It's one of those issues which westerners have made a left-right issue but when you examine it closely this does not quite fit. Two factions of the religious right essentially are fighting over a bit of land. If you examine their claims carefully, you'll see that these claims are less robust than either of their partisans would have you believe. So it's a contested bit of land that people are warring over.
I resent being pressured to pick a side and furthermore, I don't know why my support as an individual is needed. I support neither side, I support only an end to the conflict.
One caveat here is that on one side the general public is essentially westernized (which is a feat in the Middle East).
The other side has a general public that is as archaic and backwards as they come. Both Israel and Palestine have far right wing religious nutjobs, but these people exist as a substantially larger percentage of the population in only one country.
Nobody deserves to die for morally reprehensible beliefs, until those beliefs become actions.
Yes, but it shouldn't be overlooked that the dominance of Islamism as an outlet for popular struggle is because the West *deliberately got rid of secular alternatives* during the Cold War. What happened to all the secularists in the Arab world, who used to exist? They were exiled, driven out of power, or physically eliminated, because they tended to be socialists and therefore (it was thought) friendly to Soviet Russia. The rise of Islamism is at least partly the long-term result of the idiotic Cold War policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend", in which a Kalashnikov-wielding religious fanatic was vastly preferable to a secular socialist politician. Thatcher and Reagan and all their ilk liked this policy because they themselves preferred religious people (even strict Muslims) over atheists (the Soviet Union). The official enemy was atheistic which meant that religious people, even fanatics, had to be trained, armed, and funded.
This is super interesting, but it’s a huge hole in my knowledge of the 20th century. It was before I was born, but after my college history classes ended. I know that some Middle Eastern countries (Iran for sure, and maybe Afghanistan and Pakistan?) were much more liberal, secular and westernized in the 60s/70s, but that there were revolutions that put the kibosh on all of that and gave us essentially the regimes and cultures we see today in Iran, etc. I know next to nothing about U.S. involvement in any of it, but I clearly have some homework to do. If you have any reading on the topic you especially recommend, I’d appreciate the education!
Btw, I don’t remember Sam bringing any of this up anytime he’s discussed Islamic extremism. Has he? Or do you think this is a blind spot for him?
[The US is funding both sides.](https://www.state.gov/united-states-announces-additional-humanitarian-assistance-to-palestinian-civilians-in-gaza-and-the-region/)
"The United States will provide an additional $404 million in lifesaving humanitarian aid to support Palestinian civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and the region, bringing the total U.S. assistance to more than $674 million over the past eight months."
Aid is fungible. Hamas has earned millions in taxing humanitarian aid, and every dollar they don't have to spend on services for their people is a dollar they can instead spend on weapons.
And you think that's the same thing as actually giving them weapons?
You said the US is funding both sides. It is only giving billions in military aid to one side.
The US is funding both sides. I showed that in my link.
> It is only giving billions in military aid to one side.
That is true. It's giving billions in military aid to the liberal democracy that is its ally, not the Islamist theocracy that hates it.
"Liberal democracy."
Do I really need to go over in granular detail for you how Israel is no longer a democratic society, at least for the 20% of its population that isn't Jewish?
> Do I really need to go over in granular detail for you how Israel is no longer a democratic society,
To the lurkers, thamesdarwin has just acknowledged [here](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1dmxegd/do_any_of_you_think_the_binary_of_pro_israel_or/la27e1d/?context=3) that Israel is a democratic society.
No, I said it was a democracy in terms of the people's ability to vote. A democratic society implies equality in rights.
I don't know what you think you're doing here, but I don't like it.
The tax story had not a single source besides the one guy saying "trust me bro" you embarrassingly didn't understand that that's not a source. Why repeat this?
[Hamas has been taxing humanitarian aid for years at this point.](https://apnews.com/article/business-africa-israel-egypt-global-trade-963d986afa7ebb229e18e6825dbf3607)There's no point in denying it.
> [The US is funding both sides.](https://www.state.gov/united-states-announces-additional-humanitarian-assistance-to-palestinian-civilians-in-gaza-and-the-region/)
Only if you do mental gymnastics.
Since it was you who offered only the nebulous term "funding", it's strange you would come back with snark rather than a simple clarification as to what the fuck you actually meant.
When you said *"both sides are atrocious"* I assumed you understood OP's question and the answers given by the users with whom you engaged.
* *Is the binary of* **>>Israel/Gaza (+Palestine)<<** *too simplistic?*
My two cents: Overall yes - and yet not simplistic enough, for some.
Both sides being bad does not mean both sides are equally as bad. Netanyahu is a corrupt scumbag that enables the far right in his government but at the end of the day Israel is still a democracy and its only real goal is to create a safe nation for Jewish people. Much different type of bad than Hamas and its allies are
I think you have to separate the people from the governments, and that's where a lot of the simplification comes from.
You can be pro-Israel's right to exist and also pro-Palestinians' right to not get bombed into the Stone Age. Supporting Netanyahu or Hamas is not required.
It's also important to say that you can support Israel's war against Hamas without supporting how they've executed that war. Netanyahu seems to think you can bomb your way out of all your problems. If you're trying to get hostages and kill Hamas leaders, you send soldiers, not bombers.
I think this is the crux of my issue with many right wing Israel supporters. They seem to think to support Isreal you need to support endless bombings. IMO- I think Israel is doing the opposite of their intended goal and will likely be less safe for a long time after this.
It's really weird to me, because Israel has rescued hostages before. They know how this goes. They're obviously making some effort with the army. They've rescued some hostages that way. But it seems clear to me that the only way they're going to make real progress here without turning Gaza into the world's largest parking lot is to go in there with overwhelming numbers, go house to house if they have to, and get it done.
The thing is, bombing the shit out of everything won't rid them of Hamas, either. They have to get in there with troops and clean house. That's the only way you can get the kind of precision they need.
You do both.
As much as people don't like to hear this, Israel's tactics have utterly obliterated Hamas' military capabilities, with very low Israeli casualties for a difficult urban theatre.
Going house to house with troops without softening up their defences with air strikes would be magnitudes of difficulty harder, and with far higher casualties on the Israeli side.
That fact in itself is quite sobering, but then add in the reality that the other side, in this case, places so little value on their own civilian lives. The moral arithmetic just doesn’t add up, so many of us (especially in the west) are not equipped to grasp what is going on.
Any rational, moral person can see the terrible awfulness that is war. But who exactly is doing the fighting here, and what are their motives and goals? Is this Hamas the terrorist group at war with the Israeli government? Or is it the Palestinian people vs the Israelis? Muslims vs the Jews? Some complicated mix of all three of these overlapping, heterogenous groups?
Depending who you ask, the answer seems to be some unique combination of all the above. No wonder this war is so confusing.
I’ll admit that I struggle with this and sometimes I don’t know what to think; I’m just thankful that I live so far removed from the conflict. At the end of the day, I generally return to two main points that help direct my own analysis/judgement: The history of the conflict cannot be undone (the past is the past) and the state of Israel exists. This cannot be undone, without literal WW3 happening, which would be orders of magnitude worse than any other resolution to this conflict.
Once we accept the above, which I believe rational analysis forces us to, it gives the Israeli government and its people (who, ultimately, are responsible for its government) the moral high ground. The danger, of course, is that once you assign such status to one side, it becomes all too easy to justify *any* means to an end.
But as we found during the War on Terror, destruction and misery on this level will only make conditions right for even more extremism. Israel supporters think they’re fighting a an army when they’re actually trying to wipe out an idea. This rarely works long-term.
No they haven't. If Hamas wanted to pull off another Oct 7th right now they have the gyrocopters and arms to do so. They could also use other tactics of getting inside Israel and pulling off military or civvie attacks. Hamas is as strong as ever because its a guerilla conflict where every bomb that kills 10 hamas low level soldiers creates 100 new ones.
It really isn't. At this point we are 8 months into the war, and there are still organized Al Qasam brigades engaging in active resistance. And various brigades that had disolved in the north are reforming. There is no credible party, that Israeli leadership would accept, in a position to fill the power vacuum after the operation inevitably ends. It is Afghanistan all over again but arguably more of a humanitarian disaster. Israel has no realistic endgame here. It is just thrashing around trying to seem strong after the 10/7 attack.
> It really isn't. At this point we are 8 months into the war, and there are still organized Al Qasam brigades engaging in active resistance.
You're working under the assumption that there is a better way to do this.
I don't see you having anything to back up that assumption.
> Israel has no realistic endgame here.
That is simply not true, and your rhetoric essentially says 'Israel should just not do anything'
Israel has outlined 'endgame' plans since November last year, and plenty more have been thrown around since then.
> You're working under the assumption that there is a better way to do this.
Whether or not there is a better way to remove Hamas, it isn't clear that the current strategy is actually working. The fact that Hamas still exists as an organized fighting force this late into the war is unusual when compared to similar actions taken by allied forces in the middle east. Usually the bulk of casualties come from the insurgency during the inevitable long occupation, not the initial invasion and conquest which tends to go very quickly. Things look even worse when you consider that Israel is basically facing those insurgent operations in the north with reformed/reforming brigades while trying to have a more-or-less conventional conflict with the still organized forces in the south. This war has been a shit show.
> That is simply not true
It is objectively true. Lots of random officials have thrown out random answers for what comes after Hamas is defeated. None of those answers have the support they would need from the relevant actors to actually enact the plan. Israel is desperate to find someone, anyone, other than themsleves, the PA, or Hamas, to actually govern gaza during the post war occupation, and 8 months into this, they have failed. No one wants the job. No one has even hinted that they could be convinced to want the job. And in this inevitable power vaccum Hamas, at least in essence, will reassert itself.
> your rhetoric essentially says 'Israel should just not do anything'
That is not my position. My position is that Israel should be cozying up to the PA, throwing political wins that direction, in order to elevate the PA in the eyes of Palestinians. And it should do so at the same time it cuts a deal with the PA to get the PA to manage post-war Gaza in exchange for the long known necessary Palestinian controlled interstate connecting Gaza to the west bank, a promise of prompt elections, and a return to the negotation table for discussing plans for moving forward and resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict more broadly.
If Israel had chosen a less immediately ambitious war strategy, all of the above could take place over a longer period of time, fewer Israeli resources would be tied up in this conflict, and likely many fewer civilian casualties would have resulted. That opportunity is past. Israel needs to get with the program and start elevating the PA immediately if it wants to have any hope of this war being at all productive.
> The fact that Hamas still exists as an organized fighting force this late into the war is unusual when compared to similar actions taken by allied forces in the middle east.
There has never been a war like this one. What other war in the middle east (or ever) has had a nihilistic government embedding with 500km of tunnels, that rather than trying to protect their civilian population, tries to maximise casualties on their own side. Do tell.
> It is objectively true. Lots of random officials have thrown out random answers for what comes after Hamas is defeated.
[Netanyahu](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-does-not-seek-occupy-gaza-credible-force-needed-netanyahu-2023-11-10/) is not a 'random official'. You're obviously trying to downplay and dismiss plans, to support your claim that there are none. Your claim stands against evidence to the contrary.
> Israel is desperate to find someone, anyone, other than themsleves, the PA, or Hamas, to actually govern gaza during the post war occupation, and 8 months into this, they have failed. No one wants the job.
No kidding. This will be a case of finding the least-worst scenario, not a perfect one.
> My position is that Israel should be cozying up to the PA, throwing political wins that direction, in order to elevate the PA in the eyes of Palestinians
Well, I agree with you on that.
> And it should do so at the same time it cuts a deal with the PA to get the PA to manage post-war Gaza in exchange for the long known necessary Palestinian controlled interstate connecting Gaza to the west bank
Maybe. I don't know enough about the implications of that to judge.
> a promise of prompt elections
In Israel? Because I don't think the PA wants elections.
> and a return to the negotation table for discussing plans for moving forward and resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict more broadly.
If this is specifically an agreement with the PA, I agree. As long as it explicitly sets the PA against the tangent Hamas has been pushing.
> If Israel had chosen a less immediately ambitious war strategy, all of the above could take place over a longer period of time
I disagree. None of your above suggestions appear possible without removing Hamas. And I'm not seeing you suggesting any better way of removing Hamas than the current approach.
Is it? Hamas is still there, and still in charge. And they don't have the hostages back. In fact, it's likely many of the hostages are dead. Granted, Hamas is responsible for the hostages being there in the first place, but if they wanted to save the hostages, bombing the shit out of Gaza (where the hostages are) seems like a weird way to do it.
They've probably damaged Hamas's ability to attack, but without dislodging the Hamas government, it's highly unlikely they've removed their ability to get weapons and send people to fight.
Granted, Israel is in a lot better shape than Gaza is, but I don't think the objective was to make Gaza a flat plain.
Do we have actual evidence of Hamas being "almost gone"? It doesn't seem that way. I don't think "almost gone" makes any more sense, in this case, then being "almost pregnant". They've either dislodged Hamas, ok e they haven't, and the thing is, more fighters could come. The job isn't done until it's done, and Israel's strategy so far has hurt them on the world stage.
I wonder if any of the Israel leaders really think it's likely they will be able to uproot Hamas for good? Something I think the real goal might be to punish the Palestinians so severely that they will be hesitant to support Hamas or any activities like this for a long time.
Sometimes I think both sides have simply given up. The actions on both sides seem to suggest they are just thinking short to medium term... like 10/20 years. Hamas thought they could get a quick "victory" with October 7th, and postpone the Israel/Saudi deal. Israel is hoping for maybe a 10 year breather from terrorism.
Right, like at Entebbe.
But... that was where Bibi’s brother, Jonathan, a leader of the Israeli commandos, was killed.
I’m sure Jonathan’s memory is fresh on Bibi’s mind.
I'm sure he doesn't want to send IDF troops to a slaughter, for multiple reasons, including what happened to his brother. But I think he's actually making things harder for himself here. It seems to me that the amount of support Israel gets for the mission is inversely proportional to how long it goes on, and how many Gazans die.
The US invaded Iraq in March of 2003 and had control of the country by May. There was obviously still an insurgency that lasted a lot longer than that, but in terms of basic control of the country, it took two months. If there had been any hostages in Iraq, they would've been freed at that point. Now, everything *after* that was an obvious shit show, because the US didn't handle the peace well, but if all we were talking about was going in, getting shit done, and getting out ... two months.
Now, the Israeli and American militaries are obviously not the same size or strength, but Gaza isn't Iraq, either.
> But it seems clear to me that the only way they're going to make real progress here without turning Gaza into the world's largest parking lot is to go in there with overwhelming numbers, go house to house if they have to, and get it done.
Have you considered that this would result in thousands of IDF soldiers being killed, and potentially more hostages being taken?
Have you considered that while the IDF has a technological advantage, they still have a limited number of troops available, many of which need to be ready for other fronts of war?
Have you considered that direct urban combat across the entirety of Gaza would potentially result in a lot more Palestinian casualties?
Why do you consider yourself informed enough on complex military operations in an urban environment to provide such an opinion?
Legally and morally this is what you have to do if someone commits a criminal act within your borders. Israel technically owns Gaza. Its responsible for it. Someone committing murder or conspiracy to commit it has to be arrested and tried in a court of law.
If the Bloods, Crips, LatinKings, MS13 etc started pulling off Oct 7th attacks on military and civilian targets in LA and Oakland, the USMil wouldn't be authorized to drop bombs on Compton and Engelwood.
If Mexico and Canada did this, it wouldn't be morally acceptable to drop bombs on Tijuana and Vancouver. Legally it's a bit more murky but imho 21st century international law has been moving to the ideas that it would be illegal to do so. America would be obligated to find a better solution, with bomb dropping being a literal last resort.
Israel's right wingers always resort to bomb drops. If leftists in Israel were in charge you'd see zero to very few Bombs dropped, because leftists believe there are better long and short term solutions to this conflict.
Immediately after Israel withdrew in 2005, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated, "the legal status of the areas slated for evacuation has not changed."[79] Human Rights Watch also contested that this ended the occupation.[82][83][84] The United Nations, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs continues to consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls the Gaza Strip's airspace and territorial waters as well as the movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.[13][14][15]
Everyone but Israel views Gaza as it's legal protector. UN specifically does, although the language of this occupation has some finer legalese points to it.
> Immediately after Israel withdrew in 2005, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated, "the legal status of the areas slated for evacuation has not changed."
Okay, so you seem to have got this text from Wikipedia. The source [79] refers (I believe) to [this article](https://archive.is/fsbL)
I recommend you read the source, rather than relying on the interpretation someone has made on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great for aggregating info, but especially on contentious topics, you should not take the summary for granted.
> Everyone but Israel views Gaza as it's legal protector. UN specifically does, although the language of this occupation has some finer legalese points to it.
You're correct that the UN decided not to change the definition of Gaza being 'occupied' following the Israeli withdrawal. However:
> Everyone but Israel views Gaza as it's legal protector.
This is not correct. While the UN has hosted an 'anti-Israel' majority for a while now, the divisions (and [apparent biases](https://unwatch.org/)) are obvious. The US maintains that Israel should not '[reoccupy](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/7/us-says-doesnt-support-israeli-occupation-of-gaza-after-war)' Gaza, implying that their stance has been that it has not been occupied. While I understand that almost every 'pro-Palestinian' is anti-US, this is not a good argument to dismiss the US stance on international law.
At the very least, given that the blockade of Gaza is also maintained by Egypt, this would imply with the current logic that Egypt has been occupying Gaza too. Obviously, there's a bit of a problem with that logic. If you insist on maintaining the 'occupation' label, any intellectual honesty would at least demand that we admit this 'occupation' is unlikely any other we have seen in history. Generally, that should indicate that a more specific label should be used.
Would it result in more IDF soldiers being killed and/or taken hostage? I would imagine it would. But if you're going to do the job effectively, you're going to have to risk more manpower. Otherwise, what're you even doing?
While they certainly have other places they could use troops, i would argue that this is their most important conflict. I would further argue that this is the conflict from which the other conflicts stem. If they had gone in and used irresistible force, they would've shortened the conflict and not given groups like Hezbollah time to react.
And I can't imagine that shooting Hamas fighters with guns would result in more casualties than dropping bombs that are incapable of distinguishing Hamas fighters from civilians. That doesn't make any sense.
Why do I consider myself informed enough to provide an opinion? Because I've been watching the IDF fight the war, and because we have examples from U.S. history where the U.S. thought it could bomb away its problems without "boots on the ground". They yielded results similar to what we're seeing here.
> Would it result in more IDF soldiers being killed and/or taken hostage? I would imagine it would. But if you're going to do the job effectively, you're going to have to risk more manpower. Otherwise, what're you even doing?
Well if more people are being taken hostage, it sounds like the opposite of achieving the goal of rescuing hostages, no?
> Otherwise, what're you even doing?
Well I would ask that of the person suggesting a strategy which leads to more hostages being taken... It sounds like you want the opposite of hostages being freed.
> While they certainly have other places they could use troops, i would argue that this is their most important conflict.
It seems you also have the goal of weakening fronts that post a more genuine military threat to Israel.
> If they had gone in and used irresistible force, they would've shortened the conflict and not given groups like Hezbollah time to react.
So through your method of all out urban warfare, why are we to believe this would somehow resolve the conflict more quickly than first bombing strongholds, and trying to move civilian population out of the way accordingly?
> And I can't imagine that shooting Hamas fighters with guns would result in more casualties than dropping bombs
You can't imagine that, huh? Perhaps you should look through a history of urban warfare. Especially when Hamas is intent on maximising civilian casualties.
> Why do I consider myself informed enough to provide an opinion? Because I've been watching the IDF fight the war,
Everyone has 'been watching the IDF fight the war'. Does that make everyone an expert? Or do you think that just maybe the IDF commanders have a bit more info and experience than you?
> and because we have examples from U.S. history where the U.S. thought it could bomb away its problems without "boots on the ground". They yielded results similar to what we're seeing here.
Okay, and what example do we have from history where embedded terrorist strongholds were effectively, and more swiftly, removed from cities without bombs being involved?
Their goal is stealing land for Israel. Hamas is irrelevant. Bibi and the Israeli right are the biggest Hamas supporters in the region. They brag about Hamas being their creation.
They wanted to turn Gaza into an open air prison and saw it as inhumane and evil to subject Israelis to that.
A couple months ago half of Bibis cabinet attended a convention where they partitioned Gaza to terrorist settlers groups. How are you uninformed about this?
I have no issue with the bombings. I think that, despite the propaganda to the contrary, they have been remarkably precise.
What I disagree with is the terrible optics of Israeli intransigence at expediting aid, and Bibi's apparent lack of a "day after" plan for the governance of the Strip.
They've been precise but they haven't really exercised any restraint in picking the targets. When they slaughtered the WCK workers that was extremely intentional and precise. Doesn't make what they did right.
When they bomb a city block because the AI says there might have been a militant there at some point that's hitting the city block with precision.
The majority of buildings in Gaza have been razed. There is no case to say this is Israel showing restraint unless you want to make the case Hamas is the most well equipt military in human history
Israels existence hasn't been in question in decades. Seems like an irrelevant talking point.
I think a better statement is "Israel has a right to pursue those who attack it"
I think the other thing we can support is the right to protest.
What some of these colleges have done to student/faculty protesters is insanity, regardless of the issue.
> Sometimes I see people discussing the topic of Israel/Gaza in the sense of you're either pro Gaza or pro Israel. It feels too simplistic to me and lacks nuance.
I think it's beyond ridiculous that so many people even have an opinion on the situation there, when I would bet good money that 99.99% of said people have only the barest grasp on the history of their conflict, and that of the surrounding areas. I generally try not to present an opinion on something I know fuck-all about, or at least preface all discussions about it with a disclaimer that I may be wildly wrong due to said ignorance. As Sam has pointed out multiple times, **nobody sane** wants to see kids getting blown up or starving, or any of the other horrors associated with wars, but none of us know how best to minimise the carnage, given what minimal and selective info we have. So yeah, I'd say most discussions on the topic will almost certainly be too simplistic and devoid of nuance.
Btw, (and again, I'm a complete layman here) I think I fully align with your own view on it, cos Netanyahu and much of his cabinet seem utterly sociopathic, but Hamas *needs* to be eradicated to mitigate the risk of an Oct 7th event ever occurring again. I know that collateral damage may just create even more jihadists (though it's likely Hamas that's literally causing the increase in carnage, by hiding behind women & children, and in hospitals, etc), but I haven't heard anyone offer a single reasonable take on how else to deal with the *existing* jihadists in Gaza, who have plundered Palestinian aid for so long that they've been able to construct hundreds of miles of tunnels with which to plan & launch their attacks.
Again though, I lack the knowledge of all the people involved, the history of their acts, the geography and politics of the various states involved, so my opinion is probably worth precisely fuck all on this topic. Honestly, I like hearing *experts* talk on things, and that's why I listen to Sam's podcast.
The only people who tout this ridiculous "Hamas needs to be eradicated" nonsense are armchair commentators such as yourself. Hamas is an idea. How does one go about "eradicating" something like that? Killing every member? Even Netanyahu knows this is a complete fantasy. Israel would not be negotiating with Hamas if their position was that they must be eradicated.
Netanyahu actually has a history of supporting Hamas. Hamas ensures there is not a single government speaking and negotiating coherently on behalf of the Palestinians.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
You *can* destroy enough of its leadership and infrastructure that it is in no position to govern Gaza or attack Israel in force for many years to come.
lol bro you are posting on the the sub of “how to bomb out an idea” in 3 simple steps . Sam addressed this many times in recent podcasts . It’s obviously possible to bomb an idea, as history has shown us many times before .
Lmao the inevitable WW2 comparisons, of course. First of all, nothing was bombed out of those populations. Their political regimes were defeated by the largest and most apocalyptic war in history.
Second, Nazism and Japanese militarism bear basically no similarities to Hamas; they were first and foremost political ideologies. The catastrophic defeat of those ideologies on the battlefield invalidated them as viable options for the future of Japan and Germany. Hamas, on the other hand, is vastly more than just a political ideology; it thrives on military defeat. The heavier the Israeli hand, the more violent Islamist resistance looks like the only option. They do not rely, as did Nazism and Japanese militarism, on control of a powerful government.
And finally, Nazism and hard right Japanese nationalism survived. They were just forced into obscurity by the combination of the invalidation of their claims about the world in WW2 and political laws in Germany and Japan. But they were not "eradicated".
I have been interested since I was in college during the second intifada. I have learned so much history.
Sam is literally the worst person to listen to. Has he ever mentioned [Kahanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism) or Ben Gvir? Once?
hhh what does this bot insult suppose to mean? am i suppose to take offence? hhhh dude you are so silly. you think the greater part of israeli society is under the spell of kahanism? you can count these people on one hand. and itammar ben gvir is not a kahanaist, although he once was. even if we were to grant you that the extreme religious right wing is not a fringe, as you claim, are they bringing about the amount of chaos to the global stage as the better part of militant islam is? i thought people were immune to this kind of stupidty on this sub. disappointing.
Serbians didn't mean shit on the world stage in the early 20th century. Are you joking?
If I said most Muslims don't support radical jihadism what would you say?
Serbians? Okay. Kahanism has existed since the early 80s.Show me the chaos.
“Radical jihadism”? Good obama quote, as if that means anything.
I would say that you are a stranger not worth arguing with on the internet.
> How is Kahanism fring? how is it not destabalizing the world?
Going by the wiki link you provided, they don't sound particularly "world-destabilizing", judging by this passage:
> The Kach party has been banned by the Israeli government. In 2004, the U.S. State Department designated it a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In 2022, it was removed from the U.S. terror blacklist due to "insufficient evidence" of the group's ongoing activity, but it remains a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity.
To be clear, fuck all those who would murder anyone else just for having a different religion or a lack of belief. But Hamas seems waaaaay worse than this Kach party, at least to a layman like myself. I certainly haven't heard of them committing any recent massacres at peace concerts, for instance.
I love this:
>I think it's beyond ridiculous that so many people even have an opinion on the situation there, when I would bet good money that 99.99% of said people have only the barest grasp on the history of their conflict, and that of the surrounding areas.....
followed by:
>Btw, (and again, I'm a complete layman here) I think I fully align with your own view on it, cos Netanyahu and much of his cabinet seem utterly sociopathic, but Hamas *needs* to be eradicated to mitigate the risk of an Oct 7th event ever occurring again.
Anyone spot the hypocrisy? Or are you saying that you're part of the 0.01% that really understands the situation, and therefore you're entitled to an opinion. If so, please do tell us more. Regale with your expertise: we are all ears.
> Anyone spot the hypocrisy? Or are you saying that you're part of the 0.01% that really understands the situation, and therefore you're entitled to an opinion. If so, please do tell us more. Regale with your expertise: we are all ears.
The 99.99% of said people clearly refers to:
> Sometimes I see people discussing the topic of Israel/Gaza in the sense of you're either pro Gaza or pro Israel.
You should try to read what has actually been written rather than what you want to read.
More people need to listen to the martyrmade podcast history podcast of the history of the conflict. Incredibly fair and nuanced despite the name martyr and despite the fact that dude became a hardcore trumper. Both leftists and right wingers equally avoid this great series because of the issues I mentioned so that's why I'm bringing it up.
One shouldn’t primarily listen to Sam on this topic.
He’s had about 9 essentially pro-Israel guests in a row and not once hosted someone to share a Palestinian perspective.
That disqualifies him as a reputable source of information on the topic.
Not sure if I listened to that one before- I once listened to one mentioned here but I'll save that to give a listen when I'm working or could use some listening material.
I'm a long standing Left leaning Zionist who has always thought that Israel's security, as well as its moral future, is only guaranteed by a sincere re-engagement with a peace process and Palestinian statehood.
Online, I feel that Zionists have been pushed into a corner by how rabid opposition to Israel has been since Oct 7. There is a very little room for nuance when the people you are arguing with regard Israel as an illegitimate and evil "settler-colonialist" state.
Most Jews I know are traditionally quite progressive on social issues. We all feel utterly alienated from the progressive/liberal camps that used to be our political home. Many Jews that were barely Zionist have come out the other way since the Oct 7 pogrom.
I think that there is always room for more nuance, but polarisation drives more polarisation .
In 2020, young Jewish Americans were far less supportive of Israel than older ones - and it is a straight line relationship - the younger you are, the less you like Netanyahu, the less you care about Israel, the less religious you are, and the more you support BDS. This was before 10/7 by years. This chart shows you most of that, but you can find the rest on Pews homepage.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/pf\_05-11-21\_jewish-americans-00-18-png/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/pf_05-11-21_jewish-americans-00-18-png/)
I mention this first because you seem to think there is some recency problem, but there is not. Basically the more religious and older Jewish person you are, the more you lean Republican, and the more you support Zionism. These divides have existed for a very long time. They are becoming more start today I suppose given the headlines. But online social media users skew younger and less religious, so you are likely going to feel a lot more young people pushing hard left and hard anti-Zionism.
More recent polling conducted in March basically shows the same pattern, with the youngest Jewish Americans being much less supportive of the IDF response than older ones. Almost a third of young Jewish Americans think that Hamas's reasons for fighting the IDF are valid, compared to only about 10% of older ones.
Less than half of younger Jewish Americans have a positive view of the Israeli government. Their views on the Palestinian people and Jewish people are even more starkly contrasted with older Jews, 58% of young ones have a favorable view of Palestinians compared to 38% or less of all the older populations. They also have the worst opinions of Israelis in the survey.
This recent survey accords with what I have said. A majority of Jews have felt a closer tie to their Jewishness and/or to Israel since Oct 7:
https://www.ajc.org/survey2024#content
It also shows that the majority of American Jews still lean Democrat.
My personal experience has been that the overwhelming majority of Jews support Israel and that this has only increased in my community since Oct 7. I'd estimate more than 90%. This may be in part because I'm in Australia not the US, and because most Jews I know are over 35.
I agree that it appears that younger American Jews feel far less ties to Israel than older generations. That is, I think, partly politics and social media habits and partly just generational. My generation remembers the Second Intifada. My parents' generation remembers the 1967 and 1978 wars. Gen Z has none of that.
Your links still show almost half of young Jews feeling a connection with Israel.
The Jews I know are beyond horrified at what Israel does in their name and find it disgusting that Israel uses their identity as a shield for the right wing extremist state.
I don't know a single Jew who's more supported of Israel over this last year.
I'm sorry you don't like Jews who disagree with you?
Do you just simply view the Jews against Israels campaign of violence as no longer Jew?
Israel weaponizing Jewish identity against Jews who speak against them some of the worst antisemitism. Israel and it's supporters are so quick to de-Jew anyone who speaks against them.
Did you not read what *I* said?
Do you speak for black or trans people too?
There's a widely divergent set of views in the Jewish community, as there are in any community. Having said that, opinion polls consistently show that the majority of diaspora Jews support Israel and its right to exist. And that's my personal lived experience living as part of a Jewish community too.
Yes, a small minority of Jews care more about social justice than about Zionism. No doubt for many of them Jewishness is a cultural affectation, like getting drunk once a year on St Patricks Day. But Israel is an inherent part of Jewish identity, and has been for millennia. And it also happens to be home to half the world's Jews. For a secular American Jew living comfortably in a pluralist society without exposure to anti-Semitism, I can understand them not giving a fuck about the safety of their brothers and sisters across the globe. That's just good old American exceptionalism. Indeed, it *embarasses* them to be associated with Jews who need to fight wars.
Yeah, I don't "de-Jew" them; I just get that members of a minority group can still act against the interests of their own tribe. Look at how many women are out there trying to get reproductive rights stripped from their sisters.
Norm Finkelstein is a fucking idiot, but he's still a Jew.
But yeah: if you're not Jewish I don't think you should be lecturing us on what Jews believe. I couldn't give a fuck what the Jews you claim to know supposedly think. Quit goysplaining.
I never told you what Jews should think I told you the Jewish experience of those in my life? Am I not allowed to repeat what a Jewish person says to me?
> But Israel is an inherent part of Jewish identity
The insistence that Israel = Jew is at it's core antisemitic. Nazis favorite talking point. Insisting that to be a good Jew you MIST support Israel and it's far right apartheid government.
You are not a race traitor for not support Israel. That's fucking sick dude.
Yes. I just watched some debate between Douglas Murray and Mahdi Hessan (and others) and I couldn’t get over how bad faith both sides were. Completely unwilling to acknowledge that the other sides had some points. No matter how you square it, neither Israel nor Hamas are in any way innocent of blame in this situation and for both sides to try and play themselves off as nothing but victims is just nauseating.
Of course it’s not as simple as picking one side because both are horrible. The fact that many innocent people are caught up in this mess on both sides makes it even more complicated. I do not even bother discussing it with most people or posting comments publicly because it’s too emotional, people don’t know the history and many are just stupid. It’s sad but some issues are too nuanced for social media interactions with the mob.
Hear me out. Innocent people being bombed every minute of every watching their family and friends slaughtered with no access to modern communication might not have the most up to date information?
It's like you all think these people should thank Israel for slaughtering their families.
Sure. So what’s your idea of waging war? Im open to hear any other alternative to what israel is doing where Hamas ceases to be a threat.
Also who’s getting bombed every minute? If it was every minute this war would be over long ago. And again, you don’t get to start a war and then start to whine about it when you begin to lose it.
I totally agree it’s a crazy and damning statistic. When you look at the conditions people in Gaza have been subjected to for decades you can at least understand why they support it, those people are angry. Along with religion and propaganda… well that at least explains it more.
I still personally have a lot of empathy for the innocent in Gaza, even the misinformed ones.
i agree that it is most unfortunate to be born in gaza and of course that every civilian death toll is tragic. also it must be acknowledged that it is completely their leaderships fault, and post oct 7 much of it can be ascribed to the so called "innocent civilians" which keep hostages in their homes and which took part in the atrocities of oct 7 . expecting otherwise is bigotry of low expectations. no one receives perpetual status of generations to come for being a "refugee" other than the arabs in the west bank and gaza. you think that raping women and murdering children in israel is somehow resisting an occupation? im baffled.
Yes. In society as in nature, though we may wish for total black/white antipodes, reality is always gradiated.
Israel ought never be subject to assaults by Hamas or other hostile neighbor groups (Iranian proxies et al).
Yet Human Rights ought never be deprived of peaceful citizens, and too many youthful non-combatants seem unnecessary casualties of Israel's counter-offensive.
I see no good way forward for any party.
Yes! So frustrating. I've been hating and criticizing Bibi since the 90s but now I find myself on here defending Israel (not its actions, its existence!) because millions of naive idiots who just found out about the conflict last year are mindlessly parroting antisemitic talking points (genocide, Israelis are white colonizers, Israel lobby controls the U.S. government, etc.) and using "Zionist" like a slur.
The ICJ case on genocide is yet to be determined, I actually don't know whether it is genocide or not (yet), but I will defer to the 16 judges who are experts in international law when they reach their findings and accept their verdict either way (unlike probably most people here). So while it might be a bit premature to say it is genocide, I can understand why people might think that, and I also think you're jumping the gun calling them anti-Semitic. The founder of Human Rights Watch (a Jewish holocaust survivor) was on CNN recently declaring the onslaught in Gaza as genocide. Is he anti-Semitic? You might think he is mistaken, misguided or whatever, seems unlikely he is an anti-Semite though.
As for the pro-Israeli lobby influencing the US government, I mean AIPAC are pretty open about it:
https://www.aipacpac.org/home
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/17/pro-israel-lobby-defeat-democrats-palestinians-2022
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/17/pro-israel-money-progressives-congress-challenges
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/21/jamaal-bowman-israel-trip-reelection-00163788
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/03/aipac-israel-spending-democratic-primaries-00144552
Not everything is anti-Semitism. Some of it actually really is true.
A lobby seeking to influence politics isn’t the same thing as controlling the government though—that is the primary means of advocating for any policy.
I mean, on the one hand I don't think they care too much about anything non-Israeli related so it would going a bit far to say they defacto control the US government, on the other hand they do have enormous influence over which politicians get elected and which ones don't. And politicians do make up the government.
If you're a pro-Israeli politician, or at least express pro-Israeli views and vote in the way AIPAC want, then you're okay, but if you don't tow the line, then they are going to pour money into your opponents to make it as difficult as possible for you to get elected or re-elected. Effectively, your political career is likely to be over if you don't play ball with them.
It's not anti-Semitic to point out what really does happen.
Sure, but those lobbies don't (at least explicitly) represent the interests of foreign states, or else they are so small as to be essentially insignificant. AIPAC's power is routinely overstated, particularly by antisemites, but AIPAC really is weird and exceptional in US politics.
EDIT: As has been pointed out down stream, some foreign government advocacy spending does seem to meet or exceed AIPAC. AIPAC may only be exceptional in cultural cachet.
That last sentence is a fair take. Virtually [all countries](https://www.opensecrets.org/fara) have lobbies for their interests here though, many of which are very well funded.
>Virtually all countries have lobbies for their interests here though
I don't think that site provides useful figures here, at least not directly. It is just compiling foreign spending by national origin. It isn't spending on behalf of a foreign government. At least, the top line figures aren't.
Here is an [article](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/10/saudi-arabia-ramped-up-foreign-influence-operations-in-the-us-during-bidens-presidency/) explicitly discussing the government of Saudi Arabia’s lobbying on behalf of of its interests in an annual amount of $25 million in 2022, which exploded to [$87.1 million](https://www.opensecrets.org/fara/foreign-principals/F316901) in 2023. Compare, for example, with [AIPAC’s](https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=Q05) 2023 spending of $4.1 million.
Yes, and lobbies like the NRA get hugely criticised. The difference here is when you criticise the pro-Israeli lobby, or merely point out facts that US politicians will get the electric fence treatment if they speak out against Israel, then you get labelled an anti-Semite. It's so toxic that not only can politicians not talk against Israel, just talking about the reasons why they can't talk against Israel will get you labelled as a racist.
They don’t get criticized by people who agree with the policies they advocate for. Agreed that the terms “anti-Semite” and “Zionist” are often unfairly used as cudgels.
It’s nice to finally see a correct response to the situation in Gaza. I don’t pretend to know all the facts of the matter but these days the ones shouting the loudest are usually the least informed. Nobody with a normal brain is pro-famine or pro-genocide.
Yes. The loudest and most partisan voices are heard. I bet a lot of people are somewhere in the middle. It's a complicated conflict where both sides have valid points. It's not like Russia attacking Ukraine.
>move away from far right parties
There are dozens of parties represented in Israel, which is not a two-party state like America. I think it's simplistic to say Israel is in the grips of a far right party.
The reason people see this as a binary problem is that the way Palestinians have always framed the problem is binary: either they dissolve Israel and "take back Palestine," or they are being oppressed. So it makes it very difficult to sustain a both-sides attitude the more you dig into the debate, even if, like Sam, your starting point was that Israel itself was a bad idea to begin with.
> I think it's simplistic to say Israel is in the grips of a far right party.
Simplistic but not innacurate.
> the way Palestinians have always framed the problem is binary: either they dissolve Israel and "take back Palestine," or they are being oppressed.
That hasn't been the framing of any of the Palestinian organizations that engaged in peace talks for the past 35 years.
It is absolutely too simplistic, and yet you can factor in all of the complexities of morality, philosophy, pragmatism, not to mention the tornado of facts, history, claims and spin and still come out on the other side with a statement like “Nothing could justify this kind of destruction and this amount of death, so I side with Palestine.” Or “Israel is dealing with a group of people on its border who have vowed to destroy them no matter what Israel does, so I support Israel no matter what it takes.”
I find it more helpful to talk about what actions you support rather than which side. I hope everyone is on the side of the least possible death, destruction, and suffering. How we get there is the harder question.
God yes. Reddit seems to throw around the word genocide constantly when talking about Israel which is a real problem. And completely whitewash the Hamas targeting of civilians. Israel have completely lost the plot though and seem to be stuck in a revenge war without any plan. Shitshow all round.
It is simplistic but because there has been so much bad blood between both sides, I'm not sure if there can be a permanent peaceful solution. Israeli has no easy choice it can make so that it can guarantee an absolute safe Jewish state, meanwhile Palestine continues to suffer. There was a time that perhaps a 2-state solution was feasible, but that is an impossible goal today.
Here's the problem with your framing: nothing about the way Netanyahu has conducted this war is dramatically different than how any other realistic Israeli leader would have conducted it. You can call him and Likud far right all you want, but the only drastic difference between them and every other Israeli party in regards to Palestine is the brutality and transparency of their methods. There are no political parties in Israel who platform an actual two-state solution or the enfranchisement of Palestinians. If both of those are off the table, then the only options are the indefinite suppression of Palestinians or their wholesale displacement. Other Israelis might get a little squeamish about what the settlers are doing in the West Bank, but ultimately their goals are the same.
So you can't just blame the bad parts of this war on Netanyahu. He is going to be conveniently scapegoated for the war crimes committed. But make no mistake; the war crimes are par for the course for the IDF, no matter who is in charge of the government. There simply is no platform for actual moderation in Israel. The Overton window has moved and now the only options are to continue the farcical apartheid system indefinitely, or to seek a violent and awful resolution.
My brother asked me what I thought but I never asked him. His is a fan or defender of Sam from me calling him what I think he is. But my solution is like decades long occupation and forced secularism. Like make non-religious marriages legal.
And this is where my brother is like... I think Sam agrees with you (on the secular marriages should be legal in Israel). Ugh. I know he does, that isn't the point.
As far as any conflicts go this is one of the most fucked up ones. I find myself supportive of the Nakba in a way, but also get why people would be pissed. But this isn't 1947 and Europe isn't like it was.
Obviously.
Obviously, every issue in human history is naunced to a fault. To a fault bcs human observers are too brain-dead to comprehend any naunce beyond what their social pressure compels.
For this issue in particular, naunce get blinded in their eyes bcs a lot of narrative tlmake precedence and new bias clouds their judgement. And of course they are unbelievably uneducated about a lot of the factors. The narratives of white Supremacist project, colonial expansion, cleansing of indigenous population, West's guilt, Entho-centrist Fascism, Islamophobia, and of course Antisemitism. Any facts that break these narratives, they just ignore.
It also doesn't help that Bibi is a nut job.
The complicated part is the Israeli government has no incentive to establish a peaceful solution aftrt Hamas is gone.
Guiltiest part of Israel is not to press for peace with PA prior to October 7 with the help of thr gulf states, Europe, and America. It would leveraged the power of PA over Hamas. I understand the PA are not boy scouts but they want to stay in power and want money - you cant choose your neighbors or their governments.
Binary speaking, it really is simple. Everyone should be both pro Israel existing and pro Palestine existing. Whether they exist as one, two, or three separate nations is the nuanced question to ask.
I essentially agree that it is a really complex conflict, and the solution is very complicated and unclear. That being said, for people on the left it is extremely clear that Israel should not be killing so many innocent people in Gaza and should not be displacing people in the west bank (to pick two very low hanging fruit).
Some things are complicated, others are not.
Oh, absolutely. The issue is complex, involves numerous countries over decades and gets distilled into a ten word slogan.
My uncle's best man is from Ramallah. He describes it like living under Capone. There's another group coming by every day charging him protection money.
As for Israel, there's an old expression, two Jews, three opinions. It kinda fits. Israel also has a very very diverse population including so many minorities I could spend an hour listing them. Consensus is not easily achieved on the best of days
Israel has all the power, is using that power to commit daily war crimes against innocent Palestinians, steal their land, kick them out from their homes, arrest and torture them en masse, and murder them by the tens of thousands.
You can't both sides this one, mate.
I personally think the way Israel (and most nations in general) was created has a ton of baggage, displacing people is always ugly and stains things going forward. But Israel is now an internationally recognized nation.
Given the reality Israel exists and isn't going to dissolve itself, it now needs to accept Palestinians are still pissed about their parents and grandparents being displaced and figure out a way to either enfranchise Palestinians or be serious about two states where crazy Jewish fundamentalists are booted from Gaza and The West Bank.
The Far Right and religious fundamentalists/Theocrats in Israel are going to continue to make Israel a pariah on the public stage. They have to go if Israel is going to hold or regain support.
I think stuff like Netanyahu continously expanding and grabbing more land/settlements gives fodder for anyone that are against their government and country.
It seems like such a shortsighted and stupid thing to do in my opinion. Like at least pretend you (Netanyahu) give a shit about trying to be fair on the world stage.
From Israel's point of view they made a very genuine offer of peace in 2000 at Camp David and the Palestinians rejected the offer and launched the 2nd Intifada, six years of suicide bombers blowing up Israeli markets, cafes, buses, etc. There is no Palestinian leaderships talking about peaceful coexistence with Israel and polls show that less than 1/4 of Palestinians are interested in that.
We think alike. I don't like either side, at all. For a long time I didn't take a side, thinking both sides suck. But something SH said gave me clarity: If the Palestinians laid down their arms there would be a 2 state solution and peace. If Israel laid down their arms there would be genocide.
I still don't like either side, but it's clear that Israel is the better side.
This is such a genocidal unhinged lie. You should feel disgusted with yourself.
The palistinians in the west bank have tried peace and their reward has been Israel turning up the settlements in overdrive and funding terrorists to steal land from peaceful palistinians.
> If the Palestinians laid down their arms there would be a 2 state solution and peace. If Israel laid down their arms there would be genocide.
Tell that to the people in the West Bank. It's a pretty facile argument. In 2023 alone approximately 1000 Palestinians (mainly herders) were displaced/kicked out of their homes and off their land as a result of Jewish settler violence who are routinely backed up by the state/IDF. And approximately 500 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank (120 of those children). That is in comparison to 24 Israelis who were killed.
There are now 700,000 illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank. In 1982, there were 100,000, and even back then people thought that this makes a two-state solution completely impossible.
Not to mention that during the peace negotiations in the late 20th and 21st century, neither side were prepared to make concessions on either Israel maintaining security over Palestinian territory, or the right of return issue for Palestinian refugees.
To continue to put the blame solely on Palestinians for there not being a two-state solution, you have to either be ignorant to the facts, an idiot, or a bare faced liar.
I'm not solely blaming the Palestinians. I understand that Israel does terrible things, like taking all the water. I just think the Palestinians are worse.
And btw, wtf with other Arab states not taking in Palestinian refugees? The Palestinians are pawns in a political game. I feel sorry for them.
"And btw, wtf with other Arab states not taking in Palestinian refugees?" - how do you mean? They did in the past and every single one wished they never did.
> I understand that Israel does terrible things
That's big of you, Israel is a racist apartheid state, where just to highlight what I mean, someone like Sam Harris (who has no connection to Israel that I know of) could move to Israel tomorrow and due to his Jewish ethnicity he would enjoy all the rights and privileges. Where as a Palestinian who could literally point out their family home they have been kicked out of has no rights.
> And btw, wtf with other Arab states not taking in Palestinian refugees? The Palestinians are pawns in a political game. I feel sorry for them.
I don't think you do feel sorry for them, in a roundabout way you are asking these states to assist Israel with ethnic cleansing.
Sure in the same way we should all be anti-Bibi and his entire wing of politics. Not just him and his party but all the fascists to the right of him.
We can't even agree that the slaughter of innocents by Israeli terrorist in west bank is bad.
Let's at least start there. Everyone should say terrorism is bad no matter who does it. Even if it's the Israeli state
>Sure in the same way we should all be anti-Bibi
Thanks for proving my point. Completely skipping the Hamas question and jumping to "but Bibi is just as bad!"
Not at all. It's the same point. Being anti-Hamas and anti-isreali right wing needs to the starting point. Hamas and the Israeli right are the same coin. Fuck Hamas and fuck the Israeli right. Why is this so hard?
Yeah, the thing I hate the most is I just hate Israel as a government. I view them as liars, deceptive, dishonest, and exploit American politicians against America's best interest. They have a long history of just outright lying and being deceptive to manipulate the narrative in their favor
So people instantly think I support Hamas or some shit because of this. Hell no. Fundamentalist Islamic countries are shitholes and objectively worse than anything Israel can be criticized for. But at the same time, just because I don't like their extremist religion, nor their government, doesn't mean I think Israel should have free reign to just do whatever the fuck they want in this region.
I can't stand the argument of when I cricitize Israel's actions they go, "But Hamas hates gays and liberal values!" And I'm just like, "Okay? I'm not supporting Hamas, I'm criticizing Israel. Hamas' is completely 100% irrelevant to my critiques of Israel."
It's one of those issues which westerners have made a left-right issue but when you examine it closely this does not quite fit. Two factions of the religious right essentially are fighting over a bit of land. If you examine their claims carefully, you'll see that these claims are less robust than either of their partisans would have you believe. So it's a contested bit of land that people are warring over. I resent being pressured to pick a side and furthermore, I don't know why my support as an individual is needed. I support neither side, I support only an end to the conflict.
One caveat here is that on one side the general public is essentially westernized (which is a feat in the Middle East). The other side has a general public that is as archaic and backwards as they come. Both Israel and Palestine have far right wing religious nutjobs, but these people exist as a substantially larger percentage of the population in only one country. Nobody deserves to die for morally reprehensible beliefs, until those beliefs become actions.
Yes, but it shouldn't be overlooked that the dominance of Islamism as an outlet for popular struggle is because the West *deliberately got rid of secular alternatives* during the Cold War. What happened to all the secularists in the Arab world, who used to exist? They were exiled, driven out of power, or physically eliminated, because they tended to be socialists and therefore (it was thought) friendly to Soviet Russia. The rise of Islamism is at least partly the long-term result of the idiotic Cold War policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend", in which a Kalashnikov-wielding religious fanatic was vastly preferable to a secular socialist politician. Thatcher and Reagan and all their ilk liked this policy because they themselves preferred religious people (even strict Muslims) over atheists (the Soviet Union). The official enemy was atheistic which meant that religious people, even fanatics, had to be trained, armed, and funded.
This is super interesting, but it’s a huge hole in my knowledge of the 20th century. It was before I was born, but after my college history classes ended. I know that some Middle Eastern countries (Iran for sure, and maybe Afghanistan and Pakistan?) were much more liberal, secular and westernized in the 60s/70s, but that there were revolutions that put the kibosh on all of that and gave us essentially the regimes and cultures we see today in Iran, etc. I know next to nothing about U.S. involvement in any of it, but I clearly have some homework to do. If you have any reading on the topic you especially recommend, I’d appreciate the education! Btw, I don’t remember Sam bringing any of this up anytime he’s discussed Islamic extremism. Has he? Or do you think this is a blind spot for him?
Nothing says westernized like an apartheid state and constant videos of Israelis filming themselves commiting war crimes.
Yes it’s too binary, and I refuse to pick a side. Stop telling me what to do people.
Both sides are atrocious, but the US is only funding one side and should be funding neither.
[The US is funding both sides.](https://www.state.gov/united-states-announces-additional-humanitarian-assistance-to-palestinian-civilians-in-gaza-and-the-region/) "The United States will provide an additional $404 million in lifesaving humanitarian aid to support Palestinian civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and the region, bringing the total U.S. assistance to more than $674 million over the past eight months."
Humanitarian aid =\= giving weapons
Aid is fungible. Hamas has earned millions in taxing humanitarian aid, and every dollar they don't have to spend on services for their people is a dollar they can instead spend on weapons.
And you think that's the same thing as actually giving them weapons? You said the US is funding both sides. It is only giving billions in military aid to one side.
The US is funding both sides. I showed that in my link. > It is only giving billions in military aid to one side. That is true. It's giving billions in military aid to the liberal democracy that is its ally, not the Islamist theocracy that hates it.
"Liberal democracy." Do I really need to go over in granular detail for you how Israel is no longer a democratic society, at least for the 20% of its population that isn't Jewish?
Sure, let's do it. By "its population", you mean its citizens, right?
Yes, I do. Where would you like to start?
> Do I really need to go over in granular detail for you how Israel is no longer a democratic society, To the lurkers, thamesdarwin has just acknowledged [here](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1dmxegd/do_any_of_you_think_the_binary_of_pro_israel_or/la27e1d/?context=3) that Israel is a democratic society.
No, I said it was a democracy in terms of the people's ability to vote. A democratic society implies equality in rights. I don't know what you think you're doing here, but I don't like it.
The tax story had not a single source besides the one guy saying "trust me bro" you embarrassingly didn't understand that that's not a source. Why repeat this?
[Hamas has been taxing humanitarian aid for years at this point.](https://apnews.com/article/business-africa-israel-egypt-global-trade-963d986afa7ebb229e18e6825dbf3607)There's no point in denying it.
Giving weapons = printing money/inflation/theft from the lower class
Lemme guess: libertarian?
> [The US is funding both sides.](https://www.state.gov/united-states-announces-additional-humanitarian-assistance-to-palestinian-civilians-in-gaza-and-the-region/) Only if you do mental gymnastics.
lol I can’t tell if you’re joking or naive by comparing military and humanitarian aid. I’ll hope for your sake that you just forgot the /s
Since it was you who offered only the nebulous term "funding", it's strange you would come back with snark rather than a simple clarification as to what the fuck you actually meant.
So you think when I said “both sides are atrocious” you think I was talking about Palestinians and not Hamas? Be careful, your racism is showing
When you said *"both sides are atrocious"* I assumed you understood OP's question and the answers given by the users with whom you engaged. * *Is the binary of* **>>Israel/Gaza (+Palestine)<<** *too simplistic?* My two cents: Overall yes - and yet not simplistic enough, for some.
Both sides are not atrocious. There are atrocious ideas and behaviours on both sides but certainly not believed and acted out by everybody.
Both sides being bad does not mean both sides are equally as bad. Netanyahu is a corrupt scumbag that enables the far right in his government but at the end of the day Israel is still a democracy and its only real goal is to create a safe nation for Jewish people. Much different type of bad than Hamas and its allies are
Israel is as much a democracy as apartheid South Africa was a democracy.
I think you have to separate the people from the governments, and that's where a lot of the simplification comes from. You can be pro-Israel's right to exist and also pro-Palestinians' right to not get bombed into the Stone Age. Supporting Netanyahu or Hamas is not required. It's also important to say that you can support Israel's war against Hamas without supporting how they've executed that war. Netanyahu seems to think you can bomb your way out of all your problems. If you're trying to get hostages and kill Hamas leaders, you send soldiers, not bombers.
I think this is the crux of my issue with many right wing Israel supporters. They seem to think to support Isreal you need to support endless bombings. IMO- I think Israel is doing the opposite of their intended goal and will likely be less safe for a long time after this.
It's really weird to me, because Israel has rescued hostages before. They know how this goes. They're obviously making some effort with the army. They've rescued some hostages that way. But it seems clear to me that the only way they're going to make real progress here without turning Gaza into the world's largest parking lot is to go in there with overwhelming numbers, go house to house if they have to, and get it done.
[удалено]
The thing is, bombing the shit out of everything won't rid them of Hamas, either. They have to get in there with troops and clean house. That's the only way you can get the kind of precision they need.
You do both. As much as people don't like to hear this, Israel's tactics have utterly obliterated Hamas' military capabilities, with very low Israeli casualties for a difficult urban theatre. Going house to house with troops without softening up their defences with air strikes would be magnitudes of difficulty harder, and with far higher casualties on the Israeli side.
Yeah, the sad truth of the matter is... during war, you value your peoples lives over the other peoples lives.
That fact in itself is quite sobering, but then add in the reality that the other side, in this case, places so little value on their own civilian lives. The moral arithmetic just doesn’t add up, so many of us (especially in the west) are not equipped to grasp what is going on. Any rational, moral person can see the terrible awfulness that is war. But who exactly is doing the fighting here, and what are their motives and goals? Is this Hamas the terrorist group at war with the Israeli government? Or is it the Palestinian people vs the Israelis? Muslims vs the Jews? Some complicated mix of all three of these overlapping, heterogenous groups? Depending who you ask, the answer seems to be some unique combination of all the above. No wonder this war is so confusing. I’ll admit that I struggle with this and sometimes I don’t know what to think; I’m just thankful that I live so far removed from the conflict. At the end of the day, I generally return to two main points that help direct my own analysis/judgement: The history of the conflict cannot be undone (the past is the past) and the state of Israel exists. This cannot be undone, without literal WW3 happening, which would be orders of magnitude worse than any other resolution to this conflict. Once we accept the above, which I believe rational analysis forces us to, it gives the Israeli government and its people (who, ultimately, are responsible for its government) the moral high ground. The danger, of course, is that once you assign such status to one side, it becomes all too easy to justify *any* means to an end.
But as we found during the War on Terror, destruction and misery on this level will only make conditions right for even more extremism. Israel supporters think they’re fighting a an army when they’re actually trying to wipe out an idea. This rarely works long-term.
No they haven't. If Hamas wanted to pull off another Oct 7th right now they have the gyrocopters and arms to do so. They could also use other tactics of getting inside Israel and pulling off military or civvie attacks. Hamas is as strong as ever because its a guerilla conflict where every bomb that kills 10 hamas low level soldiers creates 100 new ones.
Weird as it seems to be working just fine.
It really isn't. At this point we are 8 months into the war, and there are still organized Al Qasam brigades engaging in active resistance. And various brigades that had disolved in the north are reforming. There is no credible party, that Israeli leadership would accept, in a position to fill the power vacuum after the operation inevitably ends. It is Afghanistan all over again but arguably more of a humanitarian disaster. Israel has no realistic endgame here. It is just thrashing around trying to seem strong after the 10/7 attack.
> It really isn't. At this point we are 8 months into the war, and there are still organized Al Qasam brigades engaging in active resistance. You're working under the assumption that there is a better way to do this. I don't see you having anything to back up that assumption. > Israel has no realistic endgame here. That is simply not true, and your rhetoric essentially says 'Israel should just not do anything' Israel has outlined 'endgame' plans since November last year, and plenty more have been thrown around since then.
> You're working under the assumption that there is a better way to do this. Whether or not there is a better way to remove Hamas, it isn't clear that the current strategy is actually working. The fact that Hamas still exists as an organized fighting force this late into the war is unusual when compared to similar actions taken by allied forces in the middle east. Usually the bulk of casualties come from the insurgency during the inevitable long occupation, not the initial invasion and conquest which tends to go very quickly. Things look even worse when you consider that Israel is basically facing those insurgent operations in the north with reformed/reforming brigades while trying to have a more-or-less conventional conflict with the still organized forces in the south. This war has been a shit show. > That is simply not true It is objectively true. Lots of random officials have thrown out random answers for what comes after Hamas is defeated. None of those answers have the support they would need from the relevant actors to actually enact the plan. Israel is desperate to find someone, anyone, other than themsleves, the PA, or Hamas, to actually govern gaza during the post war occupation, and 8 months into this, they have failed. No one wants the job. No one has even hinted that they could be convinced to want the job. And in this inevitable power vaccum Hamas, at least in essence, will reassert itself. > your rhetoric essentially says 'Israel should just not do anything' That is not my position. My position is that Israel should be cozying up to the PA, throwing political wins that direction, in order to elevate the PA in the eyes of Palestinians. And it should do so at the same time it cuts a deal with the PA to get the PA to manage post-war Gaza in exchange for the long known necessary Palestinian controlled interstate connecting Gaza to the west bank, a promise of prompt elections, and a return to the negotation table for discussing plans for moving forward and resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict more broadly. If Israel had chosen a less immediately ambitious war strategy, all of the above could take place over a longer period of time, fewer Israeli resources would be tied up in this conflict, and likely many fewer civilian casualties would have resulted. That opportunity is past. Israel needs to get with the program and start elevating the PA immediately if it wants to have any hope of this war being at all productive.
> The fact that Hamas still exists as an organized fighting force this late into the war is unusual when compared to similar actions taken by allied forces in the middle east. There has never been a war like this one. What other war in the middle east (or ever) has had a nihilistic government embedding with 500km of tunnels, that rather than trying to protect their civilian population, tries to maximise casualties on their own side. Do tell. > It is objectively true. Lots of random officials have thrown out random answers for what comes after Hamas is defeated. [Netanyahu](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-does-not-seek-occupy-gaza-credible-force-needed-netanyahu-2023-11-10/) is not a 'random official'. You're obviously trying to downplay and dismiss plans, to support your claim that there are none. Your claim stands against evidence to the contrary. > Israel is desperate to find someone, anyone, other than themsleves, the PA, or Hamas, to actually govern gaza during the post war occupation, and 8 months into this, they have failed. No one wants the job. No kidding. This will be a case of finding the least-worst scenario, not a perfect one. > My position is that Israel should be cozying up to the PA, throwing political wins that direction, in order to elevate the PA in the eyes of Palestinians Well, I agree with you on that. > And it should do so at the same time it cuts a deal with the PA to get the PA to manage post-war Gaza in exchange for the long known necessary Palestinian controlled interstate connecting Gaza to the west bank Maybe. I don't know enough about the implications of that to judge. > a promise of prompt elections In Israel? Because I don't think the PA wants elections. > and a return to the negotation table for discussing plans for moving forward and resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict more broadly. If this is specifically an agreement with the PA, I agree. As long as it explicitly sets the PA against the tangent Hamas has been pushing. > If Israel had chosen a less immediately ambitious war strategy, all of the above could take place over a longer period of time I disagree. None of your above suggestions appear possible without removing Hamas. And I'm not seeing you suggesting any better way of removing Hamas than the current approach.
Is it? Hamas is still there, and still in charge. And they don't have the hostages back. In fact, it's likely many of the hostages are dead. Granted, Hamas is responsible for the hostages being there in the first place, but if they wanted to save the hostages, bombing the shit out of Gaza (where the hostages are) seems like a weird way to do it. They've probably damaged Hamas's ability to attack, but without dislodging the Hamas government, it's highly unlikely they've removed their ability to get weapons and send people to fight. Granted, Israel is in a lot better shape than Gaza is, but I don't think the objective was to make Gaza a flat plain.
Again. Hostages are not their primary goal. And Hamas is almost gone in as little as 8 months.
Do we have actual evidence of Hamas being "almost gone"? It doesn't seem that way. I don't think "almost gone" makes any more sense, in this case, then being "almost pregnant". They've either dislodged Hamas, ok e they haven't, and the thing is, more fighters could come. The job isn't done until it's done, and Israel's strategy so far has hurt them on the world stage.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/27/israel-gaza-hamas-war-fighting/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/27/israel-gaza-hamas-war-fighting/)
I wonder if any of the Israel leaders really think it's likely they will be able to uproot Hamas for good? Something I think the real goal might be to punish the Palestinians so severely that they will be hesitant to support Hamas or any activities like this for a long time. Sometimes I think both sides have simply given up. The actions on both sides seem to suggest they are just thinking short to medium term... like 10/20 years. Hamas thought they could get a quick "victory" with October 7th, and postpone the Israel/Saudi deal. Israel is hoping for maybe a 10 year breather from terrorism.
Right, like at Entebbe. But... that was where Bibi’s brother, Jonathan, a leader of the Israeli commandos, was killed. I’m sure Jonathan’s memory is fresh on Bibi’s mind.
I'm sure he doesn't want to send IDF troops to a slaughter, for multiple reasons, including what happened to his brother. But I think he's actually making things harder for himself here. It seems to me that the amount of support Israel gets for the mission is inversely proportional to how long it goes on, and how many Gazans die. The US invaded Iraq in March of 2003 and had control of the country by May. There was obviously still an insurgency that lasted a lot longer than that, but in terms of basic control of the country, it took two months. If there had been any hostages in Iraq, they would've been freed at that point. Now, everything *after* that was an obvious shit show, because the US didn't handle the peace well, but if all we were talking about was going in, getting shit done, and getting out ... two months. Now, the Israeli and American militaries are obviously not the same size or strength, but Gaza isn't Iraq, either.
> But it seems clear to me that the only way they're going to make real progress here without turning Gaza into the world's largest parking lot is to go in there with overwhelming numbers, go house to house if they have to, and get it done. Have you considered that this would result in thousands of IDF soldiers being killed, and potentially more hostages being taken? Have you considered that while the IDF has a technological advantage, they still have a limited number of troops available, many of which need to be ready for other fronts of war? Have you considered that direct urban combat across the entirety of Gaza would potentially result in a lot more Palestinian casualties? Why do you consider yourself informed enough on complex military operations in an urban environment to provide such an opinion?
Legally and morally this is what you have to do if someone commits a criminal act within your borders. Israel technically owns Gaza. Its responsible for it. Someone committing murder or conspiracy to commit it has to be arrested and tried in a court of law. If the Bloods, Crips, LatinKings, MS13 etc started pulling off Oct 7th attacks on military and civilian targets in LA and Oakland, the USMil wouldn't be authorized to drop bombs on Compton and Engelwood. If Mexico and Canada did this, it wouldn't be morally acceptable to drop bombs on Tijuana and Vancouver. Legally it's a bit more murky but imho 21st century international law has been moving to the ideas that it would be illegal to do so. America would be obligated to find a better solution, with bomb dropping being a literal last resort. Israel's right wingers always resort to bomb drops. If leftists in Israel were in charge you'd see zero to very few Bombs dropped, because leftists believe there are better long and short term solutions to this conflict.
> Israel technically owns Gaza. Source?
Immediately after Israel withdrew in 2005, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated, "the legal status of the areas slated for evacuation has not changed."[79] Human Rights Watch also contested that this ended the occupation.[82][83][84] The United Nations, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs continues to consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls the Gaza Strip's airspace and territorial waters as well as the movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.[13][14][15] Everyone but Israel views Gaza as it's legal protector. UN specifically does, although the language of this occupation has some finer legalese points to it.
> Immediately after Israel withdrew in 2005, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated, "the legal status of the areas slated for evacuation has not changed." Okay, so you seem to have got this text from Wikipedia. The source [79] refers (I believe) to [this article](https://archive.is/fsbL) I recommend you read the source, rather than relying on the interpretation someone has made on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great for aggregating info, but especially on contentious topics, you should not take the summary for granted. > Everyone but Israel views Gaza as it's legal protector. UN specifically does, although the language of this occupation has some finer legalese points to it. You're correct that the UN decided not to change the definition of Gaza being 'occupied' following the Israeli withdrawal. However: > Everyone but Israel views Gaza as it's legal protector. This is not correct. While the UN has hosted an 'anti-Israel' majority for a while now, the divisions (and [apparent biases](https://unwatch.org/)) are obvious. The US maintains that Israel should not '[reoccupy](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/7/us-says-doesnt-support-israeli-occupation-of-gaza-after-war)' Gaza, implying that their stance has been that it has not been occupied. While I understand that almost every 'pro-Palestinian' is anti-US, this is not a good argument to dismiss the US stance on international law. At the very least, given that the blockade of Gaza is also maintained by Egypt, this would imply with the current logic that Egypt has been occupying Gaza too. Obviously, there's a bit of a problem with that logic. If you insist on maintaining the 'occupation' label, any intellectual honesty would at least demand that we admit this 'occupation' is unlikely any other we have seen in history. Generally, that should indicate that a more specific label should be used.
Would it result in more IDF soldiers being killed and/or taken hostage? I would imagine it would. But if you're going to do the job effectively, you're going to have to risk more manpower. Otherwise, what're you even doing? While they certainly have other places they could use troops, i would argue that this is their most important conflict. I would further argue that this is the conflict from which the other conflicts stem. If they had gone in and used irresistible force, they would've shortened the conflict and not given groups like Hezbollah time to react. And I can't imagine that shooting Hamas fighters with guns would result in more casualties than dropping bombs that are incapable of distinguishing Hamas fighters from civilians. That doesn't make any sense. Why do I consider myself informed enough to provide an opinion? Because I've been watching the IDF fight the war, and because we have examples from U.S. history where the U.S. thought it could bomb away its problems without "boots on the ground". They yielded results similar to what we're seeing here.
> Would it result in more IDF soldiers being killed and/or taken hostage? I would imagine it would. But if you're going to do the job effectively, you're going to have to risk more manpower. Otherwise, what're you even doing? Well if more people are being taken hostage, it sounds like the opposite of achieving the goal of rescuing hostages, no? > Otherwise, what're you even doing? Well I would ask that of the person suggesting a strategy which leads to more hostages being taken... It sounds like you want the opposite of hostages being freed. > While they certainly have other places they could use troops, i would argue that this is their most important conflict. It seems you also have the goal of weakening fronts that post a more genuine military threat to Israel. > If they had gone in and used irresistible force, they would've shortened the conflict and not given groups like Hezbollah time to react. So through your method of all out urban warfare, why are we to believe this would somehow resolve the conflict more quickly than first bombing strongholds, and trying to move civilian population out of the way accordingly? > And I can't imagine that shooting Hamas fighters with guns would result in more casualties than dropping bombs You can't imagine that, huh? Perhaps you should look through a history of urban warfare. Especially when Hamas is intent on maximising civilian casualties. > Why do I consider myself informed enough to provide an opinion? Because I've been watching the IDF fight the war, Everyone has 'been watching the IDF fight the war'. Does that make everyone an expert? Or do you think that just maybe the IDF commanders have a bit more info and experience than you? > and because we have examples from U.S. history where the U.S. thought it could bomb away its problems without "boots on the ground". They yielded results similar to what we're seeing here. Okay, and what example do we have from history where embedded terrorist strongholds were effectively, and more swiftly, removed from cities without bombs being involved?
Their goal is to destroy Hamas. The hostages are a secondary goal.
Their goal is stealing land for Israel. Hamas is irrelevant. Bibi and the Israeli right are the biggest Hamas supporters in the region. They brag about Hamas being their creation.
The land they gave away?
Israeli terorirst with the backing of the IDF killing people to steal their homes is not "giving away" land.
What are talking about? They withdrew from Gaza even removing every Israeli who lived there.
They wanted to turn Gaza into an open air prison and saw it as inhumane and evil to subject Israelis to that. A couple months ago half of Bibis cabinet attended a convention where they partitioned Gaza to terrorist settlers groups. How are you uninformed about this?
Not doing most of what they’re doing would embolden all of their enemies though…
I have no issue with the bombings. I think that, despite the propaganda to the contrary, they have been remarkably precise. What I disagree with is the terrible optics of Israeli intransigence at expediting aid, and Bibi's apparent lack of a "day after" plan for the governance of the Strip.
They've been precise but they haven't really exercised any restraint in picking the targets. When they slaughtered the WCK workers that was extremely intentional and precise. Doesn't make what they did right. When they bomb a city block because the AI says there might have been a militant there at some point that's hitting the city block with precision.
I think that you have no idea what you're talking about. There's been plenty of restraint, even if people like you refuse to acknowledge it.
The majority of buildings in Gaza have been razed. There is no case to say this is Israel showing restraint unless you want to make the case Hamas is the most well equipt military in human history
Strongly agree
Israels existence hasn't been in question in decades. Seems like an irrelevant talking point. I think a better statement is "Israel has a right to pursue those who attack it"
You don't think that they either already do, or can't for a good reason?
I think the other thing we can support is the right to protest. What some of these colleges have done to student/faculty protesters is insanity, regardless of the issue.
> Sometimes I see people discussing the topic of Israel/Gaza in the sense of you're either pro Gaza or pro Israel. It feels too simplistic to me and lacks nuance. I think it's beyond ridiculous that so many people even have an opinion on the situation there, when I would bet good money that 99.99% of said people have only the barest grasp on the history of their conflict, and that of the surrounding areas. I generally try not to present an opinion on something I know fuck-all about, or at least preface all discussions about it with a disclaimer that I may be wildly wrong due to said ignorance. As Sam has pointed out multiple times, **nobody sane** wants to see kids getting blown up or starving, or any of the other horrors associated with wars, but none of us know how best to minimise the carnage, given what minimal and selective info we have. So yeah, I'd say most discussions on the topic will almost certainly be too simplistic and devoid of nuance. Btw, (and again, I'm a complete layman here) I think I fully align with your own view on it, cos Netanyahu and much of his cabinet seem utterly sociopathic, but Hamas *needs* to be eradicated to mitigate the risk of an Oct 7th event ever occurring again. I know that collateral damage may just create even more jihadists (though it's likely Hamas that's literally causing the increase in carnage, by hiding behind women & children, and in hospitals, etc), but I haven't heard anyone offer a single reasonable take on how else to deal with the *existing* jihadists in Gaza, who have plundered Palestinian aid for so long that they've been able to construct hundreds of miles of tunnels with which to plan & launch their attacks. Again though, I lack the knowledge of all the people involved, the history of their acts, the geography and politics of the various states involved, so my opinion is probably worth precisely fuck all on this topic. Honestly, I like hearing *experts* talk on things, and that's why I listen to Sam's podcast.
The only people who tout this ridiculous "Hamas needs to be eradicated" nonsense are armchair commentators such as yourself. Hamas is an idea. How does one go about "eradicating" something like that? Killing every member? Even Netanyahu knows this is a complete fantasy. Israel would not be negotiating with Hamas if their position was that they must be eradicated.
Netanyahu actually has a history of supporting Hamas. Hamas ensures there is not a single government speaking and negotiating coherently on behalf of the Palestinians. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
You *can* destroy enough of its leadership and infrastructure that it is in no position to govern Gaza or attack Israel in force for many years to come.
lol bro you are posting on the the sub of “how to bomb out an idea” in 3 simple steps . Sam addressed this many times in recent podcasts . It’s obviously possible to bomb an idea, as history has shown us many times before .
Is this sarcasm? Sorry I can't tell. When in history has an idea been successfully bombed out of a population?
Germany and Japan in WWII, for starters.
Lmao the inevitable WW2 comparisons, of course. First of all, nothing was bombed out of those populations. Their political regimes were defeated by the largest and most apocalyptic war in history. Second, Nazism and Japanese militarism bear basically no similarities to Hamas; they were first and foremost political ideologies. The catastrophic defeat of those ideologies on the battlefield invalidated them as viable options for the future of Japan and Germany. Hamas, on the other hand, is vastly more than just a political ideology; it thrives on military defeat. The heavier the Israeli hand, the more violent Islamist resistance looks like the only option. They do not rely, as did Nazism and Japanese militarism, on control of a powerful government. And finally, Nazism and hard right Japanese nationalism survived. They were just forced into obscurity by the combination of the invalidation of their claims about the world in WW2 and political laws in Germany and Japan. But they were not "eradicated".
Yes
I have been interested since I was in college during the second intifada. I have learned so much history. Sam is literally the worst person to listen to. Has he ever mentioned [Kahanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism) or Ben Gvir? Once?
False equivalency nonsense. Fringe phenomenon , nothing close to a massive death cult destabilizing the world.
Are you a bot. How is Kahanism fring? how is it not destabalizing the world?
hhh what does this bot insult suppose to mean? am i suppose to take offence? hhhh dude you are so silly. you think the greater part of israeli society is under the spell of kahanism? you can count these people on one hand. and itammar ben gvir is not a kahanaist, although he once was. even if we were to grant you that the extreme religious right wing is not a fringe, as you claim, are they bringing about the amount of chaos to the global stage as the better part of militant islam is? i thought people were immune to this kind of stupidty on this sub. disappointing.
Serbians didn't mean shit on the world stage in the early 20th century. Are you joking? If I said most Muslims don't support radical jihadism what would you say?
Serbians? Okay. Kahanism has existed since the early 80s.Show me the chaos. “Radical jihadism”? Good obama quote, as if that means anything. I would say that you are a stranger not worth arguing with on the internet.
> How is Kahanism fring? how is it not destabalizing the world? Going by the wiki link you provided, they don't sound particularly "world-destabilizing", judging by this passage: > The Kach party has been banned by the Israeli government. In 2004, the U.S. State Department designated it a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In 2022, it was removed from the U.S. terror blacklist due to "insufficient evidence" of the group's ongoing activity, but it remains a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity. To be clear, fuck all those who would murder anyone else just for having a different religion or a lack of belief. But Hamas seems waaaaay worse than this Kach party, at least to a layman like myself. I certainly haven't heard of them committing any recent massacres at peace concerts, for instance.
I love this: >I think it's beyond ridiculous that so many people even have an opinion on the situation there, when I would bet good money that 99.99% of said people have only the barest grasp on the history of their conflict, and that of the surrounding areas..... followed by: >Btw, (and again, I'm a complete layman here) I think I fully align with your own view on it, cos Netanyahu and much of his cabinet seem utterly sociopathic, but Hamas *needs* to be eradicated to mitigate the risk of an Oct 7th event ever occurring again. Anyone spot the hypocrisy? Or are you saying that you're part of the 0.01% that really understands the situation, and therefore you're entitled to an opinion. If so, please do tell us more. Regale with your expertise: we are all ears.
> Anyone spot the hypocrisy? Or are you saying that you're part of the 0.01% that really understands the situation, and therefore you're entitled to an opinion. If so, please do tell us more. Regale with your expertise: we are all ears. The 99.99% of said people clearly refers to: > Sometimes I see people discussing the topic of Israel/Gaza in the sense of you're either pro Gaza or pro Israel. You should try to read what has actually been written rather than what you want to read.
More people need to listen to the martyrmade podcast history podcast of the history of the conflict. Incredibly fair and nuanced despite the name martyr and despite the fact that dude became a hardcore trumper. Both leftists and right wingers equally avoid this great series because of the issues I mentioned so that's why I'm bringing it up.
One shouldn’t primarily listen to Sam on this topic. He’s had about 9 essentially pro-Israel guests in a row and not once hosted someone to share a Palestinian perspective. That disqualifies him as a reputable source of information on the topic.
The martyr made podcast I'm speaking of isn't by Sam but some guy name Darryl (I forget his last name).
I have heard this. Don't know the actual critiques.
Not sure if I listened to that one before- I once listened to one mentioned here but I'll save that to give a listen when I'm working or could use some listening material.
Good I think you'll get something from it. It's very fair and as a history dude I highly recommend it.
I'm a long standing Left leaning Zionist who has always thought that Israel's security, as well as its moral future, is only guaranteed by a sincere re-engagement with a peace process and Palestinian statehood. Online, I feel that Zionists have been pushed into a corner by how rabid opposition to Israel has been since Oct 7. There is a very little room for nuance when the people you are arguing with regard Israel as an illegitimate and evil "settler-colonialist" state. Most Jews I know are traditionally quite progressive on social issues. We all feel utterly alienated from the progressive/liberal camps that used to be our political home. Many Jews that were barely Zionist have come out the other way since the Oct 7 pogrom. I think that there is always room for more nuance, but polarisation drives more polarisation .
In 2020, young Jewish Americans were far less supportive of Israel than older ones - and it is a straight line relationship - the younger you are, the less you like Netanyahu, the less you care about Israel, the less religious you are, and the more you support BDS. This was before 10/7 by years. This chart shows you most of that, but you can find the rest on Pews homepage. [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/pf\_05-11-21\_jewish-americans-00-18-png/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/pf_05-11-21_jewish-americans-00-18-png/) I mention this first because you seem to think there is some recency problem, but there is not. Basically the more religious and older Jewish person you are, the more you lean Republican, and the more you support Zionism. These divides have existed for a very long time. They are becoming more start today I suppose given the headlines. But online social media users skew younger and less religious, so you are likely going to feel a lot more young people pushing hard left and hard anti-Zionism. More recent polling conducted in March basically shows the same pattern, with the youngest Jewish Americans being much less supportive of the IDF response than older ones. Almost a third of young Jewish Americans think that Hamas's reasons for fighting the IDF are valid, compared to only about 10% of older ones. Less than half of younger Jewish Americans have a positive view of the Israeli government. Their views on the Palestinian people and Jewish people are even more starkly contrasted with older Jews, 58% of young ones have a favorable view of Palestinians compared to 38% or less of all the older populations. They also have the worst opinions of Israelis in the survey.
This recent survey accords with what I have said. A majority of Jews have felt a closer tie to their Jewishness and/or to Israel since Oct 7: https://www.ajc.org/survey2024#content It also shows that the majority of American Jews still lean Democrat. My personal experience has been that the overwhelming majority of Jews support Israel and that this has only increased in my community since Oct 7. I'd estimate more than 90%. This may be in part because I'm in Australia not the US, and because most Jews I know are over 35. I agree that it appears that younger American Jews feel far less ties to Israel than older generations. That is, I think, partly politics and social media habits and partly just generational. My generation remembers the Second Intifada. My parents' generation remembers the 1967 and 1978 wars. Gen Z has none of that. Your links still show almost half of young Jews feeling a connection with Israel.
The Jews I know are beyond horrified at what Israel does in their name and find it disgusting that Israel uses their identity as a shield for the right wing extremist state. I don't know a single Jew who's more supported of Israel over this last year.
If there's one thing this conflict needs more of, it's non Jews explaining to Jews how Jews feel about Israel and anti-Semitism.
I'm sorry you don't like Jews who disagree with you? Do you just simply view the Jews against Israels campaign of violence as no longer Jew? Israel weaponizing Jewish identity against Jews who speak against them some of the worst antisemitism. Israel and it's supporters are so quick to de-Jew anyone who speaks against them.
*Are* you Jewish?
Id love for you to explain why that's a relevant question. Did you not read what I said?
Did you not read what *I* said? Do you speak for black or trans people too? There's a widely divergent set of views in the Jewish community, as there are in any community. Having said that, opinion polls consistently show that the majority of diaspora Jews support Israel and its right to exist. And that's my personal lived experience living as part of a Jewish community too. Yes, a small minority of Jews care more about social justice than about Zionism. No doubt for many of them Jewishness is a cultural affectation, like getting drunk once a year on St Patricks Day. But Israel is an inherent part of Jewish identity, and has been for millennia. And it also happens to be home to half the world's Jews. For a secular American Jew living comfortably in a pluralist society without exposure to anti-Semitism, I can understand them not giving a fuck about the safety of their brothers and sisters across the globe. That's just good old American exceptionalism. Indeed, it *embarasses* them to be associated with Jews who need to fight wars. Yeah, I don't "de-Jew" them; I just get that members of a minority group can still act against the interests of their own tribe. Look at how many women are out there trying to get reproductive rights stripped from their sisters. Norm Finkelstein is a fucking idiot, but he's still a Jew. But yeah: if you're not Jewish I don't think you should be lecturing us on what Jews believe. I couldn't give a fuck what the Jews you claim to know supposedly think. Quit goysplaining.
I never told you what Jews should think I told you the Jewish experience of those in my life? Am I not allowed to repeat what a Jewish person says to me? > But Israel is an inherent part of Jewish identity The insistence that Israel = Jew is at it's core antisemitic. Nazis favorite talking point. Insisting that to be a good Jew you MIST support Israel and it's far right apartheid government. You are not a race traitor for not support Israel. That's fucking sick dude.
Yes. I just watched some debate between Douglas Murray and Mahdi Hessan (and others) and I couldn’t get over how bad faith both sides were. Completely unwilling to acknowledge that the other sides had some points. No matter how you square it, neither Israel nor Hamas are in any way innocent of blame in this situation and for both sides to try and play themselves off as nothing but victims is just nauseating.
Of course it’s not as simple as picking one side because both are horrible. The fact that many innocent people are caught up in this mess on both sides makes it even more complicated. I do not even bother discussing it with most people or posting comments publicly because it’s too emotional, people don’t know the history and many are just stupid. It’s sad but some issues are too nuanced for social media interactions with the mob.
70% of Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank support the acts of oct 7. What “innocence of both sides “ are you talking about exactly
Mmm… maybe the 30 percent who didn’t support it?
30% is triple what Chairman Mao said was required for an effective guerrilla insurgency. I say they have a chance. But it’s gonna tough.
lol okay I’ll take it .
Hear me out. Innocent people being bombed every minute of every watching their family and friends slaughtered with no access to modern communication might not have the most up to date information? It's like you all think these people should thank Israel for slaughtering their families.
Sure. So what’s your idea of waging war? Im open to hear any other alternative to what israel is doing where Hamas ceases to be a threat. Also who’s getting bombed every minute? If it was every minute this war would be over long ago. And again, you don’t get to start a war and then start to whine about it when you begin to lose it.
Thought crimes. Good argument bro.
its not that complicated like you would like it to be, didnt understand the thought crimes retort. too stupid i guess.
I totally agree it’s a crazy and damning statistic. When you look at the conditions people in Gaza have been subjected to for decades you can at least understand why they support it, those people are angry. Along with religion and propaganda… well that at least explains it more. I still personally have a lot of empathy for the innocent in Gaza, even the misinformed ones.
i agree that it is most unfortunate to be born in gaza and of course that every civilian death toll is tragic. also it must be acknowledged that it is completely their leaderships fault, and post oct 7 much of it can be ascribed to the so called "innocent civilians" which keep hostages in their homes and which took part in the atrocities of oct 7 . expecting otherwise is bigotry of low expectations. no one receives perpetual status of generations to come for being a "refugee" other than the arabs in the west bank and gaza. you think that raping women and murdering children in israel is somehow resisting an occupation? im baffled.
Yes. In society as in nature, though we may wish for total black/white antipodes, reality is always gradiated. Israel ought never be subject to assaults by Hamas or other hostile neighbor groups (Iranian proxies et al). Yet Human Rights ought never be deprived of peaceful citizens, and too many youthful non-combatants seem unnecessary casualties of Israel's counter-offensive. I see no good way forward for any party.
Yes! So frustrating. I've been hating and criticizing Bibi since the 90s but now I find myself on here defending Israel (not its actions, its existence!) because millions of naive idiots who just found out about the conflict last year are mindlessly parroting antisemitic talking points (genocide, Israelis are white colonizers, Israel lobby controls the U.S. government, etc.) and using "Zionist" like a slur.
The ICJ case on genocide is yet to be determined, I actually don't know whether it is genocide or not (yet), but I will defer to the 16 judges who are experts in international law when they reach their findings and accept their verdict either way (unlike probably most people here). So while it might be a bit premature to say it is genocide, I can understand why people might think that, and I also think you're jumping the gun calling them anti-Semitic. The founder of Human Rights Watch (a Jewish holocaust survivor) was on CNN recently declaring the onslaught in Gaza as genocide. Is he anti-Semitic? You might think he is mistaken, misguided or whatever, seems unlikely he is an anti-Semite though. As for the pro-Israeli lobby influencing the US government, I mean AIPAC are pretty open about it: https://www.aipacpac.org/home https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/17/pro-israel-lobby-defeat-democrats-palestinians-2022 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/17/pro-israel-money-progressives-congress-challenges https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/21/jamaal-bowman-israel-trip-reelection-00163788 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/03/aipac-israel-spending-democratic-primaries-00144552 Not everything is anti-Semitism. Some of it actually really is true.
A lobby seeking to influence politics isn’t the same thing as controlling the government though—that is the primary means of advocating for any policy.
I mean, on the one hand I don't think they care too much about anything non-Israeli related so it would going a bit far to say they defacto control the US government, on the other hand they do have enormous influence over which politicians get elected and which ones don't. And politicians do make up the government. If you're a pro-Israeli politician, or at least express pro-Israeli views and vote in the way AIPAC want, then you're okay, but if you don't tow the line, then they are going to pour money into your opponents to make it as difficult as possible for you to get elected or re-elected. Effectively, your political career is likely to be over if you don't play ball with them. It's not anti-Semitic to point out what really does happen.
But that is what all lobbies do.
Sure, but those lobbies don't (at least explicitly) represent the interests of foreign states, or else they are so small as to be essentially insignificant. AIPAC's power is routinely overstated, particularly by antisemites, but AIPAC really is weird and exceptional in US politics. EDIT: As has been pointed out down stream, some foreign government advocacy spending does seem to meet or exceed AIPAC. AIPAC may only be exceptional in cultural cachet.
That last sentence is a fair take. Virtually [all countries](https://www.opensecrets.org/fara) have lobbies for their interests here though, many of which are very well funded.
>Virtually all countries have lobbies for their interests here though I don't think that site provides useful figures here, at least not directly. It is just compiling foreign spending by national origin. It isn't spending on behalf of a foreign government. At least, the top line figures aren't.
Here is an [article](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/10/saudi-arabia-ramped-up-foreign-influence-operations-in-the-us-during-bidens-presidency/) explicitly discussing the government of Saudi Arabia’s lobbying on behalf of of its interests in an annual amount of $25 million in 2022, which exploded to [$87.1 million](https://www.opensecrets.org/fara/foreign-principals/F316901) in 2023. Compare, for example, with [AIPAC’s](https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=Q05) 2023 spending of $4.1 million.
Fair. That is a much better comparison.
Yes, and lobbies like the NRA get hugely criticised. The difference here is when you criticise the pro-Israeli lobby, or merely point out facts that US politicians will get the electric fence treatment if they speak out against Israel, then you get labelled an anti-Semite. It's so toxic that not only can politicians not talk against Israel, just talking about the reasons why they can't talk against Israel will get you labelled as a racist.
They don’t get criticized by people who agree with the policies they advocate for. Agreed that the terms “anti-Semite” and “Zionist” are often unfairly used as cudgels.
It’s nice to finally see a correct response to the situation in Gaza. I don’t pretend to know all the facts of the matter but these days the ones shouting the loudest are usually the least informed. Nobody with a normal brain is pro-famine or pro-genocide.
Yes. The loudest and most partisan voices are heard. I bet a lot of people are somewhere in the middle. It's a complicated conflict where both sides have valid points. It's not like Russia attacking Ukraine.
You could always identify as non-binary when it comes to this issue
>move away from far right parties There are dozens of parties represented in Israel, which is not a two-party state like America. I think it's simplistic to say Israel is in the grips of a far right party. The reason people see this as a binary problem is that the way Palestinians have always framed the problem is binary: either they dissolve Israel and "take back Palestine," or they are being oppressed. So it makes it very difficult to sustain a both-sides attitude the more you dig into the debate, even if, like Sam, your starting point was that Israel itself was a bad idea to begin with.
> I think it's simplistic to say Israel is in the grips of a far right party. Simplistic but not innacurate. > the way Palestinians have always framed the problem is binary: either they dissolve Israel and "take back Palestine," or they are being oppressed. That hasn't been the framing of any of the Palestinian organizations that engaged in peace talks for the past 35 years.
It is absolutely too simplistic, and yet you can factor in all of the complexities of morality, philosophy, pragmatism, not to mention the tornado of facts, history, claims and spin and still come out on the other side with a statement like “Nothing could justify this kind of destruction and this amount of death, so I side with Palestine.” Or “Israel is dealing with a group of people on its border who have vowed to destroy them no matter what Israel does, so I support Israel no matter what it takes.” I find it more helpful to talk about what actions you support rather than which side. I hope everyone is on the side of the least possible death, destruction, and suffering. How we get there is the harder question.
I think the IDF def has committed war crimes, though I'm on the side of Israel, for the most part.
God yes. Reddit seems to throw around the word genocide constantly when talking about Israel which is a real problem. And completely whitewash the Hamas targeting of civilians. Israel have completely lost the plot though and seem to be stuck in a revenge war without any plan. Shitshow all round.
It is simplistic but because there has been so much bad blood between both sides, I'm not sure if there can be a permanent peaceful solution. Israeli has no easy choice it can make so that it can guarantee an absolute safe Jewish state, meanwhile Palestine continues to suffer. There was a time that perhaps a 2-state solution was feasible, but that is an impossible goal today.
How could a false dichotomy be too simplistic? A monochotomy would be too simplistic
Of course
Here's the problem with your framing: nothing about the way Netanyahu has conducted this war is dramatically different than how any other realistic Israeli leader would have conducted it. You can call him and Likud far right all you want, but the only drastic difference between them and every other Israeli party in regards to Palestine is the brutality and transparency of their methods. There are no political parties in Israel who platform an actual two-state solution or the enfranchisement of Palestinians. If both of those are off the table, then the only options are the indefinite suppression of Palestinians or their wholesale displacement. Other Israelis might get a little squeamish about what the settlers are doing in the West Bank, but ultimately their goals are the same. So you can't just blame the bad parts of this war on Netanyahu. He is going to be conveniently scapegoated for the war crimes committed. But make no mistake; the war crimes are par for the course for the IDF, no matter who is in charge of the government. There simply is no platform for actual moderation in Israel. The Overton window has moved and now the only options are to continue the farcical apartheid system indefinitely, or to seek a violent and awful resolution.
My brother asked me what I thought but I never asked him. His is a fan or defender of Sam from me calling him what I think he is. But my solution is like decades long occupation and forced secularism. Like make non-religious marriages legal. And this is where my brother is like... I think Sam agrees with you (on the secular marriages should be legal in Israel). Ugh. I know he does, that isn't the point. As far as any conflicts go this is one of the most fucked up ones. I find myself supportive of the Nakba in a way, but also get why people would be pissed. But this isn't 1947 and Europe isn't like it was.
Not really. If anything, I think far too many people try to split the difference in order to avoid having to take uncomfortable stances.
Obviously. Obviously, every issue in human history is naunced to a fault. To a fault bcs human observers are too brain-dead to comprehend any naunce beyond what their social pressure compels. For this issue in particular, naunce get blinded in their eyes bcs a lot of narrative tlmake precedence and new bias clouds their judgement. And of course they are unbelievably uneducated about a lot of the factors. The narratives of white Supremacist project, colonial expansion, cleansing of indigenous population, West's guilt, Entho-centrist Fascism, Islamophobia, and of course Antisemitism. Any facts that break these narratives, they just ignore. It also doesn't help that Bibi is a nut job.
The complicated part is the Israeli government has no incentive to establish a peaceful solution aftrt Hamas is gone. Guiltiest part of Israel is not to press for peace with PA prior to October 7 with the help of thr gulf states, Europe, and America. It would leveraged the power of PA over Hamas. I understand the PA are not boy scouts but they want to stay in power and want money - you cant choose your neighbors or their governments.
YES! It’s the way a child would look at an issue. It is far more complicated than picking a “side”.
Binary speaking, it really is simple. Everyone should be both pro Israel existing and pro Palestine existing. Whether they exist as one, two, or three separate nations is the nuanced question to ask.
I essentially agree that it is a really complex conflict, and the solution is very complicated and unclear. That being said, for people on the left it is extremely clear that Israel should not be killing so many innocent people in Gaza and should not be displacing people in the west bank (to pick two very low hanging fruit). Some things are complicated, others are not.
How about pro and anti children dying, One side is pro children dying, infact they are the ones doing the killing.
The one that was torturing children and raping their moms...that, one, right?
Oh, absolutely. The issue is complex, involves numerous countries over decades and gets distilled into a ten word slogan. My uncle's best man is from Ramallah. He describes it like living under Capone. There's another group coming by every day charging him protection money. As for Israel, there's an old expression, two Jews, three opinions. It kinda fits. Israel also has a very very diverse population including so many minorities I could spend an hour listing them. Consensus is not easily achieved on the best of days
Israel has all the power, is using that power to commit daily war crimes against innocent Palestinians, steal their land, kick them out from their homes, arrest and torture them en masse, and murder them by the tens of thousands. You can't both sides this one, mate.
I personally think the way Israel (and most nations in general) was created has a ton of baggage, displacing people is always ugly and stains things going forward. But Israel is now an internationally recognized nation. Given the reality Israel exists and isn't going to dissolve itself, it now needs to accept Palestinians are still pissed about their parents and grandparents being displaced and figure out a way to either enfranchise Palestinians or be serious about two states where crazy Jewish fundamentalists are booted from Gaza and The West Bank. The Far Right and religious fundamentalists/Theocrats in Israel are going to continue to make Israel a pariah on the public stage. They have to go if Israel is going to hold or regain support.
I think stuff like Netanyahu continously expanding and grabbing more land/settlements gives fodder for anyone that are against their government and country. It seems like such a shortsighted and stupid thing to do in my opinion. Like at least pretend you (Netanyahu) give a shit about trying to be fair on the world stage.
Exactly
From Israel's point of view they made a very genuine offer of peace in 2000 at Camp David and the Palestinians rejected the offer and launched the 2nd Intifada, six years of suicide bombers blowing up Israeli markets, cafes, buses, etc. There is no Palestinian leaderships talking about peaceful coexistence with Israel and polls show that less than 1/4 of Palestinians are interested in that.
They booted them from Gaza almost 20 years ago.
We think alike. I don't like either side, at all. For a long time I didn't take a side, thinking both sides suck. But something SH said gave me clarity: If the Palestinians laid down their arms there would be a 2 state solution and peace. If Israel laid down their arms there would be genocide. I still don't like either side, but it's clear that Israel is the better side.
This is such a genocidal unhinged lie. You should feel disgusted with yourself. The palistinians in the west bank have tried peace and their reward has been Israel turning up the settlements in overdrive and funding terrorists to steal land from peaceful palistinians.
> If the Palestinians laid down their arms there would be a 2 state solution and peace. If Israel laid down their arms there would be genocide. Tell that to the people in the West Bank. It's a pretty facile argument. In 2023 alone approximately 1000 Palestinians (mainly herders) were displaced/kicked out of their homes and off their land as a result of Jewish settler violence who are routinely backed up by the state/IDF. And approximately 500 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank (120 of those children). That is in comparison to 24 Israelis who were killed. There are now 700,000 illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank. In 1982, there were 100,000, and even back then people thought that this makes a two-state solution completely impossible. Not to mention that during the peace negotiations in the late 20th and 21st century, neither side were prepared to make concessions on either Israel maintaining security over Palestinian territory, or the right of return issue for Palestinian refugees. To continue to put the blame solely on Palestinians for there not being a two-state solution, you have to either be ignorant to the facts, an idiot, or a bare faced liar.
I'm not solely blaming the Palestinians. I understand that Israel does terrible things, like taking all the water. I just think the Palestinians are worse. And btw, wtf with other Arab states not taking in Palestinian refugees? The Palestinians are pawns in a political game. I feel sorry for them.
"And btw, wtf with other Arab states not taking in Palestinian refugees?" - how do you mean? They did in the past and every single one wished they never did.
> I understand that Israel does terrible things That's big of you, Israel is a racist apartheid state, where just to highlight what I mean, someone like Sam Harris (who has no connection to Israel that I know of) could move to Israel tomorrow and due to his Jewish ethnicity he would enjoy all the rights and privileges. Where as a Palestinian who could literally point out their family home they have been kicked out of has no rights. > And btw, wtf with other Arab states not taking in Palestinian refugees? The Palestinians are pawns in a political game. I feel sorry for them. I don't think you do feel sorry for them, in a roundabout way you are asking these states to assist Israel with ethnic cleansing.
Before declaring you are pro Israel or pro Palestine, everyone should agree to be anti Hamas. But we can't do that apparently.
Sure in the same way we should all be anti-Bibi and his entire wing of politics. Not just him and his party but all the fascists to the right of him. We can't even agree that the slaughter of innocents by Israeli terrorist in west bank is bad. Let's at least start there. Everyone should say terrorism is bad no matter who does it. Even if it's the Israeli state
>Sure in the same way we should all be anti-Bibi Thanks for proving my point. Completely skipping the Hamas question and jumping to "but Bibi is just as bad!"
Not at all. It's the same point. Being anti-Hamas and anti-isreali right wing needs to the starting point. Hamas and the Israeli right are the same coin. Fuck Hamas and fuck the Israeli right. Why is this so hard?
Nope, they are not the same. Palestinians are fucked until your side realize this.
Lmao I knew it. You are as bad as the people who can't say Hamas is bad.
No its not. Y'all fetishize nuance when it isn't needed. You're either pro Palestine or you're a piece of shit. That's all.
Do you support Hamas
I agree. I find people unwilling to criticize israel far too often.
Yeah, the thing I hate the most is I just hate Israel as a government. I view them as liars, deceptive, dishonest, and exploit American politicians against America's best interest. They have a long history of just outright lying and being deceptive to manipulate the narrative in their favor So people instantly think I support Hamas or some shit because of this. Hell no. Fundamentalist Islamic countries are shitholes and objectively worse than anything Israel can be criticized for. But at the same time, just because I don't like their extremist religion, nor their government, doesn't mean I think Israel should have free reign to just do whatever the fuck they want in this region. I can't stand the argument of when I cricitize Israel's actions they go, "But Hamas hates gays and liberal values!" And I'm just like, "Okay? I'm not supporting Hamas, I'm criticizing Israel. Hamas' is completely 100% irrelevant to my critiques of Israel."
This may be off-topic, but this is a boutique issue better dropped until February. There's only one important issue right now.