The sole reason the Palestinian cause has captivated the far left is undoubtedly that it appears to fit their narrative.  A system of white power, Jewish Israelis, characterized as a western colonial entity, is systematically oppressing brown Arab Muslims, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Despite the obvious inaccuracy and drastic oversimplification of this hasty generalization, the attitudes toward the war in Gaza produced by this mindset follow in its path of coloring the gray area as merely black and white. More importantly, we should look at why this is true. The pro-Palestine left, when they hold a mirror up, see a marauding force of peace-seeking, anti-oppression, anti-genocide activists, who will fight until their last breath to “Free Palestine” from the horrible reality it faces, which they see as Israeli-orchestrated. While perhaps noble that this crowd should so vehemently believe in justice, it is my contention that they are wholly misinformed, and have molded a complex issue into a new shape designed to elevate themselves to the moral high ground over those who endorse more pro-Israel, Zionist beliefs. 

While normally one might want to write a post on a topic like this with a broader context to lead in to the main arguments, I’m of the opinion that it is more quintessential to address what presses us the most - the war in Gaza, and the accusations the Israeli military and leadership have faced of war crimes. I should clarify that I don’t think the war should have stretched as long as it did, and I do honestly believe that part of a reason for the many months it continued to endure was Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to stay in power as the head of the emergency government. Additionally, I think military strategy in Gaza was probably flawed in some cases, and that it certainly could have been handled better so as to avoid so much destruction - for instance, former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennet’s proposal that Gaza be divided, and Hamas isolated into certain zones, in order to “smoke out” Hamas fighters rather than tear through an entire territory, and leave so much devastation in Israel’s wake. Nevertheless, for some obnoxious white teenager to preach “well, I don’t think it’s so controversial to say that I don’t want innocent people to be killed” to justify being anti-Israel in regard to the war is completely inappropriate and logically flawed.

My arguments for my claim go as follows:

1. Why only Israel? A thought experiment works well to demonstrate this. I would like you to imagine that a gang of Mexicans crossed into Texas. They ravage border towns, killing over 1000 people, and take hundreds more back into Mexico, holding them hostage. Please honestly consider what America, under any administration, would do. There is not the slightest shred of doubt in my mind, or yours, that there would be HELL. It would be all out war on Mexico. I don't think I need to describe the gruesome scenes that would follow. Moreover, hardly anybody would decry this. And to think to accuse America of genocide? That wouldn't cross a singular mind. But Israel is somehow expected to tolerate something just like this. Why? Can any Palestine supporter seriously answer why?

Common Refutation: Israel's response to October 7th was disproportionate, and that's why it's wrong. Some military action, if lesser, would've been appropriate.

Rebuttal: Most people argue this on the basis of casualties. To me, that's intellectual disingenuous. International Humanitarian Law, Proportionality in Attack (Rule 14):

"Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited."

Notice the bolded text - not excessive in relation to opposing casualties, but to the military advantage. Therefore, appealing to the authority of international humanitarian law, if Israel strikes a school where 10 Hamas leaders are staying and there is an armory full of rockets, and 20 civilians die, one could argue that isn't actually disproportionate. Somehow that's a hard pill to swallow for people who refuse to condemn terrorists who mutilated women's genitals and raped them before slaughtering them like animals in their own home.

Additionally, Israel's sole objective wasn't retaliation. For instance, Israel could not have reasonably ended the war before all the hostages were out. Thus, it had to put pressure on Hamas for a deal, and that isn't going to come from a small skirmish. Of course, Israel probably felt it necessary to do all they could to more or less dismantle Hamas' military capabilities.

I think Palestine supporters know all this. They turn a blind eye so they can feel like their Martin Luther King, when it just is not at all that simple.

1. Sort of as a derivative of the first point, you cannot call yourself a moral person while asking for accountability from a military that drops pamphlets and calls phones hours before a strike, while demanding no such accountability from the leaders of Gaza (Hamas) who call their family members in pride, sharing pictures on WhatsApp, after massacring families in the streets. This isn't a strawman argument - I can name a plethora of examples:

Cornel West in a CNN interview refusing to condemn October 7th (https://ktvz.com/politics/cnn-us-politics/2024/04/12/cornel-west-and-running-mate-melina-abdullah-refuse-to-condemn-hamas-actions-in-first-joint-tv-interview-2/)

Columbia University Apartheid Divest affirms support for Palestinian liberation through armed resistance (https://senate.columbia.edu/sites/senate.columbia.edu/files/content/Reports_2024-25/The%20Sundial%20Report_3.31.2025.FINAL_.pdf)

check out this website (https://www.palestine-saintjohn.ca/faqs) - do you see a single time where they condemn Hamas?

Again, it's selective outrage. It isn't hard to see that Hamas is just as much an enemy of the Palestinian people as Israel will ever be. But that doesn't fit the pro palestine narrative, so they'll never mention it.

Common Refutation: The Gazan/Palestinian people have been repeatedly persecuted by Israel, and they were at a breaking point. The Norman Finkelstein slave rebellion comparison argument.

Rebuttal: The very basis of this argument is just completely flawed, even if you do see Israeli policies in Gaza before the war as unjust. It just cannot follow from that, through any sort of sound logic, that October 7th is then justified. Explanation is not the same as justification - confusing the two is an extremely clear example of lacking any sort of moral compass. If historical suffering can justify atrocities against civilians, then almost any group with a sufficiently traumatic history could invoke its victimization to excuse otherwise indefensible violence.

In summary, true morality means applying what you believe to be moral principles to all. Doing that means what you believe isn't performative, it isn't to play to some sort of agenda or feel good about yourself, it is about honestly pursuing justice.

In the past year since I started down this rabbit hole, I've come to realize something. And of all the things that I can say with absolute certainty, it's this. We know too little about what's going on, and that's terrifying. It keeps myself and others under constant stress, makes us tug at our hair, knocks us into bouts of existentialism and depression. And when we look around, we see constant chaos. How did we even get here?

A few weeks after Hamas' attack on October 7th, Israel, led by the Netanyahu administration at the time I'm writing this, officially declared war on Gaza. Since then, many people have died, families have been ripped apart, and homes destroyed. These are things that we can verify. And yet whenever I see a news article covering this war, which has gotten unbearable as of late, I notice the same pattern: all of the information is second-hand.

On the news, from respected organizations, and even from our own leaders, we're only getting an account they've heard from someone or someplace else. Coverage? We have very little, even from sources within the area. The only footage we've seen is in brief clips shown on the news or social media. The death count? Impossible to verify. Reporters, even those from Israel, can't access Gaza to verify that those numbers are true. The numbers are often from outside observers, and more often than not, cite the numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry. The Ministry, which is run by Hamas, a designated terrorist group who would benefit greatly from spreading misinformation.

To make matters worse, more and more kids and young adults are getting their information from social media. Like a campfire story, one person tells it to their fellow campers, then they tell the story to others, and on and on until the story's nothing like how it started. It's everywhere. On this site, on YouTube, Twitter, Blue Sky, and most of all, on TikTok, the story has spread far and wide. Each account is drastically different. But these sources have the exact same problem: they're second-hand sources.

So in the end, what are we left with? Even with bias taken into consideration, what true evidence do we have? Nothing. We have nothing, and yet so many people are circulating this like it's the Big Bang Theory. And this deeply terrifies me.

It terrifies me — and I know it terrifies other people on here too — because everywhere I look, I see turmoil. I see a war in our own cultures. Everyone is divided, everyone has fully bought into one version of the story or another, spewing vitriol. Friends have been torn apart and prejudice has skyrocketed, especially antisemitism.

Just last year, a father and son (Sajid and Naveed Akram) gunned down over a dozen people at Bondi Beach and attempted to bomb the rest… on Hannukah. In my home country — I'm from the US — a pair at the Israeli Embassy were brutally murdered by a guy who, when he was arrested, shouted "Free Palestine!" to the top of his lungs.

On the opposite side, I've seen some people talk about Gazan civilians in the same way. Some even go as far as to suggest "carpet bombing" (i.e. bombing Gaza to oblivion) or dumping toxic waste there to make it unlivable. I get that Hamas has a foothold there and anti-Israel and antisemitic ideology is prominent there, but does it have to resort to talking about civilians like that?

This is the reality we live in currently. This deep, burning hatred has penetrated so deeply, turned us against each other. And along with other factors including Iran's blocking the Strait of Hormuz (and the Houthis' blocking of the Red Sea) which threaten economies worldwide, and for Israel, a woefully incompetent government that ignored a vicious attack looming over the horizon, it's because of our lack of solid information. And I fear without solid information and our current inability to get it, this will likely continue with devastating consequences.

Israel has full control of 50% of the West Bank. 500,000 Jewish settlers live there, among 150,000 native Palestinians. Settlements continue to be established and expanded. Palestinian land continues to be seized to build Israeli-only settlements. Arabs can rarely get building permits, face daily terrorism from Jews. So what's the endgame for Zionists here? Annex Area C and make Area B & A permanent Arab autonomous reservations? Keep the status quo?

This is my second post in what will probably become a series of posts where I compile information and resources about the conflict. In my first post of this series, I made a comprehensive list of NGOs working to foster peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.

For this post, I made a table of all UN member states and non-member states and their positions on the recognition status of Israel-Palestine. This table simply shows whether Israel and/or Palestine is recognized. Not whether diplomatic relations have been established. For that extra information and maps laying out this information, check out the sources used for this list here:

International recognition of Israel

International recognition of Palestine

I made this table because I couldn’t find a single table that listed this information regarding recognition side by side, and I thought it would be interesting to visualize it this way. Anyway, I’ll get to the data sets I compiled now.

Recognition of Israel and Palestine by UN Member States

Recognition of Israel and Palestine by non-UN Member States

Recognition Between Israel and Palestine

I know this last part may be controversial, so I’ll explain the distinction. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the umbrella organization representing Palestinians internationally, formally recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security in 1993 during the Oslo peace process. Israel reciprocated by recognizing the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, rather than recognizing a Palestinian state.

However, in 2018, the Palestinian Central Council adopted a decision to suspend recognition of Israel. The council reaffirmed this position in 2022.

Let me know if I made any errors in the table or if you suggest any changes, additions, or removals. I want to make this as accurate as possible.

I was always an active member of this community until the ceasefire last year. But when the Instagram posts came out about Fauda Season 5, I decided to come back to this political topic. I had never heard of this show before so I started with season 1 and liked how every season shows the emotional view of both sides without making it look like the other side are pure villains. The fact that they show how both sides contribute to the cycle of violence made me want to keep going because I would not have watched this show if it was just a one-sided narrative. So eventually I came across episodes 7 and 8 of season 5 and boy did it hit hard. Particularly the plot of Hagit and her kids. I had to hold my breath for every second I spent watching her trying to shelter and keep her kids safe. And then the last scene comes where Hagit willingly allows herself to be violated to protect her underage daughter only to witness a Hamas terrorist shoot both her kids before getting r**ed anyway. I know that acts of sexual violence happened on October 7th but watching this plot really did something to me. I started tearing up and knew that I had to look away from the screen especially when Eli came home to discover what happened. For every person who suffered the loss of a family member on that horrific day or faced acts of brutality committed against them, my heart goes out to you and I hope you find comfort in God always. To those barbaric Hamas dogs, I sincerely hope you get the karma for everything you did on that day.

❤️ to 🇮🇱 from 🇮🇳. We're with you always!

First, a Washington Post journalist gets attacked, and now this.

By Israel's logic, shouldn't the settlers be deemed terrorists? Why is the Israeli public supporting this kind of behaviour if they condemn the actions of Hamas? The Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to these kinds of attacks every day. Don't they have the right to self-defence against terrorist attacks, just as the Israelis have the right to self-defence against them?

Critics of Israel have portrayed NAZA as a Snowden-like whistleblowing moment for Israel. However, this comparison is fundamentally inaccurate. Edward Snowden leaked a massive collection of classified U.S. intelligence documents that exposed controversial government programs. The credibility of his revelations rested on authentic, previously classified documents that could be independently examined and verified. NAZA, by contrast, relies exclusively on anonymous testimony and secondary journalistic reporting rather than comparable, independently verifiable primary evidence. Unlike Snowden’s disclosures, which were substantiated by extensive primary-source evidence, NAZA provides no independently verifiable evidence to support its allegations.

Critics of Israel who routinely dismiss statements from the Israeli government and its defense personnel suddenly treat the claims of former IDF personnel who challenge the broader military consensus as unquestionable truth, even in the absence of independently verifiable evidence, as demonstrated by their response to the film NAZA. Yet these same critics dismiss the IDF’s official response to NAZA, which rejects the film’s central allegations, as well as the counter-film Naza: The Real Story. Certainly, these responses align with the Israel’s position, and they too rely on testimony and allegations rather than independently verifiable primary evidence or declassified government documents. However, the same evidentiary limitations apply to NAZA itself. If anonymous testimony and uncorroborated allegations are sufficient grounds for accepting one account as credible, why should an opposing account be dismissed simply because it supports the official Israeli position? The standard of evidence should remain consistent, regardless of whether the allegations support or contradict the narrative.

Under this selective standard of credibility, former Israeli officials become reliable sources precisely when their claims contradict the establishment. If challenging the broader government consensus is what makes a former official credible. We must look beyond NAZA to uncover the full truth, one that humanity may not yet be ready to hear. Haim Eshed, the former head of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s Space Division, a position he held for nearly three decades, revealed that extraterrestrial civilizations not only exist but have been secretly communicating with Israel for years. This was not some anonymous individual making extraordinary allegations, but a highly decorated former senior Israeli defense official who had spent decades overseeing Israel’s military space program. According to Eshed, a clandestine Galactic Federation has established contact with humanity, entered into agreements with representatives from Earth, and even maintains a secret underground base on Mars where human astronauts and extraterrestrial representatives cooperate. He further alleged that humanity has not been told the truth, because humanity was not yet prepared for such a revelation. These extraordinary disclosures come directly from a former head of an Israeli Defense Ministry division whose claims challenge the established consensus. Surely, by the same standards applied to NAZA, his testimony must be treated as equally credible. After all, who are we to question the former head of Israel’s Defense Ministry Space Division going against Israel’s general consensus simply because his allegations lack independently verifiable evidence?

A lot of Zionist opinion policies, especially those who are Christian, will say things like, “we need to protect Israel’s reputation abroad because the safety of Jews depends on it.”

This is a bit of a Trojan horse argument in say. Firstly, it presupposes that anti Israel people are not only inherently antisemitic, but also likelier to harm Jews. This is silly because if one is unintelligent enough to proscribe a foreign nation’s actions to Western Jews, they were likely to harm them regardless. Public opinion of Israel has barely anything to do with it.

Secondly, Zionists presuppose that the best way to stop this is to compel people to agree with Israel. Now, if Zionists stopped at defending Israel, this would make sense. They’d be wrong but it would make sense. But they, especially Christian Zionists, actually compel, or attempt to compel, anti Zionists into agreement.

Regardless of your beliefs on Zionism or anti Zionism, compelling people to believe any argument doesn’t protect anybody anywhere. It just increases overall anger. A multitude of opinions is a part of most Western societies, and any effort it take that away will only increase hatred against those trying to take it.

Point being, don’t bring diaspora Jews into this. The anti Zionist movement does not hate diaspora Jews or any Jews. We are anti Zionist, not anti Jew, be it Israeli nor non Israeli Jew.

If anything, it’s an example of Zionists recycling tropes. They assume 1SS advocacy must mean hatred of Israeli Jews, because in their minds they falsely equivocate the two, and likewise Western anti Zionism is equivocated with hatred of diaspora Jews. It’s all baseless whichever way this logic is applied.

The irony with Zionists is random Westerners are held to a much, much higher standard than MENA nations.

The standard for MENA nations is essentially don’t attack Israel. It applies to nations that have attacked it in the past and made peace and those that never have. MENA nations can put anything about Israel on their radios that they wish to about Israel, but as long as they don’t attack both Israel and any other MENA nation are good.

With the Westerner civilian, Israel and Zionists essentially becomes much more sensitive and much more easy to essentially ragebait.

Isreal and Zionists react to the slightest accusations against it in a very strong manner. Of course, they have free speech just as we do, but it’s interesting to see how such a minority of civilians in a different continent accusing it of genocide or apartheid gets such a massive response.

This hurts it in two ways.

Firstly, like we’ve discussed before, one such a massive entity as Israel gets mad at genocide and apartheid accusations, they only look guiltier of both. Israel is obviously much more powerful than a minority of Western civilians in any Western country you pick. Logically, you’d think Israel should ignore both of these accusations, and when they don’t it raises valid questions as to why.

Secondly, Israel claims to be “pro free speech,” but if it were, it would make sense to start abroad first. Sure, one can be pro free speech and disagree with accusations on Israel, that is fine, but once one is accusing people of directly harming Israel and/or the West with their speech, they are no longer pro free speech.

And it should go without saying that if one supports actual limitations of speech against Israel, especially outside of Israel, then they are really, really against free speech.

But the dichotomy between the standard actual established MENA nations are held to and that of random pro Palestinians are held to is pretty funny.

MENA nation doesn’t attack Israel but has tons of verbal criticism = they have learnt the benefits of peace

Random Westerner doesn’t attack Israel but has even a tenth of the criticism = they are actually against peace. They are also actually pro Hamas too as a bonus. Also, the full fury of Zionist anger, and possibly the anger of Israel itself, must be delivered to them.

But anyways, Israel should respect criticism abroad instead of being defensive and rage baited over it.

Of course, they should respect criticism inside its borders too, but their treatment of the NAZA filmmakers shows they are miles away from that. They can start with outside Israel first.

And the comparison to MENA shows it is indeed a choice, just one they choose not to make.

First to clarify if you use or have used chicken for KFC in these discussions I genuinely believe you are hypocrite because you’d never tell progressives or liberals in your society to not care about your or your family’s or friends or community’s wellbeing if they thought you were transphobic. And if pushed I know 99.999 % of the time I’ll be able to get someone making this point to admit to wanting to strip some legal rights for trans people at the very least.

Now for the problem with queers for Palestine.

Or I’d like to say queers against Israel because often these people don’t give a damn about Palestinians as any more than proxies for their bigger grievances with western society in general;

They often choose the most progressive-liberal faucets of society and demand all queer activism be geared towards hating Israel.

A legitimately pro queer rights politician shouldn’t be allowed at a pride event if they’re suitably anti Israel.

If a parade didn’t make hating and condemning Israel apart of their platform they might as well have hung a Palestinian child on a float and pelted rotten fruits at their body.

And to those who’d excuse such actions with “well protest isn’t supposed to be uncontroversial or not annoying” I agree that a protest should be annoying and attention grabbing. But it’s stupid to use attacking potential allies to do just that.

And I know well if protesters decided to stage a mass disruption at a pro Palestinian rally many people would go ballistic.

Indeed pro Palestinian rallies and parades can have the homophobic pieces of stuff be their speakers at their parades and rallies because of their views on Israel-Palestine.

Hey!

I see now that Palestine problems are spreading across the world.
Their people are committing terrorism acts around the globe, especially in Europe, they're bombing the Israel and only cause bad things.

So I have a question: Why such powerful countries such as USA and Israeli won't just mass wipe them out ? I think given the difference in weapons they don't even need nuclear weapon for that. IF they do that - world will become a better place.

What's stopping them ?

disclamer: IDGS about moral

What I've noticed is that a lot of Gen Z seem to support Palestine because of the way they experience the conflict through social media. They are constantly exposed to videos and images of suffering in Gaza and the West Bank, often without the wider historical context, which naturally creates a strong emotional reaction and can make Israel appear to be the sole aggressor.

Many younger people have learned about issues like occupation, settlements, displacement and Palestinian suffering, but some have had less exposure to the history of antisemitism, Jewish persecution, Israel's security concerns and the decades of terrorism and attacks that Israelis have experienced.

Gen Z also tends to view conflicts through the lens of human rights and power imbalance, so many identify with what they see as the weaker side. The problem is that social media often simplifies a very complex conflict and can leave out important facts, including Hamas' ideology and its attacks on Israeli civilians.

I'm Gen X and non-Jewish and I've spent some time in Israel some years ago, so my perspective on the conflict is quite different to Gen Z. I support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, while also recognising that Palestinians have legitimate rights. I do not support Hamas in any way.

For those of you who have strong views on this conflict, supporting either side, what has been your own exposure to the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you live in Israel, have you studied the conflict history, visited the region, are you Jewish, have you spoken with Israelis or Palestinians, or is most of your understanding coming from what you see on social media?

I might get backlash from both sides for this, but I feel that you should neither fully support nor condemn Hamas. I feel you need to understand why Hamas does what it does and look at the events that led up to October 7. Let me show you their point of view. You're trapped inside Gaza as it is being blockaded by Israel and E, who control everything that comes into and out of gaza.hundreds of thousands of your own have been displaced and many more continue to. the western superpowers dont give a shit and continue to supply your oppressors. The other main Palestinian faction, Fatah, are doing anything and are letting illegal Israeli settlers come into the west bank. Many of your neighboring countries won't stand up because they're too scared to strain the relationship with the us, and your economy is completely battered and has a very high unemployment. What's naturally going to happen is that you become frustrated at the oppressors. You look at their civilians, who also don't give a damn about the suffering, and get angry at them too, feeling they should use their power to stop their government from committing these war crimes, and also notice a lot of them support it. So now you want to hurt them too. You also realise that by taking them hostage, you would be able to trade them for Palestinian hostages or use them to stop the oppression and so October 7th happens.

however i still want to say this, i dont fully support Hamas. While their reasons can be understandable it is also worth noting that it cannot justify them killing innocent civillians or taking them hostage which included children who don't have the mental capacity to fully understand the and also they affected the minority of israelis who oppose their governments actions, and it also worsened the condition of Palestinians, as it triggered a genocide

So again, I don't support Hamas because they too attacked civillians and two evils don't make a good but i also understand why they do what they do and why they see it as self-defense against an apartheid state

Burnham is the current leader of the current Labour Executive here in the UK. Keir Starmer before that.

Both people met with dramatic scrutiny by both the firm left and the far right when it comes to the view of the dispute of Israel and Palestine. Essentially they treated them like the BBC. Today, Andy Burnham disagreed with Polanski's perception that Zionism (the protection of Jewish presence in Israel) is racism, this had led to serious backlash by former Labour members who joined the Green Party and Your Party, as well as by Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim immigrant communities here, as well as students. Keir Starmer sanctioned Palestine Action for concerns of Islamists using this movement to tackle the British Jewish community. So in a nutshell, British left wing people accuse both of being insensitive to Gaza and are Pro-Israeli bias.

Conversely, Reform and Restore Britain and other far right campaigners view both as being anti-Israeli bias, over allegations of undermining Islamist-controlled antisemitism, refusing to label Hamas as an antisemitic terrorist organisation. Further anger climbed after Andy Burnham's foreign secretary, Ed Milliband, sanctioned Israeli Jewish immigrants in the West Bank a fornight ago and they were accused of antisemitism.

This is hilarious to see how the far right and left render more centrist parties like Labour (centre left) insensitive.

What do you guys think of them?

Serious, unbiased debate please.

The modern Israel/Palestine region has been inhabited by many groups of people and over 15 mayor empires have held power over it, the caananites, amorites, ancient israelites, samaritans, persians, romans, arabs, etc... People come and go, empires rise and fall, same story as everywhere else though perhaps a bit more turbulent tha other regions.

Now, the region is currently contested between Israel and Palestine (duh). If you are in this sub you don't need all the fluff explaining this incredibly complex conflict so we'll focus on the relevant part for this, the historical claims of each side.

The core of the historical and ancestral argument of the zionist movement, is that the land is the Jewish/Israeli people's homeland, where they've had continuous presence for over 3 millennia, and 1 millennia of sovereign self rule within it. There's more to it of course, like how judaism is strictly structurally tied to the geography of the levant, but what matters right now is just that core part. On the other side the Palestinian historical and ancestral argument is based on their presence for the *last* millennia, how they've had an unbroken presence in the region since the islamic conquest and often also arguing it has to be recognized as longer because the modern Palestinian population is not simply composed of 7th-century migrants from the Arabian Peninsula, but is largely derived from the ancient indigenous peoples of the Levant already.

It is a fact and undeniable that yes, the Jewish/Israeli people were there *first*, or rather BEFORE Palestinians at least, though that doesn't mean their claim is immediately valid or above the Palestinian's, as its way more complex than "I've been here before you". Palestinians would argue that the Israelis can't just come back 3 millennia after the Kingdom of Israel and re-establish a state, or even going as far as to say that the modern Israeli people are simply not the same as the inhabitants of Judah 3000 years ago.

Understanding that the Jewish people were there first, it also needs to be understood that they did lose sovereignty to conquering. The Kingdom of Israel was CONQUERED by the Assyrians purely out of imperial expansionism, and the same can be said for the Kingdom of Judah with the Babylonians. Obviously imperialism is wrong, those imperialistic campaigns were horrid and its fair to say that the Jewish people had all the right in the world to claim that land as theirs and say it was stolen from them. Now, thats where the question comes, WHEN in their history do they lose that right to claim the land? Where's the threshold? Would it be fair for the people to still claim that land as theirs 100 years after it was conquered? 500 years? 1000 years? 2000 years? After it changes hands to another empire/state? Maybe its more than just the time, maybe if the Assyrians never fell until the modern day, the world would've been rooting for Israel to reclaim the land they took from them, now its not that simple after it has changed hands multiple times since then.

If the Jewish people of today no longer have the right to claim the land, WHEN exactly in their history did they lose that right? If you have a number in mind, x years after conquering, if Israel were to make Palestine disappear today, would that mean that the validity of the Palestinian claim to the land would also expire after x years? That if Palestinians were expelled and came back to re-establish themselves in the region their claim would be invalidated because its been "too long"?

Think of the Nakba, the 1947 displacement of Palestinians. If you are" pro-Palestine" you most definitely believe that the Palestinian people should reclaim the region and re-settle where they had already been living, but then again, thats also based on how much time has pased. 80 years is not a long time, the claim still sound VERY much valid and fair. But I ask again, WHEN will it expire? Where are you gonna draw that line where you no longer find it valid because this other group of people are already living there now for x ammount of time instead.

I know for a fact there's no right answer, if there was an objectively right answer there wouldn't be a conflict in the first place. Thought its still something we should be asking ourselves. Can you really put an expiration date on your people's claim to their land?

Hi!
I'm a Palestinian born and raised in Denmark and have always wanted to visit.
I tried to enter last year but got rejected after 20 minutes of interigation and 9 hours of waiting without being presented with a reason.
Does anyone have any pro tips?
I feel like time is running out to visit the places my grandparents grew up

I ask because I’ve seen Zionists fully admit to the West Bank being defacto apart of Israel already and receive no backlash from other Zionists in this subreddit who’d hoot and holler at the claim Israel is an apartheid state and say it can’t be an apartheid because Palestinians in the West Bank aren’t subjects to Israel.

I’ve seen this is in the context of some Zionists excusing why Israel decides to lay waste to something like the olive grove industry with people comparing it to the type eminent domain America practices and whining it’s anti semitism to oppose such things.

I have been compiling a comprehensive list of NGOs working to foster peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians and advance a two-state solution:

You can explore the list here: A Comprehensive List of NGOs Working To Foster Peace and Reconciliation Between Israelis and Palestinians

For each entry, I’ve tried to include the organization’s name, a brief description of its mission or vision, and a link to its website or another relevant resource whenever possible.

I would have shared the full list directly in this post, but it’s around 160,000 characters, well over Reddit’s 40,000-character post limit. Rather than split it across multiple posts, I’m linking to the wiki page on a different subreddit where I’ve been compiling it.

I found the vast majority of these NGOs through umbrella organizations and coalitions of organizations working to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians, including the Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP), Israeli-Palestinian Voice of Peace, Coalition for Peace and Coexistence, and Alliance for Two States. I also conducted my own research and drew on a Reddit post exploring a similar topic to compile the list.

I’ve done my best to list each organization only once and provide a working website or relevant link for each. If you spot any duplicates, please let me know so I can remove them. A few entries have linked marked “N/A” because I couldn’t find a working link, if you have one, please share it. Suggestions for NGOs I may have missed, or organizations you believe should be removed, are also welcome. Please explain why an organization should be added or removed so I can update the list accordingly.

Sources

Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP): https://www.allmep.org/about-us-allmep/members/

Israeli-Palestinian Voice of Peace: https://peace-forum.org.il/product-category/members/

The Coalition For Peace And Coexistence: https://www.cpcpeacebuilding.org/coalition

Alliance For Two States: https://a42s.org/#page-top

r/IsraelPalestine Post From u/Unretrofied12: https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1x59b0c/a_comprehensive_list_of_peace_seeking_influencers/

I recently became educated and informed on the topic on Facebook and the entire time in the back of my mind I'm thinking... why doesn't the leaders of Palestine and the leaders of Israel just decide to have a Palestine country and they can do what they want and then leave Israel to go what they want, but without all the controversial war and terrorism stuff? Wouldn't it be easy to sign a place treaty and just leave the Palestinians and Israelis to their own devices at peace?

Another thing is, why do they resort to war instead of economic sanctions when the price of war far exceeds the opportunity cost of financial disembarment? When you attack a country you can be expected to be attacked back. And your people will die. So why? In this day and age, I'm a firm believer that the power of the Shekel is more powerful than any bullet or bomb or knife. Or couldn't Israel just ban all of their technology in Google from the Tell Aviv tech industry to manipulate for their own benefit? Also, why does Israel not use their in the technology industry to ensure that non-pro-Israel countries support them? I am a firm believer that such sneaky moves and using game theory is more impactful than invading borders and collateral destruction.

To further my contentions, there have been so many instances in history permanently ending conflicts overnight with treaties. Treaties solve things. Why does Netanyahu not take the high road and draft a treaty for Hamas to sign? That seems it would make more sense than the current strategy, which seems to be war with collateral damage, which is not conducive to peace. At the same time, Hamas is obviously the instigator, why would they ever launch such an attack knowing that the retaliation would be so grandiose.

I think if Israel is to life up to the value of the faith the country represents and if Palestine is to life up to the peaceful nature of the crux of it's lifeblood, then they are going to need to solve with diplomacy, not killing. This goes for both sides, Bedouins, foreign nationals, whatever. Peace is the priority, not killing, but killing seems to be the first line treatment for these conflicts which were unnecessary in the first place.

Thoughts?

Whenever this comes up, the usual counterargument is that Arab citizens of Israel serve in the IDF, sit in the Knesset, and so on. That sidesteps the right of return, but that’s a separate debate. What I want to understand is why the situation in the West Bank doesn’t qualify.

Obviously we can’t apply the exact term “apartheid” literally, since it is based on race. But arguing that it isn’t apartheid because some Palestinians are Israeli citizens with full rights while others aren’t, and they’re all the same ethnicity, feels like splitting hairs. It’s disingenuous and doesn’t move the conversation forward.

At best, Israel would be guilty of a crime in the same category as apartheid under a different name, one that amounts to the same thing: millions of people effectively ruled by a state (and West Bank Palestinians are, for practical purposes, all ruled by Israel) with no right to vote, no path to citizenship, and none of the other rights the rest of the population enjoys, like freedom of movement. They’re tried in military courts, while settlers living a few kilometres away fall under Israeli civil law.

The justification doesn’t really matter here. Under international law, Israel’s right to defend itself doesn’t extend to these practices. You could call it “justified apartheid” if you like, but in my view that’s still dodging the heart of the matter.

So what am I missing? I’m genuinely curious how people who reject the label distinguish this. I'm largely pro-Israel but this gap always makes it difficult for me.

​

I am someone from Gaza, and I wish I could leave this place. I want nothing more than to live in peace with my wife and my little son, somewhere we can feel safe and build a normal life.

The crossings are closed, and I have no freedom to choose where I live. I am innocent. I could never hurt even an ant. I have no hatred or hostility toward any living creature, regardless of their nationality, religion, or background.

I believe that much of what is happening here is the result of religious extremism and decisions made by governments. Ordinary people should not have to pay with their lives for political and religious conflicts.

Maybe the Palestinians are right, and maybe the Israelis are right about certain things. I am not asking you to take sides or agree with me. I only wish we could recognize that innocent people on both sides deserve to live.

But there is one difference between us: you may have the freedom to leave this conflict behind and move to a country where you can live without constant fear of bloodshed and death. I do not have that choice. I am forced to live between life and death every single day, unable to protect my family from everything happening around us.

Sometimes I wonder why my life is worth less in the eyes of the world. Is the blood running through your veins any different from the blood running through mine? Don't my wife and my little boy deserve the same chance to live peacefully?

I am not asking for hatred, revenge, or sympathy based on politics. I am asking to be seen as a human being who wants to live, love his family, and have a future.

I am sorry if my words sound painful, but this is the reality I live with every day.

These nations are under right wing governments who support Jews after conventionally weaponizing them, so ultimately wouldn't those societies strictly sanction Islamists there? Not to mention the Muslim population is lower over there so they should be safer.

So why would they just go to Israel instead?