asheri

Let me make it very simple for you. War is when two armed groups fight. Terrorism nowadays is understood as occuring against civilians.

The fight against the British was against military personel and targets (including the King David Hotel bombing which is always trotted out even though it's a very poor example when you read the actual accounts) and was in the context of the British supporting mainly the Arabs (and enabling eg the Hebron and Sefad massacres of Jews a decade earlier) and brutal actions against the arriving Jews after WW2.

The Palestinians and those of your ilk claim the entire country as their own, and use this as a justification for deliberately killing civilians in a civilian space.

By contrast the Israeli government has never had a policy of targeting civilians, and the civilians deaths have always been collateral damage when terrorists (those that target civilians, see above) fight and embed themselves amongst civilians which is legally proportionate to the threat they are fighting (in the current case, the threat of a group that can states it would like to repeat Oct 7).

"a century of brutal colonization and genocide" is an extreme way of looking at it, and a justification for terrorism in Israel even if Palestinians had or will have their own state. What you call a snide statement highlights the crucial difference between armed conflict (constant attacks by Arabs for 70+ years and defensive wars) and what you and some human-rights orgs like to frame as genocide.

I think HN is place for reasonable discussions, not extreme ones and so you either need to modify your language and positioning, or perhaps vent your anger in a forum where extremists are encouraged.

On the contrary, the expulsion from Arab countries was much more of forced exercise, after many pogroms and anti-semitic restrictions of right of Jews across the Middle East. By contrast the Palestinians were not expelled but in most cases displaced by war (yes, with crimes/bad stuff on both sides...) but promised by the leaders that if they leave to enable the 1948-1948 invasion by Arab countries, then they will return to a greater Palestian once they won.

Israel does not have a fundamentalist, authoritarian government! There are some fundamentalist and far-right parties in the current coalition but they have little power to push their own policies except to threaten to bolt the coalition. For all the talk of those 2-3 ministers to who belong to these more extreme parties to eg legitimise new settlements, repopulate gaza, they don't have enough power to actually pass such laws and none of these ministers none of whom hold the top 8 roles in government.

The most religious/fundementalist of the the parties UTJ believes in land for peace and have said so many times over the years (but like the majority of the Israeli public, they wont mention it, let alone push for it, during wartime so as not to reward terrorism) and was fully behind all the ceasefire proposals in the past 18 months.

And it's certainly not authoritarian. Israel has full powers of protest, free speech, and in fact it's generally the press that have the strongest voice not the government.

And "that is actively at work undermining democratic structures" is also wrong. They are trying to reform Israel's supreme court system which many legal scholars agree badly needs reform as the justices are largely self-selected yet have the power to override legislation without referring to existing law (the so-called reasonableness test which no other country has).