I saw recently how things are intensifying at the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

This being the case and with a nationalist president like Trump taking office in two months, could we possibly see a complete withdrawal of their UN membership?

I mean it really doesn't make much sense for Israel and the US to be part of the United Nations if so many countries are against them.

Trump withdrew from the WHO, UNESCO, and the Paris Climate Accord in his first term, could it soon be that with the lack of Israel support from the allies, he nudges the US in a direction to completely sever ties with the UN, or at any rate, with certain alliances and organizations?

https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/the-holocaust-survivor-who-put-his-faith-in-war-crimes-law/

In response to the ICC releasing arrest warrants for both Hamas and israel leadership. Netanyahu and many others including people on this sub-reddit hahave called it Antisemitic.

Before making the decision Khan convened a panel of six experts in international law to analyze the evidence. Including Theron Meron who agreed that the israel leadership have warranted enough evidence that an arrest warrant should be released to further investigate the war crimes israel have been accused of.

Theodor Meron is a renowned scholar of international and humanitarian law and a Holocaust survivor who was imprisoned for four years in a Nazi concentration camp. Meron has lived in Israel, was educated in israel hahas heard prominent positions in Israel. And loves his country and is obvious not biased against his homeland. Theordor Meron is in agreement with the ICC and agrees that actions so far presented and enough for the arrest warrents to be released and the actions taken are appropriate.

If the ICC has a legal framework to continue the investigation of Israel leaders and they have counseling that involved multiple Jewish/Israeli scholors that agree with the actions of the ICC. Then is calling this action Antisemitic a complete abandoning of the word and just a method to avoid further valid suspicions/complaints ?

What are your thoughts on the recent ruling by the ICC on Netanyahu?

I personally believe that he should be charged with war crimes and his term should end. He has been responsible for much of the chaos happening not just in Israel but the region as a whole. His domestic policies have been met with backlash for the longest time. And his foreign policies are much worse as Israel is now fighting multiple nations because of him. I don’t know what Israelis or Palestinians think about this but I believe Netanyahu’s potential arrest will be the right decision. But I am wondering what your opinions are on this.

Edit: I've been having hard time spreading this app to the Palestinian side. If anyone has any places/platforms with Palestinian communities, it would be great to send it there.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how the only real way to make a difference in this conflict might be through actual communication. The kind of conversation where you strip away all the labels, all the politics, and just speak as human beings. It’s not about agreeing on everything or solving the conflict overnight, but about understanding each other a little better.

There’s so much history and pain on both sides. It feels impossible sometimes to bridge that gap. But when it’s anonymous—no names, no faces, just two people talking without the usual baggage—there’s a chance to break down some of those walls. At the end of the day, we’re all just people. We all want similar things: safety, peace, a future for our kids.

The usual methods haven’t been getting us anywhere. Negotiations, ceasefires, protests, even war, have all been tried, and yet the cycle continues. War may be a short term solution but the long term conflict will not be solved. Something different is needed. Creating empathy and understanding, even in small amounts, could be a first step toward change. Seeing the other side as human beings with real feelings and struggles could lead to something better.

That’s why I created a chat application. It’s a small platform where people from both sides can come together, maybe to debate or argue, maybe just to get to know each other, it's your choice. An anonymous chat between two people. It won’t end the conflict, but it might be a step in the right direction. If it can help even a few people see things differently, then it’s worth it.

If you’re feeling curious or just tired of the way things are, give it a try. The person on the other side may not be so different after all.

Anonymous Chat between Israelis and Palestinians

Maybe my perspective has been shaped by growing up in the US, but I can't help but notice a peculiar pattern of discussion when it comes to race/religion.

For supporters of Israel, it's much more acceptable to dismiss criticism of their government's actions because of a perceived "anti-Jew" motivation. The Holocaust was less than a century ago, and anti-semitism is absolutely still prevalent to this day, but that alone should not serve as proof of prejudice. This may stem from disproportionate attention given to the Israel/Palestine conflict as opposed to other US-backed conflicts, but I don't see how that negates a necessary conversation.

With that being said, we live in a post-9/11, Iraq War, ISIS world. It's not the oppression olympics, but I don't think you live in modern Western society if you believe the average person is more anti-semitic than they are Islamophobic. The western stereotype of a modern Jew is a white-passing and affluent while the stereotype of an Arab is that they "like to bomb crap and live in open sewage" (as quoted by a white-passing, affluent Jew). Anti-semites in America are often supporters of Israel.

So with all that being said, it's bizarre to see so many accusations of anti-semitism compared to Islamophobia. To conclude that someone supports Palestine because they hate Jews and not because they hate to see innocent civilians die is insane to me.

Today the ICC (International Criminal Court) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.

What this means for the world (if not reversed) is as follows:

1. The ICC can impose its jurisdiction on any country including those who do not recognize it allowing them to bypass internal courts and the ICJ.
2. Assuming the standards applied to Israel by the ICC are applied to all countries, any country that engages in war will be subject to arrest warrants issued against their leaders and military commanders even if they follow international law.
3. The use of human shields and similar war crimes by terrorist groups has just become a legitimate strategy that will be encouraged by the ICC ruling. While the court may issue performative warrants against such groups to create the illusion of impartiality, any country that tries to fight them will not be able to without harming civilians thus invoking the wrath of the court.
4. World leaders will now have to choose between fighting terrorists who hide behind their own civilians and getting arrested or allowing such groups to attack them with impunity in order to avoid legal retribution by the ICC.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for the entire world and (in all but name) makes war itself illegal. Terrorists will be emboldened to implement strategies which make it impossible to defeat them without causing significant harm to civilians and allows such groups to push for arrest warrants anyone who dares oppose them.

I hope the ruling is dropped in two months after sanctions are imposed on the ICC and any country that tries to uphold its ruling but this does set a dangerous precedent who's damage to global peace can never be reversed.

I've been thinking about whether there were other wars of this scale and nature, public perception, and how they got resolved, but it turned out to be quite a challenge because most people's point of reference doesn't go beyond WW2, before the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Convention were even created and we judged wars through completely different standards.

So after reading about a lot of wars I have found an example that I will make the case for in this post. But if you have any examples of your own, you can stop reading here if you wish and share what makes them similar and what we can learn from them.

With that being said, here's my choice:

The Vietnam War and Operation Menu

I recently read about the Vietnam War, and more specifically, about "Operation Menu" that took place between 1969 to 1970, where the US bombed Cambodia. This secret campaign resulted in anywhere between 30,000 to 150,000 civilian deaths compared to 10,000-20,000 combatants and was widely condemned when it leaked to the public.

Similarities:

Here are some ways in which it's similar to the Iron swords operation:

• Infrastructure: North Vietnamese forces and allies used Cambodia for their operations and had an extensive tunnel system under it.
• Human shields: They engaged in guerrilla tactics and implanted themselves inside the civilian population.
• Collateral danage: The US targeted them and their supplies/bases but caused significant civilian casualties.
• Weaponization of human suffering: They then used these deaths for propaganda, presented themselves as the victims, and the US as the evil aggressor, radicalizing the population and giving rise to extremist militant groups.
• reaction: Though this specific operation was mostly secret, there were anti-war protests all around the world, and the US was condemned and sanctioned by many major countries.
• public perception: Both wars have been perceived as not having a clear goal and started losing public support the longer they dragged on.

Differences:

Although they are very similar in their core they do have a few key differences:

• Responsibility: Cambodia was a a sovereign neutral state that found itself in the crossfire after failing to enforce their borders. Hamas on the other hand, are the elected representarives of Gaza and are responsible for their actions.

• Just cause: unlike rhe Israeli response to October 7th, the background for the menu operation was not a response to any specific or major attack.

• terrorism: The adversaries in Cambodia, generally did not engage in terrorism and target civilians intentionally nor was there an active hostage situation.

• safety measures: Unlike Gazans, the Cambodian civilians were allowed to use the military tunnels as bomb shelters.

• access to aid: Compared to Gaza, the aid entering Cambodia was extremely limited, and many died from malnutrition and starvation.

• Safety percussions: Unlike Israel, the US has provided no warnings and has not opened any humanitarian corridors.

• risk: The population density in Cambodia was about 50 people per square kilometer, while in Gaza, it's higher by a factor od 100 at 5000 people per square kilometer making it muxh haeder to avoid collateral damage.

• Death toll: The estimated civilian to combatant ratio in Operation Menu was much higher, ranging anywhere from 3:1 to 10:1, compared to between 1:1 (according to Israel) and 3:1 (according to the Hamas Health Ministry).

Despite these differences, I understand the US believed it was fighting for a just cause against a bad ideology and did not generally target civilians intentionally and that responsibility lays in the tactics used by their adversaries. so I believe comparison is fair, and that there's a lesson to be learned from it, especially from catastrophic way that war ended:

After the US withdrew from Cambodia and left it in a devastated state, an insurgent communist group called Khmer Rouge took over the country.

In just 4 years, this group was responsible for between **1.5 to 2 million deaths which accounted for over 20 percent of Cambodia's population. They died ** from starvation, disease, forced labor, and about 200,000 - 300,000 of them were executed in killing zones.

Cambodia was eventually defeated by Vietnam and were occupied for 14 years. Until the UN bridged the peace talks beteeen them and pushed for a diplomatic solution And as a result, Cambodia regained sovereignty in the 1991 Paris peace agreement. The Khmer Rouge, despite being outlawed, didn't vanish immediately. They continued terrorizing them for years until they slowly died out. And although the UN observers failed to make sure Cambodia has free and fair elections, and they still had land disputes over their border with they have been argued over using diplomaticacy instead of force so that conflict was essentially over.

What Can We Learn From The Way It Resolved

After reading about this, reinforced my belief that Israel can't just withdraw and let the next terrorist organization fill the void, and demandinf a one sided unconditional wirhdraw will only lead to more wars.

Instead, martyrdom and violent resistance will have to stop being encouraged by the media and education system in Gaza. And unfortunately, Gasa will likely have to be occupied for years before these societal changes take place and terrorism is rooted out.

Only once there's meaningful progress on that front, an abiding peace deal can be signed (which is unlikely but not improbable) and israel would be able to finally withdraw.

But only with the guarantee that a democratic system will be installed and the next elections will be supervised by a neautral observers to make sure no extremist group will intimidate voters and attack their opposition like Hamas did. Any terrorist organization must also be outlawed by that point, and unable to participate in the process. Yes, Even if "the will of the people" is to return to be a terrorist state. That ideology will have to die so no one else will.

These are my thoughts. But once again, of course, if you have a better example of a similar war and the way it ended, Feel free to share it.

So i have been doing a lot of reading about Jews and Palestinians and the conclusion I have drawn is that they are the same exact race of people with different religious views (actually they are genetically all mixed up but who’s ancestry isn’t unless there has been some serious and long sustained inbreeding which usually doesn’t bode well for longevity in a lineage.) but for the most part saudis Arabs Palestinians Jews they are all sand people although their is with absolute certainty no Jewish race. To be of “jewish” decent you simply just need one person on your mother’s side of the family to have practiced the Jewish orthodox faith. So to be clear Jew is a religion not a race. However Arab is a race and their religion is mostly Muslim. So then why do “Jews” specifically white European Jews deserve to lay claim to a seemingly non Jewish Arab Muslim territory and what about the Arabs and other actual races that have been there since people could record history? Well my solution however unlikely and over simplified it may be is this any violent or militarized religious groups should be considered terrorist organizations and this should be uniformly enforced by the entire world. No religious group should do violence or build a military in its name period. I am an American i am for the most part a “Christian” I am not however a Zionist America pushes that agenda for its own political gain and because of what I strongly believe to be the existence of a deep Jewish banking state blackmail and holding the American government hostage through the federal reserve which is tied up with England which just so happens to bring us back to Israel. Which would be my reference to Britain’s big mishandling of their newly acquired territories at the time and calling it the Palestinian mandate. So what would my ideal world look like you may ask well there would be no intermingling of governments and privately owned religious banks first off. This would mean all countries would have their own currencies whose values would directly reflect the goods and services the country provided along with other economical factors such as natural resources and trade. There would be NO Religious Governments. countries would be governed by people who were elected regardless of their religious beliefs but their religious beliefs could not be implemented into a form of governance or laws. All people would be considered equal and the loss of your rights would only be of consequence to your own behavior and how it affected others that claim to be your victims. Every human being would have the right to settle on unsettled land so long as no one has any legal claim to it meaning they could own the land and make its borders if they occupied it and managed it with only the help of family or those who will inherit said land. There would be a law also that these people can not let any portion of this land be un maintained or not visited routinely within 100 years. Keeping people from biting off more than they can chew essentially or taking large sums of land they essentially cannot realistically manage. NO Nuclear weapons for any country period!!! This would be assured through highly highly vetted individuals from each country that would oversea and maintain the deweaponization of nuclear arms in every country with weaponized nuclear capabilities. All people could worship whatever god they want so long as they do so peacefully and without prejudice towards others. There would also be multiple world organizations that would do research on prolonging human life advancing technologies for the betterment of human kind and exploration and colonization of other planets along with enabling and maintaining free world wide energy and internet. That’s about all I have so far. I know one day these things will happen my prayer is that it is only sooner rather than much much later that this does happen I feel as though things thing aren’t to outlandish though. It may be harsh to say this but the violent closed minded ignorant people of the world that are truly full of hate are thinning themselves out and ultimately in the end will deem themselves extinct all together and all that will be left are reasonable rational human beings. It is inevitable.

It’s frustrating to see the same one-sided narratives repeated endlessly. People assume that if they push their talking points enough, others will eventually give in and adopt their perspective, ignoring the real complexities of the conflict. But here’s the truth: this oversimplification is exactly why peace remains out of reach.

The core issue is not about choosing sides; it’s about recognizing the failures of both Hamas and the Israeli state. Both entities are perpetuating violence, oppression, and the endless suffering of innocent people. Yet many are so entrenched in their narratives—whether pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian—that they refuse to confront the actions of the side they support. This inability to hold both accountable perpetuates the cycle of destruction, ensuring that the conflict remains unresolved.

The fact is, neither Hamas nor Israel in its current form can lead to a sustainable or just future. Hamas’s use of violence and its role in perpetuating suffering among Palestinians must be condemned. At the same time, Israel’s disproportionate military response, systemic oppression, and dehumanization of Palestinians must also be recognized for what they are. Both sides have valid grievances, but they are both deeply flawed in how they pursue their goals.

What’s most frustrating is the naive belief that the current trajectory will somehow lead to peace. It won’t. One-sided approaches only justify further violence, deepen divisions, and delay real accountability. Peace requires dismantling the systems of oppression and violence on both sides—holding Hamas and Israel to the same standard of justice and humanity.

If you truly care about resolution, stop repeating the same propaganda and start engaging with the complexity of the conflict. Until we do, the cycle will repeat, and the suffering of innocent people will continue to grow. It’s time to let go of the simplistic narratives and focus on the root issues that can actually lead to peace.

A short write up https://www.ynetnews.com/magazine/article/ry8l0xym1x

Full video : https://youtu.be/OGSobRn3IPo (long video)

The former Hamas militant, often dubbed the Green Prince is Mosab Hassan Yusof, son of the co-founder of Hamas.

The American student protester is Aidan Doyle from UCLA. Student leader of Student for Justice in Palestine.

The Israeli Gaza hostage survivor is Moran Stela Yanai (she comes on stage later). She was kidnapped from the Nova Music festival on Oct 7th and held captive for 54 days in Gaza and was released on Nov 29 in the final round of prisoner exchange.

1. The venue was at UCLA. It was actually filmed back in June 2024.

2. You might notice the audience is visibly more pro-Israel and the student protester seem somewhat cornered and definitely outnumbered. The organizer later explains they had invited more pro-Palestinian guest speakers, but noone else agreed to have a discussion. I suspect, many other student protesters also boycotted the event, hence the audience is visibly more pro-Israel supporters.

3. The initial discussion between Aidan and Mosab, is interesting but expected. I have seen Mosab on other debates before. I never heard of Aidan, but I seen and heard from a few student protesters, they usually sound the same, like repeating from the same script. From my recollection, the protest movement doesnt encourage or allow protesters to speak to others, especially media, they have a designated spokesperson, possibly why you see Aidan, the student leader on the stage and not a random student protester. He seem intelligent, student of a prestigous college UCLA, I looked it up he is a double major Philosophy and Jazz, his replies are very long winded (like an entire paragraph of his Philosophy assignment), he is confident, he knows he is a smart person (later an American-Arab UCLA professor will chastise him to have a bit more humility), probably that is why he thinks is always right, how could a smart person like him ever be wrong ? Didnt we all had that moment in our youths, when we thought we were very smart.

4. Unlike most student protesters, they are just regurgitating the pro-Palestinian talking points, they use alot of buzzwords, and may not understand what they are saying. Famously from the river to the sea. When asked which river, you might not be able to tell you which river. But Aidan as a student leader and a philosophy major is different. Aidan uses the word irrelevant alot in his response, you can clearly see his line of thought. He is thinking. He picks and choose what points are valid (convenient) to his narrative, points which are inconvenient are toss out and deemed irrelevant. I suspect he will explain to his followers how they should to think…he will tell them what is relevant and what is irrelevant.

5. Then the Israeli hostage survivor comes on stage. Never heard of her. She shares her experience, very insightful. She is visibly annoyed with America’s morality battle (good vs evil, right vs wrong), she repeatedly request the audience not to clap. She asked good questions… Has he been to Israel ? Has he been to Gaza ? Has he been to West Bank ? Obviosly the answer is No. Everything he knows about the conflict, he read online and from social media and probably socializing with other American protesters whom think like them, same echo chambers, …what Mosab calls “they live in an imaginery Middle East”. What does a young white privledged american know about the arab people in the middle east ? They havent even visited middle east before. One of his professor, an American-Arab, chastise him, you do not represent my people, you are only hurting Arabs and American Arabs.

6. There was a section during Q & A, where audience asked very specific questions directly to Aidan, about his movement and events that took place on campus and the encampment. You can see he was quite evasive, very short reply (very different from his early conversations), no reply. The allegations made were quite serious in my opinion. I could never imagine it happening on US college campus.

Hi. I know most people won't believe me but I am actually a 12 year old Israeli kid. I don't want to talk about why I'm on Reddit but I want to explain some things.

One. Israeli schools DO NOT teach us that arqbs are bad. Many schools including mine have many arabs and I hate that people act like we are all born racist

Two. We also suffer. I do not care what you say Israel kids also suffer from the war. U don't want to get into the topic a lot right now because to be honest it's 11pm and I have school tomorroww EDIT yeah I can't fall asleep so I'm just going to talk about it a bit. We get treated horribly and while my parents moved us to the center area of Israel so Manny kids get literally tortured I KNOW other kids who were kidnapped and this is just horrifying

Three. I hate that everyone thinks I am not really a kid. It's like when I don't act like a kid people think I am one but when I tell them I'm a kid they instantly think I'm lying because I "know too much" but this is what happens when you are born into multiple wars. It is also extremely annoying when people say I don't know anything. Well to that I just gotta say that I was born into this for years and years and I have been exposed to this subreddit for longer then I would like to admit. Everywhere I go (online) I get treated like a war criminal just for existing.

So if you have questions ask them but I might not answer anytime soon.

Also I can't see if this is enough for the post or if I'm gonna have to add more to the post so things can change since when I started making this to now

Ty and bye

Here is the full article which I found enlightening: https://unherd.com/2024/11/israel-and-lebanon-need-a-lasting-peace/

The author discusses how international diplomacy has failed to address the Arab-Israeli conflict, focusing on the example of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. This resolution, passed in 2006 after the war between Israel and Hezbollah, required Israel to pull out of Lebanese territory and Hezbollah to disarm and stay north of the Litani River. Israel quickly followed the rules, but Hezbollah ignored them. Instead, it built a massive arsenal of rockets and a network of tunnels, preparing for future attacks, while the UN peacekeeping force (UNIFIL) failed to enforce the agreement.

When Hezbollah began firing rockets into northern Israel after Hamas’s attack in the south, Israel tried to convince Hezbollah and the world to stop the fighting for almost a whole year, but eventually was forced to respond with a powerful military campaign. This destroyed much of Hezbollah’s weapons and infrastructure and killed key leaders, including Hassan Nasrallah. However, instead of holding Hezbollah accountable, the international response focused on returning to the terms of Resolution 1701—conditions that had already failed to stop conflict for years.

The article argues that this pattern is common in how the world handles conflicts involving Israel. After Palestinian leaders rejected peace offers at Camp David in 2000 and launched waves of violence, international diplomacy still aimed to restore conditions they had already refused. Similarly, there is constant pressure on Israel to return to pre-1967 borders or to redivide Jerusalem, even though these ideas often ignore the realities on the ground and reward those who started wars.

This approach, where aggressors are not held accountable and no long-term consequences are imposed, encourages more violence. In most conflicts around the world, aggressors face punishment or lose territory. With Israel, however, the focus is often on forcing it to make concessions, regardless of who initiated the fighting.

The author also highlights how no one is working toward a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon. Such an agreement would benefit both countries, especially Lebanon, which has suffered because of Hezbollah’s control. A peace treaty would create clear borders, open the door for economic cooperation, and provide a way to resolve disputes without violence. Yet, this idea is rarely mentioned in diplomatic discussions. Instead, the focus remains on temporary ceasefires and humanitarian aid, which don’t address the deeper problems causing the conflict.

International diplomacy is failing because it rewards bad behavior, isolates Israel unfairly, and avoids pushing for real, lasting peace. This approach keeps the cycle of violence going instead of helping to end it.

Hi guys,

for context Im European so my knowledge on the conflict is limited to YouTube videos, reddit posts and news. Feel free to correct my if I make false statements.

So Israels goal at the moment is killing Hamas and Hisbollah. And that fight is taking many civilian lives as well. (Let's not make this discussion about weather that's justified or not, just not the point of my post) Let's assume Israel achieves that goal. You can obviously never assume you killed every single person in these terrorist groups. But let's assume Israel reaches a point where they believe to have achieved their goal and claim to have defeated Hisbollah and Hamas. What then?

While Israel achieving their goal many Palestinians have lost family members that were not part of any terrorist groups. Many of these people are kids and all they know is Israel killed their family members. What will that result in? Well I'm assuming the establishment of a new terrorist group or what's left of Hamas gets new people to join.

So in my opinion killing Hamas and Hisbollah will NOT result in peace for Israel. Do Israelis believe you have peace for ever after that? And to Palestinians or Arabs who know about what Palestinians think of Israel how do you imagine this to go about? Is there a chance for both to live coexisting after that war is hopefully over?

From what I read and see through what both sides have been doing in the past there are extremists on both sides that just want to see the other side burn and die. And that extremism from the Palestinian side will not end by killing every extremist alive. Give it 10 years until children grow up and you have extremists again.

So can someone explain to me how you envision this to go about in the future?

Hope we can keep it civil in the comments

Edit: to clear things up a bit im not saying Israel shouldn't fight back. I do believe some of the methods used are questionable, that is why my post is "a bit critical". And thx of course for the replies I read all even though I don't answer to all!

The two-state solution (2SS) now appears unviable due to a range of political, geographic, and social factors like settlement expansion, fragmented Palestinian territory, Palestinian political divisions, security concerns, and shifting public opinion.

This isn’t a judgment on either side but an assessment of current realities. Though I’d love to be proven wrong, the circumstances make it hard to see the 2SS as a reasonable path to peace.

But if I’m right, then what’s the solution? It seems like the only options are the violent destruction of Israel or the annexation of the territories.

Destroying Israel would require coordinated military efforts and would face resistance from Israel and its Western allies. If Israel’s nuclear capabilities remained intact, Israel’s potential retaliatory nuclear strikes would cause catastrophic regional devastation and massive casualties.

The aftermath of Israel’s destruction would include widespread loss of life and displacement across the region and possible escalation involving major powers. Ironically, Palestinians would face worsened conditions, with nuclear fallout and instability likely erasing hopes for statehood.

If it’s annexation, then what happens to the Palestinians living these Israel? Palestinians could be granted full Israeli citizenship. But this would challenge Israel's Jewish demographic majority, making this option politically unlikely.

Or Israel could offer limited rights. This would maintain Israeli control without shifting demographics but would likely, and rightly, be criticized as an apartheid-like system.

Israel could “encourage” Palestinians to emigrate. While this would lower the Palestinian population in the territories, it would provoke severe international condemnation as a human rights violation.

So, looks like we are doomed. Right?

https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/820691/

I would like to bring your attention to a specific sentence in this above article and subsequently said during the briefing to reporters;

"there is no intention of allowing the residents of the northern Gaza Strip to return to their homes"

What are people's views on this? In the article as well, they go on to say how they want to cut off the Northern Gaza Strip from Gaza City. Right of return of a people is a human right, is this not blatantly denying that?

Historically, Palestine has always referred to a region, not a people. It was a region of land, similar to how New England is a region that encompasses a broad swath of land. When people say Jesus was Palestinian or similar things, it shows a wild ignorance of history and is no different than proclaiming Jesus was a Zionist or George Washington was a Yankees fan. All are nonsensical.

What many are unaware of is that, historically - and backed up by loads of historical evidence - only Jews in the 30s,40s used to refer to themselves as Palestinian. There were Palestinian soccer teams, the Palestinian Post (later the Jerusalem post) all created by and run by Jews. In 1948, after the establishment of Israel, the jews started to call themselves Israeli, and the name Palestinian essentially evaporated. You ask an Arab in 1950 in Gaza if he was Palestinian and he’d proudly tell you NO. He was an Arab.

Why?

Because Arabs in the region at the time just viewed themselves as Arabs, with no meaningful distinction between Arabs in the levant and Syria/Jordan etc. In fact, many Arabs back then didn’t want their own country but rather to be part of Greater Syria.

This all changed when Yasser Arafat (himself an Egyptian) decided in the 1960s to starting using the name Palestine to create a new national identity that previously did not exist. In doing so, Arafat also stole ‘ Free Palestine’ - previously used by jews in the levant, and much more. This theft of identity continues with odd statements like Jesus was Palestinian, or Palestinians invented every middle eastern food known to man. The Palestinian identity is young and, contrary to propaganda, doesn’t stretch back for thousands of years. The palestinian identity  - in using the term jews used to refer to themselves as - was purposefully used to deligitmize Israel and assert an Arab claim to the land. A clever play on words that has been quite effective in twisting not a narrative, but actual Mid East history.

I dont mention this to diminish Palestinian nationalism or their right to self-determination.  Despite its somewhat manufactured beginnings, there is now a distinct people called Palestinians today in 2024. There’s no point to go back in history. 

So why mention it at all? Because Pro-Palestinian activists are so adamant about diminishing any jewish connection to the land, and are so passionate about arguing that the land is exclusively Palestinian, it’s important to be aware of the full story and not let propaganda get in the way of actual history. 

Those who are quick to argue for the eradication of Israel should be aware that the Palestinian identity they so loudly support is nearly 2 decades younger than Israeli identity.

The idea that Palestinians existed as a distinct ethnicity - different from surrounding Arabs - is simply not true. The idea that there was a Palestinian country that was overrun by jews is simply not true, despite this being a belief held by uneducated leftists who presumably started learning about middle eastern history on October 8.

Palestinians can advocate for statehood, and I myself hope for coexistence, but the historical reality is that Palestinian national identity as we know it didn’t exist until the 1960s. Calling themselves Palestinians is their right, but to do so while bizarrely ignoring Israel’s own right to self-determination is peak hypocrisy.  Acting as if Palestinians have an exclusive right to the land, simply because they co-opted the name Palestine, is ahistorical.

Again, it's only worth referencing this IN RESPONSE to those who argue or diminish the jewish connection to Israel. It's probably not a road pro-palestinians want to go down.

I'm an American and I have a question for the people of Israel on this subreddit. As of this month, around 43,000 Gazans have been killed in this conflict. And 70% of homes in the Gaza Strip have been either damaged or destroyed. And so my question to you is, in your opinion are the actions of the IDF just and necessary? The UN and many international organizations have called the current Israel-Palestine war an “ethnic cleansing” of the people of Gaza. Recent reports have claimed that Israel is committing war crimes against Gaza such as with holding humanitarian aid, conducting operations in schools, and leveling entire cities. Now, I don’t mean to offend any Israelis, I know this conflict has been hard on you as well. What I am saying is that despite all the people of Gaza that have been killed, displaced, or missing, do you believe that the war Israel is fighting is a just war? Should the IDF be less harsh on the people of Gaza?

Full article: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zj7rz3l4o

Turkish airstrikes on infrastructure in northeast Syria have left over a million people without access to reliable water and electricity, worsening an already dire humanitarian crisis fueled by years of war and extreme drought. The strikes have targeted power stations crucial for water access, forcing residents to rely on limited tanker deliveries, which are insufficient to meet the demand. Experts warn that such actions could violate international humanitarian law by targeting essential civilian infrastructure.

“Water is more precious than gold here,” said Ahmad al-Ahmed, a tanker driver. “People need more water. All they want is for you to give them water.”

Will the international community finally wake up to Erdogan indiscriminate violence just KM away from Israel?

Will international orgs such as the UN and courts like the ICJ and the ICC do something? When are the arrest warrants for Erdogan coming?

Will NATO react to one of it's members taking such actions? Or does the EU only attack Israel with several nations embargo it?

To all so called "Pro-Palestinians", if you truly care about the lives of innocents in the region, will we see you in American and European capitals? Will they be filled with protests against Turkey? Calls to defund Turkey? To kick them from the UN? To have an embargo on them?

Relevant: How Israel worked to renew Gaza’s water supply amid the war, with help from locals

Israel is blamed of doing what Turkey does by the legion of hypocrites in the western world.

But Turkey actually does it, without shame or even denial, and nobody cares.

No Jews no news as they say.

Both the arguments of "the Jews and indigenous to this land, so it belongs to them" and "Palestinians have been here for centuries, so this land belongs to them" are complete bullshit. I am tired of seeing so many people (specially in social media) use these arguments to defend their opinion. Both of them do not make sense and do not allow us to reach a logical conclusion that could be fructiferous in any debate.

My arguments to support this are the following. About the "the Jews and indigenous to this land, so it belongs to them" thing, this argument falls apart the second I say the following: Then let's give all of the US back to native Americans, Brazil to the indigenous of the Amazon, Australia to native Australians and England to the Celtic people. Does not make much sense, right?

Then, the "Palestinians have been here for centuries, so this land belongs to them" also lacks sense, and this is because with this argument (I am going to use the example of native Americans again) the Native Americans are not entitled to any land, and with this argument one could easily give justification to what the Australian government recently did to their indigenous people, which I can assume that we all think is unethical. Furthermore, to someone who uses this argument I say: Then, if Israel persists in that land for long enough then according to your very own argument, that land belongs them because they have been there for many time, and it does not matter who was there before.

With all this said, I want to conclude my post by asking everyone focus solely on the things that matter when debating: What actions will make people's lives better, which ones did, which ones won't, and which ones didn't. There is no point in arguing things that do not make sense, it is just a waste of time that sets us apart from having an intellectually rich debate about this conflict. I really look forward to hearing all of your opinions on my claim, and I am sorry if I made any mistakes with my English, it is not my main language. Peace.

PD: I will put this on the discussion flair as my aim with this post is to hear the different opinions about this claim and not only to give it. If the mods think that this is wrong, please do not remove the post and just change it to the opinion flair.

Philippe Lazzarini said UNRWA is irreplaceable. But why ? He explains its not the “humanitarian aid”, he said delivering humanitarian anyone can do it, you dont need UNRWA for this, there is no UNRWA in Sudan, other UN agencies can delivery humanitarian aid to Sudan without issue but “after the war”, UNRWA will need to provide education to primary students in Gaza (let’s say that school has been distrupted in Gaza due to the war) and provide primary medicare care. He concludes if UNRWA cannot operate in West Bank and Gaza, the only alternative and option is the onus of responsibility goes back to the occupying power i.e. Israel will be responsible to provide these critical services.

https://youtu.be/sq3jwvGjuhs

Basically Lazzarini and Guterres are playing politics. Recently Guterres wrote that if UNRWA cannot operate in Palestine (Gaza and West Bank), then no other UN agencies will takeup that role and the bucket will be passed to Israel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-to-israel-replacing-unrwa-aid-agency-is-your-responsibility-not-ours/

——————————————————————-

I think its a good idea for Israel to takeover UNRWA (two conditions : 1 after the war, after all the hostages are released, i can see its a bit difficult during war, but Lazzarini said anyone can delivery humanitarian aid, you dont need UNRWA for that. He is more concerned about the day after. 2. Israel must have a long term plan on how to deal with this Israel-Palestinian conflict, it cant be in this limbo forever)

Israel taking over UNRWA in Gaza and West Bank.

1. You get total control on setting the education system. You have an opportunity to deradicalized and groom the new generation of Palestinians to embrace Peace. In the past Hamas/PLO prints the textbooks and influencing the education system, teaching them matyrdom, antisemitism, etc…Israel will have to power to change all that now. If you want something done correctly, you need to do it yourself. Relying on UNRWA, other UN agenicies to do what Israel wants/ hope for isnt going to happen. Lesson 1: the history of the Jewish people, you can teach them the Jews were first here on this land for more than 3,000 years ago. Teach them the Jews were sent into exil after being conquered by Babylon, teach them the Roman change the renamed this land from Judea to Syria Palestina as punishment and to erase the jewish link to the land etc…offer to teach them Hebrew Language.

2. Some Palestinian parents will pull their children out of the school. You can say to Lazzarini, we do provide education but what can we do, some parents refuse to send their kids to our schools. We cant forced them. Others will keep their children in the school system.

3. When Israel takesover UNRWA, fires all 18,000 UNRWA employees, union leaders, headmasters, teachers, etc… replace them with Israelis. It could be Israeli-Arabs, Israeli-Jews, etc…you dont need that many employees. 1. UNRWA’s budget is entirely based on donations. So now Israel can accept all the donations from those who wanna help Palestinians. In the past, many organizations including UN, foreign governments, will just donate to UNRWA… but now since Israel is taking over, Israel can get a share of those donations meant for providing services to Palestinians. It is important to continue to work on a donation basis only. This gives Israel the control of the donation, making sure it wont be used for terrorism. If the money stops coming (I doubt so),…you can say to Lazzarini, what can we do…not enough money from donors. Budget cut. We will be forced to reduce some services but still meeting the basic humanitarian aid relief. There is no need for school fieldtrip. It is not basic necessity. Sudan refugees dont go on field trips.

4. You control the register of who is Palestinian refugees. Audit the register, I bet there will be alot of people with incomplete documentations. You control who gets to live in UN refugee camp and who doesnt. Of course they have to be genuine refugees to be entitled to accomodation in a refugee camp, who is entitled to food vouchers, etc…lets just say any Hamas will not be entitled.

5. Israel had takeover UNRWA roles before,…for the Jewish refugees who were also displaced and forced to flee from West Bank or Gaza or Jerusalem to Israel proper. And Israel also offered to takeover UNRWA’s role in East Jerusalem, many didnt want to send their kids to Israeli schools. What can you do ? You cant force them.

6. Will anyone donate to UNRWA if UNRWA is not providing any help to Palestinians living inside Palestine ? I suspect its donations will drop significantly….

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a persistent source of regional instability in the Middle East and led to the deaths of 100s of 1000s of innocent lives (incl both sides).

Relocating Israel to a more hospitable global position would seem a good solution to this.

Hear me out:

New Zion - an opportunity for the Israeli people and the global Jewish community to forge a fresh path free from the relentless conflict of the Middle East. This bold idea envisions a new nation, "New Zion," where the ingenuity and resilience of Israelis can thrive, unshackled from geopolitical strife, and where Jewish identity can be celebrated without the burdens of association with conflict.

Why Western Australia?

Western nations have historically supported Israel, none more so than the current Australian government. But Israel is losing that support and good relations fast due to its role the current flare up of the ME conflict. Relocating Israel to a neutral and stable location could ensure continued support without the geopolitical complications of the Middle East.

Land Availability: Western Australia is vast, sparsely populated, and rich in natural resources. It could theoretically accommodate a relocated population and the infrastructure needed for a modern state.

Agricultural Potential: With investment in water management and irrigation, Western Australia could support Israel’s agricultural expertise and innovation.

Alliance Building: A relocation to Australia would strengthen ties between Israel and its allies, particularly Western nations, by integrating its economy and technology into a region with stable governance.

Israel’s advanced tech and innovation sectors could boost Australia’s economy, fostering regional development in Western Australia.

Both Australia and Israel have democratic systems, valuing freedom and human rights, which could ease cultural integration.

Diversity in Australia: Australia has a history of absorbing immigrants and fostering multiculturalism. This capacity could help in accommodating a relocated population.

Israel’s expertise in water technology, renewable energy, and high-tech industries could transform remote Western Australia into a thriving region.

Israelis are renowned for their exceptional achievements in fields such as technology, medicine, and agriculture. I work in tech and the "Startup Nation" meme is true - Israel over-index's (for its size) as a hub of innovation. Relocating to Western Australia, with its vast, untapped resources and space for development, would elevate these achievements even further.

Better for all Jews worldwide:

The current flare-up of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has cast a shadow over Israel's international reputation and, by extension, the Jewish diaspora. Allegations of war crimes and the enduring image of military attrocites have tarnished perceptions of Israel and unfairly associated Jewish identity with conflict and violence. A move to New Zion, WA, would offer a reset, distancing the Jewish people from the ongoing strife in the Middle East and providing a chance to redefine global perceptions.

Some people think the reputation of Israel can never recover from this apparent genocide but this could be a solution - the Australian transition would not only protect Jewish communities worldwide from the fallout of Israel’s actions but also position the Jewish people as leaders in peacebuilding, innovation, and ethical governance.

Challenges

Western Australia itself is home to Indigenous communities with deep ties to their land, whose rights and heritage must be respected.

However there is enough space in Crown Land, which is owned and managed by the Australian Government, much of which is underutilised or unoccupied, albeit partly in arid or semi-arid regions – however Israel's expertise in water management, desert agriculture, and renewable energy would soon sort that. That area would be my pick for New Zion.

For the Middle East, it could open pathways to lasting peace, freeing Palestinians and Israelis from the cycles of violence.

For Australia, hosting New Zion would bring cultural enrichment, economic transformation, and global recognition as a leader in historical reconciliation and innovation.

"New Zion" offers the Jewish people a chance to shed the burdens of conflict and embrace their full potential in a land of opportunity.

Win/win for all.

The USA can should pay for the re-location too.

Yesterday, u/-Vivex- made a post "An Honest Defense Of A Complete Palestine". While I disagree with their view of Zionism, which I support, they are making some very good points. I believe that Jews worldwide and Israelis would need to grapple with the realities they point out, and that this time will come sooner rather than later.

OP points out "the Palestinians and Arab populations will never accept Israel as long as there is some semblance of Palestinian resistance" and that "the naive hope that they will eventually find a partner for peace on the other side" is just that––naïve. They also note that the status-quo is unsustainable:

In the long term, this only benefits Palestinians. They can wait for as long as they need to until geopolitical realities change, (powerful ally emerges/weakened Israel/loss of US support) and then push for a favorable peace, or try to win a war outright.

This is entirely correct. The other two options he outlines are that Israel would either need to create a one-state solution, which would likely descend into a Lebanon 2.0 (as he admits in the comments), or a the transfer of Palestinians out of the region "from the river to the sea". As they themselves say,

It would result in some extreme vitriol from both the international community and the surrounding Arab populations, but, with the current dictatorial peace imposed upon those populations, the short term punishments would be relatively minimal, and the long term reward of the Palestinian cause slowly fading from memory would be more than ideal for Israel.

By OP's admission, their knowledge of the conflict is based in large part on the works of historian Benny Morris. Here's Morris' quote from 2005 that reflects similar thinking:

I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleaned the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations...

u/-Vivex- lays out the case for a "complete Palestine", i.e. the ethnic cleansing of Jews out of Israel. I think would come no sooner than the nuclear annihilation of large parts of the Middle East. However, at its core, I think their argument is correct, as terrible as it is.

A significant development of the 20th century was ethnic minorities gaining their own nation states. For example, in Europe, the number of states increased from 24 at the start of the century to 45 in 1995. My argument is that Zionism is no different from other national liberation movements, either substantively or historically.

Let's examine common counter-arguments.

1. Zionism caused a large-scale displacement of people

That is true of many, if not most, other national movements. For example, the creation of modern-day Czechia (formerly Czechoslovakia) and Poland involved the expulsion of over 12M German civilians between 1945-50. The history of Sudeten Germans in those lands dated back 700 years, and their descendants would now outnumber the populations of Czechia and Slovakia combined. While it is true that, under EU treaties, any German today can settle in Czechia, this is a unique situation and a major achievement of European diplomacy. Besides, this has only been the case for the last 20 years; prior to that, Sudeten Germans had been demanding their right-of-return and the liberation of "their homeland" for decades.

Additional examples include the 14M Hindu/Muslims who were driven out of Pakistan/India in 1947. Up to 2M people were forcefully moved between Poland and Ukraine in 1944-46. Similarly, 350K Italians were forced out of Yugoslavia. 800K Mizrahi Jews were driven out of the Arab states in 1940-60s and explicitly denied citizenship in many of them. Thousands of Cham Albanians were expelled from Greece. 1.5M civilians were expelled during the Azeri-Armenian wars in 1992-2000. None of these groups got the right-of-return or even compensation.

Some also point to Israel's Law of Return, which allows any ethnic Jew to claim citizenship, while excluding Palestinian Arabs who fled or were expelled. However, giving preference to a particular ethnicity was and continues to be the practice in many nation-states. For instance, in the 1990s, Germany accepted 400k ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union, whose ancestors had left modern-day German territories in the 17th and 18th centuries. Finland brought in Ingarian Finns, who haven't lived in Finland since 17th century. Armenia today offers citizenship to anyone of 'ethnic Armenian origin,' while denying it to the thousands of Azeri expelled during the 1992 war.

2. Jews had not been the demographic majority in modern-day Israel for centuries

First, it is important to note that, according to the 1947 Partition Plan, the lands alloted to Jews were precisely those where they already constituted a demographic majority. This demographic status had been achieved through consentual land-purchases from Arab/Ottoman landlords, including many members of the Palestinian elite.

Second, similar scenarios have occured with other national movements, such as in Armenia. Armenian sovereignty was lost in 1375, and the territories of modern-day Armenia eventually fell under the control of the Erivan Khanate. Following the Great Surgun of 1604, ethnic Armenians comprised less than 20% of the population in the region of modern-day Armenia. They only recovered their demographic majority in the 19th century when the Russian Empire conquered the Erivan Khanate from Persia. Over the course of the 19th century, Russia facilitated the resettlement of tens of thousands of Armenians by supporting land purchases and, in some cases, relocating Azeri civilians.

3. Modern-day Israeli Jews are not indigenous to the Middle East

This is the weakest argument. Other than the fact that over 50% of Israeli Jews are Mizrahim, whose parents were expelled from the Arab states, all evidence points to genetic similarity between all major Jewish groups.

Another thing to note is that, much like self-determination is a collective right, indigeneity as a concept applies to entire ethnic groups, rather than individuals. Indigenous peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to people and the environment. In the case of Jews, there is a unique indigenous culture that spans millenia, and which underwent ethnogenesis in modern-day Israel. Note that I am not denying that the Palestinian Arab and, more broadly, Levantine Arab culture has become indigenous too.

NOTE: I've incorporated some responses from a similar post I made at r/changemyview to write this post.

[ Before I start, just want to mention that is solely based on my perspective and I’m aware that there’ll be different perspectives than mine regardless if you’re Pro Palestinian or even Pro Israel. ]

One of the biggest issues with the current war is why there hasn’t been a ceasefire yet. With the concerning escalation of Gaza to Lebanon and soon probably a full scaled war with Iran, this war will be more deadly than it’s been. So why isn’t there a ceasefire to prevent more blood?

I’ll be listing the reasons as to why:

1. Bibi’s trial: This is something I believe most Pro Palestinians aren’t aware about. Just like Yom Kippur, Bibi will have to retire after this war, but that’s the problem. Bibi is in danger of being prisoned due to allegations of bribery, fraud and now thanks to war for war crimes. That’s why many people in Israel hate him .

2. The day after: This is a problem I believe most Pro Palestinians haven’t addressed. Destruction of Israel isn’t possible and if it is, it would take years to achieve. What Israel wants in this war is 1. Annihilation of Hamas + Hezbollah. 2. Return of the hostages.

Pro Palestinians will argue that Israel doesn’t care about the hostages, problem with is what if there’ll be more kidnaps afterwards. Hamas said multiple times that they want more October 7ths. It would just be everything all over again, obviously the real victims of this clusterfuck will be the Israeli and the Palestinians civilians. (And also Lebanese ones depending on another parties involved) In other words, if there will be a ceasefire there’s better be work towards the future.

(Forgot to mention this in the beginning and I can’t for some reason edit there due to my phone being too small or whatever, but apologies for my poor English, it’s not my first language. Hopefully I still managed to spread my overall message in some way)

I mean it's into the post I'm curious about the views now considering Gazas been invaded like a year ago now, and everyone went rabid over the Israelis and their stereotypical power tripping warcrimes over any unfortunate soul they come across, though granted they all hide on buildings which may or may not contain Hamas/Hezbollah terrorist afterall whilst at the same time said terrorists didn't have any gains other than absolute PR support in social media even though they didn't even release their prisoners of which the Israelis truly after and continued the god awful slug fest mosh pit they created since the 7th

As such many folk across social media see Israelis as scum whilst they saw Palestinians as oppressed individuals that have to be "free at all cost", ALL COSTS and they goes as removing them from the UN which doesn't narrow down the idea of Israel being there and Palestine also barring Kosovo which is the "Palestine" of Europe oddly enough

With the humanitarian crisis never achieved anything and all talk no bite in the political spectrum, the chances of ending the war are as real as the dinosaurs and bigfoot: cryptic, elusive and dead long ago

So the question Israel define as Evil if it continues its power trip and the Palestine Good?

!EDIT: I'm Just asking btw no need to birate me and such!<

I am looking to visit West Bank as Israeli, to see how is it going and how the people are living. I do not want to be escorted or in contact with Israeli army or any Israeli guide as I don’t want to be fed information and actually want to see what’s happening for my own eyes. Any way I can do it safely? I want to go ALONE… I don’t want to be influenced by propaganda

The following is a summary of the main points of an essay that was published in a series of six posts by the former dean of the college of sharia at Gazza's Islamic University. This translation was undertaken by the tremendous scholar Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, and was posted on his substack. The original posts contain many references to the Quran, Hadiths and Islamic jurisprudence. If anyone is interested in the full translation of his six posts I can past it in the comments but wont put the full text here because of character limit.

Tamimi makes clear the context of the critique, that "al-Daya, a Salafi by orientation, is not in any way trying to justify or approve of Israel’s war: on the contrary, he is very clear that he sees the war waged by the “warring people” (his constant term of reference to the Israelis) as genocidal in nature."

The six points in the critique are as follows:

1. Jihad (armed struggle) is not something to be waged for the pure sake of fighting. Rather, it has to have specific aims, intentions and conditions. For example, it should be waged with aims like the realistic prospect of repelling aggression against Islam and Muslims and liberating prisoners, and should be fought on frontlines far removed from places crowded with civilians. In rounds of fighting prior to the 7 October assault, the Israelis showed that they could inflict severe damage both in terms of killing people, destroying infrastructure and imposing restrictions. It should have been expected that the 7 October assault would have elicited a much harsher Israeli response given how many more casualties it caused among Israelis. Evidence from Islamic texts and jurisprudence establish that in some circumstances, such as where the enemy outnumber the Muslims by more than two-to-one and complete asymmetry in military capabilities, it is permitted to flee from the enemy/not fight the enemy at all. This is relevant in Gaza’s case, where the terrible impacts of the war will likely last decades.

2. The commander and soldiers in Islam are intended to advance and protect the interests of the Ummah (Muslim community), including preservation of the lives of Muslims and their honour. The losses/sacrifices of Hamas fighters and commanders are therefore of no use if they do not serve this purpose of protection. Further, fighters and commanders should not take up burdens they are incapable of dealing with.

3. A critique of the Hamas notion that its losses are only ‘tactical’ while the Israeli losses are ‘strategic.’ While Hamas may be able to point to international condemnation on Israel and Western student protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza, global revulsion and international rulings against Israel have not actually stopped or restrained its campaign, but rather the Israelis have disregarded decisions made against them.

4. Hamas cannot reasonably compare its struggle to the Qur’anic story of the companions of the ditch, which produced a positive result of conversion to faith in God, contrary to this war that has provoked revulsion against the religion and the ‘religious people’ (i.e. Hamas) who started this war. Per Ibn Taymiyya, decision-making that leads to loss of Muslim life without realising any interests for the Muslims is reprehensible.

5. Hamas cannot disregard its humanitarian responsibilities towards Gaza’s people by claiming they are really just the responsibility of Israel and the UN. The Gaza Strip is under their authority, and their own method of war of using civilian buildings for cover against the Israelis is an abdication of responsibility towards Gaza’s people, as Hamas knows that the Israelis will not hesitate to strike any civilian infrastructure where they think Hamas members are located, regardless of how many civilians will be killed in the process. Proper consideration has to be given before launching any attack.

6. Hamas shows will disregard for the lives of the people it rules- treating them as possessions to be sacrificed, and not realising that the foremost purpose of jihad is to preserve Muslim life and advance its religious, existential and financial interests. If jihad cannot realise any interests for Muslims, it is not mandated. Gaza is not only being threatened by the Israeli enemy’s assaults, but also internally with breakdown of order, drug dissemination and hoarding of goods etc. It is time to form an internationally acceptable government in Gaza that prioritises the people’s humanitarian needs and puts a stop to this catastrophe before the winter sets in and kills more people. The mindset about offering large sacrifices of people for the sake of liberation is in reality a colonialist mentality removed from the ethics of Islamic jihad, which seeks to preserve Muslim lives and creed. It reflects ignorance to wage a war that has brought such catastrophe, including the rape of Muslim women and sexual abuse of Muslim men, while harbouring delusions about Israel’s imminent collapse from factors like economic decline and war aversion, and hoping that the Arab and Turkish peoples will overthrow their governments and form new ones that will support Hamas. In short, the Muslim leader must not engage in a fight that can be reasonably expected to lead to destruction and perdition for Muslims without achieving any real interests for the Muslims.

Let me clarify upfront: I’m speaking hypothetically and based on the premise of how war crimes and injustices are portrayed.

If the worst thing I risked by supporting Palestinian nationalism were the war crimes often attributed to Israel—demolitions, evictions, or blockades, painful as they are—I’d still stand firmly with the Palestinian people in their struggle for self-determination. I’d say: "Yes, I am ready to bear that cost if it means the prospect of a one-state or two-state solution where Palestinians live with dignity and autonomy."

if the Palestinian struggle were led by a movement that limited itself to war crimes "as portrayed" against Israel—disproportionate responses, demolishing homes tied to militants, and the like—
I am serious, show me the worst of what Israel is doing and I will be willing to bear that cost. Show me the worst of it, really. While imperfect, it will be within the framework of targeting military objectives, even if it meant collateral damage, or imposing collective punishment in ways that, though condemnable, are at least tethered to some twisted logic of deterrence or retaliation. Such actions, however painful, could still be understood as part of a broader, albeit flawed, strategy to achieve justice or secure a homeland.

In that scenario, I’d unequivocally support it. I could look at such a movement and say, “This is not pure, but it is recognizably a fight for freedom and self-determination.” At least then, the movement would be morally legible—its actions could be debated, criticized, or supported based on principles of justice rather than vengeance or nihilism.

For me, justice means opposing both forms of violence while holding onto the belief that Palestinian liberation is still possible.

Currently,the situation in the Gaza Strip is at extreme peril.The healthcare system is extremely damaged,and in Northern Gaza,basically completely destroyed,over 90% is displaced and there have been warning of an active famine.

Despite this,the Israeli Knesset has decide to basically ban UNRWA in all of of its controlled territories as well as Gaza.This has prompt a lot of concern and condemnation by the UN,human right NGOs and the State Department of the United State,which has specifically warned Israel to NOT to this about a month ago.(But they decide to do nothing even as Israel banned them anyway)

This concern isn't just shared by me,question about strategic wisdom in banning UNRWA has been shared by some part of the the Israeli media[1][2] and Jewish organisation[1][2]

In this post,i will look at the ban from a legal,humanitarian and pragmatic persepective to show why banning UNRWA is contrary to the interest of Israel.

Legal

The law approve by Israeli parliament to ban UNRWA isn't actually a single law,but two different bills.The first bill banned UNRWA from Israeli territories,which crucially include East Jerusalem(which is considered to be illegally annexed by the UN Security Council) and the second bill ban all cooperation between Israel and UNRWA in the West Bank and Gaza.The reason why they didn't ban the Agency is entirely is probably for public relation reason.(they could argue that they just banned them from Israel proper and only "boycotted" them in the West Bank and Gaza).But anyway who isn't extremely pro Israel can clearly see that the "boycott" in the West Bank and Gaza is basically a ban as Israel controlled all entry point.(and also,the IDF have attack humanitarian workers who ARE CORDINATING with them,no one would be suicidal enough to enter without cordination)

As such,both of those bill are simply put,blatantly illegal.Under article XVI of the United Nation Charter,member states are supposed to respect the priviliages and immunity of the UN and its agency.They can NOT allowed to unilaterally ban UN agency from operation,especially on occupied territories.

This extremist bill,push by the Netanyahu goverment,will further increase Israel international isolation,which has already been shaking due to their heavy-handed approched in Gaza.

Humanitarian

I have seen some people said that since UNRWA only provided 13% of aid to Gaza,it is totally ok to ban them.And for those people,i say they are either ignorant or have no heart.

According to the IPC,half of the population in Gaza is currently underwent a catastrophic level of food insecurity.This is especially true in Northern Gaza,where Israel has blocked most aid from coming in until the US threatened them not to.In this curcumstance,it is unacceptable that aid will got reduced by even one percent,not to mention 13%.

Furthermore,if you look at that number,you will not get the full picture.Due to its senority and trust among Palestinian,UNRWA also played an invaluable role in cordination and providing logistic platform for other NGOs and UN Agency.And unlike most other aid groups,they mostly employ Palestinian,not foreigner,this help created a path to employment to Palestinians that is (somewhat) free from influence by Hamas,their oligarchs backer and the corrupt and nepotist clans.

Plus,while most NGOs and aid agency will only focus on one specific task(for example delivering foods,providing medical help...etc).UNRWA do all of them,and much more.

Before the war,UNRWA run half of the schools in Gaza,1/3 of health facilities,provide social safety net that benefit nearly 100,000 people(especially vulnerable groups like women,children,the elderly and disabled people).They also provided hundreds of million of dollars in loan to kickstart small business to improve Gaza's economy.

In the West Bank,they are less active,but still has a important presence.

Pragmatic persepective (AKA wait,do we actually want to ban them?)

There are basically 3 reasons why Israel is annoyed with UNRWA,which is:

1)UNRWA include antisemitic and violent content in its textbooks.

2)UNRWA has Hamas millitants under its employment and is influenced by Hamas,some of which is conplicit in the October 7th massacre.

3)UNRWA help relieved Hamas from the burden of caring for Palestinian,allowing them to focus their money and effort in attacking Israel.

However,just directly banning UNRWA would not have solve any of those problem.Actually,it will just made them worse as well as causing other issues.

For the first problem,i think it is needed to emphathise that UNRWA is NOT responsible for printing those textbooks.

UNRWA,being a non-state actor,can't afford to create a new curriculum and textbooks system on its own without facing problem of cost and Hamas retribution.As such,they must use the available curriculum and books published by Hamas and the PA,which unfortunately contain many anti-semitic and inciting content.

Of course, here’s the text rewritten in Reddit markdown format with fixed formatting, grammar, and structure, while maintaining the original tone and wording:

Of course, it is not unreasonable for Israel to say that, since they are a UN agency and receive large funding from the West, they should have an obligation to ensure their educational content conforms with UN values. And UNRWA themselves would agree with this.

UNRWA leaders and representatives have many times apologized for the inclusion of antisemitic content in its educational facilities. But the thing is, it is pretty hard for them to change it. As I said before, those textbooks are issued by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-controlled Gazan Authority. What would you think if a group of foreigners came into your country and changed your children's textbooks? No one likes that, and so when UNRWA tried to make changes, they got protested left and right.

Plus, trying to remove all those examples is pretty hard, as they are scattered across many different subjects and books. The only way they could cover all of them is by routinely searching through them by a committee, which costs time and money, as well as causes additional problems (for example, who will serve in the committee? A committee made up of just foreign experts will be unpopular, and a committee of Palestinians may be biased or be intimidated by public opinion).

Alternatively, they could outsource this to pro-Israeli orgs by publishing all their material and waiting for UN Watch to criticize them, but that would basically tank all of their credibility among Palestinians. It also doesn't help that those groups often go WAY too far in what they consider antisemitic.

For example, these are examples of things I found on pro-Israeli orgs that they considered unacceptable:

• Calling Israel "Zionist entity" or "Zionist occupation."
• Saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine.
• General calls for resistance against Israeli occupation.
• Celebrating attacks against Israeli soldiers.
• Portraying people resisting Israeli demolition of homes in a positive light.

(Yes, before you say it, I know that a lot of Palestinian resistance usually involves massacres and attacks against innocent Jews and Arabs, and oftentimes calling for resistance implies violence and other nasty antisemitic stuff. But I believe that a nation is allowed to show its children history in the most endearing light as long as it doesn't involve supporting war crimes or blatant revisionism. After all, UNRWA only teaches them until grade 9. Self-criticism of your nation’s actions shouldn’t—but definitely can—be left until they are older. Did any of you learn about Deir Yassin or the Kafr Qasim massacre while you were in primary school?)

Moreover, banning UNRWA will only make the problem worse, as now Hamas will gain total control over education in Gaza and can exclude things they don’t like about gender equality, human rights, and tolerance.

It is basically the same with the second complaint. Sure, it is very bad that Hamas managed to infiltrate UNRWA, but what can they do about it?

UNRWA isn’t a state. Unlike Israel, they have no police force that is allowed to search their employees’ phones or question them, and again, they are operating under a Hamas-controlled area. Which Palestinian staff will be brave enough to do those investigations and risk retribution by Hamas—all for the benefit of an enemy state that is currently bombing their homes and streets?

And besides, compared to the general Palestinian population, UNRWA isn’t that filled with militants anyway. According to Israel themselves, only 190 out of 13,000 UNRWA employees are militants, which is about 0.015%, compared to a total of 40,000 Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives out of 2.1 million Gazans, which is about 0.02%.

(There is an allegation that 10% of them are involved with Hamas, but I feel like the "involved" part is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Gaza is controlled by Hamas after all; they couldn’t have worked there without some connection.)

Plus, UNRWA seems to be somewhat willing to investigate itself for its problems. They have announced investigations into their staff for antisemitism before. And when Israel said 12 of their staff participated in the October 7th attack, UNRWA suspended them right away. OIOS’s investigation of 19 cases accused by Israel said that 9 of them are likely to be involved in the attack, 10 have minor evidence, and one person has no evidence at all.

Of course, this doesn’t mean Israel is lying. After all, they have much better intelligence than OIOS, but the fact that UNRWA only allowed the one person who they can’t find any evidence against to go back to work shows that UNRWA can indeed be influenced by Israel.

And again, how will banning UNRWA solve these problems?

If someone has the courage and extremist mentality to become a Hamas terrorist, it is likely that they aren’t concerned with things like money, status, or even their own life anymore. Removing their UNRWA jobs is unlikely to convince them to change.

How UNRWA helps Israel

(Before you go into this part, read this: "Don’t Cry for UNRWA. It Helped Sustain Decades of Israel’s Occupation" by Haaretz. It has a very anti-Israel tone but describes perfectly why previous leaders of Israel allowed UNRWA to operate and its benefits to Israel that have been mostly overlooked by most UNRWA supporters and detractors.)

First, and I just can’t stress this enough, UNRWA BASICALLY FUNDED THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF THE WEST BANK. By providing aid, support, and education for Palestinians, which allowed them to work, create businesses, and live in a generally normal way, UNRWA returned billions of dollars to the Israeli economy while basically relieving them of their obligation to care for Palestinians.

Do you realize what will happen if UNRWA left the West Bank? Either Israel dumps hundreds of millions of dollars for a hostile population who is suspicious of them, or Palestinians will start to starve and become impoverished, which will:

a) Make Israel look quite bad.
b) Make them resort to either becoming militants or launching terrorist attacks so their family can get the PA pay-to-slay stipend.

Second, like it or not, most of the Palestinian refugees didn’t simply flee according to the Arab Higher Committee's calling. Instead, most of them were uprooted due to either their local leader organizing evacuation, fear of attack, reports of (sometimes exaggerated) massacres committed by Jewish forces, or at gunpoint by the Irgun and Lehi.

Under these conditions, given that they aren’t allowed to return, a lot of them will inevitably resent Israel and the Jewish people.

These are only mitigated by the fact that UNRWA exists, which allowed them to live, have a life, feel like they are cared for, and have a purpose, and to teach them the principles of equality and tolerance instead of just bloodthirsty revenge. Without UNRWA, I expect most Palestinian refugee camps will not just disappear; instead, they will become dens of anti-Israel activity, which will foster Israeli attacks, which will foster more bad blood, and things will go downhill FAST.

Third, like it or not, UNRWA is one of the most amendable Palestinian organizations. Don’t forget that they are the ONLY Palestinian group that condemned the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack. In Palestine, where criticism of the Hamas attack is limited to, at best, its strategic wisdom, UNRWA stands out in condemning them—not just because they are bad for the Palestinians, but because it is wrong to kill civilians and kidnap them for over a year.

Let's be real,in this current situation,even if Israel defeated Hamas,it will be impossible for them to rule Gaza without any collaboration with Gazans.And out of all Palestinian group,UNRWA is the most likely to accept or even actively take part in the new Israeli's backed goverment.

Since October 7th,i feel like the general environment in Israel has been a hatred of all Palestinian organisation,of all Palestinian political forces.If Israel wanted to rule,they must abandon their personal distaste of Palestinians force,and be able to seperate the moderate Palestinians fron the radical and enpower them.It may not made a difference to you,but if you look from the persepective of Palestinians,you will see there is a difference between celebrating the October 7th attack to actively celebrating Hamas war crimes,and there is a difference between celebrating Hamas war crime to actively taking part in it.

And remember, pragmatism is key.

I am seeking honest opinions about what would happen if (Gd forbid), the Jewish State of Israel was destroyed in order to make way for a Palestinian Arab country.

There are ~8 million Jews living in their homeland. They have self-determination to create a society that brings them dignity and a military that brings them safety.

The way I see it, there are at least 4 distinct groups of people that would die.

The first group would be those who die in the primary war that would be required because the Jews are not going to freely give up their land. Of the 8 million Jews in Israel and the same number in the Diaspora, it’s safe to assume that more than 1,000,000 Jews would give their lives for Israel; and the war would not end until all of them were killed.

The second group of people to die would be those killed in the regional c second group of people to die would be those killed in the regional conflict and beyond. Israel is a nuclear power; make no mistake, the only situation that Israel would use a nuclear bomb would be if i second group of people to die would be those killed in the regional conflict and beyond. Israel is a nuclear power; make no mistake, the only situation that Israel would use a nuclear bomb would be if its destruction was otherwise imminent. It’s possible the whole world dies in a chain reaction with the other nuclear powers having no choice but to also fire. In this scenario, anywhere from a few hundred thousand to billions die.

The third group would be the Jews who are killed or die as a result of not having Israel as a safe haven to flee toward in the event that life becomes dangerous as a result of anti-Semitism or natural disasters.

The last group would be the Jews left after the war who are forced to pay the jizya tax and live as second class citizens, which would lead to a war of attrition and constant rebellion such that no one in the land would know peace.

I think there would be at least 1.5 million people killed if the protesters had their way but the number could also be much higher.

What number of people do you think would die if Israel was replaced by Palestine from the Jordanian River to the Mediterranean Sea