should have walked into the area without bombing it so they can get slaughtered/ambushed/blown up? Israel would like nothing better than not having had to have this war.
The number of dead people is terrible, and the fault for all this lies squarely on the Hamas. The total number and the breakdown of civilians/combatants is not really known at this point. I don't trust the numbers from Hamas because they are motivated to manipulate them as is evident by us having this discussion. But for sure many people have died which again is terrible. But reducing the argument to "Israel kills people Israel bad" where provably nobody else in this world would do any different (See 9/11 or the war against ISIS) and provably Hamas initiated this cycle of violence and the evidence (despite your list) is that Israel isn't waging this war in a way that deviates significantly from other wars is an emotional response, not a rational one. We know why people aren't having these responses to the conflict in Yemen where 400k people were killed, the conflict in Syria where IIRC one million people were killed, or many other bad things going on in the world, it's because the media is pumping photos of Gaza destruction 24/7 and couldn't give a damn about what's going on anywhere else (including Ukraine).
I am going to answer your first question in good faith despite you not reciprocating. It's based on my knowledge of human nature and similar war circumstances. Anyone fighting in these situations would have a very light trigger finger because the difference between you being dead and the enemy being dead depends on that. You just have no idea what's going on in the ground, the tactics being used by Hamas etc.
EDIT: there have also been many friendly fire incidents and lots of IDF soliders killed by IDF fire, and the famous incident of the hostages being killed by the IDF. This is again indicative of the "light trigger finger" (because otherwise it's you that's dead) and the tactics used by Hamas.
I'm showing you real information from multiple worldwide news sources. You are writing huge paragraphs with no links to try to ignore a genocide in progress while repeating unsourced propaganda like "Gaza that want to rape, kill and mutiliate your citizens"
When you kill 1% of a population you are imprisoning in four months, destroy their homes, hospitals, infrastructure and water sources then kill people trying to bring them aid, that's genocide. If this was reversed you would call it genocide. If it was happening anywhere else you would call it genocide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_qaxLu-e6I
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/31/1222337109/the-israeli-army-a...
https://www.msf.org/attacks-humanitarian-workers-gaza-make-v...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/23/israeli-airstr...
Your "unsourced propaganda" comment is offensive bullshit, but here are some sources:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/oct-7-sexual-violence-united-n...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-hamas-used-sexual...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-at...
https://theintercept.com/2023/12/24/feminism-sexual-violence...
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk/2024/02/03/hamas-raped-a...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13005021/october-ge...
https://www.businessinsider.com/hamas-sexual-violence-octobe...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/08/world/middleeast/hamas-se...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/israeli-activists-say-worl...
https://news.sky.com/story/womens-genitals-systemically-muti...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/12/witnesses-confirm-rap...
https://www.algemeiner.com/2023/12/29/horrific-new-evidence-...
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sj62yy7na
https://nationwideradiojm.com/bbc-hamas-raped-mutilated-isra...
https://themedialine.org/headlines/special-report-on-deliber...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-f...
How many people need to die before you call something genocide?
Islam does not allow killing of civilians in war, so this would surprise me. I googled for it and haven't found anything other than pro-Israeli groups saying it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/ha...
If Islam does not allow the killing of civilians then what exactly happened at the Nova festival or in all the settlements attacked on Oct 7th?
Hannibal Directive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
"16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity."
Also you know that quote is from the Quran, which takes precedence over the Hamas Covenant...
Hamas killed hundreds using suicide bombers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_at...
What about ISIS? Al Qaeda? PIJ? Taliban? I'm not even going to count the millions of civilians killed by civil wars in Muslim countries. The idea that Hamas won't kill civilians because it goes against Islam is so ridiculous and disconnected from reality that I don't think we live on the same planet.
Hamas continues to attack and kill civilians, intentionally, throughout. Including after 2017. Including Oct 7th. You can't seriously say you Googled this and it doesn't exist.
Here's how many civilians were killed before Oct 7th:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-o...
Indiscriminate rocket attacks against civilians:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinian-rocket-and-...
"Wiesenthal Centre Alert: "Hamas Charter 'Fatwa' to Murder all Jews Still in Effect" " - https://www.wiesenthal.com/about/news/wiesenthal-centre-aler...
Just tell me how many references you need and I'll find that number.
EDIT: You should also watch footage from Oct 7th and listen to the testimonies of survivors. Hamas raped and mutilated civilians. They live streamed and filmed some of their actions. They called parents on the victims phone to show them they're killing them. Hamas threw hand grenades into shelters where civilians were trying to hide. It burnt civilian houses down to kill the families hiding inside them. It is a diabolic, fanatical, psychopathic, evil entity. This claim that somehow Hamas doesn't target civilians is just - crazy.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-rape-oct7-...
You assertion is also ridiculous because it ignores the order in which things happened. First Hamas attacked civilians. Then Israel responded. During that response civilians were killed.
Israel's killing of civilians is a war crime only under certain conditions. Killing of civilians during war isn't automatically a war crime. If there are war crimes, then we should certainly condemn them.
Pay attention to "circumstances" which don't look different from how a terrorist outfit operates; here's one such recent occurrence: https://twitter.com/MatanGolanPhoto/status/17665864005587395...
This "war" reeks of barbaric assault not on militants that can barely counter a modern military, but civilians who have no protection.
Some see things like this [0] and chalk it off as cost of war or whatever, and are not outraged or worse justify it, but they can't demand the same of others.
> This isn't curious conversation; it isn't even conversation
Agree. Due to the conflict's very public nature, the narratives have deep-seated irreconcilable differences mixed with a good dose of racism/supremacism/moralism, while the moderate voices are the most feeble, because they're also outnumbered [1].
[0] https://twitter.com/ytirawi/status/1766912143444656544
[1] https://twitter.com/AdlerJoelle/status/1766974185094492610
The IDF ratios are indeed atrocious. For journalists, for example, in another thread I tried to calculate some detailed estimates, and concluded that given the casualties up to 01/03, if one journalist and one Hamas militant were statistically put side by side, IDF is ~3x more likely to shoot the journalist. See:
Part I: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603300
Part II: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603311
Part III (Python source code): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603322
If you want to argue with someone who said any of that, find someone who actually said it. Pointing out that Israel is an inherently inequitable ethnostate should have made it pretty clear I'm hardly trying to "absolve" Israel of anything, and that's not the only clue in my comment.
If you're having trouble parsing out what I actually said, you're welcome to ask actual questions rather than rhetorically leading ones (much less wildly putting words in my mouth).
You might also find how I responded in another branch helpful:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39662944
as well as meditating the difference between speaking in terms of the understandable and the excusable.
> Finally, to be clear the protest is of a Google exec by a Google employee over a google policy/contract which is part of the IDF's murderous policy.
You might imagine Google has leverage (that perhaps a sufficiently large number of employees could apply themselves to) with Israel to get them to abandon their current policy by threatening to withdraw from their contract. It's pretty likely that they don't, even assuming what Google provides isn't fungible.
One of Hamas' goals is apparently to provoke Israel to continue to kill civilians in hopes that it ruins Israel's relations with various western institutions. If that starts to actually work even with smaller stakes players like Google, it's likely enough they'll do more of what works.
And it actually gets traction fairly easily because there are people in the Israeli government who, as you point out, apparently prefer unrestrained aggression as a strategy for advancing various internal agendas. And some of them have the talent for actually consolidating internal power as international criticism and isolation increases.
This conflict is happening both because real grievances provide the groundwork and because there are actors on both sides of the conflict who genuinely think they have something to gain from acting as they have since October, even in the face of unconscionable slaughter (which can, after all, be converted to grievance fuel). The United States government can barely bring to bear pressure that restrains it. The idea that Google can do much seems even thinner.
(I agree, by the way, that Israel has responded in ways that are wrong morally and probably wrong strategically. It's similar in some ways to US mistakes post 9/11, and our eventual transition to more focused counterterrorism criminal and military ops seems to have worked out much better for us, though Israel has enough plausibly different problems I'm sure there are some apples and oranges.)
I personally have felt a bit more optimistic about the long term future.
Coming of age in post 9/11 America and going from the warm embrace of playing my Nintendo 64 everyday to seeing regular people go full on hate for people like me was a depressing era that I thought would never end. It certainly shaped how I view myself as a human. I guess you can say the haters got to me. A lot of things I aspired to in middle school completely ended in high school because of this self-hate.
I felt renewed hope during the Obama years in college but never really shook off this feeling. After all long term damage was already done regarding the path I took in life.
When Trump got elected, I felt all depressed all over again because all those terrible people came right back out of the shadows yet again but I eventually realized (finally) that I cannot keep letting this affect me. I had to focus on how lucky I am to have what I have and do the best I can.
When this attack happened, I thought oh no not again. Overnight all those people came out of the shadows yet again. But this time I saw something amazing. I saw countless numbers of people organizing against the Israeli siege: all over the world including the US. My initial thought was this is just a temporary blip and people will get tired and move on. Nope: protests continued even in the US which I was sure would just move on from caring about Muslims. It sometimes feels like the US will not come to the defense of Muslims like they would other groups. We see it in the favorability polling. But these protests: I have seen first hand, how this has really scared a lot of those people that normally come out of the shadows. The first time I have seen this in my life.
Now the protests are being dismissed as if they are nothing. Attempts are being made to silence any avenue they use to communicate. Meta platforms were already blocking this stuff, they deployed the standard bucket of tricks to silent dissent on Youtube and Reddit(thank god for HN) and now the potential banning of the 400lb gorilla in the room: Tiktok. This tool of potential Chinese propaganda helped serve a useful purpose: it amplified conversations that are normally taboo in the US.
So going back to why I feel a bit optimistic? Well I believe this is a signature event for Millennials and especially Gen Z. Gen Z is a generation that grew up with so many problems thrown in their faces (the mental illness caused by smartphones, graduating into a terrible job market, no prospects of owning property, having to live to see climate change etc.)
As a result they started out of the gate super pessimistic about the powers that be. I saw the unbelievable boost in Bernie Sanders's candidacy thanks the the efforts of these people. We really could be seeing a future Gen Z president who is in one of these pro-Palestinian protests.
Lets not even get into Gen-Alpha. They are on track to be the first majority non-white generation in America. How will that affect their world views?
Meanwhile where is Israel? This country that has continually gotten the benefit of the doubt my entire life has severely damaged its reputation in the eyes of young people world wide. The people that are about to take power. At the same time, they can't even get their own house in order regarding their government. This attack has proven that despite their supposed brilliance in war technology (Unit 8200, Stuxnet, etc.) they can really mess up and look like a bunch of dopes shattering the image that they are invincible.
In all Israel is trying to hold together by pushing back against "political" entropy, at some point given all the things that have transpired, entropy will win. How long will it take? Who knows. But I don't think you can make young people "unlearn" their views on Israel at this point and thats the challenge groups like AIPAC are going to have to face.
Now I do want to give an opposite view: That this is indeed a flash in the pan
Here is Noah Smith's recent article on how both the far right and far left are dying.
[1]: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/getting-past-the-2010s
>"I think this is part of the reason progressives are turning more and more toward Palestine as their single overarching cause. The extremist types who dominate progressive groups after “evaporative cooling” has removed the moderates are more likely to be leftist types, who see all political action as falling under one unifying anti-Western decolonial revolutionary struggle. And with general enthusiasm on the wane, activist groups are looking for something that can restore the free-flowing rage from which they drew their energy in the 2010s.
>And if you’re going to unite around a single cause, I suppose Palestine isn’t such a bad choice. Israel’s war in Gaza has been undeniably brutal — not a real genocide, but similar to Bashar al-Assad’s bloody indiscriminate crushing of rebellious provinces in Syria. Hamas is evil, but that doesn’t mean tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians need to die. And support for Palestine gets massive amounts of support and attention from foreigners on social media, boosting online engagement — which might encourage more Americans to be activists.
>The problem here is that as with every progressive activist cause, activist movements are embracing the most extreme possible position. Instead of simply calling for a cease-fire, many, like Aaron Bushnell, demand the destruction of Israel. Whereas a normal liberal might use the term “apartheid” to refer to Israel’s disgraceful treatment of West Bank Palestinians, progressives increasingly use the word to mean the very existence of the state of Israel. And when they call for “decolonization”, progressives increasingly mean the mass expulsion of Israelis from the region.
>That is not a position that the U.S. — or other powerful countries — are ever going to support. Staking out this extreme position might seem to reduce the risk that the issue will be solved anytime soon — even if Israel stops its war, progressive activists can keep on marching for Palestine as long as Israel continues to exist. But ultimately that will drain the moral force from the progressive position, causing the activist base to shrink even further."
Frankly I dont know really know how the wind will end up blowing but lets all see what happens.
Why is your response as a Muslim to the horrific attack of Oct 7th a worry about backlash to you personally? vs. e.g. feeling for the victims of that attack?
This feels very tribal to me. Do you really think this is the right framing?
If Israelis suffer, is that somehow going to fix your problem? Are we trying to make things better to all or make things worse for all but feel like we're doing something? It seems to me the protests are doing the latter. I think, and I might be naive, that if the global Muslim community engaged with the intent of finding ways to make this win-win, we could get somewhere. But it seems the community is engaged in lose-lose (or maybe lose-lose-lose).
Makes 0 sense for us to take sides in this conflict.
How can these two thoughts go together? Either its a horrible "ethnostate" or its a reasonable construct due to Jews special history.
Any history of ethnic suffering creates a situation where it's natural to suspect outgroup society can't be trusted to reliably treat the ingroup adequately well. So in response, they might create institutions that privilege the ingroup and prioritize its security and prosperity. Outgroup rights & dignity may even become negotiable or disposable in the name of ingroup priorities, sometimes even basic rights like property, freedom of movement, or life.
This of course guarantees the outgroup will have legitimate and serious grievances (along with any less legitimate ones they may or may not have), which will eventually mean they too may feel justified in approaching the problem from a never-again ingroup-first perspective, probably eventually including organized violence and whatever system oriented around these values that they can.
Voilà: self-sustaining conflict dynamic. And everything seemed at least locally justifiable all along the way. After all, what's wrong with providing ingroup security, and punishing outgroup aggression?
Or is there something wrong with it?
So you're basically saying it made sense at the time (and perhaps it still does) but it also created a mess with the Palestinians? I can agree with that.
Yet here we are, what are we going to do now? Going back in history to prevent the holocaust and many other atrocities towards Jews before (and even after) is not possible. Preventing Zionism is not possible. For some reason the intellectual elite seems to be convinced the only possible way out of this is the elimination of Israel - how come? I can understand why Palestinians or the Iranians would want that, I don't understand the huge support in the West for this type of thinking though.
Even among those who see its behavior as a driver of the conflicts it is embroiled in -- even among those who may see Israel as an oppressor -- there doesn't seem to be anything like a coalition around any specific plan for its outright elimination, let alone one that could get traction.
There are some substantial academic criticisms of Israel's behavior or even status as a colonizing oppressor and I think what happens is that when those enter the popular discourse, they get conscripted into simple sympathies and boiled down side-taking (which mostly feeds the conflict dynamic).
One thing I think systems thinkers (hackers, academics, intellectual elites, whatever) do tend to understand is this:
As long as Israel exists in a form where outgroup rights & dignity & lives are disposable, it will be contributing to the conflict.
That's a dynamic-descriptive statement, not a singular prescription. It implies several possible paths: Israel could be dissolved/replaced, Israel could grow into accepting the responsibility of materially valuing outgroup rights & dignity & lives itself even when it's inconveniently in tension with other immediate pressures, Israel could cede some control (and territory) to a larger system that will take on that responsibility for it, or we could accept the status quo.
It's a bit less common to hold that understanding at the same time as another systems reality:
As long as Israel and its ingroup are under existential threat, judging outgroup rights & dignity to be disposable will have broader internal appeal, consolidating the power of those who choose that as their pitch or hold it as part of a fundamental worldview.
This probably is the location of the mistake you have a feeling some in the West are making. When we use rhetoric or steer towards policy whose end seems like Israel's dissolution, we're not just dealing with a question about whether our sympathies are most appropriately placed with Israeli/Jewish people or dispossessed Palestinians, we are exerting force on a lever of the conflict system and the likely outcome is an equal and opposite reaction or a transfer of angular momentum into the circular conflict rotation. It encourages Israeli perspectives like "we're right to aggressively do whatever it takes to fend for ourselves because nobody else is really on our side." It might even tells actor like Hamas that their plan works, that they really can drive a wedge between Israel and the rest of the world by merely provoking Israel into treating tens of thousands Palestinian civilians as collateral damage (basically turning people Hamas hadn't converted into actual soldiers yet into a kind of conscript after the fact, to say nothing of the survivors that might be radicalized).
Why do we do it? I don't know. Maybe thinking in terms of sympathies instead of systems does require more effort. Maybe human nature to simplify. Maybe many of us have the luxury of little actual skin in the game, so we can choose sympathies and symbolic values over the substance and mechanics of the system (though on the other hand, skin in the game also often makes sympathy more immediate).
I kinda hope that in the software era / information age that modestly trains more people to think about some specific systems at least, maybe we can figure out how to do better, but OTOH all the decreased friction of discourse has had mixed results.
Not everyone agrees on how to do it - the Iranians and their axis are trying to do it by violence. Western sympathizers don't outright support violence but don't outright condemn it either (oppressed people can't commit terror etc, minimizing what happened on October 7th etc) and at the same time they are trying to create the conditions for Israel to not be able to defend itself: attempts for arms embargo, economic and diplomatic isolation and as mentioned above creating an atmosphere that tolerates the violent destruction of Israel. All this is meant to allow the 'Right of Return', where descendants of Palestinians refugees from 76 years ago (!) are still refugees in places like Lebanon, Syria and even Jordan, and to the best of my knowledge are the only people who are kept in an eternal status of refugees so they can return a century later to their 'original' homes.
And using the term intellectual elite is inaccurate but its not wrong - a Harvard professor for gender studies or oriental studies is much more likely to support the plan I outlined above than any other type of solution. So not all intellectuals, but way more than you'd expect.
I don't know what the answer is, and I appreciate the urgency of feeling that causes people to protest, but at this point I'm pretty sure most protest gestures do little other than feed the tribal vortex at the heart of the hurricane, especially the farther away from any actual leverage points on the dynamic that they are. And an Israeli tech exec existing and doing tech exec things is probably not close to a leverage point, nor is protesting them doing tech exec things doing anything worth levering.