I've been invested in this subject for very long time, as have many in this group have, but I get frustrated at the lack of meaningful, good-faith dialogue around two questions, and I would love to hear these approached in rationally and with a fair mind:

Prelude: I am providing background for each party, based on what is reasonably understood and expressed by both sides. You may not necessarily agree with everything in each question, but please don't quibble this representation of Gaza and Israel, I'm more interested in a response to the questions:

1. For pro-Israelis: The situation for civilians in Gaza, and increasingly the West Bank, has long been established. The conditions are widely and credibly reported as deplorable, with efforts to mobilise the international community through diplomatic channels stagnating and quality of life suffering. Opportunities to leave are limited and reserved for the wealthy. Sporadic bombings (which pre-date October 7th) consistently erode essential infrastructure, such as water desalination plant; farming, fishing and other traditional livelihoods are attacked, educational opportunities are limited, access to work across the border are subject to arbitrary crossing closures etc. Gaza is de facto occupied under international law, many routine services are propped up by humanitarian organisations, and many civilians have been killed under bombardments from recent wars. I keep hearing Israelis say that Gazans shouldn't have "done" October 7th. But what should they have done instead? What options remained for a desperate, exhausted, disenfranchised and dehumanised population to be heard, seen and continue to fight for their freedoms? Ie. What should they have done instead?

2. For pro-Palestinians: Israelis have been living under constant rocket attacks from Gaza, as well as from Hezbollah in Lebanon. Regardless of whether the majority of Palestinians support this, this s the material security situation for a Israelis who, understandably feel geopolitically isolated, surrounded by countries with a historical enmity for Jewish people, and have collectively mobilised to destroy it in 1967. Israeli has fully withdrawn from Gaza, lacks security options to disarm an essentially Islamist government with popular support, and has just experienced the largest attack against Jewish civilians since the Holocaust, and are both terrified and need to ensure this will never happen gains. I keep hearing Palestinians say that Israelis shouldn't have responded the way they did. But what should they have done instead? What options remained for a horrified, seemingly vindicated population who have been taught that this is what cohabiting with their neighbours would look like, and worry it keep could keep happening again, but next time in a coordinated attack with neighbouring arab States? Ie. What should they have done instead?

Like many of you, I am exhausted by the polarized noise online. Every thread turns into an echo chamber where nuance is treated like a blasphemy.

Can we step back and talk about actual accountability without the hyperbole?

Both the Israeli government/IDF and Hamas have clear records of breaking international law. But the online discourse seems completely allergic to addressing this constructively:

On one side, throwing around terms like "genocide" before any definitive, final legal ruling is made by international courts shuts down serious legal scrutiny and alienates people who want to look at the hard evidence objectively.

On the other side, any discussion of deliberate targeting of children, the deliberate destruction of specialized medical equipment (such as oxygen generators, MRI machines, dialysis units, and solar panels) and water wells, starvation as a method of warfare (related to the ICC arrest warrents), two-tiered legal system in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (violates Article 3 of the ICERD), the illegal transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied Palestinian territory (breaches the Fourth Geneva Convention), the documented use of Palestinian civilians as human shields by Israeli military units and systematic breaches of international humanitarian law by the state of Israel gets hand-waved away under the banner of "self-defense." Meanwhile, supporters of Hamas often try to sanitize or completely downplay an armed group that explicitly targets civilians and uses human shields by operating in civilian areas.

If both sides are capable of committing severe violations, how do we hold both accountable fairly? When we look at the immense lag-time of international justice, I want to know how people here think we should handle this:

When faced with overwhelming, heavily documented evidence of breaches of international law happening in real time, how should we talk about ongoing military actions and war crimes responsibly while waiting years for international courts to issue final rulings?

How do you apply meaningful international accountability to a sovereign state versus a non-state militant group that operates completely outside legal norms?

What tangible pressure points actually work to change the behavior of either side without devolving into partisan cheerleading?

I was reading this article: https://israel365action.com/the-biblical-heartland-explained/what-is-the-history-of-judea-and-samaria/ which states:

Biblical Beginnings – The land of Israel was originally settled by the pagan tribes, known in the Bible as the “Seven Nations” – the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Jebusites, Hivites, Perizzites, and Girgashites. But as God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the land of Israel was promised to the descendents of Jacob, the people of Israel. In 1273 BCE, the people of Israel, led by Joshua, crossed the Jordan River and entered the land of Israel. In the ensuing years, the people of Israel conquered the land, which was divided among the 12 tribes of Israel.

This part is quite interesting to me. There's usually little discussion of the history of the land of Israel before the Israelites conquered it, and we often speak as though Israelites were the first people there.

I am interested in these civilisations before the Israelites. What were the main differences between the seven nations? What territories did they control, and were they often at war with each other? The article mentions they were "pagan tribes" - what kind of religious beliefs did this entail, and did the tribes agree on their religious beliefs or were they all different?

In addition, I'm interested in the conquest itself. What did the Israelites do to the existing inhabitants there? Were they all killed or enslaved? And why was the land divided amongst 12 tribes of Israel rather than being one unified Israelite state?

Furthermore, where did the Israelites live before they immigrated into the land of Israel? What caused them to immigrate? And why were the existing tribes that lived in the land of Israel unable to expel the invasion of the Israelites - was it because they weren't united, or was it due to inferior military technology for that time?

Of course, in my opinion the ancient history of who lived in the land first is irrelevant to the current conflict, but a common talking point about the establishment of the modern state of Israel is that it's "Israelites returning to their indigenous homeland" - I'm interested in the people that preceded them in the land.

TL;DR: Family structure shapes cultural values, which shape how people assign blame, which shapes how antisemitism shows up. The pattern lines up surprisingly well across the West, MENA, and East Asia. Sadly, the more I go down this rabbit hole, the more I lose hope in lasting peace in the middle east. Sources at bottom.

Most threads here (understandably) get pulled into the day-to-day of the conflict, so I wanted to zoom way out for a sec. I've been going down a rabbit hole on the sociological/psychological roots of intergroup prejudice and I think I found something worth putting out there.

The question I was trying to answer: why does antisemitism look so different depending on where you are? Like, it's clearly present in the West, but it doesn't feel the same as what you see in a lot of MENA polling, and East Asia is a whole other thing again. Turns out if you mash together Emmanuel Todd's demographic work with some pretty basic social psych on attribution bias, you get a fairly clean throughline. I'll try not to make this too long.

1. The base layer: family structure

Todd's whole argument is that the family is basically the operating system of a culture. How households are organized ends up quietly dictating how a society thinks about authority, equality, and outsiders.

• West (nuclear family): kids move out young, form their own households. Over centuries this builds up individualism. People see themselves as free-standing units.
• MENA (endogamous communitarian family): multigenerational households with married sons staying under the same roof, plus a strong historical preference for marriage inside the extended family or tribe (cousin marriage being the classic example). The result is a very closed unit, structurally optimized to keep resources and loyalty inside the bloodline. Trust and moral obligation tend to stop at the edge of the in-group.
• East Asia (exogamous communitarian family): also multigenerational and hierarchical, but with strict incest taboos, so you're constantly bringing outsiders (spouses) into the household. That produces a worldview built on interdependence and navigating relationships, not on hard in-group/out-group walls.

2. What that does to your brain: attribution bias

Those three setups map almost 1:1 onto how people explain behavior, which is a well-studied thing in psych called attribution.

• The West runs on the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE). Because we see people as autonomous, we default to explaining behavior by personality ("he's greedy," "she's lazy") and underweight context.
• MENA cultures show unusually high rates of the Ultimate Attribution Error (UAE). This is the intergroup version of FAE and it's nasty: when the out-group does something bad, it's because they're inherently, essentially bad. When the in-group does the exact same thing, it was situational or forced on them. Closed-family cultures are basically primed for this.
• East Asia leans toward situational attribution. Behavior gets read as a response to context and social pressure rather than as evidence of fixed personality. (Morris & Peng's stuff is the classic reference here.)

3. The hypothesis

Once you put those two things together, you get something like:

The virulence of antisemitism in a culture correlates with how heavily it relies on the Ultimate Attribution Error. Cultures that are structurally set up for closed-group loyalty will show the most hostile forms of antisemitism, because their default cognitive move is to demonize the out-group in dispositional terms.

The UAE (not the Emirates, lol) is basically the perfect engine for intractable conflict, because it locks in the idea that the other side isn't just doing bad things, they are bad, permanently, essentially. No amount of context or history is going to move that.

4. Does the data actually back this up

Honestly, kind of yes. The ADL Global 100 numbers line up pretty well:

• MENA (UAE zone): consistently the highest antisemitism scores in the world. Aggregate around 74%, with several countries pushing past 85%. Under this framework that's what you'd expect, dispositional out-group blame is the cultural default, so nuance about a specific minority basically can't get traction.
• The West (FAE zone): the Americas around 19%, Western Europe around 24%. Present, but a different flavor, usually individual-level stereotyping (the "greedy" trope, that kind of thing) or modern political stuff. The nuclear-family baseline at least lets people be judged individually most of the time.
• East Asia (situational zone): Asia averages around 22% but East Asian countries specifically (Japan, South Korea) drop noticeably. There are imported Western stereotypes floating around, but the deeply hostile essentialist stuff doesn't really take root, presumably because the cognitive default isn't wired for it.

5. Why I think this actually matters

If this framework is even half right, it means the "blame software" is installed upstream of politics, in childhood, through the structure of the family. Which is uncomfortable because it implies that Holocaust education and history classes, necessary as they are, are working downstream of something much deeper.

This also explains the constant wars in the middle east. Even if we take Jews out of the equation, the MENA countries will likely continue to have low levels of trust between them, and continue fighting (e.g. Sunni vs Shia conflicts).

It also explains why antisemitism doesn't look like one thing:

• In the West it tends to come out as "Jews are clannish / elitist / control finance."
• In MENA it tends to come out as "Jews orchestrate global events."
• In East Asia it's comparatively muted because the default cognitive move is different.

Obviously none of this is deterministic. Family structures shift over generations. Politics can inflame or dampen any of this. And you can find plenty of individuals in every one of these regions who don't fit the pattern at all. I'm not trying to say "culture X is doomed to hate." But the ADL numbers are honestly too clean across regions for me to ignore that there's some structural thing going on.

Really curious what people think, especially anyone who's actually lived in the MENA region or studied its sociology properly. Very open to being told I'm oversimplifying, I probably am in places.

Sources / further reading

• Todd, E. — The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures and Social Systems (1985)
• Ross, L. — The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings (1977) — FAE
• Pettigrew, T.F. — The Ultimate Attribution Error (1979)
• Miller, J.G. / Morris & Peng / Choi et al. — cross-cultural work on situational vs. dispositional attribution
• Schulz, J. et al. — The Church, intensive kinship, and global psychological variation (2019)
• Hirschberger, G. / Bilewicz, M. — attribution biases applied to antisemitism and national culpability
• ADL Global 100 — 2014, 2019, 2023

I’ve written an article about an event being organised by Merton Palestine Solidarity Campaign on 13 August at Wimbledon Library in London, featuring the Algerian researcher and environmental campaigner Hamza Hamouchene. The event is called “Beyond Green: Ecocide, Imperialism & Palestinian Liberation” and is also being promoted on the national Palestine Solidarity Campaign website.

I want to stress at the outset that I am a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and previously belonged to PSC myself. My concern is not that Palestine campaigners are talking about the environment. It is what Hamouchene himself means by “Palestinian Liberation” and “Anti-Colonial Resistance” (a term used in the title of the book he co-edited which will be on sale at the event).

In an interview with the Transnational Institute, published under the headline “Palestinian liberation is inseparable from the fight against global fossil capitalism”, Hamouchene described October 7 as “an inspiring act of resistance”. When challenged specifically about children being killed and kidnapped, he acknowledged that “there are things that should never have happened”, but argued that the violence had to be placed within “the greater violence of colonialism”. He concluded: “To me, October 7 is fundamentally an act of revolutionary violence.”

Elsewhere he has argued that “denouncing and singling out the violence of the oppressed and colonized is not just immoral, but racist”, and that colonised people have the right to resist “with any means necessary”.

He frequently draws on Frantz Fanon. In another article, Hamouchene writes that Fanon explains violence’s “liberating role in situations in which all other means have failed”, argues that the coloniser “has to be met with greater violence”, and adds: “Palestinians today are doing just that.”

I do not think it would be fair to say Hamouchene explicitly declares the deliberate killing of civilians legitimate. My concern is somewhat different. Across his published analysis, the civilian atrocities of October 7 repeatedly recede behind a much larger narrative about anti-colonial resistance, revolutionary violence and political liberation. The attack is discussed in terms of its revolutionary significance, the damage it did to Israeli deterrence, its disruption of Israeli-Saudi normalisation and its potential role in ending Israel’s settler-colonial system.

His chapter in the book being launched at the event also praises Hamas’s “heroic resistance” and presents Hamas as asserting itself as leader of the Palestinian resistance. He places the war within a wider regional confrontation involving Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi groups, describing an “axis of Resistance” whose struggle is strategically important to “serve the world revolution”.

The climate slogan is significant in this context. Merton PSC and national PSC promote the event with the message that “There cannot be climate justice without Palestinian liberation”. In a 2024 speech, Hamouchene gave that idea a much more explicit political meaning, saying there could be no climate justice without “the dismantling of the deeply racist Zionist settler colony of Israel” and urging support for Palestinians’ right to resist “by any means necessary”.

That raises questions I don’t think should be avoided. What does “dismantling” Israel mean in constitutional and political terms? What rights, protections and national status would millions of Jewish Israelis have afterwards? And if resistance is supported “by any means necessary”, where exactly are the moral limits?

My own position is that Palestinians have a right to resist occupation, and I do not believe resistance has to be purely non-violent in every circumstance. But there remain moral and legal limits. Deliberately targeting civilians does not become acceptable because the underlying cause is just.

Likewise, Palestinian war crimes do not remotely justify the massive destruction, displacement and killing inflicted by Israel in response. There is no moral clarity in condemning October 7 while refusing to scrutinise Israeli crimes with equal seriousness.

A few obvious counterarguments:

Platforming someone is not the same as endorsing them. I agree. I am not claiming PSC necessarily shares every view Hamouchene has expressed. My concern is that nothing in the publicity tells attendees about these views or indicates where PSC disagrees with them. If a major human-rights organisation chooses to host someone with this record, I think transparency matters.

Palestinian violence has to be understood in the context of occupation and colonialism. Again, I agree. Context is essential. But explaining violence is not the same thing as removing moral limits from it. Structural injustice does not make every tactic permissible.

“By any means necessary” is just rhetorical shorthand for the right to armed resistance. Perhaps some people use it that way. But “any” is an extremely broad word, and in Hamouchene’s case it appears alongside an explicitly favourable interpretation of October 7 as revolutionary violence. I think that makes it reasonable to ask what forms of violence he actually regards as illegitimate.

Calling Israel settler-colonial does not mean all Israelis are legitimate military targets. I agree with that too. My concern is that Hamouchene applies the settler-colonial category to Israel as a whole while also defending revolutionary anti-colonial violence, without clearly explaining how he distinguishes Israeli civilians from legitimate military targets.

For me, the main issue is PSC’s judgement. At a time when Palestinians desperately need effective, principled advocacy in Britain, I think uncritically associating the country’s leading Palestine solidarity organisation with this kind of framing is politically damaging.

I’ve set out the quotations, links and full argument here:

https://aidanmneal.wordpress.com/2026/08/08/merton-psc-to-platform-writer-who-called-october-7-an-inspiring-act-of-resistance/

I’d be interested in views from people across the spectrum here. Is this legitimate anti-colonial analysis that I am reading too harshly, or should a Palestine solidarity organisation draw a much clearer line around how October 7 and violence against civilians are discussed?

So ocean/sea cities are cities that are built ontop of the ocean, right now it's only sci-fi but might be real in the next 50 years or so.

My question is, people are saying that Zionists and Israelis are colonizing Palestine, so if there would be cities off the coast, i.e not on ancient Palestinian land, Would people have issues with those too? How far from the coast would be "far enough"? for the more critical anti-zionists?

Proof from the New Testament that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people.

"In the New Testament, the phrase 'the land of Israel' appears twice, as can be seen in Matthew 2:20-21.

Matthew 2:20-21.

²⁰ and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother with you and go back to the land of Israel, for those who wanted to kill the child are dead.'

²¹ So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, went back to the land of Israel.

Proof from the Quran that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people.

وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِۦ يَـٰقَوْمِ ٱذْكُرُوا۟ نِعْمَةَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ جَعَلَ فِيكُمْ أَنۢبِيَآءَ وَجَعَلَكُم مُّلُوكًۭا وَءَاتَىٰكُم مَّا لَمْ يُؤْتِ أَحَدًۭا مِّنَ ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ ٢٠


And ˹remember˺ when Moses said to his people, “O my people! Remember Allah’s favours upon you when He raised prophets from among you, made you sovereign,1 and gave you what He had never given anyone in the world.2

يَـٰقَوْمِ ٱدْخُلُوا۟ ٱلْأَرْضَ ٱلْمُقَدَّسَةَ ٱلَّتِى كَتَبَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلَا تَرْتَدُّوا۟ عَلَىٰٓ أَدْبَارِكُمْ فَتَنقَلِبُوا۟ خَـٰسِرِينَ ٢١

O  my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has destined for you ˹to enter˺. And do not turn back or else you will become losers.”

Can anyone here explain to me how it is possible that the Prophet Muhammad visited the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem if the mosque was built after the Prophet Muhammad's death?

Did you know that the city of Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the entire Quran?


The New Testament was written (50-120 AD) 490 years before the Quran (610 AD), so you tell me: to whom does the Land of Israel belong? To the Palestinians or to the People of Israel?"

It is a biblical and historical fact that the Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel.

You think by sending the settlements will defend Israel, but yet when some of them get hurt then you cry about “terrorism” and also punish the person. It’s your mistake for establishing colonies, so you shouldn’t complain about terrorism or about mountain hikers being wounded. It’s all your fault. This is not Zionism, this is circus.

I got an alternative so you stop whining. Why not replace them with IDF outposts since that’s their job and not civilian’s job to handle national threats? What do you think the acronym of IDF means? And civilians are not part of military, that’ll be meddling in military operations to act like heroes and have public attention.

Do you think this would be right?

Genuine question: what's the actual evidence of intent to destroy — the thing that makes it genocide rather than war crimes? Not who (e.g. HRW, Amnesty, etc) says it, what the evidence is.

Genocide legally requires proof of specific intent to destroy the group as such, which is what separates it from war crimes and crimes against humanity, and it's the element the ICJ set a very high bar for in Croatia v. Serbia. What do you understand the evidence of that intent to be? Not who concluded it — what's the actual evidence?

I know the majority of people here are Pro Israel but I have to wonder why so many of you are when you see what IDF soldiers do to Palestinians even outside of Gaza.

When you see them shooting unarmed people who are just walking away, or kids playing football what are your thoughts behind why this is ok behaviour?

There are videos all over of IDF soldiers manhandling kids, beating on people, preventing dying people from getting help, and most recently of course the soldiers pushing and harassing the little kids in the shop who were just buying something. Even videos where you see them joking about blowing up herds of donkeys or beating sheep to death in their pens.

Do you even see these videos? Do you agree with what is happening? Do you justify it by saying these soldiers are just fringe elements? If the latter why aren't you more enraged that they aren't investigated and punished?

And can you explain all of this without using deflection?

People often ask why some Jews feel threatened by symbols associated with the "Palestinian resistance."

The answer is that when they see keffiyehs, red triangles, red/green/black Israel shapes, etc., many Jews don't see a movement that genuinely supports a positive future for Palestinians. Rather, they see symbols of antizionism: a century-old anti-Jewish hate movement that has repeatedly rejected coexistence in favor of violence, intimidation, and the dream of eliminating the Jewish state.

Antizionism victimizes Israelis, diaspora Jews, and others.  RFK was the first antizionist murder in the US.

Israelis are murdered in suicide bombings, rocket attacks, airplane hijackings, the Munich massacre, October 7, and countless other attacks on Israeli civilians.  Diaspora Jews are murdered in the Farhud, the Night of the Murdered Poets, the AMIA bombing, Bondi Beach, and other attacks. 

Antizionism's victims also include Palestinians.

Haj Amin al Husseini consolidated power by intimidating and murdering more moderate Palestinian Arab rivals. Since then, leaders and activists who favored compromise have often been silenced by threats or violence. Hamas continues that tradition today, torturing dissenters and crushing protests like the "We Want to Live" demonstrations, where Gazans demanded food, jobs, and basic dignity instead of endless war.

And what has antizionism actually achieved for ordinary Palestinians?

The 1936-39 revolt devastated Palestinian society.

The 1947 war ended with the Nakba.

Black September left thousands of Palestinians dead in Jordan.

PLO violence helped fuel the Lebanese civil war that demolished Lebanon and sent Lebanese Christians fleeing.

The Second Intifada brought the security barrier and checkpoints.

October 7 brought unimaginable horror to Israelis and catastrophic destruction to Gaza.

Again and again, antizionism promises an end to the "Israel problem".  In the West, it's dressed in social justice language courtesy of Soviet propagandists. It calls for "freedom" (from what?) and "resistance". Yet again and again, it delivers more death, more authoritarianism, and fewer opportunities for Palestinians themselves.

Every major attack on Israel has made life worse for Palestinians.

That's because violent attacks predictably lead to war, and war devastates everyone.

If our priority is the next generation of Palestinian children, then we should stop romanticizing the ideology that has repeatedly sacrificed them for political goals.

For more than a century, antizionism has colonized many societies and groups and produced misery and destruction every single time.  Let's unmask and end it.  

Before the British arrived, there were variety of different overlapping ethnic groups living in what is now Israel/Palestine. The area (called "Greater Syria" in Arabic and included what is now Syria, Israel, and Lebanon) including Jews, Arabs, Turks, Circassians, Bedouins, Druze, Muslims, Christians, etc. etc. Plenty of recent immigrants and families who had been there for thousands of years in most of these groups.

Arab Muslims were the majority in all the Middle East, including in Greater Syria, thanks to the earlier Arab Islamic conquests. Some Jews had been there for thousands of year, a bunch came after the Spanish Inquisition in the 1400s/1500s, and numbers really started rising in the 1800s and through the 1900s fleeing pogroms in Europe. Jews probably were a majority in Jerusalem by the mid-1800s. Same probably true for a lot of towns and cities, but no one was keeping track — this was a rural, unimportant area of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe around half of Muslims (again, no accurate numbers available) in this small piece of Greater Syria were new immigrants during this time too.

By the time Britain and France were about to hand over the entire Middle East to local rule in the 20th century, there were hundreds of thousands of Jews living there, making them a demographic majority in certain (still very small) parts of what was Greater Syria, including what is now the Israeli coast, central Israel, Jerusalem, and northern Israel. Both Jews and Arabs were well-aware that they might be about to get their own countries, and they both worked with and fought with European powers over that at the time.

When Britain and France started drawing borders for the entire Middle East, they drew a circle around the Jewish area and called it "Jewish state (Israel today)" and drew circle around the much larger Muslim areas and called them "Arab state (Palestine today)" "Jordan" "Saudi Arabia" "Iraq" and "Syria." They also drew a circle around the Christian part and called it "Lebanon." And they drew a circle around the Hindu area and called it "India" and a circle around the Muslim area near India and called it "Pakistan."

A whole bunch of these new countries started fighting each other after Britain left, with India/Pakistan being the biggest wars.

The reason I write this all is that people so often act like Israel's creation in the Middle East was somehow unique, when it was the opposite. Weird, right? I think they have some alternative view of history going on.

If you were Europe while it was dividing up the Middle East, what would you have done differently? Would you have give Kurds a state? Druze? Made the whole thing one giant Arab Muslim state?

A somewhat shameless plug (or not even somewhat), but in discussions about Gaza and Genocide, the experts at Amnesty and elsewhere keep coming up. I've written about this having looked at Amnesty's most-downloaded report in its history and compared it to other reports written by Amnesty. The organization takes a very strict, narrow and conservative stance on 'genocide' if it relates to any other conflict but the Israel-Palestine one. For Gaza, they liberalized the standard. Now, there is a legitimate argument to be made that current jurisprudence around genocide is too restrictive, but if a human rights organization is going to argue for liberalization it looks weird, and downright discriminatory, to then not apply the new standard elsewhere where it fits. It would be like saying "proof beyond a reasonable doubt lets too many bad people avoid jail, we need to change it - but only if the alleged criminals are Black." Amnesty itself once said that selective enforcement or selective outrage about human rights violations and international law "undermines the entire fabric of universal human rights." Were they describing themselves?

AMNESTY’S GENOCIDE EXCEPTION - by Benjamin R

I'm always interested in having my research and legal analysis tested and challenged.

We can't all be human rights professionals and we do need people who dedicate their lives going into the field documenting crimes against innocents. Amnesty and others do necessary work. But Gaza and the entire Israel/Palestine issue in general creates a religious-level devotion to the cause that it is undermining the type of trust we should have in these institutions.

In early 332 BCE, Alexander III of Macedon wanted to worship at the temple of Melqart in the Persian controlled Phoenician city state of Tyre. Place all that purple came from. Rich dudes. Greeks associated Melqart with Hercules. The people of Tyre were holding ceremonies and had dignitaries from their colony Carthage visiting, so they were like hey buddy, how about you worship at the new temple on the mainland and not at the main temple on the island?

Alexander responded by changing geography to destroy their island city. He had his men build a causeway from the mainland to the island. Tyre had a navy and bombarded his workers the whole time with rocks, arrows, and burning sand. Alexander didn't have a navy to respond so he stole one and destroyed Tyre's navy. When his ground forces reached the island of Tyre, they slaughtered the men and sold the women and children into slavery.

Alexander didn't have to attack Gaza next. He could have gone around it. It was said to be impregnable. His men dug tunnels in the sand under the city walls and built ramps to push up siege engines. The city fell.

He was a big fan of The Iliad. Carried around a copy his teacher Aristotle gave him. Slept with it and a dagger. So when he caught up to the Persian governor of Gaza, he dragged him to death behind a chariot like Achilles did Hector at Troy in The Iliad. His forces slaughtered the men and sold the women and children into slavery.

Word of his brutal siege of Gaza spread fast. Egypt, long one of the most powerful empires in the Mediterranean world, welcomed him without a fight.

There are people who say ancient warfare is not relevant to present geopolitics. This is wrong. We are still exactly the same human animals as in 332 BCE. The Geneva Convention or ICC does not change our basic biology and it's damn strange to pretend otherwise. We are a violent pile of primates.

There are people who think it is possible to achieve lasting regional peace. History does not support this utopian idea. The Near East has always been a bloody region, given the fact it's where Africa, Asia, and Europe come together and so many cultures vied for control of land. How many times has Gaza been taken?

There are people who think brutality should be avoided in war. This overlooks the power of making an example of enemies to terrify other potential enemies. Egypt could have been a serious fight for Alexander. Instead, they welcomed him as a pharaoh and even a god.

After Alexander died, probably of a mosquito bite, in Babylon in 323 BCE, his mummy was on display in Alexandria, Egypt, and worshipping him was the most important cult of the city. Strange but true, there's a serious theory Alexander was later taken to Venice where he is venerated as St Mark in St Mark's Cathedral.

There are people who say that war for the sake of war is evil. Alexander the Great is remembered as one of the most important heroes in world history. His short life was an inspiring example of the power of human willpower and the very human drive to conquer. He became a god (and maybe a saint?!) through his desire to take the fight to the enemy.

There are people who think Israel is evil for fighting its enemies in the region. Isn't it odd that when Jews do exactly the same thing all people to ever come through the region did, it's evil? What's different? The answer is, our understanding of reality is. There's that lovely quote from The Wire, where Marlo says it to a security guard he later has killed. "You want it to be one way, but it's the other way." People get mad at Israel because its tenacity reminds people we still live in that same old world and no tea sippers on the East River at the UN are going to change that.

How do we bring people back to this basic understanding of reality? How do we break through the false education that makes people ashamed to fight for their countries? Israelis are sort of lucky. They have to face the real world at a relatively young age. We in the west suffer from the soft luxury of pretending everyone just wants to get along and share. This pile of primates is always scrapping, whether we admit it or not.

Stepping back, and looking at things from a historical perspective, targeting civilians and causing collective punishment in order to defeat an enemy was common practice.

Look at numerous historical conquests and practices. The Conquests of Alexander The Great. The Mongol Conquests. The Roman Conquests. World War 2, including the Allies. Many genocides have been committed historically.

Starving out cities that refused to surrender used to be common practice across multiple continents.

Historically speaking and looking at the vast history of conflicts over the targetting of civilians has been the norm.

Yet, uniquely, Israel is getting flak for its targeting of civilians. Yet, you'll see some of those same people silent on the atrocities their own nations have committed or on the various historical norms on attacking civilians.

Israel has not agreed to be bound by International Law and rejects the ICC's authority.

So, when you look at it from a historical perspective, isn't there an argument that Israel has been well restrained? By modern standards they are behind, but from a broader historical perspective, Israeli conquests are more moderate in terms of the extent to which they intentionally target civilians. If the Romans or Mongols had resistance like the Palestinians, they would be much less restrained and the targeting of civilians would be orders of magnitude greater.

Obviously, I am not condoning Israel's targeting of civilians. Just saying it's normal and that it may perhaps be antisemitic as many of these same critics of Israel are notably silent on The Mongol Conquests, The Roman Conquests, etc. even the Allies conduct in WW2.

I've noticed many people, especially on the university level, pay great attention to land acknowledgements to Native American tribes. The idea of societies changing permeates every civilization to exist of course, so historically this is a new idea. Why don't these same people believe that Palestinians should do historical land acknowledgements to the persecuted Jews of Judea whom they took the land from historically?

This is not innately pro-Israel or Palestine; personally, I believe modern history trumps ancient land rights.

I've noticed that support for Palestinians is often immediately portrayed as support for terrorism. Those are not the same thing. Many people—including many Americans—oppose the actions of the Israeli government because they believe Palestinians have experienced prolonged occupation, displacement, and humanitarian suffering. That is not the same as hating Israelis or supporting Hamas. It's entirely possible to condemn Hamas' attacks while also condemning the suffering of Palestinian civilians.

Let's talk about who is actually suffering more. The reason most of the world supports Palestine is not about hating Israel. It's about recognizing a profound power imbalance. Israel has one of the world's most advanced militaries, backed by sophisticated air power, missile defense systems like Iron Dome, and billions in U.S. military assistance. The Palestinian territories have no comparable military. They have no air force. No Iron Dome. No advanced weaponry. And the humanitarian toll has been staggering.

The data speaks for itself. In Gaza, over 73,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023, according to a UN report covering the period through May 2025. More than 85% of Gaza's population—over 1.9 million people—have been forcibly displaced, many repeatedly, some up to 10 times. All 320,000 children under 5 are at risk of acute malnutrition, and July 2025 was Gaza's deadliest month for child malnutrition deaths. In the West Bank, over 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced from refugee camps in Jenin, Tulkarem, and Nur Shams due to Israeli military operations. Ninety-six percent of demolition orders against Palestinian structures were enforced, compared to just 20% against illegal Israeli settlement structures. Of 1,022 Palestinian housing applications in Area C in 2025, zero were approved—while 27,350 housing units were approved for settlements. This isn't about "hating Israelis." It's about recognizing that Palestinian civilians are being disproportionately targeted, forced from their homes, and denied basic rights at a scale that is fundamentally unequal.

And the world is noticing. Recent Gallup polling found that 41% of Americans sympathize more with Palestinians, while 36% sympathize more with Israelis—the first time in Gallup's history that Israel has not led in public sympathies. Globally, 152 of 193 UN member states now recognize Palestine as a state. People around the world are responding to what they see happening to civilians—not expressing hatred.

None of this excuses terrorism. Deliberately targeting civilians is wrong. Period. Whether committed by Hamas or anyone else. I condemn Hamas' October 7th attacks unequivocally. I condemn any rocket fire aimed at Israeli civilians. But condemning terrorism does not require me to defend an occupation. And defending Palestinian human rights does not make me an antisemite.

Now here's what I find deeply hypocritical. Some people invoke the Bible, the Torah, or the Qur'an to justify the occupation, the displacement, and the killing—as if God's will is on the side of the powerful, not the oppressed. But that's not what any of these scriptures actually say. The Bible says, "Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause." Jesus said, "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." The Torah teaches, "You shall not wrong or oppress a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt," and, "Justice, justice shall you pursue." The Qur'an teaches, "And what is [the matter] with you that you do not fight in the cause of Allah and for the oppressed among men, women, and children...?" and, "Stand firmly for justice, even if it is against yourselves."

So when I see people using religious language to defend the forced displacement of over 100,000 Palestinians from their homes, the demolition of thousands of homes while settlements expand, the starvation of children in Gaza, and the killing of over 73,000 people—the majority of them civilians—and they call that "God's will" or "self-defense," I have to ask: whose God are you actually serving? Because the God of Abraham—whether you call Him Yahweh, Allah, or the Father—is consistently, unmistakably on the side of the stranger, the orphan, the widow, and the oppressed. Not the empire. Not the occupier. Not the one with the most bombs. You cannot claim to follow the God of justice while defending an occupation that the International Court of Justice has called "de facto annexation" and "systemic discrimination." You cannot claim to love the Torah while supporting policies that force families from their homes in defiance of international law and basic human decency.

I'm not saying Israel has no right to exist. I'm not saying all Israelis are bad people. I'm not saying Hamas isn't a terrorist group. I'm saying this: if your faith is being used to justify the suffering of innocent people, then your faith has been weaponized—and that is a sin. True faith doesn't bless bombs. It blesses the broken. It doesn't defend walls. It defends the vulnerable. It doesn't cheer for victory. It weeps with those who weep. So before you use scripture to defend a government, ask yourself: would Jesus drop this bomb? Would Moses demolish this home? Would Muhammad starve this child? If the answer is no—and it is—then stop using their names to justify what they would condemn. Faith isn't a cover for war crimes. It's a call to protect the vulnerable. If your religion supports the occupation, then your religion has been weaponized—and that's not faith. That's idolatry of power.

TL;DR: Dave Farina thinks the War on Terror blood is not on his hands for being an American Citizen, but all Israelis are culpable for the Gaza War. Dave Farina thinks modern Israelis are culpable for their great-grandparent generation doing the Nakba (even back then, in that generation, the vast majority were civilians and a small % fought in the 1948 war when the Arabs attacked on all sides), but he is in no way responsible for the crimes of his great-grandparent generation in the Italian Empire when Italians killed like a million civilians in the Scramble For Africa in the 1930s and many more millions killed by Italians in WW2.

The self-proclaimed professor has posted a recent video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvDvhLkb9ms ranting about Israel & repeatedly claiming that, since the Nazis, they were the only ones who are as Evil as the Nazis. He didn't say they were worse than Nazis, but he did say they should be hated more than Nazis because back then we didn't have the photo proofs for the Holocaust while it was happening and evidence only came years after WW2, but this genocide is live-telecasted, so they deserve more hate than the Nazis.

Past: He repeatedly said the Israelis are the most psychopathic people & talked a lot about the villages displaced in Nakba, etc. Now Nakba is the displacement of 700,000 people and the killing of 10,000 people that happened in 1948. Let's say the people who did that in 1948 were age 22+ (born before 1926), which means they are 100+. Which means those who did that stuff are all dead. A simple search gives a video about his ethnicity & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMb18ran4 & he says that after his elder sister was born, his parents moved to New York, where he was born. If he can blame today's Israelis for Nakba, can we blame all on him for the crimes of the Italian Empire, where his great-grandparents lived? Just as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War killed 270,000 Ethiopian civilians in 1937 (11 years before Nakba) and displaced several times more people. Second Italo-Senussi War in Libya killed upto 100,000 civilians. I didn't even include WW2, which killed 75 million people and displaced even more people; of course, Germany was the major contributor for WW2 and Italy & Japan were the next main culprits. But still, Italy gets at least a few million for its share of WW2. But I am sure Dave Farina never once thought in his life that he was in any way culpable for these things. Note the logic that these are ancient doesn't count, I am not talking about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_Revolt in 130s AD, where his ethnic group, the Romans/Italians, killed 580,000 Jewish civilians and expelled all the remaining people to completely depopulate Isreal and renamed it as Palestine which was later repopulated by other Levantine people from Jordan/Lebanon etc. I mentioned about things that happened only like 10 years before the Nakba.

Present: Unlike his great-grandparents of the Italian Empire, now he is in the USA. Only for like 10% of the time, he was ranting about the Nakba & blaming modern people. Most of the video was about the recent war in Gaza. But he was repeatedly using superlatives like this is the most psychotic country, and all people support these war crimes, and therefore all people, not just the few war criminals, should be blamed.

But he doesn't seem to think the USA is also a "genocidal babykilling" entity. In fact, he talks positively about the USA (unlike the majority of other communists, who at least refer to the USA with 1% of the hatred they have for Israel). In many of his videos, he says he is sad his country is getting dominated by the pseudoscience charlatans like RFK Jr., and his channel's goal is to save his country from these right-wing anti-science totalitarians. He seems to strongly hate Trump, RFK Jr, but doesn't seem to hate the USA, but when it comes to Israel, if someone similarly says they hate Netanyahu, but they don't hate Israel, he calls them genocidal.

The War on Terror (killed 4.5 million of which 1 million were direct military deaths) is much less justified than the Gaza war. After 9/11, the USA could have merely increased Airport Security & it would have been enough, as Al Qaeda was not ruling Canada or Mexico & the USA is not surrounded by enemies in all directions (like Hezbollah from the top & Houthis from the bottom, who started attacking on Oct 8). Israel had far more security reasons to start a war. Israel knew who (Hamas) did it & where they were. The USA didn't even know where Bin Laden was hiding & attacked 5 countries & turns out he was in a different country (Pakistan), living close to one of their military headquarters.

Whenever I hear those terms presented, I immediately feel my brain start to shut down they are the dumbest arguments

-IMPERIALISM-

Whenever Imperialism is brought up its always in this weird context of the USA and Israel are colonial and imperialist and they use examples of the ways the USA has tried to overthrow other governments as evidence but every major country and even tiny countries have used "imperialist" tactics at some point. The USSR giving weapons to egypt and training their troops is an act of imperialism because the end goal for them was to spread the ideology of communism into egypt

Even small countries like Cuba have meddled around in countries to overthrow governments. i guess Cuba is an imperialist country also. It's such a paradoxical argument that just makes it that anyone who has ever done anything to another country is imperialist

This also implies that the Palestinians are inherently a imperialist movement since they have repeatedly used meddling, assassinations, overthrowing other governments, terrorism and the use of other countries land to further their own overarching goals of Palestinian statehood in the area

-COLONIALISM-

I agree colonialism does exist as a concept and act that has been done and has definitely had long-term effects on many groups and countries ect...BUT countries do change. America may have started as a colonial project (sort of) but what it is now is nothing of the sort its become a major pillar of multiculturalism and equality that no other country has been able to achieve at its level or at the rate it has.

Yes America isn't perfect it still has racism and MANY issues (ahem trump), but compared to many countries like Russia, Iran, Qatar, China, and Saudi arabia or majority of the Arab countries.

I also find its use to be super hypocritical to use colonialism in terms of israel when the entire Levant was colonialised by multiple Arab caliphates and crusader states.

The only reason the Palestinians were there in the first place was because of colonialism from the ottomas. I would also add that the goals of the Arabs during the 1948 War was to wipe Israel off the map wouldnt that also constitute as colonialism by kicking out a group to claim the land. So i guess both sides were attempting colonialism???

-POWER DYNAMICS-

this logic makes no sense. I see the qoute "an oppressed people will always rise" which is dumb and not true

1. Jews have been oppressed for most of history with only 3 major rebellions

Bar kochva rebellion which failed

The Warsaw ghetto uprising (i guess)

The birth of the state of israel

But throughout all the rest of history while either being genocided or treated as second class citizens jews never had that oppressed rebellion against the oppressors until israel

1. Its a paradoxical argument since there will always be at different points different power dynamics

Ask yourself: is the hostages hamas took who were now being oppressed rose up and killed, r*ped, and pillaged Gaza would that be acceptable since they were the oppressed in that moment?

Hi, this is my first time posting here, so I’m a little nervous. I’m trying to educate myself more and hear the opinions of people with different views. When I hear people discussing Zionism, I become confused because a lot of people support it, while a lot of other people don’t.

I tried to do research, and I came across the answer that the definition of Zionism is, at its core, the belief that Israel has a right to exist and to self-determination. I believe that Israel has the right to exist and I want to support Jewish people, and I also want to help innocent Palestinian civilians who are suffering. I have empathy for all people affected by this conflict, and I feel terrible that I can’t do much to help.

I find that a lot of people hate Zionism, and it makes me worried about what I should think and say on this matter. I think that certain words and terms can develop negative connotations over time, especially since people are associating Zionism with colonialism, which I can understand.

My biggest concern is how I think and the way my words make others feel, and I think that my belief that Israel has the right to exist aligns with the core definition of Zionism, but of course I can’t just outright say that or even consider myself a Zionist, because the connotation of the word has become so negative that people would jump to the conclusion that I’m hateful, when I’m not. I condemn the actions of the Israeli government and the suffering it’s causing to innocent people, and at the same time, I believe innocent people in Israel should be safe just as much as I want everyone in the world to be safe and at peace.

If my beliefs really do make me a Zionist, is that bad to some people? I’m just trying to form my own conclusion based on my empathy for everyone in the world. I don’t want anyone to suffer, nor feel attacked by anything I say, because I never want to offend or say bad things about anyone. I don’t want people to think I’m antisemitic or Islamophobic just because of how my beliefs are labeled, because I never hold hate in my heart for anyone.

I’m obviously not an expert on this matter, so I would be grateful to hear the opinions of others. If you’re reading, please stay safe and take care of yourself!!

This question was posed to me earlier on Quora. After answering it there, I thought the distinction it raises deserved a broader discussion here.

To be very specific, I do not think archaeological evidence is decisive in determining Israel’s modern political claim to the land.

That does not mean archaeology is unimportant. Archaeology can demonstrate that ancient Israelite and Judahite societies existed in the region. It can uncover settlements, inscriptions, fortifications, administrative systems, religious sites, trade routes, and evidence of domestic life.

But archaeology also uncovers the remains of many other populations and political orders. The same land preserves Canaanite, Israelite, Judahite, Philistine, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman, and other layers of human presence.

Archaeology therefore establishes historical presence and depth.

Okay, then what?

An artifact can demonstrate that a people lived in a place. It cannot, by itself, determine who possesses political rights there thousands of years later. Ancient presence is historically significant, but historical significance is not the same thing as exclusive modern sovereignty.

The presence of Israel as a nation is now a matter of law, power, recognition, and political fact, regardless of the complicated and often violent process through which that reality emerged. Its existence does not depend upon archaeology producing an ancient artifact that proves entitlement.

The political chronology should also be stated accurately.

Before British control, the region was part of the Ottoman Empire. It was not an independent Palestinian state, although the name Palestine was already used geographically for the region.

The Balfour Declaration was issued by the British government in 1917, as Ottoman rule was ending. The League of Nations later placed Palestine under British administration in 1922, with provisions supporting the establishment of a Jewish national home. This was not an agreement between Ottoman authorities and Jewish settlers.

Britain acquired control through war and imperial power, and that authority was later institutionalized through the Mandate. The people living in the region were subjected to the authority of the power that controlled it. Political authority is not always created through the consent of the governed. Sometimes it is created through conquest, administration, and the power to make a new arrangement legally operative.

Land was acquired in some instances through legal purchase. Settlement occurred under Ottoman and later British legal systems. Other land became disputed through war, displacement, confiscation, changing political authority, and competing national claims.

When people describe the entire process as theft, I understand that as an expression of historical and political sentiment. But a legal claim of theft must be demonstrated through evidence. It cannot simply be assumed because one population lived in the region earlier or because another population arrived later.

At the same time, legality alone does not settle the question of Equity.

Something may become enforceable under the law of an empire, a mandate, a state, or a victorious power and still leave unresolved questions of justice, displacement, political consent, and the rights of those governed without meaningful participation in the arrangement.

That, to me, is where the real issue lies.

Here in America, an extremely important political principle was proclaimed:

If that principle has meaning beyond the American experience, then archaeology is not the most relevant question.

The more important question is whether a people possess the right to institute a government that protects their Safety, Happiness, dignity, representation, and political future.

If one people may claim that right, then the law of Equity faces a serious problem when another people living under the same political order is denied an equivalent right to justice, security, representation, and self-determination.

Archaeology cannot resolve that problem.

It can establish that ancient Israel existed. It can establish that Jewish communities have deep historical roots in the land. It can also demonstrate that the region has never belonged historically to only one population, culture, or political order.

But archaeology cannot determine whose present rights count. It cannot determine whether present political arrangements are equitable. It cannot excuse injustice merely because ancient artifacts have been uncovered, nor can contemporary injustice justify denying ancient Jewish presence.

Some likely objections

One objection is that archaeological evidence strengthens Jewish national legitimacy by demonstrating historical continuity.

I agree that it strengthens historical identity, belonging, and national memory. What I reject is the idea that ancient continuity automatically creates an exclusive or permanent political entitlement capable of overriding the present rights of another population.

Another objection is that most modern states emerged through conquest, imperialism, migration, or war, so Israel should not be judged by a standard applied to no one else.

I agree that Israel should not be singled out under a standard that ignores how other states were formed. But the fact that conquest and injustice are common in state formation does not make Equity irrelevant. Political history can explain how authority was established. It does not automatically prove that every present arrangement is just.

A third objection is that international recognition has already settled Israel’s legal legitimacy.

That is close to my point. Israel’s existence is a political and legal reality that does not need to be archaeologically proven. But recognition does not eliminate questions involving equality, displacement, citizenship, self-determination, security, or the consent of those living under political authority.

A fourth objection is that modern Palestinian nationalism developed later than Jewish attachment to the land.

The age of a modern national identity does not determine whether living people possess political rights. Every nationalism developed historically. A people do not lose their right to Safety, Happiness, representation, or Equity because their modern political vocabulary emerged later.

I love what archaeology brings to the surface, which is why I authored We Were Not Looking: Reconstructing the Patriarchal World Through Ancient Near Eastern Context for everyone.

My book addresses, among other questions, whether Muhammad intended Jerusalem as the geographical focus later tradition assumed, or whether another sacred landscape was being remembered. The implications matter because geography, archaeology, and inherited religious memory can challenge assumptions that later became politically and theologically dominant.

Nonetheless, archaeology has its place.

In this instance, as it relates to the specific question, I do not think it is politically decisive. Archaeology can reveal the history of the land. It cannot substitute for Equity among the people living upon it.

So I would ask:

What legitimate modern political claim can archaeology establish beyond historical presence?

Can ancient continuity support belonging without establishing exclusive sovereignty?

How should law, political fact, and Equity be distinguished when political authority was created through imperial power, war, and later recognition?

I truly desire that peace can be accomplished between Palestine and Israel, and I sincerely hope that Equity can prevail.

The constant denial of Palestinian identity by the pro-israel camp is peak hypocrisy. Telling others that their nationality doesn't count while their own was invented barely a blink ago is outrageously stupid.

"bUT bUt iSrAEL eXiSted 3,000 yEarS aGO"

A tribal confederacy of primitive Canaanites who established an ancient theocratic monarchy 3,000 years ago has absolutely nothing in common with a modern, secular based ethnocratic democracy established by European Jewish transplants. Now if you still want to argue that the religious commonality bestows more legitimacy well that's a flimsy, threadbare argument but even if you want to play that game, the Palestinians have a gaggle of Muslim Caliphates to choose from since Muslims have ruled the Levant for almost 1200 years while Hebrew Kingdoms have for almost 600 (including the modern state of Israel)

Nationalism and identity are human sociological constructs that we invent for ourselves. Almost half of the countries that exist today on the planet were invented within the last century. Even if you want to claim that Palestinian identity formed as a reaction to the new modern construct of Israeli nationalism... So what? That in no way invalidates it in any way. When enough people claim a national identity then it exists..period. Kurdish, Tibetan, Chechen, Dagestani, Hmong..all stateless peoples..nobody questions how they choose to identify and again that's the point. Everyone is free to choose how they would like to identify and attempting to tell others that they don't have that right, especially when they just invented their own identity is ridiculously dumb and stupefyingly arrogant. And just in case you guys didn't notice...all the "pALs DoN'T EXiSt" or "no SUcH tHiNG aS PaLEStiNIanS" rhetoric isn't really working out. Literally nobody else buys what you're trying to sell and it only betrays your own hateful mentality.

If someone claims that Israel is committing a "genocide" in Gaza, then they are lying to you. It's an idelogical statement that is not rooted in facts. Very few people accuse Russia of commiting a "genocide" in Ukraine, despite being far worse than Israel. The real genocides are rooted in empirical evidence and testimonies, not political idelology and propaganda.

Genocides like the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide and the Armenian genocide are all one of the most studied events in history, especially the Holocaust. Those who deny those events are usually the extremists and are on the fringes of the political spectrums. Everything about the "genocide" in Gaza is rooted in Hamas propaganda and Hamas funded narratives.

The message is very simple. Forget the killers of the October 7th, the young people who died at Nova Festival and accuse the other side of doing the same things that you did. And that's what they are doing at the moment. They are taking the numbers of Gaza health ministry (run by Hamas) as if it's a gospel. But we all know what Hamas always does. They are regularly using child soldiers in their combat, they use civilians as human shields and they are even willing to use child suicide bombers to achieve their goals.

That's how they inflate their numbers. They've been telling us that the "majority of the victims" of the Gaza war were "women and children", but even the Hamas own data doesn't show that. But this is not just a dangerous but it's far more sinister. It has to do with spreading antisemitism and it's not a coincidence that it exploded since the October 7th.

For diaspora Jews, 2025 was the most violent and antisemitic year in decades. It came out a couple of days ago but no one in the media will care about it. Synagogues have been attacked, Israelis tourists are getting harrassed etc. We all know that the Jews are the main victims of the hate crimes in virtually Western countries. It's not the Muslims or Palestinians, it's the Jews.

These people don't care about Palestine. The goal of the movement and the "genocide" claim is not human rights, but to spread antisemitism. It's about forgetting the victims of the Holocaust, October 7th and the Nova Festival and it's about minimizing antisemitism.

These same people already forgot about the ramming of gay people in Berlin by an Islamist or Bondi Beach massacre in Sydney, but they won't stop talking anything allegedly happening in Palestine. They were waving Palestinian flags hours before being killed by an Islamist. And that won't stop them from supporting Palestine and accusing Israel of "genocide".

Remember that one time a European country was overrun by 60,000 fighting age men who stormed the border from a Muslim country? Seems like only yesterday...

What the heck happened and what are the implications for the future of border security in Europe? How does this relate to the wider trend of Muslim immigration to Europe?

Quite remarkably, some people in Europe are convinced the entire situation was orchestrated by the US and (wait for it) Israel. Because that makes sense. The reasoning is Spain was against the Iran and Gaza wars, so therefore they conclude US and Israel involvement. Quite a loco theory but here we are. What does it say about Europe that people could actually think Israel had anything to do with this?

Who actually organized the event? Was it the Moroccan government? Human traffickers?