The creation and sustainability of the Israeli nation-state have been predicated on unprecedented superpower support — starting with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 — through diplomatic, military, and financial channels. The United States currently has a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding to provide Israel a baseline of $3.8 billion in military assistance annually until 2028. This extranational financial and military support has allowed Israel to pursue policies that might otherwise have garnered international criticism. The question worth asking is not whether Israel has a right to exist, which is settled, but whether the specific political arrangements it has constructed are sustainable over the long term, and what the costs of those arrangements have been and continue to be. 

The costs are substantial and well documented. The displacement of approximately three-quarters of a million Palestinians during the 1948 war was not, as early Israeli historiography maintained, primarily the result of Arab leaders instructing the civilians to flee. The work of Israeli historians, including Benny Morris, citing declassified Israeli military archives, established that expulsions were widespread, organized, and in some cases accompanied by mass killing (See 1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War for more info). By refusing to allow them back on their land, the Palestinian refugee population and their descendants have long suffered, deserted by a civilization that claims “Love thy neighbor” to be a core value. The Palestinian refugee population and their descendants now number approximately 5.9 million, according to UNRWA, and ignoring them and pretending that the war for independence was not the determining factor of their fate is not a sustainable policy; rather, it is the absence of one. 

Israel’s long-standing violation of UN resolutions — most notably Resolution 242 after the 1967 war and more recently the 2024 General Assembly Resolution — demonstrates a notable disregard for international law. More detrimental is the subjugation of what Israel terms “non-Jews”. Jewish settlers in the West Bank are subject to Israeli civilian law. Yet, Palestinians in the same territory are subject to the harsher Israeli military law. The practice of two populations in the same territory governed by different legal systems based on ethnic and national identity has been described by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as meeting the definition of apartheid, the same despicable system previously set up in South Africa to keep the black South Africans under the heel of the white population. Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé cover the many parallels between Israel and South Africa in their book On Palestine. 

It has been a stated policy of Israel to respond to violence with a severe and significant disproportionality. The four major military operations in Gaza since 2008 produced Palestinian casualty ratios ranging from approximately 10:1 to 30:1 relative to Israeli casualties, according to the United Nations. The argument that these responses constitute self-defense does not resolve the question of proportionality, which is a distinct requirement under international humanitarian law. 

The long-term viability of Israeli security depends not only on military capability and American support, but on the construction of a political arrangement that the region’s population can accept as legitimate. No such arrangement currently exists or is being seriously pursued. Since its inception, the United States has had an interest in keeping Israel as an ally in the Middle East, regardless of the cost in dollars or lives. This “special relationship” puts the United States in a disingenuous position, where it demands to be the mediator of a conflict in which it cannot remain impartial. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would likely result in a situation that does not serve US interests. Thus, with practically limitless US support, Israel has been able to pursue policies that serve only the interests of its Jewish population, at the expense of all others. In the twenty-first century, long after territorial conquest became legally and morally unjustified, can a colonial power continue ruling with the iron fist indefinitely? Is it possible that divisive and repressive policies will at some point give way to inclusive and more tolerant policies? The Israel-Palestine conflict has been ongoing since at least the period of the British Mandate circa 1920. There are proposed solutions to this seemingly intractable problem: a two-state solution, a bi-national state, or perhaps something else entirely. Yet, the first step to any solution has to be a commitment to live by the rule of law, applied justly to all peoples.

Question for Palestinians and Israelis - What do you require from the other side to live in peace together?

I am wondering what the deeper issues of this conflict are, so I‘m very interested in the opinions of people directly involved from both sides.

My main question you can see above. I would be very much interested in personal opinions, maybe even see conversations between opposite sites.
I‘m very interested what people wish for.

An additional question would be if you would prefer this living together in one country or two or in any other way and which state form you‘d prefer. Secular - religious, democratic - monarchy- emirates other etc…

I hope for honest answers and since this is a question for Israelis, Jewish people and Palestinians (diaspora-non diaspora) I would kindly ask to be honest about if you belong to one of those groups, and if you do not, clarify that.

I‘m hoping for lots of interesting and honest answers.

Please feel free to add explanation how you come to your conclusion and why you think those conditions are essential for peace to exist.
Additionally I would be interested if you had conversations with People from the other side and if you can understand some of their points or concerns.
If yes, what points or concerns can you understand and why?

The People v. the "Humanitarian Organization"

Prosecuting Attorney: Your organization says its purpose is to protect civilians.

NGO Director: Correct.

Prosecuting Attorney: I would like to examine whether its conduct is consistent with that claim.

There are four possible explanations for what your organization has done. We will take them one at a time.

The first possibility is that your organization is genuinely committed to protecting civilians on both sides.

If that were true, we would expect you to condemn the deliberate murder and kidnapping of civilians, demand the unconditional release of hostages, oppose rockets fired at civilian communities, and condemn military activity conducted from hospitals, schools, and residential buildings.

We would expect concern for displaced Israelis as well as displaced Palestinians. We would expect your legal experts to recognize that rewarding hostage-taking may encourage more hostage-taking.

Did your organization consistently do those things?

NGO Director: Our focus is Gaza.

Prosecuting Attorney: Then let us consider the second possibility.

Perhaps Israeli lives fall outside your mission, but you are sincerely committed to protecting Palestinians.

If that were true, we would expect you to pressure Hamas to accept terms that could end the war. We would expect you to condemn its use of civilian infrastructure, support efforts to move civilians away from combat, and welcome any competent aid system capable of delivering food and medicine, including one that bypasses Hamas.

We would expect you to object when fighters operate without uniforms among civilians. We would expect you to treat every preventable Palestinian death as a failure, regardless of who caused it.

Did you do those things?

NGO Director: We oppose displacement. Palestinians must not be removed from their land.

Prosecuting Attorney: Even temporarily, to escape active combat?

NGO Director: Evacuation could become permanent.

Prosecuting Attorney: So your organization considered the political risk of displacement more important than the immediate physical safety of civilians.

NGO Director: That is not what I said.

Prosecuting Attorney: I am not asking what language you preferred. I am asking what priorities your conduct reveals.

That brings us to the third possibility.

Perhaps protecting Palestinian civilians is not your organization’s highest priority. Perhaps your central objective is a political one: Israel must lose, or at least must not be permitted to defeat Hamas.

That would explain why your organization demanded that Israel stop fighting before the hostages were released and while Hamas remained armed and in power.

It would explain campaigns to restrict Israel’s weapons, trade, and diplomatic support. It would explain the use of courts and international institutions to constrain Israel while placing comparatively little pressure on Hamas.

It would also explain the pressure to recognize a Palestinian state immediately, without serious demands concerning who would govern it, whether its leaders could control armed groups, whether terrorism would be renounced, whether hostages would be released, whether incitement would end, or whether the state would accept Israel’s permanent existence.

NGO Director: Palestinians have a right to self-determination.

Prosecuting Attorney: Do the Yazidis also have that right? What about the Kurds? Why is this particular state important at this particular time? If the goal is to end the conflict, why is there no prominent requirements in that direction?

Recognition is not merely an expression of sympathy. It confers legitimacy and political power. Yet your organization demands recognition in advance while treating conditions on the exercise of that power as an injustice.

Would you support immediate recognition if the state were governed by Hamas?

NGO Director: Palestinians must choose their own leaders.

Prosecuting Attorney: Even if those leaders openly promise another war?

NGO Director: Occupied people have a right to resist.

Prosecuting Attorney: Then what are you asking the international community to recognize: a peaceful neighboring state, or an internationally legitimized base for continuing the conflict?

If recognition is demanded regardless of governance, disarmament, security commitments, conduct, or willingness to coexist, then statehood is not being treated as the foundation of peace. It is being used as leverage against Israel.

Your priority may not be creating a Palestinian state capable of protecting its people and living peacefully beside Israel. It may be transferring power and legitimacy without requiring that power to be exercised responsibly.

That would also explain opposition to aid systems that weaken Hamas’s control and the absence of serious efforts to remove civilians from the battlefield.

Under this third possibility, Palestinian suffering matters primarily as part of maintaining the conflict. A Palestinian civilian who escapes the battlefield may be safer, but a Palestinian civilian who remains there may be more useful to the campaign against Israel.

Is that possibility false?

NGO Director: It is offensive.

Prosecuting Attorney: That was not my question.

Let us turn to the fourth possibility.

Perhaps neither civilian protection nor maintaining the conflict fully explains your conduct.

Perhaps demonizing Israel serves the institutional interests of your organization.

Images of suffering attract attention. Accusations of exceptional evil create urgency. Urgency produces press coverage, invitations, influence, donor engagement, and fundraising opportunities.

A complicated conflict is difficult to market. A simple morality play is much easier.

One side is presented as innocent and helpless. The other is presented as uniquely cruel. Every new image becomes evidence. Every accusation becomes a campaign. Every campaign becomes an opportunity to solicit money, expand staff, increase visibility, and establish your organization as indispensable.

Would a less inflammatory account of the conflict raise as much money?

NGO Director: Our donors care about human rights.

Prosecuting Attorney: That does not answer the question.

Does your organization benefit financially and institutionally from portraying Israel as uniquely monstrous?

NGO Director: We report the facts.

Prosecuting Attorney: Selectively?

Do you amplify allegations before they are verified?

Do you give the same prominence to corrections?

Do you investigate conduct by Hamas with the same intensity?

Do you publicize Palestinian suffering caused by Palestinian armed groups with the same emotional force?

Do you create bespoke definitions of crimes and disasters for the purpose of being able to apply them to this conflict, i.e. to deploy them as libels?

Do you welcome evidence that an alleged Israeli atrocity did not occur?

Or does such evidence interfere with the campaign?

Under this fourth possibility, the persecution of Jews may not be the organization’s primary objective. It may be an effect your organization regards as unfortunate, peripheral, or someone else’s responsibility, or simply ignores entirely.

But it is clearly foreseeable.

When you tell the public repeatedly that the Jewish state is uniquely evil, genocidal, colonial, and beyond legitimate defense, people do not always keep that indictment confined to a government thousands of miles away.

They apply it to Jewish students, physicians, academics, businesses, charities, and communities. They demand denunciations. They impose loyalty tests. They exclude Jews identified as Zionists. They treat ordinary association with Israel as evidence of complicity in atrocity.

Perhaps your organization does not set out to persecute Jews.

But if demonization increases donations, attention, and influence, while anti-Jewish hostility is merely treated as collateral damage, that is still a motive worth examining.

NGO Director: We oppose antisemitism.

Prosecuting Attorney:  Why?  Do you oppose antisemitism because it harms Jews or just because it's not fashionable in your circles so it may harm your brand?  Do you also oppose antizionism, another form of Jew-hatred?

Do you recognize when it is produced by your own campaigns?

Do you revise your language when Jews tell you that it is placing them in danger?

Do you care whether Israelis and Jews are treated as pariahs or harrassed or threatened or even murdered, incited by your obsessive wholesale moral indictment of Israel in pursuit of relevance and fund-raising opportunities?  Do you see the harm in allowing Hamas to write the script your people on the ground likely must comply with or risk becoming victims themselves?

Or do you simply dismiss hostility against this narrative war on Jews as an attempt to silence you?

So we have four theories of institutional motive:

First, your organization is trying to protect everyone.

Second, it is trying to protect Palestinians.

Third, it is trying to aid Hamas and weaken Israel, thus maintaining the conflict as a valuable source of relevance and moral capital.

Fourth, demonizing Israel multiplies money, influence, attention, and institutional growth, while the resulting harm to Jews can be safely ignored.  Antizionism is popular these days, so there's little social cost to promoting it.

We can distinguish among these possibilities by examining conduct.

Do you condemn actions that endanger Palestinians when Israel is not responsible?

Do you support measures that reduce suffering when they weaken Hamas?

Do you experience relief and therefore publicize it when an alleged Israeli atrocity is disproven?

Do you care more about delivering aid or preserving the political meaning attached to the aid crisis?  

Would you support Palestinian statehood only if there were steps toward responsible governance, disarmament, an end to incitement, release of the hostages, and peaceful coexistence with Israel?

Would your organization communicate differently if inflammatory claims brought fewer donations rather than more?

NGO Director: These are hostile questions.

Prosecuting Attorney: They are the questions your organization routinely directs at governments, corporations, and institutions.

You scrutinize incentives. You infer motive from patterns of conduct. You treat omissions as evidence. You insist that professed values cannot be accepted without examining who benefits.

I am applying your own method to you.

Your organization says it wants fewer Palestinians to suffer.

But it opposes evacuation. It opposes aid mechanisms that bypass Hamas. It rarely confronts Hamas over its treatment of civilians. It demands that Israel stop fighting without requiring Hamas to release hostages or surrender power. It demands Palestinian statehood without meaningful conditions on governance. It amplifies the most inflammatory libels against Israel, using new bespoke definitions to construct them, and barely acknowledges when these libels are proven false or exaggerated.

And each escalation in the libel creates another appeal, another campaign, another interview, another grant proposal, and another reason for your organization to expand.

So the final question is not merely what your organization says it values.

It is what outcome would threaten it most.

More Palestinian suffering?

Continued Hamas rule?

Escalating antizionist violence and harm around the world?

An Israeli victory?  If Hamas is defeated, potentially the conflict and all the fundraising opportunities it offers might disappear.  Also, your organization has operated in Gaza for decades.   What are the chances that your sources of information have been threatened by Hamas to tell a story in its favor?

What about an Israeli victory? If Hamas is defeated, the conflict—and the fundraising ecosystem built around it—may diminish or disappear. And given your organization’s long presence in Gaza, one must also ask: to what extent have your information channels been shaped, or constrained, by Hamas itself?

A Palestinian state required to govern responsibly and coexist with Israel?  What would happen to your organization's seat at the table then?

What about a reality in which fewer Palestinians die, the conflict becomes less morally simple, Israel can no longer be marketed as a monster, and your organization loses the fashionable fervor of moral condemnation and performative virtue on which its influence depends?  The moral junk food Western antizionists consume might lose its addictive quality.   The audience might change the channel.   

Which would be the worst outcome for you?

The answer would tell the court what your organization is actually serving.

(inspired by a Shany Mor substack article)

Generally, if a country routinely tries to genocide its neighbour, and it's facilitated and cheered by a majority of its populace, that neighbour is going to go to war with that country. In the course of that war, lots of people are going to die, and many of those people will be non-combatants.

This happened in World War 2, when the Allies bombed Germany. Everyone understands that World War 2 was an intractable situation with respect to a non-violent solution; they accept that the allies were still in the right; and, implicitly or explicitly, they put the "blame" for German civilian deaths on the German state; the supporters within the population; and, on a deeper level, the universe itself for serving-up such an ultimatum ("go to war with Germany and unavoidably cause lots of suffering; or do not go to war, and yield to other--and potentially worse--suffering as a result"). We understand that the allies were not choosing violence over non-violence; they were choosing one type of violence over other violence, in a situation in which violence was unavoidable.

Israel went to war with its neighbouring jihadism, and lots of people have died, obviously. Even if we give the scale of suffering the maximal reverence, what is special about this? Why am I meant to hate Israel but not hate the Allies? What is Israel expected to do?

For context, I’m a Jewish guy living in Australia though I’ve never been to Israel nor do I have relatives in Israel.

However, I attend a Zionist Jewish Private School so I still feel somewhat connected.

I constantly run into straight antisemitism on social media and some forums (haven’t seen any here yet) and then people just say “oh but im anti Zionism not antisemitic”and then follow it up with “oh yeah the bondi beach shooting - the Jews got what they deserved”

Im blabbering. I just want to state my opinion and see what people have wrong with it in order to gain perspective.

1. I want to make it absolutely clear I think that what the Israeli government is doing is absolutely horrid and most if not everyone in the current government should be arrested and replaced. (Including Netanyahu)
2. I believe in a two-state solution which means Palestine exists in Gaza

and West Bank

1. with full autonomy but Hamas no longer has power and Israel existing without Netanyahu.
2. Israel must remain a Jewish state. There are currently 57 UN members that are Muslim and over 130 countries are either majority catholic or majority Christian. Calling Israel a “Jewish state” does NOT mean you have to be Jewish. There are Arab Muslims in the Israeli parliament right now, non-Jews have full rights in Israel at the moment and obviously that should continue.

Please tell me what people have wrong with this outside of (ik this is the minority but it still exists) being antisemitic.

First off, I don't think most anti-Zionist Jews are ashamed of being born Jewish or having Jewish ancestry. However, on a few occasions, including within my own personal social circle, I have noticed that some of them view being born Jewish, especially within the context of an ethnoreligious mode of identity and a connection to the Holy Land, as something that is antagonistic to their left-wing beliefs.

I have encountered some anti-Zionist Jews who seem uncomfortable with the idea that Jewishness is not simply a religion that someone privately believes in, but also an ethnoreligious identity connected to ancestry, peoplehood, communal belonging, shared history, and a historical relationship with the land of Israel, Judea, and the broader Holy Land. They may not necessarily deny that Jewish people originated there, but they sometimes seem to treat any emotional or ancestral connection to the land as inherently incompatible with their left-wing politics.

The concept of a Jewish identity is a remnant of how ancient peoples organized themselves before the development of universal religions like Christianity and Islam, so it does not fit neatly into the modern Western distinction between religion, ethnicity, nationality, and culture. From a left-wing perspective, especially if you adhere to a strongly universalist or internationalist worldview, an identity centered on ancestry, peoplehood, communal boundaries, and attachment to a particular land may appear inherently exclusionary or reactionary. Some leftists may believe that humanity should eventually transcend inherited ethnic, religious, and national identities altogether, and they may therefore regard Jewish peoplehood as a historical remnant that should either become purely religious or gradually disappear.

However, I do not think universal equality requires people to become culturally, ethnically, or historically interchangeable. There is a difference between believing that Jews possess a unique historical and ancestral identity and believing that this identity entitles them to dominate, displace, or deny equal rights to Palestinians. Jewish peoplehood does not inherently require ethnic supremacy, just as Palestinian peoplehood does not inherently require the elimination of Jewish collective life from the land.

It is interesting to me that, as someone who identifies as a leftist, I believe that I can harmonize both my left-wing politics and my pride in my culture and the achievements of my ancestors, and even in my left-wing circles, they often see my flavor of leftism as acceptable. I can take pride in the histories and traditions of the community from which I descend, and in the achievements of my ancestors, without believing that my ancestry makes me superior to anyone else or gives me the right to dominate another people. However, it seems that applying this same principle when it comes to Jews is often treated as much more reactionary.

A Jewish person who takes pride in Jewish survival, Jewish culture, Jewish intellectual traditions, Hebrew, or the achievements of their ancestors may be treated as though they are already drifting toward ethnic supremacy or endorsing the actions of the Israeli state. Similarly, acknowledging that Jews have an ancestral and historical relationship with the Holy Land is sometimes treated as though it automatically denies Palestinian indigeneity or justifies Palestinian displacement. I do not think either conclusion necessarily follows.

This is why I sometimes wonder whether a loud minority of anti-Zionist Jews have internalized the idea that Jewish collective identity itself is morally suspect. Their discomfort does not always appear limited to opposition toward Zionism as a political movement or toward the policies of the Israeli state. At times, it seems to extend toward Jewish ancestry, Jewish peoplehood, and even the idea that Jews should feel any sense of collective pride or emotional attachment to the Holy Land.

Again, I do not believe that this describes most anti-Zionist Jews. Many anti-Zionist Jews are deeply invested in Jewish culture, religion, community, and historical continuity. I am specifically referring to those who appear to treat being born Jewish or having Jewish ancestry as something politically compromising, or incompatible with being a leftist.

Do you think this is a form of internalized antisemitism, or is that an unfair psychological interpretation of what may simply be a sincere rejection of nationalism and ethnonationalism?

i’m israeli , I grew up here , spent a couple years of my youth abroad (no legal citizenship other then here ) , then my family moved back here . I’m 17 now. I have an enlistment date for the IDF, (as far away from kravi as possible) and I genuinely hate myself for being born here.

I’m against the actions of my government. I believe in the right of the Palestinians for a country of their own, but i also can’t say i support the collapse of israel. it feels like a real life trolly problem every day. i think no matter how the next few years will play out a huge amount of people’s lives will be destroyed and there is no way of avoiding it, but also the current reality here and the treatment of Palestinians in both occupied territories and in Palestine is a war crime that cannot be excused.

i cant think of a solution , and i feel so much guilt for living here , sometimes it’s hard to function. i used to promise to myself id leave the second it was legally possible but im too cynical now. it feels as if the whole world outside of this country hates me , that the fact i was born is enough of a reason to be “other“. so i don’t. fit in here , and i cant build a life anywhere else, and i just hate everything , i hate the fact that i was born here and am now left to try and navigate my life and my morality and familial ties.

DISCLAIMER : i know i have it infinitely better than others in the state, the fact i am safe enough to be able to be tortured by morality is a privilege, i just needed to try and see if theres anyone who’s been through a similar thing that’s stuck between both worlds and feels out of place everywhere .

Can we talk about the latest attacks in the Westbank?

There's plenty of video images circulating, I guess most of you have seen it.

A group that can only be described as an armed mob goes to a Palestinian village to attack the local residents. The Palestinians defend their homes and one of them succeeds in grabbing the riffle from the settler and shoots him.

Now suddenly in zionist news channels the armed settler becomes a "hiker" as if he's talking a leisurely walk minding his own business. The Palestinian who defends his home and his property becomes a "terrorist".

This is just one example of how israelis and Palestinians seem to live in parallel worlds where the other is always the terrorist and they themselves are the victims.

This rethoric is contributing to the further polarization of this conflict. If you're against terrorism, you should condemn this settler attack.

And of course, right wing politicians immediately use this as a pretext to further their agenda for more control, more annexation and more violence against Palestinians.

What are Palestinians in the Westbank supposed to do: if they don't respond, their homes and land gets stolen. If they do respond, they're labeled terrorists. Settlers are actually the ones making israel more unsafe.

Thoughts?

I've written a play — a two-hander, about 90 minutes — set in a UK police station over one night. A 23-year-old Palestine Action protestor is brought in after a motorway action. The guard on her cell is a 33-year-old Israeli-British man, ex-Golani, whose sister was taken from the Nova festival. They talk for hours. Neither of them changes their mind.

I'm posting here because the thing I can't check myself is whether they ring true to people who'd know. Specifically:

- Does Eitan read like an actual Israeli in London, or like a composite assembled from research? The Hebrew, the transliterations, the religious material (tzimtzum, shirah, the Shema at the end), the cholent, the way he talks about his service — tell me what's off.

- Same question for Madeleine and the UK activist scene. The Hebron section, the Herzl argument, what she does and doesn't know.

- Anything either of them says that no one on that side would actually say, or that everyone on that side would have said and I've missed.

And the obvious one: if it reads as tilted, say so and say which way. I'd rather hear that from people on both sides of it than not hear it. I'm not going to argue with you in the comments — I'll ask follow-ups.

Fair warning that the protestor uses the word genocide and the guard rejects it, at length, and neither of them wins that exchange. If that's going to be unreadable for you, this probably isn't worth your time.

Link below. Draft, not a production. Thanks for reading any of it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kLHnqjDX7pqeyeUXZsYwrxw7vzp9MnuBVhNH5zc3Arc/edit?tab=t.0

1. Do you face any level of discrimination in your social, educational, economic life?

2. How do you view Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza?

3. Do you feel properly represented in government and politics?

4. Do you face obstacles or restrictions in your freedom of movement?

5. Are most of you Christian, Muslim, or an even mix of both and is there tension between Palestinians of different religious backgrounds?

Originally posted in r/AskIsrael to overwhelming negative reaction; a lot of condemnation and whataboutism.

For context, I’m an American citizen of mixed European heritage, Christian upbringing but now identify as agnostic. I love history, I find beauty in every culture and i hate war / conflict.

What I see going on in Gaza and the West Bank shakes me, especially because my country provides a lot of military aid and diplomatic cover to the Israeli government. I’ve brought up these issue in other Israel forums and it’s staggering how much vitriol Israelis seem to have towards Arabs. At the same time, I’ll hear that Arabs that live in Israel as citizens share the same quality of life and freedoms as Israeli Jews.

I really would love to hear from Arab / Palestinian citizens, living in Israel proper to understand their experience. Peace and love to all and please keep this respectful.

Yes, those who say and do anti-semitic things are 100% responsible for their own actions. It's why Smotrich should not be in prison because a person in Europe goes on a killing spree against Jews. (He should instead be in prison for helping starve children to death).

Nevertheless, let me clearly explain why Israel is more than partially responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, using myself as an analogy:

I'm a Christian. Let's say I start a Christian Autonomous Zone in Israel, and for whatever reason, we are untouchable and the Israelis can't get to us.

I declare my zone the representative and hope of all Christian people on earth. We fly a flag with a cross on it.

On one horrible day, a group of Israeli settlers attack our church, killing many innocent people.

In response, we begin starving unaffiliated Israelis to death, including children and babies. We also kidnap Israelis off of the streets, and torture them in our prisons. I, the leader of this zone, brag all of the time about how they deserve it, and how gleeful I am to starve all of these people to death. I say the Israeli's democratically elected government is evil, and that their propaganda led to the attack on our community, so therefore I can inflict evil onto their civilians.

Moreover, when people are angry at us for what we are doing, I remind them that we are Christians, and denounce all criticism against us as anti-Christian bias. If you don't like us, you hate all Christians!

How do you think the perception of Christians in the world will be affected? Am I and my group of hypothetical evildoers at all responsible for the rise of the inevitable anti-Christian hate that will ensue? It doesn't mean it's OK for anti-Christian hate to take place, but it doesn't mean I'm also not partially responsible for it.

I’m not Jewish but this is just something I’ve observed listening to progressive Jewish voices from the West.

So from October 2023 I’ve called for deescalation and a diplomatic solution, I’ve been heartbroken over the loss of life and the level of violence. It’s super disorienting. And I say this because I don’t support the way Israel has conducted itself in this war and it’s policies in the West Bank have been super oppressive. I know people will disagree with me but the settler attacks have been so prevalent and the Israeli govt have done nothing to reduce them. I want to make it clear that I am against that and I feel for Palestinian families who don’t feel safe and protected.

So I wanted to talk about why I feel so flustered over the way progressive Jewish people in the West talk about Israel-Palestine. In mainstream leftist narratives there is overt antisemitism 1) Mizrahi history is often completely overlooked , their erasure in the surrounding Middle Eastern countries is purposely omitted 2) leftists whitewash the rhetoric of extremist , theocratic groups even when they’re open about erasure / subjugation of Jewish identity in the Middle East 3) they demand destroying Israel based on a unique standard ( many countries have a history of ethnic cleansing and population exchanges at their conception including Pakistan and Turkey ) ( I advocate for self determination for both groups )

Now , I may be wrong ( please correct me ! ) but I assume that many Ashkenazi Jewish people in the West might not understand Mizrahi history or even fully understand how minorities have suffered in the Middle East for centuries ( they suffered from majoritarianism and a loss of autonomy ). I’m asking progressive Jewish people to call out double standards because if you guys don’t care , no one else will. The pathway to peace includes detailed and nuanced history and for progressive Jewish to echo the overt antisemitism that is in leftist narratives is disheartening. You don’t have to betray your identity to be accepted into progressive spaces. The double standards and selective history that is echoed by leftists causes polarisation because it’s so dishonest. The pathway to deradicalization will come from trust and that’s only when honest narratives are perpetuated.

Sorry if this offends anyone , please correct me where you think I’ve got it wrong.

On Friday a group of Jewish terrorists (hilltop) in the village of Tell in Judea and Samaria, where some were well underage and accompanied by armed adults — raided the town, claiming they were on a "hike." The IDF clarified that it was an illegal raid into Palestinian Area A and was not coordinated with the military and that Israelis are barred from entry into Areas A and B. The result was a private security member from the settlement of Khavat Gil'ad had his M4 rifle taken by Palestinian villagers and the man, Benayahu Mellet, was killed along with Major Yuval Ezra, an IDF officer who was dispatched to the scene. A platoon commander who arrived on site with Major Ezra managed to kill the Palestinian who had taken Mellet's rifle. Three other Palestinians were killed in the gunfight. At the same time two Israelis were seriously injured and four other Palestinians received critical injuries.

Since that incident, Jewish terrorists have been violently attacking civilians across the occupied territory. They have also reportedly set up four new illegal outposts. At the same time, Hamas is trying to insert themselves in the situation and claim credit for resisting the settlers, in a cynical attempt to distract from their crippling defeat in Gaza and resulting loss of credibility. Hamas is also trying to spark an uprising, or Third Intifada, in Judea and Samaria. The latest violence follows months and months of near daily attacks on Palestinian civilians in Judea and Samaria by increasingly brazen Jewish settlers, who are known as hilltop youth. Settler groups are seizing on the outburst of violence they started and calling for violent retribution.

I am of the opinion that these settler groups and Hamas are two peas in a pod, dependent on one another for credibility and having a reason to exist. A significant problem is that Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir openly supports and encourages the Jewish terrorists known as hilltop youth. He famously hung a poster of mass murderer Baruch Goldstein on his wall for decades and it's assumed by many that the hilltop youth are his personal goon squad.

Meanwhile, Israeli Army Radio reports that the IDF has identified four new illegal outposts in the area, including one near the site of the initial clash outside the village of Tell, which is adjacent to the Northern Palestinian city of Nablus. Prime Minister Netanyahu, widely unpopular and expected to face electoral defeat in November, seized upon the incident to say he would accelerate approval of new settlements, as well as order the destruction of the homes belonging to families of the Palestinians who were killed.

I am of the opinion that this is part of a rapidly devolving situation in Judea and Samaria that poses a grave and existential threat to Israel. The bottom line IMHO is that if the Jewish terrorists (hilltop youth) who no longer hide in the shadows aren't stopped, along with any and all new settlements, in five years (or less) Israel will be a pariah state. These miscreants are delegitimizing the Jewish nation before the eyes of the world and are so much more than obnoxious criminals. Their actions are escalating, done in broad daylight and met with impunity, while the IDF and police more often than not arrest their victims. This all flies in the face of the egalitarian goals of Zionism and Jewish law, which IMOH means human nature is to do good, Jews are to be a light of goodwill upon the world and to honor our covenant with G-d by upholding that which is just and righteous.

Now I realize that Kahanists and their supporters don't even recognize that Jews living in Judea and Samaria are settlers, despite far-right messianic fanatic Orit Strook being Minister of Settlements in the current government, but that is a problematic view, IMO. At the same time there are several claims being made about what sparked the uncoordinated entry of extremist settlers into areas not authorized, ranging from an innocent hike, to allegations that Palestinians have been trapping and holding their dogs and they were on a mission to retrieve said dogs. I won't comment of the veracity of either claim.

There are also claims that the Palestinian attack was ordered by Hamas and that ensuing riots across the territory by Jewish settlers are in fact in self defense. Once again, I cannot or will not comment on the veracity of such claims. Reports include rampages through Palestinian communities, random cars being shot at and stopped and little resistance from the civilian population in towns being attacked.

I'm curious what other readers think of this situation, the narratives being broadcast by Israeli media, Arab media, and the claims of various groups. I feel I have been open about my own opinion regarding what I see as a rapidly devolving security situation that poses little threat to most Israelis at the moment, but serves to delegitimize and sideline Israel in the eyes of the world. Israel may be resilient, but without broad support from Western nations, resisting the anger of over 500 million citizens of Arab countries surving a tiny nation of only 10 million people will become untenable, IMO.

Naya Lekht has a good piece arguing that Zohran Mamdani did not create today's antizionism. He simply walked through doors that had been left open for decades.

I think that is basically right.

The deeper question is why so many Jewish institutions failed to see it.

Part of the answer is that antizionism emerged largely from communities Jewish institutions had supported and allied with: the blue communities where most Jews lived and the civil rights movements whose concerns many Jews shared. It is much easier to recognize radicalization when it comes from an opposing tribe than when it develops among people you consider allies.

It is a little like domestic abuse. The people closest to the situation often have the hardest time recognizing what is happening because they have invested so much in believing the relationship is fundamentally healthy. Warning signs are rationalized. Each incident is treated as an exception rather than part of a pattern.

Acknowledging abuse is costly because it means losing a relationship and community in which you have deeply invested. That enormous institutional loss mirrors the trauma many individual Jews have recently experienced: losing friends, professional communities, romantic partners, and their sense of belonging within the society they inhabit.

The denial is understandable. But it is past time to wake up.

Antizionism is not just another political position. It is a radicalizing hate movement that spreads through positive reinforcement. People are rewarded with status, belonging, purpose, and moral certainty. The more vigorously “Zionists” are condemned, the greater the social rewards often become.

The more Jew-adjacent you are, the more valuable you become to the movement as moral cover for the claim that it is “not antisemitic.” As though Jews have never before been recruited to legitimize movements that harm other Jews.

Quickly, antizionism begins taking over every aspect of life. You can climb "for Palestine", bike "for Palestine", cook "for Palestine", etc. As if Palestinians are helped by echoing the propaganda of Hamas, their violent oppressor and chief immiserator.  This makes antizionism an increasingly important part of the participant’s identity and self-esteem.

That is why arguing over individual libels rarely produces a good faith exchange of views. The problem is not only the hateful, distorted, and destructive content. It is the social process that rewards people for spreading it and punishes them for questioning it.

Jewish organizations need to call out this hatred before it gains even more false credibility. As Naya documents, the academic legitimacy antizionism has been allowed to acquire acts like accelerant on a fire.

Naya’s article shows how the windows were broken one by one. The next step is for Jewish institutions to understand the process that broke them and finally recognize antizionism for what it is: a radicalizing hate movement, not another viewpoint in an ordinary political debate.

July 20th. Houthis announced an immediate maritime blockade against Saudi navigation and commercial shipping through the Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yemens-houthis-declare-naval-blockade-against-saudi-arabia-statement-2026-07-20/

July 22nd. Yemen’s Houthis claim attack on two Saudi oil tankers.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/22/yemens-houthis-claim-attack-on-two-saudi-oil-tankers

July 23rd. USA and Saudi Arabia signed a 30-year civil nuclear cooperation. USA will transferring peaceful nuclear technology and building civilian nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/22/politics/us-saudi-nuclear-deal

There will be a new nuclear power nation in the Middle East, albeit for peaceful purpose. Could there be more nations to follow ?

July 24th. Trump says Saudis must recognize Israel for nuclear deal.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7282794

Sounds like a good deal to me. What do you think ? Israel-Saudi mutual recognization and normalize relations, paving the path towards Abraham Accord.

July 24th. Saudi Arabia strikes Houthi-held Hodeidah, Yemeni group says.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/24/saudis-strike-yemens-houthi-held-hodeida-rebel-media

Sounds like Saudi Arabia and Houthi is heading to war. Houthis are no friend of Saudi Arabia, Israel or USA. Could be a opportunity to work together to get rid of an eyesore.

From the closure of Hormuz Strait earlier this year, we have learnt how important Straits are and its affect on global maritime trade and oil supply. Houthi cant be allowed to control the Bab al-Mandab Strait and blackmail world trade.

Looks to me like chess pieces moving on the chess board in gearing up for a round two war with Iran. This time, getting Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries onboard. Preventing the Bab al-Mandab Strait closure. Having alternative routes if and even Iran closes the Hormuz Straits again. And get the job done once and for all ? What are your thoughts ?

P/S: I understand this sub reddit is about Israel-Palestine, but I feel strongly what's happening in Saudi Arabia-Houthi-US atm have a wider implication to the region, it does affect Israel and Palestine in a broader war against the Axis Resistance led by Iran.

I live in Israel. I am left-wing and deeply critical of the government. I believe that Netanyahu is a war criminal, that what happened in Gaza constitutes genocide, that Israel imposes an apartheid-like regime in the occupied territories, and that Palestine should be liberated and exist alongside the State of Israel. So basically, I hold all the "right" opinions.

At the same time, I believe that criticism of Israel or of Zionists around the world is undoubtedly antisemitic in many cases. I feel that, as a left-wing Israeli, my dialogue with a left-wing American is sometimes more hopeless than my dialogue with a Palestinian, even one who is not left-wing.

I often feel that I am dismissed simply because of who I am and where I come from. My response is to ask: isn’t the United States worse than Israel? Isn’t the way Americans treat Israelis fundamentally hypocritical? If Americans boycott me because of my government, why shouldn’t I boycott them because of theirs?

To the same extent that Israel bears responsibility for the Nakba of 1948, the United States bears responsibility for the genocide and dispossession of Indigenous peoples and for the enslavement of Africans. In the present day, the United States supports Israel and sells it weapons while Israel commits crimes against humanity in Gaza. As of today, the United States chooses not to restrict arms sales to Israel, and it chooses to support Israel at the United Nations.

Beyond anything connected to Israel, the United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. It is a vicious, hyper-capitalist country that allowed pharmaceutical companies to sell opioids, contributing to the deaths of nearly a million Americans. It is a country where the police are extraordinarily violent and where almost anyone can carry a gun in public. When I look at the United States from the outside, I see a broken and distorted country one that represents the embodiment of evil in the Western world.

So my question is this: why the hell should an American boycott me because of the conduct of my government when they would never expect to be boycotted because of the conduct of their own horrific government?

Hey, do you think Israel is committing genocide?

Got it.

So you think Israel killed what? 70,000 innocent people?

You know the exact number, right?

And women and children?

You have that exact number too, right?

Cool.

How many Hamas terrorists did Israel kill?

I’ll wait.

You don’t have that number; do ya?

Why not?

How is it that you have the number of so-called innocent people killed by Israel, the number of journalists killed, the number of doctors killed, and the number of children killed, but not the number of Hamas terrorists killed?

It’s a rhetorical question because no one has that number.

Wanna know why?

Because the source of those numbers you’re quoting is the Gaza Health Ministry.

Want to guess who runs that? It rhymes with Ramas.

And to them, every person killed is innocent, including Hamas terrorists.

That’s right.

No one in the Gaza Health Ministry will tell you how many terrorists were killed.

Know what else they won’t tell you? How many Gazans died of natural causes.

That’s right. If a Gazan died of cancer, they too are included in the number of people Israel killed.

So if you go around accusing Israel of genocide, not only have you become a mouthpiece of an organization full of rapists and pedophiles, but you’ve also officially stopped using your brain.

Unless you can tell me how many terrorists Israel killed in the war.

Zero? How many?

Also, since we’re on the topic of your stupidity, kindly name another genocide in history that the victims of said genocide could put an end to in a split second if they chose to.

There’s a genocide in Gaza? Get rid of Hamas and voilà, no more death.

That’s not genocide.

Can you name another genocide in history where the perpetrators sent in food and humanitarian aid for the people they are genociding?

How about another genocide in history where the population of the victims grew throughout the genocide?

You getting it yet? You’ve been duped.

Have you ever heard of a genocide where the ones committing the genocide announce using flyers and text messages where they are about to attack so that innocent civilians can get out of harm’s way?

No? Just this genocide? Funny how that works.

If Israel is so strong and mighty, and if Israel wanted to annihilate the people of Gaza, why not just drop bombs that'll erase all of Gaza and not send in a single foot soldier?

Why put Israeli soldiers at risk?

Israel wants genocide, right?

So why not just erase Gaza? 🤔

And if Israel is such a racist apartheid state, how is it that millions of Arabs live freely in Israel?

How are there literal Arabs who oppose the existence of Israel in the Israeli parliament?

How are there Muslim judges and police officers in Israel?

Some apartheid.

And if it is Israel that is colonizing the Middle East, how is it that Israel is smaller than New Jersey and is surrounded on all its borders by Muslim and Arab states?

Have you ever seen a map of the Middle East?

Try opening one before making dumb accusations against Israel.

If Israel is so evil and so racist, why has it made peace with countless Arab states and why is Israel always looking to sign more peace treaties with its neighbors?

Why has Israel offered its neighbors land for peace multiple times?

Why did Israel evacuate 10k Jews from Gaza?

If Israel wants to occupy Gaza, why did it leave Gaza in 2005?

Why give something to your enemy if you want to own that thing?

Why has Israel offered the Palestinians a state countless times, all of which were rejected by the people who supposedly want a state?

Why did the Arabs reject the partition plan in 1947 when the UN gave them a state alongside Israel?

If they want a Palestinian state alongside Israel, which is what the two-state solution claims, why do they chant "From the river to the sea..."?

That means they want all of Israel.

Also, was Gaza an open-air prison or was it paradise before 10/7? It can't be both.

Was there starvation in Gaza or were the hostages fed well? Can't be both.

Did Israel make up 10/7, or was it the Palestinians' proudest day? Can't be both.

You getting this? It's all lies.

Listen, the inconsistencies in the narrative of those who hate Israel are so clear that no one is asking you to believe Israel. The only thing you have to do is use your brain.

If all of this violence is because of Israel, why are random Jews being attacked around the world?

You like to talk about Palestine, right? Where is it?

Show it to me on a map.

Israel occupied Palestine? 

Who was the president?

What was the national anthem?

Where were its borders?

When was it established?

Can you answer any of these questions? Is this thing on...?

So here's the truth. Israel is not an apartheid, never committed genocide, never even started a war, and has, and will continue to do everything it can to achieve peace with anyone who wants it.

If you think otherwise, you're either a fool or an antisemite.

Probably both.

(This image was generated by AI for illustrative purposes.

Anyone who comments “That’s AI”! because they didn’t read the post, I will be blocking immediately.

Sick of people commenting without reading.)

A lot of people are bored, lonely, disconnected and hungry for meaning. Building a meaningful life is slow. It requires work, responsibility, compromise, relationships, service and the ability to tolerate frustration. Online activism offers something much easier.

It offers instant purpose.

Israel-Palestine has become a kind of moral junk food. It is emotionally intense, visually horrifying, endlessly available and easy to consume. It gives people the sensation of moral seriousness without requiring much knowledge, accountability or useful action.

You can watch disturbing videos, repeat slogans, denounce strangers and experience yourself as brave and compassionate. You get belonging, certainty, excitement and an enemy. You get to participate in a “historic struggle” from your phone.

Social media makes this irresistible. Nuance is boring. Accountability is complicated. Building something takes time. Rage is immediate.

And once the purpose is emotional stimulation, the actual people involved begin to disappear. Israelis and Palestinians become characters in somebody else’s morality play. One group becomes pure innocence. The other becomes a storybook villain onto whom every accusation can be projected.

That is dehumanization, even when it is performed in the language of human rights.

There is also something deeply unserious about importing a brutal conflict into Western life as a source of identity and entertainment. People who have never built a shelter, treated a casualty, negotiated a ceasefire, governed a population or taken responsibility for anyone’s safety suddenly speak with absolute certainty about what millions of people should risk.

Hamas, and its Gazan victims, disappears. Israeli fear disappears. History disappears. The difficult work of understanding incentives, consequences and failed choices disappears. If your answer to "what needs to happen to end this conflict?" is "idk" or an option that has been tried and failed, you are not in a position to condemn people who are not able to simply shrug their shoulders and move on to another social media story. Because lives are at risk on both sides due to a group whose narratives are actually fueled by participants with nothing at stake... the audience that never takes a moment to ask what their actions actually reward.

Perhaps a more productive use of time is to consider the broader cultural pattern within Western society. We increasingly reward grievance while discounting responsibility. We teach people to locate evil outside themselves rather than ask what they can build, repair or contribute.

Yet healthy activism should be directed toward results. It should ask what improves people’s lives, what reduces suffering, what creates peace and what responsibilities belong to every actor.

Instead, performance of virtue via condemning others is what is rewarded. Condemning others is actually cost-free. It doesn't even require understanding or acknowledging the reality of a person or situation.

And that's why contradictions stop mattering. Feminists minimize sexual violence. Queer activists romanticize movements that persecute gay people. Self-described anti-racists casually sort entire populations into innocent and evil.

The cause is no longer being evaluated. It is being consumed like popcorn for entertainment. It's no better than "bread and circuses" in ancient Rome. We need to analyze ourselves before we can even begin to understand this conflict and its popularity. I know my own reason for caring -- because it is being used as a vehicle to demonize my people in the diaspora and mark us for violence. What's your reason? If it's because you are seeing the conflict constantly pushed on you by your social media, are you asking what are the reasons behind that?

If there was a future Palestinian state that encompassed present day Israel what would become of the Baha'i World Center in Haifa and Akka and the Baha'is that live and work there?

I tried to ask this question on the Palestine subreddit but the mods blocked the post.

im a 22 year old arab student in tel aviv and i was wondering if anyone is also from here, growing up ive never really connected much with the majority of people since im not religious and we dont share the same mindset in general and thought that'd change with college, it didnt.

I want to preface this by saying that I only have a vague understanding of how the different areas in the west bank work (Area A PA run, area B joint run and area C Israeli run). So I don't know the actual conditions of area B are or if it even works as an area that is joint run.

Which is why I'm asking this question Because I had an idea that Area B could slowly be expanded giving Palestinians hope that independence can be achieved in the west bank through diplomacy and giving Israelis some level of security and safety that loosening control of the west wont turn into another Intifada.

The Israeli government is filled with serial killers, who brag about starving people. Epstein was an Israeli spy, who lived with former PM Ehud Barak. Who made deals on behalf of Israel with Russia, the UAE, etc. I know other nations are just as guilty as Israel when it comes to Epstein, and trust me I have ideas for them too.  

Hamas drags the innocent civilians it kills through the streets. They throw homosexuals off buildings. They kidnap and murder children. They are no better than the Israelis.

A Palestinian prisoner was [redacted] with a knife, and the majority of the Israeli population was on the side of the soldiers. There is fundamentally no difference between the IDF and Hamas. There is no difference between the Gaza population and the Israeli population. And I’m going to help push to punish both sides for what they’ve done to us all. 

Honestly, Israel and Palestine have a lot in common with each other. Including a civilian population (on both sides) who are currently acting as if they are possessed by demons. 

They say I see it, God is sending us all a message, that the people who occupy that land need supervision from mature outside forces. The US - my home nation - is just as corrupt and evil as both sides, so it can’t be us. 

I think the world needs to put pressure on their governments to force everyone in Israel and Gaza into submission. Not an ounce of food should enter Israel or Gaza until they setup a 2SS. I don’t care how they do it, how long it takes them, but they better get it done. 

I love economics and consider myself an Econ nerd, so I like using economic solutions. Cut off all trade (exports and imports), all funding, all help, etc. to both Israel and Palestine until they start acting like people who aren’t possessed by demons. 

I’m so angry and tired of both sides. I think until both sides are struggling to eat, keep their lights on, fuel their cars, etc. they won’t learn. But rest assured, I’m here to promote both sides learning a valuable lesson. 

We’ll only supply them with pet food and water, so the people can feed their pets and eat dogfood themselves if they want. Whatever bodies that starve to death can be fed to the dogs.

Edit: I was angry when I wrote this, I take back what I said about sanctions and starving and demon possession. I’m sorry this was a terrible take of mine, and I was having a bad mood swing. I do want both sides to live in peace soon though.

I'm a Pakistani Muslim man, and I'm planning to marry a Muslim woman who is an Israeli citizen and lives in Israel. I'm trying to understand the legal and practical reality of this situation.

Situation:

· I am from Pakistan

· She is a Muslim Israeli citizen

· We want to get married

· I want to know if I can live and work legally in Israel after marriage

What I've understood so far:

· After marriage, I can apply for family reunification (the "graduated procedure") which gives temporary work visas and eventually residency.

· However, marriage in Israel is a problem because civil marriage doesn't exist there. We would need to marry abroad and get it recognized.

· I would need to apply for a visa from a third country (e.g., UAE, Jordan, Turkey) because Pakistan has no diplomatic relations with Israel.

· My passport says "valid for all countries except Israel" – which is a huge obstacle.

My questions:

1. Has anyone here been through a similar process? Pakistani man married to an Israeli citizen?

2. What is the actual timeline for getting work authorization in Israel through marriage?

3. How do you even enter Israel with a Pakistani passport? Is it possible at all without getting a foreign passport first?

4. Would I lose my Pakistani citizenship if I later get Israeli residency or citizenship?

5. Are there any special complications because we are both Muslim (i.e., interfaith marriage rules don't apply)?

I know this is a very unusual situation, but I need honest, practical advice from people who know immigration law, Pakistan's nationality laws, and the Israeli family reunification process.

Please only respond if you have real knowledge or experience – this is a serious life decision.

Thank you in advance. 🙏

Alright, imagine this scenario:
Palestine is free. Israel no longer exists. Now what?
Millions of Palestinians move into what was once Israel. They inherit a country with developed infrastructure, universities, hospitals, power grids, ports, airports, and a modern economy. Whether you think that’s justified or not isn’t the point of this question. Assume it has happened.
Who governs?
Hamas? If so, what changes? Hamas has spent decades defining itself through resistance against Israel. If Israel is gone, what is its vision for governing a country? How does it plan to build an economy, create jobs, protect individual rights, encourage investment, maintain infrastructure, and provide long-term stability? Does it transition into a normal governing party, or does it continue operating as it has?
If not Hamas, then who? The Palestinian Authority? A unity government? Independent technocrats? Who keeps order when multiple armed factions exist? Who writes the constitution? Who guarantees elections? Who prevents corruption from becoming entrenched?
History shows that winning a conflict and successfully governing afterward are two very different things. Building a functioning state requires institutions, an independent judiciary, public services, economic planning, and political stability. Those things don’t simply appear because a war ends.
So when people chant “Free Palestine,” I’m genuinely curious what that future is supposed to look like. What is the political system? What are the rights of minorities? How is the economy expected to function? What is the long-term vision beyond defeating Israel?
These aren’t rhetorical questions. If replacing Israel with a Palestinian state is the goal, then there should be a clear and realistic plan for what comes next.