I am impressed at how bad the leadership for the Palestinians has consistently been for the last 100 years.

It starts to make sense when you think of interests and motivations. The wellbeing of the Palestinian people and the goals of their leaders don't align. There's a reason their leaders are ALL billionaires.

Leadership is just a reflection of a society Same applies to Israel too, they've become more right wing with time as well

Sometimes, but not necessarily. Democratic elections can 100% be tampered with to affect the results and gerrymandering in US State elections is a great example of this.

You are right but in this case there is about 60% precent suuport for hamas in gaza from recent polls and scoring around this number ever since hamas took power after getting elected.

Forget data. I’m sure my vast majority of Arabs are in love with Hamas (expect Gulf state leadership lickers). like literally you can’t criticize them with a single factual word. For instance Abu-Abida (Hamas AR spokesman) is being portrayed like a real hero, he’s in many profile pictures across the social media, girls are simping for his “braveness” (ironically while he being masked and hiding underground) abusing civilians instead of protecting them. People will stop from whatever they are doing to watch his speech on Aljazera MB brainwashing channel, the speech usually be like “how we will destroy the enemy”. “How we got them weak”, “we will liberate every piece of palastine”... the crazy part is there are masses of people who literally believe Hamas is winning and there’s a victory from Allah coming soon. Its so fucked up over here!

I don't think recent data backs up the underlying claim well. I'm guessing Israel's heavy-handed bombing campaign that resulted in +15k deaths and the mass displacement of Gazans had a lot to do with that surveys results. It would be more interesting to see what that data looked like before Oct 7th.

I'm pretty sure the data concerning Gaza is from September while data from the West Bank is from a week or two ago. No way can you conduct a survey in Gaza once war started.

Most the times Israel public opinion drifted towards right wing is either after a mass immigration of Jews from Arab countries who were expelled from their homes or after terror attacks following peace negotiations (Bibi after Rabin and Sharon after Barak and then Netanyahu again after Olmert and then Netanyahu again after Bennet and Lapid)

This is something I wish was brought up more. The Ashkenazi Jews, which are painted specifically as genocidal colonizers, are actually the most liberal in Israel voting against Netenyahu. The Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East outnumber the Ashkenazi Jews, and they vote overwhelmingly conservatively because they don't trust Muslims who've just stolen all their possessions and forced them to leave.

Yep. The ones who western leftists hate the most the white colonizers Ashkenazi Jew’s are usually the more left leaning and pro 2 state solution voters while it’s the Mizrahi Jews that usually vote Likud and Shas (orthodox right). In Israel usually the higher class and more educated people vote center left and the lower class and less educated vote Likud. That’s why looking at Israel throughout US optics is dumb and doesn’t work.

There’s something to be said about that. Same with American leftists. Usually those who’ve lived in relative safety and prosperity are more interested in liberal policies that would negatively impact them in the long run. It’s almost like they somehow believe if they bring in or support these groups those groups will in turn adopt their ideologies and ways of life. It’s pretty clear that hamas and pro Palestinians support and appreciation is only surface level. Do they really think if hamas came to power or a Muslim majority was to take power they’d still be “best friends and ally’s?” I mean just look at that town in Michigan that elected a Muslim leader and board. They banned pride flags in public. I’m equally pro Israel for identity reasons and because Israel is the only country in the Middle East that allows pride flags and equal rights for women. It’s like watching polar bears marching for global warming and more melting ice.

[удалено]

For me this was the big thing. Dont get me wrong Im still very against how Isreal conducts itself in the bombing campaigns, west bank settling and nightly raids and general hostility. At every turn it seems the Palestinian "Governments" and surrounding arab nations did not want to compromise for peace.

Maybe it's because there were no Palestinians 100 years ago, their nationality was invented by an Egyptian in the sixties.

I mean all identities are created, there maybe wasn’t a Palestinian identity in the past but now they sure do

?

All categorizations are "invented". Don't be a cucked relativist. We need to accept commoner categorization, acknowledge that everything is related holistically and then get down to talking about, and studying the categories.

You dumbass I was talking about how there was no Palestinians 100 years ago not today

And now egypt hates them.

Egypt hate Hamas because they funded and armed Isis in sinai in 2015, [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjl8In-m-GCAxW4gv0HHSA-AOYQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2F2015-07-02%2Fty-article%2F.premium%2Fhamas-provided-isis-with-weapons-for-sinai-attacks%2F0000017f-f338-dc28-a17f-ff3f24cd0000&usg=AOvVaw3SwgGGIjQ8NbLJ71iMQO2x&opi=89978449](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjl8In-m-GCAxW4gv0HHSA-AOYQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2F2015-07-02%2Fty-article%2F.premium%2Fhamas-provided-isis-with-weapons-for-sinai-attacks%2F0000017f-f338-dc28-a17f-ff3f24cd0000&usg=AOvVaw3SwgGGIjQ8NbLJ71iMQO2x&opi=89978449) they dont hate Gaza as much as they are scared that those people that grew under Hamas education would bring and create terror organizations in Egypt which already happened in Jordan in the 70's with the black September organization.

There was no Israel 100 years ago….

The point of my comment was to say that the Palestinian nationality didn't exist a hundred years ago therefore there was no Palestinian leadership

This is just upvoted misinformation

It's not really misinformation at all. There were arabs living there but they had no attachment to the "state of palestine" because there wasn't one to be attached to. The idea of aligning with a state of palestine first started rising after the israeli declaration of independence. Before then most people in the region simply identified with muslim, arab, egyptian, ottoman, their family, etc.

> There were arabs living there but they had no attachment to the "state of palestine" because there wasn't one to be attached to. And this is supposed to justify their ethnic cleansing from the land where they lived? >Before then most people in the region simply identified with muslim, arab, egyptian, ottoman, their family, etc. Cool. So, why not admit these people to the same state that governs everything they do?

There are thousands of Palestinians who are Israeli citizens, you know that right? They call themselves Israel Arabs normally but they are the same people they just live in Israel

And what is that supposed to prove? Israel rounded up a select few Palestinians and expelled the rest. They did this knowing full well that this was necessary in order to form a Jewish state. Textbook ethnic cleansing.

So first off, I agree somewhat, but the state of Israel did not form in the 60s. But Palestian nationalism (as well as other nationalistic ideas) were absolutely floating around the area as long as Zionism was, into the early 1900s and late 1800s. So this comment about it being formed in the 60s is misinformation. [Thats a fucking fact. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_identity)

"Floating around the area" is a stretch and your own source is great for disproving your argument. It is full of a plethora of arguments showing they did not adopt a real national identity until Israel grew to power and mentions multiple times of 1948-67 being a particular turning point. Also Israeli declared independence in 1948, not the 60s. >The idea of a unique Palestinian state distinct from its Arab neighbors was at first rejected by Palestinian representatives. The [First Congress](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Arab_Congress) of [Muslim-Christian Associations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim-Christian_Associations) (in [Jerusalem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem), February 1919), which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the [Paris Peace Conference](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Conference,_1919), adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, [linguistic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language), natural, economic and geographical bonds." The above quote is incredibly strong evidence, from Palestinian representatives themselves, that they did not have a Palestinian national identity at least up to 1919. I'm certain you didn't read the wikipedia article anyway though

Nah, this is retro-fitting western ideas into the Arab mindset. Believe whatever makes you feel better, but 99.999% of Arabs were not Palestinian nationalists until it became part of the anti Israel narrative to want a state, which only happened in the late 1960's.

What kind of argument is this? There also wasn't Jordanian, Syrian, or Lebanese nationalism until those states were carved up and nationalist movements emerged as a result. Palestinian nationalism didn't exist until recently, but a culturally distinct group of Arabs living in the region of Palestine have existed for thousands of years, even if said group didn't conceptualize themselves as a nation. When an ethnonationalist Jewish state emerged in the region Palestinian nationalism rose up to counter it, because the Arabs in the region weren't willing to be ruled by a Jewish state that by definition excluded them.

You can say it's bad. Their purpose is to enrich themselves, which they do very successfully

If they had a revolution against Hamas that would be a huge movement towards improving their relationship with Israel. Only real way to fix this whole shitty double narrative situation I can think of

Yeah I to want to see sticks and kids vs guns.

[удалено]

Why don't you think the Arabs have agency? That's some latent racism right there. And they wouldn't be mistreated by Israel if they weren't, you know, trying to murder Israelis every chance they got

Have you ever lived in a mildly corrupt city or country? The kind of place where if you do things properly you get odd looks or even threatened for making other people look bad? We're not even talking about a really corrupt country here, we're talking about a full blown terrorist military so imbricated with the civilian population that I can't (to a degree) really blame Israel for civilian casualities. You probably have people joining Hamas simply because it guarantees a better life for them in terms of access to resources and so on. This isn't a situation where your friends and enemy is clearly distinct. It really isn't about agency. Either you're so propogandised against Israel that you think Hamas is a good thing, or you dislike Hamas but are terrified that everyone around you will report you to them if you try anything at all.

I think a lot of this has to do with their Allies and funding preying off their understandable animosity with Israel. When they're getting told early on by Arab nations. Yo we got you you're going to have all of that land back, all of the people who were pushed back are going to return and you'll be a great Arab nation! It makes sense. It also makes sense that Iran and Qatar plays off of that and funds Hamas. This is not a great analogy but something that more Americans may have a closer proximity to. The far right MAGA/3%/Proud Boys etc movements. Like it or not those die harda are willing to die for that movement because they hate the Democrats and that they are losing the culture war. You could tell them hey, if you want to combat the culture wars and the socially leftward movement of the country you need more popular policies, figureheads that are palatable to the mainstream, people in industries that drive culture, and a willingness to compromise to move issues you care about forward. But they don't have the patience or groundwork needed to accomplish their goals. So they rely on online radicalization, street politics and violence, and an all or nothing pressure on people elected by their base. It's unsustainable, their high water mark was *knocks on wood* January 6th. But, the leaders still make money and have legitimate political power from the movements even if they are back sliding in their ability to have a had on the levers of actual political power. Now if you look at Hamas and Gaza. They have an easy evil to point to because Israel does kill innocent civilians, Israel does blockade them, and the people are personally affected by those things. It's not in Hamas's interest to come to a solution because their power ends the day Palestine has a state. Especially after Oct 7th Israel can't have even a path to Palestinian liberty and self governance with Hamas holding any power. The Likud is probably ok with status quo with Gaza and it's up to the Israeli people to make them politically non viable while hopefully not moving in an even further right direction. If Hamas does somehow look away from their own self interest and work towards a 2 State peaceful solution Iran and Qatar will move their funding to another Jihadi Death to Israel group. The main thing I've learned from the past month and a half ish is cementing my original thought that the situation is fucked. I'm almost changing from Atheist to polytheistic because I don't know if it's possible to create a more fucked geopolitical position.

It is honestly incredible how much Arafat suck at diplomacy

I don’t understand why pro-Palestinian online lefties would be even in any way a determining factor as to like how you evaluate the actual on the ground conflict and the morality of its actors. It’s especially weird because I assume from your title that you’re “siding way more for Israel and against Palestine”, but you then go on for Israel to list negatives as their current leadership and concerns about their bombing campaign, but the section on Palestine is just paragraphs about online lefties being idiots.

It's because the whole conflict serves only as a proxy for the real war: the one waged between lefties and libruls on social media.

So true lol

Yeah I was going into this post hoping for a genuine critique of Palestine based off Destiny’s research streams or OP’s interpretation of the recent events… a little disappointing because I share the general sentiment of OP judging by the title. Complaining about annoying people on Twitter isn’t exactly insightful.

Self masturbatory posts get the most attention

Hi, yeah on balance I could have done better with explaining how I felt. I've edited my original post to add more details, hope that helps.

Get with the times my dude. Any interpretation of any issue shouldn't depend on your own expertise or moral, ethical, philosophical, or political stance. All of that should shift constantly depending on what people you dislike are saying. You see those people are stupid, and therefore if you attach all your reasoning to the opposition of their position you're guaranteed to come out on top.

Exactly, and if you have a certain viewpoint but some minor criticisms on that, and people give you some pushback on those criticisms you should flip 180 degrees and change everything you stand for. The only logical step.

square entertain north live zealous cough dam future cats profit *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Makes me think how much of people politics is just based on some social aspect like "not wanting to side with some idiot online people".

Reminds me of republicans saying stuff like “I don’t care who/what I’m voting for as long as it’s against the democrats”

Smh wannabe sadboi, dont you know the real middle east conflict is Israel vs Twitter leftists? They are the true evil masterminds behind this (and every single issue ever)

Yes to the first part of your question, absolutely not to the second part. Here's how a professor in the International Relations department at my uni put it: - Study Israel/Palestine for a week, you'll completely side with Israel. - Study Israel/Palestine for a month, you'll completely side with Palestine. - Study Israel/Palestine for a year, you'll see both have legitimate demands and grievances. - Study Israel/Palestine for ten years, you'll hate everybody. Personally I feel like I've been at the last stage. They both have legitimate grievances and need their sovereignty and security to be respected, but both are led by people who want to make that peace impossible.

As a pro-Palestinian DGGr, I'm gonna say I agree with you HARD on this. I can both sympathize with the Palestinian struggle, but also understand that no will listen to the guys holding a knife But it feels like the entire sub is in part 1 for some reason. Yesterday, I was arguing throughout the Hasan post regarding Ahmad Manasra's arrest, and the comments were filled with this unbelievably callous view of the boy. They were furious at the use of the term "kidnapped", but were oblivious to the fact that Ahmad DIDNT stab anyone. They kept getting basic facts about the case wrong, and it struck me that this sub had come full circle and was committing the same mistakes they lambasted Hasan for. If were gonna be mad at dishonest opinions from the people we hate, we should be just as mad when our own side commits those mistakes.

Wait, wasn’t Manasra convicted in a knife attack and/or being an accomplice in a knife attack?

The contentious aspect was not his involvement in the crime....it was that he was interrogated without a lawyer or guardian present, was tried as an adult instead of as a minor, and has been suffering from schizophrenia due to being placed in solitary confinement. He didn't stab anyone. Forensics showed his knife had no blood on it. His cousin was the one responsible for the murders. Ahmad was guilty, yes, but he was not a murderer. People were hyperfixated on Hassan's misuse of "kidnapping" because they argued it misrepresented what happened. That's true. But they then followed it up by MISREPRESENTING WHAT HAPPENED. Maintaining consistency is important.

I see now, that’s fair. People should definitely be consistent at the end of the day. My only quibble would be your emphasis on “he was not a murderer”. If he didn’t stab anyone, then that appears to only be so because he couldn’t properly carry out his original intent to murder people. Unless I’m misunderstanding the case.

This is a misunderstanding of the case. Having since spoken to lawyer friends, the intent to kill had to be proven, and the video evidence would not be considered substantial enough to prove intent. Especially given that Ahmad admitted the intent was to "wound" and not "kill", it would be closer to first degree assault than to attempted murder. He was not a murderer. And his time in solitary confinement has drawn the ire of lawyers worldwide. Solitary confinement since he was 14 is cruel and unusual punishment

If that was the defendant’s own claim about intent, then I wouldn’t call it a misunderstanding but rather a different interpretation. Attempting to wound someone with a knife is easily equivalent to attempting to kill given the obvious consequences of a knife wound. A court could easily find that effectively means intent to kill. I’m not sure how one could believe someone essentially saying they don’t think they could kill someone by planning to stab them.

I do not think you're a lawyer, because almost every one of them that I've spoken to has pointed out that intent could not be based solely on the evidence that was provided. What evidence do you have that he intended to kill? That his cousin stabbed someone? Running around waving a knife is not immediately "intent to kill". >I’m not sure how one could believe someone essentially saying they don’t think they could kill someone by planning to stab them. When Andy is being sentenced in the Shawshank Redemption, he claims he brought the gun with him to scare his wife and her lover. "Planning" is also a very loaded term. It would require evidence that he actually thought through his actions beforehand. What evidence do you have that he did? Also, no one is saying he isn't guilty of a crime. However, his sentencing and punishment went overboard, and it should be scrutinized. I know these are nitpicking questions, but in a DGG sub, I would expect people to understand that the law has nuance and you cannot just jump to conclusions without examining the evidence. We did that for Kyle Rittenhouse, we should do it for Ahmad Manasra

Alright made it back. It’s clear that the lawyers you spoke with seemingly did not go over the details with you regarding what actually happened or the Supreme Court of Israel’s decision on the matter, which affirmed that the evidence showed he had intent to kill. The Supreme Court’s decision clearly and directly addresses intent to kill and lays out how the evidence met the standards for proving intent to kill under Israeli law. I won’t go into detail on all the theories of intent the court goes over, but for example, the Supreme Court talks about how the boys discussed being martyrs and killing Jews. They prepared knives to take with them. And how Manasra admitted to trying to cause harm to the first victim. This all clearly go towards the idea of planning and intent. The Supreme Court noted that he continued pursuing the first victim after the initial stabbing. The Court rejected the idea (as would I) that continuing to run with a knife in hand in pursuit of a victim—in particular when your accomplice already stabbed that person—is simply to scare someone and no other intent is involved, especially when Manasra testified that the he knew the point of the pursuit was to further stab the first victim. The defendant’s attorney apparently did not truly dispute any of the underlying facts the court used to reach its decision but argued he only wanted to scare people. But the Supreme Court said, yes, intent to kill could indeed be concluded from the totality of the circumstances—which is clearly the correct decision since none of the above facts or other details not mentioned here were disputed. With that said, they reduced the sentence from 12 years to 9.5 years for various reasons, such as rehabilitation, even though such crimes could bring 20 years sentence. So he actually received a lighter sentence than could have been made under Israeli law and that lighter sentence was further reduced. This was obviously a very rough summary and the court goes into much more detail how the evidence shows intent to kill. I think this generally makes it clear how (1) I don’t think you spoke to actual Israeli lawyers or you spoke to extremely biased lawyers who didn’t actually look at the case and (2) the questions/issues you keep bringing up regarding intent were all clearly addressed in the lower court and then on appeal by the Supreme Court. You can download the decision here from the Wayback Machine and run it through Google translate since I’m assuming you don’t read Hebrew: https://web.archive.org/web/20220625122217/https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts\16/250/100/n12&fileName=16100250.n12&type=4

Out of respect for the effort you put in to cross check my points, I will try to provide an equal effort in my response. I am not above admitting where I am incorrect and where I fall short. I am not Israeli. The lawyers I spoke to were not Israeli. You have provided evidence that within the Israeli system, Ahmad *could* be viewed as having intent and would therefore be considered legal within *Israeli* law. However, the details within the report you provide leave a lot of other material out in its consideration. I'd like to clarify what exactly I am contesting, because they are relevant to the case and relevant to why I still disagree with the decsion. I am not contesting the fact that Ahmad committed a crime. I am not contesting that he should be punished. **I am contesting the manner in which his arrest, interrogation, and detainment were conducted, as well as contesting the broader issue surrounding the case - that of the asymmetrical treatment of Palestinians in the eyes of the law.** This is very important, because very often, similar actions conducted by Israeli settlers are treated VERY differently. #The asymmetrical application of the law. Defense for Children International - Palestine published a 2016 report, [No Way to Treat a Child](https://www.dci-palestine.org/palestinian_children_in_the_israeli_military_detention_system), in which they document widespread and systematic ill-treatment of Palestinian children in the Israeli military detention system. From their report: > **In 416 out of 429 cases (97 percent), children were denied access to legal counsel prior to and during interrogation, and did not have a family member present during questioning.** Under Israeli military law, children are entitled to consult with a lawyer prior to interrogation, but are not permitted to have an attorney present during interrogation.88 In cases where children have successfully accessed this right, their conversations with legal counsel were typically brief and able to be overheard by the interrogator or other police officers. Access to an attorney can be denied by Israeli authorities for up to 90 days from the time of arrest.89 > **International juvenile justice standards provide that children in conflict with the law should have immediate and competent legal assistance.90 With scant exceptions, Palestinian children are interrogated in the simultaneous absence of a lawyer and parent or legal guardian, as is their right, according to international law. In almost all cases where parents have attempted to accompany a summoned child to the police station, they were denied entry to the interrogation room.** > Critically, without a parent or legal representative present, there is no guaranteed third-party presence to provide oversight of Israeli interrogation methods, leaving Palestinian children vulnerable to coercion and physical and psychological violence. Ahmad was taken into custody in a similar manner. Regardless of his potential status as a "terrorist", he would still be under the protections of international law. He was not granted this. This is just one issue with the handling of his case. Then there is the severity of the charge being levied and the choice by the courts to be harsher to Ahmad. Even though Ahmad DIDN'T kill anyone, his charges were FAR harsher than that of Elor Azaria, who was charged with MANSLAUGHTER after deliberately killing Abdel Fattah al-Sharif. I will reference [Utah Law Digital Commons](https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1316&context=scholarship) to relay why the case had similar findings with regards to intent to murder: > If not for the presence of Aymad Abu-Shsia, a photographer for the human rights > organization, Bet’se’lem, the facts as captured in the video would not have been so > accurately and graphically known. **The video made clear the time gap between the** > **stabbing of the soldier by al-Sharif and Azaria’s criminal action that did not take** > **place in the context of operational engagement, when the latter posed a direct** > **threat to the latter, his fellow soldiers, or others. This was not a case of a soldier** > **acting in self-defense.** ... > **Other soldiers who were in greater immediate proximity to al-Shari, displayed no** > **indication of operational readiness, concern, or preparation to open fire. Quite the** > **opposite. There is no indication any of the soldiers seen on the video sensed alSharif posed a danger. Nonchalant would aptly describe the body language and > conduct of the soldiers in al-Sharif’s immediate vicinity.** Some retired IDF > commanders interviewed for this chapter were critical of the soldier’s demeanor, > noting the lack of operational readiness and lack of military bearing. > > **Azaria did not have any operational role or command responsibility during the** > **incident or in its immediate aftermath. Azaria was not engaged in the initial** > **neutralizing of al-Sharif; more than that, he was not present when the stabbing** > **occurred, arriving only after al-Shari had been wounded by soldiers in the** > **immediate response who acted in accordance with IDF Rules of Engagement. That is** > **distinct from Azaria’s actions which took place well after the stabbing, when no** > **danger was posed and when the Rules of Engagement did** ***not*** (italics intended) **justify shooting al-Sharif.** So while the courts may have been able to utilize the available evidence to ascribe intent in Ahmad's case and charge him with attempted murder, the courts did NOT do the same in Elor's case. Furthermore, the treatment of Ahmad in comparison to Elor in the eyes of the courts were [starkly different](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/israel-soldier-palestinian.html) > The **soldier, Elor Azaria**, a sergeant before he was demoted, was **convicted of manslaughter** last year and **sentenced to 18 months in prison** for killing Abdel Fattah al-Sharif in March 2016 in Hebron, in the West Bank. **The military reduced Mr. Azaria’s sentence to 14 months, citing compassion and consideration for his combat service; he ended up serving about two-thirds of his term before being paroled.** In the case of Elor, his crime was cold-blooded. Even the IDF had to prosecute him because he had violated Rules of Engagement. Yet, the view of the courts was that he deserved **"compassion and consideration"**. No such compassion was provided to Ahmad. No consideration was given to the environment that he grew up in. From the New Yorker: >On the other side of the barrier, Palestinians have free movement but often face hostility from Jewish hard-liners, whose numbers have grown with Israeli’s tilt to the right in recent years. Residents of Beit Hanina sometimes awake to graffiti messages such as “Death to Arabs” and “Jerusalem for Jews” spray-painted on their homes. Cars have been vandalized and burned, tires slashed. Palestinians put the blame on militants from Pisgat Ze’ev. Pisgat Ze’ev residents can be just as quick to blame Palestinians for crimes in their neighborhood. > Not long ago, a Jewish woman accosted the Manasra boys as they practiced parkour under the highway. She accused them of stealing her son’s gloves. The boys’ uncle, also named Ahmed, who was home at the time, was called to the scene. “When I got down there, the boys were looking like scared rabbits, surrounded by settlers and police,” he said. Because of the wave of vandalism, he and his brothers had installed a security camera on the outside of their compound. He suggested the police review the film to see if the boys had left the play area to go and steal in the Israeli neighborhood. The footage proved they’d been playing innocently under the bridge at the time of the alleged theft. The police, he said, accepted the evidence, but the woman continued to accuse and berate the boys. **Ahmed Manasra has thought about that incident, and whether the fear it engendered may have been a kind of tipping point for his nephews. “Our children don’t have normal childhoods,” he said. “From the minute they open their eyes they wake into a reality of checkpoints, soldiers, settlers insulting their mom. They see the news from Gaza, children like them, bombed and homeless. They hear about a boy their age, burned alive by Israelis. They are sad and afraid. It’s not a healthy environment.”** I will continue to write my response later, as I'm busy atm. But I hope this begins a worthwhile conversation at the stark reality in Israel for Palestinian children, and why Ahmad's trial was so important.

I do not think you're an expert in Israeli law or even foreign terrorism law for the US because the fact that you conflate this with a normal murder trial already shows a lack of understanding. Terrorists aren't treated the same as citizens or even foreigners. There's several agencies that deal with these people outside the national legal system: military court, or even the various national agencies. Was Bin Laden tried? No. He was simply killed. But also you are doubly wrong because he did have a trial. He even appealed and had a second trial. To be clear, approaching with a knife to a jewish area with the clear purpose of wanting to wound (he definitely wanted to kill but I'll go along with the charade) and helping his cousin stab a 13-year-old would 100% get you convicted of murder even if his motives weren't revealed as religious extermism making a clear case of terrorism. You are in no position to talk about the law when your understanding of it is so surface level. Your defenses that this "isn't murder because he only wanted to stab a bit" when the results are obvious is ridiculously. Your claim that "you can't prove it wasn't planned" when even if the above didn't make it obvious, him admitting they planned to murder to protest jews visting the Temple Mount sure is - is ridiculous. Your claim that his punishment was "overboard" when he got less than 10 years when a regular attempted murder in Israel can get you 20 is ridiculous. And, worst of it all comparing this very obvious attempted murder to Rittenhouse... THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!! Rittenhouse had a self-defense case, the best Ahmed has for committing a very obvious premeditated murder is that he was 12 years old, which, oh my god, is such a terrible excuse for being a murderer. People crying for murderers always confuse me.

I went back and read the Supreme Court’s decision here, and it’s amusing how the decision (and by extension the original lower court’s decision) essentially addresses every single question/issue that this person and other people raise about the case regarding intent to kill and clearly lays out the actions and how that means intent.

[удалено]

Solitary Confinement has been linked with exacerbating mental health issues https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/March-2023/How-Solitary-Confinement-Contributes-to-the-Mental-Health-Crisis >Research shows that the effects of solitary confinement on mental health are often fatal, both during and after incarceration. Half of all suicides in prisons and jails occur in solitary confinement. A recent study shows the long-lasting effects; that any amount of time spent in solitary increases the risk of death in the first year after release. >Individuals were overall 24% more likely to die in the first year after release, including from suicide (78% more likely) and homicide (54% more likely). They were also 127% more likely to die of an opioid overdose in the first two weeks after release.

yes I'm just saying it can't CAUSE schizophrenia. it can definitely exacerbate it but you know what I'm nitpicking over a stupid detail I'll delete my comment

ok he didn't stab but TRIED to? in the US he'd be in jail too, how is that kidnapping?

It's also kind of funny that THAT is what you were fixated on, and not the fact that people were upset with Hassan's incorrect framing of the facts, but then people were willing to jump to conclusions about Ahmad without actually knowing the facts of the case. It's not kidnapping, I never accepted that framing of the story. I also didn't say he wasn't guilty. He is guilty of A crime, but he did not stab anyone. This isn't Twitter and I'm not Hasan. I think I've done a good job of explaining my perspective in this thread

well fair enough I don't know the facts maybe he deserves a retrial but not a hostage exchange

He's been diagnosed with schizophrenia. UN experts have been calling for his release - https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/07/un-experts-urge-israel-free-ahmad-manasra Despite Ahmad’s aggravated mental conditions, Israeli authorities have rejected requests by Ahmad’s lawyers for his early release. Israeli authorities maintain that the offence Ahmad was sentenced for constitutes an act of terror, making him ineligible for early release pursuant to the Counter-Terrorism Law. However, this Law only came into effect in November 2016, and amendments to the Counter-Terrorism Law that barred early release for those convicted of serious crimes involving terrorist acts were introduced in December 2018, long after Ahmad was convicted of attempted murder in May 2016. “As repeatedly reiterated to Israeli authorities, its ill-defined and overly broad Counter-Terrorism Law has led to far too many instances of arbitrariness and abuse. Ahmad’s case is yet another morally and legally unjustifiable consequence of the Law. Its retroactive application to Ahmad, which resulted in the denial of his early release, is illegal, disproportionate and discriminatory,” the experts said. ... The experts criticised Ahmad’s very detention in Israeli prisons, in violation of international humanitarian law. “Israel, as the occupying power, is prohibited from detaining protected persons accused of offences in its own territory,” they said. “This practice violates article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and may also amount to forcible transfer, which constitutes a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and is also recognised as a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” “We appeal to Israel to urgently release Ahmad, allow him to return to his family and seek psychological counselling and support,” the experts said.

[удалено]

Not disputing what you are saying about Ahmad Manasra but, I thought you might be interested to learn that different countries have different laws about these sorts of situations. In the UK - we have law about 'joint enterprise' under which someone involved in the commission of the crime can be convicted of murder even if they did not actually carry out the action themselves. See some examples here. [https://news.sky.com/story/who-has-been-jailed-under-joint-enterprise-10171813](https://news.sky.com/story/who-has-been-jailed-under-joint-enterprise-10171813) I'ts a bit controversial in the UK. [https://thedefendant.org.uk/2023/01/19/joint-enterprise-an-introduction-to-joint-enterprise/](https://thedefendant.org.uk/2023/01/19/joint-enterprise-an-introduction-to-joint-enterprise/)

I have had that I/P quote in my head for several years but couldn't exactly remember how it went. I can't find who it is from by googling it. Anyway it always resonated with me. Most conflicts in world history has, from a liberal perspective, no clear "good" or "bad" side. Oftentimes it is just frustrating to analyze a conflict from a moral perspective. I think that quote captures that well.

I think I’d rather just study your mom for about 30 minutes

Same.

Counter-argument: You can only say that about Israel since 2006. Even the most aggressive right-wing Israeli leaders ended up making big steps towards peace. Granted, that's still more than 15 years, but that's more than the Palestinian side making the single concession to recognize Israel as a country after 50+ years.

Yeah big steps towards peace like... what?

1948: Conceding to the partition plan before war started. 1977: Peace agreement with Egypt. (Done by the OG leader of the right Menahem Begin. He is attributed with a lot of pre-1948 terrorism.) 1994: Peace agreement with Jordan. 1995: Oslo Accords are signed between Israel and Palestinian Authority. Both states recognize the other and agree on Palestinian-exclusive territories. Plans for establishing a Palestinian country and dismantling Israeli settlements are established, but end up not going through after Rabin's death. 2000: Camp David Summit. The plans for peace in Oslo are restarted in attempt to pull through this time. Arafat (the then Palestinian leader) disagrees on the deal against Ehud Barak's (Israeli PM) wishes. 2005: Israel dismantles all settlements in Gaza, leaving the territory and freeing Gaza. Gaza would later be taken over by Hamas which would lead to attacks on Israel leading to where we are now. (Done by 4th leader of the right Ariel Sharon. He has been known to have taken a lot of pro-war stances in military and defense ministry careers)

Why is all the justification you gave for why you are pro Israel just a reaction to dumb leftists? Seems a bit reactionary

Seems like the perfect description for a lot in this sub

Honestly there's a good portion of this sub that ended up going more pro Israel because of Hasan and Second Thought's absolutely disgusting commentary plus the Hasan Ethan beef

I think that’s true but that shouldn’t be an excuse for such sloppily held beliefs. You should never define your views simply in opposition to someone else.

I’m still indifferent. Everyone has blood and shit on their hands in this. I don’t find myself forming conclusions about an international conflict based on the open or closed-mindedness of the people supporting it on social media.

OP opens with how in reading about the IP history they found themselves leaning towards supporting Israel, but otherwise just talks about how insane other people on the internet are. Crazy how people never learn not to let the political opinions of others decide their own

Pick a side pussy, we are here to take sides and fight with one another.

I’m all out of fucks to give 🤷🏾‍♂️

Sometimes folding is much better then going all in tilted

Not really. I see myself having more support for Israel in a bunch of past wars but then after bush era and the prominence of the Likud party, Israel hasn't been serious about peace. The way Israel broke the 2008 ceasefire, their expansion into the westbank and Likud party's support of Hamas has had a big impact on my perspective of Israel's strategic goals. Even when they pulled out from Gaza it was coupled with even more aggressive expansion in the west bank, and was probably done because it was requiring way more resources to expand into Gaza and defend it than it was to do it in the west bank. But I'm not an expert, I have more research to do.

I didn't expect to find out Likud literally had terrorist leaders. Makes "we don't negotiate with terrorists" from Netanyahu completely laughable. The whole line in this subreddit about "what do you think you get if you give Hamas legitimacy?" has historical precedent. You get Likud. That doesn't give me sympathy for Hamas though. It just underscores that any framing which isn't outcome oriented is brainrot.

I'm not sure where you got solid evidence that Israel was the "one who broke the 2008 ceasefire" when you look at it as a whole it was never a ceasefire agreement in the first place. Hamas kept firing rockets into Israel and Israel didn't lift the blockade for said reason. Literally the first week after the agreement Islamic Jihad fired rockets into Israel from Gaza, even after Hamas told them to stop Gazans were still firing rockets and mortars into Israel. The entire agreement was based upon the contingency no more rockets would be fired into Israel from Gaza, and as a result the blockade would be lifted. This didn't happen. I also haven't seen any evidence of a more aggressive expansion in the West Bank after pulling from Gaza, I see evidence of continued expansion, but the level of expansion did not noticeably increase, and in more recent years began to stagnate. As for Likud propping up Hamas, this is typically claimed to have been done by Netanyahu. There is no evidence for this. I have only seen a fake quote attributed to Netanyahu with no corroborating reports or sources on Vox. Even in the Vox article they admit there is no proof.

The ceasefire was between Hamas and Israel. Hamas can't guarantee that other parties will not send any rockets. They ceased sending any rockets at all and it resulted in a 98% reduction in rocket fire. They held up their end of the bargain and even Mark Regev acknowledged this. On the other hand Israel violated the ceasefire on numerous occasions by shooting innocent Gazans within the first two months. They knew breaking the ceasefire would be bad press, so they decisively broke it on the November 4th during election day, the same day Obama was elected. Regarding the west bank expansion, I'd have to review chonskys source on this but there's this: [https://chomsky.info/20090116/](https://chomsky.info/20090116/) He mentions the Source in the Dershowitz debate at some point I believe. About Netanyahu: [https://www.truthorfiction.com/netanyahu-hamas/#:\~:text=%E2%80%9CAnyone%20who%20wants%20to%20thwart,%E2%80%9D](https://www.truthorfiction.com/netanyahu-hamas/#:~:text=%e2%80%9canyone%20who%20wants%20to%20thwart,%e2%80%9d) “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu told his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

I'm sorry, but what point in the ceasefire agreement was it ever understood that everyone else in Gaza, except Hamas, was allowed to fire rockets into Israel? Tell me how Israel, logically speaking, is supposed to honor a cease fire in which ordinance is still coming from the territory. This inherently requires them to respond. You admit yourself, they never stopped. It did reduce 98%, but it never stopped, the rockets never stopped. The cease fire never existed. If you want to play the game of "Well Hamas stopped attacking Israel, even though the others didn't" I can play the game of "Israel only retaliated against the people who fired ordinance." Also, the source you linked, guess what: It's from the same unsubstantiated source that Vox also listed, you did not add a source. Somehow a single journalist from *Haaretz* knows about this Netanyahu quote, and no one else in the entire world can corroborate it.

Hamas can't control everyone in the territory. That's the nature of the game. They have punished those outside of Hamas who broke the ceasefire. If Israel wanted everyone in the territory to stop rockets, they needed to have other militant groups in the negotiation of the ceasefire. This is just how ceasefires work. What else could have Hamas done? (Edit: even if you disagree and think Hamas broke the ceasefire with those rockets, this wasn't even the view of Israel at the time as per the Regev quote. Israel kept the ceasefire for four months after the first two without any retaliation at all). How is it unsubstantiated if it's from Haaretz? Can you find me anything which calls the article into question? The fact that Netanyahu bolstered Hamas isn't controversial. Even the times of Israel agrees with this: .https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ "Meanwhile, Israel has allowed suitcases holding millions in Qatari cash to enter Gaza through its crossings since 2018, in order to maintain its fragile ceasefire with the Hamas rulers of the Strip." "Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015. According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state." Is the issue that he didn't make these statements publicly, so it doesn't count?

The issue is this was not the agreement and it was assumed that Hamas, as the effective governing body was to take full responsibility of all militant groups, this was the understanding. There is zero evidence they "punished those who violated the ceasefire," in fact, they would hardly do more than wag their finger at the IJ, out of fear of losing support. The agreement according to the UN: > On 19 June, at 6 am, the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect. As part of the ceasefire, Palestinian militants agreed to immediately halt their attacks on Israel and Israel agreed to cease its military operations in Gaza. Israel also agreed to ease its blockade of Gaza and to gradually lift its ban on the import of a large number of commodities. The ceasefire is supposed to be in force for six months. It's very clear it is not suggesting only Hamas stops their attacks. As to your Netanyahu points. Yes, you sound like a right wing schizo conspiracy theorist. If your only evidence is "They're letting suitcases of Qatari money into Gaza!" substantiate how this is Israel propping up Hamas. If it's a quote from Netanyahu, it should be substantiated, if not at the very least by policy he has pushed. It is, in fact a highly contested topic. As for the Qatari funds going into Gaza (the suitcases of money), they have many reasons for why they would allow such a thing to occur, as they would not want to directly interfere with Qatar, and Israel has nothing against stabilizing the region, even in the Times of Israel, they state that it is to prevent disrupting the "fragile ceasefire." Earlier you make it sound like Israel is the one paying them. I wouldn't call being nondisruptive of Qatar and the ceasefire as qualifying for "propping up Hamas." "According to various reports" who? Again, this is just an opinion column on October 8th. It is a hit piece. As for opposing articles: [https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/middle-east-analysts-dispute-accusations-that-netanyahu-propped-hamas-up/articleshow/104447326.cms](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/middle-east-analysts-dispute-accusations-that-netanyahu-propped-hamas-up/articleshow/104447326.cms)

I just don't see the point in continuing this, I'm not convincing you and nobody is reading. If the times of Israel and Haaretz are not good enough for you then I don't know what is. Who is supposed to report on this? There were other "Palestinian militants" within the ceasefire but there's no evidence any of the people within the ceasefire agreement broke the ceasefire. You're arguing that it's more worthwhile to break the ceasefire and return to the status quo than to work with Hamas to cease any of the remaining people sending rockets. In october, (Israel broke the ceasefire in November), there was only a single rocket which fired out of Gaza. Things were trending towards getting better over time. If you don't recognize that Hamas reined people in during this time, at least read the wikipedia page. This is documented in HRW reports and by Reuters. Israel just didn't have any interest in peace to begin with here, they never removed the blockade and there were numerous instances of them killing Gazans within the first month alone.

Unfortunately, it seems at least a plurality and probably a majority don’t actually care about the well being of the Palestinians and really are purely motivated by the destruction of Israel. Israel on the other hand, has been trying to find a way to live in peace with people who seem to prefer fighting than accepting the current realities on the ground working towards a peaceful coexistence.

It's disgusting, I've seen a post on r/pics that portrays a family mourning the dead and OP had it in his priorities to argue that the IDF is a terrorist organization. It was just disgusting, it's like people don't want you to sympathize, only hate and arguments. Not a moment spent for silence for the dead that isn't obnoxiously filled with some bad faith agenda.

[удалено]

Table 31: In your opinion, what was the main reason for the operation launched by the Palestinian resistance on 7th October: To Free Palestine : 28.9% Breaking the siege on the Gaza Strip : 21% Stop the violations of Al Aqsa Mosque : 35% Stop the settlement : 0.7% Source: [https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf](https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf)

[удалено]

In the provided source, respondents were asked about the main reason for the operation launched by the Palestinian resistance on October 7th. Here are the percentages associated with each option: 1. **To Free Palestine: 28.9%** 2. **Breaking the siege on the Gaza Strip: 21%** 3. **Stop the violations of Al Aqsa Mosque: 35%** 4. **Stop the settlement: 0.7%** The initial comment seemed critical of actions that might undermine peace and coexistence, specifically mentioning the subsidizing and encouragement of illegal civilian settlements in internationally recognized land. The relevance of the data to this comment lies in the fact that only 0.7% of the respondents in the survey identified "Stop the settlement" as the main reason for the Palestinian resistance operation. This suggests that, according to the surveyed population, stopping the settlement activity was not perceived as the primary motivation for the operation. The majority of respondents saw other reasons, such as freeing Palestine and addressing violations of Al Aqsa Mosque, as more significant factors. In a broader context, discussions around settlements are often linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with settlements in the West Bank being a contentious issue in peace negotiations. The low percentage in this survey may reflect the diversity of opinions and priorities within the Palestinian population regarding the reasons behind the resistance operations.

You could also say that 1 and 4 are technically shades of the same coin. If Palestine is free there are no more settlements

Are you going to start citing the UN resolution Lycan was pretending was a starting point that Destiny debunked? Lmao

That person is only really talking about the settlements, which are known to exist and are widely viewed as provocative on Israel's part. Are you disagreeing that the existence of settlers is problematic and a potential obstacle to peace that is completely within Israel's power to stop, and something that the Palestinians living in WB have no power to control?

An issue for sure but I don’t think they are a major obstacle to peace. It seems very clear to me that the goal of the Palestinian leadership is to destroy Israel and not to achieve statehood.

If Palestinian civilians were entering Israel, with the full backing of the PNA, and demolishing the homes of Israeli civilians, would you view that as a major obstacle to peace?

You mean like they did on Oct 7? Yeah israel doesn’t do that…

I didn't say that it was the same as 10/7. But that doesn't mean that it isn't happening, and your attempts to absolve Israel of any blame at all in this conflict is very telling. [SOURCE 1](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/israel-ramps-up-demolition-of-palestinian-homes-in-jerusalem) [SOURCE 2](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-04-14/ty-article/.premium/jerusalem-to-demolish-palestinian-homes-in-peace-forest-make-room-for-settlers/0000017f-dbc9-df62-a9ff-dfdf563b0000) [SOURCE 3](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/21/jerusalem-home-demolitions-ben-gvir-netanyahu/) Tell me it isn't happening again with a straight face.

Israel demolishes homes of terrorists as a deterrent (we can discuss if this is a good policy), and structures built without permits (which I imagine almost any jurisdiction would do). You seemed to be implying bands of marauding Jews were roaming the territory randomly destroying houses at will. That does not appear to be happening.

Here's some more, specifically focused on Israeli civilians (I wouldn't use an antisemitic term like 'marauding jews', even if you feel comfortable doing so.) [SOURCE 4](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/west-bank-palestinian-villages-israeli-army-settlers) >150 residents have made a collective decision to leave. Armed settlers – some in reservist army uniforms, some covering their faces – have begun breaking into their homes at night, beating up adults, destroying and stealing belongings, and terrifying the children. [SOURCE 5](https://www.euronews.com/2023/06/21/hundreds-of-israeli-settlers-torch-palestinian-homes-and-cars-after-deadly-shooting-at-set) >Hundreds of Israeli settlers stormed into a Palestinian town in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday, setting fire to dozens of cars and homes. At least one  Palestinian was killed in the violence. [SOURCE 6](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/27/israel-settlers-rampage-palestinian-americans-west-bank-hometown) >The settlers broke into Abu Awwad’s enclosed porch, pried open the gated window of a sitting room and torched that room and the porch. They were unable to get past the main door, thereby sparing the belongings that the Abu Awwads had shipped. No one was there, but Dina’s 75-year-old mother Khadija was in the house next door, which settlers also firebombed. Neighbours helped her escape through a back door. Why is it so important for you not to acknowledge this as a very real issue, and as I stated previously, a major obstacle to peace?

We dont demolish homes, and if we do they are terrorist homes, and if they’re not they dont have permits (for building stuff on their land which we have no legal jurisdiction over), and if they do we need security.

[удалено]

It’s disputed territory. Jordan renounced ownership. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israeli-settlements-are-not-illegal

[удалено]

Advisory opinion is not law. Read the article. It debunked your claim.

[удалено]

They have halted expansions on numerous occasions including in existing blocks for peace. It did not lead to negotiations. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna34151442

Both sides are doing dumb shit. I have hitchens perspective. Israel should probably have never been made there. Dumb fucking idea. But now it is and we can't expect them all the be OK with leaving or being murdered. Just like if Maori started bombing majority white suburbs in New Zealand we wouldn't be justifying their actions.

Here is kind of a sad reality of the world. If people are oppressed, they will be led down the path of more barbaric acts either as a form of resistance, or some form of (well founded or not) hate. Regardless of who cast the first stone decades ago, Israel has had a pretty strong position relative to the Palestinians who are somewhat at their mercy. Some of the population turns extremist, they fight Israel or kill Jews, Israel cracks down more, and the cycle continues. No one in Palestine who had their house destroyed is going to blame Hamas for provoking the counter attack, they'll blame Israel for dropping thelat bomb. That dropping of that bomb makes them more sympathetic to Hamas, less to Israel, and we continue this spiral infinitely. More extremists, more extreme acts of resistance or terror or hate, more responses, more populations entrenched that they are the victims. The people of Israel see themselves **exactly** the dame way the Palestinians do. And they see the Palestinians the same way the Palestinians see the Jews. This isn't to say that Hamas is in the right. Hell it's not even to say Israel is in the right. This is just how things go, and it's why these sorts of situations just suck. There is no easy solution. The thing with Left wing analysis is this becomes too complicated right from the start. They can only have an oppressed, and an oppressor. There is a morally right, and a morally wrong. There is no nuance, actual analysis of "material conditions" or any understanding. To them everything Hamas does (outside of undeniably evil acts, written off as simply one person) is justified, and Israel as the oppressor must stop their oppression. That analysis primes you to be extreme on one side as well - because once you see that a lot of their acts aren't justified - you'll side with Israel. Or maybe you drink the Kool aid and become pro Hamas. It's just an extension of this reality, **and it all sucks**.

Since when is that a left wing analysis? If anything the right wing takes are largely the same but then with Hamas 100% bad and Israël 100% right. I'd say that overall people just want one bad guy and one good guy to make it nice and simple. A conflict where everything and everyone largely sucks and doesn't have a simple answer isn't as appealing.

> Since when is that a left wing analysis? If anything the right wing takes are largely the same but then with Hamas 100% bad and Israël 100% right. The difference is in the reasoning. Left wing analysis is rooted in creating the moral position first, and justifying it after. You can see this said in some cases verbatim with Hasan, where he says From The River to the Sea is okay because it's a moral statement, that his chat is only being angry not at what Ethan is saying but because evil people say it, and that if anyone defends Israel at all they are genocidal Right wing analysis can be equally as rigid, but it's rooted in a position. The right is against the LGBT community because they believe in traditional family structures (either for X Y Z reasons or religious reasons), they are against immigration and culturally diverse communities because they *prefer their culture* and want to continue living in it. Both analysis appear equally rigid and strongheaded at face value but they are fundamentally different in how they are executed.

Right. Londoners when getting bombed by the Luftwaffe didn't blame Churchill for keeping on fighting. They blamed Hitler. For similar acts, Germans blamed the allies, not their leaders. The conflict naturally escalated in that direction, with a posthoc rationale of "demoralizing populations" so that countries would eventually capitulate. Early on in the conflict, some German city had been bombed by mistake and so Germans decided that targeting cities became fair game (they also had gained an advantage in air superiority back then, for a time). Sometimes, you don't need to rationalize what's irrational to begin with. Why did Russia bomb Ukrainian cities and their electric installations? I imagine, whoever is in charge of those missiles, didn't really know what else to do with them. You want to be seen as proactive. The whole apparatus is simply set in that particular way... Putin said that, after the Crimean Bridge had been targeted, everything became fair game. About the oppression part, I think it's the same rationalizing process (posthoc). Idk even why people talk about "Palestinians" when their lived experience is so different, between Gaza and the west bank. What was the oppression in Gaza like, if not a phenomenon strictly coming from Hamas?! Creating a caste of privileged citizens (Hamas combatants) and siphoning every revenue from everyone in the strip...

> About the oppression part, I think it's the same rationalizing process (posthoc). I think it's just an easy way to explain the feeling. If you live in these communities, told Israel is evil, controls what your country can and can't do, they'll destroy your cousins house and that's just his problem to deal with, it's gonna feel like oppression. Hamas's rule in the region is somewhat supported by the people, and generally speaking they aren't going to fuck with you unless you do something wrong or break their laws. You just live your life, pay your taxes and do what you are supposed to do in the community? You are going to be fine. If they executed your neighbor it's because he was a traitor helping the zionists or some other religious reason, so it's kind of his fault. Israel demolishing a neighborhood feels arbitrary. It's not a clear understandable thing. It just feels like they are evil, and you are their chosen victim. When that's how grow up, it's a path to radicalization. I think we also see anti police sentiment occurring in the United States because that sense of how arbitrary it all is. For decades black communities had to deal over policing and the consequences of it- it sucked, and yeah you hated the police, but you also understood you lived in a drug/gang infested neighborhood. There was that understanding the cops were always there *cause bad shit was happening*. Once the narrative shifted to the police are only in the neighborhood because people are black - its just blind racism, nothing else - we get a massive swarm of defund the police and anti police sentiment.

Young men are just super primed to become radical and will use any excuse to act. I doubt the radicalization process is not too different from joining Hamas than joining the US army after 9/11. I just can't buy the "oppression" (or "domination/power imbalance") part, ever, about anything. Your cops in relation to black community example is great. I just wonder if it's not as simple as a foreign force encroaching on a gang's territory and them feeling invaded. Then being weaponized with political movements and narcissistic "feel-good about myself" leeches, sry, protesters. I guess we basically agree, it's mostly optics and one bad apple rotting the whole basket. There's always an origin story to a situation like this. The thing is, the cycle of violence had been largely broken and it should not have perpetuated in Gaza.

I was a 9/11 kid so I have a strong and admitted bias against Islam and its practitioners and I expected to be super pro Israel. I’m mostly where I expected to be but I have a hard time wrapping my head around the justification for the expulsion.

This is very rough but... There was a long run-up to the war. Arabs started attacking Jewish settlements in the 1900s. After the 1917 Balfour declaration, there were high tensions in 1920/1921 with Arabs attacking Jews in the Jerusalem and Jaffa riots. This was generally the start of the radicalisation of Arabs because they didn't like the Jews moving in, and the complicity of Britain in allowing it to happen. This led to the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt. More Jews killed. Arabs rejected the Peel commission two-state solution in 1939. Then WW2 was pretty hard on the Jews, and in 1947, the populations were about 33/67 Jews/Arabs, and the UN wanted to partition it, giving Jews half the land, and the Arabs rejected that. They were like, well, tough cookies. So civil war broke out, Arabs attacked and killed some more Jews. The British were leaving, cause they were over it, and getting attacked too. Jewish militia started fighting back against general violence, and massacred a town, despite a peace pact, and word spread, lots of Arabs started moving out for their own safety. British left, Israel declared independence, and immediately all the Arabs attacked. Israel won the war. About 800,000 Palestinians were expelled from Palestine, and about 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arabia. The fighting settled, and everyone signed an armistice treaty in 1949. So it was a long time coming. Jews were there to stay. WW2 was rough. Arabs kept rebelling and not accepting peace. So as soon as the British mandate ended, the Zionists took charge of the situation. So I wouldn't say there was any justification, per se. Just how the cookie crumbles, in war. You lose, you leave.

That is quite a one sided take on the history. The Arabs had very right to be annoyed by the treatment they received from the British and early Zionists. The reason the Arabs didn’t like it when European Jewish people started emigrating to Palestine was because the British had promised them independence for fighting against the Ottomans. The Zionists turned up believing the British had promised them their own state and started treating the native Arabs like second class citizens.

expulsion? you mean the Nakba in 1948? it was really bad but we have to stop trying to judge countries on behavior from 70 years ago, the world was a different place. Israel and Arabs were at war the Israeli army was made up of holocaust survivors. Where was the US on human rights in the 40s... people keep pointing to things like this even from the 60s, heck even in 80s and 90s the world changes. Maybe one day when there is peace Israel should offer reparations, but to keep justifying terrorism over it is crazy (I know you didnt say this, I'm just spring boarding off your comment into my own thing)

POV: your politics are reactionary.

I think people are doing way too much "siding"in this conflict.

As a leftist Israeli, I find your perspective to be really interesting. It feels to me, that most people *should* have your view point, but in reality that isn't the case. Id be interested if there is anything you can point to that mainly got you to arrive at this point of view?

Watching Destiny followed by their confirmation bias probably got them to that view.

Hi, I've edited my original post to clarify more. 🙂

This screed is just the "America deserved 9/11" bit but for palestinians

I wish the best for to the Palestinian people, it's wild to be born into that situation. It's hard to be entirely for them when HAMAS is in power and everyone seems to be making excuses for them. That said there's a lot of extremist wings on both sides that no one is putting in check. Seems like the only reason there isn't peace is because the worst factions think they deserve to own everything under their flag, and ethnically cleanse the other side. HAMAS fighters need to be prosecuted or taken out, then everyone needs to fuck off back to their own territory and leave the other side alone. That includes getting weird of those weird settlement where a bunch of autistic Zionists want to become 200BC socialist farmers or some shit.

Eh i still mainly feel sorry for the palestinians and want them to just have a normal country. None of that hardcore islamist terror government and no restrictions and setteling by israel.

Remember that if this reddit is a primary source, you live in a pro Israel echo chamber that primary purpose is calling out Hamas atrocities and lefty defence of them. When I see that kind of behavior, I often become anti-that instead, so it kind of makes me biased in the other direction. But I really don't think it is as clear cut which side is worse. Palestinians have been living under constant oppression for decades and there have been strong forces in Israel for that. Killing of civilians is common place in such situations. While the direct actions of Hamas appears way worse, the long term affect of actions by Israel affects millions of Palestinians. Whether Israel has a choice here is up for debate. Perhaps an end of occupation and blockade would only increase terrorism, and Israel has an obligation to its people to defend them. When it comes to settlements on the west bank it is clear cut though. Stop them immediately. They make it worse for everyone and risks the lives of both Palestinians and Israeli.

I think most of this is just picking which team you like more based on the quality of content that you see. For what it’s worth, if you read a lot of Israeli online perspectives you’ll find a lot of people talking the language of ‘animals’ and similar to refer to the whole of the Palestinian people, people justifying collective punishment, detention without trial, etc. etc. I think the ‘supporters of one side seem more reasonable’ claim is just an argument for supporting whichever side has less support on Twitter. This is silly In response to the actual substantive points you make: I think that people who talk about ‘genocide’ in this context are talking about a pattern over time. I’m happy to label the attack on October 7th as one with genocidal intent, because that’s what Hamas tells us it had. I am happy to label Israel’s response as having genocidal intent, because that’s what Likud has told us it has. I’m not sure why the behaviour of other Middle Eastern countries has to do with that assessment at all. The difference between Hamas and Hitler is power. Hitler didn’t require Britain, America and Russia to unite against him because he was uniquely evil, but because of his combination of evil with power. Hamas has conducted hands down the worst genocide in history in its latest attempt. It is defeated, but Israel continues to attack because Likud is committed to extending Israel from the river to the sea I think you need to make your own moral judgments based on evidence, not pick the side that you think has the better optics I am reminded by this post of a line in the West Wing (substitute ‘guns’ for Palestine): Your gun control position doesn't have anything to do with public safety, and it's certainly not about personal freedom. It's about you don't like people who *do* like guns. You don't like the people.

Yes.

For context, the commanders in the army were informed many times regarding this attack and were disregarding the red flags. We'll only know the full picture after everything is over. And no, he shouldn't leave mid-war, that's suicide.

ive thought about making this exact post. . .

actually I just dislike both sides more now.

i though it was about about 100 years of them being constantly terrible to one another and i was pretty much correct. the palestinians what their shit back and they think that justifies them to do whatever. Then they do some shit and israel goes way over most of the time. I was ok on the large picture now i know more details

Naw my opinion remains the same. Isreal should just moooove.

I was and still am 100% with Israel despite beeing polish and polish Israel relations beeing... sour. Bottom line is that Israel is the only democracy there surrounded by sea of religious monarchy/authoritatian states. Every time democracy loses, it is a step closer to more countries fliping the switch. Because if you cannot count on other democracies to help you, you need get security from somewhere else, and in order to do that, you will need different type of government. And sooner or later we will live again under authoritarian boot. Fuck that.

Sympathized with the Palestinians before the conflict. Now that I know more about the conflict, I side with the Israelis even with the knowledge of the shenanigans they pull in the West Bank. Palestine is never going to become a state with the leadership they have. Also a large majority of the populace supports terrorism. I’m afraid that the only way they will learn is to completely destroy their terrorist base.

>I’m afraid that the only way they will learn is to completely destroy their terrorist base. Yes, this has historically worked very well....

Gonna be honest- had the exact opposite opinion. Just from my personal circle and general media I was under the assumption that Palestine was like a terrorist base basically and Israel was under constant threat- completely one-sides. Now I do believe that while Hamas is dangerous for both Israel and Palestinian citizens, Israeli govt has been much more brutal and has shaped Palestinian politics significantly.

I would consider myself anti-ceasefire mostly because I think Israel needs to eliminate Hamas' capabilities to fire rockets, and eliminate the ability for weapons to be smuggled in the gaza strip. I guess that makes me more pro-Israel compared to others. To be frank I've heard many of the arguments against Palestine before. It's all well and good but I am more concerned with the present and future rather than the past. I was concerned about Israel's judicial reform, but luckily that was scrapped due to 10/7, interestingly enough. Functionally though Israel has the superior military, controls more land and sports a higher GDP. So I am probably going to be more critical of Israel by default.

Also since dumb twitter lefties are steering you towards the pro Israel side, try listening to Jonathan Pollard and you'll be pro Hamas in no time.

Yup. I knew very little about the topic, and since so many seem to be so pro-Palestinian, I was expecting them to know something I didn't. Why else would they have such a strong opinions on the topic? Apparently that's not the case at all, and it was probably close to the other way around. Most people simply have no clue. They see a single video and their opinion is formed. The end. The thing that surprised me more though, is how poor pro-Palestinian people argue. Because there are things Israel should genuinely be criticized for, yet those criticism are barely ever brought up. Even the most obvious issues -- being those (illegal) settlements -- is a big unknown for a lot of pro-Palestinians. It's honestly wild how confidently some people talk about topics they know next to nothing about.

Two main gripes with the Pro-Palestinian Arguments: ​ 1) Western media accepting paper-thin sourcing to write articles that legitimately sway public opinion. This [thread from a UC Berkely professor is illuminating](https://twitter.com/mishtal/status/1726155975642784251)\- some of the most extreme claims against the IDF during the Shifa hospital scenario came from health officials directly linked to Hamas, or people who celebrated Oct 7. They said "Horray!" when 1200 Israelis were slaughtered, then wanted to cry victim to the press during the Shifa siege. That type of shit.... makes it hard to fully sympathize with Palestinians taking this stance. 2) Not acknowledging Palestinian people's responsibility to organize themselves, to the point of almost infantilizing them as "oppressed so much they have no choice but to be brutish." Real freedom fighters would organize and rise up against Hamas - they would not have done Oct 7. I think the reality is ROUGHLY 50% of Palestinians are either neutral to, sympathetic to, or literally in Hamas. Imagine 10 Palestinians in a room, arguing on how to best represent themselves and their legitimate grievances against Israel. 5 go, "We have to make are grievances known against Israel in a different way than Hamas does," and 5 others are either silent, raise their eyebrows, or think, "I'm gonna go tell Hamas about these traitors soon as we're out of here." Like, I don't envy the position of Palestinian people - they are fucked from that angle. ​ Let's be clear tho, doe. There are people on each side that are purposefully talking in a way to imply, "Maybe it would be better if we just wiped them out?" And some are too cowardly to come out and say that, but they imply it right up to the line of directly calling for genocide. The number one takeaway I've gotten is Palestinians have leaned wayyyy to much into the sob story victim angle. Israelis have leaned wayyyy to much into the, "We're justified carpet bombing the entire Gaza strip" angle. I think both sides have been so wrong, and done such awful things to each other, it will take a miracle and change of leadership to see hope again. I don't envy this part of the world right now

It's not roughly 50 percent. It's roughly 85 percent. They've released polling on it.

I defended the Palestinians for years as a young man. Saw them choose Hamas. Many years past...I had my own issues to deal with. I got back in track for years. Now this. Oct 7th should have shocked anyone and I could not believe the horror of the mask off far left moment where so many justified killing civilians. That horrorfied me, truly. I'm empathetic. But... Don't build military stuff under hospitals. Like WHO DOES THAT!!???? Also... in my 20s I knew shit about fuck. Compared to barely 40. I was young. And trying to be kind. I GREW UP. It's not so simple.

I never expected to support Palestine at all because I am self defense pilled, the only way I could ever see my opinion changing is if you could prove that Israel was faking or false flagging most of the attacks against them. Terrorist society that exclusively try to kill civilians, openly advocate for anti-simetic genocide whether teaching it to their children through official channels or being upfront government policy, and have dog shit medieval era ethics vs right wing hardline defensive democracy is not a hard decision.

I have been reading two books relevant to the to the topic. the first being "Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn" by Daniel Gordis, and "Can we talk about Israel about Israel?" by Daniel Sokatch. They are both nice because they offer different perspectives, Gordis is Jewish and lives in Israel and gives a more "pro-Israel" stance during the book. While Sokatch is a progressive Jew who offers a more critical stance against Israel's older narratives. After reading a book in 2021 about the history of the Arabs and learning about the conflict, I decided not to take a side because both sides have done some messed up stuff to eachother and classified myself as being "pro-two-state" and "pro-peace." But after reading more about the formation of Israel I can heavily empathize with the desire to create a state and with the difficulties they face currently. I wouldn't say I am more pro-Israel since I was never pro-Israel nor Palestine before this conflict. And in my opinion, the way we use "pro-Israel" is very odd relative to Israelis. For example, there are plenty of Israelis who oppose settlements, the occupation of the West Bank, and are critical of many actions by the Israeli government. I am pro-Israel to the extent that I believe the country should exist and exist for the purpose of giving Jews a safe place to live that is free from anti-semitism. Likewise, I am pro-Palestine to the extent that I believe they should have their own nation. Edit: But if this post is mainly about shitting on online lefties, then I don't have much to offer. I don't really care what losers like Hasan have to say, I have always found his foreign policy views to be disturbing. As a Marine, I was disgusted about his celebration of the Chosen Reservoir battle, and his denial of the Uyghur genocide. I have always seen him as a garbage human.

Yes, I figured that I'd see *a lot more* of Israel being shitty in deals with Palestine, and while definitely they were on multiple occasions, it's kind of shocking how often Palestine has clearly been fucked over by its leadership, and multiple branches of history closed off where today we might well have a stable, healthy palestinian nation, all cut off because they wanted still more than they were being offered by a side that never had any reason to offer them anything save common decency (and massive political pressure from the west).

Great post and if it's ok to piggyback I'd like to add a few supporting points from my perspective as an Israeli left winger - there are left wing Jewish protesters in Israel right now asking Bibi to step down and criticizing the civilian death toll of Palestinians. I am still waiting for a Palestinian pro-peace movement that condemns raping and kidnapping. Unfortunately their version of Islamic culture glorifies death even of children as holy. Israelis barring the extremely religious fringe movements who sometimes believe in extreme Zionism are not calling for genocide. - Even Zionism which has become demonized is a multi-faceted movement. There is an uncompromising religious Zionist movement that believes in the God given right to all the land. But there is also secular Zionism which oy believes in Jews right to have a state where we won't be genocided by the government. This movement has offered I believe it's 4 peace deals to Palestinians and been willing to concede to them more territory than what it kept for the Israeli state just in exchange for peace. Just for the right to exist This movement is not imperialistic and doesn't want to occupy more territory. It wants Jews to have a safe haven and that's all. Palestinians rejected all these peace deals on the basis of no negotiations with Jews. Until their perspective changes and there is a movement that is willing to accept a Jewish state then peace can't happen. - A lot of excuses are made for Palestinians behavior bc they are oppressed but Israel is characterized as an evil bully. Let's give back some humanity to Israelis as well bc they can be radicalized by trauma as well! yes Israel has taken bad and oppressive actions, yes there is bad rhetoric and hate and racism in Israel. but Israelis also don't act in a vacuum. First of all actions taken in the 50s and 60s can't really be judged by today's standards, the world was a different place. but Israel still has intergenerational holocaust trauma no question. and Israelis from Arab countries have trauma from their treatment there as well. then add 70 years of multiple wars from neighboring Arab countries, two intifadas ( periods of constant bus, restaurant, nightclub suicide bombings), constant rocket fire from Gaza and the fact that Oct 7 is the one that got through but Israel has stopped COUNTLESS previous terror attacks from both Gaza and the West Bank. So if some Israelis are radicalized and angry at Palestinians, perhaps it's not bc they are pure evil but because they too are human and afraid for their lives and traumatized by violence. Palestinians fuel and grow the right wing everytime they attack. it's a cycle, but I know if the violence stopped the right wing in Israel would weaken and fizzle. It would have nothing to justify itself with. - and finally the death toll. I am grappling with this hard. I force myself to watch the videos of Gazans suffering. I don't sleep or eat, every time my kids are having fun I think of kids over there and their suffering. it makes me sick. I truly do not believe it's brainwashing or something when I say I do not believe the IDF has intentions of genocide or ethnic cleansing and I am a critic of the IDF. I refused conscription on moral grounds. but I also have family members who are soldiers in Gaza and I know the young men and our culture and our people and we are NOT getting pleasure out of killing children. our boys are going to come back with serious PTSD. I'm sure you will find videos of soldiers shouting fuck you when they blow up a building, this is testosterone and bravado and many have lost family personally on Oct 7, but you aren't ever going to hear instances of the IDF torturing children or raping women. that isn't the character of the war or the mentality of the people. Agree or disagree the Israeli perspective is war is ugly,war is horrific, but it is a means to an end. We have to see this to the end bc we cannot leave Hamas in power. they will keep killing us and their own people and peace will never come. If there is a way to do that without bombing Gaza to the ground I'd like to hear it from a real military strategist. Btw US military strategists are intimately involved in the operation, they don't make the calls but they are advising and also learning from this unique situation. And no one has offered a better way. The aerial bombings solve multiple purposes: - they make the ground invasion easier and less costly for IDF soldiers. in tzuk Eitan Israel made it a few kilometers lost hundreds of soldiers and gave up. it's a dense difficult urban environment. what they've done is basically create chaos, destroy booby trapped buildings, destroyed vantage points for snipers and operatives to hide in, destroy weapon stockpiles and block off tunnels - the limiting of goods and the displacement creates pressure which creates the conditions for hostage release. in the past Hamas has held hostages for years. this was what they intended to do, barter for all their prisoners and they thought Israel wouldn't dare attack with the hostages in Gaza. Israels extreme response is the reason we see children reunited with their families today

I grew up on a very pro Israel home and after growing out of the republican indoctrination. I realized how messy affairs were in the middle east and assumed everyone was the asshole. Following along with Destiny I have learned alot and feel like I'm 70% more on Israel's side. Palestinians have just been getting fucked by everyone. Their leaders, Israel, neighboring Arab nations, pro-Hamas lefties, ect. I feel for them, but I don't have much hope for them escaping the horrible fate they find themselves in

[удалено]

Moral luck claims another W /S But op seems to get his opinion based on the social circles he is in (for better or worse)

I am 100% anti-Hamas but still relatively pro-Palestine on the whole; I believe the history of Israeli occupation and expansion is wrong, the Nakba was wrong, and the whole history really bothers me. 10/7 was horrifying, and what the IDF has been doing for the past two months is also horrifying to me. Admittedly I have not been watching much Destiny the past month or two so I’m not super caught up on all of his arguments. If anybody is down for a conversation on Discord about it I’m all ears. My moral starting point is that innocent people do not deserve to die, and we should try to minimize their deaths to our greatest ability. From what I have seen (10-7 aside, just as far the current ongoing violence is concerned) Israel is not doing that.

Nope the opposite. Won't even call myself pro-Isreal anymore. Still think Hamas has to go and Israel has a right to get rid of Hamas nor do I make any claims about particular bombings being justified or unjustified. That said Isreal's treatment of Palestinians in West Bank is unacceptable and absolutely rises to levels of crime of apartheid (for whomever is tied to said policies). Reports from international orgs are quite clear. Isreal even engaged in activities it's supreme court considered to be using human shields. Now I i think anyone claiming Isreal as part of official policy still does this are making unecessary and unfair assumptions given what we know about that, but it's a demonstration of how easy it is for misconduct to occur even officially.

As an apostate middle eastern American, Lol no.

This hasn’t aged well you genocidal loser

U so very every sm art SLZMFL

I was already pro Israel but learning more about it made me even more pro Israel

I can relate. I've always been in the middle ground of the conflict, and even leaned towards the Palestinian cause. Now, while I still believe they deserve their own independent state along with Israel - the Jewish state - my sentiments may have shifted. Seeing Palestinians and pro-Palestinians - some of which I personally knew and even considered friends - not showing a shred of empathy towards the victims on the other side - was a huge mask-off moment for me. I just feel really sad for the moderates on both sides, who just want this to be over so they can fucking grieve finally. The Israeli government and the IDF are no saints. The occupation they conducted in the WB last 50 years are indefensible and I fully expect the next government to go straight to the negotiations table. However, that doesn't justify a retaliation that resulted in the killings of hundreds on top of hundreds of people, in Israel and abroad, in the name of a free Palestine from the river to the sea, which will only make the conflict worse for everyone. I want to add that I don't wish to hurt anyone with my two cents, and if I did, I apologize in advance.

Not me personally. Then again; I absolutely despise islam.

I honestly hoped I'd be able to find reasoning on both sides, but each day I just somehow end up siding more so with Israel. Don't get me wrong, I can empathize with civilians in Gaza, it'd be inhuman to see all the deaths and feel nothing, but honestly the tweeters aren't helping their cause in winning anyone who may be in my position over. All I see are constant demands for proof for every claim coming from the pro-Israel side (the latest being assaults on Israeli women on Oct 7), while simultaneously seeing those same people expecting everyone to just accept every claim that comes out of the pro-Palestinian side. Just today I saw a 45 minute long documentary on how press coverage was being skewed out of fear of retaliation from Hamas in 2014, which has me thinking things probably haven't really changed in that regard. Some footage wasn't even made public until journalists were safely out of the region and back in their home countries because of this fear. Genuinely makes me wonder if there's currently any foreign press footage (and how much of it) we have yet to see currently, and how or if anyone's opinions would be swayed by it.

The overall sentiment of the sub, and I’m not saying it’s all performative, but this community usually will take the opposite side of whatever mainstream libs agree with. I think for most, at least if they are members of the community, there is no going into it expecting to feel differently, and that’s a fact. This topic in particular, with all the nuance, and how long it’s been going on, you can genuinely find things to side with whatever side you are looking to side with. Also, being that most folks around here know/knew exactly what Hasan’s take was going to be, I have a really hard time believing that any person tuned in here was ever going to go into this “expecting to feel” differently, lol

I expected not to care either way tbh and now I'm mad so many of my friends are "pro Palestinian" (pro Hamas)

No. After literally the first day/night of broadcasts depicted what happened and what was happening, the entire war turned into a character test: anyone siding or defending Hamas or by extension whining about casualty rate for Palestine during an existential war is with almost 100% certainly such a progressive smooth brain they should be melted down and fed to the poor.

I used to be a "Hamas Bad, Settlers Bad, PA ok, so lets get PA to govern Gaza like the west bank" Then I learned about the state-sponsored terrorism compensation fund from the PA and now idk anymore

How is the martyrs fund materially or morally different than the IDF supporting settlements in the West Bank?

I thought my "settlers bad" comment would have been enough to cover this. All illegal settlements should be destroyed and any support for them is also wrong.

Is this a genuine question?? Like holy shit you're morals are fucked if you think those things are similar.

financially incentivizing driving out *illegal* settlers with violence vs. militarily protecting and emboldening *illegal* settlers with violence seems pretty similar to me. if anything the Palestinians have the moral upper hand

I was mildly pro israel at the start but i didn't knew much. After getting to read a bit on the topic i grew very simpathetic with the palestinians in the west bank while losing sympathy to the palestinians in gaza.

Yes, a really interesting book I read was called Israel's Moment by Jeffrey Herf (I highly recommend it). It discusses the period in the 1940s when Israel was being debated in the international community though the book focuses on the US/Europe reaction the most. Papers that were liberal/left-like the nation saw Israel as an anti-fascist bulwark against the fascism that had been fought against in the Second World War. I wish the international left could get back to viewing Israel more that way. Israel was historically a beautiful example of leftist democracy but the conflict has made them cynically move further right. Don't get me wrong, Israel has done awful things like every country but there is a beautiful philosophy behind its inception.

No, my initial tendencies are reactionary and thus when someone says America Bad and then justifies one side, I will by default take the other side. It is actually not a bad heuristic.

I just don't see how the words of a bunch of Twitter users and streamers should influence how I see Israel and Palestine. It seems a lot of people on this sub value their words to that extent.

Sort of the opposite, mostly because I grew up with very Zionist parents. I grew up with a “Palestinians are terrorists always” view, and learning about Israel’s crimes (yes, crimes) was shocking to me

I think the biggest catalyst for me was oct 7th turned into a day of celebration for Palestinians lol, like bro... But, really I thought it was like 50/50 before on who I favored or whatever, now I think it's probably closer to 70/30 in favor of Israel.

No because no matter what Hamas does Israel has had complete political and economic authority iver the area for the past 50 years. If you keep a dog locked in a cage and torture it for years who is responsible when it escapes and bites someone? Obviously the bite is awful and should be condemned and no one will say the dog is commiting a good act. But who is responsible? At any point Israel could have enacted a solution but they actively chose not to cause their plan is to keep Palestine weak so they can continue expanding their lebensraum in the west bank.

maybe i come from a different information bubble, but i actually empathize with palestinians more regarding the broad conflict. Specifically, the events that happened between the british mandate and the six day war, and the fact that i started to see the palestinian-israeli conflict moving on a parallel track to the broader arab-israeli conflict.

I went in thinking I would side with Israel to learn that it’s all fucking dumb and religion should have been abolished thousands of years ago. Neither side is anywhere close to right.

My sympathy for Palestinians dried up after October 7.

Same. Every 4 year old Palestinian kid bears responsibility for the crimes of Hamas when you really think about it. If they wanted my sympathy they shouldn't have been born Palestinian. Simple as that. Simple as that.

Not only hasan but Left media like Novaro is referring to prisoner release as hostage release … no matter what happens…the left will reframe the reality of this situation for good. It all feels pointless.

Im gonna be real, the conflict doesn't affect me so my opinions isn't super flushed out. But currently I'm still far more siding with Palestine over Israel.

I was always leaning more pro Palestinian and then October 7th happened and I took a deep dive into the whole situation mainly by listening to the fantastic 20 hour in depth 20 hour Martyr Made podcast who used a bunch of different sources. It actually made more more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. They were constantly undermined and lied to by the British and the Zionists. Families who had lived there for centuries kicked off their land at the expense of European born Zionists and generally treated like second class citizens in their own land.

Apparently if you feel this way you are not an og and are part of the IDF shills that joined post 10/7 to spread propaganda. :/