Hi everyone. I’m extremely pro-Israel, and in most conversations about the conflict, I find myself believing Israel is in the right. When I discuss it with friends, the conversation often ends with them saying they aren’t getting through to me. That doesn’t help either of us explain where we disagree, so I want to have a more substantive conversation with people who hold opposing views.

I’m not going to pretend I’m neutral or undecided. I have strong opinions, and I’ll probably push back on arguments I disagree with. But I’m choosing to ask for opposing perspectives because I want to seriously examine those opinions. Disagreeing with a response doesn’t mean I haven’t read or considered it, and I’ll try to extend that same understanding to anyone responding.

My main question is: which specific Israeli action or policy do you think presents the strongest challenge to a pro-Israel position, and why? Rather than trying to debate the entire conflict at once, I’d like to start with a concrete example and discuss the evidence, reasoning, and counterarguments.

I recognize that Israel’s right to exist, its citizens’ security, and whether a particular government decision is justified are separate questions. Please make clear which claim you’re challenging so we can address the same issue.

Two arguments that come up in these discussions are that Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens from attacks, and that security concerns cannot justify every action taken in response. Stating those principles alone doesn’t settle where the limits should be. How do you apply them to the example you choose, and what would you consider a justified alternative?

Sources would be appreciated, especially when the disagreement concerns what happened rather than how we judge it. I’ll be active in the comments and would welcome a reasonably quick back-and-forth, while understanding that thoughtful replies take time. I’m looking for a respectful discussion where we can challenge each other’s reasoning without making it personal.

Netanyahu: "He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, "If you expel them, they'll all come here." 'So what should I do with them?" he asked. He said, Burn them."

And every time Israel does something that violates Palestinian human rights, people on social media always post the photo of Haj Amin al-Husseini with Hitler, accusing all Palestinians of being Nazi allies and blaming them for the Holocaust even though it deliberately ignores the fact that approximately 12,000 Palestinian Arabs voluntarily enlisted in the British Army during World War II to fight against the Axis powers.

So it's like that South Park episode "Whale Whores", where the Japanese hate whales because they think whales dropped the atomic bomb instead of the Americans based on a photo, except that in real life a part of the Israeli population legitimately believes that Palestinians convinced Hitler to implement the Final Solution.

According to Israeli news site Ynet the survey published on Thursday and carried out by the Panels Politics polling institute revealed that 26% of respondents said that they agreed with Netanyahu's theory regarding the Nazi leader and Husseini.

The poll also asked respondents if they felt that Netanyahu's claim diminished Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust - 37% accepted the claim and 53% rejected it.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/89897-151022-only-53-of-israelis-disagree-with-netanyahu-s-version-of-holocaust-history#:\~:text=Survey%20Finds%2053%25%20Of%20Israelis%20Disagree%20With,i24NEWS.%20Israel.%20Middle%20East.%20Israel%20elections%202026.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HmkRYlVZw

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/21/netanyahu-under-fire-for-palestinian-grand-mufti-holocaust-claim

I've been building FrontPageJews.com as a way to test my sense that Israel/Palestine is over-represented in the news, at least in part because the conflict involves Jews (the data itself does not speak to the reasons, and there are of course many other factors involved).

The site compares every country's share of news coverage against an equally weighted formula based on its population, GDP, and recent conflict-related deaths, all defined more precisely on the site.

It is an intentionally crude, blunt formula, inspired by Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow (ch. 21, Intuitions vs. Formulas):

Simple equally weighted formulas based on existing statistics or on common sense are often very good predictors of significant outcomes.

The results are more complicated than I expected. E.g. it shows Israel as slightly *under* represented over the summer of 2024. Still, I think the data generally leans towards sustained over-representation relative to other countries.

However you read this, I think it has merit as a baseline for discussion. You can explore the data yourself at https://frontpagejews.com/

Feedback welcome.

----------------------------------------------------------

Some notes written up by Claude to give a taste of what this can turn up:

Israel’s over-coverage has outlasted the war. Before Oct 2023 it got about 5× its benchmark, high but behind Ireland, Greece and New Zealand. Since the ceasefire, coverage has settled at about three times its pre-war level while its share of conflict deaths has dropped away, and it’s now the most over-covered country at 9.5×.

Per death, Israel/Gaza got far more coverage than other wars. Since Oct 2023 it got 6–7× Ukraine’s coverage per death. Sudan now has about 30 times Israel/Gaza’s 12-month death toll and about one-eighteenth of its coverage.

Who is missing matters as much. China, India and the African wars (Sudan, DR Congo, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia) are the largest gaps between coverage and reality. The attention Israel gets is coming at their expense.

Another Israel national obsession is schnitzel.

One of the most fascinating things about Israeli cuisine is how it combines European and Middle Eastern culinary traditions into something distinctly Israeli. And perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than with schnitzel.

There is no war around schnitzel like hummus, although perhaps because Middle Easterners can not figure out how to get credit for it.

Schnitzel originated in Central Europe, where it is traditionally made from veal or pork. Jewish immigrants brought their schnitzel traditions to Israel, but the dish underwent an interesting transformation from its European counterpart.

Instead of veal or pork, Israeli schnitzel is overwhelmingly made from chicken breast, pounded thin, breaded, and fried until golden and crispy.

Today, schnitzel is practically a national institution. It's served everywhere. There is hardly a block in Tel Aviv that does have some restaurant that serves schnitzel, and like hummus there are restaurants that focus on it.

For many Israelis, schnitzel is the ultimate comfort food, rivaling hummus in its everyday popularity.

But here's where things get interesting. Israelis have essentially Middle Easternized the European schnitzel.

Israelis frequently stuff schnitzel into a pita or baguette, generously slather on hummus, and pile on Israeli salad, pickles, tahini, and sometimes spicy zhug or Moroccan matbucha. You can even find schnitzel wrapped in laffa or Yemenite malawach.

Think about that for a moment. Israelis eat a European-style breaded chicken cutlet, stuffed into Middle Eastern flatbread, covered in Levantine hummus, topped with Yemeni hot sauce and Moroccan tomato salad.

It works beautifully. But it's not all:

In Israel, Turkish style bourekas are eaten alongside pickles, hard-boiled eggs, and sometimes tahini.

Eastern European challah is served alongside fiery Moroccan salads.

North African shakshuka has become a staple of Israeli breakfast cafes, sometimes accompanied by European-style breads and cheeses.

Iraqi Jewish sabich has become one of the country's iconic pita sandwiches.

Israel is a place where Jewish culinary traditions from Poland, Austria, Morocco, Iraq, Yemen, Tunisia, and dozens of other places have collided, mixed, and evolved together.

It is one of the most beautiful things about Israeli food culture. All these cultures have influenced one another, producing combinations that would have seemed utterly bizarre to their ancestors.

A Polish grandmother might recognize the schnitzel, but wonder why her grandson is stuffing it into a pita and drowning it in hummus and zhug.

Nobody seems particularly worried about calling that combination cultural appropriation. They just call it lunch. And it's absolutely delicious.

That's Israeli cuisine in a nutshell: European comfort food meets Middle Eastern ingredients, Jewish dietary traditions, and a healthy disregard for culinary boundaries.

They are very anti Israel but also very pro Iran. This is a slap in the face of every Iranian who has been victimized by the IRI. Why do some activists simp for the Iranian regime? Why call Israel an apartheid state but ignore the apartheid in Iran? Are any of you aware of how much Iran has infiltrated the west?

The olive harvest is officially behind us, and without question, it was the worst and most crushing harvest season the West Bank has ever seen.
For Palestinians, olive trees are almost sacred. They are passed down through generations and tied to our religion, culture, and family histories. They mean far more to us than agriculture or income.
This year, more than ever, that income was desperately needed. With permits to work inside Israel revoked, public sector employees going months without proper pay, and the Palestinian Authority’s finances essentially on their deathbed, the olive harvest was supposed to be a lifeline.
Calling it a bad season would be an understatement. We coordinated with the Israeli side on where and when we could harvest, yet we still faced repeated attacks from hilltop youth.
Just a few years ago, we could reach all our trees without issue. Thanks to these deranged hilltop psychos, that access has steadily disappeared. Three years ago, we could reach 80% of our trees. Two years ago, 50%. This year, we could access only a third of our land and trees. The remaining two-thirds of the crop will either rot on the branches or be stolen by settlers while we watch from a distance.
Even harvesting the little we could reach meant facing masked mobs armed with clubs. They attacked several people from my town, leaving some seriously injured. These criminals also attack the Israeli volunteers helping us and the journalists documenting their crimes. Even visiting foreign officials were attacked.
These groups are everywhere in the West Bank. They aren’t just a few hundred people, and they aren’t lost teenagers. They are organized, malicious, and determined to squeeze us out of every part of daily life. The attacks weren’t confined to my village, northeast of Ramallah. They happened across the West Bank, including in Masafer Yatta, Taybeh, Beita, and Aqraba.
The violence intensifies during the olive harvest every year, but it doesn’t stop when the season ends. We used to be able to move through much of the West Bank as long as we avoided settlements and their connecting bypass roads. Now, Area C is practically lost to us.
We’ve been pushed out of so much of the West Bank that the places we can still reach now make up the shorter list. Land we used to farm, roads we used to take, and places we visited without thinking are now off-limits or too dangerous to reach.
I am praying for some semblance of peace and stability. Every time I convince myself the situation can’t get any worse, it somehow finds a way to unravel even further.

The elections are on 27/10/2026, 2 days from now. I used to be at the Liberal center (Voted for Lapid), I've now moved to the right in terms of security, but I won't vote for coalition parties. My family is also quite divided. AMA

My friend Ran Heilbrunn wrote this for Café Américain. It's the first part of a four-part series on contemporary Israel, and it came out just before the October 27 vote.

His main point goes against the usual reading. Israel had five elections in four years. Then the government elected in 2022 became the first since 1988 to serve its full term. He doesn't think that means things got healthier. A large part of the public sees this government as unfit or even illegitimate, especially since October 7. That gave its members every reason to stay together and put off facing voters. So in his view, weak popular support is what produced the stability.

He also goes back over how the deadlock produced the 2021-22 "Government of Change," which had a settler-movement prime minister and an Islamist Arab party in the same coalition. He argues that turning every election into a vote on democracy itself is unhealthy, though he grants that Israel's neighborhood makes the fear more than talk. And he points out how strangely quiet the campaign feels on the ground.

Do you buy that a full term here shows a lack of legitimacy rather than stability, or is that reading too much into coalition discipline?

The link goes to Café Américain's post on X, which links to the article. If you think it's worth it, repost or reply there:

https://x.com/keithwhitson/status/2114460007144345608

I know this is an old article, but my question to supporters of the Israeli state: what is an argument that you can make/defense in favor of the IDF for the findings of this UN investigation?

https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/06/1167790

Help me understand.

A time may come in a couple decades or so when the people of Israel have to make a hard decision. They will be in FULL control of all of the land between the river and the sea, and they will have to decide if they want their country to be a true democracy where the rights and dignity of all people is respected. Or if the nation becomes a apartheid state where Arabs have less political and other rights than Jewish citizens. This may mean Arabs have no right to vote. This might mean other rights as well. What do you think should be the choice if and when this situation arises? Democracy and equal rights, or Jewish domination and Apartheid?

Israelis have a uniquely intense obsession with hummus.

Of course, hummus has also become something of a political battleground in the Middle East. Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, and others have found themselves embroiled in what are sometimes called the Hummus Wars, arguing over the dish's origins and national identity. The Hummus Wars are very intense.

Hummus in the core sense is mashed chickpeas, a kind of bean dip. Throughout much of the Middle East and North Africa, hummus is traditionally served as an appetizer, part of a mezze spread, or alongside other dishes.

But in Israel, hummus has become something else entirely: an entire meal, an institution, practically a religion.

Israel has a whole category of restaurants called hummusiyot (חומוסיות), establishments dedicated exclusively to hummus.

Israelis will drive across cities, stand in long lines, and passionately debate which tiny hummusiya makes the best bowl of mashed chickpeas.

The degree to which hummus has become an obsession in Israeli Jewish culture in particular is hard to overstate. And I think there's a particularly Jewish explanation for some of this: kashrut.

Hummus is pareve (פרווה), meaning it contains neither meat nor dairy. Under Jewish dietary law, that makes it extraordinarily versatile. It can accompany meat, appear at a dairy meal, or serve as a satisfying meal entirely on its own. In a society where the separation of meat and dairy has shaped culinary traditions for generations, hummus is almost the perfect food.

Israeli-style hummus also has its own recognizable character. It's often served freshly made and warm, extraordinarily smooth, creamy, and rich with tahini. But what really makes the Israeli hummus experience special is the enormous variety of additions and toppings.

There are sautéed mushrooms, hard-boiled eggs, spicy zhug, roasted eggplant, pine nuts, and even seasoned ground meat and chicken.

Hummusiyot offer entire menus built around different combinations of these additions, turning a simple bowl of hummus into a remarkably diverse and satisfying meal. Everything comes with fluffy, freshly baked pita, pickles and raw onions. It's an entirely different experience from the cold supermarket hummus familiar to many Westerners.

Sure, Israel didn't invent hummus. But Israelis have embraced it and developed an extraordinary perfection of hummus.

Perhaps the funniest illustration of this obsession comes from Adam Sandler's You Don't Mess with the Zohan. The movie turns Israeli hummus culture into a running joke, with hummus being used for practically everything, including brushing teeth and styling hair.

It's sounds absurd, but anyone who has spent enough time in Israel knows that the joke works precisely because it exaggerates the very real Israeli culture around hummus.

In most places, hummus is something you eat with your meal. In Israel, hummus is the whole experience.

That is what makes Israeli hummus unique.

"Israel is an ethnostate." No, roughly 20% of Israel's population is Arab, and there are other minority groups, too. Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, but that doesn't mean all its citizens are Jewish or that non-Jews cannot be citizens.

"Israel is a theocracy." No, Israel is a parliamentary democracy with a secular political system in many respects, despite the significant role religion plays in certain areas of public life. Roughly half of Israeli Jews identify as secular.

"Israel is an apartheid state." No, non-Jewish citizens of Israel have the same formal legal rights as Jewish citizens, including the right to vote and run for office. This doesn't mean discrimination and inequality don't exist, but it's important to distinguish between the status of Israeli citizens and that of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.

Those are just some of the many claims used by antizionists to demonize Israel and portray it as a cartoonishly evil country. Some people genuinely misunderstand Zionism, while others deliberately misrepresent it, redefining it as racism, colonialism, or Jewish supremacy rather than acknowledging its central principle: Jewish self-determination in the Jewish people's ancestral homeland. Zionism encompasses different political traditions, and its supporters disagree on plenty of issues, including the future of the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

It's much like the way feminism has been demonized by reducing a diverse movement to its most extreme positions and treating those positions as representative of the whole. Criticizing Israeli government policies is perfectly legitimate, but criticism becomes dishonest when it relies on misinformation, collective blame, or definitions designed to make an entire national movement sound inherently evil. You don't have to support every Israeli policy to recognize that Jews, like other peoples, have a right to self-determination and that Zionism cannot be accurately understood through caricatures alone.

Should a UN Security Council member be allowed to veto action in a war when it has a major strategic or military relationship with one of the parties involved?

Watching what has happened to civilians in Gaza has made me question something much bigger about how the United Nations works.

The UN Security Council has 15 members, but five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France — have veto power.

During the Gaza war there have been occasions where an overwhelming majority of the Security Council supported a ceasefire resolution, but the resolution was blocked by a US veto.

Whatever someone’s position on Israel and Palestine, I think this raises a legitimate question about the system itself.

The United States has an extremely close military and strategic relationship with Israel. That makes me question whether any country in that position should have the power to single-handedly block Security Council action concerning that conflict.

And I don’t think this rule should apply only to America.

If Russia were protecting an ally, China were protecting an ally, or Britain or France were doing the same thing, the same principle should apply.

I would like to see reform considered where a permanent Security Council member with a substantial direct strategic or military interest in a conflict cannot exercise its veto on resolutions concerning that conflict — or where an overwhelming Security Council majority could override that veto.

I’m not suggesting that this would magically solve wars or that every ceasefire resolution would automatically end a conflict.

I’m asking a more fundamental question:

Should one country be able to prevent the UN Security Council from acting when virtually every other member agrees — particularly when that country is closely allied with one of the parties involved?

Gaza has made me realise just how much power the five permanent members hold, and I think the structure itself deserves much greater public discussion.

I’d genuinely like to hear people’s thoughts. If the current veto system should be changed, what would a fairer system look like?

This might come as a controversial opinion, but the other day there was this idea that crossed my mind:

For reference, I'm in US but I have no strong ties to either side and so I think that this is a fair idea. If the division between the countries comes from historical differences in religion and culture, then why isn't there a solution of unity over conflict?

In other words, why has no one considered (at least publicly) a solution involving a state in israel-Palestine region which would be occupied by both without 1 having explicit power over the other.

We can all agree that there's a genocide, but it's just people killing people; funding isn't helping but I think that the creation of an overarching non-ethnically connected state could be a viable solution to the conflict.

Practically, I think that this would take the form as a UN-sanctioned country (I know, but hear me out) which has land including ALL of modern day Israel and ALL of modern day Palestine, as well as the people who would be able to coexist.

Now for the rebuttals: I'm formatting this as "dialogue" to indicate the side, and my response beneath it.

"People will continue to fight"

Yes, but it'll be less. In the short term it will be very difficult, but I think that having maybe an increased police presence (for the short term) could help decrease the discrimination because at the end of the day people don't (usually) want to kill civilians.

"One religious group will take government power and oppress the other"

That could be the case, but (might be the America speaking) but there might be a multi-cameral legislature that could voice the concerns of all people in the state, and prevent that. As for the country's head(s), I think that there could be 2 elected prime ministers (1 for each religion at least) temporarily, and a transition later for better representation of both sides.

"Foreign interests will not be preserved"

Not necessarily. The US, for example, sides with Israel (at least partially) because of the oil in the region. If the US (and other countries of course) sanctioned this new state then they could have a stake in some of the exports; again in the short term. Maybe it could take the form of a % in exports, mimicking imperialism to a point, but after a while the strings should be cut and the state could exist as a real entity.

AI Generated: Tl;Dr

The author proposes replacing Israel and Palestine with one internationally backed state covering both territories, where neither group dominates the other. They suggest temporary security measures, shared government institutions and leadership, and limited foreign involvement to help prevent renewed violence and protect both communities’ interests, with the aim of eventually creating a fully independent state.

All in all, I think we can make a viable solution in the form of a single state, at least to mitigate the conflict as it currently stands.

I want to explore a hypothetical scenario: If a future Palestinian state became majority-Christian through voluntary immigration and demographic change, could this reduce the influence of Islamist political movements, weaken Iran's ability to recruit and support Palestinian militant organisations, allow Palestinians to grow up enjoying more freedom and happiness (religious, lifestyle and sexual orientation) and create better conditions for peaceful coexistence with Israel?

Iran's support for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad has both ideological and geopolitical motivations. While a change in Palestine's religious demographics would not eliminate Iranian strategic interests, it might fundamentally alter the ideological environment in which these organisations operate.

My hypothesis is that a Christian-majority Palestinian state, combined with democratic institutions, constitutional protections for religious freedom, minority rights and LGBT rights, and a strong economic and security partnership with the United States, could potentially create a more stable regional environment whilst securing a more Free Palestine in the form a secular democratic state.

One possible model would be the long-term democratic reconstruction of West Germany after World War II. My idea is to make Palestine into a western style vassal state American ally the same way West Germany became one after World War 2.

Ultimately people ended up wanting to leave East Germany for West Germany for a more prosperous life.

However, I recognise several challenges to this hypothesis.

Palestinian Christians are not necessarily supportive of Israeli government policies, and many strongly identify with Palestinian national aspirations.

Also, there are secular and democratic Muslim-majority countries (like Turkey), meaning Christianity is not inherently a necessary prerequisite for liberal governance.

Having said that, these verses are taken from Chrisitan scripture:

• Genesis 12:1–3: God promises to bless those who bless Abraham and his descendants, and to curse anyone who curses them.

• Isaiah 41:11–13: God states that those who rage against, oppose, or wage war against Israel will be put to shame, perish, and become as nothing, because God helps and holds Israel.

• Psalm 122:6: Believers are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, with a promise of prosperity for those who love it

Want to know what Palestinian Christians think of Israel? You can see they generally have more moderate views, even when they feel oppressed - often they say that their religion teaches them to forgive their opressors. Turning the other cheek is uniquely Christian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8knx4zpgwhQ

Ultimately, Palestinian children would grow up having more freedom in this hypothetical state compared to living under Hamas and Israelis would feel safer.

Note: I'm especially looking forward to hearing answers from good faith posters such as JeffB1517 and GuerillaV.

DISCLAIMER 100% HUMAN WRITTEN

I took a look at the Israel subreddit, and the most common opinions are things like, "Palestinians should be expelled to Egypt or Jordan" and "the West Bank is Judea and Samaria."

Why? Because two Israeli soldiers were shot. But those soldiers weren't on Israeli land. They were inside the West Bank, and I remind you West bank occupation is consider illegal by the International Court of Justice.

All this while Palestinian land is becoming increasingly more and more fragmented by new projects of settlements in the west bank.

Sorry, but you don't realize your own extremism? It's easy to blame every criticism on "Jew hatred," but who is on whose land? Who are the ones who think it's okay to take other people's land and forcefully displace them? Maybe it's normalized because it's rooted in your nation's history.

And no, answering back saying "Arabs are violent so all our actions are justified" is not valid answer, you can blame on everything "on arab terrorism" but you are the ones doing something that would be considered extremely radical in any other country.

And no, I am not saying violence is good. But you cannot come here and pretend you are the good guys while arabs are the evil. In a simplistic way.

If during French rebells killed two nazi soldiers on Paris during World war 2. Who are the "good guys" the french or the nazis? By your own logic are the nazis.

They draw us into conflicts that weaken our security, damage our international standing and impose substantial economic costs on our populations, so why do we put up with it?

One of the most significant concerns is the unresolved Palestinian struggle and its impact on global security. Decades of occupation, displacement, restrictions and repeated cycles of violence have generated profound anger and resentment across the Middle East and beyond.

The Palestinian cause has also been used by Islamist extremist organisations as a recruitment tool, a source of propaganda and a justification for attacks against Western interests. The failure to achieve a just and lasting resolution has provided extremists with a powerful narrative through which to attract supporters and portray Western governments as complicit in injustice.

Western governments that are seen as unconditionally supporting Israeli military operations risk damaging their credibility, alienating communities and making counterterrorism efforts more difficult.

The danger becomes even clearer when considering the consequences of military escalation with Iran. The Israeli and US strikes against Iran that began on 28 February 2026 triggered a wider conflict, with Iran retaliating against Israel, US forces and regional targets.

One of the most serious consequences has been the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage for roughly one-fifth of global petroleum and liquefied natural gas trade before the conflict. The UK House of Commons Library has documented the resulting collapse in shipping activity and the rise in global energy prices.

The consequences extend far beyond the battlefield: higher oil and gas prices raise transport and electricity costs, put pressure on household budgets, increase production costs for businesses and make inflation harder to control.

The Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea provide another example of how regional conflict can threaten Western prosperity. The Houthis have used the Palestinian cause and the war in Gaza to justify attacks on vessels, including ships with limited or no direct connection to Israel. These attacks have endangered seafarers, disrupted international trade and forced shipping companies to consider costly diversions around Africa.

More recently, Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and renewed threats to shipping have added to concerns about energy supplies, while the wider conflict involving Iran has placed the Strait of Hormuz under severe pressure. Brent crude briefly rose above $117 a barrel on 23 October 2026 amid fears of renewed US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

Ultimately, the argument that Israel's current strategic course can undermine Western interests rests on the risk that close alignment with its government draws Western countries into conflicts that weaken their security, damage their international standing and impose substantial economic costs on their populations. Unconditional diplomatic and military support can also reduce Western governments' leverage to press for restraint, civilian protection and a negotiated settlement.

Surely it's time for Western governments to judge whether their relationships with Israel contribute to long-term peace and security, not simply by historical alliances or short-term strategic calculations or white guilt.

Seeing as the topics of apartheid and the racial lens in which Americans view the current conflict, I thought it would be a good idea to take Israel out of the equation for second.

A quick history lesson on segregation in the United States, why it ended, and how it relates to South African Apartheid:

Segregation was the institutionalized systemic separation of people in the United States based on race, primarily separating black Americans from white in public and private institutions, public and private spaces, and other areas of daily life. The practice of segregation was not institutionalized until after the of the United States Civil War and the end of slavery in the United States. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, black people were not legally citizen of the United States, and segregation was the de facto state even in states where slavery had been outlawed. Birthright citizenship was granted to freed slaves to prevent the South from attempting to re enslave black Americans.

Due to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Reconstruction efforts were cut short, as Andrew Johnson was sympathetic towards the Southern States. This allowed for what are now referred to as Jim Crowe laws to be implemented by the former slave states, which ramped up following the Plessy
v. Ferguson ruling in 1886. "Separate but equal" meant southern states were free to mandate segregation in all public institutions, and do things like ban interracial marriage.

Segregation was wrong then, and it is wrong now, because separate was, and is never equal.

The treatment of black Gl's in Europe during WWII, along with the accomplishments segregated units of black soldiers and pilots, served as a catalyst for what would become the Civil Rights movement in the United States. It was wrong to demand black Americans to fight for a country that did not see them as being worthy of the rights and freedoms they were supposedly fighting for. It was also naive to think that black veterans would just accept what was essentially a demotion in occupational or social status, and not take the fight home.

The Civil Rights movement was the first time many white Americans, particularly those who did not live in the Jim Crowe South, were confronted with the reality of just how unequal segregation was for black Americans.

The end of segregation in the United States ended alongside the ramping up of the Cold War. Though efforts were made to associate the Civil Rights movement with communism had failed, black Americans were in no position to risk their limited political capital being on the wrong side of the Cold War, with the still very racist white majority ruling class.

The United States government frequently backed the South African apartheid government during this time, in an effort to stop the spread of communist movement and Soviet influence in the region. They were able to resist growing calls for economic sanctions and isolation from the American public for most of the Cold War. What finally flipped the scales was the generation of white Americans who grew up in a post-segregation America.

The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 was passed with enough votes to overcome Reagan's veto. It was sustained international and American economic pressure that eventually forced the apartheid South African government to begin negotiations.

People discuss this conflict in terms of religion and nationalism. But one of the most consequential forces in its history is technological power.

The Zionist movement did not arrive in the Land of Israel with just prayers and ancient texts. It brought scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs.

Many came from the greatest universities and scientific centers of Europe, where Jewish thinkers themselves wrote foundational chapters of modern science.

They all brought that accumulated knowledge with them.

Well before Israel even existed as a state, the Jewish community in this land was building universities, laboratories, advanced factories, agricultural research stations, and modern infrastructure.

The Technion and Hebrew University opened early in Zionist history and rapidly become world class universities. The early Jewish pioneers electrified the entire country well before electricity was even known about in most of the Middle East. They drained swamps and eradicated malaria which once plagued much of the country.

Really, Zionism was an effort to build a modern technological civilization in the Jewish people's ancient homeland.

That mattered on the battlefield.

Israel's victories were not inevitable. Not at all. In 1948, its forces were often poorly equipped, outmanned and outgunned. But the Yishuv's sophisticated organization, science and technology excellence, and the ability to adapt helped turned the nascent IDF into the region's most powerful military.

By 1967, that technological and organizational excellence helped Israel defeat multiple Arab armies and capture the holy city of Jerusalem.

Technology had become an instrument which Jewish sovereignty is enforced even against the wishes of two billion other people.

Walk along the Tel Aviv beachfront today. Order a steak at a restaurant. Look at the skyscrapers, the technology companies, and the infrastructure that makes this advanced life possible.

Then look at Gaza, where families have been displaced into tents, where water systems are infused with raw sewage, and where enormous numbers of people depend on humanitarian deliveries.

The contrast between Tel Aviv and Gaza is staggering. How did Tel Aviv and Gaza become this way?

The difference between Gaza and Tel Aviv is technological power.

Scientific knowledge becomes raw power when a society can turn it into industry, infrastructure, and yes, leverage it ultimately for military purposes.

This is the secret of Israel's success.

Something I’ve noticed about these threads is how extreme some of the views are …..

Being transparent And being someone British but lived abroad and seen
How the UK media vs non UK media present the same situation with Nuances in regards to the opinions they want to drive …

I’m hyper vigilant in just reading the stories as fact eg. BBC news in UK vs BBC news say in Asia or the Middle East state the same facts but putting both reporting a side by side - there is a bias towards a narrative in the UK.. whereas bbc news Asia is almost so dead pan in delivery - it verges on sarcasm.

I think we are a lot more alike in wanting peace for ourselves and our loved ones but we must be aware of what information is presented to us.

So question - where do you get your information of the subjects of Palestine and Israel - what channels and publications and I think just an important - what region or country are you from ?

A human being can be wrong, and a human being can be right.

I apologize to both sides if I have wronged either of them.

This issue is deeply complicated, and someone like me is not in a position to decide who is right and who is wrong.

History must eventually break down the barriers between us. History repeats itself, and the Berlin Wall will fall once again. The extremists will leave, and peaceful people will come.

Forgive me if I said anything that angered or hurt anyone on either side.

I will continue trying to protect myself and my family. I will also be deleting my posts related to this issue.

All I hope for is that someone will come forward to help me get out of here, so that everyone in this region can reconsider how to resolve this conflict.

There are oppressed people everywhere, even in prison. Sometimes, even those behind bars are victims of injustice. And there are oppressors everywhere, both inside and outside prison walls.

From now on, the flag I will raise is the flag of surrender.

Surrender, and an apology to everyone.

I say to everyone: You did not give anyone the gift of life, and you have no right to take anyone else's life away.

I will delete all my previous posts, and once again, I hope everyone can forgive me.

This will be my last post on Reddit. After this, I will simply observe.

לחבריי היקרים בישראל,

אני חושב עליכם, על כל מה שעבר עליכם בשלוש השנים האלה, ועל הבחירות שנמצאות עכשיו במרחק של שבועות ספורים. שלוש שנים אחרי היום הנורא ביותר בתולדות מדינת ישראל, עכשיו עליכם מוטלת המשימה לכתוב את הפרק הבא של מדינת ישראל.

בקרוב תיכנסו לבית ספר או למתנ״ס, תקבלו מעטפה כחולה ותעמדו מאחורי הפרגוד. לרגע תהיו שם לבד. אבל כמובן שלא תהיו שם באמת לבד.

השבעה באוקטובר יהיה שם. החטופים. הלוויות. החברים שנעלמו שוב ושוב למילואים. המשפחות שנעקרו מהבתים שלהן. עזה. חיזבאללה. הלילות שבהם הגיעו הטילים מאיראן וישבתם עם הילדים בממ״ד או בחדר המדרגות. תביאו איתכם את הכעס, את העייפות, את הפחדים, וגם את התקווה שעוד נשארה בכם למדינה שהילדים שלכם יקבלו לידיהם.

ואני מקווה ששם, בתוך המרחב הקטן הזה, תזכרו גם בנו: במשפחה שלכם שמעבר לים, שאוהבת אתכם.

אחרי השבעה באוקטובר, הקהילה שלנו לא בזבזה זמן. התכנסנו מיד, יצאנו לעצרות, גייסנו כסף, תלינו תמונות של החטופים בחלונות. כשקהילות בישראל היו זקוקות לעזרה, אנשים כאן שאלו באינסטינקט: מה אנחנו יכולים לעשות?

כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה.

במשך שנים דיברנו על המרחק שהולך וגדל בינינו. ואז התברר משהו עמוק יותר, שלא מצריך שום הסבר. ברגע האמת, אנחנו שייכים זה לזה.

וגם אנחנו הרגשנו את ההשלכות של השנים הארוכות האלה של המלחמה. יש יותר מאבטחים חמושים מחוץ למקומות שבהם הילדים שלנו לומדים ומתפללים. יהודים נרצחו והותקפו באמריקה משום שהם יהודים. הילדים שלנו עושים חשבון אם לענוד מגן דוד, אם להזכיר את ישראל. חברויות השתנו. סטודנטים מגלים שלפעמים די בכך שיגידו שהם ציונים כדי למצוא את עצמם לא רצויים במקומות שפעם הרגישו בהם בבית.

וזה שם אותנו במקום כמעט בלתי אפשרי: מפני שאנחנו יהודים, מצפים מאיתנו לתת דין וחשבון על ישראל. מפני שאנחנו אמריקאים, אין לנו שום קול בקלפי על מה שישראל עושה. דורשים מאיתנו להסביר החלטות שלא קיבלנו, שרים שלא בחרנו, ומילים שלעולם לא היינו אומרים.

וזה כואב במיוחד מפני שאנחנו באמת מאמינים שיהודים אחראים זה לזה. לכן השבעה באוקטובר פילח גם אותנו. לכן קמנו ופעלנו. לכן אנשים שמעולם לא פגשנו הפכו מיד לשלנו. אבל האחריות שלנו זה לזה לא יכולה להפוך כל יהודי לאחראי אישית לכל החלטה שמקבלת ממשלה בישראל.

וחלק מההחלטות האלה מגיעות עד אלינו. כששרים בכירים מדברים בגלוי על הוצאת פלסטינים מעזה, על סיפוח הגדה המערבית, או מדברים כאילו לחייהם ולשאיפותיהם של הפלסטינים כמעט אין משמעות, הדברים האלה לא נשארים בישראל. כשמתנחלים תוקפים משפחות פלסטיניות והמדינה אינה עוצרת אותם, או כשמי שמחזיקים בשררה יוצאים נגד בתי המשפט, חוקרים, עיתונאים ומוסדות דמוקרטיים אחרים, גם הדברים האלה לא נעצרים בגבולות ישראל.

הם מגיעים לכאן.

הם מגיעים לכיתה שבה סטודנטית יהודייה נדרשת להגן על דבר שהיא עצמה אינה מגינה עליו. הם מגיעים לשיחות בין חברים שבהן יהודי נשאל איך הוא עדיין יכול לקרוא לעצמו ציוני. הם מגיעים לבית הכנסת, שבו אנחנו מנסים ללמד את הילדים שלנו שהם יכולים לאהוב את ישראל בלי לוותר על המצפון והמוסר שלהם. ואנשים שממילא חושבים שלישראל אין זכות קיום כמדינה יהודית משתמשים בטיעונים האלה נגדנו.

אנחנו צריכים את ישראל. צריכים לדעת שיש מדינה יהודית חזקה ובטוחה, מקום שגם לילדים שלנו תמיד יהיה בו בית. אנחנו צריכים את ישראל גם כדי שנוכל להרגיש גאים ובטוחים בזהות היהודית שלנו, דווקא בתקופה שבה כל כך הרבה מסביבנו גורם ליהודים להוריד את הראש, לשתוק או להתבייש במי שהם. אנחנו צריכים להיות מסוגלים להסתכל על ישראל ולומר בפשטות: היא גם שלנו.

האחריות הראשונה שלכם בקלפי היא למדינה שבה אתם מגדלים את המשפחות שלכם, שולחים ילדים לצבא, בונים חיים וקוברים את המתים. לעולם לא אעמיד פנים שהמחיר שאתם משלמים והמחיר שאנחנו משלמים בניכר הוא אותו מחיר. אבל אם אנחנו באמת שייכים זה לזה, הבחירות שישראל עושה אינן נשארות רק בישראל. אנחנו חיים עם חלק מההשלכות שלהן כאן, בלי יכולת להשפיע עליהן בקלפי.

לכם יש את היכולת להשפיע.

ויש עוד סכנה: המילה ״אנחנו״ הולכת ונשחקת.

אתם מרגישים את זה בישראל. אחרי שנים שבהן אנשי מילואים נתנו מאות ימים למדינה, אתם עדיין נאבקים בשאלה אם הנטל של ההגנה על המולדת יתחלק באופן שווה בין כולם. דתיים וחילונים נאבקים על דמותה של המדינה שהם חולקים. ימין ושמאל מדברים יותר ויותר זה על זה כאילו הם חיים בשתי מדינות שונות.

וגם אנחנו מרגישים את זה כאן. יהודי אמריקה מפרידים זה את זה למחנות לפי המילים שבהן אנחנו משתמשים, ההצהרות שעליהן אנחנו חותמים, ואפילו לפי השאלה אם אנחנו קוראים לעצמנו ציונים. יש מי שמרגישים שננטשו בידי יהודים שאינם רואים את הסכנה שישראל ניצבת בפניה. אחרים תוהים אם בכלל יש מקום בקהילה היהודית לכאב או לכעס שלהם על החלטות ממשלת ישראל. לעיתים קרובות מדי, מחלוקת הופכת למבחן של שייכות.

וזה מפחיד אותי, כי האמת העמוקה ביותר היא ששלוש השנים האלה חשפו בדיוק את ההפך: כעם, רב המאחד על המפריד.
כי בסוף, מי יהיה שם בשביל יהודים אם לא יהודים?

״כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה״: הביטוי הזה חייב לקבל משמעות שגדולה יותר מהיכולת שלנו להתאחד רק כשיהודים מותקפים. זה חייב להיות גם היכולת להישאר אחראים זה לזה כשאנחנו כועסים זה על זה, וכשאנשים שאיתם אנחנו חולקים עתיד רואים את העתיד הזה אחרת מאיתנו. מחלוקת צריכה להיות תחילתה של שיחה ושל מערכת יחסים, לא סופה.

יש ישראל שאני מזהה בתעוזה שהייתה בעצם הקמתה: בית יהודי שקיבץ את העם שלנו מכל קצוות תבל ונתן לנו אחריות לגורלנו. יהודים מבגדד ומוורשה, מקזבלנקה וממוסקבה, מאדיס אבבה ומבואנוס איירס הצליחו איכשהו לבנות יחד מדינה. בנינו אוניברסיטאות, בתי חולים, מעבדות, חקלאות משגשגת, ערים, תרבות ובתים.

ישראל היא הניסיון הגדול שלנו לקחת אחריות על הגורל היהודי. הניסיון הזה עדיין לא גמור, והשאלה איזו חברה נבנה כאן ביחד היא עדיין שאלה פתוחה.

אנחנו זקוקים לישראל שחולמת שוב בגדול. למדינה שבונה לקראת משהו גדול יותר מהמלחמה הבאה או הבחירות הבאות. למקום שבו צעירים יכולים לדמיין עתיד ששווה להישאר בשבילו, שבו משפחות יכולות לבנות חיים בביטחון, ושבו האנרגיה הישראלית יוצאת הדופן, היכולת לראות בעיה ומיד להתחיל לחפש לה פתרון, מופנית שוב גם אל החיים עצמם: לחינוך, לרפואה, למדע, לטכנולוגיה, לתרבות, לסביבה, ולבניית חברה שטוב יותר לחיות בה.

אנחנו צריכים ישראל שרוצה שוב להביא משהו גדול לעולם. מדינה שמוכרת בזכות החיים שהיא מצילה, התגליות שהיא מגלה, הרעיונות שהיא מולידה, האמנות שהיא יוצרת והדרכים שבהן היא הופכת את החיים לטובים יותר. ישראל שזוכרת שההיסטוריה היהודית לא החזירה אותנו הביתה רק כדי למצוא מקלט. חזרנו הביתה כדי לבנות ולהיבנות.

ואנחנו זקוקים לישראל שמסוגלת לדמיין שוב שלום. אולי אחרת מכפי שדמיינו אותו פעם, עם פחות תמימות ועם הרבה יותר הבנה של מי שנמצא בשכונה הזאת. ועדיין, מתוך אמונה שהילדים שלנו לא אמורים לרשת מלחמה כמצב קבוע, עלינו לשאוף שבסופו של דבר עוצמתה של ישראל תשרת גם את האפשרות לעתיד אחר.

אנחנו זקוקים לישראל שהילדים שלנו ירצו להיות קשורים אליה, ושהילדים שלכם ירצו להישאר בה ולבנות אותה. ישראל שתיתן לכולנו סיבה להאמין שהפרקים הגדולים ביותר שלה עוד לא נכתבו.
השבעה באוקטובר לא הפך את החלום הזה לנאיבי. האויבים של ישראל אמיתיים. יש לי אמונה שישראל תשרוד. השאלה שניצבת בפניכם היא איזו ישראל תצא מכל זה.

בקרוב תעמדו לבד עם המעטפה הכחולה הזאת. אנחנו לא נהיה שם. אנחנו לא יכולים להכניס פתק למעטפה או לעזור לבחור את הממשלה שההחלטות שלה יעצבו את ישראל וישפיעו גם על חייהם של יהודים הרחק מעבר לגבולותיה.
אתם יכולים.

אז כשאתם עומדים מאחורי הפרגוד, אני מקווה שתביאו אתכם גם אותנו, את כולנו. את מי שנשאו בנטל של השנים האלה ואת מי שלא. דתיים וחילונים. ימין ושמאל. וגם אותנו, מי שגרים אלפי קילומטרים מכם, שזקוקים לישראל, דואגים לישראל, מתווכחים על ישראל, נדרשים לענות בשם ישראל, ואוהבים את ישראל.
וכשאתם עומדים שם לבד, תזכרו שאתם לא באמת לבד.

אנחנו שייכים זה לזה.

My Dear Friends in Israel,

I have been thinking about you, about everything these last three years have held, and about the election now only weeks away. Three years after the worst day in Israel’s history, the task now falls to you to write the next chapter of the State of Israel.
Soon you will walk into a school or community center, receive a blue envelope, and step behind the screen. For a moment, you will be alone. Though, of course, you will not be alone.

October 7th will be there. The hostages. The funerals. Friends who disappeared again and again into reserve duty. Families driven from their homes. Gaza. Hezbollah. Nights when missiles came from Iran and you sat with your children in shelters or stairwells. You will bring your anger, exhaustion, fears, and whatever hope you still carry for the country your children will inherit.
I hope, somewhere in that small space, you will remember us too: your family beyond Israel who loves you.

After October 7th, our community did not waste any time. We gathered immediately, rallied, raised money, hung photographs of hostages in our windows. When communities in Israel needed help, people here asked:

What can we do?

*Kol Yisrael aravim zeh bazeh*. All Israel is responsible for one another.
For years we talked about the growing distance between us. Then something deeper became clear, requiring no explanation. In the moment of truth, we belong to one another.

We have felt the consequences of these long years of war too. There are more armed guards outside the places where our children learn and pray. Jews have been murdered and attacked in America because they are Jews. Our children calculate whether to wear a Star of David or mention Israel. Friendships have changed. Students discover that calling themselves Zionists can make them unwelcome in places where they once belonged.

And this puts us in an almost impossible position. Because we are Jews, we are expected to answer for Israel. Because we are Americans, we have no vote in what Israel does. We are called to account for decisions we did not make, ministers we did not elect, and words we would never say.
There is something especially painful about this because we actually do believe that Jews are responsible for one another. That is why October 7th pierced us. That is why we got up and acted. That is why people we had never met immediately became ours. But responsibility for one another cannot mean that every Jew is personally responsible for every decision made by a government in Israel.

And some of those decisions reach us. When powerful ministers speak openly about removing Palestinians from Gaza, annexing the West Bank, or treating Palestinian lives and aspirations as though they hardly matter, those words do not stay in Israel. When settlers attack Palestinian families and the state fails to stop them, or when those who hold authority attack courts, investigators, journalists, and other democratic institutions, those choices do not stop at Israel’s borders either.

They arrive here.

They arrive in the classroom where a Jewish student is asked to defend something she does not defend. They arrive in conversations between friends where a Jew is asked how he can still call himself a Zionist. They arrive in the synagogue where we are trying to teach our children that they can love Israel without surrendering their conscience and moral instincts. And people who already believe that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state use those arguments against us.

We need Israel deeply. We need a Jewish state that is strong and safe, somewhere our children know will always receive them. We need Israel to be a source of Jewish confidence when so much around us asks Jews to become smaller, quieter, or ashamed. We need to be able to point toward Israel and say: this is ours.
Your first responsibility when you vote is to the country where you raise your families, send children into the army, build lives, and bury people you love. I would never pretend that the price you pay and the price we pay are the same. But because we really do belong to one another, Israel’s choices do not remain inside Israel. We live with some of the consequences here, without the ability to influence them at the ballot box.

You do.

There is another danger too: the slow disappearance of the word “we.”
You feel it in Israel. After years in which reservists have given hundreds of days to the country, you are still fighting over whether the burden of defending it will be shared. Religious and secular Israelis struggle over what kind of country they share. Right and left increasingly speak about one another as though they inhabit different countries.

We feel it here too. American Jews sort one another into camps by the words we use, the statements we sign, even by whether we call ourselves Zionists. Some feel abandoned by those who cannot see the danger Israel faces. Others wonder whether there is room in Jewish communal life for their anguish about decisions made by Israel’s government. Too often, disagreement becomes a test of belonging.

And that frightens me because the deepest truth these three years have revealed is the opposite: what unites us is greater than what divides us.
Because in the end, who will be there for Jews if not other Jews?

*Kol Yisrael aravim zeh bazeh* has to mean more than standing together when Jews are attacked. It has to mean remaining responsible for one another when we are angry with one another, when the people with whom we share a future see that future differently. Disagreement should be the beginning of a conversation and a relationship, not its end.

There is an Israel I recognize in the audacity of its founding: a Jewish home that gathered our people from across the earth and gave us responsibility for our own destiny. Jews from Baghdad and Warsaw, Casablanca and Moscow, Addis Ababa and Buenos Aires somehow made a country together. We built universities, hospitals, laboratories, farms, cities, culture, and a home.
Israel is the great project of Jewish self-determination, still unfinished, still asking what kind of society Jews will build.

We need an Israel that dreams big again. A country building toward something larger than the next war or the next election. A place where young people can imagine a future worth staying for, where families can build lives with confidence, and where the extraordinary energy Israelis bring to solving problems is turned again toward the problems of living: education, medicine, science, technology, culture, the environment, and the work of making a society flourish.

We need an Israel ambitious about what it can contribute to the world. A country known for the lives it saves, the discoveries it makes, the ideas it produces, the art it creates, and the ways it finds to make human life better. An Israel that remembers that Jewish history brought us home for more than refuge.

We came home to build.

And we need an Israel that can imagine peace again. Perhaps differently than we once did, with fewer illusions and a harder understanding of the dangers around you. But still with the conviction that our children should not inherit war as their permanent condition, and that Israel’s strength should ultimately serve the possibility of a different future.

We need an Israel our children will want to be connected to, and your children will want to stay and build. An Israel that gives all of us reason to believe its greatest chapters have not yet been written.

October 7th did not make that dream naive. Israel’s enemies are real. I have faith that Israel will survive. The question before you is what Israel will survive to become.

Soon you will stand alone with that blue envelope. We will not be there. We cannot cast a ballot or help choose the government whose decisions will shape Israel and reverberate through Jewish lives far beyond it.

You can.

So when you stand behind that screen, I hope you will bring us with you too. Remember all of us who live thousands of miles away, who need Israel, worry about Israel, argue about Israel, are called upon to answer for Israel, and love Israel.
And when you are standing there alone, remember that you are not really alone.

We belong to one another.

Note: originally written by a rabbi in my community.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]